03-04-2004, 06:38 AM | #1 (permalink) |
A Real American
|
Eisner Ousted as Chairman.
If you feel this is in the wrong place by all means move it.
Linko Eisner out as Disney chair He will keep CEO job. Board unanimously elects former U.S. Senator George Mitchell chairman. March 4, 2004: 7:56 AM EST By Paul R. La Monica, CNN/Money senior writer NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The board of Walt Disney Co. late Wednesday stripped CEO Michael Eisner of his role as chairman after about 43 percent of shareholders voted to oppose his re-election to the company's board. The board opted to separate the positions of chairman and chief executive at a meeting that followed what was an often quarrelsome five-hour annual shareholder meeting in Philadelphia earlier in the day. It unanimously elected former U.S. Senator George Mitchell chairman. Eisner will keep the CEO job and the board in its statement said it remained "unanimous in its support" of Disney's management team. Eisner, appearing on Disney's own ABC network, told "Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel late Wednesday that he planned to stay as chief executive at least until his contract expires in 2006. Strong opposition Earlier, Disney said about 1.8 billion shares, or nearly 87 percent of the total shares outstanding, were represented in the proxy vote. Nearly 772 million shares opposed Eisner's re-election to the board. Several prominent pension funds had announced publicly in recent days that they planned on withholding their votes for Eisner. “ Michael Eisner must leave now. ” Stanley Gold Ex-Disney board member "This is without a doubt the most withholding of support for a CEO of a major company that I have ever seen. It's really an expression of dissatisfaction," said Kevin Calabrese, an analyst with Argus Research. Following Wednesday's vote, California's Calpers, the nation's largest pension fund, called for Eisner to resign by the end of the year and urged Disney to split the role of chairman and CEO. Calpers owns more than 9.9 million shares of Disney. The pension fund had said it would withhold its vote for Eisner at Wednesday's meeting, but this is the first time Calpers has specifically called for Eisner's ouster. "This discontent is too wide and way too deep in the marketplace, and it has led us to believe that Eisner should go and the board should get quickly to work on planning for an orderly transition," Sean Harrigan, president of the board of administration for Calpers, said in a written statement. Disney had previously said it expected at least 30 percent of shareholders to oppose Eisner's re-election to the board. But Stanley Gold, one of two ex-board members who is seeking Eisner's ouster, accurately predicted at the beginning of Wednesday's meeting that more than 40 percent of shareholders would withhold their votes for Eisner. All I can say is YES!!! More info and opinion on why this is good: http://www.savedisney.com/ http://www.zpub.com/notes/FuckDisney.html http://www.coasterbuzz.com/2003-335-783412.htm Roy disney's letter to Eisner: http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...098012,00.html
__________________
I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince |
03-04-2004, 07:04 AM | #2 (permalink) |
On the lam
Location: northern va
|
I'm no fan of Disney as a general principle--their corporate practices have been less than humane, and if Michael Eisner was the one responsible for this, then this is great! But who is George Mitchell? Is he a good guy? More importantly, it seems like the stockholders are more worried about the bottom line than Disney's reputation...?
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy. |
03-04-2004, 08:10 AM | #3 (permalink) | |
Everything's better with bacon
Location: In your local grocer's freezer.
|
Quote:
As far as the stockholders being more concerned about the bottom line.......uhhhh, yeah, they're stockholders they care more if the company is making money than how the company is perceived.
__________________
It was like that when I got here....I swear. |
|
03-04-2004, 08:41 AM | #4 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
It really does nothing to change things. It's a concession to those opposing Eisner which the board hopes will appease a chunk of the 40+% of shareholders who didn't vote for Eisner. Mitchell is a pretty staunch supporter of Eisner and that won't appease those out for Eisner's head.
I am not particularly impressed with Eisner of late. The destruction of the Pixar relationship was likely avoidable and definitely hurts the company. I'm not sure I like the prospect of Comcast owning Disney and would prefer to see it remain on its own. I think the company needs to be rejuvenated but I don't think Eisner has the popularity/support/or faith of those who will need to work to do it.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
03-04-2004, 10:05 AM | #5 (permalink) |
Tilted
Location: the Midwest
|
I am surprised at how many people are pissed at Eisner at think he did a horrible job when the company cleared $500 million last year. Last I heard, Comcast had given up for now. I personally wish that they had maintained the relationship with Pixar, but what Pixar was asking for was ridiculous and it would have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars. In the end, it will turn out poorly for both Disney and Pixar. Disney seems to be struggling with their own animated features as of late, and Pixar will soon discover that the unstoppable juggernaut that is Disney and its distribution and marketing departments is unrivaled in the world. Will Pixar still be successful? Yes. Will their next non-Disney film gross over $300 million w/o Disney promoting it with all of their merchandising, media outlet partners, and the largest distribution of any entertainment company(not to mention probably the most recognized and respected brand name for family entertainment in the U.S. if not the world)? I seriously doubt it.
As for Eisner, he is a victim of his own success. Go back and look at what Disney was when the same Roy Disney was in charge. The company was floundering and in serious trouble, having just barely survived several takeover attempts. Eisner came aboard and created the monolith that Disney is today, or more properly, was 5 years ago. The heyday of their motion pictures: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and the Lion King were all made after Eisner came aboard. The dramatic expansion of the theme parks was after Eisner took control. The aquisition of ESPN and ABC, after Eisner was hired. The problem is that Eisner did too well for so long, it is almost impossible that he will be able to equal that success, so the people who remember that peak level of performance are dissatisfied and are forgetting who was in charge when they were there. It's like trying to take over for Michael Jordan on the Chicago Bulls, after 6 championships in 8 years, will the fans be impressed by a deep playoff run or even a single championship? I doubt it. |
03-04-2004, 10:16 AM | #6 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
Quote:
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
|
03-04-2004, 10:57 AM | #7 (permalink) | |
beauty in the breakdown
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
|
Quote:
__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato |
|
03-04-2004, 11:01 AM | #8 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Eisner had to go (and needs to go completely).
Not only did Disney break their relationship with Pixar, they've also gutted their own animation studio, not to mention created a lack luster run of the mill theme park (Euro-Disney) that skimped it's way into mediocrity. To borrow a turn-of-phrase, this isn't your father's Disney (and that's a BAD thing).
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
03-04-2004, 01:44 PM | #9 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
the synergy that Disney has isn't just in the ability to distribute but to insert an object into the machine and EVERYTHING gets done on time and coordinated. It's something that even Viacom cannot rival. Money is in the movies, but merchandising revenue eclipses that at least 5 fold. That's truly where the money is and that's even why Lucas kept such tight controls. A good example of this is Dreamworks' Shrek. While the movie made a killing in the box office lots of money was left because there wasn't such a huge mechandising push.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
03-04-2004, 02:37 PM | #11 (permalink) |
hovering in the distance
Location: the land of milk and honey
|
i am amazed at the opinions of the posters, i didn't realize people felt so strongly about this issue. cleary i don't pay enough attention to the politics of Disney.
__________________
no signature required |
03-04-2004, 03:04 PM | #12 (permalink) |
On the lam
Location: northern va
|
Here's a little (actually kind of long) primer on the politics behind Winnie-the-Pooh. It's just one of the many stories one could tell about Disney's corporate practices.
I'm a bit surprised that this thread is focusing more on profitability and not on business ethics. That's the thing to get riled up about, not whether or not disney makes profitable decisions...
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy. |
03-04-2004, 04:36 PM | #13 (permalink) | |
Here
Location: Denver City Denver
|
Quote:
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown |
|
03-04-2004, 08:46 PM | #14 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: About 70 pixals above this...
|
Ok, i seem to have the most first hand experience here (rs|12 may be excluded). I watched my uncle do a year long stint at the D and heard all his stories about the nigh slave labor they instituted. the old guys there talked about when Eisner was not there and how they produced quality, not the well marketed quantity they were doing there. Anyone with a family were told to get out or divorce themselves. Married to the company was what he was told (lucky he was gay and lonely...). Eisner made the inner groups cutthroat and distant. the "synergy" was non existent. Apparently, the plan was to make the company into small units, fighting for money and when one unit did not produce they got that much closer to being booted. This is not a creative corporation, this is a machine shop.
His "business ethics" tho typical, are disgusting. It is not about a creative dream fueled by financial and marketing genius. it is about the dollar. Thus, Dis. producing stupid, useless sequels. Creative genus is risky, sticking with a formula is safe (taking after pop artists, they are). Taking out the Mike is a good idea. getting creative people to head things internally is a better one. |
03-04-2004, 09:39 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
03-04-2004, 10:52 PM | #18 (permalink) | |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
Watch those sweeping generalizations, because I didn't.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
|
03-05-2004, 05:28 AM | #19 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
Quote:
As far as why the focus is on profitability, well, it's a business. Creativity is great but if the company can't keep from being taken over or be profitable, it won't be creative for long.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
|
03-05-2004, 05:06 PM | #20 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Eisner has seen to allowing the image of Disney to degrade to an embarrassing level. The parks aren't clean like they used to be, he has made poor strategic decisions with regards to their animation outlets, and has sat for far too long in that seat. The time has come (and been anticipated for a while) for his complete removal from all things Disney.
|
03-07-2004, 01:52 PM | #21 (permalink) | |
you can't see me
Location: Illinois
|
Quote:
I don't recall anyone complaining about his poor decision making about animation when the list of films that johnsmith named were being released. |
|
Tags |
chairman, eisner, ousted |
|
|