Iger to take over as CEO of Disney on 9/30/05! [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

crazy4wdw

03-13-2005, 02:45 PM

Iger to succeed Eisner as Disney CEO

Will take over Sept. 30; eBay’s Whitman ends bid for top job The Associated Press. Updated: 2:39 p.m. ET March 13, 2005LOS ANGELES - The Walt Disney Co. said Sunday its president, Robert Iger, will succeed Michael Eisner as chief executive after another top contender for the job dropped out of the running.

The company said Iger was unanimously elected by the board and will take charge Sept. 30. Eisner will step down on that day, a year earlier than he had previously announced, the company said.

“Bob is an experienced, talented and visionary leader who has made crucial and substantial contributions toward Disney’s strong performance,” Disney board chairman George Nitchell said in a statement. “On behalf of the entire Board, I want to express how excited we are at the prospect of Bob leading this extraordinary company and talented management team to new levels of financial and creative success in the years ahead.”

EBay Inc. Chief Executive Meg Whitman, who was competing with Iger for the CEO slot, withdrew her application on Friday after interviewing with the Disney board earlier in the week, Henry Gomez, spokesman, told The Associated Press on Sunday.

“She decided to stay at eBay,” Gomez said. “After considering it during the week, she decided she wanted to stay at eBay.”

Whitman stays put
Whitman had asked for a quick decision and dropped out when she didn’t get one, according to the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal. The executive, who has been EBay’s CEO since 1998, likes her job there and reportedly didn’t want the Disney application to become a distraction during a drawn-out selection process, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Whitman was senior vice president of marketing for Disney before leaving in 1992 to work for the Stride Rite Corp.

Her withdrawal doesn’t necessarily mean the job will go to Iger by default, as Disney officials could still seek other candidates as part of an effort to blunt criticism they didn’t look hard enough outside the company for Eisner’s replacement.

Eisner, who has been CEO since 1984, announced in September he would retire when his contract expires next year.

Candidates hard to find
Disney officials have said they plan to choose Eisner’s successor by June and that Iger, along with candidates from outside the company, would be considered.

Iger, 54, has been seen as the leading contender.

The Los Angeles Times cited unnamed sources as saying that Disney has had trouble attracting other candidates, in part because of concerns about the role Eisner is playing in the selection. Eisner supports Iger, who has been his No. 2 since 2000.

Dissident ex-Disney board members Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold, who lobbied unsuccessfully for Eisner’s ouster last year, complained recently that allowing Eisner to take part in the selection process was making a mockery of the search for a new CEO.

DVCconvert

03-13-2005, 02:51 PM

Now it's official:

Press Release Source: The Walt Disney Company

Robert A. Iger Named Chief Executive Officer of the Walt Disney Company
Sunday March 13, 2:44 pm ET

BURBANK, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 13, 2005--The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS - News) Board of Directors announced today that Robert A. Iger has been unanimously elected Chief Executive Officer effective September 30, 2005. He will succeed Michael D. Eisner, current CEO, who announced his intention to retire in a letter to the Board last year dated September 9, and will step down as CEO on September 30, 2005.
ADVERTISEMENT

"After a lengthy, thorough and professional selection process, comparing both internal and external candidates against our criteria for CEO, I am pleased to announce the decision of the Walt Disney Board of Directors to select Robert Iger as the company's next chief executive officer," said Sen. George J. Mitchell, chairman of The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors. "Bob is an experienced, talented and visionary leader who has made crucial and substantial contributions toward Disney's strong performance. On behalf of the entire Board, I want to express how excited we are at the prospect of Bob leading this extraordinary company and talented management team to new levels of financial and creative success in the years ahead."

"It is truly an honor to be entrusted with the responsibility of guiding this great company that occupies such an important place in the hearts and minds of millions the world over toward a very bright future," said Iger. "It's also an honor to work with our incredibly talented and dedicated worldwide team. I feel all the more privileged to succeed Michael, whose tremendous 20-year leadership and enormous accomplishments have built this company into the world's preeminent leader in family entertainment."

"It is with a considerable amount of satisfaction and even pride that I approach the end of my term as CEO of this company," said Michael D. Eisner, former chairman and chief executive officer of The Walt Disney Company. "By every financial and creative measure, Disney is performing at its peak. I have enjoyed virtually every moment of my tenure and want to express my appreciation to the phenomenal colleagues with whom I have been privileged to work. I believe Disney is now poised for its brightest days in the years ahead under the able and insightful leadership of Bob, who has not only the qualities to succeed, but also has a keen sense of the Disney brand and how to maintain its leadership position and grow it on a worldwide scale."

The election of Mr. Iger culminates a lengthy and detailed CEO selection process that started formally when the Disney Board announced on September 21, 2004 that it would, "engage in a thorough, careful, and reasoned process to select as the next CEO the best person for the company, its shareholders, employees, customers, and for the many millions of others who care so much about The Walt Disney Company. The Board is keenly aware of the special place our company holds in the hearts of people all over the world and the importance of its responsibility in choosing a CEO." The Board also made known that day its intention to "complete the process and announce a successor as soon as possible, with an expected date of completion of June 2005."

Directors selected the executive search firm of Heidrick & Struggles in October 2004 in order to assist with the CEO selection process.

"The search and the process for considering potential candidates was thorough and exhaustive and met the most rigorous standards," said Gerard Roche, senior chairman, Heidrick & Struggles.

If he surpasses my expectations, I'll be happy. Time will tell.

gapere

03-13-2005, 08:18 PM

Wow this came as a big surprise.... :rolleyes:

Plus4206

03-13-2005, 08:30 PM

Anyone care to speculate as to why ME is stepping down a year early ?

gapere

03-13-2005, 09:11 PM

Anyone care to speculate as to why ME is stepping down a year early ?

It's a corporate thing I believe. I read an article somewhere that stated the outgoing chief executive leaves soon after the new one is named regardless of time left on contract so as to not leave the incumbent waiting in the wings too long. My guess is that it would erode ME's leadership abilities since everyone knows there will be a new boss with a possible change in initiatives once they take over (doubtful as that may seem).

manning

03-13-2005, 09:21 PM

You know what kissing at Disney is still alive and well at Disney.

I hope they lose that lawsuit in Delaware. Then maybe the directors can be sued and held accountable.

wdw4us2

03-13-2005, 09:44 PM

How sad. :sad1: :sad1: :sad1: :sad1: :sad1: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

mrsR123

03-13-2005, 10:12 PM

My guess is that it would erode ME's leadership abilities since everyone knows there will be a new boss with a possible change in initiatives once they take over (doubtful as that may seem).

If there were any hope of changes, there would not have been an announcement now. Or a hiring of this candidate.

macs4us

03-13-2005, 10:22 PM

Let's make the person who was in charge of one of the divisions that was siphoning money from the parks to stay afloat the new CEO!!! I am sure the parks will benefit from that!!! How long do they think the parks can keep the rest of the company afloat? :confused3

What really made me sad was Mitchell saying "If you are a major investor and the company has produced a 60 percent increase in earnings, has just increased its dividend 14 percent, has record cash flow and a substantial increase in return of invested capital, you don't encourage major change." Ahhhhh, yes the bottom line at any cost, but they want the money NOW!!! It will bite them in the rear someday, but the current board will be in their graves by that time so why would they care??? :sad2:

CaipiraBob

03-14-2005, 05:54 AM

I hardly think it's good news.

Disney needed a change in management philosophy. They didn't need another Eisner cronie like Iger placed in charge.

Look for more of the same at Disney.

Oh, here's what Roy Disney has to say:

"While it has taken three years to reach this point, our efforts to remove Michael Eisner as CEO of the Walt Disney Company have finally succeeded. Even the Disney Board, which has proven unresponsive to its shareholders, recognized that it had to take this action after our campaign which resulted in a resounding 45% No Confidence Vote on Michael Eisner last year.

"Unfortunately, our concerns regarding this Board's process to replace Mr. Eisner were well-founded. We find it incomprehensible that the Board of Directors of Disney failed to find a single external candidate interested in the job and thus handed Bob Iger the job by default. We find it very telling that Mr. Mitchell refused to answer repeated questions about whether the entire Board had interviewed more than one external candidate. The Board has failed in what is clearly one of their most important responsibilities, the selection of the Company's CEO.

"The need for the Walt Disney Company to have a clean break from the prior regime and to change the leadership culture has been glaringly obvious to everyone except this Board. The scathing portrait painted by James Stewart in DisneyWar has been widely reported without serious challenge or contradiction. A Board that is so deaf and insular cannot be entrusted to provide independent stewardship to this valuable, unique institution.

"The selection of Bob Iger is yet another example of this Board's breach of faith. The pledge made by Chairman Mitchell to conduct a bona fide search was a ruse to avoid a contest at the 2005 annual meeting. Mr. Mitchell's approach to good governance is no better than a carny at the fair, enticing words but in the end the game is rigged. Disney Shareholders have been conned and their trust in this Board abused.

"Shareholders should seriously consider replacing this Board and starting anew."

Source: Roy E. Disney and Stanley P. Gold

crusader

03-14-2005, 07:59 AM

Anyone care to speculate as to why ME is stepping down a year early ?

simple. It's dignified and will garner respect. Smart move.

DancingBear

03-14-2005, 08:27 AM

While this announcement comes as a surprise, I just want to point out that (1) when Eisner first announced his retirement with 2 years' lead time, everyone said that was way too much time, and (2) unlike some of the most dire predictions, he is leaving the board and not seeking the chairmanship.

It will be interesting to see who replaces Mitchell as chairman.

WDWHound

03-14-2005, 08:40 AM

This quote from a CNN article caught my eye.

"On Sunday, Eisner said he would leave the CEO post this September and quit as a Disney director next year."

Looks like Eisner quit as CEO, but he plans to stick around on the board for a while afterwards. This doesn't seem normal to me.

bags6490

03-14-2005, 08:48 AM

I believe that fmr. Sen. Mitchell is still chairman but has said that he will not stand for re-election when his term is up in 2006.

I dont think that this "move" by the Disney's Board will change any of the problems that Eisner created.

We here on the boards wish for a CEO who will return the parks and Disney animation back to the way most of us remember them. Until the board determines that the good name of the Disney brand is more important then 20% return every year we will be stuck with Eisner like leadership.

I still say that Roy is the only man for the job. Yes he is gettin up there in age, and has never wanted the job, but I feel it is now his DUTY to take the company back for all of us stockholders that care more about the core Disney products, Theme parks and animation(including Pixar), than all this other stuff Eisner has burdened us with.

I hope Iger's term will be short lived and full of no suprises.

Go Roy Go!!!!! :earsboy:

DancingBear

03-14-2005, 09:03 AM

Looks like Eisner quit as CEO, but he plans to stick around on the board for a while afterwards. This doesn't seem normal to me.With his hand-picked successor in charge, it doesn't strike me as unusual that Eisner would serve out his contract time as a director.

Plus4206

03-14-2005, 12:03 PM

I don't know enough about Iger to make an informed opinion as to what will happen after he becomes CEO. What bothers me is that it seems he is being found "guilty" by association. Iger (BI) is being blamed for the failures at ABC, but do we really know how much of that was his fault & how much was from ME's micromanaging.

I guess my position is to wait and see.

WDWHound

03-14-2005, 12:21 PM

I am willing to give the guy a chance, but his record at ABC is not impressive. Still, as you say, once Eisner is gone (assuming he ever leaves) he can stop living in his shadopws and implement his own ideas. Perhaps then I will be plesantly surprised.

I do think they would have done better looking outside the company. Steve Jobs would have been my choice, but I doubt he would have taken the job.

PatrickBDunlap

03-14-2005, 12:24 PM

You know, I got banned from Intercot a few years back because they said that I was too negitive and that I was always arguing with anyone about how bad managment was at Disney and how they were sucking the parks dry due to their poor media buys.

Well, kind of funny that here we are today and even the management at Intercot were all geeked about Roy E.D. ranting about ME and the board.

I guess I was just ahead of my time.

raidermatt

03-14-2005, 01:14 PM

simple. It's dignified and will garner respect. Smart move.

Given your past comments about the inner workings of Hollywood and Eisner in particular, you of all people should know that there is no way its that simple.

I am willing to give the guy a chance...
I guess we don't have much of a choice, do we?

I do think they would have done better looking outside the company.
Personally, I think they had a responsibility to do a better job of looking for candidates, but really, we all knew where this was going.

Plus4206

03-14-2005, 01:47 PM

No, but we do have the choice when it comes to what we post about him. I'd love to be able to post that I'm confident BI ( actually I like Larry's MiniME, but that's a little to judgemental for me right now ) will bring back the good ol' days, but I can't. I'd hate to post I'm certain BI is "same as the old boss" , but I can't do that either. The fairest thing we can do is "wait and see" .

WDWHound

03-14-2005, 02:03 PM

You know, I got banned from Intercot a few years back because they said that I was too negitive and that I was always arguing with anyone about how bad managment was at Disney and how they were sucking the parks dry due to their poor media buys.

Welcome home.You would have fit in just swell here a few years ago too. We were complaining then, and we're still complaining now (LOL).

WDSearcher

03-14-2005, 02:07 PM

I'd love to be able to post that I'm confident BI ( actually I like Larry's MiniME, but that's a little to judgemental for me right now ) will bring back the good ol' days, but I can't. The "good ol' days" will never be back, and it's unfair to expect that, IMO. The industry, the world, business, and expectations are all different -- incredibly different -- than they were in those good days of old. What I'm hoping BI does is just put a fresh eye to everything ... get everyone looking at the Disney-ness of it all. Once it's "his" to operate as opposed to ME's, I think Bob will surprise us.

:earsboy:

crusader

03-14-2005, 02:17 PM

Ahh but it is that simple, Matt.

Think about it. Eisner has ruled for 20 years. Now, it's time for an exit strategy that preserves his legacy in a favorable light. What better way to insure he's always treated as a VIP when it comes to the Disney Co. than to leave in a such a dignified manner. He'll be respected for this.

Golter

03-14-2005, 02:22 PM

I feel BI will try to distinguish himself from ME. He does not want to be known as ME's "minnie me".

WDWHound

03-14-2005, 02:24 PM

I've got to go with Crusader on this one. Eisner had to leave next year anyway, so why not exit a bit early and gain the good will. That said, I have a sneaking suspision that he may try to use that good will to retain his directorship. Iger will owe him big time the promotion and Eisner may just use that and nis new found good will to try and find a way to stick around.

raidermatt

03-14-2005, 02:41 PM

That said, I have a sneaking suspision that he may try to use that good will to retain his directorship. Iger will owe him big time the promotion and Eisner may just use that and nis new found good will to try and find a way to stick around.

That's my point... If you believe this, then it isn't as simple as trying to gain some respect on the way out.

We've found out time and time again that Eisner does not think in the same terms we do, and saying its "reasonable" for him to just want to gain some good will just doesn't fit his pattern.

Maybe he had to agree to it to ensure his man got the job. Maybe Iger threatened to walk if he had to wait another year and a half. Maybe he knows he will remain a target if he stays on and is not comfortable he can defend himself another year and a half. Maybe Jobs has made it clear he will re-sign only if Eisner is gone this year. Maybe there is a behind the scenes agreement to ask Eisner to stay on the board or with the company in some form. Maybe there is some sort of financial agreement.

I don't pretend to know for sure what is going on, I just have no doubt that he's not just trying to ensure his portrait retains a favorable location at Team Disney headquarters after he leaves.

That's just not how the man is wired.

DancingBear

03-14-2005, 03:14 PM

...Maybe there is a behind the scenes agreement to ask Eisner to stay on the board or with the company in some form...But Mitchell is leaving the board next year also, so who would be ME's partner in crime to set this up?

WDWHound

03-14-2005, 03:36 PM

But Mitchell is leaving the board next year also, so who would be ME's partner in crime to set this up?
How about Iger?

DancingBear

03-14-2005, 03:53 PM

How about Iger?I don't think they're going to go back to a combined CEO/Chairman so some new Chairman will be involved. Of course, it could be one of Eisner's flunkies on the Board, but do any of them have that kind of juice?

Probably just a fantasy, but I'd be very excited with Jobs as chairman.

mitros

03-14-2005, 03:53 PM

Ei$ners hand picked board chooses Iger, also hand picked by Ei$ner, can anything good possibly come from that ?.......not likely :rolleyes: :guilty: :confused3

crusader

03-14-2005, 04:38 PM

Maybe he had to agree to it to ensure his man got the job. Maybe Iger threatened to walk if he had to wait another year and a half. Maybe he knows he will remain a target if he stays on and is not comfortable he can defend himself another year and a half. Maybe Jobs has made it clear he will re-sign only if Eisner is gone this year. Maybe there is a behind the scenes agreement to ask Eisner to stay on the board or with the company in some form. Maybe there is some sort of financial agreement.

maybe maybe maybe

you forgot one:

maybe it's time - and he's ready.

For all this conspiracy I say - yeah, it's likely he and Iger will remain connected on various levels. They worked together for years and Iger won't cut that tie just because disneyites want him to. It's bad business.

raidermatt

03-14-2005, 04:55 PM

But Mitchell is leaving the board next year also, so who would be ME's partner in crime to set this up?

As the Hound said, Mitchell's is not the only leash Eisner holds. (Lozano, Bryson, etc)

He's been influencing the board for 20 years. Most owe their position to him.

Besides, as you said, Mitchell doesn't leave until next year. There's plenty of time to execute something.

DancingBear

03-14-2005, 05:28 PM

As the Hound said, Mitchell's is not the only leash Eisner holds. (Lozano, Bryson, etc)

He's been influencing the board for 20 years. Most owe their position to him.

Besides, as you said, Mitchell doesn't leave until next year. There's plenty of time to execute something.I get back to the question of who is going to be the new chairman. Will Wall Street accept one of Eisner's cronies as chairman? Seems to me that the chairmanship is going to remain a separate position, and Wall Street will expect a certain level name to replace Mitchell. It's one thing to be a pawn in Eisner's games, another to take a leading role.

And, the fact that "most owe their position to him" doesn't mean to much after he's gone (assuming he really goes). Eisner has a style that keeps people under his thumb while he is in power; he doesn't seem to have a style that will keep people loyal to him after he leaves. If you assume these folks are just toadies, they will need to start toadying up to a new regime.

Do we really think so little of Iger that just because Eisner became his supporter in recent months Iger will forget everything that Eisner did to him and said about him?

Do we really think that board members aren't made a bit uncomfortable about the spotlight shining on them--the no confidence votes, DisneyWar, the DE lawsuit, SaveDisney, the media attention, etc.?

Do we really think the institutional shareholders will just stand by and let Eisner continue to rule from the chairmanship?

Sure, it didn't stop Eisner and Mitchell from executing a somewhat meaningless split of the top spots, and installing Iger, but the dynamic is almost bound to change dramatically when Mitchell leaves and Eisner isn't CEO.

raidermatt

03-14-2005, 05:54 PM

For all this conspiracy I say - yeah, it's likely he and Iger will remain connected on various levels. They worked together for years and Iger won't cut that tie just because disneyites want him to. It's bad business.

No, its not bad business to cut the ties with the guy everybody agrees has outstayed his welcome. Its got nothing to do with disneyites. Its got to do with performance, and not just the short term performance that so many seem incapable of looking beyond.

From both a practical and PR pov, Eisner represents what needs to change at Disney, and this is not just coming from Disney fans. Keeping him around in any kind of susbstantial way is a detriment to the company.

raidermatt

03-14-2005, 06:07 PM

I get back to the question of who is going to be the new chairman. Will Wall Street accept one of Eisner's cronies as chairman?

When it comes to mature companies, Wall Street has a quarter to quarter viewpoint. Institutional investors look only slightly beyond that. As long as the quarterlies look to be progressing, they will let Disney do pretty much whatever it wants.

Do we really think so little of Iger that just because Eisner became his supporter in recent months Iger will forget everything that Eisner did to him and said about him?

Well, that gets into the maybes. Its doubtful Eisner would throw his support behind somebody who wasn't going to give him what he wanted, whatever that maybe. At the same time, its doubtful Iger would have been the Board's choice without Eisner's support.

No matter what Iger feels about his past treatment under Eisner, holding a grudge in this case probably would have killed his chances to get the job.

So its not far fetched at all to think that Iger would have been willing to wheel and deal with Eisner, if that's what it took. Besides, no matter what Eisner has said and done to Iger in the past, he never fired him or forced him out, and made him the #2 guy.

Plus4206

03-14-2005, 06:48 PM

If there was behind doors wheeling and dealing between ME & BI, something to the affect of "I'll push you through as CEO now and later,after I step down you beg me to stay on the board" , who's to say that BI doesn't suddenly get amnesia to that conversation ? I'm sure there would be no writen agreement between the two. Maybe BI will have the last laugh afterall.

DancingBear

03-14-2005, 07:31 PM

No matter what Iger feels about his past treatment under Eisner, holding a grudge in this case probably would have killed his chances to get the job.But now he's got the job, and, whether Eisner wants to admit it to himself or not, things will never be the same.

gapere

03-14-2005, 07:57 PM

I wonder what kind of retirement package ME will get at the end of September. What do you give someone that's headed Disney for 20 years (for better or worse) from where it was in 1984 to today? $500 million maybe??

Hmmm, I wonder how much ticket prices will rise...

mitros

03-14-2005, 08:35 PM

Whatever it is, all of us Disney fans will most assuredly be paying for it!

airlarry!

03-14-2005, 08:51 PM

I for one believe the jury is still out on MiniME..err...Igor...err...Robert Iger.

Just because M. Ei$ner holds more Ei$ney...err...Disney shares than God himself doesn't mean that the board and the President will listen to what he has to say behind the scenes.

Just because he's left himself an open invitation to 'advise' the board...and maybe even be named Chairman or Mighty Morphin Consultant, doesn't mean the board is going to listen.

Just because he personally rid every dissenting voice on the board, doesn't mean the board is going to listen.

Just because the Street thinks he's boosted the company back to pre-9/11 value, despite the mirage of ABC's latest success, the smoke and mirrors going on in the park numbers, the dearth of traditional animation in the pipeline, and the gambit on an unknown CGI unit, doesn't mean that the Iger is going to cowtow to the street.

And just because after Go.com, Fox Family, Pixar, Miramax, the airplane leases, DLP Studios, Ei$ner's California Misadventure, AK, and the newest one-third day park, HK Disneycounty (not quite big enough to be called a 'World' or 'Land' just yet), the donation of the Disney Stores to TCP, Ei$ner is still riding high on the 'I'm the King of deal making" definitely does not mean that this Board and CEO will listen to him.

And just because...wait...err...what was my original point again?

