NY Times: Bob Iger Effectively Back As CEO

[Brad Bishop]

I think Eisner was "good-ish".

He did a lot to save Disney and build out WDW, in general. He also became the face of Disney, which I think he did quite well. As another has said, Iger is more of a suit.

Eisner, I think, screwed up in a few areas:
- He built Disneyland Paris in France. Spain wanted it but France gave them more incentives. Spain would have been a better pick and better received.
- He rushed DHS to compete with Universal AND found a spot which locked it in with no room for expansion.
- He got scared from the failure of Disneyland Paris (EuroDisney) and stopped being creative / daring. This resulted in another park on the cheap: DCA (it cost more to do it twice than to just do it once, right).
- (not his fault) Frank Wells died and that plus his heart problems had him lose his edge.

If you consider what he did, though:
- DHS
- Disneyland Paris
- Animal Kingdom
- DCA (granted - crappy)
- Resorts
- Other things that he tried and failed at (I'd rather him try and fail than to not try at all)
... he did a lot of good.

 

[Horizons '83]

And yet Roy once said: "My brother made me a millionaire. Why wouldn't I want to help him?"

Yes, and he did help him, by keeping him on the rails.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

And yet Roy once said: "My brother made me a millionaire. Why wouldn't I want to help him?"

Which is why he probably went along with the zany amusement park idea.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Walt didn't give two hoots about stocks and stockholders. He cared about quality, innovation, and plussing. He invested company capital in order to create new things. Iger cares only about stock and stockholders. He invested company capital in acquisitions. Walt created a bedrock of quality. Iger's created a bedrock of debt. Whose contributions will stand the test of time? The answer is "duh".

Yeah...but the requirements of management have changed over time significantly...

Walt Disney would have 100% bankrupted them in Florida in the 1970’s if he had lived. That’s a certainty. Things do change and it’s hard to make every judgement devoid of time. Eisner was the right person in his time just as the argument can be made Iger was for his...but isn’t on a permanent basis.

Fair enough. I was mostly just talking about the parks themselves - not resorts, water parks, Disney Springs, certainly not cruise lines.

So you’re saying they didn’t spend any money - except all those places where they spent a ton of money?

We usually agree much more than it appears on this thread. I am partial to calling for much more investment in original attractions as well. Because “Disney doesn’t do rides...” is sycophant excuse used In places like this when they go cheap and allow park decay...which both Eisner and Iger did plenty of...

But if it’s just rides...that isn’t Disney either. Need all that other stuff to make it unique and attractive for the money. I can get you an Uber to Cedar Point if you want rides

 

[Doberge]

So the article asserts Iger's more hands on than was initially announced, but he already had a position, executive chairman, that Chapek reported to.

"Control and reimagining" are traditionally both within the realm of many executive chairmen. It's like a supet-CEO position that leaves much of the execution to the actual CEO, and that appears how Disney is handling the positions as well.

Until there's a report that division heads are bypassing Chapek to go straight to Iger, this doesn't even feel like "news." It feels more like a move to show investors and cast members that there *remains* stability at the very top while there's much instability after that.

If the expectation was that the buck stopped at Chapek then Iger and the Board would not have agreed to Iger's position. Iger simply would have moved on with his life, but that he took the position indicates that he did not desire to see his work fall apart quickly. That the Board appointed Iger indicated that Disney months ago didnt have full confidence in Chapek. And why should they? Chapek can earn that trust but he isnt going to be awarded such blanket power immediately. So all of this is really going the way we should have expected, no?

 

[Lilofan]

Walt didn't give two hoots about stocks and stockholders. He cared about quality, innovation, and plussing. He invested company capital in order to create new things. Iger cares only about stock and stockholders. He invested company capital in acquisitions. Walt created a bedrock of quality. Iger's created a bedrock of debt. Whose contributions will stand the test of time? The answer is "duh".

Contributions from Walt , yes. Iger improved on it, took huge bets, improved the lives of others ( aka shareholders ), Thanks Bob!

 

[lazyboy97o]

So the article asserts Iger's more hands on than was initially announced, but he already had a position, executive chairman, that Chapek reported to.

"Control and reimagining" are traditionally both within the realm of many executive chairmen. It's like a supet-CEO position that leaves much of the execution to the actual CEO, and that appears how Disney is handling the positions as well.

Until there's a report that division heads are bypassing Chapek to go straight to Iger, this doesn't even feel like "news." It feels more like a move to show investors and cast members that there *remains* stability at the very top while there's much instability after that.

If the expectation was that the buck stopped at Chapek then Iger and the Board would not have agreed to Iger's position. Iger simply would have moved on with his life, but that he took the position indicates that he did not desire to see his work fall apart quickly. That the Board appointed Iger indicated that Disney months ago didnt have full confidence in Chapek. And why should they? Chapek can earn that trust but he isnt going to be awarded such blanket power immediately. So all of this is really going the way we should have expected, no?

Iger was supposed to focus on the creative aspects of the company while Chapek focused on operations. The idea of a CEO not being trusted to be the CEO is a ridiculous idea. Iger didn't have a probationary period.

 

[bryanfze55]

Yeah...but the requirements of management have changed over time significantly...

Walt Disney would have 100% bankrupted them in Florida in the 1970’s if he had lived. That’s a certainty. Things do change and it’s hard to make every judgement devoid of time. Eisner was the right person in his time just as the argument can be made Iger was for his...but isn’t on a permanent basis.
So you’re saying they didn’t spend any money - except all those places where they spent a ton of money?

We usually agree much more than it appears on this thread. I am partial to calling for much more investment in original attractions as well. Because “Disney doesn’t do rides...” is sycophant excuse used In places like this when they go cheap and allow park decay...which both Eisner and Iger did plenty of...

But if it’s just rides...that isn’t Disney either. Need all that other stuff to make it unique and attractive for the money. I can get you an Uber to Cedar Point if you want rides

Nah, I totally agree with you. Disney is more than just the rides. I just meant I thought the conversation at hand was a discussion of rides/attractions.

The Disney hotels are great, but at current prices, I consider them more of a cash grab than an investment in WDW Resort quality. I’ve never found it in my heart to pay the prices for a Deluxe; however, I do have Animal Kingdom Lodge booked this October as I was able to score an amazing deal through Undercover Tourist that effectively made AKL $291 per night after taxes... crossing my fingers that we get to actually go...

I wish Cedar Point satisfied me as much as Disney... I would be a lot wealthier if it did.

 

[Horizons '83]

Contributions from Walt , yes. Iger improved on it, took huge bets, improved the lives of others ( aka shareholders ), Thanks Bob!

I think its a bit naive to think a CEO of a company the size of Disney wouldn't appease shareholders, it's business 101. You have to in today's climate. Guest haven't suggested he had done a poor job.

 

[Lilofan]

I think its a bit naive to think a CEO of a company the size of Disney wouldn't appease shareholders, it's business 101. You have to in today's climate. Guest haven't suggested he had done a poor job.

If he didn't, his CEO tenure would have been a short one in these current times.

 

[Dave Z]

I'M BACK

Hope you guys didn't miss me to much!

Good Luck,

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’ve ridden Mr. Toad and the Subs at Disneyland. Mr. Toad is outdated, but it’s a classic dark ride. I see no issue with their continued inclusion in the park. As for Journey 1.0, people wax poetic about that ride. Why did it have to be replaced with an inferior version? World of Motion, I never rode it, but it does seem to have been a significant part of the Epcot everyone loved.

I’m not understanding this need to replace rides. If anything, expand upon them but keep the originals. Why couldn’t Eisner keep Mr. Toad AND build Winnie the Pooh? Why couldn’t Eisner keep Horizons AND add Mission: Space separately? I haven’t liked it when Iger did things like this (ex. Replacing Snow White’s Adventures with 7DMT, replacing GMR with MMRR). And I will call him on that. But this is an attitude that began under Eisner - not Iger. We should be adding capacity, not replacing serviceable rides. This is something everyone agrees with.

Why are Eisner’s worst decisions more lauded than Iger’s best decisions?

Because prices were lower, and crowds were lower, and we’re nostalgic by nature...

That is the end all, be all.

Well...I don’t love it either .

But there’s a tremendous cost to old rides:
1. They’re old...which means they cost a lot to run. And don’t drive crowds and merch and upsells...blah blah blah
2. Keeping them and adding new stuff is a tremendous raw construction ontop of the costs o the old stuff.
3. It’s not just concrete and steel. New things require more employees and Disney - like ever soulless international company - is loathe to spend a dollar on having their employees go to the doctor and eat a sandwich for lunch.

I don’t know why that is...but it is always that way. Adding employees weighs heavily on Disney park decisions.

We saw it with Star Wars...let WDI blow $2,000,000,000 building ugly facades...but couldn’t mentally handle paying for $10,000 a month in added staff.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Nah, I totally agree with you. Disney is more than just the rides. I just meant I thought the conversation at hand was a discussion of rides/attractions.

The Disney hotels are great, but at current prices, I consider them more of a cash grab than an investment in WDW Resort quality. I’ve never found it in my heart to pay the prices for a Deluxe; however, I do have Animal Kingdom Lodge booked this October as I was able to score an amazing deal through Undercover Tourist that effectively made AKL $291 per night after taxes... crossing my fingers that we get to actually go...

I wish Cedar Point satisfied me as much as Disney... I would be a lot wealthier if it did.

...see this is the thing. I’m not impressed with this price that much. We’re all “institutionalized” to a certain extent...I suppose.

No disney hotel is worth close to $600 a night...so for me the scale is way off. They look nice...but the service is nowhere close to adequate enough to justify half that.

 

[bryanfze55]

...see this is the thing. I’m not impressed with this price that much. We’re all “institutionalized” to a certain extent...I suppose.

No didn’t hotel is worth close to $600 a night...so for me the scale is way off. They look nice...but the service is nowhere close to adequate enough to justify half that.

It’s still as good as you can get without being DVC, AP, etc. I agree it’s still expensive, but I doubt if I will ever have the chance to stay in a Deluxe resort at that price again. I’m sure the service is worse than I would get at a $300/night Marriott hotel - but location, grounds, theming, and immersion count for something? It does look like a magnificent hotel.

Btw, if you haven’t looked at the motels outside Disneyland recently - well, they are gouging to an even greater extent than Disney at this point. The Fairfield Inn across the street (it’s exterior entry) is creeping towards $250/night before taxes.

It’s just the world we lived in prior to coronavirus. Everyone was traveling and paying the asking price. We’ll see how this all looks after coronavirus

 

[Disstevefan1]

Poor Chapek lol

@realBobChapek , don’t worry Bobby, you will get your turn after COVID is over...

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Bob Chapek: I am CEO of The Walt Disney Company.

Bob Iger:

 

[Nubs70]

Articles like this make the optimistic "Disney will get through this" and "Disney will quickly rebound" takes look worse since these articles make it seem like the company is teetering into bankruptcy like AMC.

The DIS operating model is totally F'd.

The P&R model of packing in the bodies is not functional. The parks will have to run at reduced capacity. If the same Pre Covid profitability is required, prices will need to skyrocket.

ESPN is a barren wasteland without any functional sports. Maybe it can transform into an MTV model. ESPN, the network that used to show sports.

ABC is going to have to rely on reruns as production has ceased. Maybe new production will happen someday.

Movies are in trouble. In future, theaters will not be packed. If every other seat is sold, tickets will need to double in price to maintain revenue. Direct to streaming may help a bit.

The Bobs need to pull a rabbit out of their hats if it is even possible.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

The DIS operating model is totally F'd.

The P&R model of packing in the bodies is not functional. The parks will have to run at reduced capacity. If the same Pre Covid profitability is required, prices will need to skyrocket.

ESPN is a barren wasteland without any functional sports. Maybe it can transform into an MTV model. ESPN, the network that used to show sports.

ABC is going to have to rely on reruns as production has ceased. Maybe new production will happen someday.

Movies are in trouble. In future, theaters will not be packed. If every other seat is sold, tickets will need to double in price to maintain revenue. Direct to streaming may help a bit.

The Bobs need to pull a rabbit out of their hats if it is even possible.

We will see who the real innovators are in all of this.

 

[Nubs70]

We will see who the real innovators are in all of this.

I really think WDW/stock holders need to lower financial expectations dramatically.

The longer the lockdowns go on, the higher probability we add a 2008 mortgage melt down on top of the Covid impact.

 

[Mouse Trap]

Articles like this make the optimistic "Disney will get through this" and "Disney will quickly rebound" takes look worse since these articles make it seem like the company is teetering into bankruptcy like AMC.

Disney, unlike AMC, has so far had no trouble raising money in the form of bonds because they are rich in physical assets that are super appealing to creditors/lenders as collateral. Miles and miles of land, countless physical structures, four cruise ships, the list goes on...

AMC doesn't have jack. They have no real estate. Basically the only physical things they own are a bunch of marquee signs and movie projectors. Plus they've been horribly mismanaged for the last few years and literally have $0 in revenue right now and are at the mercy of companies like Disney to change that.