MoviePass wants to let you go to the theater once a day for $10 a month
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
They also presented it as a monthly service that you could cancel when you were done, but it was actually an annual service that you paid for on a monthly basis and trying to leave before the year was up would cost you. A lot.
There was also some weird business about having to send new cards (they sent you a card you had to use in person at the theater to pay for your ticket) without warning and until you got the new one you were unable to use the service you were paying for. In addition to that, sometimes the cards would just not work. This happened to me on at least 3 occasions.
Also take into consideration, there are some movies you'll want to see in 3d (maybe) or IMAX (more likely) and these are completely excluded. And if you're like me and you like to buy tickets ahead of time with fandango so you can skip lines and be sure the movie you're going to see isn't sold out, using this service means giving up that convenience.
Granted, this is all a much better deal now that it's $10 instead of $30.
You can see one movie every day. You can see each movie one time. You can see only standard 2D screenings.
It even points out you can go on opening night and the T+Cs point out there is a month to month plan now, but it's a bit confusing.
I do think it's a good offer for $10/month. Cineworld in the UK offers something similar for about £20/month (~$25), but also has an annual commitment and is restricted to one chain of cinemas, none of which are close to me.
Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/MoviePass/status/8974395725268623...
Other than that a good deal. More people should go to the theatres.
I would even pay $10 a month for a few months to watch an episode of Band of Brothers each week. I really enjoy the movie theater viewing experience. Lately I've only gone to the theatre to see the new Star Wars or Pixar films (only because I am a fan of those two franchises). Nothing else that is being released interests me.
I'm aware that some theatres book corporate trainings or private showings. I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to air new episodes of top television shows on the night of. It would be interesting to see what demand for that would look like.
As an side - what would the legality be if a group of people "booked" a theater to air a TV show? Would the theater or viewers be liable for holding a commercial screening using a private copy of the thing?
>Yes. According to Senate Report No. 94-473, p. 60, “performances in ‘semipublic’ places such as clubs, lodges, factories, summer camps and schools are ‘public performances’ subject to copyright control.”
https://www.mplc.org/page/faqs
That presumably depends on whether the screening is only for e.g your family. Consult a lawyer.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalt...
Movie theaters are familiar with risks in this area, so they might have their own rules about what you can and can't watch when you rent out a theater.
The UK seems to require a 'non-theatrical' film licence [1][2] for:
- at one-off events
- at film clubs - whether or not you sell tickets
- in common areas for guests, residents and passengers
- in retail and entertainment venues
[1] https://www.gov.uk/showing-films-in-public
[2] https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/copyright/2014/08/01/film-clubs/
I still love going to the theater.
On the other hand, I love going to higher end movie theatres that aren't large, you get to pick and reserve your seats online, they have reclining chairs and one of the theatres I go to serves food while you watch.
https://www.amctheatres.com/movies/game-of-thrones-the-imax-...
It's true. I've been a avid movie goer since I was a young kid. It's the whole experience. I love seeing new movies on big screens, I like the familiarity of movie theaters (pick any theater anywhere and you know exactly how the process will go start to finish), and I like having a reason to leave the house and "do something" without having to make an elaborate plan.
The biggest hurdle preventing me from going multiple times per week is the cost of the ticket + concessions (its part of the experience!).
I hope this works out in the long run, I just signed up and hope the price point will stick.
We have a 2nd run movie theater near where I live. The cost of tickets is $2.50 USD, and the concessions are about the same as first-run theaters (maybe a bit less). The seats are nice, though not the full electric recliners that some theaters have nearby.
So if I can wait to go see a movie (and I usually can) that's a much less expensive option. Even so, I end up going just a few times per year.
I say "model" because it's not just the cushy electric reclining seats: it is also reserved seats. When you buy your ticket, you have to choose a seat, just like a concert.
There are some advantages to this: you can show up 30 seconds before showtime and you know you will have a seat. You can wait in line at the concession stand without fear of having to sit in the front row. (arguably very good for the movie theater, too)
But there are unfortunate side effects: you can't just show up 30 minutes early to a new release and be pretty sure to get a good seat.
"Let's go see a movie tonight" isn't really an option when every good seat is already reserved 2 days in advance for the more popular ones.
You're basically forced into buying the tickets online, which means paying the inevitable convenience fee.
And like others have said, the seats aren't that comfortable. They remind me of airplane seats, where the headrest sticks out too far and makes it impossible to lean backward comfortably.
Most of us have 60-70 inch TVs, comfy couches, free snacks, surround sound. If you can't at least MATCH what I have at home, why am I paying $20-$30 to drive to someplace to watch a movie?
https://amc-theatres-res.cloudinary.com/image/upload/v149572...
Electric so you can pick a specific level of recline, instead of just having a spring-loaded chair with only one option.
It will all be delivered, thanks to medicare, (as the old lady rasps in the obnoxious Rascal commercial) "right to my door at no cost to me".
On the highway, at least the obstacles are as big as cars and people. In a field, the obstacles can be a planted row that wasn't even sprouted above the ground yet.
Because the virtual model is somewhat different, its too quick to dismiss it as 'very little can be applied'.
Also there are many obstacles in a field -waterways, the occasional tree or post, fences etc. All has to be mapped and accounted for.
For me, the biggest hurdle is that the nearest theatre is one of the ones that shows absolutely awful ads for 30 minutes straight before the trailers. They have some company that produces an Entertainment Tonight-like show where they talk about upcoming films (possibly relevant, but not usually), and mostly show ads for video games, Coca Cola, and cars. They're super loud, super repetitive, and super annoying. The theater is otherwise nice, but the ads are so obnoxious that I go out of my way to avoid it. Some shows you can get assigned seats, which makes showing up at the last minute feasible, but for some reason, not all of their screenings allow that.
The transaction would be fine if the website would fuck right off with their fees. It's bullshit to sell a ticket for $11, but then tack on a $3 "convenience" fee.
Also, the Costcos around me sell tickets to Cinetopia, a local theater chain that does reserved seating so you don't have to get to theater early to get a nice seat, but the tickets can't be used for online purchases.
Honest to god I would pay $20/ticket to go sit in a quiet theater with respectful people who like to get lost in movies and know how to act.
I used to go to the movies about twice a month, now I go once every 6 months and about 50% of the time someone is talking or on their phone and I find myself in a confrontation. Ever try to settle back down and enjoy the rest of the movie after you confront someone? Forget it.
Unfortunately I'm sure I'm in the minority and this idea will probably work and I'll have to stick to Art House movie theaters or watch movies at home which is fine I guess.
I remember watching Star Wars in the theater in the 70's. Guess what? People were too engrossed to be rude. Part of the fun was getting swept up in the reaction of other moviegoers.
I hope this is figured out soon, I miss going to the theater!
I spend a lot of time at Alamo now.
It's really teenagers that need to be kept out though, in my experience.
People who go to $1 showings of movies often don't really have their attention invested in the movie. The movie theater just becomes a cheap place to hang out with friends, and they start chatting with each other during the movie, ruining it for the people that are there for the actual movie.
Higher prices keep out the riff-raff. Riff-raff of course being assholes, who as you say, live in every tax bracket.
What I'm trying to say is that you probably don't need to start with nothing - if you have a large TV and/or decent audio system you can build and improve from there.
I wonder if the app is spying on you in more nefarious ways. I guess I could dedicate a retired phone to be my "movies" phone.
That seems to be the case with significant discounts.
But my understanding is that they can't just stop charging for tickets (or cut prices significantly) "since they're not seeing it anyway"; there are uniform ticket prices in those same agreements that prevent such tactics [1].
If they didn't have minimum prices, theaters could game it with a system like:
Movie ticket: $1
No-poke service: $11
"If you buy our no-poke service, a theater employee won't randomly poke you with a stick throughout the movie, as happens with our discounted tickets. ... Hey, Hollywood studios, we only saw $1 in revenue per ticket, but you're welcome to keep it!"
So, any system like the one in the story would have to renegotiate such agreements or work within some loophole.
Edit: Nevermind, this is why you read the article before commenting: apparently they pay the full price to the theater for you, which is a huge loss that they plan to make up by selling the analytics:
>MoviePass will pay theaters the full price of each ticket used by subscribers, excluding 3D or Imax screens.
>MoviePass could lose a lot of money subsidizing people’s movie habits. So the company also raised cash on Tuesday by selling a majority stake to Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc., ...
