WDW Pro
patreon
Early Access Analysis of Disney White Paper by LW Ghost
🕑 Added 2024-03-12 18:48:02 +0000 UTCPart of this will be appearing soon on That Park Place, but I want to give Patreon members early access. LW Ghost has provided extensive thoughts on the Disney white paper sent out to try to stop Nelson Peltz and Jay Rasulo from gaining access to the board. Mr. Ghost is a tremendous asset in understanding Hollywood as he earned an iMDB page about a mile-long filled with many of the shows that define our culture. He also has served at very high levels in positions that give him tremendous insight into the workings of entertainment. Here's what he has to say about the latest Disney efforts:
_____
The Disney “Brown” White Paper: An analysis by Lew Wasserman’s Ghost
FIRST OF ALL, the numbers are mine, not the page numbers—sorry but I got deep in when I realized I should have done it referring to the document’s numbers but hey, it is in order and should be easy to follow. With that said, let’s dive into this drek, shall we? ----
1. The opening “splash page” includes pix of the following amongst what are intended to be “highlights” of how wonderful Disney is today and will be going onwards:
Clockwise from the top we have…. Jimmy Kimmel, fresh off an embarrassing Oscar diatribe, Deadpool (not a Disney property and the only one greenlit by Chapek!)…Bluey, not owned by Disney, no merch, no park potential, and the hottest thing on Disney’s streamer… Avatar, also not a Disney property…the Moana Water fauxpiary, sans odor or broken pipes..T’challa—dead franchise…Asoka, flop…Tiana Animatronic from the new disaster attraction…Stitch? STITCH? Hmmm OH, and it is all labeled as a “Plan For Shareholder Value Creation” as if the idea that companies should create value for shareholders is some kind of “eureka!” moment and idea and they NOW have a plan to do that after NOT doing it for years and years. How Exciting!
2. Deep in that fine print? THIS! I’ll print in full, but it is saying their estimates on streaming are of the entire combined results of Dplus AND Espn and the rest, not making ANY projections separately for D-Plus which, of course, they’ve already promised WILL be profitable “soon” but, uh, gosh…seems to be a “GAAP” in their fine print definition of that, huh? “DTC streaming businesses operating income” is a non-GAAP financial measure calculated as entertainment segment direct-to-consumer operating income plus ESPN+ operating income from the sports segment. Disney’s management believes that information about DTC streaming businesses operating income provides investors with the performance of its portfolio of streaming businesses and progress against Disney’s goal of reaching profitability in its combined streaming businesses. Disney is not providing forward-looking measures for segment operating income for the entertainment and sports segments, which are the most directly comparable GAAP measures, or a quantitative reconciliation of the forward-looking DTC streaming businesses operating income to those most directly comparable GAAP measures. Disney is unable to predict or estimate with reasonable certainty the ultimate outcome of certain items required for the GAAP measures without unreasonable effort. Information about other adjusting items that is currently not available to Disney could have a potentially unpredictable and significant impact on its future GAAP financial results.”
3. “You Can’t Restore The Magic” yadda yadda yadda is full of how great they are and yet says they are, themselves, in the process of “restoring” value—which begs the question—HOW did you, with all of these alleged advantages—LOSE the value and why should we believe the same people who LOST it can “rejuvenate” it. Then they just, as they do so often in this silly thing, throw shade at Peltz. Yawn.
4. “We are already delivering…” is the same problem: Howcome you HAVE NOT now or over the past several years delivered anything other than decay and confusion? Why do you think the people who CAUSED the mess can fix it where a new set of eyes just helping them cannot? And they say that Peltz’s ideas—all of them—are, and I quote “INANE”!!!! And of course here’s where the endless anger and misrepresentation of Perlmutter begins. But INANE? Is that a stock market term? Mexican Iron Man and Valiant Renegade, please advise. 
5. POSITIONED TO THRIVE (so again, howcome you are NOT and have NOT—did the “disruption happen yesterday?) A page of nothingburger.
6. So they say they are “delivering” but all the words in the rest of this next page say “expecting” and “reinvigorating” and “building” and “announcing” and I love this one “reiterated intent” and “continuing to seek” and “trending” and all the rest of the weasel words that do NOT say they are actually “Delivering” NOW nor have they in the past. Ooops. IF you’re home waiting for a pizza and it’s been $10 years and they’re already charging interest on the credit card you put the pizza on but the company says they are “expecting” to deliver it at some unknown time in the future or keep pushing back the time they predict, would you call that a “Delivery”??? Not me.
7. So if your IP has been great for 100 years, WHY ARE YOU IN TROUBLE? Clearly that means you start with great stuff and MISMANAGE IT.
8 Etc. etc. for the next few pages, but if your “core brands” are so wonderful and lucrative, why are you CUTTING BACK content containing them?? Again, if I have the number one most-wanted widget in the Universe, do I throttle production and distribution of that widget to let others come up with a topper or do I make MORE, not less?
9 Your creative engine remains CRAP. This one writes itself. Just read the crapola.
10 Its not our fault the industry “evolved” even though we claim we saw it coming and allowed for it but, hey, ooops, don’t blame us. Again. Yawn.
11. The board “deftly handled” stuff? When? How? Ever? And if it was so “deft” well, how come it didn’t result in success?
12 We outperformed the people who are bigger losers than we are and that makes them “relevant” but the people who beat our socks off are irrelevant because, well, they’re bigger…including Comcast who we directly compete with in our MOST productive arena—Orlando theme parks. But ignore those Universals behind the curtain. They’re “irrelevant” y’see.
13 Yadda yadda for a few pages then we’re told they are “driving profitability TOWARDS double digit levels” (my emphasis.) Well, sitting here in my office in Chattanooga I’m “driving movement towards…” what, Andromeda as the Milky way moves through the cosmos…but I can’t see it out my window, let alone expect it anytime soon…at least realistically.
14 OH, and those Netflix guys who used to PAY us BILLIONS to show our great content and who we told to go fund themselves and instead spent billions to create our own streamer? They are different, y’see. So who cares if they make money and we make promises!
15 ESPN: We’re changing it. Honest. We don’t know quite how or where or when or who’ll run it and we announced it without talking to the content providers like the NFL and the NBA and those sporty guys who don’t matter except they are who we have to pay to be IN the sports business, but honest, we’ve got it all under control…someday…somehow.
16 The famous 60 billion on parks and experiences. Yeah. Right. Fine. Swell. And when they tell us they “believe” 10 consumers for every 1 current one who have an “affinity” for Disney IP and thus are potential park visitors, well, swell. SO howcome you’re attracting less and then turning them off with insane prices?
17. Hong Kong (not owned majority) Tokyo (Not owned at all) Bayou Brownwater (not looking good and you just fired the person responsible for that division) and cruise ships. Wow. Swell
18 Awards for stuff that (a) Rasulo spearheaded or (b) the fired Imagineering lady ran. Yeah, swell. But how’d you come out money-wise and why did it take 6 years to build a replica of an existing attraction?
19 Again, you cut expenses you seem to believe you didn’t need to be spending…why were you spending them in the first place?
20 Successfully delivering change? WHY WERE YOU SO BAD YOU NEEDED TO CHANGE, and once again it is being “delivering” ongoing, not DELIVERED. Funny on the previous page that of all the companies you compare yourselves to, PARAMOUNT is the top and they are about to go BK or disappear absorbed by your competition. Oopsy.
21. Succession. Yeah, right. Pull the other one. ‘nuff said.
22 The two “valuable” people have expertise in (a) international relations, i.e. kissing China’s butt and (b) compensation, i.e. overpaying people who don’t deliver. Whoop-dee-doo!
23 Again the slanders against Peltz, Rasulo, and especially the REALLY angry stuff vs. Perlmutter. Basically this is a major corporation calling their critics “silly doodooheads!” Gads, what childish nonsense.
24 LIES about Trian saying it “owns” Perlmutter’s shares. It CONTROLS them because Perlmutter, without whom there would have BEEN no Marvel Universe, trusts Trian more than Disney. “nuff said.
Then we have pages and pages of nonsense about Peltz, Rasulo, and Perlmutter, once again boiling down to “They are powerful, dangerous, but weak and meaningless. They have wreaked havoc everywhere, but they are stupid and dumb and doodooheads!” You can’t have it both ways, Disney. And misstating Peltz’s experience and effects to the good, and the positive feedback from boards he joined who originally opposed him? Ain’t gonna work.The bottom line is this—if these guys are so dangerous and so detrimental, howcome you aren’t doing too great on your own and how could TWO opposing views with MORE stake in the company than ALL the current board and management combined be a hindrance to your powerful, positive, in-the-process-of-delivering-great-stuff-we-pinkie-swear management now? “DISTRACTION” ??? From WHAT? “Positioned to thrive”…but not thriving!
“Focused on delivering”…but not delivering
“These doodoo heads are not what we need, but we DO know what we need and that’s why our efforts have resulted in crap.”
Comments
Bebop
Write a paper full of contradictions doing expecting, industry changing not are fault we did not pay attention that's not on you, best line we are doing better then the others that losing. So you first next to last in the standings and that is something to cheer about really . As Cy Young said I believe First is (where they used to be) Second is nothing(which is where they are at at this time. Bring Nelson and Jay
