On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

SpoiledBlueMilk

Well-Known Member

SpoiledBlueMilk

Well-Known Member
...you make it sound oh so noble.

It’s paying for policy. All the time...every single one.
There is nothing wrong with it and it's an extension of democracy. There is strength in numbers and people with aligned interests should be able to contribute to causes that they care about. We don't have publicly financed elections and candidates need to raise money. PACs are accountable, transparent and a great way for people participate in the process by making low dollar donations to amplify their voice in Washington. You aren't paying for policy. You're paying to increase your chance to have your voice heard in a competitive environment.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member

Pretty clear that during the central Bush years they leaned red and during Obama it was blue.
Just backs up what people are saying about the motivation for contributing.
The primary issue here is Disney’s political spending in Florida. They have enormous sway to make certain positions (anti-gay, racism, anti-science/climate denialism) no gos for contributions yet they’ve pumped millions into bigoted politicians who happen to support pro business policies over the past ten years.

Disney can have one without the other.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
There is nothing wrong with it and it's an extension of democracy. There is strength in numbers and people with aligned interests should be able to contribute to causes that they care about. We don't have publicly financed elections and candidates need to raise money. PACs are accountable, transparent and a great way for people participate in the process by making low dollar donations to amplify their voice in Washington. You aren't paying for policy. You're paying to increase your chance to have your voice heard in a competitive environment.

Yeah...I took poly sci and C-Law long ago....I’ll just do me and you do you 😎🤘🏻👍🏻
 

SpoiledBlueMilk

Well-Known Member
The primary issue here is Disney’s political spending in Florida. They have enormous sway to make certain positions (anti-gay, racism, anti-science/climate denialism) no gos for contributions yet they’ve pumped millions into bigoted politicians who happen to support pro business policies over the past ten years.

Disney can have one without the other.
Out of curiosity, which elected officials? Can you name some names?
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
The primary issue here is Disney’s political spending in Florida. They have enormous sway to make certain positions (anti-gay, racism, anti-science/climate denialism) no gos for contributions yet they’ve pumped millions into bigoted politicians who happen to support pro business policies over the past ten years.

Disney can have one without the other.
It's OK. I'm sure they feel very conflicted about it.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
The key to Bob Iger’s success: He knows how to say no.


We can attest to this, because as Disney fans, he’s said no to us hundreds of times!
Wow, sums up his tenure exactly and without apology. "If it don't make money it isn't worth it" is my takeaway and he stuck to it. Doing something because it's nice or nostalgic just isn't a consideration.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
The key to Bob Iger’s success: He knows how to say no.


We can attest to this, because as Disney fans, he’s said no to us hundreds of times!

That basically sums up why the parks have turned into what they are now. Show just isn't very important unless the investment will also create a commensurate level of revenue.

It's certainly not a bad way to run a business, but it's absolutely detrimental to what originally made Disney parks so special.
 

toonaspie

Member
Don't know if this has already been posted by I was watching a video by The Right Opinion on Ellen Degeneres and he had an old clip of an interview with Bob Iger explaining why her sitcom had to be cancelled. Warning: he's got some spicy things to say about homosexuality.

It's funny when you consider how people like Iger are willing to flip-flop at their financial convenience.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
The key to Bob Iger’s success: He knows how to say no.


We can attest to this, because as Disney fans, he’s said no to us hundreds of times!
"He was telling me not to invest in projects that would sap the resources of my company and me and not give much back.

I still have that piece of paper in my desk, occasionally pulling it out when I talk to Disney executives about what projects to pursue and where to put their energy."


You know, that honestly explains a lot...
 

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
That basically sums up why the parks have turned into what they are now. Show just isn't very important unless the investment will also create a commensurate level of revenue.

It's certainly not a bad way to run a business, but it's absolutely detrimental to what originally made Disney parks so special.

Its a short term way to operate IMO. You get better profits initially but by sacrificing your quality for higher return you run the risk of loosing the good will you’ve built up over the years & destroy your brand and reputation in the longer term. Kinda like a theme park version of the endless run of direct to video sequels of the 90s
 

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

Back
Top Bottom