Moviepass and its Impact on the Box Office

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

But there's definitely a market for a monthly unlimited theater subscription whatever you set the price at.

The $50 moviepass that existed not so long ago can give us a certain idea of that market (or the 25-30 pound one in the UK and many other market having them).

 

Last year in the US the movie industry was around what 10.5b in tickets, 20.5b in home entertainment and I imagine close to 10b in tv.

 

That a bit over 40b in revenues (or 333 million subscription to movie pass at a 10$ a month price point).

 

It certainly exist some possible scenario were it is all to the better, a massive destruction of the 30m (75%) of the industry that happen after the theatrical windows (and have a lot of value gained from it) but compensated by a lot more people going to theater all the time with a unlimited subscription model.

 

But at that price point, it would probably take an unrealistic amount of users, that would be obviously be really nice too.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Barnack

[AniNate]

It may be "incomparable", but the music industry still stands even with its unlimited subscription services, and I'm certainly thankful to be able to now easily discover and replay music I love a lot more conveniently then I would switching on the radio and hoping the station plays something new among all the overplayed songs and commercials, and I can be confident knowing all the whining about how music today sucks so much worse than last decade is only because they haven't bothered looking. I see no reason why the film industry and exhibitors won't be able to figure out how to adapt to this model.

[TwoMisfits]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

The $50 moviepass that existed not so long ago give us a certain idea of that market.

 

Last year in the US the movie industry was around what 10.5b in tickets, 20.5b in home entertainment and I imagine close to 10b in tv.

 

That a bit over 40b in revenues (or 333 million subscription to movie pass at a 10$ a month price point).

 

It certainly exist some possible scenario were it is all to the better, a massive destruction of the 30m (75%) of the industry that happen after the theatrical windows (and have a lot of value gained from it) but compensated by a lot more people going to theater all the time with a unlimited subscription model.

 

But at that price point, it would probably take an unrealistic amount of users, that would be obviously be really nice too.

 

 

http://variety.com/2018/film/box-office/u-s-movie-tickets-sold-2017-1202667483/

 

Movie admissions were 1.24B in tickets for $11.09B in revenue...And we can see a 4th quarter MoviePass price effect with the price of each admission jumping pretty rapidly in that growing quarter (showing that folks get less "price selective" when they aren't paying)..."The average 2017 ticket price jumped 3.7% from $8.65 to $8.97 with the fourth quarter average soaring from $8.79 to $9.18."

 

So, if each person pays $120/year for Moviepass ($10/month), you'd need 92M subscribers to fully replace your ENTIRE current market with no other ticket revenue going into the system (like one-off ticket buys)...

 

Just to keep the numbers straight...

[Jandrew]

2 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Also The music thing IS NOT the same. Thats the WHOLE issue. 

 

You compared seeing a movie with going to Disneyland and eating food. None of them are the same.

 

More people worked on just creating the new soundtrack for The Last Jedi then people who worked in the new Kendrick Lamar album. That album took 1/300th (probably more)  of the effort it takes for a movie to be made. 

 

I understand that. That wasn't my point.

 

Songs are 3-4 minutes!!!! It only takes a few people to make a song and have it sound as professional as possible these days.  Songs are free but that doesn't matter, that drive you to want to see them in concert. Songs are basically advertisements for there shows/brand.  Movies don't work that way.

 

I understand that. That wasn't my point.

 

The whole industry will implode. We cant sustain paying below the line workers on movies a living wage if this happens, unless actors and shit stop getting paid millions.

 

I don't think the industry will "implode", but I'm not the one paying Chris Pratt millions to break dance in front of a bluescreen. I did my part by paying to go see the movie. The rest is not up to me.

 

Editors on blockbusters movies only make like 100k - 200k thats not much at all for a MAJOR skill job that only X amount of people can even do. And Its a full year of work. 

 

Whos fault is that? Bob Iger's salary is $44 million. Again, I did my part by going to see the movie and not pirating it. I have no control over worker pay.

