I'm actually more in agreement with Pete on this than one might initially think.
Its hard to really know what's in another man's mind, particularly one whom I've never met, and really, isn't that much of a public figure. But I tend to agree with Pete that Roy's main beef in all of this was how he was treated by Eisner. I think he was justifiably peeved, but that again, his issues were largely about him.
I don't think that was 100% the case, in that I really do think he has had issues with Eisner for quite some time. He (along with Stanley) was the voice of opposition on the board for awhile. But he simply lacked the power to do much about it.
Pete is also right that for the majority of the stockholders, the insitutional investors, its really is about the bottom line. As noted by DB, their's nothing wrong with that, except that they are largely focused on the short term. They also don't really have a true understanding of the business. Sure, they have "industry analysts", but these are largely numbers guys who don't get the true essence of Disney's products. They are the same folks who told us Disney had the new park thing down, and that DCA was going to be a smash. I saw several of them estimate The Incredibles would gross $200 million or perhaps less because of the competition and time of year it was being released. They know how to do calculations, but when it comes to the entertainment business at least, they just don't get it.
But, that aside, Pete's right that if they are supporting Eisner, he's not going to get the kind of negative vote he got last year. That's just a fact of life. And therefore, barring some kind of very significant event, Eisner is safe through the end of his epic-length retirement. (assuming he does truly retire...)
I don't think that's what Roy had in mind. It certainly isn't what we had in mind.
In that respect he failed. Sure, he succeeded in getting an unprecedented withhold vote for Eisner and even Mitchell, but in the end, Eisner was entrenched to the point that he could even withstand that. I doubt any other CEO in the country would have made it through, but Eisner did.
Roy really accomplished two things:
1- He showed you really can successfully stage a shareholder revolt. You had just better be sure that your target isn't so strong that it doesn't matter.
2- He did get a retirement announcement out of Eisner much earlier than would have otherwise happened. Is Eisner actually retiring any sooner than he would have? Good question. Many assumed he was gone when his contract was up. But given the way he has withstood the past year and a half or so, I think that may have been a faulty assumption.
Of course, we might never know for sure, and we also need to make sure the guy actually does retire as announced.
So, bottom line, did Roy and SaveDisney "fail"? Yeah, for the most part. They made some noise, and probably made a few minor tangible changes. But certainly based on what we hoped they'd accomplish, and what they said they'd accomplish, they fell short.
I attribute that as much to Eisner's entrenchment as to Roy's failures. Regardless of Roy's motivation, most would have thought the withhold vote they acheived would have been enough to force more significant changes.
At this point, its clear Roy is done. Eisner has weathered this particular storm.
The only thing I'd take strong issue with is the idea that Roy was always a pretender. From a motivation pov, maybe, maybe not. But from a results pov, certainly he got the job done 21 years ago, bringing us the Eisner/Wells team. Unfortunately, the Frankenstein that developed has gotten out of control.
