DVDizzy Forum

I found this interesting:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idU ... 0220080622

Disney wants higher valuation, Wall St hesitates

The article opens with:

Walt Disney Co (DIS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is waging a campaign to convince investors that its product range and brand make it more valuable than media peers and more like a consumer goods company -- but so far that has proved a hard sell on Wall Street.

On calls with analysts and at investor conferences since November, Chief Executive Bob Iger and Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs have argued that the second-largest U.S. entertainment company should be viewed as a stable global brand rather than a cyclical, hit-driven media business.

I can't help but detect a hint of desperation here from Disney. Its not often you hear of companies waging campaigns to attempt to reclassify their business with analysts. I don't know what Disney expect to happen from its "campaign" but the market will look at the quarterly and yearly profits, and set its value from those.

I've not really been keeping up with Disney's profits, but a quick look-see on the Reuters shows that the share price rose steadily from 2003 until mid-2007 and since then has somewhat levelled off.

I can't help but wonder what is behind this latest tactic from Disney. Is it worried now that its stock is somewhat stagnant that it has committed to much money to its future motion picture commitments?

You know, while Eisner was CEO, it didn't resort to "begging", which is basically what Iger and Staggs are doing now. Thankfully, their "arguments" appear to be falling on dead ears. Surely if they were a consumer goods company, its turnover and profits would have already convinced the market that they were on the up?

2099net wrote:I found this interesting:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idU ... 0220080622

You know, while Eisner was CEO, it didn't resort to "begging", which is basically what Iger and Staggs are doing now. Thankfully, their "arguments" appear to be falling on dead ears. Surely if they were a consumer goods company, its turnover and profits would have already convinced the market that they were on the up?

I fully second that.
Then on the other hand, in Eisner's Days the revenues were off the charts, so there needn't be worries, yet it is this same Eisner I hold responsible (at least in part) for this occurance, since it was his marketing (think sequel/threequel...cheap) that has left consumer's with a bad taste in their mouths that is only recently (pixar) on the up again.

Now Netty, be careful with your "pro-Eisner" comments around me.

"You don't want to see me angry" - disneyfella preparing to hulk up.......





j/k

I definitely think that this moves HURTS the Disney company more than it would help. To make a gross comparison, it is like a middle class family pretending to be upper class. The mere fact that they need to "point out how stable they are" is proof that they are nothing more than solid middle class.

I'm not particularly defending Eisner. But I'm not particularly attacking him either.

I must admit, from my POV, I can't see anything that Different between Disney then and now. The DTVs have all but stopped, but then again there's four Tinker Bell movies this year alone.

Plus, the exploitation of the Disney Channel Tween stars continues at double speed and Disney's criminal lack of respect for its pre-2000 properties in general still remains.

How can they claim to be above the "cyclical, hit-driven media business" when all they promote are current "hits" or a limited range of past glories in the Pooh and Princess lines. Having thousands of characters and shows means jack-all if you don't do anything with them Iger!

2099net wrote: Having thousands of characters and shows means jack-all if you don't do anything with them Iger!

Again, can't argue with logic like that
Having this consumerdriven mentality is one thing, but ignoring your own franchises is another.

It saddens me to see that current management is't learning from previous mistakes.

Why must this seequelfest continue with not one but four Tinkerbells, she's a decent side-character at best.
She lacks depth and is not on par with more memorable merchandise like
for instance another Oliver & Co movie?

I fail to see Lasseter restoring creative magic in the house of mouse when two sequels have already been announced (cars 2/toy story 3)

It's shorttime mangement, you can't rely on this to work like a forever spell.......

I agree somewhat. I mean we are still getting sequels, but I do feel that there is already a different atmosphere in the Company. Remember that we are still seeing the products of the Eisner regime.....Enchanted, Ariel's Beginning, Tinker Bell franchise, etc. were all begun under his regime and apparently too far invested to cancel when the Iger/Lasseter company cleaned house.

Also, you can't blame a company for promoting a product that sells. Disney would virtually be throwing their money away to sell commercials and radio ads for "Life with Derek", "Atlantis the Lost Empire", or even "Oliver and Company DVD rerelease" (which has yet to be announced). That is not to demean the quality of any of those assets, but rather put into perspective what the market wants to see.

There is definitely an audience and market out there for vintage Disney, but modern day executives are hard pressed to find the appropriate medium to make money off of this. Simply releasing DVDs of their catalog titles has overall shown to be more "nostalgic lipservice" than actual money in the bank. What's more with the ready availability of many of the catalog titles the draw to a television airing of them has declined.


Personally I think that a vintage Disney channel (maybe a premium cable channel) would be lucrative for Disney and please the collector crowd.


Until then, though, we are relegated to whining from the executives as they ask for more merit than they currently deserve. I think this move is unfounded and possibly harmful. But I'm not going to say that we are in the same artistic pickle as when Eisner was pulling the strings. Have we heard any other announcements for cheapquels or cheap rides at the parks after these current productions are released?

Dear Penny-Pinchers at Disney,

You want your stock to have higher value? You want the company to be seen as a "stable global brand"? Here's what you should do...

It's a big message, so I'll let you get prepared...














Wait for it...






















STOP F***ING AROUND WITH YOUR FANS!!!!!




Seriously, you've gone from a well-rounded family company that appealed to all ages to a wheel-of-fortune flavor-of-the-week sideshow attraction.

In a matter of only, what...six years (at least...), you've easily alienated many longtime fans by severely cutting down on products that would appeal to them. You've turned the Walt Disney Treasures into mere bones thrown their way rather than an icing on the cake. You've concentrated your publicity and promotion towards youth and beauty that within 5 years, you likely won't give a damn about anymore. And for what? Short-term boosts from easily-influenced kids and tweens? If you continue in this pattern, fifteen years from now those kids and tweens will be just as upset with you as most of us are already, and most of us have been for the past fifteen years.

If not for your lovable theme parks and that you made a lot of good movies back in the day (and a few good ones today), I doubt many people would even care about your "cyclical hit-driven media business". You know why? Because you don't care about many people. You care about little people who have to rely on their parents' money to get them the latest Hannah Banana Karaoke CD or more-expensive-than-they-should-be tickets for caterwauling teenyboppers vocally defecating renowned classics or insipid bubble gum songs at an event that shouldn't be called a "concert" but "cruel and unusual punishment".

Don't get me wrong, some of the youth you employ are talented. I will always applaud you for casting Emily Osment as the offbeat fun character in "Hannah Montana", as well as the wise decision of importing the sometimes-pleasing-but-still-not-an-essential-to-watch show "Life with Derek" (it has its moments, so sue me). But not every youth you employ is a singer, so for god's sake, stop trying to make them be one.

Look at your company's rich and diverse history. Did it always focus around the pimping out of the hot young talent while pushing aside stable veterans? No. Compare the television shows of the 1950s to the Disney Channel of the 2000s. "Disneyland". "Zorro". "Mickey Mouse Club". Something for everyone. But today? "Hannah Montana". "Wizards of Waverly Place". "Phineas & Ferb". Something primarily for kids. Geez, no wonder kids grow up and become anti-Disney. You're still clinging to the belief that they're kids forever. No matter how much you want to believe it, it isn't true. Not even the old "kid at heart" excuse works here. Because what *worked* for Disney back then was that they made shows that you could enjoy as a kid, then look fondly back on as an adult. And how many kids today will look fondly at crap like "The Suite Life" and think to themselves, "Wow, that was a great show!"?

Take a page from the Warner Brothers Guide To Classic Cinema and treat them with care, no matter how many or how little fans will be buying it. Appreciate the fact that they're still there, and still willing to buy your stuff. Also, I'll let you in on a little secret: there are actually fans out there of classic stuff in your collection who weren't around when it was. And they'd like to have it for themselves as well, and with the same treatment and care that you put into a select few of your products.

