4 ms·
Movie theater chains running the subscription on their own is much more viable. They are paying per showtime anyway so a full or empty theater doesn't make them
by moftz 7y ago
Movie theater chains running the subscription on their own is much more viable. They are paying per showtime anyway so a full or empty theater doesn't make them any money but the concessions do. Paying for extras like comfy chairs or food is how they get their money. Offering a monthly subscription that only covers tickets would really be the best option for them. They get more people in the theater that might feel obligated to buying food since they didn't just have to buy a ticket.
- snark42 7y ago> They are paying per showtime anyway so a full or empty theater doesn't make them any money but the concessions do. Perhaps, but the distributor (who gets 40-90% of the ticket cost) would have to agree to it somehow,.
- moftz 7y agoRight, you cut them in on the subscription fees. The theater gets more people willing to go to the movies and the distributor gets pretty much a guaranteed income every month. Figure out the average amount of money people spend on movies every year, divide by 12, and make that the monthly fee. The distributor would see mostly the same income (holiday months might bring in less than years past but the slow months would bring in more than usual). If the average movie goer sees one movie per month with a ticket costing $12, make that the monthly fee. Offer tiered subscriptions if it helps reduce people from going too often. It's like a gym membership. People like having the option to go to the gym whenever they want. Many gyms offer a per use fees but if you want to go more than once or twice a month, it is cheaper to have the membership. Actual operating costs are fairly low (machines aren't too expensive to fix and clean) but the real money maker is in all of the extra goods and services that you pay extra for.