News Disney names D’Amaro as Chairman Disney Parks Experiences and Products

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Toy Story Land and spending $100 million on that Little Mermaid ride come to mind as gigantic whiffs, although the cost for the Little Mermaid ride isn't really relevant. It could have cost $10 million and it would still be a whiff because it's such a low quality ride and far below Disney standards.

All of “new fantasyland” is a whiff to me. A junior coaster, a bad restaurant, a bad dark ride and moving the rest of the furniture around.

Toy story land leaves much to be desired as well.

The Star Wars land still lacks an attractive identity and has a lot of dead space...even with the second ride.

 

[Imagineer45]

For what it's worth, Pixar Pier didn't just cost $100 million, it cost more than double that. The makeover was done in an attempt to show that WDI could do things quickly, efficiently, and at a low cost, yet failed at all of these.

Like so many recent WDI projects, it focused on the details without stepping back to look at the bigger picture and ask whether the individual elements added up to a greater sum. For the most part, the execution of each piece was okay, but the fundamental concept was so flawed that it was never going to amount to much. The people approving the project had so little concept of what's reasonable for a construction project that they never thought to question the budget, nor why so many elements weren't completed in time for the grand opening. And all of this for a project that literally added nothing to the park's capacity, just redecorating existing facilities.

Aside from the aforementioned Pixar Pier, the additions to the park under Iger's lead have been rather checkered. Without getting into the failures of the MyMagic+ system, here are a couple of the most obvious missteps from physical park projects off the top of my head:

• The Little Mermaid dark ride cost $100M (the same amount as Everest 5 years prior) for a modest D-ticket attraction, only to require several costly overhauls within the first few years of operation to attempt to fix mistakes that should have been caught early in the design process, especially considering it was built twice
• Luigi's Flying Tires cost around $250M in an attempt to replicate the simple charm of DL's original Flying Saucers attraction from the 1960's, but failed to catch on with guests due to oversized vehicles, inefficient boarding procedures, awkward maneuvering and just a general lack of fun. Its replacement does much better with guest satisfaction, but cost another $75M, making the total cost for that site unfathomable for what it is
• Despite the generally-positive reception of WDW's Toy Story Land, it has a huge cost, not only in terms of money (I believe it was over $200M) but also opportunity cost in WDW's most landlocked park. Instead of maximizing limited space, which has often led to WDI's most memorable work in the past, they used 11 acres to add an exposed coaster, simple flat ride, restrooms, and a snack bar. This was their chance to make the most of an expansion of the park's footprint, and it was squandered
• But perhaps the biggest misstep of all was DL's Galaxy's Edge, which cost over $1B for the land itself, plus hundreds of millions spent throughout the resort for rerouting Rivers of America, park-wide path widening, a massive parking structure, and other general capacity improvements, only to have a summer DL's lightest attendance in years. The ensuing panic caused cuts throughout the resort because they were operating at a capacity that never materialized, and forced them to trot out MSEP yet again in a desperate pleat to draw people in. Summer 2019 at DLR was an unmitigated disaster, which the current pandemic is helping to erase from public memory. The WDW version opened to better reception, due partly to the pathetic state of the Studios park after so many years of reductions with no replacements

Not to mention all the smaller missteps in determining what's possible, feasible, viable and worthwhile in a real operating theme park that aren't as visible to the average park-goer. Sure Flight of Passage is a fun experience, but how many CMs does it take to operate the behemoth building for an embarrassingly low hourly throughput? Why was Be Our Guest originally designed to only have certain dining rooms available during certain meals, when they always knew demand would outstrip supply? Was anybody really expecting that the majority of park guests were going to LARP along with the CMs in SWL? And while we've gotten additions here and there, why have the majority of park areas remained untouched for decades?

Until the creatives, operators, designers and decision-makers can get out of their individual silos and start talking to one another, all these problems are going to persist. Sure, Iger has spent a lot of money on very few meaningful additions to the park, but under better leadership that same amount of money could have been spent much more effectively, both with regard to individual attractions and overall park experience.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, a "whiff" is a swing and a miss. A colossal disaster. A DCA 1.0 that loses the company millions, or a DLP that loses the company billions. Not a Little Mermaid ride that has been relatively well-received, even if (presumably) you and I think it's below par, or a FoP ride that we wish had a higher capacity, or even a SWGE that started on the wrong foot but exploded with the opening of RotR. You are completely right in that I forgot Luigi 1.0, and that was my mistake. I did not include MyMagic+ because it was not a park addition in the same sense. In that case, I could point to the millions of infrastructure improvements Iger has made.

Look, I am not an Iger fanboy, and I am not going to sit here and defend him. If you read the rest of my quote, I think my perspective is pretty clear:

The problem is that Iger understands the parks are ridiculously profitable and, therefore, need little additional investment that adds risk. As a shareholder, this is great, but as a parks fan, it's annoying. Iger only focused on fixing blights in the existing parks to maintain their standards. I am not saying that this was a bad initiative, as DCA 2.0, New Fantasyland, and Pandora all vastly upgraded neglected areas. However, I have serious doubts that he would have even built DCA, DHS, or DAK if he was in Eisner's shoes. I think Iger went with the motto of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," instead of, "This is good, let's make it better."

Eisner did a ton of projects, but most of them were underfunded and, therefore, underwhelming. Iger came in with a media background and decided to take the opposite approach of fewer, but well-funded projects and they have mostly been successes. I wish we had a CEO who was the best of both worlds, but that has not been the case really since Tatum left in 1976.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Just to make sure we are on the same page, a "whiff" is a swing and a miss. A colossal disaster. A DCA 1.0 that loses the company millions, or a DLP that loses the company billions. Not a Little Mermaid ride that has been relatively well-received, even if (presumably) you and I think it's below par, or a FoP ride that we wish had a higher capacity, or even a SWGE that started on the wrong foot but exploded with the opening of RotR. You are completely right in that I forgot Luigi 1.0, and that was my mistake. I did not include MyMagic+ because it was not a park addition in the same sense. In that case, I could point to the millions of infrastructure improvements Iger has made.

So again I ask, why would the President and COO, the number two person at the company, be free of any blame for a whiff?

Also, you don't spend an extra 50% trying to fix something that has been "relatively well-received."

 

[No Name]

This is the Catch-22 of the haters: You can't say Iger/Disney never spends (in this past decade) and then say they overspend at the same time.

While I’m by no means a hater, a problem is that they overspend on individual projects, which limits their ability to spend on additional projects and/or hurts the balance sheet. As both a visitor and an investor, that doesn’t reflect well on Disney.

There was very considerable less maintenance capex spent in the previous decade than this one.

Numbers?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

While I’m by no means a hater, a problem is that they overspend on individual projects, which limits their ability to spend on additional projects and/or hurts the balance sheet. As both a visitor and an investor, that doesn’t reflect well on Disney.

It also exacerbates the problem of capacity to maintain value in their prices...and that is slipping.

“We spared no expense on this once in a lifetime simulator we built! That took 5+ years”

Great...thanks for the 11 minutes...now what about the 500,000 more visitors on property this week than there was 5 years ago in the “slow” season?

 

[MisterPenguin]

While I’m by no means a hater, a problem is that they overspend on individual projects, which limits their ability to spend on additional projects and/or hurts the balance sheet. As both a visitor and an investor, that doesn’t reflect well on Disney.

I'm not going to argue against that. I was only arguing against the point that (real) money hasn't ever been spent by Iger on parks.

There are areas that Disney has spent money I would take exception to. I have never defended Pixar Pier or the Riviera, for example.

Numbers?

Here's @ParentsOf4 's graph of Growth Capex. "Growth Capex" is taking total Capital Expenditure and then subtracting out depreciation so as to get a ball park figure on what was spent on new stuff rather that replace and/or repair...

View attachment 292636

And here's the break down of Total Capex v. Growth Capex v. Profit (Operating Revenue, which is Revenue minus Expenses)

View attachment 292637

 

[Giss Neric]

All of “new fantasyland” is a whiff to me. A junior coaster, a bad restaurant, a bad dark ride and moving the rest of the furniture around.

Toy story land leaves much to be desired as well.

The Star Wars land still lacks an attractive identity and has a lot of dead space...even with the second ride.

You did not mention Pandora: World of Avatar cause I want to know if you hated Pandora as well you were never contended with anything new that has opened.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think the point is not spending on maintenance was never an option. That has to be done or the lawyers aren’t happy.

My problem with Iger is that he continued the late Eisner stagnation and got zero blame for that...but then is lauded for spending on “so much” this last decade that is really catch up. They closed and mothballed ALOT under early Iger.

That’s the catch 22 of “defenders”. Can’t act as though he didn’t sit on it for quite a while.

The truth is definitely more in the center lane...but there are pluses and minuses.

Personally, I feel myself in the middle ground regarding both Iger and Eisner but it often seems on the forums you have to either be a lover of a hater of either or both of them.

In terms of Eisner, few would deny his first decade was one of if not the most exciting period in the parks' history since Walt was alive. They wouldn't exist as they are now (nor probably the whole company) if not for what was achieved during those years. It really fell off a cliff during the second decade, though, resulting in entire parks like DCA and WDS that were not just embarrassingly below Disney's standards, but below those of their competitors. Again, though, there were bright spots like Expedition Everest. I don't like Mission: Space, but at least that was also ambitious.

Iger also obviously seemed disinterested in WDW if not the parks generally, and seemed to feel the best strategy was to just ring as much money out of the resort rather than make any meaningful investments for the first decade or so of his tenure. There is some nuance, though, in that he did plow money into making DCA a decent park, including things like Buena Vista Street that returned the theming that Eisner seemed intent on stripping away from new projects during his final years. Now he's spending huge money on the parks and the nice thing is that Disney again seems to place a huge emphasis on quality, always something that set Disney apart but they seemed to forget for a while. Closer to home for me, I also like the fact that they finally took over Disneyland Paris and there has been a huge jump in quality since.

The negative thing with Iger 2.0 is that costs for these new projects have become insanely inflated and they always go the safe route of tying every new land and attraction to an existing IP which makes the parks less interesting, at least for me. I also find the intense nickel and diming of the WDW experience has become a huge turn off.

So, swings and roundabouts, I guess!

 

[lazyboy97o]

There is some nuance, though, in that he did plow money into making DCA a decent park

The nuance would be the mounting pressure from the City. And again, why is the President and COO exempt from any blame for the prior piecemeal strategy for addressing Disney’s California Adventure?

 

[Sir_Cliff]

The nuance would be the mounting pressure from the City. And again, why is the President and COO exempt from any blame for the prior piecemeal strategy for addressing Disney’s California Adventure?

Eisner wasn't exactly known for his open and consultative management style. In general, I would say that it's easier to judge both of them based on the periods they were in charge. Who knows what Iger did and thought regarding the parks during that period as President and COO.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Eisner wasn't exactly known for his open and consultative management style. In general, I would say that it's easier to judge both of them based on the periods they were in charge. Who knows what Iger did and thought regarding the parks during that period as President and COO.

The people who worked with them? There are no stories of Iger pushing back against Eisner to try something different at Disney's California Adventure or to not cut down Hong Kong Disneyland. He was the man in charge of executing Eisner's vision and all indications are that he was a loyal lieutenant. Even then, those big early actions like those regarding these two parks were the result of external pressure.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

The people who worked with them? There are no stories of Iger pushing back against Eisner to try something different at Disney's California Adventure or to not cut down Hong Kong Disneyland. He was the man in charge of executing Eisner's vision and all indications are that he was a loyal lieutenant. Even then, those big early actions like those regarding these two parks were the result of external pressure.

This is where the fan criticism often goes beyond what is reasonable for me.

On the one hand, we should hold Iger responsible for Eisner's decisions because he didn't risk (and likely end) his entire career to fight for a different direction in the theme parks. On the other, we should not give him any credit for approving the relaunch of DCA as CEO because he was forced into it by the Anaheim City Council.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is where the fan criticism often goes beyond what is reasonable for me.

On the one hand, we should hold Iger responsible for Eisner's decisions because he didn't risk (and likely end) his entire career to fight for a different direction in the theme parks. On the other, we should not give him any credit for approving the relaunch of DCA as CEO because he was forced into it by the Anaheim City Council.

I’m not saying we hold Iger responsible for Eisner’s decisions but he should not be given a free pass and treated like someone who came in from the outside and found a mess he was determined to clean up. Iger was a key part of that mess.

Decisions are made within a context and that context should be understood. Iger didn’t find a strategy that wasn’t working and instantly recognize that it was not working, he was actively involved in that strategy.

If someone is fixing windows that someone threw rocks at at, it’s not as praiseworthy when you learn they were the one collecting the rocks and only starting fixing the windows after being chided.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Personally, I feel myself in the middle ground regarding both Iger and Eisner but it often seems on the forums you have to either be a lover of a hater of either or both of them.

In terms of Eisner, few would deny his first decade was one of if not the most exciting period in the parks' history since Walt was alive. They wouldn't exist as they are now (nor probably the whole company) if not for what was achieved during those years. It really fell off a cliff during the second decade, though, resulting in entire parks like DCA and WDS that were not just embarrassingly below Disney's standards, but below those of their competitors. Again, though, there were bright spots like Expedition Everest. I don't like Mission: Space, but at least that was also ambitious.

Iger also obviously seemed disinterested in WDW if not the parks generally, and seemed to feel the best strategy was to just ring as much money out of the resort than make any meaningful investments for the first decade or so of his tenure. There is some nuance, though, in that he did plow money into making DCA a decent park, including things like Buena Vista Street that returned the theming that Eisner seemed intent on stripping away from new projects during his final years. Now he's spending huge money on the parks and the nice thing is that Disney again seems to place a huge emphasis on quality, always something that set Disney apart but they seemed to forget for a while. Closer to home for me, I also like the fact that they finally took over Disneyland Paris and there has been a huge jump in quality since.

The negative thing with Iger 2.0 is that costs for these new projects have become insanely inflated and they always go the safe route of tying every new land and attraction to an existing IP which makes the parks less interesting, at least for me. I also find the intense nickel and diming of the WDW experience has become a huge turn off.

So, swings and roundabouts, I guess!

This is EXACTLY The way things have gone.

Both made great strides and did things that caused longterm problems. Igers problems just haven’t had enough time to germinate and become a source for most internet ninnies to complain about.

Both have been very big contributors. For Better and worse.

The people who worked with them? There are no stories of Iger pushing back against Eisner to try something different at Disney's California Adventure or to not cut down Hong Kong Disneyland. He was the man in charge of executing Eisner's vision and all indications are that he was a loyal lieutenant. Even then, those big early actions like those regarding these two parks were the result of external pressure.

He was biding his time. He was a throw in with the Capitol cities deal and he waited his turn. Smart decision ultimately for Iger...but he was useless as a lieutenant until Roy bagged Eisner...more or less.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

He was biding his time. He was a throw in with the Capitol cities deal and he waited his turn. Smart decision ultimately for Iger...but he was useless as a lieutenant until Roy bagged Eisner...more or less.

Also very much agree with this reading of the situation.

Iger seems to have been playing the long game, serving as Eisner's loyal lieutenant and avoiding getting fired and demoted until the day when Eisner had to leave and he was left as the most logical internal candidate. He doesn't seem to have done much if anything to reverse any of the bad decisions being made at the time he was in this role and certainly doesn't deserve credit for that. Hard to know from the outside what he could have done without eventually getting fired or demoted, though. This was a time when for a while Paul Pressler seemed his biggest rival as the apple of Eisner's eye and his likely successor.

Considering where this strategy got Iger versus where he would likely be now if he'd made a fuss about the need for better theming at DCA, I find it hard to blame him.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Also very much agree with this reading of the situation.

Iger seems to have been playing the long game, serving as Eisner's loyal lieutenant and avoiding getting fired and demoted until the day when Eisner had to leave and he was left as the most logical internal candidate. He doesn't seem to have done much if anything to reverse any of the bad decisions being made at the time he was in this role and certainly doesn't deserve credit for that. Hard to know from the outside what he could have done without eventually getting fired or demoted, though. This was a time when for a while Paul Pressler seemed his biggest rival as the apple of Eisner's eye and his likely successor.

Considering where this strategy got Iger versus where he would likely be now if he'd made a fuss about the need for better theming at DCA, I find it hard to blame him.

Iger has definitely been a great strategist and shaper of his image. Speaking of Pressler, Iger did nothing to undo his mall-based business model for the parks, the far bigger and more damaging change than costs, number of new attractions or franchises.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Also very much agree with this reading of the situation.

Iger seems to have been playing the long game, serving as Eisner's loyal lieutenant and avoiding getting fired and demoted until the day when Eisner had to leave and he was left as the most logical internal candidate. He doesn't seem to have done much if anything to reverse any of the bad decisions being made at the time he was in this role and certainly doesn't deserve credit for that. Hard to know from the outside what he could have done without eventually getting fired or demoted, though. This was a time when for a while Paul Pressler seemed his biggest rival as the apple of Eisner's eye and his likely successor.

Considering where this strategy got Iger versus where he would likely be now if he'd made a fuss about the need for better theming at DCA, I find it hard to blame him.

Pressler fell out of favor with Eisner (inevitable...stories were well known)...then scurried our the door to the gap and bankrupted them.

Eisner referred to Iger as an “empty suit”. Which means he paid him no mind.

Roy revolts...Eisner has to go...Iger calls Roy and sucks up...

The rest is history.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Iger has definitely been a great strategist and shaper of his image. Speaking of Pressler, Iger did nothing to undo his mall-based business model for the parks, the far bigger and more damaging change than costs, number of new attractions or franchises.

Bob chapek hasn’t either...to be fair.

Iger went more full bore into the Chinese sweatshop market and reduced product quality and diversity as well...

So we can’t have any of them really throwing stones at the glass walls.

 

[Ldno]

I’m a fan of Eisner to an extent but if you guys want a detailed opinion of how he ruled Disney and treated those loyal to him read Michael Ovitz autobiography, self titled book Who is Michael Ovitz? Eisner and Ovitz where good friends since his teenage years and once they both settled into their careers Eisner hired Ovitz into a horrendous job in Disney where he explains how he was stripped away from his job title Powers and had zero control, this kind of leads into how he ruled the company via fear and probably why Iger had no say so whatsoever and how Roy stripped it all away from him, once Eisner hired Ovitz, he was supposed to answer to him directly but he made it so ovitz Answers to some other lower employee at which point a lawyer told him not to contact Eisner, etc.

All because Eisner hated Hollywood Agents, so he hired the guy who was running the Hollywood Agents to get them to lower their prices, that’s how Disney was back in those Days. He goes into detail on how Robin Williams also got screwed out of any royalties from Aladdin and the only way Robin Williams agreed to do the Genie was by tricking Eisner into buying him an expensive painting. This just paved the way into the way Disney is right now, carrots and sticks, From what they say if Eisner didn’t get it, he didn’t make it, Iger just delegates it and this is why galaxy’s edge backfired on him...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’m a fan of Eisner to an extent but if you guys want a detailed opinion of how he ruled Disney and treated those loyal to him read Michael Ovitz autobiography, self titled book Who is Michael Ovitz? Eisner and Ovitz where good friends since his teenage years and once they both settled into their careers Eisner hired Ovitz into a horrendous job in Disney where he explains how he was stripped away from his job title Powers and had zero control, this kind of leads into how he ruled the company via fear and probably why Iger had no say so whatsoever and how Roy stripped it all away from him, once Eisner hired Ovitz, he was supposed to answer to him directly but he made it so ovitz Answers to some other lower employee at which point a lawyer told him not to contact Eisner, etc.

All because Eisner hated Hollywood Agents, so he hired the guy who was running the Hollywood Agents to get them to lower their prices, that’s how Disney was back in those Days. He goes into detail on how Robin Williams also got screwed out of any royalties from Aladdin and the only way Robin Williams agreed to do the Genie was by tricking Eisner into buying him an expensive painting. This just paved the way into the way Disney is right now, carrots and sticks, From what they say if Eisner didn’t get it, he didn’t make it, Iger just delegates it and this is why galaxy’s edge backfired on him...

I’ve read it.

Ovitz was in a no win...but so was Eisner in many ways.

Eisner lost wells...who was a lot more “glue” than he was given credit for. But not without flaws. The success of 88-94 really created an untenable collection of egos that still had the spectre of Roy in the building and Diane Miller “out there”

Eisner had a bit of a midlife crisis after his heart attack and the death of wells put him into a position where Wall Street expectations about succession forced him to play along.

But that was a relationship that wasn’t going to be replicated because they came into a much smaller company together and operated close to equals.

Can’t go that route again.

Eisner figure ovitz would get him good deals with talent to fill the coffers and he could play with the things he wanted too at that point. People forget that when Eisner built those “cheap” parks that technology and entertainment were rapidly evolving into the digital age.

They had promised the second park in Anaheim and were contractually obligate in Paris.

He made big mistakes...but Disney fans over the last 15 years have cherry picked a lot of the whole story.