Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move

64
12
Favorite

Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move

Forbes2021-08-02

Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+] GETTY IMAGES Here are some headlines from late last week: ‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment（12）

AndhyLee
·2021-08-02
like please
Reply
Like
Report
AMeow
·2021-08-02
[驚訝]
Reply
Like
Report
huax
·2021-08-02
Ok
Reply
1
Report
Fold Replies
- huax:
  ok
  2021-08-02
  Reply
  Report
balm
·2021-08-02
Right, Disney, indeed what were you thinking
Reply
1
Report
ASMH
·2021-08-02
Like
Reply
2
Report
RS142
·2021-08-02
Bad move from Disney
Reply
3
Report
NatYong
·2021-08-02
It is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.
Reply
4
Report
adc123
·2021-08-02
...
Reply
3
Report
Universe宇宙
·2021-08-02
Black widow VS Disney [驚訝]
Reply
2
Report
ZhiLing
·2021-08-02
haha
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- FatKid:
  Wow
  2021-08-02
  Reply
  Report
henghm
·2021-08-02
Like and comment
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- Mystique:
  ok
  2021-08-02
  Reply
  Report
WDnemo
·2021-08-02
Really lacking class by Disney
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- henghm:
  like and comment
  2021-08-02
  Reply
  Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1196050859","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","media":"Forbes","content":"<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"fors","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"DIS","symbol_name":"迪士尼","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","article_id":"1196050859","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"fors","name":"Forbes"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"forbes.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"translate_title":"迪斯尼诋毁斯嘉丽·约翰逊引发轩然大波：如何一蹴而就地毁掉一个标志性的公司品牌","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"DIS":0.9},"content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":804923855,"gmtCreate":1627917097677,"gmtModify":1703497910708,"author":{"id":"3555116382988085","authorId":"3555116382988085","name":"AndhyLee","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f5bfe1c76c413adcdb9c5b7375b4b16","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a8758340a08196056f8bc1e54805193","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3555116382988085","authorIdStr":"3555116382988085"},"htmlText":"like please","listText":"like please","text":"like please","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/804923855","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805824076,"gmtCreate":1627871124695,"gmtModify":1703496896832,"author":{"id":"3552790388588156","authorId":"3552790388588156","name":"AMeow","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a7469f72b779995e421e80123836cd83","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3552790388588156","authorIdStr":"3552790388588156"},"htmlText":"[驚訝]&nbsp;","listText":"[驚訝]&nbsp;","text":"[驚訝]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805824076","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":805860842,"gmtCreate":1627870155486,"gmtModify":1703496872877,"author":{"id":"3587028325444709","authorId":"3587028325444709","name":"huax","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/bc321e35d2e38297403a43ba1b540b0f","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/646756f1284a5a6480ed02cc4fa7d1d2","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3587028325444709","authorIdStr":"3587028325444709"},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805860842","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5399063,"gmtCreate":1627870167990,"gmtModify":1663231804949,"authorId":3587028325444709,"author":{"id":3587028325444709,"idStr":"3587028325444709","authorId":3587028325444709,"name":"huax","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/bc321e35d2e38297403a43ba1b540b0f","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-2","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Master Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 100","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad22cfbe2d05aa393b18e9226e4b0307","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36702e6ff3ffe46acafee66cc85273ca","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d52eb88fa385cf5abe2616ed63781765","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":"80.17%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":805860842,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805835566,"gmtCreate":1627869257955,"gmtModify":1703496840075,"author":{"id":"3563672045211925","authorId":"3563672045211925","name":"balm","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0b3156e053d7ec11324d42163b84c2d1","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3563672045211925","authorIdStr":"3563672045211925"},"htmlText":"Right, Disney, indeed what were you thinking","listText":"Right, Disney, indeed what were you thinking","text":"Right, Disney, indeed what were you thinking","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805835566","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805158350,"gmtCreate":1627866799670,"gmtModify":1703496763950,"author":{"id":"3586939439858903","authorId":"3586939439858903","name":"ASMH","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c8c22c3127769d9bb7b4e8d291d98433","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3586939439858903","authorIdStr":"3586939439858903"},"htmlText":"Like&nbsp;","listText":"Like&nbsp;","text":"Like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805158350","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805187477,"gmtCreate":1627865731099,"gmtModify":1703496728186,"author":{"id":"3574118564601995","authorId":"3574118564601995","name":"RS142","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/22d2d9b1f352da24e6ea75b557ac987a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574118564601995","authorIdStr":"3574118564601995"},"htmlText":"Bad move from Disney","listText":"Bad move from Disney","text":"Bad move from Disney","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805187477","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805184004,"gmtCreate":1627865660308,"gmtModify":1703496725383,"author":{"id":"3580207321438450","authorId":"3580207321438450","name":"NatYong","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/62b1fa39b2974271d1c06e208f7b3571","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3580207321438450","authorIdStr":"3580207321438450"},"htmlText":"It