Bob Iger at WDW now ... BoD to Follow?

[lazyboy97o]

Yep. It's a giant pendulum. Companies get fat. They trim the fat. They trim to much fat and become lean. They hire. They hire too much and become fat again. It's a 5-10 year cycle.

The current efforts underway at TWDC are referred to simply as "the SG&A project." SG&A refers to selling, general, and administrative expenses.

Disney's repeated problem is they cut more bone and leave more fat.

I do get that - though on one hand I think that's largely because they simply "don't build 'em like they used to". We can't forget there also was a whole lot in Walt's original intention of Disney parks to promote films - remember, Sleeping Beauty wasn't out until several years after Disneyland opened with the castle as it's park icon. Walt very much was a pioneer of this type of promotion of theatrical films, and that was one of his selling points for Disneyland to begin with (the cross-promotion). That wasn't invented by Iger, Eisner, or even Wells, but straight from The Man himself.

A quarter of Disneyland's opening day attractions were based on Studio work. Most of those attractions would not get build today because, excepting Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the associated films were box office duds. Even Sleeping Beauty Castle as a name was a very late toss away to what was for much longer known simply as Fantasyland Castle. Walt explored his interest in different mediums and shifting his primary focus away from the Studio. That is not at all the same as the Studio worship of today.

Pepsi was stuck at the last minute without an attraction for the 1964 World's Fair. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of this discussion. Pepsi had been a founding sponsor at Disneyland and turned to Disney (at the last minute) in the hope they could help. Pepsi was involved in the World's Fair deal to help promote UNICEF. It would have been very bad publicity for Pepsi to have backed out of this charity involvement.

Moses' Fair was a quagmire from the moment he decided to again pursue turning the ash heap into a grand park. Pepsi would not have been alone in backing out of that mess.

 

[gmajew]

The physical assets of Enron are still around under new ownership. The trading shop and corporate management are long gone. It was really the trading shop, senior management and the accountants that committed fraud. The guys working on the ops side at power plants or gas pipelines that Enron owned were not doing anything wrong and likely kept their jobs under new ownership. Right after the collapse Dynegy put in a bid to buy Enron, but they backed out after getting a closer look at the books.

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything similar to Enron is happening at TWDC. Enron operated in a world with complex commodity trading and newly emerging electricity markets that were ripe for manipulation and fraud. They also manipulated newly created accounting guidance around derivatives. The markets that TWDC operate in are mature and somewhat regulated. It's not likely that the studios are manipulating their numbers since box office numbers are confirmed by 3rd party sources and the network TV division is highly regulated. That leaves ESPN and Parks and Resorts which are pretty straight forward businesses. It's always possible that some sort of fraud or collusion is going on at TWDC, but its a huge leap to assume that some layoffs or reorganization at the corporate office is a sign that the company is going under due to fraud.

Man nice response it is sad that people like to go off on such far fetch conspiracy theories on this site.

 

[ULPO46]

Good post, but I must object to this line.

From a mass market popularity standpoint Star Trek isn't on the same planet as Star Wars.

Adjusted for inflation the 11 Star Trek films have grossed $1.5 billion. That is a lot of coin and it has longevity, but the six Star Wars films have grossed $4.3 billion. In merchandise sales it is even more lop sided.

There is something about the fantasy aspect of Star Wars that resonates with the general public that little else does.

Thats what i meant when i said not even star trek could top it. But star wars deserves a major theme park not just a little land in one of the smallest disney parks. It should have been huge but look at what universal did they added Harry potter to two theme parks and it worked. Just wish disney had the drive and compassion to add a fifth gate dedicated only to the Galaxy of Star Wars.

 

[NearTheEars]

Frankly, I don't really like most of the attractions at any of the Disney parks.

I don't think I've ever seen someone who posts regularly on a WDW fan site say that before.

 

[ford91exploder]

While others love to say "its leaning" the company.
I disagree.
For my point of view, the wall street makes these cuts when they think they have a secure market and they no longer need the power or attraction of key employees/engineers..etc..
Its their way to reap(bonuses, payouts, stock sells) when the stocks get inflated.

Also correct but those cases generally also cause companies to fail when they can no longer compete with their peers.

 

[Cesar R M]

Please please do not even mention that castle float. It still lives you know.

I know, I seen the monstrosity being used for Anna and Elsa in the 24 hour party a few ago.

Good that the thing was moving unusually fast.. (probably because of the rain).

 

[Cesar R M]

I don't think I've ever seen someone who posts regularly on a WDW fan site say that before.

unless he's being sarcastic, or posing as a theme park hipster.
Sorta like: "I liked DisneyParks before they were cool.. now I visit some obscure theme park in Europe that nobody knows".

 

[Marlins1]

Regardless, it doesn't make a difference. It's still a fact that Pepsi hated the attraction from day one.

Well I like Pepsi - and I actually hated the attraction from day one. Saw a different side of it later. Not sure how you disliked FOTLK but it happens!

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Pepsi was stuck at the last minute without an attraction for the 1964 World's Fair. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of this discussion. Pepsi had been a founding sponsor at Disneyland and turned to Disney (at the last minute) in the hope they could help. Pepsi was involved in the World's Fair deal to help promote UNICEF. It would have been very bad publicity for Pepsi to have backed out of this charity involvement.

I think we all know the famous story of how Pepsi originally spoke with Admiral Joe Fowler who turned them down and advised that Disney was already working on three other World's Fair projects and that there wasn't enough time to begin another. However, when Walt Disney heard of this, he instead decided to accept the project. Why? Because Pepsi had been a Disneyland sponsor from the very beginning and Walt Disney cherished big sponsors.

Pepsi was pleased that Walt Disney accepted the project but they were not pleased with the result. Aside from your Joan Crawford drama, Pepsi had no choice but to sponsor IASW even though they considered it to be terrible. If they backed out, that would have left UNICEF up the creek without a paddle and the bad publicity from that would have been a serious threat to Pepsi's bottom line.

Once the World's Fair was over IASW came back to Disneyland. Pepsi refused to be the sponsor because they still correctly thought the ride was terrible and, of course, there was no UNICEF involvement. Remember, this was 1966. Who did Disney get to sponsor IASW? Bank of America. The same California bank that had loaned him the money to make Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs way back in 1937. And Bank of America also loaned him the money for Bambi, Cinderella, Dumbo, Fantasia, Peter Pan, Pinocchio and Three Caballeros. Bank of America also financed the construction of Disneyland and, later, Disney World.

The next question is, why did Disney get Bank of America to sponsor IASW? Because Disney had a long standing relationship with Bank of America. But also because Disney was a great customer of Bank of America! In reality, Bank of America was willing to sponsor IASW to keep a good customer.

And, yes, I fully understand the point of IASW. The theme of the fair was "Peace Through Understanding". I had the good fortune to visit. One the main reasons it was so appealing in 1964 was due to the political climate of the time. JFK had been assassinated just five months before the start of the fair and during the first season, China exploded its first atomic bomb. Cold war tensions were extremely high. The theme of IASW resonated perfectly with the 1964 World's Fair. But it paled in comparison to the other 1964 World's Fair attractions (i.e. Chunky Candy, GM, IBM, Bell Telephone, etc.). And remember, this was pre-Woodstock.

It just doesn't belong in the same category as other attractions that have better design. It was a rushed project and it looks like it.

Phil, how do you know Pepsi was unhappy with the result. Do you have any documentation of that? Just curious- not trying to start a fight.

 

[Electricsoup]

Thats what i meant when i said not even star trek could top it. But star wars deserves a major theme park not just a little land in one of the smallest disney parks. It should have been huge but look at what universal did they added Harry potter to two theme parks and it worked. Just wish disney had the drive and compassion to add a fifth gate dedicated only to the Galaxy of Star Wars.

Look, I'm the biggest SW fan that I know most days, and when I'm not - I'm not that shadowed. Even *I* think a 5th gate would be folly. Because while my mother would LOVE an immersive world of Star Wars as part of a park, trying to get her to go to one that's ONLY Star Wars would never fly. Nor would it for my daughter (Sorry, I know there's Frozen hate but right now these girls are generating billions for the company) - but she'd go if it was part of a gate. Even I wouldn't want to go to something that was only Star Wars. I'm going to Disney World, which offers me a smorgasboard. Not a single tray of turkey - even if it's delicious.

The board has seen what HP has done. I only hope they come out of the gate with the attitude of making that look like a weak effort by the part of a competitor in the rear view mirror.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Possible Scenarios

1 - TWDC is about to announce a major corporate restructuring
2 - We are coming up on the end of the FY (Aug 27) and the numbers are not rosy enough so layoffs to make the numbers look rosy.
3 - The 'Conspiracy Theorists' are correct and TWDC's is about to join the long list of companies which went 'poof' after cooking the books for years.

This has to be an all-time terrible post because you state it with such confidence that people who don't know better are going to take you seriously. I'll be happy to debunk your theory point-by-point though.

1. It doesn't take a "major" restructuring for a company the size of TWDC to lay off a few hundred or even a few thousand people. It's more a minor restructuring of various support functions, including Finance and IT to a shared services model. For those unaware of what that means, picture the "old world" as one where Parks, Studios, Cable, Broadcast, Consumer Products, International, and Corporate all have their own IT departments. A shared service model breaks down those barriers within the IT function and creates one giant IT team that everyone in the company shares. That's oversimplified, but it's a fairly simple concept.

2. The fiscal year ends October 3 this year, no idea where you got August. Further, layoffs would be detrimental to the FY15 P&L because one quarter of salary savings would be more than offset by severance. It would certainly help future years, but the current-year impact would be net unfavorable.

3. Just stop. Disney has easily-understood businesses. Anyone with a pair of brain cells to rub together can see that the parks are jammed, loads of people watch ESPN, little girls buy Frozen crap, and Marvel movies fill the theaters. Disney also has cash flow, so the notion that they're "cooking the books" with fraudulent earnings is laughable.

 

[flynnibus]

It looks like something my grandfather would slap together in his spare time..

Yes, please keep digging... digg digg digg...

 

[WDWLover#1]

Phil, how do you know Pepsi was unhappy with the result. Do you have any documentation of that? Just curious- not trying to start a fight.

I'll answer for Phil the answer I heard. Pepsi didn't like it as it didn't sell the product at all. There was literally nothing apart from a "sponsored by Pepsi". So it didn't help them at all. That is if what I'm saying is correct.

 

[lazyboy97o]

"Despite all the critical success and favorable attention given to "it's a small world," behind closed doors, Pepsi executives were displeased and called the pavilion an "embarrassment." In general, they felt that Walt's ride did not showcase Pepsi the product very well and so declined to sponsor it when it was moved to Disneyland."

http://allears.net/ae/issue769.htm

That is not the reasoning you kept implying.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Can we get back on topic here and take the childish arguing elsewhere?

Thanks.

 

[Phil12]

Moses' Fair was a quagmire from the moment he decided to again pursue turning the ash heap into a grand park. Pepsi would not have been alone in backing out of that mess.

I agree 100% and had Pepsi been the sole sponsor, I think they would have backed out. But as I said, UNICEF was involved. The entire attraction was a tribute to UNICEF.

"Tickets for the ride, when it was at the World’s Fair, cost 95 cents for adults and 60 cents for children. 10 million ride tickets were sold during the 2 half-year seasons that it operated at the World’s Fair, with all proceeds from the ride going to UNICEF."

http://travel.thefuntimesguide.com/2014/05/its-a-small-world.php

Can you imagine the negative public relations that would have garnered if they backed out? I can see the headlines now, "Pepsi Hates the Children of the World".

But I'm quite sure you already knew all of that.

 

[Marlins1]

Can we get back on topic here and take the childish arguing elsewhere?

Thanks.

Apparently the answer to your question is No!

 

[Goofyernmost]

And if One Man's Dream gets axed (grrrr) then some of it could even be repurposed in some scenes. Heck, make it a ride through Disney history, through Walt's life, and beyond.

Ain't gonna happen. I doubt we will see any lengthy omnimover rides any time soon, if ever. If I recall correctly, at least part of the reason JII, WOM and Horizons were killed was because guest surveys told them that people thought these attractions were too long. And yet Energy endures at 45 mins or whatever it is.

Personally, and with no insider information at all, I think that since there is going to be a lot of work going on in that area over the next millennium, at least, they are closing it for that reason and no other. It will be back, maybe not in the same place, but, I know it will return and his plane (Mickey One) will be included in the exhibit. I really think you guys are jumping the gun on this one. It's been closed, I think twice now, only to turn up someplace new. I wouldn't get my undies in a bunch just yet.

 

[The Mom]

I agree 100% and had Pepsi been the sole sponsor, I think they would have backed out. But as I said, UNICEF was involved. The entire attraction was a tribute to UNICEF.

"Tickets for the ride, when it was at the World’s Fair, cost 95 cents for adults and 60 cents for children. 10 million ride tickets were sold during the 2 half-year seasons that it operated at the World’s Fair, with all proceeds from the ride going to UNICEF."

http://travel.thefuntimesguide.com/2014/05/its-a-small-world.php

Can you imagine the negative public relations that would have garnered if they backed out? I can see the headlines now, "Pepsi Hates the Children of the World".

But I'm quite sure you already knew all of that.

POI I was there, and "rode" IASW at the 1964 World's Fair, and do not remember buying tickets for any specific attraction. Of course, I was only 13 - but I know that I would have remembered any "additional" per ride costs, as I would have had to ask my parents for the money.

 

[The Mom]

Well I like Pepsi - and I actually hated the attraction from day one. Saw a different side of it later. Not sure how you disliked FOTLK but it happens!

Gee, my parents and I liked it from day one - at the 1964 World's Fair. My husband and his family also liked it - at the same fair.