Wall Street Frets over Disney's Feuds & Slumping Sales

[dcentity2000]

Eisner had a good period - probably due to the optimising of a respected, good brand name with good talent - and a bad period - probably due to a shift in market focus away from animated films and all things associate.

Point is, he's not as much to blame or to applaud as you might think. The most you can do is consider his streamlining when first at Disney and his recent failure to shift the company around to fall in with demand; both can be discussed as regards to how appropriate they were.



Rich::

 

[crusader]

Clearly it was not in this thread that last year's box office success was given as a reason Eisner should not be let go.

Matt, I don't believe anyone here offered up a reason Eisner "shouldn't" be let go. At best, there were discussions on the company's performance overall in comparison to the past and how that may impact the future.

Where Eisner comes into this has to do with power, management, control and oversight. His role to me has always been of considerable interest strictly in terms of that.

I've often said, he'd be given another chance but my reasons were far more varied than the performance at the box office. That in no way implied whether or not he should or shouldn't be let go it simply added to the reasoning as to why he may ultimately weather Roy's storm.

Some of those same folks are now writing off this year's struggles as part of an inevitable cycle.

Comeon! The box office is a crap shoot - at best. Just look at the blockbusters this year - two sequels and the Passion. Heck even Troy bombed!

Are you saying every one of Disney's films this year failed due to a lack of creativity? I disagree. That's not the reason.

Am I writing off this year's struggles? No way. I've always looked at the motion picture business much differently than the other divisions - and yes, the guy at the top bears the responsibility for that like it or not.

Now I want to ask you the same question: Did you write off every success?