Iger rumored to extend his term as CEO

[DDLand]

LOL. I just knew it. http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/iger-out-in-2018.914318/

In contrast to other CEO's - Iger is underpaid and way overextended. He has to oversee Disney Theme Parks, Disney Cruise Line, Disney River Cruise, Disney Hotels, Disney Restaurants, Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, Disney Animation, ABC, ESPN, Disney Channel, Disney Video Games, Disney Toys, The Disney Store, The Disney Radio Channel, Disney Licensing and Merchandising, etc.

I also figured that Iger wasn't going anywhere once he was appointed to that panel of CEO's.

Ideally, Iger should stay on until both Star Wars Lands are completed.

I struggle to tell if you're being serious. Iger's job is to provide a strategy across the corporate lineup and ensure that all those brands have the right management to move forward. He has been payed tens of millions of dollars in just the last few years.

Many of the brands and companies you mentioned are buried in other divisions and never cross his mind each day. How much time does Iger spend thinking about Radio Disney? Probably not much. His job is to get smart people who do know how to execute a vision in any of those businesses.

You'll find me someone who tends to be pretty apologetic of CEO and Executive compensation, but "underpaid" is just not a defensible claim. If he's so "overextended" and "underpaid" maybe he should step down. He obviously doesn't feel the same way...

Might explain why Staggs left even before he assumed the role

Haha I remember distinctly some little boy asking Iger "how can I get your job?" This was before Staggs left and I remember just thinking that's exactly what Staggs was wondering too! We all know how that ended...

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

In his defense (gasp! There is an actual case to be made in his favor) under Iger's reign he oversaw the rebirth of the Disney Animation studio. Yes, he wasn't the talent behind the success but his efforts helped successfully attract new talent and breath new life into the backbone of the company. We all love our rides and theme parks so much we forget it's the animation business that got Disney going in the first place and he took great care of that department. I also may dislike the acquisitions from a personal standpoint, but Marvel has been a homerun and inviting Pixar into the fold has done nothing but good for the company - financially and creatively. The real downside to his approach is his clear lack of enthusiasm or respect for the parks, and damn shame too. It's by far the company's biggest cash cow.

 

[RobbinsDad]

Hi Bob!

He's also extremely handsome and a helluva golfer!

 

[RobidaFlats]

Unlike Eisner, he doesn't antagonize talent. One of his first acts was mending the relationship with Pixar, and bringing them under the Disney umbrella. Unlike Eisner, he doesn't micromanage, he lets Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, and WDAS run their own show. It's why Lucas sold LucasFilm to Disney in the first place, because Lucas was impressed by how Iger treated Pixar. Unlike Miller, he doesn't live in the past pumping out cheap product in the mold of the low-budget comedies of the 60's or critically-panned large budget films reacting to the success of other studios. Bob took a company in crisis, and piece by piece, transformed it into the leading entertainment company on the planet. It won't last forever - the comic book bubble will eventually burst, Star Wars films every year may prove too much sauce for the goose, the novelty of live-action versions of hit animated classics will wear off, people may be disappointed with massive theme park expansions entailing few actual attractions (Star Wars land - two rides, Pandora - two rides, etc.)...but for now, and the immediate future, his management style has done wonders for the company. "Only in it for the paycheck"? Naah. He's got some problems with cord cutting, which is hurting Disney's stock price as revenues from ESPN and others continue to slip. That's a real problem, not sure what the answer is there. But for now and the immediate future, he's atop a creative juggernaut he set in motion. Best leader since Walt.

That's actually a fairly reasoned analysis. However, there a few things to be noted:

• We don't actually know that much about how Bob runs things. We only get to see what the powers that be allow. We got all the dirt on Eisner thanks to lawsuits. Admittedly, he brought about those lawsuits himself and I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
• Bob's turnaround of the company is not nearly as impressive as Eisner's. Michael turned things around within the company and got Disney doing Disney again (for a little while anyway). Bob has just acquired the creativity and helped Disney do Other. In addition, he hasn't had the 20 years that Eisner had, so it could all fall apart for him too.
• Anyone could have (and would have) made the deal with Pixar. Bob deserves no credit for this. Literally anyone who wasn't Eisner would have made that deal. Jobs wanted that deal, he just wouldn't do it with Eisner.
• Lucas was never quite as blunt as Jobs, but he wasn't going anywhere other than Disney and I highly doubt that Bob is the only one who could have made that happen. He was given the opportunity and made it happen, so he definitely deserves some credit, but it didn't require any miraculous skill.
• You were a little vague in using "leader" so I don't know if that is restricted to CEO, but even if it is, Card Walker deserves consideration. EPCOT definitely over extended the company, but c'mon... it was EPCOT . Tatum didn't so such a bad job either.

 

[larandtra]

I think he has done a commendable job at the primary focus of Disney. As some have mentioned. Animation. That is and always should be the focus. Handling the parks is a difficult task and while I think there have been serious missteps, it hasnt been a disaster as it was under Eisner. Patience and things will sort out.

