REGISTER|LOGIN

Welcome, filler

MY PROFILE
LOGOUT
    #FutureOfFilm

Movie Theaters Should Think Like Netflix

April 07, 2011 12:00PM EDT By Chris Dorr
Share | |

Over the last two years Netflix has become available on every Internet enabled screen sold in the United States. Desktops, laptops, tablets, TVs, and phones can now be used to view the Netflix streaming service. And if you can’t find the movie you want on their streaming service you can always have the DVD sent to you via the US Postal Service and watch it on your old fashioned non-internet-enabled DVD player.


The consumer price for the service that supplies all these screens is $7.99/month for streaming only and  $9.99/ month if you want to order DVDs. At the end of 2010, Netflix reached 20 million subscribers, up from 12.3 million in 2009.  

The only screen that Netflix doesn’t reach is the screen at your local movie theater. Unlike Netflix’s subscriber count, movie theater attendance is not going up. Instead, it is going down. In 2010 US theater attendance was the lowest it has been in 14 years at 1.35 billion tickets sold, 5.4% below 2009. So, in the same year that the Netflix subscriber base increased by 65%, theater attendance declined by 5.4%.  

Movie theater admissions should be going up. For filmmakers and filmgoers, theaters are an essential part of the movie experience. In fact, movie theaters are the lifeblood of movies.

What if we could create a new model for going to the movies at your local theater that is as consumer-friendly as Netflix? Could this dramatically increase attendance?



Imagine this service.

You go to a website or download an application to your device that gets you a list of every movie theater in the United States. From this list you get to pick two movie theaters.

For example, I would pick the AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas, both on Broadway in Manhattan. One shows mainstream Hollywood fare and the other shows foreign and independent movies. Both are my local theaters.

The key point is this: each customer gets to create her own access point at any theater across the entire United States. Think of it as choosing your own screen much like Netflix allows you to do.  

Then I put in my credit card and agree to pay $10 per month ($120 per year) and receive a movie pass to these two theaters. This movie pass allows me to go to any movie at any time at each of these theaters.  

Yes. I did say "any movie at any time." I have to show up like everyone else and get a ticket, but I don’t have to pay because the movie pass I purchased allows me access.

When I check in to receive the ticket, they log me in and record which movie I am seeing. This allows them to allocate some percentage of my subscription to the distributor of that movie.   

If I don’t go to any movies in a given month, the money from my subscription gets split between the two theaters and allocated between all the movies they have shown that month.  In other words, the movie theater and the distributor make money even if I don’t show up.

Now the movie theater has a real relationship with me, the moviegoer. It has my email address, my zip code, my credit card and whatever else I put into my profile. It also knows each movie I attend. This service will allow me to rate the movies I see, so the theater can recommend other movies I might like to see that are appearing on its screens. Sound familiar?

A movie theater subscription service can go even further than Netflix because each theater is located in a very specific neighborhood. Restaurants and shops of every type surround each theater. Theaters also continuously gather people in one place with a common interest.  

This service can add a social media layer that appeals to people’s constant desire to connect with each other and connect with services in the neighborhood. Groupon, Twitter, Facebook, Gowalla and Foursquare are all a natural fit.


What does the movie business get out of a service like this?

Let’s do the numbers.

If a million people subscribe per year, $120 million annually flows back through theaters into the movie industry, at 10 million subs, $1.2 billion and at 20 million subs, $2.4 billion. In other words, if done well, it can scale and a lot of money will be generated. And as you remember, Netflix hit 20 million subscriptions just last year.

But is there a company out there that has the expertise to pull this off?  A company that has dealt with all the movie distributors, has expertise in database management, credit card collection, knows something about recommendation engines, deals with vast numbers of movie lovers on a daily basis and knows exactly where they all live.

Let’s think for a moment. Netflix maybe?


Other posts by Chris Dorr:

Beauty and the Geeks: The Blind Side of Hollywood
Hollywood celebrates outer beauty. It needs to discover and embrace its inner geek.


 
Chris Dorr

Chris Dorr is a digital media consultant. His clients include MTV Networks, Samsung Electronics of America and the Tribeca Film Festival. He can be followed on Twitter @chrisdorr.

The Future of Film blog is a place where leading filmmakers and experts within the film industry share their thoughts on film, technology and the future of media.

 

Join the Conversation

 
Emily A
Apr 08, 2011
11:02 AM
Love this idea! Film is meant to be seen in theaters. And just $10 a month for all-you-can-watch movies?! Now THAT equals guilt-free popcorn and candy.
Chris Dorr
Apr 08, 2011
11:57 AM
Thanks,Emily. And as you point out, more people would buy popcorn and candy--which is where movie theaters really make most of their money already.
Bill Hill
Apr 09, 2011
02:03 PM
Unfortunately, they're taking film out of theatres. Might as well stay home.
Chris Dorr
Apr 10, 2011
04:56 AM
Bill, thanks for your comment. Don't despair yet, there is still plenty that can be done to get people into theaters to see great movies. Imagination, web based technology, the willingness on the part of theaters to figure out what their customers really want--all can be used.
MP94
Apr 18, 2011
06:11 AM
hello my name is trigonometry my name shal be hello goodbye hahah this is a good aidea 34
Arlene
Apr 08, 2011
12:00 PM
Nice idea but the economics don't work. Unless people buy a lot of popcorn. Or the studios stop taking a share of theatrical and consider theatrical as a pure marketing platform. Think about Blockbuster - it's the real estate overhead that brought it to it's knees. And they charged more per month. What might work better is theaters as a retail add on to another service - a la the DirecTV/Blockbuster deal.
Chris Dorr
Apr 08, 2011
12:11 PM
Arlene, Great comment and you could be absolutely correct. The add on idea you have is very good. I think we are moving to a world where people will pay a monthly fee for access to content, be it music, movies, tv shows-- so we can access them whenever we want, wherever we want and I think movie theaters have to adapt to that world or suffer economic decline. But there will many ways to take advantage of this new world--none of which theaters are doing currently.
Kristin H.
Apr 08, 2011
01:29 PM
I like this idea a lot. If I had an unlimited movie pass, not only am I guaranteed to go more often (and probably spend money on concessions); I'm also guaranteed to invite at least one friend to come with me every time I see a movie. I think this, more than the concessions, would be the big revenue-generator for the movie theaters: pulling in patrons who otherwise would have spent their money elsewhere, on the encouragement of their friends.
Chris Dorr
Apr 08, 2011
02:11 PM
Kristin, Thanks for your comment and kind words. I also think your point is correct, movie going is essentially social and attendance figures would be driven upwards as you suggest.
Melanie Schiele
Apr 08, 2011
01:50 PM
I am a filmmaker and while I greatly admire and participate in increasingly accessible digital outlets to screen movies on my own, any novel idea that will further encourage audiences to engage with each other and experience the true filmgoing experience at a theatrical venue is music to my ears.
Chris Dorr
Apr 08, 2011
02:15 PM
Melanie, Thanks for your comment. You are right. In the end anything that theaters can do to preserve and expand the experience of seeing a movie in a theater is essential for all movie lovers, even those that also see them on their iPad or iPhone.
Victor Solis
Apr 08, 2011
10:25 PM
Provocative and timely post, Chris. I agree with Melanie; as a filmmaker, I have a deep appreciation of the uniquely communal moviegoing experience found only in the theater. This has especially profound effects on the audience in genres such as comedy, horror, and suspense, effects which are lost during home viewing.

In discussions with my colleagues, we consider theatrical screenings low on the distribution priority list. When reach and engagement is much greater via the internet, why spend the funds to go theatrical? This is a bittersweet position for those of us who are fans of the big screen.

Re: the economics as other commenters have addressed, perhaps it's a matter of time before exhibitors realize they must rethink their business model. Your proposal is absolutely relevant considering current technology and the changing business landscape as evidenced by Netflix' latest deals with studios and producers (e.g. House of Cards).
Chris Dorr
Apr 09, 2011
05:42 AM
Victor, thanks for your comments. Great mention of the recent Netflix deal with House of Cards, you are right the landscape is changing fast--theaters need to change to keep up with their own customers.
Jeff Gomez
Apr 08, 2011
02:19 PM
The future will be built on relationships. Young people today expect to be addressed directly through technology interfaces, and for those addressing them to know what they want. So Chris's extrapolation here makes perfect sense. This approach will shift movie theater going from something I have to tolerate in order to get that big screen communal experience, into something that connects with me personally and incentivizes me to take action.
Chris Dorr
Apr 08, 2011
03:24 PM
Jeff, Thanks for your note. I like the way you focus on relationships and their intersection with technology. You are right, this is where powerful platforms and new business models are now being created.
Julien Cuny
Apr 08, 2011
02:31 PM
FYI: in France since 2000, you can buy unlimited theater pass for 20 euros per month.

It's not as smart and complex as the article suggest and you can only access the theaters from the same chain.

So basically it's like buying a card from AMC (to take a US equivalent but in France it's UGC, Gaumont and MK2) and then you can watch all movies you want with no restrictions whatsoever in all AMC theaters in the US.
Chris Dorr
Apr 08, 2011
03:21 PM
Julien, Thanks for telling us about this, we in the US are always a little behind on some things. It is probably likely that such a plan would start first within chains. The real powerful model would cross all chains and individual theaters.
Kurt
Apr 12, 2011
08:35 PM
UGC also introduced the idea in Belgium. I pay 17 euros a month and get unlimited access to all the UGC theatres in Belgium.

The local arthouse cinema tried to come up with an equivalent (a card which allowed you to watch a certain number of films - I believe it was 25 or 50 - within 12 months), but they don't mention the card on their site anymore, so I think it must've been cancelled. UGC shows a mix of commercial and arthouse films, so maybe their diversity is why their card is so successful.
Emile
Apr 13, 2011
01:08 AM
In The Netherlands we have the same concept done by Pathe theaters. And since we're a small country we pretty much only have 1 chain of cinema's. 20 euros a month for unlimited access (only rule is that you can't buy another ticket within the first hour of the movie showtime you bought a ticket for previously). I love the system and for me as an avid movie fan enjoy it a lot. And 20 euros is still a bargain considering a movie ticket costs 10 euros nowadays.
Greg Griffin
Apr 08, 2011
06:23 PM
Cool idea. Self-testing it, I know if it was priced right I would be in the theater more often. Need to think through how the theaters would manage their inventory (eg, their seats) - I can't just show up with my pass, I probably need to reserve a seat. To me, this service might distill down to discounted admission to 3 or 4 movies a month (I'll never use them all) and a greatly simplified online ticketing process where I reserve a seat for a given show. Pay once and you're done.

Would also be interesting to think about what happens to the walk-up, impulse ticket buyers under this model...maybe their prices go up to push people towards the subscription model.
Chris Dorr
Apr 08, 2011
06:33 PM
Greg, Thanks for the comments, these are all great ideas, what you get it is interesting--about how variable pricing, discount and reservation models could be used to really fill seats as often as possible--which all movie theaters should be implementing.
Tiffany Joy Butler
Apr 08, 2011
08:17 PM
This is such an amazing concept. I've been feeling stingy and anti-social with my free Netflix trial. I enjoy viewing films on the big screen. It's a completely different experience to gather with a group of film lovers and to view the film as a projection. Although, the prices need to be more reasonable if the theaters want my attention. Thanks for posting!
Chris Dorr
Apr 09, 2011
07:27 AM
Tiffany, Thanks, no need to feel stingy or anti-social about your free Netflix trial. You are right--seeing a movie in a theater is a different experience--one we should preserve and enhance.

As you say, more people will come if the price is more reasonable--people want to go out and do things with other people--we have been doing it forever, at least since our ancestors became human--maybe even before.
Paul Holgerson
Apr 08, 2011
09:35 PM
I think it is a great idea and you obviously put the time into breaking it down for the film industry to consider. I am not so sure it would actually pull people off their couches and away from the giant flat screens they have at home.
Chris Dorr
Apr 09, 2011
07:04 AM
Paul, Thanks for your comment and your right there are risks that it will not work to get people into the theater. But I think movie theaters have to be bold and try new models to stop the erosion of their audience-otherwise they will just fade away. And movie theaters are important to movies of all types.
Ronald Gross
Apr 09, 2011
05:40 AM
What an attractive idea and what savvy comments. I feel the appeal viscerally, because I have an Optimum card that give me free access to my local movies theaters on one week-night each week, and just even though the price of a ticket isn't really a consideration, I feel that twinge each Tuesday: "Wonder what's playing tonight?"

This guy Dorr's one smart dude.
Chris Dorr
Apr 09, 2011
07:11 AM
Thanks, Ron. Let the record reflect that I did not pay for Ron's comment.

Seriously, your comment about the Optimum card is really good--my idea simply takes that basic concept, extends it to all shows and all theaters and adds a social media layer. By doing so--it aligns the physical experience of going to movie theaters with what consumers already experience streaming movies online via a subscription service--a model they have wholeheartedly embraced.
Scilla Andreen
Apr 09, 2011
06:58 AM
This is a very feasible model for theater owners.
Its basiically another rev stream and not expensive to implement. I'd pay a monthly fee just to access one theater. I love it. Thank you.
Chris Dorr
Apr 09, 2011
07:16 AM
Scilla, thanks for your comment. You are right it is not expensive to implement and it becomes less expensive every day as digital innovation accelerates. A few smart people in a garage could put together the platform that would support this.
Henry
Apr 09, 2011
10:16 AM
The New Beverly Cinema out here in Los Angeles had a less ambitious plan: you could buy a card entitling you to eight admissions at a discount. And, of course, since I lost the card after using it twice, the theater turned a nice profit.

Which is the drawback in selling this to the great majority of us: sooner or later we release that we won't use it as much as we thought we would. Of course not everyone is as much of a slug as I am, but the evolutionary trend is headed that way.

But I'd love to see it succeed; seeing a movie with a crowd is almost always better. Good luck to you.
Chris Dorr
Apr 09, 2011
10:37 AM
Henry, thanks for the comment. You rightly point out the drawbacks with a physical card--which is why it should be all online, with no physical card to worry about.

And I suspect that the New Beverly Cinema did not know who you were and what movies you did see or wanted to see--they had no real relationship with you. In this program the theater would and they would be able to help us get beyond all of our slug like tendencies.
David
Apr 09, 2011
11:56 AM
Theaters in the states have tried something similar before, but much more annoyingly. You could pre-pay for, say, 12 movies in advance, and you got a big discount. But the 12 movies each had a window of times in which you could see them. For example, your first ticket was only good in the first two weeks of January, your second was only good in the next two weeks, etc. Theaters liked this because if you couldn't find a good movie to see that fit in your busy schedule every two weeks, you forfeit your ticket and they pocket the money. It always seemed like a bad deal to me. A more Netflix-like model would be better if only for the simplicity.
theboywil
Apr 09, 2011
12:18 PM
When I was living in the UK I had a UGC cinema pass at 10gbp per month. It was fantastic, you could go to any UGC in the country and therefore saw many movies and bought much popcorn and beer. (the only downside was actually that the theatres were often fuller than I prefer, and there was a tendency of some to chat through a movie as for them it was 'free')

I was actually quite surprised that when I moved to the US 5 years ago, that none of the chains or the locals offered a subscription
Chris Dorr
Apr 10, 2011
05:08 AM
David, you raise great points. As you rightly state, the key is simplicity. If properly implemented, this idea works because it increases the relationship between theaters and their public by reducing the friction--which you so clearly point out exists today in any similar program.
John (movie fan)
Apr 09, 2011
02:47 PM
This concept is a great idea and in fact is already occurring in the UK. Cineworld - a chain of cinemas - has a subscription service and it's brilliant!! http://www.cineworld.co.uk/unlimited

Hope this does come to fruition in the U.S. I'd definitely sign up.
Chris Dorr
Apr 10, 2011
05:05 AM
John (movie fan) and theboywil, thanks for letting everyone know how movie subscription programs work in the UK. There is a lot to be learned from their examples.

There is a whole layer of social media that can be added to these basic services that use web based and location based technology. This other layer enables theaters to know their customers, develop a relationship with each one, and create multiple opportunities for more transactions that have value for both parties. As far as I know, theaters have yet to discover this layer in any meaningful way. Hopefully they will.
chubbco
Apr 09, 2011
06:33 PM
Nice post, Chris. There are many advantages to the scheme (no more transaction cost, sense of missed opportunity like the Tuesday poster above).

One way or another, as apparently everyone knows except the men who run the chains, the exhibition business has to change its model. 'Cause it ain't working for them now.
chubbco
Apr 09, 2011
10:01 PM
Nice post, Chris. There are many advantages to the scheme (no more transaction cost, sense of missed opportunity like the Tuesday poster above).

One way or another, as apparently everyone knows except the men who run the chains, the exhibition business has to change its model. 'Cause it ain't working for them now.
Chris Dorr
Apr 10, 2011
05:13 AM
Thanks chubbco, you are right, getting theaters to change their model will be next to impossible. You would think declining admissions would jar them into reality. Sometimes I think their only plan to increase attendance is saying their prayers to the Hollywwood gods for another hit movie.
MJ
Apr 09, 2011
11:59 PM
Love this idea. Even if they charged 15$ a month for this service, thats less than the cost of 2 films a month.
There are those months, Jan - April and August - October, where you may see only one film a month, so as you mentioned the theater is pocketing extra cash. And then in June when you see 5 films, you benefit.

And its not as if every movie goer is going to sign up for it, theaters will still get the one and done customers, or the families who only go to 3 movies a year, and still have their subscription users. Its like Netflix vs Redbox. We use both, have a queue running on netflix but if theres a movie that is backed up on it, or we arent scheduled for a new one for a day or two, we may stop off at the redbox just to see. 10$ for netflix and 3-5 dollars for the occasional redbox is still way cheaper than the 5$ a rental cost that was Blockbuster or Hollywood.

And theaters could find ways to generate a little extra cash. You get your monthly service for 10$, but if you want to see a midnight screening its a extra charge of 1$, or 3D is a 1 or 2$ charge. Which as a consumer is still a major cost savings. You could easily see 4 3d films and 2 midnight screenings, and have only spent 20$, plus all the other films that were covered for free as part of the subscription.
Chris Dorr
Apr 10, 2011
05:18 AM
MJ, thanks for your comments. Your examples are great. Any you are absolutely right, now theaters would have the opportunity to add on all kinds of specials above the basic subscription that would make the theatrical experience fuller, create more value for the customer and the theaters make more money!
Tom Riley
Apr 10, 2011
02:44 AM
Cineworld (previously UGC) in the UK have been doing this since the early 2000s. It was £10 ($13) per month (min. 12months) and you could see as many films as you want, whenever you want. Sometimes we'd see 3 films back to back on a Saturday, it was awesome. They also had a special isle when picking up tickets so you don't have to que behind all of the "normal" people! They are still doing it but it's gone up to £13.50 per month now.

I can see how your idea is different because it includes all cinemas. Getting them all to agree would be a logistical nightmare. Maybe Netflicks could pull it off though. Cinemas are noticing visitor numbers falling and need to do something.
Chris Dorr
Apr 10, 2011
05:26 AM
Tom, thanks for giving us the details of how movie subscriptions work in the UK.

You are right, getting all theaters to agree on this concept would be very hard. But I think someone should try, whether a Netflix or a yet to be named startup.
Snot-nosed punk
Apr 10, 2011
06:52 AM
I think you drastically underestimate the number of losers in this country. Kids/40 year olds, still living with their parents, with nothing better to do than spend the entire day at the movies. What this would amount to is a movie experience for the rest of us, similar in nature to a comic convention. With a nation of dimwits filling each theater at all hours, the amount of money each film would get would be minimal, resulting in a selection of film comparable to Netflix's streaming service, out-dated and piss-poor.
viki
Apr 10, 2011
09:54 AM
Great concept, Chris.
And yes, we still do need to view film and movies (not the same thing) on the large screen. The convenience of click and play is still dwarfed by the movie-going experience. Filmmakers create with this in mind, big sound, big experiential visuals.
Also, the collective act of sharing fear, laughter, excitement can't be matched by the online, alone in your room counterpart. As Manohla Dargis reminds us in today's NYTimes,(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/movies/the-24-hour-movie-and-digital-technology.html?_r=1&ref=global-home)

"But you — as in we — still need the audience, right?"
So why not start to crunch some numbers?
Membership does have its privileges.
I just hope that somehow, a reliable system is created for attendance breakdown. One hopes that revenue for the full house can be accurately separated from the empty hall. Or we have yet another opportunity for the notorious "creative accounting" practices that plague this medium.
Chris Dorr
Apr 10, 2011
10:05 AM
Viki, thanks for your ideas. Yes you are right--with all this technology should come transparency. Under the model I proposed the theater will have complete information on every movie attended and when and by whom who is part of the subscription package.

So the data is all there--when you protect the privacy of the customer--which should be done--then what you have left is how many people were in each show and what portion of the subscription is due to the filmmaker. That--along with a check--should go to the distributor/filmmaker within 30 days after the end of the month. Not hard to do.
Karen
Apr 10, 2011
05:53 PM
Love this idea; we need to keep movie theaters operating.
Chris Dorr
Apr 11, 2011
05:40 AM
Thanks Karen for your comment, you are right and any imaginative way to keep them operating should be tried.
Andrew Heyward
Apr 11, 2011
01:04 PM
Really clever idea, Chris. A couple of variations on the theme: maybe you should be able to subscribe to more theaters for more money. The number two in your example seems arbitrary, especially as the theaters you picked - both favorites of mine - are multiplexes, so you'd actually have a choice of between twelve and twenty films at any given time. I also think a properly priced "family pack" would sell well, since you're losing the Netflix or Red Box advantage of one price accommodating as many people as choose to watch together at home. I don't know how the average family can afford to take the kids to the movies anymore. Anyway, thank you! I hope someone other than this group of smart commenters is paying attention to your proposal!
Chris Dorr
Apr 11, 2011
04:48 PM
Thanks Andrew for your comments. You are right--the number of theaters and the amount paid each month for the subscription should be flexible in the best model. And a "family pack" is a great idea.
Nathan Chase
Apr 11, 2011
01:27 PM
It seems like a no-brainer for theaters (and especially chains like Regal, Cinemark, AMC, etc.) to do a subscription model and take advantage of social media to know more about their audiences. It's kind of surprising it doesn't already exist.
Chris Dorr
Apr 11, 2011
04:49 PM
Nathan, you are right, one would think that theaters would want to try multiple ways to know more about their audiences.
Malky
Apr 12, 2011
12:21 AM
In the UK the cinema chain Cineworld offers this exact service for £15 a month. I've had one for two years and it is amazing. As you are not forking out £7 each time you visit the cinema you are willing to take a chance of things outwith my comfort zone
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:05 AM
Malky, thanks--You point out something very important--the willingness to expand what you will watch--which expands what you will recommend to friends--which expands the number of people going to the theater.
Matt Mc.
Apr 12, 2011
01:12 AM
Chris, this is a great idea. Even if it were $20 a month, I would still go! I see a film about once a week, and with the every increasing ticket prices, I would still get more bang for my buck if I paid a $20 month flat fee versus, say a $10 ticket every time I go. I really think you should submit this proposal to some movie theater execs :)
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:08 AM
Thanks Matt Mc., your point is well taken--even at a higher price point, people could find this attractive. Let's see if we can get some theater execs to read this post--especially with all the insightful comments people have made.
MrJack
Apr 12, 2011
01:34 AM
Well there is one flawed point in your logic.
Netflix has somewhat unlimited streamingpower so showing the same movie to lets say 800ppl at the same time is not a big deal well but it is for your local cinema because they don't have the space.
Although the Cinema has just a limited capacity.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:11 AM
Mr Jack, thanks for your note. You are right to point out that Netflix has certain advantages over a physical space with set capacity. I think the question is: do theaters really fill out their capacity well? And could they do it more efficiently and benefit themselves and their customers at the same time?
Jason Huff
Apr 12, 2011
02:24 PM
Chris,
I can see this working precisely on the model you mentioned -- capacity. Sundays through Thursdays, cinemas are often at 10% capacity, if that. Imagine two tiers to your card...one that is $10 a month good for any showings Sunday-Thursday, and another that's $25 a month and includes any time you want to go. Even if the theater made no money off admissions Sunday-Thursday because of the discount, they would more than make up for it with food sold. The only question is, would it work? Do people not show up at movie theaters during the week because they can't, or because they naturally gravitate to the opening weekend? Or is there something else? I personally have always enjoyed going during the week because there are enough people to enjoy the movie, but not enough to ruin the experience.
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
06:15 AM
Hi Jason, Thanks for your comments. You are right to mention many of the key factors that would be have considered and a two tier plan is a great idea.
Adam
Apr 12, 2011
01:59 AM
Agreed Malky, I never would have thought I'd like certain music until I got a smartphone with a subscription to a radio player that plays different genres that I took a chance on listening to because it was part of the subscription. thus, finding things you like that you didn't know you'd like.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:13 AM
Thanks Adam for making this point. The analogy to a music subscription model and how it changes consumer behavior is dead on.
Beloved1
Apr 12, 2011
06:02 AM
I had a similar idea to this many years ago, following an experience of having to sit by a mother with a screaming baby with a dirty diaper (she was too fat to get around so we were trapped)with this difference,: Some way to reserve a theater for a group of friends known to be civilized. It might mean smaller rooms within a theatre, but it would be a much more enjoyable experience.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
07:41 AM
Beloved1, thanks for your comments. Actually, your idea is not far off. In the near future there will be a time where the low cost digital delivery of any movie to a theater will make it possible for any of us to rent the movie and invite our friends at a reasonable price to see it a theater and the theater makes money, the filmmaker makes money and our friends have a good time at a reasonable price.
Rishi
Apr 12, 2011
06:23 AM
Wait a minute...Is it actually more enjoyable to watch a film in the theater surrounding by a pop-corn munching 8 year old whose father suddenly has an urge to buy a few more stocks before the market closes and thereby decides to flip his mobile open and let everyone in the theater hear him word by word?

...I think there is!

I say let theaters go the route of drive ins. Today we have high definition televisions, blu-ray disks and all too capable sound equipment to give us that "theater" effect sitting right there in our main hall. Oh, and it saves parking costs too! THIS IS THE FUTURE.

The art of cinema is dead-sorry to say. Today if a film is not about entertainment, it's not worth being released on a big screen, hence the quality of film is also suffering.

Say what you will about the studio heads- they only cater to what the public wants. And the public wants the Hangover 2 and the latest reboot of Batman and Spider man.

Just as films like Alien and 2001 A space Odyssey can never be made today, the pure joy of watching cinema on the big screen can never be bought back.

Cheerio
Biggest movie fan ever
Rishi.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
07:37 AM
Rishi, thanks for your comments. You are right the theater experience needs to improve--and theaters must take responsibility. And movies from Hollywood could be better--on the other hand, there are some high quality movies out there from Hollywood and indies that are great and should get the audience they deserve.
Abby
Apr 12, 2011
06:33 AM
Huh? Not enough money. The top ten movies last week took in $98.39 million. Yes, that's gross, but so are your numbers. If we were to replace a significant number of those admissions with your passes, it'd be a huge lose.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
07:34 AM
Abby, thanks for the comment. You may be right--however theater admissions are headed in one direction now--down and theaters have to find ways to drive them up.
Reece
Apr 12, 2011
06:59 AM
If this model existed, I would never feel reluctant to see a movie that I fear may be a flop. Love this idea.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
07:31 AM
Reece, thanks for your comment, and you are right--more movies would get the audience they deserve.
kes601
Apr 12, 2011
07:14 AM
While I like this model, price is not the reason I don't go to the movies nearly as often as I used to. I used to go to at least 1 or 2 every weekend, now it is maybe 1 or 2 a month.

I am tired of people talking, using their cell phones, etc. It is distracting and it ruins the movie.

An example.....a few weeks ago I went to see Cedar Rapids. Guy's phone goes off, he answers and starts talking. Somebody motions to him to stop talking. So he gets up and merely goes into the aisle and continues his conversation. If you can't live w/o a cell phone for 2 hours, then don't go to the movies.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
07:30 AM
kes601, you are right to point out these theater distractions--it is up to the theaters to make sure these are taken care of and a quality movie theater experience is preserved.
kes601
Apr 12, 2011
11:53 AM
I agree. I rarely go to our AMC anymore. It is always horrible with noise.

Regal still has ushers that walk up and down the aisle a couple of times a movie, so that helps.

