A Good Read ...

[flynnibus]

I respectfully disagree, which was the whole point of my thesis. I won't get into the specifics, but believe that in certain industries and companies it is vitally important to have a recognizable face with a certain set of personality and moral traits at the helm to help personify the company and its offerings.

Like what industries?

Who is the head of Honda? No one here cares.. they love the products anyways
Who knows anything about Michael Dell besides it was a drop out? Dell did fine
Who is the head of Ferrari? No one here knows.. yet they know the product is about passion
Who is the head of Frito-Lay? No one here knows.. but they love the chips they put out
Who is the head of Coke? A product people chose over nearly identical competition purely based on personal preference or largely history.. no one associates a leading CEO with the brand recognition
Who is the head of Skype? The hundreds of millions of users don't know and don't care
Who is the head of HTC? Samsung?
Who is the head of your favorite Grocery store? People are very loyal to their store choices.. yet they
Macy's?
Pepsi?
Wonder bread?
Toyota?
Phillips?


You don't NEED a marketable CEO with a public persona for brand loyalty, product innovation, market execution.

Many many many many companies have established customer loyalty and trust with the BRAND - rather than the person. There is actually a huge risk with establishing the loyalty or brand image to the person.. because people are not eternal.

The CEO persona is generally a MARKETING move.. not a move of need. They use the CEO's image as a marketing tool to try to build this idealized image of the company and say 'this is our prophet.. our products reflect the words of the prophet'. Believe in the prophet.. and you will believe in our products.

It's a choice if company's market themselves way, not a requirement or NEED - which is the key word here.

People aren't going to stop buying Hondas as their only car because the CEO changes.

The idea of specific product direction, identifiable traits, branding, scope, etc really have nothing to do with the CEO in the vast majority of companies. The CEO is focused in other areas and approves things form the people they trust are the best in their field to do the work.

 

[Bolna]

I respectfully disagree, which was the whole point of my thesis. I won't get into the specifics, but believe that in certain industries and companies it is vitally important to have a recognizable face with a certain set of personality and moral traits at the helm to help personify the company and its offerings.

Agree. I believe a lot of the fan backlash against this regime is because they have de-humanized the company somewhat. Where is that personality we can gravitate toward?

So would you say that this is Iger's problem: He is not recognisable enough?

Kind of reminds me of the DL VPs which we had in recent history: the ones the fans liked were those that showed their face in the parks regularly.

 

[devoy1701]

Like what industries?

Who is the head of Honda? No one here cares.. they love the products anyways
Who knows anything about Michael Dell besides it was a drop out? Dell did fine
Who is the head of Ferrari? No one here knows.. yet they know the product is about passion
Who is the head of Frito-Lay? No one here knows.. but they love the chips they put out
Who is the head of Coke? A product people chose over nearly identical competition purely based on personal preference or largely history.. no one associates a leading CEO with the brand recognition
Who is the head of Skype? The hundreds of millions of users don't know and don't care
Who is the head of HTC? Samsung?
Who is the head of your favorite Grocery store? People are very loyal to their store choices.. yet they
Macy's?
Pepsi?
Wonder bread?
Toyota?
Phillips?


You don't NEED a marketable CEO with a public persona for brand loyalty, product innovation, market execution.

Many many many many companies have established customer loyalty and trust with the BRAND - rather than the person. There is actually a huge risk with establishing the loyalty or brand image to the person.. because people are not eternal.

The CEO persona is generally a MARKETING move.. not a move of need. They use the CEO's image as a marketing tool to try to build this idealized image of the company and say 'this is our prophet.. our products reflect the words of the prophet'. Believe in the prophet.. and you will believe in our products.

It's a choice if company's market themselves way, not a requirement or NEED - which is the key word here.

People aren't going to stop buying Hondas as their only car because the CEO changes.

The idea of specific product direction, identifiable traits, branding, scope, etc really have nothing to do with the CEO in the vast majority of companies. The CEO is focused in other areas and approves things form the people they trust are the best in their field to do the work.

I didn't say that it was a requirement, or that a company will not be successful if they don't have a public image CEO.

I only argue that it is a leadership style that has proven quite successful in the past and when used right, can have fantastic positive effects on a company. By making the CEO as the face of the company you can make the company itself seem less like an ominous "thing" and personify it into something with morals and qualities that your individual consumer can relate to.

The downside is that when a successor isn't planned or groomed, or if the CEO is unable to relate to the public, or for some reason or another looses appeal to the masses, it can have disasterous effects. I coined it "Iconic Corporate Leadership" and believe it is most effectively used for newly emerging companies in well established markets, media companies, and consumer product companies.

The very best (and worst) case study is actualy Walt Disney himself. He sold the company and the movies and the other products that the company came up with. The American public invited him into their living rooms each week, in turn making him "part of the family." This almost blind trust and commitment can lessen the risks of new product and market penetration. The downside as we saw when Walt passed away is that the company performed like a chicken with its head cut off...with no clear image, no clear message to the public, and no path to follow internally either. The company nearly ripped itself apart.

It's just a leadership theory, there are dozens of them and evidence to support and refute it either way. But I honestly believe that TWDC performed better with a recognizable individual in the public eye because Disney is about selling the brand and its "wholesome family values", not the products.

So would you say that this is Iger's problem: He is not recognisable enough?

Kind of reminds me of the DL VPs which we had in recent history: the ones the fans liked were those that showed their face in the parks regularly.

I absolutely think this is the case. And I would even go as far as to say if Meg Crofton spent more time in the parks visiting with guests that the diehard fan base would be much more forgiving about some of the decisions made by TDO is the most recent past.

 

[Tom]

It all boils down to one simple thing that happened years ago....Disney became a publicly traded company. Once that happens, all the "bosses" report to the stockholders, via a Board of Directors.

No longer is their primary interest geared toward the customers, but to those who hold the power to fire them if their stock doesn't value high enough.

This is the one time where one could actually say, "If Walt were still alive, he would...." because he "did". Walt built the company and developed everything for two reasons:

1) To be the BEST
2) To make people happy

For the majority of his life, Walt didn't have two pennies to rub together, but he didn't care (Roy had a slightly different opinion). All Walt wanted to do was to continually improve, and to give his audience something bigger and better every single time. He answered to nobody (the bankers would argue that fact), and that's what allows a company to grow.

Going from Private to Public throws all of that out the window. Sure, TWDC has sub-companies that are tasked with "making the parks better", but then out the other side of the bean counters' mouths, they're telling them they better not spend any money unless the ROI is 100-fold.

Iger is currently (and Eisner was before) in an impossible position. You have to show more profit, while also being expected to gain respect from the customer - which comes directly from spending money and making the product worth more.

Lose - lose.

 

[devoy1701]

It all boils down to one simple thing that happened years ago....Disney became a publicly traded company. Once that happens, all the "bosses" report to the stockholders, via a Board of Directors.

No longer is their primary interest geared toward the customers, but to those who hold the power to fire them if their stock doesn't value high enough.

This is the one time where one could actually say, "If Walt were still alive, he would...." because he "did". Walt built the company and developed everything for two reasons:

1) To be the BEST
2) To make people happy

For the majority of his life, Walt didn't have two pennies to rub together, but he didn't care (Roy had a slightly different opinion). All Walt wanted to do was to continually improve, and to give his audience something bigger and better every single time. He answered to nobody (the bankers would argue that fact), and that's what allows a company to grow.


Going from Private to Public throws all of that out the window. Sure, TWDC has sub-companies that are tasked with "making the parks better", but then out the other side of the bean counters' mouths, they're telling them they better not spend any money unless the ROI is 100-fold.

Iger is currently (and Eisner was before) in an impossible position. You have to show more profit, while also being expected to gain respect from the customer - which comes directly from spending money and making the product worth more.

Lose - lose.

Again, I don't completely agree. The company went public in 1957 with Walt still at the helm, and he didn't change much of anything when it came to his style of leading during the next 10 years. And Eisner grew the company 10-fold...all while it was a publically traded company. Eisner's focus didn't seem to ever be the numbers. It was telling a story. And it worked. Atleast until he became more focused on himself and the limelight started to work against him.

btw, you stopped answering emails Tom!

