(11-15-2019 09:21 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: (11-15-2019 09:04 PM)stever20 Wrote: (11-15-2019 08:34 PM)Wolfman Wrote: (11-14-2019 03:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: Good numbers but will it hold? How many times are you going to watch the same Disney movies and shows? We’ll see if people drop off when they see the content available.
Also, if people are satisfied with Disney+ will they cut cable which is still Disney’s cash cow? Many probably have held off cutting cable because of the Disney channel.
If you have pre-teens in your house the average is 167,218 times each.
and if you have mid single digits in your house that number is double.
Ok...if I accept your premise, then that puts Disney Channel cable channel in jeopardy and by collateral damage ESPN with people no longer need cable to watch Disney.
In this day and age, streaming services are still a niche product. They are used to capture viewers that have either already given up on traditional cable or have enough disposable income that they don't care about spending a little extra to ensure they have their favorite content on demand.
The on-demand video library is the under-advertised feature of this type of technology. It's one thing to be able to watch a channel dedicated to your favorite type of content, but it's another to literally pick what you want to watch whenever you want to watch it and watch it as often as you like. Pause it or rewind if you need to. The ability to binge watch a series you really like and not have to wait until the next week to get another dose...it's appealing for a lot of different reasons.
The strength of traditional cable is the bundle...you get lots of different types of content for a flat rate. It's ideal for sports viewers certainly as well as people who don't particularly have destination shows or channels they like. Flip it on in your spare time and see what catches your eye...that sort of thing.
It wasn't that long ago really that cable technology supplanted traditional broadcast television. Oddly enough, broadcast TV didn't go away. Part of that is government regulation, but OTA companies still make plenty of money. They do it a little differently, but their basic model survives. In other words, the advent of cable changed the market, but didn't necessarily undermine what came before it. In the same way, I predict that internet-based TV will supplant cable technologically, but won't destroy its predecessor. The market will change, but the basic model by which cable makes money will survive.
Sometimes people compare cable TV to the newspaper industry. I think it's a reasonable comparison, but my opinion is that the newspaper industry is dying because of the inefficiency of the medium rather than it being a matter of simply being replaced by the next best thing. That sort of thing happens, but the reality is that both TV and internet-based means of disseminating information are so far ahead of the old newspaper model that it can't really survive. The product is too inefficient, too rigid, and too slow to compete.
Printing words on paper is still a worthwhile and profitable technology(books make plenty of money), but not if your words are basically useless 24 hours after being put down. That and it's impossible for that medium to satisfy a market that demands instant reaction and information.
By contrast, OTA broadcasting and cable are still doing well. The biggest difference for cable is the product is currently too expensive. Some media companies got a little greedy when they decided to create hundreds of channels that no one watches just so they could collect subscriber fees. They were caught a little off guard when someone figured out there was a more efficient way to distribute. Now some of those companies are making a little less money, but they're not going broke. Those companies will adjust to the new market just as OTA broadcasters had to adjust.
One of these days, someone will invent an idea that is better than the internet and it will start all over again.
/
Disney 10,000,000 new customers in one day
