News Disney and Fox come to terms -- announcement soon; huge IP acquisition

[JohnD]

Found this earlier this morning

http://www./wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DN-Ft7rV4AAh_9B-550x413.jpg

 

[LAKid53]

But but but... people are cord cutting!!!

And a true sports streaming service can counter this. If only a company that owns a sports network would consider that. Oh, wait......

 

[LAKid53]

http://www./wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DN-Ft7rV4AAh_9B-550x413.jpg

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You continue to fail to grasp the important notion that "Sunday Night Football" is not just a NFL game with people watching remotely. ESPN is production AND distribution. ESPN is not just the live games themselves.

So you finally recognize that not every team or league will be able to have their own content production and distribution... so they'll have to partner and pair up with others to make it happen... hrmm... Kind of sounds like ESPN again doesn't it?

...this

...and the fact that Sunday night
Football is a Comcast thing

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney will own Lightstorm within the next 10 years. I'd put money on it.

Don't want it...the guy's a kook and if you bought out Lucas, why go for his doppelgänger?

 

[flynnibus]

...this

...and the fact that Sunday night g
Football is a Comcast thing

I used the non ABC/ESPN example because SNF is seen as the marque production now and to illustrate that not all live sports shows are equal just because they are showing the same team/game/event. The production matters.. and the production doesn't come from the team itself.

 

[flynnibus]

And a true sports streaming service can counter this. If only a company that owns a sports network would consider that. Oh, wait......

I personally love the position that people think buying content directly from all the content owners is the future. Do people really think they are going to pay for a dozen different streaming services and be happy? Or how about paying for the SEC network to see your team's away game, and then the ACC network for your home game. Or take that to it's natural conclusion... It's Pay-Per-View per show...

Eventually people are going to wake up and realize... that no... a la carte across the board isn't really what they want. They really want to pay the least amount possible, and get what they want to see. If a provider shows more than they want, they really don't care if they were comfortable with the price they were paying for what they do want.

A la carte is just a means now to get closer to their end game because they can reduce out of pocket costs now.

 

[The_Mesh_Hatter]

He Makes The Best Deals.

Disney acquired some old movies and some new IP's to use (then again, did they really need some more Marvel characters when they already own more super heros than they can pimp out in cinemas in 10 lifetimes?). There's no more money in traditional network television.

If they're looking for streaming #content, what did they gain from this that they just could not have just developed on their own? Netflix is over here making the next generation's answer to classics, and Disney's burning money on the first two good Home Alone movies and the other five bad ones. Why buy the rights to Twin Peaks when you can make the next Stranger Things? Why buy the rights to Family Guy and Simpsons when you can make the next Bojack Horseman? (someone get Michael Eisner back!). Iger is doing a pathetic job keeping up with the Netflix's. Broadcasting gets old quick and a lot of Fox's content is going stale (I'm looking at you, the Americans)

Sure, this deal is low risk, but it's an inappropriate use of funds.

 

[flynnibus]

Sure, this deal is low risk, but it's an inappropriate use of funds.

People pretty much said the same thing about Pixar, Marvel, LucasFIlm, etc. It's the classic "why not just build it yourself?" - well in a lot of ways it's often easier to bet on a proven horse than to keep trying to find the next one. "inappropriate" really boils down to ROI. If the ROI is there, no matter how unglamourous it may look compared to striking gold while prospecting.. it's still profitable.

Its usually safer to bet on the proven horse.. maybe less upside, but less downside too. For a business like Disney... buying up a library like Fox is building a war chest at discounted prices. It doesn't necessarily make them more innovative.. but it certainly helps having an arsenal to work with.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

$52.4 billion... How many fifth gates could have been built for that much money?

Pocket change. I was considering purchasing it myself.

 

[LAKid53]

I personally love the position that people think buying content directly from all the content owners is the future. Do people really think they are going to pay for a dozen different streaming services and be happy? Or how about paying for the SEC network to see your team's away game, and then the ACC network for your home game. Or take that to it's natural conclusion... It's Pay-Per-View per show...

Eventually people are going to wake up and realize... that no... a la carte across the board isn't really what they want. They really want to pay the least amount possible, and get what they want to see. If a provider shows more than they want, they really don't care if they were comfortable with the price they were paying for what they do want.

A la carte is just a means now to get closer to their end game because they can reduce out of pocket costs now.

And those cord cutting are purchasing packages from Sling and Sony Vue that include a sports option, like ESPN. Several of my daughter's friends have dropped cable and have subscribed to Sling or Sony.

 

[LAKid53]

People pretty much said the same thing about Pixar, Marvel, LucasFIlm, etc. It's the classic "why not just build it yourself?" - well in a lot of ways it's often easier to bet on a proven horse than to keep trying to find the next one. "inappropriate" really boils down to ROI. If the ROI is there, no matter how unglamourous it may look compared to striking gold while prospecting.. it's still profitable.

Its usually safer to bet on the proven horse.. maybe less upside, but less downside too. For a business like Disney... buying up a library like Fox is building a war chest at discounted prices. It doesn't necessarily make them more innovative.. but it certainly helps having an arsenal to work with.

And think about not having to build your own streaming platform....you can now use Hulu's, since you own 60% of it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

People pretty much said the same thing about Pixar, Marvel, LucasFIlm, etc. It's the classic "why not just build it yourself?" - well in a lot of ways it's often easier to bet on a proven horse than to keep trying to find the next one. "inappropriate" really boils down to ROI. If the ROI is there, no matter how unglamourous it may look compared to striking gold while prospecting.. it's still profitable.

Its usually safer to bet on the proven horse.. maybe less upside, but less downside too. For a business like Disney... buying up a library like Fox is building a war chest at discounted prices. It doesn't necessarily make them more innovative.. but it certainly helps having an arsenal to work with.

Nobody questioned Pixar or Lucas...marvel a little bit but it was cheap...this is 25 times the price without the face recognition...this is as much about hulu as anything.

Disney thinks it will be the first streaming "cable" provider...that much is clear.

 

[LAKid53]

Nobody questioned Pixar or Lucas...marvel a little bit but it was cheap...this is 25 times the price without the face recognition...this is as much about hulu as anything.

Disney thinks it will be the first streaming "cable" provider...that much is clear.

THIS, THIS, THIS. Iger said as much during his interview this morning on CNBC. Which the former DirectTV CEO confirmed - apparently DirectTV once considered purchasing a stake in Hulu. While content is important, that platform, i.e. technology, is critical.

ETA: And I repeat what I've posted earlier. Disney wants to be the Comcast of streaming services. The one piece remaining? ISP. Will we see Disney eventually become an internet provider, like Comcast, Verizon, Centurylink (ug, DSL), Charter, etc.? And Comcast is now in the mobile phone business

 

[SteamboatJoe]

The problem with cord cutting and just using streaming, particularly for sports fans, is that sports content is still too fragmented across multiple services. I don't like my cable bill but I can turn on the TV and get to every primary sports channel of interest to me with just a couple of clicks on one platform...ESPN(s), FS1, NFLN, MLB TV, the NBA channel, Big 10 Network, Fox Sports regionals, the traditional networks, TBS, and TNT. It would take several streaming packages to get all of those channels. The cost savings would be minimal if any to get them all and you would have to constantly be dealing with opening and loading each app instead of just punching in a channel number. Someone will eventually figure out how to provide access to all those channels in an a la carte, all in one streaming service and make a fortune. Disney has put itself in a very good position to possibly do just that.

 

[LAKid53]

The problem with cord cutting and just using streaming, particularly for sports fans, is that sports content is still too fragmented across multiple services. I don't like my cable bill but I can turn on the TV and get to every primary sports channel of interest to me with just a couple of clicks on one platform...ESPN(s), FS1, NFLN, MLB TV, the NBA channel, Big 10 Network, Fox Sports regionals, the traditional networks, TBS, and TNT. It would take several streaming packages to get all of those channels. The cost savings would be minimal if any to get them all and you would have to constantly be dealing with opening and loading each app instead of just punching in a channel number. Someone will eventually figure out how to provide access to all those channels in an a la carte, all in one streaming service and make a fortune. Disney has put itself in a very good position to do just that.

Very true. And I'm wondering if Disney isn't thinking that down the road.

I think as technology improves for non-cable providers, we will see more. I for one, haven't left Comcast, mainly because of on demand and DVR. And sports.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Very true. And I'm wondering if Disney isn't thinking that down the road.

I think as technology improves for non-cable providers, we will see more. I for one, haven't left Comcast, mainly because of on demand and DVR. And sports.

Yep. DVR is also key because it's used by consumers of all content types. I know we pay for it in the bill but the integration and compatibility is a huge convenience.

 

[flynnibus]

Nobody questioned Pixar or Lucas...marvel a little bit but it was cheap...this is 25 times the price without the face recognition..

Plenty did... especially the prices. Pixar less so because they saw it as reconciliation after the potential break up. Lucas people argued that the last films (and fox ownership issue) made the deal into buying damaged goods... and people questioned Disney's immediate film plans they announced as saturation, etc. Of course in all those cases the pundits were proven woefully wrong.

I'm not a 'buyer' on the Hulu angle. Its way too much for something that really has no entrenchment with customers. Bring out a disruptor today, and people would buy it. People use Hulu because it has the content they want, not because they have brand loyalty. And part of that comes from Hulu's diverse formation from the different content producers. That gets more and more difficult when you have a Golliath in the group. The consolidation of 'in house' streaming is going to lead to a more fractured consumer space for some time IMO.

 

[LAKid53]

It's been an interesting and illuminating discussion, guys. But I've gotta go. Got to get ready to go see a little movie at 7.

 

[LAKid53]

Plenty did... especially the prices. Pixar less so because they saw it as reconciliation after the potential break up. Lucas people argued that the last films (and fox ownership issue) made the deal into buying damaged goods... and people questioned Disney's immediate film plans they announced as saturation, etc. Of course in all those cases the pundits were proven woefully wrong.

I'm not a 'buyer' on the Hulu angle. Its way too much for something that really has no entrenchment with customers. Bring out a disruptor today, and people would buy it. People use Hulu because it has the content they want, not because they have brand loyalty. And part of that comes from Hulu's diverse formation from the different content producers. That gets more and more difficult when you have a Golliath in the group. The consolidation of 'in house' streaming is going to lead to a more fractured consumer space for some time IMO.

For Disney, I think Hulu is less about content and more about technology.