24
votes
Disney activist investor Blackwells floats idea of splitting up company as it officially launches proxy fight, nominates three to board
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Jill Goldsmith
- Published
- Feb 6 2024
- Word count
- 376 words
Breaking up Disney is a good idea, BUT I 100% don't trust those at the top to decide how to break it up in the best interests of the consumers/fans.
Dropping ESPN is probably the best start they can make (Suck it, Iger), along with maybe ABC (even though that makes me sad) and NatGeo.
Marvel and Star Wars are too big of moneymakers to get rid of, and the parks are core to the company along with WDAS and Pixar at this point.
That leaves its latest acquisition, 20th Century Fox. It might be good to get rid of it if they can, even if it's at a loss to the company, just because they're spread too thin.
As a Disney Adult, I don't pretend to know everything going on, but I can see where Disney is getting stuck, and it's in its more "grown up" content.
If they sell 20th Century Studios but retain the relevant Marvel IP (X-Men, Fantastic Four) then I think they still come out on top.
I think you're right. They need to retain the relevant IP to bring Marvel back together again.
Let the parks (and resorts, vacation club, cruise line, etc.) be their own thing. It's probably a naive hope but maybe that would somehow help them return what they were in the glory days of my childhood, so my kids can experience what I did when I was their age.
Walt would not have wanted the parks to be their own thing. I don't think having the parks be under another umbrella is a wise move, since it would introduce reasons to make changes that aren't purely Disney.
ESPN is more profitable than the parks. Dropping it doesn't make sense.
But it's not really part of the Disney Brand. It's under the umbrella like NatGeo is. The only reason Disney owns it is because of Iger's vanity.
Just look at the numbers. It's not about vanity, it's about profitability.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/espn-revenue-profits-revealed-first-time-1235622182/
They could always spin ESPN off into its own company and hold onto something like 40% of the stock. It's not like Disney magic is what makes ESPN profitable.
But generally I agree that selling ESPN doesn't really make business sense.
I don't disagree with you about the numbers, but from a brand standpoint, Iger purchased ESPN as a vanity project. Sports don't fit in to the Disney Brand.
And if it's so profitable, they can sell it for a pretty penny. They still have Star Wars and Marvel as massive moneymakers.
ABC doesn't fit into the Disney brand but it's there too. I think limiting Disney or any company to what their current brand is shortsighted. It's best to spread your eggs out in multiple baskets, covid and Florida politics have shown that for Disney specifically.
Do you have any information on ESPN being a vanity project?
Also ESPN literally made more than marvel and Star wars combined in 2022. If they are massive money makers I'd like to know why it's when relevant that ESPN is a vanity project or not apart of the Disney brand. Star wars and marvel haven't been part of the Disney brand for as long as ESPN has either.
Interesting, seems like Peltz wasn't able to get Lucas' shares or get Apple to make a bid, so ousting the incompetent nexus of nepotism at the top of Disney is going to be much harder for him. He is still the largest shareholder, but things would have been very different if he'd gotten those two aces before starting this fight. Blackwell turning this into a three way fight does open up more board choices for the rest of the shareholders though, and that's a good thing. As long as the entire board gets replaced, along with the C-suite, there's a sliver of hope for Disney. Who replaces them is less important than making sure all of them get replaced. A new board cannot possibly run things as poorly as the old one has been, regardless of who fills those seats.
I think a new board needs to be had, for sure, but I think it might be important to at least have ONE Disney to make sure the company at least tries to follow what Walt Disney set up. Abigail Disney seems to be the most obvious choice, but who knows.
But that C-Suite has got to go, including Josh D'Amaro, much as I like him and his work with the parks even though he was stymied by Chapek.