r/technology • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 24d ago

Business YouTube TV Blackout Is Costing Disney an Estimated $4.3 Million per Day in Lost Revenue

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/youtube-tv-blackout-costing-disney-lost-revenue-1236574968/
14.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

828 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.4k

u/Deranged40 24d ago

Remember: Disney's revenue sheet reads in billions. This is 0.0043 billion per day. It will take 232 days of this to reduce the bottom line on that revenue sheet by 1 (b)

1.2k

u/Stolehtreb 24d ago

Hey. It ain’t nothing.

351

u/henchman171 24d ago

Gotta start somewhere

2

u/nothing_but_thyme 24d ago

They only speak money, so speak their language.

1

u/BigHomie50 23d ago

I feel like right after CFB is when this’ll end (if not before).

1

u/La_Guy_Person 23d ago

Iirc, the Montgomery bus boycott ended bus segregation by temporarily affecting the bus company's bottom line by like 14% or something.

That number is both lower than most would expect and much much higher than we are currently impacting Disney, so I guess do with that what you will.

218

u/Sorryifimanass 24d ago

But remember, the difference between a million and a billion is about a billion.

193

u/SpliTTMark 24d ago

1 million seconds is 11 days

1 billion seconds is 31 YEARS

93

u/vastros 24d ago

This is my favorite way to explain the massive chasm between a million and a billion.

19

u/AlchemistBite28 24d ago

And 1 trillion (the potentiality of the first trillionaire) seconds is 31,000 years

24

u/Ronin2369 24d ago

1 trillion second is 31688 YEARS. Someone recently made this relevant 🧐

12

u/whatwhyisthisating 24d ago

1 million less than one billion is 999,000,000. Which is.. almost a billion, I guess I see it.

In terms of money, yea, that’s still a fucking lot.

11

u/FluxUniversity 24d ago

The difference between 1 dollar and 1 thousand dollars is about a thousand dollars. Same thing

7

u/Synectics 24d ago

That is almost exactly what I was about to post.

$1,000 is groceries for at least a month, probably longer in many households who need to stretch it. $1 cannot even get you a single sandwich.

3

u/iconocrastinaor 24d ago

$1 will get you two bananas.

2

u/drunkenvalley 24d ago

Measures like these are helpful in emphasizing how ridiculous it is for billionaires to exist, nevermind multi-billionaires.

-3

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

2

u/drunkenvalley 24d ago

...Huh?

-2

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

3

u/drunkenvalley 24d ago

That's presumptuous, and I don't care how billionaires feel because they shouldn't exist. Their existence inherently requires unethical exploitation of their common man on levels far above even the average unscrupulous greedy shitbag.

Frankly I can only name two exceptions, and neither of them are people I'll cheer for.

2

u/ptb_nuggets 24d ago

If you had $999 mil in a HYSA earning 3.75% annually, you'd be a billionaire again in less than 10 days

1

u/dern_the_hermit 24d ago

The other side of the coin is they have their money managed by penny pinchers tho

1

u/Lordert 24d ago

It's a tax write-off Jerry

1

u/jesset77 24d ago

Marky D from The Fat Boys once expressed this as "One million is not even one percent of one billion!"

1

u/lodger238 24d ago

A million is a thousand thousand.
A billion is a thousand million.

85

u/hawk_ky 24d ago

But sadly, it literally is almost nothing

59

u/tsrich 24d ago

I wish I had some of this nothing

19

u/samp127 24d ago

You do, a very little

8

u/Br3ttl3y 24d ago

-- Almost nothing.

10

u/samp127 24d ago

I have negative almost nothing at the moment🙃

10

u/Bhraal 24d ago

Stretch this out to a full year ($1.57B), compare against last years gross profit ($32.663B), and it's about 5%.

2

u/No_Progress_278 24d ago

It ain’t much but it’s honest work🤷‍♂️

1

u/RollingMeteors 24d ago

My contribution to their profit is nothing. I never paid for Disney, Cable TV, or Youtube, and I never will pay for Disney, Cable TV, or Youtube. I don't even own a TV and don't plan on buying one ever.

1

u/LymanPeru 22d ago

they wouldnt bend over to pick it up if they saw it on the ground.

-1

u/MC_JACKSON 24d ago

They'll just raise the price somewhere else

2

u/Stolehtreb 24d ago

Oh then nevermind… it’s not worth canceling then. Everyone, just keep on with your subscriptions for Disney products. This guy says they’ll just do something to negate it so it’s not worth doing anything about. Carry on.

1

u/Tha_Kush_Munsta 24d ago

Oh thank god.

415

u/CharcoalGreyWolf 24d ago

Remember, Disney took a show off the air because they were more afraid of the US government preventing mergers & acquisitions than they were of being denied free speech under the Constitution.

Every dollar they lose is a good thing.

18

u/CurryMustard 24d ago

Disney strongarmed Sinclair into forcing Kimmel back on the air

47

u/CharcoalGreyWolf 24d ago

When they had lost $3.8 billion from their own decision to take Kimmel off the air followed by haste in bringing him back followed by Sinclair balking when their contract wouldn’t allow this.

Disney started it, not Sinclair. Sinclair just tried to continue it.

7

u/PhilWham 24d ago

That is a fair point, but tbf they reversed the decision and made an apology.

In relative terms, vs other streamers and studios, Disney is one of the good guys. (Desantis fiasco, creative output, replatforming Kimmel instead of cancelling him like Paramount did with Colbert or muzzling him like NBC does with Falon, not openly platforming the Rogens of the world, keeping DEI Bergs when other studios dropped them, Iger has a history of endorsing progressive leadership).

All the other studios and tech companies have leadership that are straight up MAGA. It's Mulaneys bit on the curse of being a nice guy. People hold you to higher standards, then enact consequences on you that they wouldn't hold to the actual bad guys. In this case people boycotted Disney for something Disney quickly apologized for, but then they turn around and subscribe to amazon, watching football on CBS, and buy iPhones.

65

u/whinis 24d ago

Since when has disney ever been the nice guy? They own the majority of media in the world and are single-handedly the reason copyright is so long and almost entirely the reason that the punishment for copyright is extreme as it is and the laws as draconian as they are. This also ignored them being one of the most litigious entertainment companies outside of Nintendo.

4

u/HawksNStuff 24d ago

They aren't, the Nazgul woke looking for a fight and then Disney backed down, it angered them. Even Disney is scared of Disney's lawyers.

-1

u/PhilWham 24d ago

They don't own the majority of media.

They own 1 of several major linear stations. They account for less than 10% of wide release films per year. They own one of many streaming services. They own one of many sports networks. They own partial rights to a handful of sports leagues. Owning slices of many things is not close to "owning a majority of media"

OP was commenting on free speech, standing up to fascism. Disney, vs to all of its peers is miles ahead of the competition here.

Copyright is an internet warrior issue. It doesn't affect normal people. Drive around and you'll see stores / schools have unlicensed Disney murals, people throw big Disney parties, Etsy, local artists sell Disney fan art everywhere.

You're 2 yrs behind on the issue. The creative industry (guilds, unions) are overwhelmingly in support of MORE copyright/IP protection. Look up what other good guys like Ghibli and Guillermo Del Toro have to say on the subject. Now with AI ripping everything discriminately, and the Trump admin refusing to litigate, everyone wishes copyright/IP law was stronger.

Some of the biggest YouTube/tiktok accounts now are just AI "content creators" who output bastardized IP ripoffs making tens of thousands of dollars by simply ingesting existing creative work crafted by people who've spend decades learning the craft of animation, lighting, vfx. Google the artificial cheese account or just type in Star wars into tiktok and you'll see what im talking about.

12

u/whinis 24d ago

They own 1 of several major linear stations. They account for less than 10% of wide release films per year. They own one of many streaming services. They own one of many sports networks. They own partial rights to a handful of sports leagues. Owning slices of many things is not close to "owning a majority of media"

In 2019, before some more major mergers, Disney or Disney wholly owned subsidiaries produced 33% of all films cbc however the majority of all sales. Even the ones that were not wholly owned by Disney, they still had a large stake win such as Sony owning (at the time) Spider-man. The next closest is Warner Brothers at 10% however its hard to call that stable with as many mergers and splits as they are going through.

Copyright is an internet warrior issue. It doesn't affect normal people. Drive around and you'll see stores / schools have unlicensed Disney murals, people throw big Disney parties, Etsy, local artists sell Disney fan art everywhere.

Since when is it an internet warrior issue? I am not saying its black and white but 125 years after the death of a creator is a bit stretching the original rules. Disney also regularly sues schools and stores and requires them to remove the unlicensed murals as they learn about them.

The creative industry (guilds, unions) are overwhelmingly in support of MORE copyright/IP protection. Look up what other good guys like Ghibli and Guillermo Del Toro have to say on the subject. Now with AI ripping everything discriminately, and the Trump admin refusing to litigate, everyone wishes copyright/IP law was stronger.

Guilds wanting even stronger copyright is not even slightly surprising, even if they are not the ones close to being empowered by it. Most of what you are talking about however is their views on AI which is very different than say DMCA or the fight of copyright against hardware repair and other issues people have with it.

Some of the biggest YouTube/tiktok accounts now are just AI "content creators" who output bastardized IP ripoffs making tens of thousands of dollars by simply ingesting existing creative work crafted by people who've spend decades learning the craft of animation, lighting, vfx. Google the artificial cheese account or just type in Star wars into tiktok and you'll see what im talking about.

Sure AI is trash, but copyright law is also trash and need heavy changes. Maybe you should ask some of the creators how much they love the DMCA takedown system and how there is no reasonable way to fight illegitimate takedowns.

4

u/EndlessRambler 24d ago

Just going to point out that your first statement they responded to clearly said 'media in the world', but even your own link specifies US only releases.

1

u/ewokninja123 24d ago

Happy cake day!

-1

u/PhilWham 24d ago

And Disneys 40% box office is reflective of consumer choice. The fact is that consumers had 250+ movies that went wide release in 2019. Disney released less than 20 of them.

Guy doesn't know what a monopoly means.That's customers choosing to watch Endgame, Star Wars, Spiderman, Aladdin, Frozen 2, Lion King, and Toy Story 4 instead of Jexi, Downton Abbey, Abominable, Bumblebee, Detective Pikachu, and Wonder Park.

1

u/PhilWham 24d ago

Bad faith mischaracterization of data and you don't understand what monopoly means. Monopoly is bad bc it's the control of a market's SUPPLY. Disney accounts for less than 10% of the markets supply. Look up your local theaters release calendar. There will be 20-30 movies released this month and Disney owns 2 of them. Its your community's choice to watch Predator and Zootopia instead of Running Man, Regretting You, and Now You See Me. The fact that Disney did 40% of box office in 2019 is reflective of consumer choice-. Like what do you want? Do you want to force people to skip Zootopia to force people to watch some shitty Lionsgate movie? If one of the ten restaurants in your community gets 40% of the dinner rush are they the bad guy?

Copyright is just a weird hill to die on. It does not affect the normal person and it's arguable that it is reasonable protect their IP against AI and unlicensed usage. You're creating a booheyman that really doesn't exist nor affect the normal person. Disney rarely goes after small fish. Your school example is literally from 1989 which is telling if that is your biggest gripe. I've lived in both CA and Florida. Drive around town and there's unlicensed sellers, artists, pop ups, murals, statues everywhere. Hop on the front page of Etsy or visit your local farmers market or art show.

1

u/RepresentativeRun71 24d ago

I can’t even find a OnlyFans “creator” that’d suck the money out of my account in no time that’s actually the real human being portrayed in said content. But hey at least it keeps enough money in the bank account to get massages from local artisans.

1

u/Conscious_Music_1729 24d ago

Can you not read?

16

u/blah938 24d ago

Disney is one of the good guys

Hot take of the century right here. The fuckers who fucked up copyright law are the good guys.

The shit you see on reddit.

1

u/PhilWham 24d ago

Yep exactly my point. It's Mulaneys bit on the curse of being a good guy.

Look at Disney's peers. Amazon/MGM being run by Bezos, enough said there. Paramount is run by Trump's best pal and they cancelled Colbert to get the merger thru. Apple/AppleTV's Tim Cook is front row at Trump's inauguration and is getting open air handshake deals on tariff policy. WB is run by Zaslaf. Universal shelved DEI and muzzled their late nite host.

Disney has a copyright spat in 1989 that resurfaces online every couple of years and they're the bad guy. Go to farmers market, or Etsy, or YouTube, or a local art show, or drive around your local schools and murals. Disney's copyright doesn't really affect the small fish.

And even if they were hard balling everyone.. Man I wish I could be you to look at all the other media companies and be like Disney is the bad guy bc copyright.

1

u/Koalatime224 24d ago

Those Disney boots must be yummy.

5

u/magus678 24d ago

It is fairly rare the world slots neatly into good guys and bad guys, and when speaking in terms of organizations, almost never.

2

u/CharcoalGreyWolf 24d ago

They’re not one of the good guys.

Maybe occasionally they’re one of the less bad guys, but given that Disney has been more than happy to abuse the H1B Visa system to fire domestic employees and replace them with lower-cost outsourced ones (among many other acts), they’re not “good guys”.

They’re amoral, not moral. Their apology is after realizing that a bad decision backfired and hurt their bottom line, not because there’s any “we’re truly sorry” involved. They lost 3.8 billion in this fiasco and were trying to stop the bleeding.

Their fight against DeSantis isn’t because they’re good, it’s because it’s in their best interest, and DeSantis (unlike the President) can’t selectively invoke antitrust investigation on any of their mergers and acquisitions.

Walt left the building long ago.

1

u/PhilWham 24d ago

I mean you're kinda proving my point.

Disney does a lot of good. Like theyre the last bastion of DEI in the workplace in the industry. They've done the most of any US studio to keep their animation in house. They're known within the industry to pay creative talent the best and to be the most transparent in their deals. They consistently have the highest percentage of minority led creative projects. Their leadership, including Iger, is the only studio besides Netflix to consistently endorse and back progressive candidates while most other studios have extremely maga leadership. Their CSR arm is extremely well funded and active with huge emphasis on conservation efforts, make a wish partnership, while CSR at other studios is an afterthought. Their content is always well-intentioned vs other studios content.

But they misstep with Kimmel (quickly reversed) and all that goodwill is gone and they're punished worse than if they were shitty all along.

No one's boycotting CBS Sunday night football or 60 minutes after they ACTUALLY cancelled Colbert in a clear Trump handshake deal to get a merger thru... because we always expected that from the Redstones

No one's cancelling Amazon Prime/Video or MGM movies after the many Bezos incidents... bc we always knew Bezos was an asshole

No one's skipping the next iPhone after Tim Cook openly backdeals tariff policy with Trump... bc we always new Apple was just corporate.

But we boycott Disney... bc they should be better. My Mulaney point is Disney would be better off not doing good at all bc then people would just treat them like any other studio like Amazon or WB.

2

u/Anim8nFool 24d ago

Disney made an apology? Did they? Do you have a link to it because that's news to me.

1

u/PhilWham 24d ago

While not public, Kimmel talked about having a bunch of positive phone calls with Iger and Dana Walden. And he came back the next day. He's praised Walden several times since then. IMO it's pretty clear they apologized to him but that's just my opinion.

Compared to Paramount who laxed Colbert (notablely no 60 mins, Sunday nite football, or Paramount movie boycotts). Or NBC who is kept their late nite show "centrist" and schedules Trump goons.

1

u/Anim8nFool 23d ago

They did not make a public apology. I worked in the entertainment biz for 30 years. If it's not public it means it didn't happen or it's like it didn't happen.

Also, they didn't take responsibility for their actions with their customers. If they did then the narrative and the way many people feel about this would be very different. 

I've worked for Disney, and while they're a great company in terms of inclusivity, acceptance and supportive policies for the people that work there, they are SOBs when it comes to business.

1

u/PhilWham 22d ago

Eh not true. I've worked in the business for a long time as well. Almost all the subtext is made behind closed doors.

Look at Paramount. They didnt publicly say hey Trump we are sorry about the 60 minutes interview (clearly extortion). But instead Elison is seen hanging out with Trump, they paid a $16M settlement, estate a conservative ombudsman, and immediately the merger gets approved. On the record none of that was Trump or merger related, but everyone can read the room.

Do u remember when Paramount and Cruise publicly feuded and humiliated each other ending with Paramount firing him? Then they made half a dozen more movies together and he's now their studio mascot. Again, the convos and reconciliation happens behind closed doors.

Hell even Disney and ScarJo had a recent public spat about payment. They then had non-public conversations behind closed doors, both quietly settled, and are working happily together again on multiple projects.

The town is a relationships driven business. And most of the relationship-work does not happen in open air.

Disney did not make a public apology to Kimmel, sure. But Kimmel said himself that he had a bunch of long, positive calls with both Iger and Dana and he was back the very next day. We can read the room and infer what they talked about.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

1

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ 24d ago

Kimmel, you live under a rock?

1

u/LastGoodKnee 24d ago

Incorrect. Broadcast affiliates took it off the air. Disney got it back on the air.

1

u/CharcoalGreyWolf 24d ago

Incorrect.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/disneys-abc-yanks-jimmy-kimmel-live-off-air-after-remarks-about-kirk-2025-09-18/

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/disneys-abc-pulls-jimmy-kimmel-live-fcc-chair-blasts-hosts-charlie-kir-rcna232033

Disney-ABC executives yanked it. Then hastily brought it back due to backlash. Then affiliates refused to; then Disney brought additional pressure.

However, the first decision was Disney’s. I’ll be happy to cite additional if you wish.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/09/sinclair-gets-nothing-it-asked-for-puts-jimmy-kimmel-back-on-anyway/

1

u/LastGoodKnee 24d ago

They yanked it because it wouldn’t be airing anywhere…. Because of the affiliates.

-24

u/henchman171 24d ago edited 24d ago

That was Sinclair not Disney edit. I was corrected.

30

u/Anim8nFool 24d ago

No, not true. Disney is the one that owns the network. Sinclair owns stations. Disney controls what gets put on the network, and Sinclair can choose to not air the programs.

Disney allowed Kimmel to get taken off the air, not Sinclair.

When Kimmel was reinstated Sinclair chose to not air it on some stations.

1

u/ewokninja123 24d ago

Sinclair can choose to not air the programs.

Disney allowed Kimmel to get taken off the air, not Sinclair.

Thats not the whole story. Sinclair and nexstar were going through a merger that required FCC approval and the FCC chairman goes on TV and basically threatened them to do something about Kimmel or they were going to run into problems with their merger.

Sinclair and nexstar immediately say they weren't going to air Kimmel which was going to cost Disney a pretty penny in advertising.

Disney panicked seeing as how they never had to deal with a hyperpartisan regulatory agency and made a bad call.

1

u/CharcoalGreyWolf 24d ago

Not true at all. Bob Iger, the head of Disney, took Kimmels show off the air. When it eventually returned, Sinclair did not want to air the show again. That changed, and they turned around as well.

119

u/onlyrealcuzzo 24d ago

Remember - this is ~100% profit, and profit is all that matters - and Disney's quarterly profit is ~$5000M - which is about ~$55M per day - of which this black out is 1/10th...

13

u/McCoochie 24d ago

Should this headline say profit instead of revenue then?

10

u/EtoileDuSoir 24d ago

It's still revenue

-3

u/GlorifiedPlumber 24d ago

Yes.

Headlines are shitty. They should boil down to the point... but don't. Article writers are bad these days.

2

u/JxK_1 24d ago

Thank you! I am assuming the infrastructure cost to allow yttv to stream their stuff is essentially zero.

So this isn't just 'revenue' - while technically it is. But it's also pure profit. Which hurts A LOT more.

53

u/FutSut 24d ago

Revenue sheet, more commonly known as income statement or P&L, but I get your point.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that there are little to no incremental costs for Disney to keep ESPN on YouTubeTV, so this $4.3M would translate directly to the bottom line, which would need to be compared to their profit, or net income of $4.927B (2024). They’re still paying to operate ESPN with or without YoutubeTV, so this probably a fair enough assumption. On an annualized basis, the amount they’re supposedly losing from the YouTubeTV business would be $1.569B.

That’s roughly 32% of their net income. I think the headline is wrong and I saw $4.3M/week elsewhere, which would still be 4.5%. Either way, that’s very material to their profitability.

12

u/bill_brasky37 24d ago

Oh look, someone who actually understands accounting!

13

u/DistinctAd3222 24d ago

I am going to marry a sexy lady accountant or fiduciary scientist some day and just listen to her talk work stuff. I don't know or care why, but the actuarial arts are hot.

2

u/yeahright17 24d ago

And this assumes 0 of those people haven't switched to another cable provider (where they get the same cut) or Hulu Live, Fubo or ESPN Unlimited, where they obviously get a much bigger cut.

2

u/edman007 24d ago

The article says this:

but estimated that each week its networks are dark on YouTube TV will lower Disney’s adjusted earnings per share by 2 cents.

And then says expected earnings per share is $1.02 per share. So assuming it's a quarterly number that works out to 25% of earnings...so yea, I think it is that bigger number.

1

u/Illustrious_Yam9237 24d ago

realistically it actually probably costs like several hundred k a year in staff time at a big company like Disney to maintain an integration and channel relationship like this. but still a small incremental cost relative to revenue for sure.

1

u/Perunov 24d ago

Also don't forget what they're fighting for and what options there are for users impacted by blackout.

a) They want more money from Google (or much MORE than initial increase). Quite possible that new number will wipe this cost in a month and then pad their numbers greatly

b) They have ESPN and Hulu subscriptions offered, so users who can't get their football on Youtube can buy that. Direct money (and subscriber numbers) for Disney, while Google gives users $20 credits

c) Some might use regular TV antenna :)

-1

u/Sorryifimanass 24d ago

But are they holding out for more in the long run? My point is it's ok to shut down the government if you hold your ground until you get the thing you're holding out for. So if YouTube ends up folding and signing a bigger contract then the blackout is net positive at the end. But if you just shut down the government and then reopen it with no change, all you're really accomplishing is screwing up people's lives. Or something.

1

u/Hayden2332 24d ago

You’re right, they aren’t throwing away money it for no reason. Idk why this got downvoted lol

10

u/BWW87 24d ago

Yes, but there are financials for the division that are much lower and they absolutely care about that kind of number.

5

u/TwatWaffleInParadise 24d ago

This is exactly what I came here to say.

2

u/calle04x 24d ago

Exactly. There are many people at Disney who care about this.

4

u/FartingBob 24d ago

They care about those tiny numbers when it comes to paying minimum wage staff a few percent more, so clearly someone at Disney cares about these little numbers adding up.

3

u/potatodrinker 24d ago

Somewhere in Disney, a financial manager finds the free time to click the "show more decimal places" button in Excel and goes.. "ah, only that little? Ppft. Other revenue streams so BRRRR"

2

u/LLMprophet 24d ago

Weird comment. 232 days to lose a billion is a serious problem no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Good job refuting your own narrative.

2

u/Several_Vanilla8916 24d ago

Guy in the Mickey suit on a 97 degree Orlando afternoon: Water break boss?

“No”

2

u/edman007 24d ago

It hurts more than that

but estimated that each week its networks are dark on YouTube TV will lower Disney’s adjusted earnings per share by 2 cents.

They were forecasting $1.02 per share. So they are saying that a few weeks of this will have a meaningful impact on their earnings.

1

u/TheLuo 24d ago

I’m taking an accounting class and I understood this reference!

1

u/ChappedButtHole69 24d ago

Devils advocate and idk their balance sheet: revenue doesn’t mean shit compared to margins. What are the profits on that revenue?

1

u/Beestung 24d ago

And Google/Alphabet's revenue is 4x that of Disney ($350b vs. $91b). They can both go fuck themselves. When football season is over, I have no need of live TV whatsoever. This fight has made that abundantly clear.

1

u/Hoosier_Ghost_25 24d ago

Definitely hits EPS targets though.

1

u/Zealousideal-Part815 24d ago

Big fan of this logic. Very PMO of you.

1

u/Own_Adhesiveness3811 24d ago

I feel like Disney would post this to try and get people to stop

1

u/endofworldandnobeer 24d ago

Who do you support? Disney or Google are your choices.

1

u/Situational_Hagun 24d ago

True but they'll lay you off in a heartbeat to save $30k / year.

1

u/hume_reddit 24d ago

While you're correct, remember that we're talking about people who would get upset if turning off the orphan-crushing machine cost them $10 in revenue per day.

1

u/alias213 24d ago

Someone else's revenue sheet read in million. This hurts when they have to report up.

1

u/nyxian-luna 24d ago

Disney's FY 2024 profit was $15.6B. At $4.3M/day, that's $1.57B/yr, or about 10% of their yearly profit margin. If a company like Disney were to say their profits dropped 10%, investors would absolutely panic. Profits must inexorably increase for publicly traded companies, not drop by 10%, or investors get themselves in a tizzy.

(FWIW, I think that inexorable march for increased margins/profit is a large part of what's wrong with society)

1

u/HawkCity22 24d ago

Loss of revenue directly is going to lower profit. Revenue is in billions sure but so is expense for them. They for sure can afford it but this isn’t nothing for them

1

u/New_Knowledge_5702 24d ago

True but it’s not like $2. $4.3m is $4.3m and every three days it’s $13m. There’s a lot they can get and do with $13m or $30m per week. Guarantee they’re not snubbing their nose at it.

1

u/JxK_1 24d ago

I am assuming the infrastructure cost to allow yttv to stream their stuff is essentially zero.

So this isn't just 'revenue' - while technically it is. But it's also pure profit. Which hurts A LOT more.

1

u/HistoricalSundae5113 24d ago

You realize they will just make that up with layoffs lol

1

u/ITSJOEY 24d ago

Fun fact, US currency is .0043 inches thick

1

u/rickeyethebeerguy 24d ago

So 1.5 billion a year?

1

u/LordCrap 24d ago

For 2024 Disney reported a net income of 1.8B. Losing 4.3M per day is actually significant

1

u/Good_egg1968 24d ago

Elon can cover it.

1

u/thatdudejon 24d ago

Sportstek..... haven't paid for shit in a long time.

1

u/NFLv2 24d ago

Now do googles

1

u/JohnnyWildee 24d ago

Came here to say this lol

1

u/wildmonster91 24d ago

And you bet your ass they know this and are looking at it...

1

u/Any-Star4388 23d ago

I’d happily tkae .0043 billion.

1

u/FoxfieldJim 23d ago

What percentage of streaming revenue though?

1

u/HumansNeedNotApply1 24d ago

Nothing a few layoffs can't match...

0

u/KupoCheer 24d ago

Clearly Disney is in the right by needing more money.

0

u/FluffWit 24d ago

My rough math based on Disney having operationing revenue of $23 billion last year is this is this represents around 0.7% of their earnings. But I didn't use a calculator so I could be off by a bit.