Skip to main content

Make sense of it all

Our world has too much noise and too little context. Vox helps you understand what matters. We don’t drown you in panic-inducing headlines, and we’re not obsessed with being the first to break the news. We’re focused on being helpful to you.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join today

Why Disney didn’t buy Twitter

Bots were fine. Nastiness wasn’t.

Former Disney CEO Bob Iger speaks with Kara Swisher at Code 2022.
Former Disney CEO Bob Iger speaks with Kara Swisher at Code 2022.
Former Disney CEO Bob Iger speaks with Kara Swisher at Code 2022.
Jerod Harris/Getty Images for Vox Media
Peter Kafka
Peter Kafka covers media and technology, and their intersection, at Vox. Many of his stories can be found in his Kafka on Media newsletter, and he also hosts the Recode Media podcast.

Elon Musk wanted to buy Twitter. Then he decided he didn’t.

Bob Iger can relate.

In 2016, Iger, then the CEO of Disney, had convinced himself that his company should own Twitter because it would be an excellent way to distribute Disney’s content around the world. Then, shortly before the 2016 US presidential election, he bailed out.

Iger has told parts of this story before, but it always seemed confusing to me: In his 2019 memoir, he said the boards of both Disney and Twitter had agreed to the deal, but then he had second thoughts because of the “nastiness” rampant at Twitter.

Really? Wasn’t the nastiness readily apparent to anyone who’d ever used the service for a second, let alone to someone who was ready to spend billions on it?

But today we got a longer version of the story, relayed by Iger at the Code Conference, in response to a question from The Verge’s Alex Heath. In this one, Iger says that Twitter would have been a “phenomenal” distribution platform for Disney but that it would have come with too many headaches. Among them: bots. (Sound familiar?)

Here’s Iger, in his own words:

“We were intent on going into the streaming business. We needed a technology solution. We have all this great IP. We weren’t a technology company. How do we get that IP to consumers around the world? … And we were kicking tires left and right. We thought about developing ourselves. Five years, $500 million. It wasn’t the money, it was the time, because the world was changing fast. And at the same time, we heard that Twitter was contemplating a sale.

“We enter the process immediately, looking at Twitter as the solution: a global distribution platform. It was viewed as sort of a social network. We were viewing it as something completely different. We could put news, sports, entertainment, [and] reach the world. And frankly, it would have been a phenomenal solution, distribution-wise.

“Then, after we sold the whole concept to the Disney board and the Twitter board, and we’re really ready to execute — the negotiation was just about done — I went home, contemplated it for a weekend, and thought, ‘I’m not looking at this as carefully as I need to look at it.’ Yes, it’s a great solution from a distribution perspective. But it would come with so many other challenges and complexities that as a manager of a great global brand, I was not prepared to take on a major distraction and having to manage circumstances that weren’t even close to anything that we had faced before.

“Interestingly enough, because I read the news these days, we did look very carefully at all of the Twitter users — I guess they’re called users? — and we at that point estimated with some of Twitter’s help that a substantial portion — not a majority — were not real.

“I don’t remember the number but we discounted the value heavily. But that was built into our economics. Actually, the deal that we had was pretty cheap.

“Then you have to look, of course, at all the hate speech and potential to do as much harm as good. We’re in the business of manufacturing fun at Disney — of doing nothing but good, even though there are others today that criticize Disney for the opposite, which is wrong. This was just something that we were not ready to take on and I was not ready to take on as the CEO of a company and I thought it would have been irresponsible.”

More in Technology

A skeptic’s guide to quitting your smartphoneA skeptic’s guide to quitting your smartphone
Technology

I spent a week living with the new Light Phone. It wasn’t long enough.

By Adam Clark Estes
Elon Musk promised Wisconsin voters a $1 million reward. Is that legal?Elon Musk promised Wisconsin voters a $1 million reward. Is that legal?
Politics

Here’s what election law experts say.

By Nicole Narea
Your TV is watching youYour TV is watching you
Technology

Roku, Amazon, and practically every company in the streaming business are inventing new ways to make money off your data.

By Adam Clark Estes
The rise of chatbot “friends”The rise of chatbot “friends”
Future Perfect

Wait, what is a friend anyway?

By Angela Chen
The AI revolution is here. Can we build a Good Robot?The AI revolution is here. Can we build a Good Robot?
Podcast
The rise of artificial intelligence, explained

The battle over artificial intelligence is just beginning.

By Bryan Walsh
Are Elon Musk’s China ties a national security risk?Are Elon Musk’s China ties a national security risk?
World Politics

His business empire needs the Chinese government — and that could warp American policy.

By Joshua Keating