Agreed.
Correct. I was thinking about ways to impact WDW...I think discussing the very tippy top of the gigantic iceberg may not be the way. Plus, I don't see a "contraction" as I put it or a "breaking up" as Mr. Bus puts it, happening.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Correct. I was thinking about ways to impact WDW...I think discussing the very tippy top of the gigantic iceberg may not be the way. Plus, I don't see a "contraction" as I put it or a "breaking up" as Mr. Bus puts it, happening.
Computer Magic
Well-Known Member
I don't see a contraction as selling. Dare I say outsource it or license it like Disney going in other countries? I agree bring decision making at lowest level gets best results. Which is what Iger is doing but the locals are taking a different method to get the results Iger is looking for.
Sue_Vongello
Well-Known Member
I think it's as simple as Iger setting the benchmarks he wants P&R to achieve and the bonus structure that those TDO hacks get and then not caring how TDO achieves them. So there is plenty of blame to go around.
You're almost certainly right. I'm a lowly scientist and have taken no time to familiarize myself with business concepts because I find them boring. I just meant contraction as in getting smaller...
Sounds correct to me. That would put the blame partly on Iger since "benchmarks" in almost any line of work always leads to short term thinking. It is a fine line between allowing long-term dreaming/developing and condoning laziness/non-productivity. Thus, Iger would have to tell TDO that he values long-term creative development to make the parks more enjoyable and if it costs money from time to time, so be it. If we follow this line of reasoning, a "creative" CEO isn't necessary, but one who gives a rat's a$$ about the long-term is.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No - Apple was WORTH more than Disney. Apple's business is not that diverse -- and that is part of what Jobs addressed when he came back in '97. He pruned the products and business lines to refocus the company and be able to achieve excellence in a narrow beam.
Disney on the other hand is in media, consumer products, radio, tv, film, publishing, theme parks, cruise ships, touring, construction, etc etc etc
Computer Magic
Well-Known Member
You are correct and what I stated in my last sentence (It not too big in $$). Yes Disney is more diverse. I still think Disney is better served by someone creative now maybe go back to a Walt/Roy, Frank/Eisner era. Some Stockholder tried to limit iger's power but failed.
Rodan75
Well-Known Member
It feels as if Iger is doing the right things at his level, seems the corporate culture dwn to the TDO level is pretty toxic.
And the Comcast comments above are a bit premature. Comcast hasn't been able to dig NBCUniversal out of there hole yet. Lets see if they can maintain their momentum with some continual success, before we sell Disney to a less successful company. Comcast is bigger than USO.
Tom
Beta Return
Quite true. And anyone who would like to know what really happened from '84 - '04, get the book "Disney War." It's an absolute must read, and answers a lot of questions people commonly have about the Eisner Era.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
I'll echo this, its a great read. Fills in a lot of gaps. It really shows how the company was run back then and how the theme parks arent at the forefront of their attention.
Tom
Beta Return
Right. And after reading it, I was no longer one of those who blanketly, and blindly "hated Eisner". I did hate the person he became, and am fully behind his final ousting. But for the majority of his tenure, he took Disney in the right direction - something that hasn't been done sine.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
I have two giant issues with Eisner's reign.
First, all the bridges he burned with corporate partners and alliances. We burned a lot of bridges and Iger had to rebuild them as best he could.
Second: The way front line employees are treated. The people who make the magic arent treated with any sort of magic and deserve to be given a living wage. When the CEO gets a 16 million dollar bonus, we can afford to give the cast real compensation.
Tangential note: The investigative journalist who wrote DisneyWar (name escapes me) has written other books and they are almost all page turners. I loaned DisneyWar to my FIL who doesn't give a crap about Disney and when he gave it back he said, "best book I've read this year".
Tom
Beta Return
I agree with those points, for sure. He did do some monumental things while there, that at least furthered the advancement of the theme park division. But yes, he had a huge ego, and the power of being CEO went to his head, just like it does, and will do, to all who sit in that chair.
