8 ms·

SEC filing suggests MoviePass’ time is running out

76 points by thedarkginger 8y ago

dwighttk 8y ago
It doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that even has a chance of being profitable... The only reason to join is to save money on tickets, the only way they make money is if people spend more on membership fees than the tickets they buy.
- abnry 8y ago
  Yeah, I wonder what the people who started the business even had in mind. Did they decide to just wing it long term?
  - banana_giraffe 8y ago
    Not that I have any insight, but I always got the impression that they were planning to get a significant fraction of the moving going public under their service. Then they could say "give us discounts or well take your chain off of our service" to the chains.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    The long term plan was probably to get a large enough subscriber base that they could get some pricing deal from a couple major theater chains. Combine that with some money from selling customer data and they thought they could get profitable and probably could.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I could easily imagine myself signing up for a service like this and then forgetting about it for a month or two at a time.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    You’ve pretty much described my usage of Netflix’ DVD rental plan and HBO streaming.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Yeah... I'm not speaking from pure conjecture here.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    I got mine around the time I was appointed as the DPO-equivalent for GDPR compliance in my company. I still have it, but I consider it an aspirational purchase for a time when I can actually go to movies. I think I'm averaging about 2 movies for every 3 months.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  Well the company had vague promises of utilizing the vast subscriber base and information to sell to third parties. As an amateur stock picker, I've been on the sidelines watching the back and forth commentary on this company (Helios and Matheson) and MoviePass since it was (I believe) in the 30's. It seemed like everyone knew from the get go that the model wasn't going to turn a profit, but they were hoping for some of the other stuff to generate a return somehow (the information being valuable). The stock price partially is because a Netflix co-founder is behind the company. However, part of me wonders whether it was a pump-and-dump scheme.
- scrooched_moose 8y ago
  I feel like they're just waiting to gut the service (4 movies a month, or less) and hoping enough people stick around that they're better off. Before the price drop they were taking in about $1 million/month (20,000 subs at $50). They're over ~2~ 4 million subscribers now at $10/month. If they have even a 5% retention rate they'll have increased their revenue to $2 million/month.
  - crowbahr 8y ago
    They're already at 4/mo for new subscribers.
    - scrooched_moose 8y ago
      Oh wow. I was just going off of wikipedia numbers. 5% retention rate then.
    - ben1040 8y ago
      They've brought the 9.95 "unlimited" plan back, and the cheaper 7.95 plan now only offers 3 tickets per month.
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    but at $10/month you need most people to not even go to 1 movie a month to even have a chance of breaking even.
- swanson 8y ago
  The intention was for the core "unlimited movies for a monthly fee" to break even (which was plausible based on spiked usage up front that tails off ala gym memberships and things like bulk ticket buying). In addition to collecting analytics data and selling it to movie theaters and studios, the service also makes money by promoting movies within the app (paid placement). https://www.recode.net/2018/2/18/17025372/transcript-moviepass-ceo-mitch-lowe-movie-theater-subscription-amc-cinemark-regal-recode-media https://www.recode.net/2018/2/18/17025372/transcript-moviepa...
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    gym memberships lock you into a commitment... MoviePass is currently month to month.
- smacktoward 8y ago
  The play is to get enough users fast enough so that MoviePass sits between the theater chains and a big chunk of their customer base. Once that happens, MoviePass can start squeezing the theaters to discount the prices MP pays for tickets with threats of taking their theaters out of the MP system if they won't. If the MoviePass user base is a big enough fraction of the overall theatergoing population, the theaters will have to accept whatever price MoviePass offers them for tickets or risk losing access to their customers and kneecapping their business. This is a long-term, Amazon-style play: burning capital up front to establish a commanding market position, at which point you can start raking it in by charging monopolist rents. But it assumes you can build a big enough user base to start dictating terms before you run out of capital, and if you can't, the whole thing falls apart pretty quickly.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    Other than in the very early days Amazon wasn't burning cash; they very rarely went to the market for equity and were self-funding very quickly. They didn't post profits for a long time because there was no point, they used the margin for growth instead.
chollida1 8y ago
That filing did hurt, the stock's gone from 1.35 at the open to 0.94 cents now. Heck the short sale rule is in effect for them now. Now they have to convince their customers to use the service less, while trying to increase the number of subscribers they get reoccurring revenue from . That's an almost sisyphean task. Even harder will be convincing one of the chains to buy them. I'm guessing that if we don't see an announcement of a sale to one of the movie theater chains in the next week they'll end up bankrupt and one of hte major theater chains will by at least their data at that point. How do you go about convincing a company to buy you when they know that you'll be there in bankruptcy court to buy at a cheaper price.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
emodendroket 8y ago
> When the company changed those rules to limit subscribers so they could only see a given movie once, no matter how long it runs in theaters, a support ticket stated, “we hope this will encourage you to see new movies and enjoy something different!” It turns out that was a blatant effort to cut costs, with today’s filing explaining that the move “enabled us to reduce our cash deficit during the first week of May 2018 by more than 35 [percent].” > There are a lot of ways to read that percentage, and in MoviePass’ defense, the company has also said that the goal was to prevent people from using MoviePass to buy tickets for friends who aren’t subscribers. But either way, a savings of more than a third represents a radical shift. Couple that with the fact that the most popular movie the first week of May was Avengers: Infinity War, whose astounding box-office performance is driven by repeat visits, and the connection seems clearer — MoviePass is openly trying to save money by limiting features its customers actively use. It isn’t a “test” or an “experiment,” as the company has claimed in the past; it’s intentionally making the subscriptions people have already paid for less useful because its business model is unsustainable. Getting rid of repeats saving 35% seems to point to some pretty widespread abuse. Who are these people seeing the same movie multiple times during its initial theater run?
- untog 8y ago
  I do know people who go to see the latest movies (particularly Marvel ones, Star Wars, etc.) more than once. I imagine MoviePass would only encourage that behavior. (but I agree that abuse probably has something to do with it as well)
  - coss 8y ago
    I really don't see how theaters haven't caught on and started a subscription service of their own. Just an obvious way to get people to the theater (multiple times) and by snacks.
    - FroshKiller 8y ago
      They have. I'm a member of the Cinemark Movie Club.
draw_down 8y ago
Everything about this company has seemed such a disaster. Cheap movie tickets are great and all, but I prefer simple things. I just want to get a ticket and watch a movie. Making that "experience" more "interesting" does not appeal to me.
anonu 8y ago
MoviePass sorta feels like the insurance game - it makes sense from a business perspective if you can sell to enough people of varying interest in going to the theater to watch a movie...
amorphid 8y ago
I get my money's worth out of MoviePass. I'll milk that membership until it dies or the ROI goes negative. I love you MoviePass, but you are not bright.
vincentmarle 8y ago
In the Netherlands we have our own “MoviePass” (called Pathé Unlimited) started by the country’s biggest theater chain (Pathé) since the early 2000s, so the concept is definitely not new to us, I was actually surprised to learn that Cinemark didn’t have their own subscription model when I moved here since it worked really well in Europe (both for customers and for Pathé). The reason why the model works for Pathé and not for MoviePass is because of 2 reasons: - Pathé owns their own theaters, so they can run the subscription program at a loss, but make the money back with condiments sales because of the increased flow of visitors - Pathé owns the most theaters in NL, there’s always one closeby. The subscription program is usable by the majority of the population because of physical proximity. So for this to work in the US, the big chains basically need to offer this themselves. I hope that Cinemark will learn from MoviePass’s validation of the market (clearly there’s a huge demand) and undercut them by offering their own program. #lastmoveradvantage
- jankassens 8y ago
  It also appears to be EUR 20 per month. MoviePass is less then half that at USD 10. Often less then a single regular movie ticket.
  - giobox 8y ago
    And yet the 20 Euro one appears to have been a _sustainable_ business model. Cineworld cinemas in the UK do a very similar offer, and again it costs roughly 20 Euros. MoviePass pricing has always reminded me of the old adage, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.", especially when you consider they are paying full face value, which none of the European competitors I'm familiar with do, as they typically run both the subscription service and the cinemas themselves. The more pressing question to me is why hasn't a large cinema chain in the US tried this model, when it is clearly working in many other foreign markets?
