I don't spend $240 a year at the theatre and I have no intention of starting now.
If this is the best AMC can do while keeping a margin, then we might be in trouble.
If this is the best AMC can do while keeping a margin, then we might be in trouble.
It seems like the price people are willing to pay for entertainment has gone down significantly, in sync with it becoming far cheaper and more abundant. So movie theaters are in trouble if they're selling entertainment by quantity, because the supply only goes up.
I think they're more successful selling cultural commonality; you watch the latest popular release so that you can talk about it with other people, and the marketing has already gotten you excited about it. (I find being pre-excited about something and thus not having to learn about and pick from a huge array of options a value-add all on its own)
Many still do. Including myself but this will probably be the year I drop it even though I get no live TV otherwise.
With a subscription to Netflix ($11) and YoutubeTV ($40) + our base internet cost (~80$/month for 100MB down) we don't actually save much over the TV/internet bundles...if at all. I'm at $130 which is essentially where we were before...just not all going to the same provider now I guess.
For areas like where I live with terrible fiber coverage, the cable industry still effectively has a stranglehold.
At $50/month + the $40 for Youtube TV you'd be over $1000 a year (not that this was what you were responding to but I'm curious as thread started w/ $1000 year).
I guess my real point is who ISN'T paying $1000/yr now? You pay almost that much for the internet package alone in a lot of America.
Last I looked, Internet would be > $100/month standalone.
Theatres are usually pretty uncomfortable, they just have a big screen.
Pretty much any subscription plan has to be priced for fairly heavy users--and there are people for whom going out to a movie a week is pretty common. You probably don't subscribe to HBO if you flip it on once a month (though admittedly that sometimes seems to be the case for me).
So that's 24 movies per year, 2 per month. That's not an insanely high number. I certainly don't come close to that now; with a family and the hassle of getting a babysitter, etc., I'm closer to the national average of 5 movies per year.
But when I was younger, in HS & college, I probably saw around 24: one each weekend during the summer (nice cold theater to get out of the heat), a few around the holidays, and a few scattered throughout the year.
And if you really enjoy IMAX and/or 3D, your average would be at least $16-20 per ticket, which means you'd only need to see 12-15 movies per year for the math to be favorable.
There are about 50 million people in that HS & college age range in the US. So yeah, I agree that this plan does not hold much appeal personally, but that seems like a pretty big market to me. I certainly would have loved this as a birthday/holiday present when I was younger.
Except that you can only go on a Tuesday night. A pretty clear restriction.
FWIW, in many European countries similar services operate very successfully for approximately around the $20 per month park. If it's not suitable for you personally, don't buy it, but it's clearly workable for a lot of people. For me this would work out ok with just two movie visits a month.
But hey if someone feels like they get $480/year of value out of the movies then do not let me persuade you otherwise! I subscribe to plenty of services.
Moviepass at $120/y breaks even with that and so would actually entice me to see more movies and maybe even actually get some concessions from time to time.