 

[RobbinsDad]

Unlike Eisner, he doesn't antagonize talent. One of his first acts was mending the relationship with Pixar, and bringing them under the Disney umbrella. Unlike Eisner, he doesn't micromanage, he lets Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, and WDAS run their own show. It's why Lucas sold LucasFilm to Disney in the first place, because Lucas was impressed by how Iger treated Pixar. Unlike Miller, he doesn't live in the past pumping out cheap product in the mold of the low-budget comedies of the 60's or critically-panned large budget films reacting to the success of other studios. Bob took a company in crisis, and piece by piece, transformed it into the leading entertainment company on the planet. It won't last forever - the comic book bubble will eventually burst, Star Wars films every year may prove too much sauce for the goose, the novelty of live-action versions of hit animated classics will wear off, people may be disappointed with massive theme park expansions entailing few actual attractions (Star Wars land - two rides, Pandora - two rides, etc.)...but for now, and the immediate future, his management style has done wonders for the company. "Only in it for the paycheck"? Naah. He's got some problems with cord cutting, which is hurting Disney's stock price as revenues from ESPN and others continue to slip. That's a real problem, not sure what the answer is there. But for now and the immediate future, he's atop a creative juggernaut he set in motion. Best leader since Walt.

And then there's the parks... which is kinda what people here care about the most. All of those wonderful, yet ephemeral IPs you mentioned are keeping park attendance levels up, while the competition quickly laps Disney in quality and value. How many special events, exclusive experiences fees, and other upcharges can be implemented before the parks bubble bursts? That's the real question. TWDC may be in good shape, but he's burning down a legacy of theme park innovation in the process.

 

[RobidaFlats]

I think he has done a commendable job at the primary focus of Disney. As some have mentioned. Animation. That is and always should be the focus. Handling the parks is a difficult task and while I think there have been serious missteps, it hasnt been a disaster as it was under Eisner. Patience and things will sort out.

Do you think that he has done more with the department than Katzenberg?

 

[RobbinsDad]

I think he has done a commendable job at the primary focus of Disney. As some have mentioned. Animation. That is and always should be the focus. Handling the parks is a difficult task and while I think there have been serious missteps, it hasnt been a disaster as it was under Eisner. Patience and things will sort out.

I hope you're right, and some of the rumors seem very promising. But if the recent scale downs of TSL and SWL are any reference, then I'm very anxious.

 

[PB Watermelon]

That's actually a fairly reasoned analysis. However, there a few things to be noted:

• We don't actually know that much about how Bob runs things. We only get to see what the powers that be allow. We got all the dirt on Eisner thanks to lawsuits. Admittedly, he brought about those lawsuits himself and I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
• Bob's turnaround of the company is not nearly as impressive as Eisner's. Michael turned things around within the company and got Disney doing Disney again (for a little while anyway). Bob has just acquired the creativity and helped Disney do Other. In addition, he hasn't had the 20 years that Eisner had, so it could all fall apart for him too.
• Anyone could have (and would have) made the deal with Pixar. Bob deserves no credit for this. Literally anyone who wasn't Eisner would have made that deal. Jobs wanted that deal, he just wouldn't do it with Eisner.
• Lucas was never quite as blunt as Jobs, but he wasn't going anywhere other than Disney and I highly doubt that Bob is the only one who could have made that happen. He was given the opportunity and made it happen, so he definitely deserves some credit, but it didn't require any miraculous skill.
• You were a little vague in using "leader" so I don't know if that is restricted to CEO, but even if it is, Card Walker deserves consideration. EPCOT definitely over extended the company, but c'mon... it was EPCOT . Tatum didn't so such a bad job either.

There's an insightful argument in Bloomberg about Iger, Lucas, and the LucasFilm sale - it touches on Bob's management style and why Lucas was impressed with Iger leaving Pixar (and Marvel and Disney Animation) alone to run their own affairs, as opposed to Eisner's combative (in some cases, even paranoid) style. Here you go - it's a good read:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-bought-lucasfilm-and-its-plans-for-star-wars

 

[PB Watermelon]

In his defense (gasp! There is an actual case to be made in his favor) under Iger's reign he oversaw the rebirth of the Disney Animation studio. Yes, he wasn't the talent behind the success but his efforts helped successfully attract new talent and breath new life into the backbone of the company.

Roy Disney said he started having heart palpatations under Miller when and in the early years of Eisner when the leadership was considering closing the animation studio. "What you're talking about is running a museum." he said. Animation and the film units are the life-blood of the company. The film units drive the theme parks, the consumer products, the whole Disney brand.

 

[RobbinsDad]

But back on topic, I think this was always the most probable outcome when Staggs left.

 

[PB Watermelon]

Do you think that he has done more with the department than Katzenberg?

Katzenberg cut twelve minutes out of the Black Cauldron (I consider it a lost film, like Lost Horizon and The Magnificent Ambersons), and slashed the budget for Basil of Baker Street in half and retitled it "The Great Mouse Detective". He moved the animators off the lot to portables in Glendale. Katzenberg was stopped by security trying to take materials out of the Animation Research Library. Roy called him the next day and asked him what he was doing. Katzenberg said Walt used to take artwork home. "You're not Walt Disney." Roy said. Katzenberg replied, "I'm the new Walt Disney."

