$85 for a ticket, these are the glory days!

[kamik86]

Ok I just looked up the Disney parks attendance for 2010. It as 120,600,000. Thus if they paid Iger $0 and gave all that money back in ticket decreases, prices would have decreased a whole whopping 24 cents.

<sarcasm> So yes I'm sure the executives is why the parks cost what they do. </sarcasm>

Another way to look at it. My company releases total compensation numbers for all employees. Mine was quite high, double my gross pay checks (due to grad school, their part of my insurance, 401K matches, etc). Iger's total compensation was 194 times mine. For someone much farther along in his career, in a much higher risk position, etc etc. I find this fair.

 

[chartle]

You really gonna defend a 29 million dollar salary? As far as the Depp comparison,really, grow up. The talent difference between Iger and Depp is mind boggling! Lets also not forget Depp isn't on the payroll he is a temporary employee,not the same at all and you know it!

I agree, lets see Iger makes decisions every day for a 70 billion, multi-national corporation. Part of which is largest single-site employer in the United States.

Depp's biggest decision is on what color hat to wear that day.

As mesaboy2 posted its what the market pays these days.

On Sunday men get paid millions of dollars a year to play a game. At least they have some fear of life threatening injury. Depp has to worry about getting burned from a too hot latte.*


* PS: It seems Depp is a cool OK non really celebrity kind of guy, just making a point.

 

[kamik86]

I agree, lets see Iger makes decisions every day for a 70 billion, multi-national corporation. Part of which is largest single-site employer in the United States.

Depp's biggest decision is on what color hat to wear that day.

As mesaboy2 posted its what the market pays these days.

On Sunday men get paid millions of dollars a year to play a game. At least they have some fear of life threatening injury. Depp has to worry about getting burned from a too hot latte.*


* PS: It seems Depp is a cool OK non really celebrity kind of guy, just making a point.

I would argue they both earned what they have. Depp chose to take the huge risk to pursue a career in a field where many fail and make peanuts. He managed to differentiate himself and stand out and now because of his success (and here is the big reason he earned it) many people will go see a new movie JUST because he is in it.

There are a few actors that I have loved 95% of what they have done (and generally still liked their performance in the few things I have seen that I didn't like them in) so I will go see the movie if it even remotely sounds good and they are in it. Otherwise they probably would have been rented if I didn't forget about it before then and the reviews were ok. This is why he gets paid huge amounts.

The worker that makes 29,000 a year makes 29,000 a year because just about anyone can do that job and they never have a shortage of applications.

I make the salary I do because that is what my company needs to pay to get people with the correct degrees and skills to choose to come to this company over others. If for some reason all those other companies weren't hiring they would start offering our hires less for the same job... as would most every other company.

 

[KSDisneyDad]

So, do the math on the $20k salary, Calky, and tell me how many zeroes go after that decimal point...

I don't mind Disney making money -- I'm a shareholder -- but I think people should be paid what they're worth, not what they can bilk a company for.

I'm all for people paying reasonable ticket prices, but I agree with PP that they're quickly making WDW an elusive experience for what's left of the middle class in America.

About 19% of the eligible votes agreed with you that the executive pay was not reasonable last year. I assume you were among that 19% who voted.

No where did I say in my posts that I thought the pay was fair or reasonable. I was simply trying to say that the executive pay had no measurable impact on ticket prices.

How does one measure fair? Obviously, Johnny Depp's temp work was worth $300 million to Disney. The executive compensation levels are beyond comprehension for me, but I am not going to say it is either fair or unfair. That is up to the board and shareholders to decide. Executives are not the only ones who are paid these high amounts - actors and athletes come to mind as well. If life were fair, wouldn't teachers, police officers and other civil servants be paid more? Or in your example, ticket sellers, maids, ride operators or food service jobs.

Next year, we are paying about $1,000 per person for a 7-night Disney cruise in June (balcony rooms). Right now, our same rooms are going for about $2,600 per person!! Disney more than doubled the price from the day we booked. Was it because of executive pay and bonuses or was it because they could raise prices as the customer demand is there?

My point is that Disney could lower the executive salaries to zero and they still wouldn't lower ticket prices if the demand is there.

This whole salary discussion is nothing but a red herring tactic IMO. But at least it's interesting.

 

[chartle]

I would argue they both earned what they have. Depp chose to take the huge risk to pursue a career in a field where many fail and make peanuts. He managed to differentiate himself and stand out and now because of his success (and here is the big reason he earned it) many people will go see a new movie JUST because he is in it.

Not saying that neither earned their money. You just can't compare them. My post was only in reference to that one prior post .

Like said it whats the market will bear.

 

[rhino78]

You really gonna defend a 29 million dollar salary? As far as the Depp comparison,really, grow up. The talent difference between Iger and Depp is mind boggling! Lets also not forget Depp isn't on the payroll he is a temporary employee,not the same at all and you know it!

I'll defend 29mil. Disney is still a private company that can pay whatever it feels is appropriate. If you don't like it, stop giving them your money. Why people feel they have a right to criticize how a company spends it's money is truly mind boggling. Disney doesn't force people to give them money. They provide popular products and services. People are willing to pay a lot of money for those products and services. Disney can spend that money any way it wishes. They earned it.

 

[flicx]

I'll defend 29mil. Disney is still a private company that can pay whatever it feels is appropriate. If you don't like it, stop giving them your money. Why people feel they have a right to criticize how a company spends it's money is truly mind boggling. Disney doesn't force people to give them money. They provide popular products and services. People are willing to pay a lot of money for those products and services. Disney can spend that money any way it wishes. They earned it.

No disney is not a private company.They are owned by shareholders.So if I wish to criticize the amount that they pay a ceo that is my right.Whether or not you think Iger earned 29 million is your opinion,I bet that there are quite a few other people in the company who would side with me!

 

[flicx]

How exactly do you compare the talents of a business executive and an actor? You really can't, so I'm guessing you will justify the salary of the one you like more. Hmm, I wonder who that could be? Strong argument there.

They are both paid a mind-boggling amount of money, and both of them "earned it" by becoming very good at what they do and using that to maximum advantage. That's how it's supposed to work around these parts.

I didn't make the comparison,KS did.If you read the post again I believe I said grow up when responding to it.I then stated i thought Depp was more talented,but that is my opinion.Just like it is yours that Iger earned 29 milllion dollars.

 

[mesaboy2]

I didn't make the comparison,KS did.If you read the post again I believe I said grow up when responding to it.I then stated i thought Depp was more talented,but that is my opinion.Just like it is yours that Iger earned 29 milllion dollars.

But you are continuing to compare them. You apparently put a greater value on one's ability to pretend than most.

 

[PetLoopers]

I'd say Depp's money was more of a project cost, with an anticipated return on that investment, much like building a $35 million dollar ride at the parks. Disney makes an investment with the intent to make their money back and then some. Iger's costs are somewhat different in the fact that most of his compensation is a reward for company performance, past or future, perceived or actual depending on how his contract is written. While a reduction in his compensation may not directly impact ticket prices, now is the time (now is the best time...) for corporate executives to gain a little situational awareness. They can label the occupy movement as a bunch of do-nothing hippies all they want, but its obvious there is a growing sentiment against corporations. This may not be the time to raise prices and executive pay at the same time. Maybe the two are not related but the average person will tie them together, and resent the executives for it. The simple solution is to live on $15 million this year instead of $29 million.

And, yes, Disney is all about entertainment and I have the right not to give them my money. And I've slowly been exercising that right, because of price increases, over the past 5 years or so. My family doesn't go nearly as often as we used to and we're talking about skipping 2012 altogether. The fanatics will hang on longer than I have, but there will be a breaking point if WDW price increases continue to outpace inflation. It looks like Disney executives are intent on finding that breaking point. Not really good corporate governance in my opinion but, then again, nobody is asking me.

 

[flicx]

I'd say Depp's money was more of a project cost, with an anticipated return on that investment, much like building a $35 million dollar ride at the parks. Disney makes an investment with the intent to make their money back and then some. Iger's costs are somewhat different in the fact that most of his compensation is a reward for company performance, past or future, perceived or actual depending on how his contract is written. While a reduction in his compensation may not directly impact ticket prices, now is the time (now is the best time...) for corporate executives to gain a little situational awareness. They can label the occupy movement as a bunch of do-nothing hippies all they want, but its obvious there is a growing sentiment against corporations. This may not be the time to raise prices and executive pay at the same time. Maybe the two are not related but the average person will tie them together, and resent the executives for it. The simple solution is to live on $15 million this year instead of $29 million.

And, yes, Disney is all about entertainment and I have the right not to give them my money. And I've slowly been exercising that right, because of price increases, over the past 5 years or so. My family doesn't go nearly as often as we used to and we're talking about skipping 2012 altogether. The fanatics will hang on longer than I have, but there will be a breaking point if WDW prices continue to outpace inflation. It looks like Disney executives are intent on finding that breaking point. Not really good corporate governance in my opinion but, then again, nobody is asking me.

Very well said.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

I'd say Depp's money was more of a project cost, with an anticipated return on that investment, much like building a $35 million dollar ride at the parks. Disney makes an investment with the intent to make their money back and then some. Iger's costs are somewhat different in the fact that most of his compensation is a reward for company performance, past or future, perceived or actual depending on how his contract is written. While a reduction in his compensation may not directly impact ticket prices, now is the time (now is the best time...) for corporate executives to gain a little situational awareness. They can label the occupy movement as a bunch of do-nothing hippies all they want, but its obvious there is a growing sentiment against corporations. This may not be the time to raise prices and executive pay at the same time. Maybe the two are not related but the average person will tie them together, and resent the executives for it. The simple solution is to live on $15 million this year instead of $29 million.

pffft. thumbs down.

 

[rhino78]

No disney is not a private company.They are owned by shareholders.So if I wish to criticize the amount that they pay a ceo that is my right.Whether or not you think Iger earned 29 million is your opinion,I bet that there are quite a few other people in the company who would side with me!

Perhaps you misunderstood. Disney is a privatecompany in the sense that it does not recieve public tax money. As a shareholder, you can certainly vote against Iger and his compensation. I believe that someone actually posted that only 19% of the shareholders voted against his 29mil. Clearly then, most shareholders approved.

As for people "in the company" who would side with you, unless they are shareholders they don't get a say. That's reality. Again, if you don't agree, don't give Disney your money. Frankly, though, if you don't own stock why would it even matter to you?

 

[rhino78]

I'd say Depp's money was more of a project cost, with an anticipated return on that investment, much like building a $35 million dollar ride at the parks. Disney makes an investment with the intent to make their money back and then some. Iger's costs are somewhat different in the fact that most of his compensation is a reward for company performance, past or future, perceived or actual depending on how his contract is written. While a reduction in his compensation may not directly impact ticket prices, now is the time (now is the best time...) for corporate executives to gain a little situational awareness. They can label the occupy movement as a bunch of do-nothing hippies all they want, but its obvious there is a growing sentiment against corporations. This may not be the time to raise prices and executive pay at the same time. Maybe the two are not related but the average person will tie them together, and resent the executives for it. The simple solution is to live on $15 million this year instead of $29 million.

And, yes, Disney is all about entertainment and I have the right not to give them my money. And I've slowly been exercising that right, because of price increases, over the past 5 years or so. My family doesn't go nearly as often as we used to and we're talking about skipping 2012 altogether. The fanatics will hang on longer than I have, but there will be a breaking point if WDW price increases continue to outpace inflation. It looks like Disney executives are intent on finding that breaking point. Not really good corporate governance in my opinion but, then again, nobody is asking me.

The 2 points I would argue against are inflation and the breaking point. First, inflation is almost irrelevant when talking about Disney prices. Disney is a pure luxury and it's prices are mostly tied to supply and demand. If demand is high and supply is low or constant, then we would expect prices to rise.

As for the mythical breaking point, people seem to imply that eventually Disney's prices will push people away in droves. That's unrealistic. Disney has shown they are experts at keeping demand high to keep prices high. If they start to see the numbers drop off, I have no doubt you'll start to see new promotions like free dining and 40% off to bring those customers back. Disney's not just going to sit there and watch the parks and resorts empty out.

