Streaming wars: Here's why Disney won't kill Netflix
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/09/media/disney-netflix-streaming/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/09/media/disney-netflix-streaming/index.html
Just a small nit. Yankees own a minority interest in YES.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.
Streaming wars: Here's why Disney won't kill Netflix
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/09/media/disney-netflix-streaming/index.html
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.
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.
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.
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...
The fact is they just aren't any good...most tv isn't.
Will streaming TV get crazy expensive in the future?
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.
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'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 . 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.
So many questions... The Disney vault?
the Marvel TV universe? Old films vs new? Marvel and Star Wars as independent streaming services?
Will that work like Netflix where some films are replaced by others every now and then?
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.
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.
I Agree with your statement as wellIMHO, 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.