With this posting we welcome our new blogger who we will call Inhouse JD for reasons we assume you can discern. He considers himself a moderate, and he’s a lifelong Democrat (which we don’t blame him, in California it can be tough to get employment if people think you are otherwise).  He tells us that he leans more liberal than conservative, but that will change with time, education and experience. 

Fortunately, he’s also a very firm capitalist, and a corporatist as well, as he says a defender of the likes of Gates and the Golden Arches.  This is his first post for us and in it he takes us somewhat to task on our DreamWorks Animation post of a few weeks ago where we blamed Dreamworks for trying to hard to be a story stock on the back of one (now tired) story— Shrek. Not to give too much away but he points out the flaws of suing a company for which you are a stockholder.   With no further adieu:

**************

Shareholders and Plaintiffs Don’t Mix

Attention Shareholders”

Want a good return on your investment?  You may want to consider not suing the company you’re investing in.  Since the recent Dreamworks vs. Shareholders lawsuit, stock prices have fallen nearly $2 per share, while the lovable ogre Shrek has seen a considerable amount of bad press over the apparent lack of interest in his second feature.

How appalling that the shareholders’ love of money (or power, take your pick) has undermined any goodwill present from the production of a film that sold $920 million worth of tickets worldwide, followed by 35 million DVD sales a number which made the film the best-selling DVD title of 2004.  Perhaps the straw that broke the investor’s portfolio was the highly advertised Madagascar, a film that’s taken over two full weeks to match the 3-day total from Shrek 2, and clearly started slowly against Revenge of the Sith.  Still, it seems the shareholders failed to consider possible spillover onto future Dreamworks releases (including the still-running Madagascar), the kind caused by more negative stories in the media than positive ones.  Jeffrey Katzenberg, with his Mouse House history, could certainly have informed the investors of this phenomenon, as could his ex-boss Michael Eisner. 

This is where our capitalist nature gets the better of us, and where corporatism will struggle. The folks (meaning, you and I) could care less if Shrek sold 35 million or 350 million DVDs, every kid we know owns it, and that’s saying something.  Dreamworks succeeded in creating a brand where none existed in a way Warner Brothers would kill to emulate, digging firmly into Disney’s backyard, an obvious boon for Katzenberg, yet the shareholders don’t see that as a remarkable accomplishment.  They’re so hungry for money and power, they’re willing to drag the billion-dollar brand through the dirt, effectively labeling the most successful animated franchise in history an abject failure.  Instead of headlines proclaiming the incredible popularity of Shrek 2, they now extol the lack of staying power the film has.  Forgotten are the clever gags and inventive animation, replaced instead by spreadsheet cells and red ink.  Katzenberg, like Steve Jobs, just isn’t cut out for explaining bad news, and if the shareholders don’t back off, there might be a lot more bad news to break.  

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 8th, 2005 at 2:02 pm by Insider and is filed under How Not To Succeed In Business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.