If those little moneymakers made money in the 30s/40s/50s/60s/etc., they're still able to make money now. Get out of your delusional "if it's old, it's not worth it anymore" mindset. I'm surprised you're still committed to making halfway-decent two-disc DVD sets. But of course, your company is more than DVD sales. It's music sales, it's theme parks, it's clothes, it's lawn gnomes, it's kitchenware. It's universal.

And yet you seem to think the only thing worth promoting is an ever-changing-and-ever-getting-older group of kids who look pretty but really need some time in the Actors Studio or some long-overdue criticism from Simon Cowell.

And don't get me started on your Disney Princess campaign, your enigmatic attitude towards aspect ratios, or your hypocritical employment guidelines...really, don't.

I Hope To God You Have A Magical Day And Get Your Act Together,
Albert "Escapay" Gutierrez

For once, I totally agree with Escapay.

I'm sick and tired of the Hanna Montana marketing... because I have two younger sisters who sit and watch Disney Channel from sunup to sundown (when we don't have school, that is) and I can't even stand to be in the same room with them anymore.

I remember the "good old days" when I was in elementary school and Disney Channel used to have halfway decent shows. They also didn't used to have ads (but they did have previews for other shows). What happened? Today the only reason I'd ever watch Disney Channel is for the movies... and seldom at that.

And Beverly Hills Chihuahua? Are you kidding me? It's movies like that that make me want to boycott Disney for good... though I'm willing to overlook them for now as long as the movies like National Treasure continue...

Here's the thing, though. Those children who are watching the Disney Channel today will be looking back in ten years saying that now was when tv shows were good.

Just because Disney doesn't market to your taste anymore doesn't mean that their marketing tactics have changed. They still use Touchstone television, and ABC for their older market and Disney for their children's/family market.

While I seriously don't think Disney is amazing the way it was when Walt was around, I do believe that it is still the capitalist company that has been there since the early 1980s. Basically they have been trying to play to the tween crowd ever since Touchstone was invented. Eisner saw the potential for adult programming and ran with it (Down and Out in Beverly Hills) and tried to use the Disney name to create safe programming for kids to watch that totally played down to their generation (The All New Mickey Mouse Club). Since then Disney has found success (yes, as much as we hate Hannah Montana, High School Musical, Suite Life of Zach and Cody it is a fact that they ARE succesful) in gearing its "Disney" television and film product toward a tween generation. Let's face it. Everyone's view of "good" Disney Channel is the Disney Channel of their childhood. Did anyone really expect Disney Channel not to change with the times and tastes of the kids?

On the contrary, with moves like consolidating the brand names of the company to promote the names solely of "Disney", "Touchstone" and "ABC", and getting rid of the cheapquels, and promoting quality films in theatres for family audiences (not just kids) like "Prince of Persia", etc. and mandating that the quality of films be more important than quantity (the decrease in production efforts) is definitely a step in the right direction in my opinion. I mean, it shows a level of maturity and respect for an audience that has seen the man behind the curtain for years now.

@drfsupercenter - I have to totally and completely agree with you. I saw the trailer for Beverly Hills Chihuahua in a packed theatre and when that trailer came on it was completely silent and when it was over there was a palpable "what the...............". 0_o Again, though, this film was a product from an older regime. With production history noted online from as far back as 3 years ago. Films like "Under Dog" and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" are sick attempts at humor that teeter on schlock. Joe Bob Briggs would be proud.

Well, I don't remember there being quite as much hype about the old Disney Channel shows. It could be because I was little, but I have a feeling that Hannah Montana is more of a fad now than any of the old shows were. She appears on everything, from plates, napkins, and cups, to toothbrushes! I mean, come on... not even the GOOD shows and movies make it that far!

And yeah, it seems like Disney's making a lot of stupid live-action movies now... I don't know why but they certainly aren't gonna get a lot of respect because of it. It seems like the same with the Disney Channel original movies... Where are the movies like Zenon? (Though I know a lot of people didn't like Zenon... it's possibly my favorite DCOM because I'm a sci-fi fan) I haven't seen any of the new DCOMs but their previews looked as stupid as some of the new theater movies... I realize they have a limited budget but seriously, does anyone over the age of 12 even like those anymore?

And to be fair, my sisters like other things too... like ABC Family (Um, Disney Channel 2.0?) I personally don't like shows like Full House, but at least those aren't as unbearable as the new shows. I feel the same way about Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network... the new shows have animation that looks like a third grader drew it, and a weak storyline...

We need to recognize, though, that The Disney Channel isn't targeting us anymore. They are targeting a younger generation (like your sisters) and appear to be doing it quite successfully.

p.s. i absolutely LOVE sci fi too....needless to say I have all three Zenons on DVD..lol. a bit off topic, but what is your favorite Sci Fi program from Disney (movie, tele, etc.)?

Well, Zenon's my favorite DCOM of theirs... Tron would have to be my favorite sci-fi theater movie. And I actually liked The Black Hole, not really for the story but the special effects for that time were amazing.

The very wise yet occasionally forgettable Escapay wrote:If not for your lovable theme parks...

That's a whole other issue onto itself Scaps... Just look at any Disney theme park based website (like WDWmagic.com or micechat) and you'll see how they complain more there about the parks (except for they always perfect Tokyo Disney Resort which Disney doesn't pay for which why everything there is so great) than we do here about Disney's DVDs and movies.

That Disney Fella wrote:Here's the thing, though. Those children who are watching the Disney Channel today will be looking back in ten years saying that now was when tv shows were good.

Which is why I said

If you continue in this pattern, fifteen years from now those kids and tweens will be just as upset with you as most of us are already, and most of us have been for the past fifteen years.

The problem with Disney is that they aim for one generation, then just as easily disregard them when they get too old. For some of us, the late 90s was the Golden Age for Disney Channel, while others it was the early 80s and they looked at the late 90s with as much disdain as we do to the 2000s.

Thus, if Disney continues its pattern of "if it's old, get rid of it as soon as possible", by the 2020s, the kids that were watching today would likely complain about the sh!t that's on the Disney Channel and how they should show the "good stuff" again like "Hannah Montana", "That's So Raven", and "Dave the Barbarian".

That Disney Fella wrote:Just because Disney doesn't market to your taste anymore doesn't mean that their marketing tactics have changed. They still use Touchstone television, and ABC for their older market and Disney for their children's/family market.

So very true. It's just that I think drf's complaints is towards the Disney Channel, which for a time (basically from the Channel's inception up until like...2001/2002) would actually appeal to all ages but until recently suddenly went tween-centric.

Of course, I'd really like the Vault Disney Channel (as has always been suggested by many) but Disney seems to think that it's not worth putting up the money or paying the residuals. It's easier for them to acknowledge a general group of 1000 Disney Channel watchers than to say that there may possibly be 100 Vault Disney Channel devotees.

That Disney Fella wrote:Did anyone really expect Disney Channel not to change with the times and tastes of the kids?

I expected it to stay fresh with new shows (whether or not they're good or bad doesn't matter), it's just that I didn't expect it to totally disregard its older fans.

That Disney Fella wrote:@drfsupercenter - I have to totally and completely agree with you. I saw the trailer for Beverly Hills Chihuahua in a packed theatre and when that trailer came on it was completely silent and when it was over there was a palpable "what the...............". 0_o Again, though, this film was a product from an older regime. With production history noted online from as far back as 3 years ago. Films like "Under Dog" and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" are sick attempts at humor that teeter on schlock. Joe Bob Briggs would be proud.

Hey now, don't pick on Joe Bob Briggs, he's a good friend of mine!

Joe Bob Platt is another story. Pick on him all you want.

That Disney Fella wrote:p.s. i absolutely LOVE sci fi too....needless to say I have all three Zenons on DVD..lol. a bit off topic, but what is your favorite Sci Fi program from Disney (movie, tele, etc.)?

I ain't drf, but my favorite SciFi film from Disney is pretty much a given: a tie between The Black Hole and The Rocketeer. Television-wise has some rather slim pickings, though.

The very wise yet still Wire...Hanger wrote:

The very wise yet occasionally forgettable Escapay wrote:If not for your lovable theme parks...

That's a whole other issue onto itself Scaps...

True. But aside from the two-faced management, my complaints about the theme parks aren't as intense as my complaints about the Disney Channel or the aggressive Teenyboppers-R-Us campaigns.

Albert

disneyfella wrote:
Let's face it. Everyone's view of "good" Disney Channel is the Disney Channel of their childhood. Did anyone really expect Disney Channel not to change with the times and tastes of the kids?

Actually, my favorite period of Disney Channel history was not from my childhood, but rather was from 1997 until September 2002, which coincided with the Vault Disney programming block!

I don't think Escapay and others are saying Disney should not continue creating new programming for the "tween market", but they completely THREW AWAY everyone who liked Walt-era Disney material, the roots of the company.

And those aren't just "old-timers". I myself was not even alive at any point that Walt was, and yet I love his films. Many young people of today would too, if they were actually given a chance to see them!

If Vault Disney had to be scaled back to less hours a day or even just a few days a week, we could deal with that, but they have COMPLETELY taken ANY and ALL of this programming off the air. Instead of offering something for everyone, during the overnight hours they offer the same old reruns of the tween shows that the fans of said shows already have many other chances to see.

When you can (occasionally) see live-action Disney classics (Walt and post-Walt) like Swiss Family Robinson, Pollyana, Natty Gann, and Love Bug on the Hallmark Channel but NOT the "Disney" channel, this tells me that Disney themselves is SEVERLY neglecting and undervaluing their own classic material, and by extension, the people (of ALL ages) who are it's fans!

While DVD's of this material may not always sell like hotcakes, I think Disney is partly to blame for this due to poor promotion. And I don't just mean advertising the DVDs either.

The Vault Disney block on Disney Channel was perfect "SYNERGY" to drive up demand for both the Treasures line and the live-action catalogue. It is NO surprise to me AT ALL that both sales of the Treasures have slowed and the stream of live-action catalog titles has dried up in direct proportion to the abandonment of support/exposure for this material on the Disney channel.

People see a movie on TV, or a classic short, and then go look for the DVD or even CD soundtracks (when applicable) the next day at the Best Buy. I remember someone from WDR said in an interview (maybe Randy Thornton) that every time a classic gets aired on TV, they get some requests for the soundtrack! So you know this would also be the case for DVDs!

Now, the hardcore fans will remember this material and want it no matter what, but where Disney are really missing the boat by "marginalizing" this material is by losing sales to other more "casual" fans, (at least some of whom will need to buy this material to keep sales at a healthy level), because:

a) they might have been inclined to buy the "older" films if they still aired but they have now forgotten about them since they haven't aired for awhile,

b) they don't know they are out on DVD due to lack of promotion, OR,

c) they haven't seen the movies before and don't want to blind buy, but if they COULD see them on tv, they WOULD want them on DVD after seeing how good they are!

I remember how much fun I had in the late 90's and early 2000's when Vault Disney was at it's prime, taping so much off the air and using Leonard Maltin's THE DISNEY FILMS, Dave Smith's DISNEY A TO Z, and Bill Cotter's THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY TELEVISION as reference guides to check off each short, film, and anthology episode as I had taped it.

Now, much of this material I had never even seen before AT ALL, much less in my childhood, so I was clearly enjoying the material on it's own merit and NOT just as the stereotypical fodder for "nostalgia trips"!

I also remember, as DVDs became mainstream, thinking my ultimate goal would be to upgrade all of this material to "official" DVD releases. But I can't give the Mouse my money if he doesn't want to take it!

