OK, here is the park hour comparison June 2001 v June 2000

[DVC-Landbaron]

That the tone is not Disney enough, I can live with that, but that in and of itself doesn't make Eisner a poor CEO, either.

YES IT DOES!!!!!! For Disney at least. Let him go head up GE or Coke. Disney needs a bit more... ah... well.... magic!!. It's their number one commodity.

 

[All Aboard]

Jeff, I am confused. Are June Studios hours posted as 9-9 somewhere? Other than the first weekend (which is May carryover), I've got 9-10:30 on about 3 different sources.

 

[YoHo]

But when Well's was there, the tone was far more Disney.

Lets see, Disney Stores are unprofitable, ABC is in the Toilet, DCA sucks. Unprofitable growth is not a good thing, and Last I checked, the phenominal growth of Eisner Weels has been missing for some time. during the late 80's early 90's less then double digit returns was considered a failure, now they're proud of a percentage point or two. Please spare me about how great the company is doing right now. If we were to look at the company as a whole instead of just theme parks, AND forget the former glories, I too would have nothing good to say about eisner.

Eisner creates growth through creativity, and letting people who know more then him do what needs to be done, Well's dies and Eisner decides he's omnipotent and now the company feels like its thrown a rod and is limiping into the nearst station. I just haven't seen much positive from Disney since well's died. Remember, AK was well into design before Well's died, only cutbacks were made afterwards.


I always approved of things like buying ABC, because I felt that a permanent outlet for Disney Entertainment was a briliant thing, yet ABC sucks. I'd rather watch the Disney channel or listen to Radio Disney where family programing reigns supreme. ABC is a perfect example of something that could have been so right, yet is so wrong. Drew Carey and Regis Philbin do not a network make.

 

[JeffJewell]

That the tone is not Disney enough, I can live with that, but that in and of itself doesn't make Eisner a poor CEO, either.

...but surely we can agree that it makes him a poor CEO _for_ _Disney_, can't we?

Although with the bonus checks he gets, it's probably inaccurate to describe Eisner as a "poor" anything.

I throw Eisner's name around in vain as much as anyone, but I wish him no personal ills. I don't even begrudge him his money, it just rankles me what he did to Disney (and Disney's future) to get it. You say "tone is not Disney enough," I say "Anti-Magic." Same beans.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

Hey, I like GE, Why would I want a financially confused guy like Eisner running it?

 

[JeffJewell]

...check the official Disney site (www.waltdisneyworld.com works for me), click the down arrow where it says Site Shortcuts, and select Park hours.

Disney's official hours for Disney Studios for most of June are 9-9, for AK, 8-6.

From when the June hours first appeared (I first noticed them around the beginning of March) up until at least April 18th, the official site said 9-10:30 (with a second nightly showing of Fantasmic!) and 8-7 for AK for most night in June. Shortly after that, I saw those same hours appear on the DIS and on Deb's site (well, Deb's site sends you back to the official site for the actual hours, but she does show the two Fantasmic!s scheduled for those days).

When I checked back on April 20th, the shorter hours were posted on the official site, and the second Fantasmic! cancelled, in general (Wednesdays are late nights at DS).

The Mickey Monitor, apparently pasted up before the ax fell, recently arrived showing the longer hours.

According to Disney's official Park Hours as of this moment, DS is 9-9 and AK is 8-6 for the bulk of June.

Jeff

 

[Peter Pirate]

I just reminded you that Disney not only WAS profitable, but beat expectations by posting 6 cents a share higher than expected. Is that not profit?

Michael Eisner's relatively low base salary of 750,000 per year is tied directly to his profit performance and unless my memory fails me he has only not made huge bonus numbers on one occasion. The numbers he makes are too high in my estimation, but the Board that cut the deal must have thought it was a tough job or they wouldn't have agreed to such terms...He has obviously righted the wrongs they were so fearful of.

You can disect the areas you feel are a failure and call it whole if you choose, but the numbers speak for themselves.

One last thing about seemingly non-profitable growth. You may feel it's poor management to grow for growths sake, but the fact is that Disney must grow (in any way possible) in order to remain independent. JJ & DVC don't see that as a legitimate factor (not fearing the devil they don't know), but I do so I'll take Mike.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Peter,

How about moving over and letting the Captain speak for a while. He was just starting to come around to the right way of thinking (lol).

Now I'm no finance guy (sharp pencil guy) but I do clearly remember talking about how Ei$ner cut a deal with "HIS" hand picked board releasing his bonus from preformance. Also, if I remember correctly, there is also some serious question as to the reality of that so called "profit" this quarter. But all the details have gotten muddled in my MAGIC seeking brain.

So, it seems I need some help (because I'm basically lazy and really don't want to look it up). Perhaps VOICE can clear it up. He usually has a pretty good handle on the business end of things. Or anyone else, please feel free to clear this up. We can't let my good friend the Pirate spread this nonsense any longer!!

Thanks

 

[Another Voice]

I go away to see a cut of some small, intimate summer war/romance movie set in Hawaii - and the car pool leaves without me! I will try to make this short.

It’s been said that “entertainment” is the forsaken child of “art” and “commerce”. Frank Wells understood that, Michael Eisner never will.

Frank Wells knew that to run a successful studio, the management’s job was to provide the artists with the resources that they required to create, but with a discipline so that personal indulgence would not harm the business that generated those resources. Michael Eisner believes that “entertainment” is a consumer product, to be manufactured and marketed using the same techniques used to produces tires or jet engines or disposable diapers. Frank Wells knew that “art” was like a vapor – impossible to define, constantly changing and destroyed with the swipe of a hand. Michael Eisner believes anything can be fixed with only a good enough advertising campaign. Frank Wells was demanding and exacting in business because he knew people’s lives – both stockholders and employees – were affected by what happened. Michael Eisner sees the business as an extension of himself, as only a tool that can be used to carry out his wishes. Frank Wells had the power to tell Michael “No”, now no one can tell Michael Eisner anything.

Eisner had the board change his employment contract so that he could “earn” an $11 million bonus last year. Based on his previous contract, he would have only earned his base salary for three years – no bonus, no stock options, nothing but “basic” pay. Is it any wonder then that he’ll shave a few hours off people’s vacations?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Thanks Voice!! How well put!!

Does anyone remember anything about the "profit" thing this quarter?

inkbounc

That pink one better start working!!!

Hey VOICE!!! Just a second!! A little summer film. Come on!! Give with the review!!

 

[JeffJewell]

Is that not profit?

...Disney made a profit, actually increased profits over last year, I believe. The problem is that revenues were down. Meaning they made more while selling less.

This isn't really "growth" in any meaningful way. It basically means that Eisner has cut budgets faster than people have stopped buying his products.

While that might make a bottom line look good long enough to cash a bonus check, I don't think it enhances the Disney Company one iota. Indeed, I think the substantial cuts in Imagineering and the farming out of more and more work (both for the parks and for the screens) are actually the destruction of what was meaningful about Disney in the first place.

That Disney created Magic. This Disney creates a favorable earnings per share ratio.

I guess we each have to decide for ourselves which of those creations we value more, and which we'd rather associate with the name Disney.

Jeff

PS - I noticed Another Voice posted while I was writing this. Blindingly well spake.

What, no details on the screening? Surprise ending, right?

 

[Eyesnur]

I seriously do not like the tone or demeanor of this discussion.

I belive you all should heed those oft forgotton words once uttered by Walt..."Trust the CEO,whomever he may be"...

Enough said, I think...Oh, by the way, go see Atlantis... It's great!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

HA!!! It is now near midnight Central Daylight Time. I read the above post a couple hours ago and really didn't know what to make of it.

Then it hit me!!! HA!! LOL!! LOL!! LOL!!

Someone out there has a marvolous sense of humor!!!

Hope to hear more from you.

Thanks for the laugh. (I really did laugh out loud!!)

 

[Peter Pirate]

I was hoping for help from DisDuck or Horizons Fan and I get the Big Cheese! Ain't Magic grand?

Ok, I've taken a blow to the head, numerous body shots and sadly, a couple of low blows...But I'm back up off the floor...Heading for my corner, but still standing!

JJ writes "While that might make a bottom line look good long enough to cash a bonus check, I don't think it enhances the Disney Company one iota."

Well, I disagree. Profitable is as profitable does (thanks Forrest). This may be how he made the numbers this quarter but it wasn't always that way and it won't be in the future. Surely, tightening the belt occasionally and maximizing profit potential especially before the next big push makes sense to me. The question now is will there be a next big push (as I believe) or will it be as AV contends, that this is Eisners big push to retirement. I believe one thing , you guys believe another...Only time will tell.

And AV, if you can point me to something that proves these changes to Eisner's contract were indeed made, I would (genuinely) like to read it. As I recall this was rumored to be true and wrote about ad nauseum, but never confirmed. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd love to be pointed to the documentation, if possible...Could play a key role in my future thinking...

 

[Another Voice]

Here’ the information direct from the highest sources. These are quotes taken from Disney’s Proxy Statements found at http://www.disney.com:

From the FY2000 Statement:
“Mr. Eisner's bonuses for fiscal 1997 and 1998 were determined under the Annual Bonus Performance Plan described above, and beginning in fiscal 1999 bonuses were to be determined pursuant to a bonus formula based on a compounded earnings growth rate of the Company above a specified level. (See "Employment Agreement with Michael D. Eisner" below.) However, in November 1998 the Company requested a renegotiation of the bonus formula pursuant to a provision of Mr. Eisner's employment agreement that permits such a renegotiation under certain circumstances. The Company and Mr. Eisner subsequently entered into an amendment of his employment agreement to provide that Mr. Eisner's bonus for fiscal year 1999 would be determined under the Company's Annual Bonus Performance Plan, rather than pursuant to the bonus formula, and that a new bonus plan would be negotiated for future years.”

