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

[luisov]

Eisner basically created WDW and took the company to a whole new level internationally. And he was responsible for the creation of a second park in Anaheim, though it was so cheaply done that it didn't impress DL's very loyal guests. Iger arguably saved both Walt Disney Studios in Paris and DCA, and it made the latter one of the best Disney parks out there (in my opinion). Eisner was also responsible for Disney's Animation Renaissance, but he was also responsible for some of the company's worst animated features ever, and if I recall, he even discussed the possibility of shutting down Animation.

They both have their pros and cons. Eisner was great at the beginning, but he ultimately became a threat to the company. He gave a lot more of attention to p&r while Bob gave priority to media. Iger is all about the money and his interest on parks and resorts leaves a lot to be desired, true, but the company has been pretty steady under his belt. I'm not sure if we can say the same about Michael.

 

[Lee Matthews]

Igor has been awful in terms of the theme parks but great in terms of everything else. Under him they've taken in Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm and my lord those films are good and bringing in money

 

[rteetz]

Yeah, but the end result was a piece of trash that led them into further financial trouble. It doesn't matter why they did it, what matters is the product ended up bringing the company into a vulnerable position that exists even today. (speaking of Eisner, when a board member spoke up about WDS's problems she was shortly relieved of her position. He was always a good listener.) Since the 1990's they have had complete control and they helped finance it through bonds. Castles are all relative. There can't be a best one. Eisner's big breakthroughs were raising ticket and parking prices, hiring Katzenburg, and releasing movies on VHS. The last is perhaps his greatest contribution to Disney and the industry. Though he did it extremely cautiously. During the late 1990's and 2000's he terrorized executives, squeezed the parks dry, and ruined the morale at the company. Oh, and he bought the muppets and Fox Family. Iger's contributions reviving the theme parks, bringing back morale and creativity to the company's workforce, and finally acquiring the talent and the brands to create great content cannot be overlooked. He also was the first brave media executive to jump into the world of digital. iTunes, Netflix and other services wouldn't exist without the precedent he and Steve Jobs set. To your big question, AK and Cali? Yes. They'd just be tons better then the parks we had when they opened. You have to remember rteetz that up until Animal Kingdom Disney had Never had a park under deliver. Cali and AK were obvious choices. Iger is certainly not afraid of expansion.

Eisner was a theme park buff. Iger is not, Iger wouldn't expand the parks if he didn't have too, and he didn't until now. AK is not a failing park, DHS had lower number in the last report. If Iger had the choice to build a new theme park he wouldn't that's the kind of guy he is. Eisner also bought ABC one of the biggest parts of the company that includes ESPN which are two huge money makers for them. Did Disney need Pixar id say probably, that bond between them and Disney needed to be fixed and Iger did that so that was good. But how bout marvel that kind of came out of no where did they need it? No is it nice? Sure. Cali and AK were obvious expansions to Eisner but were they to Iger? I would disagree that Iger has revived the parks what he has done is added little by little just so they don't become stagnant. What Eisner did in the 80s and early 90s in both the film industry and parks was reviving the company. My question was not would they be better if Iger opened them instead of Eisner it was would be even have them without Eisner and I really don't think so.

 

[rteetz]

Eisner basically created WDW and took the company to a whole new level internationally. And he was responsible for the creation of a second park in Anaheim, though it was so cheaply done that it didn't impress DL's very loyal guests. Iger arguably saved both Walt Disney Studios in Paris and DCA, and it made the latter one of the best Disney parks out there (in my opinion). Eisner was also responsible for Disney's Animation Renaissance, but he was also responsible for some of the company's worst animated features ever, and if I recall, he even discussed the possibility of shutting down Animation. They both have their pros and cons. Eisner was great at the beginning, but he ultimately became a threat to the company. He gave a lot more of attention to p&r while Bob gave priority to media. Iger is all about the money and his interest on parks and resorts leaves a lot to be desired, true, but the company has been pretty steady under his belt. I'm not sure if we can say the same about Michael.

I agree up until about the last five years of Michael he was doing quite well. Instead of going out on his own terms which he should have he was pushed out. Michael took risks and with risks there is failure and reward he got both. Has Iger taken any risks really?

 

[rteetz]

Igor has been awful in terms of the theme parks but great in terms of everything else. Under him they've taken in Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm and my lord those films are good and bringing in money

But they were good and bringing in money before they were Disney as well. Pixar has never had a bad film in terms of making money. But adding those sure increased disneys revenue if only they could take some of that and put it in the parks more often.

 

[OKW Lover]

Michael took risks and with risks there is failure and reward he got both. Has Iger taken any risks really?

Of course he has. And some of them failed. All you need to do is just look over what's happened in the parks, movies, TV, and sports to spot the new things and the failures.

 

[rteetz]

Of course he has. And some of them failed. All you need to do is just look over what's happened in the parks, movies, TV, and sports to spot the new things and the failures.

I'm not saying he has not done new things but what kind of risks has he taken. Splash mountain was a risk because of the song of the south but lol it's extremely popular. Both have pros and cons there is no doubt about it.

 

[OKW Lover]

I'm not saying he has not done new things but what kind of risks has he taken. Splash mountain was a risk because of the song of the south but lol it's extremely popular. Both have pros and cons there is no doubt about it.

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about when you say "risk" then. Just because something succeeds doesn't mean it wasn't a risk. However, if you want to look at failures, how about Lone Ranger? Planes? Stitch's Great Escape? Removing Mr. Toad?

 

[DDLand]

Eisner was a theme park buff. Iger is not, Iger wouldn't expand the parks if he didn't have too, and he didn't until now. AK is not a failing park, DHS had lower number in the last report. If Iger had the choice to build a new theme park he wouldn't that's the kind of guy he is. Eisner also bought ABC one of the biggest parts of the company that includes ESPN which are two huge money makers for them. Did Disney need Pixar id say probably, that bond between them and Disney needed to be fixed and Iger did that so that was good. But how bout marvel that kind of came out of no where did they need it? No is it nice? Sure. Cali and AK were obvious expansions to Eisner but were they to Iger? I would disagree that Iger has revived the parks what he has done is added little by little just so they don't become stagnant. What Eisner did in the 80s and early 90s in both the film industry and parks was reviving the company. My question was not would they be better if Iger opened them instead of Eisner it was would be even have them without Eisner and I really don't think so.

Do you remember what came out of Eisner's Disney in the 2000's? He was the most risk averse guy around. This ultimately led to the small budgets for Disney California Adventure and WDS. Also it meant that they continually churned out bad movies.

Iger? Not building if he doesn't have to?

Aulani
DVC Expansions
Two new cruise ship vessels (started during a global recession. Risky)
Fantasyland (Started during a global recession. Risky)
Shanghai (Stared during a recession. Risky)
California Adventure (started during a recession. Risky)
Hong Kong Disneyland Expansion (Started during a recession. Risky)
Avatarland
Disney Animal Kingdom Expansions
Disney Springs
My Magic

He sure hates those theme parks...

You need to read about Disney's Animal Kingdom's history. It bombed when it first opened.
1)People didn't show up like they were supposed to. Probably because they didn't like idea of having very little to do.
2)People didn't stay into the afternoon. Related to the first problem.
3)Feeding Elephants is very expensive. The operating costs were astronomical.
4) Worst of all, it stole guests from other WDW parks.

What makes Eisner's acquisition of Capital Cities acceptable, and Iger's trifecta of positive acquisitions unneeded. I'd counter that his buys are better in line with Disney's business operations as a movie production company, theme park operator, and an licensor of IP. What does Sport broadcasting have to do with that?

Those moves were utilizing existing pieces of real estate for maximum return. I think Iger would be just happy moving into both of those markets.

 

[DDLand]

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about when you say "risk" then. Just because something succeeds doesn't mean it wasn't a risk. However, if you want to look at failures, how about Lone Ranger? Planes? Stitch's Great Escape? Removing Mr. Toad?

Well said. Perfectly sums up how I feel.

 

[rteetz]

I guess I don't understand what you are talking about when you say "risk" then. Just because something succeeds doesn't mean it wasn't a risk. However, if you want to look at failures, how about Lone Ranger? Planes? Stitch's Great Escape? Removing Mr. Toad?

I'm not saying it isn't a risk if it succeeds my example was Splash mountain that succeeded and was a risk. I agree that those things you listed were failures removing toad well Disney parks change so I am not all that opposed to that.

 

[rteetz]

Do you remember what came out of Eisner's Disney in the 2000's? He was the most risk averse guy around. This ultimately led to the small budgets for Disney California Adventure and WDS. Also it meant that they continually churned out bad movies. Iger? Not building if he doesn't have to? Aulani DVC Expansions Two new cruise ship vessels (started during a global recession. Risky) Fantasyland (Started during a global recession. Risky) Shanghai (Stared during a recession. Risky) California Adventure (started during a recession. Risky) Hong Kong Disneyland Expansion (Started during a recession. Risky) Avatarland Disney Animal Kingdom Expansions Disney Springs My Magic He sure hates those theme parks... You need to read about Disney's Animal Kingdom's history. It bombed when it first opened. 1)People didn't show up like they were supposed to. Probably because they didn't like idea of having very little to do. 2)People didn't stay into the afternoon. Related to the first problem. 3)Feeding Elephants is very expensive. The operating costs were astronomical. 4) Worst of all, it stole guests from other WDW parks. What makes Eisner's acquisition of Capital Cities acceptable, and Iger's trifecta of positive acquisitions unneeded. I'd counter that his buys are better in line with Disney's business operations as a movie production company, theme park operator, and an licensor of IP. What does Sport broadcasting have to do with that? Those moves were utilizing existing pieces of real estate for maximum return. I think Iger would be just happy moving into both of those markets.

I said that Eisner's last five years or so were his worst he should have left on his own terms when things were good he kind of ruined it for himself. Aulani I have never been too and I would love to go but from what I've heard DVC sales haven't been that great. Shanghai is going to a place that is seeing a theme park boom no risk there that park will be a success and they are spending good money on it. DCA good concept but faded quickly and needed to be redone. HKDL more expansion is rumored to be coming. But all of these things you've listed are in the last five years. Iger has been CEO since 2005 why want these things happening during those first five years. The whole idea of having more theme parks is to steal attendance from other parks that's why they build more than one. If you only had one park it would be insanely crowded every day the parks are needed for relief. AK was another park with a budget that went over and needed more finally we are getting it but it shouldn't have taken that long. I mentioned ESPN because it's part of broadcasting and a big Disney money maker. Disney parks never needed IP originally everything was original ideas. Pirates, BTMRR, Space mountain, Everest, ToT, SSE, TT, Soarin. All original ideas what happened to that Disney.

 

[DDLand]

I said that Eisner's last five years or so were his worst he should have left on his own terms when things were good he kind of ruined it for himself. Aulani I have never been too and I would love to go but from what I've heard DVC sales haven't been that great. Shanghai is going to a place that is seeing a theme park boom no risk there that park will be a success and they are spending good money on it. DCA good concept but faded quickly and needed to be redone. HKDL more expansion is rumored to be coming. But all of these things you've listed are in the last five years. Iger has been CEO since 2005 why want these things happening during those first five years. The whole idea of having more theme parks is to steal attendance from other parks that's why they build more than one. If you only had one park it would be insanely crowded every day the parks are needed for relief. AK was another park with a budget that went over and needed more finally we are getting it but it shouldn't have taken that long. I mentioned ESPN because it's part of broadcasting and a big Disney money maker. Disney parks never needed IP originally everything was original ideas. Pirates, BTMRR, Space mountain, Everest, ToT, SSE, TT, Soarin. All original ideas what happened to that Disney.

I'd say his last decade was his worst... That's just me.

Aulani- I'm not sure if that's the case anymore. They're really playing it up, and reporters refer to it has a success. However, it doesn't matter how successful it was. Your point was he didn't do risks. That's clearly one.
Shanghai- Really? Just like Hong Kong Disneyland was a sure bet! Oh wait...
DCA- No not a good concept, do you know your Disney history? People canned the park as terrible with little to do from the start. Eisner was trying to fix it with band aids; Iger went with surgery and to great success.
Hong Kong- The size of that theme park is considerbly bigger now. They've basically cleaned up Eisner's mess. More as you say may be forthcoming.

I need to make you a timeline. Basically when Iger first took over Imagineering it was a terrible place of incompetence. Known for cost over runs and employees only caring about themselves it was terrible. So the first couple years were just spent cleaning up that mess. TSM came out during this time for $70 million. Then starting in 2007 you got the Aulani announcement. By 2011 they had My Magic, Aulani, New Fantasyland, DCA Expansion, etc all underway. That's a busy first couple of years. Of course these projects take time so the fruits weren't harvested until these last 5 years but rest assured, Iger wasn't sitting around.

Ehh,I don't think you understand how Disney thinks. Ultimately in their perfect world every theme park would be at maximum attendance all the time. This is because there's a certain amount of money they must spend to keep rides operating. The more guests they can spread that fee around the better.

Yeah, the funny thing is Eisner could have snapped his fingers and the money could've come to DAK in an instant to build it right. Instead they got a broken park. Plus all the issues listed above.

That still doesn't make it alright. I'd actually argue that Disneh should (gasp) get rid of their media division because it doesn't have any synergies with their other businesses.

Spot on. I agree with you. Theme parks used to be a creative force within the company. Now, they just look at a movie and try their best recreate it. Is it okay, yea. Would it be better with original content. Definitely. We can thank Eisner for that current mindset...

 

[rteetz]

I'd say his last decade was his worst... That's just me. Aulani- I'm not sure if that's the case anymore. They're really playing it up, and reporters refer to it has a success. However, it doesn't matter how successful it was. Your point was he didn't do risks. That's clearly one. Shanghai- Really? Just like Hong Kong Disneyland was a sure bet! Oh wait... DCA- No not a good concept, do you know your Disney history? People canned the park as terrible with little to do from the start. Eisner was trying to fix it with band aids; Iger went with surgery and to great success. Hong Kong- The size of that theme park is considerbly bigger now. They've basically cleaned up Eisner's mess. More as you say may be forthcoming. I need to make you a timeline. Basically when Iger first took over Imagineering it was a terrible place of incompetence. Known for cost over runs and employees only caring about themselves it was terrible. So the first couple years were just spent cleaning up that mess. TSM came out during this time for $70 million. Then starting in 2007 you got the Aulani announcement. By 2011 they had My Magic, Aulani, New Fantasyland, DCA Expansion, etc all underway. That's a busy first couple of years. Of course these projects take time so the fruits weren't harvested until these last 5 years but rest assured, Iger wasn't sitting around. Ehh,I don't think you understand how Disney thinks. Ultimately in their perfect world every theme park would be at maximum attendance all the time. This is because there's a certain amount of money they must spend to keep rides operating. The more guests they can spread that fee around the better. Yeah, the funny thing is Eisner could have snapped his fingers and the money could've come to DAK in an instant to build it right. Instead they got a broken park. Plus all the issues listed above. That still doesn't make it alright. I'd actually argue that Disneh should (gasp) get rid of their media division because it doesn't have any synergies with their other businesses. Spot on. I agree with you. Theme parks used to be a creative force within the company. Now, they just look at a movie and try their best recreate it. Is it okay, yea. Would it be better with original content. Definitely. We can thank Eisner for that current mindset...

DCA was a good concept originally but a park on California in California didn't work. That was the problem with DCA that it was California inside California. That was during Eisner's bad years no doubt about it. Maybe a California park somewhere would have worked better. China is in a theme park boom right now. They are building a new hotel at HKDL, a new escort in Shanghai and rumors are HK will get another expansion soon.
Iger took over in 2005. I would agree at that point disney was not in a good place.
Tony Baxter only cares about himself?
TSMM is at DL and WDW and is one attraction at a park that needs 6 more.
NFL took 4 years and we got a cloned omnimover, a restaurant, double dumbo, a solid d ticket mine train, and a meet and greet show thing. That is what I call slow.
That was also only at MK none of the other parks were doing any better than, than they are today.
I'm pretty sure I understand how Disney works or I wouldn't be here. My dream is to work for them, I'm fascinated about what goes on behind the scenes.
The board of directors would be the ones to approve money for major expansion and like we've said before at the end of Eisner's career he wouldn't be getting the money to do that.
I think we both can agree Eisner was better in the beginning than he was at the end. I disagree about getting rid of the media division why would Disney get rid of something that makes money and something that has worked for them.

One problem I have with Iger is with Eisner he at least kept the parks in good shape. For example at least in WDW's case, pirates needs a good 6 month refurb because so much of it doesn't work. Many things around the parks just need a little freshening up and they'd be good as new.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't like Disney or what they do.

 

[DDLand]

DCA was a good concept originally but a park on California in California didn't work. That was the problem with DCA that it was California inside California. That was during Eisner's bad years no doubt about it. Maybe a California park somewhere would have worked better. China is in a theme park boom right now. They are building a new hotel at HKDL, a new escort in Shanghai and rumors are HK will get another expansion soon.
Iger took over in 2005. I would agree at that point disney was not in a good place.
Tony Baxter only cares about himself?
TSMM is at DL and WDW and is one attraction at a park that needs 6 more.
NFL took 4 years and we got a cloned omnimover, a restaurant, double dumbo, a solid d ticket mine train, and a meet and greet show thing. That is what I call slow.
That was also only at MK none of the other parks were doing any better than, than they are today.
I'm pretty sure I understand how Disney works or I wouldn't be here. My dream is to work for them, I'm fascinated about what goes on behind the scenes.
The board of directors would be the ones to approve money for major expansion and like we've said before at the end of Eisner's career he wouldn't be getting the money to do that.
I think we both can agree Eisner was better in the beginning than he was at the end. I disagree about getting rid of the media division why would Disney get rid of something that makes money and something that has worked for them.

One problem I have with Iger is with Eisner he at least kept the parks in good shape. For example at least in WDW's case, pirates needs a good 6 month refurb because so much of it doesn't work. Many things around the parks just need a little freshening up and they'd be good as new.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't like Disney or what they do.

I don't buy that California thing. I think it was poorly executed with bad rides/not enough rides.
They've got several billion on the line with those expansions. There may be a boom right now, but the product reception is up in the air. There's no such thing as a sure bet in developing nations.

Oh gosh rteetz, you pick the one guy in the organization who was universally well liked. To give you some perspective for nearly a decade management refused to let him do meaningful work. because they were jealous. Marty and the rest of the gang were terrible. Look up some article on JHM for some background on how dysfunctional things were.

I think that was cautiousness related to recession still being in effect. Yes I'm 100% in agreement that that was terribly slow.

Their focus was elsewhere. They seem to be bringing it back to Buena Vista.

That's great, what area? I too have a temptation to work there someday. Try to tell myself it's not logical but... The more bodies inside the theme park= equal greater profit. Preferably these bodies will be paying $100 a pop for admission.


Actually, (and this is one of the reasons Eisner was hated by the end) he had complete control of the board. He could get them to do anything he wanted. It was one of the reasons he fell apart. All except two individuals listened to his every whim.

100% correct.

Not in the end. The parks were approaching DLP levels by Eisner's end. The parks, especially DL are much better then they were a decade ago.

Because just because something makes money doesn't mean it's good. Companies need to focus on their key businesses while not doing too much. ESPN, ABC, and ABC News have nothing to do with their key businesses. I think they hurt each other being under the same company. Media networks should have a CEO who focuses all his time on just Media Networks. Disney should have a CEO that should focus all their energy on Disney.

I'm never going to question you on that. You obviously care a great deal. Period.

 

[rteetz]

I don't buy that California thing. I think it was poorly executed with bad rides/not enough rides. They've got several billion on the line with those expansions. There may be a boom right now, but the product reception is up in the air. There's no such thing as a sure bet in developing nations. Oh gosh rteetz, you pick the one guy in the organization who was universally well liked. To give you some perspective for nearly a decade management refused to let him do meaningful work. because they were jealous. Marty and the rest of the gang were terrible. Look up some article on JHM for some background on how dysfunctional things were. I think that was cautiousness related to recession still being in effect. Yes I'm 100% in agreement that that was terribly slow. Their focus was elsewhere. They seem to be bringing it back to Buena Vista. That's great, what area? I too have a temptation to work there someday. Try to tell myself it's not logical but... The more bodies inside the theme park= equal greater profit. Preferably these bodies will be paying $100 a pop for admission. Actually, (and this is one of the reasons Eisner was hated by the end) he had complete control of the board. He could get them to do anything he wanted. It was one of the reasons he fell apart. All except two individuals listened to his every whim. 100% correct. Not in the end. The parks were approaching DLP levels by Eisner's end. The parks, especially DL are much better then they were a decade ago. Because just because something makes money doesn't mean it's good. Companies need to focus on their key businesses while not doing too much. ESPN, ABC, and ABC News have nothing to do with their key businesses. I think they hurt each other being under the same company. Media networks should have a CEO who focuses all his time on just Media Networks. Disney should have a CEO that should focus all their energy on Disney. I'm never going to question you on that. You obviously care a great deal. Period.

I said it was a good concept. It was not executed well. If it was it could've been good.

So Marty was bad? That I don't get I can understand imagineering being bad in 2005 but not the 80s and 90s things were being pumped out of there then. WDW and globally that was some of the most parks and resorts expansion ever.

Again I agree the end of Eisner's career wasn't good .

Movies and entertainment are disneys main business ABC and ESPN fall under that. The parks are secondary really that was something Walt wanted so people could experience things with him.

Iger came from the media side of things...

 

[DDLand]

I said it was a good concept. It was not executed well. If it was it could've been good.

So Marty was bad? That I don't get I can understand imagineering being bad in 2005 but not the 80s and 90s things were being pumped out of there then. WDW and globally that was some of the most parks and resorts expansion ever.

Again I agree the end of Eisner's career wasn't good .

Movies and entertainment are disneys main business ABC and ESPN fall under that. The parks are secondary really that was something Walt wanted so people could experience things with him.

Iger came from the media side of things...

You seemed to take issue with it's location in California, whereas I thought the rides/and lack of rides were the problem.

Not always, but creatively much like Eisner he was past his prime. He became better at defending his job then doing it. There was general relief when he finally stepped down.

No, I think Disney's main business is creating and leveraging their massive amount of IP through movies, parks and resorts, and consumer products, as well as emerging technologies. Media is a totally different game then Hollywood. You'd think that wasn't the case, but they're different animals.

True, but he has the heart of a Silicon Valley CEO. Innovation, new technologies, and continued expansion are in Disney's DNA thanks to Iger.

 

[rteetz]

You seemed to take issue with it's location in California, whereas I thought the rides/and lack of rides were the problem. Not always, but creatively much like Eisner he was past his prime. He became better at defending his job then doing it. There was general relief when he finally stepped down. No, I think Disney's main business is creating and leveraging their massive amount of IP through movies, parks and resorts, and consumer products, as well as emerging technologies. Media is a totally different game then Hollywood. You'd think that wasn't the case, but they're different animals. True, but he has the heart of a Silicon Valley CEO. Innovation, new technologies, and continued expansion are in Disney's DNA thanks to Iger.

I would agree with everything accept for innovation as of late. Yes MyMagic+ is new innovation but in terms of movies and attractions there hasn't been much new innovation lately.

 

[DDLand]

I would agree with everything accept for innovation as of late. Yes MyMagic+ is new innovation but in terms of movies and attractions there hasn't been much new innovation lately.

Attractions have been a little on the dry side. I'll cede that one in a heart beat.(Though something tells me that when Shanghai opens all of their critics will be silenced) Though where they've been pushing innovation has not been in ride vehicles or technologies but in theming. Really everything that has come out of Glendale recently theming wise has been beyond amazing. The problem I have with this push is it's meant smaller and smaller attraction budgets with great facades. The question becomes do you like parks with fewer rides but richly themed environments like AK, or do you like parks with less theming and more attractions Disneyland Park being a textbook case. Though I've gotten myself sidetracked...

Innovation in films is less clear cut. What defines innovation? New technologies? Marketing? Film distribution? Iger's innovation in movies in my opinion has been to lower the output of the studio and focus only on high budget movies that they believe will succeed. That's led to incredible successes like Pirates, but also John Carter like failures. Some may call me silly for saying a strategy is innovation. Who knows...

 

[rteetz]

Attractions have been a little on the dry side. I'll cede that one in a heart beat.(Though something tells me that when Shanghai opens all of their critics will be silenced) Though where they've been pushing innovation has not been in ride vehicles or technologies but in theming. Really everything that has come out of Glendale recently theming wise has been beyond amazing. The problem I have with this push is it's meant smaller and smaller attraction budgets with great facades. The question becomes do you like parks with fewer rides but richly themed environments like AK, or do you like parks with less theming and more attractions Disneyland Park being a textbook case. Though I've gotten myself sidetracked... Innovation in films is less clear cut. What defines innovation? New technologies? Marketing? Film distribution? Iger's innovation in movies in my opinion has been to lower the output of the studio and focus only on high budget movies that they believe will succeed. That's led to incredible successes like Pirates, but also John Carter like failures. Some may call me silly for saying a strategy is innovation. Who knows...

I agree that I think their will be big new things in Shanghai one being the new pirates ride they are building. Theming is never a problem with Disney really.

I get what your saying on the film strategy but innovation at least when I think about it is new tech, or the other things you listed.