But it's not to hide my activity, it's spam avoidance - MoviePass wants advertisers to buy marketing data. I'm saying that, not only will there NOT be enough data to pay full price for an arbitrary number of movies, but the advertisers will only have "low rent" means to deliver the advertising (email blasts and, perhaps, junk snail mail). It's absolutely not worth the price of the marketing data in order to cover MoviePass's expenses. So no, I won't open a fake account - sure not, but what difference does that make unless you're suggesting the MoviePass business model is to steal my money?
You're still not getting it - this IS NOT THE MOVIE THEATER that is doing this, it's an independent third party who gets NOTHING for concessions. There's no deal between MoviePass and theaters - MoviePass pays the full price for your ticket, and then gets NOTHING.
Yes, but what is the AVERAGE number of times each customer goes? If the AVERAGE is more than twice a month, they lose. And you still don't get that it doesn't really cost the gym extra money (not meaningfully) is a customer goes once or 20 times a month, but it costs MoviePass a full ticket price every time it's used.
People aren't getting this - MoviePass doesn't make money when you buy concessions, the theater does. The same theater that MoviePass is giving FULL PRICE for your ticket to. The theater doesn't have some arrangement with MoviePass - they don't know or care where the money for the ticket is coming from. The theater wins, the film companies win because more people go to the theater, but MoviePass loses - it doesn't make any business sense.
There is one suggestion that if this could last long enough to become popular, then MoviePass would be able to start negotiating discount prices for people using it, but even then I don't see how they could possibly recoup all the money they'd be paying for tickets. Even if they negotiated half price for tickets, a customer need only use it twice a month on average in order for MoviePass to lose money.
No, they're not using the Gym business model. I think people aren't understanding that MoviePass is independent of the theaters you go to... it would be like paying a third party $10/month to go to Planet Fitness, and then that third party pays Planet Fitness $10 every time you used the gym. Even if half the people never went, if everybody else went only twice per month, the third party would only break even (actually lose money due to overhead). The business model makes no sense.
Where do you live? Because every 3D movie that comes out (and it's certainly only a tiny fraction of movies) has at least as many showings in 2D as it does in 3D in every theater around me.
I think people aren't getting why a lot of us don't think this will work. If it were a particular movie theater, or a theater chain, then you might figure they make the money back on concessions, and obviously some of them do that, but that's not what this is at all...
MoviePass is an independent third party that pays the theater the full price for the ticket. Then you go into the theater and maybe buy concessions... that's more profit for the theater, NOT MoviePass. MoviePass hopes to make it's revenue selling viewing habits. At nearly $10 for an average ticket, there's absolutely NO WAY they can recoup that money from advertisers. You are worth pennies, maybe a buck, but not $10. And then, again, unlike theaters that often sell advertising to show before the movies begin, MoviePass and their advertisers have NO DELIVERY PATH for their "targeted" advertising. They don't show you the movie, the theater does. Where are they going to advertise to you?
The very idea absolutely DOES sound crazy. This is NOT comparable to a gym membership, or an individual theater or chain selling passes - this makes very little sense to me. I'd be glad to admit I was wrong if people could actually argue for this business model, and not compare it to something it's not comparable to.
It's right there in the summary: "owe, an early Netflix Inc. executive who now runs a startup called MoviePass, plans to drop the price of the company’s movie ticket subscriptions on Tuesday to $9.95. The fee will let customers get in to one showing every day at any theater in the U.S. that accepts debit cards."
This has nothing to do with theaters - MoviePass is an independent third party that pays the movie theater full price for the ticket.
Of course, this is more the reason why it's almost certain to fail - but in the mean time it's a bargain for anyone who averages more than one movie a month, or people that would average more than one movie a month if it weren't for the exorbitant cost of tickets. I imagine most interested people would end up going more often than they do now.
Unless they require some kind of app that tracks you otherwise.
Even if they could use that information, though, I still don't see how advertisers buying this data can possibly cover the expense of paying theaters full price for every movie seen.
Exactly.... there are a couple of movie/dinner places around here. The seating is limited to account for the space people need to eat. I'm nor surprised a place like that would require some minimum purchase. I wouldn't know - I've always just gotten a meal there (well, for the whole family), because otherwise we'd be going to a different theater.
Well, Netflix doesn't have advertisements to make up shortfalls in cash; the MoviePass plan is to track your viewing habits and sell the information to advertisers. Of course, it still makes no sense - you're not a captive audience to MoviePass the way you are to Netflix which, if they showed advertising, would lose every customer immediately. How are those advertisers going to target you? If they answer is they require some app on your phone, or they require to be able to flood your email inbox, then not only will there be tons of backlash, but they STILL won't make money back as people fight the spam - fake email addresses, secondary unused email address, the "+" trick for gmail, turning off app notifications, blah blah blah... In order to simple not lose money, they'd have to spam you in orders of magnitude that NO ONE would accept.
