News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
The thing is... you don't NEED Disney. It's not like food or water or electricity, where if it went away tomorrow life would be terrible. It's not like Google or Microsoft, where it's not necessary for life but so many people rely upon it. It's not even like Facebook where it would be annoying to have to change my log ins and get pictures over email. People pay for Disney product because they like it and its image, not because they need it.

It would be in Disney's interest to have a decent public image, that's all.
That is why companies are making sure they become too big to fail.
See banks, gigantic manufacturers.. Disney is buying all entertainment too...etc..
 

John park hopper

Well-Known Member
That is not true…they are a symbol that you can yield the worlds power on a TEMPORARY basis and then walk away. That was the whole point of the way it was drawn up. Just like a volunteer army that doesn’t “belong to anyone. George Washington circa 1783/1797.

you have to stand for SOMETHING, right?

I hope I’m not being “subtle” with this…

as an aside…if anyone is interested in “feeling history”, I recommend Frances tavern in lower manhattan…it’s obviously not the same as it was in the 1700’s…but you get kinda a “Jedi rush” when you understand how some moments influence the world forever. Cinncinattu
Will have to agree to disagree otherwise it would become a political discussion and that would violate the rule
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
The thing is... you don't NEED Disney. It's not like food or water or electricity, where if it went away tomorrow life would be terrible. It's not like Google or Microsoft, where it's not necessary for life but so many people rely upon it. It's not even like Facebook where it would be annoying to have to change my log ins and get pictures over email. People pay for Disney product because they like it and its image, not because they need it.

It would be in Disney's interest to have a decent public image, that's all.

Do they not have a good public image? I know people grumble at how CEOs are paid in general, but is Disney really above or below the average on that?

Though it's funny you mention public image, because that's one of the biggest reasons why CEOs are paid so much. It is increasingly difficult to find candidates for C-Suite level roles, that don't just have the necessary skills to run a company the size of Disney, but also have a squeaky clean personal record. It's hard to understand for people who have spent their life in a world where you clock out and go home and don't have to think about work anymore, but someone at Chapek's level will never be able to clock out, until he's out of the position. He will be scrutinized at any point he is visible to the public and the cameras. He will be told what to wear, what restaurants to go to, which friends to have over at his house, how to talk, what to say and what not to say, and he doesn't get to just turn it off at the end of the day.

He won't be allowed to do anything in public, that could jeopardize the Disney image. A lot of people think the CEO gets to dictate how the company reacts, but in a lot of ways the company gets to dictate how the CEO behaves as well. I'm sure someone at Disney has already asked him how he feels about wearing sweaters...
 

Club34

Well-Known Member
"The Walt Disney Co. has disclosed the executive compensation for CEO Bob Chapek and former executive chairman Bob Iger, who ended his tenure at the company at the end of last year.

Chapek’s compensation package for the year totaled $32.46 million, compared with $14.1 million in the previous year, which had reflected the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic and which had been the first in which he led the company after his elevation in February 2020.

Iger’s compensation in his last year with the company totaled $45.9 million, compared with $21.0 million in the previous fiscal year, $47.5 million in the year before that and $65.6 million in fiscal 2018, which was boosted by a stock package that he was awarded as an incentive to remain with the company past his originally planned retirement date.

Disney disclosed top executives’ compensation in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The compensation packages rose sharply because Chapek and Iger did not take bonuses in fiscal 2020 due to the pandemic.

The compensation disclosure only covers the company’s latest fiscal year, which ended on Oct. 2. In other words, it doesn’t include Iger’s end-of-contract stock grant, which was awarded to him on Dec. 31, and which was worth nine figures."


Well, at least I will sleep better at night after I hitchhike from MCO to my resort knowing where that savings went to. I was a little worried about Chapek for a moment. Glad he will be able to keep the heat on. :rolleyes:
 

note2001

Well-Known Member
Let's not forget 68% of Disney CM's consider themselves 'food insecure'.

