Of Eisner, Iger, Chapek and Pressler; or Is history repeating itself?

[DisneyManOne]

The recent announcements that were made at the D23 panel have sent many hardcore Disney fans into a tizzy. Many of these ideas basically involved shoehorning in IPs where they have no business being. And it makes me wonder: are we stuck in a time loop? Have we gone back to the early 2000s, an age where IPs were shoehorned in left and right, just so the executives could make a quick buck? Well, to me, I feel that history is repeating itself. To me, I do not see Bob Iger. I see Michael Eisner, in all his corporate greed. To me, I do not see Bob Chapek. I see Paul Pressler, the man who pretty much showed why you should never let the merchandising guy run your theme park. And did I mention Chapek previously served as head of merchandising as well? No wonder I feel like we're in a time loop.

I want to know--are we dealing with corporate greed as it happened at the tail end of Eisner's reign? It's just so baffling to see how Disney is shamelessly selling out these IPs in the hopes they'll rake in more money. What do you guys think?

 

[Christian Fronckowiak]

I don't think it's fair to compare Bob Chapek to Paul Pressler yet. We really have yet to see his additions to the parks. So far, his track record is Avatar and bringing Soarin around the World to the non Shanghai parks without a exclusive time frame as was planned IIRC under Tom Staggs. I suppose you could look at Toy Story Land as his first project where he's on board from the beginning, which we still haven't seen yet. So I'm more than willing to give him a wait and see. However, Pixar Pier IS an example of Chapek's influencing the parks.

I don't see this as Paul Pressler 2.0. At least not yet. The Treehouses are all still in operation!
I think Paul Pressler would have overlaid Tron on the Tomorrowland Speedway. Bob Chapek is giving us a cloned E-Ticket. Apples and apple trees IMO.

 

[AndyS2992]

I guess? Though to be honest it's what the average guest wants, they pay big money to be surrounded by Disney IPs and that's what they are getting. We don't go to Disney to be surrounded by genericness that can be found anywhere else. It's only us more dedicated fans that are getting worked up and even then it's only half of us. I can see why people are angry at IPs in Epcot but I'm on the fence personally. It doesn't bother me that much, a new attraction is a new attraction after all and Epcot needs a refresh and more rides bad and unfortunately edutainment isn't all that appealing to today's young, especially when on vacation.

The only 'greed' I can really see is that with a ride based on an IP, they have the opportunity of adding a gift shop at the end whereas an original attraction may pose a little more difficulty unless cute characters are in the ride for the sole purpose of selling merch.

 

[Mickey5150]

Considering that WDW is one big giant ip I have no issue it. How dare the company who owns Mickey, Marvel and Star Wars put them where they want in their parks. Marty Sklar said it best when he said "these aren't musuems."

 

[JIMINYCR]

Why must it be tied to greed? Disney needs the numbers of guests to continue to raise to stay viable. Disney realizes the guest expects new and exciting experiences to draw them back to the parks and away from their competitors. It comes down to bringing in something that will connect with the guest and what better avenue than tying attractions and guests together with the theme that they are fascinated with which happens to be among Disneys property.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I thought it was very telling that Chapek didn't mention during his D23 spiel where the Mickey ride was going to be located. He knew what the reaction would be. Not that it would have changed his mind, but I bet he feared the bad publicity all the booing would have inspired.

 

[bluetiedye]

I don't understand the premise.

When you say this theming indicates greed, do you mean that's because it will earn them more money? If so, doesn't that mean that the public gets more value out of it, and will pay Disney more money to experience it? Doesn't that mean it's a win for the public?

Would it be better for them to make parks that people enjoy less, just so they can make less money and not be accused of greediness?

 

[TP2000]

Several other posters here are right in saying this isn't due to "corporate greed". Corporations exist to satisfy free consumers with in-demand products that create profits for their shareholders, end of story.

That said... I lived through the Paul Pressler days when he was President of Disneyland Resort in 1996-1999, and then as Chairman of Parks & resorts from 1999-2002. I was visiting Disneyland regularly then and it was a disaster. This current era is nothing like the Pressler era. Just take a look at what California Adventure looked like in 2001 versus what it looks like today after Pressler's replacements had to spend over 1 Billion dollars fixing it.

Bob Chapek seems rather clueless when it comes to the business of theme parks and resort properties. It's very apparent in any of his public presentations or media interviews that he has absolutely zero operational experience in the parks, and not even a basic background in the hospitality industry. He doesn't know the lingo, doesn't get the culture, doesn't know how things work day to day.

But Bob Chapek is no Paul Pressler. Chapek spends money where it matters and is willing to take risks. Turning DCA's second-rate Tower of Terror into the first-rate Guardians of the Galaxy Mission: BREAKOUT! was a Bob Chapek decision and project. He gambled and he won. I've been on Mission: BREAKOUT! four times now, and it is insanely fun. No surprise it's now the highest rated attraction in Anaheim.

I also spent 20 minutes staring at the Star Wars model at D23 Expo last weekend. That thing was the most impressive piece of Imagineering I'd seen in my entire lifetime. Pictures and video don't do it justice, but if it turns out looking 90% as cool as the model than Tokyo DisneySea just got outdone by Disneyland and DHS. It's also apparent that this is a mega-budget project, like Cars Land times two. Pressler never could have accomplished that.

Iger has the Botox seeping into his brain, and Chapek is clueless when it comes to theme parks. But they are nothing as bad as Paul Pressler.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Chapek just seems like a bad guy, honestly. Very disingenuous.

 

[TP2000]

Chapek just seems like a bad guy, honestly. Very disingenuous.

He does seem disingenuous, but that's because he's reading from a script and reciting memorized talking points. He has no personal experience to draw from when he talks about Disney theme parks, and he has no idea how they operate day to day or how paying customers interact with them. It's painfully obvious that he is clueless about the business he is leading.

But if that makes him seem like a "bad guy", that's the fault of his support team and the communication people who write his talking points for him. He needs better delivery skills and real experiences to draw from, then he wouldn't seem so fake.

He doesn't even know how to ride the parking lot tram at Disneyland because he valet parks at the Grand Californian any time he and his family visit. But I'm sure he's not actually "bad". I bet he's a nice enough guy who loves his wife, doesn't kick his dog, votes and pays his taxes, doesn't run red lights, etc. He's just painfully clueless.

 

[Chef Mickey]

He does seem disingenuous, but that's because he's reading from a script and reciting memorized talking points. He has no personal experience to draw from when he talks about Disney theme parks, and he has no idea how they operate day to day or how paying customers interact with them. It's painfully obvious that he is clueless about the business he is leading.

But if that makes him seem like a "bad guy", that's the fault of his support team and the communication people who write his talking points for him. He needs better delivery skills and real experiences to draw from, then he wouldn't seem so fake.

He doesn't even know how to ride the parking lot tram at Disneyland because he valet parks at the Grand Californian any time he and his family visit. But I'm sure he's not actually "bad". I bet he's a nice enough guy who loves his wife, doesn't kick his dog, votes and pays his taxes, doesn't run red lights, etc. He's just painfully clueless.

I don't like him. If I were him, I would BE in the parks at least 10% of the year and staying at all different resorts, riding the buses, eating the food, and riding the attractions WITH Fast Pass. He's not a celebrity and probably 1 in 5,000 people could even pick him out of a crowd. I'd want to actually experience what guests experience constantly.

We need someone leading the parks who loves the parks first, not just loves business. That's a huge part of it, but a connection with the past and even a vision of the future are imperative. He's just a bad fit and you can tell. Shame on Iger and the whole team for letting this clown continue.

He's a product/brand guy AT BEST. Wasn't he at Heinz before and with consumer products at Disney before this role?

 

[TP2000]

Speaking of Paul Pressler, for those keeping score at home...

After a disastrous tenure as Parks Chairman that was capped off by the horrific results of both DCA and Walt Disney Studios Paris in 2001, Paul Pressler left Disney in 2002 to be the Chairman of The Gap. It was a disaster and The Gap suffered declining sales and profits for the five years Pressler was at the helm. Paul Pressler's handling of The Gap was a fall from American retail grace that has only been surpassed by Sears Roebuck in recent years. He was fired by The Gap's board in '07 and disappeared for a couple years. Now he is a anonymous partner in an investment banking firm, Clayton Dubilier & Rice. He lives in his native New York state.

His right-hand woman whom he picked to succeed him as Disneyland Resort President was Cynthia Harriss. She was just as disastrous as Pressler, whom she worked for at The Disney Stores earlier in the 1990's. Cynthia Harriss was fired from Disneyland in 2003, and two months later she went to work for Paul Pressler again at The Gap. Cynthia was also fired by The Gap's board in 2007, as Pressler and Harriss were a dynamic duo that had become toxic and were blamed for The Gap's stunning decline. Cynthia bounced around through an unsuccessful series of lower level executive jobs through the late 2000's; as a Vice President of the small retail chain MetroPark, before MetroPark also went under two years after Cynthia arrived. Cynthia is now the Senior Vice President for David's Bridal, a chain of stores that Paul Pressler conveniently purchased for his banking firm Clayton Dubilier & Rice. She lives in the same home in Laguna Beach she had when she worked at Disneyland, and telecommutes to the David's Bridal corporate offices in Pennsylvania via the David's Bridal regional office in Costa Mesa, California.

Pressler and Harriss are living out their final wage earning years in relative retail obscurity. I couldn't be happier for them.

 

[danyoung56]

We need someone leading the parks who loves the parks first, not just loves business.

Spoken like somebody who isn't a shareholder. I'd say we WANT someone who loves the parks first, but as large as the company has grown, it's never gonna happen.

 

[TP2000]

He's a product/brand guy AT BEST. Wasn't he at Heinz before and with consumer products at Disney before this role?

I knew he came from Consumer Products before the Parks, but according to his official info he was a "brand manager" at Heinz early in his career. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/leaders/bob-chapek/

He has a degree in micro biology. Interesting. But when it comes to theme parks and hotels, he is just clueless.

Good luck on getting any senior executive to experience the parks as a paying customer. Miceage did a series of fascinating articles a couple years ago about how the senior Burbank execs get the royal treatment for them and their families when they go to Disneyland; valet parking, VIP tour guides who whisk them through the exit of any ride they want, reserved roped off seating at parades and fireworks, lavish meals at Club 33 and Carthay Circle and Napa Rose, etc., etc.

These are anonymous people that no one would recognize, especially the executives family members. But they get the royal treatment that any paying customer would kill for. And that's what they think the "park experience" is like. No wonder they are so clueless.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Spoken like somebody who isn't a shareholder. I'd say we WANT someone who loves the parks first, but as large as the company has grown, it's never gonna happen.

Shows what you know. I think aligning someone who LOVES the parks also aligns long term with someone who wants the best product for the guest. Disney has done extremely well at the Parks, but it's been in spite of poor leadership for WDW in particular. Its parks are not the best they could be for guests and it hurts me both personally and financially.

I think the shares could have performed BETTER with better leadership in the parks/resorts areas (through expansion).

I actually own well into the 4 digits in DIS shares and acquire more every month. How many do you own?

 

[TP2000]

I used to think it would be great to have John Lasseter in charge of the parks.

But after his D23 performance last weekend, now I'm afraid he would turn every restaurant into a bar and pipe draft beer to all the park drinking fountains.

 

[Chef Mickey]

I knew he came from Consumer Products before the Parks, but according to his official info he was a "brand manager" at Heinz early in his career. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/leaders/bob-chapek/

He has a degree in micro biology. Interesting. But when it comes to theme parks and hotels, he is just clueless.

Good luck on getting any senior executive to experience the parks as a paying customer. Miceage did a series of fascinating articles a couple years ago about how the senior Burbank execs get the royal treatment for them and their families when they go to Disneyland; valet parking, VIP tour guides who whisk them through the exit of any ride they want, reserved roped off seating at parades and fireworks, lavish meals at Club 33 and Carthay Circle and Napa Rose, etc., etc.

These are anonymous people that no one would recognize, especially the executives family members. But they get the royal treatment that any paying customer would kill for. And that's what they think the "park experience" is like. No wonder they are so clueless.

That's really a shame. SO much can be learned (and still have fun) by experiencing the parks as a paying guest. I'm not sure I'd even want to walk on every ride. But, hell, I love the parks and want some anticipation to ride my favorite attractions. These guys just see them as a cash cow.

 

[grnflash]

This current era is nothing like the Pressler era.

PREACH!!

 

[Christian Fronckowiak]

I used to think it would be great to have John Lasseter in charge of the parks.

But after his D23 performance last weekend, now I'm afraid he would turn every restaurant into a bar and pipe draft beer to all the park drinking fountains.

Or Pixar Pier.

 

[Nubs70]

That are all of the refined MBA cloth of risk adverse financial management. All decisions are made based on maximizing revenue.at the least expense regardless of operating philosophy.