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

[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.