Disney drops 2.4 million streaming subs

[Bruce]

You mean the funny videos and stuff?

YTTV the linear tv service is still losing money

No it is not, it has been reported on one of the earning call that it makes money, not a lot, but it does thanks to targeted advertising.

Also does not have the legacy costs that Traditional Providers has, read that each new subscriber cost Satellite Providers $600-800 on the install, it takes the first two years of a subscriber monthly bills to turn even.

Cable has tons of costs also.

YTTV has none of that.

 

[Bruce]

not YouTube TV, which bleeds money

Prove it.

When we talk about on-demand streaming services of professional filmed, or sports, entertainment providers, such as Disney+, ESPN+, Peacock, Paramount, etc. etc. etc. all, save only Netflix have one thing in common. They don't make any money.

Discovery+ is also profitable, the rest by next year.

How long did it take DirecTV to become profitable, Dish, etc?

The industry is fully mature. Completely built out (available to everyone who it ever will be available to), completely developed (exactly what it will be in two years, or two decades).

Then how can you explain the subscriber gains if mature?

And unprofitable. If mega-corporations like Disney, Comcast, etc. had an idea on how to make money at this, don't you think they would implement it?

Already explained.

 

[ncted]

YouTube (not YouTube TV, which bleeds money) is not germane to this discussion. It is a different market segment.

When we talk about on-demand streaming services of professional filmed, or sports, entertainment providers, such as Disney+, ESPN+, Peacock, Paramount, etc. etc. etc. all, save only Netflix have one thing in common. They don't make any money. The industry is fully mature. Completely built out (available to everyone who it ever will be available to), completely developed (exactly what it will be in two years, or two decades).

And unprofitable. If mega-corporations like Disney, Comcast, etc. had an idea on how to make money at this, don't you think they would implement it?

Sorry, dude. This is still a developing and growing market, and YT is definitely part of the mix when it comes to entertainment eyeballs. So it TikTok for that matter as that is what a lot of people are watching instead.

We are just now in the transition from startup mode to a more mature business model. Only the original visionary is making money because they are ahead of the curve. It will be a few more years at least before which streaming services can be profitable and which ones fail or get absorbed is clear.

 

[Juan]

There is a wide variety of content on YT, including feature length movies, professionally produced, long form content on a variety of subjects, as well "funny videos and stuff." Remember all the cool stuff Discovery, TLC, and History used to show? The modern equivalent is on YT, and it is as good and sometimes better than what we used to get on cable channels. Just one example:

https://www.youtube.com/@Drachinifel

I know..i should have said on demand

 

[Mr Tony]

YouTube is not germane to this discussion.

sorry got to post it
If you know, you know

 

[meStevo]

The industry is fully mature.

The industry that you kept saying wasn't ready for prime time in the Sunday Ticket thread isn't mature? Let us know when you've made up your mind.

 

[SamCdbs]

Prove it.

OK.

YouTube TV Is Losing Money, But Is There a Path to Profit?

Analyst Todd Juenger speculates on how OTT TV service can make more hay in a tough business

www.nexttv.com

Discovery+ is also profitable, the rest by next year.

The sun will come out, tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow. You're always a day away.

And, wrong.

HBO, HBO Max and Discovery+ report a combined total of 92.1M subscribers, plans for major restructuring | TechCrunch

Warner Bros. Discovery revealed its second-quarter results -- its first quarterly earnings since the $43 billion merger. The total number of

techcrunch.com

How long did it take DirecTV to become profitable, Dish, etc?

DirecTV is the fastest growing consumer product in history. But as was explained, DBS, cable, broadcast, all had/have huge debt service to cover the delivery infrastructure. Cable, dishes, boxes, satellites, etc., Streaming has none. The delivery system is paid for by the customer. It has no debt service. It has only one cost. Content.

And yet it cannot make a cent. An unprofitable business model.

Then how can you explain the subscriber gains if mature?'

Tell me where the town is where people are setting around, waiting for streaming to come there.

EVERYONE who wants streaming, has it.

The problem for you is, well, in this big diverse country, there are all sorts of people. People who will make DIFFERENT decisions than yours on all sorts of subjects. You are not an "early adopter" of a future universal trait. You are one person who made a decision based on what you want. Other people have different values, ideas, wants, needs, and will therefore make different decisions.

Already explained.

No. If Disney knew how to make money, rather than lose $6B on an annualized basis, they would do so. They don't. No one does.

And, since the market will be EXACTLY the same in 2 or 5 or 20 years, that fact will remain the same.

Streaming is nice.

It just doesnt make any money.

I would love if Baskin-Robins decided to sell ice cream for 5 cents a quart. Unfortunatly, that is a bad business decision.

Like getting in the streaming business is.

 

[Bruce]

OK.

YouTube TV Is Losing Money, But Is There a Path to Profit?

Analyst Todd Juenger speculates on how OTT TV service can make more hay in a tough business

www.nexttv.com

Are you and Juan getting the links from the same source, that story was 5 years old.

The sun will come out, tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow. You're always a day away.

And, wrong.

HBO, HBO Max and Discovery+ report a combined total of 92.1M subscribers, plans for major restructuring | TechCrunch

Warner Bros. Discovery revealed its second-quarter results -- its first quarterly earnings since the $43 billion merger. The total number of

techcrunch.com

Old link-

Discovery+ currently costs $5 per month with ads, or $7 per month without. Even at that fairly low price, it is already profitable with 20 million subscribers, the Journal reports.

Unbundling HBO Max and Discovery+ is a win for a la carte TV

Warner Bros. Discovery backtracks on killing Discovery+ after bringing its catalog to HBO Max.

www.techhive.com

DirecTV is the fastest growing consumer product in history. But as was explained, DBS, cable, broadcast, all had/have huge debt service to cover the delivery infrastructure. Cable, dishes, boxes, satellites, etc.,

And DirecTV has lost over 50% of it’s subscribers and more then $50 Billion Dollars in value.

Streaming has none. The delivery system is paid for by the customer. It has no debt service. It has only one cost. Content.

And yet it cannot make a cent. An unprofitable business model.

2024 for most of them and again, you have forgotten about Netflix.

Tell me where the town is where people are setting around, waiting for streaming to come there.

EVERYONE who wants streaming, has it.

Yet they gain subs every quarter, Paramount+, for example, gained 9 million in just the 4th quarter, almost as many as DirecTV has lost.

The problem for you is, well, in this big diverse country, there are all sorts of people. People who will make DIFFERENT decisions than yours on all sorts of subjects. You are not an "early adopter" of a future universal trait. You are one person who made a decision based on what you want. Other people have different values, ideas, wants, needs, and will therefore make different decisions.

Why are you putting in a diversity lesson in a post about streaming?

No. If Disney knew how to make money, rather than lose $6B on an annualized basis, they would do so. They don't. No one does.

And, since the market will be EXACTLY the same in 2 or 5 or 20 years, that fact will remain the same.

Streaming is nice.

It just doesnt make any money.

Again Netflix, the rest of them predicts 2024.

I would love if Baskin-Robins decided to sell ice cream for 5 cents a quart. Unfortunatly, that is a bad business decision.

Like AT&T paying $67 Billion for a company now worth $15 Billion.

Like getting in the streaming business is.

Seems to me all those sports you like are expanding into the streaming word, just a few years ago, no NFL was available streaming, now every game will be next season, some streaming only on Prime, Peacock and ESPN+ ( except local broadcast of course).

So the NFL thinks streaming is a good idea.

 

[ncted]

DirecTV is the fastest growing consumer product in history.

That is an interesting assertion. Maybe it was at one time ... decades ago? Google says it is the iPhone.

My friend at YouTube tells me YTTV is still losing money, but not much. If they could actually sell all the ad spots they have, it would be at least breaking even, and it will be profitable with the addition of about 1 million more subs. NFLST is expected to be profitable and help drive growth of the main TV product, but who knows what will actually happen.

Just because something isn't profitable now doesn't mean it can't be. Conversely, just because something is profitable now, doesn't mean it will always be. FWIW: I am not rooting for streaming or against cable/satellite. What I am rooting for is the better product at the better price with the most flexibility. Cable/Satellite are losing that competition at the moment.

 

[Juan]

That is an interesting assertion. Maybe it was at one time ... decades ago? Google says it is the iPhone.

My friend at YouTube tells me YTTV is still losing money, but not much. If they could actually sell all the ad spots they have, it would be at least breaking even, and it will be profitable with the addition of about 1 million more subs. NFLST is expected to be profitable and help drive growth of the main TV product, but who knows what will actually happen.

Just because something isn't profitable now doesn't mean it can't be. Conversely, just because something is profitable now, doesn't mean it will always be. FWIW: I am not rooting for streaming or against cable/satellite. What I am rooting for is the better product at the better price with the most flexibility. Cable/Satellite are losing that competition at the moment.

I don't see profitability with a price of 2 billion ..YTTV doesn't carry enough sports to really replace directv for the typical sports nut..but we wait and see

 

[Bruce]

I don't see profitability with a price of 2 billion ..YTTV doesn't carry enough sports to really replace directv for the typical sports nut..but we wait and see

The only thing they do not carry is the majority of RSNs, but those are about to go thru some changes anyways, like will they exists in the near future.

MLB Package that they recently lost the rights to carry, anyone can get that separately.

 

[ncted]

I don't see profitability with a price of 2 billion ..YTTV doesn't carry enough sports to really replace directv for the typical sports nut..but we wait and see

Well, one way to reduce your costs, and therefore increase your chances of profitability, is to not include some of the most expensive channels to carry -- especially if viewership numbers don't justify the price. Also, aside from the RSNs, they aren't really missing that much that I can tell. This is what YTTV has:

ESPN
ESPN2
ESPNU
ESPNEWS
CBS Sports
FS1
FS2
SEC Network
ACC Network
Big10 Network
NBATV
NFL Network
Gold Channel
MotorTrend

Hulu has a similar lineup plus ESPN+. DirecTV's more expensive packages appear to include some more obscure channels with what I would guess are limited audiences, like:

FanDuel
Sportsman
Tennis

Nothing wrong with those channels, but I am not guessing they are making it worth signing up for DirecTV vs. YTTV for the majority of people. The RSNs are the big differentiator for those who really want more sports, and true sports nuts are going to have to pay for something like DirecTV to get what they want. I am good with that. The question is will that be enough people to keep DirecTV afloat in the long run? I hope so for the sports fans' sake.

I don't think YTTV will every be highly profitable, but I do expect they will probably be marginally profitable if they can manage to meet the targets they have set for themselves.

 

[Juan]

Well, one way to reduce your costs, and therefore increase your chances of profitability, is to not include some of the most expensive channels to carry -- especially if viewership numbers don't justify the price. Also, aside from the RSNs, they aren't really missing that much that I can tell. This is what YTTV has:

ESPN
ESPN2
ESPNU
ESPNEWS
CBS Sports
FS1
FS2
SEC Network
ACC Network
Big10 Network
NBATV
NFL Network
Gold Channel
MotorTrend

Hulu has a similar lineup plus ESPN+. DirecTV's more expensive packages appear to include some more obscure channels with what I would guess are limited audiences, like:

FanDuel
Sportsman
Tennis

Nothing wrong with those channels, but I am not guessing they are making it worth signing up for DirecTV vs. YTTV for the majority of people. The RSNs are the big differentiator for those who really want more sports, and true sports nuts are going to have to pay for something like DirecTV to get what they want. I am good with that. The question is will that be enough people to keep DirecTV afloat in the long run? I hope so for the sports fans' sake.

I don't think YTTV will every be highly profitable, but I do expect they will probably be marginally profitable if they can manage to meet the targets they have set for themselves.

Thats great..but if you invest in a premium sports package to increase subscriptions..you need to offer the rest of the meal..football fans are not exclusivly football fans..especially the ones willing to pay a premium price for the sunday ticket..maybe google has a plan but I don't think they mastered linear tv

 

[Bruce]

Thats great..but if you invest in a premium sports package to increase subscriptions..you need to offer the rest of the meal..football fans are not exclusivly football fans..especially the ones willing to pay a premium price for the sunday ticket..maybe google has a plan but I don't think they mastered linear tv

Have you ever tried it?

And not having the RSNs will soon not matter, already we have Bally/Diamond failing, the AT&T named RSN( I think Warner/Discovery owns them now) cannot make rights payments, what TV programming regarding the RSNs looks like today, it will look totally different in 2 years.

With the loss of per sub fees, RSNs will be the first to fail, because they are so dependent on those fees.

Why do you think ESPN is about to go fully streaming while also being on Paid Live TV, to make up some of those lost fees, which I have been saying for months will happen, but the usual folks kept telling me I was incorrect, but now Bob Igor has confirmed it himself.

Comcast is already making plans to put the NBC RSNs on Peacock this year, like Philly for example, which DirecTV does not have, but YTTV does.

 

[ncted]

Thats great..but if you invest in a premium sports package to increase subscriptions..you need to offer the rest of the meal..football fans are not exclusivly football fans..especially the ones willing to pay a premium price for the sunday ticket..maybe google has a plan but I don't think they mastered linear tv

I think it is important to remember that Google is not a media company or even a content distribution company at the heart of things, so their goals are not necessarily the same as others (i.e. mastering linear tv). They are an advertising company and all of their consumer endeavors are supposed to support that (in theory). I expect the goal of YTTV and ST is to get enough eyeballs (ideally at a break-even or positive cost of acquisition) to sell a lot of ads into their platform. They don't need to have all the eyeballs -- just enough to grow their inventory such that they can sell all their ad spots and increase the CPM. It might be a total failure in that regard. Only time will tell. The fact that Google hasn't killed YTTV and is adding ST is a clue what they think about it though. Google is famous for killing products if they don't think there is future for them.

 

[Juan]

I think it is important to remember that Google is not a media company or even a content distribution company at the heart of things, so their goals are not necessarily the same as others (i.e. mastering linear tv). They are an advertising company and all of their consumer endeavors are supposed to support that (in theory). I expect the goal of YTTV and ST is to get enough eyeballs (ideally at a break-even or positive cost of acquisition) to sell a lot of ads into their platform. They don't need to have all the eyeballs -- just enough to grow their inventory such that they can sell all their ad spots and increase the CPM. It might be a total failure in that regard. Only time will tell. The fact that Google hasn't killed YTTV and is adding ST is a clue what they think about it though. Google is famous for killing products if they don't think there is future for them.

Exactly my point..2 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket..other than YTTV.I don't see a synergy unless they convinced themselves there 8 million underserved subscribers for sunday ticket who couldn't afford directv but are willing to part woth $300+ for the google version

 

[SamCdbs]

Again Netflix, the rest of them predicts 2024.

Over 20,000 companies file for bankruptcy a year. Here's how it works.

Debtors get more time and space to address their debts, but creditors also receive strong protections.

www.businessinsider.com

Everybody has a plan. Until they get punched in the mouth. (Mike Tyson)

There is nothing different about 2024 than 2023. No body is sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town. No body is sitting around saying to the wife "honey, I just can't wait for next year, we are going to buy us some streaming."

Everyone that wants it, has it. And that is not a profit making number of people. It is really that simple. Enjoy it while it lasts, because the bubble is about to pop.

And again, no links, just tell me, EXACTLY what has to happen for this not to be true.

No one can.

 

[Bruce]

Over 20,000 companies file for bankruptcy a year. Here's how it works.

Debtors get more time and space to address their debts, but creditors also receive strong protections.

www.businessinsider.com

Everybody has a plan. Until they get punched in the mouth. (Mike Tyson)

There is nothing different about 2024 than 2023. No body is sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town. No body is sitting around saying to the wife "honey, I just can't wait for next year, we are going to buy us some streaming."

And a lot of subscribers (over 12 million) are not waiting around to leave DirecTV.

Everyone that wants it, has it. And that is not a profit making number of people. It is really that simple. Enjoy it while it lasts, because the bubble is about to pop.

You mean like a company that has lost 50 Billion Dollars in Value and continues to lose 500,000 subscribers every quarter.

And again, no links, just tell me, EXACTLY what has to happen for this not to be true.

More subscribers which most of them get every quarter.

No one can.

I just did.

And how is DirecTV going to stay in business once the majority of subscribers are gone within 5 years.

Answer that.

No one can.

 

[ncted]

Everyone that wants it, has it.

Millions Of Americans Are Still Missing Out On Broadband Access And Leaving Money On The Table—Here’s Why

Across the country, rural households and low-wage workers are stuck with slow or no internet while the rest of the world moves forward with high-speed broadband—a problem that has ramifications more dire than not being able to stream the latest Netflix show. While the digital divide has been an i

www.forbes.com

 

[Ronnie-]

Everyone that wants it, has it.

If that is so, how do you explain rising subscribers on most each time it's reported?