• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official thread about the movie you just saw

ImTheCaptain said:
this seems like a particularly non-google business model
Click to expand...

Right?

Why would Google, of all companies, start investing in brick and mortar cinema, when Netflix et al are taking so much market share away from those cinemas? As for Google "investing in some films", it's too late at this point. I don't think they're particularly interested in trying to compete with those streaming services this late in the game*, and acquiring them would be insanely cost-prohibitive.

None of that makes any sense.

*They're learning some of this the hard way with YoutubeRed, I think.
 
Movie Pass has mostly pivoted from the data aggregation sales idea to a market leverage gamble, ala Uber. Uber lost a shit load of money inorder to drive much of the taxi business out of the market, and create a need for Uber. So Movie Pass is losing a shit load of money building a huge subscriber base as fast as possible for 3 reasons:

1. To create a consumer friendly (cheap) business model (rideshare) that makes the past model (expensive) very unpopular in comparison (taxis) thus creating their own space in the market through the attrition of the previous model (taxi drivers literally killing themselves)

2. Leverage that increased traffic so that theater companies become dependent on the profit driven by Moviepass subscribers

3. Make it less expensive to partner (and subsidize) with Movie Pass instead of creating their own subscription services.


It's actually kind of genius. The death of the movie theater business has been advertised for a long time, so everyone knows the market is vulnerable. Moviepass is trying to wedge their way in as a middle man by driving new business to the theaters and demanding a percentage on it.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
Movie Pass has mostly pivoted from the data aggregation sales idea to a market leverage gamble, ala Uber. Uber lost a shit load of money inorder to drive much of the taxi business out of the market, and create a need for Uber. So Movie Pass is losing a shit load of money building a huge subscriber base as fast as possible for 3 reasons:

1. To create a consumer friendly (cheap) business model (rideshare) that makes the past model (expensive) very unpopular in comparison (taxis) thus creating their own space in the market through the attrition of the previous model (taxi drivers literally killing themselves)

2. Leverage that increased traffic so that theater companies become dependent on the profit driven by Moviepass subscribers

3. Make it less expensive to partner (and subsidize) with Movie Pass instead of creating their own subscription services.


It's actually kind of genius. The death of the movie theater business has been advertised for a long time, so everyone knows the market is vulnerable. Moviepass is trying to wedge their way in as a middle man by driving new business to the theaters and demanding a percentage on it.
Click to expand...

There's one problem with that comparison, though: Uber wasn't betting on taxi companies aligning with them. That's sort of the sticking point on your 2nd and 3rd reasons; why would AMC or Regal partner with MP or create their own subscription service, when MP is currently paying full price for every ticket and driving their revenue?

As for your first reason, you're envisioning some sort of mass revolt against cinemas under the threat of MP closing up shop, but that's just not going to happen. Most MP subscribers I've talked to tend to be realistic that their model is too good to be true, and are just sort of riding the wave as long as they can. If MP goes away, they're not going to go to cinemas less than they were before MP existed.

For the business model to make any sense, MP would have to grow significantly (I'm pretty sure I read they're currently responsible for something like 2% of ticket sales?), and they're already bankrupting themselves as it is, with each additional subscription adding to that loss leader. I don't think there's any way for them to grow to a point where they have the leverage you're talking about before they're forced to close permanently.
 
Last year was a bad year in the theaters, but 2018 is more than making up for those losses. It appears that 2017 was simply a year of bad product rather than a trend.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
There's one problem with that comparison, though: Uber wasn't betting on taxi companies aligning with them. That's sort of the sticking point on your 2nd and 3rd reasons; why would AMC or Regal partner with MP or create their own subscription service, when MP is currently paying full price for every ticket and driving their revenue?

As for your first reason, you're envisioning some sort of mass revolt against cinemas under the threat of MP closing up shop, but that's just not going to happen. Most MP subscribers I've talked to tend to be realistic that their model is too good to be true, and are just sort of riding the wave as long as they can. If MP goes away, they're not going to go to cinemas less than they were before MP existed.

For the business model to make any sense, MP would have to grow significantly (I'm pretty sure I read they're currently responsible for something like 2% of ticket sales?), and they're already bankrupting themselves as it is, with each additional subscription adding to that loss leader. I don't think there's any way for them to grow to a point where they have the leverage you're talking about before they're forced to close permanently.
Click to expand...

You're underestimating the importance of small percentage profits on the margins. The movie theater business has razor thin profit margins because of traffic, so the importance of an increase in traffic is magnified. That 2% could keep theaters in business all over the country. As to your other anecdote, it's incorrect.
https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject....rvive-theater-make-money-unlimited-cancel-amc
- their are currently 2 million subscribers and MP is counting on doubling that by 2019.


d10863bece33aad4e468e34b662e1d44.jpg
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
As to your other anecdote, it's incorrect.
https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject....rvive-theater-make-money-unlimited-cancel-amc
- their are currently 2 million subscribers and MP is counting on doubling that by 2019.
Click to expand...

Huh? What part of my post was incorrect? 2 million subscribers (or even 4 million, tbh) is a drop in the bucket for the box office, and MP hasn't shown how many of those subscriptions are even active, or how many ticket sales they're responsible for (I'm guessing because the actual number would stand to lose them a ton of leverage in negotiations with AMC).
 
Another factor that you have to consider in theater profitability is how and when theaters receive traffic. There are probably 12-20 weeks a year where every theater is profitable, when the major tentpole films are released, but it's the remainder of the year that's killing the business. The fact that Movie Pass subscribers make up a disproportionate % of regular attendees gives them even more leverage.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Another factor that you have to consider in theater profitability is how and when theaters receive traffic. There are probably 12-20 weeks a year where every theater is profitable, when the major tentpole films are released, but it's the remainder of the year that's killing the business. The fact that Movie Pass subscribers make up a disproportionate % of regular attendees gives them even more leverage.
Click to expand...

"even more leverage" implies that they have any leverage to begin with. The industry as a whole seems more than happy to let MP drown itself right now.

To be honest, your entire argument here seems to be you theorycrafting some populist backlash using growth projections from the company itself (around data that isn't even actually all that relevant to the argument, because MP is keeping their important data in-house). I get that, as a MP subscriber, you have an interest in seeing it live a long and healthy life, but I don't think there's much actual data out there to support it doing so.
 
I do think we're heading towards the argument being framed as MoviePass being unequivocally pro-consumer in the face of those evil theater chain conglomerates, which is especially funny given some of the shady shit MoviePass has tried to pull as it frantically tries to stop the bleeding.
 
Do regular people really have a problem with the current movie model? If you want to watch a movie when it comes out, go somewhere and pay $10 or so. Wait a few months and pay $20 or so to watch it whenever you want. Wait another month or so and maybe it shows up on a subscription service. Wait a year and it may show up on a cable channel.

Seems like most people are cool with that.
 
i don't know. single donks must live a in world where this is a huge problem because they can see a movie every week ?

i would think theater/movie availability and a nice environment are bigger problems
 
what's up with the trend replacing pay-as-you-go consumption with subscription-based services?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top