Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

Disney+ is Getting an Ad-supported Subscription Tier Later this Year (techcrunch.com) 55

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Disney+ will be introducing an ad-supported subscription tier later this year, Disney announced on Friday. From a report: The company didn't provide a launch date or pricing, but says it will release specific details about the new offering later this year. The new tier will roll out in the United States in late 2022, with plans to expand internationally next year. The streaming service's current ad-free plan costs $7.99 per month or $79.99 per year. Adding a cheaper ad-supported tier for the streaming service will likely help the company further expand its subscriber base. In a press release, Disney said the new tier will be a "building block" in its path to achieve its long-term target of 230-260 million Disney+ subscribers by 2024.

"Expanding access to Disney+ to a broader audience at a lower price point is a win for everyone -- consumers, advertisers, and our storytellers," said Kareem Daniel, the chairman of Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, in a statement. "More consumers will be able to access our amazing content. Advertisers will be able to reach a wider audience, and our storytellers will be able to share their incredible work with more fans and families." Following the launch, the streaming service will join several other streaming services that offer ad-supported tiers, including HBO Max, Paramount+ and Discovery+. Hulu, which Disney owns and operates, also offers an ad-supported tier for $6.99 per month.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney+ is Getting an Ad-supported Subscription Tier Later this Year More

Disney+ is Getting an Ad-supported Subscription Tier Later this Year

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

      If it's not free, then there needs to be pushback. Peacock and Hulu have already gone the "Let's charge something high for something that's still ad infested", and I'm concerned this is going to become a standard, where the "affordable" option is the one where people are paying you to shit on them.

      Like cable TV has been for decades?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        You're not incorrect, that doesn't make the practice in any way acceptable. "That's how we've always done it" is the absolute worst way to justify doing something.

      • If it's not free, then there needs to be pushback.

        Like cable TV has been for decades?

        In case you haven't noticed, there's been quite a bit of pushback against cable in the last N years. A large part of why streaming services became popular in the first place was the lack of ads. Why pay for cable and get a bunch of channels you'll never watch and still be forced to watch ads when you can get a couple streaming services for less money, have greater freedom as to when and where you watch...without ads?

    • I'll have to concur. If they do this at the price point of Hulu (i.e $6.99 a month) for ad-supported that is a surefire sign prices for no ads is going up. The almost insignificant price difference is nearly useless and they'll sit on it for 6 months and then announce increases. I mean capitalism is capitalism. They'll charge what the market will bear, but that doesn't mean it isn't irritating when they use all this subterfuge to lead up to what we know is going to happen.

    • If it's not free, then there needs to be pushback.

      The best way to push back is to not subscribe to the service.

      • If it's not free, then there needs to be pushback.

        The best way to push back is to not subscribe to the service.

        That's what I keep saying about Amazon, but people keep coming up with excuses why they can't do that.

    • Disney's existing subscription fee isn't high, it's actually probably the lowest cost of the current streaming services, despite a huge amount of content.

      Their content is pretty niche. There's kids stuff, Star Wars, and Marvel. It's a good service, but if their price was high, most of us wouldn't pay. Let's be honest, if you don't have kids, Marvel + Star Wars only provides a few hours of new content per year.

      One of the smart things Disney+ did was make their service low-cost and low-pain. My kids are the perfect age for it, but barely watch it. We pre-ordered and were so excited and have been paying since, despite it getting watched maybe once a mon

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by quall ( 1441799 )

        And even their Marvel content has been mediocre at best. They literally wrote a story where they replaced "Loki" with a female version of him, and then made the male Loki into a weak dimwit. It's a joke and all of their content is following this same theme for some reason. They aren't appealing to the fans, so who are they trying to sell their stories to?

        • Maybe there are fans that aren't white and male? Clearly they stopped caring about the people that loved Star Wars long long ago.

          That also kind of makes sense. A lot of commercial society does everything is can to cater to the teen/20s market in hopes of getting them hooked. Once you are past 30, a lot of that stuff is not really geared toward you and it's very obvious.

          I'd rather just go back and watch the original Star Wars then waste time on anything made in the past 30 years. I'm probably not the only on

    • I've been using Tubi.com for a while and it's exactly as you describe: free with ads. With very few ads, I must say, at least here in Canada.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      i got the free month of paramount+ around christmas, and I must say I am not impressed. And not because of the ads. Ads arent breaking up movies, they are still uninterrupted during the actual movie. Ads dont arbitrarily break in their shows, they break where the show was already queued for commercial breaks. What really irritated me about it was that paramount+ is a re-branded CBS All -Access. I am not sure what their game is, but if you decide for whatever reason you want to get caught up with Magnum PI,

      • Ads dont arbitrarily break in their shows, they break where the show was already queued for commercial breaks.

        Still having an ad in there is unacceptable if you pay for the service. If it's free, fine.

        The problem is that once you accept even minor ads on the service, it's going to creep up slowly until it's like cable TV.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
      Is free with ads even viable? I feel like there would either have to be more time for ads than content, targeted ads (thus tracking), or low budget content.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kyoko21 ( 198413 )

      I concur.

      If it's going to be ad-supported, just make it free. If you want ad-free, you have to pay to remove the ads. It's a pretty simple concept.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      To be fair the number of ads you get are far fewer than you get from TV on any service I've seen this on.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      If it's not free, then there needs to be pushback. Peacock and Hulu have already gone the "Let's charge something high for something that's still ad infested", and I'm concerned this is going to become a standard, where the "affordable" option is the one where people are paying you to shit on them.

      Disney's existing subscription fee isn't high, it's actually probably the lowest cost of the current streaming services, despite a huge amount of content. My concern is they'll replace the existing price point for an ad supported version, and charge a premium (30% more seems to be the standard) to those who want ad free, only to turn around and drop the latter as too few people can justify paying for it.

      Free with ads, or GTFO.

      Lets face it, this is going to be ads at the same price as what you're currently paying. Then they'll introduce a higher priced tier with no ads at first, then introduce ads and change the marketing to "fewer ads" whilst ramping up the amount of ads on both tiers.

      You were never the customer, you are the product.

      If you don't like this, support your local pirate.

  • If current trends in the Disney parks are any indicator, what'll happen is the current price point will become the ad-supported tier, and a new, higher priced, tier will be added that will be ad free.

    I would like to be wrong though.
    • +1 that's the business model of the day

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      https://nypost.com/2022/02/24/... [nypost.com]

      My wife tried to tell me that you have to plan a disney vacation 6mos out to get the 'most' out of your trip. I asked what the hell kind of vacation exhausts the shit out of you for 6mos and have the nerve to call that a vacation. She said that if you want to schedule those tea times with the princesses in the magic castle, you have to be online the second they become available six moths out. To which I replied that perhaps the reason why Gen Y and Gen Z are full of entit

      • I'm local to Disneyland - local enough to have an annual pass and also have some perks that make regular trips easy on the family. I feel terribly for the folks that saved up for that once-in-a-lifetime trip, only to distressfully stare at their iPhones all day in order to get the most out of their trip to the park on busy days. Still, good times can be had and memories can still be made... but the P and GP make insightful points about what may be in our future.

        What is more, there are fewer and fewer non-bu

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          i was shocked to learn that in order to gouge even more they upcharge 50% just so you can have a 'park hopper' ticket so your kids arent stuck staring at the millennium falcon all day. That park (hollywood studios) has all of like a handful of rides, and holy hell why does a slinky dog kiddie roller coaster have a 170min wait time?? Does it come with the most addictive substance on the planet or something? I had thought for sure they would have stuck galaxys edge in tomorrow land, but no. Instead they moved
          • Haven't been to Disney Place(s) since 1976, haven't consumed their content, and mostly didn't expose my kids to it. Best decision ever, they pissed me off as an adolescent with their limited movie back to the vault practices. Local theme parks were cheaper, closer, and more fun, who knew.

            • Haven't been to Disney Place(s) since 1976, haven't consumed their content, and mostly didn't expose my kids to it. Best decision ever, they pissed me off as an adolescent with their limited movie back to the vault practices. Local theme parks were cheaper, closer, and more fun, who knew.

              Man I wish our other local theme parks measured up. Knott's and Universal do well, but Magic Mountain sketchy at best.

              • As a kid I loved Magic Mountain. As an adult, I wouldn't subject myself to the torture of those rides. I hurt enough already.

          • i was shocked to learn that in order to gouge even more they upcharge 50% just so you can have a 'park hopper' ticket so your kids arent stuck staring at the millennium falcon all day. That park (hollywood studios) has all of like a handful of rides, and holy hell why does a slinky dog kiddie roller coaster have a 170min wait time?? Does it come with the most addictive substance on the planet or something? I had thought for sure they would have stuck galaxys edge in tomorrow land, but no. Instead they moved star tours out of magic kingdom. Its definitely the place I remember visiting in 1978 (orlando). Just looking at the food venues is rather depressing.

