13 ms·

Moviepass worked great when it handed you $2 of VC money for every dollar, but I appreciate the fact that it did end up disrupting the market as it died. Most

Moviepass worked great when it handed you $2 of VC money for every dollar, but I appreciate the fact that it did end up disrupting the market as it died. Most of the big chain now offer Moviepass-esque premium services. AMC now charges like what, $12 a month for 2-3 movies / week? That's how much individual tickets cost in the bay, so as long as a person watches even a single movie a month they're breaking even!

Rebelgecko 7y ago
AMC changes their pricing based on where you live. It's $24/month in California
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Still movies are also more expensive there too so it probably works out and they're actually making money off concessions so unlike MoviePass they do benefit some from people using the service more.
- Spivak 7y ago
  This is kind of a stupid question, is it based on the billing address or something? Does your price go up or down if you move?
  - Lucadg 7y ago
    I suppose it depends on the theater location?
  - brewdad 7y ago
    Regal Cinemas recently started a similar program. There are 3 tiers of membership and every theater in their chain is assigned to a tier. For me, there are no local theaters in the lowest tier and only the newest, nicest theater is in the highest tier.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    For Regal, you choose your "home" theater and it's based on that. If you choose the cheapest tier, then you have to pay an additional fee for tickets at theaters in the higher two tiers. If you pick the most expensive tier, then you don't pay any extra fees for tickets at that tier of theaters or any lower-tier theaters. If you get all your tickets at the theater itself, you pay no fees at all beyond the monthly subscription. (However, 4dx, 3D, and "PLF"/Imax showings are always treated as "higher" tier than your current plan, even on the highest-tier plan, and always incur an extra fee. Per Deadspin, Regal is still trying to decide whether to offer those as part of an unlimited monthly plan.) If you have a Regal membership, you still get points for purchases at 100:$1, including your monthly subscription payment.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    AMC has 3 or 4 different price tiers based on region, I'm assuming using your billing address. They let you see 3 movies a year at theaters in more expensive regions. I think that's a pretty fair way of doing it—prevents people from signing up with a fake address to save money, but you can still take advantage of the service occasionally if you're traveling.
umvi 7y ago
That's a pretty good deal for them too. It doesn't cost very much for a butt to be in a seat for 2 hours, but just getting them in the door more often increases the chances of high margin concession purchases. Plus there are always the people that subscribe-and-forget
- jfengel 7y ago
  Any idea how they get the movie distributors to buy into it? The infrastructure cost overhead is small, but as I understand it, most of the cost of a movie ticket ends up going straight to the distributor. I doubt the distributor wants them giving away complimentary tickets without getting something. I'm not sure how these deals are structured, whether there's a per-viewing cost or a bulk "we rent this movie and show it as many times as we want to whoever we want".
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    Theaters generally pay the distributor per showtime, not per ticket sold (IIRC). So a distributor makes the same amount for an empty showtime as a full one. Theaters then price tickets to optimize towards fully covering the amount they paid to air the film, making their profits on concessions. So while you're right that most of the costs of a ticket go to the distributor, that's not related to number of tickets sold, it's that tickets are priced to cover the costs already paid. If someone knows more about this and has a source confirming, clarifying, or correcting me, please share, as I've been interested in this for a long time.
    - jfengel 7y ago
      Interesting. Thanks
    - jzl 7y ago
      Reference? I've never heard that before. Sounds highly unlikely. Would be fascinated to see evidence showing otherwise. What is true is that the studios take a higher percentage of ticket sales during opening week, possibly 55-65% or more in some cases. I believe it depends on the movie. The percentage starts to flatten out back below 50% in the following weeks. So it's true that the theater chains do want to optimize for concession sales, since so few films have legs these days. EDIT: I originally wrote that the studios sometimes take 90% during opening week. I found an article that purports this to be a very rare if not apocryphal number: https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-is-distributed/ https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-i...
slg 7y ago
> I appreciate the fact that it did end up disrupting the market as it died. It might be too early to say that for sure. The AMC service was created when MoviePass was still a player and was very much a response to them. I believe AMC also only committed to that pricing for a single year and we just recently passed that 1 year anniversary. Now that MoviePass is functionally dead, there is little stopping AMC from raising prices to the extent that basically kills this model for the average consumer. We might soon find ourselves back in a market similar to the early days of MoviePass when one of these unlimited subscriptions costs $30-50 and is only viable for an incredibly small group of moviegoers.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  I'm not sure AMC would want to kill off this service. First, having subscribed customers is a much more reliable source of revenue than depending on the next big blockbuster so you can profit off the popcorn. Second, AMC doesn't lose nearly as much money per movie because they make money back on refreshments and there are almost always extra seats in the theaters. Furthermore, what's to stop AMC from saying a person who saw Avengers 3 times from really reporting that they only saw it once? I'm not sure how that whole process works but in theory, AMC could hide how many movies are actually seen in order to limit payment to studios for tickets purchased.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    Also, like gym memberships, the utilization is almost certainly nowhere near 100%. I bet they make far more money from people who have the pass but average <1 movie per month than they lose from people who maximize the "free" movies.
