NY Times: Bob Iger Effectively Back As CEO

Nubs70

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
larryz said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the case of Disney+, streaming is more residual income than primary income that is theatrical release.

I streamed Frozen 2 with my family of 4. I essentially bought 1 streaming ticket instead of 4 theater tickets.
 
SteamboatJoe

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
Nubs70 said:
In the case of Disney+, streaming is more residual income than primary income that is theatrical release.

I streamed Frozen 2 with my family of 4. I essentially bought 1 streaming ticket instead of 4 theater tickets.
Click to expand...

A new pricing model would have to be developed to account for that. Onward's release will be the exception, not the rule. Would you be willing to pay the same ticket price, or perhaps an increased annual fee, to watch the film at home knowing you won't be gouged for food/drink, can watch it any time that is convenient, can pause it for bathroom breaks, and don't have to pay a babysitter? While the studio may lose out on charging a family of 4 for 4 tickets, the reach via an on-demand streaming service might be much wider. The NFL figured this out years ago with the Sunday Ticket package. Heck, the Disney Channel used to be a special upcharge add-on like HBO.
 
SteamboatJoe

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
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 it’s films in theaters that will accept them, they rent out the screen for its run. It’s basically a marketing expense for them.
Click to expand...

Seriously. They almost could release the trailers and other special previews on their social media platforms and let the users do the rest via liking and sharing.
 
DDLand

DDLand

Well-Known Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
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.
Click to expand...
20th Century was a bad value. Nat Geo, Hulu, and Marvel rights are useful and even important... Still, you can’t help but feel like they overpaid for those key assets. Most of the other elements of 20th Century have little to no direct bearing on Disney’s efforts. Attempts to drive synergy with the acquisition have left The Simpsons and Avatar on Disney+ and further distorted the Disney brand.

By driving up the price, Comcast really hurt Disney. I guess Disney got its revenge with the bidding war over sky. Both companies came away saddled with debt.

On close examination, it seems harder and harder to call the 20th Century acquisition a good match. The pressure will be on Marvel and Mayer to monetize the 20th Century assets, or someone in the financial press will start asking questions. What did that acquisition buy them?
 
Slpy3270

Slpy3270

Well-Known Member
DDLand said:
20th Century was a bad value. Nat Geo, Hulu, and Marvel rights are useful and even important... Still, you can’t help but feel like they overpaid for those key assets. Most of the other elements of 20th Century have little to no direct bearing on Disney’s efforts. Attempts to drive synergy with the acquisition have left The Simpsons and Avatar on Disney+ and further distorted the Disney brand.

By driving up the price, Comcast really hurt Disney. I guess Disney got its revenge with the bidding war over sky. Both companies came away saddled with debt.

On close examination, it seems harder and harder to call the 20th Century acquisition a good match. The pressure will be on Marvel and Mayer to monetize the 20th Century assets, or someone in the financial press will start asking questions. What did that acquisition buy them?
Click to expand...

In all fairness, mergers like this take a lot longer, like five years or so, to fully set in. It's only been a year since the acquisition and the results, to be fair, are rather mixed, but too early to call fully. Bear in mind there are still multiple preexisting contracts that have not yet lapsed (and movies that Disney had nothing to do with still awaiting release) so Disney can't fully exploit the value of the assets yet. This stuff takes time and we'll have to wait.

Call me back in like 2024 or so.
 
Last edited:
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
DDLand said:
On close examination, it seems harder and harder to call the 20th Century acquisition a good match. The pressure will be on Marvel and Mayer to monetize the 20th Century assets, or someone in the financial press will start asking questions. What did that acquisition buy them?
Click to expand...
It's something to add to Iger's list of accomplishments and it shut down another studio.
 
VJ

VJ

Well-Known Member
I posted this in a thread in the DL subforum but it deserves to be here as well:


With the confusion stemming from the article over at the-site-that-shall-not-be-named, I thought it'd be a good idea to shine some light on this comment posted to /r/WaltDisneyWorld.

tl;dr: Nothing's changed. Iger is still Exec. Chairman and Chapek is still CEO (albeit a ghost CEO).

This is poor reporting by the Disney blogs on a NYT article with one poor line.

When Iger stepped down as CEO, he assigned himself the new role of Executive Chairman. This position is different from Chairman of the Board, as it's still an executive position. This means that from the day Chapek started as CEO, he reported directly to Bob Iger, who had more authority than Chapek when it came to running the company.

The announced plan from that very day was for Iger to continue to steer the ship for the next two years while Chapek got up to speed with CEO duties, so that at the end of 2021 Iger could resign from Exec Chairman and let Chapek truly run things, answering only to the board in the way any CEO has to answer to a board.

In other words, the powers Iger has today are the same powers he had a week ago and the first day he wasn't CEO. More importantly, he's literally not taking back the position as CEO.

The NYT article has one line in it that implies he's "effectively" running the company, even though that was his stated intention from day one. The longer and more accurate takeaway should be "Iger filling the exact role he outlined when he stepped down as CEO, it's just more important now than before because the company is financially struggling from the pandemic".
Click to expand...

 
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Brad Bishop said:
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.
Click to expand...

Frank Well would have not been with the company past the mid 90's regardless of his death. Eisner already had decided he disliked sharing the lime light and was working on a coup to get him out. Frank also actively had a timeline when joining the company. He was essentially two feet out the door at the time of his death.

Now obviously there is an emotional impact to that death, but the outcome would have likely been pretty similar.

His true character flaw is that he literally could not maintain relationships. With anyone. Anyone who "did well" started to compress on his ego and he'd actively work against them - and therefore the company.

-He actively chased away Katzenberg; sinking Disney Animation and simultaneously creating an (at the time) bigger competitor out of thin air. I don't think I'd have wanted Katzenberg as head of the company, but he certainly would have been an interesting succession choice in a revisionist history, if Eisner was actually willing to give him the reigns in the later 90's.
-He frequently hired friends, who were not well suited for their roles. Only to moments later take up an egotistical power trip and get them thrown out of the company. The hiring of Michael Ovitz was a disaster.
 
Nubs70

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
SteamboatJoe said:
A new pricing model would have to be developed to account for that. Onward's release will be the exception, not the rule. Would you be willing to pay the same ticket price, or perhaps an increased annual fee, to watch the film at home knowing you won't be gouged for food/drink, can watch it any time that is convenient, can pause it for bathroom breaks, and don't have to pay a babysitter? While the studio may lose out on charging a family of 4 for 4 tickets, the reach via an on-demand streaming service might be much wider. The NFL figured this out years ago with the Sunday Ticket package. Heck, the Disney Channel used to be a special upcharge add-on like HBO.
Click to expand...
Baesd on current Disney+ offerings, no. Mandelorian was fantastic but beyond that, I find.the content rather stale, but that is me.

Individual new release, may be depending on the film. Would I pay $25 for a live action redo or reboot? Nope.

Netflix/Prime even Tubi w/ commercials provide a much greater genre selection than Disney+.
 
Horizons '83

Horizons '83

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Nubs70 said:
Baesd on current Disney+ offerings, no. Mandelorian was fantastic but beyond that, I find.the content rather stale, but that is me.

Individual new release, may be depending on the film. Would I pay $25 for a live action redo or reboot? Nope.

Netflix/Prime even Tubi w/ commercials provide a much greater genre selection than Disney+.
Click to expand...
That is why I feel it was the main reason Iger acquired 20th Century.
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
DDLand said:
What did that acquisition buy them?
Click to expand...

Bragging rights? An ego boost to Iger who wanted one more big buy?

The excuse was content, but the man who said it was the one who had limited the amount produced by Disney in the decade + leading up to the purchase by effectively shutting down Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures and selling off Miramax because they weren't "on brand".
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Iger was supposed to stay around to mentor Chapek.

It shouldn't be a surprise that in an existential crisis, Iger is calling the shot again. If you're an official of FL, CA, US, China, Japan, France and you get a call about Disney... are you going to pick up for Chapek? Or Iger?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom