Disney ‘Fesses Up

[Valin]

Power Line

John Hinderaker

November 25, 2023

(Snip)

First, though, a general observation: there is one place where companies have to tell the truth, and that is when they are disclosing risks to potential investors. If they don’t tell the truth about the risks they are aware of, they can get sued. Thus, for example, a few years ago a friend forwarded to me a couple of private offering statements that had been used in connection with the development of wind farms. Under the heading “risk factors,” these statements spelled it out bluntly: the investments made no sense if evaluated in a competitive market. They depended entirely on government mandates and subsidies, and if the political winds were to shift, the investments would fail.

So what does Disney say about risks to its profitability? Most of it is boilerplate. Disney depends on “consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products,” which can be fickle:

We face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products, which impact demand for our entertainment offerings and products and the profitability of any of our businesses. Our businesses create entertainment, travel and consumer products whose success depends substantially on consumer tastes and preferences that change in often unpredictable ways.....(Snip)

Fair enough. And I am sure that anyone thinking about investing in Disney stock would understand that.

But then we have this (emphasis added):

Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.

There you have it: Disney takes positions on “matters of public interest,” and has “goals” that are “environmental and social,” about which people “differ widely.” Since the public “perceives” Disney’s positions and goals, there is risk to the company’s profitability.

But Disney doesn’t care. Its management puts woke ideology ahead of shareholders’ returns. I would like to know when Disney first added this statement of risk to its corporate disclosures....(Snip)

We were pretty sure that was true, but it is nice to see Disney’s management put it in black and white.

 

[Valin]

 

Hollywood Struggles Over Holiday With Disney And Apple Duds

(Snip)

Disney’s “Wish,” which had a massive budget of $200 million, brought in $8.3 million on Wednesday, according to Variety, and is expected to hit around $37 million over the five-day period.

Apple Original Productions’ “Napoleon,” which also cost a stunning $200 million to produce, earned $7.7 million on Wednesday. The Joaquin Phoenix-starring film is expected to generate around $30 million in the five-day period.

(Snip)

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Apparently Nothing Was Leaned.

[Geee]

Happy birthday, Adam Smith: The invisible hand just slapped Disney - Jonathan Turley

This year marks the 300th anniversary of Adam Smith, the iconic figure behind the theory of free markets, or of what we have since come to call “capitalism.”

Born in June 1723, Smith went on to explain how the “invisible hand” of the market worked as people exercised their choices between certain products. It can shape economies and challenge whole governments. One company in particular appears to be learning that lesson.

 

In recent filings, Disney appears to acknowledge that Smith’s invisible hand is giving the “House of Mouse” the middle finger. In a new corporate disclosure, Disney acknowledges that its controversial political and social agenda is costing the company and shareholders.

In its annual SEC report, Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.” In an implied nod to Smith, the company observes that “the success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content,” and that “Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”

Disney and other companies have previously ignored consumer backlash over corporate campaigns such as Disney’s opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law. Corporate officials once avoided political controversies and focused on selling their products and services rather than viewpoints. :snip:

[Valin]

21 minutes ago, Geee said:

Happy birthday, Adam Smith: The invisible hand just slapped Disney - Jonathan Turley

This year marks the 300th anniversary of Adam Smith, the iconic figure behind the theory of free markets, or of what we have since come to call “capitalism.”

Born in June 1723, Smith went on to explain how the “invisible hand” of the market worked as people exercised their choices between certain products. It can shape economies and challenge whole governments. One company in particular appears to be learning that lesson.. 

For shareholders, it may seem counterintuitive that corporate executives would trade off profits for political or social agendas. However, it does serve as a rationale for individual corporate executives who are professionally advanced when they champion such causes. For example, when Alissa Heinerscheid, vice president of marketing for Bud Light, pledged to drop Bud Light’s “fratty reputation and embrace inclusivity,” she was heralded by colleagues, even though her move went on to tank that brand as a whole. Indeed, Bud Light has still not recovered from the loss of billions in profits, market share, and overall market value.

The same trend is playing out in the media. Public trust in journalists has fallen to a record low. Yet media executives continue to push advocacy journalism, abandoning objectivity. As former New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones declared, “all journalism is activism.”

With falling subscriptions and public backlash (this includes the amusing “Let’s go, Brandon!” mantra), the journalists continue to saw at the thin branch upon which they are sitting.

Again, while advocacy journalism is no more popular than woke corporate agendas, it remains “wealth-maximizing” for individual journalists, who can receive accolades from contemporaries by taking steps detrimental to their profession as a whole. For each individual, the falling revenues of their media outlets are outweighed by the individual advancement that comes with embracing advocacy over objectivity.

The same is true with academia, where universities and colleges are roundly criticized for their intolerance of opposing views and for purging faculties of conservative or libertarian professors. Roughly half of this country holds conservative or libertarian views. Yet faculty members have little incentive to put themselves at risk by demanding more intellectual diversity or viewpoint tolerance.

Apparently Joe & Jane sixpack have never learned about The Joys of Intersectionality, Deconstruction, The Oppression of Womxn. he Writings of Herbert Marcuse. Obviously The  Enlightened have  much more Work to do before we achieve Paradise.

What is happening is...........

 

[Valin]

Nov 16, 2023 New Discourses Bullets

New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 72 Woke Theory, which is to say Woke Gnosticism, requires identification with the class. Marxist socialists must identify with the workers as a class; feminists must identify with women as a class; antiracists must identify with people of color as a class; and so on. This is because they're Social Gnostics. Not only must they identify with their class, then; they do so willingly and as the "true" representatives of that class. This is not only a persistent and important feature of Social Gnosticism to understand; it is also indicative proof of their Gnosticism. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay breaks down this feature of Social Gnosticism (Woke) and helps you demystify some of their most important, confusing, manipulative, and perplexing tricks. Join him to learn how to handle it.

[Valin]

Dec 31, 2023

2023 has been a miserable, terrible, very bad year for the Walt Disney company, with bomb after movie bomb coming in rapid succession. Park attendance is sharply down as well. Woke, in-your-face messaging is causing Disney's once-loyal audience to run away by the millions. Is it a deserved comeuppance, or an American Tragedy?