Author Topic: DIS - Disney  (Read 46686 times)

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #140 on: April 15, 2019, 08:15:33 PM »
Interesting adjustment of his aggregation thesis.  I don't really see Netflix as pure aggregator anymore.  Not in the same sense as Google, FB, or even Youtube.

When so much of Netflix content is self-produced originals the melding of the supplier/aggregator roles is pretty extreme.

Why do you think self-producing content is opposed to the idea of being an aggregator? I don't think it is.

It's because they can aggregate so much demand that it makes sense for them to self-produce (can spread fixed costs over a larger base).

They also get pretty good and fast feedback on what viewers watch. That alone is giving them and edge to produce the right content, imo.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.


Jurgis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4465
    • Porfolio
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #141 on: April 16, 2019, 12:22:00 AM »
If you want kids stuff, just sub to the kids service. If you want other stuff, pay for Hulu.

Except that Marvel/Star Wars are not kids stuff.

But how many times can you watch the same movies?   Disney+ looks like the type of thing you subscribe to for a month 1-2 times per year to watch a certain thing then unsubscribe.  Unless you have kids.

Exactly. The greatest thing about the streaming services is that they are so easy to cancel.

I don't play the sub/unsub game.

But do the companies value it? No. They're just happy to have suckers who subscribe long term.
"Before you can be rich, you must be poor." - Nef Anyo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"American History X", "Milk", "The Insider", "Dirty Money", "LBJ"

DooDiligence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1785
  • ♪ 🎶 ♫ ♪ 🎶 ♫
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #142 on: April 16, 2019, 03:32:07 AM »
I find that I can get most of what I want to see with a one month NetFlix signup & there's enough new stuff to sign up again every 3 to 6 months. (The last time I signed up was over the December holidays & plan on doing so again this Summer.)

I get a cheap student rate for Amazon Prime but rarely watch it.

Tried Sling a few times (meh...)

YouTube (free) is my go to for instructional vidis & music discovery.

I love the sub in / sub out models.
Healthcare 32.7% - CVS DVA EW NVO // BRK.B - 20.6% // Media & Communication 8.3% - CHTR DIS

Drinkers & Smokers 7.5% - ABEV MO // Auto's & Oil 12.4% - CLB GPC VDE // Tech 0.0%

%'s held @ MV 06/18/2019 minus 18.3% investable cash

i trumpet my ignorance

https://twitter.com/tunawish

rogermunibond

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 751
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #143 on: April 16, 2019, 08:44:20 AM »
Liberty - from something that Ben wrote in 2016 about why Apple should buy Netflix

"Netflix’s strategy has been a textbook example of Aggregation Theory; Netflix has built leverage and monopsony power over the premium video industry not by controlling distribution, at least not at the beginning, but by delivering a superior customer experience that creates a virtuous cycle: Netflix earns the users, which increases its power over suppliers, which brings in more users, which increases its power even more."

Netflix is still an aggregator true, but like Spotify now, has to deal with a non-monopsony relationship with the traditional suppliers (DIS, CBS, NBCU, TMW).  That's very different from MS with Windows, or Google with search, or FB with social graph.  Some of the best economic returns.  It could well be that Netflix inevitably will have lower returns than these others.

The other possibility is that Netflix could be going around studios and developing near monopsony power with smaller producers and international media companies that don't quite have NFLX threatening them (Fuji TV and NHK in Japan for example).  Eventually though I think they'll all become like BBC which understands the NFLX threat to their business model.

See the FT article for how Netflix is already exerting it's power on producers.  Netflix needs to leave enough crumbs on the table for producers to earn a good return.

https://www.ft.com/content/cf0f0bd6-4596-11e9-a965-23d669740bfb

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4289
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #144 on: April 16, 2019, 09:02:19 AM »
If you want kids stuff, just sub to the kids service. If you want other stuff, pay for Hulu.

Except that Marvel/Star Wars are not kids stuff.

But how many times can you watch the same movies?   Disney+ looks like the type of thing you subscribe to for a month 1-2 times per year to watch a certain thing then unsubscribe.  Unless you have kids.

Exactly. The greatest thing about the streaming services is that they are so easy to cancel.

I don't play the sub/unsub game.

But do the companies value it? No. They're just happy to have suckers who subscribe long term.

I don't sub/unsub from Netflix or Prime Video, but I do with HBO, Showtime, and Hulu.  There isn't enough on those networks worth paying all year for.  That would go for Prime Video too  if it were a stand-alone service, but streaming isn't the reason I have Amazon Prime, I stay subscribed for other reasons (2-day shipping, music, drive, etc...).  Netflix is really the only video streaming service worth paying all year for.  I suspect I might get Disney+ to checkout The Mandalorian, then cancel after I watch it.

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11249
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #145 on: April 16, 2019, 10:20:05 AM »
Liberty - from something that Ben wrote in 2016 about why Apple should buy Netflix

"Netflix’s strategy has been a textbook example of Aggregation Theory; Netflix has built leverage and monopsony power over the premium video industry not by controlling distribution, at least not at the beginning, but by delivering a superior customer experience that creates a virtuous cycle: Netflix earns the users, which increases its power over suppliers, which brings in more users, which increases its power even more."

Netflix is still an aggregator true, but like Spotify now, has to deal with a non-monopsony relationship with the traditional suppliers (DIS, CBS, NBCU, TMW).  That's very different from MS with Windows, or Google with search, or FB with social graph.  Some of the best economic returns.  It could well be that Netflix inevitably will have lower returns than these others.

The other possibility is that Netflix could be going around studios and developing near monopsony power with smaller producers and international media companies that don't quite have NFLX threatening them (Fuji TV and NHK in Japan for example).  Eventually though I think they'll all become like BBC which understands the NFLX threat to their business model.

See the FT article for how Netflix is already exerting it's power on producers.  Netflix needs to leave enough crumbs on the table for producers to earn a good return.

https://www.ft.com/content/cf0f0bd6-4596-11e9-a965-23d669740bfb

To me that model fits the definition of aggregator.

https://stratechery.com/aggregation-theory/
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | This podcast episode is a must-listen

rogermunibond

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 751
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #146 on: April 16, 2019, 10:34:28 AM »
Yeah, I misspoke - what I meant was that NFLX doesn't fit the economic model as well as others.  Digitized content is not as low margin as software and it's relationship with suppliers not nearly as monopsonic as others.  Makes it a less powerful aggregator, imo.  But who knows.

Saluki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #147 on: April 16, 2019, 11:02:58 AM »



I do like how they are separating things like that.  In the old days of cable, and even these new live TV streaming services like Hulu live TV, youTubeTV, playstation vue, directv now, etc, you have to pay for sports even if you never watch them.  This way you can pay for only what you intend to watch.  Separating things into sports, children's programming, and everything else.  It isn't completely pay per view, but it isn't everything all bundled together and you pay for it all whether you want it or not.  I think this might be a winning move.

I've looked at DIS in the past and I could never get comfortable with it because of how big a portion of their revenue ESPN is.  I'm not a sports fan so maybe I don't get it, but something like $20+ of most premium cable subscribers bill from the cable company goes to ESPN, if I recall, and as more people cut the cord that number of subscribers has to come down. 

Also, the money they paid for Lucas Films looks well spent because they can keep making star wars movies and selling toys.  The entire DIS library is very valuable, in fact.  In the 80s my sister watched The Little Mermaid, which she watched with her kids in the 2000s and I'm sure her grandkids will watch someday.  They still make money from really old content.  With ESPN, I don't anyone who watches a basketball game from 2 years ago, or even 2 weeks ago.  The content is not evergreen.  I think it's a terrible business in that sense, but what do i know?
If it's important, do it every day. If it's not important, don't do it at all.  -Dan Gable

cameronfen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #148 on: April 16, 2019, 11:26:30 AM »



I do like how they are separating things like that.  In the old days of cable, and even these new live TV streaming services like Hulu live TV, youTubeTV, playstation vue, directv now, etc, you have to pay for sports even if you never watch them.  This way you can pay for only what you intend to watch.  Separating things into sports, children's programming, and everything else.  It isn't completely pay per view, but it isn't everything all bundled together and you pay for it all whether you want it or not.  I think this might be a winning move.

I've looked at DIS in the past and I could never get comfortable with it because of how big a portion of their revenue ESPN is.  I'm not a sports fan so maybe I don't get it, but something like $20+ of most premium cable subscribers bill from the cable company goes to ESPN, if I recall, and as more people cut the cord that number of subscribers has to come down. 

Also, the money they paid for Lucas Films looks well spent because they can keep making star wars movies and selling toys.  The entire DIS library is very valuable, in fact.  In the 80s my sister watched The Little Mermaid, which she watched with her kids in the 2000s and I'm sure her grandkids will watch someday.  They still make money from really old content.  With ESPN, I don't anyone who watches a basketball game from 2 years ago, or even 2 weeks ago.  The content is not evergreen.  I think it's a terrible business in that sense, but what do i know?

Not an expert in this area, but I think sports is the main thing keeping cable TV alive.  Basically you can watch a substitute of other shows on Netflix or Hulu, but it's quite difficult to have an online only sports game broadcast (because of the coordination issue I think).  So even as they lose customers I think they should be able to command more pricing power when bundling.  There are some games that are watched a long time after they are played (ESPN has "ESPN Classic" as a channel) but it's less evergreen then good TV shows or movies by far. 

fareastwarriors

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
Re: DIS - Disney
« Reply #149 on: April 16, 2019, 11:37:27 AM »



I do like how they are separating things like that.  In the old days of cable, and even these new live TV streaming services like Hulu live TV, youTubeTV, playstation vue, directv now, etc, you have to pay for sports even if you never watch them.  This way you can pay for only what you intend to watch.  Separating things into sports, children's programming, and everything else.  It isn't completely pay per view, but it isn't everything all bundled together and you pay for it all whether you want it or not.  I think this might be a winning move.

I've looked at DIS in the past and I could never get comfortable with it because of how big a portion of their revenue ESPN is.  I'm not a sports fan so maybe I don't get it, but something like $20+ of most premium cable subscribers bill from the cable company goes to ESPN, if I recall, and as more people cut the cord that number of subscribers has to come down. 

Also, the money they paid for Lucas Films looks well spent because they can keep making star wars movies and selling toys.  The entire DIS library is very valuable, in fact.  In the 80s my sister watched The Little Mermaid, which she watched with her kids in the 2000s and I'm sure her grandkids will watch someday.  They still make money from really old content.  With ESPN, I don't anyone who watches a basketball game from 2 years ago, or even 2 weeks ago.  The content is not evergreen.  I think it's a terrible business in that sense, but what do i know?

Not an expert in this area, but I think sports is the main thing keeping cable TV alive.  Basically you can watch a substitute of other shows on Netflix or Hulu, but it's quite difficult to have an online only sports game broadcast (because of the coordination issue I think).  So even as they lose customers I think they should be able to command more pricing power when bundling.  There are some games that are watched a long time after they are played (ESPN has "ESPN Classic" as a channel) but it's less evergreen then good TV shows or movies by far.

Live sports is why I keep my satellite subscription even though it's like $100 a month... I already have Netflix and Prime Video but we need our sports in our household.

Go Warriors! (terrible lose last night  :'(  )