Worth noting that they're surpassing Netflix by including ESPN+ and Hulu subs, so many customers are getting double or triple counted. It isn't just Disney+. Also, Disney has made a lot of partnerships to promote and sell subscriptions, such as through Verizon, which is usually how they end up growing their numbers so quickly. They usually include guaranteed minimums and I'm not sure how that's affecting this number. If I were an analyst, I'd love to know what percentage of subscriptions are coming through those deals, as they don't tend to create sticky customers.
Still an impressive achievement given how relatively new the service is, though. It's a testament to what a well oiled machine Disney is and their ability to pivot into new services.
That means I am counted 3 or possibly even 4 times without paying a cent to Disney directly. I have an old Spotify Premium account that came with Hulu for free and now I have a Verizon Unlimited plan that includes free Disney+, ESPN+, and another Hulu subscription. Just goes to show that not all subscribers are created equal.
I activated an account on each of the three services, but I would guess that Disney gets money for all four. But even if they do, Disney probably doesn't make the same revenue on these accounts than they would if they were from four independent people subscribing directly.
> That means I am counted 3 or possibly even 4 times without paying a cent to Disney directly.
The fact that you're counted several times is a relevant complaint about their published subscriber count; the fact that you don't give money directly to them isn't.
Little does OP know, a lot of businesses would take 10% of the revenue (as pass through from Verizon) on 5x the subscriber base at 20x less churn (since the subscriber has no incentive to cancel).
Why are you framing it as double or triple counting? If I’m subscribing to Disney+ and ESPN+, I’m paying Disney twice. Unless you’re suggesting that paying for the Disney bundle is being counted as 3 separate subscriptions?
Because the title frames it as subscribers; not subscriptions. Disney probably doesn't have more subscribers than Netflix, but it has people paying Disney two or three times, as you say.
American Express is paying for quite a few of them too I bet, the Platinum card comes with a $20 / mo “digital entertainment” credit valid that can be used on Audible, Disney+, The Disney Bundle, ESPN+, Hulu, Peacock, SiriusXM, and The New York Times
Also in India, Disney+ is called Disney+Hotstar which is a much cheaper alternative to Netflix. Their most expensive plan is ₹1500/year compared to Netflix's ₹7788/year. Even Netflix's basic plan in India is ₹2388/year.
In Thailand, which Disney+Hotstar also operates, its yearly pricing is $23 (can be as low as $14 if subscribed from an eligible mobile carrier). Netflix pricing for an equivalent (2 streams) are $10/month or $118/year, a huge difference. Even Netflix's super basic plan (1 mobile-only stream) starts at $3/month or $33/year.
I dont even use espn+ its just bundled with my Hulu subscription, I literally do not care for major league sports. I rather just play with friends instead.
But yeah if they are counting people like me and not Daily Active Users across platforms they are foolish.
Maybe they are double counting Hulu and ESPN subs in the US, but not internationally. We don’t get those services at all in the uk and are slightly bemused when Disney proudly announce the more adult series that are now on Disney+ because we’ve had them for months.
Same in Australia. We don't get Hulu and ESPN+ but they launched a new section within the Disney+ service, called "Star", that includes more "adult oriented" movies and shows.
Is there a reason that there is no de duplication? I wonder if Privac Notice and T&C prohibit to exchange data on a personal level (identifying level)? Does one know what is allowed or not if these are separate entities?
A lot of Disney+ subs are "free" packaged with other mobile deals. I know plenty of people gotten a full year Disney+ free. Give it abother 2-3 years. See how well it sustain giving free subs.
Indeed, and ESPN has always been far and away the largest source of revenue. In fact, the earnings call where Disney beat expectations but cable subs to ESPN dipped by half a percent saw a total run on the stock. ESPN+ is what they're hoping to wean cable users onto.
I suppose I should disclaim that I used to work there :)
When I took my kid to Disneyland for the first time, I got the question on the way “dad, can we go to Netflixland as well?”
This question from a kid made me realize how much of an entertainment empire and revenue generator Disney is versus Netflix.
With Netflix, buying the monthly streaming service is the most you’ll spend. With Disney, it’s likely the least: the toys (with Disney royalties), the movie tickets for the family and finally - for some - a Disneyland trip where we dropped more over a few days than my lifetime Netflix spending will be.
The amount of investment that went into making Disney what it is today is incredible, and Netflix has a lot of catching up to do.
Will there ever be a ‘Netflixland’? Does Netflix even want to compete with Disney, head-on-head?
I want to ride the OA ride at Netflixland where the suspense and excitement builds up and you get a glimpse of the intense downhill part but then the ride just suddenly ends.
I was on a rollercoaster at Netflixland, but I couldn't enjoy it because an employee was sitting next to me the whole time listing all the rides I should try next.
Walt Disney made a famous sketch of his business strategy with exactly this point: https://i.insider.com/55a6bb002acae74c2f8b48b8. He'd be pleased to see that, modulo a few updates for changing times (comic strips aren't much of a thing these days), it's still working pretty much exactly as intended.
Yes I'm surprised that Disney hasn't built a third park somewhere in Texas yet. It seems like they're leaving money on the table. I understand they want to keep the parks somewhat special and aspirational, but the market has grown a lot. There's a huge group of customers in Mexico who would love to visit.
They went pretty far down the path toward building a new park in Virginia. I believe they even acquired land. In the end it failed because of intense regional opposition to it.
They are very popular in Finland. A bit of news a few years ago was that the Finnish translation of Donald Duck had the largest readership of all weekly publications in Finland.
I got some ads for a "Bridgerton Experience" and "Stranger Things Experience" in SF a few weeks ago. I thought "wow it would be cool if they did this for the content I'm more interested in," then realized that there's already Marvel and Star Wars themed sections of Disneyland. Bit different in the scale of their executions...
There have been some articles about this idea but nothing seems to be decided. They may go into parks later or may not. Some thinks they may just license the IP so you could go to a Stranger Things ride in some other park. Building a park like Disney Land is very, very expensive.
The short answer is...maybe. Franchises with sufficient power behind them usually end up with park deals. Universal operates the Nintendo park in Japan and Harry Potter. Disney is operating the Avatar park (before they even bought Fox).
It honestly feels like the technology advantage Netflix enjoyed has all but disappeared.
Content is now king and all of the other production companies have been making content for decades, Netflix is in serious trouble if it doesn’t lift its game.
To the extent they had or still have technology advantages, they are irrelevant. They do not own the majority of the best, most desirable content. Content producers have engaged in (anticompetitive) vertical integration wherein they also have become distributors. As happens in such situations, Netflix finds themselves squeezed out and taxed to death by monopolist studios like Disney, Paramount and Warner.
Solution: Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing. Disney must set a price for a piece of content and then allow any distributor to pay that price to carry it. They must not advantage their own distribution service in any way (which they shouldn't be allowed to have in any case).
It's the modern-day version of United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. where movie studios were banned from vertically integrating with theatres.
However I note on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... that the decree has just been sunset with the reasoning that ""the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings"" - but it seems really like the exact same model,
> "the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings"
For some reason* everyone seems to think monopolism was this quaint thing of the past, and not the thing that every market everywhere sprints towards as fast as the technology of the era will allow without some kind of restraint or regulation.
Why would the public need multiple distributors for the same content?
Theaters take tons of staff and logistics to operate. A streaming service is comparably simple (once the initial system is setup) and can deploy all content to all customers within seconds with the efforts of minimal people and overhead.
Where exclusive distribution exists there is little or no competition on price, service or quality. Why bother - they own the content, if you want to watch, you will put up with whatever.
I still put up with listening to Joe Buck call the World Series because Fox has exclusive rights to the broadcast. I would pay money to hear just about anyone else call it, including an ML powered Vin Scullybot (RIP).
How much control a content maker should have is a tough line to delineate.
MLB choose to give Fox exclusive rights, and Fox chose to give exclusive announcing to Joe Buck. Ideally, you could just go to MLB.com and choose whichever announcer you want, or some other equivalent system.
I would lean towards MLB having the right to sell their games how they want, but they also benefit from taxpayer funded stadiums, so I would not mind the government being able to force certain terms like FRAND on them.
You are entitled to that opinion, but exclusive distribution is antithetical to the idea of competitive enterprise. If we are going to continue to go that route, America should stop pretending we care about robust markets.
I do not see why exclusive distribution is always a bad thing, unless one is also claiming that a manufacturer has no right to sell directly to end users, such as Tesla.
Would a carpenter be able to only distribute their furniture directly to their customer? A hotel be not be able to exclusively take reservations from their hotel guests? An independent videographer not be able to sell their own videos however they want?
I think the solution here is to reduce copyright to 10 years. Or maybe 15. Then there is no more “exclusive” distribution.
In our combined scenario a carpenter can sell to anybody as long as they sell to everybody at the same price for the same type of buyers (retail/wholesale).
The solution is to mandate non discriminatory licensing, everything else you suggested is a workaround to avoid that step.
