Iger out in 2018

[ford91exploder]

Sometimes when there's smoke, there's fire (or at least someone trying to start one)...

Non-insider theory time: People in Burbank might want this to happen, because it means their continued employment. A 'Sheryl Sandberg' type could very well clean house.

Well bringing back Meg would certainly finish off TWDC as we know it, Stock would crash as the ONLY thing Meg knows how to do is cut things and 'value engineer'. At that point we'd see the Carl Icahn's and KKR start circling buying up the stock so they can break up the company. DCL to Carnival, Resorts to Hilton, Parks to Cedar Fair/Comcast. Studios to Sony ... You get the picture.

 

[lebeau]

I was cautiously optimistic about Iger as well as the first thing he did was fix the rift with Pixar, I thought that boded well for the future unfortunately I was wrong. As Iger was only interested in financial engineering from there on in.

I had read Disney War which did not paint Iger in a positive light. So I was distrustful of him before he got the job. Still, I knew Eisner needed to go. Keeping Pixar was the top priority and that wasn't going to happen until Eisner was replaced. I think anyone who wasn't Michael Eisner probably could have mended fences with Pixar, so I don't really give Iger a ton of credit for that one. But it was a step in the right direction.

 

[ford91exploder]

I had read Disney War which did not paint Iger in a positive light. So I was distrustful of him before he got the job. Still, I knew Eisner needed to go. Keeping Pixar was the top priority and that wasn't going to happen until Eisner was replaced. I think anyone who wasn't Michael Eisner probably could have mended fences with Pixar, so I don't really give Iger a ton of credit for that one. But it was a step in the right direction.

Agree at the time Eisner NEEDED to GO, The dustups with Ovitz and Katzenburg were expensive and unnecessary and hurt Disney Creative. To your point I think that you are correct anyone other than Eisner could have fixed the relationship because it was ugly and personal not professional calling Jobs a 'Long Haired Hippie' in the industry press was NOT professional.

 

[lebeau]

Agree at the time Eisner NEEDED to GO, The dustups with Ovitz and Katzenburg were expensive and unnecessary and hurt Disney Creative. To your point I think that you are correct anyone other than Eisner could have fixed the relationship because it was ugly and personal not professional calling Jobs a 'Long Haired Hippie' in the industry press was NOT professional.

There were other things too. Eisner tanked the home video sale of The Incredibles to make a point. He was not-so-secretly rooting for Pixar to fumble so he could bring them to the negotiating table in a weakened position. Unfortunately for him, they just kept succeeding. After a disastrous screening of Finding Nemo, Eisner went around crowing that Pixar finally had a flop on their hands. That didn't sit well with Lasseter at all.

 

[HMF]

Well bringing back Meg would certainly finish off TWDC as we know it, Stock would crash as the ONLY thing Meg knows how to do is cut things and 'value engineer'. At that point we'd see the Carl Icahn's and KKR start circling buying up the stock so they can break up the company. DCL to Carnival, Resorts to Hilton, Parks to Cedar Fair/Comcast. Studios to Sony ... You get the picture.

At this point that may be better long-term to prevent future generations from ruining the legacy any further.

 

[epcotWSC]

Over the last bunch of years there's definitely been a cheapening of things at WDW. Of course we also had a huge lull of nothing between 2008 and 2012. However, I do think that the last few years things have gotten on the right track. At least in terms of new things being on the horizon. So even if as a whole Iger + the Parks have been pretty awful, things are at least looking up a bit.

 

[Bacon]

What about @FutureCEO for ceo he would do whatever we want at the parks

 

[ford91exploder]

Over the last bunch of years there's definitely been a cheapening of things at WDW. Of course we also had a huge lull of nothing between 2008 and 2012. However, I do think that the last few years things have gotten on the right track. At least in terms of new things being on the horizon. So even if as a whole Iger + the Parks have been pretty awful, things are at least looking up a bit.

Sadly looks as though things are about to get a LOT worse not better at WDW if the attendance decline rumor is anywhere near accurate.

 

[asianway]

Well bringing back Meg would certainly finish off TWDC as we know it, Stock would crash as the ONLY thing Meg knows how to do is cut things and 'value engineer'. At that point we'd see the Carl Icahn's and KKR start circling buying up the stock so they can break up the company. DCL to Carnival, Resorts to Hilton, Parks to Cedar Fair/Comcast. Studios to Sony ... You get the picture.

Probably not Hilton - theyre in the middle of being broken up into parts themselves.

 

[ford91exploder]

Probably not Hilton - theyre in the middle of being broken up into parts themselves.

Well that leaves Angbang or Marriott but the general idea holds

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

Eisner thought that the Swan and Dolphin hotels were aesthetically pleasing, and was genuinely happy with the final product. I think that says all we need to know about the man lol.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Eisner thought that the Swan and Dolphin hotels were aesthetically pleasing, and was genuinely happy with the final product. I think that says all we need to know about the man lol.

I don't think that they would be mistaken for a 5 star hotel in downtown London, but, they are interesting and, please, please remember... this is Walt Disney World. A fun vacation location not a stodgy old musty hotel in the middle of some stiff upper lip city. Why can't things be whimsical in of all places WDW. You folks take your fun theme park areas way to seriously.

 

[asianway]

Eisner thought that the Swan and Dolphin hotels were aesthetically pleasing, and was genuinely happy with the final product. I think that says all we need to know about the man lol.

Eisner tried to break the contract Miller signed, he lost - happy might not be the right word, he knew it was a bad deal

 

[ford91exploder]

Eisner tried to break the contract Miller signed, he lost - happy might not be the right word, he knew it was a bad deal

Actually he DID manage to break the contract the Swolfin was a consolation prize to the developer, The idea was that Disney would no longer build and operate hotels. The contract was indeed a REALLY BAD ONE, Read Disney War for the details.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

The Iger hate is quite something. I know this is a WDW forum and he hasn't been great for WDW, but Eisner was absolutely terrible toward the end. Some people seem to have bought into Eisner's self-delusions of being a modern day Walt who combined business acumen with creative brilliance. Eisner's judgement and ego became so shockingly bad toward the end that he seemed to be driving Disney off a cliff.

Eisner gave us DCA 1.0 and we would certainly not have the vastly improved DCA that exists today had Iger (or someone...) not taken over. I also don't think Iger has ok'd anything nearly as terrible as WDS. If anything, he seems to be plowing billions into finally fixing DLP. The brand in a general sense was beginning to tank when Iger took over, both in parks (jokes on The Simpsons about how bad DCA was, for example) and particularly in animation. Eisner's response to Dreamworks' success, for example, was to hastily shutter traditional animation and produce DW knock-offs like Chicken Little. When negotiations got tough with Pixar, he started slapping "Walt Disney" on low-grade computer animated films like The Wild. He was the guy who started Disney churning out an endless stream of lower quality DTV sequels like Bambi II.

Despite what some people seem to be suggesting, the company is now in far better shape than when Iger took over. Now the Disney name is at least associated with huge hits in animation like Frozen and Zootopia and some of the biggest franchises in live action film. I'm all for being critical of how Iger has managed the parks, and particularly WDW. However, I find it very hard to pretend that he is some sort of villain who has ruined Disney considering the company he inherited and where it is today despite my feelings about how WDW is being run. I honestly also think he's generally shown far more respect for the brand and its need to be associated with quality entertainment than his predecessor.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The Iger hate is quite something. I know this is a WDW forum and he hasn't been great for WDW, but Eisner was absolutely terrible toward the end. Some people seem to have bought into Eisner's self-delusions of being a modern day Walt who combined business acumen with creative brilliance. Eisner's judgement and ego became so shockingly bad toward the end that he seemed to be driving Disney off a cliff.

Eisner gave us DCA 1.0 and we would certainly not have the vastly improved DCA that exists today had Iger (or someone...) not taken over. I also don't think Iger has ok'd anything nearly as terrible as WDS. If anything, he seems to be plowing billions into finally fixing DLP. The brand in a general sense was beginning to tank when Iger took over, both in parks (jokes on The Simpsons about how bad DCA was, for example) and particularly in animation. Eisner's response to Dreamworks' success, for example, was to hastily shutter traditional animation and produce DW knock-offs like Chicken Little. When negotiations got tough with Pixar, he started slapping "Walt Disney" on low-grade computer animated films like The Wild. He was the guy who started Disney churning out an endless stream of lower quality DTV sequels like Bambi II.

Despite what some people seem to be suggesting, the company is now in far better shape than when Iger took over. Now the Disney name is at least associated with huge hits in animation like Frozen and Zootopia and some of the biggest franchises in live action film. I'm all for being critical of how Iger has managed the parks, and particularly WDW. However, I find it very hard to pretend that he is some sort of villain who has ruined Disney considering the company he inherited and where it is today despite my feelings about how WDW is being run. I honestly also think he's generally shown far more respect for the brand and its need to be associated with quality entertainment than his predecessor.

Yes, but you have to remember that to many people the Parks are all that there is to The Walt Disney Company. Even though it is a big money maker they have bigger things that need attention other then the parks. The parks of all the holdings are the most self propelled and until now have really not needed a lot of attention. It finally got to the point where they needed some of that attention, better late then never. And also to many, no matter what they do it just isn't enough.

 

[SorcererMC]

Some people seem to have bought into Eisner's self-delusions of being a modern day Walt who combined business acumen with creative brilliance. Eisner's judgement and ego became so shockingly bad toward the end that he seemed to be driving Disney off a cliff.

I'd argue that Iger is falling into the same trap (without the creative brilliance), if his recent remarks are any indication - see numerous recent articles and interviews. It's not that Iger is 'the worst CEO ever', as stock performance has been great....it's that he has taken TWDC in a completely different direction (in order to foster that growth) and that has removed TWDC from its legacy and traditions. Disney might not be 'driving off a cliff' at present, but there are cracks in the foundation.

Edit: So, it will be his successor that has to contend with that. If Iger has built the company's success on a house of cards, we probably won't know until he's out.

 

[ford91exploder]

I'd argue that Iger is falling into the same trap (without the creative brilliance), if his recent remarks are any indication - see numerous recent articles and interviews. It's not that Iger is 'the worst CEO ever', as stock performance has been great....it's that he has taken TWDC in a completely different direction (in order to foster that growth) and that has removed TWDC from its legacy and traditions. Disney might not be 'driving off a cliff' at present, but there are cracks in the foundation.

Edit: So, it will be his successor that has to contend with that. If Iger has built the company's success on a house of cards, we probably won't know until he's out.

I've studied a lot of failing companies and Disney is right up there with them the common theme is destroy the business to prop up the stock price, None of Disney's businesses have any organic growth in fact top line revenue is declining at all of them.with the exception of the studios which are a drop in the bucket as far as cash generation once again recall that studios only get 25-33% of box office revenue the rest goes to the distributor and theater.

Disney continues to make huge cuts in their businesses while buying back stock. The only thing DIS has going for it is the stock price at the moment and as such Disney is the definition of a house of cards.

 

[SorcererMC]

I've studied a lot of failing companies and Disney is right up there with them the common theme is destroy the business to prop up the stock price, None of Disney's businesses have any organic growth in fact top line revenue is declining at all of them.with the exception of the studios which are a drop in the bucket as far as cash generation once again recall that studios only get 25-33% of box office revenue the rest goes to the distributor and theater.

Disney continues to make huge cuts in their businesses while buying back stock. The only thing DIS has going for it is the stock price at the moment and as such Disney is the definition of a house of cards.

Right - the problem is about the means by which they are achieving those 'growth' ends. I'm bearish on the stock, but I don't quite expect it to tank given consideration to all business units (in my non-expert opinion). I think a lot depends on the next 6+ months and through 2017.

Related note: I haphazardly saw this article on Harvard Business Review this am. I think it reflects the common thinking (eg Wall St) - it's about Disney as a good case for using M&A as growth, citing the Pixar acquisition. Fair warning: It contains several inaccuracies, eg using 2005 as evidence of the norm for TWDC when it was not. It also says things like, "Walt Disney is the epitome of a creative organization. But it has not always held this distinction." In fact, I'm not sure I recommend spending time reading it, aside from it reflecting what is 'business strategy de rigueur' and it is specifically about TWDC. A commenter says this was Steve Jobs' mgmt. philosophy but I really wouldn't know. https://hbr.org/2016/07/using-ma-to-increase-your-capacity-for-growth

 

[ford91exploder]

I'd argue that Iger is falling into the same trap (without the creative brilliance), if his recent remarks are any indication - see numerous recent articles and interviews. It's not that Iger is 'the worst CEO ever', as stock performance has been great....it's that he has taken TWDC in a completely different direction (in order to foster that growth) and that has removed TWDC from its legacy and traditions. Disney might not be 'driving off a cliff' at present, but there are cracks in the foundation.

Edit: So, it will be his successor that has to contend with that. If Iger has built the company's success on a house of cards, we probably won't know until he's out.

One comment on Iger's so called GROWTH, Iger has grown Disney's top line revenues 67% during his tenure, Eisner grew them 860% yes starting from a much smaller base granted. In reality the only thing Iger has grown is the stock price and if you look at @ParentsOf4's many charts you will see that the huge buybacks began at the same time Iger became Chair/CEO.