♪ >> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west," where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i am emily chang. our focus is on innovation, technology, and the future of business. we are covering all angles of two major earning reports. disney, the world's largest entertainment company, posted rising revenue, up nine percent, $12.3 billion, profit rose 33%, $1.84 billion.

we will be joined by disney ceo bob iger. first, we are talking about twitter, the first earnings call as a public company, the news not so great. net loss of $511 million, their net revenue more than doubling. user growth is slowing down. twitter had 241 million active users in the fourth quarter, up 30%, but slower than the 39% growth in the prior quarter. twitter usage also declined. what does this say about twitter's business? we have a special roundtable, contributing editor david kirkpatrick in new york, zach coelius, as well is editor at large cory johnson. how does this add up, timeline

usage dropping, but growth is slowing down? >> we are seeing slower user growth, and uptake and how much revenue they are getting from users, not dramatically, slowing growth. i think what we saw, if you want to sum that up is user engagement. how much are people using the medium? the numbers don't look solid. they don't look like the explosive growth of the stock valuation, and that is worth talking about. you and i use twitter constantly, but i also think in this world where twitter is looming large, where media advertising is looming large, we're seeing is for the rest of the world is not such a big deal. >> i want to listen to what they said about a lot of confidence, very emphatic about the

confidence they can change the product to engage more mainstream users. take a listen to what he said. >> integration of the richer media experiences helps make twitter more accessible, i think is the proper word, to a broader audience. we have already taking steps in that direction. we will continue to make twitter a visually more engaging medium. >> they know that twitter is not as accessible to as broad an audience as they want to reach. can they do it? >> i think there is no question there are significant changes coming. >> and they have already gone for a big redesign. >> if you look at just putting pictures in the feed, it changes the way that twitter works. i know that for you and i, used to be awesome, but for my mom when the picture started to show up, it was a different experience. there are things they can do in the coming months to bring in the massive market. >> my mom is still a big facebook user, but she still

does not quite get twitter. david, perfect question for you, the author of "the facebook effect," can twitter be as mainstream as facebook today? >> thank you for bringing up the question, because i was going ring that myself. i would say no. not that i am not a huge fan of twitter, use it myself quite a lot but i think a lot of people , fundamentally overestimate the potential of twitter as a business when they fall into the habit of comparing it to companies like facebook or google. one of the big differences between facebook and twitter is that facebook has astonishingly accurate personal data to taste -- base targeting for advertising upon. twitter does not have nearly such assets, not to mention they have a way, way smaller community to do it for. the thing i also have to throw out there about twitter, i'm not a financial analyst, i'm a strategy analyst, but the fact that twitter's valuation is by

some measures double facebook's, 33 times estimated 2014 revenues, that is astonishing. facebook, which is a very profitable company, 17 times, which is a very high valuation, but twitter is so much more highly valued than any of the other major internet companies. i think it is in a precarious territory considering its long-term opportunity scale. >> twitter's user engagement growth is slowing down, but they are making dramatically more revenue per user. as a business, how important is increasing growth and users? >> both are very important. you need a lot more users, they need to get more from users. over the long-term, user growth over the long term it will slow down. there are only so many people in the world. at that point, you want to turn revenue at a faster pace. the fact they are turning

-- getting more revenues can only be a positive, but the fact that u.s. user growth, which came up on the conference call, u.s. user growth sequentially was down to 1.9%, the worst growth they have ever had. let's say in the fourth quarter of last year the company got more mainstream press than ever before, more tweets, mentions of twitter, the twitter ipo gave them tons of public city, yet -- publicity yet they only added , less than two percent growth in terms of the number of users. that is a bad sign. photos be damned, the changes in the user experience to not add a dash did not add a lot more users. >> and the vast majority of revenue still comes from the u.s. user base. most of their users are international. can they figure out how to monetize the rest of the world that is using twitter? >> there are a lot of questions there. the international monetization, i don't think there is any question that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit for the twitter business to scoop up. it takes time to build the business internationally and

they doing it successfully small scale. they will scale that. we have done that in brazil with our company, and twitter will do interesting things in the rest of the world, but i think we are talking about user growth in the fourth quarter which is very scary. people are scared of that. it is early days in the company, and they are not smooth sailing. >> value per user last quarter, international is $.60. in the u.s. it was well over three dollars. there is a great disparity. >> how does this story play out the next few quarters, david? what do they look like? >> >> i think they will continue losing money. they have a pro forma non-cap profit, but the fact is these people are making investments but not making money. i think that will continue. what everybody who is investing in the stock is assuming his they will have quarters like facebook had recently. i don't see that looming in the near term.

>> all right, bloomberg contributing editor david kirkpatrick, zach coelius, thank you for joining us. jon erlichman has been hanging out at the disney lot in burbank, california, omits away -- and you are moments away from your interview with bob iger. what are you going to ask him? >> i think the performance of "frozen" the film, big quarter, big performance from the caber -- cable networks like espn. there is a lot to talk about. the future of film or tv, or technology. think about all the technology people have at their fingertips and how that changes a business like disney. we will talk to bob iger about that coming up on "bloomberg west." >> welcome back to "bloomberg

west."

i'm emily chang. we are talking to david kirkpatrick from new york, zach coelius, cory johnson as well. listening more to what the ceo of twitter had to say, in addition to tweaking the products for more mainstream users, another thing that jumped out at me was this discussion of making twitter better for private conversations, a very public service by the way. listen. >> i talk frequently about twitter being this global town square. when you are walking through the town square and observing something, you often want to whisper to the person next to you about the thing you are both observing. that notion of private messaging we have brought forward, seeing it increased 25% and one quarter is enhancing that back-and-forth and forth between the public and private conversation. >> you can already send messages

privately on twitter, but what does that mean, the whisper idea? disappearing tweets, snap chat competitor? >> the most exciting thing about twitter is not what it is today but what can be. there are some any limitations -- so many limitations today. people look at that and project opportunities for features and changes, things like private messaging that is more comprehensive and powerful. i think are interesting things. >> think about all of the tweets that you wish that you could have taken back, cory. >> thank god for snap chat. >> we all do it, that's the point. >> it may not be an accident that facebook came out with paper, the clipboard competitor, so maybe there are things going on in twitter to share information between a social circle. >> twitter has historically not

changed the product very much for fear of alienating users. >> they got into that this quarter. >> there has been all of this discussion whether it is too difficult to innovate at twitter because users are so resistant to it. david, what can twitter do differently when it comes to products in terms of reaching more people out there who are not power users and obsessed with the media like us? >> it is a distinctly separate group, one that we occupy. i actually think that twitter history is one of steadily trying to escape the list of the products' own limitations. as was said a minute ago, they are starting to that more effectively. it is interesting compared with facebook, facebook has gotten too top heavy, too complicated. people are using it and what are they doing, they are starting a whole strategy of products that are not facebook?

paper being one of them. instagram, messenger. i think twitter has opportunity in the future but it is still way too hard to use. they have to mainly focus on simplifying the product experience. i do like the idea of the public whispering. i think that could be something that twitter could uniquely enable to ordinary people. but they have to both improve the functionality, adding more features, but not get too heavy like facebook did. maybe what they will end up doing is becoming a brand that has a variety of products underneath of it such as facebook is starting to be. >> the simplicity of twitter has been what is so attractive to a lot of people about it. how do you develop the product, but keep it simple. dave kirkpatrick, zach coelius, thank you so much for joining us today. we will continue to watch the twitter story develop.

we are just moments away from our one-on-one interview with disney ceo bob iger. stay with us. you can watch a streaming on your tablet, phone, and bloomberg.com. ♪ >> welcome back.

i'm emily chang. this is "bloomberg west." disney had a strong quarter thanks in part to "frozen" and espn. jon erlichman is on the disney lot in burbank, california, standing by with disney ceo bob iger. >> thanks a lot, and our thanks to bob iger for joining us on "bloomberg west." good to see you. emily was talking about "frozen," one of the highlights of the quarter, pointing to a renaissance of sorts of disney animation, something you take a lot of pride in going back to the purchase of pixar.

this film just entered the chinese market after the global success it has had, japan is around the corner. will this film generate a billion-plus in the box office? >> is possible. we are thrilled with "frozen," and you hit the nail on the head when you talked about the pixar acquisition in 2006. it was designed not only to protect and enable pixar to continue to prosper with the great product and people they have, but to turn disney animation around. i think this film proves that that has been accomplished, although we never rest on our laurels. it has done very well on the global market. it did extremely well in south korea, one of the biggest animated films ever, so it bodes well for those territories.

though no two are the same. i think the possibility exists, but i would rather not utter the "b" word until we are there, but the possibility exists. >> you said it has real franchise potential. i believe i heard you talk about the possibility that going to broadway, but when you said that it made me think, just think of a sequel. could there be a sequel? >> i don't want to rule anything out about the future of "frozen." we have been as specific as we can be about other plans, probably more specific than we typically are at this point, but we are very excited about it and there is great demand for it not just across our businesses but marketplaces around the world. when we talk about franchises, it is something that is successful across businesses and territories over a long time, and i think that this checks all of those boxes. it is important to point out that the quarter, while impacted

nicely by the fantastic success of this great movie, was also affected greatly by business success in every one of our operating units. we had double-digit improvement in every one of our reported segments. it was not just about "frozen." >> sure, and other film franchises like "thor," marvel, etc. "star wars," still some excitement before that hits the theaters. the secrecy. you could have a whole film on the secrecy surrounding who will be cast. do you play an even greater role in the production of a film like that just because it is "star wars"? do you have to get the final say about the top people that are cast in that film? >> we have two people running -- we have very talented people running our studio. alan horn is the chairman of the studio and the talented people at lucas, and of course jj abrams, who i have worked with

for a long time. andas" was on abc, "felicity" was produced under the auspices of disney television. we know jj well. this was a $4 billion-plus acquisition, this is the first product from that studio, and i think it is safe to say i am more invested in this than i might be one of our other films for all of the obvious reasons. but there is a talented group of people that will not only make this film but help manage it on behalf of the studio. >> i want to switch from film to broadcast television. it was announced today that cbs is teaming up with the nfl for thursday night football for 2014. disney had some interest in acquiring those rights as well. do you think about counter-programming? like now that cbs has football on thursday nights, what do you do on abc? >> i think it is a good

opportunity for us. abc's lineup on thursday nights is pretty strong, particularly with "grey's anatomy" and "scandal." next season has not been determined yet, but the abc audience in prime time tends to skew more female than male, so i think it is a great opportunity. moving to cbs, they had success on that night really early on the night with "the big bang theory." moving that out so it is not competing with our shows probably will help us in some form. i don't know, i think it is too early to speculate whether there is going to be tremendous counter-programming. abc's strategy is what it is, regardless really up competition. abc knows what works for them and what their audiences, and they will continue to go after it. i don't think that you will see appreciable change. >> i think we are reminded of a time when there are fewer reasons to watch live tv con nr

-- watching live tv, that there are some marquee live television event people still tune in for in a big way, the grammys an example, the super bowl an example. you guys have the oscars coming up. would you be surprised to see record ratings on abc for the oscars? >> well, i'm certain the oscars will do well. i think there is a lot of interest in films. a lot of the films in contention were released late in the year, so i think there is more interest in them. yes, live tv is something that is definitely attractive to audiences, but there is a lot of video and tv available, too, so the audience is much more fragmented. it is a tougher, more competitive environment, may be the toughest it has ever been. in terms of how high up you can go and continue to increase, the challenges are a lot greater today than they have ever been. >> just a final broadcast tv question, in the world of late