is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.","listText":"It is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.","text":"It is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805184004","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805189175,"gmtCreate":1627865377197,"gmtModify":1703496715957,"author":{"id":"3585380526973544","authorId":"3585380526973544","name":"adc123","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3585380526973544","authorIdStr":"3585380526973544"},"htmlText":"...","listText":"...","text":"...","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805189175","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805189307,"gmtCreate":1627865372409,"gmtModify":1703496716124,"author":{"id":"3585001294737518","authorId":"3585001294737518","name":"Universe宇宙","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b073a07f77dbe6b3bec6b12311fde6bd","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3585001294737518","authorIdStr":"3585001294737518"},"htmlText":"Black widow VS Disney&nbsp;[驚訝]&nbsp;","listText":"Black widow VS Disney&nbsp;[驚訝]&nbsp;","text":"Black widow VS Disney [驚訝]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805189307","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":805115000,"gmtCreate":1627865201600,"gmtModify":1703496711818,"author":{"id":"3557823792637532","authorId":"3557823792637532","name":"ZhiLing","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/40d052b9f7db59b50f72a3cbcbc99234","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3557823792637532","authorIdStr":"3557823792637532"},"htmlText":"haha","listText":"haha","text":"haha","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805115000","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5398121,"gmtCreate":1627865301863,"gmtModify":1663231801840,"authorId":4090418903913760,"author":{"id":4090418903913760,"idStr":"4090418903913760","authorId":4090418903913760,"name":"FatKid","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/f6692ab34697d0d2f7947fa3f34c6421","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":805115000,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Wow","text":"Wow","html":"Wow"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805112435,"gmtCreate":1627865197227,"gmtModify":1703496711158,"author":{"id":"3578451349447391","authorId":"3578451349447391","name":"henghm","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ca41bf4eae57d98d93422d97c7246c98","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3578451349447391","authorIdStr":"3578451349447391"},"htmlText":"Like and comment","listText":"Like and comment","text":"Like and comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805112435","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5398135,"gmtCreate":1627865408771,"gmtModify":1663231799225,"authorId":3583401463837686,"author":{"id":3583401463837686,"idStr":"3583401463837686","authorId":3583401463837686,"name":"Mystique","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/80553c2968edf6d8be729b4092825a07","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":805112435,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"ok","text":"ok","html":"ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":805116392,"gmtCreate":1627865144116,"gmtModify":1703496708824,"author":{"id":"3575333960287526","authorId":"3575333960287526","name":"WDnemo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2241a941fc1eb6cca28c7a714cba1571","vip":1,"crmLevel":8,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3575333960287526","authorIdStr":"3575333960287526"},"htmlText":"Really lacking class by Disney","listText":"Really lacking class by Disney","text":"Really lacking class by Disney","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805116392","repostId":1196050859,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1196050859","pubTimestamp":1627865019,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1196050859?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-08-02 08:43","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1196050859","media":"Forbes","summary":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+","content":"<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9301c787b703c07ec14dcd85e9c2aa85\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"450\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” &amp; Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame &amp; Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\n<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a> just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in&nbsp;Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f9412c5e97545a2a9d2392bf74cd4\" tg-width=\"960\" tg-height=\"1533\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that&nbsp;Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions.&nbsp;The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of.&nbsp;Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company&nbsp;leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation.&nbsp;That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen.&nbsp;The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for.&nbsp;And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements.&nbsp;This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","source":"fors","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney Ignites A Firestorm By Dissing Scarlett Johansson: How To Damage An Iconic Company Brand In One Move\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-02 08:43 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f>Forbes</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nScarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"DIS":"迪士尼"},"source_url":"https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviatemin/2021/08/01/disney-ignites-a-firestorm-by-dissing-scarlett-johansson-how-to-damage-an-iconic-company-brand-in-one-move/?sh=4cbc7224208f","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1196050859","content_text":"Scarlett Johansson attends 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards (Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty... [+]\nGETTY IMAGES\nHere are some headlines from late last week:\n‘Black Widow’ Scarlett Johansson Lawsuit: Actress’ Agent Slams Disney For “Direct Attack On Her Character” & Leaving Talent Out Of Streaming Profit Equation—Deadline\nGroups denounce Disney's Scarlett Johansson response as a \"gendered character attack\"—Yahoo\nWomen In Film, ReFrame & Time’s Up Condemn Disney For “Gendered Character Attack” On Scarlett Johansson In Her ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit—Deadline\nWalt Disney just shocked the industry, movie goers, Marvel fans, Scarlett Johansson lovers, and media watchdogs alike with its unnecessary, nasty response toJohansson’s suit regarding “Black Widow’s” changed distribution plans.