IMPORTANT! A SaveDisney.com call to action!

[Legacy]

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.

The coup is essentially what Roy wanted. There was even his comment about having enough rifles to get the job done. That's why I feel they have failed. After the no-confidence vote, which was a direct result of the SaveDisney campaign, Roy expected the board to drop Eisner and move on. They didn't, and now Roy has been forced to resort to more drastic measures. Eisner, in announcing his retirement two years early, is essentially shoving Roy's failure back in his face. Roy didn't get what he wanted. It all comes down to the board now, and frankly I feel that they will let Eisner sit till 2006.

Honestly Wilt, have you EVER heard of someone formally announcing retirement two years early? Regardless of how big a company is, or how high up the person is, that just doesn't happen.

Eisner is essentially telling Roy that nothing he does will change the inevitable, that being Eisner's leaving in 2006. Roy's actions now are smart, in layinig pressure on the board to speed up the process, but with the "Yes-Men" Eisner has had for the last 10 years, it is too little, too late.

SaveDisney has failed.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Eisner is essentially telling Roy that nothing he does will change the inevitable, that being Eisner's leaving in 2006. Roy's actions now are smart, in layinig pressure on the board to speed up the process, but with the "Yes-Men" Eisner has had for the last 10 years, it is too little, too late.

SaveDisney has failed.

That's a real possibility about Eisner (and I can't say I really blame him if it's true, regardless of how I feel about some of his decisions).

And I can see where you're coming from in calling this a failure for SaveDisney in that they aren't getting the changes in the manner and timetable that they prescribed. I guess my bigger argument is that I see that fact as a fault with the way SaveDisney has set out their expectations, but if your argument is that this is a failure based on their narrowly-defined vision of success.....then fair enough. No argument here.

 

[Gregory]

SaveDisney has failed.

Depends on what you mean...

In Roy's eyes, it wasn't a complete failure... After all, he got the attention he was looking for...

Like most people, I agree with the concept of the site, but not the motivations or steps taken to achieve it... I don't think its fair to say SaveDisney won this round.. I mean, if they stick around long enough, he either has to leave, or die...

Of course, what everyone thinks is up to them.. Some people might think SaveDisney suceeded, and thats their opinion... I just believe that they have done A LOT more bad than good for the Disney company... Is dragging the Disney name through the dirt worth the minimal accomplishments they achieved?

 

[General Grizz]

It ain't over yet. . . let's sit back and watch.

 

[prberk]

Of course, what everyone thinks is up to them.. Some people might think SaveDisney suceeded, and thats their opinion... I just believe that they have done A LOT more bad than good for the Disney company... Is dragging the Disney name through the dirt worth the minimal accomplishments they achieved?

Actually, I think the campaign has actually helped improve or remind people of the name and what it means to them, especially interested individual investors. What has been exposed as dragging in the mud is the management. I think most people who have formed negative opinions have separated the current management decisions from the Disney name. And along the way, they have given new consideration to why they might want to preserve it for future generations.

The no confidence vote of a record 45% was against Eisner, not the company. Similarly, the 25% vote against Mitchell (and a couple others, with just less) had the effect of making it a vote against management and cronyism against the board. This was achieved in part specifically due to the information campaign that SaveDisney really is. The shrillness of it at times simply reflects the feelings that many contributors have. But I have also noted the campaign for essays in what Tomorrowland meant, what Disney meant to people, etc.

The target audience, though, is investors, and especially institutional investors. The drum beat and constant stream of information is one of the ways to get them the information and momentum that they need to make changes... and with a board and management stacked with cronies (and given over to "strategic planners" that run creative talent away in droves) it may take a steady beat to get back on track.