IS Disney still broken?

[crusader]

Originally posted by manning
What's Eisner's extent?

Good question.

Last year he was made very aware of the consensus toward his mismanagement. That's a mighty big wake up call. I listened to the critics who emphasized poor earnings; drops in themepark attendance; and the demise of animation all bundled into a general blasting of lack of creativity and brand saturation as the main reasons for the call for his resignation.

I also witnessed a big powerplay with some very strong competitors and an internal battle for control.

If that isn't enough to cripple the leadership and threaten the volatility of this giant conglomerate than I'd have to admit Eisner's extent is not nearly enough.

There's an old saying in Hollywood that you're only as good as your last picture which rings pretty darn close to home here.

Eisner's had two decades at the helm and survived plenty. If you take his entire track record, I don't believe the negatives will suffice to argue his tenure would topple this industry giant.

 

[manning]

crusader -- Thank you for helping me understand.

What was Eisner's track record When Frank Wells was on the scene vs when Frank Wells wasn't?

 

[airlarry!]

Oh no, the negatives do outweigh.

Funny how the last of Paul Pre$$ler's people are on their way out now, according to Al Lutz at www.miceage.com

In fact, it is amazing to see the reversal of fortune at DL. Perhaps Scoop was right that Ouimet and Emmer are leading a new charge.

Or maybe further. Maybe he would admit now that Car Three is starting to win...

 

[crusader]

Oh no, the negatives do outweigh.

Who's balancing the two? The issue was whether the extent of mismanagement would fold the company. My answer was no.

Even if and that's a big IF the negatives far outweigh the positives over the past two decades, the impact has not caused a corporate demise. I equate that to many things one of which is diversity, which gives each division the ability to subsidize the other whenever a problem arises, mitigating a fatal loss overall.

What was Eisner's track record When Frank Wells was on the scene vs when Frank Wells wasn't?

Another good question. This involves two areas - the financial performance and the company dynamic.

I guess you need to take a look at the company's holdings:http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/disney.asp and analyze them in terms of the timing of ownership over the past 20 years along with divisional performance. (unfortunately, I don't have 20 years worth of annual reports to quickly decipher this for you)

Then take it one step further and closely review the stock performance. Here's the past ten years (post Wells decade)

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?pg=qu&sid=1618&osymb=DIS&time=10yr&uf=0&x=26&y=17

Which I find particularly interesting. The stock falls late 1999 and late 2000, with the most significant drop occurring post 9/11 thru 2002 (right in line with the overall market crash).

So when you take into account the tremendous 5 year growth between 1994-1999 and the resurgence in 2003 it becomes very difficult to argue that only the Eisner/Wells era was a success.

 

[SnackyStacky]

http://www.savedisney.com/news/editorials/tm081904.1.asp

and

http://www.savedisney.com/news/editorials/tm082004.1.asp

Check them out.

 

[manning]

SnackyStacky It looks like we are looking at two eras here. The Eisner/Wells era and the Eisner/Presslar era. I see Eisner in both eras.

Reading the article it also looks like the bottom was dropping out of Disney way before 9/11. If so one line of reasoning (the one Eisner subscibes to) doesn't hold water.

Don Goodman is the latest in the long line of financial managers to try to reign in the creatives.

Here is one problem. Financial manager. Bottom line thinking only has caused more problems than not. It tends to drain the talent. A balanced approach is much better. Something Rummell did, to deliver projects on budget and on schedule.

I believe we need to get a balance here. History has shown when R&D (WDI) is cut back or eliminated the company suffers.