I couldn't find a subforum for general TWDC stuff so I just put here. I was reading some posts from the as$ Jim Hill. Actually it's just on his site, it was someone else who posted. I think the author of the post hits the nail right on the head as far as how companies are ran today, especially Disney. I always thought that an entertainment company needs someone in Entertainment/creative minded on or near the top along with a money guy, not just a bunch of bean counters (look at Eisner's reign). Don't take what I said out of context, money guys need to be there b/c creative people and entertainment people aren't business people and need someone to overss that. Anyway, without further adue, the post from some guy from Jim's site:
curmudgeon said:
Once upon a time, movies were judged by their entertainment value. If the movie told an interesting story in an entertaining way, people came to see it, and money flowed. People (at least the general public) didn't ask about opening weekend numbers on Pinocchio to determine if they should see the movie or not. A musical made by Paramount could be far more profitable than one made at MGM, but no one would suggest Paramount made better musicals than MGM. No one would have suggested Chicken Little was a hit either.
Today we have analysts that tell every publicly-traded company what to do. These analysts have rarely held a production or service job, and certainly have never formed a company themselves. The analysts tell companies that even though they made billions in profit last quarter, if they just fired a few people they could have made billions plus one dollars in profit. Next quarter, they tell the company to eliminate their pension plans to make billions plus two dollars.
All this because the leaders of the companies aren't creative people. They don't know what to do if their widgets aren't selling. They didn't found the company, they just temporarily manage it, and they need to keep their millions in bonuses coming. If the company leaders could think up new widgets to sell when old ones stop selling, profits would keep growing without having to constantly fire people to stay afloat.
Now we've finally got a creative person - with a proven track record - in charge or close to in charge at Disney. The first time that has happened in over 40 years. (No, I'm sorry, Eisner was not creative, nor did he foster a creative atmosphere. He simply knew how to strip money from the company to his own bank account.) To suggest that an opening weekend take of $65 million means the movie is a failure, but $75 million means its a hit is a short-sighted bean counter's perspective. Especially when Cars merchandise has already outsold all the Chicken Little merchandise, and Cars still hasn't opened. Regardless of how the numbers get posted, Cars is going to make a boatload of money. It's pointless to see if we can numerically set John up for a so-called "failure."
If the company really wants to impress Wall Street, let's see them set an example and get executive pay and bonuses structered to a reasonable level - not a multiple of hundreds of times what most of the employees receive. Oops, sorry - that's just crazy talk - we don't want to impress Wall Street THAT much.
curmudgeon said:
Once upon a time, movies were judged by their entertainment value. If the movie told an interesting story in an entertaining way, people came to see it, and money flowed. People (at least the general public) didn't ask about opening weekend numbers on Pinocchio to determine if they should see the movie or not. A musical made by Paramount could be far more profitable than one made at MGM, but no one would suggest Paramount made better musicals than MGM. No one would have suggested Chicken Little was a hit either.
Today we have analysts that tell every publicly-traded company what to do. These analysts have rarely held a production or service job, and certainly have never formed a company themselves. The analysts tell companies that even though they made billions in profit last quarter, if they just fired a few people they could have made billions plus one dollars in profit. Next quarter, they tell the company to eliminate their pension plans to make billions plus two dollars.
All this because the leaders of the companies aren't creative people. They don't know what to do if their widgets aren't selling. They didn't found the company, they just temporarily manage it, and they need to keep their millions in bonuses coming. If the company leaders could think up new widgets to sell when old ones stop selling, profits would keep growing without having to constantly fire people to stay afloat.
Now we've finally got a creative person - with a proven track record - in charge or close to in charge at Disney. The first time that has happened in over 40 years. (No, I'm sorry, Eisner was not creative, nor did he foster a creative atmosphere. He simply knew how to strip money from the company to his own bank account.) To suggest that an opening weekend take of $65 million means the movie is a failure, but $75 million means its a hit is a short-sighted bean counter's perspective. Especially when Cars merchandise has already outsold all the Chicken Little merchandise, and Cars still hasn't opened. Regardless of how the numbers get posted, Cars is going to make a boatload of money. It's pointless to see if we can numerically set John up for a so-called "failure."
If the company really wants to impress Wall Street, let's see them set an example and get executive pay and bonuses structered to a reasonable level - not a multiple of hundreds of times what most of the employees receive. Oops, sorry - that's just crazy talk - we don't want to impress Wall Street THAT much.
