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

[mmascari]

Through all the political turmoil between Florida and Disney over the last few months, not a single one of them have cancelled trips to Disney World, Disneyland or Disney Cruises. In fact, through their complaining, they booked more trips.

But, are they having fun or are they just ironic visiting?

Maybe they'll protest buy some merch too.

On the other hand, if you could convince a few (thousand) of them to cancel trips during June, that would help with the crowds (for me personally). Might even make Genie+ work better too.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

But, are they having fun or are they just ironic visiting?

Maybe they'll protest buy some merch too.

On the other hand, if you could convince a few (thousand) of them to cancel trips during June, that would help with the crowds (for me personally). Might even make Genie+ work better too.

They have fun and yuck it up with merch and the nighttime shows. They'll complain here and there but I know they are having a great time. Their biggest complaint is Genie+, not politics.

Haha, cancellations would be nice right about now though

 

[mikejs78]

But, are they having fun or are they just ironic visiting?

Maybe they'll protest buy some merch too.

On the other hand, if you could convince a few (thousand) of them to cancel trips during June, that would help with the crowds (for me personally). Might even make Genie+ work better too.

I'm going in June too..

Maybe I should try to organize a boycott for June.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I'm going in June too..

Maybe I should try to organize a boycott for June.

My advice is to start with open questions that sound accusatory and authoritative without actually proving anything. "Do you know how many hurricanes Florida had back in the 1950s and '60s compared to how many it's had since WDW opened???" "Would you spend your vacation dollars at a well-known global destination if you knew they use kitten meat in their hot dogs?"

 

[mmascari]

I'm going in June too..

Maybe I should try to organize a boycott for June.

That's the spirit!

Let's make it happen.

Maybe that Space 220 Lounge reservation will open up..............I heard from a good source they serve "hot dogs" with "questionable" contents.

 

[lentesta]

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?

I’m guessing that at a minimum, Pixar would have revolted. They had already called the corporate equivalent of “BS” with Chapek’s interim statement about working behind the scenes on inclusivity.

As I said sarcastically to a friend in Imagineering: “Is Chapek betting that the entertainment industry isn’t built on the work of gay creatives and their friends?”

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Disney is free to operate how they best see fit. And the customer is free to not purchase the product. That's literally capitalism.

And this is coming from someone who hates politics mixed with pleasure. Regardless of the "side." But that's simply how this works.

 

[kevlightyear]

This thread is a minefield, so I'm staying out of it except for this. I wish this bad take would finally die:

A for-profit primarily exists to enrich its shareholders.

Companies exist for any number of reasons. And shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Employees, suppliers, contractors, the community and, yes, customers can all benefit from and rely on a company. Thus, they all have can have opinions about how the company is run. It's up to company leadership to take in all of those opinions and act on them. Companies are not beholden to shareholder whims.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Then let the customers speak with their wallets.

See the stock change within the past year

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm just going to put this out there for the sake of this discussion (not to debate politics). I consider myself an independent and I know people who are very passionate about politics on both sides. My friends on the right even more passionate than those on the left. Through all the political turmoil between Florida and Disney over the last few months, not a single one of them have cancelled trips to Disney World, Disneyland or Disney Cruises. In fact, through their complaining, they booked more trips.

Sure this may prevent people who aren't close to the product from booking, but as many people who decided against a trip there will be someone who decides to go on a trip. It's a wash at best. Honestly, the more likely scenario is bookings are up because of how much their brand is mentioned in the media.

This is 100% true. It’s a classic Facebook argument. When the issues with players kneeling came up I knew people who swore publicly they would never go to or watch another NFL game, but these were people who weren’t fans. I knew others who were huge fans and equally unhappy with that aspect but they still watched. It’s real easy for people to claim to be done with a business, but not so easy to follow through. For Disney it’s usually the classic excuse that the wife/husband and/or kids still want to go so they are “dragged along”.

 

[flynnibus]

See the stock change within the past year

Yes, everyone has seen the market as a whole this year...

And the actual things driving TWDC's individual stock performance - Streaming and the evolving Media markets. Not social topics.

People are buying TWDC product as much as ever.

 

[peter11435]

See the stock change within the past year

Except that wasn’t caused by the companies politics

 

[GoofGoof]

I agree.

One of the things people assume is that this controversy might have a negative impact.

Without more detailed data, it’s possible that this issue is having a positive impact, with people showing support for Disney by buying more product.

Again, there’s not enough data to know at this time.

I think for the vast majority of people it has no impact either way. Even if most people have an opinion one way or the other on the underlying issue it’s not strong enough to move the needle. Anyone who “hates“ Disney over this political stance enough to refuse to buy their products probably already hated them anyway. I agree there is no way of telling for sure. Disney took a general stance favored by the majority of major companies in the country, but they did come out even stronger than most. Is that nuance enough to make a difference for people? Based on the reaction from the other side to Disney not coming out strong enough on condemning this bill I’d say they had a lot to lose staying silent. It seems unlikely they could have done nothing and made out better.

 

[Brian]

This thread is a minefield, so I'm staying out of it except for this. I wish this bad take would finally die:

Companies exist for any number of reasons. And shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Employees, suppliers, contractors, the community and, yes, customers can all benefit from and rely on a company. Thus, they all have can have opinions about how the company is run. It's up to company leadership to take in all of those opinions and act on them. Companies are not beholden to shareholder whims.

Considering that it's the shareholders who are the ones who fund much of a publicly traded company's operation, and accept the risk by investing their own money, I'd say that the demands of the "stakeholders" can buzz off.

If Disney had made the right choice to ignore the screeching of the "stakeholders" in this situation, they would have avoided this gigantic PR disaster, and RCID would not have been touched. Now, they have managed to alienate large swaths of the political spectrum, left and right, and it's not the "stakeholders" who might suffer, it's the shareholders.

 

[Vacationeer]

See the stock change within the past year

Investor is different than consumer.

How much of the stock change is due to customer wallets reacting to issues around this whole RCID chapter? If it was a major driving factor might we see something like Netflix stock reacting after their Hail Mary pass in the opposite direction.

 

[flynnibus]

Considering that it's the shareholders who are the ones who fund much of a publicly traded company's operation, and accept the risk by investing their own money, I'd say that the demands of the "stakeholders" can buzz off.

uhh.. Disney is not 'fund[ing] much of...' their operation by issuing more stock. The majority of its operating funds come from its actual business operation.

 

[Brian]

uhh.. Disney is not 'fund[ing] much of...' their operation by issuing more stock. The majority of its operating funds come from its actual business operation.

I didn't say Disney. I was referring to publicly traded companies overall.

Since my post started this…

All stakeholders contribute to the success of a company and all should be listened to and respected.

However, getting myself into hot water again, the primary (not only) purchase of a for-profit company is focused on shareholder value.

Still, you don’t enrich shareholders by enraging stakeholders. You cannot simply tell stakeholders to “buzz off”.

This matters for Disney and RCID because Disney leadership (i.e. Chapek) must juggle a lot of conflicting demands. And when it’s not juggled perfectly, they end up in the situation that they currently are in.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Specifically, I'd say "buzz off" when the "stakeholders" are trying to goad you, as an executive of a publicly traded company, into making poor business decisions, as they did with Disney.

 

[peter11435]

Considering that it's the shareholders who are the ones who fund much of a publicly traded company's operation,

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Can't believe this needs to be said but Disney's stock is down due to macro factors along with investors reevaluating the significance/volatility of their streaming business. The stock was already overdone due to Disney+. Even if Disney completely lost RCID, the financial loss wouldn't be enough to move the stock price even 50 cents.

 

[Anteater]

Can't believe this needs to be said but Disney's stock is down due to macro factors along with investors reevaluating the significance/volatility of their streaming business. The stock was already overdone due to Disney+. Even if Disney completely lost RCID, the financial loss wouldn't be enough to move the stock price even 50 cents.

yeah, even with the DOW down 4% for the year, Disney is off by nearly 30%. I think reality is sinking in on streaming services and the cows are headed home. Only consolation is they're not Netflix!