• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Bob Iger Stepping Down, Bob Chapek New CEO

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
IMO I don’t really think there is anyone left in WDC who would be a good leader, its all varying degrees of badness . I think its probably time to bring in new management from outside like they did in the 80s with Eisner and Wells to inject some fresh thinking. I don’t know who I’d choose though
 

Stevie Amsterdam

Well-Known Member
IMO I don’t really think there is anyone left in WDC who would be a good leader, its all varying degrees of badness . I think its probably time to bring in new management from outside like they did in the 80s with Eisner and Wells to inject some fresh thinking. I don’t know who I’d choose though
My vote goes to @marni1971 and I'm not joking.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
IMO I don’t really think there is anyone left in WDC who would be a good leader, its all varying degrees of badness . I think its probably time to bring in new management from outside like they did in the 80s with Eisner and Wells to inject some fresh thinking. I don’t know who I’d choose though
There's plenty of good people in the company.
They just get stuck in their (management) positions with no chance or way to climb the ladder.
 

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
There's plenty of good people in the company.
They just get stuck in their (management) positions with no chance or way to climb the ladder.
I’m sure you’re right there. What I have should have said is I don’t see any senior people in the company. I’m sure there are plenty of good people who are no good at playing politics and get sidelined
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
IMO I don’t really think there is anyone left in WDC who would be a good leader, its all varying degrees of badness . I think its probably time to bring in new management from outside like they did in the 80s with Eisner and Wells to inject some fresh thinking. I don’t know who I’d choose though

The management of TWDC, right up to the C-Level all report to the board of directors, and they mostly come from outside firms. That kind of diversity in the Board of Directors was something that came up a lot in the Save Disney days. Where before, there were a lot of Eisner supporters and investment groupies, you now have reps from General Motors, Proctor and Gamble, Oracle, HP and Cisco.

So those outside voices already have a seat at the table, and I'm not really sure how bringing in someone from the outside to be CEO would really make much difference.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
The management of TWDC, right up to the C-Level all report to the board of directors, and they mostly come from outside firms. That kind of diversity in the Board of Directors was something that came up a lot in the Save Disney days. Where before, there were a lot of Eisner supporters and investment groupies, you now have reps from General Motors, Proctor and Gamble, Oracle, HP and Cisco.

So those outside voices already have a seat at the table, and I'm not really sure how bringing in someone from the outside to be CEO would really make much difference.
I think they need someone less concerned with looking like a Hollywood bigshot and more concerned with hospitality.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
I think they need someone less concerned with looking like a Hollywood bigshot and more concerned with hospitality.

LOL what? Disney is a media company. They live and breathe in Hollywood.

If there was any legitimate complaint about Chapek's tenure so far: it would be his ability to land big Hollywood deals.

I know some (esp here) don't want to believe it, but theme parks are secondary (maybe even tertiary) to Disney at this point.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
LOL what? Disney is a media company. They live and breathe in Hollywood.

If there was any legitimate complaint about Chapek's tenure so far: it would be his ability to land big Hollywood deals.

I know some (esp here) don't want to believe it, but theme parks are secondary (maybe even tertiary) to Disney at this point.
The parks are 40% of their revenue and have served as Disney's piggy bank for years.
 

EPCOT-O.G.

Well-Known Member
I think the inherent problem is there is a retail guy at the head of a company that operates large theme parks, resorts, and restaurants, but is really a major movie studio, and has increasingly wanting to become a tech behemoth. On top of that, the previous CEO - due to insecurity and a desire to stave off competitors so as to ensconce himself on equal footing with Walt *and* Jobs - chased away heirs apparent that had managerial skills that would've fit this version of TWDC.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
LOL what? Disney is a media company. They live and breathe in Hollywood.

If there was any legitimate complaint about Chapek's tenure so far: it would be his ability to land big Hollywood deals.

I know some (esp here) don't want to believe it, but theme parks are secondary (maybe even tertiary) to Disney at this point.
I think this is the disconnect with most of us, we are primarily park fans (although we also love the movies, etc) so our focus would be parks based.

I often daydream about what I’d do if I was in charge but the reality is that’s all based on the parks, I wouldn’t have any idea how to run the financial side, movie side, TV side, retail side, etc.

The reason Disney ends up with people like Chapek running it rather than a creative person is because it’s a massive corporation and requires a corporate person to run it.

I’d love to see what Joe Rohde or Tony Baxter could deliver if they were in charge of the parks but I can’t imagine they’d be able to run the Disney Corporation.
 

EPCOT-O.G.

Well-Known Member
I know some (esp here) don't want to believe it, but theme parks are secondary (maybe even tertiary) to Disney at this point.

I'd argue that the parks have been subordinated to the commercial products/retail side of things for some time. And that segment is less lucrative than 1) the films/TV division, which itself is being subsumed by the emphasis on streaming. Again, the internal corporate advocates from within the Parks/consumer products sides of things have an emphasis on the retail merchandise side of things, and that includes the savior-in-waiting Josh D'Amaro.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
Simple. Parks (except for something like the pandemic) are reliable. Year after year. Hollywood - not so much. For every "Frozen" there's a "John Carter Of Mars"

Gotta think that reliability is also the reason the parks aren’t more of a focus. If people will go regardless of what they do there’s not much incentive to make them the priority.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Gotta think that reliability is also the reason the parks aren’t more of a focus. If people will go regardless of what they do there’s not much incentive to make them the priority.
Once pent-up demand is gone, I think the parks/resorts are going to take a big hit. Let's not forget that the decisions of the last 2 years have made a WDW vacation way more of a hassle and also more expensive. Disney just isn't feeling it yet because they're still capping attendance (because, ya know, the pandemic), and because people are still "rage-traveling". Hell, they're struggling just to get enough bodies to staff so they can open everything up...we're seeing MAJOR mismanagement...and that never goes unpunished.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Wall Street doesn’t like reliable. They like double digit growth, or the possibility of even more. DIS fashions itself as a tech company, which means it needs to start performing as one
That's a joke. They've got among the worst IT I've ever seen, and Disney+, while cute and enjoyable, is going to be a money pit unless they change how they're using it or change how they're using Hulu in relation to Disney+ (one shouldn't have to pay multiple subscriptions or have multiple downloaded apps to access Disney's vast content library). And lets not forget that they don't even have a gaming division.
 

EPCOT-O.G.

Well-Known Member
That's a joke. They've got among the worst IT I've ever seen, and Disney+, while cute and enjoyable, is going to be a money pit unless they change how they're using it or change how they're using Hulu in relation to Disney+ (one shouldn't have to pay multiple subscriptions or have multiple downloaded apps to access Disney's vast content library). And lets not forget that they don't even have a gaming division.
Oh it's laughable, but they clearly want to be perceived as a streaming behemoth tantamount to Netflix. I actually think these sorts of missteps could doom the parks, or make that segment (and other business divisions) ripe for acquisition. My theory is that either 1) D+ becomes wildly successful, which means the physical footprint and ROI on those segments aren't as profitable as the streaming segment, making them ideal to spinoff or sell, or 2) D+ is a huge failure and the company needs to sell off assets to get a cash infusion to keep afloat.
 

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

Top Bottom