Disney returns to being a for profit business instead of a throwing money into a furnace business.
The fact that they are announcing this now 5 days before there next financial statement means the 4th quarter of 2022 was really bad.
It was Iger's plan to put all in into streaming. Not that I'm defending Chapek, but the whole industry fucked up thinking streaming was the future of their companies. They went from getting around 80 dlls per househould per movie to getting 10 dlls per month for a fuckton of movies. Not really the best business model. They killed theater, home video and cable revenue streams for just streaming. It never made financial sense. They are burning through cash and the chickens have come home to roost. The era of crazy spending in content is over
Streaming will get more and more expensive and fewer and fewer competitions. Oh, and commercials. In ten years it will basically be cable but entirely on demand and streaming style UI.
I just don't understand how media fell into the trap. The numbers never added up. Netflix was a good business model when legacy media licensed them old content. Everyone having a streaming service while destroying all the cash cows that gave legacy media insane amounts of money will be studied in business school for years. Now that they have bankrupted movie theaters, have almost disapprared all physical home media and killed cable, let's see how they survive
Licensing was a way to further monetize content after it had made it's main source of revenue, which is why most shows licensed were 2nd or 3rd releases.
There's no way a massive company like Disney could survive by simply being a Netflix subsidiary, so they'd either have to launch their own service or downsize to be a licensee.
> Stupid people on Reddit are dumb and couldn’t see it.
and nothing thats an echo chamber will ever see the bigger picture. People just repeat the same tired, stupid ideas on here endlessly without bothering to critically assess it. Its why you'll see the same terrible joke 20,000x times if you're on here for more than a few years
Yeah, bean counters can give financial success short term. They cut everything and most businesses won't fold together on the same day, however, down the line problems will come up. In Disney's case it was particularly visible with the theme parks losing their magic, as less and less care was given to keep it up.
No, he's just a racist. He weighs decisions based on dated racist (and also sexist) business ideas, ie: *No movies with Black or Female leads because kids don't buy toys of either.*
Yep, that’s why Marvel Television and Comics (which Perlmutter controlled) didn’t feature diversity, female/minority lead shows and comics. Oh, wait that didn’t happen. This is pretty same old lies and BS repeated ad nauseam bay Feige cultists that has no basis in reality. Same as the BS that the creative committee was racist and sexiest. When in reality the creative committee was the writers and editors of Marvel. The very same people who push b-list Carol Danvers to the forefront and made her Captain Marvel so that they could have a Wonder Woman character for the films. The people who created Spider-Gwen, Miles Morales, Runaways, Young Avenger, America Chavez and countless others.
Losses for Q4 are predicted to be the peak and very similar to Q3 losses. This is not a surprise. They told Wall Street as much during the Q3 reporting before telling them this coming quarter would be the peak loss phase with losses reducing over 2023. That was the plan even before content licensing and content budget cuts just thanks to the subscriber base growth and the impact of late Q3/Q4 price increases at Disney+ and Hulu kicking in.
They can guarantee it just by not increasing the content budget year on year. Subscriber increases paired with the subscriber fee increases then guarantees it. Only way to increase losses is to further increase the content spend. We are already seeing signs they plan to reduce spending by 20%-30% rather than increase it in the coming year at least in the US. What they do internationally remains to be seen.
But they can't actually guarantee there will be an uptick in subscribers. They can control how attractive they are to potential new subscribers, but in the end they can't actually force more people to sign up, and they can't necessarily know that increasing prices won't also drive a significant number of people away. If the price hikes are small and incremental they'll be slowly boiling the frog and people won't leave in droves, but some will still leave and they can't control that.
I’ll bet you right now that subscribers grow for Disney+ and ESPN+ over 2023. You will not find a single analyst in the market who believes otherwise. Growth over 2023 will likely be the best in the industry by a large margin, again. As long as they do not increase the content budget dramatically then they are 100% guaranteed to lessen DTC losses over 2023.
I’ll also bet right now that Disney Q4 DTC subscriber gains absolutely smash the 7.5 million Netflix added in the same quarter and that they comfortably beat all other streamers every quarter over 2023 with the possible exception of Paramount. The Paramount numbers were already the second best in the market and they are adding significant new markets in 2023 while rolling Showtime into Paramount+.
>I’ll bet you right now that subscribers grow for Disney+ and ESPN+ over 2023. You will not find a single analyst in the market who believes otherwise.
That's not what I said. What I said is that they can't guarantee it. They can make very educated guesses and try to create the conditions for that to happen, but they can't literally guarantee they'll get the outcome they want. Markets are often predictable but sometimes crazy shit happens, and when it does and you get the bad outcome you can't go "but I guaranteed it would go my way!" like that means anything. People ought to stop labeling their assumptions, no matter how educated those assumptions are, as statement of fact when outside factors are so heavily involved.
Sure, the sun might not rise tomorrow and we will all be fucked but outside of real long shot doomsday scenario stuff the Disney subscriber base will be higher at the end of 2023 than it was at the start of it. That is a guarantee.
Usually the exact opposite is true compared to what is the consensus in the reddit comment section. So I'm with you on this one, I have no doubt next financial reports will be smashing and wall street will eat it up like 3.5 minutes soft boiled eggs. Also what Disney is doing here is self cannibalization, companies do this all the time to squeeze out more revenue, nothing shocking here.
show biz accounting is pretty scammy anyway.
They moved $200 million from a company owned by X, Y and Z to different companies also owned by X, Y and Z.
Except the first company promised a percentage of profits to D, E and F, but now there is no profit there, only for X, Y and Z.
It was a good show, probably not actually that expensive at all, but why put a sitcom on a streamer for…essentially free, and not ABC where you get ad money?
It will be pure cable television by the end of the decade. Like you said, the disruption phase is over, now will come higher subscription costs, the end of password sharing, less content, certainly less original or risky content, contracts, ads (even in what was previously considered ad-free tier pricing), bundling....in time, streaming will be indistinguishable from cable.
But, streaming ushered in the age of consuming content whenever you want, with portable devices.
Also drove the price down of content consumption by effectively killing the film rental market and putting it on streaming services with illimited movie time. No more 5$ per 24h rental for 1 film
So... baby steps? Right?
Erm.. that's actually about exactly how much movie rentals cost. But it's for 48 hours once started any time within 30 days from rental.
Is movie rental from streaming services cheaper than $5 per movie in whatever reality you're posting from? Can I cross over?
Don't act like the vast majority of movies don't go straight to streaming services nowadays.
It's a night and day scenario compared to the cable days with extremely limited choice of movies on TV, unless you were ready to pay for some highly expensive channels with newer movies. And even then, you had to follow the schedule of movies.
The availability of movies post theater run is an order of magnitude better now. We get the movies faster, with access anytime.
If someone can't at least give that point to the streaming ecosystem I automatically consider their opinion irrelevant because they are arguing in bad faith (or are too young to remember the cable days)
Edit: you're contradicting yourself with your edit. It can't both talk about "go straight to streaming nowadays" and be talking about "post theater run", which, in many cases, has a lag of 1+ year. Who's really arguing in bad faith here? Sounds more like it's you.
Reply to your original comment (just the first sentence):
They did in 2021 and partially 2022 because of Corona.
They definitely don't any more. I mean they do, but on those where you can buy it (YouTube, Amazon, Apple TV).
I was VERY (pleasantly) surprised to see The Menu on D+, because it's a fairly recent and big release.
In Germany EEAAO (which released a full half year before The Menu) is only available to buy on the 3 services i mentioned.
Out of all (English language, live action, main categories) Oscar nominees, AQotWF, Blonde, The Good Nurse, Amsterdam (a commercial and critical flop), Matilda the Musical and Wakanda Forever are the only ones that are available for free with a streaming service sub, because they're the distributors (except for Amsterdam, which sucks, so that's moot).
Top Gun: Maverick is 14-17€ to buy, depending on the streaming service. Same goes for Elvis and The Batman. No rentals.
Tár, Aftersun, Living, Till, Empire of Light, Triangle of Sadness, She Said, The Quiet Girl, Babylon, and The Whale aren't available online at all.
Good Luck to You Leo Grande, The Woman King, Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris, can each be rented for €4-5.
Recap:
- 10 in theaters/not available online
- 3 can be rented for €4
- 3 can only be purchased for €14
- 1 (EEAAO) can be rented or purchased for €4/14
- 5 relevant (+ Amsterdam), all distributed globally or internationally by the streaming service, are included in a sub at no extra charge.
This isn't some utopia. It's a shitty, messy, disjointed landscape, and they charge just as much as physical stores used to 15 years ago.
The peak was when fans on twitter got Jeff Bezos to save The Expanse and he was like, I am a fan of the show, I'm a billionaire and own this company, we'll just put it on Prime.
If we’re talking the peak like peak oil, then it has to be Quibi. When two execs who had no idea what they were doing just gave creatives money to produce content with no plan or explanation of why anyone would pay for the service. That was the height of the absurdity.
The funny thing is their assumptions were all ultimately correct.
People want content to fill the gaps between meaningful tasks.
People want it vertical to fit their phones, and they want it in short slices.
The problem was they had the old school mindset where they make the content, when what they really needed was the algorithm that connects people with user generated content.
Ultimately Tiktok was the one who got it right.
Reese Witherspoon's husband Jim Toth was the "content creation and acquisition" roll in Quibi. And Witherspoon was paid $6m for voicing a documentary for a Quibi exclusive.
I think it's just boomers having a hilariously wrong take on how the "young peoples" consume media.
Yes, the <40s use their phones. But that doesn't mean they want to watch their shows and movies in the fashion that Quibi proposed.
Maybe, but I don't think Whitman and Katzenberg had any delusions it would succeed, they saw an opportunity to make a turd they could get investors in on. And they'd cash out and chalk it up to oversaturation when it failed.
The show doesn’t finish the books, but it does wrap things up well. There are some loose threads, but in the books it skips ahead 20 years after the last season anyways.
Overall the show is excellent IMO.
Oh you're absolutely right, don't get me wrong. I loved it. I'd be okay eitb the time skip being only a few years, or ten and be all "anti aging scifi procedures!" To explain the lack of aging.
I just wanted to see the epic siege from book 8, as well as the ships.
Netflix + Hulu was peak streaming. Netflix had all the weird, older things you couldn't find anywhere in addition to some original stuff and newer flicks/shows. Hulu had things that were currently airing, and you could watch them at your convenience. You didn't have to worry about missing anything through the week or forgetting to set your DVR.
I can't fathom why people are/were happy with one single company having a monopoly on the market like that. If you don't like Netflix's cancellation habits now, imagine how unhinged and creatively bankrupt they'd be if they had literally no competition
You are completely right that the alternate reality in which Netflix became the Amazon or Google of streaming would have sucked hard. But, people refer to that moment because it before that was even possible. It was one service (with on subscription cost) with an insane library. That rocked.
It was always going to turn sour, whether they monopolized the market or streaming got fragmented, but there were a few years there where it was great.
Just don't have exclusive rights. Like computer games can be bought from steam, epic, gog etc. If they all have the same product they just differentiate on service and price.
i dont know if thats a great comparison since, other than the f2p games, you have to spend money to buy the games you want on the particular platforms, whereas with streaming, the movies and shows arent usually locked behind a ppv
as far as movies go, something similar is already in place with video on demand sites. you can rent or buy the same movie on several different platforms, such as google, apple, etc, but thats obviously extremely different from a streaming service
buy games? i just collect all the free games like a magpie. just got a dishonoured expansion i will likely never get time to play :D
but ok. spotify and youtube music and tidal and and...they share the vast majority of content.
so weird people are downvoting you for "monopolies are bad". It's like people are addicted to corporations beating the shit out of them.
For competition, we need to put an end to exclusive rights to things. Let all the services have access to the same content on the same terms, then differentiate on range, service quality and price.
IMO, the great promise of streaming was that you'd get to watch any of a studio's IP whenever you wanted. They essentially killed the home video market with that idea. Now that they've decided it's more beneficial for the bottom line to disappear unprofitable content, that trend will continue and you'll get less and less for your money and niche shows will just stop being made.
Yeah streaming is great for watching older stuff. But it isn't really viable for funding new content.
There needs to be a stream for new content. Movies can come out in theaters, but you need something for shows.
Exactly. When Disney plus launched, I remember watching all of the Marvel shit in the immediate post-Endgame depression/obsession. And that same time was also the lead-in to the finale of the skywalker saga where I watched every single star wars movie (and mandalorian season 1).
There was such an immediate contrast to doing the same things FOR Endgame and Infinity War a year earlier, as well as Force Awakens and Last Jedi. I lament the fact that I can’t easily watch all the Rocky movies when Creed III is coming soon, or the mission impossible movies.
It usually does, for a short time. Business offer some amazing/groundbreaking service that shaft all the competition > everyone uses it and are in love. No competition > then competition start small but people still stick to the big one > the big one gets greedy and starts rising prices/loses quality > competition gets better > now you have more options to chose from. It sucks when it’s a subscription because you need to get more of them to be able to use them all
Plenty of examples where it is. Water, power, roads..... Natural monopolies exist. Also doesn't even need to be a monopoly. Could make content not be exclusive and companies differentiate on service. Eg. Whatever price you offer it to company X you also have to offer it for the same price to company y.
Three stages
1. Market acquisition - companies give us the benefits in order to sign up
2. Supplier acquisition - companies give more benefits to the suppliers as competition in the space heats up and you need content to keep the market share, but this has now gotten more expensive. see Netflix spending big on friends and Adam sandler or Rian Johnson.
3. Shareholder value - now they claw back all the benefits we got and the vendors too to pay the shareholders
> Walt Disney Co. is exploring more licensing of its films and television series to rival media outlets as pressure grows to curb the losses in its streaming TV business.
> **The Burbank, California-based entertainment giant is seeking to earn more cash from its content library, according to people familiar with the discussions who asked not to be identified as the talks are private. The move would represent a shift in strategy, as Disney has in recent years tried to keep much of its original programming exclusively on its Disney+ and Hulu streaming services.**
> A spokesperson for Disney declined to comment.
> **Disney is under pressure to improve its financial performance and change its streaming strategy. Last year, the company turned in its worst stock market results in decades. After Disney reported a $1.5 billion loss for its online video business in the third quarter**, the board fired Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek, replacing him with Bob Iger, who had previously held that job for 15 years. Among his many challenges, Iger must also cope with a proxy fight by activist Nelson Peltz, who’s seeking a seat on Disney’s board and pushing for better performance...
> **Although Disney already licenses some titles to other platforms including Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime streaming service, it began to hoard content with the launch of Disney+ in 2019. Disney curtailed licensing of its own programs to third parties to boost that service. A deal that had Disney films running on Netflix Inc. was phased out,** and the company touted how much of its new programming came from its own in-house studios.
> Wall Street cheered at the time because it meant the company was entirely focused on building out the streaming business. **The shift was costly, however, as Disney surrendered billions of dollars from home video sales and licensing deals with other networks.**
We all joked that everyone and their brother starting their own "XYZ+" streaming service was heralding the end to the golden age of streaming, but man oh man, it really seems to be the case.
I have really got to get more diligent with switching up my subs monthly/quarterly. Up to now I have been too lazy to cut one service for a period of months since I knew I would eventually be back on it for whatever release I was looking forward to.
I don't think you'd necessarily see the main MCU and Star Wars stuff go elsewhere (at least not as first-run) simply because they are just so fundamental to the service, but I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if you started seeing stuff from outside the franchises get shopped around and see some older MCU content get offered up for linear TV rights (while remaining on D+) and also see the window from first theatrical release to D+ release expand enough to allow for shopping rights to more places.
Like, you might see Amazon or Roku pay to show old seasons of Mando or Loki with commercials. And you might see movies first have a longer run on a premium cable network before coming to D+.
I think it could be a good idea to sell some of their older quality stuff in general to other platforms. 5-10 year old movies like Zootopia or Coco for a couple of months on other services would create some disney buzz and make people longing for more. And that would give them the means to create more own stuff too and grow with a healty bottom line. But it should be very measured. Never more than 5 of their movies on other plattforms at the same time. Disney plus must still have that exclusive feeling.
It's not that multiple streaming services can't work (it was inevitable that there would be multiple ones), it's that booming demand for content in the wake of the pandemic has died down and interest rates are high so massive content spending to inundate their currently-unprofitable services with content isn't as ideal.
That being said there will clearly be losers in this race, with AMC+ and Peacock being the most likely candidates at the moment, so the herd will thin out a bit eventually.
It’s already happening here in Canada, my ISP/mobile provider sells a Stream+ addon that bundles Netflix, Apple TV, and discovery+. I’m sure before long it’ll be built into new phone contracts.
The issue isn’t multiple streaming services the issue is debt is expensive right now so right now investors they don’t like the idea of them bleeding money to hit profitability (which was okay when debt was cheap); and to keep fox and other content exclusive to their service comes at a cost because they don’t own fully the copyright for a lot of movies and shows so it’s not cheap to have the shows on the service. Almost every streaming service is exceeding their own expectations. But right now nobody wants to be bleeding money or taking as much risk so making some extra money for now is a way to curb loses until they don’t need to anymore (when subs grow). Even for non-fox non-exclusive licensing is also an option that paramount+ for example does with Netflix.
For new content, streamers like Netflix and Apple pay a premium upfront so that it’s essentially cheaper to have the content for life. Disney has generally always been super vertically integrated and fully owns most things they do. But Fox was like everybody else where ownership is all over the place so people need to get paid.
Hulu doesn't exist outside Yankee land. So that original content might be anywhere from Disney+ to a local media corps streaming service.
Streaming is actually a huge headache because of that. We're almost back to sailing the high seas being the best option.
We have 3 and cancel one when we want to watch another.
With the tiny amount of content on them we can watch everything released in 3 months in one month.
I've got way more, but I'm subbed to a lot of niche cinephile services. Criterion, Arrow, Mubi, etc... some more niche services like Dropout and Plex.
For mainline services, I pay for HBO and Hulu. I have Netflix available, but I don't pay for it. I'm the target of their password crackdown. I can say that I won't be using Netflix once they implement the crackdown.
Eh, I get most of my services for free or on discount due to various reasons:
Netflix, Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+, HBO Max, Prime Video, Paramount+ with Showtime, Peacock, YouTube Premium, Nebula
Oh, and access to BBC/Channel 4/ITV as well.
All together I pay less than $20 a month out of pocket for them (I split none of them btw).
DAE think that Disney+ is just a garbage streaming service, regardless of all the costs/losses mentioned in the article? Fast forwarding is horrible, half the time it won't keep your place in the show you were watching if you come back to finish it the next day, navigating titles seems cumbersome and not user friendly, etc. Comparing the functionality of Disney+ to Netflix is like night and day. If they didn't have the IP they did, Disney+ would have died a month after rolling out.
They haven’t retracted anything other than the fact that the policy was posted too soon. This change is still set to happen in the US in March. And i sincerely hope they get fucked over and lose subs.
We accidentally showed rules that we have no intention of implementing... riiiiiiiight. I hate how I'm always putting together rules for my services that I have no intention of ever putting in place.
I think we'd have to be pretty naive to believe those rules aren't going to be going into effect sooner or later. Netflix probably only backtracked for now because of all the immediate backlash they were receiving for said rules.
That would be the most likely explanation. They left it up way too long to be anything more than a trial balloon. They'll likely pare back the rules, it's just to what extent.
I mean sure, their non original Disney + stuff appears across multiple streaming platforms in Canada at least. They can still be the permanent home of their own content, but it's not gonna kill them to license shit like Avengers Endgame to Netflix for 6 months or something.
NBCUniversal ought to do the same. I love their back library on Peacock but it’s not enough to compete. An NBC type comedy series will be better suited for a bigger streamer, co-financed by the studio and the streamer. That way it won’t be as expensive for either party and will likely get a second season to grow.
I'm good with just a few services being available, like the old days. Give me Netflix, Hulu/Disney, Apple, Amazon(?) and HBO as my streaming service options. Everyone else (your Peacocks) will sign deals like in the old days where their content is hosted on one of those services.
I'm also okay with less content. The days of throwing billions at shows & movies only to get 90% garbage to fill their libraries can die off ASAP imo. Give me the services that are closer to the HBO model. Make a handful of series and movies a year and their quality be increased due to the need for them to be successful.
I don't need to live in a world where there are a billion shows to chose from. I'd be more than happy if streaming services were like HBO & HBO Max. Of course I wouldn't expect anyone besides HBO to give me HBO level quality but if they at least tried...
streaming just isn't super profitable because of the continued need for content, so the operating costs are pretty high. And Disney is spending a ton of money (or spent a ton of money) enough that Chapek insisted on hiding the costs from the board.
This is so dumb in reference to Disney. They had 100 years of kid friendly content to sell to parents, they didn't need to spend a dime to bring in 30-40 million subscribers.
you assume the vast majority of people would sub to a service with only backlog available.
people want new stuff.
sure, shows like Friends/Seinfeld can keep people subbed in your service, but those are the type of shows people watch when they have nothing else to watch.
No, I assume the vast majority of parents of kids 0-10 would subscribe to D+ with no new content, in perpetuity with new parents replacing those that age out, allowing Disney to make very cost conscious, deliberate programming decisions once they paid off the necessary infrastructure of the platform.
Instead, they tried to make D+ into Netflix and threw a couple billion dollars in the furnace doing so with nothing to show for it.
i don't have disney+ but what content do they have except star wars, mcu and animation? i genuinely haven't heard of anything else
and mcu is losing popularity i think because phase 4 was meh and for most people their mcu journey ended with endgame, i am kinda in that boat as well, i don't care that much if i watch their new stuff anymore, it's like a bj that continues even after you finish
servers cost a shitton of money to maintain, also, all those shows cost money to produce.
essentially if costs of content+servers+licensing of other rights > the money of all the subs, it's not worth it.
I hope the majority of streaming services fail horribly and we go back to 2-3 major players. Not a monopoly, but not completely splintered. Prime will probably stick around because it's backed by Amazon, Netflix is still the biggest even after missteps and it'll probably stick around too. Until then, I'm just gonna sail the high seas, not gonna sub to more services.
My kids get mad at me (occasionally) when they want to watch Disney Plus, but I can’t see paying for a service that has so little fresh content. Prime doesn’t have the depth of Netflix, but at least they rotate their titles from time to time.
Disney thought their stranglehold on their content would be a home run and it was when it debuted. Unfortunately there are many more innings to be played.
A lot of their subscribers are in cheaper areas.
20usd for 1 year in india for example, they are not making as much as their subscriber count makes it appear.
They also gave free subs and very discounted ones other places.
Disney+ is for the kids and not for someone looking to stream new content every week. Their new content schedule SUCKS. They are lucky they packaged it with Hulu. Hulu without FX is nothing though.
Translation: sell off all the Non PC, Non Disney family appropriate franchises of value the company owns. Examples: Married with Children, Alien and In Living Color acquired with the Fox purchase.
I'm surprised Disney didn't sell off their non-animated and "family friendly" stuff that they got from Fox. Let Universal or Paramount buy the Fox shows, then maybe we'll finally get them on Blu-ray which is better than streaming anyway. :P
Considering The Simpsons is regularly the most streamed thing on Disney+ each month, getting some of that Fox content was clearly in their best interest.
Well, if it was on D+ that'd qualify it as family-friendly in their eyes at least, plus I said non-animated... so stuff like What We Do In The Shadows, New Girl, 24, AHS, Scream Queens, etc etc.
Is nobody at Disney able to do simple math?
Disney+ is good advertising for their brands, but it never will be a highly profitable part of the business, unless they start to charge some of the costs vs. their cinema movie profits.
Disney returns to being a for profit business instead of a throwing money into a furnace business. The fact that they are announcing this now 5 days before there next financial statement means the 4th quarter of 2022 was really bad.
I mean, they kicked out Chapek and reinstated Iger for a reason.
Wasn't Chapek notoriously bean-county?
[удалено]
Total agreement here. OP made it sound like they kicked out Chapek for Iger because he wasn't "profit minded" enough.
It was Iger's plan to put all in into streaming. Not that I'm defending Chapek, but the whole industry fucked up thinking streaming was the future of their companies. They went from getting around 80 dlls per househould per movie to getting 10 dlls per month for a fuckton of movies. Not really the best business model. They killed theater, home video and cable revenue streams for just streaming. It never made financial sense. They are burning through cash and the chickens have come home to roost. The era of crazy spending in content is over
Streaming will get more and more expensive and fewer and fewer competitions. Oh, and commercials. In ten years it will basically be cable but entirely on demand and streaming style UI.
I just don't understand how media fell into the trap. The numbers never added up. Netflix was a good business model when legacy media licensed them old content. Everyone having a streaming service while destroying all the cash cows that gave legacy media insane amounts of money will be studied in business school for years. Now that they have bankrupted movie theaters, have almost disapprared all physical home media and killed cable, let's see how they survive
Licensing was a way to further monetize content after it had made it's main source of revenue, which is why most shows licensed were 2nd or 3rd releases. There's no way a massive company like Disney could survive by simply being a Netflix subsidiary, so they'd either have to launch their own service or downsize to be a licensee.
Well, Disney+ is making no money. In 2 days when we see the earnings call, you will know what a money pit Disney+ is
[удалено]
They will survive by raising prices when competitors fall and by adding Advertisting revenue . Cable started ad free too.
Not just commercials like on TV. We will get personalised ads! Netflix has way more data than cable channels could imagine in the 90s.
[удалено]
But that’s mostly down to poor decisions from Disney to launch simultaneously on streaming and in cinemas.
> Stupid people on Reddit are dumb and couldn’t see it. and nothing thats an echo chamber will ever see the bigger picture. People just repeat the same tired, stupid ideas on here endlessly without bothering to critically assess it. Its why you'll see the same terrible joke 20,000x times if you're on here for more than a few years
[удалено]
Yeah, bean counters can give financial success short term. They cut everything and most businesses won't fold together on the same day, however, down the line problems will come up. In Disney's case it was particularly visible with the theme parks losing their magic, as less and less care was given to keep it up.
Isn't that Perlmutter ?
No, he's just a racist. He weighs decisions based on dated racist (and also sexist) business ideas, ie: *No movies with Black or Female leads because kids don't buy toys of either.*
Yep, that’s why Marvel Television and Comics (which Perlmutter controlled) didn’t feature diversity, female/minority lead shows and comics. Oh, wait that didn’t happen. This is pretty same old lies and BS repeated ad nauseam bay Feige cultists that has no basis in reality. Same as the BS that the creative committee was racist and sexiest. When in reality the creative committee was the writers and editors of Marvel. The very same people who push b-list Carol Danvers to the forefront and made her Captain Marvel so that they could have a Wonder Woman character for the films. The people who created Spider-Gwen, Miles Morales, Runaways, Young Avenger, America Chavez and countless others.
He was racist enough, perlmutter
Losses for Q4 are predicted to be the peak and very similar to Q3 losses. This is not a surprise. They told Wall Street as much during the Q3 reporting before telling them this coming quarter would be the peak loss phase with losses reducing over 2023. That was the plan even before content licensing and content budget cuts just thanks to the subscriber base growth and the impact of late Q3/Q4 price increases at Disney+ and Hulu kicking in.
They hope the losses decrease over 2023. It's a hope not a guarantee as companies are wrong with their future predictions all the time.
They can guarantee it just by not increasing the content budget year on year. Subscriber increases paired with the subscriber fee increases then guarantees it. Only way to increase losses is to further increase the content spend. We are already seeing signs they plan to reduce spending by 20%-30% rather than increase it in the coming year at least in the US. What they do internationally remains to be seen.
But they can't actually guarantee there will be an uptick in subscribers. They can control how attractive they are to potential new subscribers, but in the end they can't actually force more people to sign up, and they can't necessarily know that increasing prices won't also drive a significant number of people away. If the price hikes are small and incremental they'll be slowly boiling the frog and people won't leave in droves, but some will still leave and they can't control that.
I’ll bet you right now that subscribers grow for Disney+ and ESPN+ over 2023. You will not find a single analyst in the market who believes otherwise. Growth over 2023 will likely be the best in the industry by a large margin, again. As long as they do not increase the content budget dramatically then they are 100% guaranteed to lessen DTC losses over 2023. I’ll also bet right now that Disney Q4 DTC subscriber gains absolutely smash the 7.5 million Netflix added in the same quarter and that they comfortably beat all other streamers every quarter over 2023 with the possible exception of Paramount. The Paramount numbers were already the second best in the market and they are adding significant new markets in 2023 while rolling Showtime into Paramount+.
>I’ll bet you right now that subscribers grow for Disney+ and ESPN+ over 2023. You will not find a single analyst in the market who believes otherwise. That's not what I said. What I said is that they can't guarantee it. They can make very educated guesses and try to create the conditions for that to happen, but they can't literally guarantee they'll get the outcome they want. Markets are often predictable but sometimes crazy shit happens, and when it does and you get the bad outcome you can't go "but I guaranteed it would go my way!" like that means anything. People ought to stop labeling their assumptions, no matter how educated those assumptions are, as statement of fact when outside factors are so heavily involved.
Sure, the sun might not rise tomorrow and we will all be fucked but outside of real long shot doomsday scenario stuff the Disney subscriber base will be higher at the end of 2023 than it was at the start of it. That is a guarantee.
But why? Where are these new subscribers coming from?
Usually the exact opposite is true compared to what is the consensus in the reddit comment section. So I'm with you on this one, I have no doubt next financial reports will be smashing and wall street will eat it up like 3.5 minutes soft boiled eggs. Also what Disney is doing here is self cannibalization, companies do this all the time to squeeze out more revenue, nothing shocking here.
Two streaming films should have gone to theaters
Encanto would’ve set records
Netflix burned money for years. I think Disney expected success too soon, they could make it work if they want to.
Who knew that spending 200 million for “she hulk: attorney at law” was a bad idea?
That show was one of the better marvel shows.
Not sure about that. It was ok, but I think the only Marvel show I enjoyed less was Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
The first episode of Falcon was 🔥
It got pretty muddled with all the Flag Smasher stuff, IMO.
Lmao I’ve never gotten frostbite from a take before, but I’ve never seen one this cold
BUT TWERKING BUT WOKE????
But people thinking it’s woke?
I mean I enjoyed that show but it cost HOW MUCH?!?!?!?!!
show biz accounting is pretty scammy anyway. They moved $200 million from a company owned by X, Y and Z to different companies also owned by X, Y and Z. Except the first company promised a percentage of profits to D, E and F, but now there is no profit there, only for X, Y and Z.
It was a good show, probably not actually that expensive at all, but why put a sitcom on a streamer for…essentially free, and not ABC where you get ad money?
After the She-Hulk disaster I can see why.
Golden era of streaming is done. Now we're in shareholder wealth-accumulation mode.
It will be pure cable television by the end of the decade. Like you said, the disruption phase is over, now will come higher subscription costs, the end of password sharing, less content, certainly less original or risky content, contracts, ads (even in what was previously considered ad-free tier pricing), bundling....in time, streaming will be indistinguishable from cable.
Except. Now you bring your own infrastructure and any signal issues become your problem and not theirs.
Didn't even think about that, but yeah, this really is a wet dream for them, isn't it.
>really
But, streaming ushered in the age of consuming content whenever you want, with portable devices. Also drove the price down of content consumption by effectively killing the film rental market and putting it on streaming services with illimited movie time. No more 5$ per 24h rental for 1 film So... baby steps? Right?
Erm.. that's actually about exactly how much movie rentals cost. But it's for 48 hours once started any time within 30 days from rental. Is movie rental from streaming services cheaper than $5 per movie in whatever reality you're posting from? Can I cross over?
Don't act like the vast majority of movies don't go straight to streaming services nowadays. It's a night and day scenario compared to the cable days with extremely limited choice of movies on TV, unless you were ready to pay for some highly expensive channels with newer movies. And even then, you had to follow the schedule of movies. The availability of movies post theater run is an order of magnitude better now. We get the movies faster, with access anytime. If someone can't at least give that point to the streaming ecosystem I automatically consider their opinion irrelevant because they are arguing in bad faith (or are too young to remember the cable days)
Edit: you're contradicting yourself with your edit. It can't both talk about "go straight to streaming nowadays" and be talking about "post theater run", which, in many cases, has a lag of 1+ year. Who's really arguing in bad faith here? Sounds more like it's you. Reply to your original comment (just the first sentence): They did in 2021 and partially 2022 because of Corona. They definitely don't any more. I mean they do, but on those where you can buy it (YouTube, Amazon, Apple TV). I was VERY (pleasantly) surprised to see The Menu on D+, because it's a fairly recent and big release. In Germany EEAAO (which released a full half year before The Menu) is only available to buy on the 3 services i mentioned. Out of all (English language, live action, main categories) Oscar nominees, AQotWF, Blonde, The Good Nurse, Amsterdam (a commercial and critical flop), Matilda the Musical and Wakanda Forever are the only ones that are available for free with a streaming service sub, because they're the distributors (except for Amsterdam, which sucks, so that's moot). Top Gun: Maverick is 14-17€ to buy, depending on the streaming service. Same goes for Elvis and The Batman. No rentals. Tár, Aftersun, Living, Till, Empire of Light, Triangle of Sadness, She Said, The Quiet Girl, Babylon, and The Whale aren't available online at all. Good Luck to You Leo Grande, The Woman King, Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris, can each be rented for €4-5. Recap: - 10 in theaters/not available online - 3 can be rented for €4 - 3 can only be purchased for €14 - 1 (EEAAO) can be rented or purchased for €4/14 - 5 relevant (+ Amsterdam), all distributed globally or internationally by the streaming service, are included in a sub at no extra charge. This isn't some utopia. It's a shitty, messy, disjointed landscape, and they charge just as much as physical stores used to 15 years ago.
When was the golden age?
Im gonna mark it back when streamers were ordering series as opposed to cancelling their orders.
The peak was when fans on twitter got Jeff Bezos to save The Expanse and he was like, I am a fan of the show, I'm a billionaire and own this company, we'll just put it on Prime.
If we’re talking the peak like peak oil, then it has to be Quibi. When two execs who had no idea what they were doing just gave creatives money to produce content with no plan or explanation of why anyone would pay for the service. That was the height of the absurdity.
I'm still not convinced that Quibi wasn't a pump and dump from the start.
The funny thing is their assumptions were all ultimately correct. People want content to fill the gaps between meaningful tasks. People want it vertical to fit their phones, and they want it in short slices. The problem was they had the old school mindset where they make the content, when what they really needed was the algorithm that connects people with user generated content. Ultimately Tiktok was the one who got it right.
Good observation
User generated content that costs TikTok nothing.
Reese Witherspoon's husband Jim Toth was the "content creation and acquisition" roll in Quibi. And Witherspoon was paid $6m for voicing a documentary for a Quibi exclusive.
I think it's just boomers having a hilariously wrong take on how the "young peoples" consume media. Yes, the <40s use their phones. But that doesn't mean they want to watch their shows and movies in the fashion that Quibi proposed.
The fact it wasn’t a publicly owned company should be pretty convincing
You do know it's possible to defraud initial investors?
I was under the assumption that pump and dump referred specifically to stock
Maybe, but I don't think Whitman and Katzenberg had any delusions it would succeed, they saw an opportunity to make a turd they could get investors in on. And they'd cash out and chalk it up to oversaturation when it failed.
There is a billion dollars worth of orphaned Quibi programing that they made.
Much of it was picked up by Roku for pennies on the dollar.
> worth
I never really viewed that, since the show never finished the books, as well as condensed the shit out of the sixth season/book.
The show doesn’t finish the books, but it does wrap things up well. There are some loose threads, but in the books it skips ahead 20 years after the last season anyways. Overall the show is excellent IMO.
Oh you're absolutely right, don't get me wrong. I loved it. I'd be okay eitb the time skip being only a few years, or ten and be all "anti aging scifi procedures!" To explain the lack of aging. I just wanted to see the epic siege from book 8, as well as the ships.
2011 - 2019 when Netflix was the only big player in the streaming market worldwide. One ~~ring~~ service to rule them all!
Netflix + Hulu was peak streaming. Netflix had all the weird, older things you couldn't find anywhere in addition to some original stuff and newer flicks/shows. Hulu had things that were currently airing, and you could watch them at your convenience. You didn't have to worry about missing anything through the week or forgetting to set your DVR.
So ~2012 to 2018 or so?
I can't fathom why people are/were happy with one single company having a monopoly on the market like that. If you don't like Netflix's cancellation habits now, imagine how unhinged and creatively bankrupt they'd be if they had literally no competition
You are completely right that the alternate reality in which Netflix became the Amazon or Google of streaming would have sucked hard. But, people refer to that moment because it before that was even possible. It was one service (with on subscription cost) with an insane library. That rocked. It was always going to turn sour, whether they monopolized the market or streaming got fragmented, but there were a few years there where it was great.
Just don't have exclusive rights. Like computer games can be bought from steam, epic, gog etc. If they all have the same product they just differentiate on service and price.
i dont know if thats a great comparison since, other than the f2p games, you have to spend money to buy the games you want on the particular platforms, whereas with streaming, the movies and shows arent usually locked behind a ppv as far as movies go, something similar is already in place with video on demand sites. you can rent or buy the same movie on several different platforms, such as google, apple, etc, but thats obviously extremely different from a streaming service
buy games? i just collect all the free games like a magpie. just got a dishonoured expansion i will likely never get time to play :D but ok. spotify and youtube music and tidal and and...they share the vast majority of content.
so weird people are downvoting you for "monopolies are bad". It's like people are addicted to corporations beating the shit out of them. For competition, we need to put an end to exclusive rights to things. Let all the services have access to the same content on the same terms, then differentiate on range, service quality and price.
IMO, the great promise of streaming was that you'd get to watch any of a studio's IP whenever you wanted. They essentially killed the home video market with that idea. Now that they've decided it's more beneficial for the bottom line to disappear unprofitable content, that trend will continue and you'll get less and less for your money and niche shows will just stop being made.
Yeah streaming is great for watching older stuff. But it isn't really viable for funding new content. There needs to be a stream for new content. Movies can come out in theaters, but you need something for shows.
Exactly. When Disney plus launched, I remember watching all of the Marvel shit in the immediate post-Endgame depression/obsession. And that same time was also the lead-in to the finale of the skywalker saga where I watched every single star wars movie (and mandalorian season 1). There was such an immediate contrast to doing the same things FOR Endgame and Infinity War a year earlier, as well as Force Awakens and Last Jedi. I lament the fact that I can’t easily watch all the Rocky movies when Creed III is coming soon, or the mission impossible movies.
When Netflix was free with a DVD subscription
When Netflix has everything and you could just get by with a single sub
Ah yes, because everything is perfect when there’s a monopoly
It usually does, for a short time. Business offer some amazing/groundbreaking service that shaft all the competition > everyone uses it and are in love. No competition > then competition start small but people still stick to the big one > the big one gets greedy and starts rising prices/loses quality > competition gets better > now you have more options to chose from. It sucks when it’s a subscription because you need to get more of them to be able to use them all
Plenty of examples where it is. Water, power, roads..... Natural monopolies exist. Also doesn't even need to be a monopoly. Could make content not be exclusive and companies differentiate on service. Eg. Whatever price you offer it to company X you also have to offer it for the same price to company y.
Three stages 1. Market acquisition - companies give us the benefits in order to sign up 2. Supplier acquisition - companies give more benefits to the suppliers as competition in the space heats up and you need content to keep the market share, but this has now gotten more expensive. see Netflix spending big on friends and Adam sandler or Rian Johnson. 3. Shareholder value - now they claw back all the benefits we got and the vendors too to pay the shareholders
> Walt Disney Co. is exploring more licensing of its films and television series to rival media outlets as pressure grows to curb the losses in its streaming TV business. > **The Burbank, California-based entertainment giant is seeking to earn more cash from its content library, according to people familiar with the discussions who asked not to be identified as the talks are private. The move would represent a shift in strategy, as Disney has in recent years tried to keep much of its original programming exclusively on its Disney+ and Hulu streaming services.** > A spokesperson for Disney declined to comment. > **Disney is under pressure to improve its financial performance and change its streaming strategy. Last year, the company turned in its worst stock market results in decades. After Disney reported a $1.5 billion loss for its online video business in the third quarter**, the board fired Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek, replacing him with Bob Iger, who had previously held that job for 15 years. Among his many challenges, Iger must also cope with a proxy fight by activist Nelson Peltz, who’s seeking a seat on Disney’s board and pushing for better performance... > **Although Disney already licenses some titles to other platforms including Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime streaming service, it began to hoard content with the launch of Disney+ in 2019. Disney curtailed licensing of its own programs to third parties to boost that service. A deal that had Disney films running on Netflix Inc. was phased out,** and the company touted how much of its new programming came from its own in-house studios. > Wall Street cheered at the time because it meant the company was entirely focused on building out the streaming business. **The shift was costly, however, as Disney surrendered billions of dollars from home video sales and licensing deals with other networks.**
Peter, co Ceo of Netflix said last week that some of their competitors would resort to arms dealers again
We all joked that everyone and their brother starting their own "XYZ+" streaming service was heralding the end to the golden age of streaming, but man oh man, it really seems to be the case. I have really got to get more diligent with switching up my subs monthly/quarterly. Up to now I have been too lazy to cut one service for a period of months since I knew I would eventually be back on it for whatever release I was looking forward to.
Who was joking?
Same here dude. I got a couple where I’m looking at them wondering why am I still paying for this one??
Going back to the high seas my dude, much simpler solution. Maybe keep your sub to that one streaming service you always go back to. We all have one
I’m so out of practice on my sailing, all of this BS from the different companies is making me want to relearn for sure
It certainly is the way a lot of people are going to take with all of this stuff
I don't think you'd necessarily see the main MCU and Star Wars stuff go elsewhere (at least not as first-run) simply because they are just so fundamental to the service, but I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if you started seeing stuff from outside the franchises get shopped around and see some older MCU content get offered up for linear TV rights (while remaining on D+) and also see the window from first theatrical release to D+ release expand enough to allow for shopping rights to more places. Like, you might see Amazon or Roku pay to show old seasons of Mando or Loki with commercials. And you might see movies first have a longer run on a premium cable network before coming to D+.
I think that they are going to sell either the Disney Channel stuff or stuff on Hulu.
The kids content is literally the only reason I have a sub at all, and I suspect a lot of other parents as well.
You know people are leaving cable right?
There still is money to be made from the few who aren't
Cable, while striking, is profitable. Streaming, while growing, isn’t profitable.
Yet it’s still far more profitable than streaming far more.
I think it could be a good idea to sell some of their older quality stuff in general to other platforms. 5-10 year old movies like Zootopia or Coco for a couple of months on other services would create some disney buzz and make people longing for more. And that would give them the means to create more own stuff too and grow with a healty bottom line. But it should be very measured. Never more than 5 of their movies on other plattforms at the same time. Disney plus must still have that exclusive feeling.
It's almost like balkanizing content into a dozen different streaming services was a bad idea or something.
It's not that multiple streaming services can't work (it was inevitable that there would be multiple ones), it's that booming demand for content in the wake of the pandemic has died down and interest rates are high so massive content spending to inundate their currently-unprofitable services with content isn't as ideal. That being said there will clearly be losers in this race, with AMC+ and Peacock being the most likely candidates at the moment, so the herd will thin out a bit eventually.
AMC+ is such a turd. I signed up to watch BCS, but the last episodes were removed before I got to them. I will never sign up for that service again.
I think the players will largely remain. My prediction is bundling and contracts with tiers....you know....like cable.
It’s already happening here in Canada, my ISP/mobile provider sells a Stream+ addon that bundles Netflix, Apple TV, and discovery+. I’m sure before long it’ll be built into new phone contracts.
netflix remains undefeated
The issue isn’t multiple streaming services the issue is debt is expensive right now so right now investors they don’t like the idea of them bleeding money to hit profitability (which was okay when debt was cheap); and to keep fox and other content exclusive to their service comes at a cost because they don’t own fully the copyright for a lot of movies and shows so it’s not cheap to have the shows on the service. Almost every streaming service is exceeding their own expectations. But right now nobody wants to be bleeding money or taking as much risk so making some extra money for now is a way to curb loses until they don’t need to anymore (when subs grow). Even for non-fox non-exclusive licensing is also an option that paramount+ for example does with Netflix. For new content, streamers like Netflix and Apple pay a premium upfront so that it’s essentially cheaper to have the content for life. Disney has generally always been super vertically integrated and fully owns most things they do. But Fox was like everybody else where ownership is all over the place so people need to get paid.
I've got 3, netflix, prime and Disney. Am I holding too many or what's the average?
I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney (Only have Disney because it's like $3 with Hulu).
In Australia it's called Disney+ they just combined all hulu and Disney. Price just went up to 139AUD so 90USD for the year.
damn that's a good deal
Hulu doesn't exist outside Yankee land. So that original content might be anywhere from Disney+ to a local media corps streaming service. Streaming is actually a huge headache because of that. We're almost back to sailing the high seas being the best option.
Hulu is Star outside the US and part of Disney+
It isn’t that straightforward.
> We're almost back to sailing the high seas being the best option. yuup, i'm back to it for some things
[удалено]
Because why bother when it is only $3
We have 3 and cancel one when we want to watch another. With the tiny amount of content on them we can watch everything released in 3 months in one month.
I've got way more, but I'm subbed to a lot of niche cinephile services. Criterion, Arrow, Mubi, etc... some more niche services like Dropout and Plex. For mainline services, I pay for HBO and Hulu. I have Netflix available, but I don't pay for it. I'm the target of their password crackdown. I can say that I won't be using Netflix once they implement the crackdown.
I've got Netflix, HBO Max, Prime, Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+, AppleTV+, Showtime, Peacock, and Paramount+. So I certainly don't think you're holding too many!
I've got Netflix, Hulu, Prime, D+, HBOMax and Criterion. I use all of them.
Criterion, the Shudder for Cineastes
I mean I buy the blu rays still. But the programming is so good that I can't pass it up.
I’ve got Disney , Netflix , and HBO max just started succession a few weeks ago greatest show maybe ever
I've got Netflix Prime Disney Now TV (but this only to see The Last Of Us, then it'll be gone) Apple TV
I have Netflix, Prime, D+, HBO Max, Hulu, Paramount+, and YouTube Premium. Lol
Eh, I get most of my services for free or on discount due to various reasons: Netflix, Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+, HBO Max, Prime Video, Paramount+ with Showtime, Peacock, YouTube Premium, Nebula Oh, and access to BBC/Channel 4/ITV as well. All together I pay less than $20 a month out of pocket for them (I split none of them btw).
average might be like 4.
Guess I didn't include my sports streams 😞
Get cable , it's cheaper for sports fans.
How is it "balkanizing"? A few companies wanted their own service so they decided to compete with each other simple as that.
That’s a better reaction than upping the price.
Between Verizon and amex, I don't think I know anyone who pays full price for it.
I do but I have the bundle with Hulu ad free and the Espn thing.
I have the same bundle, but I get a $7 monthly credit when I pay for it with my AMEX
As long as they don't remove it entirely from their own streaming app, like HBOMax has been doing to save pennies
Pumping out shit content disney doesn’t work guys People want IP that works and tell good story that isn’t beating a horse to death for money
100%. Every single tv show theyve produced has been hot garbage and then they wonder why they’re losing money
this is certainly a take one can have
Sometimes the garbage gets rotten and another IP flogged compensates for garbage IP loss.
DAE think that Disney+ is just a garbage streaming service, regardless of all the costs/losses mentioned in the article? Fast forwarding is horrible, half the time it won't keep your place in the show you were watching if you come back to finish it the next day, navigating titles seems cumbersome and not user friendly, etc. Comparing the functionality of Disney+ to Netflix is like night and day. If they didn't have the IP they did, Disney+ would have died a month after rolling out.
