Slashdot Mirror


MoviePass' Days Look Limited (bloomberg.com)

Kyle Stock writes via Bloomberg: Eight months after slashing its price and expanding membership past 2 million users, MoviePass is now at risk of going bust. The parent company, Helios & Matheson Analytics, which now owns 92 percent of MoviePass, said last week that it had just $15.5 million in cash at the end of April and $27.9 million on deposit with merchant processors. MoviePass has been burning through $21.7 million per month. A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing last month revealed that the company's auditor has "substantial doubt" about its ability to stay solvent. Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities Inc., warns that MoviePass may not survive the summertime run of blockbusters. On Tuesday, Helios reported the performance of MoviePass for the three months ending on March 31. The company lost $107 million, earning just over $1 million from marketing deals and $47 million from subscriptions. Helios shares have fallen to decade lows of less than $1 after peaking at $32.90 in October, alongside the MoviePass hype.

159 comments

  1. Simple math by olsmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Simple math told us that the business model was faulty. I hope they paid themselves some nice salaries while it lasted.

    1. Re:Simple math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes; if anything deserves "no shit, Sherlock", this is it.

    2. Re:Simple math by rudy_wayne · · Score: 0

      I am shocked that this didn't work. SHOCKED!

    3. Re:Simple math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I hope they paid themselves some nice salaries while it lasted."

      I thought that was the whole point. Likely they had nice big golden umbrellas. At least those at the top anyway.

    4. Re:Simple math by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Realizing that the majority stake owner had "analytics" in its name, the subscriber fees may be a red herring in understanding the whole financial model. Is likely just selection criteria, while customer data is the actual product. It seems like they are failing to monetize that product, but you'd hope nobody would be dumb enough to think this idea would suddenly be profitable by scaling.

    5. Re: Simple math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their business model is selling usage analytics. Subscriptions are their way of creating a user, not their primary revenue stream. I'm betting your simple math is missing their primary revenue stream, which I have yet to see any published figures. If theatres and studios aren't buying their data, then they have a problem. This is why AMC pitched a fit, because they don't want others to have their data and they didn't want to pay for it either.

  2. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "MoviePass has been burning through $21.7 million per month."

    "MoviePass for the three months... lost $107 million, earning just over $1 million from marketing deals and $47 million from subscriptions."

    It doesn't take a genius to work out that 48/3 = 16 and thus you're earning $5.7m less every month than you're actually taking in.

    Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".

    We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.

    Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.

    I know that with shares, it's a case of "who's left holding the hot potato" and up until that point people can profit from nothing more than hype, but we need a way of stopping people just taking investments, burning through them, without a single profitable year.

    Yes, that would mean no Amazon (or at least, an Amazon starting up in a very different way). But it would also mean that there wouldn't be a thousand Amazon wannabes all doing the same and losing people's money, because it's not JUST the shareholders who lose out. Everyone from employees to suppliers to the taxpayer loses out from such things.

    1. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "MoviePass has been burning through $21.7 million per month."

      "MoviePass for the three months... lost $107 million, earning just over $1 million from marketing deals and $47 million from subscriptions."

      It doesn't take a genius to work out that 48/3 = 16 and thus you're earning $5.7m less every month than you're actually taking in.

      Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".

      We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.

      ...

      Oh FFS.

      The fix here isn't MORE GOVERMENT RULES when everyone is already committing three felonies per day.

      Repeat after me: The government is NOT going to save you or make your life better. That's NOT ITS JOB.

      GROW UP, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, AND STOP EXPECTING SOMEONE ELSE TO MAKE YOUR LIFE BETTER!

    2. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... no startups, no restructuring? It would very much constrain economic activity.

    3. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! What could they have been thinking?

      Could it be that Movie pass is just a way to connect names to butts-in-seats in order to produce data for the movie companies?

      Could it be that the real money maker here is selling that data and not selling the stupid passes?

      Naw. That's too hard. Of course they ran it like a hardware store. Of course they are total morons. What else could it be?

    4. Re:Sigh. by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Now you know why it wasn't large. You need to accept high risk in order to reach high returns.

    5. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not buying that the government needs to get involved, aside from making unemployment insurance more expensive for companies that have a higher likelihood of going bust. Everyone else voluntarily got involved with the company and should have the wherewithal to figure out if it's going to last. Employees are no worse off than had this job simply not existed for the past year, suppliers don't provide much stock on credit for unproven clients, and the only way the taxpayer is left holding the bag is through unemployment payments.

    6. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned

      Yes. Shareholders who were hoping to cash in big on the latest Internet sensation. Their big losses are just what's needed to calm the madness.

       

      if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit... you should just be shut down.

      Shut down by whom? The FTC? Some kind of local morality authority? I find it hard to believe you've actually run a business, given statements like that. But I do sympathize. A world without Amazon, Twitter and Facebook sounds delightful.

      I wonder if the movie studios might step in. MoviePass sounds like a good marketing gimmick for them. They could raise the price, increase data collection, and use that to show more ads at chain theaters.

    7. Re:Sigh. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Could it be that the real money maker here is selling that data and not selling the stupid passes?

      Apparently not.

    8. Re:Sigh. by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Everyone from employees to suppliers to the taxpayer loses out from such things.

      But they all win if the business turns out to be a success.

    9. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't cost you a penny. This wasn't some Ponzi scheme that prayed on senior citizens. It has no impact on any financial market. Why do you care how and where professional investors lose their money?

      And if it had been successful, it would have completely changed the economics of the movie industry. Risking a couple hundred million to potentially be the company that would do that isn't even a horrible idea.

    10. Re:Sigh. by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".

      Don't you know that the business model of the future means it doesn't matter how much money you're losing or whether or not you have any real plan for profitability, it's all about making sure people are calling you "disruptive", developing a cult fanbase and ignoring the laws you don't like.

      Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.

      I'm calling BS on that.

      I've actually run a business, some weeks I made losses, others I made profit, quarterly it looked better, in 3 years I only made 2 quarterly losses and one of those was my first quarter (which is to be expected). I sold the business and made out with a decent profit after paying my debts.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:Sigh. by iTrawl · · Score: 2

      Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".

      I disagree with this particular statement. From the spender's point of view this might be the same, but from a larger economy point of view those $5.6m went back into circulation rather than vanishing forever. So it's very slightly better to lose it this way than straight up burning it.

      --
      "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    12. Re:Sigh. by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down.

      Depending on the specific contract requirements and the definition of "progress" I think this is a little harsh.

      There are a lot of business that require significant up front capitalization and its hard to show a early profit in those cases.

      I think some SEC rules for public companies requiring them to maybe post things like "Average Cost of customer acquisition" in financial statements might however be in order.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Sigh. by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      It didn't cost you a penny

      Helios shares have fallen to decade lows of less than $1 after peaking at $32.90 in October

      Do you know every stock that every one of the funds in your 401k is invested in? What are the chances that you, or someone you care about, has Helios stock in their portfolio? Maybe. Maybe not. But the chances are pretty high. I wholeheartedly disagree that the gov't should be involved in this. HOWEVER, saying that idiots in a public company burning bales of cash each month doesn't cost the average person a penny is a rather ignorant stance.

