car pools..........I don't get it

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I mean do you think that Ei$ner ever had an inkling of what is really the "core business' of Disney? I don't!

And so it follows that he could NEVER get back to what he never understood in the first place!!

Don't you agree

Actually, yes, I do agree. My personal opinion is that Michael Eisner does not understand what "Disney" is about, and never has.

But making that the focus of the post usually only rewards me with responses of "you're just an Eisner basher."

If I can steer the discussion away from any of the known causes of "Is So" "Is Not" syndrome, I'm going to do it... so I try to avoid casting aspersions or making judgements on Mr. Eisner personally. If anyone wants to disagree with and counter my points, they can do so, but I'm removing every provocation I can for simply dismissing and ignoring the points.

Regardless of my personal opinion of Eisner, the attention of the Disney Company must turn back to its creative core if the company is to succeed on the scale they have, historically...if someone wants to argue with me, let them argue with something that has some substance to it.

-WFH

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Hate to break it to you but in the NFL success is measured in championship rings.

Hate to break it to you but in the NFL success is measured by more than your single, myopic standard.

There are more things in heaven and earth, crusader, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Why does that sound so familiar?

Who is the key to success? The coach or the owner?

The key to success is instilling that drive and commitment into every member of the organization... it is not the work of any one person.

Again you appear to want to elevate one aspect of a measure into a reasonable substitute for the entire quantity.

Not sure if that commitment to excellence and winning is the best analogy to apply here given the end result. Now what?

Well, now I get to stop responding. I am not arguing with you about this, I am telling you about this. If you're still "not sure" that commitment, dedication, and focus pave the path to success, that's tragic, in its way, but I've done all I can do.

-WFH

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hate to break it to you but in the NFL success is measured in championship rings.

Well, yes and no, Mr. Crusader. The NFL is rather poor analogy for the theme park realm. More to the point is not the ring itself (although that would surely quell any counter arguments) it is instead the season’s total wins and losses. Let’s face it, some mighty strange things happen in the playoffs sometimes!! And really, I think you are fully aware that the analogy was not about the Raiders specifically, but instead was to point out commitment and realizing one’s ‘core business’. In this case ‘football, and not ‘profit’. Surely you can see that?

Who is the key to success? The coach or the owner?

Something I have been debating with the good Scoop for some time now. And as example I’ll refer again to my 1985 Bears. This team was a true ‘winner’ in every sense of the word. And it was built and honed by the ‘coach’, sometimes in spite of the owner and sometimes with the owner’s tacit approval. But NEVER with the owner’s active participation.

And the very next year, when the owner became more actively involved? They lost. And lost. And lost. And lost…. And they have continued to lose through the present day. Why? Because a coach alone can be only as good as the owner lets him. A coach may be able to fight the owner and actually win the individual battle. But he simply cannot win the war. The owner is the only one that can do that!!

So, as I’ve said to Mr. Scoop, over and over again, it doesn’t matter what the dedicated people at WDW do. At most it is only temporary or a true anomaly within the big picture. They simply cannot succeed unless Burbank has a radical change in philosophy. It really is that simple.

The people in car #1 think Burbank is just fine!

The people in car #2 think Burbank is only temporarily screwy.

The people in car #3 think Burbank needs a brain transplant.


Now, as to Mr. Head, my frozen friend.

I think you realize that there is hardly anyone else on these boards that I respect more than you. Your remarkably insightful “Disney” opinions, coupled with your concise and poignant writing style can only be admired; never emulated. And as usual you hit the nail on the head with:

Regardless of my personal opinion of Eisner, the attention of the Disney Company must turn back to its creative core if the company is to succeed on the scale they have, historically...if someone wants to argue with me, let them argue with something that has some substance to it.

PERFECT!!!

Thank you!!

 

[crusader]

Hate to break it to you but in the NFL success is measured by more than your single, myopic standard.

Ouch! I guess I should have posted a "smiley" after my remark. Of course it is measured by other factors such as money, talent and a winning record but the "ring" is what is coveted the most and attributed to success and achievement.

The NFL is rather poor analogy for the theme park realm. More to the point is not the ring itself

I agree it is a rather poor analogy and the point is not the ring itself. You simply cannot ignore such a significant part of football when debating success which was the main reason for my comment.

The key to success is instilling that drive and commitment into every member of the organization... it is not the work of any one person.

Again you appear to want to elevate one aspect of a measure into a reasonable substitute for the entire quantity.

