Most Moviegoers Wouldn’t Pay More Than $10 for Day-and-Date VOD: Survey

Multiplex cinema

How much value do consumers place on the ability to see a film at home when it’s still playing in the theaters? Not as much as Hollywood would like, it appears.

According to a recent survey by RBC Capital Markets, 87% of consumers said they would pay no more than $10 to see a movie on video-on-demand on the same day it is released in theaters — far less than the $60 one-time rental fee proposed by Universal in 2011 for “Tower Heist” (after a three-week hiatus, no less!), which prompted exhibitor outrage at the time.

Interest in seeing movies on video-on-demand doesn’t translate into a willingness to pay premium prices, according to the RBC survey, which polled about 1,000 consumers. Just 7% of respondents were willing to pay $11-$15 for day-and-date VOD access; 4% were willing to pay $16-$20; and 3% were willing to pay $21 or more.

On the other hand, VOD windows within 90 days of theatrical release are a notable deterrent on movie attendance, the RBC study found. Asked whether they would see a movie in theaters that was made available on VOD within 90 days of its theatrical release, 59% of respondents said it would have no effect on their decision. But 24% said they would be “somewhat less likely” to see the movie in a theater and 17% were significantly less likely to go to the cinema.

Netflix, for one, is pushing the notion that studios should simultaneously release their product in theaters and on digital services. It has slated the sequel to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” from the Weinstein Co., to be available on Netflix streaming and in theaters on Aug. 28, 2015. Predictably, the big theater chains, for now, are refusing to play ball.

Meanwhile, according to the RBC survey, theaters that offer more food and beverage services are likely to attract a bigger audience. More than 40% of respondents said they would be more interested in going to the movies if full meals were served, and one-third of respondents said they’d be more interested if alcoholic beverages were served.

About 60% of respondents said they have been to a theater with premium seating, and 38% of respondents said premium seating made them want to go to the movies more often.

In addition, the RBC survey showed “meaningful consumer interest” in alternative content: 43% of respondents said they were interested in seeing classic movies in a theater and 39% were interested in viewing live sporting events.

In terms of brand preference, AMC Theaters had the highest share of respondents (24%) who said the chain was their preferred brand, whereas 44% of respondents didn’t have a preference. Regal Entertainment Group came in second at 15%, followed by Cinemark Entertainment at 9% and Carmike Cinemas at 6%.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 5

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. I see no mention in this article about sell thru and I wonder why since the market is still approx 8 to 9 billion every year (this includes electronic sell thru and physical). If the studios would bundle a sell thru with the sixty dollar price I think many would bite at this. Netflix isnt the only game in town for releases and the studios would be foolish to pass over the sell thru window.

  2. cy12 (@cy12) says:

    Again, Netflix is dangerous for the industry: if the studios refuse, then NEtflix have enough money to produce their own big budget theatrical and to release it simultaneously on NEtflix and at theaters. Then the studios will have to do the same. This is bad because territorial windows are how the content industry makes money.

    • Anonymous says:

      Netflix isn’t going to produce big budget theatrical product. The companies that are currently dong so are struggling with that business model as it is.

      iTunes was dangerous for a music industry accustomed to high returns for bundling content in a way that the consumer didn’t like (purchasing entire song collections for the ownership rights to a single song or couple of songs). The consumer was generally happier with the end result of the rise of legal downloads and a greater variety of artists are able to make the type of music they like and reach their fans. There are fewer superstars in music, and smaller paychecks at the ‘record labels’, but the excesses of the 1970s and 1980s were pretty ugly sights. Apple is a commanding presence in music distribution, but it is not a monopoly. Their average executive is probably a bit more educated, socially aware, and less prone to conspicuous consumption than executives at PolyGram, A&M, Casablanca or Tower Records were back in the day.

      If this could be analogous to the future state of the rise of Netflix and its competitors, sure, there could be some winners and some losers.

  3. Steven says:

    I bet if Star Wars, any marvel movie, any of the planned DC movies fans will pay 50-60 bucks for VOD but low quality films any original Hollywood film yeah sorry no more than 10 is respectable for VOD.

More Film News from Variety