>Ted Farnsworth, chief executive officer at Helios and Matheson, said the goal is to amass a large base of customers and collect data on viewing behaviors.
[1] From a quick googling:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Arguing-One-Price-Ticket-Syst...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/why-do-...
Isn't this practically a cartel?
General admission to a regular movie here is $12. If their average user sees even 1.5 movies a month (might be higher - I imagine this kind of subscription would appeal to the type of people that enjoy going to the theater), they're losing $8/mo/user right off the bat.
If they get 100,000 users, figure in some operating/other costs, etc, they're looking at trying to sell 100,000 people's theater watching habits for like $1m/mo. That seems a little wacky to me.
Maybe he's right but I'm not convinced. I think kids/teens would love to go the theater more but my personal anecdote is that my friends and I lost interest after age 25. It's just not as exciting to go to a theater when you're not in high school or not part of the dating scene in college. Of course, if you're a parent with young kids, you go because you're the chaperone for the Disney movie.
It seems like declining visits by adults is just a general long term trend. Similar to the decline of drive-in theaters. Used to be fun to to drive the car into the lot but the novelty wore off. Adults also went to theaters in 1930s in high numbers (e.g. Gone With the Wind) because theaters were among the first to have air conditioning which was a big deal. Every house has air conditioning now.
Lastly, the economics of movie theaters have created a feedback loop that results in "big tent pole" films like Disney / Transformers / Star Wars dominating the screens. Adults want serious drama like "House of Cards" -- which is available at home.
One could argue that if ticket prices weren't so high, more adults would have gone to theaters which would then have subsequent effect of HoC, Boardwalk Empire, etc only being released in the theaters. I guess one could go down that rabbit hole of an alternate universe but I'm not convinced by it because I still think adults just eventually get bored of the "theater experience". (Babies crying in the back row, other patrons who don't shut off their cellphone ringers, sticky dirty floors, 15-minutes of ads before the movie starts, etc)
EDIT ADD: some replies seem to misunderstand my comments. I know some people do enjoy going the movies and the barrier to that is the price which MoviePass solves perfectly for them. I'm not arguing the existence of such moviegoers. Instead I interpreted “People really do want to go more often,” as a _macro_ trend and my comment is about reversing the macro trend of declining theater attendance. I'm not convinced MoviePass will actually solve that because fundamentally, the thrill of going to the theater wears off (age, Netflix/HBO at home, other entertainment distractions competing for time, etc). Again, that's a macro prediction. Yes, there are lots of enthusiastic moviegoers but they're outnumbered by the people with apathy for attending theaters.
If these prices really must be raised so high they exceed the value of the experience it's a sign the business model is flawed. In my town there used to be 2 theaters so there was competition, but the same national chain now owns both and provides the same garbage experience. It doesn't help that, as you pointed out, most movies in theaters are sequels or so generically mass market that I'll feel the same seeing them on an airplane as on the big screen. R&M's parody of Guardians last night was dead on in this regard.
The only times I've gone to a theater the past few years was to screenings of old films at the historical theater in town and to the movie tavern 30 minutes out of town, which not only makes an effort to provide a better experience than home but ALSO somehow costs less. Being able to eat wings and drink a beer in a recliner (with too much space between rows for kids to kick the back of my seat) feels closest to an attempt at a better business model.
Prices are often $15-$20 for most shows (and that's just plain old 2D) at the theaters local to me. The theater is fantastic though, great seats and it's always clean, but it's still $20 for 2 hours viewing. I only go if there is a movie I really want to watch. In most cases, I use the "I'll wait until I can buy/rent it on iTunes". With the exception of some blockbusters, many movies are available digitally within around 6 months. I can usually wait.
I like the experience of going to the movies. What I don't like is the near $20 ticket. For $10/month, I would absolutely watch many more movies at the theater using MoviePass.
There's a general assumption ITT that movie theaters are going to be swamped with MoviePass subscribers every single day. People who subscribe to HBO don't necessarily watch it every single day (I bet some people subscribe just for one or two shows, that's what I do). Sure, students and those with the time to do that might, but for many people, it's probably just a pass to go do something at the weekend. I would go to the movie theater far more frequently, but at most it'd be once a week and only if there's a movie I'm interested in. There are plenty of days/weeks/months where no movies appeal to me.
Besides, if you're not paying full price for a ticket, you'll be more tempted by the concession stand and their prices.
That said, experience is a big deal, and some places are improving it. The Metreon in SF has theaters with recliners now that are super pleasant to watch a movie in.
I got tired of House of Cards after the 3rd season and you would have to pay me to watch Boardwalk Empire.
And while air conditioning played a part in people going to see movies it was more due to the fact that TV wasn't invented yet. air conditioning raised movie attendance during hot months but people went just as much during other months
To be fair, some movies are big screen movies, and dramas don't tend to be. House of Cards wouldn't work nearly as well as a 2 hour movie, nor would I be willing to go somewhere to watch it.
On the other hand, watching movies like Dunkirk, Doctor Strange, or anything in 3D doesn't feel right at home.
Maybe it's just me, but it feels like the movies that tend to do well in theaters are the same ones in which the home experience would be lacking, unless you have a theater room. Meanwhile, no matter how much I might personally love a given TV show, 90% of the time, it's just not movie appropriate. Of course, I'd definitely pay to have select episodes of Game of Thrones shown on the big screen... YMMV.
It's why places like Planet Fitness are able to offer $10/month unlimited memberships.
MoviePass will pay about $12 each and every time someone sees a movie -- more than the monthly fee any one member is paying.
So every super movie fan watching 10 movies a month requires more than 11 other members paying the monthly fee and then not using their membership at all. Hard to see that math working out.
Huh? What exactly do you think a gym's principal expenses are beyond rent, employee cost and equipment maintenance/replacement? And how long do you think a gym treadmill which is run on for ~6 hours a day will last?
I'm not saying MoviePass automatically makes sense, but the idea that gyms are "all upside" after the initial equipment purchase is badly misinformed.
> but the idea that gyms are "all upside" after the initial equipment purchase is badly misinformed.
I'm not sure how you read what GP said, but if you reread it you'll understand that the mistake was on you, not them being misinformed.
Emphasis added to both their post and yours to highlight.
That model is far different though
For each Planet Fitness, much of the cost is upfront. That is, they have to buy the property, renovate (or build), and then buy all the machines. Yes there are increased maintenance costs as more people join the gym, but cost per user should decrease with each additional membership.
For MoviePass, for each user they have to pay for the price of each movie ticket they go to. Thus their costs increase proportionally to the number of subscribers. Unless each additional user they sign up goes to the movies less than the average MoviePass user, Cost per user doesn't decrease.
As said before, this is not remotely accurate. Firstly, nearly all of these franchises rent their building space. Secondly, as with any B&M business, fully loaded employee costs comprise a majority of operating expenses. Thirdly, gym equipment maintenance is a non-trivial ongoing factor. Certainly the initial equipment purchase is a bubble, but the idea that PF is only fiscally viable due to equipment longevity is specious at best.
You can see an estimate breakdown of PF expenses here: http://www.franchisedirect.com/fitnessfranchises/planet-fitn...
Note fitness equipment estimates range from $35,930 to $944,800; re-equip costs are estimated at $359,900 to $944,800. (that low estimate on re-equip may be a typo, it is likely re-equip costs are estimated in the same range)
With a $40 annual membership fee, as well, though.
But yeah, they're making money off of me. I went nearly every day until I started full-time work. Now, it's just far more convenient to use my neighborhood gym during the morning, though the equipment is lacking. But I retain the membership on the chance that I might use Planet Fitness's facility instead, because it's only $10!
If I had to bet, I'd say that we're only going to the movies less and it will continue to be rebranded as a premium experience. The cheap seats model isn't any better than my modest living room system and about 10x less convenient. The only difference is I need to wait a couple months before the movie is available in my home. Hollywood could change that overnight is they chose to.
I'm not even going to go into how terrible the standard theater experience is. Smelly floors, beat up seats, loud people, smartphone lights, absurdly priced concessions, unhealthy concession offerings, poor bathroom facilities, paying for parking, 10-20 minutes of trailers, etc.
It's not. Article says they're planning on burning VC money and figure out some nebulous "sell data analytics" sort of monetization approach.
The cinema companies don't really care about some things, like sneaking between movies, sure if they catch you they'll kick you out but they're not looking real hard for you. Other things, like piracy, they care a lot about, films are individually watermarked so whenever a pirated version comes out, they know exactly which theatre it was screened on. That provides a big incentive to catch them.
With a Netflix-type plan for cinema, it's not the cinema companies that Netflix is going to have to negotiate with, it's the studios. Literally all the box office take goes directly to them.
I spent a wonderful summer cycling into town every other day and watching 2 or 3 movies before cycling home again. If a movie turned out to be terrible you could just walk out and you hadn't lost anything.
I love watching movies at the cinema, but a standard ticket where I live now is around $18 US. There are lots of offers but I can't be bothered to time my trips around couples day/ladies day/special movie day. I just wanna watch a film!
I think if theatres had an "all you can watch" model, people would take it less seriously, and the quality of the experience would degrade.
I always thought the idea was to fill empty theatres with people over weekdays, and of course make money off of refreshments. I mean, they will only fill up seats that are unsold anyway, but with the pass they will at least have shot at selling food.
I understand the need to try to get more business, but at the same time, if I'm not using the Movie Pass for that day, why can't my wife use it? Movie Pass locks to a single device (unless they finally did away with that). Also, why can't we use it to see the same movie multiple times if we choose to? I mean I'm paying $10 (or $30 back then) a month for seeing a single movie per day. Are there 30 different movies in the theater in a given month?
While conceptually cool, this was put together in the most completely horrible way for the modern consumer. They will never win back my business unless they take away these ridiculous restrictions.
Sounds super sustainable.
If these guys have such a plan, it's not mentioned in the article. Maybe the plan is to squeeze theaters after they get a foothold?
Just do not see how they can sustain a $10 a month price point long term. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.
I've never noticed a particular problem with number of attendees. I've only ever found 3 people who go to the movies often enough to bother with the subscription.
Though are more expensive
I could see people liking this idea, however if there's only a movie or tv show you wanted to see a few times a month would it really be worth it? I could also foresee this system could further ruin the fun of the big screen, an example is Alamo Draft House in ATX offering tickets and seat reservations months in advance. This makes it nearly impossible to just see a movie one day on impulse with friends.
Like the gym membership, you'll keep paying because you might go, but in most cases you won't actually go.
Another consideration is people that go to a lot of movies are likely not be working 9-5 and would avoid the times when theaters are packed.
Then I got a notice that they were increasing my fee to $40/month and I promptly cancelled. Sure, I could have upped my movie frequency a bit to recoup the extra cost, but that was a little too often to be worth it.
I assume that means more (or "better" ads) before the movie. I prefer to pay extra watch movies somewhere that doesn't show ads, but no doubt there's a cohort who would be happy to watch ads if it means a cheaper ticket price.
Did AMC roll out something higher priced that this for their own system? If they have one surely the other big chains do so this separate service would seem doomed from the get go
A catch is that when you cancel, you can't join again for a long time (or pay a large fine or something). Also, you pay extra for each 3D ticket (I don't really like '3D' but sometimes that's the only version available).
You need to go (on average) more than 2 times a month to break even, continuously. Which I find difficult, but that probably says more about me than about the product.
Once in a while, there's a deal with 'Postbank Rentepunten' that gives you a card for 3 months for like $40. That works a bit better for me (especially when I time it with the winter holidays, when a lot of new movies come out).
The last AAA video game I purchased that wasn't based on an existing IP or derivative of a specific formula (see: Ubisoft) was Titanfall. The last movie I saw for myself (and not my daughter) that wasn't based on existing IP I can't even remember, it must have been Grindhouse (Planet Terror / Death Proof). Meanwhile, the last serialized "TV" content I've watched that wasn't a new season of an existing show or a spinoff was Transparent, before that there was Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, etc.
I would love for some fresh ideas in the available content out there, but it seems like executives are especially adverse to risk considering the budget it takes to make "current-gen" visuals in blockbusters or AAA video games - and I wonder if that is why serialized shows are where most of the "fresh" content is considering people expect lower production values out of a 20 episode season of 45 minute episodes.
"For $200 million, we can guarantee return of $1 billion."
"Nah."
People aren't adverse to trying new things but the movie industry is pretty risk adverse. And as for people being tired of the reboots and remakes the answer is mixed but easy to see in box office returns. Rehashing old ground is fine so long as it's good or is fun to watch. Until these movies start failing en mass industry will keep making them.
It works well.