3 ms·

It doesn't need to be that restrictive. Just a couple of dollars more than a one standard deviation consumer's monthly spend (or whatever they settle on). The

It doesn't need to be that restrictive. Just a couple of dollars more than a one standard deviation consumer's monthly spend (or whatever they settle on). The unit cost of one person in a cinema is normally negligible after all, so a specific cinema just need to convince members to spend a little more, and to always spend it at their cinema. Moviepass does neither of these things. This is definitely a model which can work for cinemas. Just not at this price point and business model.

jchw 8y ago
Here's the problem, or at least part of it; executives don't usually give a damn what the most reasonable option is. This comes across their desk and they want to know how much they can get away with. It may not need to be that restrictive, sure... but the question they're looking at is how restrictive it can be while still netting a profit. The other problem is that I think the cost of someone using a subscription service will be higher than the average moviegoer, simply because going to the movies often is cost prohibitive for a lot of people.
- batiudrami 8y ago
  Sure but if cinemas aren't full (and they rarely are except for opening weekend) the actual cost of having someone in the theatre is nothing. If the target customer sees 2 movies @$12 each a month it doesn't matter if they see 10 at $30 total as long as they aren't filling the cinema - the cinema is still making $6 more off them, plus any snacks they buy. Maybe it's a matter of just not allowing subscription passes for opening weekend (or only at the door if it's undersold rather than in advance). Maybe you get your seat allocated at ticket pick up rather than in advance so full-fare paying customers get the best seats. There's obviously going to be a compromise somewhere, but it doesn't have to be unworkable.
  - mjmahone17 8y ago
    Do theaters pay studios per showing or per ticket sold? If it’s per ticket sold, then monthly passes could be cost prohibitive for theaters: they would end up eating the cost of people going to 5 movies in a week, while owing the studios more. If they pay per showing, then monthly subscriptions with caveats like “only 30 seats for monthly passes available, until an hour before the show, when all seats become available” could make sense.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Do theaters pay studios per showing or per ticket sold? Percentage of revenue, i.e. per ticket sold [1]. That said, the studios' take rates vary "as you move into the second and third weeks of release," when "the percentage starts to swing to" a greater take rate for the cinema. A movie pass which blacks out the first N weeks after release could thus be economical (if something the studios would fight tooth and nail).
      - erik_seaberg 8y ago
        There are some super shady deals here. If you want to be able to show $BLOCKBUSTER, you might have to agree to pay for a minimum of N seats/day of showings of $UTTER_CRAP. If nobody shows up, the studio still gets paid, and of course the stars of $BLOCKBUSTER don't see a cent of that money.
      - Retric 8y ago
        There is nothing long term about these contracts. Movie studios can change the deal at any time and theaters have almost zero leverage.

jchw 8y ago

Here's the problem, or at least part of it; executives don't usually give a damn what the most reasonable option is. This comes across their desk and they want to know how much they can get away with. It may not need to be that restrictive, sure... but the question they're looking at is how restrictive it can be while still netting a profit. The other problem is that I think the cost of someone using a subscription service will be higher than the average moviegoer, simply because going to the movies often is cost prohibitive for a lot of people.

batiudrami 8y ago
Sure but if cinemas aren't full (and they rarely are except for opening weekend) the actual cost of having someone in the theatre is nothing. If the target customer sees 2 movies @$12 each a month it doesn't matter if they see 10 at $30 total as long as they aren't filling the cinema - the cinema is still making $6 more off them, plus any snacks they buy. Maybe it's a matter of just not allowing subscription passes for opening weekend (or only at the door if it's undersold rather than in advance). Maybe you get your seat allocated at ticket pick up rather than in advance so full-fare paying customers get the best seats. There's obviously going to be a compromise somewhere, but it doesn't have to be unworkable.
- mjmahone17 8y ago
  Do theaters pay studios per showing or per ticket sold? If it’s per ticket sold, then monthly passes could be cost prohibitive for theaters: they would end up eating the cost of people going to 5 movies in a week, while owing the studios more. If they pay per showing, then monthly subscriptions with caveats like “only 30 seats for monthly passes available, until an hour before the show, when all seats become available” could make sense.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Do theaters pay studios per showing or per ticket sold? Percentage of revenue, i.e. per ticket sold [1]. That said, the studios' take rates vary "as you move into the second and third weeks of release," when "the percentage starts to swing to" a greater take rate for the cinema. A movie pass which blacks out the first N weeks after release could thus be economical (if something the studios would fight tooth and nail).
    - erik_seaberg 8y ago
      There are some super shady deals here. If you want to be able to show $BLOCKBUSTER, you might have to agree to pay for a minimum of N seats/day of showings of $UTTER_CRAP. If nobody shows up, the studio still gets paid, and of course the stars of $BLOCKBUSTER don't see a cent of that money.
    - Retric 8y ago
      There is nothing long term about these contracts. Movie studios can change the deal at any time and theaters have almost zero leverage.