Disney is a struggling company. I don’t see an end in sight.

[Sir_Cliff]

Who would have thought you’d ever need a parental control option on a Disney branded channel? The fact it’s even available highlights how the brand, and the perception of the brand, has changed.

I agree that the, shall we say, broadening of what the Disney brand means is a distinct feature of the post-Eisner period.

Where I would differ, is that I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I even remember when I was at high school and would drag friends to see Disney animated features in the late-1990s that people would chuckle about not having seen the Walt Disney Pictures logo since they were kids. Now, it's a more mainstream brand that people are just as likely to associate with the year's biggest blockbusters as they are with animation and family fare and the Disney logo isn't likely to promote the immediate expectation that the entertainment is for families with young children.

Particularly when it comes to streaming, that broadening of the brand allows them to do more and is why bundling in Star works very well internationally and I think Hulu would work in the US. If Disney still meant now what it meant as a brand 20 years ago, branding a streaming service Disney+ would basically cut out anyone who didn't have young children and would struggle to compete with Netflix, HBO, etc. while including more adult entertainment would have seen scandalous. Now, everyone seems to know Disney produces both entertainment for younger children and for older audiences.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I agree that the, shall we say, broadening of what the Disney brand means is a distinct feature of the post-Eisner period.

Where I would differ, is that I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I even remember when I was at high school and would drag friends to see Disney animated features in the late-1990s that people would chuckle about not having seen the Walt Disney Pictures logo since they were kids. Now, it's a more mainstream brand that people are just as likely to associate with the year's biggest blockbusters as they are with animation and family fare and the Disney logo isn't likely to promote the immediate expectation that the entertainment is for families with young children.

Particularly when it comes to streaming, that broadening of the brand allows them to do more and is why bundling in Star works very well internationally and I think Hulu would work in the US. If Disney still meant now what it meant as a brand 20 years ago, branding a streaming service Disney+ would basically cut out anyone who didn't have young children and would struggle to compete with Netflix, HBO, etc. while including more adult entertainment would have seen scandalous. Now, everyone seems to know Disney produces both entertainment for younger children and for older audiences.

Indeed, what both Bobs have revealed is:

​

1. 60% of D+ subs are households without children.​

​

2. Feedback of D+ subs is wanting more "general entertainment."​

"General Entertainment" is Hollywood speak for more adult entertainment as opposed to "Family Entertainment."

Four quadrants, and all that.

This is why, when the initial opening of D+ blew past their goals in the first month, they pivoted toward a much larger goal that includes general entertainment over exclusively family entertainment, and why they integrated Star (Hulu international) into D+ wherever they could around the world.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I agree that the, shall we say, broadening of what the Disney brand means is a distinct feature of the post-Eisner period.

Where I would differ, is that I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I even remember when I was at high school and would drag friends to see Disney animated features in the late-1990s that people would chuckle about not having seen the Walt Disney Pictures logo since they were kids. Now, it's a more mainstream brand that people are just as likely to associate with the year's biggest blockbusters as they are with animation and family fare and the Disney logo isn't likely to promote the immediate expectation that the entertainment is for families with young children.

Particularly when it comes to streaming, that broadening of the brand allows them to do more and is why bundling in Star works very well internationally and I think Hulu would work in the US. If Disney still meant now what it meant as a brand 20 years ago, branding a streaming service Disney+ would basically cut out anyone who didn't have young children and would struggle to compete with Netflix, HBO, etc. while including more adult entertainment would have seen scandalous. Now, everyone seems to know Disney produces both entertainment for younger children and for older audiences.

Can’t argue against any of that, I just think they could have done it differently and preserved the family friendly Disney brand in the process. When I was a kid the Disney brand was reserved for the safe family stuff and Touchstone was for the more adult stuff.

Rather than Disney+ they could have simply stuck with the Hulu name and marketed it as the home of Disney, Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, ABC, ESPN, and more.

I understand why they’re doing it, I just think they could have done it differently and similarly broadened their appeal while also preserving the brand.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The arsonist has left the scene of the crime, while the building smolders.

Disney’s Chief Diversity Officer Latondra Newton Departs

The executive, who joined the studio in 2017 from Toyota, is said to be leaving to "pursue other endeavors."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

I’d say your description is overboard and maybe a tad bit insulting…

…but at the core, I agree. This is NOT what these entertainment conglomerates need for strategic direction right now.

Not the right person. And where Disney is now is kinda indicative of how badly the move to “new strategic direction” has played.

 

[FettFan]

What a crock. Disney's brands are vibrant and thriving. In a lot of ways, the press is putting its thumb on the scale to make movies "fail," or at least move the goalposts to redefine failure when Disney meets the original expectations. And shorts are also in cahoots to artificially drive the stock price down.

This is not 2005 and the end of the Eisner era. Disney is doing well and there is no fundamental failure, other than Genie+/Lightning Lanes. The movies are great, the shows are great, and there isn't Peter Murphy and his strategic planning division, nor is there Alan Horn as studio chair. The light is very green, and everything is very promising indeed.

 

[GimpYancIent]

What a crock. Disney's brands are vibrant and thriving. In a lot of ways, the press is putting its thumb on the scale to make movies "fail," or at least move the goalposts to redefine failure when Disney meets the original expectations. And shorts are also in cahoots to artificially drive the stock price down.

This is not 2005 and the end of the Eisner era. Disney is doing well and there is no fundamental failure, other than Genie+/Lightning Lanes. The movies are great, the shows are great, and there isn't Peter Murphy and his strategic planning division, nor is there Alan Horn as studio chair. The light is very green, and everything is very promising indeed.

Snorting pixie dust?

 

[GimpYancIent]

I’d say your description is overboard and maybe a tad bit insulting…

…but at the core, I agree. This is NOT what these entertainment conglomerates need for strategic direction right now.

Not the right person. And where Disney is now is kinda indicative of how badly the move to “new strategic direction” has played.

You are being diplomatically kind. She damaged the brand.

 

[FettFan]

You are being diplomatically kind. She damaged the brand.

I would say she was only one piece of a much bigger, more "Bob's Ego" puzzle.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Disney is in trouble. No one is going to pay 30.00 a month for ESPN.

Disney's ESPN streaming transition to be 'massive, extra disruptive event'

Analysts say Disney's plans to take ESPN fully over-the-top will be difficult amid shifting consumer viewing habits and a fragmented media landscape.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[MisterPenguin]

Disney is in trouble. No one is going to pay 30.00 a month for ESPN.

Disney's ESPN streaming transition to be 'massive, extra disruptive event'

Analysts say Disney's plans to take ESPN fully over-the-top will be difficult amid shifting consumer viewing habits and a fragmented media landscape.

finance.yahoo.com

The kinda garbage analysis from Yoohoo Finance. To wit...

The company's parks business is slowing. Its linear TV business is declining, and so are subscribers to its flagship streaming service Disney+.​

Yes, subs declined. But revenue increased and the overall loss lessened. This "analysis" misses that almost all the subs lost were the sixty-cent ARPU Indian subs just because Disney didn't spend an exorbitant fee for Indian cricket. Some domestic subs did fall, but was made up for in European increases. The analysis is still based on counting subs and not on the bottom line. Wall Street stopped obsessing over subs almost a year ago.

But, the article just paints this as "subs fell"...

Additionally, if linear is decreasing and will die due to cord cutting, what are companies with linear channels supposed to do? Just close up shop and write it down as a loss?

No, they're going into streaming which will be the future of home entertainment. They have no choice for when linear is finally dead (well, more like a small niche market).

And the article spends its time not delineating how to do it profitably, but by constantly bring up the *risk* of doing it. The risk? Of course they risk it. They have no choice. It's going to happen. It's not like they can choose not to try.

People who watch linear sports, it is noted, are having that viewing habit subsidized by cable bundling. So, who's going to pay much more for streaming which isn't subsidized?

Well, what happens when linear networks are dead and the only way to watch sports is streaming? Something will be worked out.

The article never really follows through with it's initial statement: Linear is dying.

 

[Willmark]

Disney is in trouble. No one is going to pay 30.00 a month for ESPN.

Disney's ESPN streaming transition to be 'massive, extra disruptive event'

Analysts say Disney's plans to take ESPN fully over-the-top will be difficult amid shifting consumer viewing habits and a fragmented media landscape.

finance.yahoo.com

Correct.

If this was the year 2005. Yes. But now? ESPN is absolutely non-essential in this day and age for sports coverage.

$30? Good luck with that.

 

[MisterPenguin]

S&P Affirms Disney A- Credit Rating, Positive Outlook Despite “Strategic Uncertainties” After Bob Iger Interview

A recent interview Bob Iger gave to CNBC held out the possibility of a major overhaul at the media giant.

deadline.com

S&P today affirmed its A- investment grade credit rating for Disney...​

​

“We view favorably Disney’s attempt to address that business proactively as the price of doing nothing could become a drag on our ratings over time. Still, when we have greater clarity on these considerations, we will assess the impact on Disney’s credit quality.” ​

​

The agency expects lower leverage will be driven by higher cash flow as DTC losses shrink, parks improve and the company realizes its anticipated $5.5 billion in cost savings from cost cutting — including about 7,000 layoffs since Iger returned to take the helm of Disney last fall.​

​

The company would ideally like a ‘A’ rating, S&P noted, but any return to that would depend on the resolution of the Hulu put-call – “how much that ends up costing Disney, how it finances the purchase, and an evaluation of the company’s transition to profitable streaming.”​

​

Iger, who recently extended his contract through 2026, made lots of news on the interview. That included infuriating the creative community by calling strikes by the WGA and SAG-AFTRA disruptive and the guild demands unreasonable.​

 

[Stitch's Grandfather]

I'd pay $30/month for ESPN, but only for a few months / year (i.e. during CFB season)

 

[John park hopper]

Disney stock can't seem to get passed the mid 80's

 

[AEfx]

Disney is in trouble. No one is going to pay 30.00 a month for ESPN.

I think you may be underestimating the amount of people who previously paid cable just to have it. I can't tell you how many folks I know who I used to hear saying, "I'd cut the cord, but the spouse has to have ESPN..." before the online service.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I think you may be underestimating the amount of people who previously paid cable just to have it. I can't tell you how many folks I know who I used to hear saying, "I'd cut the cord, but the spouse has to have ESPN..." before the online service.

If ESPN had all sports I’d happily pay $50 a month for it, sadly they only have about 10% of the sports I want to watch though. Even with ESPN you’d still need cable (and all the add ons) for the other 90% they don’t carry.

It’s actually kind of ridiculous how many add ons you need for sports now, there’s add ons for individual divisions (Big10, SEC,etc), add ons for individual type of sports (football, hockey, etc), add ons for regional sports… 20 years ago ESPN was amazing because it condensed sports into one channel, now it’s just one of dozens of sports channels you need because they all have exclusive rights for specific content.

I’m not sure how valuable ESPN is anymore simply because it’s so diluted.

 

[Disstevefan1]

S&P Affirms Disney A- Credit Rating, Positive Outlook Despite “Strategic Uncertainties” After Bob Iger Interview

A recent interview Bob Iger gave to CNBC held out the possibility of a major overhaul at the media giant.

deadline.com

S&P today affirmed its A- investment grade credit rating for Disney...​

​

“We view favorably Disney’s attempt to address that business proactively as the price of doing nothing could become a drag on our ratings over time. Still, when we have greater clarity on these considerations, we will assess the impact on Disney’s credit quality.” ​

​

The agency expects lower leverage will be driven by higher cash flow as DTC losses shrink, parks improve and the company realizes its anticipated $5.5 billion in cost savings from cost cutting — including about 7,000 layoffs since Iger returned to take the helm of Disney last fall.​

​

The company would ideally like a ‘A’ rating, S&P noted, but any return to that would depend on the resolution of the Hulu put-call – “how much that ends up costing Disney, how it finances the purchase, and an evaluation of the company’s transition to profitable streaming.”​

​

Iger, who recently extended his contract through 2026, made lots of news on the interview. That included infuriating the creative community by calling strikes by the WGA and SAG-AFTRA disruptive and the guild demands unreasonable.​

TWDC is too big to let fail.

This is actually good for everyone.

 

[GimpYancIent]

TWDC is too big to let fail.

This is actually good for everyone.

Careful, TWDC has evolved into a global entertainment conglomerate with a multitude of moving parts / components the failure of one may or may not have negative effect on the others. A domino effect is not out of the question considering current management.

 

[CinematicFusion]

I think you may be underestimating the amount of people who previously paid cable just to have it. I can't tell you how many folks I know who I used to hear saying, "I'd cut the cord, but the spouse has to have ESPN..." before the online service.

No one is going to pay 30.00 a month for espn.
Disney needs outside partners to help with espn.
Espn bought Lucasfilm, Pixar, etc… Huge revenue loss for Disney.

Disney Will need to restructure everything, maybe force Disney+ subscribers to pay more for espn and force a bundle concept.

 

[Willmark]

I think you may be underestimating the amount of people who previously paid cable just to have it. I can't tell you how many folks I know who I used to hear saying, "I'd cut the cord, but the spouse has to have ESPN..." before the online service.

Back in the day? Sure. Now? ESPN is absolutely not required and the amount that actually is sports let alone opinion shows (using that term very lightly here)?

Simply put I’d consider it at maybe $3. $30? No way.