Disney didn’t want to go political, but its workforce pulled it in that direction.
Only because the company’s executives lack the backbone to tell the employees that the company is not a political entity, and will not involve itself in political decisions.
Sure, some “woke” employees won’t like it, and might even quit. But they are a very vocal, but very small, minority.
With a large number of cast members employed in Florida, the laws being passed in the state have a significant impact on those people and their families. While the state GOP believes it is lifting up families, that perspective is not universal. There are a large number who believe the laws instead undermine families.
There is a lot of misconception based on distorted reporting. The reality is that the law, dubbed “don’t say gay” by the woke left, actually does not even contain that word, and it also pertains only to curricula for kindergarten through third grade, whereas the distorted reporting has created a misconception that it extends even into high school.
Personally, I see no negative for Disney here.
There’s a huge risk. Parents who come to the belief that new Disney productions have content that is not suitable for their children will act in accord with that belief – with the consequence that their families won’t be going to Disney parks or on Disney cruises and they won’t be watching Disney movies and television productions. If that’s a majority of the population, it could cut the company’s revenues in half.
The risk on the other side of this issue is a LOT less. So-called “LGBTQ” (or whatever the latest alphabet soup is) adults tend not to have children.
I don’t know what you’re smoking but Luca was up for an Oscar. I still haven’t had a chance to see Turning Red, and Carano and Goldberg stepped into their own pile of shitake. As for the pandemic, no revenue means no payroll. Disney carried the cast members as long as they could and pushed to reopen as fast as it could. I’m not sure how you would have done things differently if you had been CEO.
Fuskie
Who notes at some point, as much as an investor might be a fan of Disney product and content, they have to decide whether they also want to be an investor of the business and recognize that it is not easy to make business decisions that satisfy all fans…
Premium Home Fool: Ask me a Foolish Question, I’ll give you a Foolish Response! Ticker Guide: The Walt Disney Company (DIS), Intuit (INTU), Live Nation (LYV), CME Group (CME), MongoDB (MDB), Trip Advisor (TRIP), Vivendi SA (VIVHY), Mimecast (MIME), Virgin Galactic (SPCE), Axon Technologies (AXON), 51Jobs (JOBS) Disclaimer: This post is non-professional and should not be construed as direct, individual or accurate advice Disassociation: The views and statements of this post are Fuskie’s and are not intended to represent those of The Motley Fool or any other sane body Disclosure: May own shares of some, many or all of the companies mentioned in this post: https://tinyurl.com/FuskieDisclosure Fool Code of Conduct:https://www.fool.com/legal/the-motley-fools-rules.aspx#Condu… Invitation: You are invited to interactively watch Motley Fool Live online television: https://www.fool.com/premium/live/ Call to Action: If you like this or any other post, Rec it. Better yet, reply to it. Even better, start your own thread. This is YOUR TMF Community!
Norm, I’m not going to get into the law. People are going to see in it what they want to see in it.
Disney is still trying to ramp up its staffing for the theme parks, and driving cast members away is not a good strategy.
Disney has stood for family friendly entertainment for decades and that standard has not changed because it has chosen to side with its cast members. I do not see a mass boycott of Disney’s theme parks as a result of choosing its cast members. But having the reputation as an unfavorable employer could have a drastic impact.
Fuskie
Who thinks it is a mistake to assume that LGBTQ families do not include children…
Premium Home Fool: Ask me a Foolish Question, I’ll give you a Foolish Response! Ticker Guide: The Walt Disney Company (DIS), Intuit (INTU), Live Nation (LYV), CME Group (CME), MongoDB (MDB), Trip Advisor (TRIP), Vivendi SA (VIVHY), Mimecast (MIME), Virgin Galactic (SPCE), Axon Technologies (AXON), 51Jobs (JOBS) Disclaimer: This post is non-professional and should not be construed as direct, individual or accurate advice Disassociation: The views and statements of this post are Fuskie’s and are not intended to represent those of The Motley Fool or any other sane body Disclosure: May own shares of some, many or all of the companies mentioned in this post: https://tinyurl.com/FuskieDisclosure Fool Code of Conduct:https://www.fool.com/legal/the-motley-fools-rules.aspx#Condu… Invitation: You are invited to interactively watch Motley Fool Live online television: https://www.fool.com/premium/live/ Call to Action: If you like this or any other post, Rec it. Better yet, reply to it. Even better, start your own thread. This is YOUR TMF Community!
What you run into is the economic theory called a Laffer Curve. Originally used to describe how increasing taxes rates affect tax revenues. The Curve shows how you can actually decrease your revenue collection by increasing your taxes too high.
