Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Analyst Sees a More Magical Kingdom If Apple Acquires Disney

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Analyst Sees a More Magical Kingdom If Apple Acquires Disney

    https://www.nexttv.com/news/analyst-...cquires-disney Analyst Sees a More Magical Kingdom If Apple Acquires Disney

    By Jon Lafayette
    ( Broadcasting & Cable )
    published 1 day ago
    Laura Martin calculates 15%-25% upside for Apple shareholders

    Time for M&A (Image credit: JL)
    Some things just go better together, and Needham analyst Laura Martin believes Apple and The Walt Disney Co. are two of those things.

    “Combining Apple’s distribution footprint of 1.25 billion unique customers with Disney’s 570 million consumers reached each year would drive 15% to 25% valuation upside for Apple shareholders,“ Martin said in a research note.
    Apple and Disney have long worked together. Disney was one of the first companies to put its video content on Apple’s iPod and Mickey and Minnie Mouse are featured on Apple Watches. Disney also acquired Pixar, the animation studio led by Apple founder Steve Jobs.

    Martin argues that here are many other ways that a combination of Apple’s products and technology would benefit from a closer connection to Disney’s content and fan base. In fact, in her report, Martin provides a list of the Top 10 ways Disney is additive to Apple shareholders.

    1.) Better Consumer Data: Most of Apple’s data is about individual behavior on a smartphone. By contrast, Disney’s data is about families. “We would argue that families are more important units to track than any one individual because many purchase decisions are made based on the influence of family members,” Martin says. “Disney’s complex network model has better predictive power about future purchasing decisions, we believe.”

    2.) Bundling: Bundling can double lifetime value (LTV), by lowering churn, according to Martin’s calculations. “By combining Apple’s hardware/software bundle with Disney’s streaming bundles as well as discounting admissions to its assets in the physical world, we calculate that Apple’s churn could fall by 50%.”

    3.) More Consumer Touch Points: During the pandemic, consumer use of mobile phones fell and connected TV usage rose. Disney earns money from all screens, and therefore has been hedged as consumers chose new delivery outlets.

    4.) Creative Teams: There is almost nothing fungible (i.e., no substitutes) about hit storytelling teams such as Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar and Disney animation, Martin said.

    5.) Library Value: Disney’s owned animation library has been largely written down to zero over the past 20 years, but it is nearly priceless. “More recently, Disney tells us that they spend approximately $30 billion on content each year (of which $10 billion is on sports). Its return on capital for film content is second to none,“ she said.

    6.) Hedge Against Tech Obsolescence: “We believe Disney’s content represents is a hedge against Apple’s potential technology obsolescence risks,“ Martin wrote. “We believe that high-quality content libraries always become more valuable over time because AAA film and TV content can be used to differentiate new technologies, content services, and/or distribution competitors over time.”

    7.) No Substitutes for Disney’s World-Building Content: Disney owns premium intellectual property, including several franchises.

    8.) Disney Character IP Rights: Disney's portfolio includes all Winnie the Pooh characters, Mickey & Minnie Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck, the Disney Princesses, Frozen, Toy Story and Cars. These are usable in perpetuity to create the next new films, TV series, theme park attractions or Broadway shows. They are free to use forever, because Disney owns the IP.

    9.) Marketing Prowess: Within mobile devices, Apple is excellent. However, its marketing pitch is mostly based on camera quality, chipsets, speeds, brightness and other technological superiority-based marketing points. And, after a consumer buys their first smartphone from Apple, 80% “renew” within five years, Martin estimates. “Although impressive, this level of renewals does not require great marketing. By contrast, Disney’s marketing team is required to create comprehensive narratives for every TV show, film, streaming show before the consumer allocates money to it.”

    10.) No Legislative or Regulatory Risks: “We believe Disney has minimal regulatory or legislative risks in the near term, whereas Apple has many regulatory risks from the EU, U.S., regional, state and local governments,“ Martin said. “The more loyal super-fans and consumers a company has, the more immune they are to government intervention, we believe.”

    Martin also argued Apple would be better at managing costs than Disney has been. Disney CEO Bob Iger is currently cutting costs and has begun the layoffs of 7,000 staffers.

    Martin noted that Apple’s operating expenses were 33% lower than Disney’s in 2022, even though its revenues were nearly five times larger than Disney’s.

    “Based on Comcast's acquisition of NBC and Discovery's acquisition of Scripps Networks, we believe Apple could conservatively cut out 15% of total combined costs, post-merger,“ Martin said. “In addition to eliminating duplicative positions, real estate, studio space, film & TV slates, etc. We believe combining these two companies would lower the customer acquisition costs for every consumer-facing product in the combined company portfolio, post-merger.”

    Martin added that Disney has tons of ad space. It sells most of it, but also uses it to promote its own products and services. Apple’s marketing costs would plummet with access to Disney’s advertising assets, she said.

    Apple’s current enterprise value is $2.6 trillion, compared to Disney’s $209 billion, which means Apple can acquire Disney but Disney can’t acquire Apple.

    “Apple is currently valued at a material premium to Disney on virtually every metric,” Martin says. “If Apple buys Disney using its higher-valued share, this will be anti-dilutive to Apple shareholders on a price/earnings basis as well as on an enterprise value/revenue and enterprise value/EBITDA basis.”

    Disney stock was up more than 1% in midday trading. Apple was up 0.5%

  • #2
    Is this something that's actually being explored? I'd think Apple would be driven crazy with all the weirdnesses of the theme park, hotel, restaurant, timeshare club, water park, and landlord/tenant businesses that Disney is involved with. They would probably let it operate with a lot of autonomy.

    Comment


    • #3
      10.) No Legislative or Regulatory Risks: “We believe Disney has minimal regulatory or legislative risks in the near term...
      I disagree. One of Disney's major revenue-earning assets is located in a hostile political environment (Florida), the government of which has demonstrated its willingness to use regulation and legislation against Disney and is in the process of actually doing so; and the asset in question is simply too big to move out of that environment without an existential risk level of up front investment. Further discussion would necessitate getting political, but surely that risk is above minimal.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mike Blakesley View Post
        Is this something that's actually being explored? I'd think Apple would be driven crazy with all the weirdnesses of the theme park, hotel, restaurant, timeshare club, water park, and landlord/tenant businesses that Disney is involved with. They would probably let it operate with a lot of autonomy.
        Those giga-mergers are often forced by revolting shareholders that want a quick bailout by e.g. Apple buying their shares at a premium. Nothing good for the companies affected comes from those giga-mergers and Disney itself is one of the best examples:

        - Pixar is dead
        - Lucasfilm is losing money and Star Wars is now considered a failed franchise by many.
        - Marvel may have been an exception to the rule, but is now also struggling.
        - 20th Century Fox or Studios or what it's now called, once one of the most prolific Hollywood studios, has been reduced to an "Avatar-only" show.

        Disney being acquired by any other company will probably end with the death of TWDC as the current concept, Walt Disney would be turning in his grave: The individual businesses will probably be spun off into separate businesses, like the theme park and cruise businesses...

        If you look at the total assets of TWDC, the vast amounts of Intellectual Property, then it's clear that by current standards, TWDC stock is highly undervalued, that's why I'm not selling my stock. They simply need some NEW management that knows how to turn the ship around. Getting Iger back IMHO was completely the wrong move. He may have had a bunch of successful years in the Post-Eisner period, but it was him who set Disney on the current course. While I didn't like what Chapek was doing, he was simply executing the plan that was drawn up before.

        Disney learned the hard way what the streaming model means for a company that's based on selling their content and intellectual properties at a premium. Streaming is a run-to-the-bottom business model, a great end-station for old and tired content, but not a platform to release your latest 150M+ blockbuster productions...

        I'm really not sure how Apple could realistically help Disney, other than with a great infusion of cash, but if Disney really needs to raise money, there are sufficient methods to do so, without giving up the autonomy of the company. Disney is a cultural icon, an institution, employs more than 250K people around the globe directly and much much more indirectly and something that should be considered truly too-big-to-fail, rather than any nondescript bank or financial institution...

        Comment


        • #5
          I just don't see how they could help either, but anything other than Bob Eigor is a step in the right direction.

          Comment


          • #6
            Speaking of streaming, I really hope to see an end to the subscription business. The current licensing approach where a streaming service licenses content for a limited time, and then it disappears, is really inconvenient for viewers. I think that every movie ever made should be permanently available on the internet with a pay per view model. The copyright owner would get perpetual income on all content instead of having to negotiate limited term licenses with subscription streaming services. New content could be priced higher, then have prices drop as the particular piece of content ages. I do wonder what the licenses to streaming companies look like. Is there a fixed fee plus a per view fee?

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't have a particular problem with the Model Harold proposes (all PPV). That said, I think Netflix (and a couple of others, like Amazon and Hulu) have shown that a SMALL number of streaming services that offer a very wide range of content such that consumers can sign up for 1-2 services covers their tastes (and they can always augment with PPV for the 1-offs) works too. What, clearly, doesn't work, is 10 or more streaming services all with monthly subscriptions where it costs the consumers more and the streamers lose money. That is a lose-lose.

              Where PPV doesn't work is with TV series. Nobody wants to pay per episode of a series. Heck, I don't even like to pay per season of a series. The series I like (e.g. The West Wing), I have on disc (yeah, I still buy physical media) though I can see it on HBO now (used to be on Netflix...to Harold's point that one cannot count on a streaming service to always have a favorite or even explore a series with a good rep that was missed on the 1st pass).

              Comment


              • #8
                While all-PPV would be a dream come true for consumers, it would never work for the providers. A big outfit like Disney has a bunch of content that people would pay PPV for, but what about a small streamer? Maybe they have one or two very popular shows and the rest are crap. They would starve to death. About three-quarters of the "channels" on the satellite services would go out of business within weeks, because nobody would be watching them. We have Dish Network at home but I'd guess we don't watch about 95% of the channels on it.

                I don't think the subscription model will ever go away. The streaming companies are too attached to the river of money that flows in continuously. The PPV model would interrupt that flow.

                Maybe a hybrid is in order. Let's say, maybe Disney could keep their streaming service, but would also offer a PPV option where they would charge you a set fee to view your chosen show or movie. Then they could start badgering you to please subscribe. If you find yourself paying a lot of one-off fees, you would get the notion that maybe you'd SAVE money by subscribing.

                Music subscriptions are a joke. I have "Amazon Unlimited" which I generally like. Lately I've been working on making a bunch of playlists of my favorite artists -- I just load up all their albums onto a giant playlist, and then go through and delete the songs I don't like. So I got to Santana, and find that one of their "classic" albums, 1973's "Caravanserai," is not available. All the others are there, including the '80s and '90s flop albums they put out, but one of their most groundbreaking, controversial and intriguing albums is not.

                So then I moved to April Wine, a Canadian band that I was a huge fan of in the 70s and 80s. Same story, only worse: All of their oldest albums are there (including their early three or four that were big flops), but there is a string of four LPs that were on Capitol after they "caught on" in the 1980s that are missing, as are their most recent three albums, which came out on small labels.

                Luckily I have all of the missing music on CD, but if the subscription streamers really want to replace the physical media, they need to get serious about "all the music."

                Comment


                • #9
                  I really don't understand the streaming music by subscription thing. Maybe it's for young folks who want to listen to and discover new music?

                  I have all of the music I want as mp3's and play that as I want, and I'm not particularly interested in "discovering" rap or whatever else is new these days.

                  I do have the "Flashback 70's" channel from the Stingray music service that I play in my living room all day every day as background music, but the only reason I have that Stingray is because I get it for free; if they ever decide to start charging me for it I can easily replace it with an mp3 player and get effectively the same thing.

                  Some people, apparently more than a few, are paying significant money per month for streaming music and I don't really know why. Is it just the same money that people like me used to spend on lp's?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well I can tell you this -- As mentioned above, I liked the April Wine band in the '70s, so I played one of their old albums at work one day. After the album finished, Amazon continued to serve up "similar" music, which was other music from Canadian rock bands. I heard a lot of great stuff I'd never heard before, along with hits I did recognize by people like BTO, Loverboy, Rush, etc. I wound up making a whole new playlist out of the music that it served up.

                    Another time I played an Alan Parsons Project album, and the same thing happened - I discovered a lot of cool British progressive rock bands, albums and songs I'd never heard, many of which I have now added to my "library" for later listening.

                    It's amazing how many of the classic bands from back in the day have continued to make new music -- it's just that nobody ever hears about it, but it's definitely out there.

                    So the subscription thing does have value. It's just irritating that some albums that SHOULD be there, are not.

                    I think I pay $6.99 a month for the Amazon subscription, give or take a dollar or two.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree that a hybrid model for streaming video would be good. If you watch a lot from a particular source, subscribe. If you don't, just pay per view instead of turning away those customers and their money. Looking at print, I can subscribe to the New York Times, or go pick up today's issue at a news stand, bookstore, or Starbucks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Frank Cox View Post
                        I really don't understand the streaming music by subscription thing. Maybe it's for young folks who want to listen to and discover new music?
                        There even could be new music out there that you actually like or like Mike indicated, some of those bands you used to listen to, never stopped making music and there may be stuff out there that you can still appreciate but never heard before.

                        Missing albums and quite often even entire artists missing on those streaming platforms like Amazon, Apple Music and Spotify is what often frustrates me though and yeah, it happens quite frequently. Even some playlists I created now suddenly have gaps of music that "used to be on there" but no longer isn't, due to whatever reason.

                        That's why I still keep an off-line collection of most of the stuff that I really want to keep. The problem with ALL those services is that they have the ultimate control over what content you get to listen to or to see. With all those services, it's clear you don't OWN anything anymore.

                        I liked Netflix back when it was still the DVD/Blu-Ray mail-order business. Their catalogue of movies back then was far more complete than their current limited rotation of movies they offer. While I own an extensive colleciton of Blu-Rays and still a whole bunch of DVDs, I'm a movie buff and I would happily pay more per month for just one SINGLE service that offered easy access to practically all movies in existence, with the exception of those that are still in theatrical release.

                        So, while I do have a subscription to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and whatnot, me personally, almost never use them. If I watch a movie, I'm going back to my digitized Blu-Ray collection. Those subscriptions are primarily used by the wife, who watches several series on those. But for watching movies, I find most of those services lacking and I really hate the experience of launching each individual app to see if a particular movie is available at that moment or not...

                        Edit: Previously I stated I had a subscription to Disney+, but apparently, that one expired due to the credit card on file having expired. The last thing I watched on there was Andor, but nobody is seemingly missing Disney+...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's going to get more interesting for Disney in the years ahead as some of its earliest intellectual properties fall out of the maximum term of copyright protection and into the public domain. The original "Steamboat Willie" version of Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain in 2024.

                          I think a merger of Apple and Disney (or Apple acquiring Disney) wouldn't make any sense. And under the current economic circumstances it would be pretty stupid.

                          I think the computing industry in general is due for a major "correction" thanks to the extreme price gouging that has gone on in that industry the past few years. Apple is not immune from that possibility and fewer people feel like they need to buy every version of the iPhone. If Apple was going to buy Disney I think they would have done so 10 years ago.

                          If Apple is looking at Disney as an acquisition possibility I'm sure they wouldn't like what they see. Disney currently looks like it could fall into the kind of down-turn they haven't seen since the late 1970's-early 1980's era, prior to The Little Mermaid. Like Marcel said, every one of their cash cows in the movie business is well past its prime. Pixar is done. They milked the Star Wars tit completely dry. Marvel's latest movies haven't done so well and they don't have a Thanos-like angle to tie all of them together. So movie-goers don't feel obligated to see all of them. I haven't watched the past few Marvel releases in theaters and I don't feel like signing up for a Disney+ subscription to watch them either. Avatar 2 was a global hit, but movie studios can't survive off of just one franchise.

                          Disney needs to invest in more new ideas. That's what got them out of the jam in the late 1980's. It took The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King as well as a string of innovative hits from Pixar to restore Disney's greatness.

                          I don't know any details of Disney's theme park business, other than it costs a ridiculous shit-ton fortune to visit one. I used to love amusement parks but now kind of have a hatred of them due to how customers are being abused and price-gouged. An amusement park that allows people to pay a premium to cut in line to ride a roller coaster can just kiss my ass.

                          Originally posted by Frank Cox
                          I really don't understand the streaming music by subscription thing. Maybe it's for young folks who want to listen to and discover new music?
                          Aside from the comments from others, I think there are other practical reasons why younger adults are streaming music rather than buying.

