News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO

[Rich Brownn]

True. Paramount might have to merge with someone though. I just can't see them surviving on their own long-term.

Yellowstone and Star Trek aside, they don't seem to have a particularly robust pipeline of new shows. Sonic isn't really theirs, and Disney owns Indiana Jones. Nickelodeon can't keep coasting on SpongeBob forever, and while Avatar Studios is promising, time will tell if the service will actually let the creators make the projects they want.

Perhaps Comcast will spin off NBCUniversal while Paramount sells CBS's television channels so they can merge?

Paramount+ and Showtime had record subscribers this financial release. And that was despite losing Russian subscribers. Apple has no interest in acquiring a studio. Apple+ exists to sell Apple TV -- buying a streaming service doesn't add anything to their portfolio. https://www.macworld.com/article/826529/apple-acquisitions-netflix-peloton-tesla.html

 

[lazyboy97o]

It is curious to me why they'd want a streaming service at this boutique level that doesn't seem to have much potential to generate profits beyond the fact everyone's doing it right now.

It helps fill out the Apple One bundle. There’s also the long held dream of making the Apple TV app a hub that people use for a variety of things including purchasing subscriptions to other streaming services who then give Apple a cut.

Apple+ exists to sell Apple TV -

No, it does not. Other streaming devices and smart TVs have access to Apple TV+, it is not limited to just the Apple TV hardware. You can watch Apple TV+ on a cheap Roku.

 

[brb1006]

It helps fill out the Apple One bundle. There’s also the long held dream of making the Apple TV app a hub that people use for a variety of things including purchasing subscriptions to other streaming services who then give Apple a cut.

No, it does not. Other streaming devices and smart TVs have access to Apple TV+, it is not limited to just the Apple TV hardware. You can watch Apple TV+ on a cheap Roku.

And Fire Tv (which I own) and your computer.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Paramount+ and Showtime had record subscribers this financial release.

While growing subs is good, it's not the whole story. Especially when there are free ad-supported tiers in the mix or soon to come which make sub-counting meaningless. The trades have been repeating the mantra that Wall Street is not paying much attention to subs any more, but to income deficit/surplus.

And with Paramount+, they're operating at a big loss and they say the peak of that loss is still to come in 2023 and they won't say when they expect to be profitable.

Compare that to D+ in which Disney says will hit profitability in 2024.

All this to say: Paramount+ wouldn't be averse to a buyout. It doesn't have a corporate Daddy to fund years of deficits like most of the other streamers have.

Paramount Global Predicts Streaming Loss Of $1.8 Billion In 2022, Defends Content Spending

Executives confirmed the 2024 target for peak DRC losses.

deadline.com

Paramount Global Q2 DTC Subscribers At 64 Million; ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Buoys Theatrical Revenue

Paramount’s global DTC subscribers rose to nearly 64 million. Paramount+ added 4.9 million subscribers to over 43 million.

deadline.com

Streamers with corporate sugar Daddies:

• Disney+/Hulu/ESPN (ABC, Disney Channels, 20th Century, et al.)
• Peacock (NBC/Universal Comcast)
• Amazon Prime (Recently purchased the orphan, Epix streamer, with MGM library)
• Apple TV
• YouTube TV (Google)
• Tubi (Fox)

'Orphans' without corporate Daddies:

• Netflix
• HBO/Warner Bros/Discovery (AT&T was HBO/Warners 'Daddy' and sold it to Discovery)
• Paramount+ (CBS, Paramount/Viacom merger)
• Starz (Lionsgate/Summit) -- actively looking for a Daddy
• Roku
• a whole bunch of ad-supported freebie channels and/or rental channels (like Vudu)

The 'orphans' can be in deficit spending only for so long hoping to eventually become profitable either by being good, or outlasting the others and 'winning' the Streamer Wars. The orphans are the ones most likely to wind up being 'adopted' by the streamers with corporate Daddies, or, by a some non-media corporation that wants to get into the media business (e.g, IBM, or Tesla, or Meta, or NVidia).

Sony is the only big studio 'free agent' uncoupled to any streamer by corporate ties. It currently has a deal to use Netflix as Pay Window 1, and then D+ as Pay Window 2.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Apple seems content to mostly arrange 2 to 5 year deals with independent studios for them to create content, the most notable being A24. They don't seem to be in an Iger mood and start buying those studios outright.

Apple seems to realize that maybe a deep library would help, but hasn't done much to make that happen. See...

Apple TV+ - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apple TV+ - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To that point, an Apple TV+ acquisition of A24 would be a solid move. One of the rare movie studios to have a real passionate fanbase that can migrate to ATV+ as a result.

