Disney Launching Cheaper, Ad-Supported Version of Disney+ Starting in Late 2022 [Updated]

[CarlJ]

By viewing these ads, they're generating enough value for Disney to knock a few bucks off their monthly entertainment. Dance, monkeys, dance for your discount! Burn these ads into your subconscious, and buy the advertised product!

What would you offer as an alternative? Disney isn't replacing iTunes rentals with this ad-supported streaming, and they aren't removing the ad-free streaming either. They're offering a new choice. Your take seems to be that they just shouldn't offer the new choice - give people fewer choices instead of more. I see more choice as (often) a good thing, even if those choices don't appeal to me. They seem to be proposing a middle-ground choice.

I grew up at a time when there were only 4 or 5 channels available (maybe a few more, from further away, with some static, if the weather was right), and all TV was broadcast TV and ad supported (except for PBS). You learn quickly to tune the ads out, just as one learns to filter all the other information available (and this skill is so much more vital these days, because there's so much more information available). I still remember some ad jingles from growing up. I don't feel particularly damaged by having been exposed to those ads.

I sincerely think this is great. I know it's hard to tell with me, but no sarcasm intended. I'm willing to bet that their being well off is highly correlated with these behaviors if not partially or fully caused by them, and that their children will be much better off than those who have an iPad in hand from age two.

FWIW, the parents are both PhDs, one being a university professor. The kids have iPads, but with strict limits on when and how they can use them (they were initially purchased only for entertainment on long trips, then they became absolutely essential for remote learning during the pandemic). Most of their (brief) daily usage is spent calling me or other relatives. I get called every day after work, and we talk about the day, or music, and we play a little Minecraft (that is, I play a little Minecraft and they tell me what to do - it's a hilarious collaboration and the parents allow it because it's mostly social interaction).

It's a "hardship" as you call it because instead of just charging people based on how much they consume (a familiar concept: we go to the grocery store, and the more groceries we leave with, the more we pay), they're playing games where some users sign up for a month and watch content for 12 hours a day while others pay every month and barely use the service.

I understand where you're coming from, but, again, the grocery store model is available for online streaming too - you can rent a movie, and you're only paying for the content you watch, with no strings attached. You can also check out DVDs (or possibly BluRays) from the public library, for no cost. It's not as convenient, but there are also no ads. A lot of what we're paying for with streaming services is convenience.

"People who don't care about ads" are overwhelmingly either uneducated [...], poor [...], or both. [...] I maintain that calling this an "attack on the poor" or whatever I said is fair.

I get that you see it as an attack on the poor and uneducated. I still feel that attack is overstating things considerably. I'd see "attack" much more reasonably applied to "payday loans" and similar practices. This use feels more like complaining that the existence of Coca-Cola on store shelves is an attack on those same people. To me, "attack" in this sense implies a plan to prey upon these people. I don't see an attack, I see choices being offered, some of which aren't in your best interest.

I probably should've done something different than replying to your wall of text with a wall of text, but you made some good points and heck, I have to say I enjoyed writing it a little bit. No hard feelings, even though we mostly disagree I made you a meme:

You make good points too, and I've enjoyed the exchange and found it interesting. Thanks.

I see you assigned me to Arnold, and yourself to Carl Weathers - the Carl/CarlJ connection is a missed opportunity - but I appreciate the meme

 

[Realityck]

There is more activity today against Disney/Comcast owned Hulu in the near future.

Peacock is swiping back some of Hulu’s most popular streaming shows

Some NBC shows will stream on Peacock instead of Hulu.

www.theverge.com

Some of the most popular programming on Hulu will now head to Peacock. A contract between the streaming services’ parent companies Disney and Comcast to stream NBCUniversal shows to Hulu has been terminated.

“The Hulu agreement was terminated,” NBCUniversal spokesperson Lisa Scalzo confirmed to The Verge.

The partnership will see episodes of NBCUniversal-owned shows like Saturday Night Liveand The Voice debut on Peacock, rather than Hulu, after airing on pay-TV. Because Hulu will no longer be paying for some of NBC’s biggest titles, the deal could give Hulu the financial freedom to pursue more originals.

The change will likely go into effect next broadcast season, possibly around September and October. The termination will not wipe all NBCUniversal programming from Hulu, as the companies have deals in place that will keep shows like Law & Order SVU and This Is Uson Hulu for several more years, Variety reported.

This has to do with Hulu being EOL before 2024, or sooner depending on its present owners Disney and Comcast. Both have their own streaming services and Hulu is redundant.

 

[Karma*Police]

🤦‍♂️ There absolutely is a correlation. A well-known character will usually be played by a familiar actor (Tom Holland is more well known than Simu Liu) and those movies will also have bigger budgets. Bigger budgets also mean more advertising dollars.

Sony reportedly spent over $200 million to advertise Spider-Man: No Way Home while The Eternals only got $100 million.

Movie studios also generally have lower box office expectations for these side movies vs their main/origin movies hence the lower budgets.

Andrew Garfield's version of Spider-Man was bad. I much prefered the Tobey Maguire version of Spider-Man, and the domestic box office numbers support that too as all 3 of Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man films are in the top 5 (did better than Spider-Man: Homecoming) for box office receipts.

And Tobey Maguire's first Spider-Man film did better than both of Tom Holland's first two Spider-Man films. I think it's because at that time in his career Tobey Maguire was more familiar than Tom Holland was during the same point in this career.

View attachment 1967862





Release date is very important for a movie. Ever hear of the term "summer blockbuster?" Do you know why the movie studios tend to release their tent pole movies during the summer? Do you know what a "tent pole" movie is? FYI, Shang Chi was released during the summer... well, late summer but still summer; The Eternals was released in the fall.

Here's another term you may not be familiar with: "Dump Months." It refers to the months for movie releases that aren't expected to do that well. The Eternals was released in one of those periods and that could explain why Shang Chi did better at the box office. 🤷‍♂️

I haven't seen The Eternals yet and am not particularly interested in it either due to lack of familiarity of the story and characters. I think the only reason The Eternals got a bigger ad budget than Shang Chi is because of the big name cast members... I didn't know Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek are in it.

You’re seriously reaching.

Andrew Garfield was far more popular than Tom Holland when he did his first Spider-Man movie. In fact, Tom Holland was a relatively unknown actor when he was chosen to play Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire was also a relatively unknown actor, starring mostly in a few small movies (like Pleasantville and Cider House Rules) and TV shows. Spider-Man put him on the map for most people.

I already addressed release dates. Venom was released in the fall and it did great. Winter Soldier came out in April and did great. Doctor Strange came out at a similar time as Eternals and did great. Studios realized years ago that a good movie will perform well regardless of the season, though granted, there are a few dates that are still coveted.

Many movies had big ad budgets that failed. Disney spent north of $200 million to promote Solo yet that movie flopped so bigger ad budgets don’t always equate to bigger box office success.

You haven’t seen Eternals because you probably heard how bad it was, proving my point that good movies do well and bad movies don’t. Marvel has decided to politicize their recent Marvel movies and TV shows instead of focusing on the story which is why they’re doing poorly. Did you watch the video I linked to earlier? I strongly suggest you watch this entertaining and informative video if you want to understand the real reason why Marvel has done poorly since the last Avengers movie.

 

[Realityck]

I haven't seen The Eternals yet and am not particularly interested in it either due to lack of familiarity of the story and characters. I think the only reason The Eternals got a bigger ad budget than Shang Chi is because of the big name cast members... I didn't know Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek are in it.

Its one of those films you read the reviews beforehand you come away with a pessimistic view will it be any good. Its actually nice to see how things change from beginning to end, and what the earth is facing now after they altered the predictable outcome. Yes you need to take it in parts or whole until you watched it altogether, then it clicks. Several of my friends watched it and thought here's something different but yet Marvel, so its worth watching IMHO when the opportunity presents itself. .

 

[sw1tcher]

You’re seriously reaching. . .

I never said anything about the popularity of Andrew Garfield vs Tom Holland. You have a reading comprehension problem, or you just like to see things that aren't there.

I don't know which Venom movie you're referring to, but from highest domestic box office receipts to lowest, we have:

Doctor Strange = $232,641,920 (fall release)
Shang Chi = $224,543,292 (summer release)
Solo: A Star Wars Story = $213,767,512 (summer release)
Venom 2 = $213,550,366 (fall release)
Venom 1 = $213,515,506 (fall release)
The Eternals = $164,870,234 (fall release)

See how the summer release of Shang Chi allowed it to do better at the box office than every other fall film release except for Dr. Strange which by the way came out pre-pandemic?

