adam.adbe
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2015
- Messages
- 677
So that raises an interesting question in my mind. It's purely speculative because Disney won't spin off 40% of their revenue when the largest remaining portion is shrinking.
To further stoke your your ill-will towards wall street: even if it't not in the best interest of the company, a well financed team of 'activist'[1] shareholders could make it very hard for Disney to do otherwise.
However, back to the rhetorical:
Would Disney Parks be better off as a separate company where all the focus is on the parks? Or would we see the same management style anyway?
Honestly, I've come to believe firmly that Disney's problem is institutional. If Disney found themselves in second place, do we think they'd suddenly develop an appetite? Plenty of once hungry companies, lose their way and then waste time and talent slowly dying from the inside out. Splitting the company down the middle just means you have two smaller companies with all the same afflictions: the hubris will remain; the in-fighting will persist; and the short-sighted market chasing will potentially worsen because smaller companies are even more vulnerable to a capricious stock market. About the only thing I could see changing is that the new Disney Parks entity would be freed from a reliance of Disney IP. Whether that's good or bad is going to come down to personal tastes.
Disney needs to do more than start regarding say Universal (and perhaps eventually even Merlin) as serious competition, IMV it needs to remember why Disney once *was* peerless. That's philosophical, and the kind of change that would take a CEO with an extraordinary amount of charisma to drive.
[1] scare quotes because I hate the term almost as much as a I hate the usual participants[2].
[2] I once read someone define Carl Icahn's basic purpose in life as "getting paid to go away."