YouTube TV exec says Disney is 'unnecessarily aggressive,' wants customers to pay for channels they don't watch

a year ago by sabreW4K3 to c/cordcutters

According to a YouTube TV executive, Disney has been "unnecessarily aggressive" in negotiations and has an "antiquated" view.

philophilsaurus 14 points a year ago

As is tradition

save

path: 0 20295814, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 0

bad_news 4 points a year ago

Does Google expect people to WANT to pay for Freeform? How is Disney supposed to make money on content nobody wants?

save

path: 0 20296215, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 5

partial_accumen 7 points a year ago

If it matches the old cable model, its not Freeform that's expensive. Its ESPN. When cable channels costs were exposed back in about 2008, a basic cable subscription cost about $60. Of that basic cable $23 was just ESPN. Freeform didn't exist back then as a name, but ABC Family channel did which shares some of the same DNA. ABC family was just 65 cents of the $60 of basic cable. AMC was something like $1.27

Further, ESPN used their bully position to force ESPN to be carried in the basic cable bundle. They knew the awful truth that most people didn't watch it (or watch it enough to care if it left). Non-ESPN watchers were subsidizing ESPN at that time. It was estimated that if ESPN subscription costs were allowed to be born only by those that wanted the content the cost of the challenged would be about $56 per subscriber, which would be more than more than most ESPN watchers would be willing to pay.

I'm guessing that Youtube is now faced with this same thing.

save

path: 0 20296215 20296681, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 4

bad_news 3 points a year ago

Except they're not bound by legal carrying requirements for specific broadcast ABC stations and Disney no longer makes fictional content anyone wants to watch, which destroys all non-ESPN leverage Disney has with normal cable providers to force Freeform on a market that doesn't want it, while Youtube itself has a direct NFL deal, which is like 60% of American sports consumption... Disney doesn't appreciate that Youtube is in a stronger position than ANY cable provider and Disney has never been in a worse position to demand anything.

save

path: 0 20296215 20296681 20297940, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3

partial_accumen 1 point a year ago

with normal cable providers to force Freeform on a market that doesn’t want it,

My guess is Freeform is a tiny tiny bit of money, likely a rounding error's amount. I doubt that this is a war between Disney and Youtube to carry Freeform or not.

save

path: 0 20296215 20296681 20297940 20298498, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

bad_news 2 points a year ago

Per the article: 'Disney appears to be pushing for YouTube TV to carry its full catalog, where YouTube TV appears to feel that certain networks may not be worth carrying with “non-existent” viewership.' It's literally about these no value added channels nobody watches like Freeform. In the old cable days, just having more channels was an asset for justifying cable plans costing $100, and they legally had to carry ABC, so ABC could go "C'mon, only $30mil for Localish is a steal! We'll throw in ESPN Classic for only another $10mil if you say yes!" That dynamic is gone, so now Freeform IS in fact worth very little money, but Disney has not adjusted to the new reality with Youtube.

save

path: 0 20296215 20296681 20297940 20298498 20300582, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

njm1314 2 points a year ago

Well they ain't wrong.

save

path: 0 20296048, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

belated_frog_pants 1 point a year ago

save

path: 0 20299805, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0