News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO

[Mmoore29]

Eisner needed to go. But not because of Roy’s ego clash with him.

Which is why Iger was put in. He was a nothing. Completely disregarded by both. And he’s heading back that way now unless this board turns heel on him.

Eisner had to go cause it was Too long.
…And now fill in the blanks why that’s important today?

It's important because so many users here are nostalgic for him over Iger and say Iger tanked everything. That's not true in the slightest.

All the following can be true:
-Eisner did an incredible turnaround of Disney in the first half of his CEO tenure and made it a colossus
-Eisner chose wrong in Michael Ovitz as his No. 2 (Iger being his No. 2 and becoming the new Frank Wells could've been done and arguably should've been done as a term in the ABC acquisition contract, meaning that Iger could've been announced as No. 2 on July 31, before Ovitz's announcement a week later) and then micromanaging and doing too many things on his own after Ovitz was gone.
-A lot of the "Disney in decline" stories early on from '96 onwards weren't true, but Eisner overreacted to them and made them true, and then his worst instincts overtook him
-Iger did phenomenal things in his tenure and not only recharged Disney but made it truly impressive via the Revival and the Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Fox acquisitions.
-The only real hiccups in that time being Alan Horn's execrable tenure as studio chair and his loathsome personal qualities, Chapek's "streaming is everything" strategy, and a ludicrous amplifying by the media of the butthurt Star Wars fanboys as reminiscent of the fanbase as a whole, even though they aren't, never have been and never will be
-Disney is still very much a thriving company, "brand fatigue" is not that real and has been heavily exaggerated, (Star Wars is still beloved and accepted by the vast majority of the public, the real fans, with open arms and Marvel is still on a hot streak) and a lot of the "decline" stories are the same old people from the Eisner era up to the same old tricks, conveniently moving the goalposts to call Iger a failure even though he's met or exceeded all the things they wanted him to do differently from Eisner. And short sellers and the likes are in cahoots to batter the company. Disney's stock price would still be at $115 without the shorts.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You don't remember Sunbeam? You don't remember "Chainsaw Al?" The very real accounting fraud he supervised there?

Again, Jack Welch is not this archvillain. GE's fall really began under Jeff Immelt, and so many people at GE told Welch he was the wrong choice. Would GE be the market leader still with a different choice, like Jim McNerney? No, but it would still be a major player. Welch wasn't perfect by any means, he did a lot of things right, and this revisionist history attacking him is ludicrous, especially when it credits him for inventing things that preexisted him by decades (celebrity CEOs, "shareholder value return", financialization).

You quote nonsense from textbooks without context. Context is everything and why the fall of US manufacturing is a deeper story than we will ever have time here to flesh out.

But idolizing Jack Welch for cutting corners and shipping everything away?
That’s a new one, Friedman

 

[Mmoore29]

You quote nonsense from textbooks without context. Context is everything and why the fall of US manufacturing is a deeper story than we will ever have time here to flesh out.

But idolizing Jack Welch for cutting corners and shipping everything away?
That’s a new one, Friedman

When did I say I "idolized" him? And remember, Welch didn't invent all that. That preexisted him for a long time. He's now a scapegoat. William Cohan's Power Failure is a better book about GE than "The Man Who Broke Capitalism," full stop.

 

[Mmoore29]

Of course there were. The idea that Iger is the only one capable of leading the company is crazy talk.

Who were they, then? Because no one proclaimed there was any alternative in 2005. I don't see you volunteering anyone. And if you do, odds are I'll think they were garbage.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Of course there were. The idea that Iger is the only one capable of leading the company is crazy talk.

there were literally dozens of people who Could have been installed then. Same as now.

The key is a trusted, strong board to stabilize the executives. Something Disney hasn’t had for years.

Unpacking Bob Iger’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good PR Week

Many in Hollywood hoped the re-upped Disney CEO, long considered the corporate leader most in tune with talent, would emerge as a levelheaded mediator who could end the labor impasse. And then he spoke his mind.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Sure seems like the studios all got together and appointed him public hatchet man…

What’s in it for bob? Keeps his investors at bay by placating other places where they have billions stashed as well. It’s a country club…not fight club…in big business.

 

[Mmoore29]

there were literally dozens of people who Could have been installed then. Same as now.

The key is a trusted, strong board to stabilize the executives. Something Disney hasn’t had for years.

Again, who were they? You're not saying. Let's not forget when Iger came onboard, everyone said Eisner's board was weak and incredibly ineffective. So there wasn't really anyone who could've stepped up to the plate better than Iger did.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

When did I say I "idolized" him? And remember, Welch didn't invent all that. That preexisted him for a long time. He's now a scapegoat. William Cohan's Power Failure is a better book about GE than "The Man Who Broke Capitalism," full stop.

Full stop is what you blew through when you start trying to elevate one bad manager over others. Which we seem to get into alot around here…

They’re was a brief flashpoint around here about six weeks ago over chapek, staggs and rasulo

 

[Mmoore29]

Full stop is what you blew through when you start trying to elevate one bad manager over others. Which we seem to get into alot around here…

They’re was a brief flashpoint around here about six weeks ago over chapek, staggs and rasulo

No, I'm not "elevating" Welch, I'm simply putting him back in the proper context. Because this revisionist history takes him well out of context. I'm pointing out a very salient truth. Welch is not a hero; he's also not Al Dunlap or Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling or Bernie Ebbers, no matter how much you try to make him so.

What next? You still believe Martha Stewart deserved her treatment by the government despite the fact their case was so weak and contradictory?

 

[MR.Dis]

When we are talking if Disney has a current brand problem, you need to do a little math. First, how many people/families purchase Disney? Let us just stay in US, and not go world wide. There are 330 million people, so maybe one third purchase/participate to some degree in Disney Content. Now let us look at what is happening: Incredible increase in costs to visit Parks, For those who do go the Parks incredible difficulty in booking/managing thru Genie +, the disappointing content on Disney + (not what they promised), disappointing movies/ story lines that have turned off many . So let us go back to the math, of the 110 million who regularly consume Disney products, all you need is to tick off 20% due to issues above and you have a serious problem Yes, Disney has serious problems that are not just going to go away. That is why Bob has to go, they need new leadership with a vision on how to address some of the issues above.

 

[monothingie]

That is why Bob has to go, they need new leadership with a vision on how to address some of the issues above.

@Bob will go when the institutional investors decide he's going to go.

Remember two things:
1. Disney will never admit a mistake. Ever.
2. Most of the institutional investors still think @Bob will fix or is capable of fixing everything that's going wrong right now.

 

[Splash4eva]

It's important because so many users here are nostalgic for him over Iger and say Iger tanked everything. That's not true in the slightest.

All the following can be true:
-Eisner did an incredible turnaround of Disney in the first half of his CEO tenure and made it a colossus
-Eisner chose wrong in Michael Ovitz as his No. 2 (Iger being his No. 2 and becoming the new Frank Wells could've been done and arguably should've been done as a term in the ABC acquisition contract, meaning that Iger could've been announced as No. 2 on July 31, before Ovitz's announcement a week later) and then micromanaging and doing too many things on his own after Ovitz was gone.
-A lot of the "Disney in decline" stories early on from '96 onwards weren't true, but Eisner overreacted to them and made them true, and then his worst instincts overtook him
-Iger did phenomenal things in his tenure and not only recharged Disney but made it truly impressive via the Revival and the Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Fox acquisitions.
-The only real hiccups in that time being Alan Horn's execrable tenure as studio chair and his loathsome personal qualities, Chapek's "streaming is everything" strategy, and a ludicrous amplifying by the media of the butthurt Star Wars fanboys as reminiscent of the fanbase as a whole, even though they aren't, never have been and never will be
-Disney is still very much a thriving company, "brand fatigue" is not that real and has been heavily exaggerated, (Star Wars is still beloved and accepted by the vast majority of the public, the real fans, with open arms and Marvel is still on a hot streak) and a lot of the "decline" stories are the same old people from the Eisner era up to the same old tricks, conveniently moving the goalposts to call Iger a failure even though he's met or exceeded all the things they wanted him to do differently from Eisner. And short sellers and the likes are in cahoots to batter the company. Disney's stock price would still be at $115 without the shorts.

There is a reason why people are shorting the stock..... & to say a stock price would be at 115 w/o shorts is like saying i would have been a Billionaire if i would have hit lotto last week....

 

[Bob]

@Bob will go when the institutional investors decide he's going to go.

Remember two things:
1. Disney will never admit a mistake. Ever.
2. Most of the institutional investors still think @Bob will fix or is capable of fixing everything that's going wrong right now.

 

[Mmoore29]

There is a reason why people are shorting the stock..... & to say a stock price would be at 115 w/o shorts is like saying i would have been a Billionaire if i would have hit lotto last week....

Most shorts are just vultures. If they think a stock price is overvalued or something is wrong, they can just say "don't buy" or report the company to the SEC. They don't have to make money on a company's misery, especially by borrowing shares they don't own, selling them, buying back cheaper to give back to the lender, and pocket the difference. A company should not have 10 percent of its stock shorted, the way Disney's is.

Many a time, people short stock just to make money for themselves, not because there's actually anything wrong at the company. Shorting artificially depresses the stock price.

This is a company that not only is worth 115, it's worth MORE. It's 250-300 a share, easily. And if Eisner had done what he should've by making Iger his No. 2 as part of the purchase of ABC and they'd become the the new version of Eisner and Wells, and Iger continued from there when he became CEO, Disney would be a 600-a-share company now.

 

[monothingie]

View attachment 732949

 

[Bob]

 

[monothingie]

 

[MR.Dis]

to monothingie above, did not say they would boot out Iger but only they should, I am well aware the current board and Institutional Investors are still in Bob's corner. As for your first point, the American Public is very forgiving. If Disney would admit they made mistake and pledge to do better, I believe in hasten a recovery of their core consumers--just my opinion.

 

[GimpYancIent]

A possible movie project title for a production (fictional of course, cough, cough) about Bob?

 

[Mmoore29]

And to monothingie above, did not say they would boot out Iger but only they should, I am well aware the current board and Institutional Investors are still in Bob's corner. As for your first point, the American Public is very forgiving. If Disney would admit they made mistake and pledge to do better, I believe in hasten a recovery of their core consumers--just my opinion.

And the things you want Disney to "admit mistakes" for aren't actual mistakes, with the exception of Genie+ and Lightning Lanes, and Bob's belligerence to the strike. But to apologize for Pixar? For Marvel? For Lucasfilm? For Fox? THOSE AREN'T MISTAKES, these brands are doing well, and why apologize if you haven't done anything wrong? Just to get a lynch mob off your back? Even though they'll always come back because they find something else? No, the answer is to hold firm. Give them and inch, they'll take a mile. People love Disney, always have always will, and to apologize for nonexistent mistakes would defeat the purpose. Pacifying bullies never works.

 

[el_super]

I think his best move was the complete revamp of DCA and giving it a cohesive theme....but then they turned around 2 years later after spending 1 billion dollars and began IP overlays and shoehorning. Creatively, he just doesn't have it.

What seems more likely... that Iger changed his mind about "creativity" or that market conditions showed a change in direction was needed?

That was John Lassiter who got his way on several things as part of the Pixar deal.

And when the DCA revamp didn't work out the way they wanted, and they had to pivot, Lasseter was no longer needed...