Disney drops 2.4 million streaming subs

[Juan]

Looks like changes are coming to disney+
But gains 200k in US

Disney+ Drops 2.4 Million Subscribers in First Loss, Bob Iger Heralds ‘Significant Transformation’ Underway

Disney+ lost a net 2.4 million subscribers in the last three months of 2022 — marking the streaming service’s first decline since launching in late 2019 — while the Mouse House&#8…

variety.com

 

[meStevo]

Looks like changes are coming to disney+

Disney+ Drops 2.4 Million Subscribers in First Loss, Bob Iger Heralds ‘Significant Transformation’ Underway

Disney+ lost a net 2.4 million subscribers in the last three months of 2022 — marking the streaming service’s first decline since launching in late 2019 — while the Mouse House&#8…

variety.com

Gained 200k in the US, losses due largely from India/Asia.

Streaming revenue exceeded expectations set by management just 3 months ago.

Over 161m subscribers. 4 years ago they had 0.

 

[Bruce]

While a loss is a loss, Hotstar per month is only $3.62 a month in US Dollars.

It would of been a lot worse if those losses were in North America.

 

[ncted]

Apparently Disney is considering selling their stake in Hulu as well:

Robert Iger Shakes Up Disney’s Entertainment Operations, Rethinks Hulu Ownership

Under the new structure, content chiefs at the TV, film and ESPN units are taking on business responsibilities.

www.wsj.com

Mr. Iger said Wednesday that as part of planned cost cuts totaling $5.5 billion, the company would make fewer shows and movies than before. He said Disney would “aggressively curate” its general entertainment content, which includes more mature Hulu content like “The Kardashians,” “Pam & Tommy” and “The Dropout” that appeals to a wider range of age groups.

Hulu is two-thirds owned by Disney and one-third owned by Comcast Corp. Under an arrangement reached in 2019, Disney has the right to buy out Comcast’s stake at a fair market value, starting in early 2024, and Comcast also has the right to force a sale of its stake.

Mr. Iger surprised Disney-watchers Thursday by suggesting that another path could be explored in which it might be the seller. In an interview with CNBC, he said while Hulu is a successful platform, “everything’s on the table right now,” and added that the widely held assumption that Disney would take full control of Hulu “isn’t necessarily the case.”

 

[Juan]

Probably will jack up prices too


Iger noted that even though the price of core Disney+ (without ads) increased — in December, that went up from $7.99 to $10.99 per month in the U.S. — “we only suffered a de minimis loss of subs… that tells us something

 

[meStevo]

That tells them how much their content is valued vs the cost they are charging. I'd pay $15 for D+ np, given what we get out of it.

About to leave Verizon so we'll soon be paying for it, haven't decided if we're going to get the bundle or just D+.

 

[Bruce]

That tells them how much their content is valued vs the cost they are charging. I'd pay $15 for D+ np, given what we get out of it.

About to leave Verizon so we'll soon be paying for it, haven't decided if we're going to get the bundle or just D+.

I was thinking of dropping ESPN+ after NHL is done, start it back up when the NFL begins their new season, but I think they messed my account up, at first I was charged $12 until my original Disney 3 year was done, now they are only charging me $9 for all three Commercial Free (except ESPN of course).

I am not changing anything now, this pricing has been going on for the last 2 months and upcoming charges shows the same.

Disney Bundle Trio Premium
$9.00/mo
Hulu (With Ads)
Ends 06/23/26June 23rd, 2026
$7.99/mo
Hulu (No Ads)
Ends 06/23/26June 23rd, 2026
$7.00/mo
ESPN+ (With Ads)
Ends 06/23/26June 23rd, 2026
$9.99/mo
Disney+ (With Ads)
Ends 06/23/26June 23rd, 2026
$7.99/mo
Disney+ (No Ads)
Ends 06/23/26June 23rd, 2026
$3.00/mo
Bundle Discount
-$26.97/mo
Close Details

 

[SamCdbs]

Disney has systemic problems. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is what we are seeing here.

- Streaming. Doesn't make money.

- Parks. Getting old. Out of service hours were way up over the last two years. Been there done that, for a lot of people. Also (no politics) making an enemy of the local politicians, REGARDLESS of their politics for no reason is not smart.

- ESPN. Huge money maker in the bundle. Just unaffordable if sold a la carte.

- NBA. Up for renewal. Wants billions. Doesn't really get the ratings to justify what it is currently paid. But is the core of the ESPN talking head culture.

- Creativity. When was the last fresh thing Disney made? Endless rehashes of comic books and fantasy sci fi (which were created elsewhere).

- Disney +. To me, this is the current version of selling all the old Disney "vault" movies on VCR or DVD, or whatever. If you have a ten year old, great deal. Most people don't have ten year olds.

 

[Josephinelcajon]

Iger is said to be working long hours every day being seen out in the parks and studio and is getting furious over the conditions of the company and is making major changes not just daily but hourly! I see drastic changes to the company coming!

 

[ncted]

- ESPN. Huge money maker in the bundle. Just unaffordable if sold a la carte.

So, here is my problem with the idea that channels only make money when bundled. If that is the case, that means your revenue stream is based on a lot of people who don't watch your channel giving you money for nothing in return. Now, I don't have an MBA, but that seems like a really crappy business strategy in the long term, even if you didn't see cord cutting coming. This means some supposedly really savvy people couldn't see the risk in running a business this way, especially after seeing other things being disrupted by technology, like newspapers, retail stores, and the music industry.

 

[Bruce]

So, here is my problem with the idea that channels only make money when bundled. If that is the case, that means your revenue stream is based on a lot of people who don't watch your channel giving you money for nothing in return. Now, I don't have an MBA, but that seems like a really crappy business strategy in the long term, even if you didn't see cord cutting coming. This means some supposedly really savvy people couldn't see the risk in running a business this way, especially after seeing other things being disrupted by technology, like newspapers, retail stores, and the music industry.

I do, I do.

And you are correct, hence why we are seeing this upheaval in Television Broadcasting/Programming.

And it just is not about streaming is taking over (Technology).

It is the sheer hubris of broadcasters/providers thinking they can keep ripping people off with a bunch of channels that have nothing but reruns or airing the same show over and over for advertising revenue , and/or barely get any ratings and making everyone pay for them (per sub fee).

The perfect example of channels ripping people off( making everyone pay per sub fees) is sports, the only time ESPN has good ratings is Football, yet ESPN is a must have channel that everyone pays for.

But the RSNs are even worse, especially with Providers charging that RSN fee making everyone pay, but while the channel has a consistent audience, it is a very low one.

As I posted before, the NY Yankees had a average of 219,000 viewers per game on YES, NY City Metro Population is over 23.6 million, Household population there is 8,992,908, so roughly, 5-6 Million Households have Live TV, that means 5-6 Million are paying for 200,000 to watch the Yankees during the regular season.

People started this cord cutting trend back in 2015, only Netflix and Hulu then, not like the choices we have now, but people had enough even then.

 

[Juan]

So, here is my problem with the idea that channels only make money when bundled. If that is the case, that means your revenue stream is based on a lot of people who don't watch your channel giving you money for nothing in return. Now, I don't have an MBA, but that seems like a really crappy business strategy in the long term, even if you didn't see cord cutting coming. This means some supposedly really savvy people couldn't see the risk in running a business this way, especially after seeing other things being disrupted by technology, like newspapers, retail stores, and the music industry.

Its worked for decades with cable tv and satellite

 

[Bruce]

Its worked for decades with cable tv and satellite

It only worked because there were no other choices, no competition.

Once competition popped up, 32 million have left in just 8 years, the majority in the last 4 years, now at a rate of 6 million a year leaving.

This is an example of the free market working, competition gives people an option.

 

[navychop]

And competition will devastate slow moving streamers.

 

[mwdxer1]

Looks like changes are coming to disney+
But gains 200k in US

Disney+ Drops 2.4 Million Subscribers in First Loss, Bob Iger Heralds ‘Significant Transformation’ Underway

Disney+ lost a net 2.4 million subscribers in the last three months of 2022 — marking the streaming service’s first decline since launching in late 2019 — while the Mouse House&#8…

variety.com

The main reason I dropped Disney+ was we did not get much of their vault. Once that is released I will re-subscribe. I picked up Disney+ for the $140 3-year deal. Sure, I got to see some stuff, but not much from the vault except for the big releases like Snow White, Cinderella, etc. I would love to see a lot of their material from the Disneyland & Wonderful World of Color days. They ran so many movies in 2-3 parts. A lot of the old cartoons we haven't seen for decades, like the Lew wig Van Drake stuff. I could go on and on, but there is so much material never released on DVD. Disney is really tight with their vault. Used to be a few old movies showed up on TCM. It looks like Disney may start selling their movies to other channels like before. Hope so.

 

[ncted]

Its worked for decades with cable tv and satellite

Sure, but even the best house of cards must eventually fall. Also, isn't there some phrase along the lines of "past performance is not indicative of future results" that every public company includes in all of their PR? I realize it is boilerplate, but it seems like something companies should actually pay attention to rather than just assume the world will never change.

 

[Bruce]

And competition will devastate slow moving streamers.

Good, too many now.

AMC+ is the biggest example, they should just be selling their content to Netflix as they used to, probably would be making a profit instead of losing money on a streaming service that barely has any new content on.

But some other slow moving streamers have become big, Paramount+ is the biggest example, no one thought much of CBS All Access, but they merge with Viacom again, become Paramount+, add shows that subscribers want, more Star Trek, more Yellowstone spin offs, new movies, etc.

Now they add 4-5 million subscribers every quarter, 46 Million as of now, have a lot of expanding to do around the world.

Also has the most popular FAST service online, Pluto TV.

Raising the price and combining it with Showtime will help them be profitable by 2024, as was the plan.

 

[Bilbo1]

What’s happening now with streaming services is that instead of selling multiple channels to cable services, they are creating multiple channels on their services. Each service will be its own bundle.

Instead of buying a bundle tier from a cable company that consists of channels from Paramount, Disney, Comcast, etc, we’ll be buying OTT services from Paramount, Disney, Comcast, etc.

From a consumer perspective, maybe we can save a few bucks because we are no longer paying overhead/profit of a cable company.

Too many people watch sports to believe you can avoid the cost of obtaining sports broadcast rights by going streaming. That’s why streaming services are so eager to obtain rights to sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DS0816]

…

But some other slow moving streamers have become big, Paramount+ is the biggest example, no one thought much of CBS All Access, but they merge with Viacom again, become Paramount+, add shows that subscribers want, more Star Trek, more Yellowstone spin offs, new movies, etc.

…

People—forum members—mocked subscribers of then-named CBS All Access.

What you mention is one reason why it is not wise to give too much consideration to what others think/say/write.

 

[Bruce]

Too many people watch sports to believe you can avoid the cost of obtaining sports broadcast rights by going streaming. That’s why streaming services are so eager to obtain rights to sports.

Except for Football, Regular Season sports does not get good ratings, one of the reasons RSNs are failing, playoffs are a different story.