43% withhold vote on Eisner

[WickerBill]

Don't know if anyone here cares about Disney ... but hopefully:

http://www.savedisney.com/cartoons/images/GangdumpsMike_lg.gif

[oddlycalm]

Don't know if anyone here cares about Disney ...
Good news, and good riddance (hopefully). I can think of a couple of dozen (at least) other companies that could use a similar spring cleaning of the executive suite.

oc

[fourrunner]

I was in Center City Philadelphia Today and saw many protesters outside the Convention Center with signs both pro - Eisner & anti - Eisner.... All the While Micky & Goofy were entertaining children on the sidewalks...

The Irony is the meeting was being held just a couple of blocks from Comcasts Headquarters :)

[Ankf00]

that's what you get when you kick Walt Disney's own nephew out of the company :p

[Chaos]

would someone care to explain what is going on to me? Or post a link that explains what's going on. What are they withdrawing from?

[dando]

would someone care to explain what is going on to me? Or post a link that explains what's going on. What are they withdrawing from?

Check out savedisney.org (http://savedisney.org ) for the dissident side of the story. Here is a linky (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&q=disney) to Google news for stories on the vote. Suffice it to say there is much shareholder backlash over the performance of Disney's stock over the past several years, as well as concern over corporate governance issues. The group leading the effort to oust Eisner is being led by Walt's nephew Roy Disney and his long-time business associate Stanley Gold. Both are former Disney board members that were either forced out, or left to lead this effort. Quite an ugly battle over the past several weeks. The news of Pixar ending its partnership with Disney a few weeks ago followed by the Comcast buyout offer really caused this to snowball.

-Kevin

[Brickman]

Toast

[KLang]

The former senator from Maine, George Mitchell, is taking over as chairman. What the heck does Mitchell know about running an entertainment company?

[WickerBill]

The former senator from Maine, George Mitchell, is taking over as chairman. What the heck does Mitchell know about running an entertainment company?


This will not do. Mitchell is an Eisner crony. Mitchell and Eisner are one brain and two bodies. This does NOTHING to address the concerns that Eisner has run the company in the ground with cost-cutting measures and refuses to invest to improve quality. Eisner must go, Mitchell must go. But mostly Eisner. Mitchell is so deep in Eisner's pocket, he has given names to Eisner's pocket lint.

You know it's bad when I almost wanted Comcast to succeed in the takeover.

[KLang]

WB, you must own stock or work for a disney company?

[WickerBill]

Don't work for -- but the parks are my favorite place to be and I own some stock.

[Turn7]

Don't work for -- but the parks are my favorite place to be and I own some stock.

I used to love going there myself. EPCOT was futuristic and a wonderful place in the begining. I went around 3 years ago and felt as if I was on the forgotten set of Logan's Run. The lexan statue in front of the sphere was dingy yellow and the fountains were in disrepair and not functioning properly. While on Spaceship Earth, the ride stopped repeatedly with mechanical problems, ect.

The only upgrades that I noticed were to the merchandising areas at Downtown Disney.

[Winston Wolfe]

anyone hear about his "buy out" or termination package?
If I recall,the local news "talking heads" said something to the effect of he makes about $100 Million per (with stock options, etc,) and his buyout would be something in the range of $400 million ???
Can anyone confirm or deny that?
If so, that sounds like he could start up his own entertainment company with that kind of scratch.... :eek:

[Ankf00]

shoulda gone to McComb's business school...

get paid to be a moron... then if I make it high enough, get paid even more to leave

sounds like the life :cool:

[oddlycalm]

This does NOTHING to address the concerns that Eisner has run the company in the ground with cost-cutting measures and refuses to invest to improve quality.

This is what happens when companies tie executive bonuses to quarterly profits. It's in Eisner's interest to pump up the financial results. Nobody pays him a dime more to improve quality. The Eisner approach wouldn't be the right answer for a bus company, let alone a company that depends on looks and feel to be successful. Eisner seems to feel Disney is his own private media conglomerate. I watched him on Nightline last night, and there was never a person that 'doesn't get it' any more that Eisner.

oc

[Sean O'Gorman]

With a net worth of $630 million, I think he "gets it" a little better than we do. :)

[WickerBill]

He's the richest man in the history of the world (supposedly) who did not create or help create the company that gave him his wealth. (source: CNN Money, I believe, about two weeks ago)

Makes me sick.

[oddlycalm]

With a net worth of $630 million, I think he "gets it" a little better than we do. :)

Depends on what your goal is Sean. I discovered a long time ago that it takes me a certain amount of money to live the way I want to, and anything more simply creates more work, as it has to be managed. I don't really enjoy the time I spend managing money, and learning how to do it took considerable time and effort, but each to his own.

I stand by my remark about Eisner not getting it. The fact that he lacks any ability to appreciate what made Disney great reveals his crude nature. In Eisner's mind, he who has the bigger pile wins. For many of us, that's not a win, that's a lifetime wasted. The shame is that in his stampede for ever higher quarterly profits, and more and more personal wealth, he debased and trampled over something very important to millions of other people. He has also treated his employees with disdain, and is more concerned with is personal fortune than their collective welfare.

If Eisner was running a steel company, nobody would care, but he's running a company where the creative contribution far outshined the very respectable financial performance prior to his arrival.

oc

[dando]

Hmmm, with all due respect, WB....

If it weren't for Eisner, DIS would be a division of some other conglomerate. When Eisner took over, DIS wasn't even making animated movies any longer. Take a look @ where DIS stood 20+ years ago vs. today. This is simply a case of what have you done for me lately. Yes, DIS has taken some mis-steps the past 5 or so years, and it's likely that Eisner's time has passed, but I think some folks need a bit a schooling on history on this case.

EDIT: I, too, was a DIS shareholder until two years ago.

-Kevin

[Sean O'Gorman]

Depends on what your goal is Sean. I discovered a long time ago that it takes me a certain amount of money to live the way I want to, and anything more simply creates more work, as it has to be managed. I don't really enjoy the time I spend managing money, and learning how to do it took considerable time and effort, but each to his own.

I stand by my remark about Eisner not getting it. The fact that he lacks any ability to appreciate what made Disney great reveals his crude nature. In Eisner's mind, he who has the bigger pile wins. For many of us, that's not a win, that's a lifetime wasted. The shame is that in his stampede for ever higher quarterly profits, and more and more personal wealth, he debased and trampled over something very important to millions of other people. He has also treated his employees with disdain, and is more concerned with is personal fortune than their collective welfare.

If Eisner was running a steel company, nobody would care, but he's running a company where the creative contribution far outshined the very respectable financial performance prior to his arrival.

oc

I disagree. Disney is a publicly owned company, so Eisner's job was to maximize the stock price. How would you feel as a shareholder if Disney's products were tanking, but Disney films had more emotional appeal than before?

Whether or not he was the most qualified candidate to continue running the company is beyond my knowledge, but I hardly see how a CEO running a company with profitability as the main goal is a problem.

[pinniped]

Running a company with profitability as the main goal isn't a problem. A common problem with US companies though is they focus on profitability and take a "bean-counter" approach to business instead of focusing on the product, service, or experience they are selling. Drive a Cavalier, check it out...

[Sean O'Gorman]

Running a company with profitability as the main goal isn't a problem. A common problem with US companies though is they focus on profitability and take a "bean-counter" approach to business instead of focusing on the product, service, or experience they are selling. Drive a Cavalier, check it out...

I wasn't approving or disapproving of Eisner's performance, just responding to the criticism that he run the company with profitabilty being the highest priority. And I'd try to come up with a clever (well, at least in my mind ;) ) analogy using the Cavalier, but F1 quals are on now.

[oddlycalm]

I disagree. Disney is a publicly owned company, so Eisner's job was to maximize the stock price. How would you feel as a shareholder if Disney's products were tanking, but Disney films had more emotional appeal than before?

Yes, but the way to maximize long term returns isn't necessarily to slash every cost center to the bone. If you go to the park and it looks like a dump because they got tight with the maintenance budget, I don't see how this is in the long term interest of the company. Don't even get me started on ABC, ESPN, and all the rest of the lowest common denominator broadcasting operations.

I'll tell you what had me selling my entire position over a period of several months. Eisner took an agressively negative position on the DVD format, was a supporter of Divx, and actively tried to torpedo the DVD standard, all of which incurred massive ill will in the marketplace. They were among the last studio to release significant films on DVD, and were painfully skimpy with extra features. Their early releases were simply cheap compressions of the full screen tape release. Unbelievable. I've read over and over on forums where people state that when deciding which DVD's to buy, they will always avoid Disney releases because they know most will be bare bones effors by people that don't care about the final result. Oh, and their prices are among the highest even thought their product doesn't measure up.

Disney was known for a certain level of quality at one time, but you simply can't say that today. They may be on the top of the world financially at this moment, but looking out 5-10yrs, my money isn't on Disney under Eisner, and I mean that quite literally.

I held a significant position in Disney stock for several years. If I felt good about it, I'd still own that postion. I voted with my wallet, and not just on the stock. I avoid everything Disney in the marketplace, because the Disney name now stands for poor value.

oc

[WickerBill]

Hmmm, with all due respect, WB....

If it weren't for Eisner, DIS would be a division of some other conglomerate.


You're absolutely right. "Eisner" salvaged the company, made it less attractive for takeovers, invested in the parks and animation... and then Frank Wells died in 1994. When Wells died, it went downhill, and I don't mean gradually. If you look at a chain of events, it will smack you in the face -- Wells' death sent the company spiraling. What that says to me is that Eisner was smart enough to surround himself with people who "get it", but that doesn't mean Eisner ever "got it".

Couple Wells' death with Eisner running off Katzenberg and a half dozen spectacular high-level management types, cutting animation divisions to the bone then wondering why "Atlantis" sucked wind, eliminating over 50% of park maintenance staffs, hiring Michael Ovitz as an executive VP, firing him 9 months later and giving him a 100 million severance, and 50 other things I could cite... and that makes me think two things: 1. Eisner is the problem and 2. Eisner's ONLY good move was surrounding himself with excellent talent from 84-94.

[dando]

You're absolutely right. "Eisner" salvaged the company, made it less attractive for takeovers, invested in the parks and animation... and then Frank Wells died in 1994. When Wells died, it went downhill, and I don't mean gradually. If you look at a chain of events, it will smack you in the face -- Wells' death sent the company spiraling. What that says to me is that Eisner was smart enough to surround himself with people who "get it", but that doesn't mean Eisner ever "got it".

Couple Wells' death with Eisner running off Katzenberg and a half dozen spectacular high-level management types, cutting animation divisions to the bone then wondering why "Atlantis" sucked wind, eliminating over 50% of park maintenance staffs, hiring Michael Ovitz as an executive VP, firing him 9 months later and giving him a 100 million severance, and 50 other things I could cite... and that makes me think two things: 1. Eisner is the problem and 2. Eisner's ONLY good move was surrounding himself with excellent talent from 84-94.
WB, one trademark of a good manager/exec is to surround yourself with good talent. Agreed that Wells' death was a watershed event for DIS and Eisner. One of Eisner's biggest gaffes was not moving forward on the succession plan when his health became an issue a few years ago.

Interstingly, many of those shareholders complaining about ROI are also probably complaining about the cutbacks. It's the bottom line mentality that has made this mess, and it involves more than DIS. Job outsourcing is another result of this mentaliy, but I won't go there in the interests of keeping this off politics.

In summation, I thinl many folks are simply expecting magic from a tired, mature company and industry. It's going to take some major changes and investments to get DIS to move ahead of the pack.

-Kevin

[KLang]

Job outsourcing is another result of this mentaliy, but I won't go there in the interests of keeping this off politics.


It shouldn't be political, outsourcing has been going on for years.