I have also started going to a local theater chain that serves food during the movie. People seem to be more respectful at that theater.
LMartinon
Apr 12, 2011
07:22 AM
Chris, To be honnest, this exists already... in Europe. In the UK and in France, you can buy subscription around $25/month. Of course these subscriptions are valid only for multiplexes screens, but they are granting access for any theaters of the same "brand" of multiplex anywhere in those countries (i.e. if I am a member of Cineworld in London I can go to the Cineworld cinema in Edimburgh). The only problems of this offer is
1.to lower down the "discovery" hunger of the audience that gets used to only go in multiplexes
2.to rule down the market prices for the other cinemas that don't show mainstream films and thus for which this would not be economically viable.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
07:27 AM
LMartinon, thanks for your comment. You and others have pointed out that this exists within European theater chains. I think it should be extended across all theaters that the consumer gets to pick--for mainstream and indie movies alike--if so done so the discovery hunger you rightly point to--can be kept.
mark tornits
Apr 12, 2011
08:22 AM
first poster "Film is meant to be seen in theaters"

i agree... but we aren't seeing 'film" anymore- we are seeing digital projection with equals the set up that I have created in my home-

I don't want to go to a theater to see a digital projected movie- start showing film again, and good movies, and then maybe i'll sign up.
kaelcarp
Apr 12, 2011
08:26 AM
This is a brilliant idea! It would also help individual theaters in competitive markets (like NYC, where I am) generate some level of loyalty.

Let's say a movie I want to see is playing at a theater where I don't have a pass but not at one where I do. I might just wait for it to play at the one where I do, whereas now it's all about which theater is most convenient.

Theaters, in turn, would be motivated to win your loyalty by providing perks and better service. Since they apparently make most of their money on concessions anyway, they'd still make a killing there.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
08:33 AM
kaelcarp, thanks for your comments, you are absolutely right, the idea of loyalty and a strong relationship between the theater and the customer is key and better service is part of it!
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
08:29 AM
Mark, thanks for your comments. You are right, movies have to be good and the theater experience needs to be really great to justify our dollars being spent.
PBR STREET GANG
Apr 12, 2011
08:53 AM
Making everything more accessible, is the reason why theater counts are down! We don't want movies, being ruined like the music industry !!!! Studious need to stop producing crap! quality over quantity fore every ten films there's like 4 good ones !!! ALSO remember the reason for paying to see a film, is there are no adds in the middle of the film. unlike when you watch movies on TV
PBR street Gang
Apr 12, 2011
09:02 AM
one more thing. if theaters did start A concept like you wrote about. I guaranty you,it would cost more than ten dollars !!! don't forget about the people who work at the theaters as well! they need to make money also
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
09:09 AM
PBR street Gang, Thanks for your comment. You are right, it is likely to cost more than 10 dollars. And keep in mind the goal of the model I have proposed is to get more money into the till of theaters, not less. I am totally in favor of people who work at theaters being fairly compensated.
Nagara
Apr 12, 2011
09:05 AM
I could see how this would be lucrative for theaters, but I'm not sure if you could ever come up with a way to make the studios go for it. For smaller indie/low budget movies maybe. But the larger big budget movies, when studios get the biggest percentage of ticket revenue, would be out of the question. Unless, much like Netflix, there was a 3-4 week window before the movies became available.
Otherwise really great idea. Would love to see it come to fruition some day.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
09:14 AM
Nagara, thanks for your comment. You are probably correct, studios are likely to put up most of the resistance to this idea. But maybe some of them would be willing to experiment. Would be interesting to find out.
McFly
Apr 12, 2011
09:08 AM
Chris,

Great idea, love all the comments as well. You mentioned earlier the theaters make most of their profits on concessions, so your idea could be expanded to include "Concession Cash" or an add-on option to your account that allows you to get a discount on popcorn or a buy-one-get-one type of deal if you purchase ahead of time. And this fits right in with social media outlets as well...I wouldn't mind an alert that said "One free small popcorn valid this Tuesday!". The current price of movies is outrageous, but the $8 popcorn and $6 soda might be worse! I can't remember the last time I bought something at the concession stands. Sounds like a win-win to me!

Regards,
McFly
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
09:17 AM
McFly, thanks and you are right, the comments have been great! Your ideas of concession cash and social media alerts with discounts are right on target.
Josh
Apr 12, 2011
09:11 AM
Chris,
Maybe I'm not following, but how does a movie make money off of this idea? Take Avatar for example made almost 3 billion in theaters world-wide. At 2.5 Billion or so a year with 20 million customers- that wouldn't even cover a blockbuster like Avatar- let alone multiple blockbusters a year.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
10:10 AM
Josh, thanks for your comment. You raise a great question to which I do not have any easy answer. People more mathematically astute than me would have to tackle this for a real answer because there a lot of variables. For context, I was writing about the domestic market where Avatar's BO gross was $760,507,625 about 1/4 of its total World Wide Gross, so that is the number to keep in mind.

Films would receive money from this model based on their success at attracting customers, just as they currently do so blockbusters would still receive the lion's share of the revenue. Also, only some portion of total movie goers would likely be subscribers, others would still buy single tickets when they go to the theater. In addition, the monthly fee could be higher that what I suggested, which would generate a larger aggregate number. All these variables, plus others, would be part of the mix.
Nagara
Apr 12, 2011
09:19 AM
I could see how this would be lucrative for theaters, but I'm not sure if you could ever come up with a way to make the studios go for it. For smaller indie/low budget movies maybe. But the larger big budget movies, when studios get the biggest percentage of ticket revenue, would be out of the question. Unless, much like Netflix, there was a 3-4 week window before the movies became available.
Otherwise really great idea. Would love to see it come to fruition some day.
Tiffany A.
Apr 12, 2011
09:53 AM
I was actually just mentioning to my husband a month or so ago about how movie theaters need to create annual or season passes like theme parks do. This way they make money on concessions and we know how much we'll spend on movies each month, which can be quite substantial. It would be good for theaters in the off-months when people will see less movies, but they're still taking money in for the subscription. Also, people might be more willing to come to the theater and buy snacks since they're paying for the movie anyway. All around, I love this idea and really hope they make it happen.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
10:12 AM
Tiffany A. Thanks for your comments. You are very right in your observation about where theaters make their money and how this kind of plan would enable them to make more that way.
steven grayston
Apr 12, 2011
09:57 AM
lol this article is hilarious,it reminds me of that Sean locke comedy sketch where he does those overly complicated pitches for things that already exist.
in every country i've lived in they have monthly cinema passes. here in the u.k i had one 10 years ago! you pay up front £120 and there you go 12 months of unlimited movies. and im pretty sure they had them in a place i went to in florida too.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
10:53 AM
Steven, thanks for your comments. You rightly point out that subscription programs exist in several countries, but to my knowledge, none as I have proposed, i.e. combining all theater chains and individual theaters thus providing maximum choice, web based tracking of movie preferences, recommendation engines and use of location based technologies and social media technologies. But I may be wrong!
Mako
Apr 12, 2011
10:10 AM
Also take into account that studios are actually losing even more money because the inflow for home video sales keeps dropping even more than theatrical sales. Studios don't much care for the way in which Netflix (along with other illegal internet practices) have helped drop sales. I'm a film maker and an avid film watcher. And my biggest problem with going to the theater now a days is the audience. We live in a time when people need instant gratification. They are always on the phone. Texting. Emailing. Even while watching movies. Very few seem to even care that a complete stranger is sitting next to you - listening to how you broke up with Jimmy Hill last night. For me - that's a huge reason why me and my peers stay at home more. So I can actually focus and enjoy the movie I want to watch (and hear). I would pay the money for each and every movie - if I was guaranteed I could actually watch and see it. That's why I prefer going to places like the Archlight - where you pay more - and tend to not have those same issues. I was trying to watch a movie a couple months ago with my family where a group of teenage boys were screen hoping and started disrupting the theater. That's a theater problem. And I don't remember me or my friends or anyone else doing much of this 20 years ago. When we went to a movie and spent money to see something - we made sure we got our money's worth. Maybe NETFLIX and the INTERNET has caused the younger generation to also not appreciate the medium anymore? I happen to think that's a huge part of what's going on as well. And I don't know that your solution is the answer here. In fact - it may make it worse based on what I've experienced.
Earle
Apr 12, 2011
10:31 AM
This is also the exact reason why I generally do not like going to the movies anymore.

Here in Toronto, there are only a small handful of theatres I would attend, because the audience is respectful enough not to do all those things you describe, Mako.

These days, if I don't end up going to either Varsity, or Bloor Cinema, there is always someone around me in a theatre either talking or checking their phone (thereby shining a bright light in my eyes every 20 minutes or so). I honestly believe that most people, when at a movie, don't even understand the concept of just sitting down, shutting up and watching the movie.

So this is an interesting idea. But it won't solve anything as far as I'm concerned until theatres make a commitment to provide a proper environment for watching films.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
10:45 AM
Mako and Earle, thanks for your comments. You both are right, theaters should take greater responsibility in making sure the theater experience is a positive one. The model I suggest only works if people have a good time at the theater.
DylanG
Apr 12, 2011
04:41 PM
What? The Bloor and Varsity are just as bad. I had two cretins sit in front of me at a Bloor screening and have a conversation about their day during the movie until someone made them shut up. It's unavoidable.
Kelly
Apr 12, 2011
10:41 AM
As awesome as this would be, the movie distributors would have to reprice the cost of the theaters getting the films as it is usually min of $x of x% of the ticket sale which ever is higher.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
10:55 AM
Kelly , thanks for pointing that out, you are correct. Nothing about what I propose is simple, except the idea, a lot of realignment of thinking and deals would have to take place.
Lisa
Apr 12, 2011
10:56 AM
How many of us have said "That doesn't look worth it. I'll wait for the DVD."? The fact is, there aren't many movies I'm willing to drop $10 (or sometimes more) to see. If this were an option, I'd be going to the movies A LOT more and, therefore, be spending more on popcorn and soda. Really seems like a no-brainer to me.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
10:59 AM
Lisa, thanks for your comment. You are right. In my home, we say "let's Netflix it".
Anthony
Apr 12, 2011
11:07 AM
This has the potential to be a great deal for all of those involved. I would be willing to pay the $10 per month, and even then, I would be ok paying, up to a $5 premium during the first week or two of a major release (similar to the time frame where you can't use some passes). When I signed up for a new cable deal, I basically got HBO for free, and I find myself watching all sorts of movies I would never directly pay for, but I watch them because it's included in the package. The only other issue I have, is what can we do about the talkers and seat kickers?
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
11:30 AM
Hi Anthony, sorry I can't help you with the talkers and the seat kickers. You have a great idea for the $5 premium in the first 2 weeks, might be a way to deal with the point Josh (see above comment) brought up earlier about blockbusters (and how can they still make all the money they want) since it is all about the first weekend and the first 2 weeks for them.
Chris
Apr 12, 2011
11:09 AM
this has been around in the uk and europe for at least 10 years. research much?
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
11:33 AM
Hi Chris, Please see above comments, am well aware of programs overseas that are similar. However, they are not at all the same. The social media layer, the inclusion of all theaters (not just within a chain) and the use of location based technologies are all added to the basic form you are familiar with and make for a very different model when you add them all up.
mj
Apr 12, 2011
12:08 PM
I like this idea a lot. I'd be willing to pay even more for it if only films would be made that are even remotely worth watching. As Norma Desmond says, "It's the pictures that got small." When I lived in LA there was a never-ending supply of pictures to see, most of them never even ascending to mediocre but they existed. Now that I live in the "provinces" it's hardly worth the trip. If it isn't some moronic comedy you'd have to be stoned to appreciate, it's a horrid CGI catastrophe that has no story, bad writing and even worse acting. I wonder how many people are like me and would go if there were something to see.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:47 PM
Hi mj, I love the Norma Desmond line, thanks for helping us all to remember it!
Sovereign
Apr 12, 2011
12:23 PM
Unfortunately this model while nice would simply not be practical for the movie studios. The theaters would have to buy each print of the movie outright instead of essentially "renting" them from the studio. The studio makes their money as a percentage of what the theater makes from each movie. Now if they charge one price then how does each individual studio get paid their percentage. Otherwise you have movies that cost $100m sharing their revenue with movies that cost $10m.

Netflix buys their copies of each movie outright which means they can rent it as much as they want and the studio gets their cost of the DVD. The studios couldn't afford to do this on a large scale in theaters since this is still usually their largest venue and where they attempt to recoup their costs of the film production itself before moving on to other areas of revenue. Where hopefully they will then see profit.
FTRsports.com
Apr 12, 2011
01:33 PM
preach.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:44 PM
Sovereign, thanks for the note. What is fascinating is that from the many Europeans who are commenting on this post, we find that there are many subscription programs among theaters in their countries. Clearly the studios have figure out a way to deal with this, as these theaters play Hollywood movies. And to answer your question, each movie that you see under the plan I lay out would get a cut based on how many people see it.
katie anderson
Apr 12, 2011
12:38 PM
I love netflix but we do miss out so much on the beauty of movie making even with a home theater. But going to the theater is painfully expensive for families. I know that my family would pay for a service like this/ We watch about 6 movies a week collectively with netflix and I know we would go to the movies once a week if it didn't cost so much. Matinees are never convenient and 2nd run theaters are just not fun where we are (plus they tend to be those "dinner/movie" places which end up costing more than first run movies).
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:45 PM
Hi Katie, Thanks for your note. As Andrew Heyward mentions above, a family plan would be a good idea that could fit within this idea.
MWH80
Apr 12, 2011
12:51 PM
In a dreamworld, it'd work. But studios want every dollar they can get. What sounds more enticing to a studio? Me paying $10 a month to see 5 movies, or me paying $55 a month to see 5 movies?
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:34 PM
MWH80, thanks for your comment. And of course in the real world it is also possible that under the present model, movie attendance just keeps going down, with fewer and fewer ticket buyers and then were will studios be? Will they just raise their prices to get more money from fewer people?
Ricardo
Apr 12, 2011
01:10 PM
This already exists in Portugal (there's about 600 theaters here). It's called Medeia Card. You pay €15 a month and can watch any movie, any time in about 10 cinemas nationwide, 4 of them in Lisbon. An even more integrated option would be very welcome...
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:50 PM
Ricardo, thanks for telling us the Portugal example.
Jerad
Apr 12, 2011
01:17 PM
Brilliant idea Chris, I back this a hundred percent. As a netflix owner there are so many films that i would like to see in theaters, but generally pass on to wait for a dvd release, because movie tickets have risen so much. I don't feel as compelled to go see movies in theaters when I have hundreds at my disposal already. Theaters really do need to adapt if they wish to compete with these services nowadays, as i would certainly love a pass to theaters.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
06:13 PM
Jerad, Thanks for the note. You are right, Netflix is getting people used to a certain model of getting movies within a larger subscription model. Theaters have to adjust to this change in behavior if they want to get people to show up.
charles
Apr 12, 2011
01:31 PM
now you have to solve sold out movie issues for subscribers, over-crowding, the hit studios would take in ticket sales, the already razor thin profit margin theaters make, movie selection for local theaters and how people with subscriptions will deal with not being offered movies they want, and the fact that society is becoming increasingly comfortable with staying home to watch their 65" plasma and not having to sit behind someone taller than them in the theater.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
06:16 PM
Charles, thanks for your note. Actually I believe that several aspects of the model I suggest will create a more efficient way for people to access movies and make more money for everyone in the value chain, especially for theaters. Clearly the present model is not working.
Massimo
Apr 12, 2011
02:37 PM
In Amsterdam (Netherlands) there's a consortium of thirteen independent movie theaters, and a single subscription card called Cineville, which costs around 25 USD a month, and allows you to go to any screening you want. The Pathe' multiplex chain has a similar scheme in the Netherlands - the Unlimited pass, pretty much the same price as Cineville, and you can go to any Pathe' multiplex in the country.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:37 PM
Hi Massimo, thanks for the information. Sounds like a great program, imagine it now with a whole social media layer added to it that would bring additional value for the theaters and the customers.
Marc
Apr 12, 2011
02:45 PM
Could you also build theaters that block cell phone signals and automatically eject any idiot that feels it necessary to check Facebook right in the middle of the movie I just paid $12 to see? To me, it's not so much the cost as it is the increasingly discourteous public that feels it's OK to disrupt everyone's movie-going experience for the sake of their own petty concerns. As soon as someone fixes that (and gets rid of 3D), I'll come back.
JJ
Apr 12, 2011
02:48 PM
I actually DO really like this idea. The problem is that 10 bucks a month for all-you-can-view movies just doesn't sound like it would be achievable. Many theaters charge that for just ONE movie admission. How could we expect them to ever pull this off? I dunno. It just doesn't seem realistic to be that cheap. (although if it was, I'd definitely consider it.)
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:31 PM
JJ, thanks for your comment. It is possible to charge more, perhaps $15 to $25, there all kinds of variables to play with to make this work for everyone.
Starbuck
Apr 12, 2011
03:40 PM
Why stop at movies? Why not do this everywhere? pay 10 dollars a month for unlimited Grocery's or dinners at restaurants !!! lol
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:35 AM
Starbuck, thanks for your comment.
PuckerLunch
Apr 12, 2011
05:07 PM
Every month there are at least 9 or 10 films that I'm dying to watch but can only do 1 or 2 (sometimes alone). I'm a student on a tiny budget and my friends think the ticket price is not worth it for films with an imdb rating below 8.

I really love the movie theatre and would give up my mobile phone service to afford a theatre subscription service... who needs a phone when you've got wifi, amiright, guys?... guys?

The bad thing about NetFlix (or QuickFlix here in Australia) is that you can't do a once in a blue moon rental without a subscription. Porting the NetFlix model to theatres risks losing sales from people who just need a quick flix once in a while. Theatres can add to that model by keeping the old ($14) price on tickets for such people. Maybe even reduce it for a while, seduce them in to a monthly service...

It'll also help reduce piracy and increase DVD sales. More people watching films = more people finding their own taste = moar dvd hoarding. With the current model, more people lose out on discovering good films.

I think of SuckerPunch here in Sydney. With a subs service people would have hoarded to watch it, not caring much about critical reviews. With the $18 "giant screen only" opening weekend, people would skip it.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
05:53 PM
Puckerlunch, thanks for your note. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that this is the only way to gain access to the movie theater, I still believe people should be able to buy individual tickets. It would be one alternative.
draven
Apr 12, 2011
06:34 PM
This could be a good idea, expecally for large and or low income families but the problem with that is not everyone including low income families have a credit card. So then you are limiting which people can go to the movies and as I am a person on a fixed income I am not able to go to the movies offten, last two movies I paid to see was Iron Man and then Tron Legacey. I still enjoy going to see a movie if I think it is worth my money. Although it is a really good idea.
Chris Dorr
Apr 12, 2011
06:45 PM
Hi draven, Thanks for your note and observations.
Abby
Apr 12, 2011
07:10 PM
I just read this entire thing and I hate reading on screens. I think you have a masterpiece, this is brilliant. As an actress, it would also help more money flow through the entertainment industry which would be nice! As well as incorporating the way the world is already heading toward-living through technology and social media. I hope to see this come to life soon! Show it around, make some connections!
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:32 AM
Abby, thanks for your kind words!
Danny
Apr 12, 2011
07:14 PM
Your idea would be good if a movie's been in the theater for a couple of weeks. It might keep some movies in the theater for a longer period of time. I also think multiplexes should devote one theater to classic films, and one to indie films.

What Kevin Smith is doing with "Red State" should be something more directors & actors should do. Take the film on a "tour" and interact directly with the audience.
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:29 AM
Danny, thanks for your comment and you are right to mention what Kevin Smith is doing with Red State. It is a great model for many filmmakers.
Gilbert
Apr 12, 2011
07:23 PM
Great idea!
A discount coupon for movie theaters?
Unheard of!
The only way movie theaters can survive is if they offer something the other media is not showing.
I used to go to arcades until Nintendo came along, now why go to an arcade if you can play better games in your home? to play together? give me a break.
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:31 AM
Gilbert, thanks for your kind words. And you are right, theaters have to offer something unique to stay in business.
Ken
Apr 12, 2011
07:49 PM
I don't see why distributors would go for this idea. Movie attendance would increase which would also help theaters with food sales, but having to split the low monthly subscription price (which is about the cost of only one movie) between however many distributors released films in theaters that month seems like a bad deal for the folks selling the movies to the theaters. We all love Netflix but the DVD publishers would still rather we bought new DVDs in stores and not simply rent them online. This situation would be even worse for movie distributors.
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:27 AM
Ken, thanks for your comments, as you point out, there is likely to be real resistance from distributors and I am sure there are improvements to what I have suggested as some others have suggested could help bring them on board.
Mallory
Apr 12, 2011
08:09 PM
The movie theater makes the money on the concessions but the distributors, the films themselves make the money off the ticket. One movie ticket costs $10 these days. I'd say it'd be more realistic to make it $20 a month. (Not that I enjoy the price hike, but $10 just seems a little too good to be true) I really like this idea, though. I wish the people in charge of this sort of thing liked it, too.
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:24 AM
Mallory, thanks for your comments, and I think you are right, the price might have to higher to really work for everyone involved.
Alex
Apr 12, 2011
11:14 PM
I use to go at least once a week to the theater to support them and did so for many years. I stopped. Why? They refused to monitor their houses, even with simple walk-through's on a regular basis. Rarely, did I even see a warm employee body once. Week after week, I could no longer enjoy a film due to the talking or translating one did for another or the cell phone use. I started attending mostly matinee's then, thinking less people would make a difference. No. Even when I would politely try and ask a theater employee (asst. mgr or otherwise) to ask x to quiet down, etc., it was usually met with a "we'd be happy to give you a refund or ticket for another showing" and appeared that they no longer handled such things.

