Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MoviePass Limiting Subscribers To 3 Movies Per Month (npr.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the policies-that-change-every-week dept.

nolaguy shares a report from NPR: Movie theater subscription service MoviePass will not be raising prices, as it had announced last week, but will instead be capping the number of times that subscribers can visit movie theaters. For $9.95 per month, MoviePass subscribers used to be able to see a movie in theaters every day, if they so chose. Beginning on August 15, the service will instead provide three movies per month. The change replaces a previously announced plan to raise prices to $14.95 a month. The beleaguered movie theater subscription company is also canceling two other recent changes -- "peak pricing" surcharges for popular movies and a ticket verification process -- that were intended to stop the company from bleeding money.

105 comments

  1. Enough by dohzer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Three movies per month should be enough for anyone.

    1. Re:Enough by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      I still don't see how even that would be profitable, unless the expect people to subscribe to MoviePass in the same way as the gym...

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

      Tell that to people who binge watch dozens of netflix shows per day. :-)

    3. Re:Enough by mattyj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're still 10's of millions of dollars in the hole, just to get to even, much less profitable.

      They say that the problem was people that 'abused' the system, meaning people that took them up on the original offer as stated. Even at three movies a month, they're still buying tickets at full price and selling them for less. So yeah, I think they'd need about 90% of their subscribers to pay them each month and choose not to see any movies. Good luck with that.

    4. Re:Enough by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"Three movies per month should be enough for anyone."

      That is $3.32 per movie, assuming one always saw 3 movies a month (and not counting the "price" of your privacy). Still not a bad deal. Except, are there really even 3 movies worth seeing each and every month? Sure, there are probably months where I could find 3 interesting things in a month, but other months it could be higher, and most months it would be lower. Too bad they didn't work out a "banking" or "rollover" system so you could utilize those passes later. Seems like that would be a reasonable next step coming off of "unlimited."

    5. Re:Enough by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Dozens of Netflix shows per day? You are a weakling, sir!

      I follow the MoviePass philosophy and watch at least twenty two-hours-long movies every day!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Enough by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're paying anyway you might be less picky when going to the movies.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Enough by greenwow · · Score: 0

      Besides, who has time to go to three movies a month?

    8. Re:Enough by PseudoAnon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Things like data collection/analysis and advertising can bring in extra money. I remember reading that they had planned on tracking where people went near theaters and that they were planning on offering ads/coupons to nearby places. And it seems like there's potential for more beyond that if they're competent enough to get it done. I imagine they'd have to make a lot of money off of that to make up for losses though.

    9. Re:Enough by Old+Tom+Bombadil · · Score: 1

      I think this is a good amount for older subscribers but I can remember days of old when I would go to multiple movies in one sitting..

      --
      "Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow! Bright Blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow!" -Tom Bombadil
    10. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're still 10's of millions of dollars in the hole, just to get to even, much less profitable.

      They say that the problem was people that 'abused' the system, meaning people that took them up on the original offer as stated. Even at three movies a month, they're still buying tickets at full price and selling them for less. So yeah, I think they'd need about 90% of their subscribers to pay them each month and choose not to see any movies. Good luck with that.

      My favorite local theater offers all movies at $5.50 every Wednesday all day long. My closest theater offers $6.00 movies all day on Tuesday. Why would I pay $15 per month instead of just going on Tuesday or Wednesday when I had something I was interested in seeing? Their "deal" is no longer a deal at all. I'm not paying $15.00 every month in the hopes I can find three movies I want to see just for the privilege to go on a Friday night.

    11. Re:Enough by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      Why would I pay $15 per month instead of just going on Tuesday or Wednesday

      Because you have a job?

    12. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We lose money on every sale. But we make it up on volume!

      But seriously, if you go to one movie a month, Movie Pass is just barely breaking even, More than one per month and they are losing money. The only way Movie Pass makes any profit at all is if people pay for a subscription and then never use it. Their business model literally depends on people paying them money and getting nothing in return.

