It's starting....

[HB2K]

An article from MSNBC.COM

Pixar may be outgrowing Disney's Name with Nemo's Fame

I found this passage quite telling:

But Jobs added that an audience poll of the team's previous hit, 2001's "Monsters, Inc.," showed the Pixar name was a stronger attraction than the Disney name, albeit by a slim margin for families but by a wide margin for adults.
"At least in this survey of people walking out of 'Monsters, Inc,' the Pixar brand was already a very important factor, more important than the Disney brand," he said.

To everything spin, spin, spin

Not so fast, says Clay Timon, chairman of brand consultant Landor Associates. Surveys by his company, which has worked for Disney but not for Pixar, show Disney has world wide brand almost in a league of its own, while Pixar has much less recognition in the United States and is almost unknown abroad.
"I would want to think a second or third time before walking away from Disney if I were Pixar," he said.

A company that works for Disney but not Pixar is the only one defending Disney in this article? I find that rather telling....

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"A company that works for Disney but not Pixar is the only one defending Disney in this article? I find that rather telling...."***

But you don't find it odd that the article doesn't mention who did the survey Jobs was aluding too ?

 

[crusader]

There will be a tremendous amount of noise before the dust settles. My guess is the deal will include a distribution arrangement somewhere between the 7-15% range. They may be haggling over 10 vs. 12 already. It is in Pixar's best interest to keep the game in play while that dark WB cloud keeps looming over Disney's horizon.

However, Pixar does need to substantiate proven name brand identity to build inherent value within the company. Surveys touted by Jobs aren't enough of a guarantee for sustained growth and longevity. Attempting to affect valuation and enhance strategic positioning is a bold move - particularly when dealing with an intangible such as branding. Whether or not anybody actually bites is the real question. We aren't dealing with naive players.

 

[raidermatt]

We all know about the mis-use of surveys (if not, think of the Early Entry situation...)

This could merely be some public negotiating tactics, or it maybe that Jobs is right... We don't really know, and its possible we never will, depending on how things turn out.

Yes, ending the Disney deal would be a bold move, but there are still those out there who make such moves.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Yes, ending the Disney deal would be a bold move, but there are still those out there who make such moves."***

Of course it's a lot easier to be bold when you have something to fall back on if your bold move fails. Especially if that something is an Apple.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Since when does bold automatically mean correct?

 

[raidermatt]

It doesn't, and I didn't mean to imply that...

I only mean that just because it would be bold, it does not make it incorrect, or that it won't happen.

(Remember, I'm not saying they will part ways, only that there's a legitimate case to be made for it to happen, just as there's a legitimate case to be made for them to stay together... in a deal much less lucrative for Disney of course.)

 

[Peter Pirate]

Oh now that I agree with. Actually this whole affair is really moot from the Disney magic kind of standpoint. I mean this will ultimately be a business decision with both sides agreeing on a split they can live with or not. Job's isn't going to screw Disney because he dislikes Eisner and Eisner isn't going to jeopordize a new contract to try and get blood from the turnup...At least that's my view...

BTW Matt, I liked the "Caddyshack" quote much better...

 

[Bob O]

And of course you can be "bold" when you have someone like Lassiter working for you who knows how to tell a compelling story that people want too see, something disney used to do but has now apparently forgotten.

 

[Another Voice]

"Eisner isn't going to jeopordize a new contract to try and get blood from the turnup."

After the wild success of Infoseek, GO.com, Fox Family, the Anaheim Angels among many others it is clear to see Eisner's business brillance show through in all his deal makings.

I mean, look at Jeffry Katzenbeg and Michael Ovtiz. Only a keen and shrewd player like Eisner can manage personal relationships with such skill. No doubt his handling of Steve Job will be just as masterful.

Plus too, this is Hollywood. We're strictly business out here. We never let personal relationships get in the way of business. Steven Spielberg is just dying to get started on the Roger Rabbit sequel just as soon as his schedule frees up. But first maybe he can go help out George to put the finishing touches on the new film for 'Star Torus'.

Yup - I'd say Pixar is as good a bought right now. I mean with the strong buzz coming through for Disney's Home on the Range, who wouldn't wouldn't want to be associated with the studio responsible for that and Treasure Planet. Look at all the free publicity that film got!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Come on my friend, don't twist it so. I wasn't even close to implying that Eisner's business making decision ability is to be considered good but I do not believe he would intentionally screw this up because he's a 'bad guy'. Not a tough concept, really.

 

[ThAnswr]

>>>Come on my friend, don't twist it so. I wasn't even close to implying that Eisner's business making decision ability is to be considered good but I do not believe he would intentionally screw this up because he's a 'bad guy'. Not a tough concept,really. <<<<


Allow me please to make the bold move of clarifying AV's post.

I don't believe AV is saying Ei$ner would screw up a deal because he's a "bad guy".

I believe he's saying Ei$ner would screw up a deal because he doesn't have the sense to recognize a good deal if it bit him in the *ss.

In other words, screwing it up purely by accident because he doesn't know any better.

How'd I do?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice
I mean, look at Jeffry Katzenbeg and Michael Ovtiz. Only a keen and shrewd player like Eisner can manage personal relationships with such skill. No doubt his handling of Steve Jobs will be just as masterful.

Yeah, he certainly doesn't have the interpersonal skills and flawless business judgment that Jobs has shown.

Just for fun, anyone see this?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/techcorporatenews/2003-07-24-ibm_x.htm

And I think it's interesting that so much credit for Pixar's creative success is given to one man, Lasseter. Hmmmmm. Hope they got him locked up good.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by ThAnswr I believe he's saying Ei$ner would screw up a deal because he doesn't have the sense to recognize a good deal if it bit him in the *ss.[/B]

Just the way he screwed up by doing the current 5-picture Co-Production Agreement? Seems like that deal worked out pretty good.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by HB2K A company that works for Disney but not Pixar is the only one defending Disney in this article? I find that rather telling.... [/B]

And who in the article is saying Pixar's brand is so strong vs. Disney's? Oh, yeah, Steve Jobs.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Mr. ThAnswr, sir...my new friend Dancing Bear already said what I would have, practically verbatim...

 

[HB2K]

Bear-

And I think it's interesting that so much credit for Pixar's creative success is given to one man, Lasseter. Hmmmmm. Hope they got him locked up good.

I believe he is....if memory serves, Disney tried to hire him away from Pixar and Pixar in turn signed him long term.

And while I think Lassiter has his finger on the pulse of the public better than most, Monsters Inc. proved Pixar is more than a one man show.

Just the way he screwed up by doing the current 5-picture Co-Production Agreement? Seems like that deal worked out pretty good.

The proof is in the pudding. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. Keeping Pixar (and at what terms) will be a real test of Ei$ner's mettle.

And who in the article is saying Pixar's brand is so strong vs. Disney's? Oh, yeah, Steve Jobs.

Just the fact that there is an article on the subject matter (which is attached to the DIS stock symbol) speaks volumes.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by HB2K
Just the fact that there is an article on the subject matter (which is attached to the DIS stock symbol) speaks volumes.

I think the fact that the article features quotes from Jobs speaks volumes---sounds to me like Pixar putting a story out there to turn up the heat a bit.

Re Lassiter, yes, he has a long-term contract, which was attached to their public filings. I guess I'm just saying that Pixar's assets are (1) their technical prowess, and (2) a few talented individuals. The USAToday article shows others are working on the technical aspects. And talent is, presumably, available.

So, if Eisner doesn't get Pixar, he may just need to sign up with IBM's venture, and go out and hire the next Lassiter. Now, as to whether Eisner would know creative genius if it bit him in the ***, is an open question.

 

[DancingBear]

Incidentally, from Pixar's most recent 10-K:

although it is standard in the motion picture industry to rely on employment agreements as a method of retaining the services of key employees, we have not required our employees, other than Mr. Lasseter, to enter into employment agreements.

 

[HB2K]

I guess I'm just saying that Pixar's assets are (1) their technical prowess, and (2) a few talented individuals.

So what? I'll conceed that point. Honestly that's all any company is made of....

So, if Eisner doesn't get Pixar, he may just need to sign up with IBM's venture, and go out and hire the next Lassiter. Now, as to whether Eisner would know creative genius if it bit him in the ***, is an open question.

I agree. I doubt he could find such talent since

A) He has had it in house and let it go
B) With the manner that the talent was let go, there are going to be hard feelings which might come into play.