Eisner's replacement

[Gail Hayden]

Again, not speaking of excluding anyone for any reason. I'm speaking of a return to the core family values upon which I BELIEVE Walt Disney started his parks. True, there can be no good that can come from exclusion of any person, and I don't believe that I have stated that in any of my comments. Rather, I speak with yes a broader brush regarding the presentation of product from Disney on a wide scale. (products, movies, parks,tv programming, etc. )

And I don't believe it would be their ruin. I believe that in time it would be to their great benefit. That in fact, there would be a return of patrons who had long ago determined to stay away due to their strongly held beliefs.

But since you bring it up, let me mention one "group" if you will. Now, I know that Disney in no way promotes this day, but let's mention Gay Day. What do you think the reaction would be if a group of people walked around the parks, wearing t shirts stating "we're conservative christian heterosexuals, here for straight day.?) What do you think the fallout would be from that? Don't you think there'd be a major issue with a lot of people there? I certainly do. There seems to be some deep fear of conservative views, religion, and christianity as a whole in our country. As though it's something so terrible. Yet, in this case, people are asked to quash their opinions as groups of people walk throughout the parks, utilizing their 1st amendment rights I admit, to express their sexuality in a place not built for that purpose.

Or we can talk about when Disney bought into the movie business. And how a lot of those movies have adult content, be it nudity, language, violence, or both. Now, I know people will say it's about profits, and synergy. Well, guess what? IF you managed the company properly to begin with, there wouldn't be a need to go into those types of businesses to stay afloat. I'll give you an example. It would be like a car dealer saying, well, we'd like to go into the vacuum business, cause people need to vacuum their cars. While we're at it, we'd like to go into the DVD business, cause we sell cars with DVD players. Well, if you manage your company properly, you won't need those "other" outlets of business to make money. So the whole synergy thing doesn't really wash with me. It's a cop out and a way of saying, I've so poorly mis-managed the company, that I need to leverage my loses with the profits of other business ventures. That way, I can cover up my ignorance of how to run this business. And you just continue to operate more and more to cover up more and more loses of all the other arms of your company, which all begin losing money. (i.e. ABC, ESPN, Anaheim Angels, Mighty Ducks, etc. etc.).

Gay people have and are part of families too and they have every right to be there. Of course, that appears NOT to be included in your core values. No surprise there.
As to your example, I could give a hoot if a bunch of conservative hetrosexual Christians were there for the 364 days that Disney is geared towards hetrosexuals. Or, if they picked one day to do it. Disney is about diversity.
Respect it, embrace it, eschew it as you will. I get the feeling that you would exclude the gay people from going to the parks. Well, I guess you would have to fire a bunch of CMs too.

The fact that you don't like adult geared movies is your issue, there is a market for them and frankly, I would be bored to tears with Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows best type of films. Again, Disney is being diverse in their audiences.

Last I knew, btw, ESPN was doing quite well. I am not sure why you included it in the list.

All, in all, respectfully speaking, I could not live in your world or by your core beliefs. Too small and too uptight and very excluding.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Gail, don't buy into political rhetoric, and don't believe everything you hear or read from our HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA. My side could also ask about the blue dress, the documents from the Rose Law firm, about mysterious deaths and "suicides", about documents boosted from the national archives, forged military documents NOT VERIFIED BY CBS, but still aired nationally as the truth, about lying to a Grand Jury under oath, about not releasing military medical records, and tax records, (for you Kerry fans), and on and on and on.

Again, I don't wish to dictate anything to anyone. What I would say is that it should be left up to the majority, as our elections are. He who gets the most votes wins. (and don't try the "he stole the election thing). How many times did we recount Fla.? Sorry can't recount until your guy wins. That's not the way it works. So, I say let the majority speak with their hearts, minds, and pocketbooks. I would agree there. Don't patronize the products that conflict with your core values. Problem is, Disney makes alot of those products overseas, as do many companies in this country. It's called capitalism. And if we didn't have sooooo much regulation in this country, guess what, more products, and more jobs would be available stateside.

Problem is, we've become hypocondriacs. (spelled right). Certain groups feel it is their duty to tell me what's okay for me to eat, how much of it to eat, how much I should pay for fuel. What's safe for me. How do they know the answers to these questions. We could argue these issues endlessly, but the point it this.

A return to core values within the company, let's say Walts core values would prove very beneficial to the company as a whole.

 

[Gail Hayden]

Gail, don't buy into political rhetoric, and don't believe everything you hear or read from our HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA. My side could also ask about the blue dress, the documents from the Rose Law firm, about mysterious deaths and "suicides", about documents boosted from the national archives, forged military documents NOT VERIFIED BY CBS, but still aired nationally as the truth, about lying to a Grand Jury under oath, about not releasing military medical records, and tax records, (for you Kerry fans), and on and on and on.

Again, I don't wish to dictate anything to anyone. What I would say is that it should be left up to the majority, as our elections are. He who gets the most votes wins. (and don't try the "he stole the election thing). How many times did we recount Fla.? Sorry can't recount until your guy wins. That's not the way it works. So, I say let the majority speak with their hearts, minds, and pocketbooks. I would agree there. Don't patronize the products that conflict with your core values. Problem is, Disney makes alot of those products overseas, as do many companies in this country. It's called capitalism. And if we didn't have sooooo much regulation in this country, guess what, more products, and more jobs would be available stateside.

Problem is, we've become hypocondriacs. (spelled right). Certain groups feel it is their duty to tell me what's okay for me to eat, how much of it to eat, how much I should pay for fuel. What's safe for me. How do they know the answers to these questions. We could argue these issues endlessly, but the point it this.

A return to core values within the company, let's say Walts core values would prove very beneficial to the company as a whole.

News flash, I don't read that junk, from either side. You should stop listening to that Junkie Rush, his stuff is as unbelievable.

And, without the man being present, it is impossible to say what he core beliefs are. We can only read what has been written and interpert from there.

Certain groups do not pay my bills. I eat what is healthy when I want. I don't need people to back me up or regulate anything I do. Thank your Pres. and VP for the oil crisis. They know the answers to the food question from endless research and each day there is something new. I get dizzy listening to all they junk.

I disagree that the core values as you state them would benefit anyone except the extream right. I say this with all due respect from someone dead middle.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Again, not speaking of excluding anyone for any reason. I'm speaking of a return to the core family values upon which I BELIEVE Walt Disney started his parks. True, there can be no good that can come from exclusion of any person, and I don't believe that I have stated that in any of my comments. Rather, I speak with yes a broader brush regarding the presentation of product from Disney on a wide scale. (products, movies, parks,tv programming, etc. )

And I don't believe it would be their ruin. I believe that in time it would be to their great benefit. That in fact, there would be a return of patrons who had long ago determined to stay away due to their strongly held beliefs.

But since you bring it up, let me mention one "group" if you will. Now, I know that Disney in no way promotes this day, but let's mention Gay Day. What do you think the reaction would be if a group of people walked around the parks, wearing t shirts stating "we're conservative christian heterosexuals, here for straight day.?) What do you think the fallout would be from that? Don't you think there'd be a major issue with a lot of people there? I certainly do. There seems to be some deep fear of conservative views, religion, and christianity as a whole in our country. As though it's something so terrible. Yet, in this case, people are asked to quash their opinions as groups of people walk throughout the parks, utilizing their 1st amendment rights I admit, to express their sexuality in a place not built for that purpose.

Or we can talk about when Disney bought into the movie business. And how a lot of those movies have adult content, be it nudity, language, violence, or both. Now, I know people will say it's about profits, and synergy. Well, guess what? IF you managed the company properly to begin with, there wouldn't be a need to go into those types of businesses to stay afloat. I'll give you an example. It would be like a car dealer saying, well, we'd like to go into the vacuum business, cause people need to vacuum their cars. While we're at it, we'd like to go into the DVD business, cause we sell cars with DVD players. Well, if you manage your company properly, you won't need those "other" outlets of business to make money. So the whole synergy thing doesn't really wash with me. It's a cop out and a way of saying, I've so poorly mis-managed the company, that I need to leverage my loses with the profits of other business ventures. That way, I can cover up my ignorance of how to run this business. And you just continue to operate more and more to cover up more and more loses of all the other arms of your company, which all begin losing money. (i.e. ABC, ESPN, Anaheim Angels, Mighty Ducks, etc. etc.).

I don’t really want to enter into a debate on some of the issues you raise as its not the right forum. But the point I obviously failed to make was that Disney through its Touchstone arm can make films with adult themes, while the Disney flagship brand can stick to well.... Disney. In this country the term its a bit Disney means that its very sugary sweet unreal nice n wholesome with the nasty reality taken away. Now that s fine providing reality is allowed to rear its head somewhere. a diet of Disney is not good in the long run

 

[Gail Hayden]

I don’t really want to enter into a debate on some of the issues you raise as its not the right forum. But the point I obviously failed to make was that Disney through its Touchstone arm can make films with adult themes, while the Disney flagship brand can stick to well.... Disney. In this country the term its a bit Disney means that its very sugary sweet unreal nice n wholesome with the nasty reality taken away. Now that s fine providing reality is allowed to rear its head somewhere. a diet of Disney is not good in the long run

Some people do not get the concept of diversity within a company.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Some people do not get the concept of diversity within a company.

Or as a lifestyle choice. :lookaroun

 

[speck76]

Or we can talk about when Disney bought into the movie business. And how a lot of those movies have adult content, be it nudity, language, violence, or both.

But what "Disney" movies have contained anything of this sort? I know many Miramax and Touchstone films have, but those films do not carry the "Disney" brand.

Also, the two most popular shows this TV season are Desperate Housewives and Lost.....two shows that I would guess do not meet your "values test".....although Disney owns ABC, ABC is not "branded" as "Disney".

Is it your opinion that WDC should spin-off all of these "not branded as Disney" assets and focus entirely on the Disney brand? I can tell you that if this were to happen, the company would be much smaller, and much more of a target to be taken over.

 

[Gail Hayden]

Or as a lifestyle choice. :lookaroun

some lifestyle are not choices. Some lifestyles are present at birth.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Way off thread

And we are talking about Eisners replacement how?

 

[Gail Hayden]

And we are talking about Eisners replacement how?

In a round about way we are trying to establish what we would like to see, once that is established, then we can find someone to fit the bill.
Any suggestions?

 

[ClemsonTigger]

If you say so...that is some round about...

My choice as I said before would be a creative/business pairing. Something like Meg Whitman or Steve Burke with someone like John Lassiter. We also have to wipe the board clean and start over. JMHO

 

[Epcot82Guy]

me me me

I am personally nominating myself for the role. :king: (I figure the replacement has to have some ego, just to fill the shoes that are left! )

 

[longfamily]

I'm not certain that there is yet a "known" person to consider for Eisner's position. However, I am interested in everyone's opinions on how the Disney company should be run in the future with Eisner gone. What changes would you guys make? (this was the intent of the original thread)

Let's pretend this is an interview for Eisner's position and you are the interviewee.
#1: In what direction would you like to take Disney?
#2: Describe a 5 year program to maximize profits?
#3: How do you see the current employees? Should changes be made?
#4: Should the Disney company continue to purchase other companies?
#5: With your new prograns in place, what will Disney's position be in 10yrs?

Good Luck!

 

[PurpleDragon]

I'm not certain that there is yet a "known" person to consider for Eisner's position. However, I am interested in everyone's opinions on how the Disney company should be run in the future with Eisner gone. What changes would you guys make? (this was the intent of the original thread)

Let's pretend this is an interview for Eisner's position and you are the interviewee.
#1: In what direction would you like to take Disney?
#2: Describe a 5 year program to maximize profits?
#3: How do you see the current employees? Should changes be made?
#4: Should the Disney company continue to purchase other companies?
#5: With your new prograns in place, what will Disney's position be in 10yrs?

Good Luck!

#1. I would like to take the company back to its original core focus, Animation. Disney was built on animation, I mean heck the studios in California were built from the profits from Snow White. I think that Animation and creative thinking should be at the core of the Disney infrastructure.
#2. I don't necissarily have an exact 5 year plan as much as an over all "rebuilding" plan. First thing we need is to propose the sale of the ABC Family channel. From there I think we should slowly reduce the reach of the company a bit, I believe it is currently streched too thin, we need to return to the core and reevaluate what the Disney name means. I think by returning Disney to its core focus "Quality entertainment", we can begin rebuilding around that and regain the publics faith. Then we need to turn our focus on the animation, we need to renegotiate a contract with Pixar, and rebuild the Disney 2D animation department. From here we can begin releasing new animated features, ones that will be reminiscent of the quality of films such as "Little Mermaid", "Alladin", and "Toy Story". At that point we should reduce the amount of marketing contracts we currently have in place, it is in a sense "desensitizing" the public to the meaning of the name Disney. From there we need to renegotiate the contract over the Disney Stores. This way we can slowly rebuild the stores and return to selling exclusive Disney products that you can't buy anywhere else. With the reduction of expenses from selling ABC Family and the termination of other various non profitable contracts we can stablize the current company budget. From there we can begin release new hit movies and marketing them soley in Disney stores and parks. This I feel will return the publics faith in Disney and in turn increase movie and merchandise sales.
#3. Yes. I think the current employees need to be evaluated and then action should be taken. For instance if an employees sole purpose here at the company is to micromanage and provides no real creative or financial benefit to the company, then he or she is no longer needed. However those that do provide an essential skill such as budgeting, creative thinking, agressive negotiation, etc.. then that person is an invaluble asset to the company and should be placed in a position where they can help the company grow and prosper.
#4. No. I don't think Disney should spend another cent on purchasing another company until Disney itself is financially stable. Once the company's financial returns are back to an acceptable level and are on a continuing rise, then I think the company will be once again in a position to make purchases such as this.
#5. I believe in 10 years the Disney company will once again be held in high esteem in the publics eye, it will be once again a power house in the entertainment industry. If we return our focus to what the public wants as far as entertainment and not to what Wall Street wants, I don't think we can loose. As long as we continue giving the public a quality entertainment experience, they will continue to return again and again.

 

[speck76]

I am not sure who I would want for my #1 (creative guy), but I would really like to see Steven Bollenbach as the #2 (financial guy).

Bollenbach was named president and chief executive officer of Hilton Hotels Corporation in 1996, and has oversight responsibility for Hilton's hotel and casino operations as well as all of the company's financial affairs.

Before joining Hilton Hotels Corporation, Bollenbach held profoundly influential positions at several major corporations, including: senior executive vice president and chief financial officer for The Walt Disney Company, chief financial officer of Host Marriott Corporation, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, chief financial officer and member of the board of directors of Holiday Corporation, and chairman and chief executive officer of Southwest Savings and Loan Association.

Bollenbach is recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on the hospitality and entertainment industries, and financial affairs and transactions and serves on the board of Kmart Corporation, Time Warner, Inc., and Ladbroke Group PLC (the parent company of Hilton International, the owner of the Hilton name outside the United States). He is also a trustee of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, The Music Center in Los Angeles and is a member of the Los Angeles Business Advisors.

A native of California, Bollenbach is a graduate of Long Beach City College, holds a bachelor's degree in finance from UCLA and a master's degree in management from California State University, Northridge.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Sounds good Speck, I could support that.

 

[PurpleDragon]

Yeah sounds like a good canidate Speck. Now we just need to find the #1 creative guy that would do well being teamed up with Bollenbach.

 

[speck76]

One thing to consider, is that much needs to be considered.

1. Eisner needs to be replaced

2. If Iger does not replace Eisner, chances are he will leave, so he may need to be replaced. (Or the new CEO may not want Iger around)

3. George Mitchell (Chairman of the Board) will be forced into retirement due to his age (the same reason why Roy Disney would have been forced into retirement if he did not resign), so he needs to be replaced.

 

[PurpleDragon]

One thing to consider, is that much needs to be considered.

1. Eisner needs to be replaced

2. If Iger does not replace Eisner, chances are he will leave, so he may need to be replaced. (Or the new CEO may not want Iger around)

3. George Mitchell (Chairman of the Board) will be forced into retirement due to his age (the same reason why Roy Disney would have been forced into retirement if he did not resign), so he needs to be replaced.

These are good things!!

Iger has always been Eisners puppet, so keeping him around when a new CEO is brought in is not going to benefit anyone in the least, since Iger will more than likely try and push some of Eisner's ideals that are not wanted. So removing him will be like removing the last officer from the Eisner terrorist regime!

George Mitchell sat idlely by for years while Eisner ran the company into the ground, Mitchell made absolutely no move to try and disuade Eisner. Even after the massive no confidence vote against Eisner from the shareholders Mitchell still did absolutely nothing. So he needs to be canned anyway so someone with an actual backbone can step in.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Hey Speck

Well Speck I would submit to you that any time you listen to news broadcasts, be it a major network, cable network, espn, etc. etc, you will find ALMOST always, Disney is mentioned as the parent company, when it comes to stories surrounding issues such as those that we are discussing.

I for one can tell as an avid sports fan that their name is mentioned all the time by various announcers at espn. The connection is that people "hear" Disney owned, or parent company Disney, when these various stories are circulated.

Now, as it relates to programming like those you mentioned, everyone knows that ABC is owned by Disney. Therefore, a lot of people (read families) here will make the choice not to watch based on their personal set of values. And they MAY make the choice to not shop the Disney brand if they so choose, based on those and other factors. Again, I'm not saying what I believe is right for YOU and YOURS to watch on TV. But let's be honest here. There are CLEARLY lines being crossed every day and night on most of the networks. The question I have is, how much is too much? When do people who don't believe in the anything goes mentality get to have a voice? I know, I know. Turn the channel right? Why is it always those who say that always the ones who think that if they are asked to turn it down a notch or two, think that they are being told how to live? What has happened to decency? What's WRONG with decency?

Now, as for how this relates to the subject hand. I'm sure that a lot of you out there would consider what some of the top brass at Disney make for a living to be obscene. And a lot of you have asked out there, how much is too much? When is it enough? Why can't they take less pay, (read: dial it down a notch or two), for the betterment of the "little guy?" (read: those of us out here who want to have a voice). You all see the parallels here?

So you can see my concern as to the TYPE of person that is chosen to run the ship next time out of port, so to speak. I submit there is nothing wrong with replacing Mr. Eisner with someone who isn't afraid to say that the strength of the company can once again be in its family-oriented programming and design of ALL of the companies assets. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I believe that the company will become much smaller, or bait for a takeover. Indeed, it will strengthen the company. Why?

Because, most people ARE decent, and do care about family values. We argue back and forth on here, somewhat due to political and philosophical views. But when it comes down to it, most of us are going to do the right thing for ourselves and our families. So, we're much more alike out here than people think in the end.

So I hope that the replacement is someone who shares some of those special values that I BELIEVE that Mr. Disney shared with those around him during his time. With that, I believe that the company will return to prominence within the spectrum of family-oriented programming, and park operations.