Tom
Beta Return
I am not a "reading" person, and the sight of that book scared the crap out of me. But I couldn't stop reading it once I started. BTW, author is James B. Stewart.
Neal Gabler's "Walt Disney" is a real eye-opener too. Difficult read for those of us who have to read microwave cooking instructions 3 or 4 times before comprehending them, but well worth it.
Read that too. It is a lot dryer (i.e. not as interesting a read), but is very informative. Thanks for the Stewart reminder. He has a rare book I dug up at a library a while back about this MD who was murdering people from time to time in Missouri I believe. Unbelievable. And his book about insider trading on wall street (though old news now) is a great read.
RandySavage
Well-Known Member
DisneyWar was an excellent read and what I took away from it was - as many here are already aware - the turning point was the financial failure of EuroDisney and the complexities of why it failed (not just over-building hotels, but union problems, European consumption patterns and inflation that caused the cost to soar beyond any possibility of return). Eisner was a supporter of all the money and glorious detail that went into EDL - and the initial quality of that park is why it still draws crowds without a single ride expansion since 1995 (apart from the Buzz Lightyear re-do of Visionarium). Had EDL been a financial success (it was an attendance success from Year One), it seems likely Animal Kingdom would have opened with much more to do (the long Asian river safari and Beastly Kingdom), MGM would have seen the completion of the Disney Decade (Crimestoppers, Roger Rabbit area), and Anaheim would have had a different 2nd Gate - and many of our woes would be naught.
EuroDisney was the blow that shook the relationship between Eisner and Wells (and Eisner and WDI) and ushered in the Pressler Reign of Terror with its homogenization, cost-cutting, and cash cow-squeezing at P&R. Walt Disney Studios Paris vs. Disneyland Paris, opened a decade apart, has got to tell the most clear-cut story of these two Eisner Eras.
EuroDisney was the blow that shook the relationship between Eisner and Wells (and Eisner and WDI) and ushered in the Pressler Reign of Terror with its homogenization, cost-cutting, and cash cow-squeezing at P&R. Walt Disney Studios Paris vs. Disneyland Paris, opened a decade apart, has got to tell the most clear-cut story of these two Eisner Eras.
jt04
Well-Known Member
When you hear of Disney being a target of a hostile takeover or WDW being sold-off in chunks it should cause you to think twice. Because that is exactly where things were headed. Iger stopped all that. He did what he had to do to secure the future of an iconic American company. And he has secured enough intellectual properties to ensure adequate content well into the future.
Basically he saved the company.
Tom
Beta Return
But were his motives really to "save the company" or to leave a legacy of growing TWDC's holdings more than anyone else, and dropping more to the bottom line?
Moving a company "in the right direction" is completely relative. In my opinion, creating premium family entertainment in the form of animated and live action feature films, and their world famous theme parks, is the direction the company should follow. Not buying up every other company's IP that hits the auction block.
Interesting side topic: What are the dynamics at work with Avatarland if the idea really is Iger's? I mean I would think if it was his idea, couldn't he just say spend the money, make it great, and it will be my creative legacy? Is it because some fans don't like the idea? I hope not. I really think Disney theme parks are at their best when they don't give a crap about what the fans want, they make the awesome thing and then dare you not to like it. For this reason, I'm against surveys about future attractions (surveys where you can mention that the food and whatnot isn't as good are a different story). If you could go back in time and usher in the internet era 15 years earlier, would Splash get built? It's not based on a strong franchise. It's based on a franchise many consider racist. Would they see a lot of fans have problems with the idea and pull the plug? Another possibility is that they will spend a bajillion dollars on it and our insiders have gotten wrong info, but based on my "magic" time that seems unlikely.
jt04
Well-Known Member
He had to secure the financial viability of the company first. Every other consideration was a distant second. Now they can begin to afford all the fun bells and whistles. Any other strategy had a good chance of failing. The company was in a very precarious position with plenty of sharks circling about smelling blood.
Some of those sharks still linger in the area. The can't get over how close they were to bringing down the house Walt built.
Some of them even post here regularly.
IMO