Link to article: Eisner finds support in strange place - Pooh Corner

[Luv2Roam]

http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/12/04/rtr1170367.html

 

[crusader]

I just read this myself and found it to be extremely interesting. I don't believe the timing of the meeting they held was prompted by the board disruptions so much as it has to do with a certain highpowered attorney.

The foundation is a very intriguing concept.

We may have just witnessed a leap toward resolution here.

 

[Luv2Roam]

Glad to read consensus. Thought it was very interesting -- esp with the timing of the new well known feisty attorney.
And now the two opposing parties sound almost buddy-buddy. He needs something/someone to make it look as he is in control and can reasonably negotiate. "See -- even my business opponents like ME."

 

[Lesley]

I'm just wondering what the point of this article was....seemed like very little about the actual Pooh lawsuit and a bit of cheerleading for Eisner (the "sure, we're going after Disney...but Eisner is a great business leader" )

I mean, who cares what this woman thinks of Eisner? Interesting about the lawyer though....I thought lawyers generally specialized in one area of law or another. Or perhaps "high profile" is this guy's specialized area?

 

[Luv2Roam]

That's been the point -- other than a lukewarm boost from the board, who has stepped up to Eisner's favor?
He probably gave up something in the lawsuit just so she could be quoted.

 

[DancingBear]

In an interview with Reuters, she said the Disney culture was flawed, but that Eisner could not be blamed.

Hmmm, if the guy who's been CEO for almost 20 years can't be blamed, just who does she think could be blamed?

 

[Another Voice]

Oh, this one's easy. You have a massive lawsuit against The Company that's about to come to trail. Do you want to:

a) Stand in the court fighting against a billionaire who is seen as destryoing an American institution out of pure greed?

or

b) Stand in the court fighting against the Last Heir of a figure beloved by all who has just resuced The Magic Kingdom from the claws of The Enemy.

At the same time Eisner is now rushing around trying to instanlty "solve" all his problems. Throwing lots of money at this lady is the easy and simple way out of the problem. The calculation used to be the cost of the settlement vs. the drop in stock price when they lost. But now the calculation is all about Eisner's survival.

And if there is one force in this world more powerful than Eisner's greed, it's Eisner's ego.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by Lesley
I mean, who cares what this woman thinks of Eisner?

That's exactly what I was just wondering?

Isn't she just a silver spoon kid?

It's sort of like David Lee Roth being quoted on the economics of the cheese export dynamic of Equador.

Who cares?

JC

 

[Peter Pirate]

Dancing Bear, while I usually agree with your statements and always appreciate you logic...In this case, talking about 'Disney culture' and why wouldn't the CEO be to blame, I'd like to ask...Don't you think that this statement may be referring to the very animal that is Disney and not a specific direction they have taken? Perhaps the belief that what Disney has become (the Disney culture), the growth they have experienced (the growth they would have experienced no matter who's path they would have taken) is the root of the problem. The belief, or the fact, that growth (both size & profit) is necessary to survive in the corporate world could possibly be the very thing that ultimately kills Disney in the end, no matter what road is taken?

What do you think?

 

[Peter Pirate]

On another note, while I was posting AV responded and for once I am able to say that I agree wholeheartedly with his assesmenet of what is going on in this circumstance...Greed and survival...And sadly, I think we'll be seeing a lot of unseemly behavior in the future...

 

[raidermatt]

I agree with your last statment, Pete, which of course is agreeing with AV's assessment.

Don't you think that this statement may be referring to the very animal that is Disney and not a specific direction they have taken? Perhaps the belief that what Disney has become (the Disney culture), the growth they have experienced (the growth they would have experienced no matter who's path they would have taken) is the root of the problem.

I can't say for sure what the lady meant. But I can definitely say that if she meant what you are proposing she may have, I couldn't disagree more.

The culture that she refers to is one that she believes has literally cheated her out of hundreds of millions of dollars. One of greed and dishonesty. That's her perspective.

That is not inherent to any large company. I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't some people like this in most companies, and that many of them never get caught. But when you talk about something like this being prevalent in a company's culture, no, it was not inevitable, and yes, when a CEO is at the helm for nearly 20 years, he carries the most responsibility.

If you talking more about the type of culture referenced in Roy and Stanley's letters, one of micro-management, intimidation, and looking for the quick buck, then I'd say that certainly that is the easiest direction for a culture to go. But again, not inevitable. And again, a 19 year CEO bears the most responsibility for it happening.

That's not to say nobody else would have taken the company down that path, or even that MOST leaders wouldn't have done it. Only that there are leaders who would have chosen the path less taken, and its somebody like that that must be found to lead Disney.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Mr. J. Cricket
That's exactly what I was just wondering?

Isn't she just a silver spoon kid?

It's sort of like David Lee Roth being quoted on the economics of the cheese export dynamic of Equador.

Who cares?

JC

Oh come on ... if she had come out in favor of Roy, you guys would be all over that, and adding her to the list of supporters. But the fact that she came out in favor of Michael means her opinion doesn't count.

 

[raidermatt]

Rather than speculating about what others would say, how about simply providing a reason why what has been said is incorrect.

What industry does she work in that makes her worthy of a Reuters report?

Is she a major shareholder in the company?

Are her comments consistent with the course of her more than a decade old beef with the company?

She admits Disney's culture is flawed, but offers no explanation other that it isn't Eisner's fault. If Eisner bears no responsibility, who does?

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Oh come on ... if she had come out in favor of Roy, you guys would be all over that, and adding her to the list of supporters. But the fact that she came out in favor of Michael means her opinion doesn't count.

I would do just that, add her to a list. No more, no less.

Her opinion does count, just as much as your's or mine does. Without knowing what makes her opinion worthy of the report as Matt is asking is my point.
I think Reuters should release a rebuttal from someone else who is just as news worthy (or not news worthy to be more precise).

