Slashdot Mirror
A Subscription-Based Movie Theater
When the local movie theater in Oakhurst, California went out of business, residents were stuck without a way to watch films on the big screen without driving for at least an hour beforehand. Now, three men are trying to resurrect the theater with one major change: instead of relying solely on ticket sales, their business model revolves around subscriptions. From the article: 'They ran models of Nelson's subscription-based theater idea, showing that to break even they would need 3,000 people, or 15% of the mountain communities, to sign up. For $19.95 per month, a member would be able to see each movie one time and buy individual tickets for friends. Non-members could buy a $16 day pass. While researching the theater business, Nelson learned that studios are transitioning to digital distribution. Thousands of independent theaters that couldn't afford equipment upgrades have closed over the last 10 years, according to industry experts. Hundreds of others — which, like the Met, still show print films — remain on the brink. The subscription business model could pay for the new equipment.'
$20 monthly pass pays for itself after 2 movies.
UGC (the AMC theatres in France) used to (maybe still have) memberships that allowed you to see evey movie they show as many times as you want for 15euros. Lots of people were subscribing to it. I am sure they can manage it. Thought the $16 day pass for non subscriber seems over the top. I hope they also have regular $8/10 ticket for one movie. (most people wont see two movies in one day)
When you have a free "movie ticket for everything" you start going to see stuff you would not have seen otherwise. $20 a month is not a bad deal. I'd totaly take that.
Where I live in Australia it costs around $17 per adult to see a movie at the cinema. The last movie I went to had around 8 people watching it. If they charged $5 per adult I bet there would have been a lot more people watching that movie (that may have also purchased overpriced crappy food from the candy bar).
It is ridiculous to expect $17 from someone to watch a shitty movie, considering the majority of movies pumped out these days are pretty terrible.
Sounds like it would work for younger people then. The success of this model would depend on the age distribution in the target population.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
would be the Green Bay Packers model of community ownership. Keep the theater private but sell shares in the company; for $300 you would be part owner, and would be able to buy a subscription for either $15/month or get a $3 discount on individual tickets.
Don't kill your fuck buddy, they are very useful.
This is a way to have a movie theater in their town without driving an hour. You need to factor that into your estimations.
If I lived an hour away from any other movie theater, I would pay $20/month to keep my local theater alive. Sometimes it's fun to see a movie on the big screen, with your friends.
If that experience isn't something you care about, there's Netflix.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Wouldn't it be an even better idea to allow subscribers to see all the movies they want? a) it sounds like a better deal for potential customers and b) they are still likely to purchase overpriced refreshments, which is the real cash cow of a movie theater.
Not to mention not having to track who has seen what.
Duh.
expandfairuse.org
"Have to"? Why? Because you'd shrivel up and die if you don't have a dose of artificially-flavored popcorn with artificially-sweetened fizzy water within a 2-hour window?
Kid-proof tablet..
That's where most of the theatres actually make their money on first-week releases, though, because of how much goes to the studio in ticket revenue.
Payphone booths and arcades are. Plain and simple. Too many other options.
I only go to the movies for the latest releases (so few that are worth it). The big players will hang on. I almost think the small theaters are being run out by design - because the longer a movie is out, the bigger cut the theater gets from ticket sales which start out at 100% for the studios.
Today, people can buy 70" flat led screen for around $1900, an 83" Mitsubishi dlp for $1800 (92" for $2800). Rent 3-6 month old movies at Redbox for a little over a buck, stream it from Netflix, etc.
It's a shame, because of the whole going out of the house thing (although, since I only view Matinees where it's empty - any potential social value dwindles to nothing). Speaking of social value, the only theater that's been built in my growing area the last 10 years has been one that is a restaurant and where you can order real food. So, added value options may grow from being a novelty to the norm.
Who knows, with TVs getting cheaper and cheaper all the time, in 30 years, huge A/Ced and heated theaters that sit empty most of the time may have largely become a thing of the past except in places like Las Vegas or the planetariums.
I view the 3D thing as largely a play to stay relevant, and it's probably not working all that well. I'm sure some theater owners are praying for Avatar 2 and 3 to come out soon.
Indeed, season passes are as old as the discovery of fire. The Amalgamated Neanderthal Conglomerate "Ungfrthfrulptlf" (GmbH) used to paint on the cave walls about amazing savings:
Club just one woman and kill two mammoths a year and enjoy a VIP spot of dirt by the campfire!*
MUCH cheaper than a saber-tooth per fire.
*Cannot be combined with any other cave painting. Limited time offer. Dirt spots dependent upon availability and size of mammoth, woman.
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Oakhurst, CA: Population 2829. Good luck getting 3000 paying customers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakhurst,_California
I book films for a local theatre. Unless there are major changes with film distribution terms, this won't fly. Films are rented to theatres with terms that require a minimum guarantee from the theatre versus a percentage of the boxoffice gross. For a first run title, the percentage will start high (think 90% or so) and drop each week until it gets to 35% or so. For a 90% title, the theatre gets $1 of your $10 ticket, and the distributor gets $9. Boxoffice reports are submitted daily and list the number of tickets sold for each price category and the total number of tickets sold and boxoffice take for the day for the film in question.
There is no way that a subscription pricing model would work under standard film rental terms, since there is no standard ticket price on which to base the percentages. Any theatre that tried this without first convincing the film distributors to all change their business models (ha!) would never be able to get films to show. This is an industry that does not really like innovation and which is reluctant to change a business model that has worked well (more or less) for the last hundred years (or so).
The D-cinema thing is an entirely different issue. Cost is about $60k per screen for the projector and server, assuming that a sound system already exists for 35mm and can be (mostly) re-used for D-cinema. Only DCI-compliant equipment can be used--this is not the same thing as a regular off-the-shelf video projector, as it contains specific crypto hardware to make movie piracy difficult (no doubt it will be cracked eventually, however). No one is actually forcing this conversion at the moment, so 35mm film is still viable for the time being. This conversion process has been discussed for the last ten years or so, but has only really started to speed up over the last two.
I would tend to agree, but there are technical differences. A DCP (digital cinema package) is a frame sequence with a soundtrack. By contrast, a "video" signal contains blanking and sync information, which does not exist in D-cinema. So it isn't quite the same thing, but it still sucks compared to a good photochemical print.
I have managed theaters for two large chains. Frankly the concept of a movie theater is dead meat. The hang on, improve and survive executives simply have lost the battle.
Early on the theaters were huge. The cost of admission was trivial. Theaters relied on candy, popcorn and sodas as well as more complete menus the further back one goes. That was the profit gimmick. One need not make a penny on film if one sells enough food. Sadly theaters lost the ability to serve decent snack food as management types cut back on food expenses and quality. That alone was enough to kill the industry but inflation and the invention of TV and then cable were the death songs of the theater industry. One can easily have a first rate movie experience at home and the cost is trivial as it is wrapped in bundled services. For about $5. per day i can have thousands of movies and shows, my phone service and a high speed net connection that dwarfs a wired connection and use these features all day, every day. For another buck or so my home alarm service can also come by cable. Compared to that why would i go to a theater?
They'd have to give a discount on food as well. At least in the US popcorn and a drink run you as much as the ticket.
We hardly ever buy movie food, we just bring our own. The local (Australia) cinema won't let you bring a backpack or other large bag in (tripping hazard) but they haven't batted an eyelid when we've put the backpack in their lockers and taken in our own popcorn etc. Three of my kids and my wife can't have gluten so buying the food there isn't really an option - too much risk of contamination (who knows what they put in that 'butter'!).
I prefer not to have food at all in the cinema, but when you have young kids it's a great way to keep them still while they get interested in the movie.
Why is that movie theaters seem to be about the only business that not only doesn't understand or even attempt to follow supply and demand with their pricing of both the attractions and the food, but seem to publicly admit that they don't think supply/demand makes sense? If nobody wants to buy something I'm selling, the price is too high. Any sane person in the world would lower their price. That's the whole idea behind supply and demand. But what do movie theaters do? Jack up the price even more, and claim that they need to do so to survive. On what crazy planet does that even begin to make sense?
Popcorn is CHEAP. Why would you charge $7 for it and then complain that nobody buys it?
Sodas are CHEAP. Why would you charge $5 for it and then complain that nobody buys it?
I don't know about theaters around the country, but where I live we have "cheap nights" on Tuesdays, where movie tickets are a good deal cheaper than usual. And typically the theaters are packed full on that night. Every other night? You could count patrons in a given theater without running out of digits on your hands/feet. And even *THAT* doesn't tell theater owners that their regular prices are too high?! Your theaters are packed full on cheap nights because the price is easier to swallow. It shouldn't cost a family of four over $80 to go have a movie night, yet that's exactly what it cost a friend of mine to take his family to a movie on the weekend. Hell, it cost me and a friend, just two of us, almost $50 to go see 48 fps Hobbits a couple weeks ago. Almost $50 for two tickets and one popcorn/drink/chocolate combo. That's way too much money, and that is exactly the reason movie theaters are struggling, yet they just don't get it.
Supply and demand. This is an insanely old concept that pretty much everyone seems to understand. Except movie theater owners. WHY?!
