Should Disney buy Warner Bros next?

[rwdavis2]

Just to keep up with Universal, Disney's going to have to drop around $3B on the parks in the next 5-10 years. DHS needs a major overhaul.

 

[yitbos96bb]

WB owns
DC Comics
Looney Tunes
Hanna Barbera
Cartoon Network

etc, etc, etc

They have so many amazing characters that rides and even lands could be based on. If Disney has a chance to buy WB, they should do so. Because it could really help them in their battle with Universal.

Warner had 12 billion in revenue last year and own properties with high valuations. I doubt they could afford the price tag without heavy incurrence of debt... I'm guessing it would be a 24 billion price tag.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Disney would have a better chance at buying Sesame Street than WB.

But I'd prefer Disney not buy any other properties. They need to market so many existing characters in the parks better, for instance a Muppet ride, 101 Dalamations anything, Lady & Tramp besides Tony's Restaurant, Hercules, Wall-E, Robin Hood, Pinocchio, Tangled, a character meal for boys.....I could go on and on.

Purchasing brands isn't about the parks. Parks are a synergistic crossover to help grow the brand and add additional capitalization but Disney is gonna make more money off TV or FIlms & merchandise

 

[yitbos96bb]

Time Warner Inc has a market capitalization of approx. $74 billion. The Walt Disney Company would have to pay a substantial premium above that for an acquisition bid to have any chance of success. In comparison, Disney bought Pixar for $7.4 billion, Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion, and Lucasfilm for $4 billion -- all substantial sums, but nowhere near what Time Warner Inc would cost.

In addition to DC Comics and minor assets such as Looney Tunes, Hanna Barbera, and Cartoon Network, Time Warner owns a global empire of media and entertainment properties under such brands as Warner Bros, New Line Cinema, HBO, Cinemax, TBS, CNN, and Turner Sports, along with a vast media library (including most of the great MGM and UA movies).

Acquisitions and mergers make sense if they lead to greater revenues and profits than if the companies had remained separate. It's hard to see how this would happen with The Walt Disney Company and Time Warner Inc -- if the U.S. Government would even allow these two media giants to combine, which is highly unlikely.

As consumers, we would lose. We don't need a single mega-media company (with Comcast's NBCUniversal unit and CBS Corporation as distant competitors). We need strong competitors, each trying to lure us with the most compelling content.

In this scenario, they could purchase the Warner Bros portion of Time Warner which has a 12 billion a year revenue. Still be ridiculously expensive.

 

[Bob Haller]

over 30 years ago i went to disney with a couple friends. when we arrived at the MK parking lot they were amazed at its size. I had been there before. i suggested a good gag, we should flag down a white help truck that helps with lock outs and lost vehicles.

i suggested we tell the driver we were parked in bugs bunny row L. since there was no bugs bunny, and no rows by letter, only numbered rows.

they laughed till a day later we couldnt find our car, and they all blamed me for jinxing them. this was before the studio was open. i remember seeing the mouse ears water tower

 

[JimmyBean42]

Purchasing brands isn't about the parks. Parks are a synergistic crossover to help grow the brand and add additional capitalization but Disney is gonna make more money off TV or FIlms & merchandise

I never said it was about the parks but thanks. I just indicated what property would be more likely then WB. Then ff you look at the start of this thread there was a second part (park integration) where the poster indicated what could be used in parks and I indicated what existing properties I'd like to see in the parks. Obviously Disney would buy a property for movies, tv, merchandise and other licensing.

 

[pilferk]

Cable TV is on the way out........new techno and systems like satellites are expected to make operating and maintaining cable hard wire systems to expensive. Just like Cable put out the antenna system TV, new techno is putting cable out of business. So if Comcast's nation wide cable service goes under along with other systems like charter and WB, the $162 Bil takes a big cut. All that hard wire nation wide system becomes basically worthless. THEN THE question is, how much money does Comcast have to keep putting UNI parks, nationwide?

As to Disney wanting UNI parks, I am not sure they do either, its just a possibility.

AKK

While content distribution might change...comcasts cable division/xfinity ALSO houses their Internet/ISP division. And the delivery network is EXACTLY the same wires.

The "hard wire nation wide system" won't become worthless until there is a high speed, high reliability, wireless system in place that can provide decent, consumer level, HOUSEHOLD internet services at speeds and caps and prices that can compete with the current wired system. That's not likely coming, soon, if you look at what the cell providers offer and the tech that's coming. Sat definitely can't do it (down might be ok, but up is TERRIBLE).

Second, even if everything went streaming tomorrow....there has to be some "consolidators" to offer package subscription deals to consumers to get access to all that content. There is a concensus in the industry that consumers are NOT going to want to, for example, maintain subscriptions/accounts with each, individual, "network"/content provider to consume content. If you've got 50 to 60 channels, right now, for example where you regularly consume content...do you really want to maintain 60 separate accounts for that? Comcast and Time Warner are perfectly set up to take on rolls as consolidators, and get consumers better deals than a la carte likely would. They've both invested in that kind of infrastructure and, indeed, seem to be long term planning for that eventuality, with their contracts. DirecTV has, too.

Comcast also, on it's own, owns some significant content who's value can be levereaged, even if they are not actively providing boxes and access to channels.

I'm relatively sure that the 162 billion market cap takes all that into account, since those "setting" caps (ie: determining stock price via supply and demand...and the big funds/institutional investors mostly do that) are pretty savy business people who have considered all the factors above (and likely many, many, many more).

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

While content distribution might change...comcasts cable division/xfinity ALSO houses their Internet/ISP division. And the delivery network is EXACTLY the same wires.

The "hard wire nation wide system" won't become worthless until there is a high speed, high reliability, wireless system in place that can provide decent, consumer level, HOUSEHOLD internet services at speeds and caps and prices that can compete with the current wired system. That's not likely coming, soon, if you look at what the cell providers offer and the tech that's coming. Sat definitely can't do it (down might be ok, but up is TERRIBLE).

Second, even if everything went streaming tomorrow....there has to be some "consolidators" to offer package subscription deals to consumers to get access to all that content. There is a concensus in the industry that consumers are NOT going to want to, for example, maintain subscriptions/accounts with each, individual, "network"/content provider to consume content. If you've got 50 to 60 channels, right now, for example where you regularly consume content...do you really want to maintain 60 separate accounts for that? Comcast and Time Warner are perfectly set up to take on rolls as consolidators, and get consumers better deals than a la carte likely would. They've both invested in that kind of infrastructure and, indeed, seem to be long term planning for that eventuality, with their contracts. DirecTV has, too.

Comcast also, on it's own, owns some significant content who's value can be levereaged, even if they are not actively providing boxes and access to channels.

I'm relatively sure that the 162 billion market cap takes all that into account, since those "setting" caps (ie: determining stock price via supply and demand...and the big funds/institutional investors mostly do that) are pretty savy business people who have considered all the factors above (and likely many, many, many more).

We will have to agree to disagree........the streaming and new techno are moving fast and other companies are picking it up, which will hurt Comcast's position and assets sooner that later. Bottom line is the new high streaming systems are coming fast as well. The days of hard wire cables carrying entertainment and internet, etc., is ending fast.


Time will tell........AKK

AKK

 

[pilferk]

We will have to agree to disagree........the streaming and new techno are moving fast and other companies are picking it up, which will hurt Comcast's position and assets sooner that later. Bottom line is the new high streaming systems are coming fast as well. The days of hard wire cables carrying entertainment and internet, etc., is ending fast.


Time will tell........AKK

AKK

We can agree to disagree, for sure.

You have to deliver that streaming content somehow. It doesn't just "appear" on devices. Hulu and netflix have to have a source of bandwidth to consume to stream their content.

Wireless (cell) tech can't provide it in a household situation, right now, with no network improvements on the horizen (5g doesn't exist, is not really even a fully formed pipe dream, and is at LEAST a decade away). You'd have to pay for, and implement, device by device (which would likely overrun the existing networks as constructed) which is both expensive and hard to maintain. And the data caps are MUCH lower than comparable cable plans (and there is tech reasons behind that).

Sat tech can't do it, because the upload (request) speeds are too slow.

Which leaves traditional ISPs to provide for the household needs, now...and the most popular/fastest of those are still in the hands of the cable providers. The baby bells have tried with DSL, but they have speed disadvantages built into them. They're trying fiber from end to end..that may help...but Cable internet has such a built in base, unless the bells can seriously undercut pricing, they'll have a hard time stealing Cable's market.

What phones, and individual streaming, have provided is AMAZING. But....they're not a threat, yet, to replace the household internet service like they have the landline phone. And there's no actual sign, either in tech developments or in the market itself, that they are going to any time soon. AND, if they do someday, Comcast and Time Warner and DirecTv has actually positioned themselves to make that transition as bundlers/consolidators.

 

[DDLand]

We can agree to disagree, for sure.

You have to deliver that streaming content somehow. It doesn't just "appear" on devices. Hulu and netflix have to have a source of bandwidth to consume to stream their content.

Wireless (cell) tech can't provide it in a household situation, right now, with no network improvements on the horizen (5g doesn't exist, is not really even a fully formed pipe dream, and is at LEAST a decade away). You'd have to pay for, and implement, device by device (which would likely overrun the existing networks as constructed) which is both expensive and hard to maintain. And the data caps are MUCH lower than comparable cable plans (and there is tech reasons behind that).

Sat tech can't do it, because the upload (request) speeds are too slow.

Which leaves traditional ISPs to provide for the household needs, now...and the most popular/fastest of those are still in the hands of the cable providers. The baby bells have tried with DSL, but they have speed disadvantages built into them. They're trying fiber from end to end..that may help...but Cable internet has such a built in base, unless the bells can seriously undercut pricing, they'll have a hard time stealing Cable's market.

What phones, and individual streaming, have provided is AMAZING. But....they're not a threat, yet, to replace the household internet service like they have the landline phone. And there's no actual sign, either in tech developments or in the market itself, that they are going to any time soon. AND, if they do someday, Comcast and Time Warner and DirecTv has actually positioned themselves to make that transition as bundlers/consolidators.

I agree with almost everything you're saying except the bundling. Cable companies are not consumer electronic and services based. Comcast, TWC, and AT&T are not capable of coming up with consumer first interfaces and platforms like Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. If I get a smart TV, the last thing I want is a dysfunctional Comcast App to access my channels. I want Apple or Google to handle that consumer end, Comcast is great at building the tube that gets the data to my house, but please don't make me deal with them besides that. I think Apple or Google could get around the "60 accounts" issue by simply having all recurring payments through their respective App Store platforms, one account signs into all. An interface can be done, and better than anything AT&T can do.

Though as you say, they own the tube and they're needed long term. Our infrastructure is starting to be in pretty dire shape in several regions, I'm wondering if they'll be able to handle the strain of our continued digital lives.

 

[pilferk]

I agree with almost everything you're saying except the bundling. Cable companies are not consumer electronic and services based. Comcast, TWC, and AT&T are not capable of coming up with consumer first interfaces and platforms like Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. If I get a smart TV, the last thing I want is a dysfunctional Comcast App to access my channels. I want Apple or Google to handle that consumer end, Comcast is great at building the tube that gets the data to my house, but please don't make me deal with them besides that. I think Apple or Google could get around the "60 accounts" issue by simply having all recurring payments through their respective App Store platforms, one account signs into all. An interface can be done, and better than anything AT&T can do.

Though as you say, they own the tube and they're needed long term. Our infrastructure is starting to be in pretty dire shape in several regions, I'm wondering if they'll be able to handle the strain of our continued digital lives.

Apple and google are very good at ad hoc, piecemail, content buys. And their systems, and contracts, seem to be geared around being that type of content provider....and that MAY very well be the way all content goes. You only buy what looks interesting, with content providers offering "free samples" to hook you.

The other model....the bundled, continuously provided "network" model, is another. And this is where comcast, time warner, and directv thrive (And, honestly, netflix).... potentially clunky interface or not. They offer low (compared to the ad hoc models) priced, broad, content packages with many, many, providers bundled in....and their current contracts and structure put them in a position to continue to do that, even after the boxes and linear channel structure goes to an internet based delivery platform.

There will be an ongoing battle between those two models, til one, or the other, sets a standard....and maybe long after (if there is enough marketshare for both). There are plusses and minuses to both sides....for content creators, owners, and the distributors. But i don't see, even amongst the younger generation, a clear cut preference. For every itunes, there is a spotify. For every google, there is a netflix.

Another thing: even using apples itunes platform for combined billing....you are talking, potentially, about 60 seperate transactions, to 60 providers, and 60 subscriptions, to manage. Because apple doesn't, yet, bundle. They havent, as yet, entered into that type of contracting. They are, in essence, just the payment processor and content delivery......digital amazon, as it were. The other method offers a one price/multi provder option, which seems to be the consumer preference, right now, for this type of content.

And on the interface issue.....netflix has done this right, already. When appropriate, comcast, time warner, and directv (who actually has a decent web streamng interface/model up now) have proven they will work with an outside entity to get a more friendly interface to customers (tivo). I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies who still have work to do to contract outside to get a better, streamlined, interface that functions as an improved "set top box" type interface.

 

[DDLand]

Apple and google are very good at ad hoc, piecemail, content buys. And their systems, and contracts, seem to be geared around being that type of content provider....and that MAY very well be the way all content goes. You only buy what looks interesting, with content providers offering "free samples" to hook you.

The other model....the bundled, continuously provided "network" model, is another. And this is where comcast, time warner, and directv thrive (And, honestly, netflix).... potentially clunky interface or not. They offer low (compared to the ad hoc models) priced, broad, content packages with many, many, providers bundled in....and their current contracts and structure put them in a position to continue to do that, even after the boxes and linear channel structure goes to an internet based delivery platform.

There will be an ongoing battle between those two models, til one, or the other, sets a standard....and maybe long after (if there is enough marketshare for both). There are plusses and minuses to both sides....for content creators, owners, and the distributors. But i don't see, even amongst the younger generation, a clear cut preference. For every itunes, there is a spotify. For every google, there is a netflix.

Another thing: even using apples itunes platform for combined billing....you are talking, potentially, about 60 seperate transactions, to 60 providers, and 60 subscriptions, to manage. Because apple doesn't, yet, bundle. They havent, as yet, entered into that type of contracting. They are, in essence, just the payment processor and content delivery......digital amazon, as it were. The other method offers a one price/multi provder option, which seems to be the consumer preference, right now, for this type of content.

And on the interface issue.....netflix has done this right, already. When appropriate, comcast, time warner, and directv (who actually has a decent web streamng interface/model up now) have proven they will work with an outside entity to get a more friendly interface to customers (tivo). I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies who still have work to do to contract outside to get a better, streamlined, interface that functions as an improved "set top box" type interface.

Their platforms are super solid, to create a pick and choose platform with one stop billing and recurring monthly subscription would be a piece of cake. Too easy. As for the big bundles there's already reports Apple is lining that up, and I don't doubt that Google and other considerably more disruptive players can get in.

The markets that you're describing could be done by any of our consumer tech companies better than any of the cable companies. Cable companies are honestly some of the most hated companies on the planet.
http://www.thewire.com/technology/2...e-the-most-hated-companies-in-america/371295/

Apple, Google, Amazon, and Xbox are some of the most beloved brands around, whether with bundles or pick and choose they have serious potential to disrupt. Cable companies are slow, stupid, and not consumer focused. Apple and Google are fast, thoughtful, and all about consumers.

I wonder which party is going to come out on top?

 

[pilferk]

Their platforms are super solid, to create a pick and choose platform with one stop billing and recurring monthly subscription would be a piece of cake. Too easy. As for the big bundles there's already reports Apple is lining that up, and I don't doubt that Google and other considerably more disruptive players can get in.

The markets that you're describing could be done by any of our consumer tech companies better than any of the cable companies. Cable companies are honestly some of the most hated companies on the planet.
http://www.thewire.com/technology/2...e-the-most-hated-companies-in-america/371295/

Apple, Google, Amazon, and Xbox are some of the most beloved brands around, whether with bundles or pick and choose they have serious potential to disrupt. Cable companies are slow, stupid, and not consumer focused. Apple and Google are fast, thoughtful, and all about consumers.

I wonder which party is going to come out on top?

if it were "super easy", they'd have done it already. i've been reading rumors, for years, that apple was going to pursue a sub/membership model...and haven't seen anything concrete actually happen.....while services like spotify have sprung up and thrived doing exactly that. I wonder if apple really has the interest, or platform, to make it work. We will see, i guess.

I know cable companies are hated.....just as the bells, and EA, are. But....they are all exceedingly good at what they do, they practically print money doing it, and they aren't nearly as stupid as you think they are. They, very much like disney, are cold, calculating, and conservative with their business decisions. But once put on a course, they are juggernauts, and very good at execution, in terms of their business needs. There is some question whether they can pivot to a more competitive, less region locked, market....but some of their recent leadership decisions make it look like they are prepping for just that. I wouldn't bet against them....any more than i'd bet against EA.....hated or not.

"Beloved" doesnt mean capable. Again, look at the types of contracts the businesses you mentioned have negotiated and signed. They are individual, ad hoc, piecemail content delivery contracts. They are designed, platform up, to sell single pieces of content (and yes, a single season of a series is a single piece of content...like an album is). I haven't yet seen any of those companies take on a massive bundle, from mult providers, and try to market it. Your confidence that they can is wonderful...but i remain skeptical based on history and opportunity. We will have to agree to disagree. I don't count them out, but i wouldn't call them frontrunners, either.

They have, at this point, had their effect on the cable providers for a number of years, and its been negligable because of the tact they've taken (maybe by choice). Netflix is a much more potent threat to tw and comcast than any of those you mentioned. And xbox? They have all but abandoned their stb plans after being dusted by Sony early in this gen.

 

[DDLand]

if it were "super easy", they'd have done it already. i've been reading rumors, for years, that apple was going to pursue a sub/membership model...and haven't seen anything concrete actually happen.....while services like spotify have sprung up and thrived doing exactly that. I wonder if apple really has the interest, or platform, to make it work. We will see, i guess.

I was referring to your comment on the difficulty to create an easy to use pick and choose service. With one stop billing, automatic reoccurring service, and easy channel canceling all built inside of an easy to use Apple or Google interface it would be "too easy." The hard part is getting the channels to cooperate in licensing their content, and the cable companies have been doing their part to coerce the networks into resisting Apple and Google. Apple and Google are just better at working with the consumer. I'm with you that's hard to line up channels, but building an interface is a non issue.

We now have word from the likes of Mark Gurman, WSJ, and I believe the NYT. Apple is most likely moving into the space later this year.

I know cable companies are hated.....just as the bells, and EA, are. But....they are all exceedingly good at what they do, they practically print money doing it, and they aren't nearly as stupid as you think they are. They, very much like disney, are cold, calculating, and conservative with their business decisions. But once put on a course, they are juggernauts, and very good at execution, in terms of their business needs. There is some question whether they can pivot to a more competitive, less region locked, market....but some of their recent leadership decisions make it look like they are prepping for just that. I wouldn't bet against them....any more than i'd bet against EA.....hated or not.

Honestly these companies are good at being anticompetitive, stagnate, and raising prices. They're not good at being a consumer oriented company. They don't care about consumers or their image. They're willing to treat consumers like crap in order to get what they want. That's not how a business should be run if it wants survive long term. We're finicky. People may have to keep buying the data through their tube, but they don't have to put up with the consumer front end.

d signed. They are individual, as hov, piecmsil content delivery contracts. They are designed, platform up, to sell single pieces of content (and yes, a single season of a series is a single piece of content...like an album is). I haven't yet seen any of those comanies take on a massive bundle, from mult providers, and try to market it. Your confidence that they can is wonderful...but i remain skeptical based on history and opportunity. We will have to agree to disagree. I don't count them out, but i wouldn't call them frontrunners, either.

These companies are constantly the underdogs. They also constantly succeed. Keep in mind both those companies have some of the best teams in procuring content, and if they don't have it that team they'll buy companies that do. Beats was largely just a way to get the team in order to get Apple Music up. Apple and Google are shrewd, and much smarter than the slow cable companies.

Cable companies are trying desperately not to innovate. Apple and Google are disrupters. Innovation wins eventually.

I'd also say don't count Xbox out of the race, Microsoft identified 4 areas they had to dominate in. Desktop, Tablets/Laptop, Phones, and TV. Now they've also added sensors, but the 4 main areas of focus remain. Now they're drifting farther into the cloud, but I think their interest in having strong footings there remains.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

This is not going to happen, and Looney Toons is not a good fit for Disney. The characters and cartoons have more of a "hard edge" to them including some adult themes at times that just wouldn't work. I am not saying they are bad, I own a collection of Looney Toons, I am just saying they aren't a good fit.