As a former Disney employee and someone who's kept up with internal politics, even though his contract was up at the end of next year this feels sudden and not in line with how Disney tends to do things. Disney has quite a number of disparate businesses, from theme parks to streaming services to movies. Chapek is a business guy that has done consumer products and parks (parts of the business that aren't huge growth areas), and hasn't even been president of parks for that long. He has no experience on the creative side. Usually the future CEO is appointed to a COO/President role in order to help them learn the parts of the business they don't have experience in. It also helps vet if they'll be capable of leading all those business heads, which is how they determined not to go with Tom Staggs after he was made COO. Not doing this is pretty irregular, especially with all the shakeup that occurred with Fox. They're still working through a lot of that.
Similarly, I don't buy the story that Iger is moving into a creative leadership role. It's true there's been a vacuum there since Lasseter left, but unless there's long term tenure planned, Iger won't be very influential. Anyone who's worked at a large company knows that no one listens to the guy whose only responsibility is to have creative ideas if they have no other real responsibility and will be out in a few months. Iger put himself into a meaningless, insignificant role, and no one has satisfactorily explained why.
I don't think there's a scandal. If there was, the narrative around his departure would be different and he wouldn't be sticking out to the end of his contract. He wouldn't still be chairman of the board. I've heard a rumor the board is upset about Star Wars, but Q1 2020 was pretty solid and Mandalorian was well received. I'm actually worried he's sick, though I hope not because I admire him a lot. Regardless, I do feel like there's another shoe. I guess we'll have to wait to find out what it is.
The answer to this is simple. Paz de la Huerta named Iger (and Eisner) in her lawsuit against Weinstein. The allegations in short were that that their behavior allowed Miramax to cover up what happened to her.
Weinstein was just convicted of Rape. That's separate from the civil cases, but with a criminal conviction on even one, the civil cases become that much easier to win.
In my mind either he's stepping down because it will help in damage control/settlement amount negotiations, or it was part of a settlement itself.
Possible, but I don't think he'd remain as chairman and finish out his contract if that were the case. When Lasseter was in that position, as beloved as he was at the time, they didn't hesitate to cut all ties. I think it's something else. Then again, I could be wrong.
I'm actually worried he's sick, though I hope not because I admire him a lot.
That was my first thought also. Similar to what happened to Accenture's Pierre Nanterme, who had to step down because of his cancer (and sadly succumbed to it in 2019). But he was transparent about the reason, I don't know what was the rationale for Iger.
> Similarly, I don't buy the story that Iger is moving into a creative leadership role.
He's still staying on as executive chairman which outranks the CEO. But it is nevertheless odd that he is stepping down so quickly without a transition period.
I don't think it is scandal driven or the board would have ousted him from his chairman position as well. I'm just guessing here, but it could be health related. The last time a major CEO stepped aside was Steve Jobs due to illness. Eventually, Tim Cook became the CEO while Jobs stayed on as Apple's chairman until his death.
I remember there was talk about him running for president as well. Could be that as well but it is a bit late in the game for that.
15 years as CEO. Doubled yearly revenue since takeover. Bought and/or grew some of the most valuable entertainment IPs on the planet right now. Took an 800-pound gorilla status company and turned it into a cosmic-god-like powerhouse feared by the rest of us mere-mortals.
Pretty sure he just wants to leave on a high note and enjoy himself at this point. The dude is human after all. That kind of commitment does take a toll on you.
This is somewhat special in that Bob has been planning to retire for quite some time. His contract is up at the end of next year and every indication was that he intended to honor that. What feels weird is how Disney is executing the succession plan.
Again, I don't think it's scandal. If it were, he wouldn't stay through his contract and he wouldn't still be chairman. I don't even think it's bad performance, because the only hits to earnings predictions have been things outside their control, like the coronavirus.
Disney was pushing the "Bob Iger recreates Disney with Disney+" story for months recently...presumably they would have lessened his perceived role in the media if it meant having a smoother transition. From my perspective the reason for his retirement is something that has come up within the past 4 months or so.
"Iger won't be very influential". You don't know Bob. His voice will pull strings behind the scene. He may even work his way back. Very few have his understanding of all of the parts. He will be leaned on heavily. Plus he is someone with political favours to spend.
He'll be in the room where it happens, sure. Point is that if anyone has creative differences with him, they'll feel no desire to align with him. It won't be like he'll be held accountable if he's wrong, and he'll be long gone by the time any current projects see daylight.
Disney (even Iger himself) has done this to quite a few people over the years. At Disney we called it putting someone in the "aloha suite"
Financially it's been fine, but the last movie was disliked by critics, the audience reviews were mixed at best, and the fanbase has been at each other throats.
Hollywood tends to pay a lot of attention to CinemaScore (very roughly: exit polls of people seeing it on the opening night), and The Rise of Skywalker got the lowest CinemaScore (B+) of any live-action Star Wars movie - lower than Solo and the prequels. "They audience liked it ALMOST as much as the one with Jar-Jar!" is not what Disney wanted to hear, especially since that sort of thing will have huge flow on effects to the ongoing revenue stream (toys, theme park rides, merchandising). For example, I believe the newest Star Wars ride has sharply underperformed, and Disney leadership will probably believe (correctly) that the poor reception the latest movies got was a driving factor.
And the box office take, while still very substantial, was underwhelming for what was meant to be the crowning glory of a 40 year franchise, and compares poorly to other end movies for big franchises.
The "point" of buying Lucasarts from Disnye's point of view was to apply a lot of money and some of the magic they've used on the Marvel franchise to make a truly vast amount of money, get a bunch of critical acclaim, and set up the franchise as a money spinning machine that will keep filling theatres for spinoff movies every year forever. Instead they merely made a very large amount of money, the critics said the last movie stunk, and the fanbase seems deeply disinterested in more movies, which had led to them cancelling a bunch of planned movies.
It's not that bad, and I'm sure it's fixable, and the Mandalorian is doing great, but MAN is it less than what they were hoping for.
(And persistent rumours have it that Iger intervened directly into the creative process of The Rise of Skywalker late in the cycle. If true, that makes the disappointing TRoS results reflect on him...but I obviously have no idea if that's true.)
That being said....I don't think Star Wars was bad enough to trigger this. CEOs typically can do much worse for much longer, and as others have noted, the choice of replacement (and the speed of the replacement) is mystifying. I would guess ill health, or maybe some sex scandal rather than poor performance being a factor.
The first movie I remember ever seeing was the first star wars movie at a drive-in when I was 5 years old. I love the Star Wars movies. But, I haven't even bothered to see the one that came out this past December. I'm not even sure of it's name. I was severely underwhelmed by the previous ones in the most recent trilogy. They weren't as bad as the prequels, but bad enough that I honestly don't care whether I see the most recent one or not.
The movies have generally underperformed and hasn't hit internationally like they hoped. They've had to revise a lot of their long term plans of Star Wars. It hasn't been great.
Regardless, I don't think they're that upset. Star Wars hasn't been a home run, but it's been a solid double and net positive to Disney.
The board doesn't care about Star Wars or any movie title, the board job isn't to care about revenue that a film brings in that's the executive leadership job.
What are you going on about? The board represents the shareholders, and cares about the stock price, which is influenced by the P&L of various projects.
So it is very reasonable for the board to care. I've seen Board Members spend dozens of hours on a $20k sale for a company.
Franchise management isn't just about any particular film at Disney. Star Wars represents films, TV, vehicles for SVOD subscriptions, merchandise, parks, and hotels. Franchise roadmaps are regularly put in front of the board.
That said, I agree. Ousting the CEO is a move the board does to restore shareholder confidence, and there isn't any indication confidence is low...especially when Iger is so close to retirement already.
I read "ride of a lifetime" by Bob Iger last month. It was a pretty nice book, similar to ShoeDog by Phil Knight. I learnt a lot about leadership, about Bob himself and started to like him (even though I had no idea about him before the book).
A few things that stuck with me:
1. Have three priorities or less. Otherwise people can't relate. Jim Collins also said: "If you have more than three priorities, you don't have any".
2. He did everything to show that he cared about what his people were doing. He would take part in many aspects of the star wars movie (and be there). This sent a message, a good one.
3. Earning trust is important. He did Pixar acquisition well. That earned the trust of Marvel CEO.
I'm halfway into that audio book (which is self-narrated) and so far it's been great. Point #2 is definitely a theme. He seemed to truly care about what impact his actions would have on his employees and consumers.
I just finished his book last night (it's a really good read), and this feels weird to me. It was clear he was going to leave soon, but why now?
He talked so much about succession plans and outward appearances (like, that was most of the book, honestly...), and this feels so weird that out of nowhere Bob Chapek became CEO. He doesn't seem (at the surface) to represent what Iger does, and there was no clear succession plan or public narrative put forward. (Like, really, the whole book was about 50 years of succession plans and presenting things in a way that wouldn't cause issues externally... and this was the opposite of that.)
I also remember thinking how poor Eisner's legacy came off in his book, and was sure he'd optimize for a great legacy. He is ending his tenure on a relatively high note for the company, but something about the exact timing feels really off to me. Especially right after such a huge press tour for himself.
I don't think it's a scandal; he wouldn't stick around. The only thing I can think of is a political run (maybe not for president? Seems too late for that, and he seems to smart to run for something he can't win), or possibly family issues (sickness, etc).
He also has been on every TV show and podcast he could be recently.
Like it's as if he calendared retiring and he is executing on post retirement plans (book and publicity) without stepping down.
If he's checked out and not working...and the next guy is identified and in waiting....it's reasonable the board would boot him early.
Heck in his own book while Bob was waiting to be CEO he approached Goldman to do the Pixar deal. Which is super....well.....forward looking / potentially undermining to the current CEO. Maybe history repeats.
This is pretty shocking to me. I literally just got my shareholder information in the mail.
When I bought Disney stock it was a 20th century management style company. Now it's one of my best Blue Chips. Bob Iger's leadership has helped make Disney into the media behemoth we now pretty much can't escape whenever we turn on the tv or check the news.
I only hope that there are no scandals that are the cause of his move from CEO to Executive Chairman.
Weird, techcrunch.com is serving an expired SSL certificate.
$ openssl s_client -showcerts -servername techcrunch.com -connect techcrunch.com:443
CONNECTED(00000003)
depth=2 C = US, O = DigiCert Inc, OU = www.digicert.com, CN = DigiCert Global Root CA
verify return:1
depth=1 C = US, O = DigiCert Inc, CN = DigiCert SHA2 Secure Server CA
verify return:1
depth=0 C = US, ST = Virginia, L = Sterling, O = Oath Inc., OU = SecOps, CN = techcrunch.com
verify error:num=10:certificate has expired
notAfter=Feb 26 12:00:00 2020 GMT
"Speculation is still high for the exact reason behind Iger’s departure, with many hoping for something benign (ish) like a presidential run versus a personal issue."
This country seems desperate for the hope of better leadership.
> with many hoping for something benign (ish) like a presidential run
The political junkie in me is wanting that to be true. Imagine a debate with Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, Bob Iger, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren all on one stage.
Probably just taking advantage of the massive market downswing yesterday/today. They know the Disney stock price is going to tank in the short term along with the rest of the market, might as well rip off the band-aid of Iger leaving while people are already selling.
Is it possible that he believes that the markets will take a hit in the near future with the virus scares these last two days?
If I were CEO of a behemoth giant like Disney and held the credit for its rising in several industries, I'd bounce ship before it all went down to avoid any blame?
Maybe I'm naive, but this thought crossed my mind.
COVID-2019 is going to hit everybody more or less to the same degree. The only people who are going to be significantly damaged by it are those who bet everything on doing good in 2020 (which is still more likely to be seen as bad luck than poor skill), or those who manage to absolutely screw the handling up.
Disney will likely gain from it: what better time to be selling digital subscription services than when everyone is locked up in their houses and schools are closing?
China has 3000+ infected healthcare workers. Can all but guarantee their healthcare system will collapse in the coming weeks. The US's healthcare system won't collapse. Can guarantee that Iran is going to have a much higher death rate than the US. It's going to be insanely different for everyone, depending on how reliant they are on different regions. The task is essentially to nurse pnemonia patients through the infection, providing constant oxygen and other assistance.. Each country will have different capacities to do that. Tons of other factors and the same principle applies.
Bought shares today due to the general market drop. Bought more after hours after this announcement. My gut tells me it’s due to some personal reason. Perhaps health. Time will tell. Company is good and has a lot of great brands and assets.
I see, but is it possible that he suspects a large sell off of excess fat or even a large downturn after the presidential elections, and this recent downturn just reminded him of this idea?
Readit News
Similarly, I don't buy the story that Iger is moving into a creative leadership role. It's true there's been a vacuum there since Lasseter left, but unless there's long term tenure planned, Iger won't be very influential. Anyone who's worked at a large company knows that no one listens to the guy whose only responsibility is to have creative ideas if they have no other real responsibility and will be out in a few months. Iger put himself into a meaningless, insignificant role, and no one has satisfactorily explained why.
I don't think there's a scandal. If there was, the narrative around his departure would be different and he wouldn't be sticking out to the end of his contract. He wouldn't still be chairman of the board. I've heard a rumor the board is upset about Star Wars, but Q1 2020 was pretty solid and Mandalorian was well received. I'm actually worried he's sick, though I hope not because I admire him a lot. Regardless, I do feel like there's another shoe. I guess we'll have to wait to find out what it is.
The answer to this is simple. Paz de la Huerta named Iger (and Eisner) in her lawsuit against Weinstein. The allegations in short were that that their behavior allowed Miramax to cover up what happened to her.
Weinstein was just convicted of Rape. That's separate from the civil cases, but with a criminal conviction on even one, the civil cases become that much easier to win.
In my mind either he's stepping down because it will help in damage control/settlement amount negotiations, or it was part of a settlement itself.
Deleted Comment
He's still staying on as executive chairman which outranks the CEO. But it is nevertheless odd that he is stepping down so quickly without a transition period.
I don't think it is scandal driven or the board would have ousted him from his chairman position as well. I'm just guessing here, but it could be health related. The last time a major CEO stepped aside was Steve Jobs due to illness. Eventually, Tim Cook became the CEO while Jobs stayed on as Apple's chairman until his death.
I remember there was talk about him running for president as well. Could be that as well but it is a bit late in the game for that.
It's puzzling for sure.
Have there been CEOs in the past that have "left", but actually been forced out due to scandal?
It seems like there's been a few attempts at that, but of the cases I know, the CEOs seem to fight back and try to keep their position.
Pretty sure he just wants to leave on a high note and enjoy himself at this point. The dude is human after all. That kind of commitment does take a toll on you.
Again, I don't think it's scandal. If it were, he wouldn't stay through his contract and he wouldn't still be chairman. I don't even think it's bad performance, because the only hits to earnings predictions have been things outside their control, like the coronavirus.
Again, feels weird.
That in theater revenue is about to tank because of virus fears? Then again I have no idea how much of Disney revenue occurs at the movies.
Disney (even Iger himself) has done this to quite a few people over the years. At Disney we called it putting someone in the "aloha suite"
Hollywood tends to pay a lot of attention to CinemaScore (very roughly: exit polls of people seeing it on the opening night), and The Rise of Skywalker got the lowest CinemaScore (B+) of any live-action Star Wars movie - lower than Solo and the prequels. "They audience liked it ALMOST as much as the one with Jar-Jar!" is not what Disney wanted to hear, especially since that sort of thing will have huge flow on effects to the ongoing revenue stream (toys, theme park rides, merchandising). For example, I believe the newest Star Wars ride has sharply underperformed, and Disney leadership will probably believe (correctly) that the poor reception the latest movies got was a driving factor.
And the box office take, while still very substantial, was underwhelming for what was meant to be the crowning glory of a 40 year franchise, and compares poorly to other end movies for big franchises.
The "point" of buying Lucasarts from Disnye's point of view was to apply a lot of money and some of the magic they've used on the Marvel franchise to make a truly vast amount of money, get a bunch of critical acclaim, and set up the franchise as a money spinning machine that will keep filling theatres for spinoff movies every year forever. Instead they merely made a very large amount of money, the critics said the last movie stunk, and the fanbase seems deeply disinterested in more movies, which had led to them cancelling a bunch of planned movies.
It's not that bad, and I'm sure it's fixable, and the Mandalorian is doing great, but MAN is it less than what they were hoping for.
(And persistent rumours have it that Iger intervened directly into the creative process of The Rise of Skywalker late in the cycle. If true, that makes the disappointing TRoS results reflect on him...but I obviously have no idea if that's true.)
That being said....I don't think Star Wars was bad enough to trigger this. CEOs typically can do much worse for much longer, and as others have noted, the choice of replacement (and the speed of the replacement) is mystifying. I would guess ill health, or maybe some sex scandal rather than poor performance being a factor.
Regardless, I don't think they're that upset. Star Wars hasn't been a home run, but it's been a solid double and net positive to Disney.
One can only hope that people finally get enough of the merciless milking of franchises.
This cause lots of major talent such as Lawrence Kasdan, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss to leave the franchise.
Benioff and Weiss were slated to do a whole new trilogy for Star Wars, but they suddenly realized they didn't have time.
So it is very reasonable for the board to care. I've seen Board Members spend dozens of hours on a $20k sale for a company.
That said, I agree. Ousting the CEO is a move the board does to restore shareholder confidence, and there isn't any indication confidence is low...especially when Iger is so close to retirement already.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
A few things that stuck with me: 1. Have three priorities or less. Otherwise people can't relate. Jim Collins also said: "If you have more than three priorities, you don't have any". 2. He did everything to show that he cared about what his people were doing. He would take part in many aspects of the star wars movie (and be there). This sent a message, a good one. 3. Earning trust is important. He did Pixar acquisition well. That earned the trust of Marvel CEO.
I recommend checking that book out.
He talked so much about succession plans and outward appearances (like, that was most of the book, honestly...), and this feels so weird that out of nowhere Bob Chapek became CEO. He doesn't seem (at the surface) to represent what Iger does, and there was no clear succession plan or public narrative put forward. (Like, really, the whole book was about 50 years of succession plans and presenting things in a way that wouldn't cause issues externally... and this was the opposite of that.)
I also remember thinking how poor Eisner's legacy came off in his book, and was sure he'd optimize for a great legacy. He is ending his tenure on a relatively high note for the company, but something about the exact timing feels really off to me. Especially right after such a huge press tour for himself.
I don't think it's a scandal; he wouldn't stick around. The only thing I can think of is a political run (maybe not for president? Seems too late for that, and he seems to smart to run for something he can't win), or possibly family issues (sickness, etc).
Like it's as if he calendared retiring and he is executing on post retirement plans (book and publicity) without stepping down.
If he's checked out and not working...and the next guy is identified and in waiting....it's reasonable the board would boot him early.
Heck in his own book while Bob was waiting to be CEO he approached Goldman to do the Pixar deal. Which is super....well.....forward looking / potentially undermining to the current CEO. Maybe history repeats.
When I bought Disney stock it was a 20th century management style company. Now it's one of my best Blue Chips. Bob Iger's leadership has helped make Disney into the media behemoth we now pretty much can't escape whenever we turn on the tv or check the news.
I only hope that there are no scandals that are the cause of his move from CEO to Executive Chairman.
12h long certificate
This country seems desperate for the hope of better leadership.
Deleted Comment
The political junkie in me is wanting that to be true. Imagine a debate with Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, Bob Iger, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren all on one stage.
If I were CEO of a behemoth giant like Disney and held the credit for its rising in several industries, I'd bounce ship before it all went down to avoid any blame?
Maybe I'm naive, but this thought crossed my mind.
Deleted Comment