
All-You-Can-Watch MoviePass Brings Netflix Model to Theaters - dell9000
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/all-you-can-watch-moviepass-brings-netflix-model-to-theaters/
======
patio11
_However, the number of people who can go to enough films in a given month to
get a good return on their $50 investment is a niche audience, said Wade
Holden, a motion picture and home entertainment analyst for SNL Kagan._

Unlimited-use-for-X pricing appeals to people _even when it results in paying
more than metered billing._ Look anywhere you care to: cell phone plans, AOL
use / the early Internet, SaaS pricing, etc, etc, etc.

For one thing, people will pay to be the kind of people who go to movies
several times a month even if they do not actually go to movies several times
a month. (You laugh, but the entire gym industry survives thanks to this.
Ditto many other aspirational group memberships such as golf clubs, certain
tutoring services, classes, etc etc.)

It seems like a pretty much unalloyed good thing for movie theatres, since
they're likely going to see what every subscription service sees: large
numbers of people who a) pay happily but b) do not consume the underlying
service. Movie theatres have less than a 10% margin on ticket sales IIRC,
because they have to pay the studio's cut. They will have 95% margins on
subscription rebills for someone who was busy in June and simply didn't attend
the theatre.

~~~
res0nat0r
I would say I am a huge movie buff / goer in comparison to my friends, but
even I don't think I could justify $50/month for this service. Can I opt
in/out of this per month based on what I see coming up on imdb.com? There
would be very few months where there are enough movies I would like enough to
go see 5 movies (say $10/movie * 5 movies a month) which would warrant me
going to see in a theater.

Even since AMC even dropped weekly prices to $5 or $7.50 a movie during the
week, I have been going more than I ever have before, but I don't see this
taking off at all. $50 is just too much of a flat fee.

IMO I don't think you can compare this to gyms, as you can't wait an extra
month or two and pirate your local gym equipment in HD x264, like most people
do with movies who don't want to spend the money, unfortunately.

The only way this would be viable is if they could stream movies which are
currently out to people in their houses at the exact same time in HD to their
homes. People do not want to leave their house, or work out their schedule now
days to go to the movie unless it is really worth it. There are not enough
movies coming out per month worth leaving the house for a flat fee of
$50/month.

------
baxter
Many cinema chains in the UK have offers like this. My girlfriend has a cinema
card that costs her £15 a month and allows her to see any film she likes
(although she has to pay about £1.50 extra to see 3D films). This is an offer
that's been available for at least 8 or 9 years. Tickets for 2D films in the
UK typically cost around £7.50 (higher in London).

Granted this cinema card is only useable in cinemas belonging to the same
chain.

Do any US cinema chains offer similar services?

~~~
jpetazzo
Same in France since years. There are a few big theatre chains; if I remember
correctly, at least 2 of them have an "unlimited" card. The UGC[1] one is 20
EUR/month (~30 USD), which is roughly the price of 2 tickets. A lot of people
subscribe to the card, and then watch stuff that they would not have watched
otherwise — and they are generally happy with it. I cannot tell if they really
find the movies interesting, or if they are just rationalizing their
experience and refusing to consider the subscription as a waste :-)

[1] <http://www.ugc.fr/typepage.do?alias=carteugcillimite>

------
jfruh
<i>“MoviePass makes spur-of-the-moment movie-going as simple as choosing a
film on the phone and checking in at the theater,” Spikes said in a press
release. “No more waiting in line.”</i>

Ha ha, someone is under the impression that "waiting in line" is the least
convenient aspect of going to the movies. (For most people, it's actually
"leaving the house.")

------
bimbly
Calling this the "Netflix Model" seems naive. When Netflix initially launched,
there were two major drawing points.

1) Access to a large library/inventory. Traditional rentals were limited to
mainstream/popular film and newly released films required luck to rent.
Netflix made cult films easily accessible (Eraserhead, Cannibal, etc.).

2) Price savings in comparison to traditional Brick-and-Mortar Rentals.
Netflix Subscription fees were equitable to two movie rentals a month. Two
movie rentals a month seems like a number not outside the norm.

The service they discuss would require seeing approximately 5 movies a month
just to equal the subscription fee. That is a large number.

Secondly, they aren't giving access to any more product. Just the same movies
that weren't worth watching before. With the exception of oscar season I think
watching five newly released movies a month would be more of a punishment.

Their shameless promo integration (pre-selling DVDS, "early access to
trailers", merchandise sales) only serves to further devalue the user
experience making $50 seem far too high.

As a final note, I do believe the pricing structure/experience of theaters
should be re-examined and this is a start. Personally, subscription
concessions could be a cool place to start. I would really consider paying $30
a month for 5 large popcorns and drinks (and that would still leave a huge
margin).

~~~
kshcho
I think AMC's doing something along these lines, where people with their
loyalty card get deals on concessions. They probably throw in a free ticket
after several visits. I think I remember hearing some doing packages (e.g.,
tickets + popcorn and drinks).

In any case agreed, anything they can do to push food and drinks is how they
can fleece customers more and blow out their bottom line

------
kshcho
So basically, as a customer, you'd have to assume you're going to 4-7 movies
per month to break even on this (depending on how much movies cost in your
area - $6.50 matinees or $13+ a ticket in Manhattan).

A bunch of mid-2000s polls suggest the average American goes to 4-6 movies per
YEAR - probably has come down a bit given structural trends. Not sure what the
distribution looks like, but I'd guess it's a pretty thin tail of people who
go more than 4-6 times per month.

So either they're hoping people think they go a lot more often than they
really do, or are giving a great deal to a small portion of the population.

Pricing seems quite a bit off for this to be attractive to 95% of the populace
(though given theaters need to pay a cut for each body that comes in to the
distributor, they probably wanted to be on the conservative side)... maybe
should have done something like $25-30/month, and hope the users buy enough
concessions to make up the difference. Or do the $50, but throw in a free
massive bucket of popcorn for every trip, which costs virtually nothing to the
theater anyway (and presumably, the customer's usually going to want to buy a
drink, which is basically 95% profit).

------
ck2
When you can have a 50 inch screen at home for $500 and no people talking or
texting, no overpriced snacks, no incorrect brightness, no bad audio - the
only reason to go to a movie theater is for new releases.

But if you ignore new releases and just wait for the six-eight month cycle
before they are on DVD or BluRay, you don't need a theater.

Haven't been in one in years and that's even with having free passes on
occasion.

------
chc
I take my girlfriend out to the movies almost every weekend because we love
seeing good films on the big screen. If I'm not these folks' ideal user, I'm
not sure who is. But I'm very much on the fence.

If this allows you to take a guest, it's a great deal and I'd be an avid
customer, even though some months I don't see that many movies. If not, the
potential for underuse is too obvious.

At least with, say, a gym membership, you can imagine yourself using it enough
to justify the cost. A gym membership is also a lot cheaper in the short term
and more convenient than the nearest alternative (buying all the gym equipment
yourself). There is practically never a month with five movies I want to see.
And if there's not anything good in theaters, I can watch unlimited movies for
$7 per month on Netflix, or if I want newer movies for my impulse-viewing,
it's $1 a night with Redbox (and Redbox is usually more conveniently located
than the nearest theater).

------
listic
I wonder how this All-You-Can-Watch model works with demand fluctuation. What
happens if for some blockbuster movies they get more people than they can
serve?

------
amorphid
I go to the movies twice a week. They are going to lose money on me with this
deal.

~~~
covercash
Do you purchase food at the theater?

------
geuis
I like this idea quite a bit. I sometimes see up to 4-5 movies a months, more
like 2 on average. By the time I get the tickets and a bit to eat, I might
spend $20 or more. The downside is none of the theaters are the major ones in
the city like Metreon or Century.

------
woodall
I had a crazy idea to kind of help detour cam pirates. IR lights in the movie
screen. Most cameras in use utilize a CCD, which can be "blinded" by inferred.
I've seen the technique used to blind CCTV cameras; hoody halo. Why not put a
few lights in there to stop these guys? Might save a few dollars in the long
run; at least until the dvd-rip hits torrent/newsgroup sites.

