The Red Button Option

[tirian]

True, but I think there were plenty of comparable painful decisions under Eisner, too. For example, Mr Toad into Winnie the Pooh, 2000 Leagues into a playground, Horizons into Mission:Space, Journey Into Imagination into whatever it is now, etc.


I find this kind of analysis super hard to take seriously, to be honest. The idea that Iger is somehow obsessed with eclipsing Walt Disney or that he got rid of executives because they were too popular with the fans, that is. He certainly seems to want to be seen as up there with Steve Jobs, but, ridiculous or not, that makes sense for a high-profile CEO at this point in time. The other stuff seems like what Disney fans would imagine Iger would be thinking about but from which he always seemed aloof. Iger certainly never struck me as using Walt Disney as his yardstick.

I think WDW Pro means eclipse Walt’s financial success by doing massive biz in China. Considering Disney was a boutique company until Eisner expanded it — that isn’t a far-fetched idea. Iger could’ve conceivably done that.

 

[tirian]

I surprised that Staggs and Rasulo after resigning haven't worked in years. Maybe the severance package, options etc with them walking away with millions will keep them content for the rest of their life. In regards about Eisner he left Disney a rich man also. Now after many years after leaving Disney he is now part of the billionaire club. It must have been some good investments.

They were probably under some heavy NDAs like that Lucasfilm guy who can’t write his book. (I don’t know the details because I don’t keep up with Star Wars news.)

 

[el_super]

It’s not a conspiracy. It was the company’s objective since the mid-90s. It’s the same reason Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Disney’s California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Park and Hong Kong Disneyland were so small.

Yeah... it's still a crazy conspiracy. They're not sharing any of their attraction metrics with investors directly, so there's no need to try to fudge the numbers. If they wanted to invest less in the parks, they just ... could have. No fancy metrics required, and no billion dollar NGE expense necessary. I'll also point out (for the 1000th time) that this is easily countered by the fact that they kept investing in their parks and spending billions year after year. If they wanted they could have stopped that spending entirely and had a good justification to do so. They didn't. Conventional wisdom also tells us that their later parks were smaller simply because of the huge toll EuroDisney had on the company.

 

[el_super]

That’s great that you’ve got an opinion, but it’s objectively, factually wrong. No offense. The purpose of FP+ and NextGen were to minimize future investments in expensive new attractions by shuffling around crowds and maintaining the Disney Faithful that were buying DVC. This is how they sold it to investors. This was also Iger and Co.’s misunderstanding of Blue Ocean business strategy.

I don't at all disagree with this, I just think that, based on the original topic we were discussing, it's missing the bigger point. Let me put it this way: if you think they were trying to minimize future investment, why do you think that was? The answer is that continued investment into their existing parks was hitting the point of diminishing returns and continued investment in increased capacity wasn't making financial sense. And that wasn't even the first time this argument was made at Disney. It was used as a justification to finally pull the trigger on a second gate at Disneyland, and used to justify building HKDL too.

So in the broader sense, it wasn't really used as a justification for reducing overall spending, because, as we know, they continued to spend. They just spent it on expansion in other areas and in other parks and switched their existing parks into maintenance mode.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah... it's still a crazy conspiracy. They're not sharing any of their attraction metrics with investors directly, so there's no need to try to fudge the numbers. If they wanted to invest less in the parks, they just ... could have. No fancy metrics required, and no billion dollar NGE expense necessary. I'll also point out (for the 1000th time) that this is easily countered by the fact that they kept investing in their parks and spending billions year after year. If they wanted they could have stopped that spending entirely and had a good justification to do so. They didn't. Conventional wisdom also tells us that their later parks were smaller simply because of the huge toll EuroDisney had on the company.

No, they could not just stop investing and that is why they did not. The Government of Hong Kong was rightly mad about the tiny park. The City of Anaheim, while not an owner, was considering changes to the Anaheim Resort District in response to Disney’s California Adventure’s failure. Investment into Walt Disney World where there were no external parties did drop significant and Walt Disney Studios Park largely retained the previous Disney’s California Adventure strategy of addressing its few attractions.

The parks being built smaller with a bare minimum number of attractions isn’t a secret. It’s been discussed by the Imagineers who worked on them.

 

[DVCakaCarlF]

It was the worst-kept secret as Iger gave potential buyers tours around the property. From Celebration to TDO to front-line CMs, everyone knew about those meetings.

The only equivalent was how quickly everyone learned that James Cameron was underwhelmed by the lackadaisical maintenance and broken animatronics on his tour for the Pandora collaboration.

Iger buttoned up his theme park dealings very quickly after those two tours leaked, and I don’t know if we can properly call them “leaks” since they were fully displayed for anyone to see.

He was uninterested in theme parks until Uni’s success with Potter. Nothing more, nothing less, and he continued pursuing a sell-off after he realized he’d have to invest to compete with Uni. Iger certainly didn’t care about Walt’s legacy or the fan base or any of the IPs he purchased. He simply wanted a conglomerate to call his own.

Edit: This is why I laugh every time a business person recommends reading Iger’s book. Why would I read the delusional self-promotion of a narcissist who never understood his own company’s heritage or possibilities, and merely bought other people’s ideas?

It was an easy read, I will say.

 

[WDW Pro]

I find this kind of analysis super hard to take seriously, to be honest. The idea that Iger is somehow obsessed with eclipsing Walt Disney or that he got rid of executives because they were too popular with the fans, that is. He certainly seems to want to be seen as up there with Steve Jobs, but, ridiculous or not, that makes sense for a high-profile CEO at this point in time. The other stuff seems like what Disney fans would imagine Iger would be thinking about but from which he always seemed aloof. Iger certainly never struck me as using Walt Disney as his yardstick.

Iger has always fancied a legacy as the perfect American businessman. He wanted to make Walt's apple pie company into an international behemoth. He succeeded. His achilles is who he had to deal with to make it happen.

But if it's always been a problem, then how do you know it can ever be resolved?

Seriously the crowding issues are far more nuanced than just building out more space. Building new attractions is great, but then you are limited to the capacity of those new attractions at a micro level. If your park only holds 60,000 people, but 70,000 want to come in, you have a capacity issue. If only 20,000 of those 60,000 can ride your new attraction, you still have a capacity issue. If the lines for your most popular attractions are all 60+ minutes, but no one is waiting for the Tiki Room, you have a capacity problem. Is the bizarre math of capacity that makes sense of removing attractions for meet-and-greets, closing high capacity people eaters like Carousel of Progress and trying to jam more and more theater shows into the park.

That bizarre math is what NGE was supposed to help resolve. I think it's overall success is probably debatable, but it's a far different premise than finding a way to completely stop investment in the parks.

$$$ is all it takes. Put in the theater, Jungle Book roller coaster, etc, and you'll increase capacity with ease. Disneyland is essentially locked now, but MK can increase dramatically if so desired.

I think WDW Pro means eclipse Walt’s financial success by doing massive biz in China. Considering Disney was a boutique company until Eisner expanded it — that isn’t a far-fetched idea. Iger could’ve conceivably done that.

That's exactly right. Iger wants to be seen in the same vein as Musk, Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg... and he had deep political ambitions that have been thrown off course.

 

[el_super]

No, they could not just stop investing and that is why they did not. The Government of Hong Kong ...

I wasn't talking about Hong Kong. I was referring to the idea that keeping MK perpetually busy and fudging attraction ridership counts was an effort to create a narrative that investment in MK wasn't necessary. There was no reason to do that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wasn't talking about Hong Kong. I was referring to the idea that keeping MK perpetually busy and fudging attraction ridership counts was an effort to create a narrative that investment in MK wasn't necessary. There was no reason to do that.

You keep talking about continued investment when investment at Walt Disney World did not just continue. The big early expenses under Iger were at Hong Kong Disneyland and Disney’s California Adventure.

I don't at all disagree with this, I just think that, based on the original topic we were discussing, it's missing the bigger point. Let me put it this way: if you think they were trying to minimize future investment, why do you think that was? The answer is that continued investment into their existing parks was hitting the point of diminishing returns and continued investment in increased capacity wasn't making financial sense. And that wasn't even the first time this argument was made at Disney. It was used as a justification to finally pull the trigger on a second gate at Disneyland, and used to justify building HKDL too.

