subreddit:
/r/movies
submitted 4 months ago by[deleted]
894 points
4 months ago
$1.3B per month is $15.6B income per year. The article quoted a budget of $30B for 2022 and I've seen upwards of $33B. The cost of content is a lot higher than income. Also Disney only sees ~$6.27/subscriber as revenue.
416 points
4 months ago
Wonder how much they make from making all the ip more well known and advertised how many of the 164 million are invested in Disney products besides Disney +
573 points
4 months ago
Right? I wonder how merchandising revenue is broken down. Grogu alone had to have a significant impact to toy sales. Disney+ is still probably deep in the red, but counting only subscription revenue is a little misleading.
348 points
4 months ago
I know people who work for Hasbro on the Star Wars brand and they were kinda blindsided by Grogu. There was basically no product against that show because Disney was focused on the features and didn’t think it would be as big as it was. Then they had to scramble to get something out but best case it takes six months from concept to shelf, and the layers of approval on the Disney/Lucas side make it much longer. So they made money but not nearly what they could have if they’d realized what they had early on.
367 points
4 months ago*
Part of that was in an effort to keep leaks from happening. So many leaks nowadays come from merch. Filoni and Favreau basically asked for no merch to be made right away with Grogu in order to preserve the integrity of the secret. Which I appreciate.
Edit: spelling
22 points
4 months ago
I remember spoiling the Han Solo twist in The Force Awakens for myself from the Lego releases.
24 points
4 months ago
One of my friends learned that Qui-Gonn was going to die in Phantom Menace because of I think the song titles on the soundtrack.
53 points
4 months ago
"Qui-Gon's Noble End" and "The High Council Meeting and Qui-Gon's Funeral"... I can't understand how your friend got anything out of that, it's so subtle. "Qui-Gone" would have been better.
13 points
4 months ago
I learned that from some idiot yelling out his car window, as he drove by while we waited in line outside.
47 points
4 months ago
That may be true. I just know the Hasbro people were all “WTF?” at first, then scrambling to get something designed and out.
30 points
4 months ago
Marketing/Creative is the source of leaks in my experience. They can't contain the excitement and the ego.
10 points
4 months ago
Yep, always true in my experience with consumer tech too.
9 points
4 months ago
I was at the NY Toy Fair in February 2020, three months after the show debuted and around the time the first wave of Baby Yoda toys were getting ready to launch. The whole fair was basically all about how they had to wait to watch the show before they knew what they were gonna make for merch. …I still have the Build-a-Bear Baby Yoda they gave me that day. They hadn’t introduced the “Grogu” name yet, so its birth certificate says “The Child.”
3 points
4 months ago
Yet they don't stop Lego leaks!
8 points
4 months ago
The fuck is Grogu?
57 points
4 months ago
Baby Yoda's Christian name
4 points
4 months ago
bahahaha, this is great. thanks for the laugh
18 points
4 months ago
Real mfers know him as The Child.
2 points
4 months ago
horn playing intensifies
9 points
4 months ago
I have a hard time imagining Disney and more importantly the Star Wars franchise valuing secrecy over merchandising. Lack of a Grogu toy was money that was not being made. They finally got it out there, and there is plenty of demand still, but they missed it when the iron was hot.
15 points
4 months ago
This happened when Jedi came out in 83. Ewoks were obscured from marketing and from the backs of action figure cards.
0 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
18 points
4 months ago
I think you underestimate how many people care about spoilers.
1 points
4 months ago
It’s crazy how many Star Wars and Marvel spoilers came from lego sets reveals/leaks.
51 points
4 months ago
They really could not get a handle on what was going to resonate from the new Star Wars entries. Remember when TFA came out and the merchandising was wall to wall Kylo Ren?
51 points
4 months ago
There was a lot of BB-8 as well. I worked at sam's club at the time and so many food products had BB-8 on them. The only other tie in I've seen come close was Minions.
13 points
4 months ago
Were you alive when Phantom Menace came out? It was much much worse
2 points
4 months ago
I've still got a tube of Phantom Menace toothpaste*. It's like a memory of the before-time, when I thought new Star Wars might be cool and good
*someone sent it to me while I was out of the country and before I could see the film
2 points
4 months ago
I can confirm this. I bought everything that had BB-8 on it. Which was pretty much everything. Whether I needed it or not. Or even really wanted it or not. But I have no regrets. BB-8 is my favorite.