 

[RobidaFlats]

There's an insightful argument in Bloomberg about Iger, Lucas, and the LucasFilm sale - it touches on Bob's management style and why Lucas was impressed with Iger leaving Pixar (and Marvel and Disney Animation) alone to run their own affairs, as opposed to Eisner's combative (in some cases, even paranoid) style. Here you go - it's a good read:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-bought-lucasfilm-and-its-plans-for-star-wars

That was a long article... most of which was quick history lesson (although claiming that Bob became Michael's heir-apparent in 1996 is laughable). In any case, I don't argue that the deals couldn't have been done with Eisner. I'm merely stating that Bob isn't the only one who could have come in and done the two things necessary:

1. Not be Michael Eisner
2. Offer to let the companies keep their own creative teams.

Yes, Bob was there and got to pull the trigger, but he was by no means the only one who could have done it. I think "right place right time" is more appropriate than "right person". The only right person for those deals was anyone who wasn't Eisner.

Also, I would like to point out that this puff piece in Bloomberg hardly gives any real insight when compared to personal letters from Eisner that were never meant to see the light of day then entered into court records. Again, I'm not heaping praise on Eisner by any stretch, but Bob has not been exposed to the same scrutiny or term in office.

 

[twebber55]

I figured this was relevant to most in here as it was widely speculated on more than a few threads started by @WDW1974

Have a read:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-ceo-robert-iger-may-extend-tenure-again-1486377000

if i were him i would at least stick around for Star Wars Land to open

 

[marni1971]

Best leader since Walt.

I thought that was Eisner until 1994.

 

[RobbinsDad]

Roy Disney said he started having heart palpatations under Miller when and in the early years of Eisner when the leadership was considering closing the animation studio. "What you're talking about is running a museum." he said. Animation and the film units are the life-blood of the company. The film units drive the theme parks, the consumer products, the whole Disney brand.

True that Disney animation is the heartbeat of the company. But the most successful Disney-developed movie franchise of the 21st century was based on a park ride. Using the logic that film drives production in other areas of the company, wouldn't it be just as prudent to invest in original park attractions that could potentially be developed into film or other media projects?

 

[BubbaQuest]

So conflicted here. Part of me would be quite happy to see Iger face the reality when the sequel machine stops working and the whole thing starts to crash and burn. The other part of me really doesn't want to see Disney crash and burn, but if they don't make some serious changes soon, I think it might be too late.

Is it true Sheryl Sandberg and Bob Chapek might be the only options right now? WSJ also mentioned Steve Burke, but I can't imagine he would come back especially while Comcast is printing money.

 

[Rodan75]

I agree, I think this was always the most likely outcome. Disney management has always seemed to have a cult-like mentality and breaking into that will be difficult for any outside CEO prospect.

However, if Iger takes this on, he will be immediately accountable for the 'next' strategic plan. The plan that has to deal with 'what's next' for ESPN, and the next growth cycle. I've seen analysts give him a break on ESPN, saying the next CEO needs to figure that out. If the next CEO is more than 2-3 years out. Then he has to own it now and that may mean some ugly decisions, ones that could tarnish his legacy. I have to imagine that he has a real fear of being the next Eisner or Dauman.

He is still young by CEO standards and the media companies need stable leadership at the top. He has proven to be stable, even if we don't agree with all of his leadership.

 

[PB Watermelon]

True that Disney animation is the heartbeat of the company. But the most successful Disney-developed movie franchise of the 21st century was based on a park ride. Using the logic that film drives production in other areas of the company, wouldn't it be just as prudent to invest in original park attractions that could potentially be developed into film or other media projects?

Oh, definitely, but I think that's a mirror of the entertainment industry as a whole right now -- reboots, remakes and sequels and films and TV shows based on known properties. It's much safer than assuming the risk on new creative works. That's one reason I think Netflix is crushing it right now, they're giving people fresh content and audiences are rewarding them for it.

 

[RobidaFlats]

Katzenberg cut twelve minutes out of the Black Cauldron (I consider it a lost film, like Lost Horizon and The Magnificent Ambersons), and slashed the budget for Basil of Baker Street in half and retitled it "The Great Mouse Detective". He moved the animators off the lot to portables in Glendale. Katzenberg was stopped by security trying to take materials out of the Animation Research Library. Roy called him the next day and asked him what he was doing. Katzenberg said Walt used to take artwork home. "You're not Walt Disney." Roy said. Katzenberg replied, "I'm the new Walt Disney."

He certainly did cut some things in the works before her got there.

The move to Glendale was at the direction of Eisner so that he could reuse the area. It was not Katzenberg's idea.

That last bit is a great anecdote, but hardly germane.

Do you not give him credit for the string of hits including Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, etc.? In fact, it was after he left that animation began to slump again. Even the animators who initially hated him were drawn to Dreamworks and Disney had to massively increase salaries just to hold onto talent.