night, jay leno is handing the baton to jimmy fallon. does that open the door for any marketing opportunities for jimmy kimmel on abc, anything you have thought about on that front? >> i know it opens the door as much as it creates more of a need for us to aggressively remind audiences that not only jimmy is there already, but at jimmy and that show is really good, so you will see more support for "the jimmy kimmel show" not just at abc but across the company because the competition is changing, and it is clear that nbc is going to go after the incumbents in a big way, not just abc, but cbs as well. we love the success of jimmy kimmel now that it has been moved to the earlier time, and we think it is a show that is still growing. >> one thing that helps media network business, whether broadcast television or cable television, is the willingness of pay-tv providers to pay you

for your content. cable consolidation is a big theme these days. time warner cable, charter, are they going to come together, is that good or bad for disney? >> it is not really have much of an impact as far as we are concerned. we have abc, espn, disney, for instance. networks that are not only well-branded but really in demand because of their product. so whether there is consolidation or whether the ownership of the existing multi-channel business changes, we will still be as in demand as we have been. you cannot go after the multi-channel subscriber without offering our product, so it does not really mean that much to us. >> i want to talk a little bit about how technology changes your business. i don't know if i can call you a techie. let me know if you would ascribe yourself about that, but you embrace technology and like to see it used in ways.

in the parks you are doing that. you talk today about how it is actually enabling more activity at the parks, some of the new technology you are using, the the magic bands. can you talk more about that and the rollout of that? >> sure. we believe in technology for a number of reasons. i have articulated this often. clearly it gives the ability to make rocks better, meaning the -- products better, meaning the experience better. whether it is a movie, tv show, theme park attraction, or theme park, technology is giving us tools to basically paint better pictures and create better experiences. it is also giving us access to the consumer and vice versa. i love mobile technology, particularly in television. if you think about it, if you wanted to watch tv before, you had to watch on a fixed screen typically attached to the wall or on a shelf or cabinet in the home.

you couldn't watch tv elsewhere. you now have the ability to do that. and that is only going to grow. if your ability to access products grows, then your consumption is going to increase. that is a great thing for creators, for distributors. on the theme park side, technology is a very, very powerful friend to us and the consumer. we know, for instance, the consumer wants -- even though the experience we are giving them is great, they want a better experience, they want it to be more efficient, they want to have more fun, do more things, customize the experience they have. we now have technology that enables that to happen. you mentioned the magic band. we have a product called fast pass-plus, which is everybody who stays at one of our hotels in florida, and we have a significant number of hotels, the ability to reserve time on three attractions that day, and the ability for ticket holders

to do the same thing once again -- once they get into our park. that gives you the chance to better plan your day if you are a guest at walt disney world to not only decide in advance where you are going to see something but it gives you access to what is likely going to be one of your favorite attractions, for instance. it is also going to reduce the amount of time you are waiting or even thinking about experiencing one of our attractions. if we can do that, we can give you the ability to experience even more of them while you are there. that is a great thing. guest satisfaction, which is already high, if that increases more, than the likelihood that you will recommend the experience to somebody else or whether you come back again goes up. those are all very powerful things we would not be able to do without technology. and those are just a few of the facets, one of the main facets of this product. there are many more facets in terms of the user experience that it will enable.

>> going back to mobile, you seem to be alluding to the fact that disney has rolled out a bunch of apps that are easily accessible on a bunch of platforms. you also talked about your strategy with games and how mobile has affected that. maybe you can clarify what we should be thinking about with respect to disney making games and how mobile has changed your strategy. >> it has changed it a lot. when we entered the game market, we have entered a few times, fits and starts, but we entered this last go around which was about 6, 7 years ago, more focused on console games, which is obviously not mobile in nature. those games not only cost a lot to produce and market, but they are limiting in terms of people's access to them, again, fixed in the home. we have seen, mostly because of the development of smart mobile devices, phones and tablets, just a huge increase in mobile in that space, tremendous increase.

