DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

Bob Iger on possible sale to a larger company - “…I’m not going to speculate about the potential for Disney to be acquired by any company, whether it’s a technology company or not. Obviously, anyone who wants to speculate about such things would have to immediately consider the global regulatory environment. I’ll say no more than that. It’s not something that we obsess about.”
 
The current state of Disney has a very "Roman Empire at it's end" feel to it. Not that they're going anywhere, they'll keep making money and chugging along, just the feel that they've gotten too big for their own good, gotten away from what led them to the top to begin with, and Iger is fiddling while it burns. Again not going anywhere but it just feels like it's spiraling.
 
The current state of Disney has a very "Roman Empire at it's end" feel to it. Not that they're going anywhere, they'll keep making money and chugging along, just the feel that they've gotten too big for their own good, gotten away from what led them to the top to begin with, and Iger is fiddling while it burns. Again not going anywhere but it just feels like it's spiraling.
I can't argue with your observation. Today's events didn't move the needle very much, in my opinion.
 
It just feels like they're lost...in the woods...(couldn't resist). Me and so many of us are imploring them to find their way back to just doing what made the fans happy...make the right investments in the parks...make less but higher quality (better written) content. Make NEW content! They're just in a glass bubble and they just see our mouths moving but don't hear us. So frustrating because it's not hard to make the shift necessary to start becoming profitable again. I wanna slap Iger and the board across their faces and yell, "You're Disney dammit! Now act like it!"
 
It just feels like they're lost...in the woods...(couldn't resist). Me and so many of us are imploring them to find their way back to just doing what made the fans happy...make the right investments in the parks...make less but higher quality (better written) content. Make NEW content! They're just in a glass bubble and they just see our mouths moving but don't hear us. So frustrating because it's not hard to make the shift necessary to start becoming profitable again. I wanna slap Iger and the board across their faces and yell, "You're Disney dammit! Now act like it!"

This is what happens when you let wall street run your company. Stock looks great as you pump the numbers for a few years then there's no more profit to be found, your operation is a mess and the shareholders dump.

The gambling thing is pretty much the last ditch effort by the greedy execs to squeeze blood out of the stone.

Having a successful company does not mean record profits year in and year out. Steady stable growth is more important.
 
The decrease in operating income at our domestic operations was due to lower results at our domestic
parks and Disney Vacation Club, driven by lower unit sales, partially offset by an increase at Disney
Cruise Line.

I don't think I've ever seen them call out DVC as a contributor to lower operating income. :oops: It's always been considered free money.
The money is still free, there is just slightly less of it. Instead of the cash cow producing $1 million in profits it produces $970,000 in profits.
 
They probably want people to choose the ad version so they have time to sell, could be wrong and it’s not a choice I would make but that’s the only logical one I can think of lol

The more people watching the ads the more companies will.pay to place an ad.
 
The more people watching the ads the more companies will.pay to place an ad.
Yep that’s my thought process as well. As a consumer you’d rather they put such good content on there that people want to sign up. But they went the other way lol sort of
 
I have not had time to dig into the results but must comment on the "Disney is lost and just after short term stock upticks" comments - All these current Disney woes would hardly get noticed if linear was not in steep decline. If linear had just been chugging along at its historical growth rate, there would have been no need for pouring billions into a new streamer, no need for betting partnerships, the cash flow from it would have more than made up for a down box office year and minor park declines.

All the truly bad problems start with linear's decline. Now, you could say some bad decisions have been made around it, like deciding to enter the streaming wars rather than becoming the arms dealer. But no other company has navigated this sea change any better - Para-losing billions on streaming, WMD-losing billions on streaming, Comcast-losing billions on streaming. Before profitability, Netflix lost billions and took more than a decade to get to profitability. Sony may be the only one we could point to as holding strong thru the transition by being the arms dealer.

All that is to say that the industry is a mess right now and it is going to take more pain (for all the companies) to sort it all out.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/media/disney-plus-streaming-prices-reliable-sources/index.html

The era of cheap streaming is officially over
Analysis by Oliver Darcy, CNN
Published 6:46 AM EDT, Thu August 10, 2023

It’s the end of an era.

The disruptive streaming model birthed by Netflix that dangled all-you-can-eat menus of films, shows, and endless entertainment without pesky advertisements for extraordinarily low prices came to an official close on Wednesday.

Disney boss Bob Iger announced during the company’s quarterly earnings report that the Magic Kingdom will once again hike Disney+ prices for the second time in less than a year, increasing the monthly cost of its ad-free plan $3 to $13.99 in October. Hulu, which Disney owns a majority stake in, will also increase the monthly cost of its ad-free subscription $3 to $17.99.

The more than 20% hike in prices means Disney+ will now cost twice the original price when the service debuted four years ago, and Hulu’s ad-free tier is now more expensive than the most popular Netflix plan.

When Iger launched Disney+ in 2019, the chief executive said he had intentionally set the price of the service well below competitors “to reach as many people as possible with it.”

But Wednesday’s move to significantly bump prices, marked an acknowledgment by Iger of the media giant’s intent to squeeze more revenue out of streaming by pushing consumers to the advertising-supported plans, which have proven to be more profitable.

“The advertising marketplace for streaming is picking up,” Iger told investors on the quarterly earnings call. “It’s more healthy than the advertising marketplace for linear television. We believe in the future of advertising on our streaming platforms, both Disney+ and Hulu.”

Disney’s moves are part of a larger trend occurring across the industry landscape. Media companies, looking to maximize profits as Wall Street grows impatient with them swimming in seas of endless red, are quickly abandoning pricing structures that pushed bottomless libraries of content to consumers at too-good-to-be-true, one-size-fits-all prices.

Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCU and even Netflix have all raised prices this year in a drive toward profitability. And as Iger announced Wednesday for Disney, password-sharing crackdowns are also en route.

The announcement puts to an end much of the initial allure that led to the popularity of streaming. When Netflix first offered its pioneering service for only $8 a month, millions of people signed up, eager to have access to the company’s expansive catalog for just a fraction of the cost of the traditional cable bundle. That served as the genesis of the streaming era, with legacy entertainment companies such as Disney racing to launch their own direct-to-consumer products at unsustainably low costs.

Now that is all over.

Those massive libraries of content are growing more expensive (not to mention shrinking) by the year. In fact, consumers who bundle just a few streamers together in 2023 will find that the final cost is effectively the same as basic cable. Couple that reality with the introduction of ads into streaming and the end product eerily resembles on-demand cable.

It’s an ironic end to the streaming wars. After pouring billions and billions of dollars into constructing supposedly revolutionary streaming platforms, and decimating the business models that had offered the industry stability for decades, the ultimate product looks awfully similar to what companies and consumers were trying to break free from in the first place.
 
I have not had time to dig into the results but must comment on the "Disney is lost and just after short term stock upticks" comments - All these current Disney woes would hardly get noticed if linear was not in steep decline. If linear had just been chugging along at its historical growth rate, there would have been no need for pouring billions into a new streamer, no need for betting partnerships, the cash flow from it would have more than made up for a down box office year and minor park declines.

All the truly bad problems start with linear's decline. Now, you could say some bad decisions have been made around it, like deciding to enter the streaming wars rather than becoming the arms dealer. But no other company has navigated this sea change any better - Para-losing billions on streaming, WMD-losing billions on streaming, Comcast-losing billions on streaming. Before profitability, Netflix lost billions and took more than a decade to get to profitability. Sony may be the only one we could point to as holding strong thru the transition by being the arms dealer.

All that is to say that the industry is a mess right now and it is going to take more pain (for all the companies) to sort it all out.

I remember reading a a while ago (from maybe Warren Buffett?) that the ultimate survivors of the streaming wars will probably be the providers that have other revenue sources ... Disney, Amazon, and Apple. The other streamers like Netflix and MAX need to to survive off streaming, but Disney, Amazon and Apple can sustain streaming losses for a while and survive off stuff like the theme parks
 
I remember reading a a while ago (from maybe Warren Buffett?) that the ultimate survivors of the streaming wars will probably be the providers that have other revenue sources ... Disney, Amazon, and Apple. The other streamers like Netflix and MAX need to to survive off streaming, but Disney, Amazon and Apple can sustain streaming losses for a while and survive off stuff like the theme parks
Netflix has the most to lose in the strike negotiations. I don’t know what they pay in residuals for their original content, but I know for licensed shows which are the most viewed content they only have to pay the licensing fee and the production studio pays out residuals from that fee.
 
Netflix has the most to lose in the strike negotiations. I don’t know what they pay in residuals for their original content, but I know for licensed shows which are the most viewed content they only have to pay the licensing fee and the production studio pays out residuals from that fee.
Which is why I have been confused why people like Sean Gunn come out and trash Netflix for paying him bad residuals when it's not Netflix he should be mad about.

[In the interview, Gunn said that he didn't receive any residuals from Netflix for the series, which it has streamed.

The outlet later explained in a tweet that the clip didn't clarify 'that the residuals Gunn was referencing are paid by the studio and not the streamer, Netflix.'

In the chat with THR from the picket line, Gunn said he 'particularly wanted to come out and protest Netflix' because of the lack of residuals he's received from his work on Gilmore Girls, as there is no system in place for streamers to pay residuals to performers akin to syndication deals.

Gunn told The Wrap of the removal, 'The only sort of explanation I got for why it was taken down is that is that they said that my residuals aren't paid by Netflix, they're paid by Warner Brothers, the production company.'

The actor said it struck him as 'a very odd reason' to remove the interview.

'The whole point I was making was that we don't get the residuals that we deserve from Netflix,' he said. 'There's no participation in the success of the show. Because their numbers are hidden, because Netflix operates in total secrecy, we are totally unable to share when a show's a big success.']

I don't see why Netflix should have to pay him residuals, it should be WB.
 
Which is why I have been confused why people like Sean Gunn come out and trash Netflix for paying him bad residuals when it's not Netflix he should be mad about.

[In the interview, Gunn said that he didn't receive any residuals from Netflix for the series, which it has streamed.

The outlet later explained in a tweet that the clip didn't clarify 'that the residuals Gunn was referencing are paid by the studio and not the streamer, Netflix.'

In the chat with THR from the picket line, Gunn said he 'particularly wanted to come out and protest Netflix' because of the lack of residuals he's received from his work on Gilmore Girls, as there is no system in place for streamers to pay residuals to performers akin to syndication deals.

Gunn told The Wrap of the removal, 'The only sort of explanation I got for why it was taken down is that is that they said that my residuals aren't paid by Netflix, they're paid by Warner Brothers, the production company.'

The actor said it struck him as 'a very odd reason' to remove the interview.

'The whole point I was making was that we don't get the residuals that we deserve from Netflix,' he said. 'There's no participation in the success of the show. Because their numbers are hidden, because Netflix operates in total secrecy, we are totally unable to share when a show's a big success.']

I don't see why Netflix should have to pay him residuals, it should be WB.
Which since that seems to be one of the sticking points among the writers and actors alike. Will studios begin to ask too high of licensing costs of Netflix because they know their content is what is the driving force behind viewership.

Similarly Netflix Residuals for Original Content is based on just a flat fee for existing on the service and not based on overall viewership of the program. So I think popular programs like Stranger Things get similar to one of their random one off shows that less people tune into.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top