Orlando Becoming East Coast Headquarters for Disney Parks, Experiences, and Products

[EeyoreFan#24]

I don’t think my company is that far out of the Corporate America norm and remote work was permanently added to benefits packages for many employees. Some leadership fought to keep thier teams full time remote when return to office was being worked though. Argued productivity went up. When It all shakes out we actually sold an entire office building and moved everyone together where spaces were open.

Other thing is hiring, not having to uproot right now is a huge benefit. I’ve looked at jobs elsewhere, but I go broke trying to mortgage a house or rent something compared to rates I have precovid.

Just like anything else, it depends on the individual performers and the corporate culture.

I think it’s just the next step of a very long tech revolution within the workplace.

 

[cranbiz]

The key is the type of work.

Many companies in the past wouldn't let people work remote because they didn't think they could trust people or be effective. This mindset hindered many that COULD have been remote, but never had the chance. But remote isn't the answer for EVERY role or everyone. We will go through the yo-yo period where companies will learn that yes... some roles and people SHOULD be in a managed space.. even if not for needing specialized resources.

And I say this as the guy building your remote work solutions for the last 25yrs

Exactly. There are many roles that can work remotely, there are many that should work remotely and many that can't work remotely. I find that I'm more productive at home, there are people that I have worked with that are not suited to WFH.

I work for a large IT Hardware/Software/Cloud Solutions/Storage provider so chances are we are your storage provider.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I'm still baffled that so many people are surprised Netflix has lost some steam.

A massive part of the appeal was that they had almost everything people cared about in one place. Since they started losing shows like the Office and Parks & Recreation (among many others), people have less reason to stay subscribed.

Netflix had a monopoly for a long time, now there’s a ton of competition and that competition is pulling all their content that used to be on Netflix and putting it on their own streaming sites.

I’m curious to see what streaming sites end up surviving, I think the massive studios like Disney, Universal, etc will but I wonder if Netflix, AppleTV, etc will be able to survive in the long run without having TV shows and movie content to re-air that they don’t have to pay to produce.

 

[Ayla]

Really? Our company and most of our clients felt it worked so well we/they started hiring out of market for fulltime remote positions.

DH's company has gone to a permanent schedule of Monday and Friday at home and in office Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

 

[JoeCamel]

DH's company has gone to a permanent schedule of Monday and Friday at home and in office Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Those Monday zoom meetings must be something after a few four day weekends....

 

[Ayla]

Those Monday zoom meetings must be something after a few four day weekends....

He's also done at noon every Friday.

 

[UNCgolf]

Yeah but this statement highlights some of the pivoting that is now happening on how the success of the streaming platforms was being gauged. Netflix spent a king's ransom on new content, because they knew they were being held hostage by IP rights, and as long as the sub counts kept climbing, Wall Street was OK with the spending. If the success of Netflix was wholly reliant on known IP/nostalgia, that's a huge red flag for investors.

The question is, will the same hold true for Disney. They announced spending 33 billion on new Disney+ content. What would that be... 6 or 7 new theme parks? That's a huge sum of money. That decision was made based on the previously Netflix model... Spend big and increase subscribers. That model doesn't apply any longer and both companies will need to be better at justifying their expenditures.

Yeah, but that's the whole thing. Having everything in one place was the reason Netflix was Netflix. As soon as that market splintered, it was going to be impossible for Netflix to maintain the same level of success even with a bunch of successful original content.

That should have been obvious to everyone -- investors were stupid for thinking otherwise, but it's not the first time they've wildly thrown money at something that was clearly illogical.

 

[UNCgolf]

Netflix had a monopoly for a long time, now there’s a ton of competition and that competition is pulling all their content that used to be on Netflix and putting it on their own streaming sites.

I’m curious to see what streaming sites end up surviving, I think the massive studios like Disney, Universal, etc will but I wonder if Netflix, AppleTV, etc will be able to survive in the long run without having TV shows and movie content to re-air that they don’t have to pay to produce.

I wouldn't be surprised to see streaming basically turn back into cable, albeit with fewer channels. I could see companies coming together and offering a bundled subscription to give you access to, say, HBO Max, Peacock, Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu, and Paramount+ all for one slightly smaller payment instead of having to pay for each separately.

Another potential outcome is a major contraction where companies decide they are better off taking licensing money for their older IP and something like the Netflix of 5-10 years ago is reborn.

 

[flynnibus]

Yeah, but that's the whole thing. Having everything in one place was the reason Netflix was Netflix. As soon as that market splintered, it was going to be impossible for Netflix to maintain the same level of success even with a bunch of successful original content.

That should have been obvious to everyone -- investors were stupid for thinking otherwise, but it's not the first time they've wildly thrown money at something that was clearly illogical.

Netflix threw all that money at it because THEY KNEW they had to have content they controlled and be the place to tune into to get it. The challenge is .. in the earnest of needing speed of developing that independence, they went hog wild and tried to buy their success and speed. Money can move mountains, but it doesn't always create greatness.

None of it was trying to build the wrong thing in the wrong place - It's simply that building a collection of great is hard and takes time. Netflix was trying to shorten that cycle by being willing to go fast and furious. Other studios and networks had decades of assets... Netflix wanted similar but on a shortened time schedule. Disney used their deep pockets to build their warchest of content, widen their appeal, and buy distribution.

 

[Prince-1]

Companies for the most part are done with the stay at home experiment.
It ultimately failed. I think the Florida campus is more relevant today than back in 2019 for that reason.

Feel free to provide some back up for this claim.

 

[UNCgolf]

Netflix threw all that money at it because THEY KNEW they had to have content they controlled and be the place to tune into to get it. The challenge is .. in the earnest of needing speed of developing that independence, they went hog wild and tried to buy their success and speed. Money can move mountains, but it doesn't always create greatness.

None of it was trying to build the wrong thing in the wrong place - It's simply that building a collection of great is hard and takes time. Netflix was trying to shorten that cycle by being willing to go fast and furious. Other studios and networks had decades of assets... Netflix wanted similar but on a shortened time schedule. Disney used their deep pockets to build their warchest of content, widen their appeal, and buy distribution.

Oh, I'm not talking about what Netflix did in terms of spending money on new content.

I'm talking about the people (both investors and company executives) who believed that the success of Netflix 5+ years ago wasn't a unique circumstance that can't really be replicated.

That's not to suggest that streaming services are doomed to fail (far from it) -- just that a single service that had nearly everything in one place was always going to be more successful than multiple services with fragmented content.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Oh, I'm not talking about what Netflix did in terms of spending money on new content.

I'm talking about the people (both investors and company executives) who believed that the success of Netflix 5+ years ago wasn't a unique circumstance that can't really be replicated.

That's not to suggest that streaming services are doomed to fail (far from it) -- just that a single service that had nearly everything in one place was always going to be more successful than multiple services with fragmented content.

Indeed.

Netflix's strategy was the web/app model of loss-leading spending to nearly monopolize a niche in the market, and then, when you do monopolize it, start charging or start raising prices or sell ads.

/Amazon has entered the chat
/Google has entered the chat
/MoviePass has left the chat

Netflix had, at one time, a virtual assurance that every big theatrical release would eventually be 'free' on their service (the HBO model). In addition, since they had the streaming infrastructure, they started to be a library for popular TV shows (The Office, Friends).

But now, almost all big movie studios now exclusively 'feed' their corporate-related streamer:

• Universal to Peacock
• Paramount to Paramount+
• Warner Bros to HBOmax
• MGM to Amazon
• Lionsgate/Summit to Starz
• Disney/Pixar/Marvel/LucasFilm/20th Century/Searchlight to Disney+

And all the TV channels moved their libraries to their related streamer:

• FX/Fox/ABC/Disney channels to Disney+
• NBC/Universal to Peacock
• Discovery to HBOmax
• CBS to Paramount+

This left Netflix with:

• Sony movies in the pay1 window (they go to D+ in the pay2 window)
• A few properties that some studios are still willing to license to them
• Dropping huge buckets of money to buy from independent studios
• Dropping huge buckets of money to commission a made-for-Netflix movie or series

So, once all the other streamers/studios stripped Netflix of their properties, Netflix now has to compete in creating new content. And it does. A lot. But, Disney/Hulu is spending a lot more for new content, and Netflix's current woes means it has to cut back.

Anyway...

• Starz is about to be eaten up by any suitable buyer.
• Warner Bros Discovery (HBOmax) is dysfunctional and in chaos.
• Paramount+ has lots of content from a lot of channels (and Showtime) and has yet to consolidate it all. <smh>
• Peacock could just become the channel of The Office and Friends and chug along forever.
• Amazon has so few new hit shows, but, it can chug along forever based on Amazon Prime people alone (and Daddy's cash reserve)
• AppleTV shot themselves in the foot for not buying any studios' libraries, but planning on solely being successful by creating new content on their own <teehee>

That leaves the Disney Bundle the most sound competitor.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Indeed.

Netflix's strategy was the web/app model of loss-leading spending to nearly monopolize a niche in the market, and then, when you do monopolize it, start charging or start raising prices or sell ads.

/Amazon has entered the chat
/Google has entered the chat
/MoviePass has left the chat

Netflix had, at one time, a virtual assurance that every big theatrical release would eventually be 'free' on their service (the HBO model). In addition, since they had the streaming infrastructure, they started to be a library for popular TV shows (The Office, Friends).

But now, almost all big movie studios now exclusively 'feed' their corporate-related streamer:

• Universal to Peacock
• Paramount to Paramount+
• Warner Bros to HBOmax
• MGM to Amazon
• Lionsgate/Summit to Starz
• Disney/Pixar/Marvel/LucasFilm to Disney+

And all the TV channels moved their libraries to their related streamer:

• FX/ABC/Disney channels to Disney+
• NBC/Universal to Peacock
• Discovery to HBOmax
• CBS to Paramount+

This left Netflix with:

• Sony movies in the pay1 window (they go to D+ in the pay2 window)
• A few properties that some studios are still willing to license to them
• Dropping huge buckets of money to buy from independent studios
• Dropping huge buckets of money to commission a made-for-Netflix movie or series

So, once all the other streamers/studios stripped Netflix of their properties, Netflix now has to compete in creating new content. And it does. A lot. But, Disney/Hulu is spending a lot more for new content, and Netflix's current woes means it has to cut back.

Anyway...

• Starz is about to be eaten up by any suitable buyer.
• Warner Bros Discovery (HBOmax) is dysfunctional and in chaos.
• Paramount+ has lots of content from a lot of channels (and Showtime) and has yet to consolidate it all. <smh>
• Peacock could just become the channel of The Office and Friends and chug along forever.
• Amazon has so few new hit shows, but, it can chug along forever based on Amazon Prime people alone (and Daddy's cash reserve)
• AppleTV shot themselves in the foot for not buying any studios' libraries, but planning on solely being successful by creating new content on their own <teehee>

That leaves the Disney Bundle the most sound competitor.

Very good analysis from both of you and I don't really have much to add, though it has struck me lately how it seems like Disney has been talking about needing content and distribution going back to the Eisner era and the Capital Cities/ABC purchase. With streaming and Disney+, they finally seem to have a convergence of content and technology that allows then to have control over both to an extent that they seem perhaps the best positioned to survive the inevitable thinning down of the streaming landscape. I'm even beginning to more positively evaluate the Fox purchase by Iger in this context!

This is probably not so much a concern for those of you in the US, but I am interested to see how this plays out globally. At present, it really seems like Netflix and Disney+ are the two big global streaming services, with Amazon Prime and AppleTV trailing behind. I do occasionally see ads for HBO Max and Paramount+ here in the Netherlands, but they seem very marginal. I know in Australia there are some local streaming services that seem to purchase content from services not present in Australia, so perhaps there will be more of a patchwork of services in local markets after the big 2 or 4 with the others concentrating on the US market.

I don't know what that means about the longterm viability of these services, but I would think Disney+ in particular also has the advantage of global reach that few can compete with. With Star being bundled into Disney+ here, it's quite a nice service as you get things like Chip'n'Dale Rescue Rangers, but you can also watch the back catalogue of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia if the mood takes you.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I do occasionally see ads for HBO Max and Paramount+ here in the Netherlands, but they seem very marginal.

Comcast & ViacomCBS JV SkyShowtime Given Regulatory Greenlight; Preps 2022 Launch

Comcast and ViacomCBS' SkyShowtime streamer has been given the regulatory greenlight and will launch in 20 European markets later this year.

deadline.com

 

[MisterPenguin]

FYI, y'all: We have dedicated thread for all things streaming here:

All Things Streaming (VOD, OTT)

https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/netflix-ad-supported-plan-q4-launch-1235262961/

forums.wdwmagic.com

And for Disney streamers here:

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

Coming to hulu in July date show category 7/1/2022 THE PRINCESS (2022) Hulu Original 7/1/2022 Are You The One?: Complete Season 1 MTV 7/1/2022 Black Ink Crew: Complete Seasons 5 & 6 VH1 7/1/2022 Feud: Complete Season 1 FX 7/1/2022 Love & Hip-Hop Atlanta: Complete Seasons 4 & 5...

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Comcast & ViacomCBS JV SkyShowtime Given Regulatory Greenlight; Preps 2022 Launch

Comcast and ViacomCBS' SkyShowtime streamer has been given the regulatory greenlight and will launch in 20 European markets later this year.

deadline.com

Maybe I'm wrong, but it already feels there are too many services at this point. Here, they tend to bundle what is essentially cable TV with your Internet package, so you already have a fair amount of things you would get on streaming services (the bundle I have has most of the HBO programming, for example) that you can watch at your leisure. Beyond Netflix and Disney+ that have a broad selection of acquired and original content you can't get elsewhere, I really don't see how any of these other services can find much of a market.

Another point is that even just Europe is a very diverse place, with different languages, cultures, and entertainment ecosystems. My impression is that there will be a limit to how many American streaming services the average French, German, or Italian person feels they need.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it already feels there are too many services at this point. Here, they tend to bundle what is essentially cable TV with your Internet package, so you already have a fair amount of things you would get on streaming services (the bundle I have has most of the HBO programming, for example) that you can watch at your leisure. Beyond Netflix and Disney+ that have a broad selection of acquired and original content you can't get elsewhere, I really don't see how any of these other services can find much of a market.

There are indeed too many services. And it's sadly laughable that some companies have just been starting to do streaming in the past year thinking they can catch up to the big players who are successful, or, who have deep pockets and can take a loss for years and years to come.

If you're depending on your streamer to turn a profit on its own and you're not Disney, Netflix, Apple, or Amazon.... you're in for a world of hurt.

The big players have invested in their own infrastructure so that they aren't paying a licensing fee to use someone else's connections. And they have a deep library already and are spending really big for new content. So, you go ahead Tubi and Roku... let's see if you can catch up to that.

That's why we're now seeing these joint ventures: Peacock and Paramount in Northern Europe; and Disney and Starz in Latin America. Remember, at one time Hulu was created so that Disney, Universal, ATT (Times Warner), and Fox could pool their resources to provide streaming and compete with Netflix (and other Live TV streamers popping up).

But in the Balkanization of streamers, some are realizing they really can't go it alone. The next phase is for the smaller streamers to find dance partners.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

There are indeed too many services. And it's sadly laughable that some companies have just been starting to do streaming in the past year thinking they can catch up to the big players who are successful, or, who have deep pockets and can take a loss for years and years to come.

If you're depending on your streamer to turn a profit on its own and you're not Disney, Netflix, Apple, or Amazon.... you're in for a world of hurt.

The big players have invested in their own infrastructure so that they aren't paying a licensing fee to use someone else's connections. And they have a deep library already and are spending really big for new content. So, you go ahead Tubi and Roku... let's see if you can catch up to that.

That's why we're now seeing these joint ventures: Peacock and Paramount in Northern Europe; and Disney and Starz in Latin America. Remember, at one time Hulu was created so that Disney, Universal, ATT (Times Warner), and Fox could pool their resources to provide streaming and compete with Netflix (and other Live TV streamers popping up).

But in the Balkanization of streamers, some are realizing they really can't go it alone. The next phase is for the smaller streamers to find dance partners.

Indeed. It's puzzling to figure out what their market analyses would be telling them about the viability of these services. It seems like we're in a slightly irrational phase in which everyone feels streaming is the future and so everyone is starting a streaming service regardless of whether there is any business case for doing so.

More and more, I am beginning to think Disney has actually been very smart in using its size and resources to move so aggressively into the streaming business pretty much at the top of the pile. Personally I find their original content still a bit narrow in its focus on Star Wars and Marvel, but it's both understandable and a pretty subjective view.

 

[Schmidt]

Feel free to provide some back up for this claim.

Well, sure. I work in the medical device world, and have friends in finance, etc...
We are all back at work. Not saying everywhere, just mostly. People that are working from home are not as productive the way they would be in an office or out in the field somewhere. Virtual Team meetings have become the new white noise. The decline in productivity as a whole with the stay at home work force has been noticed. Listen, I'm positive there are certain industries where working from home is thriving. I'm just saying the expectation as a whole is back to pre pandemic levels.

Regarding, actual examples, tons of people have been let go in my industry for not getting back out there.

 

[Schmidt]

Many companies are staying with either a full remote or a hybrid remote work environment. My company is only requiring people to come to the office for certain positions, like customer technical support, where they need specialized equipment to set up customer scenarios. The $$ savings in downsizing office space is real. We have done away with fixed work spaces. If you need to go in for any reason, you now need to reserve a work space in advance. I have been 100% remote now for close to 7 years. First due to lack of office space in my area and then due to covid.

Sorry, was referring more to career oriented jobs, not tech support. Those are phone based jobs.