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

[HMF]

Same question I posed to HMF, based on what?

Not trying to be combative, I just know I spent time working for people where I did not agree with many of their choices on direction or how to run the business, but went along because it was my job to carry out their ideas/plans. Sure, I would disagree (sometimes vehemently) in private, but it was their decision to make.

As soon as I was put in charge, I changed a great many things.

Anyway, it just seems odd that so many are assuming Josh won't do his own thing. Sure, he might be more of the exact same, but my point is we don't know.

We really won't know until he takes over. He has had direct oversight of the parks for quite a few years now. While he hasn't made as many downright idiotic decisions as Chapek did (GOTG and the re-ruining of DCA, Harmonious and the destruction of most of what was left of EPCOT and lack of overall vision for DHS and TBA in retrospect.) He hasn't really impressed me either. I am not sure if I should or could blame him for the ROA debacle since I do sense Iger's hand in that and of course Rohde is no longer there to protect DAK from becoming another glorified billboard for IP. I really won't know what either Dana or Josh's approach will be until they start actually making creative decisions.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Based on what?

Last I heard are choices are Josh or Dana and Josh seems like the better of the two for park fans.

The management is bad…it needs to be changed…not more of the same

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

“Josh”…he’s an empty suit like his overlord…

Sign up for that and enjoy the slide for how many more years? (Until you’re priced out)

 

[Disstevefan1]

Selfishly speaking, if Josh gets the job, I hope he runs the company "Parks and experiences" centric instead of Iger, who was acquisition centric.

 

[HMF]

Selfishly speaking, if Josh gets the job, I hope he runs the company "Parks and experiences" centric instead of Iger, who was acquisition centric.

With the exception of Pixar most of the acquisitions were unnecessary. Lucasfilm also looked good on paper but as they tend to do Disney drove it into the ground. Also, Pixar is far less of a creative powerhouse than it used to be. Whether he will be good for the parks or not will really depend on what his motivations for them are.

 

[ChrisFL]

To quote Dame Judi Dench in the god-awful current incarnation of Spaceship Earth everyone will probably be living in a "New world custom made just for you" in the near future and it's going to make objective reality a far more complicated than it used to be to say the least because everyone will be looking at the world through their own terms.

"It's evolution baby"....quoting the Pearl Jam song "Do the Evolution" which is a striking song and relevant music video nearly 30 years later

 

[Disstevefan1]

With the exception of Pixar most of the acquisitions were unnecessary. Lucasfilm also looked good on paper but as they tend to do Disney drove it into the ground. Also, Pixar is far less of a creative powerhouse than it used to be. Whether he will be good for the parks or not will really depend on what his motivations for them are.

Totally agree! In my opinion, Iger spent the companies money like it was play money, a big waste, except for Pixar, which the company had the opportunity to purchase under Eisner for a fraction of the cost but didn't

 

[Dranth]

The management is bad…it needs to be changed…not more of the same

Except we are getting more of the same either way. Unless something changed are choices are....
1. Josh - Parks guy who may or may not be responsible for some really bad choices.
2. Dana - Another TV exec who knows little about parks.

Not that we get to decide, but given the options put in front of us, I would lean Josh.

 

[HMF]

Totally agree! In my opinion, Iger spent the companies money like it was play money, a big waste, except for Pixar, which the company had the opportunity to purchase under Eisner for a fraction of the cost but didn't

Eisner's ego was unfortunately too big at the time.

 

[JD80]

Except we are getting more of the same either way. Unless something changed are choices are....
1. Josh - Parks guy who may or may not be responsible for some really bad choices.
2. Dana - Another TV exec who knows little about parks.

Not that we get to decide, but given the options put in front of us, I would lean Josh.

To be fair, your statement #1 means absolutely nothing.

 

[Dranth]

To be fair, your statement #1 means absolutely nothing.

It means exactly what it says. He may be responsible for choices a lot of people don't like or he may just be doing what his boss says. Point is, we don't know.

 

[HMF]

Except we are getting more of the same either way. Unless something changed are choices are....
1. Josh - Parks guy who may or may not be responsible for some really bad choices.
2. Dana - Another TV exec who knows little about parks.

Not that we get to decide, but given the options put in front of us, I would lean Josh.

I always prefer people who have less experience but are willing to learn and don't just assume they know everything. Eisner had no real theme park experience when he first visited WDI back in 1984 and look how well (at least initially before DLP and Wells dying though admittedly there were still occasional good things happening during his "Bad years") that turned out.

 

[HMF]

Totally agree! In my opinion, Iger spent the companies money like it was play money, a big waste, except for Pixar, which the company had the opportunity to purchase under Eisner for a fraction of the cost but didn't

I can almost guarantee you the fox acquisition was purely done so they could own the rights to A New Hope.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Eisner's ego was unfortunately too big at the time.

Yes and Eisner's ego was replaced by an even bigger ego in Iger...

 

[Disstevefan1]

I can almost guarantee you the fox acquisition was purely done so they could own the rights to A New Hope.

What a waste of money. And if I remember correctly, Universal drove up the bidding and forced Disney to overpay, LOL. That's OK, no price is too high for Iger when he is purchasing something

 

[Dranth]

I always prefer people who have less experience but are willing to learn and don't just assume they know everything. Eisner had no real theme park experience when he first visited WDI back in 1984 and look how well (at least initially before DLP and Wells dying though admittedly there were still occasional good things happening during his "Bad years") that turned out.

Sure, but even better would be someone with experience and a willingness to learn. My question is, is that Josh? We don't know. Either way it is a gamble in my mind.

 

[Disney Analyst]

As people go higher up the ladder, the views of them change (especially by folks on boards like this). But I recall when he first started becoming known, I believe when he took over Disneyland as president. He was well loved. Many saw positive changes at Disneyland, and the cast members generally seemed happy and respected by their leadership. Josh was often on the ground, interacting with Cast and seeing the park firsthand.

Perhaps it was all an insidious ploy to become CEO one day, but I think those early days count for something, and I think the way you treat and interact with Cast Members is telling.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Except we are getting more of the same either way. Unless something changed are choices are....
1. Josh - Parks guy who may or may not be responsible for some really bad choices.
2. Dana - Another TV exec who knows little about parks.

Not that we get to decide, but given the options put in front of us, I would lean Josh.

…the guy leaks snakeoil (only way Those pants fit)…

So you’ll have another guy subject to iger’s board trying to con stock traders who aren’t buying it…

And the “champion of investment” is more fantasyland than a ride on Peter Pan. Only the ceo spends big money…it’s for optics…and nothing set at all.

Parks guy just takes the arrows for the head…it’s been that way for 30+ years. They Don’t get to spend money…they’re told to slash it.

This is how these things go

 

[Figments Friend]

This may have already been touched on, but….

If the Disney Company could have ANY CEO, or any potential candidate from ANY company…who do you think would be a good ‘fit’ for what we need…?

Someone not afraid to be innovative, invest more in the animation division and theme parks, and is good at their job.

Let’s hear it.

-

 

[Dranth]

…the guy leaks snakeoil (only way Those pants fit)…

One, that is your personal perception of him. Two, even if that is true, it is largely irrelevant to how good of a job he would do. I don't need to like him as long as he does a good job. The man isn't my friend and I don't need him to be. Just make things better.

So you’ll have another guy subject to iger’s board trying to con stock traders who aren’t buying it…

ANYONE who is put in as CEO is going to be subject to Iger's board. CEOs don't generally get to to pick their board when they come in. That will change over time as folks retire or move on and new ones are brought on board.

And the “champion of investment” is more fantasyland than a ride on Peter Pan. Only the ceo spends big money…it’s for optics…and nothing set all.

Parks guy just takes the arrows for the head…it’s been that way for 30+ years. They Don’t get to spend money…they’re told to slash it.

Great, so we don't actually know what Josh would do because it has all been Iger.

Look, at least from what we know so far there are two choices and that is it. An outside hire seems to be off the table so given that reality we get Josh or Dana.