Great Huffington Post article on what Disney really needs in a new CEO

[DDLand]

Here is something interesting I found that is relevant to this conversation,

"Since 2005, Disney’s revenue has increased from $31.9 billion to $48.8 billion, a compound annual growth rate of 4.8%.

Many point to Disney President Frank Wells' death in 1994 as the beginning of Eisner's 'bad' years. Yet even during those 'bad' years, Eisner grew company revenue by a compound rate of 11.1% annually, more than double Iger's."

Revenue is only half the story my friend. Profits have in the last three years soared. 2,533 billion is the number Eisner left Profits at. That's pretty impressive right? Well less then a decade later under Iger's leadership Disney cashed in 7.5 billion. Nearly 3X profits! In this crappy economy, despite the competitive environment, and of course all the haters he's had nearly 3X profit returns!

Don't look at financials, your argument just doesn't hold water.

I'm curious also, does that include Capital Cities from the very beginning or is that part of the revenue growth?

Revenue growth at the theme parks is also just one answer. Iger's mission has been successfully to maximize existing assets to their fullest potential. Theme park profits have doubled during that time frame.

Sources:
http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/q4-fy14-earnings.pdf

http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/q4-fy05-earnings.pdf

 

[rteetz]

Revenue is only half the story my friend. Profits have in the last three years soared. 2,533 billion is the number Eisner left Profits at. That's pretty impressive right? Well less then a decade later under Iger's leadership Disney cashed in 7.5 billion. Nearly 3X profits! In this crappy economy, despite the competitive environment, and of course all the haters he's had nearly 3X profit returns!

Don't look at financials, your argument just doesn't hold water.

I'm curious also, does that include Capital Cities from the very beginning or is that part of the revenue growth?

Revenue growth at the theme parks is also just one answer. Iger's mission has been successfully to maximize existing assets to their fullest potential. Theme park profits have doubled during that time frame.

Sources:
http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/q4-fy14-earnings.pdf

http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/q4-fy05-earnings.pdf

I know about the revenue I just found the stat interesting so I posted it. I would also have to say that Igers added IPs helped him achieve that bigger revenue number. Eisner didn't have that. If you look at the graphs I posted it shows that Iger hasn't been the greatest for WDW.

 

[DDLand]

View attachment 486

This one I find really interesting. Look at the Eisner vs. Iger years.

This one proves everything anyone has been saying. Look at 1995 and see the slide... Then I'll gladly point out the increase once Iger ramped up.

 

[rteetz]

This one proves everything anyone has been saying. Look at 1995 and see the slide... Then I'll gladly point out the increase once Iger ramped up.

what? Yes 1995 saw a slide but it went back up. They went below after 2001 but most things did due to 9/11. Iger doesn't have near the numbers Eisner did according to that graph. I get hasn't been above what 60%

 

[DDLand]

View attachment 487

"Over 21 years, Eisner invested about 10% of domestic Parks & Resorts revenue back into domestic theme park growth initiatives.

Iger has invested about 2%."


-wdwmagic

100% Backs up what I've been saying. We subsidized the growth of the rest of the world.

 

[DDLand]

what? Yes 1995 saw a slide but it went back up. They went below after 2001 but most things did due to 9/11. Iger doesn't have near the numbers Eisner did according to that graph.

Starting with 1995 you see a rebound and then the infamous slide...

 

[rteetz]

100% Backs up what I've been saying. We subsidized the growth of the rest of the world.

I didn't say he didn't. I also didn't say thats bad. What I am saying is he should be investing domestically. Eisner did both.

 

[rteetz]

Starting with 1995 you see a rebound and then the infamous slide...

Yes which was 9/11 lost of companies saw loss the economy went down. But Iger does not have near the numbers Eisner did.

 

[DDLand]

None of these graphs is proving your point, that Iger has been bad for Walt Disney World Resort. Show me customer sat, attendance, and profit. I have said that we subsidized the rest of the worlds theme park build up. That means fewer new attraction for you. Sorry. Yet despite a vocal group of critics they have continued to grow. Is that a coincidence?

What's your definition of bad for Walt Disney World? Poor upkeep/product or new attractions.

If it's new attractions, you need to understand the United States is not the only market that The Walt Disney Company operates in. They're not going to spend money on parks like Epcot that are incredibly popular to appease a small group of people. They're focusing on bringing over Disneyland to millions in new places. Whether you like it or not, there's always going to be a project like this. If not Shanghai or Hong Kong, it will be DLP or who knows Disneyland Mumbai. This is not the late 1990's anymore. (which saw the over build up of hotel room and capacity which led to big costs) This is the new WDC, that doesn't write blank checks or freeze financing on the whims of a narcissistic CEO. This is the company that goes into bad situations quickly, effectively, and strategically. They don't over do or under do a project. I'll take Iger's SDL, the new HKD, the new DCA, Aulani, NF, and MY Magic. You can have Eisner's DCA, Euro Disney (it may bankrupt you), WDS, and HKD. Suit yourself.

As for this article comparing Eisner to Walt, glorifying his understanding of the consumer, and lauding his theme park operations. I have to chuckle.

 

[DDLand]

I didn't say he didn't. I also didn't say thats bad. What I am saying is he should be investing domestically. Eisner did both.

He did and most of his investments bombed... Go figure.

 

[rteetz]

None of these graphs is proving your point, that Iger has been bad for Walt Disney World Resort. Show me customer sat, attendance, and profit. I have said that we subsidized the rest of the worlds theme park build up. That means fewer new attraction for you. Sorry. Yet despite a vocal group of critics they have continued to grow. Is that a coincidence?

What's your definition of bad for Walt Disney World? Poor upkeep/product or new attractions.

If it's new attractions, you need to understand the United States is not the only market that The Walt Disney Company operates in. They're not going to spend money on parks like Epcot that are incredibly popular to appease a small group of people. They're focusing on bringing over Disneyland to millions in new places. Whether you like it or not, there's always going to be a project like this. If not Shanghai or Hong Kong, it will be DLP or who knows Disneyland Mumbai. This is not the late 1990's anymore. (which saw the over build up of hotel room and capacity which led to big costs) This is the new WDC, that doesn't write blank checks or freeze financing on the whims of a narcissistic CEO. This is the company that goes into bad situations quickly, effectively, and strategically. They don't over do or under do a project. I'll take Iger's SDL, the new HKD, the new DCA, Aulani, NF, and MY Magic. You can have Eisner's DCA, Euro Disney (it may bankrupt you), WDS, and HKD. Suit yourself.

As for this article comparing Eisner to Walt, glorifying his understanding of the consumer, and lauding his theme park operations. I have to chuckle.

but he has done both. Poor upkeep and now new attractions(until recently). MK has over 5 million more in attendance than any other WDW park. They should be spending money on Epcot, DHS, and AK to increase their attendance.

I have said it multiple times I think global expansion is good Eisner started that. But you can't for get about your domestic product.

Over build up thats it right there. Disney still can't fill all of the rooms they have. They reported about 80% occupancy in their last report. Eisner and even Iger can't do it. But if Iger brought big new things maybe he could.

NFL was underdone thematically great but in terms of rides and areas, they doubled dumbo, took a ride from DCA, added a meet and greet show thing, and a D ticket attraction. Nothing really exciting or worth taking a trip for specifically that.

I am talking about domestic theme parks and you keep bringing global into this. Eisner didn't great with paris or hong kong I get that I knew that.

You being a new poster here I suggest you also join the wdwmagic forums. They would enjoy your views. They are second to the DIS in the fan community.

 

[rteetz]

He did and most of his investments bombed... Go figure.

Without Eisner we don't have DCA, AK, DHS, HK, DLP, WDS. I mean i could probably live without WDS but would Iger have done the same I really don't think so at least domestically. I could see him doing HK but probably not Paris or DCA or DHS.

 

[DDLand]

but he has done both. Poor upkeep and now new attractions(until recently). MK has over 5 million more in attendance than any other WDW park. They should be spending money on Epcot, DHS, and AK to increase their attendance.

I have said it multiple times I think global expansion is good Eisner started that. But you can't for get about your domestic product.

Over build up thats it right there. Disney still can't fill all of the rooms they have. They reported about 80% occupancy in their last report. Eisner and even Iger can't do it. But if Iger brought big new things maybe he could.

NFL was underdone thematically great but in terms of rides and areas, they doubled dumbo, took a ride from DCA, added a meet and greet show thing, and a D ticket attraction. Nothing really exciting or worth taking a trip for specifically that.

I am talking about domestic theme parks and you keep bringing global into this. Eisner didn't great with paris or hong kong I get that I knew that.

You being a new poster here I suggest you also join the wdwmagic forums. They would enjoy your views. They are second to the DIS in the fan community.

There's no proof to justify your claim that compared to Eisner Iger has worse quality. I need customer sat, profit reports, and of course attendance. The two reported metrics are both stronger then Eisner suggesting that the general public either doesn't care that the parks are falling apart and rotting away or they aren't. Hmm...

In the last earnings call the specifically mentioned occupancy rates were higher. It's taken years of natural sustained growth to fill those rooms.

You can't talk about about domestic parks anymore. You have to take in the global bigger picture. The money pot is only so big, and they're choosing to spend it on global parks. Eisner didn't do both. He went all in once, messed up and never returned. HKD was a super cheap mini MK. That bombed.

Wdwmagic, how come?

 

[rteetz]

There's no proof to justify your claim that compared to Eisner Iger has worse quality. I need customer sat, profit reports, and of course attendance. The two reported metrics are both stronger then Eisner suggesting that the general public either doesn't care that the parks are falling apart and rotting away or they aren't. Hmm...

In the last earnings call the specifically mentioned occupancy rates were higher. It's taken years of natural sustained growth to fill those rooms.

You can't talk about about domestic parks anymore. You have to take in the global bigger picture. The money pot is only so big, and they're choosing to spend it on global parks. Eisner didn't do both. He went all in once, messed up and never returned. HKD was a super cheap mini MK. That bombed.

Wdwmagic, how come?

I don't think most know of the conditions of some attractions.

Attendance has risen practically every year under both. I just read the earnings report about a week ago I remember reading about 80%.

HK is more comparable to Disneyland. But if you don't do anything to your major money makers which are your domestic parks then you will end up being in trouble. If you look the early 2000s up until about 2010 nothing was down and that showed one graph I posted represents that. Disney doesn't fully own any other parks besides the domestic ones and is only 51% owners of Paris. The rest are around 40% and in Tokyo's case they own none of it.

The DIS I have been a part of much longer and I find it more to be the Disney can do no wrong forum. While WDWmagic is more hard nosed and based things off facts thats where I got those graphs. Posters there range from strong insider sources, to CMs, to people with business experience using a lot of numbers. And being a new poster and so strongly informed on Disney things what took you so long to join the Dis.

 

[rteetz]

Hotel occupancy was up 4% at 83% compared to 79% in 2013

found the thread regarding the numbers here is 2014 and 2013. It went up but 83% is still not good in Disney's eyes they want it closer to 90.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

View attachment 486

This one I find really interesting. Look at the Eisner vs. Iger years.

That's a bit of a false Indicator

 

[lockedoutlogic]

View attachment 487

"Over 21 years, Eisner invested about 10% of domestic Parks & Resorts revenue back into domestic theme park growth initiatives.

Iger has invested about 2%."


-wdwmagic

This one I like...as there no way to "twist" it.

Conditions have changed with parks some...but not by a favor of 5

 

[lockedoutlogic]

found the thread regarding the numbers here is 2014 and 2013. It went up but 83% is still not good in Disney's eyes they want it closer to 90.

Indeed...low 80's is not gold a s doesn't represent park growth or strength.

I wonder why?

Hmmmm... Why would those fantastic rooms be empty?

 

[snowweisz]

Omg this whole thread is one endless back and forth bickering that doesn't even invite to discussion.

At this point, I honestly feel that we all ought to just agree that both Iger and Michael are very different leaders who have focused on very different things by nature of the company they received. And that Michael's fallout was the extent of his power and the ridiculously long time he had it. So if Bob Iger is as smart as he should be if he wants to go into politics, he will leave Disney in 18 when his last extension is up. And so help us, the board will appoint someone who can innovate, foster creative environments and focus on quality.

But no one ought to be fooled. Both the board and the shareholders are happy with those numbers. This kind of year to year profit focus is not exclusive to Disney, it is a trend all over the stock market. We all have our own ideas of why that's a stupid approach, and we all have our own ideas about who should replace Iger. This HuffPo person just has a bigger audience.

 

[DDLand]

Omg this whole thread is one endless back and forth bickering that doesn't even invite to discussion.

At this point, I honestly feel that we all ought to just agree that both Iger and Michael are very different leaders who have focused on very different things by nature of the company they received. And that Michael's fallout was the extent of his power and the ridiculously long time he had it. So if Bob Iger is as smart as he should be if he wants to go into politics, he will leave Disney in 18 when his last extension is up. And so help us, the board will appoint someone who can innovate, foster creative environments and focus on quality.

But no one ought to be fooled. Both the board and the shareholders are happy with those numbers. This kind of year to year profit focus is not exclusive to Disney, it is a trend all over the stock market. We all have our own ideas of why that's a stupid approach, and we all have our own ideas about who should replace Iger. This HuffPo person just has a bigger audience.

I wouldn't call it bickering. Thoughtful discourse perhaps? I do agree we've drawn it on long enough though. You're also spot on about it not promoting discourse. It can be intimidating jumping into a thread like this.

There are things we can agree on, and let's take those from this conversation. There's also differences of opinion that only history and hindsight will truly prove fact.