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

[CaptainAmerica]

Yeah, one of the things I liked about the D+ premise was that they owned all their content and would have it on the service for ever - Iger even stated that at the launch - at least once all the tricky existing licensing deals ended. You wouldn't have the "this is coming, this is leaving" type news from Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc. And yet here we are.

The point is, nobody watches this crap.

That was the whole point of his spiel in the earnings call. They know what people watch, and more importantly they know what people sign up to watch. The stuff they're pulling didn't draw new subs or retain existing subs. People are just watching Moana, Encanto, and Bluey on repeat.

 

[Slpy3270]

Yeah, one of the things I liked about the D+ premise was that they owned all their content and would have it on the service for ever - Iger even stated that at the launch - at least once all the tricky existing licensing deals ended. You wouldn't have the "this is coming, this is leaving" type news from Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc. And yet here we are.

Did anyone with a brain actually believe that, though?

The point is, nobody watches this crap.

That was the whole point of his spiel in the earnings call. They know what people watch, and more importantly they know what people sign up to watch. The stuff their pulling didn't draw new subs or retain existing subs. People are just watching Moana, Encanto, and Bluey on repeat.

Still doesn't make the fact that writers will lose their residuals (unless Disney finds another place for those shows and movies) any less crappy, though.

 

[doctornick]

So Hulu's content is being consolidated into Disney+, regardless of who buys out whose stake (but it's looking like Disney will buy out Comcast.)

But what are the odds that down the line, by 2030 or so, that Netflix will just buy out the other streaming services, reimburse all the studios besides Amazon, and they go back to receiving fees from Netflix (in exchange for concessions of having the studios be the creative controllers of the IPs), things going back to the way it was in 2014, with Netflix and Amazon the survivors?

My feeling is that that only worked because the studios were willing to have relatively low costs for their rights when they sold them to Netflix. Now they'd be asking for much higher licensing payments which would make the system untenable unless Netflix was charging a ton each month.

To me, I think the more likely shift is to more FAST services, perhaps a situation where a couple of studios bound together for a new Hulu like offering but pushing the FAST aspect more and having any commercial fee option be prohibitively expensive. The last couple of years have shown that advertising is where you are more likely to make a profit on streaming rather than subscription costs.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Yeah, one of the things I liked about the D+ premise was that they owned all their content and would have it on the service for ever - Iger even stated that at the launch - at least once all the tricky existing licensing deals ended. You wouldn't have the "this is coming, this is leaving" type news from Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc. And yet here we are.

D+ has 500 films, 15,000 episodes, and 80 Disney+ originals.

There's a whole lot of that which is dreadful and awful. "The Big Green" (a Disney Studio movie) has a RT of 1%.

A lot of series are kiddie and tweener content from The Disney Chanel which churned out very low quality shows.

"Home Sweet Home Alone" was supposed to be kickstart of rebooting that franchise... it has a 16% RT.

Removing some of them would behoove Disney just to not accidentally burden people from watching garbage and low quality content. IOW, they're hurting "The Brand."

Anyways, what's being removed is a drop in the bucket compared to the glut of content. And what's going is either expensive to keep and/or not getting the clicks.

The only thing on the list that I'd miss is Earth to Ned. I was disappointed it didn't have a second season. But the algorithm often has the last word, unfortunately (in some cases).

 

[CaptainAmerica]

FAST

Free ad-supported television.

AKA "television."

Party like it's 1979.

 

[doctornick]

The point is, nobody watches this crap.

That was the whole point of his spiel in the earnings call. They know what people watch, and more importantly they know what people sign up to watch. The stuff they're pulling didn't draw new subs or retain existing subs. People are just watching Moana, Encanto, and Bluey on repeat.

I mean yes but also no. I agree that a lot of this stuff has low viewership and certainly doesn't on its own drive subs or retention. But there's also something that a streaming service kind of needs new "stuff" to at least feel like it has value. It's tough to keep those people paying every month (or keeping year long subscribers happy and willing to renew) if there's only an occasional drip of content even if it is higher quality/regarded. Seeing "new on Disney+" having different items every week makes a psychological benefit to feeling like you are getting value, even if you aren't watching the specific things.

