# Disney Plus and Hulu are getting steep price hikes



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Disney Plus and Hulu are getting steep price hikes

Getting more expensive to stream.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The Disney+ hike is inexcusable. Going from ad-free to ad-supported for the same price is suicidal. I'm betting the ad-supported service is going to be insanely profitable.

That they've been operating at a loss makes them just like all of the other streaming services that are trying to get a foothold at any cost.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

And Hulu ad-supported got a $1 increase while the ad-free got bumped up by $2. Definitely trying to push people to ad-supported. So like Netflix I will be letting Disney+ go too once my subscription ends in November.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I only do Disney and Paramount+ if there's something that is compelling to watch. The long-term discounts don't impress me when I can go for 6-10 months (or more) without subscribing.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I did the introductory offer they had before it launched. 3 years for around $140. Figures to under $4 per month. Thought it would be worth that because at the time they were promising to put their whole library on it which never happened so I don't watch a lot on it. No desire to watch anything Star Wars, Marvel, or Pixar.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> I did the introductory offer they had before it launched. 3 years for around $140. Figures to under $4 per month.


No matter how you count it, it is still $140. With various promos I've spent about $18 over the duration of Disney+'s existence. I'm averse to paying for anything that I may not use and streaming lends itself very well to that ideal if you're willing to start and stop your subscriptions as necessary.


> Thought it would be worth that because at the time they were promising to put their whole library on it which never happened so I don't watch a lot on it.


I expect that your experience is fairly representative.


> No desire to watch anything Star Wars, Marvel, or Pixar.


Pretty much all I watch is Star Wars and Marvel (that I supect is the case for most homes without children).


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

We're seeing the next step in what is inevitable with streaming products; streaming will make us focus and think about what we watch and what we spend our viewing dollars on.

My subscription services that we pay for are listed below. (Shhhh, I password share for a couple of other services we use on occasion, also.) The total cost is still comparable what my former D* bill. But being creatures of habit, despite a plethora of content that's available, we still watch what we watch; sports, some local news, and whatever reality shows. Do we dabble into a new show on Hulu, or Netflix? (Full disclosure: If I didn't have a 14-year-old, Netflix wouldn't be part of our viewing menu.) Of course. But our viewing priorities haven't changed.

Our "creature habit" in a more traditional delivery model is to have all of these channels available, whenever we want. Regardless if we watch them or not. And there's some sort of comfort in that. But as costs change in a streaming world, at some point we start evaluating what we watch, and what we don't, and we don't pay for what we don't watch.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

As soon as regular TV dies out, streaming will be just as expensive as any provider is now!


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

The ad-free Hulu bundle is unchanged at $19.99.


----------



## leadout_kv (Nov 4, 2006)

AZ. said:


> As soon as regular TV dies out, streaming will be just as expensive as any provider is now!


regular tv isnt dying out anytime soon especially with the new ota atsc 3.0 technology coming soon.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

leadout_kv said:


> regular tv isnt dying out anytime soon especially with the new ota atsc 3.0 technology coming soon.


NextGen TV has been buzzing for long enough that we tune it out anymore. Because of the way it was implemented, it was pretty much a no-win in terms of all of the promises it came with.

We don't need new technology, we need better programming.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

leadout_kv said:


> regular tv isnt dying out anytime soon especially with the new ota atsc 3.0 technology coming soon.


yeh lol


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Dropped both


----------



## dod1450 (Dec 16, 2009)

It looks like Disney Plus now have all of Fox shows from Hulu.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

harsh said:


> We don't need new technology, we need better programming.


We have better programming, it is just on streaming services instead of Traditional Channels.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Bender The Lab said:


> We have better programming, it is just on streaming services instead of Traditional Channels.


I'm having a great deal of difficulty finding much.

Where networks and plexes used to have a tentpole or two, there are many networks and plexes that have nothing that appeals to me. Further, what seems to be good only lasts 6-10 episodes and it is done for the season only to start up nine months or more later.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> And Hulu ad-supported got a $1 increase while the ad-free got bumped up by $2. Definitely trying to push people to ad-supported. So like Netflix I will be letting Disney+ go too once my subscription ends in November.


I had been predicting that this fall we would see them start only selling Hulu and Disney+ together as a bundle, no new standalone subs for either service. And I had predicted the price for the two together, with ads on both, would be $10/mo.

I missed the part about no more standalone subs. (IDK, maybe Disney can't do that as long as Comcast still owns part of Hulu?) They're going to sell each service with ads alone for $8/mo. But I was correct that they are going to sell them together for just $10/mo. For just an extra $2/mo, that provides a strong incentive to get both. For lots of folks, it'll be a no-brainer (unless they opt to do the full bundle with ESPN+ also). That's especially true now that they're putting a little more general interest adult-skewing content on Disney+, like the upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars. That'll pull in some of those Hulu subs without kids in the house.

Still think we're going to see them shut down Hulu as a standalone app and fold it into Disney+ as its own adult-focused content hub next to Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, etc. They won't be able to do that until Disney buys out Comcast's remaining 1/3 of the company. Either side can force that buyout to happen come 2024, although if both sides agree to it, it could happen sooner. With NBCU yanking their next-day shows from Hulu next month and making that an exclusive feature of Peacock, it wouldn't surprise me to see them sell out their stake to Disney in 2023. Comcast could use that cash to plow into Peacock and Disney may as well get on with their long-term streaming plans too.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> That's especially true now that they're putting a little more general interest adult-skewing content on Disney+, like the upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars.


Oh crap...I forgot about Dancing with the Stars moving to Disney+. I'll have to keep Disney+ just for the wife to watch that. If that is the case I'll probably just renew for the 3 bundle @ $19.99. That would give me $35.97 worth of streaming for $19.99. Almost 50% off of the regular price for those 3 with ad-free for D+ and Hulu.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Oh crap...I forgot about Dancing with the Stars moving to Disney+. I'll have to keep Disney+ just for the wife to watch that. If that is the case I'll probably just renew for the 3 bundle @ $19.99. That would give me $35.97 worth of streaming for $19.99. Almost 50% off of the regular price for those 3 with ad-free for D+ and Hulu.


Yup. When it was announced that the live DWTS telecast would be moving from ABC to Disney+ (and not Hulu), some folks thought it was weird. But it makes sense if Disney's goal is to get more Hulu subs to also take Disney+.

So far we haven't seen any announcement about an ad-free bundle of just Hulu and D+. I had been predicting that the two would be sold together for $16/mo. They may be waiting to announce such a bundle until after Netflix announces their new pricing structure early next year when its new ad-support tier rolls out. In the meanwhile, looks like the only bundle for ad-free Hulu and D+ is the full Disney bundle with ESPN+ which, as you say, will cost $20/mo.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

dod1450 said:


> It looks like Disney Plus now have all of Fox shows from Hulu.


Where did you hear that? I just checked the Hulu app and the Fox shows are still there. I don't see them on Disney+, with the exception of The Orville, which is on both services.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

the2130 said:


> Where did you hear that? I just checked the Hulu app and the Fox shows are still there. I don't see them on Disney+, with the exception of The Orville, which is on both services.


Yeah, that's news to me too. Although I did read earlier this year that's Fox output deal for next-day shows on Hulu was up this year and would have to be renewed. So something could end up changing. My guess is that Fox might start putting the last few eps next-day on their own free Tubi app in addition to Hulu (and, who knows, maybe Disney+ too).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> When it was announced that the live DWTS telecast would be moving from ABC to Disney+ (and not Hulu), some folks thought it was weird.


That pretty much evacuates one night a week of ABC's prime time programming. Maybe they figure they're not getting any ad revenue from it.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Oh crap...I forgot about Dancing with the Stars moving to Disney+. I'll have to keep Disney+ just for the wife to watch that. If that is the case I'll probably just renew for the 3 bundle @ $19.99. That would give me $35.97 worth of streaming for $19.99. Almost 50% off of the regular price for those 3 with ad-free for D+ and Hulu.


Same here - my wife watches Dancing with the Stars - although I already had the Hulu/Disney+/ESPN+ bundle. It's a pretty good deal to get all 3 of those services for $19.99, and I watch quite of bit of programming on all three.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> That pretty much evacuates one night a week of ABC's prime time programming. Maybe they figure they're not getting any ad revenue from it.


Read an article this week that speculated that, should NBC follow through with rumored plans to cut primetime programming from 3 to 2 hours per night come fall 2023, ABC looks like a good candidate to follow suit. The content investments these big media houses are making are increasingly going toward growing their DTC streaming services, not propping up their broadcast and cable networks. And I still believe that Disney will -- like Paramount, NBCUniversal and Fox have already done and WBD plans to do -- launch a free ad-supported app which will eventually subsume their ABC broadcast network.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

Something to ponder as we see they move their high rated shows to streaming to get more eyes and money....What does that do for the local OTA stations....Especially when they have year after year asked for more money? More money for less quality programming?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

AZ. said:


> Something to ponder as we see they move their high rated shows to streaming to get more eyes and money....What does that do for the local OTA stations....Especially when they have year after year asked for more money? More money for less quality programming?


Yes, they keep asking for higher cable carriage rates but at this point I think that trick has been exhausted. Major broadcast and cable network groups (e.g. Disney, Paramount, etc.) have seen their overall revenue peak and now start to decline. But those groups at least have their direct-to-consumer streaming services to use as a replacement.

The groups that are _really_ going to be hurting in a few years are the non-network owners of local stations like Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray, etc. Because their future is to distribute their local news content via free ad-supported apps. IDK, maybe they'll be able to get some consumers to pay for that content? But probably not many, after getting consumers used to streaming it through their own apps for free for years (as is now the case). What I can see happening in the 30s (after a change in FCC ownership laws) is some of those local news operations getting bought up by the big national news operations operated by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and maybe Fox. But I can't see how most markets will be able to support 3-4 different for-profit local news operations. (Look at what happened with local newspapers.) Maybe in some markets we'll see a local non-profit news operation spring up and align themselves with the local PBS station?


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

AZ. said:


> Something to ponder as we see they move their high rated shows to streaming to get more eyes and money....What does that do for the local OTA stations....Especially when they have year after year asked for more money? More money for less quality programming?


I have not seen any top rated shows being moved to streaming, Seal Team, for example, was a mid level show in the ratings, also in decline, but it has found a new life ( and more viewers I read) on Paramount+, same for Evil.

Dancing with the Stars was also in decline, hence the move to Disney+.

Now the argument can be made that the newer, better shows are on streaming, that I totally agree with, looking at this upcoming TV Season for the Networks, just yeck.

Disney, for example, could produce a Star Wars/Marvel Show for ABC, but they know only streaming is in their future, so why do it, produce crappy shows and put them on ABC, still collect affiliate and per sub fees, also advertising, then put the better stuff on Disney+to attract those subscribers and collect more fees.

A win for them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The networks pushed the affiliates to raise their carriage fees and pass more on to the network. Now they want to cut content? I hope that the local stations get some reduction in fees since the networks are providing less highly popular content to sell advertising for and resell to MVPDs.

I half feel bad for the large local station groups but in recent years their relationship with MVPDs has become more adversarial than a partnership. Years ago cable and satellite helped extend the reach of local stations into homes that did not have an OTA antenna or would have difficulty receiving stations. They were rewarded by being sued for copyright violation and an ever increasing fee schedule for retransmission. Perhaps karma will bite these local station groups ... but as mentioned above, they have been pushed by their networks to charge more and pass more through to the network so it is not 100% the local station's fault that the fees are so large.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Bender The Lab said:


> Dancing with the Stars was also in decline, hence the move to Disney+.


If they replace it with something worse, where will that leave their broadcast schedule.

Getting rid of Tyra would do much to improve things. She's a great fan but a lousy mouthpiece.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The networks pushed the affiliates to raise their carriage fees and pass more on to the network. Now they want to cut content? I hope that the local stations get some reduction in fees since the networks are providing less highly popular content to sell advertising for and resell to MVPDs.
> 
> I half feel bad for the large local station groups but in recent years their relationship with MVPDs has become more adversarial than a partnership. Years ago cable and satellite helped extend the reach of local stations into homes that did not have an OTA antenna or would have difficulty receiving stations. They were rewarded by being sued for copyright violation and an ever increasing fee schedule for retransmission. Perhaps karma will bite these local station groups ... but as mentioned above, they have been pushed by their networks to charge more and pass more through to the network so it is not 100% the local station's fault that the fees are so large.


Everything I see and understand about the US television industry tells me that the national network/local station partnership system is a relic of the pre-internet era and won't survive the final transition to OTT streaming. The big national studios that own the networks no longer need those local stations to reach consumers with their content; they can do that via their own DTC apps once virtually all Americans have internet access and know how to stream video, a reality we are approaching this decade.

What's been happening for awhile now is that both local stations and their network partners have been milking the current model for all it's worth through ever-higher retrans fees by the stations and reverse comp fees by the networks. That cash cow will finally die of exhaustion by the end of this decade, at which point DTC apps (both free and paid) will have fully replaced the cable channel bundle. Linear channels will still exist, they'll just be distributed inside those DTC apps, alongside lots of on-demand content. The smart TVs and streaming devices we use, powered by software from the likes of Google, Amazon, Apple, Samsung, and Comcast/Charter, will have Live TV grid guides built into their UIs that will pull in all the free and subscription linear streaming channels available to the viewer from the various DTC apps installed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The big national studios that own the networks no longer need those local stations to reach consumers with their content; ...


You need to define the term "big national studios" before you use it. Are you talking TV or "film" studios?

There's a certain inconvenience in using many of the non-linear streaming services that I don't see being addressed simply because viewers can survive without them addressing the issues.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> You need to define the term "big national studios" before you use it. Are you talking TV or "film" studios?
> 
> There's a certain inconvenience in using many of the non-linear streaming services that I don't see being addressed simply because viewers can survive without them addressing the issues.


I'm specifically talking about:

Disney (owns ABC and Disney+/Hulu)
Paramount (owns CBS and Paramount+, Pluto TV)
Comcast's NBCUniversal (owns NBC and Peacock)
Fox (owns Fox and Tubi)

Technically, Fox is no longer a film & TV studio after having sold those assets to Disney. But the other three are major global film & TV studios, with big libraries of content amassed over decades, and they own both US broadcast networks as well as the international DTC streaming services listed.

And yes, there are inconveniences to having content scattered between multiple apps. But that problem is being solved at the streaming platform OS level with home screens that aggregate on-demand and linear channel content together from underlying apps. Those platforms still have work to do, and a lot of that depends on getting the various apps to fully participate, but in time they will because it's ultimately in their interests to cooperate. Apple TV is probably the furthest along in this regard, with Google TV and Fire TV also working on the problem. Roku is in last place, still mostly clinging to a streaming 1.0-era app-centric UI.


----------

