But what about something like live action movies geared more towards adults?
This is something Disney also produces as well.
Do we believe the same competitive advantage exists here for Disney as well?
So again, reasonable people can disagree and we can have a good argument about
where we think Disney should be within the movie business.
Let's move on.
Disney claims that its business segments are well integrated,
well-connected businesses.
So we ask you, what is the glue that holds these businesses together?
So let me read some quotes here from some students that I think
capture some of the thinking on this well.
The main competitive advantage was Disney created by Walt Disney, for
many years in the past.
The personification of the company into something magical and
reliable, recreating fairy tales for children of all ages.
Creating sympathetic characters and caricatures
that enable the creation of theme parks and thousands of licensed products.
This idea of synergy once again.
Disney's, this is another quote, Disney's main advantage is being a family oriented
company around the world, offering a place where dreams can come true.
Another quote.
Everything that is created by Disney is ready to be reused in its
other businesses immediately.
Again, we talked about this idea of synergy between the businesses here.
One might even think, at the core of what Disney has,
are these iconic characters like Mickey Mouse that they then build off of, and
use in these other properties and the like.
But let me ask a couple questions to challenge this kind of fundamental notion.
First again, they are diversified into a wide number of areas,
including things like the sports channel ESPN, and once again, they make movies for
older adult audiences.
How does that fit the idea of Mickey Mouse, and
these iconic characters that many of you cited as being core to their identity?
Also this question we raised in the video lessons about,
do they have to do everything themselves?
What can they outsource?
Do they have to have all of this under the Disney umbrella?
Which takes us to our last question.
Based on your analysis, which businesses would you recommend that Disney invest?
And which should they potentially divest, if any.
A lot of interesting suggestions.
Many students suggested that they need to more heavily invest in interactivity and
mobile technology.
Some suggested they go into online education, very interesting.
One student I thought had a really interesting idea, quoting the student,
Disney's business potential could increase manifold if they tried to integrate
local stories, local characters, which are popular in the specific region.
So this idea of customizing their content to various geographic
areas around the world.
What about divestment?
So here's a quote from a student that I thought was interesting.
I don't think the broadcast segment really fits in as well as it should.
I'm not sure how ABC and ESPN, contribute to the Disney brand.
Now once again, this is a really interesting question here.
They are valuable properties, no doubt.
But to what degree should they actually be a part of the Disney property?
One way to think about ESPN is, if there are no synergy values,
if there's no value in holding it with the rest of the Disney portfolio,
it might actually be more worthwhile to sell it.
By selling it, arguably because it is a valuable property,
it could bring in a ton of money and command a very high price for that sale.
Now I'm not advocating this, but
I'm pointing out some of the questions you need to
ask when debating whether ESPN should remain in the Disney portfolio or not.
I wanna end with a quote here from a student who says,
Disney looks like a hydra-headed business entity.
I'd advise that they streamline all operations under a company towards family
entertainment and divest all that doesn't fall within that realm.