5 ms·

Disney paid $4B for Marvel which had an easy path to profit because of Disney's background. Disney paid $4B for Lucasfilm which had an easy path to profit bec

Disney paid $4B for Marvel which had an easy path to profit because of Disney's background. Disney paid $4B for Lucasfilm which had an easy path to profit because of Disney's background. As a shareholder I would be offended if they made an offer even half those prices for Twitter which has a product that isn't even in Disney's wheelhouse. I am confused why Disney is even in this conversation at this point.

loceng 10y ago
They are completely different business models. Twitter has tremendous value and with the right product changes, some rollbacks, I think it can become very powerful and in as much widespread use as Facebook, etc. The problem is is getting someone in the driver's seat who understands what Twitter's place (differentiation, offering) is and then getting that driving.
- vslira 10y ago
  >The problem is is getting someone in the driver's seat who understands what Twitter's place (differentiation, offering) is and then getting that driving. Surely, but what cyanbane said was that Disney is not this driver.
- pawadu 10y ago
  > They are completely different business models. Yes, one prints money the other doesn't even know how and what to monetize > Twitter has tremendous value How do you define value?
- imagist 10y ago
  > They are completely different business models. They are different business models in the sense that Disney has a business model and Twitter doesn't. > Twitter has tremendous value and with the right product changes, some rollbacks, I think it can become very powerful and in as much widespread use as Facebook, etc. The problem is is getting someone in the driver's seat who understands what Twitter's place (differentiation, offering) is and then getting that driving. The problem isn't anything so vague. The problem is that Twitter hasn't ever made a profit and a this point probably won't ever make a profit. And I suspect that this refutes your assertion that "Twitter has tremendous value".
jasode 10y ago
>Twitter which has a product that isn't even in Disney's wheelhouse. I am confused why Disney is even in this conversation at this point. One can view the Twitter business in multiple ways. If one sees Twitter as a technology platform that builds on what IRC/XMPP did before, the Disney connection makes zero sense. (E.g. Disney is not a tech company and they wouldn't be the kind of company that would bring back a developer API.) However, one can also see Twitter as a media entertainment business and the technology platform behind the scenes as an irrelevant detail. Disney does already own the ABC Broadcasting network and ESPN. Looking at Twitter via the lense of "media outlet" isn't that strange if you look at the top-100 Twitter profiles: http://twittercounter.com/pages/100 http://twittercounter.com/pages/100 One will notice it's mostly entertainment celebrities including singers Katy Perry (93M), Justin Bieber (88M), Taylor Swift (81M), etc. The list also includes media channels such as Youtube, CNN, ESPN, BBC, etc. Sure, many people have touted the social ideals of Twitter and its empowerment of user-driven bottom-up journalism. It's a "global consciousness" for news. However, it's interesting to note the relatively low number of followers for famous journalists compared to the entertainment celebrities: Christiane Amanpour (1.8M), Louis Theroux (1.5M), Glenn Greenwald (743k), Malcolm Gladwell (422k), Bob Woodward (15.9k), etc. If you see Twitter as a media/broadcast business, an acquisition by Google/Apple doesn't make any sense. If you see Twitter as a technology platform to sell more digital ads, an acquisition by Disney makes no sense. All that said, we've seen one media company (Rupert Murdoch) buy a web company (MySpace) and that didn't turn out so well for a variety of reasons.
- ebbv 10y ago
  This is a good explanation of why people think it made sense for Disney to buy Twitter, but I don't buy it. The problem with this approach is that Twitter doesn't own any of those big celebrities or have any way of enforcing them staying on the platform. When you buy the record label that Katy Perry has a deal with, you're buying it because Katy Perry has a deal in place to make N more records for that label. When you buy Twitter because Katy Perry is on it, you're not getting anything. She could shut down her Twitter tomorrow and tell all her followers she's only on Instagram.
  - 10y ago
draw_down 10y ago
They're a media company, so is Twitter.
- imagist 10y ago
  Disney is a media company--they sell media. Twitter isn't a media company. They don't sell media, and in fact they don't sell enough of anything to make a profit.
  - draw_down 10y ago
    Well, I believe the idea is a strategic partnership to help Twitter to profitability. But yes, Twitter is a media company.
    - imagist 10y ago
      Well, glad we settled that.
  - Touche 10y ago
    Twitter is analogous to ABC, owned by Disney. ABC sells ads attached to media, so does Twitter.
    - otterley 10y ago
      Disney is a content company; distribution is just a side business (e.g. Buena Vista). ABC and ESPN (which Disney also owns) has studios and makes their own content; they're not merely distribution channels. Twitter, on the other hand, creates no content of its own.
    - imagist 10y ago
      Twitter is analogous to ABC in the same sense that I'm analogous to Usain Bolt. We both run, but only one of us makes a profit doing it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jobu 10y ago
> I am confused why Disney is even in this conversation at this point. Same here. There are a few companies that I could see a good fit with Twitter, but definitely not Disney. Facebook is an option as their mission is to connect everyone in the world, and Twitter still works via SMS for the billions of people using non-smart mobile devices. Google wants a social media platform with significant reach (Google+ is still struggling), and I could see Twitter integrating well with some of its other sites like Youtube. Verizon has been able to squeeze money out of AOL, and currently plans to do the same with Yahoo. Maybe they could figure out a model for Twitter, but it seems like a bit of a stretch. Apple dabbled in the social media sphere with Ping, and they have built-in authentication with Twitter. It seems unlikely they could ever make money off Twitter, but it seems like the sort of thing they might be willing to waste money on.
- isolli 10y ago
  How did Verizon squeeze money out of AOL?
droopybuns 10y ago
Disney owns ESPN. Twitter has an exclusive live streaming deal with the NFL. Buying Twitter gets them access to a valuable media property. They likely aren't buying tweets, but the future of media consumption, due to a pretty strange hedge by Twitter (which Twitter probably can't afford).

