Eisner's replacement

[longfamily]

so basically what you are saying is that they should expand the singular role of CEO to multiple positions of CEO? A group project instead of a dictatorship? But can this work?

 

[trdisneyfan]

What I'd really like to see from Eisner's replacement is the ability to schmooze with corporate sponsors to help out with the cost of attractions. When Disney gets a bunch of corporate sponsors on board to build a park, you get the complexity and granduer of Epcot (which I'm pretty sure had a corporate sponsor for every attraction when it opened), when they do it by themselves, you get a bare-bones DCA.

Like many people on these boards, I've been going to Disney parks for almost my entire life (26 yrs), and it's scary to see the lack of corporate sponsorship in the parks these days. I, for one, do not mind seeing a corporate logo on a ride if it makes that ride better. Disney's park revenue should be used more for park upkeep and enhancement of the overall guest experience, not spread thinly to also cover the construction and maintenance of new rides. When that's the case, everything in the park suffers.

So, I'd really like to see someone that comes to Disney's head position with a clean slate and a good reputation to support him/her. I think Eisner has burned way too many bridges in his career. His only major aliance (ABC) was forged with a company that he had already managed - whoopie.

And Pixar has stated they won't work with Disney to think about their future aliance until Eisner is out of the picture. I can only imagine this is indicative of other corporate relationships that Eisner has mucked up over the years.

Unfortunately, I think Iger is associated w/ Eisner so closely that he won't be able to do much better. And I don't know how Roy Disney would do as CEO, but he's obviously got an immense love and respect for the Disney brand and reputation, which is maybe all they need.

Or maybe they need some fresh blood in there.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

so basically what you are saying is that they should expand the singular role of CEO to multiple positions of CEO? A group project instead of a dictatorship? But can this work?

No, not really. That would work, but it is not really possible in modern corporate culture without a HUGE revamping of the company, and Disney is not in a strong enough position to do that now. What I am suggesting is getting someone that has enough ego-control to take the helm while still abandoning a lot to his underlying officers. As odd as this may sound, creativity does not belong in the CEO position. Let me defend that statement by saying the CEO should be in charge of the bottom line, budgeting, and keeping his immediate officers motivated and challenged. This gives the underlying officers full right to greenlight projects as they see fit. Obviously, the CEO maintains the right to start/deny a project, but that power should exist more as a threat than an actually used provision. Idealy, if the CEO is perfect for his position, he will have appointed people that have vastly creative skills that allow wonderful things to happen with creative usage of a budget (that means doing things cheaper than they appear to have cost, NOT CHEAPLY period) that his position, from a public perspective, does not exist. He is a manager, a motivator, and the person that must promote or take responsibility for actions done. Finding such a person would prove very difficult, and I can almost guarantee you that person would not come from the modern corporate scheme (where business rise and fall like the tide, but thier CEO's egos and severence payments keep rising and rising), but within the company hope may exist. After all, if you understand first-hand what it means to work, design, create, maintain, etc. an attraction or a film or a store or any other item, you are able to relate on a level that people respect (and that translates into motivation and, eventually, the best product).

I guess my point is that a company that has a lack of creativity can exist, but it will not do well. However, a company that is completely creative but lacks financial and business leadership cannot survive. Therefore, put the requirement down first (i.e. the financial knowledge at the top) with a person that realizes that the necessity to do well (i.e. creativity and risk) is the main goal of the company. Then you have a structure for success.

... :wave: (waving to everyone as I climb off my soapbox!)

 

[downwitheisner]

I would love to see someone take over that believes in Walt's dream of a place for families. Roy Disney, I think, would be a great person for the job. I am sure that people disagree with me, but it started as a family business. I think Roy has the convictions to make Disney what it used to be.

Dispite the fact that he led the quest to get Eisner out, I don't think Roy would make a good replacement. He seems to want to make everything perfect for all members of the family, but it is a bit too late. There is no way that a teen would go to see a movie that is meant for kids. There are some exeptions, like The Incredibles, but they are Pixar's work. Most movies do not make a good connection between teen and younger audiences without being flat out goofy.

 

[djronnieb]

If they are taking applications, I have expeierence in running a company but more important I believe 120% in Walt's dreams of the family values, I would get rid of ABC and the other 6,000 companies they own and focus on the animation and parks. And then take it from there. I would do as Walt wanted and make Disney how it used to be!!!! I truely would turn the company around and be the best CEO they ever had next to Uncle Walt of course... If anyone know where or who I can see to apply let me know.

 

[Gail Hayden]

I was not refering to the Janet incident. Last Monday on MNF, there was a promo shown for Desperate Housewives which included one of the stars of that show in a towel stradling a football player. Suggestive language was used and it was inappropriate for young children.

I, of course, do not let my young children watch Desperate Housewives and MNF IS partly during the family hour.

I'm not satisfied with your "that is the way it goes". As a parent I have a right to expect not to have to worry about sexual content on a televised football game. And as I said, by the time I realized what I was seeing it was to late to censor.

The reason Private Ryan needed to be censored was mostly language not the horrors of war.

Thanks for clearing the football thing up, I must have misread your comment.

Monday night football (around here anyway) begins at nine. That is when the family hour ends.

I am sorry you are not satisfied with my response to you, and I certainly meant no offense. I raised children and faced some of the same situations you did, there were many objectionable things on TV, to me anyway. I did not expect censorship or changes to be made because I felt it was inappropriate. I also do not watch football, I feel it is way to violent. Anyway, I was far more concerned what they saw on the news, in the malls or saw and heard in school. The best I could do is not let them watch the show and explain if questions were asked. 99% of the time it went over their heads anyway at the age of 10.

As to Private Ryan, they worry about language when people are killing each other in a war. Not directed to you in the least, but, that is nuts!! Do people seriously believe in combat they say things like "oh fudge, SGT....got shot?". I have not seen the movie and have no intentions of seeing it. War movies upset me.

 

[longfamily]

No, not really. That would work, but it is not really possible in modern corporate culture without a HUGE revamping of the company, and Disney is not in a strong enough position to do that now. What I am suggesting is getting someone that has enough ego-control to take the helm while still abandoning a lot to his underlying officers. As odd as this may sound, creativity does not belong in the CEO position. Let me defend that statement by saying the CEO should be in charge of the bottom line, budgeting, and keeping his immediate officers motivated and challenged. This gives the underlying officers full right to greenlight projects as they see fit. Obviously, the CEO maintains the right to start/deny a project, but that power should exist more as a threat than an actually used provision. Idealy, if the CEO is perfect for his position, he will have appointed people that have vastly creative skills that allow wonderful things to happen with creative usage of a budget (that means doing things cheaper than they appear to have cost, NOT CHEAPLY period) that his position, from a public perspective, does not exist. He is a manager, a motivator, and the person that must promote or take responsibility for actions done. Finding such a person would prove very difficult, and I can almost guarantee you that person would not come from the modern corporate scheme (where business rise and fall like the tide, but thier CEO's egos and severence payments keep rising and rising), but within the company hope may exist. After all, if you understand first-hand what it means to work, design, create, maintain, etc. an attraction or a film or a store or any other item, you are able to relate on a level that people respect (and that translates into motivation and, eventually, the best product).

I guess my point is that a company that has a lack of creativity can exist, but it will not do well. However, a company that is completely creative but lacks financial and business leadership cannot survive. Therefore, put the requirement down first (i.e. the financial knowledge at the top) with a person that realizes that the necessity to do well (i.e. creativity and risk) is the main goal of the company. Then you have a structure for success.

... :wave: (waving to everyone as I climb off my soapbox!)

Interesting idea!
I'd be available if they want to hire me

 

[Indy95]

No, not really. That would work, but it is not really possible in modern corporate culture without a HUGE revamping of the company, and Disney is not in a strong enough position to do that now. What I am suggesting is getting someone that has enough ego-control to take the helm while still abandoning a lot to his underlying officers. As odd as this may sound, creativity does not belong in the CEO position. Let me defend that statement by saying the CEO should be in charge of the bottom line, budgeting, and keeping his immediate officers motivated and challenged. This gives the underlying officers full right to greenlight projects as they see fit. Obviously, the CEO maintains the right to start/deny a project, but that power should exist more as a threat than an actually used provision. Idealy, if the CEO is perfect for his position, he will have appointed people that have vastly creative skills that allow wonderful things to happen with creative usage of a budget (that means doing things cheaper than they appear to have cost, NOT CHEAPLY period) that his position, from a public perspective, does not exist. He is a manager, a motivator, and the person that must promote or take responsibility for actions done. Finding such a person would prove very difficult, and I can almost guarantee you that person would not come from the modern corporate scheme (where business rise and fall like the tide, but thier CEO's egos and severence payments keep rising and rising), but within the company hope may exist. After all, if you understand first-hand what it means to work, design, create, maintain, etc. an attraction or a film or a store or any other item, you are able to relate on a level that people respect (and that translates into motivation and, eventually, the best product).

Isn't that what I had said before? I'm not mad or anything, I'm just pointing out that I made almost the exact same points. :wave:

 

[Bagheera]

My thoughts.

Though I will admit some warming to Peter Chernin of late, I still like what I wrote.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

On a personal level, I would like to see a return to more of the "family values" that I remember as a young person there when visiting the parks. As well, I believe that a change in the character of leadership throughout the company MUST take place. To have entered into some of the areas that Disney has, has in fact done more to polarize the company than any other business deals as it relates directly to the parks/stores. It has forced the company to make business decisions based on the current social climate more than about the core values on which the company was founded. So the ones who have lost the most in the long run have been families. With talk of adding more thrill rides, gambling (I know it's just been chatted about: but what if?), over-priced resorts, rising ticket costs, threatened strikes by cms, etc., it's been the AMERICAN family who has lost the most in all of this. Those of us out here who want a return to true family values must never forget that in THIS case, it's about the guests, first and foremost. If you can capture the hearts and minds of families thru quality leadership, character, and integrity, the business will grow accordingly. To always say that statements like this are pie in the sky thinking, is wrong. And I believe that I can refer all of us to recent events NATIONALLY as proof that family values STILL matter to a VERY LARGE number of us throughout the country.

Having said that, I sincerely hope that we do see a return to true family values for the entire company in the very near future. No matter our debates over who best to fill the shoes of the departing Michael Eisner, the direction of the company from the perspective of true family values, and FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT must be at the forefront of the thinking of WHOMEVER it is that fills those shoes.

 

[Flbeachbum]

So are you saying that adding in some thill rides ruins core family values?

 

[HennieBogan1966]

No, I don't believe I said that....but

What I would tell you is that the answer to all of the ride issues isn't always in installing another roller coaster. That's NOT what Disney ever WAS or IS about. If you want that, feel free to travel a few minutes down the street to the competitor. I'm guessing that Disney will be around long after the last coaster shuts down over there, IF, and only IF they remain true to the core values upon which the company was ORIGINALLY built. Again, I point to recent current events as evidence that a GREAT MAJORITY out there still values real family values. Having said that, there is a connection that can be made to a certain degree with todays "thrill/x games" culture. Everything, contrary to all of the lousy so-called reality shows about eating bugs, jumping from building to building, x games, etc. ISN'T what the majority of the public clamors for for their own families. On the contrary, what they clamor for is good leadership with integrity within their own lives, and throughout their lives once they step out the door each day. This win at all costs mentality simply doesn't resonate with the majority . Nor has it ever. Instead, what they clamor for is a place where they (we) can go for a vacation with our children that not only is safe and clean, but clean in the clearest sense of the word. We don't need or want, smut, x games, gambling, etc. to entertain ourselves and our children. Which is why Disney doesn't need to follow the crowd in this regard. To a large degree, those who seek to entertain us with such things, target the lowest in all of us. They target our desensitized natures regarding what's right and wrong, what's too much or not enough, what's crossing the line, versus not. They move as close to that line, if not crossing it, for ratings. You need look no further than a lot of the business decisions over the years at Disney regarding their foray into the major television/cable networks. The lines become more and more blurred as time goes by, and a lot of us will say, oh well, that's the way things are now. Well, they don't HAVE to be that way. WE DO HAVE A CHOICE.

What I am saying is that in the absence of good leadership, what you have is chaos. Now I'm not saying that Disney is in a state of chaos. But can we really say things are under control there either? I don't believe so.

This isn't about thrill rides, of the size of your room necessarily. But it IS about the integrity of leadership, which coincides with the direction a company takes. And by extension, the company becomes the values of those in charge of it. There has been great mis-management of the company at several levels over the last several years, and that's due to POOR LEADERSHIP. Until there is a big change in the character and integrity of leadership at the company, you can't hope to change the "fad" mentality of a lot of those in positions of creativity at the company. Which is why I mention the thrill ride aspect. I like coasters as much as the next guy. But are they at the core of how/why the company was built? Absolutely not. Nor should they be now. Instead, what is needed, is a return of the animators/imagineers to the company. Let me ask this question:

Doesn't it seem suddenly that animated movies are making a comeback in movie theaters? Hmmm, interesting. Don't you think?

 

[speck76]

On a personal level, I would like to see a return to more of the "family values" that I remember as a young person there when visiting the parks. As well, I believe that a change in the character of leadership throughout the company MUST take place. To have entered into some of the areas that Disney has, has in fact done more to polarize the company than any other business deals as it relates directly to the parks/stores. It has forced the company to make business decisions based on the current social climate more than about the core values on which the company was founded. So the ones who have lost the most in the long run have been families. With talk of adding more thrill rides, gambling (I know it's just been chatted about: but what if?), over-priced resorts, rising ticket costs, threatened strikes by cms, etc., it's been the AMERICAN family who has lost the most in all of this. Those of us out here who want a return to true family values must never forget that in THIS case, it's about the guests, first and foremost. If you can capture the hearts and minds of families thru quality leadership, character, and integrity, the business will grow accordingly. To always say that statements like this are pie in the sky thinking, is wrong. And I believe that I can refer all of us to recent events NATIONALLY as proof that family values STILL matter to a VERY LARGE number of us throughout the country.

Having said that, I sincerely hope that we do see a return to true family values for the entire company in the very near future. No matter our debates over who best to fill the shoes of the departing Michael Eisner, the direction of the company from the perspective of true family values, and FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT must be at the forefront of the thinking of WHOMEVER it is that fills those shoes.

Define Family.

Also, is it not the case the the values of the "typical American family" have changed too?

Finally, you state that family values still matter to a large amount of Americans, but is this the target audience for WDC.....are they focused on selling to the "ultra-conservative"?.....Should they be?.....

A good amount....almost a majority, of visitors to Orlando come from the Northeast.....pretty much all "blue" states....should the parks cater to the needs and desires of these people?

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Okay, let me ask it this way:

How many FAMILIES do you know that would approve of their children eating bugs for sport? Or ACTING like they are going to marry some obnoxious person to make money? Or would approve of Disney putting in gambling or "other" forms of adult entertainment on property? I don't HAVE to define anything. Families are just that: FAMILIES. And like it or not, over 58 million of them out there do exist, and I'm going to speculate even many more than that. Most of those from liberal states tend to vote the same due to "political views" and NOT family values views. They too believe in family. Are you going to tell me they don't because they voted for J. Kerry? Or because they support roe v wade, that they DON'T care about family values. Again those issues and others, are politically based and motivated.

And no, I don't believe that family values have changed at all. If you believe the HIGHLY BIASED ULTRA LIBERAL MEDIA, then you would believe that to be the case. But again, recent events say the exact opposite. That family values STILL MATTER. You and others may not like hearing that, but it's the truth. And Disney sincerely needs to return to those values.

Or do you disagree with Roy Disney?

 

[speck76]

Okay, let me ask it this way:

How many FAMILIES do you know that would approve of their children eating bugs for sport? Or ACTING like they are going to marry some obnoxious person to make money? Or would approve of Disney putting in gambling or "other" forms of adult entertainment on property? I don't HAVE to define anything. Families are just that: FAMILIES. And like it or not, over 58 million of them out there do exist, and I'm going to speculate even many more than that. Most of those from liberal states tend to vote the same due to "political views" and NOT family values views. They too believe in family. Are you going to tell me they don't because they voted for J. Kerry? Or because they support roe v wade, that they DON'T care about family values. Again those issues and others, are politically based and motivated.

And no, I don't believe that family values have changed at all. If you believe the HIGHLY BIASED ULTRA LIBERAL MEDIA, then you would believe that to be the case. But again, recent events say the exact opposite. That family values STILL MATTER. You and others may not like hearing that, but it's the truth. And Disney sincerely needs to return to those values.

Or do you disagree with Roy Disney?

Yes, I do not entirely agree with Roy Disney.

I do hold my own moral values, but those are MY values, and I do not expect anyone else to hold my beliefs.

If I had kids, I would not want them to be participating in the events that you had mentioned, I personally dislike reality TV (except Extreme Makeover Home Edition) and I also dislike the "get rich quick - greed is good attitude" that is so over-exposed on these shows. I owuld also not permit my kids to watch these shows.

The big issue here is that this stuff sells, and WDC is a profit-making company. How do they explain to their shareholders (teacher's pension funds and all) that they will not do certain things that are sure to make a profit simply to uphold "family values"........How can a company sell family values to Wall Street?

I think though, as many people have different values, it is important for a company like WDC to appeal to their greatest audience, without offending the others.

I don't think a casino on property would be end of the world, as long as itis done in the right way.

On the other hand, I am glad that beer and wine are not sold at the Magic Kingdom (yet I have no problem with them being sold at the other parks.)

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Why is a casino needed? What were the numbers for the latest annual report? The latest quarterly reports? Again, how much is enough? And you actually make my arguement for me. Though you may have philosophical/political differences with me, or with others like Roy Disney, you hold many of the very same CONSERVATIVE FAMILY values that many of us out here do. Which is exactly my point. And Wall Street should be the end of the line, not the beginning. In other words, if you return to the family values, IMHO, you will regain a large number of families that you have lost over the years, due to philosophical/political differences, as well as financial inability to pay the inflated prices. Once you recapture their hearts and minds, the money will follow. Which, in the end, will impress those on Wall Street. But I submit that part of the problem is Wall Street. Although I agree that the stockholders are the ones you are looking to please, if you can't capture your target audience, your stockholders AREN'T going to be pleased. So at the base of your operations, you MUST do things which capture that target audience. The PARKS were built as a place where FAMILIES could afford to come, and where they could enjoy a vacation together. Again, this is about leadership, character, and integrity at the top.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Isn't that what I had said before? I'm not mad or anything, I'm just pointing out that I made almost the exact same points. :wave:

I think we do agree on points, I just read your post as saying a Walt-like person would be able to do this. I meant to say we needed a Roy-like person at the helm with 3 Walt-like people underneath. I think this is a minor point, though, and we do agree on the skills needed in these people. After all, we're not unfreezing Walt and cloning him or resurrecting Roy anytime soon :lol: (or are we... :lookaroun )

 

[Gail Hayden]

On a personal level, I would like to see a return to more of the "family values" that I remember as a young person there when visiting the parks. As well, I believe that a change in the character of leadership throughout the company MUST take place. To have entered into some of the areas that Disney has, has in fact done more to polarize the company than any other business deals as it relates directly to the parks/stores. It has forced the company to make business decisions based on the current social climate more than about the core values on which the company was founded. So the ones who have lost the most in the long run have been families. With talk of adding more thrill rides, gambling (I know it's just been chatted about: but what if?), over-priced resorts, rising ticket costs, threatened strikes by cms, etc., it's been the AMERICAN family who has lost the most in all of this. Those of us out here who want a return to true family values must never forget that in THIS case, it's about the guests, first and foremost. If you can capture the hearts and minds of families thru quality leadership, character, and integrity, the business will grow accordingly. To always say that statements like this are pie in the sky thinking, is wrong. And I believe that I can refer all of us to recent events NATIONALLY as proof that family values STILL matter to a VERY LARGE number of us throughout the country.

Having said that, I sincerely hope that we do see a return to true family values for the entire company in the very near future. No matter our debates over who best to fill the shoes of the departing Michael Eisner, the direction of the company from the perspective of true family values, and FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT must be at the forefront of the thinking of WHOMEVER it is that fills those shoes.

Family values are wonderful, BUT, who sets the tone? The Religous Right, the Moral Majority, The Bible Thumpers or people all by themselves according to their beliefs? Frankly, I don't need anyone telling me what my values should or must be. God gave me the brains to figure this out all by myself. I have done quite well up to now. The last thing I need is some fundamentalist telling me what is right and wrong. (This is not aimed at you, btw, just a general statement.)

Not everyone that goes to Disney is a famiily. Some of us actually go as couples to enjoy WDW.

Unfortunately, Walt has been dead for a long time and values change over the years. What should not change is wholesome fun entertainment and a place where anyone can go at a reasonable price.

 

[Gail Hayden]

Okay, let me ask it this way:

How many FAMILIES do you know that would approve of their children eating bugs for sport? Or ACTING like they are going to marry some obnoxious person to make money? Or would approve of Disney putting in gambling or "other" forms of adult entertainment on property? I don't HAVE to define anything. Families are just that: FAMILIES. And like it or not, over 58 million of them out there do exist, and I'm going to speculate even many more than that. Most of those from liberal states tend to vote the same due to "political views" and NOT family values views. They too believe in family. Are you going to tell me they don't because they voted for J. Kerry? Or because they support roe v wade, that they DON'T care about family values. Again those issues and others, are politically based and motivated.

And no, I don't believe that family values have changed at all. If you believe the HIGHLY BIASED ULTRA LIBERAL MEDIA, then you would believe that to be the case. But again, recent events say the exact opposite. That family values STILL MATTER. You and others may not like hearing that, but it's the truth. And Disney sincerely needs to return to those values.

Or do you disagree with Roy Disney?

You make some very excellent points, however, you also believe that morals and family values need to be legislated.

Family values need to be set by the individual families. I don't need the backing of the rest of the country for what I set as values. I am an individual, I follow the Big 10 and the Golden Rule. I am also deeply religious, but, have the good sense to realize that those are my beliefs and they are personal and I don't have to go around telling everyone they are the only beliefs that work.
They work for me. That, dear poster, is all that matters in the long run.

I would dearly love to see a casino at WDW, one that would not intrude on those that do not share the same values. I would LOVE to see PI restricted to those 18 and over, I really don't believe children should be there, again, my values at work.

I am not a liberal nor conservative. I take each issue all by itself and come to my conclusions. I voted for Kerry because I like the man and his ideas, NOT because my party told me to.

Disney is not a political machine, it is a business and as such will do whatever it needs to do to insure a healthy bottom line. Irrespective of what you,a kajillion other people or I would like to see.

Regarding reality shows, personally I hate them and chose not to watch them.
I have a ton of stations where I can watch pretty much whatever I want.
Those TV shows are aiming at the sensonalist audience, not REPs or DEMs.

 

[Gail Hayden]

Why is a casino needed? What were the numbers for the latest annual report? The latest quarterly reports? Again, how much is enough? And you actually make my arguement for me. Though you may have philosophical/political differences with me, or with others like Roy Disney, you hold many of the very same CONSERVATIVE FAMILY values that many of us out here do. Which is exactly my point. And Wall Street should be the end of the line, not the beginning. In other words, if you return to the family values, IMHO, you will regain a large number of families that you have lost over the years, due to philosophical/political differences, as well as financial inability to pay the inflated prices. Once you recapture their hearts and minds, the money will follow. Which, in the end, will impress those on Wall Street. But I submit that part of the problem is Wall Street. Although I agree that the stockholders are the ones you are looking to please, if you can't capture your target audience, your stockholders AREN'T going to be pleased. So at the base of your operations, you MUST do things which capture that target audience. The PARKS were built as a place where FAMILIES could afford to come, and where they could enjoy a vacation together. Again, this is about leadership, character, and integrity at the top.

I really don't see that the parks are suffering in the least. Apparently many without family values visit there in huge numbers.

A casino is not needed, but, IMHO, it would be nice to actually have a place for adults only. I love WDW and I like families, but I also like adult only time.