12 ms·
The idea is fine. The execution was garbage. They created a race to the bottom that no one felt compelled to join.
by tnypxl 8y ago
The idea is fine. The execution was garbage. They created a race to the bottom that no one felt compelled to join.
- RodgerTheGreat 8y agoThe race to the bottom seemed to be an attempt to capture a userbase which could then be directed at particular films whose publishers paid MoviePass or used directly as a cudgel in negotiating better pricing from theaters. Might have worked eventually if they had been able to keep bleeding money. As a consumer, I think I got a much better deal out of AMC crushing this particular middle-man before things got out of control.
- kardos 8y agoOnce MoviePass folds, what would be AMC's incentive to keep A-List going?
- ceejayoz 8y agoAMC gets concession revenues. It may well be that losing money on tickets is made up for by increased sales of popcorn, drinks, candy, etc.
- rtkwe 8y agoThey still want to pull in more people that may buy high margin concessions. Their per user costs are pretty low they can cut the price per ticket down to pretty much the amount they have to pay the studio.
- wvenable 8y agoIt was the clearest example of a start-up designed to build marketshare without any idea how to profit from that marketshare. Anybody can create a business trading $5 for $6 dollars and get millions of subscribers but that doesn't make that business idea good.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoMy understanding is that their entire idea is the race to the bottom. What's the fine idea I'm missing?
- imtringued 8y agoThey started the subscription service at $50 per month which was sustainable. It only started going downhill when they reduced the price to $10 per month. They had to reduce the selection of movies you can watch. Cutting 80% of the price obviously means cutting at least 80% of the service.
- CodeWriter23 8y agoThe idea is a feature, not a standalone product.