News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[_caleb]

Do you think I enjoy talking about all the negative things about Disney and can’t find any good? I’m a multi contract DVC member and have been for many years. AP holder. Go mutiple times and year and have for the last 25+ years. I have a lot of past experiences to see what I see and gauge my thoughts and opinions from.

Things change, I get that, but some trends are worth pointing out and talking about because if we don’t, they’ll do just enough and whatever they can get away with instead of focusing on what made them great

Again, I have no problem with expressing disappointment or negative reactions. This is a discussion board, after all. But when folks post constant--like dozens of times each day--how much they hate everything Disney does, I'd say they should look elsewhere.

Also, unless I'm misunderstanding, you're the second person (@Sirwalterraleigh was the first) today to imply that posting negative posts is somehow an attempt to keep Disney accountable to their expectations. I find that interesting.

 

[_caleb]

Huh?

In 1998 alone Disney opened its last Florida-based park with DAK (April) and launched the first two cruise ships of its DCL fleet.

Where do you think the money for those new ventures came from?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Right. Did that come from the parks division, or the studios?

It came from cable tv providers and advertisers in the linear days. Which are all but over…Leaving a huge void. We’ve been over that many a time.

The “studios” have never supported the parks…

Disney secured leveraged loans for about $20 mil in 1954-55 to build Disneyland…and it was such an immediate hit it was in the black in 56-57
The one primary way “studios” financed the parks was when he leased his Disney shows to Pepsi in exchange for park funds.
It wasn’t Cinderella

Ever since…the parks have financed themselves with their own collateral and guarantees …especially since their cash cow was birthed on reclamated hazmat grade swampland in Florida

Just a little point of order. Movies have never really financed parks at all. Quite the opposite. Parks have had very few hiccups when they weren’t a revenue/profit growth generator. But it’s only been 70 years

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But nobody is saying you can't point out Iger's mistakes. You do it all day every day. I'm saying, "message received. We get it-you don't like him." Nobody is limiting your freedom of speech (within the rules of the forum, of course).

By all means, criticize! Nobody is saying Disney doesn't make mistakes, there are plenty! I'm saying that it seems like some are fixating on those and it's affecting them.

Lack of new management direction and course correction in the upper management is the #1 issue for TWDC. You don’t have to believe me…let’s watch it play?

It's not a matter of "truth," it's just opinions. That's really all we've got around here, isn't it?

Very few things on this planet are equal in measure/quality/worth. Including opinions.

I didn't realize you saw your posting here as activism. Sort of a pressure campaign, I suppose? My way of sending a signal about what I don't like is going to the parks less, spending less, and spending more time on things I enjoy.

I don’t see it as “activism”…it’s to pass the time. But I’ll say what seems to be the issues when issues arise.
I won’t change the world…just like discussions 8 years old about ride queues and trip reports won’t alter much either. Yet we all go on…like illuminations.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Where do you think the money for those new ventures came from?

Wdw…licensing product…ad revenue for abc, Disney channel and espn…mostly

 

[_caleb]

Wdw…licensing product…ad revenue for abc, Disney channel and espn…mostly

Which was the point I was trying to make. Disney had a variety of businesses and revenue streams, and it's not abnormal for them to spend conservatively on some while they're investing in another.

I don't understand the thinking that Disney would be investing heavily in the parks if only Disney+ wasn't sucking up all the company's money.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Which was the point I was trying to make. Disney had a variety of businesses and revenue streams, and it's not abnormal for them to spend conservatively on some while they're investing in another.

I don't understand the thinking that Disney would be investing heavily in the parks if only Disney+ wasn't sucking up all the company's money.

But the movies never funded the parks…really not the tv much either

The park revenue is self sufficient…it has been their most consistent asset for 50 years

But you are correct D+ is not the reason they are doing next to nothing in their domestic parks…
It’s because they are gambling long term on what they think they can make off parks…and they’re gonna fail.
You have a finite amount of people you can serve - and therefore a finite amount of revenue potential…in parks.
That management believes there are no price limits based on a quack unproven economic theory.

What’s their biggest problem again?


2023 is the first time the attendance at wdw has ever declined in a non-global recession scenario

Hard to infer “coincidence” these days

 

[Tha Realest]

No need for the snarky "Take your time. We'll wait" bit. It's a conversation, not a rap battle.

When the parks started, all the money came from the studios. Walt was over-leveraged at the time, and the parks were a big gamble (sort of like Disney+ is for the company now).

Parks? It was one park during Walt’s time.

Can you share how the budgets got tight when DCL was started?

 

[_caleb]

It came from cable tv providers and advertisers in the linear days. Which are all but over…Leaving a huge void. We’ve been over that many a time.

The “studios” have never supported the parks…

Sorry I wasn't more precise in my terminology. I wrote "studios" when I was thinking "divisions that weren't the parks."

