This is weird. It says MoviePass will pay them the full ticket price when a pass holder goes to a movie in their theaters. Leaving aside how exactly that is supposed to work financially for MoviePass, what is AMC's actual problem with this? It's just a bunch of "not in the best interest of blah blah".
It (the linked statement) seems to read "we don't like this at all but it looks like there's nothing we can do about it right now, but we're sure going to look for a way to stop it".
The part they don't like is probably the general feeling that this will devalue their product. Ticket prices already "feel" high to the general public. Having advertised services out there (even if ultimately untenable) that drastically undercut standard prices will not help this perception at all.
MoviePass would have brought more viewers to their establishment. The customer would now have saved $10 on admission, and can now use that towards concessions. Since their concessions are basically 1000% markup, its pure profit for them.
I don't understand their complaint other than, they didn't think of it first.
No they're still making full price on tickets too, it's just that the money is coming from some VC that's willing to dump it for a bunch of data instead of directly from the customer.
MoviePass is dropping their pricing to $10/month, this screams out "Hail Mary" to me. I wouldn't be surprised if MoviePass was on its last legs financially (they just sold a majority stake, see http://variety.com/2017/film/news/moviepass-1202527956/) and their contracts with the chains could potentially leave the chains with millions of dollars of owed ticket money if they suddenly stop operating.
If that's the case, no wonder AMC are trying to get out of it.
I doubt MoviePass will pay full retail price. I bought 100 gold AMC movie passes on eBay for $550 maybe ten years ago. That was $5.50 per movie. You can get substantial discounts on admission if you buy in big enough blocks.
MoviePass seems to many and to AMC as just another attempt by some unicorn tech outfit to ride the coattails of those who actually did the work to build the movies and theaters and so forth, and try to ultimately undercut and co-opt them, like Netflix is doing. AMC should be fighting, probably.
It takes real money to make movies and sell them. Just like it takes real money to make TV shows, and design new fashions, and create new foodstuffs...This whole let's make a subscription service out of everything is getting kinda stale...
I guess ultimately it depends on how deep MoviePasses pockets are...
AMC can say whatever they like, but it's hard to see how they could block this.
I was a MoviePass subscriber a few years ago (at $40/month, not $10!), and how it worked was that I had a MasterCard that would work to buy one movie ticket every 24 hours. It had my name, my billing zipcode. I'm not sure how AMC could have known it was MoviePass. They certainly did nothing to stop it when I was using it then.
I prefer dealflicks' business model. I understand it's a somewhat different use case from what MoviePass is doing. They (dealflicks) partner with the movie theaters to sell tickets at discount last minute etc like Hotel Tonight. This is mutually benefitial to both parties, as the Theatre is able to fill seats ( at a slight discount ) that would otherwise go empty, and dealflicks get a commission for helping fill those empty seats.
I came across their site https://www.dealflicks.com/ while helping a friend research / validate his MVP (he wanted to do the exact same thing, like a last minute deals for movie tickets).
When Amazon sold ebooks below cost, it benefited Amazon. AMC sees that MoviePass is an attempt to Kindle them so they're pre-emptively refusing to "negotiate" how much control of their business to give up.
I see perhaps 1.5 movies per year, mostly because the value proposition is not good.
To see a single movie in the non-shitty cinema, with a drink and popcorn will run me up about $35AU. I still have to watch 20 minutes worth of ads at the beginning too, so we'll boost that up to $40AU for wasting my time and brainpower. That gets me about 2hrs entertainment.
Why would I do that when I can pirate your movie in a few months and watch it at home, infinitely cheaper? Only the rare exceptional movie is actually worth the "cinematic experience" (ie. Dunkirk). Something like Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool is perfectly fine watching on my TV and Soundbar.
You can skip the ads and tell people off for talking during the movie in your own home too.
I can't see how that was written with a straight face by a lawyer. If the average ticket price for an AMC movie is $9.33 how I will be "disappointed" for getting unlimited monthly movies for $10/mo. AMC sure has a lot of fake concern for someone else's business model. Really this is about control, not concern for consumers.
It may have changed since I was a kid, but from what I recall, the ticket cost goes straight to the distributor and the theater makes its money on concessions. This model seems perfect for the smaller venues you'd want to actually go to (Alamo Drafthouse, etc.) rather than the blown out, trash compactor megaplex you subconsciously avoid because you'll wait for it to hit Netflix rather than endure the long lines, bad parking, and apathy that tends to crush the moviegoing experience.
The gross revenue shifts toward the movie theatre the longer the movie is released. It may be a revenue split 90/10 first week, then theatre gets bigger cut each week. This is why second-run movie theatres can still make money showing two movies for one ticket price aside from concession sales.
17 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 50.3 ms ] threadThe part they don't like is probably the general feeling that this will devalue their product. Ticket prices already "feel" high to the general public. Having advertised services out there (even if ultimately untenable) that drastically undercut standard prices will not help this perception at all.
I don't understand their complaint other than, they didn't think of it first.
MoviePass is dropping their pricing to $10/month, this screams out "Hail Mary" to me. I wouldn't be surprised if MoviePass was on its last legs financially (they just sold a majority stake, see http://variety.com/2017/film/news/moviepass-1202527956/) and their contracts with the chains could potentially leave the chains with millions of dollars of owed ticket money if they suddenly stop operating.
If that's the case, no wonder AMC are trying to get out of it.
It takes real money to make movies and sell them. Just like it takes real money to make TV shows, and design new fashions, and create new foodstuffs...This whole let's make a subscription service out of everything is getting kinda stale...
I guess ultimately it depends on how deep MoviePasses pockets are...
I was a MoviePass subscriber a few years ago (at $40/month, not $10!), and how it worked was that I had a MasterCard that would work to buy one movie ticket every 24 hours. It had my name, my billing zipcode. I'm not sure how AMC could have known it was MoviePass. They certainly did nothing to stop it when I was using it then.
I came across their site https://www.dealflicks.com/ while helping a friend research / validate his MVP (he wanted to do the exact same thing, like a last minute deals for movie tickets).
To see a single movie in the non-shitty cinema, with a drink and popcorn will run me up about $35AU. I still have to watch 20 minutes worth of ads at the beginning too, so we'll boost that up to $40AU for wasting my time and brainpower. That gets me about 2hrs entertainment.
Why would I do that when I can pirate your movie in a few months and watch it at home, infinitely cheaper? Only the rare exceptional movie is actually worth the "cinematic experience" (ie. Dunkirk). Something like Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool is perfectly fine watching on my TV and Soundbar.
You can skip the ads and tell people off for talking during the movie in your own home too.