RIP MoviePass 2011-2018

edited July 2018 in Movies
Any other soon to be former members?  How many movies did you see and what was your favorite?

17, Three Identical Strangers was my surprise favorite. 
picorock80

Comments

  • If you have an AMC theater nearby I highly recommend their A List membership.  20 bucks a month but you can see any movie in any format.  If your local theater has a "Dolby Cinema" those tickets are at least $17.00 a ticket so it damn near pays for itself in 1 movie.  It's clearly twice as expensive as Movie Pass but the convenience of purchasing tickets well ahead of time is more than worth it.  I saw 8 movies in the first month which equaled about $125 bucks worth of movies.  And no I don't work for AMC in any form, I just really enjoy their A List program and it's convenience. 
    anubus21MurderbearRyanReesemanjleav382
  • Also an A-List member, also highly recommend it. You have a limit of 3 movies per week, and you do ha e to keep your membership for at least 3 months, so just keep in mind that it’s a $60 commitment. 

    You can see the same movie however many times you want and you can see it in any format you want. For me, that’s absolutely worth $20 a month. It paid for itself in one Dolby Digital viewing of Mission Impossible. Any movie I see for the next month is free. 

    Plus, select theaters allow you to order and pay for your food ahead of time. They’ll put it on the counter with your name on the box and everything. You don’t even have to talk to another human if you don’t want to. 
    awookiee
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    edited July 2018
    I never understood why movie theatres didn't embrace MoviePass. MoviePass going under means less money going to movie theatres.
  • On the A List train now!
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited August 2018
    Why lose control of their content by building a giant competitor?  They can do the same thing building their own program.

    It's the same reason Netflix used to have all kinds of outside content and then shifted to major original programming with a smattering of other content, the content distributors realized how much their stuff was worth.

    Hunkulese said:
    I never understood why movie theatres didn't embrace MoviePass. MoviePass going under means less money going to movie theatres.

  • edited August 2018
    Good video here on how MoviePass might have worked:

    The Shaky Economics Of MoviePass



  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    edited August 2018
    Why lose control of their content by building a giant competitor?  They can do the same thing building their own program.

    It's the same reason Netflix used to have all kinds of outside content and then shifted to major original programming with a smattering of other content, the content distributors realized how much their stuff was worth.

    Hunkulese said:
    I never understood why movie theatres didn't embrace MoviePass. MoviePass going under means less money going to movie theatres.

    They weren't competing with them. They were getting people to see more movies and MoviePass was paying the theatres full price for every ticket. Netflix isn't a good comparison because they weren't paying the studios full price every time someone watched a movie.

    The $20 AMC thing is a bit too much since the whole point of the subscription service is to get people to pay for it and not use it. $20 is probably a bit too much for people to keep paying for if they're not using it. AMC loses money when people are using the service multiple times a week compared to those same people going to AMC through MoviePass.
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited August 2018
    In their venture capital unsustainable phase.  If they had really done well there would be a point where MoviePass would be negotiating with theaters about what flat rate MoviePass would be paying the theaters because everyone has gotten used to an all you can eat monthly fee instead of paying for individual movies.

    Hunkulese said:
    Why lose control of their content by building a giant competitor?  They can do the same thing building their own program.

    It's the same reason Netflix used to have all kinds of outside content and then shifted to major original programming with a smattering of other content, the content distributors realized how much their stuff was worth.

    Hunkulese said:
    I never understood why movie theatres didn't embrace MoviePass. MoviePass going under means less money going to movie theatres.

    They weren't competing with them. They were getting people to see more movies and MoviePass was paying the theatres full price for every ticket. Netflix isn't a good comparison because they weren't paying the studios full price every time someone watched a movie.


    Actually AMC isn't losing any money until they start turning away paying customers because AMC pass users are clogging up seats that would have otherwise been bought by said customer.  Especially if the AMC pass people buy concessions.

    EDIT:  And on a related topic, the theaters should really modulate the cost based on demand for time of movie.  Friday nights should be expensive, Wednesday 3pm should be your cheapie special.


    The $20 AMC thing is a bit too much since the whole point of the subscription service is to get people to pay for it and not use it. $20 is probably a bit too much for people to keep paying for if they're not using it. AMC loses money when people are using the service multiple times a week compared to those same people going to AMC through MoviePass.



