Is Bob Chapek A Greedy Miser?

TsWade2

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Okay, this maybe a silly question, but since I heard about the budget cuts at WDW even though I'm more of a Disneyland guy than WDW, people are starting to turned against Bob Chapek and everybody starts to hate him. I mean, I think I went through this before dealing with Jay Rasulo and I called him a greedy jerk. And now, a lot of people are treating Bob Chapek a Disney villain or the next Paul Pressler. I don't know who Paul Pressler is, but I guess I was young and don't know what's going on back then. Anyway, since a lot of people complained about Bob Chapek, I was starting think to turn against him too, but it makes me wonder, is Bob Chapek a greedy miser and wants to destroy the Disney parks financially? Again, I know this is silly, but I'm confused whether I join them and turned against him or maybe extend my thinking before passing judgement.
 
Last edited:
Okay, this maybe a silly question, but since I heard about the budget cuts at WDW even though I'm more of a Disneyland guy than WDW, people are starting to got turned against Bob Chapek and everybody starts to hate him. I mean, I think went through this before dealing with Jay Rasulo and I called him a greedy jerk. And now, a lot of people are treating Bob Chapek a Disney villain or the next Paul Pressler. I don't know who Paul Pressler is, but I guess I was young and don't know what's going on back then. Anyway, since a lot of people complained about Bob Chapek, I was starting think to turn against him too, but it makes me wonder, os Bib Chapek a greedy miser and wants to destroy the Disney parks financially? Again, I know this is silly, but I'm confused whether I join them and turned against him or maybe extend my thinking before passing judgement.
I think it's always easiest to hate the big wigs. Paul Pressler was a merchandise executive who was brought in to run the parks with no experience in that realm. Of course he didn't last long as the things that happened under him were awful. Bob Chapek is compared to him because Chapek was the Disney merchandise executive before coming to the parks who also has no experience with the parks.

I don't think Chapek wants to destroy the parks financially. I don't think any of the executives want that because the parks make a lot of money for them. However they want to maximize guest spending and squeeze as much money as possible out of the guest with giving the guest very little in return. The more it costs and the less the guest receives the better for Disney revenue. Then the guest is hurt of course because they are losing the value for their money.
 
Chapek didn't dream this up in isolation. When someone is given a new job like this they are given specific goals to achieve.

If as an executive you are given the job to increase RoS, what do you do? You increase prices and tighten budgets.

Demonizing individual people isn't really that helpful which is why though I criticize Disney regularly, I rarely bother with attacking people personally. For all I know he's a lovely guy who donates time to charity every month.
 
No, he's not a greedy miser who wants to destroy the parks financially, because a person like that would never survive as an executive in a major corporation. As the PP said, corporations just don't work that way.

He's doing the best he can to maximize profits for shareholders and keep costs down, which is his job. Does that put him in conflict with some fans of particular Disney rides, resorts, processes, etc? Sure. But he has to do his job, or he will lose it, and Disney will appoint someone else who will likely do exactly what he's doing.

And also, as the PP said, these decisions don't happen in a vacuum. He doesn't just sit at his desk and issue edicts: "Close that ride!" "Re-theme that resort!" "Spend millions on FP+!" Everything that's happened at Disney parks in the last several decades is the result of intensive market research, study of consumer behavior, input from many groups, above and below, meetings, meetings, and more meetings. Tests, surveys, focus groups. That's how things happen at corporations. An individual executive may make the final decision from an array of options that are presented to him, but he's certainly not flying solo.

Can those decisions be wrong (in the sense that they don't produce the desired financial effect)? Sure. Can those decisions be unpopular with fans? Of course. But in the end, everyone at Disney Parks works for Disney. Not the fans. And they will do what they perceive to be best for the company and the bottom line.
 


Everything that's happened at Disney parks in the last several decades is the result of intensive market research, study of consumer behavior, input from many groups, above and below, meetings, meetings, and more meetings. Tests, surveys, focus groups.

This is undoubtedly true. What's missing I think is the personal, intuitive research that the signing-authority executives should be doing by say ... trying to book their own family's vacation online ... riding to the resort in Magical Express ... catching the bus to MK ... trying to make and change FP+ over wifi ... buying lunch at Cosmic Ray's ... and so on.

I mean, the executives at Apple personally try out and use new phones don't they? They don't delegate that to flunkies, or depend entirely on summaries of focus groups and telephone surveys. The Disney executives really watch daily rushes and rough cuts and final cuts of film ... they don't wait for a spreadsheet to be presented at a meeting to develop a feeling of whether the film is any good.

The day I hear of Iger or Bob Chapek sitting on a bench eating a dole whip and going back for extra napkins for their kids or grandkids while their partner tries to get a FP for Pirates, is the day that I start to believe that the parks are in good hands.
 
I'll add to what I said before to note that far too often in fan circles the narrative is that clearly the managers are idiots because they're not doing it the way the fans want.

This makes us feel better as fans, but its absurdly simplistic because there are many aspects of the business that fans are either unaware of or don't have sufficient details on to make an informed judgement. I see this in all fandoms, not just Disney. Most managers are not in fact idiots and leaks from people who present them as such *cough* spirit *cough* should be viewed with some suspicion.

On the other side this habit of reciting that businesses exist to make money for their shareholders is at best Business 101, equally lacking in understanding, and at worst it is encouraging companies to head down the wrong path entirely. Even for a public company shareholders are not the only thing they are answerable to.
 
The parks in Orlando have not been as much of a priority since pre abc Eisner...

That's a tale of the tape.

But it's just what it is...

You know who's bailing them out from their own disinterest now?

Brian Roberts, Netflix, and iTunes...

As in Comcast going after them and the blossoming end of cable tv as a package.
 


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.
 
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.

My issue is with the way they accompany these goals. I am actually equally critical of other companies who do similar things.
 
My issue is with the way they accompany these goals. I am actually equally critical of other companies who do similar things.


You would most likely have to be critical of every publically traded company. I worked for one Fortune 500 company, who made record profits in the entire history of the company right after the whole financial crisis and decided not to give raises to workers across the board just because they could. That same year they decided to raise the insurance premiums significantly for employees, so in effect January 1st, everyone's take home pay went down, which became a stealth pay cut. The major slap in the face was it was not announced until Black Friday when the year was over, reviews were in and people were not around to gripe.

You would never know this happened because it was not announced in a press release, outside of annual report language using politically correct language with respect to "positive changes in employee compensation cost structure" as a drive of future profitability.

We all asked if these are the good times (most profits ever) what happens when things get bad?
 
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.

Probably because there have been more than few times in Disney's past where it has shown that high standards and attention to detail can be growth driver.
 
Probably because there have been more than few times in Disney's past where it has shown that high standards and attention to detail can be growth driver.

It's also a huge oversimplification to say that companies have to do what shareholders want. They don't. They're supposed to do what is in the shareholders interest, which is a very different thing. Many of the goals they have to hit are self imposed. Shareholder expectations can be managed and over time adjusted. Companies can actually have their share price drop for extended periods of time and survive just fine.
 
Probably because there have been more than few times in Disney's past where it has shown that high standards and attention to detail can be growth driver.

I agree with this, but at a certain point you reach a level of saturation. Disney has established themselves as the "gold standard" overall theme park package. This includes, attractions, cleanliness, resorts, etc. Other parks may do roller coasters better, but none that I have visited would make sense as a week long vacation.

The competition is starting to catch up (not just on the park side of things) a bit, and there is incredible shareholder pressure to deliver returns year over year in the 6-10% range. This is when companies start to pinch employees, lower standards a bit, etc. At some point it may impact the guest experience, but I have not seen it happen yet. Yes some things have changed, but also some other things are better.
 
I agree with this, but at a certain point you reach a level of saturation. Disney has established themselves as the "gold standard" overall theme park package. This includes, attractions, cleanliness, resorts, etc. Other parks may do roller coasters better, but none that I have visited would make sense as a week long vacation.

The competition is starting to catch up (not just on the park side of things) a bit, and there is incredible shareholder pressure to deliver returns year over year in the 6-10% range. This is when companies start to pinch employees, lower standards a bit, etc. At some point it may impact the guest experience, but I have not seen it happen yet. Yes some things have changed, but also some other things are better.

So what you're saying is: all empires fall eventually?
 
I don't know how involved Chapek is in the finances, if at all, but there's something we know for sure: Disney Imagineering is known for exceeding their budgets all the time. Some theme parks are building some really solid attractions for 10-15 million dollars. Disney rarely builds anything for less than 100 million. I don't know if Chapek is greedy or not, but I'm sure he's being asked to lower Imagineering costs all the time.
 
I don't know how involved Chapek is in the finances, if at all, but there's something we know for sure: Disney Imagineering is known for exceeding their budgets all the time. Some theme parks are building some really solid attractions for 10-15 million dollars. Disney rarely builds anything for less than 100 million. I don't know if Chapek is greedy or not, but I'm sure he's being asked to lower Imagineering costs all the time.

I have to agree with you here...

If they'd knock it the hell off...I believe more things would get greenlit and we'd have more to enjoy. There has been an easy to see cause and effect for along time now
 
I don't know how involved Chapek is in the finances, if at all, but there's something we know for sure: Disney Imagineering is known for exceeding their budgets all the time. Some theme parks are building some really solid attractions for 10-15 million dollars. Disney rarely builds anything for less than 100 million. I don't know if Chapek is greedy or not, but I'm sure he's being asked to lower Imagineering costs all the time.
Thats one of the reason's Bob Weis was brought in and Bruce Vaughn was forced out.
 
It's also a huge oversimplification to say that companies have to do what shareholders want. They don't. They're supposed to do what is in the shareholders interest, which is a very different thing. Many of the goals they have to hit are self imposed. Shareholder expectations can be managed and over time adjusted. Companies can actually have their share price drop for extended periods of time and survive just fine.
Actually legally speaking they do have to do what the Shareholders want. Or the board gets fired. Just ask Carl Icahn. Any ability they have to manage shareholder expectations is simply them relying on the good faith and trust of the shareholders. Still ultimately the will of the shareholders.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts

Top