Disney drops 2.4 million streaming subs

[Bruce]

Sorry, but I don't feel protected from Big Media by the cable company bundle. Maybe what you posit might have been somewhat true at one point in time, but that would have been a long time ago. This is a lot like saying Facebook is protecting me from advertisers tracking my activity across the Internet.

Now, you do make a good point that less and less quality content is on linear TV. It is largely on the streaming services now. I am surprised more of it hasn't ended up back on the linear channels once it has been on the streaming services for a while. Given the excess of overly expensive content being produced these days (largely for streaming How Long Would It Take To Watch Everything On Netflix?), I don't see a reduction in content creation being a bad thing. Companies have invested too much too fast in new content. That much is clear from their balance sheets. I believe we are soon to enter the trough of disillusionment on the streaming hype cycle. We'll see consolidation, pull-back, and sanity start to prevail over the next couple of years, and we will see who can make the business model work on the other side of it.

I can see what everyone is trying to do by including sports in their streaming services, but I am not sure it will work the way they want it to in the long run.

I expect more sharing of content in the near future,

Paramount+ shows will be on Showtime, if a writer’s strike, on CBS and maybe Paramount Channel also( Yellowstone shows).

Warner-a little tougher to figure out, they seem to be selling the rights for certain things for basically change you find in your couch cushions because they are in such debt.

Disney-they seem to be determined to keep Disney+ shows on Disney+, if a writer’s strike, we might see some plus shows on ABC and Cable Channels.

Peacock-maybe a writer’s strike will have them put some shows on their channels, not enough content to really matter.

Fox-will be screwed if a writer’s strike happens.

 

[VictoriaFTA]

Disney+ needs to just be combined with Hulu in the U.S. like it is in other countries.

Move all the Hulu stuff onto the Disney+ backend, because Hulu as a service is crap. No one actually likes Hulu being separated into another platform; no one likes the interface, no one likes the forced channel bugs in the corner. The Hulu name is stupid and no one likes the actual brand. The encoding parameters used for Hulu's backend is worse than the encoding parameters Disney+ uses. Having separate apps is an annoying inconvenience.

Disney just needs one big combined service for both kids and adults, just like Netflix. Netflix is one app, one service. Then they can charge $10 a month for the ads version, $15 a month for no ads. Maybe hike the prices up to $15/$20 a month after a few years of this.

 

[meStevo]

That was in the cards for Disney, they even added the age stuff to prepare for it, but with Iger back things seem to be going the other direction and there's discussion of just moving on from it instead of folding it in. We'll see.

MSN

 

[Mr Tony]

Disney+ needs to just be combined with Hulu in the U.S. like it is in other countries.

Move all the Hulu stuff onto the Disney+ backend, because Hulu as a service is crap. No one actually likes Hulu being separated into another platform; no one likes the interface, no one likes the forced channel bugs in the corner. The Hulu name is stupid and no one likes the actual brand. The encoding parameters used for Hulu's backend is worse than the encoding parameters Disney+ uses. Having separate apps is an annoying inconvenience.

Disney just needs one big combined service for both kids and adults, just like Netflix. Netflix is one app, one service. Then they can charge $10 a month for the ads version, $15 a month for no ads. Maybe hike the prices up to $15/$20 a month after a few years of this.

No thanks
I don’t care for anything on Disney plus and I don’t mind paying 99 cents or 1.99 a month for Hulu. Black Friday deals the last two years

 

[Juan]

Disney+ needs to just be combined with Hulu in the U.S. like it is in other countries.

Move all the Hulu stuff onto the Disney+ backend, because Hulu as a service is crap. No one actually likes Hulu being separated into another platform; no one likes the interface, no one likes the forced channel bugs in the corner. The Hulu name is stupid and no one likes the actual brand. The encoding parameters used for Hulu's backend is worse than the encoding parameters Disney+ uses. Having separate apps is an annoying inconvenience.

Disney just needs one big combined service for both kids and adults, just like Netflix. Netflix is one app, one service. Then they can charge $10 a month for the ads version, $15 a month for no ads. Maybe hike the prices up to $15/$20 a month after a few years of this.

You mean bundle it?

 

[NashGuy]

That was in the cards for Disney, they even added the age stuff to prepare for it, but with Iger back things seem to be going the other direction and there's discussion of just moving on from it instead of folding it in. We'll see.

MSN

Yeah, this is a real surprise to me. I had always believed the conventional wisdom that Disney would continue on in their current direction by buying out the remaining 1/3 of Hulu and then folding it into Disney+ to create a broad-spectrum global entertainment service that could really challenge Netflix. And, who knows, that may very well still happen. Frankly, if no one else wants to buy Hulu, then Disney will likely be forced by Comcast to buy the remaining stake from them in 2024.

But Iger is now making negative remarks about "general entertainment" content -- i.e. the kind of stuff offered by Hulu, by ABC, and by FX, and produced by their 20th Century Studios which supplies so much content to all those outlets. Sounds like he wants to focus on the company's core differentiated content under the Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars brands/studios -- the big IP stuff that ties in to their theme parks.

At this point, it kinda sounds like Iger is regretting the decision that Disney made to acquire those Fox assets back in late 2017. (The mega-deal didn't close until early 2019.)

Did Disney Buy a Dud With Fox? The $71 Billion Deal Is Weighing Bob Iger Down

The box-office success of "Avatar: The Way of Water" may disguise the problems the Hollywood megadeal brought

www.thewrap.com

I'm not sure who would want to buy Hulu without the major content library and studio behind so much of it -- 20th Century -- or perhaps without the linear broadcast and cable channels that feed so much of its current content: ABC, FX, FXX, and Freeform.

All of which raises the question: Is Iger considering undoing part or all of the Fox acquisition? If so, who would buy it? Would Fox want back it back now that they've had success in the FAST arena with Tubi? Would Comcast want those assets to combine with NBCUniveral? Neither WBD or Paramount is in a position to acquire. Maybe Netflix? Tech giants Apple, Amazon and Google have deep pockets but would any of them want to buy Hulu and/or 20th or even be allowed to, particularly under a Biden admin that's supposedly taking a tougher stance on M&A deals?

 

[SamCdbs]

Fox is clearly pursuing a different strategy than the other 3 OTA network owning corporations. The other three have money losing streaming services. Fox not only does not, it sold its rerun wad, and a lot of other assets to Disney, for more than value. It is, IMHO, brilliant. If someone ever figures out how to make streaming profitable, then Fox can either easily duplicate it, having skipped the years and years of losses, or sell content, both new and the new wad of reruns it will have by then accumulated, to them. If no one ever does, and this seems most likely, then Fox is untainted by the failure and its stockholders are not soaked.

Disney hasn't had an original idea for over two decades. That is why it has to buy things like half of the old Fox, Lucas Film, Marvel, etc.

 

[NashGuy]

If someone ever figures out how to make streaming profitable, then Fox can either easily duplicate it, having skipped the years and years of losses, or sell content, both new and the new wad of reruns it will have by then accumulated, to them.

Heh, no. By the point when other streaming services besides Netflix become profitable, it will be too late for anyone else to jump in. The industry will have consolidated around the handful of winners. Also, Fox has no studio any more, or any long-term content library that it owns (other than perhaps the reality shows that Fox produces like The Masked Singer and Hell's Kitchen).

What Fox did was radically slim down and focus on just the things that work well for traditional linear TV: sports, news, and competition shows. And at the same time, they bought Tubi and have built it up as a major free streaming source on the back of cheaply licensed content. Murdoch opted out of the content/streaming wars bloodbath, which is serving Fox well now, but it's questionable where it will leave the company some years down the road as losses in cable TV subscriptions show no sign of ever stopping...

 

[Juan]

Heh, no. By the point when other streaming services besides Netflix become profitable, it will be too late for anyone else to jump in. The industry will have consolidated around the handful of winners. Also, Fox has no studio any more, or any long-term content library that it owns (other than perhaps the reality shows that Fox produces like The Masked Singer and Hell's Kitchen).

What Fox did was radically slim down and focus on just the things that work well for traditional linear TV: sports, news, and competition shows. And at the same time, they bought Tubi and have built it up as a major free streaming source on the back of cheaply licensed content. Murdoch opted out of the content/streaming wars bloodbath, which is serving Fox well now, but it's questionable where it will leave the company some years down the road as losses in cable TV subscriptions show no sign of ever stopping...

Heh, no. By the point when other streaming services besides Netflix become profitable, it will be too late for anyone else to jump in. The industry will have consolidated around the handful of winners. Also, Fox has no studio any more, or any long-term content library that it owns (other than perhaps the reality shows that Fox produces like The Masked Singer and Hell's Kitchen).

What Fox did was radically slim down and focus on just the things that work well for traditional linear TV: sports, news, and competition shows. And at the same time, they bought Tubi and have built it up as a major free streaming source on the back of cheaply licensed content. Murdoch opted out of the content/streaming wars bloodbath, which is serving Fox well now, but it's questionable where it will leave the company some years down the road as losses in cable TV subscriptions show no sign of ever stopping...

Thats not true at all..consumers flip flop between streaming services all day long...no contract..no equipment ..no committment...things that made it hard to switch with cable and satellite no longer exist..you can change streamers in well under 5 minutes..having said that..none of the big media players are making a profit..the streaming world is still evolving and in no where near its final form

 

[Bruce]

Thats not true at all..consumers flip flop between streaming services all day long...no contract..no equipment ..no committment...things that made it hard to switch with cable and satellite no longer exist..you can change streamers in well under 5 minutes..having said that..none of the big media players are making a profit..the streaming world is still evolving and in no where near its final form

If that was true, the churn would be a lot higher then what it is, most of them have major net gains reported every quarter.

 

[meStevo]

The reason why it was hard to switch between traditional services is it often costs those providers several hundred dollars before you've given then a cent, requiring contracts, early termination fees, etc. Kinda incredible to see people defending that practice all of the sudden.

Streaming services enable fickleness, when we're not using a service for a little bit I'll turn it off and when the kids notice in 3 months later I can turn it back on for a month, no big deal.

 

[Juan]

The reason why it was hard to switch between traditional services is it often costs those providers several hundred dollars before you've given then a cent, requiring contracts, early termination fees, etc. Kinda incredible to see people defending that practice all of the sudden.

Streaming services enable fickleness, when we're not using a service for a little bit I'll turn it off and when the kids notice in 3 months later I can turn it back on for a month, no big deal.

Not defending it just explaining why ESPN linear has 100 million subs while streaming is much lower..with streaming you get it when you need it..great fir consumer..not so much for a corporation

 

[Bruce]

Not defending it just explaining why ESPN linear has 100 million subs while streaming is much lower..with streaming you get it when you need it..great fir consumer..not so much for a corporation

No, ESPN has about 68 Million Subscribers ( including services like YTTV), down from 100 Million in 2015, expected to lose another 5-6 million in 2023.

And ESPN is not offered as a separate service yet, it will be soon, but you should not compare it to ESPN+ sub numbers, not the same thing.

 

[Juan]

No, ESPN has about 68 Million Subscribers ( including services like YTTV), down from 100 Million in 2015, expected to lose another 5-6 million in 2023.

And ESPN is not offered as a separate service yet, it will be soon, but you should not compare it to ESPN+ sub numbers, not the same thing.

Still way way more than streaming

 

[Bruce]

Still way way more than streaming

Which one is going in one direction, which ones are going in another.

ESPN has been in business since 1980.

Streaming a lot shorter time frame.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Disney Plus is a channel where I can just subscribe to for a month a year and watch everything I missed. No reason to keep a continuing subscription.

 

[Ronnie-]

I think since launch, my cost per month for Disney+ is much less than a buck a month so far.

I got the deal they offered, where you bought maybe 2 years at a discount price, fuzzy on the specifics without looking.

Then my cell phone plan gave me a free year, which put my prepaid deal on hold. That free year expired, and I used one, maybe two months of what I had previously paid for, then I changed cell plans (better plan, lower price and paid for by the company) and its once again included in that, so my prepaid is once again on hold.

So overall, money paid, and time ive had it, its about the cheapest form of tv entertainment I could dream up.

 

[SamCdbs]

No one is sitting around, waiting for streaming to come to their town. This is not a traditional roll out of a product. It was available, nationwide, on day one. Everyone who wants Disney +, has it. And it is, simply, an unprofitable business venture. Everyone who wants ESPN+, has it. And it is, simply, an unprofitable business venture. That simple.

The fatal flaw for Disney+ is outlined in two things. One is its very narrow focus. If you don't have a kid, what is the point of it? Yeah, there is a little material for adults, if you are into sci-fi or comic books. Very little else. The other is outlined above. The fatal flaw in all streaming. Binge and cancel.

The fatal flaw for ESPN+ is the original game plan was to take over-flow programming, mostly from colleges as ESPN buys generally the rights to every game in every sport a college conference plays; plus reruns and some international programming (which it picks up for little to nothing). No one wanted that. Disney couldn't admit failure, so it spent big on early morning PGA, and pale imitations of Center Ice and Extra Innings. It simply costs more in content costs than there are people that want it. Really that simple.

 

[meStevo]

lol 'narrow focus' with over 160 million subscribers. Yeah, OK.

 

[Juan]

lol 'narrow focus' with over 160 million subscribers. Yeah, OK.

And still losing billions