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

[TalkingHead]

Apropos any discussion of Iger’s franchise management, what’s the next SW feature going to be and when’s it being released? Or does that not matter because SW, the most lucrative brand in movie history, has become a teaser for subscribing to Disney’s streaming service?

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Apropos any discussion of Iger’s franchise management, what’s the next SW feature going to be and when’s it being released? Or does that not matter because SW, the most lucrative brand in movie history, has become a teaser for subscribing to Disney’s streaming service?

I think it's going to be the Mandalorian film. That's going to be interesting to watch. If they had released it in 2022, I bet it would have been a hit. But Season 3 was a little bit wonky. Hopefully they haven't snuffed out the fan passion.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

And if I’m an investor right now (which I am by the way), I’m really liking the direction of the company without Peltz sitting in the boardroom. Things are looking much, much better than a year ago. The stock just hit a 52 week high. 77% of analysts have a buy rating on the stock. The company just got a bunch of price target increases.

And I think the market is expecting Peltz to lose.

The million dollar question is whether the stock rose because of Iger or because Iger was doing what Peltz wanted in an attempt to fight off a proxy battle?

The second million dollar question is whether the stock is rising because people think Peltz is going to lose or if it’s going up because they think he’s going to win? Or people don’t care whether he wins or loses because the company appears to be back on track financially?

It could be Iger had always planned on making the changes he did (cutting costs, reimplementing a dividend, announcing stock buybacks, etc) but the timing with the proxy war creates questions as to who/what “caused” the turnaround.

 

[el_super]

They really did fail on this issue. Completely and totally. It's fair for someone to think Peltz is not necessary because the board learned its lesson, but it's also equally reasonable to think that the board is inadequate.

So if Disney announces Dana Walden as the next CEO the crisis would be over tomorrow? Would ISS change their guidance?

I still don't think it's credible to question the validity of the source

Who was the source? We don't know. That's the point.

 

[Casper Gutman]

They don’t want to pay $50 a month for it and watch Palmolive ads…

That’s why old cable guy can’t find the answers

What are the answers?

Because I suspect the “answer” looks a lot like… theatrical releases and cable on streaming (packaged channels and ads).

I ask everyone again - what is this vague “future” Iger doesn’t get? Give us something more than angry platitudes.

 

[el_super]

It could be Iger had always planned on making the changes he did (cutting costs, reimplementing a dividend, announcing stock buybacks, etc) but the timing with the proxy war creates questions as to who/what “caused” the turnaround.

It could be. It could very well be that pressure from Peltz is causing Iger to change direction.

But even the, Iger showing the ability to change course based on feedback and recommendations from others is a strong win for him being the best leader of the company. No one, not even Peltz, was recommending removing him, and even his harshest critics are saying they want to ensure the company is run in the Iger fashion after he does eventually leave. That's important.

 

[Slpy3270]

Even Roy, when he ran SaveDisney and had a LOT of support and media attention, got about 40% of the vote. Peltz has run about half the campaign Roy has. The company is doing a lot better now than it was under Eisner at the time.

* Eisner ended up leaving anyway.
* Disney fandom, and society, is a lot more polarized now than it was back then. It's impossible for one side to get overwhelming support anymore.
* The future is much more uncertain now than back then, because even with all the bombs under Eisner theatrical and TV were still in a healthy position. Not anymore. (TV accounts for a third of Disney’s profits. A non-core business it is not.)

 

[Stripes]

It could be Iger had always planned on making the changes he did (cutting costs, reimplementing a dividend, announcing stock buybacks, etc) but the timing with the proxy war creates questions as to who/what “caused” the turnaround.

The company needed changes. Those changes were obvious. And Iger got to work on them as soon as he came back. In his first earnings call when he came back he laid down the priorities for the company and those priorities haven’t budged one inch.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Apropos any discussion of Iger’s franchise management, what’s the next SW feature going to be and when’s it being released? Or does that not matter because SW, the most lucrative brand in movie history, has become a teaser for subscribing to Disney’s streaming service?

Is this really something we want the board to be handling? A big part of the problem was Iger setting release dates first and then demanding content.

 

[Jrb1979]

But then you admit that Netflix isn't having a problem? You're just applying a bias here toward what "Hollywood" and "Content" encompasses. Even Disney has had some amazing successes in the streaming space lately: Shogun, Only Murders in the Building, The Bear.

People still want to be entertained.

Netflix has a problem too, cause they have been around the longest it's helped them.

Sure their is some hits here and there. If the content was so great, none of these streaming services would have the problems they are having when it comes to profit.

 

[Slpy3270]

The company needed changes. Those changes were obvious. And Iger got to work on them as soon as he came back. In his first earnings call when he came back he laid down the priorities for the company and those priorities haven’t budged one inch.

The problem is that he's not implementing those changes fast enough. They want him to do more. A lot more. That's why the stock traded so poorly in 2023, and might happen again if he doesn't act.

Remember when McCarthy lost her CFO job because she pushed for more layoffs and consolidation? That's exactly what investors want more of, no matter how much it destroys the creative culture.

 

[flynnibus]

I've been told repeatedly that Peltz can't do anything with one seat so what exactly is he going to do?

Seems to me that either investors are the biggest morons to ever walk the face of the planet or a seat on a company’s board is more influential and important than some folks here want to admit.

It's not what he can do on the board with one seat - but what he can do as an individual inside the board room.

Big difference.

He can't stop the ship - but he can make the world see the ship completely differently.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What are the answers?

Because I suspect the “answer” looks a lot like… theatrical releases and cable on streaming (packaged channels and ads).

I ask everyone again - what is this vague “future” Iger doesn’t get? Give us something more than angry platitudes.

…how to make money off it

 

[britain]

Yes, getting one seat on the board is just a few chess moves away from saying, “You won’t believe how awful this board is! I have seen it on the inside! Throw them out and make me CEO!”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think it's going to be the Mandalorian film. That's going to be interesting to watch. If they had released it in 2022, I bet it would have been a hit. But Season 3 was a little bit wonky. Hopefully they haven't snuffed out the fan passion.

It appears they jumped the shark

Time will tell

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's not what he can do on the board with one seat - but what he can do as an individual inside the board room.

Big difference.

He can't stop the ship - but he can make the world see the ship completely differently.

The ship looks like the carnival sunsation - as it stands - from the outside

 

[Dranth]

It's not what he can do on the board with one seat - but what he can do as an individual inside the board room.

Big difference.

He can't stop the ship - but he can make the world see the ship completely differently.

Yep, and that is the best case. If he gets any traction moving forward then it becomes a bigger problem, at least based on what he has said he wants to do so far.

It's exactly why I am so puzzled by all the people who are all for this. It would be one thing if the man had an honest interest in the company and some interesting ideas. Something, anything useful to bring to the table. He doesn't.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, getting one seat on the board is just a few chess moves away from saying, “You won’t believe how awful this board is! I have seen it on the inside! Throw them out and make me CEO!”

or leaking things to the press to push your agenda... or leaking things to boost or hurt others...
or generally make a fuss by refusing to align votes causing external perception issues...

There is a reason you don't hear from most board members - and why it's a problem when you got one who is beligerent towards the rest of them.

 

[el_super]

* Eisner ended up leaving anyway.

Eventually yes.

* Disney fandom, and society, is a lot more polarized now than it was back then. It's impossible for one side to get overwhelming support anymore.

Iger got 96% of the vote just last year.

* The future is much more uncertain now than back then, because even with all the bombs under Eisner theatrical and TV were still in a healthy position. Not anymore. (TV accounts for a third of Disney’s profits. A non-core business it is not.)

I disagree. Eisner really started to feel pressure from investors when he continually refused to sell off the company to AOL or Comcast. Consolidation was all the rage back in the late 1990s and the existence of the company as a whole was at stake back then.

Doesn't feel like we are quite there yet. Depending on who in this thread you want to believe, it seems we're just having an argument over which movies get made...

 

[el_super]

If the content was so great, none of these streaming services would have the problems they are having when it comes to profit.

What problem? That Disney+ is going to hit the projected profitability target of 2024? Is that a problem?