(10-19-2023 12:16 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:09 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 08:30 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Yesterday, Disney filed a report with the SEC restating its financials to reflect the reorganization of the company into revised business units. The new units are Sports, consisting of all ESPN related assets, Entertainment, consisting of movies, streaming, and television aside from ESPN assets, and Experiences, which includes parks and merchandising.

In the report, Disney reports that for fiscal year 2022, ESPN generated $17.27 billion in revenue and $2.71 billion in operating income. For fiscal year 2021, ESPN generated $15.96 billion in revenue and $2.69 billion in operating income. Finally, for 9 months ended July 1, 2023, ESPN generated $13.2 billion in revenue and $1.48 billion in operating income, a decline from the same period the previous year. For reference, Disney's fiscal year is October 1 through September 30.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/...change.htm

Clearly, ESPN remains hugely profitable. However, as evidenced by its weaker performance year to date compared to the same period in the prior year, its margins are declining as cord cutting continues. In an environment where streaming subscriptions replace revenue from cable subscription, it will not be enough for programming to fill airtime. Programming will need to motivate customers to pay for specific content not just receive it as part of the cable bundle. Advertising, driven by total viewership and viewer demographics, will also remain important.

College sports should continue to be extremely valuable programming in this new paradigm. The question is what this translates into in rights fees generally, as well as for specific schools, conferences, and championship events.

3/4 of one year is hardly a trend. It's not even a statistical blip. What was their operating income for the first none months of the previous 2 years? Perhaps they had a bunch of one time charges that cost them billion$ in the 4th quarter, or perhaps they had a bunch of one time credits that took them from the red into the black. Check back with us in 5 years and we'll see if there's an actual trend, rather than looking for data to support a conclusion that you reached beforehand.

It'll be 800 in the 4Q. So a 15% decline when sports are the only thing "necessary" to watch anymore. No one uses GAAP Net Income, any analysis will be done ex-one time charges.

How do you know that it will be 800 in 4Q?

(10-19-2023 03:33 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Apple's structure could absorb the changes easier than Disney or just ESPN. Whatever befalls ESPN will also befall FOX. I think it will all work better for the consumer than the mish mash we have now. You know the death of cable is at hand when they can't replace faulty equipment but give you an old box that has been turned in.

We got in the habit of getting cable for football season then having it taken out after football ended.

Earlier this season, when the cable companies and ESPN were quarreling, I signed us up for YouTube TV.

I called last week to have the cable turned off as our bill had risen to $205 a month for cable and internet. Roughly $100 a month for each service.

When I told them I wanted to just keep internet, they gave me cable for free. They dropped our bill to $92 for internet and cable.

The cable companies are hurting. Technology has made cable boxes obsolete so they can’t make money “renting” the customer equipment. They did send me some streaming device to use. I just left it in the box.

Yeah - the cable companies still want to keep their Internet customers that are more profitable, so you see these deals now.

All the best deals come from threatening to cancel, too. When I had DirecTV up until 5 years ago, I always called the cancellation department every year to get them to lower the price and/or throw in NFL Sunday Ticket. At least back then, the cancellation department was authorized to grant specific deals that other customer agents couldn’t.

(10-19-2023 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:17 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If I am reading the data correctly, the operating income for the three divisions in 2023 was ...

Sports .............. $1.48B

Entertainment ... $1.2B

Experiences ....... $7.2B

So it appears that "Experiences" is the big money maker for Disney these days. And it explains why park ticket prices and resort prices seem to keep going up and up.

A Disney park experience seems to be the bedrock now, not ESPN cash cow money.

Yes - parks and cruises are the biggest cash cows for Disney as of now.

Still, ESPN is a fraction of the size of the Experiences group in terms of employees, so my guess is that the profit margin for ESPN is comparatively high. It’s also instructive that Sports still makes more money than all of Entertainment (movies, TV, streaming, etc.).

The Parks situation just boggles me. Not the prices at the parks themselves, IMO the main Disney parks are literally the best entertainment experiences on earth. I went to the MK in May with my brother, a single day cost me close to $500 when you added in all the food and stuff, and it was worth every penny. We had a blast for about 14 hours.

But the resorts! For example, I first went to the Magic Kingdom in Orlando as a kid in 1978. Since that time, I have always dreamed of staying at the Contemporary Resort hotel but never have.

The other day, I went online to find out how much it would cost to do so, and since this hotel is essentially a relic from the 1970s, closing in on 50 years old, I figured the price would be reasonable.

LOL ... Disney is charging like $800 a night to stay in the main tower, the cool part of the hotel. And these prices do not seem to be budging. Demand for the resort experience is apparently sky-high.

Too bad for me, LOL.

I stayed at the Contemporary for a week about a decade ago. It was nuts just walking to Magic Kingdom. They have this crazy buffet in that big open area adjacent to the monorail. I've also stayed at Animal Kingdom Lodge, it was nicer but the bus rides to the park made it overall less enjoyable. All of our recent Disney trips (once every year or 2 for the past decade) have been with groups/relatives/school trips however, so no nice hotels/resorts recently. My big goal is the Grand Floridian, maybe we'll stay there some time with the grandkids if we ever have any.

A week at the Contemporary! That's awesome. Also makes me envious, LOL.

I stayed there with my family as a kid sometime around 1976 or 1977. It was one of the highlights of my childhood. I still remember riding the monorail. Back then I think there were only two choices in the park: the Contemporary and the Polynesian Village. At least that is what I think it was called.

(10-19-2023 02:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 01:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 01:44 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  ESPN had a good run. Even if a Streamer buys ESPN, it will never be the juggernaut it used to be.

FOX is the future of college football coverage.

