Would you all explain to me how removing content we expect to have access to is a “cost savings” measure?

The following is from the Willow Wikipedia page, which led me to the linked URL:

The series was removed from Disney+ on May 26, 2023, amidst a Disney+ and Hulu content removal purge as part of a broader cost cutting initiative under Disney CEO Bob Iger.

I’ve been abroad for a month and earned some time off afterwards. One of my kids reminded me that we never finished Willow, so I said “let’s do it now!” The show wasn’t perfect for many reasons, but I wanted to finish it for nostalgia’s sake and my child legit found it interesting. Lo and behold, the series isn’t on Disney+ any more!

A quick search later, I see the above referenced quote linking to the article associated with this post… which only made things worse. The Mysterious Benedict Society was something my whole family could watch and enjoy without arguments! Turner and Hooch was dorky, but something my youngest loved and it was a super safe and easy pick for us bond over.

This post isn’t about whether the shows are good. And it isn’t about how nearly every show I like ends up cancelled. The point is that I paid for access, they were then quietly removed (for various platforms), and I have zero understanding as to how this saves these companies money.

Would someone explain?

P. S. Yes, I know this is old news. However, this is just how I am. I’m not up to date with anything in the entertainment world. I intentionally wait a few seasons for things because I loath when shows are cancelled after a season. (I’m looking at you, Firefly.) I’m the same way with books, often waiting to read a trilogy after its published because I don’t like the wait in between books. (Thanks, Rothfuss).

I just don’t take cancellation wells, especially when I was on top of everything including summer podcasts and such. (Now anything with the names Abrams, Lindelof, or Cuse makes my skin crawl.)

I know. I’m weird and stuff.

40 points

I’m not a specialist and I’m just guessing: licensing fees and streaming fees to the actors etc? Every view costs them a tiny bit of money. I guess over time it adds up. And from Disney’s pov those shows don’t bring in new subs or anything, so they only cost them money?

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

My guess is that any fees or residuals are based on a time to stream, not a number of views.

If residuals were only paid per view, you could have an underperforming show on and not really care that it underperforms. However, if you are paying per month, an underperforming show is not going to make the streamer money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The streamers are very protective of viewership numbers and even the show’s producers can’t get access to that information. So all the payment formulas are based on subscribers, not viewers. A show that nobody is watching is too expensive to carry.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This makes more sense if true.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You said it faster and more succinctly than I did! Hah!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I figure it has to be along these lines, but I’m hoping for something concrete because it still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Once published, I imagine a great many show and movies, especially older ones, bring in very limited money.

I see your screen name and automatically think of Star Trek Prodigy, another show all my kids agreed on. These are a rarity. And then CBS decides to just make it poof? (Although I think I heard enough backlash might mean it stays after all?)

I wish I could understand the specifics of this. I’m getting burnt out by these companies and understand why so many folks are just going back to pirating content.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Media executives in general can’t be trusted to act in anyone’s interest, even their own. Why did Game of Thrones get rushed out the door when the writers were approved for twice as many episodes and 3x as much budget as they used? Why did Witcher go from a universally beloved series to a dumpster fire based strictly on the ego of the directors? Why did Netflix drop all the shows anyone wanted to watch and is now full of first party garbage and literally nothing left that people want to see?

Some of the answers to these questions must make sense in some perspective, but I’ll be damned if I know what that is. Each of these seems like they had very simple solutions that were ignored.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

😖

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Maybe the shows you mention do not cost much to stream that’s why they keep them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

This thread isn’t touching on the biggest impact which is being able to write down or impair these assets that are taken off streaming or shows in production that are cancelled (for Warner’s an amount in excess of $3B) - the impaired asset value is then taken as a loss which reduces the company’s tax burden.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

I won’t pretend to understand corporate accounting at all, but if a show is costing them more money than it’s supposedly bringing in, how does it actually have any value as an asset in the first place? Can they literally just deduct the cost of production?

I guess I’m trying to imagine an analogous physical example. If a business spends $10,000 on a widget machine, but after several years it deteriorates to the point of being functionally useless and worth only $100 for parts, if they then throw it out, can they write off the $100 it’s now valued at, or the $10,000 they originally paid? If it’s the $10,000, can that expense not be deducted at purchase, and they have to wait until the actual object is disposed of?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Physical equipment is depreciated at a specific schedule based on that asset’s useful life. If you have a widget machine that costs $10,100 and is expected to last 10 years before being scrapped for $100, you can use a straight line depreciation of $1,000 per year.

But 5 years in, if the widget machine is destroyed, and the remaining scraps are only worth $100, then you can write down the $5,000 loss against your income, taking that tax benefit now instead of over the next 5 years.

If it’s the $10,000, can that expense not be deducted at purchase, and they have to wait until the actual object is disposed of?

No, they can’t deduct the purchase price because it’s not actually a loss of income. If they bought something that doesn’t lose value over time (a chunk of gold, a famous painting, some foreign currency, or a parcel of land), the amount they paid isn’t a “loss,” because they have a valuable asset after the purchase, so they’re not any poorer after the transaction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Well, I think there is a question too of the value that theses assets have when brought directly to streaming and the reason we’re seeing studios start to rethink this strategy and schedule more theatrical runs

However from what you described the scenario is similar and these situations also occur with more traditional assets, for instance a manufacturer who brings a product to market that significantly underperforms because of an unforeseen event, if the assets market value drops below what has been accounted for they write down that difference as a loss. This loss offsets other gains the company recognizes and therefore rescues their tax burden. Consumers are able to take advantage of this as well if they experience a loss in their investments (capital losses)

For businesses and consumers the ability to write down losses encourages additional investment, and the highly subjective nature of valuation allows companies like the studios to use creative strategies to offset other costs like Discovery’s acquisition of Warner Media

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes, this is what I was thinking was the matter. And someone else in this thread posted at a guardian link saying something to the same effect. It’s still mind-boggling to me that to save money the answer is to remove everything completely. It feels like these big production companies are failing people and their use of the tax system is furthering that so they can save money. It just seems strange that they have to axe a show from existence to be able to prove it as a loss to the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah it does seem counterproductive, companies in other industries do this all the time it just goes unnoticed - this system does not work in the consumer’s favor

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Most of these shows pay residuals to actors, writers, directors, and production companies based on formulas of how many subscribers the service has. Notably, none of the services are willing to publish detailed viewership statistics, even privately to creators, so the shows have to pay the same amount regardless of whether 1 person is watching or 1 million people are watching every day.

Rather than throw good money after bad, the services would rather take the show off entirely and not have to pay any residuals going forward. Then, with the show/movie making no money going forward, they get to write down the fair value of that intellectual property, which also saves the parent company on taxes.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

If this is accurate, then it would make a hell of a lot more sense. But… it sounds like these “residuals” need to be payed out differently because this sucks for consumers and… honestly… I think for those that poured themselves into making the content in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

This is a huge point of contention in the current strike negotiations in Hollywood. Take, for example, this article:

SAG-AFTRA has proposed a bonus on top of the standard residual for the most-watched shows. But the AMPTP has refused to go along with that.

One of the challenges is getting a common metric that would work across all the streaming platforms. Each platform measures views differently, and they also consider that data top-secret.

. . .

Under the current formulas, streaming residual payments for all three guilds are based on a pre-determined compensation formula that declines over time as the TV show or movie ages. Platforms are sorted into subscriber-based tiers, with the higher tiers paying a higher residual. But the payments are the same regardless of the popularity of a show.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah. I see this as being a problem. I was curious how it comes into play.

The popularity of a show really needs to be taken into account.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Most of these shows pay residuals to actors, writers, directors, and production companies based on formulas of how many subscribers the service has.

wait what I thought people are on strike because this ISN’T happening.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The current residual formulas are based on subscriber counts for the whole service (which all the streamers publish to shareholders and the public), not the number of viewers or hours viewed or any statistics that have anything to do with the specific show/movie itself (which the streamers refuse to release even to content creators and producers).

The strike negotiations want bonuses based on actual streaming performance, but the streamers are resisting anything that might require them to actually disclose numbers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Thank you!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Its also worth noting that their focus is on new subscriptions rather than retention, and a sort of “originate then cancel” model has developed from that. They create a new show, the hype from that new show drives new subs, they cancel the show to save money on residuals and to dedicate production funds to originating new shows, a certain percentage of the people who subbed for just that show stay subbed, their sub numbers go up

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

So it’s a tax thing.

The specifics of the tax and accounting issues at play here are beyond me, but it seems to be related to how big the value of the stuff you offer is versus how much of the cost you can write off as a loss.

The Guardian talks about it today and summarizes the whole process as “In May, Disney+ announced a content removal plan designed to cut US$1.5bn worth of content, meaning it substantially reduces the company’s value, giving it a lot less tax to pay.”

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/aug/29/the-great-cancellation-why-megabucks-tv-shows-are-vanishing-without-a-trace

It’s all fake, dumb monopoly money stuff and it sucks. Somebody track down an actual corporate accountant who can explain the process better than me, though. It’s probably an interesting bit of detail to learn about.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Business Accounting is such make-believe bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This is what I had heard at some point. It’s a tax thing. Even though there are no details, it makes more sense to me now. Reduced value == less taxes. Would love to hear the guts if this… but also at the same time pulling out hair. So much blood, sweat, and tears going into producing something only having it then wiped from existence. smh.

And I hadn’t realized that Westworld was axed too. For a show that made such a huge hubbub and then to remove it entirely?! Ugh

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

It’s because they take the value of the shows they remove and mark them down as a straight loss, it’s a ridiculous loophole. They are literally saying, “I have this thing that’s so valuable, but I ‘accidentally’ threw it away, it’s worthless now, I need to mark this down as a loss.” They are destroying their own products for tax purposes.

The Discovery channel boss started this trend when he cancelled that Batwoman movie, and now other streaming corps are following suit. Hopefully the law will catch up to prevent this kind of trickery, but for now it seems they are doing everything they can to reduce costs because they rushed to steal Netflix’s lunch without a solid business plan.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

it’s a ridiculous loophole. They are literally saying, “I have this thing that’s so valuable, but I ‘accidentally’ threw it away, it’s worthless now, I need to mark this down as a loss.” They are destroying their own products for tax purposes.

This. ☝

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Your best bet is to vote with your wallet. Can’t get Willow on Disney+? Then, Disney+ doesn’t get your money. I’ve been buying more physical media and downloading again like I’ve gone back in time 20 years.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Not physical media again. Haha. We got rid of all our DVDs to trim down on all the…stuff. No more stuffffff.

But it’s that or someone hosts it, which costs money and circle around again…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Bring back the giant disc cases! 100 discs in a single soft-sided case takes up less room than a shelf of DVDs. Now all your friends can flip through to decide what they want, just like in college! /old

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Please no. Even after ripping all my music, I still have a one foot thick ream of CDs that I wish I could part with but my partner would murder me over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

A single consumer hard drive can hold several thousand DVDs. With newer codecs you can get much much better quality at smaller file sizes, too.

I consider this by far the best experience in terms of quality and performance. Unfortunately, the only way to live this dream is to pirate everything, or spend a lot of time ripping your own discs (which might not be legal anyway thanks to bullshit DRM cracking laws).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And this is so true. Both the ripping your own content and then the DRM implications of it all. And all so frustrating.

And here I just want to buy things. And keep them. In my preferred format. Forever. The end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Or everyone hosts it and shares the costs, aka piracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

4TB USB Drive. You’re welcome.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

4tb? Is this storage for ants?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

FWIW getting one of those disc suitcases can hold hundreds of dvds without taking up much space at all. If you rip backups, you can store it somewhere out of the way without too much clutter. Plus it’s a very stable backup for the digital files.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Entertainment

!entertainment@beehaw.org

Create post

Movies, television and Broadway.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 31

    Monthly active users

  • 361

    Posts

  • 1.5K

    Comments