Unsure who to vote for regarding the Walt Disney Co. Board

[mikejs78]

Oh no! Peltz will run The Walt Disney Company in an attempt to maximize short-term margins! Oh no! Peltz will shirk on investing in the parks in order to maximize shareholder value! Oh no! Peltz will lean into synergy in the parks and not build original rides! Oh no! Peltz will only release remakes and franchise films!

Peltz is "exponentially worse?" Do tell, what exactly is he going to do to the parks that have not already been done? Run them like they're going out of business? Oh wait, that was Iger. Destroy beloved attractions because they're too cheap to maintain them? Oh wait, that was Iger too. Release dumb software that complicates the experience? Wait, that was Iger and his protege Chapek. Convert hotel inventory into Disney Vacation Club points for short-term profit boosts? Iger again. Maybe Peltz will sell existing parts of the guest experience, like FastPass, for additional cost? No, they're already doing that.

I'm struggling to imagine how two board seats will destroy the company and bring it to its knees. Enlighten me, how are two board members going to immeasurably damage the company? Peltz is a way of getting under Iger's skin and potentially speeding up the spinoff of ABC/ESPN. All good things in my book. Not bringing Peltz onto the board will result in more Iger management skills.

I still love Iger's big epiphany after 25 years in executive leadership that expanding capacity is good way to deal with crowds at the parks. That's what Disney pays him the big bucks for!

Ok, let's talk about how things could get worse when your starting point is to increase operating income as opposed to growing the business. Some things that would support that goal are:

* Drop the MK parade
* Cut all entertainment
* Restrict any new attractions to *only* ILL, in an effort to promote ROI and increase operating income
* Make it so that to be in the hub during fireworks requires an upcharge
* Shutter all attractions that don't directly generate income or often don't reach capacity, such as Carousel of Progress, PeopleMover, Treehouse, Living with the Land
* Drastically cut back on landscaping. Keep things clean, but nothing beyond that.

I could go on....

wield influence if Peltz and Rasulo are successful, but at the end of the day, he would not be on the board and would remain out of reach of the levers of power.

Because he controls the stock. Without the stock, Peltz's position weakens substantially. Perlmutter will have incredible influence.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I know you're being facetious, and yes I did know about that. What I'm less certain about (and what I was broaching in my original post) is why conservatives latched onto Peltz. He's not exactly anyone's idea of a conservative hero. All signs point to him having roughly the same political outlook as Iger. It is curious.

I've been an anti-Iger guy for about a decade. Well before Iger and Disney came to be embroiled in the culture war. Iger's issues started many years ago. Bashing Iger on these boards was a favorite pastime all throughout the 2010s (as you know). There's a contingent of people who just really don't like Iger. No politics required.

Be specific. How could it get worse? Could they leave areas of the world's most-attended theme park vacant while the park overcrowds? Oh wait, that's been done. Maybe they outsource IT? No, that's been done. Maybe they cut back on air conditioning? Done. They could leave audioanimtronic figures broken and lifeless... Done. They could chop down huge swaths of forests to build new freeway ramps and solar panels. Done. Maybe they could eliminate beloved musicians and entertainment that had been around for decades? Done. Perhaps they would replace audio animatronics with screens and projections. Done. What if they cancelled a night time parade at Magic Kingdom? Done. Or maybe they could start leaving burnt out lights on the outsides of buildings. Done.

And on and on.

So, what you're saying is that I could expect franchise films and remakes regardless of who is in leadership? Then why does it matter if Iger is the one pulling the trigger on Toy Story 22? He's expendable.

You really, honestly think that the parks are the worst they could be right now? You believe that?

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. No executive at the company would send a call from a board member to voicemail (and not call them back), and each of them has the opportunity to convince their fellow directors of their positions.

It's true: Iger won't be going anywhere even if Peltz and Rasulo are on the board. There are too many Iger loyalists on the board. That doesn't mean they can't help sway them in the right direction when it comes to big picture items like creative strategy, experiences investments, etc.

Anything they'd want to do, they would have to convince several of their fellow directors to lend their support. Things like getting rid of Iger or DEI are non-starters for the board.

So you just routinely support ineffective strategies?

 

[Brian]

So you just routinely support ineffective strategies?

By your logic, why bother having a board? Just have one chairman who gets to call all the shots. While we're at it, let's get rid of Congress and just let the POTUS make all the decisions.

The obvious answer is that having people of varying perspectives and experiences in the business world in the boardroom leads to a more effective board. A boardroom full of Iger yesmen is one of the many reasons the company ended up in the doldrums.

 

[mikejs78]

they can't help sway them in the right direction when it comes to big picture items like creative strategy, experiences investments, etc

They can also help sway them in the wrong direction, which is far more likely given their track record and Peltz's stated goals.

 

[Brian]

They can also help sway them in the wrong direction, which is far more likely given their track record and Peltz's stated goals.

Making money for the shareholders is the wrong direction?

 

[lazyboy97o]

By your logic, why bother having a board? Just have one chairman who gets to call all the shots. While we're at it, let's get rid of Congress and just let the POTUS make all the decisions.

The obvious answer is that having people of varying perspectives and experiences in the business world in the boardroom leads to a more effective board. A boardroom full of Iger yesmen is one of the many reasons the company ended up in the doldrums.

Where did I say anything close to not having a board?

You’re not advocating for different perspectives. That’s what you keep missing. You’re assuming there are differences for reasons not based on evidence but your blind hopes. And even if they were actually advocating for positive, meaningful different, you keep telling us it doesn’t matter and that they will be ineffective. But now they might be persuasive. You’re talking out both sides of your mouth.

Making money for the shareholders is the wrong direction?

There are multiple ways to make money for shareholders. Building timeshares instead of attractions would make money for the shareholders in a faster, more direct manner.

 

[peter11435]

That doesn't mean they can't help sway them in the right direction when it comes to big picture items like creative strategy, experiences investments, etc.

Except we have every reason to believe that they will attempt to sway things in the wrong direction.

 

[Brian]

Where did I say anything close to not having a board?

You’re not advocating for different perspectives. That’s what you keep missing. You’re assuming there are differences for reasons not based on evidence but your blind hopes. And even if they were actually advocating for positive, meaningful different, you keep telling us it doesn’t matter and that they will be ineffective.

Forgive me if I'm misstating your position, but if I understand correctly, you believe that Peltz and Rasulo would strip investment from the parks. You're claiming here that they would bring no different perspective, but the incumbent board is in favor of continued and increased investment. Maybe you can help me understand your above point a bit better.

There are multiple ways to make money for shareholders. Building timeshares instead of attractions would make money for the shareholders.

This is true.

Except we have every reason to believe that they will attempt to sway things in the wrong direction.

They could use some fresh perspective when it comes to creative direction, given the string of frankly embarrassing box office flops the last few years.

 

[peter11435]

They could use some fresh perspective when it comes to creative direction, given the string of frankly embarrassing box office flops the last few years.

Of course we are also talking about the same board and executive team that oversaw multiple years of box office records, both for individual films and by studio.

 

[Brian]

Of course we are also talking about the same board and executive team that oversaw multiple years of box office records, both for individual films and by studio.

What would you attribute the shift to then?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It’s almost like you have no experience in corporate America which is weird because I know you do.

I never question the “old boys club”…when it’s being run WELL.

This is more like the “clueless techie club”

 

[Casper Gutman]

They could use some fresh perspective when it comes to creative direction, given the string of frankly embarrassing box office flops the last few years.

Setting aside Disney's many, many years of wild, unprecedented box office success and ignoring the seismic shifts that have brought the ENTIRE entertainment industry to its knees, what "fresh perspective" can we expect Peltz and company to bring? I'm pretty familiar with Perlmutter's ideas of artistic direction - are we excited for more hits like Inhumans? How about aggressive attempts to undermine the most successful film franchise in Hollywood history out of jealousy? Are we looking forward to artistic decisions based on petty spite, like the cancellation of Fantastic Four and attempts to minimize X-Men? Can we expect bold new directions in filmmaking from the guy who thought movies starring women and Black people were too adventurous? We can certainly be sure we won't get any more bombs like Black Panther.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Of course we are also talking about the same board and executive team that oversaw multiple years of box office records, both for individual films and by studio.

Any of that going on now?

Has there been a worse year - objectively - for the TWDC like 2023? It will be hard to find

How long has sweater boy been there? Does he “need more time”?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Forgive me if I'm misstating your position, but if I understand correctly, you believe that Peltz and Rasulo would strip investment from the parks. You're claiming here that they would bring no different perspective. Maybe you can help me understand your above point a bit better.

They would not be bringing in anything related to focusing on storytelling and creativity. It would just be more of a focus on “business” and short term results. That’s not actually new or different. It’s very much the problem and doing more isn’t going to somehow magically inspire something completely different. They want to dig into a Chapek position, while there is some small bit of openness to change right now.

They could use some fresh perspective when it comes to creative direction, given the string of frankly embarrassing box office flops the last few years.

Yeah, they definitely won’t listen to the guy who they need for support.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Years of success does not forgive the absolute mismanagement going on now.

They have 5 canned sequels…a stream with really nothing being produced to keep its head above waterline…and NOTHING being done in parks that speak languages based on the western alphabet.

And there is ZERO relief in sight. They’ve got nothing. They’re bombing marvels and Pixars and animated.

This is fantasyland. Tap your band to see if your ILL will get you in

 

[Casper Gutman]

What would you attribute the shift to then?

A complete and total change in theater-going habits? An unpredictable international market contorted by war and financial difficulties? The rise of streaming and ensuing Wall Street mania? The most significant changes to hit the entertainment industry since the late 1940s? An environment that has every studio in Hollywood reeling?

Nah, let's just burn everything down based on one disappointing year. ONE.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

They would not be bringing in anything related to focusing on storytelling and creativity. It would just be more of a focus on “business” and short term results. That’s not actually new or different. It’s very much the problem and doing more isn’t going to somehow magically inspire something completely different. They want to dig into a Chapek position, while there is some small bit of openness to change right now.

The current management isn’t going that either. Sequels might as well be on vhs…it’s the same cheap move.

I saw the promo for Star Wars Acolyte…so I did some research on the showrunner…

W
T
A
F
???

Is this a joke?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A complete and total change in theater-going habits? An unpredictable international market contorted by war and financial difficulties? The rise of streaming and ensuing Wall Street mania? The most significant changes to hit the entertainment industry since the late 1940s? An environment that has every studio in Hollywood reeling?

Nah, let's just burn everything down based on one disappointing year. ONE.

Different thread…same schtick

It’s NOT the theater’s fault for 10 flops in a year. It’s terrible content. We have seen several movies make $1-$2 billion in the last two years if they have pull. That’s not a conspiracy against Disney. They just are making crap.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The current management isn’t going that either. Sequels might as well be on vhs…it’s the same cheap move.

I saw the promo for Star Wars Acolyte…so I did some research on the showrunner…

W
T
A
F
???

Is this a joke?

The showrunner who created the wildly critically acclaimed show Russian Doll?

Also... what promo for Acolyte? I'm fairly sure there hasn't been one...