Ironically, I would say that I watched probably half the stuff being dropped and while it wasn't all "gold" or anything, I rarely felt like I was wasting my time. Heck, we watched the Mighty Ducks and Big Shot (for example) as a family and it was perfectly reasonable entertainment even if they were completely forgettable.

This purge isn't that bad so I don't really care that much. But I'm more concerned with the model going forward where you rarely get new offerings. and is a new "premier" series isn't well received you kind of feel like you are wasting your money on a streamer for that month. That will encourage more binge and drop behavior.

 

[doctornick]

Free ad-supported television.

AKA "television."

Party like it's 1979.

I always think when people say stuff like "I don't want streaming to have commercials" or "that's too much for streaming, by the time I buy all of it, it's like having a cable bill" and my reaction is like "Yeah, that's how it works". The halcyon days of streaming being cheap and commercial free existed because they services were taking massive losses to build subs; it's completely unsustainable.

The only way streaming works as a service is to... basically be just like the television and cable networks we are used to but just delivered via internet. That's it. That's the model. There's no special sauce that's any different for streaming in terms of how it can make money and it's not like producing movies or TV shows is going to be cheaper for a streaming versus a traditional network. You want to be commercial free? Be prepared to pay high fees like it was to subscribe to HBO on cable. Want high quality (costly to make) content? Be prepared to watch a bunch of ads or pay higher costs.

I also think contracts are coming to streaming to prevent binge and churn.

 

[Slpy3270]

Interesting that #CancelDisneyPlus and #CancelHulu isn't trending like #CancelNetflix has been during the strike. Then again I think everyone has just given up.

 

[DCBaker]

Deadline has an updated article with a couple of shows that were not on the Variety list to be removed.

Artemis Fowl
Marvel’s Voices Rising: The Music of Wakanda Forever

Disney Removes Dozens Of Series From Disney+ & Hulu, Including ‘Big Shot’, ‘Willow’, ‘Y’ & ‘Dollface’

Disney is starting to pull content from streaming, with dozens of series and specials slated to leave Disney+ and Hulu on May 26

deadline.com

 

[Slpy3270]

Artemis Fowl

I'll buy that one at the 50 cent bin.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'll buy that one at the 50 cent bin.

I'll buy that one at the butcher's for the dogs.

 

[DCBaker]

Update - Howard will not be removed from Disney+.

"Disney+’s documentary Howard will not be removed from the service.

“The list of titles coming off of Hulu and Disney+ next week is still being finalized,” a rep for the company said, indicating that there could be additional changes.

As revealed by Canal+ last week, Howard was on the list of titles Disney had sent to its international partners, informing them that they will be taken off the platform May 26. The authenticity of the list was confirmed by Deadline.

Since the titles were made public yesterday, Disney had received backlash over the pending removal of Howard — about famous lyricist Howard Ashman, a gay man, who co-wrote the songs for Disney’s Little Mermaid animated classic — and its timing, on the eve of the release of the live-action Little Mermaid movie and LGBTQ+ Pride Month."

‘Howard’ Documentary Will Remain On Disney+; List Of Disney Streaming Removals Still Being Finalized – Update

Disney is taking some heat following news yesterday that it is removing dozens of titles from its Disney+ and Hulu streaming services, including some LGBTQ+-focused content.

deadline.com

 

[Slpy3270]

Update - Howard will not be removed from Disney+.

"Disney+’s documentary Howard will not be removed from the service.

“The list of titles coming off of Hulu and Disney+ next week is still being finalized,” a rep for the company said, indicating that there could be additional changes.

As revealed by Canal+ last week, Howard was on the list of titles Disney had sent to its international partners, informing them that they will be taken off the platform May 26. The authenticity of the list was confirmed by Deadline.

Since the titles were made public yesterday, Disney had received backlash over the pending removal of Howard — about famous lyricist Howard Ashman, a gay man, who co-wrote the songs for Disney’s Little Mermaid animated classic — and its timing, on the eve of the release of the live-action Little Mermaid movie and LGBTQ+ Pride Month."

‘Howard’ Documentary Will Remain On Disney+; List Of Disney Streaming Removals Still Being Finalized – Update

Disney is taking some heat following news yesterday that it is removing dozens of titles from its Disney+ and Hulu streaming services, including some LGBTQ+-focused content.

deadline.com

Well, that's some kind of saving face there.