The net result of this total lack of exposure on the Disney channel and the resulting decline of sales on DVD has created a catch 22 quagmire of marginalization for the Walt-era live action film and tv library (and post-Walt 70's, 80's and 90's) for which it sadly may never recover. It is now relegated to even more obscurity when it DOES get released, thanks to under-the-radar releases through such obscurities as the Disney movie club, which is "Continuing to deprive the general public of the studio's vintage family entertainment", as the UD homepage so eloquently stated!

Even before Vault Disney, selections from the "vintage" material were always available on some level on the Disney Channel, and thanks to the desire to COMPLETELY remove it due to lack of percieved "hipness" *, we now have, for the first time in history, generations growing up with absolutely zero exposure on Disney's own channel to Walt's classic live action films and tv.

*source quote from Wikipedia:

As part of the network's 2002 re-brand campaign, the "Zoog" brand name was dropped, and Vault Disney was dropped (primarily to contribute to the network's new "hip" image).

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Disney

David S. wrote:I don't think Escapay and others are saying Disney should not continue creating new programming for the "tween market", but they completely THREW AWAY everyone who liked Walt-era Disney material, the roots of the company.

And those aren't just "old-timers". I myself was not even alive at any point that Walt was, and yet I love his films. Many young people of today would too, if they were actually given a chance to see them!

Exactly! Disney is doing nothing but alienating longtime fans, new fans, and future fans by their subtle burying of anything that's...well more than 10 years old and not from their Animated Classics canon.

I find it really sad that the only way for anyone to actively find vintage Disney movies on TV is through non-Disney channels, and that the only way to actively acquire many of their vintage films is in inferior DVD releases, a great deal of which are in the wrong AR (for R1 at least) and a sizable amount only available as DMC exclusives.

I'm not surprised that Disney feels they should be higher-valued. They've got the goods, they just don't appreciate it, and as such, neither do most of their consumers (because a good deal of them aren't aware that they exist).

I'm all for Disney's new shows (well, not all of them, and I can't exactly escape them no matter what). I just don't want it to come at the expense of their older stuff, which is what Disney has pretty much done in the past 6 years.

Albert

I'm partly on Disney's side here.

Disney Consumer Products has grown a lot over the years and is expected to grow even larger. It's a stable worldwide brand.

but I'm not a Wall STreet analyst so what do I know.

I'm not a fan of Disney's arrogance when it comes to some of their TV DVD releases. Some of them just have only one DVD release to go to complete the series on DVD, but they refuse to put them out. I'm guessing that they think their name is so big that it doesn't matter if they piss off some fans by not completing them. Well, if you keep screwing with fans like that, maybe they won't buy the other releases you put out as well. No company is too big to be immune to poor customer service.

I kind of see what you're saying, but children from past generations showed an interest in vintage Disney. Children today have no patience for it. That may be due in part to its absence (and therefore lack of nostalgia for them) or it may be simply due to a changing taste of that Disney Channel generation.

"Families" stopped watching The Disney Channel in the late 1990s/early 2000s so what did Disney do? They changed with the times and drastically changed their programming to increase their ratings. Unfortunately for us vintage Disney lovers........it worked Disney Channel has consistently offered some of the highest ratings of any cable channel.

I'm all for Disney respecting their loyal fanbase and important heritage, but if Disney does not see any revenue for it.....they have stockholders to answer to. They can only release so much unsuccessful stuff to appease "that" crowd (read: 'us') in order to maintain a fiscally responsible company.

Honestly, I feel that Disney is trying to please the masses because those are the people who are going to pay for it. If more people were interested in vintage Disney we would be getting some serious DVD releases. As it is, though, Disney is seeing the purchases of ALL of its sub-par product.


My word of caution is one that has also been expressed above. Disney is finely teetering on losing the trust of many of its loyal fanbase. These are the people who keep Disney from being a media release related succes, but rather a constant success. I think, though, that with this new media release format that in a few years we will hopefully be seeing some upgrade releases from Disney and ultimatedisney will be awash with TONS of catalog press releases......



Dream on silly dreamer.......lol




aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh

I think the main point is Disney claims its not a "cyclical, hit-driven" business, but all signals still point to it being one.

Miley Cyrus, The Jonas Bros et al are going to both grow-up and (in all probability) want to move on to more adult subjects and tracks for their music. In short they're going to mature. And when they do, Disney will drop them like a rabid dog and move on to promoting the latest tween "hit".

We've already seen how Miley's photo session has harmed Hannah Montana to some extent. Do you really think Miley's going to carry on with an innocent school girl personna for the rest of her life?

Talking of innocence, what exactly happened to Hilary Duff? Disney dumped her and she's moved on to movies like this

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884224/

A political satire set in Turaqistan, a country occupied by an American private corporation run by a former US Vice-President (Aykroyd). In an effort to monopolize the opportunities the war-torn nation offers, the corporation's CEO hires a troubled hit man (Cusack), to kill a Middle East oil minister. Now, struggling with his own growing demons, the assassin must pose as the corporation's Trade Show Producer in order to pull off this latest hit, while maintaining his cover by organizing the high-profile wedding of Yonica Babyyeah (Duff) an outrageous Middle Eastern pop star, and keeping a sexy left wing reporter (Tomei) in check.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059925/

A waitress falls for an ambitious cook at a restaurant where they work. But as their love blossoms, she has to overcome concerns of her grandparents who are worried about the mixed-race relationship and her boyfriends criminal past.

Hardly Disney fair, and Disney's current "whiter than white" tween stars are likely to want to do the same, regardless if Disney dumps them or not. (Unless of course they're not truely artists and are simply just puppets like some suspect). People grow up, physically and emotionally, and Disney can't do a damn thing to stop them.

Meanwhile, "non-hit driven" Disney sits on its hands when it comes to releasing decent Lizzie McGuire DVDs, simply because Hiliary isn't Miley. I can see no other reason. A few years ago Hilary and Lizzie were worthy of overhyped CDs, non-ending music video promotions on the Disney Channel and DVDs and even of [gasp] a big screen movie release!

Today, Lizzie McGuire not even worthy of cheap, supplement lacking DVD boxsets.

Disney are, despite Iger's claims to Wall Street, simply going after what's "hot" today and condeming the rest of their wonderful, imaginative and beloved properties to back-shelf banishment.

OK, so Pooh, Mickey and Co and the Princess line and the Fairy line will still be big business. But these properties are nothing but the tiniest of tiny percentages when it comes to all the characters, films, stories and concepts Disney owns or licences.

The Pirates property is already cooling somewhat, and Narnia never really caught on when it came to merchandise. But both Pirates and Narnia are only promoted because they are "hot".

Little boys like "Cars" apparently, but why not Herbie? When Herbie: Fully Loaded came out, can anyone actually remember seeing any merchanside to tie-in to the film's release? Anything at all? Disney appeared (over in the UK at least) to not bother at all promoting H:FL through retailers. Yet, "Cars" (which lets face it are a rather generic children's storybook design) had toys in store months before the film's release.

Herbie is one of their tried and true properties that Iger talks up to financial investors claiming the company is worth more money, but one Disney did next to nothing with. Meanwhile the flash animated series Phineas and Ferb gets more promotion in one week than what Herbie: Fully Loaded got in all the months leading upto its release.

And most of that publicity is centered on Ashley Tisdale doing one of the voices! Another Tween star who will soon come crashing back down to Earth as soon as she's too old (either physically or emotionally) for Disney's comfort. The cynical casting of Miley in Bolt is, quite literally, the final straw for me. Disney only cares about its Disney Channel Tween demographic at all.

I'm sure any business man looking at Disney's current business model will come to the same conclusion - which incidently is the opposite of what Iger claims. Disney is all about generating hits, bleeding them until they are dry and then either dumping them entirely or off-setting them into a nicely designed product line or package as required.