192
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Disney is banking on a password crackdown and spate of sequels as it pushes to make its streaming business profitable. 

The company, which is under pressure as audiences move away from traditional pay-TV and cinema, said it was on track to meet its goals after new subscribers and price rises helped to narrow losses in its streaming business.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Sure, but note the second part of my post.

[-] PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

The second part of your post is too vague and subjective to comment on. Are accountants not supposed to be happy with an additional $59 million in subscription revenue? That's all in a 3-month period.

And even if not, note the rest of the article. They're not solely cracking down on password sharing, the service is getting more expensive too. They all are. Disney is not charting new territory with any of this.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

The thing is that this isn't an endpoint. We've got corporations that comfortably clear multiple billions in profit each quarter and the investors get sad when that number doesn't keep going up because that was last quarter. It's like the world's fattest men insist that they're starving to death. Investors will be satisfied with this for a quarter, and then they'll have to turn to some other scheme to try and inflate profits further. I get that this is nominally how capitalism is supposed to work, but I think that putting the investor as the first, last, and only consideration has caused a proliferation of slash-and-burn style short-termism. It's fake growth because it's not actually sustainable, everyone knows it, but you just try and keep it up until the next short term scheme can keep your stonks inflated.

Imo, the market has already shown that it won't bear infinite growth in streaming services (what with every network trying to start their own proprietary netflix-priced service), and they're going to start running into that ceiling again as they all start to raise prices. The consumer just doesn't have unlimited money, especially after the Fed pooped its pants when workers got their first real wage growth in 40 years and decided that it was a nightmare inflation scenario.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago

I get that this is nominally how capitalism is supposed to work, but I think that putting the investor as the first, last, and only consideration has caused a proliferation of slash-and-burn style short-termism. It’s fake growth because it’s not actually sustainable, everyone knows it, but you just try and keep it up until the next short term scheme can keep your stonks inflated.

It's very true. When the owner-class still dominated decision-making, there was a level of rationality in firm behavior - as there were owners who felt that the firm was their property, they were motivated to keep it healthy. Shear the sheep. From the viewpoint of the owner, this is rational - there is no sense in destroying what makes you money in the long term.

But investors have no such urge, and as the investor-class has come to dominate decision-making and not just capital allocation, they've begun slaughtering the sheep to gorge themselves and move onto the next. This, from their viewpoint, is perfectly rational decision-making - they are maximizing their gain from each investment, wringing it dry, and then leaving what's left (preferably before the stock crashes) to find a new, healthy host. I mean, investment. They have no incentive to maintain the health of the firm, not even in an exploitative sense. What is it that Marx calls them? Rentier capitalists?

It's not sustainable. Not even by capitalism's admittedly low standards.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm not sure what's too vague about it. If the decision isn't going to generate them enough revenue for it to make enough of a difference to the people who care about the profits, then they may find out that it wasn't worth doing in the long-term. Considering Disney's profits, that sounds like a drop in the bucket.

[-] PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

It's a win-win situation for the streaming companies no matter what. The people who weren't paying will either stop watching entirely (no longer costing Disney anything) or they pay up and become an additional subscriber. It doesn't matter if it's a small increase in profits or not, it's still an increase so it's happening.

You can scroll back through older social media posts from when Netflix announced this. How many folks said they were done? How much did that cost Netflix in the end? Literally nothing!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago
[-] PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

That remains to be seen here. Netflix was all "love is sharing your password" and now they're "fuck you pay up" and they're being rewarded with millions of subs.

I get where you're coming from but so far there's no data to back up what you're saying.

this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
192 points (97.5% liked)

News

23311 readers
1383 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS