Really good stuff to be found here.
There's one thing that Garrett doesn't talk quite talk about in terms of theatre's business model vs. television and film, which has to do with passing the cost.
One advantage that film (to some extent) and television (to a much greater extent) have over theatre is that they are able to shift the costs to people other than the consumers. In television-- and this was even truer pre-cable when television became a cultural force-- the costs for watching television aren't paid for by the consumers, they're paid for by advertisers.
It's a brilliant funding scheme, when you stop to think about it. Give someone something apparently for free because it is funded by a third party. Why? Because people hate paying for things. We could've funded television differently, we could've done it through taxes and licensing fees like the Brits do it, but no, we chose to adopt our existing radio-funding model for television. And it succeeded brilliantly. One of the reasons why television is beginning to fall apart is that internet advertising isn't as lucrative, so as the shows begin being viewed on Hulu, Netflix etc. you have an audience accustomed to getting something "for free" while your mechanism for paying it doesn't work as well.
With cable, you pay a monthly bill, and so it feels like a utility, like energy or gas or water. Again, brilliant! When you watch the television you are generally not actively thinking "hey, I'm spending money right now".
Film does this to a lesser extent with product placement deals, complicated funding schemes, and the whole rental business model whereby the film is rented by the house showing it who then recoups its costs through ticket sales.
Anyway... this makes me wonder... if a cabal of theaters got together and created some kind of monthly membership thing where you paid eighty dollars a month (the cost of many people's cable bills) and that entitled you to see four shows a month, I wonder how successful that would be.