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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You really think reenacting the 80s corporate raider battles that almost dissolved the company before Roy E. Disney stepped in with his investors and fought off Sid Steinberg would be a good thing. And I thought I was dense.

That was Saul Steinberg in 1984 and they had to greenmail him.

That was a straight up corporate raid gecko style…and Roy got the bass brothers to bail them out. (Ironically the bass brothers lost ALOT on a short years later)

What im describing is what happened in 2004…no alternative slate battles…no talk of selling off assets…Eisner was not fired…

Rather orderly under the fireworks. And Comcast got some jollies

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think you're right on this. This is my interpretation on how the "succession" was "supposed" to go down...

Being CEO of The Walt Disney Company has many advantages. People in Hollywood, sports, news, etc. all seek you out. Additionally, CEO's of The Walt Disney Company have an impressive opportunity to grow "cults of personality" around themselves. Michael Eisner did this. And Robert Iger also did this. Even fans with a tangential knowledge of the CEO know them and often express adoration. Moreover, being the CEO of The Walt Disney Company is just cool. You get to develop incredible theme park attractions, green light movies and scripts, and work with interesting people every day. It's a sweet gig, that includes a shower in the office!

But being CEO of The Walt Disney Company comes with its fair share of downsides. For one, it's incredibly labor intensive. You need to be on the move and make split-second decisions. You also have to prepare for and attend shareholder meetings and earnings calls. If you say the wrong thing, you can cause the share price to spiral. You also have to handle more mundane operational challenges and negotiations that might not be very stimulating. But like any job, you have to take the bad with the good.

Or do you?

Sometime in 2018 or 2019, Iger came up with a brilliant plan. In fact, it might have popped into his head years earlier, but for sure it crystalized in 2018 or 2019. Iger believed he could keep the benefits of being CEO while jettisoning the disadvantages. How? Simple, he would become the company's new Executive Chairman. As Executive Chairman, Iger would have control of the part of the business he loves. He would be able to hire creatives, greenlight projects, hang out at star-studded parties, and give feedback on Disney Parks rides. All the day to day minutia of being CEO would be out of his purview.

But there was just one thing he needed... A CEO candidate.

Iger needed someone to fill the CEO position who had shown a lack of interest in creative matters. He needed someone who had spent his life working diligently and competently in the shadows. Someone who would not create a new "cult of personality" surrounding himself. Why? Because they were both uninterested and just not charismatic enough to create one. Iger would still be the star and leader of the relationship. What he needed was a "little Bob" to take over the boring parts of being a CEO.

And Iger found his man in Bob Chapek.

Chapek seemed like the perfect choice. He would never upstage Iger. He had shown ambition in his life, but not enough to be threatening to Iger. Anyone who saw the two executives together knew who was the leader. It was perfect. Or so Iger thought...

Most individuals at Team Disney in Burbank worship the ground Iger walks on. His effectiveness at creating a cult of personalty at HQ was incredible. That's how you get lines like "Iger is the best thing to happen creatively to The Walt Disney Company since the days of Walt Disney" and Iger being a "creative North Star." He has a lock on most people in Burbank. Iger became used to this quasi-deification. In a way, he began to take it for granted. That made him blind to Chapek's ambitions.

Chapek's tenure at The Walt Disney Company can be characterized by patience. He slowly ascended the corporate ladder over a period of decades. While he seemed to be amongst the most loyal foot soldiers, he actually was an incredibly ambitious individual in his own right. What Iger perceived as weakness and malleability, was actually Chapek's disciplined patience. This is in no way an attempt to lionize the man who brought us such awful attractions as Pixar Pier. Instead, it is to give proper credit where credit is due. Chapek was not simply automaton that Iger could order around at will. Instead, he wanted control of the firm.

Iger's brilliant plan to eject the boring responsibilities of managing the company onto a hapless lackey, suddenly were thrown into chaos. Iger had been planning to stay on as Executive Chairman for at least two years. Personally, I suspect that he would have happily extended the contract over and over again. Why not? He had all the fun perks of the job and was being paid handsomely. But almost immediately, Chapek began to clash with Iger. Instead of happily receiving Iger's advice and directives, Chapek was interested in wresting away power from Iger's diminishing area of responsibility.

Iger suddenly found himself increasingly isolated, disrespected, and powerless. To make matters worse, he also started to lose the influence he so loves in Hollywood. People stopped meeting with him as frequently. It turns out that in order to have the perks of the CEO job, Iger needed to actually be the CEO after all.

At some point, he began to orchestrate a coup against Chapek with disgruntled executives at Disney. The executives would take their issues directly to the board, thus circumventing Chapek. The rudderless and hapless board panicked, and took the advice of the renegade executives. Iger would be back at work in a matter of a few days.

Will he leave this time? He has described the last few years as being some of the most difficult in his career. He might be legitimately burning out. But I think it's wise to question the 2026 date. Who knows? Maybe Iger will find the right CEO for him to "manage" as Executive Chairman this time...

Cool conspiracy, bro.

I love the parts that contradict known facts as published by journalists.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You know…these Peltz comments are pretty damning. You can’t have anyone who is a senior member of management or wants a board seat publicly declare that Disney is making material specifically to serve an agenda other than pure entertainment/revenue for the company

Disney CEO Bob Iger says company's movies have been too focused on messaging

Disney CEO Bob Iger acknowledged his company's movies have been too focused on messaging rather than strong storytelling.

www.cnbc.com

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Cool conspiracy, bro.

I love the parts that contradict known facts as published by journalists.

That's a little dismissive, isn't it?

I'm open to feedback and correction. Let me know specifically where you disagree. The ultimate deep dive into the succession fight has to be the CNBC article that covered the succession crisis. My post does make a few extrapolations based on the evidence, but I think it's a reasonable hypothesis based on the available information.

 

[MisterPenguin]

That's a little dismissive, isn't it?

I'm open to feedback and correction. Let me know specifically where you disagree. The ultimate deep dive into the succession fight has to be the CNBC article that covered the succession crisis. My post does make a few extrapolations based on the evidence, but I think it's a reasonable hypothesis based on the available information.

A hypothesis without any factual data to back it up ought to be dismissed. Especially when there's data from journalists to refute some of the suppositions being made.

If you don't know exactly what transpired when, there is absolutely no need to create a narrative about that which you do not know.

Publicly dismissing it is to make sure others who aren't in the know from thinking that that is what actually happened.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

A hypothesis without any factual data to back it up ought to be dismissed. Especially when there's data from journalists to refute some of the suppositions being made.

If you don't know exactly what transpired when, there is absolutely no need to create a narrative about that which you do not know.

Publicly dismissing it is to make sure others who aren't in the know from thinking that that is what actually happened.

But again, why not tell me what I got wrong? If there's some element of the story you feel is off, please let me know. If you disagree or have a different interpretation, I'm open to hearing your side of things. I understand that there can be multiple ways of understanding an issue. But just dismissing a (well researched!) post by labeling it a "conspiracy," does nothing to enhance the conversation.

 

[Disney Irish]

That's a little dismissive, isn't it?

I'm open to feedback and correction. Let me know specifically where you disagree. The ultimate deep dive into the succession fight has to be the CNBC article that covered the succession crisis. My post does make a few extrapolations based on the evidence, but I think it's a reasonable hypothesis based on the available information.

My main issue with the hypothesis in your post is .....

If Iger really just wanted move the day-to-day operational stuff to someone else and still be in charge for the "fun" stuff why not create the Chief Operating Officer position again and still remain the CEO? Set it up similar to the Eisner/Well partnership, someone to oversee the day-to-day business side of things and bounce ideas off of while Iger looked the bigger picture "fun" stuff.

It would have been a lot easier and a lot more believable then trying to do this whole I'm still in charge but not really in charge thing that you outlined in your post. Its why I don't believe in much of any of the palace intrigue stuff that gets thrown around a lot of times, its because reality is never that interesting.

In fact one would hope that the CEO/COO partnership is instituted again in the new succession plan.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Didn’t say that sort of nonsense explicitly but he said he’s no longer encouraging messaging over creativity and storytelling which if any poster dared to say here, they would be labeled anti-DEI, anti-LGBT, etc

But don’t you see? Saying things with more PR Polish is totally different

So sayeth our lord and saviour Bob

You know…we can not support Nelly putz and his 1960 issue comments…and still recognize there’s a bit of hypocrisy at work as well

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That's a little dismissive, isn't it?

I'm open to feedback and correction. Let me know specifically where you disagree. The ultimate deep dive into the succession fight has to be the CNBC article that covered the succession crisis. My post does make a few extrapolations based on the evidence, but I think it's a reasonable hypothesis based on the available information.

That account had been disputed/ignored a lot here

But it passes the common sense sniff test

It was easy for us at that time to hate Chapek unconditionally…myself included.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

My main issue with the hypothesis in your post is .....

If Iger really just wanted move the day-to-day operational stuff to someone else and still be in charge for the "fun" stuff why not create the Chief Operating Officer position again and still remain the CEO? Set it up similar to the Eisner/Well partnership, someone to oversee the day-to-day business side of things and bounce ideas off of while Iger looked the bigger picture "fun" stuff.

It would have been a lot easier and a lot more believable then trying to do this whole I'm still in charge but not really in charge thing that you outlined in your post. Its why I don't believe in much of any of the palace intrigue stuff that gets thrown around a lot of times, its because reality is never that interesting.

In fact one would hope that the CEO/COO partnership is instituted again in the new succession plan.

I respect this objection. There are a few things that vacating the role of CEO gets you that just hiring a COO doesn't. While it's true that COO can take on certain responsibilities, there are others that are just stuck with being CEO. Among them are the shareholder meetings, meeting with the financial press, answering quarterly earnings calls, etc. Iger had tried the COO thing with Staggs. While I'm sure it made his life somewhat easier, he never bothered to find another strong COO after that point.

The Executive Chairman position would provide Iger with the access he desired, without those accompanying responsibilities. I've described Iger as "the founder of the modern Walt Disney Company." What I mean by this is that Walt and Roy's Disney essentially got totally rebuilt from the inside out. Today, the definition of "Disney" is divorced from the past. When someone said "Disney" in the past, they were referring to a studio and parks business that made family-friendly content.

Now, "Disney" means something entirely different. It's a corporate conglomerate, not a unique entity with its own identity. "Disney" content includes A New Hope, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Aliens, the Simpsons, ABC News, Avengers Endgame, Poor Things, Shogun, Grey's Anatomy, and Sunday Night Football. If I described some of the violent and disturbing "Disney" content on this Disney message board, I would probably get banned for violating the terms of service. The definition of "Disney" has changed to mean... It's hard to say.


Eisner was instrumental in this transformation. But no one moved the needle more than Iger. With his five massive acquisitions (Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, Bamtech, Fox), he remade the company into a corporate conglomerate.

Iger loves The Walt Disney Company. Not Walt Disney's Disney, but Iger's Walt Disney Company. And like any founder, he wanted to remain a part of the company he essentially founded. An example of something similar occurring is how Jeff Bezos handled his retirement as CEO from Amazon. He remains Executive Chair, so he still has all the access he desires. He can still participate in corporate decisions. But he doesn't have to worry about the boring stuff. Bezos could have just kept Jassy on as a COO, but the distinct advantages of the "Executive Chair" role were too enticing. You get to define the position.

But ultimately, I understand taking a less speculative take.

That account had been disputed/ignored a lot here

But it passes the common sense sniff test

It was easy for us at that time to hate Chapek unconditionally…myself included.

People question that report? I'm not sure I realized that. I guess that explains where the animosity comes from. The details in that report were so specific, that I don't see how someone contests it. No one comes out looking good in that report (except one person who I suspect was the source!). Both Chapek and Iger ultimately appear to be immature leaders.

And who do I think was the source of that piece? Christine McCarthy... She's the hero who circumvented Chapek and went directly to the board and other investors. She's the one who set in motion the plot to bring Iger back. However, she subsequently was betrayed by Iger, and decided to dish out all the things she knows. She might have been vying for the CEO job, and was irritated by Iger's extension. Then she started dishing out all of the secrets.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

People question that report? I'm not sure I realized that. I guess that explains where the animosity comes from. The details in that report were so specific, that I don't see how someone contests it. No one comes out looking good in that report (except one person who I suspect was the source!). Both Chapek and Iger ultimately appear to be immature leaders.

And who do I think was the source of that piece? Christine McCarthy... She's the hero who circumvented Chapek and went directly to the board and other investors. She's the one who set in motion the plot to bring Iger back. However, she subsequently was betrayed by Iger, and decided to dish out all the things she knows. She might have been vying for the CEO job, and was irritated by Iger's extension. Then she started dishing out all of the secrets.

I would say ignored…more than questioned

The Swiss guard just wanted to believe Bob…who is about 90% responsible for the problems…was gonna make it better

He has not…jumping through Wall Street hoops…nothing at all has gotten better for fans

They look more aloof than ever

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Nothing like claiming people ignore things while ignoring what they actually say. True depth and nuance.

It’s a skill…like hinting to be “in the know” while not having any depth of knowledge to back it up.

…and some people can play battle hymn of the republic on their armpits

 

[TalkingHead]

I respect this objection. There are a few things that vacating the role of CEO gets you that just hiring a COO doesn't. While it's true that COO can take on certain responsibilities, there are others that are just stuck with being CEO. Among them are the shareholder meetings, meeting with the financial press, answering quarterly earnings calls, etc. Iger had tried the COO thing with Staggs. While I'm sure it made his life somewhat easier, he never bothered to find another strong COO after that point.

The Executive Chairman position would provide Iger with the access he desired, without those accompanying responsibilities. I've described Iger as "the founder of the modern Walt Disney Company." What I mean by this is that Walt and Roy's Disney essentially got totally rebuilt from the inside out. Today, the definition of "Disney" is divorced from the past. When someone said "Disney" in the past, they were referring to a studio and parks business that made family-friendly content.

Now, "Disney" means something entirely different. It's a corporate conglomerate, not a unique entity with its own identity. "Disney" content includes A New Hope, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Aliens, the Simpsons, ABC News, Avengers Endgame, Poor Things, Shogun, Grey's Anatomy, and Sunday Night Football. If I described some of the violent and disturbing "Disney" content on this Disney message board, I would probably get banned for violating the terms of service. The definition of "Disney" has changed to mean... It's hard to say.


Eisner was instrumental in this transformation. But no one moved the needle more than Iger. With his five massive acquisitions (Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, Bamtech, Fox), he remade the company into a corporate conglomerate.

Iger loves The Walt Disney Company. Not Walt Disney's Disney, but Iger's Walt Disney Company. And like any founder, he wanted to remain a part of the company he essentially founded. An example of something similar occurring is how Jeff Bezos handled his retirement as CEO from Amazon. He remains Executive Chair, so he still has all the access he desires. He can still participate in corporate decisions. But he doesn't have to worry about the boring stuff. Bezos could have just kept Jassy on as a COO, but the distinct advantages of the "Executive Chair" role were too enticing. You get to define the position.

But ultimately, I understand taking a less speculative take.

People question that report? I'm not sure I realized that. I guess that explains where the animosity comes from. The details in that report were so specific, that I don't see how someone contests it. No one comes out looking good in that report (except one person who I suspect was the source!). Both Chapek and Iger ultimately appear to be immature leaders.

And who do I think was the source of that piece? Christine McCarthy... She's the hero who circumvented Chapek and went directly to the board and other investors. She's the one who set in motion the plot to bring Iger back. However, she subsequently was betrayed by Iger, and decided to dish out all the things she knows. She might have been vying for the CEO job, and was irritated by Iger's extension. Then she started dishing out all of the secrets.

IMO Eisner is the start of modern Disney by that definition. Miramax, Hollywood Records, ABC, Lucasfilm deals for the park attractions, even the Pixar distribution deal — all of those confused the issue of what Disney represented. The Marvel purchase is the biggest differentiator in Iger’s era because it fundamentally altered Disney’s foothold in pop culture. Think it could be argued it’s the main yardstick by which the company’s entertainment output is judged.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

IMO Eisner is the start of modern Disney by that definition. Miramax, Hollywood Records, ABC, Lucasfilm deals for the park attractions, even the Pixar distribution deal — all of those confused the issue of what Disney represented. The Marvel purchase is the biggest differentiator in Iger’s era because it fundamentally altered Disney’s foothold in pop culture. Think it could be argued it’s the main yardstick by which the company’s entertainment output is judged.

A totally fair take. You'd argue that while Iger took it new heights, the ball got rolling thanks to Eisner. That's completely reasonable.

 

[Disney Irish]

I respect this objection. There are a few things that vacating the role of CEO gets you that just hiring a COO doesn't. While it's true that COO can take on certain responsibilities, there are others that are just stuck with being CEO. Among them are the shareholder meetings, meeting with the financial press, answering quarterly earnings calls, etc. Iger had tried the COO thing with Staggs. While I'm sure it made his life somewhat easier, he never bothered to find another strong COO after that point.

The Executive Chairman position would provide Iger with the access he desired, without those accompanying responsibilities. I've described Iger as "the founder of the modern Walt Disney Company." What I mean by this is that Walt and Roy's Disney essentially got totally rebuilt from the inside out. Today, the definition of "Disney" is divorced from the past. When someone said "Disney" in the past, they were referring to a studio and parks business that made family-friendly content.

Now, "Disney" means something entirely different. It's a corporate conglomerate, not a unique entity with its own identity. "Disney" content includes A New Hope, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Aliens, the Simpsons, ABC News, Avengers Endgame, Poor Things, Shogun, Grey's Anatomy, and Sunday Night Football. If I described some of the violent and disturbing "Disney" content on this Disney message board, I would probably get banned for violating the terms of service. The definition of "Disney" has changed to mean... It's hard to say.


Eisner was instrumental in this transformation. But no one moved the needle more than Iger. With his five massive acquisitions (Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, Bamtech, Fox), he remade the company into a corporate conglomerate.

Iger loves The Walt Disney Company. Not Walt Disney's Disney, but Iger's Walt Disney Company. And like any founder, he wanted to remain a part of the company he essentially founded. An example of something similar occurring is how Jeff Bezos handled his retirement as CEO from Amazon. He remains Executive Chair, so he still has all the access he desires. He can still participate in corporate decisions. But he doesn't have to worry about the boring stuff. Bezos could have just kept Jassy on as a COO, but the distinct advantages of the "Executive Chair" role were too enticing. You get to define the position.

But ultimately, I understand taking a less speculative take.

People question that report? I'm not sure I realized that. I guess that explains where the animosity comes from. The details in that report were so specific, that I don't see how someone contests it. No one comes out looking good in that report (except one person who I suspect was the source!). Both Chapek and Iger ultimately appear to be immature leaders.

And who do I think was the source of that piece? Christine McCarthy... She's the hero who circumvented Chapek and went directly to the board and other investors. She's the one who set in motion the plot to bring Iger back. However, she subsequently was betrayed by Iger, and decided to dish out all the things she knows. She might have been vying for the CEO job, and was irritated by Iger's extension. Then she started dishing out all of the secrets.

Except there has been no indication that Iger doesn't like doing things like the earnings calls or interviews as CEO, in fact that is his time to shine. So again this idea that he wanted to pass that stuff to someone else but still be in charge of only the "fun" stuff doesn't jive with what we know about Iger. He likes the public aspects of the job, we know this. Its the daily operations stuff that I can buy he doesn't want to handle, and that can be pawned off to a COO rather than vacating the CEO position.

So this theory of yours is all predicated on that fact that Iger wanted to keep this role without the responsibility, and again that doesn't jive with everything that happened.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Except there has been no indication that Iger doesn't like doing things like the earnings calls or interviews as CEO, in fact that is his time to shine. So again this idea that he wanted to pass that stuff to someone else but still be in charge of only the "fun" stuff doesn't jive with what we know about Iger. He likes the public aspects of the job, we know this. Its the daily operations stuff that I can buy he doesn't want to handle, and that can be pawned off to a COO rather than vacating the CEO position.

So this theory of yours is all predicated on that fact that Iger wanted to keep this role without the responsibility, and again that doesn't jive with everything that happened.

One of the weird things about Iger stepping down was him staying involved in creative decisions. His cultivated image up until then had largely been as someone who delegated to creatives.

 

[Disney Irish]

One of the weird things about Iger stepping down was him staying involved in creative decisions. His cultivated image up until then had largely been as someone who delegated to creatives.

Agree, but I don't know how really involved he was in that aspect. Was he really sitting there storyboarding or making design decisions on stuff? I really sort of doubt it, but I guess its possible.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I understood his role of Creative Lead was to be an interface to Hollywood, Disney movie studios, and D+ creatives. An area that Chapek had little experience. It was supposed to be Iger's mentoring of Chapek in those areas.

And then Chapek picks a fight with Scarlett Johansson.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

One of the weird things about Iger stepping down was him staying involved in creative decisions. His cultivated image up until then had largely been as someone who delegated to creatives.

And I think that was something that he began to acknowledge was a problem - his lack of creativity - something Eisner took issue with back in the day. I think that's what spurred his highly-touted involvement in the launch of The Mandalorian, for example.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Except there has been no indication that Iger doesn't like doing things like the earnings calls or interviews as CEO, in fact that is his time to shine. So again this idea that he wanted to pass that stuff to someone else but still be in charge of only the "fun" stuff doesn't jive with what we know about Iger. He likes the public aspects of the job, we know this. Its the daily operations stuff that I can buy he doesn't want to handle, and that can be pawned off to a COO rather than vacating the CEO position.

So this theory of yours is all predicated on that fact that Iger wanted to keep this role without the responsibility, and again that doesn't jive with everything that happened.

I agree that the PR stuff was where Iger shined the brightest, he was a great face for the company and is a real wordsmith, his PR skills are how he could minimize any negative outcomes and also oppose controversial legislation and not create backlash like Chapek did.

I also think he loves being in the spotlight, I think that’s the primary reason he extended his contract so many times and why he couldn’t completely step away even when he finally gave up the CEO position, power and the sense of importance is intoxicating, he’s got more money than he could ever spend so he’s not there for the paycheck, I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance he’ll step down in 2 years but even then I won’t be surprised if he keeps his “shower” because he loves feeling needed.