PDA

View Full Version : Disney 2Q Earnings Rise 27 Percent


crazy4wdw
05-08-2007, 05:38 PM
Disney 2Q Earnings Rise 27 Percent

Disney 2Q Earnings Rise 27 Percent
By GARY GENTILE

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Net income at The Walt Disney Co. increased 27 percent in the second quarter, boosted by strong results from its film studio, advertising sales at ESPN and international sales of its TV shows, including "Desperate Housewives."

The media conglomerate, based in Burbank, said Tuesday its net income for the quarter ended March 31 was $931 million, or 44 cents per share, compared with $733 million, or 37 cents per share, in the same period a year ago.

Revenue grew slightly to $8.07 billion from $8.03 billion in the same period last year.

The company's per share earnings easily beat estimates of 38 cents per share from analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial, although its revenue missed analyst expectations of $8.13 billion.

The company reported profit growth at all segments, including theme parks and consumer products.

"I'm pleased to report another excellent quarter, with double digit increases in earnings per share as well as operating income across all of our business segments," Disney chief executive Robert Iger said in a statement.

crazy4wdw
05-08-2007, 06:14 PM
Disney earnings beat expectations for 2nd quarter

Disney earnings beat expectations for 2nd quarter

Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted May 8, 2007, 4:17 PM EDT

The Walt Disney Co. today reported diluted earnings of 44 cents per share for the second quarter of 2007, beating market expectations and the 37 cents per share posted for the same period last year.

"I'm pleased to report another excellent quarter, with double digit increases in earnings per share as well as operating income across all of our business segments," said Robert Iger, president and CEO.

Disney reported quarterly revenue of $8.07 billion, up 1 percent over the 2nd quarter of 2006, resulting in an operating profit of $931 million, up 27 percent over the same three months in 2006.

Disney's parks and resorts unit did particularly well, increasing sales 9 percent to $2.4 billion, posting an operating profit of $254 million for the quarter, up 19 percent from last year.

The parks unit's performance was boosted by increased guest spending, driven by higher average ticket prices and average daily room rates, plus increased attendance, according to the report. Those increases partially offset the higher operating costs seen at Walt Disney World -- due to labor cost inflation, new visitor offerings, marketing and volume-related costs -- and at Disneyland Resort Paris, the company reported. Income declined at Disney's newest park, Hong Kong Disneyland.

JoeEpcotRocks
05-08-2007, 08:30 PM
Good news! :thumbsup2

Thanks for posting.

crazy4wdw
05-09-2007, 05:32 AM
Resorts help drive earnings for Disney

Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted May 9, 2007

A strong performance from Walt Disney World and other Disney theme parks helped the company reach another profitable quarter last winter.

The company reported Tuesday that while total sales were up just 1 percent to $8.07 billion, profit reached $931 million for the second quarter of the 2007 fiscal year, 27 percent better than profits posted in the same three months in 2006.

With that, Disney offered diluted earnings of 44 cents per share to investors. The offer beat consensus market expectations of around 36 cents, and the 37 cents per share that Disney offered following its second quarter of 2006.

"We've had another excellent quarter, posting double-digit increases in net income and earnings per share," said Disney President and Chief Executive Officer Robert Iger. "These results are evidence of our ability to nurture great creativity, our strength in operating a broad range of businesses, and our commitment to financial discipline. . . . They validate our strategic vision."

Disney's stock closed Thursday at $36.55 per share, up 49 cents.

Analysts were pleased with the report.

"I don't think they had anything to complain about. All the divisions showed nice profits," said media analyst Harold Vogel of Vogel Capital Management.

Internationally marketed Disney channels, strong syndication of ABC-TV shows, hot Cars toys and Disney-published game sales and hit, relatively inexpensive movies such as Wild Hogs and Bridge to Terabithia helped all the company's operating units post quarterly profits.

Disney's parks and resorts division, which includes theme parks, hotels, the Disney Vacation Club time-share program and the Disney Cruise Line, saw sales grow 9 percent to $2.4 billion in the quarter, which ended March 31.

That success was boosted by increased attendance and higher per-customer spending, which was driven by higher average ticket prices and average daily room rates, according to the report. As a result, the parks and resorts division posted an operating profit of $254 million, up 19 percent from the same period last year.

Those increases partially offset the higher operating costs seen at some parks including Walt Disney World -- due to labor cost inflation, new attractions, increased marketing and volume-related costs, the company reported. Most of Disney's other parks also did well.

But Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs said Hong Kong Disneyland, which opened in the fall of 2005, continues to fall short of expectations and Disney is planning new marketing campaigns.

"We're confident in and committed to this project," he said. "We're likely to continue to invest in this park."

Disney World, by contrast, saw attendance increase 7 percent over the same quarter in 2006. Per-customer spending was up 3 percent. Disney World hotel occupancy was up slightly to 88 percent, and per-room spending also was up slightly, Staggs said. The average customer's length of stay at Disney World also continued to increase, he said.

Iger said Disney World saw strong attendance across the board in the quarter -- including international visitors, though they still are not flocking to Orlando at pre-2001 rates. He said Disney now is running a much more coordinated international theme park marketing program, and at the same time running a distinct Disney World program in Europe.

"We're particularly gratified at how well our Disney parks and resorts are performing," Iger said. "Walt Disney World just set a new 15-day Easter period attendance record. Overall bookings remain strong even in comparison with the record numbers drawn by the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, showing that our 'Year of a Million Dreams' campaign is having tremendous impact."

The things that surprised analysts most seemed to be the broadcast advertising revenue increases and the theme parks' solid performance in the face of continued high gas prices, nervous British visitors and higher ticket, hotel and labor prices.

"More times than not they have surprised investors by being able to pass [ticket price increases] through without hiccups from the customers," said Robin Diedrich, media analyst for Edward Jones. "The ticket to a Disney park still seems to be a highly valued option. That just bodes well overall. And they continue to add features and new attractions."

The entertainment giant's profit rose 27% to $931 million as all of its business segments turned in a strong second quarter.

Scott Powers can be reached at spowers@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5441.

Another Voice
05-09-2007, 10:23 AM
Revenues flat but earnings were up.

Cut, hack, slash, postpone and cancel instead of create and inspire.

JoeEpcotRocks
05-10-2007, 09:38 AM
Sounds like Disney is on track financially as they continue to work hard to improve and add attractions to the parks and resorts. :)

I'm excited about those two new cruise ships too! :thumbsup2

YoHo
05-10-2007, 12:55 PM
Joe, I get the impression that Disney could stab you as you entered the parks and you'd give them a thumbs up.

cristen
05-10-2007, 02:03 PM
Joe, I get the impression that Disney could stab you as you entered the parks and you'd give them a thumbs up.


I thought that this was a requirement to post on the DIS.

JoeEpcotRocks
05-10-2007, 02:49 PM
Joe, I get the impression that Disney could stab you as you entered the parks and you'd give them a thumbs up.

I get the impression that you hang out with Debbie Downer. :guilty:

YoHo
05-10-2007, 02:52 PM
Oh, I'm nothing but butterscotch and ponies.

That doesn't mean Disney is somehow a perfect company unable to make strategic and tactical business errors.

I try to save my pixiedust for when I'm actually at the parks.

Another Voice
05-10-2007, 03:12 PM
Sounds like Disney is on track financially as they continue to work hard to improve and add attractions to the parks and resorts.
Sadly, Disney management says exactly the opposite. That the domestic parks are a "mature" business and will not recieve significant capital investment. That growth will be focused overseas, and the probablity for domestic growth will come from "offsite" water parks and hotels.


But gee, it's sure nice to know that you can program a ClicheBot 2000 to use references from a 1950's special ed film!

MasterShake
05-11-2007, 01:28 PM
This thread is funny, you have AV and YoHo spouting their usual Disney hate rhetoric and then you have JoeEpcotRocks who sounds like he's being paid to write nothing but nice things.

JoeEpcotRocks
05-11-2007, 01:34 PM
This thread is funny, you have AV and YoHo spouting their usual Disney hate rhetoric and then you have JoeEpcotRocks who sounds like he's being paid to write nothing but nice things.

Oh, how I wish I was paid for it. :woohoo:

shanomi4
05-11-2007, 05:05 PM
I get such a kick out of the "know it alls"!!
They know what Disney did/does wrong
They know what Disney should do
They know what people want
They know how to run a billion dollar company

Me thinks that most of them sit in a cubical pushing paper.:confused3
Shame too...think about....they could of been CEO of Disne!!

YoHo
05-11-2007, 05:40 PM
:confused3

I have an office.

MasterShake
05-11-2007, 05:56 PM
:confused3

I have an office.

Yes, but do you have a window?

YoHo
05-11-2007, 06:46 PM
Yes, With a view (on a clear day if I look a little to the right) Of the ocean.

coasterj
05-11-2007, 08:51 PM
yay another good excuse disney ops only make $7.00 an hr! (sarcasm)
good thing my job is a hobby.

EUROPACL
05-11-2007, 09:14 PM
I get such a kick out of the "know it alls"!!
They know what Disney did/does wrong
They know what Disney should do
They know what people want
They know how to run a billion dollar company

Me thinks that most of them sit in a cubical pushing paper.:confused3
Shame too...think about....they could of been CEO of Disne!!

Yeah I know it must disappoint you...but in a Capitalist society the consumers are the ones who get to make those decisions. I'm sure you think that Eisner had some special talent or insight just becuase he spent a few years green lighting bad movies. Eveery day in this country regular people run billion, million, and less dollar companies...its a great place to live. Even if you can't wrap your head around bad ideas like half finished parks, bad movies, bad TV shows and the slow downward spiral that is Disney...we can.

Another Voice
05-11-2007, 10:12 PM
Me thinks that most of them sit in a cubical pushing paper.
Shame too...think about....they could of been CEO of Disne!!
My office was in a building with dwarfs.

shanomi4
05-12-2007, 07:47 AM
Yeah I know it must disappoint you...but in a Capitalist society the consumers are the ones who get to make those decisions. I'm sure you think that Eisner had some special talent or insight just becuase he spent a few years green lighting bad movies. Eveery day in this country regular people run billion, million, and less dollar companies...its a great place to live. Even if you can't wrap your head around bad ideas like half finished parks, bad movies, bad TV shows and the slow downward spiral that is Disney...we can.

Actually I do not follow Disney. Do not own their stock, nor care to.
As for me, I do not work in an office environment. I own 2 (small) retail establishments. Work a minimum of 70 hours a week. No stretch of the imagination. I do know that everyday I have customers, friends and family members who can tell me how I should do things. 18 years ago when I started my first store I learned very quickly NOT to listen to those "know it alls" but to follow my instincts and what my true clientele wants. Made many of mistakes and will continue to. I just realize that the vast majority of those that can tell you how to run things haven't a clue about all the behind the scene decisions that take place daily. Fact of the matter most couldn't begin to do what I do on a daily basis. Nothing wrong with discussing Disney and adding thoughts and ideas, but it just sickens me the cocky attitude stemming from some who write their beliefs as facts and that they know how to run Disney. 2nd thought, it is more humorous then anything. :lmao: :rotfl2: Carry on folks!!:thumbsup2

MasterShake
05-12-2007, 10:27 AM
Yeah I know it must disappoint you...but in a Capitalist society the consumers are the ones who get to make those decisions. I'm sure you think that Eisner had some special talent or insight just becuase he spent a few years green lighting bad movies. Eveery day in this country regular people run billion, million, and less dollar companies...its a great place to live. Even if you can't wrap your head around bad ideas like half finished parks, bad movies, bad TV shows and the slow downward spiral that is Disney...we can.

Consumers are making their decision......

Disney parks are seeing record attendance figures.

ABC has 3 of the top ten most viewed shows on television.

Disney holds several Box Office Records over the past few years. Before Spiderman 3 a Disney Movie had the top grossing opening/weekend of all time.

Disney/Pixar holds 7 of the top 10 top grossing animated films of all time, three of which have been released after 2000 (Though I would like to see Disney get back to making quality hand drawn animated movies)

Not to say that I love all of these products. I personally hate shows like Dancing with the Stars and American Idol(Fox, but similiar). You would have to pay me a sizable amount to watch Wild Hogs. But, the average consumer seems to be enjoying these offerings.

I do think Disney has done some quality work as well. I like the Pirates franchise (so far) and have had a good time seeing both movies in the theaters. Lost is probably one of the better shows currently on television. Cars (Pixar, but owned by Disney) was enjoyed by my entire family. I look forward to the continuation of the Narnia series.

EUROPACL
05-12-2007, 04:16 PM
Consumers are making their decision......

Disney parks are seeing record attendance figures.



According to who?



ABC has 3 of the top ten most viewed shows on television.


Great now if they can work on the other 165 hours of TV they produce each week.



Disney holds several Box Office Records over the past few years. Before Spiderman 3 a Disney Movie had the top grossing opening/weekend of all time.



Great does that make up for Bad Company, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause, The Shaggy Dog , Bambi II, The Emperor's New Groove 2: Kronk's New Groove, Chicken Little , Sky High , Herbie Fully Loaded , Ice Princess , The Pacifier,Mulan II.....


Disney/Pixar holds 7 of the top 10 top grossing animated films of all time, three of which have been released after 2000 (Though I would like to see Disney get back to making quality hand drawn animated movies)



Yes Thanks Pixar...glad we fired all of you people and then had to buy you back for 7 billion dollars.



Not to say that I love all of these products. I personally hate shows like Dancing with the Stars and American Idol(Fox, but similiar). You would have to pay me a sizable amount to watch Wild Hogs. But, the average consumer seems to be enjoying these offerings.

I do think Disney has done some quality work as well. I like the Pirates franchise (so far) and have had a good time seeing both movies in the theaters. Lost is probably one of the better shows currently on television. Cars (Pixar, but owned by Disney) was enjoyed by my entire family. I look forward to the continuation of the Narnia series.

The average cousumer??? Do you know how many people live in the USA alone much less the world...no the Average consumer is not a Disney consumer at all.

EUROPACL
05-12-2007, 04:19 PM
Actually I do not follow Disney.

Strange that you decied to join a Disney site and jump into the middle of this post. I find that more humorous then anything. :rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

YoHo
05-12-2007, 10:57 PM
Not just that post, 3 of them that are essentially the same.

Nice.

Also, to be fair, Disney did, supposedly, hit record attendence in 2006, but it's not an official number and it took them 7 years to recover.

MasterShake
05-12-2007, 11:08 PM
According to who?


http://www.connectingindustry.com/pd...tendance06.pdf


Great now if they can work on the other 165 hours of TV they produce each week.


Everything I can find online show's that ABC is ranked number 2 out of all the television networks. The most recent data I could find to support this is linked below:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/cl-et-tvratingstext9may09,1,6294237.htmlstory?coll=la-headlines-business-enter

ABC is currently in much better shape now, then it was prior to Disney's purchase.


Great does that make up for Bad Company, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause, The Shaggy Dog , Bambi II, The Emperor's New Groove 2: Kronk's New Groove, Chicken Little , Sky High , Herbie Fully Loaded , Ice Princess , The Pacifier,Mulan II.....


Ok, some of these are bad movies and some of these are direct to video movies aimed at kids. For example, my daughter likes Bambi II and Mulan II. Just like every major studio they have good and bad movies.


The average cousumer??? Do you know how many people live in the USA alone much less the world...no the Average consumer is not a Disney consumer at all.


Just over 300 million in the US. I'm not saying any company get's everyone to be a consumer, but I am saying that more people are buying into Disney Products.

ABC alone averages 9.59 million viewers per hour of prime time, for last season. A 2003 Nielsen estimate found that ABC could be seen in 96.75% of all homes in the United States, reaching 103,179,600 households.

112 Million Guests Visited Disney Theme Parks Worldwide.

Disney Princess/Winnie the Pooh toys and merchandise are everywhere.

Then you have the movies Disney is putting out, some of which are major blockbusters.

YoHo
05-12-2007, 11:36 PM
112Million is nothing compared to 6 Billion.

Everything I've heard says ABC is number 3.

CanadianGuy
05-12-2007, 11:54 PM
That may be .. but for the week ending May 06 .. They had four shows in the top ten. Fox had three and CBS had three. My guess is that for that week of May sweeps .. they're number 2, maybe even number 1. I'm not sure how the calculations are done.

Shows in Top 20
CBS = 11
ABC = 5
FOX = 3
NBC = 1

By that measure they're second. Albeit a distant second. CBS is dominating right now. Who woulda thunk back when they were the network for Murder She Wrote fans ? Network TV (like the movie business) is very cyclical. Sometimes you're on top, sometimes ... uhh.. not so much.

Here are the weekly TV ratings, by number of viewers.

1. American Idol - Weds (FOX)
2. American Idol - Tues (FOX)
3. Grey's Anatomy (ABC)
4. House (FOX)
5. CSI (CBS)
6. Dancing with the Stars - Mon (ABC)
7. CSI: Miami (CBS)
8. Desperate Housewives (ABC)
9. Dancing with the Stars - Results (ABC)
10. Without A Trace (CBS)
11. NCIS (CBS)
12. Survivor (CBS)
13. Two and a Half Men (CBS)
14. Cold Case (CBS)
15. Criminal Minds (CBS)
16. King of Queens (CBS)
17. CSI: NY (CBS)
18. Shark (CBS)
19. Lost (ABC)
20. Deal or No Deal (NBC)

YoHo
05-13-2007, 12:09 AM
Network TV is dying. Doesn't network ranking have to do with advertising?

CanadianGuy
05-13-2007, 12:29 AM
Doesn't network ranking have to do with advertising?
My memory on this is fading but I think that yes it does. And of course, how many advertisers you can get on your shows, and how much they pay to be there, is directly tied to how your shows & network have performed in the most recent ratings; ie: how many eyeballs could you attract to see those show and the ads attached. Something like that.
Network TV is dying.
Dying is definitely a strong term.

I think more accurately put, its evolving and will continue to do so. Network TV has a strong advantage in some key areas and eventually there will be network executives who understand the changing media landscape enough to capitalize on the strengths and minimize the weaknesses better than the current crop of execs.

When I worked at NBC, I was directly involved in some concepts that were never implemented that were pretty cool and groundbreaking ideas. The ol'skool TV execs were threatened by the internet and all things interactive and saw it overall as a distraction from their mainline business objectives. Warren Littlefield and Don Ohlmeyer were particularly dense in these areas in my limited experience. From my exterior perspective, I don't think NBC's Jeff Zucker gets it today either.

Ironically enough, the one NBC executive I encountered who really understood the possibilities of the merging of media was Jamie Tarses. It was one thing she 'got'. But we all know what happened to her...

Too many people see it as TV vs. everything else. It is never as simple as that.

The correct answer is TV + everything else.

Someone will figure that out and do it right eventually. And then it will be the 'cyclical' thing I referred to earlier in this thread. When that happens, industry rags will do stories on the rebirth & resurgence of network television etc.

I have a LIFE Magazine from 1948 that predicts TV will never catch on and never compete with radio effectively and may be doomed to failure. And then I have another article that was published some years later that predicts that 'radio as we know it today is doomed'. That article was written over 25 years ago.

That article actually was right of course, after a fashion at least. Radio did evolve into a completely different animal. Some would argue for the worse. As someone who is a bit a student of media in all its forms and who now works in that same radio business, I agree somewhat. Or at least I long for some of the things that are gone as part of those changes. It's hard to separate the emotional connections.

