Disney CFO Jay Rasulo fired a powerful rejoinder on Thursday to companies such as Time Warner Cable that say they are weighing the possibility of offering consumers low-priced programming packages without ESPN and other sports channels. They do so at their peril, he told the Citigroup Global Entertainment, Media, and Telecommunications Conference. “Fans love ESPN,” he says. “They love the brand (and) they love the programming.” Only news channels exceed ESPN’s 6,700 hours of live, original programming. That’s attractive for advertisers because fans usually don’t record games so they can skip past the commercials. Also, he says, ESPN fans are more likely than other viewers to subscribe to cable’s broadband and phone services. That’s why, despite the tough talk “I can’t imagine that any of them will want to move their business models to skinnied down packages.” Cable and satellite providers have limited opportunities to offer tiers without ESPN — it typically has to be on the first or second most popular offering.
Disney’s spirited numbers guy also chafed at the suggestion that the entertainment giant is no longer a growth company. “If you take out the downturn of 2009 and a few specific factors….there’s a lot of growth left in our portfolio,” he says. The recession took a toll on the theme parks and retail businesses. Disney also found it hard to follow its own successes. The success of the Pirates of the Caribbean films “had explosive studio results.” In addition, ABC had a strong run with hits including Desperate Housewives, Lost, and Grey’s Anatomy. Rasulo says he now expects “more balanced growth” as the company expands consumer product sales overseas, integrates Marvel’s superhero productions, and ESPN continues to expand. ”Unlike other media companies, we have a very clear strategy of an ecosystem” where Disney controls both the content and distribution.
Rasulo says that yesterday’s distribution deal with Comcast reinforces the pay TV ecosystem. The agreement is mostly notable for its breadth and depth, although he says that the opportunity to launch on-demand apps for Disney’s channels is “the big new piece.” Disney was willing to make a 10 year commitment because “a lot of our content deals like the NFL are long term in duration….you want to assure yourself on the revenue side.” It will also have an immediate benefit in the way Disney accounts for the revenues it receives from Comcast: Up to now ESPN couldn’t recognize some revenues until it had shown a certain amount of live programming. “As a result of this new deal with Comcast, that will go away,” Rasulo says. The company will include an additional $70M to $80M for last quarter and also for this one, adding about two cents a share to the earnings for each period. Without the deal, the revenues would have shown up on the books later in the year.
Rasulo also is encouraged by Disney’s overseas investments. For example it now has about 100 Disney Channels, up from 19 about five years ago. The Shanghai Disney Resort under construction also “has the potential to be our second biggest resort around the world” over time.


I love reading stories where the public is talked about as a revenue stream, as something to be lorded over and used as a line item on a balance sheet by someone who when asked how much a gallon of milk costs would smugly answer, “Who cares.”. As if it’s a given that the revenue drones would never do the unthinkable – turn off the tv.
Its completely impossible to imagine that there’s anyone NOT into sports so his argument is completely valid.
(I’d buy an ESPN-less package in a heartbeat.)
Disney – ESPN = Pixar
Imagine that!
Since selling Miramax, is Disney only still distributing Studio Ghibli films for Lasseter, or the awards?
Managed correctly, Marvel Studios can be another huge profit stream. Won’t be that long before all the big characters are back “in house” and there are a ton of small characters just waiting for exposure to explode into the mainstream.
I love when consumers are warned that what we are paying through the nose for is worth it…
I for one, maybe I’m the only person in the United States, but I would love to pay less and not get ESPN. No one in our family watches or cares about sports. So you have to ask idiots like the executive above, who subsidizes who? Please create packages with more dynamic choices, where I can buy only the channels I want. If that means some channels go under due to lack of eyeballs, so be it. That’s called the free market. I’m sure there is an audience who might only get ESPN. And that’s the business Disney should be in. Not forcing consumers to ‘take it’ because it’s good for us. But I think that day is coming. The day when we might actually only buy the content we want, and make the media companies run those businesses with the money people wish to spend on them. My guess is going to a mor open system would be great for starting new channels with lower costs to consumers, where people would find new material they like. And they might even stumble into creating tomorrows hits because these new channels could be created with an eye on low cost.
I can live without cable, but I cannot exist without ESPN.
Teddy, if your not a Disney troll, no one is trying to take your ESPN away. I just don’t want to pay $5 a month for someting I never watch.
The suggestion that Time Warner does this “at their peril” is ridiculous. God forbid we actually get a choice. I got rid of cable because there was so much garbage I didn’t want to pay for. Actually charging less and getting less seems like a viable option to me.
Might not be so bad if ESPN didn’t cherry pick the largest markets and basically ignore everything else. I remember when they had hours of Billiards and Australian Rules Football.
Those of us in the hinterlands don’t need ESPN and I would also get the package that didn’t offer it if my provider had such a package.