(11-21-2022 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Not to make this a political thread, but Disney has got to drop the woke politics and liberal virtue signaling. It’s costing their shareholders money. We dropped Disney+ because we were sick of them bombarding our kids (3 and 5) with “the agenda” in their pre-school programming. Plenty of our friends have done the same thing.

Since you went there, what is the "Woke Agenda"?

You can’t seriously tell me that you aren’t familiar with this term.

If you really don’t know, PM me.

I'm familiar. Never viewed it as anything bad.

(11-21-2022 06:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Not to make this a political thread, but Disney has got to drop the woke politics and liberal virtue signaling. It’s costing their shareholders money. We dropped Disney+ because we were sick of them bombarding our kids (3 and 5) with “the agenda” in their pre-school programming. Plenty of our friends have done the same thing.

Since you went there, what is the "Woke Agenda"?

You can’t seriously tell me that you aren’t familiar with this term.

If you really don’t know, PM me.

I'm familiar. Never viewed it as anything bad.

Y'all wanna throw down, the Spin Room is that-a-way. Just sayin'.

(11-21-2022 04:16 PM)orangefan Wrote:  At some point there is going to be some serious consolidation in the media space. There are currently too many general programming services for all to survive. Companies are in one of three categories: 1) Behemoths - big enough to acquire whatever they want (Amazon, Apple, and Google), 2) Tweeners - based on size, could be the acquired or do the acquiring (Disney, Comcast, and Netflix), and 3) Targets (Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, and the Sony Entertainment division). Disney needs to make some serious changes to stay independent.

Great analysis.

I personally think there will be merge/splits.

For example, the reOrg going on at Warner seems to be designed to split it into pieces. Splitting CNN from Sports, and even splitting Discovery channels between the "Entertainment Group" and the "Factual & Lifestyle Group", just sounds like those'll be sold off. And, reading between the lines of his public comments, CNN and "Factual" could possibly go to John Malone (Liberty Media), who's apparently spinning off the atlanta braves for a possible sale.

And at Disney, it seems pretty clear they won't be allowed to acquire more businesses unless/until they divest some. And they definitely have some they've apparently tried to sell. For example, they seem to have tried to get discovery to take the A&E/History channel networks, but only ended up with a content deal.

And I think paramount would like to do a selective merge with "Somebody", but only on their terms, and also ownership of CBS seems to be hindering that a bit.

As for Comcast, they seem to want most everything lol.

They apparently tried for Paramount, but ended up with a europe deal of "sky/showtime"

I think their current preferred plan is to wait til 2024, when things come available, and spin off NBCUniversal to merge with whatever's left of Warner, and use their $24.7 billion piece of Hulu to help negotiate for Disney's share of espn.

But at the moment, I think all the media companies are circling the wagons, trying to figure out their businesses in a post covid-shelter-in-place world.

I guess we'll see.

(11-21-2022 10:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 03:42 AM)Alanda Wrote:  Chapek wants to streamline Disney so content decisions across distribution platforms can be made in synchrony. Instead of division heads running their own fiefdoms, Chapek and Daniel can steer Disney by controlling the budgets of each group and deciding where content ends up — streaming or cable or broadcast or movie theaters. Executives can then focus on making content, or selling ads, or building streaming technology, with direction from Chapek and Daniel. Historically, the heads of Disney TV or ESPN or Hulu or film would run their entire businesses.

LOL.

Call it a mutiny waiting to happen.

That restructuring never, ever going was to work without a complete housecleaning of top-level execs at ESPN. Way too much opposition to get things done in an efficient and cooperative manner.

Pretty safe guess Iger said, "I'm not doing this "crap" when it came from the top boss and simply retired, knowing the inevitable pushback would topple the new regime.

Great thing for Iger is that — like any leader back in charge after a deposed regime — he returns more empowered and emboldened than ever

Igen was the "top brass" when he retired. I think that the policy was pushed by the now-former President, and the board allowed him to do so...until all of the problems started piling up and it made for a convenient excuse to replace him. But, really, he was replaced b/c of the falling stock price.

Disney has that feel good vibe like perhaps no other company, but they'll quickly replace somebody who's not getting the job done, just like any other company will.

(11-21-2022 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Not to make this a political thread, but Disney has got to drop the woke politics and liberal virtue signaling. It’s costing their shareholders money. We dropped Disney+ because we were sick of them bombarding our kids (3 and 5) with “the agenda” in their pre-school programming. Plenty of our friends have done the same thing.

Since you went there, what is the "Woke Agenda"?

You can’t seriously tell me that you aren’t familiar with this term.

If you really don’t know, PM me.

The Woke Agenda is just the latest iteration of youngsters trying to change things and old fogeys griping about it and telling them to get off their lawns. Years ago, we were the youngsters clamoring for change, but there was no internet to amplify our message and most of us eventually grew out of that phase and became actual adults. Now that we're seeing this rebellion from the other side as the "old fogeys", it's not so much fun. And the rise of social media/internet/etc to amplify their sometimes strange/confusing/downright stupid messages makes it harder to tamp things down on them than it was when we were younger.

I don't necessarily like it, but I do understand where it comes from.

(11-21-2022 09:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Not to make this a political thread, but Disney has got to drop the woke politics and liberal virtue signaling. It’s costing their shareholders money. We dropped Disney+ because we were sick of them bombarding our kids (3 and 5) with “the agenda” in their pre-school programming. Plenty of our friends have done the same thing.

Since you went there, what is the "Woke Agenda"?

You can’t seriously tell me that you aren’t familiar with this term.

If you really don’t know, PM me.

The Woke Agenda is just the latest iteration of youngsters trying to change things and old fogeys griping about it and telling them to get off their lawns. Years ago, we were the youngsters clamoring for change, but there was no internet to amplify our message and most of us eventually grew out of that phase and became actual adults. Now that we're seeing this rebellion from the other side as the "old fogeys", it's not so much fun. And the rise of social media/internet/etc to amplify their sometimes strange/confusing/downright stupid messages makes it harder to tamp things down on them than it was when we were younger.

I don't necessarily like it, but I do understand where it comes from.

There’s always been a “woke” culture and “virtue signaling” but it wasn’t called that until recently. Middle age people and the elderly didn’t like all those “woke” characters on tv and movies in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. We just didn’t have social media back then where people complained about it.

I’m sure old people in the 80’s where complaining about how they went from “Leave It To Beaver” to “The Cosby Show” and how Madonna dared to be sympathetic to gays who were dying of HIV.

Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

I never understood the need to make three sequels to Avatar.
However, folks would go broke betting against James Cameron. The guy has two or the top-five grossing films of all-time.

(11-21-2022 09:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ... The Woke Agenda is just the latest iteration of youngsters trying to change things and old fogeys griping about it and telling them to get off their lawns. ...

Regarding the topic of this thread, corporations like Disney like to be liked by young adults who are forming both consumption habits and brand identifications that will help drive spending for decades to come. They want to avoid their brand becoming identified with ideas or causes that are widely unpopular among young adults.

These crass commercial decisions are then pointed out online and the name calling then starts.

(11-21-2022 10:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 10:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 02:59 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What can be done here exactly? Sounds like Iger set up the protege to be the fall guy. ESPN+ was going to be the top streaming service because of the ESPN label? Ballooning production costs? Pandemic? Give me a break... company will be around but man, talk about Dinos being Dinos failing to adapt sooner.

This is a tough one to reach. On one side, the parks, that Chapek ran, were seeing growth. Yet (and I’ll admit, I’m a Disney park fan), you could hear it from the ardent park goers (groups, v/bloggers) out there that the quality and experience was “off.” When Iger left and Chapek was tapped, it wasn’t all that well received by the parks fans. They knew it wasn’t a great thing. Then came the pandemic.

But that growth in the years prior. And the parks are really the consistent money/profit arm of Disney. On that front, things were okay.

And, yet, what came out from Disney park employees who lost their gigs during the pandemic: things were already questionable to them. Pay. Benefits. Culture. Chapek may have been the parks guy…but that also happened under Iger.

So, I don’t think Iger set up Chapek to fail. But, the pedestal Iger was placed on for the perception of so much else? That should be remembered. Iger is/was overhyped.

This is sort of the PR quandary that Disney is in: if you've been to Disney World lately (and my latest trip was earlier this year), it is definitely *much* more of a feeling of nickel-and-diming (or, maybe more appropriately, ten-and-twenty dollar bills) for experiences that used to be included (most notably the switch from free FastPasses to fee-based Genie+ and Individual Lightning Lanes for rides) and were actually more efficient (e.g. it was harder to book rides with Genie+ that I was actually paying more money for than for free services in the past). Disney is unique because they're one of the few companies in the world (and maybe even the *only* one) where people (a) have an intense love for a specific corporate brand and (b) there's actually a physical manifestation of that brand to visit in the form of Disney Parks. As a result, there's a *tangible* complaint about Disney as a whole when a Disney Parks experiences is less-than-fulfilling in a way that doesn't exist for other companies. (In contrast, Comcast owns Universal theme parks, but no one has an emotional attachment to the Comcast brand itself and, in turn, no one translates a positive experience from Universal parks to give Comcast a pass when your Internet or cable connection is messed up.)

Of course, the issue is that from a pure Wall Street perspective, the Disney theme park segment is one of the few things that investors actually *like* about Disney as of now. Those Genie+ and Individual Lightning Lane passes are generating a massive amount of pure profit for the company. Very little (if anything) is going to get touched on the theme park side because, from a financial point of view, they're actually in great shape.

Instead, Bob Iger is being brought in to address an issue that we have talked about many times here, which is how to (a) build the streaming side of the business to keep adding new subscribers but not create a constant financial sinkhole and, at the same time, (b) manage the decline of the linear TV business with ESPN and ABC in particular (as even the over-the-air networks generate much of their revenue from cable re-transmission fees) but not kill it too fast because they're still generating huge profits at the exact same time that streaming is incurring huge losses. THAT is the triage situation that Disney is dealing with here that overwhelms everything else at the company.

To be sure, that's not just a Disney problem, but rather one for every legacy entertainment company that has both linear TV assets and a streaming service. Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount and Comcast are all in the same boat to varying degrees.

The problem at Disney Parks is that they're moving away from the kid-focused brand established by Walt Disney.

Epcot used to be about "edu-tainment" - a mixture of education and entertainment. They've gradually removed most of the educational side and replaced it with rides from movie characters. The World Showcase used to be to teach kids about world cultures, but today it's largely a series of themed bars filled with drunk adults.

Magic Kingdom used to be alcohol-free. They started selling beer at one restaurant in 2012. Now they're selling beer in most of the park and they started selling mixed drinks this year.

The Star Wars land they added in 2019 to Disneyland in Anaheim and Hollywood Studios in Florida has zero attractions without height restrictions. With the exception of the Millennium Falcon ride, the "bad guys" are featured much more prominently than the "good guys." George Lucas famously said that Star Wars is a story for 8-year-olds, but those 8-year-olds are definitely not the target audience anymore.


Basically, rather than continuing to build the brand, they're "harvesting" the brand value they've built up over the years.

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

Avatar is risky, though I'm not sure how much of it is on Disney per se. Cameron's original deal was made with 20th Century Fox, with principal photography on the first two sequels (and a little bit of a 4th movie) completed before the Disney-Fox merger. If Fox greenlit everything (and there was even some pre-production on Avatar 4 and 5 completed pre-merger), it also likely paid for a large chunk of it. Now when Disney acquired Fox, Avatar was surely part of the overall equation on valuation. But how to explicitly tie a dollar figure to that may be hard. As for fate of a potential fourth and fifth Avatar movie, that likely depends on “market forces” and whether Disney gives the go ahead.

Of course, if Disney makes big bucks on Avatar, it likely helps elsewhere in the Company too. And if it doesn't, then we may see more cuts elsewhere.

(11-21-2022 09:02 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  And, reading between the lines of his public comments, CNN and "Factual" could possibly go to John Malone (Liberty Media), who's apparently spinning off the atlanta braves for a possible sale.

wait, what? Can you elaborate/give a source for this? I know Liberty originally bought the Braves to take advantage of a tax break. Now that it has run its course and the Braves cost a lot more to operate, it would be nice if they could find a local Georgia owner instead.

(11-21-2022 12:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Wonder what this will do with ESPN.

So Florida loses one of their largest businesses. Florida's Eastern beaches have taken a real hit this year. Daytona Beach has a lot of beachfront properties condemned. Property values are to high. Good luck Florida, you will need it if DisneyWorld crashes, and it seems that is what the State government wants.

Glad I moved out in 1999.

(11-22-2022 11:34 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 09:02 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  And, reading between the lines of his public comments, CNN and "Factual" could possibly go to John Malone (Liberty Media), who's apparently spinning off the atlanta braves for a possible sale.

wait, what? Can you elaborate/give a source for this? I know Liberty originally bought the Braves to take advantage of a tax break. Now that it has run its course and the Braves cost a lot more to operate, it would be nice if they could find a local Georgia owner instead.

https://www.libertymedia.com/news/detail...-split-off

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian...eams-sale/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberty-med...1668690744

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/busine...235264058/

https://deadline.com/2022/11/liberty-med...235174866/

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Da...lanta.aspx

These are just some. a google search came up with lots more.

Happy reading : )

(11-22-2022 09:57 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

I never understood the need to make three sequels to Avatar.
However, folks would go broke betting against James Cameron. The guy has two or the top-five grossing films of all-time.

Yeah, Avatar is the #1 grossing movie worldwide of all-time and Titanic is #3 (and was #1 for over a decade until it was replaced by Avatar). Not only that, but much of the industry and media were totally convinced that both of those movies would be total and complete financial disasters being way over-budget and taking too long to produce (e.g. lots of insinuations and jokes about the production and Cameron’s career being the literal Titanic). James Cameron was known to have had a healthy ego even before Titanic, so just imagine how stratospheric his ego is today after proving everyone wrong with Titanic and then proving everyone wrong *again* about Avatar. The guy had the two biggest movies in history after everyone around him kept telling him he’s crazy and going to bomb in both instances. He’s in the mode (and maybe correctly) that the suits have zero clue about what they’re talking about and whatever his vision is should be fulfilled no matter what the cost might be.

One thing about Avatar is that the international audiences love it, so it will be less about the domestic gross for the sequels to judge its success. The re-release of the original Avatar this fall pulled in $75 million worldwide. It was just announced that the new Avatar movie is also getting a China release (which used to be a given but is now much harder for Hollywood films) and note that the original Avatar had a China re-release in 2021 that got $58 million in that market where pandemic shutdowns were and continue to be much more severe and widespread. The global audience is really where Avatar is more of a larger phenomenon compared to the US relatively speaking.

It will take a lot of money for the new Avatar sequels to be financially successful, but you’re totally right that every time that people have bet against Cameron in the past, they have lost massively.

(11-23-2022 12:43 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 11:34 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 09:02 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  And, reading between the lines of his public comments, CNN and "Factual" could possibly go to John Malone (Liberty Media), who's apparently spinning off the atlanta braves for a possible sale.

wait, what? Can you elaborate/give a source for this? I know Liberty originally bought the Braves to take advantage of a tax break. Now that it has run its course and the Braves cost a lot more to operate, it would be nice if they could find a local Georgia owner instead.

https://www.libertymedia.com/news/detail...-split-off

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian...eams-sale/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberty-med...1668690744

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/busine...235264058/

https://deadline.com/2022/11/liberty-med...235174866/

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Da...lanta.aspx

These are just some. a google search came up with lots more.

Happy reading : )

It will be interesting to see how the Braves stock performs because it will be a rare instance of a true pure publicly-traded sports team that isn’t mixed with other assets.

Manchester United (where the Glazer family owners are also exploring a sale of control) has been publicly-traded but its stock price has *definitely* not reflected the booming sports team valuations over the past 10-15 years. Before yesterday (where there was a spike in the stock price due to news of a possible sale), it was trading *below* its 2012 IPO price.

Fenway Sports Group is looking at selling Liverpool, too.

My guess is that these teams have a lot of debt on the books that was accumulated in a no-to-low interest rate environment and it’s not looking as attractive in a rapidly rising interest rate environment. Granted, that’s something that can be said for virtually *every* business, not just sports. It’s just that sports teams aren’t necessarily great money-makers themselves compared to the businesses that provided the owners the money to buy their teams in the first place. They’re the ultimate luxury item where the economics depend more on the rising value of the underlying asset itself as opposed to the quarterly income statement. In a way, it’s like owning a piece of valuable art (except that you need to pay players and other employees and have a stadium for that piece of art to function).

(11-21-2022 09:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 06:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Not to make this a political thread, but Disney has got to drop the woke politics and liberal virtue signaling. It’s costing their shareholders money. We dropped Disney+ because we were sick of them bombarding our kids (3 and 5) with “the agenda” in their pre-school programming. Plenty of our friends have done the same thing.

Since you went there, what is the "Woke Agenda"?

You can’t seriously tell me that you aren’t familiar with this term.

If you really don’t know, PM me.

The Woke Agenda is just the latest iteration of youngsters trying to change things and old fogeys griping about it and telling them to get off their lawns. Years ago, we were the youngsters clamoring for change, but there was no internet to amplify our message and most of us eventually grew out of that phase and became actual adults. Now that we're seeing this rebellion from the other side as the "old fogeys", it's not so much fun. And the rise of social media/internet/etc to amplify their sometimes strange/confusing/downright stupid messages makes it harder to tamp things down on them than it was when we were younger.

I don't necessarily like it, but I do understand where it comes from.

The difference isn't just the amplification of the mantras which range from the idealistic to the ill-informed (that has never changed generation to generation), but the focus of some messages without the ability for challenge or rebuttal. That's when any message from either side ceases to be thought provoking and becomes thought controlling, and therein resides the animus. And where there is resentment and frustration society breaks down. Those doing the focusing and censorship know this, and it has to be suspected that their method is intended to create division.

This was quite palpably one of the best witnessed tools used to undermine public support of the war in Viet Nam. Then it was in pop culture, campus protests, marches, and the usual tools of free speech. It was also a debate worth having regardless of the side of the issue you were on. This time around the usual means of dissent were not used in a fashion designed to make people consider the other side of the argument when the very real platform of social media skewed or shut down opposing viewpoints.

In short it isn't so much a young people issue, as we were all once young and idealistic, rather it is a corporately focused agenda issue. And when corporations tell parents' children what they should accept, believe, or deny, you can expect the parents to push back.

I haven't seen one old person, ever, shouting "get off my lawn." I have seen them begging police to slow traffic down to the posted speed limit because small children played in front yards and old people tend to have the time to get in the city council's face. So, you don't quit being idealistic just because you are old. Instead, old people tend to fight the fights they believe they can win and save their energy on the rest. If that fight is serving in a soup kitchen, delivering meals on wheels, offering financial counseling, teaching people to read, calling your House member, or pushing for the protection of the really old and really young in your neighborhood then that's what you do when you are retired. Ideals are what individuals triage down to the things they can be productive at pursuing. Ideals are self-assigned and self-pursued. They aren't ideals if they are being forced upon you.

The other great thing about being old is that everything is paid for, if you have managed things well and had good health. That means you can give to orphanages, supply the food for the soup kitchen, and have the time to get in the face of politicians. Those are some of the pleasures of old age. I won't list the banes, because everyone who gets old suffers from the same kinds of aches and pains and declining sensory perception.

What most old people would tell the young is to find the causes that they truly believe in and make a difference. Railing against everything those in media tell you to protest is simply exhausting, and way too many times a waste of time, resources, and energy.

I am reminded of a church group who marched against drugs, and later found out a rival cartel had sponsored the march so that innocent people would move their competition out. Now let that soak in. When you follow the bidding of others and you don't know their true motive, what looks good can do harm.

As Dean Wormer said, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son!" Well to paraphrase Wormer, "TLDR, I'll chant what I'm told, and follow the crowd." is no way to go through life either! I love the Cowboy philosophy on group think, "The herd is always headed to the slaughter!"

That's what old people know, and why Asian culture thrives. They still listen to the grandparents who have lived long enough to hear and see it all, and who remain wholly unimpressed.

Some newer articles about the situation.

Ourand poses questions and gives answers. Also gives a potential list of successors.

The one that caught my attention the most.

Quote:When will ESPN offer its main channel via direct-to-consumer? Before he left in early 2020, Iger was a big proponent of moving Disney’s legacy networks toward streaming. The streaming market has changed dramatically since then. It’s still likely that, under Iger, Disney will move to make a bundle of its linear TV networks and streaming services available for direct-to-consumer. But there is no timetable on that.

ESPN’s Pitaro given additional duties in Iger-led reorg of Disney

You have to register (free) to read this one. If you don't want to register here is what I think are the key parts.

Quote:As part of Iger’s surprise return to the company helm earlier this week, the Disney veteran has immediately dismantled a separate Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution (DMED) unit, and Kareem Daniel, the chairman of that group, has stepped down from the company.

In the wake of that move, Iger has created a new working group involving Pitaro, Disney General Entertainment Content chairman Dana Walden, Disney Studios Content chairman Alan Bergman, and Disney chief financial officer Christine McCarthy. The four executives, according to a memo Iger wrote to Disney staffers, will “work together on the design of a new structure that puts more decision-making back in the hands of our creative teams and rationalizes costs, and this will necessitate a reorganization of Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution.”

Quote:While the new creative-led structure for Disney will likely impact other divisions of the company more than it will ESPN, the move by Iger nonetheless also represents a further show of support for the sports network and Pitaro. And does not come as a surprise given Iger and Pitaro have been close for years. It was Iger who first installed Pitaro as ESPN president in 2018, shifting him over from a prior role as Disney chair of consumer products and interactive media. 

Now with this new working group, ESPN will have a central voice in the future direction of Disney overall under the second era of Iger’s leadership. And that will be critical given that several major sports rights negotiations remain outstanding, including ongoing talks surrounding the National Football League’s Sunday Ticket out-of-market package, and the next round of domestic rights for the National Basketball Association that begin in 2025. 

...

Financial analysts also applauded he return of Iger, with several leading entities elevating their projections for Disney stock. But optimism surrounding the leadership and organizational changes is still tempered by the fact that Disney, as much as any major corporation, is attempting to transition from a legacy media landscape to a digitally focused one, and ESPN in many ways is at the tip of that spear. And that transition has been a decidedly bumpy ride thus far, helping lead to Chapek’s ouster.

So no more "One Budget to rule them all" and apparently ESPN will have more involvement in the direction of Disney.

