MoviePass' Days Look Limited (bloomberg.com) 159
Kyle Stock writes via Bloomberg: Eight months after slashing its price and expanding membership past 2 million users, MoviePass is now at risk of going bust. The parent company, Helios & Matheson Analytics, which now owns 92 percent of MoviePass, said last week that it had just $15.5 million in cash at the end of April and $27.9 million on deposit with merchant processors. MoviePass has been burning through $21.7 million per month. A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing last month revealed that the company's auditor has "substantial doubt" about its ability to stay solvent. Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities Inc., warns that MoviePass may not survive the summertime run of blockbusters. On Tuesday, Helios reported the performance of MoviePass for the three months ending on March 31. The company lost $107 million, earning just over $1 million from marketing deals and $47 million from subscriptions. Helios shares have fallen to decade lows of less than $1 after peaking at $32.90 in October, alongside the MoviePass hype.
Simple math (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I am shocked that this didn't work. SHOCKED!
monetization (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the math as simple. That's because none of us can see what their path to monetizing this was/is. Sure it's simple that if you give out tickets for a cost less than their price you lose money and can't make that up "on volume". But I suspect that the long term plans included things like striking deals with movies theaters for a slice of the concessions (arguing increased traffic), advertising for pre-movie dinners or parking lots, and perhaps tie-ins to netflix or hulu sunscriptions. Then steadily increasing the price once people get hooked regular movie visits (since you already paid for it).
I kinda doubt this was a viable model. They would need some way to be exclusive with movie theaters to leverage them to share concessions, but they would also need to avoid annoying their customers with limited selections. Perhaps in big cities there is more competition on where you go to see Starwars, not so much is small cities. It's hard to see how they could extract enough to pay for the full price ticket itself.
Still I would assume they do have some plan even if I can't figure out what it is.
Haithangyow! (Score:4, Funny)
Including, apparently, their own management.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
i'd wager the studios now see netflix's initial overtures as the camel sticking it's nose under the tent -- they won't be so quick to make that mistake again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Including, apparently, their own management.
I am certain their own management have handsomely monetized themselves over the years.
It would be interesting to see when they exercised their stock options.
It doesn't matter to them now if the company goes tits up.
Re: (Score:2)
We found at they were tracking people all the time and trying to sell information about them.
Theatres receive almost nothing for ticket sales during the early part of their run, that goes to Hollywood. Maybe MoviePass could have convinced cinemas to give them a discount later in the theatre run where they have more share but if successful then Hollywood would become involved as it would start to detract from their take.
Re: (Score:2)
We found at they were tracking people all the time and trying to sell information about them.
Suggest you check your news on that...it was discussed and debunked.
Re:monetization (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
A cut of concessions was likely out of the question. Studios are still taking 60% of ticket prices from theaters, meaning the only viable means of making money for a theater owner is concessions. That's the reason popcorn is 8 bucks.
AMC, the largest theater chain in the world has already told them "fuck off, we're not giving you a cut of our concession money". (It's in the article, which of course no one has read).
Re:monetization (Score:5, Informative)
When MP first came out they bought large block of ticket credits from various chains at about $.75 - $1 a piece. Most people were only using the service about 2-3 times a month. At the time it was a $30/month subscriptions which made them a ton of money .(I heard these part on a radio interview with president at the time about 3 years ago.) Theaters saw concessions and attendance go up which was a great time for everyone.
Then the theaters said 'As more people use the system we're getting a lot complaints customers on how the system work. Why don't we do the same?'. The chains started raising the prices on MP to about $2-3 per ticket to cover their cost dealing with complaints. With MP's administration costs and the lowered subscription price they were loosing about 1-2% on every subscription. This was compounded by attrition from member's credit cards expiring (see comments below). Since the theaters 'owned' ticket already they realized that loosing money to a middle man. The big chains already had movie clubs so they modernized it (easier to use member cards), dropped the price, and added roll-over concession perks. Plus the chains also got additional demographics they never had before.
The Movie Pass application system is just plain clunky to use:
A few things can (would have) of fixed:
Re: (Score:2)
I never paid too much attention to MoviePass, but surely part of the plan was that a lot of subscribers would pay their monthly fee but not attend very many movies? Like the gym membership model, where some number of gym members go on contract, pay for their membership, but still never use the gym.
Re: (Score:2)
Realizing that the majority stake owner had "analytics" in its name, the subscriber fees may be a red herring in understanding the whole financial model. Is likely just selection criteria, while customer data is the actual product. It seems like they are failing to monetize that product, but you'd hope nobody would be dumb enough to think this idea would suddenly be profitable by scaling.
Sigh. (Score:2, Interesting)
"MoviePass has been burning through $21.7 million per month."
"MoviePass for the three months... lost $107 million, earning just over $1 million from marketing deals and $47 million from subscriptions."
It doesn't take a genius to work out that 48/3 = 16 and thus you're earning $5.7m less every month than you're actually taking in.
Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
"MoviePass has been burning through $21.7 million per month."
"MoviePass for the three months... lost $107 million, earning just over $1 million from marketing deals and $47 million from subscriptions."
It doesn't take a genius to work out that 48/3 = 16 and thus you're earning $5.7m less every month than you're actually taking in.
Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
...
Oh FFS.
The fix here isn't MORE GOVERMENT RULES when everyone is already committing three felonies per day.
Repeat after me: The government is NOT going to save you or make your life better. That's NOT ITS JOB.
GROW UP, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, AND STOP EXPECTING SOMEONE ELSE TO MAKE YOUR LIFE BETTER!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that '3 felonies a day' bullshit? Perhaps you could list a few of these felonies that 'everyone' is committing 'every day'/
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you could list a few of these felonies that 'everyone' is committing 'every day'....
When the, "Why You Never Talk to The Police" video was released, there were over 50,000 Federal laws on the books. There are many more than that, because somewhere around 50,000 is where they stopped counting. According to that same video, nobody knows exactly how many Federal laws there are. And that's not even counting State and local laws.
So no, nobody should be stupid enough to believe that they are committing three felonies every day. That number is too low.
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't know the exact number of federal laws not because there are so many that they can't be counted, but because of the way American laws are written. They're not all (a) "It is violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits." Many of them are (b) "It is a violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits, pass unsafely, and drive blind-folded except under the follow 18 circumstances."
Does (b) count as one law or many?
Additionally there is a massive amount of law that is specific to standards ("All automobile headlights must illuminate the road at least X feet ahead of the driver...") or give permissions for a single action to occur ("For the fiscal year 2018-2019, webservers will not be eligible for depreciation.").
It's all very complex simply because life is complex and people would prefer to make it easier for themselves by screwing people over. So, in lieu of having massively atrocious fear campaigns of bloody punishment, every harmful action is made illegal and then comes with its own designated punishment.
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that many laws are created to modify or repeal other sections of the law. The government might want to amend the list of circumstances for blindfolded driving. It can be recursive in nature.
For good or bad, laws are complex, and need to be evaluated holistically, rather than on a per item basis. It might be more helpful to think of laws like the genome for an organism. One gene alone doesn't work, its the interaction between them, turning on and off in sequence that creates life. Speeding is illegal, but what if I am trying to rescue a basket full of kittens? Instead of trying to codify everything, we let lawyers, judges and juries sort out the circumstances, and deconflict the letter of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't know the exact number of federal laws not because there are so many that they can't be counted, but because of the way American laws are written.
Either way, the end result is the same. You can't possibly know if you're breaking any laws. The odds are tremendously in favor of every single one of us breaking multiple serious laws every day without even realizing it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is still complete bullshit. If the odds are 'tremendously in favor', then it should be dirt simple to point out at least a few FELONIES that every one of us are guilty of, knowingly or not. Or maybe even just ONE felony that many people commit without knowing it. Anything at all? The claim is that nearly a BILLION inadvertent felonies are committed every single day, and you can't list ONE of them?
One of the problems with the 'there are so many laws you MUST be breaking some' argument is that most o
Re: (Score:2)
That is some idiotic 'logic' there. Since there are a lot of laws, you MUST be committing at least three felonies? Really? Don't you find it rather odd that, given the number of idiots that actually believe this, none of them can come up with a SINGLE example? Just one?
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet still no examples of felonies that an average person might commit on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:1)
In states where marijuana is legal the "average" person could very well violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) on a daily basis. Just because it's not a "priority" for Federal prosecutors doesn't mean the law isn't being broken...
Re: (Score:2)
And yet still no examples of felonies that an average person might commit on a daily basis.
Do you have some fender washers and cast iron pipes or metal tubing in your garage? That is constructive possession of an NFA item, namely a silencer. The same goes for a length of string and split ring commonly used for a key chain which can readily convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun. Ever let your semiautomatic rifle get so dirty (or leave the disconnector spring out of your AR-15) that it double fires? BATFE says once a machine gun always a machine gun. Federal gun laws get incredib
Re: (Score:2)
Here [cornell.edu] is the law. Please point out the section that you claim exists.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I clicked on a few of your links.
The first one says (in part) this:is primarily a statute aimed at reaching those persons who provide material support to terrorists knowing that such support will be used to commit one of the offenses ... (emphasis mine). You mean it is illegal to support terrorism? I had no idea!
The third one is about harboring persons, spying, and disclosure of classified information. Again, I am shocked to find these things illegal.
The fourth one is yet another shocker! Apparently
Re: (Score:2)
Move your prescription pills into a pill-reminder box - not illegal in most places as long as not a controlled substance and you can prove you have a presciption
Small accounting errors are federal felonies, once you sign your tax form. - No shit, it says that right where you sign it
Transport a firearm wrong. - No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws
shipping violations of items - Again, ifyou are shipping something hazardous you need to know the laws
moving animals, let
Re: (Score:2)
Transport a firearm wrong. - No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws
Knowing the appropriate law is not enough when the prosecutor decides what the appropriate law is.
California had proscriptions on transporting a "loaded firearm" but does that mean actually loaded, or separate magazine loaded, or just having the firearm, magazine, and ammunition in proximity? I do not know the current situation but for a long time it was the last.
Does the federal safe transport law apply if you stop to get lunch, use a restroom, or stay overnight on a long trip? It sure does not in states
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an exaggeration in the OTC market. Every one of them are stock-selling scams and yes, they are committing multiple felonies every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Any law that prohibited anything in my post would immediately be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. So, reset the counter to zero and try again.
Re: (Score:2)
The gov't would do well just enforcing laws that are already on the books. The isn't Mitch Lowe's first scam rodeo, he spent the past couple years involved with a penny stock scam called Nanotech Entertainment that purported to be in the 4K streaming business.
Re: Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't answer for the other AC, but "protecting people from stupid investments" isn't very high on my list. I don't think it's even possible without a massive new bureaucracy similar to the FDA in scale. At that point, the cost of getting and maintaining business plan approval would be onerous, and I don't even know how you would punish companies that don't live up to their expectations... the market already takes care of this nicely. In this case, MoviePass and their investors will lose everything - isn't that punishment enough? Why prevent them from raising money so long as all the numbers are right there for you to add up for yourself? It would be different if there was a lack of transparency.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's even possible without a massive new bureaucracy similar to the FDA in scale.
It's not worth it. The bureaucracy required would stifle legitimate investments. That's what EVERY prior-restraint attempt by the government to suppress scams and bad investments causes ---- we already see that with the SEC.... they result in a mountain of money that has to be paid to compliance people and many MANY documents to be filed with the government, and many MANY months of waiting on the gove
Re: (Score:2)
Now you know why it wasn't large. You need to accept high risk in order to reach high returns.
Re: (Score:1)
I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned
Yes. Shareholders who were hoping to cash in big on the latest Internet sensation. Their big losses are just what's needed to calm the madness.
if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit... you should just be shut down.
Shut down by whom? The FTC? Some kind of local morality authority? I find it hard to believe you've actually run a business, given statements like that. But I do sympathize. A world without Amazon, Twitter and Facebook sounds delightful.
I wonder if the movie studios might step in. MoviePass sounds like a good marketing gimmick for them. They could raise the p
PRO BUSINESS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone from employees to suppliers to the taxpayer loses out from such things.
But they all win if the business turns out to be a success.
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".
Don't you know that the business model of the future means it doesn't matter how much money you're losing or whether or not you have any real plan for profitability, it's all about making sure people are calling you "disruptive", developing a cult fanbase and ignoring the laws you don't like.
Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.
I'm calling BS on that.
I've actually run a business, some weeks I made losses, others I made profit, quarterly it looked better, in 3 years I only made 2 quarterly losses and one of those was my first quarter (which is to be expected). I sold the business and made out with a decent profit after paying my debts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And smart investors think it is nuts to measure even on a yearly basis. How long did Amazon operate at a yearly loss before it became profitable?
Re: (Score:3)
Your business model is literally worse than "Let's burn $5.6m in cash each month on a big bonfire".
I disagree with this particular statement. From the spender's point of view this might be the same, but from a larger economy point of view those $5.6m went back into circulation rather than vanishing forever. So it's very slightly better to lose it this way than straight up burning it.
Re: (Score:3)
Burn $5.6m and the rest of the money in the market just became more valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
That's $5.6 million a month funneled directly to Hollywood to make 15 more Avengers movies. I hardly think that was money well spent on the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, what moves the money may be bullshit, but it's not burnt in Hollywood either. It moves on rather than be the end of the line.
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down.
Depending on the specific contract requirements and the definition of "progress" I think this is a little harsh.
There are a lot of business that require significant up front capitalization and its hard to show a early profit in those cases.
I think some SEC rules for public companies requiring them to maybe post things like "Average Cost of customer acquisition" in financial statements might however be in order.
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.
Re: (Score:1)
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.
Your statement implies that company owners and stakeholders are always 100% honest and truthful about their companies. Trying to claim that it's against the law is a fucking joke. Laws don't prevent crime. Effective punishments do. And we hardly ever punish anyone in the financial sector. And you have one hell of an ability to turn a blind eye to the 2008 global financial crisis asking ignorant questions as to who this can hurt society overall.
Let's put it this way; if every company had to prove themse
Re: (Score:2)
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.
Your statement implies that company owners and stakeholders are always 100% honest and truthful about their companies. Trying to claim that it's against the law is a fucking joke. Laws don't prevent crime. Effective punishments do. And we hardly ever punish anyone in the financial sector. And you have one hell of an ability to turn a blind eye to the 2008 global financial crisis asking ignorant questions as to who this can hurt society overall.
Let's put it this way; if every company had to prove themselves financially solvent for 10 years before filing for any kind of IPO, a shitload of companies would never even bother forming. Take the bullshit motivator we call the stock market out of the picture, and you've eliminated 90% of this problem.
Um, what? My question was how more government intervention would help in this situation. And you reply by saying that the laws we already have are not enforced. I agree, especially when it comes to the financial sector. Bunch of criminal up in that bitch. But I don't understand how that is at all germane to my point.
Re: (Score:2)
While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):
Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell
Re: (Score:2)
Then those people are in need of education...
Being completely ignorant and relying on the government to think for you is not the answer, such a system can and will be heavily abused.
Re: (Score:2)
While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):
Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell should not be allowed to legally separate "stupid investors from being separated from their money". Because they wouldn't be "stupid". They'd be rationally trusting. One should be able to trust one's official financial representative.
Fair enough, I agree. I was responding in the context of venture capital, not retail investing. Retail investors need more protection because they are not professional money managers. Venture capitalists at least should be professional money managers and evaluators of companies. I used to work in VC (on the tech side), and believe they should sink or swim based on their ability to evaluate businesses and business plans. It is, after all, their business.
Re: (Score:2)
"we lose money selling one ticket, but we will make money selling a million tickets!"
"profit at scale!"
Re: (Score:3)
I know everyone likes to crack jokes about "we will make it up on volume" but it is rooted in sound practice.
You cost of goods sold includes everything fixed and variables costs a like. If you total costs are $100 and you produce a 100 widgets your COGS per widget is $1.
Now lets supposes you can only sell widgets for $0.50. Hmm -50 cents a widget. At first blush you might think that selling more widgets will result in greater losses. However if we look into the numbers and discover that the inputs to a
Re: (Score:2)
I know everyone likes to crack jokes about "we will make it up on volume" but it is rooted in sound practice.
The joke is in managers taking a "sound practice" and, through complete ignorance of what makes it a sound practice, fucks it up. The joke is how frequently that happens, and how often it could have been avoided by someone with more than two neurons to rub together ( ie: anyone, apparently, but the leaders of the company in question ).
Re: (Score:2)
I worked as a Product Manager for some retards in Seattle (including the Director of Product Management) who actually had faith in this company. I pointed out that their business model involved converting some of the highest paying movie going customers into some of the lowest paying and, therefore, was unsustainable.
I know right, people should instead invest in companies which don't have a product, have never turned a profit, and have no clear business path for doing so. Like several of those Fortune 500 companies which made some investors stupid rich.
What you are talking about is bluechip investing. A low risk approach with long term thinking. It doesn't apply at all in the startup world.
Re: (Score:1)
So basically any company that wants to do research must be an incumbent, and not new?
Awesome, I sure bet that will drive down prices.
I'm also sure all of the employees that had a job funded by shareholder hopes and dreams feel like they're way worse off than if instead they had a not job.
Business is risky. Get over it. (Score:5, Insightful)
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite.
No we do not. You cannot legislate against businesses failing. You have to let people take risks (including big risks) as long as they do not endanger the entire financial system. Very few companies are significant enough to present that kind of risk because they are already very big and successful by that point.
I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit
Do you have any idea how many companies you depend on that weren't profitable for far more than a year? Pretty much every drug company startup doesn't show a profit for the better part of a decade. Amazon wasn't profitable for many years as was Facebook. It's not at all unusual for companies to not be profitable for 2-3 years or more.
If the shareholders are ok with burning cash for a larger payout down the road then that is fine. It's their money and if you don't take any risks chances are you aren't going to see a big payday.
Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.
Congratulations but that is very unusual. I've started 5 companies and several of them didn't ultimately make any profit.
Yes, that would mean no Amazon (or at least, an Amazon starting up in a very different way). But it would also mean that there wouldn't be a thousand Amazon wannabes all doing the same and losing people's money, because it's not JUST the shareholders who lose out. Everyone from employees to suppliers to the taxpayer loses out from such things.
That's complete nonsense. Taxpayers do not lose out in any way. The government still taxes income and that gets paid. Most companies are not C-Corps anyway. You cannot force companies to be successful. There is no way to run a robust economy without allowing people to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way to run a robust economy without allowing people to fail.
You have to let corporations fail, and take investors' money with them. But you don't have to let people fail, if you catch my drift. Someone profits; tax 'em enough to pay for the upheaval caused by failure.
Failure in business (Score:2)
You have to let corporations fail, and take investors' money with them. But you don't have to let people fail, if you catch my drift.
Corporations are run by people. They fail because the people running them fail. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference but perhaps I don't understand your point. Some people are going to fail and that's ok. Failure in business is rarely permanent or fatal. Have some social safety nets (fully funded of course) but very little of value is ever accomplished without some measure of risk.
Someone profits; tax 'em enough to pay for the upheaval caused by failure.
Most businesses aren't zero sum games, at least not all the time. I don't have to fail for someone els
Me too. Geez we're stupid (Score:2)
> Yes, I have owned a business. It wasn't large, I don't claim that. But I never made a loss, not once.
I owned a couple businesses that never "made a loss" (spent a year investing, growing). It wasn't large. In fact they were tiny. Like you, I don't do that anymore. Mostly because with a very small business, I made less money than I make working for someone else, in a larger business. I don't do run a business now because it's silly to deal with the stress, risk, and volatility of owning a business unl
Re: (Score:2)
but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down.
Congratulations. In your quest to try and decide on what people can spend money on you just shutdown Nintendo, Apple, Shell, Facebook, and a good chunk of the rest of the Fortune 500, not to mention all the companies that never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.
Oh and your idea is just completely stupid from a philosophical point of view. If I decide to put money into something then *you* or rather your government doesn't get to decide to shut it down just because they can't pay *me*. Inso
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo made their first loss in 30 years at one point.
And they've been going for 129 years.
There's no suggestion that they would have lost money consistently for their first X years of business at all. In fact, when they started to look like they were losing money, they changed tack and moved on.
Apple - made $118m in its second year, and the first year wasn't a loss.
Shell - I can't find enough documented with just a quick search by they certainly aren't an Amazon-like "let's fritter money away in huge ch
Re: (Score:2)
So you're limiting it to first years only? Why not just ban startups and all new companies then?
Your policy is idiotic. Companies have to do the things they claim they will do (fraud legislation). They have to present their finances to investors (a shitload of corporation legislation).
Whether or not people give them money is entirely their business. If someone wants to give it to Tesla who can't seem to make a profit after 10 years it's their business. If someone wants to give it to a non-profit as a donati
Re: (Score:2)
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite.
No we don't.... As long as management are honest the whole time; the market will correct this situation just fine.
The only thing the government should make sure of: In the event of bankruptcy, the customers who already paid for a MoviePass
with a remaining term which is now worthless have a priority claim to a pro-rata refund BEFORE any of the company's creditors get repaid.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with private business going bust?
So long as they're not being bailed out by unwilling participants (ie taxpayers via the government) there's no problem... People who bought shares in a business with a failed model knew the risks they were taking.
Those employees would not have had a job otherwise, and those suppliers wouldn't have had a customer.
What should be stopped, is people who profit from failing a business, there are many cases where senior management will pay themselves handsomely while
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be that the real money maker here is selling that data and not selling the stupid passes?
Apparently not.
US economy driven towards failure??? (Score:3, Insightful)
The "profit at all costs" mentallity is exactly what's driving the economy towards failure.
Yet the US economy is so dynamic, it's the envy of the world. From startup dreamers to economic immigrants to foreign private companies, the US economy is the place to be.
You seem unable to see the forest because of the trees.
Re: (Score:2)
living in scawler
Was that really a serious attempt at saying squalor?
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't cost you a penny
Helios shares have fallen to decade lows of less than $1 after peaking at $32.90 in October
Do you know every stock that every one of the funds in your 401k is invested in? What are the chances that you, or someone you care about, has Helios stock in their portfolio? Maybe. Maybe not. But the chances are pretty high. I wholeheartedly disagree that the gov't should be involved in this. HOWEVER, saying that idiots in a public company burning bales of cash each month doesn't cost the average person a penny is a rather ignorant stance.
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Informative)
You may not know exactly what stocks your 401K is invested in, but you should at the very least know if you are in 'aggressive, moderate, or conservative' funds. If you can't stand the risk that new companies/new business models represent, then you should not be in an aggressive fund. And if you were in a moderate or conservative fund, then you were most certainly NOT invested in Helios.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
burning piles of cash in a startup that has a completely unworkable business model
If your fund manager can't spot companies with a completely unworkable business model, you have bigger problems.
Re: (Score:2)
burning piles of cash in a startup that has a completely unworkable business model
If your fund manager can't spot companies with a completely unworkable business model, you have bigger problems.
Also agree. Granted, I've never met, spoken to, or ever heard of any of the fund managers for the funds in my 401k. For all I know they don't exist, and it's the Wizard of Oz behind the scenes pulling on levers. All I know is that my 401 has 2-dozen or so funds I'm able to pick from that my employer (?) has pre-vetted. I have to assume that the managers of those funds aren't Joe Sixpack throwing empty beer bottles at a trailer wall full of stock symbols...