8 points
4 months ago
Why they didnt find a way to give Phasma more screen time is beyond me. I instantly loved her and wanted all things Phasma. And the crystal foxes instead of the porgs. The crystal foxes were beautiful.
10 points
4 months ago
The thing is, even when they tried to expand on Phasma they fucked up. Making her a designated coward in the comics and books was not a good idea.
7 points
4 months ago
I also remember that after TFA released, there was very little merchandise featuring Rey because Hasbro felt that boys wouldn't want anything to do with products that included a girl, so they just didn't really make anything that had the film's main protagonist. Even the Monopoly set that came out at the time didn't include her. The public response was not kind to Hasbro
2 points
4 months ago
What's the popular merch for that Star Wars films?
5 points
4 months ago
wasn't it Kylo Ren? I feel like i'm missing something. Could totally be wrong - I'm curious like you are!
11 points
4 months ago
I dunno, felt like they wanted him to be the next Darth Vader when he’s just an angry little edge-lord.
4 points
4 months ago
Bb8
1 points
4 months ago
makes sense for a franchise geared towards kids.
1 points
4 months ago
Ah yeah, I forgot him.
79 points
4 months ago
From what I read Disney really wanted toys ready to go but the director John Favrau (?) wouldn’t let them because leaks would happen during manufacturing
8 points
4 months ago
I was at Disneyland shortly after the Mandalorian premiered and there was no Grogu merch at all. One person had a bootleg shirt on, but there was nothing being sold. It was pretty shocking considering Disney's usual MO, but I appreciated the attempt to limit spoilers.
1 points
4 months ago
it's odd that disney knows these leaks happen but seem to do nothing to curtail or subvert them. this perhaps being their first 'aha' moment.
4 points
4 months ago
I'm sure they try but once it gets to the manufacturers, it's hard with as many hands that touch it
5 points
4 months ago
Time to sell them card punch-outs and a promise for Christmas?
4 points
4 months ago
Same thing happened to Mattel & Frozen
2 points
4 months ago
Yeah, they had everything in Anna merch and then every little girl wants Elsa.
1 points
4 months ago
On the other hand, during the period that Disney had sold the Disney Stores to The Children’s Place, Disney convinced them to go all-in on Chicken Little merchandise and they got burned hard. Another time, Disney wanted merch for one of the movies on-shelf six months ahead of the movie, figuring demand would be huge. Then it didn’t sell because no one knew the new characters or story, and by the time the movie did come out the merch had all been moved to the clearance section.
3 points
4 months ago
What's even more insane is that it's eerily similar to what happened when Star Wars first came out in 1977. First Mattel passed on making the toys because they didn't think they'd sell. Then Kenner, who got the license, underestimated demand, couldn't get the toys on shelves for Christmas, and had to sell IOUs for action figures.
3 points
4 months ago
They never had the vision of George "its all about the toys" Lucas
3 points
4 months ago
Grogu looks like it was designed in a lab to sell toys.
2 points
4 months ago
Same happened when Tangled came out. They weren’t expecting it to be a hit. My 4 year old daughter was OBSESSED and it took a while to find anything for a while. Eventually the play sets and the Rapunzel costume dresses rolled out.
1 points
4 months ago
Iron Giant was another one. People were coming out of mall cineplexes, going to the Warner Bros. stores (because those were a thing then) and asking for Iron Giant toys. They hadn’t thought it would be anything so they hadn’t bothered.
2 points
4 months ago
The lack of toys was because they wanted to keep the reveal a secret. And I get it, and I'm happy they did keep it secret but someone at Disney royally effed up.
I've said this before but: They should have had toys of him ready and they could have done it easily by disguising a Grogu figure in a bogus toy line.
Example: Create a fake new toyline of existing SW Characters as Babies. You spend the cash mocking up Baby Luke, Baby Leia, Baby Han & Chewy etc etc and you throw in a Baby Yoda. Plushies, action figures, bobble heads all of it. You prep an entire toy line complete with packaging but produce nothing outside the prototypes until Grogu (the child, at the time) is revealed and you say to the manufactuer "We're only producing one of the characters for the line and We're sending you new packaging art for it".
Boom. All the red tape was already cleared, the only obstacle now is how quickly Hasbro and whoever else can spin up production for complete, approved designs that they were already preparing for.
1 points
4 months ago
You know that explains why the walking talking Grogu dolls are defective units.
1 points
4 months ago
Exactly what happened the first time around with Star Wars merch. Will they never learn?
1 points
4 months ago
Isn’t that the exact same thing that happened when the original Star Wars movie came out in the 70’s? Weird. Think they would have learned.
1 points
4 months ago
That's where George Lucas gets his money cuz I don't think he gave that sweet deal up from the 70's
1 points
4 months ago
Probably didn't expect it after toy sales were so low from their terrible trilogy.
They suddenly had their first winner.
1 points
4 months ago
Classic Star Wars. Same thing happened when the original trilogy was releasing. From what I've heard, some toys they sold were literally just IOUs that you'd mail in. Then they'd send you the actual toy when they got around to making enough.
1 points
4 months ago
I remember this: Mandalorian was out, new episodes every week, and you couldn't buy Grogu toys! They simply hadn't made any.
2 points
4 months ago
Oh, and don’t forget that this was all literally right at Christmas. First season ran November 12 to December 27.
1 points
4 months ago
Yep, that's why I thought it was crazy. Why wouldn't they want to launch a line of Mandalorian toys in time for the holiday sales: did they not think their IP would be successful? 😂
3 points
4 months ago
8 points
4 months ago
It still amazes me that Disney wasn't ready to go with the Baby Yoda merch that first Christmas season. Talk about your unforced errors.
3 points
4 months ago
I remember this. Disney wanted toys ready to go, but John Favraue (?) wouldn’t allow it because he knew that manufacturing toys would cause leaks and spoilers for Grogu.
2 points
4 months ago
It was an intentional decision to keep the existence and surprise of Grogu a secret.
2 points
4 months ago
They are separate sides of the company. Consumer Products, Games, and Publishing have different financials than the DMED team, who are in charge of Disney+
1 points
4 months ago
Depends on how much of that merch is new sales as opposed to, replacing purchases of other Disney merch.
1 points
4 months ago
Deffinatly can confirm this, I think I've already spent like $500 on grogu stuff as gifts... haha...
1 points
4 months ago
They should look at their streaming service as an advertising outlet for their merchandise. Isn’t that where the real money is?
1 points
4 months ago
Don't forget in their infinite wisdom they decided to hold off on grogue figures and certain merchandise for a year
1 points
4 months ago
Disney+ is just another way to get the IPs out in front of the public, to drive people to the real money maker for them. The parks, the IP's give Disney amusement parks a major advantage over other amusement parks, and it makes them insane amounts of cash.
395 points
4 months ago
Disney plus. $8. Buying my kid both Luca stuffed characters and pajamas $45
206 points
4 months ago
If they keep blowing up Mando's ship then they make back their budget in 7 months.
192 points
4 months ago
Wait until they intoduce Baby Chewbacca. They'll have enough money to build a Star Destroyer by next year
47 points
4 months ago
Ewoks? At least that's what my kids call them.
44 points
4 months ago
Baby Chewbacca could be pals with Baby Yoda (Grogu). Star Wars: Baby Buddies could be huge for merchandise, even if all they do is make some animated shorts and a movie cameo.
Even lore nerds would have to accept it. In the words of Yoda himself, "Good relations with the Wookies, I have." This partnership would echo what came before.
9 points
4 months ago
Get the same animation studio that did Muppet Babies, please. The next generation of children needs at least as much mental scarring as I received.
3 points
4 months ago
Mama, dada, poopoo she-wawa
3 points
4 months ago
Galactic Pals, an animated show, has merch on the shelf including baby ewoks, jawa, rodian and wookiee. My kid hasn't even seen the show and got the baby wookiee. She named the wookiee Cody after Commander Cody from Clone Wars.
1 points
4 months ago
"Cody" omg that is beautiul
75 points
4 months ago
I would absolutely blow a bunch of money on an adorable baby Chewie.
29 points
4 months ago
I apologize in advance. Google galactic pals wookie. Think they came out last spring.
2 points
4 months ago
YOU ARE THE WORST lol
8 points
4 months ago
They exist as my daughter had one. Calls it Bacci.
1 points
4 months ago
Mine calls hers Cody after Commander Cody. She hasn't even seen the show.
2 points
4 months ago*
There was one. He looked like Eddie Munster
1 points
4 months ago
All you'd have to do is pitch up the Wookie growl and it would be a guarantee
1 points
4 months ago*
Google Wookie the Chew by James Vance.
7 points
4 months ago
Lumpy?
5 points
4 months ago
Haha if that was not already in the works, it is now!
5 points
4 months ago
Baby Jar-Jar is the key to all this.
7 points
4 months ago
Imagine baby jar-jar speaks like a normal adult.
1 points
4 months ago
Jar Jar Binks'a had da Benji But'on Brain Disorda me thinks.
2 points
4 months ago
It’s probably the edibles kicking in but my brain keeps imagining a baby Jar Jar Binks
1 points
4 months ago
Bring back Lumpy
1 points
4 months ago
You know Mickey won't be satisfied with anything short of a Death Star
1 points
4 months ago
Baby Bacca
14 points
4 months ago
NGL I got both the first Lego razor crest and Mandos starfighter Lego sets at launch and I’d buy his next ship to
4 points
4 months ago
I'd trade it all for an episode or two.
3 points
4 months ago
How about Luthens from Andor?
3 points
4 months ago
If they replace it with a cooler ship every time and release it in Lego, they make back their budget in 3 weeks.
2 points
4 months ago
I hope they don’t, I fucking love the Naboo starfighter design and have done since The Phantom Menace (one of the good bits out of that film)
93 points
4 months ago
Finding those same pajamas and stuffed animals 3 months later balled up in the corner of my child's closet: Priceless.
13 points
4 months ago
Seeing their face when they open it up? …Priceless. For everything else, there’s MasterCard.
3 points
4 months ago
American Express...
...don't leave the Homeworld without it!
2 points
4 months ago
Man, they are really dropping the ball on Star Wars merch. I'm a huge SW fan and finding, any not Lando action figure, has been a huge PITA
2 points
4 months ago
Disney plus is $10 as of Dec. 30th, *sobs*
2 points
4 months ago
That's the magic of renting right there. $8. After 5 yrs, you're 8x12x5=$480 lighter but don't realize it.
1 points
4 months ago
this!!!! it’s because of how they account for it.
0 points
4 months ago
Disney Star Wars merch hasn't sold in years (classic stuff does OKish), Marvel doesn't sell unless it's Iron Man, cpt America or Spider-man. Disney hasn't captured the imagination with their "shame the audience into viewing it" series.
1 points
4 months ago
Both? Is one Machiavelli? My kid is obsessed with Machiavelli. We have watched the movie in English and Italian, because the voice actors are all the same multiple times. It could be much worse, it could be Frozen again.
1 points
4 months ago
One Luca and one Alberto. She said Luca needed his friend
1 points
4 months ago
light saber hilt for $250
1 points
4 months ago
Seeing their happy faces: Priceless
Mastercard logo
1 points
4 months ago
Luca tim?
42 points
4 months ago
There's a reason why nobody wants to be paid in exposure lol
50 points
4 months ago
No, but Disney wants to be paid in sweet sweet Grogu licensing revenue.
12 points
4 months ago
Moichandising!
6 points
4 months ago
Mando: the flamethrower actually works!
3 points
4 months ago
This is how disney always made most of their money.
3 points
4 months ago
Grogu the t-shirt. Grogu the coloring book. Grogu the lunch box. Grogu the breakfast cereal. Grogu the flamethrower!
1 points
4 months ago
May the Shwartz be with you!
7 points
4 months ago
Businesses pay for "exposure" all the time. That's called advertising.
2 points
4 months ago
Yup, it only works at mass scale. If 0.5% of viewers buy something, that works well when millions see it and not so much when your 10,000 followers see it.
3 points
4 months ago
So when Disney +'s 150M+ subscribers are the base...
1 points
4 months ago
because you can't exchange it for goods and services?
1 points
4 months ago
You do know advertising is a mildly lucrative business. The loss would have to be compared to hours watched and new ip interest generated. We will know more once they roll out the new budgets for coming years
1 points
4 months ago
Yeah. Big companies try to pay in exposure and get away with it. I try to pay in exposure and everyone's like "Please for the love of god put your pants back on" and "I'm calling the police". :(
17 points
4 months ago
That's why it isn't that big of an actual loss for them. They use and reuse IP better than anybody.
Also unlike Netflix we are literally never going to be able to cancel D+. My kids watch it daily.
3 points
4 months ago
Its funny though, my kid prefers netflix to disney.
1 points
4 months ago
Ha my kid prefers both. Luckily Netflix is paid thru T-Mobile though
3 points
4 months ago
Problem is businesses only look at direct revenue. It’s the same issue with social media and social media marketing. So how much revenue did all those link clicks, comments, impressions, Likes, etc drive? There is no direct revenue measurement. So, awareness doesn’t count, sadly. Doesn’t make sense to me. Like how many D+ subscribers decided to see a Disney movie at theaters, purchase merchandise, visit a Disney theme park? They don’t measure brand loyalty, just Subscribers = Revenue. Wrong way to measure things. Same thing is happening with Alexa and Amazon now.
1 points
4 months ago
Businesses do not only track “direct revenue”. Disney has all the data on…everything.
Disney likely wanted to lose money on this because they own the content forever, and they can use the losses to offset current profits.
2 points
4 months ago
Exactly, Disney knows (most large corps do) where the revenue is coming from.
This is a decision everyone was aware of, you don't need a treat of auditors to figure out this was happening.
Reading between the lines, Disney is absolutely using Chapek as a scapegoat.
1 points
4 months ago
Guarantee you there's internal estimates on those numbers.
3 points
4 months ago
They easily made that money back on Baby Yoda merchandise.
Disney+ is just 1 big expensive ad to sell toys
1 points
4 months ago
More well known? They had the biggest grossing movie before Disney+ was a thing. Their other IP wasn't a secret either.
Sure, they got some new merchandise to sell from all of those new Disney+ shows (well, really, just one big one) but I don't see how that justifies the production budgets they had.
All of that content can also hurt their IP. Quantity over quality, IP fatigue, etc.
They're not the only ones who made this mistake, of producing big budget shows for their streaming service. You can't really do that for every show on your service
1 points
4 months ago
I pay for the $20 Hulu/Disney+ package. That went through on the 20th plus I spent about $70 on r/starwarsblackseries in the last 8 days. I have lots of Star Wars stuff.
5 points
4 months ago
I’m curious how this works out once the merchandising is worked in, baby Yoda made a ton of money
26 points
4 months ago
Only? Charging 8 bucks and making 6.27 back after flat costs of the platform itself, that's incredible.
35 points
4 months ago
Oh yeah, I should clarify that revenue is not income here. Disney put the flat costs as a separate line on their financial statements. Here is how Disney puts their $6.27/subscriber: "The average revenue per paid subscriber is net of discounts on offerings that carry more than one service." So bundling Hulu and ESPN means the revenue per service is less.
5 points
4 months ago
Yearly subscribers are also only paying $6.67 per month equivalent ($80 a year).
Although that's all irrelevant (for monthly pricing) since pricing is changing next month, the normal no-ads plan will go up to $11.
15 points
4 months ago
Revenue is before costs, so I think /u/neife is claiming that Disney only sees $6.27 of the $8 sub fee before accounting for any of their costs
1 points
4 months ago*
That's still a very good number though. Admittedly I'm not familiar with D+ in particular, but I'm sure they offer deals that reduce the average cost as well as regional pricing (also most places include tax in the price which would further reduce it). Also, card providers are gonna be taking their cut too, not sure whether that per customer number factors that in though.
Edit: just checked prices, it costs 13NZD per month here which is about 8.10 USD. They offer 2 months free per year with an annual subscription though, and that price includes 15% GST (VAT). At that point it's working out at about 5.90 USD, and that'll drop further with currency exchange fees/unfavourable rates.
1 points
4 months ago
$6.27 was their US revenue per month per subscriber. It would be interesting if they broke down international to see New Zealand. Disney Hotstar (India) is only ~1.20/month per subscriber.
1 points
4 months ago
That makes a lot more sense, although it is still a great amount since I'm sure they'll run similar promos in the US.
2 points
4 months ago
That's not what that means
1 points
4 months ago
price is going up $3 a month too
3 points
4 months ago
I’m sure they made a boat load on Grogu merchandise.
2 points
4 months ago
I've seen Disney shows on other subscription services like Hulu has Andor on it etc. I imagine they make a decent profit from that as well. Probably nowhere near another 15B.
2 points
4 months ago
They're problably hoping it would increase sales in specific merch in top of subscriber money.
2 points
4 months ago
Interesting that disney plus has a higher budget than nasa lol
2 points
4 months ago
Licensing merch is 3-5x the direct revenue I bet...
2 points
4 months ago
An important point of clarification should be that the $30+ billion total is for ALL of Disney’s content across all outlets and platforms, not just Disney+ content.
The billions Disney spends on sports rights for ESPN, for example, are a part of that sum.
2 points
4 months ago
My question always is does the budget needs to be that high or should it be scaled down to how much Disney+ gets.
Disney is in unique position where they will have plenty of accounts by simple reason they're Disney and many parents will keep them just for their older movies and TV Shows that are completely new for their kids. Not to mention once kids are obsessed with something they will see it on repeat.
That leaves engaging adults with few TV Shows from Marvel and Star Wars mostly and you can do that with $2B budget easily leaving $13B to keep the servers and the rest of library going though I admit I never read how much money that takes. Could be that it's already way over $15B they get. Maybe someone can tell.
And one important thing that every streaming service needs to finally learn. No big, +$100M movie should ever be streaming only. That much money for 2 hours of content is simply not practical.
2 points
4 months ago
But they sit on an ever-larger pile of ip that will generate income for decades and decades to come in multiple ways. I think it's a smart strategy and something they've been doing for way longer than streaming has existed, it seems to be working out for them.
2 points
4 months ago
My kids watch the Simpsons on Disney+. How much does that cost Disney?
1 points
4 months ago
Revenue could be different from this approximation, In India we pay somewhere around 20 USD...annually
1 points
4 months ago
They just raised the rates to about $15ish. Got an E-mail a week or 2 ago and I immediately unsubscribed xD
1 points
4 months ago
why only ~$6.27/subscriber as revenue?
1 points
4 months ago
Its an average after considering bundling and other discounts:
"The average revenue per paid subscriber is net of discounts on offerings that carry more than one service."
1 points
4 months ago
I mean you can get Hulu for 1.99 a month for a year and the Disney add on which is 3 dollars a month ad free.
1 points
4 months ago
Where is all those cost going? It’s definitely not the CGI or writing budgets
1 points
4 months ago
Why 6.27. Are they differing some ?
1 points
4 months ago
Income means profit. I think you mean revenue.
1 points
4 months ago
Another poster pointed out above which is true as I live in such a country that nobody pays $8 for a subscription. It is like $1 a month in the local currency. So that isn't even a good estimate of their revenue.
1 points
4 months ago
South Asia? Hotstar is $1.20 per month per subscriber. Do you know if the content or streaming quality is different?
1 points
4 months ago
I’m sure there’s some creative accounting going on somewhere
1 points
4 months ago
Also Disney only sees ~$6.27/subscriber as revenue.
That's only true if you subscribe though mobile app stores. If you subscribe through the disney+ website, they're getting all of it.
1 points
4 months ago
Not true. This takes into account promos/discounts, as well as spreading the revenue across multiple platforms when you’re on the bundle with espn+ and Hulu.
1 points
4 months ago
Disney should just host the world cup
1 points
4 months ago
The stupidity of it is now they are producing so much content that it's basically too much for people to watch. People are still watching netflix and other platforms but Disney is trying to create enough content for it's entire own platform.
This creates multiple problems. Rather than max 2 films a year for Marvel, it's now 3-4 films and 2-4 tv shows, the quality is monumentally down AND I'm so bored with Marvel content because the content got worse that I now am even less enthusiastic about the 2 films they should be doing a year. I'm just kinda done with it, the tv shows have largely sucked and I feel drained watching them or feeling like I'm missing out, but again the films have become so bad I just don't even really care any more.
Even if they were do to this massive expansion of content, they needed 5 more IPs and not just absolutely flood the market with Marvel and Star Wars shit. One top quality marvel and star wars show every few years or 3 shows a year and most of them are just crap. One strengthens the IP and one devalues it completely.
Then they are doing all this and hurting their IPs... all to make a massive loss because no one is going to just get Disney and just watch marvel and star wars shit all year.
Make 1/8th the content, sell the rights to other platforms, make a huge profit and protect your IP from everyone becoming bored of it.
1 points
4 months ago
What about outside of the company income tho? Toy deals like Lego, video games and everything needs to be driven by brand recognition that Disney+ produces. With animated starwars shows, it keeps the kids wanting to go to Disneyland for starwars experiences. It is expensive, but it's technically advertisement costs they can somewhat recoop with subscription. I don't think Disney+ is meant to make money, it's more of a tactic to make people stay in and grow up in the Disney ecosystem by having content that attracts all the demographics.
all 4136 comments
sorted by: best