3. Disney and Apple have more in common than you might think
Apple is a company whose name conjures images of sleek technologies, upscale retail stores, a clean and classy operating ecosystem, and highly efficient supply chains. Disney, meanwhile, is an almost unwieldy, multi-faceted entertainment company with countless arms wrapped up in licensing, retail, film production, animation, theme parks, hotels, environmentalism, animal care, streaming, publishing, and a whole lot more. A fundamental question might be – why would anyone picture these two combining their efforts? What’s to gain from it?
But fundamentally, one could argue that Apple and Disney really do have some very core philosophies in common.
- Both are enormously admired, globally recognized, and deeply resonant, recognizable brands. People could name a hundred things that are “Disney” without skipping a beat; could they name a hundred things that are “Paramount” or “Warner Bros.”? Likewise, Apple’s brand is absolutely, perfectly fine-tuned and exact, with instantaneous recognition and exceedingly clear, global associations.
- Both have built immense empires on brand loyalty and lifestyle. People proudly boast on Twitter bios, bumper stickers, and dating sites that they’re broadly and blatantly “Disney fans.” Does anyone identity as an “NBCUniversal fan”? Likewise, Apple’s brand loyalty is off-the-charts. Companies would kill to have the kind of “walled garden” ecosystem that Apple does, earning total allegiance from users.
- Both are businesses centered on experience. Even if they don’t always practice what they preach, Disney is regarded as the industry leader in guest service and experiential entertainment; something that clearly factors into Apple, whose retail experiences and inter-device ecosystem are the envy of the industry.
So even though, sure, Apple and Disney are enormously different companies with different areas of expertise, it’s not like their combination would be antithetical to either’s core beliefs. This is a pairing that fundamentally makes sense in some ways, where both companies would have something to learn from each other. It’s impossible not to imagine Apple’s expertise in apps, design, retail, and technology being vital to Disney across its guest experience, streaming, and parks, while Disney’s portfolio of content would be a jaw-dropping, industry-altering, gravitational acquisition for Apple.
By any metric, Disney is the gold standard for guest services, theme parks, animation, film studios, and much more. Likewise, every upstart retailer or tech company wants to be “the next Apple” or “like the Apple Store.” Despite being behemoths, both of these companies are disruptors and gold standards. That’s a very powerful position to own.
4. It solves Iger’s succession issue and cements his legacy forever
Every leader of Disney has been transformative in his own way, but one could certainly argue that none since Walt himself have left their mark on the company like Bob Iger. An absolute Hollywood powerhouse, Iger is both strategic and charismatic; a leader who respects Disney’s history while forging its future; someone who tends to favor creative ambition and risk over “the way its always been done”; an affable, likable, admired, well-spoken, smart, and very, very lucky CEO. In other words, he’s a very tough act to follow.
Believe it or not, Iger was initially meant to retire in 2014, and even had two likely successors picked out and cross-trained for the job. But in 2013 – hot off the heels of the acquisition of Lucasfilm – Disney extended his contract for an additional 15 months, moving his retirement date to 2016. Along the way, both of Iger’s apparent would-be successors left the company. As a result, Iger’s contract was extended again to 2018 with a focused effort to find and mentor a successor. Apparently, it didn’t work, because soon thereafter, Disney announced that Iger would stay on through 2019.
When the opportunity to purchase 20th Century Fox arose, Iger no doubt saw a legacy acquisition to trump Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars, leaping at the opportunity (to the tune of $72 billion). As a result, the Board extended his contract to 2021, giving Iger time to integrate 20th Century’s assets and to choose, mentor, and empower a successor.
Obviously, COVID-19 changed the plan, with Iger resigning (effective immediately) and handing the CEO role to the Parks, Experiences, and Products Chairman, Bob Chapek. In a move any Disney Parks fan would’ve seen coming, that didn’t stick. (So much so that many suspect Iger purposefully positioned the unlikable Chapek as a “fall guy” to take the brunt of the pandemic’s effects, always planning to return triumphant…)
Iger’s surprise return in November 2022, he said, was very conditional. Both he, his wife, and Board agreed only to a two year term, during which he would find a successor by his final retirement in 2024. But, predictably, a year into Iger’s return, Disney announced that they’d convinced the leader to stay until 2026. If he retires then, he’ll be 75.
Clearly, despite actively searching for at least a decade, no one has yet fulfilled Iger’s and Board’s requirements for a successor… And worse, we’ve seen via Chapek just how long Iger’s shadow stretches, and how impossible it might be to be viewed as a successful leader in his industry-reshaping wake. That’s enough to cause some to consider whether Iger and the Board might decide that no one needs to succeed Iger. Instead, perhaps the beloved leader could cement his legacy by being the last CEO of the Walt Disney Company; the brilliant and beloved leader who successfully brokered an ultra-successful, industry-changing, and legacy-setting merger with Apple.
5. Iger seems to be slimming down the company for a potential sale
Bob Iger famously positioned himself and Disney as a growth-mindset company – a leader in the era of acquisitions, whose bold, unexpected, high-risk, negotiated purchases were transformative in establishing the company’s 21st century form. Now, he appears ready to reverse that momentum in some key ways.
In July 2023, Iger – a man who very rarely departs from approved, carefully-considered remarks – mentioned offhand that terrestrial TV assets (think, ABC, FX, ESPN, Freeform) “may not be core” to Disney’s business and that Disney needed to be “expansive” in its thinking about what to do with them. That statement naturally sent both industry examiners and Disney television staff spiraling with what it could mean if Disney were to part with ABC, spinning it off or selling it off to a competitor.
Likewise, Disney seems to be getting cold feet about its contractual option to buy Comcast’s remaining stock in Hulu – something that the company bullishly sought before recently encountering the very real possibly that streaming may not ever be a revenue-generating endeavor, and that Disney may spend the rest of its existence cutting costs and maximizing park profits to keep streaming alive.
Though unspoken, some have taken Iger’s reversal into slimming down Disney’s holdings as a preemptive move. If Apple and Disney were to “merge,” the slimmed down company might be more likely to past anti-trust regulators, ensuring that the new, combined, super-sized conglomerate can pass legal muster. Frankly, that hurdle seems to be the most likely reason that a Disney / Apple merger would not happen. Which brings us to the case AGAINST “Disney·Apple,” which we’ll explore on the next page…