The Reason Why I Can’t Criticize Bob Chapek

[ImperfectPixie]

Business wise, shareholder value wise, it’s probably best to have a Chapek type in charge. There will always be super creative folks to think up very cool stuff, but there needs to be a miser who can control the spending.

Sort of like Walt and his brother.

This is even more important today since every move TWDC makes is to try to better the share price.

Does this hinder the creativity? YES. Does this result in TWDC making decisions a lot of fans disagree with? YES.

But as bad as the decisions look to a lot of fans, the decisions made are truly in a attempt to make TWDC stronger for its most important entity, the shareholder.

That's an error in current business thinking.

What's good for the consumer is ultimately good for the shareholder...it's just unfortunate that current Wall Street is more focused on exploitation, rather than longevity.

 

[amjt660]

But as bad as the decisions look to a lot of fans, the decisions made are truly in a attempt to make TWDC stronger for its most important entity, the shareholder.

You had me till the end

A business has more than one stakeholder

Normally they include the shareholders, their customers, their employees and their community

The goal should be to satisfy all stakeholders.

I am not sure of TWDC is achieving balance.



Max

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney has the problem of putting big egos in the CEO position who like to think of themselves as creatives, but who really aren't in the traditional sense of the word. What the other poster is saying is that with a business-only head in charge of the company, the product as a whole suffers - which has borne out in many of the big choices that have been made.

What they really need is a partnership at the CEO level...so they can avoid huge missteps like hugely expensive lands that feel dead due to short-sighted cuts, or insisting that everything have an IP tie-in (oversaturation WILL happen at some point). It would be very non-traditional, yes, but then again, Disney isn't exactly your every-day corporation, either.

Well Chapek doesn't appear to think of himself as a creative in any sense of the word, but rather a business person. Iger might have leaned into the creative side especially in later years, but he was all business first. So the last time there was a big ego CEO who saw themselves as a creative was Eisner, and well he hasn't headed the company in almost 20 years.

As for dual leadership at top, I don't think dual CEOs would work at a company like Disney. As the business side CEO would effectively become a lame duck CEO due to the whole company effectively moving under the creative CEO hierarchy. And maybe that is what you personally would like to see but in business that doesn't work. I've been part of companies that had two CEOs and it becomes very confusing real quick on who's decision to follow especially when they have disagreements. So I don't see how it would work in a company like Disney.

Really if you want dual leadership they should bring in a CCO (Chief Creative Officer) sort of like the former president position, which went away under Iger, and put a creative there. So the CEO would still remain a business minded person like it always has, but a CCO would balance out the hierarchy with all divisions reporting into the that person. Now what would make that hard is they already have CCOs in each of the Studios, so those people would have to get a different title which may cause unneeded turmoil. But if you want a singular creative person at the highest levels, that would be the way to do it. The CEO would still be the decision maker in the end, like always, but the CCO would make the hard creative choices.

Again though I still don't know how a singular person could be in that role. As no singular person could make creative decisions about every division. As there are too many very different creative aspects to each division now. Disney is just too large of a company to have that singular role. For example why would this singular person know more about Marvel content than Kevin Feige to determine what decisions to make at Marvel, they wouldn't and that is the point. This is why at this juncture it would be very destructive for the company to have that singular creative role, because as I've been saying the company is no longer this single studio with a couple theme parks company.

So maybe really what you're saying is you want a CEO and then a Co-CEO for the Parks division.

 

[Disney Irish]

That's an error in current business thinking.

What's good for the consumer is ultimately good for the shareholder...it's just unfortunate that current Wall Street is more focused on exploitation, rather than longevity.

Um, that is not entirely true. It has to be a balance, as the shareholders effectively own the company not the consumers. And shareholders aren't always interested in what is best for the consumer, especially since most want maximized profits in order to see returns on their investment into the company.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Um, that is not entirely true. It has to be a balance, as the shareholders effectively own the company not the consumers. And shareholders aren't always interested in what is best for the consumer, especially since most want maximized profits in order to see returns on their investment into the company.

In other words...exploitation.

And yes - there needs to be balance. And there isn't at Disney, and hasn't been for a long time.

 

[Disney Irish]

In other words...exploitation.

Welcome to capitalism.

And yes - there needs to be balance. And there isn't at Disney, and hasn't been for a long time.

Unless Disney is taken private this is going to be the way it is.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The logical fail is that if you support a bad - more like awful - ceo, he could lead Disney to a place where you could, in fact, hate it.

It’s an inherent risk to limiting your “options”

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Welcome to capitalism.


Unless Disney is taken private this is going to be the way it is.

It's unsustainable. Wall Street will learn this one way or the other at some point.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's unsustainable. Wall Street will learn this one way or the other at some point.

Money always wins out. So as long as money runs the world it will always be the driving force behind companies and Wall Street.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Money always wins out. So as long as money runs the world it will always be the driving force behind companies and Wall Street.

Wall Street has spent 15 years dictacting their own rules…and 20 before that setting it up.

They’re on an unprecedented “hot streak” at the table…but it’s still located inside of a casino.

At some point, “inventing money” because you want it and you need it to bail you out of your mistakes will run out of runway.

 

[Disney Irish]

Wall Street has spent 15 years dictacting their own rules…and 20 before that setting it up.

They’re on an unprecedented “hot streak” at the table…but it’s still located inside of a casino.

At some point, “inventing money” because you want it and you need it to bail you out of your mistakes will run out of runway.

And when it runs out of runway then Wall Street will come up with some other way to make money.

As I said as long as money runs the world it will always be the driving force behind companies and Wall Street. The only way to stop it is to get rid of the monetary incentive, and well that is Star Trek levels of utopia that we aren't soon to achieve.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You had me till the end

A business has more than one stakeholder

Normally they include the shareholders, their customers, their employees and their community

The goal should be to satisfy all stakeholders.

I am not sure of TWDC is achieving balance.



Max

TWDC cares about only one thing day to day, it’s the shareholder. Decisions they make may appear be for social justice or equity, but decisions are only to protect the share price.

 

[Disney Irish]

TWDC cares about only one thing day to day, it’s the shareholder. Decisions they make may appear be for social justice or equity, but decisions are only to protect the share price.

I think this is true to some extent. I think a part, you can debate how much, of all decisions are made for the betterment of society and the consumer. Its just that we'd wish it was a larger part of their decisions.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think this is true to some extent. I think a part, you can debate how much, of all decisions are made for the betterment of society and the consumer. Its just that we'd wish it was a larger part of their decisions.

You took a 90 degree turn from your usual stance here.

Nothing a company like Disney is doing is for the “betterment of society”

They’re not the worst…but they are much closer to chasing only quarterlies now that the Bobs have wiped away the “old ways”

 

[Disney Irish]

You took a 90 degree turn from your usual stance here.

Not really, I'm actually pragmatic.

Nothing a company like Disney is doing is for the “betterment of society”

Well that is certainly your opinion. But I think some people would disagree with you, especially on the film side of things. Sure they are not curing cancer but they do have a voice and some of the filmmakers employed under the mouse chose to use that voice to tell stories that matter.

They’re not the worst…but they are much closer to chasing only quarterlies now that the Bobs have wiped away the “old ways”

I'm not going to disagree that just like a majority of Wall Street they chase the almighty dollar, especially on the short term.

 

[networkpro]

You took a 90 degree turn from your usual stance here.

Nothing a company like Disney is doing is for the “betterment of society”

They’re not the worst…but they are much closer to chasing only quarterlies now that the Bobs have wiped away the “old ways”

you mean you're not a believer is George Soros ?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

you mean you're not a believer is George Soros ?

Wasn’t he sulu?

 

[Disney Irish]

Now one interesting conversation that we could have is, Should Disney be taken private?

What would be the advantages and disadvantages?
What would the company look like after that?

It would be interesting to have a thought experiment about that.....

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Now one interesting conversation that we could have is, Should Disney be taken private?

What would be the advantages and disadvantages?
What would the company look like after that?

It would be interesting to have a thought experiment about that.....

Oh absolutely…no doubt.

Public companies are good for growing with needed capital…but once they are big they insist on sacrificing quality for quarterly.

And is any company less appropriate for that than Disney?

I’m currently raising capital for that bid to take it private…

I’m just about $370,000,000,000 short…give or take.

 

[Disney Irish]

Oh absolutely…no doubt.

Public companies are good for growing wish needed capital…but once they are big they insist on sacrificing quality for quarterly m

And is any company less appropriate for Thad than Disney?

I’m currently raising capital for that bid to take it private…

I’m just about $370,000,000,000 short…give or take.

Well I think a major disadvantage would be that lack of capitalization based on stock value. So they wouldn't be able to have quick access to capital like they would if they remained public. Which is one thing we know they need especially with large capex surrounding the Parks.

Now I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable on the debt aspects of private companies who were once public. But to me that would seem to be a large burden that couldn't be handled if Disney went private, especially given their debt structure now.