  • I managed a small theater that was part of a small chain for several years. I don’t know what deal AMC has withbthe studios, but we had to pay a certain amount to the studio for every ticket sold, including free passes with the only exception being passed we handed out for readmission. These were strictly handed out for things that were beyond our control, like equipment breaking down, power outages, or people having to leave due to emergencies. If we gave out a pass due to something we could control, we had a different type of pass that we still had to pay film rental on. The amount paid was different with each movie and had to be negotiated with each studio for each title. I would imagine AMC is still having to pay something for each A list members tickets, as this program is something they have decided to institute and is within their control. With AMC being as big as they are, they probably have significantly more bargaining power than my small chain had. 
  • Hunkulese said:
    Why lose control of their content by building a giant competitor?  They can do the same thing building their own program.

    It's the same reason Netflix used to have all kinds of outside content and then shifted to major original programming with a smattering of other content, the content distributors realized how much their stuff was worth.

    Hunkulese said:
    I never understood why movie theatres didn't embrace MoviePass. MoviePass going under means less money going to movie theatres.

    They weren't competing with them. They were getting people to see more movies and MoviePass was paying the theatres full price for every ticket. Netflix isn't a good comparison because they weren't paying the studios full price every time someone watched a movie.

    The $20 AMC thing is a bit too much since the whole point of the subscription service is to get people to pay for it and not use it. $20 is probably a bit too much for people to keep paying for if they're not using it. AMC loses money when people are using the service multiple times a week compared to those same people going to AMC through MoviePass.
    You may be right if this were a gym or something, but it's not, so I think this is wrong. Gyms vastly oversell their capacity because there's no schedule so people come and go as they please during opening hours, and they're reliably banking on many getting lazy/busy and not going for months. 

    But movies are more of an event. You're booking a ticket for a specific seat for specific movie and time, so the vast majority of the time people are going to show up for it or cancel if they can't (when this is taken to a larger scale over time there is data to analyze the attrition rate of no-shows, which is how and why airlines and hotels regularly overbook with comparatively little conflict).

    Anyway, since most of the theater's profits are from concessions, they do indeed actually want people showing up. Since most of the ticket revenue is going to the studio anyway, whatever marginal revenue the theater is getting clearly isn't worth having a middleman broker like MoviePass butting in between the theater and their customers, hence AMC A-List. And at their $20/month rate, they will almost certainly average a better profit over the per-transaction norm with normal tickets/MoviePass.
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    Actually AMC isn't losing any money until they start turning away paying customers because AMC pass users are clogging up seats that would have otherwise been bought by said customer.  Especially if the AMC pass people buy concessions.


    They are losing money compared to the same people using MoviePass. With MoviePass, they're getting the full price of the ticket. If someone is abusing the AMC thing, AMC still has to pay the movie studios for every person they letting watch the movie even if they didn't pay AMC anything more than the $20 monthly fee.
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    ghm3 said:
    Hunkulese said:
    Why lose control of their content by building a giant competitor?  They can do the same thing building their own program.

    It's the same reason Netflix used to have all kinds of outside content and then shifted to major original programming with a smattering of other content, the content distributors realized how much their stuff was worth.

    Hunkulese said:
    I never understood why movie theatres didn't embrace MoviePass. MoviePass going under means less money going to movie theatres.

    They weren't competing with them. They were getting people to see more movies and MoviePass was paying the theatres full price for every ticket. Netflix isn't a good comparison because they weren't paying the studios full price every time someone watched a movie.

    The $20 AMC thing is a bit too much since the whole point of the subscription service is to get people to pay for it and not use it. $20 is probably a bit too much for people to keep paying for if they're not using it. AMC loses money when people are using the service multiple times a week compared to those same people going to AMC through MoviePass.
    You may be right if this were a gym or something, but it's not, so I think this is wrong. Gyms vastly oversell their capacity because there's no schedule so people come and go as they please during opening hours, and they're reliably banking on many getting lazy/busy and not going for months. 

    But movies are more of an event. You're booking a ticket for a specific seat for specific movie and time, so the vast majority of the time people are going to show up for it or cancel if they can't (when this is taken to a larger scale over time there is data to analyze the attrition rate of no-shows, which is how and why airlines and hotels regularly overbook with comparatively little conflict).

    Anyway, since most of the theater's profits are from concessions, they do indeed actually want people showing up. Since most of the ticket revenue is going to the studio anyway, whatever marginal revenue the theater is getting clearly isn't worth having a middleman broker like MoviePass butting in between the theater and their customers, hence AMC A-List. And at their $20/month rate, they will almost certainly average a better profit over the per-transaction norm with normal tickets/MoviePass.
    The fact that most of the ticket price goes to studios is another reason it doesn't make a ton of sense for AMC to be doing it this way. AMC still needs to pay the studio for every person they let watch the movie, and that will cut into any profits they're making from concessions.

    They definitely want people to pay the $20 and not show up because that's pure profit.
  • Hunkulese said:
    ghm3 said:
    Hunkulese said:
    Why lose control of their content by building a giant competitor?  They can do the same thing building their own program.

    It's the same reason Netflix used to have all kinds of outside content and then shifted to major original programming with a smattering of other content, the content distributors realized how much their stuff was worth.

    Hunkulese said:
    I never understood why movie theatres didn't embrace MoviePass. MoviePass going under means less money going to movie theatres.

    They weren't competing with them. They were getting people to see more movies and MoviePass was paying the theatres full price for every ticket. Netflix isn't a good comparison because they weren't paying the studios full price every time someone watched a movie.

    The $20 AMC thing is a bit too much since the whole point of the subscription service is to get people to pay for it and not use it. $20 is probably a bit too much for people to keep paying for if they're not using it. AMC loses money when people are using the service multiple times a week compared to those same people going to AMC through MoviePass.
    You may be right if this were a gym or something, but it's not, so I think this is wrong. Gyms vastly oversell their capacity because there's no schedule so people come and go as they please during opening hours, and they're reliably banking on many getting lazy/busy and not going for months. 

    But movies are more of an event. You're booking a ticket for a specific seat for specific movie and time, so the vast majority of the time people are going to show up for it or cancel if they can't (when this is taken to a larger scale over time there is data to analyze the attrition rate of no-shows, which is how and why airlines and hotels regularly overbook with comparatively little conflict).

    Anyway, since most of the theater's profits are from concessions, they do indeed actually want people showing up. Since most of the ticket revenue is going to the studio anyway, whatever marginal revenue the theater is getting clearly isn't worth having a middleman broker like MoviePass butting in between the theater and their customers, hence AMC A-List. And at their $20/month rate, they will almost certainly average a better profit over the per-transaction norm with normal tickets/MoviePass.
    The fact that most of the ticket price goes to studios is another reason it doesn't make a ton of sense for AMC to be doing it this way. AMC still needs to pay the studio for every person they let watch the movie, and that will cut into any profits they're making from concessions.

    They definitely want people to pay the $20 and not show up because that's pure profit.
    Disagree. Obviously they like anyone would embrace free money, but they're clearly targeting frequent moviegoers with this $20/month plan, so it makes absolutely no sense for them to hope or expect them to never come. They know they're not going to get people that only go to movies a few times per yer with that pricing, so they definitely want the people that already go to the movies 1-2 times month to start going 3, 4, 5+ times a month, and buy concessions most of the time, which is exactly why they also give A-List members discounts on concessions, free size upgrades, and will deliver them to their seat. 

    If the $20/month plan is successful (which I think it will be), I imagine they'll probably introduce a more restrictive $10/month plan. If they made it either two tickets for one movie once per month, or one ticket to two movies per month for $10/month, I think it would be really successful. 
  • I'll admit they got me regarding buying popcorn.  I was never a big sucker for buying popcorn/pop when I went to movies, but I was really hungry and said screw it and bought a popcorn bucket there and it's like 4.50 to fill it up.  Now almost every time I end up going I grab the bucket and spend more on concessions which is where the majority of their profits come from. 

    But I offset it with the thought, I'm paying $20.00 a month and I'll easily see at least $70+ worth of movies in a month.  3 Dolby showings and that damn near hit the $70 worth.  If they excluded Dolby/Imax showings I don't know that I would get their A-List because I gladly paid extra for the Dolby Theater before with the big blockbuster movies.  The experience of their Dolby Theaters is extremely high quality and can't really be touched by any other theater chain near me.  
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    edited August 2018
    ghm3 said:
    Disagree. Obviously they like anyone would embrace free money, but they're clearly targeting frequent moviegoers with this $20/month plan, so it makes absolutely no sense for them to hope or expect them to never come. They know they're not going to get people that only go to movies a few times per yer with that pricing, so they definitely want the people that already go to the movies 1-2 times month to start going 3, 4, 5+ times a month, and buy concessions most of the time, which is exactly why they also give A-List members discounts on concessions, free size upgrades, and will deliver them to their seat. 

    If the $20/month plan is successful (which I think it will be), I imagine they'll probably introduce a more restrictive $10/month plan. If they made it either two tickets for one movie once per month, or one ticket to two movies per month for $10/month, I think it would be really successful. 
    Let's say they typically charge $10 for a ticket and the movie studio takes $6, if someone sees four movies in a month they're losing $4. In reality, theatres probably charge more per ticket so they're losing more money. If the only goal is to get people in the theatre to buy concessions, wouldn't it make more sense to partner with MoviePass?

    The studio's cut also varies, and they often take 90% for the opening weekend of big movies, movies that I'm sure the movie aficionados are going to see.

    The subscription model only makes sense if people are only going to a movie or two a month.

    Look at letrbuck2006's example. If he's using about $70 worth of tickets for three movies, the studios are getting about $42 of that. If he's paying $4.50 for popcorn every time, AMC is still losing money.

    awookiee
  • RE: The convenience of purchasing seats ahead of time, I usually do so ahead of time on the Fandango app. There are no AMC's around us but we've got Marcus. 
  • I waited six years to give in and try, after all the ads, all the emails, I finally gave in in January of this year. I saw seven movies (Coco, Shape of Water, Peter Rabbit, Black Panther, A Quiet Place, Deadpool 2, and Solo; with shape of water being the favorite with Deadpool 2 a close second), and it seems that ever since I signed up, I received weekly emails detailing a new line up of protocols to be doled upon the members including ticket stub pictures, added fees for premier viewing and only one viewing per movie. I bought into the service when indiewire did an article on it after Christmas and I was excited but ultimately, it’s been disappointing and I guess I’ll go back to seeing movies on Tuesday when tickets are $5. Peace moviepass.
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited August 2018
    Well here's a good answer for you:

    "But whereas MoviePass reimburses movie theaters for the full price of movie tickets purchased through its program — a practice that is putting a financial strain on the company — AMC (NYSE: AMC) will pay its distributor partners’ cut of the box office (typically around 60 percent) based on a ticket price of $8.99 for standard 2D films viewed using A-List, reported The Wall Street Journal."

    That $8.99 figure is less than the average movie ticket price nationwide, which in the first quarter was $9.16, and even less than AMC’s average ticket price, which was $9.78 in Q1."

    https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/06/25/amc-subscription-offer-raises-studios-eyebrows.html

    So, that means for 5 movies a month, AMC will pay out 5*$10 (for different formats)*0.6=$30 instead of 5 *$14 ticket price * 0.6= $42.  So assume that person would only have seen 2 or 3 full price movies if not for AMC pass, and assume they buy a drink and a popcorn at the 2-3 extra movies they see a month, AMC is quite a ways ahead while they control the price, they squeeze their distributors, and they cut out MoviePass.

    Hunkulese said:
    ghm3 said:
    Disagree. Obviously they like anyone would embrace free money, but they're clearly targeting frequent moviegoers with this $20/month plan, so it makes absolutely no sense for them to hope or expect them to never come. They know they're not going to get people that only go to movies a few times per yer with that pricing, so they definitely want the people that already go to the movies 1-2 times month to start going 3, 4, 5+ times a month, and buy concessions most of the time, which is exactly why they also give A-List members discounts on concessions, free size upgrades, and will deliver them to their seat. 

    If the $20/month plan is successful (which I think it will be), I imagine they'll probably introduce a more restrictive $10/month plan. If they made it either two tickets for one movie once per month, or one ticket to two movies per month for $10/month, I think it would be really successful. 
    Let's say they typically charge $10 for a ticket and the movie studio takes $6, if someone sees four movies in a month they're losing $4. In reality, theatres probably charge more per ticket so they're losing more money. If the only goal is to get people in the theatre to buy concessions, wouldn't it make more sense to partner with MoviePass?

    The studio's cut also varies, and they often take 90% for the opening weekend of big movies, movies that I'm sure the movie aficionados are going to see.

    The subscription model only makes sense if people are only going to a movie or two a month.

    Look at letrbuck2006's example. If he's using about $70 worth of tickets for three movies, the studios are getting about $42 of that. If he's paying $4.50 for popcorn every time, AMC is still losing money.




This discussion has been closed.