As TFA noted, where many studios are often prey to the talent agencies, Disney has done a remarkably good job of investing in and building their own roster of exclusive star power (not only actors [Gomez, Cyrus, Swift, Jonas, the list goes on and on and on http://www.imdb.com/list/20w9iZGsCI0/ ], but writers and directors too). This has allowed them to develop a vast array of content for relatively low cost as they lock in talent early and then build them over time through cross exposure in a variety of mediums and cameos.

In addition, this is good for the talent itself. There's a lot of nature to who becomes a star, but there's also a hefty dose of nurture. Disney grabs these folks when they're nothing and then helps them to get the often quoted 10k hrs to become "masters" of their craft. At any one time, Disney has probably 50-100 (I may be low-balling this) exclusive actors across a range of ages, that live within the ecosystem of Disney channel, Internet vids, Disney movies, park attractions, animated voice work, Disney concerts, and subsidiary tv.

Furthermore, they're constantly working to buy or build compelling new stories for these actors to exist in and connect with their audience. What were Marvel, Lucasfilm, even Pixar, if not purchases of compelling story properties? Marvel alone has given them so much to work with that they'll be cranking them out for years.

Folks like Netflix or aspiring competitors would be wise to look at their model. It gives you: low costs (talent early in their careers), low risk (wide pool of cheap folks gives you more chance to fail), high end pull (after 10k, people like Cyrus are talented and have draw), and lock-in exclusives (nearly every person at Disney is Only Disney). As I think about it, there's actually a lot of parallels between this and the Nintendo strategy as well - another company that's been around Forever. You just refuse to play the same game everyone else is pushing for. Movies may be 65 billion, but Disney has become 10 billion all by itself.