![]() ![]() Why not raise the base price of MoviePass to $15 or $20? But you also just introduced surge pricing. Right now MoviePass is still $10 a month. Related: MoviePass introduces surge pricing For AMC, they only get to go to an AMC - which is 22% or 23%. So for $9.95 a month - which is half the price of theirs - they get to go to 92% of the theaters around the country. We haven't seen any downturn at all from them announcing it, because the consumer wants access. Even when AMC announced that they were doing their deal, our numbers actually shot up like 23% with no advertising or anything. If more of these big theater chains jump in with their own programs, don't you lose your leverage? We're already seeing companies like AMC jumping into this game. When a studio comes out with a movie, and they want to use us for marketing, we have a very good idea of who's going to really play to that movie as we start to advertise out to our base. We know what time they go to the movies, what movies they like, what genre they like. What we do as the analytics company is, we sit there and we can tell the moviegoing habits. What kind of data you are collecting from your customers? What privacy concerns are there? How do you hope to use that data?įirst of all, we don't sell any of the data at all. the more casual moviegoers outside of the big cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Miami, we see the trends of definitely where they go to less movies, and obviously, the movies are less expensive. You know what, we don't disclose it, but it's not $12. Because, you know, that's not a true number, either. ĪMC has no idea what we pay them, which was really interesting that they put that out there. And AMC, on its last earnings call, mentioned that you pay $12 a ticket. How do you figure that someone who goes to movies nine or 10 times a year on MoviePass will offset the cost of $10 per month? There are markets where the cost of a movie ticket is more than $10. Related: MoviePass is running out of money and needs to raise $1.2 billion And we're talking to several of them, not all of them yet. But in all our filings in the past, you can see different ones that are out there. But I can't say who we are talking to now, just because it's all not public information. You've mentioned that there are several institutions that are still willing to work with you and believe in this company. The timeline really is by the end of this year, when you hit around 5 million subscribers, is what our model shows. I think Wall Street, the same as venture capitalists, they're used to seeing a model like this, similar to a Netflix ( NFLX), where the company burns a significant amount of cash to get to profitability, but also to claim market share. And I think that we've gotten there in record time. The institutions definitely understand the model. We've already announced that we are looking at different options of doing a reverse and all these different things to recapitalize, restructure the company.īut there's no shortage of institutions willing to work with us to give us money, even as we're going through this right now, losing money. Farnsworth: I think that one thing Wall Street likes is there's liquidity in the stock. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |