News Josh D’Amaro Named Next CEO of The Walt Disney Company

[HMF]

To me they should have kept D'Amaro as he knows the Disney product but I wish they went outside of the company and got someone like Matt Ouimet who has theme park experience to get a different view on the parks.

Matt Ouimet was literally Michael Eisner's good faith attempt to fix DL after the Pressler/Harris mess, and it worked out spectacularly. Naturally when Iger came in Ouimet soon left and Iger somehow got retroactively credited for the success of DL's 50th despite the fact that Eisner really initiated it by putting in Ouimet.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

The ride does exist to an extent in Europe minus it being an indoor dark ride. I only used that as an example as most people have heard of it. Unlike much of the newer stuff being built in Europe.

RIght now Disney has a standout lineup but what other parks are doing in terms of innovation is right up there. Epic Universe is a great for all the new things they have used for attractions.
What bugs me about Disney is how much they tend to re use the same ride tech for multiple rides. The trackless dark ride is over played now.

The Trackless Dark ride only appears 3 times in WDW? It's an entire type of ride innovation. Omnimovers and steel coasters are used much more? We have Buzz, HM, Little Mermaid, and Nemo with the same exact design and Spaceship Earth added on as well with its unique omnimover. Literally every theme park reuses ride systems, Universal did the bus + SCOOP vehicles twice. They did Kuka Arm twice. Ride systems can be replicated as long as they make sense for the ride imo.

 

[BrianLo]

He’s just saying the prior leadership direction didn’t drive the stock… so with picking josh you are doubling down on the same formula.

But we all know the issue with the stock price is the entertainment sector. They are doubling down on the only strategy that has been working (experiences).

The current strategic direction in experiences is meaningfully more capital heavy than many of Iger’s earlier years. I don’t think it’s the same playbook as Chapek, Rasulo or even Staggs.

 

[BrianLo]

It's also an odd stance because the major stock drivers for Disney have not been parks related. Wall Street investors just under value the parks.

They don't understand them

I wouldn’t say they entirely don’t understand them. It’s more just been acting as a counterweight. As fast as media has fallen, parks earnings have filled the gap. So the entire company is flat; though revenue is way up, just not earnings yet. Wall Street is also short term focused and parks are a long play.

Of course there was our brief streaming valuation bubble window, but that popped and we’re back to largely the underlying fundamentals.

In some ways Josh is in an enviable position because he now doesn’t have to absorb the fall of linear for the next decade, it’s already fallen apart.

 

[flynnibus]

But we all know the issue with the stock price is the entertainment sector. They are doubling down on the only strategy that has been working (experiences).

I don't agree. The stock has struggled and moved largely based on forward forecasts. Be it outlook with ESPN/cable, streaming, park attendance, etc.. Which segment is the favorite or woe changes with the tides.. They aren't getting credit for what they've salvaged and just constantly get picked apart for what isn't happening.. largely because they can't promise big growth. It's like a huge disconnect between expectations and delivery (and I'm not talking just EPS stuff). Their long term stock performance is not reflective of the company's business evolution.

The market still hasn't really embraced their big park investments as some future growth.. nor have they convinced the market that their ESPN/gambling/NFL stuff will salvage the old ESPN problem.

They've been a 3 wheel car to the market.. and probably will continue to be until they somehow divest more of the legacy stuff.

 

[Chi84]

I don't agree. The stock has struggled and moved largely based on forward forecasts. Be it outlook with ESPN/cable, streaming, park attendance, etc.. Which segment is the favorite or woe changes with the tides.. They aren't getting credit for what they've salvaged and just constantly get picked apart for what isn't happening.. largely because they can't promise big growth. It's like a huge disconnect between expectations and delivery (and I'm not talking just EPS stuff). Their long term stock performance is not reflective of the company's business evolution.

The market still hasn't really embraced their big park investments as some future growth.. nor have they convinced the market that their ESPN/gambling/NFL stuff will salvage the old ESPN problem.

They've been a 3 wheel car to the market.. and probably will continue to be until they somehow divest more of the legacy stuff.

When you say “legacy stuff” what are you referring to?

 

[Chef Mickey]

I think this is what the poster was referencing.

These two are often conflated in a way that makes it seem the stock is underperforming because of the park management. Yet the fixes the posters suggest to parks management would likely lead the stocks to fall even more.

At least that’s what I’m getting from it.

I'm on record saying the park financial performance is good, the only bright spot. However, despite tremendous performance at the Parks, the stock continues to be a negative performer.

Wall Street hates the Park business. It's just what it is. Disney's job is finding a way to sell that story while improving the management of the other businesses. I'd also note that while the numbers look good, stockholders aren't stupid. They obviously see the strategy of simply raising prices being the wrong approach and have valued those earnings accordingly (extremely low).

 

[Chef Mickey]

They don't understand them

They do. They don't value capital intensive businesses that rely on overcharging guests who may not come back after being ripped off. Same reason Apple used to trade at 9X earnings because they were viewed as an iPhone maker. Apple changed that narrative.

Parks have been a solid business for Disney but owners aren't convinced it's the right approach.

 

[_caleb]

My advice for Josh D’Amaro, since I’m sure he lucks on WDWMAGIC:

Disney playing for stock price is like politicians playing for donors: it might bring in the money, but it costs you your soul.

On the other hand, making decisions based on guest feedback and market research is like trying to govern based on surveys and polls: when you try to please everybody, the you please nobody.

I say get back to the days of running things by conviction. Let themed entertainment be an art and let the artists create. Invite guests to join in creating magical experiences.

When theme parks and movies are commoditized, guests interact with them as consumers. But when they’re treated like creative storytelling, guests evaluate things differently and act more like, well, guests and participants than mere consumers.

 

[Chi84]

My advice for Josh D’Amaro, since I’m sure he lucks on WDWMAGIC:

Disney playing for stock price is like politicians playing for donors: it might bring in the money, but it costs you your soul.

On the other hand, making decisions based on guest feedback and market research is like trying to govern based on surveys and polls: when you try to please everybody, the you please nobody.

I say get back to the days of running things by conviction. Let themed entertainment be an art and let the artists create. Invite guests to join in creating magical experiences.

When theme parks and movies are commoditized, guests interact with them as consumers. But when they’re treated like creative storytelling, guests evaluate things differently and act more like, well, guests and participants than mere consumers.

It seems people on a WDW board would care more about the parks experience than the stock performance.

I don’t dispute what people are saying but sometimes the outrage about how the stock is doing strikes me as disingenuous.

 

[Pizza Moon]

The original sub goal was 60-90M subs... in five years.

I feel like they did two things.

They totally underestimated the appeal of a Disney streamer to watch their back catalogue.

They totally missed the mark just putting out endless slop without regard for quality control during their ramp-up to quickly copy Netflix’s strategy, which never made any sense.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

My advice for Josh D’Amaro, since I’m sure he lucks on WDWMAGIC:

Disney playing for stock price is like politicians playing for donors: it might bring in the money, but it costs you your soul.

On the other hand, making decisions based on guest feedback and market research is like trying to govern based on surveys and polls: when you try to please everybody, the you please nobody.

I say get back to the days of running things by conviction. Let themed entertainment be an art and let the artists create. Invite guests to join in creating magical experiences.

When theme parks and movies are commoditized, guests interact with them as consumers. But when they’re treated like creative storytelling, guests evaluate things differently and act more like, well, guests and participants than mere consumers.

I would just like to note that all 3 of the ways you mention of "leading" just flat out don't work, including your suggestion of letting all the artists do what they want. Art is subjective. It's the most important part of the company but there's a reason why top artists aren't always respected in their time. Their vision is simply put not fully seen. If you blow through all the cash on personal projects that artists think are a good idea, you're going to burn quickly.

That's why Disney has always done best with a creative lead MIXED with a strong business leader. When you "let artists create" with no restrictions, you get a muddled mess.

Look what happened to Eisner without the Wells.

 

[Pizza Moon]

My advice for Josh D’Amaro, since I’m sure he lucks on WDWMAGIC:

Disney playing for stock price is like politicians playing for donors: it might bring in the money, but it costs you your soul.

On the other hand, making decisions based on guest feedback and market research is like trying to govern based on surveys and polls: when you try to please everybody, the you please nobody.

I say get back to the days of running things by conviction. Let themed entertainment be an art and let the artists create. Invite guests to join in creating magical experiences.

When theme parks and movies are commoditized, guests interact with them as consumers. But when they’re treated like creative storytelling, guests evaluate things differently and act more like, well, guests and participants than mere consumers.

It’s just long-term thinking in general.

Pixar built a brand based on quality and then faltered only as they lost it.

Theme parks and what not are the same way.

Disney’s brand is so strong that people will legitimately come if you just do it right.

Steve Jobs versus Tim Cook basically, but I don’t think Iger was as talented as Cook personally, so the comparison isn’t 1:1 either.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

You can make the customer happy and be a good businessman at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[_caleb]

I would just like to note that all 3 of the ways you mention of "leading" just flat out don't work, including your suggestion of letting all the artists do what they want. Art is subjective. It's the most important part of the company but there's a reason why top artists aren't always respected in their time. Their vision is simply put not fully seen. If you blow through all the cash on personal projects that artists think are a good idea, you're going to burn quickly.

