Disney pulling all content from Netflix, launching own streaming service

[GrandAdmiralStrife]

I'd love for them to have a lot of the old TV content, like Zorro, Mickey Mouse Club (all decades), early Disney Channel stuff (back when it was a paid subscription channel, not basic cable). And of course, all the cartoons. Depending on content, I could see myself paying at least 10 a month, maybe as much as 20 if they throw everything in.

 

[Jim Shuler]

It is not at all surprising they are moving this way. I think they had even mentioned it in previous D23 events as a vision for the future.

ESPN is definitely in a position where they need a shot in the arm. I'm not totally sure it's own streaming service is the answer. The company has made bad decision after bad decision. They may want to fix this first.

A separate Disney streaming service can make sense if done right. The vault has a ton of wonderful content not seen in years. Making this available to the public could be very beneficial financially. As for pricing, I would think the sweet spot would be in the $9.99 range.

Iger has taken Disney and affiliates in a direction that has turned off a lot of people. Many either are unaware of the underpinnings, others will not acknowledge it, and most will not talk about just to keep from being ripped apart. Many of you know exactly what I am talking about. Streaming and all other band aids will not solve the Iger problem.

 

[Jim Shuler]

It's more about what you WON'T get from Netflix. I think you're underestimating the value of this programming. There are three TV networks dedicated to Disney kids programming: Disney Jr, Disney Channel and Disney XD. There are kid-friendly alternatives on everything from PBS to library DVDs but many parents seem to be favoring the Disney offerings.

With Disney content gone from Netflix, there will be 3 options for viewing this programming:

- Full-blown cable or satellite subscription
- Buy DVDs or digital by the film / season
- $10 per month for unlimited access

Will Netflix have an overall higher volume of content? Of course! But without Disney, they highlights of their kid-friendly programming is Voltron and Magic School Bus.

I can't predict what sort of response Disney will get, but it seems crazy to imply that there will be zero interest in a monthly service which costs as much as a couple trips to Starbucks.

A lot of parents are fleeing the Disney kids shows. Just don't like the social engineering and message starting to be more prevalent on Disney Jr. Not a place for political agendas.

 

[StarWarsJez]

I hope it fails like their ill-thought-out on-line DVD rental product they tried in the late 90's/early 00's.

There are several quality streaming services out there, why expect consumers to have to pay for yet another just to gain certain content. If they similarly try to pull back from broadcast/subscription tv it'll just push people towards illegal streaming/downloads.

The greed culture that inhabits Disney is so sad.

 

[tjkraz]

I hope it fails like their ill-thought-out on-line DVD rental product they tried in the late 90's/early 00's.

There are several quality streaming services out there, why expect consumers to have to pay for yet another just to gain certain content. If they similarly try to pull back from broadcast/subscription tv it'll just push people towards illegal streaming/downloads.

The greed culture that inhabits Disney is so sad.

If you think Disney is alone in this, you aren't paying attention. The golden age of Netflix, Hulu and Prime is rapidly ending. If you follow the comings-and-goings at those services, most are regularly losing more content than they add...either by choice (investing more in original content) or because the content providers are pulling stuff. Every major cable network has its own stand alone streaming service in some stages of development. HBO, Showtime, AMC, CBS and others are already live. FXX, Disney, ESPN and more have announced plans.

Netflix and others will still find some takers, but others will increasingly look to keep their content in house. Netflix just lost all 7 seasons of the FX series "The League." I doubt that was coincidental, given that FX announced plans to launch their own stand-alone service.

For years, consumers have been begging for a la carte TV. Now they're getting it. Thing is, networks weren't obligated to provide it on terms consumers wanted (cheap.) Networks are taking it on the chin thanks to cord cutting. They aren't going to stop looking for ways to get that money back.

 

[jknezek]

Just saw on CNN the new Disney app will include Marvel and Star Wars. Getting more interesting but I still think they need to include the back catalogue as well. Maybe on a rotating basis, but some of it needs to be there.

 

[rteetz]

Just saw on CNN the new Disney app will include Marvel and Star Wars. Getting more interesting but I still think they need to include the back catalogue as well. Maybe on a rotating basis, but some of it needs to be there.

Also announced, Disney will create exclusive content just for the service.

 

[tjkraz]

Also announced, Disney will create exclusive content just for the service.

No shock there. And $5 says Star Wars and Muppets are featured in the exclusive content within a year of launch.

The content probably won't be "exclusive" forever, but it could take months or years for that content to reach other platforms. CBS has started selling some of their All Access exclusives on iTunes. Point being, even if content is created as a streaming exclusive, Disney will still own it and can find many ways to monetize down the road. Investing in streaming exclusives is pretty much a zero risk venture.

 

[STLstone]

Also announced, Disney will create exclusive content just for the service.

I find this part the most puzzling. Why add the expense of producing extra content? If people won't subscribe for the existing catalog, the exclusive content won't push them over the edge.

This is an added expense with no return - in my opinion.

 

[rteetz]

I find this part the most puzzling. Why add the expense of producing extra content? If people won't subscribe for the existing catalog, the exclusive content won't push them over the edge.

This is an added expense with no return - in my opinion.

Yes and no. I think this could work. Much like Netflix has exclusive marvel shows and such. They could have exclusive Disney shows/movies, as well as marvel and Star Wars. People will pay for marvel and Star Wars for sure.

 

[StarWarsJez]

If you think Disney is alone in this, you aren't paying attention. The golden age of Netflix, Hulu and Prime is rapidly ending. If you follow the comings-and-goings at those services, most are regularly losing more content than they add...either by choice (investing more in original content) or because the content providers are pulling stuff. Every major cable network has its own stand alone streaming service in some stages of development. HBO, Showtime, AMC, CBS and others are already live. FXX, Disney, ESPN and more have announced plans.

Netflix and others will still find some takers, but others will increasingly look to keep their content in house. Netflix just lost all 7 seasons of the FX series "The League." I doubt that was coincidental, given that FX announced plans to launch their own stand-alone service.

For years, consumers have been begging for a la carte TV. Now they're getting it. Thing is, networks weren't obligated to provide it on terms consumers wanted (cheap.) Networks are taking it on the chin thanks to cord cutting. They aren't going to stop looking for ways to get that money back.

Show me where I said Disney is alone in this?

I understand how the market is changing. I just said I hope it fails.

 

[STLstone]

Yes and no. I think this could work. Much like Netflix has exclusive marvel shows and such. They could have exclusive Disney shows/movies, as well as marvel and Star Wars. People will pay for marvel and Star Wars for sure.

They could produce shows and even movies, but it's a huge cost that won't (again, just my opinion) bring enough new subscribers to pay for it.

We're talking about Disney/Marvel/Star Wars fans. They're going to sign up based on the existing library.

Netflix has one place they need to drive viewers to. They can afford to produce content for that one place. Disney has a broadcast channel, several cable channels and the movie theaters that they need to produce content for. Unless they plan to drop one of those 3 (maybe cable?), I don't think producing more content would be a good expense.

Unless this exclusive content is just "behind-the-scenes looks" or "cast interviews," it seems like a big cost for little return.

 

[tjkraz]

They could produce shows and even movies, but it's a huge cost that won't (again, just my opinion) bring enough new subscribers to pay for it.

And within a year or two, they can put the stuff on Disney Channel, Disney XD, sell it on iTunes, DVDs, etc. Point is having that exclusive window the die hards are willing to pay for.

People are always willing to pay for early access to content. Everyone knows that Spider Man Homecoming will be available to download for $20 by September, but that didn't stop families from paying $60 for tickets and snacks to see it in July.

We're talking about Disney/Marvel/Star Wars fans. They're going to sign up based on the existing library.

The Clone Wars and Rebels animated series have been universally praised. But Clone Wars is done and Rebels is ending soon.

Let's say the next Star Wars animated series is exclusive to the Disney streaming service. You really don't think there are people willing to pay for that? How about an exclusive weekly Muppet show? Or an animated show featuring Mickey & Minnie? Or maybe a show dedicated to the Disney theme parks?

In a couple weeks, CBS is launching Star Trek Discovery--the first weekly Star Trek series since Enterprise ended more than a decade ago. There are absolutely people who will pay $6 per month for their All Access service just to view that series. According to what I've heard, sales of international broadcast rights to the Star Trek show will cover the production costs. So it's really a no-risk venture.

But even if there comes a point where they cannot justify production solely for All Access, CBS still owns the show. They can put it on CBS or CW, they could license it to Netflix, they can sell DVDs and iTunes downloads, etc.

 

[STLstone]

And within a year or two, they can put the stuff on Disney Channel, Disney XD, sell it on iTunes, DVDs, etc. Point is having that exclusive window the die hards are willing to pay for.

People are always willing to pay for early access to content. Everyone knows that Spider Man Homecoming will be available to download for $20 by September, but that didn't stop families from paying $60 for tickets and snacks to see it in July.

Going to the movies is still a different event than watching it on your TV at home, so that could justify some of the spending vs. waiting.

Let's say the next Star Wars animated series is exclusive to the Disney streaming service. You really don't think there are people willing to pay for that? How about an exclusive weekly Muppet show? Or an animated show featuring Mickey & Minnie? Or maybe a show dedicated to the Disney theme parks?

You're practically describing producing another channel at that point. Of course they could do it. Does it bring in people that were not already subscribers? Is there a Disney fan that would not have signed up - except that now they want to watch the "Disney theme park show?"

In a couple weeks, CBS is launching Star Trek Discovery--the first weekly Star Trek series since Enterprise ended more than a decade ago. There are absolutely people who will pay $6 per month for their All Access service just to view that series. According to what I've heard, sales of international broadcast rights to the Star Trek show will cover the production costs. So it's really a no-risk venture.

When it comes to Star Trek, imagine this: There is a huge Star Trek fan that doesn't plan to pay for the new show - until CBS says "we're also going to produce more exclusive content." How many fans were not on board yet, but the "more exclusive content" pushed them over the edge? That's the comparison to new Disney service. They already have their "new Star Trek" draw for the Disney fans: it's the Disney Library.

It will remain to be seen how many people will only sign up to CBS for Star Trek. What is the real market for Star Trek, anyway? The TV series have never been huge ratings juggernauts. This is coming from a Star Trek fan, btw.

But even if there comes a point where they cannot justify production solely for All Access, CBS still owns the show. They can put it on CBS or CW, they could license it to Netflix, they can sell DVDs and iTunes downloads, etc.

Disney selling their content to Netflix, or another network is not a very likely scenario anymore - just based on the title of this thread.

The point about new content is it takes money and talented people to make good stuff. If you've seen how many times "Duck Tales" has been on repeat over the last few weeks, you can see that it's already hard to produce enough good content to fill the outlets they already have.

 

[tjkraz]

You're practically describing producing another channel at that point. Of course they could do it. Does it bring in people that were not already subscribers? Is there a Disney fan that would not have signed up - except that now they want to watch the "Disney theme park show?"

And my answer to this is "yes, absolutely!"

We all know there are people who subscribe to HBO JUST for Game of Thrones. Personally I subscribed to Showtime JUST for the Twin Peaks revival. And I'll cancel as soon as I watch the last couple episodes.

$10 per month is a couple trips to Starbucks. It's one cocktail at the bar. It's probably less than a large soda & popcorn at the movie theater. It's a Turkey Leg at WDW. Some of the more frugal customers will resist the urge to fork out for a half-dozen streaming services, but many others will not.

As for the volume of original content, it's not going to be anything close to another network. I cited 4 examples in my last post, and those could be spread out over the 4 quarters of the year. If Disney uses a weekly broadcast model for releasing content, I would envision them airing new episodes of maybe 2-3 shows at a time, spread over different genres and different age groups. If they release the series in bulk Netflix style, it's a new series maybe every 4-6 weeks.

Ultimately the audience will come from many different age groups and interest levels. Some will come for library content; different people looking for toddler programming, animated theatrical classics, 80s Saturday morning cartoons, '00s Disney Channel reruns, Marvel films and cartoons, etc.

Others will come for entirely original content from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucas, etc.

Regardless of one's primary interest, the other stuff is just icing on the cake. Consider subscribing for the new, exclusive Star Wars cartoon and realize that the service also offers every episode of Clone Wars, every episode of Rebels and a bunch of other stuff you've never seen. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a bad deal to subscribe for 3-4 months to catch the new stuff AND binge on the old. (And if people are enjoying it or forget to cancel, suddenly 3-4 months becomes 10-12 months.)

 

[STLstone]

And my answer to this is "yes, absolutely!"

We all know there are people who subscribe to HBO JUST for Game of Thrones. Personally I subscribed to Showtime JUST for the Twin Peaks revival. And I'll cancel as soon as I watch the last couple episodes.

$10 per month is a couple trips to Starbucks. It's one cocktail at the bar. It's probably less than a large soda & popcorn at the movie theater. It's a Turkey Leg at WDW. Some of the more frugal customers will resist the urge to fork out for a half-dozen streaming services, but many others will not.

As for the volume of original content, it's not going to be anything close to another network. I cited 4 examples in my last post, and those could be spread out over the 4 quarters of the year. If Disney uses a weekly broadcast model for releasing content, I would envision them airing new episodes of maybe 2-3 shows at a time, spread over different genres and different age groups. If they release the series in bulk Netflix style, it's a new series maybe every 4-6 weeks.

Ultimately the audience will come from many different age groups and interest levels. Some will come for library content; different people looking for toddler programming, animated theatrical classics, 80s Saturday morning cartoons, '00s Disney Channel reruns, Marvel films and cartoons, etc.

Others will come for entirely original content from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucas, etc.

Regardless of one's primary interest, the other stuff is just icing on the cake. Consider subscribing for the new, exclusive Star Wars cartoon and realize that the service also offers every episode of Clone Wars, every episode of Rebels and a bunch of other stuff you've never seen. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a bad deal to subscribe for 3-4 months to catch the new stuff AND binge on the old. (And if people are enjoying it or forget to cancel, suddenly 3-4 months becomes 10-12 months.)

The other pay services you are citing are not a direct comparison to Disney's service. There wasn't a set of "The HBO/Showtime library" fans on the fence before those shows came on. When Disney launches their services, there is already a fan base for their content, they will already have their version of Game of Thrones or Twin Peaks in their existing library. Plus there will still be new content from their future movies and TV shows all the time.

Any new content you're talking about takes production, which costs money. There's nothing stopping them from making all of this content for their other mediums, today - but they don't. If they were going to also shrink their cable presence at the same time as they added content to the stream, I could see this.

You describe someone "subscribing for the new, exclusive Star Wars cartoon..." Who is this person that loves Star Wars that much, but didn't think the stream was already worth it? I don't see their being a large group of people like that. I have no doubt they can create new interesting content for the streaming service. I have doubts that the new content brings enough people that they didn't already have to make it profitable.

That's the argument: Does creating new, stream-only content bring enough people they didn't already have to make it worthwhile to produce it? I'm doubtful of this, but I guess we'll see.

 

[tjkraz]

When Disney launches their services, there is already a fan base for their content, they will already have their version of Game of Thrones or Twin Peaks in their existing library.

So much the better, then. It's no different than Netflix, Prime and others...there are customers who pay for the legacy content and customers who pay for the exclusives.

You describe someone "subscribing for the new, exclusive Star Wars cartoon..." Who is this person that loves Star Wars that much, but didn't think the stream was already worth it?

Someone who already owns / accesses existing content in their area of interest, yet wants the latest and greatest.

That's the argument: Does creating new, stream-only content bring enough people they didn't already have to make it worthwhile to produce it? I'm doubtful of this, but I guess we'll see.

That certainly is the unknown quantity--do added subscribers cover the production costs. But I see it as a zero risk venture. Worst case scenario, the service doesn't take off and Disney stops producing new exclusives. But they still own everything they made for the service. They'll plop it on Disney Channel, XD, Freeform, ABC, etc. and earn the ad revenue just as if the content were never streaming exclusive. They'll go back to licensing to Netflix/Prime/Hulu. They'll sell it on iTunes/Google Play/Amazon.

In the case of Star Trek Discovery, Netflix bought the international broadcast rights and the fees they are paying CBS will cover the entire production budget. It doesn't need to add 1 million, 2 million or 5 million viewers to All Access in order to be a success. Disney could follow a similar model. They have a streaming service in the UK and this new offering is intended for the US only. They could easily turn to Netflix or other streamers to pay for streaming rights to the "exclusive" content in dozens of other territories.

 

[STLstone]

...

That certainly is the unknown quantity--do added subscribers cover the production costs. But I see it as a zero risk venture. Worst case scenario, the service doesn't take off and Disney stops producing new exclusives. But they still own everything they made for the service. They'll plop it on Disney Channel, XD, Freeform, ABC, etc. and earn the ad revenue just as if the content were never streaming exclusive. They'll go back to licensing to Netflix/Prime/Hulu. They'll sell it on iTunes/Google Play/Amazon.

.....

That's the biggest thing. I think the service will take off. That's why I'm surprised they'll be dumping money into stuff they don't need to.

 

[maverik85]

I'm really mixed on this. If this includes all their old DCOMs and shows with it as well as the more recent stuff it coudl be great, and especailly if the new exclusive content is good. I almost onder if the next Star Wars series after Rebels will be on this service to draw more people in. I jsut hate all the different networks and companies doing their own thing and spreading it all out. Pretty soon it will cost a whole lot more than the older cable model for everything since they're all around $10 a month. This is the only one outside of Netflix/Hulu I'd strongly consider getting though depending on how much they put on it.

 

[tlmadden73]

I find this part the most puzzling. Why add the expense of producing extra content? If people won't subscribe for the existing catalog, the exclusive content won't push them over the edge.

This is an added expense with no return - in my opinion.

People pay for the horrible "movie" channel HBO simply for episodic shows like Game of Thrones.
Without the extra content, people wouldn't pay for HBO because streaming is a better service. I don't get HBO anymore honestly (for movies) .. they have one or two new movies a month and tons of VERY old movies you've probably seen a dozen times already.

The service probably will take off. Streaming Disney content will be a huge hit for the fans. If I could stream EVERY Disney/Star Wars/Marvel DVD I currently have sitting on my shelf? I would ditch them all in an instant (to declutter) and just watch them there when I want .. because .. let's be honest .. a lot of us buy movies for the "collection" rather than spending the time to rewatch them later (not counting the movies the kids get hooked on and want to watch every day).