The Miscellaneous Thought Thread

[DL-fan]

I feel this line is blurred with Disney plus/Hulu because many different brands from other studios outside of Disney/Fox/Marvel are represented.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney has gone so far in sacrificing their brand in favor of profit that they are not actively platforming a film that was literally designed to mock their brand. Unhinged. If D'Amaro wants to fix Disney, re-establishing brand recognition needs to be his first objective because the Walt Disney Company has completely lost it.

Note this says its Hulu on D+, ie its not on core D+ you must be subscribed to the D+/Hulu bundle to access this in the Hulu section under the "Hulu" brand. Hulu has always been an aggregator of other studios content since its inception. This is no different than any other studio licensing their content on Netflix.

So this isn't Disney sacrificing the "Disney" brand, because its not under the "Disney" brand, its under the "Hulu" brand.

 

[Disney Irish]

That distinction doesn’t really hold up in practice. Even if the content technically sits under the “Hulu” tile inside Disney+, it’s still being delivered through Disney+ as a platform. To the average viewer, it’s all one app, one interface, one brand experience. The nuance between “core Disney+” and “Hulu on Disney+” is something only more engaged or informed users are likely to notice or care about.

More importantly, Disney itself is the one choosing to integrate Hulu this way. This isn’t like licensing content out to a completely separate service (like Netflix) where branding and user experience are clearly distinct. Here, Disney is intentionally blending ecosystems. That means any content—regardless of which internal label it falls under—reflects back on Disney+ as a whole.

The “aggregator” argument also misses a key difference: Hulu historically existed as a separate destination with its own identity. By embedding it داخل Disney+, Disney is collapsing that separation. When users browse, recommendations, search results, and promotions can surface Hulu content right alongside traditional Disney+ offerings. That blurs the boundary whether the UI labels it or not.

So yes, it is different from traditional licensing. Disney isn’t just distributing content elsewhere—they’re redefining what Disney+ is. And once everything lives under the same roof, brand distinctions become much harder to maintain in any meaningful way.

Except if you on the D+ only package you don't even see it even in your searches. You only see it if you are on the D+/Hulu bundle, ie you MUST have Hulu in order to see it even in searches.

Also its labeled when you view it "Included with your Hulu Subscription" right under the Play button, so they are differentiating it from regular "Disney" content.

So while yes its under the single "D+" app, its not under the "Disney" brand. This idea that D+ should only be "Disney" died out back in 2021 when they started the integration of Star around the world, and then again in 2024 when they fully integrated Hulu in the US. And no one really made too much of a peep about it.

D+ for all intents and purposes now is an aggregator under the D+/Hulu bundle trying to compete with Netflix. And since almost half of all subscribers are bundle subscribers no one really cares at this point if it has "non-Disney" content on it, ie its what they expect when they pay for it.

Bottom line, if you want Disney only content then subscribe to D+ only. If you want aggregated content from many studios including Disney, then subscribe to the D+/Hulu bundle. You have a choice.

 

[Disney Irish]

That still kind of sidesteps the real issue, though. You’re focusing on access mechanics (“you only see it if you have the bundle”), but brand perception isn’t determined by subscription tiers—it’s shaped by how the platform presents itself holistically.

Even if a standalone Disney+ subscriber never sees it, a massive portion of the user base does—and as you pointed out, that’s close to half. At that scale, you can’t treat it like a niche edge case. For those users, Disney+ is the combined experience, not two neatly separated brands.

And the labeling argument (“Included with your Hulu subscription”) is doing a lot less work than you’re suggesting. That’s a functional disclaimer, not a meaningful brand boundary. Most people aren’t parsing UI labels to understand corporate brand architecture—they’re just scrolling a single app where Shrek sits a few rows away from Disney-owned content. That proximity alone changes perception.

Also, saying “D+ is now an aggregator” doesn’t really refute the criticism—it kind of reinforces it. The whole point being made is that Disney has chosen to move away from a tightly curated brand identity toward a broader, Netflix-style content bucket. Whether that’s strategically smart is debatable, but it is a shift in what the Disney brand represents.

So the question isn’t “is this technically Hulu?”—it’s “does the average bundled user experience this as part of Disney’s ecosystem?” And the answer there is pretty clearly yes. Once you unify the interface, recommendations, and billing under one roof, the distinction stops mattering in any practical sense.

The real question is does the average consumer even care, and given that almost half of the subscribers are D+/Hulu subscribers I think the answer is pretty much no.

So while the purist like yourself cares, Disney isn't catering to just you, they are a business that is swimming in the large waters of content distribution where consumers want choice. A majority of consumers don't want single content services anymore like in the early days of streaming where you subscribe to a bunch of services, they want aggregated content services where they can get all their favorite content in one or two services. And Disney has provided them that choice in multiple packages. Again if you want Disney only content then subscribe to D+ only. If you want aggregated content from many studios including Disney, then subscribe to the D+/Hulu bundle.

Disney will never go back to only Disney content on their streaming service, just not the business model that consumers want.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think you’re overstating how little people care—and also framing this as a binary between “purists” and “everyone else,” which isn’t really accurate.


Consumers don’t usually articulate brand concerns, but they absolutely respond to them. Disney’s entire pricing power—especially for families—comes from a very specific expectation: safe, curated, “Disney-like” content. The more that experience starts to feel like a general-purpose content pile, the more it competes on the same terms as everyone else. And that’s where brand dilution actually matters—not as an abstract complaint, but as a long-term business risk.


The bundle strategy makes total sense from a distribution standpoint, but bundling and brand clarity aren’t mutually exclusive. Netflix is an aggregator, but it doesn’t have a legacy identity it’s trying to protect in the same way. The Walt Disney Company does—and that’s why this tension exists in the first place.


Also, “almost half” being on the bundle cuts both ways. That’s not evidence people don’t care—it means a huge share of users are now experiencing Disney through a blended lens whether they consciously opted into that identity shift or not. Over time, that changes what “Disney+” even means in people’s heads.


And the “just subscribe to D+ only if you want pure Disney” argument sounds cleaner than it works in practice. The flagship product—the one Disney is clearly pushing—is the bundle. That’s where the value is, that’s what’s marketed, and that’s where the experience is being unified. So the direction of the brand is being set there, not in the pared-down tier.


So yeah, Disney probably won’t go back to a pure-content model—you’re right about that. But that doesn’t mean the tradeoff is meaningless. They’re gaining scale and competitiveness, but they are loosening what made the Disney brand distinct in the first place. Whether that pays off long-term is still very much an open question.

Most consumers thought Shrek was Disney anyways when it was released, same with Harry Potter hence why you have guests asking CMs where Harry Potter land is at DLR and WDW. So I don't think you're really arguing the point you think you are.

Also just because Disney might be pushing one package over another doesn't mean you have to choose it. Again if you don't want to see any other studio content but "Disney" content then its easy to subscribe to D+ only. Disney isn't forcing you even if they are promoting one package over another, its still YOUR choice. And by and large that choice is what consumers want. They again don't want a single content service anymore. I've seen studies that say about 50% of your generation wants an aggregator service rather than subscribing to multiple services. That is the demographic that all services are going after, the 18-34 demo, and what Disney is competing for. Disney is no longer a single studio company, and hasn't been for over two decades now. So most of your generation knows and grew up with Disney not being a single brand. So this idea that Disney needs to go back to being only the "Disney" brand isn't what your generation knows or seems to want.

 

[TP2000]

Now I don't think they would ever build a theme park at Angels Stadium either but the City has or is still looking at adding a Autonomous Gondala system between ARTIC and Disneyland for 2028 Olympics. But from what I gather its a foreign startup company called Swyft Cities and has only one small system in place at amusement park. They have had many US cities interested (One being Irvine) over the years but none have been built so will Anaheim be the first and get it in place by then I doubt it.
View attachment 914759

That's the same basic route that Anaheim had considered its now-cancelled Streetcar route for 15 years ago.

Except this is a gondola? With what, 25% of the hourly capacity of a Streetcar system? And built for an environment that has definitive peaks and valleys of traffic, pre-game and post-game, post-fireworks, etc.?

Anaheim's senior politicians have proved themselves to be among the nation's least intelligent in recent years, if they weren't under active investigation by the FBI or serving jail time. But this has to take the cake, even for them!

 

[TP2000]

Except your point is moot, and even outdated.

I don't think you even got the point. The point, and the hard facts, are that LA County was the number one county for declining population in the country last year. And it's getting worse.

Not only are people currently leaving LA County (decline of 53,425) and the LA Metro Area (decline of 62,454) in big numbers, they are increasingly wealthy people. The exact demographic needed to buy $1,500 Magic Keys or $200 one-day tickets to Disneyland.

Since 2020, LA County has now lost 300,000 people. And most of those who left weren't poor.

This is a metro area that has all the arrows going in the wrong direction for expensive entertainment like Disneyland.

L.A. County Saw Largest Population Decline in U.S. in 2025

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIzZNsSwnLo YouTube@NTD Los Angeles County saw the larges...

www.kabc.com

 

[TP2000]

One of the few things, if not the only thing, that Magic Kingdom Park does better than Disneyland is its annual Easter parade. I think they started it as a tribute to the hoop skirted Southern Belles that would appear at Cypress Gardens, but now it's sort of its own WDW thing. It's a bit schmaltzy, but it works and they do it very well out there!

I hope everyone has their Easter outfits picked out, picked up from the cleaners, and ready to go; if not for a parade, for church or brunch or just a stylish Target run!

Happy Easter, gang! May all your eggs be full of your favorite candy, and no Carob!

 

[Disney Irish]

I don't think you even got the point. The point, and the hard facts, are that LA County was the number one county for declining population in the country last year. And it's getting worse.

Not only are people currently leaving LA County (decline of 53,425) and the LA Metro Area (decline of 62,454) in big numbers, they are increasingly wealthy people. The exact demographic needed to buy $1,000 Magic Keys or $200 one-day tickets to Disneyland.

Since 2020, LA County has now lost 300,000 people. And most of those who left weren't poor.

This is a business model that has all the arrows going in the wrong direction for expensive entertainment.

View attachment 914967

L.A. County Saw Largest Population Decline in U.S. in 2025

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIzZNsSwnLo YouTube@NTD Los Angeles County saw the larges...

www.kabc.com

I got your point, which again is moot, because California's population is on the rise again. And because LA County is still the largest county in the nation by over 4M people, or almost 60% more than the closest county. So a 300k drop is less than 5%. Again not a huge decline in the larger scheme of things when you have over 9M people of all economic makeups.

And even if its in decline DLR doesn't cater to JUST LA County, it caters to the entire region of 18.5M and the entire state of 39.5M, all of which are considered "locals".

But again even if the entire locals population of DLR dried up, again not going to happen because that would mean all of the California population would have to dry up but lets pretend, Disney will move into catering to tourists and turn DLR into a true tourist destination, something they've been moving towards anyways. Because again tourism is still happening in California at over 270M visitors a year spending $159B/year.

So again I don't think Disney has any issue with their business model for DLR, or has any fear of whatever direction you think the "arrow" is going.

 

[Parteecia]

I got your point, which again is moot, because California's population is on the rise again. And because LA County is still the largest county in the nation by over 4M people, or almost 60% more than the closest county. So a 300k drop is less than 5%. Again not a huge decline in the larger scheme of things when you have over 9M people of all economic makeups.

And even if its in decline DLR doesn't cater to JUST LA County, it caters to the entire region of 18.5M and the entire state of 39.5M, all of which are considered "locals".

But again even if the entire locals population of DLR dried up, again not going to happen because that would mean all of the California population would have to dry up but lets pretend, Disney will move into catering to tourists and turn DLR into a true tourist destination, something they've been moving towards anyways. Because again tourism is still happening in California at over 270M visitors a year spending $159B/year.

So again I don't think Disney has any issue with their business model for DLR, or has any fear of whatever direction you think the "arrow" is going.

And the parks are still far too crowded.

 

[DLR92]

You don’t need to be wealthy to buy inspire pass. You certainly don’t need to be living close to have it either.

 

[Disney Irish]

You don’t need to be wealthy to buy inspire pass. You certainly don’t need to be living close to have it either.

Yep, that is why all of California is considered "locals" when it comes to the MKs.

 

[DLR92]

Yep, that is why all of California is considered "locals" when it comes to the MKs.

I live up in on the very tip of Northern LA county. I really don’t feel like a real local compared to others I met who live in Orange County.

 

[Disney Irish]

I live up in on the very tip of Northern LA county. I really don’t feel like a real local compared to others I met who live in Orange County.

You may not be a "local" in the traditional sense, but to Disney you're a "local" in the monetary sense.

 

[DLR92]

You may not be a "local" in the traditional sense, but to Disney you're a "local" in the monetary sense.

Haha that true too.