DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[nlenguyen]

Nope. Dis+ and Hulu are separate services.

I thought they were going to combine into one app

 

[HokieRaven5]

unless you're getting them both for free with your verizon cell phone

Not actually free. On the old plan it’s partially subsidized and discounted through Verizon. You just don’t get an itemized bill showing it.

New Plans going forward still have the Disney Bundle for $10 a month.

 

[HokieRaven5]

I thought they were going to combine into one app

They are, for those who are currently subscribed to the bundle.

 

[RivShore]

So long as they strike a good balance, the buyback should be seen as good (or a split between good and desperate hoping wall street likes the move).

I agree with this take...the second part is probably closer to their thinking. Still think debt reduction should have taken priority but I'm sure they were thinking more about the corporate raiders breathing down their necks.

 

[clarker99]

I agree with this take...the second part is probably closer to their thinking. Still think debt reduction should have taken priority but I'm sure they were thinking more about the corporate raiders breathing down their necks.

Long Term Borrowings
End of FY22: $45.3B
End of FY23: $42.1B
End of Q1FY24: $41.6

Paid down debt by $3.2B over a year and another $500m in last 90dsys. We can keep an eye on this to see if debt repayment slows but it is not a dichotomy. They can do both and still invest.

 

[wabbott]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-harnesses-ai-drive-streaming-120321001.html

Disney harnesses 'AI' to drive streaming ad-technology
Dawn Chmielewski
Fri, Feb 9, 2024, 6:03 AM CST

(Reuters) - Walt Disney is harnessing artificial intelligence to power a new advertising tool that will help brands tailor their commercials to fit the mood of specific scenes within a movie or television series.

Dubbed "magic words," this tool introduces a new form of contextual advertising for the Disney+ an Hulu streaming services. It uses a combination of AI and machine learning to analyze and tag scenes across its library, identifying the contents, brands, images and mood.

Brands can use these descriptive tags, known as metadata, to identify a specific scene or mood and then personalize messaging to match.

"What that means is leaving broad demos behind and buying specific audiences," said Geoffrey Calabrese, Omnicom Media Group's chief investment office. "These magic words are literally going to be able to connect me to the emotions of the consumer, at an audience level. And for us, that's really a game changer."

Omnicom is one of six global advertising companies taking part in an early beta test of this advertising product, Disney told Reuters exclusively. The company announced the new ad features last month, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Rita Ferro, Disney's global head of ad sales, said the feature allows advertisers to maximize the impact of their messages "because it resonates with concepts that the viewers experience."

Disney's investment in streaming ad technology comes as advertisers are moving away from broadcast and cable TV, along with viewers. The company's advertising revenue fell nearly 3% in its fiscal 2024 first quarter to $3.35 billion, according to LSEG, reflecting declines in traditional TV viewership. Researcher eMarketer estimated Disney+ accounted for about $790 million in revenue last year.

Disney does not report its advertising revenue.

CEO Bob Iger told investors during the company's quarterly investor call Wednesday that the ad-supported version of the Disney+ service has attracted more than 1,000 advertisers in the first quarter, a tenfold increase from launch.
"Our revolutionary approach to technology ensures that our entire streaming portfolio will be the ultimate destination for brands in the years ahead," Iger said in a statement to Reuters.

Half of consumers who sign up for Disney+ opt for the less-expensive version of the service, with which includes advertising, said Joe Earley, president of Disney's direct-to-consumer business. He said the company has spent years refining ad technology that has been designed specifically for streaming. Its Hulu service launched as a free, advertising-supported service in 2008.

"Disney+ didn't have to ramp up," Earley said. "It hit the ground running."

 

[RivShore]

Long Term Borrowings
End of FY22: $45.3B
End of FY23: $42.1B
End of Q1FY24: $41.6

Paid down debt by $3.2B over a year and another $500m in last 90dsys. We can keep an eye on this to see if debt repayment slows but it is not a dichotomy. They can do both and still invest.

Yes, they can do both but I like the idea of doubling debt repayment much better than a share buyback (which IMHO is nothing but financial engineering with main benefit being hitting exec bonus targets). Disney is in a different place at the moment though, so I can see them putting some value in goosing the share price to quiet the corporate agitators that have circled the company.

 

[wabbott]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/disney-paid-taylor-swift-75-144628705.html

Disney Paid Taylor Swift $75 Million to Stream ‘The Eras Tour’: Bob Iger Wanted ‘Big Announcement’ for Earnings Call
Josh Dickey
Fri, February 9, 2024 at 8:46 AM CST

Disney paid more than $75 million to Taylor Swift for the rights to stream “The Eras Tour” movie on Disney+, the result of a bidding war that included Netflix and Universal, Puck reported Friday.

