Before my experience this past weekend I would've agreed with you. However the same argument can be made for earthquake or flood insurance. Chances are you wont need it, but if you do need it you'll be glad to know you have it.
As far as Tattlr's complexity is concerned, I'm not sure it gets much simpler than 3 quick button presses on one's smartphone to alert theater staff of an issue.
1) Charge each user a nominal fee for download.
OR
2) Charge movie theaters for their participation. Imagine the profitable data we'll be supplying them with on every person that checks-in to their movie theater using Tattlr. They can incorporate their own special promotions based on the ongoing user data they obtain each time a user checks in.
This what I've come up with thus far. I could be totally off-base with these assumptions.
As a consumer, I wouldn't pay to download such an app. This is just my opinion and it may or may not be reflective of your market [1].
It seems like selling the backend tech / service to the movie theaters is the way to, but can you create enough of a value proposition to charge them enough money (assuming a re-occuring basis) each month to stay in business?
Also, I'm not entirely familiar with how movie theaters operate, but it seems like a vast majority are controlled by a relatively low number of chains. If the individual theaters are run on a franchise model, it may be easier to penetrate. But if they're all corporate controlled, selling seems would be a much larger challenge.
[1] I've also never had too bad of an experience at the movies. Aside from some guy who was eating popcorn obnoxiously during "The Dark Knight", I can't think of anytime I've really been annoyed with someone at the theater.
I think you would be surprised by how many theaters would find this useful and will pay you to have this in their theaters.
It improves the service and gives them Jmp feedback.
Go talk to some movie theaters.
Also don't over engineer it. A simple wa to say that the sound isn't working for a particular movie at a particular movie theater should be a good start.
Forget pricing model for now. They are big companies so you can basically charge whatever you want if there is a need.
Focus on figuring out if there is a pain.
I remember reading that some company had built this on springwise or sprouter weekly. But it was a hardware device which had to be installed in the theater so you could beat them by price.
Bottom line: Write up a proposal (4 slides of how this will be used) and then hammer linkedin to get an interview with someone who is slightly executive at a movie theater. Do like 10 interviews. You'll know by then if there is a pain.
No problem. In order to use Tattlr, you would have to "check-in" using the app. The theater, thanks to the complementary Tattlr web app, would have instant access to the basic info of each user including their seating location. It'd be impossible for a person to submit bogus complaints without getting called out for it
So the malicious user lies about their location (and other "basic info") - trivial if you're at the point of having users enter their seating location, only slightly more difficult if you also use GPS to verify it. Yes, they have to be in the theater, but if you get bored during a movie and feel like messing with people, then there's nothing stopping them.
>>>Since you're relying on the cinemas' cooperation anyway, why not sell them a button to be installed under each armrest?<<<
Seems to me that you can have the same effect with Tattlr without having to hard-wire an entire movie theater with additional hardware.
There can be no abuse of the system because the theater will have access to the exact seat positioning of the complainer. Remember, people must check-in in order to use the app.
>>>Instead of relying on users downloading the app, and annoying their seatmates...<<<
I'm not sure it'd be that big of an annoyance for seatmates. As I said in a previous comment, users wouldn't be creating an additional disturbance by pulling out their smartphone and using Tattlr, they'd simply be piggybacking on an existing disturbance that created the need for Tattlr in the first place.
Example: Guy talking on the phone in the auditorium. Everyone is distracted by him. You covertly pull out your phone, and with a few screen presses you alert theater staff. Your seatmates will be too annoyed with the guy talking on his phone to be concerned with your antics.
Example 2: The sound in the theater goes haywire or projector goes dim for no apparent reason. You whip out your phone to alert staff with just a few button presses while everyone in the theater grumbles about the horrible sound and/or picture.
In short, you're not the origin of a new annoyance, you're simply piggybacking on the existing annoyance.
Theaters that offer assigned seating can automatically update your Tattlr profile with your seating for the given movie. In theaters that do not offer assigned seating, users would have to manually enter in their own row # and seat # after selecting their seats.
I've never heard of theaters blocking cell signals.
Essentially its an app that allows you to report any disturbances while watching a movie in theaters. I think the idea is solid. I figure there's nothing wrong with a little real-life application of the OP's theory that ideas don't get jacked.
Interesting point. Especially given the current "bigger is better" trend for smartphone screens these days. That's why it'd be important for Tattlr to offer a short process to report the disturbance.
Look at it this way: If I pull out my phone to use Tattlr to report a person chatting it up on his phone behind me during a movie, I'm simply piggybacking on the existing disturbance as opposed to creating my own disturbance. Who's going to notice me using Tattlr when the guy behind me is being a far greater nuisance? Everyone's attention will be on the jackass talking on the phone, not the jackass tapping the screen on his smartphone.
OR
If a shouting match breaks out in the back of the auditorium. Will people be more worried about getting nachos and soda thrown on them or the guy 2 rows up illuminating the place with his smartphone?
Now there is two jackasses causing a disturbance in my movie. Some guy being noisy and another with a bright light from a phone. Sorry, I think your whole premise is flawed.
I would assume most people would view the bright light as far less abrasive than the guy being noisy talking on his telephone in the middle of a movie. Besides, 3 quick button presses ensures that most people will hardly notice the brief illumination in the theater you'd create with Tattlr.
I like how you assume all these concerns away when this is the top comment and repeated multiple times. Light is visible from basically an entire dark theater. Sound, on the other hand can vary from a slightly loud neighbor to a loud guy the whole theater can hear. So, you, my loud neighbor may be disturbing me and maybe 8 others in your immediate surroundings, but I, with my cell phone distract everyone behind me, all 100 of them. You want feedback, don't just tell me I am wrong, listen to your audience. I don't want cell phones being turned on while I watch a movie for any reason.
Against my better judgment I went to a theater that's notorious for being a teenage hangout.
I, like you, can maybe think of one other bad experience I've had at the movies before this weekend. Tattlr certainly wouldn't be an everyday kind of app. Heck, one may only use it once or twice a year. However, I think there's value in the peace of mind of being in a large dark room knowing a theater attendant is only a couple screen taps away.
* They falsely claim to be affiliated with Airbnb, or be the “international version” of Airbnb.
* They claim that they are part of Ebay and/or Groupon. We’ve confirmed that this is not the case.
* Their employees pretend to be Airbnb travelers in order to give you a sales pitch in your home.
* They are duplicating personal profiles, descriptions, and photos of your Airbnb listing without your permission.
On its way to becoming an asset indeed. Over the last year bitcoin has seen a ~20,000% return rate. If bitcoin gets uberpopular (i.e. each coin is worth ~ US$2m) within 20 years, then BitCoin would have a return rate of ~ 85% per year consistently for the next 20 years. There is practically nothing else with that close a return rate, so the only financially sound course is to hoard your BitCoin, not spend them.
Hmmm. I don't think I was suggesting that we'll continue to see a rate of return of 20,000%. What I was suggesting is that many will perceive BitCoin's historical performance as an asset as proof it would be better treated as an asset, not a currency.
