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

[BrianLo]

Maybe because Universal didn’t sacrifice their box office as tribute to the Streaming Gods
View attachment 771144

Perhaps, but they'll also quickly be the only one left burning billions on streaming. All the studios are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm also not sure what that chart is trying to show or what your point with it is? Is it weekly data or something? Disney obviously doesn't have 1% of the market in 2023 (as bad as it was). Sony is also the only one not actually in the streaming game.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is acknowledgement that they are producing negative margin product. People do not want what they are making. So, just produce enough product to keep a market presence.

Patient: Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this.

Doctor: Then don’t do that.

 

[Jrb1979]

Reminder that Peacock is currently the poorest performing studio streamer in the room, by a wide margin.

Quizzically that's never mentioned. They also have likely the hardest slog to profitability.

While it may not be doing good, I feel their focus isn't on streaming right now. They know the money is in the parks at the moment so that's their focus.

I hate the argument of " well D+ may be losing money right now but look at Comcast and others that are doing worse.'". In reality other than Netflix none have figured it out yet. I'm sorry but cutting content isn't the answer either.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Perhaps, but they'll also quickly be the only one left burning billions on streaming. All the studios are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm also not sure what that chart is trying to show or what your point with it is? Is it weekly data or something? Disney obviously doesn't have 1% of the market in 2023 (as bad as it was). Sony is also the only one not actually in the streaming game.

Well…they all burn billions on stream and that will never stop

The question is can they get enough from people not cancelling their subs and outdated ad sales to turn modest profits?

 

[Nubs70]

Patient: Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this.

Doctor: Then don’t do that.

Minimal product to maintain presence is a signpost on the road to some variation of Chapter.

 

[BrianLo]

While it may not be doing good, I feel their focus isn't on streaming right now. They know the money is in the parks at the moment so that's their focus.

I hate the argument of " well D+ may be losing money right now but look at Comcast and others that are doing worse.'". In reality other than Netflix none have figured it out yet. I'm sorry but cutting content isn't the answer either.

That’s not the argument at all. Maybe what you are misinterpreting as an argument?

If you want to put the companies head to head in the media space, Peacock is very frequently side lined or conveniently left out. Disney had a bad year for sure, Comcast was counterbalanced between a worse performing streamer and better performing movies. But largely they were on par company to company as a result, despite the discrepancies (in their media spaces).

I have no need for excuses for D+. It will be profitable in very short order, as always targeted. I have always maintained that personally as well. We seem to have moved the targets from denial to begrudging acceptance and it not being ‘profitable enough’ this year I guess. Whatever that means.

On the flip side there is absolutely no path to profitability at this juncture for Peacock. They can’t grow subs fast enough. They can’t cut content enough. They can’t thread the needle and turn the content spouts back on sufficiently without driving down the profitability angle. Disney and WB on the other hand can with their more moderate sized platforms. I’m very curious how they (Comcast) turn that one around and am surprised how little the media seems to care.


And as you say, the parks are largely irrelevant to the discussion on streaming these days. Neither company has signaled unwillingness to spend moving forward, so it’s completely moot.

 

[BrianLo]

Well…they all burn billions on stream and that will never stop

The question is can they get enough from people not cancelling their subs and outdated ad sales to turn modest profits?

Supposedly they will, since the forward projection is positive 5 million subs for next quarter, that about does it. Along with a major bump in ARPU that has not occurred yet from the late Q1 price hikes. WB has managed it also.

Content cuts aren't this nebulous snow-ball that keeps growing and growing. They've occurred. Once we are forward looking, the prices rise more modestly (like a dollar). You take that dollar of ARPU and you increase your profits and you increase your content. Say you split it 50/50, a dollar of ARPU generates 1.2 billion in revenue at current sub rates. That means 600 million for the shareholders and 600 million for content (or 8 Taylor Swift Concert purchases).

Fast forward five years and the subscription is 15 dollars. But they have now basically an added budget for a Taylor Swift every week and billions of profit on top. That's how you scale up gradually from here towards Netflix (of today). By then Netflix of tomorrow may be pushing 25-30 dollar ARPU. So if anyone is going to find themselves in the pricing trap first, it is shockingly not Disney this time.

There is a pricing ceiling for sure, but oddly Netflix hasn't found it quite yet. So Disney has a very generous runway still to go.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That’s not the argument at all. Maybe what you are misinterpreting as an argument?

If you want to put the companies head to head in the media space, Peacock is very frequently side lined or conveniently left out. Disney had a bad year for sure, Comcast was counterbalanced between a worse performing streamer and better performing movies. But largely they were on par company to company as a result, despite the discrepancies (in their media spaces).

I have no need for excuses for D+. It will be profitable in very short order, as always targeted. I have always maintained that personally as well. We seem to have moved the targets from denial to begrudging acceptance and it not being ‘profitable enough’ this year I guess. Whatever that means.

On the flip side there is absolutely no path to profitability at this juncture for Peacock. They can’t grow subs fast enough. They can’t cut content enough. They can’t thread the needle and turn the content spouts back on sufficiently without driving down the profitability angle. Disney and WB on the other hand can with their more moderate sized platforms. I’m very curious how they (Comcast) turn that one around and am surprised how little the media seems to care.


And as you say, the parks are largely irrelevant to the discussion on streaming these days. Neither company has signaled unwillingness to spend moving forward, so it’s completely moot.

I’m beginning to like you…

But man…is this grape or cherry flavored?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Supposedly they will, since the forward projection is positive 5 million subs for next quarter, that about does it. Along with a major bump in ARPU that has not occurred yet from the late Q1 price hikes. WB has managed it also.

Content cuts aren't this nebulous snow-ball that keeps growing and growing. They've occurred. Once we are forward looking, the prices rise more modestly (like a dollar). You take that dollar of ARPU and you increase your profits and you increase your content. Say you split it 50/50, a dollar of ARPU generates 1.2 billion in revenue at current sub rates. That means 600 million for the shareholders and 600 million for content (or 8 Taylor Swift Concert purchases).

Fast forward five years and the subscription is 15 dollars. But they have now basically an added budget for a Taylor Swift every week and billions of profit on top. That's how you scale up gradually from here towards Netflix (of today). By then Netflix of tomorrow may be pushing 25-30 dollar ARPU. So if anyone is going to find themselves in the pricing trap first, it is shockingly not Disney this time.

There is a pricing ceiling for sure, but oddly Netflix hasn't found it quite yet. So Disney has a very generous runway still to go.

Because they can’t lie, right?

 

[Indy_UK]

If the likes of Paramount+ isn’t longed for this world, why don’t they cut their losses and just partner their content with someone else like Netflix or Disney+

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If the likes of Paramount+ isn’t longed for this world, why don’t they cut their losses and just partner their content with someone else like Netflix or Disney+

The most reasonable explanations to date are:

1. None of them have the slightest clue what they’re doing
2. It’s a “measuring contest”
Among old Hollywood execs

 

[pdude81]

Even if they don't think they have a path to long term profitability, the infrastructure and employees involved with Paramount+ have potential value to another buyer. It's not like Redstone has an infinite horizon with which to achieve profitability either. It's like redoing the kitchen before you sell a house. Chances are you just spend a bunch of time and money that won't be recouped in a sale.

 

[_caleb]

The most reasonable explanations to date are:

1. None of them have the slightest clue what they’re doing
2. It’s a “measuring contest”
Among old Hollywood execs

Broad generalizations and overstatements like this turn what would be valid points into what I usually find on my crazy uncle’s Facebook feed.

1. The executives in charge are the best in the business (or competition would have replaced them). But I agree that major shifts in technology and consumer behavior mean there is a lot of uncertainty even for the most experienced in the business. “What worked” in previous decades are not likely to serve as well moving into an uncertain future.

2. Competition does seem to get in the way of what might be lucrative partnerships. But these are existential decisions for companies. Merging, partnering, and even licensing can be the end for some of these companies.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Broad generalizations and overstatements like this turn what would be valid points into what I usually find on my crazy uncle’s Facebook feed.

1. The executives in charge are the best in the business (or competition would have replaced them). But I agree that major shifts in technology and consumer behavior mean there is a lot of uncertainty even for the most experienced in the business. “What worked” in previous decades are not likely to serve as well moving into an uncertain future.

2. Competition does seem to get in the way of what might be lucrative partnerships. But these are existential decisions for companies. Merging, partnering, and even licensing can be the end for some of these companies.

It’s being awhile since I’ve seen the “lecture of agreement”…but it’s a delicate skill

 

[_caleb]

It’s being awhile since I’ve seen the “lecture of agreement”…but it’s a delicate skill

Honestly, I’m a bit rusty. How’d I do? Too over-the-top? I mean, agreeing with you isn’t something I can just do. I have a reputation to uphold. I tried to add a bit of flair for our audience here, but maybe it was too much?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Honestly, I’m a bit rusty. How’d I do? Too over-the-top? I mean, agreeing with you isn’t something I can just do. I have a reputation to uphold. I tried to add a bit of flair for our audience here, but maybe it was too much?

Not bad…you took a good crack at it

 

[flynnibus]

Minimal product to maintain presence is a signpost on the road to some variation of Chapter.

Here's the thing... Disney doesn't have to generate D+ originals to have D+ content...

The overrotation all the services have right now is the notion that people only want a channel for the newest shows. I think most providers are flopping terribly at getting people to watch the historical content they have... content that people LOVE they just don't know it's there, forgotten, or it's just too buried to be bothered with.

I expect as the space matures, you'll see the streamers invest a lot more in their app, profiles, and content suggestions. These are all areas everyone short of Netflix is absolutely horrible with right now... and is the backbone that others like youtube, instagram, etc excel at. If they're smart they'll fix that and get back to keeping accounts happy by having them farm their existing content libraries far more than they do today.

Less we forget the majority of the TV time during the day was filled with non-original, often repeat shows... not blockbuster original series 24hrs a day. Streaming needs to do a better job of feeding couch potatoes to keep the stable customer base instead of trying to endlessly attract them with the latest sweet.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Here's the thing... Disney doesn't have to generate D+ originals to have D+ content...

The overrotation all the services have right now is the notion that people only want a channel for the newest shows. I think most providers are flopping terribly at getting people to watch the historical content they have... content that people LOVE they just don't know it's there, forgotten, or it's just too buried to be bothered with.

I expect as the space matures, you'll see the streamers invest a lot more in their app, profiles, and content suggestions. These are all areas everyone short of Netflix is absolutely horrible with right now... and is the backbone that others like youtube, instagram, etc excel at. If they're smart they'll fix that and get back to keeping accounts happy by having them farm their existing content libraries far more than they do today.

Less we forget the majority of the TV time during the day was filled with non-original, often repeat shows... not blockbuster original series 24hrs a day. Streaming needs to do a better job of feeding couch potatoes to keep the stable customer base instead of trying to endlessly attract them with the latest sweet.

The original streaming concept was to show old, cheap catalogues and then put new release movies on there to augment

That was 10 years ago and the model didn’t work

 

[Jrb1979]

The original streaming concept was to show old, cheap catalogues and then put new release movies on there to augment

That was 10 years ago and the model didn’t work

I would bet the majority subscribe for a new show and once they watch the unsubscribe. My wife does it all the time

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I would bet the majority subscribe for a new show and once they watch the unsubscribe. My wife does it all the time

I don’t know if “most” do that

…but what you describe appears to be the main reason the streams have such high churn and also why the suppliers have had difficulty profiting on/sustaining them?