Look at video games, and Valve's Steam store in particular. They've publicly discussed a few times over the past few years how they have seen insane increases in revenue whenever they have big sales on games, on the order or 40x increase in revenue in one case! Here's what I think was the first article discussing it back in 2009: http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive/
Movie theaters' own cheap nights prove that supply and demand is warranted in their market, just like any other. If they would lower prices of everything, tickets and refreshments/food, they'd see way more people, and way more money, come their way. If only they'd take their heads out of their asses.
Our local theater just upgraded to digital, new sound system too. They pump up the volume so loud now that I can't bear to watch anything there anymore. But, they DO have real butter and salt, so we just grab the popcorn and take it home. Cheaper that way too. :)
LRN 2 SWM
This is my local theater.
Last night they announced that they hit the 3,000 subscriber mark they were shooting for and will make a go at opening.
I wish them the best, though I think there are still some very big questions to be answered about the viability of the business model. Will the studios go along with it? Will subscriptions _remain_ high enough after the buzz fades away to be a viable business? I hope so, but only time will tell. The local economy is almost entirely tourism based, and their model effectively shuts out tourists who I think will be reluctant to shell out $16 for a day pass - so long-term local support is essential.
That experience has become less and less.
As the size of the silver screen has gone down, the size and resolution of TV sets have gone up.
When I was young, I loved to go to the movie theatre. The screen was a hefty 10x22 meters, or a little over 79' diagonal.
At home we had a 20" TV - we couldn't afford the new huge 26" ones that had just came out.
Nowadays, a typical movie theatre has a screen only a fraction of that size, while the standard TV size this holiday was 55".
Your field of view is going to be filled about as much by your TV at home as the movie screen. And you probably have a better sound system than the utter miscalibrated crap they foist on people these days.
Never mind that you and your friends can imbibe whatever you like. No crying children or idiots who left their cell phone on.
Back in the old days, you also bought numbered seats, and knew that you and your friends would be able to sit together. Now, you have to gamble on that. Whoever runs fastest gets the best seats.
The death of movie theatre going started for me back when LaserDiscs came out, and has continued as movies have become crappier and TVs better. I probably wouldn't go often even if it was free.
Heck, a BD movie on my laptop gives me a more immersive experience.
Let the movie theatres die. They had their time, which was great, but that time is over. Keep a few as living museums in the big cities, and let the rest go.
I'll fondly remember them, but don't need them back any more than I need photo booths and telegrams.
Why don't they lower the prices, you asked. You then mentioned they do lower the prices, especially on Tuesday. Weekdays cost less than weekend nights. A movie without popcorn costs a lot less than one with popcorn. Their web site has coupons. You can spend $5 going to the movie, or $25.
Theatres are very good at letting you spend as much or as little as you want. Some people will spend $25 or more for Saturday night ticket, candy, and large soda. The theatres have pricing where they'll accept that $25 from those people. They ALSO sell to the $5 crowd, on weekdays.
The only non off-the-shelf component would be the optical equipment, and couldn't they retrofit the optics of existing 35mm projectors?
Actually, no. To get an actual watchable cinema screen, you need "professional" projector lamps, and those aren't "off the shelf", and they're more akin to vacuum tubes than to actual lamps (Xenon lamps). Keep in mind, color depth and fidelity is dictated by the quality of the lamp, even on a digital projector, and with a lifespan less than 1000 hours, they aren't cheap. Nor is the electricity. And if you use 35mm projectors, you'd need a 4k projector screen of the size of the 35mm frame - or complex optics to perform the upscaling/downscaling adjustment. A 4k cinema DLP
If they rolled out a way for people to watch films the day they're released on their home theater for $10, it'd be huge.
http://primacinema.com/
$35k plus $500 a pop ...
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
They ran models of Nelson's subscription-based theater idea, showing that to break even they would need 3,000 people, or 15% of the mountain communities, to sign up
For them this is a good deal and saves them a lot of driving. For other people $16 for a day pass is also a good deal
Pre-dates movies entirely - back in the colonial days, the educated townfolk would get together and form a "Library Company," each contributing some funds (a subscription, if you will) and typically some books from their own collection. I used to hang around the seventh-oldest library in the US, fun place. Eventually, people figured out that it was best to give everyone in town access to this sort of thing, funded by taxes, so we now have public libraries. But I'm not sure whether people would go for a tax-funded public town cinema... ;)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Both big cinema conglomerates In France still do this, and have for years.
Unlimited movies in all cinemas. No blackout times. 20EU per month, or 35EU per month for a couple.
It's a great idea, and lots of people use it - considering normal adult tickets are 10 - 12EU.
The 'gotchya' is that it's a pain in the ass to unsubscribe - it's auto-debited from your bank account each month, so to cancel you need to send a letter via registered post etc to close your membership.
Small price to pay, however!