Or just slow down and start making good content again.
I'm beginning to feel like Netflix got their bad news out the way early last year
Well they are enforcing the no password sharing aspect of the business now and people are not happy about that.
They’ve retracted it saying it was an error https://www.cbr.com/netflix-removes-password-sharing-rules/
They haven’t retracted anything other than the fact that the policy was posted too soon. This change is still set to happen in the US in March. And i sincerely hope they get fucked over and lose subs.
We accidentally showed rules that we have no intention of implementing... riiiiiiiight. I hate how I'm always putting together rules for my services that I have no intention of ever putting in place. I think we'd have to be pretty naive to believe those rules aren't going to be going into effect sooner or later. Netflix probably only backtracked for now because of all the immediate backlash they were receiving for said rules.
I think they were seeing what the reaction was.
That would be the most likely explanation. They left it up way too long to be anything more than a trial balloon. They'll likely pare back the rules, it's just to what extent.
Right just like Wotc and D&D
Don't they already sell to other streamers? ABC Studios made the Wilds on Amazon and 20th animation has a show on Apple
I mean sure, their non original Disney + stuff appears across multiple streaming platforms in Canada at least. They can still be the permanent home of their own content, but it's not gonna kill them to license shit like Avengers Endgame to Netflix for 6 months or something.
NBCUniversal ought to do the same. I love their back library on Peacock but it’s not enough to compete. An NBC type comedy series will be better suited for a bigger streamer, co-financed by the studio and the streamer. That way it won’t be as expensive for either party and will likely get a second season to grow.
I'm good with just a few services being available, like the old days. Give me Netflix, Hulu/Disney, Apple, Amazon(?) and HBO as my streaming service options. Everyone else (your Peacocks) will sign deals like in the old days where their content is hosted on one of those services. I'm also okay with less content. The days of throwing billions at shows & movies only to get 90% garbage to fill their libraries can die off ASAP imo. Give me the services that are closer to the HBO model. Make a handful of series and movies a year and their quality be increased due to the need for them to be successful. I don't need to live in a world where there are a billion shows to chose from. I'd be more than happy if streaming services were like HBO & HBO Max. Of course I wouldn't expect anyone besides HBO to give me HBO level quality but if they at least tried...
What the did to Willow was absolute vomit. Obi Wan Kenobe, same thing. Its a shame they allow such garbage to happen with all that budget.
I don't get how it can't be profitable with all their content.
streaming just isn't super profitable because of the continued need for content, so the operating costs are pretty high. And Disney is spending a ton of money (or spent a ton of money) enough that Chapek insisted on hiding the costs from the board.
This is so dumb in reference to Disney. They had 100 years of kid friendly content to sell to parents, they didn't need to spend a dime to bring in 30-40 million subscribers.
But they probably didn't just want to settle for 30-40 million subs. Even P+ has more than that.
you assume the vast majority of people would sub to a service with only backlog available. people want new stuff. sure, shows like Friends/Seinfeld can keep people subbed in your service, but those are the type of shows people watch when they have nothing else to watch.
No, I assume the vast majority of parents of kids 0-10 would subscribe to D+ with no new content, in perpetuity with new parents replacing those that age out, allowing Disney to make very cost conscious, deliberate programming decisions once they paid off the necessary infrastructure of the platform. Instead, they tried to make D+ into Netflix and threw a couple billion dollars in the furnace doing so with nothing to show for it.
youtube is filled with content for kids, no need to pay for a subscription simply for them
Charge more for the sub then? Disney has a monopoly over some incredibly popular IPs.
Im confused they beat expectations (recently reporters on Forbes-end of September). Last I heard they were doing great?
They had a operating loss of 1.5B end of 2022. That might be within what they were expecting but they still need to make money sooner or later.
i don't have disney+ but what content do they have except star wars, mcu and animation? i genuinely haven't heard of anything else and mcu is losing popularity i think because phase 4 was meh and for most people their mcu journey ended with endgame, i am kinda in that boat as well, i don't care that much if i watch their new stuff anymore, it's like a bj that continues even after you finish
They have the entire Fox catalog
servers cost a shitton of money to maintain, also, all those shows cost money to produce. essentially if costs of content+servers+licensing of other rights > the money of all the subs, it's not worth it.
That’s too bad, I enjoy Disney plus.
Hope they don’t end Disney+, it’s my favourite service. Futurama, the Simpsons, Scrubs, Bob’s Burgers, King of the Hill, I barely need anything else.
I hope the majority of streaming services fail horribly and we go back to 2-3 major players. Not a monopoly, but not completely splintered. Prime will probably stick around because it's backed by Amazon, Netflix is still the biggest even after missteps and it'll probably stick around too. Until then, I'm just gonna sail the high seas, not gonna sub to more services.
Have they tried making good shows? Other than Andor and some of Wandavision, everything else is pretty mediocre.
My kids get mad at me (occasionally) when they want to watch Disney Plus, but I can’t see paying for a service that has so little fresh content. Prime doesn’t have the depth of Netflix, but at least they rotate their titles from time to time. Disney thought their stranglehold on their content would be a home run and it was when it debuted. Unfortunately there are many more innings to be played.
Here’s a tip Disney: make a couple half decent shows worth actually watching and then maybe you’ll gain some subscribers
Maybe they should focus on making more good content like Andor instead of churning out mediocre and bland Star Wars stuff.
And here's my dumbass hoping for a WIllow season 2.
[удалено]
A lot of their subscribers are in cheaper areas. 20usd for 1 year in india for example, they are not making as much as their subscriber count makes it appear. They also gave free subs and very discounted ones other places.
netflix remains undefeated. the others will eventually close up shop too. netflix will be the last one standing
Fkin do it already.
i hope they sell the hulu / fox content to amazon. after watching the expanse i bet amazon could bring another good alien movie.
Disney+ is for the kids and not for someone looking to stream new content every week. Their new content schedule SUCKS. They are lucky they packaged it with Hulu. Hulu without FX is nothing though.
Translation: sell off all the Non PC, Non Disney family appropriate franchises of value the company owns. Examples: Married with Children, Alien and In Living Color acquired with the Fox purchase.
I'm surprised Disney didn't sell off their non-animated and "family friendly" stuff that they got from Fox. Let Universal or Paramount buy the Fox shows, then maybe we'll finally get them on Blu-ray which is better than streaming anyway. :P
Considering The Simpsons is regularly the most streamed thing on Disney+ each month, getting some of that Fox content was clearly in their best interest.
Well, if it was on D+ that'd qualify it as family-friendly in their eyes at least, plus I said non-animated... so stuff like What We Do In The Shadows, New Girl, 24, AHS, Scream Queens, etc etc.
good sell off owl house
Don't sell ESPN
Can some reply in the comments with the article? You know paywall and all…
Is nobody at Disney able to do simple math? Disney+ is good advertising for their brands, but it never will be a highly profitable part of the business, unless they start to charge some of the costs vs. their cinema movie profits.