The Great Deeds of Eisner thread

[DVC-Landbaron]

First I'd like to say how much restraint it took not to incorporate my standard "$" within his name for the thread title. It's the first time I've spelled his name right in many months.

Anyway, on to the question at hand. In another thread the good Captain said: I believe he [Eisner] has done some great things for DisneySo, this got me thinking. Just what has he done that was so great? I'm really (for a change) trying to be serious about it. And I don't mean that trite "saved the company" routine. We've been down that road before. I think we all understand that Wells was to play a much more important role that Ei$ner ever hoped to, and since his assumption of power the "takeover" has taken place. Internally. He has done NOTHING different than a raider would have done, short of busting up the company.

Anyway, I can certainly see some good things that have happened. But it seems that for virtually every good thing, there is a story that goes along with it, to make it, in my view at least, a little less 'great'. Sometimes it's the lost potential. Sometimes it's outright boneheadedness. And sometimes it's just greed. But by and large his 'Great Deeds' seem always to be tainted somehow.

And it's equally frustrating that implicit in any Ei$ner (ahh! that "$" felt good) bashing argument is the yearning (almost a requirement) to defend past practices, especially by the Walker/Miller tag team. And that shouldn't be the case. They had their share of successes and failures, and should not have to be woven into an Ei$ner debate.

Case in point: RESORT BUILDING

I think I've pretty much driven everyone crazy with my constant harping regarding the caste system of Disney resorts, so I won't beat that dead horse (unless someone else brings it up again. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED). But there is another aspect. Whether the Walker/Miller team were visionless or more like deer caught in the headlights is a subject for some other thread. Suffice to say that WDW was a little stagnant under their care. So the natural 'Great Deed" for Ei$ner was to build some resorts!!! A no brainer that anyone, even the most incompetent bum of a CEO imaginable, would have done. So what did he do that was so great?

And this is where I have a hard time with this guy. Yes, he build some resorts. Yes, they are nice resorts. But he lacked vision!!

"What!!!" You say. "LandBaron, the Floridian or Beach Club lacks vision?!?!? Have you lost what little sense we thought you had?!?!"

OK! OK! Just hear me out. What he brought us (beside a huge price increase) was pretty mundane stuff. Pretty mundane compared to the vision of what could have been. The Asian, Persian, Venetian, Mediterranean, etc. Any exotic place on the globe. But what did he give us? Cape cod. New York. Yellowstone. Key West. Hmmm. Pretty pedestrian, isn't it? Pretty 'American'. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It just could have been sooooo much cooooler. With just a little vision. But it's hard to fight this concept because the resorts he gave are certainly nice. (Not sure I made my point.)

TRANSPORTATION

Again, we must really try to remember the past in realistic terms. Disney transportation always sucked!!! From day one it was confusing and time consuming. Today you have to plan an hour and half (at least) in order to get from 'here' to 'there'. Let me be the first to say that it was no better in the 'good old days'. In fact, it might have been worse in some ways because no one drove their own cars, on property. The roads were not marked and security was… well… let's say… a little less than "Disney" friendly. The only saving grace was that the place was tiny, compared with what is now there.

But what has this 'great deed' kind of guy done about it? NOTHING!! What should have been one of his highest priorities, he has ignored. I find that depressing at the least. And typical of his mindset.

So, with just a couple of these thoughts thrown out there, I ask all of you (especially the car #1 people): Just what "Great Deeds" did Ei$ner do?

Have fun.

[All Aboard]

Disney Animated Features during the 18 years from Walt's passing to the hiring of Eisner:

The Aristocats
Robin Hood
Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
The Rescuers
The Fox & the Hound

Disney Animated Features during the 17 years from the hiring of Eisner to today:

Black Cauldron
Great Mouse Detective
Oliver and Company
The Little Mermaid
The Rescuers Down Under
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan
Fantasia 2000
The Emporer's New Groove
Atlantis


I'd say that's an upgrade in that part of the Company.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I'd say that's an upgrade in that part of the Company.Well, I can certainly see your point. And it kind of goes hand in hand with what I said about him. He has certainly done some good things. But it's not without that taint that clouds almost everything he touches. Also, you're bringing that comparison (Miller/Walker vs. Ei$ner) that I wanted to steer clear of. And I would contend that the very list you present, and the story behind it, ruins your argument.

Yes! Some good things happened early on. Wells and Roy got that Animation Division crankin' out the hits. And since Wells and more importantly Katzenberg left…? Not so good, is it?

And at the end of your list (or at the end of the story behind the list) is the gutting of the animation department with no real hope that their former glory could ever return. Again, not so good, is it? :(

[Douglas Dubh]

Sounds like you want us to try to make a case while you disallow all possible evidence.

While no recent animated feature has hit the highs of the Lion King, I think Mulan, Hunchback, Hercules, and Tarzan were better than any of the films released in the 70's and early 80's.

"And at the end of your list (or at the end of the story behind the list) is the gutting of the animation department with no real hope that their former glory could ever return."

A pessimist could see it that way. A realist might conclude that they decided they had gone to far in one direction (i.e. multiple releases in a year) and needed to scale back a bit. My understanding is they will continue to release one major animated attraction each year.

[DVC-Landbaron]

... There's no need for the jury to retire!*

Sounds like you want us to try to make a case while you disallow all possible evidence.Well, that's my usual style!! ;)

But seriously, I can see how it would look that way, but in all honesty, I'm really just trying to have a discussion about it. And my rapid response to Gcurling had nothing at all to do with 'not allowing evidence'. It's only because it's a slow Thursday at work (phew! for a change!!). A pessimist could see it that way. A realist might conclude that they decided they had gone to far in one direction (i.e. multiple releases in a year) and needed to scale back a bit."Scale back a bit"?!?! Wow! I guess I am a pessimist.




* Pink Floyd

[Douglas Dubh]

I'm out of order!? You're out of order! This whole court is out of order!

Sorry, something made me channel Al Pacino. And I certainly got the Pink Floyd quote without the asterisk (by the way, which one's Pink?).

But you didn't give me much to respond to as far as the argument went in your last post. How can we not point to the great expansion of quality Disney products that has occurred since Eisner took over when asked what good has Eisner done?

[DVC-Landbaron]

How can we not point to the great expansion of quality Disney products that has occurred since Eisner took over when asked what good has Eisner done?Fair enough. I guess you're right. You have to point to them. But I guess I'm asking that we keep perspective, or in balance if you will, of these so called 'great deeds' and examine them in light of the examples given. By that I mean:

Built tons of resorts! What a guy!!!
Yeah, BUT - he left out all the exotic stuff!! How unimaginative!!

Inherited a horrible transportation system!! Poor guy!!
Yeah, BUT he's done NOTHING to fix it!! What a jerk!!

Produced greater films than pervious leaders!! What a guy!!
Yeah, BUT he really didn't do much AND he got rid of Katzinberg and most of the Animation Department!! What an idiot!!

I just don't see anything he's done that could truly be labeled - "great".

[Captain Crook]

Landbaron, my freind, you lump "Resorts" together as though they are one, but my friend, you haven not visited AKL, a Resort so great that I don't even care if I visit a Park...Thanks Mike.;)
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

I'll tell you What Micheal Eisner did. One day maybe less then a year, maybe a Year (I don't remember the airdate)into his reign. He took a short walk across a sandy Beach while introducing 20,000 Leagues under the Sea for the wonderful World of Disney. And as he slowly walked past the wrecked boat and the Contemporary Resort came into view. An 8-10 (again, don't remember the airdate) year old kid for the first time in his life had the name and the face of a living breathing person that he could connect with his Micky mouse plush. Eisner may not have been a good actor and he certainly doesn't seem to be that great a buisnessman, but in that little intro while Discussing the hurricane that plagued 20K's production, I saw a man having the time of his life in charge of the Disney Magic. Now it may be that it was all phoney. he may not really care, but he and he alone made Sunday evenings like a trip down mainstreet.

I think that's why I'm so wishy whashy towards him. I actually have a childlike emotional attachment to him from my childhood.

I'm sure that the older folks here, the DisDucks and such would scoff saying they had the real deal and eisner is nothing like Walt, but Walt Died before I was born and Even at that tender age, I understood that black and white reruns weren't real. Mike, standing in a place I had been in the midst of magic. That was special.
that was a great deed of Eisner whether it was intentional or not.

[meeko_33785]

You have to admit if it wasn't for Eisner, Disney might have disolved years ago after the Black Hole and Black Cauldron. He did do a lot for Disney. However, he strikes me as more or a businessman than a visionary (more of a Roy O. Disney than a Walt). The thing that will help Disney is that if they can get a dreamer, a "Walt", if you will, to match Eisner's "Roy".

[JeffJewell]

...Eisner's greatest feat as CEO was to cash in on the brand name Disney.

For all of Miller's and Walker's faults, perhaps the one that most doomed them was how much money they left on the table; how many opportunities to exploit the Disney name for money that they failed to make use of.

Eisner, on the other hand, has failed to make use of precious few opportunities to exploit the Disney name for money.

Jeff

PS: of course, the drawback to that is that the company has grown faster than its infrastructures are being reinforced. Structures get treacherously rickety that way.

PPS: the right plan of action, of course, was to head down that road, just not so far. High-end DVD presentations of Snow White with bonus features is a good exploitation. "Snow White III: Grumpy No More!," produced by a tv cartoon company, not so much.

[Bob O]

I agree with Land Baron in that disney has built too many resorts in a cheap manner. I think disney need to capitalize on the need of people wanting to stay on site, but from having stayed at the Poly and seeing how good its theme was carried out and then compare it to All Star sports with its only theme being large tacky objects, its a let down on the dinsey image. Disney should stand for high standards and if you arent going to do it you shouldnt do it at all.
I also agree with JeffJewell that Eisners main accomplishment has been to capitalize on the disney name/brand/vault to make money that others werent doing. Under his leadership they have created some good animated movies, but also alot of clunkers.
And lastly what has he done lately to inspire any confidence that he has the creativity to bring disney out of its doldrums. He doesnt inspire any confidence as far as im concerned. I think his time has come and gone but with his handpicked board there is little chance of him being removed.

[Another Voice]

Hmmm…. Eisner and Animation.

Well let’s see. When Eisner first showed up he announced his intention to stop producing feature length animation. To him, animation was only for television and for Disney that meant Mickey and company on Saturday morning. Nothing more. Eisner even tried to pull the pull on the then-in-production ‘Little Mermaid’ calling it a “stupid kiddie movie”.

Fortunately for humankind, Roy Disney not so gently reminded Mr. Eisner that The Great Uncle’s Legacy was based on animated features and the he, Mr. Eisner, was just a hired hand. After much consternation, Mr. Eisner allowed ‘Mermaid’ to proceed despite his loud (very loud, very public) pronouncements that it was going to be a box office failure. To “rescue” the animation department for such a horrific fate, Mr. Eisner put ‘Oliver and Company’ into production. A film, he proclaimed, filled with a hip score, crowd pleasing voices and characters, and so commercially sound he even sold product placement spots in the movie. THIS, he told people in the room, would make an animated film “that will be appreciated by main stream audiences”.

In another fortunate happening, Jeffery Katzenberg saw both films. He had be mainly on Eisner’s side of the argument right up until he saw ‘Mermaid’. He was the one who pushed ‘Beauty and The Beast’ through production despite strong objections from Mr. Eisner.

Given this background – how exactly is Eisner responsible for the rebirth of Disney’s great feature animated films?

[Captain Crook]

...this he told all of us in the room...
Very interesting...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DVC-Landbaron]

... Follow the money.

I really do pay attention Mr. Voice. You told us that story once before (but not in quite so personal terms, eh Captain?). And I was very tempted to paraphrase it, but I was hoping you'd drop in a give us a rerun. Thank you!!!! You did it much better than I could have ever hoped to! :bounce:

[Eeyore2U]

Given this background – how exactly is Eisner responsible for the rebirth of Disney’s great feature animated films?

Based on the thought process of my esteemed posting buddies here on the R&N Board, if Eisner takes all the blame for all the perceived bad, he should get all the credit for the perceived good. Isn't it that way for all CEOs?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Eeyore2U:if Eisner takes all the blame for all the perceived bad, he should get all the credit for the perceived good.

Yes!! Certainly!! The buck stops with him. However, we must also take into account motives, reasons and all other things that color the story behind the 'perceived' good and bad, in order to make a fair assessment. That's my entire point. He takes the credit all the time. Or others, like my friend the Captain, give it to him. And quite frankly, I don’t think he deserves it.

So what this really is about is to find out if he has done “Great Deeds” for Disney or not. Plain and simple. I want to see if he really earned the admiration that others seem to have for him or not. Maybe someone will say something that I can give him credit for. But so far I can quite honestly say I can’t.

It's like my resort example. Sure, he takes credit for building some mighty fine, well themed resorts. And I give him that much credit. I really, really like some of them. But the story behind it taints the “Great Deed” bit a little. You see in my mind, I can't help thinking how disappointing it is that a rather un-exotic Floridian is sitting where a far more exciting and mysterious Asian should be. Or the Boardwalk or the Beach and Yacht Club or the Wilderness Lodge or Port Orleans or Old Key West, etc. Each on their own, very nice. No doubt about it. And yet as a group, only more of the same. All American. Nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing foreign. All the designs are within a couple hours drive from Anywhere USA. WHY!!!!??? And in that light I consider him a failure. Or at the very least… uninspired and totally run-of-the-mill!!

Look how the good Captain JUMPED on AKL! But I dismiss it entirely. Not only is the design EXACTLY the same as Wilderness, Ei$ner was forced into the theme. Even he’s got to admit that no North American theme would fit very well next to the African Plains. Last I heard giraffes and zebras were not indigenous to our continent! Now, don’t get me wrong. I like the place. But I think that Ei$ner had very little to with it. Especially given his track record, erecting only Western hemisphere structures. But, maybe I’m too hard to please.

So, what's your take? What "Great Deeds" has he done in your eyes?

[Captain Crook]

Well, if you're going to just dismiss things there really is no point...

AKL wasn't built around the same animals of AK, it is a new "zoo" of ts own design. The anmals, animal handlers and facilities are all seperate. As to the design being a copy of WL, not exactly true. Same designer of the great WL, but the idea immersiveness was taken fro WL and expanded to great lengths to bring us Africa in Florida. Besides who hired the designers? A South African handler told me that if he didn't know he had flown all those hours to work at Disney he'd believe the Savannah's were in Africa...Not bad.

Now, are we to discount BB & TL for some reason? Or perhaps DD? Yes I know its just money making, but at the time it was quite experimental for Disney and Disney guests really do seem to flock to thses additions. Great move or just happenstance?

After 9/11, Disney graciously cancelled reservations, gave away Park tickets & free nights & worked dillegently helping people get back home. They knew their world was falling apart too, but they voided many of their own contracts in the name of humanity. You know, their competetors and others in the entertaimnet industry did not. Is this something great? No, I guess maybe not. Perhaps it's not even noble, but others didn't do these things. When the cuts came, others have cut with the same tenacity of Disney but who gets bashed?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

if Eisner takes all the blame for all the perceived bad, he should get all the credit for the perceived good. Isn't it that way for all CEOs? ...I'd say that's true, in a way. The CEO is where the buck stops.

To me anyway, Eisner has a disturbing habit of reversing the good ideas. It's difficult to argue that Eisner, as CEO, doesn't deserves at least a couple high fives for Katzenberg's movies. But that begs the question "what does he deserve for firing Katzenberg at a cost of $250 million?" Doesn't that, in a very tangible way, come close to zeroing out the box office of The Lion King, effectively nullifying a big chunk of the good?

There's an old saying about even a blind squirrel finding a nut every now and then. Eisner just doesn't seem able to keep hold of his nuts for very long, even when he does find them.

Jeff

PS: Captain:When the cuts came, others have cut with the same tenacity of Disney but who gets bashed? Is it that surprising that Disney is the company most discussed, in a positive or negative light, on a Disney discussion board? ;) And although I do get your drift, yes, I do hold Disney to a higher standard than other companies. When we have these discussions, I'll point out that Disney isn't doing things they once did, then someone points out that they're only doing what "all businesses" are doing. And that's really my point: Did Disney build their reputation by doing what all businesses did? I don't think so, and I think lowering their standards to they point they must be defended with the argument "everyone else is doing it" has been a big mistake, one which has not yet been fully paid for.

[Captain Crook]

Jeff,
Sorry, I didn't intend the "Disney Bashing" comment to be referenced to the DIS, here on the DIS that IS what we'll talk about. I was referring to the media in general...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Captain Crook]

My friend scoop left out the most important item, that being the ability to take a boat from Coronodo to MK...er, ah Epcot.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

Mr. Scoop – such an organized list. It will make my comments much easier.

1. Non-WDW Disney resorts. Well, the company owned the Celebrity Sports Center in Colorado decades before Eisner showed up and Walt himself was pushing for the Mineral King development in California’s Sierras long before Eisner made his first million. You could give Eisner credit for the DVC resorts, but since the non-WDW resorts have been pretty much of a financial disaster (long gone are the plans for the Newport Beach, New York, Anaheim, Hawaiian, Paris and Texas resorts) that “credit” might not be an appropriate term. And Disney even sold its property here in Newport to Marriott – makes you wonder about the future of Hilton Head and Vero doesn’t it?

2. Connecting Epcot and the Studios. You’re really giving Eisner credit for that? The only reason the resorts are “connected” is because of flood control and because Starwood pays for the boats. How many years was it before they completed the footpath down to the Studio? Besides, wasn’t it Walt’s concept to make WDW a car-free environment? And have actually made it from the Studios to the Magic Kingdom without a bus in under three hours? And if connecting the property is such a great achievement, how come he kills the monorail expansion year after year after year after year?

3. Theatrical productions. That one I will grant you, and it was a good move on Eisner’s part. I hope they keep it up.

4. Touchstone and other movie labels. Those were started by Ron Miller well before Eisner showed up. ‘Splash’ was the first film released under Touchstone and was a huge hit for the company. Hollywood Pictures was started to appease some corporate egos. The Miramax purchase was Jeffrey Katezenberg’s idea (he wanted to win an Oscar and knew Eisner would never greenlight a picture that had a shot, so Jeff bought a company to make the movies he wanted).

5. Celebration. Again, the town started when Ron Miller and Card Walker bought the Arvida Company and brought Ray Watson on board. Plans immediately began for a development, but were stalled by the takeover. If you want to go back further, the Disney Village was built specifically as a vacation home and residential community, but was converted when someone figured that hotel space was more profitable. The four “Grand Suits” you can rent were the model homes for the development. Eisner may get credit for pushing the concept through, much like the guy how finally put up a mall on that unused piece of land just outside of town.

6. Tower, Splash, Test Track – Splash Mountain predates Eisner by a decade, Tower came from WDI and Test Track too. Give Eisner credit for just signing the check. Besides, ‘Journey Into YOUR Imagination’ is more of his baby than any of the other three attractions.

7. The Disney Channel. Was up and running (and hugely profitable) long before Eisner. Then he came in and tried to shut it down (and would have sold it if someone had come up to his asking price). As for the programming, the credit goes to the team running it, not Eisner.

8. Live productions at the parks. Ah, they’ve been around since Walt’s time. Aside from having Jeffery Katzenburg come up with some better movies, how has Eisner changed these shows?

9. Euro Disney – Yep, the early years were ALL Michael Eisner’s doing (trashing the concept for the park, overbuilding hotels with un-appealing themes). And it’s taken a decade to undo his mistakes. This will be the subject of book one day.

10. Charitable giving. Yes, it’s amazing how much it costs to buy off pressure groups these days (a really unreported phenomenon going on in Hollywood). ‘Pearl Harbor’ and ‘Jay and Silent Bob’ alone cost about $2 million in ‘charitable’ giving and a few loud-mouth DJs add millions above that. Don’t confuse corporate PR with true charity.

Why is there such a need to give Michael Eisner credit for the hard work and imagination of a lot of other people? By proclaiming him as the source of all things good with the company, you devalue the work of hundreds of others (and distort a good amount of history). Mr. Eisner does not design ride, write movie scripts, compose songs, draft plans for hotels or produce television shows. He signs checks. Give him credit for an occansional good judgement in choosing between options, but don't confuse that with true creativity.

Give credit were the credit is due.

[DVC-Landbaron]

And Disney even sold its property here in Newport to Marriott - makes you wonder about the future of Hilton Head and Vero doesn't it?Yeah! As a long time DVCer I know I was a little more than upset when I heard about it. So the "other than WDW" destinations, which were certainly implied if not actually stated, are really dwindling away to nothing. And, in my opinion at least, they are rapidly over building their WDW DVC properties. Seems they won't be satisfied until they drain that cash cow as well!! :(

[All Aboard]

Why is there such a need to give Michael Eisner credit for the hard work and imagination of a lot of other people? By proclaiming him as the source of all things good with the company, you devalue the work of hundreds of others (and distort a good amount of history). Mr. Eisner does not design ride, write movie scripts, compose songs, draft plans for hotels or produce television shows. He signs checks. Give him credit for an occansional good judgement in choosing between options, but don't confuse that with true creativity. I'm not sure that's what is happening. It's such a huge double standard, though. Whenever ANYTHING is less than perfect the masses are quick to point the finger directly at Eisner. The rationale being that "he's the boss, it's his fault." If that so goes, then logic would dictate the opposite. Both perspectives are, of course, not entirely correct.

[Eeyore2U]

Why is there such a need to give Michael Eisner credit for the hard work and imagination of a lot of other people? By proclaiming him as the source of all things good with the company, you devalue the work of hundreds of others (and distort a good amount of history).

If I extract the name Michael Eisner and replace it with Walt Disney the tenor "should" be the same from the Eisner detractors. Walt didn't do it alone but got all the credit.

[JeffJewell]

Give credit were the credit is due. ...there's a certain amount of kiwis and kumquats going on, here.

AV makes the valid point that a lot of talented individuals are responsible for whatever Magic is inherent to Disney's products, Eeyore2U makes the equally valid point that it has always been such, even under Walt.

The function of a manager (at whatever level) is to put his charges in a position to do their best work. In my estimation, Walt Disney was uniquely and profoundly talented at performing this function for creative groups, and Frank Wells was at least pretty darn good at it.

I do not believe that Eisner has displayed much talent for performing that function, at the very least, not when it involves creative people; I do not believe he has given his creators the environment they need to create to the best of their abilities.

If you look at Eisner's Disney career in that light, it sure appears as though Disney's problems have increased in direct proportion to precisely how much creative direction he took on. Whereas, while Walt was alive, Disney's fortunes grew in direct proportion to how much creative direction Walt delegated to his talented folks.

Jeff

[JeffJewell]

The creative side, even if externally pressured, can still turn out a great product on a limited budget. ...we've gotten to that point, again, where we're all blind men describing the elephant. AV feels the trunk and says an elephant is like a big snake, Landbaron feels the skin and says an elephant is like a rough leather sack, a couple others are feeling the legs and say an elephant is like a tree trunk (I, of course, am standing directly behind the elephant, pointing out that an elephant is a warm squishy pile that smells bad).

In a way, we can't give credit or blame to Eisner for any specific project: the meaningful creation went on well below Eisner's level in the org chart. What we must judge Eisner on is the direction he sets, the goals he champions, the methods he rewards.

At the heart of the issue, I believe Eisner's message has been "make money at all costs," which contrasts to Walt's message "make good stories at any cost." Talented people are talented people, but even talented people will do what they are rewarded for. If the CEO sets the company tone that the best way to improve the bottom line is to cut budgets, the employees are going to fall over themselves cutting budgets. Even though Eisner can't be directly blamed for cutting budget X, I guarantee you that whoever _did_ cut budget X did so because he believed that was the way his bosses would want him to behave.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

Walt didn't do it alone but got all the credit.Well, I guess that's what this is all about. You see, I don't agree with that statement at all. Sure Walt didn't put on the trusty tool belt and hammer in all the nails. Nor did he drag out the T-square and draw up the architectural plans. But it was his vision, and his vision ALONE, that made the dream a reality (even his wife thought he was crazy). Yes, he had a lot of help. But no, no one else can take credit for Disneyland. It's his and his alone.

To me that's very different from Ei$ner taking credit for things he either backed into or were already in motion before he took control or even tried to stop in the first place. And JJ is right with his "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while". What I'm looking for is intent. I'm trying to look past the cosmetics of the 'great deed' itself and see if we can glean a little of his philosophy from it. Both business and creative philosophy. I want to dig a little deeper and find out the reasons why a particular thing happened. Was it sheer creative genius or a poor third quarter that needed propping up? Did the 'great deed' achieve it's full potential or did short term gains or lack of talent preclude it from reaching great heights, turning something wonderful into something merely 'good'? Did he take a sad song and make it better, or did he water down the recording session with market research until it sounded like every other tune on the top 40 station?

In a way, we can't give credit or blame to Eisner for any specific project: the meaningful creation went on well below Eisner's level in the org chart. What we must judge Eisner on is the direction he sets, the goals he champions, the methods he rewards.Through all my ramblings and diatribes on the subject, this is the very heart of the matter. JJ, thank you for putting it so succinctly.

This whole thing started because of a remark made by the Captain (and not for the first time) regarding all the good things Ei$ner has done. I sat there and thought about that simple statement for quite a while. And came up blank! I couldn't think of one single solitary thing!! It wasn't that things didn't happen on his watch, they did. And some very good things. But the more I thought about the stories and reasons behind these good things the more tainted Ei$ner's role became. So I put out the question in just those terms, hoping to see what you people see in him. Hmmm. Maybe I'm too jaded, but I still don't see it!!!At worst, the Great Deed score is now 1 instead of 0Agreed!

[DVC-Landbaron]

And I would suggest that one thing truly defines Eisner's philosophy, his being, his vision:

The Disney Institute.

That's right. The Disney Institute.

OK. I'll run with this one. Being naïve and a loyal Disney nut back when the Institute started, I tried real hard to like the concept. Gee! It was different, that's for sure. Hmmm. What else? Something else. Surely there had to be something more to it. Well… it was… ah… I know(!)… different.

And I tried to get enthused about it. I talked it up to my teenaged daughters. Got all the brochures and pamphlets. Read up on it in my Disney guide books. But never once did I, or any of the members of my family take the plunge. Why? Because of the way it was structured. Package deals. Had to stay at the Institute. I was staying at the Caribbean (couldn't afford the Institute for the entire family) and later I was DVC.

To me, even after trying my hardest to like it, it came off as elitist and pandering to the money crowd. And more importantly (JJ touched on this before) it took valuable park and resort time away from my precious vacation!! It sure sounded good on paper, but even with every fiber in my body desperately trying to embrace it, I never did it. Upon reflection I can now see why. It's a rich kid's view of what the masses want. And, as history has so aptly proven, the rich kid was wrong!

Maybe another company could have run with it. Maybe another location. But to me it never 'felt' Disney! Look at the concept behind AK. Disneyland Paris. Dinosaur.WOW! Scoop! A glutton for punishment!! I'll leave this for a while and hope AV answers. He could do a much better job than I could (I'm surprised at the examples as AV has touched on all of these before!!). But if he doesn't I'll be back to answer!!

[gary]

Gentlemen,

You're letting the Baron deal to you from a stacked deck. Here are the rules:

1) You must list the great deeds that have taken place during Eisner's tenure.
2) You must remove from the list anything that was someone else's idea.
3) You must hold Eisner personally responsible for all failures, since he was at the top, whether or not it was his idea.
4) You must remove from the list anything that was conceived as greater in scope, and was reduced because of $$.
5) Eisner, as a financially oriented CEO and not a Walt, had no unique creative input that was solely his own.

Without examining the remainder of the rules, you can see that the intersection of rules 2 and 5 leave a null set.

Baron, your cards are marked!

Gary

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well! You see, I don't consider it a game. While I do like discussions, and I do like to make my point (is that winning?) I'm really not keeping score (even though it would appear that way). And I also don't want a list. I want to know what others (who clearly see things differently than I do) think are Ei$ner's 'great deeds'.

Now I'll admit that I do employ some ground rules. But it is NOT to skew the argument (or game, if you will) but it is to help define the parameters. Let's take a closer look at your list (which BTW gave me quite a chuckle! Thanks).1) You must list the great deeds that have taken place during Eisner's tenure.Again. I'm not looking for a list. I'm looking at a conversation starter that may enlighten me as to these "great deeds" I always hear about, but quite frankly, don't believe. Maybe you could point me in the right direction.2) You must remove from the list anything that was someone else's idea. Not necessarily. If the concept was fostered within his management team, under his guidance and more importantly under the influence of his philosophy and the tone he set for his team then I am more than willing to hear it out. But it really doesn't make much sense to give him credit for Touchstone or Little Mermaid, for the obvious reasons that were stated in AV's post. I think that's fair. Isn't it?3) You must hold Eisner personally responsible for all failures, since he was at the top, whether or not it was his idea.Absolutely!! Like Truman. The buck stops with him!!4) You must remove from the list anything that was conceived as greater in scope, and was reduced because of $$.I will agree that it might seem that way. And I don't want to stretch this point to absurdity. But I really didn't know how else to explain the resort examples any other way. In my view it's lost potential, plain and simple. Or at the very least a much narrower vision that what Disney once stood for. And again, this is not to say that his resorts are blatantly 'wrong'. It is only used as an indication as to his creative philosophy. Which, again in my opinion only, isn't very good!! Commonplace at best.5) Eisner, as a financially oriented CEO and not a Walt, had no unique creative input that was solely his own.As I said before, I would prefer that we leave Walt (and Miller/Walker) out of it. We should only use Walt as a yardstick or comparison of philosophies, not accomplishments.

Does this make more sense?

[JeffJewell]

In other words, was it the concept or rather the execution of the concept which doomed the Disney Institute. ...I'm not sure whether you're yanking me or not, on this. If you're not, we might be approaching a "Eureka" moment, here.

As the Baron alludes, I used many of the same words you did in a recent post where I said I thought DI was a good idea executed poorly. I also agree with your other examples of arguable "failures" being hamstrung by their execution, not their ideas.

As a matter of fact, that's a reasonable assessment of my overall indictment of Eisner. I don't believe Disney's recent project execution speaks well of Eisner's ability as a Chief Executive Officer.

What you are calling "execution," I've often referred to as "trends." For instance, I think DCA and AK are both examples of a trend toward cheap parks as opposed to quality parks (I know, I know. Let me have it for the sake of brevity), whereas you might say they were good ideas executed badly. Tuh-MAY-toe, Tuh-MAH-toe, at some level.

So it comes down to this: I agree with your last post pretty much completely. My problem is not necessarily _what_ Eisner has had done, but _how_ he has had it done. As Chief Executive Officer, his job description includes setting the course for how things get done in his company.

These failures are Eisner's failures.

Jeff

PS: I consider the discussion of whether an _idea_ was good or bad to be one of personal taste, so I'll not bother trying to convince anyone DI was actually a good idea. The execution of the project is the reality we're faced with, so that's where I concentrate my energies.

Beyond all that, think about how many smart people thought Disneyland was a really bad idea. But Walt made sure that the execution of that idea was second to none, and those people ate some crow. If superlative execution can bestow that kind of success on a consensus bad idea, imagine how we threemees'd be dancing around Eisner's feet if he showed that same kind of dedication to the execution of good ideas.

[mikek]

pretty much my knowledge exists from experience merely as a consumer, reading through these boards, and a book or two here or there.

But my understanding was that the ****s before eisner almost ran the who shabang so poorly it almost wound up in the hands of some big multi-whatever conglomerate like philip morris or rjr/nabisco? Didnt eisner or at least eisner with wells keep that from happening?

If thats correct (and learn me if it aint;) )- it seems that comparing anyone to walt is a little steep- apparently no one could do it like him. So wouldn't it be fairer to ask- "who could do a better job?"

(I think mr. voice could answer that best- i suppose....)

[gary]

Baron -

Thanks for taking the post the way it was intended. What I was really trying to do was point out the subjective nature of the "game". IMHO, for those at the top, if you're going to get the blame for what goes wrong, you should get the credit for what goes right - whether or not the "idea" was yours or not, whether it was already underway or not (if you inherit the top job of a company in a downward spiral and don't turn it around, you'll receive your share of the blame - nobody will say "oh, well, it was already going down the tubes anyway"). Otherwise, the management chain is simply a chain of people who get in the way of good ideas, saying they cost too much. They don't create, they manage. They'll never get credit for the wonderful successes, except for the rare case of someone who creates a wonderful new product AND manages it to the top. For the other unlucky managers, they'll never get credit - too many "BUT"s get in the way -

BUT it wasn't his original idea
BUT it was a grander idea when it started
BUT it was already underway when he got there
BUT it was developed despite his objections

The only way Eisner will get credit from all sides is if he has an original idea, develops it himself, and creates a raging success on a shoestring budget.

I think that you're absolutely correct in avoiding comparisons to Walt. Walt was a creator. He was the entrepeneur who started Disney. Like any founder of a rags-to-riches company, he had the initial idea and developed it into an industry leader. Comparing Eisner to Walt is truly apples and oranges - Walt was a successful entrepeneur who founded and developed a company with his vision and leadership. Eisner is an established high-level manager who was given the task of leading an already developed company, maintaining industry leadership, and maintaining Wall Street's favor. Two totally different tasks. Eisner's job is "balance" - keeping the company on financially good footing while maintaining its growth and power. That's how he should be evaluated. I'm not saying he's great (but right now I'll take him over Carly Fiorina). I'm just saying he needs to be evaluated as a CEO who took over the helm of an industry leader. The BUTs are pretty much avoidable for someone in that situation.

BUT that's just my 2 cents. ;)

Gary

[Captain Crook]

...Didn't have almost this same exact argument with an infamous but well loved Pirate on the CB over a year ago?

Needless to say, I believe Gary & scoop have the right idea firmly in their grasp!
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[airlarry!]

The only way Eisner will get credit from all sides is if he has an original idea, develops it himself, and creates a raging success on a shoestring budget.

I am sure Baron will respond, but I do not think this is Baron's agenda at all. I disagree totally. Eisner does not have to sit on his thinking chair, come up with an idea, develop it himself, make it a #1 attraction/movie/resort, and do it for a $1.

But he can't let his son look at a decades old model of Splash Mountain that he (and by he I mean him and the other accountaneers) consisently rejected, and then greenlight it when the kid says, "Why don't you build that thing?" I don't want someone to give him credit for that!


In every success story there is, the back story is that Ei$ner it pooh-poohed the idea, dismissed it completely, or botched it up the first time (cf. the whole EuroDisney mess) and let others fix it. I have had an ephiphany with this topic Baron. I am patiently waiting for anyone to mention an Ei$ner-pushed project be named as great -- wait, you do have to give him the Broadway/Time Square stuff. That one is his.

Oh, and for the guy that said "But he saved the company from raiders from Nabisco." Baron's point has always been that he hasn't. HE WAS A RAIDER IN DISGUISE. He just kept the Disney name.

[Captain Crook]

Baron's point has always been that he hasn't. HE WAS A RAIDER IN DISGUISE.
Yes, Mr. Air, that has been Baon's mantra...It is wrong, but still...

The fact is Eisner repositioned the comppany not once but twice from outsiders...If you believe Eisner is an outsider himself, then fine. I guess that IS the argument. But I still say (as he harkens back to long lost discussions) better Eisner than (1) Ted Turner (2) Rupert Murdoch, or (3) Bill Gates...Shall we continue? It's the old who do you fear most argument, the devel we know (Eisner) or the devil we don't know? Landbaron wants to take his chance with Jeff Bezos or George Steinbrenner (joke examples), I prefer Mike to the unknown.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

The fact is Eisner repositioned the comppany not once but twice from outsiders...If you believe Eisner is an outsider himself, then fine. ...everyone's an "outsider" until they get hired; that's not the connotation of "raider" that makes the big difference, here.

If Lucas somehow took control of Disney and suddenly we started getting new Lion Kings and Beauties and the Beasts and Towers of Terror, very few people would cry "raider." The term connotes an exploitation of the company's resources by their new owner, without regard for the history and traditions of the company.

In that sense of the term, I believe Eisner did indeed "raid" Disney from the inside.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

...Didn't have almost this same exact argument with an infamous but well loved Pirate on the CB over a year ago?Yes! We did. It was when we first met. And I believe Parrothead of WDWBLUES fame (shameless plug of a GREAT site!) also participated in the conversation. You were wrong then and you’re wro… hmmm… now that I think about it… you’re strangely silent now. Come on Capt!! Scoff across with the goods. It’s from your statement that this thing came from. Name the “Great Deeds” you’re always on about!!! ;)

Airlarry! I am sure Baron will respond, but I do not think this is Baron's agenda at all.I don’t have to respond. You did it perfectly!!! wait, you do have to give him the Broadway/Time Square stuff. That one is his.WAIT!!!! That’s only because I don’t know of any back-story, one way or another. So, I’ll err on the side of car number one, just to keep the peace. If AV or anyone else has the story behind, clue us in!

JJ says: In that sense of the term, I believe Eisner did indeed "raid" Disney from the inside.Ditto!!!

[Captain Crook]

Landbaron...As I recall, the Pirate ended up winning that debate didn't he? :D :D :D Maybe we should call Peter to the table!;)
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DVC-Landbaron]

... that clouds your memory, Captain.

By all means!! Yes! Call the Pirate! Maybe he can shed some light on these so called "Great Deeds".

It apparent that you don't have any!! ;)



:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Douglas Dubh]

"The term connotes an exploitation of the company's resources by their new owner, without regard for the history and traditions of the company."

My understanding of the term "raider" is that it is someone who buys a company and then sells off the pieces. Eisner does not fit this definition (although I admit it has been claimed he tried).

[Peter Pirate]

***Finally in the right place***;)

Mr. DVCLandbaron, you've called me bakc for examples of Mike's successes...Well, OK.

You surely can't deny that the animated films division made a huge comeback during the Eisner years, can you? Oh, I know you and AV will state that others were allowed to do what they do best and I don't dispute that. But one man, the Midget, is associated with several of these "blockbusters" and brought the Disney name front and center. Now I know the much ballyhooed departure of Katzenberg made Mikey look like a horses***, but the point is, the movies were made. Katzenberg made them. Who was directly responsible for the hiring of Katzenberg? Credit = Eisner.

The unprecedented growth of Disney during the 80's & 90's brought the Disney name and logo to every place and venue imaginable. Good or bad, the brand flourished like it never has before. What has happened since (devaluation & over saturation are different subjects) and do not diminish the fact that world wide brand recognition & family entertainment recognition came to Disney in unprecedented fashion during the Eisner years. Credit = Eisner.

WDW expansion. Disney built Parks, Resorts, Hotels, shopping areas, restaurants and vacation dreams. Orlando became the world's #1 vacation destination. It matters little the scope of these developments or the fact that the perceieved (and subjective magic) is different from what Walt may have done. The fact is it has been supremely successful. Again the recent downturns may expose mistakes in managing this growth but they do not erase the fact that these tremendous 'happenings' occured. Credit = Eisner.

OK, that's enough and I'm sure the spin from the dark side will find many holes to fill but you can't gloss over the fact that many great things happened to the Disney Company during Eisner's watch and if he is to be saddled with the failures (which I believe he should), he should get 100% of these credits as well.


:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

The deeds of recent eisner-
The ovitz debacle which cost shareholders over 100 million dollars
The internet startup which floundered and cost hundreds of millions
The kaztenberg debacle which cost over 200 million dollars
The opening of DCA which has been a complete fiscal flop and alot would say a creative flop as well.
The AK park which was opened as a incomplete park and still isnt finished and no willingness to finish the job by opneing up Beatly Kingdom which was to have been a major part.
The stock price has plummented.
The purchase of fox family. Time will tell on this purchase but alot of so-called experts doubt the wisdom of this choice but it will take awhile for it to play out.
Others have pointed out the more positive deeds but if you weigh the positives and negatives of the recent eisner, escpeically post wells it has been a debacle and if not for a handpicked board eisner may have been forced out IMHO.
Recent animation films havent been successful(pixars's films have been more popular then disneys own films) and expansion just for the sake of expansion isnt necceassarily a postive. escpecially now when alot is being cutback. I think more people would perfer disney to be more magical than just bigger.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Or: Fan mail from a flounder!!

You surely can't deny that the animated films division made a huge comeback during the Eisner years, can you?I do not deny it. And at first glance it seems as though Ei$ner should indeed take credit for the recent "classics". I know my kids enjoyed them, as have I. Very good films. Very good indeed. But the purpose of this thread was not to look at press clips and appearances, but to delve a little deeper. To take all the actions collectively to see if they support the spin. So, while we do not dispute the fact that these films were made under Ei$ner's watch, just what did he do to help the process or (more importantly) make sure things didn't degrade after a few successes? You seemed to address that question in almost the same way I would have. Oh, I know you and AV will state that others were allowed to do what they do best and I don't dispute that. But one man, the Midget, is associated with several of these "blockbusters" and brought the Disney name front and center. Now I know the much ballyhooed departure of Katzenberg made Mikey look like a horses***The only thing I would have brought out that you didn't was the Rescuers fiasco. And how he wanted to deep-six Mermaid. Smart kind of guy, isn't he?

Now, in fairness you do continue the thought with: but the point is, the movies were made. Katzenberg made them. Who was directly responsible for the hiring of Katzenberg? Credit = Eisner.Well, I don't know for sure who exactly hired him. Was he part of the deal (Wells, etc.)? Or a crony from Paramount? Maybe AV has the answer. But to me it's irrelevant. I think the bottom line is his very questionable judgement as to the right Disney vehicle (Mermaid vs. Rescuers) and how he let success slip through his fingers and actually become a driving force for the competition!! That's just plain stupid!

Next you mention the growth of the brand. And I will admit that he has a certain obsession with "branding". But you continue with: What has happened since (devaluation & over saturation are different subjects) and do not diminish the fact that world wide brand recognition & family entertainment recognition came to Disney in unprecedented fashion during the Eisner years. Credit = Eisner.PETER!!! It is not a different subject!! It is what happens when you single-mindedly push the brand down everyone's throat!! It is the natural consequence of short term gains over long range planning!! It's just like Millionaire. You have to admit that they pushed that show (and milked that show) so hard over the last year or so that everyone in the country knows about. You can't turn on ABC (or even other entertainment news shows) without seeing something about it. Almost every day of the week! But what good is that if NO ONE IS WATCHING!!!??? Or if it seems like noting more than cheap hype? SO yes, I'll credit = Ei$ner with the devaluation & over saturation of the Disney name!!! (say, who's side are you on, anyway? ;))

WDW expansion. Well, whole threads have been created relative to this issue. I think we all know most of the facts. Which is why I wanted to discuss the expansion in a little bit different light. Not whether or not it should have happened at all, but what choices were made along the way. I know it's terribly subjective, but I personally feel a little cheated when I think about 'what could have been'. And at the same time I feel a little bit guilty criticizing such wonderful places! But, come on! How many "American" made resorts do we need!? Is there really that much of a difference between them? However, I've covered that ground before (see first post in thread).

But you bring up a whole different spin on it. You say: Again the recent downturns may expose mistakes in managing this growth but they do not erase the fact that these tremendous 'happenings' occurred. Credit = Eisner.Yes! Credit him indeed! For being ridiculously greedy during the unprecedented good times. And for not being able to foresee that someday the good times may end (something taught in "Basic Business 101) and we would see Disney shuttering resorts, reminiscent of a going out of business sale!! (Did they soap the windows of Port Orleans?) Credit = Ei$ner!!

SO far Capt… Peter, I haven't found one single solitary thing that isn't tainted somehow. (with the exception of the Broadway stuff. But if I mentioned that I couldn't have written "one single solitary thing". And I really like that phrase!!) ;) It doesn't mean it's all bad, it just means he isn't the guy for Disney!!!


PS: Has anyone else noticed the way Bob O seems to hit the mark everytime! :bounce:

[Another Voice]

So Mr. Pirate, the person who hires the guy who can do the job should get all the credit for a job well done?

That sounds like it came straight from a Dilbert cartoon.


I think there is a strong trend to find the “easy way” of assigning credit or blame for events, and its probably just human nature. People go to see ‘The Lion King’, think it’s a good thing and give the credit to Eisner. It’s not because he actually did anything, it’s just that his name is the only one people know. And this especially true of Hollywood; a town who's very existence has been built on cults of personality. Mr. Eisner is nothing but the latest in that long string of self-promoting executives in the vein of L.B. Mayer, Daryl Zanuck, and to a much lesser extant, Walt Disney.

The history of any business is complex and doesn’t fit neatly into the “all the credit” and “all the blame” thought. Giving credit to Mr. Eisner for the beauty of the Wilderness Lodge, the themeing in ‘Tower of Terror’ or the success of ‘The Princess Diaries’ is simply absurd. Then again assigning him sole blame for ‘Scary Movie 2' or even California Adventure is equally wrong. That’s not to say that Mr. Eisner had nothing to do with any of those projects, but his involvement and his impact on each of these projects is different.

For example: I don’t blame Michael Eisner for the fact that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was a lousy movie. Mr. Bruckheimer, Mr. Bay and Mr. Wallace will all have to atone for the way the film turned out. But I do blame Mr. Eisner for making a lousy business decision to make the movie in the first because he should have known better. He read the script and knew the people involved and then he still bet the studio on the project. So who’s to blame for the film’s failure – the people who made the movie or the guy who let them spend $150 millions to do it? As a filmgoer I have one answer; as a stockholder I have another.

On the Broadway matter – yes, ‘The Lion King’ is an amazing piece of theater. Do I give Eisner credit for that? Again, only in the business sense about allowing the company to spend money on that project. Eisner didn’t design the costumes, he didn’t cast the play, he didn’t come up with the concept or even have that mush to do with the original movie. He showed up to the premier. So why on Earth should I give any credit to Eisner for the creative success of the show? Shouldn’t that go to the show’s director and creative team? And shouldn’t they be afforded more than just the status of pawn’s in Michael’s Master Plan?

The strength of Disney is in its people, not in a name at the top of the org chart. That’s why I’m not as terrified about someone else stepping in as most people are around here. Companies that aren’t run by Michael Eisner make good movies and the parks did very well for themselves before he showed up (by the way, whose to say all the hotels and new parks wouldn’t have showed up anyway).

The problem these days are that fewer and fewer people are willing to work with Michael Eisner's ego. There are fewer to make good projects, and fewer to correct bad ones. Talk to anyone at WDI privately and you will an earful about California Adventure – but no one dares say anything publicly out of fear. Good creative decisions are still being made, but many of these are being overruled by bad business decisions. Any corporate executive that begins to believe his own press is bound to cause problems and the Company’s been reaping more than its fair share lately.

P.S. Jeffrey Katzenberg was one of Eisner’s executives at Paramount (he was there before Eisner showed up, so no credit for “hiring” can be awarded by the judges) and came to Disney when he was offered an immensely lucrative offer. Of course at the time, no one knew it came with that special “midget” clause that cost a quarter billion dollars.

And since this came up: Eisner did not takeover Disney. Walt Disney Productions was essentially taken over by Roy Disney (and friends at Shamrock) with the help of the Bass Brothers. Michael Eisner was hired help. He was hired help that ended up stealing the silverware, but that’s another long story. He didn’t “save” Disney from other takeovers, he didn’t stop corporate raiders. Keeping 40% of the stock in friendly hands did that.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I agree that DI would have been much better at another location. Maybe VB or HH. But, that's "execution".NO!!! Execution is policy regarding reservations. It's cost. It's the details of the the program. It's hiring the right people to teach. It's a whole bunch of things. But it is NOT location!!! The idio… ah… moro… lamebrai… (ok, let's be nice)… ahh… Ei$ner actually thought it would take off in WDW!?!? How silly!! Look deeper than your original reaction.I have! And the idea (at least in WDW) still stinks!! Well, I don't know for sure who exactly hired him. Was he part of the deal (Wells, etc.)? Or a crony from Paramount? Maybe AV has the answer. But to me it's irrelevant.

Ugh! That CAN'T be irrelevant.It's only irrelevant in the context of what you didn't include in the quote. That being: I think the bottom line is his very questionable judgement as to the right Disney vehicle (Mermaid vs. Rescuers) and how he let success slip through his fingers and actually become a driving force for the competition!! That's just plain stupid!So to me, it doesn't matter if he hired him or not. What's the bottom line? Did he recognize the things he was doing as being the "right" moves (Mermaid vs. Rescuers) Did he keep him (nope!)? Did he make sure that the competition didn't get him (Shrek)? Did he totally screw things up in the end?? Answer: YES!!! Great Deed: Negotiating the Pixar deal. A truly great deal which led to massive commercial and creative success. Eisner did the deal. A great, great deal.That he is in the process of screwing up!! (don't you and I read the same threads?) ;)

The score is still only 1...Baron, like a post Thanksgiving day family picture in front of the picture window...you are overexposed, my friend...YIKES!!! Put the binos down!!! How did you find my address?!?!?!

[YoHo]

I don't see how Eisner and Disney are doing anything Overtly Antagonistic to Pixar AND I HAVE Read the sme threads. Disney is dealing from a position of weakness now and Jobs has a Head as large as Eisner's. Thus the Score is two.



Another Voice, You make some very important points and I would request that everyone listen. (both sides please) What AV says is not (as I read it) that Eisner takes the blame for everything in the company so he is in charge. He is to blame for those things which he did which caused the failures further down the chain.

Example, Eisner is responsible for setting the budge for Dinorama and for pushing the theme. He is not responsible for how that money was used by Imagineering and the parks. Certainly something better could have been done with the same money.

[DVC-Landbaron]

YoHo says:Another Voice, You make some very important points and I would request that everyone listen. (both sides please)OK.

But this is gonna be hard. I usually agree 100% with everything AV says. And to bring up those minor, inconsequential items of contention seems… counterproductive. But here goes anyway!!! I think there is a strong trend to find the "easy way" of assigning credit or blame for events, and its probably just human nature.I quite agree. Which is why I started this nonsense. I wanted to look past the cosmetics. The simple, right or wrong. I wanted to get to the core philosophy of the man. And see if that philosophy 'gels' with our understanding of "Disney".
People go to see 'The Lion King', think it's a good thing and give the credit to Eisner. It's not because he actually did anything, it's just that his name is the only one people know.Well AV, our first disagreement. And I find that I'm in car #1. At least for a minute or two. See, I really don't know much about the Broadway stuff. I hear they're great and they seem to be a moneymaker. A win/win kind of thing. And because I don't know any back story on it, I have to assume that at the very least Ei$ner didn't do anything to screw it up. No he didn't design the costumes. He didn't write the score. He didn't handle the spotlight for the touching love scene. Instead, he did what I would expect of a Disney type CEO. He gave either a tacit or nodding approval to the project and then got the hell out of the way to let those who know how to do it - DO IT! The only thing that could have been better is if he called the producer (or the guy in charge) and asked him what help he needed. And for all I know, he did that. So I give him credit for the Broadway productions. CREDIT = Eisner (notice no "$").

This would NOT be the case if he cried loudly about the thing (as in the Little Mermaid) or cut the budget or any of the hundreds of things he we hear he has done on other projects, many of them still successes in spite him. And I guess that's what it all boils down to. Are these so called "Great Deeds" great because of him or in spite of him?

The strength of Disney is in its people, not in a name at the top of the org chart.Again, a minor disagreement. Heads of companies set the tone. They devise the corporate strategy. They make key hiring decisions (that trickle down the chart). And they create the culture in which the employees of the company have to work. And again, this is the heart of my question. Does he create a climate or culture that fosters creativity and art. Does he hire thinkers, ponderers and visionaries who can also get the job done? Does he care more about what is produced than his own image and next quarter's balance sheet? Do talented people flock to him because of the culture he sets up? Or do they leave his company because they feel stifled and unfulfilled? I give the upper management much more credit and blame than my colleague in Disney, Mr. Voice.

I understand that the strength of any company, especially Disney, is in it's people. But when Walt was in charge, even though there were horror stories about how hard he was to work for, talented people were breaking down his door!! Does Ei$ner command the same kind of respect? Or even half? Or even a quarter? Or even a tenth? Or eve… Well I think you get it! And since this came up: Eisner did not takeover Disney. Walt Disney Productions was essentially taken over by Roy Disney (and friends at Shamrock) with the help of the Bass Brothers. Michael Eisner was hired help. He was hired help that ended up stealing the silverware, but that's another long story. He didn't "save" Disney from other takeovers, he didn't stop corporate raiders. Keeping 40% of the stock in friendly hands did that.Hmmm. Pretty much what some of us have been saying for quite some time now. But in fairness I always gave Ei$ner more credit (both positive and negative) than he apparently deserved. I didn't consider him "hired help'. But I like the phrase, very much!!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

[quote]Good thread idea Baron. Just bad execution.[quote]Nah. I don't think so. I think that those who hold him in high esteem are hard pressed to come up with any examples.

I started this thread because of all the vague references to the 'Great Deeds" Ei$ner has accomplished on his watch. With no concrete or definable terms. I did not want a list. I didn't even necessarily want examples. I wanted to know what qualities they saw in him (which I suppose could be represented in a list or by deed) that lead them to the conclusion that Ei$ner was the type of leader and/or visionary that Disney required.

I think by my demeanor and history you could pretty much guess that I was predisposed to the concept that Ei$ner does not have the leadership qualities, nor the creative talents to run a company like Disney. So I wanted enlightenment. I wanted those who 'like' him to show me why. They have not. It was a challenge. And they have failed. If anyone can be blamed for poor execution within this thread it is the Ei$ner lovers!!! (at least you tried) ;)

[Peter Pirate]

If I am one of the people not holding up his end of the argument, I apologize. I'm in the process of buying a new house & moving, so things are hectic.

But, I take offense to the dismissal of my main points simply because you disagree. Your arguments to refute are no more valid to my POV than mine to yours (apparantly). But I like the fun & games so I will try again.

You point to Eisner's tacit or nodding approval to Broadway as a plus, but REFUSE to give credt for the Animation Dept. based on several comments regarding Eisner's hatred of & attempt to halt The Little Memaid. I'm sorry, but where does this supposition come from? I have read much on this area and have never seen this alluded to & unless we can be pointed to some factual background, this is nothing more than heresay & it really tilts the debate to one side. I'm not saying this isn't tue, mind you, but I've never seen this theory stated anywhere but here, and no offense, but I need more than that for this to be entered into evidence (or gospel)...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Another Voice]

Let me shock people around here and answer Mr. Baron’s challenge directly. Here is my (serious) list of Eisner’s accomplishments:

1. He actually turned the Studio around. This turn around started well before Eisner showed up, but it was a long time coming and one got the sense that the move was only half hearted. Eisner stepped in and changed the focus. He made “real” movies starting with ‘Down and Out in Beverly Hills”. I don’t mean “real” in the sense of Oscar winners, but in mainstream Hollywood films that theaters actually wanted to show. He also made very important decree that ALL Disney movies were supposed to turn a profit. That imposed a strong sense of discipline throughout the Studio. He also used his ties with “real” Hollywood to attract “real world” talent. At first it was kind of a joke – the complete casts of those early movies were either just left a hit TV show or rehab. But after a few careers were brought back to life, slowly others thought that working on a Disney film wouldn’t be so bad.

2. Eisner made Disney a “real” company. Disney’s reputation was summed up to me in one sentence, “Disney is either the first or the last company you work for in Hollywood”. Before Eisner, you always heard people talk about how “special” Disney was. That was meant as a slight insult – Disney had their niche but they couldn’t exist outside of it. Eisner changed that, mostly through his efforts with the studio and a whole heck of a lot of PR work (which he’s good at). People used to feel that working at Disney was a form of charity work, now they come for a real job. That brought in a whole level of professionalism that the Company had never experienced before, and a level of respect that Company hadn’t enjoyed either. Eisner still shouldn’t be given credit for the work produced by the people who came to work for the company, but he does deserve credit for (at one time) creating an atmosphere that did attract those people.

3. He stripped mined profitable ideas from the Company’s partners. Eisner’s mission in life to grab as much money as he can, and he forced that philosophy onto the parks as well. The driving force behind the expansion in the 1990’s was based on a simple statement, “find out who’s making money off us, and make it ourselves”. Any reason why people dared step foot off property was analyzed and copied. International Drive brought about the new resorts. Church Street brought about Pleasure Island, miniature golf courses, improved recreation, timeshares, and especially the cruise line were nothing but attempts to drive the competition out of business by duplicating their business. The key element to the plan, however, was profitability. All of these extraneous businesses were profitably for someone else and they were suppose to be profitably for Disney.

There it is. As CEO, I give him credit for setting those agenda items that he put into place and for any execution of those concepts that he was involved with.

[Patch'sD]

I was all set to fight for Mr Eisner, but somehow when I looked at the numbers I became dismayed. I used to Believe that he was responsible for the resurgance of Disney as a Company with the building and vision he had. I believe if you look at the Fact books he did do a lot for the company in terms of growth. However, he also must be measured on the Disney Co. financial performance.

When you look at the numbers, boy they don't support him at all. Over the course of his tenure from 1985 - 2000, (I reviewed the Disney Fact books under investor relations). Net Income Increased from $0.2 B to $0.9B but at the same time revenue increased from $1.7 B to $20.0 B, so return on revenue dropped over the long term by more than half. Long Term Debt was $.8B in 1985 and is at $8.9 B for 2000. This by the way is down from an all time high of $12.0 B in 1996. On the other side he has done little to reduce the debt load over the last three years and with the purchase of Fox Family it has nowhere to go but up. Total Assetts in 1985 was $3.0B and in 2000 was $45.0B. Return on assets for 1985 was 6.2% and in 2000 it was a third of that. Earnings per share have increased from $.32 to $.58 but are about half of what they were in the late 80's.


He has built the Disney Company into what it is today. An underperforming financial Behmoth. His achivements over the years has lessoned the performance of the company and has thus served a great injustice to the stockholders.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I really have nothing to add (but that won't stop me ;)). I'm basically bumping this because I really think that everyone should read at least the last two posts. (AV's and Patch'sD.)

I also want to thank you AV, for answering my question so directly. I thought sure your post would spur some conversation from the passengers in car #1. But I guess their silence speak volumes!!

My own take pretty much mirrors AV's. 1. He actually turned the Studio around.Now it's my turn to surprise everyone. When Ei$ner took over I was elated!! You could feel the revitalization in the air. Things were popping!! I even agreed with his hefty price increases at the resorts. I remember reading an interview with him at the around that time. He basically said that Disney didn't know how to run a resort! The old management team told him that they were very proud of the fact that their two resorts were booked solid (100%) for at least two years into the future. In the article Ei$ner stated that this type of thinking was stupid. He wanted an 80% reservation rate. And prices were going to go up until they achieved that mark. At the time, even though that priced me out of the Poly, I applauded him. I thought maybe this guy could get the business back on track. This is part of the reason why I know the pricing structure so well when he took over (YoHo). And why I know, almost to the day, when the Poly became out of reach for me.

As for the Studio, I had pretty much guessed most of it. I'm glad AV put it in such succinct terms. BTW, you didn't have to be a Hollywood kind of guy to make the jokes about the "Star-quality" of their earlier films. It even hit the Midwest with local papers referring to the fact that most of them were Betty Ford graduates! 2. Eisner made Disney a "real" company.I suppose this pretty much ties into the first one. Even I felt (in his early days) that he was the guy for Disney. If he created that 'feeling' in the work environment as well, then he surely must be given credit for it. So what went wrong? Did he change drastically? Was it merely a hype that couldn't be maintained? Or is it a combination hype, good PR and of anyone looking great compared to Walker/Miller? I really don't know. 3. He stripped mined profitable ideas from the Company's partners.Again, when this type of thing first started I was elated! Revitalization of my beloved WDW!!! But the longer it went on the… well… (hmmm, the right word)… ah… CHEAPER it became. Until it appeared that Disney would sink to any level just to make a buck! Or keep the competition from making a buck of their own. It appeared to me, that the normal care that Disney used to take into consideration in everything they did, was blatantly disregarded. No thinking as to infrastructure, transportation, theme, keeping things out of sight, etc. Again, it painted a picture of someone who just didn't quite "get it". Almost. But not quite!

Any other thoughts?

[d-r]

This is one of the few times that I will pull for the vols... a UT loss - and the bowl shakeup - could blow it for Auburn. So maybe you should plan your meeting for Disneyland?

DR

[larworth]

Sorry, for jumping in so late, but being in WDW last week I’m way behind on all these threads.

I guess all of this debate has only served to confirm my place in between Landbaron and the car #1 contingent. I assume that the end result is whether we believe Eisner is still the right man to be in charge. This has always been one of my problems with the car definitions. While there is still plenty of magic left in WDW for me to hop in Car #1, it is my concern about the future that causes me to take a seat further back in the bus.

Here is my take:

We can give Eisner credit for a number of things in the first half of his tenure. Some outright (see AV's list as a starter) and some by inference that they happened during his watch. Eisner inherited a richly untapped Disney company. There were waiting opportunities to be exploited in park expansion, merchandizing, movies, video, etc. The company did a pretty good job mining these opportunities (a problem later on), and enough good products (movies, attractions…) were developed during this time period that it would be tough for me to hang an inept tag on him, even in hindsight. I would actually be inclined to give him a pretty good grade.

However, we also started to see a growing number of mistakes, both in business dealings and direction. I think a combination of things (changes in the management team, scars from events like DLP) had a real impact on how the company was being run. I’m not a big fan of his style. I tend to think that very centralized, ego-centric, hands-on managers are not ideal for creative enterprises, unless the leader is especially gifted in these matters himself. Again, here it would appear that on this score he is only average.

I also think that the easy money became a trap that Eisner fell prey to. Disney not too long ago had a corporate goal of 20% annual growth. Pretty tough act to sustain longterm in some fairly competitive marketplaces. What happens when the Street, your ego, your big pay-day are predicated on continued high growth, yet many of these untapped opportunities you have been riding, no matter how well managed, eventually mature. Easy to forget about what is in one’s longterm best interest in order to try to continue to hit those unrealistic shorterm earning’s objectives. Been there, still doing that.

I wouldn’t say that trends can’t be reversed under his watch, but I’m at the stage where I think these is a better chance of this happening under new management.

[TheTexasKid]

. . . that have occurred under Eisner's watch. (Some of which have already been mentioned, but I thought I mention again.) American Teacher Awards: the best awards show on televison -- Disney Adventures: one of the best magazines for children on the newstand -- Disney Channel: one of the best channels on television. Yes, it may have been up and profitable under the previous administration, but the viewership of it was broadened, when it was taken from a pay channel to a premium cable channel -- Disney Cruise Lines: took my first cruise on it this year, and will take my second cruise on it next year -- Disney Store: where else would I get my short stockings at discount and the toys for the annual city toy drive at a discount -- Disneyland Paris: first saw it five years ago and am going back in three years.
Be sure to visit the cemetery outside of Phantom Manor. You will never see its like in any American theme park -- ESPN Magazine: one of the best sports magazines on the newstand --
Hyperion Press: which has two best sellers on the bestseller list from the current "New York Times Book Review." One in fiction and one in non-fiction -- Hyperion Junior: the junior member of Hyperion Press -- Jump to the Sun: a book imprint specifically aimed at Afro-American children -- Radio Disney: the only radio station I listen to as i drive home from work at night -- Theatrical unit of Disney: which is responsible for the Broadway hits: "Beauty and the Beast," "The Lion King," and "Aida." -- and Toon Disney: with some of the best toons on television.
Actually, more then ten, but who is counting. That is not to say, that these might not have occured if someone else had been CEO at Disney, or that Eisner had not made any mistakes, some of which have already been mentioned at this thread. Having said that, this list is still incomplete, and I am sure others can add to it. Enjoy!

[gary]

Thanks to the Baron for starting all of this off, and thanks to all the contributors. I unfortunately haven't had the time to keep up with all posts, but I've got to say that this has been the most interesting Ei$ner discussion I've seen in a while (probably since the last time the Baron attempted this). Particularly interesting to me is the way the Disney CEO job appears different than most other CEO positions. Almost every time I read about a CEO, the analysis focuses on revenue growth and stock price. Discussions surrounding the Disney CEO take into account the quality of the product produced during his tenure.

Or, it may just be the forum. :)

Have a happy holiday!

Gary