Succession might as well have been a documentary. The HBO series, about ruthless media mogul Logan Roy and the children who may or may not be equipped to inherit his empire, captivated audiences for four seasons. It may be over now, but the entertainment industry is still going through its own succession dramas, in some cases with a reality that is stranger than fiction. Sony’s recent CEO transition from Tony Vinciquerra to Ravi Ahuja seems to have gone off without a hitch . But that is the exception, as The Hollywood Reporter ‘s editor-at-large Kim Masters and media and business writer Alex Weprin break down what could happen next.
Halloween Wars: Theme Parks Are Fighting for Bigger Share of Scream Economy
Alex Weprin: Hi, Kim — Vinciquerra’s surprisingly seamless Sony succession to Ahuja has us thinking about the poor track record that the industry has when it comes to CEO transitions. Vinciquerra told me he’d been planning his exit for two and a half years, since he signed his last deal, and that Ahuja’s promotion to COO was part of the process. It may also be worth noting the, uh, messier process when it came to finding a successor to Alex Trebek on Jeopardy! , though it seems they eventually figured that out. It’s a stark contrast to, say, Disney, which is in the middle of a very public succession process. Have any companies handled it well? Maybe Netflix?
Kim Masters: Hey, Alex. Before I answer, I’ll just pause to say that Tony hasn’t been flashy, but given what Sony’s gone through in the past — from the depredations of Jon Peters and Peter Guber to the passivity of Michael Lynton that opened the door to the Sony hack — Tony seems to have been the steady-at-the-wheel leader that was needed. And Sony didn’t plunge into streaming, which not only saved it from a lot of the money-hemorrhaging that has afflicted other studios, but benefited from it as an arms dealer. The next succession question there is focused on the film studio. Tom Rothman is pushing 70, and his shoes will be hard to fill. Yes, he’s still an infamous micromanager, but he deserves credit for playing a tough hand shrewdly. There have been rumors about his retirement for the past few years, and unlike many if not all the others, he might actually want to spend more time with his family.
But back to the Netflix transition. Reed Hastings seems to have managed it, though we suspect that Ted Sarandos wasn’t thrilled to find that he’d be sharing the throne with Greg Peters, the numbers guy. Two-headed beasts are not usually a viable thing.
Of course, Paramount at the moment has a three-headed beast with George Cheeks, Brian Robbins and Chris McCarthy running the place until Skydance’s David Ellison becomes chairman and Jeff Shell takes over as president. But that was always meant to be temporary .
We got to this place because Paramount had one of the messiest succession failures of all time, with Sumner Redstone aging into a creepy semi-public lecher carrying on with all sorts of women instead of stopping Philippe Dauman from looting the place. And then poor Shari Redstone, disparaged cruelly by her mean old father who managed to cling to power even when he was losing his grip, took over the company just when the combined effects of the digital revolution and streaming and the pandemic and the mismanagement of the company were taking their toll. Not that she hasn’t made plenty of mistakes to make matters worse.
Weprin: Interesting point about Ted. It’s one thing to become co-CEO alongside the founder of the company, in this case Reed Hastings, but it’s another to have someone else join you atop the company, even if it’s someone you know well. Paramount has just had a tough run, from Dauman to Bob Bakish — who was Shari’s pick until he wasn’t — to the “office of the CEO” today until Ellison takes over. The family dynamic there — the children of a legendary media mogul being unsure what to do with the asset the patriarch patched together — reminds me of the succession mess involving Rupert Murdoch’s family that’s playing out in a Nevada courtroom . We have some idea of what happens if Rupert succeeds in changing the trust and Lachlan Murdoch is cleared to run the show indefinitely, but what if he loses?
Masters: The Murdoch succession? Hot mess. Lachlan, now his daddy’s golden boy, had dropped out of contention years back after he did a stint under the late and not lamented Roger Ailes at the news network. Lachlan was treated like a toy to bat around — which showed the power of Ailes, that he could do that to Rupert’s son and survive. Then James, who is not a right-wing extremist like his brother, was seen as the chosen one. But he succumbed to his poor handling of the News Corp phone hacking scandal. Elisabeth might have been the best choice, but I don’t think she wanted it. So now Rupert’s returned to Lachlan. He’s said to be even more conservative than his papa. And now dad is trying to alter an irrevocable trust and prevent Liz, James and I guess Prudence, his oldest child who has stayed out of the scrum, from taking over and preventing Fox News from spreading lies that have undermined democracy and cost the company almost a billion dollars and counting. I’m not sure the rules of that trust allow changes to accommodate an old man trying to ensure that his propaganda machine carries on.
Weprin : Yeah, changing an irrevocable trust is a very tall order. The current rules reportedly dictate that when Rupert dies, his four adult children each get an equal share of the votes. His younger children with Wendi Deng get an economic share, but no votes. So if the status quo sticks, Lachlan will have to contend with James, Elisabeth and Prudence, who could very well collectively kick Lachlan to the curb.
As Disney Plots $60B Parks Investment, Josh D'Amaro Wants to "Get This Right"
Masters : And what a loss that would be, if Lachlan were sent back to surf and rock climb. I wonder if the rock-climbing wall he had installed on the Fox lot is still there. You know, I’m always sad when I’m on that lot — it’s got very cool historic buildings and that New York street setup. I don’t know what happens to that lot — I think nothing, for several years — but that belongs to Disney now. And while we’re talking about succession shitshows …
Weprin : Disney is probably the succession race that Hollywood is following most closely, given Bob Iger’s stature and what happened when he ceded the CEO seat to Bob Chapek. Iger has even said that he is “obsessed” with finding the right successor now, and that he has been “conducting my own post-mortem” about what happened last time.
My takeaway from talking to various people familiar with the process is that the biggest change this time is that the Disney board is actually engaged. The last time, when Iger picked Chapek, the board rubber-stamped it. Or as Institutional Shareholder Services wrote in their report backing Nelson Peltz earlier this year: “It appears that there was no structured board-mandated interview process, and that the board primarily relied on Iger’s judgment in making this decision.” I get the sense the board will actually be making the call this time.
Masters: I agree. And the bake-off going on now is riveting the town. I have talked to execs who make the compelling case that Dana Walden is the obvious choice — good with creatives, which is key, and unmatched as a networker. And then it would be a nice Iger moment to install the first female CEO of Disney. Maybe he can argue that the guy from Pepsi, Hugh Johnston, whom he hired as CFO in December to replace Christine McCarthy (who was Chapek-friendly until she wasn’t), would be enough operational support for Dana, if he leans that way. But I’ve also talked to an exec who makes the opposite case, that she doesn’t have the operational experience to run a machine like Disney. And remember that Dana is a Fox veteran who came in by way of the acquisition, and with longtime Disney insiders, that’s a thing. The Foxyness was cited when they tossed Peter Rice, whom Rupert had groomed up one side and down the other to be a CEO when Peter was at Fox. This exec told me, “Disney does not run in her DNA” and “she’s fancy.” That feeling also is why it would shock me if any outsider had a snowball’s chance. Dana is also friends with Kamala Harris, which is a two-edged sword at the moment. So the exec I mentioned was all in on Josh D’Amaro, who handles the theme parks and who seems to be emerging as a kind of younger aspiring Iger doppelgänger in terms of style and presentation.
Weprin: I will say that one obvious advantage for Josh aside from his operational credentials would be that he saw all the missteps Chapek made and would, presumably, not repeat them, but Dana’s creative relationships can’t be dismissed. I also wonder whether the board could ever find an outsider to fill the job. The board met with NBA commissioner Adam Silver last year, sources told me, though it sounds like both parties realized quickly that it wasn’t the right fit. Maybe there really isn’t any outsider that can fit the bill, and the board and Iger hope that an insider like Walden and D’Amaro or ESPN’s Jimmy Pitaro or even CMO Asad Ayaz have what it takes and can learn on the fly, perhaps in a COO role. That is, after all, what Iger himself did.
Masters: But he didn’t learn from the demise of Michael Eisner, who eventually seemed to believe he was Disney. All the adulation that comes to a successful CEO can create that illusion but Walt’s nephew Roy disagreed and in the end, so did shareholders. The late Jon Dolgen once said to me, “Nobody walks away from the table in this town. You think the Queen of England wants to be just some rich old broad?” But the Queen of England was actual royalty. In Hollywood, no one is, however sweet the Kool-Aid may taste.
A version of this story first appeared in the Oct. 9 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.
Who's Really Going to Run Paramount?
Local News
Comments / 0