I haven't been following the Disney shareholder protests over Michael Eisner very closely, but from this Orlando Business Journal piece it doesn't sound like the protesters urging his removal know what they're talking about.
Roy Disney, Walt Disney's nephew, bemoaned the deterioration of the company's values, claiming, among other things, that the company treats, "art and artists as a commodity to be bought and sold like office supplies."Welcome to the business world. Employees are commodities, and any motivation for treating them in a more expensive manner must be justified with a correspondingly greater return on that increased investment.
He called for a new management team "that understands and believes the value of the legacy left to us."Nonsense. Worthless rhetoric. Shareholders should be worried about making money, not "valuing a legacy".
Disney attacked the company's attention to "branding," commenting that "branding is something you do to cows. It's a good thing if you are a rancher, because cows tend to look alike. But, I believe our name means something to consumers."Apparently Roy Disney has no idea what "branding" means -- promoting the meaning of the Disney name to consumers is branding.
Mr. Eisner's response seems spot on, for what it's worth.
Eisner responded to the pair's remarks by saying that "the conclusions you have just heard are fundamentally wrong," adding that the company's ability to create value is undisputed.Like I said, I don't know many of the underlying (monetary) details, but based on this article it sounds like the shareholders are trying ot shoot themselves in the foot."You have just heard rhetoric from our critics that replaces reason," Eisner concluded.
I don't think the Biblical view is that employees are merely commodities. If an employee is merely a commodity, then I as a boss, don't express my sympathy to them on the loss of their spouse, for instance, unless I first determine whether or not my doing so will preserve or increase their productivity.
JT: Depends on whether you're merely their manager, or the owner of the company they work for (i.e., a shareholder). If the later, then it's fully at your discretion, since the only profit at stake is your own. If the former, then you have a responsibility to the owners to perform your job in the manner they prescribe. If you believe that their requirements are immoral, then you must quit. Either way, it's not up to you.
Michael,
What you are doing is separating all Biblical morality and ethics from the workplace. You are saying that an employer has a far higher duty to the stockholders than to God.
And simply put, the Walt Disney Company is perhaps the Single Corporate Entity in the world where "magic" is their greatest commodity. True, it sounds hokey but if nothing else the WDC's bread and butter is cultivating fantasy and smiles on children's faces - if that perception ever really changes on a broad basis, the company is sunk back to the level of a Universal or Lifetime Network.
More than any company in the world, the WDC is - yes, expected to turn a profit and create value for shareholders - but at the same time do it in such a way that it's lofty position as the world's cheerleader is maintained. It's more than a business model, it's a Business Paradigm.
After 9/11, Americans were afraid to go back to the parks, due to their high profile as a terrorist target. But they came back because they couldn't stay away. They could've as easily gone to Six Flags or Universal Studios but they came back to Disney World because that's the place that makes the hurt go away. It's the place where, for a day, you forget about the pain and the terror and all the rest.
I know this sounds Pollyannish, but it's a very real Public Perception, and the WDC, like it or not, has almost a duty to keep itself above the fray for the well-being of the country. Similar to how an athlete is (expected) to be a role model to children, although sometimes it can come at the expense or personal advancement and personal gratification.
This all to say is why it's employees simply cannot and should not be treated as "office supplies" - which they have been under the leadership of Eisner. There are websites and websites chronicling the management and middle-management and micro-management of the Theme Parks, the Feature Animation divisions, Imagineering, etc to support the idea that Eisner and company don't truly buy into the idea that the WDC has a moral responsibility to be a vital part of the American psyche.
Also, yes, shareholders should be worried about making money but they should also be worried about how the public perceives the Disney name.
And that's not true "branding". Branding is promoting a product or company name with the intention of altering or attracting public attention. The Disney name needs no "branding" - it has 75+ years of attracting public attention. There are no other "cows" that look like Disney and no reason to try and separate themselves from the herd - Disney is Disney, and as long as the name itself remains pure, the people will come.
Oh yes, Ray, the people will come.
JT: When you accept a job, your employer has the right to lay on you whatever obligations you both agree to. If he wants you to focus on profit above all else and you don't want to do that, your only moral recourse is to quit (or not accept the job). The moral choice of how the business will be run is up to the owners/shareholders, not the management.
Barry: That's branding, you just don't like the term for some reason.
No, I understand the concept of branding - that's my line of work.
What I'm trying to say is WDC seems to think the public doesn't understand what the name Disney means.
Take Coke for example. They could probably get by without releasing a single advertisement for the next 10 years and their sales wouldn't dip - barring some unforseen amazing new soft drink on the market. (and I'm talking marketing the Coke name itself, not a particular new product like their Vanilla Coke). If you like Coke now, you're going to still drink it, and you'll be drinking it for many years, and your kids will drink it.
There's simply no reason to "brand" the Coke name, since it's such a deeply ingrained and traditional part of the country's consciousness advertising becomes white noise or fluff.
Same with Disney. Trying to brand the Disney name - again, not products or individual videos or movies or the Theme Parks but the concept itself - is not useful since Disney, like Coke, is such a big part of Americana it needs no further name-awareness-raising.
Like I said, The Walt Disney Company isn't a cow standing in a field of cows that all look alike, and needs to have particular brand on it to differentiate from the other cows - the Disney cow is up the hill in the bunkhouse sipping wine and soaking in the hot tub, watching the other cows get branded.
Barry: If it's your line of work, then perhaps I'm the one using the terms wrong :)
I think I understand what you're saying, but the value of the Disney name has to be preserved by the continual creation of quality products, right? If Coke stopped making Coke and started selling uh, crab juice, the value of their brand would drop pretty quickly.
Anyway, I don't know the context of this whole Disney thing. It sounds like the protesters don't know what they want. If the shareholders don't want to make money and would rather hire managers who focus on other things, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't own any Disney stock.