SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for BoyceMagooglyMonkey
MoviePass is rolling out peak pricing, its own version of surge pricing that will charge customers more to see popular movies during what the company considers "high demand" times.
The company is looking to raise another $1.2 billion by selling stock and debt. But if MoviePass wants to survive, it also needs to start losing less money on its subscribers, and fast.
That's where peak pricing comes in. MoviePass was vague on the details when it teased peak pricing in late June, and it hardly cleared things up in an email to users today (July 5).
"Peak Pricing goes into effect when there's high demand for a movie or showtime," MoviePass wrote in its email. "You may be asked to pay a small additional fee depending on the level of demand." Movies currently experiencing peak pricing will be marked with a red circle containing a white lightening bolt; movies growing in demand that "could enter Peak Pricing soon" will get a gray version of the icon.
Source: https://qz.com/1321913/moviepass-peak-pricing-will-charge-you-whatever-it-wants/
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 10 2018, @09:12PM (4 children)
According to Abe, you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Theaters still get packed out for opening weekend of popular titles (usually sequels.) As long as people are willing to pay more, they're going to be charging more.
Many of our local theaters have installed big leather power-recliner chairs, with deep row spacings, probably cutting the theater capacity to 1/3 what it used to be with the traditional seating... having done this, now they can't pack it full like they used to (although with 24 screens, they can start the same movie once every 15 minutes all day long, if they wanted to.)
Demand pricing? Sure, bring it on, it's not like I've paid for a non-matinee show in the last 20 years anyway.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday July 10 2018, @10:11PM (3 children)
I can understand why Hollywood likes sequels. They're easier to do, less creativity and more special effects is a pretty easy formula to execute.
What I can't understand is why people keep going to see them? Is there really nothing you'd rather do with your evening and your money than watch another stale Hollywood rehash of a story that wasn't great the first time?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 10 2018, @11:35PM
Back when I was in college, I could walk into a record store and buy, with confidence, a new album or later CD and 9 times out of 10 not be too disappointed in the quality of my purchase. Some of this was just being young, with Buzz Lightyear's trademark: "I'm Buzz Lightyear, I'm always sure" confidence, but a lot of it was accumulated knowledge about what bands put out good quality albums, etc.
My recently divorced mother (who is only ~19 years older than me), also enjoyed the new CDs, but she was afraid to pick them herself because she would more often get a bad one and feel cheated/burned for having handed over $10 for a waste of her time. I think the same thing applies to movies - people are afraid to be burned by un-enjoyable entertainment, and they can't be bothered to learn enough about the industry to be able to pre-judge for themselves, and who really trusts Siskel or Ebert, or has the time to listen to them anymore anyway?
I can usually flip through the Netflix icons and pick something worth watching, partly because I'm still Buzz Lightyear, but also because I have the tolerance of diversity to appreciate most things that I watch for what they are, though some [wikipedia.org] are tougher than others [wikipedia.org].
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday July 10 2018, @11:35PM (1 child)
For the same reason they make them - risk management. If you go to a new movie you are likely to be sorry as most of them are real bad. Adding a biting price, it is really a high risk enterprise. Sequel is a much safer bet; granted, not that exiting.
That's why I wait for a few months to see if the movie worth it (and by that time usually available elsewhere). It's a vicious circle. For them to get me in the theater (and pay anything at all) they got to take a risk of making good movies. They don't. Screw them.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 11 2018, @12:38AM
There are a lot of reasons for that. First off there are hundreds if not thousands of incredibly talented actors out there looking for roles - and there are maybe a dozen that actually get work. "Only the top box office attractions" - well yeah, if ever studio is insisting on whoever is the top name this week then that person is going to charge accordingly, doh. Why not take a chance on one of the hundreds of other good candidates who would be happy to have the chance to work for a fraction of the cost? Then there's the special effects, and all the 'rights-clearing' because they don't write their own story, they derive it from something else that's currently popular... it's gotten to the point they're spending $300 MILLION or more on producing many of these films. So yeah, if you're putting that kind of cash in, damn straight you need to try and hedge against failure.
But you could split that $300 million up and use it to fund, let's say 75 original films. That's $4 million dollars each. Don't use any 'top draw' talent, don't use anyone elses IP, write something new and then produce it. Yeah, some of those films might be stinkers, but surely at least a few would be really good! And they wouldn't need to make $300 million each at the box office before turning a profit either. You could take in only $40 million and still call it an enormous success!
It's perfectly possible this is nonsense - the movie industry is one thing I won't pretend to understand - but that's how it looks to me. Hollywood has become prisoner to their own expectation of largeness, and painted themselves into a corner where creativity is no longer even possible for them.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?