"FREAKONOMICS,The Movie" Pay what you want at theaters

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

"FREAKONOMICS,The Movie" Pay what you want at theaters


lifeinc.m snbc.msn.com

'Freakonomics' authors test theory with new movie

How much would you pay to see a new movie?

We make that decision all the time. Pay $10 to see it at the theater? Pay $5 to see it on-demand? Pay $1 a night when the DVD comes to Redbox?

Now that question will be put to a real-life test for next week’s advance screenings of “Freakonomics: the Movie,” based on the best-selling 2005 book.

The “sneak preview” screenings in 10 cities Wednesday will be offered on a pay-what-you-want basis, with tickets being offered at 40 different price points, from a penny all the way up to
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I think this is ground breaking,
We are truly entering the age of free information and media,
You could pay 1 penny and above,
I think this new model for movies will change the way movies are made and viewed forver

How much would you pay to see a new movie?

We make that decision all the time. Pay $10 to see it at the theater? Pay $5 to see it on-demand? Pay $1 a night when the DVD comes to Redbox?

Now that question will be put to a real-life test for next week’s advance screenings of “Freakonomics: the Movie,” based on the best-selling 2005 book.

The “sneak preview” screenings in 10 cities Wednesday will be offered on a pay-what-you-want basis, with tickets being offered at 40 different price points, from a penny all the way up to $100.

To buy a ticket, you first have to complete a survey on how much you intend to pay. The anonymous data will be analyzed by “Freakonomics” authors Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt “to identify what factors and circumstances prompt movie-goers to pay more or less for their screening tickets.”

The gambit is a variation on pay-what-you-want music published by bands like Radiohead, or the honor-system bagel service that served as an introductory lesson in economic behavior in "Freakonomics."

In the case of the movie, it seems unlikely that many viewers will choose to pay the full retail price for a ticket, much less $100. It’s a classic case of asymmetrical information: With no reviews or even word of mouth available, there is no way to guess whether this movie will be any good. That is one reason sneak preview tickets often are given away for free.

But the little experiment could help build buzz for the film, which opens nationwide Oct. 1. And in a media-saturated world, that’s priceless.














lifeinc.m snbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
it's definitely interesting a ground breaking...but im not really convinced of its value. Most people would pay nothing, despite how much money they have, thus leading the industry to shy away from such gimmicks.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I remember Coulter accused Freakonomics co-author of "defending" Roe v. Wade because Freakonomics found a link to abortion access to falling crime rates since there will be less children in pverty growing up to be criminals.

mediamatters.org...

"
To discover that abortion was one of the greatest crime-lowering factors in American history is, needless to say, jarring. . .
"



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


On the one hand, I don't expect that to be true.... except for the more childish and repugnant movie viewers perhaps.

I wouldn't want the opportunity to slip by, I would probably pay five bucks or something... but the point that want to make is ...

If it were really a matter of 'value' or 'entertainment.... I would rather pay on the way out!

AFTER I find out whether the movie sucks, or was just a bunch of celebrity-driven crap... as opposed to what they always allege it is... art.

What I mean to say is, I would rather pay for the service or product KNOWING it wasn't a rip-off.... rather than pay 'rolling the dice' as to whether or not it was worth my time and money.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think going and watching a movie in a theatre is worth 5 bucks per person.....and not much more.

The theatres don't make ZILTCH from the ticket sales, they only profit from the snaks.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by Snarf
 


If it were really a matter of 'value' or 'entertainment.... I would rather pay on the way out!

What I mean to say is, I would rather pay for the service or product KNOWING it wasn't a rip-off.... rather than pay 'rolling the dice' as to whether or not it was worth my time and money.


That is an excellent assessment of what going to a movie/theartre is - rolling the dice.

Games - demos (didn't like that game, not buying).

Music - radio,tv, clubs (hey I like that song, might buy it)

I get the impression that alot of films are considered social events by the Industry and theatres. Going on a date? Gonna go and watch something/anything as long as it's something to do with your date. Spend alot of money on snacks.


Target audience: teens and males aged 16-30. Some random action CGI film for their friends to go watch.

No need for originality, just sequel farms, it's Hollywood. . . if they can't create new ideas,they'll rape old ones and create cinematic abominations for teenagers to sit and gawk at,while text messaging to their friends how cool the million dollar distraction they're watching is. Tranformers, Terminators, Robocops heh/

Past decade, in light of the surplus of blockbusting superhero films all but guaranteeing monstrous studio revenue, Hollywood has hit the ground running and greenlit every script featuring a violent man in his underwear. Sorry for the rant.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
How about a pay per minute scheme,
You pay nothing on the way in, and you are charged a sum for every minute you watch the movie.
That way you can't say I won't pay because I think this movie sucked because you could have left the movie and payed less.

It would have saved me a lot of money on Final destination 3d



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bismarcksea
I think going and watching a movie in a theatre is worth 5 bucks per person.....and not much more.

The theatres don't make ZILTCH from the ticket sales, they only profit from the snaks.


The cinemas might not make much from ticket sales but the movie studios sure do.

I don't know if this is common knowledge or not but cinemas operate a system where they give a different percentage of money from ticket sales to the studio depending on how long the movie has been released for



When a film hits the theaters the movie studio behind the film often gain something along the lines of a 90/10 split of the ticket takings. As with the above example a $10 ticket equates to a dollar per person for the theater. When the film is in its final week of showing, which is when the theaters are largely empty, the split will have been reversed in the theaters favor. A staggered percentage share happens during the middle weeks. Each film is hammered out under a different deal, often only signed just days before release.


linkj



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
This book was extremely good.... to say the least, as was their follow up book. I think I will wait for the DVD though and pay 1 dollar. I only watch movies at the theater that are greatly enhanced by the theater experience. To pay a penny at the theater still cost me gas and extra time while forcing me to go at a scheduled time in the day, and doing the Netflix thing gives me the best number of options.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join