Walt Disney Co’s streaming strategy appears to be shifting ever so subtly away from subscriber growth toward profits, dealing another blow to customers who have become accustomed to low-price, ad-free viewing.
While Wall Street showed its delight with the 14.4 million new Disney+ subscribers that the company reported on Wednesday for the quarter that ended on July 2, the growth was not as good as it could have been.
In the North American market, for instance, Disney+ added just 100,000 subscribers compared with the previous quarter, to 44.5 million from 44.4 million as of April 2. So the growth came almost entirely from overseas, partly from India, where average revenue per subscriber is a fraction of what it is for Disney+ elsewhere. Overseas growth was also fueled by the launch of 50 new markets, which muddies the waters.
Disney chief financial officer Christine McCarthy suggested that domestic growth would accelerate a little in the current quarter thanks to releases of new shows. While that is better than the reverse, any acceleration is likely to be short-lived thanks to Disney’s decision to raise the price of the existing ad-free version of Disney+ in the US by 38 percent to US$10.99 on Dec. 8 and to introduce a version with ads at the old US$7.99 price.
NO LONG-TERM IMPACT
Chief executive officer Bob Chapek assured analysts that he does not expect the price increase to have “any meaningful long-term impact on our churn.”
That makes sense. Disney+ fans can trade down to the ad-supported version at the same price if the new ad-free price is too high for them, as McCarthy acknowledged.
However, the price increase would not do anything for growth. Anyone who is not interested in Disney+ at US$7.99 a month without ads is unlikely to be more excited in trying it at that price with ads.
No, what this is all about is stemming the service’s losses. Disney reported that the operating loss at its direct-to-consumer division — the term it uses for streaming — was US$1.06 billion in the quarter, compared with US$293 million a year earlier.
McCarthy told analysts that this is the peak year for Disney+ losses, which means Disney has to show a path toward break-even next fiscal year.
That should be feasible. What is not clear is how much of the impact of the price increase will be cannibalized by people shifting down to the ad-supported version.
McCarthy said that the ad-supported version of Disney’s Hulu service is more popular than Hulu’s ad-free version. Still, even assuming Disney’s subscriber numbers in North America do not grow much, international markets should continue to expand — and the ad tier would bolster revenue.
PROFITS OVER GROWTH
The same profits-over-growth thinking drove Disney’s recent decision to give up IPL cricket streaming rights for its Disney+ service in India, which also carries the Hotstar brand. Without IPL, Disney appears to expect Hotstar’s growth to be weaker, based on new medium-term subscriber growth projections for the service issued on Wednesday.
The subscriber target for Hotstar might change further: McCarthy said that other cricket rights held by Hotstar in India are coming up for renewal.
She added that those would be evaluated with the “same discipline” Disney used in considering the IPL rights.
Disney is taking the right tack there. India does not generate enough subscription revenue to justify high costs for sports programming.
The good news for Disney as it takes a more cost-conscious approach to streaming is that its top rivals, Netflix Inc and Warner Bros Discovery, are taking similar steps, to varying degrees. That limits the competitive damage that could arise if Disney were raising prices and others were not. The only real losers are consumers, for whom the happy days of low-cost, ad-free streaming will soon be a thing of the past.
Martin Peers is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering tech and media. Previously, he was deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal’s Heard on the Street column and managing editor of The Information.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath