"Greatest Act of Brand Suicide" - How Disney Lost $200 Billion

[video=youtube;DFYMbxtfhx0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFYMbxtfhx0[/video]

We blame "woke", but in a lot of ways these films budgets ballooned out of control because executives were streaming. They did the same thing the crypo guy did where they took investors money moved it into the films and then paid themselves to put the films on streaming.

[QUOTE=John8204;14857122]We blame "woke", but in a lot of ways these films budgets ballooned out of control because executives were streaming. They did the same thing the crypo guy did where they took investors money moved it into the films and then paid themselves to put the films on streaming.[/QUOTE]

Whatever the reason is, the films have huge budgets and they're all bombing. The stock itself is dwindling because they are hemorrhaging money and people have lost faith in the Disney brand.

I don't know if going woke was by accident or by design, but wow what a monumental collapse. A shining example of the woke mind virus destroying everything it touches.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14857135]Whatever the reason is, the films have huge budgets and they're all bombing. The stock itself is dwindling because they are hemorrhaging money and people have lost faith in the Disney brand.

I don't know if going woke was by accident or by design, but wow what a monumental collapse. A shining example of the woke mind virus destroying everything it touches.[/QUOTE]

I think it was carny stuff...milk the investors by doing things that look good during quarterly reports and in press releases. You can't attack these projects...they star women of color what are you racist or something. And then screw over all the people who work on the film, far out the cheapest CGI possible and use your accountants to put the money in the producers pockets.

For example I'm assuming you saw the Movie "Air"...that film cost about 100 million dollars. That film cost maybe 1-5 million to produce. It has the production cost of a TV show pilot.

[QUOTE=John8204;14857139]I think it was carny stuff...milk the investors by doing things that look good during quarterly reports and in press releases. You can't attack these projects...they star women of color what are you racist or something. And then screw over all the people who work on the film, far out the cheapest CGI possible and use your accountants to put the money in the producers pockets.

For example I'm assuming you saw the Movie "Air"...that film cost about 100 million dollars. That film cost maybe 1-5 million to produce. It has the production cost of a TV show pilot.[/QUOTE]

How much did it cost to land all those high profile actors though? Matt Damon? Ben Affleck? Viola Davis? Jason Bateman? Chris Tucker? Can you really make this same movie for 5 million? And how much can you spend to promote it?

Disney was always going to struggle with the inevitable change in social demographics.

Their bread and butter as a brand was to be an entertainment staple for middle class families. From the 50s to the 90s that was a great strategy.

Today, the middle class is proportionally shrinking, and those who are middle class are having fewer children.

Same reason Toys R Us went out of business, and family restaurants like Applebees and Fridays have struggled. The market has simply evolved away from for what they offer.

Disney going woke isnt really what caused their predicament. They went woke as a way to try to mitigate the effects of demographic change on their business. It just turns out the woke audience is unable or unwilling to support them financially, while their conventional audience is inevitably shrinking.

They just dont have a viable market right now for what Disney traditionally offers.

They've also made colossal blunders by purchasing companies like LucasFilms and Marvel. So much money to acquire these companies and then they bring in their own writers to create content who have no idea of the lore and are not loyal to the mythos.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14857141]How much did it cost to land all those high profile actors though? Matt Damon? Ben Affleck? Viola Davis? Jason Bateman? Chris Tucker? Can you really make this same movie for 5 million? And how much can you spend to promote it?[/QUOTE]

That doesn't include the marketing budget..but the movie had 9 producers
[QUOTE]
David Ellison
Jesse Sisgold
Jon Weinbach
Ben Affleck
Matt Damon
Madison Ainley
Jeff Robinov
Peter Guber
Jason Michael Berman[/QUOTE]

The term is "above line" and "below line" how much of this money is going to the "above line people" and how much is going to the production of the film. A lot of the actors in that film I can tell you for a fact worked maybe a week.

Woke earned Barbie over a billion dollars in world wide box office alone.

Poopsie never mentions this.

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;14857158]Disney was always going to struggle with the inevitable change in social demographics.

Their bread and butter as a brand was to be an entertainment staple for middle class families. From the 50s to the 90s that was a great strategy.

Today, the middle class is proportionally shrinking, and those who are middle class are having fewer children.

Same reason Toys R Us went out of business, and family restaurants like Applebees and Fridays have struggled. The market has simply evolved away from for what they offer.

[B]Disney going woke isnt really what caused their predicament. They went woke as a way to try to mitigate the effects of demographic change on their business. It just turns out the woke audience is unable or unwilling to support them financially, while their conventional audience is inevitably shrinking. [/B]

They just dont have a viable market right now for what Disney traditionally offers.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure about that? Just a few short years ago they were an unstoppable juggernaut. Star Wars movies and Marvel movies were making billions on the regular. The audience was there. There was definitely a demand.

If the movies were good they would still be printing money.

edit:

wrong thread

[QUOTE=Lakers Legend#32;14857233]Woke earned Barbie over a billion dollars in world wide box office alone.

Poopsie never mentions this.[/QUOTE]

It was never advertised as a woke movie..... it was a kids movie that appealed to grown ups who had played with those dolls.

it was a bait and switch tactic.

[QUOTE=tomtucker;14857800]It was never advertised as a woke movie..... it was a kids movie that appealed to grown ups who had played with those dolls.

it was a bait and switch tactic.[/QUOTE]

Even if people are gonna claim wokeness as the reason why Barbie made so much money... between Marvel, Star Wars, and the recent Indiana Jones disaster - disney alone has lost far more than a billion on their recent woke disasters

Disney will be just fine, $200Billion company. Meanwhile Twitter is literally going broke. :oldlol:

Greatest act of brand suicide was rebranding to X.

[QUOTE=Off the Court;14858366]Disney will be just fine, $200Billion company. Meanwhile Twitter is literally going broke. :oldlol:

Greatest act of brand suicide was rebranding to X.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://media.tenor.com/sYcM4oK3ZuwAAAAM/get-a-load-of-this-guy.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Lakers Legend#32;14857233]Woke earned Barbie over a billion dollars in world wide box office alone.

Poopsie never mentions this.[/QUOTE]

The ironic part was that Barbie made quite a bit more money in red states than blue states :oldlol:

Republicans from conservative states were crying the most and the loudest, and they spent the most money on it :roll:

[QUOTE=Off the Court;14858366]Disney will be just fine, $200Billion company. Meanwhile Twitter is literally going broke. :oldlol:

Greatest act of brand suicide was rebranding to X.[/QUOTE]

lol the owner of twitter is worth more than disneys entire market cap

musk wants to turn twitter into wechat, he doesnt give a shit about advertisers

Elon will regret ever buying Twitter. How long before he tries to sell it? Just wait until the losses start piling up. Without advertisers, it's a losing business.

After Avengers end game that haven't made a good movie.

[QUOTE=bladefd;14858525]Elon will regret ever buying Twitter. How long before he tries to sell it? Just wait until the losses start piling up. Without advertisers, it's a losing business.[/QUOTE]

Read the post before yours, dingbat.

Rebranding to "X" was literally brand suicide.

The whole "who cares because Elon is Rich!" take doesn't matter, you could say that same thing about every wealthy CEO. If Disney actually did go under Bob and all the other Disney execs would still be wealthy af.

[QUOTE=bladefd;14858525]Elon will regret ever buying Twitter. How long before he tries to sell it? Just wait until the losses start piling up. Without advertisers, it's a losing business.[/QUOTE]

Maybe he should start charging attention whores $10 rather than $8.

[QUOTE=bladefd;14858525]Elon will regret ever buying Twitter. How long before he tries to sell it? Just wait until the losses start piling up. Without advertisers, it's a losing business.[/QUOTE]

Twitter was not a strong business before he bought it, which is why the shareholders took his offer.

Musk ostensibly bought it to enable at least one mainstream social media platform to operate without being censored into oblivion by corporate PR teams.

You cant have a functional country that operates exclusively as left or right wing. It requires a balance. The young masses are very woke which puts huge pressure on publicly held, profit driven social media companies to pander in that direction.

Musk basically made a personal investment to allow the other side of the conversation to exist.

It's a bigger picture thing than his angry NPC detractors understand. It clearly was never a decision motivated by profit, but they insist on framing it as one so they have a "gotcha!"

That's the biggest victory a lot of people might have in... months. A strawman criticism of Elon Musk on a dead OTC forum that he's never gonna see.

That gives some people a temporarily relief from their pain.

So be it.

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing;14858551]Read the post before yours, dingbat.[/QUOTE]

I did. Musk is a businessman, and no businessman is in it to lose money. If Musk didn't care about money, he could singlehandedly end world hunger and become a saint :oldlol:

Wechat has a maaaaaasive base. Twitter is never reaching those numbers. 1.67 billion active users vs Twitter's 237 million. Wechat revenue is $17 billion vs Twitter's 1.9 billion. Horrendous example.

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;14858584]Twitter was not a strong business before he bought it, which is why the shareholders took his offer.

Musk ostensibly bought it to enable at least one mainstream social media platform to operate without being censored into oblivion by corporate PR teams.

You cant have a functional country that operates exclusively as left or right wing. It requires a balance. The young masses are very woke which puts huge pressure on publicly held, profit driven social media companies to pander in that direction.

Musk basically made a personal investment to allow the other side of the conversation to exist.

It's a bigger picture thing than his angry NPC detractors understand. It clearly was never a decision motivated by profit, but they insist on framing it as one so they have a "gotcha!"

That's the biggest victory a lot of people might have in... months. A strawman criticism of Elon Musk on a dead OTC forum that he's never gonna see.

That gives some people a temporarily relief from their pain.

So be it.[/QUOTE]

Twitter has been losing its base since Elon bought it. He didn't buy Twitter to lose money. Nobody buys a business intending to lose money. He could have easily started something like Bluesky which is decentralized and actually the "balance" you talk about. But he didn't do that. He also tried to back out of the Twitter deal if you recall. Sorry but I don't buy your argument.

Elontards coming out the woodwork...

[QUOTE=bladefd;14858604]Twitter has been losing its base since Elon bought it. He didn't buy Twitter to lose money. Nobody buys a business intending to lose money. He could have easily started something like Bluesky which is decentralized and actually the "balance" you talk about. But he didn't do that. He also tried to back out of the Twitter deal if you recall. Sorry but I don't buy your argument.[/QUOTE]


If it was merely a matter of thinking Twitter could be more profitable with a different approach, he could have bought up a huge block of shares and put proxies on the board to wield his influence on the company's direction. This is what Carl Icahn does. Activist investing. It's a purely profit driven investment model. And it doesnt requiring privatizing a company.

Musk is not doing that. His aim, whether you agree with it or not, is to shape society as a whole, which [I]by law[/I] cannot be the primary purpose of a public company. Public companies have fiduciary duty to prioritize profits. With a private company you can do as you please.

Anyway, think whatever you want. We're all blessed to have that right.

[QUOTE=bladefd;14858604]Twitter has been losing its base since Elon bought it. He didn't buy Twitter to lose money. Nobody buys a business intending to lose money. He could have easily started something like Bluesky which is decentralized and actually the "balance" you talk about. But he didn't do that. He also tried to back out of the Twitter deal if you recall. Sorry but I don't buy your argument.[/QUOTE]

Ah I see.

"If you don't like Twitter why not create your own?"

Conservatives tried to leave Twitter and get their own social media platform off the ground in the form of Parler. The powers that be labelled it a right wing hate platform, sabotaged them every step of the way and wouldn't let them get off the ground.

Now that Musk owns Twitter it is the closest thing we have to a true free speech platform. Don't like it? Go post on bluesky with all your other woke weirdo friends. Go create your own Twitter.

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;14858584]Twitter was not a strong business before he bought it, which is why the shareholders took his offer.

Musk ostensibly bought it to enable at least one mainstream social media platform to operate without being censored into oblivion by corporate PR teams.

You cant have a functional country that operates exclusively as left or right wing. It requires a balance. The young masses are very woke which puts huge pressure on publicly held, profit driven social media companies to pander in that direction.

Musk basically made a personal investment to allow the other side of the conversation to exist.

It's a bigger picture thing than his angry NPC detractors understand. It clearly was never a decision motivated by profit, but they insist on framing it as one so they have a "gotcha!"

That's the biggest victory a lot of people might have in... months. A strawman criticism of Elon Musk on a dead OTC forum that he's never gonna see.

That gives some people a temporarily relief from their pain.

So be it.[/QUOTE]

Can't blame the left for wanting that strawman "gotcha" when they have had the exact same "go woke go broke" gotcha thrown at them repeatedly. That's what this thread is.

If Twitter does go under its not really a strawman either as Musk's efforts will have failed.

Also the idea that we are NOW suddenly having conversations on Twitter that we couldn't have before its a complete fallacy in itself. Every right wing take in existence was readily found on Twitter pre-Musk.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14858641]Can't blame the left for wanting that strawman "gotcha" when they have had the exact same "go woke go broke" gotcha thrown at them repeatedly. That's what this thread is.

If Twitter does go under its not really a strawman either as Musk's efforts will have failed.

Also the idea that we are NOW suddenly having conversations on Twitter that we couldn't have before its a complete fallacy in itself. Every right wing take in existence was readily found on Twitter pre-Musk.[/QUOTE]

If you don't know what you're talking about, why even bother? Because you're just flat out wrong. You couldn't just say what you wanted on Twitter before Musk.

I experienced it in real time. You couldn't even have a debate with someone on the left because they had the power to report you over any conceived micro aggression, even if you were just making a factual statement. Pretty much any group that wasn't white, straight or male was deemed a protected class that you weren't allowed to mock or question.

Doctors were being suspended from Twitter for "vaccine misinformation". The NY Post was banned for "russian disinformation" and for daring to spread the Hunter Biden laptop story. The president of the United States was banned from Twitter for "trying to overthrow the election".

So yea, you don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14858641]Can't blame the left for wanting that strawman "gotcha" when they have had the exact same "go woke go broke" gotcha thrown at them repeatedly. That's what this thread is.

If Twitter does go under its not really a strawman either as Musk's efforts will have failed.

Also the idea that we are NOW suddenly having conversations on Twitter that we couldn't have before its a complete fallacy in itself. [B]Every right wing take in existence was readily found on Twitter pre-Musk.[/B][/QUOTE]


They banned the President. So I dont think your statement is correct.

Moreover, it was getting progressively worse, so it would be reasonable to assume even more flagrant examples would be happening now than were previously.

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;14858623]If it was merely a matter of thinking Twitter could be more profitable with a different approach, he could have bought up a huge block of shares and put proxies on the board to wield his influence on the company's direction. This is what Carl Icahn does. Activist investing. It's a purely profit driven investment model. And it doesnt requiring privatizing a company.

Musk is not doing that. His aim, whether you agree with it or not, is to shape society as a whole, which [I]by law[/I] cannot be the primary purpose of a public company. Public companies have fiduciary duty to prioritize profits. With a private company you can do as you please.

Anyway, think whatever you want. We're all blessed to have that right.[/QUOTE]

Twitter is not even decentralized. If his goal was to improve society with freedom of speech, he could have decentralized Twitter. Why did he also implement the change to charge money for people to have verified accounts if it's to not monetize twitter?

[QUOTE=bladefd;14858651]Twitter is not even decentralized. If his goal was to improve society with freedom of speech, he could have decentralized Twitter. [B]Why did he also implement the change to charge money for people to have verified accounts if it's to not monetize twitter?[/B][/QUOTE]


I think that’s mainly a way to filter out bots, no? Cant spam a bunch of robo accounts without payin a hefty toll.

And obviously if there are ways to monetize the business which dont negate his primary aim, theres no reason not to do it. Im not saying he’ll ignore chances to generate revenue, I’m saying max revenue is not a mandate, as it would be if the company were owned publicly.

As far as decentralizing, I dont think he’s looking to turn twitter into the dark web. I think he just wants a conventional social media platform where people can express social/political ideas that might otherwise be censored at the behest of profit driven sponsors.

If someone wants to say “well its not free speech now either, he banned someone who called for him to be murdered!” or whatever random example… thats fine. Im not saying it is, or purports to be a completely unfiltered space for dubious, borderline speech.

Im saying it’s just his vision of preventing a significant portion of the social/political spectrum from being pushed off mainstream social media. I believe that was the entire crux of his purchase. I dont think he wants the public pendulum to swing too far in one direction.

[video=youtube;Sa52TWoUFCk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa52TWoUFCk[/video]

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;14858645]They banned the President. So I dont think your statement is correct.

Moreover, it was getting progressively worse, so it would be reasonable to assume even more flagrant examples would be happening now than were previously.[/QUOTE]

Under that train of thought Trump was actually very active on Twitter pre-Musk and he is not now. So pre-Musk was even more right wing.

The banning of certain individuals only brought more attention and placed a spotlight on their cause.

The idea that humanity is now enlightened on subjects because of Musk's "free speech" is something many pretend is real but in reality it isn't. In reality the internet is a very huge place where anyone can find anything.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14858699]Under that train of thought Trump was actually very active on Twitter pre-Musk and he is not now. So pre-Musk was even more right wing.

The banning of certain individuals only brought more attention and placed a spotlight on their cause.