Not at all. I raised the question to show that one person is never the only key player involved in a company of this magnitude, which is why I try to avoid the blame game.
I happen to agree with you on this. It takes commitment from every level beginning with the top. It's too easy to simply appoint one person as the fall guy and far more difficult to look carefully within an organization to find the true source of a problem. It has to be more than just Walt vs Ei$ner here.

a coach alone can be only as good as the owner lets him. A coach may be able to fight the owner and actually win the individual battle. But he simply cannot win the war. The owner is the only one that can do that!!

Point well taken Mr. Baron. However, if an owner is relying upon your expertise why wouldn't you be able to accomplish anything? Are we saying that there is not another soul within the company being called upon to aid in the decision making?

If you're still "not sure" that commitment, dedication, and focus pave the path to success, that's tragic, in its way, but I've done all I can do.

You misinterpret my point. Success is the result of hard work, dedication, talent, drive, commitment and sometimes a bit of luck.
However, success is often being measured in terms of the end result.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I raised the question to show that one person is never the only key player involved in a company of this magnitude, which is why I try to avoid the blame game.

I know what you’re trying to say. And given Mr. Head’s last post to me, he wants to avoid the blame game too. But I don’t share that outlook. I LOVE the blame game, especially when there is so easy a target as the current CEO of Disney.

You see, I patently disagree with your statement above. I will agree for each and every position within an organization EXCEPT for the head honcho! This guy sets the tone and culture for the entire company. Especially after eighteen or so years.

It's too easy to simply appoint one person as the fall guy and far more difficult to look carefully within an organization to find the true source of a problem.

Where else do you suggest we look? I’m game, but I’ve already gone through the exercise. He’s the guy. Plain and simple. Unless you can come up with an alternative.

It has to be more than just Walt vs Ei$ner here.

If you respond to nothing else in this post please respond to this single question:

WHY?

Point well taken Mr. Baron. However, if an owner is relying upon your expertise why wouldn't you be able to accomplish anything? Are we saying that there is not another soul within the company being called upon to aid in the decision making?

I think I’m beginning to understand the nature of our disconnect. You are assuming that ‘winning’ is the ultimate and the same goal for all parties concerned. I hate to get Clinton-ish on you, but we have to do some defining.

In my example of the Bears both the coach and the owner wanted to ‘win’. However, the coach’s idea of ‘winning’ was wins vs. losses on the football field. Or turning the game of football into a fine art. The owner’s idea of ‘winning’ was profit vs. losses on a spreadsheet. Or put more bluntly, to make as much money as possible. Quite different things.

Now do understand how the analogy fits?

 

[crusader]

Where else do you suggest we look?

To begin with, you can look at who he answers to and who he relies upon. Factor in what the goals of the organization were when he was hired and who put forth that agenda. In other words take a good look at the business plan. He wasn't the only participant.

This guy sets the tone and culture for the entire company. Especially after eighteen or so years.

Absolutely, and he becomes everyones excuse for why they can't do something or why something fails. It's easier for middle management to blame the guy at the top rather than take responsibility for something and risk being held accountable. A negative tone is fueled and can spread like cancer within a company the minute someone's position is vulnerable. It's the old adage "if I'm going down, I'm taking you with me".

If you respond to nothing else in this post please respond to this single question:
WHY?

Because Walt was the inventor. The visionary who had a dream. Like Ford when he first built the Model T. But we no longer have Disney the man we have Disney the Company complete with a full set of initiatives and directives well beyond what Walt was working with. Also complete with its own inhouse divisions: finance; human resources; research and development; legal; quality control; animation; theme-park divisions; motion picture divisions; sales and marketing; purchasing; etc...
All to be run by one key man.

Walt Disney was able to manage his operation like a start-up venture. The inhouse talent was predominantly filled with animators, inventors and imagineers and he focused most of his efforts in promoting creative ingeniuty. Everything else was probably outsourced.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I’m sorry but I need to be crystal clear! Ergo – Quotes galore!!!

To begin with, you can look at who he answers to and who he relies upon.

You’ve got to be kidding, right? Or perhaps you didn’t realize that the Board of Directors (the “who he reports to” of the question) is controlled absolutely by him!! He’s stacked the deck, my friend! Surely you knew that!

Factor in what the goals of the organization were when he was hired

Did the goals of the company change since the days of Walt or even Walker/Miller, especially regarding the theme parks? If the goal did indeed change, I’m not aware of it. Are you?

No. I thought not. So, same goal as the earlier administrations, yet he has miserably underperformed.

and who put forth that agenda.

Why, since he stacked the board with his own people, it must be his agenda!! Yes!! I do believe it is!! His agenda through and through!!

In other words take a good look at the business plan. He wasn't the only participant

Well, it’s kind of redundant, but I thought we needed to say it again. The business plan was the same as it had always been. No change.

And as for being the only participant, well, look at the Board. Look at who he hires! Looks and sounds like a one man band to me!!

Absolutely, and he becomes everyone’s excuse for why they can't do something or why something fails.

I absolutely disagree!! He is NOT the excuse!! He is THEE reason!!!

It's easier for middle management to blame the guy at the top rather than take responsibility for something and risk being held accountable.

The middle managers are not the ones who are complaining. Members of an internet board are!!! The middle managers are not blaming anyone!!! An icy head by the name of Walt and a timeshare owning Baron are!! (how ridiculous is that!!) The middle managers are happily falling into line with this guy. You see, the good ones left and the toadies are the only ones remaining.

And more to the point, you said they would rather blame the top guy rather than, “take responsibility for something and risk being held accountable”!! How ridiculous!!!! Just what in the world are they being held accountable for? And for what are they taking responsibility? They are doing his bidding!! He’s as happy as a clam!! And they are doing just fine in the “accountable/responsibility” area!

A negative tone is fueled and can spread like cancer within a company the minute someone's position is vulnerable.

There may be a negative tone or they may not be. I don’t know. What I do know for certain is that the guy at the top radically changed the philosophy, direction and ultimate goal of the company. It has nothing whatsoever to do with negativity. It has to do with goals, vision and purpose.

Because Walt was the inventor. The visionary who had a dream.

First thing you’ve said that I can wholeheartedly agree with!

But we no longer have Disney the man we have Disney the Company complete with a full set of initiatives and directives well beyond what Walt was working with.

Again I come up with that all important – Ignore the rest if you must answer this one:

How so?

Also complete with its own inhouse divisions: finance; human resources; research and development; legal; quality control; animation; theme-park divisions; motion picture divisions; sales and marketing; purchasing; etc.

And this is different from Walt’s company - - - How?

Everything else was probably outsourced.

HA!! You need to do a bit of research, my friend!! I can recommend some excellent books if you want. Just ask!

 

[raidermatt]

Short term failure/success can sometimes be acheived in spite of a good/bad leader.

Rarely is long term failure/success acheived in spite of a good/bad leader.

Very simplified, but still a sound concept.

As Eisner has solidified his position and increased his influence, the company's creative and financial performance has fallen.

Short term the company succeeded under Eisner because there was still tremendous creative talent and drive in the company, and Eisner did ONE thing well (from a short-mid term financial viewpoint): Take advantage of under-utilized assets.

Once the under-utilization issue was largely gone, and Eisner consolidated power, the curtain fell on his "one-trick-pony" act. But the other thing he's been good at is protecting himself, and now he's too entrenched for anyone to get him out, unless things get far worse than they already are.

 

[crusader]

Or perhaps you didn’t realize that the Board of Directors (the “who he reports to” of the question) is controlled absolutely by him!!

That may be true today but not when he first arrived. There was a plan in play and his job was to fulfill a set of objectives for the existing board members. Matt may be correct in that he did that for a time but eventually took control. This is a problem for any organization when the CEO takes over the board. I am not dismissing that but I am saying to you that it is not just him. There are others who stood to benefit by this and probably have.

What you did not tell me was whom it is he relies upon? Rest assured there are others involved.

Did the goals of the company change since the days of Walt or even Walker/Miller, especially regarding the theme parks? If the goal did indeed change, I’m not aware of it. Are you?

This is one of the main reasons it cannot simply be Walt vs Ei$ner.
You are correct the goals regarding the theme parks probably have not changed. What used to be Walt's job is now run by some division executive. What I'm saying is the CEO runs everybody and gets reported to. The division leaders are the liasons reporting to him and back to the departments. They have an agenda as well. They want to look good both ways so they serve up each side to one another whenever it gets heated. How do we really know what was done and who capitalized on it outside of Ei$ner without having an indepth knowledge of the organization as a whole.

Again I come up with that all important – Ignore the rest if you must answer this one:
How so?

I know this is a trap so I am approaching this response with grave caution. The full set of initiatives and directives have to do with running every facet of the Company today vs the Disney of thirty years ago. The primary focus of every publicly traded organization today is market share, share price, earnings per share, and profit margins.

The primary focus in Walt's day was to launch something so brilliant it became a permanent stronghold. His main inspiration was his own passion which became the driving force in sharing his dream with the world. If the project takes off it generates a large investment return for those who took the greatest risk in financing the venture. If the project tanked someone stood to lose big.

Once the company matures, the risks and large payoffs are weighed very heavily against the potential loss. There are too many investors affected and too many jobs to protect.