            Star Tours was always at Hollywood Studios in Orlando - AFAICT it opened there and was never part of Magic Kingdom. In Disneyland, CA, however, Star Tours was part of Tomorrowland and to this day remain there, separate from the new Star Wars area "Galaxy's Edge". Maybe that's what you're remembering?

  • I will never pay for anything that contains ads, ever. I have gone out of my way for the past 30+ years to avoid all advertising. Adblockers are a god-send!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      So you never bought a newspaper or a magazine? You never had a cable TV subscription?

      • Cut the cable cord 30 years ago. Computer magazines, yes, ironically Computer Shopper for the ads. Newspapers, no. I have quite an extensive DVD collection for movies / TV shows. No "smart" TVs, just a large panel with my own custom built HTPCs connected to NAS' over the years. Don't watch sports so no reason to have live TV of any kind.

        • I have quite an extensive DVD collection for movies / TV shows.

          Every DVD or BluRay disc I've ever purchased had pre-roll ads on it. Now maybe you strip that out when you rip them to your NAS/HTPC but unless you're stealing those DVDs, your "I will never pay for anything that contains ads, ever." assertion sounds a little...hyperbolic.

          • Of course I rip my DVDs to the NAS. I'll update my remark ... "I'll never pay for anything that forces me to watch ads or interrupts me with ads." With DVDs I can easily remove the ads myself.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      not sure how it affects other people, but as a child in the 70s I got really good at ignoring commercials. We only had 3 channels and they all had commercials. So now, every day I work out on the eliptical machine and take my kindle e-reader with me. Whenever you unlock it, it displays some sort of still-frame add till you touch the lower half the screen to display your current read. Ive been doing this for the better part of 11years now and I can honestly say I cant tell you even one single ad or what it w
      • Install an add-on like uBlock Origin in your browsers and you'll never see ads again. I've literally never had a youtube video show me an ad. Web sites are completely ad-free. Pandora plays for hours completely ad-free. It's bliss!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          i do most of my youtube viewing on my samsung 75in tv, so unfortunately I get stuck with ads. Its usually because the few channels we subscribe to is stuff that both my wife and I want to see at the same time. I might have to look into ublock if there is a way to stream without the ads re-appearing from the youtube app. It might be useful for reading news sites. Sometimes their ads are so bad they literally obscure the content like some floating obstacle you are trying to read around. and _still_ I cant tel

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Never taken a bus or public transit anywhere then, eh?
      • No I haven't, why?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          There are usually ads lining the areas above the windows of most buses and subway trains.
          • Oh, well that sounds annoying. Are they static or on monitors?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mark-t ( 151149 )
              Most are static. The ones in train stations are often large monitors, much like electronic street billboards, and can display animated ads. There is no audio.
              • "There is no audio." Until the advertisers figure out how to track you and direct sound directly to you I'm sure. Something akin to Minority Report. It'll be interesting to see what sort of ad-blockers are created for that hot mess.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mark-t ( 151149 )
                  I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or if you are actually that clueless about how completely impractical that would be. The ambient noise level alone would make trying to target any kind of audio to just one person out of the hundreds that are there at any one time impossible without requiring the target to be wearing headphones.

  • Unless it is very much cheaper I would prefer to get the ad free tier for a month and binge watch series that I had missed. However my kids want to see the Star Wars and Marvel series as they come out rather than risk hearing spoilers at school.

  • I expect Disney+ will increase the price of the ad-free tier as a part of this, which will be upsetting for many subscribers.

    Though having a cheaper plan would work well for people that don't want to watch very much. I would also expect a lot of parents who only get it for their kids will go cheap, not realizing how damaging advertising is for kids. (I remember one kid we were raising who was watching a baseball game, saw an ad, and said, "I want that!" It was a fishing pole, we've never gone fishing wit

  • If there are any ads involved then I'm not paying for it. YouTube has set the standard. Free with ads, or pay for YouTube Premium and get no ads. Well, a lot of them do in video ads for their sponsors but it's not that obnoxious.

    I can pick up the major networks over the air for free. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a cable tv subscription. I'm so used to watching YouTube or Netflix with no ads that anytime I watch legacy tv I'm just astounded by the number of ads. Aside from that, most of the stuff o

    • At this point in the game, if it's an ad, I do my best to squash it....as in YT sponsor ads get an immediate fast forwarding, also run a browser extension that does a pretty good job of killing the interstitial "interrupt your video" style ads. Likewise if a site says "disable your adblocker", I will immediately attempt to reload the site using NoScript, and if that fails, I look elsewhere

  • How many ad breaks will you have to endure to watch a 2 hour Marvel movie?

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close