We went thru this massive automation phase, but then that went away. And most recently, at least stateside, radio went thru the Clear-Channel consolidation phase, but even that now is disappearing as Clear Channel frees itself of hundreds of licenses. The process will create once again, what CC got rid of -- local & regional pockets of ownership. The key to radio is being live and local. National ownership with all kinds of syndicated programming couldn't accomplish those two goals; nor could automation.

I harp on cyclical, but I've seen enough to know that the industry (be it TV, Radio, Movies whatever) is driven in large part by the executive ranks .. and the very nature of the business means those people turn over in big numbers every 10 to 15 years. (often much sooner than that)

And just as the staffing is cyclical, so are these arguments proclaiming the death of any given form of media or delivery method.

Radio was going to be the death of newspapers and record sales. Movies supposedly marked the end of live theatre. Television was going to kill off radio and/or the movies. Cable was going to be the network-tv-killer. Home video was going to ravage the movie industry. Satellite was going to kill cable. Pay Per View was going to kill the home video sales/rental business. TIVO was going to change EVERYTHING.

And of course, computers & the internet were going to team up to kill network AND cable TV, radio, the movies, the music industry, newspapers, magazines, the video rental business, cable TV, satellite, TIVO, your home phone service, Kodak's entire photography business, the adult novelty store, your local grocery store and probably books too!

None of things happened in the dramatic fashion envisioned.

Instead, each has changed the media world in both big and small ways. So I can't honestly think that the internet/iPod/YouTube/whatever will kill network TV. But it sure will change things. That's how it goes.

If you don't like change, stay the heck away from a job in the media industry.

With each introduction of a new media form, or method of delivery, it changed the landscape considerably and sometimes yes even dramatically, but it didn't kill those industries in one fell swoop. Instead, the economics changed, the audience shifted and frequently the size scaled, those who couldn't change or evolve in a profitable fashion failed or were bought, the rest carried on and the industries evolved.

Corporate natural selection if you will; the free market & capitalism in action. The only alternative I can think of is communism. ;)

Network TV, just like radio, movies, newspapers, books and live theatre, ain't dying. It's changing and probably in some pretty substantial ways.

It may not be the network TV we're used to or the one we liked. And in a few years we may not even recognize it all, but it ain't going anywhere.

Knox

EUROPACL
05-13-2007, 07:26 AM
http://www.connectingindustry.com/pd...tendance06.pdf



Page not found...



Everything I can find online show's that ABC is ranked number 2 out of all the television networks. The most recent data I could find to support this is linked below:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/cl-et-tvratingstext9may09,1,6294237.htmlstory?coll=la-headlines-business-enter

ABC is currently in much better shape now, then it was prior to Disney's purchase.


1st..2nd..3rd...4th. Does it really matter? 98% of what they put on TV is crap and that is not just ABC. Better shape now??...not setting the bar too high there.



Ok, some of these are bad movies and some of these are direct to video movies aimed at kids. For example, my daughter likes Bambi II and Mulan II. Just like every major studio they have good and bad movies.



That was just a quick cut and paste if you want a real heart breaking picture you should go back 10 years and look at all of the movies that weren't made by Pixar or had a Pirate in them.



but I am saying that more people are buying into Disney Products.



That is real easy to say now that Disney is operating in more countires...


ABC alone averages 9.59 million viewers per hour of prime time, for last season. A 2003 Nielsen estimate found that ABC could be seen in 96.75% of all homes in the United States, reaching 103,179,600 households.


Those numbers mean nothing..could be seen???? I could be a Polar Bear.


112 Million Guests Visited Disney Theme Parks Worldwide.


...again more countires.



Disney Princess/Winnie the Pooh toys and merchandise are everywhere.


So?


Then you have the movies Disney is putting out, some of which are major blockbusters.

I count 2 maybe 3 in the last 10 years. That is unless you want to count Pixar which Disney litteraly just put them out...distribution.

If you want a real heart breaking picture of how messed up Disney is in the movies you should get AV to post a list of moives that Disney passed on over the years.

Another Voice
05-13-2007, 08:28 AM
but it just sickens me the cocky attitude stemming from some who write their beliefs as facts and that they know how to run Disney. 2nd thought, it is more humorous then anything.
So because you run two shops you can decide the quality of opinions of others - poeple you know nothing about? Pass judgements on people when you haven't even listened to what they've said? Insult people when you don't know a thing about their background?

Funny indead. I never knew selling trinkets made one so knowledgeable about running an entertainment company. I could have saved decades on my career had I just opened up a Starbucks instead of working for movies. It turns out I know nothing after all this time...


Everything I can find online show's that ABC is ranked number 2 out of all the television networks.
Season projectins show ABC coming in third. They spiked early in the current sweeps because of 'Dancing with the Stars' (go figure), but 'Lost' and 'Desperate Housewives' are continuing to slide.

Overall, network television lost over 2.5 million viewers from last spring to this spring. Network television is dying.

ABC is currently in much better shape now, then it was prior to Disney's purchase.
Debatable, but it's come becasue ABC has sucked Real Disney bone dry. Nice of them to kill Feature Animation so we can get 'Extereme Home Make-over: Another Celebtrity Putz Goes to the Clink".

CanadianGuy
05-13-2007, 10:21 AM
Overall, network television lost over 2.5 million viewers from last spring to this spring. Network television is dying.

1st..2nd..3rd...4th. Does it really matter? 98% of what they put on TV is crap and that is not just ABC.

These are the points I gotta rebut on this one.

According to this logic, the motion picture industry died around 1963. In the 1930's and 40's ... attendance at the movies was insane compared to today. The motion picture industry is making more money today off way way way fewer people seeing the movies. But yet movies still get made and some of them at least make a LOT of money. Yes, in part because of the many different revenue streams that other media now provide.

The logic with "Network TV is dying" is flawed. It's not dying. It's changing. It probably won't be as powerful as it once was, but that's true of all media. Historically each new medium or form of distribution goes thru a honeymoon phase where it is powerful and dominant and then over a period of about 50 to 60 years [approx the age of TV as a medium today] it settles to a baseline which will pretty much be its lot in life.

Newspapers don't carry the clout or social impact today that they did in 1910 or 1920. They began to seriously wane in the late 70's and 80's. Yet there are still thousands of daily newspapers all over North American holding their own just fine.

Radio doesn't have the same impact that it did in 1930 or 1940 when people frequently listened with their full attention for HOURS at a time. Today most industry standards track listening in 15 minute blocks and if you get four of those in a row in a passive listening situation, you're considered to be doing very well. Radio lost huge chunks of audience in the late 50's but re-invigorated by the mid to late 60's with the top 40 format. They lost even MORE audience in late 80's and early 90's and never got 'em back. Yet thousands of local radio stations make money and please a sector of audience every year.

Following the two arguments' being presented in this thread to their logical extensions, if network TV doesn't matter, why does it matter they are third or second or even fourth?

I love reading these threads and getting your guys opinions but folks on this forum are experts in shifting the argument. At first Disney/ABC is an utter failure and sucks because they are third. Some evidence is presented they are actually moving in on second place and then argument shifts to "TV is dying so it doesn't matter anyway."

Very smooth btw. ;) Well played sirs.

Either it really does matter that they are third, or why even bring it up as an example of failure if (in your opinion) TV is dying in which case who cares how they rank in that media?

If it's the latter then it seems fair to say that failure in a dying medium is not a valid representation of failure overall. Skip network TV when making the arguments as to why Disney sucks because it obviously can't matter.

If it's the former, then the arguments they are improving are valid counters to the 'they suck cause they are third' argument.

Which is it? :confused3

Knox

YoHo
05-13-2007, 01:12 PM
Well, I think that's a difference in rhetorical style.

AV: Network TV is dying

Canadian Guy: NEtwork TV isn't dying, it's just going to completely change.

Which is in a sense the same as dying.

Federal law will dictate that some form of OTA television exist for all time.

Also, Newspapers? They are so totally dying. Trust me, in a few years, it's going to be the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. And they'll both be owned by Rupert.

Another Voice
05-13-2007, 04:03 PM
Network broadcast television is based on the concept the networks can serve up tens of millions of eyeballs to big time ad buyers on a neat schedule.

All those eyeballs are gone. The few remaining are zapping commericals either on their DVR or just by using a remote. The ad buyers know this, that's why there not spending money around like they used to.

It's all swell and dandy that ABC can dump re-runs on iTunes for ninety-nine cents - but sales there are a tiny fraction of the $800,000 for a thirty second spot that Ford used to pay for.

The entire business model for network broadcasting has been destroyed. Gone are the days of rolling in cash, in are the days of trying to come up with even cheaper "reality shows" just to try and turn a profit. The network news no longer sets the national agenda, the networks no longer set the nation's veiwing habits, the networks can't even push a series to success ('Studio 60' any one?

Call it what you will, but "network television" in 2007 forward isn't anything like network television in 1977.

And Disney is making a huge mistake by pumping in massive resources to keep ABC alive in a dying industry. Yes, ABC is slightly better than last year, but revenues are still down in the quarterly report. I can understand the executive egos involved - Eisner trying to be the King of All Media, Iger just doesn't know how to do anything but ABC - but that's not a rationale for a business. All this time, all this effort, and they've only been able to produce 3 hit shows in five years ('Lost', 'Desperate Housewives' and 'Greys Anatmoy') and two of those have already peaked and are sliding down hill fast.


And one last point. How come people complain that something like EPCOT isn't "Disney enough", yet scream for joy the 'Desperate Housewives' is such a wonderful thing for Disney? Do people actually care about the products involved, or is the fanbase now so damaged that the success of the brand means more than the actual content of the brand?

CanadianGuy
05-13-2007, 07:09 PM
Call it what you will, but "network television" in 2007 forward isn't anything like network television in 1977.

And in 1997, it didn't look much like 1977 either. And in 1967 it didn't look like 1957. I think we can completely agree on this. Some have this 'golden era' view of the industry. I do not. It went thru the same honeymoon period of dominance that all media seem to. What I'm hearing from some in this thread is that there is no life for network television in the future. I disagree. Strongly.