I guess I was mistaken about the leverage of the original loan. I just read an article that Walt borrowed against his own life insurance policy, not the studio.

Parks? It was one park during Walt’s time.

You're right. Just Disneyland.

Can you share how the budgets got tight when DCL was started?

I just meant that spending in one area might have meant less spending in another during the launch of something new. In its first few years, DCL was a net loss for the company, but then went on to be profitable.

DCA 1.0 broke ground in 1998x and I always heard one of the big reasons it was the way it was had to do with DCL and AK taking up all the money.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Iger is never leaving, he will get extension after extension.

The fact he left once makes that statement rather... naive?

 

[Dranth]

He already granted his own extension 6 months into it

For no legitimate reason

Why? To release frozen 5? A trained circus dog could order that

I have my issues with Iger, a lot of them actually, but NO ONE is walking into a position like that and turning everything around in two years. The extension makes sense. Disney was floundering under Chapek and no, I don't believe for a second Chapek didn't have enough power to do damage. Ripping something down is SO much easier than building it up and Chapek did a great job of that.

I could walk into my business tomorrow, p-off everyone to the point they leave and then need to spend the next five years building it back up to where it was. One day to undo years of work.

Take Imagineering for example, they may not have been Iger's biggest fan but they could work with him. In less than a year under Chapek we saw retirements, petitions for him to be fired, layoffs and the top guys leaving saying "F-it, I'd rather work on airport lounges". Meanwhile, Chapek isn't bothering to replace most of them and when he does it is with people specializing in interior hospital design or whatever it was.

Two years is not long enough to implement changes at a company of this size and see any obvious results. On the studio side, you can barely release a movie in two years in normal times and there is no chance of that with massive strikes. While at the parks, it likely takes longer than two years to even properly plan a new ride/expansion let alone having to staff back up to even start the process.

Bottom line, if he gets another extension and things aren't going much better, I'll help you pack his bags and buy you a beer after.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I have my issues with Iger, a lot of them actually, but NO ONE is walking into a position like that and turning everything around in two years. The extension makes sense. Disney was floundering under Chapek and no, I don't believe for a second Chapek didn't have enough power to do damage. Ripping something down is SO much easier than building it up and Chapek did a great job of that.

I could walk into my business tomorrow, p-off everyone to the point they leave and then need to spend the next five years building it back up to where it was. One day to undo years of work.

Take Imagineering for example, they may not have been Iger's biggest fan but they could work with him. In less than a year under Chapek we saw retirements, petitions for him to be fired, layoffs and the top guys leaving saying "F-it, I'd rather work on airport lounges". Meanwhile, Chapek isn't bothering to replace most of them and when he does it is with people specializing in interior hospital design or whatever it was.

Two years is not long enough to implement changes at a company of this size and see any obvious results. On the studio side, you can barely release a movie in two years in normal times and there is no chance of that with massive strikes. While at the parks, it likely takes longer than two years to even properly plan a new ride/expansion let alone having to staff back up to even start the process.

Bottom line, if he gets another extension and things aren't going much better, I'll help you pack his bags and buy you a beer after.

Remind me again how he was “walking into the position”…

 

[SpectreJordan]

I hear you there.

More than once, I've turned on the TV looking for something to watch and thirty minutes later, I'm still looking and I end up giving up because all that figuring out what to start into has made me no longer interested in watching anything.

Tbf this has always been a problem with TV. I remember the days of clicking "Next channel" nonstop or endlessly scrolling through the guide.

I will say that streaming is probably hurting kids TV a lot though. There was a lot of shows back then that I wouldn't have watched, let alone became a fan of, if it didn't air after the show I was already watching. Kids today don't have that forced onto them, they just get to stay with what they're used to.

 

[Nubs70]

I have my issues with Iger, a lot of them actually, but NO ONE is walking into a position like that and turning everything around in two years. The extension makes sense. Disney was floundering under Chapek and no, I don't believe for a second Chapek didn't have enough power to do damage. Ripping something down is SO much easier than building it up and Chapek did a great job of that.

I could walk into my business tomorrow, p-off everyone to the point they leave and then need to spend the next five years building it back up to where it was. One day to undo years of work.

Take Imagineering for example, they may not have been Iger's biggest fan but they could work with him. In less than a year under Chapek we saw retirements, petitions for him to be fired, layoffs and the top guys leaving saying "F-it, I'd rather work on airport lounges". Meanwhile, Chapek isn't bothering to replace most of them and when he does it is with people specializing in interior hospital design or whatever it was.

Two years is not long enough to implement changes at a company of this size and see any obvious results. On the studio side, you can barely release a movie in two years in normal times and there is no chance of that with massive strikes. While at the parks, it likely takes longer than two years to even properly plan a new ride/expansion let alone having to staff back up to even start the process.

Bottom line, if he gets another extension and things aren't going much better, I'll help you pack his bags and buy you a beer after.

