Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

MoviePass CEO: The Subscription Model Is the Future for Theaters

September 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe joined Glenn on radio Wednesday to talk about his company’s subscription business model and why movie theaters should actually be excited about people seeing unlimited free movies. He explained why MoviePass was first designed for millennials, a generation accustomed to subscribing to everything.

“We realized that what we really needed to do is to reinvigorate, especially, millennials,” Lowe said. “They talk themselves out of going to the movies. … ‘I’ve already got Netflix or Hulu; I’ll just wait and see it then.’”

For one fee, people can use MoviePass to see as many movies as they want to each month, as long as they don’t go to more than one movie per day or see the same film twice. MoviePass recently dropped its price from $50 to just $10 per month.

Movie theaters benefit from people being in the theater and buying concessions, so they should welcome a subscription service that encourages people to come to the movies, Lowe asserted.

“I think the movie theater experience is just totally changing,” Glenn said. “I think the future is putting me into some sort of cocoon where I never, ever want to leave.” As an example, he cited local theaters that serve people food while you watch the movie.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: You can give your critique on the script too. The coauthor of American Assassin. Tomorrow, he joins us. The beginning of this hour on tomorrow's program. But one of the things that I love about movies and I have a new appreciation of them and can go to much more of them because of it is called this ridiculous movie called MoviePass.

GLENN: I don't -- there's something wrong here.

STU: It's ridiculous. There's something wrong. It's too good. When it's too good to be true, it means it's too good.

GLENN: Right. Mitch Lowe is here. He's the CEO of MoviePass.com. And, Mitch, I personally may put you out of business because I see too many movies. So...

MITCH: Hey, that's what we want. We want to reinvigorate the movie theater going. So we would love to see that.

GLENN: Okay. Honestly, I'll bankrupt you. I see almost every movie made, and I love to go to the movies. It is a pastime with me and my family. But we see probably a minimum of four movies a month. And under your service, I pay $10, even in New York where the ticket is $16, and I can go see any movie I want and I can see as many movies as I want, as long as it's not the same one over and over again, right?

MITCH: That's right. It's one a day. It's one a day.

GLENN: So how is that working for you? I'm trying to figure out the business model. How does that work?

MITCH: So here's the thing: Yes, there are about 11 percent -- 36 million people in the US and Canada that go to a lot of films every month. They go to roughly 18 films a year on average, and they buy half of all the movie tickets. But there's 51 percent of the population that go to less than a movie a month, and that's who primarily join our service. So, yes, everybody like yourself who goes to lots of movies joins. They get huge value, and they tell everybody about it. But the majority of our subscribers are people who go to three to six films a year prior to joining MoviePass. When they join, they double the amount of films they go, so now they're going to six to 12 movies a year.

So the majority of our subscribers roughly go to one a month. And then there's a small group of people who end up going five, ten times a month. And it drives up the average a little bit.

GLENN: Okay. So it's 9.95 a month. It used to be $50 a month.

MITCH: Yeah. Thirty to $50.

GLENN: How -- what happened to where you could drop it down that low?

MITCH: Well, what we found -- you know, when we were 30 to $50, we were really just appealing to the people -- that 11 percent who go a lot already. And we got them to go more often. But essentially, it was a -- at first a price point that only appealed to a small group of the public.

GLENN: Yeah.

MITCH: And we realized that what we really needed to do was to reinvigorate especially millennials. Over the past five years, millennials have decreased their amount of times going to the theater by 20 percent. And the reason why is now they have all these other alternatives. In fact, they talk themselves to go out of the movies. They go, I don't know if it's good enough. I've already got Netflix or Hulu. I'll just wait and see it then.

And what we really -- these are people that grew up on subscription. And really, what are subscription services, it's insurance against a bad movie. Now we can go and experiment. And if they don't like it, they can walk out and trash it the next day to their friends.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: When you put this together -- because AMC doesn't like this.

MITCH: Yeah.

GLENN: But I think the movie theater experience is just totally changing. I think the future is making me -- putting me into some sort of a cocoon where I never ever want to leave. And that's what's happening -- at least here in Texas, that's what's happening to movie theaters. Where great food -- they'll deliver anything.

MITCH: Yeah.

GLENN: I'm guessing there's a few that would even deliver lap dances. I'm not sure. But they just never want you to leave. And I'm guessing, that's where they make their money. Not on the actual ticket.

MITCH: Yeah, that's right. Concessions are 80 percent margin. You know, when you buy that popcorn or soda, 80 percent. And when you buy a ticket, it's roughly 50 percent. So the theaters really want you in the theater.

And, by the way, when you join MoviePass, what happens, because you're not pulling out that 10-dollar bill to pay for a ticket, you spend more money on concessions, which is great for the theaters. And that's why AMC should love it.

GLENN: Why don't they?

MITCH: Well, you know, we had a two-year partnership with AMC. You know, we -- we both contributed to a blind data report that showed that we doubled people's frequency of going to the movies. Increased their consumption of concessions. And AMC, I believe, you know, came to the point where they said, "You know, we should just do this ourselves." And so I believe this is a little bit of sour grapes in seeing that kind of we beat them to the punch. And, you know, I know they will probably release their own subscription program soon.

STU: We're talking to Mitch Lowe of MoviePass.com.

Mitch, one of the criticisms I've seen from AMC and others is that you are preparing people to pay $10 a month for movies. And then when you go out of business in two years, everyone is going to think the old movie price is too high.

MITCH: Yeah. Well, you know, I was on the founding executive team at Netflix and the COO of Redbox, and that's exactly what Blockbuster said to Netflix and they said to consumers. Don't look at these little guys over here that are offering an innovative service. Keep paying us the high prices.

GLENN: Yea. Are you publicly traded now, Mitch? Is this publicly traded?

MITCH: We're 51 percent owned. The deal isn't closed yet. But shortly, we'll be majority owned by a public company. It's HMNY. Helios & Matheson. And they are -- the reason why we sold half the company to them, a little more than half, is they are a big data and analytics company. And what we want to build is this great experience around going to the movies. And we're building upon their foundation. Their technology. That will build a whole night at the movies experience.

GLENN: I'll tell you, I think this is why AMC is wrong on this.

I don't -- you know, AMC should do what AMC does well. And that is, give me a good movie experience. But I wouldn't want a subscription with AMC, because then I'm locked into just AMC. I mean, if you were a public --

MITCH: Exactly.

GLENN: This might be the kiss of death: I would invest in your company because I think what the future is, is companies that say, "I just do this one piece. And I do it really, really well."

MITCH: Yeah.

GLENN: And they just start linking pieces together, to make everybody's experience super easy.

MITCH: Yeah. You have to listen to consumers. And what typically happens to the dominant player is they lose touch with their consumers. And they spend more time trying to protect an old way of doing things, at the cost of offering, you know, new benefits to consumers. And that's -- that's exactly what, you know, startups can do, is where -- I absolutely love movies. I love them in every way. And, you know, I started with video stores 30 years ago. And I just love movies. And I know the artists -- the creative community makes movies for the that's right, for the big screen, the big sound. You know, laughing with other people around you. They don't make them for the mobile phone. And even though that's fun and a great opportunity, you know, it's really the theater --

GLENN: No, there's nothing better -- yeah, there's nothing better than the theater.

MITCH: Yeah.

STU: And, Mitch, it is a -- any theater you want to go to -- I think a lot of people would think, oh, well, I have to find one of these theaters. It's literally any theater -- you basically have what is a debit card almost.

MITCH: Yeah. It's -- it's over 90 percent of all the theaters.

So there are some theaters -- you know, some drive-ins and some places that only take cash that you can't use it.

GLENN: Can you still use it at AMC? Can you still use it at AMC?

MITCH: Absolutely. You can still use it at AMC.

STU: And I don't know, Mitch, if you do radio-based customer service, but I have not received my card yet. I've just been using the app. So we really need to work that out.

MITCH: Well, we absolutely underestimated demand. And we were not prepared for the amount of new subscribers we had. We're still catching up. You know, on those first couple days, we were the third most searched word on Google after Charlottesville and Korea. And we continued to get thousands and thousands of new subscribers every day. And we're catching up fast. But you'll get yours soon. And I apologize. Your first month does not start until you get your card. So even though we charged you in advance, the month doesn't begin until you get your card.

STU: That's awesome.

MITCH: And I'm extremely sorry and I apologize.

STU: We're rooting for you. This is really cool.

GLENN: We are. Mitch, thanks a lot. Mitch Lowe. He's the CEO of MoviePass.com. That's MoviePass.com. I will be a member by the end of the day.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.