Getting the NBA rights is good, it pays for itself (even though ESPN's NBA presentation is awful), losing the rights would cost Disney billions in revenue. It would be a big red flag if they didn't get the rights, as Zaslav failed to get it for WB Discovery and he's being dragged through the coals by the trades for it.
-
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
How does it pay for itself? Ad revenue? They're getting that regardless. It's not driving enough new ESPN+ subscribers to offset the costs. NBA Finals viewership has been at 15-year lows post-Covid. Prime time games average 1.6 million viewers per game. Genuinely curious how this pays for itself year after year.
And we'll see what happens with WB. They claim to have matched Amazon's offer but the NBA is rejecting it. It could end up in court.
mysto
Well-Known Member
The board is very pleased that you blame Bob for all this. That's why they pay him the big bucks.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Another property they have no idea how to maintain and grow, move over Marvel Wars
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
They're not mutually exclusive, but they're also not correlated. To the extent that investors are paying attention to the parks, they care that they are as profitable as possible. So, experimenting with finding the sweet spot where you can cut costs and raise revenues as much as possible in a way that keeps growing profits quarter over quarter will be rewarded. When that stops working, investors will move on; their concern is not that the parks are viable in 20 years time.
In general, however, Wall Street doesn't seem particularly interested in the parks and pays more attention to the things you all complain about Bob putting his time and money into. Just watch how they react when Disney announces billions of new spending on the parks.
I remember during the last investor's meeting there were a lot of questions in regards to how the $60 billion in upcoming parks spending wasn't happening, but you are right, the average wall street investor hates when businesses spend money. The film side of Disney is the creative wing they kind of care about aside from dividends, parks are looked at by most of them as a tertiary thing (like how the trades referred to Chapek as a glorified Churro stand vendor) and only kind of care as it had massive profits over the last year, I don't expect any questions about spending on the parks being at the quarterly meeting, mostly as Disney will probably focus on Inside Out 2 and DP&W's success instead, or about more dryer things, like stock price and how Disney will replace the board member that stepped down.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
It’s quite well timed. They’ll focus on the positivity in the quarterly report and very surface level experiences investing. All the actual experiences investments manifest on the weekend, sandwiched around positive studio news.
And we might get a ‘DCL is an incredibly popular and expanding business with fast investment to operability timelines, check out what we have to say on that this weekend’.
Experiences, unfortunately, have such a long and forward looking investment cycle that never meshes well with the quarterly driven Wall Street.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
You’re conflating all shareholders as the same. The shareholders who are investors interested long term in the company very much care about how the park experience is. The shareholders with a shorter time horizon don’t. That’s why the most successful companies are the ones with long term and active shareholders.
Yes but that is what most of the "Institutional Investors" are. They dont/wont understand that all businesses have good years and bad years. Sometimes a company has to spend money. They just want you to make X amount of profit above what you did the previous year and if you dont...... Well the Street will not be happy...
Quarterly capitalism forces companies like Disney to produce results however they get it to try to prove to Wall Street that numbers are better than last quarter and or last year. If numbers don't gel then Wall Street is eager to see what action plans ( ie layoffs etc ) the companies will implement to improve current situation .
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
The point is also to make money off buying and selling shares, not supporting the construction of a viable business in the longterm. If the shares crash at some point in the future doesn't really matter from that perspective. What matters is estimating the best time to sell or encouraging another scenario where you can earn a premium on your shares such as a takeover. The company chugging along making decent profits into the future isn't very attractive for the kinds of investors who drive share prices. It's why you see them being more responsive to new initiatives like Disney+ than to making sure the theme park business is healthy, even if there is a good chance Disney+ will never bring in as much profits as the parks.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
That’s true but I think it’s why we need to educate people more. Your average American is the owner of TWDC and every other stock in the S&P. We need to get more involved in the management of the companies we own.
Look at Berkshire Hathaway. They have a unique investor base between WB and all the investors who flock to his banner and religiously attend the annual meetings. That’s how it should be for every company.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
You ever see a BH annual meeting? Its an event of epic proportions with entertainment and food no other company ever matched.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Absolutely - and it can pay off. Chik-fil-A and In-n-Out are 2 examples - fully private, don’t follow industry trends, and they both make more money per-store than any of their competitors.
Edit - In-n-out isn’t that high on the list, they are actually below McDonalds but above chipotle. #2, right below chik-fil-a is raising canes chicken - which is 90% owned by the founder so virtually privately owned.
Magic Crush Drop
Active Member
So what you mean to tell me is Disney needs to have a catered shareholder meeting with mickey preztels and dole whips?? Count me in!!
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
As it should be
Do they provide Blizzards? Serious question, as I know Warren loves owning DQ (and also loves Blizzards).
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
I believe all the brands are represented
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Disney cut a chunk of its entertainment workforce yesterday, which typically markets respond well to. Stock’s dropped almost 4% and is below $90 as of this writing.