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

Trauma

Well-Known Member
View attachment 729949

Cable subscribers pay nearly $10 per month for ESPN and ESPN2, while ESPN+ subscribers pay $6.99 per month. So you can understand why Disney is in no rush to exit the cable business.

View attachment 729950
These charts don’t mean anything without the cost of content.

You can’t have increased costs and declining subs without price increases, leading to more declining subs.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Do they think Disney is struggling? They seem content with Iger and the board so far.



Those charts seem to indicate that it's around the same number of people watching, just split between cable and streaming.

So what's the fundamental problem here? That disney has to pay for two delivery methods? That people don't want to spend as much for streaming?

The total income (outside of advertising revenue) per subscriber is roughly 11 billion a year (ESPN+ 54 million per month or 1.8 billion per year ESPN 760 million per month or 9.1 billion per year). In the same rough terms, the NBA and NFL contractual obligation is roughly 6 billion a year.
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
Chapek reading the headlines about Iger today.
tom-and-jerry-laugh.gif
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
The total income (outside of advertising revenue) per subscriber is roughly 11 billion a year (ESPN+ 54 million per month or 1.8 billion per year ESPN 760 million per month or 9.1 billion per year). In the same rough terms, the NBA and NFL contractual obligation is roughly 6 billion a year.

So it's still profitable?

I don't see sports viewing going away anytime soon, so fundamentally they are strong there no?

I think there are issues with streaming viewers expecting to pay less and the leagues expecting more and more that need to be reconciled, but those are minor issues relatively.
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Do they think Disney is struggling? They seem content with Iger and the board so far.
Well, what is the stock price telling us?

The underlying issue is the same one as is playing out elsewhere. It's the age old fight of who should profit more from production: Labor or Capital. It's there with the writer's strike, and now the actor's strike. It's there in college sports with NIL and the transfer portal. It's there is wage inflation in many industries. We aren't in a typical business environment, not even the same zip code. The pandemic and accompanying supply disruptions, combined with the Boomers aging out, and a new technological landscape, has everyone in a tailspin. There is both tremendous opportunity and tremendous trepidation. Bob may complain about the Labor being "not realistic," but neither is Capital. The old ways, and old profit streams are done for them as well. Right now, there is a paralysis because no one knows how to pivot successfully, and the penalties for making the wrong moves will be high. At some point investors will get desperate, and demand changes for change sake. Bob won't be safe when that happens.
 

Trauma

Well-Known Member
The total income (outside of advertising revenue) per subscriber is roughly 11 billion a year (ESPN+ 54 million per month or 1.8 billion per year ESPN 760 million per month or 9.1 billion per year). In the same rough terms, the NBA and NFL contractual obligation is roughly 6 billion a year.
There are other contracts out there ( MLB NHL etc. ) making things a little tighter.
 

Ayla

Well-Known Member
A bit off-topic and out of my wheelhouse of knowledge; so i gotta ask, will alot of TV and movie productions be delayed etc if actors join the writers strike?
Yes. They already are because of the writers strike. Don't expect anything to go into production into 2024.
 

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Do they think Disney is struggling? They seem content with Iger and the board so far.



Those charts seem to indicate that it's around the same number of people watching, just split between cable and streaming.

So what's the fundamental problem here? That disney has to pay for two delivery methods? That people don't want to spend as much for streaming?
Disney doesn't want profitability that's shrinking, they want growth.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Well, what is the stock price telling us?

Not much. It has been hovering around the same price for awhile now. And aside from Peltz (or maybe even including him) no real serious action has been taken against Disney's board from the shareholders. I do think it's safe to say that everyone is in a wait and see mode at the moment.

At some point investors will get desperate, and demand changes for change sake. Bob won't be safe when that happens.

The problems facing Disney are numerous, but not necessarily unique. There's not going to be any desire to swap out Bob unless there is some clear indications he's leading the company down the wrong path. If for instance there was a strong bounceback in box office revenue, and Iger insisted on pushing streaming, that might be a cause for concern. If Disney+ keeps hemorrhaging money, and he doesn't cut bait, then yes, there might be a need to oust him.

But there are no clear indications one way or another who is going to win out. It is a period of major transition in the industry right now, and no one, Wall Street or Disney's C-Suite alike, are in a good position to say what the right answer is.

Which by extension means... there's no way to say Iger is wrong either.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
There are other contracts out there ( MLB NHL etc. ) making things a little tighter.
The NBA deal is $1.4 billion per year. The NHL is $400 million per year. MLB clocks in around $560 million per year.

If Disney agrees to another broadcast deal with the NBA, they should be locked in a rubber room while wearing straitjackets.
 

ABQ

Well-Known Member
View attachment 729949

Cable subscribers pay nearly $10 per month for ESPN and ESPN2, while ESPN+ subscribers pay $6.99 per month. So you can understand why Disney is in no rush to exit the cable business.

View attachment 729950
I'd say exactly the opposite, I would guess Disney would love to sell ESPN direct to consumers but are stuck in contracts with the cable providers that extend X number of years into the future.
Who knows, once Disney sells 50% of ESPN to DraftKings, maybe we can bet on what ESPN does once it can get out of these cable deals.?
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member


Be careful Bob they will turn on you in a second.
So says Bob when he and other millionaires and billionaires fly to Idaho for their business conference on their private jets.
 

Smugpugmug

Well-Known Member


Be careful Bob they will turn on you in a second.
This is one of the most out of touch statements Iger has ever said and that is really, really saying something. He is currently getting blasted on social media for this and tbh deserved.
 

Eric Graham

Well-Known Member
I'm actually very happy about Disney's performance lately. More bad decisions=Less People in the Parks. When we went in May, we took Lyft and the driver took us by parking lots that were very empty. The parks are more enjoyable for us when there are less people in the parks. I don't have an interest in Disney stock. Anyways, Microsoft, American Express and Visa are doing so much better. The S&P 500 historically outperforms the market also. Here is a recent article from CNN describing the summer attendance at Disney: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/13/business/disney-world-universal-orlando-attendance-down/index.html And another article shows a different view about the summer from Delta: https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...s-despite-expectations-of-a-spending-pullback
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
This is one of the most out of touch statements Iger has ever said and that is really, really saying something. He is currently getting blasted on social media for this and tbh deserved.

Rising costs for writers and actors are going to be a tough sell when he has to justify spending $300M on a picture that won't make that amount back at the box office. He's going to have to pass that cost onto the consumers, and they don't have a green light to do that.
 

Smugpugmug

Well-Known Member
Rising costs for writers and actors are going to be a tough sell when he has to justify spending $300M on a picture that won't make that amount back at the box office. He's going to have to pass that cost onto the consumers, and they don't have a green light to do that.
We'll see how this all plays out. For now though, this statement just proves how out of touch Iger is in general (not that it was a secret before).
 

Eric Graham

Well-Known Member
Rising costs for writers and actors are going to be a tough sell when he has to justify spending $300M on a picture that won't make that amount back at the box office. He's going to have to pass that cost onto the consumers, and they don't have a green light to do that.
I would really prefer to see movies without 3 hour run times with previews included. Indiana Jones was over 2 and a half hours. Too much sitting!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom