We're not talking here about the unfortunate Mars Needs Moms, but this:
... Disney disclosed late Tuesday that the operating loss at its interactive business, which makes video games and runs Disney-branded websites, had more than doubled to $115 million in the second quarter through April 2. That highlights just how much of a black hole the operation has become. ...
Diz Co. has been in the video game biz for a while now. Some years back, TAG made a run at organizing the gaming unit. Sadly, we didn't get major traction, but then as now, Disney's digital subsidiary was encountering bumps on the road to profitability. And a number of Disney employees -- all holding term employment contracts -- were getting let go. ("Cost cutting" is a never-ending job.)
When people complained to us about their personal service agreements being truncated, TAG was pleased to provide legal advice, and we helped a sizable number of vid game workers get larger payouts from the Mouse.
This happened long ago in the glorious nineties, when Disney Feature Animation and Disney Television Animation were near their pinnacles. History might not repeat itself, but for Disney Interactive, it seems to be a rhyming couplet.
Posts
15 comments:
The problem is now and always has been the management. I began working with Disney's computer group way back in the eighties where executives (I kid you not) could not even turn on a computer.
More than a decade has passed and they've yet to figure it out. I don't hold out much hope for the unit.
A) Steve, that headline is misleading. I hope it isnt intentional.
B) Floyd, you know that headline isnt talking about Walt Disney Animation Studios, right?
"I began working with Disney's computer group..."
I think he knows.
"Hee hee hee; I can't wait until Floyd posts again. I love bashing his posts...
Yeah Mom, I know; I'll be up for dinner in a minute..."
Let's try this again. Steve.....
You blog post is about video games. Could you please change your headline? Disney Animation (features) is being profitable. Thanks.
-one profitable film does not make the entire studio profitable. It doesnt work that way. Economics. You need to put the losses against the recent gains. If you have lost millions...& you get a increase for a year or two... does that pull you out of the hole?..you need to know the real world numbers
Could you please change your headline? ...
Uh, why?
Disney vid games are animated. I didn't say "the unprofitable Walt Disney Animation Studios." Or "the unprofitable Disney Television Animation." I referenced "animation."
Last time I checked, Disney video games had animation.
Animation is not the end product of a video game.
It's like saying "The Unprofitable Disney Actors" when talking about Tron or something. Just seems misleading.
one profitable film does not make the entire studio profitable.
Did I say that? Let me look back and read...no, sure didnt. I said "being profitable," as in, current trends. But keep pilin' that hate on. Its just makes us work harder.
Completely in agreement with the first Anon. The title is completely misleading. I assumed this post was about Winnie the Pooh when I read the title.
How will all these tender souls ever get over the trauma of projecting their own incorrect assumptions on a perfectly accurate headline?
Completely in agreement with the first Anon. The title is completely misleading. I assumed this post was about Winnie the Pooh when I read the title.
Assumed why? Winnie is never mentioned.
Look, it's a title. A title to get somebody to read further. When you read further, it's obvious what is being talked about, yes?
You'd think I was attacking Grannie, the way some of the anons go on.
Well, Steve, that IS the definition of assume - to suppose to be the case without proof. There was no mention, and yet I figured it was about Winnie the Pooh, because that is the only "Disney Animation" that may be in danger of being unprofitable at the moment.
If you had said Disney animation, maybe it would have been read otherwise. But saying Disney Animation makes it the title of something, and obviously the most closely related thing is Walt Disney Animation Studios. Most shorten the long title to Disney Animation in the first place. It's an understandable assumption.
Having not ever worked for Disney, I can still say I see where these other anons are coming from being upset about it. They're trying to pick themselves up and make their name more respectable in the industry once again. Based on their last couple films, they've been doing a great job. But it's about more than that. How many people just glanced at this headline and went "well, surprise surprise" and continued on with their negative views about WDAS? I'd bet at least a few. And that's something that Disney doesn't need right now.
Like you said, the title tries to get people to read on. But this blog isn't the 11 o'clock news, Steve. You don't need to use potentially misleading headlines in order to get people to read. Just my two cents.
Because like someone said above: the article isnt about Disney Animation, its about a product of Disney's that has animation in it. Its about Disney Video Games, or Disney Interactive. Somewhere in Utah. Not in the Guild.
So then why didnt you make this the title?
"The Unprofitable Disney Interactive"
Nah, its ore fun to dump on Disney Animation. You're right.
*more
Post a Comment