Disney’s Principles, Here and Abroad
[guest post by JVW]
Hi. I’m JVW and I’m the brand-new guest blogger at this site. I’m looking forward to getting to know all of you and sharing some interesting and provocative commentary.
Here is what one of the former bloggers at this site had to say way back in March 2022, when discussing Disney’s over-the-top reaction to Florida’s adoption of a law which limited the presentation of LGBTQ-themed material for children below fourth grade:
Disney, which was slow to extricate itself from business operations in Russia even after the invasion of Ukraine and still to this very day happily does business in China, even to the degree of self-censoring so as not to offend the Chinese Communist Party, is very — very, I tells ya! — concerned about Florida’s new Parental Rights in Education bill, uncritically adopting the left-wing narrative that it is reflexively anti-gay [. . . .]
I hope that Gov. DeSantis and [Former Disney CEO Bob] Chapek do meet. As Mr. Chapek airs his concerns and those of his apparently hyper-woke workforce, perhaps the governor might remind the CEO of Disney’s entanglements with repressive dictatorships [. . . .]
This was followed up eight months later by news that Disney had capitulated and replaced Mr. Chapek as CEO with his predecessor, Bob Iger, in a obvious attempt to mend fences and repair their reputation with the other half of the country. But last week’s news that Disney plans to open a theme park in the United Arab Emirates, noted for its lack of tolerance for the LBGTQ agenda, suggests that perhaps Disney is moving too far in the non-woke (anti-woke, even) direction. Writing at The Spectator, Zoe Strimpel notes the tension:
If Disney’s DNA is anything but woke, the company has, in the 21st century, made a transformation as dizzying as a ride on one of its theme parks’ rollercoasters. Now one of the most painfully correct mega-entities in America, it has allowed its faux-progressivism to leach into its whole enterprise, so that at its theme parks staff are no longer allowed to use gendered greetings. Lightyear (2022), an updated spin on the Buzz Lightyear Toystory character, features two female characters kissing, and this year’s simply hair-pullingly awful remake of Snow White sees the Seven Dwarves as a diverse crew of “magical creatures.”
And so the news that Disney will be opening its next Land in Abu Dhabi is curious. There’s nothing curious about the choice of location from a business and tourism point of view; 28.8 million people go through Abu Dhabi airport alone every year. The Emirates is a vast conurbation and a four-hour flight from a third of the world’s population. On Yas Island, where the site is due to open in the early 2030s, there is already Ferrari World, Warner Bros. World, Yas Waterworld and SeaWorld Yas Island, plus Abu Dhabi’s largest mall.
No, the curious thing is that the UAE, for all its commercial temptations, is not the progressive paradise one would imagine being a happy home for the reinvented, enthusiastically LGBTQ+ inclusive Disney – and nor will it likely be so any time soon. Homosexuality is illegal there, trans isn’t a thing, the racism inherent in the exploitation of the South-Asian workers who build the place up and the Muslim country’s custom of female modesty would all, one might think, rub up against some of that ladies-kissing, gender-is-an-offensive-construct stuff that’s come to define Disney in recent years. [. . .]
But don’t worry, folks. Disney will make up for its about-face on the LBGTQ agenda by wholeheartedly embracing another progressive shibboleth, unity in diversity:
Still, the executives behind it all are using language of such exuberance to describe the venture that it makes the head spin more than a turn on the infamous barf-machine Guardians of the Galaxy ride. “Disneyland Abu Dhabi will be authentically Disney and distinctly Emirati – an oasis of extraordinary Disney entertainment at this crossroads of the world that will bring to life our timeless characters and stories in many new ways and will become a source of joy and inspiration for the people of this vast region to enjoy for generations to come,” gushed Iger. Hmm.
Meanwhile Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, opined that the Abu Dhabi resort “will be the most advanced and interactive destination in our portfolio [allowing] us to tell our stories in completely new ways. Ultimately, it will be a celebration of what’s possible when creativity and progress come together.”
Who needs “tolerance” when you can offer “the most advanced and interactive” theme-park in the Disney universe?
This is just another reminder that corporate America is more often than not faking it when they latch on to a trendy social cause, and it will be readily abandoned if the political tide changes or if there is money to be made in a repressive society. But it is kind of fun laughing at Disney for being so craven, first when it jumped on the bandwagon criticizing the Florida law and now as they choose to do business in a repressive society, while at the same time laughing at the LGBTQ crowd for believing that Disney ever sincerely had their back.
– JVW
This should make Moms For Liberty, Chris Ruffo and the rest of that crew very happy to see Disney investing in a country that shares so many of their values.
Kidding aside. When Diseney (or any company) said they were embracing diversity because they thought it would make them more successful at their business they meant it. It wasn’t an excuse or window dressing, they really thought it was a good business decision. The nano-second they thought it wasn’t a good business decision they changed direction.
Few ppl get to be CEO of a major company like Disney because success in business is a secondary priority.
Time (850405) — 5/14/2025 @ 7:36 amGood to see you writing again, JVW. I always enjoy thinking about your posts.
I think you’re off base in attempting to point out hypocrisy here.
If Disney had shut down Disney World because of Florida’s law, but then opened a park in the UAE, that would be hypocritical. If Disney were praising the UAE’s LGBTQIABFTR laws but condemning Florida’s, that would be hypocritical.
But your example is not. Nor is it hypocritical for you to write criticism about the LA Times while never once posting a blog post here about Abu Dhabi’s newspaper’s failings. Nor is it hypocritical for you to criticize California while having traveled abroad to places even less aligned with your views.
Maybe I’m missing something here.
Nate (5fc2a9) — 5/14/2025 @ 7:51 amMaybe I’m missing something here.
The point being that Disney was happy to publicly criticize as a corporation (and not as private board members or employees) one of its host states for not being fully subservient to the LGBTQ community, even to the point of buying into a gross misinterpretation by activist groups of the actual law that the legislature enacted. Yet then turns around and happily does business in a nation which outlaws and prosecutes the behavior that Florida was merely trying to keep out of the K-3 curriculum. If you don’t find that to be grossly hypocritical then I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
To me this is reminiscent of when Apple’s Tim Cook started threatening to prohibit company travel to states like North Carolina who had passed laws restricting transgender people from using bathrooms not appropriate to their sex, while at the same time Apple was negotiating with potential third-party vendors who would sell iPhones in Iran. As Time points out, it’s all about making the requisite social policy statement when you believe it is appropriate, but not actually allowing your alleged corporate principles to interfere with your company’s bottom line.
JVW (5f6bfb) — 5/14/2025 @ 8:15 am” Disney was happy to publicly criticize”
They criticized Florida’s law. If asked do you think they would voice support for the UAE’s LGBTQ laws? Have they done so? If they have, I agree that’s hypocritical. Heck, I’d even agree that if they are asked about UAE law by a reporter and refuse to condemn it that’s hypocritical. I’d love to see any evidence of this hypocrisy and would agree with you if it’s provided.
“Yet then turns around and happily does business”
And yet, they also happily do business in Florida. Did they close Disney World and I missed it?
You’re comparing apples and oranges here. “Disney treats UAE apples differently than Florida oranges” is a weird post to write when “Disney treats UAE oranges the same as they treat Florida oranges” is true.
Nate (5fc2a9) — 5/14/2025 @ 8:35 amJVW. My point was more that when they say that those principles are aligned with maximizing shareholder value, they legitimately mean it
They’re not virtue signaling for the sake of appearing virtuous, they’re telling you that they think a specific strategy is going to help them be successful as a company
Time123 (6d8fbb) — 5/14/2025 @ 8:42 amAlso, there’s an element of gauging the potential impact of words or actions. Disney might look at the situations and say “nothing we do or say is going to have the least amount of impact on UAE, so we’re gonna keep our mouth shut and go make money for the owners“
They could look at Florida and conclude that they have the ability to influence policy in a way that will help their business be successful, and then choose to pursue that path.
Recognizing where you have the ability to have influence and not wasting your time and other places isn’t hypocrisy, it’s prioritization
Also worth noting that the exact impact and intent of that law was a subject of much debate.
Time123 (6d8fbb) — 5/14/2025 @ 8:44 amUltimately, it doesn’t matter. The state of Florida was able to successfully punished his for speech that the state of Florida didn’t like.
Time123 (6d8fbb) — 5/14/2025 @ 8:44 amMichael Jordan famously wanted to sell underwear to everyone, Republicans and Democrats….and so kept his political rhetoric to a minimum despite criticism from some quarters as to what he owed. Generally, businesses are wise to keep politics to a minimum because their obligation to investors (and their employees) is to be as profitable as possible. Still, others like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A take a different view and are fine with offending some customers in hopes of appealing to others. There is a business calculus that all are free to navigate.
Disney markets fantasy and thrills. I’m not a recent consumer of their products but don’t view them as part of the problem of cultural rot that comes out of most theatrical venues. Despite perhaps an irresistible itch toward diversity, Disney produces products that kids and their parents can comfortably enjoy without inappropriate levels of sex, violence, and profanity. Too, it’s amusing what diversity bothers some people. It’s almost looking for offense.
Was Disney wrong for publicly opposing the Florida GOP’s cultural legislative initiative? Well, based on the political backlash, the answer is probably yes, and it made a leadership change. I’m not sure if the GOP won itself many accolades in terms of the appearance of punishing political speech by directly attacking the state’s largest private employer…and an irreplaceable boon to local business. But this is where we are at politically. We are stuck with a lot of performance and peacocking.
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 5/14/2025 @ 8:52 amReally happy to see JVW back.
lloyd (110521) — 5/14/2025 @ 8:55 am“Disney was happy to publicly criticize”
Whatever we might think about the wisdom of their criticism, Disney did have that right to voice their objections about the laws’ ambiguity and potential for abuse….and the Florida GOP had the right to answer those criticisms. The last I saw that is what the 1A is all about. Disney may not have those same exact rights in the UAE or China, so why should we be surprised that they do not exercise them there or refuse to do business there. As Time says, it’s not like Disney pulled out of Florida because of principle.
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:04 amAJ, my complaint with the FL GOP’s response was only where it extended past speech and into using the power of the state to punish Disney.
Time (798219) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:08 amNate, not really a point that makes a lot of sense.
They do business in Florida because they have a ton of sunk costs there. They have none in Abu Dhabi.
“Disney is just making a business decision” was a take we oddly didn’t hear when they were crusading against Florida. Now that it’s clear it was all a pose, it’s suddenly become the fashionable take. Calling a bill derisively “Don’t Say Gay” was just a business decision. LOL
lloyd (110521) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:08 amShocked that Lloud didn’t understand my point. Let me try again.
When a multi-billion dollar company says they’re taking an action to make money they’re telling you the truth. When they tell you that they think Diversity helps them attract and retain the talent they need to make better business decisions they believe that to be true.
It’s True now and it was true in I the past.
Time (798219) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:16 am@13 Time, I guess the My Pilliw guy was just making a business decision. Elon, too. That I’m pointing out your argument doesn’t hold water is hardly evidence that I didn’t understand it.
If Elon suddenly opened a new massive factory and design center in San Fran because Newsom gave him a bunch of breaks, we know the take we’d hear here.
lloyd (110521) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:29 amOne group is being punished for political speech, even though the other group fought tooth and nail to allow for companies to have the same speech rights as people.
So why the long face?
Florida has spent 70 years kowtowing to Disney to keep Floridaman in prime vacation location for all of eastern US and Canada. Now Floridaman wanted to make a name for himself so picks a fight with Chapek and Disney.
Floridaman wins, Chapek is fired, and Disney is still Disney.
Floridaman liked winning so much, that the idea of burning down the global economy seems to be a cool thing to do next.
The dog caught the bus, now what?
Colonel Klink (ret) (9dbb75) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:44 amThere’s difference between professionally managed companies and startups still run by the founder.
Time (798219) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:48 amWelcome back JVW. You were missed.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:49 amhttps://www.clickorlando.com/news/florida/2025/05/07/florida-is-once-again-the-top-state-for-economy-higher-education-heres-why/
Klink,
perhaps you’ve been living in a cave, but Florida has ranked #1 for economic success in the nation for at least the past 2 years.
I know that’s not enough for you to notice when you can take cheap shots and support the leftist agenda.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:58 amAlso, the MyPillow guy wasn’t making business decisions. He was just going nuts of dumb conspiracy theories.
What Musk did with Twitter to X is a business decision….but jury is still out on the impact.
Time (798219) — 5/14/2025 @ 10:02 amIf the pile is big enough, you can set fire to billions, and still have billions.
True with Disney, true for Florida.
Elongated Muskrat has destroyed tweeter as a business, but that’s what he wanted. He spent what he had to to get what he wanted. He didn’t want tweeter the business, he wanted tweeter the toy.
Businesses do things to promote the vision of leadership. If all they care about is revenue, you know what you’re getting, and better practices are somewhere in the middle.
If they’re just corporate puffery and branding, and they really don’t care about the business of being a business then you know what you’re getting as a partner/customer/investor too. Basically, it’s a hobby. Sometimes a hobby becomes a business, but that’s more difficult and anti-fun.
Colonel Klink (ret) (9dbb75) — 5/14/2025 @ 10:20 amNeither were business decisions. nor was Disney taking in Florida. I think you should save yourself from all the contortions.
Disney has a higher percentage of LBQT in their workforce and management, compared to most companies. They hated the law and pushed Disney into taking a stand. Nothing more complicated than that. Calling it a business decision is just revisionist history.
Why isn’t the same workforce up in arms about Abu Dhabi? Why is there a group called Gays for Gaza? Hypocrisy.
lloyd (110521) — 5/14/2025 @ 10:25 am*Neither were business decisions, nor was Disney taking on Florida
lloyd (2bdb77) — 5/14/2025 @ 10:25 am> nor was Disney taking on Florida
that was a business decision, though — it was a decision taken to placate angry employees at a time when employees had more market power than they do now.
aphrael (f7d975) — 5/14/2025 @ 10:46 amThat’s a stretch. it’s like someone saying Elon steering Twitter/X to a more moderate account banning policy was a business decision to placate angry conservatives. It was certainly to placate conservatives but it was hardly a business decision.
lloyd (110521) — 5/14/2025 @ 12:17 pmThanks for the kind words, guys. I’ve been mondo busy for the past year with my job and some volunteer non-profit board service, then various personal and family commitments. The board service will die down after June 30, so hopefully I will have more time to contribute to the blog.
JVW (1e3e51) — 5/14/2025 @ 12:57 pmThey criticized Florida’s law. If asked do you think they would voice support for the UAE’s LGBTQ laws? Have they done so? If they have, I agree that’s hypocritical. Heck, I’d even agree that if they are asked about UAE law by a reporter and refuse to condemn it that’s hypocritical. I’d love to see any evidence of this hypocrisy and would agree with you if it’s provided.
I will go further and claim that it is hypocritical for them to proactively criticize Florida’s law, yet stay silent about doing business in a far more intolerant environment. They have every right to be hypocritical, just like they have every right to criticize whomever they wish, but they should expect to be called out on it.
JVW (1e3e51) — 5/14/2025 @ 1:00 pmAphreal, yup. how you attract and retain key talent is a business decision, and it goes beyond financial comp.
Lloyd, Any decision Twitter makes about mod policy is a business decision. They sell access to a platform. Moderation is a part of the product.
Time123 (6d8fbb) — 5/14/2025 @ 1:03 pmTwitter is more profitable now than at any point prior to Elon’s acquisition and it’s used as a tool for his AI which is much more profitable .
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/02/x-in-2024-doubled-highest-yearly-twitter-profits.html
NJRob (f8d293) — 5/14/2025 @ 1:43 pm“Twitter is more profitable now than at any point prior to Elon’s acquisition and it’s used as a tool for his AI which is much more profitable .”
Deceptive link, they’re reporting EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization). The “I” is important, because Twitter has between $11 and $13 billion in outstanding loans.
Davethulhu (468890) — 5/14/2025 @ 3:58 pm> it is hypocritical for them to proactively criticize Florida’s law, yet stay silent about doing business in a far more intolerant environment.
Would you find it reasonable if I wrote a comment saying “JVW (handsome though he is) is a hypocrite. He proactively criticizes the LA Times while he stays silent on the Arabian Post, a far worse newspaper by all his considered metrics.”
I think this would be an absurd take. Of course there are reasons why you might rightfully criticize one and not the other, without being a hypocrite.
1) You are headquartered in LA.
– The paper is read by more people you come in contact with.
– Your LA readers are are more interested in your takes on the Times; your readers in Abu Dhabi aren’t calling for you to comment on the Arabian Dog Trainer.
– You have more sway and impact in writing about the Times
– You have a longer history and relationship both as a reader and critic of the Times
2) You are allowed to criticize one newspaper without being compelled to make sure that you have equally criticized every newspaper you have ever read.
3) The Times, while I’m sure it takes note and frowns on your criticism, will never leave you worried they will issue a Fatwa condemning you to death for your views.
The same is true of Disney. I hope the parallel points are clear without me spelling them out.
Nate (31ba48) — 5/14/2025 @ 4:58 pm> That’s a stretch.
Placating angry employees is *always* a business decision.
aphrael (f7d975) — 5/14/2025 @ 7:28 pmNo, making a decision that benefits the company and shareholders, despite what would placate employees, is a business decision. For example, the many companies forcing employees to return to the office. For example, a real CEO.
lloyd (db72b8) — 5/14/2025 @ 7:58 pmWhen employees have market power, placating them — to avoid them leaving for other jobs, causing a major disruption to your operation — is a business decision.
When employees don’t have market power (as is the case right now), you don’t need to consider their needs or desires.
aphrael (f7d975) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:33 pmNobody was going to leave Disney for declining to bully Florida. Pure fantasy.
lloyd (cc4dbe) — 5/14/2025 @ 9:41 pmWell that’s horsepucky.
Musk has lost over $32B in enterprise value on Twitter, and most likely closer to $43B. So no, it’s not more anything than before. When Elongated Muskrat said that xAI was worth $80B and tweeter $40B doesn’t make it so. Just Muskrat’s banker’s have already written off more than $20B in tweeter.
xAI has never used twitter as a “tool” because it’s both against the TOS in the US and against EU law for tweeter, and against the original TOs for xAI.
Fiscal Year End Revenue Change Growth
Colonel Klink (ret) (9dbb75) — 5/14/2025 @ 10:29 pmDec 31, 2024 3.14 -.26 -7.65
Dec 31, 2023 3.40B -1.68B From ’21 -32%
Dec 31, 2022 2022 (until Q2): Q1 revenue was $1.2 billion and Q2 revenue was $1.18 billion Acquisition
Dec 31, 2021 5.08B 1.36B 36.63%
Dec 31, 2020 3.72B 257.02M 7.43%
Dec 31, 2019 3.46B 416.97M 13.71%
Dec 31, 2018 3.04B 599.06M 24.52%
Dec 31, 2017 2.44B -86.32M -3.41%
Dec 31, 2016 2.53B 311.59M 14.05%
Dec 31, 2015 2.22B 815.03M 58.09%
Dec 31, 2014 1.40B 738.11M 111.01%
Dec 31, 2013 664.89M 347.96M 109.79%
Dec 31, 2012 316.93M 210.62M 198.11%
Dec 31, 2011 106.31M 78.04M 275.96%
Dec 31, 2010 28.28M – –
I said profitable. You have reading comprehension problems Klink. I wonder why that is?
NJRob (eb56c3) — 5/15/2025 @ 7:24 amPlease, talk more about this word…profit.
Twitter has only ever had 2 years of positive net income, and as shown, massive shrinking of a company that…has never been profitable
If I paid $44 for my Buffalo Trace, and it’s now with $8. Plus, the money coming in as dropped by more than 50%. Oh, wait, I hear you say, it’s improved. Why yes, it has. It was off by more than 80%. Still, I’ve lost more than $30.
This profit thing, lower value, lower sales, higher costs (yes, like the federal government, cutting all humans doesn’t actually save much), definitely a recipe for massive profit.
Ah, the Bund in economic matters. Only the best.
Colonel Klink (ret) (9dbb75) — 5/15/2025 @ 9:27 amKlink playing with his clown nose again. Must be due to some personal issue. I won’t waste time with him again.
NJRob (5ab04d) — 5/15/2025 @ 11:20 amTypical Bund, information is the enemy.
If they didn’t know it when they were soiling their nappies, then it can’t be true.
Learning things is cool, try it once.
Colonel Klink (ret) (9dbb75) — 5/15/2025 @ 1:29 pmIt’s crazy how the notsees never like to know things. It’s like knowing things would possibly confirm that the things they’ve been saying, like injecting disinfectant is good for you, might be really dumb.
Colonel Klink (ret) (9dbb75) — 5/15/2025 @ 1:38 pmTrump asked a question! A person who is afraid to ask a stupid question will never learn anything or at least not become wise. And synthetic monoclonal antibodies (a method of treatment that has since been abandoned because the virus mutates and the time consuming methods of getting new antibodies approved and the attempt to limit the antibodies to just one or two) would kill the virus particles.
We have very bad procedures for approving new drugs that intrinsically almost exclude certain kinds of very good and safe treatments as well as anything that can’t be patented and results almost mathematically in enormously high costs for new drugs.
Trump’s proposed reduction in the price paid for drugs on patent could result in almost no new drug development unless other things change too.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/15/2025 @ 2:32 pm