The Laffer Curve has been used in other situations to describe how raising prices can decrease profits by reaching a point of decreasing revenues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
So the question is; At price does the Disney pricing start to decrease revenue?
Disney is still trying to ramp up its staffing for the theme parks, and driving cast members away is not a good strategy.
True, but alienating customers is even worse. A response to the effect that it’s not appropriate for the company to involve itself in politics would not have driven away enough to cast members, or prospective cast members, to matter. A handful of activists might quit, but the overwhelming majority would not. By contrast, the apparent plan to introduce overtly homosexual characters into new movies and other content targeted at young children is apt to alienate a lot of families who think that young children are not ready for exposure to issues of human sexuality.
Disney has stood for family friendly entertainment for decades and that standard has not changed because it has chosen to side with its cast members. I do not see a mass boycott of Disney’s theme parks as a result of choosing its cast members. But having the reputation as an unfavorable employer could have a drastic impact.
This is where actions speak louder than words. Introduction of overtly homosexual characters into the company’s movies and other content, including the company’s theme parks, raises issues of human sexuality to which many parents don’t want to expose their young children, and thus does not qualify as “family friendly” under any reasonable definition of that expression.
I don’t smoke anything (I know it was a joke), but Luca is a not a good movie. Oscar confirmation does not legitimize anything for me. The misconception that Disney is supporting its cast members on this issue is false…this move is actually not supportive of the majority of its cast members, but catering to a small vocal minority. There have been Disney staff who state that the company does not speak for them on this issue.
Norm, again, I am not going to debate your “any reasonable definition” claim. In my experience, the more black and white an issue, the more grey area there is.
Bottom line is I do not believe a significant amount of Disney’s customer base will be alienated. I think there is a lot of unwanted media attention that will eventually pass. Disney is a big, public and popular company that attracts attention and attention-seekers. It will always be the target of those who want to leverage it for their self-promotional purposes. Those who shout the loudest tend to be heard but that does not make their message any more valid than those who are shouted out.
Fuskie
Who recently saw a CNN+ interview with former Fox newsman Chris Wallace and former CEO Bob Iger, and interestingly, he seemed to agree with Disney’s position, saying that Disney tries to stay neutral in the culture wars, though it has long stood for inclusivity in its workforce as well as its content, but will and has a history of standing up for causes that can have a significant impact to cast members, to guests or to shareholders, from offering free GED and community college education to cast members, to acknowledging its contributions to and combatting climate change, so to say that Disney does not have an obligation to its cast members or has never been drawn into politics would be to view the company’s history through convenient blinders…
Premium Home Fool: Ask me a Foolish Question, I’ll give you a Foolish Response! Ticker Guide: The Walt Disney Company (DIS), Intuit (INTU), Live Nation (LYV), CME Group (CME), MongoDB (MDB), Trip Advisor (TRIP), Vivendi SA (VIVHY), Mimecast (MIME), Virgin Galactic (SPCE), Axon Technologies (AXON), 51Jobs (JOBS) Disclaimer: This post is non-professional and should not be construed as direct, individual or accurate advice Disassociation: The views and statements of this post are Fuskie’s and are not intended to represent those of The Motley Fool or any other sane body Disclosure: May own shares of some, many or all of the companies mentioned in this post: https://tinyurl.com/FuskieDisclosure Fool Code of Conduct:https://www.fool.com/legal/the-motley-fools-rules.aspx#Condu… Invitation: You are invited to interactively watch Motley Fool Live online television: https://www.fool.com/premium/live/ Call to Action: If you like this or any other post, Rec it. Better yet, reply to it. Even better, start your own thread. This is YOUR TMF Community!
I’m not going to engage in a debate over the merits of the law. Any such posts not related to Disney will be removed.
Fuskie
Who notes there is a active Political Asylum board for Fools who want to debate such things…
Premium Home Fool: Ask me a Foolish Question, I’ll give you a Foolish Response! Ticker Guide: The Walt Disney Company (DIS), Intuit (INTU), Live Nation (LYV), CME Group (CME), MongoDB (MDB), Trip Advisor (TRIP), Vivendi SA (VIVHY), Mimecast (MIME), Virgin Galactic (SPCE), Axon Technologies (AXON), 51Jobs (JOBS) Disclaimer: This post is non-professional and should not be construed as direct, individual or accurate advice Disassociation: The views and statements of this post are Fuskie’s and are not intended to represent those of The Motley Fool or any other sane body Disclosure: May own shares of some, many or all of the companies mentioned in this post: https://tinyurl.com/FuskieDisclosure Fool Code of Conduct:https://www.fool.com/legal/the-motley-fools-rules.aspx#Condu… Invitation: You are invited to interactively watch Motley Fool Live online television: https://www.fool.com/premium/live/ Call to Action: If you like this or any other post, Rec it. Better yet, reply to it. Even better, start your own thread. This is YOUR TMF Community!
