Staggs resigns

[JediMasterMatt]

Since this topic has an obvious "what would be best for Disney Parks" slant in this forum, I will share my thoughts what should be a part of the decision process for a future replacement for "Emperor Iger".

The Weatherman has had many successes in his tenure at Disney; but, there is something that is perhaps the most important positive contribution to the success of the three most recent additions to the Disney sandbox (Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm) that is often overlooked. For a vain man of tremendous ego, he understands that the things that made these properties so successful prior to Disney's involvement can only flourish outside the "system", which in this case is Disney itself. Leaving the operational decision making with the creative types has kept both of these arms of Disney corporate the successes that they have been. Letting Lasseter, Feige, and Kennedy do what is the best interest for what has made those companies unique allows them to crank out product that continues to feel like their respective brands. Where DIS corporate has been able to assist has been additive and not to the determinant of the IP in questions quality. There is no way that Pixar/Marvel/or even Lucasfilm could do individually the things they have done to energize the masses without the mighty Disney arm behind them.

So, what does this mean for Iger's replacement and the future of Disney Parks?

The same "what's best for the specific brand " approach should be taken for every arm of the Disney company, including Disney Parks.

In short, the One Disney mindset should be called out for the spectacular failure that it is. What's good for the Disney Parks brand is always doing what's best for the brand and thus keeping the quality of the brand high and unfortunately, what's good for one resort isn't necessarily what's good for another. When one resort fails it does nothing but diminish the brand as a whole.

What has been lacking since Bob's stay started is that whichever musical chair occupant at the time who is in charge of Parks has no vision or interest in doing what's best for the Disney Parks brand and is only interested in the Walt Disney Company and their path towards sumiting Expedition: Burbank. As long as Parks continues to serve the best interest of the Company and nobody is caretaking the garden of where the Parks profits are sewn, the head of the snake is going to be less important than what we would ever hope to the health of the Parks overall.

I think the Disney Companie's model of the future is right in front of their faces - look at what has made you successful recently. You don't need a master-of-all-trades at the top in a many armed creative empire. You simply need to empower those who understand their specific trade and can master that.

Disney Parks needs a Lasseter/Feige/Kennedy of its own. If the Board tries to find a master for all of its trades, they are going to have a hard time doing so.

 

[ChrisM]

Never heard of an executive "choosing to leave" but being kept on as a consultant. They usually choose to leave then they take a better position.

Not necessarily - it all depends on the terms of their contract/buy out provisions and how the company wants to handle it. They may want to spread out the severance payments over multiple quarters. Or they even might just want to see how things operate while he's out of the day-to-day work in case they missed some critical item in transition...he may be the only guy with a key to that one bathroom they only use so often, etc.

 

[UncleMike101]

For what end? There is no benefit to China for nationalizing a park already majority owned by a province-level municipality. Nobody has been able to articulate one single benefit that would result from such a move.

Benefits are a secondary consideration to a Communist/Socialist government.
Total control of everything under their influence is their driving force.
Read The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engel, and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung.
They are the Old, and New testaments of Communist Socialism.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Since this topic has an obvious "what would be best for Disney Parks" slant in this forum, I will share my thoughts what should be a part of the decision process for a future replacement for "Emperor Iger".

The Weatherman has had many successes in his tenure at Disney; but, there is something that is perhaps the most important positive contribution to the success of the three most recent additions to the Disney sandbox (Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm) that is often overlooked. For a vain man of tremendous ego, he understands that the things that made these properties so successful prior to Disney's involvement can only flourish outside the "system", which in this case is Disney itself. Leaving the operational decision making with the creative types has kept both of these arms of Disney corporate the successes that they have been. Letting Lasseter, Feige, and Kennedy do what is the best interest for what has made those companies unique allows them to crank out product that continues to feel like their respective brands. Where DIS corporate has been able to assist has been additive and not to the determinant of the IP in questions quality. There is no way that Pixar/Marvel/or even Lucasfilm could do individually the things they have done to energize the masses without the mighty Disney arm behind them.

So, what does this mean for Iger's replacement and the future of Disney Parks?

The same "what's best for the specific brand " approach should be taken for every arm of the Disney company, including Disney Parks.

In short, the One Disney mindset should be called out for the spectacular failure that it is. What's good for the Disney Parks brand is always doing what's best for the brand and thus keeping the quality of the brand high and unfortunately, what's good for one resort isn't necessarily what's good for another. When one resort fails it does nothing but diminish the brand as a whole.

What has been lacking since Bob's stay started is that whichever musical chair occupant at the time who is in charge of Parks has no vision or interest in doing what's best for the Disney Parks brand and is only interested in the Walt Disney Company and their path towards sumiting Expedition: Burbank. As long as Parks continues to serve the best interest of the Company and nobody is caretaking the garden of where the Parks profits are sewn, the head of the snake is going to be less important than what we would ever hope to the health of the Parks overall.

I think the Disney Companie's model of the future is right in front of their faces - look at what has made you successful recently. You don't need a master-of-all-trades at the top in a many armed creative empire. You simply need to empower those who understand their specific trade and can master that.

Disney Parks needs a Lasseter/Feige/Kennedy of its own. If the Board tries to find a master for all of its trades, they are going to have a hard time doing so.

That won't change until the top dog sees themed entertainment as an actual brand and creative medium of its own and not an overly expensive marketing platform. Passion for theme parks cannot be considered a sign of idiocy. That's a huge cultural hurdle that has been growing for 30 years now.

 

[ford91exploder]

For what end? There is no benefit to China for nationalizing a park already majority owned by a province-level municipality. Nobody has been able to articulate one single benefit that would result from such a move.

This EXACT scenario has been played out hundreds of times in China, With the Chinese 'partner' seizing the assets of the western minority owner generally on non-existant 'contract irregularities'. I know you do business over there as do I.

Chrysler and Audi learned the HARD way when Chery copied their designs and sold them as their own. For more examples

http://www.carscoops.com/2015/04/the-clones-of-shanghai-2015-pick-this.html

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/c...soulless-and-affordable-cars-45701-page2.html

Tell me how China benefits ripping of the IP of these carmakers, especially since the chinese parts fit the ORIGINALS so, They are working off either blueprints or really well reverse engineered cars.

With the trade situation as it is the US cannot do a DAMN thing to the Chinese so the CCP allows this to happen as it benefits the Chinese business community and tough noogies for the 'round eyed barbarian' who was too stupid to protect themselves.

All along this has been a technology transfer project as Chinese theme parks have generally failed so the Chinese want to know how to build a successful one. It's the design and the psychology of a theme park which the Chinese don't get. Now they have those skills.

 

[ford91exploder]

Benefits are a secondary consideration to a Communist/Socialist government.
Total control of everything under their influence is their driving force.
Read The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engel, and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung.
They are the Old, and New testaments of Communist Socialism.

Not to mention Deng Xiaoping's corollary "It does not matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice."

Also Sun Tzu is required reading and it's practiced expertly over there.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Benefits are a secondary consideration to a Communist/Socialist government.
Total control of everything under their influence is their driving force.
Read The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engel, and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung.
They are the Old, and New testaments of Communist Socialism.

That makes no sense. China is a technocratic bureaucracy, the ideology is a tertiary consideration having learned their lessons from the dynasties and even Mao. You're buying into shallow views of commies not tied to reality.

The control already exists through the ownership arrangement. Reneging would be destabilizing and hurt stability locally and abroad. Stability is one the Party's biggest goals, also following a tradition dating back millennia through the various dynasties.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This EXACT scenario has been played out hundreds of times in China, With the Chinese 'partner' seizing the assets of the western minority owner generally on non-existant 'contract irregularities'. I know you do business over there as do I.

Chrysler and Audi learned the HARD way when Chery copied their designs and sold them as their own. For more examples

http://www.carscoops.com/2015/04/the-clones-of-shanghai-2015-pick-this.html

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/c...soulless-and-affordable-cars-45701-page2.html

Tell me how China benefits ripping of the IP of these carmakers, especially since the chinese parts fit the ORIGINALS so, They are working off either blueprints or really well reverse engineered cars.

With the trade situation as it is the US cannot do a DAMN thing to the Chinese so the CCP allows this to happen as it benefits the Chinese business community and tough noogies for the 'round eyed barbarian' who was too stupid to protect themselves.

All along this has been a technology transfer project as Chinese theme parks have generally failed so the Chinese want to know how to build a successful one. It's the design and the psychology of a theme park which the Chinese don't get. Now they have those skills.

Disney doesn't manufacturer anything. There is no technology to transfer. The designers haven't been transferred either but are available for hire. Just having a park to look at is meaningless, the LDIs were sent to Anaheim and Orlando before work started.

