DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

I think Josh D’Amaro should be given the lead. It is best for the company at this time. He seems to know how to spend the capital in the right places to keep people happy.
The other theme parks in Orlando are a plus. It doesn't matter how many days a visitor spends in WDW or the Universal parks. What is important is the quality of the visit at WDW. Customers will keep coming back if they have a good visit and enjoy the bubble.
It would be probably a loosing battle to try to fight for days from visitors. It is not a single demographic that can be measured and averaged out. Disney's greatest advantage is the synergies they can leverage from their different divisions. A good example is the free dinning plan for Disney+ subscribers. It costs the company to do this but it make the huge fan that is a subscriber feel the company is giving them something. That person will probably feel pretty good about their trip. It may be the case that some people will get a subscription to get that incentive. But maybe that is not the main objective. The company will make much more money from the huge fan in the long term.
The question to me is how much has D'Amaro Added to the parks. The answer is a net sum zero. Oh there have been new attractions, but at the same time shut downs. Both Hollywood Studios and AK are horribly low in attractions. This is not the person who is needed to show vision and the personal drive to get things done. Sometimes you have to pound the table and put your career on the line to do the right thing, just do not see that in D'Amaro. Give me Dana Walden.
 
Last edited:
The question to me is how much has D'Amaro Added to the parks. The answer is a net sum zero. Oh there have been new attractions, but at the same time shut downs. Both Hollywood Studios and AK are horribly low in attractions. This is not the person who is needed to show vision and the personal drive to get things done. Sometimes you have to pound the table and put your career on the line to do the right thing, just do not see that in D'Amaro. Give me Dana Walden.
I agree! I really think Disney should do the same thing they did in 1984 and make both Alan Bergman and Dana Walden the new CEO and President, respectively (or basically make them both the new co-CEOs).
 
I agree! I really think Disney should do the same thing they did in 1984 and make both Alan Bergman and Dana Walden the new CEO and President, respectively (or basically make them both the new co-CEOs).
I have said many times here over the last few years that co-CEO's should be considered but I think you need one to come from Hollywood and one from Parks. Having both from HW will not be good for Parks at all.
 
I like Josh D’Amaro, he comes off as likable, but keep in mind all of the glaring nickel and diming at Disney since Covid was enacted by his division. Those of us who are hoping for a customer-centric experience might wish someone else take over…
 


I have said many times here over the last few years that co-CEO's should be considered but I think you need one to come from Hollywood and one from Parks. Having both from HW will not be good for Parks at all.
Okay, then I think both Alan Bergman (or Dana Walden, but definitely Bergman) and Josh D'Amaro should be the new co-CEOs to replace Iger. Problem solved.

I was just afraid that if D'Amaro was just the only CEO of Disney, then the company would be in another Bob Chapek situation.
 
The question to me is how much has D'Amaro Added to the parks. The answer is a net sum zero. Oh there have been new attractions, but at the same time shut downs. Both Hollywood Studios and AK are horribly low in attractions. This is not the person who is needed to show vision and the personal drive to get things done. Sometimes you have to pound the table and put your career on the line to do the right thing, just do not see that in D'Amaro. Give me Dana Walden.

Keep in mind, Walden is NOT in charge of studios.

Walden came from Fox and the assets she has control over, the cable and television divisions, haven't exactly been a hit for the company either.

ABC is a third, sometimes fourth, ranked network despite the assets Disney owns (own production studios, franchises, etc.). Disney has also had to renegotiate agreements with cable providers because of the dramatic drop in viewers on their owned cable networks like Freeform, NatGeo, DisneyJr, Disney Channel, etc.

Freeform was down something like 46%+ the last couple of years, one of the largest decreases across the board.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/most-watched-channels-2023-tv-network-ratings-1235850482/

So she hasn't been setting the world on fire either.

They BOTH have serious problems. I'm hoping for an outside CEO and President, TBH.
 


All roads lead to streaming on the Entertainment side of the company. Box office and ratings are not exactly the metrics being used for success anymore.

What is the domino effect if Bergman and/or Walden dont get picked? 1 or both could move on. Lots of moving parts involved with these decisions.

My preference would likely involve an acquisition of Candle Media.
 
What is the domino effect if Bergman and/or Walden dont get picked? 1 or both could move on. Lots of moving parts involved with these decisions.
That is a good point, history shows that, if one of the 4 internals currently in the running get picked, all the others will quickly run away. Maybe a Candle candidate can help avoid that? Or the co-ceo idea keeps two in house, at least.
 
https://deadline.com/2024/04/super-bowl-streaming-services-paramount-plus-peacock-1235885676/

Super Bowl Boosts Streaming Services – Ampere Report
By Max Goldbart - International TV Co-Editor April 15, 2024 - 1:29am PDT

At a time of Hollywood contraction, the streamers’ fierce push into live sports appears to be paying off, according to the latest research from Ampere Analysis.

Ampere examined the SVoDs that hold NFL rights versus those without and found big gains in Q1 2024 related to football coverage and the Super Bowl match-up between the 49ers and the Chiefs.

Paramount+ and Peacock, which both show football, saw the number of U.S. internet users claiming to use their platform grow by 22% and 18% respectively over this period, and this monthly active viewing rose even further among NFL fans, with Paramount+ shooting up 30% and Peacock 28%. Amazon Prime Video, which also shows football, saw big gains of 59% from the same fanbase, according to the research.

Paramount+ has seen the biggest growth in monthly active viewing of all the streaming platforms with NFL rights, driven by the Super Bowl, which reports said had the highest U.S. TV ratings since the 1969 moon landing. The February 11 final was a nail biter and had added interest due to the appearance of Taylor Swift in support of her boyfriend – the Chiefs’ Travis Kelce.

All U.S. streaming platforms that hold NFL rights saw average growth in monthly active viewers of 14% between Q3 2023 and Q1 2024, compared to 10% growth across SVoD platforms as a whole, Ampere added.

Sports streaming strategies have been under the microscope this year given that Hollywood is experiencing teething problems on multiple fronts, especially for the newer breed of streamer such as Paramount+ and Peacock. Ampere’s previous research, for example, found that the number of scripted TV seasons being ordered in the U.S. had nearly halved since 2019, as the Brit analysis firm posited a period of “Hollywood displacement.”

Minal Modha, a Research Director at Ampere, said Q2 of this year will likely “see the awarding of the NBA rights, the last chance for platforms or streamers to get a seat at the table for a significant amount of time.”

“The growth in viewership for platforms holding NFL rights shows how important tier 1 sports rights can be to streaming platforms, especially in an increasingly competitive streaming market,” she added.
 
https://variety.com/vip/content-spending-profit-data-analysis-2024-1235969532/

April 15, 2024 - 6:00am PDT
2024 Content Spending & Profit Data Analysis: NFLX, DIS, WBD, PAR, NBCU
by Tyler Aquilina

In this article

  • Profits per content amortization dollar spent at the five major non-Big Tech streamers
  • How the slowdown in content spending has led to improved earnings for direct-to-consumer segments
  • The companies best and worst positioned to get to profitability in streaming by the end of 2024

Hollywood’s formula for success in streaming has transformed dramatically over the past two years, from “grow content spend as much as possible = subscribers = profit someday” to “cut content spend as much as possible + pray subscribers don’t flee = profit soon, hopefully.”

This reversal has already had a profound impact on the contact landscape (R.I.P., peak TV), but its effects on bottom lines are more hazy. No traditional studio, save Warner Bros. Discovery, has yet gotten its streaming segment into the black — and WBD did so in part by lumping in pay TV HBO subscriptions with “direct-to-consumer” revenues.

But data suggests that as expenses have come down, profitability has indeed improved and is poised to either improve further or hold steady this year for most of the major players.

With global content spending among media and tech companies poised to grow at its slowest rate in over a decade this year (excluding the respectively COVID- and strike-affected 2020 and 2023), new estimates from Wall Street research firm Bernstein project a higher return on content investments overall across the legacy media streamers, as well as Netflix, in 2024, rising from around 30 to 34 cents on the dollar.

Using EBITDA as their metric of choice, Bernstein analysts forecast profits per content amortization dollar at the five major non-Big Tech streaming players: Netflix, Disney, WBD, Paramount Global and Comcast’s NBCUniversal.

Of these companies, two — Disney and Paramount — are expected to see modest improvements in profitability this year, while NBCU and WBD will see profits slip slightly, not significantly, from 2023 levels.

Only Netflix, meanwhile, will see a major leap in profitability — unsurprisingly, as the streaming wars’ undisputed champion will likely continue to grow revenues while maintaining more cautious levels of content spending.

Bernstein’s profit analysis focused on amortization rather than cash spending, meaning these figures illustrate the long-term returns on programming costs more so than the short-term. This is arguably a better way to analyze return on content investments, however, as the value of a title may not be realized in the same year the money is spent to produce it.

And it’s a good sign that profits per content dollar already seem to have bottomed out for most companies. Disney has been improving profitability since 2022, the year it hit peak spending on content, while WBD has grown its ROI significantly from the same year, in which the Warner-Discovery merger closed.

These statistics alone do not paint a full picture, of course. For one thing, examining operating income rather than EBITDA would undoubtedly create a much bleaker outlook; both WBD and Paramount posted overall net losses last year despite positive EBITDA (or, in Paramount’s case, OIBDA, the similar but distinct metric used in the company’s corporate filings).

But a closer look at the companies’ balance sheets also reveals improved results, at least where streaming is concerned. Direct-to-consumer losses have narrowed over the past 12 months; even NBCUniversal, which saw its annual loss on Peacock rise year-over-year, managed to trim quarterly expenses in both Q3 and Q4 ’23 from the prior year.

Disney, meanwhile, is in the midst of a remarkable financial rally, most recently shrinking its Q4 ’23 streaming loss by a whopping 86% year-over-year.

The Mouse House appears best positioned among the still unprofitable legacy streamers to make it into the black later this year, following an aggressive cost-cutting campaign spearheaded by CEO Bob Iger. Its cash content spend has fallen substantially, from nearly $30 billion in 2022 to a projected $25 billion this year, per company statements.

NBCU’s and Paramount’s fates are less clear, however. These companies still have a long and difficult road to profits (though perhaps pooling their resources on a joint venture would help) and likely need to trim more expenses to get there, barring a major influx of subscribers. (Peacock executives are undoubtedly awaiting this year’s Olympics coverage with bated breath.) Both companies have also promised investors that their streaming losses have peaked, ratcheting up the pressure to near, if not reach, profitability this year.

With 2024, therefore, set to be a decisive year for the entertainment industry (and major M&A in the offing for at least one studio), content investments, and their returns, will remain closely watched metrics as Wall Street impatiently waits for results. But the studios, and investors, can take some comfort in the fact that the great content spending slowdown does seem to be working.
 
Going back to one of those charts from the WSJ article, am I reading this right, that Universal costs 40%+ more than WDW?
I don't have access to the article but do they give more details about how they arrived at those costs besides the blurb below it about it being the week of July 5th.

The end results feel misleading since the line skipping service will add on well over a grand and maybe two to the overall price. If the family did that, it would make sense they stayed at one of the resorts that included express pass instead of a mid-tier resort. Plus Genie Plus and ILL aren't really an apples to apples comparison, besides both being skip the line services and feel more akin to a person comparing a budget resort vs a deluxe resort.
 
I don't have access to the article but do they give more details about how they arrived at those costs besides the blurb below it about it being the week of July 5th.

The end results feel misleading since the line skipping service will add on well over a grand and maybe two to the overall price. If the family did that, it would make sense they stayed at one of the resorts that included express pass instead of a mid-tier resort. Plus Genie Plus and ILL aren't really an apples to apples comparison, besides both being skip the line services and feel more akin to a person comparing a budget resort vs a deluxe resort.
@wabbott posted the whole article https://www.disboards.com/threads/dis-shareholders-and-stock-info-only.3881254/post-65438336

This sections goes gives some detail, but not much detail:

Adding Up

If Orlando visitors spend one additional day and switch their lodging to Universal instead of Disney, it would have an impact.

Note: Budgets are for a family of four, with two kids over the age of 10, visiting Orlando the week of July 15 and staying at a mid-tier resort for five nights. Theme-park admission costs cover tickets that permit park hopping. Food costs cover two meals in the park per day—one counter-service, the other table-service—plus two snacks and bottles of water per person. Costs based on pricing information found on the companies' websites and include estimates for some items. Taxes not included.

Source: WSJ analysis of the companies’ publicly available information

David Holechek, a 42-year-old father of four in the Denver suburbs, owns a Disney timeshare and spends thousands of dollars each year to take his family to Walt Disney World. The Holecheks usually tack on a brief stop at the nearby Universal Orlando Resort.

The family is forgoing this year’s trip to Disney World. When they travel to Orlando next year, they expect to spend more days at Universal than at Disney for the first time.

A family of four visiting Disney World for a five-day, four-night stay in mid-July with Park Hopper tickets, a quick-service dining plan and a room in a moderate-tier hotel would spend upward of $5,000, not counting the cost of souvenirs or add-ons such as the Genie+ line-skipping service. Shortening the Disney leg by even a day would trim hundreds of dollars from their spending at the company’s parks and resorts.
 
I can speak to that.

We did 4 days and 4 nights @ UO from 4/2 to 4/6. Stayed at the Adventura hotel. No meal plan, park hopping for both parks and the water park, no fast pass (or whatever they call it). Early park admission.
$2,272.68

Eight days and eight nights @ Pop Century, 8 days w/hopper, no Genie or LL. No meal plan. From 4/6 to 4/14.
$3,862.42.

I got $400 knocked off that when they had the Disney+ promo a few months ago.

Enjoyed our visit to UO, but it ain't Disney. I know lots of folks here don't like me because I am critical of how the current regime runs DIS.

But as of now, DIS has the better overall park product compared to CMCSA's Universal Parks.

In my opinion.

We've been to Universal Hollywood once and now once to Universal Orlando. This past week was our ninth trip to WDW and DLR/DCA since 2019.

I need to add that this was for two adults.
 
Last edited:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...viewers-on-platform/articleshow/109323662.cms

Disney may have ‘old-style TV’ plan to keep viewers on platform
TIMESOFINDIA.COM / Apr 16, 2024, 07:14 IST

Disney+ lost 1.3M subscribers post price hike. Planning channels with continuous Star Wars, Marvel, Disney, classic animations, and Pixar films. Channels may include commercials, require subscription, and focus on genres.

Disney+ lost 1.3 million subscribers in the final quarter of 2023 after it hiked prices in October, the company revealed in February this year. Since then, it has been planning to keep its viewers glued to the streaming service, and a report has now claimed that Disney is planning to resort to the old-style TV channel concept to keep its viewers.
The app could soon feature always-on channels – like the cable TV in old days – on which it will continuously play Star Wars and Marvel shows, a report from The Information has claimed.

This means that those watching these channels won’t be able to watch what they want.
“In television, what's old is new again. After more than a decade of growth in streaming services that make viewers click on shows they want to watch "on demand," a growing number of streaming services are offering new "channels" that function more like old-style TV, with a continuous, scheduled stream of shows,” the report said.

In addition to Star Wars and Marvel series, the report said that Disney+ may also add classic Disney animations or Pixar films to these channels dedicated to nonstop streams. These channels may still include commercials, similar to traditional TV, despite users needing a Disney+ subscription to access them.

“Disney is the latest to expand in this market. The company plans to create a series of such channels within its Disney+ streaming service that show programming in specific genres, including either Star Wars or Marvel-branded shows,” the report added citing people involved in the planning.

The Information also said that lots of other companies have already launched such channels, although typically as free offerings rather than within a subscription service.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts







facebook twitter
Top