I think the economics of television are changing in a grand way and that there will be a grand shake-out on the network TV side of the broadcast industry. From my perspective it's WAY long overdue.

What television is experiencing right now is not unique to media in general or that medium specifically even.. from historical perspective. In the 80's network news bureaus around the world closed as a cost cutting measure because TV wasn't making enough coin to cover the costs. It was the 'end of TV news'. No it was the end of that ERA of TV news. There will never be another Walter Cronkite just like there will never be another Humphrey Bogart or Clark Gable or Betty Grable.

Radio in it's 'golden days' commanded some pretty nice dollars for bringing MILLIONS of pairs of ears to a single given program. Radio doesn't do that like it used to.. but radio networks still exist. Heck, ABC even has an ABC radio network still and it turns a decent coin for the parent company, Disney. How does it do that? In part, by bringing millions of ears to large national programs. The audience size pales in comparison to the medium's 'golden days' but they've figured out how to make what's left, profitable. CBS still has a radio network too. They sold it and bought it back with the Infinity group of companies. And while hurt by the loss of Howard Stern and more recently the Imus fiasco .. it does pretty well too.

Back the 'golden days' of Hollywood they were knocking out 12 "A" movies and 24 "B" movies and some number of C movies every year at the same studio. That was when the average American saw two or three movies a week! Obviously the movie industry had to scale back when their industry shifted. You would knew better than I, but I can't think of a single active studio today with a production slate as aggressive as the 1930's and 1940's.

They had to adjust their business model so it continued to be a profitable one. I remember when MGM literally sold off the studio in bits and pieces at auction... because they couldn't figure it out. 20th Century Fox sold off hundreds of acres of land to stay alive because nobody was going to the movies and in doing so.. created what is now Century City.

Why was nobody going to the movies? TV had fractured their leisure time. The movies in the theatres were uninteresting to the majority of movie-goers.

It was the 'end of Hollywood'.

No, it wasn't. It was the end of THAT era for Hollywood and the birth of a new one. Still seems to be doing ok .. or are you unemployed? I don't get the sense you are.

And Disney is making a huge mistake by pumping in massive resources to keep ABC alive in a dying industry.

Thank god that Warner Brothers, Fox, Columbia, MGM, Disney and others didn't just completely throw in the towel and go home in the late 60's and early 70's when times were really rough for movies. Instead, they pumped massive resources into a dying industry and .. last I checked .. they're still making movies and I would presume money. They couldn't run on debt for 30 years. Had they followed your advice, there might not have been a single movie studio to rail against today. :)

I get what you're trying to say. But you have not yet differentiated for me how this television situation is any different than the historical crisis of audience-reduction and subsequent shake outs in newspaper, radio, movies, live theater and so on. I don't see how it is. What am I missing? (I'm sure you'll tell me ;) )

And one last point. How come people complain that something like EPCOT isn't "Disney enough", yet scream for joy the 'Desperate Housewives' is such a wonderful thing for Disney? Do people actually care about the products involved, or is the fanbase now so damaged that the success of the brand means more than the actual content of the brand?

Well a big difference is that Epcot is part of Walt Disney World. And DH is part of the ABC Television Network. One is clearly branded with the Disney name directly and thus engenders the expectation of a 'Disney' experience. I've never heard of anyone calling it "Disney's Desparate Housewives" in general interest publications. Only rarely in industry rags.

So.. when ABC changes their name to DISNEY NETWORK then you might have an extremely valid point. I think Desparate Housewives is a great thing for ABC. I don't see too many average consumers connect it DIRECTLY to Disney in the manner you are attempting. Is it the best thing on TV? I don't happen to think so... but audiences and at least some critics think it's pretty damned good.

The same argument you are making AGAINST Desparate Housewives could be made against many of the Touchstone or Miramax films at one point or another.

Either Disney is ALL family all the time or they can own some unique divisions generating some more grown-up fare. They've made the choice as to what side of that fence they wanna be on over 25 years ago when Ron Miller put the wheels in motion to create Touchstone. DH is afterall a Touchstone Television production. Regardless, I fail to see how that relates here. If I understood your argument - and maybe I didn't..

Either way, I think that's a separate discussion. Or are we shifting the argument again? :confused3

Knox

Another Voice
05-13-2007, 09:45 PM
Thank god that Warner Brothers, Fox, Columbia, MGM, Disney and others didn't just completely throw in the towel and go home in the late 60's and early 70's when times were really rough for movies.
Where you argument falls down is that what nature of the change. The studious produced content, what changed was the method of distribtuion. People still wanted entertainment, but with the change in technology they wanted it in their living room, not the neighborhood cinema. So studio content changed from theatrical pictures to TV series and home video. It's taken a long time for Hollywood to adjust, but there has always been a demand for the product.

The people who disappeared where the giant motion picture chains and the neighborhood theaters.

Today's equivilant is the broadcast network. A network doesn't provide product - a network is just a distribution system. People still want movies, but they are no longer going to wait for a broadcaster to beam it to their television set. Just as before, the demand is for content remains, but means of getting it are changing.

So far no one has come up with a network type system for new media. There is nothing like ABC's ad time on the Internet. There are no fixed eyeballs with no choice but to watch ads. The entire basis of broadcast television disappears the moment I can zip through the ads.

when ABC changes their name to DISNEY NETWORK then you might have an extremely valid point.
Exactly - most "fans" don't care about Disney any more. They don't care about what Disney used to mean or represent. Disney is just a brand name - an easy mark to say "this stuff is okay to buy". It's a middle class comfort brand that can be slapped on any product, but it means nothing anymore. People are cheering on a corporation irregardless of what's really going on.

shanomi4
05-14-2007, 08:40 AM
So because you run two shops you can decide the quality of opinions of others - people you know nothing about? ".
Did I say that? Don't think so...but if I did please enlighten me!!
Pass judgements on people when you haven't even listened to what they've said?
Uhhh.....yes...I did read many many many posts from several posters to conclude that they project themselves as being wiser and more knowing then the top executives at Disney. If you like I could pull and quote many posts. Insult people when you don't know a thing about their background?
exactly who did I insult?? Did I pick a specific poster? If I did please quote.

Funny indeed. I never knew selling trinkets made one so knowledgeable about running an entertainment company.
Who sells trinkets?? I am sure this was a feeble stab at trying to insult me. Nice try. Trinkets....LOL!! I guess Pfize, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and so on are just selling trinkets?? :lmao: what was that you said about "insulting" people you know nothing about?? We call this projection!! And to add....I never said i know how to run an entertainment company. That is my whole argument. I nor most posters here know how to run Disney. But looking at the posts you would never know that. Again..projection!!
I could have saved decades on my career had I just opened up a Starbucks instead of working for movies.
Funny you mention Starbucks. My neighbor didn't graduate from high school. Started a small landscaping business...sold it...and now owns 5 going on 6 and 7, Starbucks. Most down to earth GIRL you would ever meet. Who would of thunk a high school drop out would be able to afford 1.1 million for a house!! Oh, and before you say “we are impressed with your wealthy housing, I will have you know I paid less then half that 10 years ago!!
It turns out I know nothing after all this time...
Sorry that you feel that way. I wish you luck and hope someday you realize your self-worth!! Chow!!

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 09:38 AM
Page not found...
Sorry, I will try this again....


http://www.connectingindustry.com/pdfs/TEA-ERAAttendance06.pdf


1st..2nd..3rd...4th. Does it really matter? 98% of what they put on TV is crap and that is not just ABC. Better shape now??...not setting the bar too high there.


While I do not like most of the shows on ABC, Millions of people would disagree that most of it is crap. That is a personal opinion that you are entitled too.

I'm not setting any bars, but Disney has improved ABC's ratings since taking it over.


That was just a quick cut and paste if you want a real heart breaking picture you should go back 10 years and look at all of the movies that weren't made by Pixar or had a Pirate in them.



Your right some of them are crap (IMO), but that's the difference I've seen with you and me. I can see the good and the bad. All you can seem to focus on is the negative.



That is real easy to say now that Disney is operating in more countries...


Ok, so Disney is expanding its consumer base, don't see how this is a bad thing. Also, I would have to find the specific article, but I think Disney World by itself also hit a new record for attendance.


Those numbers mean nothing..could be seen???? I could be a Polar Bear.


I would argue that those numbers do mean something. The more households you reach, the more likely that some of them will be watching.

Not sure how many more facts I can give you to prove my point. Nelson Ratings Up, Reaching more households then ever, record park attendance at parks......-


So?


Huh?


I count 2 maybe 3 in the last 10 years. That is unless you want to count Pixar which Disney literally just put them out...distribution.


Here are 5 I can think of off the top of my head since 2004:

POTC1
POTC2
Nation Treasure
Wild Hogs
Chronicles of Narnia

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 09:48 AM
112Million is nothing compared to 6 Billion.

Everything I've heard says ABC is number 3.

My point is that if Disney was losing favor with the average consumer, I doubt that attendance/ratings would continue to increase.

Found several reputable sources stating/showing ABC as closer to number 2 then 3.

Another Voice
05-14-2007, 10:15 AM
We call this projection!! And to add....I never said i know how to run an entertainment company. That is my whole argument. I nor most posters here know how to run Disney.
So if you don't know anything about running an entertainment company, then how can you judge if my opinions are sound or unsound. You don't have any basis to make a decision, do you.

Like so many "fans", anything "Disney" is beyond comment. You either love them or you're a bad, ignorant person.

If you go back into the archieves here you'll find many, many threads that paint a sad history. People were complaining that the Disney stores were focusing on the wrong products and weren't well maintained. The "better people" here told everyone to shut-up the stores were fine and Disney knew what it was doing.

Disney ended up giving away the entire store business.

