Eisner And Disney Case Summary

In assessing the author’s reflection on the case study, it can be realized that he has failed to cite specific examples from the case to support his arguments. He mostly uses some generalized circumstances, which may also be acceptable due to the limited word count requirements of the response. Overall, the author has justified the perspectives of Disney’s vulnerability from the communications standpoint. The biblical integration is also relevantly compared with the case, as the author uses the story of Jesus and his struggles against the oppositions. In terms of the dialogue that Eisner and Disney has collaborated with the government, it has won the support of the governor in terms of initiating campaign to support the theme park project through lobbying, slogan and press releases, albeit they are mostly ridiculed by the opposing parties (Argenti 225). The CEO of Disney has certainly exerted strong efforts to lobby the political influence on the project; however it has not successfully lobbied the support of the media and other coalition groups (Argenti 228). Thus, Eisner has somehow not lacked the communication initiatives with the governor, yet it has somehow neglected the
As Schepers realized it: “When the checks and balances in public thinking and action are weakened or absent, management of potential or real side-effects disappears from the public radar screen and a systemic crisis is in the making” (476). Public governance is a relevant subject on the context of the Disney’s theme park that due to lack of it, oppositions grew at large to balance the positive consequences versus the negative expectations of the public. In fact, according to Van Wart, this balance is difficult to achieve as more variables come into place, such as “economic demands,” “political trends and rapid introduction of varying technologies