Disney’s Q2 FY22 Earnings Results Webcast

[monothingie]

I @Bob !

 

[Disstevefan1]

Oh gotcha. 93% was Q2 2019.

Wow. I stand corrected.... Pandemic still in progress...
Or maybe the lower Q2, 2022 is a side effect of park pass reservation?

 

[Bob]

I @Bob !

 

[monothingie]

 

[Bob]

 

[Kamikaze]

Throughput is irrelevant.

An attraction that occupies 10 people for 45 minutes is just as valuable to perceived crowding as an attraction that occupies 90 people for 5 minutes.

But you're comparing the wrong things. Its been literally 0 for five years.

Capacity is spaces available…not ridership.

Not many on the tta…but it’s valuable capacity.

It is not new capacity. You’re carrying the bucket for your master and it is wrong in this case.

Its new to 2022, when compared to 2021. It isn't new to 2017, sure. But they aren't comparing 2017, they're comparing YoY.

Just because I can see where the justification for calling this new capacity is coming from doesn't mean I support Chapek in any way shape or form.

 

[Kamikaze]

If there was profit in just old cartoons…they’d do it.

But that’s just the “easy” answer…the hard one is how does Disney maintain its dominant position in family/saturation.

They have Star Wars and marvel and Pixar for a reason…it to get new eyes to sell other stuff. “This is the way”

They can’t grow and not have new, expensive content. It would very much help if they would hire the absolute best people to make it “not suck”. That hasn’t always been the case.

So the WWE Network, before they sold their US version to Comcast for Peacock, the biggest draw (besides the Pay-Per-Views being on the Network) was that they were putting the entire library of content onto the service. Tens of thousands of hours of content. And the surveys always said that it was important to the decisions of people when they were deciding to keep their monthly service or not. But the actual viewership for a lot of the content was almost zero. People like having the ability to do tons of different things, even if they never do. There might not be direct profit in uploading old cartoons (and old Wonderful World of ...) shows, but there certainly would be people who would keep their subs active just to have them available. And if Disney did it the smart way, posting a little bit each month, you keep them chasing it over and over.

 

[Kamikaze]

And the problem is 2000 is not enough for Orlando. It never actually was and certainly isn’t now.

They probably have to process at least 3000 minimum now to actually help flow. That’s “conservative”

It would be enough if there were more other attractions to also draw people. Having a low OHRC attraction isn't a problem in itself, its having that low number without enough other things to do so that people don't feel like they missed everything if they don't get on that single ride.

 

[Midwest Elitist]

Epcot didn't need crowd dispersal. Now it does.

And as we've learned, sticking a new E-ticket in Epcot doesn't make it any less congested trying to walk past the Tangled bathrooms at 12:30 in the afternoon. Even if we concede that Guardians is "new capacity," which I don't, they're not addressing their pinch points.

That choke point by Peter Pan + IaSW is surprisingly bad.

 

[doctornick]

So the WWE Network, before they sold their US version to Comcast for Peacock, the biggest draw (besides the Pay-Per-Views being on the Network) was that they were putting the entire library of content onto the service. Tens of thousands of hours of content. And the surveys always said that it was important to the decisions of people when they were deciding to keep their monthly service or not. But the actual viewership for a lot of the content was almost zero. People like having the ability to do tons of different things, even if they never do. There might not be direct profit in uploading old cartoons (and old Wonderful World of ...) shows, but there certainly would be people who would keep their subs active just to have them available. And if Disney did it the smart way, posting a little bit each month, you keep them chasing it over and over.

Yep. This is exactly it. Having a sizeable back catalogue of stuff that people like does make retention for a service much more likely. I always find it interesting how many people online talk about hoe they buy Blu Rays (and CDs or VHC before that) of movies or shows they really enjoy, sometimes all of a series, but no really ever watch them - simply to have it around if they want to watch at any time. Obviously physical media is a bit different than streaming, but I think that same principle of comfort of having that access at any time is a big factor for many people in terms of what they buy (and keep). And Disney in particular excels at this type of attachment, not only with WDAS and Pixar (the core brand of the company) but also with Marvel and Star Wars as other things that obsessive fans attach to.

Obviously, that's not everyone, and there will be a churn in any streaming service - which can only be limited by constant high quality/desired new content and even then its not a given - but it's a large/well received back catalog that will keep the turnover as low as possible. I will also mention that D+ seemed to start the trend of weekly releases as opposed to the Netflix bingeworthy dropping an entire series at once. That model works best for retention. (Interesting to note that the new Stranger Things is being released in 2 sessions over a month apart. Who wants to bet the first half has some sort of big reveal but ends with a big cliffhanger so that people will want to subscribe early to prevent spoilers but retain for the second release?)

 

[doctornick]

BTW, the "1 billion revenue hit" that Disney reported - was that from taking the Marvel shows off Netflix and then adding them to Disney+? I think they said that they had to pay a penalty for cancelling a contract plus they loss whatever revenue was coming in from the licensing which could seem to fit the situation.

 

[ctrlaltdel]

BTW, the "1 billion revenue hit" that Disney reported - was that from taking the Marvel shows off Netflix and then adding them to Disney+? I think they said that they had to pay a penalty for cancelling a contract plus they loss whatever revenue was coming in from the licensing which could seem to fit the situation.

Probably part of it. My guess is that is the overall hit pulling licensed shows off of other streaming services onto their caused.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It would be enough if there were more other attractions to also draw people. Having a low OHRC attraction isn't a problem in itself, its having that low number without enough other things to do so that people don't feel like they missed everything if they don't get on that single ride.

I don’t disagree.

The problems are two fold:
1. New hyped attractions coming on line with 1800-2000 capacity
2. Not enough other diversions fo effectively disperse the crowds

I’d submit they aren’t doing well with either/compounding the issues

 

[Jrb1979]

I don’t disagree.

The problems are two fold:
1. New hyped attractions coming on line with 1800-2000 capacity
2. Not enough other diversions fo effectively disperse the crowds

I’d submit they aren’t doing well with either/compounding the issues

Agreed. Maybe if they stopped selling every new attraction as the next big thing it would help. Every other park in the world adds a major attraction every few years but in between they add smaller attractions to keep up with capacity.

IMO Disney should follow that model.

 

[Ayla]

IMO I we are getting to the peak of streaming. People on forums like this will always be a D+ subscriber. Your average person isn't going to subscribe to multiple services. We are almost at the same point in streaming services as cable in why people cut the cord. The cost of adding each one is getting expensive. I don't how long the streaming bubble is going to last.

I gave D+ a try for a year for free through Verizon. There was nothing I was willing to pay for, so I canceled it when my year was up.

 

[Lilofan]

Agreed. Maybe if they stopped selling every new attraction as the next big thing it would help. Every other park in the world adds a major attraction every few years but in between they add smaller attractions to keep up with capacity.

IMO Disney should follow that model.

Disney is using ABC Good Morning America among some outlets to promote the Guardians Ride that is going to open in late May. It looks very cool.

 

[Ayla]

The average household subscribes to 4.7 streaming services.

Dang! LOL We have one, Discovery+. But, we also have cable.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I don’t disagree.

The problems are two fold:
1. New hyped attractions coming on line with 1800-2000 capacity
2. Not enough other diversions fo effectively disperse the crowds

I’d submit they aren’t doing well with either/compounding the issues

Stuff like the "Finding Dory's Friends" scavenger hunt in the Seas tells me that at least SOMEONE with small budget-approval authority gets it. They just need to ramp that kind of thing up tenfold.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Dang! LOL We have one, Discovery+. But, we also have cable.

We have Disney+ always. Prime Video just because it comes with Prime. Then we'll pop in and out of Hulu, Peacock, Netflix, and Paramount+ for one month at a time when they have something specific we want to watch.

 

[Ayla]

Most here don't include Live TV either, and the ones that do cost as much as Cable anyways.


Free TV content stinks, it has commercials, it can't be time-shifted, and it has very little live sports.

SVOD content is good, it doesn't have commercials, and it has zero live sports.

So sports fans pretty much need cable (or a streaming product that includes Live TV, which is basically cable).

Live sports are the *only* reason we still have cable.