Eisner and Roy - Sympathy Please

[manning]

The stock has been trending downward beginning the first quarter of 2000!!

 

[dcentity2000]

Whew, lots o' people!

Guess I'll have to reply to you all in one post...



Ei$ner (look what I did!) is not my fave guy.
But he's all you're gonna get.

Eisner took huge wages, made some bad purchases and fired an entire board of directors.

BUT.

That board of directors had driven Disney into a $2bn company. In return for his huge wages he enlarged the company more than thirty times over (to a $61bn company) and did so fairly efficiently. He spread income over all areas of interest, making the company less susceptible to the whims of the economy and made the name into the major thing it is today.

SO. He's done good and bad.

Let's not insult everyone here by suggesting that the head of a company can't make mistakes. They shouldn't but they do. That's where you gamble when you 'enlist' one. Look at poor old Microsoft. Apple. IBM. Gründig. Rover. Ericsson. Acorn. Be. British Airways. It may seem shocking in a land of dreams, but there is always a mistake - or string of mistakes - just waiting to be made. The test as a leader is how you handle them - the objective is survival and eventual growth.

He's done that, although I will agree that last year it was questionable as to whether he'd pull it off at all. Lucky so and so.

Now, as far as I've ascertained, the basis for hating Eisner lies in two directions. First, that at the moment Disney is failing. Actually, it's making money and growing. The other is that in the past he's failed Disney. Interesting, given that Roy recruited him to stop Disney from disappearing forever.

You see, for what harm Eisner has done, he's done more good overall. And if you're under the impression that high power CEOs grow on trees, you may be in for a reality check. Hard headed people like Murdoch (spelling?) and Jobs just don't pop up on demand. Roy was lucky at the time to find Eisner - companies were preparing hostile bids and, when the first one was to be made and Roy had to leave [in order to face it off], Eisner had to be called in to stop subsequent attacks. The amount of growth he instigated prevented any further bids and even the current one made by Comcast looks set to fade away as Disney is becoming rapidly larger than Comcast once again.

I don't like Eisner. But he works. Sad fact. And every time he's been challenged in the past, he's won, one way or another.

If you spend your time following your dreams, listening to your heart and believing in yourself, you'll be beaten to a pulp by those who work hard for their money and fly hell bent on furthering themselves.

Sad fact.





Rich::

[ps. Boston Business is great! We law students all get it here because it gives a pleasant sight into American Business scraps As for the BBC - well, it's enormous and not owned by Roy or Michael - probably the best source to trust, bar for the slightly more clinical CNN (which I also love ) ]

 

[dcentity2000]

Find another willing CEO with a good track record, prove somehow that under the circumstances they would have and will continue to do better (a similar company in a similar scenario, for instance - Apple would be a good one) and THEN show that the CEO wants to take control of Disney - then I'll concede that Eisner should be made to totally resign - currently I'd only earmark him for his current demotion or at the MOST demotion to a non-executive director

AND if you can prove that Eisner has sufficient mens rea for his alleged crime of cheating money from, improperly directing or otherwise damaging the company with even OBLIQUE intent then I shall also concede that he deserves no sympathy!

There y'are - your goals are set out for you now




Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

pps. 'mens rea' means mental capacity and understanding. If you do not want to hurt a person but do so accidentally, you have no or insufficient mens rea for the crime

'oblique intention' is intention but as a by-product of another goal.

Sorry for the jargon and for the quick, titchy explanation!






Rich::

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Now, as far as I've ascertained, the basis for hating Eisner lies in two directions. First, that at the moment Disney is failing. Actually, it's making money and growing. The other is that in the past he's failed Disney. Interesting, given that Roy recruited him to stop Disney from disappearing forever.

Well now we see the problem--it is that you ascertain incorrectly; have you even read what Roy and Stan have said are the reasons they oppose Eisner? it is all very clearly stated.

the basis for hating Eisner as the head of Disney -and let's be clear on what we are saying--I don;'t know the man- I am only speaking of his stewardship--the basis for hating the job he has done is that he has squandered Disney's assets..it has nothing to do with whether they are making more money this quarter than last quarter...it has do with the long term health of this company--a guy on anabolic steroids will do better in the short term but over the long run the body will suffer irreparable damage...churning out crap and oversaturating your market whether it is by opening too many stores, putting on the same show 4 times aweek, churning out cheap sequels, opening up incomplete theme parks on the cheap, cutting resarch and development--all of this is the behavior of a manager who knows he can make money now by trading in the company's identity and reputation today - but has no concern for the long term consequences of changing your brand identity..people have ben willing to pay a premium for Disney because the Disney name used to mean top notch quality--Eisner has changed that... He has severely damaged the long term prospects for this company as it will now have to compete as a discounter..he took a premium brand and has cahnged it into a He took over and built as a Nordstroms--now he wants to be a Wal-mart...the margins are thinner and the competition is far more abundant.

try reading these comments from an analyst back in 2000 BEFORE DCA opened about why they were going wrong--this applies to virtually all of Eisner's stewardship:
by Dan Steinberg:
". By going with the tried-and-true in both ride design and operation of the park, it should be a smaller and safer investment for the company – two areas that Michael Eisner mentioned several times in his autobiography as his his main responsibilities responsibility to the shareholders. This is a fine approach for the short-term, making it easier for the company recoup its investment and also making it less likely that there will be to have any big unpleasant surprises from the new park. But from a long-term strategic viewpoint, this is a mistake.

As Professor Porter states, "Competitors will eventually and inevitably overtake any company that stops improving and innovating." DCA’s lack of true innovation will certainly not eliminate the fun for its visitors, but it will cost Disney $1.4 billion without building any long-term competitive advantage for the company. This may be a cheaper way to build a Disney theme park, but it’s an awful lot of money to spend without getting much of a strategic gain."

In other words being safe and cheap is an expensive way to build for the future...but it looks good to the shortsighted as the defenders of Eisner's record seem to be..

If you want to understand the problem with recent management it is all spelled out in these two columns FROM the year 2000 LONG before 9/11 and all the other excuses Eisner gives-
look at what Dan Steinberg wrote in his two part piece for mouseplanet.com in the summer of 2000:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/dan/ten.htm

http://www.mouseplanet.com/dan/ten1.htm



Speaking of shortsighted--the comment about Roy bringing Eisner is shows a serious lack of long view thinking--it would not matter if Roy brought Walt back to life 20 years ago to save the company--if Walt were then dead and useless-as Eisner's strategies are no longer useful--what happened from 84-94 is of no importance in deciding who should run the companyand how the company should be run

 

[PKS44]

http://www.mouseplanet.com/dan/comments.htm

Sorry this is the better piece on overall bad choices Eisner management has made and was making long ago--this was written in December 2000--
it will give those who are still confused a clearer picture of why anyone with a business sensibility would want to change the regime

 

[wtg2000]

He spread income over all areas of interest, making the company less susceptible to the whims of the economy and made the name into the major thing it is today

Interesting since Eisner does nothing but blame the economy and outside influences whenever problems arise. He never blames the product.

Made the name into the major thing it is today? Do you mean the Disney name? The Disney name was world famous, loved by legions of fans and synonymous with family entertainment long before Eisner took over. That's what he inherited. Now the Disney name has been watered down and over saturated.

I remember in the late 1980s when Eisner announced plans for the Disney MGM Studio. Universal head Sid Shinberg (sp?) said that the "mouse was in danger of becoming one, huge, ravenous rat." Maybe he was right.

Quantity does not equal quality. Just because Eisner et al have made Disney into a monster media company doesn't mean that the individual components are heathlier, and it doesn't mean that the core of Disney is any better. Sure, he purchased Cap. Cities but it would have survived under another guise, and ESPN would have been successful - maybe more so. He's grown the company mostly through acquisitions . Most of his own initiatives have failed the test of time - Disney Stores, DLP, internet ventures, personnel hirings, not to mention the lack of personal relationships he seems to have fostered.

I think people are just afraid because they've become so used to having Eisner there. It's the same reason peasants were afraid for so long to overthrow monarchs!

 

[raidermatt]

If you want to know what Disney's stock did for the 7 or 8 years leading up to 9/11, just go chart it on cbsmarketwatch.com. Then we can dispense with the 9/11 excuses. (Yes, 9/11 had an impact, but its ridiculous to blame 10 years of shabby performance on it)

Yes, Disney's quarter over quarter results improved. Of course that was after they plummeted prior to that. Its scary that so many get duped by this.

One analyst calculated that if Disney meets its earnings projections, it will be 2007 before they reach the revenue they had in 1997.

This is business. I don't need to prove what his motivations are. Its fun to speculate, and to listen to those who have had personal contact with the man, but in the end, performance is all that matters.

Yes, Eisner has "grown" the company, meaning its span of control is larger. However, it generates less revenue than it did years ago, and it gets less out of its assets than it did. It has shifted from being a company driven by creativity to one driven by numbers.

In the past, the company was product-focused. They believed that if you focus on the product and the customer, and do it correctly and responsibly, money will follow. Now they manage by numbers and spreadsheets. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. But for a company driven by creative content, its not going to work. And it hasn't.

Its time to move on.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"One analyst calculated that if Disney meets its earnings projections, it will be 2007 before they reach the revenue they had in 1997."***

How quickly will the new CEO make this happen ?

 

[DisneyKidds]

How quickly will the new CEO make this happen ?

Even if a new guys takes as long given everything that has transpired (Eisner's mistakes will take some time to fix) Eisner is still deserving of the boot for putting the company in that position.

 

[dcentity2000]

Oh, oh, oh, PKS44, think before you post!

If I ascert that the reason being given for the removal of Eisner is that he's failed the company the only way that I can be wrong about this is if he has NOT failed the company. So if I "ascertain incorrectly" (is that even the correct grammar? ) then Eisner is innocent of all charges - clearly wrong! Not your fault though, I'm sure

KNWVIKING, it's interesting that Disney are predicted to return to 1997 conditions in three years - actually, it's rather pleasing to know that the company you love is on the mend

wtg2000, the Disney name was in the early 1980s a cute little beam of wellbeing, something small and cuddly that everyone looked up to. Now, it's also a huge media giant that controls what you watch Clearly, the name has been altered, for better (business) or for worse (family values) And you're right, quantity does not equal quality, the sore point here. However, it does equal equity.

PKS44, I do agree that Roy's decision to bring in Eisner may have been short sighted (I think that's what you were trying to say? "Roy bringing Eisner is shows a serious lack of long view thinking" - it could have been a stab at me though ), but I guess at a time when you aren't certain whether there will even be much of a future you have to focus on the tasks immediately at hand Point taken, but I'd still personally excuse Roy for this

To everyone, I'm yet to hear an alternative - lots of Eisner bashing, but no alternative. Come on! There MUST be someone! Name 'em! Murdoch (I still forget how to spell his name) is apparently not that bothered and Jobs has done the usual 'get lost' comment, so those two are out

And FINALLY - to get this thread back ON TOPIC - I quote both the thread title "...sympathy please" and the first words posted: "We expect far too much of both Roy Disney and Michael Eisner. We expect Roy to save the world and for Michael not to ever make mistakes - a sad indicator as to our own credibility as 'intelligent people'."

This thread is intended to inspire sympathy for these two people who are currently in very difficult situations and to attempt to curb the tide of 'Ei$ner's and 'Idiot Nephew's popping up around the internet - including that of my own (Sorry Roy and Michael ) The point is not to elevate Michael above blame, it's merely to bash (yup, I said it) those who would flame him constantly in place of supporting - something that is against the Disney spirit. That's why my first post was, although mostly in support of Eisner (due to something called distributive justice - look it up ) it did also point out mistakes made and wasn't an 'Eisner is a hero Roy is a zero' thread To my discredit, I didn't back Roy up enough to start with by a long shot - sorry 'bout that

So as I said at the start - let's support these two, ordinary people, huh? If anyone still feels enraged enough to bash off either without doing so to the other can ICQ me and let off steam that way

Maybe it's time to move on, as someone very properly put. And we all have our opinions on that. But - even though it has fast become one - this thread is not the place for them to be put accross.

Sympathy and support please, not accusations and blame







Rich::

 

[wtg2000]

As for alternatives, I have no idea who is out there. But then I didn't know Eisner in 1984. I'd imagine there are many capable candidates and certainly Eisner is going to retire one day anyway. In 1984, Eisner was the number two man at Paramount, so a replacement doesn't have to be a CEO. Maybe Steve Burke or Matt Ouimet. Who knows. Also, keep in mind that Eisner came as a package deal with Frank Wells and brought Jeffrey Katzenberg with him. That was what convinced the Bass Brothers to hold on to their stock.

As for Roy's decision in 1984 - it may have been a good one. But things have changed. Wells and K are gone. The company is different. Corporate climate is different. Maybe the company has become too big for Eisner to handle. Maybe Eisner is good at taking a blank page but not so good at editing a full page. And in 1984 he had a blank page somewhat - the advent of video, huge tracts of empty land in Florida, the birth of Touchstone Pictures and the Disney Channel the year before. But when it was time to delve into new ventures maybe it just wasn't in his wheel house. What's the expression about rising to the level of your incompetency?

Here's hoping Disney becomes a "cute little beam of wellbeing" again.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by wtg2000
...Eisner is going to retire one day anyway....Here's hoping Disney becomes a "cute little beam of wellbeing" again.

Y'know, I reckon that Eisner will retire when and if the Roy stuff dies down, assuming he survives? He'll show everyone who's boss, then go in as dignified a way as he can. So anti Eisner zealots - he may not be around for long even if he wins this fight

As for me, I personally hope that Disney becomes a cute little beam of wellbeing again too - but one that's large enough to touch every heart




Rich::

 

[PKS44]

dcentity2000--it is amazing and I am not sure unintentional or not but you basically ignore anything that does not relate to the strawman arguments that you are putting forth--that is what I meant by your lack of ascertainment-- you offer arguments about how Eisner has not failed the company--offer up some quarter to quarter comparisons as proof and think you have proven anything...you are ignoring multiple posts and links showing you that instead he has failed the company by trading in long term health for the short term gains you are pointing to as proof of his value--no there is no sympathy here for a man who has so badly lost sight of what made the company successful in the first place--and what made it successful in the early part of his reign--that he managed one way initially is a sign that Roy made a decent move back then--but to stick with him as he has changed his course and now is steering the company into disaster--there is no reason to blame Roy or anyone else except this misguided captain Eisner..sorry- he needs to go...and Roy's efforts show that he has the vision and the dedication to the principles and values to help pick out a new captain for this ship-

ps did you eve read the last link posted from 12/2000 pointing out that Disney was IGNORING basic marketing theory and sowing the seeds of its own bad performance long before 9/11????

 

[dcentity2000]

PKS44, why on earth do you consistently take every effort to bash Eisner when the entire if not soul point of the thread is to support him as well as the embattled Roy Disney? The point is this as I am sure you have realised:

I full well know the faults present on both Roy and Michael's parts but am trying to evoke pathos from you given the difficult situations they are still in, as this is the Disney spirit

I am sure that you think my "lack of ascertainment" and the way that I "basically ignore anything" is an insult to the company, but someone has to support these two men and I thought that on DIS boards that kind support would be in plentiful supply, regardless of the circumstances.

If you want to voice your opinion on whether Eisner should have his salary linked to the FTSE 100 index (and I'm sure you're opinion is quite informed) then please choose an appropriate forum in which to do so - NOT one that is entitled "sympathy please".

Yes, I did defend Eisner more than Roy. This was due to distributive justice, as I mentioned before. People who recieve less support should be supported more, to make a balance. If you think I am being naïve, please feel free to look the term up. You will find it quite sound, I assure you.

I know this all sounds harsh - I don't mean it to be, I promise - but you have to realise that you can't kick a man when he's down. Say why he should be down, by all means. But going out of your way to adversely counter every supportive gesture proffered by a person you do not even know on an internet forum embezzed with the words "sympathy please"? Surely you cannot consider that necessary?

I am sure that both Michael Eisner and Roy Disney as well as Stanley Gold and all others involved have acted in in what they considered to be the best interests of everyone involved. As such they deserve to be treated with respect. Please do so.




Rich::

 

[raidermatt]

How quickly will the new CEO make this happen ?

Chances are, quicker than the current one.

...it's interesting that Disney are predicted to return to 1997 conditions in three years - actually, it's rather pleasing to know that the company you love is on the mend

Please re-read. That's if Disney meets its OWN projections. (If you're going to try to twist my words, at least make it a challenge for me to untwist them.)

Quite a difference. Especially when you consider Disney's ability, or lack thereof, to predict their success over anything more than a quarter or two.

No, the important point here is that it will take three years of "double-digit growth" to get back to where the company was 10 years ago.

That's just not acceptable performance.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Please re-read. That's if Disney meets its OWN projections. (If you're going to try to twist my words, at least make it a challenge for me to untwist them.)
Quite a difference. Especially when you consider Disney's ability, or lack thereof, to predict their success over anything more than a quarter or two.
No, the important point here is that it will take three years of "double-digit growth" to get back to where the company was 10 years ago.
That's just not acceptable performance.

My apologies raidermatt, I misunderstood you. Prima facie, it seemed as if they were standard predictions. I assure you I am not attempting to undermine you or subvert your cause in any way, least of all by twisting such words as you may write down

Again, I do appreciate you have a view of Michael Eisner. I reiterate though in saying, this is a forum for displaying pathos and sympathy for those people caught up in this at the moment, not a forum for displaying distaste or personal outrage in situations not living up to your own personal standards or wishes

Read the post above the one you made. Then read what you wrote. Repeat. Youu should notice that you responded to a post saying that this is a forum designed to churn up good, disney natured support for those who need it by declaring that the CEO is a liability - probably not the good natured support that was being angled for. Should you wish, you can start a new thread in order to flame Eisner or Roy or myself back to the stone age. No matter what though, I'll never stop defending these guys - it just ain't right to gang up on Roy or Michael just because they're sinking. As I said, let's make all posts supportive, eh?




Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

ps. raidermatt - if you'd like to have your words twisted, I recommend printing them out and then turning one end of the paper clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. It's not only effective, it's also a bad joke at the same time )

No hard feelings chuppa chups



Rich::

 

[Sarangel]

This thread is changing no one's mind. Rich, I appreciate the gesture to sympathize with both Roy & Michael, but I think that has turned into a "did so" - "did not" arguement.

As a result, I'm closing this thread before we *do* end up calling each other names.