    14. Re:Sigh. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.

      Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    15. Re:Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 2

      Burn $5.6m and the rest of the money in the market just became more valuable.

    16. Re:Sigh. by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I read his post as "I've never made an annual loss". Even saying "Never made a quarterly loss" would be reasonable. It would be nuts to measure a business on a week by week basis.

    17. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what is the point of a government?

    18. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MoviePass surpassed 2 million subscribers back in February, that's over $20 million in revenue each month that Bloomberg and all the other doomsayers forget to include in their hilarious warnings of the apocalypse.

    19. Re:Sigh. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      So basically any company that wants to do research must be an incumbent, and not new?

      Awesome, I sure bet that will drive down prices.

      I'm also sure all of the employees that had a job funded by shareholder hopes and dreams feel like they're way worse off than if instead they had a not job.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    20. Re: Sigh. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't answer for the other AC, but "protecting people from stupid investments" isn't very high on my list. I don't think it's even possible without a massive new bureaucracy similar to the FDA in scale. At that point, the cost of getting and maintaining business plan approval would be onerous, and I don't even know how you would punish companies that don't live up to their expectations... the market already takes care of this nicely. In this case, MoviePass and their investors will lose everything - isn't that punishment enough? Why prevent them from raising money so long as all the numbers are right there for you to add up for yourself? It would be different if there was a lack of transparency.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so sad.

    22. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked as a Product Manager for some retards in Seattle (including the Director of Product Management) who actually had faith in this company. I pointed out that their business model involved converting some of the highest paying movie going customers into some of the lowest paying and, therefore, was unsustainable. These retards still continued to believe they would just "figure it out." These were the people I was working with to try and establish our product as profitable. Consequently, I lost all faith in that company. Complete morons.

    23. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Are you actually stupid enough to believe that '3 felonies a day' bullshit? Perhaps you could list a few of these felonies that 'everyone' is committing 'every day'/

    24. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart wouldn't be this big if they didn't go public and started losing other people's money.
      Walton was borrowing tons of money as he grew his business (opening a couple of stores every month). When there were no more banks willing to lend money, he went public and kept expanding his business. His individual stores were massively profitable, but business had to keep expanding. That's where the loss came from.

      I'm sure you did manage your business well. But unless you are willing to use that profit (and more) to expand, you are not going to have a big business.

    25. Re:Sigh. by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      "we lose money selling one ticket, but we will make money selling a million tickets!"

      "profit at scale!"

    26. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.

      Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.

      Your statement implies that company owners and stakeholders are always 100% honest and truthful about their companies. Trying to claim that it's against the law is a fucking joke. Laws don't prevent crime. Effective punishments do. And we hardly ever punish anyone in the financial sector. And you have one hell of an ability to turn a blind eye to the 2008 global financial crisis asking ignorant questions as to who this can hurt society overall.

      Let's put it this way; if every company had to prove themselves financially solvent for 10 years before filing for any kind of IPO, a shitload of companies would never even bother forming. Take the bullshit motivator we call the stock market out of the picture, and you've eliminated 90% of this problem.

    27. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any "Investor" that treats investment as a lottery game deserves to loose.

      This is just another Netlfix or Facebook or Google to investors. And with new companies, there is risk of failure and this one failed. WHOOPIE!

    28. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You may not know exactly what stocks your 401K is invested in, but you should at the very least know if you are in 'aggressive, moderate, or conservative' funds. If you can't stand the risk that new companies/new business models represent, then you should not be in an aggressive fund. And if you were in a moderate or conservative fund, then you were most certainly NOT invested in Helios.

    29. Re:Sigh. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      The gov't would do well just enforcing laws that are already on the books. The isn't Mitch Lowe's first scam rodeo, he spent the past couple years involved with a penny stock scam called Nanotech Entertainment that purported to be in the 4K streaming business.

    30. Re:Sigh. by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps you could list a few of these felonies that 'everyone' is committing 'every day'....

      When the, "Why You Never Talk to The Police" video was released, there were over 50,000 Federal laws on the books. There are many more than that, because somewhere around 50,000 is where they stopped counting. According to that same video, nobody knows exactly how many Federal laws there are. And that's not even counting State and local laws.

      So no, nobody should be stupid enough to believe that they are committing three felonies every day. That number is too low.

    31. Re:Sigh. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      It's not an exaggeration in the OTC market. Every one of them are stock-selling scams and yes, they are committing multiple felonies every day.

    32. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      And smart investors think it is nuts to measure even on a yearly basis. How long did Amazon operate at a yearly loss before it became profitable?

    33. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why personality disorders are so prevalent in business leadership.

    34. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually stupid enough to believe that '3 felonies a day' bullshit? Perhaps you could list a few of these felonies that 'everyone' is committing 'every day'/

      You've committed cyber bullying (which has been charged as a felony) to the GP, libel against the '3 felonies' author, which is is criminally chargeable in 17 of the US states, above and beyond the negative impact to interstate commerce which itself can be charged under a variety of felony statutes.

      So yeah, in just one slashdot post you have committed three felonies and fscked up your own argument.

      Btw, I love how you know how wrong you are and even in your hate filled rageaholic state you felt the obligation to throw a fig leaf of quotes on "every person" and "every day".

    35. Re:Sigh. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      living in scawler

      Was that really a serious attempt at saying squalor?

    36. Re:Sigh. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That's $5.6 million a month funneled directly to Hollywood to make 15 more Avengers movies. I hardly think that was money well spent on the economy.

    37. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GROW UP, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, AND STOP EXPECTING SOMEONE ELSE TO MAKE YOUR LIFE BETTER!

      You sound like one of those Baby Boomers who pissed their life away, saved nothing for retirement, and now live on Social Security like it's a pension plan.

    38. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation...
      Someone wrote a book making this claim (3 felonies a day). No one read it, no one fact checked it, but it fits their "narrative". Therefore it doesn't have to actually be true for them to argue all day long that it is. If you managed to factually prove its false, you will then be attacked relentlessly, as it appears to already be happening.

      Facts and truth no longer matter to the left.

    39. Re:Sigh. by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I know everyone likes to crack jokes about "we will make it up on volume" but it is rooted in sound practice.

      You cost of goods sold includes everything fixed and variables costs a like. If you total costs are $100 and you produce a 100 widgets your COGS per widget is $1.

      Now lets supposes you can only sell widgets for $0.50. Hmm -50 cents a widget. At first blush you might think that selling more widgets will result in greater losses. However if we look into the numbers and discover that the inputs to a widget are. $70 monthly rent on the factory building, $20 a month in salary of union employees you have to offer 160 hours of work to per month who could in that 160 hours assemble 1000 widgets, and $10 in widget materials per 100 widgets. The only variable cost there is the $10.

      So while it costs $100 to make 100 widgets
      it also costs $110 to make 200 widgets
      it costs $120 to make 300 widgets = which if sold at $0.50 ... would bring $150 in revenue... So at this volume its profitable.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    40. Re:Sigh. by iTrawl · · Score: 1

      Sure, what moves the money may be bullshit, but it's not burnt in Hollywood either. It moves on rather than be the end of the line.

      --
      "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    41. Re:Sigh. by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      You have a valid point. Being towards the younger end of the investor spectrum I'm nearly entirely invested in aggressive to moderate funds, I'm sure I've lost a penny or two due to Helios. In the grand scheme of things, I'd be surprised if they cost me much at all... But I stand by my point. A blanket statement that burning piles of cash in a startup that has a completely unworkable business model doesn't cost the average joe anything is ignorant.

    42. Re:Sigh. by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      burning piles of cash in a startup that has a completely unworkable business model

      If your fund manager can't spot companies with a completely unworkable business model, you have bigger problems.

    43. Re:Sigh. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down.

      Congratulations. In your quest to try and decide on what people can spend money on you just shutdown Nintendo, Apple, Shell, Facebook, and a good chunk of the rest of the Fortune 500, not to mention all the companies that never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.

      Oh and your idea is just completely stupid from a philosophical point of view. If I decide to put money into something then *you* or rather your government doesn't get to decide to shut it down just because they can't pay *me*. Insolvency and money doesn't work like that.

    44. Re:Sigh. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I worked as a Product Manager for some retards in Seattle (including the Director of Product Management) who actually had faith in this company. I pointed out that their business model involved converting some of the highest paying movie going customers into some of the lowest paying and, therefore, was unsustainable.

      I know right, people should instead invest in companies which don't have a product, have never turned a profit, and have no clear business path for doing so. Like several of those Fortune 500 companies which made some investors stupid rich.

      What you are talking about is bluechip investing. A low risk approach with long term thinking. It doesn't apply at all in the startup world.

    45. Re:Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

      Nintendo made their first loss in 30 years at one point.

      And they've been going for 129 years.

      There's no suggestion that they would have lost money consistently for their first X years of business at all. In fact, when they started to look like they were losing money, they changed tack and moved on.

      Apple - made $118m in its second year, and the first year wasn't a loss.

      Shell - I can't find enough documented with just a quick search by they certainly aren't an Amazon-like "let's fritter money away in huge chunks now to own the market in 20 years time" kind of business. Hell, they use to import sea-shells. Again, when it's not profitable, they moved to other things.

      Facebook - granted. But there's nothing to suggest that Facebook or any of those companies are worth what they say. WhatsApp was priced at something ridiculous and they just bought it up and have done nothing with it.

      Sorry, but I can't see that it would be a huge loss to demand "Hey, companies, you need to make money as stated in the primary aim of running a company" (in the UK at least, last time I formed one, they have to be run with the aim to produce profit).

    46. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like he's giving sound advice. How would you get that from what he said? Because only such Baby Boomers believe in personal responsibility?

    47. Re:Sigh. by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      I know everyone likes to crack jokes about "we will make it up on volume" but it is rooted in sound practice.

      The joke is in managers taking a "sound practice" and, through complete ignorance of what makes it a sound practice, fucks it up. The joke is how frequently that happens, and how often it could have been avoided by someone with more than two neurons to rub together ( ie: anyone, apparently, but the leaders of the company in question ).

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    48. Re:Sigh. by eepok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People don't know the exact number of federal laws not because there are so many that they can't be counted, but because of the way American laws are written. They're not all (a) "It is violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits." Many of them are (b) "It is a violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits, pass unsafely, and drive blind-folded except under the follow 18 circumstances."

      Does (b) count as one law or many?

      Additionally there is a massive amount of law that is specific to standards ("All automobile headlights must illuminate the road at least X feet ahead of the driver...") or give permissions for a single action to occur ("For the fiscal year 2018-2019, webservers will not be eligible for depreciation.").

      It's all very complex simply because life is complex and people would prefer to make it easier for themselves by screwing people over. So, in lieu of having massively atrocious fear campaigns of bloody punishment, every harmful action is made illegal and then comes with its own designated punishment.

    49. Re:Sigh. by eepok · · Score: 1

      While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):

      Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell should not be allowed to legally separate "stupid investors from being separated from their money". Because they wouldn't be "stupid". They'd be rationally trusting. One should be able to trust one's official financial representative.

    50. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know every stock that every one of the funds in your 401k is invested in? What are the chances that you, or someone you care about, has Helios stock in their portfolio? Maybe. Maybe not. But the chances are pretty high. I wholeheartedly disagree that the gov't should be involved in this. HOWEVER, saying that idiots in a public company burning bales of cash each month doesn't cost the average person a penny is a rather ignorant stance.

      The average person does not have any investments in the stock market, never mind a 401k.

    51. Re:Sigh. by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      burning piles of cash in a startup that has a completely unworkable business model

      If your fund manager can't spot companies with a completely unworkable business model, you have bigger problems.

      Also agree. Granted, I've never met, spoken to, or ever heard of any of the fund managers for the funds in my 401k. For all I know they don't exist, and it's the Wizard of Oz behind the scenes pulling on levers. All I know is that my 401 has 2-dozen or so funds I'm able to pick from that my employer (?) has pre-vetted. I have to assume that the managers of those funds aren't Joe Sixpack throwing empty beer bottles at a trailer wall full of stock symbols...

      Every game has winners and losers. If "my managers" realized before October, when Helios' stock started to shit the bed, that their business model was unsustainable and bailed out, I guess I won that round. If I won, that means someone else's manager lost, and is still holding the bag-o-shit. (Costing someone a bunch of money) My point still stands.

    52. Re:Sigh. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite.

      No we don't.... As long as management are honest the whole time; the market will correct this situation just fine.
      The only thing the government should make sure of: In the event of bankruptcy, the customers who already paid for a MoviePass
      with a remaining term which is now worthless have a priority claim to a pro-rata refund BEFORE any of the company's creditors get repaid.

    53. Re: Sigh. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's even possible without a massive new bureaucracy similar to the FDA in scale.

      It's not worth it. The bureaucracy required would stifle legitimate investments. That's what EVERY prior-restraint attempt by the government to suppress scams and bad investments causes ---- we already see that with the SEC.... they result in a mountain of money that has to be paid to compliance people and many MANY documents to be filed with the government, and many MANY months of waiting on the government to approve or send them back to try again in another year.

      As a result; countless legitimate businesses maybe never formed, or couldn't get capital, or never went public, and huge opportunities have been and will be lost, but it's very difficult to quantify what "Could Haves" became Never weres, due to overly oppressive government.

      They've coiled up a tight spring ready to release an enormous amount of momentum, and that may have something to do with why the cryptocurrency ICOs and microfinance movement have become so crazy

    54. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Felonies are classified as serious crimes. If you feel that three is too low, perhaps you could name four felonies that a person might commit in a typical day.

    55. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      That is some idiotic 'logic' there. Since there are a lot of laws, you MUST be committing at least three felonies? Really? Don't you find it rather odd that, given the number of idiots that actually believe this, none of them can come up with a SINGLE example? Just one?

    56. Re:Sigh. by azadrozny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention that many laws are created to modify or repeal other sections of the law. The government might want to amend the list of circumstances for blindfolded driving. It can be recursive in nature.