There were other threads about how the feature animation films were growing rushed, that Disney seemed more interested in selling Happy Meals than making a good film. We were told we didn't know a thing, that the public LOVED Disney movies and would wait in long lines for Brother Bear and Treasure Planet would be the top grossing movie of the year. It was only our hatred and ignorance that kept us from seeing those "facts".

Yet Disney shut down Feature Animation and spent the value of Walt Disney World to buy another studio.

Some of us said that California Adventure violated every rule that made Disney Parks unqiue. We were screamed at by fans that we were stupid, hateful people that just wanted Disney to fail.

Yet now a ticket to DCA is a giveaway when you buy a ticket to Disneyland.

All in all, it really does seem like a lot of people here know much more about running Disney than its current management does. Perhaps it's because we know about Disney, we know it's history, its past mistakes, the elements "behind the scenes" that makes things work. That's certainly a lot more knowledge than a failed studio suit and a failed network exec brought to the CEO job.

Maybe your Starbucks friend should give it a shot.

shanomi4
05-14-2007, 10:45 AM
So if you don't know anything about running an entertainment company, then how can you judge if my opinions are sound or unsound. You don't have any basis to make a decision, do you.
Was this a question or a statement? Also, did I ever single you out? Did I as you were unable to do a better job then Disney? Funny, you and I agree more then you know, but yet you are quick to assume that I was talking about you!

Like so many "fans", anything "Disney" is beyond comment. You either love them or you're a bad, ignorant person.
:lmao:

If you go back into the archieves here you'll find many, many threads that paint a sad history.
No doubt!


Maybe your Starbucks friend should give it a shot.
why?

And for the record, I am not a Disney fan. I think Universal is a superior product. At least for my family. I think Disney is falling apart and is not what Walt would want. I think they have expanded to much.

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 10:47 AM
Like so many "fans", anything "Disney" is beyond comment. You either love them or you're a bad, ignorant person.


I agree, there are a lot of people on this board that are very biased and can only seem to see one side of Disney :rolleyes1

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 10:53 AM
[url]

While I do not like most of the shows on ABC, Millions of people would disagree that most of it is crap. That is a personal opinion that you are entitled too.



Yes there are millions of people that still watch TV....





Your right some of them are crap (IMO), but that's the difference I've seen with you and me. I can see the good and the bad. All you can seem to focus on is the negative.


Wrong I've listed the good ones.




Ok, so Disney is expanding its consumer base, don't see how this is a bad thing. Also, I would have to find the specific article, but I think Disney World by itself also hit a new record for attendance.

Didn't say it was bad...however it has nothing to do with the quality of the product they are putting out..only finding new suckers to push crap on.



I would argue that those numbers do mean something. The more households you reach, the more likely that some of them will be watching.


So what did Disney do to cause this?



Not sure how many more facts I can give you to prove my point. Nelson Ratings Up, Reaching more households then ever, record park attendance at parks......-



More people and more houses...again what is it that Disney did?




Here are 5 I can think of off the top of my head since 2004:

POTC1
POTC2
Nation Treasure
Wild Hogs
Chronicles of Narnia

It's almost as if you read what I type..

POTC1-2 - have a Pirate in them. Chronicles Of Narnia ....distribted by Disney not made by them. Nation Treasure (Horrible moive) but that is the 3rd I gave you.

....and Finally your love for the Movie Wild Hogs...ok we get it it....Disney finally made a movie that made money...we think. I can't find a budget for the movie and with
John Travolta
Tim Allen
Martin Lawrence
William H. Macy
Ray Liotta
Marisa Tomei
as the "stars"....I'm not to sure how much of that money is going to make to make its way into Disneys hands.


Now again what about the other 50 movies over the last 10 years that stunk up the joint? What about the up coming ones? Have you seen a list of in production movies...not exactly anything to make you want to run out to the theater.

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 10:57 AM
double post

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 11:47 AM
Listen, I get the fact that you are not satisfied with the quality of product Disney has been putting out lately, but the facts do not support your assumption that Disney is a downward spiral. You stated the following:

Yeah I know it must disappoint you...but in a Capitalist society the consumers are the ones who get to make those decisions. I'm sure you think that Eisner had some special talent or insight just because he spent a few years green lighting bad movies. Eveery day in this country regular people run billion, million, and less dollar companies...its a great place to live. Even if you can't wrap your head around bad ideas like half finished parks, bad movies, bad TV shows and the slow downward spiral that is Disney...we can.

You say that consumers are the ones that make the decisions. I assume you are saying that consumers can voice their displeasure with a company by avoiding the product. If the average consumer was dissatisfied with Disney I would think that Disney would be losing viewers and the park attendance would be going down. However that is not what's happening. Nelson ratings are high for ABC and nearly every park is hitting attendance records. I provided several sources and factual information to back up my side of the argument. If you have something other then "that's crap" or "so?" then I will give greater consideration to your argument.

.....for the record I take offense to the idea that I love "Wild Hogs" (but the movie is/was profitable) :sad2:

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 11:50 AM
Double post

YoHo
05-14-2007, 11:56 AM
On the topic of Television. While I appreciate the finer points of death versus rebirth, the questions as it relates to this thread and DIsney in general are:

Q: Was the purchase of ABC really in the long term interests of DIsney when viewed from the mid 90s?
A: During the mid 90s, Every major studio looked to get into the distribution business, but Timer Warner Cable will reap the rewards of the new Media as they provide hundreds of Cable channels and some of the fastest Home internet available.
Disney owns a Network Television provider.

GE sells billions of lightbulbs that allow NBC to stick around and Funny thing, they just went the other way and bought a content generating company. Of course, as AV points out, that in and of itself is a tough business to be in, but content isn't the problem. The managment is.

So in the end, Eisner purchased ABC to pad his ego. It's a mediochre distribution network compared to the competitors and has at best a spotty track record.

Q: IS ABC in the best interest of the company now
A: All the issues that were there in the mid 90s are worse now. Network television simply doesn't generate the ad revenue that it needs to to support it's current model.
Iger's old skool and he's an ABC guy. While the iTunes initiative is nice, Disney must rely on the parks to support this division. It has not cable revenues. It doesn't sell lightbulbs.
But Disney could sell shows on iTunes without owning ABC.
Iger seems particularly miscast as the CEO capable of transforming the Network Television model.


So, the parks support ABC which has some decent shows, but subpar ad revenue. They gave up monday night football and couldn't afford sunday night football. iTunes and the free availability of the shows on disney.com is nice, but it really isn't as big a revenue stream.
Rather then revamp the division into something for the new millenium, Disney parks are forced to shore up a dying channel.

So they're robbing peter to pay paul and paul is playing 3 card monty with a guy on the gold line with the money.

YoHo
05-14-2007, 12:04 PM
.....for the record I take offense to the idea that I love "Wild Hogs" (but the movie is/was profitable) :sad2:


You keep saying that, but the movie hasn't been out that long and the production budget hasn't been released. In short the statement
Wild Hogs is/was profitable is completely made up. You don't know, you can't possibly know. Please stop using it as an example.

raidermatt
05-14-2007, 12:09 PM
Was this a question or a statement? Also, did I ever single you out? Did I as you were unable to do a better job then Disney? Funny, you and I agree more then you know, but yet you are quick to assume that I was talking about you!


At the point you jumped in, exactly two posters had weighed in with some criticism of Disney/ABC.

You used they or them 6 times in that post. If the "theys and thems" you were referring to weren't in the thread, perhaps you should have posted your commentary in a more approrpriate location.

If your commentary was related to the discussion in this thread, perhaps you should have the integrity to now stand behind what you said.

I mean, you wouldn't just be trolling us would you?

larworth
05-14-2007, 12:10 PM
Knox,

Enjoyed the historical perspective; interesting read. While network broadcasting may not actually die out, it sounds like you agree it’s not an industry with very attractive fundamentals. But than wasn’t this the conventional wisdom even back when Disney bought ABC? It just got downplayed by a CEO who was drinking the “only mega media conglomerates” will make any money off entertainment in the next millennium koolaid.

If you take away the hidden acorn the blind squirrels found (ESPN), I doubt ABC would have paid for itself yet. Hard to do when you are either losing money or just breaking even every year. That leaves us with only synergy to generate any sort of ROI. Old Disney did get one thing from ABC, a shot of corporate culture. I remember Eisner always talking about how good they were at cost control and pinching pennies. Didn’t seem too long after that cost cutting became the new mantra at the parks. Of course, one might have assumed it would have been the Old Disney culture (leaders in innovation, customer focus, etc) that they would have wanted to propagated instead.

I think I can understand the distaste some people might have for continuing to focus tons of resources on a division with declining growth prospects and who continues to be at the bottom of the corporate earnings portfolio. Hey, if we had some great growth business that needed funding I can understand milking the parks a little, but for ABC? What are the odds that Iger is going to give up the ghost.

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Listen, I get the fact that you are not satisfied with the quality of product Disney has been putting out lately, but the facts do not support your assumption that Disney is a downward spiral. You stated the following:



You say that consumers are the ones that make the decisions. I assume you are saying that consumers can voice their displeasure with a company by avoiding the product. If the average consumer was dissatisfied with Disney I would think that Disney would be losing viewers and the park attendance would be going down. However that is not what's happening. Nelson ratings are high for ABC and nearly every park is hitting attendance records. I provided several sources and factual information to back up my side of the argument. If you have something other then "that's crap" or "so?" then I will give greater consideration to your argument.

.....for the record I take offense to the idea that I love "Wild Hogs" (but the movie is/was profitable) :sad2:


...no not "putting out latley"...putting out for the last 10-15 years. Think Bigger picture..not is ABC up this year or quarter. See the bigger picture. Wild Hogs is not quality...Dancing with the Stars is not quality. Lilo and Stitch IV is not quality. Half finished parks is not quality. Disney is not going to be able to ride the coat tails of quality and good will that was produced 25 years ago forever. Even the die hard "Disney can do no wrong fan" will see that too even if they can't now with Underdog the movie right around the corner, DCA still a mess of a Park, AK, MGM still half finsished and really no plans from Disney to fix, finish or reinvest in them anytime soon. I really feel sorry for the poor DVC crowd that just may find themselves with old Hotels and new owners in the not so distant future so that you can have your Wild Hogs III or latest ABC flop.

...yes we get it you like ABC. I could care less so I really don't want to argue if anyone is really watching Dancing with the Stars or the quality of it...but I bet you know in your heart.

YoHo
05-14-2007, 12:29 PM
EXACTLY.

And since Disney seems to think the parks are also not a growth business, one wonders just what they think is a growth industry?

In terms of money spent, it would appear to be ABC, yet independently we've just concluded it is not. So what does that say about Disney managment?

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 12:29 PM
You keep saying that, but the movie hasn't been out that long and the production budget hasn't been released. In short the statement
Wild Hogs is/was profitable is completely made up. You don't know, you can't possibly know. Please stop using it as an example.

Well based on this post from EUROPACL, AV belives that a movie has to make something close to 3x it's production budget to be profitable.

AV who works in the biz has stated several times before that typically a movies needs to make back 3x its production and advertising cost in order to turn a profit. You need to understand that box office money is split between the studios and the theaters. It gets even more complicated when you have more than one studio involved with the release, a big named star who may get a back end cut or directors and producers that have their hand in the pot too.. Deep is rumored to be making around 150 million for the three pirates movies when its all said and done.

It is believed that "Wild Hogs" cost 60 million to make and it has taken in $225,269,656.

shanomi4
05-14-2007, 12:34 PM
At the point you jumped in, exactly two posters had weighed in with some criticism of Disney/ABC
True!

You used they or them 6 times in that post.
Thanks for the word count!
If the "theys and thems" you were referring to weren't in the thread, perhaps you should have posted your commentary in a more approrpriate location.
Good piont. Koodos to you. However, I had read other threads (one about how disney is falling apart) and when I got to this thread I responded. Maybe i should of started a thread discussing my feelings. not a bad idea!

If your commentary was related to the discussion in this thread, perhaps you should have the integrity to now stand behind what you said.
Ok.

I mean, you wouldn't just be trolling us would you?
Me trolling??? Noooo, why would you think that???:confused3

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 12:42 PM
It is believed that "Wild Hogs" cost 60 million to make and it has taken in $225,269,656.

Ok a little math then....

60 Million X 3 = 180 Million (without Advertising I might add)


225 Million so far.... Half of that goes to the Theaters( Rule of thumb)... Leaving around 112.5 million so far for Disney. So how much is Tim Allen Getting on the back end? The other stars? The director? Writers (Ok...I know thats funny we all know that movie was written by the Auto Generator buddy-fish out of water machine)...still it cost money to run that thing too.

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 12:51 PM
...no not "putting out latley"...putting out for the last 10-15 years. Think Bigger picture..not is ABC up this year or quarter. See the bigger picture. Wild Hogs is not quality...Dancing with the Stars is not quality. Lilo and Stitch IV is not quality. Half finished parks is not quality. Disney is not going to be able to ride the coat tails of quality and good will that was produced 25 years ago forever. Even the die hard "Disney can do no wrong fan" will see that too even if they can't now with Underdog the movie right around the corner, DCA still a mess of a Park, AK, MGM still half finsished and really no plans from Disney to fix, finish or reinvest in them anytime soon. I really feel sorry for the poor DVC crowd that just may find themselves with old Hotels and new owners in the not so distant future so that you can have your Wild Hogs III or latest ABC flop.

...yes we get it you like ABC. I could care less so I really don't want to argue if anyone is really watching Dancing with the Stars or the quality of it...but I bet you know in your heart.


LOL, Disney has been poorly run for 15 years, but they are still setting records. Your right, they better watch out before their terrible decisions get them more business.

I’ll state this again since you seemed to have missed it in several posts, I am not a fan of ABC or Wild Hogs. However, I realize that others have a different opinion and that a lot of people must like these products to make them popular.

raidermatt
05-14-2007, 12:55 PM
Me trolling??? Noooo, why would you think that???

First post uses the classic troll starting point... personal attack that stays just on the right site of the TOS by not actually putting a name in the post.

Never actually offers anything that contributes to the discussion, only continues with the attacks.

Throws out the "I know because I am successful" line.

Follows it all up with a "Who me? But if the shoe fits..."


That's trolling.

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 12:56 PM
Ok a little math then....

60 Million X 3 = 180 Million (without Advertising I might add)


225 Million so far.... Half of that goes to the Theaters( Rule of thumb)... Leaving around 112.5 million so far for Disney. So how much is Tim Allen Getting on the back end? The other stars? The director? Writers (Ok...I know thats funny we all know that movie was written by the Auto Generator buddy-fish out of water machine)...still it cost money to run that thing too.

Ahhh, so with your logic all movies must make 6-10 times the production cost to start looking at a profit. I guess almost every major movie made today loses money. Seems like they would shut all the theaters down and stop making them.

shanomi4
05-14-2007, 01:00 PM
First post uses the classic troll starting point... personal attack that stays just on the right site of the TOS by not actually putting a name in the post.

Never actually offers anything that contributes to the discussion, only continues with the attacks.

Throws out the "I know because I am successful" line.

Follows it all up with a "Who me? But if the shoe fits..."


That's trolling.

I was being sarcastic when I said noooo....:lmao:
Thought that was obvious!!popcorn::

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 01:06 PM
Ahhh, so with your logic all movies must make 6-10 times the production cost to start looking at a profit. I guess almost every major movie made today loses money. Seems like they would shut all the theaters down and stop making them.

No just trying to show you that box office receipts are not a direct funnel back to the studio that made the movie. I think very few big budget or even some of the medium size make money through the box office. Profits come from DVD sales and cable reruns years later. That is why Lilo and Stick vI is not going to be released at the Box office....It would cost to much and they would lose money doing it...but they will make money on the current batch of Disney suckers who will run out and buy it on DVD.

As far as what it real takes for a movie to turn a profit...each is different. There are hundereds of hands in that cookie jar and its different for each movie. However AV (again who works in the biz) has stated in the past that a General Rule of thumb is that a movie has to make back 3x its production and advertising cost and that Box office splits are usually around 50-50 with the theaters.( it's not really that simple of a split but the longer a movie is out the closer to that number it beomes)

raidermatt
05-14-2007, 01:12 PM
I think I can understand the distaste some people might have for continuing to focus tons of resources on a division with declining growth prospects and who continues to be at the bottom of the corporate earnings portfolio.

And that's it in a nutshell.


I'm not setting any bars, but Disney has improved ABC's ratings since taking it over.

Are you sure about that? I've tried to find historical ratings by season but so far have come up empty. But everything I remember reading says that network ratings have been falling overall for quite some time.

ABC had been up and down prior to the takeover, and certainly that's been the case since. I don't see anything to indicate that over the long haul its doing any better today than in the past.

raidermatt
05-14-2007, 01:19 PM
I was being sarcastic when I said noooo....:lmao:
Thought that was obvious!!popcorn::

Sarcasm, yes, an admission that trolling is all you're doing, no, I didn't catch that. But now we're all clear, and I'm sure that 70+ hour workweek as an entrepreneur is calling ;) , so we'll catch ya on the flip side.

shanomi4
05-14-2007, 01:30 PM
Sarcasm, yes, an admission that trolling is all you're doing, no, I didn't catch that. But now we're all clear, and I'm sure that 70+ hour workweek as an entrepreneur is calling ;) , so we'll catch ya on the flip side.

Actualy, I am a 18 year old drop out. I do not have a job unless you consider living off Mom's trust fund a job. :thumbsup2 :cool1: :rotfl2: :lmao:

CanadianGuy
05-14-2007, 04:07 PM
In the interest of full disclosure : I need to correct something from my post yesterday. ABC DOES currently own the ABC Radio Network, but there is a pending sale to Citadel Broadcasting that awaits IRS review before it can close. This would divest ABC of its non-Disney radio properties.

I felt it pertinent to share that given the discussion at hand.

I would argue that those numbers do mean something. The more households you reach, the more likely that some of them will be watching.
So what did Disney do to cause this?

Thanks for asking. What Disney (or more accurately ABC + Disney together did), was successfully entice more privately owned stations in markets without ABC representation to affiliate themselves with the ABC network. This increases their 'reach' in terms of households and audience size.

ABC has increased the number of privately-owned local affiliated stations by 33 (rough numbers) since 1995. Some of those were station swaps so the actual net additions is probably more like 20, roughly 1/3 of those since the year 2000. That's a better than 10-12 % increase in affiliates. Not bad for a dying industry.

In fact, all the more impressive given that the payments to affiliates from the network for carrying their programming have been SIGNIFICANTLY reduced and/or eliminated in that same time frame.

Knox,

Enjoyed the historical perspective; interesting read. While network broadcasting may not actually die out, it sounds like you agree it’s not an industry with very attractive fundamentals. But than wasn’t this the conventional wisdom even back when Disney bought ABC? It just got downplayed by a CEO who was drinking the “only mega media conglomerates” will make any money off entertainment in the next millennium koolaid.

Thanks, it's nice to know someone read and enjoyed what I wrote. :)

While the internet existed in 1995, TIVO and its ilk did not. Those are the two biggest threats to network television in my opinion. The internet in 1995 was a joke. Nobody took it seriously - inside or outside the entertainment industry at the time.

I worked at NBC at the time of the CapCities/ABC/Disney deal being announced. Nobody at the peacock network was terribly surprised by this. It had leaked pretty well by the time of the announcement. At that point, everyone at NBC was waiting for either NBC to be sold to a studio or for GE to acquire one. Why?

Well in 1995 the 'holy grail' from a TV standpoint was owning the shows you broadcast so you could profit from the syndication and a little bit from the home video market. The fastest way to do that was to buy a network if you were a studio or to buy a studio if you were a network.

