IMPORTANT! A SaveDisney.com call to action!

[PhilosophyMagic]

SaveDisney.com has recently added an update in which website visitors are asked to send a very important pre-written appeal (or to change it as they like) to the chairman and board of directors of the Walt Disney Company, regarding Michael Eisner.

It is absolutely vital for Walt Disney World and the entire company's future that as many people sign this as possible. Please take a moment to visit SaveDisney.com, click on "a call to action," and, if you agree with this appeal, to add your name. Thank you all so much, and don't forget to tell your friends!

Thanks again!

 

[Legacy]

Is it just me, but does it seem like SaveDisney has become extremely reactive in everything now. I have actually been agreeing with a lot of what Jim Hill is saying regarding how Roy and Stan have been responding to everything. It really does seem that after the no-confidence vote, and Eisner did quit, SaveDisney didn't know what to do. Now, I'm just kinda over the whole thing. The SaveDisney movement, though still breathing, seems to be in a catatonic state that just isn't as effective as it was six months ago. Everything is now out of SaveDisney's hands. It comes down to how the board wants to respond to Eisner wanting Iger to take his spot.

Everything that SaveDisney does now just seems like desperate grasp for the brass ring...

 

[Gregory]

Nothing about Save Disney will actually save Disney... Like Legacy said, most people are starting to move back into the middle of the road in the Save Disney vs Eisner debate...

As for me, from the first day I saw their website (remember the Scrappy dialogue? :lookaroun), I was against them.. Admittedly, I do have a banner for them on my site.. But, I have always been critical of them... It kinda reminds me of one of the D-Troops' slogans: "We're no anti Eisner. We're not pro Roy. We just want what's best for Disney."

Sure, the slogan is dandy... "Save Disney"... But, they just wanted to "Save Roy Disney"

 

[General Grizz]

"We're no anti Eisner. We're not pro Roy. We just want what's best for Disney."

Hey...I didn't hear that one!

 

[PhilosophyMagic]

Hopefully, though, the reactive attitude will have an effect on board choices. By reacting and "staying in the game," hopefully SaveDisney will help move the theme parks away from becoming associated with themed-amusement parks, like Six Flags, and instead retain the uniqueness that made Disney popular. It won't work perfectly or have a tremendous effect, but I still have faith that SaveDisney has the power to keep the issue alive in the company, and that's most important.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

So what are they about now? Eisner's already said he's leaving. What do they want now, his head on a spike?

 

[SNS]

So what are they about now? Eisner's already said he's leaving. What do they want now, his head on a spike?

They want him to leave sooner (he can do a lot more damage in his remaining two years).

 

[General Grizz]

They want to make sure he doesn't dig his heels in the company, which would be very likely.

 

[Gregory]

Hey...I didn't hear that one!

You havn't? :lookaroun

Well.. Me and SirNim were throwing it around... I think it might be on one of the banners he made or something...

Well.. do you like it? I guess I should have asked a few days ago :lookaroun :lol

 

[General Grizz]

You havn't? :lookaroun

Well.. Me and SirNim were throwing it around... I think it might be on one of the banners he made or something...

Well.. do you like it? I guess I should have asked a few days ago :lookaroun :lol

I don't THINK we support Eisner. . . because we don't support some of management's decisions. . . and that management is under him . . . :lookaroun

Crap, THREAD DRIFT! Back to Mitchell. . . or something.

 

[PhilosophyMagic]

He's also likely planning to remain on the board after he retires, and choose a new CEO who will agree with all of his policies, making the situation not much better than it has been for the past years!

 

[brubuc]

divided

I don't post to this site very often, but I do visit here at least once a day. I'm a huge Disney Co. fan, but more specifically I am really impressed with what they have created in Orlando = From every perspective; creative, magic, business, efficiency; it’s an amazing creation. Having said that, and avoiding going into a long and, to some extent, emotional argument, I think that at the end of the day (repeat: at the end of the day) Eisner has done more good than bad. In fact I could go on to say that it is Eisner's Disney = His expansionism, which has affected me the most, and that has done great things for the brand and the Disney Community. Reluctantly, I think Mike needs to move on. I admit that. But I'm not going to be a bitted and negative towards Mike. Or in other words, at least in my opinion, a non-Disney person (we’re supposed to be chipper, aren’t we?? *smile*). SaveDisney is a site I vistit less and less. Roy is bitter and negative, and he's trying to get us to be like him. That's not Walt's way. And it isn't mine.

 

[Gregory]

I don't THINK we support Eisner. . . because we don't support some of management's decisions. . . and that management is under him . . . :lookaroun

Crap, THREAD DRIFT! Back to Mitchell. . . or something.

[thread drift]Well.. that doesn't say we're pro Eisner.. we just aren't out to get him... if he gets in the way, we have a problem with him.. but we're not going after Eisner... we're just trying to make Disney better.. :lookaroun... well, we can chat on AIM about this.. lol[/thread drift]

 

[raven]

I think that at the end of the day (repeat: at the end of the day) Eisner has done more good than bad.

In SOME areas. But as a past Disney employee who has seen first hand what the power of management can do, I beg to differ. So do thousands of people worldwide who will no longer be employed by The Disney Company come a month or so. (Do your homework if you don't know what I'm talking about.)

Roy is bitter and negative, and he's trying to get us to be like him.

Roy is only making public what exactly is going on under Eisner's management. Roy knows the power of people and people (guests) are what Walt cared most about. I don't feel he is being negative at all. Just persuasive. Roy isn't looking to take over the company. He just wants to restore what his father and Walt created it to be.

 

[MagicalMonorail]

Regardless of how anti-Eisner Mr. Roy is, we know he does want one thing: change. I believe the current management is in need of a change. Not necessarily at WDW, but in the entire Walt Disney Company. It has not made an overly significant profit lately, and management must take the blame for this.

 

[prberk]

In SOME areas. But as a past Disney employee who has seen first hand what the power of management can do, I beg to differ. So do thousands of people worldwide who will no longer be employed by The Disney Company come a month or so. (Do your homework if you don't know what I'm talking about.)



Roy is only making public what exactly is going on under Eisner's management. Roy knows the power of people and people (guests) are what Walt cared most about. I don't feel he is being negative at all. Just persuasive. Roy isn't looking to take over the company. He just wants to restore what his father and Walt created it to be.

I believe you are exactly right. Roy and Stan have made it clear that they too believe that Michael did a lot of good for the company in the first 10 years, but later something changed... And they DID support Mr. Eisner and work from within until they saw the entrenchment happening. The board was becoming stacked with Eisner's cronies; and the strategic planning department had thoroughly evolved from a small group that provided business research assistance, to a behemoth department that hurt the creative spark rather than help manage it.

Their website crosses over sometimes into bitterness, but it is made up of contributions from people, some of whom have been hurt. Most of all, though, the website is working as a very thorough compilation of articles from all over the world related to Disney's management.

What this achieves is a complete enough picture for people to see patterns and make up their minds. It allows people, especially investors, who are used to seeing research to predict management trends, to have enough info to see beyond the front page. You need that info to make business decisions.

He realizes that his audience, though including small-investor Disney enthusiasts, was mainly large institutional investors. In the end, you may have to put the needs and observations into language that Wall Street understands, in order to achieve or affect them... and sometimes that is briefly ugly or monotonous.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Well, I know I'm probably a salmon swimming upstream here, but I believe in picking your shots, and I don't think Roy and Stan have done that lately. After nearly a year of pummeling Eisner, they've achieved their objective. Eisner will never admit it, of course, but I have to think that all the shots at him have taken their toll and figured in his decision to leave.

But it's not good enough. The sniping continues. Roy and Stan know good and well that the head of the world's largest entertainment company isn't going to step down because of a website campaign. Corporate change takes time and two years is practically an eyeblink. They've got what they wanted, so I think they should just shut up about Eisner and focus on other things, personally.

I can agree with the concern that Eisner might just be replaced by a mini-Eisner, but continuing this shrill campaign isn't the way to address those concerns, I believe. I think a more prudent (not to mention mature) reaction would be to accept the victory of having Eisner out in two years and start shifting their efforts to the post-Eisner era, instead of this "Gimme gimme NOW" crap.

My two cc

 

[Tocpe]

Wilt,

I think if you took a deeper look at the situation you might see it a bit differently.

You are right, Eisner isn't going to admit to or even step down because of a website campaign. But he will step down under public scrutiny and financial pressures.

He's a tough cookie. His professional history has shown that he is very fierce fighter. He loves a good fight. And hates to admit defeat. This has been documented several times over the years by several different sources. Just look at the Jeffrey Katzenberg fiasco...

As far as Eisner being the only problem, I don't think that's true either. Are you familiar with Paul Pressler, Cynthia Harris and Disneyland? Take a look over at Miceage.com for more information if you're not. The folks up top are responsible for choosing who runs the company everyday. If the folks up top have a bad sense of choosing people right for the job or worse yet appoint their "buddies" instead of qualified personnel to these vital positions, it can wreak havoc on a company, just like we've seen.

As for Eisner needing two years to make his exit, from what I've read, it commonly only takes three to six months once a successor has been chosen to make the transition. Even for large companies like Disney. It doesn't take 2 years. All dragging out the process does is create uncertainty for shareholders and stakeholders in the direction and leadership of the company during the transition period. Not something you want to do.

 

[Legacy]

Well, I know I'm probably a salmon swimming upstream here, but I believe in picking your shots, and I don't think Roy and Stan have done that lately. After nearly a year of pummeling Eisner, they've achieved their objective. Eisner will never admit it, of course, but I have to think that all the shots at him have taken their toll and figured in his decision to leave.

But it's not good enough. The sniping continues. Roy and Stan know good and well that the head of the world's largest entertainment company isn't going to step down because of a website campaign. Corporate change takes time and two years is practically an eyeblink. They've got what they wanted, so I think they should just shut up about Eisner and focus on other things, personally.

I can agree with the concern that Eisner might just be replaced by a mini-Eisner, but continuing this shrill campaign isn't the way to address those concerns, I believe. I think a more prudent (not to mention mature) reaction would be to accept the victory of having Eisner out in two years and start shifting their efforts to the post-Eisner era, instead of this "Gimme gimme NOW" crap.

My two cc

I don't know how you can say Eisner leaving in two years is a victory. Conisdering is contract expires in September 2006 (when he is stepping down), and will be older than the age restrictions the Board put on extending contracts (as is Roy), the SaveDisney campaign did nothing that probably wasn't going to happen. If this all part of SaveDisney's plan, it's taking way too long to be a real coup. Three years? You can't tell me that Roy wanted Eisner out in 2006, he wanted Eisner out in 2004. That's the whole thing. Eisner dug in his heels when NO ONE expected him to, and has thrown a wrench into all of SaveDisney's plans. That is why I feel they are trying to do something effective now. It's obvious they had no contigency plan for after the Philly Rally.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

As far as Eisner being the only problem, I don't think that's true either. Are you familiar with Paul Pressler, Cynthia Harris and Disneyland?

I am...which was why I said in my other post that Roy and Stan were focusing too heavily on Eisner. It seems that every personal reference I hear about from SaveDisney is aimed at Eisner (or maybe Mitchell).

I don't know how you can say Eisner leaving in two years is a victory . . . If this all part of SaveDisney's plan, it's taking way too long to be a real coup.

That's the core of my disagreement with this movement. This whole romantic idea of a "coup" is just silly to me. It might get people stirred up to imagine a group of crusaders storming the walls of the fortress to overthrow the evil emporer, but it's not reality.

Like him or hate him, Eisner is the rightfully-appointed head of the Disney company, and he has the right to decide when and how he gives up that title (unless the company sees fit to remove it from him, which has not happened.)

With that being the case, I think it is a HUGE victory for them when, after a year of assailing the guy, he says he'll be gone in two more. It took over 20 years for all this to build; it's not going to be resolved overnight. Eisner's not going to sell Mickey off to Warner Brothers in the next two years, so I think they should take this as a W and move on to other things.

I agree with the spirit of much of what SaveDisney is about, but the methods are what I take issue with. Change is gradual in most things, and they just don't seem to get that.

I just think that their purpose would be better served if they would try engaging people within the company whom they haven't yet alienated and started expressing their hopes for what comes after Eisner, but it seems they'd rather just continue this public assault on him, presumably because they see letting him leave his job on his own terms would be seen as a "win" for him. I don't see a lot of wisdom or foresight in that.