What I find is missed by "Disney is a business"

[woodleygrrl]

My comment was directed at someone who said they bought the stock to support the company.

If buy a $100 stock, the company doesn't receive $100 (unless it's the initial public offering). Your just buying it on a second hand market from someone else.

It's the same concept as if you buy a car. The person buying a car from the manufacturer (or dealer), is supporting the company. The company receives the money. When that person lists the car on auto trader and sells it, the manufacturer doesn't receive anything. That transaction is irrelevant to them. The only beneficiary is the original owner.

You can argue that by buying something on the second hand market, you are demonstrating demand for the product, which inherently raises the value of the primary market (which does help the company). But there isn't a 1:1 correlation there.

You now have an OWNERSHIP right in the company. That gives you the right to vote at shareholder meetings on important issues like the board of directors and say on pay.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

You now have an OWNERSHIP right in the company. That gives you the right to vote at shareholder meetings on important issues like the board of directors and say on pay.

Which is not really "support" for the entity. But I digress. It's semantics.

 

[tommygunn]

This may have been true in the '80's but it is most certainly not true now. As someone that represents institutional investors, that is long-term shareholders, there is no company in our portfolio that would be around if they didn't take care of things outside of what you call, "the bottom line". Investors and Boards of Directors know that lots of things like human capital management, safety of the workforce, diversity and inclusion, and environmental sustainability (just to name a few) have direct impacts on the bottom line. Just look at Exxon Mobile and the proxy fight they had last month with Engine Number One. Investors fought for and won big changes on the Board and the C-suite because investors were concerned about the long-term growth and worth of the company. ESG issues are mainstream now. So sorry boomer: not true today.

Lol. I'm not a boomer, not even close but have been around long enough to know how public companies operate. I get your perspective, you're a trader or analyst or something like that, someone who has never actually worked inside a company making those decisions so please don't pretend to know what's going on inside the C suite. You're a victim of the C suite PR machine speaking about long term growth but the reality is the C suite sweats over their next quarter a ton more than they worry about their 5 or 10 year plan. And their comp package aligns with that.

 

[woodleygrrl]

Lol. I'm not a boomer, not even close but have been around long enough to know how public companies operate. I get your perspective, you're a trader or analyst or something like that, someone who has never actually worked inside a company making those decisions so please don't pretend to know what's going on inside the C suite. You're a victim of the C suite PR machine speaking about long term growth but the reality is the C suite sweats over their next quarter a ton more than they worry about their 5 or 10 year plan. And their comp package aligns with that.

Wrong on so so so many levels. I have never been in the C- suite so I could NEVER really understand how big boy business is done. Lolzzzzz. I love it. Always good to have a good man-splain sesh early in the morning. Hooboy.

 

[raidermatt]

Wrong on so so so many levels. I have never been in the C- suite so I could NEVER really understand how big boy business is done. Lolzzzzz. I love it. Always good to have a good man-splain sesh early in the morning. Hooboy.

While I have no idea what you do, he is spot on when it comes to how public companies operate. There are exceptions of course, but the vast majority will indeed cast aside thoughts relating to the long term in order to meet the quarterly numbers. We have seen this with Disney time and time again, even before Chapek. Shanghai late and underperforming? Time to cut elsewhere now. ESPN losing subs? Better cutback at the parks now. And we are seeing it now with the pandemic as justification.

Of course no company admits to this type of process, but it is widely prevalent.

 

[woodleygrrl]

While I have no idea what you do, he is spot on when it comes to how public companies operate. There are exceptions of course, but the vast majority will indeed cast aside thoughts relating to the long term in order to meet the quarterly numbers. We have seen this with Disney time and time again, even before Chapek. Shanghai late and underperforming? Time to cut elsewhere now. ESPN losing subs? Better cutback at the parks now. And we are seeing it now with the pandemic as justification.

Of course no company admits to this type of process, but it is widely prevalent.

Sure it is, and my point is that companies do those type of short term fixes at their peril. The companies that will out perform, over the long-term, which is what you want if you are an investor, are those that care about things other than quarterly returns. I wont bore the class here with about 50 academic studies that prove this point. It's not just me that thinks that, BTW. It's mainstream wall street managers. Google ESG and Goldman or Blackrock or Morgan Stanley. Hell read the letter to shareholders this year from the CEO of Blackrock and Berkshire Hathaway. I know you cuties want to believe that nothing else matters but the bottom line, but ESG IMPACTS the bottom line in real, concrete ways. DISNEY will find, as it did many years ago when the OG Disney Family raised very similar issues to the Board and there was a proxy fight, that investors want more than a short term fixy-fix.

