Why dislike for Iger?

[UncleMike101]

Let me tell you a secret...

Come here...

No, closer...

Walt wanted all of your money, too. His greatest marketing trick is convincing you that he didn't. He didn't build Disneyland because he was a sooper kewl dewd, he built Disneyland because he knew families would pay to visit it. "There should be something built, some kid of an amusement enterprise built where the parents and the children could have fun together."

Thanks for the insider information......
And.
Walt put a huge amount of his profits back into the parks.
He used Disneyland income to finance the WDW project and a large amount of that money was his personal resources.

Hey Mike,

I actually meant that as a more general statement. More like "when people go to Europe". Now I do think I'm firmly middle class, salary doesn't really tell the entire story. Salaries in the North east tend to be higher mainly because the cost of living is ridiculously higher.

I think my point is, that for most people vacations at all are huge financial investments. Yes I'm going to Greece this year, you know how long I've been saving for this trip for 5, count 'em five years? 5 years of over time, bringing my own lunch to work etc etc. Just like normal working adults. I totally admit that the dvc makes the trips less costly but again, we did not roll out of bed and say "hey let's purchase a dvc". we saved.

Also folks financial picture tend to have highs and lows. I'm probably a bit older than you, when my kids were very young and I was a stay at home mom, no we were not going on week long vacations. lol a vacation for us was pretty much going to the Jersey shore for a day trip. I've said before, we've cancelled trips very recently because real life kicked us in the teeth. can someone say "new roof".

Now I don't know anyone who charges their vacations, as in going into debt but I do know WDW has ALWAYS been expensive. My dad was a NYC police officer and my mother was an attorney. We could only afford 1 trip and we drove and combined it with seeing relatives in the south. why? because they were firmly middle class with kids.

My kids are recent college grads, they have the same stuff as other college grads. student loans and first apartment bills. Nope they aren't going to the world unless it's a trip I help them with but hopefully we've instilled in them the belief that you save for a goal.

Sorry I disagree with this perception that everybody in the 70's was able to afford a Disney vacation. People do the same thing they do now as they did in the 70's. They save. It's called priorities.

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree since my personal experiences are as I stated them.
BTW.
I'll play.
I'm 68.
And you??

lol, I really think people believe Walt was Mother Theresa in drag. guess what, if you didn't have the money, you sure as heck did not get in free.

How did Walt "care" about his guest? did he give out free passes? was the food free? because when we went we sure as heck could not afford to stay onsite. lol even though there was only 2, we couldn't stay at either one.

He cared by making sure that each guest had the best experience possible while in his park.
A simple thing like determining how far apart the trash cans need to be made a big difference in how much trash ended up on the streets and sidewalks and therefore made for a cleaner environment within his park.
He realized that by having a place where guests would want to return frequently he could keep financing bigger and better attractions and ultimately WDW.
He was no saint, but he was a consummate visionary and dreamer.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Thanks for the insider information......
And.
Walt put a huge amount of his profits back into the parks.
He used Disneyland income to finance the WDW project and a large amount of that money was his personal resources.


Well then we'll have to agree to disagree since my personal experiences are as I stated them.
BTW.
I'll play.
I'm 68.
And you??

He cared by making sure that each guest had the best experience possible while in his park.
A simple thing like determining how far apart the trash cans need to be made a big difference in how much trash ended up on the streets and sidewalks and therefore made for a cleaner environment within his park.
He realized that by having a place where guests would want to return frequently he could keep financing bigger and better attractions and ultimately WDW.
He was no saint, but he was a consummate visionary and dreamer.

And we definitely need those people. No one is arguing that he was a creative genius at all, but visionary and dreamers does not equate to accessibility for everyone. A modern day visionary would be Steve Jobs, Apple is not even pretending to be affordable for everyone. you either pay the ridiculous price for their product ( in whatever fashion) or you don't. you want an Iphone X?? no they don't have to make it "affordable" to the "average" american. ironically about 30 million people got them. go figure.

So I do agree with the above but again, those guest who had the best experience had to PAY, they were not getting in free. and even back in the 70's there were plenty of folks who had to miss it.

I just challenge this myth that people use to just woke up in the morning and said, "hey let's go to Disney for vacation" and leave the next day People "planned", they save. the folks in the parks today are not uber rich, they are not even "nearly" rich. they are folks who make the decision to go to Disney and then set it as a priority and do it.

And someone must have had some business savvy, they went public in 57 (on the ny stock)


It's all good, I've got a feeling that folks will keep finding ways to get to the world.
59 here.

 

[JustAFan]

I don't want to go a defend Iger too much, but I think there's quite a bit of ... bologna ... being thrown around here. I get the hate for the guy and I guess if there's anything wrong with Disney, you just go straight to the top. With that said, I seriously doubt Iger had anything to do with putting the yeti in disco mode and some of the other things he's blamed for here.

 

[Astro_Digital]

Is Iger the side kick is Frankenstein ?
He is ok, Iger ..... come here Iger..... He Lives .....

 

[danheaton]

I'm of two minds when it comes to Iger. In one sense, he's a brilliant leader that has grown the Disney company in bold ways that others might not have anticipated. Bringing Star Wars and Marvel into the mix at what turned out to be bargain prices was incredible. And Disney Plus has the potential to change the landscape significantly.

Where I'm less excited has been with his decisions surrounding the parks. To Iger, they're all part of one grand strategy for growing the brand. There have been good moves like letting the Imagineers get creative with Pandora and with the Skyliner to help address transportation issues. But plenty of other choices have been short-sighted and often too slow to adjust to the marketplace. The parks should be the draw on their own right and handled as such. It took Universal's success with Harry Potter to really push Disney to invest in the parks and create their best work.

 

[justintheharris]

Let me tell you a secret...

Come here...

No, closer...

Walt wanted all of your money, too. His greatest marketing trick is convincing you that he didn't. He didn't build Disneyland because he was a sooper kewl dewd, he built Disneyland because he knew families would pay to visit it. "There should be something built, some kid of an amusement enterprise built where the parents and the children could have fun together."

Exactly. Walt cared about his guests in the sense that they got a quality product. But that was because he knew people would always come back knowing they would get a top quality product.

 

[draybook]

Because he's a poopy head. There, I think I've sealed this debate.

 

[Tanna Eros]

And we definitely need those people. No one is arguing that he was a creative genius at all, but visionary and dreamers does not equate to accessibility for everyone. A modern day visionary would be Steve Jobs, Apple is not even pretending to be affordable for everyone. you either pay the ridiculous price for their product ( in whatever fashion) or you don't. you want an Iphone X?? no they don't have to make it "affordable" to the "average" american. ironically about 30 million people got them. go figure.

So I do agree with the above but again, those guest who had the best experience had to PAY, they were not getting in free. and even back in the 70's there were plenty of folks who had to miss it.

I just challenge this myth that people use to just woke up in the morning and said, "hey let's go to Disney for vacation" and leave the next day People "planned", they save. the folks in the parks today are not uber rich, they are not even "nearly" rich. they are folks who make the decision to go to Disney and then set it as a priority and do it.

And someone must have had some business savvy, they went public in 57 (on the ny stock)


It's all good, I've got a feeling that folks will keep finding ways to get to the world.
59 here.

Mine, I know, was not the only family to get gifted vacations from the park. Some got in free, but more like a tip or lagniappe for work well done. I didn't realize it was so inexpensive then, but thinking back, my souvenir money stash was only ten dollars, and I did quite well.
We could afford to by the coffee cups that we forgot to pack in the park. I've still got mine, with Mickey and Minnie dressed in gay '90's attire.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm of two minds when it comes to Iger. In one sense, he's a brilliant leader that has grown the Disney company in bold ways that others might not have anticipated. Bringing Star Wars and Marvel into the mix at what turned out to be bargain prices was incredible. And Disney Plus has the potential to change the landscape significantly.

Where I'm less excited has been with his decisions surrounding the parks. To Iger, they're all part of one grand strategy for growing the brand. There have been good moves like letting the Imagineers get creative with Pandora and with the Skyliner to help address transportation issues. But plenty of other choices have been short-sighted and often too slow to adjust to the marketplace. The parks should be the draw on their own right and handled as such. It took Universal's success with Harry Potter to really push Disney to invest in the parks and create their best work.

Very fair.

I wish they hadn’t bought LFL though...they don’t understand it on a completely different level.

Just as George didn’t understand people liked the movies the first time...they didn’t need “enhancements” to “complete the experience”

That’s the only glaring mistep iger has made of late...and worrying about Chinese parks...that’s ultimately window dressing

 

[WondersOfLife]

None of the epcot rides would be popular now. Horizons and World of Motion would be horribly dated, Universe of Energy was a constant walk on until practically August 13th, 2017, Journey Into Imagination in its original form was a walk-on shortly before it closed and Maelstrom never had more than a 45 minute wait even on the busiest days. Nostalgia is the only reason most people would continue to go on most of those rides in 2019. Frozen and the EPCOT festivals are the only reason EPCOT doesn’t see less visitors than Hollywood Studios. Heck, maybe even Universal Studios.

Bingo.

 

[ElvisMickey]

Living in the Orlando area, we got lots of advertisements when going to the movies (you know, during those preshow entertainment things) for the theme parks. "Shocked" is a little too strong a word, but I was definitely surprised when I went to the theater last week, saw an advertisement for Walt Disney World and at the end of the advertisement, it just said "Disney World". Now, this was an official Disney commercial. To my knowledge, Disney has ALWAYS used "Walt Disney World" when referring to the resort. I'm sure most of you know the reason why (Roy's wish that the resort be named "Walt" Disney World.) Anyway, as a hardcore classic Disney nerd, I was more offended by that than some of the other moves the company has made lately that have distanced itself from its past.

 

[UncleMike101]

And we definitely need those people. No one is arguing that he was a creative genius at all, but visionary and dreamers does not equate to accessibility for everyone. A modern day visionary would be Steve Jobs, Apple is not even pretending to be affordable for everyone. you either pay the ridiculous price for their product ( in whatever fashion) or you don't. you want an Iphone X?? no they don't have to make it "affordable" to the "average" american. ironically about 30 million people got them. go figure.

So I do agree with the above but again, those guest who had the best experience had to PAY, they were not getting in free. and even back in the 70's there were plenty of folks who had to miss it.

I just challenge this myth that people use to just woke up in the morning and said, "hey let's go to Disney for vacation" and leave the next day People "planned", they save. the folks in the parks today are not uber rich, they are not even "nearly" rich. they are folks who make the decision to go to Disney and then set it as a priority and do it.

And someone must have had some business savvy, they went public in 57 (on the ny stock)


It's all good, I've got a feeling that folks will keep finding ways to get to the world.
59 here.

OK.
Youngster......

 

[eliza61nyc]

OK.
Youngster......

Lol boy I wish my knees agreed with you. Thanks for the chat, believe me one thing I totally agree with you, Disney is crazy expensive.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

None of the epcot rides would be popular now. Horizons and World of Motion would be horribly dated, Universe of Energy was a constant walk on until practically August 13th, 2017, Journey Into Imagination in its original form was a walk-on shortly before it closed and Maelstrom never had more than a 45 minute wait even on the busiest days. Nostalgia is the only reason most people would continue to go on most of those rides in 2019. Frozen and the EPCOT festivals are the only reason EPCOT doesn’t see less visitors than Hollywood Studios. Heck, maybe even Universal Studios.

SSE draws massive crowds and rates very high with visitors.

Meanwhile my nine year old niecelet wouldn't even use Frozen for toilet paper anymore.

 

[dieboy]

Allot of people forget, all good things must come to an end.

That end of Disney was when Walt passed.

Back in 57', when Disney went public, you could maybe consider that the nail in the coffin. Regardless of what control Walt still held in share percentage, it doesn't matter in the end. The shareholders that want returns always seem to rise to the top and drive company decisions.

Or after 1991, when onsite resorts went insane, from 9 onsite resorts in 91, to 29 (including most all the dvcs I count them because they had more built onto existing hotels to increase capacity, and are considered their own areas) in 2019. That was the start of the fast decline IMO, 91. While they had a brand new park, with AK, that hardly alleviated the capacity issues that would start and become more and more pronounced over the years.

So take your pick ... 57', 66' or 91' ..

I have no opinion on Iger at all. He does what he does. He's driven mainly by the board, not like hes up there going, hey do this, this way, and that, that way. Its silly to think otherwise. Some people don't care about him, some people hate him, a few like him. I say meh, he's hardly the problem with Disney.

 

[The Pho]

He’s a member of the rebel alliance and a traitor! Take him away!

 

[justintheharris]

SSE draws massive crowds and rates very high with visitors.

Meanwhile my nine year old niecelet wouldn't even use Frozen for toilet paper anymore.

Spaceship Earth is still universally deemed as dated and perhaps it’s still here because it was the exception to the rule? Universe of Energy maybe saw 100 visitors a day prior to its closure.

 

[doctornick]

Your last sentence explains why you've taken your position.
I'm acquainted with a large number of people and almost none of them can afford to go to Europe or on a cruise.
You're assuming that most of the country makes as much money as you do.

This to me is the disconnect that some folks have with these discussions. I agree with you: a lot of people can't afford trips to Europe or cruises. That's true. And those IMHO are the same kind of premium vacation experiences that are comparable to WDW -- so if you can't afford the former, I don't know why you'd expect someone to be able to afford to go to Disney. This isn't your local amusement park or zoo. It's absolutely comparable to going for a week to London or Paris, et al and yeah it probably ends up priced similarly (sure, lots of price variability with an international trip but you can spend different amounts at Disney depending on where you stay, what you eat, time in the parks versus the hotel pool, etc.).

I get that for many years, DL and WDW were more affordable than they are today. But I think a very good case would be made that they were very underpriced in those years and, if prices were comparable now, the parks would be completely overwhelmed and have regular phased closures. What Iger has done, right or wrong -- and this started under Eisner -- is make the park prices more in line with the level of the experience. And WDW and DL are still very busy and crowded, the hotels still have high occupancy rates, etc. It's hard to argue with a straight face that the price increases are causing Disney to be unsustainable.

I would argue that a middle class family can absolutely still go to WDW. They just need to save responsibly and plan and would be able to go for a week every 3-5 years or so. For some that might mean only a once in a lifetime trip. For someone who is more wealthy maybe it is more frequently. But it is far from a necessity of life.

I dunno, when I see people complain that the common person can't afford Disney, I get it, but I think it's just part of the entitlement mentality that is very rampant. Some people justcan't afford luxury vacations (or shouldn't be paying for them with going in debt). Just like some people shouldn't be buying Gucci handbags or the latest iPhone or have Netflix and Hulu and HBO on top of cable. Some people have some level of expectation that they "should" have whatever good they want even if they don't have the income to support their lifestyle. Sorry for the rant but I just think the bigger issue is people's expectations not whether Disney is the proper "value" at it's current cost.

 

[doctornick]

So I see people on here mention the "dilution", "cheapening", or just general decline of the Disney brand on here a lot and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I know that a lot of people on here have had their personal opinion of the company lowered, but it still has a pretty great reputation outside of these forums. The tv channel is still a staple for many kids, their animated films are still widely praised, and their parks are still considered a must do for families. The only area I can think of entertainment wise where they've failed to deliver recently is live-action films. If anything, the brand right now is thriving.

Yeah, the Disney brand is as strong as ever. I mean, it's pretty much the first second and third thing anyone things about when it comes to "family entertainment" and nothing else comes close.

And despite the company buying up a lot of other media properties, they've done a great job of keeping the "Disney" brand very focused on their core products. They've expanded to other audiences by adding other brands that compliment the primary Disney one.

Also, the parks remain pretty damn popular from my experience. The idea on these pages that the parks are diminished and disappointing guests doesn't mesh with what I hear people say about their experiences there (yes, people complain about the cost, but not that the experience is bad).

 

[larryz]

Living in the Orlando area, we got lots of advertisements when going to the movies (you know, during those preshow entertainment things) for the theme parks. "Shocked" is a little too strong a word, but I was definitely surprised when I went to the theater last week, saw an advertisement for Walt Disney World and at the end of the advertisement, it just said "Disney World". Now, this was an official Disney commercial. To my knowledge, Disney has ALWAYS used "Walt Disney World" when referring to the resort. I'm sure most of you know the reason why (Roy's wish that the resort be named "Walt" Disney World.) Anyway, as a hardcore classic Disney nerd, I was more offended by that than some of the other moves the company has made lately that have distanced itself from its past.

I've noticed those on TV as well, so I hit the rewind button to double check. The line refers to DisneyWorld.com, the web site. Other ads still refer to the place as Walt's DisneyWorld.