Is Bob Chapek A Greedy Miser?

[TsWade2]

I only say this because he’s not seen as a serious replacement at the moment. If he was maybe we would hear these things.

Oh, I see. I'm not saying he will be the next ceo, I'm just saying if he was chosen, I'll give him a chance before passing judgement.

 

[mshanson3121]

These threads crack me up. Disney has such an emotional attachment on many, that they miss the fact that it is also a business. Most products you purchase on a weekly basis (gas, electricity, food, etc.) are also sourced from companies that cut employees and budgets all the time to meet financial growth targets, and no one bats an eye. I wonder why some feel Disney would be any different. They have publically traded stocks and goals they have to hit, or investors will take their money elsewhere.

Because they have never marketed themselves as being FOR the people. Disney was created for a very different purpose than an oil company or a power company. Disney grew to what it is, because of the emotional connections they intentionally created, because it marketed itself as a company that placed the customer above all else, and that it would deliver an experience unsurpassed by any others. It's silly to even remotely make these comparisons.

 

[dwheaton]

I think that Bob Chapek is likely a smart business man that makes huge profits for the company. What bothers me is that his focus is on merchandise and sales, not on the parks. I've watched multiple presentations that he's given at D23 and other events, and he can't fake passion for the parks. I work at a large corporation and have an MBA, and I know the type of guy that Chapek is. He's not dumb or even greedy; it's his job to make profits for Disney. I just wish they hired leaders with more vision. Bob Iger is similar, so it makes sense that he would connect to a guy like Chapek.

 

[OddDisneyFan]

Because they have never marketed themselves as being FOR the people. Disney was created for a very different purpose than an oil company or a power company. Disney grew to what it is, because of the emotional connections they intentionally created, because it marketed itself as a company that placed the customer above all else, and that it would deliver an experience unsurpassed by any others. It's silly to even remotely make these comparisons.

Unfortunately, Walt is dead and the heirs are out of the loop, and therefore so is the emotional attachment of management. This happens with almost every company; the founder with the dream and vision is, at some point, succeeded by someone without the same emotional investment in the dream.

Business schools generally teach students to focus on the mechanics. Vision is an individual talent, but no one is typically as invested in making it work as the founder. Everyone else is there for the paycheck.

There are truly great companies out there who focus on the employees and customers before the books (and are usually handsomely rewarded for it), but they are very few and far between I'm afraid. It surely doesn't seem like Disney is one of them any longer.

 

[SCSteve]

All must remember, shareholders are number 1, everything else falls in behind that, including the guest experience. Disney parks and resorts are in a good position in that, no matter what they do, or don't do, folks will keep coming....

 

[OddDisneyFan]

All must remember, shareholders are number 1, everything else falls in behind that, including the guest experience. Disney parks and resorts are in a good position in that, no matter what they do, or don't do, folks will keep coming....

Sacrificing customer experience does not serve the [long-term] shareholders well, but it often does serve the executives well insofar as they are incentivized on stock price or financial performance. Most executives these days are short-termers relative to the life of the company. I can appreciate how genuinely difficult it is to resist the urge to make reductions, cut corners, or raise prices, especially when newer generations of customers won't miss what they never had and the competition are doing the same types of things. In this regard, Disney could probably get away with a lot more than they do.

Disney still does what they do very well, even though we long-time guests see declines from what used to be. As you point out, things likely won't change until enough guests vote with their pocketbooks.

 

[KenHutch]

Don't blame the puppet blame the puppet master Bob Iger who has made it clear that he will earn that massive bonus one way or the other.

 

[rteetz]

Don't blame the puppet blame the puppet master Bob Iger who has made it clear that he will earn that massive bonus one way or the other.

Iger does not make all of the parks decisions.

 

[TsWade2]

Iger does not make all of the parks decisions.

Exactly.

 

[dwheaton]

Iger does not make all of the parks decisions.

That's definitely true. However, he sets the general template for the direction of the company. He doesn't make the individual decisions, but it goes according to a general framework of how they should be handled.

This doesn't mean we should just blame Iger, however. The acquisitions of Marvel and Star Wars have made Disney more financially viable and set for quite a long time. Disney is also investing a lot of money in the parks now for expansions. My issue is with the linear approach to these additions - lots of IP, less differentiation among the parks, and a focus on brand over all other concerns.

 

[TsWade2]

Never mind, I'm just overreacting.