Staggs resigns

[ford91exploder]

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.

Your argument holds true if the goal is long term profitability, In the short term cost cuts and price increases generate more immediate revenue boosts. The question is is for P&R is Disney looking at the next decade or the next quarter. If the next decade is the correct answer measures which enhance guest satisfaction are the way forward, If Disney is only looking at the next few quarters then you will see more cuts, upcharges and price increases.

Unfortunately so far the ground truth is indicating that it's the next few quarters with no heed to the next decade.

 

[Cesar R M]

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.....

Probably a way to filter "the outsider" non disney addict. aka they will never ask for you for information nor send you send offers of any kind in the future. Pretty much sealing you away from the pixie dusted yesmen.

 

[Cesar R M]

and that guests are never given the opportunity to be negative.

considering that 99.99% of all the surveys that were shared in this forum.. NEVER contained nor let you have a negative opinion.. its eye opening to see one for once.
So I dont get your complain.

 

[Rodan75]

okay...so...I had been hesitant to believe that Staggs ouster was about the board (and Iger) wanting Iger to stay. Even as popular opinion/media press started to highlight that possibility. I was hesitant, until I read the Alan Horn piece in Variety ( http://variety.com/2016/film/news/alan-horn-disney-chairman-1201749971/ )today. That piece was prepped and planted to come out as soon as the Staggs reactions had slowed, praising an executive who is over 65 but still in touch with tastemakers and on top of his game. As much as it is a celebration of Horn, it is a testament that Iger could still be a viable chief exec well into his 70's.

I don't think it is a hard sell on Iger, but it is clear. Obvious without being too obvious.

My prediction is that Iger 'volunteers' or is 'asked' to stay with TWDC as CEO until 2020 and Chair until at least 2022 and that a new COO be named within the next 12 months. (and that it will likely be Sherwood, if he can get media networks some new momentum)

 

[the.dreamfinder]

okay...so...I had been hesitant to believe that Staggs ouster was about the board (and Iger) wanting Iger to stay. Even as popular opinion/media press started to highlight that possibility. I was hesitant, until I read the Alan Horn piece in Variety ( http://variety.com/2016/film/news/alan-horn-disney-chairman-1201749971/ )today. That piece was prepped and planted to come out as soon as the Staggs reactions had slowed, praising an executive who is over 65 but still in touch with tastemakers and on top of his game. As much as it is a celebration of Horn, it is a testament that Iger could still be a viable chief exec well into his 70's.

I don't think it is a hard sell on Iger, but it is clear. Obvious without being too obvious.

My prediction is that Iger 'volunteers' or is 'asked' to stay with TWDC as CEO until 2020 and Chair until at least 2022 and that a new COO be named within the next 12 months. (and that it will likely be Sherwood, if he can get media networks some new momentum)

That article reads like, and is, a puff piece cover story. Your reading of Horn as a mean to show how Bob could continue to be effective as he gets older is interesting, but I'm not sure the text supports that argument. If there was any posturing here, it seems like Horn could be an attractive acting head of the company should the BoD be put in a position to either replace Iger in the next two years or extend their executive search if Bob doesn't want to stay past 2018.

Also, whoever said this is full of .

The eternal psychodrama around sharing power and credit in Hollywood is nothing new for veterans like Horn. Some skeptics whispered that anyone would have succeeded at Warner Bros. with the phenomenal gift of J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series.

The Harry Potter series is the cinematic equivalent of an double ultra-marathon. WB could have easily bungled the series and been put in a position to cancel or significantly pair down the budget and scope of future installments. Execution is more important that ideas, even if you're sitting on a goldmine. Batman V Superman proves this point perfectly.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The Harry Potter series is the cinematic equivalent of an double ultra-marathon. WB could have easily bungled the series and been put in a position to cancel or significantly pair down the budget and scope of future installments. Execution is more important that ideas, even if you're sitting on a goldmine. Batman V Superman proves this point perfectly.

WB did bungle the series. Those films are garbage. Batman v Superman actually supports my point. You can make terrible films and still make loads of money if it's the right IP.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

WB did bungle the series. Those films are garbage. Batman v Superman actually supports my point. You can make terrible films and still make loads of money if it's the right IP.

I disagree on HP and the success of the Wizarding Worlds and interest in Fantastic Beasts backs that up.

But Batman v Superman was supposed to do Avengers level business for them and it will barely hit $900 WW. That's higher than the average MCU film, but when you have the three most beloved superheroes of all time in a movie together that's a failure. It also won't make a profit during its theatrical run.

Plus, there is another issue that the "put out crappy films based on great IP" approach fails to recognize; goodwill. Goodwill in these characters matters for the long term, it's why Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are so popular. When you make a film like BvS, you are pouring acid on the trust the audience has put in these characters and risking alienating future generations by not giving them a reason to like these characters. You can kill an evergreen.

 

[LAKid53]

That article reads like, and is, a puff piece cover story. Your reading of Horn as a mean to show how Bob could continue to be effective as he gets older is interesting, but I'm not sure the text supports that argument. If there was any posturing here, it seems like Horn could be an attractive acting head of the company should the BoD be put in a position to either replace Iger in the next two years or extend their executive search if Bob doesn't want to stay past 2018.

Also, whoever said this is full of ****.

The Harry Potter series is the cinematic equivalent of an double ultra-marathon. WB could have easily bungled the series and been put in a position to cancel or significantly pair down the budget and scope of future installments. Execution is more important that ideas, even if you're sitting on a goldmine. Batman V Superman proves this point perfectly.

I thought it was going to be a serious article about a man partially responsible for Disney Studio's recent successes. Until I read his statement that he'd take a bullet for Bob. I've had one or two bosses who were both excellent bosses and outstanding individuals, but as much as I enjoyed working for/with them, I wouldn't take a bullet. THAT I reserve for my family.

 

[gmajew]

WB did bungle the series. Those films are garbage. Batman v Superman actually supports my point. You can make terrible films and still make loads of money if it's the right IP.

The books were so hard to convert to page properly I really think WB did the best job they could with the series... Harry Potter is this generations movie that will go on for decades... My kids and nephews drop everything to watch them when they come on... Could they be better yeah lots of details missed form books but don't know how they do it since books are always better.

 

[rael ramone]

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 think answering like you checked off may have the same effect as saying on phone surveys that you frequent online forums....

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The books were so hard to convert to page properly I really think WB did the best job they could with the series... Harry Potter is this generations movie that will go on for decades... My kids and nephews drop everything to watch them when they come on... Could they be better yeah lots of details missed form books but don't know how they do it since books are always better.

Books 5-7 (ironically the best of the movies) were disappointments from the promise of Stone through Goblet. Kids love of a thing is not necessarily an indicator of quality. Kids love the Transformers and Ninja Turtles movies, too. Give it time. Quality will out. Potter will have tremendous staying power as a pop culture icon, but its place will not be in the literary or cinematic canon alongside C. S. Lewis or Raiders of the Lost Ark as many have implied.

 

[ford91exploder]

I think answering like you checked off may have the same effect as saying on phone surveys that you frequent online forums....

Probably but somebody might have looked at my SQL statement from a while back and figured out that there was a way to gather the same data without causing backlash on fan sites like this one.

 

[Mike S]

Books 5-7 (ironically the best of the movies) were disappointments from the promise of Stone through Goblet. Kids love of a thing is not necessarily an indicator of quality. Kids love the Transformers and Ninja Turtles movies, too. Give it time. Quality will out. Potter will have tremendous staying power as a pop culture icon, but its place will not be in the literary or cinematic canon alongside C. S. Lewis or Raiders of the Lost Ark as many have implied.

The sixth movie sucked compared to the book. How the hell do you skip Dumbledore's funeral?!?!?!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The sixth movie sucked compared to the book. How the hell do you skip Dumbledore's funeral?!?!?!

I dislike all the movies. Just some of them are less bad.

 

[doctornick]

WB did bungle the series. Those films are garbage. Batman v Superman actually supports my point. You can make terrible films and still make loads of money if it's the right IP.

BvS isn't making "loads of money". It'll be lucky to make a small profit given how horrible its legs are.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

BvS isn't making "loads of money". It'll be lucky to make a small profit given how horrible its legs are.

It's still going to land at $900M. Yes, that's a huge disappointment considering the hype and the budget, but $900M is still a huge box office.

 

[doctornick]

It's still going to land at $900M. Yes, that's a huge disappointment considering the hype and the budget, but $900M is still a huge box office.

It's a big box office, but not a big profit (which is what really matters to the studios). Reports are that it needed to hit at least $800M just to break even.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

It's a big box office, but not a big profit (which is what really matters to the studios). Reports are that it needed to hit at least $800M just to break even.

And add in internal expectations at WB for the film to do Avengers like business.

 

[gmajew]

It's a big box office, but not a big profit (which is what really matters to the studios). Reports are that it needed to hit at least $800M just to break even.

But it accomplished its goal and that was to kick start the DC universe... I hope the future movies actually do a better job of telling any part of a story... Hate that I left the movie mad I did not get a superman movie... he deserves so much better.

 

[doctornick]

But it accomplished its goal and that was to kick start the DC universe... I hope the future movies actually do a better job of telling any part of a story... Hate that I left the movie mad I did not get a superman movie... he deserves so much better.

Actually, I would argue that the huge issue -- it did a poor job of "kick starting" the DC film universe. The last thing in the world Warner Bros wanted was a panned and poorly received film, especially in light of Man of Steel getting a mixed reception at best.

The financials of BvS are probably "fine" -- it will pull a small profit which will be a disappointment but the studio can move on. But the impact on the future prospects of the DC film universe is significant -- and bad. They have grandiose plans for a universe like the MCU, but a huge first step is getting the general audiences to enjoy and "buy into" your films. They've failed horrible at that and it bodes poorly going forward. And this problem is going to have a significant impact on the future plans for Warner Bros as the DC films are their major tentpoles so they need them to succeed/