it is really where the games marketing is today as far as we are concerned. we have shifted our strategy dramatically. i would say that is sort of probably the most obvious. interestingly enough, infinity is a game that is designed both for the fixed platform and mobile. it is actually the first game we have rolled out that is playable on multiple devices. >> this is a game that has a variety of disney characters, you can find all of these different pairing ups. >> it uses a number of disney characters. it basically combines physical elements, basically toys or figurines, with a technology platform, basically the game player. it is also available with a fixed product on mobile devices, too, and it gives the user the ability to mix and match characters. so jack sparrow from "pirates" can be in the game with

lightning mcqueen from "cars," but it is the trend in mobile and where we need to be in the space. television or film entertainment is just as important to be there from a mobile perspective. i knew we were the first in the business, but we will continue to be very aggressive in that regard, not just for tv but movies as well. >> maybe you can elaborate a little in the context of some of the new media names we hear a lot about. netflix is a company would have spoken a lot about in the past. you have a major partnership with them. a lot of people compare what netflix is doing to amazon's video strategy, and they have been a partner, too. it feels perhaps, less so than netflix. could you see yourself doing more with the amazon platform for video which seems to be growing quickly? >> i think you will see us doing more with mobile platforms, or

-- that offer, digital platforms, really, that offer great customer experiences that are capable of showcasing our product and making it available to the customer and not only robust ways for us but in ways the customer can really enjoy consuming our product. you will see a lot of growth there. from both current digital platforms and new entrants. including, by the way, the possibility of us offering product direct to the consumer as well. >> just a final question, mickey mouse, late last year i think he turned 85? >> the company turned 90, mickey turned 85 in 2013. 1928. >> what are your thoughts on that? >> he is the youngest 85-year-old i have ever worked with. [laughter] i should be so lucky when i'm 85. >> bob, thanks as always for your time. >> thank you, jon. >> bob iger from disney headquarters in burbank.

>> jon erlichman on the disney lot with bob iger, disney ceo and chairman. we will be back with more "bloomberg west" after a quick break. ♪ >> welcome back to "bloomberg

west." i'm emily chang. in a field dominated by men, two female venture capitalists are stepping up to make their own firm. theresa is leaving accel partners to start aspect ventures with jennifer scott. cory johnson and i sat down with both of them to talk about why they launched the firm and how they decided to leave. >> i think for both jennifer and i, we thought this was our entrepreneurial thing. it is like when entrepreneur say you have a shared vision and your being called to something. we just thought this was a great time in the market to be focused on seed and early-stage

investing, from enterprise to consumer, and to work with somebody you have a note of her -- that you have known for over two decades. >> how about you, jennifer, was this a difficult decision? >> no, i've been in the business 17 years now, and it is a great opportunity and great time. frankly, if not now, when? we have been very fortunate in our careers initially in the business, working her way into managing partner roles, and now we are at the top of our game at our respective firms. we thought this was an opportunity to do something different and start a different kind of firm and focus on building companies for the long, long term. >> is now the time for fundraising? what is the fundraising environment like right now? >> as jennifer said, we have both been fortunate to have successful careers. right now we are founder funding. we have jennifer and my capital,

and it is more than enough to last two or three years. >> you're betting your own money? >> absolutely. founder funding. we have been heartened that as we start to talk to people we have been getting proactive hand-raising from people who want to invest, but we are using our own money right now. >> on the institutional side, where the stock market is right now, are they looking to write checks for venture capital? you hope so, obviously. >> we are not fundraising, but our colleagues are. we think it is a great time to be putting money to work in the venture in history and general. there is an explosion of opportunity in the mobile space. our firm will be focused exclusively on the mobile space, but we are defining a much -- it much more broadly than we have seen in the press in the past. we think that mobile will infuse and touch every aspect of the software stack, both down the stack and in terms of the

different parts of the industry it will play in. >> it is no secret the venture capital industry is dominated by men. only 11% of venture capitalists are women, and now we have two women founding a firm together. how do you look at the fact that both of you are women? >> well, we are women. [laughter] >> that aspect is there. >> i think our view on it is that we want to invest in companies that are focused on early-stage building, long-term successful companies over 10-plus years. whether that is in the health care, i.t. space, or the early-stage building up to public, billion-dollar-plus companies. those companies have all been founded by men, so we will look back people from all different backgrounds and other aspects.

we actually find that having diversity of views in the board room when you are trying to tackle tough challenges and be creative, having different perspectives, whether operating perspectives or investment or -- perspectives or gender perspectives, it adds to the bottom line, and studies show that. >> do you think the fact that you are women gives you an advantage because of your different perspective? >> the data shows that having different perspectives in the boardroom, particularly around gender, that has been studied in both public companies and private companies, it improves the bottom line. it also increases the chances of success. >> can either of you name a single investment where you thought, i think i get this in a way they don't? >> i have done a lot of investment in the social commerce space. one would be a company like birch box, discovery of subscription e-commerce.

the subscription is for beauty samples. people were like, will women pay $10 per month for stuff that they can get for free if they walked down to the department store? well, over 300,000 people pay $10 per month two years later. >> are there less obvious examples in terms of a technological perspective? i wonder if there are things there as well? >> you want to talk without attribution about the mobile stuff you have seen? >> i have seen some companies and made seed investments in companies that do multiplatform, multi-device approach. they are companies that are taking advantage of the social graph and a very unique way to engage consumers, but doing it in a way -- let me back up, women in general very much value the word-of-mouth recommendations for things. >> more than men? >> much more than men do.

who may go look online. >> one company i'm thinking of in particular takes advantage of that word-of-mouth. one thing interesting about mobile today is it is very user-interface focused. women are often on-the-fly, particularly moms dropping off kids, running errands, that sort of thing, so being able to have a simple user interface, not typing a lot of things in with old blackberries and having simple sliding mechanisms are very critical for how women interact with their device. when you look at opportunities, we take that into consideration. i know one company that was doing it from a hardware perspective, when they did the initial prototype, they had an all-male team and when they had a woman engineer and she was poking at the phone with longer fingernails, they had to redo the interface. >> you guys come from different

complementary backgrounds. what is the focus of the firm when it comes to consumer versus enterprise, social networking versus big data. what are you going to be looking closely at? >> our real focus that unifies from enterprise up to the consumer application lair is the mobility everywhere theme. whether it is a security software company, where i spent a bunch of time down in the bottom of the stack, but 70% of all internet traffic is now from mobile devices, to i.t. health care, where jen is, where it is an application but very acquisitive in the mobile space because that is where the action is. >> new founders of aspect ventures. we will be right back with more of "bloomberg west" after a quick break. ♪ >> welcome back to "bloomberg

west." i'm emily chang. pandora reporting rising revenue and profit in the fourth quarter as ad sales improve, sales over $200 million, 147% gain, profit up 233%, but the company is forecasting a loss in the current quarter because of staffing and music costs, which has shares falling in after-hours trading, down 10% right now. 3d printing stocks had their worst day in memory after 3d systems reported sluggish consumer demand. shares of 3d systems fell. other printing companies fell as well. could this be the end of a 3d printing bubble? cory johnson is back. they did rebound from earlier in the day. >> there is a little bit of a

bounce back, but i think there is a fundamental change in the story. for the last 2, 3, 15, 20 years, the story has been the consumer will embrace 3-d printing and that will be a big deal. i think a lot of the hype over the last year is that story, consumer adoption of 3-d printing. 3-d systems, which has been public a long time, was the company out there, really seem to have the first big deal, a deal with staples, to sell 3-d printers to consumers. last quarter they said, look, the results are not as good as we expected but that is because we are spending so much money marketing the 3-d printers to consumers, so next quarter lookout. last night they said actually last quarter we had weakness in the consumer. so that was bad. and you look at the acquisition spree. the company was buying lots of other companies, so it may the -- made the revenues look strong.

i think that full people into thinking it was the sale of printers that was driving revenues when it was many other things, not just the sale of printers. indeed, anemic sales. >> will 3-d printing mostly be for enterprise, business, not for consumers? are the consumers using it going to be hobbyists? i cannot see myself printing a coffee mug at home, designing and printing a coffee mug. i just don't have time for that. >> that is the point, cristina alesci was on bloomberg tv earlier today, saying the rhode island school of design as 3-d -- has a 3-d printer. it is the rhode island school of design, one of the best design schools ever. that is the type of capability i think it takes to imagine using computer-aided design tools to design things in three dimension. , one guest this morning said, not everybody has a sewing machine. not everybody will have a 3-d printer. it is not like a laser printer and the house. it is a particular thing for a

particular kind of hobbyist. the other thing is the notion it will get cheaper. it is not a semiconductor that gets twice as fast and half the cost every year. a lot of these pieces are fixed cost, like metal and plastic and things that don't drop the same way in value. >> what kind of industries do you see using this the most in the future? we hear a lot about airplanes. what about cars? what else is out there that could benefit from 3-d printing? >> if you are a manufacturer, if you want to do rapid prototyping, if you want to try a new kind of gear inside of a engine of super-hard plastic or composite material and you have that kind of printer, it is cheaper than taking it to the machine shop. that is a game-changer. but this industry has been around a few decades. it has shown about 20% growth. aggregately, all of the companies in this business lose money, so it is not a great business or unique business with any kind of great technology that nobody else can do. there are a lot of competitors.

what we learned today that we did not know tomorrow is the consumer is not embracing this the way that the proponents of it said they would. >> it is time for the bwest byte. jon has that from disney. >> emily, $7.4 billion. disney acquired pixar for that price back in 2006, the first big deal by bob iger, the ceo of disney, and could be the most important deal they have done, not just because it allowed them to continue that key partnership with pixar, but it gave them who reallyeople tried to reinvent without disrespecting what disney animation has always been. it has kind of become a place that was in a creative funk. now with movies like "wreck it ralph," "tangled," and "frozen," they are in a position where they can brag about their animation again and not just

espn and other parts of their business. >> he said to you that it is possible that "frozen" could bring in more than a billion dollars. aside from that, what are your big takeaways from your interview with him today? >> i think that -- he is on the board of apple, of course, he is somebody who saw devices like ipad is a game changer and said we are in a good position here if we get our content on a lot of new platforms. sometimes that works really well, and it has worked well for them, for example, with rolling out a bunch of apps. there is a company that is generating so much money with a property like espn, being tied to cable, the cable world, the cable ecosystem, and still says we have to make apps, we have to make our product available on new platforms and push the limits. but he did highlight that in gaming it has not been an easy transition. i think a lot of the social

gaming is that we talk about, from zynga tell others, they have also struggled with that shift. i think you learn a lot from hearing him talk about that kind of stuff as well. >> jon, i was impressed with his knowledge of his older business at abc, that is his list -- not that that is the oldest. mickey at age 85. even older than me. i thought it was really impressive than i thought it was a big takeaway, his knowledge of the gender demographics of his thursday night crew. you can see why the thursday night interest would never be interested at abc the way it is constructed presently. >> it is true, they get a lot of female viewers. it is also true that abc has been trying to find its big names, i guess if you will, in ratings. cbs is one of the most dominant players when it comes to ratings. that may be one of the reasons why they were able to land the

nfl, because of those ratings. i think they are still hungry to see their ratings climb. you are right, there is content for every, and football may not be for emily chang, unless it is stanford. >> i was going to say, i'm going to be one of those female viewers, if i can get my hands on the remote. jon, when it came to "star wars," he did not give away any secrets. did he tell you anything off camera? >> no, i think they are better at keeping those secrets than apple is about their next big thing. this is an important film and he is more involved with this than the average disney film. >> we and a lot of fans cannot wait to see it. jon erlichman, great interview today with disney ceo bob iger, cory johnson. thank you for watching this edition of "bloomberg west." we will see you back here tomorrow. ♪

. . .

>> our o most