                          A big collection of music CDs or vinyl LPs can eat up valuable living space. Lots of young adults are living in tiny apartments or sharing them with roommates. Lugging around boxes of CDs, books printed on dead trees and all sorts of other crap doesn't make any sense if your life has to be "portable."

                          The retail environment for music on disc just stinks anymore. Most dedicated music store chains are long dead as well as hybrid books-music-video stores. That leaves a limited selection at Walmart and Target; the limited selection there is often edited "clean." To get uncensored music CDs most people are stuck ordering online from places like Amazon.

                          I see more people just getting rid of their CDs and LPs because they're not using them. Our local library opened a temporary store in our dying 70's era mall, mainly to sell used books, but they also had a lot of CDs and DVDs. Those things are showing up in yard sales. One of my co-workers likes buying and selling vinyl LPs; he's always finding people looking at getting rid of boxes filled with vinyl records (often in good shape).

                          I have hundreds of music CDs and every one of them is ripped in LPCM WAV quality to external hard discs. And I've made back-ups of those RIPs and made high bit rate MP3 files of them as well. As a result of that I hardly ever play any of those CDs anymore. More often than not when I listen to music from my collection it's via my smart phone when I'm working out at the gym or via a flash memory stick plugged into one of the USB ports in my pickup truck. I don't need to have a dozen jewel cases clonking around on each other when I can scan through literally hundreds of albums on a solid state drive. My 2018 Chevy Silverado LT was the last model of that truck that came with a built-in CD player (I'll load something into it once in awhile to make sure it still works). The 2019 and later models don't have CD players. Consumer electronics companies are making fewer optical disc movie/music players. I worry they could be phased out completely in the not so distant future.

                          One nice thing about a music streaming service: it just plays music on its own without you having to manually choose what to play, like listening to a radio station, but with better audio quality, far better music variety and no commercial interruptions. Paid services like Amazon Prime Music will stream higher bit rate audio than the free version that comes with a standard Prime subscription. Most over the air radio stations just absolutely suck anymore. Nearly all the ones in my city have been bought and bought again by big outfits that make the stations play the same 9 songs over and over again on infinite repeat for what seems like years. Every couple or so songs there is a long commercial break. It just sucks. The only broadcast radio station I listen to locally anymore is KCCU at Cameron University. It's an NPR affiliate, but also plays a variety of "grown up" music (jazz, classical, folk, etc). If I want to listen to rock music, I play stuff from my music collection, use a streaming service or Sirius|XM in my truck.​
                          Last edited by Bobby Henderson; 04-03-2023, 09:07 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't know any details of Disney's theme park business, other than it costs a ridiculous shit-ton fortune to visit one. I used to love amusement parks but now kind of have a hatred of them due to how customers are being abused and price-gouged.
                            Well, not knowing any details about the theme park business explains why the rest of your paragraph is off-base.

                            It doesn't cost a ridiculous shit-ton of money to visit a theme park, especially a Disney or Universal one, when you look at the big picture. People demand to be "wowed" by their theme park entertainment these days. It's no different from the movie business, except instead of $250-million movies, there are multiple $250-milllion attractions in a good park. All of which have to be designed, built, and operated by people, and then you tack on the stage shows, parades, and overall general decor of the place. None of that comes cheap. There is a constant stream of new stuff being developed too. On top of that comes the usual boring stuff like insurance, utilities, advertising, taxes, and of course the big one, maintenance. You can get into a Disney park at 9:00 in the morning and stay there some days till midnight or later, or at the very least until about 7:00pm, meaning you'll have anywhere from 10 to 15 hours of entertainment for about $10 an hour. That's not bad. So if it's not your thing, don't go, but it's not "ridiculously expensive." Like with everything else, you get what you pay for.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leo Enticknap View Post

                              I disagree. One of Disney's major revenue-earning assets is located in a hostile political environment (Florida), the government of which has demonstrated its willingness to use regulation and legislation against Disney and is in the process of actually doing so; and the asset in question is simply too big to move out of that environment without an existential risk level of up front investment. Further discussion would necessitate getting political, but surely that risk is above minimal.
                              I think they mean risks to preventing a merger from happening or requiring too much divestment.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X