    13. Re:Enough by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      I still don't see how even that would be profitable, unless the expect people to subscribe to MoviePass in the same way as the gym...

      You mean, pay for MoviePass totally intending to use it, then end up not using it, and be unable to cancel due to some small-print provision of the contract or another, or the company conveniently losing the cancellation request repeatedly... that kind of thing?

      The trouble with that theory is, people actually LIKE watching movies, and generally don't sign up out of a sense of guilt for BINGE-READING over Thanksgiving weekend. "Oh, GAWD, I read SOO many pages! I think I read an entire chapter just in one sitting! I couldn't possibly read another word... oh, wait, that's right, I almost forgot, there's denouement stuffing, (mmmmrph...) and we still need to try and read that sweet, creamy, delicious pumpkin-spiced epilogue... but afterwords, (get it?) I swear I will sign up for a MoviePass membership and watch movies EVERY DAY and NO more binge-reading!" ;-p

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    14. Re: Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They need to shift to an ala carte system. Instead of a subscription model which needs memberships, they could offer a plan where, on the day you want to see a movie you go there and buy a ticket. They could offer discounts on slow periods. Maybe make money selling popcorn or so other dirt cheap snack food. To avoid the theater owner's complaining, they could rent a big empty room and get some projectors, so they can show it themselves. Maybe but a deal.with studios to get first run copies licensed. Something like that.

      You could call it.. "NotNetFlix"

    15. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      640k should be enough for anyone

    16. Re:Enough by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They say that the problem was people that 'abused' the system, meaning people that took them up on the original offer as stated.

      No, some of the abuse was much worse than that. For instance, I installed my Moviepass app on my burner phone so I could loan it to other people. My wife watched several movies per week, my daughter used it, and she also loaned it to her friends. We were probably doing 20 movies a month, costing them 20 times the subscription fee.

      For three movies per month, we will likely still keep it.

    17. Re:Enough by shaitand · · Score: 1

      These days we all have dozens of little subscriptions for this and that nickel and diming us. You sign up for a new movie thing, cool, you remember to use it the first month, forget you have it the second, etc. You could easily find yourself having remembered to use the thing 3 times 8 months down the line. And of course the most important thing to remember is that the good movies all come out in a cluster during about 3 months of the year... it isn't like you are going to start going to the movies just for the sake of doing it. This fact alone should allow them to offer a much lower price vs once a month.

      It isn't like they are the only ones using this model to make money, your ISP, cell phone provider, cable provider, and many many others are using the same logic except they generally crank it up to max in order to milk higher profit not just enough to operate and net a tidy profit.

    18. Re:Enough by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Tightwad Tuesday at our theater here. Tuesday matinee is $6. Mildly amusing that the $6 showing of Christopher Robin tomorrow is at 4:20. Going to toke up real good before show time (pleasant walk, especially when high).

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    19. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In France, UGC and Gaumond compete with their subcription plan.

      For 20 euros a month I can watch any number of movies I want, but only in UGC and some independent affiliated theaters.
      I usually watch 2 or 3 movies per week. I could watch 3 per days, even in peek times or 3D.

      So a movie subscription service is possible, but theater companies need to have something to gain from it, like having customers coming only to their theaters and not the competition.

    20. Re: Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they had the had the most ill conceived business plan ever. Presumably they must have had one to attract investors but the fact that they are continually proposing new ways to make themselves financially viable shows that most of their anticipated non-subscription revenues are obviously not yielding the returns they anticipated and now they are desperately scrambling to find something that works. But it all looks like desperation now. The subscription price is obviously a significant loss maker so I fail to see how adjustments to the monthly price is going to fix whatâ(TM)s broken with their master plan. Even at 3 movies per month, they need to generate at least $25 per customer of value. Is $25 of customer data value or concession kick backs even close to possible? With regards to investors here, the old adage âoea fool and his money are easily separatedâ most definitely applies.

    21. Re:Enough by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      They say that the problem was people that 'abused' the system, meaning people that took them up on the original offer as stated. Even at three movies a month, they're still buying tickets at full price and selling them for less. So yeah, I think they'd need about 90% of their subscribers to pay them each month and choose not to see any movies. Good luck with that.

      I get your point, but nobody complains about AMC's competing Stubs A-List offering. It allows you to see 3 movies a week and costs $19.95 a month. No restrictions on what you see or when you see it, but it must be at an AMC theater. I don't see anybody saying AMC is going to go under from this. In fact, it may be profitable for Movie Pass at the $9.95 rate or maybe they lose so little money that their selling of subscriber, info, which apparently is the real key to their business model, can actually make them a modest profit now with the lower costs.

    22. Re:Enough by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      It could be profitable, if they somehow got bulk deals on tickets. Movie theatres have tons of unsold tickets. Empty seats everywhere. It's kind of amazing that they continue to ask the same price for every movie regardless of how long it's been in the theatre or how high the demand is for the movie. I would gladly go to more movies if they discounted the price when they weren't as popular. As it stands right now, it doesn't make financial sense for me to spend so much on a movie (over $20 for a ticket and snacks) unless the movie is spectacular.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    23. Re:Enough by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      More than enough for me. I lucky if I see 3 movies per YEAR (in the movie theater).

      Last movie was April (Infinity War). Next movie will be Mission Impossible.

      I saw 2 movies in 2017.
      I saw 3 movies in 2016.

      So...yeah. Their service still costs more than its worth to me. I am not their target customer. I can't imagine I ever will be.

    24. Re:Enough by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Well, duh! The difference is that AMC makes money on concessions. MoviePass does not.

    25. Re:Enough by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      As it stands right now, it doesn't make financial sense for me to spend so much on a movie (over $20 for a ticket and snacks) unless the movie is spectacular.

      That's about $10/hr.

      How many things are you going to PAY to do, outside of your house, that costs that little? How cheap can you be?

      For me, the movie doesn't have to be "spectacular" - it just has to be "interesting enough"....and sadly, such content is hard to come by these days.

    26. Re:Enough by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well with all the new restrictions I am better off going to the movies myself. I live near a small theater that normally charges only $5.00 for a ticket.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    27. Re: Enough by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      AMC also makes money on each ticket sale. Movie pass may or may not make money on ticket sales,depending on how the subscriber uses it.

    28. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are failing to account for lost opportunity. Things I can't do for 2 hours also cost me. So it isn't $10 an hour. It is, at the very least, $20 + 2 hours salary.

    29. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $20 a pop, family of 4. Thats 80 dollars for 2 hours.

      We could go to the zoo for about the same cost, all day event.
      We could go fishing, even if we didn't have a license and had to buy licenses for me and the misses its significantly cheaper. All day event.
      We could go to the museum. Again all day event.
      The county fairs have been going on, typically we spend about 100 dollars for the family for snacks and rides, all day event.
      We could drive up to the national park and drive through it for 20 dollars for the car load. That with gas there and back, still cheaper. All day event.
      Take the family on a bike ride. All day event.
      How many more of my "cheapskate" ideas you want.

      Maybe its "cheap" in your book but no I am not going to pay 80 dollars for the family to go see some "interesting enough" movie for 2 hours.

    30. Re:Enough by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      So people like you are the reason why we can't have nice things for too long.

      These big businesses scamming us with high prices and strict rules, because there are enough people abusing the system to prevent honest business.

      Honest business needs both honest companies and honest customers.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    31. Re:Enough by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      You are failing to account for lost opportunity. Things I can't do for 2 hours also cost me. So it isn't $10 an hour. It is, at the very least, $20 + 2 hours salary.

      Right. Because you work 24/7/365 and there's just no way you could possibly spend 2 hours doing something OTHER than working.

    32. Re:Enough by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      $20 a pop, family of 4. Thats 80 dollars for 2 hours.

      My comment was directed at the poster I responded to - who mentioned the $20 for HIM...nothing about a family of four. On that note, apparently, he does nothing BUT work and has no chance of having any kind of family life anyway.

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

      Besides, who has time to go to three movies a month?

      Probably the same people who have time to sit around and watch an average of around five hours of television a day.

      Those are also some of the people who complain the loudest about not having any time to do the things they want to do, but that's a rant for another time.

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

      Why would I pay $15 per month instead of just going on Tuesday or Wednesday

      Because you have a job?

      Hardly. I find that many months I never step foot inside a theater. If there is something I want to see, I wait a few weeks and then drop in on a Wednesday night. It's only the foolish that are eager to sign up for yet another monthly service bill. Full utilization of their service is not much of a value proposition after their realignment and certainly not enough to warrant another monthly outlay.

    35. Re:Enough by gnick · · Score: 1

      Nothing says success like free on a Tuesday.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    36. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair, I didnt notice it being just a single person event.

      Ive never been able to go to the movies alone personally. It feels kinda lame.

    37. Re:Enough by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      I prefer to go by myself. No pressure to make conversation. No one talking to ME during the movie. No negotiation over what seat to get, etc.

      I love my wife - but I prefer to see movies by myself.

    38. Re:Enough by sjames · · Score: 1

      A lot of things don't cost at all, like the park. But if you're going to confine it to things you pay for, there's live concerts in small venues, the amusement park, minor league ballgames, community theater, museums, the zoo, dinner with friends...

    39. Re:Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > or the company conveniently losing the cancellation request repeatedly...

      https://twitter.com/Xial/status/1027004443324116992 -- That is what I think is going on.

  2. Obligatory Darth Vader by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Obligatory Darth Vader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point, non-members will need to start paying $9.95 a month.

  3. Where's Fucked Company when you need them? by mhkohne · · Score: 4, Funny

    This would be a lovely entry. Anyone taking bets yet on how long till it dies?

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re:Where's Fucked Company when you need them? by mattyj · · Score: 1

      This Friday at about 8:00 PM EST.

    2. Re:Where's Fucked Company when you need them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This story goes way deeper. The parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics, is a spin-off of Helios and Matheson Information Technology, an Indian ponzi scheme that defrauded between five and seven thousand investors, including the elderly and banks. The Indian principals' accounts in India are still frozen and the fraud investigation is still pending. Some of them were involved in the US H&M board or got hired as "consultants" to the US board for over $18K/month.

      https://www.businessinsider.com/moviepass-has-deep-ties-to-indian-company-accused-of-fraud-2018-6

      The newer US board and C-levels are serial penny-stock entrepreneurs in fields like psychic phone networks and marijuana vending machines.

      The whole thing was always a blend of ponzi and pump and dump. They use hype to lure in investors, and they were wildly successful, running the stock up to 8000 less than a year ago and crashing it to less than a dollar.

      Everyone who ever touched either Helios and Matheson needs to be investigated and held as a flight risk, especially the Indians who already fled India. This company needs to be prosecuted as an example and deterrent.

    3. Re:Where's Fucked Company when you need them? by youngone · · Score: 1

      Thanks A/C, that is very informative.
      It looks like they may have defrauded banks. You can rip off as many little old ladies as you can, but play fast and loose with banks' money and you're in big trouble.
      Also, their CEO is Ted Farnsworth, and we all know what a terrible job he did at Planet Express in the early 3000's.

    4. Re: Where's Fucked Company when you need them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume that's a Futurama reference. Farnsworth's real, thoughâ"a real Floridian con-man with schemes in multilevel marketing of vitamins, psychic phone networks, an energy drink and another antioxidant drink apparently modeled on "purple drank."

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-30/man-behind-1-151-stock-rally-has-overseen-99-wipeouts-in-past

      The previous CEO, Mitch Lowe, got busted by the SEC for bogus transactions designed to make his marijuana vending machine company look profitable to investors.

      I suspect they're but amateurs compared to the Indians involved, though, especially Muralikrishna Gadiyaram (CEO of the former H&M Information Technology, the Indian company from which Analytics was formed, and sitting on the board of Analytics and receiving payout as an exorbitant "consultancy fee"), Parthasarathy Krishnan (currently "chief innovation officer"), Prathap Singh, and the rest who came over to the new Helios & Matheson from the old one.

      There need to be prosecutions. Shit like this undermines so much trust that corporate types will be calling for prosecutions just to restore some confidence in the system.

    5. Re:Where's Fucked Company when you need them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another example of the old Silicon Valley trope of taking the VCs money and living a lavish lifestyle with it. Then saying "Oops, sorry that investment didn't work out".

    6. Re:Where's Fucked Company when you need them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they lied this would be pointless to investigate. I think all those poor millionaires can take care of themselves.

  4. AMC plan better and it's any format so dolby atmos by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    AMC plan better and it's any format so you can get movies in dolby atmos

  5. Good movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i struggle to find 3 good movies a year.

  6. The end is nigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing more to do other than cancel and shred your moviepass debit card.

  7. not be raising prices? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For $9.95 per month, MoviePass subscribers used to be able to see a movie in theaters every day, if they so chose. Beginning on August 15, the service will instead provide three movies per month. The change replaces a previously announced plan to raise prices to $14.95 a month.

    So, instead of a max of 30 movies/month for $14.95 (up from $9.95) it will be a max of 3 movies/month for $9.95. How is this not effectively a price increase? Fewer at the same price is equivalent to the same number at a higher price.

    For example. It's like smaller rolls of toilet paper but at the same price, because customers notice the "price point" not actual value. If you haven't noticed, toilet paper used to be 4.5"x4.5", then most switched to 4.5"x4" or 4.25"x4", now it's 4"x4" or 4"x3.92" -- but all at the same price as 4.5"x4.5". (Google: toilet paper smaller)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:not be raising prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cool story bro

    2. Re:not be raising prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kewl story bra

    3. Re:not be raising prices? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "How is this not effectively a price increase?"

      Well you see, the price never changed.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:not be raising prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example. It's like smaller rolls of toilet paper...

      I'm looking forward to wiping my butt with a translucent postage stamp.

    5. Re:not be raising prices? by Sebby · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's like smaller rolls of toilet paper but at the same price, because customers notice the "price point" not actual value. If you haven't noticed, toilet paper used to be 4.5"x4.5", then most switched to 4.5"x4" or 4.25"x4", now it's 4"x4" or 4"x3.92" -- but all at the same price as 4.5"x4.5". (Google: toilet paper smaller)

      Is this where the three little shells comes from?

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    6. Re:not be raising prices? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a price increase. Taking maximum advantage of it, it went from as little as about 50 cents per movie, to about $3.33 per movie.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    7. Re:not be raising prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because going to 30 movies a month is not a reasonable estimate of value for those of us with jobs and kids. 13.5 is really all you can manage by going Friday nights and weekends. Since afaik you can't use moviegoers more than once a day.

    8. Re:not be raising prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Sweden, toilet paper (like most goods) has a price comparison per kilogram so you can compare different brands and sizes easily... It's also required to be present on special offers and the like (and the price of a special 4*6 roll is quite often not better than the regular price for a pack of 24 rolls).

    9. Re:not be raising prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "big paper" also messed with the length of the rolls.... rolls used to be 200 sheets.. regardless of brand (well, the 'gas station' varieties like scott were always 1000+).

      now you can get 'double rolls' that are significantly smaller than what a single roll used to be.

      and the whole shrinkage thing even obsoleted certain designs of roll dispensers.. so the paper companies had to make adapter things to make the now-narrower roll fit them.

      there should be (needs to be) a site or a subreddit or something that calls out all these greedy companies and their tricks and hidden price increases... whether it's grocery products like bathroom tissues or canned tuna or ice cream... or fast food products:

      the incredible shrinking big mac.. wafer thin cheese slices there and at bk - plus bk's 'double cheeseburger is really a double hamburger with cheese' scam, subway changing recipes of sandwiches reducing amount of meat and shrinking the bread by the other two dimensions - why do you think they changed how they cut it? because the old cut won't work with the new bread - its too small, nearly every name brand product in a 'dollar store', etc, etc...

    10. Re: not be raising prices? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      For many, 3 unrestricted movies for $9.95/mo is a WAY better deal than $9.95/mo + $3-7/movie + tons of additional annoying restrictions.

    11. Re:not be raising prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At Target in the US, the unit price for toilet paper is found by dividing the price per pack by 100 and calling that "$ PER 100 COUNT." Other unit prices are similarly arbitrary, incoherent, and inconsistent. Paper towels will have a different unit price depending on the size of the sheet. Soda has half a dozen different unit prices displayed (one per product, selected seemingly at random), with each one calculated using one of the calculations for the others (also selected at random) and some forgetting to factor in the number of containers in multipacks (typically split between regular and diet so a 6-pack of one has a unit price 6x that of the other). Store brand unit prices are truncated while name brands are rounded, usually with such little precision displayed that the store brand looks like a much better deal despite containing the exact same amount of product for the exact same price. Some items have a unit price in number of items, others of the same kind in weight or volume, making them impossible to compare. Unit prices in the US are completely useless.

  8. Enough about MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they pay /. ? A failed movie business is not News for Geeks (or actually for anyone), especially not after the 500th news item.

  9. And it gets worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I just tried to use MoviePass to attend a 7:30pm showing - not available! The only movies that showed available (selectable) were all past 9pm - on a weeknight. And of course half of the movies were greyed out because they are new and the app showed "This premium screening is not supported".

    1. Re:And it gets worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happened to me last Thursday. Leave work, can't check in because I'm not right up the theatre's ass, go to dinner with some friends, show up at 7:00 for a 7:45 showing and EVERY SINGLE MOVIE was "no screenings available." It's a joke. My brother paid good money for this last Christmas and I've only been able to see 3-4 movies so far because of this escalating bullshit.

  10. They did by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    or at least that's how they sold it to investors. If nothing else this proves that folks like going to the movies and would go more often if the price was lower.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They did by youngone · · Score: 1

      ...folks like going to the movies and would go more often if the price was lower.

      You make a good point there. The evenyoungerones like going to superhero movies, but as I am an old youngone, I have pretty much seen them all, several times over the years.
      Therefore I resent paying $25 per person (in my local money) to see some something that is not new to me.
      If they charged ~$5 each, we could go nearly every week.

  11. Bait and Switch by Stan92057 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Surprised to hear no one suing for false advertising. Sell full access to all movies, switch to 3 a month is Bait and Switch, that against the law in the US as far as i know.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Against the law? LOL. You must be a time traveler and not have read a recent service agreement. "We reserve the rights to change the rules to this service agreement AT ANY TIME."

    2. Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a subscription right? This month you get all movies, next month you get 3.

    3. Re:Bait and Switch by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      You would simply waste money suing a bankrupt company. Now if the SEC can prove the people running the company knew it would fail, then they could be looking at serious jail time.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only bait and switch for those getting something they didn't think they were getting. Price increases for subscription services are not bait and switch unless the lower *currently* advertised price is not the one available at checkout.

    5. Re:Bait and Switch by azadrozny · · Score: 3, Informative

      How is it against the law to change the price or offerings of your subscription service? For all the company's faults, they seem to be doing this aboveboard. If you feel that it is no longer a good value, then just cancel the subscription.

    6. Re:Bait and Switch by Jahta · · Score: 1

      Surprised to hear no one suing for false advertising. Sell full access to all movies, switch to 3 a month is Bait and Switch, that against the law in the US as far as i know.

      On the other hand, I'm surprised that people actually believed that they could see a movie, in a movie theatre, every day for $9.95 per month (~ 33 cents per movie) without the movie theatres (and/or MoviePass) going broke. Businesses must, at a bare minimum, price their goods/services to at least cover their costs. If a price looks too good to be true, then it almost certainly is.

    7. Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They believed it because movie pass literally told them they could. It movie pass goes broke because they sold something they couldn't afford thats not my problem.

    8. Re:Bait and Switch by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      How?
      https://fraud.laws.com/bait-and-switch/what-makes-bait-and-switch-fraud

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    9. Re:Bait and Switch by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      They are changing their pricing and service like us old guy take pisses lol its stupid easy to see it was never going to work that's why sometime the government makes laws to prevent idiots from doing stupid things with other peoples money. its still IMO bait and switch but then who the F am i lol?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    10. Re:Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your own link. First, bait and switch is about tricking people to physically go to a store, not go to a website. Second, people actually got the product advertised. Now that produce is no longer available and a new product is being advertised. If they were still advertising the old price, you might have a point, but they aren't. Prices change all the time and no one things that's bait and switch.

  12. Interesting concept of a contract by sphealey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    MoviePass certainly has an interesting concept of how a contract works, one where they collect money upfront (the 2017 holiday promotion) and then unilaterally change the terms of the contract later. I wonder how they will fair in court with that?

    1. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Known+Nutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wonder how they will fair in court with that?

      Well, IANAL, but:

      You are expected to read these Terms of Use because your use of our Site and Service constitutes your agreement to the Arbitration Agreement and Class Action waiver described in Sections 17 and 18 below to resolve any disputes with us...

      17. Arbitration And Small Claims Proceedings

      (i) EITHER YOU OR WE MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN US DECIDED BY ARBITRATION AND NOT IN COURT OR BY JURY TRIAL.

      (ii) IF A DISPUTE IS ARBITRATED, YOU AGREE TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY CLASS CLAIM YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST US IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURT INCLUDING ANY RIGHT TO CLASS ARBITRATION OR ANY CONSOLIDATION OF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATIONS.

      https://www.moviepass.com/term...

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    2. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Zaelath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Arbitration is just cheaper and faster, it doesn't make illegal shit any more legal.

    3. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how they will fair in court with that?

      Does not really matter, for the company will be filing for bankruptcy long before any case would get to court (or the required arbitration, per the customer agreement).

    4. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MoviePass certainly has an interesting concept of how a contract works, one where they collect money upfront (the 2017 holiday promotion) and then unilaterally change the terms of the contract later.

      Except every single damned EULA and ToS more or less says "we can and will change these terms any time we want, and you have no recourse".

      Companies have stacked the deck to basically ensure they can do anything they want to, and you don't.

      Contracts are meaningless when the contract gives the company involved sole authority to change anything.

      The sooner people just say fuck it and cancel their subscriptions, the sooner this stupid company can get on with failing like it was always going to.

    5. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't waive your rights by clicking "I agree" on some random terms of use. If you had to sign a contract to get your MoviePass then that's another story, but somehow I doubt they did things that way.

    6. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why executives should be held personally responsible when a business fails or commits a crime. The biggest risks deserve the biggest rewards.

    7. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does when the company gets to choose the arbiter.

    8. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Who do you think hires the arbitration company? What is their incentive to be fair or even interpret the contract in a legal way. Courts have upheld the ability to waive the rights to a real trial.

    9. Re:Interesting concept of a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how they will fair [sic] in court with that?

      How they will fare (as in -well) ... there's nothing fair about it!

  13. RIP MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was nice knowing ya

    1. Re:RIP MoviePass by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Not sure why. They're still giving you 2 free movies a month. Might as well take advantage of their bizarre business model.

    2. Re:RIP MoviePass by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

      The problem with Moviepass now: you go to see a movie you would normally not pay for, only to find out that you can't use Moviepass. Standing at the theater you decide to pay full price for a crummy movie not worth paying for.

      The next time you are thinking about going to a movie, you decide its not worth the risk, and the next time you need to renew Moviepass, you decide its not worth the risk.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    3. Re:RIP MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another problem is that the app recently started dynamically to NOT show all movies playing at a theatre. On one night, around 7, I saw a no-charge movie at several theaters in the 10-11PM range. At 9:30, when driving there, all those movies were no longer listed. Yet, if you checked Fandango, they were. And no, these were not blockbusters like MI.
      The drop from 30/m to 3/m, and all the hassle with the inconsistent display of available shows, and the "we'll get you discounts (LOL)) is it for me. I've cancelled mine and spouse's subscription. I can go back to the $5 Tuesday thing and rely upon discounted tickets my work sells.

    4. Re:RIP MoviePass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And one more thing... sometimes it would display shows with no "upcharge" and then right before purchasing, there would be the upcharge icon on the same movie.
      Too much hassle.

  14. Just go out of business already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Broken monthly subscription model is broken.

  15. RIP MoviePass by richardtallent · · Score: 2

    In light of recent events, I am now limiting my MoviePass subscription to $0 / month.

    Sad to see it go, I never expected their business model to last long term, but it was a good run... :(

  16. Still Leaving for Sinemia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can get 2 or 3 movies per month (choice of plan, one is i believe 8.99 the other 13.99,) and see them in premium format, /when they come out/ and buy my ticket in advance. I almost regretted my cancellation of Moviepass for a minute after this announcement, but honestly Sinemia is a better deal, especially when the Marvel or James Cameron movies are coming out, those are meant for 3D or IMAX.

  17. Just die already ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish this stupid company would just die already so I can stop hearing about it.

    This is a company who had a business model which never made sense, because they were paying far more for people to see movies than their revenue was. They were pretty much guaranteed to fail.

    So, yeah, a tech startup with a stupid business model is failing to stay in business using that stupid business model.

    This is a company who apparently thought the magic of ads would make them profitable.

    Yes, they're failing. Now can we stop hearing about it? If everyone just cancels their subscription they'll drop dead in a week or so, the investors can go lick their wounds, and the rest of us can stop having to get daily updates of a failing company.

  18. Only 3 movies for $10? Game over, player one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theyâ(TM)re finished for good :-(

  19. Anybody remember Netflix throttling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, when Netflix was a dvd rental company, they touted their willingness to supply you with new discs as fast as you returned the old ones. The smart guys received their dvds, watched or ripped them and returned them the same day. Of course NF couldn't supply movies for pennies and still make money so they began throttling the supply and customers found their playlists were all marked 'long wait' no matter what movie they requested. At first NF denied they were doing that but when several of the current computer magazines proved they were lying it became 'OK, you got us but that's how it is so sod off" or something similar. Same thing happened with the Blockbuster promotion of 'as many movies as you want, just three at a time' which help do them in. This sort of scam has been around forever. When successful it's "sign people up, then jack up the price", or maybe "pump up the stock, then dump it and run". But as a practical business model it doesn't work.

  20. Before they change this again... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ...they need to consult with someone that can do 3rd grade arithmetic.

  21. This reminds me of .com v1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The absurdity of this business model reminds me of the heady days of the 90s.

    Since they are reselling a commodity, the only way this company can make money is if it's customers lose money (i.e. the customers pay more in subscription fees then they use in movie tickets). It's kinda like a casino in that way.

    However, a casino offers the added value of providing entertainment. What does this company offer their customers in return for their money? What is the value proposition. Seriously, what?

    Whoever provided the funding for this company should be drummed out of the VC business.