From the FY2001 Statement:
“As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Eisner is compensated pursuant to an employment agreement entered into in January 1997. The agreement, which was further amended in June 2000, extends through September 30, 2006, subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances. The agreement, as amended, provides for an increase in the annual base salary from $750,000 to $1,000,000, the first increase Mr. Eisner has received since 1984. In addition, the agreement provides that Mr. Eisner’s bonuses will be determined pursuant to the Company’s Annual Bonus Performance Plan (or any successor plans thereto) for the remaining fiscal years during the term of his agreement. Mr. Eisner’s bonus for fiscal 2000 was determined under the Annual Bonus Performance Plan by the Executive Performance Subcommittee as described above.”

In normal language, his bonus was tied to predetermined formula based on the growth of the company, but the contract was renegotiated so that it was “awarded” by the board (most of whom he appointed) at the end of the year. To get this change, Eisner agreed to forgo his 1999 bonus but that was quickly made up in 2000. Somewhere online is a great article by the consultant who put together Eisner’s original contract but who now feels the changes are a betrayal. I’ll pass along the link when I find it.

 

[iamleia2]

Ok, I didn't take time to read any of the other posts except for the first few. But one person did say something about "Who can be in a theme park for 16 hours?" Well, granted, some people can't do that. But some of us aren't rich and can't stay at DW for two weeks and take our sweet little time with it. We will be there for THREE DAYS in June. AHHH!!! There are FOUR parks and we have THREE days! I was stressing before they cut back the stupid hours. Now I don't know what we're going to do! I think it's ridiculus! People keep saying "Oh, it's probably just their off time." No, it is not. We were there last year at the same time and it was plenty crowded straight through until closing time so I think it's just ridiculus. And AK does have different hours. They were open until 7:00 last year and now they're only open until 6:00. It's not just hours either. Because MGM closes so early that means only one showing of Fantasmic.... which means you have to get in line at least an hour early, whereas you could always just walk in to the second showing. That cuts WAY back on park time. Why is it that we're always paying more and getting less? This isn't fair!

 

[iamleia2]

Oh give me a break. I'm not going to stop going to DW just because they changed the hours. The point is that there is still plenty of magic at DW and that's why I'd like to spend the most time possible in the parks. They make that rather difficult when they chop the hours off, now don't they. And I don't know how to "inform Disney" of my displeasure. And not that it would make any difference anyway. But I think I can be upset that I planned my entire itinerary and then 2 days later they change the hours without getting beat down for heaven's sake! I never said I hated DW or that I didn't want to go. Just that I wish I could stay there longer! So there!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

iamleia2 posts two in a row and seems to be arguing (or at least talking) with no one in particular.

At around 2:30 this afternoon I checked the baords, just to see what's going on and see a post from Peter Pirate. A rather harsh post. But, being in the middle of my daughter's comfirmation party I had no time to post. When the party ended I came back on line and POOF! no more Pirate post and two iamleia2 posts in a row.

What gives??

 

[YoHo]

TO get back to the point,

Another Voice, I appreaciate the insite, I wonder if you could comment about Mike's creative abilities. It seems to me that when Well's and his Wisdom were around, Mike was far more magical.


As to Disney profit, that 6 cents is all smoke and mirrors since they're taking a huge hit on go.com. And Peter, your missing the point, 5-10 years ago, 6% was considered insufficent, Eisner would have been tearing around the corporate buildings looking for a scape goat, Now I'm supposed to be impressed by it? I'm sorry, but Eisner-Well's trained me a little different, they trained me to believe that good enough wasn't. Strangely Walt like even if it had a bit more of a pencil sharpener focus.




Just for those confused, I still like Mikey a little bit, and I'm still a silver lining kind of guy, but I can't sit by and agree that the Disney Corp is doing Well financially right now when they so clearly aren't. SHow me a ten year history, and maybe you'll sober up about this supposed profit and growth.

 

[Peter Pirate]

This argument is about at an end, I'm afraid. I will not "sober up" to your viewpoint Yoho, because it is wrong. The Disney Corp just beat the street estimates on earnings by 6 cents. If you think that it's all mirrors and hat tricks, I can't convince you otherwise. Further, the fact that the Company is sitting on a ton cash and looking to acquire is a trait of a fiscally sound Company!
(see larwoths post on the DisBiz for Thomas Staggs comments).