News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[Trauma]

Just to be clear, Peltz only owns approximately 8 million Disney shares, Ike Perlmutter owns 25 million shares.Together, 33 million represents 1.8% of Disney's total stock.Peltz/Perlmutter are trying to co-opt legitimate Disney fan concerns for their own agenda.

—————————————————————————

Isn’t this exactly what Iger did?

He co-opted the entire Disney company to further his political aspirations.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

He co-opted the entire Disney company to further his political aspirations.

No he didn't, nor are Peltz and Perlmutter.

 

[el_super]

The Cast Members' feelings weren't hurt. There were like 50 mouthy brats who were crabby on twitter. The company would be much better without them than with the ACTUAL talent they've chased away with their hostile work environment.

50 people who staged the walk-out protests in Burbank? Maybe. But the sentiment against Chapek amongst Cast Members was far more widespread. Apparently it went all the way to the top.

 

[celluloid]

Good thing Disney didn't do that.

True, it was a one sided speech of admitting the market was oversaturated and quality has been down to protect hubris. They should not have called it a Town Hall.

But actions are louder anyway. And none of that has been on the horizon yet.

 

[el_super]

True, it was a one sided speech of admitting the market was oversaturated and quality has been down to protect hubris. They should not have called it a Town Hall.

More to the point: you inferred it was an emergency town hall and it wasn't. They are pretty normal.

It was also a strong show of executive support for the ABC team (predominantly the in-person group in New York) that have been feeling the most uncertainty.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

50 people who staged the walk-out protests in Burbank? Maybe. But the sentiment against Chapek amongst Cast Members was far more widespread. Apparently it went all the way to the top.

A few things.

• The vast majority of "boots on the ground" Cast Members didn't have the foggiest idea what Bob Chapek was up to on any given day and had no opinion about him whatsoever other than maybe a vague sense of "bald man bad."
• There was a lot of negative sentiment in the world during Chapek's regime. People were getting sick, people were dying, we were all getting tire of masks and social distancing and using hand sanitizer ten times an hour, people weren't traveling, everything was getting expensive, many people weren't working. Some of the "Disney sucks" during that time period is just that EVERYTHING sucked during that time period.
• The sentiment against Chapek was primarily about business and leadership issues. Changing the price structures in the parks, a general sense of "nickel and diming," poor relationship skills with senior leaders and talent, putting Kareem Daniel in charge of things he didn't know how to run, etc. Nobody was anti-Chapek because Chapek was insufficiently progressive on social issues.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

They should not have called it a Town Hall.

"Town Hall" is just corporate-speak for "a speech/conversation/interview that the whole company is invited to," which this was. A corporate town hall is not a political town hall where the leader is necessarily expected to take Q&A. Often there's a Q&A, sometimes there isn't. It's actually better when there isn't because the questions often come from clueless people.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It was also a strong show of executive support for the ABC team (predominantly the in-person group in New York) that have been feeling the most uncertainty.

You bought all of that?

Separately, I'm not convinced that the majority of the theater was ABC. There are a lot of Disney office-types in New York. Ad Sales, Streaming, some ESPN, some Finance, some Technology, some HR, some Strategy.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Nobody is asking Disney to switch sides in the poo-slinging. We want them to not sling poo.

YES! This! A thousand-times this!

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Nobody was anti-Chapek because Chapek was insufficiently progressive on social issues.

Quoting for truth.

He was loathed for eliminating annual passes, loathed for eliminating magical express, loathed for implementing reservations, loathed for eliminating fast pass, loathed for implementing Genie, loathed for ILL, etc, etc, etc…

His social politics likely wouldn’t make anyone’s top 25 list of things they disliked about Chapek

 

[celluloid]

the questions often come from clueless people.

You should hear the guy with the answers!

 

[el_super]

The sentiment against Chapek was primarily about business and leadership issues.

No. I am referring to this:

Disney creative leaders express frustration to CEO Chapek over 'Don't Say Gay' bill response

Senior leaders at Disney's studios have expressed their frustration to CEO Bob Chapek about his handling of the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida, sources say.

www.cnbc.com

Which led to this :

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088048998/disney-walkout-dont-say-gay-bill

And then eventually this:

Disney Says Striking Down ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law Is Company’s ‘Goal’ After DeSantis Signs Bill

HB 1557 “should never have passed and should never have been signed into law,” Disney said Monday.

www.forbes.com

 

[AdventureHasAName]

His social politics likely wouldn’t make anyone’s top 25 list of things they disliked about Chapek

Well, it would for me, but for the opposite reason. I hated that he let the inmates in DEI run the asylum. That burned through more of the fanbase's goodwill (earned over 80 years) than anyone will admit. You can't just snap your fingers and get it back. Iger is just as bad, but at least he was smart enough to realize what happened and try to pretend to slap a bandaid on it.

 

[_caleb]

It's not the audience's job to appeal to Disney, it's Disney's job to appeal to the audience.

I don't know what this has to do with my post. I don't believe it's the audience's job to appeal to Disney.

I do think some audiences are more appealing to Disney than others.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

No. I am referring to this:

Disney creative leaders express frustration to CEO Chapek over 'Don't Say Gay' bill response

Senior leaders at Disney's studios have expressed their frustration to CEO Bob Chapek about his handling of the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida, sources say.

www.cnbc.com

Which led to this :

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088048998/disney-walkout-dont-say-gay-bill

And then eventually this:

Disney Says Striking Down ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law Is Company’s ‘Goal’ After DeSantis Signs Bill

HB 1557 “should never have passed and should never have been signed into law,” Disney said Monday.

www.forbes.com

I thought we were past this level of naivete but apparently not.

The "backlash" against Chapek's handling of the Parental Rights bill was manufactured by executives who were salty about Kareem Daniel being put in charge of all media distribution. It was fake. Phony. Astroturf. Some of the lower-level people were legitimately upset (my throwaway line about 50 crybabies on twitter or whatever I said), but the larger backlash was based on the DMED stuff. They smelled blood in the water and used this as an issue to smear him.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Well, it would for me, but for the opposite reason. I hated that he let the inmates in DEI run the asylum. That burned through more of the fanbase's goodwill (earned over 80 years) than anyone will admit. You can't just snap your fingers and get it back. Iger is just as bad, but at least he was smart enough to realize what happened and try to pretend to slap a bandaid on it.

Who was CEO when Disney's DEI department was created? It wasn't $lappie.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Well, it would for me, but for the opposite reason. I hated that he let the inmates in DEI run the asylum. That burned through more of the fanbase's goodwill (earned over 80 years) than anyone will admit. You can't just snap your fingers and get it back. Iger is just as bad, but at least he was smart enough to realize what happened and try to pretend to slap a bandaid on it.

Iger caused it. The inmates running the asylum were Iger's inmates. Whether that's because Iger is a True Believer or because he wanted to be President or because he was deliberately sabotaging his successor or because he acted in good faith and just made poor judgment calls is an open question. Chapek KNEW everything they were up to would be a disaster for the company but he was completely feckless trying to put the brakes on them.

I do think some audiences are more appealing to Disney than others.

One audience should be Disney's number one priority (at least when it comes to the Disney brand, setting aside ESPN/Marvel/ABC News/etc). Families with children, period. Instead they seem to really want college-educated childless millennial women.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I do think some audiences are more appealing to Disney than others.

That's part of the problem.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Who was CEO when Disney's DEI department was created? It wasn't $lappie.

No argument from me. Iger is a gigantic part of the problem. He's far worse than Chapek, imho, because at least Iger is smart enough to hide what he's doing from the public.

 

[_caleb]

Iger noted the shift was on Disney's part, lacking the entertainment first -- you took it as the the consequence was due to the audience's tastes. That's blaming the audience. Quite different from Iger's comments.

No, I didn't take it that way. I've always said that there are many factors (changing tastes, tech, trends, polarization, etc.) that have hurt Disney's business. I don't see how this is "blaming the audience." I get the feeling that you (and some here who agree with you) think you haven't changed, but Disney has. I think it's both. Iger's biggest recent failure is in misreading Disney's audiences (and overspending on content). I appreciate that he's acknowledging this, but I think he thinks statements like this are an easy way to win back some of the disaffected.

There is no relevation/discovery in his comment that you suggest. He's noting the error in prioritization and lacking of something, and is acknowledging they need to ensure the product is in fact entertainment, not just meaningful.

Ok.

The rest of your assertions are just hyperboyle that aren't worth addressing. The guy's comments are pretty clear and to the point.

I'm sorry you found my post not worth addressing. I'm not deliberately trying to take any sides (despite the fact that I'm frequently accused of doing so). I genuinely do not see the world the way you do, and I'm trying to understand while also sharing things from my perspective. Would you prefer I not do that?