>...customers who pay a monthly fee of $8.99 will receive a credit for one movie ticket a month. Subscribers can also buy additional tickets for $8.99 each and get a 20% discount on food and drinks.
These models (subscribe and get 1/month free) are not that uncommon - e.g. Audible. Usually you get a cheaper price, since you're more likely to keep paying and are therefore more profitable overall. Here even more, due to potential spending on concessions.
I'd stopped going to theaters in the US since I don't think most movies are worth the US price, but I rediscovered how enjoyable it can be...the theaters were all very modern and comfortable and for some bizarre reason, Malaysians like to sit all the way in the back and to the sides. I'd have ticket takers look at me incredulously when I chose seats that would be considered perfect in the US (dead center, just far enough back to not have to crane my neck).
Totally agree on the food too...I miss roti telur!
Ha, all the way back and to the sides are my favorite type of movie neighbors.
For me $9 seems like a steal (I usually go see at least one movie a week)
"The average domestic ticket price (including matinee showings) reached a near record level of $8.93 in the quarter that ended in September, according to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners"
Amusingly enough, the website still tried to pitch me the $8.99 monthly subscription for one movie in a month. Um, no thanks. :)
I think tickets are around 12 or so in AMC, and sometimes higher for 3D movies (I don't think there have been more than a handful in the recent past) or certain releases (Star Wars pre-order on Fandango is 19$ now). Those stubs are always 1:1 though.
I've definitely watched more than 300 movies in English Hindi and Tamil, but not at AMC alone. I use the tickets for my friends, wife, etc too.
"Valid on all regular 2D movies. Upcharges may apply for premium formats like XD, 3D or IMAX. Upcharges may apply in Cinemark reserve dine-in - 21 and over theater in Bellevue, WA and Cinemark Playa Vista and XD in Playa Vista, CA"
Of course, I saw Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm projection at the Metreon in San Francisco, which is a state of the art screening room, but that will probably only ever happen every few years. Sadly the Metreon recently remodeled with completely terrible seats (only in the IMAX room), so I'm rarely tempted to go there.
More importantly, though, not very many movies were/are shot in that format. Not enough to really build a business on.
Additionally, I will pay for the more expensive Alamo ticket every time because of their fanaticism about NOT TALKING during the move
A theater showing great classic films with great seats would be a nice change and as a 30-something, quite an affordable entertainment option.
They do a lot of classic movie showings on various days, there are Signature Series events https://drafthouse.com/austin/series that fit more to a theme, Terror Tuesdays, Afternoon Tea, etc. Master Pancake is also incredibly popular which is a live comedy showing of a movie.
If you like the Alamo Drafthouse, next time you're in SLC check out Brewvies.
I'll see the new Star Wars, no doubt about that, but besides that I can't remember a time in my life when I went to the movies less than I do now. For the same price, I can get a nice meal out and watch a movie at home.
The popcorn isn't even good. I want butter and salt evenly distributed throughout the entire bucket, not a disgustingly over seasoning top inch, and a bland inedible bottom 90%.
The cheapest matinee is a Tuesday 5.75 about 20m from me. It's just not worth it at all. Serialized dramas that I binge watch are killing movies. Attention economy continues to forces changes in old media.
The value is that it is the most effective form of DRM around. TV, video games, books, music all get ripped same day. Movies pirated version look like garbage for months.
Have you tried popcorn at every independent operator and chain on the planet or is this based on your own subjective experience? Come to Oakville, Ontario and I will give you a bag of the best popcorn you have ever had, until then, reserve judgement.
Also, salt (Flavacol) is added along with the raw kernels while making popcorn. It is always evenly distributed. This is true for virtually every movie theatre there is.
Or at least Walt Disney isn't: they got 7 of the last 10 top grossing movies of the year.
And they take movie pass.
This is why I go to the movies!
> It’s also the cinema industry’s first direct answer to MoviePass, a New York start-up that offers unlimited movies in theaters for $9.95 a month.
How do they expect this to be successful when the average customer should be able to understand 1/day > 1/month?
Giving theaters more lee-way on how to pay for the movies they are licensing will allow for much more competitive opportunities and differentiation between theaters.
Are we sure about that, though? I assume these people are not complete idiots. I assume they had a team of economists and business analysts crunch the numbers on this beforehand. The cost of a ticket seems trivial to the added benefit of having your theater full of hungry, thirsty patrons at what would otherwise be off-peak times. I think this is going to be a massive boon to the industry, and may even see theaters evolve into more like "family fun centers" and general hangout locations.
Having to juggle sodas, popcorn, napkins, etc., is always an adventure in the negative sense when I go to the movies.
Isn't MoviePass paying full ticket value to the theatres? They should be offering people discounts to show their movie pass cards on concessions, and otherwise get people showing up for free subsidized movies while they can.
Am I missing something?
> and otherwise get people showing up for free subsidized movies while they can.
The issue comes in when the "free subsidized movies" ends, but consumers are left with the expectation that the economics of movie sales can support that model. If MoviePass's business model turns out to be unsustainable and shuts down, all of the consumers that have gotten used to it will suddenly baulk at paying retail rates again. Rates that, while discussed as expensive, were accepted as the status quo prior to MoviePass.
The alternative also isn't pleasant for the theater: The economics of MoviePass work out, but now MoviePass has the relationship with the consumer. As it gets more popular, MoviePass gets more market power to dictate discounted rates with your theater, with the implicit threat of blacklisting your theater from MoviePass locations if you don't play ball. While in theory that doesn't hurt the theater, since such a high percentage of box office revenue goes to distributors rather than to the theater, distributors won't take that squeeze either. They'll either shift back to fixed-cost film distribution (which theaters don't like, because it's risky) or start adding in more and more onerous minimum guarantees to contracts to make up the absolute dollar difference. i.e. if your distributor gets 95% of box office revenue, slashing ticket prices from $10 to $5 only costs you $0.25 in revenue but it costs them $4.75. While you can make up your very minimal lost revenue from concessions easily, they can't. They're not going to eat that quietly, no matter how much additional volume you generate.
If MP tanks, I prob go back to my baseline of maybe 4 movies a year, but it's possible I'd be used to seeing more movies to I'd go more often. I probably wouldn't end up going less than my previous MP viewing.
Movies theatres want the popcorn / soda sales so it doesn't matter much how MP negotiates the price, since they don't get much of that anyway.
But it does matter. Because there's always the potential for the theater to go from barely getting any ticket revenue to actively losing money for every ticket sold. Concession sales then start subsidizing box office revenue to pay distributors, eating away at your one profit center.
Take two scenarios for how distributors, the ones that take most of the ticket revenue, make money:
Scenario A, the status quo: 1000 tickets a day x $10/each x 95% of ticket revenue = $9,500/day going to the distributor
Scenario B, assuming MP is a raging success, has captured the majority of the movie-going market, and is able to muscle the theater to give it a 50% discount on ticket rates: (200 non-MP tickets x $10/each + 800 tickets x $5/each) * 95% of ticket revenue = $5,700/day in revenue going to the distributor
Even though the distributor still keeps the majority of box office revenue by percentage, that's a substantial discount to what they're used to and they're not going to just let the theater pass that loss off to them completely. So now, instead of just 95% of box office sales, they want 95% with a minimum guarantee, or want concession added into the percentage distribution, which could work out to paying substantially out of concession profit if your ticket sales don't hit that minimum (basically moving the risk back onto the theater, which is exactly what theaters so enthusiastically tried to avoid by moving from fixed-fee distribution to percentage-based distribution).
While MP would also theoretically increase foot traffic to the theater, and thereby making up the loss in revenue per ticket by a higher quantity of lower revenue tickets being sold, there's only so much unused capacity during peak time already that there's a physical limit to how much additional volume an existing theater can absorb. If MP increased viewership during off-peak times when the theater's are mostly empty (like midday, midweek showings), then it might be beneficial to both the distributor and theater owner. But otherwise, one of those parties tends to come out of it worse than before MP.
My intuition is still that the correct move is to enjoy the revenue opportunity.
Granted, that is based on a "MoviePass won't last" assumption.
If the theatres say no, what is MoviePass's option? They have no real control there.
I'm not claiming to know everything about this, literally just a 23 year old wanting to learn more.
How is this different from me (hypothetically) with a ton of money offering to give everyone their weeks groceries for $10 a month for $40 worth of goods and then turning around and saying to the grocery chain pay me $x for this. It just seems completely bizarre, if they could already offer the price they are asking , why wouldn't they do that instead of paying the middleman?
Let's throw together a simplified example scenario. Imagine a user that previously went to the movies 12 times a year paying $10 per ticket. In a world without MoviePass the theater collects $120 from that customer. However with MoviePass that user might now go 15 times a year and the theater collects $150 total from MoviePass. That is an added $30 in revenue for the theater that was created by MoviePass. The theater still comes out ahead of any revenue sharing model with MoviePass that costs them less than $30 per year. Perhaps more importantly they also reduce the risk that the customer's $120-$150 per year ends up going to a different theater across town that is willing to make an agreement with MoviePass.
No, because consumers aren't rational value maximizers even if businesses might sometimes approximate that; consumer behavior is strongly shaped by path-dependent expectation setting, and once theaters have let MoviePass model become dominant enough to set pricing expectations, they will catastrophically lose business if that model collapses. Eventually, if they survive, he public might be drawn back, so the industry might survive in some form, but each individual firm in the industry faced serious risk of being wiped out by that.
It's much better for them to not encourage MoviePass to consumers and do everything practical to distrsct from it while finding other ways to attract price-conscious customers in a more sustainable way.
Exhibitors like AMC, Cinemark, etc are happy with (a). They are worried about (b). MP will end up being the majority buyer of tickets sold by exhibitors; when it happens, MP will negotiate hard for tickets.
What if MP goes bankrupt after converting a sizeable number of customers of exhibitors into MP's customers? This is why AMC/Cinemark is blocking e-tickets for MP customers; they are also blocking any reward points for MP customers, even though MP pays full price for every ticket since it is paid through master card.
If it's going to fail, theaters are best off with it having as few users as possible until then.
See "18. Collection and Use of Non-Personal Information"
It's not that I object to this particular instance of this practice. I, for one, am willing to trade my movie-going data for cheap movie tickets. However, I am genuinely confused about how they intend to keep it going.
With fandango, you have to make a conscious decision to use them as an intermediary every time.
It’s reasonable to expect that MoviePass will, over time, have a more comprehensive (less sparse) record of movies you’ve gone to theaters to see.
Edit: had the last part backwards, d'oh
Even in places where the movies are $6/month, they would need huge numbers of people to sign up, and use the service 0-1 times per month, month after month..
That doesn't seem realistic. Even with their new contract model, I don't see this working.
I don't see how they could possibly survive without inventing a new revenue model.
In the meantime, I'll keep enjoying my VC subsidized movies :)
The NFL and the (US) federal government come to mind.
You may remember this concept from the net neutrality debate!
The only way it works is if people don't actually use it.
Any home version of a movie would be ripped and put on warez in hours after release in 4k. I'd never go to the theater again. But CAMs and TS suck.
You could argue that this hasn't hurt on-demand services like iTunes and Amazon Video, where people could torrent the videos instead of buying/renting them. With piracy you're always going to lose some small number of customers, but if you make renting them legally easy, people will pay.
Sure VoD, streaming, and DVD/BR allows piracy, but it also creates many more sales.
People are already paying $10-15 per person to see a movie in the theater. I'm sure some consultant concluded the new sales from pre-release home rentals won't cancel out lost ticket sales and piracy.
They also have to worry about theaters, which are a key part of their busines model but aren't under studio control. If 50% of customers stop going to the movies because they rent at home, that might make theater unviable or make the theatres demand larger cuts of profits.
And I also imagine they are worried about brand dilution. Movies and TV have never been more similar. TV might even have better overall quality now. But movies can charge 12 bucks for 2 hours and TV is having a hard time charging 12 bucks for unlimited everything.
If Avengers 4 is available on your local TV, is it still a movie? Will people still want to pay 50 bucks to stream it? Or are they going to want to pay 3.99?
I would imagine that you could do both. Having to go to a theater is a real blocker. These stats from 2014 said on average 3.7 tickets were sold per person, per year. https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPAA-Theatri... That means on any given weekend there's less than a 10% chance that someone will go to the theater. I would imagine having movies available at home would at least double that number.
And since presumably people will watch these movies socially you could charge much more for them; $50 or $60 per movie doesn't sound unreasonable at all, that's assuming between 4-5 people are watching it together. I wouldn't be surprised if it could go even higher.
Consider going to the theater where you're probably going to buy some food before (either at a restaurant or concessions, or both), with only 2 people you are coming close to, or exceeding, that $60 figure anyways.
I must have seen every damned movie that came out over a three month period. It was awesome.
It's not like a restaurant. A different atmosphere is a plus with restaurants. Not with theaters: you stare at a screen with the lights off the whole time. Also, with a restaurant you are served food without doing any work. Sure, watching a movie in the theater requires no work, but it's also trivial to play a movie at home.
The ones here have fancy seating, better sound, 3D, etc. For many movies, it's very much a better experience. If you're watching the bog-standard 2D version of the latest comedy film? Yeah, sure, home is better. Latest action/superhero movie? Unless I spend thousands to put together a home theatre, the added bits at the theatre just make it much better.
Mind you, from the descriptions I've heard of other theatres, I'm mildly amazed by how nice the ones around here are - especially since Cineplex more or less has a monopoly. I suspect they're just gouging us on ticket prices (and snacks, though if you do it right it's not too bad). Still, its nice to go on occasion.
And now that they get paid regardless of whether I go or not I fully expect the crap to get even worse.
If you bite off more than you can chew don't blame anyone but yourself when you choke.
Pay $7.50 normally or experience the deluxe super duper savers package for $8.99! WOOOO!!!