Eisner oversaw many stock splits, Iger has not.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
NY Times: Bob Iger Effectively Back As CEO
- Thread starter the.dreamfinder
- Start date
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Being a media figure in a time when television exposure had a greater impact meant that Eisner's failures (like Euro Disney and DCA 1.0) were much more public and open to criticism.
In contrast, Iger has been given several free passes for box office bombs like Nutcracker and the Four Realms and Next Gen whose true costs/mishaps were kept under the mainstream radar.
In contrast, Iger has been given several free passes for box office bombs like Nutcracker and the Four Realms and Next Gen whose true costs/mishaps were kept under the mainstream radar.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
As far as stock goes...Eisner took a fairly small potatoes operation in Disney and made it a conglomerate...Iger made it a huge one through acquisition...
Both have merits and failures.
You know who has a really hard job? The next guy/guyette...they haven’t found him or her yet
Both have merits and failures.
You know who has a really hard job? The next guy/guyette...they haven’t found him or her yet
DDLand
Well-Known Member
Iger is complex just like Eisner. He had moments of true brilliance. Buying Marvel might be the greatest thing he did as CEO. The value of that acquisition is unbelievable. His reputation as a decent guy opened many doors like Pixar and Lucasfilms. Because of these aspects of his leadership, he was primed and ready to launch what may be one of the most profitable consumer services in recent memory. Disney+ will be what The Walt Disney Company lives and dies by in the near term.
But Iger, like Eisner, made mistakes or just got lucky. The success at the parks division over his tenure has little to do with his meager investments. Walt Disney World attendance, occupancy, and spending exploded all while he gave us an overpriced omnimover and D Ticket rollercoaster. While DCA was expanded, Disneyland Park was starved of content additions. Much of Iger’s parks “success” can be attributed to an excellent period of consumer spending growth. By the time significant expansions were opening, the cycle was preparing for a downturn (imagine if SWL had opened two years ago). Serious money wasn’t approved until 2015- money that took four to five years more to make an appreciable difference. His investment in domestic parks have shown neither foresight nor correct priorities. While Disneyland and Walt Disney World were beginning to make more money than ever before, Iger had directed money away from those parks. While we may all agree Shanghai is a worthwhile longterm investment, Iger would have made more money investing in his domestic resorts during that period.
His failures are pretty long. Saddling the company with tens of billions in debt. Overpaying for sports rights. Breaking cable television as business model due to ESPN’s insatiable appetite for more profits. Allowing Lucasfilms to turn Star Wars into a culture war and reduce box office numbers by nearly 50% from 7-9. The nasty way he treated Tom Staggs and struggled with succession. The honest questions that can be raised about 20th Century.
Personally, he has ruined something that I love. Walt Disney World is awful these days. It took me a while... But I can’t justify his treatment of that wonderful creation. It is becoming sad and tired. It’s become a place where you get to pay for the privilege of not doing anything. The resort generally looks awful and everything feels old. While there are bright spots like Disney’s Animal Kingdom, even that is under built and poorly maintained. They’ve also overlaid an oppressively demanding software system on top of the resort that makes things stressful and annoying. This software system also has propensity to not work. The transportation is an abomination.
It breaks my heart, but his leadership has ruined Walt Disney World. That may have started on Eisner, but every bit of character has been sapped out of that place. It is not fun. Of course I expect everyone to tell me how wrong I am... But this is my opinion. While I’m talking about my opinion, he also has diluted the brand and strip mined its content. Walt Disney doesn’t mean anything anymore. It’s the General Motors of media (I want a rebrand to General Stories).
Iger is complicated. There is brilliance, there is luck, and there is stupidity. What’s become terribly obvious is The Walt Disney Company is dead. It is replaced by Bob Iger’s Walt Disney Company. He founded this thing, and he’s going to stick with it. I think Walt’s Disney faded away.
But Iger, like Eisner, made mistakes or just got lucky. The success at the parks division over his tenure has little to do with his meager investments. Walt Disney World attendance, occupancy, and spending exploded all while he gave us an overpriced omnimover and D Ticket rollercoaster. While DCA was expanded, Disneyland Park was starved of content additions. Much of Iger’s parks “success” can be attributed to an excellent period of consumer spending growth. By the time significant expansions were opening, the cycle was preparing for a downturn (imagine if SWL had opened two years ago). Serious money wasn’t approved until 2015- money that took four to five years more to make an appreciable difference. His investment in domestic parks have shown neither foresight nor correct priorities. While Disneyland and Walt Disney World were beginning to make more money than ever before, Iger had directed money away from those parks. While we may all agree Shanghai is a worthwhile longterm investment, Iger would have made more money investing in his domestic resorts during that period.
His failures are pretty long. Saddling the company with tens of billions in debt. Overpaying for sports rights. Breaking cable television as business model due to ESPN’s insatiable appetite for more profits. Allowing Lucasfilms to turn Star Wars into a culture war and reduce box office numbers by nearly 50% from 7-9. The nasty way he treated Tom Staggs and struggled with succession. The honest questions that can be raised about 20th Century.
Personally, he has ruined something that I love. Walt Disney World is awful these days. It took me a while... But I can’t justify his treatment of that wonderful creation. It is becoming sad and tired. It’s become a place where you get to pay for the privilege of not doing anything. The resort generally looks awful and everything feels old. While there are bright spots like Disney’s Animal Kingdom, even that is under built and poorly maintained. They’ve also overlaid an oppressively demanding software system on top of the resort that makes things stressful and annoying. This software system also has propensity to not work. The transportation is an abomination.
It breaks my heart, but his leadership has ruined Walt Disney World. That may have started on Eisner, but every bit of character has been sapped out of that place. It is not fun. Of course I expect everyone to tell me how wrong I am... But this is my opinion. While I’m talking about my opinion, he also has diluted the brand and strip mined its content. Walt Disney doesn’t mean anything anymore. It’s the General Motors of media (I want a rebrand to General Stories).
Iger is complicated. There is brilliance, there is luck, and there is stupidity. What’s become terribly obvious is The Walt Disney Company is dead. It is replaced by Bob Iger’s Walt Disney Company. He founded this thing, and he’s going to stick with it. I think Walt’s Disney faded away.
TheRealBobIger
Well-Known Member
AugieMorosco
Well-Known Member
I've been a cord cutter since the release of the Roku2 and I think streaming is the greatest thing to happen to TV in my lifetime. That said, I don't believe the future of new releases is direct to streaming. I think your parallel to the Sunday Ticket makes some sense, but ultimately the results would be much different. Much of what you're paying for is the theatrical experience. Going out and doing something, being in a theater, the whole ordeal. Unless you really love the atmosphere of an NFL game - the chaos, rowdy people, constant noise, hoards of people, plus paying $200+ per for the worst tickets - its more enjoyable at home. Not the same for movies. Watching at home is not the same level experience and I don't think would be valued near as such. I don't believe enough people are likely to pay $20-$40 to stream a new release at home to make those films profitable. Keeping them in theaters assures that the experience of a new release will be it's own thing and the only way to see new movies.
Zenia's the magic word.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
If AMC goes bankrupt, Disney could acquire it.
Bender123
Well-Known Member
I think there is a certain group of people that would want theaters to exist, but I can say that it feels like a forum that is being propped up by occasional tentpoles, rather than a thriving business. Anecdotally, I have come to hate the new "theater experience"...I went to maybe three movies last year, need to drop almost $100 for my family to get tickets and snacks, stuck in reserved seats next to an obnoxious drunk that kept buying drinks from the bar, people talking, people walking in front of you, people sneezing and being generally gross...
The big screen experience is great, the theater experience is anything but.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
You need to tell that to Kodak.
bartholomr4
Well-Known Member
I agree Bob Iger is complex. I would ask for you to supply an example of anyone anywhere who has produced or managed to care for a portfolio anything like the current Disney portfolio.
The real genius of Bob Iger is his ability to manage the ego’s which produce the stories and manage the diverse businesses within the Disney umbrella. If the management of Comcast, or Sony, or CBS/Viacom or any other (take your pick) media company purchased Disney, they would have consolidated for efficiency purposes all of these various businesses under a single management structure. The result would have killed the stories and characters these creators shepherd. Managing these ego’s and cajoling them to work together and leverage parks and consumer products is no small feat. In my opinion, this portfolio management strategy is Iger’s real success.
This strategy of sustaining these separate content engines to produce the tent pole stories which will be at greatest risk in the response to Covid-19. In the New York Times article there is a suggestion of a reduction in headcount coming. I suspect this isn’t focused on the Parks as we might all fear. Instead, I think the talent (or lack thereof) at 20th Century and subsidiaries which are at risk. I suspect he will have his foot on the accelerator for completion of the merger/consolidation. The company will be at risk of losing some “un-known tentpole stories” in an effort to save the company.
I also believe the reason he stepped back in to the CEO role (or sudo-CEO role, as there has been no announcement that Chapek is no longer CEO and the SEC would require such an announcement), is to manage this transition. I don’t think it is because they Need Iger to make decisions about how to manage the cost of the parks and consumer operations. Chapek has been running this for awhile. It’s the content producing businesses where he has no pedigree.
A couple of points to consider:
- Star Wars box office may be lower as a percentage from 7-9 vs 1-6. You need to consider the status of the stories, and the value of the total $4 billion dollar purchase of Lucas, and what that investment is worth now. I would contend the investment was wildly successful, and the franchise is in better shape than it would have been, had the purchase not occurred. Other will disagree with me, but this is my opinion.
- As for Disney being the “General Motors” of the Media, could you point out to me a Media Production company who has produced a better portfolio of stories, or manages a better resort hub? I don’t think anything else exists, or is even close. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want additional investment, or changes to refresh the parks portfolio. I don’t see this coming in the short-term as the mission of the day is to survive this virus.
DVCakaCarlF
Well-Known Member
I wonder if this is a coincidence...construction was halted, but now some permits and work is starting to take place. I’m going to say that Chapek had a gut reaction to “stop everything” and then Iger is turning the corner slowly by allowing work to start again.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Design and paper work was not stopped.
Dutch Inn '76
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. I tried to get out to the theatre to see "1917" repeatedly. I wanted the experience with that film that I can only get at the theatre, but we never made it. Now, I have the rental. It's been sitting on my tv stand for a week, but I don't care if I watch it or not, because it just won't be the same. The kids will come in hollering, or some other distraction will ruin the moment. Then, the 3' wide screen is just not great compared to one as big as a house.
Methinks theatres are safe.
The company was on the verge of collapse when Eisner / Wells / Katzenberg arrived. They inherited a mess.
I'll give this to Iger, he's always been someone who's positioned himself to be ahead of the curve and thinking about the future. He first hand saw the damage that shutting everything down had with the theme parks post 9/11, as well as how the competition gained on them as a result.
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I'd urge to watch the Imagineering doc (can't quite remember the episodes) on Disney + if you have it. They go into a bit of detail, from a Parks perspective and briefly on Disney as a whole at the time. As Martin alluded to, it was a mess when the reigns were handed to Eisner. Iger's new book also has a few brief paragraphs on Eisner's handling of Disney when he took over.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Huh? Iger let those gains not just continue but accelerate by focusing huge resources on not building.
The documentary that fudges a bunch of stuff to give Iger extra credit?
Rosso11
Well-Known Member
It’s illegal for a movie studio to own movie theaters. Disney had to get special permission to own the El Capitan. I believe they got it because they were willing to pay for the expensive renovation of it.
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I'll give you the last few episodes were self serving to Iger, but the first 4 or so were actually quite revealing and not a lot was held back.
On a side note, what is with your hate of Iger? What is it that you just can't stand about him? I am curious. Truly.