4 ms·

Wow. I have a low opinion of ABC as I said in another post, but this level of pettiness is still surprising to me.

by rurp 5mo ago

brookst 5mo ago
It’s basically a fuck you to the shareholders. Hey we’ve got this dead asset someone will pay for but we won’t sell because they were mean to us. Any exec who operates that way should be shown the door ASAP as they are likely doing similar emotional management of other aspects of the business.
- SoftTalker 5mo ago
  If they feel it's damaging to have it public, then it could be argued that selling it would be irresponsible. I'm not arguing it is or it isn't, but reputation has value and management of it is part of what shareholders expect.
  - brookst 5mo ago
    But this isn’t reputation management. This is retribution for past affronts. This action in no way retroactively protects them from what was said.
    - jakderrida 5mo ago
      I think he's just saying the case they would make to avoid being sued for breaching their fiduciary responsibility. Not that it's the actual reason. But Idk.
  - Dylan16807 5mo ago
    It's hard to imagine how it could be damaging to ABC to have it public under someone else's brand.
- jfengel 5mo ago
  ABC's shareholders are Disney. Whatever Nate offered them isn't even a rounding error in Disney's $36 billion dollars in profits last year. The shareholders aren't going to care.
  - hibikir 5mo ago
    It's not that a shareholder won't care, but that the modern US company is such a large basket of businesses, it's impossible to put any pressure on a random business unit throwing money away. So, in practice, there's very little pressure to do things right, and a lot of pressure to do what your boss prefers, whether it actually helps the company's profitability or not. There can be negatives if you are doing massive damage to the company's image, but even then, ABC has done more than a little bit of that over the last couple of years to no ill effects. Just ask Kimmel.
    - Barbing 5mo ago
      >impossible to put any pressure on a random business unit throwing money away ... very little pressure to do things right ... pressure to do what your boss prefers, whether it [helps] profitability This is frustrating as a consumer. Any further insight, on the solution side?
  - lotsofpulp 5mo ago
    Disney's 2025 profit was $12B: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-inc...
    - themafia 5mo ago
      So what amount of profits insulates you from lack of fiduciary responsibility? "It's okay set millions of dollars on fire because we have billions in this pile over here!"
      - singleshot_ 5mo ago
        No, what insulates them from fiduciary responsibility is the fact that there is no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. I’ll say that again: members and/or managers of an LLC, and officers and directors of a corporation owe no fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to make them money. The fiduciary duties owed under US law are as follows: 1) the duty to be informed; 2) the duty not to usurp corporate opportunities. As far as I can tell the fiduciary duty to make money for the shareholders is something that Jack Welsh of GE said enough times that people remembered it. However, I’m always interested in additional details concerning the history of this meme, and happy to learn more.

Wow. I have a low opinion of ABC as I said in another post, but this level of pettiness is still surprising to me.

by rurp 5mo ago

Wow. I have a low opinion of ABC as I said in another post, but this level of pettiness is still surprising to me.

It’s basically a fuck you to the shareholders. Hey we’ve got this dead asset someone will pay for but we won’t sell because they were mean to us. Any exec who operates that way should be shown the door ASAP as they are likely doing similar emotional management of other aspects of the business.

SoftTalker 5mo ago
If they feel it's damaging to have it public, then it could be argued that selling it would be irresponsible. I'm not arguing it is or it isn't, but reputation has value and management of it is part of what shareholders expect.
- brookst 5mo ago
  But this isn’t reputation management. This is retribution for past affronts. This action in no way retroactively protects them from what was said.
  - jakderrida 5mo ago
    I think he's just saying the case they would make to avoid being sued for breaching their fiduciary responsibility. Not that it's the actual reason. But Idk.
- Dylan16807 5mo ago
  It's hard to imagine how it could be damaging to ABC to have it public under someone else's brand.
jfengel 5mo ago
ABC's shareholders are Disney. Whatever Nate offered them isn't even a rounding error in Disney's $36 billion dollars in profits last year. The shareholders aren't going to care.
- hibikir 5mo ago
  It's not that a shareholder won't care, but that the modern US company is such a large basket of businesses, it's impossible to put any pressure on a random business unit throwing money away. So, in practice, there's very little pressure to do things right, and a lot of pressure to do what your boss prefers, whether it actually helps the company's profitability or not. There can be negatives if you are doing massive damage to the company's image, but even then, ABC has done more than a little bit of that over the last couple of years to no ill effects. Just ask Kimmel.
  - Barbing 5mo ago
    >impossible to put any pressure on a random business unit throwing money away ... very little pressure to do things right ... pressure to do what your boss prefers, whether it [helps] profitability This is frustrating as a consumer. Any further insight, on the solution side?
- lotsofpulp 5mo ago
  Disney's 2025 profit was $12B: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-inc...
  - themafia 5mo ago
    So what amount of profits insulates you from lack of fiduciary responsibility? "It's okay set millions of dollars on fire because we have billions in this pile over here!"
    - singleshot_ 5mo ago
      No, what insulates them from fiduciary responsibility is the fact that there is no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. I’ll say that again: members and/or managers of an LLC, and officers and directors of a corporation owe no fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to make them money. The fiduciary duties owed under US law are as follows: 1) the duty to be informed; 2) the duty not to usurp corporate opportunities. As far as I can tell the fiduciary duty to make money for the shareholders is something that Jack Welsh of GE said enough times that people remembered it. However, I’m always interested in additional details concerning the history of this meme, and happy to learn more.