What a frigid and utterly bizarre day in the Disney UNIverse. Truly.
...
I don't know why the column was pulled. My source doesn't either. Something really bothered Bob (which puts a huge smile on my face because any discomfort brought to that man sorta makes me happy!) I've read it over a few times and really am not sure what exactly it was because, frankly, there is so much more to Disney's dealings over there that could be said and wasn't.
...
But I think something big started today. Very big.
I, for one, don't think that Iger had to reach out, through his wife, to get the hit piece pulled. There isn't a media outlet anywhere that would knowingly let a hit peice on a board member stand (unless placed there by a better connected board member). Bob didn't lift a finger to have this pulled, it was toast soon after Bay or Huffington saw it. If anything, knowing it would be pulled almost immediately was part of the plan: everyone's familiar with the Streisand effect now, and the discussion of its removal is almost as useful as the article itself. The players know who the players are and the people directly involved all know that this was a strike right at an exposed flank.
The interesting question isn't 'Why was it pulled', it is 'Why was it written?'
What does Redstone get out of it?
#1) As part of an acquisition scheme? An attempt to shake apart the loose collection of IP that TWDC currently controls? Possible, but while Redstone may be money while Iger is still little more than staff, Viacom doesn't dwarf TWDC to nearly the same degree. (edit -- or at all, as it may be)
#2) How does Viacom/Redstone gain from the implication of graft on the part of Iger/TWDC? If they've been in the country for so long, they certainly know about, hear rumors about, or be part of much bigger deals than this. They might be trying to imply to Chinese authorities that the $800M might not have been invested in the way that Iger said, but it seems to me that this is a dangerously glassy house for any western country to go throwing rocks at.
#3) This is the most interesting possibility -- TWDC doesn't want western investors to know how weak its efforts in China are. If this is part of the reason, then it represents a rhotorical hip check on Disney, potentially weakening their resolve to see their move into China out. But I don't think I buy this as the reason for writing it.
4 & 5 are about Bob, who's known to be a short timer burning through the longterm assets to drive up his personal wealth at the expense of the company. That's not Viacom's problem: if anything, its behavior they'd like to see continue.
Is it to cause TWDC to lose face? Does any part of this tell the Chinese anything they didn't already know?