I duNNo why I am even here talking this trash. GIMMIE A DOLE WHIP AND A COVID FREE PARK HOMIES!

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

The issue is morals. I cannot stress this enough, people do not make millions and billions of dollars being 100% ethical. For the amount of money, the CEO's make its a shame that cast members may live paycheck to paycheck or have to even pay for medical insurance at all. The hiring of Bob was a sign that it was not longer about "Walt's Dream" and everything to do with bottom lines and pocket filling.

 

[Jonfw2]

Okay, time for this rant again:

Disney has ALWAYS been a business. And it always will be. If Disney does not turn a profit, nobody loses more than us as park-goers (well, except maybe the shareholders).

Walt brought in Warren Buffett while he was building DLR. He slapped ANY corporate name on anything that would hold a sticker if those companies would underwrite something he was doing. Did he want WDW because he could do more? Of course. But the bottom-line was brand expansion: introducing a profitable product to the other half of the country.

Folks, I'm not praising Chapek here and I'm certainly not condemning Walt. But the fact is that while their have been ebbs (Chapek) and flows (Eisner and Iger), profit has always been the number one criteria.

 

[OhDannyBoy]

The issue is morals. I cannot stress this enough, people do not make millions and billions of dollars being 100% ethical. For the amount of money, the CEO's make its a shame that cast members may live paycheck to paycheck or have to even pay for medical insurance at all. The hiring of Bob was a sign that it was not longer about "Walt's Dream" and everything to do with bottom lines and pocket filling.

I love the Walt's Dream argument.

Disney is a business. What Disney sells is nostalgia and perceived magic. they have always done this.

What's different now is just seems more to lean on the nostalgia and less on the magic. How that pans out, we'll have to wait and see. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Okay, time for this rant again:

Disney has ALWAYS been a business. And it always will be. If Disney does not turn a profit, nobody loses more than us as park-goers (well, except maybe the shareholders).

Walt brought in Warren Buffett while he was building DLR. He slapped ANY corporate name on anything that would hold a sticker if those companies would underwrite something he was doing. Did he want WDW because he could do more? Of course. But the bottom-line was brand expansion: introducing a profitable product to the other half of the country.

Folks, I'm not praising Chapek here and I'm certainly not condemning Walt. But the fact is that while their have been ebbs (Chapek) and flows (Eisner and Iger), profit has always been the number one criteria.

I'm just curious to see if this push for more profit and seemingly drastic shift away from the "magic" will ultimately hurt their profits.

 

[Jonfw2]

I'm just curious to see if this push for more profit and seemingly drastic shift away from the "magic" will ultimately hurt their profits.

Well, I'll say jury's still out on that. Chapek took over at the precipice of the worst health crisis in a century AND inherited a stumbling 50th anniversary promotion. I guess I'm more okay with seeing how this plays out than many are.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

I love the Walt's Dream argument.

Disney is a business. What Disney sells is nostalgia and perceived magic. they have always done this.

To me, Walt's dream is about creativity. Allowing artists to take risks and supporting them on that journey. The translation to parks was for a very long time IP's with plots and characters you wanted to interact with. Once Disney acquired Star Wars and Marvel they stopped paying attention to animation and creativity in the same way.

 

[Jonfw2]

To me, Walt's dream is about creativity. Allowing artists to take risks and supporting them on that journey. The translation to parks was for a very long time IP's with plots and characters you wanted to interact with. Once Disney acquired Star Wars and Marvel they stopped paying attention to animation and creativity in the same way.

One could argue that Galaxy's Edge/Starcruiser is the most IP, plot, character interaction thing they've ever done.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

One could argue that Galaxy's Edge/Starcruiser is the most IP, plot, character interaction thing they've ever done.

I suppose but it was purchased from Lucas so to me it's not original to Disney. I'm speaking more to Disney artists/Imaginers. and that "brain hive".

 

[OhDannyBoy]

Well, I'll say jury's still out on that. Chapek took over at the precipice of the worst health crisis in a century AND inherited a stumbling 50th anniversary promotion. I guess I'm more okay with seeing how this plays out than many are.

It should be a good show. LOL

I don't invest any emotion into Disney. Yeah I love it there and want to be able to enjoy it without selling one of my kids, but if they go another direction, I'm not going to cry into my overpriced popcorn bucket about it.

To me, Walt's dream is about creativity. Allowing artists to take risks and supporting them on that journey. The translation to parks was for a very long time IP's with plots and characters you wanted to interact with. Once Disney acquired Star Wars and Marvel they stopped paying attention to animation and creativity in the same way.

Oh I agree, IMO they used to be way better at selling their nostalgia (IP's) and magic (artistic creativity). Now it just seems lazy to me. Others might disagree.

 

[Jonfw2]

I suppose but it was purchased from Lucas so to me it's not original to Disney. I'm speaking more to Disney artists/Imaginers. and that "brain hive".

How do you feel about all the Pixar stuff?

 

[DisneyKidds]

It really is as simple as this. The rest of it is bringing emotions into the picture which isn't how most businesses operate. They are charging what the market will bear RIGHT NOW. If the market decides the parks and resorts aren't a good value, they will see lower and lowe attendance and booking numbers to reflect consumer sentiment, and will then have to adjust their pricing structure going forward. But as long as they are meeting their internal goals, financially, the rest doesn't really matter to them. Tney will continue to push their "customer service/pixie dust/magic" narrative regardless.

I don’t even know where to start with this…..but we are so far beyond what made Disney what it is, or was, that I suppose it doesn’t really matter anymore. If quarterly returns and shareholder value, in the short term, are all that matters then what really differentiated Disney is gone for good. It has been for quite a while.

Was it the best “business decision” to do trim in real gold leaf in Disneyland? Do Walt Disney’s Traditions of Safety, Courtesy, Show, and Capacity even matter anymore? Sure, they still teach “Traditions”, but now they seem little more than part of a “narrative” to be pushed, more so than guiding principles. Taking emotion, and nostalgia, out of the equation makes today’s Disney just another business chasing quarterly returns, amongst a cacophony of business chasing quarterly returns.

What seems lost in all of this is that Disney, from Walt’s earliest beginnings, was never “most businesses”. In fact, Walt dreamed his grand dreams to create something that was distinctly different from most businesses of the day, and it stood the test of time….for a good run. However, times have changed. Being a curmudgeon and longing for the Disney some of us fell in love with won’t get anyone anywhere….but it doesn’t mean we can’t have a little bit of lament over what has been lost in translation, and to shareholders, over the decades. The Disney of today is nothing more than a commodity, and as all commodities are prone to do, the current Disney “Magic “ will run out. Not that we won’t enjoy it while it’s there….

 

[Jonfw2]

What seems lost in all of this is that Disney, from Walt’s earliest beginnings, was never “most businesses”. In fact, Walt dreamed his grand dreams to create something that was distinctly different from most businesses of the day, and it stood the test of time….for a good run. However, times have changed. Being a curmudgeon and longing for the Disney some of us fell in love with won’t get anyone anywhere….but it doesn’t mean we can’t have a little bit of lament over what has been lost in translation, and to shareholders, over the decades. The Disney of today is nothing more than a commodity, and as all commodities are prone to do, the current Disney “Magic “ will run out. Not that we won’t enjoy it while it’s there….

How many of Disney's earliest developments at the parks were sponsored by major corporations?

 

[kbelle8995]

How many of Disney's earliest developments at the parks were sponsored by major corporations?

Quite a few actually. Kinkoman, The Florida Citrus Industry, General Electric did the Carousel of Progress, Sunkist, And I believe the Wizard of Bras which is the one that throws me. Yes I went to Disneyland and got this fantastic Bra. Didn't Kraft do the Land at one point?

 

[Jonfw2]

Quite a few actually. Kinkoman, The Florida Citrus Industry, General Electric did the Carousel of Progress, Sunkist, And I believe the Wizard of Bras which is the one that throws me. Yes I went to Disneyland and got this fantastic Bra

Thank you. Not to mention their TV contracts with Eastern Airlines and US Steel...

The point is they have ALWAYS relied on corporate money. It's always been about business decisions since day one.

 

[kbelle8995]

Thank you. Not to mention their TV contracts with Eastern Airlines and US Steel...

The point is they have ALWAYS relied on corporate money. It's always been about business decisions since day one.

Eastern sponsored If you had Wings. I rode this a lot as a kid so for a long time my sister and I could quote this. Especially the Eastern Commericial at the end