Reports of Disney's demise greatly exaggerated?

[KidDurango]

Every quarter, the naysayers and doom seers, along with a great number of the so called experts scream and rant and rave that the writing is on the wall, and that Disney will not be able to keep up. They say profits are going to drop substantially faster than the rest of the business world and everyone should drop their Disney stock now. Then the next quarterly earnings report comes out, and Disney has beat all estimates, which would normally cause stock prices to climb. Instead the analysts say , "Wow that was great, there is no way they can do it again, sell your stock now." So stock prices drop on even good news from the company. This has been going on for more than two years, and it is the same every quarter.
For those that are trashing this report as making money off of laying people off, then you are not actually reading the report. Profits were actually considerably higher, but the numbers were reduced due to the cost of paying all those severance packages. If things stay slow in the eceonomy, you will really see these cut backs were a smart move.
Yes, the company has layed off a large number of Imagineers, but that is the nature of the project business. Over an eighteen month period the company will have opened three theme parks. Each park had its own team of hundreds of Imagineers. Even if every park greenlighted a major E-ticket right now (a thought that is dreamy for some but fiscally irresposible in the real world) there would still be hundreds of Imagineers walking out the door.
As for box office, look at the box office across the board. Outside of Shrek, I dare you to name on film that has done as well as its parent studio expected this summer. Before you argue that that shows that Dreamworks knows how to do it right, please step back and look at A.I., created by one of the untouchable triumverate at Dreamworks. A.I. was supposed to be this amazing film from one of the greatest directors of all times and his recently deceased muse, but it has virtually disappeared from the box office.
Eisner is not always right, and some mistakes are being made, but he is not inherently evil, and the companies death certificate has not been signed.

 

[Another Voice]

No one cares about meeting analysts’ expectations. Disney has buildings stuffed with accountants to manipulate whatever number they need to reach. The important issue is the year-over-year comparison because that tells you how things are going.

The figure most toted is that the company is flat verses last year. But that’s not the real number. Certain “exceptional” charges were excluded from this number for “analysis purposes”, including the continuing losses from the Internet activities, the loss on DisneyQuest Chicago, some of the costs of the lay-offs, etc.

The real number shows a 28% DECREASE from last year’s number and a substantial shortfall from estimates. This never ending cycle of “cost control measures” seems to be costing Disney ever increasing amounts of cash but has yet to produce any true results. The “exceptional” charges continue to show that many of the operations remain in serious trouble (DisneyQuest & DCA) and that the failed Internet strategy is continuing to bleed the company long after it had been declared “fixed”. And this quarter didn’t include many of the extraordinary costs that are being incurred by California Adventure which looks like it will impact the company for the next four years at a minimum.

On the increase in films, Disney spent almost a third of a billion dollars on production & marketing for ‘Pearl Harbor’ and ‘Atlantis’ – that’s right, a third of a billion dollars. And the best they can manage is a 9% increase over last summer’s ‘Gone in 60 Seconds’???? That doesn’t seem like a seem like a “smashing” performance (and remove the Hollywood accounting tricks and that arrow would have rapidly fallen in the other direction – but that will be a problem for another quarter). What are do they need to spend next year to push ‘Reign of Fire’ into producing growth?

As for ‘The Princess Bride’ – it’s actually a pretty good little movie. But it wasn’t an “internal Disney content creation”. The film is an adaptation from an existing children’s book done by an outside production company with an outside director. Disney is involved as the film’s distributor and because they were the only studio willing to put up money for a G-rated summer movie (for which I applaud Disney). And for all it’s good will the box office will be nice, but it certainly won’t be ‘Shrek’. Following right on the heels of ‘Princess’ we also get two other stunning films from Disney: ‘Bubble Boy’ and ‘Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back’. I don’t see many posts proclaiming those films as signs that all is okay.

It’s also interesting to note that Disney is fairing far worse than any of the other media companies. AOLTimeWarner posted a 3% increase despite much higher exposure to ad revenues and a vastly greater exposure to the Internet. Viacom is holding its own. On the parks, Disney is reporting twice the attendance fall off as the other parks and also twice the reduction in hotel room occupancy (International Drive is only off 4%). Why is Disney doing worse than the other if Eisner is so far ahead of the curve?

 

[lrodk]

Roger Ebert gave Princess Diaries 1&1/2 stars out of a possibe 4 today, while the USA Today gave it 3 out of 4 stars. Apparantly reviews are mixed, which is one negative going into it's premier weekend. IN addition, most of the reviews that I've read thus far have suggested that this film would appeal mostly to the female audience. In other words, it's a one-dimensional film. I don't think that a targeted movie such as this can over-achieve at the box office, certainly not enough to consider it a hit. Just MHO.

The fact that they beat earnings was a good thing, but so long as Eisner continues to buy radio stations, magazines and other networks, I would not be buying the stock. I would much rather see them get back to basics. Focus on the core business(live-action, animation, theme parks, consumer products). Everything else is just a diversion that ultimately forces them to divert money away from more profitable divisions(like the parks, animation, and occasionally live-action films). I don't dislike Eisner, but I have lost confidence in him over the past 3 years as the leader of my favorite company. He just keeps contradicting himself. One day he says they're a content company. The next thing you hear is that they're buying someone elses content(Fox Family Channel). And what was all that business about Disney wanting to buy into AT&Ts cable division? If that ever came to be we wouldn't get another new ride until possibly the next decade. The topper for me was when he said that he was getting back to core profitable businesses and dumping less profitable ones. Then he goes out the following month and buys US Weekly(which is currently in the red) just becaus it was cheap. He actually said it was a "great buy".

If you had purchased Disney stock in late 1997, you would be no better for it today, nearly four years later. That in itself is down right pitiful, especially when you consider that other media companies thrived during the same period. So until I see a positive trend develop, or until I see new and innovative projects in developement, and stop hearing about lay-offs, I'm not going to get too excited here.

 

[hopemax]

As for ‘The Princess Bride’ – it’s actually a pretty good little movie

The Princess Bride is an excellent movie, however I thought we were talking about the Princess Diaries.

 

[anim8or98]

Films under Touchstone, Hollywood, Buena Vista, Walt Disney, or Miramax coming out in the next few years:

Tron 2.0 (2002)
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
Finding Nemo (2003 - Computer animated w/ Pixar)
Monster's Inc. (2001)
Black Sheep (2002 - Chris Rock, Anthony Hopkins)
Fletch Won (2002 - by Kevin Smith)
Frida (2002 - About the life of Frida Kahlo starring Salma Hayek, Alfred Molina, Ashley Judd, Antonio Banderas, Edward Norton, and Geoffrey Rush)
Lilo and Stitch ( 2002 animated feature)
Treasure Planet (2002 or 2003 animated feature)
Beauty and the Beast in IMAX (late 2001 early 2002)
A View From the Top (2002 - Gweneth Paltrow, Christina Apllegate, Marc Blucas)
Tuck Everlasting (William Hurt, Siisy Spacek)
Total Recall 2 (2001)
The Rookie (2002 - Dennis Quaid)
The Importance of Being Earnest (Tom Wilkinson, Anna Massey, Judi Dench)
Gangs of New York (2001 - Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Liam Neeson)
Corky Romano (Chris Kattan)
Big Trouble (Tim Allen, Omar Epps, Jason Lee, Janeane Garofalo, Rene Russo, Tom Sizemore, Heavy D, Stanley Tucci, Johnny Knoxville, Andy Richter)
Princess Diaries


Just a few coming out in the next two years...

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Personally I'd love to see Disney do an AT&T. Spin off certain business (like Capital Cities)
Get back to the core of movies & theme parks (and stores of course). Let the rest go.

I believe Pearl Harbour is redeeming itself overseas so it isn't the bomb people are describing it as. It isn't a hit either.

And what movie aside from Shrek was a blockbuster?...The Mummy Returns...but I think Jurassic Park & Planet of the Apes will probably be blockbusters. Uh...which of these was a Disney pic?

And Princess Diaries...I've seen far more reviews panning it than praising it although Julie Andrews got a lot of praise.

So...I think Disney is going to have some rough seas ahead. I don't think meeting the estimates really says anything about the company going anywhere..its not like estimates these days are all that robust anyway.

 

[JimB.]

Definition of a blockbuster???

In 13 weeks - The Mummy Returns - $200,945,110

In 10 weeks - Pearl Harbor - $193,662,453 (With 25% less showings)


So, accordingly $7 mill difference is what makes a "blockbuster"

Or are we playing with a mild double standard bolstered by a dose of "anti-Mike negativity"?

Jurassic Park III - $124,824,290 in 2 weeks. GREAT NUMBERS!!!! But in week 2, only $22,542,645. That's an 80%+ drop.

When I was flying in the Navy, the bombs I dropped didn't fall THAT fast!!!

 

[Another Voice]

The difference between ‘The Mummy Returns’ and ‘Pearl Harbor’ is that Disney spent about twice as much on ‘Pearl’ as than Universal spent on ‘Mummy’. It’s not how fast the bombs fall – it’s whether they hit the target or not.

The other difference is the industry’s perception about these movies. ‘Mummy’, ‘Jurassic Park’, ‘Fast & Furious’, ‘Apes’ all have the glow of a “hit” about them which will translate into more rental places buying video cassettes, more retailers stocking up on DVD’s and cable channels paying more for the rights. ‘Pearl’ is perceived as a flop and that means fewer copies at Blockbuster, steeper discounts through Amazon.com and less push on pay-per-view. It’s a spiral that guarantees lower revenue throughout all of the non-theatrical distribution channels.

The international box office for ‘Pearl’ is okay – which would have been good news if ‘Pearl’ hadn’t cost so much to make. Even the reports from Japan turned out to be too optimistic; the film generated moderately good results but still was beaten by ‘A.I.’.

