Last time I checked, Disney, the company that has been heavily discussed from post #5 to post #296, is "media". If Disney isn't "media", then no one is. Over 60% of their revenue comes from "media". The rest is from the theme parks.
-
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
As usual, you're trying to justify your swerve off-topic by just calling it Disney. Got it. Nothing new.
And Disney doesn't call those divisions "Media". They roll Disney+ and Hulu up along with linear TV and ABC under "Entertainment". ESPN stands alone as a category of "Sports". "Experiences" is a separate division that includes theme parks and merchandising.
All completely separate divisions.
Under full disclosure; I am a Walt Disney Company shareholder.
This is from Disney Company Q4 Report:
The following table summarizes the fourth quarter and full-year segment revenue and operating income (loss) for fiscal 2023 and 2022:
| Quarter Ended | Year Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ($ in millions) | Sept. 30, 2023 | Oct. 1, 2022 | Change | Sept. 30, 2023 | Oct. 1, 2022 | Change | |||||||||||||||
| Segment revenues: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Entertainment | $ | 9,524 | $ | 9,294 | 2 | % | $ | 40,635 | $ | 39,569 | 3 | % | |||||||||
| Sports | 3,910 | 3,900 | — | % | 17,111 | 17,270 | (1 | )% | |||||||||||||
| Experiences | 8,160 | 7,253 | 13 | % | 32,549 | 28,085 | 16 | % | |||||||||||||
| Eliminations(2) | (353 | ) | (297 | ) | (19 | )% | (1,397 | ) | (1,179 | ) | (18 | )% | |||||||||
| Total segment revenues | 21,241 | 20,150 | 5 | % | 88,898 | 83,745 | 6 | % | |||||||||||||
| Content License Early Termination(3) | — | — | nm | — | (1,023 | ) | 100 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total revenue | $ | 21,241 | $ | 20,150 | 5 | % | $ | 88,898 | $ | 82,722 | 7 | % | |||||||||
| Segment operating income (loss): | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Entertainment | $ | 236 | $ | (608 | ) | nm | $ | 1,444 | $ | 2,126 | (32 | )% | |||||||||
| Sports | 981 | 863 | 14 | % | 2,465 | 2,710 | (9 | )% | |||||||||||||
| Experiences | 1,759 | 1,342 | 31 | % | 8,954 | 7,285 | 23 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total segment operating income(1) | $ | 2,976 | $ | 1,597 | 86 | % | $ | 12,863 | $ | 12,121 | 6 | % |
Last edited:
Apple can afford AppleTV+ as they have more money than they know what to do with. They could probably outlast every other streamer.
As I said two posts further down, Apple+ could retain independence, but it'll be a boutique streamer and not one of the majors.
Apple could buy another streamer and become a major.
They could. And there are always rumors about Apple acquiring Disney, which would, if it ever happened, be Hulu-Disney-Apple, and that would be huge.
Just remember that having money and the stockholders being happy about how much of it you spend are two different things.
A further point about Apple---they are not in the habit of buying their way into market share. Its market share for OS and iOS lag that of Windows and Android. AppleTV has always trailed Roku. Apple's focus is on being Apple and being profitable.
"Entertainment" and "Sports" are still media, and they're still under the Disney corporate umbrella. It also looks like "Entertainment" and "Sports" brought in more revenue than the theme parks. Disney is a media company, as well as a theme park entertainment company.
PS, with this chart, you made my point for me, thanks.
Then you probably noticed that Entertainment lost the most, and continues to trend down, while theme parks are positive growth.
That's why Bob Iger is looking to lose ABC and the O&O's.
If you want to discuss Disney Entertainment properties, that's valid. You going off onto usual rabbit holes of unrelated rants are pretty typical. Kind of like back when you were comparing Portland protests with devastation in Syria.
The rule of thumb for market touts ("analysts") seems to be: If a corporation plans to spend, it has to shed payroll (employees) to make the books look better. Otherwise, look out below, because "guidance" for investors will be "sell."
Apple sells the Apple name and image. Before the iPhone and its derivatives, they had very overpriced computers and laptops. Many liked the style, the easier OS and such, and were willing to pay more for them.
For decades, we see Apple logos on computers in movies and TV shows. We see apple computers in businesses where, in fact, Apple has nearly no presence. Why? Apple provides computers to TV and movie production companies, helps develop dramatic screens for each particular type of movie, and helps in every way in exchange for that luminous Apple logo to appear everywhere.
We almost always see Apple cellular phones when a mobile phone is used. We see close ups of Apple OS screens. Same thing: make Apple seem to be the preferable brand, even if it is not justifiably priced well above other mobile phones. Heck, I just ordered a $1,300 cellular phone from them because I have been trained since my first Apple II in 1979 or so to put added value on the brand.
Again, we buy the brand as much as the product.
That methodology has nothing to do with market analysts, but more to do with business in general. If you were selling a business that isn't radio or media, say; a cupcake bakery, you're selling more than just the mixers, ovens, and utensils. You're selling a good reputation and cash flow from selling the cupcakes. Within that draw for a potential buyer is purchasing a business that is already making more money than it spends in expenses. Those expenses include payroll, in particular, FTE (Full Time Employees). FTE's cost roughly 24-30% more, because the business has to provide benefits.
What Wall St. analysts are looking for in cuts, are businesses that are estimated to be at, or below their profit estimates for a given quarter or year. If the company issues guidance that their numbers may not be what Wall St. is expecting, then companies will attempt to sweeten the message by announcing expense cuts in Q4 which either make up the difference, or exceed estimates.
When it comes to media in general and Wall St., the bloom has been off the rose for quite a while now. Companies like Meta and Alphabet/Google have convinced analysts that they aren't media organizations, but are actually 'tech', even though they produce products and services which include forms of social media, and subscription TV services.
Take a company like Audacy, which most of its assets include traditional radio and CBS Radio, and Wall St. has zero interest in them being considered 'old media'. The label 'media' is bad enough, but 'old media' is effectively dead to Wall St. mainly because there are little to no opportunities for growth.
OK, but they're still a media company. And as you pointed out in your last post, a lot of it is labelling. "Tech" is somehow not "media", when it actually contains what we would normally call "media"
Disney is famous for creative labelling. I know several people who worked at Disney in Florida. They weren't employees. They were "actors". Yeah, OK. Someone serving coffee in an Austrian themed cafe is an "actor", not a barista.
Names and labels are often quite flexible in big business.
RE: rabbit holes: Just over a month ago, you posted links to a religious backed, pro-book banning, anti-LGBTQ website, claiming it was a great resource for information. We all have a tendency to run off at the mouth when posting here, yourself included.
Iger, yesterday at DealBook, in an onstage interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin, as reported by the Inside Sources newsletter last night:
► Iger addressed his now infamous remarks about Disney's linear assets perhaps not being "core" to the company, saying he wanted to see if he would "get a reaction from the investment community."
► Iger said the linear channels are "not for sale." But then added, "Like all of our assets, we constantly are evaluating: What is their value to the company today? What could the value be tomorrow? Is it a growth business?"
► Iger addressed his now infamous remarks about Disney's linear assets perhaps not being "core" to the company, saying he wanted to see if he would "get a reaction from the investment community."
► Iger said the linear channels are "not for sale." But then added, "Like all of our assets, we constantly are evaluating: What is their value to the company today? What could the value be tomorrow? Is it a growth business?"
A lesson to people involved in reporting business news to never take anything Iger says at face value again. Don't run with the story unless you can get his statements independently confirmed (or unless he's talking about earnings or profits or other stuff he'd get into trouble with the SEC for talking about just to get a reaction from the moneychangers. If he wants to play the media, the media have every right not to be his playmates.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. And how do you independently confirm that the CEO is open to the idea of dumping assets if he hasn't presented it to his board yet?
I mean, I understand why you say that, and you're not wrong. But it's not gonna happen.
My reading of "wanted to see if he would get a reaction from the investment community" is he didn't like any of the reactions he got---including Byron's $10B offer.
The trick for Iger now will be to get out the door (he's promising this week that he's retiring for good in 2026), let his successor deal with offloading then further-depreciated assets and not have it look like he picked the wrong successor twice.
But this was a case where his statements were made on live TV. This is all on him, not the media. We know what he said and he's not disputing what he said. He's now walking back what he said 6 months ago because he now knows the complexities of what he was proposing, which is exactly what we and other observers have been saying. Extricating ABC from Disney at this point is complicated and would have an effect on the core business.
They should have learned from the sale of ABC Radio. They sold the stations, but wanted to stay in the syndication business. Now they have expensive real time syndication that has fewer affiliates.
Bob wasn't lying or being disingenuous. He rightfully publically floated an idea to see what interest there might be. He was right that the future for linear TV, and networks that own or supply programming to linear stations is in peril, based on how far anyone can tell. As the CEO, it's his responsibility to determine what's in the company's best interest. Hanging onto assets already facing growing headwinds would mean he wasn't doing his job.
Just like you see on this very site; people LOVE drama, and the media loves to give the public what they crave. The CEO of Disney talking about selling off linear TV is red meat to people who are going to spin it every which way.
I think Bob's regrets about the comments were that it ignited a dumpster fire of also-ran media moguls like Byron, who's been touting his interest in buying ABC plus O&O's on every business interview show he can get booked on. When asked how he would get hold of $10B cash in spite of the fact his existing company valuation is well below that amount, he ducks and weaves without answering the question. In other words; all talk and nothing more than bluster.
I'm sure there were plenty of other crazy offers from useless Internet influencers and idiots like Alex Jones and Steve Bannon to buy ABC and the O&O's. From Bob Iger's perspective, it was probably like giving your office phone number to Howard Stern listeners.
Reminds me of when Ted Turner offered to buy CBS.
- Status