Why are you bringing up Captain America: The Winter Soldier? I thought we were talking about how well or poorly Marvel movies released within the past year did? Captain America: The Winter Soldier came out in April 2014... that's a long time ago and pre-pandemic.

But since you brought it up, it did well ($259,766,572 at domestic box office) despite its Spring release date because it featured a main and well-known character in the MCU. As I stated earlier, those films tend to do well. It probably would have done better if it had a summer release date. But even then, it wasn't that much better than the $224,543,292 that Shang Chi brought in. So again, release date does matter.

I don't know where you got the idea from that "studios realized years ago that a good movie will perform well regardless of the season." If that were true movie studios wouldn't be fighting for and changing or re-arranging release dates to get the best release with the least amount of competition to other tent pole films.

Coming Soon: Inside the Battle to Find the Right Movie Release Date

Studio distribution chiefs must consider all entertainment options in order to find the best movie-release dates.

variety.com

a lot of planning goes into the release date

Why Hollywood Is Setting Movie Release Dates 5 Years in Advance

Three studios have begun planting extremely early release-date flags for their superhero and animated epics

www.thewrap.com

Why the global day-and-date release model is still so important to the US studios

It is scant consolation but at least Bond's backers are sticking to a global theatrical plan.

www.screendaily.com

Many movies had big ad budgets that failed. Disney spent north of $200 million to promote Solo yet that movie flopped so bigger ad budgets don’t always equate to bigger box office success.

Yes, I'm fully aware that a big movie budget isn't a recipe for or guarantee of box office success, just like how low budget films can sometime surprise and turn into block buster hits.

You haven’t seen Eternals because you probably heard how bad it was, proving my point that good movies do well and bad movies don’t. Marvel has decided to politicize their recent Marvel movies and TV shows instead of focusing on the story which is why they’re doing poorly. Did you watch the video I linked to earlier? I strongly suggest you watch this entertaining and informative video if you want to understand the real reason why Marvel has done poorly since the last Avengers movie.

As for The Eternals, I haven't read or heard anything positive or negative about it. I haven't read/heard anything at all. Lack of advertising? 🤷‍♂️ Or maybe I've just been too busy. That's why I haven't seen it yet. But I will get around to it when I restart my Disney+ subscription in a month or two.

And the fact that you and the author of the YouTube videos you linked to use the term "M she U" instead of MCU tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[Karma*Police]

I never said anything about the popularity of Andrew Garfield vs Tom Holland. You have a reading comprehension problem, or you just like to see things that aren't there.

I don't know which Venom movie you're referring to, but from highest domestic box office receipts to lowest, we have:

Doctor Strange = $232,641,920 (fall release)
Shang Chi = $224,543,292 (summer release)
Solo: A Star Wars Story = $213,767,512 (summer release)
Venom 2 = $213,550,366 (fall release)
Venom 1 = $213,515,506 (fall release)
The Eternals = $164,870,234 (fall release)

See how the summer release of Shang Chi allowed it to do better at the box office than every other fall film release except for Dr. Strange which by the way came out pre-pandemic?

Why are you bringing up Captain America: The Winter Soldier? I thought we were talking about how well or poorly Marvel movies released within the past year did? Captain America: The Winter Soldier came out in April 2014... that's a long time ago and pre-pandemic.

But since you brought it up, it did well ($259,766,572 at domestic box office) despite its Spring release date because it featured a main and well-known character in the MCU. As I stated earlier, those films tend to do well. It probably would have done better if it had a summer release date. But even then, it wasn't that much better than the $224,543,292 that Shang Chi brought in. So again, release date does matter.

I don't know where you got the idea from that "studios realized years ago that a good movie will perform well regardless of the season." If that were true movie studios wouldn't be fighting for and changing or re-arranging release dates to get the best release with the least amount of competition to other tent pole films.