I think the main issue will be that smaller producers and studios won’t be able to make successful content because all of the users and subscriptions will be held by the big players. And even if they can get a licensing deal to put their content on another platform, it won’t be as favourable as Disney gets on their own platform.
Why does a content creator automatically deserve the audience of Disney at a price they determine to be fair? They are free to sell their media directly to anyone on the planet. They can put it in Google Play Store or Apple TV app for purchase or rent. Or for free on YouTube if they want ad revenue.
There is no barrier to distribution these days. The only limitation is quality of content. If a content creator makes something good enough at a price point people will accept, then customers can easily pay it.
Because in general we have found that giant megacorporations building up monopolies and walling in customers has not been a desirable thing. In general its preferable that product producers and marketplaces be run by separate entities, which was largely the case until new technology came in.
The time we were walled in was when all you media was delivered via cable or satellite of broadcast channels, which is what executives at those companies decided to show you.
No one is walled in now. If a content producer in Tajikistan made something that blew everyone away, everyone can watch it around the world without having to go through the bosses at Disney and Comcast and Netflix.
By and large, people like their curators. For example, I have no interest in sifting through content to see if it is worth watching or not. So I let my sources mention a show or movie’s name a bunch of times before I decide to watch it.
Others depend on the fact that it u in a on Disney or Netflix or Apple TV to be the filtering mechanism. Others do not mind wading through YouTube or TikTok filth.
Thats not true. Even if you put your content online, that doesn’t mean it will get in front of people. Disney, through its mass and various distribution levers, can control a significant percentage of what Americans watch on a screen, which isn’t healthy for democracy or capitalism.
There are 8B people in the world, there is no way everyone has time to watch everything. There will be a filtering mechanism for everyone.
The important thing is that it can get in front of everyone. Which the internet enables very easily.
If the content is high quality, word will spread, people will share links to it, and everyone will have the opportunity to see it. This was not the case before the internet.
The distributor is irrelevant nowadays. Today, Disney’s role is to curate.
> The distributor is irrelevant nowadays. Today, Disney’s role is to curate.
Again, that's laughable nonsense. If I want to stream a Marvel movie, Netflix' curation is irrelevant, because you can ONLY find it on Disney. That's not curation, that's distribution.
> If the content is high quality, word will spread, people will share links to it, and everyone will have the opportunity to see it. This was not the case before the internet.
This isn't true - Rocky Horror Picture Show? That's the just the first one that comes to mind. There are so many cult classics from the 60s-80s.
> There are 8B people in the world, there is no way everyone has time to watch everything. There will be a filtering mechanism for everyone.
Right now it's whoever owns the exclusive license for a piece of content. That's my entire point - consumers aren't choosing the winners, content owners are.
Their technology advantage disappeared the day MLBAM started doing non-MLB stuff. You saw this most clearly with the HBO Go Game of Thrones season premieres. The first time they did it, it was with an in house solution built by a Microsoft veteran (who for some reason decided to build a team in Seattle), that absolutely failed.
The next season they outsourced to MLBAM and it was flawless.
And would you know it. Disney bought MLBAM.
Although now there are several content producers who can match up with Netflix, with their in house teams.
What I will never understand though was Netflix voluntarily choosing to eliminate the tremendous data collection operation they had in their rating system. One of Amazon's biggest advantages are the reviews. Netflix had that in the media space. They decided to throw it away for a system which has no user input (so no moat) where anything that is presented to you is invariably rated 99%. It makes absolutely no sense.
I remember actually rating shows and movies on Netflix. There were stars and I could give as many or as few as I wanted.
Now they give me some stupid thumbs-up/-down thing, and I just give them the finger in response. Ratings on Netflix are useless now.
I do have one huge bit of praise for them: the cancellation process was absolutely painless. Not being snarky, I really appreciated that! (Contrast with trying to cancel SiriusXM, or Spectrum Internet; both painful)
Try cancelling Waste Management residential trash pickup. I had to repeat myself over and over that I was cancelling because I was moving to an area they didn't serve, and no, I would not give them my new address to check.
After finally convincing them that yes, I really did want to cancel, I was about to hang up and decided to double check that my auto-pay billing would be cancelled too.
"Oh no, if you're enrolled in auto-pay, you have to call the billing department to stop that."
I was so angry I nearly lost my composure with the lady on the phone who clearly wasn't responsible for such an asinine setup. I wonder how many people got charged for services never rendered and didn't want to deal with their bullshit enough to fight for a refund because they didn't know they had to cancel that separately.
I find that Disney doesn't have better content, but it has new content. I've had Netflix for years and watched most of the stuff I liked. I got Disney and they had Castle. That's kept me going for months and I've not used Netflix since.
Yeah it has 8 seasons. I tend to watch a show from start to finish as it cuts down the time spent hunting for something to watch.
You're correct that any streaming service has a chance at providing a show I'd like. That's the problem for services at the moment. Netflix has a huge catalogue but I've watched the shows I like. Disney has a smaller catalogue but happens to have a show I can watch with my wife. So that's the one we like at the moment.
They don't differentiate on anything else for me. They both work well enough.
That said Disney is not on my spart TV so I have to use the Chromecast.
One show wonders aren’t a bad way to go - and I think this is how Apple+ is going to come in submarine. Price it cheap enough that no matter who you have as #1, you have them as #2.
Honestly, the spin that I typically see just feels steeped in bias: "Netflix has nothing _I_ want to watch, therefore it is catering to no one and doomed to failure".
I imagine Netflix has a really good grasp of the content landscape and is playing a bit of moneyball with that. Sure, reality TV is not everyone's cup of tea, but it may have a larger audience:budget ratio than other projects, thus being an important asset in a content portfolio. Let's not forget the Bridgerton's and shows of the like, whose appeal probably inversely correlate with that of Star Wars for a particular viewer, in aggregate.
I think an analogy to the gaming sphere is apt. You are not going to sell RTS's to people who play visual novels. And furthermore, in the MMO arena, there is also the dichotomy between those who play the game at a leisurely pace and those who consume end-game content as if it's their job. All of these different segments exist, yet how best to allocate resources among them is the true question. I do think disregarding a niche would be a mistake if one is truly chasing growth but it is also a balancing act. Essentially, Netflix is Steam, but forced to take on a much larger publisher role.
Possibly misleading title? Still significant, but it includes all subscriptions including Hulu and ESPN+. Also did Disney account for possible overcounting (for example, there could be separate Hulu and Disney+ subscriptions and didn't took advantage of the bundle) or not?
I remember when Netflix began to produce their own shows and movies, some C-suite exec saying something like "we're gonna become HBO before they realize they need to become Netflix". I.e. vertically integrated content production and distribution.
Well, wrong target I guess. Disney has always been the big player in this space.
Turns out it’s much faster for a content producer to spin up a Netflix clone than vice-versa.
Some of this is not realizing just how much technology has advanced since Netflix was first mover - second mover often has much less problems in the area (especially as someone has already done the heavy work of showing it can be done).
Yeah, building Netflix when they first got into streaming was a massive technical undertaking. There were a lot of companies who tried very hard to do streaming video who just never got it to work well enough. Building a Netflix clone is still certainly not trivial by any means, but it's probably an order of magnitude less work than it was ten years ago. When they first shifted into original content production it didn't make sense for HBO to even try to compete with them, but those days are clearly long one.
An ironic statement considering HBO has been doing vertically integrated content production and distribution for a pretty long time (though it took them a few years to take streaming seriously).
Such a bummer because to my knowledge Netflix is the only streaming service that doesn't advertise crap that you have to sign up for other streaming services by including shows that you can't actually watch on it.
Every time I see a show on a streaming service that I can't actually click on and watch I return to the high seas and with Sonarr/emby.
I predicted this would happen as soon as Netflix raised prices earlier this year. They have over 220 million global subscribers, almost the population of the entire United States, but think they aren't making enough money and are investing the money they do have into hair-brained projects like mobile games. If Netflix just focused on stabilizing and returning steady profit, instead of infinite growth and inflating their stock price, they would be in a much better position than they are currently.
Every company wants to grow as big as it can. Netflix could have been the total entertainment package and had near monopoly power.
They played their cards wrong, and now their incredible growth story looks to be at an end. They're going to be bumping up against the HBOs of the world, meanwhile Disney will leapfrog them and grow into what Netflix wanted to be.
Your kids will be buying Star Wars merch and games and demanding to go to Disney World. Every house needs the Mouse, but Netflix is just another Paramount+.
At this point even Amazon and Apple will steal eyeballs and make Netflix's product look less appealing and less worth the cost.
Disney is what Netflix wanted to become. Now they have to fight for a smaller, more humble market. They're boxed in. Nobody will fund a bigger vision. The big dream is dead.
> I'm using an Amex offer that gives 100% cashback on Disney+ subscriptions. Sounds like another fun way to game these numbers.
That "gaming" might be considered by some to be basic co-marketing and business development (which Netflix does too, of course). You've hit on a crucial point, though — Disney has an order of magnitude more relationships, subsidiaries, products, etc. to leverage than Netflix does. By 2025, Netflix will have been acquired by someone who can compete with that.
Netflix is overpriced relative to other streamers and they are going to have a problem with customer churn induced by streaming fatigue and price pressure with the streaming marketplace getting very crowded.
COVID theatrical closures made it look like they were fundamentally doing very well. If that factor is removed, the current strategic headwinds facing them would have been apparent much earlier.
Netflix could try pay-per-view instead of or in addition to the ads model. TVOD is a very small segment of total entertainment industry's streaming revenues and obscured largely by the success of SVOD driven by Netflix's trailblazing past and AVOD/FAST adoption by competition.
It may become the Blockbuster rental of the 21st century for the long-tail of videos, the business model they disrupted with their arrival.
Amazon Prime Videos is doing some of that (and so is YT and others).
But there is room for Netflix to innovate here to capture even the blockbusters (i.e., the fat part before the long tail).
(Theatrical | Direct to stream) -> NFLX Pay-per-view TVOD catalog -> NFLX SVOD catalog + NFLX AVOD catalog.
They could potentially sign up deals with theatres (and include technology) for special screenings reserved for the NFLX pay-per-view customers to watch the film on the large screen.
Some cannibalization of SVOD revenues will happen. But it would also force their competitors to play by the new rules instead of NFLX being totally reactive as they are finding themselves now.
I can see this. Disney has some absolutely amazing content for many different groups of people while Netflix has become boring and stagnant. Nowadays I assume what I'm wanting to find isn't on Netflix and go straight to Prime to rent anyway. The only other competitor in terms of quality of content with their own content is probably Apple TV, with Ted Lasso and For All Mankind.
That’s wild. Netflix makes so many more shows that are well received than Apple TV. Apple TV is tiny relatively speaking.
Amazon, HBO Max, maybe Discovery+, make enough content for streaming in enough quantity (so there’s enough higher quality stuff) that Apple TV can’t easily surpass them.
Some shows are basically streaming shows now any way even if they technically go on HBO at 11 pm or something (thinking of something like Nathan Fielder’s own show and the show he exec produces).
Apple TV doesn’t have to surpass. They’re pricing themselves low enough to be everyone’s second choice, and low enough that you won’t bother to cancel. It’ll grow.
If Apple can keep it at $5, yeah. I’m not sure why Apple TV at $5 would make more sense than any other major streamer (or at least HBO, Disney+ (depending on who you are), Netflix, or Hulu at $8 with ads. Apple TV doesn’t have a negative reputation yet. Imo that is helped by their limited scope (Apple users only) and low price as you mentioned. It still doesn’t and doesn’t have any immediate plans to try to get that much bigger (based on their budget).
OTOH, when every one else has gone to at least $10 even with ads, then yeah $5 for Apple TV is crazy cheap. Though a ton of people have Amazon Prime and it doesn’t appear to get talked about too much or be a major deal for Amazon. They’re sinking a good amount of money into it too (thinking LOTR show and MGM $8B acquisition).
Netflix specifically has gotten a particularly bad reputation on HN in recent years. The number of comments relentlessly shitting on it have gone up a lot. Much like Apple TV’s general rep on HN is usually neutral/on the outside or positive.
Notably, this isn’t a case of Disney out competing Netflix. This is a case of a company that got rich off of good content decades ago simply buying almost every large video entertainment service around until it Defacto owned most of said entertainment world. Just give it a few years and maybe they’ll even buy pornhub
Same. It’s worth noting Disney only has a single plan which includes 4K, HDR, Atmos, etc, and in the UK is far cheaper - Netflix charge nearly £200 a year for their 4K plan (£15.99 x 12). Disney is less than half that on a yearly plan for £80.
Netflix is just simply massively overpriced now, in my opinion, even before you dive into the massive content advantage Disney have - almost everything ever made by Disney, Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel, National Geographic and the then the massive Star catalogue, which actually has a ton of decent movies and tv shows, new and old. Content is obviously highly subjective, but I lost track of the amount of times I’d open Netflix and spend 10 minutes struggling to find something worth watching in their annoying UI.
How many folks are on the sweetheart deals Disney Plus had before they launch? I know I prepaid for at least two years, I think. Will be interested to see who sticks around.
There were at least two 3 year promotional plans prior to launch that dropped down the effective price to under 5 dollars/month and under 3 dollars/month. Those are expiring in November, right on time for the rate hike.
not paying for streaming services anymore. happy to pay for netflix but having to go all over the place is insane when i get much better service by fucking pirating
Still an impressive achievement given how relatively new the service is, though. It's a testament to what a well oiled machine Disney is and their ability to pivot into new services.