Disney chief Bob Iger “wanted big announcements for yesterday’s earnings call, and paid big prices to get them,” including the pop star’s concert film, which grossed $261 million worldwide, the newsletter reported Friday, citing two sources familiar with the negotiations.

“Eras Tour” started its streaming as a PVOD title for Universal, where it “did well,” Puck reported. It will be available exclusively on Disney+ next month, on March 15.

Iger did, in fact, announce the streaming news on the company’s Wednesday afternoon earnings call. The streaming version will be known as “Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour (Taylor’s Version),” with the entirety of the concert film plus the song “Cardigan” and four additional acoustic songs.

The tour broke a massive record in December, becoming the first to gross over $1 billion. It broke Elton John’s “Farewell Yellow Brick Road” record, and set the mark in a mere eight months. During its theatrical run, “The Eras Tour” became the top selling concert film of all-time.

The post Disney Paid Taylor Swift $75 Million to Stream ‘The Eras Tour’: Bob Iger Wanted ‘Big Announcement’ for Earnings Call appeared first on TheWrap.

 

[Obi-J Kenobi]

Disney paid more than $75 million to Taylor Swift for the rights to stream “The Eras Tour” movie on Disney+, the result of a bidding war that included Netflix and Universal, Puck reported Friday.

I didn't think I could feel worse for the 150 Shop Disney CMs being fired effective this March, and somehow stories like this make it possible. Congrats to T-Swizzle on making bank!

 

[wabbott]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/paramount-global-bob-bakish-hedges-174318301.html

Paramount Global’s Bob Bakish Hedges on Potential Sale: ‘There’s Extraordinary Value’
Eileen AJ Connelly
Fri, February 9, 2024 at 11:43 AM CST

Bob Bakish acknowledged Friday that he went face-to-face with Byron Allen backstage at the Grammys on Sunday, but the CEO of Paramount Global refused to be drawn into a discussion on whether the company or any of its parts are up for sale.

Allen has reportedly offered $14 billion for the parent of CBS and Paramount+.

“It is true I was at the Grammys,” Bakish told CNBC’s David Faber. “It is true I saw him. I’m not going to get into what we talked about.”

Faber noted that in addition to Allen’s bid, there are reports that Skydance Media CEO David Ellison and RedBird Capital’s Gerry Cardinale had offered to buy either the entire company or Shari Redstone’s National Amusements, which holds a controlling stake. “Is Paramount conceivably going to be sold?” he asked.

Bakish refused to get drawn in.

“Our focus is on creating shareholder value, either through execution or through alternate means,” the CEO said.
“We’re focused on day-to-day execution, because that is the most predictable creator of value. But, of course, we look more broadly at options, and we look at a lot of things.”

“As to what direction we’re going to go, we’ll see,” he continued. “But what it really tells you is there’s extraordinary value in Paramount Global.”

Paramount shares were basically flat in midday trading, down 2 cents to $12.99. The stock has slipped nearly 10% since the start of the year.

The CEO also dodged a question about whether Paramount was involved in talks with Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery over the development of a new sports app that will air live sports from all three.

“For us, you know, what we focus on is a broad strategy,” Bakish said. “And we’ve looked at sports-only plays, including in digital, both on standalone basis and in partnership, but we continue to believe broad is better.”

“If you look at the sports consumer, on Paramount Plus, believe it or not, 90% of their time, their engagement is with non-sports programming,” he said. “So, sports is a great vehicle for bringing people in and for engaging them. But to make it work for the consumer and for the streaming platform if you will, we believe in that hybrid of sports and entertainment.”

“We like the broader play, and it’s continuing to work for us.”

Bakish acknowledged that ventures like this will be part of the competitive equation going forward. “But it’s just another faction.”

The CEO used the opportunity to gush about one big aspect of his sports lineup — the prospects for Sunday’s Super Bowl on CBS, where ads are costing about $7 million for every 30 seconds.

The CEO said he expects to set a new record coming off the network’s ratings score for the divisional playoff game. “We’ve already set the high watermark for advertising for a Super Bowl, and it’s quite likely we’ll set the high watermark for viewership,” he said.

On the big question on many viewers’ minds — whether Taylor Swift will be able to make it to Las Vegas from Japan in time to cheer on her beau, the Kansas City Chiefs’ Travis Kelce — Bakish was sanguine.

“I’m sure she’ll get here,” he said. “I’ll just say that she is an extraordinary talent, obviously, creates a lot of excitement in the music space and has brought incremental value to the game.”

“I’m sure she hasn’t hurt ratings,” he added. “As to what we’re going to do in terms of coverage, you are just going to have to watch and see, and I’m sure, you like the rest of the world, will be watching.”

The post Paramount Global’s Bob Bakish Hedges on Potential Sale: ‘There’s Extraordinary Value’ appeared first on TheWrap.

 

[Cfabar1]

They are having to juice the valuation….

If the debt was cheap (which it probably was) this makes a lot of sense…. Another way to make the balance sheet look better is to raise the stock price/valuation of the company.

Still have more work to do, but Iger is working hard to get that stock back up, which in the end is a good thing For those of us who don’t want to see Disney dismantled.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

I agree with this take...the second part is probably closer to their thinking. Still think debt reduction should have taken priority but I'm sure they were thinking more about the corporate raiders breathing down their necks.

For sure this feels like a defense against Peltz and friends. I love Disney and Disney World and unfortunately they arent the Disney of the 90s and 2000s that really put storytelling and customer experience first and foremost. However if they are going to nickel and dime me at every turn then at least prop up the darn stock price to help me pay for it!

 

[Elijah Abrams]

They are having to juice the valuation….

If the debt was cheap (which it probably was) this makes a lot of sense…. Another way to make the balance sheet look better is to raise the stock price/valuation of the company.

Still have more work to do, but Iger is working hard to get that stock back up, which in the end is a good thing For those of us who don’t want to see Disney dismantled.

Is your post related to Paramount or Disney?

 

[wabbott]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...tz-to-figure-out-sports-streaming/ar-BB1i6far

The Frantic Blitz to Figure Out Sports Streaming
Disney, Fox and Warner’s venture to bundle live sports content—the latest hit to traditional cable packages—needs to cover high costs and keep leagues on board

By Joe Flint, Jessica Toonkel, Isabella Simonetti and David Marcelis
Feb. 11, 2024 12:01 am EST

Executives at the National Football League were in Las Vegas on Tuesday preparing for this weekend’s Super Bowl when they got word from news reports that their business—and the sports media industry writ large—was about to change in a fundamental way.

Disney’s ESPN and Fox, two of the league’s biggest media partners, announced that alongside Warner Bros. Discovery they would create a new streaming service to offer all their live-sports programming. The NFL, a titan that’s used to having a seat at the table in any discussion affecting its future and content, was out of the loop. Executives including Commissioner Roger Goodell and media chief Brian Rolapp were caught off guard by the news.

That the media behemoths were willing to risk the ire of the NFL shows the sense of urgency—even desperation—they feel about solving what is arguably the biggest riddle in their industry: finding a business model that can work in the streaming economy.

To do that, they made a profound shift without consulting powerful partners like the NFL, revealing it days before the biggest sporting and television event of the year. They’re taking the chance that, by joining forces with big rivals, they won’t draw antitrust scrutiny. And they’re doing it with a product that consumers might not even want—in part because the new service won’t deliver anything close to the entire landscape of sports programming.

Sports have been the linchpin of the hugely profitable cable-TV industry for decades. But as consumers cut the cord in droves, pushing that business to the brink, making the transition to streaming has been rocky.

It’s been hard enough to port entertainment programming to streaming, with services such as Disney+, Peacock and Paramount+ struggling to show investors profits. But sports are even trickier, because of the staggeringly high costs for the content.

Media companies collectively pay billions of dollars annually to the NFL and NBA alone. Cable makes the math work because of its inherent subsidy—even households who don’t watch channels like ESPN pay for them on their monthly bill, meaning the high rights costs are spread among higher numbers of subscribers.

What ESPN, Fox and Warner settled on was to create a slimmed-down version of a cable bundle in streaming form that is focused on sports. The as-yet-unnamed service, expected to launch this fall, will carry 14 networks, including Disney’s ESPN channels and its ABC network, Warner’s TNT and TBS, and Fox’s broadcast network and sports cable channel. The service will feature sports including the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, college football and basketball, golf and Nascar.

By packaging together all the content, the companies are hoping they can bring in enough sports-first customers to make the economics work. Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall projected, based on various assumptions, that the service could break even if around six million subscribers paid at least $40 a month.

The companies are discussing a price that could approach $50 a month, people familiar with the situation said.

For many years, media companies resisted offering such a sports-specific package, fearing it could cannibalize the old-school cable bundle, which they wanted to preserve as long as they possibly could. Now, the cable industry is reaching a tipping point: Only 73 million households subscribe to pay-TV, either through traditional distributors such as Comcast or internet versions of cable like YouTube TV, down from about 100 million a decade ago, according to MoffettNathanson. The rate of decline has picked up pace since streaming really started to take off in 2019, when multiple services beyond Netflix became popular.

With the streaming venture, Disney, Warner and Fox have decided to leap into a new business even if it accelerates cable’s collapse—with the real risk that what they are building won’t be anywhere near as lucrative. As one rival executive put it, they are tearing down the house to put a shed in the backyard.

“We’re doing what should have happened slowly over 20 years all at once now,” said Patrick Crakes, a sports media consultant and former senior executive at Fox Sports. He added, “This is not going to save anybody, but it’s a start.”

Missing games

Even with all the sports games the planned service will offer, it still won’t be a complete, all-in-one sports platform, partly because Comcast’s NBC and Paramount’s CBS aren’t part of the partnership. NFL fans would still need CBS to watch Sunday afternoon football, NBC’s Peacock for Sunday night football and Amazon Prime Video to watch Thursday games.

Ian Schrader, a 48-year-old automotive technician from Pendleton, Ky., said he is paying for YouTube TV, which streams a package of more than 100 cable channels, exclusively because of sports. When he first signed up years ago, it was $40 a month. Now it’s $73.

“As long as it’s less than what YouTube TV is, I’m probably going to be on board,” he said of the planned sports-streaming service.

Dave Focareta, a 45-year-old freelance writer from Santa Monica, Calif., said the planned service doesn’t include the sports content he likes. An avid soccer fan, he pays for Peacock to watch the English Premier League and Paramount+ for the Champions League.

“In theory, I like the idea of a streaming service that bundles live sports,” he said. “But what’s being proposed isn’t going to meet my needs.”

Sports fans who also like all the other channels in their cable packages might not be interested. And customers could resist adding another expensive streaming service to the ever-expanding assortment such as Netflix, Apple TV+ and Max.

Failing to bring the NFL, NBA and other leagues in on their plans was a risk for the media companies. The leagues have plenty of options when licensing their rights, and in the past few years tech companies such as Amazon and Apple have emerged as customers. On Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported Amazon will stream its first NFL playoff game next season.

Tech companies are also eyeing an NBA rights deal if they get the opportunity. Warner and ESPN are the league’s biggest media partners and are now in negotiations to renew their deals, with an exclusive window that expires this spring.

If the sports service does gain traction, it will deal another major blow to the cable bundle by driving more consumers to cancel their subscriptions, said Steven Bornstein, a former chairman of ESPN and a former executive with the NFL. “It just further decays the bundle, which is the lifeblood of these companies,” he said. “I would be concerned if I was sitting at Disney and Fox and Warner Bros. about being part of something like this.”

The companies said the venture would bring in what it called “cord nevers,” younger people who had never subscribed to traditional cable.

But it could very well have broader appeal, and traditional cable companies such as Charter will likely start demanding flexibility to create slimmed-down sports-centric packages of their own. Traditionally, deals with media companies have required the cable companies to package the attractive sports properties with smaller-audience entertainment channels.

The biggest losers in cable’s collapse will likely be the owners of local TV stations and smaller entertainment networks, from A&E to AMC to Comedy Central and Syfy, that are the most dependent on cable TV. Shares of Scripps, owner of 61 local stations, are down 24% since the sports venture was announced.

“In a way, these guys just ran into the castle and pulled up the drawbridge,” said Doug Shapiro, a former head of strategy at Turner, a division of Warner, who is now a consultant to media companies. “And you are either inside or outside the moat.”

Frenetic experimentation

The new sports venture grew out of a frenetic, almost chaotic period of experimentation in the industry over the past year. Media companies have explored all sorts of potential business models for streaming and sports, some that involve going it alone and some that would require teaming up with others, through pricing bundles, joint ventures or all-out mergers.

Fox Corp. Chief Executive Lachlan Murdoch had been having separate discussions with both Warner Bros. Discovery and Disney last year about creating a sports streaming service, people familiar with the discussions said. Fox has an ad-supported streaming service for entertainment, Tubi, and a Fox Nation streaming service for news and lifestyle programming—meant as a complement to Fox News—but didn’t have a major subscription streaming option for its huge array of sports content.

Murdoch was inspired largely by Kayo Sports, a similar platform in Australia that Journal parent News Corp owns, which counts ESPN as a programming partner. Murdoch is chair of News Corp and executive chair and CEO of Fox Corp.

Warner Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav, who has long advocated bundling streaming services, was eager to do something with Fox. Warner in September announced that its live sports content, including NBA and MLB games, would be available on its Max streaming platform for an additional $9.99 a month. But the company wanted a way to reach even more sports fans in the streaming world.

