[emodendroket]

If more than one-third of their ticket purchases are repeat viewings I find it really hard to believe anywhere near half of those are genuine, rather than tickets purchased for someone else. Anyway, it seems like a completely reasonable restriction to not allow someone to see the same movie more than once.

[SatvikBeri]

There's an important selection effect: these are people who bought MoviePass, which means they expected to watch more than one movie a month. That means people who do rewatch movies (like me, or my wife) are going to be wildly over-represented. And people are much more like to re-watch when the marginal cost is ~$0 instead of ~$20

[cletus]

Are you approaching this from the point of view that you don't believe that percentage of movie ticket sales are repeat viewings? I'd have a hard time believing that too.

Thing is, MoviePass subscribers aren't representative of the average movie-goer. It attracts those who see a lot of movies (repeat or not). It's also only a small percentage of viewers.

[salvar]

It's not one-third of their ticket purchases. Limiting the viewings to one per movie reduced the cash deficit by 35%. These are not the same at all.

[jiveturkey]

Agreed, it is completely reasonable. I would find it very hard to believe anyone would think otherwise.

The problem is the corporate doublespeak (lies) in the the way they presented the change. It speaks volumes about the way the company is managed. I'd be looking elsewhere if I worked there. Especially considering that there is absolutely no reason to spin the change. Just call it what it is.