 

[ford91exploder]

That makes no sense. China is a technocratic bureaucracy, the ideology is a tertiary consideration having learned their lessons from the dynasties and even Mao. You're buying into shallow views of commits not tied to reality.

The control already exists through the ownership arrangement. Reneging would be destabilizing and hurt stability locally and abroad. Stability is one the Party's biggest goals, also following a tradition dating back millennia through the various dynasties.

No they have not, In china it's all about power and control, Just look at the 45% tax that China just applied to imported goods.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No they have not, In china it's all about power and control, Just look at the 45% tax that China just applied to imported goods.

Protectionism isn't new and is already part of the deal with Shanghai Disney Resort. Golden Horse and Shibaolai got their "technology" transfer (quality is probably a better term than technology) by having to build to Walt Disney Imagineering's standards.

And even with the long standing stiff duties and regulations Disney and others, including state-owned OCT, continue to import American and European ride systems.

 

[ford91exploder]

Disney doesn't manufacturer anything. There is no technology to transfer. The designers haven't been transferred either but are available for hire. Just having a park to look at is meaningless, the LDIs were sent to Anaheim and Orlando before work started.

I strongly suggest you talk to a retail technologist if you think there is no 'technology' in a theme park or a shopping complex 99.5% is invisible, On many shelves there are pinhole cameras which track eye position so the vendors can determine what packaging or placement is most effective. There is a HUGE amount of unseen technology and design rules which go into entertainment complexes it's a science in it's own right.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I strongly suggest you talk to a retail technologist if you think there is no 'technology' in a theme park or a shopping complex 99.5% is invisible, On many shelves there are pinhole cameras which track eye position so the vendors can determine what packaging or placement is most effective. There is a HUGE amount of unseen technology and design rules which go into entertainment complexes it's a science in it's own right.

I am well aware of what goes into designing a theme park. And all of that technology along nicely with design and operating experience is available for hire.

 

[UncleMike101]

That makes no sense. China is a technocratic bureaucracy, the ideology is a tertiary consideration having learned their lessons from the dynasties and even Mao. You're buying into shallow views of commits not tied to reality.

The control already exists through the ownership arrangement. Reneging would be destabilizing and hurt stability locally and abroad. Stability is one the Party's biggest goals, also following a tradition dating back millennia through the various dynasties.

My point is that a Communist regime cannot allow any outside government, or business, to sully their idealistic mores by having influence over the "Peasant Masses".
As long as China is controlled by a Communist/Socialist regime the policies will continue to center around the Central Government and those who have control of it.
Stability will, in their minds, result from total control of the population.
The Tiananmen Square Incident as Chinese publications call it, was ruthlessly crushed, as will any similar upwelling demanding individual rights by their subjects.
The Chinese have had thousands of years to perfect the art of crushing their internal opposition and thinking that they have become softened by "Modern Society" is a dangerous assumption that some, possibly Disney, make at their own peril.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My point is that a Communist regime cannot allow any outside government, or business, to sully their idealistic mores by having influence over the "Peasant Masses".
As long as China is controlled by a Communist/Socialist regime the policies will continue to center around the Central Government and those who have control of it.
Stability will, in their minds, result from total control of the population.
The Tiananmen Square Incident as Chinese publications call it, was ruthlessly crushed, as will any similar upwelling demanding individual rights by their subjects.
The Chinese have had thousands of years to perfect the art of crushing their internal opposition and thinking that they have become softened by "Modern Society" is a dangerous assumption that some, possibly Disney, make at their own peril.

If this was at all relevant then Disney would not have been allowed to build a park or due business. It also ignored that any influence must be approved by the majority owners, the municipal government.

And again, the idea of a singular vision coordinated from Beijing that is followed by all is just not true; just as it was not true with the emperors. 山高皇帝远 The mountains are high and the emperor is far away. Party members compete against each other and build their own bases of power and influence. If that weren't so Xi's moves to consolidate power wouldn't be news.

 

[Mike S]

Since this topic has an obvious "what would be best for Disney Parks" slant in this forum, I will share my thoughts what should be a part of the decision process for a future replacement for "Emperor Iger".

The Weatherman has had many successes in his tenure at Disney; but, there is something that is perhaps the most important positive contribution to the success of the three most recent additions to the Disney sandbox (Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm) that is often overlooked. For a vain man of tremendous ego, he understands that the things that made these properties so successful prior to Disney's involvement can only flourish outside the "system", which in this case is Disney itself. Leaving the operational decision making with the creative types has kept both of these arms of Disney corporate the successes that they have been. Letting Lasseter, Feige, and Kennedy do what is the best interest for what has made those companies unique allows them to crank out product that continues to feel like their respective brands. Where DIS corporate has been able to assist has been additive and not to the determinant of the IP in questions quality. There is no way that Pixar/Marvel/or even Lucasfilm could do individually the things they have done to energize the masses without the mighty Disney arm behind them.

So, what does this mean for Iger's replacement and the future of Disney Parks?

The same "what's best for the specific brand " approach should be taken for every arm of the Disney company, including Disney Parks.

In short, the One Disney mindset should be called out for the spectacular failure that it is. What's good for the Disney Parks brand is always doing what's best for the brand and thus keeping the quality of the brand high and unfortunately, what's good for one resort isn't necessarily what's good for another. When one resort fails it does nothing but diminish the brand as a whole.

What has been lacking since Bob's stay started is that whichever musical chair occupant at the time who is in charge of Parks has no vision or interest in doing what's best for the Disney Parks brand and is only interested in the Walt Disney Company and their path towards sumiting Expedition: Burbank. As long as Parks continues to serve the best interest of the Company and nobody is caretaking the garden of where the Parks profits are sewn, the head of the snake is going to be less important than what we would ever hope to the health of the Parks overall.

I think the Disney Companie's model of the future is right in front of their faces - look at what has made you successful recently. You don't need a master-of-all-trades at the top in a many armed creative empire. You simply need to empower those who understand their specific trade and can master that.

Disney Parks needs a Lasseter/Feige/Kennedy of its own. If the Board tries to find a master for all of its trades, they are going to have a hard time doing so.

I nominate Tony Baxter for head of Parks and Resorts. Would that make Bob Weis his #2 as head of WDI?

 

[ford91exploder]

I am well aware of what goes into designing a theme park. And all of that technology along nicely with design and operating experience is available for hire.

Yes it is but would YOU know who to hire if you wanted to build a theme park from scratch with no prior knowledge the answer of course would be no, The knowledge of who to hire and what parts are needed is the 'secret sauce' that was the object of the technology transfer.

 

[ford91exploder]

If this was at all relevant then Disney would not have been allowed to build a park or due business. It also ignored that any influence must be approved by the majority owners, the municipal government.

And again, the idea of a singular vision coordinated from Beijing that is followed by all is just not true; just as it was not true with the emperors. 山高皇帝远 The mountains are high and the emperor is far away. Party members compete against each other and build their own bases of power and influence. If that weren't so Xi's moves to consolidate power wouldn't be news.

With modern technology the emperor is not as far away as he once was in the middle kingdom. And that is why Xi's consolidation of power in Beijing is likely to work whereas past attempts have failed..

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes it is but would YOU know who to hire if you wanted to build a theme park from scratch with no prior knowledge the answer of course would be no, The knowledge of who to hire and what parts are needed is the 'secret sauce' that was the object of the technology transfer.

It's obviously not that hard since those very people were already doing business with Chinese companies, both private and state-owned.

 

[UncleMike101]

If this was at all relevant then Disney would not have been allowed to build a park or due business. It also ignored that any influence must be approved by the majority owners, the municipal government.

And again, the idea of a singular vision coordinated from Beijing that is followed by all is just not true; just as it was not true with the emperors. 山高皇帝远 The mountains are high and the emperor is far away. Party members compete against each other and build their own bases of power and influence. If that weren't so Xi's moves to consolidate power wouldn't be news.

China welcomed the Disney dollars as an opportunity to further absorb more of America's wealth.
Nothing more!
Their internal struggles are legendary throughout Chinese history and continue up to this day.
Communism, as embraced by Mao, was a more efficient means of gaining total control of the huge land area and massive population than an Emperorship, which relied on loyality to an individual leader instead of an ideologically driven "Peoples Government".
For his successors to relinquish even a modicum of that control is absolutely unthinkable.
IMO the Shanghai situation is going to be a wake up call to many Western corporations that have similar interests in China.

 

[Spikerdink]

NY Times carried an article yesterday on Stagg's departure....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/b...-disney-as-it-purged-a-favorite-son.html?_r=0