Coming Soon: Inside the Battle to Find the Right Movie Release Date

Studio distribution chiefs must consider all entertainment options in order to find the best movie-release dates.

variety.com

a lot of planning goes into the release date

Why Hollywood Is Setting Movie Release Dates 5 Years in Advance

Three studios have begun planting extremely early release-date flags for their superhero and animated epics

www.thewrap.com

Why the global day-and-date release model is still so important to the US studios

It is scant consolation but at least Bond's backers are sticking to a global theatrical plan.

www.screendaily.com

Yes, I'm fully aware that a big movie budget isn't a recipe for or guarantee of box office success, just like how low budget films can sometime surprise and turn into block buster hits.



As for The Eternals, I haven't read or heard anything positive or negative about it. I haven't read/heard anything at all. Lack of advertising? 🤷‍♂️ Or maybe I've just been too busy. That's why I haven't seen it yet. But I will get around to it when I restart my Disney+ subscription in a month or two.

And the fact that you and the author of the YouTube videos you linked to use the term "M she U" instead of MCU tells me all I need to know about you.

I think it’s you who have the reading comprehension problem.

You mentioned how popular Tom Holland was, right? And how that contributes to box office success? I debunked it.

I was referring to the new Venom movie which came out a little before Eternals, yet did quite well. Season had nothing to do with the last 3 Marvel movies tanking. You really think Shang Chi did better because it came out in the summer?? What about the fact that it got better reviews than Eternals… You think that might’ve played a role? Your thinking here is overly simplistic. And if the summer is the best time to maximize ticket sales, how is it that the biggest grossing Marvel movie came out in April? I mentioned Capt America to further debunk your theory that summer releases maximizes tix sales. Movie studios realized a long time ago that the summer and thanksgiving and christmas are not the only times people will go watch a movie. That’s why you see blockbusters being released throughout the year now.

If you’re aware that an ad budget doesn’t ensure a film’s success, why bring it up?

M She U. Reading comprehension time. THAT is the core of my argument! It’s the reason why the new Marvel movies and TV shows are failing. They’re alienating fans with their politically correct nonsense instead of focusing on good storytelling. Not because of Covid (debunked), release dates (debunked), popularity of characters (debunked) and all the other excuses you were making for their failures.

 

[macduke]

I fully expect that with the introduction of ads, they will increase the monthly price of Disney+ ad-free to $9.99/mo. Especially given how expensive Netflix is now. Unfortunately it’s going to become a race to the top on price in the coming years as companies try to out-spend each other on content.

 

[Premium1]

Its not their style. You don't have a tiered subscription like Netflix or HBO Max. HBO Max is the one that went with $9.99 with Ads, compared to their $14.99 regular price. Netflix is more expensive, but no ads. $9.99/$15.49/$19.99 (SD/HD/4K)

Maybe not but once those money-hungry shareholders want nothing more than "MORE PROFIT" then these things come around.

 

[Runway]

This is an easy one. Creating another lower priced entry point allows Disney to raise the PRICE of the existing non-add level. Simply a marketing position that practically every 'provider' of products does over time.

 

[webkit]

pay to watch ads?

It's more like you are being "paid" to watch ads. If ad-free Disney+ costs $7.99/month and an ad version is $4.99/month (TBD), you are being "paid" $3/month (via the subscription discount) to watch ads.

 

[webkit]

I get it free through Verizon no ads 🤣

Not truly "free" as you are paying for it as part of the Verizon plan.

 

[webkit]

Reading through the posts on this topic, I am amused by the comments by some who actually seem offended or appalled by the idea of Disney offering a lower priced "ad-supported" pay subscription option.

Most households have in the past and even still today view/read content in a "hybrid" paid subscription/ad model e.g., print/digital newspapers and magazines, cable or satellite television, various pay with ads subscription streaming services, etc.

While ad-free may be preferred, many consumers are very willing (based on subscription statistics) to go with ad versions. Besides, it's not like Disney is taking away the ad-free version. They are offering another option.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Already bought the non-ad supported offering. I can't imagine sitting through commercials on Disney+. No, nope, no way, no how. I'd drop the channel if they went for ads on the level I have now. I so loath 'standard' TV because of the commercials... Stupid inane commercials. Drugs, lawyers, gambling, bitcoin, yogurt, junk food. PASS!!!

 

[aaronhead14]

I agree, but you're moving the goalposts a little, given your original assertion that everybody hates ads and we're lying if we say otherwise.