The results can already be felt around the studio. Several projects have been cancelled and Disney has essentially pulled out of the original material market. For the next couple of years, the studio looks like it is relying on sequels (who’s excited for a sequel to ‘Shanghai Noon’!), remakes (the rumors about a remake of ‘Brain’s Song’ are true) and “ride movies” (‘Country Bears’ and ‘Pirates!’ are the first in the series). Cheaper and "proven" material. They’ve also begun to play everything as “safe” as possible with product in production – screenings of ‘Treasure Planet’ are being held for focus groups to so that the film’s ending can be re-written to ensure a “crowd pleaser”. The same type of creativity that helped ‘Pearl Harbor’ so much.

And Mr. Lrodk – it sounds as if you’re treading dangerously close to those of us on The Dark Side.

 

[airlarry!]

Harumph.

AV: Usually I agree with you, but not on this point:

My wife and I *can't wait* for Shangai Knight!

'Course we are Jackie Chan nuts, and I love Owen Wilson's work.

hehehehehehe

 

[Laurajean1014]

Disney is an exceptional company with people whom are incredibly loyal to it (employees, dvcrs, vacationers, investors, etc)! They have exceeded the popluations expectations of a cartoon character into an entertainment icon that will outlive all of us!

If we need to discuss failled expectations, let's talk about Cabbage Patch Dolls, Beanie Babies, Smurfs, Pokemon cards...............and the list goes on......................

 

[lrodk]

And Mr. Lrodk – it sounds as if you’re treading dangerously close to those of us on The Dark Side.

Well, I wouldn't go that far Mr AV. I do see cause for concern in many aspects of the company. But my real Disney fix comes from the parks at WDW. And without exception, they still have the right formula down there. If things start to get ugly on that front, then I may join the ranks of the disenchanted in whatever carpool I can find. As a whole, I sincerely believe that the company needs to have a percise and decisive prime directive. I simply don't see that right now. I don't care who gets the job done. The important thing is that this boat gets righted, and fairly quickly, before it drifts into pirate infested waters(no disrespect to Mr Pirate and YoHo ). If Eisner can do it then let him prove his worth(he hasn't in the past 3&1/2 years IMHO). I give him one more year. If Disney's market cap hasn't improved by then and continues to lag it's peers, then it's time for new blood(4 years would have been a fair amount of time to give anyone). I'm sure he's on notice, and no doubt there's great pressure on him right now. My feeling is that he won't get it done. It seems that Mr Eisner lost his "Midas Touch" somewhere between Disneyland Paris and the multi-level parking garage at DCA. Let him prove me wrong and I'll be the first to come forward and admit it. For anyone who feels that I am an Eisner basher, nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't hate or dislike anyone who I haven't met. That wouldn't be fair. Just to be clear, what I don't like about Eisner is his recent and well documented short-comings(ie poor decisions) as a CEO. His past success is no excuse for running a perfectly good company into the ground. If he can pull Disney up from down under then I'll be happier than a clam. Somehow I'm afraid that won't be the case.

 

[JeffJewell]

I don't hate or dislike anyone who I haven't met. That wouldn't be fair. Just to be clear, what I don't like about Eisner is his recent and well documented short-comings(ie poor decisions) as a CEO. His past success is no excuse for running a perfectly good company into the ground. If he can pull Disney up from down under then I'll be happier than a clam. Somehow I'm afraid that won't be the case.

...because your quote, in 100 words or less, precisely describes my feelings concerning Eisner.

Jeff

 

[popy]

Well now, sould we BUY, SELL or HOLD ?

 

[JeffJewell]

sould we BUY, SELL or HOLD

...it's a complete crapshoot.

Personally, I think that Disney shares are currently low-priced, that Eisner has finally taken enough rope to hang himself, and that almost any reasonable replacement will do a better job.

The "reasonable replacement" is the tricky part. When I want to take Eisner down, it's not the man himself, it's the way Disney was run while he was running it. So if it's those policies we want to get rid of, Eisner pets Iger and Pressler are not reasonable replacements.

The question becomes, "how do you think this will go down?" If you think Eisnergate ends with a neat resignation and a quick (and lucrative) pardon from the Board and new muck-a-muck Iger, HOLD, we haven't hit bottom yet.

If you think the long rumored new broom of a corporate raid is about to start sweeping, BUY, there's nowhere to go but up.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Lrodk, I think our opinions are almost identical with one exception. Where you see Mr. Eisner’s “Midas Touch”, I see the work of many talented individuals that worked without the benefit of the Corporate PR machine. I witnessed very little “genius” from the guy at top, but an awful lot of skill and hard work by people behind the curtain. The loss of those people over the years has brought the company to this state – and exposed weaknesses that have been there all along.

The chances of a smooth transition from Eisner another CEO are now nonexistent. The blunders over AT&T Broadband, the mistake of Fox Family, and five years of stagnation have made the company too tempting of a target. Disney used to be a leader, and then it fell into the middle of the herd. Now it’s trailing the media pack - back in the place where all the coyotes wait for the old, the slow, and the weak.