 

[Tom]

Again, I don't completely agree. The company went public in 1957 with Walt still at the helm, and he didn't change much of anything when it came to his style of leading during the next 10 years. And Eisner grew the company 10-fold...all while it was a publically traded company. Eisner's focus didn't seem to ever be the numbers. It was telling a story. And it worked. Atleast until he became more focused on himself and the limelight started to work against him.

Times have changed. People have changed. Greed has escalated. When Walt was running the show, nobody questioned him. They knew they were buying stock from a company that was run the man who gave a $**t.

The Eisner era was sort of an anomaly, bridged a couple generations of mindsets, and then ended in an utter mess - as we all know.

Today, what would happen if Iger said, "You know what, f--- it! We're going to go ahead and spend the full billion dollars on the WDW FLE. And we're going to spend another billion on Avatar land. We're going to do these things right and we're going to wait and see what the ROI is when it happens."?

 

[devoy1701]

Times have changed. People have changed. Greed has escalated. When Walt was running the show, nobody questioned him. They knew they were buying stock from a company that was run the man who gave a $**t.

The Eisner era was sort of an anomaly, bridged a couple generations of mindsets, and then ended in an utter mess - as we all know.

Today, what would happen if Iger said, "You know what, f--- it! We're going to go ahead and spend the full billion dollars on the WDW FLE. And we're going to spend another billion on Avatar land. We're going to do these things right and we're going to wait and see what the ROI is when it happens."?

You pick CEOs to be leaders and you lock them into a term contract with bonuses tied to success for a reason. It's not to second guess every decision they make and weigh their successes and triumps at every step of the way and make sure that they know exactly what they're doing and what's going to happen. There has to be a degree of trust and free range and use of instinct. Iger very well should have the ability to make an execustive decision to focus "x" amount of dollars onto a project because he believes in it. That's not to say that it should be done blindly and without any analysis to see if the expected results are remotely possible. But the CEO position shouldn't be just that of a puppeteer who simply maximizes profits (specifically talking about TWDC now). Just like the BoD shouldn't be just an army of CEO "Yes-men."

 

[WDW1974]

I have been reading along for the ongoing discussion and am somewhat surprised how this thread suddenly has become yet another one of those discussions about "Was Eisner the best or worst thing that ever happened to Disney?".

I find it interesting that a thread about the current state of TWDC and about a recent criticism of the current CEO ends up bringing the previous CEO. Maybe that is a sign of the current state of TWDC and of the lack of success of Iger that he still hasn't been able to step out of the shadow of the predecessor. If Iger were as wonderful as some people claim he is, wouldn't we discuss his achievements instead of constantly comparing him with Eisner?

Bolna, I must admit that you have a point. Eisner was always at one side of the spectrum, either great or a failure depending on the period discussed. He always had a flavor to his management, something you could point to and say that's distinctly Eisner, whereas Iger seems vanilla a lot of time - nothing amazing but easy to stomach. I guess as someone who, as a fan, lived and breathed Eisner's last years I just prefer me some vanilla at the moment and not more of that hot mess which was the early 2000s.

Iger has no personality. Even the people closest to him will tell you that (provided you don't name them, naturally).

He isn't a Rupert Murdoch or a Sumner Redstone or a Ted Turner or a Barry Diller ... in other words, he isn't a media mogul. He is a vanilla manager ... I could see him in a PBS interview saying he considers himself 'a custodian of the brand' ... Eisner could hold his own with the above names, but Iger is very content to let his people do their jobs (how's Rich Ross looking today, Bob?) and only make decisions that affect the bottom line.

He's completely risk averse, which is the opposite of Michael during the majority of his years with Disney. The biggest risk he took was buying Marvel and he could easily unload them in the future if he wanted (of course, he doesn't).

And I don't see him making another 'bold' move before he exits the company, which -- take it to the bank -- will be before 2016 when he's scheduled to leave.

~You want vanilla? I'll take pistachio myself!~

 

[AvengersWDW]

I think it is just that Eisner made THAT big of an impact on the company. And his decisions and leadership are still felt and talked about today. It also helps that his ouster from the company was perhaps one of the biggest CEO plunders of all time. It's just crazy that he went from being loved by all to being hated by so many during his tenure (or perhaps the love for Roy and the name Disney is what won out?)

