Below is my column in The Hill on how Disney appears to be honoring the 300th anniversary of Adam Smith by recognizing some basic economic principles like the need to sell goods to make profits.
Here is the column:
This year marks the 300th anniversary of Adam Smith, the iconic figure behind the theory of free markets, or of what we have since come to call “capitalism.”
Born in June 1723, Smith went on to explain how the “invisible hand” of the market worked as people exercised their choices between certain products. It can shape economies and challenge whole governments. One company in particular appears to be learning that lesson.
In recent filings, Disney appears concerned that the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith is effectively giving the “House of Mouse” the middle finger. In a new corporate disclosure, Disney acknowledges that its controversial political and social agenda is costing the company and shareholders.
In its annual SEC report, Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.” In an implied nod to Smith, the company observes that “the success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content,” and that “Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”
Disney and other companies have previously ignored consumer backlash over corporate campaigns such as Disney’s opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law. Corporate officials once avoided political controversies and focused on selling their products and services rather than viewpoints.
Disney has reportedly lost a billion dollars just on four of its recent “woke” movie flops, productions denounced by critics as pushing political agendas or storylines. Yet until now, the company has continued to roll out underperforming movies as revenue has dropped. What’s more, Disney stars persist in bad-mouthing its fabled storylines and undermining its new productions. The company admits that it has suffered a continued slide in “impressions” (that is, viewership) by 14 percent.
For shareholders, it may seem counterintuitive that corporate executives would trade off profits for political or social agendas. However, it does serve as a rationale for individual corporate executives who are professionally advanced when they champion such causes. For example, when Alissa Heinerscheid, vice president of marketing for Bud Light, pledged to drop Bud Light’s “fratty reputation and embrace inclusivity,” she was heralded by colleagues, even though her move went on to tank that brand as a whole. Indeed, Bud Light has still not recovered from the loss of billions in profits, market share, and overall market value.
The same trend is playing out in the media. Public trust in journalists has fallen to a record low. Yet media executives continue to push advocacy journalism, abandoning objectivity. As former New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones declared, “all journalism is activism.”
With falling subscriptions and public backlash (this includes the amusing “Let’s go, Brandon!” mantra), the journalists continue to saw at the thin branch upon which they are sitting.
Again, while advocacy journalism is no more popular than woke corporate agendas, it remains “wealth-maximizing” for individual journalists, who can receive accolades from contemporaries by taking steps detrimental to their profession as a whole. For each individual, the falling revenues of their media outlets are outweighed by the individual advancement that comes with embracing advocacy over objectivity.
The same is true with academia, where universities and colleges are roundly criticized for their intolerance of opposing views and for purging faculties of conservative or libertarian professors. Roughly half of this country holds conservative or libertarian views. Yet faculty members have little incentive to put themselves at risk by demanding more intellectual diversity or viewpoint tolerance.
Each of these tales of decline represents a variation on another economic model called the “tragedy of the commons” whereby everyone makes personal decisions to their own immediate advantage that ultimately kill off the very resource that sustains everyone.
All of these corporate, journalistic and academic figures are acting for their immediate personal advantage at the expense of their companies and institutions.
In fairness to Disney, there is an expressive element to its products. Movies are artistic creations that emphasize certain motivations and values. At one time, those values included some that are now viewed as offensive, including racist tropes.
The question is the balance and degree of the political and social agenda. Disney’s products are now viewed by many conservatives as empty virtue signaling and endless attempts to indoctrinate children. Moreover, when the company publicly declares its opposition to a popular parental rights bill in Florida, it is moving away from a commercial to a political focus.
That is the problem with the invisible hand. You can bring movies to the public, but you cannot make them sell. Once an unassailable and uniting brand, Disney brand is now negatively associated with activism by a significant number of consumers. The company is now even reporting a decline in licensing revenue from products associated with Star Wars, Frozen, Toy Story and Mickey and Friends — iconic and once-unassailable corporate images.
The question is how long Disney (or its shareholders) can tolerate falling revenues tied to its “misalignment with the public.” It is a massive corporation and it can lose billions before facing any truly dire decisions. Yet even Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, now appears to be seeking to “quiet things down” after years of culture wars.
Iger has come to accept that a company does indeed have to sell products to survive. As Smith wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the Butcher, the Brewer or the Baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
So Happy 300th birthday, Adam. It is a bit belated, but so was Disney’s recognition of your economic principles.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Real Conservatives sometimes have legitimate policy ideas but unfortunately throughout American history, Conservatives have had bad policies.
In the early 1900’s, Conservatives (then Democrats) opposed granting equal rights to African-Americans.
Up until 1920, Conservatives opposed women having voting rights. Today women are roughly 50% of the population now allowed to vote.
Up until 1930, Conservatives opposed drinking Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) passing the worst constitutional amendment in history, which created an illegal black market – mushrooming the crime rate.
Up to the 1930’s Conservatives opposed “men” appearing “topless” on most public beaches. They compromised by only applying that law to women.
Up until 1965, Conservatives opposed “birth control” for married couples. Also Conservatives in some states either imprisoned or exiled interracial married couples. In Virginia, one couple had the choice of 10 years in prison or move out of the state.
Up until the 1970’s Conservatives opposed birth control for single women. Opposed funding school sports for girls in public schools. Opposed most female police officers, firefighters and combat roles for women.
Up until 2003, Conservatives opposed unmarried couples cohabitating together (living together while single). Opposed oral sex and gay sex. So much for small limited government!
At one time, Conservatives were somewhat Libertarian (live and let live – government staying out of private lives) and fiscally responsible. These Conservatives no longer exist!
Real Conservatives sometimes have legitimate policy ideas…
…which distinguishes them from progressives who have never, ever had a legit policy idea.
What a dunce. I mean, honestly, what a dunce. Many of these “conservative” policies were supported by the VAST majority of the population at the time. Easy to stand back now and call them “bad” policies. Essentially every policy that you don’t like, and that was overturned at some point, was a “bad” policy. What a dunce.
You go on to contradict yourself and claim that many of the people backing these bad policies were somehow “libertarians”. You may have outdone yourself with that. Say stuff out loud before you post it. It couldn’t hurt.
re: Jimmy
My grandparents lived in a village of about 200 residents during the Cold War, with a large percentage of residents working at CIA, DOD, State Department and FBI. Should have been named “Federal Village”.
Their siblings were close friends to Barry Goldwater and one fought in the Battle of the Bulge during World War Two.
As one abused by these agency people since childhood. In my view, based on decades of abuse by feds, what really matters is proper loyalty – the American Oath of Office.
I strongly suggest you read General Mark Miley’s 2023 Retirement Speech correctly explaining the American Oath of Office.
Simply proper Oath of Office education, by agency leaders, would prevent many of America’s worst blunders and save many lives. From one of America’s top experts on government corruption and disloyalty!
I don’t need the Oath explained to me, but I have read Milley’s interpretation. And you know what I concluded?? F— that POS. I took the same oath he did, the difference is, he thinks he is smart enough to determine which orders to follow and I’m not.
He showed me all I need to know about him when he gave legs to the press’ idea that Trump’s ignorant comments were a death threat, and that he “took action to protect” himself. What a flaming pussy.
Creators of Disney+ alternatives say goal is content for kids that’s not ‘inherently political’
“While the new content providers say their goal isn’t to challenge Disney, the company has lost over $10 billion on its streaming service venture since introduced in 2019”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/media/creators-alternatives-disney-say-goal-content-kids-thats-not-inherently?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
If you are going to use labels (instead of debating issues) at least be accurate about it. Most politicians of either party are either “Fiscally-Conservative and Socially-Liberal” -or- “Fiscally-Liberal and Socially-Conservative”. Both parties are mostly “Constitutionally-Liberal”.
For example:
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s top tax rate exceeded 70% and was way more “Fiscally-Liberal” than Joe Biden, Obama or Bill Clinton.
Richard Nixon’s “Universal Healthcare” plan was way more “Socially-Liberal” and “Fiscally-Liberal” than Obamacare or the Democrat’s Medicare-X plan (basically citizens can opt to have the same coverage as your member of Congress or stick with their existing insurance model).
Ronald Reagan was sometimes “Fiscally-Liberal” and passed 11 tax increases, not vetoing a single one.
By comparison, Bill Clinton was actually “Fiscally-Conservative but Socially-Liberal” – the last president to leave a balanced budget – reducing the debt burden for your children and grandchildren to pay back.
George W. Bush was “Fiscally-Liberal and Socially-Conservative” promoting “Borrow & Spend” policies (way worse than tax & spend). Then Bush gave that money to billionaires and gave our kids the credit card bill. Even if you deduct wartime spending, Bush Republicans spent like drunken sailors. Bush was also “Constitutionally-Liberal” totally destroying the 4th Amendment with his “Bush Preemption Doctrine” – now being weaponized against some Trump supporters.