 

[fgmnt]

While growing subs is good, it's not the whole story. Especially when there are free ad-supported tiers in the mix or soon to come which make sub-counting meaningless. The trades have been repeating the mantra that Wall Street is not paying much attention to subs any more, but to income deficit/surplus.

And with Paramount+, they're operating at a big loss and they say the peak of that loss is still to come in 2023 and they won't say when they expect to be profitable.

Compare that to D+ in which Disney says will hit profitability in 2024.

All this to say: Paramount+ wouldn't be averse to a buyout. It doesn't have a corporate Daddy to fund years of deficits like most of the other streamers have.

Paramount Global Predicts Streaming Loss Of $1.8 Billion In 2022, Defends Content Spending

Executives confirmed the 2024 target for peak DRC losses.

deadline.com

Paramount Global Q2 DTC Subscribers At 64 Million; ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Buoys Theatrical Revenue

Paramount’s global DTC subscribers rose to nearly 64 million. Paramount+ added 4.9 million subscribers to over 43 million.

deadline.com

Streamers with corporate sugar Daddies:

• Disney+/Hulu/ESPN (ABC, Disney Channels, 20th Century, et al.)
• Peacock (NBC/Universal Comcast)
• Amazon Prime (Recently purchased the orphan, Epix streamer, with MGM library)
• Apple TV
• YouTube TV (Google)
• Tubi (Fox)

'Orphans' without corporate Daddies:

• Netflix
• HBO/Warner Bros/Discovery (AT&T was HBO/Warners 'Daddy' and sold it to Discovery)
• Paramount+ (CBS, Paramount/Viacom merger)
• Starz (Lionsgate/Summit) -- actively looking for a Daddy
• Roku
• a whole bunch of ad-supported freebie channels and/or rental channels (like Vudu)

The 'orphans' can be in deficit spending only for so long hoping to eventually become profitable either by being good, or outlasting the others and 'winning' the Streamer Wars. The orphans are the ones most likely to wind up being 'adopted' by the streamers with corporate Daddies, or, by a some non-media corporation that wants to get into the media business (e.g, IBM, or Tesla, or Meta, or NVidia).

Sony is the only big studio 'free agent' uncoupled to any streamer by corporate ties. It currently has a deal to use Netflix as Pay Window 1, and then D+ as Pay Window 2.

Netflix, in the view of many until recently or even after 2 bad quarters, are a large entity unto themselves. I would not be surprised to find out that they have been in talks with Lionsgate (and/or Sony, which you didn’t mention) for M&A.

I think this has been discussed in other threads, but while I get what Disney is doing with Disney+, I can’t figure out what they are doing with Hulu. They are going to have to pay Comcast for its interest in a few years, and they keep putting content on there that i dont think they “have to” to inflate the value. With parental controls available on disney plus already, why are they not moving more mature content over to it?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Netflix, in the view of many until recently or even after 2 bad quarters, are a large entity unto themselves. I would not be surprised to find out that they have been in talks with Lionsgate (and/or Sony, which you didn’t mention) for M&A.

There has been no talk anywhere that I can find from Netflix or industry-watchers that have intimated that there's been any kind of talk or feelers for Netflix acquisition or merger.

Netflix has not been mentioned as one of the companies circling Epix/Lionsgate. Tho, the internet is a abuzz shipping them together.

Tho, Netflix themselves have started to acquire studios and IP content for themselves.

Every Major Acquisition In Netflix's History

List of Netflix acquisitions including The Roald Dahl Story Company and Next Games.

www.whats-on-netflix.com

If Netflix continues to have bad quarters, tho...

I think this has been discussed in other threads, but while I get what Disney is doing with Disney+, I can’t figure out what they are doing with Hulu. They are going to have to pay Comcast for its interest in a few years, and they keep putting content on there that i dont think they “have to” to inflate the value. With parental controls available on disney plus already, why are they not moving more mature content over to it?

Disney originally was keeping Hulu for the adult content. But, as they added more and more mature content on D+, they found they didn't get pushback from parents. So, with parental controls in place, it is clear Disney is paving the way for the eventual Hulu and D+ merger. And not only did Disney not get pushback from subscribers for more adult fare, but they discovered that over half their subs are from households with no children, and those childless households were wanting more "general audience"** content.

**General audience basically means 'adult'; and Family audience basically means children. ​

More and more new 'general audience' content is heading to D+: Dancing with the Stars, Love Simon, Netlflix Marvel series, and even a Mature-only title: Marvel Zombies.

Until Comcast is out of Hulu, it will remain separate. Another complication is what will Disney do about Hulu's Live TV component.

