I found this article rather interesting from Mouse Planet written by: Mark Goldhaber
http://www.mouseplanet.com/dan/bm040922mg.htm
I enjoyed Goldhaber following comment in the article:
Walt knew that if the product was good and people were satisfied, the profits would come. By trying to make Disney a Wall Street darling and enhance his personal reputation, Michael cut costs, reduced services and lost focus on entertaining the paying customer. The now-legendary, “If it's good enough for Six Flags” presentation during the planning stage of Disney's California Adventure pretty much sums up the loss of respect for the general public.
I also agreed with Mr. Goldhaber on the following:
What Disney's board needs to do is to find a pair that works well together, respects each other, and will be able to create dynamic tension between the creative and the financial, as Walt and Roy did, and as Michael and Frank did.
Back in the beginning, and for almost 40 years, it was Walt and Roy O. Disney. After the company foundered for a number of years following the deaths of the brothers, a new resurgence began when Eisner and Frank Wells were brought in by Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold to run the company in 1994. The company prospered, and grew both creatively and financially for the next 10 years, until Wells' death in 1994 in a heli-skiing accident. The company proceeded upward for the next couple of years on momentum, as projects begun while Wells was alive came to fruition. Then things began a downward spiral as Eisner tried to direct both the creative and the financial.
While Eisner has a good knack for creative ideas, he frequently lost sight of what made Disney “Disney.” Wells was able to keep Michael focused on keeping to Disney standards. But after Wells' death, ill-advised decisions lost customers, diminished loyalty and decayed the company's good will. Eisner became more focused on making Wall Street happy than on making paying customers happy.
Seems many of us have said this same thing mentioned in the article. Do you think Mr. Goldhaber browses this forum?
Do you agree or disagree with this article?
What is your opinion?
http://www.mouseplanet.com/dan/bm040922mg.htm
I enjoyed Goldhaber following comment in the article:
Walt knew that if the product was good and people were satisfied, the profits would come. By trying to make Disney a Wall Street darling and enhance his personal reputation, Michael cut costs, reduced services and lost focus on entertaining the paying customer. The now-legendary, “If it's good enough for Six Flags” presentation during the planning stage of Disney's California Adventure pretty much sums up the loss of respect for the general public.
I also agreed with Mr. Goldhaber on the following:
What Disney's board needs to do is to find a pair that works well together, respects each other, and will be able to create dynamic tension between the creative and the financial, as Walt and Roy did, and as Michael and Frank did.
Back in the beginning, and for almost 40 years, it was Walt and Roy O. Disney. After the company foundered for a number of years following the deaths of the brothers, a new resurgence began when Eisner and Frank Wells were brought in by Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold to run the company in 1994. The company prospered, and grew both creatively and financially for the next 10 years, until Wells' death in 1994 in a heli-skiing accident. The company proceeded upward for the next couple of years on momentum, as projects begun while Wells was alive came to fruition. Then things began a downward spiral as Eisner tried to direct both the creative and the financial.
While Eisner has a good knack for creative ideas, he frequently lost sight of what made Disney “Disney.” Wells was able to keep Michael focused on keeping to Disney standards. But after Wells' death, ill-advised decisions lost customers, diminished loyalty and decayed the company's good will. Eisner became more focused on making Wall Street happy than on making paying customers happy.
Seems many of us have said this same thing mentioned in the article. Do you think Mr. Goldhaber browses this forum?
Do you agree or disagree with this article?
What is your opinion?
