Slashdot Mirror


Already at Movie Theaters Near You: Ticket Subscriptions (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: MoviePass, the subscription-based movie ticket service, is struggling to stay afloat. But the payment model it has popularized appears to be here to stay. AMC Theaters, the largest multiplex chain in the United States, rolled out its own MoviePass-style service on Tuesday. For $20 a month, subscribers to AMC Stubs A-List can see up to three movies a week. Also last week, the Alamo Drafthouse chain said it would begin testing a service called Season Pass that would offer unlimited movies for one monthly price.

[...] AMC also said that its service was "sustainable" -- a not-so-subtle shot at MoviePass, which has three million members, most of whom pay $10 a month for the ability to see a movie a day. Many people in Hollywood and on Wall Street think that MoviePass will fail because it loses money on heavy users; Helios and Matheson Analytics, which owns MoviePass, has seen its publicly traded shares fall from $38.86 last year to 31 cents on Friday.

Cinemark, a chain that has 4,566 movie screens in 41 states, began offering this subscription in December. It's very basic: for $9 a month members can see one movie a month (no 3-D) and receive a 20 percent discount on concessions, among other perks. Unused tickets roll over and never expire for paying members. There is no debit card involved, and members can reserve seats online. Sinemia: Started in 2015 in Turkey, this under-the-radar service bears the most similarity to MoviePass. Sinemia operates independently of theaters and involves a two-step process, with members selecting movies with an app and paying for them with a special debit card.

34 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. Pay to see a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fucking lol!

  2. probably workable but not for third parties by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

    I can easily see how a movie theatre can make a profit doing this. Most people probably don't see 12 movies a year so by locking in the $120-$240 per person their average profit per customer goes up. Also, someone who has free tickets is likely to buy more concessions which should help their profit even more. They also lock a customer in so that customer is not going with their friends to other theatres and giving their competition money.

    A third party doesn't benefit from any of this. They don't get to sell overpriced popcorn or soda. They can't average their customers and still come out ahead on a season pass. It's like a third party trying to sell season passes to disney world or six flags. The reason six flags can sell season passes for 2x the ticket price is because they know that the heavy users are going to buy food, pay for parking, bring friends, etc... and even if they don't, the average customer only comes once a year without a season pass so getting 2 days upfront is still a pretty good deal. They also get a few people who buy it and don't use it which a third party can benefit from but just breakage probably is not enough to sustain a business model.

    1. Re:probably workable but not for third parties by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Then again, considering how many empty seats I see in theaters in the rare case where I go, filling any of those seats at all should be an increase in profits for the theaters, even if they're only getting a fraction of what the ticket price is.

      I'm not sure this is true. It would be if the theatre was charged per showing but unlike in an airline, a theatre doesn't have to pay for an empty seat. I believe the theatre usually pays either a fixed cost per viewer or a percentage per viewer not a fixed cost per showing. If it's a fixed cost per viewer then the theatre can't sell the vacant seats for cheap.

    2. Re:probably workable but not for third parties by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Then again, considering how many empty seats I see in theaters in the rare case where I go, filling any of those seats at all should be an increase in profits for the theaters, even if they're only getting a fraction of what the ticket price is.

      I'm not sure this is true. It would be if the theatre was charged per showing but unlike in an airline, a theatre doesn't have to pay for an empty seat. I believe the theatre usually pays either a fixed cost per viewer or a percentage per viewer not a fixed cost per showing. If it's a fixed cost per viewer then the theatre can't sell the vacant seats for cheap.

      It's percentage of ticket price.

      For first couple of weeks, the percentage is around 100% for most studios. That is, all the money the theatre takes in for tickets goes to the studios. (It's why ticket prices creep up - the studios demand it)

      Don't feel bad - the theatres make it up in concession sales during the first couple of weeks which sell out the theatre - there's enough people paying that it makes a profit.

      For weeks after that, the percentage goes down to reflect declining attendance and now the theatre needs some of the ticket price to offset declining concession sales. So the third week it may drop to 80% goes to the studios, 20% of the ticket price goes to the theatre and declines from then on.

      Empty seats cost the theatre nothing other than opportunity costs - i.e., the theatre should've moved it into a smaller theatre so less seats are empty and a larger showing can use the larger theatre and sell more seats.

