6 ms·

That tells me that AOL paid a lot for the company, but it doesn't tell me why, unless I'm missing something obvious (which is quite possible, sorry if so). Did

by cannam 7y ago

That tells me that AOL paid a lot for the company, but it doesn't tell me why, unless I'm missing something obvious (which is quite possible, sorry if so). Did they do anything interesting on the internet, either then or later, or was the deal purely aspirational?

reaperducer 7y ago
Overpaying for an information service is pretty much the definition of 1990's dotcomishness. Today, too.
- gumby 7y ago
  Who knows if they overpaid? Perhaps they made a profit on it even though it's now worthless. Carriage makers, haberdashers and mechanical accounting machine manufacturers had good profitable businesses at their appropriate times, even if now such businesses are marginal and specialized, to the extent they even exist (not the last one, certainly)
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > Perhaps they made a profit on it even though it's now worthless. Not a profit on 388 million, unless you use that magical "big business/hollywood" mechanic of attributing revenue to things that happened alongside the actual sale. You saw 1 ad for a tv and bought a tv? That's a 600$ attribution to that ad campaign!
    - gumby 7y ago
      They had at least a decade to get revenue and I'm sure they were paid by the studios and the theatres. I don't know the finances but it's well within the realm of possibility.
      - Supermancho 7y ago
        It was a loss leader to lure subscribers and that was during the wild overvaluation of properties. I'd bet the money I do have, that it made back a fraction of that (without using creative accounting). How many people do you think were influenced to use AOL (as it mentioned in the moviephone recordings "brought to you by AOL") because of moviephone? It's surely 0. Do you think the studios EVER paid for anything moviephone offered? That's a no. Moviephone's online portion (where you could actually order things) was acquired about 2 years after the AOL purchase. It was a dog the whole way, which you can tell by the synopsis on wikipedia (or having lived during the heyday). By 2000, something like yahoo movies was a superior way to get information and order tickets. Maybe they made a bit on The Phantom Menace, but they would often be oversaturated and you would get a busy signal during that time.
appleshore 7y ago
I think they thought web traffic was more foundational or sticky. There was this idea of first mover advantage, whoever captured the most traffic could easily sustain it or have it help other services. But maybe it just benefited quarterly results / corporate forces.
dave_sullivan 7y ago
It was a phone number you could call to get movie showtimes. It was an automated call system. But I guess it integrated a bunch of data sources together well and had a decent phone-based user interface? This was a time where the internet wasn't quite prevalent enough to support the idea, but phones were. The idea of calling a phone number for up-to-date movie listings was kind of revolutionary at the time. There was a tech component but it wasn't a dot com and the whole thing is kind of laughable when viewed from today. It was popular enough to have a Seinfeld episode reference it.
michaelbuckbee 7y ago
They were a service that was uniquely suited to the time of general widespread cellphone usage but pre-smartphone usage. You'd call the Moviefone number and get a phone tree for local theaters and then movie times. They were uniquely positioned to grab people and pitch them a movie at exactly the moment they were trying to find a movie (which doesn't sound revolutionary, but at the time the overall culture of movies and trailers wasn't nearly what it is and people were relying on the local paper for times). As a result, they were charging millions for ad placements - it's entirely possible that on a cash basis that AOL made their money back from the purchase simply because they were able to bundle advertising packages. Studios spend stupid amounts of money to promote their movies (look up how much Kevin Hart was paid for single tweets to promote movies).
- briandear 7y ago
  “Hello! And welcome to Moviefone! If you know the name of the movie you’d like to see, press 1..” I still remember that.
  - CalChris 7y ago
    Jon Stewart used it in his 2006 Oscars intro. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAwXWs0TXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAwXWs0TXQ
  - chasd00 7y ago
    and the simpsons parody where Bart is dialing 911 and gets frustrated by the menu and just presses a bunch of buttons. "you have selected Regicide! If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered press one!" https://youtu.be/FAsIx3oPY-8 https://youtu.be/FAsIx3oPY-8
- subpixel 7y ago
  Actually Moviephone predated widespread cell phone usage. It was just seen as a novel AND useful way of getting movie times. There was no Google, you had to look through the paper and find ads for individual theaters to know where and when movies were screening.

by cannam 7y ago

reaperducer 7y ago

Overpaying for an information service is pretty much the definition of 1990's dotcomishness. Today, too.

gumby 7y ago
Who knows if they overpaid? Perhaps they made a profit on it even though it's now worthless. Carriage makers, haberdashers and mechanical accounting machine manufacturers had good profitable businesses at their appropriate times, even if now such businesses are marginal and specialized, to the extent they even exist (not the last one, certainly)
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > Perhaps they made a profit on it even though it's now worthless. Not a profit on 388 million, unless you use that magical "big business/hollywood" mechanic of attributing revenue to things that happened alongside the actual sale. You saw 1 ad for a tv and bought a tv? That's a 600$ attribution to that ad campaign!
  - gumby 7y ago
    They had at least a decade to get revenue and I'm sure they were paid by the studios and the theatres. I don't know the finances but it's well within the realm of possibility.
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      It was a loss leader to lure subscribers and that was during the wild overvaluation of properties. I'd bet the money I do have, that it made back a fraction of that (without using creative accounting). How many people do you think were influenced to use AOL (as it mentioned in the moviephone recordings "brought to you by AOL") because of moviephone? It's surely 0. Do you think the studios EVER paid for anything moviephone offered? That's a no. Moviephone's online portion (where you could actually order things) was acquired about 2 years after the AOL purchase. It was a dog the whole way, which you can tell by the synopsis on wikipedia (or having lived during the heyday). By 2000, something like yahoo movies was a superior way to get information and order tickets. Maybe they made a bit on The Phantom Menace, but they would often be oversaturated and you would get a busy signal during that time.

appleshore 7y ago

I think they thought web traffic was more foundational or sticky. There was this idea of first mover advantage, whoever captured the most traffic could easily sustain it or have it help other services. But maybe it just benefited quarterly results / corporate forces.

dave_sullivan 7y ago

It was a phone number you could call to get movie showtimes. It was an automated call system. But I guess it integrated a bunch of data sources together well and had a decent phone-based user interface? This was a time where the internet wasn't quite prevalent enough to support the idea, but phones were. The idea of calling a phone number for up-to-date movie listings was kind of revolutionary at the time. There was a tech component but it wasn't a dot com and the whole thing is kind of laughable when viewed from today. It was popular enough to have a Seinfeld episode reference it.

michaelbuckbee 7y ago

They were a service that was uniquely suited to the time of general widespread cellphone usage but pre-smartphone usage. You'd call the Moviefone number and get a phone tree for local theaters and then movie times. They were uniquely positioned to grab people and pitch them a movie at exactly the moment they were trying to find a movie (which doesn't sound revolutionary, but at the time the overall culture of movies and trailers wasn't nearly what it is and people were relying on the local paper for times). As a result, they were charging millions for ad placements - it's entirely possible that on a cash basis that AOL made their money back from the purchase simply because they were able to bundle advertising packages. Studios spend stupid amounts of money to promote their movies (look up how much Kevin Hart was paid for single tweets to promote movies).

briandear 7y ago
“Hello! And welcome to Moviefone! If you know the name of the movie you’d like to see, press 1..” I still remember that.
- CalChris 7y ago
  Jon Stewart used it in his 2006 Oscars intro. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAwXWs0TXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAwXWs0TXQ
- chasd00 7y ago
  and the simpsons parody where Bart is dialing 911 and gets frustrated by the menu and just presses a bunch of buttons. "you have selected Regicide! If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered press one!" https://youtu.be/FAsIx3oPY-8 https://youtu.be/FAsIx3oPY-8
subpixel 7y ago
Actually Moviephone predated widespread cell phone usage. It was just seen as a novel AND useful way of getting movie times. There was no Google, you had to look through the paper and find ads for individual theaters to know where and when movies were screening.