So in the broader sense, it wasn't really used as a justification for reducing overall spending, because, as we know, they continued to spend. They just spent it on expansion in other areas and in other parks and switched their existing parks into maintenance mode.

Iger’s tenure started with the very successful opening of the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever. Returns had not stalled when invested in a quality product but have become significantly worse.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

But they kept making them. That's the whole point. For all this chatter about them wanting to sell the parks, and thinking they were a bad investment, they kept investing in them anyway.

Right, because it definitely makes more sense to let your house languish when you're looking to sell it instead of making small investments to make it more attractive.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

People are, especially at WDW, attracted to the latest and greatest and the downside to that is the expected facility lifespan takes a nosedive due to lack of demand.

Considering that The Magic Kingdom is the most popular park by a nautical mile and hasn't had a "latest and greatest" attraction open since 1992, that doesn't seem to hold up.

The vast majority of the most popular attractions at MK are in the "tried and true" category and the park continues to outperform the other gates, even when they get genuine "latest and greatest" expansions and additions . . .

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think WDW Pro means eclipse Walt’s financial success by doing massive biz in China. Considering Disney was a boutique company until Eisner expanded it — that isn’t a far-fetched idea. Iger could’ve conceivably done that.

But if you're just talking about financial success, then Eisner already surpassed Walt Disney. From everything I've seen of Eisner and Iger, it was the former who thought more about Walt Disney and considered himself an heir to his legacy. Iger seems to have wanted more to be the next Steve Jobs than the next Walt Disney. With the possible exception of the rightly mocked scene in the Imagineering Story where he suggests adding more trees to Carsland, I always got the sense that he didn't consider himself so much a creative executive in the Walt Disney mould but rather one who trusted in the right creative people to make good content. I also struggle to see any evidence that he was super tuned in to what Disney theme park fans on the forums thought about different executives and jealous of those who won our approval.

Again, this is a fairly minor point. But when I see things like this that appear to be armchair psychological analysis get thrown out amidst what are supposed to be hard facts, it makes me a little sceptical.

 

[tirian]

I don't at all disagree with this, I just think that, based on the original topic we were discussing, it's missing the bigger point. Let me put it this way: if you think they were trying to minimize future investment, why do you think that was? The answer is that continued investment into their existing parks was hitting the point of diminishing returns and continued investment in increased capacity wasn't making financial sense. And that wasn't even the first time this argument was made at Disney. It was used as a justification to finally pull the trigger on a second gate at Disneyland, and used to justify building HKDL too.

So in the broader sense, it wasn't really used as a justification for reducing overall spending, because, as we know, they continued to spend. They just spent it on expansion in other areas and in other parks and switched their existing parks into maintenance mode.

I understand what you’re saying. Glad to have the discussion here too.

 

[tirian]

But if you're just talking about financial success, then Eisner already surpassed Walt Disney. From everything I've seen of Eisner and Iger, it was the former who thought more about Walt Disney and considered himself an heir to his legacy. Iger seems to have wanted more to be the next Steve Jobs than the next Walt Disney. With the possible exception of the rightly mocked scene in the Imagineering Story where he suggests adding more trees to Carsland, I always got the sense that he didn't consider himself so much a creative executive in the Walt Disney mould but rather one who trusted in the right creative people to make good content. I also struggle to see any evidence that he was super tuned in to what Disney theme park fans on the forums thought about different executives and jealous of those who won our approval.

Again, this is a fairly minor point. But when I see things like this that appear to be armchair psychological analysis get thrown out amidst what are supposed to be hard facts, it makes me a little sceptical.

He was strangely jealous of Ouimet, and I didn’t say anything about “theme park fans on the forums.” Iger didn’t want anyone to steal his spotlight, and Ouimet could’ve been a talented threat to Iger’s position as CEO.

You’re right to point out that for Iger’s first few years, he freely allowed talented people to operate their divisions. Lasseter is the best example of that. I would love to know what initiated the “switch” to protecting his own legacy, and I agree with you that anything we suppose here is conjecture; but it definitely happened. We know what made Eisner snap: it was the combo of Wells’ death and DLP. What made Iger switch to diluted, generic brand IP instead of individually talented divisions? What convinced him to run out the P&R guys who were doing a great job, only to combine the division with merchandise? I’ve heard rumors it’s because they didn’t support NextGen and price gouging, but that is definitely pure gossip.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

He was strangely jealous of Ouimet, and I didn’t say anything about “theme park fans on the forums.”

Sorry, I really hope this doesn't seem like I'm having a go at you as I really have no problem with you at all, but that was just how I interpreted:

Matt Ouimet, the excellent guy Iger dumped when his popularity surpassed Iger’s own among the fan base?

This is all a minor point, anyway. And, of course, professional and strategic jealousies make sense. I just suspect the fan base don't play a huge role in those decisions.

 

[DVCakaCarlF]

His

Iger has always fancied a legacy as the perfect American businessman. He wanted to make Walt's apple pie company into an international behemoth. He succeeded. His achilles is who he had to deal with to make it happen.



$$$ is all it takes. Put in the theater, Jungle Book roller coaster, etc, and you'll increase capacity with ease. Disneyland is essentially locked now, but MK can increase dramatically if so desired.



That's exactly right. Iger wants to be seen in the same vein as Musk, Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg... and he had deep political ambitions that have been thrown off course.

his age doesnt help his political ambitions

 

[tirian]

Sorry, I really hope this doesn't seem like I'm having a go at you as I really have no problem with you at all, but that was just how I interpreted:



This is all a minor point, anyway. And, of course, professional and strategic jealousies make sense. I just suspect the fan base don't play a huge role in those decisions.

Fan forums probably had nothing to do with it, but the media’s reaction to Ouimet and the internal respect must’ve caused professional jealousy. DL CMs loved the guy; he was like the second coming of D ck Nunis.

It was also a different era online. About 6–8 years ago, there were deep concerns that fan forums would affect company reputations. That’s about the time companies hired social media flunkies to constantly battle negative opinions. You’d be surprised at how often posts from this place and the Chatty Mice would be referenced in meetings, especially when fans documented poor maintenance. But once social media primarily split between diehard lovers and haters, companies paid less attention.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

He was strangely jealous of Ouimet, and I didn’t say anything about “theme park fans on the forums.” Iger didn’t want anyone to steal his spotlight, and Ouimet could’ve been a talented threat to Iger’s position as CEO.

You’re right to point out that for Iger’s first few years, he freely allowed talented people to operate their divisions. Lasseter is the best example of that. I would love to know what initiated the “switch” to protecting his own legacy, and I agree with you that anything we suppose here is conjecture; but it definitely happened. We know what made Eisner snap: it was the combo of Wells’ death and DLP. What made Iger switch to diluted, generic brand IP instead of individually talented divisions? What convinced him to run out the P&R guys who were doing a great job, only to combine the division with merchandise? I’ve heard rumors it’s because they didn’t support NextGen and price gouging, but that is definitely pure gossip.

Did Lasseter demonstrably just have no interest in taking over a role like Iger's?

We all know what ultimately ended up happening there, but given the way Lassie WAS sort of seen as a second-coming when he got more involved with the parks in addition to driving Animation, it surprises me that Iger let out as long a leash as he did.

I would have thought of him as a bigger threat to Iger than Matt Ouimet.

 

[UNCgolf]

his age doesnt help his political ambitions

If he ran for President in 2024 he'd be younger than the two people running this year.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Considering that The Magic Kingdom is the most popular park by a nautical mile and hasn't had a "latest and greatest" attraction open since 1992, that doesn't seem to hold up.

The vast majority of the most popular attractions at MK are in the "tried and true" category and the park continues to outperform the other gates, even when they get genuine "latest and greatest" expansions and additions . . .

The attendance disparity is also not a given. EPCOT Center had less attendance than the Magic Kingdom, but not half. The same with Tokyo DisneySEA.