wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
Here's a transcript of the podcast.
https://www.theverge.com/23495146/d...lus-netflix-streaming-chapek-marvel-star-wars
-
Controversial Topics
Several months ago, I added a private sub-forum to allow members to discuss these topics without fear of infractions or banning. It's opt-in, opt-out. Corey Click Here
DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY
- Thread starter hhisc16
- Start date
https://www.theverge.com/23495146/d...lus-netflix-streaming-chapek-marvel-star-wars
wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
https://whatsondisneyplus.com/avatar-the-way-of-water-first-social-media-reactions/
Today, Disney held the world premiere of the new 20th Century Studios film, “Avatar: The Way Of Water” and the early social media embargo has now lifted, which means critics are able to share their early thoughts on the film.
With “Avatar: The Way of Water,” the cinematic experience reaches new heights as Cameron transports audiences back to the magnificent world of Pandora in a spectacular and stirring action-packed adventure.
Set more than a decade after the events of the first film, “Avatar: The Way of Water” begins to tell the story of the Sully family (Jake, Neytiri, and their kids), the trouble that follows them, the lengths they go to keep each other safe, the battles they fight to stay alive, and the tragedies they endure.
“Avatar: The Way Of Water” First Social Media Reactions
Today, Disney held the world premiere of the new 20th Century Studios film, “Avatar: The Way Of Water” and the early social media embargo has now lifted, which means critics are able to share their early thoughts on the film.
With “Avatar: The Way of Water,” the cinematic experience reaches new heights as Cameron transports audiences back to the magnificent world of Pandora in a spectacular and stirring action-packed adventure.
Set more than a decade after the events of the first film, “Avatar: The Way of Water” begins to tell the story of the Sully family (Jake, Neytiri, and their kids), the trouble that follows them, the lengths they go to keep each other safe, the battles they fight to stay alive, and the tragedies they endure.
wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/avatar-2-first-reactions-james-cameron-masterpiece-1235451389/
Dec 6, 2022 2:59pm PT
‘Avatar 2’ Stuns Press in Rave First Reactions: ‘Visual Masterpiece,‘ ‘Mind-Blowing,’ ’Never Doubt’ James Cameron
By Zack Sharf
After 13 years of anticipation, James Cameron’s “Avatar: The Way of Water” has finally been unveiled for members of the press following the movie’s world premiere in London. The first reactions to the film are overwhelmingly positive, with many journalists blown away once again by Cameron’s boundless imagination and pristine visual effects.
“Happy to say ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ is phenomenal,” wrote Fandango’s Erik Davis. “Bigger, better & more emotional than ‘Avatar,’ the film is visually breathtaking, visceral and incredibly engrossing. The story, the spectacle, the spirituality, the beauty – this is moviemaking & storytelling at its absolute finest.”
https://variety.com/2022/film/event...the-way-of-water-premiere-titanic-1235452270/
“Happy Sad Confused” host Josh Horowitz raved, “James Cameron once again shows filmmakers how it’s done. I’ve said it a thousand times. Never doubt him. ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ is how you do epic blockbuster-ing. Emotional, visceral and as big as movies get.”
“I had faith James Cameron would raise the bar with the effects but these visuals are mind-blowing,” Collider’s Peri Nemiroff added. “One stunning frame after the next.”
“Avatar: The Way of Water” once again centers on Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), now parents who are forced to protect their family from a new threat to Pandora. The cast also includes Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang and Kate Winslet.
Even before “The Way of Water” screened for press, it earned a rave first reaction from none other than Guillermo del Toro. The Oscar winner wrote on Twitter that the “Avatar” sequel is “a staggering achievement,” adding, “It’s a chock-full of majestic vistas and emotions at an epic, epic scale. A master at the peak of his power.”
While the film’s three-hour-and-10 minute runtime has been making headlines for weeks, it doesn’t appear anyone was too bothered by the length. Cameron himself has said he doesn’t care if viewers leave the theater to use the bathroom.
“I don’t want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch [television] for eight hours,” Cameron told Empire magazine over the summer. “I can almost write this part of the review. ‘The agonizingly long three-hour movie…’ It’s like, give me a ****ing break. I’ve watched my kids sit and do five one-hour episodes in a row. Here’s the big social paradigm shift that has to happen: it’s okay to get up and go pee.”
“Avatar: The Way of Water” opens in theaters nationwide Dec. 16 from Disney. Check out first reactions to the film below.
Dec 6, 2022 2:59pm PT
‘Avatar 2’ Stuns Press in Rave First Reactions: ‘Visual Masterpiece,‘ ‘Mind-Blowing,’ ’Never Doubt’ James Cameron
By Zack Sharf
After 13 years of anticipation, James Cameron’s “Avatar: The Way of Water” has finally been unveiled for members of the press following the movie’s world premiere in London. The first reactions to the film are overwhelmingly positive, with many journalists blown away once again by Cameron’s boundless imagination and pristine visual effects.
“Happy to say ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ is phenomenal,” wrote Fandango’s Erik Davis. “Bigger, better & more emotional than ‘Avatar,’ the film is visually breathtaking, visceral and incredibly engrossing. The story, the spectacle, the spirituality, the beauty – this is moviemaking & storytelling at its absolute finest.”
https://variety.com/2022/film/event...the-way-of-water-premiere-titanic-1235452270/
“Happy Sad Confused” host Josh Horowitz raved, “James Cameron once again shows filmmakers how it’s done. I’ve said it a thousand times. Never doubt him. ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ is how you do epic blockbuster-ing. Emotional, visceral and as big as movies get.”
“I had faith James Cameron would raise the bar with the effects but these visuals are mind-blowing,” Collider’s Peri Nemiroff added. “One stunning frame after the next.”
“Avatar: The Way of Water” once again centers on Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), now parents who are forced to protect their family from a new threat to Pandora. The cast also includes Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang and Kate Winslet.
Even before “The Way of Water” screened for press, it earned a rave first reaction from none other than Guillermo del Toro. The Oscar winner wrote on Twitter that the “Avatar” sequel is “a staggering achievement,” adding, “It’s a chock-full of majestic vistas and emotions at an epic, epic scale. A master at the peak of his power.”
While the film’s three-hour-and-10 minute runtime has been making headlines for weeks, it doesn’t appear anyone was too bothered by the length. Cameron himself has said he doesn’t care if viewers leave the theater to use the bathroom.
“I don’t want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch [television] for eight hours,” Cameron told Empire magazine over the summer. “I can almost write this part of the review. ‘The agonizingly long three-hour movie…’ It’s like, give me a ****ing break. I’ve watched my kids sit and do five one-hour episodes in a row. Here’s the big social paradigm shift that has to happen: it’s okay to get up and go pee.”
“Avatar: The Way of Water” opens in theaters nationwide Dec. 16 from Disney. Check out first reactions to the film below.
Lawsuit alleging that Genie system used by Disney violates an existing patent that Disney was already aware of.
Plaintiff is seeking several remedies.
https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-agile-journeys-llc-v-the-walt-disney-company-et-al-1351030
Plaintiff is seeking several remedies.
https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-agile-journeys-llc-v-the-walt-disney-company-et-al-1351030
wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/disneys-board-needs-some-magic-2022-12-06/
Commentary
By Jennifer Saba
December 6, 202212:49 PM CSTLast Updated 2 days ago
Disney’s board needs some magic
NEW YORK, Dec 6 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Bob Iger has a knack for head-faking his way out the door. Last month he returned to lead Walt Disney (DIS.N) with a primary task: find a replacement. Keeping him on point is going to require a stronger board.
Iger served as chief executive of the $175 billion media giant from 2005 until 2020. He, like all CEOs, was meant to groom a successor. Instead, he postponed his exit four times as potential replacements Tom Staggs and Kevin Mayer left the building. The job ultimately went to Bob Chapek, who had oversight of the theme parks under Iger. Chapek’s tenure was short, marred by widening operating losses at Disney+ and some high-profile public spats.
Iger in some ways is a fine enough interim choice. Since settling in the C-suite on Nov. 21, Disney added over $7 billion to its market value. Still, the relative performance during his previous tenure doesn’t lend confidence to where Disney needs to go. The company’s stock increased nearly sixfold when he was around, multiples more than the S&P 500 Index. But returns pale in comparison to the likes of Netflix (NFLX.O).
The worry is that Iger will drag his feet again, and no one is around to hurry him along. Eight out of 11 directors – excluding Iger – were appointed during Iger’s first term as the company’s leader. It includes Mary Barra, the boss of General Motors (GM.N) and Nike (NKE.N) Chairman Mark Parker. Susan Arnold, a former executive at Carlyle (CG.O), has served on the board since 2007. She replaced Iger as chair this year even though she is bumping up against Disney’s corporate governance guidelines for length of service.
Activists are circling. Third Point’s Dan Loeb struck a standstill agreement in September after Meta Platforms (META.O) executive Carolyn Everson was named director. Nelson Peltz also has a stake, according to the Wall Street Journal. They could agitate for further changes including nominating directors with media expertise. Only Everson and Iger have that qualification.
That stands in contrast to Netflix’s board, where more than half of the directors come from the entertainment sector including former Disney executive Anne Sweeney. Some fresh talent is coming off Twitter’s board, and potential CEO candidates like Salesforce (CRM.N) ex-boss Bret Taylor are kicking around. A refresh gives Disney its best shot at finally finding the next big cheese to take over the House of Mouse.
Commentary
By Jennifer Saba
December 6, 202212:49 PM CSTLast Updated 2 days ago
Disney’s board needs some magic
NEW YORK, Dec 6 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Bob Iger has a knack for head-faking his way out the door. Last month he returned to lead Walt Disney (DIS.N) with a primary task: find a replacement. Keeping him on point is going to require a stronger board.
Iger served as chief executive of the $175 billion media giant from 2005 until 2020. He, like all CEOs, was meant to groom a successor. Instead, he postponed his exit four times as potential replacements Tom Staggs and Kevin Mayer left the building. The job ultimately went to Bob Chapek, who had oversight of the theme parks under Iger. Chapek’s tenure was short, marred by widening operating losses at Disney+ and some high-profile public spats.
Iger in some ways is a fine enough interim choice. Since settling in the C-suite on Nov. 21, Disney added over $7 billion to its market value. Still, the relative performance during his previous tenure doesn’t lend confidence to where Disney needs to go. The company’s stock increased nearly sixfold when he was around, multiples more than the S&P 500 Index. But returns pale in comparison to the likes of Netflix (NFLX.O).
The worry is that Iger will drag his feet again, and no one is around to hurry him along. Eight out of 11 directors – excluding Iger – were appointed during Iger’s first term as the company’s leader. It includes Mary Barra, the boss of General Motors (GM.N) and Nike (NKE.N) Chairman Mark Parker. Susan Arnold, a former executive at Carlyle (CG.O), has served on the board since 2007. She replaced Iger as chair this year even though she is bumping up against Disney’s corporate governance guidelines for length of service.
Activists are circling. Third Point’s Dan Loeb struck a standstill agreement in September after Meta Platforms (META.O) executive Carolyn Everson was named director. Nelson Peltz also has a stake, according to the Wall Street Journal. They could agitate for further changes including nominating directors with media expertise. Only Everson and Iger have that qualification.
That stands in contrast to Netflix’s board, where more than half of the directors come from the entertainment sector including former Disney executive Anne Sweeney. Some fresh talent is coming off Twitter’s board, and potential CEO candidates like Salesforce (CRM.N) ex-boss Bret Taylor are kicking around. A refresh gives Disney its best shot at finally finding the next big cheese to take over the House of Mouse.
glamdring269
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
Not sure it helps you feel better but I don't really think it was the wrong time to buy Disney specifically. It was pretty much the wrong time to buy about anything. Granted this only really matters if one is buying stocks and hoping to make money in the short term. If you're holding long term it probably doesn't matter.
wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...y-employees-higher-wages-cost-of-living-soars
‘Grossly underpaid’: Disney workers demand higher wages as living costs soar
Employees at Florida’s Magic Kingdom say paychecks have not kept up even as company records $3.6bn operational profit
Michael Sainato
Thu 8 Dec 2022 06.00 ESTLast modified on Thu 8 Dec 2022 06.02 EST
Earl Penson has worked for 11 years as a food handler, managing and distributing deliveries for the Disney World theme park in Orlando, Florida, but makes just 50 cents more an hour than a new employee starting at Disney’s current minimum wage set at $15 an hour.
He works over 40 hours a week at the so-called “Magic Kingdom”, starting work around 2am, working anywhere from eight to 10 hours or more, and takes side gigs as an electrician to make extra money.
“We’re grossly, grossly underpaid for the hours that we work and the heavy lifting, it’s like warehouse and driver work. A lot of us have the same story in not being able to afford the cost of living on the pay that we make,” said Penson. “A lot of Disney workers are barely squeaking by. You have workers with families sleeping in their car.”
Around 70,000 employees at Disney World, the largest single-site employer in the US and world’s largest theme park, are currently pushing for wage increases through new union contract negotiations.
The Services Trades Council Union (STCU), a coalition of six unions that represents 42,000 workers, are pushing for wage increases that account for inflationary pressures and the high cost of living in the Orlando area. The current contract that expired in October 2022, which includes a no-strike clause, is extended until a new contract is reached.
In the previous contract in 2018, Disney workers successfully pushed for a $15 minimum wage, which they received in late 2021.
But workers say these wages currently don’t correlate with the workloads and job duties they perform and aren’t enough to keep up with the rising costs of living. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for an individual with no dependents in Orange county, Florida, is currently $18.19 an hour.
Penson’s father was a chef at Disney and encouraged him to start working there over a decade ago after he was struggling to find work as an electrician, and had moved back in with his parents due to the soaring costs of rent. He criticized Disney’s current wage offerings and opposition to the union’s current proposals.
“It’s really heartbreaking, it’s a morale downer, because you would think they would recognize how hard the cast members work,” added Penson. “I wish they would let us know that they appreciate the magic that we bring. Every one of us is a part of the magic of Disney and we enjoy making the magic. We just want to be compensated for making the magic.”
Other workers agree. A Disney housekeeping worker who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, explained the pay is nowhere close to where it needs to be in line with the costs of living in the Orlando area. They recently had a newborn son and received no paid leave.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...neyland-workers-living-wage-disney-inequality
“With Christmas around the corner we’re beyond stressed,” they said. “Groceries are limited because we just can’t afford it. It’s genuinely an emergency for our survival at this point.”
A recent report published by UNITE HERE found tourism workers in the Orlando area are experiencing issues in affording rent and food as the industry has surpassed pre-pandemic profits, with average rents in the area surging by 23.7% over the past year.
The unions are pushing for an immediate wage increase to $18 an hour and a path to $20 an hour for all employees. Workers organized a protest outside of Disney in Kissimmee, Florida, on 30 November, calling on the company to enact immediate wage increases to stave off issues in affording rent, healthcare and basic needs.
Disney has currently offered a path to $20 an hour in five years, with $1 an hour raise annually. Disney’s parks division reported $28.7bn in revenue in fiscal year 2022, with a $3.6bn operating profit.
A spokesperson for Disney said in regards to the proposals: “We have presented a strong and meaningful offer that far outpaces Florida minimum wage by at least $5 an hour and immediately takes starting wages for certain roles including bus drivers, housekeepers and culinary up to a minimum of $20 an hour while providing a path to $20 for all other full-time, non-tipped STCU roles during the contract term.”
‘Grossly underpaid’: Disney workers demand higher wages as living costs soar
Employees at Florida’s Magic Kingdom say paychecks have not kept up even as company records $3.6bn operational profit
Michael Sainato
Thu 8 Dec 2022 06.00 ESTLast modified on Thu 8 Dec 2022 06.02 EST
Earl Penson has worked for 11 years as a food handler, managing and distributing deliveries for the Disney World theme park in Orlando, Florida, but makes just 50 cents more an hour than a new employee starting at Disney’s current minimum wage set at $15 an hour.
He works over 40 hours a week at the so-called “Magic Kingdom”, starting work around 2am, working anywhere from eight to 10 hours or more, and takes side gigs as an electrician to make extra money.
“We’re grossly, grossly underpaid for the hours that we work and the heavy lifting, it’s like warehouse and driver work. A lot of us have the same story in not being able to afford the cost of living on the pay that we make,” said Penson. “A lot of Disney workers are barely squeaking by. You have workers with families sleeping in their car.”
Around 70,000 employees at Disney World, the largest single-site employer in the US and world’s largest theme park, are currently pushing for wage increases through new union contract negotiations.
The Services Trades Council Union (STCU), a coalition of six unions that represents 42,000 workers, are pushing for wage increases that account for inflationary pressures and the high cost of living in the Orlando area. The current contract that expired in October 2022, which includes a no-strike clause, is extended until a new contract is reached.
In the previous contract in 2018, Disney workers successfully pushed for a $15 minimum wage, which they received in late 2021.
But workers say these wages currently don’t correlate with the workloads and job duties they perform and aren’t enough to keep up with the rising costs of living. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for an individual with no dependents in Orange county, Florida, is currently $18.19 an hour.
Penson’s father was a chef at Disney and encouraged him to start working there over a decade ago after he was struggling to find work as an electrician, and had moved back in with his parents due to the soaring costs of rent. He criticized Disney’s current wage offerings and opposition to the union’s current proposals.
“It’s really heartbreaking, it’s a morale downer, because you would think they would recognize how hard the cast members work,” added Penson. “I wish they would let us know that they appreciate the magic that we bring. Every one of us is a part of the magic of Disney and we enjoy making the magic. We just want to be compensated for making the magic.”
Other workers agree. A Disney housekeeping worker who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, explained the pay is nowhere close to where it needs to be in line with the costs of living in the Orlando area. They recently had a newborn son and received no paid leave.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...neyland-workers-living-wage-disney-inequality
“With Christmas around the corner we’re beyond stressed,” they said. “Groceries are limited because we just can’t afford it. It’s genuinely an emergency for our survival at this point.”
A recent report published by UNITE HERE found tourism workers in the Orlando area are experiencing issues in affording rent and food as the industry has surpassed pre-pandemic profits, with average rents in the area surging by 23.7% over the past year.
The unions are pushing for an immediate wage increase to $18 an hour and a path to $20 an hour for all employees. Workers organized a protest outside of Disney in Kissimmee, Florida, on 30 November, calling on the company to enact immediate wage increases to stave off issues in affording rent, healthcare and basic needs.
Disney has currently offered a path to $20 an hour in five years, with $1 an hour raise annually. Disney’s parks division reported $28.7bn in revenue in fiscal year 2022, with a $3.6bn operating profit.
A spokesperson for Disney said in regards to the proposals: “We have presented a strong and meaningful offer that far outpaces Florida minimum wage by at least $5 an hour and immediately takes starting wages for certain roles including bus drivers, housekeepers and culinary up to a minimum of $20 an hour while providing a path to $20 for all other full-time, non-tipped STCU roles during the contract term.”
Mikey15
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2018
From an outside perspective, this type of thing always blows my mind. The US stands apart from most of the world in the lack of paid maternity leave. It's not necessarily paid by the employer directly elsewhere, but given how the US doesn't have a setup where it's funded through UI or similar, it's pretty unconscionable to me that a corporation as large as Disney doesn't offer this...
I have no idea what they get time off wise, but I would imagine FT employees get some decent PTO. Did they save up PTO to use for maternity leave or just use it up during the year...and maybe if you can't afford another mouth to feed...
wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-streaming-launches-major-advertisers-160346683.html
Disney+ streaming service launches with major advertisers
Dawn Chmielewski
Thu, December 8, 2022 at 10:03 AM·2 min read
(Reuters) - The ad-supported version of the Disney+ service launched Thursday, attracting major advertisers from different sectors, bringing in new revenue as Walt Disney Co strives to push its streaming business into profitability.
Disney Advertising President Rita Ferro said more than 100 brands, from Mattel Inc to Marriott Hotels & Resorts, are participating in the launch, which Disney has been promoting to marketers and ad buyers since its May.
The company is under pressure to turn a profit on its streaming business, which posted a $1.5 billon loss in the company's most recent quarter. Investor unhappiness about deepening losses hammered the company's stock and helped set the stage for the ouster last month of Chief Executive Bob Chapek, and return of longtime Disney leader, Bob Iger.
Advertising introduces a second source of revenue for Disney+, to supplement subscription fees. The company's other streaming services, Hulu and ESPN+, already have commercials.
A $3-a-month price increase also took effect Dec. 8, bringing the price for the ad-free version of Disney+ to $10.99. Disney+ with ads costs $7.99. Researcher Kantar projects that one out of four Disney+ subscribers could switch to the less-expensive version of the service with advertising.
Chief Financial Officer Christine McCarthy told investors the company does not expect the advertising-supported tier to have a "meaningful impact" until later in its 2023 fiscal year.
As subscriber growth slows in North America, Netflix similarly introduced commercials to bolster revenue and support its estimated $17 billion annual content spend. Other streaming services, such as HBO Max, Paramount+ and Peacock, also offer ad-supported versions of their streaming services, emulating the business model that has long supported the television business.
Ferro told Reuters that Disney+ will carry four minutes of advertising time per hour, in 15 and 30 second spots, and limit the number of times the same ad will appear over the course of a day or week.
"A brand like Starbucks will have no more than one commercial an hour, no more than two a day," she said. "We’ve asked advertisers for multiple versions of creative. Even if they air two a day, you won't see the same ad."
Disney plans to introduce features that will allow advertisers to target consumers by region, gender and age.
Disney+ streaming service launches with major advertisers
Dawn Chmielewski
Thu, December 8, 2022 at 10:03 AM·2 min read
(Reuters) - The ad-supported version of the Disney+ service launched Thursday, attracting major advertisers from different sectors, bringing in new revenue as Walt Disney Co strives to push its streaming business into profitability.
Disney Advertising President Rita Ferro said more than 100 brands, from Mattel Inc to Marriott Hotels & Resorts, are participating in the launch, which Disney has been promoting to marketers and ad buyers since its May.
The company is under pressure to turn a profit on its streaming business, which posted a $1.5 billon loss in the company's most recent quarter. Investor unhappiness about deepening losses hammered the company's stock and helped set the stage for the ouster last month of Chief Executive Bob Chapek, and return of longtime Disney leader, Bob Iger.
Advertising introduces a second source of revenue for Disney+, to supplement subscription fees. The company's other streaming services, Hulu and ESPN+, already have commercials.
A $3-a-month price increase also took effect Dec. 8, bringing the price for the ad-free version of Disney+ to $10.99. Disney+ with ads costs $7.99. Researcher Kantar projects that one out of four Disney+ subscribers could switch to the less-expensive version of the service with advertising.
Chief Financial Officer Christine McCarthy told investors the company does not expect the advertising-supported tier to have a "meaningful impact" until later in its 2023 fiscal year.
As subscriber growth slows in North America, Netflix similarly introduced commercials to bolster revenue and support its estimated $17 billion annual content spend. Other streaming services, such as HBO Max, Paramount+ and Peacock, also offer ad-supported versions of their streaming services, emulating the business model that has long supported the television business.
Ferro told Reuters that Disney+ will carry four minutes of advertising time per hour, in 15 and 30 second spots, and limit the number of times the same ad will appear over the course of a day or week.
"A brand like Starbucks will have no more than one commercial an hour, no more than two a day," she said. "We’ve asked advertisers for multiple versions of creative. Even if they air two a day, you won't see the same ad."
Disney plans to introduce features that will allow advertisers to target consumers by region, gender and age.
Never saw this analysis before - they compare the "value" of the programing to the monthly cost:
With U.S. Fee Hike, Is Disney+ Without Ads Overpriced?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-fee-hike-disney-without-164918470.htmlTheir time off package is not good
jonny123
Earning My Ears
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2022
Yes I agree... it was a long-term purchase... I believe in the magic..! haha
wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
https://www.inc.com/jeffrey-cohn/what-all-boards-can-learn-from-bob-igers-epic-failure-as-disneys-board-chair.html
What All Boards Can Learn From Bob Iger's Epic Failure as Disney's Board Chair
Shortly after news of his return to the corner office at Disney, the stock appreciated roughly $10 billion in one day -- on the basis of just the announcement of Bob Iger's return as chief executive officer.
I love Bob too. But the truth is, he screwed up.
Let's not forget, in addition to being the CEO of Disney for many years, Iger was also the chairman of the board. And let's also not forget that any board of directors' number one responsibility is CEO succession planning. So, what happened? Why was CNBC pundit Jim Cramer eviscerating Bob Chapek on live TV? Why did the Disney board have an emergency meeting to discuss Chapek's future? And why was he subsequently fired? That's a dramatic change of heart for an all-star board that just recently awarded Chapek a rich three-year deal.
We are all familiar with the wildly popular TV show Succession. Viewers must sometimes think this Shakespearean drama is completely fictional. It isn't. Sometimes real life is even more entertaining to watch than Hollywood's version. Lots can go wrong during the CEO succession process -- because all human beings, especially corporate leaders, are deeply flawed, despite their amazing capabilities and track records. And that's a problem because the CEO has immense power, makes the most important decisions, and is the figurehead of the entire organization.
So, what can go wrong behind closed boardroom doors during the CEO succession process? How do board members miss personal flaws of top candidates, when they seem so glaringly obvious ex post facto?
First, individual board members often rely on first impressions when they meet a "rising star," charismatic, extroverted candidate in the company who is angling to become the next CEO. That's a big mistake. A charismatic superstar in a company may be erroneously seen as a natural leader or as a bold innovator. Whereas in truth, often introverts are more strategic, data-driven, reflective, and self-aware. Board members should never simply trust their "gut" feelings or first impressions. Instead, they should enlist objective, third-party experts to conduct multi-data-point assessments that thoroughly examine leadership potential, core values, and leadership style -- those incredibly hard to measure soft skills that can make or break a future CEO.
Second, as completely counterintuitive as it sounds, boards should start the CEO succession process almost immediately after appointing the incumbent CEO. Most boards wait until it's too late. This is another big mistake. If the company is performing well, boards don't want to rock the boat and send a false signal that the incumbent CEO is not up to par. A strong board -- and a confident incumbent CEO -- will push hard to start the succession process very early, often five or more years in advance of the next CEO announcement. An early start also gives the board more quality time with a broader range of diverse candidates and lets them see how they perform and how they improve over time. A positive, upward trajectory over time is key.
Third, boards often get enamored by external superstars who are seen by some board members as their future corporate savior. "They did so well at their last company, I'm sure they can save ours, too," board members often say to themselves. No two companies are the same -- all of them have wildly different competitive strategies, corporate cultures, and corporate regulators, not to mention a network of totally different suppliers and customers. A leader who was incredibly successful in one context may fall flat in another. It's sheer laziness and naivety for any board member to be seduced by the prospect of a corporate savior. They don't exist.
And fourth -- and perhaps most important and least discussed (it's a dirty little secret) -- boards don't create a safe space environment for future CEO candidates to be vulnerable. There is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. Most board members say they want to really get to know top prospects inside their company: the good, the bad and the ugly. After all, everyone agrees there is no such thing as a perfect leader. Even the best rising stars have room for improvement, boards reason. It's just common sense to get to know the development needs of top prospects and monitor their progress over time.
Yet this rarely happens. Instead, candidates are invited to a very small handful of formal board presentations and preplanned dinners. How many candidates -- who, let's not forget, know they're on the board's radar -- are going to spend that limited and precious time talking about their "weaknesses"? All of us have a natural human instinct to steer clear of these kinds of land mines and steep cliffs. Can you imagine a viable CEO candidate, who has overperformed her entire life, confiding in a board member, "Well, I'm a hard worker, but I lack self-awareness" or "I project self-confidence, but deep down I have some serious insecurities"? It just doesn't happen, and it's mostly the fault of the board.
Boards need to think more creatively about how to make a more psychologically safe space for these kinds of conversations. They should encourage and respect candidates who are willing to be vulnerable, have hard conversations, and confront head-on their development needs and action plan for improvement. One thing is certain. If these messy issues are swept under the rug, they will absolutely rear their ugly head at the worst possible time.
I can only imagine there was a lot of dirt and dust under Disney's beautiful rug in the corporate boardroom. Now that Bob Iger is back, I can almost guarantee he is already starting a deep-clean.
What All Boards Can Learn From Bob Iger's Epic Failure as Disney's Board Chair
Make sure your board knows its blind spots.
By Jeffrey CohnShortly after news of his return to the corner office at Disney, the stock appreciated roughly $10 billion in one day -- on the basis of just the announcement of Bob Iger's return as chief executive officer.
I love Bob too. But the truth is, he screwed up.
Let's not forget, in addition to being the CEO of Disney for many years, Iger was also the chairman of the board. And let's also not forget that any board of directors' number one responsibility is CEO succession planning. So, what happened? Why was CNBC pundit Jim Cramer eviscerating Bob Chapek on live TV? Why did the Disney board have an emergency meeting to discuss Chapek's future? And why was he subsequently fired? That's a dramatic change of heart for an all-star board that just recently awarded Chapek a rich three-year deal.
We are all familiar with the wildly popular TV show Succession. Viewers must sometimes think this Shakespearean drama is completely fictional. It isn't. Sometimes real life is even more entertaining to watch than Hollywood's version. Lots can go wrong during the CEO succession process -- because all human beings, especially corporate leaders, are deeply flawed, despite their amazing capabilities and track records. And that's a problem because the CEO has immense power, makes the most important decisions, and is the figurehead of the entire organization.
So, what can go wrong behind closed boardroom doors during the CEO succession process? How do board members miss personal flaws of top candidates, when they seem so glaringly obvious ex post facto?
First, individual board members often rely on first impressions when they meet a "rising star," charismatic, extroverted candidate in the company who is angling to become the next CEO. That's a big mistake. A charismatic superstar in a company may be erroneously seen as a natural leader or as a bold innovator. Whereas in truth, often introverts are more strategic, data-driven, reflective, and self-aware. Board members should never simply trust their "gut" feelings or first impressions. Instead, they should enlist objective, third-party experts to conduct multi-data-point assessments that thoroughly examine leadership potential, core values, and leadership style -- those incredibly hard to measure soft skills that can make or break a future CEO.
Second, as completely counterintuitive as it sounds, boards should start the CEO succession process almost immediately after appointing the incumbent CEO. Most boards wait until it's too late. This is another big mistake. If the company is performing well, boards don't want to rock the boat and send a false signal that the incumbent CEO is not up to par. A strong board -- and a confident incumbent CEO -- will push hard to start the succession process very early, often five or more years in advance of the next CEO announcement. An early start also gives the board more quality time with a broader range of diverse candidates and lets them see how they perform and how they improve over time. A positive, upward trajectory over time is key.
Third, boards often get enamored by external superstars who are seen by some board members as their future corporate savior. "They did so well at their last company, I'm sure they can save ours, too," board members often say to themselves. No two companies are the same -- all of them have wildly different competitive strategies, corporate cultures, and corporate regulators, not to mention a network of totally different suppliers and customers. A leader who was incredibly successful in one context may fall flat in another. It's sheer laziness and naivety for any board member to be seduced by the prospect of a corporate savior. They don't exist.
And fourth -- and perhaps most important and least discussed (it's a dirty little secret) -- boards don't create a safe space environment for future CEO candidates to be vulnerable. There is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. Most board members say they want to really get to know top prospects inside their company: the good, the bad and the ugly. After all, everyone agrees there is no such thing as a perfect leader. Even the best rising stars have room for improvement, boards reason. It's just common sense to get to know the development needs of top prospects and monitor their progress over time.
Yet this rarely happens. Instead, candidates are invited to a very small handful of formal board presentations and preplanned dinners. How many candidates -- who, let's not forget, know they're on the board's radar -- are going to spend that limited and precious time talking about their "weaknesses"? All of us have a natural human instinct to steer clear of these kinds of land mines and steep cliffs. Can you imagine a viable CEO candidate, who has overperformed her entire life, confiding in a board member, "Well, I'm a hard worker, but I lack self-awareness" or "I project self-confidence, but deep down I have some serious insecurities"? It just doesn't happen, and it's mostly the fault of the board.
Boards need to think more creatively about how to make a more psychologically safe space for these kinds of conversations. They should encourage and respect candidates who are willing to be vulnerable, have hard conversations, and confront head-on their development needs and action plan for improvement. One thing is certain. If these messy issues are swept under the rug, they will absolutely rear their ugly head at the worst possible time.
I can only imagine there was a lot of dirt and dust under Disney's beautiful rug in the corporate boardroom. Now that Bob Iger is back, I can almost guarantee he is already starting a deep-clean.
wabbott
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2021
https://newdaypost.com/disney-once-...iness-model-awaiting-a-new-construct-nysedis/
Disney: Once Great, But Now A Broken Business Model Awaiting A New Construct (NYSE
Editorial Team
Bastiaan Slabbers
12/9/2022
It’s kind of a smelly cliché, but with apologies we invoke it here regarding stock dive of The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS): The fish rots from the head down. No it’s not an aphorism that came from corporate America or the mafia of old. But old it is. The phrase originated from a Turkish philosopher, who in 1273 noted in one of his writings that a fish begins to rot from the head down as indicative of a bad sultanate’s leadership. It has not lost its meaning. Its wisdom as they say, has legs.
The retirement of Robert Iger followed by the appointment of Bob Chapek was not, as many may think, the head of the rotting Disney fish. Those two guys were closer to the gills. The head lies in the comfy, cozy, precincts of the company’s board, insulated by decades of immense success that waned but was then revived by the reigns of Eisner and Katzenberg in the eighties. The board needs fresh blood with strong entertainment chops that sees past the sector crisis.
The board that ultimately emerged post-Eisner was constructed to be safely diverse under Iger. It is an assemblage of notables, picked for who they are, vs. how they can represent shareholders best interests. But apparently not one of them has another Mickey Mouse or Spiderman buzzing around in his or her head.
Above: The Disney board that talked a good succession planning game still wound up hiring and firing Iger’s successor, who apparently failed.
The hard edge of truth: this is a stock supported near $100 by investors who refuse to believe its business model is broken by events now and those to come in a not-very-brave, shaky, new world just over the horizon. Compare valuations as to what Mr. Market is paying for competitors in streaming, for example. They all face the same headwinds to a greater or lesser extent going forward. None are as multi-faceted as Disney of course. None have the Disney scale. What is telling here is that the money is now bet on the true purist of play in the sector: Netflix (NFLX). And that faces similar secular headwinds as well.
Data by YCharts
Netflix, Inc.: at $291.50 –a pure play in streaming.
Paramount Global (PARA): at $19.60, a jumble similar to Disney yet to be rationalized and really understood by the market.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD): at $11.34, another jumble early in the process of sorting out what it wants to be going forward.
This is not deep-dive analytics for sure, but the valuations appear to be telling us that a pure play in streaming promises the best potential rewards in earnings if and when current headwinds come under control. Disney dwarfs them all on a macro basis, but on a relative value basis, is it a $98 stock? A $150 stock? How much would a slimmed down, cash-rich Disney be worth relative to competitive peers?
Stipulation: Taken as possessors of golden resumes, this Disney board is clearly composed of individuals of intelligence, accomplishment, and good intentions. But what does that mean to kids and parents who aren’t impressed by their lofty CVs or their diversity?
But when you assemble this glittering group of corporate high achievers in a board room to endorse a topmost leadership change for a company, the caution light should begin to blink. Irrelevance is what this once great company faces unless we can see a smart U-turn that reflects reality.
No, it’s not the dream world in which these very accomplished board members apparently live as evidence of greenlighting the hiring of Chapek to begin with. His toss from shiny heir to Iger to a place under the bus speaks volumes about this board’s ability to define the Disney future and address its challenges.
Are they no different than many boards these days? A gathering of golden resume leaders, an impressive, diverse, body of people selected to be representative of population groups. Are they not much more than a PR echo chamber in a friendly media cauldron living in an ESG dreamland? The underlying belief that doing well by “doing good” is a nice, but badly flawed idea seem to permeate many policies.
ESG, for all its well-meaning tropes, is an unproven policy initiative by corporations. It’s mostly talk, tough to implement, even harder to measure. Disney is drenched in it, as are many corporations today that are led by the nose by the pied pipers of fancy NGO’s or pressure groups. Chapek’s tussle with Florida and a few woke policies was part of his undoing.
Is the Disney board now exposed as just another body of rubber stampers of decisions by their politically deft operatives who populate the c-suite? That reality to a degree is the palpable ignition that has fired the fortune of Carl Icahn: like a heat-seeking missile, he has always laser-beamed the corporate landscape for boards like this or their hench-people. Chapek was pushed by Iger to a board that should have demanded someone new.
Pre-pandemic, pre-streaming assault, the sector was a different world. And the Disney business model worked. That world is now broken, and the guys at the helm of the old world are not the guys to steer it through the choppy new waters.
That’s where the head of the fish begins to stink. And if Disney is to endure past the current sector crisis, it needs more than a golden resume board to defend and thrive through the mess. It was this board who greenlit Chapek to succeed Iger. It was this board that worshiped Iger during many years of his reign—but then business was good, so who cared?
What is at work here today at the board level, and what has been a prevailing sense of invulnerability built up over decades of outstanding corporate success, is complacency. Hide behind diversity, shelter under the welcome arms of mediocracy. It seems like a current disease run rampant in the sector. Overpay for content, overstuff bureaucracy, reach for conventional wisdom solutions often that have little chance to succeed.
So, we have this board of presumably capable leaders acting as if they are protective of some set of international standards of civic virtue, not what is best for investors as the challenges pile up and the do-do gets deeper in a sector under fire by bored consumers.
Where are the Pixar guys on the board? Yes, their track record lately hasn’t been perfect, but it’s still ranks as a huge producer of winners over time. Periodic dogs are part of the output of any maker of blockbusters over time, especially when social justice delusions infiltrate the creative process, as it has with Disney. Preachiness infiltrated into Disney films and tv shows is probably not what viewers tune in for even in these days.
The Disney tent poles in superheroes, legacy Walt characters, movies, and library were the creation of young cartoonists in the boroughs of New York working for $20 a page 80 years ago. Walt and his top people built money-makers from mice, ducks, dogs, and fairy tales, reimagined and gave them life in theme parks.
But those foundational bricks began to be chipped away by time by the seventies. So, back in the day, Roy Disney reached for the dynamic duo without capes, ABC’s Eisner and Katzenberg, who not only saved Disney, but planted the seeds for an even greater Disney to come. They were to-the-gut, entertainment guys. That’s to a great degree why The Lion King and Toy Story happened and why it remains a tent pole till this day. They handed off to Iger, who built by acquisition.
Its certain the Disney board is given tons of analytics to mull over at presentations. Yet they stand embarrassed to first choose and then gush over Chapek, and before the ink is really dry on his contract, approve his journey under the bus.
The WSJ reports that Iger had been stirring the Disney pot like even after Chapek arrived, implying that the company’s choice of successor was a colossal flop.
No better choice out there? Iger was a good steward, who served during a happy prosperity—not much more. He’s an improvement, not a solution now. Best to him, but we’re not counting the shiny new nickels yet. His own record was mixed to be truthful, but on balance a plus. He had a huge wallet to surf the buffet of available acquisitions.
His much lauded tenure had ups and downs mostly hidden beneath the macro good times rolling for all. Most of all, the massive debt rolled up during his reign that still eludes solution. It is a legacy not easily borne by whomever ultimately succeeds his second time around trip. Example: he bought Pixar, great move, but where is a single Pixar creative brain sitting on the board? Are they stalling out? Do they need leadership from above? Very pesky, these geniuses. Apparently there was no room at the inn for anyone who has actually created anything.
The Iger track record: a few highlights and lowlights
Above: Disney needs to seriously consider compressing its business into a more manageable, focused core entertainment entry.
Star Wars buy: Questionable long-term value. Too far from original 1977 debut of first film. Over-marketed, bad results.
Shanghai Disney: in 2016, a natural, but a long-coveted market by successive Disney executives at many levels. Debuted when China per capita GDP was at a high. Hostage to covid for years to come thanks to Xi Jinping’s dictatorship. It’s a waiting game.
21st Century Fox: Overpaid by a wide margin $71.3b for assets that included regional sports networks of so-so value.
Disney+: a great launch, but high cost of content production remains a long-term stake in the heart for all streamers.
Hulu: a good move. However, flush in the middle of the great unresolved issues of streaming, ad pollution needed to compensate for limits of subscriber fees goes against the very soul of what created streaming: freedom from ads among them.
Black Panther tent pole: a solid win. Note that U.S. attendance numbers overweight dependence on African-American audiences, which accounted for over 31% of U.S. ticket sales from a population segment of 13.6%. That’s good marketing, to be sure. It’s a great franchise in the making, but in the longer run might begin to be confronted by big-time copycat productions.
Chapek inherited $45b in debt and $13b in liabilities mostly accrued during the Iger era, but to be fair, strong earnings growth during the period were probably bought at far too high a price in terms of what has happened to the business model. Gigantism in the media/entertainment business began in the 1990s and has outlived its business model value. The board watched mute as internal struggles between cost-cutters and content chiefs erupted into warfare and was clearly one of the situations that triggered the return of Iger.
What makes more sense today is a more compact, lower gross revenue, higher operating profit company with fewer fingers in fewer pies. As a denizen once of the c-suite, I attest to one prevailing truth in scale: it’s all about span of control. Bigness is Disney’s biggest asset and its worst enemy. In fairness, nobody saw the pandemic coming. But once it came, succor was not to be found in putting old wine in new bottles.
There is no easy answer, but: selling ESPN is priority one, and two, possibly unloading the cruise business as well are the only realistic moves to get out from under oppressive debt at a faster pace.
Activist investor Dan Loeb saw the clear writing on the wall, made his pitch, but caved before he could lead the much-needed rebellion among many key holders. It’s time to sell not only ESPN, but consider unloading Disney Cruises as well. Sell and use the proceeds for a frontal attack on the lingering disease of excess debt that inhibits its ability to generate more profits from its core, businesses.
We’ve heard more than enough conventional wisdom about investing a tidal wave of billions into content people “will love” as the cant of earnings calls plays out. How does anyone know what the people will love until those people vote with their wallets? The content junk pile of all entertainment giants continues to grow higher by the year.
It seems a better idea to go for the gusto here. Rather than wait three years of a runaway cost development cycle from idea to screen on most streaming content projects, you pick up the phone, call your nearest investment banker, and hang up the for-sale sign on the sports media giant.
ESPN has a perceived value of $50b against its annual $4b in revenues. Other formulae are less generous using a 3X revenue valuation ($12b). The sports network is currently still a viable media property. But that isn’t likely to last. Their subscriber base has been slowly eroding over the last several years. If it continues to erode, bit by bit, its value to a buyer will drop, so the time to move now is essential. It’s also become a woke megaphone. That might be one reason some segments of viewers have fled.
The long shilly-shally of ESPN rolling up their sleeves and getting into the mud wrestling of sports betting is long overdue. They’ve got a built-in gold mine that will take a lot of digging but eventually yield EBITDA gold. Profit is still elusive in the sector, but there is little doubt an ESPN sports betting site can join the top tier ranks of platforms in the space. Get the cash, call the banks, prepay the debt big time. Through the sports betting explosion since 2018, Disney has been in “hamada hamada hamada” mode. The board hasn’t seemed to press the issue enough to move management.
There are only a few priorities here that Iger and his new hench people need to wrestle to the ground before any big time “restructuring.” Before anything, replace a handful of board members with Pixar folk and other pixies who know what kids love most.
Sell ESPN and the cruise businesses. Perhaps ABC as well. Needed: a hard decision about the future, if any, of broadcast TV as we know it now. Alternatively, consider spinning off the verticals. Selling, spinning, or closing all fringe businesses with the objective of creating a new Disney comprised of the studio, the theme parks and the streaming channel. Everything else can go no matter how much revenue they may contribute. Getting the massive $46b in debt repaid on the speed lane. The company has been chipping away since 2020—fine. But it’s too little, too late to bring it down to a really viable level against free cash flow trimmed down to produce growing EBITDA in the next five years.
We think we could set a goal of getting the debt down within three years under $25b if – and I repeat if – assets can be sold or spun off. Use the proceeds to reduce debt rather than stuff the content channels with an ever-rising pile of electronic garbage hoping the periodic appearance of a blockbuster will compensate for all the development misfires. It’s the nature of the business that you can spend yourself into the fiscal grave in pursuit of blockbusters.
Hits are the relief pitchers of the media league and have saved many a game. Good going to those green lighters of blockbusters. But sorry, your golden era is passing fast. Hard to compete with a funny cat video on You Tube that’s free and attracts 15 million views in a matter of seconds. Or a full 90-minute movie two fifteen-year-old kids with imagination can shoot in an iPhone in a matter of days. Cast, sets, props: high school buddies, the neighborhood, and dad’s lawnmower the cost. Sorry, but that’s the new world we live in. And it’s coming on fast.
Liabilities $13b.
Annual interest cost: $1.3b, average cost 3%. Good, but not great by any measure considering maturities if free cash flow does not grow in sectors with rapidly rising costs from competitive battles for streaming eyeball subscriptions.
Current ratio: 1.06, okay but a bit iffy long term.
Disney has lost $1.5b on streaming to date. Stopping the bleeding on that alone would constitute a triumphal return for Iger for openers. It won’t be a cakewalk for him, but in fairness, nor will it be any easier for Disney competitors.
Cleaning out the Augean stables of excess labor and tightening the span of control is a great place to begin. Selling off assets like ESPN and the cruise businesses, and perhaps even ABC, can produce proceeds that are then diverted to pay down debt at triple the speed – this is job two. Job three is figuring out how to make money in streaming that does not come and go with the latest free trial or low-priced promotion when hot new content arrives.
Lastly, a frontal attack on content costs and the process of creating it needs to begin with a cool assessment of the time and money factor against real-world eyeball limitations. That process overseen by a board with a handful of members with entertainment chops seems like the best odds on creating a new Disney that once more will dazzle on the bottom line and value the stock at a level it deserves.
