Was it a business, or a stock swindle, from the start? I recall seeing commentary that said "swindle" early on and i never saw anything to make me doubt it. I wonder who won, and how big?
Worth noting that AMC, the theater chain which was most vocal and aggressive in dismissing MoviePass, has seen its stock fall by 80% since early 2017 to an all-time low. CINE, an international conglomerate which owns Regal, is at a 5-year low.
Also, for rev share purposes , they count each ticket sold via the subscription no matter what at $8.99
MoviePass sent additional people to the theater --> additional concession sales + additional ticket sales
AMC A-List customers occupy prime seats that would have likely been sold anyway --> no effect on concessions, reduced ticket revenue
Based on an average monthly frequency of 2.40x for our A-List members in the third quarter, their associated full-price bring-along guest attendance, their food and beverage spend and the price increases in the first quarter, we believe the A-List program was profitable in the third quarter and nine-months ended September 30, 2019 compared to our estimated results if the program had not existed. A-List membership levels continue to exceed our expectations despite our price increase and competitive offerings.
The company's stock has fallen by 80+%. Management is under extraordinary pressure to defend their major decisions, including the rollout of A-List and the rejection of partnering with MoviePass. OF COURSE management is going to claim their decisions were correct, but they are offering ZERO hard data or evidence to that end.
But it’s amazing that you believe some numbers from AMC but not others from your same citations
Well, obviously Movie Pass didn’t have a great business model...
2.4 visits isn't evidence. I believe the number, but it is meaningless on its own. How many of those tickets are for sold out shows? What pct are utilizing free upgrades (IMAX, Dolby, etc)? How much did these individuals spend prior to membership? What's the average concession spend vs non-members? What are the admin and advertising costs?
During the first two or three weeks, the distributor gets 70% of the ticket price. Worse case, if they see 2.5 IMAX movies on average, AMC would have lost $7.50 in gross profit from a stubs + user.
Since kids can’t get a subscription and a lot of the blockbusters are geared toward families, the kids would not only pay full price, they are also more likely to want concessions.
As far as the concession spend, its simple well known marketing psychology that when you get something for “free” you’re more likely to spend more when you get there. It’s an affect that has been seen with gift cards, Groupon deals, etc.
But when it comes to admin cost, ticket purchasing online and redemption via the handheld devices at the movie was pre-existing infrastructure they had before the Stubs+. How much harder do you think it really is to add logic to account for a stubs+ member is allowed three movies a week?
Most of the advertising is done in the theatre.
They already had a stubs program where people ordered tickets online and they could track their behavior and changes in behavior after they subscribe. They also know how much they spend on concessions because most stubs members (not just stubs+ members) show their stubs QR code at the concession stand to get points toward discounts.