Disney/Hulu News

[ncted]

Does anyone know if the Hulu+Live bundles still include Disney+? Either way, I'm probably going to stick with YTTV and switch from the no-ads Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle to the no-ads Disney+/Hulu bundle, but I was curious to know about the Hulu+Live deal since family members use it. I've never actually watched anything on ESPN+.

 

[MikeD-C05]

They are still going to have the Marvel/Star Wars shows, which is what the people watch, they are just cutting back on those other Disney themed shows.

I really haven't watched anything since Loki. The rest I can take or leave at the new price they want to charge.

 

[ncted]

I really haven't watched anything since Loki. The rest I can take or leave at the new price they want to charge.

Yeah, the only things I am really interested in at this point are Loki and Andor. I'd watch Moon Knight if there is another season, but I haven't heard if there will be one.

 

[mwdxer1]

I look at it this way with Hulu & Disney+ Commercial Free, I get all shows from ABC and Fox Broadcast, all Disney owned cable channels, the FXs, National Geographic, Freeform, Disney Channels, then the exclusive stuff from Hulu and Disney+.

Then if you care about Sports, ESPN+ has the majority of Monday Night Football Games, NHL, MLB and is putting even more content on in the transition to ESPN streaming.

Then Paramount+ with Showtime , all of CBS and Viacom Cable Channels content, $12 commercial free plus the exclusive stuff.

Lastly, Peacock, with NBC and Universal Cable Content plus the exclusive stuff at $10 a month commercial free.

So a total of $47 a month, all commercial free ( except for ESPN+).

Price out a cable/sat package with all that, include a DVR (commercials), it would be a lot more and you miss out on the exclusive stuff.

I guess you have a point there. I was lucky to pick up Peacock for $20 for a year a few months ago.

 

[NashGuy]

Does anyone know if the Hulu+Live bundles still include Disney+? Either way, I'm probably going to stick with YTTV and switch from the no-ads Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle to the no-ads Disney+/Hulu bundle, but I was curious to know about the Hulu+Live deal since family members use it. I've never actually watched anything on ESPN+.

I'm pretty sure that Hulu Live will still include D+ and ESPN+. The cost for Hulu Live with ads will go up to $77/mo and the cost for Hulu Live ad-free will go up to $90/mo. See all new plans and prices at the bottom of this page:

https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/disney-plus-price-increase-hulu-espn-plus-1235692057/

I guess if you upgrade to the ad-free version of Hulu Live (which removes ads from the Hulu on-demand library), then you also get the ad-free version of Disney+, although I don't know that I've ever seen that definitively stated. It's odd to me that the price difference between the two Hulu Live plans is $13, while the difference in ad vs. ad-free on both the duo and trio bundle with live TV is only $10.

 

[ncted]

The Duo bundle isn't showing up for me yet. Can anyone else see it as an option when you go to Manage Plan?

 

[Bruce]

The Duo bundle isn't showing up for me yet. Can anyone else see it as an option when you go to Manage Plan?

Logged out yes, soon as I log in, no, just trio which I have.

 

[ncted]

Logged out yes, soon as I log in, no, just trio which I have.

OK. I'm going to check again tomorrow to see if it shows up.

 

[Yespage]

And I was correct-

Disney disclosed on Wednesday that it took a $2.4 billion charge to account for “content impairments” aka the removal of content from its direct-to-consumer businesses, which include Disney+ and Hulu. It’s a big reason why Disney lost money in the fiscal third quarter

https://cordcuttersnews.com/disneys...shows-on-disney-and-hulu-cost-it-2-4-billion/

And they will use that for tax benefits , I can see a lot more doing the same in the future.

link

Disney said it’s continuing to review content on streaming platforms and “currently anticipates additional produced content will be removed from its DTC and other platforms, largely during the remainder of its third fiscal quarter.” As a result, Disney currently estimates it may incur further impairment charges of up to about $400 million related to produced content.

On Disney’s earnings call last month, CFO Christine McCarthy had said the company expected to take a write-down in the June quarter of $1.5 billion-$1.8 billion from removing content from its streaming platforms. By writing down the value of the content assets, Disney can remove those from its balance sheet to avoid having to pay ongoing residuals and to reduce its tax bill.

Can someone explain what in the world accounting gimmick this is? I can't wrap my head around it.

 

[navychop]

I could, but I turned in my smoke and mirrors.

 

[Bruce]

link
Can someone explain what in the world accounting gimmick this is? I can't wrap my head around it.

By pulling the content, they can say it is no longer generating income, hence tax savings.

Paramount just did the same thing, by saying they are closing down the Showtime Streaming paid app, then they are claiming a loss because they shut it down, it is also no longer generating income, so a $1.5 Billion paper loss, which they can use on the taxes.

End of the year, will be another merger, shutting down Showtime and creating a Paramount+/Showtime channel, by claiming they are shutting down Showtime, then another tax savings.

 

[navychop]

Balance sheets have an asset section. There is value in a brand name. Think of Coca-Cola. Their exclusive use of the name, customer recognition and future sales based on brand name familiarity, have value.

NOW: How do you determine such value? And it can vary over the years. I suspect the value is estimated using chicken entrails. Because the explanation provided back in school made no sense, as we had not been issued our mirrors or smoke generator.

 

[Yespage]

By pulling the content, they can say it is no longer generating income, hence tax savings.

I don't get it. They be billing the customers the same price, so how is it a loss to them if they reduce the value of their product while charging the same amount for it?

This seems like another one of those lawyer/accounting things.

Paramount just did the same thing, by saying they are closing down the Showtime Streaming paid app, then they are claiming a loss because they shut it down, it is also no longer generating income, so a $1.5 Billion paper loss, which they can use on the taxes.

*begins crying*

End of the year, will be another merger, shutting down Showtime and creating a Paramount+/Showtime channel, by claiming they are shutting down Showtime, then another tax savings.

I wish engineering and programming was this simple.

Well yeah, we've got a dead lead of 2100 psf and a live load of 1200 psf, however, because we are designing another building which has lower loads, we are deducting 1/2 of the dead load on this building and going to apply it to the other building. So that'll help reduce our total factored load.

 

[Yespage]

Balance sheets have an asset section. There is value in a brand name. Think of Coca-Cola. Their exclusive use of the name, customer recognition and future sales based on brand name familiarity, have value.

NOW: How do you determine such value? And it can vary over the years. I suspect the value is estimated using chicken entrails. Because the explanation provided back in school made no sense, as we had not been issued our mirrors or smoke generator.

Using the Coca-Cola analogy, it feels like Coca-Cola watering their soda down by using half the syrup... charging customers the same amount, and then writing off a loss due to their watering down of their product.

 

[Bruce]

I don't get it. They be billing the customers the same price, so how is it a loss to them if they reduce the value of their product while charging the same amount for it?

Because they can.

Warner did it for the Batgirl movie, cost $100 Million to make, so Warner never aired it on HBOMAX, so they claim they lost $100 Million and that it would generate another $100 Million in income by being on MAX.

So they claim a $200 Million dollar loss, but the IRS can say it would of only generated $50 Million in income if it aired, so then they have $150 Million write off, instead of $200 million.

And I am glad I am not a accountant.

This seems like another one of those lawyer/accounting things.

See above and yes, it is.

 

[savarese04]

Using the Coca-Cola analogy, it feels like Coca-Cola watering their soda down by using half the syrup... charging customers the same amount, and then writing off a loss due to their watering down of their product.

While not wrong, the problem is you're looking at it as a consumer, not as the IRS. Impairment charges are a way of estimating the loss of future value of a revenue generating asset, as others have mentioned.

Sometimes brands will add assets to their books by accounting for "goodwill" which is literally just an accounting of when they overpay for something and need a place to store "exceess market value"

As a layperson, this all sounds very sketchy, but it's actually much less so in practice. There are WAY SKETCHIER accounting practices and loopholes that I wish we would do away with.

 

[Yespage]

While not wrong, the problem is you're looking at it as a consumer, not as the IRS. Impairment charges are a way of estimating the loss of future value of a revenue generating asset, as others have mentioned.

The content still exists, they still own the rights to it. Whether they are selling it or not wouldn't seem to matter, just the revenue side of things. If they were writing it away / putting into public domain, I'd understood the loss in value to the company.

As a layperson, this all sounds very sketchy, but it's actually much less so in practice. There are WAY SKETCHIER accounting practices and loopholes that I wish we would do away with.

No doubt, but this seems ridiculously stupid.

 

[Yespage]

Because they can.

Warner did it for the Batgirl movie, cost $100 Million to make, so Warner never aired it on HBOMAX, so they claim they lost $100 Million and that it would generate another $100 Million in income by being on MAX.

I can understand writing off a loss for something was never sold, at least in theory.

 

[ncted]

OK. I'm going to check again tomorrow to see if it shows up.

Still no Duo Bundle. And their help page is broken. Classy.

 

[Bruce]

I can understand writing off a loss for something was never sold, at least in theory.

Except, Warner made the movie for $100 Million and since it will never air ( doubtful by the way), basically sold it to the IRS for whatever they claim the loss was (rumored to be $150-200 million).

Warner also did this on another series, the last season of Snowpiercer, again claiming Tax credits for "losses" due to production costs and no return.

Rumor was Warner received double in Tax Credits then what it paid for the final season.

Since Warner started this new trend, they all do it now, Paramount, Disney, even Netflix does it and will continue.

Rumor is Paramount, by fake shutting down Showtime, will have enough Tax Credits, they will not have to worry about paying taxes for years, since you can claim some this year, some next, etc, etc.

So basically, companies are creating their own Tax Credits and how much they think they are worth ( again, see Batgirl for example).