 

[Kamikaze]

^ Expect Microsoft to make a push for a Netflix acquisition once the Activision Blizzard purchase is finalized.

Disney will start rolling back Hulu, trying to get as close as possible to the $6b-ish minimum number that they owe Comcast for their 33%. Then they'll introduce a D+TV tier.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Disney originally was keeping Hulu for the adult content. But, as they added more and more mature content on D+, they found they didn't get pushback from parents. So, with parental controls in place, it is clear Disney is paving the way for the eventual Hulu and D+ merger. And not only did Disney not get pushback from subscribers for more adult fare, but they discovered that over half their subs are from households with no children, and those childless households were wanting more "general audience"** content.

**General audience basically means 'adult'; and Family audience basically means children. ​

More and more new 'general audience' content is heading to D+: Dancing with the Stars, Love Simon, Netlflix Marvel series, and even a Mature-only title: Marvel Zombies.

Until Comcast is out of Hulu, it will remain separate. Another complication is what will Disney do about Hulu's Live TV component.

US sensibilities are likely somewhat different, but considering this is already how it works internationally with Star as the Hulu-equivalent with no issues, I would imagine they feel they know how to do integrate the two and are just waiting out the Comcast deal.

I also wonder the extent to which this reflects the broadening of the Disney brand over the past few decades. I suspect most people do understand it as a big entertainment company now rather than just necessarily a 'family' brand. It would be interesting to know the role Marvel (and maybe to a lesser extent Star Wars) coming under the Disney banner had to do with changing the existing associations.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I see they’re gonna add a tax on corporate stock buybacks…here’s live footage from the Disney board room:

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

^ Expect Microsoft to make a push for a Netflix acquisition once the Activision Blizzard purchase is finalized.

Disney will start rolling back Hulu, trying to get as close as possible to the $6b-ish minimum number that they owe Comcast for their 33%. Then they'll introduce a D+TV tier.

So is THAT the day there’ll rule the world then and make Uber streaming profits?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

US sensibilities are likely somewhat different, but considering this is already how it works internationally with Star as the Hulu-equivalent with no issues, I would imagine they feel they know how to do integrate the two and are just waiting out the Comcast deal.

I also wonder the extent to which this reflects the broadening of the Disney brand over the past few decades. I suspect most people do understand it as a big entertainment company now rather than just necessarily a 'family' brand. It would be interesting to know the role Marvel (and maybe to a lesser extent Star Wars) coming under the Disney banner had to do with changing the existing associations.

I’m not so sure they’re “more broad” now than they were before…just alot bigger. Remember had content for all ages back to the 1980’s and certainly did that in the 90’s

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There has been no talk anywhere that I can find from Netflix or industry-watchers that have intimated that there's been any kind of talk or feelers for Netflix acquisition or merger.

Netflix has not been mentioned as one of the companies circling Epix/Lionsgate. Tho, the internet is a abuzz shipping them together.

Tho, Netflix themselves have started to acquire studios and IP content for themselves.

Every Major Acquisition In Netflix's History

List of Netflix acquisitions including The Roald Dahl Story Company and Next Games.

www.whats-on-netflix.com

If Netflix continues to have bad quarters, tho...





Disney originally was keeping Hulu for the adult content. But, as they added more and more mature content on D+, they found they didn't get pushback from parents. So, with parental controls in place, it is clear Disney is paving the way for the eventual Hulu and D+ merger. And not only did Disney not get pushback from subscribers for more adult fare, but they discovered that over half their subs are from households with no children, and those childless households were wanting more "general audience"** content.

**General audience basically means 'adult'; and Family audience basically means children. ​

More and more new 'general audience' content is heading to D+: Dancing with the Stars, Love Simon, Netlflix Marvel series, and even a Mature-only title: Marvel Zombies.

Until Comcast is out of Hulu, it will remain separate. Another complication is what will Disney do about Hulu's Live TV component.

So skinomax is coming to D+?

I Might extend when my $3.82 subscription runs out then…

As far as “profitability
“ goes…I’ll believe it when I see that costs don’t skyrocket and ads start rolling in.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I’m not so sure they’re “more broad” now than they were before…just alot bigger. Remember had content for all ages back to the 1980’s and certainly did that in the 90’s

I think the difference there is that stuff like The Rock, Con Air, or Ransom in the 1990s wasn't branded Disney and I'm not sure if most people going to them would have even known they were made by Disney. They were far more judicious in keeping the Disney and Touchstone brands separate than they seem to be today.

People are now far more used to going to a big action film and seeing the Disney name and castle up front. In the past, you only really ever saw it if you went to an animated feature or some family film like The Santa Claus. Let's be honest, other than animated features, it was rarely in front of anything all that compelling for anyone who wasn't a child or had to take their children to films. This is where I don't think people are really going to be all that taken aback if Pam & Tommy pops up on their Disney+ bundle now, whereas in the 1990s people's heads would have exploded.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think the difference there is that stuff like The Rock, Con Air, or Ransom in the 1990s wasn't branded Disney and I'm not sure if most people going to them would have even known they were made by Disney. They were far more judicious in keeping the Disney and Touchstone brands separate than they seem to be today.

People are now far more used to going to a big action film and seeing the Disney name and castle up front. In the past, you only really ever saw it if you went to an animated feature or some family film like The Santa Claus. Let's be honest, other than animated features, it was rarely in front of anything all that compelling for anyone who wasn't a child or had to take their children to films. This is where I don't think people are really going to be all that taken aback if Pam & Tommy pops up on their Disney+ bundle now, whereas in the 1990s people's heads would have exploded.

Now I getcha.

Well if people couldn’t figure out what touchstone or Hollywood pictures was…or buena vista television…I guess it was a simpler age.

I’m not sure how this will play. If you believe the analysts around here…then D + will be subscribed by everyone of all ages, no one will ever cancel…and now they’ll pay more and More and watch ads…

Also known as Comcast: circa 1989.

We’ll see…those record profits (which no stream has ever done or even sniffed) will come when Feige grows the marvel library to 300 billion dollar films and 116 6 epi shows…

And there’ll be “talks” of a new Star Wars thingie as an apology for ruining Daisy Ridley’s life…and maybe Toy Story 11

 

[MrPromey]

Now I getcha.

Well if people couldn’t figure out what touchstone or Hollywood pictures was…or buena vista television…I guess it was a simpler age.

I’m not sure how this will play. If you believe the analysts around here…then D + will be subscribed by everyone of all ages, no one will ever cancel…and now they’ll pay more and More and watch ads…

Also known as Comcast: circa 1989.

We’ll see…those record profits (which no stream has ever done or even sniffed) will come when Feige grows the marvel library to 300 billion dollar films and 116 6 epi shows…

And there’ll be “talks” of a new Star Wars thingie as an apology for ruining Daisy Ridley’s life…and maybe Toy Story 11

With what's going on over at Google and Meta these days, the time for hiding under the tech umbrella with Disney+ to justify losses there may be coming to an end.

http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/e...sks-managers-who-to-fire-google-slows-hiring/

Meta, Google insiders: Disappearing perks are the end of the ‘tech bro’

Could it be that the golden age of the tech bro is over?

nypost.com

Don't be Meta or Google: How to tell workers they need to be more productive

Tech leaders want to boost employee productivity. Here’s how to have that conversation without alienating workers.

www.protocol.com

*I know NYP is a bit of a rag but I don't think they're wrong here

 

[FigmentFan82]

Apple as of now has said they want to be a more boutique offering and made a deliberate decision to not go on a Netflix-style production spree. I can't imagine many people have dedicated Apple TV+ plus subscriptions, with it being something a lot of people get for free or bundled with Apple One.

For me AppleTV+ has become a very nice add-on in the streaming world. Yes they don't have tons of content, but the majority of what they do have is of very high production quality and quite enjoyable. I don't watch all their content, but the ones I do I really love. I don't think there's anything wrong with them having a niche, since it's only one small aspect of their entire business and they don't need to rely on it to make or break them

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

For me AppleTV+ has become a very nice add-on in the streaming world. Yes they don't have tons of content, but the majority of what they do have is of very high production quality and quite enjoyable. I don't watch all their content, but the ones I do I really love. I don't think there's anything wrong with them having a niche, since it's only one small aspect of their entire business and they don't need to rely on it to make or break them

I agree…

They’re not doing that for money…it’s more to give brand presence/recognition and they can maintain a high standard, more “boutique” quality.

It’s what Bob Chapek is gonna try to tell you caribbean beach is when he raises the rates to $600 a night

 

[HauntedPirate]

I agree…

They’re not doing that for money…it’s more to give brand presence/recognition and they can maintain a high standard, more “boutique” quality.

It’s what Bob Chapek is gonna try to tell you caribbean beach is when he raises the rates to $600 a night

"Whooooaaaa... we're half way there... Whoa, whoa! Livin' on a prayer!! Take my hand, we'll make it, I swear..."

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

"Whooooaaaa... we're half way there... Whoa, whoa! Livin' on a prayer!! Take my hand, we'll make it, I swear..."

You’re not making fun of the Prince of New Jersey, are you?