News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't think so either, but I think it'll become a lot more common of a practice as prices rise to the extent necessary for all these services to become profitable.

When they get to $25 with ads or $39 “all access”…they’re gonna get dumped.

That’s what the billionaires are saying…via proxy

But it’s not like they rule the world.

 

[_caleb]

I get what you guys are saying but you can't compare YouTube to Disney+ for multiple reasons:

Youtube is not paying up-front content costs. When a dude like this gives away a million dollars or 40 cars or whatever, it isn't Youtube paying for any of that. When he decides to take a few buds to Antarctica for a survival challenge, Youtube has zero liability if anyone gets seriously hurt or killed.

On the flip side, aside from a few specially produced things I'm not sure they're even involved in anymore, Youtube holds no copyrights or long-term binding contracts with creators, which means their content or at the very lest, the creators and their respective brands are free to jump onto the next publicly accessible platform they want to.

Let's see Keven Feige walk and say he's going to try to take the MCU with him - it's all apples to oranges.

You guys are talking like it's all about the platforms.

Disney certainly needs it to be.

My point is that Disney is an old media business that now has to compete in a world where the rules have all changed.

It isn't just them against Comcast and Paramount and other giant media companies.

You now have the likes of Amazon and Apple who don't need to turn a profit on their content if it servers their higher goals and who arn't trying to dominate the media landscape. They don't have to "win" to be a problem for Disney.

Just like MrBeast doesn't have to win and your automotive youtube show doesn't and Youtube as a platform doesn't have to win, and neither does Twitch, or Tik-Tok or Forntine, or Roblox or... audible.

These guys can all comfortably survive for a long time with their little pieces.

Some will stick around. Some will come and go, to be replaced by others and most people won't even notice.

But Disney is... Okay, Disney is like Avatar: Way of the Water. They've gotten so big now that they have to win to continue to survive in the media landscape.

I'm not sure that kind of size is the asset it once would have been considered.

I don’t see the difference in what you say here and what I’ve been saying. You were the one to bring up YouTube (Mr. Beast). The only comparison is the competition for dollars and eyeballs.

When it comes to streaming, I think the only way for Disney to win in the long run is to settle into its place as high-quality content at the leading edge of long fandoms. The good news is that Disney knows this, and is positioning itself accordingly. The only major problem I see with their plan is that investor impatience is going to shorten their runway to figure it out and get to profitability.

 

[Slpy3270]

The level-headed Alex with another good take: Disney should have more people with media credentials/experience on the board.

Disney slams Peltz for lack of media experience, but its board is light on it, too

Disney's board is almost entirely made up of executives who lack media and entertainment experience.

www.cnbc.com

 

[_caleb]

When they get to $25 with ads or $39 “all access”…they’re gonna get dumped.

That’s what the billionaires are saying…via proxy

But it’s not like they rule the world.

I agree… but (you knew there had to be a but, didn’t you?) what are they going to jump to? People are not going to stop watching movies/series.

 

[flynnibus]

I think you're missing my point.

It isn't just about this guy but consider that he's been at this for a decade. This may be his moment but he didn't just fall into sudden popularity.

He's already outlived the lifespan of most tv shows.

To be more accurate.. he started getting 'big' in 2016 and 2017... so he's at 5 years now.

The fact that you've never heard of him before doesn't negate that millions of people have been following him for years now and that he continues to pick up major sponsors and use his "brand" to spin out other non-media businesses. (which may or may not last over time)

My point is a big thing doesn't change it's just a thing and not an industry upon itself. That's why I drew the comparison to an individual show. They have a following, they have exposure, they have all kinds of activity around them, but ultimately they tend to flame out and be replaced by something else.. whatever the newer 'thing' is.

And like many things.. they can be HUGE without being everything. Example... Duck Dynasty. Huge.. never seen it. And they are already history... replaced by other bearded dudes doing other things.

How many gamers on twitch/etc have come before him.. and how many will surpass him in the future. He's a mile marker along the way - not a disruptor himself.

MrBeast isn't changing the media industry... youtube and it's revenue models are. That's the difference. MrBeast and the others before him are just fuel in the engine... and they will be be consumed while the engine happily takes on other sources and people will continue to use the engine and it's benefits. They are not unique to MrBeast.

Everything and everyone has their time so to say someone like this has a limited shelf life is like saying everything on earth will one day be dead - you're right, of course but so what?

