News Bob Iger talks about attendance declines, ticket pricing, the feud with Ron DeSantis, and his huge optimism for Disney Parks and Resorts

Nubs70

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
DIS is at a point where they need to spin something off where they can get some thing more.for the parts than the whole (chop shop). Parks, Experiences, etc cannot continue the be used as life support for entities that are not profitable.
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
Professortango1 said:
Sorry, Disney can be a brand on someone else's service, but an entire streaming service only serving Disney is like doing a meal order subscription for In n Out. It might hit the spot now and then, but it isn't good and they don't have variety.
Click to expand...
What? Disney isn’t good?

I would have offered “The Disney Vault” as a yearly subscription only and had only disney branded entertainment and charged a premium for it.
 
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
Nubs70 said:
DIS is at a point where they need to spin something off where they can get some thing more.for the parts than the whole (chop shop). Parks, Experiences, etc cannot continue the be used as life support for entities that are not profitable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that Hulu payment is looming.......
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
The Moles Family said:
You were saying that Hulu type content on Disney+ confuses the brand but it works great with Star in most over countries. I dont get why it's a US mindset that the content can't all be on the same platform
Click to expand...
I wasn’t talking about Hulu content, I was talking about content already on Disney+ like Simpsons, Deadpool, and Ice Age.

- the content can be all on the same platform. But that platform shouldn’t be called Disney, in my opinion.

- how do you know it works great in other countries? I imagine there is brand confusion there as well.
 
FettFan

FettFan

Well-Known Member
TheIceBaron said:
It’s not talked about that much for whatever reason but I think Disney needs to be more aggressive on the video game side of things. I’m not sure Iger fully realized it’s potential especially after they did that 10 year exclusivity deal with EA. Star Wars video games were absolutely amazing during the 1998-2008 era of Lucasfilm and there is strong evidence it helped augment revenue growth and brand loyalty. Video games as a business can be very lucrative and with the amount of properties Disney has it should be licensing them out to studios left and right. Especially with the Hollywood strikes, video games can offer better returns.
Click to expand...

That was one of the head-scratchers for me: in buying Lucasfilm, TWDC also acquired LuscasArts. It had its own in-house video game publisher.

But instead of following that line, they closed it, scrapped everything in production (including Star Wars: 1313) ....and went with EA.


jason statham whoops GIF
 
Chef Mickey

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Professortango1 said:
Walt has been dead for awhile now. Disney almost folded a few times because first their live action films were terrible and then their animated films started being surpassed by former Disney animators. And unfortunately, Disney has begun to repeat that track record with their live action films failing more and more and their animated films no longer being cultural icons or even downright duds.

Why would I want to pay for a streaming network dedicated to Disney's family library? A handful of great animated movies and a smaller handful of decent live action? If you don't love Marvel and Star Wars and cartoons that you have seen a billion times, then the service and studio don't have much to sell you. I'm not going to pay to see longer and uglier remakes of their good films. Or the 5th Pirates film. Or a Marvel movie that didn't do well in theatres. Heck, I can't even watch Something Wicked This Way Comes on Disney+.

And if you take Touchstone Miramax movies out of the lineup, it becomes a lot more limited. Not even Nightmare Before Christmas would survive, one of the only movies that comes up when you search "horror."

Sorry, Disney can be a brand on someone else's service, but an entire streaming service only serving Disney is like doing a meal order subscription for In n Out. It might hit the spot now and then, but it isn't good and they don't have variety.
Click to expand...
But you’re objectively wrong because Disney Plus isn’t struggling for subscribers and interest. Evidently, people do want Disney content and are willing to pay for it. Also, it’s not all Disney with ESPN and Hulu. Add them all up and Disney has more subs than Netflix. It’s a winner which the people have confirmed, over 250M.

The problem is Disney has horrible management. They have spent too much on content and failed to execute a profitable strategy on everything except raising prices at the parks. The parks are already showing signs of pricing fatigue.

Disney has no excuse for struggling this much to control pricing and execute a profitable strategy in all businesses. The leadership is probably the worst in the Dow and among the top 10 worst in the S&P500. The inability to be successful with a leading brand is absolutely incredible.
 
Professortango1

Professortango1

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
But you’re objectively wrong because Disney Plus isn’t struggling for subscribers and interest. Evidently, people do want Disney content and are willing to pay for it. Also, it’s not all Disney with ESPN and Hulu. Add them all up and Disney has more subs than Netflix. It’s a winner which the people have confirmed, over 250M.

The problem is Disney has horrible management. They have spent too much on content and failed to execute a profitable strategy on everything except raising prices at the parks. The parks are already showing signs of pricing fatigue.

Disney has no excuse for struggling this much to control pricing and execute a profitable strategy in all businesses. The leadership is probably the worst in the Dow and among the top 10 worst in the S&P500. The inability to be successful with a leading brand is absolutely incredible.
Click to expand...
Disney+ got decent subs because it was rolled out for such a cheap price. An unsustainable price. The bundling helped as well, I'm sure.

I had Hulu for a good while because it was a real streaming platform with varied content.
 
Drdcm

Drdcm

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
The interest is there, objectively. It’s not free. The management is horrible.
Click to expand...
Sure, there is interest. But that interest could wane with price increases. If they cut costs, they have to retain subscribers. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t.

I continue to believe Disney+ will have a price ceiling given the offered content. It’s approaching that ceiling for us and when it gets there, we will choose something else.

To each their own though. Maybe I think differently about it. People have told me that I’m not their target and that they aren’t trying to retain me. That’s fine.
 
Chef Mickey

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Drdcm said:
Sure, there is interest. But that interest could wane with price increases. If they cut costs, they have to retain subscribers. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t.

I continue to believe Disney+ will have a price ceiling given the offered content. It’s approaching that ceiling for us and when it gets there, we will choose something else.

To each their own though. Maybe I think differently about it. People have told me that I’m not their target and that they aren’t trying to retain me. That’s fine.
Click to expand...
Maybe maybe not, but making the argument a Disney streaming service doesn’t have enough content to make it appealing is anti fact. That’s just not what the numbers say. The numbers say it’s hugely popular with horrible management. There have also been price increases which didn’t impact subscribers meaningfully and they’ve continued to increase overall.
 
M

MR.Dis

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
Maybe maybe not, but making the argument a Disney streaming service doesn’t have enough content to make it appealing is anti fact. That’s just not what the numbers say. The numbers say it’s hugely popular with horrible management. There have also been price increases which didn’t impact subscribers meaningfully and they’ve continued to increase overall.
Click to expand...
Can someone explain why Disney + has limited the content? When originally introduced it was supposed to contain all Disney content, yet none of the early Disney shows are available (think the "Wonderful World of Color") . Also, 20th Century Fox has films going back to the 1930's, literally hundreds of films. Only a very few of the more current are available. I am not a tech person, but is there a limit to content that can be loaded to Disney +? If not, why not offer the whole content? There is more content that they have than one person could watch in a lifetime.
 
ABQ

ABQ

Well-Known Member
MR.Dis said:
Can someone explain why Disney + has limited the content? When originally introduced it was supposed to contain all Disney content, yet none of the early Disney shows are available (think the "Wonderful World of Color") . Also, 20th Century Fox has films going back to the 1930's, literally hundreds of films. Only a very few of the more current are available. I am not a tech person, but is there a limit to content that can be loaded to Disney +? If not, why not offer the whole content? There is more content that they have than one person could watch in a lifetime.
Click to expand...
The issue is more likely due to payment of residuals for all those movies and shows not being on rather than any sort of technological limitations.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom