Full Version: Roy Disney quits Disney board
QUOTE
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 1 — In a sign of tension at the top of one of the nation’s media giants, Walt Disney Co. vice chairman Roy E. Disney stepped down from the board of directors and called on chairman and chief executive Michael Eisner to resign in a scathing letter.
****
Disney, 73, is the last family member active in the company, founded in the 1920s by his uncle Walt and his father, Roy O. Disney, who was the business manager. He said he also is quitting as chairman of the company’s animation division.
****
Disney, 73, is the last family member active in the company, founded in the 1920s by his uncle Walt and his father, Roy O. Disney, who was the business manager. He said he also is quitting as chairman of the company’s animation division.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/999674.asp?0cv=CB20
Has Disney really been in a slump? And why? What should they do to restore the good name and image of Walt Disney?
Disney hasn't been doing too well in the way of successes because of two things:
1. Tourism: Since 9/11, park sales have slumped dramatically
2. Bad movies: Not very many successful movies. "Finding Nemo" basically saved Disney because of it being a hit. The DVD sales for that movie has also been a huge help.
I don't think Disney is done for. I think that everything must see a bad time in it's cycle of life. But it will get better. Take our economy for example. The past few months have seen massive increases after a sharp decent
1. Tourism: Since 9/11, park sales have slumped dramatically
2. Bad movies: Not very many successful movies. "Finding Nemo" basically saved Disney because of it being a hit. The DVD sales for that movie has also been a huge help.
I don't think Disney is done for. I think that everything must see a bad time in it's cycle of life. But it will get better. Take our economy for example. The past few months have seen massive increases after a sharp decent
Interesting development. I worked for Disney Imagineering for the entire decade of the 1990's, the so-called Disney Decade, and like many of our rides, it was a real roller-coaster. We were on our way up, way up in the early part of the decade and by the time I left, I thought the company was in free-fall. 9/11 certainly didn't help any, but there were problems long before that.....
There is a book out there, since out of print, but you might be able to find it on Amazon called "Storming the Magic Kingdom". I forgot who wrote it and I can't find my copy of it, but it is a good read if one is interested in corporate politics. Basically it details the behind the scenes activities by Disney to save itself from the corporate raiders who were looking to split Disney up and sell it off piecemeal. The basic strategy was to keep Roy Disney on the board, he had threatened to resign, and to bring Michael Eisner and Frank Wells on board to run the company. And that's where the up began and the eventual down......
I had the chance to meet and get to know both Michael Eisner and Frank Wells quite well during my time at Disney and the two of them were the most capable corporate team one could imagine. Michael was the creative force, he knew what was good and what wasn't from an entertainment standpoint, and he was brilliant from that aspect, really brilliant. Frank, on the other hand, was the business guy. He knew what was affordable and what wasn't. We could put on a show that would wow Michael, but we couldn't wow Frank. Frank always wanted to know how much it cost, and if it was too expensive, he'd order cuts even if Michael thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. That was the key because Michael listened to Frank and Frank was pretty much the only person who could tell Michael no. Michael trusted Frank implicitly. With good reason I might add, Frank was one heck of a good guy, a real straight shooter. Michael may have been the creative force behind Disney's success, but Frank was the brains behind the business and then we lost him in a helicopter crash and that changed everything at Disney.
Frank Wells had hardly been buried when people at Disney started lining up to get his job. The problem was that nobody could take that job because Michael didn't trust them like he had trusted Frank. Instead, Michael tried to become the "business guy" at Disney as well and that didn't work out very well. Corporate politics ran rampant, bad decisions were made and stuff began to go downhill in a hurry. Roy Disney's decision is just another step to that I think. I just heard that a guy by the name of Stanley Gold also resigned. That's really important because if memory serves me correctly, Gold was the one who engineered the resurrection of Disney in the first place. That's a major thing I think.
As far as Disney surviving this, I think it probably will, but I don't think it will ever be the same. Too bad, it was a really great company back then, really great.
There is a book out there, since out of print, but you might be able to find it on Amazon called "Storming the Magic Kingdom". I forgot who wrote it and I can't find my copy of it, but it is a good read if one is interested in corporate politics. Basically it details the behind the scenes activities by Disney to save itself from the corporate raiders who were looking to split Disney up and sell it off piecemeal. The basic strategy was to keep Roy Disney on the board, he had threatened to resign, and to bring Michael Eisner and Frank Wells on board to run the company. And that's where the up began and the eventual down......
I had the chance to meet and get to know both Michael Eisner and Frank Wells quite well during my time at Disney and the two of them were the most capable corporate team one could imagine. Michael was the creative force, he knew what was good and what wasn't from an entertainment standpoint, and he was brilliant from that aspect, really brilliant. Frank, on the other hand, was the business guy. He knew what was affordable and what wasn't. We could put on a show that would wow Michael, but we couldn't wow Frank. Frank always wanted to know how much it cost, and if it was too expensive, he'd order cuts even if Michael thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. That was the key because Michael listened to Frank and Frank was pretty much the only person who could tell Michael no. Michael trusted Frank implicitly. With good reason I might add, Frank was one heck of a good guy, a real straight shooter. Michael may have been the creative force behind Disney's success, but Frank was the brains behind the business and then we lost him in a helicopter crash and that changed everything at Disney.
Frank Wells had hardly been buried when people at Disney started lining up to get his job. The problem was that nobody could take that job because Michael didn't trust them like he had trusted Frank. Instead, Michael tried to become the "business guy" at Disney as well and that didn't work out very well. Corporate politics ran rampant, bad decisions were made and stuff began to go downhill in a hurry. Roy Disney's decision is just another step to that I think. I just heard that a guy by the name of Stanley Gold also resigned. That's really important because if memory serves me correctly, Gold was the one who engineered the resurrection of Disney in the first place. That's a major thing I think.
As far as Disney surviving this, I think it probably will, but I don't think it will ever be the same. Too bad, it was a really great company back then, really great.
QUOTE
What should they do to restore the good name and image of Walt Disney?
I think it would be a good start to buy out Pixar and do all of their animation through them.
I haven't seen Brother Bear yet and have heard good things about it, but from what I can see all traditional animation features have suffered since the advent of CG animation.
I also think that they should look to open more themparks around the world, but should adapt each of them to the host culture more closely - any European could have told you that a no-alcohol policy for Disneyland Paris was a serious turn-off, and that a largely open-air theme park in northern France is a seasonal attraction, not a year-round one. (Southern Spain or Italy would have been a better location.)
Not uncoincidentally, visits rose dramatically when the alcohol ban was lifted, and when the Eurotunnel opened so the British could easily get there. The largest segment of tourists in France is represented by the French themselves, who (as any fule kno) are not the most receptive western nation to American culture.
Further to the resignation of Stanley Gold, he was, as Aquilla mentioned, instrumental in re-shaping the company in 1984 - including bringing both Michael Eisner and Frank Wells to the company. (I currently work for the Walt Disney Company, btw).
In his letter of resignation, Gold mentions that his decision was based, in part, on Roy Disney's exit. He claims that the Governance Committe was trying to oust Disney for his "pointed and vocal" criticism of Eisner and the Board and for being one of the few voices of dissent among the management directors.
He concludes his letter of resignation:
Like Roy Disney, Gold called for the removal of Michael Eisner as Chairman and C.E.O. I'm not sure what this means for the future of the company - clearly some very bad decisions have been made of late - but I don't imagine it augers well for Eisner, especially in relation to the company's shareholders...
In his letter of resignation, Gold mentions that his decision was based, in part, on Roy Disney's exit. He claims that the Governance Committe was trying to oust Disney for his "pointed and vocal" criticism of Eisner and the Board and for being one of the few voices of dissent among the management directors.
He concludes his letter of resignation:
QUOTE
It is clear to me that this Board is unwilling to tackle the difficult issues I believe this Company continues to face - management failures and accountability for those failures, operational deficiencies, imprudent capital allocations, the cannibalization of certain Company icons for short-term gain, the enormous loss of creative talent over the last years, the absence of succession planning and the lack of strategic focus. Instead, the Board seems determined to devote its time and energies to adopting policies that focus not on substance, but on process and, in reality, only serve to muzzle and isolate those Directors who recognize that their role is to be active participants in shaping the Company and planning for executive succession. Further, this Board isolates those Directors who believe that Michael Eisner (when measured by the dismal results over the last 7 years) is not up to the challenge.
Like Roy Disney, Gold called for the removal of Michael Eisner as Chairman and C.E.O. I'm not sure what this means for the future of the company - clearly some very bad decisions have been made of late - but I don't imagine it augers well for Eisner, especially in relation to the company's shareholders...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.