Iger to take over as CEO of Disney on 9/30/05!

[DancingBear]

1. Lassiter: I'm curious. What exactly is your beef with John Lassiter, and why do you not think he is an excellent choice for head of TWDC?

I think Lasseter's great as a creative guy, but what makes you think Wall Street would accept him as CEO of TWDC? Heck, he's only third in the pecking order at Pixar, behind Jobs and Catmull.

2. Trusting Ei$ner's judgment: I'm assuming you are sarcastic in thinking I am trusting anything Ei$ner said. The post was mean to illustrate how even the bumbling Cou$in Mikey thinks Igor is plain vanilla. If Cou$in Mikey thinks you are a talentless hack, wow, that's saying something. Heck, now I can see why many are happy Igor is coming...cause even his old boss agrees its 20 more years of the same.

First, you make the common Element mistake of assuming that because you are challenged on something, that means the challenger is an Eisner apologist, or, in this case "happy Igor is coming." I don't know enough about this guy to make a judgment yet, but I defend him against he prejudgments of others.

Second, I would think that a dismissive remark by Eisner would be a badge of honor among the Element, like the Katzenberg "midget" comment.

3. Bob's Budget: Rumor has it Orcner wanted to limit MiniME's budget when it came to investing in new shows and movies...

So what? (See "badge of honor" above).

4. Ei$ner's past successes: Katz? Wow, there's an old chestnut. Is that still even on Ei$ner's resume: "I brought in Jeffrey?" Well, Mikey, you are only as good as your last fumble, and the departure erases a lot of the 'good will' built up over that hire.

So, again, you can't give ME credit for anything at any point in the past.

5. Architects: Puhlease. Suffice it to say that the Swalphin stands for everything Cou$in Mikey believes in when it comes to the WDW resort. Quick question, where would you rather stay if it was free? Poly or the Swalphin? What if I threw in a Michael Graves toaster if you stayed at the Swalphin, would that change your mind?

ME inherited the convention hotel deal from the prior administration, and after fighting hard to get rid of the deal completely, got control of the design and handed it to a great architect. So what if you don't like Graves' stuff--would you rather have a plain Downtown-Disney style mid-rise hotel in that spot? Your offer re the Poly is a silly one--why not compare the Dolphin vs. Contemporary (particularly if the Dolphin could be relocated to overlooking MK). Or compare a free Poly to the Four Seasons Maui.

DB, I believe you would agree with me that Ei$ner should have left a long time ago. Those that believe like I do usually fall into two camps, the ones who think Ei$ner and Wells made a great team and that Ei$ner's earlier moves fizzled out especially since the health troubles, and the ones who think he was the proverbial flunky talentless coach who inherited a talent loaded team and won the superbowl.

Right there is one of the problems. I think the people and the situations are much more complex.

If you fall into or somewhere between those two camps, why are you not outraged that a man who deserves the President's title even less than Cou$in Mikey is going to be sitting in Walt's chair?

Because (1) it ain't Walt's chair no more (get over it), and (2) I haven't yet drawn the conclusion as to whether Iger "deserves" this or not.

 

[raidermatt]

The Street only cared if the stock was impacted. It wasn't - despite the efforts of SaveDisney.

The Street cares that the stock has been impacted for over 10 years by Eisners business plan. Had the quarterlies not improved, they would have run him out.

But they did improve, so they tolerated him, but the flak only started to die down when Eisner stepped down as Chairmen, and later announced he would definitely leave after his contract was up. Since the Street hates uncertainty, they preferred that to continuing to press Eisner, particularly when the quarterlies were on the upswing.

why not? How else do you succeed internally?

I'm talking about on a go-forward basis, with Iger at the helm. He succeeds by earning respect on his own, and implementing his own vision, not by being a front man for a still in control Eisner.

Where's your evidence for that? When the recent announcements were made about negotiations breaking off, did the stock take a dive? What analysts are you talking about?

Its in just about every article or interview anyone has done on the subject recently. Its said one of Iger's biggest challenges is to repair the Pixar relationship. Not to negotiate better terms. There's never any mention of the reason for the falling out being Pixar's requested terms.

Of course, its possible they are over-simplifying the matter. It wouldn't be the first time. But certainly the consensus is that the relationship is not in trouble due to terms, but rather due to the rift over Eisner.

No, Disney's stock price is not significantly impacted by the Pixar problem, but that's because it is still a relatively small piece of the companies overall revenue. Also, while negotiations broke off, Pixar did not actually sign with anybody else.

My personal opinion is that many are viewing this as a litmus test of sorts. To see if Iger can make nice with people that Eisner cannot. I also think that Iger knows this, and that if he is calling the shots, he will very much want to get this done. Not just for the financial benefits, but for the PR benefits as well.

 

[raidermatt]

DB, there's certainly some truth in what you say about Iger deserving a chance before he is judged.

And ultimately, he will get the chance to prove himself whether we pre-judge him or not.

But the problem is that he was installed as part of a sham that the Board called a search process, which puts the burden of proof on him. Its true that we don't know how he's going to handle a lot of things, but that is really part of the problem. He didn't have to compete with the elite for this position, he's Eisner's personal choice (and until the door hits Eisner on his rear, we can't even be sure his is really leaving), he's a network TV guy, etc, etc, etc.

There shouldn't be this many questions about this guy at this point, and that is part of the problem.

The Board has proven they do not deserve our blind trust, and that any significant actions they take must be viewed with skepticism.

Somebody mentioned the old "Fool me once, fool me twice" saying. Well, really, the Board is well past two on that count. They, nor their choices, no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[WDSearcher]

Fine, M. Searcher, you don't like MiniME, then how 'bout Igor, Ei$ner's "stupid and weak" assistant--(his words, not mine)?

Alas, I think calling him names at all is childish, so none of those work for me.

But since some of his own co-workers have said this about him: ...

I'm sure all of us can find people who will speak badly of us. Doesn't mean they're right.

Really, people, have we sunk this low as a corporation that we are satisfied with a guy Ei$ner wanted to put an allowance on when it came to risking money on movies and television shows? Without a creative bone in his body?

OK ... I'm confused. I didn't think you were a fan of ANY of Michael's opinions. In fact, I would think that the mere fact that Eisner thought Iger didn't have a creative bone in his body would automatically put you in Iger's court. Kind of that whole, "If Michael said it, it can't be true" line of thinking. But now you believe something is true simply because Michael said it? I hate it when I miss an episode!

I think you need to realize that The Walt Disney Company is never going to be the company you want it to be. You want the company to go back to being the company you knew when you were younger and more amazed by things and in a time when things like Pixar, Nickelodeon, CGI, and other theme parks didn't exist. You want the company to go and undo all the bad stuff and keep the good stuff while wiping all traces of Eiser from the books. That's not going to happen.

 

[WDSearcher]

But the problem is that he was installed as part of a sham that the Board called a search process, which puts the burden of proof on him. Its true that we don't know how he's going to handle a lot of things, but that is really part of the problem .... There shouldn't be this many questions about this guy at this point, and that is part of the problem.

But truly, wouldn't that be the case with anyone who came in? If, say, Steve Jobs had been given the nod, would there not be questions regarding how he'd handle things like the theme parks and ABC and Disney Theatricals? If Meg Whitman had taken the gig, wouldn't people have wondered how she would treat the film library or the theme parks or the animation division? I'd wager that we'd have as many questions about them as we have about Iger, except that any of the others would automatically have been given the benefit of the doubt because they weren't Iger. Just about anyone else coming in would have received a big ol' stamp of approval and whole lot of support. I'm sorry, but the fact that someone else "isn't Iger" just isn't enough of a reason for me to think they'd automatically do a better job.

I agree that the whole successor thing was pre-determined. But think about it ... for years people have been huffing and puffing that Eisner had no succession plan. That he was so micro-managerial and close-to-the-chest about things that he had no one who could take over if he just fell off a bridge one day. But, now it appears that he DID have a plan. It's just not the plan you wanted.

 

[raidermatt]

I think you need to realize that The Walt Disney Company is never going to be the company you want it to be. You want the company to go back to being the company you knew when you were younger and more amazed by things and in a time when things like Pixar, Nickelodeon, CGI, and other theme parks didn't exist. You want the company to go and undo all the bad stuff and keep the good stuff while wiping all traces of Eiser from the books. That's not going to happen.

What difference does it make if Pixar, Nick, etc exist? That's no excuse to become bereft of creativity (hyperbole acknowledged). You don't beat the competition by whining about them. You raise your own bar, or you get left behind.

Don't confuse a desire for Disney to focus on its creativity and core products with a desire to go back to eating TV dinners while watching Uncle Walt on the tube. Noboby is calling for the ridiculous scenario you describe. Its about business and creativity, and what a company has to do to truly succeed.

That said, if there is bad stuff, then yes, they darn well should be looking to fix it while keeping the good stuff.

Who in their right mind would recommend otherwise?

 

[raidermatt]

But truly, wouldn't that be the case with anyone who came in?

No.

There would some questions, yes, but far fewer as the candidates would have been required to put forth their plans and ideas. We of course would not get all of those details, but we'd get indications. We'd also be dealing with CEOs with more complete track records of performance when not under a regime such as Eisner's.

There's simply no excuse for the way things were done.

But, now it appears that he DID have a plan. It's just not the plan you wanted.

Ok, let's be realistic here. Certainly Eisner did not have this plan all along. If he did, he would not have said the things about Iger that he said in the past, and he also would not have been so reluctant to put the plan out there.

I really can't understand how anyone who cares what happens to this company can be satisfied with the process. And if you are not satisfied with the process, you can't be satisfied that the best person to lead the company forward has been identified. And wasn't it the responsibility of the Board to do everything they could to find that person?

If not, what is their responsibility?

 

[WDSearcher]

What difference does it make if Pixar, Nick, etc exist? That's no excuse to become bereft of creativity (hyperbole acknowledged). You don't beat the competition by whining about them. You raise your own bar, or you get left behind.

You may not think the Company is as creative as it used to be, but I still say much of that fault lies in the expectations of the audience. People expect every single thing that comes out of Disney to be sterling. They don't expect that of anyone else. When was the last time someone complained that a Nickelodeon film wasn't going to be a classic? When was the last time someone went to Six Flags and then complained because the theming wasn't as wonderful as it used to be? Disney is compared against it's nostalgic self all the time. And that's tough competition to beat, because nothing Disney ever does in 2005 will be as wonderful as what people remember -- or think they remember, or heard about, or read about -- from back in the "Walt years."

Walt had his batch of stinker projects, but no one remembers those, because Walt has this wonderful wash of nostalgia to hide behind. Not everything he touched turned to gold. But yet, today's Disney is supposed to hit that impossible mark of success every time.

 

[WDSearcher]

There would some questions, yes, but far fewer as the candidates would have been required to put forth their plans and ideas. We of course would not get all of those details, but we'd get indications. We'd also be dealing with CEOs with more complete track records of performance when not under a regime such as Eisner's.

OK ... we'd be dealing with CEOs with more complete track records of performance. In industries other than entertainment. And if we're going to "not get all of those details" with other candidates, why is it a problem to not have them yet with Iger? The thing that frustrates me is that you all seem to think you know what he'll do, what he'll say, how he'll lead, where he'll fail. How do you have all this information? I have an indication of how he behaved while he was working under Eisner, but I don't know how he'll perform once he's in the top spot. I've sat in creative meetings with the guy, and he's a good guy to have in creative meetings. Because he listens, and he asks questions, and he respects the talent, and he understands the importance of entertainment and -- dare I say it -- magic.

Ok, let's be realistic here. Certainly Eisner did not have this plan all along. If he did, he would not have said the things about Iger that he said in the past, and he also would not have been so reluctant to put the plan out there.

No ... but he didn't come up with it yesterday either. Somewhere along the line, he figured out a plan and it worked.

I really can't understand how anyone who cares what happens to this company can be satisfied with the process. And if you are not satisfied with the process, you can't be satisfied that the best person to lead the company forward has been identified.

No, I'm not satisfied. In fact, the announcement suprised the heck out of me on Saturday night. But no amount of whining I do is going to change the fact that the deed is done and Iger is the new guy. And, all things being equal, there are a lot of worse people they could have chosen. And if Iger coming in means that Eisner moves out a year early, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. By all accounts, Bob Iger is a nice guy ... a good politician who knows when to hold his tongue and when to speak up. After 20 years of Eisner's impromptu comments and temper tantrums, Iger was probably a breath of fresh air to a beleaguered board. I don't know that any amount of interviews or searching would have gotten the "best" person ... but I'm not yet ready to concede that the board didn't choose a good person.

 

[DVCconvert]

You may not think the Company is not as creative as it used to be, but I still say much of that fault lies in the expectations of the audience. People expect every single thing that comes out of Disney to be sterling.

But, WD, isn't that the expected and rational outcome of the sincere and public trumpeted actons over the year by the company to 'be the best', 'put on the best show', 'exceed guest expectations'? I think so. Not that I'm entirely disagreeing with you, but it's proably not so much the audience by itself.

When was the last time someone went to Six Flags and then complained because there was some paint chipping on the corner of a building?

I wouldn't know, I've never visited one of those parks!
Again though, the publicly cultured expectations of cleanings and maintaince in the parks have been a core 'Disney Standard' forever.

Disney is compared against it's nostalgic self all the time. And that's tough competition to beat, because nothing Disney ever does in 2005 will be as wonderful as what people remember -- or think they remember, or heard about, or read about -- from back in the "Walt years."

I agree anyone with unrealistic expectations would never be satisfied, however; I think the hard core -long term repeat fans/guests see right through those attractions/shows/events which are "done on the cheap" and are frustrated by it (ie; the Aladdin attraction / stitches great disgrace / Dino rama etc). Most view it as a lack of committment, and management constantly over-ruling imagineering.

 

[DVCconvert]

WD posted:

And if Iger coming in means that Eisner moves out a year early, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. By all accounts, Bob Iger is a nice guy ... a good politician who knows when to hold his tongue and when to speak up. After 20 years of Eisner's impromptu comments and temper tantrums, Iger was probably a breath of fresh air to a beleaguered board.

I generally agree, with the exception that any board that allows itself to become so out of control as they did, should now also go as they are not serving the owners interests well!

Eisner's impromptu comments and temper tantrums

Oh yeah.....if he were younger, he'd proably be diagnosed with some variant of Tourettes!

 

[WDSearcher]

I generally agree, with the exception that any board that allows itself to become so out of control as they did, should now also go as they are not serving the owners interests well!

I don't think the whole board needs to go, but I will agree that more should go than stay. And my vote reflected that!

Oh yeah.....if he were younger, he'd proably be diagnosed with some variant of Tourettes!

No ... he'd be hailed as "a creative genius with a temperament."

 

[raidermatt]

I still say much of that fault lies in the expectations of the audience.

Pixar can meet the expectations of Disney's audience.

You cannot fault an audience. If a company can no longer meet its customers expectations, it has two choices: Improve its product or get out of the business.

When was the last time someone complained that a Nickelodeon film wasn't going to be a classic? When was the last time someone went to Six Flags and then complained because the theming wasn't as wonderful as it used to be?

Disney always aimed higher than the competition. There were other parks and animation when Walt started his own. After Snow White, don't you think the audience expected more from the next Disney film than they would have from anybody else? Geez, if all Disney ever did was complain about the public expecting more out of them than the competition, we wouldn't even be discussing this. This website wouldn't exist. Disney would be just another entertainment company.

Nobody expects the next Nickelodeon film to be a classic, and Nickelodeon isn't trying to sell us their next film as a classic. They don't have their own resort destinations they are trying to sustain.

You ask when was the last time someone complaind about the lack of themeing at Six Flags. Well, when was the last time somebody shelled out thousands of dollars to take their family to Six Flag's for a week?

If Disney wants to be "Disney", then it must live with the expectations that go along with that. Its the only way to reap the benefits of being Disney.

If Disney wants to be Six Flags or Nick, well, then I guess its ok to compare themeselves to those entities.

The thing that frustrates me is that you all seem to think you know what he'll do, what he'll say, how he'll lead, where he'll fail.

You're reading too much into it, at least for me. I'm highly skeptical because he was installed as CEO as the result of a sham of a process. We were told there would be a competition, and then there wasn't. And again, like it or not, he's Eisner's guy and that also creates skepticism.

But I don't claim to KNOW how he will perform and where he will fail. I just expcet more diligence out of the process, and do not believe there should be this much uncertainty about such an important decision for Disney.

Maybe he does understand "Magic", but there's hardly anything out there to really back that up.

No ... but he didn't come up with it yesterday either. Somewhere along the line, he figured out a plan and it worked.

Eisner has cooked up lots of plans. If you define "worked" as got his way, then yes, this one worked also.

Its great that you trust him so. I, unfortunately, again have to look at his track record and take a more skeptical view.

But no amount of whining I do is going to change the fact that the deed is done and Iger is the new guy.

Your insult about whining aside, no amount of any discussion we have is going to change the fact that the deed is done.

In fact, no amount of discussion we have ever had on anything has ever changed what Disney has done.

So why discuss? (That's rhetorical, as obviously the ability to change Disney's discussions is not the criteria either of us use to determine whether we engage in these discussions. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it now. I just don't know why you would bring that into the conversation.)

And, all things being equal, there are a lot of worse people they could have chosen.

Of course they could have done worse.

That's just not quite a high enough standard for the Board of Directors of a Dow Industrial company to meet.

Look, maybe you're right and this will all work out. Maybe Iger is the guy to revive animation, bring the luster and innovation back to the parks, while all the while ensuring the networks and all the other businesses are properly run.

At this point, my criticism is more specifically pointed at Eisner and the Board. I just can reasonably EXPECT that things are going to work out despite their actions.

 

[DVCconvert]

WD posted:

I don't think the whole board needs to go, but I will agree that more should go than stay. And my vote reflected that!

Who do you think should stay? and why?

No ... he'd be hailed as "a creative genius with a temperament."

Only for the first few days, then once he started making statements to female BOD members like..."you'd think she carried his babies" (implying loyalty) he'd be seen as the wacko he is! As no rational, sane CEO would make a demeaning comment like that to a "superior".

 

[manning]

Read on yahoo disney board that Disney is outsourcing their information technology departments, about 5000 jobs.

 

[DVCconvert]

WDQuote:
The thing that frustrates me is that you all seem to think you know what he'll do, what he'll say, how he'll lead, where he'll fail.

Matt Quote:
You're reading too much into it, at least for me. I'm highly skeptical because he was installed as CEO as the result of a sham of a process. We were told there would be a competition, and then there wasn't. And again, like it or not, he's Eisner's guy and that also creates skepticism.

But I don't claim to KNOW how he will perform and where he will fail. I just expcet more diligence out of the process, and do not believe there should be this much uncertainty about such an important decision for Disney.


Matt, I agree with you entirely. There are many unknowns. We don't know if Ei$ner can really stay out and by what distance, we don't know how Iger will 'bloom' without (if without) the imperial Ex-CEO still giving "imput". Iger has not yet been lead to the platform, but due to the reasonable skepticisms, the guillotine of opinion has been dusted off and is parked clearly visiable on the backlot.

 

[WDSearcher]

Your insult about whining aside, no amount of any discussion we have is going to change the fact that the deed is done.

My post was ... "But no amount of whining I do is going to change the fact that the deed is done and Iger is the new guy."

I didn't mean the "whining" to apply to anyone other than myself. I did not mean to imply that you -- or anyone else here -- was whining, and I certainly wasn't lofting it as an insult. Sorry if it came across otherwise.

 

[WDSearcher]

Who do you think should stay? and why?

I'm a fan of Chen, Lewis, O'Donovan, and Wilson. I know they're not all "independent," but they're the ones I've met or heard speak and I've liked what I saw. They seem to have an interest in the Company, from the standpoint of helping preserve its history, as well as an interest in the people who actually work there. I'm sort of up in the air about Bryson and Matschullat ... don't know much about them on the positive or negative. Fred Langhammer just got here, but he seems to be one of the good guys. We'll see. Not particularly fond of Estrin, Lozano or Mitchell. I'm obviously willing to cut Iger a break for the time being and give him some support. And while I don't loathe Eisner as much as many here seem to, I certainly don't have a problem with him moving on.

 

[DancingBear]

Report on NPR this morning:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4540682

 

[DVCconvert]

WD posts:

I'm a fan of Chen, Lewis, O'Donovan, and Wilson. I know they're not all "independent," but they're the ones I've met or heard speak and I've liked what I saw. They seem to have an interest in the Company, from the standpoint of helping preserve its history, as well as an interest in the people who actually work there.

I'd certainly agree about O'Donovan.

I'm sort of up in the air about Bryson and Matschullat ... don't know much about them on the positive or negative.

Bryson - I'm not up in the air about at all. He's had lackeyitius for sometime now.

Fred Langhammer just got here, but he seems to be one of the good guys. We'll see.

agreed on both observations.

Not particularly fond of Estrin, Lozano or Mitchell.

LOL! "not fond" ? You just won the understatement of the decade award! . Estrin in particular. Mitchell has never had any guts in his 'corporate life' - unless they were someone else's insides he could hide behind.