The name still has a history. What is a Hulu.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Media Companies Are Ready to Sell. Does Anyone Want to Buy?
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
- Status
A $28 billion company soon to be wholly owned by Disney that:
(screen goes all wavy, harp music plays)
...shields the Disney brand from direct association with programs with profanity, nudity, sex and violence.
Disney was first mentioned in Post #5 of this thread. After that it's been mentioned all through the thread, which by now is obviously about a bit more than just which company could get bought or sold.
Disney also has been mentioned in post 282, the one before this one I'm writing now.
And it wasn't exactly as if Walt was a warm and cuddly character, though he had the ability to present as such. Warm and cuddly characters don't build that kind of an empire.
And Disney has plush characters too. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with their media assets.
To be fair, the size of the Disney corporation at the time of Walt’s death in 1966 was only a very small fraction of its current incarnation.
Walt seemed to personally become much more conservative as his business grew significantly in the 1950s. Keep in mind that his brother, Roy O. Disney, was responsible for the business side of the company, and was often the “heavy” when dealing with corporate finances and money decisions. Roy kept a very low profile, probably to steer clear of the blowback some of his policies might create.
I recall when Walt died in 1966, the story of his death was buried towards the end of the CBS Evening News that day. Today it would have been the lead story. Shows how different perceptions of news content, as well as the Disney corporation, are these days.
Combing through some archives, it looks like The Walt Disney Company was worth about $100 million at the time of his death. Inflation calculator says that's about $1 billion today, and as of Friday, its market cap is $161.5 billion.
Walt liked cartoons, trains and parks. He needed a shark. Good news---he had one in the family.
Toward the end, yes, buried, no.
Gotta remember, there was a war in Vietnam and a whole lot of other news that had to fit in that 22 minutes--at a time and on a network where correspondents could have four minutes to tell a story instead of a minute-ten.
An obit for Walt Disney was going to go in the final segment regardless in those days (probably even on NBC's Huntley-Brinkley Report despite The Wonderful World of Color airing on that network).
Since it happened on a weekday, it became a lead-in to a tribute from Eric Sevareid, who did commentary on The CBS Evening News. Here's part of it:
"He was an original; not just an American original, but an original, period. He was a happy accident; one of the happiest this century has experienced; and judging by the way it's been behaving in spite of all Disney tried to tell it about laughter, love, children, puppies and sunrises, the century hardly deserved him. He probably did more to heal or at least to soothe troubled human spirits than all the psychiatrists in the world. There can't be many adults in the allegedly civilized parts of the globe who did not inhabit Disney's mind and imagination at least for a few hours and feel better for the visitation."
See: Touchstone Pictures, Miramax (when Disney co-owned it) and the empty shell that now holds the “20th Century Pictures” name.
And in case anyone needs reminding why that's important, if it hadn't been for the Touchstone Pictures brand, this would have been in a Disney movie:
(Ruthless People, 1986)
Not sure if this has been posted here before (there's a lot of stuff to read through in this and other threads, even when using the search function). Also, this comes from "inside the magic.com", rather than a more traditional news source - and dates/info within the article actually contradict what's listed in their headline.
UPDATE: Disney CEO Reveals Disney+ as We Know It Will Shut Down in December, Tells Parents to “Prepare”
Disney+ has been cranking up its subscription prices in the last few months, but now it turns it's going away completely.
Disney CEO Reveals Disney+ Will Shut Down in December, Tells Parents to “Prepare”
Yeah, this guy---leans toward clickbait.Not sure if this has been posted here before (there's a lot of stuff to read through in this and other threads, even when using the search function). Also, this comes from "inside the magic.com", rather than a more traditional news source - and dates/info within the article actually contradict what's listed in their headline.
UPDATE: Disney CEO Reveals Disney+ as We Know It Will Shut Down in December, Tells Parents to “Prepare”
Disney+ has been cranking up its subscription prices in the last few months, but now it turns it's going away completely.insidethemagic.net
Disney CEO Reveals Disney+ Will Shut Down in December, Tells Parents to “Prepare”
The only real nugget in here is what I've said and posted links to---Iger's moving toward one platform rather than two for streaming.
He also leaves out that Hulu is hugely profitable, and if you fold Disney+ into it (however you brand it), the resulting single platform likely becomes profitable, which Disney+ as a standalone is not.
Last edited:
How much do plush animal characters make Disney compared to Disney+ or Hulu, or either of those companies' revenues from the EU, and other parts of the world? Comparitively, the revenues for plush characters are probably minimal.
Went right over your head didn't it?
I don't recall seeing a itemized list of money needed to operate a streaming service in the USA, how hard can it be to calculate how much to charge for a month to make x% profit?
Obviously the Linear TV networks have high fixed costs (transmitters, distribution, office space [+people]), what are the fixed costs for a USA streaming service (since it is using an existing infrastructure and only needs a minimum data rate to work)?
Kirk Bayne
Obviously the Linear TV networks have high fixed costs (transmitters, distribution, office space [+people]), what are the fixed costs for a USA streaming service (since it is using an existing infrastructure and only needs a minimum data rate to work)?
Kirk Bayne
Networks don't have to own their own affiliates. A distribution cost today is not that significant as it can use existing infrastructure.
A streaming service needs people and office space, as well as content creation or purchase. The majority of the paid services like Peacock are not making money.
Content, distribution, office space, talented management and programming, content and content.
As I've mentioned in (I think) another thread on this site, the two established streamers, Netflix and Hulu, are profitable and have been for many years.
The newer ones (Apple+, Disney+, Paramount+, Peacock, Max) all tried to attain subscriber numbers competitive with Netflix and Hulu from launch---meaning massive lump-sum investments in content compared to their building libraries over 20+ years, and loss leader subscription rates intended to lure customers in the door.
It was a recipe for red ink, but scale was more important to them. Now they're hearing from stockholders and trying to get closer to profitability. A standalone Disney+ subscription is now twice the price it was at introduction four years ago.
When all is said and done, there will be Netflix, Hulu and two more as yet undetermined streamers left. The math just does not support (profitably) more.
Agree. And I always zone Amazon Prime, which works because it's---Amazon Prime. So there are the three.
Paramount+ (with Showtime) is available as a sub-channel of Amazon Prime, and I expect that'll be the ground the others retreat to. In fact, Max, when it was HBO Max, began that way---and it could very easily return.
Apple+ could retain independence, but it'll be a boutique streamer and not one of the majors.
If it did, it's because you did not communicate your 'clever' comment well.
The entire thread has been discussing Disney's operations, all of them, from post #5 until post #296. Try to keep up.
For some reason, I thought we were discussing media. Trying to keep up with schizophrenic wanderings about everything that isn't media just because it's part of a particular parent company I do admit can be a challenge. Sometimes it's like trying to converse with a senior in cognitive decline. You never know where the conversation is going to swerve into.
- Status