News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[JD80]

For consumers that works great. I don't see how that is going to make streaming platforms profitable in the end.

Netflix will probably be the year round platform for most. Which is great for them. For the rest having a revolving subscription base each year is not going to work.

Well that's the question isn't it? Disney+ will have to get enough people to sub to their platform most of the time whether it's a full sub or an ad-tier sub. I think they are on that path.

 

[el_super]

Disney would have to radically change its approach to leveraging existing IP and creating new IP to make that happen.

Not really. I think the only area they are really missing on Disney+ is the cheaply produced reality entertainment, but other than that, they can just keep making movies and shows as they are doing. It's working so far.

 

[monothingie]

Disney+ has a lot of content people want to watch. Maybe it's just not the content you like? That's ok.

However, I do appreciate your assumption of my consumer habits. Your vitriol is cute.

Based on Neilson Streaming ratings, (The latest available shown here) The only consistent piece of content they have that people really want to watch is Bluey. (Which they do not own but only distribute)

 

[JD80]

Not really. I think the only area they are really missing on Disney+ is the cheaply produced reality entertainment, but other than that, they can just keep making movies and shows as they are doing. It's working so far.

Just my household as an example. Three kids 10 8 and 5 where D+ gets a lot of hours throughout the week for us. Here are the shows my kids pick to watch with no input from my wife and I over the last week or two:

1. Phineas and Ferb
2. KC Undercover
3. Bluey
4. Raven's Home
5. Super Kitties
6. that's so raven
7. random DisJr cartoons.

My kids love all the Disney Jr sitcom shows like Liv and Maddie and Jessie. So as long as they keep producing content like that, I'll continue to be a full time subscriber.

 

[monothingie]

Not really. I think the only area they are really missing on Disney+ is the cheaply produced reality entertainment, but other than that, they can just keep making movies and shows as they are doing. It's working so far.

Making content that cost a fortune to produce and no one is watches is not a sustainable path forward to profitability.

Consider that the D+ segment didn't loose as much money last quarter (and probably this quarter as well) was because everybody was on strike.

 

[Trauma]

Disney+ has a lot of content people want to watch. Maybe it's just not the content you like? That's ok.

However, I do appreciate your assumption of my consumer habits. Your vitriol is cute.

What Bluey?

It’s not vitriol just a warning.

Remember the last time every major financial and news outlet was pumping a soft landing ?

Depending on your age you sure do.

2007.

 

[el_super]

Making content that cost a fortune to produce and no one is watches is not a sustainable path forward to profitability.

That's always a risk in the entertainment world. It has been since Walt's time. How many box office bombs did Walt produce that eventually made money 50, 60, or 70 years later? Or never?

But that also goes to show what I mean about having more cheap-to-produce content, such as the reality shows and game shows that Netflix has. I keep paying for Netflix but Great British Bake Off is about the only thing I consistently watch there. I think Disney did try with their kid friendly game show (the name I forgot already) but they should be trying to break through in this area.

 

[JD80]

Based on Neilson Streaming ratings, (The latest available shown here) The only consistent piece of content they have that people really want to watch is Bluey. (Which they do not own but only distribute)
View attachment 756757

Sure, for that week of October. Also goes to show that platforms need to acquire older programs people love binging. Netflix made a lot of money people binging the Office for many years before it was removed from the platform.

For example the Simpsons is still pulling in numbers, from the same slide you posted:

 

[JD80]

That's always a risk in the entertainment world. It has been since Walt's time. How many box office bombs did Walt produce that eventually made money 50, 60, or 70 years later? Or never?

But that also goes to show what I mean about having more cheap-to-produce content, such as the reality shows and game shows that Netflix has. I keep paying for Netflix but Great British Bake Off is about the only thing I consistently watch there. I think Disney did try with their kid friendly game show (the name I forgot already) but they should be trying to break through in this area.

Depending how good the D+/Hulu integration is, you'll see more of this.

 

[monothingie]

That's always a risk in the entertainment world. It has been since Walt's time. How many box office bombs did Walt produce that eventually made money 50, 60, or 70 years later? Or never?

Disney has had plenty of bombs and flops. The problem now is that Disney is now consistently putting them out and loosing several hundred million each time. Indy 5 and Ms Marvel (adjusted for inflation)have lost more money than any other film, ever. Now combine them and add a year and half worth of duds like Mermaid, Haunted Mansion, Antman, Lightyear, Elemental, Strange World, Wish, etc. and you have a serious problem.

But that also goes to show what I mean about having more cheap-to-produce content, such as the reality shows and game shows that Netflix has. I keep paying for Netflix but Great British Bake Off is about the only thing I consistently watch there. I think Disney did try with their kid friendly game show (the name I forgot already) but they should be trying to break through in this area.

It seems Disney isn't interested in this. They seem pot committed to large tentpole productions from Marvel and Star Wars only. (Too big to fail?)

 

[el_super]

Disney has had plenty of bombs and flops. The problem now is that Disney is now consistently putting them out and loosing several hundred million each time. Indy 5 and Ms Marvel (adjusted for inflation)have lost more money than any other film, ever. Now combine them and add a year and half worth of duds like Mermaid, Haunted Mansion, Antman, Lightyear, Elemental, Strange World, Wish, etc. and you have a serious problem.

You're judging these solely on box office performance though, which at this point seems misguided.

If they are driving subscriptions to Disney+, Disney will still make money off them.

It seems Disney isn't interested in this. They seem pot committed to large tentpole productions from Marvel and Star Wars only. (Too big to fail?)

And like I said, it's been working so far. Disney+'s subscriber numbers have remained strong over the last couple years, and if things like Ahsoka and Loki are keeping people on the platform, then they are working.

 

[LSLS]

Top 20 Movies of each year, from Box Office Mojo

Worldwide totals:
2023 - $11.3B
2022 - $13.5B
2021 - $10.6B
2020 - $4.8B
2019 - $18.6B
2018 - $16.4B

Domestic:
2023 - $5B
2022 - $5B
021 - $2.9B
2020 - $1.5B
2019 - $5.9B
2018 - $5.7B

COVID changed a lot of content consumption habits and behavior and the movie industry has not recovered yet. In the US there is almost a billion dollars in less movie goer spending. The worldwide number is like 5-6 billion.

That's just not a Disney problem, that's an industry problem.

Somewhat. Here's the issue though. Universal is actually up from their 2019, and at the same level as their 2018 this year. WB is down about $500 million, but they released 13 movies this year as opposed to 40 in 2019 and 45 in 2018. 20th Century/20th Century Fox is down about $500 million (I think I put those two together correctly, correct me if I'm wrong there). Disney, down over $2 billion from 2019, almost $1.5 billion from 2018. Their share of the market is also significantly decreasing. They were over 20% every year from 2015-COVID. 2021, they were 20.4%, 2022 they were 18.35%, and at this point in 2023, just 17.3%. There may be an industry problem, but it is exponentially worse for Disney than other studios.

 

[monothingie]

Sure, for that week of October. Also goes to show that platforms need to acquire older programs people love binging. Netflix made a lot of money people binging the Office for many years before it was removed from the platform.

For example the Simpsons is still pulling in numbers, from the same slide you posted:

View attachment 756758

Except this is the norm, not the exception. If you look back through historical ratings data, the only consistent successful program is Bluey.

D+ original content like Ashoka, Loki, Andor, Obi-Wan, Boba Fest, Secret Invasion, even Mandolorian S3 have not performed well or had lasting power to remain at the top of ratings charts. (They can't even come close to matching Bluey)

These are expensive productions that do not create the user engagement Disney needs to ensure the longterm viability of the D+ platform.

 

[el_super]

There may be an industry problem, but it is exponentially worse for Disney than other studios.

So how do those numbers compare to the strength of their streaming services? Disney (Disney+) and WB (Max) have pretty significant subscriber counts right? Universal (Peacock) is on the low end of the streaming spectrum isn't it?

To be honest, I think having their streaming service named Peacock might be creating a disconnect with the audience between the two that would overall help Universal at the box office, but hurt them in streaming.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think you'd be surprised how many households with young children watch the cartoons and sitcom like shows on Disney+. I know my house and my neighbors and friends have that kind of content on more often than movies.

There always have been and will be kids

But they aren’t automatically going to be hooked on Disney as it was in the past

Their park crowds are trending older…domestic population is slowing…
And then there’s that whole money “thing”

My kids watched Disney junior too…doesn’t mean they want a $200 cable/stream package now…

 

[el_super]

D+ original content like Ashoka, Loki, Andor, Obi-Wan, Boba Fest, Secret Invasion, even Mandolorian S3 have not performed well or had lasting power to remain at the top of ratings charts. (They can't even come close to matching Bluey)

All you are doing here is making a case for Disney+ to stop making original content, and keep charging full price for Bluey.

Admittedly, Bluey is pretty good. I might actually keep paying my subscription for Bluey alone.

 

[Trauma]

And like I said, it's been working so far. Disney+'s subscriber numbers have remained strong over the last couple years, and if things like Ahsoka and Loki are keeping people on the platform, then they are working.

If by losing money you mean it’s working, yes.

The product has not been stress tested yet.

What does this business look like during hard economic times.

What does Roi look like for advertisers on D+ look like compared to other platforms like YouTube.

 

[JD80]

It seems Disney isn't interested in this. They seem pot committed to large tentpole productions from Marvel and Star Wars only. (Too big to fail?)

There is a LOT of content that is being produced for D+ that isn't just Marvel/Star Wars stuff. Just scroll through all the shorts/specials/series/originals not to mention the Disney Channel Series and Specials still being produced.

 

[LSLS]

So how do those numbers compare to the strength of their streaming services? Disney (Disney+) and WB (Max) have pretty significant subscriber counts right? Universal (Peacock) is on the low end of the streaming spectrum isn't it?

To be honest, I think having their streaming service named Peacock might be creating a disconnect with the audience between the two that would overall help Universal at the box office, but hurt them in streaming.

Oh I've said for a while I think that's a major issue for Disney's box office. I also think they have trained their customers to know that it will be on D+ in 3 months much moreso than any other company has, making it so people can miss those movies and not care all that much. The question I have no idea about is if that drives subscriptions. As someone else mentioned, the major driver for subscriptions in our house are a lot of the older pre-teen shows on D+, and the Marvel/Lucas shows for me if I get REALLY interested. I watch Peacock the most funny enough, but I can tell you right now there is not a single movie that came out in theaters and then to D+ 3 months later that would sway my family decision to have D+ or not. I have NO idea if we are an outlier or the norm, but it's a fascinating question.

 

[monothingie]

You're judging these solely on box office performance though, which at this point seems misguided.

If they are driving subscriptions to Disney+, Disney will still make money off them.

Two problems: One, Box Office is where the majority of the money is made. Second, D+ subscriptions have gone flat.

And like I said, it's been working so far. Disney+'s subscriber numbers have remained strong over the last couple years, and if things like Ahsoka and Loki are keeping people on the platform, then they are working.

Are they though? There is no evidence that these shows have done any of that. Ignoring the Hotstar subscribers, Disney LOST North American subscribers during the quarter in which Mandolorian S3 was released.