No kidding 2 years is not enough to return $DIS to former glory. Unless you execute a strategic divestment plan created by a third party consulting firm.

So why state 2 years at the beginning with focus #1 of creating a sucession plan?
How is that plan going?
Who is being groomed for the position??
Why was your first success a job extention??

My contention is Bob & the Board have no idea what $DIS is going to look like in 2 more years. Fundamental change will happen so do you hire a short duration "Change Agent" mindset then the longer term "Grower" mindset?

Or you can just stick with Typhiod Bob and see how it goes.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The fact he left once makes that statement rather... naive?

Well, we know he never actually left so…..

 

[Disstevefan1]

Who believes this?

Ilovebi@aol.com

 

[SpectreJordan]

That's an example of the overly-simplistic and history-ignoring perspective I'm talking about. TWDC is pretty dynamic: sometimes the studios make money and carry the parks, sometimes the parks rake in money and carry the studios. Sometimes, all departments have to buckle down as Disney invests in new business (DCL, D+).

But it's not like this is the only time the Company hasn't had a major new expansion in the works. There have been periods of stagnation and periods of expansion. Epcot is being remade as we speak. I know some here hate it (some here seem to hate everything), but the park is not left rotting (as it was in the past).

Sometimes, I think that because folks around here visit the parks all the time and pay close attention to every bit of news and speculation it affects how we perceive things. Nothing is as good as it used to be. They're not building new stuff fast enough. Everything takes too long to build. Uni has this cool new thing and Disney can't compete. Disney doesn't know what they're doing. Disney+ is a disaster. WDI forgot how to design themed attractions. The Studios are inept. The tech department are imbeciles. Customer service sucks. Nobody wants to work, kids these days are entitled, it's all political.

I don't know. Maybe something about paying such close attention can ruin one's enjoyment of Disney. For so many it's become fun to be cynical and negative about everything Disney does and they start to root against the Company they once enjoyed. They blame everything on Bob Iger or Bob Chapek or Josh D'Amaro. They doomscroll Disney's box office returns, stock prices, and news about the parks. They subscribe to (and invent) conspiracy theories about why everything is as bad as they perceive it to be.

I do agree that we tend to overexaggerate the parks side of things since we're all theme park fanatics here. I definitely think there should be something new actively being built right now. But it doesn't matter as much to the once in a lifetime or once every couple years families, at least in ways they'd realize (they won't be thinking of capacity concerns like us nerds do).

But the movies bombing is a huge concern. Disney went from releasing huge hit after huge hit in the 2010s; they were the only ones making consistently good blockbusters. Now they've dropped down to releasing some of the biggest bombs of all-time... in the same year. Disney went from being the most trustworthy studio to one no one trusts anymore.

That's a major issue & needs to be addressed by Disney ASAP. The studios failing is going to affect every other aspect of the company.

 

[Disstevefan1]

View attachment 765275

Excellent you found a year! Ah yes, 1995, Toy Story, now THAT was a great animated movie made by Pixar, but still great, looking at releases from 1995, boy, other than Toy Story, not much there. Did income from Lion King from 1994 show up on the books in 1995?

 

[Tha Realest]

I have my issues with Iger, a lot of them actually, but NO ONE is walking into a position like that and turning everything around in two years. The extension makes sense. Disney was floundering under Chapek and no, I don't believe for a second Chapek didn't have enough power to do damage. Ripping something down is SO much easier than building it up and Chapek did a great job of that.

I could walk into my business tomorrow, p-off everyone to the point they leave and then need to spend the next five years building it back up to where it was. One day to undo years of work.

Take Imagineering for example, they may not have been Iger's biggest fan but they could work with him. In less than a year under Chapek we saw retirements, petitions for him to be fired, layoffs and the top guys leaving saying "F-it, I'd rather work on airport lounges". Meanwhile, Chapek isn't bothering to replace most of them and when he does it is with people specializing in interior hospital design or whatever it was.

Two years is not long enough to implement changes at a company of this size and see any obvious results. On the studio side, you can barely release a movie in two years in normal times and there is no chance of that with massive strikes. While at the parks, it likely takes longer than two years to even properly plan a new ride/expansion let alone having to staff back up to even start the process.

Bottom line, if he gets another extension and things aren't going much better, I'll help you pack his bags and buy you a beer after.

Those long term and systemic decisions should be being made by the person who will lead this company for the next decade. The successor should be on board, now, transitioning into this role. We’re 14+ months into the 24 month plan, and no apparent movement whatsoever on the successor front.

 

[_caleb]

Those long term and systemic decisions should be being made by the person who will lead this company for the next decade. The successor should be on board, now, transitioning into this role. We’re 14+ months into the 24 month plan, and no apparent movement whatsoever on the successor front.

What makes you think the successor is not already being moved into position?