\nInstead of taking the high road in their public response to what is essentially a business matter — albeit an important financial one — they decided to go low and go mean.And in so doing not only have they angered industry leaders like Johansson’s agents at CAA, action movie fans, andwomen’s rights advocates, they have seriously put a dent in their reputation with their “un-Disney-like,” off-brand behavior. Nasty, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks are just not what the public expects from Disney, or Marvel. These are supposed to be the good guys, after all.\nDamaging the Disney brand\nDisney: what were you thinking?\nResponding to Johannson’s suit claiming Disney breached her contract regarding the movie’s distribution by deciding to release the movie simultaneously on their streaming service as well as in theaters, then refusing to renegotiate and therefore seriously hurting her total compensation for starring in the blockbuster film that uniquely features two women heroines — Johansson and Florence Pugh — Disney went far beyond the formulaic “This suit is totally without merit, and we look forward to proving that in a court of law.”\nInstead they used their response to demean and shame her in some ways that look pretty sexist to a lot of folks inside and outside the industry.\nSpecifically, they said, as reported in Deadline:\n“The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic...” What?\nThen, they went on to reveal for the first time that she is making $20 million already on the film — apparently seeking to shame the actress by — oh my — showing how much money she earns from a blockbuster movie. Really?\nCharacter assassination with sexist overtones\n\nTweet from Women in Film, ReFrame Project, and Time's Up\nDAVIA TEMIN\nIn a move that Time’s Up, Reframe, and Women in Film call “a gendered character attack,”Disney manages to forget the fact that male action superstars like Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Reynolds, Duanne Johnson and Will Smith regularly make $20 to $35 million per movie, with share of box office additional. But I guess women aren’t supposed to be paid like men, still, in Hollywood?\nCAA fights back\nDisney’s highly disparaging statements angered the powerful agents CAA enough that her agent and CAA C0-Chair Bryan Lourd,responded the next daywith\n“I want to address the Walt Disney Company’s statement that was issued in response to the lawsuit filed against them yesterday by our client Scarlett Johansson. They have shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t.\n“Scarlett has been Disney’s partner on nine movies, which have earned Disney and its shareholders billions. The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade.\n“This suit was filed as a result of Disney’s decision to knowingly violate Scarlett’s contract. They have very deliberately moved the revenue stream and profits to the Disney+ side of the company leaving artistic and financial partners out of their new equation. That’s it, pure and simple.\n“Disney’s direct attack on her character and all else they implied is beneath the company that many of us in the creative community have worked with successfully for decades....”\nBattle of titans in real life\nSo it looks like there’s going to be a battle of titans both on and off the screen. The financial stakes are considerable, of course. It has been reported that Disney’s move could cost Johansson $50 million in share of box office that her contract provides for. And it sets a precedent.\nBut worse, for Disney and the general public, is that Disney felt entitled to go after Johansson — one of their most popular action heroes and one of their only breakthrough female action megastars — by demeaning and shaming her. Do they find this acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t they be supporting their female action heroes, not dissing them?\nSupporting brands by staying on message\nSuits happen all the time — and mostly they are procedural necessities, formulaically handled. But every organization is defined by its public actions as well as by its public statements. This is one reason organizations worry so much about “messaging,” and staying “on message.” Their messages do need to be congruent with their purpose, operating philosophy, reputation, and their general interest in issues beyond the financial — their stakeholders, not only their shareholders.\nDisney’s iconic brand, carefully forged for decades, has usually been of wholesomeness, family values, and being on the side of the good guys. If they think that by going so seriously against their core brand, and by being snide and manipulative about Johansson’s compensation, they are going to curry favor with the public, they have sorely misjudged the situation. We’re talking about equity here, as well as gender equality. And core values.\nBy underestimating the response of key audiences to their attack-dog tactics to what is a reasonable objection and law suit, they have harmed their own reputation. It is not yet clear how badly.\nBut it is probably time for Disney the company to be doing some serious reevaluation of their public, and private, postures regarding fairness, equity, and gender equality. And about living up to their own brand promise.\nAnd, perhaps, they need to learn not to mess with their women superheros.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5398102,"gmtCreate":1627865213094,"gmtModify":1635162412907,"authorId":3578451349447391,"author":{"id":3578451349447391,"idStr":"3578451349447391","authorId":3578451349447391,"name":"henghm","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ca41bf4eae57d98d93422d97c7246c98","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":805116392,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"like and comment","text":"like and comment","html":"like and comment"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":64,"commentSize":12,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}