 

Grips work on 2/3 movies a year and bring in 50 - 80k a year but then again they work 14 hour days all week.

 

I have no control over worker pay.

 

Assistants in hollywood make like 100 - 250 a day for again 14 hours of work on movies. Honestly you cant start paying these people less.

Its impossible.  Shit I only made 18k last year dog.  

 

Yes it's the football players vs teachers and firefighters argument. I understand it, but again, I have no control over that. As a consumer, all I can do is pay. 

 

Again its not a song/album, its a MOVIE. 1,000 of people work on one MOVIE not 3 dudes pushing buttons on Ableton or logic.. and most are regular workers making 30 - 40k a year. How can you employ 1,000s of people if you're only wiling to spend 2 bucks? Could a baseball stadium pay all its staff selling hot dogs if tickets were 2 dollars? 

 

Who said movies should cost $2? Yeah I think $16 for a movie in Atlanta is too expensive, but I didn't say it should be $2 I obviously agree that that is too low. And $2 is too low for baseball but they make it work at $8.

 

 Just having an on set medic which is a law that cost money, police have to present for shooting on location, fire fighters if any stunt is involved. No extra people are needed to make a beat in a computer. Feeding 4 dudes in a room is a lot easier than feeding 150 on set day in and day out. Making a movie is NOT like any other art form.

 

I'm aware, I've been following movies a long time. I've written them. I've had dreams of putting up with expensive ass LA to make it happen. They don't take years to make because people are slow, I'm aware. I wasn't comparing movies vs music, nor was I saying movies should be $10 because music is $10. Again, you missed the point.

 

Its like building a Hotel from scratch from the ground up. But harder because the amount of capable work force is WAY WAY smaller 

 

I'm aware.

 

Also the food argument is a bull shit one. Thats a choice. You dont need to pay 15 bucks for food to survive. People are willing to pay 15 buck for a chicken breast when you can buy 10 frozen breasts for 8 bucks at the store. I didn't spent more than 12 bucks on a meal more than 4 times in 2017. 

 

It doesn't matter what the food is, you need food. People are allowed to go out to eat and have different diets. I don't care if I'm eating Burger King, an egg salad, a Stouffers spaghetti, a bag of Tysons, Ruth's Chris, or a bag of peas. I need food. You can't always get around the tip or taxes and eating healthier costs more. Yes you don't have to get a Coke, but if you want one, I don't see why it's a big deal. 

 

Again its mindset thing and people are wrong. How people can justify buying something for 5x the price.  but then complain about a movie. Soda can cost like 25% yet a soda is 3 bucks. people complain about the movie then buy a 6 dollar slurrppe.  UMMMMM hello. if you wanna save money don't spend 6 bucks on something that cost  2 dollars at 7/11. 

 

Which is why I go to Target to buy my candy beforehand and just stuff it in my pocket. Everything is marked up and costs x times more than it should. That's how it is with consumer products. It's part of a thing called the supply chain. I (used a gift card) and bought a $12 Nike shirt last week, but the shirt probably cost 80 cents to make. So should I just not wear clothes?

 

I mean people gladly get ripped the fuck off every single DAY. Yet complain when 1,000 try and bring happiness to them for 2 hours. 

 

You take it too personal. I don't know many people that say "yeah fuck the movies, I aint got time for that expensive shit. Say, yall wanna fly to Disney World for Memorial Day?" 

 

People are cutting cable because even though they like some shows, it's just too expensive. People are turning on brands like Nordstrom and are going to Nordstrom Rack because $60 for every shirt is just too expensive. People are attending sports games less because those ticket prices are just too expensive. 

 

People are getting off LA, NYC, Miami, and San Fran's dick and are moving to cheaper, under the radar places like Omaha, Tampa, Indianapolis, and Raleigh, because LA and San Fran is just-too-expensive.

 

Movies are not the only victim of the "it's too expensive" troupe, nor are they the only thing that gets picked on. It's a relative expense. $600 rent can be seen as cheap while an $18 movie can be seen as expensive. It's not static.

 

Shit they charge 15 bucks for one ride on a 4 million dollar rollercoasters at a pier but again movies are expensive. 

 

You're thinking about it way too hard, but I'll have that memory of that rollercoaster. I still remember rides I rode at Universal Studios back in 1998 when I was 4. I can't tell you off the top of my head what movies I went to see back in 2007.

 

People have different tastes. Someone may not like movies, but may like thrill rides. It's worth it to them. It's about the experience.

 

The Disney comparisons. It cost 42 bucks to go to Disneyland in 2003. its 120 bucks now. So the value of a Disneyland trip is is worth 3 times what it used to be but a movie is worth less!? 

 

Okay but what are the extra perks in 2018 vs 2003? The price has gone up faster than inflation, but it's not the same as how the cost of college has shot up. Disneyland also is not it's own little thing. There is an entire conglomerate built around it. 

 

I have a friend who goes to Disneyworld literally once a year. Do I think that's crazy? Yes. But that's how she wants to build her memories so it's none of my concern. I have another friend who does nothing but goes to music festivals. That's her choice. Everyone has their own prerogative and can spend how they see fit. You can't shame them just because they don't want to go to the movies.

 

Everything the customer wants is NOT always right. Just cause you wanna pay something doesn't mean you should. The Value of movies is going down and down every year.

 

That's your opinion. I don't get in what context you're using "value", but you have 4-5 movies a year making $1+ billion dollars. Developing markets like China are now in the mix. Attendance sucks but ticket sales are still over $11 billion. These studios have really been working the synergy train.

 

Movie studios make their own choices. You unfairly put everything on the consumer, which is ridiculous, when the studios are making their own conscious decisions. 

 

I'm not the one who force fed 3D on the public, bullied the theaters, or has purposely given movies a shorter theatrical run. Nor did I spend at least $165 million on the production of 20 year old Independence Day 2, and then didn't even put Will Smith in it. I don't have to pay for it if I don't want to. I still haven't seen ID2 at home either and don't plan on making any conscious effort to anytime soon.

 

Yet the value of everything else is more. Why does art have to take a hit? Movies have been more constant with inflation, its more or less with hourly wage on how much a movie cost. The same cant be said for 95% of goods and services.

 

Thinking Moviepass or similar is worthwhile is not attacking art.

 

So yes, @Jandrew I don't think you have any reason to complain. You post on a damn movie site every day and yet you still complain. If you feel that way then the industry is already on its death bed. All your post does it make excuses on why people shouldn't care about cinema or movies or why is less important.  Right there is the issue, you just said its not worth your time or money as much as those other things.

 

There is no federal law that says you have to watch a movie in the theater in order to be interested in them. I don't see everything in the theater and that's my choice, but since I think movie going is expensive, you're saying I shouldn't be posting here? WTF is up with that dude.

 

I never said "people shouldnt care", not did I say "movies aeren't important." What I said was that the business model of movies needs to start changing so people will start coming BACK and enjoy them in the theater again rather than watching at home in HD on Kodi. I may constantly ripe on cost, but I also ripe on attendance, because I want to see full theaters. Please tell me more about how I don't care about cinema.

 

And I never said it wasn't worth my time, though I'm personally not interested in half of what comes out now a days. I said I personally cannot afford to go to the movies every week and I have made that clear. It's pretty shitty that'd you'd hold that against me. Do I need to post my Bank of America bank balance? 

 

If the big issue is wages, how about telling Bob Iger to be generous with some of that $44 million instead of worrying how much I spend on Dr. Pepper. 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Jandrew

[MovieMan89]

1 hour ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

Kids are growing up in a world and learning the VAULE of things, how much things cost. Growing up and being TAUGHT since birth Coffee cost 5 bucks a day yet. unlimited movies for your life cost 10 a month. Is just flat out AWFUL for society in general. 