loceng 10y ago

They are completely different business models. Twitter has tremendous value and with the right product changes, some rollbacks, I think it can become very powerful and in as much widespread use as Facebook, etc. The problem is is getting someone in the driver's seat who understands what Twitter's place (differentiation, offering) is and then getting that driving.

vslira 10y ago
>The problem is is getting someone in the driver's seat who understands what Twitter's place (differentiation, offering) is and then getting that driving. Surely, but what cyanbane said was that Disney is not this driver.
pawadu 10y ago
> They are completely different business models. Yes, one prints money the other doesn't even know how and what to monetize > Twitter has tremendous value How do you define value?
imagist 10y ago
> They are completely different business models. They are different business models in the sense that Disney has a business model and Twitter doesn't. > Twitter has tremendous value and with the right product changes, some rollbacks, I think it can become very powerful and in as much widespread use as Facebook, etc. The problem is is getting someone in the driver's seat who understands what Twitter's place (differentiation, offering) is and then getting that driving. The problem isn't anything so vague. The problem is that Twitter hasn't ever made a profit and a this point probably won't ever make a profit. And I suspect that this refutes your assertion that "Twitter has tremendous value".

jasode 10y ago

>Twitter which has a product that isn't even in Disney's wheelhouse. I am confused why Disney is even in this conversation at this point. One can view the Twitter business in multiple ways. If one sees Twitter as a technology platform that builds on what IRC/XMPP did before, the Disney connection makes zero sense. (E.g. Disney is not a tech company and they wouldn't be the kind of company that would bring back a developer API.) However, one can also see Twitter as a media entertainment business and the technology platform behind the scenes as an irrelevant detail. Disney does already own the ABC Broadcasting network and ESPN. Looking at Twitter via the lense of "media outlet" isn't that strange if you look at the top-100 Twitter profiles: http://twittercounter.com/pages/100 http://twittercounter.com/pages/100 One will notice it's mostly entertainment celebrities including singers Katy Perry (93M), Justin Bieber (88M), Taylor Swift (81M), etc. The list also includes media channels such as Youtube, CNN, ESPN, BBC, etc. Sure, many people have touted the social ideals of Twitter and its empowerment of user-driven bottom-up journalism. It's a "global consciousness" for news. However, it's interesting to note the relatively low number of followers for famous journalists compared to the entertainment celebrities: Christiane Amanpour (1.8M), Louis Theroux (1.5M), Glenn Greenwald (743k), Malcolm Gladwell (422k), Bob Woodward (15.9k), etc. If you see Twitter as a media/broadcast business, an acquisition by Google/Apple doesn't make any sense. If you see Twitter as a technology platform to sell more digital ads, an acquisition by Disney makes no sense. All that said, we've seen one media company (Rupert Murdoch) buy a web company (MySpace) and that didn't turn out so well for a variety of reasons.

ebbv 10y ago
This is a good explanation of why people think it made sense for Disney to buy Twitter, but I don't buy it. The problem with this approach is that Twitter doesn't own any of those big celebrities or have any way of enforcing them staying on the platform. When you buy the record label that Katy Perry has a deal with, you're buying it because Katy Perry has a deal in place to make N more records for that label. When you buy Twitter because Katy Perry is on it, you're not getting anything. She could shut down her Twitter tomorrow and tell all her followers she's only on Instagram.
- 10y ago

draw_down 10y ago

They're a media company, so is Twitter.

imagist 10y ago
Disney is a media company--they sell media. Twitter isn't a media company. They don't sell media, and in fact they don't sell enough of anything to make a profit.
- draw_down 10y ago
  Well, I believe the idea is a strategic partnership to help Twitter to profitability. But yes, Twitter is a media company.
  - imagist 10y ago
    Well, glad we settled that.
- Touche 10y ago
  Twitter is analogous to ABC, owned by Disney. ABC sells ads attached to media, so does Twitter.
  - otterley 10y ago
    Disney is a content company; distribution is just a side business (e.g. Buena Vista). ABC and ESPN (which Disney also owns) has studios and makes their own content; they're not merely distribution channels. Twitter, on the other hand, creates no content of its own.
  - imagist 10y ago
    Twitter is analogous to ABC in the same sense that I'm analogous to Usain Bolt. We both run, but only one of us makes a profit doing it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jobu 10y ago

> I am confused why Disney is even in this conversation at this point. Same here. There are a few companies that I could see a good fit with Twitter, but definitely not Disney. Facebook is an option as their mission is to connect everyone in the world, and Twitter still works via SMS for the billions of people using non-smart mobile devices. Google wants a social media platform with significant reach (Google+ is still struggling), and I could see Twitter integrating well with some of its other sites like Youtube. Verizon has been able to squeeze money out of AOL, and currently plans to do the same with Yahoo. Maybe they could figure out a model for Twitter, but it seems like a bit of a stretch. Apple dabbled in the social media sphere with Ping, and they have built-in authentication with Twitter. It seems unlikely they could ever make money off Twitter, but it seems like the sort of thing they might be willing to waste money on.

isolli 10y ago
How did Verizon squeeze money out of AOL?

droopybuns 10y ago

Disney owns ESPN. Twitter has an exclusive live streaming deal with the NFL. Buying Twitter gets them access to a valuable media property. They likely aren't buying tweets, but the future of media consumption, due to a pretty strange hedge by Twitter (which Twitter probably can't afford).