Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[Figments Friend]

Tony was deliberately put into limbo by Vaughn so as to keep him away from anything meaningful being worked on in Glendale. By changing his position from active Senior Vice President to occasional advisor with the caveat that any current Imagineer wanting Tony's advice needs to get permission from Vaughn in order to seek it effectively squashes any input Tony might be able to give. His new position is basically a no man's land of isolation which Vaughn completely controls.

As for future projects, there's only a snowball's chance that Baxter will be consulted on anything, no matter who's in charge. Rumor has it that WDI is about to undergo a major restructuring, and anyone over the age of 55 pretty much has a bulls eye on his/her back. Seniority has now become a detriment to continued employment at WDI. You can basically kiss the "old school" Imagineers (what's left of them) goodbye.

Depressing....and it sounds like Tony*s desire to mentor the young additions at WDI is not going to happen.

This brings my thoughts back to something i said earlier in this thread about the tone of his retirement letter...in which he seems to be expressing a passionate desire to do just that - Mentor the newbies, or at least be availible to them to do so. It is as if he is crying out to them to let him continue to do this.
He understood the importance of the mentoring program, and many times has expressed his appreciation of having the mentor(s) he did. Now it seems that old program is not appreciated and has fallen by the wayside by currant upper management. It is as if they want to be the *mentors* now....so they can shape the newbies into the currant corporate mentality.

One wonders..

Who the hell is going to *be there* to mentor today*s new Imagineers...or tomorrows?
How are these people going to be able to hone their skills and become personally inspired by working in a positive, creative environment?
Does none of this really matter now, since there has been talk of WDI being phased out and everything will just be outsourced?

It must be incredibly disheartening for a longtime lifer like Tony to see this happening.....knowing he is effectively being shut out from doing something he enjoyed.
Yeah, i know....someone will tell me that it was his own choice because he *retired*...or that he brought it upon himself...etc...but some of us here know that this is not the full story.

I could be wrong...but that is the impression i get sometimes when the topic comes up.

I get the feeling that a part of him wants to pass on what he has learned, and what he has to offer to others, but those above him on the totem pole will not allow it for their own reasons. As if they feel a need to keep his *influence* away...which seems ridiculous to me considering what said newbies could learn from him.

 

[Figments Friend]

Walt was no fool but he was not obsessed with money either. It's not what drove him. As Walt said:

Loved the Walt quote.
Some key higher-management types in the Company today need to re-read that 20 times a day when sitting in their posh office.

 

[Gomer]

Sadly, you are being too optimistic.

:

Let me preface this by saying, I agree and acknowledge everything you said. It is a sad state of affairs today in most large companies.

My point is that the rank and file have no control over these factors and only have it in their ability to fight for change within that (flawed) system. I've seen it in my own personal experience at my own company. I've sat in numerous meetings where changes are shot down by the CEO or high ranking executives in favor of the cheapest route. But I've also changed their mind on a few occasions by pestering, begging, and providing research that spending more now will make them more in the long run. And though I lose 9 times out of 10, that one victory does occur. Its the curse of middle management in the current business climate. Its inefficient and unnecessary the amount of work it takes to affect change, but unfortunately it is often times the only way. And, perhaps Imagineering isn't the best place for that to occur, but it has to occur somewhere or the suits will end up homogenizing the company to death.

I've had very limited dealings with Disney in my work, albeit not with P&R. But from what I have seen from people over there, mid level employees fear upsetting the legal department and their reportable numbers above all else. I work a great deal with another company that has this exact same corporate culture. Microsoft. And we've watched Microsoft turn from a cutting edge company, to the 800 pound gorilla, to a slowly becoming irrelevant shell of its former self. Sound familiar? When everything is played safe for the bottom line and wall street at a creative company, irrelevance is what will occur.

Now can imagineers or middle management save the company by fighting the good fight? Probably not. But I would hope that some would try anyway. But if so few are fighting the good fight now, maybe a purge isn't the worst thing in the world? Or maybe they are fighting and things are so bad there that they just aren't heard? I wouldn't know that. I'm just an outsider speculating based on my own experience. But that is what I see from my far removed viewpoint.

 

[COProgressFan]

TWDC's senior executives view their employees largely as replaceable cogs in a gigantic wheel. I wish they had the ability to self-access how replaceable most of them are, rather than awarding themselves multi-million dollar bonuses and stock options. As is true with most major corporations, the executives running the show tend to believe their companies would collapse without them. The reality is that there are 100 highly qualified candidates for most senior executive positions. Getting these these positions tends to be more about making the right connections than performing well.

The part I bolded is a problem with TWDC and corporate America in general. Executive compensation has grown exponentially in the last 30 years or so. True, companies today are larger than they once were, but have CEO's somehow gotten so much smarter and better that they deserve to now make hundreds of times more than their average employee's salary? (vs 40x or 50x in 1980).

Unfortunately I don't see this trend ending any time soon for Disney or anyone else. It's certainly interesting how Bob Iger can take a $40 million dollar bonus, while corporate profits at Disney are at record highs, then have the audacity to discuss the possibility of widespread layoffs. It truly boggles the mind and shows a complete lack of value for employees, whether they are imagineers, pencil pushers, or attractions hosts.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Is it just me or is it odd that we haven't gotten a column from Al Lutz yet in march? It have been 45+ days since his last column. Certainly wouldn't have anything to do with two of his top source being fired/relocated??

 

[flynnibus]

Is it just me or is it odd that we haven't gotten a column from Al Lutz yet in march? It have been 45+ days since his last column. Certainly wouldn't have anything to do with two of his top source being fired/relocated??

I'm sure Tony's position has hurt him.. but his ops side shouldn't have been affected by George and Tony. He has mentioned health issues of late.. and I think that more than anything must be keeping him down. He's not been active much over the last year+

 

[lazyboy97o]

Al has never struck me as one who just writes to inform. He has always come across as having an agenda and with the "fixing" of Disney's California Adventure that sort of ended. Also, new episode of the MiceChat podcast popped up in my feed this morning and Al, who has been on the prior episodes, is not mentioned in the episode description.

 

[ParentsOf4]

The part I bolded is a problem with TWDC and corporate America in general. Executive compensation has grown exponentially in the last 30 years or so. True, companies today are larger than they once were, but have CEO's somehow gotten so much smarter and better that they deserve to now make hundreds of times more than their average employee's salary? (vs 40x or 50x in 1980).

Unfortunately I don't see this trend ending any time soon for Disney or anyone else. It's certainly interesting how Bob Iger can take a $40 million dollar bonus, while corporate profits at Disney are at record highs, then have the audacity to discuss the possibility of widespread layoffs. It truly boggles the mind and shows a complete lack of value for employees, whether they are imagineers, pencil pushers, or attractions hosts.

I posted this a few hours ago but am posting it again since it seems relevant to your post.

In 1960, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was about 20-to-1.

In 1980, that number had risen to about 30-to-1.

As recently as 1990, the number was under 60-to-1.

In 2011, the ratio stood at 231-to-1.

Iger's CEO-to-CM compensation ratio is almost 2000-to-1.

Today's CEOs are much more willing to make intentional long-term bad decisions than they were in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s, as long as it lines their pockets. The Gordon Gekko "greed is good" mentality is causing irreparable damage while CEOs' justify this "bad behavior" with the self-denying, "It's how my stock options are structured so it must be how the company wants me to behave, right?" Meanwhile, executive compensation committees, who are supposed to provide independent oversight, are loaded with CEOs' cronies.

Bob Iger's primary legacy as TWDC CEO is acquisitions. Such moves don't create wealth; they simply redistribute wealth. Today's CEOs tend to focus on generating paper wealth through financial shell games. Walt Disney was a CEO who created wealth through innovation.

I'd take the 1950s or 1960s economy, when CEOs were making 20 times more than the average worker, than today's unstable economy where billionaires multiply yet, adjusted for inflation, average families make less today than they did 10 years ago.

All we have to do is look at WDW ticket prices to see this in effect.

In 2005 (when Iger took over), a 10-day Magic Your Way ticket with park hopping, water parks, and "No Expiration" cost $377.00.
In 2012, the same ticket cost $672.00.
That's a compound price increase of 8.6% annually.
That's a price difference of $295.00

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, $377.00 in 2005 is equivalent to $444.41 in 2012.
That's a compound price increase of 2.4% annually.
That's a price difference of $67.41.

Even in the last 8 years, with no new theme parks and few park additions, WDW prices have skyrocketed out of control.

 

[Clever Name]

Walt Disney, who built the company through his own effort, risking his money many times, never collected more than about $150,000 in annual compensation, about $1M adjusted for inflation. At the time of his death, Walt was worth about $35 million, about $250 million today. In today's age of mega billionaires, Walt would have been a pauper.

Let's not forget that Walt personally owned WED Enterprises, the Tiki Room, the monorail, the Disneyland Railroad and a few other attractions. He never paid rent, lease or right of way for any of those operations. They were all pure profit with little overhead to Walt. He almost got sued for the WED fiasco but got bailed out by his brother Roy. Walt's finances were hidden very well and he was worth much more than $35 million. His estate was listed as $23,004,851 at his death. Most of his money had been given to family members long before his death because he feared (rightfully so) that shareholders would discover his money deceptions and successfully sue him to recover.

He died 13 months after the WED settlement. Prior to WED settlement, he assigned most of his wealth to family members to shield it against being taken by the shareholders. In short, when it came to money Walt was dishonest.

 

[ParentsOf4]

He died 13 months after the WED settlement. Prior to WED settlement, he assigned most of his wealth to family members to shield it against being taken by the shareholders. In short, when it came to money Walt was dishonest.

Yes, Walt's WED dealings were said to be the biggest point of contention between he and his brother.

Walt seems to have real issues letting go of assets he viewed as his creation, regardless of where the money to pay for those assets came from.

Many have reported that Walt was a difficult boss. I wouldn't want to work for him but there's no one else I'd want guiding WDW today.

 

[flynnibus]

Remember by the time of WED... Disney still had a lot of outside influencers in the business.. WED was a way to operate completely under Walt without any interference - including Roy. Even tho they pillaged WDP for people and resources. Walt started playing hardball with his licensing of his name and likeness back to the company, etc.. which was a point of contention. The deals started to look pretty incestuous and drew some scrutiny too.

 

[Rodan75]

Does Tony Baxter think of himself as a victim, or is only this audience that victimizes him? Sounds as if the man did some great things, was compensated for them and had issues managing the politics of his role later in his career. That isn't all the fault of TWDC or his vilified leaders, Tony has some personal responsibility into how he managed his career. Companies do at times behave horribly, but everyone is accountable for how they handle that behavior.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Remember by the time of WED... Disney still had a lot of outside influencers in the business.. WED was a way to operate completely under Walt without any interference - including Roy. Even tho they pillaged WDP for people and resources. Walt started playing hardball with his licensing of his name and likeness back to the company, etc.. which was a point of contention. The deals started to look pretty incestuous and drew some scrutiny too.

And it was the people that ultimately had to go. When WED was purchased, it was about the Imagineers and the ownership stake in Disneyland. The apartment, attractions, and Walt's name and likeness all stayed with Walt through Retlaw and would not be sold until the early 1980s.

 

[HMF]

In short, when it came to money Walt was dishonest.

You kinda have to be dishonest with money just to survive these days. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Does Tony Baxter think of himself as a victim, or is only this audience that victimizes him? Sounds as if the man did some great things, was compensated for them and had issues managing the politics of his role later in his career. That isn't all the fault of TWDC or his vilified leaders, Tony has some personal responsibility into how he managed his career. Companies do at times behave horribly, but everyone is accountable for how they handle that behavior.

There is always drama with creatives, but it shouldn't cause one to ignore the problems at Walt Disney Imagineering that have created a rather toxic culture. The fawning over Tony as leader of some sort of cult is a little weird.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Walt Disney, who built the company through his own effort, risking his money many times, never collected more than about $150,000 in annual compensation, about $1M adjusted for inflation. At the time of his death, Walt was worth about $35 million, about $250 million today. In today's age of mega billionaires, Walt would have been a pauper.

But if Walt only took an annual $1M, then how come he amassed that fortune of 250 times that?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Let's not forget that Walt personally owned WED Enterprises, the Tiki Room, the monorail, the Disneyland Railroad and a few other attractions. He never paid rent, lease or right of way for any of those operations. They were all pure profit with little overhead to Walt. He almost got sued for the WED fiasco but got bailed out by his brother Roy. Walt's finances were hidden very well and he was worth much more than $35 million. His estate was listed as $23,004,851 at his death. Most of his money had been given to family members long before his death because he feared (rightfully so) that shareholders would discover his money deceptions and successfully sue him to recover.

He died 13 months after the WED settlement. Prior to WED settlement, he assigned most of his wealth to family members to shield it against being taken by the shareholders. In short, when it came to money Walt was dishonest.

I see. That should go a long away to answering why the numbers didn't add up.

 

[ParentsOf4]

But if Walt only took an annual $1M, then how come he amassed that fortune of 250 times that?

Most of Walt's wealth was company stock. If I correctly remember, Walt was the single biggest shareholder but even then he was a minority owner, he and Roy having sold off the majority decades before to finance Walt's many pet projects.

Walt Disney Productions was a small company until the mid-1950s. At the beginning of that decade, gross annual income was about $6M. After the opening of Disneyland, it jumped to $27M. By the end of the decade, it was up to $70M. That still made WDP a relatively small company with great brand name recognition. As examples, WDP made $3.4M in the 1958-59 fiscal year but lost $1.3M the year after. In Walt's last full fiscal year (1965-66), company profits were up to $12M.

In order to fund DL, the Disney brothers had to sell off much of DL's ownership. For $500K cash and a guaranteed loan for another $4.5M, they sold 34% interest in DL to ABC. Another 13.8% went to Western Printing and Lithographing for $200K. Walt himself purchased 17.5% ownership for $250K. Bank of America funded most of DL with a $11M loan. At the time, Bank of America was nervous about that loan amount, not sure that the company could survive if DL failed. Walt supposedly was about $100K in debt until DL's finances fell into place. DL was a huge financial risk and it took several years to pay off the original loans. Eventually, WDP bought back 100% ownership of DL (using more loans to do it), including purchasing Walt's share and buyouts of all the concessionaires in DL. Walt resented having to pay ABC $7.5M to buy back their interest in DL, Walt feeling they hadn't done anything to deserve it.

The company had a string of TV and film successes from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, topping it off with Mary Poppins which was Walt's biggest commercial success. It was over this 10-year period that Walt amassed most of his wealth. Still, company revenue and assets were dominated by DL, and by 1965 they had invested about $48M in it.

I've read that Walt's attitude towards money changed during his last few years. Most studio executives were extremely wealthy and Walt felt he deserved to be one of them, given the personal financial risks he had taken over the years as well as the creative direction he provided his namesake company. Walt supposedly was a big believer in "earning" money and he felt he had done more than most to earn his.

They spent something north of $5M to purchase the land in Florida. (27,000 acres averaging about $200/acre.) They had to scrounge around a bit for that money but it wasn't too difficult. Still, the original cost estimate for WDW was $100M and WDP didn't have that kind of collateral. Thus, the idea that Walt was worth hundreds-of-millions is laughable, given that they couldn't get loans for even that relatively modest amount. Rather than take out loans, Roy Disney did something creative and issued convertible (to company stock) bonds to pay for WDW. Due to the success of DL, these sold very well and WDW opened debt-free.

When you read the numbers involved, it's amusing when people refer to Walt as a billionaire. I am old enough to remember when Howard Hughes was considered the richest man in the world yet his fortune was about $1.5B when he died in 1976. It was Michael Eisner who grew TWDC into the mega-corporation that it is today.

 

[alphac2005]

There is always drama with creatives, but it shouldn't cause one to ignore the problems at Walt Disney Imagineering that have created a rather toxic culture. The fawning over Tony as leader of some sort of cult is a little weird.

So true. I straddle the line in my work on the business operations side and creative and it seems to be the right mix. Have creativity, but have an understanding of the complexities of business. I've dealt with some maddening creative types where they abhor sticking to deadlines, budgets, etc., and then when you need the project to be complete and something ends up being omitted because they can't stick to those guidelines, typically the small child fit/rant begins about messing with their artistic integrity. As far as I'm concerned, if you're working for a for profit enterprise, you're kind of giving away your license to claim artistic integrity as everything has a price.

Without knowing the true happenings of WDI, a good guess for all of us is that you have a lot of ego and stupidity in both management and creative.

 

[RSoxNo1]

You kinda have to be dishonest with money just to survive these days. It's a doggie dog world out there.

Fixed