5 ms·

Some kind of surprising comments in this thread. I think many people (obviously not everyone here judging by what I'm reading) would happily pay for a Disney-on

by TheGRS 9y ago

Some kind of surprising comments in this thread. I think many people (obviously not everyone here judging by what I'm reading) would happily pay for a Disney-only service, maybe upwards of $20-$30 per month. Why? Its the mecca for family entertainment. They have Pixar, Disney Animation, Star Wars and Marvel, plus all of their Disney television content from years past. Its a quality brand people trust. Much different than Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal or any of the other major studios. Netflix and Amazon are still establishing their video content brands and I know they don't come close to Disney's reputation for family content. Its a very logical move from my viewpoint (I don't even have a family). If other studios follow suit they will likely perish from lack of brand loyalty and/or poor execution. I hear everyone on the desire for convergence. But we don't want convergence without competition. The problem with a Spotify model for video content is that if Netflix becomes the de facto video provider and Amazon or some other provider can't capture a sizable portion of the market, then we don't have room for other competitors. The current model for movie theaters is one born out of anti-trust lawsuits. Its not a perfect model, but it allows for some competition on things beyond just the movie you are watching. Theaters compete on ticket prices, food options, seating and convenience (by offering multiple films). This would be a suitable model for convergence, but unfortunately it also means legislation to get providers there. And does it apply to the numerous self-starts on youtube or elsewhere? I'm digressing, but my point is that I'd rather not have just one service to rule them all.

zapt02 9y ago
I agree with this. Most families in the western world would pay upwards of $30 to be able to show Disneys back catalog to their kids. Unlimited nostalgia. But I hope they don't pull a typical Disney and portion out their content by arbitrary restrictions. Families will pay either way regardless though.
- electriclove 9y ago
  Upwords of $30/month? That is way too expensive!
  - zapt02 9y ago
    I said western-world families. That amount is chump change to most of them, considering how expensive it is to raise a family. Nostalgia + keeping their kids busy = priceless.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Are you raising a family on median income in The West?
    - davedx 9y ago
      Hahaha you'll find having a family in the west means you have a lot less money to blow on single content streaming services. :) We have a dual income (both successful professionals) and we are careful with our money. We have to be with all those child related expenses.
      - zapt02 9y ago
        But it's for your kids. Then all sense goes out the window.
  - kohanz 9y ago
    Agreed. $30/month for only Disney content would only be for the die-hards IMHO, but there are a fair number of those. Saying "most" families would is unfounded.
- davedx 9y ago
  Hi, family with 4 kids, very happy to see Vaiana come on Netflix the other week. No way in hell will we pay an extra subscription just to watch old Disney films. I want one streaming service and will pay more for more (I upgraded our Netflix to support more devices). I will not pay for multiple services like this.
  - wodenokoto 9y ago
    I think the future you are looking at is no Disney content on Netflix and much, much more Disney content on Disney-flix.
    - zapt02 9y ago
      This exactly. When Disney has nothing on Netflix, people will miss it. It is a risky move however, as Netflix is sure to launch shows targeted to the Disney demographic very shortly after Disney leaves, and they are a force to be reckoned with.
dkrich 9y ago
Right, and people on here also seem to forget that they own ESPN. There are seemingly endless ways that Disney could package their content in ways that it would appeal to customers in every segment. Sell ESPN with SEC Network, ESPN 2, and all of its networks as a standalone service to sports fans who don't care about the rest of Disney's offerings. Sell Disney's older catalog plus kids shows on demand for people who don't care about sports but have kids. Sell a package with everything for people who fall into both camps for a discount. This still leaves their existing movie business completely in tact. I honestly think this is a great move on Disney's part. Netflix needs Disney more than Disney needs Netflix. Disney owns the most valuable content portfolio in existence. Netflix has a large customer base and a growing library of its own content, but at the end of the day people shop for cable/streaming packages based on whether ESPN/ABC/Disney is included.
- peter303 9y ago
  ESPN viewership is dropping. As the largest asset of Disney it drags their stock down. Most other Disney assets are printing money, but not enough to compensate ESPN. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disn...
  - dkrich 9y ago
    I think this ESPN story is overblown. ESPN is itself printing money, it's just been in decline because of cord-cutting. But that's just recent history. Everyone can see that the cable tv industry is going to be replaced by streaming. When that happens, content owners like Disney will be able to sell directly to the consumer without the middleman. I actually think ESPN viewership will increase as more people are liberated to sign up for just ESPN and not NBCSN, Fox Sports Regional, and every other sports channel you're forced to pay for with cable.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
waddlesworth 9y ago
Most apps are published to both iTunes and Google Play. Most songs to Goole Music, Spotify, Apple Music and probably a few others. As long as it's within 10yrs old, even most games are available for purchase, anywhere in the world, from the different platforms. While the majority is exclusive to Steam, other providers have their own niche markets. When I make an IP, I want to capture as much of the market as possible, anything else is throwing money away. The anti-trust comes from the environment where three or four media companies own all of the production and redistribution and each one believes that they can become a monopoly and get all of the money.
- rplnt 9y ago
  Steam is not just a storefront, it's also service provider (or a platform). That's why many games are locked to Steam. I don't see any parallel like that with movies/tv.

by TheGRS 9y ago

zapt02 9y ago

I agree with this. Most families in the western world would pay upwards of $30 to be able to show Disneys back catalog to their kids. Unlimited nostalgia. But I hope they don't pull a typical Disney and portion out their content by arbitrary restrictions. Families will pay either way regardless though.

electriclove 9y ago
Upwords of $30/month? That is way too expensive!
- zapt02 9y ago
  I said western-world families. That amount is chump change to most of them, considering how expensive it is to raise a family. Nostalgia + keeping their kids busy = priceless.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Are you raising a family on median income in The West?
  - davedx 9y ago
    Hahaha you'll find having a family in the west means you have a lot less money to blow on single content streaming services. :) We have a dual income (both successful professionals) and we are careful with our money. We have to be with all those child related expenses.
    - zapt02 9y ago
      But it's for your kids. Then all sense goes out the window.
- kohanz 9y ago
  Agreed. $30/month for only Disney content would only be for the die-hards IMHO, but there are a fair number of those. Saying "most" families would is unfounded.
davedx 9y ago
Hi, family with 4 kids, very happy to see Vaiana come on Netflix the other week. No way in hell will we pay an extra subscription just to watch old Disney films. I want one streaming service and will pay more for more (I upgraded our Netflix to support more devices). I will not pay for multiple services like this.
- wodenokoto 9y ago
  I think the future you are looking at is no Disney content on Netflix and much, much more Disney content on Disney-flix.
  - zapt02 9y ago
    This exactly. When Disney has nothing on Netflix, people will miss it. It is a risky move however, as Netflix is sure to launch shows targeted to the Disney demographic very shortly after Disney leaves, and they are a force to be reckoned with.

dkrich 9y ago

Right, and people on here also seem to forget that they own ESPN. There are seemingly endless ways that Disney could package their content in ways that it would appeal to customers in every segment. Sell ESPN with SEC Network, ESPN 2, and all of its networks as a standalone service to sports fans who don't care about the rest of Disney's offerings. Sell Disney's older catalog plus kids shows on demand for people who don't care about sports but have kids. Sell a package with everything for people who fall into both camps for a discount. This still leaves their existing movie business completely in tact. I honestly think this is a great move on Disney's part. Netflix needs Disney more than Disney needs Netflix. Disney owns the most valuable content portfolio in existence. Netflix has a large customer base and a growing library of its own content, but at the end of the day people shop for cable/streaming packages based on whether ESPN/ABC/Disney is included.

peter303 9y ago
ESPN viewership is dropping. As the largest asset of Disney it drags their stock down. Most other Disney assets are printing money, but not enough to compensate ESPN. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disn...
- dkrich 9y ago
  I think this ESPN story is overblown. ESPN is itself printing money, it's just been in decline because of cord-cutting. But that's just recent history. Everyone can see that the cable tv industry is going to be replaced by streaming. When that happens, content owners like Disney will be able to sell directly to the consumer without the middleman. I actually think ESPN viewership will increase as more people are liberated to sign up for just ESPN and not NBCSN, Fox Sports Regional, and every other sports channel you're forced to pay for with cable.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

waddlesworth 9y ago

Most apps are published to both iTunes and Google Play. Most songs to Goole Music, Spotify, Apple Music and probably a few others. As long as it's within 10yrs old, even most games are available for purchase, anywhere in the world, from the different platforms. While the majority is exclusive to Steam, other providers have their own niche markets. When I make an IP, I want to capture as much of the market as possible, anything else is throwing money away. The anti-trust comes from the environment where three or four media companies own all of the production and redistribution and each one believes that they can become a monopoly and get all of the money.

rplnt 9y ago
Steam is not just a storefront, it's also service provider (or a platform). That's why many games are locked to Steam. I don't see any parallel like that with movies/tv.