CNN - Slamed Eisner

[TeenaS]

Anyone see the show on CNN this weekend about CEO's that need to be fired? It was 95% about Eisner.

 

[KathyFP]

I would like to hear their opinion.

 

[airlarry!]

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

 

[KNWVIKING]

You're a FoxNews kinda guy,aren't ya Larry

 

[mitros]

Nothing wrong with fox news IMHO.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Me neither Mitros.

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

 

[Bstanley]

Roger that.

 

[DancingBear]

Whoops, sorry, I must have stumbled into a Debate Board thread by mistake. Carry on.

 

[crusader]

Let's see............

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

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

 

[Galahad]

Whoops, sorry, I must have stumbled into a Debate Board thread by mistake. Carry on.

LOL!!

 

[Planogirl]

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

 

[DisneyKidds]

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

Does it really matter who does the slamming? The combination of Ei$ners bloated compensation and Disney's anemic performance earn him any bashing that occurs. We may focus more on parks, animation, and philosophy, but from a strict ROI business perspective Ei$ner is clearly one of the most underperforming CEO's. Anyone disagree?

 

[cristen]

"Anyone disagree?"

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

 

[KNWVIKING]

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

Or maybe not.

 

[Another Voice]

"But doesn't he care what the people in the corporate world think of him?"

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


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

Few CEO's are motivated by popularity.

 

[cristen]

AV,

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

 

[crusader]

Does it really matter who does the slamming?

Absolutely. It's all relative.

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

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

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

So why don't we.

Here's what Forbes.com is reporting.

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

To which Mr. Kidds, I will repeat:

It's all relative.

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

 

[airlarry!]

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

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

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

 

[crusader]

Is this the guy from that Ludlow and Cramer show?

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

 

[DisneyKidds]

Crusader - Please help me out as I fail to see your point........................and your answer to my question.

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

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

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