Disney pulling all content from Netflix, launching own streaming service

No...I'm saying that a growing number of teams own the station they are on.

Yankees and mets are 100%
Rangers/knicks (the dolans own cablevision and msg)
Red Sox own 90% of nesn (bruins the other 10)
The dodgers have a cream puff deal with fox they wouldn't dare mess with.
The orioles are big stakeholders in masn...
I'm sure there's more that I'm unaware of...

I'm saying if those stations went direct and bypass direct tv, Verizon, Comcast, timewarner (whatever it's called now)...they'd devalue themselves by cutting off the fees and advertising paid by those cable/satellite operators.

The rsns are what hold a lot of subscribers hostage to the cable companies...they're still worth a lot and the teams that own them rake.
Just a small nit. Yankees own a minority interest in YES.

https://www.pinstripealley.com/2014/1/25/5343706/yankees-yes-network-fox-majority-share

And smaller nit. The Mets own 65% interest in SNY.
 
Last edited:


I'll echo what others have stated (Since month end is almost over and I'm bored).

We are reaching a saturation point, IMO, with this whole individual streaming platform.

It's honestly why we went back to satellite :duck:. After Hulu, Prime, Netflix, and messing with an antenna, I figured the extra $29/month was worth it for the live sports. Now if I'd have to pay more for Disney going back would look even better.

Will they all bundle back together? Will TV cease to exist as we know it?
 
i don't think disney is trying to kill netflix, they're completely different markets/user bases, but netflix will most definitely take a hit.

I don't think people think Disney is directly trying to kill Netflix. It is more some people are saying that losing Disney is 1 nail in the coffin for Netflix.
 
What they're gambling on is that while you are unwilling to pay $100 per month for a 200-channel cable package, you might be willing to pay $15 per month just for ESPN. Or $6 per month for FXX. Or $15 per month for HBO. Or $6 per month for CBS.

IMHO, its a fool's bet. I'm paying $11.99 for Hulu and $10 for Netflix and getting more content that I can watch, AND its stuff I WANT to watch. I'm not going to pay that same amount or more for just one channel. I'll do without first.

Amazon already has pay channels like that on Prime. Although some of them look interesting, I don't see the value in it.

And, the one problem they still can't get by is that there is still nothing on cable TV channels that I really want to watch. The programming just doesn't justify the cost for it.

But the one huge advantage you get from letting Netflix or Hulu pay you for content...you have nothing to lose...you are paid upfront for everything (and if you're smart or powerful, maybe you even negotiate a "per view" fee on top of the set fee per show or you negotiate non-exclusive deals to get paid by someone else to offer it, too)...but if you run your own fee for service, you have to set up the entire side of that business - sales, tech, membership support, billing, etc...you took on an enormous fixed cost you have to cover on top of your content that you are now selling just yourself...

I agree with you TwoMisfits. Although you won't have total control, all you do is provide the content and wait for the checks to come in. Much smarter and much less effort. And most importantly, a wider exposure for your content.

The fact is they just aren't any good...most tv isn't.

Absolutely! Before we cut the cord, we were down to watching 2 non-OTA programs and my Indy Car races. We can get one of the non-OTA programs on Hulu and Indy Car has been posting their races on YouTube for free a couple of days after the race.

As I said above, the biggest problem is that there was nothing worth watching. We tried Sling TV from May through July. And, we found that still to be the case - there was nothing worth watching on the channels that Sling featured.

Will streaming TV get crazy expensive in the future?

I'm afraid that the streaming companies won't learn the lesson from cable - i.e., higher prices drove people away.
 
Last edited:


I can certainly see them maybe bolstering the Star Wars content and doing a live action to show to go along with the marvel ones on this new service.

Like I said before, for me it's critical that all the old vault cartoons and shorts are on there in complete form and that Disney then really push again on producing new ones but it seems the are with Mickey and Ducktales
 
I don't think people think Disney is directly trying to kill Netflix. It is more some people are saying that losing Disney is 1 nail in the coffin for Netflix.

Yup, and this is something which Disney have undoubtedly considered, and concluded there's an upside for them in that. They may not be actively trying to kill Netflix, but they're clearly more than willing to do their part in poisoning the well.
 
I can certainly see them maybe bolstering the Star Wars content and doing a live action to show to go along with the marvel ones on this new service.

Like I said before, for me it's critical that all the old vault cartoons and shorts are on there in complete form and that Disney then really push again on producing new ones but it seems the are with Mickey and Ducktales

A live action Star Wars show would almost have to go into a broadcast channel due to cost.

CBS has been wrangling with Star Trek experiment for years.
 
I'll echo what others have stated (Since month end is almost over and I'm bored).

We are reaching a saturation point, IMO, with this whole individual streaming platform.

It's honestly why we went back to satellite :duck:. After Hulu, Prime, Netflix, and messing with an antenna, I figured the extra $29/month was worth it for the live sports. Now if I'd have to pay more for Disney going back would look even better.

Numbers suggest though that TV watching is a declining pass time. A growing share of the market doesn't want to pay that extra $29, and would probably forgo Netflix if the Prime membership they already have, competed more evenly. What has the big payers spooked IMHO is not cord-cutting per-se, but rather what that may suggest about changing American tastes in entertainment. If we end up in a few years with say 10-15% of the market that has effectively walked away from pay TV as being worth more than $15 per month, that's not good news, but the execs won't need to sell their yachts. If the number is higher however, or if its concentrated amongst the under 30s, suggesting a trend, that will cause serious sleepless nights for many industry players. At some point you end up on the wrong side of the economics of scale.

It's not surprising that Disney feel the need to experiment, and in particular to take ownership of their future, but to me, this smacks of Sony/Warner et al during the early years of iTunes.
 
So many questions... The Disney vault?

I doubt much. While I share the pipe drama of having all that material Baby Boomer and Gen X'er's grew up with on Wonderful World of Disney, Disney has little interest in that. I expect their "retro" offerings will be more geared toward those who grew up on Disney shows of the '80's and '90's. Netfilx and other services dropped most of their classic content due to lack of interest, I don't see Disney expecting much of a general audience for "The Ghosts of Buxley Hall" or "Gus."

the Marvel TV universe? Old films vs new? Marvel and Star Wars as independent streaming services?

They are downplaying any inclusion of Marvel or Star Wars. My guess is the TV rights are too valuable for them to hold those movies for themselves. Instead, they say it'll include the movies that use the Disney or Pixar bannerheads.

Will that work like Netflix where some films are replaced by others every now and then?

Certainly; curated content is how they keep subscribers. Always something coming or going.
 
But advertising on the medium is gone...I'd be willing to bet I watch less than 1 hour per year total of commercials...becuse modern media has trained me not to...I don't have to so I don't.

Nevertheless, companies are still spending on ads. According to a story in AdAge, TV ad revenue continued to rise from $67 billion in 2015 to $71.1 billion in 2016. I'm sure live events (news, sports, etc.) drove a lot of that, but dollars are clearly still there.

The sexy lede in the AdAge story is about how digital ad spending is rising even faster. And networks share in that. They put unskippable ads in the TV episodes when they hit streaming services, screen banners and pop-ups, etc. News and sports highlights are increasingly distributed in 1-2 minute clips with attached ads. When those clips go viral (Facebook, twitter, etc.), they can get millions of hits in short order. They share clips on their own website and right on YouTube...with ads. And if people are paying for the ad-free version of YouTube or Hulu, the nets are getting up front dollars to supplement the lost ad viewers.

As for ad viewing on the TV box itself, it's tough to parse the habits of the general public without in depth research. I'd say 50-75% of my TV time is spent on live programming (again, news and sports) so the ads are basically unskippable. Often times it's playing as background noise, but the ads are still reaching our household. But that's just me and I don't claim to know if my habits are representative of most consumers. Bottom line: I don't think advertisers would be spending $71 billion in a year's time if most consumers were only watching an hour's worth of ads in a year. (I had the local news on this morning and probably watched an hour of ads before noon.)

When "cutting the cord" and dropping cable or satellite, the easiest thing in the world to do is throw up an antenna and get 20-30 live, local channels at no cost. I'm guessing most people who do that aren't investing several hundred dollars in their own DVR solution. If not, that means they're watching most of that broadcast programming live with the ads intact.

So now you have to physically pay for the content and fork over money for your specific shows. For decades people have clamored for a la carte cable but both the cable providers and the content providers always warned "be careful what you wish for..."

I dont think they were bluffing. Stations are gonna fail left to right when this start to unravel. And both espn and the disney channels are
Very vulnerable to that.

The fact is they just aren't any good...most tv isn't. I think that explains the popularity of more experimental outlets like hbo and showtime...some of the things we see on the "lower" cable stations...

Just as early cable was all wholesome/sugarcoated...the last 15 years has rendered tv DUMB. Cheap reality tv nonsense that was designed specifically to cater to the moronic and to SAVE costs.

Wholesome and sugarcoated? That's sort of a romanticized vision of the prior TV landscape.

There really is a lot of good TV content out there today. It's just a matter of finding it. Yes, reality shows are a big segment. And each can appeal to a different demographic. We aren't just talking about bottom feeder stuff like Dating Naked and the Kardashians. My wife will watch pretty much anything on HGTV, which is all reality based.

As for scripted TV, both the quantity and quality continue to rise. In 2011 there were 266 scripted TV shows across broadcast networks, cable and streaming. By 2016 it was up to 455, with budgets that far eclipse their predecessors. I'll happily take shows like Justified, Veep and Bosch over 99% of the unsophisticated dreck that came out of the 80s and 90s. "Must See TV" is a dinosaur...but high quality programming is out there.

Economically it's made possible by these new advertising opportunities (streaming, embedded ads, etc.), ability to easily sell content thru the likes of iTunes and amazon, reselling to subscription services (Netflix, Hulu, Prime) and now the increasing popularity of nets creating their own subscription services.
 
IMHO, I think this is a mistake by Disney. I can understand wanting your own stream to control your content, but the biggest reason i've heard for people to cut the cord is to save money. It was our number one reason as well. The more streams you add, you end up with the price of a cable TV plan.

It would have been better to work with Netflix, Hulu, Sling, et al, and add more of their content to those streams. FWIW, we probably won't subscribe to "Disney Stream" either.
I Agree with your statement as well
 
There's another issue - which was 100% predictable as well - at work.

You know what companies are in serious decline? Sporting goods, brand apparel and soft drinks...

Specifically Nike and under armour...they are getting trounced.

People drinking more or less Gatorade and coke these days?

1+1=2

Not sure if there is a direct parallel between sports viewing and sales of these products or if it's a false equivalence.

Regarding the sports drinks, I can tell you that the growth of sports science has played a huge role in that. I have a teen heavily involved in sports and over the last few years, nearly all of the benefits in those drinks have been completely debunked. They were once held up as being the essential way to replenish electrolytes and all that hooey. Now we know that the drinks are just sugar cocktails which probably do more harm than good. Most high-level athletes are back to good ole' H2O.

As for the apparel, a lot of that tends to ebb and flow with athlete endorsement contracts and such. The fall of Tiger Woods was a huge loss to golf. If memory serves, Nike built its entire golf brand around him and has since gotten out of the business entirely.
 
IMHO, I think this is a mistake by Disney. I can understand wanting your own stream to control your content, but the biggest reason i've heard for people to cut the cord is to save money. It was our number one reason as well. The more streams you add, you end up with the price of a cable TV plan.

It would have been better to work with Netflix, Hulu, Sling, et al, and add more of their content to those streams. FWIW, we probably won't subscribe to "Disney Stream" either.

Yup, while I am on the verge of cutting the cord (cable included in my HOA dues prevents me), replacement content providers need to provide value for the $$. So that means either: give me a bunch of "channel" providers for my $ (let's say $10-15/month, a la Hulu or Netflix) or one "channel" a la carte for $2-3/month. I can't see Disney charging less than $8-10 a month for their content, while I also can't imagine them having $8-10 worth of programming that my family is interested in.

Let's say my kid wants to watch shows from Nick, Disney, PBS Kids, et al. If all these content creators go independent ala Disney, should I tell her she can't watch SpongeBob this month because we already spent her entertainment budget on DisneyStream? Or do I now need to subscribe to 3/5/10 streaming services, for her, my wife, and I? Then @ $10/month per, we're back to what I was spending on cable. I just can't see the value here, for me or for Disney.
 
Numbers suggest though that TV watching is a declining pass time.

Are there numbers to support that or are you just guessing based upon cord cutters? Individual programs don't attract the viewers they once did, but that's directly attributable to the volume of competing content/networks and virtually unshackled access. The finale of MASH had over 100 million viewers in part because--35 years ago--there were only 2 other programs being broadcast nationally at the same time, no DVRs, no competition from Netflix, Prime, etc.

Unless there are numbers showing otherwise, I'm not convinced that people are watching less. The driving force behind cord cutting appears to be viewers looking for more economical ways to consume their preferred content.

A growing share of the market doesn't want to pay that extra $29, and would probably forgo Netflix if the Prime membership they already have, competed more evenly.

Thing is, Netflix and Prime are going to come increasingly under fire. As networks create these stand alone streaming platforms, they will allow deals with Netflix and Prime to expire. HBO has already announced its shows will vanish from Prime next year. FX, Disney, AMC and others will soon follow suit. CBS/Paramount owns Star Trek so those hundreds of TV episodes may eventually leave other services and become exclusive to CBS All Access.

Netflix and Amazon seem primed to eventually lose many of their high-profile bingeworthy shows. Things like Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Sopranos, Justified, The Wire, The Americans, Sons of Anarchy, Clone Wars, Phineas & Ferb, Sophia the First, etc.

It's inevitable that some consumers will realize that their $10 per month is better spent for a dedicated AMC or Disney subscription rather than reflexively giving it to Netflix.
 
IMHO, its a fool's bet. I'm paying $11.99 for Hulu and $10 for Netflix and getting more content that I can watch, AND its stuff I WANT to watch. I'm not going to pay that same amount or more for just one channel. I'll do without first.

Amazon already has pay channels like that on Prime. Although some of them look interesting, I don't see the value in it.

So you admit that you're willing to pay $22 per month for the content Netflix and Hulu choose to offer, but you can't envision another consumer wanting to pay $6 for FX content? Or $6 for a CBS library? Or $5 for AMC?

The Disney/Netflix deal was reportedly work "up to" $300 million per year. At $8 per subscriber/month (just to pick a figure), they need about 3 million households to equal that total. More to cover operating costs, obviously. Still it seems like a very manageable figure.

If we assume this service will--at the very least--include everything on Netflix, it's a wide range of family friendly entertainment. Sofia the First, Hannah Montana, Girl Meets World, Phineas and Ferb, Clone Wars, Marvel animation...literally dozens of series which appeal to toddlers up to Tweens. My kids are too old for it now but when they were younger, at least Disney Channel and Disney XD provided a reliable source of entertainment. This is going to be aimed at cord cutters and I can easily see families willing to pay $8-12 per month for this, especially since the programming won't be duplicated on Netflix, Hulu or Prime. When Disney programming leaves Netflix, the highlight of their kids library may be My Little Pony and Magic School Bus.

I'd expect Disney to invest in some original content too. Something relatively low cost/low risk like a new Muppets series or another Star Wars/Marvel cartoon would add value and subscribers.
 
Not sure if there is a direct parallel between sports viewing and sales of these products or if it's a false equivalence.

Regarding the sports drinks, I can tell you that the growth of sports science has played a huge role in that. I have a teen heavily involved in sports and over the last few years, nearly all of the benefits in those drinks have been completely debunked. They were once held up as being the essential way to replenish electrolytes and all that hooey. Now we know that the drinks are just sugar cocktails which probably do more harm than good. Most high-level athletes are back to good ole' H2O.

