Eisner and the "Shiite Muslims" reference About This Page:

[Jsbalcio1]

Matt, I think you summed up what I was trying to say.

Tokyo raised the bar and then DCA comes in under the bar. A company like DIsney must continually meet or reach the bar that they set. Anything less will draw some criticism. I understand the need to try newthings out, and realize that not everything will work.

[mattjs]

Very, very much appreciate your thoughts Dave, Thanks. It's interesting, I've been a strong defender of what Disney (the company) has been doing. I generally find that most folks disparaging tiny additions like Dinorama, aren't interested in discussing (or also lean negatively towards) fantastic additions like WL, Animal Kingdom (the park), Wishes, Philharmagic, Expedition Everest, Soarin, etc. Or even worse, they won't give an outstanding resort addition like AKL it's due.



As such, I tend to write off much of the negative commentary on the web. Much of it appearing to be agenda driven, yet being passed off as purely factual. No question, there are way too many pundits out there (and sometimes, I'm even one of em )



That being said though, I guess what takes me down the road of suddenly re-evaluating DCA is Roy stepping down. And the content and tone of the comments coming from both he and Stanley Gold. Now, whether thier comments deserve extra consideration or not I don't know, cause I'm not entirely sure what thier "agenda" is in all this yet.



Which leads me too.........One more question for you when you have a chance (and if you feel like it's something you wanna tackle).



Too date it's been fairly easy to write off the general internet negativity. For all us Disney fanatics out there though, what do we make of the recent activity by Roy and Stanley? With Roy and Stanley creating the "SaveDisney.com" website (implying that the company's in a state where it needs "saving"). A website that has direct links to some of the negative punditry out there. So now you have Roy Disney himself essentially endorsing the content at these sites. An interesting move I'd say (given what he's trying to accomplish), but I think it may be a little bit reckless. I still tend not to buy into the content at those sites, but Roy's not making it easy. Then there's Roys open letter to the CMs. His speech to the animators. Negative comments about what's going on in the parks...



Please believe me here, I'm honestly, honestly, honestly (which is really, really honest ) making no argument here. I'm more just wondering if you have any thoughts on the happenings of late. I think it's somewhat confusing times for the average Disney fan (for me it is anyway). Especially those of us with little real world understanding of these kinds of BIG business power plays. Is this just standard neogtiating posturing/rhetoric on the part of Disney and Gold? Seems like they're walking a pretty fine (and precarious) line though. On one hand, disparaging the company to try and get Mr. Eisner out, but attempting to do so without turning people off to "Disney" (the company and it's product) in the here and now. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[Dave Marx]

[ QUOTE ]
Tokyo raised the bar and then DCA comes in under the bar. A company like DIsney must continually meet or reach the bar that they set. Anything less will draw some criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

DCA opened before TDS. Therefore, the bar "raised" by TDS was set by DCA. This is exactly the way you say it should be.

Opening dates:

Disney's California Adventure 2/8/2001
Tokyo Disney Sea 9/4/2001
Walt Disney Studios (Paris) 3/16/2002

[Dave Marx]

Matt, I wish I had enough wisdom to shed some light on the subject. I have plenty of gut reactions and "shoot from the hip" observations, though. Some of them are mutually contradictory.

First, this all seems to be a function of office politics. As such, it may have more in common with a soap opera than with the mature operation of one of the world's great businesses. Bring on the Dynasty reruns!

Roy's actions currently seem to be focused on the hearts and minds of cast members and fans, rather than shareholders. Economic arguements over Eisner's management would have been far more effective a few years ago. Now, with a bunch of highly successful films and rebounding prospects throughout the company, it's hard to rake management over the coals.

I don't see the logic of Roy's selling Disney shares prior to starting this power struggle. If you want clout, you hold onto the votes (shares) you've got. This suggests Roy has had a recent change of heart. At first, he may have simply wanted to wash his hands of the company. Now that he's on the outside, he may be regretting that choice. One thing's quite clear - if Eisner were to exercise all his stock options, he'd outvote Roy by a wide margin. And based on shares actually owned (rather than options), Eisner would still come in a close second to Roy in a showdown.

Eisner, as Chairman and CEO, has been the target of all the flack and pressure. Roy, as Vice-Chairman, has been free to smile and trade on his uncle's good name. It's easy to see how and why the two gentlemen may have grown apart over the years.

Disney fans are hungry for the company's traditions (real and imagined), and to maintain a connection with the Disney family name. Roy is the only available symbol. As far as I know, none of the Disney family's third or fourth generations are involved in the business. Walt's legacy is being carried forward almost entirely by employees and fans.

I spent many years working for (and owning stock in) the NY Times Company. The Times' Sulzberger family (and the Boston Globe's Taylor family, which was merged with the Times back in the 90's) have a long tradition of family involvement in day-to-day operations as well as corporate governance. The NY Times corporate structure, where the Sulzberger family maintains voting control of the company even though it owns less than 20% of the equity, is evidence of a culture where "doing the right thing" for the corporate legacy is of the utmost importance. When I contrast the two companies and families, I'm lead to the conclusion that the Disney family has not done what it could to preserve and grow its family legacy. Roy's actions are "too little, too late." It makes me wonder whether the rest of the Disneys were either chased off by Walt's huge personality and power, or whether they wanted to distance themselves from Disney's "unsophisticated" image during the 60's through late 80's.

Going back to 1984 (the Roy-lead rescue of the company)... At that time, Roy was an outsider, because the company had been under the control of Walt's side of the Disney family (Ron Miller, etc.). Roy just didn't get no respect from Walt or the rest of the family. Meantime, The Disney Company wasn't getting any respect, either. Had Roy not flexed his financial muscle there's a good chance the company would have been acquired and carved-up by a corporate raider. For that, we owe him a lot. For bringing in Eisner and stubbornly championing Feature Animation, we owe him a lot.

There's only room for one CEO at a time. Eisner has the job and calls the shots. Roy, along with the rest of the board, seems to have been content to let Eisner do his thing, and over the years, the results have been overwhelmingly positive. A few years back, when things were much darker for the company, perhaps Roy could have convincingly painted himself as a white knight. Now, I'm not so sure.

You never know what's in the back of people's minds. Jim Hill has suggested that Disneyland's 50th Anniversary looms large in both Roy's and Eisner's minds. On one hand, consider that we're going into that milestone event without a member of the Disney family at the company. While I'd imagine the company will still invite at least one Disney stand up and make a speech, I'm pretty sure Roy would have preferred to have the right to be the Disney making that speech, and to only retire after all the speech making and partying was over. Similarly, Eisner (conceivably) would also love to preside over that grand event, capping his (overall) glorious tenure at the head of the company. Could this really be over who gets to hog the limelight?

You seem to have inferred the "pundits" I referred to are the same sites as the four sites Roy lists at SaveDisney.com. I should note that I don't lump those four sites (MousePlanet, MiceAge, Jim Hill and LaughingPlace) into a single category, and while they are among the "pundits," they are hardly the only pundits I'm referrring to. I know and respect many of the people involved at those sites. The four sites hardly speak with a single voice on any issue, and there are times I'll agree with one or more of them, and other times that I'll disagree.

My own interpretation of why they're on Roy's list has less to do with their ongoing editorial stances than it does with the general "newsgathering" environment at Disneyland.

Those four sites comprise the most visible of the Disneyland/Disney Company-oriented news-and-information sites. Since Disney Corporate, Disney Parks and Resorts, Disney Feature Animation and Disney's various movie studios are all based in California, these sites have access to and report on nearly anything having to do with the company. Disney World sites, on the other hand, focus almost entirely on just one narrow aspect of the company - Walt Disney World. Roy knows about the California sites because he's been in regular contact with their writers and editors over the years, whether at animation events (as Chairman of Disney Feature Animation) or at Disneyland, in his capacity as public figurehead. And in Hollywood, of course, there's no such thing as bad press - it sure beats getting no press at all.

Disneyland and Disney's various film studios manage their media relations very differently than Disney World does. Those California web sites are treated as more-or-less conventional media by Disney, and "leaks" to these sites are a regular part of the corporate in-fighting that goes on at Disney headquarters. If Disney has something to say, they can count on these sites to report it.

Disney World, on the other hand, has a closed-door policy towards most web sites. They simply will not accredit web sites as legitimate newsgathering organizations. Disney World specifically wants to avoid the kind of news coverage and commentary the Disneyland sites provide. Since they can't get "hard" news, Disney World sites tend to be vacation/travel-oriented - it's much easier to get eyewitness reports of what's happening at the parks and resorts from vacationers than it is to get a policy statement out of an official Disney World source.

Anyway, I've rambled on for a long time. Clearly, as I review what I've written, I'm a bit skeptical of this whole Roy "thing." The Disney Company is huge, with more than its fair share of political infighting. While I'm very sympathetic to the idea of a Disney Company run by family and employees who want to maintain and build upon what most of us consider to be the Walt Disney legacy, I just really can't be sure who the good guys are at this point (if there are any).

[mattjs]

Thanks Dave, appreciate you joining the discussion. And thanks for the very thoughtful reply.



You're right about the pundits. I was inferring on my own about who you were thinking of. And you know what they say about assumptions



And don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy all those sites too. If for no other reason than I like following the Disney news. The actual "newsgathering" aspect of those sites though, I hadn't considered so much. And I probly haven't given any of them the consideration they deserve.



In thinking it through again, I think maybe my pundit thoughts come mostly from my take on Jim Hill. Which spills over to all of em a little bit. And in Jims case, it could be partly the style of his writting that gets in the way of the content for me. He comes across a little too mother henish sometimes. Going forward, I probly need to put my style preference aside, and read his stuff in a little different light.



As for Roy, I really appreciate your off the cuff thoughts. He's a Disney, and that carries a lot of sentimental weight. But the whole good vs. evil thing he and Stanley are throwing out there feels a little too black and white for me. I'm not saying they don't have a point. But my gut tells me there's a whole lot more grey area than they'd like us to believe. Which I think is a little bit along the lines of where you are right now too. I'm not saying it isn't time for Eisner to go. Maybe he's burned out and just flat out of fresh ideas (and I wouldn't neccessarily see that as a big knock on Eisner either). It happens.



As you've said though, Roy and Stanley seem to be facing a tremendous uphill battle. Makes me wonder if it's not so much about forcing Eisner out. But maybe more about positioning to gain leverage in picking Eisner's successor when HE aranges to step down? Which I'd think is conceivable soon anyway. Jim Hill's written a couple of times now about handshake agreements for Eisner to pass the torch so who knows. Maybe it's in the cards for sooner rather than later anyway. Too be continued. Don't be a stranger on the topic by the way. You're insights are great. And of course, it is your board after all