PDA

View Full Version : CNN - Slamed Eisner


TeenaS
09-29-2003, 07:21 AM
Anyone see the show on CNN this weekend about CEO's that need to be fired? It was 95% about Eisner.

KathyFP
09-29-2003, 07:32 AM
I would like to hear their opinion.

airlarry!
09-29-2003, 09:00 AM
That makes no sense. It just goes to show how how of touch Ted Turner and the rest of the CNN gang is with America. After all, Ei$ner is about to jettison the one thing (Pixar) that has been dragging down Disney's return to CGI top dog status. He's finally getting a return from the immense investment he has personally made in the parks, and ABC is poised to announce The Bacherlor V, VI, and VII, which could be the turning point for the network's ratings and profitability. Don't forget, DCA is getting a brand newattraction based on cutting edge elevator technology called "The Twilight Tower Hotel." I sure wish we'd get that in Florida. The hacks at CNN just don't see the big picture like Ei$ner does.

KNWVIKING
09-29-2003, 09:35 AM
You're a FoxNews kinda guy,aren't ya Larry :-)

mitros
09-29-2003, 11:35 AM
Nothing wrong with fox news IMHO. :D

KNWVIKING
09-29-2003, 11:42 AM
Me neither Mitros.

I prefer it to the Clinton News Network, (CNN), any day.

Bstanley
09-29-2003, 11:55 AM
Roger that.

DancingBear
09-29-2003, 12:04 PM
Whoops, sorry, I must have stumbled into a Debate Board thread by mistake. Carry on.

crusader
09-29-2003, 12:41 PM
Let's see............

A network owned by Time Warner bashed Disney on its' sizzling 24 hour news program. Did Paula Zahn or Lou Dobbs get the gig?

Oh I forgot, serious is to factual as story is to truth.
All we need now is a source.

Galahad
09-29-2003, 01:54 PM
Whoops, sorry, I must have stumbled into a Debate Board thread by mistake. Carry on.


LOL!! :p

Planogirl
09-29-2003, 02:24 PM
I thought that it was an interesting report but then I like to hear all sides of an issue, not just Fox's. I thought that I'd get my view in before this turns into another Clinton bashing thread.

DisneyKidds
09-29-2003, 02:38 PM
A network owned by Time Warner bashed Disney on its' sizzling 24 hour news program. Did Paula Zahn or Lou Dobbs get the gig?
Does it really matter who does the slamming? The combination of Ei$ners bloated compensation and Disney's anemic performance earn him any bashing that occurs. We may focus more on parks, animation, and philosophy, but from a strict ROI business perspective Ei$ner is clearly one of the most underperforming CEO's. Anyone disagree?

cristen
09-29-2003, 03:45 PM
"Anyone disagree?"

No Dk, and apparently Forbes agrees with CNN. It seems as though they are always rating Eisner with an "F" for his performance. I always wonder, does this guy know everyone thinks he is doing a horrible job? It is one thing for "the stupid people who visits those parks" to think so. But doesn't he care what the people in the corporate world think of him? I would be embarrassed.

KNWVIKING
09-29-2003, 04:01 PM
I think ME knows his last few years have been failures, but his ego won't let him step down without one last shot at past glory. If he can just get a few victories in, stock price 5-10 bucks higher, ABC turning a few bucks,etc, then maybe he can say he's leaving on his own terms as a winner.

Or maybe not.

Another Voice
09-29-2003, 04:02 PM
"But doesn't he care what the people in the corporate world think of him?"

He must weep in the limo all the way to the bank.


Some people are motivated by fame; some people are motivated by accomplishment. Some people are motivated by power, some people are motivted by greed.

Few CEO's are motivated by popularity.

cristen
09-29-2003, 04:29 PM
AV,

You are right, and I know ME is very greedy. I almost didn't ask that question, because I already knew my answer. How can anyone care when they have made close to a billion dollars doing what they are doing? But, he is human, right? (well, I guess that is up for debate also) I would think that most people care a tiny bit what others think of them. And I do read about CEO's that care about the company and there are even a couple out there that care about their employees. I know there are companies that must care because they do a lot to make their employees like working there, while trying to sell a good product. They all can't be that bad, ME bad, can they?

crusader
09-30-2003, 08:30 AM
Does it really matter who does the slamming?

Absolutely. It's all relative.

http://www.delahaye.com/Press%20Releases/082603MRi.htm

No Dk, and apparently Forbes agrees with CNN. It seems as though they are always rating Eisner with an "F" for his performance.

Where is this coming from? I really wish we would discuss issues in REAL TIME!

So why don't we.

Here's what Forbes.com is reporting.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/25/cx_ceo400.html?partner=morningstar

To which Mr. Kidds, I will repeat:

It's all relative.

And no, I don't believe they care nothing about how they measure up to their peers - in every medium.

airlarry!
09-30-2003, 09:03 AM
I don't understand why these financial writers are so down on Ei$ner, but here is another one from the loony bin who doesn't understand the shareholder value Ei$ner has created for the company ever since he began pollinating amongst the creative types in the company:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/funds/smarter_up/10116177.html

20% increase after Ei$ner leaves? I'll be surprised if the company can even survive a year without Ei$ner's guiding hands.

crusader
09-30-2003, 09:11 AM
Is this the guy from that Ludlow and Cramer show?

Here's a much more detailed description http://news.morningstar.com/news/BW/M09/D29/20030929005333.html

DisneyKidds
09-30-2003, 09:31 AM
Crusader - Please help me out as I fail to see your point........................and your answer to my question.

Yes, everything is relative. However, it helps to not compare apples to oranges when looking at all that relativity. I don't see how your two sources correlate. The first is a general reputation index of some sort. Disney has a few hit movies during the quarter and voila...........all the problems are a thing of the past, or so Delahaye would have it. The second is a direct reflection on Ei$ner's performance as a CEO. I suppose if you think the quarterly successes that have driven the Delahaye result are all directly attibutable to ME performance as a CEO then you could find some correlation..................but at this point even that correlation would be weak at best.

As for the CNN rating.......well, I lost you there again. Cristen pointed out CNN gave ME an F. You seem to disagree with that when you ask where that is coming from? Well, your link shows ME at 44%, up from his average around 25%. Is that not an F? I thought 90+ = A, 80 - 90 = B, 70 - 80 = C, 60 - 70 = D, and anything below an F..................at least on most conventional grading scales. So what exactly is your point?

No matter what you are looking at, you can always find two conflicting opinions. Hey, you may even be able to do it with apples to apples material. Guaranteed to do it apples to oranges. However.................with a little thought and interpretation we can answer this question. Do you disagree that Ei$ner is underperforming as a CEO? Now I don't ask that to slam Michael. I'm not one of those "Ei$ner bashers", you've been around long enough that you should know that. Sure, he has done some good things. Hey, maybe most of them are in the fading past...........but I believe they are there. However, should any of that make us ignore the present? Maybe you think ME is currently doing a wonderful and effective job. If so, please elaborate. I don't happen to think that is the case...........and I don't happen to harbor deep seeded hatred for the man. The preponderance of the evidence would lead most people to that somewhat objective conclusion when looked at from a stricly business perspective, IMHO.

DisneyKidds
09-30-2003, 09:38 AM
As for this MovieBeam thi.........................................(yawn) ...................oops, sorry. I fell asleep there for a minute ;).

crusader
09-30-2003, 09:53 AM
Mr. Kidds -

I have to be brief because I'm about to sign off but let me quickly redirect.

The links aren't meant to correlate. They are meant to respond to two separate issues.

The "relative" comment is general. Which you do appear to understand by your opening statement.

Cristen was trying to argue that Steve Forbes agrees with CNN on this topic which is preposterous!

The first link I gave you was more than "Disney's getting hoopla because of recent successes". Read the basis for the ranking more carefully - it has to do with reputation and the media.

I happen to be one who does not automatically listen when networks speak - I tend to look for a basis, first. What I gave you may very well serve that purpose for three reasons:
1) CNN spent 90% of the time on Disney during that recent broadcast. (I am going on what is being said here since I missed the show)
2) Look at Larry's link: only two companies were mentioned (Disney and Walmart) while this deal appears to involve many players, which I found very interesting.
3) Look where AOL Time Warner is ranked vs Disney.

Coincidence? I doubt it.

Do you disagree that Ei$ner is underperforming as a CEO?

The more appropriate question is: Do I feel Ei$ner is underperforming as a CEO?

My answer is yes and no. His grading is handed down by Forbes in direct correlation to the company's stock performance and right now it is doing better than it was so in that respect he will be given credit which is why his "job approval" has risen in that poll I gave you.

I still feel he is underperforming - but that's obvious and easy to say, financially speaking. The truth is the company is doing better and his performance will be measured accordingly. We're not done yet.

cristen
09-30-2003, 12:43 PM
"Cristen was trying to argue that Steve Forbes agrees with CNN on this topic which is preposterous!"

Crusader,
I am only going by what their web site has said about his performance. If you think going from the 20% range to 44% is good, while they rate Steve Jobs in the 90's, then I am not sure if anything will make you see different. This is the article I was referring to on Forbes. I am posting the link, but just in case nobosy can access it, I will put a few quotes in, but it can be found on Forbes.com in the lists sections.

"The Best & Worst Bosses. The worst in our list: Walt Disney (nyse: DIS - news - people )'s Michael Eisner, who averaged $122 million in pay since 1997 while delivering a lame -5% annual return to shareholders.

www.forbes.com/2003/04/23/ceoland.html

crusader
09-30-2003, 08:25 PM
Cristen,

I'm not trying to discount what you're saying with respect to the worst boss ranking. I simply don't believe that has anything to do with CNN airing their little story.

I'll never forget several months ago hearing their "morning news" banter attempt to report on the Pixar/Disney deal - the anchor had no idea what the agreement was and went so far as to say Nemo was the last picture these two had under contract. It was just plain bad and obviously slanted. I wish I had seen this latest piece. It would certainly aid my perspective.

If you think going from the 20% range to 44% is good, while they rate Steve Jobs in the 90's, then I am not sure if anything will make you see different.

Rank and file numbers mean a great deal when they're at the peak and valley point - hence Jobs vs Eisner. Eisner moving more toward the center is positive no matter how you look at it. To say "well, he never should have tanked and therefore any movement beyond this point is unwarranted" is to equally take away Jobs defining moment, having been a bottom-dweller himself. It's all relative.

cristen
10-01-2003, 03:25 AM
Crusader,

I didn't mean to imply that Forbes rating Eisner as the worst CEO of the year, had anything to do with CNN saying he needed to be fired. I'm sorry that you misunderstood. DK asked if anyone disagreed that Eisner was a underperforming CEO. I was simply stating that along with CNN saying it, that Forbes had said it also. He was not only on Forbes as a bad CEO, but the WORST.

"Eisner moving more toward the center is positive no matter how you look at it. "

Yes, you could say that. But he still only has a 44%, and as DK pointed out earlier, that is still an F. You can't deny that he is doing a pretty bad job right now with the company.

"To say "well, he never should have tanked and therefore any movement beyond this point is unwarranted" "

I would never say that. I know companies have high and low points. I just happen to think ME has been at a low point for too long, and that he brought himself there with his lack of skills. It is pretty hard to screw up Disney, yet he has, in a big way. And believe me, if he shot up in the 90's or even 80's, and things started looking brighter in the parks, it would do nothing but make me happy. I'm not out to get Eisner. I wish to God he was a better CEO, but the fact is, he's not.

JDH
10-01-2003, 05:32 AM
care because his self image as a rough tough CEO making hard those hard decisions won't let him. In fact if he were popular he'd think he wasn't doing his job and start looking for another sacrifice he could make to show how much he's suffering for the company. Some sacrifice like whatever's left of Imagineering or Animation or a couple of guests on one of the attractions.

He feels the pain deeply.

DisneyKidds
10-01-2003, 10:03 AM
Crusader - if CNN had the only people who think poorly of ME's performance I might conceed your point. However, I just don't think that is the case. I think you'd be hard pressed (actually it's probably impossible) to find a source that has anything positive to say about ME's performance over the past 1...3....5 years. I think the business community at large recognizes the shortcoming. So, if you are trying to say we need to consider that relativity because CNN's take is biased, they aren't the only ones who take a negative position on ME...........and that was cristen's point with Forbes, and I'm sure we could find others.
Eisner moving more toward the center is positive no matter how you look at it.
Sorry, there is absolutely NO excuse for a CEO to ever be at under 25%, so bumping up to 44% doesn't mean much to me..............it still sucks. If the best we can say is that it sucks less than it used to...........well that is just sad. I wonder how many CEO's (of publically traded companies) in the history of CEO's have ever been at 25% and not been shown the door.

Peter Pirate
10-01-2003, 10:12 AM
Normally I'm in agreement with you Mr. Kidds...But, while it's true that a 44% rating may be bad, the uptick of 34% to get there is good. If he upticks 34% next month he'll be in the positive area of 78%...Will this then make him a good CEO?

crusader is right in pointing out that whatever is reported by CNN in this regard has to be looked at closly. Not that the facts won't be correct or the basic story a lie, but the slant will quite surely be what's important. After all, they're writing about a competetor.

crusader
10-01-2003, 02:20 PM
I think you'd be hard pressed (actually it's probably impossible) to find a source that has anything positive to say about ME's performance over the past 1...3....5 years.

True. (surprise!)

This sums up the two enigmas pretty well - and if you look real carefully you might even find a line or two which makes sense regarding who ME the CEO is and what he does. One may even construe certain language as a complement!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/start.html?pg=2

I wonder how many CEO's (of publically traded companies) in the history of CEO's have ever been at 25% and not been shown the door.

Well, if you look at the rankings again, you'll see several. And that's just page one of this entertaining exercize. Now given the barrage of NASDAQ listings, you'd have to concede to the high probability that a substantial army of them exist.

DisneyKidds
10-01-2003, 03:18 PM
Well, if you look at the rankings again, you'll see several. And that's just page one of this entertaining exercize. Now given the barrage of NASDAQ listings, you'd have to concede to the high probability that a substantial army of them exist.
Well, I don't know about an army......................but it doesn't matter as all those losers will be/should be fired as well ;).

Another Voice
10-01-2003, 03:37 PM
"crusader is right in pointing out that whatever is reported by CNN in this regard has to be looked at closly..."

So when ABC has a news story I can discount anything they say if it somehow relates to a compeditor?

Or is "everyone just out to get Disney"...

Peter Pirate
10-01-2003, 03:47 PM
Mr. Voice, I'm starting to think your opinion of me is quite like many of the others.;) Of course any reporting on Disney by ABC should be met with great skepticisim, as well (I really can't believe I had to clarify that) In fact reporting in general and on virtually every subject should be reviewed for the bent. With so few purveyors of output, America's ability to receive truth of any kind is being seriously challenged and it's only getting worse thanks to Mr. Powell & The Pres, right now...

cristen
10-01-2003, 03:56 PM
PETER!

Finally something you have stated that I can say,

I AGREE!!!

I guess it just had to be OT of Disney. ;)

Cristen

Another Voice
10-01-2003, 03:57 PM
But more often than not people find it easier to bash the messagener than to accept painful truth.

Implying that since it's on CNN and therefore must have an anti-Disney bias and therefore should be ignored requires less critical thinking than simply accepting it at face value. If that CNN piece was about the evil Steve Job's you'd have no problem with it, would you?

People like their own belifes re-enforced.

Peter Pirate
10-01-2003, 04:06 PM
No Mr. Voice I wouldn't believe it and again I'm amazed at your assumption. Any news source can slant any story on anyone depending upon the implication it will have on the 'parent company'...Newscorp, Vivendi, NBC...And on and on even outside of the entertainment field...

crusader
10-01-2003, 04:28 PM
Implying that since it's on CNN and therefore must have an anti-Disney bias and therefore should be ignored requires less critical thinking than simply accepting it at face value.

How would that require less critical thinking? It would be the same to me as accepting something verbatim.

Unbiased reporting is an interesting concept which unfortunately has become a casualty of the ratings war. Sizzle, Sex and Scandal in Entertainment and Political News Forums is available for our comedic pleasure 24/7.

I know, somewhere amidst all that hot air lies the truth.

Another Voice
10-01-2003, 04:57 PM
"How would that require less critical thinking?"

Because it's always easier to brush aside the source than it is to rationally refute a statement that you don't wish to be true.

It's much easier to scream "CNN is biased" than it is to look at Eisner's record. It's much easier to believe I have a personal vendetta against him (like what, I'm still ticked because he cut me off in the parking lot one day and I dedicate my spare time to typing on the Internet to get even?) - than to respond to an opinion. It's much easier to wave a "Bush Lied!" sign and go back to drinking your extra hot Soy Venti Cafe Mocha Starbucks than it is to admit the world's a rather nasty place.

Sure - everyone has a point of view in what they write. But I see far more "personal bias" in what people choose to believe than I see in a lot that's reported (and I ain't no fan of Saddam's favorite news channel either). The critical judgement has to take place with what you hear and what you listen to.

crusader
10-01-2003, 07:00 PM
Fair enough.

But you have to admit it is extremely difficult to take what we hear at face value anymore, and doing so doesn't require much thought. "Spin" is the forte' and media is the outlet. News has no real definition beyond telling "the story".

Sure - everyone has a point of view in what they write.

Well said and very true. The personal bias you may not see in the reporter/anchor/tv personality reading the byline doesn't excuse the editor. There is always a reason why something makes it on the air. The first question to ask is: Why did CNN choose to broadcast this?