(11-22-2022 10:58 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 10:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 10:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 02:59 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What can be done here exactly? Sounds like Iger set up the protege to be the fall guy. ESPN+ was going to be the top streaming service because of the ESPN label? Ballooning production costs? Pandemic? Give me a break... company will be around but man, talk about Dinos being Dinos failing to adapt sooner.

This is a tough one to reach. On one side, the parks, that Chapek ran, were seeing growth. Yet (and I’ll admit, I’m a Disney park fan), you could hear it from the ardent park goers (groups, v/bloggers) out there that the quality and experience was “off.” When Iger left and Chapek was tapped, it wasn’t all that well received by the parks fans. They knew it wasn’t a great thing. Then came the pandemic.

But that growth in the years prior. And the parks are really the consistent money/profit arm of Disney. On that front, things were okay.

And, yet, what came out from Disney park employees who lost their gigs during the pandemic: things were already questionable to them. Pay. Benefits. Culture. Chapek may have been the parks guy…but that also happened under Iger.

So, I don’t think Iger set up Chapek to fail. But, the pedestal Iger was placed on for the perception of so much else? That should be remembered. Iger is/was overhyped.

This is sort of the PR quandary that Disney is in: if you've been to Disney World lately (and my latest trip was earlier this year), it is definitely *much* more of a feeling of nickel-and-diming (or, maybe more appropriately, ten-and-twenty dollar bills) for experiences that used to be included (most notably the switch from free FastPasses to fee-based Genie+ and Individual Lightning Lanes for rides) and were actually more efficient (e.g. it was harder to book rides with Genie+ that I was actually paying more money for than for free services in the past). Disney is unique because they're one of the few companies in the world (and maybe even the *only* one) where people (a) have an intense love for a specific corporate brand and (b) there's actually a physical manifestation of that brand to visit in the form of Disney Parks. As a result, there's a *tangible* complaint about Disney as a whole when a Disney Parks experiences is less-than-fulfilling in a way that doesn't exist for other companies. (In contrast, Comcast owns Universal theme parks, but no one has an emotional attachment to the Comcast brand itself and, in turn, no one translates a positive experience from Universal parks to give Comcast a pass when your Internet or cable connection is messed up.)

Of course, the issue is that from a pure Wall Street perspective, the Disney theme park segment is one of the few things that investors actually *like* about Disney as of now. Those Genie+ and Individual Lightning Lane passes are generating a massive amount of pure profit for the company. Very little (if anything) is going to get touched on the theme park side because, from a financial point of view, they're actually in great shape.

Instead, Bob Iger is being brought in to address an issue that we have talked about many times here, which is how to (a) build the streaming side of the business to keep adding new subscribers but not create a constant financial sinkhole and, at the same time, (b) manage the decline of the linear TV business with ESPN and ABC in particular (as even the over-the-air networks generate much of their revenue from cable re-transmission fees) but not kill it too fast because they're still generating huge profits at the exact same time that streaming is incurring huge losses. THAT is the triage situation that Disney is dealing with here that overwhelms everything else at the company.

To be sure, that's not just a Disney problem, but rather one for every legacy entertainment company that has both linear TV assets and a streaming service. Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount and Comcast are all in the same boat to varying degrees.

The problem at Disney Parks is that they're moving away from the kid-focused brand established by Walt Disney.

Epcot used to be about "edu-tainment" - a mixture of education and entertainment. They've gradually removed most of the educational side and replaced it with rides from movie characters. The World Showcase used to be to teach kids about world cultures, but today it's largely a series of themed bars filled with drunk adults.

Magic Kingdom used to be alcohol-free. They started selling beer at one restaurant in 2012. Now they're selling beer in most of the park and they started selling mixed drinks this year.

The Star Wars land they added in 2019 to Disneyland in Anaheim and Hollywood Studios in Florida has zero attractions without height restrictions. With the exception of the Millennium Falcon ride, the "bad guys" are featured much more prominently than the "good guys." George Lucas famously said that Star Wars is a story for 8-year-olds, but those 8-year-olds are definitely not the target audience anymore.


Basically, rather than continuing to build the brand, they're "harvesting" the brand value they've built up over the years.

The issue is, the parks are like the giving tree. It doesn't seem to matter what they do there, it prints money for the company. So, whatever decisions they're making, or have made over the past decade (where you started to see the park starting to cater to more mature guests), things still look profitable. The questions will be whether those practices are sustainable; were those decisions/directions the right ones to make to "seed-plant" for what model has worked for them over the years: returning guest dollars. And it might not, but, that's not something Disney hasn't experienced before. They'll figure out a way to get people back in.

But, I do think you're right about those directions. I think this maturation process, whether it's getting the kids that came through in the 90's and early 00's now as young parents, or simply a direct reaction to Universal Studios, that generation of guests and that other studio park (which many in that core age group may have also visited) has left quite an impression in how Disney is handling their parks now.

I was just remarking how those ardent parkgoers already tasted the meal Chapek was cooking before he took over. So when he did transition, it wasn't celebrated necessarily by those groups. And Frank is right to call that out as perception/bias; what does Chapek's experiences in the park mean for the stock and streaming woes? Not too much, although the expectations for success were perhaps already a little low. But, it wasn't just Chapek who should be taking such cheap heat and hits. He may have been the guy in charge of running the parks, but, Iger was over top of that stuff, and green-lighted it. To me, it's not that Chapek was "set up to fail." I just don't believe the hype of Iger. He starts things very well and exciting...time will tell if any of that stuff has staying power, though. Disney+ is a big one: isn't supposed to turn a profit until 2024...which is when Iger's now current contract ends, iirc. Let's see how that turns out in an industry that really has to spend on content. If you're losing subscribers, I don't think cutting back brings people back in...

Yeah, Chapek hasn't handled the ESPN thing well. Neither did Iger during his last round. We were just too impressed with buying Star Wars and Marvel.

(11-23-2022 02:18 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 10:58 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 10:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 10:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 02:59 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What can be done here exactly? Sounds like Iger set up the protege to be the fall guy. ESPN+ was going to be the top streaming service because of the ESPN label? Ballooning production costs? Pandemic? Give me a break... company will be around but man, talk about Dinos being Dinos failing to adapt sooner.

This is a tough one to reach. On one side, the parks, that Chapek ran, were seeing growth. Yet (and I’ll admit, I’m a Disney park fan), you could hear it from the ardent park goers (groups, v/bloggers) out there that the quality and experience was “off.” When Iger left and Chapek was tapped, it wasn’t all that well received by the parks fans. They knew it wasn’t a great thing. Then came the pandemic.

But that growth in the years prior. And the parks are really the consistent money/profit arm of Disney. On that front, things were okay.

And, yet, what came out from Disney park employees who lost their gigs during the pandemic: things were already questionable to them. Pay. Benefits. Culture. Chapek may have been the parks guy…but that also happened under Iger.

So, I don’t think Iger set up Chapek to fail. But, the pedestal Iger was placed on for the perception of so much else? That should be remembered. Iger is/was overhyped.

This is sort of the PR quandary that Disney is in: if you've been to Disney World lately (and my latest trip was earlier this year), it is definitely *much* more of a feeling of nickel-and-diming (or, maybe more appropriately, ten-and-twenty dollar bills) for experiences that used to be included (most notably the switch from free FastPasses to fee-based Genie+ and Individual Lightning Lanes for rides) and were actually more efficient (e.g. it was harder to book rides with Genie+ that I was actually paying more money for than for free services in the past). Disney is unique because they're one of the few companies in the world (and maybe even the *only* one) where people (a) have an intense love for a specific corporate brand and (b) there's actually a physical manifestation of that brand to visit in the form of Disney Parks. As a result, there's a *tangible* complaint about Disney as a whole when a Disney Parks experiences is less-than-fulfilling in a way that doesn't exist for other companies. (In contrast, Comcast owns Universal theme parks, but no one has an emotional attachment to the Comcast brand itself and, in turn, no one translates a positive experience from Universal parks to give Comcast a pass when your Internet or cable connection is messed up.)

Of course, the issue is that from a pure Wall Street perspective, the Disney theme park segment is one of the few things that investors actually *like* about Disney as of now. Those Genie+ and Individual Lightning Lane passes are generating a massive amount of pure profit for the company. Very little (if anything) is going to get touched on the theme park side because, from a financial point of view, they're actually in great shape.

Instead, Bob Iger is being brought in to address an issue that we have talked about many times here, which is how to (a) build the streaming side of the business to keep adding new subscribers but not create a constant financial sinkhole and, at the same time, (b) manage the decline of the linear TV business with ESPN and ABC in particular (as even the over-the-air networks generate much of their revenue from cable re-transmission fees) but not kill it too fast because they're still generating huge profits at the exact same time that streaming is incurring huge losses. THAT is the triage situation that Disney is dealing with here that overwhelms everything else at the company.

To be sure, that's not just a Disney problem, but rather one for every legacy entertainment company that has both linear TV assets and a streaming service. Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount and Comcast are all in the same boat to varying degrees.

The problem at Disney Parks is that they're moving away from the kid-focused brand established by Walt Disney.

Epcot used to be about "edu-tainment" - a mixture of education and entertainment. They've gradually removed most of the educational side and replaced it with rides from movie characters. The World Showcase used to be to teach kids about world cultures, but today it's largely a series of themed bars filled with drunk adults.

Magic Kingdom used to be alcohol-free. They started selling beer at one restaurant in 2012. Now they're selling beer in most of the park and they started selling mixed drinks this year.

The Star Wars land they added in 2019 to Disneyland in Anaheim and Hollywood Studios in Florida has zero attractions without height restrictions. With the exception of the Millennium Falcon ride, the "bad guys" are featured much more prominently than the "good guys." George Lucas famously said that Star Wars is a story for 8-year-olds, but those 8-year-olds are definitely not the target audience anymore.


Basically, rather than continuing to build the brand, they're "harvesting" the brand value they've built up over the years.

The issue is, the parks are like the giving tree. It doesn't seem to matter what they do there, it prints money for the company. So, whatever decisions they're making, or have made over the past decade (where you started to see the park starting to cater to more mature guests), things still look profitable. The questions will be whether those practices are sustainable; were those decisions/directions the right ones to make to "seed-plant" for what model has worked for them over the years: returning guest dollars. And it might not, but, that's not something Disney hasn't experienced before. They'll figure out a way to get people back in.

But, I do think you're right about those directions. I think this maturation process, whether it's getting the kids that came through in the 90's and early 00's now as young parents, or simply a direct reaction to Universal Studios, that generation of guests and that other studio park (which many in that core age group may have also visited) has left quite an impression in how Disney is handling their parks now.

I was just remarking how those ardent parkgoers already tasted the meal Chapek was cooking before he took over. So when he did transition, it wasn't celebrated necessarily by those groups. And Frank is right to call that out as perception/bias; what does Chapek's experiences in the park mean for the stock and streaming woes? Not too much, although the expectations for success were perhaps already a little low. But, it wasn't just Chapek who should be taking such cheap heat and hits. He may have been the guy in charge of running the parks, but, Iger was over top of that stuff, and green-lighted it. To me, it's not that Chapek was "set up to fail." I just don't believe the hype of Iger. He starts things very well and exciting...time will tell if any of that stuff has staying power, though. Disney+ is a big one: isn't supposed to turn a profit until 2024...which is when Iger's now current contract ends, iirc. Let's see how that turns out in an industry that really has to spend on content. If you're losing subscribers, I don't think cutting back brings people back in...

Yeah, Chapek hasn't handled the ESPN thing well. Neither did Iger during his last round. We were just too impressed with buying Star Wars and Marvel.

I think the reaction to Universal Studios (specifically the Wizarding World of Harry Potter) had a lot to do with the Disney Park direction over the past 10-12 years. The young kid set actually still has a ton to do at the Magic Kingdom in Florida - I recall taking my kids as preschoolers and they were able to ride everything other than Space Mountain. (Even the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad roller coaster was allowed for them.)

The more teenager-level piece (more than adults) was what was lacking at Disney World, so I'm not shocked at the pivot. That was exacerbated with how well Universal did with the Harry Potter property. I'm not even the biggest Harry Potter fan, but the way they did their lands really does make it feel like you're walking into the movies/books and all of their rides are phenomenal. Disney saw that the game was being upped for immersive lands, so that spurred them building Pandora (from Avatar) in Animal Kingdom and Star Wars Galaxy's Edge.

I'm a much bigger Star Wars fan compared to Harry Potter and I'd say that Rise of the Resistance is the best theme park ride anywhere (bar none), but I really wish Disney had set Galaxy's Edge in Mos Eisley in Tatooine as opposed to creating a non-movie location that is Tatooine-like. They also made an error in setting the land in the time of the latest trilogy as opposed to the original trilogy (although I'm going to guess that will be rectified in the near future).

In any event, it's no fun choosing between (a) paying $60 extra (or from what I've seen from reports with dynamic pricing during this Thanksgiving week, $100 or more extra) for a 4-person family for an Individual Lightning Lane to go onto Rise of the Resistance... and that's if you're *lucky* enough to have the privilege of paying that amount by grabbing a time within the first 30 seconds after you're allowed to buy them at 7:00 am of the day that you're going to the park or (b) waiting in line for the ride for 2-3 hours, which eats up your ability to do other things at the park when you're paying several thousand dollars for your vacation.

To be sure, I only complain because I love places like Disney World and Universal, so it's frustrating when the latest Disney World experience didn't track with the prior times that I've gone that were truly just pure fun. 4 years ago, there was a lot of prep work to go to Disney World, but once you got there, your planning paid off and you could just enjoy your vacation. Now, the new systems require a lot of logistical prepping *during* the vacation itself and that's not fun (and Disney World is *supposed* to be simply fun).