UncleMike101
Well-Known Member
Yup.......
Such shows of empathy for us peasants is below Lord Igers dignity.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bob Iger is worse than Michael Eisner ever was - A Discussion on Brand Withdrawal
- Thread starter TROR
- Start date
Such shows of empathy for us peasants is below Lord Igers dignity.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I rather have the CEO actually making decisions about the company rather than trying to be a showman. Eisner tried to be a showman in front of the camera. It never really worked for me as it seemed disingenuously trying to act too much like Walt to me. Iger at least knows he isn't meant for being in front of the camera and sticks to just normal CEO interviews.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
This is the start of a beautiful theme park.
D.Silentu
Well-Known Member
It's funny to me to reflect on the opinions of Disney that many people I know had in the nineties. That being the cynical, "corporate monster" point of view. I suppose it was prescient, seeing as Iger's Disney is a pop culture black hole, absorbing anything vaguely nostalgic. I'm guessing the genesis of this thread was sparked be the "Wreck-It-Ralph 2" trailer; if that's the case I completely understand this sentiment. The teaser does little but feature branding to the point of seeming crass, with most featured being owned by Disney. It might be a fitting tribute to Iger, because the point seems to be more about owning things to have anything to do with them. Case in point, Star Wars. With Fox on the way, Iger wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Agreed
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
I think he learned that from being a weather man in New York for five months.
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
I've wanted Iger to go since before his contract was originally set to expire in 2012. Yet, here we are in 2018, 3 contract renewals later, with no sign of a replacement in sight.
While those who proceeded Iger certainly had their flaws, they also had an expansionist vision that stretched what it meant to be "Disney." It could include familiar elements, but it could also stretch to include a technology showcase and global marketplace, media channels, world-class architecture and urban planning, and (family-friendly) content of nearly any genre. It was always approachable and comfortable, but at times it could be very avant-garde. Epcot was every bit as "Disney" as Mickey Mouse.
Under Iger, Disney has become a reductive brand, only including what has previously been a part of it and never really expanding into something new. Theatrical sequels and reboots have become the norm. "New" content tends to follow existing themes (how many of Iger's animated films have been fairy tales, compared to previous leadership?). Unless it has familiar characters and branding, it's no longer "Disney."
Iger pioneered the "tentpole" strategy that has become commonplace for movie studios. Instead of getting a variety of films that appeal to a variety of audiences, we're served splashy popcorn flicks that appeal to the lowest denominator. While Disney has always relied on synergy, it's been taken to a new level under Iger's leadership. Terms like "Star Wars withdrawal" are becoming part of the popular lexicon, reflecting an audience that is just too saturated with the type of interconnected branding extravaganzas that have become the norm.
Disney is spending more money than ever, yet manages to create less compelling products than in the past, across all divisions. Instead of focusing on "home runs," they should return to a solid line up of "singles and doubles" that have the potential to turn into something great but are also small enough that they can fail without catastrophic consequences. The focus should return to the creative side, in order to create new and interesting elements, rather than simply rehashing and repeating previous success. Take some risks, do something new, be fresh and innovative, but just don't keep doing the same thing over and over. You can't top pigs with pigs.
As for the Wreck-it-Ralph trailer, I don't love it but it doesn't bother me too much. It seems like the type of thing that won't end up in the actual film, and reminds me a lot of the early ads for Lilo & Stitch. I'm more turned off by the overall smarmy tone than by any brand integrity issues.
While those who proceeded Iger certainly had their flaws, they also had an expansionist vision that stretched what it meant to be "Disney." It could include familiar elements, but it could also stretch to include a technology showcase and global marketplace, media channels, world-class architecture and urban planning, and (family-friendly) content of nearly any genre. It was always approachable and comfortable, but at times it could be very avant-garde. Epcot was every bit as "Disney" as Mickey Mouse.
Under Iger, Disney has become a reductive brand, only including what has previously been a part of it and never really expanding into something new. Theatrical sequels and reboots have become the norm. "New" content tends to follow existing themes (how many of Iger's animated films have been fairy tales, compared to previous leadership?). Unless it has familiar characters and branding, it's no longer "Disney."
Iger pioneered the "tentpole" strategy that has become commonplace for movie studios. Instead of getting a variety of films that appeal to a variety of audiences, we're served splashy popcorn flicks that appeal to the lowest denominator. While Disney has always relied on synergy, it's been taken to a new level under Iger's leadership. Terms like "Star Wars withdrawal" are becoming part of the popular lexicon, reflecting an audience that is just too saturated with the type of interconnected branding extravaganzas that have become the norm.
Disney is spending more money than ever, yet manages to create less compelling products than in the past, across all divisions. Instead of focusing on "home runs," they should return to a solid line up of "singles and doubles" that have the potential to turn into something great but are also small enough that they can fail without catastrophic consequences. The focus should return to the creative side, in order to create new and interesting elements, rather than simply rehashing and repeating previous success. Take some risks, do something new, be fresh and innovative, but just don't keep doing the same thing over and over. You can't top pigs with pigs.
As for the Wreck-it-Ralph trailer, I don't love it but it doesn't bother me too much. It seems like the type of thing that won't end up in the actual film, and reminds me a lot of the early ads for Lilo & Stitch. I'm more turned off by the overall smarmy tone than by any brand integrity issues.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Iger has made SDL (hugely profitable), acquired Lucas, Pixar, Marvel, Muppets. That isn't minor. Eisner was good and he saved the company at first but after blundering DLP he went downhill.
Disneyland Paris is a beautiful and amazingly-themed park that manages to bring classic Disneyland to Europe while still appealing to the French. Shanghai Disneyland is Disneyland in name only. A Disneyland without a heavy dose of Americana is not Disneyland.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
That’s heavily revisionist/oversimplification
Iger bought IP - yes...but 70% if Disney revenue comes from parks and tv...where IP hasn’t really changed much.
A few billion here or there and one really good movie franchise isn’t a fundamental as you are making it out to be.
And Shanghai won’t matter to us and never will...it’s 100% a diversion.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Eisner moved way more dirt and lept taller mountains in his time than Iger has...until this fox deal, Iger has done minor stock and park manipulations and tinkered with Wall Street approval.
Buying abc was gutsy...building shanghai and buying Pixar was not. Everyone was “on board” with the profit chase.
DisneyFreak
Well-Known Member
Eisner created...Iger acquired.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Actually I would saying building a park in main land China is pretty gutsy. Some may not like it because its not "Disney" enough. But that isn't what appeals to the Chinese market. In fact you can't force your ideals on another country and expect them to react the same. That is something that Eisner didn't understand with EuroDisney, a mistake that the company is still trying to fix to this day.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I’m not disputing the euro analogy...big mistakes there. And Disney doesn’t really belong in china. Culturally it isn’t a fit. Both Eisner and iger seem to think that since all the merch is made down the street in sweatshops...they have to be there. For some reason.
But you have to look at where they started. Disney had two parks and the disneychannel to their name when eisner took over. Their stock was junk priced.
They did a lot of stuff to build it up. Iger has only enhanced...not really gone bold. I guess marvel is his big triumph...but he’s done very minimal on scale on parks outside of China...he just puts out fires. And creates them by stagnating.
His big thing is the video service. They have ridden espn into the ground and now they have to innovate and get another cash cow. His entire legacy will be determined there.
I’ll leave Star was out of this...for now.
DisneyFreak
Well-Known Member
Two great books to read on this topic are....
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Read them both...I also recommend project future and married to the mouse about WDW backstory
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Eisner turned Walt Disney Productions into The Walt Disney Company. Whether you think that's good, or how it got there could have been handled better, it's a far bigger accomplishment than Iger or any future executive will accomplish.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Roy E is the most underrated figure in Disney history...he’s right up there with his father and Uncle.
He made Eisner...and he broke him when the time came.
It’s sad he’s gone...you can make the case that many of the Eisner mistakes have been repackaged and repeated for the long run by spray tan bob...maybe worse.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I’m not disputing the euro analogy...big mistakes there. And Disney doesn’t really belong in china. Culturally it isn’t a fit. Both Eisner and iger seem to think that since all the merch is made down the street in sweatshops...they have to be there. For some reason.
But you have to look at where they started. Disney had two parks and the disneychannel to their name when eisner took over. Their stock was junk priced.
They did a lot of stuff to build it up. Iger has only enhanced...not really gone bold. I guess marvel is his big triumph...but he’s done very minimal on scale on parks outside of China...he just puts out fires. And creates them by stagnating.
His big thing is the video service. They have ridden espn into the ground and now they have to innovate and get another cash cow. His entire legacy will be determined there.
I’ll leave Star was out of this...for now.
I would say by making Shanghai property less about "Disney" and more about the Chinese culture it does fit. And the Chinese market seems to be eating it up, so it appears to be a success. We'll see how it does in another couple years, but with China becoming more industrialize and more western with places like Macau I think the Shanghai property will do just fine.
Also I don't really know why there is this "us vs them" thing on Eisner vs Iger with fans. Its not a competition. Its more of a relay race. Eisner (with the help of Roy and Wells) rebuilt Disney and then the baton (or torch whatever analogy works for you) was passed to Iger. Iger has continued to build Disney up into a media conglomerate, something that Eisner was already trying to do. I just personally didn't like Eisner in front of the camera.
Now as for the domestic parks. I've said this on this board before, you can't have something new every year. There is just not enough time, space, capital to do that. I would say the stagnation started long before Iger. Part of the issue, and Iger appears to now be correcting it, TWDC only focused on one park at a time. For example DAK was getting Pandora but the other WDW parks were getting nothing. Or here in CA, DCA was getting all the focus but DL was getting nothing. Again that appears to have changed, and now multiple parks are getting stuff all at once. Some think that DLR isn't getting enough with too much focus on WDW right now. But I don't look just on the near term, I look at the horizon and the horizon for DLR looks pretty good for the next 10 years. There will be a time however where it will go back to minimal investment, because again you can't do something new ever year, that is just a fact.
ESPN would have been the fault of any CEO, including Eisner, no matter who was in the position. The world of digital media is changing, its caught ALL the media companies off guard. So now they are scrambling to make sure they can offer what the current landscape wants. The streaming service will likely be a success just because there are enough fans of each content out there to consume it. The bigger question which I don't think anyone can answer right now, will consumers actually continue this ala-cart subscription model long term. I personally don't think so, I think everyone will get tired of having separate subscriptions for each thing and want the old "cable" all-in-one model back. We'll see, but again its a long relay race and its not over.
As for SW, since you brought it up. No matter how you feel about what Disney has put out with regards to SW, they have made their money back and have added to the SW universe. Now there have been and continue to be missteps along the way, but the long term outlook for SW in my opinion looks good. We'll see how Ep9 does, but I'm not worried.