Iger to step down in 2015, Leave company in 2016

[WDW1974]

'74, do you think TWDC is going to drag their feet on the new AV-land? This may give them time for the global economy to turn so they can get a quality offer for P&R and let the new owners deal with Cameron.

I don't know, Daniel. ... It seems like they are. I've heard that construction (first shovel in dirt) may not come under third quarter of FY'13. Since we just started FQ'1 of 2012, that seems like an awfully long time.

I've also been given other possible reasons for the rushed announcement, including weak numbers for the final quarter of 2011 (which haven't been announced yet) ... AND/OR the possibility of Disney having a new partner in P&R.

So, yeah, it is possible.

This is something where they could be digging in six months from now tops ... IF they desired. For whatever reason, they don't.

~GFC FOREVER~

 

[WDW1974]

I was all ready to make a Leno joke and you beat me to the punch...

Sorry, but that was waaaay too easy. I also happened to have drinks (well, one) with Conan the week he was feted to replace Jay, so it's always on my mind.

BTW, here's Brooks Barnes of the NY Times writing tonight about Iger's stepping down:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/disney-extends-igers-contract/

Trends happen everywhere. I wrote this up in another thread a few days ago, and then ultimately didn't post it. I really expect that the trend in theme parks now a days is going to be the purchase of outside franchises and building wholly immersive environments like Potter, Carsland and Pandora. Eventually, the # of viable franchises will run out, and we're stuck with an entire land based on Breakin' 2 Electric Boogaloo.

I don't get it myself, even loving WWoHP and hopeful Avatar can deliver something amazing.

It says something about how insecure you are in your IP when you go hunting for more.

Two of the most successful attractions at the MK today are the redone HoP and Mansion. Neither of them have a thing to do with any franchise. They just are themed to fit into a Colonial American backdrop.

I wish today's Disney had the confidence to do things like this (two of the three HKDL expansion lands aside).

This is exactly what's happening with comic book movies now. It took people a while to branch out from Batman and Spiderman movies, and now the comic book movie doesn't have the same clout it used to.

The thing is those Batman movies transcended comics and the geek world. They were amazing. I wish Nolan weren't stepping out after the next one. I don't get why things are constantly 'rebooted' these days. Even the Spidey films, while not nearly as good as the Batman, were entertaining across many demos.

But Green Lantern and Thor? They made money, but cost a tremendous amount. X-Men First Class and Captain America made more, but they weren't smash hits either. I haven't seen one of the four yet, but likely will catch one on a flight or an upcoming cruise. At some point (and I think we are far closer) you reach a saturation point.

Myself, I would have rather seen the Wonder Woman TV reboot that wasn't picked up by NBC this fall!

~GFC Founder and CEO~

 

[WDW1974]

So, here's my question. Let's say that the parks and resorts division does get sold to an outside investor. Without knowing who the buyer is, can we lean one way or the other on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing? TDL as example makes this look like it can definitely work if it's the right partnership, but it's also scary to think that someone could come in and undo half a century of work if they didn't fully embrace and understand the brand and its base.

I want to be careful because I don't want to be spending the weekend going back and forth with folks who want to debate whether P&R was/is in play in part or total. But you asked a question and I feel it deserves an answer.

It would depend on the buyer to some degree. I can tell you from personal experience that the OLC runs the best Disney Parks in the world by a LARGE margin. The quality there in every aspect (except for merchandise, which apparently is a disaster worldwide to varying degrees) simply would make someone who only knows WDW in the 21st century wonder how things can be so different.

But I am certain that if ANY deal took place, Disney would have stringent covenants in the contracts basically forcing the buyer to keep very high standards. I don't think they could ever force OLC-like levels. But one thing you can be assured of is WDW, for instance, wouldn't or couldn't be any worse than it is now. Only better.

The Iger thing sounds personal to me more than anything, and he never struck me as a guy who had any vision. I don't know if Staggs would be better. The CEO is never going to be a creative force, but they have to be smart enough to surround themselves with the right, passionate people. With that in mind, Staggs might be a little better.

Iger, Staggs and Rasulo are all cut from the same corporate cloth. They are like going to McDonald's and ordering a Quarter Pounder with Cheese instead of a McDouble ... or getting an Angus Bacon and Cheese (yes, fat guy talking!) ... The toppings may change, but the flavor is largely the same. If Iger is replaced by one of the top two guys below him, then it will be largely the same. Much like when Iger stepped into Michael's shoes. Some things changed, but FAR more stayed the same. It will be the same thing, unless they do something bold and bring in an outsider. Five years is a long time, so who knows? But right now, I have a strong feeling (and a Spirited pal emailed earlier with this idea) that Iger and the BoD may be playing Staggs and Rasulo off to see who can do the best job in the next 3-4 years and the winner gets Bob's job.

Stranger things have happened.

Still, the sale of P&R freaks me out a little.

It shouldn't. Right now, it doesn't appear to be happening .. if it does, it will only improve things. ... Oh, and the world has a lot worse things to freak you out over!:lol:

~It's a GFC Thing!~

 

[Thrill]

There is no question that you and I have disagreed on a number of things in the past. To a point I agree and disagree with Marvel. It was a risky acquisition, and for now doesn't seem like it is returning well. I am hoping that there are plans for that in the future since they will have it until they decide otherwise. For now I am not thrilled, but let's see what happens later on.

Well. I wouldn't say it was a bad move. It has a lot of potential, and this year, Marvel had three movies which were all generally well received. Thor has a 74 on RottenTomatoes, Captain America has 77, and X Men First Class has an 87.


As for the box office, revenues of $450 million, $360 million, and $350 million on production costs of $150 million, $140 million, and $160 million. I'm not sure what kind of cut Disney gets from Marvel movies (so far, they've all been produced outside of Disney, I think Disney starts producing them next year), but they seem happy enough with Marvel's box office performance to make Thor 2, Iron Man 3, and a new Spider Man series. I'm not counting Avengers, because that's been in planning for quite some time, to my understanding.

So far, it hasn't been a horrible move. Not worth $4 billion, but there is potential. Give it a few years to work its way into parks, Disney to take full control of movies, and maybe they will rework their publishing the way DC has. If they're careful to avoid box office bombs and get lucky with a Dark Knight sized success, this deal could pay off. The odds of either happening aren't great, but it could happen. XD

Another thing Marvel can do: Fix Disney Interactive. I discussed how Disney Interactive is leaving console games (let me emphasize this: $60 in revenue per disc) for iPhone games ($0.99 a download, or if you're really lucky, $9.99 a download) and Facebook games (free, unless you want to pay). The Batman Arkham Asylum game is considered to be a very good game, and it's not impossible to give X-Men or the Avengers a similar treatment. I don't know how much money they make, but evidently Arkham Asylum broke 2,500,000 sales. And that was 2 years ago, a couple of months after launch. I'd venture a guess that they brought in at least $100,000,000 in revenue, probably more, depending on where the games were sold (Steam games are really cheap).

 

[WDW1974]

One other note I find telling to some degree ... but 36 hours after Iger's leading supporter on the BoD (and the largest individual stockholder in TWDC) passed away (yes, Steve Jobs), this announcement is made.

There's a lot that can be read into that. I'm also not at all convinced that Iger will stay until his 'planned retirement' ...

 

[CountryBearFan]

Iger WILL be missed.

To those of you saying that he was bad, go grow a heart or rejoin your fellow overly-hateful nihilists at Discussion Kingdom.

 

[devoy1701]

Iger WILL be missed.

To those of you saying that he was bad, go grow a heart or rejoin your fellow overly-hateful nihilists at Discussion Kingdom.

I really don't know how to respond to this except for if you have followed the history of the company, and have followed news during Iger's tenure and how certain events have unfolded...you would know that from a business standpoint and a Disney standpoint, Iger will not be going down as a "spectacular" CEO.

Not saying he was bad...just not spectacular. And Disney needs Spectacular to get it's creative energy (and synergy between the brands) flowing.

 

[COProgressFan]

I really don't know how to respond to this except for if you have followed the history of the company, and have followed news during Iger's tenure and how certain events have unfolded...you would know that from a business standpoint and a Disney standpoint, Iger will not be going down as a "spectacular" CEO.

Not saying he was bad...just not spectacular. And Disney needs Spectacular to get it's creative energy (and synergy between the brands) flowing.

Agreed, and I don't think anyone in this thread is really saying he was terrible. Just that he seems to be a good manager, gets along relatively well with others (or at least pretends to), and keeps towing the line comfortably for the company. Any other generic CEO could do the same.

 

[devoy1701]

Agreed, and I don't think anyone in this thread is really saying he was terrible. Just that he seems to be a good manager, gets along relatively well with others (or at least pretends to), and keeps towing the line comfortably for the company. Any other generic CEO could do the same.

Yes. This.

I think we were were rating him he would be like a 5 or 6 on a scale of 10.

• 
  Iger - 6 - Kept things status quo. Didn't really press the label any further on "Disney". Didn't have any creative intuition. Expanded the company, but the brands he acquired were already strongly established. Did nothing to help those brands by bringing them into the Disney family and they have not done anything in return to strengthen the Disney Brand itself. Has been better than half of the other CEOs though so it's a default 6.

• Walt Disney probably - 9 or 10 (would be a 10 if he didn't almost destroy his own company multiple times...creative genius wins out though)

• Eisner (with Wells) - 9 or 10 (I love the guy)

• Eisner (without Wells) - 2 or 3 (I still love the guy)

• Roy Disney - 8 (should he even get rated? Did he focus on anything besides WDW? Wasn't Card basically running most other things already?)

• Card Walker - 4 or 5 (built Epcot, almost drove the company to financial ruin, though Walt did this a few times too)

• Ron Miller - 4 (brought us Touchstone, but did nothing but nothing to strengthen the Disney brand and just about everything to further dilute it which opened the door (or farther held the door open) for hostile takeover)

 

[WDW1974]

I don't like rating people, but ... it isn't really fair to place Walt on the list. There would be nothing without him. Mistakes or not, he was a genius, a word that shouldn't be tossed around lightly.

As to Roy, which Roy are we talking about Roy the bro or Roy the nephew ... because while he knew animation and story, Roy Edward was not great at much else. He was smart enough to bring in Michael and Frank, but not savvy enough to exert control as things spiraled downward until he was forced out of the company in a public and ugly fashion.

Ron Miller doesn't get nearly enough credit ... Disney Channel was created on his watch ... EPCOT Center ... TDL ... the first stabs at WDW resort expansion ... Touchstone Pics etc ... unfortunately, the financials were such that he didn't get another 2-3 years to continue down that path. But look at what Eisner and Wells did with what they were left with. That speaks volumes about how Walt's son in law managed the business.

Iger is a very average manager with the jury still partially out. He plays it safe far too often and some of his chances (Marvel ... Avatar) are just too out there for some of us.

~GFC~

 

[devoy1701]

I don't like rating people, but ... it isn't really fair to place Walt on the list. There would be nothing without him. Mistakes or not, he was a genius, a word that shouldn't be tossed around lightly.

As to Roy, which Roy are we talking about Roy the bro or Roy the nephew ... because while he knew animation and story, Roy Edward was not great at much else. He was smart enough to bring in Michael and Frank, but not savvy enough to exert control as things spiraled downward until he was forced out of the company in a public and ugly fashion.

Ron Miller doesn't get nearly enough credit ... Disney Channel was created on his watch ... EPCOT Center ... TDL ... the first stabs at WDW resort expansion ... Touchstone Pics etc ... unfortunately, the financials were such that he didn't get another 2-3 years to continue down that path. But look at what Eisner and Wells did with what they were left with. That speaks volumes about how Walt's son in law managed the business.

Iger is a very average manager with the jury still partially out. He plays it safe far too often and some of his chances (Marvel ... Avatar) are just too out there for some of us.

~GFC~

I didn't feel right putting Walt on the list either. I never saw him as a CEO (and still don't) he was the "creator" (and actually now that I look it up, Walt didn't hold the CEO position but President and Chairman ). Plan and simple (even though it was neither of those). But I had to place him because technically he was CEO and as I think about the past leaders of this company I consider Walt and Michael to be just as successful at the job....though Walt was able to create something out of nothing and Michael was very effective at expanding the company in existing and new markets and industries.

As for Roy, I was talking Roy O as Roy E never held the CEO position in the company. I don't think it was that he wasn't savy enough, just that he wasn't comfortable with such an important and public decision-making role. When it was required he seemed more than capable of making needed decisions. Did you ever get a chance to meet him by the way '74?

For Ron, I knew that he had a play in Disney Channel and Touchstone, but I wasn't familiar with his role in TDL. And Don't we give credit for EPCOT to Card?

And I completely forgot to put Donn Tatum on that list.

Anyway, the point was that in terms of accomplishments of some of the past leaders in TWDC, Iger falls in the middle of the list. Not outstanding, not horrible.

I really hope that we will one day see a partnership that rivals that of Walt and Roy or Michael and Frank.