When it comes to HOW things happen, I have to disagree with Baron, in that I don't see Iger bringing many of the same problems to the table that Eisner does. He should do a better job in the relationship area, and it does appear that he is more willing to let people do their jobs than Eisner.
But Eisner is so far gone in those areas that just being better than Eisner isn't going to be enough to really solve the problems.
Also, now that the buck has to stop at Iger, how will he respond to the inevitable failures (everybody has 'em)? Its one thing to let your people do their job when the spotlight isn't on you, but quite another when you are front and center.
The fact that he is not a parks or animation guy could be a benefit, if he really does let the people do their jobs. With the parks, the jury is still out on Weiss and Ouimet and crew, though that's better than with Pressler, where the jury had already come back with a unanimous guilty verdict. Its not looking good for Rasulo, though, as he's looking to be more part of the problem than the solution.
Still, there is at least reason for hope within the Parks ranks.
With animation, though, I'm not sure Disney still has the people in place who SHOULD be left alone. The best talent has gone elsewhere, and it will take quite an effort rebuild. Iger's lack of experience here could further hurt this area, and it can't take much more.
As a network guy, he seems no worse than anybody else. We'll have to see where he wants to take the live action segment.
I said earlier that I disagree with Baron in that the methods are not going to be identical to Eisner. But where Baron could be right is in the end-product (and that's probably what Baron meant anyway). Iger just doesn't have the track record in Disney's core businesses to give us proof that he can really move them forward.
I'm convinced the "search" was a sham from the start, and that if the Board had REALLY wanted to find a better choice, they could have.
But unless somebody out there has an ace up their sleeve, the deed has been done, and we have Iger, for better or for worse.
So my list? This is assuming that Eisner doesn't continue to pull the strings in some way or another.
1. The parks will continue their small but important improvements in upkeep and maintenance. The real test will come in the next few years, when its time to begin implementing any plans to truly "fix" DCA and the DL Resort in general, as well as the more subtle but very real issues at WDW. Things like Epcot's direction, AK's expansion, etc. Are the current park guys the right guys for the job? And will they be able to secure the type of funding and freedom under Iger that was impossible under Eisner? If I have to go one way or the other, I say it doesn't happen. Things will be better than under Pressler, but when it comes time to really take the risks and make the investments, Iger will balk.
2. Home grown animation will continue to struggle. Pixar will likely re-sign.
3. ABC will continue to cycle up and down, in the end, no better and perhaps a tad worse than the other guys.
4. All in all, "fans" will be happier with Iger than with Eisner, simply because he doesn't bring the lightning rod type negatives to the table that Eisner did. From the fan pov, things will be better, but nothing like the "classic Disney" we would like to see return. How the company will do financially is tougher, though I suspect we are looking at a continued cyclical pattern. When the economy struggles, or terrorism rears its ugly head again, the numbers will suffer and the parks will bear the brunt of the cuts. When outside forces are favorable, things won't seem so bad.
Bottom line, I think Iger has a reasonable shot to do a better job than Eisner, but I don't think he's the guy to truly restore Disney's luster. And, yes, I acknowledge that I could be wrong, for the better or for the worse.
So there.
I'll start.