My sentiments exactly - I might only see one (break "even") or two (come out slightly ahead) movies a month, but I know people who would go virtually every day - I do not think they can recoup that money in advertising.
1. Offer unlimited movies per month for $10 while still paying the theater full ticket price.
2. ????
3. Profit!
Only this time the ???? is clear: make a pile of money off the IPO, then sell it off immediately and watch the company crash and burn.
I might take the family 2 or 3 times a year as a family thing, usually going to one of the dinner theaters. When I was a teenager, I probably went with my friends at least twice a month on average, maybe more... and it was the standard date thing to do, too. For most people it's more about the social aspect then an actual "need" to see a first run movie. Of course, at the time we didn't have smart phones, the internet, and while Ataris were cool, they were no PS4 or XBox.
But really - I like superhero movies, I like fantasy movies, I think Tom Hanks is a great actor... the bottom line, not everybody thinks like you do. Just because I wait to see these movies cheaply on Netflix or something doesn't mean I don't like them... they may not be worth the first run ticket price, but there are a lot of enjoyable mainstream movies.
It's a family outing every once in a while.... maybe two or three times a year. We go to one of the places that has dining, usually. Often we go Sunday afternoon,
or during the week when it's not crowded.
As far as this MoviePass scheme goes, though, it makes no sense as a business model. All you have to do is see more than one movie a month, and they lose money because they are paying the theater full price. That they raised money to help cash flow doesn't make any sense, either - that money will dry up and they will go out of business. They think they can make it up selling movie-goer data to advertisers? If the average ticket price is $9, factor in the average number of movies people will go to (a lot more than they go now, likely) - while some may already go once or twice a week, with a pass like this many people will go nearly every day.
Even if it's only 5, on average, every month, that's a $35 shortfall (not even counting overhead). That's a LOT of advertising.
As a consumer, it sounds like a great deal.
What I envision is a few people making a giant pile of cash off the initial IPO, then dumping their stock while the company tanks.
So the solution is to stop rewarding the companies for it by not buying - so that half of the pirate equation is true; but you're still not entitled to something just because you want it and don't like the terms by which it's made available legally. Again, this isn't bread to feed a starving family, it's a f#@king movie. You don't need it. But what's happened is that the terms are acceptable to most people - they agree to the terms and buy the content; it's very democratic in nature - you don't have a right to violate someone else's property rights just because you're not happy with the outcome.
The way I see it, people were paying upwards of $100 for one service, then they cut the cord and went down to two or three $10-$15 month services... now those services are breaking up the content, and you'll have to get more services in order to get the same content.... Six of one, half dozen of the other.
I'm not saying "category 3" won't happen, I'm decrying the mentality of those who will opt for that "solution." Yes, I subscribe to Netflix, and I enjoy getting to see the Marvel movies (and shows, which apparently they will keep doing), but Netflix keeps making new deals, coming up with new content, and has constantly been rotating movies anyway, so they will start rotating out the Disney movies and getting something else.
Well, read what I wrote - we do graphics. So our animators (not me) have 30 inch monitors AND a second 27 inch Wacom Cintiq... which is what they had in their suites. Then they got moved to tiny open concept area and are expected to work "even better" because now they can collaborate. Meanwhile, the corporate idiots walk through the room, and contrary to their nice neat "one monitor" ideal, they complain the room they created looks like crap because everyone's desk packed and it looks like we're crammed in like cattle, like a tech version of "Hoarders."
I get it: first world problems. Like our animators having a wacom cintiq acting as a second monitor... and then the VP complains because it doesn't look good.
Of course they have - that's a ridiculous statement. The 70s was Disney's dark-ages phase where they had decided that animation was too expensive, so they gave us cheap live action crap like Herbie Rides Again, The Apple Dumpling Gang, The Shaggy D.A., and Freaky Friday. Since the 70s, we've had movies like Tron, Watcher in the Woods, and the resurgence of feature animations, starting with The Little Mermaid. Add in Touchstone pictures, and you've got a lot of great movies (like The Nightmare Before Christmas). They've also done a pretty good job taking over the Star Wars reigns.
Sorry, there's really no reason or justification for pirating Disney movies. Or any movies, really. If you don't want to pay what the companies that made them are asking, then don't watch. This is the entitlement mentality at it's worst. Nobody owes you anything, and you don't need movies. It's not like stealing bread to feed your family.
That doesn't mean I'm happy about it - I'm not, but the worst thing an individual can do is come out and say they are now going to start violating the legal rights of others because they don't want to pay for a f#@king Disney movie. Do these people even listen to themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
But it's not to hide my activity, it's spam avoidance - MoviePass wants advertisers to buy marketing data. I'm saying that, not only will there NOT be enough data to pay full price for an arbitrary number of movies, but the advertisers will only have "low rent" means to deliver the advertising (email blasts and, perhaps, junk snail mail). It's absolutely not worth the price of the marketing data in order to cover MoviePass's expenses. So no, I won't open a fake account - sure not, but what difference does that make unless you're suggesting the MoviePass business model is to steal my money?
You're still not getting it - this IS NOT THE MOVIE THEATER that is doing this, it's an independent third party who gets NOTHING for concessions. There's no deal between MoviePass and theaters - MoviePass pays the full price for your ticket, and then gets NOTHING.
Yes, but what is the AVERAGE number of times each customer goes? If the AVERAGE is more than twice a month, they lose. And you still don't get that it doesn't really cost the gym extra money (not meaningfully) is a customer goes once or 20 times a month, but it costs MoviePass a full ticket price every time it's used.
They aren't, and although I don't claim to be a business genius, the business model looks like it can't possibly succeed.
People aren't getting this - MoviePass doesn't make money when you buy concessions, the theater does. The same theater that MoviePass is giving FULL PRICE for your ticket to. The theater doesn't have some arrangement with MoviePass - they don't know or care where the money for the ticket is coming from. The theater wins, the film companies win because more people go to the theater, but MoviePass loses - it doesn't make any business sense.
There is one suggestion that if this could last long enough to become popular, then MoviePass would be able to start negotiating discount prices for people using it, but even then I don't see how they could possibly recoup all the money they'd be paying for tickets. Even if they negotiated half price for tickets, a customer need only use it twice a month on average in order for MoviePass to lose money.
No, they're not using the Gym business model. I think people aren't understanding that MoviePass is independent of the theaters you go to... it would be like paying a third party $10/month to go to Planet Fitness, and then that third party pays Planet Fitness $10 every time you used the gym. Even if half the people never went, if everybody else went only twice per month, the third party would only break even (actually lose money due to overhead). The business model makes no sense.
Where do you live? Because every 3D movie that comes out (and it's certainly only a tiny fraction of movies) has at least as many showings in 2D as it does in 3D in every theater around me.
I think people aren't getting why a lot of us don't think this will work. If it were a particular movie theater, or a theater chain, then you might figure they make the money back on concessions, and obviously some of them do that, but that's not what this is at all...
MoviePass is an independent third party that pays the theater the full price for the ticket. Then you go into the theater and maybe buy concessions... that's more profit for the theater, NOT MoviePass. MoviePass hopes to make it's revenue selling viewing habits. At nearly $10 for an average ticket, there's absolutely NO WAY they can recoup that money from advertisers. You are worth pennies, maybe a buck, but not $10. And then, again, unlike theaters that often sell advertising to show before the movies begin, MoviePass and their advertisers have NO DELIVERY PATH for their "targeted" advertising. They don't show you the movie, the theater does. Where are they going to advertise to you?
The very idea absolutely DOES sound crazy. This is NOT comparable to a gym membership, or an individual theater or chain selling passes - this makes very little sense to me. I'd be glad to admit I was wrong if people could actually argue for this business model, and not compare it to something it's not comparable to.
It's right there in the summary: "owe, an early Netflix Inc. executive who now runs a startup called MoviePass, plans to drop the price of the company’s movie ticket subscriptions on Tuesday to $9.95. The fee will let customers get in to one showing every day at any theater in the U.S. that accepts debit cards."
This has nothing to do with theaters - MoviePass is an independent third party that pays the movie theater full price for the ticket.
Of course, this is more the reason why it's almost certain to fail - but in the mean time it's a bargain for anyone who averages more than one movie a month, or people that would average more than one movie a month if it weren't for the exorbitant cost of tickets. I imagine most interested people would end up going more often than they do now.
Exactly. And yes, it's in TFA.
They aren't letting people in for "free," MoviePass is paying the theater full price for the tickets.
Unless they require some kind of app that tracks you otherwise.
Even if they could use that information, though, I still don't see how advertisers buying this data can possibly cover the expense of paying theaters full price for every movie seen.
Exactly.... there are a couple of movie/dinner places around here. The seating is limited to account for the space people need to eat. I'm nor surprised a place like that would require some minimum purchase. I wouldn't know - I've always just gotten a meal there (well, for the whole family), because otherwise we'd be going to a different theater.
Well, Netflix doesn't have advertisements to make up shortfalls in cash; the MoviePass plan is to track your viewing habits and sell the information to advertisers. Of course, it still makes no sense - you're not a captive audience to MoviePass the way you are to Netflix which, if they showed advertising, would lose every customer immediately. How are those advertisers going to target you? If they answer is they require some app on your phone, or they require to be able to flood your email inbox, then not only will there be tons of backlash, but they STILL won't make money back as people fight the spam - fake email addresses, secondary unused email address, the "+" trick for gmail, turning off app notifications, blah blah blah... In order to simple not lose money, they'd have to spam you in orders of magnitude that NO ONE would accept.
My sentiments exactly - I might only see one (break "even") or two (come out slightly ahead) movies a month, but I know people who would go virtually every day - I do not think they can recoup that money in advertising.
1. Offer unlimited movies per month for $10 while still paying the theater full ticket price.
2. ????
3. Profit!
Only this time the ???? is clear: make a pile of money off the IPO, then sell it off immediately and watch the company crash and burn.
I might take the family 2 or 3 times a year as a family thing, usually going to one of the dinner theaters. When I was a teenager, I probably went with my friends at least twice a month on average, maybe more... and it was the standard date thing to do, too. For most people it's more about the social aspect then an actual "need" to see a first run movie. Of course, at the time we didn't have smart phones, the internet, and while Ataris were cool, they were no PS4 or XBox.
But really - I like superhero movies, I like fantasy movies, I think Tom Hanks is a great actor... the bottom line, not everybody thinks like you do. Just because I wait to see these movies cheaply on Netflix or something doesn't mean I don't like them... they may not be worth the first run ticket price, but there are a lot of enjoyable mainstream movies.
It's a family outing every once in a while.... maybe two or three times a year. We go to one of the places that has dining, usually. Often we go Sunday afternoon, or during the week when it's not crowded.
As far as this MoviePass scheme goes, though, it makes no sense as a business model. All you have to do is see more than one movie a month, and they lose money because they are paying the theater full price. That they raised money to help cash flow doesn't make any sense, either - that money will dry up and they will go out of business. They think they can make it up selling movie-goer data to advertisers? If the average ticket price is $9, factor in the average number of movies people will go to (a lot more than they go now, likely) - while some may already go once or twice a week, with a pass like this many people will go nearly every day. Even if it's only 5, on average, every month, that's a $35 shortfall (not even counting overhead). That's a LOT of advertising.
As a consumer, it sounds like a great deal.
What I envision is a few people making a giant pile of cash off the initial IPO, then dumping their stock while the company tanks.
So the solution is to stop rewarding the companies for it by not buying - so that half of the pirate equation is true; but you're still not entitled to something just because you want it and don't like the terms by which it's made available legally. Again, this isn't bread to feed a starving family, it's a f#@king movie. You don't need it. But what's happened is that the terms are acceptable to most people - they agree to the terms and buy the content; it's very democratic in nature - you don't have a right to violate someone else's property rights just because you're not happy with the outcome.
The way I see it, people were paying upwards of $100 for one service, then they cut the cord and went down to two or three $10-$15 month services... now those services are breaking up the content, and you'll have to get more services in order to get the same content.... Six of one, half dozen of the other.
I'm not saying "category 3" won't happen, I'm decrying the mentality of those who will opt for that "solution." Yes, I subscribe to Netflix, and I enjoy getting to see the Marvel movies (and shows, which apparently they will keep doing), but Netflix keeps making new deals, coming up with new content, and has constantly been rotating movies anyway, so they will start rotating out the Disney movies and getting something else.
Well, read what I wrote - we do graphics. So our animators (not me) have 30 inch monitors AND a second 27 inch Wacom Cintiq... which is what they had in their suites. Then they got moved to tiny open concept area and are expected to work "even better" because now they can collaborate. Meanwhile, the corporate idiots walk through the room, and contrary to their nice neat "one monitor" ideal, they complain the room they created looks like crap because everyone's desk packed and it looks like we're crammed in like cattle, like a tech version of "Hoarders."
I get it: first world problems. Like our animators having a wacom cintiq acting as a second monitor... and then the VP complains because it doesn't look good.
Of course they have - that's a ridiculous statement. The 70s was Disney's dark-ages phase where they had decided that animation was too expensive, so they gave us cheap live action crap like Herbie Rides Again, The Apple Dumpling Gang, The Shaggy D.A., and Freaky Friday. Since the 70s, we've had movies like Tron, Watcher in the Woods, and the resurgence of feature animations, starting with The Little Mermaid. Add in Touchstone pictures, and you've got a lot of great movies (like The Nightmare Before Christmas). They've also done a pretty good job taking over the Star Wars reigns.
Sorry, there's really no reason or justification for pirating Disney movies. Or any movies, really. If you don't want to pay what the companies that made them are asking, then don't watch. This is the entitlement mentality at it's worst. Nobody owes you anything, and you don't need movies. It's not like stealing bread to feed your family.
That doesn't mean I'm happy about it - I'm not, but the worst thing an individual can do is come out and say they are now going to start violating the legal rights of others because they don't want to pay for a f#@king Disney movie. Do these people even listen to themselves?