Iger’s return has evoked applause by employees despite the fact that much of what ails Disney at the moment is rooted in events and trends that began under his stewardship. Betting on Disney stock under Iger has its positives. It is not a band-aid, nor is it a certain cure. We presume Iger has enough smarts to give a good hard look at the board and accept a few resignations so he can replace those worthies with ground-rooting pros in the business of “telling stories” people want to hear and costs that make sense for the bottom line.
Our real world Disney price target: $78–$80 going into a recession. On the recovery side, perhaps a new act emerges with clarity that Mr. Market will believe in long range. And then the shares begin to look as good as they did in a pre-pandemic world.
Disney: Once Great, But Now A Broken Business Model Awaiting A New Construct (NYSE
IS)
Editorial TeamBastiaan Slabbers
12/9/2022
It’s kind of a smelly cliché, but with apologies we invoke it here regarding stock dive of The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS): The fish rots from the head down. No it’s not an aphorism that came from corporate America or the mafia of old. But old it is. The phrase originated from a Turkish philosopher, who in 1273 noted in one of his writings that a fish begins to rot from the head down as indicative of a bad sultanate’s leadership. It has not lost its meaning. Its wisdom as they say, has legs.
The retirement of Robert Iger followed by the appointment of Bob Chapek was not, as many may think, the head of the rotting Disney fish. Those two guys were closer to the gills. The head lies in the comfy, cozy, precincts of the company’s board, insulated by decades of immense success that waned but was then revived by the reigns of Eisner and Katzenberg in the eighties. The board needs fresh blood with strong entertainment chops that sees past the sector crisis.
The board that ultimately emerged post-Eisner was constructed to be safely diverse under Iger. It is an assemblage of notables, picked for who they are, vs. how they can represent shareholders best interests. But apparently not one of them has another Mickey Mouse or Spiderman buzzing around in his or her head.
Above: The Disney board that talked a good succession planning game still wound up hiring and firing Iger’s successor, who apparently failed.
The hard edge of truth: this is a stock supported near $100 by investors who refuse to believe its business model is broken by events now and those to come in a not-very-brave, shaky, new world just over the horizon. Compare valuations as to what Mr. Market is paying for competitors in streaming, for example. They all face the same headwinds to a greater or lesser extent going forward. None are as multi-faceted as Disney of course. None have the Disney scale. What is telling here is that the money is now bet on the true purist of play in the sector: Netflix (NFLX). And that faces similar secular headwinds as well.
Netflix, Inc.: at $291.50 –a pure play in streaming.
Paramount Global (PARA): at $19.60, a jumble similar to Disney yet to be rationalized and really understood by the market.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD): at $11.34, another jumble early in the process of sorting out what it wants to be going forward.
This is not deep-dive analytics for sure, but the valuations appear to be telling us that a pure play in streaming promises the best potential rewards in earnings if and when current headwinds come under control. Disney dwarfs them all on a macro basis, but on a relative value basis, is it a $98 stock? A $150 stock? How much would a slimmed down, cash-rich Disney be worth relative to competitive peers?
Stipulation: Taken as possessors of golden resumes, this Disney board is clearly composed of individuals of intelligence, accomplishment, and good intentions. But what does that mean to kids and parents who aren’t impressed by their lofty CVs or their diversity?
But when you assemble this glittering group of corporate high achievers in a board room to endorse a topmost leadership change for a company, the caution light should begin to blink. Irrelevance is what this once great company faces unless we can see a smart U-turn that reflects reality.
No, it’s not the dream world in which these very accomplished board members apparently live as evidence of greenlighting the hiring of Chapek to begin with. His toss from shiny heir to Iger to a place under the bus speaks volumes about this board’s ability to define the Disney future and address its challenges.
Are they no different than many boards these days? A gathering of golden resume leaders, an impressive, diverse, body of people selected to be representative of population groups. Are they not much more than a PR echo chamber in a friendly media cauldron living in an ESG dreamland? The underlying belief that doing well by “doing good” is a nice, but badly flawed idea seem to permeate many policies.
ESG, for all its well-meaning tropes, is an unproven policy initiative by corporations. It’s mostly talk, tough to implement, even harder to measure. Disney is drenched in it, as are many corporations today that are led by the nose by the pied pipers of fancy NGO’s or pressure groups. Chapek’s tussle with Florida and a few woke policies was part of his undoing.
Is the Disney board now exposed as just another body of rubber stampers of decisions by their politically deft operatives who populate the c-suite? That reality to a degree is the palpable ignition that has fired the fortune of Carl Icahn: like a heat-seeking missile, he has always laser-beamed the corporate landscape for boards like this or their hench-people. Chapek was pushed by Iger to a board that should have demanded someone new.
Pre-pandemic, pre-streaming assault, the sector was a different world. And the Disney business model worked. That world is now broken, and the guys at the helm of the old world are not the guys to steer it through the choppy new waters.
That’s where the head of the fish begins to stink. And if Disney is to endure past the current sector crisis, it needs more than a golden resume board to defend and thrive through the mess. It was this board who greenlit Chapek to succeed Iger. It was this board that worshiped Iger during many years of his reign—but then business was good, so who cared?
What is at work here today at the board level, and what has been a prevailing sense of invulnerability built up over decades of outstanding corporate success, is complacency. Hide behind diversity, shelter under the welcome arms of mediocracy. It seems like a current disease run rampant in the sector. Overpay for content, overstuff bureaucracy, reach for conventional wisdom solutions often that have little chance to succeed.
So, we have this board of presumably capable leaders acting as if they are protective of some set of international standards of civic virtue, not what is best for investors as the challenges pile up and the do-do gets deeper in a sector under fire by bored consumers.
Consider the gallery of Disney board member career backgrounds
Investment banking, money management, Nike and Lululuemon, Oracle, Obama lawyer, CVS/Target finance, Cisco, Biotech, etc. You get the picture. Amazing that with all these tech business geniuses on the board, Disney still hasn’t figured out how to make real money consistently in the digital world without spending itself into colossal debt.Where are the Pixar guys on the board? Yes, their track record lately hasn’t been perfect, but it’s still ranks as a huge producer of winners over time. Periodic dogs are part of the output of any maker of blockbusters over time, especially when social justice delusions infiltrate the creative process, as it has with Disney. Preachiness infiltrated into Disney films and tv shows is probably not what viewers tune in for even in these days.
The Disney tent poles in superheroes, legacy Walt characters, movies, and library were the creation of young cartoonists in the boroughs of New York working for $20 a page 80 years ago. Walt and his top people built money-makers from mice, ducks, dogs, and fairy tales, reimagined and gave them life in theme parks.
But those foundational bricks began to be chipped away by time by the seventies. So, back in the day, Roy Disney reached for the dynamic duo without capes, ABC’s Eisner and Katzenberg, who not only saved Disney, but planted the seeds for an even greater Disney to come. They were to-the-gut, entertainment guys. That’s to a great degree why The Lion King and Toy Story happened and why it remains a tent pole till this day. They handed off to Iger, who built by acquisition.
Its certain the Disney board is given tons of analytics to mull over at presentations. Yet they stand embarrassed to first choose and then gush over Chapek, and before the ink is really dry on his contract, approve his journey under the bus.
The WSJ reports that Iger had been stirring the Disney pot like even after Chapek arrived, implying that the company’s choice of successor was a colossal flop.
No better choice out there? Iger was a good steward, who served during a happy prosperity—not much more. He’s an improvement, not a solution now. Best to him, but we’re not counting the shiny new nickels yet. His own record was mixed to be truthful, but on balance a plus. He had a huge wallet to surf the buffet of available acquisitions.
His much lauded tenure had ups and downs mostly hidden beneath the macro good times rolling for all. Most of all, the massive debt rolled up during his reign that still eludes solution. It is a legacy not easily borne by whomever ultimately succeeds his second time around trip. Example: he bought Pixar, great move, but where is a single Pixar creative brain sitting on the board? Are they stalling out? Do they need leadership from above? Very pesky, these geniuses. Apparently there was no room at the inn for anyone who has actually created anything.