WDSearcher

03-15-2005, 08:16 AM

Probably just a fantasy, but I'd be very excited with Jobs as chairman. I don't understand this. Steve Jobs' ego and micromanaging nature are virtually the same as Eisner's, except that it happens over at Pixar instead of at Disney. Why do you think the guys dislike each other so much? They're too much alike!

Jobs has never expressed any interest in running a multi-media conglomerate. He could care less about the theme parks, ABC, ESPN, the Cruise Lines, Consumer Products, World of Disney, Theatricals, and all the rest. Sure ... Disney might have a kick-butt animation division again, but what would happen to everything else? Jobs doesn't have any sort of reverence for Walt Disney. Maybe as an animator and a pioneer of that artform, but that's pretty much where it stops.

Jobs wants his OWN empire -- he's never been shy about saying so. He doesn't want to inherit someone else's.

:earsboy:

WDSearcher

03-15-2005, 08:27 AM

For all the conspiracy theorists ... what makes you think that Disney is such a huge obsession with ME that he's sitting in his office trying to figure out ways to keep his hands in the pie after he retires? Good lord -- it's not like the man doesn't have enough money to be comfortable. It's not like he can't go out and do other things. It's not like he can't power play somewhere else. Maybe, as some has said, he's just done. He's had his run at Disney, and he's done. Maybe Jane is telling him to retire and do something else. Maybe he's already got a deal with some other company that we don't know about.

You guys seem to think that ME will stop at nothing to have total control forever. But he's got the company in a good place, he's got the guy he wanted to lead it leading it, he leaves when the stock is on an upswing, he goes off to work on ... whatever, and he gets a big good-bye party knowing that he's made his mark. He's leaving on HIS terms -- no one else's. If he gets obsessive after that and keeps trying to tweak and control and manage and force opinion, then he just becomes Roy. And I don't think Eisner will go that direction. He's too smart.

:earsboy:

WDSearcher

03-15-2005, 08:31 AM

Whatever it is, all of us Disney fans will most assuredly be paying for it! So then ... you'd prefer he stays on so that ticket prices can remain the same? Or is it that Eisner's finally leaving, so you have to continue to find things that will be his fault after he's gone? :)

:earsboy:

DancingBear

03-15-2005, 08:45 AM

I don't understand this. Steve Jobs' ego and micromanaging nature are virtually the same as Eisner's, except that it happens over at Pixar instead of at Disney. Why do you think the guys dislike each other so much? They're too much alike!

Jobs has never expressed any interest in running a multi-media conglomerate. He could care less about the theme parks, ABC, ESPN, the Cruise Lines, Consumer Products, World of Disney, Theatricals, and all the rest. Sure ... Disney might have a kick-butt animation division again, but what would happen to everything else? Jobs doesn't have any sort of reverence for Walt Disney. Maybe as an animator and a pioneer of that artform, but that's pretty much where it stops.I've certainly noted Jobs' ego flaws in his clashes with Disney; however, I think he truly is a "visionary" type guy. Apple's MO under Jobs is to develop a whiz-bang product that people will overpay for (at least for a while); his MO at Pixar has been to give his creative team under Lasseter the freedom to make great product. I don't see any evidence that Jobs micromanages at Pixar.

Being Chairman is not being CEO, "running a multi-media conglomerate." It's a big-picture, policy-setting position.

Who knows if Jobs would care about the theme parks, Cruise Lines, etc.? There wasn't any evidence that he cared about animation before Pixar.

lodgelady

03-15-2005, 08:45 AM

WDSearcher

03-15-2005, 09:02 AM

I've certainly noted Jobs' ego flaws in his clashes with Disney; however, I think he truly is a "visionary" type guy. ... Who knows if Jobs would care about the theme parks, Cruise Lines, etc.? There wasn't any evidence that he cared about animation before Pixar. I agree that Jobs is a visionary. But I think his strength is storytelling. Now, granted, that's great for animation and even for theme parks, IF he's got that interest. But there's nothing out there that paints him as someone who wants to take over what Disney started. He didn't have much -- if any -- interest in the job; all that talk came from analysts and Roy and "unnamed sources." Jobs was always coy and non-commital when asked. That right there should tell you something. Bring him in as the head of animation, and I'm okay with that. But as head of the company? I'd need to know a whole lot more about where he thinks the theme parks should go before I could advocate that.

Jobs got to invent Pixar -- who knew who he was before then, really? He was just a computer geek. Now he's a savior? I don't see it.

:earsboy:

Plus4206

03-15-2005, 09:11 AM

He may not possess these gifts, but he may also recognize that he doesn't. IMO one of ME's problems was/is that he truely believes he is creative & innovative when in fact he's shown he's not. His ego wouldn't let him admit that. Iger could be a CEO that manages the business side of the company and follows the advise of WDI.

At least, that's what I'm hoping will happen.

lodgelady

03-15-2005, 09:48 AM

crusader

03-15-2005, 11:34 AM

No, its not bad business to cut the ties with the guy everybody agrees has outstayed his welcome. Its got nothing to do with disneyites. Its got to do with performance, and not just the short term performance that so many seem incapable of looking beyond.

Who's everybody? If your using the no confidence vote than you're equally guilty of utilizing short-term events. Once the board segregated CEO/Chairman, the fund managers gave their nods of approval. So who is everybody?

And if it really does have to do with performance, then you're wrong in terms of it being bad business. It's bad business to burn an association of this magnitude. Overall Disney is considered a long-term leader within its' industry during Eisner's tenure. He's considered a hard-nosed CEO who resurrected an empire and held his own for 20yrs under untold scrutiny and scandal while wheeling and dealing with the best of them. I think you're focusing too narrowly on the share price.

Iger will be watched very closely by his colleagues to see how he acknowledges Mr. Eisner in the future.

airlarry!

03-15-2005, 01:49 PM

Yes, D'ei$ney's term was long, but how has he been a leader. How exactly did he resurrect the 'empire?'

Let's check 'em off.

ABC -- except for ESPN (and NO ONE gives ME any credit at all for ESPN's value today), this has been a bust and a drain.

Eurod'esineyland -- Overbudgeted the hotels and eating places, then when it finally turned a meager profit, he saddled it with the pitiful DLP-Studios, which until HKMK opens up, will go down as the one park that could drum up less favorable publicity then ECA.

Fox Family Network -- 5 BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS!

Hotelineers taking over the planning of WDW

Mall Rats taking over DL before finally walking the plank

Dismantling of DFA

Money poured down the CGI hole, then dropped, then RESTARTED!

Michael Ei$ner has never, and will never, go quietly into the sunset. There have been so many financial failures and pitiful business decisions made in the last ten years, that it is amazing he has survived this long. How could anyone question his motives here? He may not succeed, but he will try and continue to rule the company, with his hand-picked board and hand-picked successor.

Ei$ner must go. I'm willing to give MiniME a chance if I were on the board (cause if I were, I'm obviously a two-bit Ei$ner flunkie or else I wouldn't be there) but with Ei$ner defanged at least temporarily, I'd have MiniME on a short leash.

Oh, and one more thing:

"Overall Disney is considered a long-term leader within its' industry during Walt's tenure. He's considered a hard-nosed CEO who resurrected an empire and held his own for many years under untold scrutiny and scandal while wheeling and dealing with the best of them. I think you're focusing too narrowly on the share price."

I don't think we'll see that on Walt's epitaph anytime soon.

aalan

03-15-2005, 02:04 PM

i realize that disney is a huge corporation now, but i sure wish somebody other than a "suit" was becoming the c.e.o. walt was the dreamer/visionary who was constantly being overruled by his brother roy, the businessman. the battles between the two created a wonderful company. one that should spend more time on the "magic" and not keeping the stockholders happy. maybe the job is too big for one person. maybe the board needs some new blood. the new guy just seems like status quo to me.

DancingBear

03-15-2005, 02:12 PM

Jobs got to invent Pixar -- who knew who he was before then, really? He was just a computer geek.Gee, I tend to think of the guy who co-founded Apple, the company which brought us the Apple II, the Macintosh, the I-Mac, the I-Pod, etc., as a bit more than a computer geek.

Huge ego, but he appears to give creative types, be they product developers at Apple or John Lasseter and company at Pixar, the freedom and resources to create great product.

mitros

03-15-2005, 03:09 PM

DancingBear

03-15-2005, 04:30 PM

Walt had foresight, Ei$ner is blind as a bat. Walt knew that because of the quality and quantity of his creations, the stockholders would be assured of making money trough out their lifetime, not just in the short term without any thought for the future, which is Ei$ners way of runnung {sinking?} the ship.While this may be true, it is also true that Wall Street's expectations are much different than in Walt's day. The stockholders, at least particularly the institutional shareholders, also appear to have short-term horizons.

Plus4206

03-15-2005, 05:03 PM

I remember reading an article where Roy Sr. was detailing the financial goals of the Disney company and basically they were striving for a stead 5% return year in-year out. They reinvested monies back into the parks that would allow this to happen. Try that business plan today and Wall Street will do more then just laugh at you.

raidermatt

03-15-2005, 06:30 PM

Who's everybody?
For pete's sake, if you're going to insist on taking issue with hyperbole, choose a better target.

The CONSENSUS is that his time is over, and that the stock, even with its recent uptick, has languished for years now.

Overall Disney is considered a long-term leader within its' industry during Eisner's tenure. He's considered a hard-nosed CEO who resurrected an empire and held his own for 20yrs under untold scrutiny and scandal while wheeling and dealing with the best of them.

Nobody cares about the long term (at least nobody with any real influence in this situation). If they did, Eisner would have been out long ago, and the recent improvements would never have saved him.

He's considered power hungry egomaniac who can't maintain productive relationships with the creative types. Even his "supporters" are hoping that Iger can repair some of the damage Eisner has done.

Its time to move on, and "everybody" knows it. If Iger is to do a decent job, having Eisner hovering isn't going to help him, its going to hinder him.

They reinvested monies back into the parks that would allow this to happen. Try that business plan today and Wall Street will do more then just laugh at you.
True, but they haven't exactly been thrilled with the business plan as executed over the last 10 years either.

We all know nobody can run Disney in the autocratic manner Walt did.

But Wall Street will allow you to reinvest if you are bringing results, i.e. growth.

On Jobs... I don't care if he, or anybody else running Disney is an egomaniac. That, in and of itself, is unimportant. The question is what feeds that ego. If its Eisner, its control. Its being able to say I created that.

I don't get the impression that is what feeds Jobs' ego. I haven't heard even rumors about Jobs meddling with the Pixar films. Lasseter and co. have complained about the way Disney tried to meddle with their early films, but one of the reasons they have not left Pixar is the creative freedom they are given. (We shouldn't forget that Disney was unsuccessful in its bid to pry Lasseter away from Pixar, and it wasn't for a lack of cash).

gapere

03-16-2005, 12:10 AM

I don't understand this. Sure ... Disney might have a kick-butt animation division again, but what would happen to everything else?

I don't know but I would gladly take a kick butt animation again over everything else. Animation has always been the company's bread and butter and should be the engine that keeps everything running. Hit movies provide enormous profits from movie tickets/home video sales. It provides characters that can be incorporated into the rides at the parks. It provides merchandising opportunities both at the parks and for the company's corporate partners (McDonald's et al).

IMO, Disney has relied too heavily on the Pixar characters to fill the creative void it can't fill itself. Take a look at the parks and you'll know what I mean. They only Disney original character that got any significant promotion when I was in Orlando last month was Stitch for the not-so-good Stitch's Great Escape. A character from the mid 90's from the now defunct Florida animation unit. I like Stitch but let's not confuse it with Buzz, Woody, Nemo and the gang in terms of drawing power.

Relying on the Pixar stuff is not bad in in of itself I suppose but what is Disney going to do when the current contract expires and Disney is unable to renew?

DancingBear

03-16-2005, 06:38 AM

IMO, Disney has relied too heavily on the Pixar characters to fill the creative void it can't fill itself. Take a look at the parks and you'll know what I mean. They only Disney original character that got any significant promotion when I was in Orlando last month was Stitch for the not-so-good Stitch's Great Escape. A character from the mid 90's from the now defunct Florida animation unit.Just to be clear here, Lilo & Stitch was released in 2002.

crusader

03-16-2005, 07:53 AM

Dismantling of DFA

This is the only point even worth reflecting on and remains the biggest problem this company has right now.

I can't help you otherwise except to say - so what?????? Do you have any idea how much money is blown in corporate america????? Man, it was a lot more than 1.6 billion dollars (the real hit from Fox) over the past 20 yrs. I love how Europe has now become entirely Eisner. I guess all the success Disney had is entirely Eisner as well. You're playing right into his legacy with this line of reasoning. It's overkill.

But with this level of scrutiny, there is no way you weren't going to find fault over a 20 yr. span and if that's your list - then you have to admit, this company has done exceptionally well during Eisner's tenure. Disney is considered a good solid independent company - not a corrupt one

Animation is where I'll agree with you. That's it.

For pete's sake, if you're going to insist on taking issue with hyperbole, choose a better target.

Relax Matt. Nobody's taking issue with your hyperbole. My point was, the company is owned by the shareholders whom consist of not only us but very large mutual fund holders. These fund owners aside from Roy and ME and a select list of other individual large shareholders are "everybody" in terms of the company. Disneyites who hold virtually no or very little stock are not and never will be the consensus vote - they are the consumers for the most part who didn't necessarily buy their stock as an investment but more along the lines of a souvenir (only at Disney) and tend to complain about everything that affects their personal "world". Disney happens to inspire so many - that it becomes a big heightened target in this regard.

Last year, and only last year, you had a consensus. This year you had an entirely different one - in favor of the current management of the company. I haven't heard the majority of these fund managers say anything more about Eisner - probably because he already announced his retirement. But even if he hadn't I'll bet the vote this year would have been the same.

One area we don't mention enough are the employees. In that respect, I can certainly understand why there's so much turmoil. Anybody who's had a boss this overpaid hurting the little guy for two decades knows what this is all about internally. Welcome to corporate america. It's a nasty place to hang your hat - and if you choose "Hollywood" you're in for a real rude awakening. Disney is an enigma - it sure looks great on the outside but it's nothing more than cold steel when you walk through those big corporate revolving doors.

Finance doesn't have any color. It's time we all woke up.

airlarry!

03-16-2005, 08:55 AM

Crusader,

How much do you know about the European disaster? My source is from the man himself. Ei$ner's own book illustrates the level of input he had in the creation of Eurod'eisneyland. Also, numerous articles both here and on the continent have detailed that park's struggles, before finallly breaking through after massive restructuring, only to be undone by what all but the very few snowglobers call a pitifully underwhelming addition (I refuse to call it a park) to the original gate. Again, under Ei$ner's watch, and by his right hand man, Jay R.

Now then. Name another 'success' you attribute to Ei$ner that is sustainable.

Citing the fact that he presided over the rebirth of DFA doesn't mean much when he has shuttered it, does it?

The more salient point, that you gloss over, is that Ei$ner rode a wave of creativity that the previous administration had in place, and that Disney was successful despite his leadership, not because of it.

If you don't think that Fox Family, the Katzenberg mess, the Ovitz Affair, the airplane leases, and the mismanagement of animation both CGI and traditional is corruption, then I'm not quite sure what it is. In almost every case, Ei$ner's first priority has been to the stock price, with the second priority, how that price affects his sizable holdings, coupled with how he can control the company politics to build upon those holdings.

I would like to see your reference as to how Disney saved themselve 3.6 billion on the Fox deal.

DancingBear

03-16-2005, 09:04 AM

How much do you know about the European disaster? My source is from the man himself. Ei$ner's own book illustrates the level of input he had in the creation of Eurod'eisneyland....

The more salient point, that you gloss over, is that Ei$ner rode a wave of creativity that the previous administration had in place, and that Disney was successful despite his leadership, not because of it.Just so I understand, then, if Eisner claims EuroDisney "credit" in his book, you believe him, but if he claims credit for The Lion King, et. al., he's overreaching.

DancingBear

03-16-2005, 09:05 AM

Now then. Name another 'success' you attribute to Ei$ner that is sustainable.The Cruise Line. Broadway. DVC.

crusader

03-16-2005, 09:37 AM

If you don't think that Fox Family, the Katzenberg mess, the Ovitz Affair, the airplane leases, and the mismanagement of animation both CGI and traditional is corruption, then I'm not quite sure what it is.

You're talking about items in a 20 yr history which equate to a fraction of money compared to the billions the Disney company reaped over those years in profits as a result of many components - some great as DancingBear has pointed out - some not so noble in terms of the Pixar deal.

I suggest you read up on Enron or Worldcom or Tyco to help you better define corporate corruption. Or better yet, concentrate your attention toward big U.S. gov't contractors right now who appear to be fleecing money the likes of you wouldn't believe. Eisner looks like a boyscout in this cesspool.

WDSearcher

03-16-2005, 10:14 AM

I don't know but I would gladly take a kick butt animation again over everything else. Well, unless you're one of us wacky CMs who work in the theme parks. Then you kind of tend to look at that a bit differently ....

:earsboy:

airlarry!

03-16-2005, 10:49 AM

DB, I don't understand your position. Could you clarify?

Crusader, good point. Next time I jaunt over to the Enron Information Station, I'll be sure to post how livid I am that Lay's debacle took place.

Meanwhile, back on the DIS, I thought we could stick to the subject at hand. The fact that you, either as a shareholder or a fan, are outraged at the level of gross mismanagement Ei$ner has shown, gotten away with, and even been praised for.

I'll give DB that Broadway has been successful, and I won't even mention the fact that the biggest successes have been with three shows that absolutely depend on past success with DFA. Why cloud the issue with reality? How exactly would Ei$ner kept up his success on Broadway, which has largely been with cross-over promotion of popular animation hits translated into fine Broadway productions, if he's closed the unit? Hmm...

Cruise Line, yes, another success under Ei$ner's reign, and one which I'll give him credit for. DVC? Oh, I don't you and I would see eye to eye on whether DVC has been good for the company or the parks or the consumers or the fans as a whole.

Okay, so in twenty years, my list of regrets is a mile long, and your list is retreaded shows at Broadway, two ships in the Cruise line (so far), and the ever-controversial DVC. Legacy indeed. Walt's epitaph: "And to think it all started with a mouse." Ei$ner's epitaph: "Broadway. Cruiselines. DVC." ;)

crusader

03-16-2005, 11:09 AM

I would like to see your reference as to how Disney saved themselve 3.6 billion on the Fox deal.

There's a thread not too far down on the boards about a Roy/Stan letter which talks about the acquisition having a $2 bil inflated pricetag chargeoff which netted $400 mil in tax savings.

So around $3 bil looks to be the proper valuation. The company overspent by $1.6 bil.

As far as EuroDisney - There is so much written out there identifying socio-economic failures we can pick and choose our poison. The initial park was designed and created with a tremendous amount of effort. That wasn't the problem.

I like this grad student's take. Read it carefully. You'll see the benefits identified and ignored by the French particularly in the press, who preferred to exploit Disney as the posterchild for their disdain toward U.S. culture. The failures are on so many levels here. http://www.attw.org/TCQarticles/7.3/7-3Forman.pdf

I'm not sure where we're at now with this venture.

DancingBear

03-16-2005, 11:44 AM

DB, I don't understand your position. Could you clarify?Not sure what you're looking for here, but, generally, it's just the "Element" in your post that tries to put everything in black and white terms. Every bad business decision was Eisners. Every business success the Company has had in 20 years is in spite of and not because of Eisner. Every business success that you have to give Eisner "credit" for (e.g., WDW hotel development) is flawed philosophically. Everything Eisner gets credit for in "Disney War" in his early CEO years is because that portion of the book is based only on what Eisner told James Stewart, but every story that makes Eisner (or Iger) look bad later on vs. Jobs, Katzenberg, Ovitz, Braun, etc. rings true. Eisner has managed to dupe all of the major institutional investors, etc.

It just seems to me that things are more complicated than that. I know the LandBaron pegs me as a huge Eisner apologist, but the fact is that I am perfectly willing to discuss negatives about Eisner, but the good Baron could never bring himself to give Eisner credit for anything.

I'll give DB that Broadway has been successful, and I won't even mention the fact that the biggest successes have been with three shows that absolutely depend on past success with DFA. Why cloud the issue with reality? How exactly would Ei$ner kept up his success on Broadway, which has largely been with cross-over promotion of popular animation hits translated into fine Broadway productions, if he's closed the unit? Hmm...Well, there is Mary Poppins, plus a lot of old operas around. ;) But, this is a perfect example of what I just said. Clearly, Eisner had a visionary moment (linked to his self-aggrandizement) when he brought Robert A.M. Stern to Times Square, and, whoever made the decision to hire Julie Taymor to direct Lion King, that was a magnificent moment.

DVC? Oh, I don't you and I would see eye to eye on whether DVC has been good for the company or the parks or the consumers or the fans as a whole.Now I'm confused. Are we talking about the business success of the Company or Philosophy? [Okay, I forgot, they are one and the same.]

Okay, so in twenty years, my list of regrets is a mile long, and your list is retreaded shows at Broadway, two ships in the Cruise line (so far), and the ever-controversial DVC. Legacy indeed. Walt's epitaph: "And to think it all started with a mouse." Ei$ner's epitaph: "Broadway. Cruiselines. DVC." ;)Well, I know that anything else I bring up (releasing the Library, Celebration, the Studios, the Tower of Terror, Animal Kingdom, WDW resort development, WDW Downtown Disney development, an amazing run with Pixar, the Pirates of the Caribbean movie, ESPN, etc.) will be dismissed as either somebody else's achievement, or a flaw in Philosophy, or a poor version of "What Might Have Been" (or, God forbid, "What Walt Would Have Done"), or something, so why bother?

WDSearcher

03-16-2005, 11:50 AM

Okay, so in twenty years, my list of regrets is a mile long, and your list is retreaded shows at Broadway, two ships in the Cruise line (so far), and the ever-controversial DVC. Legacy indeed. From reading your post, your position seemed to be that Eisner brought nothing to the company. Others disagreed, so you asked for examples to prove that he had. You were given examples, and now you're criticizing the number you were given. Was your expectation that someone would go day-by-day, year-by-year throughout the entire 20 years? What number of examples would have been a satisfactory answer? My guess is that no amount would be satisfactory, since you'd manage to eke criticism out of pretty much any success that was attributed to Eisner's time at Disney. (Although I'm sure that both Michael and the Cruise Line are thrilled that you're okay with them.)

To say that you have a "list of regrets a mile long" while there are only three items in the plus column is false accounting. And a cheap shot, to boot. I don't know your beef with DVC, so I can't speak to that. But there are thousands of children who got their first exposure to Broadway and live theatre due to those "retreaded" Disney shows. There are also plenty of top shows there now who piggy-backed off effects and styling innovations of Disney Theatricals productions. Would you really rather that Disney had not put Beauty & the Beast on Broadway? Would you really rather than Aida, Lion King, and now Mary Poppins had never hit the stage? Or do you just dislike them because they happened while Eisner was in charge?

:earsboy:

crusader

03-16-2005, 11:56 AM

Well said DancingBear.

AirLarry: "livid" is an understatement when it comes to my expressions toward Ken Lay. But I agree. We should stick to the topics at hand.

I took the liberty of checking on the status of EuroDisney - This six week old WSJ article is the best I could find if anybody's interested.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0501/31/C04-74005.htm

raidermatt

03-16-2005, 12:03 PM

The Cruise Line. Broadway. DVC.

Doesn't "quite" offset the problems.

Just so I understand, then, if Eisner claims EuroDisney "credit" in his book, you believe him, but if he claims credit for The Lion King, et. al., he's overreaching.
Just look at the relative levels of input. He had far more influence in Euro than in LK, both strategically and tactically.

Crusader, Wall Street's "satisfaction" with Eisner is based on two things. (1) Improvement in the short term numbers, and (2) the fact that he has agreed to leave.

If he were to announce he was staying another 5 years, and the Board agreed to it, we would see a very different response from what we are seeing now.

On EuroDisney, the biggest initial problems were with the hotels and resort structure, not the park itself. Given that its no secret that the French do not exactly hold Americana in the highest regard, the location may have been a mistake as well.

Regardless, as Larry points out, the company struggled to make it work for years, and then screwed it up all over again with the addition of DSP.

Interesting to note that the one thing some think was done right with EuroDisney was the park itself, yet Disney has gone more toward opening small parks done on the cheap (relatively speaking). Which is another one of my beefs with Eisner... misidentification of root causes and issues.

But as usual, we digress.

Let me ask this. Given what we were told about how extensive the search process for the new CEO would be, is anyone really satisfied with what actually occured?

airlarry!

03-16-2005, 01:00 PM

I cannot tell a lie.

I do enjoy arguing about philosophy, i.e. Ei$nerian philosophy versus Disney's.

What is Ei$ner's philosophy and has it been successful? I do not think DB nor Crusader ever nail this one down, and IMHO its important to the discussion.

His philosophy in theme parks for example. It is well-documented that DCA, AK, MGM, DLPStudios, and HKDL are all prime examples of Ei$ner's philosophy of build small in terms of attractions and grow later. (Let's not debate themes just yet). The opposite philosophy is build it nearly complete (as Walt himself said, no Disney park is ever complete) a la Tokyo Disney Seas.

Which philosophy is more successful?

Thank you Crusader for the article. It shores up what I said, that Euro was on its way to profitability, until Ei$ner's right hand man, Jay Rasulo, personally built (hyperbole alert) by hand the second gate. Ei$ner literally dictated that a small crappy addition be added, and the gamble, of course, backfired. Don't even think to compare the work at the Studios level to the heart and soul imagineers poured into creating the initial park.

"The strategy has backfired in Disneyland's Anaheim, Calif., flagship destination, where the new California Adventure park is a disappointment, and in Paris, where a troubled Hollywood-themed second park was the key trigger of Euro Disney's latest brush with bankruptcy."

They are even calling it "The Strategy." Everyone knows that this is Ei$ner's pet philosophy, and it doesn't just apply to theme parks.

A close inspection of his involvement in DFA shows examples of Ei$ner's philosophy now of create a story, sell the story, duplicate the story for cheap. DB, you would be well to remember Walt's quote on duplicating pigs, here. Is there really a serious doubt that Ei$ner himself has had a hand in the destruction of DFA, while it was the hard work, creativity, and dedication of the staff at DFA that was actually responsible for its successes? I guess I see myself as a Disney fan, not as a Disney(c) fan. I'm a fan of the men and women who work their arses off to do what I only dream about.

When Beauty and the Beast came out, I was proud to be a shareholder in Disney. When I watched Mulan II (why oh why did my wife buy that) I was ashamed.

Yes, the object of my derision goes toward one man. Two different men led this company by the sheer will of their existence, one created characters and stories and fostered the encouragement of artists all over the lot. The other, literally bragged about finding a motherlode of money sitting there waiting to be exploited, and did his best to help himself to a share of the profits.

You're wrong about my take on Ei$ner. Since the early 90s, I have watched his career, first excited that he was finally expanding the parks and hotels, then watching in horror as the monster he unleashed seemed to feed on itself. He was and is beholden to the Street and to his own focus on power and greed. And it finally appears to have taken him down, although greater people than you two have counted Ei$ner out before and paid dearly for it (or at the least the company did).

DancingBear

03-16-2005, 01:27 PM

I'm not sure here, but do you expect me to argue that Eisner was better than, or even equal to, Walt?

Or that Eisner is a good guy who should stick around longer?

Or that Paris Studios is a wonderful park? Or what?

'Cause I pretty much agree with everything in your last post.

airlarry!

03-16-2005, 02:36 PM

Welcome to Car Three (or maybe Car Two).

I'm willing to give Iger a chance. He and the rest of the crew are in Stage One: repairing that which hath been wrought weakened by Ei$ner (see Lutz on Disneyland). Stage Two is tougher. What is MiniME's vision for the future? Does he agree that Ei$ner's philosophy is bankrupt, and that it was only good for ploughing cash from the fertile ground of Walt's footsteps?

I'm sure, like most, what we really care about (cause we hang out here on the DIS and not the ABC chat room or the Lyric Street Information Station or the Mom's For Miramax fan page) is parks and movies. Can MiniME lead another 'golden age' of animation? Will Pixar be a part of the Disney magic? Can Igor ressucitate DL and finish what was started in WDW? Will we ever see Pooh's Hunny Hunt technology in America? Will Baron ever see mickey-headed butter again?

Or will Ei$ner assume Mitchell's place, and the looting will continue? The elections took place last year, the shareholders still have their purple ink on their finger, but the board is still in a quagmire over which will win: Disnocracy or Greedocracy.

Stay tuned.

WDSearcher

03-16-2005, 04:32 PM

I'm willing to give Iger a chance. Wow. That'd be a lot easier to believe if you stopped calling him "MiniME." Doesn't exactly scream "sincerity." Or "objectivity," for that matter.

If you're expecting Iger to come in and lead another golden age of animation, "ressucitate" the parks, and get Pixar back at terms that are a whole lot better than the ones Jobs was offering last time, and to do it all before dinner on October 1, I'm thinking you'll be disappointed. Unfortunately, I'm also thinking that might be the bar you've set for him. Just curious ... when you say you'll "give Iger a chance," what do you consider to be a reasonable amount of time?

:earsboy:

raidermatt

03-16-2005, 05:32 PM

I don't see anything where Larry even indicated that kind of timeframe was his bar.

Imho, a lot of it depends on what kind of transition we are looking at, and we won't know that for awhile. Namely, is Eisner really going to be calling all the shots until September? And, is he really not going to be calling any shots in October?

If Iger really believes he is going to do things on the scale that we are talking about, there's no way he would have agreed to be Eisner's front man. So giving him the benefit of the doubt that he really does have such goals as reviving internal animation, bringing Pixar back*, ressucitating the parks, etc, then we should start hearing rumblings about this over the 6 month transition period. Maybe just rumors and such, nothing necessarily concrete. Over the first 6 months or so after the changeover, we should be hearing of much more definite changes. That doesn't mean we see the next great Disney attraction open in the parks or next great Disney animated film open at the box office, because that does take time. But we should be hearing rumblings from within that they really are committed to such things. "Eisner-troopers" should begin leaving (similar to Pressler's Pals migration from the parks), talented creative people will be looking to work FOR Disney instead of leaving Disney.

There will be signs of any such revival within the next year, if it is to take place.

*On the terms offered by Jobs, its interesting to note that the qualifier "whole lot better terms than what Jobs offered before" is not being attached to the task Iger has. The gap between what Pixar has shown they can do and what Disney has shown it can do is so great, that analysts view it as something Disney needs to do. Period. Wall Street wants Disney to get this done. Disney needs access to that creative pipeline.

Now, as usual, the analysts discount the creative variable, in that they don't account for the possibility that Disney could revive its own animation department and actually compete with Pixar. However, in this case, they are corrrect in that there is little to no evidence that will happen in the near future.

We have to remember that just because Disney says the terms weren't good doesn't mean they were right about it. Of course, there is also the possibility that Jobs offered terms he knew wouldn't be accepted because he wanted to stall until the leadership issue at Disney is resolved.

DancingBear

03-16-2005, 08:36 PM

IThe gap between what Pixar has shown they can do and what Disney has shown it can do is so great, that analysts view it as something Disney needs to do. Period. Wall Street wants Disney to get this done.Where's your evidence for that? When the recent announcements were made about negotiations breaking off, did the stock take a dive? What analysts are you talking about?

crusader

03-16-2005, 10:26 PM

If he were to announce he was staying another 5 years, and the Board agreed to it, we would see a very different response from what we are seeing now.

I don't know about that. The Street only cared if the stock was impacted. It wasn't - despite the efforts of SaveDisney. Pretty darned impressive considering Comcast was lurking to strike. The Institutional Shareholders only cared about corporate governance and the lack of segregation of duties, which the board complied with.

I suspect Roy and Stan called in a few favors to garner support from the fund managers and the publicity came free and easy from the competition. But this really was a one shot deal in my opinion.

Eisner could have stayed and rode it out and called in a few favors as well. Roy could have kept up the campaign and used the fans and the employees to continually pressure the company from the outside - but the problem is: without the big guns support his numbers were dropping. The message was weak and the soundbites were fading.

I believe Eisner could have weathered this if he really wanted to. (but not without a price.) The Street would have backed anything that meant money. They don't care who's in charge. Look at Trump.

If Iger really believes he is going to do things on the scale that we are talking about, there's no way he would have agreed to be Eisner's front man.

why not? How else do you succeed internally?

airlarry what can I say?

I think we should all give Iger a shot.

As for Eisner's philosophy - Leadership. Market share. No different than any other CEO.

airlarry!

03-16-2005, 10:53 PM

Fine, M. Searcher, you don't like MiniME, then how 'bout Igor, Ei$ner's "stupid and weak" assistant--(his words, not mine)?

Three months is all it would take for me to energize the Disney faithful while still satisfying the board and the stockholders. I'll give him that much.

But since some of his own co-workers have said this about him:

"Lack of character; incompetence; taking credit for things (he) had nothing to do with; and running away from decisions (he) made." Lloyd Braun on MiniME; and

"He will not get the company into trouble. He is a corporate executive. He is not an enlightened or a brilliantly creative man but, with a strong board, he absolutely could do the job." Michael Ei$ner on Igor.

Maybe three months is too long. We've already had twenty years of ME, why should we get 90 days of MiniME?

This guy may be nice to puppies, loves rainbows, and everybody says is a joy to play The Great Dalmuti with, but let's face it, the second coming of even Ron Miller he is not.

Really, people, have we sunk this low as a corporation that we are satisfied with a guy Ei$ner wanted to put an allowance on when it came to risking money on movies and television shows? Without a creative bone in his body?

This company was built on innovation and creation, and it is a sad, sad, sad, sad day that Robert "I Hate 'Lost'" Iger is the new leader.

Think about it.

Robert Freaking Iger is taking Uncle Walt's place. Robert Freaking Iger will be the next host of Disney's Wonderful World of Repurposed Shows." Robert Freaking Iger is sitting in the seat reserved for John Lassiter or someone of his stature.

This company doesn't need another money man. Or even an insider's insider. Or a drone. Or an assistant.

It needs a visionary. One who is smart enough to hire competent and creative people to lead each division.

Ah, fooey. Who am I fooling here? We've reached an impasse, I'd say, 'cause I refuse to give Ei$ner credit for most of the creative successes that rightfully belong to hard working people who poured their sweat and blood and tears into projects, all because the first day they signed the back of that check they were excited to see the words "Walt Disney Company" as the payor... :)

Iger really is Ei$ner-lite, when you think about, because neither one of them can draw, write, produce, edit, create, or humanize their way out of a papersack.

I enjoy the debates, I really do, I just get frustrated that my kids will inherit a company that is a brand name like "Xerox" or "Kleenex" instead of the place where dreamers were appreciated.

DancingBear

03-17-2005, 07:49 AM

"Lack of character; incompetence; taking credit for things (he) had nothing to do with; and running away from decisions (he) made." Lloyd Braun on MiniMEGee, I'm so surprised somebody Iger fired has bad things to say about him. And just which other brilliant shows did Lloyd "I created the Sopranos" Braun greenlight during the last several years at ABC, before "Lost."

"He will not get the company into trouble. He is a corporate executive. He is not an enlightened or a brilliantly creative man but, with a strong board, he absolutely could do the job." Michael Ei$ner on Igor.Good, you're now trusting the judgments of an "enlightened and brilliantly creative" Michael Eisner.

Really, people, have we sunk this low as a corporation that we are satisfied with a guy Ei$ner wanted to put an allowance on when it came to risking money on movies and television shows?Not sure I follow this. He had a budget?

Robert Freaking Iger is taking Uncle Walt's place.No, he is taking Eisner's place at the head of a much different company than Walt left.

Robert Freaking Iger is sitting in the seat reserved for John Lassiter or someone of his stature.You've got to be kidding. Lasseter would have no business being CEO of Disney.

It needs a visionary. One who is smart enough to hire competent and creative people to lead each division....We've reached an impasse, I'd say, 'cause I refuse to give Ei$ner credit for most of the creative successes that rightfully belong to hard working people who poured their sweat and blood and tears into projects...I don't get this either. You say it's the top guy's job to hire these competent and creative people, but don't give Eisner credit for bringing in Katzenberg? Or several of the world's top architects? Or whoever it was that greenlighted "Down and Out in Beverly Hills"?

airlarry!

03-17-2005, 09:04 AM

1. Lassiter: I'm curious. What exactly is your beef with John Lassiter, and why do you not think he is an excellent choice for head of TWDC?

2. Trusting Ei$ner's judgment: I'm assuming you are sarcastic in thinking I am trusting anything Ei$ner said. The post was mean to illustrate how even the bumbling Cou$in Mikey thinks Igor is plain vanilla. If Cou$in Mikey thinks you are a talentless hack, wow, that's saying something. Heck, now I can see why many are happy Igor is coming...cause even his old boss agrees its 20 more years of the same.

3. Bob's Budget: Rumor has it Orcner wanted to limit MiniME's budget when it came to investing in new shows and movies, at least according to Stewart:

http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_2205Iger
"Eisner then went on to call Iger's management of two other executives "stupid and weak" and to suggest that Iger's authority should be curbed with spending limits on movies and television shows. Iger seemed aware of Eisner's ambivalence. When Eisner suggested elevating him to president, Iger said: "Are you sure? You seem to be hot and cold on me," Stewart says."

4. Ei$ner's past successes: Katz? Wow, there's an old chestnut. Is that still even on Ei$ner's resume: "I brought in Jeffrey?" Well, Mikey, you are only as good as your last fumble, and the departure erases a lot of the 'good will' built up over that hire. Besides, the whole JK experience is so complicated, with so many versions, its hard to tell who ends up getting credit. I'd rather say that DFA deserves the credit for B&B and The Lion King, and JK deserves the credit for Pocohontas, but I'd be accused of Anti-Mike bias. ;)

5. Architects: Puhlease. Suffice it to say that the Swalphin stands for everything Cou$in Mikey believes in when it comes to the WDW resort. Quick question, where would you rather stay if it was free? Poly or the Swalphin? What if I threw in a Michael Graves toaster if you stayed at the Swalphin, would that change your mind?

We've already opened up Ei$ner's California Adventure. I can't wait to see what the new resort in India, rumor has it named Robert Iger World, will look like.

DB, I believe you would agree with me that Ei$ner should have left a long time ago. Those that believe like I do usually fall into two camps, the ones who think Ei$ner and Wells made a great team and that Ei$ner's earlier moves fizzled out especially since the health troubles, and the ones who think he was the proverbial flunky talentless coach who inherited a talent loaded team and won the superbowl.

If you fall into or somewhere between those two camps, why are you not outraged that a man who deserves the President's title even less than Cou$in Mikey is going to be sitting in Walt's chair?

DancingBear

03-17-2005, 09:57 AM

1. Lassiter: I'm curious. What exactly is your beef with John Lassiter, and why do you not think he is an excellent choice for head of TWDC?I think Lasseter's great as a creative guy, but what makes you think Wall Street would accept him as CEO of TWDC? Heck, he's only third in the pecking order at Pixar, behind Jobs and Catmull.

2. Trusting Ei$ner's judgment: I'm assuming you are sarcastic in thinking I am trusting anything Ei$ner said. The post was mean to illustrate how even the bumbling Cou$in Mikey thinks Igor is plain vanilla. If Cou$in Mikey thinks you are a talentless hack, wow, that's saying something. Heck, now I can see why many are happy Igor is coming...cause even his old boss agrees its 20 more years of the same.First, you make the common Element mistake of assuming that because you are challenged on something, that means the challenger is an Eisner apologist, or, in this case "happy Igor is coming." I don't know enough about this guy to make a judgment yet, but I defend him against he prejudgments of others.

Second, I would think that a dismissive remark by Eisner would be a badge of honor among the Element, like the Katzenberg "midget" comment.

3. Bob's Budget: Rumor has it Orcner wanted to limit MiniME's budget when it came to investing in new shows and movies...So what? (See "badge of honor" above).

4. Ei$ner's past successes: Katz? Wow, there's an old chestnut. Is that still even on Ei$ner's resume: "I brought in Jeffrey?" Well, Mikey, you are only as good as your last fumble, and the departure erases a lot of the 'good will' built up over that hire.So, again, you can't give ME credit for anything at any point in the past.

5. Architects: Puhlease. Suffice it to say that the Swalphin stands for everything Cou$in Mikey believes in when it comes to the WDW resort. Quick question, where would you rather stay if it was free? Poly or the Swalphin? What if I threw in a Michael Graves toaster if you stayed at the Swalphin, would that change your mind?ME inherited the convention hotel deal from the prior administration, and after fighting hard to get rid of the deal completely, got control of the design and handed it to a great architect. So what if you don't like Graves' stuff--would you rather have a plain Downtown-Disney style mid-rise hotel in that spot? Your offer re the Poly is a silly one--why not compare the Dolphin vs. Contemporary (particularly if the Dolphin could be relocated to overlooking MK). Or compare a free Poly to the Four Seasons Maui.

DB, I believe you would agree with me that Ei$ner should have left a long time ago. Those that believe like I do usually fall into two camps, the ones who think Ei$ner and Wells made a great team and that Ei$ner's earlier moves fizzled out especially since the health troubles, and the ones who think he was the proverbial flunky talentless coach who inherited a talent loaded team and won the superbowl.Right there is one of the problems. I think the people and the situations are much more complex.

If you fall into or somewhere between those two camps, why are you not outraged that a man who deserves the President's title even less than Cou$in Mikey is going to be sitting in Walt's chair?Because (1) it ain't Walt's chair no more (get over it), and (2) I haven't yet drawn the conclusion as to whether Iger "deserves" this or not.

raidermatt

03-17-2005, 02:06 PM

The Street only cared if the stock was impacted. It wasn't - despite the efforts of SaveDisney.
The Street cares that the stock has been impacted for over 10 years by Eisners business plan. Had the quarterlies not improved, they would have run him out.

But they did improve, so they tolerated him, but the flak only started to die down when Eisner stepped down as Chairmen, and later announced he would definitely leave after his contract was up. Since the Street hates uncertainty, they preferred that to continuing to press Eisner, particularly when the quarterlies were on the upswing.

why not? How else do you succeed internally?

I'm talking about on a go-forward basis, with Iger at the helm. He succeeds by earning respect on his own, and implementing his own vision, not by being a front man for a still in control Eisner.

Where's your evidence for that? When the recent announcements were made about negotiations breaking off, did the stock take a dive? What analysts are you talking about?
Its in just about every article or interview anyone has done on the subject recently. Its said one of Iger's biggest challenges is to repair the Pixar relationship. Not to negotiate better terms. There's never any mention of the reason for the falling out being Pixar's requested terms.

Of course, its possible they are over-simplifying the matter. It wouldn't be the first time. But certainly the consensus is that the relationship is not in trouble due to terms, but rather due to the rift over Eisner.

No, Disney's stock price is not significantly impacted by the Pixar problem, but that's because it is still a relatively small piece of the companies overall revenue. Also, while negotiations broke off, Pixar did not actually sign with anybody else.

My personal opinion is that many are viewing this as a litmus test of sorts. To see if Iger can make nice with people that Eisner cannot. I also think that Iger knows this, and that if he is calling the shots, he will very much want to get this done. Not just for the financial benefits, but for the PR benefits as well.

raidermatt

03-17-2005, 02:26 PM

DB, there's certainly some truth in what you say about Iger deserving a chance before he is judged.

And ultimately, he will get the chance to prove himself whether we pre-judge him or not.

But the problem is that he was installed as part of a sham that the Board called a search process, which puts the burden of proof on him. Its true that we don't know how he's going to handle a lot of things, but that is really part of the problem. He didn't have to compete with the elite for this position, he's Eisner's personal choice (and until the door hits Eisner on his rear, we can't even be sure his is really leaving), he's a network TV guy, etc, etc, etc.

There shouldn't be this many questions about this guy at this point, and that is part of the problem.

The Board has proven they do not deserve our blind trust, and that any significant actions they take must be viewed with skepticism.

Somebody mentioned the old "Fool me once, fool me twice" saying. Well, really, the Board is well past two on that count. They, nor their choices, no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.

WDSearcher

03-17-2005, 02:50 PM

Fine, M. Searcher, you don't like MiniME, then how 'bout Igor, Ei$ner's "stupid and weak" assistant--(his words, not mine)? Alas, I think calling him names at all is childish, so none of those work for me.
But since some of his own co-workers have said this about him: ...
I'm sure all of us can find people who will speak badly of us. Doesn't mean they're right.
Really, people, have we sunk this low as a corporation that we are satisfied with a guy Ei$ner wanted to put an allowance on when it came to risking money on movies and television shows? Without a creative bone in his body?
OK ... I'm confused. I didn't think you were a fan of ANY of Michael's opinions. In fact, I would think that the mere fact that Eisner thought Iger didn't have a creative bone in his body would automatically put you in Iger's court. Kind of that whole, "If Michael said it, it can't be true" line of thinking. But now you believe something is true simply because Michael said it? I hate it when I miss an episode!

I think you need to realize that The Walt Disney Company is never going to be the company you want it to be. You want the company to go back to being the company you knew when you were younger and more amazed by things and in a time when things like Pixar, Nickelodeon, CGI, and other theme parks didn't exist. You want the company to go and undo all the bad stuff and keep the good stuff while wiping all traces of Eiser from the books. That's not going to happen.

:earsboy:

WDSearcher

03-17-2005, 03:09 PM

But the problem is that he was installed as part of a sham that the Board called a search process, which puts the burden of proof on him. Its true that we don't know how he's going to handle a lot of things, but that is really part of the problem .... There shouldn't be this many questions about this guy at this point, and that is part of the problem.
But truly, wouldn't that be the case with anyone who came in? If, say, Steve Jobs had been given the nod, would there not be questions regarding how he'd handle things like the theme parks and ABC and Disney Theatricals? If Meg Whitman had taken the gig, wouldn't people have wondered how she would treat the film library or the theme parks or the animation division? I'd wager that we'd have as many questions about them as we have about Iger, except that any of the others would automatically have been given the benefit of the doubt because they weren't Iger. Just about anyone else coming in would have received a big ol' stamp of approval and whole lot of support. I'm sorry, but the fact that someone else "isn't Iger" just isn't enough of a reason for me to think they'd automatically do a better job.

I agree that the whole successor thing was pre-determined. But think about it ... for years people have been huffing and puffing that Eisner had no succession plan. That he was so micro-managerial and close-to-the-chest about things that he had no one who could take over if he just fell off a bridge one day. But, now it appears that he DID have a plan. It's just not the plan you wanted.

:earsboy:

raidermatt

03-17-2005, 03:14 PM

I think you need to realize that The Walt Disney Company is never going to be the company you want it to be. You want the company to go back to being the company you knew when you were younger and more amazed by things and in a time when things like Pixar, Nickelodeon, CGI, and other theme parks didn't exist. You want the company to go and undo all the bad stuff and keep the good stuff while wiping all traces of Eiser from the books. That's not going to happen.

What difference does it make if Pixar, Nick, etc exist? That's no excuse to become bereft of creativity (hyperbole acknowledged). You don't beat the competition by whining about them. You raise your own bar, or you get left behind.

Don't confuse a desire for Disney to focus on its creativity and core products with a desire to go back to eating TV dinners while watching Uncle Walt on the tube. Noboby is calling for the ridiculous scenario you describe. Its about business and creativity, and what a company has to do to truly succeed.

That said, if there is bad stuff, then yes, they darn well should be looking to fix it while keeping the good stuff.

Who in their right mind would recommend otherwise?

raidermatt

03-17-2005, 03:23 PM

But truly, wouldn't that be the case with anyone who came in?

No.

There would some questions, yes, but far fewer as the candidates would have been required to put forth their plans and ideas. We of course would not get all of those details, but we'd get indications. We'd also be dealing with CEOs with more complete track records of performance when not under a regime such as Eisner's.

There's simply no excuse for the way things were done.

But, now it appears that he DID have a plan. It's just not the plan you wanted.

Ok, let's be realistic here. Certainly Eisner did not have this plan all along. If he did, he would not have said the things about Iger that he said in the past, and he also would not have been so reluctant to put the plan out there.

I really can't understand how anyone who cares what happens to this company can be satisfied with the process. And if you are not satisfied with the process, you can't be satisfied that the best person to lead the company forward has been identified. And wasn't it the responsibility of the Board to do everything they could to find that person?

If not, what is their responsibility?

WDSearcher

03-17-2005, 03:42 PM

What difference does it make if Pixar, Nick, etc exist? That's no excuse to become bereft of creativity (hyperbole acknowledged). You don't beat the competition by whining about them. You raise your own bar, or you get left behind. You may not think the Company is as creative as it used to be, but I still say much of that fault lies in the expectations of the audience. People expect every single thing that comes out of Disney to be sterling. They don't expect that of anyone else. When was the last time someone complained that a Nickelodeon film wasn't going to be a classic? When was the last time someone went to Six Flags and then complained because the theming wasn't as wonderful as it used to be? Disney is compared against it's nostalgic self all the time. And that's tough competition to beat, because nothing Disney ever does in 2005 will be as wonderful as what people remember -- or think they remember, or heard about, or read about -- from back in the "Walt years."

Walt had his batch of stinker projects, but no one remembers those, because Walt has this wonderful wash of nostalgia to hide behind. Not everything he touched turned to gold. But yet, today's Disney is supposed to hit that impossible mark of success every time.

:earsboy:

WDSearcher

03-17-2005, 03:58 PM

There would some questions, yes, but far fewer as the candidates would have been required to put forth their plans and ideas. We of course would not get all of those details, but we'd get indications. We'd also be dealing with CEOs with more complete track records of performance when not under a regime such as Eisner's. OK ... we'd be dealing with CEOs with more complete track records of performance. In industries other than entertainment. And if we're going to "not get all of those details" with other candidates, why is it a problem to not have them yet with Iger? The thing that frustrates me is that you all seem to think you know what he'll do, what he'll say, how he'll lead, where he'll fail. How do you have all this information? I have an indication of how he behaved while he was working under Eisner, but I don't know how he'll perform once he's in the top spot. I've sat in creative meetings with the guy, and he's a good guy to have in creative meetings. Because he listens, and he asks questions, and he respects the talent, and he understands the importance of entertainment and -- dare I say it -- magic.

Ok, let's be realistic here. Certainly Eisner did not have this plan all along. If he did, he would not have said the things about Iger that he said in the past, and he also would not have been so reluctant to put the plan out there. No ... but he didn't come up with it yesterday either. Somewhere along the line, he figured out a plan and it worked.

I really can't understand how anyone who cares what happens to this company can be satisfied with the process. And if you are not satisfied with the process, you can't be satisfied that the best person to lead the company forward has been identified. No, I'm not satisfied. In fact, the announcement suprised the heck out of me on Saturday night. But no amount of whining I do is going to change the fact that the deed is done and Iger is the new guy. And, all things being equal, there are a lot of worse people they could have chosen. And if Iger coming in means that Eisner moves out a year early, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. By all accounts, Bob Iger is a nice guy ... a good politician who knows when to hold his tongue and when to speak up. After 20 years of Eisner's impromptu comments and temper tantrums, Iger was probably a breath of fresh air to a beleaguered board. I don't know that any amount of interviews or searching would have gotten the "best" person ... but I'm not yet ready to concede that the board didn't choose a good person.

:earsboy:

DVCconvert

03-17-2005, 04:13 PM

You may not think the Company is not as creative as it used to be, but I still say much of that fault lies in the expectations of the audience. People expect every single thing that comes out of Disney to be sterling.

But, WD, isn't that the expected and rational outcome of the sincere and public trumpeted actons over the year by the company to 'be the best', 'put on the best show', 'exceed guest expectations'? I think so. Not that I'm entirely disagreeing with you, but it's proably not so much the audience by itself.

When was the last time someone went to Six Flags and then complained because there was some paint chipping on the corner of a building?
I wouldn't know, I've never visited one of those parks! :earboy2:
Again though, the publicly cultured expectations of cleanings and maintaince in the parks have been a core 'Disney Standard' forever.

Disney is compared against it's nostalgic self all the time. And that's tough competition to beat, because nothing Disney ever does in 2005 will be as wonderful as what people remember -- or think they remember, or heard about, or read about -- from back in the "Walt years."

I agree anyone with unrealistic expectations would never be satisfied, however; I think the hard core -long term repeat fans/guests see right through those attractions/shows/events which are "done on the cheap" and are frustrated by it (ie; the Aladdin attraction / stitches great disgrace / Dino rama etc). Most view it as a lack of committment, and management constantly over-ruling imagineering.

DVCconvert

03-17-2005, 04:22 PM

WD posted:
And if Iger coming in means that Eisner moves out a year early, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. By all accounts, Bob Iger is a nice guy ... a good politician who knows when to hold his tongue and when to speak up. After 20 years of Eisner's impromptu comments and temper tantrums, Iger was probably a breath of fresh air to a beleaguered board.

I generally agree, with the exception that any board that allows itself to become so out of control as they did, should now also go as they are not serving the owners interests well!

Eisner's impromptu comments and temper tantrums
Oh yeah.....if he were younger, he'd proably be diagnosed with some variant of Tourettes!

WDSearcher

03-17-2005, 04:50 PM

I generally agree, with the exception that any board that allows itself to become so out of control as they did, should now also go as they are not serving the owners interests well! I don't think the whole board needs to go, but I will agree that more should go than stay. And my vote reflected that!

Oh yeah.....if he were younger, he'd proably be diagnosed with some variant of Tourettes! No ... he'd be hailed as "a creative genius with a temperament."

:earsboy:

raidermatt

03-17-2005, 07:56 PM

I still say much of that fault lies in the expectations of the audience.
Pixar can meet the expectations of Disney's audience.

You cannot fault an audience. If a company can no longer meet its customers expectations, it has two choices: Improve its product or get out of the business.

When was the last time someone complained that a Nickelodeon film wasn't going to be a classic? When was the last time someone went to Six Flags and then complained because the theming wasn't as wonderful as it used to be?
Disney always aimed higher than the competition. There were other parks and animation when Walt started his own. After Snow White, don't you think the audience expected more from the next Disney film than they would have from anybody else? Geez, if all Disney ever did was complain about the public expecting more out of them than the competition, we wouldn't even be discussing this. This website wouldn't exist. Disney would be just another entertainment company.

Nobody expects the next Nickelodeon film to be a classic, and Nickelodeon isn't trying to sell us their next film as a classic. They don't have their own resort destinations they are trying to sustain.

You ask when was the last time someone complaind about the lack of themeing at Six Flags. Well, when was the last time somebody shelled out thousands of dollars to take their family to Six Flag's for a week?

If Disney wants to be "Disney", then it must live with the expectations that go along with that. Its the only way to reap the benefits of being Disney.

If Disney wants to be Six Flags or Nick, well, then I guess its ok to compare themeselves to those entities.

The thing that frustrates me is that you all seem to think you know what he'll do, what he'll say, how he'll lead, where he'll fail.
You're reading too much into it, at least for me. I'm highly skeptical because he was installed as CEO as the result of a sham of a process. We were told there would be a competition, and then there wasn't. And again, like it or not, he's Eisner's guy and that also creates skepticism.

But I don't claim to KNOW how he will perform and where he will fail. I just expcet more diligence out of the process, and do not believe there should be this much uncertainty about such an important decision for Disney.

Maybe he does understand "Magic", but there's hardly anything out there to really back that up.

No ... but he didn't come up with it yesterday either. Somewhere along the line, he figured out a plan and it worked.
Eisner has cooked up lots of plans. If you define "worked" as got his way, then yes, this one worked also.

Its great that you trust him so. I, unfortunately, again have to look at his track record and take a more skeptical view.

But no amount of whining I do is going to change the fact that the deed is done and Iger is the new guy.
Your insult about whining aside, no amount of any discussion we have is going to change the fact that the deed is done.

In fact, no amount of discussion we have ever had on anything has ever changed what Disney has done.

So why discuss? (That's rhetorical, as obviously the ability to change Disney's discussions is not the criteria either of us use to determine whether we engage in these discussions. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it now. I just don't know why you would bring that into the conversation.)

And, all things being equal, there are a lot of worse people they could have chosen.
Of course they could have done worse.

That's just not quite a high enough standard for the Board of Directors of a Dow Industrial company to meet.

Look, maybe you're right and this will all work out. Maybe Iger is the guy to revive animation, bring the luster and innovation back to the parks, while all the while ensuring the networks and all the other businesses are properly run.

At this point, my criticism is more specifically pointed at Eisner and the Board. I just can reasonably EXPECT that things are going to work out despite their actions.

DVCconvert

03-17-2005, 07:59 PM

WD posted:
I don't think the whole board needs to go, but I will agree that more should go than stay. And my vote reflected that!

Who do you think should stay? and why?

No ... he'd be hailed as "a creative genius with a temperament."
Only for the first few days, then once he started making statements to female BOD members like..."you'd think she carried his babies" (implying loyalty) he'd be seen as the wacko he is! As no rational, sane CEO would make a demeaning comment like that to a "superior".

manning

03-17-2005, 08:38 PM

Read on yahoo disney board that Disney is outsourcing their information technology departments, about 5000 jobs.

DVCconvert

03-18-2005, 08:30 AM

WDQuote:
The thing that frustrates me is that you all seem to think you know what he'll do, what he'll say, how he'll lead, where he'll fail.

Matt Quote:
You're reading too much into it, at least for me. I'm highly skeptical because he was installed as CEO as the result of a sham of a process. We were told there would be a competition, and then there wasn't. And again, like it or not, he's Eisner's guy and that also creates skepticism.

But I don't claim to KNOW how he will perform and where he will fail. I just expcet more diligence out of the process, and do not believe there should be this much uncertainty about such an important decision for Disney.

Matt, I agree with you entirely. There are many unknowns. We don't know if Ei$ner can really stay out and by what distance, we don't know how Iger will 'bloom' without (if without) the imperial Ex-CEO still giving "imput". Iger has not yet been lead to the platform, but due to the reasonable skepticisms, the guillotine of opinion has been dusted off and is parked clearly visiable on the backlot.

WDSearcher

03-18-2005, 11:07 AM

Your insult about whining aside, no amount of any discussion we have is going to change the fact that the deed is done. My post was ... "But no amount of whining I do is going to change the fact that the deed is done and Iger is the new guy."

I didn't mean the "whining" to apply to anyone other than myself. I did not mean to imply that you -- or anyone else here -- was whining, and I certainly wasn't lofting it as an insult. Sorry if it came across otherwise.

:earsboy:

WDSearcher

03-18-2005, 11:16 AM

Who do you think should stay? and why? I'm a fan of Chen, Lewis, O'Donovan, and Wilson. I know they're not all "independent," but they're the ones I've met or heard speak and I've liked what I saw. They seem to have an interest in the Company, from the standpoint of helping preserve its history, as well as an interest in the people who actually work there. I'm sort of up in the air about Bryson and Matschullat ... don't know much about them on the positive or negative. Fred Langhammer just got here, but he seems to be one of the good guys. We'll see. Not particularly fond of Estrin, Lozano or Mitchell. I'm obviously willing to cut Iger a break for the time being and give him some support. And while I don't loathe Eisner as much as many here seem to, I certainly don't have a problem with him moving on.

:earsboy:

DancingBear

03-18-2005, 11:16 AM

Report on NPR this morning:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4540682

DVCconvert

03-18-2005, 11:31 AM

WD posts:
I'm a fan of Chen, Lewis, O'Donovan, and Wilson. I know they're not all "independent," but they're the ones I've met or heard speak and I've liked what I saw. They seem to have an interest in the Company, from the standpoint of helping preserve its history, as well as an interest in the people who actually work there.

I'd certainly agree about O'Donovan.

I'm sort of up in the air about Bryson and Matschullat ... don't know much about them on the positive or negative.

Bryson - I'm not up in the air about at all. He's had lackeyitius for sometime now.

Fred Langhammer just got here, but he seems to be one of the good guys. We'll see.

agreed on both observations.

Not particularly fond of Estrin, Lozano or Mitchell.
LOL! "not fond" ? You just won the understatement of the decade award! :rotfl2: . Estrin in particular. Mitchell has never had any guts in his 'corporate life' - unless they were someone else's insides he could hide behind.

manning

03-18-2005, 01:26 PM

Here is an interview with the author of Disney War. When you get to the site click listen to hear the interview.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4503311

manning

03-18-2005, 01:36 PM

LA Times march 17 commentary about the selection process for a new Disney CEO. How sad!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-disney17mar17,0,3358823.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

airlarry!

03-19-2005, 09:44 AM

Jeez, leave to do a little work, and the thread goes every which way. I'll try to be brief, because I can see the thread is winding down and RMatt may have used up the board's allotment of bandwith with that last post. ;)

BTW, I never said you were an Ei$ner apologist. I said, "many" not "DancingBear". I never presuppose that someone who challenges my thinking on Ei$ner is an apologist, but I do think that there are those on this very board. Only you know why you believe a talentless hack is better at leading a corporation built on creativity and innovation then the charismatic spiritual leader of the world's best animation company.

The fact that Ei$ner stoops to namecalling (can't call it petty namecalling, that is only reserved for members of the Element remember) is no badge at all; it just illustrates how pitiful the choice is.

Remember, media reports say that Ei$ner has been grooming Mr. Igor. Yet the man he grooms is "weak" and "stupid", colorless, creatively empty, and a vanilla choice. James Stewart, a Pulitizer Prize winning author, said on NPR that Michael Ei$ner told him he intends to seek the Chairmanship of the company that was stripped from him. What better way to do this than to push forward a weak candidate to replace him in his current position.

Michael Ei$ner is cold, calculating, and admits to being absolutely and vocerifiously ruthless in business dealings. He is not one of the largest shareholders in Disney for nothing. I am not saying it will happen, but for people of your intelligence and Disney insight to dismiss the idea that the Igor candidacy could be nothing more than a sham and a shell for Ei$ner to remain in power is goofy.

You've admitted to me that it has been long past the time for Ei$ner to leave. In my eyes, that's something. But just as you have probably been blinded by the succeses the company has had (both in spite of and because of Ei$ner) in the past, Ei$ner has blinded you again. Robert Iger looks like a nice guy, but he cannot fill Walt's seat.

By the way, last I checked, this is still The Walt Disney Company. Therefore, it is still Walt's seat, and you are the one who needs to get over it. Anybody who wants to lead this company better be ready to lead it with integrity, with leadership, with vision, and with a focus on producing the best family entertainment. This is not Kraft, or GE, or Ford, or Family Widget Company USA LLC. This company is about ideas and stories, and I am not convinced that MiniME knows that yet.

I'm giving him three months to show me. That's all it would take for me to do it.

BTW, comparing the Poly to the Four Seasons? Oh, thank God Baron didn't read that one. We don't compare Disney to Universal here...we don't compare the MK to Six Flags...arguments about the Poly versus the Four Seasons don't mean anything.

Don't fight the hypothet, counselor. The question was simple, try answering it. Does hiring a big name architect alone score points? I thought effective use and planning of the resort counts for more than a cover boy from AD? We know your answer already...because you want me to bring the Dolphin over to the MK lagoon. That suggestion right there tells me everything I need to know.

I know my posts come out harsh against Igor. I don't know the guy, I only know his resume. And nothing in his resume leads me to believe that he is anything less than Ei$ner-lite. This company does not deserve Ei$ner-lite. The shareholders don't deserve it. The fans don't deserve it. You, DancingBear, do not deserve twenty more years of Ei$ner.

I may be wrong here...but I am willing to sticking my nose out, because my position on Igor is consistent with my position on Ei$ner.

mitros

03-19-2005, 11:36 PM

Makes all the sense in the world to me!

DancingBear

03-20-2005, 09:51 AM

Only you know why you believe a talentless hack is better at leading a corporation built on creativity and innovation then the charismatic spiritual leader of the world's best animation company.Good line.

Michael Ei$ner is cold, calculating, and admits to being absolutely and vocerifiously ruthless in business dealings. He is not one of the largest shareholders in Disney for nothing. I am not saying it will happen, but for people of your intelligence and Disney insight to dismiss the idea that the Igor candidacy could be nothing more than a sham and a shell for Ei$ner to remain in power is goofy.I don't think I've dismissed the idea that Eisner may think this way.

I'm giving him three months to show me. That's all it would take for me to do it.But, of course, you would never have gotten the job. Iger has to deal with more than satisfying the Element constituency.

BTW, comparing the Poly to the Four Seasons? Oh, thank God Baron didn't read that one. We don't compare Disney to Universal here...we don't compare the MK to Six Flags...arguments about the Poly versus the Four Seasons don't mean anything.It's as meaningful as your hypothetical. Why not ask me the same question about the Grand Floridian, or for that matter, the Wilderness Lodge, vs. the Contemporary?

Does hiring a big name architect alone score points? I thought effective use and planning of the resort counts for more than a cover boy from AD?What exactly is your problem with the Swan and Dolphin, other than that you don't like it? [Keep in mind that only the Element has their World Showcase experience ruined by the distant view of the S&D]. Again, the fact is that there was going to be a vanilla convention center hotel on this site, that Eisner fought to get that contract voided, and that, failing that, he made sure we got Michael Graves' design instead of the vanilla towers. I like Graves' stuff--have you seen his post office in Celebration?

We know your answer already...because you want me to bring the Dolphin over to the MK lagoon. That suggestion right there tells me everything I need to know.Don't be dense. The point was that the location next to the Magic Kingdom could not have been replicated at the Swan and Dolphin. Again, I'd take a free GF or WL over a free Contemporary--what does that prove? Oh, also, I'd take a free S&D over the CBR--does that tell you anything?

I may be wrong here...but I am willing to sticking my nose out, because my position on Igor is consistent with my position on Ei$ner.As long as you believe Iger is MiniME, there really is no other position that you could take, is there? Don't pat yourself on the back too hard for bravely announcing that you will hold Iger's feet to the fire.

I disagree with you about Eisner = Iger. I'm not sure what to think about him yet, but he'll get more than 3 months from me to prove himself.

I also don't believe in any way that Iger = Walt, but I don't expect that. I don't think Bill Ford is Henry Ford, either. If Iger (1) brought on Brad Bird to head DFA, (2) nurtured what appears to be the positive Matt Ouimet approach at the parks, and (3) re-energized WDI, would you care that he wasn't Walt?

DVCconvert

03-20-2005, 11:48 AM

(1) brought on Brad Bird to head DFA, (2) nurtured what appears to be the positive Matt Ouimet approach at the parks, and (3) re-energized WDI, would you care that he wasn't Walt?

heck, if that happened, I wouldn't care if it were Kim Dae Jung! :teeth:

crusader

03-20-2005, 12:49 PM

What the heck?

sir airness - don't even bother to give Iger three months. You've already taken that away by completely degrading his character and ability.

You're done, which is perfectly within your rights and beliefs to be.

This says it all -

By the way, last I checked, this is still The Walt Disney Company. Therefore, it is still Walt's seat, and you are the one who needs to get over it. Anybody who wants to lead this company better be ready to lead it with integrity, with leadership, with vision, and with a focus on producing the best family entertainment. This is not Kraft, or GE, or Ford, or Family Widget Company USA LLC. This company is about ideas and stories, and I am not convinced that MiniME knows that yet.

I agree with you about your statements regarding the leadership of this company. But you forgot one - BRASS! The good guy finishes last - ie Pixar. Is that what you want for Disney? To partner and create and masterfully design quality art only to have the rights pulled out from under you because you lacked the brass to obtain capital without selling away your idea in order to market your product?

Neither Jobs nor Lasseter managed to accomplish the one critical thing Walt knew by his own failures never to sell away.