Like Comcast who probably does not have much of a clue on how to run Universal theme parks but has NBC hire and set up execs to run Universal parks and resorts.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
I agree but think that’s reversible, 95+ years of being beloved, a couple years of divisiveness… if they can quiet the rhetoric, regain some of the lost magic at the parks, and most importantly put out a couple blockbusters, I think people will find their love for Disney again.
Elon could be classified as a very smart nerd. There is that saying " Be nice to a nerd, one day you might be working for one ".
Indy_UK
Well-Known Member
I think they can go back to that if they stay out of politics, don’t make the nickel and dimming so obvious and make films that families actually want to see
A major company staying out of politics ( I help you , you help me ) is like the Salvation Army not asking for donations during Christmas.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
True, more like go back to being discreet about it, like most companies. Being publicly political is sure to cause problems.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
This is often repeated and often agreed upon… but on what metrics is it on a crash course to missing the goal?
We don’t have to complicate much beyond revenue in (subscriber count x ARPU) - content spend. ARPU is going up another 20-30% this fiscal year.
So what are they missing? Mass subscriber exodus or spending more?
Oddly spend is going to drop even more than intended as it is depreciated by the company after programming is added to the platform. That’s due to take more of a nosedive over the coming two years due to the production stoppages, none of the strikes savings have been realized by the platform yet.
So we’re left with a mass subscriber exodus?
Are we assuming that if content is cut and pricing is raised subscriber count will continue to rise?
Most people I know with D+ just have it as a babysitter for their kids. A lot of those kids are watching YouTube instead anyways.
At some point terrible content and increasing prices will have to have an effect.
I might be in the minority but I kind of like what Blackwells' bringing to the table.
𝕴𝖒𝖆𝖌𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖊𝖗97
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Can you explain?
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Not at all. I’m saying in order for the service to tread current waters, we’d need a 30-40% reduction in core subscribers over the next 12 months to not meet profitability targets.
The profitability is not contingent on subscriber growth. It’s even contingent on some loses.
Core subscribers have yet to shrink quarter on quarter since the end of the 2019 introductory year.
D+ has also yet to cede pricing power over Netflix, which is quite a bit higher for ARPU. So I’m just surmising if Netflix hasn’t chased them away in droves, what’s unique to a cheaper D+?
So again, why can’t D+ achieve profitability? If your prediction is 30-40 million subscriber loses this fiscal year, that makes sense to me as a position.
flynnibus
Premium Member
In the real world... everyone knows the term 'profitable' when talking about publicaly traded companies is about their current operations... revenue vs expenses. Past losses that are still being paid for are covered as part of expenses... losses that aren't, aren't part of the discussion. You're talking about Return on Investment.. not profitability.
Sure they will achieve profitability.
How is this being achieved?
By cutting 25b in content spending.
These cuts will put them far below what Netflix is spending.
It’s not enough to just become profitable for a year.
They have to grow. Right now they are saying they can do that while spending far less than Netflix.
Is that how it’s going to play out ?
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
It’s kind of baffling that the studios saw how much they were spending to produce content, and then licensing it to Netflix or Hulu for $$$. Then they were like what if we just make our own streaming services
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Cutting To 25b, not by 25b.
They will still be spending more than Netflix, though it does include sports.
Content Spending 2024 Projections: Top Media & Tech Companies
VIP+ Analysis: Programming costs at the major streamers and studios are poised to rebound — relatively speaking — in 2024.
variety.com
So you would prefer to continue the rapid growth phase? That does impede profitability. Part of the issue is Chapek wanted D+ to scale up to Netflix and I don’t personally think that’s a sustainable goal. The free credit, tech run environment has ended for the moment.
Iger intended for a niche streamer, Chapek looked for a 1:1 Netflix competitor and Iger seems to be rolling it back to somewhere in between.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I’m convinced that Disney would have been better of not buying Fox, and then letting Netflix and Apple+ battle for “exclusive” access to the Disney / Pixar vault.
flynnibus
Premium Member
It's kinda of hard to promote your product and drive your relevancy when someone else controls the eyeballs and can just be like 'nah...'.
You're assuming the consumers will demand your product be included... but eventually as time moves on, the knowledge of your past product dies out... you can't rely totally on your history. They need the ability to push and promote NEW product too. They didn't want to risk just being a content provider.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Temporarily, long term the company would be pulling a Sega as it were.
I’m mixed on Fox. He overpaid, which is partly the fault of Brian Roberts not letting Iger walk away with a fourth successful acquisition. Instead they (Comcast/Disney) sort of hurt one another in the process.
It was underpriced and a steal at the original terms.
Iger really did need the general entertainment boost. Which is partially his fault for killing general entertainment historically. But it turns out Paramount is for the taking not long after.
Sorry the article I read said cutting “by” I checked other sources and you are correct.Cutting To 25b, not by 25b.
They will still be spending more than Netflix, though it does include sports.
Content Spending 2024 Projections: Top Media & Tech Companies
VIP+ Analysis: Programming costs at the major streamers and studios are poised to rebound — relatively speaking — in 2024.
So you would prefer to continue the rapid growth phase? That does impede profitability. Part of the issue is Chapek wanted D+ to scale up to Netflix and I don’t personally think that’s a sustainable goal. The free credit, tech run environment has ended for the moment.
Iger intended for a niche streamer, Chapek looked for a 1:1 Netflix competitor and Iger seems to be rolling it back to somewhere in between.
I still don’t understand how this works. They can’t produce quality content at 35B.
I want to hear more from them on improving the content and less about price manipulation.
I will pay whatever they ask me too if I can start to get some kick butt content to watch.
There is something specific that happens in Burbank. This is not General Electric or Paramount: this is a creative-oriented company named after its first leader. The kinds of egomaniac CEOs attracted to run to this company think they can be the next Walt Disney or somehow have better success running the company than him and his family did. I absolutely believe Eisner and Iger are those kinds of people.