That loss affects their stock price, their future outlook, what things they choose to fund, and how much they spend on advertising and trying to recover from this PR disaster.
This is flawed thinking. There is no “them” with a huge salary. The people making decisions are salaried or invested employees, and their livelihood depends on the stock regardless. There isn’t “one guy” that this hits, like it would with a salary, there’s thousands of investors which must be appeased.
Also, it’s likely many of those canceling were people who didn’t use the service as much as power users, which means they’re losing the cheapest to maintain customers (industry insight, no research to back this up, to be clear).
If we had boycotts and cancelations even a quarter this big across other media giants, our media would be a far better place.
deleted by creator
It’s noticeable when you look at the price of the subscription. That’s almost $300 million.
deleted by creator
That loss affects their stock price, their future outlook, what things they choose to fund, and how much they spend on advertising and trying to recover from this PR disaster.
deleted by creator
My wage doesn’t have a cost of goods sold line item. If I take in $5b and make $5.5b in revenue, $300m is > 1/2 of my net profit
deleted by creator
This is flawed thinking. There is no “them” with a huge salary. The people making decisions are salaried or invested employees, and their livelihood depends on the stock regardless. There isn’t “one guy” that this hits, like it would with a salary, there’s thousands of investors which must be appeased.
Also, it’s likely many of those canceling were people who didn’t use the service as much as power users, which means they’re losing the cheapest to maintain customers (industry insight, no research to back this up, to be clear).
If we had boycotts and cancelations even a quarter this big across other media giants, our media would be a far better place.
A previously-posted Gizmodo article said
Which I thought was very useful.
Kabas is the reporter and I still haven’t seen where they got that number.
This says 128M, which seems far more plausible. https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/disney-stop-reporting-subscriber-numbers-disney-plus-hulu-espn-1236480413/
.
I don’t think those numbers are additive like that - you’d be double-counting people.
They pay more than once as well?
True - I guess it depends on whether we’re defining “subscribers” as people or total paid accounts.
Corporate says the biggest number.
Total paid account is the number that gets counted. That’s what a subscriber is after all.
Should cable subscribers be counted 200 times, once for each channel?
I suspect they’d have lost a lot more if this dragged on longer, he was back in a few days.
Consider that the full number is world wide. How many of them are US based or US involved?
deleted by creator