AMC is looking to take legal action to ban MoviePass at its theaters, but why?

Comparing MoviePass in theaters to online content delivers like Netflix and Spotify is ignorant at best, asinine at worst.
I am gonna guess this was stab at my previous comment.

I used netflix as an example. I feel its fair and not "asinine or ignorant"

In my book my home experience surpasses that of a theater in most cases. I have a fridge stocked with what ever I want. I dont have to smell other peoples body odor or perfumes or have their phones going off and blinding me with their screens. I dont have the issue of the chit chat. Best of all if I have to pee I can pause it. Lets not forget about seating. If the theater happens to be full you might not get a good seating position. But most of the time they are fairly empty.

I still barely use my personal theater with all the subscriptions I currently pay for. Mind you I have a very nice set up. Time is not something we all have to waste on watching every movie that comes out. Most of the theaters in my area have shut down over the years. Something like this might keep the existing ones from going out of business. As I said earlier, you can be sure they will jack the prices up and limit views once they get off the ground.
 
AMC: "How DARE another company foot the bill for our customers! We enjoy overcharging them and taking their money for every viewing."

This is ridiculous. AMC's arguments are all completely baseless. I'm with you Shawn. I can't even see why they care where the money comes from as long as they get paid for each ticket. This isn't going to hurt anything. It might not get off the ground, but I see how it could.

Look, first of all most people aren't going to go to a movie a day. We just don't have time. Most will go on weekends. So $10 per month for $40-$80 worth of tickets. Even if you wanted to push the average up to $150 per month. Advertisers will easily pay much more for viewing profiles per person (I think). Let's say Movie pass could pull $200 per person from advertisers. Everyone's tickets are paid for by the advertisers, AMC gets its money, film producers get their money, and Moviepass makes $50 per subscriber. If they can't do this, then Moviepass will fail and go out of business. Either way, AMC is never in a losing position.

On the other hand, if AMC wants to ban Moviepass, let them. They'll be the big losers in that scenario. Like you said, it's "butts in its seats." If I'm a subscriber, I'd be like, "Oh AMC doesn't honor Moviepass? Come on kids. Let's go across town to Regal." The only bite AMC would have would be in places where it is the only show in town, but as it is I don't think that's the case in most parts.

Just saw a new comment while I was writing this:

mbrowne5061 brings up an interesting point saying that "AMC is fighting it because they have their own movie viewers club. This price undercuts their membership price."

If this is true, I would say that under cutting AMC's subscription price is not really what is in effect here, well not completely. I don't know what AMC charges for subscriptions, but lets just say it's $15. From their subs they get $15 per month, but from Moviepass subs they get $40-$150 per month (using my above example averages). What this tells me is that it's the ad revenue that they are upset at losing, which must be fairly substantial for them to consider essentially banning a whole group of people over. Again if this is true, then Moviepass really does have a chance to get off the ground. And since it's business plan does not have limitations on which theater you visit, it becomes a real threat to AMC's sub service which limits you to only their theaters. Hmmm.
I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Based on their reactions and such I am wondering if they are concerned about something different because even logically with the tickets being much cheaper (Yet the theater makes the same money per ticket) that in turn means movie goers are going to be paying more money on concessions since they are not paying as much for tickets. Sounds to me like a win win scenario. However I think they are worried about not being paid for the tickets at some point because to me $10 is pretty cheap for 1 movie a day for an entire month. I understand how the company is wanting to make money, but I am worried that if the capitol does not meet the requirements then you run into a problem (Not to mention the theaters also sell that info so its just competition). So from my perspective its a matter of the theater losing revenue from the tickets or delays in payment mixed with competition selling viewer data which results in losses all around.

Not defending AMC directly, just thinking that might be where they are coming from.
 
Movie theaters are eventually going the way of the "drive in movie". People these days, can have a pretty good "entertainment center" in their own home. With netflix/redbox/torrents they can watch pretty much any movie within 60-90 days after release. Unless you are an empty nest person, GOING to the movies can EASILY cost a "typical family of 4" well over one hundred dollars, if you factor in the price of the tickets, snacks, gas getting to and from the theater, and sometimes dinner if they go to dinner before or after the movie. The movie ticket is nothing more than to get you IN the door, so they can stick it to you on the price of concessions. (although I know many people that except for the drinks, sneak their own "concessions" into the theater).
AMC has been toying with a movie access service regionally around the country for many years now. In most cases it's hour limited to before 5pm and after 10pm, movies must be 7 days old, no special events, or imax. They also don't do much on the way of advertising the service, for obvious reasons.
At where I am it's $39 a month
 
Back