      For good or bad, laws are complex, and need to be evaluated holistically, rather than on a per item basis. It might be more helpful to think of laws like the genome for an organism. One gene alone doesn't work, its the interaction between them, turning on and off in sequence that creates life. Speeding is illegal, but what if I am trying to rescue a basket full of kittens? Instead of trying to codify everything, we let lawyers, judges and juries sort out the circumstances, and deconflict the letter of the law.

    57. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Any law that prohibited anything in my post would immediately be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. So, reset the counter to zero and try again.

    58. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a law along this line might improve the situation. Creating more more transparency is beneficial. I also think that there should be an easier way to for stockholders to change management or something in a business after reporting large losses for long periods. Dunno how that would be implemented.

    59. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be a parasite on the body politic?

    60. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is some idiotic 'logic' there. Since there are a lot of laws, you MUST be committing at least three felonies? Really? Don't you find it rather odd that, given the number of idiots that actually believe this, none of them can come up with a SINGLE example? Just one?

      There are no specific examples because I don't follow you around all day and watch everything you do.

      The "3 felonies every day" is a generalization based on the premise that there are so many laws -- tens of thousands -- that you are probably violating a few of them regularly. But you already knew that, and you're just being a pedantic asshole, which, fortunately for you, is not a crime.

    61. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gov shouldn't make more barriers for entry as per certification. A law that gives shareholders and investors more data on how the company functions would be better. More up to date numbers in greater detail, which is available to management, shown upfront to investors would limit how much funding a poorly run company takes in.

      The certification would not show how someone will act. It will only prove that he knows a certain and arbitrary set of information. When such a person screws up, you need to measure and affect change in the situation.

    62. Re: Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he said "government", not "lobbyist".

    63. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down.

      Aaaand... you just killed Amazon.com. You wanna rethink that?

    64. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because only such Baby Boomers believe in personal responsibility?

      Starting endless wars somebody else will fight and pay for.
      Sucking down a pension somebody else is taxed to fund.
      Education funded by taxes and now whines about existence of school taxes.
      Knee-jerk blames the government and millenials for everything under the sun.
      Personal responsibility.

      One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong...

    65. Re:Sigh. by azadrozny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet still no examples of felonies that an average person might commit on a daily basis.

    66. Re:Sigh. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So you're limiting it to first years only? Why not just ban startups and all new companies then?

      Your policy is idiotic. Companies have to do the things they claim they will do (fraud legislation). They have to present their finances to investors (a shitload of corporation legislation).

      Whether or not people give them money is entirely their business. If someone wants to give it to Tesla who can't seem to make a profit after 10 years it's their business. If someone wants to give it to a non-profit as a donation, that's their business. If someone wants to give it to some startup with no business plan, well that's still their business.

      What next? Trump isn't allowed to buy a Ferrari because daddy gave him his money?

      Normally I'm against all the "small government" comments. But your suggestion legally shutting down a solvent company where others have invested because you don't like their balance sheet or their business model is just utterly bizarre. If they become insolvent they will shutdown. If they don't they will stay afloat. Whether someone thinks they are capable of doing either and injects capital to help make it happen is absolutely none of your or your government's business.

    67. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you own a computer? How about a piece of wire? If so, you're committing a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as amended in 1996. In this version, "intent" was removed from previous law and it became a federal crime to merely own any equipment which could be used to circumvent a computer system. This was done to take aim at cable and satellite box hackers who might purchase or sell smartcard emulators, but was written so broadly that it could be used against nearly any person at any time.

    68. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Here is the law. Please point out the section that you claim exists.

    69. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move your prescription pills into a pill-reminder box
      Small accounting errors are federal felonies, once you sign your tax form.
      Transport a firearm wrong.
      shipping violations of items
      moving animals, letting pet animals go into the wild
      Loan a vehicle to someone that commits a felony with it.
      publish information from an anonymous source.
      disclose a security issue with a website to a friend.
      mistakenly report that your federel park campsite has been fully cleaned.
      accidentally link to a terrorist website, when domain changes content or ownership
      Give a friend a prescription medication, like a asthma rescue inhaler, or extra strength tylenol.
      Call in" sick" commit "Honest Services Fraud"
      Find drugs in your kids room and flush them down toilet, obstruct justice.
      Drive a vehicle on "Protected lands"
      Riding in a car with drugs in it.

      There are literally millions of possible situations.
      There is even a book:
      Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

    70. Re:Sigh. by ksw_92 · · Score: 1

      In states where marijuana is legal the "average" person could very well violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) on a daily basis. Just because it's not a "priority" for Federal prosecutors doesn't mean the law isn't being broken...

    71. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-15-providing-material-support-terrorists-18-usc-2339a
      https://www.wired.com/2011/04/trixter/
      http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter37&edition=prelim
      https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-944-proof-scheme-and-artifice-defraud
      https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/04/prosecution-raises-eyebrows-of-criminal-defense-bar/
      http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-06-13/sports/9706130068_1_bobby-unser-fined-federal-judge

    72. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      OK, I clicked on a few of your links.

      The first one says (in part) this:is primarily a statute aimed at reaching those persons who provide material support to terrorists knowing that such support will be used to commit one of the offenses ... (emphasis mine). You mean it is illegal to support terrorism? I had no idea!

      The third one is about harboring persons, spying, and disclosure of classified information. Again, I am shocked to find these things illegal.

      The fourth one is yet another shocker! Apparently it is illegal to participate in a scheme to defraud.

      The last one clearly says midemeanor.

      Are you seriously trying to claim that 'everyone' is doing these things 'every day'? Who do you hang out with?

    73. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Move your prescription pills into a pill-reminder box - not illegal in most places as long as not a controlled substance and you can prove you have a presciption
      Small accounting errors are federal felonies, once you sign your tax form. - No shit, it says that right where you sign it
      Transport a firearm wrong. - No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws
      shipping violations of items - Again, ifyou are shipping something hazardous you need to know the laws
      moving animals, letting pet animals go into the wild - Duh
      Loan a vehicle to someone that commits a felony with it. - Bullshit
      publish information from an anonymous source. - Bullshit

      And so on.

    74. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be convicted regardless of YOUR intention, what youre prosecuted as and who is being reckless with the law.
      https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/us/computer-student-on-trial-over-muslim-web-site-work.html

    75. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -No shit, it says that right where you sign it
      -No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws
      -No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws

      There are too many laws for a person to know. That is the problem bro.
      "Know the appropriate laws" if i learned a federal rule every day it would take me over 130 years to memorize whats on the books.

      Did you know that you can be prosecuted for illegal animal trade for animals that are legal in the US because they made illegal expost facto in another country?
      way too many laws.

    76. Re:Sigh. by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      People don't know the exact number of federal laws not because there are so many that they can't be counted, but because of the way American laws are written.

      Either way, the end result is the same. You can't possibly know if you're breaking any laws. The odds are tremendously in favor of every single one of us breaking multiple serious laws every day without even realizing it.

    77. Re:Sigh. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with private business going bust?
      So long as they're not being bailed out by unwilling participants (ie taxpayers via the government) there's no problem... People who bought shares in a business with a failed model knew the risks they were taking.
      Those employees would not have had a job otherwise, and those suppliers wouldn't have had a customer.

      What should be stopped, is people who profit from failing a business, there are many cases where senior management will pay themselves handsomely while they drive a business to collapse. If you're the senior management for a business which fails you should only be paid minimum wage for your time.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    78. Re:Sigh. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Then those people are in need of education...
      Being completely ignorant and relying on the government to think for you is not the answer, such a system can and will be heavily abused.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    79. Re:Sigh. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That's the problem with using a blanket term "losses" without context...

      Spending money to expand an otherwise profitable business is a fairly safe investment, Walmart could have continued operating their existing stores and gradually built up the capital to open more but it would have slowed their growth.

      Spending money to expand a business that you hope will become profitable after expansion is a more risky investment, but may pay off - so long as people are aware of the risks it's up to them to make the investment or not.

      But some businesses just lose money with no hope of recovering it, and this is generally what people think of when they hear the term "losses".

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    80. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. It's looking at a business model critically and seeing that it's doomed. Think about the 80/20 rule: 80% of revenue from 20% of customers. I used to date a girl who had a family that all watched a lot of movies. Their family spent hundreds of dollars a month (and probably still does today) among the 5 of them between rentals and movie tickets. Just looking at movie tickets, it was easily over $100/month for 5 people and I think their Dad didn't go to movies that much, so more like 4. That's $20-25/month per person minimum just seeing movies, and very likely it was like $50/month per person. I suspect there are many people in the $30-50/month range that are very profitable for every one, but the producers, the studios, are the most ruthless about getting fucking paid. Why would the studios accept converting all these movie goers who now pay for 3-5 movies a month into movie goers who pay for one movie (or less) a month? If you're converting 20% from paying for ~$40/month to ~$10/month, you need to sell a lot of the 80% on the idea before it becomes profitable. Even as an advertising platform, it seems really limited in what information they could collect. Maybe they're ahead of the times and someone will strike it rich tying product placement in movies to your specific preferences to inform what to show you online when watching digital streaming or some shit. But, they're not anywhere near thinking about that shit. They're just saying, hey let's build a user base and then get profitable. With a company like Uber, we can all immediately see the value. Eventually, prices will rise and they'll be making big dollars. Movie pass has no such idea, and, even, where there are great ideas, you have to take this huge risk and convert all these juicy customers into a lot less juicy customers and just hope that everyone else buys in. Maybe I just see this more clearly as a non-movie goer. I wouldn't pay $5/month for movie pass, even if I could see a free movie every day. I go to the movies 2-4 times a year and I am happy with that. The model has got to be damn good to justify converting high payers into low payers. And theirs is non-existent.

    81. Re:Sigh. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.

      Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.

      Your statement implies that company owners and stakeholders are always 100% honest and truthful about their companies. Trying to claim that it's against the law is a fucking joke. Laws don't prevent crime. Effective punishments do. And we hardly ever punish anyone in the financial sector. And you have one hell of an ability to turn a blind eye to the 2008 global financial crisis asking ignorant questions as to who this can hurt society overall.

      Let's put it this way; if every company had to prove themselves financially solvent for 10 years before filing for any kind of IPO, a shitload of companies would never even bother forming. Take the bullshit motivator we call the stock market out of the picture, and you've eliminated 90% of this problem.

      Um, what? My question was how more government intervention would help in this situation. And you reply by saying that the laws we already have are not enforced. I agree, especially when it comes to the financial sector. Bunch of criminal up in that bitch. But I don't understand how that is at all germane to my point.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    82. Re:Sigh. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):

      Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell should not be allowed to legally separate "stupid investors from being separated from their money". Because they wouldn't be "stupid". They'd be rationally trusting. One should be able to trust one's official financial representative.

      Fair enough, I agree. I was responding in the context of venture capital, not retail investing. Retail investors need more protection because they are not professional money managers. Venture capitalists at least should be professional money managers and evaluators of companies. I used to work in VC (on the tech side), and believe they should sink or swim based on their ability to evaluate businesses and business plans. It is, after all, their business.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    83. Re:Sigh. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      This is still complete bullshit. If the odds are 'tremendously in favor', then it should be dirt simple to point out at least a few FELONIES that every one of us are guilty of, knowingly or not. Or maybe even just ONE felony that many people commit without knowing it. Anything at all? The claim is that nearly a BILLION inadvertent felonies are committed every single day, and you can't list ONE of them?

      One of the problems with the 'there are so many laws you MUST be breaking some' argument is that most of the laws don't apply to 'everyone' in the first place. Are you the federal government? If not, then none of the laws creating agencies, funding them, operating them, giving them authority, etc apply to you. Are you a car manufacturer? If not, then none of the laws setting equipment rules for new cars apply to you. Are you a school district? If not, then none of the laws governing school districts apply to you. And so on and so on.

      So after you eliminate everything that does not apply to you (ie the vast majority of laws) , how many of the ones left are felonies? Very few.

      Then we get to the 'you can't possibly know' nonsense. You don't have to know every law, you just need a general idea of things that are regulated and from there you can certainly find out if something you want to do is permitted or not. Some of the idiotic examples others gave below are good examples of this. 'Transport a firearm wrong' - you had absolutely no idea that there are laws governing firearms and the transportation thereof? 'Shipping violations' - you had absolutely no idea that some things can't be shipped in certain ways? Etc, etc

      So then we come back to reality, which is that most people go their entire lives without committing a single felony, knowingly or not. Which is about as far from the 'everyone commits three felonies a day' bullshit as you can get.

    84. Re:Sigh. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      And yet still no examples of felonies that an average person might commit on a daily basis.

      Do you have some fender washers and cast iron pipes or metal tubing in your garage? That is constructive possession of an NFA item, namely a silencer. The same goes for a length of string and split ring commonly used for a key chain which can readily convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun. Ever let your semiautomatic rifle get so dirty (or leave the disconnector spring out of your AR-15) that it double fires? BATFE says once a machine gun always a machine gun. Federal gun laws get incredibly technical and they are trivial to violate; and the BATFE is not responsible for giving the wrong advice.

      Ever talk with a federal law enforcement officer? If their recollection of what you said disagrees with what you said, then that is another felony for lying or obstruction of justice. The FBI of course make it policy to only record interviews on paper to take maximum advantage of this.

      Do you have any expired prescriptions medications in your medicine cabinet? Maybe some Vicodin that you did not completely use?

      And then there is the whole computer fraud and abuse act. Or what about the Mann Act?

      How many federal felonies involve shellfish? Texas has at least 11 just by itself.

      Add the federal conspiracy statute. Every notice how so many stacked charges get dropped with only a conspiracy charge remaining? Why is that?

      And remember, while ignorance of the law is no excuse, whether it is statutory, regulatory, or judicial, it *is* an excuse if you are a law enforcement officer arresting someone.

    85. Re:Sigh. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Transport a firearm wrong. - No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws

      Knowing the appropriate law is not enough when the prosecutor decides what the appropriate law is.

