Dissecting Disney’s Power and the Reality of Boycotting

It's common to hear people argue that boycotting Disney is a way to support "saving" the company, rather than seeing it as a form of bullying. This article delves into the complex interplay between corporate power, shareholder influences, and public opinion surrounding Disney.

Corporate Influence and Shareholder Actions

Disney is no stranger to shareholder influence and power plays. One of the most noteworthy incidents involved a multi-billionaire shareholder, who, along with another large shareholder, attempted to stage a hostile takeover of the company a few years ago. This bold move, however, fell short when Michael Eisner (alias: Bob Iger), then the CEO, managed to secure the loyalty of other large shareholders by paying off their majority share. This bribe effectively maintained his power and control, but the disgruntled shareholders lost their significant stake.

Michael Eisner and His Legacy

Eisner is a name closely tied to Disney, having served as its CEO from 1984 to 2005. His tenure saw significant acquisitions, including the purchase of Marvel Comics, which he now regrets. Despite being fired in 2005, Eisner retained his shares in Disney. Interestingly, he chose to sell all of his holdings on the same day as the release of Deadpool and Wolverine. This sale, which took place just two years ago, has raised questions about his motivations. Was he signaling a shift in his relationship with Disney or was it a strategic move?

Disney’s Tactics and Market Dynamics

Disney is often criticized for leveraging its cash flow to exert political influence and engage in bullying behavior. The company constantly acquires high-quality assets and imposes its own values, often through superficial changes. This approach has backfired in recent years as consumers push back against Disney’s extremist stance on "woke" issues.

Impact on Consumer Behavior

Disney’s efforts to profit from an agenda perceived as extremist have led to a backlash from consumers. This isn't about bullying; it's about market dynamics. As people become wary of brands that espouse values they oppose, Disney has found itself in a challenging position. The company has resorted to paying bots to engage in online conversations that defend its practices, a sign of desperation in the face of public scrutiny.

The Reality of Boycotting

Boycotting a company is often misunderstood. When a consumer chooses not to purchase a product, it is not with the intention of “saving” the company, but rather because they do not desire or need the product. This act is an expression of individual choice and free will, not an aggressive act of bullying.

Individual Consumer Power

It is challenging to fathom how a company with an annual revenue of almost 90 billion dollars could be perceived as a victim of bullying. This perception trivializes genuine instances of bullying, which involve more significant and personal harm. Refusing to buy a product is a choice, not an act of aggression. In fact, it can be seen as a form of consumer power and control over one's own spending habits.

Conclusion

The argument for boycotting Disney is grounded in personal autonomy and market dynamics, not bullying. It is essential to differentiate between consumer choice and aggressive behavior, especially when dealing with large corporations. Understanding the complexities behind shareholder actions and corporate influence can help consumers make informed decisions and foster a healthier discussion about business practices.