News Bob Iger outlines the need to transform the Walt Disney Company resulting in 7000 job losses and $5.5 billion in cost savings

FigmentFan82

FigmentFan82

Well-Known Member
CaptainAmerica said:
"DTC" has pretty much replaced "OTT" in common parlance, even though there's an argument to be made that there are nuanced differences between the terms.
Click to expand...
Well no, DTC is specifically speaking to the direct relationship a company has to sell its product to the consumer without a middle man. Any retail business with its own product that has its own website with a store that can sell direct to its customers is DTC.

OTT is describing a specific type of technology, the method of pushing media via internet to a consumer home box (stream device, smart tv, phone, etc)

So when you bring it all together it goes like this - Disney's OTT service D+ is a DTC business.
 
Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
Today people think the obligation is the other way around: the company exists to fully support an employee with every modern comfort and no distress, plus their family with a roof over their heads, 2 cars and 10 streaming services. Oh, and that calculated dollar amount still applies to a 16 year old living with mom, because…some reason.
Click to expand...
I don't think $18-20 an hour is asking for anything remotely close to what you are describing. If a business can't get good employees for the amount they are paying then they need to provide more. It doesn't always have to be money but in the case of low wage, hourly workers, what else can a company really offer that is going to move the needle?
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
FigmentFan82 said:
Well no, DTC is specifically speaking to the direct relationship a company has to sell its product to the consumer without a middle man. Any retail business that has its own website with a store that can sell direct to its customers is DTC.

OTT is describing a specific type of technology, the method of pushing media via internet to a consumer home box (stream device, smart tv, phone, etc)

So when you bring it all together it goes like this - Disney's OTT service D+ is a DTC business.
Click to expand...
As I said, I'm talking about "common parlance," not nitpicking technicalities.

9 times out of 10, people writing or talking about Disney+ call it a DTC service, not an OTT service.

OTT is often used in the context of something that was formerly distributed via linear television. For example, if Disney were to let you buy ESPN without a cable package, they might refer to it as buying ESPN OTT ("the top" in this context being the legacy MVPDs like Comcast).
 
Tony the Tigger

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
Those jobs are “designed” for students and retirees in order to avoid paying living wages.
Click to expand...
Or...some jobs just don't generate that much money, but are worth having.

If you open a store, and it isn't hot right out of the gate (most non-chain stores aren't) and you're ringing up $100 per day in sales (not profits) then how can you afford to pay someone a "living wage" (whatever that might be?)

You don't. You work it yourself. And it can be quite miserable, sitting there with all your inventory and nobody coming in, wondering if you'll be able to pay more bills with what room is left on your credit card "until things pick up." I speak from experience.

Then you reach a kind of "critical mass" where business picks up, and you have to do tasks to support the business other than ringing people up, so you can hire someone to do the relatively low-skilled job of ringing people up while you do those other things. You're barely making ends meet, but you're obligated to pay someone else a living wage just because you dared ask for some part time help?

It is perfectly reasonable to simply find someone who doesn't require a huge salary, but who is competent enough, to come by after school and hold the fort.

Those who require a family-supporting salary have plenty of other options. Very little in life is "one size fits all."

Then there is the reality that not everyone is qualified to work for Google, and not every business has a corporate culture like you may have seen on TV shows.

The skills I teach (while paying the person for the privilege of teaching them) are foundational and transferrable for when they are ready to move on to a "real job."

Because I hung in there for 13 years, I can now support 8-10 part and full time employees across two locations. So arguments of "you shouldn't exist if you can't pay a living wage on day one" are nullified by that, IMO. Unless every business is a CVS or a McDonald's.

It is nice that everyone has empathy for workers and wants them to do better. They all have the opportunity to do better, but they have to start somewhere.

More power to those who got a $60K job right out of college. That was not my experience.

I'm sure there are companies that have taken advantage. I don't know that Disney was one of them or if so, to what degree - but I don't know what I don't know in that regard. And it's very subjective.

And with that, it's time to go to work. I'm doing reviews and raises this week.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Tony the Tigger said:
Or...some jobs just don't generate that much money, but are worth having.

If you open a store, and it isn't hot right out of the gate (most non-chain stores aren't) and you're ringing up $100 per day in sales (not profits) then how can you afford to pay someone a "living wage" (whatever that might be?)

You don't. You work it yourself. And it can be quite miserable, sitting there with all your inventory and nobody coming in, wondering if you'll be able to pay more bills with what room is left on your credit card "until things pick up." I speak from experience.

Then you reach a kind of "critical mass" where business picks up, and you have to do tasks to support the business other than ringing people up, so you can hire someone to do the relatively low-skilled job of ringing people up while you do those other things. You're barely making ends meet, but you're obligated to pay someone else a living wage just because you dared ask for some part time help?

It is perfectly reasonable to simply find someone who doesn't require a huge salary, but who is competent enough, to come by after school and hold the fort.

Those who require a family-supporting salary have plenty of other options. Very little in life is "one size fits all."

Then there is the reality that not everyone is qualified to work for Google, and not every business has a corporate culture like you may have seen on TV shows.

The skills I teach (while paying the person for the privilege of teaching them) are foundational and transferrable for when they are ready to move on to a "real job."

Because I hung in there for 13 years, I can now support 8-10 part and full time employees across two locations. So arguments of "you shouldn't exist if you can't pay a living wage on day one" are nullified by that, IMO. Unless every business is a CVS or a McDonald's.

It is nice that everyone has empathy for workers and wants them to do better. They all have the opportunity to do better, but they have to start somewhere.

More power to those who got a $60K job right out of college. That was not my experience.

I'm sure there are companies that have taken advantage. I don't know that Disney was one of them or if so, to what degree - but I don't know what I don't know in that regard. And it's very subjective.

And with that, it's time to go to work. I'm doing reviews and raises this week.
Click to expand...
I feel the need to say this is a very good post IMO..thanks for sharing...
 
Tony the Tigger

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Dranth said:
I don't think $18-20 an hour is asking for anything remotely close to what you are describing. If a business can't get good employees for the amount they are paying then they need to provide more. It doesn't always have to be money but in the case of low wage, hourly workers, what else can a company really offer that is going to move the needle?
Click to expand...
When "providing more" gets you nothing, what's the point?

I've had more motivated employees for $10 an hour, and less motivated ones for more. Everyone is saying Disney used to have fantastic employees at $10 and less, but the recent ones at $16 are (supposedly) a nightmare. You can't singlehandedly change the public perception that everyone is underpaid, so what's the point?

As to your last question: I was once a low-level manager at Toys R Us in NJ. The minimum wage was $5.50. I was *not allowed* by the company to hire anyone above $5.50, no matter their experience or anything. I was rarely allowed to give raises, and if I did, they were usually a quarter. If I gave someone too good a review, they'd make me change it to justify only giving a quarter. P.S. as a manager I was probably making around $28K per year. This was in the mid-90's. I also worked overnight shifts at the port unloading trucks because that's what I had to do to pay my bills. Maybe that's why I don't feel so bad for $16 an hour part timers at WDW asking for $20.

So I had to find ways to motivate people to stay and to do a good job. That could be choice of schedule (I got in trouble for doing that, too) just being nice to people and praising where appropriate (I was one of few who did that) recognition at a meeting, donuts, what have you.

In my current business, when you master a new skill, you get a raise. It's all laid out up front. So many people cannot handle learning basic tasks, that you have to start them at minimum wage to see who will stick. Those who do, learn new skills and get raises. Plus employee discounts, promotional freebies, advance knowledge of things - (the people who work in my sort of unique business are usually a version of a superfan of the business itself.) Also, there is a lot of autonomy in this gig: you don't have a boss over your shoulder all day, you're mostly doing your own thing. So yes, you can go to Walmart and make a little more per hour, and you'll be stifled standing there at the register just processing orders all day, vs. my employees enjoying where they are (similar to at least some WDW employees, I would think) and enjoying interacting with customers with similar interests.
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
Or...some jobs just don't generate that much money, but are worth having.

If you open a store, and it isn't hot right out of the gate (most non-chain stores aren't) and you're ringing up $100 per day in sales (not profits) then how can you afford to pay someone a "living wage" (whatever that might be?)

You don't. You work it yourself. And it can be quite miserable, sitting there with all your inventory and nobody coming in, wondering if you'll be able to pay more bills with what room is left on your credit card "until things pick up." I speak from experience.

Then you reach a kind of "critical mass" where business picks up, and you have to do tasks to support the business other than ringing people up, so you can hire someone to do the relatively low-skilled job of ringing people up while you do those other things. You're barely making ends meet, but you're obligated to pay someone else a living wage just because you dared ask for some part time help?

It is perfectly reasonable to simply find someone who doesn't require a huge salary, but who is competent enough, to come by after school and hold the fort.

Those who require a family-supporting salary have plenty of other options. Very little in life is "one size fits all."

Then there is the reality that not everyone is qualified to work for Google, and not every business has a corporate culture like you may have seen on TV shows.

The skills I teach (while paying the person for the privilege of teaching them) are foundational and transferrable for when they are ready to move on to a "real job."

Because I hung in there for 13 years, I can now support 8-10 part and full time employees across two locations. So arguments of "you shouldn't exist if you can't pay a living wage on day one" are nullified by that, IMO. Unless every business is a CVS or a McDonald's.

It is nice that everyone has empathy for workers and wants them to do better. They all have the opportunity to do better, but they have to start somewhere.

More power to those who got a $60K job right out of college. That was not my experience.

I'm sure there are companies that have taken advantage. I don't know that Disney was one of them or if so, to what degree - but I don't know what I don't know in that regard. And it's very subjective.

And with that, it's time to go to work. I'm doing reviews and raises this week.
Click to expand...
This is an eloquent post and I don’t disagree with much of it. I think to a certain extent we’re speaking at cross purposes because we’re simultaneously discussing small businesses and mega corps like Disney, and arguments and examples don’t necessarily scale.

I believe my only real difference with you is that elsewhere in this thread you have complained about potential employees demanding living wages. If they feel the market supports those demands, it’s legitimate to make them. They’ll find jobs that meet those demands or they won’t. If you can’t find employees who don’t make such demands, it’s not the fault of the workers trying to maximize their profit.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
drizgirl said:
Eh, I don't believe they're cutting anything from their bonuses. But I'm pretty sure they'd still be motivated with a few million less.
Click to expand...

And that's the crux. It's always easy to "trim the fat" when you see yourself as nothing but lean meat and you get rewarded for your "efforts" when you cut your way to near-term profitability.

Not saying that bloat isn't a problem or even that what Disney is doing isn't to some degree, necessary but it's interesting how top executives, many of which were collecting big bonuses while over-hiring and overspending in certain industry segments, will continue to collect those big bonuses as they lay off all those people they maybe shouldn't have hired in the first place.

When did fixing your own screw-ups become something people should get rewarded for?

I'm guessing it was when Wall Street stopped looking more than a quarter or two in either direction.

To bring it back to Disney, how many folks that will be losing their job, possibly due to Bob C's poor performance (and no fault of their own, regardless), will be getting a package like Bob C got as he was kicked out the door for his poor performance?
 
Last edited:
Y

yensid1967

Well-Known Member
I think when you go to work for Disney, you are looking through Rose colored glasses and only see the good! I worked for Disney World in 98-99. I had the rose colored glasses that everything was good at Disney, meaning that you could make a living working for Mickey Mouse...boy did I quickly find out the truth! The truth was, in 1998-1999, I was only getting paid...$6.35/hr. Yes, $6.35!! Granted that the times were a little better back then, but even then, Cast Members usually had to live with 4+ Cast Members in order to pay rent! As a Cast Member, you do get discounts around town, even for your rent! I think I got $20/month off my rent...which wasn't much but it was something. As big as Disney is, I would expect them to have their own low-cost apartment rentals, but they did not! It would be so cool to redesign Main Street USA to have cast apartments on the second and third stories of the MSUSA buildings with rear access only for cast members to get into the apartment block...no access to the park.
But I guess What I wanted to say, was they are short staffed now and they are going to cut 30% of Parks cast members!? If they want to save money, how about starting with the cutting of the Executives bounuses!!! Yes, I understand they are running a company, but Did Bob Chapek really deserve a $25 million in severance? I say no, just for they state he put the Disney company in, why should they give him money for that!?
 
ctrlaltdel

ctrlaltdel

Well-Known Member
alphac2005 said:
Trust me, I agree with so much of what you say. How the market works now is truly something. You're absolutely right that it was clearly known that companies were going to hemorrhage cash for quite awhile when it comes to the transition to digital streaming. It's interesting how companies like Amazon bled money for more than a decade because the Street believed that it would ultimately be a profit engine. Legacy companies are completely shifting how media is consumed and distributed, they all know it, and now as you note, groupthink turns. I think one of the primary reasons circles back to pure greed and in particular dividends. The majority of these media companies are dividend machines and these have either been cutoff or been reduced and they've had enough.
Click to expand...
Think the number one factor in the transition away from the tech companies who lose massive amounts of cash (or products that lose massive amounts of cash) is rising interest rates.

It is much easier to blow a lot of cash when it is cheap to borrow and pay back debt. Now it is significantly more expensive and taking up more available cash flow to borrow at those levels. So that is why you are seeing a lot of companies pull back on staff and changing strategic priorities.
 
Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
When "providing more" gets you nothing, what's the point?

I've had more motivated employees for $10 an hour, and less motivated ones for more. Everyone is saying Disney used to have fantastic employees at $10 and less, but the recent ones at $16 are (supposedly) a nightmare. You can't singlehandedly change the public perception that everyone is underpaid, so what's the point?

As to your last question: I was once a low-level manager at Toys R Us in NJ. The minimum wage was $5.50. I was *not allowed* by the company to hire anyone above $5.50, no matter their experience or anything. I was rarely allowed to give raises, and if I did, they were usually a quarter. If I gave someone too good a review, they'd make me change it to justify only giving a quarter. P.S. as a manager I was probably making around $28K per year. This was in the mid-90's. I also worked overnight shifts at the port unloading trucks because that's what I had to do to pay my bills. Maybe that's why I don't feel so bad for $16 an hour part timers at WDW asking for $20.

So I had to find ways to motivate people to stay and to do a good job. That could be choice of schedule (I got in trouble for doing that, too) just being nice to people and praising where appropriate (I was one of few who did that) recognition at a meeting, donuts, what have you.

In my current business, when you master a new skill, you get a raise. It's all laid out up front. So many people cannot handle learning basic tasks, that you have to start them at minimum wage to see who will stick. Those who do, learn new skills and get raises. Plus employee discounts, promotional freebies, advance knowledge of things - (the people who work in my sort of unique business are usually a version of a superfan of the business itself.) Also, there is a lot of autonomy in this gig: you don't have a boss over your shoulder all day, you're mostly doing your own thing. So yes, you can go to Walmart and make a little more per hour, and you'll be stifled standing there at the register just processing orders all day, vs. my employees enjoying where they are (similar to at least some WDW employees, I would think) and enjoying interacting with customers with similar interests.
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about two different things here in a lot of ways. Do you treat your employees like junk? It doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you go out of your way to empower, reward and at least offer some small way of advancement even if it is limited due to the nature of a small business. With that you can get and retain employees even at lower rates in a lot of cases because there are many people who will find that rewarding enough to forgo the extra money.

However, when we are talking big companies like Disney, there is a record of management/owners just not caring and frankly taking a big steaming dump all-over low-level employees. They need to do better. Money, as you pointed out, is not always the answer but when you are a big company, raking in dollar values most people will never understand, it becomes an easy target. Even more so when inflation eats up any recent gains you have made.

Also, let's not forget that in the case of Disney employees, they did have to work for Chapek for a few years. That is something I don't think people every truly recover from. It was so bad they celebrated Iger coming back.
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Dranth said:
I think we are talking about two different things here in a lot of ways. Do you treat your employees like junk? It doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you go out of your way to empower, reward and at least offer some small way of advancement even if it is limited due to the nature of a small business. With that you can get and retain employees even at lower rates in a lot of cases because there are many people who will find that rewarding enough to forgo the extra money.

However, when we are talking big companies like Disney, there is a record of management/owners just not caring and frankly taking a big steaming dump all-over low-level employees. They need to do better. Money, as you pointed out, is not always the answer but when you are a big company, raking in dollar values most people will never understand, it becomes an easy target. Even more so when inflation eats up any recent gains you have made.

Also, let's not forget that in the case of Disney employees, they did have to work for Chapek for a few years. That is something I don't think people every truly recover from. It was so bad they celebrated Iger coming back.
Click to expand...
How many years have you worked for Disney?
 
Drdcm

Drdcm

Well-Known Member
Dranth said:
I think we are talking about two different things here in a lot of ways. Do you treat your employees like junk? It doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you go out of your way to empower, reward and at least offer some small way of advancement even if it is limited due to the nature of a small business. With that you can get and retain employees even at lower rates in a lot of cases because there are many people who will find that rewarding enough to forgo the extra money.

However, when we are talking big companies like Disney, there is a record of management/owners just not caring and frankly taking a big steaming dump all-over low-level employees. They need to do better. Money, as you pointed out, is not always the answer but when you are a big company, raking in dollar values most people will never understand, it becomes an easy target. Even more so when inflation eats up any recent gains you have made.

Also, let's not forget that in the case of Disney employees, they did have to work for Chapek for a few years. That is something I don't think people every truly recover from. It was so bad they celebrated Iger coming back.
Click to expand...
Everyone keeps saying these things don’t scale. Why wouldn’t it? The same basic concepts apply whether it’s a small business or a large business. Large business have appropriately so…. More employees. So it costs them more money to make everyone happy with their income.

Have you ever heard of a situation where people feel like they don’t deserve more pay? Of course people want more. Whether or not they get it is a different story.
 
Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Zero, because by the time I had the chance I was old enough I would never put up with a job that paid that little and forced me to deal with the general public. However, I have two family members who do/did with around 15 years each. One current, one left around 10 years ago. So, what’s the angle here? I never worked for that exact company so I can’t see them pulling the same junk other large companies do (who I have worked for)? Genuinely curious to see where this one is going.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom