Bob Iger's contract is extended

[ford91exploder]

Sustained, yes. Sustainable, no.

This is the point everyone misses while sears was on its quality cutting mania it also had a huge share repurchase program and wall st loved sears and 'fast eddy' lampert

Now that there is nothing left to cut and its core customers have abandoned it it's circling the bowl. Just as Disney will be soon

 

[ford91exploder]

A compa ny built on creativity does not need a creative CEO? As for the second part, Iger only lets people create within the narrow context of promoting BRANDS.

The company does not necessarily need a creative CEO it would be nice but it does need one that understands that creatives are the drivers of the companies products and success and the CEO needs to support those people and provide an environment where they can thrive creatively.

CEO's job is to set the tone for the company and be its biggest cheerleader and herd the cats who make up the various business at least heading in the same general direction using a combination of noise catnip cat treats and comfy spots to accomplish this goal

 

[GrumpyFan]

Sustained, yes. Sustainable, no.

Subjective opinion, at best.
"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." - Yoda

 

[ford91exploder]

Wrong.

Look at Apple in the Steve Jobs era versus Tim Cook and now. Clear differences in terms of management and philosophy. One could argue that the innovation and leadership that Apple was/is known for has been lost under the leadership of someone more interested in maintaining the organization and delegating versus innovating and creating a vision.

Precisely and apple is losing mind and market share because of it. The MAC Pro and MacBook Pro are no longer selling well to creatives


because to Tim Cook taking stuff away like expansion slots and upgradeable disks and memory and SDCard slots is innovation cuz it makes it cheaper to produce.

But now utterly useless to a photographer or other media professionals who were the customers for the high end products who bought them because of those features and not as a hipster fashion accessory

You can see Tim thrashing but it's lighter sleeker and thinner. But those features are not what drove creatives to apple products in the first place

Ask a photographer whether saving 4 oz and 3/16" of thickness is worth the loss of the sd card slot or if making the keyboard smaller is worth the non standard cursor keys.

 

[ford91exploder]

Subjective opinion, at best.
"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." - Yoda

Considering that the improvement in financial results have all been the results of service cuts and price increases rather than top line growth no it's not hard to extrapolate the future.

If the results were due to improvements in top line growth I would agree with you

 

[GrumpyFan]

Nothing mean spirited about it

In academia the general consensus is Willow was given the job BECAUSE of who she's married to not because of her journalistic or academic credentials which are thin by any objective standard. No Pulitzer Prizes or well regarded journal articles. She was the first woman reporter on CNN's Moneyline. Yeah big time academic credentials here.

There are a lot of women journalists with Pulitzer Prizes and strong academic credentials who are far better qualified for the job than Willow will ever be some are even people of color and ethnic minorities for the trifecta

Her appointment allows the school to think that they will have influence over a broadcast network.

It's just another example of a publicly funded university sucking up to a major corporation in search of influence and donations. If this was not a university it would be called corruption.

As to Iger himself we've seen how badly he stumbles when left to his own devices (NFL in LA presentation) he's nothing special other than being in the right place at the right time. His assistant Zenia would probably be better at the job than he is

Both are mere functionaries and in writing this I gave both of them more of my time and attention than they deserve.

Not really seeing why it's necessary or relevant for this conversation.
Bringing it up serves no purpose here, except maybe to impugn or demean them both in some way.
In short, it's just trivial and mean-spirited.

 

[larryz]

Simple. Appearances. The BoD kept harping on the not having another Eisner situation. But funny how that changed as the financials kept looking great and Wall Street had its collective bulge for Bob. ... The optics would have looked bad if Iger didn't do something.



Oh, I think you bring up a good point. I do think the BoD should have been more pushy. I think they kept getting distracted by Iger's acquisitions and pushing into China. And that allowed succession to get pushed down the road on a continual basis.

Perhaps Disney is becoming the Dunder Mifflin of the entertainment industry... and WDW is their Scranton office.

 

[Chef Mickey]

 

[Chef Mickey]

To me, there are 2 major bad components to this:

1) Disney felt like they didn't have a better option, so it makes we question their succession plan and judgment on future leaders.
2) Iger has been awful for WDW, which I argue should be the crowned jewel of Disney innovation, quality and expansion.

Iger has been great in acquisitions and stock price. Hell, that's his job...kudos. I still think his failure to invest in WDW will have an impact, although I'm not sure it will matter. They can build (and are doing so) to be great again. Nothing is permanent. On the bright side, he acquired some great franchises to build around in the future.

2 more years isn't that long...maybe the next CEO will have more of a WDW vision, which will make us all happy.

 

[Rodan75]

There has become -- and Disney isn't certainly the only example of this -- a desire to stamp a company so closely to a CEO that it appears that the company can't go on without them. Look at it this way, in the 1960s tiny Walt Disney Productions was able to replace Walt himself and open the incredibly costly WDW (that place was a smashing success after a slow first 6-7 weeks as all the history bloggers write) and go on. Sure, it lost its vision a bit. But it still did some amazing stuff from EPCOT Center and TDL to the Disney Channel to Touchstone Pictures to looking at European expansion.

If you can replace Walt Disney, you damn well can replace Robert A. Iger.

Wall Street just wants stability and MORE growth. If it could keep The Weatherman another 20 years it would.

Viacom had a vastly different set of circumstances, although it absolutely needed fresh blood. One might argue that it needed it five years ago, but had an owner who wasn't really all there but insisted on having multiple prostitutes living in his home and the business really suffered. They have assets that are still quite valuable (see my ESPN comments) that simply have been withering.

But, yeah, there are many people out there who could run Disney and run it better than Iger for the long term.

100% agree that the ESPN issues are overblown. The division is highly profitable and shouldn't be treated like a stepchild just because it isn't currently a growth engine. The ESPN issues make headlines meanwhile there are some real issues in the rest of the cable operations that need to be addressed quickly.

Having Iger stay another year is extremely interesting. Like you mentioned, I assumed it would be 2-3 more years. But just one...that still means they need to be on track to install a COO by the end of the calendar year. Unless they do bring someone over from the board, like Sandberg. Otherwise I have a hard time buying that they would replace Iger with an external candidate straight to the CEO chair.

I half expect Sherwood and the Skipper out by Fiscal Year's end (and I definitely don't see both surviving until FY19). They aren't bringing the heat they need to bring to their respective areas. Horn should theoretically be close to retiring, and the rest of the business unit leaders are relatively new in their current roles. That is a lot of near term volatility and could explain keeping Iger as well.

 

[Rodan75]

Do I want to support Michael again? Have this same debate? ... Talk about how Iger was a big part of the business back then too? Talk about how the Disney Stores had overexpanded and become less special, but that business unit exists today because of Michael. Talk about how Michael had a bad relationship with Pixar, but that was also on Steve Jobs (not a nice guy, despite what the cultists want to believe) and John Lasseter (can be a major diva when he isn't drunk, and he wasn't much back in those days). Talk about how Michael's last days with P&R included opening masterpieces in DAK and TDS (as well as turds in DCA and TDS) and launching DCL. Nah ... because I generally feel like Michael should have left between 1998-2000. But the idea that this is black and white is crazy.

I definitely don't think this should be debated again. I do think, as you stated, that Eisner created the synergistic infrastructure that defines TWDC today. However, he failed to keep the pipelines flowing with quality content in the end. Iger, through acquisitions and good hires, has figured out how to fill the pipeline and make use of Eisner's infrastructure. You are right, it isn't visionary, but it has created some additional stability and growth within the company.

The next leader needs to be able to fill both legacies while also making their own mark, that is a lot of plates to keep spinning.

 

[GrumpyFan]

The company does not necessarily need a creative CEO it would be nice but it does need one that understands that creatives are the drivers of the companies products and success and the CEO needs to support those people and provide an environment where they can thrive creatively.

CEO's job is to set the tone for the company and be its biggest cheerleader and herd the cats who make up the various business at least heading in the same general direction using a combination of noise catnip cat treats and comfy spots to accomplish this goal

I agree with you on this, mostly. The CEO's job is to lead the other leaders and help create the environment for them to do what they do best. However, he should have the final say, as all lies on him and he's ultimately held responsible when things don't go the right way, which in the case of a company such as Disney, that relies so heavily on creative content, I think the CEO does need to have some inkling of what creative or artistic looks like and the process involved.

Overall, I think Iger has grown into this role, unlike Eisner who thought himself to be a "creative" force of his own and seemed to drive a lot of things in his latter years, as opposed to letting those who held the jobs do it.

 

[HMF]

Overall, I think Iger has grown into this role, unlike Eisner who thought himself to be a "creative" force of his own and seemed to drive a lot of things in his latter years, as opposed to letting those who held the jobs do it.

Eisner was passionate about the company and it's product. While his ideas were not always good they were usually made with good intentions. Iger can't be bothered to care about the product outside of his pet acquisitions.

 

[ford91exploder]

I agree with you on this, mostly. The CEO's job is to lead the other leaders and help create the environment for them to do what they do best. However, he should have the final say, as all lies on him and he's ultimately held responsible when things don't go the right way, which in the case of a company such as Disney, that relies so heavily on creative content, I think the CEO does need to have some inkling of what creative or artistic looks like and the process involved.

Overall, I think Iger has grown into this role, unlike Eisner who thought himself to be a "creative" force of his own and seemed to drive a lot of things in his latter years, as opposed to letting those who held the jobs do it.

I did forget about the sign off bit , Yes CEO needs to be aware of what happens and but there is a fine line between awareness and micromanagement. On all major policy initiatives and large capital expenses yes the CEO needs to sign off.

Great CEO's delegate both the responsibility and the authority to their subordinates.

 

[ford91exploder]

Eisner was passionate about the company and it's product. While his ideas were not always good they were usually made with good intentions. Iger can't be bothered to care about the product outside of his pet acquisitions.

Eisners great fault was that he was a micromanager and needed to direct everything personally

 

[lazyboy97o]

A compa ny built on creativity does not need a creative CEO? As for the second part, Iger only lets people create within the narrow context of promoting BRANDS.

Roy Disney was the one who held the formal leadership titles. Somebody has to be the operator who keeps the cogs moving.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Eisner was passionate about the company and it's product. While his ideas were not always good they were usually made with good intentions. Iger can't be bothered to care about the product outside of his pet acquisitions.

Disagree, I think he cares greatly about and is excited about all the products.
Take a listen to the interview he did yesterday with his wife.
He said he probably took over 30 rides on the Tron coaster along with the water dummies while it was still in testing. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't care about it. Plus, he talked about some of the fun things in his schedule, like being able to watch the "quarterlys" for movies that are in production.
If he didn't care, then why would he be interested in staying on? Money? I kind of doubt it. At some point there's only so much you can spend.

 

[ford91exploder]

Disagree, I think he cares greatly about and is excited about all the products.
Take a listen to the interview he did yesterday with his wife.
He said he probably took over 30 rides on the Tron coaster along with the water dummies while it was still in testing. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't care about it. Plus, he talked about some of the fun things in his schedule, like being able to watch the "quarterlys" for movies that are in production.
If he didn't care, then why would he be interested in staying on? Money? I kind of doubt it. At some point there's only so much you can spend.

In a word Ego, Iger is a Mogul in the entertainment world as long as he's at Disney

 

[GrumpyFan]

In a word Ego, Iger is a Mogul in the entertainment world as long as he's at Disney

I would probably have a pretty big one too, if I had that job. But, who of us here wouldn't be the same if given the opportunity?

 

[RSoxNo1]

ESPN has issues, but I think they're blown out of proportion and I also think management there is failing to make the right decisions. I have asked if Iger gets involved much and, shockingly, he is much more hands off there. Actually, hands on might be the right approach to right that ship. The basic asset is still an incredibly valuable one. But it's almost like they forgot what they are all about. ... Where at Disney have I seen that approach and result before?

Also, the international parks are not a disaster. DLP is the biggest problem and, believe me on this one, but Disney will have that fixed very quickly (provided France and Europe remain largely terror-free). TDR prints licensing money. And while HKDL slipped back into the red, we are not talking substantial dollars to a company like Disney. The expansion plans (which again are not going to be the leaked ones in total) will help that park a lot. And SDL, while not coming close to the crazy projections tossed into the media, is on very solid footing with over eight million Guests already and expansion coming (real expansion as TSL was always going in as a Phase 1B type deal). A new hotel will be announced shortly. And seasonal events should start up later this year as well. The international resorts have largely been a drag on earnings due to two resorts Paris and Shanghai construction. Disney now owns DLP and is going to make debt disappear like MAGIC and SDL is open and successful.

With ESPN, do you think this is more a sign of the times and less a sign of actions taken by Iger and Co? Short of totally switching what ESPN is, what was the "Correct approach" here?