-
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
Surely the brain trust in Burbank can take the confluence of events of new CBAs, evolving financing environment, and a recent string of critical and commercial failures in scripted content to actually be more discriminating, proactive, and good stewards of the company when it comes to greenlighting new projects.
Also I’m surely marrying Ana de Armas.
The biggest streamer is actually YouTube.
And YouTube got that big because of... algorithm.
Same with TikTok.
So, you bet the streaming data from D+ and Hulu are being datamined.
Plus, third party companies monitor all the data they can get from they're poling and participants (think Nielsen). And this gets sold to all the streamers so they know what their competitors are doing.
Of course, datamining isn't going to accurately forecast how a new piece of content is going to do.
A Zach Snyder version of Star Wars? YES!!! WE ALL WANT THAT!!
Oops...
I do earnestly believe that data mined from the platforms will be able to flow downstream into the company’s consumer products and parks. There might be a lot of The Marvels items languishing on shelves now, but the data mining in the future can help them figure out whose faces go on the paper plates and which songs go in the fireworks shows.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Sounds very homogenized, make it the same everywhere. I guess the days of indie art houses with "new" ideas is gone in the name of max profits. Blair Witch could never be made in that environment
JD80
Well-Known Member
Plenty of indy films out there these days.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Nielsen viewership numbers you posted in another thread shows that just as many people/minutes watched Rebel Moon pt 1 in its first week as watched TLM on D+. Do D+ eyes work differently than Netflix ones?
Some have estimated Disney is paying itself $100M for the privilege of TLM’s exclusivity. Rebel Moon’s parts 1 and 2 cost Netflix $166 - meaning each film cost $86M. So it’s been a more effective and efficient use of money than TLM!
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Well the point is they've already said they’re cutting content cost
Which is a bit impossible
And they said they’ll make huge bank on their stream…because magically the huge huge costs go away this year?…or was it last year?
So it’s just time to count the money - it seems
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
There was one…and it lost like $200 million
Last edited:
Poor Things is an indie Disney* movie and I think will garner a Best Picture nom and a Best Actress win.
I’m not defending datamining on Disney+ as a creative victory, just that I believe it to be a place where the company can find financial return on the investment of streaming outside of the streaming product.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
But not in the parks or D+
So they need to be prepared for the inevitable churn of binging and purging, and the fact that their subscriber numbers aren't going to increase much beyond what they have now. There isn't a damn thing on D+ that's worth a yearly subscription for and doing the usual Bob thing (price increase after price increase) isn't going to work for more than a year. You could subscribe for a month, binge what's come out over the last 4-6 months, and do the same thing 6 months down the road and miss nothing. No matter what all their datamining tells them, things aren't making any buzz like with first-season Mando.
How many people would pay to subscribe if they didn't get either D+ or the bundle included in a cell phone plan? 40%? 50%? 60%? I know it's the old "get'em hooked on the free stuff, then they'll want to pay" theory, but there's just no compelling, on-going value proposition for D+, at least in my house. And I can't imagine we're unique in that regard. Even though they are being reduced now to "$10/month add-ons" it still leaves a lot of revenue on the table, and also represents a lot of potential loss of revenue if/when subscribers change plans and decide that even at $10/month the bundle isn't worth it.
Disney has drifted into the weeds with a lot of their TV/movie releases, not to mention their atrocious marketing, over the last 18 months. Whether or not they have someone capable of steering around them back onto the pavement remains to be seen.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
I knew I was special.
YouTube was such a brilliant concept, unlimited content at essentially no cost to YouTube, no other streamer will ever be able to top YouTube for sheer volume, all while offering it for free to the viewer.
Instagram, TikTok, etc are all following similar business plans.
JD80
Well-Known Member
Not sure what your point is, do you want Blair Witch (low budget) kind of products in the Parks?
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
No but would like to see more attractions like Aliens in the park.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Disney has always enjoyed the ability to negotiate premium pricing from cable providers but I wonder if they've considered that direct to consumers who are paying them directly and looking at their content who are free to cancel any time might expect more than one new offering that interests them every couple months to keep them subscribed?
I liked Indy more than I expected to but that was almost two months ago and if I'd seen it in the theater, that release wouldn't have mattered much to me.*
I did see The Marvels so that's not going to move the needle at all when it finally lands.
I didn't think Echo was bad but I'd also have easily filled that void with something else if I hadn't had access. Watching it meant also watching another D+ show over a year ago that a lot of people didn't like.
Besides re-watching Bluey, what's keeping me?
Again, when their stuff was bundled and nobody had much choice, they were free to do what they wanted and not have to think about things that much. Now, that strategy only works if they have that family with kids who will watch the same thing on repeat if they don't already own the DVD/Bluray for it.
Funny enough, their non-fickle sustainable audience for D+ seems to be a totally 180 from who they're courting these days in the Parks... and yet, that media and the IP it spins off is what they're trying to stuff their parks with.
*Maybe that's their secret strategy - put out movies people won't see in theaters so it's new for most when it hits Disney+!
Last edited:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
As a subscriber, I'd say that there is barely enough new content I care about to make it worth-while to me at the ridiculously discounted rate I'm paying now and this is far from a new thing.
If I was paying either the regular with ads or no ads tier prices, for as often as I fire it up to see what's new and then abandon the app to go look in a different one, I'd have a hard time justifying why I keep it rather than just wait for a full season of something I might want to watch drop and then binge my way through it in a month.
Most of what my son watches isn't new and we have it on bluray. We're just lazy but he has a game system in his room that can play blurays so making that switch wouldn't be hard and it's not like you really need D+ to see Bluey... Heck, there are other ways to get it where you don't have to wait as long for the new content and don't have missing episodes so if anything, D+ is a more convenient but crappier way to experience even that.
Last edited:
This is a terrible take even for you.
YouTube’s algo doesn’t determine what type of content people like and then create it.
It just figures out what you like and suggests appropriate content.
Disney has to create the content.
Completely different from YouTube.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
No, the scenario was that the data would drive the development and I think that would leave the odd and special things that only resonate with some people out in the cold for lack of development funds because "the data indicates" dumbing down to the lowest common denominator offerings because they have to appeal to the widest audience and be acceptable to all.
A beige world for all if you will
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
That stuff will still happen as long as they can keep the lid on spending with those projects.
Blair Witch isn't a great example since that was sold after the fact rather that produced by a studio and the novelty of that sort of shoestring project has long passed but for indie art stuff in general, there is still as much of a need for it in the major studios as there ever was for them to be able to attract and retain talent for their other stuff.
Yorgos Lanthimos' current career trajectory is basically thanks to the egos and ids of the people he is given to by the studios to work with.
Don't get me wrong; I thought Emma Stone was phenomenal in Poor things and deserves all the accolades but she was the P.G.A.
What kind of an audition process do you think there was for her role?
Last edited: