Staggs resigns

[Cesar R M]

Interesting article in Orlando paper....

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/trav...-disney-magicbands-phones-20160408-story.html

I actually wondered what they were thinking (Disney).
In one hand, they wanted to shove their magicbands everywhere. Made sense as a replacement for the cards and to use it everywhere to everything... but also redundant if they were forcing you to use the MyMagic app everytime to see everything and plan everything.
Why carry TWO things when you can have everything in your phone?

 

[Cesar R M]

Please recall that Aulani opened in 2011, with sales starting in 2010, covering the entire period of the chart that I created.

Still, I dont know what Aulani has to do with the WDW area anyway.
isnt Aulani in Hawai?

 

[ParentsOf4]

Still, I dont know what Aulani has to do with the WDW area anyway.
isnt Aulani in Hawai?

Aulani is the largest DVC property Disney is actively selling. In fact, only SSR (considered sold out) is larger. Visit WDW today and you'll see that the DVC kiosks are selling Aulani along side PVB.

Aulani sales have been roughly flat since 2014. No one has publically compiled Aulani sales data from before that.

The concern is that looking at only the WDW DVC resorts ignores Aulani sales, which make up a large portion of today's direct DVC sales. However, as I pointed out, Aulani has been for sale since 2010, with it being actively marketed at WDW since then. There's no reason to suppose that Aulani sales have radically changed since 2010. Thus, IMO, looking at WDW DVC sales tell us what's generally happening to DVC sales.

Looking at sales before Aulani went on sale is different. IMO, it would be unfair to compare pre-2010 sales with post-2010 sales without including Aulani.

From 2004 (SSR opening) to 2013 (VGF opening), Disney sold approximately 30 million DVC points at all resorts, an average of 3 million points per year in the midst of a major recession that saw DVC resale prices plummet to all-time lows. Currently, the economy is the best it's been in years and DVC resale prices are once more high, yet annual DVC sales in 2015 were approximately 2.4 million points, including Aulani.

What does it all mean in light of Staggs' departure?

This line of discussion started with the following exchange:

So, when I was reading that article about Tom Staggs resignation and Stanley Gold says he did the right thins to resign because he thinks Disney getting a bit greedy. So does this mean it's a wake up call for Disney to end their greedy hullabaloo and Bob Iger stop being a greedy miser?

Meh...I forsee record profits and record DVC sales...changes won't hurt $DIS at all.

To me, the concern is whether Staggs' resignation is an indication of structural cracks starting to show in the Disney cement and if DVC sales is one of those cracks.

I'm hearing conflicting stories but am modestly certain that Staggs' departure is an ill sign. Staggs and former CFO Jay Rasulo were in a 10-year competition to replace CEO Bob Iger upon his retirement in 2018. At no time was experience in Media Networks deemed as essential to take over the top spot. Even if the rules suddenly changed, then Staggs still had more than 2 years to gain that leadership experience.

Something stinks in Disney's succession plan. All is not as it appears to be. Despite what some have written, it's still Iger's Board of Directors. The idea that one or more members are going to push aside what essentially was Iger's decision last year is ludicrous

Only Iger really knows what's going on. Don't expect an honest answer from Iger. He's going to spin this in whatever way he wants.

 

[Lord_Vader]

It's not that they're not allowed to stay. It's more like throwing a temper tantrum for not getting what they want.

They spend huge amounts of political capital to put themselves in a position to take over, when it falls apart they also lose the support of the people that helped put them there, like a vote of no confidence which renders them ineffective and therefore must leave.

 

[ford91exploder]

They spend huge amounts of political capital to put themselves in a position to take over, when it falls apart they also lose the support of the people that helped put them there, like a vote of no confidence which renders them ineffective and therefore must leave.

Exactly true.

 

[TsWade2]

Aulani is the largest DVC property Disney is actively selling. In fact, only SSR (considered sold out) is larger. Visit WDW today and you'll see that the DVC kiosks are selling Aulani along side PVB.

Aulani sales have been roughly flat since 2014. No one has publically compiled Aulani sales data from before that.

The concern is that looking at only the WDW DVC resorts ignores Aulani sales, which make up a large portion of today's direct DVC sales. However, as I pointed out, Aulani has been for sale since 2010, with it being actively marketed at WDW since then. There's no reason to suppose that Aulani sales have radically changed since 2010. Thus, IMO, looking at WDW DVC sales tell us what's generally happening to DVC sales.

Looking at sales before Aulani went on sale is different. IMO, it would be unfair to compare pre-2010 sales with post-2010 sales without including Aulani.

From 2004 (SSR opening) to 2013 (VGF opening), Disney sold approximately 30 million DVC points at all resorts, an average of 3 million points per year in the midst of a major recession that saw DVC resale prices plummet to all-time lows. Currently, the economy is the best it's been in years and DVC resale prices are once more high, yet annual DVC sales in 2015 were approximately 2.4 million points, including Aulani.

What does it all mean in light of Staggs' departure?

This line of discussion started with the following exchange:


To me, the concern is whether Staggs' resignation is an indication of structural cracks starting to show in the Disney cement and if DVC sales is one of those cracks.

I'm hearing conflicting stories but am modestly certain that Staggs' departure is an ill sign. Staggs and former CFO Jay Rasulo were in a 10-year competition to replace CEO Bob Iger upon his retirement in 2018. At no time was experience in Media Networks deemed as essential to take over the top spot. Even if the rules suddenly changed, then Staggs still had more than 2 years to gain that leadership experience.

Something stinks in Disney's succession plan. All is not as it appears to be. Despite what some have written, it's still Iger's Board of Directors. The idea that one or more members are going to push aside what essentially was Iger's decision last year is ludicrous

Only Iger really knows what's going on. Don't expect an honest answer from Iger. He's going to spin this in whatever way he wants.

Ooooh....That Iger! One of these days, one of these days, POW! Right in the kisser!

 

[SirLink]

Aulani is the largest DVC property Disney is actively selling. In fact, only SSR (considered sold out) is larger. Visit WDW today and you'll see that the DVC kiosks are selling Aulani along side PVB.

Aulani sales have been roughly flat since 2014. No one has publically compiled Aulani sales data from before that.

The concern is that looking at only the WDW DVC resorts ignores Aulani sales, which make up a large portion of today's direct DVC sales. However, as I pointed out, Aulani has been for sale since 2010, with it being actively marketed at WDW since then. There's no reason to suppose that Aulani sales have radically changed since 2010. Thus, IMO, looking at WDW DVC sales tell us what's generally happening to DVC sales.

Looking at sales before Aulani went on sale is different. IMO, it would be unfair to compare pre-2010 sales with post-2010 sales without including Aulani.

From 2004 (SSR opening) to 2013 (VGF opening), Disney sold approximately 30 million DVC points at all resorts, an average of 3 million points per year in the midst of a major recession that saw DVC resale prices plummet to all-time lows. Currently, the economy is the best it's been in years and DVC resale prices are once more high, yet annual DVC sales in 2015 were approximately 2.4 million points, including Aulani.

What does it all mean in light of Staggs' departure?

This line of discussion started with the following exchange:


To me, the concern is whether Staggs' resignation is an indication of structural cracks starting to show in the Disney cement and if DVC sales is one of those cracks.

I'm hearing conflicting stories but am modestly certain that Staggs' departure is an ill sign. Staggs and former CFO Jay Rasulo were in a 10-year competition to replace CEO Bob Iger upon his retirement in 2018. At no time was experience in Media Networks deemed as essential to take over the top spot. Even if the rules suddenly changed, then Staggs still had more than 2 years to gain that leadership experience.

Something stinks in Disney's succession plan. All is not as it appears to be. Despite what some have written, it's still Iger's Board of Directors. The idea that one or more members are going to push aside what essentially was Iger's decision last year is ludicrous

Only Iger really knows what's going on. Don't expect an honest answer from Iger. He's going to spin this in whatever way he wants.

I have a few theories as to the whole succession and Iger as a whole:

• We know at one stage Iger wanted to transfer to the political spectrum
• Iger's dealings with CCP and Shanghai representatives turned him off from wanting that political career he craved
• Iger deliberately made sure Rasulo never touched Movies / Media & Networks, so that there was no chance of him moving onto the top spot and possibly the Board agreed.
  
• Then Iger's contract is extended to 2018
• Iger sees the issues going on across the company to use that to his advantage to deflect and protect his Legacy and job.
• Staggs the easy scapegoat is kept away from Media & Networks and also the Studio division even if Alan Horn was training him allowing AH to become the COO.
  
• Shanghai, Pandora, MM+ ... all multi-billion plans all have failed to deliver on time, budget and making money.
• Iger plays the board to get rid of Staggs as these are his failures within the company.
• ... we are now up to date.

The real question now is if the Board decides that Iger is also to blame by just letting the divisions do their thing and gets ride of Iger with a golden parachute.

Personally I would like at least to Alan Horn to take over CEO/COO temporarily whilst looking for a suitable replacement. He becomes the COO when they have found the CEO or he takes the CEO job and the COO the Board brings in eventually becomes CEO.

 

[rael ramone]

I have a few theories as to the whole succession and Iger as a whole:

• We know at one stage Iger wanted to transfer to the political spectrum
• Iger's dealings with CCP and Shanghai representatives turned him off from wanting that political career he craved
• Iger deliberately made sure Rasulo never touched Movies / Media & Networks, so that there was no chance of him moving onto the top spot and possibly the Board agreed.
  
• Then Iger's contract is extended to 2018
• Iger sees the issues going on across the company to use that to his advantage to deflect and protect his Legacy and job.
• Staggs the easy scapegoat is kept away from Media & Networks and also the Studio division even if Alan Horn was training him allowing AH to become the COO.
  
• Shanghai, Pandora, MM+ ... all multi-billion plans all have failed to deliver on time, budget and making money.
• Iger plays the board to get rid of Staggs as these are his failures within the company.
• ... we are now up to date.

The real question now is if the Board decides that Iger is also to blame by just letting the divisions do their thing and gets ride of Iger with a golden parachute.

Personally I would like at least to Alan Horn to take over CEO/COO temporarily whilst looking for a suitable replacement. He becomes the COO when they have found the CEO or he takes the CEO job and the COO the Board brings in eventually becomes CEO.

The Weatherman's political future basically went 'poof' (esp. on the Democratic side of the equation) based on $DIS conduct, primarily about labor, but to a degree about MM+ as well (recall then Rep. Markey's letter)...

I don't believe Jim Stewart's reporting on this issue lock, stock, and barrel, but what he says about this being The Weatherman's board makes sense - he's basically stacked the desk with yes people - even if some new members (like Sandberg) have a different agenda and endgame.

The next CEO needs to step away from the quarterly mentality and understand the foundation of the company - one that is centered on Family Entertainment (Walt's definition of it, not 'kowtow to microwhims of 6 year olds to the exclusion of everyone else') and creating a Perception of Value with it's guests. Experience in the industry isn't as important (esp. if that experience is 'tainted' with thoughts of Value Engineering and Short Term Margin Expansion At All Costs) as is the ability to learn how to do the job.

 

[LAKid53]

So this morning I got an email from Disney asking me to complete a survey for annual passholders. Imagine my surprise to see one of the responses for the question, "which of these statements would you agree with" to include:

Perhaps they are listening? Nah.....

 

[wannabeBelle]

So this morning I got an email from Disney asking me to complete a survey for annual passholders. Imagine my surprise to see one of the responses for the question, "which of these statements would you agree with" to include:

View attachment 137763

Perhaps they are listening? Nah.....

I got the same survey not a few weeks back, There are some interesting questions on there!!! Marie

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Weatherman's political future basically went 'poof' (esp. on the Democratic side of the equation) based on $DIS conduct, primarily about labor, but to a degree about MM+ as well (recall then Rep. Markey's letter)...

It still shocks me that Markey's name is repeatedly envoked with positive seriousness on a message board devoted to a fixed amusement. The man pretty much wants to outlaw as dangerous what we are here discussing.

 

[SirLink]

The Weatherman's political future basically went 'poof' (esp. on the Democratic side of the equation) based on $DIS conduct, primarily about labor, but to a degree about MM+ as well (recall then Rep. Markey's letter)...

I don't believe Jim Stewart's reporting on this issue lock, stock, and barrel, but what he says about this being The Weatherman's board makes sense - he's basically stacked the desk with yes people - even if some new members (like Sandberg) have a different agenda and endgame.

The next CEO needs to step away from the quarterly mentality and understand the foundation of the company - one that is centered on Family Entertainment (Walt's definition of it, not 'kowtow to microwhims of 6 year olds to the exclusion of everyone else') and creating a Perception of Value with it's guests. Experience in the industry isn't as important (esp. if that experience is 'tainted' with thoughts of Value Engineering and Short Term Margin Expansion At All Costs) as is the ability to learn how to do the job.

The letter and labor wouldn't of done diddly squat for his political aspirations. More likely is CCP and Shanghai prefecture government got to him in terms of wanting a political career.

The next CEO needs to get away from short term profit, the management team would also have to believe the parks group can create IP that can foster into new IPs for every arm of TWDC. But in some ways I would like parts of the TWDC fully commit to produce BBFC 15 or even BBFC 18 content, not every film or every product but at least start doing the groundwork.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So this morning I got an email from Disney asking me to complete a survey for annual passholders. Imagine my surprise to see one of the responses for the question, "which of these statements would you agree with" to include:

View attachment 137763

Perhaps they are listening? Nah.....

I wish I kept better track of all the conspiracy theorists on here who always talk about how WDW surveys are only designed to justify executives' pet projects and that guests are never given the opportunity to be negative.

 

[COProgressFan]

So this morning I got an email from Disney asking me to complete a survey for annual passholders. Imagine my surprise to see one of the responses for the question, "which of these statements would you agree with" to include:

View attachment 137763

Perhaps they are listening? Nah.....

Someone is listening. The question is whether or not they have the authority to make any positive changes. But the reality is everything goes through Chapek and up to Iger, and I frankly don't think they care much about perceptions of the resort/company. It's only about the here and now. It's more than likely they'll both be gone in two years, so what does it matter to them, so long as the quarterly numbers look good until then.

Still, it is a huge step forward for a WDW to even offer replies like "Disney is too greedy", when traditionally their surveys are skewed to a desired (positive) result. There's not much room for giving your honest opinions when you're rating everything on varying degrees of "magic".

 

[COProgressFan]

I wish I kept better track of all the conspiracy theorists on here who always talk about how WDW surveys are only designed to justify executives' pet projects and that guests are never given the opportunity to be negative.

Not exactly sure it's a conspiracy. Trying to avoid baiting you here, but....have you ever taken a WDW survey? Either online after a visit or while in the parks?

 

[Cletus]

I wish I kept better track of all the conspiracy theorists on here who always talk about how WDW surveys are only designed to justify executives' pet projects and that guests are never given the opportunity to be negative.

In all honesty, that is the first survey I can recall with the chance to answer something honestly. Most times the answers spin it towards positive or there isn't a chance for negative commentary.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Not exactly sure it's a conspiracy. Trying to avoid baiting you here, but....have you ever taken a WDW survey? Either online after a visit or while in the parks?

Yes. Two or three of the major online post-trip comprehensive surveys, two My Disney Experience surveys, and at least five in-park surveys, usually food and beverage. Off the top of my head, I've had the opportunity to give positive feedback on Flame Tree Barbecue, Sum of All Thrills, Animal Kingdom Lodge, and an excellent DME driver. I've also had the opportunity to give critical feedback on the MDX website, in-park WiFi, a bad waiter at Be Our Guest, and other things. The only time I've felt "forced" into an answer was in a few dining surveys where they asked me how satisfied I was with the amount of healthy options at the quick service restaurant and there was no way for me to tell the system I don't give a rip about eating healthy when I'm on vacation.

In all honesty, that is the first survey I can recall with the chance to answer something honestly. Most times the answers spin it towards positive or there isn't a chance for negative commentary.

Their five-point scale is usually something like "Excellent, Very Good, Good, Just Okay, or Poor." Granted, that skews positive, but "Poor" is still an option. I've also never taken a survey where I wasn't gotten a text box where I could free-type additional responses.

 

[ford91exploder]

I wish I kept better track of all the conspiracy theorists on here who always talk about how WDW surveys are only designed to justify executives' pet projects and that guests are never given the opportunity to be negative.

For a very long time the surveys were 'positive answers only' I don't know why they have changed recently I'm pleased that they have changed but will anyone act on the data ?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

For a very long time the surveys were 'positive answers only' I don't know why they have changed recently I'm pleased that they have changed but will anyone act on the data ?

Why wouldn't they? The position of the Disney haters ("critics" if you prefer the term) is always that Disney's management is in it to get as much money out of their customers as possible, right? Even if I concede that point, it still follows logically that the best way to separate customers from their money is to persuade them to give you more of it by keeping them happy. In other words, the profit motive incentivizes listening to guest feedback. There's no theory wherein "Disney only cares about money" leads to "Disney ignores guest feedback on purpose."

The only survey questions where management's wishes and guests' answers would not be in sync would be questions about pricing. For questions about product offerings, quality, options, and initiatives, management's incentive is aligned with guest incentive because happy guests pay more money.

 

[COProgressFan]

I appreciate your response. I think your survey experience is common with a lot of ours. But I know there are surveys where the responses aren't always permitted in a Likert-type rating scale. I know I've taken one where I had to select statements that I agreed with and none of them really applied (there was an option to choose "none", but there was nowhere to explain why). And even the ones that do give you the option to rate something poorly sometimes skew results based on way questions are asked. I know one I took last year that asked for open-ended comments about various aspects of a resort visit, but if I answered honestly to each, they never really asked about the areas in which I had more negative comments.

Anyway, these surveys are given to support lots of different metrics, possible future projects, agendas, etc. I'm not sure how meaningful they are in isolation or if anyone is looking at them holistically, or acting upon their findings.