That's why Disney has always done best with a creative lead MIXED with a strong business leader. When you "let artists create" with no restrictions, you get a muddled mess.

Look what happened to Eisner without the Wells.

Way to ruin my romanticism with pesky realism...

Of course you’re right. And I wouldn’t say “let the artists spend as much as they want doing whatever they want.” That’s why I think “conviction” is key. I don’t think Josh is an artist, but I’m hoping he can lead with vision.

You can make the customer happy and be a good businessman at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, of course. But I think if the business is selling art and stories (which is how I hope Josh approaches it), “making the customer happy” should look different than it might if the business was merely selling hotel rooms and t-shirts.

 

[Pizza Moon]

You can make the customer happy and be a good businessman at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

But what people don’t get is every time you build a new ride it creates more demand than the new capacity.

So you’re either left with high crowds (guest complain), park reservations (guest complain), or higher prices (guest also complain).

 

[DisneyHead123]

Way to ruin my romanticism with pesky realism...

Of course you’re right. And I wouldn’t say “let the artists spend as much as they want doing whatever they want.” That’s why I think “conviction” is key. I don’t think Josh is an artist, but I’m hoping he can lead with vision.

I think he originally wanted to be a sculptor, so he might be, at least to some extent.

Yes, of course. But I think if the business is selling art and stories (which is how I hope Josh approaches it), “making the customer happy” should look different than it might if the business was merely selling hotel rooms and t-shirts.

My guess is that Disney leadership does prioritize the desires of the fandom to some extent, although that has to be balanced with the "So where's Harry Potter World?" consumer who's in it for the souvenirs and bright shiny dopamine hits. And honestly that's probably a good thing - some demand for artistry with a strong demand that things be kept appealing and accessible to the average person.

I also think Chapek's tenure may, ironically, help when balancing expense and profit. I'm not sure what metrics Disney was looking at when they rushed him out the door, but they must have had something to show that just going all-in on cost cutting is not overall beneficial. Hopefully D'Amaro can get some leverage out of referencing that time if people are pushing for more cost cutting or bigger profits faster.

 

[Jrb1979]

Agreed.

But what people don’t get is every time you build a new ride it creates more demand than the new capacity.

So you’re either left with high crowds (guest complain), park reservations (guest complain), or higher prices (guest also complain).

You can add more attractions to the parks that does little of any of that. The parks need more Ratatouille level attractions to fill them out. Don't promote them as a major additions.

 

[BrianLo]

I don't agree. The stock has struggled and moved largely based on forward forecasts. Be it outlook with ESPN/cable, streaming, park attendance, etc.. Which segment is the favorite or woe changes with the tides.. They aren't getting credit for what they've salvaged and just constantly get picked apart for what isn't happening.. largely because they can't promise big growth. It's like a huge disconnect between expectations and delivery (and I'm not talking just EPS stuff). Their long term stock performance is not reflective of the company's business evolution.

The market still hasn't really embraced their big park investments as some future growth.. nor have they convinced the market that their ESPN/gambling/NFL stuff will salvage the old ESPN problem.

They've been a 3 wheel car to the market.. and probably will continue to be until they somehow divest more of the legacy stuff.

But what are forward forecasts when we are comparing things retroactively?

Fundamentally Income at the company was 14.68B for fiscal 2015 and 17.55B in fiscal 2025. While that is a 19.5% bump, there is also a 10% stock dilution that occurred over that period of time with the Fox purchase and they’ve added 23% more debt of their current market cap with that purchase.

Under the hood Experiences is up 200%, but entertainment and sports were down 25%. It’s hard for me to say the price performance in this window doesn’t ultimately make sense… it’s simply not Experiences that was the problem.

 

[Pizza Moon]

You can add more attractions to the parks that does little of any of that. The parks need more Ratatouille level attractions to fill them out. Don't promote them as a major additions.

Why would they do that if it didn’t drive the highest return on spending? They’re a business. But I agree in principle that it’s always better to outright expand.

My guess is that Ratatouille likely brought in even more people that offset its capacity boost. I mean Pandora was like this until they decided that you don’t need to add anything new for 10 years which obviously does not work

If you’re repurposing underused areas like Maelstrom, it’s just about ROI, but I argue it made the park experience worse even if you ignore the ride because it drove up waits and crowds, but if it was a new area that would’ve been far better but its budget would’ve been double triple, 5x more idk.

If that makes sense.