I expected to see this board exploding

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That may be true and yes I have seen it before. Nike and Coke come to mind. I don't buy either. I think maybe Disney needs to tone it down and better yet, stay out of it. Just my two cents.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a company that doesn't have some sort of stance. You may only be selectively paying attention to companies in your mind that do not align with your personal viewpoint on various subjects. It's obviously everyone's choice to patronize or not patronize any company they wish to for any reason, that doesn't mean that majority of companies have their stance on something. A mission statement to be inclusive for example is a stance, one that to use your words may alienate people. You cannot be inclusive for example and appeal to everyone because there will always be people where inclusivity doesn't align with their personal viewpoints. The unofficial Gay Days at Disney has been going on for decades (like more than 30 years) for example and ironically it was religious groups that pressured Disney long before recent years to do something about it. People selectively think about Disney as if they didn't already have things available in their parks to purchase.

Regardless we can't go too much further into the discussion just wanted to put that part out about businesses. Def. PM me if you want to talk more

 

[Colleen27]

It feels like an optics move to me, not a real change. Maybe time will prove me wrong but it feels like Chapek came in, did all the unpopular things that Disney wanted to do, and is now on his way out with his golden parachute having served his purpose.

 

[luv2cheer92]

IMHO the best thing Disney can do is stay out to the culture wars. They made a big mistake (IMHO) getting involved in the first place. Disney is a business not a person with opinions. Business needs to stick to business which (again IMHO) means appealing to all the people not just a certain group. Their previous actions alienated approximately 50% of the people, that doesn't seem like good business to me.

What actions? Making statements in favor of human rights? Not sure how that could be a bad thing...

 

[Allison]

Their previous actions alienated approximately 50% of the people,

Can you share that data please. I would be interested in reading it.

 

[RamblingMad]

Can you share that data please. I would be interested in reading it.

Don't worry about it. They're mostly poor and can't afford Disney anyway.

 

[wvjules]

IMHO the best thing Disney can do is stay out to the culture wars. They made a big mistake (IMHO) getting involved in the first place. Disney is a business not a person with opinions. Business needs to stick to business which (again IMHO) means appealing to all the people not just a certain group. Their previous actions alienated approximately 50% of the people, that doesn't seem like good business to me.

Good. Parks are too busy anyway.

 

[Jrb1979]

I think there is a few reasons for that. One being this board isn't as busy as it once was. The biggest one being I find many don't seem to care much about this type of stuff.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

You're going to be hard pressed to find a company that doesn't have some sort of stance. You may only be selectively paying attention to companies in your mind that do not align with your personal viewpoint on various subjects. It's obviously everyone's choice to patronize or not patronize any company they wish to for any reason, that doesn't mean that majority of companies have their stance on something. A mission statement to be inclusive for example is a stance, one that to use your words may alienate people. You cannot be inclusive for example and appeal to everyone because there will always be people where inclusivity doesn't align with their personal viewpoints. The unofficial Gay Days at Disney has been going on for decades (like more than 30 years) for example and ironically it was religious groups that pressured Disney long before recent years to do something about it. People selectively think about Disney as if they didn't already have things available in their parks to purchase.

Regardless we can't go too much further into the discussion just wanted to put that part out about businesses. Def. PM me if you want to talk more

I hear what you're saying, and I know it goes on, but I don't agree that it's good business. It's as simple as that and that is/was the only point I was making. No need to PM, it's not that big of a deal to me. You have your point of view and I have mine. Businesses should stick to business and keep the messy stuff out of it.

 

[dvcgirl67]

IMHO the best thing Disney can do is stay out to the culture wars. They made a big mistake (IMHO) getting involved in the first place. Disney is a business not a person with opinions. Business needs to stick to business which (again IMHO) means appealing to all the people not just a certain group. Their previous actions alienated approximately 50% of the people, that doesn't seem like good business to me.

I'm not sure Disney is going to have a choice this time around. We're going to be hearing an awful lot about "woke Disney" for the next couple of years for sure. But I do think Iger will navigate these waters more diplomatically by staying above the fray. He's much more of a politician than Chapek was.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Iger’s a good choice for what comes next, the sale of the Walt Disney Co to Apple. It just makes too much sense not to

 

[HIRyeDVC]

Iger’s a good choice for what comes next, the sale of the Walt Disney Co to Apple. It just makes too much sense not to

I wonder if Apple regrets ever selling Pixar to Disney

 

[Ms.Minnie]

I heard this morning that Iger was being paid $10,000,000 per year in retirement pay and to consult/advise Chapek which apparently didn't happen much if at all. He supposedly took a 40% pay cut to come back.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

That is true about the $10,000,000 consulting fees. I just saw it too.

 

[tvguy]

Not sure the change matters. I agree with the Disney family, the company started to decline with Eisner.

 

[TippyThomas]

I heard this morning that Iger was being paid $10,000,000 per year in retirement pay and to consult/advise Chapek which apparently didn't happen much if at all. He supposedly took a 40% pay cut to come back.

I heard today that whoever said all those things was lying and it is not the truth.