Seems rather simplistic by today's standards. Remember back then, studios weren't selling DVD's (or tapes) of old series with the vigor they are today so that was seen as less lucrative overall for TV. The economics of putting 24 episodes of "24" on VHS didn't make much sense... from packaging to shipping and shelf space, it was very unwieldy... especially for the purchaser since VHS was a very fragile medium in the grand scheme of things. DVD's changed that and made a real on-going revenue stream from these huge libraries of "old TV shows nobody wants to see again." (in the words of one NBC exec who couldn't see the Wilderness Lodge for the trees IMHO)

The internet was something to keep an eye on but hardly a threat at that point. And TIVO was four years away. Network viewership was holding it's own. Seinfeld was done but the NBC domination with FRIENDS and other 'appointment viewing' series was yet to really build.

Personally, watching a 'show' on my PC is about the LAST way I'd choose to do it. Watching any type of long-form entertainment regularly on my PC is not even on my radar.

The "500 channel universe" is probably the largest elephant in the room with the lionshare of blame. More choice for the consumer has fractured the audience into niche pockets. But again - you can look historically at other media and see this same thing develop.

Historically with radio, niches develop, are extremely popular, die away.. then everyone merges up.. the audience returns to familiar 'big name' brands in a consolidation phase and then that breaks down into niches again. You can chart this. It's that regular.

One datapoint to support the well-known niche/consolidation theory for the current TV situation.. is that while network tuning is down slightly.. overall viewership of TV as a medium was at an all time high for the 2005/6 season.

The average American household consumes 8 hours and 14 minutes a day of live TV programming. The ratings for 2005/6 did not take into account DVR viewing so that's removed from that math here.

That tells me obviously that people still want to and will watch TV, just not as much network TV.. and not in the same ways, and not the same programming that they have in the past. (See my note below about the key to survival)

Television is OVERDUE for a massive shake up. Just like Northridge is overdue for a quake. But I don't think the quake will destroy it. Just shake things up in a healthy way.

I honestly do think that network television will figure out a way to remain successful and relevant. The fundamentals, while changing, are still there; however it will take some work (and yes money) to refocus the network in a profitable way.

Exactly - most "fans" don't care about Disney any more. They don't care about what Disney used to mean or represent. Disney is just a brand name - an easy mark to say "this stuff is okay to buy". It's a middle class comfort brand that can be slapped on any product, but it means nothing anymore. People are cheering on a corporation irregardless of what's really going on.

Nobody slapped the Disney name on Desparate Housewives. Except you that is.

If your argument is that the other products Disney slaps their name on (Disney Mobile is a good example maybe) .. I'll agree with that. But I thought we were discussing the network television which clearly does NOT have the Disney named directly associated or 'slapped on' to it.

The people who disappeared where the giant motion picture chains and the neighborhood theaters.

Today's equivilant is the broadcast network. A network doesn't provide product - a network is just a distribution system.

With regards to your comments about network television being the equivalent of the local and chain movie theatres. I respectfully dis-agree with your analogy.

The privately owned local affiliates are the small movie theatres and chains that would die under your assumption -- not the mother network itself. The network O&O's (Owned & Operated stations) are by far and away the minority of the 200+ affiliated stations.

The network could simply become the ABC channel on satellite and cable and skip the affiliates all together. Of course, that would mean it was no longer a network. I don't see this scenario as even remotely likely.

The network will remain. The key to survival will be once again discovering what makes for compelling programming that will force people to tune-in, in real-time, vs. TIVO'ing or just watching something else. American Idol is the worst possible example of this. I'm betting that a creative person will develop something that will be equally compelling in a more artistic way.

In television's case, the coming years will represent some very tough times. But if the historical information I've posted previously tells us anything, it is that rewards await those who take bold, but calculated risks in times of duress; risks like the movie studios did in the 70's when they were faced with an audience who didn't seem to want to return to the cinema. The movie studios re-tooled, changed the stars, the quantity and types of movies they greenlighted. Eventually, the audience rediscovered going to movies all over again.


Iger seems particularly miscast as the CEO capable of transforming the Network Television model.

And we absolutely agree on Iger. I only met the man once and I thought he was 'a small picture guy' who doesn't get the big picture on any level. He's a Warren Littlefield who managed to cling-on, instead of being let go when he should have. Everything I've seen, heard and read since then has only affirmed that in my mind.

But Disney could sell shows on iTunes without owning ABC.

Disney COULD sell shows on iTunes without ABC. Heck, ABC could sell shows on iTunes without broadcasting them. But how is the average viewer going to want them enough to bother purchasing them without being familiar with the title? Not bloody likely to be very successful without some degree of promotion or advertising or even better, broadcast. Say.. on a television network?

Disney must rely on the parks to support this division. It has not cable revenues. It doesn't sell lightbulbs.

Question by cable revenues you mean ... what exactly ? I'm guessing you don't mean the per-sub revenues that all their cable networks generate.

And what division supported the parks when they were floudering in the tourism-crash post 9-11? Do you know? I don't. I'm just asking. Maybe it's in their 10k filings? (ha ha)

So.. does NBC relying on jet engines, MRI machines, fridges and stoves to fund their TV network (and probably their theme parks too) equally chap your bum??

Fortunately with 11 shows in the top 20 and virtually unprecented ratings success, CBS doesn't have to rely on outdoor billboards and their videogame division to run the tiffany network and keep Andy Rooney in paperclips.

:confused3

Knox

YoHo
05-14-2007, 05:16 PM
By Cable revenues I mean Time/Warner Cable collecting bills for homes that have purchased cable service. They also collect for internet service.

I think the fact that you don't watch your TV on a PC is just being a little behind the curve. Media PCs are the rage right now. Apple's iTV, Media boxes that will sync your networked video and audio library. The iPod video has accelerated the Demand.

What NBC uses to finance network television doesn't "Chap my hide," because nobody has an emotional investment in their lightbulbs or who made the jet engine on the 737 they're taking to Orlando.
People DO have an emotional investment in the Disney parks. I don't know GE's financials either, but they make Disney look like a pipsqueak financially I'm sure.

As for the Parks during the flounders after 9/11
No division supported the Parks. The parks supported themselves and they had their hours trashed and hotels closed, chicken fingers were lost.

During previous tourism slumps, Disney didn't have to do that. During previous slumps, Disney built Epcot. The Parks supported ABC even when 9/11 killed tourism.

That's been talked about on this board many many times.

CanadianGuy
05-14-2007, 05:56 PM
chicken fingers were lost.

And that's the real tragedy here. Maybe we can organize a telethon. ;)

Seriously thanks for the info - I asked out of genuine interest because I honestly didn't know.

I am however still confused by the Time/Warner comments. They don't own a TV network do they? Do they have their fingers in CW? Does that count?

Disney/ABC does see revenues for their cable properties on a per-sub basis for all cable operators. So what was the basis of this original comment about they have no cable revenues??

I understand the early adopters are doing all the things you mentioned. Heck, I even have a Media Center PC, but I don't find it a pleasureable experience in the least. I am now officially old.

Knox

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 06:03 PM
Thanks for asking. What Disney (or more accurately ABC + Disney together did), was successfully entice more privately owned stations in markets without ABC representation to affiliate themselves with the ABC network. This increases their 'reach' in terms of households and audience size.

ABC has increased the number of privately-owned local affiliated stations by 33 (rough numbers) since 1995. Some of those were station swaps so the actual net additions is probably more like 20, roughly 1/3 of those since the year 2000. That's a better than 10-12 % increase in affiliates. Not bad for a dying industry.

In fact, all the more impressive given that the payments to affiliates from the network for carrying their programming have been SIGNIFICANTLY reduced and/or eliminated in that same time frame.


Sorry but we'll need a bigger picturer if you want us to accept those numbers on blind faith. What are NBC's , CBS's , FOX's new affiliates numbers? How many were in new markets that already had a NBC, CBS or Fox? How many were pure money decesions like those payments to affiliate stations being more in the case of ABC in that area or any at all since you claim that they have been eliminated in some cases? What is industry average for new affliates per year...so far we are looking at 2.5 a year. Are you telling us that Disney didn't lose any stations in that time frame too?

I just don't see where anything has been said or shown where these "new affiliates" went to ABC becauase of the great programming and high quality of TV that ABC has been offering.

MasterShake
05-14-2007, 06:09 PM
Sorry but we'll need a bigger picturer if you want us to accept those numbers on blind faith. What are NBC's , CBS's , FOX's new affiliates numbers? How many were in new markets that already had a NBC, CBS or Fox? How many were pure money decesions like those payments to affiliate stations being more in the case of ABC in that area or any at all since you claim that they have been eliminated in some cases? What is industry average for new affliates per year...so far we are looking at 2.5 a year. Are you telling us that Disney didn't lose any stations in that time frame too?

I just don't see where anything has been said or shown where these "new affiliates" went to ABC becauase of the great programming and high quality of TV that ABC has been offering.

No offence, but what facts and figures have you brought to the discussion? I have heard what your personal feelings are, but I would be more apt to agree with your side if you could provide proof to the fact that Disney's business is suffering based on it's poor desisions/products.

CanadianGuy
05-14-2007, 06:25 PM
I retract my comments on affiliate numbers. I neglected to look more closely at the lists on Wikipedia's site that indicate markets with "none" indicated. It's a misleading list because the numbers it lists the Neilsen market # not the 'station count' -- I regret the error and I retract that portion of my argument.

The number of affiliates is much closer to what I consider to be static (+/-5) for all three networks. I apologize for the error.

The discrepancy arises because each network lacks affiliates in about 16 markets. For each network, those 15 or 16 'holes' are in different places.

Knox

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 06:36 PM
No offence, but what facts and figures have you brought to the discussion? I have heard what your personal feelings are, but I would be more apt to agree with your side if you could provide proof to the fact that Disney's business is suffering based on it's poor desisions/products.