Bob just hasn't made that big of an impact with TWDC. And the successes that HAVE been made within the company over the last 8 years, he hasn't aligned his name and face with them. He lets his department executives run things and doesn't seem to be comfortable with being the face and name of the company, or maybe he doesn't think it's important (I wrote a thesis on exactly why it is VERY important).

Simply put, Eisner was The Walt Disney Company. People knew who he was, recognized his face. The same cannot be said for Bobby...and he's 8 years into his tenure. I think that is why we still talk about Eisner and little is said of Iger.

Marvel and Pixar...enough said

 

[Skip]

Iger has no personality. Even the people closest to him will tell you that (provided you don't name them, naturally).

He isn't a Rupert Murdoch or a Sumner Redstone or a Ted Turner or a Barry Diller ... in other words, he isn't a media mogul. He is a vanilla manager ... I could see him in a PBS interview saying he considers himself 'a custodian of the brand' ... Eisner could hold his own with the above names, but Iger is very content to let his people do their jobs (how's Rich Ross looking today, Bob?) and only make decisions that affect the bottom line.

He's completely risk averse, which is the opposite of Michael during the majority of his years with Disney. The biggest risk he took was buying Marvel and he could easily unload them in the future if he wanted (of course, he doesn't).

And I don't see him making another 'bold' move before he exits the company, which -- take it to the bank -- will be before 2016 when he's scheduled to leave.

~You want vanilla? I'll take pistachio myself!~

I have to call shenanigans on that statement. Through a series of unlikely events I had the opportunity to meet and talk with someone who is in fact very close with Mr. Iger - and he noted that Iger was someone he considered his mentor, and someone he made time to talk with about things unrelated to business. If he had no personality I doubt that'd be the case, frankly. Do I find him as eccentric or as involved as Wells-era Eisner? No. Is he taking a lot of risks? Besides (debatably) Marvel, no. Is he making sure WDW, the flagship resort of the company, stays in pristine shape like its California cousin? Not really. But no personality? Very harsh, and seemingly untrue. He showed up in a bad situation (with Eisner, who the individual I talked with referred to as an "a-hole," burning bridges with key companies like Pixar) and course correcting, so to speak. I do wish he'd take more risks and have confidence/take greater pride in the parks.

On many levels I have to agree with edwardtc's post, though. Wall Street is so focused on the short term nowadays - long term investment that sucks up capital isn't typically seen as a good move. It makes it very hard for a business as atypical as show-focused theme parks seem appealing to investors. It's frustrating, and unfortunately, there's no easy answers. :shrug:

 

[SSE]

And I don't see him making another 'bold' move before he exits the company, which -- take it to the bank -- will be before 2016 when he's scheduled to leave.

Is there any news on when he might leave the company and who the replacement will be? I always hear its between Rasulo and Staggs. Since I don't follow the company too closely I don't what the opinion of Staggs is as head of Parks & Resorts, but I am opposed to Rasulo gaining the CEO position.

 

[NoChesterHester]

And I don't see him making another 'bold' move before he exits the company, which -- take it to the bank -- will be before 2016 when he's scheduled to leave.

Even as an outsider that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Any chance we get anyone other then the accountant as his successor?

 

[NoChesterHester]

Is there any news on when he might leave the company and who the replacement will be? I always hear its between Rasulo and Staggs. Since I don't follow the company too closely I don't what the opinion of Staggs is as head of Parks & Resorts, but I am opposed to Rasulo gaining the CEO position.

I really hope they go outside the company and pick a big dynamic personality again. The shareholders deserve some growth in their investment.

 

[Dragonrider1227]

I still say that they have forgotten the value of Walt Disney World as a television backdrop -- and hence, really forgotten how WDW and the parks in general (DL included) fit into the media conglomerate that is Disney.

From the day that Walt Disney opened his new weekly series, "Disneyland," from the steps of Main Street, USA, at his new park in 1955, the Disney parks have been integrally tied into the image and allure of television. It needs to be again. But I think that Iger and his friends sit up in Burbank (itself a television tourist mecca with NBC and Universal Hollywood nearby) and forget how the parks and live interaction with guests and television work such "brand" loyalty and "synergy" into their "product" so well.

It seems that he remembers that the company is a media giant, with television and "content" so important. But he seems to forget how the parks -- a truly interactive experience, as opposed to a virtual one -- connect with that.

WDW get more corporate love when they remember that connection.

Even Michael Eisner understood that. When Universal opened Harry Potter, NBC's Today Show broadcast live from it. Even they got it.

Disney still does some of this, but not enough. Can't you see "The Wonderful World of Disney" back with a new intro each week, from some relevant resort -- or "Adventures by Disney" -- location?

And for that matter, can't you see hosting even non-Disney shows, like Discovery Channel series, in Epcot or Animal Kingdom.

Bottom line is that the parks are (and always have been) integrally tied to the media, and Disney should remember that ... and then they will know what to do with them in a global media company.

Paul

You know, I was thinking the same thing recently. Barely anything on The Disney Channel ties with the parks and vice versa. They're are like, polar opposites of each other and the only time I really see Disney parks seriously integrated with TV its a Travel Channel special. Which is nice but not quite the same.

What if Walt had built the Viewliner at Disneyland and then left it rather than tear it out a year later and spend money on a monorail. The Viewliner was basically the monorail just running on rails on the ground, but Walt saw a technological advance in the monorail and tore it out and put in the monorail. Was it a waste of money?

I know, right? If they had done the exact same thing today, people would be screaming "NUUUU! THEY RUINED A CLASSIC!"

Absolutely. No one does it alone. Team effort.

Too true. Where could Walt have gone with his ideas without Roy or Ub?

 

[Unibits]

My thoughts

This has been a great topic. Many different views and each seems to have some merit. While I appreciate the positions of everyone, I would like to add a different view to the topic.....

As a CEO the biggest motivation is that simply of money. I really dont care how I get a result just that I get it. If the bar is set so that my bonus is x and I dont get there then I fail. The Board of Directors and stockholders see it as nothing more than I came up short. Bring a good result and suddenly I am everyone's hero. That is the bottom line here.

While in this uncertain era mainstream ideas are left behind in hopes that an obscure idea may be the next big thing. The idea that we can get ahead of the competition is a pipe dream. If Disney sneezes, the competition is there to wipe its nose. The internet and everyone who is looking to be the next hero is there for some glory. There is no way to hide from the competition. It is not 1980 anymore. The world moves at warp speed, even when we sleep. Just look at the monorail disaster. It was on youtube in about 30 minutes.

No company is immune from this fact. Our competitors watch everything we do. A secret is a secret until we try to develop it. While I do not agree with the current direction that the Disney company is going, as someone who 8 years ago could have really cared less and has been converted to a Disney lover, I have to say that with the exception of the situation of the parks everyone is doing the same thing. Trying to outdue the competition.

Hollywood can't come up with anything new to save itsself. Short of HP and Avatar, what really has been released that anyone could develop that will withstand a lifecycle of more than 2 years? Since the competion got HP and Disney got Avatar, I guess we call that a draw.........

I dont think there is enough landscape to have 2 superpowers in the "themepark and entertainment industry" For the longest time Disney has been on top. Perhaps it will change and then again maybe not. With change to the entertainment industry on the horizon it definately is a great time to go and see what is happening. Trying to pin the hopes of a company on Stags, Meg or any other executive is nothing more than everyone ensuring they have a scapegoat when things go wrong. Some said that no executive ever reacts quickly to a change. This much is true. Since only history can tell us who made the right decision, perhaps a change to the method is in order?

Why not ask the board of directors to add a clause to the contract with the new CEO that asks or says something about the overall feeling of the community that he is serving? Maybe a bonus related to each individual division. Then it would be easy to point out the shortcomings. Perhaps they should tell him how to feel, react and define the scope of the operations.... This second thought obviously cant happen.

The biggest fact that drives the operations is the bottom line. Since most of the people in North America carry more debt to live than our parents, not many of us are in a place where we can comment. How can we expect a business to spend more than it has, to the tune of hundreds of millions, to simply entertain us. It just does not make sense. Entertainment is, while important, just that entertainment. In hard times we all know that food on the table is more important than the promise of the "check is in the mail".

While no CEO will make the decision we all want and hope for, the state of the parks and Disney company is pretty good. The company to date has stood the test of time. Although the world has changed in ways that Walt never considered, movies are released, sports hit the airwaves, soap operas entertain some and more important Mickey Mouse stands tall and is always there should we have both the time and money to go see him. The spending power of our dollar is less than it ever was, we are in debt up to our eyeballs and we complain they are not doing enough.

I for one am happy that it grows at a slow sustained pace that can continue to stand the test of time.

Just my .02


Thanks for listening! See you all in November~!

 

[WDW1974]

I have to call shenanigans on that statement. Through a series of unlikely events I had the opportunity to meet and talk with someone who is in fact very close with Mr. Iger - and he noted that Iger was someone he considered his mentor, and someone he made time to talk with about things unrelated to business. If he had no personality I doubt that'd be the case, frankly.

Skip, I don't doubt that someone who calls Iger 'my mentor' would paint a more positive picture of the man. In that person's view, it may well be true. But it in no way changes or diminishes what others who have to work with/for the man have said. And their opinions are much less flattering. He's never exactly been loved in the business, but since he fired D-I-C-K Cook after using him 48 hours earlier to play to the fanbois at D23, most people in the industry view him much as they did Eisner in his last 5-6 years at TWDC.

Do I find him as eccentric or as involved as Wells-era Eisner? No. Is he taking a lot of risks? Besides (debatably) Marvel, no. Is he making sure WDW, the flagship resort of the company, stays in pristine shape like its California cousin? Not really. But no personality? Very harsh, and seemingly untrue. He showed up in a bad situation (with Eisner, who the individual I talked with referred to as an "a-hole," burning bridges with key companies like Pixar) and course correcting, so to speak. I do wish he'd take more risks and have confidence/take greater pride in the parks.

All I can say is I've heard that word used to describe any/every one in a powerful position in the entertainment industry (and myself too!:king and it has about as much meaning as a teen using the 'f' word ...

On many levels I have to agree with edwardtc's post, though. Wall Street is so focused on the short term nowadays - long term investment that sucks up capital isn't typically seen as a good move. It makes it very hard for a business as atypical as show-focused theme parks seem appealing to investors. It's frustrating, and unfortunately, there's no easy answers. :shrug:

I think Wall Street can be put at bay to some degree (although our great national Ponzi scheme still exerts far too much pressure on corporations) but you need to have a powerful visionary leadership (Steve Jobs anyone?) to do it. You can't do it with the personality of Vanilla when you need Chunky Monkey.

~Could go for ice cream now~

 

[WDW1974]

Is there any news on when he might leave the company and who the replacement will be? I always hear its between Rasulo and Staggs. Since I don't follow the company too closely I don't what the opinion of Staggs is as head of Parks & Resorts, but I am opposed to Rasulo gaining the CEO position.

Possibly as soon as late next year or early 2014.

Rasulo will not replace him. Staggs seems to be getting groomed for the top spot. I really don't have much of an opinion on him yet ...

~Sharona or Natalie?~

 

[WDW1974]

Even as an outsider that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Any chance we get anyone other then the accountant as his successor?

Disney likes to stick with people 'on the team' in situations like this ... it's 'safer' that way -- unfortunately.

~It's a jungle out there!~

 

[NoChesterHester]

Disney likes to stick with people 'on the team' in situations like this ... it's 'safer' that way -- unfortunately.

~It's a jungle out there!~

Not like they have had that many since 1966...

In 1984 hired an outsider and embarked on a period of huge growth.

Hopefully they can capture lightning again. Or the accountant turns out to be sharper then expected.

 

[Scuttle]

Not like they have had that many since 1966...

In 1984 hired an outsider and embarked on a period of huge growth.

Hopefully they can capture lightning again. Or the accountant turns out to be sharper then expected.

I seriously hope they go outside the company as well unless it's Lasseter, but I think we all know that ain't gonna happen. Any BIG personalities that would be a good fit for the company and that would be fully invested?