Yes, Spammy, I literally pulled those numbers from an article about the most profitable blockbusters of 2019.
Posted by
David (aka David)
Aug 11 '20, 08:13
|
As I said, it was back of the napkin numbers, but you’re off here. What I said is accurate for the same reason that I later discussed the profitability of the movie division. Expenses are way lower since they won’t spend $200 million marketing the film now (although they already had some sunk cost in late February and early March). You’re doing actual cost based on a normal release, not PVOD. Disney will market its product on its own other services. While accounting will show internal payments, it’s virtually free due to Disney’s vertical integration.
You’ll notice a couple of other articles coming out that come up with that same range of 12 million, which is still a massive ask on a service with 60 million global subscribers. Best guess is that somewhere between 1 in 6 and 1 in 5 Disney+ subscribers must “buy” Mulan for it to make as much as Aladdin.
However, that reinforces the potential upside of this strategy. As subscriber numbers grow, Disney can do more releases that they would reasonably expect to be as profitable as a top 10 film from a massive box office year. There’s a reason why exhibitors are livid and terrified right now. They’ve just been told they are non-essential.
|
Responses:
|
