Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[Sir_Cliff]

We keep bringing this up over on the Disneyland side, but it's quite clear now that Bob Chapek and an increasing number of more local TDA and TDO senior executives don't have any real experience using the park products they are in charge of.

They have no idea what it's like to be a paying customer at their parks; wrangling a family of four through the daylong App-based, glitchy, impersonal, upcharged, theme park environment at great personal expense. They don't use their own products like their customers, much less pay for them, so they simply don't get it. It's painfully obvious now.

I feel we'll get told off for drifting off topic, but I agree with all of this! The impression is very much that the parks are being run by people who would never willingly visit them and so come up with all kinds of over-complicated systems that I'm positive sound great in their internal pitches in terms of maximising revenue, addressing complaints about over-crowding and long lines, avoiding the need to build so many new attractions, etc. However, no-one really seems to be thinking through the practicalities of what any of this means for those paying to spend a day in the park.

And again back to the painful fact that Bob Chapek is a CEO who doesn't use his own theme park products. He could be selling dishwashing detergent, or dishwashers, or dishes. He doesn't know. He's reading a PowerPoint script. Badly.

Also agree and was actually thinking about this when the new DVC tower for the Polynesian at WDW was announced; Is there anyone responsible for signing off on these things who would even recognise let alone care that a mid-rise apartment block doesn't fit with the rest of the resort? It seems to me an explanation for the wild swings in quality of new projects as, at the executive level including Chapek, no-one really knows what they're looking at beyond the numbers.

I just mentioned this in another thread, but at a certain point Chapek's missteps reflect badly on Iger too.

It was Iger who chose him as his successor and presumably prepared him for this job. Handing over the company to an ill prepared and underqualified CEO does not look like good decision making on his part, even on the condition he stay with the company until Dec 2021.

The more you think about it, the more strange a choice Chapek seems for the CEO job. He doesn't appear to have any great feel for the creative aspects of the company, not even the parks which he was in charge of running let alone film and television. It is also becoming increasingly obvious on issues including this one that he isn't good at cultivating the personal relationships and good will being the CEO of Disney requires. Would be interesting to know how obvious this latter aspect was before he was elevated to CEO and what exactly the logic was behind the choice.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Would be interesting to know how obvious this latter aspect was before he was elevated to CEO and what exactly the logic was behind the choice.

I think Iger was fearing what impact the pandemic would have on Disney and was looking for someone ASAP to take his place.

I realize that comes across as a cheap shot at the man, but when you think about the timing of the decision (Feb 2020) and the souring of their relationship in the two years since, it increasingly looks plausible.

We may never know what really happened beyond anecdotal, unsourced comments.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Now that about 100 young hipsters in Burbank are back at their cubicles after yesterday's Using A Comp Day Walk Out! thing , and as you can sense the world and media cycle is moving on from this mini-crisis, I must say...

I am still absolutely fascinated how all the other Orlando tourism big players stayed completely out of this! This was framed in the media as only an issue between Disney and the inherently evil Ron DeSantis, King Of The Deplorables. Entirely left out of the conversation was Universal Studios, Sea World, Legoland, plus all the other big players in the Orlando tourism mega-market like Hilton, Marriott, Hertz, Uber, Airbnb, Darden Corporation, etc., etc.

Especially Universal Studios. They've got a nearly identical corporate setup as Disney, with not just a massive Orlando theme park resort presence, but multiple California-based movie divisions (Universal Pictures, Dreamworks, etc.) a giant TV network with NBC, streaming services like Peacock, and distribution channels via Comcast. And yet Universal gets a complete pass here from fans and the national media. That's really fascinating!

Why did only Disney step in it like this? And I hope Bob Chapek has picked up the phone and called Brian Roberts at Comcast and asked him "How the hell did you guys pull that off? If I buy lunch, can you give me some pointers?"

Part of it was that it prompted a lot of Disney employees to speak out on the bigger picture - that Disney was purposely and knowingly removing LGBT content from their shows and movies, content that the creators consciously included.

Disney's response here, or lack thereof, spoke to a bigger picture with the company.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think Iger was fearing what impact the pandemic would have on Disney and was looking for someone ASAP to take his place.

I realize that comes across as a cheap shot at the man, but when you think about the timing of the decision (Feb 2020) and the souring of their relationship in the two years since, it increasingly looks plausible.

We may never know what really happened beyond anecdotal, unsourced comments.

I agree. It's looking increasingly likely that Iger decided he wanted to leave sooner rather than later and there weren't many other viable options at a senior level within the company to take over. As you say, though, we may never know.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I'll attempt to get this back on track to focusing on Disney rather than the bill itself.

Fence-sitting clearly wasn't in Disney's best interest here and it backfired big time. They tried to offend no one and ended up getting attacked by everyone.

And it's not all that surprising; Disney publicly acts like it's pro-LGTBQ+ rights, including profiting off raindow-adorned merch every Pride Month. To then try to stand on the sidelines on a bill that was energized LGTBQ+ civil rights groups in a state where Disney has massive political clout -- of course that's going to be seen as hypocritical.

I think it's part of a larger trend of activists calling out what they see as performative, insincere support from corporations. Maybe 10 years ago putting out some rainbow Mickey ears or something was seen as meaningful support for LGBTQ+ rights. Now allies, activists, and a company's employees expect corporations to do more.

Chapek didn't see that, and I think it's another sign that he doesn't understand his employees and he doesn't understand Hollywood. I can't remember Iger ever having a PR fiasco last this long on a politicized issue.

BTW, "staying out of politics" is itself a political stance.

That’s because Iger was smart enough not to take a political side, despite being a potential Dem presidential candidate he kept Disney itself out of the political fray.

Even being based in CA it’s a safe bet that around 40% of Disneys employees lean conservative, they can’t please one side without alienating the other, so no matter which side they take they not only divide their guests but they divide their employees also.

I looked up Comcast’s donations and they’ve given to everyone in Florida, Rep and Dem, just like Disney did but were smart enough to stay quiet.

It also doesn’t help that most people (employees and guests) don’t like what Chapek is doing so we’re all looking for a reason to vilify him.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That’s because Iger was too smart to take a side, despite being a potential Dem presidential candidate he kept Disney itself out of the political fray.

No he didn’t.

Disney C.E.O. Warns Georgia Abortion Law Would Make it ‘Very Difficult’ to Film in the State (Published 2019)

The company’s chief executive, Bob Iger, said it would be “very difficult” to continue filming in the state if the law was carried out.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

No he didn’t.

Disney C.E.O. Warns Georgia Abortion Law Would Make it ‘Very Difficult’ to Film in the State (Published 2019)

The company’s chief executive, Bob Iger, said it would be “very difficult” to continue filming in the state if the law was carried out.

www.nytimes.com

I can’t read it because it’s behind a paywall but I did a search and found another article where he said “I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully... [if it becomes law], I don’t see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there.”

That’s not picking a side, that’s stating a reality, and also how a competent CEO applies pressure to politicians without openly picking a side.

“Many people who work for us” highlights that it’s their employees who have an issue with the bill, without Disney having to pick a side, and “heed their wishes” show they support their employees, without picking a side. That’s how you make a political statement without getting political.

 

[TP2000]

That’s because Iger was smart enough not to take a political side, despite being a potential Dem presidential candidate he kept Disney itself out of the political fray.

Even being based in CA it’s a safe bet that around 40% of Disneys employees lean conservative, they can’t please one side without alienating the other, so no matter which side they take they not only divide their guests but they divide their employees also.

Living here in OC for 30 years, I've known several current and former management types at Disneyland, and they all lean conservative. They know they are not allowed to discuss it at work for fear of damaging their careers, although those who lean left can place flags and symbols in their offices, place political bumper stickers on their cars and park them in the employee garages, and use language that supports left-leaning causes in the Disneyland workplace all without impunity.

That's not exclusive to Disneyland or Burbank though. That's pretty much how it goes in left leaning industries, especially the entertainment industry based out of very liberal Los Angeles/Hollywood.

I looked up Comcast’s donations and they’ve given to everyone in Florida, Rep and Dem, just like Disney did but were smart enough to stay quiet.

Thank you! I was wondering about that.

I'm not at all surprised that Comcast Universal has donated to all the same Florida politicians that Disney has. And that Hilton has. And Sea World has. And Darden Corporation has. And Publix has. And that every Florida business bigger than a Kissimmee muffler shop has!

It also doesn’t help that most people (employees and guests) don’t like what Chapek is doing so we’re all looking for a reason to vilify him.

You almost feel sorry for the poor guy at this point. Almost.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

That’s because Iger was smart enough not to take a political side, despite being a potential Dem presidential candidate he kept Disney itself out of the political fray.

Even being based in CA it’s a safe bet that around 40% of Disneys employees lean conservative, they can’t please one side without alienating the other, so no matter which side they take they not only divide their guests but they divide their employees also.

I looked up Comcast’s donations and they’ve given to everyone in Florida, Rep and Dem, just like Disney did but were smart enough to stay quiet.

It also doesn’t help that most people (employees and guests) don’t like what Chapek is doing so we’re all looking for a reason to vilify him.

Is this the "both sides are valid" argument? Trying to dismiss valid concerns by painting two arguments as equivalent, when they're not?

There's no equivalent on the left to a bill whose authors state is targeted towards a specific minority community. At least not that I'm aware of.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Is this the "both sides are valid" argument? Trying to dismiss valid concerns by painting two arguments as equivalent, when they're not?

There's no equivalent on the left to a bill whose authors state is targeted towards a specific minority community. At least not that I'm aware of.

Not claiming anything about either side, just pointing out it’s bad business to pick a side when no matter what side you pick you risk alienating half your guests and half your staff.

Even if they don’t alienate anyone (not possible) with their stance on the Parents Rights/don’t say gay bill people are already calling on them to chime in on the trans sports statement, and then they’ll be expected to chime in on CRT, and then they’ll be expected to chime in on taxes, abortion, immigration, etc etc… eventually they’ll alienate everyone if they play politics long enough.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Not claiming anything about either side, just pointing out it’s bad business to pick a side when no matter what side you pick you risk alienating half your guests and half your staff.

Even if they don’t alienate anyone (not possible) with their stance on the Parents Rights/don’t say gay bill people are already calling on them to chime in on the trans sports statement, and then they’ll be expected to chime in on CRT, and then they’ll be expected to chime in on taxes, abortion, immigration, etc etc… eventually they’ll alienate everyone if they play politics long enough.

I just can't fathom, that when responding to a bill that was explicitly written to target a minority group, any person or organization should stay quiet at the risk of alienating anyone.

I'd like to think, that when the issue at hand is discriminatory, consideration should not be given to those on the side in favour of it.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I just can't fathom, that when responding to a bill that was explicitly written to target a minority group, any person or organization should stay quiet at the risk of alienating anyone.

I'd like to think, that when the issue at hand is discriminatory, consideration should not be given to those on the side in favour of it.

The problem is a large percent of the population see it as a parental rights bill, and if Disney continues on this path those people will start to question why a company like Disney wouldn’t support parental rights.

From a moral perspective I don’t disagree with you but from a business perspective it’s insanity to enter politics. Even if they only alienate 10% of the right that’s millions of guests a year, and many on the left won’t think they went far enough so they’ll probably lose a few million of them also, I’m sure some will argue they won’t be missed but the board won’t see it that way, and they’ll fire upper management and replace them in a second with people who know better than to enter politics and alienate guests.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Been digging a bit more and Marvel Entertainments chairman was a massive supporter of the previous president, gave his PAC $10 million last election which made it nearly a 50/50 split. The left may want to stop supporting Marvel or they’re lining a major Trump supporters pockets.

Also found a list of Disney stock ownership by members of Congress, Pelosi tops the list with $1-5 million in Disney stock. The right may want to stop supporting Disney or they’re lining Pelosi pockets.

The more people dig into Disneys politics the worse it’s going to get, great job stepping into politics Chapek.

This is a rabbit hole most people aren’t going to get into at that level, as the majority of us aren’t living our lives to ‘spite the other.’ We just want a better society, and sometimes that requires calling out people (or entities) for their actions.

Using the Pelosi example, her portfolio is diversified and vast enough that she’ll survive one of her larger stocks tanking. Pulling down Disney stock to spite her would equally hurt any conservatives holding the stock.

That’s largely separate from the real fallout here: conservatives who feel a ‘family friendly’ brand no longer resonates with their traditional family unit, and progressives who are tired of the queer baiting + lack of substance when it counts.

A brand reliant on warm fuzzies and positive sentiment is seeing more pushback than it has since the mid-2000s, when maintenance issues were killing guests at Disneyland and the direct-to-video sequels kept getting skewered by SNL.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I can’t read it because it’s behind a paywall but I did a search and found another article where he said “I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully... [if it becomes law], I don’t see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there.”

That’s not picking a side, that’s stating a reality, and also how a competent CEO applies pressure to politicians without openly picking a side.

“Many people who work for us” highlights that it’s their employees who have an issue with the bill, without Disney having to pick a side, and “heed their wishes” show they support their employees, without picking a side. That’s how you make a political statement without getting political.

I do think that is an example of more clever corporate lobbying that could have been the model for how to respond in this instance. Disney can reasonably say that they have huge investments in Florida and are in the process of moving more of their employees to the state, but this kind of legislation (and politics) is creating an environment that makes many of these employees feel unwelcome and thus creates problems for these plans. Beyond this legislation, that would also be a call to tone down this kind of base-driven politics as it's getting to the point of having economic consequences for Florida in the service of, if we're honest, preparing the way for a DeSantis presidential campaign. Disney can also plausibly say that they're not taking a partisan stance: just look at what their employees are saying publicly and you can imagine the internal discussions.

The only issue is that, if I remember correctly, Disney did actually dangle the threat of not filming in Georgia whereas, come hell or high water, they are moving their employees to Lake Nona and the politicians in Florida know this. So, Disney has no real leverage here because they are not going to close WDW nor are they going to pause future investment. They're 'pausing' political donations, but I'd wager those who support this bill judge the campaigning value of the legislation as far more valuable to their chances of re-election than what Disney was giving them.

In short, it's a mess. They may start trying to make amends in other areas such as restoring the same-sex kiss in the new Buzz Lightyear film, but as regards Florida they have probably only made the politics for this kind of thing more attractive by playing the role of the 'woke' corporation in public statements that politicians know will not be backed up by any actions.

The original problem was that Disney was donating money to sponsors of the "Don't Say Gay" bill. Disney wasn't being politically neutral. They were actively funding the politicians who were sponsoring the legislation. Under pressure, they paused all political donations and publicly spoke out against it. So yes, Disney might be "bowing to pressure from the left," but it's not like they were being politically neutral before. They aren't "entering politics," they've been funding politicians for decades.

I know they do donate to both sides, but I completely agree that the financial connection to the bill's sponsors meant Disney couldn't plausibly say "nothing to do with us." It exposed the kind of hypocrisy people on all sides dislike: espousing one set of values publicly, but discarding them very quickly in private when it comes to looking after their financial interests.

 

[ohioguy]

I responded to the user who seemed to think the legislation came before funding.

I didn't think the legislation came before funding. Disney simply threatening to turn off the spigots of cash may also have done the trick. Or asking for their money back.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I didn't think the legislation came before funding. Disney simply threatening to turn off the spigots of cash may also have done the trick. Or asking for their money back.

I haven’t bothered to look, but I have a hard time believing that the statements by the legislators that nobody wants to actually address and pretend weren’t made were not the first such statements they have made.

 

[Angel Ariel]

The problem is a large percent of the population see it as a parental rights bill, and if Disney continues on this path those people will start to question why a company like Disney wouldn’t support parental rights.

From a moral perspective I don’t disagree with you but from a business perspective it’s insanity to enter politics. Even if they only alienate 10% of the right that’s millions of guests a year, and many on the left won’t think they went far enough so they’ll probably lose a few million of them also, I’m sure some will argue they won’t be missed but the board won’t see it that way, and they’ll fire upper management and replace them in a second with people who know better than to enter politics and alienate guests.

They entered politics the moment they made donations, even if they were donating to multiple candidates on both sides of the aisle.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Gay people were brought into the conversation by the author and sponsors explaining the legislative intent.

@guardianmonkey why don’t you use your words and tell us what is so funny?

Why are people so afraid to acknowledge the words of the people behind the bill?

 

[Disney4Lyfe]

This is a poll of democrat primary voters.

I won’t keep posting here, everyone is quite dug in. But the bill has bipartisan support. There’s a reason for that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is a poll of democrat primary voters.View attachment 628515

I won’t keep posting here, everyone is quite dug in. But the bill has bipartisan support. There’s a reason for that.

Look at the question. Talk about ignoring all of the other stuff in the legislation and context of its creation.