Disney Reconsiders Making Content For Others (reuters.com) 25
Disney CEO Bob Iger Thursday said the studio may resume making films and television shows for its rivals, marking a departure from recent years, when its production resources were harnessed to launch and grow its marquee Disney+ steaming service. Reuters reports: Iger told the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco that streaming services have traditionally relied on a volume of fresh content to attract subscribers. He said he hopes to embrace a more curated HBO-like approach of making a few high-quality shows built around its major brands, as he works to lift Disney+ to a profit.
"As we look to reduce the content that we're creating for our own platforms, there probably are opportunities to license to third parties," Iger said. "For a while, that was something we couldn't possibly do because we were so favoring our own streaming platforms. But if we get to a point where we need less content for these platforms, and we still have the capacity of producing that content, why not use it to grow revenue?" Iger also talked about the possibility of licensing content to third parties, noting that Seth MacFarlane's animated series "Family Guy" draw viewers both on Disney-owned Hulu, as well as on the Roku streaming service.
"As we look to reduce the content that we're creating for our own platforms, there probably are opportunities to license to third parties," Iger said. "For a while, that was something we couldn't possibly do because we were so favoring our own streaming platforms. But if we get to a point where we need less content for these platforms, and we still have the capacity of producing that content, why not use it to grow revenue?" Iger also talked about the possibility of licensing content to third parties, noting that Seth MacFarlane's animated series "Family Guy" draw viewers both on Disney-owned Hulu, as well as on the Roku streaming service.
Re: (Score:3)
That's way, way more effort than either of them deserves.
Obligatory... (Score:1, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Get woke, go broke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about an obligatory have you considered simply not watching content you don't find to be entertaining? It sure would be a funny thing explaining modern streaming services to someone living in the heyday of VHS:
"Well, we have various online services where you can instantly watch whatever you want from vast libraries of movies and TV shows, but for some odd reason people still complain that there's nothing good on."
Re: (Score:2)
This is why Disney is branching out. Spending millions on content that nobody is watching, but they think it'll be watched on other services??? They probably want to make their money back on licensing. Not sure what your point is.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what your point is.
My point was responding to the insinuation that Disney's streaming content is too "woke" with a rebuttal that if the content you're choosing to watch displeases you, it's your own fault for watching it in the first place. It's like that old joke:
A man goes to a doctor and says "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
The doctor ponders for a moment and then responds "Well then, don't do that."
Re: Obligatory... (Score:2)
Of course in the past 10 years subirà sakes has tripled with a woke focused marketing campaign. Huggies also seems to try its market south by including a baby with two daddies
Re: (Score:2)
The left wing bashing has gotten funnier the last few years with right wing movements in a number of countries seeking to overthrow or limit democracy and yet somehow there are still people in this world that think leftism is inherently evil. Get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been shown to be incorrect but you can keep chanting it.
https://www.cim.co.uk/content-... [cim.co.uk]
Translation from marketingspeak (Score:3, Interesting)
"We'll consider licensing content which doesn't cannibalize our streaming service. Probably re-runs of 1980s DuckTales."
Re:Translation from marketingspeak (Score:5, Insightful)
"We'll consider licensing content which doesn't cannibalize our streaming service. Probably re-runs of 1980s DuckTales."
Still better than Marvel Phase 4.
Re: (Score:3)
The joke is that if they sent the reruns to their channel and their "exclusive content" abroad, they'd actually have a bigger chance ot gain subscribers.
Other benefit (Score:2)
If Disney starts letting other companies and services have access to what it produces, that opens the door to bring other popular shows and media into Disney +
What happens when all services are just mashes of content all the others services have off and on I am not sure, but it could help Disney+, if they are careful.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, if Disney want me to see any of their content, they're going to have to put it somewhere else. Even the kids didn't watch Disney+ when we had it (for free) for about 18 months.
My guess is Disney will always be "Disney" - that is, a pretend world where everything is lovely, the sun always shines and there's no litter on the floor. As such, they'll only ever appeal to people who want to be in that sort of world. In content terms, that means more of the same "almost dangerous, but phew!, everyone got
Overhead During A Stratgey Meeting: (Score:2)
Flunky #1: Great! We should immediately adapt it into a shitty and detested series!
Streaming CEO: How can we do that and be sure we cause the most outrage?
Flunky #2: Let's outsource it to Disney!
Streaming CEO: I'm calling Iger now.
Re: (Score:2)
But people don't watch it on their own platform (Score:2)
Like, which content? Because people aren't watching the content that they're spending all of their money on. They're watching classic, and then children content. So who do they think is going to want their other garbage?
There is no money in streaming (Score:3)
Disney and the other outlets are all discovering that the money in streaming doesn't come from hosting content. It comes from licensing to others. This is mainly due to the overhead that exists with the former and not the latter.
Example: A user signs up with Disney+ for $15.00 a month.
That's all Disney is going to get from that user the whole month......$15.00.
Now Disney's costs to service that user are variable and practically unlimited. Every movie / tv show that the person streams will have residual costs, royalties, etc that must be paid. Disney has kept some of that down by owning the royalties themselves, but much of their content comes from out acquired sources so there are going to be widely different structures, payments, etc. These costs will vary based on how much said user binge watches, etc.
There will also be infrastructure costs (bandwidth, hosting, etc) as well as overhead, advertising, etc.
Example B: Now consider their previous model as a content producer where they owned the studios. If someone wanted to make a movie, then generally either:
1) They pay Disney for use of the studio, cameras, staff, etc with a small residual clause on the end covering distribution; or
2) Disney makes the movie and then licenses viewing rights to third parties for an upfront payment plus residuals per viewing.
Example A is a low margin operation reliant on fickle consumers and with unlimited cost exposure.
Example B is essentially mailbox money.
Discovery has figured it out. Why do you think they're in the process of writing off low producing content for tax write-offs? It's because the income side of the equation is fixed and more viewership only leads to more expenses cutting into the pie.