This is a giant corporation and calling this censorship isn't quite correct as that corporation can choose what they produce whether it's what the people they pay as employees want or not. I tend to attribute this more to economics and publicity - if the job of the corporation is to maximize value for shareholders, it's entirely possible that they've determined that angering one side provides better profits than angering the other side. If making only LBGTQ+ movies earned them more money is that what they'd do?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by greed"
Edit: Now that I reread the article, it strikes me that the fact that Disney has LGBTQ+ employees might strengthen my theory.
> ...if the job of the corporation is to maximize value for shareholders, it's entirely possible that they've determined that angering one side provides better profits than angering the other side. If making only LBGTQ+ movies earned them more money is that what they'd do?
I think that interpretation is in the right direction, but a little off. I don't think this is about angering one "side" vs. the other, but rather creating movies that appeal to the broadest possible audience (e.g. angering no one). You can't please everyone, but it's better to be acceptable to 90% than 60%. I'd reckon that most parents who would be fine with "same-sex affection" in a children's movie are probably not bothered by the absence of it in a specific case. Disney wants to be synonymous with children's programming, and that probably means being quick to drop controversial themes and slow to include new ones.
Honestly, if Disney did what "the LGBTQIA+ employees of Pixar, and their allies" want, all it would do is politically polarize the children's movie market and/or create an opening for a new company to become successful by copying Disney's current strategy.
Absolutely, it's about greed. It's about making sure that they can sell the movie in all markets, even the most homophobic ones.
But I'd push back on the notion that their sole job is to maximize shareholder value. Their job is to do what shareholders want, which is not always the same as maximizing the price of the stock.
Disney's heart is storytelling. That is why it is so beloved. It makes a ton of money merchandizing that storytelling, but it cannot make that money without the stories. When the limit the storytellers to a narrow band of life, the storytellers can't do what you hired them to do.
That's not a direct connection to the money. Rather, it's a matter of gutting the heart of the corporation, destroying what makes the company beloved. It won't blast their shares this quarter, but gradually turns the company into a shell, and leaving it open to some other competitor to tell the stories that they won't.
Well, I remember a time when Disney was producing nothing that appealed to viewers and I'd argue that the parent company "lost it's heart" back then. Purchasing Pixar was the influx of "new heart" that relaunched their popularity. Buying rights to the Star Wars and Marvel stories has reconnected the company to the hearts of those who grew up with the nostalgia for those storied brands.
'To date, Pixar has only included a tiny handful of LGBTQ characters in its feature films, most prominently in the 2020 fantasy film “Onward,” which features a cyclops police officer named Specter, voiced by Lena Waithe. The character’s sexuality is only acknowledged in passing, when Specter says, “It’s not easy being a new parent – my girlfriend’s daughter got me pulling my hair out, okay?” But the movie was still banned in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia due to the scene, and in the version released in Russia, the word “girlfriend” was changed to “partner.”'
They are following the profit like any corporation that wants to make money would do.
Telling LGBTQ+ stories would be welcome in some places, but would trigger bans and boycotts in other places. Bans and boycotts are bad for business, hence those stories are not being told under the Disney brand.
> as if being a for-profit company requires them to abandon their morals.
Agreed. To maximize profit, you must not only consider first order consequences like being banned in certain countries, but also second order consequences (and beyond) like being perceived as immoral in most countries. Disney is walking a fine line here.
I don't think you agree with the GP. The point is that companies are responsible for more than maximizing profit, just like all of us. We all live in the world and our communities and are responsible for far more than maximising our own lives. It's partly enlightended self-interest - if we don't take care of the communities, we lose out - and partly just not being sociopaths.
The claim that companies should be sociopaths with no enlightened self-interest is commonly repeated, by companies and investors themselves, but has no ground to stand on. Why they heck should they get to do that?
Once upon a time (a few dozen years ago at most) a company was expected to not only provide for its own longevity, but to provide tangible benefits to its community (good paying jobs that allowed their employees to support their families being one such benefit). We look back on the historical exceptions (AT&T, Standard Oil Co., etc.) because they were exceptions (and because of how they were dismantled by the government - another lesson companies should take).
People now assume that 'maximizing shareholder value' is the natural and only law of corporations, that to act otherwise is unnatural perversion, and should be suppressed. But it is just a philosophy, mostly in the US and UK, developed in the 1970s primarily by Milton Friedman in this famous essay,
and by Michael Jensen and William Meckling in their paper, "Theory of the Firm".
These days it is widely rejected afaik. First, anything taken to an extreme is absurd on its face; of course shareholder value is important, but it's not the only priority. Second, it's not hard to see how conveniently self-serving the idea is to powerful, wealthy, sometimes egocentric individuals who own a lot of shares - 'yes, the purpose of the world is to maximise my value! Milton Friedman said so!' Third, there are many other models that work very well, such as the German one.
You're personifying companies as wanting to be responsible, moral citizens. I agree that this is a beneficial perception for a company to have, but it doesn't make sense to me when you go beyond public perceptions.
A company is a complex web of self-interested individuals maximizing their own value functions within the constraints of the overall function of maximizing shareholder value. Most of those inside individuals will make decisions with their morals weighted in. But if it interferes too much with the overall function of maximizing shareholder value, then they'll be replaced with other individuals who either have a different moral code or don't weigh certain things as important.
For example, would you characterize a big cigarette company as a psychopath? Are the shareholders psychopaths? Do only psychopaths apply to work for them? It's just a web of individuals who happen to maximize their value functions in a way that suits the cigarette business, and just to the extent that society tolerates.
If a company wants free speech and other rights normally granted to people, they can and should be held to moral standards in the same way we hold people to moral standards. And we, in fact, often do. We're holding Disney responsible for its actions based on a moral stance here. We support (or decry) Namecheap for it's actions in disallowing Russian citizens access to its services.
I'd go so far as to say those who do not pit Disney's actions against their own moral code "because profits" are the outliers, the outliers who are only louder when there's little cause for evaluating a company's morals.
Now then, do I characterize cigarette companies as sociopaths? You bet I do. Advertising to children, interfering with inquiries into their safety for people in general, and profiteering off addiction can all be linked to sociopathic tendencies.
EDIT:
This: "But if it interferes too much with the overall function of maximizing shareholder value, then they'll be replaced" is demonstrably not true.
Target and Costco, as two examples, have policies in place that prevent them from paying unreasonably low wages (like Wallmart does). This directly lowers "shareholder value" since it reduces profit dramatically, yet they haven't replaced all of Target or Costco's leadership.
> they can and should be held to moral standards in the same way we hold people to moral standards.
Of course they are. If the public perceives a company as immoral, then they'll refuse to buy from them. If a company has a bad enough reputation, they'll have to close down. Why? You see how it all goes back to profitability in the end?
I would argue that Target and Costco are trying to capture a certain demographic by paying/treating employees better. They could use that to get a better margin, for example. Or, maybe they see value in having a higher quality staff. Or maybe it's really just about getting brownie points for doing the right thing, and capitalizing that reputation.
Companies have to thrive in the world; you don't sh-t where you eat. They need thriving communities and economies, to provide customers, employees, wealth, roads, air travel, legal systems, etc. etc. etc.
Also, companies are run by human beings, and human beings care about others and have morals, and will to a degree act on them regardless of profit. It's interesting that people expect humans do other unprofitable things, especially corrupt ones, but insist we won't do moral unprofitable things.
> A company is a complex web of self-interested individuals maximizing their own value functions within the constraints of the overall function of maximizing shareholder value.
Maximising shareholder value is just one philosophy, popular mostly in the US and UK, and no longer so popular. It's not some universal truth or natural law. My other comment goes into more detail:
> self-interested individuals maximizing their own value functions
The rational self-interested econo-human is just a simplified abstraction useful for easily modeling economics. It's not meant to describe real people or be a normative recommendation for living.
Real humans are much more than self-interested; we are social beings who are defined - who experience the world - by caring (trigger word!), cooperating, or just giving. The theory of selfishness is provocative and widely repeated, but doesn't hold up to even a little scrutiny. Most of what humans do is for others. Humanity has supported almost no religious or moral philosophy that preaches self-interest rather than duty to others. People support Ukraine right now with little self-interest; the whole democratic and free world - the most successful political philosophy in history, with no competitors - is built on freedom for others (everyone always believed in freedom for themselves!). Scientists, soldiers, teachers, open source software ... so much is done by people not maximizing their personal value function, but because they naturally care about the others. Anyone who has really made love knows, beyond a doubt, that it is about the other person's joy. That is the psychologically normal, healthy state.
It's good news - great news! It's really that good. But it's threatening to worldviews and that's why always some people have rejected gospel[0].
[0] gos spell - good spell - 'good news', and yes meant here as double entendre.
> Real humans are much more than self-interested; we are social beings who are defined - who experience the world - by caring (trigger word!), cooperating, or just giving. The theory of selfishness is provocative and widely repeated, but doesn't hold up to even a little scrutiny. Most of what humans do is for others.
Yeah this is where we disagree philosophically. I'm in the egoism camp. That is to say that when people care, cooperate, and give, it's really about them seeing that these actions result in the most benefit for themselves in the long run. We live in a society where if you're seen as selfish and uncaring, people can make your life miserable, and will no longer cooperate with you. Or they'll straight up attack you.
There's also painful feelings of regret and guilt when we fail to act in a way we've learned is the right, good way. And perhaps some of those emotions were ingrained into us from millennia of evolution, since groups that help one another are more likely to survive. The point is that avoiding these feelings of guilt is a powerful motivation, but it's still about how I will feel if I help someone.
While I agree that kids programs doesn't have to reflect 100% of reality (else there would be no magic kingdoms for the heroes to save) the rest of your statement is absurd: "Same-sex affection" is a part of our world*), and what you're calling "exposing" or even "grooming" I'd just call "showing children that it's okay to be 'different' from the majority" (and not only by being bad a baseball or having a different color of skin or being a woman or not being a princess or popular or... I guess you get the idea).
*) Not only "the liberal west" or whatever one wants to call it; it's just that in some places you have to fear for your life for being who you are, while others are pretty cool with accepting people being different than them.
I wholeheartedly disagree that 6 year olds need to be thinking about that stuff. Hell, 6 year olds can't even process something like their sexuality. It's not as though anyone is saying "we need to get these straight kids on board with this straight stuff". Let kids be kids. They'll figure it out later and there's no shortage of such material for them then.
Movies typically contain cis-hetero affection (affection can be chaste, of course) - cis-hetero couples, etc. There's no reason they can't contain other forms.
22 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 42.9 ms ] thread"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by greed"
Edit: Now that I reread the article, it strikes me that the fact that Disney has LGBTQ+ employees might strengthen my theory.
I think that interpretation is in the right direction, but a little off. I don't think this is about angering one "side" vs. the other, but rather creating movies that appeal to the broadest possible audience (e.g. angering no one). You can't please everyone, but it's better to be acceptable to 90% than 60%. I'd reckon that most parents who would be fine with "same-sex affection" in a children's movie are probably not bothered by the absence of it in a specific case. Disney wants to be synonymous with children's programming, and that probably means being quick to drop controversial themes and slow to include new ones.
Honestly, if Disney did what "the LGBTQIA+ employees of Pixar, and their allies" want, all it would do is politically polarize the children's movie market and/or create an opening for a new company to become successful by copying Disney's current strategy.
But I'd push back on the notion that their sole job is to maximize shareholder value. Their job is to do what shareholders want, which is not always the same as maximizing the price of the stock.
Disney's heart is storytelling. That is why it is so beloved. It makes a ton of money merchandizing that storytelling, but it cannot make that money without the stories. When the limit the storytellers to a narrow band of life, the storytellers can't do what you hired them to do.
That's not a direct connection to the money. Rather, it's a matter of gutting the heart of the corporation, destroying what makes the company beloved. It won't blast their shares this quarter, but gradually turns the company into a shell, and leaving it open to some other competitor to tell the stories that they won't.
They are following the profit like any corporation that wants to make money would do.
Telling LGBTQ+ stories would be welcome in some places, but would trigger bans and boycotts in other places. Bans and boycotts are bad for business, hence those stories are not being told under the Disney brand.
I hate how this trope is pulled out all the time, as if being a for-profit company requires them to abandon their morals.
Which is patently false. A corporation can both have morals and make profit. Even public companies.
>> Which is patently false. A corporation can both have morals and make profit. Even public companies.
You are correct, but which one is more profitable?
Would they make more money boldly telling LGBTQ+ stories or not?
Similarly, why do so many companies do what China asks? See https://mashable.com/article/china-censorship-companies-hong...
It's because they want to make MORE money than they could if they did otherwise.
Agreed. To maximize profit, you must not only consider first order consequences like being banned in certain countries, but also second order consequences (and beyond) like being perceived as immoral in most countries. Disney is walking a fine line here.
The claim that companies should be sociopaths with no enlightened self-interest is commonly repeated, by companies and investors themselves, but has no ground to stand on. Why they heck should they get to do that?
Once upon a time (a few dozen years ago at most) a company was expected to not only provide for its own longevity, but to provide tangible benefits to its community (good paying jobs that allowed their employees to support their families being one such benefit). We look back on the historical exceptions (AT&T, Standard Oil Co., etc.) because they were exceptions (and because of how they were dismantled by the government - another lesson companies should take).
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...
and by Michael Jensen and William Meckling in their paper, "Theory of the Firm".
These days it is widely rejected afaik. First, anything taken to an extreme is absurd on its face; of course shareholder value is important, but it's not the only priority. Second, it's not hard to see how conveniently self-serving the idea is to powerful, wealthy, sometimes egocentric individuals who own a lot of shares - 'yes, the purpose of the world is to maximise my value! Milton Friedman said so!' Third, there are many other models that work very well, such as the German one.
A company is a complex web of self-interested individuals maximizing their own value functions within the constraints of the overall function of maximizing shareholder value. Most of those inside individuals will make decisions with their morals weighted in. But if it interferes too much with the overall function of maximizing shareholder value, then they'll be replaced with other individuals who either have a different moral code or don't weigh certain things as important.
For example, would you characterize a big cigarette company as a psychopath? Are the shareholders psychopaths? Do only psychopaths apply to work for them? It's just a web of individuals who happen to maximize their value functions in a way that suits the cigarette business, and just to the extent that society tolerates.
I'd go so far as to say those who do not pit Disney's actions against their own moral code "because profits" are the outliers, the outliers who are only louder when there's little cause for evaluating a company's morals.
Now then, do I characterize cigarette companies as sociopaths? You bet I do. Advertising to children, interfering with inquiries into their safety for people in general, and profiteering off addiction can all be linked to sociopathic tendencies.
EDIT:
This: "But if it interferes too much with the overall function of maximizing shareholder value, then they'll be replaced" is demonstrably not true.
Target and Costco, as two examples, have policies in place that prevent them from paying unreasonably low wages (like Wallmart does). This directly lowers "shareholder value" since it reduces profit dramatically, yet they haven't replaced all of Target or Costco's leadership.
Amoral behavior is a choice, not a directive.
Of course they are. If the public perceives a company as immoral, then they'll refuse to buy from them. If a company has a bad enough reputation, they'll have to close down. Why? You see how it all goes back to profitability in the end?
I would argue that Target and Costco are trying to capture a certain demographic by paying/treating employees better. They could use that to get a better margin, for example. Or, maybe they see value in having a higher quality staff. Or maybe it's really just about getting brownie points for doing the right thing, and capitalizing that reputation.
Also, companies are run by human beings, and human beings care about others and have morals, and will to a degree act on them regardless of profit. It's interesting that people expect humans do other unprofitable things, especially corrupt ones, but insist we won't do moral unprofitable things.
Maximising shareholder value is just one philosophy, popular mostly in the US and UK, and no longer so popular. It's not some universal truth or natural law. My other comment goes into more detail:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30646400
> self-interested individuals maximizing their own value functions
The rational self-interested econo-human is just a simplified abstraction useful for easily modeling economics. It's not meant to describe real people or be a normative recommendation for living.
Real humans are much more than self-interested; we are social beings who are defined - who experience the world - by caring (trigger word!), cooperating, or just giving. The theory of selfishness is provocative and widely repeated, but doesn't hold up to even a little scrutiny. Most of what humans do is for others. Humanity has supported almost no religious or moral philosophy that preaches self-interest rather than duty to others. People support Ukraine right now with little self-interest; the whole democratic and free world - the most successful political philosophy in history, with no competitors - is built on freedom for others (everyone always believed in freedom for themselves!). Scientists, soldiers, teachers, open source software ... so much is done by people not maximizing their personal value function, but because they naturally care about the others. Anyone who has really made love knows, beyond a doubt, that it is about the other person's joy. That is the psychologically normal, healthy state.
It's good news - great news! It's really that good. But it's threatening to worldviews and that's why always some people have rejected gospel[0].
[0] gos spell - good spell - 'good news', and yes meant here as double entendre.
Yeah this is where we disagree philosophically. I'm in the egoism camp. That is to say that when people care, cooperate, and give, it's really about them seeing that these actions result in the most benefit for themselves in the long run. We live in a society where if you're seen as selfish and uncaring, people can make your life miserable, and will no longer cooperate with you. Or they'll straight up attack you.
There's also painful feelings of regret and guilt when we fail to act in a way we've learned is the right, good way. And perhaps some of those emotions were ingrained into us from millennia of evolution, since groups that help one another are more likely to survive. The point is that avoiding these feelings of guilt is a powerful motivation, but it's still about how I will feel if I help someone.
I think we all can guess why, but the issue is, how can Disney navigate this and do the right thing?
*) Not only "the liberal west" or whatever one wants to call it; it's just that in some places you have to fear for your life for being who you are, while others are pretty cool with accepting people being different than them.