Iger to take over as CEO of Disney on 9/30/05!

[WDSearcher]

Probably just a fantasy, but I'd be very excited with Jobs as chairman.

I don't understand this. Steve Jobs' ego and micromanaging nature are virtually the same as Eisner's, except that it happens over at Pixar instead of at Disney. Why do you think the guys dislike each other so much? They're too much alike!

Jobs has never expressed any interest in running a multi-media conglomerate. He could care less about the theme parks, ABC, ESPN, the Cruise Lines, Consumer Products, World of Disney, Theatricals, and all the rest. Sure ... Disney might have a kick-butt animation division again, but what would happen to everything else? Jobs doesn't have any sort of reverence for Walt Disney. Maybe as an animator and a pioneer of that artform, but that's pretty much where it stops.

Jobs wants his OWN empire -- he's never been shy about saying so. He doesn't want to inherit someone else's.

 

[WDSearcher]

For all the conspiracy theorists ... what makes you think that Disney is such a huge obsession with ME that he's sitting in his office trying to figure out ways to keep his hands in the pie after he retires? Good lord -- it's not like the man doesn't have enough money to be comfortable. It's not like he can't go out and do other things. It's not like he can't power play somewhere else. Maybe, as some has said, he's just done. He's had his run at Disney, and he's done. Maybe Jane is telling him to retire and do something else. Maybe he's already got a deal with some other company that we don't know about.

You guys seem to think that ME will stop at nothing to have total control forever. But he's got the company in a good place, he's got the guy he wanted to lead it leading it, he leaves when the stock is on an upswing, he goes off to work on ... whatever, and he gets a big good-bye party knowing that he's made his mark. He's leaving on HIS terms -- no one else's. If he gets obsessive after that and keeps trying to tweak and control and manage and force opinion, then he just becomes Roy. And I don't think Eisner will go that direction. He's too smart.

 

[WDSearcher]

Whatever it is, all of us Disney fans will most assuredly be paying for it!

So then ... you'd prefer he stays on so that ticket prices can remain the same? Or is it that Eisner's finally leaving, so you have to continue to find things that will be his fault after he's gone?

 

[DancingBear]

I don't understand this. Steve Jobs' ego and micromanaging nature are virtually the same as Eisner's, except that it happens over at Pixar instead of at Disney. Why do you think the guys dislike each other so much? They're too much alike!

Jobs has never expressed any interest in running a multi-media conglomerate. He could care less about the theme parks, ABC, ESPN, the Cruise Lines, Consumer Products, World of Disney, Theatricals, and all the rest. Sure ... Disney might have a kick-butt animation division again, but what would happen to everything else? Jobs doesn't have any sort of reverence for Walt Disney. Maybe as an animator and a pioneer of that artform, but that's pretty much where it stops.

I've certainly noted Jobs' ego flaws in his clashes with Disney; however, I think he truly is a "visionary" type guy. Apple's MO under Jobs is to develop a whiz-bang product that people will overpay for (at least for a while); his MO at Pixar has been to give his creative team under Lasseter the freedom to make great product. I don't see any evidence that Jobs micromanages at Pixar.

Being Chairman is not being CEO, "running a multi-media conglomerate." It's a big-picture, policy-setting position.

Who knows if Jobs would care about the theme parks, Cruise Lines, etc.? There wasn't any evidence that he cared about animation before Pixar.

 

[lodgelady]

I for one believe the jury is still out on MiniME..err...Igor...err...Robert Iger.

Just because M. Ei$ner holds more Ei$ney...err...Disney shares than God himself doesn't mean that the board and the President will listen to what he has to say behind the scenes.

Just because he's left himself an open invitation to 'advise' the board...and maybe even be named Chairman or Mighty Morphin Consultant, doesn't mean the board is going to listen.

Just because he personally rid every dissenting voice on the board, doesn't mean the board is going to listen.

Just because the Street thinks he's boosted the company back to pre-9/11 value, despite the mirage of ABC's latest success, the smoke and mirrors going on in the park numbers, the dearth of traditional animation in the pipeline, and the gambit on an unknown CGI unit, doesn't mean that the Iger is going to cowtow to the street.

And just because after Go.com, Fox Family, Pixar, Miramax, the airplane leases, DLP Studios, Ei$ner's California Misadventure, AK, and the newest one-third day park, HK Disneycounty (not quite big enough to be called a 'World' or 'Land' just yet), the donation of the Disney Stores to TCP, Ei$ner is still riding high on the 'I'm the King of deal making" definitely does not mean that this Board and CEO will listen to him.

And just because...wait...err...what was my original point again?

WE HAVE TO LAUGH because it will do no good to cry!

I was so disappointed to hear that that the board elected boring Iger. He may keep the status-quo, but creativity? Excitement? Innovation? I think not.

Thanks, airlarry for giving me a chuckle.

 

[WDSearcher]

I've certainly noted Jobs' ego flaws in his clashes with Disney; however, I think he truly is a "visionary" type guy. ... Who knows if Jobs would care about the theme parks, Cruise Lines, etc.? There wasn't any evidence that he cared about animation before Pixar.

I agree that Jobs is a visionary. But I think his strength is storytelling. Now, granted, that's great for animation and even for theme parks, IF he's got that interest. But there's nothing out there that paints him as someone who wants to take over what Disney started. He didn't have much -- if any -- interest in the job; all that talk came from analysts and Roy and "unnamed sources." Jobs was always coy and non-commital when asked. That right there should tell you something. Bring him in as the head of animation, and I'm okay with that. But as head of the company? I'd need to know a whole lot more about where he thinks the theme parks should go before I could advocate that.

Jobs got to invent Pixar -- who knew who he was before then, really? He was just a computer geek. Now he's a savior? I don't see it.

 

[Plus4206]

He may not possess these gifts, but he may also recognize that he doesn't. IMO one of ME's problems was/is that he truely believes he is creative & innovative when in fact he's shown he's not. His ego wouldn't let him admit that. Iger could be a CEO that manages the business side of the company and follows the advise of WDI.

At least, that's what I'm hoping will happen.

 

[lodgelady]

He may not possess these gifts, but he may also recognize that he doesn't. IMO one of ME's problems was/is that he truely believes he is creative & innovative when in fact he's shown he's not. His ego wouldn't let him admit that. Iger could be a CEO that manages the business side of the company and follows the advise of WDI.

At least, that's what I'm hoping will happen.

Good points! Thanks for the positive spin on it. I hope you are right!!

 

[crusader]

No, its not bad business to cut the ties with the guy everybody agrees has outstayed his welcome. Its got nothing to do with disneyites. Its got to do with performance, and not just the short term performance that so many seem incapable of looking beyond.

Who's everybody? If your using the no confidence vote than you're equally guilty of utilizing short-term events. Once the board segregated CEO/Chairman, the fund managers gave their nods of approval. So who is everybody?

And if it really does have to do with performance, then you're wrong in terms of it being bad business. It's bad business to burn an association of this magnitude. Overall Disney is considered a long-term leader within its' industry during Eisner's tenure. He's considered a hard-nosed CEO who resurrected an empire and held his own for 20yrs under untold scrutiny and scandal while wheeling and dealing with the best of them. I think you're focusing too narrowly on the share price.

Iger will be watched very closely by his colleagues to see how he acknowledges Mr. Eisner in the future.

 

[airlarry!]

Yes, D'ei$ney's term was long, but how has he been a leader. How exactly did he resurrect the 'empire?'

Let's check 'em off.

ABC -- except for ESPN (and NO ONE gives ME any credit at all for ESPN's value today), this has been a bust and a drain.

Eurod'esineyland -- Overbudgeted the hotels and eating places, then when it finally turned a meager profit, he saddled it with the pitiful DLP-Studios, which until HKMK opens up, will go down as the one park that could drum up less favorable publicity then ECA.

Fox Family Network -- 5 BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS!

Hotelineers taking over the planning of WDW

Mall Rats taking over DL before finally walking the plank

Dismantling of DFA

Money poured down the CGI hole, then dropped, then RESTARTED!

Michael Ei$ner has never, and will never, go quietly into the sunset. There have been so many financial failures and pitiful business decisions made in the last ten years, that it is amazing he has survived this long. How could anyone question his motives here? He may not succeed, but he will try and continue to rule the company, with his hand-picked board and hand-picked successor.

Ei$ner must go. I'm willing to give MiniME a chance if I were on the board (cause if I were, I'm obviously a two-bit Ei$ner flunkie or else I wouldn't be there) but with Ei$ner defanged at least temporarily, I'd have MiniME on a short leash.

Oh, and one more thing:

"Overall Disney is considered a long-term leader within its' industry during Walt's tenure. He's considered a hard-nosed CEO who resurrected an empire and held his own for many years under untold scrutiny and scandal while wheeling and dealing with the best of them. I think you're focusing too narrowly on the share price."

I don't think we'll see that on Walt's epitaph anytime soon.

 

[aalan]

i realize that disney is a huge corporation now, but i sure wish somebody other than a "suit" was becoming the c.e.o. walt was the dreamer/visionary who was constantly being overruled by his brother roy, the businessman. the battles between the two created a wonderful company. one that should spend more time on the "magic" and not keeping the stockholders happy. maybe the job is too big for one person. maybe the board needs some new blood. the new guy just seems like status quo to me.

 

[DancingBear]

Jobs got to invent Pixar -- who knew who he was before then, really? He was just a computer geek.

Gee, I tend to think of the guy who co-founded Apple, the company which brought us the Apple II, the Macintosh, the I-Mac, the I-Pod, etc., as a bit more than a computer geek.

Huge ego, but he appears to give creative types, be they product developers at Apple or John Lasseter and company at Pixar, the freedom and resources to create great product.

 

[mitros]

Walt had foresight, Ei$ner is blind as a bat. Walt knew that because of the quality and quantity of his creations, the stockholders would be assured of making money trough out their lifetime, not just in the short term without any thought for the future, which is Ei$ners way of runnung {sinking?} the ship.

 

[DancingBear]

Walt had foresight, Ei$ner is blind as a bat. Walt knew that because of the quality and quantity of his creations, the stockholders would be assured of making money trough out their lifetime, not just in the short term without any thought for the future, which is Ei$ners way of runnung {sinking?} the ship.

While this may be true, it is also true that Wall Street's expectations are much different than in Walt's day. The stockholders, at least particularly the institutional shareholders, also appear to have short-term horizons.

 

[Plus4206]

I remember reading an article where Roy Sr. was detailing the financial goals of the Disney company and basically they were striving for a stead 5% return year in-year out. They reinvested monies back into the parks that would allow this to happen. Try that business plan today and Wall Street will do more then just laugh at you.

 

[raidermatt]

Who's everybody?

For pete's sake, if you're going to insist on taking issue with hyperbole, choose a better target.

The CONSENSUS is that his time is over, and that the stock, even with its recent uptick, has languished for years now.

Overall Disney is considered a long-term leader within its' industry during Eisner's tenure. He's considered a hard-nosed CEO who resurrected an empire and held his own for 20yrs under untold scrutiny and scandal while wheeling and dealing with the best of them.

Nobody cares about the long term (at least nobody with any real influence in this situation). If they did, Eisner would have been out long ago, and the recent improvements would never have saved him.

He's considered power hungry egomaniac who can't maintain productive relationships with the creative types. Even his "supporters" are hoping that Iger can repair some of the damage Eisner has done.

Its time to move on, and "everybody" knows it. If Iger is to do a decent job, having Eisner hovering isn't going to help him, its going to hinder him.

They reinvested monies back into the parks that would allow this to happen. Try that business plan today and Wall Street will do more then just laugh at you.

True, but they haven't exactly been thrilled with the business plan as executed over the last 10 years either.

We all know nobody can run Disney in the autocratic manner Walt did.

But Wall Street will allow you to reinvest if you are bringing results, i.e. growth.


On Jobs... I don't care if he, or anybody else running Disney is an egomaniac. That, in and of itself, is unimportant. The question is what feeds that ego. If its Eisner, its control. Its being able to say I created that.

I don't get the impression that is what feeds Jobs' ego. I haven't heard even rumors about Jobs meddling with the Pixar films. Lasseter and co. have complained about the way Disney tried to meddle with their early films, but one of the reasons they have not left Pixar is the creative freedom they are given. (We shouldn't forget that Disney was unsuccessful in its bid to pry Lasseter away from Pixar, and it wasn't for a lack of cash).

 

[gapere]

I don't understand this. Sure ... Disney might have a kick-butt animation division again, but what would happen to everything else?

I don't know but I would gladly take a kick butt animation again over everything else. Animation has always been the company's bread and butter and should be the engine that keeps everything running. Hit movies provide enormous profits from movie tickets/home video sales. It provides characters that can be incorporated into the rides at the parks. It provides merchandising opportunities both at the parks and for the company's corporate partners (McDonald's et al).

IMO, Disney has relied too heavily on the Pixar characters to fill the creative void it can't fill itself. Take a look at the parks and you'll know what I mean. They only Disney original character that got any significant promotion when I was in Orlando last month was Stitch for the not-so-good Stitch's Great Escape. A character from the mid 90's from the now defunct Florida animation unit. I like Stitch but let's not confuse it with Buzz, Woody, Nemo and the gang in terms of drawing power.

Relying on the Pixar stuff is not bad in in of itself I suppose but what is Disney going to do when the current contract expires and Disney is unable to renew?

 

[DancingBear]

IMO, Disney has relied too heavily on the Pixar characters to fill the creative void it can't fill itself. Take a look at the parks and you'll know what I mean. They only Disney original character that got any significant promotion when I was in Orlando last month was Stitch for the not-so-good Stitch's Great Escape. A character from the mid 90's from the now defunct Florida animation unit.

Just to be clear here, Lilo & Stitch was released in 2002.

 

[crusader]

Dismantling of DFA

This is the only point even worth reflecting on and remains the biggest problem this company has right now.

I can't help you otherwise except to say - so what?????? Do you have any idea how much money is blown in corporate america????? Man, it was a lot more than 1.6 billion dollars (the real hit from Fox) over the past 20 yrs. I love how Europe has now become entirely Eisner. I guess all the success Disney had is entirely Eisner as well. You're playing right into his legacy with this line of reasoning. It's overkill.

But with this level of scrutiny, there is no way you weren't going to find fault over a 20 yr. span and if that's your list - then you have to admit, this company has done exceptionally well during Eisner's tenure. Disney is considered a good solid independent company - not a corrupt one

Animation is where I'll agree with you. That's it.

For pete's sake, if you're going to insist on taking issue with hyperbole, choose a better target.

Relax Matt. Nobody's taking issue with your hyperbole. My point was, the company is owned by the shareholders whom consist of not only us but very large mutual fund holders. These fund owners aside from Roy and ME and a select list of other individual large shareholders are "everybody" in terms of the company. Disneyites who hold virtually no or very little stock are not and never will be the consensus vote - they are the consumers for the most part who didn't necessarily buy their stock as an investment but more along the lines of a souvenir (only at Disney) and tend to complain about everything that affects their personal "world". Disney happens to inspire so many - that it becomes a big heightened target in this regard.

Last year, and only last year, you had a consensus. This year you had an entirely different one - in favor of the current management of the company. I haven't heard the majority of these fund managers say anything more about Eisner - probably because he already announced his retirement. But even if he hadn't I'll bet the vote this year would have been the same.

One area we don't mention enough are the employees. In that respect, I can certainly understand why there's so much turmoil. Anybody who's had a boss this overpaid hurting the little guy for two decades knows what this is all about internally. Welcome to corporate america. It's a nasty place to hang your hat - and if you choose "Hollywood" you're in for a real rude awakening. Disney is an enigma - it sure looks great on the outside but it's nothing more than cold steel when you walk through those big corporate revolving doors.

Finance doesn't have any color. It's time we all woke up.

 

[airlarry!]

Crusader,

How much do you know about the European disaster? My source is from the man himself. Ei$ner's own book illustrates the level of input he had in the creation of Eurod'eisneyland. Also, numerous articles both here and on the continent have detailed that park's struggles, before finallly breaking through after massive restructuring, only to be undone by what all but the very few snowglobers call a pitifully underwhelming addition (I refuse to call it a park) to the original gate. Again, under Ei$ner's watch, and by his right hand man, Jay R.

Now then. Name another 'success' you attribute to Ei$ner that is sustainable.

Citing the fact that he presided over the rebirth of DFA doesn't mean much when he has shuttered it, does it?

The more salient point, that you gloss over, is that Ei$ner rode a wave of creativity that the previous administration had in place, and that Disney was successful despite his leadership, not because of it.

If you don't think that Fox Family, the Katzenberg mess, the Ovitz Affair, the airplane leases, and the mismanagement of animation both CGI and traditional is corruption, then I'm not quite sure what it is. In almost every case, Ei$ner's first priority has been to the stock price, with the second priority, how that price affects his sizable holdings, coupled with how he can control the company politics to build upon those holdings.

I would like to see your reference as to how Disney saved themselve 3.6 billion on the Fox deal.