Do you think the Disney family should be in charge more?

[JamesDusenberry]

People are constantly complaining here and amongst themselves about the many things wrong with Disneyland and the Disney company in general. Over branding, too much promotional things in the Parks for other aspects of the company, the company being too large and owning too many subsidiaries that maybe they shouldn't, and a general feeling that 'Walt's company' has been lost.

So on that question, do you guys think the Disney family then should have some sort of obligation put on themselves to run the Parks, and company as a whole, as opposed to letting businessmen and MBAs run it who don't love the company as others do and are only out for profits? (I know it's a public company now and it's not like the family is 'letting' other people run it, but still.)

Roy E. was in charge for a short time, and of course sat on the board before infamously being kicked out. And now with Roy sadly having passed not too long ago, there doesn't seem to be any Disney family members involved that much high in the ranks at the company. Granted Walt only had two daughters, one of whom died young, and there weren't that many grandchildren on his side. Roy of course had his son, and I believe Roy E. has at least one son as well.

But there must be Walt's daughter or her cousins or Walt and Roy's grandchildren or maybe even great grandchildren by now who care about the company. So seeing all these problems, should there be some kind of demand for Disney family members to get involved at a high level again and sort of 'retake' the company? I know lots of public companies like Ford, Johnson&Johnson, and others are all run by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or more generation of the same family members. Family members who feel a unique bond to their company and are uniquely able to embody and stay true to the original intents of their relatives when they founded their company.

So should whatever Disney children/grandchilren that are around step up and take control to try to make things better? What's your opinion?

[Goofy Daddy]

I am not an expert on this by far, but to my knowledge no surviving Disney family member is even part of the company anymore...so it would be pretty impossible, name or not, for any one of them to just "take charge".

Even if it were possible, it takes more than the name Disney to be a visionary and organizer the way Walt was. Having someone with his lineage at the top, even if it were possible, does not mean it would make anything better.

[JamesDusenberry]

Yes it is true, I think sadly, that no Disney family member currently works for the company. Which I do find a bit strange because usually companies originally started, run by, and named after one family, have many generations of that family get involved and rise to positions of leadership, but for whatever reason that hasn't happened with Disney.

And yes, while it's true just having the name or being related to Disney wouldn't mean they could or would make things better. But I think as much as any of us feel an incredible connection to the company and to Walt and see him almost like a father or grandfather figure ... I would at least hope that there are members of the Disney family who feel the same way and feel a meaningful important connection to the company. And I would hope that at least a few of them would feel some kind of vested interest in the current status and future of the company their parents and grandparents created and helped grow into the company it is today.

I think that unique direct family connection would/should leave a kind of sense of obligation to take care of the company. And that they could understand more than anyone what Walt and Roy wanted the company to be.

I mean, unlike other companies, especially when discussing Disneyland and the parks ... they weren't offering a product to manufacture and sell or a service to provide and charge for. Walt really did build Disneyland because he wanted one, he wanted a park like that for himself as much as he wanted it for all the guests. Disney was created by a unique family and they are a unique company. And it seems to me Disney family members would be instilled with a sense of honor and pride and duty to help run the company their family formed, or to help run the parks their family created.

[Trevor]

I don't think its a "should they" but rather a "do they want to" situation.

[JamesDusenberry]

True.. but my thinking is.. ask yourself. If you and your family members create a company that's amazing and great and successful, wouldn't you probably wish that your children and grandchildren would take it over after you to ensure all you created and your legacy would live on and thrive? Or if you were the child or grandchild of those people, don't you think you probably would have some kind of personal family obligation to have a sort of stewardship for that which your family created?

[Goofy Daddy]

I don't think its a "should they" but rather a "do they want to" situation.

I think it's actually more like "if they want to, can they" situation. Disney Co. (I believe) bought out any family members' controlling interest a long time ago. Roy was the last one involved in the company and he was "removed" from the board. So even if a family member wanted to, I don't think they would be able to get anywhere near having "controlling power" so to speak.

I admit, it's a nostalgic...even romantic idea...but I don't think it is even something that could happen if there was a family member left that even wanted to have it happen.

[JamesDusenberry]

Well it's not like they can just be appointed to a high up position. But they could get a job working somewhere in the company and work their way up for sure. Nothing's stopping that, and hopefully the current execs wouldn't have something against them and try to keep them from working and rising up in the company..

[DLandFansAZ]

Goofy Daddy pretty much hits the nail on the head. 2nd, 3rd, etc. generations grew up within the company learning it from the inside out. Throwing a Disney family member into the mix now would be the like grabbing someone from Micechat and expecting them to understand the inner politics and workings of the company. Many have some ideas, but Disney is a very complex machine now.

[Trevor]

True.. but my thinking is.. ask yourself. If you and your family members create a company that's amazing and great and successful, wouldn't you probably wish that your children and grandchildren would take it over after you to ensure all you created and your legacy would live on and thrive? Or if you were the child or grandchild of those people, don't you think you probably would have some kind of personal family obligation to have a sort of stewardship for that which your family created?

I'm sure he wanted that, but they've seemingly been removed and lack the expertise needed to run the worlds largest entertainment conglomerate. I envy simpler times.

[PoisonAppleDear]

The Disney Family sold off their shares of the company they have no legal right to the company anymore. Diane Disney Miller is a public figure and she was there for the 50th celebration and the opening on the Museum for names sake. But that it all. I highly doubt any family member will come into play with the Walt Disney Co anytime. And Steve Jobs controls the most shares within the company if Im not mistaken.

Like all companies things change, things don't go as planned. I think the Walt Disney Co has done a good job trying to maintain and keep Walt's dream alive.

Again those are just my thoughts. Good thread by the way. =)

[Second Star]

... Roy was the last one involved in the company and he was "removed" from the board. So even if a family member wanted to, I don't think they would be able to get anywhere near having "controlling power" so to speak.
...

Little note of correction... Roy E. was not removed from the board. He resigned his position on the board as an opening shot that led to Eisner's ouster. It is kind of ironic, Roy E. led the charge that brought Eisner to power, and led the charge that chased him out.

As far as stock ownership in the company, I don't know what has happened since his passing, but at the time of Roy E's passing he (or his holding company) held approxiately 1.6 million shares in the company worth about 1/2 a billion. I am not sure what holdings Walt's daugther Diane (and family) still possess, but believe there is still some stock in the hand of that part of the family as well.

Now the family doesn't have enough stock to regain control if they wanted too, but there is still a family interest in the company that their Dads and Granddads rebuilt.

The Disney Family sold off their shares of the company they have no legal right to the company anymore.

See my comment above on stock interest.

Diane Disney Miller is a public figure and she was there for the 50th celebration and the opening on the Museum for names sake. But that it all. I highly doubt any family member will come into play with the Walt Disney Co anytime. And Steve Jobs controls the most shares within the company if Im not mistaken.

The company has absolutely no legal claim to the Museum, and Diane Disney Miller is not merely a figure head in that organization. She and her family are co-founders of the Museum through the Walter Disney Family organization. Completely separate from the Walt Disney Company, though the company does provide some support for the Museum. And if you care to check, there are Disney cast members at the Museum regularly. And for the record, I'm a member and up at the Museum two or three times a month.

As for Steve Jobs, while he is the largest minority interest stock holder, he does not own the controlling interest.

I just want to make sure the facts are correct.

[dlfantasmicfan]

To really put it back on a keel that would bring back the good old days would require alot of changes people on here would hate.. that's all I can think to say

[DisneyIPresume]

I don't think its a "should they" but rather a "do they want to" situation.

This.

I honestly think the most enthusiastic person in Walt's family about Disneyland was Walt himself. In fact I remember hearing something that his own daughters weren't as gung-ho about this project as Walt was.

And this would make sense. I believe his daughters are about my mom's age, which would put them in their early 20s by the time Disneyland was built. My mom was married in 1951 and my two oldest brothers were born in 1953 and 1956. They were living in Alhambra at the time One day I asked my mom one day if she was excited when Disneyland was being built and if she was excited when it opened. She told me, to my surprise, "I really didn't think much of it". And this wouldn't be surprising. She was a young newlywed after all with an infant son who was too little to watch TV (they didn't own one anyway) to take care of. Disneyland really was the last thing on her mind at the time. Flash forward to when I was born in 1968. Every home had a TV, being the youngest of 5 my mom wasn't nearly as worried about raising me, and I was exposed every Sunday to the Wonderful World of Disney and Mouse Factory. Big difference.

I think Walt's daughters were the same way. I think even though he built it for families, inspired by his young daughters playing in Griffith Park, by the time it was actually built those two girls had turned into young women, no longer really interested in it other than as a source of making an income and also maybe for family pride. They may have had an interest in running the company but not for the same reasons Walt was. And I would rather them not run it if they weren't interested. Just because there name is Disney isn't enough.

Walt does have some living grandchildren, but one of them I know a couple years ago was arrested for if I recall illegal possession of firearms or something of that nature. Anyway not really the type of individual I would like to see in upper management of the company. But then again, one has to ask is the current management really that much better than what they already have?

[Second Star]

This.
...

Walt does have some living grandchildren, but one of them I know a couple years ago was arrested for if I recall illegal possession of firearms or something of that nature. Anyway not really the type of individual I would like to see in upper management of the company. But then again, one has to ask is the current management really that much better than what they already have?

Walt Disney has 10 grandchilden. 7 from Diane and Ron, and 3 from Sharon from two marriages. Sadly Sharon passed away several years ago.

So you are talking about 1 of 10 who has had problems, and not representative of the family as a whole.

Just saying...

[RiversOfAmerica]

... I think sadly, that no Disney family member currently works for the company....

That's not true. There are about a dozen or so people who are related to Walt Disney, who work for the Company in one aspect or another. For the purpose of privacy, I won't list their names, departments, or positions. This isn't particularly unusual, though. Disney is the largest employer in Orange County, and among the highest employers in Los Angeles County and State of California. Most everyone in SoCal has at least one or two family members working for the company. I'm the fourth person in my family who has worked for the company.

Now, the question of the OP is whether the company would be better off with a family member at the helm, or at least near the helm. It's easy to forget that Ron Miller, Walt's Son-In-Law, headed the company for several years, and during hsi watch, the company almost went under. It's incredibly difficult to manage a company like like TWDC. Even during Walt's era, his authority was somewhat limited. IMO, the simple presence of a family member at the top management level won't significantly change the way the company is run. Given the fact that Disney is a fortune 100 company, and in the top 20 list of most respected organizations in the world, it stands to reason that current management does a reasomably good job at running the company.