CNN - Slamed Eisner

[DisneyKidds]

As for this MovieBeam thi.........................................(yawn)...................oops, sorry. I fell asleep there for a minute .

 

[crusader]

Mr. Kidds -

I have to be brief because I'm about to sign off but let me quickly redirect.

The links aren't meant to correlate. They are meant to respond to two separate issues.

The "relative" comment is general. Which you do appear to understand by your opening statement.

Cristen was trying to argue that Steve Forbes agrees with CNN on this topic which is preposterous!

The first link I gave you was more than "Disney's getting hoopla because of recent successes". Read the basis for the ranking more carefully - it has to do with reputation and the media.

I happen to be one who does not automatically listen when networks speak - I tend to look for a basis, first. What I gave you may very well serve that purpose for three reasons:
1) CNN spent 90% of the time on Disney during that recent broadcast. (I am going on what is being said here since I missed the show)
2) Look at Larry's link: only two companies were mentioned (Disney and Walmart) while this deal appears to involve many players, which I found very interesting.
3) Look where AOL Time Warner is ranked vs Disney.

Coincidence? I doubt it.

Do you disagree that Ei$ner is underperforming as a CEO?

The more appropriate question is: Do I feel Ei$ner is underperforming as a CEO?

My answer is yes and no. His grading is handed down by Forbes in direct correlation to the company's stock performance and right now it is doing better than it was so in that respect he will be given credit which is why his "job approval" has risen in that poll I gave you.

I still feel he is underperforming - but that's obvious and easy to say, financially speaking. The truth is the company is doing better and his performance will be measured accordingly. We're not done yet.

 

[cristen]

"Cristen was trying to argue that Steve Forbes agrees with CNN on this topic which is preposterous!"

Crusader,
I am only going by what their web site has said about his performance. If you think going from the 20% range to 44% is good, while they rate Steve Jobs in the 90's, then I am not sure if anything will make you see different. This is the article I was referring to on Forbes. I am posting the link, but just in case nobosy can access it, I will put a few quotes in, but it can be found on Forbes.com in the lists sections.

"The Best & Worst Bosses. The worst in our list: Walt Disney (nyse: DIS - news - people )'s Michael Eisner, who averaged $122 million in pay since 1997 while delivering a lame -5% annual return to shareholders.

www.forbes.com/2003/04/23/ceoland.html

 

[crusader]

Cristen,

I'm not trying to discount what you're saying with respect to the worst boss ranking. I simply don't believe that has anything to do with CNN airing their little story.

I'll never forget several months ago hearing their "morning news" banter attempt to report on the Pixar/Disney deal - the anchor had no idea what the agreement was and went so far as to say Nemo was the last picture these two had under contract. It was just plain bad and obviously slanted. I wish I had seen this latest piece. It would certainly aid my perspective.

If you think going from the 20% range to 44% is good, while they rate Steve Jobs in the 90's, then I am not sure if anything will make you see different.

Rank and file numbers mean a great deal when they're at the peak and valley point - hence Jobs vs Eisner. Eisner moving more toward the center is positive no matter how you look at it. To say "well, he never should have tanked and therefore any movement beyond this point is unwarranted" is to equally take away Jobs defining moment, having been a bottom-dweller himself. It's all relative.

 

[cristen]

Crusader,

I didn't mean to imply that Forbes rating Eisner as the worst CEO of the year, had anything to do with CNN saying he needed to be fired. I'm sorry that you misunderstood. DK asked if anyone disagreed that Eisner was a underperforming CEO. I was simply stating that along with CNN saying it, that Forbes had said it also. He was not only on Forbes as a bad CEO, but the WORST.

"Eisner moving more toward the center is positive no matter how you look at it. "

Yes, you could say that. But he still only has a 44%, and as DK pointed out earlier, that is still an F. You can't deny that he is doing a pretty bad job right now with the company.

"To say "well, he never should have tanked and therefore any movement beyond this point is unwarranted" "

I would never say that. I know companies have high and low points. I just happen to think ME has been at a low point for too long, and that he brought himself there with his lack of skills. It is pretty hard to screw up Disney, yet he has, in a big way. And believe me, if he shot up in the 90's or even 80's, and things started looking brighter in the parks, it would do nothing but make me happy. I'm not out to get Eisner. I wish to God he was a better CEO, but the fact is, he's not.

 

[JDH]

care because his self image as a rough tough CEO making hard those hard decisions won't let him. In fact if he were popular he'd think he wasn't doing his job and start looking for another sacrifice he could make to show how much he's suffering for the company. Some sacrifice like whatever's left of Imagineering or Animation or a couple of guests on one of the attractions.

He feels the pain deeply.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Crusader - if CNN had the only people who think poorly of ME's performance I might conceed your point. However, I just don't think that is the case. I think you'd be hard pressed (actually it's probably impossible) to find a source that has anything positive to say about ME's performance over the past 1...3....5 years. I think the business community at large recognizes the shortcoming. So, if you are trying to say we need to consider that relativity because CNN's take is biased, they aren't the only ones who take a negative position on ME...........and that was cristen's point with Forbes, and I'm sure we could find others.

Eisner moving more toward the center is positive no matter how you look at it.

Sorry, there is absolutely NO excuse for a CEO to ever be at under 25%, so bumping up to 44% doesn't mean much to me..............it still sucks. If the best we can say is that it sucks less than it used to...........well that is just sad. I wonder how many CEO's (of publically traded companies) in the history of CEO's have ever been at 25% and not been shown the door.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Normally I'm in agreement with you Mr. Kidds...But, while it's true that a 44% rating may be bad, the uptick of 34% to get there is good. If he upticks 34% next month he'll be in the positive area of 78%...Will this then make him a good CEO?

crusader is right in pointing out that whatever is reported by CNN in this regard has to be looked at closly. Not that the facts won't be correct or the basic story a lie, but the slant will quite surely be what's important. After all, they're writing about a competetor.

 

[crusader]

I think you'd be hard pressed (actually it's probably impossible) to find a source that has anything positive to say about ME's performance over the past 1...3....5 years.

True. (surprise!)

This sums up the two enigmas pretty well - and if you look real carefully you might even find a line or two which makes sense regarding who ME the CEO is and what he does. One may even construe certain language as a complement!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/start.html?pg=2

I wonder how many CEO's (of publically traded companies) in the history of CEO's have ever been at 25% and not been shown the door.

Well, if you look at the rankings again, you'll see several. And that's just page one of this entertaining exercize. Now given the barrage of NASDAQ listings, you'd have to concede to the high probability that a substantial army of them exist.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Well, if you look at the rankings again, you'll see several. And that's just page one of this entertaining exercize. Now given the barrage of NASDAQ listings, you'd have to concede to the high probability that a substantial army of them exist.

Well, I don't know about an army......................but it doesn't matter as all those losers will be/should be fired as well .

 

[Another Voice]

"crusader is right in pointing out that whatever is reported by CNN in this regard has to be looked at closly..."

So when ABC has a news story I can discount anything they say if it somehow relates to a compeditor?

Or is "everyone just out to get Disney"...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Mr. Voice, I'm starting to think your opinion of me is quite like many of the others. Of course any reporting on Disney by ABC should be met with great skepticisim, as well (I really can't believe I had to clarify that) In fact reporting in general and on virtually every subject should be reviewed for the bent. With so few purveyors of output, America's ability to receive truth of any kind is being seriously challenged and it's only getting worse thanks to Mr. Powell & The Pres, right now...

 

[cristen]

PETER!

Finally something you have stated that I can say,

I AGREE!!!

I guess it just had to be OT of Disney.

Cristen

 

[Another Voice]

But more often than not people find it easier to bash the messagener than to accept painful truth.

Implying that since it's on CNN and therefore must have an anti-Disney bias and therefore should be ignored requires less critical thinking than simply accepting it at face value. If that CNN piece was about the evil Steve Job's you'd have no problem with it, would you?

People like their own belifes re-enforced.

 

[Peter Pirate]

No Mr. Voice I wouldn't believe it and again I'm amazed at your assumption. Any news source can slant any story on anyone depending upon the implication it will have on the 'parent company'...Newscorp, Vivendi, NBC...And on and on even outside of the entertainment field...

 

[crusader]

Implying that since it's on CNN and therefore must have an anti-Disney bias and therefore should be ignored requires less critical thinking than simply accepting it at face value.

How would that require less critical thinking? It would be the same to me as accepting something verbatim.

Unbiased reporting is an interesting concept which unfortunately has become a casualty of the ratings war. Sizzle, Sex and Scandal in Entertainment and Political News Forums is available for our comedic pleasure 24/7.

I know, somewhere amidst all that hot air lies the truth.

 

[Another Voice]

"How would that require less critical thinking?"

Because it's always easier to brush aside the source than it is to rationally refute a statement that you don't wish to be true.

It's much easier to scream "CNN is biased" than it is to look at Eisner's record. It's much easier to believe I have a personal vendetta against him (like what, I'm still ticked because he cut me off in the parking lot one day and I dedicate my spare time to typing on the Internet to get even?) - than to respond to an opinion. It's much easier to wave a "Bush Lied!" sign and go back to drinking your extra hot Soy Venti Cafe Mocha Starbucks than it is to admit the world's a rather nasty place.

Sure - everyone has a point of view in what they write. But I see far more "personal bias" in what people choose to believe than I see in a lot that's reported (and I ain't no fan of Saddam's favorite news channel either). The critical judgement has to take place with what you hear and what you listen to.

 

[crusader]

Fair enough.

But you have to admit it is extremely difficult to take what we hear at face value anymore, and doing so doesn't require much thought. "Spin" is the forte' and media is the outlet. News has no real definition beyond telling "the story".

Sure - everyone has a point of view in what they write.

Well said and very true. The personal bias you may not see in the reporter/anchor/tv personality reading the byline doesn't excuse the editor. There is always a reason why something makes it on the air. The first question to ask is: Why did CNN choose to broadcast this?