Obama paid down Bush’s credit card balance to just below the deficit inherited from liberally-spending Bush.
If you use labels, be honest about it.
You’re forgetting who had Congressional control!!! Example: Bill Clinton received the pat on the back that should have gone to Newt Gingrich! Contrary to popular belief, Congress had a say in this. Try not to be so “party before country.” Republicans are more Liberal and never the answer to our nation’s problems, but here of late the Democrats are always the most destructive and the cause. Both parties are making war on the moderates who see right through them.
“Obama paid down Bush’s credit card balance to just below the deficit inherited from liberally-spending Bush.”
You don’t pay down a deficit, nincompoop.
The free market will provide.
I have a paid subscription to The Free Press. They are doing quite well over there.
Meanwhile the NYT and WaPa have falling subscriptions and are laying off people.
Since going woke, I wont watch anything from Disney. Supposedly, some of their recent productions have gotten rave reviews, but tanked at the box office. They might write great woke movies but no one wants to see them. And, some of those professional critics get paid to write rave reviews. Eight critics recently got busted doing exactly that by Rotten Tomatoes. Then there are the audience reviews that are more likely bots bought by Disney. It is funny to read/skim the 100 one liner reviews of how awesome the movie was, and then read a actual multi-sentence or paragraph of a real person who lays out the facts of how just okay or bad the movie really was.
Why would something called the “Free” Press charge a paid subscription? The may be due for a rebrand.
I get your humor. Maybe it’s because freedom is never free.
@Upstate
Totally. Review sites are completely polluted at this point, so are online retailers’ reviews (or comment bombing, as we see here everyday). I always look for the middling ones, perfect tens are nearly always fiction.
I’ve begun thinking of cancel culture as temper tantrum culture – being disingenuous is the only way ignorant people think they can win, at anything, not realizing they don’t actually have to ‘win’ in a free society, or in an attempt to satisfy greed rather than trusting sane people will respond to (actual) authenticity. Idjits. Being beholden to personal insecurity has never been a great strategy for much of anything.
Fake News.
NYT added 180K subscribers in Q2: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/media/new-york-times-q2-earnings.html#:~:text=The%20company%20added%20180%2C000%20new,10%20million%20subscribers%20in%20total.&text=The%20New%20York%20Times%20added,close%20to%2010%20million%20subscribers.
How many subscriptions did “The Free Press” add?
Adam Smith, and all that, is fine if you are dealing with citizens who believe in individual responsibility and capitalism. However, a goodly portion of those working for Disney (and all other institutions and corporations filled with the recent output of our media/education industries) do not. They have been inculcated with the concept that all things can and should be funded by the government and that individual self-desire comes before commitment to community or nation. Adam Smith is not relevant to their world view and they will find the required dictums of capitalism/free enterprise to be an onerous infringement on what they have been taught to believe is what they DESERVE.
Snarky and Sarcastic! Great piece Professor Turley.
We dropped Hulu (Disney) and have been 3 months without programmed television. We miss one or two shows, but otherwise there is nothing on worth watching.
I avoid Hollywood movies made in the last five years, but especially since pandemic. I have only been to the theater for Top Gun and for the independent films such as, “The Chosen” which is part of a remarkable independently produced series. They introduced season three in the theaters to sold out crowds. Now season 4 will be shown exclusively in theaters. Hollywood just does not get it.,
Regarding news, the big guys (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News etc..) are circling the drain. There are too many productions! I like Mike Baker’s “The President’s Daily Brief.” Mike was a CIA officer and now hosts this straight news show. Bill O’Reilly has built a very successful news organization since leaving Fox. There are numerous old school journalists who are gaining wide audiences.
Disney is slowly destroying their brand. They forgot what made them successful. Coca Cola, Harley Davidson, Air Steam and other businesses with a loyal following learned similar hard lessons.
What is contradictory regarding the media is that “news”papers like the NY Times are surviving by preaching to the subscribing choir while television networks like CNN are dying. The Times made a deal with the devil and they are hanging on because there are enough people in NY and elsewhere that will pay to read affirming opinion stories (pretending to be news) but others like the WAPO are losing millions every year. CNN has lost all credibility and also much of it’s viewership and although they made some noise about changing last year the inmates took back control and they have remained a loony bin while continuing to have no ratings.
