News Bob Iger outlines the need to transform the Walt Disney Company resulting in 7000 job losses and $5.5 billion in cost savings

[chama1]

When Iger recently visited WDW it was smiles and photos ops. No one probably had a clue that layoffs would follow.

OMG..it's so true...I've never experienced a "lay-off" until I moved to FL years ago...our head office just had one of their visits to the office with breakfast and small meetings on "how wonderful" the company was doing...etc...I had a strange feeling something was not right...well you guessed it...the day after corporate left...on my day off, I got a call from the co0workers that our dept was shutting down...I thought it was a joke...we were told all out "stuff" had to be removed asap, after so many yrs with company...back then was a different times so I found a great job... but now with prices going up everywhere, it hurts...so my heart goes out to those on "their" list...

 

[Jrb1979]

Today people think the obligation is the other way around: the company exists to fully support an employee with every modern comfort and no distress, plus their family with a roof over their heads, 2 cars and 10 streaming services. Oh, and that calculated dollar amount still applies to a 16 year old living with mom, because…some reason.

The company I work for does that. The former CEO always said that taking care of your employees is a big thing as they will then be happy to work for you.

 

[Casper Gutman]

If you start a company and hire one employee, what is that employee's duty if not to make you as much money (legally and ethically) as possible?

The corporate form of ownership is no different than that, it's just blown out on a larger scale.

I mean, what does the company do? If it’s an animation company, the employees job is to produce animation. If it’s an environmental research company, it’s to do environmental research. Many, perhaps most, companies do have goals beyond simply maximizing profits, even if the Wall Street dominating mega-corps don’t.

 

[alphac2005]

OK, but why don’t those same executives bear any of the blame for the many parts of the company that are hemorrhaging cash, especially in ways that were completely foreseeable? Everyone in the industry, from Wall Street to the head office to the trade press, KNEW converting to streaming was going to mean huge losses every quarter for several years. It was discussed endlessly. Then, a few months ago, in a spectacular explosion of groupthink, the entire industry decided to panic about the thing they KNEW was going to happen. Now we have massive layoffs and an entertainment industry in more chaos then it has been since the advent of sound. Yes, bleeding the parks dry makes a degree of business sense, but it does so only because of a host of egregious mistakes in other areas.

As to respecting business executives and Wall Street gurus, that’s a bit rich. Over the last eight years American society has seen a very widespread, very dramatic dismissal of expertise. A host of once respected figures are now virulently despised by huge segments of the population - teachers, doctors, nurses (these three have been the most shocking), lawyers, judges, police officers, professors, reporters, intellectuals of every stripe - all are now viewed with a seething cynicism that borders on hatred. One of the only groups that has largely escaped this shift are high-level members of the business community, who are still broadly viewed as holders of secret knowledge and worthy of deference and respect. Given this broader context, it’s silly to bemoan cynicism directed at business leaders, one of the only groups still seen as “knowing what they’re doing” no matter how badly a company seems to be performing.

Trust me, I agree with so much of what you say. How the market works now is truly something. You're absolutely right that it was clearly known that companies were going to hemorrhage cash for quite awhile when it comes to the transition to digital streaming. It's interesting how companies like Amazon bled money for more than a decade because the Street believed that it would ultimately be a profit engine. Legacy companies are completely shifting how media is consumed and distributed, they all know it, and now as you note, groupthink turns. I think one of the primary reasons circles back to pure greed and in particular dividends. The majority of these media companies are dividend machines and these have either been cutoff or been reduced and they've had enough.

No where did I advocate respecting the executives and Wall Street, but I was simply noting that we have so many people that are armchair quarterbacks and have absolutely no idea of what they're speaking about in terms of subject matter areas. I might not agree with my certain moves are being made on the corporate level or why the Street acts as it does, but I understand the rationale behind these moves. Too many seem to have no clue as to the whys and they shift straight into the greed aspect. They are disparate things in this context. As one who worked in politics, the past eight years is nothing. We've been witnessing this dismissal of expertise for so long.

 

[alphac2005]

Other than not being sure what “over the top video” means (and suspecting we might disagree on that) we seem to have had similar experiences.

I own my own business. I have served on an advisory board to my City Commissioners and also on the board of a trade organization. Without getting too far off topic (I think this might help people understand) I’ve learned a few things from these experiences.

1. Well-meaning people can come to awful conclusions because they just don’t have enough information. (Example: something as inconsequential as our City was going to give a symbolic award to a company that had purchased an unsightly property and revitalized it into a nice shopping plaza. Before the award was announced, a hurricane damaged some things. The committee was going to withhold the award until repairs were made, and tell the property owner “to encourage them to make repairs faster.” Seriously? As the business guy of the group, I pointed out the obvious: the company was at the mercy of their insurance company, and nothing would hurry that. After a bunch of “Ooooooh’s” that idea was tabled.

2. A small group of people can be easily convinced of something. They can also “fully” hash out a topic and come to an agreement that seems fair to all - because not all were/can realistically be represented in the room. Once the decision “goes wide,” holes are easily poked and it looks silly.

3. Well-intentioned, unbiased and non-hostile members of the press get things wrong all the time. Their expertise is in writing, not [your business.] I have been misquoted and they have been mixed up more times than I can count.

While this is nothing like running one of the biggest companies in the world, the processes are still parallel, and I can see how everything that comes down from on high isn’t necessarily malicious, greedy, evil. Nor do you believe every word in the press, nor every disgruntled customer or employee (though many have valid points.)

Over the top (OTT) is digital delivering of broadcast through the internet... streaming. Just called OTT in the industry.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Over the top (OTT) is digital delivering of broadcast through the internet... streaming. Just called OTT in the industry.

"DTC" has pretty much replaced "OTT" in common parlance, even though there's an argument to be made that there are nuanced differences between the terms.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

But it’s not the workers failure of “demanding” livable wages…it’s the retail markets.

It’s more the government (inarguably influenced by said markets.)

If the government had done their job and steadily increased the minimum wage over the years, then we would not have had to jump so fast all at once now. (The FL minimum wage is going from something like $8.50 to $15 over about 6 years. That’s a lot for a company, especially a small one, to absorb. If I told you my business rent doubled in 5 years, you’d likely have some empathy.)

People with mom & pop shops (which cannot be excluded from this conversation about giant companies with CEO millionaires) have budgets much like a household.

So those businesses that operated through the 90's and 2000's at "low wages" (at least without regular minimum wage increases in many states) operated accordingly and may or may not still be in business now. Businesses like mine that opened in 2010 (although I worked since 1999 without employees) didn't have that situation, but are now going to make up the difference on our backs? Sears and Kmart owe me some money for payroll.

To clarify, people who own those mom & pop shops often make about as much as the average person who has a regular job; they just have a lifestyle advantage in not having a boss and to some degree making their own hours (all 80+ of them every week.) My biggest perk is I use my Disney card to buy inventory, which then pays for my Disney trip. Because I mostly just push money around for other people and take a little cut for myself. Not to mention, my house is on the line if it goes under, and it has been close at times.

I have never been against raising the minimum wage. I am against the way it is happening. Because the government did not do their jobs (State and Federal for decades) labor had an opening to overcorrect. Minimum wage should never go from $10 to $15 very fast. It should go up gradually. So current businesses will take the hit for things older businesses and the government actively conspired to make happen. And do we get "better outcomes" for it? No, because after we go from $10 to $15, current employees still think they are underpaid and don't provide better outcomes. They think they have a right to scroll on their phones at work.

These kinds of societal shifts need to be organized and planned or they have unintended consequences. My rent goes up (a lot) my payroll goes up (a lot) where is my guarantee of increased revenue to offset those? (Not so I can buy a yacht, so I can pay for my inventory.) There is no guarantee. I don't have room to raise prices because the cost of goods has gone through the roof. So let's make everyone feel good about no-experience employees getting a "living wage" and then losing their jobs because the business model is unsustainable unless everybody wants to pay significantly more for goods. They won't - they'll just order on Amazon, where everyone will work soon lol.

My business doubled from 2020 to 2021. I'm working harder than ever and still waiting for my cut.

We can't as a society simultaneously punish businesses for being profitable but then say they shouldn't exist unless they meet the arbitrary profitability standard of paying a "living wage." They necessarily have to have the (typically resented) enormous profits in order to achieve that.

If we want to raise things across the board, it has to be done institutionally and intentionally. Just know we'll probably all end up right back where we started when all is said and done.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Today people think the obligation is the other way around: the company exists to fully support an employee with every modern comfort and no distress, plus their family with a roof over their heads, 2 cars and 10 streaming services. Oh, and that calculated dollar amount still applies to a 16 year old living with mom, because…some reason.

So when an employee attempts to “maximize” profit for themselves, that’s greed, but when a corporation does so, it’s simply good governance? If a tight labor market allows employees to make high demands, how does that reflect poorly on them? No company is entitled to their labor.

It might also be noted that being able to support a family, home, and a certain degree of luxury on a single middle- or even lower-middle class income used to be expected - it’s the economic reality behind our popular conception of the 50s, with its sprawling suburbs and Dad going off to work each day while Mom looks after the kids.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Does anyone else feel the management/execs are just stale in the company? They really need a complete overhaul. You need the fresh blood in an organization once in a while. Also get in touch with your audience. In the parks the guest experience team should not just be under an umbrella. They should be secret shoppers and looking how to improve the experience of the guest.

They are 1001% stale

And that’s a big part of this proxy vote

Iger has been there too long. And the board is bad/complicent…and the execs are low grade

This is just Eisner all over again. Same deal.

The difference here is people can’t seem to separate their unfounded loved of Bob from the reality of what’s happening.

Has it been so great? All those “experiences”? 18 trips on DCL?

…or is that transference?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Over the top (OTT) is digital delivering of broadcast through the internet... streaming. Just called OTT in the industry.

Ah, thank you.

I just want to say. I admire your capacity for independent thought. Even if we may not agree on some things, you do not appear to be someone who just automatically falls in line with what you are told to think and you are capable of drawing intelligent conclusions from your own experience. Just wanted to let you know it is appreciated.

And thank you!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That’s one opinion.

It’s more the government (inarguably influenced by said markets.)

If the government had done their job and steadily increased the minimum wage over the years, then we would not have had to jump so fast all at once now. (The FL minimum wage is going from something like $8.50 to $15 over about 6 years. That’s a lot for a company, especially a small one, to absorb. If I told you my business rent doubled in 5 years, you’d likely have some empathy.)

People with mom & pop shops (which cannot be excluded from this conversation about giant companies with CEO millionaires) have budgets much like a household.

So those businesses that operated through the 90's and 2000's at "low wages" (at least without regular minimum wage increases in many states) operated accordingly and may or may not still be in business now. Businesses like mine that opened in 2010 (although I worked since 1999 without employees) didn't have that situation, but are now going to make up the difference on our backs? Sears and Kmart owe me some money for payroll.

To clarify, people who own those mom & pop shops often make about as much as the average person who has a regular job; they just have a lifestyle advantage in not having a boss and to some degree making their own hours (all 80+ of them every week.) My biggest perk is I use my Disney card to buy inventory, which then pays for my Disney trip. Because I mostly just push money around for other people and take a little cut for myself. Not to mention, my house is on the line if it goes under, and it has been close at times.

I have never been against raising the minimum wage. I am against the way it is happening. Because the government did not do their jobs (State and Federal for decades) labor had an opening to overcorrect. Minimum wage should never go from $10 to $15 very fast. It should go up gradually. So current businesses will take the hit for things older businesses and the government actively conspired to make happen. And do we get "better outcomes" for it? No, because after we go from $10 to $15, current employees still think they are underpaid and don't provide better outcomes. They think they have a right to scroll on their phones at work.

These kinds of societal shifts need to be organized and planned or they have unintended consequences. My rent goes up (a lot) my payroll goes up (a lot) where is my guarantee of increased revenue to offset those? (Not so I can buy a yacht, so I can pay for my inventory.) There is no guarantee. I don't have room to raise prices because the cost of goods has gone through the roof. So let's make everyone feel good about no-experience employees getting a "living wage" and then losing their jobs because the business model is unsustainable unless everybody wants to pay significantly more for goods. They won't - they'll just order on Amazon, where everyone will work soon lol.

My business doubled from 2020 to 2021. I'm working harder than ever and still waiting for my cut.

We can't as a society simultaneously punish businesses for being profitable but then say they shouldn't exist unless they meet the arbitrary profitability standard of paying a "living wage." They necessarily have to have the (typically resented) enormous profits in order to achieve that.

If we want to raise things across the board, it has to be done institutionally and intentionally. Just know we'll probably all end up right back where we started when all is said and done.

