Comcast/Ei$ner – Is there a difference?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well! No matter where you look at all of the traditional Disney sites, and on the news, and on the cable stations – all you hear about it Disney/Comcast!! My God!! It even brought the mighty Sir Duck out of retirement!! And the Pirate’s "keyboard-from-Keys" hasn’t been smokin’ this much since the early days!!

Now, I started a new thread so that I don’t interfere with the fast breaking events of the next few days (it’s already on page eight)!! But I have a question that I think this group can help me with. I’m not to mathematically inclined, and I certainly avoid business board rooms whenever I can. I am more your armchair philosopher type. Or if you prefer a different title than ‘armchair’ – pompous comes to mind. Arrogant, pretentious and haughty also work. But in any case, maybe you can help the philosopher within.

So tell me. Just how would a Comcast “Disney” differ from an Ei$nerized "Disney"?

 

[YoHo]

uh, fundimentally? no different except that Parks and animation may benefit from more layers of insulation. Course that would be but a small benefit.

 

[Bob O]

I for one dont at this time look at this to be a good deal for the Disney Co. as a whole. A company like Disney IMHO needs someone with creative elements to them and nothing i have found/read indicates that creativity is a strong point of comcast which is a cable supplier and not involved in content. With the money they pay to buy disney i would fear they would further the cost cutting to pay dwon the cost of buying the compa
So why things may not be as good as we want therm to be now, things can get worse and chnage isnt always better.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Hugely, in that the thin thread of what was Walts ideal would be gone. Comcast's Disney is not going to be the whole enchalada. Comcast will do what Comcast does first, integrating what Disney offers their core into their infrastructure and paying little attention to, or selling other components that they either can't get the handle on or don't wish to get the handle on. Eisner's Disney still has a semblence of it (the ideal) and while there may not be a chance that Eisner will ever change there is still at least a chance that new CEO would "get it" (as you like to say).

Initially many things won't change, in fact some changes could possibly be good (issues like Park hours or how Resorts are run) depending upon how much leeway and budget is allocated. But in the long run the ability to run feature animation or theme parks will fall into disarray. No matter how much a congolomerate says it'll take a 'hands off' apporach there is still always a bottom line, always a drop dead point (and having success with a basketball team in my mind offers no solace that a 'hands off' approach would be given in far more costly areas like feature animation or theme parks...Businesses much more complex than pro sports).

If feature animation for example brings on some wiz kid named, I don't know, Wally Disknee and his abilities, insight & ideas are brilliant and he makes a few movies but they are only fairly well received, though technically beautiful with a gripping story. Then Wally, without much of a real track record behind him, has a brainstorm...An idea so great, so spectacular it just has to be done...Unfortuenately the cost would be the highest of an animated project ever...Now, is good ole Comcast going to give the go ahead or are they more likely to 'Eisner it' and tell poor Wally to make a sequel to one of his modest "hits". The point again, is that while it is true Eisner wouldn't approve the project at the current Disney either, the fact that Disney is independent means there is a hope for the future. A Comcast Disney means poor Wally's movie will never be made (except maybe by Pixar just like now)...But the difference is the future and it's a great big, long future. A Comcast Disney will surely become what Mr. Voice claims current Disney has become...Just like all the rest.

Please notice there is no support for Eisner in this post except to say that I'd rather have him as CEO of an independent Disney (and hope he gets shown the door)than have Disney be just a division of a Cable Company...I prefer to have a situation where there is hope, no matter how little, than one where there is none.

 

[YoHo]

And I'd rather see FA and the parks spun off into another company where they won't have to endure either evil. It may be a long shot, but at this point it's the only shot.

Fearing the evil you don't know more then the one you do is pretty stupid when they're both looking to screw you over.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I think before you even get into the philosophical decision you must look at the basic finances of the deal. The AOL/Time Warner deal was of the same nature and it crushed the shareholder value. I for one will NEVER vote for this deal.

 

[vernon]

Eisner's track record make it pretty obvious to me that the chances of more investment in animation and themeparks was minimal. Comcast seem to at least be aware of what the public are saying. Maybe they have seen the success that Universal have made by investing $$$ in their themeparks and think they can make more money from the parks by investing in them.

I'd like more info on Stephen Burke, it could be the reason for his departure from Disney was that he realised what a dog's breakfast Eisner was making of things by just cost cutting all the time and not investing in creativity.

It's a long shot, but maybe Comcost think the parks could be more profitable if investment is made in them, it's a view that we all seem to have, maybe they're getting on board.

 

[Peter Pirate]

That's crazy yoho, what's stupid is thinking that there is even a ghost of a chance that an independent FA & theme parks operation could exist in this business climate. The wolves are salavating.

At least my hope has Roy & Stan leading a charge to remove Eisner ... and now the ISS his recommending that Eisner not be reelcted. I can't see this as farfetched in the least.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Vernon, Stephen Burke's background is good. In fact Stan Gold today commented on talented he was but he's still in charge of a Cable focused company.

Universal may be a good comparison because their parks have NEVER made money and their animated film histrory is very spotty other than Shrek...It's not all that easy.

 

[Keyser]

Of course, there are thousands of ways the companies could differ, but let me throw out some possible (though maybe not probable) ways that this could turn into a good thing. I'll assume that we care mainly about the "core" Disney parts having to do with feature animation and the theme parks (I'll put the cruise line in with them). Under Comcast, the Disney core would become more "side" or "supporting" parts of the company, rather than the "core." The other aspects of Disney (e.g. ABC) might end up running better under Comcast, which may be able to use them more effectively than current Disney. So, how could the Comcast takeover be good?

1) Since both core areas will be outside of Comcast's own "core", they may end up being run in a less micromanaged style. That is, they might be run as separate (nearly independent) entities, and given heads who are allowed to pursue quality. My understanding is that they've done something like this with the sports teams (also outside their core area...), but I'm only going off of reading others' reports.

2) For Feature Animation (and the film divisions), Comcast's main interest seems to be as a content supplier. In this sense, their interest _might_ be in getting higher quality output, rather than just the profit margins on the individual projects. In other words, it doesn't really benefit their company as a whole to have just a bunch of junk for content, even if that junk makes good margins on its own (like the direct to video animation). My impression is they want something that provides high quality (think HBO's recent productions) for distribution. With current Disney on the other hand, a (business) case could be made that they needed to get maximum return from their core animaiton unit via lower quality production. Of course, the same argument could have been made for the current company , and this synergy was supposed to be a reason why ABC/Fox Family would fit into current Disney, but I think the impetus was backward. That is, it may work better to treat FA as a support of another industry rather than the other industry (broadcast/cable) being just a distribution channel for FA.

3) For the parks, maybe those in charge will "get it." It's certainly possible that new management would return to some of the core "Disney values" that made the parks great, and away from some of the excessive cost cutting (and, it could also go the other way...).

4) With the debt assumption spread across a larger corporation, the pressure on individual divisions might be somewhat lessened. Several people have talked about theme parks being the cash cow for Disney in the past - there would be less pressure on them to continue to be so in a larger corporation.

5) There's always the chance the core Disney areas could be spun off and left to operate as the Disney of old. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where this would really happen, though. The theme parks, maybe, but I doubt the Disney core would ever be released on its own, and even if so, it probably couldn't last without being gobbled up by some other company shortly thereafter.

Of course, there are lots of bad scenarios, like treating the Disney core areas as things to be mined rather than nurtured, but I won't go into those...

 

[hopemax]

In one of the news articles, an analyst suggested that a Comcast/Disney merger might result in a company called Disney. The Disney name has more goodwill in the marketplace. Many people might assume that since now they have Disney cable that Disney bought out Comcast. Only those that follow this saga, would know that the new company really isn't Disney.

It's interesting to imagine a DIS board, 20 years from now, where someone like the Pirate is arguing with another poster that even though the company is called Disney, it isn't.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

It's interesting to imagine a DIS board, 20 years from now, where someone like the Pirate is arguing with another poster that even though the company is called Disney, it isn't.

PERFECT!!

 

[YoHo]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
That's crazy yoho, what's stupid is thinking that there is even a ghost of a chance that an independent FA & theme parks operation could exist in this business climate. The wolves are salavating.

At least my hope has Roy & Stan leading a charge to remove Eisner ... and now the ISS his recommending that Eisner not be reelcted. I can't see this as farfetched in the least.

Yeah Crazy, because companies like Pixar are strggling to maintain independence, Time Warner isn't beating themselves up for merging with AO frickin L and Vivendi really isn't trying to unload Universal or the parks.

You've been playing that tune for how many years? I submit that in the current "Market" they could do very very well independently of a giant corporation

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I submit that in the current "Market" they could do very very well independently of a giant corporation

I've been 'contending' that very thing for years now!!

It probably isn't the right time, but somehow I feel, (oh what's the right word?)... ah... well...

Vindicated!!

 

[KNWVIKING]

If Disney were owned by Comcast and suddenly funds were available for FA to be world class again, does it matter what the letterhead says ?

What if theme park profits are no longer siphoned off to pay the way for all the other underachieving divisions of the current Disney ? If that meant midnite hours thru the summer, fresh paint every evening, street sweepers with name tags instead diesel engines, parades two times a day- everyday, a completed DCA and AK, Mickey Butter on every pillow at nite....well you get the picture......

I guess my limited love of Disney history prevents me from being totally against the merger.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Viking, if they do it I'll gladly eat crow with Landbaron at a midnite closing...But it ain't going to happen.

Yoho, the AOL/TWX sure was messy. Does either of them have much of an image anymore (success or profitability aside, after all profit isn't the outward face of any "Disney" is it?). Does AOL even have a face?

Pixar, yeah sure, a babysized company with practically no history or volume under their belt. Quality for how long? Until Jobs decides he's no longer interested? Until Lassiter moves on? Until another upstart outdoes them? Or until they're gobbled up by someone.

Further, I've been playing that tune because so far I haven't been proven wrong...Keep trying.

Landbaron, "Perfect"? I agree miss Hopes supposition was intriguiing and funny but perfect in what sense?

Landbaron, "Vindication"? How so? The Disney FA & Theme Parks haven't yet been spun off into something workable but I'll tell you what, if either they are or Comcast comes through as Viking hopes, I'll buy you a fireworks dinner at the California Grill!

 

[mitros]

From what I have been reading, there is apparentley a chance that the merger {takeover, buyout, whatever,} will be dropped. Brian Roberts said today that even though the ball is in Disney's court,and he wants this deal to be as friendly and amicable and as fast as possible, he was ready to abandon the merger if need be. He said, "We've walked away from big things before, life goes on!"

 

[manning]

Time......time is the only ally Disney has going for it right now.

Try to prolong the negotiations as long as possible in hopes the stock price goes up. Offer, counter offer.

Also Disney should identify what Comcast is after the most and GET rid of it. Even offer to sell it to Comcast at an attractive price.

 

[Another Voice]

"Pixar, yeah sure, a babysized company with practically no history or volume under their belt."

But they've been beating the pants of that big Disney with a long history. Perhaps it's because people like good movies instead of impressive corporate resumes. "From the company the brought you..." doesn't mean anything after the theater lights go down. The lesson from Pixar is that you have to work at making movies.


"the AOL/TWX sure was messy."

Becasue of the AOL part. Warner Brothers is humming aling fine. If "messy" means a billion dollars just in box office from The Lord of the Rings, the all studios should be so messy.


The only "good" outcome from a takeover would be if Animation can go back and make good movies without the demand they live up to The Lion King's box office each and every time; and parks that are runs as businesses and not as cash machines to fund Extreme Makeover - The Wedding.

Actually, Extreme Makeover - CEO Replacement might not be too bad of a show.

 

[mickey1010]

Good one AV!

I am definitely not a business/economics expert. But what I don't seem to understand is that if the parks are such a huge moneymaker, why can't the exist successfully as a separate entity???

Maybe there is something so blatantly Econ 101 that I am missing, but why wouldn't that work?

Does AOL even have a face?

Apparently not, according to that damn yellow stick figure logo.