Business

Rule 1. The fire drill must never feel useful. It may be a proven way to help save people’s lives, to say nothing of being a legal requirement in many workplaces. But it is important that people experience the exercise only as an inconvenience. The drill should take place when people are up against a deadline. It must not be timed to coincide with a long meeting, when it might come as a bit of a relief. Ideally, it should be pouring with rain. The drill can be counted a success only if enough people are rolling their eyes and muttering to themselves. (The sixth rule is essential to achieving this outcome, too.)Rule 2. Remember that the drill is not really a drill but an exercise in begrudging consensus. When the alarm sounds, people must never just get up and leave. They must first satisfy themselves that this is not a mistake. Someone might have pressed the wrong button; that voice might yet drone “This is a test” and for once people will feel grateful.They must then see other employees getting ready to leave. This stage involves people bobbing up and down at their desks like demented meerkats to see what their colleagues are doing. When it is clear that this is indeed a drill, people must then spend inordinate amounts of time deciding what things to take with them. What’s the weather like? Should they take the laptop? Where did they put their reusable coffee flask? Should they pack a suitcase? The one thing they must not have as they leave is any sense of urgency.Rule 3. This stage of the drill is when the fire wardens must show themselves. Only the wardens can accelerate the speed of departure from the building. This secretive group is the Opus Dei of the office but with a bit less of the fervour or sense of menace. The fire wardens have often been in the role for years; no one knows how they got the job or how to apply. They hide in plain sight: there may well be sepia photos of their younger selves on the office wall, next to an even more obscure sect known only as the “first-aiders”. The wardens reveal themselves during a drill by putting on high-visibility jackets, which instantly confer on them a mysterious authority. The cabal is never seen together at other times.Rule 4. The fire drill will produce a sense of belonging. That is because a drill will suddenly expose you to everyone who works in your building. In the normal course of events, you might briefly share a lift with people from other companies or other departments. You might glimpse their offices as the doors open and close and think how soulless they look. (They will think the same of yours.) But you never realise how outnumbered you are.In a drill, however, strangers surround you. Stairwells fill with people, most of them also weighed down by coats, laptops and reusable coffee flasks. They spiral down below you on the way out and form long queues by the lifts on the way back. You will suddenly feel grateful for the comfort of any recognisable face. You spot someone from legal you think may be called Keith and say hello. You have never given him any thought before; in this moment of grave non-peril he is like family.Rule 5. The assembly area is not so much a designated spot as a place of people’s choosing within a ten-minute walk of your building. Your employer might have specified a place for employees to gather. They may have given it militaristic names like the “primary muster point” or the “tertiary evacuation zone”. No one else will have the faintest idea where it is. A clump of people will mill about as close to the site of the notional blaze as possible. Another group will scatter in various directions in search of a coffee or an early lunch. If they walk purposefully enough, other people will assume they know where the assembly area is and follow them. As a result most of the office may accidentally end up at Starbucks.Rule 6. Confusingly also known as the first and second rules of fire drill, you must never talk about fire drill. At some point word will spread that the drill is over and people will start to drift back to the office. Once they have returned to their desks, everyone must act as though the whole thing never happened. There must never be any reference to how it went or whether any safety lessons were learned. The fire wardens must fold away their high-viz jackets and settle back into the shadows. The work you were doing must simply be picked up where it was left. You will not speak to Keith from legal again. But you do know not to use the lifts if there is a real emergency.■Read more from Bartleby, our columnist on management and work:The pros and cons of corporate uniforms (Mar 27th)The secret to career success may well be off to the side (Mar 21st)Every location has got worse for getting actual work done (Mar 13th)Also: How the Bartleby column got its name More

“TEXAS IS AN El Dorado for us, an energy El Dorado,” declared Patrick Pouyanné, boss of TotalEnergies, last month at CERAWeek, the energy industry’s annual shindig in Houston. He unveiled an expansion of the French supermajor’s shale holdings in the south of the state, a deal intended to bolster its position as the leading exporter of American liquefied natural gas. It had earlier bought three Texan gas-fired power plants and opened a new electricity-trading desk in Houston. Meanwhile in Brazoria, a windswept county an hour’s drive from the city, it has built a solar park capable of producing 380 megawatts (MW) of clean power, and of stashing some of the resulting joules in a bank of lithium-ion batteries made by Saft, its energy-storage arm. Hundreds of sheep and the odd gazelle graze among 700,000 photovoltaic panels on its 2,300 acres (930 hectares), with not a nodding donkey in sight. “You love energy here in all forms, from gas to renewables,” Mr Pouyanné told the oilmen at the Houston gabfest.This ecumenical strategy is TotalEnergies’ attempt to bridge its industry’s transatlantic divide when it comes to the energy transition. The French firm’s big European rivals, BP and Shell, invested heavily in “electrons” businesses like wind and solar energy—until weak returns and sagging share prices forced them into embarrassing U-turns. Its American counterparts, ExxonMobil and Chevron, have instead doubled down on oil and gas, while backing “clean-molecule” businesses like hydrogen and carbon capture—and have been rewarded with higher valuations.Chart: The EconomistMr Pouyanné thinks he can straddle both worlds. His firm will continue to invest in “System A”, as he calls the oil and gas that the world still needs. Examples include its recent hydrocarbon projects in Brazil, Suriname, Namibia and the United Arab Emirates. Here Mr Pouyanné’s imperatives are reducing the amount of carbon released in extracting the crude and, critically, slashing production costs, down to “less than $20 a barrel”, he says. If barrels keep trading for around $90, this should spin out plenty of cash to invest in “System B”, the low-carbon business that needs to grow fast if global climate goals are to be met. TotalEnergies has or is building some 5,000MW of clean-power capacity in Texas alone, making it one of America’s biggest backers of such ventures. It plans to devote 30% of its capital spending, or around $5bn a year globally, to low-carbon electricity, twice as much as a typical major. By 2030 it wants to produce over 100 terawatt-hours annually, enough to light up Arizona. Perhaps a quarter of those terawatt-hours would be generated in America.What makes TotalEnergies’ green plans distinctive is that it has found a way to make good money from them. Last year its return on capital was nearly 20%, higher than all its big rivals (see chart 1). As a result, since 2019 its shareholders have enjoyed a total stockmarket return, including dividends, of nearly 80%, roughly in line with Chevron’s and around twice those of BP and Shell (see chart 2).Chart: The EconomistOne big reason renewable energy suffers in the marketplace is intermittency. In time lots more grid-scale batteries like those installed in Brazoria will cleanly complement its wind and solar. Until then TotalEnergies will use gas turbines as “flexible” backup to manage windless days and sunless nights. A big chunk of the profits from its low-carbon-electricity business last year came courtesy of those gassy “flexible-generation” assets.The dual strategy is a byproduct of TotalEnergies’ history. CFP, in its original French acronym, was founded 100 years ago to ensure France’s energy independence. Initially that involved drilling for hydrocarbons in Iraq. This profitable business ended when the Iraqi oil industry was nationalised in 1972. In 2021 the company returned to Iraq in a spectacular way by securing the lead role in a $27bn energy project. Mr Pouyanné thinks it edged out competitors because it offered financial and technical assistance to help Iraq generate electricity using gas that would otherwise be flared, as well as building 1,000MW of solar power. A similar approach has found favour in Libya, Mozambique and other countries with plentiful hydrocarbons and pitiful power sectors. Now, amid the energy transition, it is gaining ground even in places like America.Some climate campaigners question this strategy. They see gas, which burns more cleanly than oil or coal, not as a bridge to a greener future but a fossil cul-de-sac. TotalEnergies’ capital-spending plans suggest that view is too cynical. Of its $5bn in annual investments in low-carbon energy, 93% is going to renewables and just 7% to gas. By 2028 flexible generation’s share of profits is expected to fall to a quarter, as a surging System B begins to match, and then surpass, a shrinking System A. By 2050 only 25% of TotalEnergies’ sales will derive from oil and gas, according to the company’s climate plan, down from 90% today. The firm envisages that electricity generation and renewables will make up half its revenues, with hydrogen and renewable biofuels making up the rest. Between now and then it will try to prove that profits and the planet need not be at odds—even for an oil major. ■To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the Bottom Line, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

Ford Motor is delaying production of a new all-electric large SUV from 2025 to 2027.
The automaker is instead focusing on offering hybrid options across its entire North American lineup by 2030.
Ford says it will continue to invest in EVs, but the shift comes as the entire automotive industry has been rethinking plans for electric vehicles.

Ford CEO Jim Farley at a battery lab for the automaker in suburban Detroit, announcing a new $3.5 billion electric vehicle battery plant in the state to produce lithium iron phosphate batteries, Feb. 13, 2023.
Michael Wayland/CNBC

DETROIT – Ford Motor is delaying production of a new all-electric three row SUV, as it shifts to offer hybrid options across its entire North American lineup by 2030.
The Detroit automaker on Thursday said it will continue to invest in EVs, but it is postponing production of the large SUV at a plant in Canada from 2025 to 2027 to allow for the market to mature more.

The shift in EV plans is the latest for Ford and the entire automotive industry as adoption has been slower than many expected and production costs remain high.
Ford last year said it would delay or cancel $12 billion in planned spending on new EVs due to the shifting market conditions as well as challenges to profitably building and selling the vehicles.
“As the No. 2 EV brand in the U.S. for the past two years, we are committed to scaling a profitable EV business, using capital wisely and bringing to market the right gas, hybrid and fully electric vehicles at the right time,” said Jim Farley, Ford president and CEO. “Our breakthrough, next-generation EVs will be new from the ground up and fully software enabled, with ever-improving digital experiences and a multitude of potential services.”
In the first quarter of 2024, Ford’s electric vehicle sales increased by 86% from subdued levels a year earlier. Hybrid sales for the automaker rose 42% year over year, while sales of Ford’s traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines were up 2.6%.
This is breaking news. Please check back for additional updates. More

Disney shareholders overwhelmingly voted for the current Disney board to stay intact, thwarting a campaign for change led by activist investor Nelson Peltz.
Disney held its annual meeting on Wednesday.
CEO Bob Iger now must show investors he can follow through on a number of priorities, including improving box-office hits, getting streaming to profitability, clarifying ESPN’s digital strategy and choosing a successor.

Bob Iger, CEO, Disney at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference on July 11, 2023 in Sun Valley, Idaho
David A. Grogan | CNBC

Disney shareholders overwhelmingly voted to keep the company’s current board intact during Wednesday’s annual meeting, suggesting they believe current CEO Bob Iger has a plan to boost shares and install a strong successor.
Now, Iger will have to prove it, or he risks facing yet another activist campaign this time next year.

Iger can show progress in a number of areas over the next 12 months. That starts with turning his streaming services into a profitable unit, explaining ESPN’s digital strategy, scoring some box-office hits and picking a successor with a transition plan.
If Disney struggles to show investors the entertainment giant has a coherent strategy, or if Iger kicks the succession can down the road once more, activist investors may be knocking on the company’s door again during next year’s annual meeting to demand change.
“They still have the same problems they’ve had before, which are really industry problems,” said TD Cowen analyst Doug Creutz. “Direct-to-consumer streaming is just economically inferior to the old linear bundle model, which is going away. They have to try to manage through that.”

‘Turning Red’ … to black

Still from Pixar’s “Turning Red.”

Disney said earlier this year it plans to turn a profit in its streaming TV businesses in its fiscal fourth quarter this year.
That would mark a milestone for the company, which launched Disney+ on Nov. 12, 2019. It would be the first time Disney showed it can make money from Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+.

Disney will need to sustain and grow streaming profit to justify Iger’s five-year-old strategy to go “all in” on the segment.
Iger’s confidence that Disney will make streaming profitable by the end of the fiscal year stems from draconian cost-cutting on content, which includes new movies, sports rights spending and TV production. Disney said in November it was targeting an “annualized entertainment cash content spend reduction target” of $4.5 billion.
“What they have to do next is fix the streaming losses,” said Needham & Co. analyst Laura Martin. “They still need to cut costs on the streaming side to get to profitability.”

ESPN’s strategy

Disney has set up a two-pronged digital strategy for ESPN. For decades, Disney reaped billions by keeping ESPN exclusive to the cable bundle.
Those days are nearly over.
In the fall of 2024, Disney plans to launch a skinny sports bundle that includes ESPN’s linear network, along with sports channels from Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox. The yet-to-be-priced digital streaming service will likely cost about $45 or $50 per month, CNBC reported in February. Disney owns one-third of it.
ESPN will then debut its own flagship streaming service in the fall of 2025. It will include new personalized features that cater to sports bettors and fantasy sports players. The Athletic reported last month that service is likely to cost $25 or $30 per month.
Disney risks confusing consumers with its multiple offers and will need to roll out its new products with clear messaging. Disney has already offered ESPN+, a sports streaming service that has some but not all of ESPN’s content. That costs $10.99 per month and can be bundled with Disney+ and Hulu.

The Disney+ website on a laptop in Brooklyn, New York, on July 18, 2022.
Gabby Jones | Bloomberg | Getty Images

ESPN will also stay an essential part of the cable bundle. Subscribers will want to know what they’re paying for and what content they do and don’t get with their additional subscription dollars.

Box-office turnaround

Disney has been mired in a yearslong box-office slump, from live-action flops to Pixar disappointments, from Marvel fatigue to the absence of Star Wars (the last movie released in theaters came in 2019).
Disney hired David Greenbaum, previously co-president of Searchlight, on Feb. 26 to take over as president of Walt Disney Motion Picture Studios, replacing Sean Bailey. He’ll report to Disney Entertainment co-Chairman Alan Bergman, who is on the hot seat to change the division’s fortunes.
Other than 2022′s “Avatar: The Way of Water,” which Disney acquired as part of its $71 billion deal for the majority of 21st Century Fox, the company has not had a movie generate more than $1 billion since the last Star Wars release in 2019, according to data from Comscore. Sony produced and distributed “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” which made $1.9 billion, although Disney’s Marvel Studios did serve as a co-producer.
Several big-budget franchise films have flopped. “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” in 2023 generated $378 million globally. “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” secured $476 million worldwide, unusually low for a Marvel film (until “The Marvels” reached just over $200 million late last year). And Pixar’s “Lightyear” collected less than $250 million globally in 2022.
Trian Partners’ Nelson Peltz, who failed to join Disney’s board Wednesday after securing just 31% of the vote, publicly questioned what he has called Disney’s “woke” content strategy. The company’s creative team has actively sought to create films and television shows centered on people of color as well as exploring narratives outside heteronormativity.
“People go to watch a movie or a show to be entertained,” Peltz said in an interview with the Financial Times. “They don’t go to get a message.”
Iger said Wednesday that while the company wants to instill positive messages into its content, that shouldn’t be the first priority.
“Our job is to entertain first and foremost, and by telling great stories,” Iger said during the company’s annual shareholder meeting. “We continue to have a positive impact on the world and inspire future generations, just as we’ve done for over 100 years.”

Success on succession

The biggest existential question for Disney is who follows Iger as CEO. This was Trian’s strongest argument to land Peltz a board seat. Iger has five times pushed back his retirement as CEO, and when he did leave in 2020, he stuck around as chairman for 22 months, butting heads with his successor Bob Chapek as the two jockeyed to co-run the company during the pandemic.
Iger returned in late 2022 as the CEO when the board fired Chapek. Iger’s plan to hand over Disney to a new leader has been to name a successor in or around early 2025 and then stick around to teach that person the job, CNBC reported last year.
He’ll want to make sure that person is prepared to run an expansive company, with a flourishing parks business, a declining legacy TV unit, a still young streaming division, and a struggling but legendary movie studio. Internal candidates include Bergman, ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro, Parks and Resorts Chairman Josh D’Amaro, and Disney co-chairman of entertainment Dana Walden, who could be the first female CEO in the company’s 100-year history.
“The problem is how do you replace Bob Iger? They’ve been trying to do it for 10 years, and it’s very difficult for multiple reasons,” said TD Cowen’s Creutz. “Bringing someone from the outside into Disney, which has a very strong, unique culture, is risky. Then you’re down to internal candidates, and if there isn’t anyone internally you think can step into the role, you’ve got a problem.”
The board has now been given the greenlight to proceed with its search process. That’s a win for Iger, and shareholders voted Wednesday they believe it’s a win for them, too.
— CNBC’s Sarah Whitten contributed to this report.

Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO:

WATCH: Disney still needs to cut costs on streaming side to get to profitability, says Needman’s Martin More

ON APRIL 1ST diggers at large construction sites in two Indian states broke ground on a pair of semiconductor factories. The plant in Gujarat, which will cost $11bn, is to employ 20,000 people and produce 50,000 silicon wafers a month. At the $3bn facility in Assam, 27,000 workers will package chips into processing units.The two projects are masterminded by Tata Group, India’s biggest conglomerate. In Gujarat it has teamed up with Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation of Taiwan. In Assam Tata is going it alone. It is all a giant bet that the Indian government’s dream of turning the country into a high-tech manufacturing powerhouse will materialise. And it illustrates the ambitions of Tata and its chairman, Natarajan Chandrasekaran, to move from a years-long restructuring firmly back into growth mode. “We have a big vision to play,” says Mr Chandrasekaran.In 2017, when Mr Chandrasekaran was handed the reins of Tata Sons, the group’s holding company, such a vision would have seemed preposterous. The group, which dates back to 1868, was in disarray. Mistimed acquisitions of foreign steel and car businesses were losing billions of dollars a year. A homegrown $1,300 car for the masses was a flop. Of its hundreds of affiliated firms only Tata Consultancy Services, the IT-services giant Mr Chandrasekaran ran at the time, was a real winner.Chart: The EconomistIn his first three years in the top job he consolidated the corporate sprawl into 30-odd listed businesses and, importantly, gave them a new focus. In 2020 a car model, the Nexon, was reconfigured into an electric vehicle and became a smash hit. Today Tata Motors, the group’s car unit, sells one in seven passenger cars in India, up from one in 20 four years ago. Some of the group’s underperforming European steel mills are being shut and the domestic steel business is riding India’s economic boom. An upsurge in Indian holidaymaking has transformed the hotels subsidiary from a money pit into a cash machine. Air India, bought from the government in 2022, is enjoying a similar tailwind. The combined market value of Tata’s listed affiliates has shot up from around $140bn in 2017 to roughly $400bn (see chart). The group’s ratio of net debt to income has plummeted from eight in 2020 to just 2.4.This success has given Mr Chandrasekaran the confidence—and the financial muscle—to pursue new ventures, most notably in chipmaking. Past efforts to create a domestic semiconductor industry have failed. A government-led effort in the 1970s went nowhere. Promising talks between India and Intel broke down in 2007 because the government in Delhi was dragging its feet, the American chipmaker’s boss grumbled at the time. Investment went to China and Vietnam instead.Under the current prime minister, Narendra Modi, things are moving considerably faster. He hopes to lure production from China, starting with less advanced chips of the sort used in cars and appliances and then gradually moving towards the cutting edge. His government is believed to be footing around half of the capital costs of new chip factories, including the ones in Gujarat and Assam, with states chipping in another 20%. Even so, the projects represent a big wager by the private sector, and by Tata in particular. In January 2023 Mr Chandrasekaran said that the group’s capital expenditure would amount to a staggering $90bn over five years. A slug of that would be spent directly by Tata Sons on semiconductors, where the company wants to be present in everything from design to packaging.The idea that India can become a chipmaking champion strikes some observers as bonkers. Raghuram Rajan, a former governor of India’s central bank now at the University of Chicago, decries all the vast subsidies for commoditised chips, especially at a time when richer places like America and Europe are pouring billions into production at the cutting edge. India would be better off, he thinks, funding its cash-strapped engineering schools and focusing on areas that require less investment, such as chip design.Mr Chandrasekaran disagrees. He reckons domestic buyers alone will be spending $100bn a year on chips by 2030, up from $40bn today. His firm is one of the few in India that can carry out big projects fast. It has recruited 75 executives from abroad with expertise in the chip business. Some 70% of capacity in the Assam factory, due to start production in 2025, has already been contracted for by global customers. What is a fanciful initiative for India may still be good business. ■To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the Bottom Line, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More

Levi Strauss’s direct-to-consumer business is booming and now accounts for nearly 50% of all revenue.
The shift comes as department stores face an uncertain future in the U.S. and Levi’s looks to grow its stores and website.
The retailer beat Wall Street’s earnings and revenue estimates and raised its full-year profit guidance.

Levi’s clothing is displayed at a Kohl’s store on April 06, 2023 in San Rafael, California. 
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

Levi Strauss, which has long relied on wholesalers like Macy’s and Kohl’s to drive its business, is now doing nearly half of its sales through its own website and stores, the company said Wednesday when reporting fiscal first-quarter earnings. 
In the three months ended Feb. 25, direct-to-consumer sales made up a record 48% of overall sales at Levi’s, up from 42% in the year-ago period and 25% higher on a two-year basis, the retailer said. 

The shift is a boon for Levi’s profits. But it raises questions about the company’s relationships with its wholesale partners and whether it will hurt those retailers as they grapple with their own existential challenges.
Levi’s also beat Wall Street’s earnings and revenue estimates and raised its full-year guidance. Shares rose as much as 10% in extended trading.
Here’s how the blue jeans maker did in its fiscal first quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG, formerly known as Refinitiv:

Earnings per share: 26 cents adjusted vs. 21 cents expected
Revenue: $1.56 billion vs. $1.55 billion expected

The company swung to a net loss of $10.6 million, or 3 cents per share, during the quarter, compared with a net income of $114.7 million, or 29 cents per share, in the year-ago period. Excluding one-time costs related to Levi’s restructuring, the company reported earnings per share of 26 cents, ahead of Wall Street’s estimates. 
Sales fell to $1.56 billion, down about 8% from $1.69 billion a year earlier. The sales slump was primarily attributed to a shift in Levi’s wholesale orders, which boosted profits by about $100 million in the year-ago period. 

Levi’s still expects full-year sales to rise between 1% and 3% as it contends with a slowdown in discretionary spending and an uncertain economy. But it anticipates profits will be higher than it previously thought. The retailer now expects adjusted earnings per share to be between $1.17 and $1.27, up from a previous range of $1.15 to $1.25. 
Analysts had expected sales to grow 2.4% on a full-year basis and earnings per share of $1.21, according to LSEG. 
For the last couple of years, Levi’s has been moving away from wholesalers and doing more of its sales through its own stores and website. Selling directly to consumers boosts Levi’s profit and gives it better data on its customers and their shopping patterns. 
Perhaps more important, shifting away from wholesalers also gives Levi’s greater control over its own destiny and reduces its exposure to department stores, which are continuing to shrink and face an uncertain future in the U.S. 
In late February, Macy’s – a key wholesale partner for Levi’s — announced it would close 150 stores as activist investors from Arkhouse Management looked to buy the department store and take it private. The firm primarily invests in real estate and is seen to be more interested in monetizing Macy’s sprawling store footprint than running a retail business. 
In an interview with CNBC, CEO Michelle Gass, who took the helm of Levi’s about two months ago, said wholesale continues to be an important part of the company’s strategy. If Macy’s store closures or other challenges to department stores affects Levi’s business, she expects direct-to-consumer sales will offset those losses. 
“We work very closely with our key customers because we’re important to them, they’re important to us, and strategically, wholesale is critical for us to amplify reach to the consumer,” said Gass. “While there are pressures, these wholesale customers serve millions of consumers and so there’s still a lot of opportunity to drive market share within that channel.” 
Levi’s previously said it’s working to get direct-to-consumer sales to account for 55% of all sales, but if that number can get higher, the company is “all for it,” said finance chief Harmit Singh. 
In the meantime, Gass said Levi’s is working “closely” with its key wholesale customers to ensure the brand is showing up in the “absolute best way.” 
During the quarter, global wholesale revenues were down 9% compared to the prior year when adjusted for the shift in wholesale orders that happened in the year-ago period. 
That weakness was driven by Europe, which Gass said saw a “tough” quarter. 
“As we look forward, we are feeling optimistic. Our pre-books for the second half in Europe wholesale are positive based on the innovation and fashion that we’re bringing,” said Gass. 
Levi’s has also been in the process of transforming itself into a retailer that does a lot more than just sell jeans. It’s working to offer more skirts, dresses and tops, and wants to be viewed as a denim lifestyle business, not just a blue jeans company. 
As part of those efforts, the company said it’s imperative to remain at the “center of culture.” On Friday, it got a helpful boost when  Beyoncé named a song after the brand on her new album “Cowboy Carter” titled “Levii’s Jeans.”
The song, a collaboration with Post Malone, celebrates Levi’s with lyrics like “Love it when you tease me in them jeans” and “you don’t need designer.”
On a call with analysts, Gass was asked about the song and if it has contributed to a spike in sales. While she stopped short of saying its had any impact on revenue, she did call the homage an “honor.”
“Denim is having a moment and the Levi’s brand is having a powerful moment around the world,” said Gass. “We place a lot of emphasis and investment is making sure that Levi’s brand remains in the center of culture and I don’t think there’s any better evidence or proof point than having someone like  Beyoncé, who is a culture shaper, to actually name a song after us so we’re super proud of that.”
During the quarter, sales of items like denim skirts, dresses and tops were up 19% in Levi’s direct-to-consumer channel, said Gass. The products also performed well in wholesale, she said. 
Levi’s efforts come at a time when consumer spending for discretionary products like clothes and accessories has been under pressure as shoppers look to use their extra dollars on things like eating out and traveling or paying down debt. 
In late January, Levi’s said it would cut 10% to 15% of its global corporate workforce, which is expected to save the company about $100 million during the fiscal year.

Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

WHEN BOB IGER returned to the top job at Disney in November 2022, some anticipated a fairytale ending to the entertainment giant’s troubles. In February last year Nelson Peltz, a feared activist investor, called off a campaign by his hedge fund, Trian Partners, for a shake-up after Mr Iger announced measures to slash costs and otherwise improve Disney’s fortunes.With the company’s share price languishing, however, Mr Peltz returned to the warpath in October. Blackwells, another activist investor, launched a campaign of its own. Both sought seats on Disney’s board, arguing it had grown too chummy with Mr Iger and failed to find a viable strategy amid the decline of “linear” TV.Chart: The EconomistOn April 3rd both activists’ candidates were rejected by shareholders at Disney’s annual general meeting (AGM), by what the company said was “a substantial margin”. This has handed Mr Iger what he surely hopes is a decisive victory. Investors regained faith in Disney’s boss after an earnings call in February, when he reported that losses in its streaming business, including Disney+, had narrowed sharply in the final quarter of 2023, and trumpeted splashy new initiatives including a partnership with Epic Games, a video-game developer, to incorporate Disney characters into its popular “Fortnite” franchise. The announcement that Disney would increase its dividend by 50% and repurchase $3bn of shares also went down a treat. Its share price jumped by 11% the following day, and has kept climbing since (see chart).At the AGM Mr Iger declared that Disney has “turned a corner and entered a new, positive era”. Yet such triumphalism is premature, for Mr Iger still has much work to do, in three areas especially. The first is to generate the “double-digit” operating margins in Disney’s streaming business that he has promised investors. That will require a lot more subscribers, to provide economies of scale, which may put Mr Iger in a bind. To stem losses in the business he has jacked up prices, undermining growth. Between the third and fourth quarters of last year the number of subscribers to Disney+ (outside India) shrank by 1.3m.What is more, over half of the $7.5bn in costs Mr Iger has pledged to slash are to come from Disney’s content budget. That will hardly help the company to grow, and could undermine a second of Mr Iger’s promises—to restore Disney’s creative magic. In his letter to shareholders from 1966, the last before he died, Walt Disney declared a disdain for sequels. Mr Iger, by contrast, is an avid fan. Of the 15 forthcoming films he mentioned in his presentation in February, all bar one were sequels, prequels, spin-offs or remakes. Mr Iger applauded a greater reliance on franchises as a “smart thing”. Results at the box office, however, have been disappointing. Last year Disney lost the top spot for global cinema-ticket sales, to rival Universal, for the first time since 2015. On March 31st it was reported that last year’s Indiana Jones film, a Disney reboot featuring an 80-year-old Harrison Ford, took in $134m less at the box office than it cost to produce.The third promise Mr Iger must still fulfil is to find a more durable successor than his last pick, whom he then supplanted. Worryingly, three of the four directors on Disney’s succession-planning committee were involved in that bungled process. Already Mr Iger’s two-year contract has been extended until the end of 2026.If Mr Iger trips up, the interlopers may return. In his remarks at the AGM, Mr Peltz noted that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, he would be “watching the company’s performance”. The veteran activist, too, may be a fan of sequels. ■ More