 

The value of a having a TRILLION DOLLARS worth of content at your fingers is going to be seen as only being worth the price of a dozen donuts. Thats a fucking JOKE. but people are just gonna be raised with that INGRAINED in there head. You guys all look way to short term. Im thinking 20-30 years down the line. were killing the life spans of cinemas but decades. 

 

If 10 bucks a month becomes the norm. Then people assume thats what its wroth. Honestly I think you're a duck human being if yo think unlimited content is only valued at the price of 2 lattes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Also more to my point. 

 

The thing is Disneyland attendance is WAY WAY UP since 2004. The resort pulls in 28m in 17 now compared 17m in 04. 

 

But guess what, the average guest gets on 2.5 LESS rides. So people gladly pay 3x more for less entrainment . people are willing to pay soooooo much for no fucking reason because thats just how it is, people thing what are you gonna do. That just what it costs. There is no social barter. A drink cost 3 bucks, again thats everywhere there no social barter. I don't know one restaurant  that gives free soda. People know they are over paying, but they "can't" do anything about it so they accept it. 

 

The movie industry  needed to play that game. They are big pusses and constantly under cut and sell one another.  Should have straight up ignored it. Kept charging what they charged. Companies like Netflix don't care or think about whats good for the future of the art form, they care about making the most money in the short run. 

So your argument is that because everyone knows it's overpriced but they don't care and know they can't change it, it's not overpriced? Ok? I beg to differ. The fact is that entertainment (and most everything else) has gone up disproportionately to inflation and wages in the last 10-15 years. I mean the prime example in this specific subject being that average movie ticket prices have gone up 100% since 20 years ago, but a dollar is only worth about 50% more since then. I'm not zeroing in on movies and singling them out as being the only or biggest culprit of overpriced entertainment or anything, but you're not going to hear me say they flat out aren't overpriced either. It's also worth noting that the people whining the most about movie prices are probably the very ones going the most. In other words, there's a big difference between people griping about costs (who doesn't do this with something they purchase honestly), and people actually deciding not to purchase something because of said cost. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by MovieMan89

[MovieMan89]

Also FWIW I'm not at all arguing that $10 for potentially 30 movie tickets like MoviePass is set up now is anywhere near the proper value. Of course not. I'm just saying movie tickets are overpriced. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by MovieMan89

[MovieMan89]

Very telling to look at inflation and average movie ticket prices from '78 to '98. Inflation went up 142% in that time span, yet average movie ticket price only went up 100%. Compare again to that '98 to '18 stretch where it's 100% for movie tickets vs about 50% for inflation. 

[Rumpot]

I've said it enough, but man I just can't help myself as I read this.  Moviepass is a scam...it's built to steal money from shareholders and make management rich.  This stock has fallen from $40 to $8 (80%) as they spit out shares and then use the proceeds to gift money to management.  Here is a filing from yesterday where the CFO was given 1million shares for $0 (essentially handed 8million dollars). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040792/000121390018000723/xslF345X03/f4011118benson_helios.xml

 

Here is an article from Bloomberg shedding light in Helios and Matheson CEO as well as Mitch Lowe's revolutionary "medbox." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-30/man-behind-1-151-stock-rally-has-overseen-99-wipeouts-in-past

 

Make no mistake.that this is entirely about one thing - making the executives money.  Enjoy it while it lasts

[Jandrew]

3 hours ago, Barnack said:

In the end producing the amount of movies cost a certain amount, if revenues diminish more than marketing cost (and the best scenario that it is those that get away) we would loose content, like we did in music with the budget to make albums reduced by a giant amount.

 

I am not saying that it would not work, it would but possibly at a vastly different level of content produced than what we have now and for someone that love movies that is not a necessarily a positive and the music industry that lost more than half is revenues from is shift is not necessarily the best example to follow. Chance are if we turn movies into tv has a business model, we will have TV quality type of production. Will certainly work, but vastly different and not for the better.

 

Enthusiasm is fun and all, but I am not sure why we should care much (as an audience member) for anything else than what movies are produced and available to see in theater. And there is not many things that have more enthusiast than the big and exclusive theatrical release in our cultural world.

 

2 hours ago, Goffe said:

I agree with Jay 100% and I find incredible that, on a movie board no less, people devaluating the art form this much. 

Someone pointed out that we don't need movies but we do need food. We don't need the entertainment to SURVIVE, that's right, but we do need it to LIVE. 

 

Going to the movies should be expensive, but people don't see it that way because of piracy (EDIT: also Netflix). "If I can have it for free, why I would pay $15 dollars?" People close their eyes to the cost of running this business and to the many thousands of people employed by the industry.

 

MoviePass shouldn't exist.

2 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

Kids are growing up in a world and learning the VAULE of things, how much things cost. Growing up and being TAUGHT since birth Coffee cost 5 bucks a day yet. unlimited movies for your life cost 10 a month. Is just flat out AWFUL for society in general. 

 

The value of a having a TRILLION DOLLARS worth of content at your fingers is going to be seen as only being worth the price of a dozen donuts. Thats a fucking JOKE. but people are just gonna be raised with that INGRAINED in there head. You guys all look way to short term. Im thinking 20-30 years down the line. were killing the life spans of cinemas but decades. 

 

If 10 bucks a month becomes the norm. Then people assume thats what its wroth. Honestly I think you're a duck human being if yo think unlimited content is only valued at the price of 2 lattes. 

 

Companies like Netflix don't care or think about whats good for the future of the art form, they care about making the most money in the short run. 

Okay yall, I apologize that Disney spent $230 million+ on the last Pirates movie, and that I didn't go see it. That's on me. I didn't contribute towards Bob Iger's $44 million salary and that was pretty selfish. The studio that's owned by a company so large they have the GDP of a small country and just bought another studio for $52 billion dollars. I'm sorry I didn't pay $10 to go watch the fifth Pirates movie to help them out.

 

You guys are aiming your guns at fellow middle-class consumers, but don't have shit to say about the studios, who ya know, actually hands out everyone's paycheck and funds this art? Yall are vilifying Moviepass and anyone who thinks it, or some new kind of model, is an interesting idea, yet don't complain that Disney executives received million dollar cash raises, which you know, could've went toward paying that editor or that gaffer or that medical crew, or all of the above. 

 

I'm sure you complain that Walmart doesn't pay their employees enough even though theyre a $485 billion dollar business, so why can't any criticism be thrown at the studios, who again, make the decisions, pay the wages, fund the art, and make sure their top brass can afford the Hollywood Hills?

 

"Devaluing art." I personally see is as getting people back in the theater to watch the art, but alright. Not sure why yall have so much against food. Food, gas, idk, insurance? These are things you kinda need. Do I need to drive to Regal every week and watch a movie? No. Every month? No. At all? No. But I still go. 

 

People close their eyes and want to blame piracy and Netflix like it's the clear cut cause. There are people that don't watch Netflix - nor go to the movies. There are people who don't pirate off Putlocker and Kodi - nor do they go to the movies. There are people that will pirate one movie, then go pay to see the other. There are people who go to the movies once a week, then come home and watch Netflix. The situation is clearly bigger than piracy and Netflix.

 

If part of the problem isn't the ticket prices, then I'm baffled why BOF is always going on about what bump cheap Tuesday gave what movie. Is it possible people are going to see movies on cheap Tuesday because maybe they're cheaper on Tuesday?

 

So Netflix's main concern is short term money. And the studios, uh, isn't? Can you tell me what Disney's reasoning was to focus solely on Renaissance reboots, Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars? I mean it wasn't some subtle hidden secret, they made a press release for it. Was it for the sake of art, or was it quite possibly a business decision? I can't think of another reason why Moana has her own shelf section at Target, or why a plush porg is $25, or why we're getting Alladin, Mulan, and Lion King reboots tomorrow. I'm not confident that Disney spent $4 billion on Marvel because of the artist visions they had.

 

I don't think kids are taught they must pay $5 a day for coffee, but again it's a different dynamic, especially considering the economic situation we've been soo lucky to inherit. Nor did anyone say Moviepass has to be $10 or should be the price of donuts. That is not how economics work. People don't look at a $600 4KTV and $600 domestic plane ticket the same way for reasons. The problem is yall act like everything that has a fixed cost is on the same scale. The Disneyland example still makes no sense.

 

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that yall are bending over backwards to say the studios are getting stiffed, while they give themselves 7 figure raises, and that people wanting to pay a monthly subscription instead of $10 per movie is killing art. It's not my fault the studios are stubborn. You know what's killing art? Ignoring great Blacklist scripts from aspiring writers and instead deciding to fund the Emoji Movie because it can sell you some toys and socks. Yes, there are Emoji Movie socks.

 

Also ridiculous that you three have made it personal. Barnack I don't remember you, but Jay and Goffe you've known me since Mojo. Jay, me and you talk outside this forum. When I say I can't afford it right now, I can't afford it. If you want to know my personal finances, just lemme know. It's bullshit that yall want to act like I and others are some kind of villains hellbent on ending movies as we know it, knowing the time we invest in them.

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Jandrew

[Rumpot]

BTW guys, starting a service where you join for $10/month and I'll mail you a check for $50 every month.  Also you can sign up for the whole year for $90. Anyone interested?  

[TwoMisfits]

19 minutes ago, Rumpot said:

BTW guys, starting a service where you join for $10/month and I'll mail you a check for $50 every month.  Also you can sign up for the whole year for $90. Anyone interested?  

More like for $10/month, you send us 5-10 worthless strips of paper that only have value when we go to a theater for "standing room only obstructed view" seats 30 minutes before the show...

 

Note - live theater has played this game for years, although they have all had reserved seating forever:)...sometimes, folks wait in line for hours to get these cheapo seats...sometimes they can't give them away...kinda like how Moviepass is working for the blockbusters vs the nots...

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

http://variety.com/2018/film/box-office/u-s-movie-tickets-sold-2017-1202667483/

 

Movie admissions were 1.24B in tickets for $11.09B in revenue...And we can see a 4th quarter MoviePass price effect with the price of each admission jumping pretty rapidly in that growing quarter (showing that folks get less "price selective" when they aren't paying)..."The average 2017 ticket price jumped 3.7% from $8.65 to $8.97 with the fourth quarter average soaring from $8.79 to $9.18."

 

So, if each person pays $120/year for Moviepass ($10/month), you'd need 92M subscribers to fully replace your ENTIRE current market with no other ticket revenue going into the system (like one-off ticket buys)...

 

Just to keep the numbers straight...

That 11.09 is for both the USA and Canada I think, I was talking about the US alone.

 

Revenus from the industry are by the vast majority not by theater ticket, you need to take all revenues into account, if you have 92M subscriber to a 10 a month system all you can see movie deal, those people will normally not accept to pay what they are currently paying in the future windows, the destruciton of the value (streaming, dvd, tv deals, etc...) need to be taken into account (not sure if one can evaluate what it look like).

Edited January 20, 2018 by Barnack

[SchumacherFTW]

I've had something similar to movie pass for best part of 10 years now. And the main thing I'll say is that, sure, I am cutting in to the profit of the bigger blockbusters but I don't care about that. I've seen hundreds of smaller movies that I would never have taken a chance on thanks to my pass. I would never have gone to see things like Everybody Wants Some, Neon Demon and half of the Oscar nominees of the last 10 years if I wasn't holding my pass. And every time I see one of them, they get some form of cash out of my pass. I'm not devaluing the little guy in the slightest, in fact it's quite the opposite. 