Let that sink in...
Where was this number from? Does this include everyone across the entire business or just theme parks?
I get the feeling it's not representative of the entire company.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
The top 4 executives of Disney pulled in (combined) 100 mil in salaries for 2021 at a time when Disney attendance was down, revenue was down due to the pandemic. So what is the justification for doubling the compensation during a down turn. Is that a normal corporate practice?
Whatever the case in an up or down year, senior execs from various companies who survive layoffs make more year after year after year.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Where was this number from? Does this include everyone across the entire business or just theme parks?
I get the feeling it's not representative of the entire company.
That’s the old florida statistic…which wdw happens to be in. Minimum wage is minimum wage for the employer and their lobbyists…not the earner. The Orlando market has always been notorious for maintaining that static level too…so if universal or Disney offers bonuses for any reason…the minute it hits the Sentinel Everyone’s rent goes up that and more.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Whatever the case in an up or down year, senior execs from various companies who survive layoffs make more year after year after year.
No doubt…but it doesn’t make it right or something that has to be defended by those that contribute the money that ultimately pays it.

I’m not even talking the workers…I’m talking about the shareholders who have “lost” money over the last 12 months when hardly any public stocks have.

“how you gonna get the money, Bob?” Is a legitimate question for all the armchair economists on this board. Maybe without a reappointment of a board member or two to send a message?
 

durangojim

Well-Known Member
And Secret Service protection for life! When former Pres. George Bush ate at the Coronado Springs Pepper Market food court at lunch time with us guests they were at least 15 agents in the immediate area and some were at his side when he waited for his food to be made. He got a standing ovation for the crowd.
That, I don't have a problem with
 

durangojim

Well-Known Member
I disagree. We shouldn't have to pay for their office space, etc. I could see $5,000,000 after leaving office as a cap on total post-office expenditures. Don't forget, these people are independently wealthy before they even take office, never mind the gigs they get after they're done.
Who's going to spend $5,000,000 at the post office. I mean c'mon!;):D
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
The thing is... you don't NEED Disney. It's not like food or water or electricity, where if it went away tomorrow life would be terrible. It's not like Google or Microsoft, where it's not necessary for life but so many people rely upon it. It's not even like Facebook where it would be annoying to have to change my log ins and get pictures over email. People pay for Disney product because they like it and its image, not because they need it.

It would be in Disney's interest to have a decent public image, that's all.

There’s a great comment from John Hammond in the Jurassic Park book about how using their technology to develope life saving drugs is bad business because if something is “necessary” the government gets involved and controls the prices but by creating something like dinosaurs for “amusement” it allows them to charge whatever they want.

You'd probably be unable to buy most necessities.. as almost every single product in existence are just sister brands of gigantic corporations (I'm looking at you, Kellog's, Yum brands, Procter & Gamble, etc..)

You certainly couldn’t get a vaccine, healthcare execs make a fortune.

The top 4 executives of Disney pulled in (combined) 100 mil in salaries for 2021 at a time when Disney attendance was down, revenue was down due to the pandemic. So what is the justification for doubling the compensation during a down turn. Is that a normal corporate practice?

But they “guided the company through the pandemic” and are “leading it into the future”. 😉
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
You want no part of this club. I assure you. Ask around.
captainamerica_understoodreference.png
 

ShookieJones

We need time for things to happen.
The Walt comparisons have been played out for 50 years…though you’re not wrong…

I think the better comparison is the 80’s/90’s and “he who should not be named”

there was a good 10-15 years there when they chased money to no end…but they did it by growth and increasing their audience and products…

this particular can of crap in charge is doing almost the opposite…Eliminating demographics and withdrawing from some marketplaces. Even with Disney+…who’s biggest challenges are ahead.
Agree on all points. For the record, I am not one to invoke Walt's name in any serious debate, for a myriad reasons, however I did in this instance because Mr. Disney was mentioned by name in the "DIZNEY IS A BIZNESS YOU DUMMIES" post I was replying to. ;)
 

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

Back
Top Bottom