I understand what Fox has tried to do, although I am not happy about it. They have the conservatives pretty locked up and they want to expand their base a bit in order to grow their audience. But Fox better be careful because if there is ever a true alternative they will be in trouble.
When Fox had a left wing “political analyst” running the show in 2020 it was a disaster. Chris Stirewalt was awful, he was biased against his employer’s own base and he almost single handedly tanked the network. They fired him in acknowledgement of what happened as they tried to stem the flow away from the network. But if you notice to this day that Fox polls almost always have Biden higher than every other poll????
What I am getting at is that media outlets are struggling to grow (Fox) while others simply want to cater to their far left base , CNN and MSNBC along with WAPO and the LA Times losing viewers while the NY Times oddly hanging on.
One last point. As far as greed is concerned look at the money that Jim Acosta made for himself being a lunatic for the anti-Trump crowd. Of course he is now nowhere, his “brand” is finished and he will never be a name again. Is he happy with the money? That is the key question.
“Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”
Who are the PR people who write this garbage?
Why couldn’t they just state the obvious, clearly and succinctly? — We tried to sell cultural poison. The public didn’t swallow it. No we’re paying the piper.
I know. There may have been an implicit nod to Adam Smith in all this but it was explicitly newspeak.
The beauty of capitalism is that it channels the greed of men and women into constructive enterprise. The only way to make money in the capitalist system is to provide a good or service that other people want and are willing to pay for. It is essentially a democratic marketplace in which people vote with their money. Many, if not most, politicians, dislike this democratic marketplace because it often conflicts with their agendas. For example, the free market does not like the current push by the Biden administration to outlaw gas appliances, and, I expect the invisible hand will smack down these misguided efforts.
“… the journalists continue to saw at the 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡 upon which they are sitting. …” lol
I love that!
“… All of these corporate, journalistic and academic figures are acting for their immediate personal advantage at the expense of their companies and institutions. … ”
Yes indeed, tread carefully though, You have a Publisher now.
Thanks Jonathan ✯✯✯✯✯
It’s less an invisible hand and more a social-media machine that emphasizes into reality the constant whining and crying and snowflaking from the woke Left and the hypocritically woke Right.
But what’s the fuss about? I thought “corporations are people”, no?
Disney as the corporate entity that it is now, is dead. It just still has to go through the dying phase and it may take a lot of good people and their jobs with them. What is encouraging is that Disney once long ago was in dire straits and was rescued by Michael Eisner and he totally revitialized the animation section and lead Disney to acquisitions and growth that is the behemoth we see now. He had some bombs late in his tenure and then some people did it like his style and a rescue was then instituted again in 2005 and they came up with Robert Iger. Iger then led them to much success but he, in essence, set the stage for the present disaster by destroying the Star Wars franchise, took the MCU to the heights and then destroyed it when he could not advance it to the next step in it’s evolution, started doing live but awful remakes of beloved classics and then retired and let the next guy come in and take the blame and then Iger came back for another “rescue”. They need to recruit and use new creative talent that is in tune with audiences and build upon what is successful in their huge stable of products new and old. They have a serious lack of imagination other than being “woke”. There are good films out their and literature to build upon if they would simply open their eyes and see. Disney used to be cutting edge in special effects combined with excellent stories like “20,000 leagues under the Sea”, and provided the special effects for a non Disney film “Forbidden planet”, and others over the decades as well as the Steve Jobs collaboration with Pixar. They have the capability but they have have no sane leadership. I don’t know of any head of Production who could could turn out as many bombs as Kathleen Kennedy and still have a job.
Indeed, Disney has lost Walt’s vision. It’s leadership no longer asks, “WWWD – What Would Walt Do?”
nice column Jon!
Corporations have always been involved in politics to make sure the invisible hand works for them…..usually by quietly buying politicians who will facilitate their money making by passing favorable laws, or creating illegal channels to exercise power.
Sorry Professor but this is not a “recent filing.” Disney has been using the same wording in its SEC Risk boilerplate section of its 10-K since at least 2019 (most recent 10-K filing on SEC search engine) and I suspect for much longer. The wording has nothing to do with any recent events
I saw a comment sometime in the last week
The job of the media is make you believe the beliefs of 5% of the people are actually a significant majority.
That’s what we are seeing. A very woke minority is forcing he will on everyone.
But eventually facts always win out.
We use to enjoy taking a couple hours out of our day a catch a movie. We still enjoy the experience, but there is nothing to go see. We like a good story. Not the same story deliver ed through a dozen different franchise movie platforms. A Batman movie was fun the first time or two, but not the 5th time. Especially has more and more woke nonsense makes up more and more of the story.
Resulting in us not being in the theater but one time in the last 6 months.
There used to be a saying in the entertainment business. “but will it play in Peoria?” NYC and Hollywood asking themselves, is the entertainment broad spectrum enough to appeal to people outside of the NYC and Hollywood bubble?
But today the media lies and tells you, YOU are the odd man out. You need to get with the rest of the world in your views.
It’s a healthy balance but voters of both parties support some “Libertarian” policies – from Pro-Choice Democrats opposing a government nanny state to Republican gun owners opposing a nanny state. Neither party seems to get this.
Comparing an enumerated right, to abortion, that is specifically handled in the Constitution by the 10 Amendment.
That’s a failed narrative.
Unnamed rights are covered by the 9th Amendment. The Framers of the Constitution knew that all rights and freedoms couldn’t be named – it’s impossible.
This is why Jim Crow laws were deemed unconstitutional, 10th Amendment States’ Rights couldn’t be interpreted to violate the other constitutional rights of African-Americans or any other person (ie: sitting at the back of the bus, segregated services, etc).
The 9th Amendment benefits Conservatives also since it protects gun rights not covered under the 2nd Amendment, like hunting, target shooting, etc.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Are trying to claim the people retained the right to abortion?
Unless you have a slice of history unavailable to the rest of us, The people never attempted to retain any such “right”
It is much more clarifying to speak in terms of ‘power’. Where exactly does the power originate from. Here is a hint. In the USA, all power emanates from the power of the sovereign people
Here is the meat of the 2cnd amendment ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
That’s it. The right shall not be infringed.
For what ever(lawful) reason the person desires
Au contraire!
Nat Hentoff, an accomplished author and avowed civil libertarian, came to believe that abortion was an anathema to civil libertarian beliefs because it denied the fundamental of human rights to the most vulnerable of human beings.
He wrote, “Here were liberals, decent people, fully convinced themselves that they were for individual rights and liberties but willing to send into eternity these infants because they were imperfect, inconvenient, costly. I saw the same attitude on the part of the same kinds of people toward abortion, and I thought it was pretty horrifying.”
He was a profit who understood that an acceptance of abortion would ultimately lead to an acceptance of euthanasia:
“The ‘slippery slope’ business began to make sense to me then,” he says. “From there it was ineluctable – not just abortion, but euthanasia as well.”
If we believe in our founding documents, we must embrace the Declaration’s first and most fundamental freedom given by our Creator, life. Such an inalienable right, by definition, cannot be taken away by any other human being or government.
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party’s ethos has gotten this principle, so fundamental to our human liberty, wrong.
Granny62, thank you for your comment. All people including Libertarians can be self-serving. The position taken by too many is that this one group might be excluded from their civil liberties because of…
Abortion is one exclusion, but we have many others including those which promote genocide.
I reposted a picture “out of the Qur’an that showed what they believe about doing to us in the west. I was blocked for 24th s on Facebook because they said it was terrorist….no where on there to say it was a post of “what the believe” and that I am Not part of that organization. So Face book directs its narrative to different audiences to upheave different reactions to things that are posted. I prefer to post to “X” formally known as TWITTER because they do not get in such an uproar. They also give you and opertunity to type somethjng in as an explanation “if they got it wrong”.
Disney will say that it must have freedom of artistic expression. But its own actions show the opposite. For 50 years, it has kept the great movie Song of the South buried in its vault b/c racial victim groups call it “racist”. Their opinion is accepted, but the opinion of millions of Florida parents is ignored.
The thing is any one that was born in the 50’s or before grew up in Disney and until recently we never heard of any of this stuff. All the weird views and and all, they arose after he died. I could not wait to watch a Disney movie or go to Disney world or the likes. Now it is labels a Pedo fun house that NO ONE wants to go to and all the movies are being re-written to remove whites or hero’s with Blacks or LGBTQ who’s is mind boggling. This thing about the hidden hand, well just another thing to destroy what we grew up with.
You curiously omit the legal profession from groups following a political agenda. Faith in the justice system is pretty low right now for the same. I wonder if it is the reason no shareholder lawsuits have been filed.