NY Times: Bob Iger Effectively Back As CEO

[Josh Hendy]

He basically made The Walt Disney Company a distribution company selling other people's work instead of investing in what the company was pretty much known for... pioneering Innovation (audio animatronics, animation, theme parks, general tech)

The thing about a giant credit bubble is, when it's rolling there is no other choice for any large company except to go along with the bubble and borrow like crazy in a way that's compatible with the demands of the bubble. Not compatible with the long term needs of shareholders or employees, mostly just the need of the bankers to keep the bubble going for as long as possible. One of the most egregious manifestations is when a company borrows billions to lend to its customers. Think you all know what I mean. Also to go on acquisition binges in a way which pumps up the stock price as quickly as possible. And do stock buybacks whenever there is nothing else to throw the borrowed money at.

So the CEO needed is the one that goes along with the borrowing/acquiring/lending agenda with the biggest smile and the least questions asked of the "corporate advisors". Likewise when the bubble bursts the bankers require a CEO who will go along with their mandated "austerity" package with the least fuss. Talk about all kinds of stupid nonsense like a straight face like, "We'll reopen the parks with temperature scanners!" That's not Iger talking ... that's the banker who put together the $6 B bailout bond offering and sold it to the government.

In between those times, only the most insubstantial type of Yes Man is required. Chappie never had a chance because it was the biggest, longest bubble in history followed by the most sudden POP! ever seen. Hence the 5 weeks of nothingness, or whatever he got. They want their favorite puppet back.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Disney, unlike AMC, has so far had no trouble raising money in the form of bonds because they are rich in physical assets that are super appealing to creditors/lenders as collateral. Miles and miles of land, countless physical structures, four cruise ships, the list goes on...

AMC doesn't have jack. Basically the only physical things they own are a bunch of marquee signs and movie projectors. Plus they've been horribly mismanaged for the last few years.

Not to mention big box, multi-screen theaters are probably a dying business model.

 

[Giss Neric]

I have this weird crush on Mr. Iger. Love a daddy who takes charge when needed to. In this case, the company.

 

[Mouse Trap]

Not to mention big box, multi-screen theaters are probably a dying business model.

Dying, yes, but far from gone. Right now they remain as the only viable source of major revenue for Hollywood blockbusters. On-demand or streaming services have terrible ROI on films with high productions costs -- honestly they lose money on almost all of them. This will change eventually, but we're looking at another 5-10 years before subscriber numbers are large enough to make the investment worthwhile.

AMC has been screwed for a long time -- COVID19 just accelerated their issues. They're all hurting right now for sure, but whatever halfway decent locations AMC is required divest will be scooped up by the smarter players.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I have this weird crush on Mr. Iger. Love a daddy who takes charge when needed to. In this case, the company.

Ok...I’m gonna write you a prescription that will cure that right up...

 

[eliza61nyc]

What did he actually do? Decide to buy a bunch of money making properties at extremely high costs and then force those properties into the parks which he didn’t seem to know anything about.

I’d rather have the live action remakes vs. the Eisner level cheap sequels, so I’ll give him that much but still... all of those live action remakes and Pixar sequels should have been brand new content.

OMG the horror. actually making money for the company.

 

[Jrb1979]

Nah, I totally agree with you. Disney is more than just the rides. I just meant I thought the conversation at hand was a discussion of rides/attractions.

The Disney hotels are great, but at current prices, I consider them more of a cash grab than an investment in WDW Resort quality. I’ve never found it in my heart to pay the prices for a Deluxe; however, I do have Animal Kingdom Lodge booked this October as I was able to score an amazing deal through Undercover Tourist that effectively made AKL $291 per night after taxes... crossing my fingers that we get to actually go...

I wish Cedar Point satisfied me as much as Disney... I would be a lot wealthier if it did.

Cedar Point does satisfy me. That's cause I love roller coasters and high thrilling rides.

 

[Robbiem]

I think Eisner was "good-ish".

He did a lot to save Disney and build out WDW, in general. He also became the face of Disney, which I think he did quite well. As another has said, Iger is more of a suit.

Eisner, I think, screwed up in a few areas:
- He built Disneyland Paris in France. Spain wanted it but France gave them more incentives. Spain would have been a better pick and better received.
- He rushed DHS to compete with Universal AND found a spot which locked it in with no room for expansion.
- He got scared from the failure of Disneyland Paris (EuroDisney) and stopped being creative / daring. This resulted in another park on the cheap: DCA (it cost more to do it twice than to just do it once, right).
- (not his fault) Frank Wells died and that plus his heart problems had him lose his edge.

If you consider what he did, though:
- DHS
- Disneyland Paris
- Animal Kingdom
- DCA (granted - crappy)
- Resorts
- Other things that he tried and failed at (I'd rather him try and fail than to not try at all)
... he did a lot of good.

I don’t think Spain would have worked any better than France for Euro Disney, sure the weather is better part of the year but the infrastructure (esp in the 80s) is a lot poorer (there are huge numbers of roads/train lines half built, most of the country is quite poor compared to some other European areas).

Euro Disney suffered from over building hotels without the parks and other attractions to support them. No other resort has opened with six hotels plus a campground to support one park and a shopping area. At the end of the day disney tried to build a vast european disney world when they should have built a smaller Disneyland style resort- one park and one or two hotels expanding as the parks got built out as Tokyo has done. The UK, Germany, or the Netherlands would probably have been better locations than France who basically didn’t wan the resort they just didn’t want anyone else to have it.

DHS location has always puzzled me I would have thought building near the MK parking lot as per the original world showcase plan would have been better (maybe allowing for a monorail stop) and the park definitely suffered from a rushed design with areas bolted on in available gaps leading to a lack of coherent plan, which pretty much sums up WDW expansion from the 90s onward. Animal kingdom is beautiful but needed beastly kingdom from the get go.

the other thing Eisner did was Hong Kong. Yes the resort was very under built. But I actually think its the best planned resort layout and really makes use of its setting. If disney had built a DLP level park in Hong Kong I’m sure it would have given Tokyo a run for its money!

 

[Magenta Panther]

Contributions from Walt , yes. Iger improved on it, took huge bets, improved the lives of others ( aka shareholders ), Thanks Bob!

Improved on what? Profitability? Sure. For a while. It's a different story now. Walt's Disney was in the red because of a number of factors, but primarily because he kept plowing profits into quality and innovation. Those are the values that people associated with Disney, and has kept them as fans and consumers. Iger has CHEAPENED those values by cutting corners at the parks (do you think Walt would have left a broken AA inside a ride for YEARS and done nothing to fix it? Just put a strobe light on it?), making lazy live-action remakes of Disney animated classics, bought up played-out faded franchises and studios just because he could, and pretty much turned the caricature of Disney as an evil "family-friendly" empire into a reality. Not to mention betraying the company's "family-friendly" values by rehiring horrible cretins like James Gunn. Iger's despicable. The only reason I'm enjoying his return as a ghost-CEO is the enjoyment of watching try to fix his mess. Pass the popcorn!

 

[Horizons '83]

Improved on what? Profitability? Sure. For a while. It's a different story now. Walt's Disney was in the red because of a number of factors, but primarily because he kept plowing profits into quality and innovation. Those are the values that people associated with Disney, and has kept them as fans and consumers. Iger has CHEAPENED those values by cutting corners at the parks (do you think Walt would have left a broken AA inside a ride for YEARS and done nothing to fix it? Just put a strobe light on it?), making lazy live-action remakes of Disney animated classics, bought up played-out faded franchises and studios just because he could, and pretty much turned the caricature of Disney as an evil "family-friendly" empire into a reality. Not to mention betraying the company's "family-friendly" values by rehiring horrible cretins like James Gunn. Iger's despicable. The only reason I'm enjoying his return as a ghost-CEO is the enjoyment of watching try to fix his mess. Pass the popcorn!

Why do you compare Iger to Walt? It's such a useless comparison.

 

[Lilofan]

Improved on what? Profitability? Sure. For a while. It's a different story now. Walt's Disney was in the red because of a number of factors, but primarily because he kept plowing profits into quality and innovation. Those are the values that people associated with Disney, and has kept them as fans and consumers. Iger has CHEAPENED those values by cutting corners at the parks (do you think Walt would have left a broken AA inside a ride for YEARS and done nothing to fix it? Just put a strobe light on it?), making lazy live-action remakes of Disney animated classics, bought up played-out faded franchises and studios just because he could, and pretty much turned the caricature of Disney as an evil "family-friendly" empire into a reality. Not to mention betraying the company's "family-friendly" values by rehiring horrible cretins like James Gunn. Iger's despicable. The only reason I'm enjoying his return as a ghost-CEO is the enjoyment of watching try to fix his mess. Pass the popcorn!

I will take mine with butter on top. As long as my $$ works harder than me, all good!

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Dying, yes, but far from gone. Right now they remain as the only viable source of major revenue for Hollywood blockbusters. On-demand or streaming services have terrible ROI on films with high productions costs -- honestly they lose money on almost all of them. This will change eventually, but we're looking at another 5-10 years before subscriber numbers are large enough to make the investment worthwhile.

AMC has been screwed for a long time -- COVID19 just accelerated their issues. They're all hurting right now for sure, but whatever halfway decent locations AMC is required divest will be scooped up by the smarter players.

I agree that direct to streaming releases doesn't make financial sense yet but it will get figured out. But the 5-10 window you mentioned is yet another reason why I don't think a company like AMC is very appealing financially to those in the know. They probably don't see a long-term future in it.

EDIT: I could theaters staying around in one form another, especially the more intimate, charming ones with character. Blockbuster releases, novelty screenings, and indie films could still be shown. The big complexes may have to evolve into entertainment centers much like many malls have had to do as quality anchor stores have disappeared.

 

[Mouse Trap]

I agree that direct to streaming releases doesn't make financial sense yet but it will get figured out. But the 5-10 window you mentioned is yet another reason why I don't think a company like AMC is very appealing financially to those in the know. They probably don't see a long-term future in it.

Agreed. 5-10 years we'll actually see some competition and reasons to going direct instead of theatrical. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but for now the only way to turn a profit on a $30M+ budget is theatrical.

 

[DisneyTalks]

If we find out a month from now that Chapek has been dead this whole time it would not surprise me.

I can't imagine a more invisible CEO for one of the world's biggest companies.

Exactly. Get this guy out of here. Terrible

 

[DisneyTalks]

Bob Iger is the least innovative or creative CEO of any company.

He basically made The Walt Disney Company a distribution company selling other people's work instead of investing in what the company was pretty much known for... pioneering Innovation (audio animatronics, animation, theme parks, general tech)

Ever since iger was attached, we lost the era of charismatic ceos from Disney with a love for originality and creativity. Say what you will about Eisner, but that man really expanded Disneyworld, Disney parks around the world, with so many original rides, and parks of their own. All that stopped as soon as Iger stepped on board. He made the company financially stable again, sure, but creatively? God no.

 

[TheRealBobIger]

This is awful news!

I'm a simple man. All I wanted to do is make The Walt Disney Company® more timeless, more relevant, more family, and more Disney®. But @TheRealBobIger keeps meddling with my master plan! Something tells me he's trying to get rid of me.

Why would I make a statement when you can talk to me directly here?

I would never get rid of you Bob C. You will still be able to make more timeless, more relevant, more family, and more Disney just not right now.

When this is all said and done let's meet up at DCA and ride your favorite ride Emotional Whirlwind!

 

[M:SpilotISTC12]

I would never get rid of you Bob C. You will still be able to make more timeless, more relevant, more family, and more Disney just not right now.

When this is all said and done let's meet up at DCA and ride your favorite ride Emotional Whirlwind!

Actually laughed out loud at this. A+

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Agreed. 5-10 years we'll actually see some competition and reasons to going direct instead of theatrical. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but for now the only way to turn a profit on a $30M+ budget is theatrical.

Studios need to stop spending so much money on TV ads. Their belief in agressive Ad spends makes it impossible for small to mid budget films to make a profit in theatrical. Remember, when Netflix screens its films in theaters that will accept them, they rent out the screen for its run. It’s basically a marketing expense for them.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Probably wasn’t a good idea in hindsight to put the company into so much debt just to get the streaming rights to Home Alone.

 

[larryz]

Movies are in trouble. In future, theaters will not be packed. If every other seat is sold, tickets will need to double in price to maintain revenue. Direct to streaming may help a bit.

In reality, once you get out of opening week, daytime showings are lucky to pull in more than 20 or 30 people. So doubling prices will only drive people to online streaming.

The real money in motion picture theaters is in the snack bar.