- mattnewton 8y ago
  S/condiments/concessions? Thanks for the take, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe movie pass will be bought / cloned by a theatre chain here.
calbear81 8y ago
... I was somewhat expecting this to be possibility so we frontloaded our movie watching to get our money's worth but also bought through the Costco deal as we expect Costco to cover if they did go out of business given that Costco has a generous return/satisfaction policy.
- djrogers 8y ago
  Did you pay up front for a year? If you're just paying month to month, I don't understand teh concern, or the expectation for Coscto to 'cover'. If you expected it to fail, it seems that going month to month would have been a better plan than expecting a third party to eat a loss at your gain.
alistproducer2 8y ago
File this under: DUH!!!! This service never had a chance in hell at becoming profitable. Pretty sad that so much money is thrown at obviously trash ideas like this. I'm pretty sure that money would be better spent funding companies that are working to solve real problems. I'm just sad I didn't sign up to blow through some of that sweet, sweet free VC money myself.
vm 8y ago
Reminds me of Classpass and it's business model evolution. Sounds like they have transitioned well after spending significant capital. http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/01/technology/classpass-credit-model/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/01/technology/classpass-credit-...
- xigency 8y ago
  If they had the same kind of investment support, hype, and customer satisfaction as Uber, they might be really successful. But it doesn't sound like they have any of them. Uber is getting support from everyone to subsidize the cost of rides. And the ploy is to wait until self-driving cars are viable. I guess the market is saying that movie theater chains can hold out against bargaining for longer than that.
  - rossdavidh 8y ago
    ...and last I heard, Uber had a very high (>90%) annual churn rate in drivers, so if their flow of new victims slows (like a virus up against too high a percentage of the population with immunity now), they may not turn out as well in the end. It might suggest why Uber is maybe pushing to get self-driving cards as fast as possible; they may know they don't have all the time in the world before the current model stops working.
    - vm 8y ago
      curious where did you see that >90% driver churn data? many drivers I speak with have been driving with uber / lyft for years (in SF)
      - rossdavidh 8y ago
        I believe I first saw it here: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/only-4-percent-of-uber-drivers-remain-after-a-year-says-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/only-4-percent-of-uber-drive...
dbatten 8y ago
Wasn't there some article a while back about how MoviePass was trying to have a big enough market-share in terms of movie-goers (read: popcorn and soda revenue for theaters) to be able to start pushing theaters around? In other words, they could say to theater companies "hey, maybe you should think about giving us tickets at a discount so you don't lose out on that sweet sweet concession money." Or maybe even play one theater brand off against another? I wonder if theaters have figured this is a waiting game and they can just let MoviePass die and go back to business as usual...
- overcast 8y ago
  I thought that was blatantly obvious from the very start? Their entire business model is to gain enough subscribers, that they can use to leverage theaters.
- djrogers 8y ago
  That's addressed toward the end of the article - basically the AMC CEO calling the pricing Moviepass wanted 'ridiculous', and saying it's not sustainable.
  - bpicolo 8y ago
    He's not wrong
- crysin 8y ago
  Cinemark came out with their own subscription service. Not the same type of deal as MoviePass but still, it made me decide to go with theirs over MoviePass. Sure it means I'm locked in to Cinemark only if I want to make use of it but I know my benefits of the sub won't change month to month.
- NegativeK 8y ago
  They explicitly tried that with AMC, by denying customer access to the top ten AMC theaters in the US to prove that Moviepass has market pull. I found out in the lobby of the AMC, bought my own damn ticket, and mulled over cancelling Moviepass for two weeks. AMC didn't blink, though, so those theaters were re-enabled right before I was about to switch to Sinemia.
robbintt 8y ago
I don't think I would subscribe for this - good movies are seasonal and if the movie isn't good the theater would need to pay me to go, maybe $250 would be a good fee for me to go to a movie of unknown quality.
X-Istence 8y ago
I like my movie pass, and it has gotten me to the theatre more than I would have in the past... I aim for at least 1 movie a month, because a movie ticket costs 20 cents more than my movie pass subscription. If I go twice in a month I can skip a month and not feel bad. I don't buy concessions though, so theres no money to be made there. Only being able to see a feature film once, not something I am entirely happy about because I'd have liked to see the new Avengers twice, but I can live with it. It does allow me to go to a movie I wouldn't usually see just because it's "free".

