DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[clarker99]

The problem is millions of the disney subscribers are on free or discounted plans. I would be one of many that wasn't a subscriber if it wasn't given to me.

There ya go. Doomed.

 

[clarker99]

Amazing how people think their situation is everyone else's situation. Disney already raised rates and said churn was next to zero. But go on and tell me your anecdotes.

 

[irlandaise]

Dis+/Hulu/Espn+ combined have a larger subscriber count than Netflix in North America.

Netflix just reported 80million N. American subs, while Disney has 121million bw Dis+/Hulu/ESPN+ as of Sept 30, 2023.

Are those unduplicated subscriber numbers?

 

[HokieRaven5]

Are those unduplicated subscriber numbers?

How Disney defines it:

“Reflects subscribers for which we recognized subscription revenue. Subscribers cease to be a paid subscriber as of their effective cancellation date or as a result of a failed payment method. Subscribers to multi-product offerings in the U.S. are counted as a paid subscriber for each service included in the multi-product offering and subscribers to Hulu Live TV + SVOD are counted as one paid subscriber for each of the Hulu Live TV + SVOD, Disney+ and ESPN+ services. In Latin America, if a subscriber has either the standalone Disney+ or Star+ service or subscribes to Combo+, the subscriber is counted as one Disney+ paid subscriber. Subscribers include those who receive a service through wholesale arrangements including those for which we receive a fee for the distribution of the service to each subscriber of an existing content distribution tier. When we aggregate the total number of paid subscribers across our DTC streaming services, we refer to them as paid subscriptions.“

 

[clarker99]

Are those unduplicated subscriber numbers?

Here is the breakdown of 1 service vs. Multiple as of Sept 30, 2023.

People are paying extra for the bundled services. Either way you want to look at it, Disney is at worst, level with Netflix in subscriber count in USA/Canada. Disney only just starting to crackdown on sharing.

 

[irlandaise]

How Disney defines it:

“Subscribers to multi-product offerings in the U.S. are counted as a paid subscriber for each service included in the multi-product offering “

Thanks. So not unduplicated. Which means I count as two subscribers because of my Disney+/Hulu bundle.

 

[clarker99]

Thanks. So not unduplicated. Which means I count as two subscribers because of my Disney+/Hulu bundle.

Yes, but they are separate services.

 

[Jrb1979]

An interesting thing I found today.

In an analysis of this new sports platform this morning had two key tidbits:
Without cbs and nbc…they don’t have a dominant position
They will have to changed MINIMUM $45-$50 a month to start to break even

 

[wabbott]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...ormed-by-a-blockbuster-media-deal/ar-BB1hVQ3A

How You Stream Sports Is About to Be Transformed by a Blockbuster Media Deal
New venture from ESPN, Fox and Warner will combine their sports content, but won’t have all the games fans want. Here’s what you need to know.

By Isabella Simonetti and Amol Sharma
Updated Feb. 7, 2024 - 12:25 pm EST

It’s one small step for sports kind.

Disney’s ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday announced a new sports-streaming venture that promises to make life easier for consumers who are frustrated with all the platforms they have to sign up for to watch their favorite teams play.

The as-yet-unnamed service will bring together in one streaming package all the content those companies offer—from the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB to college basketball and football. Plenty of consumers will find that appealing. But before you get too excited, there is some fine print to be aware of, from pricing to availability of the content you love.

The implications for the future of the media business are huge. This could be a tipping point that dooms cable TV. It will reshape deals between networks and leagues for years to come, and will go a long way toward determining the legacies of some big-name CEOs.

Here are some key takeaways on what the new service, which is slated to launch later this year, means for consumers and the sports-media industrial complex:

Is this the one-stop shop for sports I’ve been waiting for?

Not exactly, but it is a start. Subscribers will have access to all the networks from the three companies that show sports. That includes Disney’s ESPN’s, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews and ABC; Fox’s broadcast network and Fox sports cable networks; and Warner’s TNT, TBS and truTV.

These networks have contracts for some of the highest-profile sporting content, including games from professional football, basketball and hockey, as well as from college sports. Citi analysts expect the new service to encompass about 55% of U.S. sports rights.

So what’s missing?

The service doesn’t include content from Paramount’s CBS, Comcast’s NBC and streaming services like Amazon’s Prime and Apple TV+.

If you’re, say, a really big NFL fan, this new service would give you only a portion of the games you may want to see. You would also need Amazon for football on Thursdays, Paramount+ for access to CBS’s Sunday afternoon games and NBCUniversal’s Peacock for Sunday Night Football.

You would also miss out on certain college football and basketball programming, prominent golf events like the Masters and British Open, and content from the Olympics, Major League Soccer and the English Premier League. Also, this service doesn’t include local telecasts of pro teams.

What will it cost?

No price has been announced. It will definitely be cheaper than the typical $100 monthly cable bill, but don’t expect it to land in the Netflix zone either, partly because sports-rights are so expensive.

Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall projected, based on various assumptions, that the service could break even if around six million subscribers paid $40 a month. Other media insiders and analysts said the cost would likely have to be in the $50 range or higher. There are so many variables: how many people sign up, how much sports-rights costs grow. So it’s hard to predict.

What impact will this have on cable TV and the media business?

This is very bad for the future of cable TV. Sports has been one of the main attractions of the cable bundle. Consolidating so many valuable sports assets in one streaming platform will give people another reason to cut the cord.

The biggest draw for the big cable bundle now for many households will be news channels like Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. Entertainment channels—think AMC, A&E, Bravo, Comedy Central—are at most risk of being left behind by this shift.

Sports streaming already was growing. Nearly 50 million Americans had subscriptions to a streaming service offering weekly games as of August, compared with fewer than 25 million two years earlier, according to Antenna. Expect this new venture to supercharge that trend and lead to more “skinny” sports bundles.

Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch said Wednesday that the new platform is aimed at “cord-nevers”—younger people who have never signed up for a traditional cable bundle. But it could very well also appeal to a lot of people who have paid for cable for a long time.

This service will be jointly owned by three companies. What could go wrong?

It turns out that we’ve seen a very similar movie already.

Hulu was founded by News Corp (parent of The Wall Street Journal) and NBC, and then later added Disney/ABC as a shareholder. For years critics said media companies weren’t up to the task of running a tech-oriented platform and that Hulu’s convoluted structure wasn’t helping. Media and ad analyst Brian Wieser notes that “it was difficult for Hulu to maximize the opportunity in front of it,” which is why some people called it “Clown Co.”

That said, over time Hulu did get its act together and manage to become a standout in streaming. And now, Disney is likely to become the sole owner, once it buys out NBC parent Comcast.

This new venture is coming at a different moment—the companies are all much, much more committed to streaming than they were 10 years ago—so the story could very well play out differently.

Was there an alternative path for the companies to take?

Yes, maybe. What ESPN, Fox and Warner are essentially doing is creating something akin to a slimmed-down cable package. One insider wondered: Why do media companies need to be operating such a thing, and take on all the risks and headaches involved? Why not just allow YouTube TV to offer a sports-only tier? Or even old-school cable providers like Charter? One executive close to the new venture said ownership of the platform will let them collect more ad revenue. Also, the media companies will have a more direct relationship with their customers.

What impact will this have on the sports leagues?

While the new platform could be a major draw for sports lovers across the country, it also raises questions about how it will affect bidding for valuable sports-media rights. Will this trio be allowed to bid collectively for digital rights? If so, that could put a damper on the bargaining power of leagues, which have been demanding big increases in prices for carrying games.

TNT and ESPN are the NBA’s main media partners and are currently negotiating a renewal of their deals. It is still unclear how those negotiations will be affected by the creation of this new venture.

Robert O’Connell contributed to this article.
Write to Isabella Simonetti at isabella.simonetti@wsj.com and Amol Sharma at Amol.Sharma@wsj.com

 

[RivShore]

Dis+/Hulu/Espn+ combined have a larger subscriber count than Netflix in North America.

Netflix just reported 80million N. American subs, while Disney has 121million bw Dis+/Hulu/ESPN+ as of Sept 30, 2023. I assume this number will be higher after they report quarterly earnings later today.

Just need to close the ARPU gap. Netflix at $16.64/mo per user while Dis+/Hulu/ESPN+ ARPU averages out to only ~$8.75/mo per user in N. America. (Again this will be updated later today when new data is released).

All that to say, I don’t think Disney needs an ‘Entertainment’ streaming partner. At least not domestically.

I was not clear enough - i was speaking more to content than subs. The content would be massive with D+, Hulu, Para+, Max, and Peacock combined and would have constant new content from the liner side. It would be the old Hulu on steroids.

 

[Jrb1979]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...ormed-by-a-blockbuster-media-deal/ar-BB1hVQ3A

How You Stream Sports Is About to Be Transformed by a Blockbuster Media Deal
New venture from ESPN, Fox and Warner will combine their sports content, but won’t have all the games fans want. Here’s what you need to know.

By Isabella Simonetti and Amol Sharma
Updated Feb. 7, 2024 - 12:25 pm EST

It’s one small step for sports kind.

Disney’s ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday announced a new sports-streaming venture that promises to make life easier for consumers who are frustrated with all the platforms they have to sign up for to watch their favorite teams play.

The as-yet-unnamed service will bring together in one streaming package all the content those companies offer—from the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB to college basketball and football. Plenty of consumers will find that appealing. But before you get too excited, there is some fine print to be aware of, from pricing to availability of the content you love.

The implications for the future of the media business are huge. This could be a tipping point that dooms cable TV. It will reshape deals between networks and leagues for years to come, and will go a long way toward determining the legacies of some big-name CEOs.

Here are some key takeaways on what the new service, which is slated to launch later this year, means for consumers and the sports-media industrial complex:

Is this the one-stop shop for sports I’ve been waiting for?

Not exactly, but it is a start. Subscribers will have access to all the networks from the three companies that show sports. That includes Disney’s ESPN’s, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews and ABC; Fox’s broadcast network and Fox sports cable networks; and Warner’s TNT, TBS and truTV.

These networks have contracts for some of the highest-profile sporting content, including games from professional football, basketball and hockey, as well as from college sports. Citi analysts expect the new service to encompass about 55% of U.S. sports rights.

So what’s missing?

The service doesn’t include content from Paramount’s CBS, Comcast’s NBC and streaming services like Amazon’s Prime and Apple TV+.

If you’re, say, a really big NFL fan, this new service would give you only a portion of the games you may want to see. You would also need Amazon for football on Thursdays, Paramount+ for access to CBS’s Sunday afternoon games and NBCUniversal’s Peacock for Sunday Night Football.

You would also miss out on certain college football and basketball programming, prominent golf events like the Masters and British Open, and content from the Olympics, Major League Soccer and the English Premier League. Also, this service doesn’t include local telecasts of pro teams.

What will it cost?

No price has been announced. It will definitely be cheaper than the typical $100 monthly cable bill, but don’t expect it to land in the Netflix zone either, partly because sports-rights are so expensive.

Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall projected, based on various assumptions, that the service could break even if around six million subscribers paid $40 a month. Other media insiders and analysts said the cost would likely have to be in the $50 range or higher. There are so many variables: how many people sign up, how much sports-rights costs grow. So it’s hard to predict.

What impact will this have on cable TV and the media business?

This is very bad for the future of cable TV. Sports has been one of the main attractions of the cable bundle. Consolidating so many valuable sports assets in one streaming platform will give people another reason to cut the cord.

The biggest draw for the big cable bundle now for many households will be news channels like Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. Entertainment channels—think AMC, A&E, Bravo, Comedy Central—are at most risk of being left behind by this shift.

