• curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    fights with corporate partners and regulators have drastic long term impact.

    Sinclair was going to do what Sinclair was going to do regardless:

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sinclair-preempt-jimmy-kimmel-live-return-abc-1236377475/

    I’ll pull one key part of that article:

    Nexstar, it should be noted, has a $6 billion-plus deal pending before the FCC to acquire Tegna, an agreement that would make it by far the largest owner of local TV stations in the country. Sinclair has also expressed a desire to pursue M&A, which would also require FCC approval

    So the only fight Disney would have is with the FCC chair and an act so blatantly in violation of the constitution republicans commented on it, or immediate damage to the brand.

    EDIT: I want to be clear here… You are talking as if “people get pissed but we bring it back a week later and then everyone moves on” wasn’t the best possible outcome for them given the circumstances. I think it was, and that was calculated.

    Everyone has not moved on though.

    People canceled subscriptions, many have been commenting they aren’t going back.

    You are assuming it was calculated, but from early reports a lot of the executive suite was angry about the quick decision that was made, and how it would be damaging to Disney long term.

    This is all hypotheticals now, so I’m not going to do some back and forth on guesswork. But to suggest that it was an issue of fiduciary duty - no, that was not the only choice based on financial impact. The brand is damaged. Subscriptions were on a rise and went into a freefall. Resorts saw a massive amount of cancelations, which will severely impact park revenue as well.

    I stand by what I said - that was a severe misunderstanding or misstatement regarding fiduciary duties.