As for the apparel, a lot of that tends to ebb and flow with athlete endorsement contracts and such. The fall of Tiger Woods was a huge loss to golf. If memory serves, Nike built its entire golf brand around him and has since gotten out of the business entirely.

I'm just saying that for decades that the nba's biggest advertisers were McDonald's, coke, Gatorade, and the athletic companies - particularly Nike.

Their pockets are not as deep...exasperating the problems with disney's stupid NBA contract.
 
Nevertheless, companies are still spending on ads. According to a story in AdAge, TV ad revenue continued to rise from $67 billion in 2015 to $71.1 billion in 2016. I'm sure live events (news, sports, etc.) drove a lot of that, but dollars are clearly still there.

The sexy lede in the AdAge story is about how digital ad spending is rising even faster. And networks share in that. They put unskippable ads in the TV episodes when they hit streaming services, screen banners and pop-ups, etc. News and sports highlights are increasingly distributed in 1-2 minute clips with attached ads. When those clips go viral (Facebook, twitter, etc.), they can get millions of hits in short order. They share clips on their own website and right on YouTube...with ads. And if people are paying for the ad-free version of YouTube or Hulu, the nets are getting up front dollars to supplement the lost ad viewers.

As for ad viewing on the TV box itself, it's tough to parse the habits of the general public without in depth research. I'd say 50-75% of my TV time is spent on live programming (again, news and sports) so the ads are basically unskippable. Often times it's playing as background noise, but the ads are still reaching our household. But that's just me and I don't claim to know if my habits are representative of most consumers. Bottom line: I don't think advertisers would be spending $71 billion in a year's time if most consumers were only watching an hour's worth of ads in a year. (I had the local news on this morning and probably watched an hour of ads before noon.)

When "cutting the cord" and dropping cable or satellite, the easiest thing in the world to do is throw up an antenna and get 20-30 live, local channels at no cost. I'm guessing most people who do that aren't investing several hundred dollars in their own DVR solution. If not, that means they're watching most of that broadcast programming live with the ads intact.

So now you have to physically pay for the content and fork over money for your specific shows. For decades people have clamored for a la carte cable but both the cable providers and the content providers always warned "be careful what you wish for..."

I dont think they were bluffing. Stations are gonna fail left to right when this start to unravel. And both espn and the disney channels are
Very vulnerable to that.



Wholesome and sugarcoated? That's sort of a romanticized vision of the prior TV landscape.

There really is a lot of good TV content out there today. It's just a matter of finding it. Yes, reality shows are a big segment. And each can appeal to a different demographic. We aren't just talking about bottom feeder stuff like Dating Naked and the Kardashians. My wife will watch pretty much anything on HGTV, which is all reality based.

As for scripted TV, both the quantity and quality continue to rise. In 2011 there were 266 scripted TV shows across broadcast networks, cable and streaming. By 2016 it was up to 455, with budgets that far eclipse their predecessors. I'll happily take shows like Justified, Veep and Bosch over 99% of the unsophisticated dreck that came out of the 80s and 90s. "Must See TV" is a dinosaur...but high quality programming is out there.

Economically it's made possible by these new advertising opportunities (streaming, embedded ads, etc.), ability to easily sell content thru the likes of iTunes and amazon, reselling to subscription services (Netflix, Hulu, Prime) and now the increasing popularity of nets creating their own subscription services.

You know what you're talking about...but your argument that tv isn't "dumb" and that scripted tv is getting better simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

No way on that...spout all the numbers you want there..there has definitely been a shift in the audience as far as both their commitment to tv and the quality of tv they are being fed.

Seriously...turn on the history channel...or AandE...or ABC for that matter and watch an hour or two...then Try to get the blood to flow back to your brain.

And yes...the censored tv of decades ago was awful too...

Remember when tipper gore wanted to burn Hollywood down over Dennis Franz's butt?
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top