The theaters lost my money due to their own neglect of dedicated, polite customers. I feel no pity for them but do worry about how it could potentially effect the movie business. And yes, I do miss going to the movies.

Thanks.
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:34 AM
Alex, thanks for your comments. You are very correct, theaters have to make the experience of going to a movie enjoyable or customers stop showing up.
Kyle MacBean
Apr 13, 2011
03:23 AM
I Love this idea, i constantly want to go to the cinema as I enjoy the experience far more than that of home viewings, but the price is always off putting. Over here in England we don't have Netflix, a service I am gutted to not have access to. We do however also have a system where people on a certain mobile phone network get two for one tickets every wednesday, but if you don't have anyone to go with you can't split this deal between two movies so effectively its worthless. The service your suggesting would get me to the cinema considerably more, even on days when none of my friends are around to join me, also i would happily use the money I would otherwise have spent on tickets to buy drinks or food.

I also love this idea as it would allow independent cinemas to show the films their customers truly want. We have the oldest cinema in the UK not far from where I live and due to it only having one screen it has to carefully pick which film to show, however if they had access to film goers preferences and opinions they could adapt and choose the films to show much more intuitively. I love the idea and if all the cinema chains got in on it I reckon it would take off big time
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:22 AM
Kyle, thanks for your comments. Connecting with the audience and understanding what they want is very key as you rightly point out.
NJtoTX
Apr 13, 2011
04:45 AM
Tweet from Roger Ebert:

ebertchicago

A proposal to make movie theaters more like Netflix. I'm not sure I entirely understand this. http://bit.ly/e6lB27
vadermccandless
Apr 13, 2011
10:08 AM
Sounds great, but I seriously doubt $10 a month would cut it, especially since ticket prices are consistently over $10 per film.
Chris Dorr
Apr 13, 2011
11:13 AM
Vadermccandles, Thanks, you may be right. At what price do you think it would work best?
Avi
Apr 13, 2011
10:56 AM
Chris

Idea has merit but there are some considerations that might make it tough to work out in practical sense:

* movie theaters typically have a very limited selection of films and if they are revenue producers, their rotation is measured in weeks. So a viewer might not find anything worth viewing or viewing again in a single month period.

* While exhibitors will now be getting a fixed up-front income, they will lose money on "blockbusters", which often has viewers coming several times to see the film.

* Fixed pricing negatively incentives exhibitors, since they will then be running like any other "membership" operation that makes more money the less members show up.

* One of the primary reasons for going to the theater is for screen size and sound system. Home theater experience continues to evolve and erode that advantage, and in ones home, they can have the "social" aspect of viewing movies with friends without having to deal with crowds or poor seat selection, which would increase in the membership model

* Netflix is working on the social components and does a fairly decent job tracking what viewers like. Perhaps if Netflix BOUGHT some movie theater chains, that might work.
Chris Dorr
Apr 13, 2011
11:20 AM
Avi, thanks for your comments. You are right to mention some of the tough challenges this idea faces and you have so with real clarity. I think there are many variations on this idea--some eloquently stated by people who have also commented--that would start to deal with these hurdles. But flushing all these out is for another post.
Kavan B
Apr 13, 2011
11:10 PM
a service that allowed me to vote with my fellow patrons on what movies we would really like the theater to show! That would be wonderful.

A fully integrated streaming theater that let the community have a night a week where the top voted film was played. Charge the full ticket price, whatever, to be able to vote and see a great classic in the theaters, with my group of friends and whoever else in the community wanted to see it as well... just allowing some feedback, opening it up some so that the consumer has some more say is all that has to be done.
Chris Dorr
Apr 14, 2011
03:19 AM
Kavan B, this is an excellent idea. And the technology is there to make it happen.
chase wingate
Apr 16, 2011
12:33 PM
in england @ cineworld cinemas, for £13.50 a month you can watch as many movies as u wish per month
Chris Dorr
Apr 16, 2011
01:47 PM
Hi Chase, thanks for the information. Does Cineworld connect with its customers online or use any social media tools to allow them to connect to each other and recommend movies or restaurants, etc.? Would be great to find out.
Samantha Rojas
Apr 17, 2011
07:43 PM
Phenomenal idea, I highly suggest the movie theater business and Netflix to collaborate on such a business booming idea like this. Both parties would benefit, why not!
Chris Dorr
Apr 18, 2011
06:05 AM
Hi Samantha, Thanks for your comment and you are right, a Netflix/Theater partnership could be very good for both!
TACO!!
Apr 18, 2011
06:26 AM
i hate that idea so much its so gay
Cara Day
Apr 20, 2011
03:24 PM
The Art Theater, which is a wonderful single screen independent in Champaign, IL, does something similar -- it's just not called a subscription. Instead they have an "Art Card." I buy an "Art Card", which is basically a reloadable debit card, then load it with whatever amount I want. Want to save 10% on everything at the Art? When I load the Art Card with $50, the theater gives me a $5 bonus. Load it with $100, I get $10 bonus. Plus, I can use it for all my purchases at the theater - tickets and concessions. I get a bonus and the theater I love going to gets operating capital.
Chris Dorr
Apr 20, 2011
03:45 PM
Hi Cara, Thanks for letting us know about this, an interesting model.
John Valente
Apr 23, 2011
02:08 PM
This is a progressive idea that has a lot of merit. However, the exhibitors are hamstrung by the restrictive controls of the studios. It is they who need to change their business models, making it easier for exhibitors to be creative in attracting customers to theaters. Exhibitors need a Netflix model that allows them to book what they want, when they want rather than be weighed down by strict studio terms.
Chris
Apr 23, 2011
04:41 PM
John, thanks for your comment. You are right the studios have a large measure of control over what theaters can do and they need to become more flexible with their own business models.
Rakesh Joshi
Jun 03, 2011
02:39 PM
A wonderful concept, this will truly solve the "One Major Problem" - PIRACY; which is were major revenue loss's take place. And if this works in the U.S. whats stopping overseas markets following suite.
Chris Dorr
Jun 03, 2011
03:37 PM
Thanks for your kind words and you make a great point.
Eric T.
Sep 07, 2011
01:31 PM
This is a terrible idea. At $10 a month, too many people would show up at the movie theater, and seeing how there would exist a limited amount of seats, you'd need a higher price to optimize the theaters profitability while keeping the theater within capacity.

A subscription model is not a bad idea, but I doubt the majority of consumers would buy into it, seeing as how prices would more likely be at minimum $60 a month per person. The industry should focus on improving the novel aspects of their business. Consumer electronic devices are their competition so they must offer what one typically does not have in his home. What draws me to movie theaters are the time exclusivity, the huge screen, the surround sound, and the communal atmosphere. 3d is an addition to these novel attributes and D-BOX,www.d-box.com, is another.

Revenue may be dropping in the movie theater business, but all this does is create an incentive for the movie theater industry to better serve consumers.
 
© 2012 Tribeca Enterprises LLC Privacy Policy Terms of Use
Powered by Clickability