Figured this didn't really fit in either the Marvel or Star Wars thread as this is more of a company wide thing….personally I've been following what's been happening inside Disney a decent bit ever since the proxy battle was nearing a end with Nelson Peltz and Bob Iger….and ever since that ended at the beginning of April the following has occurred….

Disney stock price has dropped roughly 16% in value

Recent article about Pixar staff being cut by 14% (175 employees)
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/pixar-layoffs-175-staffers-cut-1236011766/amp/

Recent article about Disneyland park staff voting to unionize
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/disneyland-workers-union_n_664a2733e4b00e1a0a6c7bed/amp

Article regarding losing 11 billion something in total from streaming…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/07/the-real-reason-for-disneys-11-billion-streaming-losses/?sh=5b1a97b13b34

And I won't pull em but I posted on the Marvel thread about Antman Quantumania and Multiverse of Madness coming out and having WAY bigger budgets than originally reported on since they were made in the UK and that having to be made public due to the UKs laws for that….

I mean….yikes! And this is only since April 3rd….literally….

Some quick bits from those articles….

For the Pixar thing, apparently it was reported that originally it was going to be a 20% cut….which in doing the math would've been 250 employees so at least it was 75 employees less than originally expected….

For the streaming stuff it could even be worse because some speculate the only reason Disney+ could potentially show a profit by the end of the fiscal year (which I think is September) is because of its acquisition of Hulu….but even that could end up costing Disney some unforeseen bucks because apparently the two sides are so far apart on the perceived value of Hulu they've hired a third party appraiser to determine the value…
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-comcast-seek-advisor-resolve-hulu-valuation-sources-say-2024-05-06/#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%2C%20May%206%20(Reuters,people%20familiar%20with%20the%20matter.

I bring all this up because the big fans here surrounding Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, and the other Disney made things over the years have all had strong opinions on how they've gone and I think it's fair to say it's been more negative than positive…..and unfortunately now I think we're starting to see the long term affects of this…..

I WANT Disney to do well and I want them to make amazing family friendly content….i want great Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar…..

But I figured having a thread regarding the business of Disney would be good but for the love of Pete we try to make this thread about the "WHAT" and not so much about the "WHY"

Go woke, go broke

I don't know how all these studios are going to get themselves out of the holes they dug with their unprofitable streaming platforms.

Investors were telling them for years, develop streaming! That's what we want to invest in. So they did, even though they didn't have good business cases for it.

And now the investors are realizing, oh wait, that's not profitable? Never mind. We don't want to invest in it anymore.

And as those investment funds dry up, the studios are left with these streaming platforms that bleed money.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

I don't know how all these studios are going to get themselves out of the holes they dug with their unprofitable streaming platforms.

Investors were telling them for years, develop streaming! That's what we want to invest in. So they did, even though they didn't have good business cases for it.

And now the investors are realizing, oh wait, that's not profitable? Never mind. We don't want to invest in it anymore.

And as those investment funds dry up, the studios are left with these streaming platforms that bleed money.

---

it will all work itself out eventually.

yes, there will be more consolidations as a result of it, but all the studios over expanded pre/during covid, so these adjustments are most definitely needed, regardless of the pain involved.

see: prior tech bubbles, to which streaming is not immune.

Enjoy these quiet few minutes before this thread goes f16.

Sounds to me like Iger is cutting the fat in a lot of places based on their terrible 2020-2023 - which was equal parts bad content, COVID, and Bob Chapek's misguided leadership.

Should be noted that the Disneyland unionization is only the 1,100 costume characters. There are more than 35,000 employees at Disneyland in all.

I'm not sure what other streaming platforms have done revenue wise, but I suspect all of them are willing to take short-term losses for what will surely be a long-term revenue tool.

Content wise, they started off great with big hits in Dr Strange 2 and BP 2, but lots of bad choices otherwise, excepting GOTG3.

They took a break, probably a good idea from Star Wars, but that meant losing a movie guaranteed to make at lest $500m domestically and approaching $1 billion globally every year - aside from 2018's Solo.

They fell into the diversity trap and started making content convinced it would find niche appeal and turn into something special, without really considering the commercial risk. Some of its shows, like Ms Marvel, did that. Countless others did not.

Their animated films, particularly Lightyear, Elemental, and Wish, have been Z-grade trash. I could have written the plot to Elemental or Wish in 45 minutes. The best animated movies they put out in the last 5 year were during COVID (Soul, Encanto, Turning Red) and went straight to streaming, denying them the box office plunder.

This summer should be a huge hit for them, between Inside Out 2 and Deadpool 3, and likely carry over into the rest of the year with Moana 2, the new Alien movie, and the Mufasa movie.

They've made a lot of lazy film / streaming choices. I can't judge Star War because of my golden-rod colored classes, but the rest is just bad decisions on what people want to watch.

You and I more than anyone likely see the parallel with all of the newspapers being told to start putting content online back in the late 90s / early 00s, doing so, then realizing nobody wanted to pay for it.

Decent comparison. Newspapers also ran into an issue in the 90's when other sources came available for info you used to need a newspaper to learn. Like when I was a kid, I could only get movie showtimes by checking my newspaper. Once that information came online, I no longer needed a newspaper for that, and there are many many other kinds of info you used to get from a paper that went online.

For Disney, their competition is anything that entertains people. Video games, beautiful days outside, bars with friends, board games, etc. Why spend my time watching Disney when I can entertain myself in all these other ways, especially when streaming content is so voluminous and fractious that you rarely have a hot show all your friends are watching that you have to watch to keep up with the conversation.

One example of surging competition: mobile gaming revenue has taken off like a rocket the past few years. Those are hours and dollars folks might have previously spent being entertained by watching Disney.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Enjoy these quiet few minutes before this thread goes f16.

---

Hoping to avoid that because I do think it's a good thing to discuss all the craziness surrounding the business decisions being made without going down the political rabbit hole and really try to stay impartial

To your point, I can remember walking to the gas station outside my neighborhood every Sunday to buy a Sunday paper….but I HAD TO MAKE SURE the dang tv guide was in it or else we'd have no idea what was coming on TV…..

Not an issue anymore

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Content wise, they started off great with big hits in Dr Strange 2 and BP 2

---

Error. Does not compute.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Decent comparison. Newspapers also ran into an issue in the 90's when other sources came available for info you used to need a newspaper to learn. Like when I was a kid, I could only get movie showtimes by checking my newspaper. Once that information came online, I no longer needed a newspaper for that, and there are many many other kinds of info you used to get from a paper that went online.

For Disney, their competition is anything that entertains people. Video games, beautiful days outside, bars with friends, board games, etc. Why spend my time watching Disney when I can entertain myself in all these other ways, especially when streaming content is so voluminous and fractious that you rarely have a hot show all your friends are watching that you have to watch to keep up with the conversation.

One example of surging competition: mobile gaming revenue has taken off like a rocket the past few years. Those are hours and dollars folks might have previously spent being entertained by watching Disney.

---

Mobile gaming revenue is more driven by convenience and a relatively small number of big spenders, so it's less of a direct competitor to something like movies. You're not looking at the same time sinks that console or PC games are. Instead, you're filling the in between time, whether while something is on the tv or when you're doing things like waiting for someone, taking a dump, etc.

Not to mention game licensing in general (including mobile) is something Disney makes a lot of money on with their IPs, and is poised to make a lot more on with games that are currently in production.

We called the theater and listened to a recording of what movies were playing and at what times.

We also called Time & Temperature

This is a tangent, but just yesterday I was reading about Nintendo's profits in the past few years.

Their profits in the years since the Switch came out (2017-2024) are greater than every single year before that, combined. And this is even after adjusting for inflation.

It's crazy how much more successful they became once they went with a fully hybrid console that you can take out of the house. Especially considering it's almost the exact same console as the Wii U, specs wise, and even the tablet controllers are somewhat similar.

Streaming for Disney+ made sense (and for others too) when they put their older IP on it and charged $4.99/month.

If they just ran everything else like they had been doing and put anything older than 2-3+ years on Disney+, it would be a cash cow. When they start making exclusive content and purchasing other IP it ends up costing way too much. Literally just put your old IP (Pixar and Disney movies, and Disney Channel & Disney Junior shows) on it like how it started and it was (outside of server hosting and IT costs) free money.

But take Dr. Who for example, they're paying (some reported) $3-5 million an episode when there's no way the uptick in subscriptions can pay for that IP, it would just hemorrhage money. And that's coming from a big Dr. Who fan.

Take the low end, if it costs them $3mil an episode of Dr. Who, that would be $36mil for 12 episodes in costs which means they'd have to increase subscriptions at $10.99/month by 3.25mil subscribers just to break even. And there's no way Dr. Who alone will increase subscriptions by that much.

And that's just one decision to go along with countless others.

agdoc2001 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Content wise, they started off great with big hits in Dr Strange 2 and BP 2

---

Error. Does not compute.

---

Regardless of your personal opinion, these are two huge successes. BP2 made $453m domestic and $853m without Chadwick Boseman and only 2 minute of Michael b. Jordan, the original's 2 most marketable stars.

Dr. Strang 2 made $411m domestics and $952m worldwide.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This is a tangent, but just yesterday I was reading about Nintendo's profits in the past few years.

Their profits in the years since the Switch came out (2017-2024) are greater than every single year before that, combined. And this is even after adjusting for inflation.

It's crazy how much more successful they became once they went with a fully hybrid console that you can take out of the house. Especially considering it's almost the exact same console as the Wii U, specs wise, and even the tablet controllers are somewhat similar.

---

Ehhhhh, that's a huge oversimplification. Switch has better specs, had a better launch lineup, has had better support since launch, and also benefitted from an absolute runaway hit in Animal Crossing in the midst of the pandemic. The WiiU was pretty much dead on arrival from being unfocused in its execution (especially following the gimmick of the Wii that sold so many copies) and didn't have the first party titles to fall back on. Not to mention the sunsetting of 3DS as Nintendo's flagship handheld and the spinning of the Switch into that replacement.

No doubt. And also the horrible marketing job, with many people confused about it being a new console and not just a Wii add-on.

But, just saying that the hybrid aspect was probably the biggest factor that's made it such a success. Agree that's it's a combination of factors though.

As a parent and fan of the original Disney path, I'm not happy to see them lose their way. I wish they'd get back to basics and stop getting away from common family entertainment. There are simply too many alternatives to pay them a premium to influence my kids the way I don't approve. Hell we have social media and YouTube for free if I want that kinda crap.

ETA: and this isn't a shot at just the woke content. There is plenty of stuff on there I don't want marketed at my kids. Movies I love as an adult (the big Lebowski, Alien) are not the type I want my kids browsing through. That's nuts for a family/young kids business. And I'm aware of the child profiles on Disney+, but my kids see those as baby levels. There's a massive difference between Sophia the First and Alien.

Without getting political - most large companies eventually do cuts when the economy turns bad. That is both somewhat inevitable and also healthy. A company without turnover gets stale and eventually lacks innovation. Also lets them cut the fat of bad hires, etc.

They're shifting into the same massively flawed model that Max did, shoveling everything into one platform.

We watch tons of Food Network, for example, but I can now barely find that content on Max as it's wedged between House of the Dragon and some TLC reality show. On Disney I want to watch my Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and Disney content, not have to filter through every Hulu/FX/everything else show.

This also likely points back to flaws in the single network streaming model, or at least that it isn't profitable enough for management.

One issue is that Disney's customer focus is shifting away from children to young childless "Disney adults" -- who will spend way more money annually than the family that saves up for five years to go to Orlando for four days.

That may be a good business decision in the long run but the missteps along the way have seriously damaged their reputation among parents and grandparents.

That strategy also seems to take for granted the link between childhood memories and the desire to spend money -- a lot of it -- at a theme park.

I could go on and on because Disney has a lot of challenges but this is a big one ...

Three other issues:

1) This may seem sacrilegious to many here, but I think Disney overextended its brand with the acquisition of Star Wars and Marvel.

Yes, the company captured massive revenue streams today ... but it makes Disney more difficult to understand as a brand, and takes creative focus away from animation, which has always been its golden ticket.

2) Iger, especially, is way too focused on inserting IP Into everything. Some of Disney's best-loved attractions aren't IP driven -- Haunted Mansion, etc. Everything today has a movie tie-in shoehorned in.

3) The company is actively removing much of the Imagineers' beautiful, unique designs and craftsmanship in its resorts and parks -- replacing it with bland looks that come straight from a Howard Johnson.

javajaws said:

---

Without getting political - most large companies eventually do cuts when the economy turns bad. That is both somewhat inevitable and also healthy. A company without turnover gets stale and eventually lacks innovation. Also lets them cut the fat of bad hires, etc.

---

Yep. Costs of have gone up significantly over the past few years and that impacts everything eventually.

I also think Disney has been too stubborn. They looked at the success of the original MCU films and thought to themselves "Anything we put out there is going to be great, because we're Disney!". Then they proceeded to put out a greater quantity of projects and remakes out there that lacked compelling, original, storytelling and character development - and a LOT of their content simply hasn't resonated on the same level of what brought them so much success.

Star Wars is a great example - ironically acquired by Disney. The original trilogy was groundbreaking and creative. It resonated with audiences. Ever since then, the Star Wars universe has tried to 'replicate' that or add on to it with a lot of other stories. Some have been pretty good, but a lot of it has become a mess that lacked the compelling storytelling of the original that made audiences fall in love with SW. Whether it was technology, bad characters, casting, or storyline...a lot of the "post-original" Star Wars films and shows have been a shell of the original. It's mostly felt like Star Wars Inc. trying to capitalize on the "brand" with inferior content.

Same thing with the Mouse.

Get back to compelling storytelling.

maroon barchetta said:

---

We called the theater and listened to a recording of what movies were playing and at what times.

---

It wasn't a recording. It was Kramer.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Would it be so terrible for all the streaming services to just merge into one thing with a Google-esque search engine that you use to find what you want and watch it?

I'm sure that's naive on me on about 300 levels with anti-trust and monopoly stuff

---

It's probably just me being an old man, but a lot of times I feel like there's to much content out there. Some nights I spend 20 minutes just scrolling through stuff only to give up and not watch anything. It sounds stupid, but sometimes I wish I had less choices.

maroon barchetta said:

---

We called the theater and listened to a recording of what movies were playing and at what times.

We also called Time & Temperature

---

You weren't talking to the theater. You were talking to this guy

"Why don't you just TELL me what movie you want to see?"

EclipseAg said:

---

Three other issues:

1) This may seem sacrilegious to many here, but I think Disney overextended its brand with the acquisition of Star Wars and Marvel.

Yes, the company captured massive revenue streams today ... but it makes Disney more difficult to understand as a brand, and takes creative focus away from animation, which has always been its golden ticket.

---

Adding TL;Dr: Marvel is a great fit for how Disney develops IP. Star Wars was probably a worse IP than expected.


I partially agree and disagree with this point. Disney has always been in the IP acquisition business. Originally, it mined public domain material to build its animation empire. As that well went dry, they needed to acquire fresh IP to mine more content.

Disney acquiring Marvel in 2009 for $4 billion looks like a huge success. The MCU is unprecedented in the history of the box office returns. Is it tired today? Sure. But the thing to remember is the Avengers was not the most popular comics. Now that Disney has the X-Men back they can rest the avengers ip and gear up X-Men stories. Plus Marvel has a ton of IP that can be mined for a variety of different content types. Based on an internet search there is over 80k marvel characters and 85 years of stories (going back to Timely and Captain America, 63 years if going by Fantastic 4 launch). It is basically an a huge IP mine for Disney.

The proof of the IP mine is Guardians of the Galaxy. It was an obscure comic that is now a multi-media juggernaut that is highly marketable.

Will the mine run out? Maybe, but it is going to be a long time.

Plus Marvel comics can be used to market its other IP.

Now, LucasFilms on the other hand, doesn't seem as rich of an IP mine. I love Star Wars and I love the EU. But once the decision was made to cut off the EU and try to recreate it, the richness of the IP was diminished. Starting with Episode 7 was probably a strategic mistake. I think they eventually got to the right idea in Rebels/Andor/Mandalorian. Take an existing character (Ashoka/Mon Montha/Baby Yoda) and use them to ground new characters and grow the IP. Star Wars probably required more IP development thought and care than Disney was expecting.

With Indiana Jones, you had a great character, but the character was so tied to an iconic actor, it is hard to pivot to anyone else in the role. Plus, the side stories seem somewhat limited.

I think what you seeing with Star Wars is the IP mine isn't as robust as the public domain(Disney's Princesses) or Marvel.