15 ms·

Disney Assumes Full Control of Hulu in Deal with Comcast

186 points by dsr12 7y ago

jonwachob91 7y ago
Why is Disney going to keep their Disney Plus streaming service separate from Hulu??? Why is Disney keeping ESPN Plus streaming service separate from Hulu (with hulu's massive push into live sports this year)???
- mstrum 7y ago
  Possibly to allow more mature content without being directly marketed as 'Disney'?
  - mortenjorck 7y ago
    This is why Disney started the Touchstone Pictures label in the 1980s, so it would hardly be unprecedented for the company to maintain separate streaming brands for family and mature content.
    - b_tterc_p 7y ago
      The Nightmare Before Christmas is an interesting member of that group. They were concerned it was too dark.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    That does appear to be the plan, keep the Disney (+) brand entirely family friendly (up to the PG-13 of Star Wars and Marvel) and let Hulu house all of the more mature stuff or stuff not traditionally associated with the Disney brand (such as the back catalogs of Fox's brands, Touchstone, Miramax, Buena Vista). It also sounds from PR that despite taking control of Hulu, Disney also has interest in Hulu remaining their Live TV offering for non-Disney channels, and that Disney would still like Hulu to be a welcome home for what Time Warner and NBC Universal content it can continue to license, though that will probably start to get weird in coming years. It probably would still be in Disney's interests that Hulu seem a "neutral" or "cable" brand, especially given the actual cable infrastructure that AT&T (Time Warner) and Comcast (NBC Universal) directly control.
    - basch 7y ago
      Im not saying it is or isnt the plan, but weve only really seen it as the plan from the press speculating. Disney hasnt really come out and said what IT wants to do with hulu. A year ago, Iger said they were going to continue to fuel it with content. Everything else is conjecture.
      - WorldMaker 7y ago
        That's fair, it's all mostly going to be conjecture until we see actions in the Fall. I tried to couch my wording as what I've read and how it sounds in between the lines of shareholder reports and generic statements that could be taken either way until we see action. If money is speech, Disney has been talking a lot in how much money it has spent on both the Disney+ project and the Hulu buyout. But speech of the money will always be a bit of reading the tea leaves and the color of the wind.
    - Freak_NL 7y ago
      PG-13 would mean leaving out Marvel films like Deadpool though. Are they willing to leave out content in order to stay at PG-13? Hulu is also only a US domestic service. Disney surely wants to sell subscriptions to its more mature material worldwide, just like Disney+.
      - WorldMaker 7y ago
        Indications to shareholders are that Disney expects to make Hulu an international brand. Also, Disney seems to have renewed Hulu's exclusive contracts for Cloak & Dagger and The Runaways, so it sounds like Disney is very prepared to take a "split" approach to Marvel with Hulu being home to an interesting subset of Marvel properties. It does sound like R-rated films like Deadpool will be on Hulu rather than Disney+, at least based on conjecture so far. (I also wouldn't be surprised if all of the Fox X-Men stuff ended up at Hulu rather than Disney+, rather than confuse young fans of the current MCU. It may be Disney makes the dividing line be the "Marvel Studios" brand, of which the Fox films were not. But of course that remains to be seen.)
  - cwyers 7y ago
    Yeah, you can't picture "Disney's The Handmaid's Tale" or "Disney's Castle Rock."
- kalleboo 7y ago
  So they can charge you 3 times as much
  - binarymax 7y ago
    This is the right answer. It's in Disneys best interest to keep the market fragmented and force you to subscribe and pay for multiple services. The cord cutter dream of a la carte being cheaper and easier to control is dead.
    - roflchoppa2 7y ago
      back to torrenting i guess :D
    - rconti 7y ago
      It is easier to control, and it's cheaper if you don't want all of it. That's the whole point of a-la-carte. Not that it will be cheaper than a bundle if you wanted a bundle in the first place. But that you can pay for what you want. At some sub-bundle size (90%? 80%? 50%?), you'll pay less money. You'll direct your dollars towards services you actually value, rather than whatever sports entertainment commentary complex strong-armed the cable companies the most aggressively.
    - PorterDuff 7y ago
      I always have thought that a surfeit of choice would have driven prices down, but maybe my movin' picture watching needs are different than most consumers (basically 100% amateur youtube at this point). I think that one of the great ironies of on-demand media is just how much stuff is locked up by rights holders and is unavailable. The Disneys and Netflixes of the world make remarkably small catalogs available. You should see some of the libraries that tv stations have sitting on the shelf. Maybe it's just that a serious change in format and/or delivery always loses 90% of the previous material. It's funny how few LPs made it to CD.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > I always have thought that a surfeit of choice would have driven prices down Choice only drives priced down when it is choice between options which are actually substitutes for each other. What is instead happening is that the uniquely attractive franchises that people are interest in and not willing to substitute for something else are getting distributed over more different offerings, which isn't really competition in the sense that drives down prices much.
- nkozyra 7y ago
  I doubt that's a long-term plan, I suspect it will all come together in some big Cable-Busting Netflix competitor announcement in the future.
  - jonwachob91 7y ago
    Per the article, that IS the long-term plan. >>> Disney sees Hulu as a key pillar in its direct-to-consumer strategy, serving as a home to more adult-oriented entertainment fare alongside the upcoming Disney Plus (launching in November in the U.S.) and the ESPN Plus sports package. Disney says it’s likely the trio of streaming services will be bundled together at a discount at some point.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      That sounds like it'll remain three separate services, just one reduced price.
    - nkozyra 7y ago
      What am I missing? The bundling comment at the end sounds like what I suggested
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Could it be that it can bring Disney Plus everywhere (I assume they have distribution rights on their own media), while Hulu is a mishmash of content rights, and still hasn't made it to Canada? It might also be branding - Disney wants everything Disney to scream DISNEY, as opposed to Hulu content.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    One of the benefits sold to shareholders for Disney buying all of Hulu was that it potentially makes it easier for Disney as guiding force to negotiate international rights on all the Hulu content and make Hulu an international brand. Though how much of that is spin and will actually happen is a leftover question.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Ah, that makes sense in a long term play. Do we know if Disney has it's own rights for distribution? It must.
      - WorldMaker 7y ago
        I would imagine so. Disney's biggest deals seem to have been with Hulu, so owning that outright gives it a lot of power to change deals, and with Netflix, which presumably part of the timing that Disney+ won't roll out until Fall is that coincides I believe with the expiration of the biggest of Disney's streaming licenses to Netflix (the one for access to films). (The Defenders MCU shows exclusive contract to Netflix I think will still take a few more years to expire before Disney can bring them "home".)
- orky56 7y ago
  Highly recommend reading Stratchery's take on this: https://stratechery.com/2019/disney-and-the-future-of-tv/ https://stratechery.com/2019/disney-and-the-future-of-tv/
- billyhoffman 7y ago
  Branding. With the Fox deal, Disney now owns multiple Networks (FX, FXX,etc), a ton of studios that make content, and huge back catalogs of content that is all super popular and valuable but is not aligned with the traditional Disney brand. Think: The Simpsons, Family Guy, The American Horror story series, etc.
  - basch 7y ago
    Id argue that Fox is a better brand than Hulu. As long as their trademark for "Fox Cable Networks" allows them to use the word FOX, they would be better off with a dual branded app. Or make Hulu the portal that allows you to buy/manage your Disney+/Fox/ESPN/ABC subscriptions. The thing to remember about hulu is a TON of hardware remotes have a physical Hulu button. You wouldnt want to lose that kind of placement without remapping it to a new app.
    - powvans 7y ago
      I think the Fox News brand has probably rendered the rest of the Fox brand somewhat undesirable. At a minimum it's just too quickly associated with politics and divisiveness to use for entertainment products that are meant to be a pleasurable diversion.
      - Freak_NL 7y ago
        Looking at it from a Dutch perspective this seems true: I doubt they could ever successfully use the Fox brand outside of the US due to Fox News.
        what_ever 7y ago
        I doubt rest of the world knows a lot about Fox News. Plus around half of the US doesn't mind Fox News. And half of the rest know Fox is separate entity than Fox News.
        Macha 7y ago
- siidooloo 7y ago
  Disney Plus will be an add on to Hulu. It will have only the stuff a lot of people see as premium. Look at Netflix. There’s no way to tell where any particular show fits without looking into it. Netflix needs some kind of sub branding to slit out the different niches of shows. Disney is going to get that out of the gate. And they will let just subxniches of people subscribe to just the part they want.
- oflannabhra 7y ago
  It’s actually a really wise business decision to keep all these separate. - Hulu advertising tier: this can be the dumping ground for all the mainstream network television that Disney and Fox owned, allowing them to monetize that content after broadcast - Hulu premium: compete with Netflix for premium television, can be more mature, and allows for monetizing viewers willing to pay for ad-free. - Disney+: obviously a different brand with content requirements, it can allow Disney to grow their brand, and monetize the most “die-hard” fans, on top of other channels. - ESPN+: live is very important, and allows premium advertising revenues to be generated. Sports does not have much crossover with other channels, and has unique business models. All of these allow Disney to continue making tons of money from the current cable bundles, while opening new markets and segments for monetization, all while defending against threats like Netflix, etc. I don’t own Disney stock, but their current situation seems very considered, given the current market and where it is going. I think they have single handedly disrupted Netflix’s plan to be the new “TV”.
  - halfmatthalfcat 7y ago
    Netflix can't be the new "TV" in the traditional sense. The two lanes of consumption, traditional live linear and VOD (video-on-demand), have different audiences with different needs. Netflix can compete in the later but Disney is going for BOTH.
    - falcor84 7y ago
      > traditional live linear and VOD (video-on-demand), have different audiences with different needs {{citation needed}} I found myself enjoying live Tennis on Amazon Prime, and it serves a very similar purpose to me as watching their vod shows
  - adameast9000 7y ago
    Agree, one thing I want to clarify: - D+ will not host rated-R content, while Hulu will. Any R-rated original content produced or contracted by Disney will go directly to Hulu. Less sure about the separation between Hulu's live sports play and ESPN+. It could just be a timing thing as Disney has only had a controlling stake in Hulu for a month (officially). There will likely be a lot of integration and cross over between the 2 eventually.
- scarface74 7y ago
  The Disney brand is about family entertainment and mostly PG content. Hulu is for more adult content. Hulu also has day after broadcast content with NBC,ABC, and FOX. Those are much more valuable than library content.
- michaelvmata 7y ago
  It's where the market is heading -- away from all in one cable packages to pick and choice only what you want streaming services.
samfisher83 7y ago
I am surprised Disney didn't just buy out universal. If they did they would own all 10 of top 10 grossing movies of all time. As it is they own 8 out of the 10 with the fox purchase. It feels like Disney is becoming too powerful. I am surprised regulators didn't look harder at the Fox deal.
- autokad 7y ago
  why do you assume Comcast wants to sell NBC Universal? As a former Comcast employee, it feels like they have no intention of doing that.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    And they won't ever in the future, either, unless they buy another content provider or get acquired. Content is getting more expensive every year, and if you don't own it, you're leasing it. People are cutting the cord more as video and voice is becoming less and less desirable. Soon the only things that will matter will be internet and streaming content, and internet will probably become a public utility in the next decade or two. As consolidation continues, they'll have to pull a Netflix, then divest or break up their internet service so they don't have the government do it for them.
    - cwkoss 7y ago
      > Content is getting more expensive every year, Do you have a source for this? It seems like supply is increasing at an almost exponential rate, so I'd be surprised if content prices are increasing on a per-unit basis.
      - peterwwillis 7y ago
        HBO CEO Richard Plepler said "Rights are getting more expensive" in an interview from 2017 (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/netflix-earnings-how-much-is-netflix-spending-on-content.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/netflix-earnings-how-much-is...) Paying out more money for licensing when they don't own the content is like paying rent; it doesn't net you any money in the future, and the market (and your own strength in it) determines your negotiating position, so you may have to pay more to keep showing it later. Streaming companies like Netflix and Amazon realized this and began producing original content years ago, with costs going toward longer term profits, reduced licensing costs, and increased subscribers of exclusive content. Over 85% of Netflix's new spend in 2018 was on original content, and that year it produced more movies than all major movie studios combined. Not only is licensing content expensive, but an exclusive license is prohibitively expensive; generating the content yourself and keeping it exclusive is a way to attract subscribers and not lose as much cash, and retain have a long-term investment. This year, Netflix is estimated to spend 15 billion on original content alone. In 2018, Netflix spent 15 billion on content (ballooning up from the 8 billion it estimated before that year began). Compare to 2016 when it spent over 5 billion on content, and 2012 when it spent just 2 billion. Each year they've spent more on content, in part because the licensing is getting more expensive, and in part to produce such a big corpus of original content. But at the same time, its content library has shrank by more than half. They offset this loss of content by leaning on their recommendation algorithm to maximize the content viewed by users. Compare to HBO, which generally has had marginal increases in content licensing fees. It does this by making nearly all of its TV programming original, and licensing films. Netflix is essentially following HBO's model, but more so. As even more evidence, Comcast and Disney are moving toward original and exclusive content. Disney is buying Comcast's stake in Hulu, after it recently bought FOX's rights. And NBC plans to put out its own streaming service, where it will probably keep its own content exclusively after 2024. https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/20/netflix-inc-content-costs-are-booming-but-its-libr.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/20/netflix-inc-conten... https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062515/how-netflix-pays-movie-and-tv-show-licensing.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062515/how-n... https://www.forbes.com/sites/danafeldman/2018/07/09/netflixs-content-budget-is-updated-to-13b-in-2018/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danafeldman/2018/07/09/netflixs... https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-full-control-hulu-comcast-deal-1203214338/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-full-control-hu...
shmerl 7y ago
All these media monsters are already too big. They should be split apart, not allowed to buy more stuff.
- jngreenlee 7y ago
  Are you a paid account? I feel like I've noticed more political-campaign related shilling in the past couple years.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    May be you've noticed a dysfunctional anti-trust situation too.
    - basch 7y ago
      They bought a bunch of old movies, how is that anti-trust. THeres a limit to how many old movies you can own? Disney isnt stopping people from making movies by buying the old Fox catalog?
      - dmitriid 7y ago
        By buying and owing the rights to it in what is essentially perpetuity. Look at actions of the company as a whole, not at one action in isolation. I don't think it's a coincidence that this purchase comes at the same time when the first works released in 1923 are finally entering public domain [1] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/copywritten-so-dont-copy-me/557420/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/copyw...
        basch 7y ago
        Buying changes to intellectual property ownership laws isnt antitrust tho, its regulatory capture.
  - what_ever 7y ago
    Doubt any political party would care to pay people to post on HN. I think, it is a lot smaller than you think.
halfmatthalfcat 7y ago
Biggest take away from me is that NBC is raking in $500MM a year on their catalog, wow.
totaldude87 7y ago
Now that they have Hulu and Disney + , ESPN + and MoviesAnywhere,will there be a combined offering in line? hope they don't kill Hulu's $6 ad supported plans..
burntoutcase 7y ago
We used to have an entertainment industry in the United States. Now we just have Disney and Comcast. But $DEITY forbid we use existing antitrust laws (not to mention the Commerce Clause in the Constitution) to break up the megacorporations and clear the field for meaningful competition, because that would be socialism and we can't have that.
mastrsushi 7y ago
I’m worried that it will be difficult for the majority of people to realize how domineering Disney is beginning to become due to it’s historic legacy. It’s easy for someone to immediately point fingers at a company blandly titled Comcast or Viacom. It’s hard for someone not at least somewhat industry aware to see evil in the Mickey Mouse Mass Media Cruise Ship Marvel Starwars Conglomerate.
danite 7y ago
Revert copyright back to the original 28 years and Disney's increasing domination of the media market becomes less of a concern. Of course this probably won't happen because the US and other world governments exist to serve Disney and their shareholders, but it's the easiest way to fix this that doesn't involve a long and complicated antitrust case that the government might lose in the courts. If you want to be even more daring and spend a little bit of public money, you could have a publicly financed streaming service with most major public domain works. You could make it available through the Library of Congress.
- andrei_says_ 7y ago
  May I suggest Kanopy, an excellent selection of streaming media free with a library card in the US? Also, what about separating the delivery network providers from the content providers? Net neutrality would balance a lot of issues and reinvigorate competition and market forces. In the context of constant growth encoded in the corporate DNA, corporate leadership has no other choice but make existing services more expensive and lobby to monetize things that were free (copyright extension). The only reasonable way to fight against this is to write laws protecting society from this continuous encroachment.
  - uxp100 7y ago
    Your library pays for that, it's not free for any library card, just libraries that pay for the resource. Hoopla is a similar service (with a worse catalog) that your library also may or may not pay for.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    Kanopy is not available for Linux.
    - andrei_says_ 7y ago
      I believe it plays in the browser?
      - 7y ago
LaserToy 7y ago
What can I say, Playstation Vue is in deep trouble
frostyj 7y ago
Name a movie that doesn't belong to Disney in 10sec. Go.
georgeecollins 7y ago
What if Yahoo had gained traction in video streaming as part of their MaVeNS strategy? It seems like even if they were an also ran as a streaming service they would have added a lot of value to the company. Unfortunately they did not execute successfully. But in hindsight I think that was a very good idea.
jyriand 7y ago
Seems like Hulu is US only. At least I can’t subscribe to them where I’m living. Can’t really understand why they don’t like to take my money. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to pay them, so that I could at least watch Handmaid’s Tale.
- futhey 7y ago
  Worked at a similar company. The answer is licensing. It would require a complicated, multi-party legal re-negotiation, and I suspect Hulu doesn't see the upside.

186 points by dsr12 7y ago

Why is Disney going to keep their Disney Plus streaming service separate from Hulu??? Why is Disney keeping ESPN Plus streaming service separate from Hulu (with hulu's massive push into live sports this year)???

mstrum 7y ago
Possibly to allow more mature content without being directly marketed as 'Disney'?
- mortenjorck 7y ago
  This is why Disney started the Touchstone Pictures label in the 1980s, so it would hardly be unprecedented for the company to maintain separate streaming brands for family and mature content.
  - b_tterc_p 7y ago
    The Nightmare Before Christmas is an interesting member of that group. They were concerned it was too dark.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  That does appear to be the plan, keep the Disney (+) brand entirely family friendly (up to the PG-13 of Star Wars and Marvel) and let Hulu house all of the more mature stuff or stuff not traditionally associated with the Disney brand (such as the back catalogs of Fox's brands, Touchstone, Miramax, Buena Vista). It also sounds from PR that despite taking control of Hulu, Disney also has interest in Hulu remaining their Live TV offering for non-Disney channels, and that Disney would still like Hulu to be a welcome home for what Time Warner and NBC Universal content it can continue to license, though that will probably start to get weird in coming years. It probably would still be in Disney's interests that Hulu seem a "neutral" or "cable" brand, especially given the actual cable infrastructure that AT&T (Time Warner) and Comcast (NBC Universal) directly control.
  - basch 7y ago
    Im not saying it is or isnt the plan, but weve only really seen it as the plan from the press speculating. Disney hasnt really come out and said what IT wants to do with hulu. A year ago, Iger said they were going to continue to fuel it with content. Everything else is conjecture.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      That's fair, it's all mostly going to be conjecture until we see actions in the Fall. I tried to couch my wording as what I've read and how it sounds in between the lines of shareholder reports and generic statements that could be taken either way until we see action. If money is speech, Disney has been talking a lot in how much money it has spent on both the Disney+ project and the Hulu buyout. But speech of the money will always be a bit of reading the tea leaves and the color of the wind.
  - Freak_NL 7y ago
    PG-13 would mean leaving out Marvel films like Deadpool though. Are they willing to leave out content in order to stay at PG-13? Hulu is also only a US domestic service. Disney surely wants to sell subscriptions to its more mature material worldwide, just like Disney+.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      Indications to shareholders are that Disney expects to make Hulu an international brand. Also, Disney seems to have renewed Hulu's exclusive contracts for Cloak & Dagger and The Runaways, so it sounds like Disney is very prepared to take a "split" approach to Marvel with Hulu being home to an interesting subset of Marvel properties. It does sound like R-rated films like Deadpool will be on Hulu rather than Disney+, at least based on conjecture so far. (I also wouldn't be surprised if all of the Fox X-Men stuff ended up at Hulu rather than Disney+, rather than confuse young fans of the current MCU. It may be Disney makes the dividing line be the "Marvel Studios" brand, of which the Fox films were not. But of course that remains to be seen.)
- cwyers 7y ago
  Yeah, you can't picture "Disney's The Handmaid's Tale" or "Disney's Castle Rock."
kalleboo 7y ago
So they can charge you 3 times as much
- binarymax 7y ago
  This is the right answer. It's in Disneys best interest to keep the market fragmented and force you to subscribe and pay for multiple services. The cord cutter dream of a la carte being cheaper and easier to control is dead.
  - roflchoppa2 7y ago
    back to torrenting i guess :D
  - rconti 7y ago
    It is easier to control, and it's cheaper if you don't want all of it. That's the whole point of a-la-carte. Not that it will be cheaper than a bundle if you wanted a bundle in the first place. But that you can pay for what you want. At some sub-bundle size (90%? 80%? 50%?), you'll pay less money. You'll direct your dollars towards services you actually value, rather than whatever sports entertainment commentary complex strong-armed the cable companies the most aggressively.
  - PorterDuff 7y ago
    I always have thought that a surfeit of choice would have driven prices down, but maybe my movin' picture watching needs are different than most consumers (basically 100% amateur youtube at this point). I think that one of the great ironies of on-demand media is just how much stuff is locked up by rights holders and is unavailable. The Disneys and Netflixes of the world make remarkably small catalogs available. You should see some of the libraries that tv stations have sitting on the shelf. Maybe it's just that a serious change in format and/or delivery always loses 90% of the previous material. It's funny how few LPs made it to CD.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > I always have thought that a surfeit of choice would have driven prices down Choice only drives priced down when it is choice between options which are actually substitutes for each other. What is instead happening is that the uniquely attractive franchises that people are interest in and not willing to substitute for something else are getting distributed over more different offerings, which isn't really competition in the sense that drives down prices much.
nkozyra 7y ago
I doubt that's a long-term plan, I suspect it will all come together in some big Cable-Busting Netflix competitor announcement in the future.
- jonwachob91 7y ago
  Per the article, that IS the long-term plan. >>> Disney sees Hulu as a key pillar in its direct-to-consumer strategy, serving as a home to more adult-oriented entertainment fare alongside the upcoming Disney Plus (launching in November in the U.S.) and the ESPN Plus sports package. Disney says it’s likely the trio of streaming services will be bundled together at a discount at some point.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    That sounds like it'll remain three separate services, just one reduced price.
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    What am I missing? The bundling comment at the end sounds like what I suggested
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Could it be that it can bring Disney Plus everywhere (I assume they have distribution rights on their own media), while Hulu is a mishmash of content rights, and still hasn't made it to Canada? It might also be branding - Disney wants everything Disney to scream DISNEY, as opposed to Hulu content.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  One of the benefits sold to shareholders for Disney buying all of Hulu was that it potentially makes it easier for Disney as guiding force to negotiate international rights on all the Hulu content and make Hulu an international brand. Though how much of that is spin and will actually happen is a leftover question.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Ah, that makes sense in a long term play. Do we know if Disney has it's own rights for distribution? It must.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      I would imagine so. Disney's biggest deals seem to have been with Hulu, so owning that outright gives it a lot of power to change deals, and with Netflix, which presumably part of the timing that Disney+ won't roll out until Fall is that coincides I believe with the expiration of the biggest of Disney's streaming licenses to Netflix (the one for access to films). (The Defenders MCU shows exclusive contract to Netflix I think will still take a few more years to expire before Disney can bring them "home".)
orky56 7y ago
Highly recommend reading Stratchery's take on this: https://stratechery.com/2019/disney-and-the-future-of-tv/ https://stratechery.com/2019/disney-and-the-future-of-tv/
billyhoffman 7y ago
Branding. With the Fox deal, Disney now owns multiple Networks (FX, FXX,etc), a ton of studios that make content, and huge back catalogs of content that is all super popular and valuable but is not aligned with the traditional Disney brand. Think: The Simpsons, Family Guy, The American Horror story series, etc.
- basch 7y ago
  Id argue that Fox is a better brand than Hulu. As long as their trademark for "Fox Cable Networks" allows them to use the word FOX, they would be better off with a dual branded app. Or make Hulu the portal that allows you to buy/manage your Disney+/Fox/ESPN/ABC subscriptions. The thing to remember about hulu is a TON of hardware remotes have a physical Hulu button. You wouldnt want to lose that kind of placement without remapping it to a new app.
  - powvans 7y ago
    I think the Fox News brand has probably rendered the rest of the Fox brand somewhat undesirable. At a minimum it's just too quickly associated with politics and divisiveness to use for entertainment products that are meant to be a pleasurable diversion.
    - Freak_NL 7y ago
      Looking at it from a Dutch perspective this seems true: I doubt they could ever successfully use the Fox brand outside of the US due to Fox News.
      - what_ever 7y ago
        I doubt rest of the world knows a lot about Fox News. Plus around half of the US doesn't mind Fox News. And half of the rest know Fox is separate entity than Fox News.
        Macha 7y ago
siidooloo 7y ago
Disney Plus will be an add on to Hulu. It will have only the stuff a lot of people see as premium. Look at Netflix. There’s no way to tell where any particular show fits without looking into it. Netflix needs some kind of sub branding to slit out the different niches of shows. Disney is going to get that out of the gate. And they will let just subxniches of people subscribe to just the part they want.
oflannabhra 7y ago
It’s actually a really wise business decision to keep all these separate. - Hulu advertising tier: this can be the dumping ground for all the mainstream network television that Disney and Fox owned, allowing them to monetize that content after broadcast - Hulu premium: compete with Netflix for premium television, can be more mature, and allows for monetizing viewers willing to pay for ad-free. - Disney+: obviously a different brand with content requirements, it can allow Disney to grow their brand, and monetize the most “die-hard” fans, on top of other channels. - ESPN+: live is very important, and allows premium advertising revenues to be generated. Sports does not have much crossover with other channels, and has unique business models. All of these allow Disney to continue making tons of money from the current cable bundles, while opening new markets and segments for monetization, all while defending against threats like Netflix, etc. I don’t own Disney stock, but their current situation seems very considered, given the current market and where it is going. I think they have single handedly disrupted Netflix’s plan to be the new “TV”.
- halfmatthalfcat 7y ago
  Netflix can't be the new "TV" in the traditional sense. The two lanes of consumption, traditional live linear and VOD (video-on-demand), have different audiences with different needs. Netflix can compete in the later but Disney is going for BOTH.
  - falcor84 7y ago
    > traditional live linear and VOD (video-on-demand), have different audiences with different needs {{citation needed}} I found myself enjoying live Tennis on Amazon Prime, and it serves a very similar purpose to me as watching their vod shows
- adameast9000 7y ago
  Agree, one thing I want to clarify: - D+ will not host rated-R content, while Hulu will. Any R-rated original content produced or contracted by Disney will go directly to Hulu. Less sure about the separation between Hulu's live sports play and ESPN+. It could just be a timing thing as Disney has only had a controlling stake in Hulu for a month (officially). There will likely be a lot of integration and cross over between the 2 eventually.
scarface74 7y ago
The Disney brand is about family entertainment and mostly PG content. Hulu is for more adult content. Hulu also has day after broadcast content with NBC,ABC, and FOX. Those are much more valuable than library content.
michaelvmata 7y ago
It's where the market is heading -- away from all in one cable packages to pick and choice only what you want streaming services.

samfisher83 7y ago

I am surprised Disney didn't just buy out universal. If they did they would own all 10 of top 10 grossing movies of all time. As it is they own 8 out of the 10 with the fox purchase. It feels like Disney is becoming too powerful. I am surprised regulators didn't look harder at the Fox deal.

autokad 7y ago
why do you assume Comcast wants to sell NBC Universal? As a former Comcast employee, it feels like they have no intention of doing that.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  And they won't ever in the future, either, unless they buy another content provider or get acquired. Content is getting more expensive every year, and if you don't own it, you're leasing it. People are cutting the cord more as video and voice is becoming less and less desirable. Soon the only things that will matter will be internet and streaming content, and internet will probably become a public utility in the next decade or two. As consolidation continues, they'll have to pull a Netflix, then divest or break up their internet service so they don't have the government do it for them.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    > Content is getting more expensive every year, Do you have a source for this? It seems like supply is increasing at an almost exponential rate, so I'd be surprised if content prices are increasing on a per-unit basis.
    - peterwwillis 7y ago
      HBO CEO Richard Plepler said "Rights are getting more expensive" in an interview from 2017 (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/netflix-earnings-how-much-is-netflix-spending-on-content.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/netflix-earnings-how-much-is...) Paying out more money for licensing when they don't own the content is like paying rent; it doesn't net you any money in the future, and the market (and your own strength in it) determines your negotiating position, so you may have to pay more to keep showing it later. Streaming companies like Netflix and Amazon realized this and began producing original content years ago, with costs going toward longer term profits, reduced licensing costs, and increased subscribers of exclusive content. Over 85% of Netflix's new spend in 2018 was on original content, and that year it produced more movies than all major movie studios combined. Not only is licensing content expensive, but an exclusive license is prohibitively expensive; generating the content yourself and keeping it exclusive is a way to attract subscribers and not lose as much cash, and retain have a long-term investment. This year, Netflix is estimated to spend 15 billion on original content alone. In 2018, Netflix spent 15 billion on content (ballooning up from the 8 billion it estimated before that year began). Compare to 2016 when it spent over 5 billion on content, and 2012 when it spent just 2 billion. Each year they've spent more on content, in part because the licensing is getting more expensive, and in part to produce such a big corpus of original content. But at the same time, its content library has shrank by more than half. They offset this loss of content by leaning on their recommendation algorithm to maximize the content viewed by users. Compare to HBO, which generally has had marginal increases in content licensing fees. It does this by making nearly all of its TV programming original, and licensing films. Netflix is essentially following HBO's model, but more so. As even more evidence, Comcast and Disney are moving toward original and exclusive content. Disney is buying Comcast's stake in Hulu, after it recently bought FOX's rights. And NBC plans to put out its own streaming service, where it will probably keep its own content exclusively after 2024. https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/20/netflix-inc-content-costs-are-booming-but-its-libr.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/20/netflix-inc-conten... https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062515/how-netflix-pays-movie-and-tv-show-licensing.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062515/how-n... https://www.forbes.com/sites/danafeldman/2018/07/09/netflixs-content-budget-is-updated-to-13b-in-2018/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danafeldman/2018/07/09/netflixs... https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-full-control-hulu-comcast-deal-1203214338/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-full-control-hu...

shmerl 7y ago

All these media monsters are already too big. They should be split apart, not allowed to buy more stuff.

jngreenlee 7y ago
Are you a paid account? I feel like I've noticed more political-campaign related shilling in the past couple years.
- shmerl 7y ago
  May be you've noticed a dysfunctional anti-trust situation too.
  - basch 7y ago
    They bought a bunch of old movies, how is that anti-trust. THeres a limit to how many old movies you can own? Disney isnt stopping people from making movies by buying the old Fox catalog?
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      By buying and owing the rights to it in what is essentially perpetuity. Look at actions of the company as a whole, not at one action in isolation. I don't think it's a coincidence that this purchase comes at the same time when the first works released in 1923 are finally entering public domain [1] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/copywritten-so-dont-copy-me/557420/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/copyw...
      - basch 7y ago
        Buying changes to intellectual property ownership laws isnt antitrust tho, its regulatory capture.
- what_ever 7y ago
  Doubt any political party would care to pay people to post on HN. I think, it is a lot smaller than you think.

halfmatthalfcat 7y ago

Biggest take away from me is that NBC is raking in $500MM a year on their catalog, wow.

totaldude87 7y ago

Now that they have Hulu and Disney + , ESPN + and MoviesAnywhere,will there be a combined offering in line? hope they don't kill Hulu's $6 ad supported plans..

burntoutcase 7y ago

We used to have an entertainment industry in the United States. Now we just have Disney and Comcast. But $DEITY forbid we use existing antitrust laws (not to mention the Commerce Clause in the Constitution) to break up the megacorporations and clear the field for meaningful competition, because that would be socialism and we can't have that.

mastrsushi 7y ago

I’m worried that it will be difficult for the majority of people to realize how domineering Disney is beginning to become due to it’s historic legacy. It’s easy for someone to immediately point fingers at a company blandly titled Comcast or Viacom. It’s hard for someone not at least somewhat industry aware to see evil in the Mickey Mouse Mass Media Cruise Ship Marvel Starwars Conglomerate.

danite 7y ago

Revert copyright back to the original 28 years and Disney's increasing domination of the media market becomes less of a concern. Of course this probably won't happen because the US and other world governments exist to serve Disney and their shareholders, but it's the easiest way to fix this that doesn't involve a long and complicated antitrust case that the government might lose in the courts. If you want to be even more daring and spend a little bit of public money, you could have a publicly financed streaming service with most major public domain works. You could make it available through the Library of Congress.

andrei_says_ 7y ago
May I suggest Kanopy, an excellent selection of streaming media free with a library card in the US? Also, what about separating the delivery network providers from the content providers? Net neutrality would balance a lot of issues and reinvigorate competition and market forces. In the context of constant growth encoded in the corporate DNA, corporate leadership has no other choice but make existing services more expensive and lobby to monetize things that were free (copyright extension). The only reasonable way to fight against this is to write laws protecting society from this continuous encroachment.
- uxp100 7y ago
  Your library pays for that, it's not free for any library card, just libraries that pay for the resource. Hoopla is a similar service (with a worse catalog) that your library also may or may not pay for.
- rhizome 7y ago
  Kanopy is not available for Linux.
  - andrei_says_ 7y ago
    I believe it plays in the browser?
    - 7y ago

LaserToy 7y ago

What can I say, Playstation Vue is in deep trouble

frostyj 7y ago

Name a movie that doesn't belong to Disney in 10sec. Go.

georgeecollins 7y ago

What if Yahoo had gained traction in video streaming as part of their MaVeNS strategy? It seems like even if they were an also ran as a streaming service they would have added a lot of value to the company. Unfortunately they did not execute successfully. But in hindsight I think that was a very good idea.

jyriand 7y ago

Seems like Hulu is US only. At least I can’t subscribe to them where I’m living. Can’t really understand why they don’t like to take my money. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to pay them, so that I could at least watch Handmaid’s Tale.

futhey 7y ago
Worked at a similar company. The answer is licensing. It would require a complicated, multi-party legal re-negotiation, and I suspect Hulu doesn't see the upside.