All-You-Can-Watch MoviePass Brings Netflix Model to Theaters
wired.com
wired.com
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.
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.
[1] http://www.cineworld.co.uk/unlimited/intro?locale=GB&sec...
Yep I think the freedom to do something is very appealing. Things like "Lifetime guarantee", "100% refund returns" or "no subscriptions, quit anytime" sell. I also rather pay slightly more, say for an ISP, if in exchange I'm not locked in for 2 years.
Granted this cinema card is only useable in cinemas belonging to the same chain.
Do any US cinema chains offer similar services?
$50/month is about twice as expensive as it is in the UK and has been for years, for unlimited films.
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.")
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).
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
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).
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.
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).