(01-20-2019 05:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  ESPN + added almost 600,000 subs this weekend alone

https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-relea...ing-night/

That must have exceeded new UFC subscriber targets if they are broadcasting it

(01-20-2019 08:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 05:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  ESPN + added almost 600,000 subs this weekend alone

https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-relea...ing-night/

That must have exceeded new UFC subscriber targets if they are broadcasting it

Bad thing about that deal is apparently massive numbers of people couldn't watch the UFC fights last night on ESPN+.

I'm not sure if the system was overloaded or not, but my feed would never load. I saw a lot of people online having similar problems.

I was a little surprised because I had never had a problem with ESPN+ before.

(01-20-2019 12:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 11:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Hulu has value in several ways.
First they have rebroadcast rights to several cable channels programs, some inventory of original content, and development deals. They will presumably lose the NBC Universal content and maybe future Fox content but probably retain old Fox content.

That makes Hulu complimentary to Disney+

Hulu already has established subscribers so avoids the customer acquisition woes and costs.

Hulu also offers a cable replacement service. Contracts for content are already negotiated and customers already are signed up.

So Hulu TV is in place as cable replacement and programming from Disney channels is secure there. The Direct TV Now customer could face losing ESPN in a carriage dispute. That won’t happen on Hulu TV.

Hulu+ offers two tiers of programming roughly similar to Netflix. Tier 1 is cheaper but has ads and Tier 2 is ad free.

It can become a hub to manage your ESPN+, Disney+, MLB and NHL subscriptions.

I get what you're saying. I'm just not sure why Disney would bother creating another streaming service in addition to what Hulu gives them.

I can somewhat understand why Disney would create an additional service for ESPN if they have Hulu in the fold. It gives them an opportunity to monetize additional content and I'm not sure they'd want Hulu to broadcast everything if they're going to use Hulu TV as a cable replacement.

But with all the scripted content...if you've got a ready made platform with Hulu then I'm not sure why you need another one that you're going to have to build from the ground up.

Disney owns rights to a lot of scripted content that isn’t going to be a “fit” for Disney+ which right now is implied to be the premium destination for the traditional Disney “family” programming, the Star Wars franchise and Marvel Universe.

The most important thing is, it is hard to acquire subscribers and Hulu has more than 20 million in the US.

A lot of Hulu content is US license only. Disney+ is aiming at Netflix and is going to be international. Hulu compliments ABC and Fox OTA content and a lot of the Fox movie catalog won’t be as strong internationally as the traditional Disney/Marvel/Star Wars content.

More than a third of millennials “view” Hulu in the US so why upset the Apple cart?

(01-20-2019 11:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 08:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 05:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  ESPN + added almost 600,000 subs this weekend alone

https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-relea...ing-night/

That must have exceeded new UFC subscriber targets if they are broadcasting it

Bad thing about that deal is apparently massive numbers of people couldn't watch the UFC fights last night on ESPN+.

I'm not sure if the system was overloaded or not, but my feed would never load. I saw a lot of people online having similar problems.

I was a little surprised because I had never had a problem with ESPN+ before.

I have only had minor issues. Sometimes I have to restart the App quite often. Can be frustrating, especially if you're new to it.

(01-20-2019 11:49 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 11:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 08:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 05:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  ESPN + added almost 600,000 subs this weekend alone

https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-relea...ing-night/

That must have exceeded new UFC subscriber targets if they are broadcasting it

Bad thing about that deal is apparently massive numbers of people couldn't watch the UFC fights last night on ESPN+.

I'm not sure if the system was overloaded or not, but my feed would never load. I saw a lot of people online having similar problems.

I was a little surprised because I had never had a problem with ESPN+ before.

I have only had minor issues. Sometimes I have to restart the App quite often. Can be frustrating, especially if you're new to it.

So far, it's the best online platform I've come across for sports. I'm sure there's still kinks to work out though.

I think what was bad the other night is the optics. They really pumped up the introduction of UFC on ESPN and some exclusive fights for ESPN+ and apparently sold quite a few subs on the back of that, but for so many to have issues out of the gate could cause them to forget subscribing in the future.

I don't know what percentage of people were having issues, but it leaves a bad taste.

(01-20-2019 11:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 12:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 11:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Hulu has value in several ways.
First they have rebroadcast rights to several cable channels programs, some inventory of original content, and development deals. They will presumably lose the NBC Universal content and maybe future Fox content but probably retain old Fox content.

That makes Hulu complimentary to Disney+

Hulu already has established subscribers so avoids the customer acquisition woes and costs.

Hulu also offers a cable replacement service. Contracts for content are already negotiated and customers already are signed up.

So Hulu TV is in place as cable replacement and programming from Disney channels is secure there. The Direct TV Now customer could face losing ESPN in a carriage dispute. That won’t happen on Hulu TV.

Hulu+ offers two tiers of programming roughly similar to Netflix. Tier 1 is cheaper but has ads and Tier 2 is ad free.

It can become a hub to manage your ESPN+, Disney+, MLB and NHL subscriptions.

I get what you're saying. I'm just not sure why Disney would bother creating another streaming service in addition to what Hulu gives them.

I can somewhat understand why Disney would create an additional service for ESPN if they have Hulu in the fold. It gives them an opportunity to monetize additional content and I'm not sure they'd want Hulu to broadcast everything if they're going to use Hulu TV as a cable replacement.

But with all the scripted content...if you've got a ready made platform with Hulu then I'm not sure why you need another one that you're going to have to build from the ground up.

Disney owns rights to a lot of scripted content that isn’t going to be a “fit” for Disney+ which right now is implied to be the premium destination for the traditional Disney “family” programming, the Star Wars franchise and Marvel Universe.

The most important thing is, it is hard to acquire subscribers and Hulu has more than 20 million in the US.

A lot of Hulu content is US license only. Disney+ is aiming at Netflix and is going to be international. Hulu compliments ABC and Fox OTA content and a lot of the Fox movie catalog won’t be as strong internationally as the traditional Disney/Marvel/Star Wars content.

More than a third of millennials “view” Hulu in the US so why upset the Apple cart?

Makes sense.

From what I’ve read and heard, the hit is something Disney expected. The bounce back for these acquisitions and new ventures is slated for 2020 or 21.

Movies and parks help sop this up. WDW is working on some massive projects that have been increasing traffic down there, and may go over the top late this year when the new Star Wars themed park area opens, with the paint still drying at Toy Story land.

Disney cleared one hurdle with Verizon, but the details about that agreement aren’t out there entirely yet, iirc? Considering there wasn’t service disruption, it’s a win for both, but, have to think Disney had the leverage there.

By 2020 there will be at least 11 major general entertainment streaming platforms.
Netflix
Hulu (Disney)
Disney+
Amazon Prime
CBS All Access
AT&T
Comcast Universal
Showtime
HBO
STARZ
EPIX

It will be interesting to see the different price points and which ones are profitable

Disney's loss from Hulu is largely due to the large programming costs, which are paid to its television production division. So Hulu is losing money, but Disney is breaking even, or possibly even making money. With respect to BAMTech, it seems likely that the loss results from expensing the purchase price rather than capitalizing it or amortizing it.

It's not clear what's going on at ESPN+, but having followed Netflix, it seems quite likely that initial revenues are likely exceeded by programming costs. In an SVOD business model, though, programming costs are generally fixed, so there are no incremental costs associated with serving a new subscriber, meaning that revenue from every new customer is pure profit. This business model has huge upside potential, which is why all the major media companies are so fixated on it.

(01-20-2019 02:27 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 10:02 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I can understand how these are losing ventures out of the gate. It takes time to build a brand or introduce new technology. That part I don't think is strange.

Yes, E.g., even with our kvetching about the declining cable business, Disney earned more profit in 2018 than Netflix has cumulatively in its entire history, but Netflix's market cap is about the same as Disney's. I'm talking profits here, not revenue.

Microsoft made more in profit in the last *six months* of 2018 than Amazon has cumulatively in its entire history, and Amazon lost money the first 14 years it was publicly listed, yet Jeff Bezos has a personal net worth (thanks to Amazon stock) that is $45 Billion more than Bill Gates.

With some of these tech companies, market cap, which is what really matters, has little to do with actual current profits.

TRUE, TRUE.

Mind Boggling but so true.
[/quote]

The difference is that Amazon has alliance with Vanguard and Fidelity. Vanguard and Fidelity hold most shares of AMZN and never sell them. They only pump the price up and never let it down. In other words, MSFT is fairly traded in stock market while AMZN is thinly traded.
[/quote]

I think it is reasonable to say both Amazon and Microsoft are "fairly valued". But are valued in different ways. And they are valued by all investors, not just retail investors. Future Earnings are one of the best ways to estimate value, but it is difficult to come up with a proper figure for Future Earnings in businesses with such widely divergent business models and even up-sides.

(01-20-2019 05:46 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 10:02 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, E.g., even with our kvetching about the declining cable business, Disney earned more profit in 2018 than Netflix has cumulatively in its entire history, but Netflix's market cap is about the same as Disney's. I'm talking profits here, not revenue.

Microsoft made more in profit in the last *six months* of 2018 than Amazon has cumulatively in its entire history, and Amazon lost money the first 14 years it was publicly listed, yet Jeff Bezos has a personal net worth (thanks to Amazon stock) that is $45 Billion more than Bill Gates.

With some of these tech companies, market cap, which is what really matters, has little to do with actual current profits.

TRUE, TRUE.

Mind Boggling but so true.

It's not "mind boggling" when you think about it.

Market cap (and stock prices) reflect future expected profits.

Amazon and Microsoft, as of today, have almost the exact same market cap (about $820 billion). That's 100% justified.

If you don't think Amazon is going to have one of the highest profit levels of any firm 10 years from now, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Market Capitalization is a direct result of Market Share Price x Share Quantity.

Share Price is frequently correlated to the time value sum of Future Earnings.

All Future Earnings are, by definition, Projected.

Investors have a better idea of Future Earnings for Microsoft than they do for Amazon, hence the hidden expectations reflecting a higher share price in Amazon's case. Amazon is not being valued like Kimberly Clark or American Electric Power.

Retail investors are likely overpaying for Amazon, but because Amazon's business model is so new, and has the potential for such a successful unrestrained vertical monopoly, investors are riding along to see what happens.

I just have one thing to say.

I love my satellite.

(01-21-2019 08:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  By 2020 there will be at least 11 major general entertainment streaming platforms.
Netflix
Hulu (Disney)
Disney+
Amazon Prime
CBS All Access
AT&T
Comcast Universal
Showtime
HBO
STARZ
EPIX

It will be interesting to see the different price points and which ones are profitable

So---for a while we had a trend of streaming platforms aggregating a ton of content under one tent and providing it a very reduced cost. It was a massive price improvement over cable. Now we are seeing the "cable-ization" of the streaming world as the streaming content is now being Balkanized and split apart requiring multiple streaming memberships to get access to the same stuff you used to be able to access with just a Netflix and Amazon membership. Before its all over--it will cost about the same to see everything you want on cable as it will using streaming options.

(01-20-2019 05:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  ESPN + added almost 600,000 subs this weekend alone

https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-relea...ing-night/

It's not how many they add, it's how many they retain at $4.99/month. The first seven days are free. It does illustrate how many folks wanted to see the main event, especially on Saturday night alone.

(01-21-2019 03:25 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 05:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  ESPN + added almost 600,000 subs this weekend alone

https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-relea...ing-night/

It's not how many they add, it's how many they retain at $4.99/month. The first seven days are free. It does illustrate how many folks wanted to see the main event, especially on Saturday night alone.

Yes, but you have to believe that the majority of those new signups were UFC fans. There’s a good chance that most of them will keep it. UFC is year round and not seasonal.

