Are you worried that Walt Disney Studios buys so much of the entertainment industry?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Bear in mind also this is a company that controls what level of facial hair their employees can have.
if you work for one of their theme parks and you want to grow a beard you have to do so off company time. You're not allowed to work with a 5 o'clock shadow.

That's many companies, everywhere.

[CyberCubed]

If anything I want Disney to go further.

I want them to buy the James Bond license from MGM, I wouldn't mind them getting Star Trek from Paramount at this point, and hell if it comes to that day let them buy DC/Warner Bros. as well.

Give Disney the world.

[sdp]

The lack of awareness of what a monopoly is and the effects it has in this thread is sad and scary.

[Shark_Blade]

Nope.

What’s more, Disney preserve these IPs. Just look at the Disney Princesses being revived in the upcoming movie Wreck it Ralph 2! And the many Disneylands to ensure longevity of these products.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by sdp

The lack of awareness of what a monopoly is and the effects it has in this thread is sad and scary.

Yet nobody is actually explaining what supposed horrible things they could do now. It’s just “Monopolies are bad. We shouldn’t trust Disney”.

I really only see positives to this. They can do more things with more franchises.

[drgon78]

Well it is sad that Disney makes up like 70% of the boxoffice. I can see how that could be a problem if you want some more variety.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

I think there will come some reaction one day, and wei'll se more entertainment produced by independend companies (both children's and family friendly as well as darker), like we already have seen for years in music with indiepop and indierock.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Entertainment involves media broadcasting, doesn't it?
Would you trust all of your news come from only one source?

Bear in mind also this is a company that controls what level of facial hair their employees can have.
if you work for one of their theme parks and you want to grow a beard you have to do so off company time. You're not allowed to work with a 5 o'clock shadow.

There was also a point in time in the company's history where they're costumed employees had to wear bog-standard, provided for you, underwear. This led to an outbreak of crabs.

Don't get me wrong, Disney is a great company, but don't ever get caught crossing the mouse.

The entertainment / media broadcast news thing, I'll give you. Except we (royal American we) already mostly single-source our news to align with our confirmation bias. So in theory, I'll agree with this... but practically speaking, I think it's a moot point and Net Neutrality's repeal is a far greater threat to unbiased news and its availability, rather than Disney.

As for all of the dress-code stuff... that's dress-code stuff. Not atypical. There's a reason I'm sticking with my current employer... flipflops every day, geek shirts, and hella beard. Dress code? Ain't got none.

[plastroncafe]

I think contracting a sexually transmitted infection from a company mandated uniform kind of goes above and beyond mere dress code stuff.
But to each their own.

The free market is kind of intrinsic to the American experiment, so I'm continually surprised by people who are more than happy to allow monopolies to exist.
The market isn't free if there's only one purveyor of goods and services.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I think contracting a sexually transmitted infection from a company mandated uniform kind of goes above and beyond mere dress code stuff.
But to each their own.

The free market is kind of intrinsic to the American experiment, so I'm continually surprised by people who are more than happy to allow monopolies to exist.
The market isn't free if there's only one purveyor of goods and services.

It's hella nasty, but reparations absolutely needed to be made (and dress code changed), but I think from a legal standpoint, that's just dresscode stuff. Hooters mandates its employees wear orange booty shorts, Disney mandates weird standardized underwear, forklift operators have to have steel-toed boots.

And the free market is absolutely a core principle of the American infrastructure... but looking at it critically, I'm just not convinced Disney is a threat that I need to worry about.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

It's hella nasty, but reparations absolutely needed to be made (and dress code changed), but I think from a legal standpoint, that's just dresscode stuff. Hooters mandates its employees wear orange booty shorts, Disney mandates weird standardized underwear, forklift operators have to have steel-toed boots.

Yeah, corporate guidelines for facial hair? Corporate mandated uniforms? Eh, these are pretty normal things since time immemorial. I've been at jobs where the handbook says how long your fingernails can be and either you can't wear one earring, you have to either wear one in each ear or none.

Are you sure you've worked a lot of jobs in the corporate sector, plastron? You seem a little out of touch.

[Spike Spiegel]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Are you sure you've worked a lot of jobs in the corporate sector, plastron? You seem a little out of touch.

[plastroncafe]

I do have to laugh at the sheer number of people who come to my neck of the woods, employment-wise, in an effort to get away from the relentless politicking and backbiting of the corporate sector...only to go right back because it's worse here.

OSHA mandates my dresscode.

[sdp]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Yet nobody is actually explaining what supposed horrible things they could do now. It’s just “Monopolies are bad. We shouldn’t trust Disney”.

I really only see positives to this. They can do more things with more franchises.

I'm pretty sure i posted reasons why in the Fox/Disney thread but there are numberless of examples of how monopolies stifle innovation, try to find me a monopoly that actually served consumers that isn't state owned, you can't. You can read some basic theory about monopolies though:

·Allocative inefficiency - prices will tend to be higher, and output lower, than what would exist in a market with low barriers to entry. Prices will tend to be higher than both marginal costs and average total cost.

·Weakened market forces - when consumers of a product have many alternatives, producers must serve their customers efficiently in order to stay in business. If consumers can't purchase competitive products easily, the monopolist doesn't need to worry a lot about losing customers when poor service or a poor quality good is provided.

·Rent or favor seeking - firms and/or individuals will put a great deal of effort into obtaining or maintaining high entry barriers; by doing so, they hope to achieve monopoly-type profits. Such efforts enrich some people, at the expense of many others.

Price Discrimination
Price searchers effectively price discriminate among their customers when they are able to:

a) identify sub-groups which have different elasticities of demand, and
b) ensure that the customers cannot resell the good.

A common example is airline travel. Travelers who plan in advance will have a higher elasticity of demand than travelers who must travel within a short period of time.

With price discrimination, some consumers pay higher prices than they would if there was a single price. However, many in the group paying lower prices will now be getting something they otherwise would not have purchased. Universities are increasing their use of price discrimination. Tuition rates for students without financial aid are increasing greatly while the average price charged is not going up as much because more financial aid is being offered. The colleges reap high revenues from wealthy families who can afford to pay high tuition while more students from lower-income families can now attend college.

In general, higher output will occur with price discrimination. Furthermore, there may be some businesses that could not exist without price discrimination. For example, a dentist in a small town may not have a viable business without performing price discrimination.

As price discrimination increases output and gains from trade, it reduces allocative inefficiency. Firms that successfully price discriminate will benefit by getting higher revenues.

[Wildcat]

@sdp, I understand what that’s saying. I would agree with with the weakened market forces one if it was about essential services that impact our daily lives but this is about movies and tv.

It’s purely entertainment plus I don’t see Disney dropping the quality of products or not caring as much just because they own a bunch. They have a huge reputation to keep up.

The same with the price stuff. If they highered prices beyond the norm it would definitely be noticed. It’s not like people would mindlessly watch a movie or show just because it’s there. Nobody does that now.

I don’t get the “scheme” that Disney supposedly has in mind for us. More superhero movies and long running shows? How does that hurt me? I’m still gonna watch whatever I want. If they happen to make/own it that’s fine.

[Andrew NDB]

It's really just about properties, again. And going over the list of them again, we're literally talking either about ones that have been greatly maligned under Fox or ones that basically aren't relevant anymore or ones that will be continuing "business as usual." And they get to add more old movies and old TV shows to their forthcoming streaming thing. So what? Nothing is stopping any other studio from doing new, cool properties cooler than the ones Disney has.

Hardly smacks of "monopoly."

[ProactiveMan]

I don't like it. They already have too much influence over movie theatres, and when their streaming service comes out they will be able to inflate the price of VOD.

[Vegita-San]

yeah. the influence over theaters should be some kind of illegal operation as it basically boils down to threats. and cuts into their livelihood.

I still say that with SO many properties to develop, at least half will suffer because they don't have the resources, or caring, to put any kind of thought into them that will make them last longer than a year at most.

we've already seen this with star wars. we've seen this with marvel comics. what else is going to get ruined due to lack of over site and clear thinking?

eventually disney will just get too big and implode from glutteness.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

@sdp, I understand what that’s saying. I would agree with with the weakened market forces one if it was about essential services that impact our daily lives but this is about movies and tv.

It’s purely entertainment plus I don’t see Disney dropping the quality of products or not caring as much just because they own a bunch. They have a huge reputation to keep up.

The same with the price stuff. If they highered prices beyond the norm it would definitely be noticed. It’s not like people would mindlessly watch a movie or show just because it’s there. Nobody does that now.

I don’t get the “scheme” that Disney supposedly has in mind for us. More superhero movies and long running shows? How does that hurt me? I’m still gonna watch whatever I want. If they happen to make/own it that’s fine.

When you have a monopoly, you control what the norm is.
Of course they'll keep prices lower, which will make it so other producers of content can't compete.
Thus ensuring that they are the only game in town, and that people who aren't them don't survive in the marketplace.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

The same with the price stuff. If they highered prices beyond the norm it would definitely be noticed. It’s not like people would mindlessly watch a movie or show just because it’s there. Nobody does that now.

Dude, that's exactly what people do on their streaming services. You've already seen all your shows, new seasons don't come out for another few months... what the hell, why don't I try THIS show? Better than nothing, right?