      These subscription services rely on the fact that they'll likely see increased concession sales which offset the loss in ticket revenue - i.e.,. the studios expect the ticket sales to be full price tickets even if bought at a discount (someone's gotta make it up and it isn't the studio). It's why the wisest of them will include discounted concessions - because no one wants to be the guy who is without popcorn while their friends are munching away, and the subscriber getting free popcorn or a discount will buy, forcing hte others to buy as well.

    3. Re:probably workable but not for third parties by cre1mer · · Score: 1

      I typically see 20 to 36 movies per year. This is a good deal since I'm only paying for 12 movies throughout the year.

    4. Re:probably workable but not for third parties by cre1mer · · Score: 1

      Theaters make their money at the concession stand. If someone is paying $20 a month to see three movies each week, they will probably buy a $7 soda at each showing. Each $7 soda is about $5+ in profits.

    5. Re: probably workable but not for third parties by thundercattt · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking too. I maybe see a movie once a year. When they're not turning out super hero pieces of shit with CGI. Now, if I had paid for this movie pass for $10 a month. I would go more often to make it worth while. Then the theatres make money on the $15 pop/popcorn that costs 4 cents to make. However, at current model of $15 a movie ticket. I probably wouldn't go to that many.

    6. Re:probably workable but not for third parties by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Honest question, how to theaters pay for the right to show a movie?

      Do they pay a fix cost? Like AMC pays 20 million to the movie company to air a movie?
      Do they give a share of ticket sales? Like AMC pays $5 of every ticket sale to the movie company.
      Do they pay each time their air a movie? Like each showing, AMC has to pay the movie company $500.

  3. Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seeing three movies a week sounds great, until you realize there's about 3 movies A YEAR worth seeing.

    --
    -Styopa
  4. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by AvitarX · · Score: 2

    It's also nine hours of time when it's all said and done (2.5*3+transport).

    That's a lot of disposable time, one a week is likely the practical limit for typical people.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  5. How is this new? by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

    I don't see why this is news. For example, Belgian cinema chain UGC offers an unlimited subscription for 19 Euros a month, which you can use to see as many films as you want. I think this offer existed 15 years ago already. In contrast, Moviepass is new in that it is a service that covers more than a single chain.

  6. Hardly a subscription ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Cinemark, ... began offering this subscription in December. It's very basic: for $9 a month members can see one movie a month (no 3-D) and receive a 20 percent discount on concessions, among other perks.

    So, you're basically pre-paying one movie a month (Regal and AMC charge about $9/movie in my area for a matinee) and getting a discount off the retail price of their vastly over-priced food (which, many people don't buy anyway). Wow.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Hardly a subscription ... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      people do buy there vastly over-priced food thats how they make money. but yes its still a joke because last time i set foot in are local cinamark i watched guardians of the galaxy i litterly was the only guy in the place.

  7. So anyone else... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Anyone else paying $1.75 at redbox to rent like 6 movies for the price of one theater ticket? I don't care about seeing movies right away. The movies don't melt or degrade over time lol. I just wait a year or less and see it for almost free. And apparently everyone else just buys a computer with no DVD drive and pays monthly fees for this? This is not the most cost-effective method and who the hell enjoys a "theater experience" these days? At home I don't need to tell everyone around me to shut up.

    1. Re:So anyone else... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting point...

      There are movies that I will see in a theater because of the big screen, surround-sound, maybe 3D that is available in the theater that I don't have at home. Yes, yes, I could go buy all that. But I really don't care that much.

      On the other hand, I'll rent the fun little comedy or interesting drama. I'll watch it at home or, more recently, on an airplane. I don't really gain anything from seeing it in a theater.

    2. Re:So anyone else... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      I pay about $120 per every 80 Blu-ray movies I watch (or per 40 4k ones now), which can be any title the day it's released on disc (sometimes sooner), and includes unlimited re-watches, ability to format shift to other devices, no DRM whatsoever... it's a great plan, called the 'buy harddrives and download from pirate bay' plan. There's cheaper plans too, you can download lower resolutions instead of full disc rips, or delete them when you're done so you don't have to manage 10TB of movies (a fraction of TV shows tho).

    3. Re:So anyone else... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Hey. Shut up. You're too noisy online too. :) Yeah, I watch mostly at home as well due to my old body that likes to pee, poop, move around, etc. I also can rewind, skip, fast forward, etc. on my demand. I can't do that in theaters. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Huh? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    The payment model "it" has popularised? What kind of self important drivel is this, I have been getting subscription movie passes since back when the internet consisted of AOL keywords.

  9. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Seeing three movies a week sounds great, until you realize there's about 3 movies A YEAR worth seeing.

    Oh I take it you think the only movies out there are what is hanging up on large posters and being shown in 5 second shaky cam adverts on TV.
    For example in the UK over 800 films are released in cinemas every year. If you can only find 3 you like, maybe the problem isn't the movie, but rather you.

  10. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    9 hours huh? So less than 2 days worth of typical TV for the typical American?

  11. Re:Not even if it was free, here's why : by irving47 · · Score: 1

    Double-down and use a laser pointer, pointed on their phone screen.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  12. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    And how many of these art-house specials are playing at the very-most mass-marketest of mass market AMC theaters? AFAIK all they show is what is hanging up on large posters and being shown in 5 second shaky-cam adverts on TV.

    Think for a second before you post "submit" on that snide, patronizing crap?

    --
    -Styopa
  13. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by irving47 · · Score: 1

    It's all the time sitting in the theater waiting for that *#$-damned "Screen-Vision" tripe and previews to end that actually puts me off this idea. That's what really kept me away from seeing Solo and Incredibles2 more than once.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  14. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Other things can be done while watching TV.

    Additionally, some TV is competing with the movies for time. The fact that a lot of TV is watched doesn't necessarily mean there's plenty of time for movies, it could actually mean there's less.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  15. movie alternatives by swell · · Score: 1

    Just today, my 4th of July gift to myself, I got a pass to all the museums, galleries and gardens in my city. That's 3 major art museums, 2 history, natural history, aerospace, science, model railroad, antique vehicles, botanical, photography museum and several formal gardens all in a year 'round park setting with great weather. Cost? $99/year.

    Perhaps not as sexy as a movie pass where there might be exotic comic book characters with super powers or state-of-the-art cuddly animated animals or seat-of-the-pants chase scenes. Not as accommodating as theaters that offer $8 popcorn, sugary drinks and soft sticky seats. Not as intimate as a vast darkened chasm lit with 36 hand held devices that occasionally ring, beep and chime.

    But really, who goes to museums?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  16. If.... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    If theaters would show interesting movies then I would do this. Years ago I was a member at Cinefamily. Google it, place in Los Angeles; they have couches in the first few rows!
    Weird, awesome movies with commentary, q&a, things which any theater really could do.
    If theaters want more money, a better experience starts with engaging movie-goers instead of treating them like mindless cattle. Many might be, but many of us want to see interesting movies instead another marvel film.

    --
    -
  17. Re:No 3D?!? by luther349 · · Score: 1

    there charging you per month for what a normal ticket cost lol. that 20% off can help if you do go often but whoever does these days theirs like 2 or 3 movies a year people wanna go see.

  18. AMC sucks by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

    Pay more for less, and have fewer, crappier locations to choose from? Um, okay AMC, how's that working for you?

    I don't see a lot of movies any more, and we mainly go to a few local-ish Cinemarks. Last winter I hit up an AMC that had been remodeled a few years back, and it still seemed like a throwback to 1995. The chairs were nicer now but the seating position was simply bizarre, with the screen seemingly way too high up. The headrests of the cushy seats push your head forward while you really need to put it back because they half-assed the remodel and didn't go with stadium-style tiers. The concession area was also weakly stocked and poorly attended. Price? Same as a nearby Cinemark, where the seats are more comfortable, the screen is in the right place, the concession options are better, and they have enough staff to serve everyone efficiently.
    I may just sign up for Moviepass, but I see zero reason to try AMC's in-house version.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  19. Nothing on offer is really "unlimited". by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    [T]he Alamo Drafthouse chain said it would begin testing a service called Season Pass that would offer unlimited movies for one monthly price.

    I too can't imagine wanting to spend my time seeing Hollywood movies where such a deal would be at all attractive. But I think these deals have a shelf-life—nothing on offer stays on offer in an unlimited fashion. This site has many stories of so-called "unlimited" plans that change later on ("Microsoft previously offered Office 365 subscribers unlimited space on their OneDrive cloud storage platform."), smaller ISPs used to offer dialup access where one could pay a fixed periodic fee and stay online or reconnect if disconnected an unlimited number of times, tracker/cell phone plans, etc.). The organization later discovers people use the allegedly "unlimited" service in that way. The organization doesn't want to continue the deal and they cancel the so-called "unlimited" plan. Perhaps to deflect blame for what was never a scalable idea to begin with, the users are sometimes later called "abusive" (for instance, the aforementioned Microsoft story description continues, "Now, the company has announced that it's reducing the limit to 1 TB, citing abuse from a small number of users, some of whom dropped 75 TB worth of data in Microsoft's cloud.").

  20. Re:Maybe new in the United States by jrumney · · Score: 1

    My local cinema had subscriptions in the '90s (they called it membership). Pay a monthly subscription and see as many movies as you like. For some popular movies, they made you pay for evening showings during the first week, or up until the first Sunday at least, but at a heavily discounted rate.

  21. Movies and electric shocks by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

    There's a classic experiment where a rat pushes a button for food and it is paired with an electric shock. After a while it will still keep pushing the button for an electric shock.

    I feel like movies have become this way. They are just churning out crap and people keep paying for it.

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:Movies and electric shocks by ledow · · Score: 1

      Then stop watching.

      I have seen four movies in the last ten years in the cinema, all "new releases" at the time.

      One was free (deal via my mobile provider).
      One was literally 50p (half a GBP) (again, deal via my mobile provider)
      One was the movie I'd absolutely wanted to see forever and was taken to (The Imitation Game). I paid full price for that.
      One was with my daughter in a rural cinema (it cost 5GBP, and I upgraded to a private box with food brought to us for another 5GBP. It would normally cost three times that just for a basic pair of tickets in my normal cinema).

      I had to sit through loads of adverts, but the cinemas were almost entirely empty. The only movie I'd watch again (in any format) is the one I was already looking forward to.

      So that - in total - I can only imagine is a complete loss to the cinema and everyone involved but me from all I can see. It costs them that much to have shown me the movies in question in the cinema they did, they certainly can't be profiting.

      In comparison, I've paid a regular subscription to several online streaming services. I do that, and watch mostly stuff I already know that I like. Often I trial whatever movie they are trying to push and will cut it in the first five minutes if it's just no good. Out of everything that's been in the cinema over the last... year, let's say. I would sit down and watch about... 4-5% if it was just there for me to watch. In terms of paying for it specifically? Nothing.

      People need to learn that when the product isn't good and can't be delivered to you in the manner you would like, then you need to stop consuming it. For all things. Movies, TV, videogames, pizza, groceries, appliances, gadgets, etc. etc. etc.

      Because if the actual product (a movie) is ruined by its delivery method, we only need to fix the delivery method. But if the product itself is also ruined, then it doesn't matter if you telepathically insert it into people's minds. Once they are wise, they will just stop paying for anything like that. The quicker we can make people implement that, the quicker studios can move back to making good product.

      Delivery of such products these days is amazing. I don't need the cinema, thanks. I can stream it to my house and project it on the wall and then pause the movie to have a pee. It's a solved problem.

      But the reason that Amazon, Netflix, etc are making their own products is not really just lock-in (after an exclusivity period, they sell them to others). It's because, as complete amateurs to that game, they can make stuff just as good as the 100-year-old studios who have never done anything but and have unlimited budgets to do so - and do a just as good, if not better, job.

  22. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Seeing three movies a week sounds great, until you realize there's about 3 movies A YEAR worth seeing.

    Three full movies a year are worth seeing... You're optimistic.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  23. Re:Subscription? Unlimited crap for a sub? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    And how many of these art-house specials are playing at the very-most mass-marketest of mass market AMC theaters?

    Probably quite a lot. Most mass market cinemas will even dedicate weeks to playing them if there's a movie festival on somewhere. My own mass market cinema has 22 different films playing right now. Let me guess, your next problem is that not every movie is playing all the time and that you can be less picky to find the three movies that will spark an otherwise dead soul?

    Think for a second before you post "submit" on that snide, patronizing crap?

    Thought about it, snided, patronised (something you should try and do at the cinema sometime), and submitted anyway.

    Worth it!