[Barnack]

9 hours ago, SchumacherFTW said:

I've had something similar to movie pass for best part of 10 years now. And the main thing I'll say is that, sure, I am cutting in to the profit of the bigger blockbusters but I don't care about that. I've seen hundreds of smaller movies that I would never have taken a chance on thanks to my pass. I would never have gone to see things like Everybody Wants Some, Neon Demon and half of the Oscar nominees of the last 10 years if I wasn't holding my pass. And every time I see one of them, they get some form of cash out of my pass. I'm not devaluing the little guy in the slightest, in fact it's quite the opposite. 

Not at your deal price point obviously, moviepass existed for a while now, but it was $50 a month, at that price it was not devaluating anything, someone paying $50 a month for all you can see in theater will not be shock at a 4.99$ price for an HD rental or $14.50 Bluray or $17.50 a month HBO or Netflix.

 

Someone growing up paying $10 a month for all you can see movies in theater (or the $8 a month for it + fandor streaming service type of deal), could find obscene paying almost half of that for a rental or more than that for a streaming service.

 

There is nothing wrong with MoviePass model, existed quite everywhere for a long time, when we talk devaluation of the perceived value of watching a movie we are talking mostly if not only about the new really low price point, not the pass.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Barnack

[RobinHood26]

 

12 hours ago, Barnack said:

That 11.09 is for both the USA and Canada I think, I was talking about the US alone.

 

Revenus from the industry are by the vast majority not by theater ticket, you need to take all revenues into account, if you have 92M subscriber to a 10 a month system all you can see movie deal, those people will normally not accept to pay what they are currently paying in the future windows, the destruciton of the value (streaming, dvd, tv deals, etc...) need to be taken into account (not sure if one can evaluate what it look like).

 

32 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Not at your deal price point obviously, moviepass existed for a while now, but it was $50 a month, at that price it was not devaluating anything, someone paying $50 a month for all you can see in theater will not be shock at a 4.99$ price for an HD rental or $14.50 Bluray or $17.50 a month HBO or Netflix.

 

Someone growing up paying $10 a month for all you can see movies in theater (or the $8 a month for it + fandor streaming service type of deal), could find obscene paying almost half of that for a rental or more than that for a streaming service.

 

There is nothing wrong with MoviePass model, existed quite everywhere for a long time, when we talk devaluation of the perceived value of watching a movie we are talking mostly if not only about the new really low price point, not the pass.

 

@Barnack is the only one who gets it.

[TwoMisfits]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

Not at your deal price point obviously, moviepass existed for a while now, but it was $50 a month, at that price it was not devaluating anything, someone paying $50 a month for all you can see in theater will not be shock at a 4.99$ price for an HD rental or $14.50 Bluray or $17.50 a month HBO or Netflix.

 

Someone growing up paying $10 a month for all you can see movies in theater (or the $8 a month for it + fandor streaming service type of deal), could find obscene paying almost half of that for a rental or more than that for a streaming service.

 

There is nothing wrong with MoviePass model, existed quite everywhere for a long time, when we talk devaluation of the perceived value of watching a movie we are talking mostly if not only about the new really low price point, not the pass.

I agree...but the industry left themselves open for this "outside player" to dictate a price point.  In the US, there were no viable subscription options and ever increasing ticket prices, while Netflix, the at home option, played the $10/month game to wild success.  So, the industry kept losing ticket buyers.  That's unsustainable in the long term.  

 

If AMC or anyone had come out with a $19.99/month price point (with opening weekend tickets excluded) before MoviePass made its play in August, they could have cut them off before they started...but no one wanted to risk what they were currently getting to adapt to the consumers' needs.  So, someone outside the industry beat them to the punch and is now making it very difficult for them to come up with anything they'd deem "worth it," and instead, they are playing the waiting game hoping it goes under.

 

It's a very Blockbuster/Walmart thing to do (to Netflix/Amazon respectively)...and I think it's failing...b/c consumers minds are changed no matter what...and the industry itself could have been the one changing those minds to a reasonable number, but it never thought of its consumer or its consumer's needs...and when you lose sight of your consumer, you open yourself up to getting crushed by at outside competitor...