The idea that humanity is now enlightened on subjects because of Musk's "free speech" is something many pretend is real but in reality it isn't. In reality the internet is a very huge place where anyone can find anything.[/QUOTE]

Oh god you're still going?

Trump isn't active on Twitter now because he launched his own (failing) platform in Truth Social and is obligated to post there. It's not like he's staying off Twitter post-Musk because he doesn't feel welcome.

Essentially what you're arguing here is that "censorship is good actually" because it turns people into online martyrs, which of course is something only a big brained genius would say. Evil acts don't stop being evil acts just because they compel good people to rise up.

Your argument is so laughably weak and shallow that I'm certain you don't even believe it. I highly, highly doubt you would be making these same arguments if it were left wing people being silenced and banned for spouting left wing views. Or if left wing media outlets were being suspended simply for reporting factual news about certain politicians.

Musk's takeover of Twitter is [B]clearly[/B] and [B]obviously[/B] a net benefit for anyone that values a free and fair press. You're just THAT desperate to find any little thing you can to pick apart, no matter how ridiculous or flat out false.

You're upset that Elon is helping Trump, and you hate Donald Trump THAT much.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14858704]Oh god you're still going?

Trump isn't active on Twitter now because he launched his own (failing) platform in Truth Social and is obligated to post there. It's not like he's staying off Twitter post-Musk because he doesn't feel welcome.

Essentially what you're arguing here is that "censorship is good actually" because it turns people into online martyrs, which of course is something only a big brained genius would say. Evil acts don't stop being evil acts just because they compel good people to rise up.

Your argument is so laughably weak and shallow that I'm certain you don't even believe it. I highly, highly doubt you would be making these same arguments if it were left wing people being silenced and banned for spouting left wing views. Or if left wing media outlets were being suspended simply for reporting factual news about certain politicians.

Musk's takeover of Twitter is [B]clearly[/B] and [B]obviously[/B] a net benefit for anyone that values a free and fair press. You're just THAT desperate to find any little thing you can to pick apart, no matter how ridiculous or flat out false.

You're upset that Elon is helping Trump, and you hate Donald Trump THAT much.[/QUOTE]
No where anywhere did I say "censorship is good". That's a strawman.

I'm saying that the internet is a huge place where anyone can find anything. The fact that Trump created his own Twitter to reach his followers proves my point. Twitter didn't silence Trump, if you want to know Trump's thoughts they are readily available.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14858707]No where anywhere did I say "censorship is good". That's a strawman.

I'm saying that the internet is a huge place where anyone can find anything. The fact that Trump created his own Twitter to reach his followers proves my point. Twitter didn't silence Trump, if you want to know Trump's thoughts they are readily available.[/QUOTE]

Truth Social doesn't have anywhere near the reach that Twitter has. In fact he relies on his followers and cronies sharing his stuff on Twitter, otherwise he couldn't get the word out.

It's not a good sign for the country when dissenting voices have no choice but to resort to indie and underground platforms with a fraction of the reach because they aren't allowed to speak on mainstream ones. That was the climate on social media pre-Musk. If you were considered right wing or if you had opinions that undermined the government establishment, you were denied reach. Either you were outright banned or you were being shadow banned behind the scenes.

You implied that Musk's purchase of Twitter didn't really have much of an impact on the public discourse. You couldn't be more wrong. It has, and it's why he's made so many enemies.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14858708]Truth Social doesn't have anywhere near the reach that Twitter has. In fact he relies on his followers and cronies sharing his stuff on Twitter, otherwise he couldn't get the word out.

It's not a good sign for the country when dissenting voices have no choice but to resort to indie and underground platforms with a fraction of the reach because they aren't allowed to speak on mainstream ones. That was the climate on social media pre-Musk. If you were considered right wing or if you had opinions that undermined the government establishment, you were denied reach. Either you were outright banned or you were being shadow banned behind the scenes.

You implied that Musk's purchase of Twitter didn't really have much of an impact on the public discourse. You couldn't be more wrong. It has, and it's why he's made so many enemies.[/QUOTE]

Those who honestly and truthfully desire to know Trump's thoughts are on Truth Social reading them.

The pretenders who just want to whine and complain about free speech and "own libs" are on X doing that now. There are more people consumed in the tribalism of it all than those who actually desire Trump's thoughts. I suspect you are just that. You don't care what Trump is typing up right now, you just want to cry and complain because you have nothing better to do today. That's most of society in a nutshell.