Hulu is losing a lot and the BamTech purchase was expensive and primarily to obtain technology instead of content even though it included MLB and NHL out-of-market rights.

With Disney taking Fox’s share of Hulu and Comcast Universal apparently pulling out I could see Hulu eventually being a hub of sorts for Disney

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/disneys-...arted.html

(01-19-2019 01:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Hulu is losing a lot and the BamTech purchase was expensive and primarily to obtain technology instead of content even though it included MLB and NHL out-of-market rights.

With Disney taking Fox’s share of Hulu and Comcast Universal apparently pulling out I could see Hulu eventually being a hub of sorts for Disney

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/disneys-...arted.html

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.

But here's what I haven't figured out...

Why bother buying more of Hulu if you were going to create an additional service? A service that acts as a competitor?

That and why not bundle your sports content and scripted content into one service to make it more appealing to a wider audience?

From what I have read Disney+ will house the family content while Hulu will house the adult content. I'm sure they will offer a bundling discount if you get all 3 of Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+

Here is an idea. Sell ads for your streaming games to fill the dead air you create for other platforms of ads

The part of the article I would like to see is who is actually buying ESPN+. Are the numbers meeting expectations? Seems crazy that you would start a subscription service when u can’t even get ads sold on the time you have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-19-2019 07:53 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 01:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Hulu is losing a lot and the BamTech purchase was expensive and primarily to obtain technology instead of content even though it included MLB and NHL out-of-market rights.

With Disney taking Fox’s share of Hulu and Comcast Universal apparently pulling out I could see Hulu eventually being a hub of sorts for Disney

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/disneys-...arted.html

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.

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.
[/quote]


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.
[/quote]


TRUE, TRUE.

Mind Boggling but so true.

I'm not sure Hulu was part of Disney's original plan. Initially ABC, NBC, and FOX each had a 30% stake in Hulu. ABC will get the FOX share with its FOX purchase. That greatly devalues NBC's share. ABC has controlling interest so they don't "need" to buy it. NBC "needs" to sell it because they don't want to invest money in a company that a competitor has controlling interest in. NBC could sell to a 3rd party but a minority stake has limited value.

The $1billion doesn't surprise me. This has always been a long-term investment for them.

(01-19-2019 01:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  the BamTech purchase was expensive and primarily to obtain technology instead of content

I will admit that I don't understand accounting, but...

Is a purchase made to acquire technology really a "loss", or is it an "investment"?

If someone pays $500,000 for a house and a piece of land, they didn't lose $500,000; they spent $500,000 and acquired some property. Now, if the property turns out to be entirely worthless and they later abandon it without even getting $1 for it, then they have lost $500,000. But only if what they bought turns out to be worthless.

Im trying to figure out what Disney gets for their greater Hulu ownership. If they pull out, are Comcast/NBC and FOX still required to supply their content to Hulu? If not, I dont see all that much value in just buying the Hulu name. Bsically, your just buying a streaming platform bereft of content other than what Disney brings to it. There just inst that much Hulu original content. Basically---is the resulting Hulu really any different from the proposed Disney streaming networks?

(01-19-2019 01:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im trying to figure out what Disney gets for their greater Hulu ownership. If they pull out, are Comcast/NBC and FOX still required to supply their content to Hulu? If not, I dont see all that much value in just buying the Hulu name. Bsically, your just buying a streaming platform bereft of content other than what Disney brings to it. There just inst that much Hulu original content. Basically---is the resulting Hulu really any different from the proposed Disney streaming networks?

Fox is selling their content to Disney, so why would they keep the platform they were using to market that content?

(01-19-2019 02:13 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 01:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im trying to figure out what Disney gets for their greater Hulu ownership. If they pull out, are Comcast/NBC and FOX still required to supply their content to Hulu? If not, I dont see all that much value in just buying the Hulu name. Bsically, your just buying a streaming platform bereft of content other than what Disney brings to it. There just inst that much Hulu original content. Basically---is the resulting Hulu really any different from the proposed Disney streaming networks?

Fox is selling their content to Disney, so why would they keep the platform they were using to market that content?

No---FOX is selling SOME of their content to Disney. Thats why Im asking what they get with the FOX Hulu share. Thats not really clear. Remember---FOX is retaining big FOX, FOX News, and FS-1 and FS2. Those are not going to Disney.

Hulu has a built in brand and subscription base. Their is value in that. New Fox wont really own anything but will be an established platform. They will likely beneift from continuing to use Hulu as the online distribution. Losing NBC and AT&T content might sting a bit though

(01-19-2019 01:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 01:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  the BamTech purchase was expensive and primarily to obtain technology instead of content

I will admit that I don't understand accounting, but...

Is a purchase made to acquire technology really a "loss", or is it an "investment"?

If someone pays $500,000 for a house and a piece of land, they didn't lose $500,000; they spent $500,000 and acquired some property. Now, if the property turns out to be entirely worthless and they later abandon it without even getting $1 for it, then they have lost $500,000. But only if what they bought turns out to be worthless.

I'm not sure if that's what's happening here, or if BAMTech and Hulu actually have expenses that exceed revenues by $1B.

I'm still trying to figure that out.

EDIT: Reading the filing linked by the link, I *think* that the Disney streaming service is operating at a loss, but I don't know if that's real or paper. The big cost is media rights, which increased. Is that a real cost for Disney, or is that moving money from Disney Technologies to Disney Entertainment divisions? Or is that money actually leaving the Disney empire (fees paid to MLB, WWE which use BAMTech tech? Hulu partners?)

(01-19-2019 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 02:13 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Fox is selling their content to Disney, so why would they keep the platform they were using to market that content?

No---FOX is selling SOME of their content to Disney. Thats why Im asking what they get with the FOX Hulu share. Thats not really clear. Remember---FOX is retaining big FOX, FOX News, and FS-1 and FS2. Those are not going to Disney.

The content's ALL being sold to Disney. The Fox movie and TV production studios, their catalogs are all included in the deal. Fox News and Fox Sports don't really create content with any lasting value. And the scripted shows on the Fox network are the properties of the studios. (A lot of them have been Fox Television productions, like the Simpsons. They'll air on Fox OTA in first run, but after that they're Disney properties if they're Fox Twentieth Television, or revert to whatever production company produced them.)

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.

(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.

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

Because this whole approach is still new, so to an extent everyone involved is experimenting, trying to figure it out. This is part of that process.

(01-19-2019 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 02:13 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 01:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im trying to figure out what Disney gets for their greater Hulu ownership. If they pull out, are Comcast/NBC and FOX still required to supply their content to Hulu? If not, I dont see all that much value in just buying the Hulu name. Bsically, your just buying a streaming platform bereft of content other than what Disney brings to it. There just inst that much Hulu original content. Basically---is the resulting Hulu really any different from the proposed Disney streaming networks?

Fox is selling their content to Disney, so why would they keep the platform they were using to market that content?

No---FOX is selling SOME of their content to Disney. Thats why Im asking what they get with the FOX Hulu share. Thats not really clear. Remember---FOX is retaining big FOX, FOX News, and FS-1 and FS2. Those are not going to Disney.

They are selling all of their non-sports productions. Fox will only lease the television rights to shows. 21st Century Fox was the one making the shows and they're getting sold to Disney.

(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.
[/quote]


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.

ESPN + added almost 600,000 subs this weekend alone

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

(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.