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, TwoMisfits said:

played the $10/month game to wild success. 

Will see about that, will see in the future if Netflix model can work (at those price).

 

Netflix annual net income

2012:  17.15M

2013:  112.4M

2014:  266.8M

2015: 122.64M

2016: 186.88M

 

 

At that price point (and that without paying full price for most of the content, it would not work if they would have had to make all the content that they offer, that price point need for the content to have been already monetized before hand elsewhere), Netflix has yet to make any money, it is not crazy to think it could grow it's membership to a point that work or raise the price one day to make it work but this is yet to be a proven working model. From an industry future stand point, I think we have to wait to see if it work before saying it is a good idea or a success vs a flop.

 

Has for the ever increasing average ticket price, they were much cheaper in the past when people went over 40 times a year, they were more expensive in the 70s, not really in a historical strange place prize wise right now (we almost see Avatar imax, 3d, ticket uptick looking at this it seem like)

 

 

One big different the movie industry had with music was the large array of options, from the 15$ IMAX offering to the redbox $1.20 for a movie or something like that and it will be forced I imagine into what you describe.

 

But MoviePass move could have make it impossible (specially if it take more than 1 year to close), will people want to pay the sustainable $19.99 to $27.99 (with more or 3D movie available or sooner type of platinum membership) after being used to 10.00$ ? That is exactly the type of value destruction of the current experiment model that is worrisome.

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Barnack

[Rumpot]

AMC starting to block moviepass users from getting rewards points aggressively now.  A few kiosk buyers have posted emails where they were told their accounts would be terminated if they continued to use moviepass with rewards.  This signifies that AMC has found some way to identify moviepass debit cards so we'll see...I also wonder if their plans to try tiered pricing based on seating position will throw a wrench at moviepass which is based on adding the ticket price to the card ahead of time.  

[Rumpot]

16 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Will see about that, will see in the future if Netflix model can work (at those price).

 

Netflix annual net income

2012: 17.15M

2013: 112.4M

2014: 266.8M

2015: 122.64M

2016: 186.88M

 

At that price point (and that without paying full price for most of the content), Netflix has yet to make any money, it is not crazy to think it could grow it's membership to a point that work or raise the price one day to make it work but this is yet to be a proven working model.

 

Has for the ever increasing average ticket price, they were much cheaper in the past when people went over 40 times a year, they were more expensive in the 70s, not really in a historical strange place prize wise right now (we almost see Avatar imax, 3d, ticket uptick looking at this it seem like)

 

 

One big different the movie industry had with music was the large array of options, from the 15$ IMAX offering to the redbox $1.20 for a movie or something like that and it will be forced I imagine into what you describe.

 

But MoviePass move could have make it impossible (specially if it take more than 1 year to close), will people want to pay the sustainable $19.99 to $27.99 (with more or 3D movie available or sooner type of platinum membership) after being used to 10.00$ ? That is exactly the type of value destruction of the current experiment model that is worrisome.

 

Netflix cash flow is extremely negative. 

their debt is growing fast at now more than 5 billion with almost 16 billion in obligations.  http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-netflix-debt-spending-20170729-story,amp.html

 

This is all well and good in a raging bull stock market where growth is emphasized above all else.  When that ends (who knows when)...then we'll see how Netflix weathers that storm

Edited January 20, 2018 by Rumpot

[TwoMisfits]

Finally more info on the subscribers...

"Currently, 30% of all MoviePass subscribers are concentrated in San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York with 70% scattered across the nation."  

 

It's also got info on how folks use the program - crazy the 1st month, slower the 2nd, slower the 3rd, and back to about double their normal habit from month 4th on...so, when there are big subscriber bumps, they'll likely be bigger box office buffs...

 

http://deadline.com/2018/01/moviepass-sundance-film-festival-mitch-lower-moviepass-ventures-independent-films-1202264623/

Edited January 23, 2018 by TwoMisfits