The Iger track record: a few highlights and lowlights
Above: Disney needs to seriously consider compressing its business into a more manageable, focused core entertainment entry.
Star Wars buy: Questionable long-term value. Too far from original 1977 debut of first film. Over-marketed, bad results.
Shanghai Disney: in 2016, a natural, but a long-coveted market by successive Disney executives at many levels. Debuted when China per capita GDP was at a high. Hostage to covid for years to come thanks to Xi Jinping’s dictatorship. It’s a waiting game.
21st Century Fox: Overpaid by a wide margin $71.3b for assets that included regional sports networks of so-so value.
Disney+: a great launch, but high cost of content production remains a long-term stake in the heart for all streamers.
Hulu: a good move. However, flush in the middle of the great unresolved issues of streaming, ad pollution needed to compensate for limits of subscriber fees goes against the very soul of what created streaming: freedom from ads among them.
Black Panther tent pole: a solid win. Note that U.S. attendance numbers overweight dependence on African-American audiences, which accounted for over 31% of U.S. ticket sales from a population segment of 13.6%. That’s good marketing, to be sure. It’s a great franchise in the making, but in the longer run might begin to be confronted by big-time copycat productions.
Chapek inherited $45b in debt and $13b in liabilities mostly accrued during the Iger era, but to be fair, strong earnings growth during the period were probably bought at far too high a price in terms of what has happened to the business model. Gigantism in the media/entertainment business began in the 1990s and has outlived its business model value. The board watched mute as internal struggles between cost-cutters and content chiefs erupted into warfare and was clearly one of the situations that triggered the return of Iger.
What makes more sense today is a more compact, lower gross revenue, higher operating profit company with fewer fingers in fewer pies. As a denizen once of the c-suite, I attest to one prevailing truth in scale: it’s all about span of control. Bigness is Disney’s biggest asset and its worst enemy. In fairness, nobody saw the pandemic coming. But once it came, succor was not to be found in putting old wine in new bottles.
There is no easy answer, but: selling ESPN is priority one, and two, possibly unloading the cruise business as well are the only realistic moves to get out from under oppressive debt at a faster pace.
Activist investor Dan Loeb saw the clear writing on the wall, made his pitch, but caved before he could lead the much-needed rebellion among many key holders. It’s time to sell not only ESPN, but consider unloading Disney Cruises as well. Sell and use the proceeds for a frontal attack on the lingering disease of excess debt that inhibits its ability to generate more profits from its core, businesses.
We’ve heard more than enough conventional wisdom about investing a tidal wave of billions into content people “will love” as the cant of earnings calls plays out. How does anyone know what the people will love until those people vote with their wallets? The content junk pile of all entertainment giants continues to grow higher by the year.
It seems a better idea to go for the gusto here. Rather than wait three years of a runaway cost development cycle from idea to screen on most streaming content projects, you pick up the phone, call your nearest investment banker, and hang up the for-sale sign on the sports media giant.
ESPN has a perceived value of $50b against its annual $4b in revenues. Other formulae are less generous using a 3X revenue valuation ($12b). The sports network is currently still a viable media property. But that isn’t likely to last. Their subscriber base has been slowly eroding over the last several years. If it continues to erode, bit by bit, its value to a buyer will drop, so the time to move now is essential. It’s also become a woke megaphone. That might be one reason some segments of viewers have fled.
The long shilly-shally of ESPN rolling up their sleeves and getting into the mud wrestling of sports betting is long overdue. They’ve got a built-in gold mine that will take a lot of digging but eventually yield EBITDA gold. Profit is still elusive in the sector, but there is little doubt an ESPN sports betting site can join the top tier ranks of platforms in the space. Get the cash, call the banks, prepay the debt big time. Through the sports betting explosion since 2018, Disney has been in “hamada hamada hamada” mode. The board hasn’t seemed to press the issue enough to move management.
There are only a few priorities here that Iger and his new hench people need to wrestle to the ground before any big time “restructuring.” Before anything, replace a handful of board members with Pixar folk and other pixies who know what kids love most.
Sell ESPN and the cruise businesses. Perhaps ABC as well. Needed: a hard decision about the future, if any, of broadcast TV as we know it now. Alternatively, consider spinning off the verticals. Selling, spinning, or closing all fringe businesses with the objective of creating a new Disney comprised of the studio, the theme parks and the streaming channel. Everything else can go no matter how much revenue they may contribute. Getting the massive $46b in debt repaid on the speed lane. The company has been chipping away since 2020—fine. But it’s too little, too late to bring it down to a really viable level against free cash flow trimmed down to produce growing EBITDA in the next five years.
We think we could set a goal of getting the debt down within three years under $25b if – and I repeat if – assets can be sold or spun off. Use the proceeds to reduce debt rather than stuff the content channels with an ever-rising pile of electronic garbage hoping the periodic appearance of a blockbuster will compensate for all the development misfires. It’s the nature of the business that you can spend yourself into the fiscal grave in pursuit of blockbusters.
Hits are the relief pitchers of the media league and have saved many a game. Good going to those green lighters of blockbusters. But sorry, your golden era is passing fast. Hard to compete with a funny cat video on You Tube that’s free and attracts 15 million views in a matter of seconds. Or a full 90-minute movie two fifteen-year-old kids with imagination can shoot in an iPhone in a matter of days. Cast, sets, props: high school buddies, the neighborhood, and dad’s lawnmower the cost. Sorry, but that’s the new world we live in. And it’s coming on fast.
Anatomy of a great company to come: Simple math
LT debt at writing: $45b.Liabilities $13b.
Annual interest cost: $1.3b, average cost 3%. Good, but not great by any measure considering maturities if free cash flow does not grow in sectors with rapidly rising costs from competitive battles for streaming eyeball subscriptions.
Current ratio: 1.06, okay but a bit iffy long term.
Disney has lost $1.5b on streaming to date. Stopping the bleeding on that alone would constitute a triumphal return for Iger for openers. It won’t be a cakewalk for him, but in fairness, nor will it be any easier for Disney competitors.
Cleaning out the Augean stables of excess labor and tightening the span of control is a great place to begin. Selling off assets like ESPN and the cruise businesses, and perhaps even ABC, can produce proceeds that are then diverted to pay down debt at triple the speed – this is job two. Job three is figuring out how to make money in streaming that does not come and go with the latest free trial or low-priced promotion when hot new content arrives.
Lastly, a frontal attack on content costs and the process of creating it needs to begin with a cool assessment of the time and money factor against real-world eyeball limitations. That process overseen by a board with a handful of members with entertainment chops seems like the best odds on creating a new Disney that once more will dazzle on the bottom line and value the stock at a level it deserves.
Iger’s return has evoked applause by employees despite the fact that much of what ails Disney at the moment is rooted in events and trends that began under his stewardship. Betting on Disney stock under Iger has its positives. It is not a band-aid, nor is it a certain cure. We presume Iger has enough smarts to give a good hard look at the board and accept a few resignations so he can replace those worthies with ground-rooting pros in the business of “telling stories” people want to hear and costs that make sense for the bottom line.
Our real world Disney price target: $78–$80 going into a recession. On the recovery side, perhaps a new act emerges with clarity that Mr. Market will believe in long range. And then the shares begin to look as good as they did in a pre-pandemic world.
Share this page
-
Capture This Lightsaber Ignition & More Magic Shots in Galaxy's Edge
-
It's Almost Time for the New Storybook Land Additions Reveal at Disneyland Paris
-
New Artist Impressions of Disneyland Released for AAPI Month
-
Disney Reveals Tons of New Merch for Star Wars Day
-
Fast&Furious: Hollywood Drift Coming to Universal Studios
GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
