Disney CEO Bob Iger and Pixar CEO Steve Jobs shared their views on today’s announcement of Disney’s $7.4 billion buy of Pixar in an analyst call held this afternoon (January 24). (Webcast here.)
As Disney CFO Tom Staggs pointed out, Pixar comes with $1 billion in cash on its balance sheet, so the net price Disney will pay is, in effect, $6.4 billion.
Iger summed up Disney’s motivation for the deal right off the bat — Pixar makes great animated films and that fits right in with Disney’s strengths. “Nothing has created as much value as great animation,” Iger said. “We’ve watched Pixar create some of the most memorable, highest quality films in this genre.”
Moreoever, Pixar was about to slip through Disney’s grasp, with the long-term deal between the two companies about to end, and Disney didn’t want to see that happen.
Jobs said that Pixar had explored various kinds of “Lucas Films” arrangements with other studios, with Pixar aligning itself, but not merging, with other production and distribution houses. “The more we thought about becoming part of Disney…with everybody focused on the films, the stories and the characters..we came to the conclusion that this looked to be the most exciting path for Pixar’s future.” Having a single company, with a single board and a single vision is what Pixar wanted.
When asked about the deal’s implication for Disney to sell more content via Apple’s iTunes (Jobs is also CEO of Apple), Iger seemed to embrace the concept of even more experimentation along these lines. “There are so many new ways you can create products..or so many ways that consumers can consume product,” he said.
Jobs was very enthusiastic about Pixar’s content being exploited across multiple new platforms. “You may watch your favorite live action film three or four or five times in your life. But for a great animated film, your kids may watch it dozens of times,” he said. “The opportunities to watch these films are huge…There is a going to be a strong demand for family members to watch them many, many times on many different devices.”
Iger stressed several times how important it is to Disney to not mess up the highly creative, and highly successful, atmosphere at Pixar. Having been through two mergers himself, “I’m very sensitive to what can happen when a company is bought,” he said. “I’m deeply committed to allowing Pixar to exist in the way it’s existed.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:41 PM | Print | Comments (0)Although everybody already knew it was going to happen, it’s still news when you get the official word — Disney announced today it is buying animation studio Pixar, headed by Steve Jobs, under a deal valued at $7.4 billion. It’s an all-stock transaction; 2.3 Disney shares will be issued for each Pixar share.
Some personnel details:
— Pixar President Ed Catmull will serve as President of the new Pixar and Disney animation studios, reporting to Disney CEO Bob Iger and Dick Cook, Chairman of The Walt Disney Studios.
—Pixar Executive Vice President John Lasseter will be Chief Creative Officer of the animation studios, as well as Principal Creative Advisor at Walt Disney Imagineering, where he will help design new attractions for Disney theme parks around the world. He will report to Iger.
—Last but not least, Jobs will be appointed to Disney’s Board of Directors as a non-independent member and if press reports are any indication, Jobs will also be the single largest shareholder in the company.
I missed the investor call slated for 5:15 pm, but will jump on the replay as soon as it’s available and be back with an update.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:28 PM | Print | Comments (0)
A curious loop of commentary among tech bloggers has cropped up over the past few days, and it centers on the degree of respect that tech bloggers get from PR strategists and media 1.0 writers. First, former Washington Post-writer-turned-public-policy-analyst Chris Stern made a reference in an op-ed piece to the writings of “obscure” bloggers on the topic of network neutrality.
This sparked outrage among the affected bloggers. Jeff Pulver wrote in his blog
Until now, it is Christopher Stern who has been the “Obscure Analyst” who decided to share his thoughts on the battle of Net Neutrality. The debate on Net Neutrality will continue in the Blogosphere, with (or without) the help of the mainstream press.
Jeff was taking up the sentiment expressed by Om Malik in his blog:
Still, I didn’t care much for Stern’s comment, “But lately the issue, a matter of heated debate on obscure blogs and among analysts like me, has begun to attract the attention of the mainstream press.” Which obscure blogs is he talking about? Jeff Pulver is not obscure, neither is Doc Searls. Obscure blogs, were doing the job of Washington Post, a great newspaper that’s a (proverbial) stone’s throw from FCC.
Now, Michael Arrington is criticizing VoIP start-up Tello’s PR strategy, in part because the company has apparently overlooked the blogosphere.
Second, they’ve obviously decided that the bloggers don’t matter much. Om Malik and Alec Saunders took the time to write about them. Even though they each command a large and very relevant audience, Tello didn’t bother to list either of them on the news page. Lots of other bloggers wrote about Tello too (including our own MobileCrunch), but were not mentioned. Companies that don’t embrace bloggers tend to become attacked by bloggers. Companies that embrace bloggers, and thank them, get lots and lots of love.
Funny thing is, Tello is a venture by none other than…Jeff Pulver, who two days earlier was standing up for the blogosphere. And I don’t think that Tello really overlooked the blogosphere — Jeff took the time to acknowledge all the bloggers who wrote about Tello.
All this complaining really is a symptom of the tech blogosphere’s inferiority complex, which is rooted in the fact that tech bloggers, despite often being ahead of the curve and better informed than traditional media, still rank second among traditional print editors and PR muffins. It’s just a form of laziness and resistance to change among a lot of print editors and myopia among the PR people. But, that’s the way it is.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:21 AM | Print | Comments (3)Verizon is slowly and surely expanding the footprint for its FTTP-based FiOs TV service. The company announced (see here and here) today the launch of its multichannel video service in two Northeastern towns — Woburn, MA and Massapequa Park, NY.
That brings the total number of Verizon FiOs TV locations to around seven (see table below). Hardly massive competition to cable, but nonetheless steady progress.
| Verizon FiOS TV Launches | ||
| Month | State | Communities |
| Sep-05 | NY | Keller |
| Nov-05 | VA | Herndon |
| Dec-05 | TX | northern Carrollton, Coppell, central Flower Mound, northern Fort Worth nearest Keller, north central Irving and central Lewisville |
| Dec-05 | FL | Temple Terrace |
| Jan-06 | TX | Colleyville, Grapevine, Murphy, Sachse, Southlake, Westlake and Wylie |
| Jan-06 | NY | Massapequa Park Village |
| Jan-06 | MA | Woburn |
| Source: Emerging Media Dynamics compilation of company information. © 2006. | ||
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:19 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Ed Felten has this interesting essay about a technology specified in the Sensenbrenner/Conyers “analog hole” bill. This legislation would require consumer electronics makers to equip devices capable of receiving an analog signal with anti-copying technology.
There are two such technologies specified in the bill, CGMS-A and VEIL. CGMS-A is well-known but Professor Felten wanted to learn a little more about VEIL. So, he contacted the company that sells it and was told that he had to pay $10,000 to get a copy and that he was forbidden to disclose it to anybody.
VEIL is mandatory for gear makers, and Professor Felten (who was instrumental in uncovering the Sony rootkit technology) wants to know more about its impact. But no dice. He raises some very interesting questions about whether the government should be mandating technology that is obscured from expert view.
The details of this technology are important for evaluating this bill. How much would the proposed law increase the cost of televisions? How much would it limit the future development of TV technology? How likely is the technology to mistakenly block authorized copying? How adaptable is the technology to the future? All of these questions are important in debating the bill. And none of them can be answered if the technology part of the bill is secret. Which brings us to the most interesting question of all: Are the members of Congress themselves, and their staffers, allowed to see the spec and talk about it openly? Are they allowed to consult experts for advice? Or are the full contents of this bill secret even from the lawmakers who are considering it?Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:26 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
