• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

Phil12

Well-Known Member
The CEO of TWDC has a difficult job just trying to live up to the reputation of some of the past CEO's. In particular, Walt Disney himself.

Walt was always the front man for his movies, TV shows, Disneyland and Walt Disney World. We knew about these things because good ole Uncle Walt told us all about his plans on his TV shows. And the public loved him!

Of course, that was all pure public relations. Walt was not one bit as he appeared on TV. In reality he was a chain smoker, he drank to excess and he swore like a sailor. He was also a very brutal businessman. But after all, he was in show business. So he hired the best in the business to make him look good. And it worked perfectly because he came off looking great and was able to sell the public most anything. He was a great pitchman!

After Walt died, Roy Disney and the others after didn't have the on camera charisma to effectively sell the Disney product. That is until Eisner came along. Eisner was a rather ruthless guy (just like Walt) but he realized the valve (just like Walt) of being able to pitch the product to the fans. And Eisner did well on camera and used the TV shows to sell product in an effective manner.

Unfortunately, Iger left most of his personality with whomever replaced him as a weatherman. I'll give Bob credit in that he tried to sell the Disney product on camera. But the camera just doesn't like Bob. He comes off as a stiff dupe and a smarmy CEO. He comes off almost as creepy as the Dreamfinder. Iger is just not a guy the fans felt comfortable with nor someone they could trust.

And now we have Bob Chapek. Poor Bob comes across on camera like a wet dishrag. He just can't sell the product. Now let's hope that a brave someone in TWDC confronts Bob and tells him that his on camera personality sucks. Given the proper acting lessons and guidance, they can make him look good or even great!

They did it for Walt and I'm sure they can do it for Bob. I think the difference is that Walt was willing to put on his fake persona for the sake of building his personal fortune (i.e. greed). I'm not sure that Bob is motivated by greed as was Walt.

Here's an example of poor Bob trying to sell the Disney product:

 

gwhb75

Well-Known Member
Disney's corporate structure has always been a bit strange, even haphazard, compared to a lot of other companies.

They've often had the same person as both CEO and Chairman of the Board, which is not typical and is considered an absolute no-no by some. They've also had a President/COO at times, and at other times the CEO has either officially filled that position (Eisner and Iger were both President and CEO at the same time during their respective tenures) or is unofficially making the types of decisions normally delegated to a President or COO (Chapek seems to be in that position now).

Iger serving as board chair after stepping down as CEO isn't totally new for Disney, either. Donn Tatum served as chairman for several years after his time as the CEO.
The big difference is the word "executive" in front of the chairman title. This tends to indicate an uncertainty with the new CEO. It means the chairman is actively involved in the day to day running of the company (which we've seen with Bob Iger), as opposed to just the chariman title who only leads the board.. In a previous company I worked for an executive was promoted to CEO, and the former CEO became executive chairman. A few years later the new CEO left partially (rumored) because the "executive" wasn't going to be dropped from the chairman's title (i.e. the executive chair was still making decisions that the CEO didn't think needed to be made by him), and the board wanted to go in a different direction with a new CEO. Once an outside CEO was brought in, the Executive title was dropped.
 
Last edited:

brb1006

Well-Known Member
The CEO of TWDC has a difficult job just trying to live up to the reputation of some of the past CEO's. In particular, Walt Disney himself.

Walt was always the front man for his movies, TV shows, Disneyland and Walt Disney World. We knew about these things because good ole Uncle Walt told us all about his plans on his TV shows. And the public loved him!

Of course, that was all pure public relations. Walt was not one bit as he appeared on TV. In reality he was a chain smoker, he drank to excess and he swore like a sailor. He was also a very brutal businessman. But after all, he was in show business. So he hired the best in the business to make him look good. And it worked perfectly because he came off looking great and was able to sell the public most anything. He was a great pitchman!

After Walt died, Roy Disney and the others after didn't have the on camera charisma to effectively sell the Disney product. That is until Eisner came along. Eisner was a rather ruthless guy (just like Walt) but he realized the valve (just like Walt) of being able to pitch the product to the fans. And Eisner did well on camera and used the TV shows to sell product in an effective manner.

Unfortunately, Iger left most of his personality with whomever replaced him as a weatherman. I'll give Bob credit in that he tried to sell the Disney product on camera. But the camera just doesn't like Bob. He comes off as a stiff dupe and a smarmy CEO. He comes off almost as creepy as the Dreamfinder. Iger is just not a guy the fans felt comfortable with nor someone they could trust.

And now we have Bob Chapek. Poor Bob comes across on camera like a wet dishrag. He just can't sell the product. Now let's hope that a brave someone in TWDC confronts Bob and tells him that his on camera personality sucks. Given the proper acting lessons and guidance, they can make him look good or even great!

They did it for Walt and I'm sure they can do it for Bob. I think the difference is that Walt was willing to put on his fake persona for the sake of building his personal fortune (i.e. greed). I'm not sure that Bob is motivated by greed as was Walt.

Here's an example of poor Bob trying to sell the Disney product:

Also how is Dreamfinder creepy?
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Within 2 minutes of the earnings being released many users were claiming it was an accounting trick. I highly doubt anyone on here has the capacity to read and digest the mechanics of an earnings report in that amount of time.

Surely Disney used a few perfectly legal tactics to move money and losses, but nothing they did was illegal in order to puff up their financial situation to appear exponentially better than what many are trying to allude to.

The same doom and gloom insiders were preaching dooms day was FINALLY upon us and got caught, again. This is their time to do damage control.
I think the problem may be that “legal” accounting tricks allow for a ton of maneuvering that distorts the realities...a tool for the companies...

Nothing illegal...but not veiled either. They posted an 85% decline in revenue and a “small profit”??

Nothing illegal...it just doesn’t pass end sniff test too well.
 

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
I think the problem may be that “legal” accounting tricks allow for a ton of maneuvering that distorts the realities...a tool for the companies...

Nothing illegal...but not veiled either. They posted an 85% decline in revenue and a “small profit”??

Nothing illegal...it just doesn’t pass end sniff test too well.

Part of it is that we're blurring terms. The Parks, Experiences and Products division dropped 85%, which is actually substantially better than SeaWorld, Universal, and The Oriental Land Company did. They were all around 95%.

Still, Disney's Parks branch lost $1.96 billion. No amount of accounting tricks could hide that.

Thankfully for Disney, Direct to Consumer was the only other moderate loser, down $706 million. Studio Entertainment accidentally saved money by not having any films to promote. Its profit of $668 million almost zeroes out DTC's loss.

However, Media Networks had operating income of $3.153 billion. That's the reason why Disney was in the black. If the company weren't diversified and only had the parks and movies like in the olden days, this quarter would have been a bloodbath.

I guess someone could argue that Disney took nearly $1.5 billion in eliminations. However, they'd done $3 billion already in the first two quarters, which averages out to $1.5 billion per. So, that's not really out of line, either.
 

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
Eisner was only “bad” when he had too much power and became “a legend in his own mind”...

...that tends to happen to everyone if they’ve been there too long. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

I've always thought that Eisner's decline stemmed almost entirely from the tragic death of Frank Wells, one of the most underrated Disney execs ever. He kept Eisner in check, and we saw what happened without that voice of reason whispering in his ear.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
I've always thought that Eisner's decline stemmed almost entirely from the tragic death of Frank Wells, one of the most underrated Disney execs ever. He kept Eisner in check, and we saw what happened without that voice of reason whispering in his ear.
The decline started before Wells died. Strategic Planning played a critical, and ultimately harmful, role in the company’s history.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I've always thought that Eisner's decline stemmed almost entirely from the tragic death of Frank Wells, one of the most underrated Disney execs ever. He kept Eisner in check, and we saw what happened without that voice of reason whispering in his ear.
We’ll never know....obviously it’s a big factor...

But he fought with katzenberg...and Roy...and jobs...
He bought abc/cap no matter what the price...he pushed ahead with park projects without fully committing to them...he became the “Michael corleone” of Hollywood - settling all family business on a day by day basis.

I’m not gonna sugarcoat what happened with late Eisner...
But the record still doesn’t make him somehow inferior to Iger.
Iger’s biggest move was buying marvel. Everything else was being lead to the water. Nothing to bold or visionary. He’s bland...and that’s ok...but he’s also not put them in a spot to build on much going forward. It’s great he bought all that IP...but strangled it. And his park moves have only maintained their standing...not moved forward any if at all.
 
Last edited:

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
We’ll never know....obviously it’s a big factor...

But he fought with katzenberg...and Roy...and jobs...
He bought abc/cap no matter what the price...he pushed ahead with park projects without fully committing to them...he became the “Michael corleone” of Hollywood - settling all family business on a day by day basis.

I’m not gonna sugarcoat what happened with late Eisner...
But the record still doesn’t make him somehow inferior to Iger.
Iger’s biggest move was buying marvel. Everything else was being lead to the water. Nothing to bold or visionary. He’s bland...and that’s ok...but he’s also not put them in a spot to build on much going forward. It’s great he bought all that IP...but strangled it. And his park moves have only maintained their standing...not moved forward any of at all.
Looking back, and despite his “I was bffs with Steve Jobs“ shtick, Bob Iger’s tenure at the company was one of BRAND withdrawals instead of BRAND deposits. My only point of disagreement with your post is that Iger kept the parks where they were. Brand extraction was and is at its most extreme at parks. @ParentsOf4 ’s charts on price increases under Iger show how aggressively they sought to exploit generations of goodwill for short term gains whilst dumbing down the product quality and clientele they attracted.

The problem with treading water is everyone else is still moving forward and you’re right where you were.
 
Last edited:

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Wasn’t Colglazier in that group? Who’s left?
Not sure. Mayer and Colglazier obviously were the last high profile members of the group, but the damage is done. We need to have a more nuanced understanding of how the company runs beyond EISNER BAD!!! since Iger didn’t choose to change the way the company operated from Eisner and kept most of his people.
 
Last edited:

larryz

My Last Trip was in 2018
Premium Member
BTW, if anyone is naive enough to think they are getting inside stock information from a WDW fansite, and act on it, they deserve anything they get. Anyone who thinks the SEC would consider what is being said on a WDW fan forum as "real" insider information that could affect company stock is also pretty naive. Take all rumors stated here with a grain of salt - or a whole salt shaker.
Thanks. Please pass the low-sodium WDWMagic...
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Looking back, and despite his “I was bffs with Steve Jobs shtick”, Bob Iger’s tenure at the company was one of BRAND withdrawals instead of BRAND deposits. My only point of disagreement with your post is that Iger kept the parks where they were. Brand extraction was and is at its most extreme at parks. @ParentsOf4 ’s charts on price increases under Iger show how aggressively they sought to exploit generations of goodwill for short term gains whilst dumbing down the product quality and clientele they attracted.

The problem with treading water is everyone else is still moving forward and you’re right where you were.
...I was being kind.
You know what I think of park management and strategic decisions...

It’s been terrible. My thought for about the last 10-11 years has been that as soon as bob leaves, the cracks are gonna show and we will be finally talking about the missteps.
 

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

Top Bottom