News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[GoofGoof]

I'm confused. If the lawyers can't win why do the residents hire them? The lawyers don't work for free.

The lawyer who filed the original and this amended lawsuit is running for political office. I would be pretty surprised if the plaintiffs are paying him a dime.

 

[flynnibus]

If it was my hard earned money I would not be paying a lawyer to argue a case where I know he can't win on my behalf.

You assume the plaintiffs are the ones motivated to have the case...

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm confused. If the lawyers can't win why do the residents hire them? The lawyers don't work for free.

A lot of plaintiffs' attorneys work on a contingent fee basis, so the people "hiring" them aren't really paying anything.

I doubt this specific case is contingent fee, but that still doesn't mean he's charging them. He could have personal reasons for filing the case and simply needed to recruit plaintiffs for standing.

 

[GhostHost1000]

This is deflecting the blame. You may not like Disney’s stance (I personally do), but they have a legally protected right to hold it and shouldn’t face politically motivated retaliation for doing so.

Regardless this could have all been avoided. Disney should focus on their business objectives. There is no need to take a public stance one way or the other. Many Fortune 500 companies leaning left or right should take a lesson from this.

 

[JoeCamel]

Regardless this could have all been avoided. Disney should focus on their business objectives. There is no need to take a public stance one way or the other. Many Fortune 500 companies leaning left or right should take a lesson from this.

That was the attitude before Citizens United but the Supremes decided differently. A corporate leader needs to be all encompassing in matters of community as it is the fabric of their workforce. They live or die by their stance but if it is raw dollars that are the only motivation then life just isn't worth it, it isn't life

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Hey, it sure must have worked, because Chapek has been quiet as a church mouse. Sure seems to have stopped the political rhetoric in its tracks. Chapek was all smiles and love on the most recent stockholder conference call, and then back into hiding.

Why is it important to keep someone’s constitutional right quiet? Are we living in a alternate reality now and we arent in the USA anymore? I just can’t understand the point. If it doesn’t align with your beliefs then it’s wrong?
Everyone should shut up with everything, thats the way to go.

 

[peter11435]

Sure seems to have stopped the political rhetoric in its tracks.

Not exactly something to celebrate. That’s kind of the problem with Florida’s actions here

 

[GhostHost1000]

That was the attitude before Citizens United but the Supremes decided differently. A corporate leader needs to be all encompassing in matters of community as it is the fabric of their workforce. They live or die by their stance but if it is raw dollars that are the only motivation then life just isn't worth it, it isn't life

I get it…but they don’t need a public stance. I guarantee Disney’s stock would be much higher with them just keeping quiet (regardless of their stance)

 

[mikejs78]

I get it…but they don’t need a public stance. I guarantee Disney’s stock would be much higher with them just keeping quiet (regardless of their stance)

I don't think their current stock woes have much to do with this.

But you're wrong - they would have had an employee revolt on their hands had they not spoken out. Bob's mistake wasn't speaking out - it was doing so clumsily and only after there was a threat of revolt.

Iger spoke out on politics many times without this sort of backlash. It's perfectly consistent to say that Chapek did a horrible job at messaging and at the same time recognize that it is Disney's constitutionally protected right to do so

We can debate the wisdom of Chapek speaking out.

 

[peter11435]

I don't think their current stock woes have much to do with this.

Agreed

 

[Lilofan]

I don't think their current stock woes have much to do with this.

But you're wrong - they would have had an employee revolt on their hands had they not spoken out. Bob's mistake wasn't speaking out - it was doing so clumsily and only after there was a threat of revolt.

Iger spoke out on politics many times without this sort of backlash. It's perfectly consistent to say that Chapek did a horrible job at messaging and at the same time recognize that it is Disney's constitutionally protected right to do so and that the aggressor here is DeSantis and the FL legislature.

We can debate the wisdom of Chapek speaking out. But the outrage here needs to be at DeSantis and the FL legislature for their authoritarian tactics of working to suppress political speech.

How some may recall, there were a lot of critics when Chapek got the top job. Rewind years ago , when the hated Eisner basically hand picked Iger to get the top job and the critics came out in force saying that was a mistake. Both came into the roles not fully welcomed but Iger never walked into the challenges that Chapek walked into. Iger did have that entertainment background charm in my opinion that others do not have. In regards to messaging , Chapek's top PR guy abruptly " resigned" after less than 4 months on the job.

 

[mikejs78]

Disney is a great example of how weighing into politics can potentially damage a company.

A for-profit primarily exists to enrich its shareholders.

For most companies, customers run across the entire political spectrum. Taking stances on political issues risks alienating a percentage of paying customers, hurting overall sales and adversely impacting shareholders.

If shareholders say, “we don’t care about the money, this issue is more important to us then some lost sales,” then companies should actively pursue goals preferred by shareholders.

Chapek’s primary job is to enrich shareholders. But this does not mean Disney shareholders don’t have other objectives that are important to them.

Did Chapek engage with a majority of shareholders before taking his public stance or was his pushed into this stance solely by his employees? I genuinely don’t know - Chapek or his team might have discussed this issue privately with major shareholders before issuing the statements that he did. For all I know, a majority of shareholders back Chapek 100% on this.

Remember, the First Amendment protects you from the government. It does not protect you from other consequences of your words.

As Michael Jordan famously said, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

Many of us think this is an easy First Amendment victory for Disney, if they decide to go that path.

But, win or lose, what financial impact will this have on Disney? Do Disney shareholders think it was wise for Chapek to weigh in on this?

As has been shown, this has not appeared to affect attendance at the parks or the box office of Disney movies like Dr. Strange. People significantly overestimate the financial impact of companies engaging in politics.

 

[GhostHost1000]

I don't think their current stock woes have much to do with this.

But you're wrong - they would have had an employee revolt on their hands had they not spoken out. Bob's mistake wasn't speaking out - it was doing so clumsily and only after there was a threat of revolt.

Iger spoke out on politics many times without this sort of backlash. It's perfectly consistent to say that Chapek did a horrible job at messaging and at the same time recognize that it is Disney's constitutionally protected right to do so and that the aggressor here is DeSantis and the FL legislature.

We can debate the wisdom of Chapek speaking out. But the outrage here needs to be at DeSantis and the FL legislature for their authoritarian tactics of working to suppress political speech.

There should be outrage on both sides. As a Disney fan, they have looked foolish in lots of things over the last few years.

It’s dumb on both sides. They all need to stay in their lanes regardless of any believes or disagreements. Taking a stance one way or the other publicly alienates half of your customers in todays political climate which is not smart business.

 

[mikejs78]

Certainly, Dr Strange is performing well but not as well as Spider-Man.

Dr. strange was never going to perform as well as Spider man. Regardless of the quality of the film, in the hierarchy of MCU heroes, Spider Man has a lot more general popularity and name recognition than Dr Strange does. Saying it's performing well is an understatement - it's one of the highest grossing movies of all time So far..

There’s been some discussion of cancellations at the theme parks. For example, rooms that previously were unable have become available.

That always happens. If you watch the website rooms will pop up. But as of right now, it's pretty impossible to find anything for the during October through December. I'm not seeing evidence of these cancellations, because everything is booked.

 

[Heppenheimer]

If we do see a lot of cancellations in the near future, I think the biggest culprit would likely be the cost of fuel, rather than political issues that most guests probably neither care about nor are aware of.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

If we do see a lot of cancellations in the near future, I think the biggest culprit would likely be the cost of fuel, rather than political issues that most guests probably neither care about nor are aware of.

Exactly right, unless DVC members dont care about Disney’s views. Try finding a room , for even one night from September through December is virtually impossible. We tried to switch resorts for just 2 nights in a row anywhere during our 2 week stay and nada.
We know boycotts dont work for anything. Its been proven time and again. When people say your going to alienate half the customers, its not true. They may disagree with your stance but they sre going to Disney. Try telling your little ones your not going because you disagree with Disney’s position on something, see how that goes. The parks will continue to be packed and nothing short of 300 dollar a day tickets will stop that i dont think.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Disney is a great example of how weighing into politics can potentially damage a company.

A for-profit primarily exists to enrich its shareholders.

For most companies, customers run across the entire political spectrum. Taking stances on political issues risks alienating a percentage of paying customers, hurting overall sales and adversely impacting shareholders.

If shareholders say, “we don’t care about the money, this issue is more important to us then some lost sales,” then companies should actively pursue goals preferred by shareholders.

Chapek’s primary job is to enrich shareholders. But this does not mean Disney shareholders don’t have other objectives that are important to them.

Did Chapek engage with a majority of shareholders before taking his public stance or was his pushed into this stance solely by his employees? I genuinely don’t know - Chapek or his team might have discussed this issue privately with major shareholders before issuing the statements that he did. For all I know, a majority of shareholders back Chapek 100% on this.

Remember, the First Amendment protects you from the government. It does not protect you from other consequences of your words.

As Michael Jordan famously said, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

Many of us think this is an easy First Amendment victory for Disney, if they decide to go that path.

But, win or lose, what financial impact will this have on Disney? Do Disney shareholders think it was wise for Chapek to weigh in on this?

Zero financial impact. I understand what your saying but Disney is a beast and short of having the characters in the parks cursing at guests i dont see them losing money.

Disney Earnings Call Reveals A Strong Year Ahead For Disney+ And Parks

The Walt Disney Company’s revenue grew 23% in the second fiscal quarter of 2022, the entertainment giant revealed in an earnings call.

www.forbes.com

You cant stop the mouse.

 

[el_super]

If we were to see an impact on their numbers, it would be in Q3.

Disney would be able to see a downturn earlier and would know today if there were any downsides to pushing their "politics," but considering that they double downed yesterday with the news on Pride month, it seems unlikely that they see any impact and/or see a greater risk in not continuing down this path.

 

[Brian]

Disney would be able to see a downturn earlier and would know today if there were any downsides to pushing their "politics," but considering that they double downed yesterday with the news on Pride month, it seems unlikely that they see any impact and/or see a greater risk in not continuing down this path.

I'm not necessarily saying that Disney's numbers will be hurt in sufficient amounts to justify a course correction. That said, their reputation has been shown to have taken a hit in several public opinion polls. Whether that translates into a noteworthy financial impact, only time will tell, and Q3 should give us an answer.

 

[mmascari]

Iger spoke out on politics many times without this sort of backlash. It's perfectly consistent to say that Chapek did a horrible job at messaging and at the same time recognize that it is Disney's constitutionally protected right to do so

It wasn't the same world before either. The norms that people followed were different in the past.

I get it…but they don’t need a public stance. I guarantee Disney’s stock would be much higher with them just keeping quiet (regardless of their stance)

Disney is a great example of how weighing into politics can potentially damage a company.

A for-profit primarily exists to enrich its shareholders.

For most companies, customers run across the entire political spectrum. Taking stances on political issues risks alienating a percentage of paying customers, hurting overall sales and adversely impacting shareholders.

This entire thread would not exist if it was just a customer (or stockholder) reaction to Disney statements. Literally nobody in this thread would have any issue with any customer or stockholder reactions based on Disney's statements. All of that is expected, and exactly what should happen.

Even a politician could make speeches and suggest customer and stockholder actions. That would be fine too. Don't like what Disney says; campaign, organize, and promote a Disney boycott. Go for it. (PLEASE go for it. Before my trip, if you could reduce the crowds, that would be nice.)

This changes when it's the power of the government that's used based on what Disney said. Government actions are distinct and different and specifically called out in the US as not allowed based on speech.

If Disney announced tomorrow that it would give 1% of every new ticket sale to the governors opponent:
- The governor could yell and scream and campaign and suggest people not buy tickets.
- Individuals could yell and scream and campaign and suggest people not buy tickets, and not buy tickets themselves.
- Stockholder could yell and scream and campaign and suggest people not buy tickets, and sell off stock driving the price down.

All of that would be completely normal reactions and part of the "speech has consequences".

However, the governor and the legislator couldn't use the force of government to stop Disney from selling tickets because of the announcement. That would be a specifically called out consequence of speech that is not allowed.