Originally Posted By Archimedes Report >>It's not just people on the internet. The buzz is out there. You'll have to forgive me, if I don't have a bibliography attached to my posts. LOL.<< Any scrap of evidence will do. >>Splitting hairs, but if he's looking into it, he does want to, on some level. Which, of course, it worrying.<< You've said yourself that you'd prefer if OLC took over the domestic parks. This is what I'm talking about when I say people aren't processing this thread correctly.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>Even so, it's pretty well established that he's on his way out.<< <<Pretty well established? I can only imagine you hope that by repeating it over and over it'll eventually come true. >> I don't for a second think it's 'well established' that Iger is on his way out. But he isn't in this for the long term and I very much doubt he'll remain with the company beyond his current contract, if he doesn't decide to leave sooner (and, right now at least, it would be his decision as both the BoD and Wall Street seem pleased with the job he has done). <<Do we fans really have such short memories that we're pining for the days of Eisner? Yikes. The last ten years of Eisner's reign were disastrous and, I'd argue, more damaging to TWDC than anything Iger's done.>> I always have to qualify this. So here again I will. I have had the pleasure of knowing Michael Eisner. I like him on both personal and professional levels. The man was instrumental in saving a company that was on its way to total destruction and being sold off piecemeal and made it a media juggernaught and relevant in so many creative and business arenas. You just can't brush that aside because he didn't know when to say when and because, like anyone at that level, his ego forced others to leave. You say Eisner's last 10 years were worse than anything Iger has done and you're entitled to that opinion. I strongly disagree and I am quite critical of many of the things that happened late in Eisner's tenure. I could pull what I affectionately call a 'Trippy' and start listing all the good things that came at Disney from 1995-2005, but I won't. But there were plenty ... from buying ABC/Cap Cities ... to putting out some wonderful (and successful animated films) from Hunchback to Mulan to Tarzan ... to starting the relationship with Pixar ... to creating the DCL ... to expanding DVC well beyond WDW to places with no presence in Vero and Hilton Head ... to ... wait, I said I wouldn't list, so I won't. Point is, the BRAND is in far more peril with Bob at the helm in 2011 than it was under Michael. And what's worse is, Michael may have lost his way (I've said as much to him, in much more muted tones, to be sure and I posted it here and elsewhere. So, no blinders.) but he got the product and was passionate about it. In some ways, that contributed to him overstaying his welcome, but still is a better trait than Iger, who barely shows emotion and is simply the top manager of huge media company.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<It also wouldn't surprise me to see P&R sold off before Iger bails for Retirement Land. As others have pointed out in this thread, the Rotunda Bldg simply doesn't have any genuine interest in the parks. Say what you want about ME, but he did care, on a personal level. He simply didn't want to invest the capital as a businessman.>> I'd agree with all of that. People who say he didn't care either never met the man, let alone work with him or have grudges because they did. And he got gunshy (same word I've used to describe him online for a decade) after Frank died, Euro Disney (a masterpiece) stalled financially out of the gates and Disney's America was allowed to fall apart by a terrible PR campaign (I do hope those bluebloods in VA enjoy the tract housing, Walmart, car dealerships, strip centers and the like that were built in this pristine area instead of a Disney park). At the same time, he had health issues, the ABC/Cap Cities deal happened and the company was expanding too fast and, much worse IMHO, promising 20% increases annually ...which was fine when the company was small and growing every year, but it wasn't sustainable forever. I am pretty certain that Michael would do quite a bit of things differently if given another chance. But wouldn't most people in their own lives?
Originally Posted By Archimedes Report We will have to disagree. I don't see how stripping down Feature Animation and WDI to scraps helped the brand. I don't see how the creation of cheap (and awful) direct-to-video cash-ins, Disney's California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Park, Hong Kong Disneyland or Go.com helped the brand. You give him credit for building a relationship with Pixar, but he destroyed that too. Eisner brought a lot of wonderful things to Disney. I give him all the credit in the world for righting the ship. And you're absolutely right, he made some really great decisions that we're still benefiting from today. But by the end he had undermined a lot of those decisions and was basically scorching the earth on his way out. He may have had his heart in the right place, but the value of an idea has absolutely nothing to do with the sincerity of the person expressing it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>>Well, again, it's hard to sell something when you don't have buyers.<<<< <<Mind if I ask who he has tried to sell the parks too?>> Why would I mind, they aren't my parks (that stock doesn't count for much) ;-) While I know a lot, I am not privy to what companies and/or individuals Disney had in mind when certain people in the investment community were approached if they even had specific targets. To me, however, there are two potential buyers that came to mind immediately. I'll try and post tomorrow who they may be and some thoughts as well ... I did want to respond to this here, though, because if I didn't say something and am away for the next 22 hours, I'd hate for anyone to think I'm avoiding questions. Let alone, yours I'd love even more questions. ~Spirited Answer Man~
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I could pull what I affectionately call a 'Trippy' and start listing all the good things that came at Disney from 1995-2005, but I won't. >> I am honored that the Spirit would name a type of posting after me. I hereby nominate MYSELF for a Golden Doobie to celebrate this great accomplishment. (Three Golden Doobie pins on my fireplace mantle would look so much better than just two...) Thank you. Thank you very much…
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Oh, just one last time for the night ... any Bob sightings in Orlando this week? No ... not that one. Nope not him. No, not the 450-pounder on the ECV with Goofy hat and lanyards. I was referring to Bob IGER ... the guy who supposedly MAGICally appeared at DAK two days ago. Anyone see him? Anyone know someone who did? Pics?
Originally Posted By GOB I don't know too much about backroom corporate politics or personally knew anyone involved with Michael, Bob, or Disney in general, but was Parks & Resorts heading in a better direction under Eisner than under Iger? Or was it heading downhill either way?
Originally Posted By Bolna Why is everyone still debating whether Eisner was better or worse than Iger? Wouldn't it be way more interesting to think about what will happen after Iger steps down? It appears to be likely that this will be the case in 2015 when his contract ends. Is Tom Staggs really being groomed as the next CEO? Would that be good or bad? Would they look for outside talent?
Originally Posted By dagobert Isn't Tom Staggs an accountant? Until he became the head of WD P&R, he was CFO and so I'm not sure if he would be the right choice. On the other hand he is with Disney for quite a long time now and knows the company. What do you all think of him? DO you think he would be a good choice as CEO? I don't know anything about him, except that he was CFO and is know running WD P&R.
Originally Posted By Bolna >>>I am NOT saying ''Iger wants to sell the Parks'' ... I am saying he has thought of it, talked about it and had people look into it. And that it still could happen. You can retweet that as much as you'd like ;-) <<<< <<Splitting hairs, but if he's looking into it, he does want to, on some level.>> There is a huge difference between wanting to sell the parks and looking into it. The first implies that the decission has already been made and the later that it is a possibility that is being explored. Strategies like this - selling off a huge part of your business - aren't decided upon just because someone thinks it is a cool idea. I have no idea how TWDC company works, but in my experience things like that will be researched from all kind of different angles before you would get to the point of saying, yes, we want to sell the parks. And sometimes you would even research the things you don't want to do - maybe just to have the arguments against it already lined up if someone challenges you and tells you that it would be a good idea, but also perhaps sometimes it is worth it to explore new ideas, they might turn out better than you thought at first.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<I am honored that the Spirit would name a type of posting after me. I hereby nominate MYSELF for a Golden Doobie to celebrate this great accomplishment. (Three Golden Doobie pins on my fireplace mantle would look so much better than just two...)>> What is a Golden Doobie? Oh, and congratulations for having a posting style named after you!
Originally Posted By MousDad >>Anyone see him? Anyone know someone who did? Pics?<< I would be most interested in concrete proof, either direction.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Okay. Sorry Spirit. I've gotta stop this right here before you canonize St. Michael >>People who say he didn't care either never met the man, let alone work with him or have grudges because they did.<< That's like saying abusive parents care about their children. He cared about the same thing you accuse Iger of (rightfully or wrongly), which is short term performance for his own compensation. And yes, this all begin during the .com late 90's. His compensation in relation to stock performance would put Iger to shame. >>At the same time, he had health issues, the ABC/Cap Cities deal happened and the company was expanding too fast and, much worse IMHO, promising 20% increases annually ...which was fine when the company was small and growing every year, but it wasn't sustainable forever.<< His fault. Strategic Planning. His fault Go.com. His fault Dinosaur and Creative Lab. His fault Excess lodging at WDW. His fault Half-day McParks. His fault WDI destroyed. His fault (and theirs) Millionaire 1999. His fault Fox Family. His fault Pixar estrangement. His fault WDFA Orlando and Burbank destroyed. His fault Disney Stores. His fault Cheap Sequels. His fault Miramax. His fault Pearl Harbor BUT NO Harry Potter, LOTR. His fault No M&A activity after ABC. His fault Poor stock performance after 4-1 split. His fault Bass Bros getting a margin call after 9/11. His fault (well and Bid Laden) Advertising revenue for 4 straight years in the gutter. His fault >>I am pretty certain that Michael would do quite a bit of things differently if given another chance. But wouldn't most people in their own lives? Yes, but we're not talking about life lessons here. Michael surviving the mean streets and now going back to get his GED. We are talking about a billionaire who extracted millions from the company all the while wreaking havoc on any group he touched in belief of his own vanity. Yeah, he cared all right. Too much.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>You've said yourself that you'd prefer if OLC took over the domestic parks. This is what I'm talking about when I say people aren't processing this thread correctly<<<< Of course I would. Guaranteed quality and a return to the old values me all miss. Of course, a entity buying WDW isn't guaranteed, and it could get much worse than that. Of course, this whole idea is telling of what the company is up to concerning the parks. From branding, to upkeep, to additions, to who's getting the boot from a large position. So, what's left to process, pray tell?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>But he isn't in this for the long term and I very much doubt he'll remain with the company beyond his current contract, if he doesn't decide to leave sooner (and, right now at least, it would be his decision as both the BoD and Wall Street seem pleased with the job he has done).<<< This is what worries me. He's setting himself up for a cashgrab.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I would be most interested in concrete proof, either direction. << Be patient. An underpaid, overworked techie in a Burbank cubicle is hard at work photoshopping an image of Iger on the big Everest drop wearing mouse ears and screaming with his hands up. It's all the proof you'll ever need.
Originally Posted By Britain I'm not sure which is better: A CEO who is passionate about all divisions of the company and lets his ego overrule everyone in each division? Or a CEO who is simply there to make money and (BECAUSE of his lack of passion) can be easily persuaded by those who do have passion (Ouimet, Lasseter, etc.) to open the purse strings on big projects as long as they will lead to more branded merchandise sales?