(01-21-2019 02:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  By 2020 there will be at least 11 major general entertainment streaming platforms.
Netflix
Hulu (Disney)
Disney+
Amazon Prime
CBS All Access
AT&T
Comcast Universal
Showtime
HBO
STARZ
EPIX

It will be interesting to see the different price points and which ones are profitable

So---for a while we had a trend of streaming platforms aggregating a ton of content under one tent and providing it a very reduced cost. It was a massive price improvement over cable. Now we are seeing the "cable-ization" of the streaming world as the streaming content is now being Balkanized and split apart requiring multiple streaming memberships to get access to the same stuff you used to be able to access with just a Netflix and Amazon membership. Before its all over--it will cost about the same to see everything you want on cable as it will using streaming options.

Pretty much.

The caveat being that Amazon and Netflix never provided as much content as the typical cable subscription.

Personally, I think the future will be in cable replacement streaming services like DirecTV Now and Playstation Vue and others. You still get the cable bundle, but you get it over the internet and it tends to be more flexible. The best feature, of course, is that it's a good bit cheaper because the delivery method is far less costly to maintain. That and it's not limited by geography. If you can access quality internet then you can simply choose which cable company you want to stream rather than being dependent on whichever company has access to your market.

Some scattered things rather than responding to several posts.

There apparently are some incremental costs in streaming because some of the smaller film makers have done deals where they get paid based on views. The Duplass (sp?) Brothers tapped into that early on.

Heavier usage may result in costs for licensed content and also explains the dash to self-producing content.

Regional sports nets and streaming is the next big nut to crack. Have a friend who has cord-cut and is now comparing plans to see who he can get Fox SW from in order to get Dallas Stars hockey. For me, I'm the odd duck who only follows one pro team I'm in-market for so I could cut except for the fact that for some reason I still watch the circling the drain Memphis Grizzlies who are in-market for me but I have to buy the sports package to get all the games because Fox SW feeds rarely pick them up, I have to have Fox South which I currently can't get from any streamer that I've found.

Don't count out the OTA networks. Antenna sales are up as are sales of DVRs for antennas, especially ones offering the ability to stream.

As we trend toward more streaming services balkanizing the market place, few people are going to sign up for everything and the days of a "basic cable" network having a reach similar to OTA networks is probably ending that means the major sports are going to have to risk becoming niche if they cannot get OTA carriage for some events.

(01-22-2019 01:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Some scattered things rather than responding to several posts.

There apparently are some incremental costs in streaming because some of the smaller film makers have done deals where they get paid based on views. The Duplass (sp?) Brothers tapped into that early on.

Heavier usage may result in costs for licensed content and also explains the dash to self-producing content.

Regional sports nets and streaming is the next big nut to crack. Have a friend who has cord-cut and is now comparing plans to see who he can get Fox SW from in order to get Dallas Stars hockey. For me, I'm the odd duck who only follows one pro team I'm in-market for so I could cut except for the fact that for some reason I still watch the circling the drain Memphis Grizzlies who are in-market for me but I have to buy the sports package to get all the games because Fox SW feeds rarely pick them up, I have to have Fox South which I currently can't get from any streamer that I've found.

Don't count out the OTA networks. Antenna sales are up as are sales of DVRs for antennas, especially ones offering the ability to stream.

As we trend toward more streaming services balkanizing the market place, few people are going to sign up for everything and the days of a "basic cable" network having a reach similar to OTA networks is probably ending that means the major sports are going to have to risk becoming niche if they cannot get OTA carriage for some events.

Ark, I'm in the same boat with the Hornets. What I've learned is while the game itself will not be available via DirectvNow, it will be available via my DirectvNow login on the Fox sports go app

As our world and culture in general becomes more niche, our TV is adapting as well. No longer do you pay $40 for an assortment of channels that gets you a little of everything, now you pay $5 to $15 per genre to become emerssesed in it

(01-22-2019 06:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  As our world and culture in general becomes more niche, our TV is adapting as well. No longer do you pay $40 for an assortment of channels that gets you a little of everything, now you pay $5 to $15 per genre to become emerssesed in it

Which is fine and all, but what if you like multiple things? You can only save money by changing them out every month or so. If you subscribe to 3 or 4 OOT services, might as well just switch between cable/satellite companies. You’re already doing business with one of them to get your OOT services.