Is the Price Right for Bob Iger’s Disney?

Apr 07, 2023

Author

James D. Wilton

Managing Partner

Read Bio

Is The Price Right for Bob Iger’s Disney?  


There has been much ink spilled on the recent leadership changes at Disney. The return of Bob Iger heralded much fanfare about how he would steer the entertainment behemoth back to its top perch. 


Iger made headlines recently by suggesting that the price for Disney+ is too low. Based on the public’s (negative) reaction, he’s probably right. And that’s good news for XaaS companies everywhere. 


A hot take from Bob…? 


In particular the role of pricing strategy has been often discussed – from how much people pay for experiences at Disney’s theme parks to the cost of the Disney+ streaming service. 


Personally, I believe Disney+ is a great service. Between the Marvel and Star Wars content, my household is pretty satisfied by the Mouse and all its franchises. 


Notably, Iger stated that he believes the current price for Disney+ is too low, and this comment seemed to raise eyebrows (and pulses!). You can see why: 


  • a 100% discretionary product facing a challenging economic situation at a time when we are hearing all the time that people have “subscription fatigue” doesn’t scream “quick – hike up the price!” 


… or did Iger get it right? 

Despite the backlash, let’s not jump to conclusions. I think Bob’s actually on to something, and some quick math can prove it. 


One very interesting item that jumped out to me in the story was a poll that was included. It shows, based on the responses, 37% of respondents think Disney+ is too expensive at (I assume) the $10.99 price point. Let’s run with this and assume a fictional market of 10 million potential buyers. Assuming those who class $10.99 as too expensive wouldn’t buy it but everyone else would, that’s 6.7M potential buyers, and (assuming no variable costs) that’s $73.6M profits. Not bad. 


So, what if the price was dropped to $7.99? To make the same profit, 9.2M customers would have to purchase it. That means that the portion of customers who would consider it “too expensive” would have to drop to 8%. 


Do we really believe that the number of customers who think $10.99 is too expensive would be ~5X the number who think $7.99 is too expensive? For a price increase of $3 a month (roughly the price of 2 bottles of Budweiser, if you buy in bulk), would I really be 5 times as likely to decide not to buy the product? 


I suggest to you that the answer is “no,” and therefore Disney will also certainly do better in terms of revenue and profits by selling at $10.99


This result is even MORE noteworthy because the poll is slightly biased (maybe unintentionally) against the $10.99 price point. There is no “I think it is inexpensive / I would pay more than $10.99 for it” option. I’d wager there is probably a considerable number of people who would pay even more (I’m one of them!), so $10.99 may not even be high enough. 

All-in-all, well done to Bob’s pricing team! 


Final Thoughts 


Candidly, if Disney+ can support a 38% price increase in this economic environment, that should offer hope, optimism and confidence to a lot of XaaS vendors. 


We tend to assume that all our customers will churn if we raise prices, but in my experience that is rarely the case if you have a value-added and differentiated product or service. Sure, you’ll lose some customers, but likely not enough to not make it a good idea overall. 

16 Feb, 2024
Only 40% of XaaS leaders felt they possessed practical pricing experience when tasked with developing their company’s pricing model, according to a recent survey. While lack of experience may seem daunting, it shouldn't deter you from spearheading a pricing transformation. However, it does introduce risk. To mitigate the potential pitfalls of pricing strategy design, we recommend cross-referencing against four crucial sources to establish a solid pricing foundation.
14 Feb, 2024
Navigating the intricate world of pricing in the SaaS industry is akin to embarking on a voyage through ever-changing seas. In this dynamic landscape, where adaptability and insight are paramount, a robust pricing support network becomes not just beneficial, but essential for personal and organizational growth. Here's why cultivating such a network can spell the difference between stagnation and success in your pricing strategies.
16 Oct, 2023
It was truly a Barbie summer! While they may not seem related, Barbie - both movie and doll - have a lot to teach us about the world of software pricing. First launched in 1959, Barbie has captured the imagination of children across the globe for 60 years – with a spectacular resurgence this summer. Mattel, the company behind Barbie, has used several growth and pricing strategies applicable to companies beyond the consumer goods space. Here are a few lessons we think are particularly relevant to the world of software pricing today, a complex market where the right strategy can make or break a new product.
By James Wilton 25 Apr, 2023
Telfar Clemens, the mind behind hit clothing brand Telfar, recently made headlines announcing a new ‘dynamic pricing’ strategy that flies in the face of traditional fashion pricing, charging less for more popular items. Should other businesses follow suit and discount more when demand is high? From the article, “there will be a dynamic pricing tool on the website that ensures the most popular, fastest-selling products are cheaper. The whole experience is designed to flip the script on the fashion industry, where brands tend to charge more for popular items. And it reinforces Clemens’ mission of making his products affordable, so they are accessible to anybody who wants them.” Different, eh? To be clear, this is dynamic pricing, but it’s unconventional dynamic pricing. A conventional dynamic pricing model for fashion would suggest that price would go up as demand goes up (so long as supply stayed consistent). Telfar are flipping it, and raising supply and lowering prices when the demand increases. This aligns with their operations – more demand means materials will be ordered in higher quantities. That unlocks volume discounts, so unit costs go down, and savings can be passed on to the customer. Neat. I want to like this because (a) it’s really interesting and potentially disruptive, and (b) it’s anchored around a social conscience, and there’s not enough of that in pricing. My problem with it? I just can’t see it working. What’s the problem? Luxury goods – and fashionable clothes are luxury goods to an extent – are an interesting case because they can have negative price elasticity. This means that demand increases as the price increases, because then the goods are seen as more exclusive and therefore more desirable. In other words, when fewer people can afford a specific garment, people want it more because now having it makes them “special.” A kind of wearable status symbol. So, given that frame, Telfar’s strategy is a bit counterintuitive. They want to reduce the price of popular items so more people can afford to buy them. It remains to be seen how that is going to mess with customers’ perception of the value of those garments. Can you imagine? “I bought this, but now everyone has it. And they paid less for it than me(!) So, do I still want it as much?” Unless you’re under the age of ten or trying to blend in, people tend not to want to wear exactly the same clothes as other people. It can be embarrassing to turn up to an event in the same outfit as someone else. The phrase “b*tch stole my look!” is going to be on everybody’s lips if that look is more available the more that other people “steal” it. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if I purchase something that nobody else does, under Telfar’s model I will pay a high price for it. But then I also know that nobody else wanted it, so do I get the same sense of esteem from being the sole purchaser? It’s not that only I could afford it, or that it was limited in quantity and I was one of the lucky ones that found it. It’s that only I wanted it. The only thing that says about me is that I have non-mainstream tastes. Some people might want that (e.g., to be cool, edgy and unconventional, perhaps), but then if everyone is looking for unique clothing items hoping that other people don’t like them, then many people will buy them for that reason. And then they’ll go down in price! Final thoughts I challenge Clemens’ notion that fashion pricing is illogical. It’s extremely logical, because it involves aligning pricing to broad perceptions of value. If you turn the model on its head, as in this case, you end up getting stuck odd circular arguments (as I did) because it pulls away from buyer behavior, and it’s illogical  It’s a great pricing strategy for grabbing attention, but I’d be surprised if it is successful. I’m all for fashion being unconventionally dynamic. But any dynamic pricing for fashion should remain conventional.
SHOW MORE
Share by: