If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Disney to lay off 175 employees across its entire television group, including Disney-owned ABC affiliates. Will KABC's hardest-working, best-looking reporter be axed for arbitrary cost-cutting reasons? More at 11   (latimes.com) divider line 175
    More: Obvious, ABC News, Disney, Disney/ABC Television Group, media proprietor, organizational structure, layoffs, open positions  
•       •       •

8045 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 9:45 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-22 10:39:09 AM
Disney reportedly has spent $2b on this rfid shiat at Disney world that, besides making paranoid people outraged, is rolling out so far as a massive fail. Unrelated to these layoffs, although I wonder what effect this will have on them as a company.

/ESPN is a cash cow
 
2013-08-22 10:47:55 AM

skinink: FrancoFile: skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

Partially confirmation bias, partially under-the-radar.

Layoffs happen all at once; hiring happens one person at a time.

So I just imagined this one person was laid off, and it wasn't really a layoff. Gotcha.


Sorry, I'm not talking about that one particular person you know.

I'm talking about the "I see news reports" part of your statement.
 
2013-08-22 10:47:58 AM

bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.


We're going to be in trouble when the American peasant realizes he doesn't need any money to say "fark you." If he wasn't such an unlikely combination of stupidity and docility, we might already be a nightmare like Canada.
 
2013-08-22 10:49:01 AM

Lawnchair: Nana's Vibrator: Yet for some reason, their broadcasts will have a 12 minute weather segment where I angrily clutch the sofa because I just want to know tomorrow's weather and the past 11 minutes were spent telling me what already happened today.  Solar Flares!  Goddammit, if you're going to make me watch this crap for 12 minutes, at least put on a shorter skirt, Mike!

Which is useless on so many levels.  For being 12 minutes.  And for being a condensed version of something you can see online in 15 seconds... or may well be on the lock screen on your smartphone and you see 35 times per day.  If you're going to waste time on it, bring on the Univision gratuitous gals.


Exactly!  Jackie Guerrido is the only reason I learned how to tolerate long weathercasts.  And the entire Spanish language.
 
2013-08-22 10:49:11 AM
The over 50 year olds will go first.

Then Disney/ABC will hire a bunch of fresh out of college people at half the salary and brag about creating jobs.
 
2013-08-22 10:55:23 AM
It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."

Problem is, unlimited and sustained growth is impossible in nature unless you're Marlon Brando.
 
2013-08-22 10:55:58 AM

camelclub: The over 50 year olds will go first.

Then Disney/ABC will hire a bunch of fresh out of college people at half the salary and brag about creating jobs.


Not trolling or snarking, but consider this as a thought experiment.

Why would a 50-year-old newsperson be inherently and obviously more productive or more valuable than a 25-year-old person?

50-year-old advantages:
experience
emotional maturity
connections to newsmakers (maybe a favor bank)
connections to/trusted by audience
appeal to demographic >50

25-year-old advantages:
lower salary
ability to multitask
familiarity with newer technology
familiarity with current culture and language trends
looks
appeals to demographic <50

Now consider your particular market and your competition, and make some decisions.  It's not easy.
 
2013-08-22 10:56:22 AM

llevrok: Got to pay for ObamaCare.  It's happening all over the country.  Demand creates jobs.  Expenses kills them


Expenses like that $200 million worth of bonuses to the Board of Directors and the CEO.
 
2013-08-22 10:56:43 AM
i.qkme.me
/appropriate
 
2013-08-22 11:00:51 AM

rumpelstiltskin: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

We're going to be in trouble when the American peasant realizes he doesn't need any money to say "fark you." If he wasn't such an unlikely combination of stupidity and docility, we might already be a nightmare like Canada.


Businesses have moved on, many of them don't even need the average American to consume anymore. They have the whole globe, they are selling durable goods in BRIC and other developing countries now. Even on the food front the government automatically subsidizes the majority of it anyway through corn subsidies and food stamps.

Kill education, increase religion. You've got a dumb docile public now, put the firehose in its mouth. Hyperinflate the dollar, kill wages, increase unemployment, exploit the workforce, and turn the US into a third world country. What are you gonna do about it, peasant?
 
2013-08-22 11:02:09 AM
I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-08-22 11:05:12 AM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


It's because those are the stories people want to read.  The fourth estate is a for-profit institution.
 
