This could be VERY BAD news.....

[tiggerstheman1]

I was thinking about 2 things (any more and my brain begins to smoke and make all sorts of "clinking" sounds that annoy the dog).

First, if Disney may be entering a "changing of the guard" phase similar to the early 80's, then what else is similar to that time?

- company stock lower than in the last 6 years? But so is everyone else's
- failing films and not a lot of successes?
- not showing a desire to lead, but instead showing a bunker mentality?

Second, I was reading Keys to the Kingdom and remember something from the book. Eisner and Wells couldn't help but succeed because there was so much money to be made that the previous leadership was sitting on to "protect the brand". One line said that behind every door they opened was money.

My opinion is that there are a lot of similarities in management from the early 80's versus early 21st century. In order to do what Eisner/Wells did when they took the reins, the next suit is going to have to find a pile of untapped money. Where is it? Some would say the parks is the untapped money because they have always been cash cows. However, the 80's turnaround wasn't just building parks, it was more. I'm not sure where this great untapped source of new revenue exists. It seems to me that Eisner/Wells just found that there was merchandising to exploit and they did it. The Home Video angle was the biggest change. Well, that's been tapped and tapped, and tapped for sequels, and then tapped some more.

I really think Disney management has stagnated. They rely on Pixar for their hits and buy Pooh to give them new characters, only make part II's for DTV, and then embroider everything that doesn't move.

So I put it to the loyal members of the board - in order to turn around Disney along the lines of Eisner/Wells (if not surpass them) what is going to be the great untapped bounty of revenue that Mikey/Pressler has overlooked?

TTM1

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Second, I was reading Keys to the Kingdom and remember something from the book. Eisner and Wells couldn't help but succeed because there was so much money to be made that the previous leadership was sitting on to "protect the brand". One line said that behind every door they opened was money.

Absolutely!! And they've finally run out of doors to open. And so, when real leadership is called for, when finding someone at the helm with innovative and creative qualities is absolutely essential, who do we turn to? The guy that couldn't lose by opening up Disney's money doors and the times he has tried to be that 'creative' force, failed miserably!

And tiggerstheman1, you ask a fair question. And surprisingly it has a simple answer (quite another matter filling the job!). You write:

So I put it to the loyal members of the board - in order to turn around Disney along the lines of Eisner/Wells (if not surpass them) what is going to be the great untapped bounty of revenue that Mikey/Pressler has overlooked?

Talent! Leadership! Creativity! Something Disney hasn't had in many, many years!

 

[Captain Crook]

Talent! Leadership! Creativity! Something Disney hasn't had in many, many years.

What a nice pat answer. Of course it dismisses much, if not most of everything that many of us (including me) love or have loved about Disney.

Are you talking about the last year? 2 years? 5 years? Or perhaps the entire 17 year tenure of Eisner? If so, it just becomes more hyperbole that even you don't really believe. You say that In 17 years Disney has shown none of those attributes that you pine for? Come on LB! Are the only two circumstances you can be happy with (1) Einser's departure or (2) Eisner's departure?

Now, to TTM1's question, I'm afraid I'm in no position to judge (as are any of us), but speculate I can. It seems obvious to me that now is the time for Disney to consolodate a bit. Reduce to what they do best, maximize profitability where they can and most importantly, plan for the day the economy again stabilizes. By that I mean take an unfailing step by step approach to their sectors. They need ABC to step up or divest, they need the produce good & profitable films (the Princess Diary varierty), they need to revive animation (although our friend AV has said there is little chance of that) and they need to have a blockbuster or two in action film - hopefully real BB's and not the hyped events we have witnessed with PH & Atlantis...It's no new door with cash behind it, but it's like going to the eye doctor and getting new glasses. You didn't know you couldn't see before you went but boy are things clear now!

 

[YoHo]

The fundimental difference between now and then is that then the doors were left closed and locked Now they are wide open and anyone and thing can come and go. the difference between being too conservative and being too liberal. I think disney needs to re-invent what it is they do. It may not even take someone with tremendous Creativity! , Just someone that knows what Disney does best. And the intellegince to find people that can do those things the best. At the same time, they can't be scared to act. So we need a Walker/Miller with more Cajhones

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Are you talking about the last year? 2 years? 5 years? Or perhaps the entire 17 year tenure of Eisner?

The entire tenure. Absolutely. For many years he had those 'doors' with piles of money behind them. And let's face it, it takes a while to totally decimate a company like Disney. It just doesn't happen overnight, even with an unadulterated inept CEO at the helm!!

You say that In 17 years Disney has shown none of those attributes that you pine for?

He personally? Absolutely!! He has shown NONE of those attributes. The company has though, in spite of him!!

Are the only two circumstances you can be happy with (1) Einser's departure or (2) Eisner's departure?

Captain!! None of these will suffice. You know that!! The only thing that will make me truly happy is Ei$ner's departure!!

It's no new door with cash behind it, but it's like going to the eye doctor and getting new glasses

Rose colored, I presume?

So we need a Walker/Miller with more Cajhones

YoHo!!!! You said it perfectly!!!

 

[YoHo]

Look, I'm just saying I want someone who will protect Disney and let other better qualified underlings do their jobs. I'm not going to argue the Miller/Walker thing, because I know Landbaron can pull out contradictory evidence. I just think that froma BRAND and themepark angle, you want that perspective.


At the same time, you can't let WDI spend and spend and spend. they need to be able to control it.

Certainly Epcot was worth it when it opened.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Oh come on, Baron, you've lost it now....Ron Miller, you want, Ron Miller back

Scoop!! I've got to tell you I always felt the same way as you do about him. However, a very, VERY knowledgeable fellow on another Disney site gave me a slightly different perspective. I offer it here as it was posted there. Take it for what it's worth.

Far be it from me to defend Ron Miller.. But I sometimes feel that he kind of gets a bum rap from the Disney Community. Ron Miller was Walt's hand picked choice to run the Disney company. Ron, as so far as I know, never went to Walt wanting to take control of the corporation. Rather it was Walt - on numerous occasions- who went to Ron trying to get him to see that Playing football had no future.. (At least not as Walt saw it). It was Walt who pushed Ron into movie making - at which he had no prior experience. This was because, at the time, it was felt that Disney was still a "movie" company - and the leadership of the corporation still had to come from the movie side of the house. As you all know - Walt and Lilly only ever had 1 daughter, and they adopted another daughter.. no sons. In the 1960's it wasn't accepted that a daughter should run the corporation. (not my opinion - just a statement of historical fact by the way). SO who could Walt turn to? Walt had really two choices - Roy Jr. or Ron, his son in law. Walt picked Ron. I think this was in large part due to the fact that there was some lingering bad blood between Roy Jr. and Walt from some comments made years prior about how much of a business risk Disneyland was going to be. (Roy Jr. wasn't really convinced that they could make a go of it with Disneyland.. which I am sure was a feeling which was shared at least partly by his father. Ever wonder why Roy Jr. takes a hands off approach to the theme parks even to this day?) In any event after Walt died - it was up to Roy Sr. to pick a leader for the company - and he ALSO picked Ron over his own son.

I think Ron did his best with what he had to work with, and what he knew. Really Ron was the first person to follow Walt in leading the company.. and that HAD to be a tough position for anyone to be in. The whole company practically grieved for years after Walt died. I mean how hard must it have been to get creativity out of people, especially the animators? Look at Jungle Book, or Robin Hood... there is a certain sadness in those films.. you can almost feel it. Its so bad I can't even watch them. And this was the environment that he was in.

Remember too - Ron didn't have complete control - as Card Walker was also there. And Card took a far, far more active role in the theme parks then Ron ever did. Ron also came up with Touchstone - which has made quite a bit of money over the years for Disney - and was perhaps in my mind, the greatest legacy that Ron left the company. Ron's wife, Walt's daughter, has been a champion for the memory of her Father - and were it not for her, the Disney company itself would have a lock on all of Walt's history. Thankfully that is not the case.

I have never felt that the Disney Company was in all that bad of a shape when Ron ran it - at least it wasn't on its death bed - which is what the standard Disney histories all state. The company was under a lot of pressure from Wall Street - and most of that came from the fact that there was so much undeveloped Florida land. Because WDW was SO successful, the value of the land became so much - in some instances well in excess of $100,000 - $250,000 an acre - that it started to make sense from a "Wall Street" point of view to buy up the company and sell off the land and film libraries to make a killing. The value of those alone was so much more than what the stock price was selling for. Remember too we had a few Gas crunches during his reign, and Stagflation also. The company had also dumped over a billion dollars into Epcot which was one HECK of a lot of money back then.. its even a lot now. lol. SO really was it totally Ron's fault? I don't know - but I would suspect that it wasn't. Sometimes the way Ron is portrayed, it is almost like a character in some of the screwball comedies that were made under his reign, and I am not so sure that it does him justice to be seen that way.

I do know this much. At least when he was running things, they tried to keep to Walt's ideals. The parks were run, as they always had been. People who had worked for Walt, continued in their positions as they always had - and some even retired. There were no great layoffs, and there didn't seem to be the great "Push" for the almighty dollar. It seemed to be a gentler time in Disney history, and I would gladly take that over what we have today.

Believe it or not, Ron Miller & Card Walker's time at the company was also the time that many of us on the list refer to as the "Golden Age" of Disney theme parks. I would love to transport the whole list back to those times to experience it for just a day again.

Anyway, at least it may give you another perspective. I hope so. And I did say that it would have to be Ron Miller that thought he had a pair!! But I really don't think we'd be much worse off. And who knows? We may get lucky!!

PS:

Epcot was millions and millions and more millions overbudget....they greenlighted some of the worst movies ever.....ahhhhhh.......

I disagree!! EPCOT was worth every penny!! And as far as greenlighting movies! I believe that Ron Miller was the one who green lighted Little Mermaid. Ei$ner is the one who almost deep sixed it!!

Re-read YoHo's most recent post. It says it all!!

 

[JeffJewell]

Are you talking about the last year? 2 years? 5 years? Or perhaps the entire 17 year tenure of Eisner?

It's possible to view the entire 17 year tenure as an overall downward trend, I think; not necessarily precipitous, early on. I'm coming to agree with those who have postulated it was Wells who actually knew how to manage creative types; because that type of Accountanteer (I really overuse that device, don't I?) thinking started becoming more and more pervasive after Wells was gone.

It seems obvious to me that now is the time for Disney to consolodate a bit

I think you're right about that. But I also think that could be said much earlier this year.

I know a lot of this is a personal reaction, but I'm still cranky that, around the time they were cancelling meals and cutting hours in the parks to save money, they were spending $5 very very large on a cable channel and Power Rangers.

I once again will say, "I'll have to wait and see about Eisner." I just don't expect the parks to see much, at this point.

Landbaron...

Anyway, at least it may give you another perspective

...thanks for re-posting that piece.

Jeff

 

[DisDuck]

Name some names folks. Who is this great savior from Eisner? Until such time that the name is named I follow Captain and Scoop and sit firmly in Car #1

 

[JeffJewell]

sure seems the Eisner complaints are mainly focused post-Frank Wells

Very true.

In a different thread nudging this topic, Another Voice wrote about how Wells was someone who understood that entertainment was a kind of b****** child of art and commerce, and seemed to suggest that Eisner sees entertainment as purely commerce; to be sold the same ways as diapers and cola. At their heart, most diapers and cola are pretty much the same beasts (well, diapers the same beasts as other diapers and colas, colas, anyway); the major differences are price points and advertising.

That pretty close to another way of stating my issues with Disney's current direction: they seem to me to be offering products more and more like other companies' entertainments, with the advertising being counted on to do the heavy lifting of distinguishing Disney's product.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

thedscoop, Come now, you've just been reading my old posts and copying haven't you?!?

Suffice it to say scoop you've hit the Nail on the head. Eisner/Wells is a very different beast from Ei$ner

 

[JeffJewell]

I've got a bad habit of doing that these days

...that even made _me_ laugh.

Jeff

 

[DanG]

If the recent history of the company has suggested one thing to me it is that the current management has absolutely no creativity or ability to focus on core, high margin businesses. Poorly run companies should be taken over or sold.

The problem for Disney is that by more broadly defining their business as "entertainment" they have become too big and lacks any type of focus. The strength of the Disney brand is far narrower. Instead, the "executive team" has diluted the brand by focusing on lower margin businesses (i.e network and poorly branded or non-strategic cable) while ignoring their golden goose (feature animation and theme parks). This is the kind of fat, lazy and stupid company that is begging to be taken over.

A smart investor would buy this company and sell off all the marginal, non-core properties, including ABC, ESPN, Fox Family and the related broadcast companies (excepting Disney Channel only) and shut down most if not all of the Disney stores. Shedding these businesses would enable the remaining Disney to focus on core businesses that actually relate to Disney's strengths, making all us Disneyphiles happier and yielding a better return to investors.

All Eisner and his team have done is milk the themeparks and feature film library to buy ABC, Fox Family Channel. Eisner and Disney should pay the price for their hubris in empire-building. Let someone else step up.

DanG

 

[YoHo]

The assumtion is that the people with the money to do a Takeover like that would not have the kind of vision, Patience and respect to let a Disney Division do things the right way. If the right people stepped to the plate, I'd welcome a buyout, but I don't see any of those people even interested.

 

[Captain Crook]

That's exactly right Yoho! If Vivendi or Newscorp or AOL/Twx gave us he wam fuzzies, ther'd be a lot less apprehension. But they're all just monoliths, like Disney, only without the Disney history and like it or not Eisner has 17 years of Disney in him & despite lacking the ability to imagineer like Walt, he has brought us agruably some of the best times Disney has ever seen...

 

[JeffJewell]

...Lasseter and Jobs as Wells and Eisner?

We've got one guy who knows what it means to make good entertainment, and one egomanical deal maker.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

Considering I hate Jobs with a Passion, I would be against that.

how about Spielberg dumps his two minor league partners and joins up with George Lucas?

They both undestand entertainment. I would suggest that you'd be hard pressed to find two people with more knowledge. And George knows how to keep the money rolling without destroying the product.

 

[F.C. Fan]

Because Spielberg and his 2 partners are doing incredibly well on their own.
WHY would Dreamworks want to give up their creative freedom and lower their standards to work with Disney?????
Now Pixar, Apple,and Dreamworks that would be powerhouse team, one that would finish off the weakened Disney in any form of animation.
As for George Lucas, Phantom Menace was very lame, except for a few scenes. Spielberg doesn't need to partner with him either.

 

[Captain Crook]

But, does this mean I have to give up the wheel of car #1???

Seriously, Scoop hits an important key. A big name "imagination guy" wouldn't be available for the job. Spielberg or Lucas know nothing about running a conglomerate and the money they would command, not to mention creative freedom would never fly at Disney. Although if a big name were to be brought in (hypotehtically speaking) I would think a well rounded, been there done that, family oriented creative guy like Ron Howard would more properly fit the bill.

JJ asks about Lassiter & Jobs and I agree that it could be dynamic if it'd work, but from what we hear about Jobs ego, this relationship won't last any longer than Eisner/Katzenberg... For that matter Eisner & Jobs would be dynamic together...Until one of them killed the other...

No, this symbiotic relationship will have to be forged on its own merit, i.e. Eisner & Iger seem to have that relationship, but the "imagination" guy is still missing, or not being utilized. I think Eisner is gun shy of another power play by a successful third banana like what happened with Katzenberg & Ovitz to a lesser degree. I think it's obvious that Eisner doesn't want an Imagineer per say to be his replacement and I would tend to agree that the top job has got to go to someone who can see the whole picture (ala Iger) and hopefully can see them frame by frame (ala Eisner during the Wells years)...

Back to DisDucks poinant question, "name some names, folks?"

 

[JeffJewell]

Back to DisDucks poinant question, "name some names, folks?"

One of the main reasons I mentioned Lasseter and Jobs (aside from drooling over the thought of Lasseter being the guy who holds the creative rubber stamp for future Disney projects), was the fact that the companies already have a relationship; and one that will likely be changing dynamically in the not-too-distant future. If there isn't a buyout, it seemed to me that Lasseter and Jobs were about the best qualified guys for the jobs that were a) tight enough with the company to know what was going on (Lasseter apparently enjoys the high esteem of many of the remaining Imagineers), and b) far enough away from the company so that their business plan would actually deviate from the current course (and my personal feeling that Jobs is better at letting creative folks be creative than it seems Eisner has been).

I guess a question that needs to be answered about now is "who's really in charge." Way back when I was pretty zealous about calling out Eisner by name, it was pointed out to me that Eisner was simply trying to make his institutional stockholder bosses happy; the implication was, if Eisner suddenly started packing too much pricy pixie dust into Disney, those bosses would run Eisner out of town. I was under the impression that, at this point, the Board was mostly Eisner cronies, and not much of a restrictive body as far Eisner's business plan leeway was concerned.

With the changes in the stockholder landscape, who actually has the leverage, at this point, to determine the next CEO? Who is Eisner currently trying to please?

Jeff