At the same time, ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro was also thinking about the idea of partnering with another media company. Bob Iger, chief executive of ESPN parent Disney, had broached the topic of a sports partnership with Murdoch as well. Iger has been battling activist investor Nelson Peltz, and finding a future strategy for ESPN is a major imperative in his quest to keep investors on his side.

ESPN had been working on a plan to offer its flagship TV channel in a stand-alone streaming app, while considering a number of other paths, including strategic partnerships with the NFL and NBA, as well as teaming up with rival media outfits. The stand-alone ESPN app is still moving forward, with a target date of fall 2025.

“The current bundles and packages haven’t necessarily met all the customer wants and needs,” said Marc DeBevoise, chief executive of the video technology company Brightcove and a former Paramount executive, resulting in the wide experimentation.

The talks for the new venture quickly moved forward, the people familiar with the discussions said. A hunt is now on for a chief executive.

The platform will license the channels from its parent companies, and each owner will keep the ad revenue from their respective networks.

A number of private-equity firms, including TPG, have expressed interest in possibly investing in the new company, according to people familiar with the situation. It’s unclear if Disney, Fox and Warner will want financial partners.

Disney, Warner and Fox will each own one-third of the venture, which will have an independent management team, the companies said.

The structure could pose challenges. Fox, NBC and Disney owned the streaming service Hulu together but often disagreed on strategy—it was at times referred to as “Clown Co,” partly because of the struggles to formulate a unified approach.

Disney bought out Fox’s share in Hulu in 2019, as part of its acquisition of much of Fox’s entertainment assets, and is now buying out NBC parent Comcast to take full control of Hulu.

Competition question

The collaboration by three giants to pool a huge amount of sports programming—Citi analysts peg it at 55% of U.S. sports rights—could draw antitrust scrutiny. Smaller rivals have already raised alarms.

Disney, Fox and Warner have said they will negotiate independently for sports rights, mindful that teaming up would be a red flag to federal antitrust regulators.

The government is going to look at this arrangement and ask how it benefits sports viewers, and how content suppliers—in this case the sports leagues—are reacting, said William Kovacic, a former chair and general counsel at the Federal Trade Commission, who is now a law professor at George Washington University’s law school.

It could be challenging for the media companies to prove that they are truly operating independently, Kovacic said. “How do you assure that you get collaborators who have a common interest to schizophrenically step aside and go after each other’s throats” and compete on bids for content rights, he said.

The pact’s focus on sports, one of the most popular types of programming among consumers, makes it even more likely that enforcers will at least examine the deal, said Michael Katz, an economist at the University of California Berkeley. The Justice Department might look at the potential impact on prices for sports programming and whether Disney and its partners would have an incentive to withhold that content from cable companies or rival streaming services, he said. “The focus here might be on the consumer of video programming and the harm to distribution,” he said.

Fubo, a nine-year-old sports-centric streaming service with more than 200 channels and 1.5 million subscribers in North America, saw its company’s stock drop more than 20% on the news of the joint venture. “Every consumer in America should be concerned about the intent behind this joint venture and its impact on fair market competition,” Fubo said.

Cable operators, for their part, have been trying to offer such sports “skinny bundles” for years but were blocked by the very media companies doing this now, said Grant Spellmeyer, president and CEO of ACA Connects, which represents more than 500 smaller rural broadband and cable providers.

“Allowing the biggest media players to join forces—while locking out traditional linear cable providers from offering the same package at the same price—only gives even more power and leverage to the Goliaths to extract more money from customers,” Spellmeyer said.

The companies are searching for a name for the venture. Jon Miller, a senior adviser at venture-capital firm Advancit Capital who once oversaw Fox’s digital strategy, including its investment in Hulu, offered up his take: “I’m trademarking Spulu—as in Hulu for sports.”

Dave Michaels and Robbie Whelan contributed to this article.

Write to Joe Flint at Joe.Flint@wsj.com, Jessica Toonkel at jessica.toonkel@wsj.com, Isabella Simonetti at isabella.simonetti@wsj.com and David Marcelis at david.marcelis@wsj.com

 

[wabbott]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/com...r-is-headed-to-disney-s-boardroom/ar-BB1i6vxj

The Priciest Shareholder Fight Ever Is Headed to Disney’s Boardroom
More than $70 million could be spent in bid to win everyday investors’ votes

By Lauren Thomas
Feb. 11, 2024 - 5:30 am EST

A boardroom brawl at Walt Disney is expected to be the most expensive shareholder fight ever, and a chance for everyday investors to have a big impact.

Two activist hedge funds—Nelson Peltz’s Trian Fund Management and the smaller Blackwells Capital—are separately going toe-to-toe with Disney to gain spots on its board and challenge the strategy of Chief Executive Bob Iger.

All in, the three parties could spend north of $70 million ahead of an April 3 shareholder vote. They are already shelling out for slick marketing materials, social-media blitzes and the services of proxy solicitors—akin to campaign strategists—who wrangle shareholder support for their clients’ board candidates.

One reason for the high price: the millions of individual investors who own an outsize portion of Disney’s roughly 1.8 billion shares. They control over a third of Disney’s stock—more than is typical for a public company. Institutional investors such as BlackRock and Vanguard hold the rest, and their votes carry heft, too. Getting the word out to such a widespread shareholder base is costly.

The costs could be much lower if the activists don’t take their fights to a vote, either by settling with Disney or backing away. Trian called off its first proxy attempt at Disney last year.

Competing visions

At the crux of the proxy fight is a disagreement over Disney’s strategy and how to best nudge the company’s stock price, which has been almost cut in half from its 2021 high. The company now has a market value of around $200 billion.

Trian and a former Marvel executive it is working with have a combined stake valued at around $3.5 billion. The hedge fund has been urging shareholders to “restore the magic” at Disney, with a matching internet domain name making its case. It says the company needs to find a clear successor to Iger, make its streaming margins “Netflix-like” and pull its studios out of a rut. It is running two candidates, including the 81-year-old Peltz, who holds board seats at other companies, including Unilever.

Blackwells, which has a tiny stake valued at around $15 million, has suggested its three nominees could help explore a breakup of the company.

Disney has sought to appease shareholders with a series of announcements including an investment in “Fortnite” maker Epic Games; plans to stream Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour concert movie on Disney+, and a partnership with Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery to launch a sports-focused streaming service.

Disney enlisted the help of cartoon character Professor Ludwig Von Drake, Donald Duck’s paternal uncle, in an animated video with a step-by-step voting guide.

Peltz could top his own record

All in, the cost is expected to top that of Trian’s 2017 clash with Procter & Gamble, currently the priciest proxy fight on record, with a price tag of $60 million.

(Peltz was ultimately given a seat on the board of the Crest toothpaste owner after the vote ended in a near-tie.)

Disney expects its total expenses to be about $40 million, while Trian estimated it could spend at least $25 million, regulatory filings this month show. Blackwells expects to spend around $6 million.

Trian appears determined to press ahead with its current quest. After Disney’s shares surged more than 12% Thursday following a better-than-expected earnings report and the unveiling of new initiatives, Trian doubled down. “It’s déjà vu all over again,” it said. “We saw this movie last year and we didn’t like the ending.”

Another twist

In addition to being one of the highest-profile proxy fights in years, the fight is captivating Wall Street advisers because it will be one of the first votes to put the newly implemented universal proxy card to the test.

Shareholders historically either had to vote for a company’s entire slate of directors or an activist’s. Universal cards list both sets of candidates in the same place, allowing shareholders to mix and match.

They make it more likely an activist could claim a partial victory by winning at least one board seat. Working in Disney’s favor is the fact that the small number of individual investors who bother to vote in proxy fights tend to support companies.

Most individual investors just aren’t paying attention, according to John Ferguson, a senior partner at Saratoga Proxy Consulting, which isn’t involved in the Disney fight. “To do it right,” Ferguson said, “this will definitely be the most expensive fight we’ve seen.”

Write to Lauren Thomas at lauren.thomas@wsj.com

 

[wabbott]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...ney-ecosystem-hulu-disneyplus-abc-1235821664/
ABC/Hulu’s Craig Erwich Stresses Value of the Disney Ecosystem

The president of the Disney Television Group told reporters Saturday at TCA that the decision of what goes on linear or streaming is “not one vs. the other.”

by Lesley Goldberg
February 10, 2024 - 11:36am PST

Disney Television Group president Craig Erwich used his time before the press corps Saturday at TCA to spotlight the value of the Mouse House’s ecosystem.

Overseeing a portfolio that includes ABC, Freeform and Hulu as well as a slate of kids channels, the executive said the decision of what programming goes on linear or streaming is “not one vs. the other” but rather that all of the platforms are “complementary” and “non-duplicative” that “work together.”

Armed with a Landgraf-ian amount of data, Erwich said Disney collected 54 billion hours of viewing, starting first on linear before growing to streaming platforms in the U.S. last year, which is 10 billion more than their closest competitor. “That’s the bar and how we think of success, the long game,” he said of creating a library that can draw viewers for years to come. “New shows invite subscribers in, the library of hits keeps them with us,” he said.

With Grey’s Anatomy, for example, the Shonda Rhimes-produced medical drama has value far beyond linear. The Ellen Pompeo-starrer, Erwich said, was the No. 1 globally streamed show on Disney+ with 1 billion hours, and that’s before the full 19-season library (with season 20 coming shortly afterward) arrives on the streamer next month. Abbott Elementary was ABC’s No. 1 current show on Hulu and “reaches older audiences on ABC and younger viewers on Hulu,” he said, “highlighting the complementary nature of these platforms.” Erwich opened the day after William Stanford Davis (aka Mr. Johnson) made a surprise appearance to announce Abbott’s fourth-season renewal.

After using season one of Hulu’s Only Murders in the Building as filler content to air on ABC during the production delays that resulted from last year’s dual strikes, Erwich said he’d be open to repeating the experiment after the results helped the show find new viewers on linear who turned to Hulu to watch subsequent seasons.

“On linear, [Only Murders] reached over 11 million unique viewers,” he said. “The impact from streaming was greater as many ABC viewers migrated to Hulu to continue watching the series. In January alone, first streams on Hulu increased 40 percent, underscoring how complementary Hulu and ABC are to one another.”

The executive, who also oversees Ayo Davis’ Disney Branded Television division, came armed with a slew of announcements including a renewal for Goosebumps and the official news that ABC is indeed moving forward with The Golden Bachelorette, though casting he said is still underway. The spinoff will air in the fall on ABC, a year after The Golden Bachelor helped “reignite” the franchise with a third of the show’s audience on Hulu having never viewed any of the shows in that world.

Here are other highlights from Erwich’s time at the Television Critics Association’s winter press tour:

A Court of Thornes and Roses is still in development

In a sign of how big author Sarah J. Maas’ “romantasy” book series has become, the first question Erwich was asked was about the status of the TV adaptation. Erwich confirmed it’s still in development but had no news to share beyond that.

Grey’s Anatomy victory lap

ABC plans to celebrate the 20th season of the medical drama, which will see fan-favorite Jessica Capshaw return in its landmark cycle. “We’re going to have a tremendous amount of fanfare when it comes on next month,” he said, calling the show as “creatively strong as it’s ever been” and “fueling growth to Disney’s streaming platforms.” ABC execs historically have said the show will run as long as Pompeo wants to do it. The star departed the series as a regular in season 19, but the new trailer shows her still involved onscreen. Erwich said nothing about the show’s future beyond season 20 as that remains an annual negotiation for the pricey project.

Freeform’s future in scripted is unclear

After axing Cruel Summer and Good Trouble, Freeform has no new scripted series in the works, but Erwich said the cable network that targets a young, female audience still has a “full slate” for 2024. Yes, there are the final seasons of Good Trouble and Grown-ish, but beyond that, Erwich said he plans to “continue to serve that audience through a variety of methods,” including unscripted shows and Freeform’s themed holiday programming blocks including 25 Days of Christmas. Freeform, along with Disney Junior, were both dropped as part of Disney’s recent carriage negotiations with Charter. Erwich, though, said he wasn’t worried about connecting to those audiences since most Freeform content is viewed on Hulu, and Disney Junior programming is on Disney Channel and Disney+, as well as on YouTube.

The difference between ABC, Hulu and Disney+ programming

Erwich was asked to explain the difference in what makes a scripted show for ABC, Hulu and Disney+, and he said all of Disney’s brands have a “clear, creative filter” that is “designed to serve a specific role.” Disney Branded Television, Davis’ division behind Percy Jackson and the Olympians and Goosebumps, is about introducing Disney characters to the next generation of fans. ABC is home to the so-called “soapcedurals” with shows that can generate around 20 episodes annually. Hulu, he said, features shows that “reflect and pierce popular culture” like The Dropout and Pam & Tommy that are “addictive, guilty pleasures that are executed at the highest level.”

 

[RivShore]

They are having to juice the valuation….

If the debt was cheap (which it probably was) this makes a lot of sense…. Another way to make the balance sheet look better is to raise the stock price/valuation of the company.

Still have more work to do, but Iger is working hard to get that stock back up, which in the end is a good thing For those of us who don’t want to see Disney dismantled.

Is that true? I have not checked if rules have changed but I thought they are required to use book value not market value for company held shares on the balance sheet.

 

[RivShore]

I agree with this take...the second part is probably closer to their thinking. Still think debt reduction should have taken priority but I'm sure they were thinking more about the corporate raiders breathing down their necks.

Just listening to the latest @lentesta podcast and a little fun fact that they threw out there from the mid 80's, the last time corporate raiders were after them - Disney made the ridiculous purchase of Gibson Greeting Cards for $1B, in today's dollars, for the sole purpose of adding debt to the balance sheet and making them a less attractive takeover target. Seems Iger went back to the old playbook from the 80's. LOL

 

[wabbott]

Just listening to the latest @lentesta podcast and a little fun fact that they threw out there from the mid 80's, the last time corporate raiders were after them - Disney made the ridiculous purchase of Gibson Greeting Cards for $1B, in today's dollars, for the sole purpose of adding debt to the balance sheet and making them a less attractive takeover target. Seems Iger went back to the old playbook from the 80's. LOL

Don't have my copy of Disney Wars with me (lent it to another Disney Adult friend), but IIRC, that happened around the time of the Bass brothers entry into the picture, which resulted in Ron Miller's firing and the installation of Michael Eisner. Stewart covered this extensively in the book.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/0...porate-buying-spree-announcing/1372455342400/

Walt Disney Productions continued its corporate buying spree

 

[wabbott]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bob-...res-why-thats-risky-for-disney-153016721.html

Bob Iger is all in on streaming live sports — here's why that's risky for Disney
Alexandra Canal · Senior Reporter
Mon, Feb 12, 2024, 3:37 AM CST

Disney (DIS) CEO Bob Iger made it clear last week that live sports streaming will play a big role in the entertainment giant's future. The shift comes with serious risks.

On Wednesday, Disney announced it would launch ESPN as a fully over-the-top (OTT) streaming service sometime in fall 2025. It also said ESPN will team up with Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Fox (FOXA) to launch a new sports streaming service, which is expected to debut later this fall.

The moves come at a critical time for Disney, which like other media companies has been struggling to navigate consumers' pivot away from traditional pay-TV packages to streaming platforms.
The shift has hurt an industry historically reliant on the affiliate fees it collects from cable companies and other pay-TV providers for its programming, as well as advertising revenue — both of which are dependent on audiences tuning in.

That's why Disney's moves could be a double-edged sword.

"If these services are priced too low, they will likely expedite the demise of the pay-TV bundle, and if they’re priced too high — so that they look more similar to a pay-TV bundle — we question how much demand they’ll generate," Morningstar senior analyst Matthew Dolgin, who has a four star (or Buy) rating and $115 price target on shares, wrote in a new note to clients on Thursday.

Basically, if the new streaming services are too cheap, more subscribers would be incentivized to axe their pay-TV package rather than pay a cable company for access to ESPN's traditional channels.

"We don’t expect a huge incremental revenue stream [from sports], as we expect much of the streaming revenue gains to be offset by accelerating linear losses," wrote Dolgin.

Moreover, new streaming platforms that effectively speed up cord-cutting could hit not only Disney's sports segment, but also its linear business, which includes ABC, FX, and the company's namesake Disney channels, to name a few.

KeyBanc analyst Brandon Nispel, who has a Sector Weight rating on Disney's stock, noted "while we believe the new joint venture with WBD and FOXA could help drive viewers toward sports, we believe it is likely at the detriment of general entertainment content at linear."

That's problematic because unlike the linear business, streaming isn't profitable for Disney. While losses narrowed in the latest quarter, the segment is still losing money.

Disney on Wednesday tried to ease Wall Street's concerns. Newly minted CFO Hugh Johnston told investors on the earnings call that the joint venture sports bundle will combat subscriber churn and, in turn, help boost profits.

"Just know that we feel a sense of urgency in getting [to streaming profitability]," Johnston said.

Another risk is that if Disney's new streaming services are priced too high, they won't gain traction at all. Disney hasn't disclosed any details regarding pricing for either service. CNBC reported this week that the joint venture with WBD and Fox would be priced at upwards of $40 per month.

Meanwhile, analysts have estimated that ESPN's over-the-top service would need to cost a minimum of $30 a month in order to break even.

That's far more expensive than what many streamers charge currently — and it may be a tall ask.

According to a survey conducted by KeyBanc in September, 30% of respondents said they would not pay for a pure sports streaming service. That's up from the prior 25%. Meanwhile, more than half (51%) said they are unwilling to pay over $10 a month and only 20% would pay above $20 a month.

"ESPN moving to streaming is materially harder than initially thought, as our survey work shows low willingness to pay," KeyBanc's Nispel said in his note. "Given the high programming costs, we believe services dedicated purely to sports would not have the demand needed for the service to be priced profitably."


Alexandra Canal is a Senior Reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @allie_canal, LinkedIn, and email her at alexandra.canal@yahoofinance.com.