Without the background info for support, it's just DJ Mike spinning the wheel's of steel and he is not taking any requests.

JC

 

[Peter Pirate]

Her opinion matters because she is embroiled in a lawsuit with Disney. The fact that she supports her adversary instead of siding with his enemy is surely intended to show respect even in the face of an adversarial relationship. Her opinion matters because she is relevent to current Disney.

Matt, I tried to answer why it could be that she feels eisner bears no responsibility through a generic interprutation of the 'Disney culture.' Do you really believe that in viewing the big picture that someone (not necessarily me or you) could not have the opinion that 'Disney culture' (meaning the culture that has formed such loyalty & loathing in its apparant attemept to generalize and monopolize American culture) was doomed to failure based on its concept alone? If you do, I'm at a loss to judge how you could view this so-called big picture.

Certainly Walt's original conception of the business he started wouldn't have led him to the kunundrum that exists in the marketplace today but that doesn't change the fact that 'all roads lead to Rome.' A small quality company can only stay small for so long. They can only stay small, quality & profitable for even less time. The race begins for the company to maximize it's potential within the realm of producing quality at a growth rate just ahead of the wolves. Small becomes, medium. Medium become large. Large becomes Mega. Quality slowly loses its luster as the focal point in the mass of product now being released to satisfy investors, management (at every level) and the consumer. The Company grows to not only keep the wolves at bay but keep Wall St. happy. The quality of the product now looks less important than the margins of return to the layers and layers of accountants, financial wizards and management that now worries more about Wall St. than quality.

I know you disagree and I agree that it is very sad but how can you refute the path?

 

[Another Voice]

"I know you disagree and I agree that it is very sad but how can you refute the path?"

Because the "magic" of Disney has always been ways of doing the impossible - from turning a tiny cartoon studio into a major for in entertainment, from turning an amusement park into a destination result, from turning TV shows into a cultural force.

The Disney "magic" would have been to be a large compant that still focused on those things that made it great to begin with: quality, imgination, ambition. It would not have been easy, but if any company could have acheived it than it would have been Disney.

But Eisner choose the easy way. He choose the path of personal greed, of excuse making and corruption.

The answer isn't to throw up your hands and say "big companies don't care, there's nothing we can do" and say "we're going to make it work on this scale".

Either Disney tries to be different, so just sell the bloody mess to ComCast now and get it over with.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Why is it you always try to make me look like the 'bad guy' when I'm either being a devil's advocate or stating the facts of the way things currently are?

I'm all for the magic being put back into Disney by somebody who really cares, but it takes more than "somebody." It will also take board members with insight who can look past wall st. criticisim and past 'pie in the sky' growth results. It will also take investors who wish to sacrifice short term gain for long term results (do you know anybody like this?).

I hate the way the business world operates. I hate that Haliburton & Bechtel got non-competetive contracts because of who they know. I hate that sports teams are subsidized by the uninformed tax payers. I hate that sex sells. I hate that business care more about the bottom line than they do their family of employees (see the other thread about Disney layoffs at Christmas). I hate the greed that permeates the me, me, me world we live in. If you can show me how to do my part in participating in a real change I'll do it but boycotts don't work, politicians and CEO's are chameleons and you can't trust your neighbor.

So Mr. Voice, don't mistake me for something I'm not but if no one ever played devils advocate around here we'd never have any discussion around here...So I stand by characterization of what some folks would call the 'Disney culture' and its doomed to fail philosophy...

 

[DancingBear]

By way of explanation to Mr. Pirate:

I find her comments rather odd, given that (i) she has been embroiled in a very contentious lawsuit with Disney over many years (just who does she think sets the policy for the litigation), and (ii) she just hired Johny Cochran, of all people---not a move which would seem to have been taken to facilitate a speedy negotiated resolution to the matter.

I don't know what she meant by Disney's corporate culture, but I think the use of such phrase generally, such as in an article in the Wall Street Journal or whatever, refers to the pervading attitude within a company having its roots in the personalities and policies of senior management. For example, think about what your impression would be of the "corporate culture" of Southwest Airlines, or Microsoft. To me, definitely reflective of the individual leaders there.

This interview reads like Eisner was able to charm her in their summer luncheon. I've seen plenty of situations where executives who have been instructing their attorneys all along to act as bulldogs suddenly play good cop/bad cop when talking to the businessmen on the other side, saying "look, these attorneys are just running wild with this issue, I'm sure if we just got the damn lawyers out of the way, we can get this thing settled...." That looks like what happened here.

 

[Peter Pirate]

DB, I agree the whole situation is odd and I think AV put it well when he explained whats going on and that seemed to agree with your take , as well.

I just thought it'd be interesting to discuss the "Disney culture' comment because away from these boards many, many people have very negative feelings about Disney, what it stands for )past & present) including Eisner and Walt himself...

 

[raidermatt]

Pete, again, I don't deny that the path you described is the path most take. There's really no debate there.

The only real question is, with respect to Disney, do we accept what has happened as inevitable because that's how it usually works, or do we "fight" for change, in however small a capacity that might be?

If you can show me how to do my part in participating in a real change I'll do it but boycotts don't work, politicians and CEO's are chameleons and you can't trust your neighbor.

Pete, I don't know what drove you to such a defeatest point, but effecting change has never been easy, nor has the ability to do so left us.

Are you honestly saying change is no longer possible?

Of course it is, and in this case, we aren't talking about changing the world, or the legal system, or even the way this country does business. We're talking about one single company taking the path less travelled, a path they successfully followed for many years.

There is NO doubt it can be done. The only questions are whether the leaders of this fight have what it takes, and if the rest of us are going to do our part.