• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Disney's Streaming Services: Disney+ (and Hulu, ESPN+, Star, & hotstar)

NateD1226

Well-Known Member
More dates!

Disney+ also set dates for several new series: John Stamos' basketball show Big Shot (April 16), Tony Hale's mystery series The Mysterious Benedict Society (June 25), the Pixar spin-off Monsters at Work(July 2), Josh Peck's Turner & Hooch reboot (July 16), and Chip 'N' Dale: Park Life (July 23).
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Original Poster



 

Twilight_Roxas

Well-Known Member
I hope Disney+ could make a exclusive anime series based off this manga.
1614231290243.png
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
Sad thread here about why not many of these streamers may survive.


All of the services that either just started or haven't even launched yet seem to not understand the concept of market saturation. Was there ever a demand for Discovery+? I enjoyed "Fixer Upper" but never once thought, "They should build and market an entire streaming service around this show and "90 Day Fiance" spinoffs." I think these studios think they'll steal customers away from Netflix since Netflix will start losing access to other studios' movies, but I'd rather watch "Ozark" over a "Frasier" reboot on Paramount+ or a "Punky Brewster" reboot on Peacock. Why pay for rehashed ideas and old episodes of shows that are in syndication. I can spend all weekend watching "The Office" on Comedy Central if I want to watch it that badly, so what are these services doing to earn my subscription money? At least Universal cut a deal to get the WWE Network on their platform, so they'll have a decent number of subscribers who may not even care about what else is on Peacock as long as they have their monthly wrestling pay-per-view events (and - if you don't mind commercials during pre-recorded shows - at $5/month less than the WWE Network was).
 

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
All of the services that either just started or haven't even launched yet seem to not understand the concept of market saturation. Was there ever a demand for Discovery+? I enjoyed "Fixer Upper" but never once thought, "They should build and market an entire streaming service around this show and "90 Day Fiance" spinoffs." I think these studios think they'll steal customers away from Netflix since Netflix will start losing access to other studios' movies, but I'd rather watch "Ozark" over a "Frasier" reboot on Paramount+ or a "Punky Brewster" reboot on Peacock. Why pay for rehashed ideas and old episodes of shows that are in syndication. I can spend all weekend watching "The Office" on Comedy Central if I want to watch it that badly, so what are these services doing to earn my subscription money? At least Universal cut a deal to get the WWE Network on their platform, so they'll have a decent number of subscribers who may not even care about what else is on Peacock as long as they have their monthly wrestling pay-per-view events (and - if you don't mind commercials during pre-recorded shows - at $5/month less than the WWE Network was).

I don't think services need a lot of original content to draw subscribers. Disney+ largely consists of catalogue titles I already owned, but it's still worth the monthly fee for just the Mandalorian and then WandaVision. If a digital movie rental is $7 on iTunes, I'm not going to balk at $9/month for Disney+, even if the original content has been minimal thus far.

Likewise, Paramount+/CBS All Access has probably done well with a handful of originals, but Star Trek in particular is probably enough to draw subscribers.

As everyone launches their own service, it's getting to the point where subscribing to everything will cost the equivalent of an old school cable subscription. Will some fall by the wayside? Maybe. But, I don't know the finances of these services. They're probably much more profitable than the traditional television model. Charging customers directly for the content means more revenue per viewer, versus selling advertising time (I think). A show that would get cancelled on network TV can now generate enough revenue to survive, especially for those properties with a dedicated fan base.

Disney+ has 94 million subscribers, which puts them in the $600-700 million range monthly. It costs them $50 to $100 million per month to produce the two main series to date, so I'm guessing the profit margin is much better than broadcast television.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Original Poster
Sad thread here about why not many of these streamers may survive.

1. I hate how people use Twitter for an essay with a dozen linked tweets.

2. They're right. And that's why the Bobs on the quarterly calls emphasize over and over "the Disney Brand." It has power. And with Star/Hulu, Disney can mix it up will the other content providers with content that has no real overall brand identity while still maintaining the Disney brand.
 

Slpy3270

Well-Known Member
1. I hate how people use Twitter for an essay with a dozen linked tweets.

2. They're right. And that's why the Bobs on the quarterly calls emphasize over and over "the Disney Brand." It has power. And with Star/Hulu, Disney can mix it up will the other content providers with content that has no real overall brand identity while still maintaining the Disney brand.
This article simplifies it.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Original Poster
Last edited:

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

Top Bottom