Without all that…

Your opinion is they should fight for it…mine is share the pot.

It’s a tale as old as time, Beast

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So when an employee attempts to “maximize” profit for themselves, that’s greed, but when a corporation does so, it’s simply good governance? If a tight labor market allows employees to make high demands, how does that reflect poorly on them? No company is entitled to their labor.

I don't fault employees for trying to maximize their financial situation through negotiation, whether individually or collectively.

Employees trying to maximize their financial situation through legislation is a different thing.

It might also be noted that being able to support a family, home, and a certain degree of luxury on a single middle- or even lower-middle class income used to be expected - it’s the economic reality behind our popular conception of the 50s, with its sprawling suburbs and Dad going off to work each day while Mom looks after the kids.

In many cases we're talking about jobs designed for students and retirees, not household breadwinners.

If you want to get into the various ways that the sexual revolution has hamstrung the American middle class, I'd be happy to take that conversation offline.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

So when an employee attempts to “maximize” profit for themselves, that’s greed,

No, that's self-preservation.

but when a corporation does so, it’s simply good governance?

No, that's self-preservation as well as employee preservation.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Without all that…

Your opinion is they should fight for it…mine is share the pot.

It’s a tale as old as time, Beast

No, mine is the government should set it and forget it. % increase tied to x every two years. Done.

 

[Alanzo]

I've never seen so much textbook ignorance of organizational behavioral theory. People work for money, sure, that keeps them from becoming dissatisfied.

But there's another side to that coin too. People like a sense of achievement in life, feeling important, being recognized, etc. The idea that "people only work for money" is from like 1906, or whatever. Definitely predates the birth date of anyone posting on this thread. If you are a manager and think your employees only care about their salary and nothing else you aren't a great manager.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I don't fault employees for trying to maximize their financial situation through negotiation, whether individually or collectively.

Neither do I. Who does?

They think they don't have to anymore.

When I got my first job in high school, I knew I had no experience, I took what I could get, took pride in my work, did well, got raises and moved up.

Eventually I learned you'll get a better increase by parlaying your experience into a different company. I also learned sometimes that works out for the best, and sometimes it doesn't. An extra dollar an hour isn't everything. Sometimes trade-offs are worth it.

Today people think they should just automatically get more money from the mythical, money-grows-on-trees employer because the price of eggs went up.

Make yourself more valuable and I can't imagine an employer won't reward you with more money.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I don't fault employees for trying to maximize their financial situation through negotiation, whether individually or collectively.

Employees trying to maximize their financial situation through legislation is a different thing.


In many cases we're talking about jobs designed for students and retirees, not household breadwinners.

If you want to get into the various ways that the sexual revolution has hamstrung the American middle class, I'd be happy to take that conversation offline.

Those jobs are “designed” for students and retirees in order to avoid paying living wages.

Employees have just as much right to seek protection through legislation as businesses do to seek the copious legislative benefits they enjoy. Tony has a very valid point - the stagnant minimum wage has been unfair to both employees and modern small business owners. Unfortunately, the kind of measured, forward-thinking governance he desires is not possible in the current political climate, if it ever was.

The middle-class dream has not imploded because of the sexual revolution.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I've never seen so much textbook ignorance of organizational behavioral theory. People work for money, sure, that keeps them from becoming dissatisfied.

But there's another side to that coin too. People like a sense of achievement in life, feeling important, being recognized, etc. The idea that "people only work for money" is from like 1906.

View attachment 697561

100%

 

[EagleScout610]

Ok hear me out…

Disney just needs to sell Splash water to make $5.5b

They're almost there if all these sell

 

[Casper Gutman]

Neither do I. Who does?

They think they don't have to anymore.

When I got my first job in high school, I knew I had no experience, I took what I could get, took pride in my work, did well, got raises and moved up.

Eventually I learned you'll get a better increase by parlaying your experience into a different company. I also learned sometimes that works out for the best, and sometimes it doesn't. An extra dollar an hour isn't everything. Sometimes trade-offs are worth it.

Today people think they should just automatically get more money from the mythical, money-grows-on-trees employer because the price of eggs went up.

Make yourself more valuable and I can't imagine an employer won't reward you with more money.

You really can’t imagine that a company wouldn’t pay an employee a salary commensurate with their value?