Still, the "still being finalized" line kinda scares me.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yeah, one of the things I liked about the D+ premise was that they owned all their content and would have it on the service for ever - Iger even stated that at the launch - at least once all the tricky existing licensing deals ended. You wouldn't have the "this is coming, this is leaving" type news from Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc. And yet here we are.

My feelings exactly.

 

[LittleBuford]

Did anyone with a brain actually believe that, though?

I did, and I'd like to think I have a brain!

 

[LittleBuford]

Update - Howard will not be removed from Disney+.

"Disney+’s documentary Howard will not be removed from the service.

“The list of titles coming off of Hulu and Disney+ next week is still being finalized,” a rep for the company said, indicating that there could be additional changes.

As revealed by Canal+ last week, Howard was on the list of titles Disney had sent to its international partners, informing them that they will be taken off the platform May 26. The authenticity of the list was confirmed by Deadline.

Since the titles were made public yesterday, Disney had received backlash over the pending removal of Howard — about famous lyricist Howard Ashman, a gay man, who co-wrote the songs for Disney’s Little Mermaid animated classic — and its timing, on the eve of the release of the live-action Little Mermaid movie and LGBTQ+ Pride Month."

‘Howard’ Documentary Will Remain On Disney+; List Of Disney Streaming Removals Still Being Finalized – Update

Disney is taking some heat following news yesterday that it is removing dozens of titles from its Disney+ and Hulu streaming services, including some LGBTQ+-focused content.

deadline.com

That one really surprised me, so I'm glad it's staying.

 

[Slpy3270]

My feelings exactly.

Like I said, did actually believe that was sustainable? With streaming residuals being so low and streaming being so unprofitable versus cable it was logical to assume the studios would be willing to pull their own content off when those residuals start going up.

That one really surprised me, so I'm glad it's staying.

For now. I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone by the end of next month.

 

[doctornick]

I did, and I'd like to think I have a brain!

Yeah, given the specific nature of Disney simple owning so much stuff on their own and not needing to license from anyone else for a robust service - wasn't that a big point of the FOX purchase? - I thought that was going to be a defining aspect of Disney+ distinguishing it from other services.

I still don't really see how removing all these things could really be saving that much money but perhaps I don't fully get all the elements of this. I would think that Disney owns pretty much of these titles even if an outside studio did the production. So, isn't it just residuals? And wouldn't residuals be literally minimal fractions of pennies on the dollar and only paid if people were actually watching the shows? So, either people watch them (which means they have value to the service and should be worth the small residuals payments) or they aren't watching them (which means they shouldn't have residuals to pay).

The only way this makes sense to me is if they are licensing the content to other services so they make money without having to worry about any expenses (let the other service pay the residuals) or they feel they can sell the titles separately as digital downloads and make money that way. But if these are really that unpopular, how much could any of that actually make?

It just seems to me to be a silly solution to the service losing money. I get cutting back on new/future content spend to save money, but this doesn't seem worth it to break what was a nice unique feature of Disney+ compared to other streamers.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yeah, given the specific nature of Disney simple owning so much stuff on their own and not needing to license from anyone else for a robust service - wasn't that a big point of the FOX purchase? - I thought that was going to be a defining aspect of Disney+ distinguishing it from other services.

I still don't really see how removing all these things could really be saving that much money but perhaps I don't fully get all the elements of this. I would think that Disney owns pretty much of these titles even if an outside studio did the production. So, isn't it just residuals? And wouldn't residuals be literally minimal fractions of pennies on the dollar and only paid if people were actually watching the shows? So, either people watch them (which means they have value to the service and should be worth the small residuals payments) or they aren't watching them (which means they shouldn't have residuals to pay).

The only way this makes sense to me is if they are licensing the content to other services so they make money without having to worry about any expenses (let the other service pay the residuals) or they feel they can sell the titles separately as digital downloads and make money that way. But if these are really that unpopular, how much could any of that actually make?

It just seems to me to be a silly solution to the service losing money. I get cutting back on new/future content spend to save money, but this doesn't seem worth it to break what was a nice unique feature of Disney+ compared to other streamers.

My thoughts exactly (again!). We’re totally on the same page here.

 

[brb1006]

I'll buy that one at the 50 cent bin.

This scene with Josh Gad is burned into my memory!