You are misunderstanding the point. We aren't saying that MoviePass doesn't provide value for customers. We are saying that MoviePass doesn't create any value for customers. They are not increasing supply. They are not increasing demand. They are not adding efficiency. They are simply paying for the money you save with capital from investors. Every dollar you save on a movie ticket is a dollar that MoviePass pays to the theater. That is great for quick growth but I can't think of a single successful business that works that way.
This may not be common outside urban areas, but I have theaters from 4 different chains all within a 40 minute walk, and I've visited them all within the last few months. If I were asked to pick just one to subscribe to, I'm not sure how I'd choose.
In the UK, several cinema chains offer subscriptions where, by buying an annual subscription, you can see as many films as you like. The fee is equivalent to somewhere between 2 and 4 movies per month.
If you're visiting the cinema very regularly, this saves money.
They can do this because they own the theatre, so when a subscription is used, it only costs them the _opportunity_ cost of one seat - which is very little, unless the showing is sold out, and they still make money on snacks. As MoviePass doesn't own the theatres, they pay the _retail_ price for every ticket a subscriber uses.
1) theaters pay a sliding percentage of the ticket to the distributor, as high as 90% in the first week(s) a film is out, dropping the longer the film has been in theaters. This means (unless the chain is cheating the distributor, which admittedly has happened for brief periods) that seat is a very real cost to the theater.
2) with reserved seating, I'm much less likely to buy a ticket if the showing is almost full, so those filled seats can reduce additional ticket sales.