Sports streaming already was growing. Nearly 50 million Americans had subscriptions to a streaming service offering weekly games as of August, compared with fewer than 25 million two years earlier, according to Antenna. Expect this new venture to supercharge that trend and lead to more “skinny” sports bundles.

Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch said Wednesday that the new platform is aimed at “cord-nevers”—younger people who have never signed up for a traditional cable bundle. But it could very well also appeal to a lot of people who have paid for cable for a long time.

This service will be jointly owned by three companies. What could go wrong?

It turns out that we’ve seen a very similar movie already.

Hulu was founded by News Corp (parent of The Wall Street Journal) and NBC, and then later added Disney/ABC as a shareholder. For years critics said media companies weren’t up to the task of running a tech-oriented platform and that Hulu’s convoluted structure wasn’t helping. Media and ad analyst Brian Wieser notes that “it was difficult for Hulu to maximize the opportunity in front of it,” which is why some people called it “Clown Co.”

That said, over time Hulu did get its act together and manage to become a standout in streaming. And now, Disney is likely to become the sole owner, once it buys out NBC parent Comcast.

This new venture is coming at a different moment—the companies are all much, much more committed to streaming than they were 10 years ago—so the story could very well play out differently.

Was there an alternative path for the companies to take?

Yes, maybe. What ESPN, Fox and Warner are essentially doing is creating something akin to a slimmed-down cable package. One insider wondered: Why do media companies need to be operating such a thing, and take on all the risks and headaches involved? Why not just allow YouTube TV to offer a sports-only tier? Or even old-school cable providers like Charter? One executive close to the new venture said ownership of the platform will let them collect more ad revenue. Also, the media companies will have a more direct relationship with their customers.

What impact will this have on the sports leagues?

While the new platform could be a major draw for sports lovers across the country, it also raises questions about how it will affect bidding for valuable sports-media rights. Will this trio be allowed to bid collectively for digital rights? If so, that could put a damper on the bargaining power of leagues, which have been demanding big increases in prices for carrying games.

TNT and ESPN are the NBA’s main media partners and are currently negotiating a renewal of their deals. It is still unclear how those negotiations will be affected by the creation of this new venture.

Robert O’Connell contributed to this article.
Write to Isabella Simonetti at isabella.simonetti@wsj.com and Amol Sharma at Amol.Sharma@wsj.com

It all sounds well and good. I don't know how many are going to jump on that at $40 to $50 a month on top of any other streaming services they have.

 

[RivShore]

An interesting thing I found today.

In an analysis of this new sports platform this morning had two key tidbits:
Without cbs and nbc…they don’t have a dominant position
They will have to changed MINIMUM $45-$50 a month to start to break even

Won't have a dominant position in what? Certainly in the overall sports world they would be the dominant player, but not in football and maybe a few others?

 

[Jrb1979]

Won't have a dominant position in what? Certainly in the overall sports world they would be the dominant player, but not in football and maybe a few others?

Exactly. Football is where the money is. Either way it's still going to cost $40-$50 a month. Unless they add another ad level tier. Might as well have cable at that point.

 

[HokieRaven5]

$100B in reported sports betting in the US alone in 2023 since it has expanded to other states. Yeah I think there’s enough that may sign up for a mostly all in one sports offering

 

[RivShore]

Amazing how people think their situation is everyone else's situation. Disney already raised rates and said churn was next to zero. But go on and tell me your anecdotes.

Have to see if Comcast reported yet - wonder if they had increased churn last quarter with the end of that BF deal. I am another piece of anecdotal evidence - as soon as my Peacock promo was over I was out of there!

As I have said before, I think D+ is much different than the others in the re-wathcability of their content, with kids for sure and adults, to a lesser extent. That has to cut down on churn.

 

[RivShore]

Haven't read all the articles on the new sports service yet - was there any mention of the triumviant trying to get NBC and CBS on board too?

