In Defense of Bob Chapek

[ChipnDale79]

Yes. A lot of vague unhappiness. Not a lot of reasons why.

Frankly, a lot of people (here and elsewhere) just like to complain a lot.

for me personally, disney is a different company than any other. They sell something no one else does, "magic". its what they market. to me, that requires someone special to run that company, it has to be something different than your typical wall street ceo.

Chapek doesnt have that in my opinion, i'm sure he would be a great CEO for Coke, or Chevron, but to me, thats not the kind of CEO that Disney's customers want.

When i visit WDW, i want to be in a bubble and leave the nasty world behind. I'm aware that i'm paying for things, and i'm aware that i'm paying an inflated price for those, and i'm happy to do that if i dont feel like im being taken advantage of.

For me its a trickle down effect, meaning if i had a great time at Disney World, i'm more than likely going to spend more money on Disney movies, disney Plus, and other non park related things. when they upset me, that trickles down as well.

Under Chapek, Disney continues to cut experiences, while charging more, and that's not all because of Covid.

Magical Express is a good example of that, that was a service than many people used, and it was not free, it was baked into the cost of the hotel stay. When that service was taken away, that baked in price was not removed.

 

[Jonfw2]

for me personally, disney is a different company than any other. They sell something no one else does, "magic". its what they market. to me, that requires someone special to run that company, it has to be something different than your typical wall street ceo.

Chapek doesnt have that in my opinion, i'm sure he would be a great CEO for Coke, or Chevron, but to me, thats not the kind of CEO that Disney's customers want.

When i visit WDW, i want to be in a bubble and leave the nasty world behind. I'm aware that i'm paying for things, and i'm aware that i'm paying an inflated price for those, and i'm happy to do that if i dont feel like im being taken advantage of.

For me its a trickle down effect, meaning if i had a great time at Disney World, i'm more than likely going to spend more money on Disney movies, disney Plus, and other non park related things. when they upset me, that trickles down as well.

Under Chapek, Disney continues to cut experiences, while charging more, and that's not all because of Covid.

Magical Express is a good example of that, that was a service than many people used, and it was not free, it was baked into the cost of the hotel stay. When that service was taken away, that baked in price was not removed.

Who in your opinion was a Disney CEO that had the "magic" component?

 

[BrianL]

I am pretty sure that part of the job description isn't a Likeable person. He was hired to run a company, and he got handed a company in the worst possible circumstances. If I was head of the board, a bubbly personality would not be a characteristic I would look for. I want a person who can make tough decisions and live with them and own them. I think the board understands this and wants to give him more time in a "normal market" if you can call our economy normal right now.

Actually, being "likeable" is a major plus for a CEO as the job is highly focused on relationships - with employess, board members, shareholders, other companies, etc. CEO's get their jobe done "on the golf course" so to speak (not necessarily literally), so some affability goes a long way. It's not strictly required, but the better CEO's will tend to have that skill.

 

[bakenatj]

Who in your opinion was a Disney CEO that had the "magic" component?

Walt, and that's about it.

 

[Jonfw2]

Walt, and that's about it.

And therein lies the problem!

 

[huskies90]

He was penny pinching while running parks? In his tenure they spent more on parks than on Pixar, Marvel, and LucasFilms combined!

And regarding allowing Disney to manage variable costs. Umm...that's a GOOD thing. On a day that AK may be slightly understaffed, they can divert more help to that park since they know how many people will be in it.

Why does how much the company spends in one division compared to another matter? Yes, running the parks is expensive. Why does it matter that they spent more on the parks than Marvel? So I am not following your argument. Go back and look at all the extra paid for items he added as well as charging more for less while he was in charge of the parks and that has continued as CEO. That is what I am referring to and many folks have mentioned. And frankly, I have no problem paying more for a better (or at least equal) experience so I am not upset about paying more $$ for a magical vacation experience.

As for managing costs, YES, that is a good thing. And on paper, the park reservation system is a great idea. But it should never be at the expense of your customer's experience. He is missing what makes Disney special: the guest experience. So come up with a way that you can use the park reservation system that makes my experience as a guest better. Or at least does not impact it negatively. As you can see by signature, I have more that a few trips to Disney under my belt. I can't think of any change that has come and gone - and I have seen many - that I hate more and that has affected my vacation experience negatively more than the park pass system.

 

[wabbott]

Who in your opinion was a Disney CEO that had the "magic" component?

Eisner had it for the first 10 or 15 years, until his paranoia got the best of him. And Iger to some extent, but he put in place some personnel that are problematic.

 

[ChipnDale79]

Who in your opinion was a Disney CEO that had the "magic" component?

Walt, Eisner (when Wells was still alive), and believe or not Iger.

I was down on Iger for a long time, but i believe he had a good mixture of allowing creativity and being a corporate CEO.

Walt had an idea for Disney World, but wasnt around to execute on it. so its probably fair to include Roy in this conversation as well.

Eisney doesnt get the credit he deserves for what WDW is today.

One of the major issues that Disney suffers today, is that there is no longer a Disney in the company to help steer the ship. Walt's nephew, Roy, lead a charge to oust 2 Disney CEO's that he believed had lost their way. There is no one left to do that.

 

[wabbott]

While Roy wasn't Walt, he also did a good job from 1965 to 1971. He had the good sense to keep the creative team motivated.

 

[Jonfw2]

Eisner had it for the first 10 or 15 years, until his paranoia got the best of him. And Iger to some extent, but he put in place some personnel that are problematic.

From the three comments here, it appears the only two that didn't have fairly major flaws are Walt and Roy Disney.

So perhaps we give Chapek a shot at this?

 

[bakenatj]

Actually, being "likeable" is a major plus for a CEO as the job is highly focused on relationships - with employess, board members, shareholders, other companies, etc. CEO's get their jobe done "on the golf course" so to speak (not necessarily literally), so some affability goes a long way. It's not strictly required, but the better CEO's will tend to have that skill.

That is because companies aren't having the right person be the face of the company. That should be someone else's job. I want someone who is focused on where the company is going and how are we going to get there. Not out shaking hands and kissing babies. Leadership has been....well dumbed down in my opinion.

You can be good at building relationships and still not be bubbly. Honest, genuine, good character and steadfastness are more important to me. If you have those characteristics people will respect you and want to be led by you.

 

[Jonfw2]

Why does how much the company spends in one division compared to another matter? Yes, running the parks is expensive. Why does it matter that they spent more on the parks than Marvel? So I am not following your argument. Go back and look at all the extra paid for items he added as well as charging more for less while he was in charge of the parks and that has continued as CEO. That is what I am referring to and many folks have mentioned. And frankly, I have no problem paying more for a better (or at least equal) experience so I am not upset about paying more $$ for a magical vacation experience.

As for managing costs, YES, that is a good thing. And on paper, the park reservation system is a great idea. But it should never be at the expense of your customer's experience. He is missing what makes Disney special: the guest experience. So come up with a way that you can use the park reservation system that makes my experience as a guest better. Or at least does not impact it negatively. As you can see by signature, I have more that a few trips to Disney under my belt. I can't think of any change that has come and gone - and I have seen many - that I hate more and that has affected my vacation experience negatively more than the park pass system.

Okay...fair enough.

 

[Jonfw2]

That is because companies aren't having the right person be the face of the company. That should be someone else's job. I want someone who is focused on where the company is going and how are we going to get there. Not out shaking hands and kissing babies. Leadership has been....well dumbed down in my opinion.

You can be good at building relationships and still not be bubbly. Honest, genuine, good character and steadfastness are more important to me. If you have those characteristics people will respect you and want to be led by you.

And perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't hear a lot of chatter from people behind the scenes suggesting Chapek is difficult or boorish in any way. And frankly, in the interviews I've seen with the guy he comes off as pretty affable.

 

[wabbott]

From the three comments here, it appears the only two that didn't have fairly major flaws are Walt and Roy Disney.

So perhaps we give Chapek a shot at this?

Oh, Walt had his flaws. Never thought about money, and left that to Roy. And Roy had little creative talent. They made a great team, but neither could have made DIS what it is without the other, imo.

 

[Jonfw2]

Oh, Walt had his flaws. Never thought about money, and left that to Roy. And Roy had little creative talent. They made a great team, but neither could have made DIS what it is without the other, imo.

Well said. But we can't ignore all the massive developments that have taken place since under the watch of a series of non-Disney's.

 

[wabbott]

Iger had the good sense (or luck, or something) to repair the damage done by Eisner to the relationship between DIS and Pixar. He earned his pay for his whole term on that one deal.

 

[bakenatj]

Oh, Walt had his flaws. Never thought about money, and left that to Roy. And Roy had little creative talent. They made a great team, but neither could have made DIS what it is without the other, imo.

You are absolutely right, he wasn't the greatest business-minded person. He was a gambler and a risk-taker and a dreamer. He is what made the magic happen, Roy made the business work. So who brought the most magic, hands down Walt. Who was the best CEO, that I am not sure on.

 

[ChipnDale79]

I honestly can't comment much on Don Tatum or Card Walker, i dont know enough about their times as CEOs of the company to form an opinion.

 

[Liquidice]

Like it or not, Disney is selling a product just like Exxon or Target is. Their goal is to maximize the profit on that product while simultaneously acquiring brand loyalty from customers. And it's a very fine line- short term bigger profits can lead to long term dissatisfaction. Too much reward or too low prices for customers and you might end up with short term financial issues.

But make no mistake- companies do not "like" you. They want to maximize the dollars they bring in. That's it.

See right now I believe Disney has crossed the line and sacrificed short term profits at the expense of customer satisfaction which will hurt them in the long term.

You can go back to my list of things that were cut and have not and likely will not return all while raising prices significantly (>25% cost increases in 1 year) - there is certainly a lot of emotion attached to people's opinion of Chapek, after all Disney parks are sold based on the "magic" and that has a lot of emotion attached to it. But you can't really say that all of the changes made were pro-consumer changes. They were primarily changes to cut costs and increase short term profits at the expense of the customer experience.

I don't blame Disney for wanting to make money, but I think Chapek has gone too far in chasing short term profits. As both a customer and a shareholder, I think in the long term it will be bad for the company.

Of course, if they realize they're losing money they will about-face and perks will start to come back to attract guests again - and overall opinions of Chapek may change. It won't make him a better CEO though.

The worrying part is they have a competitor in Orlando that is building a huge new theme park. While Disney continues to make things more complex for guests, cut perks and raise prices - Universal has overall kept the experience the same. Sure they have raised prices and they most certainly will raise them again when Epic Universe opens, but if Disney continues to turn off guests from returning and Universal attracts them instead, will the guests come back if Disney turns back on the perks? To some extent yes, I'm sure. But could people just make Disney a short stay while they spend most of their time at Universal? If Disney isn't careful, Universal could easily surpass them and Disney could find themselves behind. If that were to happen - would Chapek be a good CEO?

 

[Jonfw2]

See right now I believe Disney has crossed the line and sacrificed short term profits at the expense of customer satisfaction which will hurt them in the long term.

You can go back to my list of things that were cut and have not and likely will not return all while raising prices significantly (>25% cost increases in 1 year) - there is certainly a lot of emotion attached to people's opinion of Chapek, after all Disney parks are sold based on the "magic" and that has a lot of emotion attached to it. But you can't really say that all of the changes made were pro-consumer changes. They were primarily changes to cut costs and increase short term profits at the expense of the customer experience.

I don't blame Disney for wanting to make money, but I think Chapek has gone too far in chasing short term profits. As both a customer and a shareholder, I think in the long term it will be bad for the company.

Of course, if they realize they're losing money they will about-face and perks will start to come back to attract guests again - and overall opinions of Chapek may change. It won't make him a better CEO though.

The worrying part is they have a competitor in Orlando that is building a huge new theme park. While Disney continues to make things more complex for guests, cut perks and raise prices - Universal has overall kept the experience the same. Sure they have raised prices and they most certainly will raise them again when Epic Universe opens, but if Disney continues to turn off guests from returning and Universal attracts them instead, will the guests come back if Disney turns back on the perks? To some extent yes, I'm sure. But could people just make Disney a short stay while they spend most of their time at Universal? If Disney isn't careful, Universal could easily surpass them and Disney could find themselves behind. If that were to happen - would Chapek be a good CEO?

Well said. And I've often thought that Disney Parks need to be taking Universal FAR more seriously.