Roy Disney profiled in the NY Times

[SNERWW22785]

An obnoxiously sympathetic profile of Roy E. Disney appears in today's New York Times.

Now, lemme clear up one thing right away: I'm not an Eisner "supporter", unconditionally. I think he has been part of some great successes for the company and some great mishaps. But I can't accept Roy Disney's arguments at face value. Here's a great quote from the NY Times piece:

Instead, he has merely called for Eisner's removal, which, in corporate circles, tends to be viewed as roughly tantamount to a high-school senior trying to topple the president of the student council by going around saying, ''He stinks.''

Which is basically what it is. Disney has offered up no alternative candidate, suggested no redirecting of company policies except the universal crowd-pleaser "Bring Back the Magic", and in the Times article he and his wife and son are trying so hard to portray themselves as good common everyday folk it's disgusting. At one point, his wife points how she always picks up a candy wrapper on the ground if she sees one at Disneyland, and then the gloves REALLY come off...

if we see a candy wrapper on the ground, we stop and pick it up and put it in the trash. Do you think Michael would ever think of doing a thing like that? Oh, pleeeease!''

No sale. It's not that I think Roy Disney's wrong, and it certainly isn't that I think Michael Eisner is right. I just think Disney's naive. For instance, two of his final pet projects at Feature Animation, Fantasia/2000 and Treasure Planet, both posted losses near $100 million. What the hell? THAT is sound business policy designed to create long-term growth and stability?

And all this wonderful talk about what a great, "aw,shucks" businessman Walt Disney was? Yeah, but they conveniently ignore the fact that Walt could be as ruthless and competitive as anybody out there. I remember when Walt was profiled as part of the TIME 100 during the end of the 90s, a TIME Magazine veteran recalled Disney's attitude when the cameras WEREN'T rolling:

No entrepreneurial triumph of its day has ever been less resented or feared by the public. Henry Ford should have been so lucky. Bill Gates should get so lucky.

The truth about Disney, who was described by an observant writer as "a tall, somber man who appeared to be under the lash of some private demon," is slightly less benign and a lot more interesting. Uncle Walt actually didn't have an avuncular bone in his body. Though he could manage a sort of gruff amiability with strangers, his was, in fact, a withdrawn, suspicious and, above all, controlling nature. And with good — or anyway explicable — reason.

And that's not all...

The restless, hungry young entrepreneur had achieved undreamed-of wealth, power and honor. Asked late in life what he was proudest of, he did not mention smiling children or the promulgation of family values. "The whole damn thing," he snapped, "the fact that I was able to build an organization and hold it." These were not the sentiments of anyone's uncle — except perhaps Scrooge McDuck. And their consequences — many of them unintended and often enough unexplored — persist, subtly but surely affecting the ways we all live, think and dream.

All I'm saying is that you've gotta ask more than simply "What's Eisner gonna do wrong?" You've got to ask "what's Roy Disney gonna do right?", and Roy is completely unable or completely unwilling to answer that question. Roy can decrey Eisner's losing Jeffrey Katzenberg all he wants - Katzenberg was called "the eighth Dwarf, Greedy" during his time at the Disney Studio, and one of Eisner's chief reasons for standing firm on not giving Katzenberg the vacant position of President was Roy's belief that Katzenberg wasn't the right man for the job.

It just seems like Roy Disney is the kind of guy, instead of actually leading people, stands on the curb as the crowd marches past and then decides, "I must find out where these people are going so I can show them the way."

[Son of the Morning]

Have you read the essays and point-by-point arguments on Save Disney, or are you just basing this all off of the tidbits you've seen in blurbs on the news?

[Son of the Morning]

Furthermore, it would behoove you to do a tad bit more research into the financial history of the Walt Disney Company under Walt, because I find it quite hard to find any rational correlation between the following paragraphs of yours:

No sale. It's not that I think Roy Disney's wrong, and it certainly isn't that I think Michael Eisner is right. I just think Disney's naive. For instance, two of his final pet projects at Feature Animation, Fantasia/2000 and Treasure Planet, both posted losses near $100 million. What the hell? THAT is sound business policy designed to create long-term growth and stability?

