Threaded Order Chronological Order
| No, you're not | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 08:01 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: That is download of the app not the movie... - KingSpeed 07:57 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| You are attempting to extrapolate total earnings from three days worth of data. That's not "calculating" by any mathematical model. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 10:26 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 10:25 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: No, you're not - MockingbirdGirl 08:01 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't say the word "total earnings" anymore. But $3.5 million on the weekend of the event seems small. Disney Plus already had over 50 million subscribers. I thought HAMILTON would increase that by more that it did. By the way, why are you so defensive? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: pathman 08:06 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - KingSpeed 10:25 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| MockingbirdGirl isn’t open to any criticism of Hamilton or Miranda. She’s their best PR asset. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:16 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - KingSpeed 10:25 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| One of the problems here is that the metric of "the weekend" is meaningless. That's a way of thinking that is tied to an old, or at least on hold, business model. Mockingbird has pointed out that this only tells us who downloaded the app for Android or iOS over the past three days, which does not relate to how many people have signed up for a paid Disney+ subscription over the past month. So your reading of $3.5 million is only about a specific slice of people, and we don't know the significance of the number. Nor do we know how many people who might have canceled a subscription to Disney+ kept it going in order to see "Hamilton" this month. Nor do we know how many people who signed up for "Hamilton" will keep their subscriptions active because they like the other content on the site - or because they want to watch "Hamilton" again at some point (as of right now, the film isn't available to buy). Nor can you discount how much publicity Disney+ is getting for their platform by having "Hamilton" on it - especially at a time when their original content is being delayed due to the virus, having a reason to keep Disney+ in the media and getting people to talk about it (like we are now) is priceless. Nor do we know what "Hamilton" will mean for Disney+ going forward. Buying the film rights for $75 million makes no sense if their goal was to earn that back from movie theaters - the film would have had to do Marvel numbers to justify that price tag and the resulting marketing, which seems unlikely. Unless Disney is just being insane - and that's a possibility - they likely have a long-term vision of what "Hamilton" means for the platform. They're almost certainly considering this to be a property that keeps driving subscriptions going forward, perhaps with the dream that watching "Hamilton" on Disney+ becomes a rite of passage akin to watching "The Sound of Music" or "The Wizard of Oz". And unless they decide to start selling the film as a digital download or physical entity, the only way to watch it will be through Disney+. You just can't break down the success of this film by the old metric of first weekend. It makes no sense. And that's why your calculations may be accurate, but they can't tell us anything more than what some people with some mobile devices did on three days of this past week. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:06 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - Singapore/Fling 11:16 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| Not to beat a dead horse, but why would anyone try to do math based on the app downloads? Most people who signed up on account of Hamilton are not watching it on their phones. I can't think of a more useless statistic. (Well, yes I can, but not related to this.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: Ann 07:26 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - ryhog 01:06 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| I watch on my TV but Disney+ is an app that is downloaded to my TV. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:34 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - Ann 07:26 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| I have been duly educated on apps on TVs but I still don't think the stat is valid. If a household has multiple TVs or phones or whatever else one can download apps onto, that's still one subscription but multiple downloads. The bottom line is that, as a metric, downloads stink. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: Ann 10:24 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - ryhog 09:34 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| OK, but the app is not just phones, which is all I was saying. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:47 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - Ann 10:24 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| Understood. That's what I was saying I was educated about by your and other posts. I am not much of a tv person and have only 1 "stupid" tv that would be considered tiny by today's standards. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: kess0078 05:40 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - ryhog 01:06 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| Most people I know (mid 30s New Yorker) access Disney+ through the App downloaded on our phones or iPads. But we don’t actually WATCH it on our phone. I use a Chromecast to cast the stream onto my TV. Others use Apple TV, Roku, etc. It’s how I do Amazon Prime Video and a few other platforms of specific content and oftentimes Netflix, too. So yes, for the many many people who have opted out of a cable TV subscription, downloading the App is an effective metric. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:54 pm EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - kess0078 05:40 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| I understand what you're saying, but it's worth remembering that people who use Apple TV, Roku, or Amazon Fire TV wouldn't necessarily be downloading the app for iOS or Android, unless they want to watch something on the go. I am among those people who have opted out of a cable TV subscription, and I watch Disney+ through the Fire stick - and I downloaded the app for Fire TV back in January when I did my first free trial, so even though I signed up for a new month in order to watch "Onward" (and then got a free year through Verizon), my re-subscribing did not lead to a new download. And, of course, at no point did I download to my iPad (though I have Netflix on my iPad, because I used to watch downloaded shows on my commute). So, again, I'm not saying that we can't learn something from the downloads of Android and iOS, I'm just saying that we can't know very much from just that data point for just those three days. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, you're not | |
| Posted by: Delvino 06:04 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - kess0078 05:40 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| And remember, we can enjoy the subscription on up to 4 devices, yes? I’m really only interested in the Roku experience on my TV but many others are watching in multiple platforms. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Maybe the app count includes app on smart TVs? | |
| Posted by: Leon_W 04:08 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: No, you're not - ryhog 01:06 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| I know we usually think of apps as being on phones but the smart TVs also call the Disney plus download getting the app. Anyway as you say this doesn’t make sense as a count anyway for viewing figures. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.036224 seconds.