LOL! Remember your Twain, "The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." FOX isn't the future of anything.

Hear, hear. "Fox Corporation" is the rump left over, carved out of 21st Century Fox before Murdoch sold to Disney, made up of the pieces of 21st Century Fox that Disney would not be allowed to own (Fox OTA, Fox Sports on top of ESPN) or did not want the headaches of (Fox News)

Quote:ESPN will be around for quite some time, maybe just not owned by Disney.

Yup. Every bit of bad economic news for Disney is much worse economic news for Fox, CBS Paramount, NBC Comcast Universal, WBD Turner.

Quote:If it changes enough all of these companies will either have morphed into something else and new players will find a niche, or they will be gone and perhaps the conferences handle their own version of a season ticket via stream.

Comcast and WBD seem to make it work with far bigger ‘headaches’ than what FNC presents.

Breaking out the ESPN financials is a smart move by Disney. Potential investment partners or buyers of ESPN, as well as Wall Street, can value the business easier. But it's clear ESPN is not the future. Disney is investing $60 billion in parks and entertainment and nothing in ESPN.

To me, the biggest problem most of the streaming services have is that consumers have gotten used to a convenient cable bundle of channels for the whole family. Guys watch ESPN, the Golf Channel, the NFL etc, while the kids watch Nick, Disney, the Cartoon channel, and the ladies tune in to the reality show channels, Hallmark, etc.

That's why I think Youtube TV and streaming services like it will continue to grow. One of the cable providers in my area now offers a skinny bundle of 15 channels of your choice for about $29 a month.

I just can't see a standalone ESPN streaming service being successful, regardless of who they partner with. It is best as part of a bundle. The Disney bundle might be great for some, but it doesn't offer the breadth of programming that people want.

ESPN's other problem is that for college football, it needs to be paired with an OTA network. It could certainly bid on football, but how would SEC teams feel if their games were only on cable/streaming and not on any OTA stations?

(10-19-2023 11:42 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 11:19 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:54 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Quo, there is an unreported influence in these numbers. Nothing Disney offers is a necessity. The impact of inflation upon discretionary spending is wholly ignored, and the quarterly statements of many companies are down year over year while leading indicators are beginning to show recessionary numbers.

While cord cutting and the variance in streaming subscriptions to cable subscriptions and the fractional decline in profits due to the differences is real, I would suggest that many households are having to cut discretionary spending, and entertainment is one of those places they cut.

The experiences is easily covered by cost increases, but as costs not only in materials and maintenance go up, but also in labor, the profit generated will likely vary from the revenue generated in a greater degree.

I would also note that sports are largely national. Theme parks are international.

It’s a weird economy. If we go by what has happened in the past in terms of inflation, rising interest rates, slowing economy, etc., it would suggest what you’re saying that households would cut back on discretionary items like entertainment.

However, that’s not what the data is showing. This Disney report showing Experiences (the parks and cruises) is one example and it’s not because of international growth at all. It’s being driven by the US revenue as the Shanghai park has had to constantly open and close on a whim whenever the Chinese government puts in pandemic restrictions and the parks in Japan aren’t actually owned by Disney. The Disney revenue there is largely a US story (and particularly Florida with the combo of so many Disney World resorts and the concentration of the cruise business there).

Other examples include concert ticket sales and prices along with sporting events that are the best that we’ve seen in a generation (even if we allow for the “revenge” spending in 2021-22 coming out of the pandemic). The “experience” economy is actually one area of the economy that has held up the best so far. Now, will that continue if we see a true economic downturn (as Americans’ view of the economy is actually more negative than what the data shows)? Maybe or maybe not.

In any event, we can posit a bunch of theories. For instance, the “experience” economy is one where it can’t be replicated online. Sure, a Taylor Swift concert movie is nice for those who couldn’t get to the actual concert, but it still completely pales in terms of an experience. Same thing with Disney World or even for many of us here in terms of what it’s like being at a sporting even in person compared to watching on TV. In essence, this is a part of the economy that can’t be replaced by Amazon or Apple on your phone, so it has relative strength compared to, say, the retail or commercial real estate sector.

Another theory that I’ve seen is that property prices, inflation and higher interest rates have taken so many people completely out of the real estate market that they’re simply shifting that money to other areas, including entertainment. In essence, there’s a material number of people that are saying, “We couldn’t afford a house even if we scrimped and saved every dollar possible, so why even try? Might as well make some memories and go to Disney World.” I’m not saying that this a good thing long-term, but there’s an element here of a whole bunch of money that is *not* being spent on real estate (which is one of the biggest drivers of our economy) getting shifted elsewhere.

Anyway, like I’ve said, this is a weird economy where a lot of assumptions that we’ve had about how people spend their money are getting upended.

I read the other day that the avg home mortgage rate is up to 8%, the highest since 2001. I remember those days, the best rate ford credit offered before 9/11 was 8.25%, and you had to have PERFECT credit to get it that low. We've had 22 years of really low rates, most or all of a career for many people, but those days are over now.

I first bought in 1984. You could not get a fixed rate loan back then. Initial interest rate was 11.5% and it was over 15% when I sold in 1991.

I thank God everyday that we locked in a 3.25% 30 year fixed in Feb 2022. Our friends are trapped in townhomes and can't afford to leave. We have the forever home with a beautiful 5 month old. We are hoping to FIRE in the next 10 years with the house paid off. This wouldn't be possible has we not got in when we did.

For sure. We refinanced in early-2021 with a sub-3% mortgage rate and it makes everything easier with being able to pay down more principal faster even with lower payments under our old rates (much less the sky high rates now). This is definitely our forever home. Congrats on the 5 month old!

(10-19-2023 09:19 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 02:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 01:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 01:44 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  ESPN had a good run. Even if a Streamer buys ESPN, it will never be the juggernaut it used to be.

FOX is the future of college football coverage.

LOL! Remember your Twain, "The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." FOX isn't the future of anything.

Hear, hear. "Fox Corporation" is the rump left over, carved out of 21st Century Fox before Murdoch sold to Disney, made up of the pieces of 21st Century Fox that Disney would not be allowed to own (Fox OTA, Fox Sports on top of ESPN) or did not want the headaches of (Fox News)

Quote:ESPN will be around for quite some time, maybe just not owned by Disney.

Yup. Every bit of bad economic news for Disney is much worse economic news for Fox, CBS Paramount, NBC Comcast Universal, WBD Turner.

Quote:If it changes enough all of these companies will either have morphed into something else and new players will find a niche, or they will be gone and perhaps the conferences handle their own version of a season ticket via stream.

Comcast and WBD seem to make it work with far bigger ‘headaches’ than what FNC presents.

OT to discuss who's right or wrong about politics, but I think we can agree that, in Ivy League big-money LA NYC DC circles that the executives and the owners move in, Fox News is an embarrassing way to make money.

The elites that Fox News and Trump voters rail against? That's who owning Fox News is a "headache" for. Ivanka Trump can't go to the galas anymore. Whether you like that, whether you hate that, whether you love that, it's the reality of the situation. Ivanka can't go to the gala, Lachlan Murdoch can go to the gala because he doesn't care if everyone at the gala hates him.
Bob Iger (probably), Steve Jobs' widow (big Disney shareholder because of hte Pixar merger), the Disney grandchildren want to go to the gala.

(10-19-2023 09:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Breaking out the ESPN financials is a smart move by Disney. Potential investment partners or buyers of ESPN, as well as Wall Street, can value the business easier. But it's clear ESPN is not the future. Disney is investing $60 billion in parks and entertainment and nothing in ESPN.

To me, the biggest problem most of the streaming services have is that consumers have gotten used to a convenient cable bundle of channels for the whole family. Guys watch ESPN, the Golf Channel, the NFL etc, while the kids watch Nick, Disney, the Cartoon channel, and the ladies tune in to the reality show channels, Hallmark, etc.

That's 10, 20 years ago. That's not the reality anymore. The kids watch Youtube and Tiktok and Twitch streamers. The ladies watch the reality shows and cookie-cutter romcoms and dramas on Netflix.

Quote:I just can't see a standalone ESPN streaming service being successful, regardless of who they partner with. It is best as part of a bundle. The Disney bundle might be great for some, but it doesn't offer the breadth of programming that people want.

That's a fairly solvable problem, programming-wise. No reason Disney's studios can't crank out reality shows and female-focused content if they focus on it.

Quote:ESPN's other problem is that for college football, it needs to be paired with an OTA network. It could certainly bid on football, but how would SEC teams feel if their games were only on cable/streaming and not on any OTA stations?

Yes, if Disney does split ESPN from Parks and Experiences and (I forget what they call the movie studio / Disney + part of the operation), ABC has to go along with the ESPN half of the company.

(10-19-2023 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If I am reading the data correctly, the operating income for the three divisions in 2023 was ...

Sports .............. $1.48B

Entertainment ... $1.2B

Experiences ....... $7.2B

So it appears that "Experiences" is the big money maker for Disney these days. And it explains why park ticket prices and resort prices seem to keep going up and up.

A Disney park experience seems to be the bedrock now, not ESPN cash cow money.

Yes - parks and cruises are the biggest cash cows for Disney as of now.

Still, ESPN is a fraction of the size of the Experiences group in terms of employees, so my guess is that the profit margin for ESPN is comparatively high. It’s also instructive that Sports still makes more money than all of Entertainment (movies, TV, streaming, etc.).

The Parks situation just boggles me. Not the prices at the parks themselves, IMO the main Disney parks are literally the best entertainment experiences on earth. I went to the MK in May with my brother, a single day cost me close to $500 when you added in all the food and stuff, and it was worth every penny. We had a blast for about 14 hours.

But the resorts! For example, I first went to the Magic Kingdom in Orlando as a kid in 1978. Since that time, I have always dreamed of staying at the Contemporary Resort hotel but never have.

The other day, I went online to find out how much it would cost to do so, and since this hotel is essentially a relic from the 1970s, closing in on 50 years old, I figured the price would be reasonable.

LOL ... Disney is charging like $800 a night to stay in the main tower, the cool part of the hotel. And these prices do not seem to be budging. Demand for the resort experience is apparently sky-high.

Too bad for me, LOL.

Quo, there is an unreported influence in these numbers. Nothing Disney offers is a necessity. The impact of inflation upon discretionary spending is wholly ignored, and the quarterly statements of many companies are down year over year while leading indicators are beginning to show recessionary numbers.

While cord cutting and the variance in streaming subscriptions to cable subscriptions and the fractional decline in profits due to the differences is real, I would suggest that many households are having to cut discretionary spending, and entertainment is one of those places they cut.

The experiences is easily covered by cost increases, but as costs not only in materials and maintenance go up, but also in labor, the profit generated will likely vary from the revenue generated in a greater degree.

I would also note that sports are largely national. Theme parks are international.

Don't forget that the production costs and business expenses have gone up for ESPN due to inflation as well.

(10-19-2023 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:17 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If I am reading the data correctly, the operating income for the three divisions in 2023 was ...

Sports .............. $1.48B

Entertainment ... $1.2B

Experiences ....... $7.2B

So it appears that "Experiences" is the big money maker for Disney these days. And it explains why park ticket prices and resort prices seem to keep going up and up.

A Disney park experience seems to be the bedrock now, not ESPN cash cow money.

Yes - parks and cruises are the biggest cash cows for Disney as of now.

Still, ESPN is a fraction of the size of the Experiences group in terms of employees, so my guess is that the profit margin for ESPN is comparatively high. It’s also instructive that Sports still makes more money than all of Entertainment (movies, TV, streaming, etc.).

The Parks situation just boggles me. Not the prices at the parks themselves, IMO the main Disney parks are literally the best entertainment experiences on earth. I went to the MK in May with my brother, a single day cost me close to $500 when you added in all the food and stuff, and it was worth every penny. We had a blast for about 14 hours.

But the resorts! For example, I first went to the Magic Kingdom in Orlando as a kid in 1978. Since that time, I have always dreamed of staying at the Contemporary Resort hotel but never have.

The other day, I went online to find out how much it would cost to do so, and since this hotel is essentially a relic from the 1970s, closing in on 50 years old, I figured the price would be reasonable.

LOL ... Disney is charging like $800 a night to stay in the main tower, the cool part of the hotel. And these prices do not seem to be budging. Demand for the resort experience is apparently sky-high.

Too bad for me, LOL.

I stayed at the Contemporary for a week about a decade ago. It was nuts just walking to Magic Kingdom. They have this crazy buffet in that big open area adjacent to the monorail. I've also stayed at Animal Kingdom Lodge, it was nicer but the bus rides to the park made it overall less enjoyable. All of our recent Disney trips (once every year or 2 for the past decade) have been with groups/relatives/school trips however, so no nice hotels/resorts recently. My big goal is the Grand Floridian, maybe we'll stay there some time with the grandkids if we ever have any.

A week at the Contemporary! That's awesome. Also makes me envious, LOL.

We have annual passes and we try to do an overnight stay cation each birthday weekend for each of our young kids, their choice for the hotel. It is pricey, but if you book out way in advance, they have some great pass holder deals. We stayed overnight last year in the main contemporary tower for $350 in a 5 person room. One thing that's great with Disney is that they have these built in wall beds that is great for families with 3 kids.

(10-20-2023 07:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Breaking out the ESPN financials is a smart move by Disney. Potential investment partners or buyers of ESPN, as well as Wall Street, can value the business easier. But it's clear ESPN is not the future. Disney is investing $60 billion in parks and entertainment and nothing in ESPN.

To me, the biggest problem most of the streaming services have is that consumers have gotten used to a convenient cable bundle of channels for the whole family. Guys watch ESPN, the Golf Channel, the NFL etc, while the kids watch Nick, Disney, the Cartoon channel, and the ladies tune in to the reality show channels, Hallmark, etc.

That's 10, 20 years ago. That's not the reality anymore. The kids watch Youtube and Tiktok and Twitch streamers. The ladies watch the reality shows and cookie-cutter romcoms and dramas on Netflix.

Quote:I just can't see a standalone ESPN streaming service being successful, regardless of who they partner with. It is best as part of a bundle. The Disney bundle might be great for some, but it doesn't offer the breadth of programming that people want.

That's a fairly solvable problem, programming-wise. No reason Disney's studios can't crank out reality shows and female-focused content if they focus on it.

Quote:ESPN's other problem is that for college football, it needs to be paired with an OTA network. It could certainly bid on football, but how would SEC teams feel if their games were only on cable/streaming and not on any OTA stations?

Yes, if Disney does split ESPN from Parks and Experiences and (I forget what they call the movie studio / Disney + part of the operation), ABC has to go along with the ESPN half of the company.

Preteens and teens are on tic toc and youtube, but parents still control what younger kids watch and it's safe kid programming on cable, not surfing the web.

Disney can't and doesn't want to be everything to everyone. There are too many competitors like Nick, HGTV and others that already have loyal followers and won't go to a Disney clone.

I would agree with you about ABC and ESPN but that doesn't seem to be the plan if ESPN is sold.

(10-20-2023 03:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 07:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Breaking out the ESPN financials is a smart move by Disney. Potential investment partners or buyers of ESPN, as well as Wall Street, can value the business easier. But it's clear ESPN is not the future. Disney is investing $60 billion in parks and entertainment and nothing in ESPN.

To me, the biggest problem most of the streaming services have is that consumers have gotten used to a convenient cable bundle of channels for the whole family. Guys watch ESPN, the Golf Channel, the NFL etc, while the kids watch Nick, Disney, the Cartoon channel, and the ladies tune in to the reality show channels, Hallmark, etc.

That's 10, 20 years ago. That's not the reality anymore. The kids watch Youtube and Tiktok and Twitch streamers. The ladies watch the reality shows and cookie-cutter romcoms and dramas on Netflix.

Quote:I just can't see a standalone ESPN streaming service being successful, regardless of who they partner with. It is best as part of a bundle. The Disney bundle might be great for some, but it doesn't offer the breadth of programming that people want.

That's a fairly solvable problem, programming-wise. No reason Disney's studios can't crank out reality shows and female-focused content if they focus on it.

Quote:ESPN's other problem is that for college football, it needs to be paired with an OTA network. It could certainly bid on football, but how would SEC teams feel if their games were only on cable/streaming and not on any OTA stations?

Yes, if Disney does split ESPN from Parks and Experiences and (I forget what they call the movie studio / Disney + part of the operation), ABC has to go along with the ESPN half of the company.

Preteens and teens are on tic toc and youtube, but parents still control what younger kids watch and it's safe kid programming on cable, not surfing the web.

Disney+ has plenty of kids' shows, and I'm pretty sure you can set a setting to Y7 on the kids' account.

Quote:Disney can't and doesn't want to be everything to everyone.

They pretty much can though. That was the whole point of acquiring LucasFilm Star Wars, Marvel, Twentieth Century, NAtional Geographic.

The old Hollywood "four quarters" breakdown, young / old, male / female.
Old men get ESPN. Young men get ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars. Adult women get -- I'm not 100% sure what Disney has laser-targeted at them actually. Younger women get Disney Channel type stuff, High School Musical and Descendants and the rest.

Quote:There are too many competitors like Nick, HGTV and others that already have loyal followers and won't go to a Disney clone.

I would agree with you about ABC and ESPN but that doesn't seem to be the plan if ESPN is sold.

Probably because, at the current time, Disney isn't looking at selling ESPN, just a part of it. It's not that they want to get out of the ESPN business, they're looking for partners to boost ESPN Flagship streaming on mobile (T-Mobile or someone) and hardware (Apple, maybe Amazon).

(10-20-2023 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 03:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 07:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Breaking out the ESPN financials is a smart move by Disney. Potential investment partners or buyers of ESPN, as well as Wall Street, can value the business easier. But it's clear ESPN is not the future. Disney is investing $60 billion in parks and entertainment and nothing in ESPN.

To me, the biggest problem most of the streaming services have is that consumers have gotten used to a convenient cable bundle of channels for the whole family. Guys watch ESPN, the Golf Channel, the NFL etc, while the kids watch Nick, Disney, the Cartoon channel, and the ladies tune in to the reality show channels, Hallmark, etc.

That's 10, 20 years ago. That's not the reality anymore. The kids watch Youtube and Tiktok and Twitch streamers. The ladies watch the reality shows and cookie-cutter romcoms and dramas on Netflix.

Quote:I just can't see a standalone ESPN streaming service being successful, regardless of who they partner with. It is best as part of a bundle. The Disney bundle might be great for some, but it doesn't offer the breadth of programming that people want.

That's a fairly solvable problem, programming-wise. No reason Disney's studios can't crank out reality shows and female-focused content if they focus on it.

Quote:ESPN's other problem is that for college football, it needs to be paired with an OTA network. It could certainly bid on football, but how would SEC teams feel if their games were only on cable/streaming and not on any OTA stations?

Yes, if Disney does split ESPN from Parks and Experiences and (I forget what they call the movie studio / Disney + part of the operation), ABC has to go along with the ESPN half of the company.

Preteens and teens are on tic toc and youtube, but parents still control what younger kids watch and it's safe kid programming on cable, not surfing the web.

Disney+ has plenty of kids' shows, and I'm pretty sure you can set a setting to Y7 on the kids' account.

Quote:Disney can't and doesn't want to be everything to everyone.

They pretty much can though. That was the whole point of acquiring LucasFilm Star Wars, Marvel, Twentieth Century, NAtional Geographic.

The old Hollywood "four quarters" breakdown, young / old, male / female.
Old men get ESPN. Young men get ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars. Adult women get -- I'm not 100% sure what Disney has laser-targeted at them actually. Younger women get Disney Channel type stuff, High School Musical and Descendants and the rest.

Quote:There are too many competitors like Nick, HGTV and others that already have loyal followers and won't go to a Disney clone.

I would agree with you about ABC and ESPN but that doesn't seem to be the plan if ESPN is sold.

Probably because, at the current time, Disney isn't looking at selling ESPN, just a part of it. It's not that they want to get out of the ESPN business, they're looking for partners to boost ESPN Flagship streaming on mobile (T-Mobile or someone) and hardware (Apple, maybe Amazon).

Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses. Remember that they have the same nostalgia factor for many women as Marvel and Star Wars do for men, particularly anything from the early-90s Disney Renaissance run. The entire Disney movie division at this point is about remaking the classic animated movies as live action films with adult women being the top target audience. The live action Beauty and the Beast movie a few years was to my wife and sister what The Force Awakens was to me in terms of anticipation.

(10-19-2023 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 11:42 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 11:19 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:54 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s a weird economy. If we go by what has happened in the past in terms of inflation, rising interest rates, slowing economy, etc., it would suggest what you’re saying that households would cut back on discretionary items like entertainment.

However, that’s not what the data is showing. This Disney report showing Experiences (the parks and cruises) is one example and it’s not because of international growth at all. It’s being driven by the US revenue as the Shanghai park has had to constantly open and close on a whim whenever the Chinese government puts in pandemic restrictions and the parks in Japan aren’t actually owned by Disney. The Disney revenue there is largely a US story (and particularly Florida with the combo of so many Disney World resorts and the concentration of the cruise business there).

Other examples include concert ticket sales and prices along with sporting events that are the best that we’ve seen in a generation (even if we allow for the “revenge” spending in 2021-22 coming out of the pandemic). The “experience” economy is actually one area of the economy that has held up the best so far. Now, will that continue if we see a true economic downturn (as Americans’ view of the economy is actually more negative than what the data shows)? Maybe or maybe not.

In any event, we can posit a bunch of theories. For instance, the “experience” economy is one where it can’t be replicated online. Sure, a Taylor Swift concert movie is nice for those who couldn’t get to the actual concert, but it still completely pales in terms of an experience. Same thing with Disney World or even for many of us here in terms of what it’s like being at a sporting even in person compared to watching on TV. In essence, this is a part of the economy that can’t be replaced by Amazon or Apple on your phone, so it has relative strength compared to, say, the retail or commercial real estate sector.

Another theory that I’ve seen is that property prices, inflation and higher interest rates have taken so many people completely out of the real estate market that they’re simply shifting that money to other areas, including entertainment. In essence, there’s a material number of people that are saying, “We couldn’t afford a house even if we scrimped and saved every dollar possible, so why even try? Might as well make some memories and go to Disney World.” I’m not saying that this a good thing long-term, but there’s an element here of a whole bunch of money that is *not* being spent on real estate (which is one of the biggest drivers of our economy) getting shifted elsewhere.

Anyway, like I’ve said, this is a weird economy where a lot of assumptions that we’ve had about how people spend their money are getting upended.

I read the other day that the avg home mortgage rate is up to 8%, the highest since 2001. I remember those days, the best rate ford credit offered before 9/11 was 8.25%, and you had to have PERFECT credit to get it that low. We've had 22 years of really low rates, most or all of a career for many people, but those days are over now.

I first bought in 1984. You could not get a fixed rate loan back then. Initial interest rate was 11.5% and it was over 15% when I sold in 1991.

I thank God everyday that we locked in a 3.25% 30 year fixed in Feb 2022. Our friends are trapped in townhomes and can't afford to leave. We have the forever home with a beautiful 5 month old. We are hoping to FIRE in the next 10 years with the house paid off. This wouldn't be possible has we not got in when we did.

For sure. We refinanced in early-2021 with a sub-3% mortgage rate and it makes everything easier with being able to pay down more principal faster even with lower payments under our old rates (much less the sky high rates now). This is definitely our forever home. Congrats on the 5 month old!

(10-20-2023 08:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 03:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 07:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Breaking out the ESPN financials is a smart move by Disney. Potential investment partners or buyers of ESPN, as well as Wall Street, can value the business easier. But it's clear ESPN is not the future. Disney is investing $60 billion in parks and entertainment and nothing in ESPN.

To me, the biggest problem most of the streaming services have is that consumers have gotten used to a convenient cable bundle of channels for the whole family. Guys watch ESPN, the Golf Channel, the NFL etc, while the kids watch Nick, Disney, the Cartoon channel, and the ladies tune in to the reality show channels, Hallmark, etc.

That's 10, 20 years ago. That's not the reality anymore. The kids watch Youtube and Tiktok and Twitch streamers. The ladies watch the reality shows and cookie-cutter romcoms and dramas on Netflix.

Quote:I just can't see a standalone ESPN streaming service being successful, regardless of who they partner with. It is best as part of a bundle. The Disney bundle might be great for some, but it doesn't offer the breadth of programming that people want.

That's a fairly solvable problem, programming-wise. No reason Disney's studios can't crank out reality shows and female-focused content if they focus on it.

Quote:ESPN's other problem is that for college football, it needs to be paired with an OTA network. It could certainly bid on football, but how would SEC teams feel if their games were only on cable/streaming and not on any OTA stations?

Yes, if Disney does split ESPN from Parks and Experiences and (I forget what they call the movie studio / Disney + part of the operation), ABC has to go along with the ESPN half of the company.

Preteens and teens are on tic toc and youtube, but parents still control what younger kids watch and it's safe kid programming on cable, not surfing the web.

Disney+ has plenty of kids' shows, and I'm pretty sure you can set a setting to Y7 on the kids' account.

Quote:Disney can't and doesn't want to be everything to everyone.

They pretty much can though. That was the whole point of acquiring LucasFilm Star Wars, Marvel, Twentieth Century, NAtional Geographic.

The old Hollywood "four quarters" breakdown, young / old, male / female.
Old men get ESPN. Young men get ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars. Adult women get -- I'm not 100% sure what Disney has laser-targeted at them actually. Younger women get Disney Channel type stuff, High School Musical and Descendants and the rest.

Quote:There are too many competitors like Nick, HGTV and others that already have loyal followers and won't go to a Disney clone.

I would agree with you about ABC and ESPN but that doesn't seem to be the plan if ESPN is sold.

Probably because, at the current time, Disney isn't looking at selling ESPN, just a part of it. It's not that they want to get out of the ESPN business, they're looking for partners to boost ESPN Flagship streaming on mobile (T-Mobile or someone) and hardware (Apple, maybe Amazon).

Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses. Remember that they have the same nostalgia factor for many women as Marvel and Star Wars do for men, particularly anything from the early-90s Disney Renaissance run. The entire Disney movie division at this point is about remaking the classic animated movies as live action films with adult women being the top target audience. The live action Beauty and the Beast movie a few years was to my wife and sister what The Force Awakens was to me in terms of anticipation.

Completely agree. Also Bachelor/ Bachelorette is a Disney product.

(10-20-2023 10:09 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 11:42 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 11:19 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:54 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I read the other day that the avg home mortgage rate is up to 8%, the highest since 2001. I remember those days, the best rate ford credit offered before 9/11 was 8.25%, and you had to have PERFECT credit to get it that low. We've had 22 years of really low rates, most or all of a career for many people, but those days are over now.

I first bought in 1984. You could not get a fixed rate loan back then. Initial interest rate was 11.5% and it was over 15% when I sold in 1991.

I thank God everyday that we locked in a 3.25% 30 year fixed in Feb 2022. Our friends are trapped in townhomes and can't afford to leave. We have the forever home with a beautiful 5 month old. We are hoping to FIRE in the next 10 years with the house paid off. This wouldn't be possible has we not got in when we did.

For sure. We refinanced in early-2021 with a sub-3% mortgage rate and it makes everything easier with being able to pay down more principal faster even with lower payments under our old rates (much less the sky high rates now). This is definitely our forever home. Congrats on the 5 month old!

(10-20-2023 08:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 03:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 07:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  That's 10, 20 years ago. That's not the reality anymore. The kids watch Youtube and Tiktok and Twitch streamers. The ladies watch the reality shows and cookie-cutter romcoms and dramas on Netflix.


That's a fairly solvable problem, programming-wise. No reason Disney's studios can't crank out reality shows and female-focused content if they focus on it.


Yes, if Disney does split ESPN from Parks and Experiences and (I forget what they call the movie studio / Disney + part of the operation), ABC has to go along with the ESPN half of the company.

Preteens and teens are on tic toc and youtube, but parents still control what younger kids watch and it's safe kid programming on cable, not surfing the web.

Disney+ has plenty of kids' shows, and I'm pretty sure you can set a setting to Y7 on the kids' account.

Quote:Disney can't and doesn't want to be everything to everyone.

They pretty much can though. That was the whole point of acquiring LucasFilm Star Wars, Marvel, Twentieth Century, NAtional Geographic.

The old Hollywood "four quarters" breakdown, young / old, male / female.
Old men get ESPN. Young men get ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars. Adult women get -- I'm not 100% sure what Disney has laser-targeted at them actually. Younger women get Disney Channel type stuff, High School Musical and Descendants and the rest.

Quote:There are too many competitors like Nick, HGTV and others that already have loyal followers and won't go to a Disney clone.

I would agree with you about ABC and ESPN but that doesn't seem to be the plan if ESPN is sold.

Probably because, at the current time, Disney isn't looking at selling ESPN, just a part of it. It's not that they want to get out of the ESPN business, they're looking for partners to boost ESPN Flagship streaming on mobile (T-Mobile or someone) and hardware (Apple, maybe Amazon).

Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses. Remember that they have the same nostalgia factor for many women as Marvel and Star Wars do for men, particularly anything from the early-90s Disney Renaissance run. The entire Disney movie division at this point is about remaking the classic animated movies as live action films with adult women being the top target audience. The live action Beauty and the Beast movie a few years was to my wife and sister what The Force Awakens was to me in terms of anticipation.

Completely agree. Also Bachelor/ Bachelorette is a Disney product.

Ah yes - how could I forget The Bachelor franchise. That basically powers ABC prime time at this point.

(10-19-2023 10:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 09:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes - parks and cruises are the biggest cash cows for Disney as of now.

Still, ESPN is a fraction of the size of the Experiences group in terms of employees, so my guess is that the profit margin for ESPN is comparatively high. It’s also instructive that Sports still makes more money than all of Entertainment (movies, TV, streaming, etc.).

The Parks situation just boggles me. Not the prices at the parks themselves, IMO the main Disney parks are literally the best entertainment experiences on earth. I went to the MK in May with my brother, a single day cost me close to $500 when you added in all the food and stuff, and it was worth every penny. We had a blast for about 14 hours.

But the resorts! For example, I first went to the Magic Kingdom in Orlando as a kid in 1978. Since that time, I have always dreamed of staying at the Contemporary Resort hotel but never have.

The other day, I went online to find out how much it would cost to do so, and since this hotel is essentially a relic from the 1970s, closing in on 50 years old, I figured the price would be reasonable.

LOL ... Disney is charging like $800 a night to stay in the main tower, the cool part of the hotel. And these prices do not seem to be budging. Demand for the resort experience is apparently sky-high.

Too bad for me, LOL.

Quo, there is an unreported influence in these numbers. Nothing Disney offers is a necessity. The impact of inflation upon discretionary spending is wholly ignored, and the quarterly statements of many companies are down year over year while leading indicators are beginning to show recessionary numbers.

While cord cutting and the variance in streaming subscriptions to cable subscriptions and the fractional decline in profits due to the differences is real, I would suggest that many households are having to cut discretionary spending, and entertainment is one of those places they cut.

The experiences is easily covered by cost increases, but as costs not only in materials and maintenance go up, but also in labor, the profit generated will likely vary from the revenue generated in a greater degree.

I would also note that sports are largely national. Theme parks are international.

It’s a weird economy. If we go by what has happened in the past in terms of inflation, rising interest rates, slowing economy, etc., it would suggest what you’re saying that households would cut back on discretionary items like entertainment.

However, that’s not what the data is showing. This Disney report showing Experiences (the parks and cruises) is one example and it’s not because of international growth at all. It’s being driven by the US revenue as the Shanghai park has had to constantly open and close on a whim whenever the Chinese government puts in pandemic restrictions and the parks in Japan aren’t actually owned by Disney. The Disney revenue there is largely a US story (and particularly Florida with the combo of so many Disney World resorts and the concentration of the cruise business there).

Other examples include concert ticket sales and prices along with sporting events that are the best that we’ve seen in a generation (even if we allow for the “revenge” spending in 2021-22 coming out of the pandemic). The “experience” economy is actually one area of the economy that has held up the best so far. Now, will that continue if we see a true economic downturn (as Americans’ view of the economy is actually more negative than what the data shows)? Maybe or maybe not.

In any event, we can posit a bunch of theories. For instance, the “experience” economy is one where it can’t be replicated online. Sure, a Taylor Swift concert movie is nice for those who couldn’t get to the actual concert, but it still completely pales in terms of an experience. Same thing with Disney World or even for many of us here in terms of what it’s like being at a sporting even in person compared to watching on TV. In essence, this is a part of the economy that can’t be replaced by Amazon or Apple on your phone, so it has relative strength compared to, say, the retail or commercial real estate sector.

Another theory that I’ve seen is that property prices, inflation and higher interest rates have taken so many people completely out of the real estate market that they’re simply shifting that money to other areas, including entertainment. In essence, there’s a material number of people that are saying, “We couldn’t afford a house even if we scrimped and saved every dollar possible, so why even try? Might as well make some memories and go to Disney World.” I’m not saying that this a good thing long-term, but there’s an element here of a whole bunch of money that is *not* being spent on real estate (which is one of the biggest drivers of our economy) getting shifted elsewhere.

Anyway, like I’ve said, this is a weird economy where a lot of assumptions that we’ve had about how people spend their money are getting upended.

Interesting that the surrender of the American Dream, a home, is being replaced with experiences. Most of my family memories were from the home. Theme parks were a blur of humidity, tense calf muscles, and Tums needed because of the park food, even at Epcot which was what I would call an American's idea of what those nations and their food were like. But I can see the surrender of one dream transitioning into travel for experiences. But it's not a wise move. Too much of what builds wealth in this country, what is incentivized by tax deductions, and what builds equity is still centered in the home. It has been the advent of corporations purchasing more family dwellings than families within a fiscal year that has been the tip off of where we are headed. And it appears to be a world where the corporations own the property and the people rent. Their construction and purchases have driven up the costs, along with inflation in cost of materials. In that regard I can see the trend of the young burying themselves in "experiences" which is just another form of escape. What a hell!

You must have been old with your first theme park experience!!! I have fond memories of Coney Island in Cincinnati, 6 Flags over Texas and Astroworld as a kid. Then taking the kids to 6 Flags over Georgia, Disneyland and Disney World, Seaworld in San Antonio and San Diego and a couple of the studio parks. Last time at Seaworld was a little sad. The people against animal cruelty have forced them to pretty much decimate their park and shows.

(10-20-2023 10:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 10:09 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 11:42 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(10-19-2023 11:19 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  I first bought in 1984. You could not get a fixed rate loan back then. Initial interest rate was 11.5% and it was over 15% when I sold in 1991.

I thank God everyday that we locked in a 3.25% 30 year fixed in Feb 2022. Our friends are trapped in townhomes and can't afford to leave. We have the forever home with a beautiful 5 month old. We are hoping to FIRE in the next 10 years with the house paid off. This wouldn't be possible has we not got in when we did.

For sure. We refinanced in early-2021 with a sub-3% mortgage rate and it makes everything easier with being able to pay down more principal faster even with lower payments under our old rates (much less the sky high rates now). This is definitely our forever home. Congrats on the 5 month old!

(10-20-2023 08:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 03:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-20-2023 03:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Preteens and teens are on tic toc and youtube, but parents still control what younger kids watch and it's safe kid programming on cable, not surfing the web.

Disney+ has plenty of kids' shows, and I'm pretty sure you can set a setting to Y7 on the kids' account.

Quote:Disney can't and doesn't want to be everything to everyone.

They pretty much can though. That was the whole point of acquiring LucasFilm Star Wars, Marvel, Twentieth Century, NAtional Geographic.

The old Hollywood "four quarters" breakdown, young / old, male / female.
Old men get ESPN. Young men get ESPN, Marvel, Star Wars. Adult women get -- I'm not 100% sure what Disney has laser-targeted at them actually. Younger women get Disney Channel type stuff, High School Musical and Descendants and the rest.

Quote:There are too many competitors like Nick, HGTV and others that already have loyal followers and won't go to a Disney clone.

I would agree with you about ABC and ESPN but that doesn't seem to be the plan if ESPN is sold.

Probably because, at the current time, Disney isn't looking at selling ESPN, just a part of it. It's not that they want to get out of the ESPN business, they're looking for partners to boost ESPN Flagship streaming on mobile (T-Mobile or someone) and hardware (Apple, maybe Amazon).

Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses, Disney Princesses. Remember that they have the same nostalgia factor for many women as Marvel and Star Wars do for men, particularly anything from the early-90s Disney Renaissance run. The entire Disney movie division at this point is about remaking the classic animated movies as live action films with adult women being the top target audience. The live action Beauty and the Beast movie a few years was to my wife and sister what The Force Awakens was to me in terms of anticipation.

Completely agree. Also Bachelor/ Bachelorette is a Disney product.

Ah yes - how could I forget The Bachelor franchise. That basically powers ABC prime time at this point.

Well if any of our oldsters on here are single, they introduced a new version, think its called the Golden Bachelor. Not sure how old he is, but the women were roughly 60 to 75. Maybe a lot of Boomer women were watching along with the younger ones.

My guess (today) on the ESPN stand-alone app is that a gambling entity sponsors/takes ownership of the app.

Place your bets while watching.
Constant ads to wager.

Depending on how much you wager, the price for access changes per month.

-Or pay an absurd annual subscription.

The dollars for the rights to teams and leagues are so high. It is going to take big money to keep those dollars high when cable subscriptions drop.

Youtube TV started at $35/month. It is $70/month today.

(10-21-2023 08:03 AM)chess Wrote:  My guess (today) on the ESPN stand-alone app is that a gambling entity sponsors/takes ownership of the app.

Place your bets while watching.
Constant ads to wager.

Depending on how much you wager, the price for access changes per month.

ESPN has already bedded down with Penn Gaming to make their online sportsbook "ESPN Bet"

Quote:-Or pay an absurd annual subscription.

The dollars for the rights to teams and leagues are so high. It is going to take big money to keep those dollars high when cable subscriptions drop.

Or, the dollars will come down when the contracts expire. The money just isn't going to be there.

Quote:Youtube TV started at $35/month. It is $70/month today.

And a lot of that passes along to ESPN and to the broadcast stations for the rights to show their stuff on Youtube TV.

If you don't care about sports, you can get all the TV you want for tens of dollars a month instead of hundreds of dollars. That's the fundamental reality that sports media economics are starting to run into. Now it's the Pac-12 and the RSNs, but they won't be the last casualty