And all this wonderful talk about what a great, "aw,shucks" businessman Walt Disney was? Yeah, but they conveniently ignore the fact that Walt could be as ruthless and competitive as anybody out there.

When Walt Disney moved to start construction on Disneyland, he was tens of millions of dollars in debt (adjust for inflation). He spent much of his early days in feature animations millions in debt. What he would not do is tarnish the "Disney standard" to reconcile finance and ambition.

I don't believe that Walt's "ethics" in business are of any relevance here. So why was it brought up? Regardless of how Walt may have established his empire, there is no doubt that he loved it very much... which is why I find it sort of bizarre why you brought it up after you laughed at Roy's "peachy-clean" park image. Walt would have felt the same way, in front of the cameras or not... the two issues are totally unrelated.

[Mr. Toad]

It would seem unfair to point at two of Roy's less successful projects as why he was not good. While it was true Treasure Planet was not his best work, Fantasia 2000 was never supposed to make money.

Walt had his financial failures too - Pinocchio, Fantasia and Alice in Wonderland I believe were all initial money losers and big time.

Dont forget that the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, the Lion King and Lilo and Stitch all made big money under him.

Secondly, Roy has never had any interest in leading Disney. He has opportunity. Also don't forget that he was the one that chose Eisner and Wells 20 years ago. It takes a pretty well rounded individual to lead one of the world's biggest companies - financially, operationally, for human resourses etc. Being able to recognize who can do it and being able to do it are two entirely different things and I would suggest Roy's track record on the former is a whole lot better than the latter.

[karlsen]

I don't know Roy or his family so I cant say how they realy are but it looks like you just dislike him because he are profiled as a man with just good intentions.

You must remember that he is the son of the man that built all this alongside Walt, and his wife problably feel the same way.

What they are complaining about is that Eisner does not have any artistic ambitions at all, only to make money. That is not what the Disney company are about, and that is not what its values are.

If it is realy so that Walt sead what you have quoted him on (but I do not belive that he would curse like that in an intervjue) you can not take that out of a long life of intervjues and quotes and make it the truth over all the other quotes. I have been intervjued a few times in diffrent newspapers and magasines here in Norway thru the years now and I have been misquoted several times.

To me it looks like you only are out to put Roy and Walt in a bad light, just because you can not deal with the fact that Roy (and his wife) do care about their "family buissiness". It was built by Roys father and uncle so why on earth should he not be caring?

And like someone else here has stated: Roy has writen alot about whats wrong with Eisner, he has also written about what he thinks should be done. From what I can remember he has not sugested a new boss, but that is not up to him at all, that is to complicated and he is to responsible to just throw out names.

[SNERWW22785]

I read the SaveDisney.com presentation, point-by-point, three weeks ago. Again, I'm not saying he is wrong, and in several instances he is quite correct.

HERE is my problem, in two basic questions:

1) If things have been going south at the Disney company for the last 10 years, what the heck were Roy and Stanley doing with their board seats for all that time? I don't know if I want to run to the conclusion that Eisner's grip on the company is so vice-like and complete that they couldn't have voiced their concerns had they wanted.

Even giving Roy the benefit of his "consistent and vocal criticism" in recent years, maybe I just don't follow the situation close enough cause this is the first time his noble crusade has made headlines.

2) You can say it's not Roy's place to nominate successors - even though he could, as any shareholder could. But he did just that in 1984 - he gathered a group of talented businessman and formulated a new strategy for the the Disney Company, and a centerpiece of that plan was the team of Eisner and Frank Wells. So why is it so unreasonable to ask for the "How?" in all of this?

Roy Disney has painted his campaign in such broad strokes, with easy to follow policies like "Select a New CEO with Strategic Vision" and "Rekindle the Creative Spark" - that's like saying "Vote for a President Committed to Protecting America". Everybody likes the idea, nobody agrees on what it means.

As a result, for me, I just have a hard time accepting that Roy really knows what is best for the Disney company, particularing when he speckles all the canned anecdotes about the joys of waiting in line like a regular customer, all the spiteful jabs about how "That's not how Uncle Walt would've done it" - first off, as I mentioned before, Walt Disney had a cold businessman streak just like every CEO in America, and secondly I fail to really see how that's relevant because Walt didn't compete with the internet, exploding cable interest, cell phones, Wal-Mart, and he certainly was before the era of the media conglomerates such as NewsCorp and Time Warner.