76 points by thedarkginger 8y ago

It doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that even has a chance of being profitable... The only reason to join is to save money on tickets, the only way they make money is if people spend more on membership fees than the tickets they buy.

abnry 8y ago
Yeah, I wonder what the people who started the business even had in mind. Did they decide to just wing it long term?
- banana_giraffe 8y ago
  Not that I have any insight, but I always got the impression that they were planning to get a significant fraction of the moving going public under their service. Then they could say "give us discounts or well take your chain off of our service" to the chains.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  The long term plan was probably to get a large enough subscriber base that they could get some pricing deal from a couple major theater chains. Combine that with some money from selling customer data and they thought they could get profitable and probably could.
emodendroket 8y ago
I could easily imagine myself signing up for a service like this and then forgetting about it for a month or two at a time.
- ghaff 8y ago
  You’ve pretty much described my usage of Netflix’ DVD rental plan and HBO streaming.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Yeah... I'm not speaking from pure conjecture here.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  I got mine around the time I was appointed as the DPO-equivalent for GDPR compliance in my company. I still have it, but I consider it an aspirational purchase for a time when I can actually go to movies. I think I'm averaging about 2 movies for every 3 months.
mancerayder 8y ago
Well the company had vague promises of utilizing the vast subscriber base and information to sell to third parties. As an amateur stock picker, I've been on the sidelines watching the back and forth commentary on this company (Helios and Matheson) and MoviePass since it was (I believe) in the 30's. It seemed like everyone knew from the get go that the model wasn't going to turn a profit, but they were hoping for some of the other stuff to generate a return somehow (the information being valuable). The stock price partially is because a Netflix co-founder is behind the company. However, part of me wonders whether it was a pump-and-dump scheme.
scrooched_moose 8y ago
I feel like they're just waiting to gut the service (4 movies a month, or less) and hoping enough people stick around that they're better off. Before the price drop they were taking in about $1 million/month (20,000 subs at $50). They're over ~2~ 4 million subscribers now at $10/month. If they have even a 5% retention rate they'll have increased their revenue to $2 million/month.
- crowbahr 8y ago
  They're already at 4/mo for new subscribers.
  - scrooched_moose 8y ago
    Oh wow. I was just going off of wikipedia numbers. 5% retention rate then.
  - ben1040 8y ago
    They've brought the 9.95 "unlimited" plan back, and the cheaper 7.95 plan now only offers 3 tickets per month.
- dwighttk 8y ago
  but at $10/month you need most people to not even go to 1 movie a month to even have a chance of breaking even.
swanson 8y ago
The intention was for the core "unlimited movies for a monthly fee" to break even (which was plausible based on spiked usage up front that tails off ala gym memberships and things like bulk ticket buying). In addition to collecting analytics data and selling it to movie theaters and studios, the service also makes money by promoting movies within the app (paid placement). https://www.recode.net/2018/2/18/17025372/transcript-moviepass-ceo-mitch-lowe-movie-theater-subscription-amc-cinemark-regal-recode-media https://www.recode.net/2018/2/18/17025372/transcript-moviepa...
- dwighttk 8y ago
  gym memberships lock you into a commitment... MoviePass is currently month to month.
smacktoward 8y ago
The play is to get enough users fast enough so that MoviePass sits between the theater chains and a big chunk of their customer base. Once that happens, MoviePass can start squeezing the theaters to discount the prices MP pays for tickets with threats of taking their theaters out of the MP system if they won't. If the MoviePass user base is a big enough fraction of the overall theatergoing population, the theaters will have to accept whatever price MoviePass offers them for tickets or risk losing access to their customers and kneecapping their business. This is a long-term, Amazon-style play: burning capital up front to establish a commanding market position, at which point you can start raking it in by charging monopolist rents. But it assumes you can build a big enough user base to start dictating terms before you run out of capital, and if you can't, the whole thing falls apart pretty quickly.
- dingaling 8y ago
  Other than in the very early days Amazon wasn't burning cash; they very rarely went to the market for equity and were self-funding very quickly. They didn't post profits for a long time because there was no point, they used the margin for growth instead.

chollida1 8y ago

That filing did hurt, the stock's gone from 1.35 at the open to 0.94 cents now. Heck the short sale rule is in effect for them now. Now they have to convince their customers to use the service less, while trying to increase the number of subscribers they get reoccurring revenue from . That's an almost sisyphean task. Even harder will be convincing one of the chains to buy them. I'm guessing that if we don't see an announcement of a sale to one of the movie theater chains in the next week they'll end up bankrupt and one of hte major theater chains will by at least their data at that point. How do you go about convincing a company to buy you when they know that you'll be there in bankruptcy court to buy at a cheaper price.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

emodendroket 8y ago

> When the company changed those rules to limit subscribers so they could only see a given movie once, no matter how long it runs in theaters, a support ticket stated, “we hope this will encourage you to see new movies and enjoy something different!” It turns out that was a blatant effort to cut costs, with today’s filing explaining that the move “enabled us to reduce our cash deficit during the first week of May 2018 by more than 35 [percent].” > There are a lot of ways to read that percentage, and in MoviePass’ defense, the company has also said that the goal was to prevent people from using MoviePass to buy tickets for friends who aren’t subscribers. But either way, a savings of more than a third represents a radical shift. Couple that with the fact that the most popular movie the first week of May was Avengers: Infinity War, whose astounding box-office performance is driven by repeat visits, and the connection seems clearer — MoviePass is openly trying to save money by limiting features its customers actively use. It isn’t a “test” or an “experiment,” as the company has claimed in the past; it’s intentionally making the subscriptions people have already paid for less useful because its business model is unsustainable. Getting rid of repeats saving 35% seems to point to some pretty widespread abuse. Who are these people seeing the same movie multiple times during its initial theater run?

untog 8y ago
I do know people who go to see the latest movies (particularly Marvel ones, Star Wars, etc.) more than once. I imagine MoviePass would only encourage that behavior. (but I agree that abuse probably has something to do with it as well)
- coss 8y ago
  I really don't see how theaters haven't caught on and started a subscription service of their own. Just an obvious way to get people to the theater (multiple times) and by snacks.
  - FroshKiller 8y ago
    They have. I'm a member of the Cinemark Movie Club.

draw_down 8y ago

Everything about this company has seemed such a disaster. Cheap movie tickets are great and all, but I prefer simple things. I just want to get a ticket and watch a movie. Making that "experience" more "interesting" does not appeal to me.

anonu 8y ago

MoviePass sorta feels like the insurance game - it makes sense from a business perspective if you can sell to enough people of varying interest in going to the theater to watch a movie...

amorphid 8y ago

I get my money's worth out of MoviePass. I'll milk that membership until it dies or the ROI goes negative. I love you MoviePass, but you are not bright.

vincentmarle 8y ago

In the Netherlands we have our own “MoviePass” (called Pathé Unlimited) started by the country’s biggest theater chain (Pathé) since the early 2000s, so the concept is definitely not new to us, I was actually surprised to learn that Cinemark didn’t have their own subscription model when I moved here since it worked really well in Europe (both for customers and for Pathé). The reason why the model works for Pathé and not for MoviePass is because of 2 reasons: - Pathé owns their own theaters, so they can run the subscription program at a loss, but make the money back with condiments sales because of the increased flow of visitors - Pathé owns the most theaters in NL, there’s always one closeby. The subscription program is usable by the majority of the population because of physical proximity. So for this to work in the US, the big chains basically need to offer this themselves. I hope that Cinemark will learn from MoviePass’s validation of the market (clearly there’s a huge demand) and undercut them by offering their own program. #lastmoveradvantage

jankassens 8y ago
It also appears to be EUR 20 per month. MoviePass is less then half that at USD 10. Often less then a single regular movie ticket.
- giobox 8y ago
  And yet the 20 Euro one appears to have been a _sustainable_ business model. Cineworld cinemas in the UK do a very similar offer, and again it costs roughly 20 Euros. MoviePass pricing has always reminded me of the old adage, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.", especially when you consider they are paying full face value, which none of the European competitors I'm familiar with do, as they typically run both the subscription service and the cinemas themselves. The more pressing question to me is why hasn't a large cinema chain in the US tried this model, when it is clearly working in many other foreign markets?
mattnewton 8y ago
S/condiments/concessions? Thanks for the take, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe movie pass will be bought / cloned by a theatre chain here.

calbear81 8y ago

... I was somewhat expecting this to be possibility so we frontloaded our movie watching to get our money's worth but also bought through the Costco deal as we expect Costco to cover if they did go out of business given that Costco has a generous return/satisfaction policy.

djrogers 8y ago
Did you pay up front for a year? If you're just paying month to month, I don't understand teh concern, or the expectation for Coscto to 'cover'. If you expected it to fail, it seems that going month to month would have been a better plan than expecting a third party to eat a loss at your gain.

alistproducer2 8y ago

File this under: DUH!!!! This service never had a chance in hell at becoming profitable. Pretty sad that so much money is thrown at obviously trash ideas like this. I'm pretty sure that money would be better spent funding companies that are working to solve real problems. I'm just sad I didn't sign up to blow through some of that sweet, sweet free VC money myself.

vm 8y ago

Reminds me of Classpass and it's business model evolution. Sounds like they have transitioned well after spending significant capital. http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/01/technology/classpass-credit-model/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/01/technology/classpass-credit-...

xigency 8y ago
If they had the same kind of investment support, hype, and customer satisfaction as Uber, they might be really successful. But it doesn't sound like they have any of them. Uber is getting support from everyone to subsidize the cost of rides. And the ploy is to wait until self-driving cars are viable. I guess the market is saying that movie theater chains can hold out against bargaining for longer than that.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  ...and last I heard, Uber had a very high (>90%) annual churn rate in drivers, so if their flow of new victims slows (like a virus up against too high a percentage of the population with immunity now), they may not turn out as well in the end. It might suggest why Uber is maybe pushing to get self-driving cards as fast as possible; they may know they don't have all the time in the world before the current model stops working.
  - vm 8y ago
    curious where did you see that >90% driver churn data? many drivers I speak with have been driving with uber / lyft for years (in SF)
    - rossdavidh 8y ago
      I believe I first saw it here: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/only-4-percent-of-uber-drivers-remain-after-a-year-says-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/only-4-percent-of-uber-drive...

dbatten 8y ago

Wasn't there some article a while back about how MoviePass was trying to have a big enough market-share in terms of movie-goers (read: popcorn and soda revenue for theaters) to be able to start pushing theaters around? In other words, they could say to theater companies "hey, maybe you should think about giving us tickets at a discount so you don't lose out on that sweet sweet concession money." Or maybe even play one theater brand off against another? I wonder if theaters have figured this is a waiting game and they can just let MoviePass die and go back to business as usual...

overcast 8y ago
I thought that was blatantly obvious from the very start? Their entire business model is to gain enough subscribers, that they can use to leverage theaters.
djrogers 8y ago
That's addressed toward the end of the article - basically the AMC CEO calling the pricing Moviepass wanted 'ridiculous', and saying it's not sustainable.
- bpicolo 8y ago
  He's not wrong
crysin 8y ago
Cinemark came out with their own subscription service. Not the same type of deal as MoviePass but still, it made me decide to go with theirs over MoviePass. Sure it means I'm locked in to Cinemark only if I want to make use of it but I know my benefits of the sub won't change month to month.
NegativeK 8y ago
They explicitly tried that with AMC, by denying customer access to the top ten AMC theaters in the US to prove that Moviepass has market pull. I found out in the lobby of the AMC, bought my own damn ticket, and mulled over cancelling Moviepass for two weeks. AMC didn't blink, though, so those theaters were re-enabled right before I was about to switch to Sinemia.

robbintt 8y ago

I don't think I would subscribe for this - good movies are seasonal and if the movie isn't good the theater would need to pay me to go, maybe $250 would be a good fee for me to go to a movie of unknown quality.

X-Istence 8y ago

I like my movie pass, and it has gotten me to the theatre more than I would have in the past... I aim for at least 1 movie a month, because a movie ticket costs 20 cents more than my movie pass subscription. If I go twice in a month I can skip a month and not feel bad. I don't buy concessions though, so theres no money to be made there. Only being able to see a feature film once, not something I am entirely happy about because I'd have liked to see the new Avengers twice, but I can live with it. It does allow me to go to a movie I wouldn't usually see just because it's "free".