OhHomer: But how is supporting gender identity education for 5-8 year olds supportive of the majority of cast members or the families it entertains?
You: I’m not going to engage in a debate over the merits of the law. Any such posts not related to Disney will be removed.
I don’t see how OhHomer’s question has anything to do with the “merits of the law.” He asked how supporting what the law forbids is supportive of the majority of cast members and customers. That question directly pertains to Disney.
Incidentally, I saw an article on a news feed yesterday morning which said that a LOT of Disney cast members are objecting to Disney’s action on social media sites. Unfortunately, the article had disappeared from the news feed later in the day when I had time to post it. I think it’s fair to say, however, that Disney’s employees are not exactly united behind Disney’s decision in this matter.
I think it’s fair to say, however, that Disney’s employees are not exactly united behind Disney’s decision in this matter.
Disney has 80,000 employees in Florida. I think it’s fair to say that there is likely to be disagreement about issues in any group of 80,000 people.
This is where actions speak louder than words. Introduction of overtly homosexual characters into the company’s movies and other content, including the company’s theme parks, raises issues of human sexuality to which many parents don’t want to expose their young children, and thus does not qualify as “family friendly” under any reasonable definition of that expression.
Disney spent 100 years not having a single gay character in its movies, tv shows, animated features or theme parks, even though there have been gay people in every culture on every continent in human history. I don’t think having one or two here or there is going to be the end of the world - or the corporation. As a shareholder I do want them to I do what’s best, and “inclusion”, including adding minorities, foreign influences, and other things that were ignored for so long seems to have benefited them (and me!).
Of course I’m in favor of not going to films if you don’t want to go to them; I have the same policy with grocery stores and car dealerships so…
Disney has 80,000 employees in Florida. I think it’s fair to say that there is likely to be disagreement about issues in any group of 80,000 people.
For sure!
Disney spent 100 years not having a single gay character in its movies, tv shows, animated features or theme parks, even though there have been gay people in every culture on every continent in human history. I don’t think having one or two here or there is going to be the end of the world - or the corporation. As a shareholder I do want them to I do what’s best, and “inclusion”, including adding minorities, foreign influences, and other things that were ignored for so long seems to have benefited them (and me!).
In principle, I don’t disagree with your comment as it pertains to content intended for adults. I would not take issue with a character who happens to be homosexual in a movie, or whatever, that’s intended for an adult audience – and it’s certainly true of some of the company’s movie production business.
But when it comes to content intended for children, the content needs to be appropriate to the age of the intended audience. I generally would say that content pertaining to human sexuality is not appropriate at all in content intended for children under the age of ten, and it’s not exactly a cliff that makes it an open season in content intended for younger teenagers.
Not only is this NOT the proper forum for this conversation, it also is not a good idea for Disney to be publicly involved in a no-win situation.
To close this argument there has been NO evidence of ANY Disney LGBTQ+ character targeting 5- to 8-year-old children and in FACT there has been NO proof of education programs targeting sex education in this age group.
This is just another Dog Whistle for a certain political group and nothing else.
OTFoolish
P.S. Disney and Hollywood have had LGBTQ+ actors and actresses in TV and film for decades.
Suffice it to say that I’m not exactly impressed that “she would like to see at least 50% of Disney’s characters in the future identify as LGBT or as a racial minority” (per the linked article). That’s not exactly representative of the general population, and it’s also blatantly racist. It’s time for her to go.
She failed to heed a sign that I saw several years ago. The sign said, “Caution: ensure that brain is operating before engaging mouth.”
Not only is this NOT the proper forum for this conversation, it also is not a good idea for Disney to be publicly involved in a no-win situation.
I disagree completely. We’re discussing a major change of direction announced by the company’s President and the probable impact of that change of direction on the company’s future. If this is not the appropriate board for discussion of that subject, which board would be???
Political Asylum or Political Quagmire boards are the proper places for this discussion as this is a pure political move by the Gov. of Florida.
I guess that you did not read the posts in question very carefully. We’re talking about the actions of Disney and the company’s executives – not the new Florida law.
And these actions are in response to Florida’s law.
I rather suspect that the President had been planning what she discussed all along, and that the timing of the public disclosure thereof was just coincidental.
Sometimes political idiots need a response but in this case Disney should have just let it blow away and continued doing what it has always been doing in the area of inclusion.
I think it’s fair to say, however, that Disney’s employees are not exactly united behind Disney’s decision in this matter.