If I recall, Disney's owners spoke out pretty loudly against the direction the company was being taken and how it was fighting that battle.
By approving Eisner's hand-picked successor? I'm not sure I follow your logic, there.
What I consider Starbucks to be is an extremely successful company that has convinced a lot of customers to pay premium prices for a cup of coffee. Again, you asserted in the past that the Wal-Mart model is the only paradigm for success in today's business world.
I didn't object to the attribution of that statement to me earlier, but I'll do so now. I never made such a reference, nor would I ever. While the vast majority of people do purchase things on price alone, without regard to the quality of service, I've always highlighted examples of niche markets served by small suppliers of quality service.
there are a lot of brand marketing experts out there that spend a lot of time worrying about how you protect the value of a brand.
You've hit on something there: Professionals with experience doing the job they've been hired to do have a much better track recording making the right decisions than amateurs like us. People get bent out of shape when that gets brought up, but you hit the nail on the head.
Second, your "passion of Disney" and "emotional nostalgia" comments are Straw Men themselves.
Not at all. I used the terms in conditional, saying very clearly that your arguments regarding whether decisions are the best business decisions have no merit if they're based on feelings instead of facts.
Your "implied assertion that the so-called 'exploitation'" is not or will not be excessive is a "subjective opinion, which is unsupported by the facts" also.
Again, you saw a statement where what I wrote was a conditional.
Kindly point out where you got the impression that I thought the issue was whether I would be more or less happy.
I didn't say you did. I said, "If you're saying that all that will lead to you, personally, being less happy, then it isn't my place to ever question that!"
Rather, I thought I certainly did "indicate what the business implications are of the assertions made" when I said: "If the exploitation continues, without the effort to do some extraordinary things, then the Disney brand will lose its value."
No. That assertion of business implications is not valid if the premise of the sentence isn't supported.
Please provide the evidence you have that your preferred approach has best served the stated objectives of the corporation.
I haven't outlined a preferred approach. I've merely endorsed the approach of the professional experts that run the company today, and objected to assertions by folks in this thread that they know better than those professionals. No offense intended.
Please, let's once again get off the "show me your data" kick.
That's a cop-out. It illegitimately gives license to put one's personal preference over what is truly correct.
Its always been easier to swindle people out of money instead of earning it.
That's just another cop-out, labeling decisions that one doesn't like as "swindling" and decisions one does like as "earning".
It sure seems that Pixar hasnt done to badly for themselves turning out great products while being small and independent.
Pixar isn't a large, multi-national entertainment conglomerate. If Disney was to be a Pixar, then Walt should have never gone public.
All the evidence points to the fact that large media companies are flat out failures despite all the hype of the business consultants. The newest trend is to rip apart the media companies.
Now you're getting somewhere. So you're agreeing that the issue isn't that Disney is making the wrong decisions for a large, multi-national entertainment conglomerate -- they're actually making the correct decisions for a large, multi-national entertainment conglomerate, but you're suggesting that they'd be "better off" as a small, creative think tank. I'll need to better understand the standards you're apply in your analysis but I bet, depending on how you define what's "good", I would agree with you. However, such personal definitions of "good" don't apply here, unless you can define how this will result in a better financial result for the thousands of current Disney stockholders. You can't just wish ownership interest away. (Incidently, if you're suggesting that Disney should be sold off in little pieces, you could perhaps convince me you're correct. I invite you to pursue that line of reasoning, if that's what you suggesting. If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that "it would be better if Disney
was small," then don't bother. Again, you can't just wish ownership interest away.)
Who said anything about excessive?
Assertions were made that the decisions made weren't best for the company. If you weren't saying that, then I'm sorry I misunderstood those assertions.
The implication of the above statement isn't that the extent to which Eisner exploited the brand was and is excessive, but rather that that has been Eisner's primary driver for growth in the company.
Which is, of course, a ludicrous assertion, given Eisner's penchant for growing the company by acquisition. Besides, if you listen to so of what AV said, growth is bad, right, especially since Disney is already a huge company?
Eisner hasn't added to the Disney brand that Walt, et. al worked so hard to grow.
Incorrect. Eisner has added to the Disney's assets. ABC is probably the most notable example. You perhaps have a specific vision of what is good and what is not, but that doesn't apply. Personal preferences aren't relevant. That's what I've been trying to tell you.
) Just my $.02.
