3 ms·

The way they were doing it wasn't working (or going to work), but it wasn't obvious to me that there wasn't a way to make it work. For example, look at Prime.

The way they were doing it wasn't working (or going to work), but it wasn't obvious to me that there wasn't a way to make it work. For example, look at Prime. You pay $100/year for effectively unlimited free 2-day shipping. That seems crazy on its face -- especially if you go back when it was introduced. But getting people to buy more can help their core business of selling books/products, which offsets the costs. With MoviePass if they could get people in at 9.95/month, especially into seats that would be empty otherwise -- and then help the theaters make money on concessions -- then get a kickback on that. I don't if this maths, but it doesn't seem completely infeasible.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
That seems crazy on its face Does it? (Hint: Not really). You're buying something(s) to get the "free" shipping. Furthermore, Amazon was in a position to test this to see what happens. Prime was not something that always existed. The same can not be said for going to the movies. Presuming MoviePass has to pay the theater for every ticket used, and can't get back say some percentage of the concessions because how are you going to track that, it doesn't take much common financial sense to see that $9.95 isn't going to get you very far. It can be a short term marketing-friendly loss leader, but beyond that only the naive would see a sustainable business model.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  I agree... the way they were doing it wouldn't work. But AMC did a similar thing just for their own cinemas. You pay $X/month (or whatever) and get free movies for the month (I think they may have had some cap on number of movies per week). And this avoids the issues you mention. Interestingly, AMC had a partnership with MoviePass at one point. And apparently the AMC program is still running at $23/month (which is definitely more expensive than it was at launch).
Suppafly 2y ago
>The way they were doing it wasn't working (or going to work), but it wasn't obvious to me that there wasn't a way to make it work. Especially because it does work when the theaters run a similar program themselves now. Moviepass essentially proved the concept and then the individual chains just stopped taking moviepass and switched to their own version.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

That seems crazy on its face Does it? (Hint: Not really). You're buying something(s) to get the "free" shipping. Furthermore, Amazon was in a position to test this to see what happens. Prime was not something that always existed. The same can not be said for going to the movies. Presuming MoviePass has to pay the theater for every ticket used, and can't get back say some percentage of the concessions because how are you going to track that, it doesn't take much common financial sense to see that $9.95 isn't going to get you very far. It can be a short term marketing-friendly loss leader, but beyond that only the naive would see a sustainable business model.

kenjackson 2y ago
I agree... the way they were doing it wouldn't work. But AMC did a similar thing just for their own cinemas. You pay $X/month (or whatever) and get free movies for the month (I think they may have had some cap on number of movies per week). And this avoids the issues you mention. Interestingly, AMC had a partnership with MoviePass at one point. And apparently the AMC program is still running at $23/month (which is definitely more expensive than it was at launch).

Suppafly 2y ago

>The way they were doing it wasn't working (or going to work), but it wasn't obvious to me that there wasn't a way to make it work. Especially because it does work when the theaters run a similar program themselves now. Moviepass essentially proved the concept and then the individual chains just stopped taking moviepass and switched to their own version.