A Spirited Perfect Ten

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Wait...so you aren't curious as the the Redstone family stake in this incident...you are only concerned with Iger having the piece pulled? That seems unusually one-sided. I know you don't like Iger, but what was the author up to in his articles. Why was he picking a fight? Is he trying to damage Iger's job, or is advocating for a job for himself. Is he trying to make disney vulnerable to a take over?

The story is a lot bigger than why it got pulled, but you wrote a lot of words on that aspect only. Both parts are important, but it looks like Viacom threw the first punch...why?

Viacom is a very successful media company which has strong organic growth, I've suspected for a LONG time TWDC is lot weaker than it looks and would be MUCH more valuable if broken up and components sold to highest bidder, Viacom would love to add ESPN or Marvel to their stable.
 

Lee

Adventurer
Wait...so you aren't curious as the the Redstone family stake in this incident...you are only concerned with Iger having the piece pulled? That seems unusually one-sided. I know you don't like Iger, but what was the author up to in his articles. Why was he picking a fight? Is he trying to damage Iger's job, or is advocating for a job for himself. Is he trying to make disney vulnerable to a take over?

The story is a lot bigger than why it got pulled, but you wrote a lot of words on that aspect only. Both parts are important, but it looks like Viacom threw the first punch...why?
Excellent point.
Lots of interesting angles at play here.

The article being pulled is, among other things, evidence that what was being said is (at least to some degree) accurate. That's the importance of it being pulled.

The who and why of it....that is interesting. But from a Disney fan aspect...not the most important thing.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
Viacom is a very successful media company which has strong organic growth, I've suspected for a LONG time TWDC is lot weaker than it looks and would be MUCH more valuable if broken up and components sold to highest bidder, Viacom would love to add ESPN or Marvel to their stable.

well...who wouldn't. But TWDC is in no imminent danger of being broken up. Viacom is far more vulnerable at this point. Yes, NICK and MTV are finally growing again after years of decline and Paramount has stabilized the ship after losing the Marvel pics, but Viacom has no clear succession plan and the ownership is a mess when Sumner dies.

Viacom could have happily been the Marvel owner, but they didn't bite when they had a chance.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
Excellent point.
Lots of interesting angles at play here.

The article being pulled is, among other things, evidence that what was being said is (at least to some degree) accurate. That's the importance of it being pulled.

The who and why of it....that is interesting. But from a Disney fan aspect...not the most important thing.

I would say from a Disney Parks fan maybe, but from a business perspective the original intent is just as important as the article and it being pulled. This board sometimes focuses too heavily on items reinforcing the collective opinion and ignores competing viewpoints. (Either you hate Iger or you are a plant, Norway can't have Frozen or you hate Epcot and have no taste)

A rival business owner taking such an unprofessional jab at Iger and TWDC twice, that says a lot. Especially when Viacom is vulnerable and the analysts have been beating up on the company for years. It could be as simple as trying to pull focus away from Viacom's succession woes as the Staggs announcement seemed to re-ignite concern over Viacom's future.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
This may be the BEST post on this whole topic.

For a guy who is supposed to be so smart, so savvy, so better than all of us, he doesn't even get basic concepts now that he just empowered the writer by telling people ''there's nothing to look at here folks, move along'' ... Tell me, how does that usually play out in life? The story would likely have been dead in 48-72 hours except, perhaps, in places like Wall Street lunches and forums like this. Now?

So, he's a big tech guy and he knows about as much about technology and social media as he does about operating in China. Yep. He's worth every penny. Remember: Star Wars Land coming in 2098!
This is happening in a lot of companies who refuse to recognize the business changes of social media and the internet. My daughter left a well known news magazine because they refused to recognize that a younger generation prefers to get their news on the web, not printed. But her graphic work lives on as she created their latest "award" logo. And people are still buying their print editions of college rankings, because looking at lists is still easier in a hard copy format.
 

Lee

Adventurer
I would say from a Disney Parks fan maybe, but from a business perspective the original intent is just as important as the article and it being pulled. This board sometimes focuses too heavily on items reinforcing the collective opinion and ignores competing viewpoints. (Either you hate Iger or you are a plant, Norway can't have Frozen or you hate Epcot and have no taste)

A rival business owner taking such an unprofessional jab at Iger and TWDC twice, that says a lot. Especially when Viacom is vulnerable and the analysts have been beating up on the company for years. It could be as simple as trying to pull focus away from Viacom's succession woes as the Staggs announcement seemed to re-ignite concern over Viacom's future.
How were those two articles "unprofessional jabs"?
They seemed like perfectly reasonable and well written pieces to me.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
well...who wouldn't. But TWDC is in no imminent danger of being broken up. Viacom is far more vulnerable at this point. Yes, NICK and MTV are finally growing again after years of decline and Paramount has stabilized the ship after losing the Marvel pics, but Viacom has no clear succession plan and the ownership is a mess when Sumner dies.

Viacom could have happily been the Marvel owner, but they didn't bite when they had a chance.

Viacom has a very unusual structure, the Redstone family owns the controlling interest in VIACOM so KKR could come and buy ALL the outstanding shares on the market and still not gain control of VIACOM unless the family chose to agree.

Sumner is a money guy who makes smart long term investments, Yes he could have purchased Marvel but why compete in a bidding war with TWDC, Let TWDC overpay and when they stumble and need cash he'll pick it up for pennies on the dollar.

Succession is indeed a mess at Viacom however that does not change the absolute lock on the company the Redstone family has and Shari is more than capable of assuming her fathers mantle, Brent not so much but part of the problem is Sumner himself as he will not step aside and let someone else run 'his' company.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
How were those two articles "unprofessional jabs"?
They seemed like perfectly reasonable and well written pieces to me.

I think that proves my point, there was at least one personal jab at Iger in each article. Commenting on his appearance or personality that demonstrated that the author wasn't reporting but stating his personal dislike for Iger. You may agree with his opinions (I agree with some of his observations as well), but his article would have been more effective if he had left out the unprofessional and person comments on Iger out of it and focused on the facts.

Honestly, if he would have written the articles closer to @ParentsOf4 style it would have been much better. @ParentsOf4 is able to professionally criticize Iger and TWDC in a manner that is much more effective while also still making it clear that he is utilizing facts and data that support his opinion and he doesn't have to resort to personal attacks to do it. You can tell Po4 does this type of analysis and commentary for a living.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
Viacom has a very unusual structure, the Redstone family owns the controlling interest in VIACOM so KKR could come and buy ALL the outstanding shares on the market and still not gain control of VIACOM unless the family chose to agree.

Sumner is a money guy who makes smart long term investments, Yes he could have purchased Marvel but why compete in a bidding war with TWDC, Let TWDC overpay and when they stumble and need cash he'll pick it up for pennies on the dollar.

Succession is indeed a mess at Viacom however that does not change the absolute lock on the company the Redstone family has and Shari is more than capable of assuming her fathers mantle, Brent not so much but part of the problem is Sumner himself as he will not step aside and let someone else run 'his' company.

I don't disagree...I can't imagine anyone would try and do a hostile takeover of Viacom anytime soon. Viacom and CBS are the smallest of the major media companies at this point, even together they only have a market cap of 60B (nearly 30B each). The ever-shrinking Time Warner is still ~70B and Disney and Comcast are well above that and stable.

But Viacom and CBS being so 'small' and still so important is the reason most analysts thing that Viacom and CBS are better together in todays environment and continue to speculate that either would be better with a bigger more powerful partner if they don't get back together.

For the record, I can't imagine that TWDC would chase any component of Viacom or CBS. Which is why it is so odd to me that a Redstone took such an odd jab at Iger.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
What a frigid and utterly bizarre day in the Disney UNIverse. Truly.

I know I said recently that I wasn't going to talk about China for a while, for personal reasons (nothing Disney related), but when Bob Iger uses his wife's position as a board member at the Huffington Post to get a story (an Op-Ed at that) pulled from the site because of ... well, I'll talk about my suspicions in a bit, I just have to pipe in.

Censorship makes me sick. You know how I get when Marcia takes away my fanboi jokes!

First, although I wouldn't claim the HuffPo is a great news outlet by any means, this is a prime example of how powerful people influence the media and what you get to read about and see. And it happens every day, all across this country.

Second, it was confirmed to me that Willow Bay, indeed, had the story pulled (thru an intermediary, naturally, as one must have a fall person). That is sickening beyond belief because not only does she have a Weatherman for a husband, but she is head of the prestigious USC Annenberg School of Journalism (where two nights ago she conducted a seminar with none other than her husband as the guest).

One must wonder what exactly was so damaging to Bob/Disney's dealings in China that he was willing to put his wife's reputation and position on the line and take on a member of the Redstone family to do it. People outside of the media may not understand, but the Redstone family controls/owns the majority of the Viacom and CBS corps. and will do so for the next two generations unless they decide to sell. Bob Iger is simply Disney's highest manager, a CEO who owns nothing but a chunk of stock to make sure his family will live lavishly for the next two generations. That's a big difference.

So, what exactly was it that Bob doesn't want you or, much more likely, Wall Street analysts to read so badly?

I have a few theories (not in any particular order):

1.) There's been a lot of talk about Viacom being acquired by other companies (again, this can not happen without Redstone family approval, no matter the wishes of stockholders, Wall Street or anyone else). What if Viacom is pursuing one of Disney's BRANDS? Recall all the talk when Disney was just looking into shopping a portion of P&R around. What if Viacom wants ESPN or Marvel?;

2.) The story deftly mentions the huge issue of graft and how the Communist Party is dealing with it (hint: lots of firing squads). It is on the news in China nightly and they have even gone after their own top companies and celebrities (the NYT had a story on this last week). Now, where did that $800 million dollars go because it sure didn't go into added attractions for SDL. Just to be clear: Iger is lying when he says so.;

3.) Disney isn't known much on the mainland and Bob doesn't want people to know back home that no one there is clamoring for Mickey Mouse or Buzz Lightyear or even The Sheep from Mary Poppins (yes, Disney announced a little bit about SDL's Garden of the 12 Friends last Friday and completely buried it in the USA).;

4.) Is it just a matter of Bob's pride being hurt because Disney, as the author pointed out, may have been in Hong Kong longer than the company has had theme parks, yet Viacom properties like Spongebob and Dora are far more widely seen on children and their clothing, toys etc. That's in an area that was a British colony when plans for HKDL started. An area where Disney has been very much in the public eye. The biggest film at the box office in the mainland last year? Not Frozen. Not a Disney release. Not a Chinese film. But Paramount's Transformers (again, owned by Viacom). It was also No. 1 in HK, by the way. I believe it is the top grossing film of all-time in the mainland, but I'm too lazy to check right now;

5.)Is it just CEO jealousy and pettiness? Viacom was the first western media company to gain a foothold in the mainland when China began opening itself up. The Chinese love characters like Sumner Redstone. They don't like tightly wound American business suits like Bob Iger. (I know a bit more about this subject because I have worked and lived over there).

I don't know why the column was pulled. My source doesn't either. Something really bothered Bob (which puts a huge smile on my face because any discomfort brought to that man sorta makes me happy!) I've read it over a few times and really am not sure what exactly it was because, frankly, there is so much more to Disney's dealings over there that could be said and wasn't.

But if I were Bob, I sure as hell wouldn't get into a urinating contest with a member of that family, let alone while using his wife's position to do so. Stuff like that is just asking for trouble. If I were one of the kewl kids here, I might put a popcorn chomping smiley up. But I'm not. But I think something big started today. Very big.
Could the $800MM "Investment" in extra "Attractions" earn Bob an FCPA award?
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
More weirdness on the business side of this. Yesterday an OpEd talking about Iger messing up China. Today an article in the The Hollywood Reporter on how fickle chinese financing is...with an interesting little tag: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-hollywoods-disappearing-chinese-773526

"The expectation continues to be that China will enter the U.S. market not in a minority position but with a major buy. Lionsgate, along with MGM, seem all but ripe. Then there are the big kahunas: the ailing Sony or Paramount post-Sumner Redstone."

Maybe the dig wasn't at Iger as personally as we think, but at attracting a Chinese buyer for Viacom?
 

COProgressFan

Well-Known Member
What gets me about this HuffPo issue, is why are execs of multi-billion dollar global corporations so touchy? Bob has had smoke blown up his behind in the press for years and years...its been nearly all praise....and one or two critical articles come out and he's that upset by it? So upset that he has his wife get the articles pulled?

Are the egos really that fragile?

I would contend that someone who holds that much power and is so sensitive to a few critical pieces may not be suitable for the job. Honestly. Get over it.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
I thought the overall state of the resort in January was pretty much status quo from an operational perspective when compared to my visits in recent years. Some things better (Dinosaur, Festival of the Lion King, & IllumiNations pop to mind), some things worse (Pirates continues it freefall and Space Mountain already has many of the sound and lighting "enhancements" from the last refurb not working). The only attraction that seems to hold a consistent high level of quality from year to year is Haunted Mansion. Splash was down in January but was as good as it has been in quite a while in November; but, that was after many years of being in poor shape.

Of course we could also talk about the "minusing" of things like the poor Polynesian with its spacious new lobby and wonderful beach side views of the Seven Seas Lagoon (if you are in a bungalow).

While I love construction walls (I really do, as they really are sign of improvement/change), I hate that some of the construction walls go up and stay up for varying lengths depending on the budgets and operational decisions (cough Hub refurb). There doesn't seem to the same level of urgency to get on with the show that there once was in decades pasts.

Also, the shuttering of things (attractions, restaurants, etc) and no talk of immediate replacement is an ever increasing factor. It use to be where one "seasonal" shutter would put up red flags. Now, things get closed and there is no guarantee that any sign of life is on the horizon - other than vague promises.

My biggest concern in my yearly visits is what I see happening to the poor Cast Members morale. Their performance has really been impacted. In my conversations with them, I have consistently found they are beat down by the ever increasing crowds combined with the ever increasing displeasure with MM+. It's this morale that I secretly wonder is also contributing to overall cleanliness and maintenance. Well, that and budget cuts. Gotta pay the price for the One Band to Rule Them All.

So, for me at least. WDW is still the same as it has been for the last several years. Same decline. Some signs of bright spots on the horizon; but, no sign of any impending relief to the systemic issues causing the decline. If the bright spots on the horizon come and do nothing more than bring more guests to the property, then I'm afraid the slide will continue.

funny you mention haunted mansion. I had 4 doombuggies fail badly in one of my last days.
they failed, and failed, and failed.. they had to put a mark with fluorecent marker so they knew which ones to skip in the queue.
There were some lengthy waits until one was "broken" to let the kids and parent free from the protection mechanism that locked them inside before leaving the loading area.
the first day was perfect.. nothing failed.

as for CMS, I have a friend who works at Epcot, and he says he absolutely HATES MM+. Fastpass is a nightmare to manage and reservations too.
if a single system goes down, it takes the entire resort system as well.
I seen no less than 4 crashes on the 15th of feb 2015.
one of them wiped my FP+ clean.
 

Expo_Seeker40

Well-Known Member
Fortunately, I have a copy of the article Gary Snyder wrote because I believe in copying and pasting things just in case. Here it is below:


"Sorry Mickey, they're just not that into you. Minnie, you either.

For that matter, you can take the whole stable -- the "Fab Five" of Walt Disney's animated creations -- and, despite a media machine that churns a very different story, China has largely been a land where the fabled wishes, dreams and magic of the Walt Disney Company and its brand have virtually no connection with the consumer. As valued as that consumer is in the economic theater of globalism, the iconic brand synonymous with America has little appeal and less traction among the newly seated audience in the Chinese mainland.

To its 'vanilla on toothpaste' helmsman, Robert A. "Bob" Iger, who has shown himself to be an able cobbler of assets but a less than visionary leader of the media colossus that is the Walt Disney Company, this troubling if known and growing headwind threatens to undermine the content-heavy but culturally aloof purveyor of demographically unshackled product. For in his zeal to expand its library of content, Bob Iger has drop-kicked the Disney moniker to enter new and expanding marketplaces only to position a product that runs well afar of the expectation of the Disney bounce.

In so doing, the once unrivaled status of the Disney brand has become a catch-all for entertainment and its associated byproducts that are increasingly a strange and sometimes conflicted ragbag of franchised acquisitions presented as some sort of media mélange for all ages and all palates. Or, as John Dreyer, the longtime and immediate past head of corporate communications for the Walt Disney Company, said upon the publication of the column Disney CEO Readies Magic Carpet for Exit, "Disney losing its Disney way."

With the company making its grandest play for a market that dwarfs all others, Disney has found itself adrift in a crisis of identity that breaches the foundation of the castle upon which an empire was built. For as turrets were raised, wings were added and a moat of meticulously positioned whimsy was filled in to expand the Disney footprint, something that looks decidedly more pedestrian than the fantastical inspiration for one of the world's most coveted brands has emerged.

Leverage has become the arch of entry into the Disney-verse, while the brand has been marginalized into a holding vehicle for assets that are worth more separately than that vested in the castle itself.

As Mr. Iger said at the 2013 Fortune Global Forum held in Chengdu:

I think the first thing you have to do is you have to obviously be aware of what your most significant brand attributes are. What makes your brand your brand? Why is it great? You have to focus on quality and on those attributes that, again, created the value in the first place. You can't look to cut corners. You can't look to make something with your brand on it that's any cheaper simply because it's going into a market that may not be able to afford it the way another market may have. You can't compromise in that regard. So it starts with what I'll call quality and a respect for an allegiance to the very brand attributes that created the value in the first place.

Curiously though, the world beyond the berm is told the 330 million or so Chinese within a three-hour trip to the site on the other side of Shanghai's Pudong International Airport cannot wait to queue up for a boat ride on "It's a small world" or whatever Disney is offering up for its reported $5.5 billion marker. As, no, there will apparently be no attraction of that name at Shanghai Disneyland.

Not in China. Not in a country where Mickey, Minne and the rest of the gang are barely known. In a country where Disney might as well be Smith or Jones or Johnson. Well, maybe not that last one as Johnson & Johnson is actually a reasonably well-known brand throughout China.

The Walt Disney Company has a history of stumbling if not outright tumbling in its efforts to export Disney's brand of Americana. For reference, look no further than Euro Disney -- now known as Disneyland Paris -- and Hong Kong Disneyland. Of the latter, it is worth note that Disney has been known to Hongkongers from the early days of the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio. Yet, to this day, with a direct link by MTR line to points throughout Hong Kong, Disney is barely able to keep up with the brand devoid, geographically hemmed in and animal exhibit heavy Ocean Park in Aberdeen.

Over lunch earlier this month at Neptune's in the Grand Aquarium, Ocean Park Hong Kong CEO Tom Mehrmann, who began his career as a street sweeper at Knott's Berry Farm just up the road from Walt's original Disneyland, said, "Disney still has to explain to some of its guests exactly what a 'Disney Park' is. We don't have that problem."

To further illustrate this point, visit Disney's outpost on Lantau, a parcel of reclaimed land near Hong Kong International Airport, and you will notice a different Disney. Some call it 'Disney-lite'. Others refer to it as 'McKingdom'. Regardless, there is a definite feel of a diminished product -- of a diminished brand -- on stage for the public's consumption.

For, on a spit of land with an audience topping seven million attached by subway line having a familiarity and a kinship with the West, sits the real experiment of Disney's entry into the Chinese market. And there, on a recent day, at a performance of The Lion King in a theater…"
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
In those 'other countries' vacation is paid even CHINA mandates two weeks paid vacation, It's not much of a respite for those workers at Foxconn etc but it's some. Conversely in the US we have business 'leaders' saying even two weeks UNPAID vacation will bankrupt them,

Funny it does not seem to bankrupt outfits like Siemens (in EU 4-6 weeks paid vacation) who are busy buying american companies.
in before calls you a commie.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom