News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[Jrb1979]

In this arena? Yeah I agree.

If it was up to old Disney to deliver a smash hit with licensing tie ins?…you never doubted them…

This isn’t that

I meant IT.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm not sure about that for Facebook. Facebook shows me all kinds of random stuff that doesn't interest me in the slightest, to the point that I wonder how in the world they ever got the idea it would be something that attracts my attention or drives engagement.

That said, they did seem to do a decent job of funneling people into ever more radical political positions.

It’s much more than that…first, the most insidious data miners on earth are Facebook and Amazon…

Go ahead…search a product on your browser…or even say it…
Then see how long it takes for it to show up in an ad banner on the book of face?
Social experiment.

I believe also what’s come out of the whistleblowers is that that “irrelevant” background stuff you speak of is a carrier vessel/smoke screen to get to the objective…

It’s baffling you with BS…ingenious

 

[kingdead]

I bet we’re both half right/wrong

There are now 25+!years of humans designed never to watch a commercial. I’m sure their research knows this. And rising

Problem.

But also every guy In LA wants his cut…so the results are the same monthly bills for the same amount of viewing time and the user as to “think” their way though them all.

I think you’d agree one of the main appeals of tv…other than it being indoors and temperature regulated…is it’s mindless.

If you want mindless and cheap, there's always reality TV. Singing and dancing contests, dating shows, dopey physical competitions, all of these are staples of network tv. There are already some on streamers but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try to highlight this sort of schlock--especially if it guarantees an audience for a few months! Imagine an "interactive" idol show where you could pay for special features right through your screen... Nothing keeping Disney from doing this for its New New New Mickey Mouse Club, is there?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If you want mindless and cheap, there's always reality TV. Singing and dancing contests, dating shows, dopey physical competitions, all of these are staples of network tv. There are already some on streamers but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try to highlight this sort of schlock--especially if it guarantees an audience for a few months! Imagine an "interactive" idol show where you could pay for special features right through your screen... Nothing keeping Disney from doing this for its New New New Mickey Mouse Club, is there?

Well the reason reality tv took hold in the first place was it ate hours and was the cheapest thing you could make. The successor to game shows…which are back too.

You might be on to something. If Regis was alive…there’s be 100 hours a week of who wants to be a millionaire right now

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’d say Facebook has done a pretty good job of making it “work.” But your point it taken that curation by humans has a special element to it.

Either way, recommendations work better the more a platform knows about you. And Disney is trying to learn a LOT about you.

They needed (and still need) diverse content so that they have something you’ll like.

MTV was before there were options. Now there are too many options.

Facebook is plagued by the problem of radicalizing engagement. I they’re constantly messing things up and the company changed their name because the brand is incredibly tainted. Despite high usage people have a very poor view of Facebook.

MTV became less unique and more generic as options proliferated. Options have not created the diversity of content. Learning more about people doesn’t actually result in better recommendations. That’s the problem. Human curations works because people with similar interests tend to like similar things. You don’t actually need all of that overly specific data. You just end up spending too much money chasing niches that don’t quite match interests. It costs too much to maintain because you have to maintain production values over more and more content when what still grabs eyeballs and subscribers is a smaller set of wide appeal content.

 

[UNCgolf]

It’s much more than that…first, the most insidious data miners on earth are Facebook and Amazon…

Go ahead…search a product on your browser…or even say it…
Then see how long it takes for it to show up in an ad banner on the book of face?
Social experiment.

I believe also what’s come out of the whistleblowers is that that “irrelevant” background stuff you speak of is a carrier vessel/smoke screen to get to the objective…

It’s baffling you with BS…ingenious

Facebook doesn't actually do that for me. It may be because I almost never use Facebook, but they have an option to see why they're showing you certain things and it's hilariously off for me in terms of what it thinks I like etc. -- I'm almost proud of how badly they're off regarding creating a profile about me.

Google, on the other hand, is a completely different story. It does successfully do what you're talking about.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Facebook doesn't actually do that for me. It may be because I almost never use Facebook, but they have an option to see why they're showing you certain things and it's hilariously off for me in terms of what it thinks I like etc. -- I'm almost proud of how badly they're off in terms of creating a profile about me.

Google, on the other hand, is a completely different story. It does successfully do what you're talking about.

I once made the mistake of looking up an oculus on google - before Facebook bought it….

…I randomly had ads for it from several stores show up on Facebook over the next 12 hours. Never directly saw/clicked it there

My opinion on coincidence is exactly the same as Sherlock holmes

 

[Midwest Elitist]

Anyone seen this?

 

[_caleb]

I'm not sure about that for Facebook. Facebook shows me all kinds of random stuff that doesn't interest me in the slightest, to the point that I wonder how in the world they ever got the idea it would be something that attracts my attention or drives engagement.

That said, they did seem to do a decent job of funneling people into ever more radical political positions.

The reason it shows you “random” stuff is that it’s trying to test around the edges to find what you (or, people like you) might like.

It also shows you stuff it knows you don’t like to provoke a response.

But I totally agree about the radicalization part. But honestly, isn’t that what Disney wants (but with fans)?

 

[Notes from Neverland]

Anyone seen this?

His take is so optimistic and so flawed based purely on his distain for current management. He's buying hook, line, and sinker what Peltz is selling without enough critical thinking. Brayden does a lot of good work, but here he's a little over his head by not being familiar enough with how activist investors operate or what baggage Peltz carries with him.

 

[_caleb]

MTV became less unique and more generic as options proliferated. Options have not created the diversity of content.

Other way around. Diversity of content creates options.

Learning more about people doesn’t actually result in better recommendations. That’s the problem. Human curations works because people with similar interests tend to like similar things.

I think human curators work for other reasons. See influencers. But the algorithms do just that—assume you will enjoy things that people like you enjoy.

You don’t actually need all of that overly specific data. You just end up spending too much money chasing niches that don’t quite match interests.

You’ll never make it in Silicon Valley with that attitude.

It costs too much to maintain because you have to maintain production values over more and more content when what still grabs eyeballs and subscribers is a smaller set of wide appeal content.

We’ll have to see, but I think Disney is going to see how low of production values different niches of their audiences will tolerate. See: Guardians of the Galaxy Christmas Special.

 

[Midwest Elitist]

His take is so optimistic and so flawed based purely on his distain for current management. He's buying hook, line, and sinker what Peltz is selling without enough critical thinking. Brayden does a lot of good work, but here he's a little over his head by not being familiar enough with how activist investors operate or what baggage Peltz carries with him.

Yeah, I think it's a little bit of column A and B.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Anyone seen this?

His take is so optimistic and so flawed based purely on his distain for current management. He's buying hook, line, and sinker what Peltz is selling without enough critical thinking. Brayden does a lot of good work, but here he's a little over his head by not being familiar enough with how activist investors operate or what baggage Peltz carries with him.

Jeez…I didn’t realize it would be 3 hours long

I don’t know…his conclusions are off. NONE of this leads to better parks…he did the math and then wrote the wrong answer on the test…

…but the numbers are damning.

To be clear: I don’t want Peltz or any of his ilk in control of Disney…
…but Iger is a drain/cancer and has to go. The strawman has been found out.

And that’s what complicated. He is exactly what I THOUGHT he was…and that’s not good at all for us.

 

[NotCalledBob]

His take is so optimistic and so flawed based purely on his distain for current management. He's buying hook, line, and sinker what Peltz is selling without enough critical thinking. Brayden does a lot of good work, but here he's a little over his head by not being familiar enough with how activist investors operate or what baggage Peltz carries with him.

There is a danger here of people falling for the Iger is bad, therefore anyone else must be good trap.

And Peltz's PR is on point.

I fear this puts us in somewhat of a bind.

Do we need to temporarily cheerlead for Bob, the Board, even Christine.. until the threat has passed.

Should I start to pass around the pom poms?

 

[Jrb1979]

Jeez…I didn’t realize it would be 3 hours long

I don’t know…his conclusions are off. NONE of this leads to better parks…he did the math and then wrote the wrong answer on the test…

…but the numbers are damning.

To be clear: I don’t want Peltz or any of his ilk in control of Disney…
…but Iger is a drain/cancer and has to go. The strawman has been found out.

And that’s what complicated. He is exactly what I THOUGHT he was…and that’s not good at all for us.

Do honestly think the next person that becomes CEO will be any different? I don't cause I don't see them ever going back to heavily investing in the parks anymore.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There is a danger here of people falling for the Iger is bad, therefore anyone else must be good trap.

And Peltz's PR is on point.

I fear this puts us in somewhat of a bind.

Do we need to temporarily cheerlead for Bob, the Board, even Christine.. until the threat has passed.

Should I start to pass around the pom poms?

You have to weigh that risk with the fact Iger is NOT good.

Because fans bandied about that he was GREAT! for years…doesn’t wish it into existence. The signs were there of the rot for at least 10-12 years…but the warning was tossed long prior to that.

And respectfully…If you did support him and patronize decent…there’s nothing unreasonable about that.

We all like Disney…we want more Disney…but Iger and Co Deliberately have gnawed away at the pier UNDER the surface of his grand, gilded boardwalk.

Not THE boardwalk…Eisner loved/built that and Iger has let it decay.
That might be a metaphor for this situation?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Do honestly think the next person that becomes CEO will be any different? I don't cause I don't see them ever going back to heavily investing in the parks anymore.

It’s the same catch 22 for those that support a football coach that loses every playoffs game…but gets there.

You’re still not succeeding

(Sorry for the ‘Merican analogy…but it’s all I could come up with uncaffeinated)

 

[Joel]

I'm afraid this is an Alien vs Predator situation.

 

[Lilofan]

It’s the same catch 22 for those that support a football coach that loses every playoffs game…but gets there.

You’re still not succeeding

(Sorry for the ‘Merican analogy…but it’s all I could come up with uncaffeinated)

Sad memories of the Buffalo Bills getting to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row losing every single time.

 

[NotCalledBob]

You have to weigh that risk with the fact Iger is NOT good.

Because fans bandied about that he was GREAT! for years…doesn’t wish it into existence. The signs were there of the rot for at least 10-12 years…but the warning was tossed long prior to that.

And respectfully…If you did support him and patronize decent…there’s nothing unreasonable about that.

We all like Disney…we want more Disney…but Iger and Co Deliberately have gnawed away and the pier UNDER the surface of his grand, gilded boardwalk.

Not THE boardwalk…Eisner loved/built that and Iger has let it decay.
That might be a metaphor for this situation?

Oh absolutely.

I am a very, very (very) long way from being an Iger fan.

But, I want considered reform, not to burn the house down with an activist investor firm.

Once we've seen off Peltz, we can shred our newly printed Bob, Christine, and that chap Mark T Shirts, and resume business as usual.