5 ms·

I don't spend $240 a year at the theatre and I have no intention of starting now. If this is the best AMC can do while keeping a margin, then we might be in tr

I don't spend $240 a year at the theatre and I have no intention of starting now. If this is the best AMC can do while keeping a margin, then we might be in trouble.

ghaff 8y ago
I'm not sure why "we might be in trouble." I'm certainly not the target for this. I maybe go out to one or two movies a year and cost really doesn't have anything to do with it. Pretty much any subscription plan has to be priced for fairly heavy users--and there are people for whom going out to a movie a week is pretty common. You probably don't subscribe to HBO if you flip it on once a month (though admittedly that sometimes seems to be the case for me).
nightski 8y ago
That's even just for a single person in the household! If my significant other & I wanted to do this it would be $480/year on movies. That is insane, we generally spend well under $100. I like Marcus theatres' $5 Tuesday Movie night. It's unrestricted and you can go to brand new releases for $5 / ticket. It's really the only way we go to the theater now.
- giobox 8y ago
  > It's unrestricted and you can go to brand new releases for $5 / ticket Except that you can only go on a Tuesday night. A pretty clear restriction. FWIW, in many European countries similar services operate very successfully for approximately around the $20 per month park. If it's not suitable for you personally, don't buy it, but it's clearly workable for a lot of people. For me this would work out ok with just two movie visits a month.
  - nightski 8y ago
    I meant unrestricted in content (New releases, stadium seating, 3D, etc...) as I thought I was being pretty up front with the day restriction. It's not a service either. You can just go if you feel like it. But hey if someone feels like they get $480/year of value out of the movies then do not let me persuade you otherwise! I subscribe to plenty of services.
Felz 8y ago
This is very interesting, because I wouldn't want to spend that much on movies either. Yet a decade ago, people were happy paying $1000 a year for a cable subscription. Not directly the same value proposition, but similar. It seems like the price people are willing to pay for entertainment has gone down significantly, in sync with it becoming far cheaper and more abundant. So movie theaters are in trouble if they're selling entertainment by quantity, because the supply only goes up. I think they're more successful selling cultural commonality; you watch the latest popular release so that you can talk about it with other people, and the marketing has already gotten you excited about it. (I find being pre-excited about something and thus not having to learn about and pick from a huge array of options a value-add all on its own)
- ghaff 8y ago
  >Yet a decade ago, people were happy paying $1000 a year for a cable subscription. Many still do. Including myself but this will probably be the year I drop it even though I get no live TV otherwise.
  - throwaway413 8y ago
    Without a doubt my favorite subscription has been YouTube TV. Can’t recommend enough (no affiliation whatsoever).
    - ghaff 8y ago
      It's definitely an option. Though I suspect that, with my Internet bundle, dropping cable and adding this probably wouldn't save me a huge amount of money.
      - nervousvarun 8y ago
        Yeah this is the boat I'm in. Cut the cord almost 10 years ago now (I do live in a town with decent over the air digital) and saved money at first but the "trend" has been to just slowly up the cost of internet. With a subscription to Netflix ($11) and YoutubeTV ($40) + our base internet cost (~80$/month for 100MB down) we don't actually save much over the TV/internet bundles...if at all. I'm at $130 which is essentially where we were before...just not all going to the same provider now I guess. For areas like where I live with terrible fiber coverage, the cable industry still effectively has a stranglehold.
rhino369 8y ago
If you aren't a frequent movie goer, why would you want a service like moviepass in the first place. Just pay as you go.
- kakarot 8y ago
  Moviepass seemed like a great value to me, however I never got around to actually getting the pass. I usually just go to the matinee by myself in the afternoon and it's pretty cheap that way. But just once or twice a month. Moviepass at $120/y breaks even with that and so would actually entice me to see more movies and maybe even actually get some concessions from time to time.
Tenhundfeld 8y ago
Average ticket price in the US is about $9. If you prefer watching movies at night (non-matinee prices) or prefer IMAX or 3D, your average ticket price would be much higher. But let's just say it's $10 for a nice round number. So that's 24 movies per year, 2 per month. That's not an insanely high number. I certainly don't come close to that now; with a family and the hassle of getting a babysitter, etc., I'm closer to the national average of 5 movies per year. But when I was younger, in HS & college, I probably saw around 24: one each weekend during the summer (nice cold theater to get out of the heat), a few around the holidays, and a few scattered throughout the year. And if you really enjoy IMAX and/or 3D, your average would be at least $16-20 per ticket, which means you'd only need to see 12-15 movies per year for the math to be favorable. There are about 50 million people in that HS & college age range in the US. So yeah, I agree that this plan does not hold much appeal personally, but that seems like a pretty big market to me. I certainly would have loved this as a birthday/holiday present when I was younger.

I don't spend $240 a year at the theatre and I have no intention of starting now. If this is the best AMC can do while keeping a margin, then we might be in trouble.

ghaff 8y ago

I'm not sure why "we might be in trouble." I'm certainly not the target for this. I maybe go out to one or two movies a year and cost really doesn't have anything to do with it. Pretty much any subscription plan has to be priced for fairly heavy users--and there are people for whom going out to a movie a week is pretty common. You probably don't subscribe to HBO if you flip it on once a month (though admittedly that sometimes seems to be the case for me).

nightski 8y ago

That's even just for a single person in the household! If my significant other & I wanted to do this it would be $480/year on movies. That is insane, we generally spend well under $100. I like Marcus theatres' $5 Tuesday Movie night. It's unrestricted and you can go to brand new releases for $5 / ticket. It's really the only way we go to the theater now.

giobox 8y ago
> It's unrestricted and you can go to brand new releases for $5 / ticket Except that you can only go on a Tuesday night. A pretty clear restriction. FWIW, in many European countries similar services operate very successfully for approximately around the $20 per month park. If it's not suitable for you personally, don't buy it, but it's clearly workable for a lot of people. For me this would work out ok with just two movie visits a month.
- nightski 8y ago
  I meant unrestricted in content (New releases, stadium seating, 3D, etc...) as I thought I was being pretty up front with the day restriction. It's not a service either. You can just go if you feel like it. But hey if someone feels like they get $480/year of value out of the movies then do not let me persuade you otherwise! I subscribe to plenty of services.

Felz 8y ago

This is very interesting, because I wouldn't want to spend that much on movies either. Yet a decade ago, people were happy paying $1000 a year for a cable subscription. Not directly the same value proposition, but similar. It seems like the price people are willing to pay for entertainment has gone down significantly, in sync with it becoming far cheaper and more abundant. So movie theaters are in trouble if they're selling entertainment by quantity, because the supply only goes up. I think they're more successful selling cultural commonality; you watch the latest popular release so that you can talk about it with other people, and the marketing has already gotten you excited about it. (I find being pre-excited about something and thus not having to learn about and pick from a huge array of options a value-add all on its own)

ghaff 8y ago
>Yet a decade ago, people were happy paying $1000 a year for a cable subscription. Many still do. Including myself but this will probably be the year I drop it even though I get no live TV otherwise.
- throwaway413 8y ago
  Without a doubt my favorite subscription has been YouTube TV. Can’t recommend enough (no affiliation whatsoever).
  - ghaff 8y ago
    It's definitely an option. Though I suspect that, with my Internet bundle, dropping cable and adding this probably wouldn't save me a huge amount of money.
    - nervousvarun 8y ago
      Yeah this is the boat I'm in. Cut the cord almost 10 years ago now (I do live in a town with decent over the air digital) and saved money at first but the "trend" has been to just slowly up the cost of internet. With a subscription to Netflix ($11) and YoutubeTV ($40) + our base internet cost (~80$/month for 100MB down) we don't actually save much over the TV/internet bundles...if at all. I'm at $130 which is essentially where we were before...just not all going to the same provider now I guess. For areas like where I live with terrible fiber coverage, the cable industry still effectively has a stranglehold.

rhino369 8y ago

If you aren't a frequent movie goer, why would you want a service like moviepass in the first place. Just pay as you go.

kakarot 8y ago
Moviepass seemed like a great value to me, however I never got around to actually getting the pass. I usually just go to the matinee by myself in the afternoon and it's pretty cheap that way. But just once or twice a month. Moviepass at $120/y breaks even with that and so would actually entice me to see more movies and maybe even actually get some concessions from time to time.

Tenhundfeld 8y ago

Average ticket price in the US is about $9. If you prefer watching movies at night (non-matinee prices) or prefer IMAX or 3D, your average ticket price would be much higher. But let's just say it's $10 for a nice round number. So that's 24 movies per year, 2 per month. That's not an insanely high number. I certainly don't come close to that now; with a family and the hassle of getting a babysitter, etc., I'm closer to the national average of 5 movies per year. But when I was younger, in HS & college, I probably saw around 24: one each weekend during the summer (nice cold theater to get out of the heat), a few around the holidays, and a few scattered throughout the year. And if you really enjoy IMAX and/or 3D, your average would be at least $16-20 per ticket, which means you'd only need to see 12-15 movies per year for the math to be favorable. There are about 50 million people in that HS & college age range in the US. So yeah, I agree that this plan does not hold much appeal personally, but that seems like a pretty big market to me. I certainly would have loved this as a birthday/holiday present when I was younger.