A Spirited Perfect Ten

[ford91exploder]

And repairing the relationship with Pixar, completing their purchase after the preceding regime totally soured the relationship.

And making two of the smartest, most profitable buys of all time that every other studio in the world is insanely jealous of - Marvel and Star Wars.

Oh, and not to mention the rousing success of DCA 2.0 and he is now shepherding a financial investment in WDW that we haven't seen in decades.

Seriously, if people want to complain about him, so be it - but the ignoring of reality does nothing but take away from any valid point that may be made about him.

By point

1 - Absolutely true

2 - It's not like there was a bidding war NOBODY wanted Marvel and it was a means to poke Comcast in the Eye by denying them the use of marvel characters worldwide, Lucasfilm was a licensing goldmine but once again there was no bidding war and frankly I think TWDC overpaid for Lucasfilm.

3 - DCA 2.0 - That was planned and greenlit under Eisner with the exception of Carsland which happened because Lasseter used every ounce of political pull he had to make it happen.

Iger has spent tens of billions buying back stock to artificially pump the EPS and yet he's only increased market cap by 63%, Once again his only real achievement is an artificially inflated share price.

 

[AEfx]

By point

1 - Absolutely true

2 - It's not like there was a bidding war NOBODY wanted Marvel and it was a means to poke Comcast in the Eye by denying them the use of marvel characters worldwide, Lucasfilm was a licensing goldmine but once again there was no bidding war and frankly I think TWDC overpaid for Lucasfilm.

You are correct, there was no bidding war for Marvel, and that's why his purchase was so brilliant, because - look what it turned into (a massively prolific live action film franchise unlike anything Disney has had before). That's called vision.

As to Lucasfilm, by the time all is said and done with TFA, between the theatrical gross, home release, and all the assorted merchandise (from licensing fees on a $2 box of crackers to adult collectibles costing thousands of dollars), it's very likely that by the time Episode VIII hits, the overall Lucasfilm deal will have virtually paid for itself. At the very least, by the time Episode IX comes 'round. That makes everything else gravy.

3 - DCA 2.0 - That was planned and greenlit under Eisner with the exception of Carsland which happened because Lasseter used every ounce of political pull he had to make it happen.

Yet, Carsland - approved under Iger - and by far the crown jewel of the project. And again, we can't forget the several billion bucks that are about to be dumped into WDW - you know, the one that was made when some of the "experts" in this very thread were predicting he was only in town to "approve some new cupcake designs or something".

Iger has spent tens of billions buying back stock to artificially pump the EPS and yet he's only increased market cap by 63%, Once again his only real achievement is an artificially inflated share price.

This is where you lose me. If you have criticisms about stock buy backs, fine - but taking it to the "only real achievement" part just makes it sound like silly ranting because clearly we have demonstrated how in fact he has had many successes that will be ensuring Disney's profitability for at least the next couple of decades.

 

[ford91exploder]

You are correct, there was no bidding war for Marvel, and that's why his purchase was so brilliant, because - look what it turned into (a massively prolific live action film franchise unlike anything Disney has had before). That's called vision.

As to Lucasfilm, by the time all is said and done with TFA, between the theatrical gross, home release, and all the assorted merchandise (from licensing fees on a $2 box of crackers to adult collectibles costing thousands of dollars), it's very likely that by the time Episode VIII hits, the overall Lucasfilm deal will have virtually paid for itself. At the very least, by the time Episode IX comes 'round. That makes everything else gravy.



Yet, Carsland - approved under Iger - and by far the crown jewel of the project. And again, we can't forget the several billion bucks that are about to be dumped into WDW - you know, the one that was made when some of the "experts" in this very thread were predicting he was only in town to "approve some new cupcake designs or something".



This is where you lose me. If you have criticisms about stock buy backs, fine - but taking it to the "only real achievement" part just makes it sound like silly ranting because clearly we have demonstrated how in fact he has had many successes that will be ensuring Disney's profitability for at least the next couple of decades.

Disney is not in a good position right now

1 - It's numbers save attendance at the parks are going sideways (i.e. no topline growth)
2 - Cable networks are starting to lose subscribers
3 - Cable networks have no captive distribution channels
4 - Compared to comparables TWDC has very little cash on hand
5 - Much of the so called 'value' of the company is totally dependent on the stock price.

It's not going to take much of a macroeconomic headwind to put TWDC into a sharp decline that or a couple of failed tentpoles

Other than treasury stock Disney's only real assets are the land owned by P&R, Some broadcast facilities and the cruise ships plus whatever their back catalog is worth.

Iger's great mistake was to assume that cable revenues will continue to expand forever

 

[PhotoDave219]

Disney is not in a good position right now

1 - It's numbers save attendance at the parks are going sideways (i.e. no topline growth)
2 - Cable networks are starting to lose subscribers
3 - Cable networks have no captive distribution channels
4 - Compared to comparables TWDC has very little cash on hand
5 - Much of the so called 'value' of the company is totally dependent on the stock price.

It's not going to take much of a macroeconomic headwind to put TWDC into a sharp decline that or a couple of failed tentpoles

Other than treasury stock Disney's only real assets are the land owned by P&R, Some broadcast facilities and the cruise ships plus whatever their back catalog is worth.

Iger's great mistake was to assume that cable revenues will continue to expand forever

There's no way in hell TFA will fail financially.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Disney is not in a good position right now

1 - It's numbers save attendance at the parks are going sideways (i.e. no topline growth)
2 - Cable networks are starting to lose subscribers
3 - Cable networks have no captive distribution channels
4 - Compared to comparables TWDC has very little cash on hand
5 - Much of the so called 'value' of the company is totally dependent on the stock price.

It's not going to take much of a macroeconomic headwind to put TWDC into a sharp decline that or a couple of failed tentpoles

Other than treasury stock Disney's only real assets are the land owned by P&R, Some broadcast facilities and the cruise ships plus whatever their back catalog is worth.

Iger's great mistake was to assume that cable revenues will continue to expand forever

An aspect folks don't seem to understand about Bob's "smart" acquisitions, referring just to Marvel and Lucasfilm (or maker) here, is that they're shiny distractions from the fact that post ABC-CapCities, DIS is a cable and theme parks company and as you point out growth is just ok to meh. This company hasn't grown organically in a long time and these shiny toys are Bob's way of compensating for it.

I exclude Pixar because the company had no choice and it was an ESSENTIAL acquisition. As has been stated many times, Animation is the heart of Disney, or should I say the BRAND, and the Feature Animation division was burned to the ground after years and years of mismanagement and the decision to kill hand drawn animation. (Personally, I think Harvard MBA David Stainton, the man who shut down hand drawn animation in the 00's, took too much of the blame while the fellows who greenlit the flops and created internal problems like Tom Schumaker got a pass.)

 

[the.dreamfinder]

There's no way in hell TFA will fail financially.

If you are using Wall St.'s yardstick of $2 billion worldwide, yes it can.

 

[ford91exploder]

If you are using Wall St.'s yardstick of $2 billion worldwide, yes it can.

Even worse is the fact that TFA MUST exceed 2 Billion or it will be SEEN as a failure by Wall St even though by all objective standards it exceeding 1 Billion would be a runaway success for any other film property.

 

[Lee]

Not only do you know it was pulled by Willow, but also that she did so at the behest of Bob and Zenia? Did she make her nefarious, interest-conflicting motive public? Did she confide in people? Did she leave a written track record of this information, that would be highly damaging to both her and her husband's career?
Or is that all just guesswork from 'credible sources'? If they are sitting on a smoking gun, hard evidence, then why don't they act on it?

I am in the end not unwilling to believe the article was pulled at Willow's request, or even while acting at the behest of TWDC, but that is still nothing irregular. The motive could still be journalistic shortcomings on the part of the author. Who reports that and with which ulterior motive is not relevant to the quality standards and journalistic integrity of HuffPo or Willow.

If that article was removed for reasons of censorship, surely the author would protest? Somewhere, at some point? His utter lack of protest is still the main argument nothing nefarious happened.

And this is not a budding inconsequential reporter. This is a billionaire heir close to the heart of one of the world's greatest media conglomerates, and a sworn enemy of TWDC at that.

Also, Huff staff have a long, proud history of getting up in arms over infringements of their editorial liberty. Why are they silent too?


Are all sources perhaps circle-quoting each other? Sources at the HuffPo repeating rumours they heard from outside, only to in turn pass these on to outside sources again, who now by having their own rumours 'confirmed' think the rumours originate from within?

I have lots of things I'd rather be doing today, so I'll keep this quick and simple.

I was told the entire sordid tale by someone close to the situation. Someone in a position to know who said/did what and what their motivations were/are.

I can't speak for the "billionaire heir" as to how he handled the situation. Nor can I explain why the blowback on Willow wasn't more substantial, despite the efforts of many (both inside and outside of USC) to hold her accountable.

My only intent is to establish what I know to be the facts if that whole mess.

 

[Lee]

I think the admin are quite well aware of who has multiple accounts. If it's obvious to anyone who looks even a few inches under the surface, with the IP data they have I'm sure it's even easier. As the same who gets a pass on all the other moderation rules, I'd assume that's why that rule doesn't seem to apply to them, either.

I can say with some certainty, and I'm sure @wdwmagic will back me up on this, that neither myself, Spirit or (since he has been vocal here) @the.dreamfinder are here under multiple accounts.

Like-minded doesn't equate to being the same person.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Hey @ParentsOf4 , what percentage of Disney stock is now held directly by the company after all these buybacks?

That's true ONLY if the company cancels them, What usually happens is they become a balance sheet asset known as 'Treasury Shares' these can be re-issued.

According to its most recent earnings report, Disney retained 1.2 billion shares of treasury stock, valued on the books at cost: $47.2 billion.

On that same report, Disney reported 1.7 billion shares of publically held common stock. Current market cap is $193.8 billion.

For some perspective, Disney's physical assets (parks, resorts & other property, attractions, buildings, and equipment) are carried on the books at cost: $42.7 billion, with land valued at an additional $1.3 billion.

 

[Darth Sidious]

 

[doctornick]

money wise, he might be amazing (for the top investors and those who get compensation based on stock value).
The rest of us? not so much.

There is a lot of stuff that Disney under Iger has done that I, as a consumer, love and have enjoyed. I'm not happy with how the parks, especially WDW, have functioned during his leadership, but it's unfair to paint with such a broad brush and act like TWDC hasn't generated a ton of creative and well regarded products in recent years.

 

[BrianLo]

Iger's ONLY achievement has been pumping the stock price, Eisner grew the company 800% from start to end, Iger has grown the company by 63% But under Eisner the stock valuations were not inflated as they are now.

Despite inheriting the #1 theme parks in the United States (and the World), Eisner grew Disney's domestic Parks & Resorts revenue by over 650%, and total Parks & Resorts revenue by over 800%.

Kinda makes Iger's 62% domestic and 67% total seem paltry, doesn't it?

Now before you assume otherwise, I'm not intending to come to the rescue of Iger on this one. I assume those percentages are coming from @ParentsOf4, whom I've quoted above for ease. I wanted to point out those percentages you are quoting are P&R revenue growth, not company-wide revenue growth. I have no idea what those would be (but I've conveniently flagged someone whom I guarantee does).


I really dislike those percentages. It's a very, very disingenuous way of conflating numbers to get a reaction.

Let's work the math backwards (because I do not actually know the precise numbers), based on this fiscal year (16.126 billion). Iger grew total P&R revenue by approximately 6.25 billion over 10 years, MDE grew total P&R revenue by approximately 8.5 billion over 21 years (or a hair over 4 billion averaged over each decade). The other 1.35 billion or so comes from their predecessors.

The first example claims MDE's performance was nearly 6x better than Iger for P&R growth (or 12x as its presented, which ignores length of CEO tenure). The second example claims Iger's performance is 1.5x better than MDE.

Obviously both are total exaggerations and completely ignore so many other factors. The TRUE reality of their performance lies somewhere in between. I don't like when numbers are massaged (or in this case abused) to make a sensationalist point.

If I had to share my personal opinion MDE's 1st decade > Iger's decade > MDE's 2nd decade (especially from a declining quality perspective). But that's highly, highly subjective. Numbers aren't the infallible answer either and I suspect we'll never reach truly factual consensus on this one.

 

[AEfx]

I can say with some certainty, and I'm sure @wdwmagic will back me up on this, that neither myself, Spirit or (since he has been vocal here) @the.dreamfinder are here under multiple accounts.

Like-minded doesn't equate to being the same person.

I'm well aware you are not, nor implied that "like minded" would mean so.

But when the same username makes the same typographical accents, seemingly gets confused as to what account they are in at the time (then conveniently goes and edits) and goes so far as to have transparently fake conversations with themselves, yeah - it does lead one to have such suspicions. Particularly when even those who are publicly friendly with such admit privately that they have severe...issues, in addition to the extreme instability shown in front of everyone.

 

[AEfx]

Disney is not in a good position right now

1 - It's numbers save attendance at the parks are going sideways (i.e. no topline growth)
2 - Cable networks are starting to lose subscribers
3 - Cable networks have no captive distribution channels
4 - Compared to comparables TWDC has very little cash on hand
5 - Much of the so called 'value' of the company is totally dependent on the stock price.

It's not going to take much of a macroeconomic headwind to put TWDC into a sharp decline that or a couple of failed tentpoles

Other than treasury stock Disney's only real assets are the land owned by P&R, Some broadcast facilities and the cruise ships plus whatever their back catalog is worth.

Iger's great mistake was to assume that cable revenues will continue to expand forever

While cord-cutting is definitely a "thing" among a certain segment, it's also true that it's been overblown by the media when you look at the actual numbers. In any case, that's why Disney is exploring things like providing ESPN directly to consumers and eliminating the cable companies. Like HBO, and others, Disney is well on their way to simply cutting the cable company out of the picture and selling direct to consumers. That makes the cable company the losers, not the content providers.

In any case, "whatever their back catalog is worth", that you so casually dismiss, is the greatest collection of IP known to man, which has greatly expanded and diversified under Iger.

The Walt Disney Company is poised to be the top live action studio (if not this year, next year), after being #2 for the past several years, mainly based on Marvel. Once Star Wars is in rotation? Fuggedaboutit.

Like I said, when you make concluding statements that, frankly, just don't make sense or follow the facts, it takes away from whatever criticism you have that seems to revolve around stock buy-backs.

 

[BrianLo]

But when the same username makes the same typographical accents, seemingly gets confused as to what account they are in at the time (then conveniently goes and edits) and goes so far as to have transparently fake conversations with themselves, yeah - it does lead one to have such suspicions.

I may be totally daft (hopefully not the only one here), but whom exactly are you accusing?

 

[AEfx]

I have lots of things I'd rather be doing today, so I'll keep this quick and simple.

I was told the entire sordid tale by someone close to the situation. Someone in a position to know who said/did what and what their motivations were/are.

I can't speak for the "billionaire heir" as to how he handled the situation. Nor can I explain why the blowback on Willow wasn't more substantial, despite the efforts of many (both inside and outside of USC) to hold her accountable.

My only intent is to establish what I know to be the facts if that whole mess.

Then it's also pertinent to note that the "article" - written in highly inflammatory, anti-journalistic language - was written by a member of the Redstone family, who owns Viacom, a direct competitor of Disney. Given how much of the "article" was actually conjecture and opinion, and almost read like a message board rant, in spite of what I do not doubt you were told by "someone close" to the situation - leaving out these vital facts when this gets regurgitated does a disservice to people coming up with their own critical thinking conclusions.

Personally, given how much wealth and power that the writer has access to, if it truly were such a "le scandale" - something tells me by now we would have heard more about it when, as far as I can tell, the only place anyone seems to give a turd are in this thread.

 

[TalkingHead]

Just saw a Kay Jewelers commercial for Star Wars bracelet charms.

Where's the Patrick Stewart facepalm when you need it?

 

[Andrew C]

Just saw a Kay Jewelers commercial for Star Wars bracelet charms.

Where's the Patrick Stewart facepalm when you need it?

That's interesting as Kay does not sell pandora charms. You figure Pandora would have the exclusive rights for these.

 

[Nubs70]

Just saw a Kay Jewelers commercial for Star Wars bracelet charms.

Where's the Patrick Stewart facepalm when you need it?

Heck, I saw advertisements for Star Wars branded Campbell's Soup.

But then again, my wife just bought me the Vader PS4 for Christmas.