      California had proscriptions on transporting a "loaded firearm" but does that mean actually loaded, or separate magazine loaded, or just having the firearm, magazine, and ammunition in proximity? I do not know the current situation but for a long time it was the last.

      Does the federal safe transport law apply if you stop to get lunch, use a restroom, or stay overnight on a long trip? It sure does not in states like New York and New Jersey. Remember the Olympic shooter who was arrested in Chicago at the airport?

      What happens when you take a flight to Maine while following all regulations to transport your hunting weapon and the flight is diverted to New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or Chicago because of bad weather? You are fucked because now you are in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

    86. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is often necessary to take on large debts in order to accomplish longer term goals. For example, knocking down and rebuilding a large structure may take years and tens of millions of dollars. It is normal and necessary for large companies to be able to go into debt of this nature in order for the economy to function. It is considered "normal" for large companies to plan to be in the red for up to 3 years at a time as they accomplish large tasks like acquisitions, renovations or entering a new and competitive market. For example, Microsoft didn't make money on their Xbox division for something like 10 years while they poured money into building a player base and competing with Nintendo and Sony who were both well established. Xbox is now quite profitable so the investment paid off, but it could never have happened under the sort of regulation you envision.

      Regulation by government generally amounts to the ignorant trying to tell the savvy what to do. Capitalism works because it is efficient; it is efficient because it finds ways to maximize profit that might not be obvious in the beginning. The idea that you can find efficiencies and maximize profit without making mistakes is what you expect to see in failed socialist and communist economies which is why modern capitalist governments generally do the smart thing and keep regulation as small and specific as possible while letting the market decide how to actually make money.

  3. Shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shocked I tells ya. No one ever could have seen this coming.

  4. right to remain silent holding up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like our favorite, as all the others have quietly disappeared? cease fire stand down,, turd flinging is even more uncivilized than things should get? in the moms we trust.. they created us out of almost nothing...

  5. OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it kill the editors around here to slap in a few sentences explaining what MoviePass is/was? Might hep us understand the story IF WE HAD FUCKING CONTEXT.

    1. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it kill the editors around here to slap in a few sentences explaining what MoviePass is/was? Might hep us understand the story IF WE HAD FUCKING CONTEXT.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoviePass

    2. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monthly subscription for movie tickets. I can't recall, but it was something like $10-$15/month for one ticket per day at any participating theater.

      Of course, most movie theaters I've seen in the last 5 years charge upwards of $12 for a ticket, so I'd imagine the contract between MoviePass and the theater groups left MP in quite the hole. Even with the rise of more money traps in theaters like bars and restaurants (my local one has a pizzeria), I'm guessing most people aren't bothering to buy more concessions despite saving on tickets.

    3. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it kill the editors around here to slap in a few sentences explaining what MoviePass is/was? Might hep us understand the story IF WE HAD FUCKING CONTEXT.

      It's what you do about a day after eating a movie.

    4. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it kill you to spend two seconds Googling instead of screaming profanities like a psycho? I suggest anger management classes. It will help your stress levels. You might live longer.

    5. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, the editors should have read that and summed it up in the article. Insightful! After all, why should I have to get off Slashdot to find out what Slashdot is trying to tell me?

    6. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by ledow · · Score: 1

      "Moviepass - the subscription cinema ticket service -"

      It really wouldn't be that hard to include that in the summary.

      P.S. most of the time when I have to Google something, I end up going off Slashdot to read about it instead. Especially if it's some US-specific thing.

      If you want to provide content, rather than just parrot articles from elsewhere, days later, with not even any moderation, editing, clarification, or summary, then Slashdot really needs to pull its finger out.

    7. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it kill the editors around here to slap in a few sentences explaining what MoviePass is/was? Might hep us understand the story IF WE HAD FUCKING CONTEXT.

      OMFG, you can't type moviepass.com into your browser? How do you get to slashdot.org?

    8. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I could sort of it see working, if say all the tickets available were for the quiet-periods, unsold seats, etc., if they were buying up the seats en-masse for a cheap price (saving the theatre having to advertise them, etc. as they're already "sold" as far as they are concerned), or something but... MoviePass don't seem to be doing that.

      The Wiki article literally says that they load the cost of the movie onto a pre-paid debit card, which you use to buy the movie. So you pay $X a month. And they give you $Y each day. Unless X > 30Y, I can't see how they ever could make money. And when it is, nobody would bother with it.

      But just... giving away a movie ticket every day for the price of a movie ticket once a month isn't that appealing a business model, especially once you stick a middleman into it, apps, pre-paid card numbers, etc.

      At what point were they going to morph that business model into something that actually makes profit?

    9. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      They're hope was that they'd have so many customers they could make deals like you describe.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly wouldn't have killed the editors either.

    11. Re: OK, so what is MoviePass? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      They talked about tacking on tracking of their subscribers , both before and after the movie, but there was a big pushback. Basically, just like Facebook, the subscribers were intended to eventually be the product, not the customers. Movies wanted to sell analytical data to Hollywood, theater chains, restaurants, etc. They essentially wanted the "data of date night" to see, and eventually sell, what people do and where they go when they go see a movie. So subscribers might see ads for a restaurant before the movie or a bar afterwards to grab a drink. The fact that the primary owner of Moviepass is an analytics company really tells the end game.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    12. Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG, the editors could have typed a fucking summary into their browser too! How do they get to publish articles?

  6. And it doesn't work very well either by guyniraxn · · Score: 2

    I signed up a couple of months ago on a discounted promotion. I received the card in the mail and went to use it the first time. I had already installed the app recently but it said I needed to update to the latest version. Google Play store says my phone is not supported by the new version of MoviePass, despite running Android Oreo. I happen to have an iPhone for work so I try that, nope, unauthorized device, whatever that means. I try their help and get no response for days. I can find no documentation on what unauthorized device means or how to fix the issue. Finally, MoviePass gets back to me and says the app was updated to remove the user tracking (which they assure me they never used anyway) but fail to address how I'm supposed to use the service or why my phone is no longer supported. I attempt to cancel my membership through the app but tapping that particular button is non-responsive. Finally, I just contest the charge with Amex. Thankfully they have robust protections. Fuck MoviePass.

    1. Re:And it doesn't work very well either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you managed to log into the app that counts as an activation. As you are only allowed to changer devices once per 12 months you would most likely get "unauthorized" if you attempt to login on another phone. This appears to be anti-account sharing protection.

      You would have realized this restriction if you read the ToS.

  7. PRO BUSINESS by DogDude · · Score: 1

    In the US, the most important thing is money. Laws that hinder any sort of business, in any sort of way, are anti-American.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  8. We can solve this with a Blockchain by xack · · Score: 0

    Lets launch an ICO today.

  9. US economy driven towards failure??? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "profit at all costs" mentallity is exactly what's driving the economy towards failure.

    Yet the US economy is so dynamic, it's the envy of the world. From startup dreamers to economic immigrants to foreign private companies, the US economy is the place to be.

    You seem unable to see the forest because of the trees.

    --
    Catalin Braescu
    Ofaly.com
  10. Fun while it lasted by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    I knew it was too good to be true but I milked MoviePass for all it was worth. When I was recovering from surgery, I literally saw a different movie each day at the local Regal Cinemas which participated in MoviePass.

    1. Re:Fun while it lasted by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If I didn't have a baby at home I would have been blowing through dumb investor money myself. None of the movies are worth the regular along price anyway.

    2. Re:Fun while it lasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why let that stop you? Plenty of people already bring their screaming babies to the movies, you'd fit right in.

    3. Re:Fun while it lasted by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I've never had that experience.

    4. Re:Fun while it lasted by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Here in Australia the theaters (some of them anyway) run special sessions aimed at mothers/fathers/other carers with babies. Lighting is kept on low and they have change tables in the back.

      I have never once experienced a baby problem in any movie I have been to.

  11. The problem is ... by jetkust · · Score: 1

    If I got MoviePass I'd feel obligated to go to the theater, which seems like a lot of effort and pressure.

    1. Re:The problem is ... by StormReaver · · Score: 0

      If I got MoviePass I'd feel obligated to go to the theater, which seems like a lot of effort and pressure.

      The movie theater experience royally sucks, too. The sooner movie theaters die, the better. It will be a great day when all movies go direct to DVD and streaming. Watching movies at home is far, Far, FAR more enjoyable than any movie theater.

    2. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the funny part is where people say it's a good deal for the customer. Um, no it isn't. They're still charging more than zero, and you'd have to pay me to go to the theater, in contrast to watching pirated movies at home.

      When the MPAA declared war on all customers (i.e. when they bought DMCA) I think that was a turning point in the "business." They haven't looked like serious businesses ever since. And if you're not a business, then you should be paying me to use your spyware, not the other way around.

    3. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, like a gym membership.

    4. Re:The problem is ... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      You don't go to the theater to watch a movie, you go to the theater for the social aspect, or especially taking a girl and sitting in the back row...
      Some theaters even have wider seats for two people.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  12. monetization by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see the math as simple. That's because none of us can see what their path to monetizing this was/is. Sure it's simple that if you give out tickets for a cost less than their price you lose money and can't make that up "on volume". But I suspect that the long term plans included things like striking deals with movies theaters for a slice of the concessions (arguing increased traffic), advertising for pre-movie dinners or parking lots, and perhaps tie-ins to netflix or hulu sunscriptions. Then steadily increasing the price once people get hooked regular movie visits (since you already paid for it).

    I kinda doubt this was a viable model. They would need some way to be exclusive with movie theaters to leverage them to share concessions, but they would also need to avoid annoying their customers with limited selections. Perhaps in big cities there is more competition on where you go to see Starwars, not so much is small cities. It's hard to see how they could extract enough to pay for the full price ticket itself.

    Still I would assume they do have some plan even if I can't figure out what it is.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:monetization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just wait enough that people grow tired going to movies while still paying the subscription à la AOL.

    2. Re:monetization by Luthair · · Score: 1

      We found at they were tracking people all the time and trying to sell information about them.

      Theatres receive almost nothing for ticket sales during the early part of their run, that goes to Hollywood. Maybe MoviePass could have convinced cinemas to give them a discount later in the theatre run where they have more share but if successful then Hollywood would become involved as it would start to detract from their take.

    3. Re:monetization by Dare978Devil · · Score: 4, Informative

      A cut of concessions was likely out of the question. Studios are still taking 60% of ticket prices from theaters, meaning the only viable means of making money for a theater owner is concessions. That's the reason popcorn is 8 bucks.

    4. Re:monetization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A cut of concessions was likely out of the question. Studios are still taking 60% of ticket prices from theaters, meaning the only viable means of making money for a theater owner is concessions. That's the reason popcorn is 8 bucks.

      AMC, the largest theater chain in the world has already told them "fuck off, we're not giving you a cut of our concession money". (It's in the article, which of course no one has read).

    5. Re:monetization by randomErr · · Score: 4, Informative

      But I suspect that the long term plans included things like striking deals with movies theaters for a slice of the concessions (arguing increased traffic)...

      When MP first came out they bought large block of ticket credits from various chains at about $.75 - $1 a piece. Most people were only using the service about 2-3 times a month. At the time it was a $30/month subscriptions which made them a ton of money .(I heard these part on a radio interview with president at the time about 3 years ago.) Theaters saw concessions and attendance go up which was a great time for everyone.

      Then the theaters said 'As more people use the system we're getting a lot complaints customers on how the system work. Why don't we do the same?'. The chains started raising the prices on MP to about $2-3 per ticket to cover their cost dealing with complaints. With MP's administration costs and the lowered subscription price they were loosing about 1-2% on every subscription. This was compounded by attrition from member's credit cards expiring (see comments below). Since the theaters 'owned' ticket already they realized that loosing money to a middle man. The big chains already had movie clubs so they modernized it (easier to use member cards), dropped the price, and added roll-over concession perks. Plus the chains also got additional demographics they never had before.

      The Movie Pass application system is just plain clunky to use:

      • After sign up everything was done in the poorly designed phone app. It's a resource hog for no reason. Nothing is controlled through website even though that had the API's for the applications.
      • You had to sign-in too buy ticket via the app AT your location. You couldn't but them from home to save time. You had use data and have a good GPS on your.
      • You had to use a special credit at the theater and hope your earlier sign-in has register with the credit authorization system. That also meant to carry an extra card instead of just using the phone.
      • Neither the website or the app would let you update your credit card information. When your credit card expired you had to get a new account

      A few things can (would have) of fixed:

      • Web interface to let you update you information and buy tickets at home
      • Get rid of the credit card and use a 'member' card with a QR/bar code that could be scanned.
      • OR display a QR/bar code on your phone (additional security if it rotated every so often)
      • OR let you just print a ticket from home and do away from all the above BS
      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    6. Re:monetization by imidan · · Score: 1

      I don't see the math as simple. That's because none of us can see what their path to monetizing this was/is.

      I never paid too much attention to MoviePass, but surely part of the plan was that a lot of subscribers would pay their monthly fee but not attend very many movies? Like the gym membership model, where some number of gym members go on contract, pay for their membership, but still never use the gym.

    7. Re:monetization by torkus · · Score: 1

      We found at they were tracking people all the time and trying to sell information about them.

      Suggest you check your news on that...it was discussed and debunked.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  13. You know who I feel sorry for? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    The CEO. Those poor guys always take a hit when their business goes south.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:You know who I feel sorry for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a good chuckle at that one, thank you!

  14. Haithangyow! by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's because none of us can see what their path to monetizing this was/is.

    Including, apparently, their own management.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: Haithangyow! by giggleloop · · Score: 1

      I mean, Netflix would have failed if none of the studios initially agreed to play ball.

    2. Re: Haithangyow! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      That's because none of us can see what their path to monetizing this was/is.

      Including, apparently, their own management.

      I am certain their own management have handsomely monetized themselves over the years.

      It would be interesting to see when they exercised their stock options.

      It doesn't matter to them now if the company goes tits up.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re: Haithangyow! by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      i'd wager the studios now see netflix's initial overtures as the camel sticking it's nose under the tent -- they won't be so quick to make that mistake again.

    4. Re: Haithangyow! by Software · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to the DVD-by-mail service or the streaming service? For the former, Netflix didn't need arrangements with the studios; Netflix simply purchased the DVDs and rented them out. For the latter, the studios needed to agree.

  15. They are idiots for doin unlimited! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They really need to cap it. Like 1 movie per month and any other movie in a given month is $5.

    You'll have people that see 5 movies a year and people that see 50 movies a year. Seems like they underestimated the average.

    How much debt does the company have? What sucks is that their financial rating probably sucks so taking on debt would be at significant interest rates.

  16. Sounds like Tesla by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 0

    Only Movie Pass loses less money...

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  17. Business is risky. Get over it. by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite.

    No we do not. You cannot legislate against businesses failing. You have to let people take risks (including big risks) as long as they do not endanger the entire financial system. Very few companies are significant enough to present that kind of risk because they are already very big and successful by that point.

    I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit

    Do you have any idea how many companies you depend on that weren't profitable for far more than a year? Pretty much every drug company startup doesn't show a profit for the better part of a decade. Amazon wasn't profitable for many years as was Facebook. It's not at all unusual for companies to not be profitable for 2-3 years or more.

    If the shareholders are ok with burning cash for a larger payout down the road then that is fine. It's their money and if you don't take any risks chances are you aren't going to see a big payday.

    Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.

    Congratulations but that is very unusual. I've started 5 companies and several of them didn't ultimately make any profit.

    Yes, that would mean no Amazon (or at least, an Amazon starting up in a very different way). But it would also mean that there wouldn't be a thousand Amazon wannabes all doing the same and losing people's money, because it's not JUST the shareholders who lose out. Everyone from employees to suppliers to the taxpayer loses out from such things.

    That's complete nonsense. Taxpayers do not lose out in any way. The government still taxes income and that gets paid. Most companies are not C-Corps anyway. You cannot force companies to be successful. There is no way to run a robust economy without allowing people to fail.

  18. Me too. Geez we're stupid by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.

    I owned a couple businesses that never "made a loss" (spent a year investing, growing). It wasn't large. In fact they were tiny. Like you, I don't do that anymore. Mostly because with a very small business, I made less money than I make working for someone else, in a larger business. I don't do run a business now because it's silly to deal with the stress, risk, and volatility of owning a business unless you're going to make a lot more money than you would working 9-5.

    If I ever own another business full-time, I'm going to try to quickly grow it to be large enough to triple the income I make from salary. That'll mean investing in getting bigger, showing a loss, at first. If I'm not going to own a business that makes me real money, I may as well just work for Northrup Grumman or something.

  19. yep, but... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    Look at what the people who founded MoviePass have put into their own bankaccounts as 'salary'... They won't be eating dry bread when the company goes bust... It's all a scam to get them a lot of money..

  20. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What in hell is MoviePass?

  21. MoviePass has a $300m line of credit by mveloso · · Score: 1

    MoviePass apparently has a $300 million line of credit. While that probably has covenants re: financial levels and performance, it's something they definitely can draw on if they need to.

  22. You sound like a violent jerk. No? Then explain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite.

    Same question as everyone else: why? You proposed an idea that looks obviously stupid on the face of it. Maybe your idea isn't nearly as stupid as it seems. Maybe it's not stupid at all. But you didn't explain how it isn't stupid.

    Pointing guns at peoples' faces shouldn't be your first idea whenever you see a failure. Your violence (and that's what "there ought to be a law" is -- an attempt to incite people to act violently) is the main thing I want laws against. I can explain why your violent approach is bad, simply by punching you in face and then asking you whether or not you think you have gotten closer to doing whatever it is that I want. (You'll say no, thereby proving my point that violence is a bad idea.) Can you explain why violence is the answer? Because if your law is a good idea and you can show how, then it will also probably just as well apply to some other situations where I'm tempted to initiate violence for the joy of watching people I disapprove of, suffer.

  23. I RTFA'd by iTrawl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Movie theaters have little incentive to offer discounts to MoviePass. In fact, theater owners have been raising box-office prices, pushing revenue to near all-time highs, as a way to offset lower attendance.

    Is it just me or does that sound like "we don't have enough people coming in, so we'll put prices up so we get even fewer"? I don't remember supply and demand working that way.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    1. Re:I RTFA'd by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I bet if theaters made going to the movies cheaper, more people would go.

      I for one would go to the movies a lot less if it wasn't for Cineplex here in Brisbane (no relation to the US company). Cheapest movie tickets in Brisbane and probably the cheapest munchies as well.

      If I had to pay the rip-off prices charged by Event Cinemas for tickets and munchies I wouldn't see very many movies at all.

    2. Re:I RTFA'd by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Movie theaters have little incentive to offer discounts to MoviePass. In fact, theater owners have been raising box-office prices, pushing revenue to near all-time highs, as a way to offset lower attendance.

      Is it just me or does that sound like "we don't have enough people coming in, so we'll put prices up so we get even fewer"? I don't remember supply and demand working that way.

      That's because it doesn't.

      Box office prices generally go direct to the studios. The first few weeks of a new movie's run, the studio-theatre split is 100-0%. Yes, all ticket revenues for the first week or two go straight to the movie studio. The theatre doesn't mind - enough people buy concessions that they make a small profit that way.

      As time goes on the split gets better - 75-25, 50-50, 25-75, or so. This generally makes up for the lack of people going and thus lower concession sales to those movies.

      MoviePass might have bought tickets to cheap second run and special event movies at heavily discounted rates (the tickets usually only cost $3 anyways) and capitalized on the fact that those could've been used for first run movies in an odd loophole, but I'm sure the theatre chains caught on fairly quickly because the studios would've demanded full price.

      Studios demand more ticket revenue, forcing theatres to raise ticket prices. It's only during the slow periods and after a few weeks can you see the movie at discounted rates (usually matinee tuesdays or so) because of naturally low business so they actually do discount.

  24. Re:Business is risky. Get over it. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    There is no way to run a robust economy without allowing people to fail.

    You have to let corporations fail, and take investors' money with them. But you don't have to let people fail, if you catch my drift. Someone profits; tax 'em enough to pay for the upheaval caused by failure.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Almost nobody cares about privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say it was the CEO talking about how they planned to butt rape everyone's privacy, but apparently nobody cares.

  26. Failure in business by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You have to let corporations fail, and take investors' money with them. But you don't have to let people fail, if you catch my drift.

    Corporations are run by people. They fail because the people running them fail. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference but perhaps I don't understand your point. Some people are going to fail and that's ok. Failure in business is rarely permanent or fatal. Have some social safety nets (fully funded of course) but very little of value is ever accomplished without some measure of risk.

    Someone profits; tax 'em enough to pay for the upheaval caused by failure.

    Most businesses aren't zero sum games, at least not all the time. I don't have to fail for someone else to succeed and vice versa.

  27. what they should do is work with studios to get pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they already have your credit card - if they offered things like perks for doing say a presale of the blu ray or digital release or other merch through the app they could take a cut and make a lot more money.