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

[el_super]

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.

There was enough real-world opposition to what was going on, that it isn't difficult to believe that many, if not the majority of employees for a Hollywood media conglomerate was opposed to what Chapek said/not said. It's far easier to believe than a made up back door conspiracy to remove Chapek.

 

[_caleb]

That's part of the problem.

I'm pretty sure you agree with this, though. It seems to me you've been unhappy with Disney's efforts to appeal to a wider variety of audiences and would prefer they return to prioritizing its legacy audience. Am I reading that wrong?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I'm pretty sure you agree with this, though. It seems to me you've been unhappy with Disney's efforts to appeal to a wider variety of audiences and would prefer they return to prioritizing its legacy audience. Am I reading that wrong?

Yes, you're reading that wrong. My complaint is not that Disney is trying to appeal to a wide audience; Disney should be for everyone. My complaints are that:

1. Disney has intellectual property that appeals to different audiences and every property doesn't have to be for every audience,
2. Disney is far more interested in preaching than it is entertaining; and is willing to preach even if it means it will alienate significant portions of its audience (including the primary composition of its fanbase for the last 80 years), and
3. Disney has let people who actively dislike (and feel that are at war with) huge portions of the fanbase into positions of power and those people are (for political and ideological reasons) actively trying to upset these parts of the fanbase.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

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.

I think there's a piece of this argument that's missing, and that's the role external politics played on shifting public perception around the role DEI should play at corporations, with certain figures making an example out of Disney for political gain. I think Disney's being raked through the coals here a bit unfairly when it comes to DEI, and I think it shouldn't be addressed without acknowledging that the actual inmates (a select cohort in Congress, for example), are running the asylum.

DEI teams and input existed for the longest time, it was the more public-facing role they've played post 2020 that ignited pushback from a portion of the population. Which, in hindsight companies should have been better prepared for - there's always pushback from those who would rather retain the status quo.

IMO? Companies should have bolstered the internal relationship between DEI teams and crisis planners before being more knee-jerk reactionaries to recent events.

Just my two cents.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Yes, you're reading that wrong. My complaint is not that Disney is trying to appeal to a wide audience; Disney should be for everyone. My complaints are that:

1. Disney has intellectual property that appeals to different audiences and every property doesn't have to be for every audience,
2. Disney is far more interested in preaching than it is entertaining; and is willing to preach even if it means it will alienate significant portions of its audience (including the primary composition of its fanbase for the last 80 years), and
3. Disney has let people who actively dislike (and feel that are at war with) huge portions of the fanbase into positions of power and those people are (for political and ideological reasons) actively trying to upset these parts of the fanbase.

Number 3 really hits the point home.

 

[_caleb]

Yes, you're reading that wrong. My complaint is not that Disney is trying to appeal to a wide audience; Disney should be for everyone. My complaints are that:

I understand you feel this way. It's how you're interpreting Disney's relationship to customers/fans/audiences like you. But this is not the only way to see things, and, in my opinion, has less evidential support than other interpretations. If you'll allow me (and I'm not looking for a fight or name-calling here):

1. Disney has intellectual property that appeals to different audiences and every property doesn't have to be for every audience,

How many properties should Disney provide for your audience vs. other audiences?

2. Disney is far more interested in preaching than it is entertaining; and is willing to preach even if it means it will alienate significant portions of its audience (including the primary composition of its fanbase for the last 80 years), and

I see a lot of what you're calling "preaching" more as "messaging to connect with customers." How should Disney proceed if speaking to one audience alienates them from another?

3. Disney has let people who actively dislike (and feel that are at war with) huge portions of the fanbase into positions of power and those people are (for political and ideological reasons) actively trying to upset these parts of the fanbase.

This makes it sound like you're taking it personally if Disney hires someone who is not like you to create products that aren't primarily intended for you. Again, I'm trying not to put words in your mouth or interpret uncharitably. That's how your reasoning comes across to me.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I'm pretty sure you agree with this, though. It seems to me you've been unhappy with Disney's efforts to appeal to a wider variety of audiences and would prefer they return to prioritizing its legacy audience. Am I reading that wrong?

Who did they not appeal to previously?

I keep reading how they’re trying to appeal to a wider audience, find a new audience, expand their audience, etc and for the life of me I can’t think of a single “category” that didn’t already love Disney.

Who were they alienating before their recent diversity push?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What is with the "blame" talk? I don't blame the audience or Iger for changing tastes, technologies, trends. I do think Iger is responsible to make sure the company provides content that appeals to whoever their audience is. I hold audiences responsible for their own attitudes and behaviors, not for the company's successes/failures.

Ok. I did. And I'm still not seeing it. Do you think he's suddenly seen the light and now he agrees that Disney's been "pushing a social agenda" and will now stop its efforts to diversify its content and audiences?

Let me explain:

In your mandatory attempt to pump the tires on Disney, it’s bad leadership, and everything they do…you blamed the audience for the failure Iger acknowledged

Even he didn’t go that far…

Not just the audience…that evil slice that pollutes the water for what you believe is the 99% of 8 billion people on earth that actually loves Disney and all they do

…and Flynn marked you for it.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Step one in any correction is 'acknowledging the problem'. Here you have the CEO of a mega conglomerate acknowledging their past product had misses and specifically calls out the need to focus on entertaining before making statements. That is significant vs simply being vague.

I was responding to your comment made - not your beliefs on the whole topic. Iger spoke about the product - you spoke about the audience. That's the difference.. he chose to address what they output.. you chose to address how people recieved things. That's the difference. One took ownership, the other blames the reception.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It was time for Eisner to go. The history is out there and no need to rehash. Igor time has come and gone. I do not trust Peltz or Perlmutter, one of my issues with Eisner in the end was bleeding the company dry which is exactly the MO of these two gentlemen. I can not help but remember the age old saying, better the devil you know than the devil you don't (i.e. we do not want another Chapek). So until we actually KNOW who the new boss is, I for one am in no hurry to push Igor out a second time--though as I said in the beginning his time has come and gone.

It was time for Eisner to go…so he resigned

It’s time for Iger to go…so will he do it with dignity? Or will he go down with less class than his predecessor.

Peltz and perlmutter are old putzes…so Mother Nature will take care of them…
…but the reason they even have any traction at all is Bob

Bad management for years coming to the fore…the coward Covid quit…the shill board…a bald wet fish “successor”…

All those mistakes have piled up.

Bob reminds me of like an old college football coach
So desperate for attention and not wanting to be a has been…you stayed till you were a has been

 

[HauntedPirate]

Number 3 really hits the point home.

*CoughKIRIHARTCough*

 

[el_super]

They don't just hate Disney's audience, they hate Disney. They hate the history and legacy of Disney itself.

You think they are the first generation in history to look back on the works of their parents and feel embarrassment?

It's their world now. They get to choose how to shape it.

 

[DCBaker]

Here's the dividend announcement from Disney.

The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) Board of Directors today announced a cash dividend of $0.30 per share in respect of the second half of fiscal year 2023, payable January 10, 2024 to shareholders of record at the close of business on December 11, 2023.

“This has been a year of important progress for The Walt Disney Company, defined by a strategic restructuring and a renewed focus on long-term growth,” said Mark Parker, Chairman of the Board. “As Disney moves forward with its key strategic objectives, we are pleased to declare a dividend for our shareholders while we continue to invest in the company’s future and prioritize meaningful value creation.”

The Walt Disney Company Declares Cash Dividend of $0.30 Per Share - The Walt Disney Company

The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors today announced a cash dividend of $0.30 per share in respect of the second half of fiscal year 2023.

thewaltdisneycompany.com

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You think they are the first generation in history to look back on the works of their parents and feel embarrassment?

It's their world now. They get to choose how to shape it.

Not if audiences hate it, they don't! They can go picket and protest in their free time all they want, but when they're on the clock, they're obligated to act in the best interest of the shareholders of The Walt Disney Company.

 

[MR.Dis]

It was time for Eisner to go…so he resigned

It’s time for Iger to go…so will he do it with dignity? Or will he go down with less class than his predecessor.

Peltz and perlmutter are old putzes…so Mother Nature will take care of them…
…but the reason they even have any traction at all is Bob

Bad management for years coming to the fore…the coward Covid quit…the shill board…a bald wet fish “successor”…

All those mistakes have piled up.

Bob reminds me of like an old college football coach
So desperate for attention and not wanting to be a has been…you stayed till you were a has been

Yes. I am old enough to remember Woody Hayes and how horrible it went at Ohio State just before we was forced out.

 

[el_super]

Not if audiences hate it, they don't! They can go picket and protest in their free time all they want, but when they're on the clock, they're obligated to act in the best interest of the shareholders of The Walt Disney Company.

That's true, but we are seeing a period of time where Disney is being pulled between keeping older audiences happy with more of the status quo, and trying to reinvent themselves again to maintain relevancy for the younger audience. It isn't the first time they've had to do it, and it won't be the last. What is certain though is, they can't keep working to maintain an audience that will be gone in 20 years, at the risk of alienating the younger generation.

Which is ultimately why Iger's comments are hollow here. He may not want to see so much social change within Disney personally, but he is powerless to stop the march of time. An irony to remember here, is that the children taking power today, taking up these social change positions are the ones that grew up watching The Little Mermaid and Aladdin and being told that outsiders should be included and anyone could be a diamond in the rough.

 

[Tom P.]

What isn't good about it?

Everything they are making is a retread of a retread of a retread. There are no original ideas coming out of Disney and there haven't been for a long time. Let's trot out Marvel Movie # 4,273. It's all so tired and boring.

 

[_caleb]

Let me explain:

In your mandatory attempt to pump the tires on Disney, it’s bad leadership, and everything they do…you blamed the audience for the failure Iger acknowledged

Even he didn’t go that far…

Not just the audience…that evil slice that pollutes the water for what you believe is the 99% of 8 billion people on earth that actually loves Disney and all they do

…and Flynn marked you for it.

I think I might need someone to explain your explanation!
How is it blaming the audience if I say that the audience changed?
And I've said pretty clearly that Iger is responsible to find customers.

I guess I do believe that toxic fans can take the fun out of things a bit. But I'm not sure that would equate to blaming them for Disney's failures. Seems like navigating that is part of the business, and if they can't do it well, they're going to have a much smaller business. But Disney has to decide who they want to sell entertainment to. I've been saying for a while now that pleasing everybody isn't a viable option.

 

[Tom P.]

Sure. See you on TikTok.

You can dispute his premise all you want, but box office numbers don't lie. Who is the demographic to come to Disney's movies? Right now both The Marvels and Wish are tanking. Aging boomers aren't the crowd who would be going to either. It would be young parents with children. And they are not showing up. Maybe it's because they disagree with Disney's politics. Maybe it's because the content is crap. Maybe it's both. But whatever the reason, they aren't showing up.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes. I am old enough to remember Woody Hayes and how horrible it went at Ohio State just before we was forced out.

I was thinking 3 others…but yeah him too