CEO Bob Chapek?

[BrianLo]

Chapek’s spending hews closest to Michael’s capex spending in the mid to late nineties. @ParentsOf4’s chart shows Capex, as a percentage of revenue, was high up until 9/11. The problem wasn’t so much the level of spending, but how the money was spent. We got lots of new things like the Disney Cruise Line, Boardwalk Hotel, Coronado Springs, the West Side, Blizzard Beach and Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately, funds were clearly stretched. DAK, even with the Asia expansion in ‘99 , wasn’t a full day park. DCA had more offerings at opening, but wasn’t a Disney quality park and they had to beg guests to come. The less we say about WDSP the better.
For most of his tenure. Iger spent little, but it was more focused on need/priority like fixing DCA, beefing up HKDL and WDSP, and increasing capacity at the MK and DCL. Shanghai and Aulani have been the splashiest and riskiest of his P&R projects. Too many of Chapek’s projects are divorced from the reality of the parks/resorts needs like building a Tron coaster when SM needs a major rebuild or creating BRAND lands like Pixar Pier or thinking self driving Minnie vans will be cheaper and more efficient than a full build out of the monorail system.

Additionally, Chapek, like Kalogridis with DCA 2.0, inherited many things like the EDL buyouts, HKDL expansion, and Galaxy’s Edge from Staggs.

Ideally, Disney returns 15-25% of annual P&R revenue into capex, but the money needs to be spent carefully and it’s better to focus funds on fewer items than green lighting everything, at varying levels of quality or need.

I largely agree about him not being some great early years Eisner, which is why I chose my wording carefully. He isn’t the best ever, but he is miles away from the worst. Especially when we have to go back nearly 20 years to find a similar level of domestic capex.

EDL was largely being run into the ground before him with the objective to purchase. I fully agree, but the current projects (which we know little about publically) are his.

However, you are somewhat incorrect about the other two. Staggs was leading a second park for HKDLR. That completely fell apart under his leadership to the point where our best insiders claimed everything was dead in the water days before the expansion plan was rolled out. Could those expansion plans have been in development for over 20 additional months (the time of Stagg’s departure to the plans announcement) and simply been completely unknown to our insiders? I really believe this was a project completely developed under him. He doesn’t lose credit because small scraps were picked up from Stagg’s failed initiative at a second park.

SW:GE would have happened regardless. But Staggs took a botched plan to the board and the current iteration, placements, what have you was not developed under his leadership... but honestly would have been... I largely credit the board with running the show there.

Everything else from our more recent D23 has absolutely zilch to be traced to Staggs.

Finally, what Chapek did fully inherit was the absolute -show that was Shanghai in 2015. I think that totally makes up for whatever credit people don’t want to give him for other projects he acquired much, much earlier and less botched versions of. Tom’s money pit 2.0 (first being MM+). That was not an easy thing for him to have to face in his first year as head of P&R.

 

[spacemt354]

Even Nemo was honestly executed the best it could be given the space provided. Turtle Talk with Crush is a hit. Also, Laugh Floor Comedy Club is always a lot of fun.

Completely blanked on Laugh Floor...that's a pretty good show I agree

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Nobody currently wearing a name tag is fit to lead that company...

And they really need to go back to the two person "foil" model as well...

Job is too big for one and they have a lot of problems to deal with.

 

[No Name]

They get called these names because they're stuffed suits. They think they'll learn more from a spreadsheet of data than a normal day at a park. On the rare misfortune that they find themselves in a park, they always act all closed off. Just enter the place alone, no name tag or suit or anything, through the front entrance for once. Wait in line just like other guests, ride the rides with other guests, hold conversation with other guests and cast members, and smile. Step into the shoes of those you represent. See the whites of their eyes. Maybe then you'll begin to understand your business better. And in the mean time, people might begin to think of you in a better light. You might not be called an "often puckish glad-hander" or an "oddly waifish man of anemic personality" if that's not how you come off.

It's a shame, because the company has built a culture that discourages what I describe above and encourages stuffed-suitness. If Bob Chapek acted human, do you think he'd be promoted to CEO? Or do you think he'd be internally scoffed at?

Undercover Boss shows just how much a boss can learn about their business from spending a day in the heart of it. And of course nobody at Disney was ever on the show. Because it's discouraged.

 

[jakeman]

They get called these names because they're stuffed suits.

No. They are called names here because that's the juvenile level of discourse we've become accustom to over the better part of a decade around here.

"The Weatherman" or "Soup and Salad Sandra" are no different in intent (not severity) than "Pocahontas" .

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No. They are called names here because that's the juvenile level of discourse we've become accustom to over the better part of a decade around here.

"The Weatherman" or "Soup and Salad Sandra" are no different in intent (not severity) than "Pocahontas" .

Ok...how about "completely incorrect for the position"?

That's as damning as any cutesy nickname
I can think of...

 

[jakeman]

Ok...how about "completely incorrect for the position"?

That's as damning as any cutesy nickname I can think of...

Okay...I guess.

For me, the actual topic at hand is an aside. I have no opinion in this matter because I understand that I don't have enough information, nor is it critical to my daily life, to form a stance.

Moving past the name calling into a more adult discourse would be beneficial, in my opinion, to all viewpoints and the forum as a whole.

 

[larandtra]

Im curious how some here have an opinion that any of the potential leaders are unfit to run the company? Are you a major corporate executive? Have you ever had to sit in the seat and deal with the level of work it takes to manage a situation this large? If you havent, and they have not yet been in that position, how can you even come close to making an educated statement? Some of you talk like you know it is fact and the reality is its nothing more than your opinion. And the majority of you with the name calling positions do not have any clue whatsoever how a corporation actually operates. The reality is , the issues have come from a lack of overall direction and leadership. Too many cooks in the kitchen living a castle mentality. That is about to change regardless of who the new "leader" is. Judge the leader once they have had time to lead and have made their style known. Until then, the name calling and assertions of failure are ridiculous and based in no fact whatsoever.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Im curious how some here have an opinion that any of the potential leaders are unfit to run the company? Are you a major corporate executive? Have you ever had to sit in the seat and deal with the level of work it takes to manage a situation this large? If you havent, and they have not yet been in that position, how can you even come close to making an educated statement? Some of you talk like you know it is fact and the reality is its nothing more than your opinion. And the majority of you with the name calling positions do not have any clue whatsoever how a corporation actually operates. The reality is , the issues have come from a lack of overall direction and leadership. Too many cooks in the kitchen living a castle mentality. That is about to change regardless of who the new "leader" is. Judge the leader once they have had time to lead and have made their style known. Until then, the name calling and assertions of failure are ridiculous and based in no fact whatsoever.

If you were talking about GE or Citibank...I could see your point.

But this is the Walt disney company...and when you sell a 100% unnecessary product - and lead the world in doing that - then there is a completely different approach that has to be taken from the top down.

Nobody wants a reckless, freewheeling spender doing erratic things. But let's face it...in a public corporation that wouldn't happen now anyway.

But you don't want a corner cutter either. Because disney has uniquely built its business on not corner cutting, more or less, and has had its darkest periods when it couldn't or wouldn't reinvest.

Iger did fine - at first. But even to the untrained eye it's fairly obvious he's chasing his own stock price/golden parachute now and there's a price that's gonna be paid later when he's tanning full time. Disney only survives longterm by maintaining its standards...and that hardline has become "soft" in many ways since about 2000.

A guy like chapek...who's reputation is built on selling product that is, frankly, the cheapest crap you can find...doesn't make sense nor shouldn't to anyone.

And TWDC has been run like an oligarchy...basically the 1970's soviet politburo mentality...since the Eisner collapse. He wanted it that way and bob hasn't changed it. The reason there are no internal successors is that anyone demonstrating those skills is driven away or never hired. Yes men...to put it simply.

Jay rasulo? Tom staggs? Bob chapek?

Those ARE stuffed suits...even if you don't prefer the name.

What's Paul pressler up to? Al Weiss? Why not go full bore if you want somebody dull and greedy?

They NEED a 1984 Michael Eisner...and he/she is out there somewhere...somebody young, hungry, and with an "attack" mentality. Then they need to figure out how to do an executive contract where hunger is "fed" and success brings compensation...and that goes beyond the NYSE ticker...because it's disney...and that is unique.

I'd love Brian Roberts...but he's got a "family" thing going.

 

[ford91exploder]

They get called these names because they're stuffed suits. They think they'll learn more from a spreadsheet of data than a normal day at a park. On the rare misfortune that they find themselves in a park, they always act all closed off. Just enter the place alone, no name tag or suit or anything, through the front entrance for once. Wait in line just like other guests, ride the rides with other guests, hold conversation with other guests and cast members, and smile. Step into the shoes of those you represent. See the whites of their eyes. Maybe then you'll begin to understand your business better. And in the mean time, people might begin to think of you in a better light. You might not be called an "often puckish glad-hander" or an "oddly waifish man of anemic personality" if that's not how you come off.

It's a shame, because the company has built a culture that discourages what I describe above and encourages stuffed-suitness. If Bob Chapek acted human, do you think he'd be promoted to CEO? Or do you think he'd be internally scoffed at?

Undercover Boss shows just how much a boss can learn about their business from spending a day in the heart of it. And of course nobody at Disney was ever on the show. Because it's discouraged.

Precisely senior leadership could learn more about the operations of the parks by spending a week in low level roles actually interacting with the guests than a years worth of data from 'Disney Research'.

That's something that Walt, Card and Eisner instinctively understood, Back when Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett ran HP it was called MBWA or Managing by Walking Around, Amazingly it STILL works. The old farmers up here call it 'The best fertilizer is the foot of the owner'.

 

[Pixieish]

Precisely senior leadership could learn more about the operations of the parks by spending a week in low level roles actually interacting with the guests than a years worth of data from 'Disney Research'.

That's something that Walt, Card and Eisner instinctively understood, Back when Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett ran HP it was called MBWA or Managing by Walking Around, Amazingly it STILL works. The old farmers up here call it 'The best fertilizer is the foot of the owner'.

Agreed 100%...it works regardless of company size, too.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

No. They are called names here because that's the juvenile level of discourse we've become accustom to over the better part of a decade around here.

"The Weatherman" or "Soup and Salad Sandra" are no different in intent (not severity) than "Pocahontas" .

One is a racial slur. The others are not.

You can’t weasel out of that comparison with qualifiers.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Im curious how some here have an opinion that any of the potential leaders are unfit to run the company? Are you a major corporate executive? Have you ever had to sit in the seat and deal with the level of work it takes to manage a situation this large? If you havent, and they have not yet been in that position, how can you even come close to making an educated statement? Some of you talk like you know it is fact and the reality is its nothing more than your opinion. And the majority of you with the name calling positions do not have any clue whatsoever how a corporation actually operates. The reality is , the issues have come from a lack of overall direction and leadership. Too many cooks in the kitchen living a castle mentality. That is about to change regardless of who the new "leader" is. Judge the leader once they have had time to lead and have made their style known. Until then, the name calling and assertions of failure are ridiculous and based in no fact whatsoever.

Of course the individuals who seek chief and senior leadership roles in the world’s largest media conglomerate should be scrutinized based on their record. How can a Disney exec have a discernable style, make an imprint on a BU, if they play musical chairs every 24-36 months around the company?

Is Chapek qualified to run P&R based on his record, no? Should George Kalogridis be put in charge of the Disney Store because he’s seen to be a good leader, why not? Hell, what experience does the current head of HKDL have in operating a theme park and resort from his mass transit background in the Bay Area. A failed Eisnerian policy, a great manager in division x can be just as great over at division y, may be just as troublesome for the company as “too many cooks”.

Perhaps there’s more to you than you let on, but don't executives take credit for things they didn’t do all the time. For example, the DCA redo that opened when Kalogridis was DLR President was pushed for by Matt Ouimet, Ed Grier and others, but that didn’t stop him from taking the lion’s share of the credit in the press. Same would go for Disney minimizing Tom Morris’ role on RSR/Cars Land in favor of Kathy Mangum and Kevin Rafferty. Fans should be aware that their perception of individuals records is incomplete no doubt, but maybe our “leader” may be equally guilty of that crime to get to where they are now.

 

[WDWTank]

I think that remains to be seen. He has a somewhat budget cut reputation. Business Publications like Bloomberg and Forbes were saying that while Disney was making all the cuts and the internet was blaming Shanghai the real reason was Bob chapek was the new sheriff in town and he just has a knack and talent for streamlining cost efficiencies and maximizing profits by doing so.

That's all well and good, great if your shareholder reading these Publications, but it does not strike me as someone who should be leading the theme parks. The level of investment you are currently seen at Walt Disney World Is Not a reflection of Bob Chapek's two year leadership of Disney Parks and Resorts. The Heritage and tradition of a Disney theme park attraction is to spend more than what is needed to make it better than what people are expecting.

Nonetheless, I don't really think this is news. Was there really anybody else under consideration after Tom Staggs was shown the door? I think this is pretty routine step towards an succession ending that most everyone has already assumed.

I would be more than willing to take the role of Chief Executive Officer, along with my investor cousin. Disney typically works best with two people leading the forefront, a finance guy, and a creative guy (Walt and Roy, Eisner and Wells).

 

[WDWTank]

Completely blanked on Laugh Floor...that's a pretty good show I agree

Laugh Floor is a great show, but it’s in the wrong park.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Agreed 100%...it works regardless of company size, too.

It actually works BETTER for larger companies...

Because large companies - like colleges - live in a world created internally of their own choosing. They don't ever consider non-financial market factors...

For instance the data and analysts say you can double your ticket price and not suffer a huge numerical loss in numbers...
...but you drive generations away that can result in massive losses overtime...

That can't be explained until you see it in people's faces.

Disney is so guilty of this...

Where do you see iger in the media?

Sun valley with willow...stockholder events...trade symposiums...an occasional interview on CNBC...
And once in a blue moon on a stage for ten minutes in Disneyland or a convention...

Completely detached...and it's not good.

One of my favorite clips ever is Eisner and wells scooping ice cream in Disneyland...bickering and squawking back and forth as the customers laughed.

There's such a value in that. And it's not really a coincidence that those two lead the company to its most successful period ever over the next 10 years...at least not to me.

 

[RockEmRob15]

Am I the only one that thinks Chapek = Hank

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Am I the only one that thinks Chapek = Hank

I was thinking more simon

 

[jakeman]

One is a racial slur. The others are not.

You can’t weasel out of that comparison with qualifiers.

Doesn't matter. Intent is the same. It's only the degree that varies.

The purpose is belittlement and dismissiveness of the targeted person and their opinion or action.

However, if you are caught up in the racial aspect of that example then "Crooked Hillary" would suffice. Same purpose as relabeling Iger as The Weatherman. It's repositioning the perception of the target so your audience is more amicable to your viewpoint.

 

[smile]

regardless of the moral high-ground one chooses to perch upon...
a journalist describing Staggs as 'an oddly waifish man of anemic personality' is... bellisima!