xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Incarnation #4....
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Iger Says Avatar Most Likely 2015, Hints at Marvel, More Pirates and Cars
- Thread starter lebeau
- Start date
Incarnation #4....
Pitchforkman
New Member
A Mario Kart race track would be fun
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
wait...what happened to 3?
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
Agreed
when it comes to Disney...and media companies in general IMO, you should be passionate about your product and you should inspire passion and excitement in others about it. You shouldn't wait to be questioned about something before reluctantly commenting on it. Iger and Rasulo are not the right people to be running TWDC and P&R.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Pitchforkman
New Member
I am not a big fan of Taylor so I agree with you there. Over Iger I respectably disagree. For me he has earned so many brownie points for saving the Pixar deal and I am not against the Marvel deal. When I was at DL I got the chance to meet him and he was such a nice and humble guy I am sure he is the right man to run TWDC. Remember Jobs was usually not upfront about facing criticism about Apple products
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Who is Taylor?
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
Saved the Pixar deal my big left toe! Pixar (and Jobs) was willing to deal with Disney so long as Eisner left. They basically said get rid of Eisner and we'll gladly work with you. Iger was just next in line at the helm. Whoever Eisner's successor was would have gotten credit for that!
Pitchforkman
New Member
Sorry about that Autocorrect on my phone messed that up. I am sorry.
Pitchforkman
New Member
I heard otherwise from multiple sources which include Jobs and company. I just think you don't want to give credit where it is due to Iger. It is always easier to blame CEOa for things that are not their fault then give them credit which is due.
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
ooooh, I see... so all of the books have it wrong and now you apparently have sources that included Steve Jobs himself?
:ROFLOL:
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Wait a second....
Are you claiming Steve Jobs as a source? He told you that if it wasn't for Bob Iger, Disney would not have acquired Pixar?
ChrisM
Well-Known Member
pork chop sandwiches!
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
I'm somewhat of a fan of Iger's as well. Maybe the Pixar deal was a gimme, but you can't tell me that they came running to Bob once Michael left. It took some negotiating to bring the two companies together.
Michael Eisner had over 20 years at the helm, from 1984 until 2004/5. Bob Iger was only appointed in 2005 as CEO, but during his short time, he's done some MAJOR things that should be recognized.
Most notably I think, he restored the relationship with Pixar, bought the company partnering with Steve Jobs, and brought John Lasseter on board to help restore animation and imagineering which were all but lost after years of Michael's tinkering with his "creative genius".
Eisner, in his greedy dictatorship tried to milk Pixar for every single dime, and ultimately pushed them away where they were looking to work with another studio to distribute their films. That relationship was completely and utterly destroyed thanks to Michael's big ego. Bob was able to talk to them and form a new, very equitable and successful relationship that will benefit the company for years to come. While it may be true that Jobs/Pixar wanted to work with Disney, there was some damage inflicted by Eisner that Iger had to repair.
He also bought Marvel, which was a huge deal financially, but at this point I'm still uncertain as to whether or not it's a good thing long term.
Also of note, he bought back the Disney Stores from Children's place. This was another of Eisner's disastrous decisions, that luckily Iger had the intelligence to see that it just made sense for Disney to own the stores branded with their own name.
Another biggee that Bob should get some credit for is the restoration of hand-drawn animation at Disney. Michael Eisner had ruled that it was a dead art form and subsequently killed it off at Disney. However, after buying Pixar and appointing John Lasseter to a key position at the studios, John brought it back with the movie, The Princess and the Frog, which in my opinion is an under-appreciated jewel of a movie.
So, while he hasn't been as extravagant as Michael Eisner was in his term, Bob has had a few hits in his short term. If nothing else, I think Iger should be remembered for fixing some of the mistakes of the Eisner era. Granted, he doesn't have the shine and charisma of someone like Steve Jobs, but nor does he carry the big headed ego of Michael Eisner.
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
I thought this was interesting and largely goes along with a lot of the conversations we have had in this thread and others:
Apple Does Not Bend to Shareholders
Part of what has allowed Apple to generate such impressive returns for its shareholders is that it ignores them. Apple is seen by most as a technology company, when in fact it is a retailer. Thus, Apple's focus is with its customers, where it should be. The best retailers in the world, such as Whole Foods (WFM), Costco (COST), and Nordstrom (JWN), are those that obsess over their customers. Apple has always been a company that is obsessed with the experience that its customers have.
Too many companies frame everything they do as being in the best interests of the shareholders. Financials are especially guilty of this. They under-invest in customer service, arguing that it increases profits. And yet, with the possible exception of American Express (AXP), financials are widely derided as having terrible customer service, all in their pursuit of running the company in the interests of shareholders. But not Apple. Apple runs its business to serve its customers, not its shareholders. Like any good retailer, Apple knows that if it takes care of its customers and provides them with great products, the profits will materialize, and shareholders will be taken care of.
Rightly or wrongly, Steve Jobs largely ignored shareholders in his management of Apple. Under Steve Jobs, there was no talk of a dividend because that was not what Steve Jobs would do. With his passing, many investors have begun to worry that Apple will lose the corporate culture it had under Steve Jobs, which is one of the reasons it has been such a success story. And therein lies a logical fallacy. Investors cannot clamor for a dividend and clamor for Apple to retain the "Jobsian" way of doing things. Steve Jobs would have never initiated a dividend, and if his way of running Apple was the best way, Tim Cook should keep to it as best he can, and pay no dividends.
Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/435871-apple-arguments-against-a-dividend-stock-split-and-buyback
Steve Jobs understood (just as Walt did) that you don't have to focus on the shareholders if you believe you an exceptional product and experience to offer to your customers. Profits will materialize and shareholders will be happy if you spend the time, energy, and money to focus on what you are delivering. All of this while AAPL stock flirts with $600/share. As a shareholder I'm ok with this model.
Apple Does Not Bend to Shareholders
Part of what has allowed Apple to generate such impressive returns for its shareholders is that it ignores them. Apple is seen by most as a technology company, when in fact it is a retailer. Thus, Apple's focus is with its customers, where it should be. The best retailers in the world, such as Whole Foods (WFM), Costco (COST), and Nordstrom (JWN), are those that obsess over their customers. Apple has always been a company that is obsessed with the experience that its customers have.
Too many companies frame everything they do as being in the best interests of the shareholders. Financials are especially guilty of this. They under-invest in customer service, arguing that it increases profits. And yet, with the possible exception of American Express (AXP), financials are widely derided as having terrible customer service, all in their pursuit of running the company in the interests of shareholders. But not Apple. Apple runs its business to serve its customers, not its shareholders. Like any good retailer, Apple knows that if it takes care of its customers and provides them with great products, the profits will materialize, and shareholders will be taken care of.
Rightly or wrongly, Steve Jobs largely ignored shareholders in his management of Apple. Under Steve Jobs, there was no talk of a dividend because that was not what Steve Jobs would do. With his passing, many investors have begun to worry that Apple will lose the corporate culture it had under Steve Jobs, which is one of the reasons it has been such a success story. And therein lies a logical fallacy. Investors cannot clamor for a dividend and clamor for Apple to retain the "Jobsian" way of doing things. Steve Jobs would have never initiated a dividend, and if his way of running Apple was the best way, Tim Cook should keep to it as best he can, and pay no dividends.
Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/435871-apple-arguments-against-a-dividend-stock-split-and-buyback
Steve Jobs understood (just as Walt did) that you don't have to focus on the shareholders if you believe you an exceptional product and experience to offer to your customers. Profits will materialize and shareholders will be happy if you spend the time, energy, and money to focus on what you are delivering. All of this while AAPL stock flirts with $600/share. As a shareholder I'm ok with this model.
Prototype82
Well-Known Member
I think I would actually be okay with Pokemon in Animal Kingdom...Harmony between man and animal? The themes there...Not sure how I'd feel about Castelia City clashing against the lush scenery though... :ROFLOL:Just thought I'd randomly post this picture, of a girl wearing her bright yellow AVATAR backpack at Disney.
Anytime you're at any Disney park, look around. I guarantee you in that any crowd, you will find a person wearing something from Nintendo...
Actually...Nintendo's already in Disney. Just go to the Japanese Pavilion, Nintendo is like all over the main store there.
Just saying...there's better franchises out there then AVATAR. I don't think I've even ever seen anyone wearing an AVATAR tshirt.
I did see a man with the most disturbing back tattoo of the blue alien chick though...... :/
flynnibus
Premium Member
Sorry, don't agree with the author at all. Apple doesn't put it's customer first.. it puts ITSELF first. Form over function in industrial design, or User Experience first is NOT the same as putting customers first as a corporate principle/strategy.
Apple has no qualms at all about squashing competition, creating vendor lock-in, crippling functionality, and more all in the guise of 'creating a better user experience' when they are doing it directly to protect their own economic position.
Using completely different ideas to support the position... apples and oranges.
Yes, Apple has a independence where they think/thought they knew better than the daily consumer and investors and said 'just watch.. we'll prove it'. That isn't a 'customer first' attitude.. that is a 'we know better than you' attitude. They focused on 'build the best product, and sales will follow'.. the reason the profits followed was because they charge a premium price, became a lifestyle brand, and used vendor lock to continue to strengthen that position.
Apple is a bully - not a passive monk.
Captain Chaos
Well-Known Member
GI Joe is a franchise... They sell, or at least sold GI Joe Sigma 6 characters in Once Upon A Toy... There is a second GI Joe movie coming out this year staring The Rock Dwayne Johnson, who has done some Disney stuff, and Bruce Willis who has been in some Disney movies too... There is already a tie there!!! And Iger loves franchises... You may be on to something... :lookaroun
:lol:
Pitchforkman
New Member
What books are you talking about? All the books I have read which have direct quotes from Jobs says that Iger saved the deal. The CNBC documentary and Pixar documentary say the same thing. I would love to believe you but you just seem to have a hatred for Iger for no reason, which you are allowed to have but I respectably disagree.
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
Say what you will, I don't think it's apples to oranges at all. Apple charges what consumers let them, and when you have people lining up overnight to buy the iPad3 when they currently own a perfectly good iPad2, that speaks loudly to catering to your consumer and building a strong brand image. Apple does not actively seek to improve stockholder value yet they continue to do so month to month. And in a sense Disney had absolutely no problem squashing competition in any of it's markets either...form, process, and care always seemed to win out.
Love apple or hate them. They make a good product and make my portfolio happy as well. And I don't even own Apply Products (except for my iPod Video circa 2006)!
The focus here is that you absolutely do not have to simply follow the course of answering every beck and call of the Shareholders to increase their value. Simply focus on what you're good at.