2013-08-22 11:05:18 AM
Dear ABC

Don't touch Ric.

Sincerely
Fark
 
2013-08-22 11:06:14 AM

bdub77: Mugato: it's incumbent upon us to stay ahead of the curve. To that end, we've undergone a review of our organizational structures and processes, and have re-imagined and realigned certain areas and functions to gain efficiencies and better position us for future growth

How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.

They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

The vast majority of big business isn't about revenue growth or reinvestment or R&D anymore, it's about profit margins. When your market share solidifies, which happens in just about every business, you cut costs to gain as much profit margin as possible. Why? It's about earnings per share and using those earnings (cash) to buy back shares of stock. And it's ONLY about stock price for those assholes at the top. And only short term stock price.

If you cut too many people and people begin hating you and everything starts to erode, you can just hand the company off early to some other CEO and then blame them when things start to go south (bonus points if the new CEO is a woman, like Ginny Rometty.) Or if the company goes under while you're still CEO, just take your golden parachute because you've got dirt on how many prostitutes the board of directors has buried in his backyard.

The sh*ttiest, most irresponsible thing about this stuff is that most of these 1% clowns with their 20 million dollar paychecks don't even know how to reinvest their own money into other ventures. They just float around on a f*cking cushion of cash.

But I'm sure it's good for the yacht industry. I'm sure whatever CEO has the foresight and money to start a yacht company will come out gangbusters.


Pretty concise appraisal.

Some of it IS technological.  A computer handles jobs the 2nd Assistant Line Producer used to do, for example.  So you don't need that slot.

So, how do you revinest the cash in a media enviorment?  Good question.  But the Pigs at the top don't care.  They will just eat it.
 
2013-08-22 11:07:23 AM

RockofAges: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

"Job creators" is a joke. Demand creates jobs. Not arbitrary or artificial supply.

Please do tell us more about what is wrong about what the farkistanis are saying ITT.


My last job working for demand was a lot of fun.  Demand writes its checks with a silly straw that it turned into a pen.

I wish demand could create jobs, but it's illegal to do business without a license.
 
2013-08-22 11:07:37 AM
www.stencilrevolution.com
 
2013-08-22 11:10:36 AM

bdub77: Once you piss off the upper middle class, it's game over.


See, here is the thing.  You can screw over everybody else, because they lack the charisma, intelligence and/or drive to stage a revolt. They might have one of the traits, but usually not any of the others.  If they had such things, they would be in upper middle class

Now, the upper middle class, they might not have the numbers, but they have the intelligence and drive to round up the lower classes and take down the top.  They also might have more charisma as well, which would make them better leaders and, if it came to it, martyrs.  If Joe Sixpack gets gunned down due to rebellious talk, it can be covered up pretty easy and be wrote off as a "lunatic" or "terrorist".  But if say a college professor or a local small business man get gunned down, well, now we have something, because why would somebody, who lives a pretty comfortable life, want to risk their way of life and change things unless things were really, really bad.

/my 2 cents
 
2013-08-22 11:13:26 AM

Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.


That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is profitable.  That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable.  I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like.  If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it, it's losing money.
 
2013-08-22 11:14:04 AM
175 people?  Really?  That's not even a hiccup for them, not a layoff.
 
2013-08-22 11:14:42 AM

Two16: [www.stencilrevolution.com image 560x373]


BOO!  VERY poor taste.  Dude, that middle girl is the napalm burned kid running down the street in Vietnam with skin sloughing off her.

BOO!
 
2013-08-22 11:16:50 AM

jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."



The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.
 
2013-08-22 11:19:53 AM

jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."

Problem is, unlimited and sustained growth is impossible in nature unless you're Marlon Brando.


Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s.  Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people?  I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.
 
2013-08-22 11:21:41 AM

mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money

not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.
 
2013-08-22 11:22:03 AM
Business as usual in America? Blame Obamacare!

Idiots
 
2013-08-22 11:24:00 AM

Mugato: How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.


"There's a fine line between participation and mockery".

--Wally
 
2013-08-22 11:24:39 AM
farm4.staticflickr.com
"In a sluggish economy, businesses conduct what is known as "down sizing"."
 
2013-08-22 11:24:40 AM

blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?


Back in my day, looks did not matter ..only the news

www.pupntaco.com
 
2013-08-22 11:25:15 AM

bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.