Zero people like it when their movies and shows get interrupted with ads. You're lying if you say otherwise.

Zero "goalposts" were moved.

 

[aaronhead14]

I provide the data showing otherwise back on page 3, starting at post # 62

Either you haven't read it or you don't understand it.

Content providers wouldn't be offering lower priced ad-supported plans if consumers didn't choose them.

There is zero data that shows customers like it when their movies and shows get interrupted with ads. Nobody likes it.

Your absurd claim that such data exists means the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.

The "data" you provided shows that customers prefer to pay less money. And... duh! Of course they do! *facepalm* That doesn't mean they like ads. They don't. (I don't, you don't, and nobody does!). Everybody hates it when their movies and shows get interrupted with ads. That's just an intrinsic, obvious fact.

And businesses shouldn't be doing things that customers hate. Full stop.

 

[Apleeseed84]

Maybe for you, but the main reason cord cutting took off was the high price of cable tv service and their yearly price increases, and paying for channels and content that people didn't watch, not the commercials.

Cord-cutting reasons in the U.S. 2024| Statista

The primary reason for cutting the cord in the United States was the cost - cable was too expensive for nearly three in four respondents to a 2024 survey.

www.statista.com

To be quite honest, when you add Internet pricing on top of all the content you subscribe, Cable tv is far better option for many even if it’s 1 or 2 set top boxes.

The reason I say internet pricing is because let’s face, they will want you to buy their internet and tv bundles to get the better discount. 6 years ago it would had been worth it since the cable provider’s log in information let you access provider content on their standalone apps but since they want you to get their standalone apps for exclusive content it’s completely worse.

Don’t forget streaming content pricing is also going one way, UP

 

[FyrStrike]

A few years ago there were over 100 million people who paid for cable/satellite tv in the U.S. (it's now around 80 million). Do you know what cable/satellite tv has? Ads.

Do you know how many Hulu subscribers there are in the U.S.? Over 40 million, and of those 40 million some 70% of them are on the ad-supported plan.

Do you know how many Peacock subscribers there are in the U.S.? Over 24.5 million of which 9 million are paying subscribers. And of the 9 million paid subscribers, the “vast majority” of them are on the discounted/ad-supported $4.99/mo plan. That's why Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said that going forward, the company will focus its strategy around the ad-supported tiers.

It's the same story over at ViacomCBS (now Paramount).


People have been paying for television with ads going all the way back to the 1980s with cable tv. I had cable tv back then and it started out as a service with no ads, but then they gradually inserted ads. And Hulu had ads way before Paramount+ existed.

I get the feeling you're too young to know any of this.

Yes while your points are historically accurate. It’s now 2022 and people want choice. Customers like to be able to choose to include ads or not. So wouldn’t it be fair to give freedom of choice? When you think about it these cable tv platforms have never really given the customer that choice because they appear to be afraid of the consequences when if they upped the cost of ads to the businesses it puts the pressure on businesses to spend more on ads. Why should I as a customer have ads shouted in my face so the tv service can satisfy their advertisers.

These cable TV channels have been doing it for years because back then there was no other choice. The internet is and has been changing that. Netflix is an example of on demand television with no ads. That’s what made it so compelling.

There might be some who love paying for ads. I for one won’t be buying ads.

 

[CarlJ]

There might be some who love paying for ads. I for one won’t be buying ads.

To be clear, it's decidedly not "paying for ads", it's having the advertisers pay for part of your subscription price in exchange for showing you ads. I have no interest in watching ads either, and I'll pay for the no-ads versions of things, but I think it's reasonable to give people the choice.

 

[FyrStrike]

To be clear, it's decidedly not "paying for ads", it's having the advertisers pay for part of your subscription price in exchange for showing you ads. I have no interest in watching ads either, and I'll pay for the no-ads versions of things, but I think it's reasonable to give people the choice.

You are right. That’s the way the advertisers see it but I can bet the consumer doesn’t see it that way. I certainly don’t. The consumer sees ads or no ads. Free or paid. It really should be that simple. But yes, the choice between the two would be sweet. It’s not much choice when it’s some wishy-washy half-baked more expensive option with less ads and a cheaper option with even more ads. That’s a rotten choice.

I actually don’t mind watching ads when or if the service would be free. If I don’t want to see ads then I choose to pay. For example Pluto TV has ads and it’s free so that’s fair. Netflix or Apple TV+ has no ads and I pay for it, and that’s completely fair to me.

 

[CarlJ]

It’s not much choice when it’s some wishy-washy half-baked more expensive option with less ads and a cheaper option with even more ads.

Who is doing this or has suggested they'll do this thing that you're arguing against?

The only instance I can think of is Hulu had (still has?) a handful of shows where they were contractually obligated to run ads with the shows - this almost certainly happened because someone involved in the show (producer, director, actors, whoever) had a clause in their contract that stipulated they would get some small percent of the ad revenue and thus there had to be ads, so that they would get said revenue.

Hulu's solution to this was to run those shows with a single 15 second non-screaming ad before the show and after the show (and, obviously, there was no need to watch the one after - just go back to the menu). People have tried really hard to categorize this as "expensive yet with ads" - that seems like an unreasonable take, getting outraged just because you want to feel like you're the victim; the alternative would be to not have the show available at all, or to have to go buy the episodes from iTunes or similar - Hulu doesn't have any control over the contracts that were signed by the studio and/or production company that produced the show. The only show where I ran into this was Marvel's Agents of Shield, on Hulu, and I can't say I felt inconvenienced by the 15 second ad - it wasn't even enough time to go grab a drink. Was it annoying? Sure, in an extremely minor way. Was it Hulu's fault, or (heh) "false advertising" on the part of Hulu? No. Their only choices were offer the show with an ad, or don't offer the show at all.

(FWIW, in a past life, I worked on the periphery of the entertainment industry - their layers of contracts and rules can be quite Byzantine.)

 

[FyrStrike]

Who is doing this or has suggested they'll do this thing that you're arguing against?

Paramount+ does it. So does AT&T DirectTV. This is 2022 not 1999 anymore and that business model is old. The internet has changed the game. I tend to ignore the services that do it. I tried them out. Hated the experience. Felt like I was paying to watch ads. Which I don’t mind if it’s a free service.

As for Disney. In the beginning of my arguement, I was saying that I hope they don’t do the same business model as Paramount+ or services like it where there are ads within a paid service. But some others in the thread have already stated that there will be a paid non ad service as well. I hope they are correct. 🤞

 

[CarlJ]

Paramount+ does it. So does AT&T DirectTV.

Fair enough. I've never tried either of those services (I thought of DirectTV as exclusively a "cable" company - yeah, okay, satellite - not as a streaming service, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention).

As for Disney. In the beginning of my arguement, I was saying that I hope they don’t do the same business model as Paramount+ or services like it where there are ads within a paid service. But some others in the thread have already stated that there will be a paid non ad service as well. I hope they are correct. 🤞

Disney already has a well established and very popular paid/no-ads service. If they said, "well, but we're going to just add some ads" to that, I think they'd have a riot on their hands. If they want to add an additional tier of "paid but discounted because there are ads", I figure, well, fine, have that choice for those who want it, but I'll never touch it.

 

[FyrStrike]

Fair enough. I've never tried either of those services (I thought of DirectTV as exclusively a "cable" company - yeah, okay, satellite - not as a streaming service, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention).

You are right. They are cable/satellite services. But what we all need to be aware of is that the services like Paramount+ and DirectTV are technically trying to tap into streaming services like Disney+. And their offering doesn’t give an option without ads. And more so what concerns me is they could cause a precedent and then all of a sudden the other services like Disney+, Netflix and other streaming service start including ads. Which would really suck. So I just want us all to be aware that this could happen in the future and is why I’m saying I don’t subscribe to services that don’t have options with or without ads.

 

[Tagbert]

I was just saying that it's crazy to pay for something and still get ads.

…

When Cable TV was a new upcoming service and most people got their television via broadcast to antennas, one of the things that Cable TV promoted was that you didn’t get ads. The broadcasters shot back calling Cable TV “Pay TV” and they put kiosks in movie theaters asking people to sign petitions banning “Pay TV”. It didn’t work.

Funny thing is, it wasn’t too long after Cable TV became common that suddenly we had ads there too. We can’t seem to get away from ads whether you are paying for the service or not.