It's the difference between hanging your hat on a CONCEPT vs an instantiation. The concept here is direct to consumer self-publishing that can generate enough revenue through indirect ads to actually staff and create TV-level production on a recurring basis. It's not about MrBeast. It's about youtube as a platform.

That said, I'm not trying to argue that he alone is the problem for a company like Disney, just like your car youtube channels aren't but when this guy us picking up the 8-20 something demographic and you're watching car videos, neither is watching Strange World and the accumulative, along with countless 30 second tik-tok videos watched one after the other after the other after the other ad nauseam, Twitch streaming, and GAMING, all become a problem when someone thinks they're going to put the band back together and resurrect Ma Bell.

And before tik tok, it was vine, etc. Much of this space is too immature to be a media disruptor. It's trendy... it's where eyeballs are.. and that's why it's being monetized for ads... but don't just count the numbers of subs and views... count where the money is going.

You are pointing to types of content.. I'm pointing to the viable PLATFORMS and PRODUCTION and DISTRIBUTION.

5 more years from now little jimmy may never sit in front of a TV for 5hrs a day, but he'll still have more than one app.. and with more than one app, that means more than one platform and distribution.

It's the platform and how they enable content to be produced and promoted that carries all these creators. Youtube plus ad markets made self-publishers able to get go from 0 to critical mass without investors or buy-in from the cabal. Platforms like tiktok, etc are just fleas that will die out when the next fad hits. They are examples of the babysteps.. not the beachhead that is here to stay like youtube.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I agree… but (you knew there had to be a but, didn’t you?) what are they going to jump to? People are not going to stop watching movies/series.

Ok…but what’s on there that’s driving people TOO it?

Baby yoda…that’s the big hit

It’s not the overextended MCU as it goes fringe. Don’t think ms marvel is gonna dig deep into pockets.


I think what all media companies are getting wrong is a far outsized valuation of a Video library.

They think we didn’t pay $9 at blockbuster for cabin boy and watched awful nhl 6 nights a week on espn2 because we had nothing else to do…it wasn’t because content is king.

The way to money is -ironically - what Netflix has done the best: it’s new original content
It’s the crown and Ozark and Bridgerton…

What’s the problem with that?

 

[GhostHost1000]

Ok…but what’s on there that’s driving people TOO it?

Baby yoda…that’s the big hit

It’s not the overextended MCU as it goes fringe. Don’t think ms marvel is gonna dig deep into pockets.


I think what all media companies are getting wrong is a far outsized valuation of a Video library.

They think we didn’t pay $9 at blockbuster for cabin boy and watched awful nhl 6 nights a week on espn2 because we had nothing else to do…it wasn’t because content is king.

The way to money is -ironically - what Netflix has done the best: it’s new original content
It’s the crown and Ozark and Bridgerton…

What’s the problem with that?

We need a new muppet show

They’ve never seemed to figure out how to use them

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

We need a new muppet show

They’ve never seemed to figure out how to use them

…if you’re not serious…I love it.
…If you’re serious…I love it.

 

[GhostHost1000]

…if you’re not serious…I love it.
…If you’re serious…I love it.

lol I was a little of both so glad you love it

 

[MrPromey]

I don’t see the difference in what you say here and what I’ve been saying. You were the one to bring up YouTube (Mr. Beast). The only comparison is the competition for dollars and eyeballs.

When it comes to streaming, I think the only way for Disney to win in the long run is to settle into its place as high-quality content at the leading edge of long fandoms. The good news is that Disney knows this, and is positioning itself accordingly. The only major problem I see with their plan is that investor impatience is going to shorten their runway to figure it out and get to profitability.

You're not going to see what you don't want to see no matter how much I type.

To be more accurate.. he started getting 'big' in 2016 and 2017... so he's at 5 years now.

My point is a big thing doesn't change it's just a thing and not an industry upon itself. That's why I drew the comparison to an individual show. They have a following, they have exposure, they have all kinds of activity around them, but ultimately they tend to flame out and be replaced by something else.. whatever the newer 'thing' is.

And like many things.. they can be HUGE without being everything. Example... Duck Dynasty. Huge.. never seen it. And they are already history... replaced by other bearded dudes doing other things.

How many gamers on twitch/etc have come before him.. and how many will surpass him in the future. He's a mile marker along the way - not a disruptor himself.

MrBeast isn't changing the media industry... youtube and it's revenue models are. That's the difference. MrBeast and the others before him are just fuel in the engine... and they will be be consumed while the engine happily takes on other sources and people will continue to use the engine and it's benefits. They are not unique to MrBeast.



It's the difference between hanging your hat on a CONCEPT vs an instantiation. The concept here is direct to consumer self-publishing that can generate enough revenue through indirect ads to actually staff and create TV-level production on a recurring basis. It's not about MrBeast. It's about youtube as a platform.



And before tik tok, it was vine, etc. Much of this space is too immature to be a media disruptor. It's trendy... it's where eyeballs are.. and that's why it's being monetized for ads... but don't just count the numbers of subs and views... count where the money is going.

You are pointing to types of content.. I'm pointing to the viable PLATFORMS and PRODUCTION and DISTRIBUTION.

5 more years from now little jimmy may never sit in front of a TV for 5hrs a day, but he'll still have more than one app.. and with more than one app, that means more than one platform and distribution.

It's the platform and how they enable content to be produced and promoted that carries all these creators. Youtube plus ad markets made self-publishers able to get go from 0 to critical mass without investors or buy-in from the cabal. Platforms like tiktok, etc are just fleas that will die out when the next fad hits. They are examples of the babysteps.. not the beachhead that is here to stay like youtube.

Just like above, I can type until I'm blue in the face, you're not going to see the point I'm trying to make that you're refusing to see.

I never said it was about MrBeast. You quoted me here saying it wasn't about him.

I was poking fun at you for being an old fart who hadn't heard of him in my initial post. I'm an old fart who has - that's all.

You can talk about platforms and fleas all you want.

What is your debate?

That Disney has more staying power than MrBeast and Tik-Tok?

Of course they do.

Who cares?

How does that help Disney with their subscriber numbers and the revenue they need to generate to produce a season of Willow when it fails to produce the viewership numbers they were expecting?

How does it help them continue to reach a level of sustained profits on subscribers when they have to continue to produce expensive content to keep viewers paying when their collective competition out there - not Youtube or MrBeast or Tik-Tok or any Twitch streamer, or gaming platform but ALL OF IT, is ad based, has a one-time cost, or is straight up free and churning out literally thousands of hours of content for every hour of content Disney is producing?

When your kid you regret giving a smart phone to is staring at their screen while you're driving to the store, what are they watching?

A 30 minute Disney show or a 5 minute clip by anyone on any platform that isn't Disney?

It's the eyeballs that are in short supply.

How does Disney start to charge more while spending less when the seeds of what can replace MrBeast and Tik-Tok together can be launced for less than 1/100th of what Disney paid for Fox?

... And when there is no barrier to entry today to prevent dozens if not tens of thousands of various creators and platform hopefuls from churning out their own content and platforms to continue splintering the market?

Most of them can come and go and still turn a tidy profit for the people who started them - so what?

They suck and Disney doesn't?

Is this a game of what individual has the most marbles?

Again, it's the eyeballs that are in short supply and if Disney has to pull an HBO Max because they can't find any other way to make the numbers work, I think they're going to be in trouble.

But I also don't trust they can continue to produce expensive content needed to keep viewers hooked for life when they already have huge lulls in attractive content for a lot of people today that make people less than happy at the current price point.

I mean, I'm not saying that I expect Disney+ to shut down in abject failure but I think it's more likely to end up as a necessary part of the company's future survival far more than it's ever going to be their next big revenue generator and at this point, I don't think the cable business model is ever coming back, no matter how much traditional media companies want it to.

I think that halcyon ship has sailed.*

*you can take that as the word and its meaning or as a snarkly reference to another Disney endeavor - both will work

 

[MisterPenguin]

The level-headed Alex with another good take: Disney should have more people with media credentials/experience on the board.

Disney slams Peltz for lack of media experience, but its board is light on it, too

Disney's board is almost entirely made up of executives who lack media and entertainment experience.

www.cnbc.com

And Peltz could have taken the Board's offer to chose some other amenable person to be on the board, and make sure it's someone with entertainment experience. But that doesn't seem to be Peltz' main concern.

A Director with entertainment experience is not a dividend check in the mail.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Something Disney could explore more on D+ is possibly cross-over characters in movies and tv shows.

Think Avengers or when all the princesses showed up in wreck it Ralph 2 that lots of people liked and thought was funny. Doesn’t have to be expensive production just something good and entertaining

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

And Peltz could have taken the Board's offer to chose some other amenable person to be on the board, and make sure it's someone with entertainment experience. But that doesn't seem to be Peltz' main concern.

A Director with entertainment experience is not a dividend check in the mail.

See: exactly what I posted with Stuper said the exact same thing yesteday

Peltz is a yutz…I want him to go away.

But Iger and his schill BOD is bad. Or to be completely historically accurate: it’s time to go. His past became prologue.

Landscape change, stale, poor quality management with nobody groomed.

What in the HOLY HELL does that sound exactly like?


So “self regulation” of the board as offered was a hoax anyone would see though…especially in experience raider like Peltz

It didn’t work when they tried George Mitchell, a senator, ambassador, expert mediator and diplomat…he ended the Troubles.


And Roy said: “Um…nah huh…nice try”

 

[_caleb]

Ok…but what’s on there that’s driving people TOO it?

Thousands of hours of YouTube/TikTok/social media content, that's what.

It’s not the overextended MCU as it goes fringe. Don’t think ms marvel is gonna dig deep into pockets.

MCU isn't overextended, it's diversified. There's a difference, and the diversity is what broadens the appeal beyond the original audiences and provides touchpoints for deeper fandom. "One huge global audience" is the old paradigm, "thousands of overlapping niche audiences" is the new.

I think what all media companies are getting wrong is a far outsized valuation of a Video library.

They think we didn’t pay $9 at blockbuster for cabin boy and watched awful nhl 6 nights a week on espn2 because we had nothing else to do…it wasn’t because content is king.

The way to money is -ironically - what Netflix has done the best: it’s new original content
It’s the crown and Ozark and Bridgerton…

What’s the problem with that?

We're awash in content–literally more than you or I could ever possibly consume, and some content has a long shelf life. But that doesn't satiate the desire for more content. As fandoms develop, they want to see their version of classics and originals that appeal to them. Disney just needs to do the math to find the sweet spot of how cheaply they can cater content to the smallest viable audiences.

They're still filling in the gaps, but Disney's approach streaming content seems very similar to how they do parks attractions:

• E-tickets (rare): big-budget feature length films, broad appeal– say, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
• D-tickets: series and made-for-streaming films: Marvel's What If...?
• C-tickets: equivalent of television series, documentaries
• B-tickets: fan shows, behind-the-scenes, interviews with actors/producers, the stuff that used to be "additional features" on a DVD–Marvel's One Shots
• A-tickets (common): Fan-created Disneybounding makeup tutorials inspired by Black Panther, recipes from Wakanda (narrow appeal)

One single E-ticket might not attract new subscribers or keep people from jumping to Netflix, but all of these together can create a deeper ecosystem that makes it a must-have.

 

[flynnibus]

What is your debate?

That Disney has more staying power than MrBeast and Tik-Tok?

Of course they do.

Who cares?

You were trying to make a point the big corps can't compete with these viral sensations. To which I say 'follow the money'. 100+million subs.. ok.. and how much ad revenue did they get out of him? 100-150million? You think that's the kind of target Disney and others have?

Your argument basically boils down to 'big corp can't compete with free!' -- with you pointing out how the free content folks are getting eyeballs that is too expensive for the big corps to chase.

Others have already pointed out how big corp reachs out into communities to leverage them without the big budget spending. Podcasts, sponsorships, support, invites, etc. The big corps also have their own foothold in these free platforms - they are not excluded.

How many of those 100+million MrBeast or whomever followers are paying for that content? Very few... how many would still pay for it if forced? Very few.. they'd flock to other low barrier formats. Loyalty is weak.

Point being what you are really advocating for is ad-supported funding... which is easily applied to the big corp streamers to. This is not some 'either or' model. Today they are simply pushing subscriber fees... history has shown that will not hold up over time and they'll do ads too. Then what? The 'big spend' argument is diminished.

Just follow the ad dollars...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Thousands of hours of YouTube/TikTok/social media content, that's what.

MCU isn't overextended, it's diversified. There's a difference, and the diversity is what broadens the appeal beyond the original audiences and provides touchpoints for deeper fandom. "One huge global audience" is the old paradigm, "thousands of overlapping niche audiences" is the new.

We're awash in content–literally more than you or I could ever possibly consume, and some content has a long shelf life. But that doesn't satiate the desire for more content. As fandoms develop, they want to see their version of classics and originals that appeal to them. Disney just needs to do the math to find the sweet spot of how cheaply they can cater content to the smallest viable audiences.

They're still filling in the gaps, but Disney's approach streaming content seems very similar to how they do parks attractions:

• E-tickets (rare): big-budget feature length films, broad appeal– say, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
• D-tickets: series and made-for-streaming films: Marvel's What If...?
• C-tickets: equivalent of television series, documentaries
• B-tickets: fan shows, behind-the-scenes, interviews with actors/producers, the stuff that used to be "additional features" on a DVD–Marvel's One Shots
• A-tickets (common): Fan-created Disneybounding makeup tutorials inspired by Black Panther, recipes from Wakanda (narrow appeal)

One single E-ticket might not attract new subscribers or keep people from jumping to Netflix, but all of these together can create a deeper ecosystem that makes it a must-have.

I’ll give you this: you double down.

I’m not sure how your were trained to continue to twist that Disney+ is a guaranteed hit?…but you’re all in.

Fill the bunker with spam and hunker down

 

[_caleb]

You're not going to see what you don't want to see no matter how much I type.

I think we could all stand to focus on quality over quantity.

What is your debate?

It's a discussion, not a debate.

How does it help them continue to reach a level of sustained profits on subscribers when they have to continue to produce expensive content to keep viewers paying when their collective competition out there - not Youtube or MrBeast or Tik-Tok or any Twitch streamer, or gaming platform but ALL OF IT, is ad based, has a one-time cost, or is straight up free and churning out literally thousands of hours of content for every hour of content Disney is producing?

As I mentioned above, by being the primary feeder of the entire ecosystem.

It's the eyeballs that are in short supply.

Look, we agree!

How does Disney start to charge more while spending less when the seeds of what can replace MrBeast and Tik-Tok together can be launced for less than 1/100th of what Disney paid for Fox?

Because Disney content is a feeder for millions of hours of TikTok and YouTube content. That stuff can all be leveraged as free targeted marketing for Disney content.

... And when there is no barrier to entry today to prevent dozens if not tens of thousands of various creators and platform hopefuls from churning out their own content and platforms to continue splintering the market?

Most of them can come and go and still turn a tidy profit for the people who started them - so what?

They suck and Disney doesn't?

Is this a game of what individual has the most marbles?

Again, it's the eyeballs that are in short supply and if Disney has to pull an HBO Max because they can't find any other way to make the numbers work, I think they're going to be in trouble.

I agree. And apparently, so does Disney, which is why they went all in with all their content instead of rationing it out.

But I also don't trust they can continue to produce expensive content needed to keep viewers hooked for life when they already have huge lulls in attractive content for a lot of people today that make people less than happy at the current price point.

Agree. Which is why the will continue to lower production costs (and quality), raise prices, and pay closer attention to breakeven points for every segment of their audiences.

I mean, I'm not saying that I expect Disney+ to shut down in abject failure but I think it's more likely to end up as a necessary part of the company's future survival far more than it's ever going to be their next big revenue generator and at this point, I don't think the cable business model is ever coming back, no matter how much traditional media companies want it to.

Again, we agree! It's those other guys in this thread who still seem to be thinking we're going back to the broadcast and box office days.

 

[Jrb1979]

I agree… but (you knew there had to be a but, didn’t you?) what are they going to jump to? People are not going to stop watching movies/series.

They will jump to whatever platform is cheaper. Wasn't that the reason people cut the cord to begin with?

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Lucasfilm has a president. Marvel has a president. All their movies are also released through their banner and are fully integrated into Disney.

What in God's name are you talking about?

From the most recent TCS film I have seen (Avatar: The Way of Water), there’s no "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" tag at the end of the movie, unlike the recent Marvel and Lucasfilm productions. The same thing apparently applies to the other post-2020 TCS films. Doesn’t sound like TCS is fully integrated into the Walt Disney Studios unit, am I right?

 

[Elijah Abrams]

As I've outlined in the post you quoted of mine, all the previous 20th Century Fox stuff has been broken up and fully integrated into Disney's corporation. So, separating them back out would be very difficult.

Also, if the next Murdoch generation even really does want those studios back... they can't have them if Disney refuses to sell them. They belong to Disney now. There's nothing in the previous sale's contract that would allow a buyback without Disney's permission.

Besides, Murdoch's new "Fox" brand is already starting to get back into the entertainment game creating content.

Fox Entertainment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You never know how Rupert's kids feel about having TCF getting sold to Disney than Rupert himself. They might have different feelings.