Disney Has Lost It's Way - An Article From The Federalist

[Ninja Mom]

No ceo material exists anywhere near Iger now. Not a shred.

If one was the head of a company and had no intention of leaving, one would not be actively grooming or enabling a replacement, would they?

Even better, the replacement that you are supposed to be "grooming" to take over is a total loser who is an embarrassment to the company.

The irony here is that the inferior replacement is being green lit to fail by the CEO. All of the stupid decisions at some point have to pass through the top.

I'd be very curious to see when the ax will fall and Iger will get extended yet again. I'd be even more curious to see when the Board sees (or even cares about) his manipulation to stay in power and keep collecting those bonuses.

~NM

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If one was the head of a company and had no intention of leaving, one would not be actively grooming or enabling a replacement, would they?

Even better, the replacement that you are supposed to be "grooming" to take over is a total loser who is an embarrassment to the company.

The irony here is that the inferior replacement is being green lit to fail by the CEO. All of the stupid decisions at some point have to pass through the top.

I'd be very curious to see when the ax will fall and Iger will get extended yet again. I'd be even more curious to see when the Board sees (or even cares about) his manipulation to stay in power and keep collecting those bonuses.

~NM

So what you’re saying is: worse position than what got Eisner canned?

Yep...been that way since bout the day Roy died...no coincidence.

 

[FCivish3]

Those bashing him now will be the same people bashing his successor as being worse, just because they're irrationally expecting someone to manage the company irresponsibly to favor their personal preferences rather than responsibly to favor the best interests of the owners of the company.

Possibly, HOWEVER, Walt Disney NEVER had profit as his main motive. It was several steps down the list. And yet he didn't lack for money. Disneyland was a money making machine right from the beginning. Walt's main goal was to expand the human experience. To enjoy the magic and the fantasy and to look forward to wonderful tomorrow. He actively tried to lead the Disney Corp in that direction, and to lead all of humanity into a better future. The idea that the main and only goal of a company should be to provide profit for its 'owners' is a commonly stated theme, but it isn't necessarily true. Many, many, MANY companies and businesses over the years have been started, and run, with the idea of providing a service or benefit, with the service or benefit being more important than the profits. Disney Corp was always a 'dream company' whose real goal was to create a better human experience, now and in the future, and not to pursue every last grubby dime. There are plenty of companies that have the goal of money money money. Investors know which ones they are. If it is the goal of investors to also make every last dime, then let them go do that. But, in the meantime, by converting Disney into a 'cash grab' plain and simple, they have betrayed its founder, they have betrayed the people who 'bought into' Disney precisely because it was 'special,' and they have betrayed the future of mankind (even if it it only a little bit) and they do that all for a few bucks? Enough profit is enough profit. Go do some good, instead.

By the way, I am not some 'wishy washy' socialist. I am an ardent capitalist. However, unlike some 'capitalists' I don't think profit by itself is the be all and end all, or at least it shouldn't be that way for everyone. Like Winston Churchill said, "Capitalism is the horse that pulls the cart." But it is the cart that is most important. Yes, you need to keep the horse healthy, but the horse by itself is nothing.

 

[FCivish3]

. . . . the board has no loyalty to the brand for the first time in its history.

No ceo material exists anywhere near Iger now. Not a shred.

Companies purely run for institutional investors will become completely vulnerable to consumer whim as we move forward...that’s why Disney is in a different position that the other big America companies that have collapsed themselves of late. The intangible is as valuable as their tangible.

You can say that again. Disney, being the mega behemoth that is now dominating American pop culture in movies, toys, television, music, and everything else, is in no danger of collapse, ever. But, they don't seem to realize that there IS real value in the Disney 'Intangibles' in and of themselves.

The Universal and Disney parks/resorts took very different approaches. Disney was more holistic (greater emphasis on the whole experience of visiting), and more focused on grand, archetypal themes (optimism and reassurance at The Magic Kingdom, human achievement and global community at EPCOT, the intrinsic value of nature at Disney’s Animal Kingdom). This made is something more deep and meaningful - and indeed unique in the world. By throwing in the hot movie IPs/characters everywhere, they are rapidly diluting what made them stand apart. Just my opinion, anyway.

When I was young, Disney stood for 'Vision.' To our kids and grandkids, Disney will plainly and simply stand for 'fun.' But for future generations, much of what makes Disney will simply become irrelevant. Disney will price its resorts, Disneyland and Disney World, out of the price range of 'middle class' America, and that WILL hurt its profits in the long run. As well as 'tuning out' the people who invest in the 'Disney Dream' and in the end, the only connection that most people will have with Disney will be that people will watch their movies.

 

[bUU]

I see the main challenge for Disney from a creative Side is that they can’t bring in an innovative ceo...

No, that's nonsense. People like you complained about Eisner not being an innovative CEO when they brought him in, and now people like you wax poetically about those great Eisner years. Meanwhile, I don't remember ever reading any posts from you labeling Ron Miller or Donn Tatum as innovative CEOs.

 

[bUU]

Possibly, HOWEVER, Walt Disney NEVER had profit as his main motive.

Which is why Walt Disney was never CEO.

 

[FettFan]

Just wait until Carousel of Progress is re-themed to where instead of following a family as they witness the progress of the 20th century, we follow a Jedi Youngling who progresses to the rank of Master.

And instead of the father John, it will be hosted by an animatronic Yoda.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No, that's nonsense. People like you complained about Eisner not being an innovative CEO when they brought him in, and now people like you wax poetically about those great Eisner years. Meanwhile, I don't remember ever reading any posts from you labeling Ron Miller or Donn Tatum as innovative CEOs.

I...”like me”...said nothing of the sort. Even though Eisner needed to go - because 15-20 years is just too long - I didn’t believe Iger to be more than the empty tv suit he had the rep of...

Now...he has succeeded more than I would have thought...but it’s still time to go.

I’m pro-Eisner most of the time because it became fashionable to crap on him as it tends to be when someone leaves, but he did great longterm work overall and understood how to handle the brand/name more than spray tan bob. He knew that the backbone of core fans/customers needed to be preserved because the longterm
Strength was in it.

Not some freshman year intro Econ hack. It’s more than supply,
Demand and price with Disney...but that’s just from
My own experience...so you know?

Forget it.

 

[eliza61nyc]

You can say that again. Disney, being the mega behemoth that is now dominating American pop culture in movies, toys, television, music, and everything else, is in no danger of collapse, ever. But, they don't seem to realize that there IS real value in the Disney 'Intangibles' in and of themselves.



When I was young, Disney stood for 'Vision.' To our kids and grandkids, Disney will plainly and simply stand for 'fun.' But for future generations, much of what makes Disney will simply become irrelevant. Disney will price its resorts, Disneyland and Disney World, out of the price range of 'middle class' America, and that WILL hurt its profits in the long run. As well as 'tuning out' the people who invest in the 'Disney Dream' and in the end, the only connection that most people will have with Disney will be that people will watch their movies.

But that's actually not the fault of Disney, that is how the new consumer is. We are old fogies (lovingly) whether we want to admit it or not. We are use to brand loyalty etc etc. My youngins don't give a flying flip. I show them these threads and they laugh, literally over people complaining about old rides or maybe it's the issue of "you don't know, what you don't know". today's consumer has already stated that they prefer fast, cheap and deliverable over vision and quality.

Now personally we've been singing this "hurt their profits" in the "long run" for at least a decade. at least. their profits have done nothing but increase and that's on top of a really bad recession. I've said before that pretty much as long as the American consumer feels secure in their Economic situation Disney can and will get any price they ask.

I don't have this emotional attachment to the place like one who has gone for years and years. What is the Disney "Dream"?? do I care what "walt" wanted. not one iota. I do care greatly that I get a return on my investment as that's whats going to allow me to retire.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But that's actually not the fault of Disney, that is how the new consumer is. We are old fogies (lovingly) whether we want to admit it or not. We are use to brand loyalty etc etc. My youngins don't give a flying flip. I show them these threads and they laugh, literally over people complaining about old rides or maybe it's the issue of "you don't know, what you don't know". today's consumer has already stated that they prefer fast, cheap and deliverable over vision and quality.

Now personally we've been singing this "hurt their profits" in the "long run" for at least a decade. at least. their profits have done nothing but increase and that's on top of a really bad recession. I've said before that pretty much as long as the American consumer feels secure in their Economic situation Disney can and will get any price they ask.

I don't have this emotional attachment to the place like one who has gone for years and years. What is the Disney "Dream"?? do I care what "walt" wanted. not one iota. I do care greatly that I get a return on my investment as that's whats going to allow me to retire.

I agree...and the fact your youngins don’t give a flip is EXACTLY why they should be careful with their price point.

Loyalty is becoming fleeting and maybe non-existent moving forward.

Be careful. Can’t have it both ways. Can’t say “it’s a business” and then when their business model is questioned say “but it’s Disney”

Life is less convenient than that.

 

[eliza61nyc]

I agree...and the fact your youngins don’t give a flip is EXACTLY why they should be careful with their price point.

Loyalty is becoming fleeting and maybe non-existent moving forward.

Be careful. Can’t have it both ways. Can’t say “it’s a business” and then when their business model is questioned say “but it’s Disney”

Life is less convenient than that.

Oh absolutely agree, I do try to avoid (not always successfully) saying things like that. Although I did not experience Disney at its finest, I will say that I applaud those who did and want the company to do better.
It will be interesting to see how the parks shake out by the 50th

 

[wdisney9000]

My youngins don't give a flying flip. I show them these threads and they laugh, literally over people complaining about old rides or maybe it's the issue of "you don't know, what you don't know"

Thats extremely anecdotal. My niece and nephews (ages 11-19) absolutely love watching videos of Horizons, WoM, Body Wars, Skyway, all the old MGM attractions, etc. They're obsessed with Spaceship Earth. They will call me and ask me to ask @marni1971 questions about it. I overheard them discussing a past version of the ride and when one of them said "No, you dont see that until you reach 180 top",... I just grinned and nodded my head.

These are children who do give a flyin flip about WDW, not because they are brand addicts or because Disney bought Marvel. They just enjoy all aspects of the parks. Past and present. We used to point things out to them on our trips when they were younger. And now, they are the ones pointing things out to us!

 

[Raineman]

I removed the argumentative posts that were all about whether or not the author is or isn't a real journalist, rather than discussing what was written.

We can always count on the Mom to separate the kids when they're fighitng and send them to their rooms.

 

[Benjamin_Nicholas]

People talk about Eisner like people talk about Regan: Wistful and only remembering the high peaks.

Bottom line, it makes no sense for Disney to continue to placate to their loyalists. Time marches on and the parks aren't a time capsule, especially with a new generation of younger money coming up and expecting more.

Never cater to a dying audience... And Disney isn't. I don't agree with everything they're doing, but I can't fault them for the direction they're headed.

 

[bUU]

Bottom line, it makes no sense for Disney to continue to placate to their loyalists.

We shouldn't call them "loyalists". The loyalists are those who grow with Disney rather than petulantly rail against its growth.

 

[wdisney9000]

It isn't, while your counter-example is. That's the point: While there are some exceptions, generally what consumers want is very different from what you described your niece and nephews like. And what is "generally" the case is what rightfully determines what should be done. The consumer marketplace is perhaps a lot more democratic than many expect.

The most popular attractions in the parks are not what consumers wanted. Especially the ones that have stood the test of time. There was no consumer base wanting a boat ride with pirates, a simulated hand glider experience, a buggy ride through a mansion with happy haunts, a boat ride based on Song of the South, etc. Thats what made Disney so unique. They created a product that the consumer didnt even know they wanted. And they did use IP, but not for every attraction.

The point in her post was that her kids laugh at people who "complain" about old rides. Who is "complaining"? If a person says, "I wish they would build an updated style attraction like Horizons", that isnt complaining. And no, Im not saying they should rebuild Horizons. But the company once took a concept and made a "Disney" version of it through storytelling. Chapeks idea of storytelling is "more Disney" by slapping a character name on it or in it.

 

[Stellajack]

Can I ask why you didn't consider other vacation destinations before? (I am not trolling, I am genuinely curious) We love visiting WDW, but we still take vacations elsewhere as well, like all-inclusives in the Caribbean, Nashville, even visiting central Florida without spending one minute on WDW property. I think people do themselves a disservice by limiting their vacations to WDW-the world has so much to offer.

I wish I could "like" this post over and over. I am also not a troll, but I wonder if you are a DVC member as the reason for your longstanding WDW trips.

There are so many opportunities to travel, even internationally, that cost less than a week at a deluxe Disney resort with tickets, dining, etc. Varying our travel experiences has kept us from becoming "stale" on Disney World. We will continue to plan periodic trips there which is the very reason I visit this forum. Here, I can see what is new that we need to know when making our plans.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

The most popular attractions in the parks are not what consumers wanted. Especially the ones that have stood the test of time. There was no consumer base wanting a boat ride with pirates, a simulated hand glider experience, a buggy ride through a mansion with happy haunts, a boat ride based on Song of the South, etc. Thats what made Disney so unique. They created a product that the consumer didnt even know they wanted. And they did use IP, but not for every attraction.

The point in her post was that her kids laugh at people who "complain" about old rides. Who is "complaining"? If a person says, "I wish they would build an updated style attraction like Horizons", that isnt complaining. And no, Im not saying they should rebuild Horizons. But the company once took a concept and made a "Disney" version of it through storytelling. Chapeks idea of storytelling is "more Disney" by slapping a character name on it or in it.

That first paragraph is an eye opener. Well done. I think a lot of it had to do with WDI being more open to creativity and magic, letting the"imagineers" ideas run wild. Now it's more or less like "I want a Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy ride in Hollywood land at DCA. Make it happen."

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney CEO Bob Iger: I believe if Steve Jobs were still alive, we might have combined with Apple

Disney CEO Bob Iger writes in his autobiography that he believes he would have discussed combining Disney with Apple had Steve Jobs lived.

www.google.com

If you want real, actual proof that Disney maybe has lost its way....take it from the horses mouth.

Combine with Apple? Great...the only company that - in practice - abuses its loyal customers more systematically

 

[Benjamin_Nicholas]

The cure to Disney losing their way... Simple.

Stop going. Stop giving them free PR. Stop buying their products.