 

[KSDisneyDad]

No disney is not a private company.They are owned by shareholders.So if I wish to criticize the amount that they pay a ceo that is my right.Whether or not you think Iger earned 29 million is your opinion,I bet that there are quite a few other people in the company who would side with me!

And only 19% of said shareholders voted against the executive pay. It's up for a vote every year now.

As the PP said, they were using the word private in the sense that it's not a taxpayer owned company such as the Postal Service, etc. All private companies are owned by shareholders. Some private companies are required to be registered and thus are referred to as "public". So yes it's possible to be "private" (i.e. not owned by the government) and "public" (i.e. enough shareholders to require registration on a stock exchange and be subject to such regulation) at the same time.

 

[KSDisneyDad]

29 million dollars,that literally turns my stomach.There is alot of the reason why the ticket increases are needed!

I didn't make the comparison,KS did.If you read the post again I believe I said grow up when responding to it.I then stated i thought Depp was more talented,but that is my opinion.Just like it is yours that Iger earned 29 milllion dollars.

So it's okay for one person to make $29 million, but not another? Does it matter if the person makes $30 million a year as an actor, athlete, salesperson, business owner or company CEO? It wasn't like he stole the money. It's all obscene money IMO, but that's life. I'm sure there are people in other countries who may think that $29,000 a year is obscene money too. It's all a matter of perspective.

I just find it ironic that people are upset that a CEO of a multi-national company is paid too much, but an actor who makes twice that is perfectly fine. If that's your opinion, fine. It's my right to point out what I see as hypocrisy and inconsistency in logic. YMMV

 

[scion5220]

So it's okay for one person to make $29 million, but not another? Does it matter if the person makes $30 million a year as an actor, athlete, salesperson, business owner or company CEO? It wasn't like he stole the money. It's all obscene money IMO, but that's life. I'm sure there are people in other countries who may think that $29,000 a year is obscene money too. It's all a matter of perspective.

I just find it ironic that people are upset that a CEO of a multi-national company is paid too much, but an actor who makes twice that is perfectly fine. If that's your opinion, fine. It's my right to point out what I see as hypocrisy and inconsistency in logic. YMMV

 

[flicx]

So it's okay for one person to make $29 million, but not another? Does it matter if the person makes $30 million a year as an actor, athlete, salesperson, business owner or company CEO? It wasn't like he stole the money. It's all obscene money IMO, but that's life. I'm sure there are people in other countries who may think that $29,000 a year is obscene money too. It's all a matter of perspective.

I just find it ironic that people are upset that a CEO of a multi-national company is paid too much, but an actor who makes twice that is perfectly fine. If that's your opinion, fine. It's my right to point out what I see as hypocrisy and inconsistency in logic. YMMV

Well I find it ironic that your 29 million dollar man paid the actor who you think is making obscene money. I will stand by my opinion,29 million is too much.Lets not muddy the water further!

 

[KSDisneyDad]

Well I find it ironic that your 29 million dollar man paid the actor who you think is making obscene money. I will stand by my opinion,29 million is too much.Lets not muddy the water further!

My 29 million man. Please show me where I have said his salary was fair.

I just pointed out that his salary has no impact on ticket prices (IMO of course).

 

[PetLoopers]

The 2 points I would argue against are inflation and the breaking point. First, inflation is almost irrelevant when talking about Disney prices. Disney is a pure luxury and it's prices are mostly tied to supply and demand. If demand is high and supply is low or constant, then we would expect prices to rise.

As for the mythical breaking point, people seem to imply that eventually Disney's prices will push people away in droves. That's unrealistic. Disney has shown they are experts at keeping demand high to keep prices high. If they start to see the numbers drop off, I have no doubt you'll start to see new promotions like free dining and 40% off to bring those customers back. Disney's not just going to sit there and watch the parks and resorts empty out.

Somein here were stating that inflation was the reason for ticket price increases. But you are right, IMO, that's not a factor so it shouldn't be sold as such.

Your second point, I'm sure they will manipulate other things and it will probably work. But as I said, for me personally, the prices are getting to a point that we don't go as often. That's just me, and I don't matter. Hopefully for Disney, it won't turn into a trend. You're probably right though. Disney will trick the masses into thinking they're getting a deal on something while racking up amazing profits on other things.