 

[HokieRaven5]

Have to see if Comcast reported yet - wonder if they had increased churn last quarter with the end of that BF deal. I am another piece of anecdotal evidence - as soon as my Peacock promo was over I was out of there!

As I have said before, I think D+ is much different than the others in the re-wathcability of their content, with kids for sure and adults, to a lesser extent. That has to cut down on churn.

Comcast during Q4 reported 31M total paid Peacock Subs.

Net addition of 3M during Q4.

 

[wabbott]

Here's some more confirmation on linear TV's advertising issues.

https://deadline.com/2024/02/fox-quaterly-earnings-advertising-streaming-sports-venture-1235817681/

Fox Earnings Hit By Lower Advertising Revenue Last Quarter; Wall Street Eager For Details On New Streaming Sports Joint Venture

By Jill Goldsmith - Co-Business Editor
February 7, 2024 - 5:26am PST

Fox saw revenue dip 8% last quarter to $4.23 billion on weaker advertising due in part to tough comps from the year before. The fiscal second-quarter numbers hit the day after Fox with Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery set a fall launch date for joint streaming sports venture with. There’s no name or price yet for the service, which will pool the sports rights of the three media companies. CEO Lachlan Murdoch will say more on a call at 8:30 ET.

The shares, which were up more than 5% after the news yesterday gave up some gains after the numbers and up are about 1%.

Ad sales were expected to fall and dropped 20%, primarily on the absence of the FIFA Men’s World Cup on FOX Sports, lower political advertising revenues at Fox stations due to the absence of the 2022 midterm elections, the impact of elevated supply in the direct response marketplace, and lower ratings and higher preemptions associated with breaking news coverage at Fox News.

Affiliate fee revenues increased 4%, driven by 10% growth at the television segment.

Other revenues increased 14%, primarily due to higher sports sublicensing revenues at the national sports networks, offset by lower content revenues at the entertainment production companies as a result of industry guild labor disputes.

Net income for the company’s fiscal second quarter ended in December plunged to $115 million from $321 million. EPS was 23 cents a share vs 58 cents.

Expenses decreased in the quarter, primarily due to lower entertainment and sports programming rights amortization and production costs, led by fewer hours of original scripted programming and the absence of the Men’s World Cup, partially offset by the renewed NFL contract.

“At the halfway point in our fiscal year, our results demonstrate the strength and durability of our core brands and their ability to deliver solid audiences across our portfolio,” said CEO Lachlan Murdoch. “FOX Sports continues to benefit from the power of live sports programming and FOX News has maintained its leadership in cable news, while Tubi has been resilient in an increasingly competitive market. Combining this steadfast portfolio of assets with a best-in-class balance sheet underpins our ability to deliver value for our shareholders.”

 

[kilik64]

Haven't read all the articles on the new sports service yet - was there any mention of the triumviant trying to get NBC and CBS on board too?

Sorta in passing from what I've read.

Sports are all over the place, but just look at the NFL. If you're a big nfl fan and want to have ability to watch all the games and you dont want to pay for a cable package, you're looking at most likely $50 for new deal, $6 a month for p+, and $6 a month for peacock (which incidentally i'm not even sure airs NBC or SNF? I know they had the one playoff game exclusive?) so thats $62 a month for just the nfl. That doesn't cover NFL Network which I dont think there is any way to get it without a cable sub? They still have exclusive games too? Amazon has thursdays now so thats another sub so $14.99 for that, but at least with that one you have no other option. You can get all the combined sports channels deal on a cable sub too. So we are up to $77 to watch NFL now.

What a mess just to keep up with the NFL.

 

[clarker99]

For those that are not quite yet enlightened:

Cable dollars spent by customers will turn into streaming dollars spent by customers. The early cable cutters saved money. The last ones to leave cable will not save money. It was supposed to continue to be gradual. Covid fast tracked cable cutting and streaming. In the end (in a few years) customers will get internet based cable packages and it will feel like 2005 again.