    - ProAm 7y ago
      > the utilization is almost certainly nowhere near 100% I read a study a few years back and the average American adult sees 1-2 movies per year in a theater. I dont have the info anymore but I agree wholeheartedly
philjohn 7y ago
It's super odd this is a new thing to the US - UGC in the UK (which has eventually become Cineworld) was already offering an unlimited monthly pass in the late 90's It's still offered, and at £17.99 (and a 20% discount on food) it's a good price if you watch more than 2 movies a month.
- casefields 7y ago
  In the last 2 years there hasn't been a single discussion of MoviePass without someone like you confused and detailing how the UK has had it for years. We get it. We really do.
  - philjohn 7y ago
    Sorry! First time I'd seen someone make the point, it also made me wonder why moviepass was even a thing as I assumed movie chains in the US would do the same thing.
- OJFord 7y ago
  Is 'MoviePass' limited to one cinema chain? AFAIK Cineworld's unlimited pass is only good for films at its own cinemas?
  - philjohn 7y ago
    That's true, MoviePass was at any cinema AFAIK. It's somewhat of a moot point though, my nearest cinema is a Cineworld, and the next 2 closest are as well, I'd have to travel out of my way to go to an Odeon or Showcase.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  Yeah, I am puzzled that MoviePass supposedly proved this model, when US cinema chains often have ownership of international subsidiaries that were doing it before MoviePass was conceived.
tareqak 7y ago
https://www.amctheatres.com/amcstubs/alist https://www.amctheatres.com/amcstubs/alist says > Our plan prices are determined by geography and may vary by location. > Choose any format, including IMAX® and Dolby Cinema.
pkroll 7y ago
AMC A-List is $21.95/month, not counting NY, CA, CT, MA, NJ. That's the 3-movie-a-week subscription.
dogma1138 7y ago
Are theaters even breaking even on screenings? From what I understood the economics are based on the value added services AKA the food crap as well as merch for the larger box office hits. I think the idea behind movie pass was basically the same economics as behind a gym as long as most people don’t take the full advantage of their membership and are tied to a contract they’ll make money if everyone does it’s a different ball game. The problem with movie pass is that their model is too easy to replicate by the theater chains and cut them off, i really don’t understand why they got VC funding even if they could scale to the point of making a profit this model simply can’t be easily protected against competitors especially when the competitors are part of your service supply chain.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  I think at 10$, it was way to cheap to even survive on the gym-economics. I think the plan was to build a huge userbase, and then use that as leverage to: 1. get better prices from theaters to send users there 2. make deals with studios to send users to their movie 3. make deals with nearby stores to send users there it backfired when all the theaters called the bluff and just started their own membership program, and held out until Moviepass bled out all their VC money.
- rurban 7y ago
  Theatres are not breaking even, that's why they were all bought by the studios which control now everything: production, marketing, distribution. A typical cartel. And they use their power to distribute lower quality and conquer foreign markets to disrupt that market also. A theatre is only a small part in that chain.
- megaremote 7y ago
  It is complicated. The share US theaters pay studios changes each week. So studios want films with up front popularity, studios want sleeper hits.
scarface74 7y ago
It’s at least $23 a month. AMC negotiated with the production companies to book each movie seen as costing $8.99. They then give the studios between 40-70% of that. Movie theaters have always made their money on high margin concessions and more recently alcohol sells. They also make money from ads showing before the movie. AMC is not losing money from the deal.
- listenallyall 7y ago
  This is not true. AMC decided on its own to base reimbursements to studios on an average ticket price of 8.99. There was no negotiation, and no guarantee studios will continue to accept this rate. So far, studios are taking a watch-and-see attitude, hoping the overall quantity increases but currently, a studio exec sums it up by saying "I'm taking a haircut". https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/06/25/amc-subscription-offer-raises-studios-eyebrows.html https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/06/25/amc-s...
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So exactly what are you saying different than what I said? AMC couldn’t “decide on their own” without getting the studios to agree with the rate. The studios have all sorts of leverage.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      Do you not understand what negotiating is? AMC made up a number, they didn't ask the studios nor have the studios agreed on that number going forward. If I've hired you to mow my lawn for $50 every week, and then one day I choose to only leave $45 in the envelope, that's not a negotiation.
      - jonny_eh 7y ago
        But if you show up, you've agreed to the offer. The studios are still cooperating, thereby implicitly agreeing to the terms. It sounds like you're getting hung up on whether there's a signed contract somewhere.

Rebelgecko 7y ago

AMC changes their pricing based on where you live. It's $24/month in California

rtkwe 7y ago
Still movies are also more expensive there too so it probably works out and they're actually making money off concessions so unlike MoviePass they do benefit some from people using the service more.
Spivak 7y ago
This is kind of a stupid question, is it based on the billing address or something? Does your price go up or down if you move?
- Lucadg 7y ago
  I suppose it depends on the theater location?
- brewdad 7y ago
  Regal Cinemas recently started a similar program. There are 3 tiers of membership and every theater in their chain is assigned to a tier. For me, there are no local theaters in the lowest tier and only the newest, nicest theater is in the highest tier.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  For Regal, you choose your "home" theater and it's based on that. If you choose the cheapest tier, then you have to pay an additional fee for tickets at theaters in the higher two tiers. If you pick the most expensive tier, then you don't pay any extra fees for tickets at that tier of theaters or any lower-tier theaters. If you get all your tickets at the theater itself, you pay no fees at all beyond the monthly subscription. (However, 4dx, 3D, and "PLF"/Imax showings are always treated as "higher" tier than your current plan, even on the highest-tier plan, and always incur an extra fee. Per Deadspin, Regal is still trying to decide whether to offer those as part of an unlimited monthly plan.) If you have a Regal membership, you still get points for purchases at 100:$1, including your monthly subscription payment.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  AMC has 3 or 4 different price tiers based on region, I'm assuming using your billing address. They let you see 3 movies a year at theaters in more expensive regions. I think that's a pretty fair way of doing it—prevents people from signing up with a fake address to save money, but you can still take advantage of the service occasionally if you're traveling.

umvi 7y ago

That's a pretty good deal for them too. It doesn't cost very much for a butt to be in a seat for 2 hours, but just getting them in the door more often increases the chances of high margin concession purchases. Plus there are always the people that subscribe-and-forget

jfengel 7y ago
Any idea how they get the movie distributors to buy into it? The infrastructure cost overhead is small, but as I understand it, most of the cost of a movie ticket ends up going straight to the distributor. I doubt the distributor wants them giving away complimentary tickets without getting something. I'm not sure how these deals are structured, whether there's a per-viewing cost or a bulk "we rent this movie and show it as many times as we want to whoever we want".
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Theaters generally pay the distributor per showtime, not per ticket sold (IIRC). So a distributor makes the same amount for an empty showtime as a full one. Theaters then price tickets to optimize towards fully covering the amount they paid to air the film, making their profits on concessions. So while you're right that most of the costs of a ticket go to the distributor, that's not related to number of tickets sold, it's that tickets are priced to cover the costs already paid. If someone knows more about this and has a source confirming, clarifying, or correcting me, please share, as I've been interested in this for a long time.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    Interesting. Thanks
  - jzl 7y ago
    Reference? I've never heard that before. Sounds highly unlikely. Would be fascinated to see evidence showing otherwise. What is true is that the studios take a higher percentage of ticket sales during opening week, possibly 55-65% or more in some cases. I believe it depends on the movie. The percentage starts to flatten out back below 50% in the following weeks. So it's true that the theater chains do want to optimize for concession sales, since so few films have legs these days. EDIT: I originally wrote that the studios sometimes take 90% during opening week. I found an article that purports this to be a very rare if not apocryphal number: https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-is-distributed/ https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-i...

slg 7y ago

> I appreciate the fact that it did end up disrupting the market as it died. It might be too early to say that for sure. The AMC service was created when MoviePass was still a player and was very much a response to them. I believe AMC also only committed to that pricing for a single year and we just recently passed that 1 year anniversary. Now that MoviePass is functionally dead, there is little stopping AMC from raising prices to the extent that basically kills this model for the average consumer. We might soon find ourselves back in a market similar to the early days of MoviePass when one of these unlimited subscriptions costs $30-50 and is only viable for an incredibly small group of moviegoers.

blackflame7000 7y ago
I'm not sure AMC would want to kill off this service. First, having subscribed customers is a much more reliable source of revenue than depending on the next big blockbuster so you can profit off the popcorn. Second, AMC doesn't lose nearly as much money per movie because they make money back on refreshments and there are almost always extra seats in the theaters. Furthermore, what's to stop AMC from saying a person who saw Avengers 3 times from really reporting that they only saw it once? I'm not sure how that whole process works but in theory, AMC could hide how many movies are actually seen in order to limit payment to studios for tickets purchased.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Also, like gym memberships, the utilization is almost certainly nowhere near 100%. I bet they make far more money from people who have the pass but average <1 movie per month than they lose from people who maximize the "free" movies.
  - ProAm 7y ago
    > the utilization is almost certainly nowhere near 100% I read a study a few years back and the average American adult sees 1-2 movies per year in a theater. I dont have the info anymore but I agree wholeheartedly

philjohn 7y ago

It's super odd this is a new thing to the US - UGC in the UK (which has eventually become Cineworld) was already offering an unlimited monthly pass in the late 90's It's still offered, and at £17.99 (and a 20% discount on food) it's a good price if you watch more than 2 movies a month.

casefields 7y ago
In the last 2 years there hasn't been a single discussion of MoviePass without someone like you confused and detailing how the UK has had it for years. We get it. We really do.
- philjohn 7y ago
  Sorry! First time I'd seen someone make the point, it also made me wonder why moviepass was even a thing as I assumed movie chains in the US would do the same thing.
OJFord 7y ago
Is 'MoviePass' limited to one cinema chain? AFAIK Cineworld's unlimited pass is only good for films at its own cinemas?
- philjohn 7y ago
  That's true, MoviePass was at any cinema AFAIK. It's somewhat of a moot point though, my nearest cinema is a Cineworld, and the next 2 closest are as well, I'd have to travel out of my way to go to an Odeon or Showcase.
Mindwipe 7y ago
Yeah, I am puzzled that MoviePass supposedly proved this model, when US cinema chains often have ownership of international subsidiaries that were doing it before MoviePass was conceived.

tareqak 7y ago

https://www.amctheatres.com/amcstubs/alist https://www.amctheatres.com/amcstubs/alist says > Our plan prices are determined by geography and may vary by location. > Choose any format, including IMAX® and Dolby Cinema.

pkroll 7y ago

AMC A-List is $21.95/month, not counting NY, CA, CT, MA, NJ. That's the 3-movie-a-week subscription.

dogma1138 7y ago

Are theaters even breaking even on screenings? From what I understood the economics are based on the value added services AKA the food crap as well as merch for the larger box office hits. I think the idea behind movie pass was basically the same economics as behind a gym as long as most people don’t take the full advantage of their membership and are tied to a contract they’ll make money if everyone does it’s a different ball game. The problem with movie pass is that their model is too easy to replicate by the theater chains and cut them off, i really don’t understand why they got VC funding even if they could scale to the point of making a profit this model simply can’t be easily protected against competitors especially when the competitors are part of your service supply chain.

ehsankia 7y ago
I think at 10$, it was way to cheap to even survive on the gym-economics. I think the plan was to build a huge userbase, and then use that as leverage to: 1. get better prices from theaters to send users there 2. make deals with studios to send users to their movie 3. make deals with nearby stores to send users there it backfired when all the theaters called the bluff and just started their own membership program, and held out until Moviepass bled out all their VC money.
rurban 7y ago
Theatres are not breaking even, that's why they were all bought by the studios which control now everything: production, marketing, distribution. A typical cartel. And they use their power to distribute lower quality and conquer foreign markets to disrupt that market also. A theatre is only a small part in that chain.
megaremote 7y ago
It is complicated. The share US theaters pay studios changes each week. So studios want films with up front popularity, studios want sleeper hits.

scarface74 7y ago

It’s at least $23 a month. AMC negotiated with the production companies to book each movie seen as costing $8.99. They then give the studios between 40-70% of that. Movie theaters have always made their money on high margin concessions and more recently alcohol sells. They also make money from ads showing before the movie. AMC is not losing money from the deal.

listenallyall 7y ago
This is not true. AMC decided on its own to base reimbursements to studios on an average ticket price of 8.99. There was no negotiation, and no guarantee studios will continue to accept this rate. So far, studios are taking a watch-and-see attitude, hoping the overall quantity increases but currently, a studio exec sums it up by saying "I'm taking a haircut". https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/06/25/amc-subscription-offer-raises-studios-eyebrows.html https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/06/25/amc-s...
- scarface74 7y ago
  So exactly what are you saying different than what I said? AMC couldn’t “decide on their own” without getting the studios to agree with the rate. The studios have all sorts of leverage.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    Do you not understand what negotiating is? AMC made up a number, they didn't ask the studios nor have the studios agreed on that number going forward. If I've hired you to mow my lawn for $50 every week, and then one day I choose to only leave $45 in the envelope, that's not a negotiation.
    - jonny_eh 7y ago
      But if you show up, you've agreed to the offer. The studios are still cooperating, thereby implicitly agreeing to the terms. It sounds like you're getting hung up on whether there's a signed contract somewhere.