Translation: the world has changed, and I don't know if Disney can compete for a meaningful place in the market if they follow the mom-and-pop shop mentality. Amongst all the drab of Eisner's CNN appearance tonight - should any of you think I'm an Eisner apologist, I'll go on record right now as saying that 90% of his talk on Larry King was a load of misdirection and hot air - he made one important point: Disney is in the unenviable position of having to constantly change in order to keep itself relevant in an increasingly saturated martketplace. It's not exactly something that gets cured by bringing in a little bit of pixie-dust.

Ah, maybe I just look at it the wrong way. Frankly, I don't have a whole lot of trust in the sincerity of either side in the debate - as I said before, whatever Roy's trying to say about himself and his cause loses itself because he lays it on so thick - the "American as apple pie" routine to Nth-degree. Eisner tonight demonstrated how if he hadn't gone into business he probably could've done politics - he dodged every issue, gave annoyingly cheerful non-answers, and spun everything so far off the axis nobody can tell the difference. Guess I just gotta keep watching to see how it unfolds.

-- link for that TIME.100 profile of Disney, which had the subheading "Happy toons masked the founder's darker soul".http://www.time.com/time/time100/builde ... isney.html

[2099net]

Roy Disney has painted his campaign in such broad strokes, with easy to follow policies like "Select a New CEO with Strategic Vision" and "Rekindle the Creative Spark" - that's like saying "Vote for a President Committed to Protecting America". Everybody likes the idea, nobody agrees on what it means.

I think SNERWW22785 does have a point. I can't find a proper business plan from Roy either. I personally don't think Disney under "Roy like" management would last long - the 70's were hardly a boon period for the company and Roy had a significant role in running the company then (and let's face it, many see this period of Disney history as being "dark days" when it comes to the animated films).

Like it or not the world has changed. And not just in the way media is presented or fighting for attention for your entertainment dollars. Business has changed. Were companies in the 1950's and 1960's closing down profitable factories and moving all the work abroad? There'd be an outcry in those days - these days the CEO's are put on the cover of Forbes and labelled heroes. People in the 50's and 60's thought that had jobs for life, but these days more people have short term contracts than permement placements. And don't kid yourselves that it's down to the general ecomomy. The rich these days seem to increase their wealth as a much more accelerated rate than they did in the 50's and 60's, while the standard of living for the average joe barely crawls upwards. The whole world is different and people have to wake up and accept that. Nobody can say for sure what Walt would do - because Walt died in simpler times.

I also keep hearing little bits and bobs about Roy himself being just as responsible for Katzenberg's departure as Eisner, including throwing him out during the production of Pocahontas when Eisner had almost agreed to let him stay until the film was complete. I don't know if they're true or not (apprently the book Keys to the Kingdom : The Rise of Michael Eisner and the Fall of Everybody Else supposedly covers this, and Roy has been quoted in various papers with comment like

"In Dumbo Dumbo only thought he could fly because he had the magic feather, and later he could fly just fine without it. Well, Jeffrey is that feather."

(When asked if WDFA would suffer now that Katzenberg was gone).

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a bit rich of Roy to be naming Katzenberg as a talent drain under Eisner, if Roy himself was partly responsible? I've not read "Keys to the Kingdom" but I've been informed Roy organised a massive anti-Katzenberg movement in the company.

I don't personally have anything against Roy and I think he handled the whole Treasure Planet debarcle extremely well (he was the only executive with any dignity throughout the entire affair), and I do support Eisner going. But Disney needs to be very careful when choosing a successor (or better yet successors). And Disney still needs a firm financial vision to move forwards, no matter what the artistic vision is.

[AwallaceUNC]

Leave it to the NY Times to produce an audience like this. You can knock "bring back the magic" as a cheap slogan all you want, but the fact is, the magic is gone. Roy may have just begun his very public campaign to oust Eisner, but the public's frustration with him is nothing new. He is the reason the magic is gone. It is becuase of Eisner's attempt to close the Disney family out of Walt's company that Roy now saw the need to speak up. He's not a passer-by, or even a follower. You blame Roy for two failures (in which his role and voice were diminished by Eisner's cronies, and the failures were likely the result of his stifling), and don't mention his numerous successes. He's knows what he's doing, he's done it before. He has given us success. Eisner hasn't. Roy has laid out a plan (maybe not as specific as you would like, but that isn't his place to do, nor is it something that should be done arbitrarily... presidential candidates don't map out complete 4-year plans or budgets prior to winning either). All that Eisner can offer us are assurances that all is well. Well, it isn't. I think Eisner is a nice guy and all (or seems to be), but the season of his tenure with WDC has come and is now on its way out. I think you've been unfair to Roy, and worse than that, seem to base it all on some New York times column. I, for one, hope we keep the Disney in Disney.

-Aaron

[SNERWW22785]

Why is it so unfair to actually ask where Roy Disney was when this "10-year drain of talent and energy" was happening?

Lemme write it in capital letters since, apparently, anything less that unconditional support of Roy Disney brands you as a traitor to the cause around here: IT IS NOT THAT I THINK ROY IS COMPLETELY WRONG. IT IS NOT THAT I THINK EISNER IS RIGHT. IT'S THAT I THINK THE PLACE FOR THIS DEBATE IS THE SAME PLACE WHERE THE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE, AND NOT OFF ON SOME ISLAND.

In my opinion, though I have immense respect for him for doing what he believes is the right thing, I look at Roy Disney and I see him trying to cultivate the heroic, fallen warrior figure running a government-in-exile, like King Arthur preparing to return spring to the lands. But this is not the way to do it. If the Roy really felt that the Disney Company has been on the downside since 1996, it's not so wrong to ask why, as a boardmember, as representative of the stockholders, he waited eight years and right before the end of his service on the board (the age-restricition rule was, by the way, a rule he agreed to without so much as one public note of dissention) to finally voice his concerns. Had he flexed some of his clout, had he taken a stand for the principles which apparently only he and Stanley Gold are willing to fight for, it quite possibly could never have come to this. Why, as a stockholder in the Disney Company, am I being branded as a slanderer for asking that question?

And while I'm at it, how about the following:

Roy Disney has said that, since 1996, Disney Theme Parks were produced "on the cheap in a repetitve and unoriginal manner." The head of Disney's Theme Park division, who created these cheap and unimaginative parks - which certainly don't "Bring Back the Magic" in Roy's view, was Paul Pressler. Yet Pressler's DEPARTURE from Disney is specifically mentioned as an example of Eisner's failure.

Or, when Roy talks about how BusinessWeek in 1998 called Disney's board one of the 10 Worst, why does Roy never mention the fact he was a member of the board during that time? Does the statement about the board of directors apply to everybody on it EXCEPT him?

I'm just saying, the more I look at it, the more it seems like Roy Disney did one of three things - a) as a member of the board, and as Head of the Animation Department, he actively shaped the policy of the Disney Company b) He allowed others to make decisions while offering his assessment of the situation c) He offered little to no input, either positive or negative, on the company policy and has now decided that since it failed, it was Eisner's fault that it failed.

I'm going with (a). Roy Disney has had a voice, a commanding voice in the Disney Company for many years, amplified greatly when Eisner and Wells assumed control and installed him as the Chairman of the Animation Division. You can agree with me or disagree with me, but now I feel like it's right to look at the big picture - how did the Disney company get here? It wasn't "just because of Michael Eisner", just like it was a hagiography in the early 1990s to say the Disney Company had succeeded "just because of Michael Eisner".

[SNERWW22785]

Or I could just be wrong. Maybe it's like you say, the NY Times has assisted in putting words in his mouth. The closing sentence of the article really banged the righteous sympathy drum one too many times:

Of all his films, Disney told me, it remains his sentimental favorite.

I found a copy of it after I returned home to New York and was surprised to see that its message remains timely. ''Mysteries of the Deep'' is not an animated film but a so-called true-life adventure. Set below the surface of the ocean on a patch of coral reef, the film tracks an inordinately hungry jawfish on its daily rounds. By the end you come to understand how the big fish eat the little fish.

That's where I just draw a line and make like Roy's wife and say "Oh plllleeaaaassseee." Roy Disney is hardly a little fish. Having said that, my rather tepid view on the situation started shortly after this thing exploded in December, and not just because of a NY Times article.