You've been arguing with some many people here I think you may have me confused.(is there overtime pay for that?) I'm not sure if I ever said business was bad for Disney....other then movie flops. Movie flops have been pretty easy to hid or gloss over due to the Disney faithful and the need for Bambi III (The search for more money). I quite sure that you can make more money when you charge more and spend less. I sure that when you go from 5 chicken fingers to 3 and charge $1.50 more you can make more money. I'm sure that you can make money when whole entire divisions of the company that used to be the bread and butter of the company are let go. I'm sure that if you raise prices every year higher then the rate of inflation there is money to be made. I really don't know how its current zero capital investment in the Flordia parks is effecting Attendance...some guesses have been posted. Its hard to tell really when nobody knows if those numbers are real. My biggest peve is the quality of what is being offered these days compared to better days, some of us (again has been dicused several times here before) have seen a very steady slide away from Disney quality to the current offerings. Its been a chipping away process little by little. Basically the dumbing down of Disney to where I fear that one day we are going to wake up and it Won't be Walt Disney World anymore, maybe "edge fund invistment group land".

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 06:47 PM
I don't just pull these numbers out of my butt you know...


I stand by my numbers of at least 20 new affiliates since Disney bought ABC.



Nobody said you did. Just it helps to have the whole picture. I have no problem seeing ABC adding 20 new stations once Disney bought them. Your right the Disney name alone might have done that (which I agree with). You need to look no futher than the "Value Resorts" then to see that the Disney name carries weight still. If the big picture shows the same sort of numbers for the other networks what does that say about ABC was my point?

I've addmitted I don't watch ABC or much network TV at all...so the whole ABC is doing better this year then last means less to me. I just see ABC as a money drain for the parks.(something I do care about)

CanadianGuy
05-14-2007, 06:49 PM
I'm going to dig out my Visa application to see if the numbers jive with memory now. I can't believe none of the networks have really added significant affiliates.

Maybe some of this particular portion of my reply did come from a posterior region without me even realizing. ;)

EDIT: Found the Visa application. As of July 1995, NBC was claiming 181 (not 191) affiliates. The net gain for NBC is about 9 affiliates. The net gain for ABC would be about 10 and for CBS the net gain is hard to determine because I truly can't recall the original number. Your point is well taken - ABC merely kept up with the pack in this regard since 1995.

Knox

PS> I want credit for researching and honestly reporting what I found. :)

YoHo
05-14-2007, 06:57 PM
Canadian guy, I appreciate the research an honesty.

EUROPACL
05-14-2007, 06:58 PM
Canadian guy, I appreciate the research an honesty.

x2.

CanadianGuy
05-14-2007, 06:59 PM
I don't think that ABC necessarily IS a money drain on the parks. But then I don't understand high-corporate finance particularly well.

At any given point in time there is so much money flowing in and flowing out, I'm not really sure that network television is pulling maintenance and upgrades from the parks.

Disney really isn't a zero sum game and they don't pay cash for everything. Losses in one business unit would carry over and have to be negated by future profits in that division.

Yes, basic operating capital has to come from somewhere, but I don't think they just give money from one division to another per se. I would think that would come as an operating loan/debt that would need to be repaid with interest against that division. Where is a good accountant when you need one.

I must stress I don't understand corporate finance and so forth well enough to speculate well in this area. ( I know.. then why did I post? )

Knox

Another Voice
05-17-2007, 02:50 PM
The "500 channel universe" is probably the largest elephant in the room with the lionshare of blame.
The smarest thing I ever heard a Disney suit say came years ago. It was from the head of Disney Studios television production division, now long fired from the compnay.

Basically, he said that no one wants a television set with 500 channels. They want a television set with just one channel - a channel that shows them what they want to watch, when they want to watch it. The moment that techonology arrives, broadcast television is over.

The technology still isn't there yet, but it feels very close. All it really take now is the search and storage capability of the internet married to the easy presentation experience of a television. When studios can beam you the latest episode of a series right to your house, when series can be made on budgets based on payments from veiwers and not ad buyers - the entire business model for networks disappears.

CanadianGuy
05-27-2007, 05:05 PM
AV:

First off, I agree on the 500 channel thing... that's an argument I heard frequently at NBC back when they were trying to downplay was was looming on the horizon.

Your theory is interesting.. but what's missing.. is how do you develop the 'desire' for the home viewer to pay for or download your series in the first place? That's what the broadcast component has going for it that none of these 'on demand' concepts have a neat answer for...

If you had an on-demand version of a new series similar in scope to Lost or DH or whatever.. How do you let the masses know how great it is? These things develop a nice head of steam thru network broadcasts currently. How do you do that without the broadcasts?

Advertising? Where.. ? Billboards ?

Sure .. you could offer sample clips and so forth on a barker channel .. or even the first four episodes free.. but again .. I don't think that's gonna cut it in the long run.

Knox

YoHo
05-27-2007, 05:25 PM
But, it's not really working for network TV now. They're losing viewership.

TheRustyScupper
05-27-2007, 06:39 PM
. . . I get such a kick out of the "know it alls"!! . . . They know how to run a billion dollar company . . .


1) Some od us know how to run a 1/2-billion dollar company.
2) And some us do!
3) As for the Disney profit
. . . I am glad they are making more money
. . . I think they should give some more to the CM's

Another Voice
05-27-2007, 06:48 PM
If you had an on-demand version of a new series similar in scope to Lost or DH or whatever.. How do you let the masses know how great it is?
Well...how does a studio generate interest in a movie? There's no long network run there. A movie hits the theatre and the audience shows up based on their interests. How does a movie studio tell the masses how great their product is? It's marketing, you go out tell people the shows about to come out.

How do series get started anyway? When was the last time a series was allowed to discover an audience? It seems to me that broadcast television is already just like the movies - you're an immediate hit or you're killed. Current practice runs completely opposite to your agurement (and does much to actually hurt television).


I think television (and movies) are going to develop into a business similar to the way music is today. People are going to have to pay for first run entertainment; an entire industry will develop around its marketing and promotion. High end product will probably be pay-for-view or a premimum subscription. That's the model HBO is in now. Their core is quickly becoming hit series; as a consumer I have to decide if HBO is offering enough shows I like to continue paying to recieve the channel.

Series will be more along the lines of what they have in Britian - a dozen or so episodes and nothing more. If the show is a hit, they'll make more. If not, the series concludes and everyone goes on their way. No more American style "it lasts until the run out of audience or ideas" programming. Wish they had done with 'Lost' from the beginning.

Broadcast is going to be akin to radio, relegated to replaying previously released products on its fourth or fifth go around. There will always be "original" programming, but the moment Disney figures out how to get people to pay to download 'Desperate Housewives' (and that will come the moment Iger gives them the go ahead to do nudity...don't laugh, it's coming) - ABC is becomes what ABC Family is today; a dump yard.

CanadianGuy
05-27-2007, 08:53 PM
Compelling arguments in part.. but yet.. I am not yet fully convinced.

I think the shorter series thing is definitely coming... how that affects the syndication market and so on.. hard to say.

Working in radio -- I take exception to this comment --

Broadcast is going to be akin to radio, relegated to replaying previously released products on its fourth or fifth go around.

That may be true of music formatted stations to a degree.. but there's lots and lots of really and truly original and compelling radio programming happening on the first go around.

Knox

Another Voice
05-27-2007, 09:25 PM
but there's lots and lots of really and truly original and compelling radio programming happening on the first go around.
But imagine if you worked for NBC's "Red" or "Blue" networks before WWII and then take a look at radio today. Radio at its height had entire nations gathered in the living room at set times to listen to 'The Shadow' or 'George Burns' or Walter Winchell. Radio held the nation together, from news reports of the growing war in Europe or the war the Martians had stated in New Jersey.

Today, radio is essentially relegated to people's cars. And the only time people care about it is when dimwitted blowhards make bad jokes about college basketball teams.

Yes, just as there is radio today, there will be some form of broadcast television. Even then, most of it will be "broadcast" on the Internet. It's the path of all entertainment technology - the shift is always to the conveniece of the consumer. Why go to a movie theater when you can get programming beamed into my house; why should I wait for a broadcaster's schedule when I can point my browser whenever I want to.

Disney could have been a leader here, but the last two CEO have been so in bed with the current system (it's made them both immorally rich), that they refuse to see what's coming. At best all they've attempted to do is squeeze a few more pennies through tweaks - when the real money is going to be made figuring out the new world.

It's no different than in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Hollywood was terrified of television and none of the studios around town would have anything at all to do with it. But Walt Disney saw what he could do - expand beyond theatres and expand his company into every home in the country. He jumped at the opportunity - he created the first hit national children's show, one of the very first "appointment" series (the 'Wonderful World of Disney' set bedtime for children for a generation), and even created the very first media-sensation with 'Davy Crocket' (even 'Star Wars' today has no where near the impact on culture as Disney's mini-series had).

Can you imagine what the hype around an ad that said "Download 'The Adventures of Jack Sparrow - Episode 1' on July 23, only $5.99 at iTunes.com"?

CanadianGuy
05-28-2007, 08:00 AM
AV:

You've just made the same arguments I made earlier in this thread... Each medium goes thru a period of dominance and then settles back to a lesser position as new media are introduced and go thru their period of dominance.

I think we actually agree more than we disagree on these points. But I still think that the networks have a position to play. And I do think one of them will figure it out sooner rather than later.

And I think we agree that I don't think ABC will be the first to get there..

Knox

Another Voice
05-28-2007, 11:59 AM
But I still think that the networks have a position to play.
It's just a pity that Disney has destroyed itself - Feature Animation, parks, stores - to go playing around with a network they don't know what to do with. Imagine how strong Disney would be today without ABC dragging them down. From my point of view, its 50% Disney mismanagement and 50% the decline in networks. Sure, broadcast TV will still be around, but is that future worth the $50+ billion Disney has thrown at ABC over the years?