savedisney.com nonbelievers

[crusader]

breralex -

I'm still not in Roy and Stan's court for many reasons. After hearing them yesterday it became apparent they were at war with the board.

I will say that what they did yesterday was outstanding and far more than I had expected. I will concede that their campaign accomplished a great deal and from the many employed individuals I met yesterday (past and present), it was clear that the leadership at Disney had tremendously failed them.

For the first time in over a decade, they were given a voice and for that, I am thankful to Roy and Stan.

However, I am convinced there was quite a political movement involved with the voting, which is not in the best interest of this company. Many of the funds and many of the corporate bigwigs holding shares had personal agendas and used Disney to foment them.

They took advantage of an opportunity. Now that the board has made a change, they won't be able to apply the same spin/reasoning on national television. What that means and where that takes us will be the real question. My personal feeling is that when the contract is up, Michael will not remain. That's two years from now which is enough time to continue this upward movement in company growth.

Save disney is a noble cause if it truly means that. I watched the msnbc interview they gave after the meeting and couldn't believe how Roy was responding to the Comcast issue. He never stated his opposition almost as if his hands were tied.

You can't sell out to win a cause. I remain cautious and skeptical.

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... just haven't checked all the new stuff yet, but it appears the end result of the vote is that ME is still CEO and Mitchell is Chairman. Is that a victory ? I'm not saying that in a sarcastic or "I told you so" manner, but Mitchell is a board member R&S wanted gone and basically what he got was a promotion and ME is still CEO with virtually the same power.

The power split may look good for the Wall Street types, but for all intents and purposes nothing has changed for us "fanatics".

 

[Another Voice]

The split was a well planned move, more PR than anything real. The only way Eisner will give up power is when it's pryed from his cold, dead hands.

The era of the Imperial CEO is over. It makes sense that the most public, most well paid, and least deserving memember of that group - Eisner - should be the one targeted. America has had enough.

Selling-out Disney may be the only option. Eisner has destroyed massive chunks of the company and crippled what is left. Most of the damage is irreversible, much will take a generation to fix. The traditional core of the company – Animation – has been gutted and its reputation driven into the mud. The parks are collapsing under the weight of poorly executed expansion and the crushing burden of propping up the rest of the company. Other business such as the stores are dead. And the company's largest division, ABC, is now beyond resuce.

Due to the damage Eisner has caused over a prolonged period of time the question is not how to save Disney, the question is can it be accomplished at all.

 

[crusader]

Voice

It sounds as if you may be in favor of another company taking over this one.

That won't save it.

In fact, that's not what all the supporters are signing on to at all. You should have heard the noise when the mere mention of Comcast came up. Nobody wants the company to lose its' independence. If the plan reveals itself to include that, Eisner will gain favor just to stop it.

 

[Another Voice]

Of course I don't want another company to take Disney. I just think that things may have gone bad for so long there may be little hope in stopping it.

The best solution would be for someone else to take all of Eisner's garbage (ABC, Fox Family, etc.) and spin Real Disney off back as a publically traded corporation. Perhaps a merger with Pixar, Dreamworks or someone else would help that.

Second best would be for the take-over company to keep Real Disney as a division with the corporation. That would at least allow Disney a degree of freedom.

But Eisner's plan was to create a media monster where "Disney" was nothing but a brand name slapped on whatever product he thought he could make a buck from. The 50% of that plan he implemented killed his company. I'd rather see Disney taken with a chance for survival than remain with Eisner where it will surely die.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Dreamworks

What an interesting thought. Mayby the evil midget wouldn't be so evil after all.

 

[crusader]

Of course I don't want another company to take Disney. I just think that things may have gone bad for so long there may be little hope in stopping it.

I respect your opinion and honestly feel you have a legitimate concern.

It's not too late for Disney.

Eventhough, they have certainly launched an aggressive international campaign to expand their markets which looks frightening on a powerpoint presentation. That is exactly what's involved when you're dealing with publicly traded corporation of this magnitude. Disney is a global competitor and they need to explore every market which pertains to their industry.

Eventhough, they have apparantly lost most of their feature animation division right now. (Chicken Little may be in dire need of more story from little clip we were shown) To me, that's simply a matter of investment. Their name remains unequivocally strong in this regard.

ABC is another issue. I disagree with you looking to drop it and have Disney become smaller. From what I understood yesterday, the ratings are all about the prime time window and a certain age demographic.

Whomever has the highest percentage of viewers per night / per show gets the biggest advertising chunk. Given there are only 6 half-hour slots being measured on a percentage of viewership an evening, with no regard to any other leading industry ratings including daytime it becomes difficult to just wave everything away as a simple failure.

I'm not buying that argument.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Most of the damage is irreversible, much will take a generation to fix. The traditional core of the company – Animation – has been gutted and its reputation driven into the mud. The parks are collapsing under the weight of poorly executed expansion and the crushing burden of propping up the rest of the company. Other business such as the stores are dead. And the company's largest division, ABC, is now beyond resuce." ***

Why do you think it's irreversible ?

Why can't animators be hired back, creative talent allowed to thrive ? Why can't the next "Lion King" be right around the corner ?

I disagree that the parks are collapsing. In need of some work-yes, irreversible-no.

Put the right products back into DS and they will thrive again.

Why is ABC beyond rescue ? Again,same as FA, hire the right people and allow them to work.

If the atmosphere of ME is gone, people that have left Disney may jump at the chance to return. But what do i know, I'm a "glass half full" kinda guy.

 

[jlambrig]

Originally posted by Another Voice
The era of the Imperial CEO is over.

Hardly, and in specific cases it isn't needed. It is dependent on the individual. Herb Kelleher is a perfect example of one who rules and rules well. Eisner has managed to injure Disney dramatically. If Disney can find the right leadership, I could care less if it is one person who provides the culture and direction of the firm. Just get the right one.

 

[BRERALEX]

Does that make them non-believers of their own campaign?

lol damn i got caught on that one