DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

I'm still of the opinion that putting all this money into streaming is a big mistake. It's never going be a driver of profits. I say that for all streaming services. They all need to keep creating new content but that comes at a price. To pay for that content they will need to continue to raise prices. IMO in the end its going to be costing most people the same price they paid for cable.
 
Look I don't like Chapek, but Cramer is a clown and Greenfield probably owns stock in a company that is interested in acquiring ABC and ESPN. 🤣



Much of that was Paul Pressler. We were in a recession after 9/11 & Iraq. It's not like it was the best time to invest in theme parks especially with the losses from Euro Disneyland and the failure of Animal Kingdom.

Eisner's problem was he was in poor health (likely from all the stress) and he didn't trust anybody. This caused the board to demand a succession plan. He also lost his biggest supporter oil tycoon Sid Bass. His massive ego (some of it deserved, look how much Disney grew under him) got in the way of his creativeness and business sense. But he wasn't a bad CEO.

If Eisner would have purchased Pixar, he would have kept the job and got to retire on his own terms. But look at Pixar now without John Lasseter, it no longer brings in the coin either. So maybe he was right about Pixar after all.

Anyway. He was at least creative and willing to take risks. Chapek is just a suit.
Sid Bass lost his DIS stake because of a margin call ("Margin call, gentlemen!!... Turn those machines back on!!"). Once that happened, Eisner's fate was sealed. I agree that for the first 10 years, he and Frank Wells worked miracles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/...ed-of-money-forced-to-sell-6.4-of-disney.html
Bass Family, in Need of Money, Forced to Sell 6.4% of Disney
By Gretchen Morgenson and Riva D. Atlas
Sept. 21, 2001
 

I'm still of the opinion that putting all this money into streaming is a big mistake. It's never going be a driver of profits. I say that for all streaming services. They all need to keep creating new content but that comes at a price. To pay for that content they will need to continue to raise prices. IMO in the end its going to be costing most people the same price they paid for cable.
The problem is that cable continues to be a problem as cord cutting continues to happen and has been getting worse as highlighted a little in this quarter. Streaming was necessary to find a revenue stream to replace that decline.

Disney could have continued to license their library to Netflix and cashed checks. But in 5 or 10 years I don't know if it would be the best decision as they would have declining assets in ESPN, ABC and all other programming networks. They could have spun or sold these off and licensed out their content, similar to Sony.

I still believe streaming is the future of the company but I am not sure how they could accumulate over $2.5B in streaming losses the last 2 quarters and not realize that much in losses is bad. The previous 2 quarters were $1.5B and that in and of itself was bad enough considering all of FY 2021 streaming losses were just around that amount.
 
Chapek speaks!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...-profits-metaverse-movie-theaters-1235258725/

Bob Chapek Talks Disney Streaming Profits: “Our Investors Expect Us to Have a Return on That”
Speaking at the Paley Center in New York, the CEO also talked about the future of theatrical films, and Disney's metaverse plans.
By Alex Weprin
November 9, 2022 10:10am

Bob Chapek is pivoting toward profitability, even as he continues to prepare The Walt Disney Co. for an uncertain digital future.

With shares in the company falling on Wednesday after it missed Wall Street estimates (but added more Disney+ subscribers than anticipated), Chapek took the stage at the Paley Center for Media in New York, where he addressed the company’s most significant near-term maneuvering: Making Disney+, and streaming generally, into a profitable business.

“There is an increasing desire by our investor base to make sure there is something there, there, to get something out of it,” Chapek said, adding that while the company is investing long-term in Disney+ to make it “the hub” of the Disney lifestyle, in “the shorter term, our investors expect us to have a return on that investment.”

He also reiterated what he told analysts Tuesday afternoon, noting that price increases and the upcoming Disney+ ad tier will help bring the company closer toward its goal, and that the service should be able to continue adding subscribers thanks to its content pipeline and new international launches.

He was particularly bullish on advertising, noting that “we have been in the ad business a long, long time, we know what we are doing, we have established clientele, we believe we can win,” and adding that in a “recessionary environment,” more “price-sensitive” consumers could opt for ad-supported plans.

But Chapek was more cautious with regard to another of Disney’s core businesses: Theatrical films.

When asked if theatrical films are poised for a comeback, Chapek replied that “it’s hard to have an answer yet, but from our observation the tentpole, big, blockbuster films are certainly back. Beyond that it gets sketchy.”

“That’s good for us, by the way, because most of our box office films are those blockbusters, and whether they’re Lucas and Marvel and Pixar or Disney that’s where we play,” he said. “The other genres, the other demographics are a bit more challenged. And the question of will they ever come back in a in a significant way, is, I think, to be seen, and that’s why one of our distribution strategies is always flexibility.”

“If they come back, we will be more than glad to go back to theaters because we’ve had a long successful history of playing in more than one revenue stream, but if it doesn’t, the good news is we’ve now got a very large streaming business that we can go ahead and redirect that content towards those channels,” he added.
Chapek also, however, painted a picture of Disney’s future.

“More and more we look at Disney as what it is already recognized as being to the consumer: A lifestyle brand,” he said, mentioning Disney’s upcoming adult community in Palm Springs, targeting consumers that “have more time and discretionary spend.”

And he framed Disney+ as the “hub” of the lifestyle, once that will change and evolve “based on how you participate.”

And that personalization appears to be a centerpiece of Disney’s “next generation storytelling” division, which is developing a “set of tools” that will be used by Disney’s studios to create personalized content experiences.

Disney wants to “put these tools in the hands of the Kathy Kennedys and the Kevin Feiges and Dana Waldens and help them really create that next level of storytelling, that is unique to you,” Chapek said.

But he was a little more bearish on the metaverse, or at least the vision seemingly preferred by Meta Platforms Inc.

“I don’t think you will ever be able to have a substitute for the theme park experience,” he said, noting that a day-long experience with food, shopping and live experiences is unlikely to be replicated in a virtual environment.

He did, however, offer one potential example of how Disney could play in the space.

He noted that guests sometimes decide to get off Disney World and Disneyland rides during the attraction, spurring closures or delays.

“Through the magic of technology, we can give you the ability to exit your ride vehicle virtually … And see what makes the Haunted Mansion tick,” he said, adding that a user could then be served the new Haunted Mansion movie on Disney+.

It’s all part of a strategy to keep Disney relevant, as it gets ready to kick off its 100th anniversary in 2023.

“If we only rigidly adhere to that old model, we know what’s going to happen, right? You become extinct,” Chapek said. “And so our challenge inside Disney is always trying to respect the past, keep as much of the past as you can. But when the consumer is telling you, it’s time to move on to something new and fresh. You have to take that cue.”
 
So, why have shares dropped if they made 82 billion and added more digital subscribers than anticipated?
 
So, why have shares dropped if they made 82 billion and added more digital subscribers than anticipated?

I don't know a lot about it, but the stock price is usually indicative of faith in future earnings. If investors think they have topped out, then they may sell off.
 
So, why have shares dropped if they made 82 billion and added more digital subscribers than anticipated?
12 months ago the stock would have spiked on the news bc streaming was hot. Yesterday it didn't. The markets are not rational. Lol
 
I am beginning to believe that the parks are short staffed NOT because the cannot hire more people, but they do not want to hire more people to keep staffing lower.
Couple comments on this - last month the unemployment rate in Florida was 2.5%, one of the lowest on record so it really is hard to hire.

There was a noticeable increase in staff at WDW in mid-August. Between new hires, new college program, and returning overseas workers, it really felt fully staffed when we were staying on site late Aug. and early Sep. If I where a debbie downer, I would say that means there's lots of fat to be trimmed from these recent hires, and we know this CFO is concerned about keeping waistlines trim :rotfl2:
 
Are you from Boston? 🤣😂

Ovitz, correct. Although Ovitz also got a little too big for his britches. A super-powerful agent who suddenly thought he could run a company. Nope.
nope, but a big baseball fan. Just a little slip. My issue was he was not even given a chance. Thanks for the name correction, I edited my original post.
 
Last edited:
Couple comments on this - last month the unemployment rate in Florida was 2.5%, one of the lowest on record so it really is hard to hire.

There was a noticeable increase in staff at WDW in mid-August. Between new hires, new college program, and returning overseas workers, it really felt fully staffed when we were staying on site late Aug. and early Sep. If I where a debbie downer, I would say that means there's lots of fat to be trimmed from these recent hires, and we know this CFO is concerned about keeping waistlines trim :rotfl2:

Yes, I agree. On my trip in September there was a very noticeable difference in staffing levels, and thus an increase in guest experience. It's maybe not quite back to where it used to be, but they definitely made an effort and it showed.
 
Last edited:
Once again, never mind. My doom and gloom behavior is not worth it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree. On my trip in September there was a very noticeably difference in staffing levels, and thus an increase in guest experience. It's maybe not quite back to where it used to be, but they definitely made an effort and it showed.
Was just there for 8 nights in late October and I thought it was great.
 
Yes, I agree. On my trip in September there was a very noticeable difference in staffing levels, and thus an increase in guest experience. It's maybe not quite back to where it used to be, but they definitely made an effort and it showed.
Was just there for 8 nights in late October and I thought it was great.
Glad to see it was not just us who noticed the difference in quantity and quality of the workforce!
 
Was just there for 8 nights in late October and I thought it was great.
We were there for 8 days and nights in mid-October, and overall had a great time. Ready to go back. I told every CM and guest who spoke to me, "I'm thirteen years old again!" It did seem that housekeeping had fallen off from what I remember from years ago (a couple of restrooms with empty paper towel dispensers, the odd wrapper on streets, etc). But that may just be that I was 'inspecting' a bit more than normal, since the issue is often brought up here. It definitely was a much improved situation from what we experienced in September 2020 and April 2021, what with masks and little character interaction.
 
Sound analysis. You asked is there a PROFITABLE future in steaming? A very good question. I mean, it ain't like DIS has the patent on it. Anyone can do it, so it's basically a commodity now. If I recall my economics 101, it's called 'ease of entry.' Remember when My Space was the go to of social media? And then Facebook came along and took them out. Meta/Facebook now looks like it may go the way of the dinosaurs.

Which is why I think Parks and Experiences is where the future lies and where the money is to be made. When they're hitting on all cylinders, no one can duplicate what they do - a unique product. Why? Because it's a lot of hard work, discipline, planning and execution. It's the way of the world.
Streaming can be duplicated but I would add that it takes a boatload of cash and good tech to get it right. For example, I've been having issues with the HBO Max app and, going thru the reviews in the app store, I am far from the only one. So there is some barrier to entry.

I think in the near term, there has to be some consolidation of all those more one off streamers, HBO, Peacock, Paramount, etc. Otherwise all us consumers will just jump around to each one for a few months - Binge, cancel, move on to the next, repeat.

Disney+ should have less churn than average because they have a strong base of families that will just always have it for when little Jane + Johnnie wants to watch Frozen, TS, LK, etc, etc for the umpteenth time. And if you think about it, it is a real bargain - back in my day - we would buy the kids at least 2 or 3 VHS (and later DVD's) a year of Disney stuff at $30+ dollars a pop. For not much more per year you get the whole darn catalog.

And how about this - Hulu becomes the consolidator of all the smaller apps - add tiles for HBO Max, Peacock, and Paramount. Use the Disney tech, which most are very happy with, so it's the same experience across all and charge just a few bucks for the ad supported version of each. I think that would be a sticky service and cut down the churn greatly for all, while keeping the total cost much lower than what we used to pay for cable. Kind of back to the future for Hulu since it started out as the broadcast networks online presence.
 
First, I want to apologize of my doom and gloom behavior and since you guys ignoring me for that and I honestly don’t blame you guys for that, it’s unnecessary, but I think my point is that this maybe a it’s a good time that Disney to act now or….well I can’t say why, but whatever Disney is doing to get their business back, they need to change strategies. But I’m not a business person, what I know? I’m just a guy who always concern with Disney.
 
Last edited:
First, I want to apologize of my doom and gloom behavior and since you guys ignoring me for that and I honestly don’t blame you guys for that, it’s unnecessary, but I think my point is that this maybe a good time that Disney to act now or….well I can’t say why, but whatever Disney is doing to get their business back, they need to change strategies. But I’m not a business person, what I know? I’m just a guy who always concern with Disney.
No need to apologize. That we are all here opining shows we're interested. And ALL opinions are needed. Solutions are born from conflicting ideas.
 
First, I want to apologize of my doom and gloom behavior and since you guys ignoring me for that and I honestly don’t blame you guys for that, it’s unnecessary, but I think my point is that this maybe a good time that Disney to act now or….well I can’t say why, but whatever Disney is doing to get their business back, they need to change strategies. But I’m not a business person, what I know? I’m just a guy who always concern with Disney.
Yes, Disney does need to adjust strategy. Streaming cannot be a never-ending financial albatross. They need a sense towards profitability. Also, Dividend needs to come back, debt needs to come down, and the parks can’t be a financial bailout for every other area of the business declining YOY. This stock performance is not acceptable, because their financial results aren’t successful. Additionally, Disney+ overall has been, as a consumer, disappointing. If you don’t have young kids, you’re only going to rewatch the Lion King so many times. The original content has varied from the extra-inspired to the mundane. And, they have a big Hulu acquisition coming up in a couple years. I almost wish they would expand their legacy offerings on Disney+ (more touchstone films, etc.) rather than spend that money on original content. It is also unclear what is family friendly in Disney’s mind, and what isn’t. (Hulu vs. Disney+)
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top