Every game has winners and losers. If "my manag
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with using a blanket term "losses" without context...
Spending money to expand an otherwise profitable business is a fairly safe investment, Walmart could have continued operating their existing stores and gradually built up the capital to open more but it would have slowed their growth.
Spending money to expand a business that you hope will become profitable after expansion is a more risky investment, but may pay off - so long as people are aware of the risks it's up to them to make the in
And it doesn't work very well either (Score:2)
We can solve this with a Blockchain (Score:1)
Fun while it lasted (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If I didn't have a baby at home I would have been blowing through dumb investor money myself. None of the movies are worth the regular along price anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had that experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Australia the theaters (some of them anyway) run special sessions aimed at mothers/fathers/other carers with babies. Lighting is kept on low and they have change tables in the back.
I have never once experienced a baby problem in any movie I have been to.
The problem is ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If I got MoviePass I'd feel obligated to go to the theater, which seems like a lot of effort and pressure.
The movie theater experience royally sucks, too. The sooner movie theaters die, the better. It will be a great day when all movies go direct to DVD and streaming. Watching movies at home is far, Far, FAR more enjoyable than any movie theater.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't go to the theater to watch a movie, you go to the theater for the social aspect, or especially taking a girl and sitting in the back row...
Some theaters even have wider seats for two people.
You know who I feel sorry for? (Score:5, Funny)
The CEO. Those poor guys always take a hit when their business goes south.
Sounds like Tesla (Score:1)
Only Movie Pass loses less money...
yep, but... (Score:2)
MoviePass has a $300m line of credit (Score:2)
MoviePass apparently has a $300 million line of credit. While that probably has covenants re: financial levels and performance, it's something they definitely can draw on if they need to.
I RTFA'd (Score:5, Insightful)
Movie theaters have little incentive to offer discounts to MoviePass. In fact, theater owners have been raising box-office prices, pushing revenue to near all-time highs, as a way to offset lower attendance.
Is it just me or does that sound like "we don't have enough people coming in, so we'll put prices up so we get even fewer"? I don't remember supply and demand working that way.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet if theaters made going to the movies cheaper, more people would go.
I for one would go to the movies a lot less if it wasn't for Cineplex here in Brisbane (no relation to the US company). Cheapest movie tickets in Brisbane and probably the cheapest munchies as well.
If I had to pay the rip-off prices charged by Event Cinemas for tickets and munchies I wouldn't see very many movies at all.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because it doesn't.
Box office prices generally go direct to the studios. The first few weeks of a new movie's run, the stu
Re: (Score:2)
"Moviepass - the subscription cinema ticket service -"
It really wouldn't be that hard to include that in the summary.
P.S. most of the time when I have to Google something, I end up going off Slashdot to read about it instead. Especially if it's some US-specific thing.
If you want to provide content, rather than just parrot articles from elsewhere, days later, with not even any moderation, editing, clarification, or summary, then Slashdot really needs to pull its finger out.
Re:OK, so what is MoviePass? (Score:4, Interesting)
I could sort of it see working, if say all the tickets available were for the quiet-periods, unsold seats, etc., if they were buying up the seats en-masse for a cheap price (saving the theatre having to advertise them, etc. as they're already "sold" as far as they are concerned), or something but... MoviePass don't seem to be doing that.
The Wiki article literally says that they load the cost of the movie onto a pre-paid debit card, which you use to buy the movie. So you pay $X a month. And they give you $Y each day. Unless X > 30Y, I can't see how they ever could make money. And when it is, nobody would bother with it.
But just... giving away a movie ticket every day for the price of a movie ticket once a month isn't that appealing a business model, especially once you stick a middleman into it, apps, pre-paid card numbers, etc.
At what point were they going to morph that business model into something that actually makes profit?
Re: (Score:1)
They're hope was that they'd have so many customers they could make deals like you describe.
Re: OK, so what is MoviePass? (Score:2)