Anyone but the execs who f*cked up, obviously.
 
2013-08-22 11:26:53 AM

Nana's Vibrator: jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."


The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.


Bang on.   The REAL money is at the top.  CEO, COO, executives.

They want to keep their jobs so badly that if they need to cut costs they will gleefully throw loyal hardworking employees to the lions so their End-of-quarter speech goes over better with investors .

/laid off twice by profitable companies
/was laid off at one after three years but my work neighbor was too, after 14 years and while his wife was pregnant with twins
/NEVER be too loyal to your employer, know you're a useless cog compared to The Suits
 
2013-08-22 11:28:15 AM
Deathfrogg:
That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.


I agree with your change of wording, but disagree with "any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible."  Especially in this case.  Disney's television platform allows for an amazing amount of cross-promotion that could keep television alive while not actually turning a profit.  Even outside of the blatant film and game advertising on Disney channel, the ABC family's teen hour (Pretty Little Liars, Vampire Diaries, etc) is used to promote music on the disney record label, as are the TV movies.  It is also used to promote DVD and blue-ray releases for home video sales.  Not just with commercials, but playing the films being released.

In general, a company may not be able to get rit of a slightly un-profitable business unit, or may expect losses for a few years while restructuring or changing strategy.  It does happen, but only for short periods of time.
 
2013-08-22 11:29:02 AM

Deathfrogg: mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.


Subsidizing unprofitable divisions happens all the time.  Don't be ignorant.
 
2013-08-22 11:32:23 AM

jakomo002: Nana's Vibrator: jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."


The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.

Bang on.   The REAL money is at the top.  CEO, COO, executives.

They want to keep their jobs so badly that if they need to cut costs they will gleefully throw loyal hardworking employees to the lions so their End-of-quarter speech goes over better with investors .

/laid off twice by profitable companies
/was laid off at one after three years but my work neighbor was too, after 14 years and while his wife was pregnant with twins
/NEVER be too loyal to your employer, know you're a useless cog compared to The Suits


Truth.
 
2013-08-22 11:32:49 AM

TV's Vinnie: In a sluggish economy


Recession, depression
Hits the land of the free
Standing in unemployment lines
Blame the government for hard times
 
2013-08-22 11:34:10 AM

Spend $2b on a boondoggle rfid implementation (one of many examples): $200 million in bonuses for management.

TV division doesn't make enough money: Immediately fire people, preferably older more experienced employees causing a tailspin in the division which will cause it to be sold off. More bonuses for savvy management.

 
2013-08-22 11:34:21 AM

Wangiss: Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s.  Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people?  I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.


Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  Disney's longterm sustainability looks forward maximum two quarters.  If one segment does poorly they axe it immediately.

Their spreadsheets have a section called Labor Costs and that's how they see their employees.  Not as an INVESTMENT but a cost that cuts into profit and might negatively impact stock price.
 
2013-08-22 11:35:08 AM
In a perfect world you should just be able to wish upon a star for your dreams to come true
 
2013-08-22 11:35:18 AM

Wangiss: Deathfrogg: mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.

Subsidizing unprofitable divisions happens all the time.  Don't be ignorant.


Excuse me, I should have written what mike_d85 wrote.  I apologize for being rude.
 
2013-08-22 11:35:24 AM

bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.


Pixar is in the process of restructuring too. From what I hear, it's typical misguided attempts at outsourcing to "reduce costs" but in reality are going to make things more complicated, add delays, and not meet quality standards and thus even more expensive.

The must have hired some Boeing execs.
 
2013-08-22 11:37:17 AM

mike_d85: I agree with your change of wording, but disagree with "any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible."  Especially in this case.  Disney's television platform allows for an amazing amount of cross-promotion that could keep television alive while not actually turning a profit.  Even outside of the blatant film and game advertising on Disney channel, the ABC family's teen hour (Pretty Little Liars, Vampire Diaries, etc) is used to promote music on the disney record label, as are the TV movies.  It is also used to promote DVD and blue-ray releases for home video sales.  Not just with commercials, but playing the films being released.

In general, a company may not be able to get rit of a slightly un-profitable business unit, or may expect losses for a few years while restructuring or changing strategy.  It does happen, but only for short periods of time.


But Disney can only do this because it's a behemoth.  A giant media presence owning a substantial part of ALL US media, so they can crossmarket.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-22 11:37:56 AM

Wangiss: Subsidizing unprofitable divisions happens all the time. Don't be ignorant.


This used to be how television news worked.
 
2013-08-22 11:38:05 AM

jakomo002: Wangiss: Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s.  Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people?  I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.

Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  Disney's longterm sustainability looks forward maximum two quarters.  If one segment does poorly they axe it immediately.

Their spreadsheets have a section called Labor Costs and that's how they see their employees.  Not as an INVESTMENT but a cost that cuts into profit and might negatively impact stock price.


They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-22 11:40:08 AM
Wangiss:

They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?

I'm sorry... this marks you as an idiot or a corporate sycophant.  There is no dogma to that belief.  It's mathematical.  Eventually you outgrow the world.
 
2013-08-22 11:41:04 AM
"The Happiest Place On Earth!"
 
2013-08-22 11:44:09 AM
Breaking News: Corporations like Disney are run by heartless, greedy bastards who look at nothing more than money figures to influence their business decisions. This will eventually lead to an economy where we will have to literally lick the boots of our corporate masters in order to be able to get a meal to eat.

img.fark.net

This Just In: I have just been fired from ABC for reporting this story. Of all the obvious, sometimes mindless stories I report on, THIS IS THE ONE THAT GETS ME FIRED YOU FARKS!
 
2013-08-22 11:47:58 AM

Wangiss: They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?


They've "restructured" countless times precisely to increase bottomline profit.

We live in a actual world with natural laws.  Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  The economic models can disagree, but it'll be their downfall.  I mean, MORE MORE MORE is hardly a realistic longterm model for survival of anything anywhere EVER.
 
2013-08-22 11:49:16 AM

mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is profitable.  That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable.  I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like.  If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it, it's losing money.


FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a Disney stockholder. I don't think that creates a conflict of interest, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

From the Annual Report: "For the second year in a row Disney achieved record net income, revenue, and earnings per share. In fiscal 2012, net income for our shareholders was a record $5.7 billion, an increase of 18% over last year, and revenue was a record $42.3 billion, up 3% from last year. Diluted earnings per share increased 24% to a record $3.13."

So, the company as a whole is doing OK. Let's break down the numbers a little more. All dollars in millions.
Revenue: Media Networks $ 19,436
Expense: Media Networks $ 6,619
Net: $ 12,817

That's $12,817,000,000. I could go even deeper and pull more numbers, but I think you get the picture. Broadcasting is the most profitable thing Disney does, in terms of net income. The parks brought in about 12 billion vs. a billion and change in expenses, for comparison.

TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".
 
2013-08-22 11:52:47 AM
I hope whatever Vice President in charge of Hoo-Hah who refused to pay Regis Philbin what he asked for is the first out the door.

/I figure Regis is going to last a month on his new Fox sports show. Maybe you've heard of it--Regis Philbin and His Days at Notre Dame.
 
2013-08-22 11:53:07 AM
175 people is not a lot of people to Disney.  This is likely either (A) eliminating the poorest performers or (B) getting rid of some small part of the business.  Maybe they're getting rid of go.com or something.

But seriously... you all think that there's some moral responsibility that employers have to keep people employed when they're not needed?
 
2013-08-22 11:53:19 AM

jakomo002: Wangiss: They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?

They've "restructured" countless times precisely to increase bottomline profit.

We live in a actual world with natural laws.  Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  The economic models can disagree, but it'll be their downfall.  I mean, MORE MORE MORE is hardly a realistic longterm model for survival of anything anywhere EVER.


In general, I agree with you.  But your argument doesn't work when you consider that the 'closed system' you are considering isn't static.  Disney can keep growing if we colonize Mars and have another 2 billion people there.  And Disney can sell their movies and license their theme parks over interstellar radio when we discover a technological species inhabiting a star 8 light years from here.  If you're talking about the ultimate heat death of the universe, then you're absolutely right.  But that's a loooooong way away.

(Your argument can get confused very easily with the "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics" whackos, too.  Be cautious with your wording.)
 
2013-08-22 11:54:10 AM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


Even in vibrant economies some of the hundreds of thousands of businesses that exist in this country will be decreasing headcount at any given time.

Romero.jpg

What you would hope for is that more businesses are hiring than firing. Which is basically what has been happening since late 2009, although slowly.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report