Eisner....Looking for some insight

[rutgers1]

I just finished reading a biography on Walt called Disney's World as well as Realityland. Great books, though it seemed like Realityland focused a bit too much on the negative. As I read, I became more interested in what Eisner brought to Disney, both good and bad. I got the impression that he spurred on a period of incredible growth yet that growth made the company a bit more corporate and perhaps a bit less focused on the total immersion experience of guests in Disney parks (particularly by adding storefronts and other money making opportunities at every turn). I also get the impression that he wasn't necessarily great for cast members (promoting more part-timers, lower wages, etc.). While I could understand some of the negative connotations outlined in the book, it also seemed like he did a lot of interesting things after a decade where very little changed.

How is his tenure regarded by everyone here?

[TheRustyScupper]

1) As a corporate entity, Disney blossomed.
2) As a guest-centered and employee-centered entity, it suffered badly.

[DisneyKidds]

Let me suggest Disney War, by James B Stewart, as the next book on your reading list. It spends a lot of time covering Eisner's input and influence on the company, and the struggles during that time. It's a good read and a logical step in furthering one's Disney education.

As for Eisner, I imagine around here you'll get a good amount of pro-Eisner, Disney Decade type input. Actually, there were a few good things he did. Then again, some of the good things that happened under his tenure had little to do with him. On the flip side, there was a lot that went wrong with Disney under his leadership, and a lot of missed opportunities and departures from what many felt the true Disney path should have been. There was an element of posters on the Rumors and News Board that used to discuss topics such as this one at length. You might try posting this topic over there. Also, look to my signature and you can see where many of those people went to discuss such things....and I'm sure they'd be happy to give you some insights. Be warned, there aren't many over there with rose colored glasses, and that is kind of a good thing if you really want to understand The Walt Disney Company of yesterday and today, and what influence Eisner has had on it.

[MainStMandy]

Eisner brought a lot of great things to the company, no doubt. But in my opinon, after Frank Wells died things got out of hand and the balance of the company was thrown off. Eisner did not have what it took to run both the creative and financial pieces of the company...successfully. He was a great businessman but definitely was in power too long. And this is exactly why I am not thrilled about Iger...

[pdchris]

Let me suggest Disney War, by James B Stewart, as the next book on your reading list. It spends a lot of time covering Eisner's input and influence on the company, and the struggles during that time. It's a good read and a logical step in furthering one's Disney education.



I'll second that recommendation. It's a great book on Eisner's reign.

[sbell111]

Eisner? He's my hero.

[bradk]

i'll 3rd disney war. it's pretty unbiased. realityland has an obvious agenda and often contradicts itself to make its point.

to know me is to know i'm an eisner defender. bottom line, without eisner, disney would literally not exist today. that's not to say i think he's perfect. that's not to suggest i think anyone is. he had problems. a lot of it stems from things that the typical guest wouldn't know or care about though.

so it's very hard to make it a black or white call. losing wells was a significant factor in where things went wrong because eisner was uncontrollable at that point. internally, disney is a cheap company. eisner worked for the share holders, for the bottom line. that's what corporations do. may not be what disney does, but there's a lot more to the story (one of my favorite things i picked up, although if it turns out to be false, i wouldn't be surprised, is that walt himself licensed his name to the disney company - walt also intentionally kept prices of some things low to give an impression of value while bringing in revenue elsewhere).

that said, eisner did not scrimp on show. in fact, one of the first things he did was to greenlight splash mountain which had already been shelved indefinitely due to cost.

he was very much into imagineering and the creative sides of the company. it was finances where he fell short and unfortunately he fell victim to the fact that in that type of environment, you surround yourself with yes men so nobody had the guts to correct him. when he asked for more money, you didn't say 'sorry, we're all out,' you found it. and that's where projects like eurodisney really fell apart, because they hemorrhaged the company from denial.

some say eisner was only good because of who he surrounded himself with, even when he had already been credited for saving both ABC and Paramount earlier in his career. my take is that if he knows who to surround himself with, then it really doesn't matter, it all pays off in the end. bringing katzenberg on was probably one of the best things he did for the company. where that relationship went probably wasn't.

my only real gripe with people and eisner (and this goes mostly for the disneyland folks) is that everyone is so quick to blame him for things they don't like but things they do like (even when it happened under eisner), they're quick to credit someone else for.

[Mickey28]

I read a review of Disney's World that said a lot of the content was not backed up with facts or reliable sources. That the author would fabricate a lot of the stories from misinformation and then run with it, especially the negatives. It also said that was not an uncommon practice for the author of the book. So I didn't buy it. I was wondering if you found that to be true.

[wdwfreeksince88]

my only real gripe with people and eisner (and this goes mostly for the disneyland folks) is that everyone is so quick to blame him for things they don't like but things they do like (even when it happened under eisner), they're quick to credit someone else for.

I 2nd that one. I totally agree.

[DisneyKidds]

bottom line, without eisner, disney would literally not exist today.
Yes, there was a real risk that Disney could have been acquired and split apart. But could someone else have stepped in to prevent that if Eisner wasn't handed the reigns? Hard to say. To say Disney absolutely would not exist today might be going a bit far, but he did get the company through a tough stretch. Of course, as you mention, when Wells died things started going in the wrong direction, and in a hurry.
internally, disney is a cheap company. eisner worked for the share holders, for the bottom line. that's what corporations do. may not be what disney does, but there's a lot more to the story
Disney may not have been as cheap a company as you suggest before Eisner took over. Yes, Walt and Roy had to be careful about how and what they spent (ok, Roy did), but when it came to things the guest would see, things that made a difference to the guest experience, they didn't skimp. I'm not sure the same can be said of Eisner. As for Disney being a business, Eisner working for the shareholder, fiduciary responsibility, etc., etc., etc.....that may be true to an extent. However, Eisner was always short sighted in his pursuit of short term financial gains, performance in the next fiscal quarter. How often did he make a decision that might not have helped the next quarterly report, but would have been in the best long term interest of the company?
that said, eisner did not scrimp on show. in fact, one of the first things he did was to greenlight splash mountain which had already been shelved indefinitely due to cost. he was very much into imagineering and the creative sides of the company.
Again, I'm not so sure on this one either. Splash is a rather selective example. He fell in love and made it happen, and that was a good thing. But he made lots of other decisions that were ultimately detrimental to the Show, and imagineering really was decimated under his tenure.
it was finances where he fell short and unfortunately he fell victim to the fact that in that type of environment, you surround yourself with yes men so nobody had the guts to correct him. when he asked for more money, you didn't say 'sorry, we're all out,' you found it. and that's where projects like eurodisney really fell apart, because they hemorrhaged the company from denial.
Can't argue with this, and EuroDisney may have been the point of no return for the company under Eisner. This is also where his ego became an issue that would drive the company down. Even when somebody raised an objection, he knew better.
some say eisner was only good because of who he surrounded himself with, even when he had already been credited for saving both ABC and Paramount earlier in his career. my take is that if he knows who to surround himself with, then it really doesn't matter, it all pays off in the end. bringing katzenberg on was probably one of the best things he did for the company. where that relationship went probably wasn't.
But how quickly you gloss over the 'where the relationship went' part. Ultimately, Eisner's relationships, or lack thereof, with key people in the family and the industry was a critical flaw in his tenure.

[deej696]

I'm another to suggest Disney War. In fact, read both it and Eisner's own book. It is interesting to see the things that are glossed over between the two.

Personally, Michael Eisner truely was my hero growing up. When you are asked in school what you want to do when you grow up, my answer I'm sure was "have Michel Eisner's job." The way I see it, he was responsible for some monumental successes, some monumental failures, and probably not a whole lot in between. Opinions of Eisner seem to vary in the same way. He is either the hero who saved Disney, or the villian who helped destroy what Walt wanted it to be.

The evidence for both opinions is hard to avoid. On the pro side, the company was "saved" from the Wall St. raiders. They went from a $2 billion market cap to over $60 billion. Animation was a crown jewel again, and the parks burst with growth.

On the flipside of that coin, as others have mentioned he pushed away every good leader the company had. Euro Disney, ABC, and ABC Family were largely his babies. Combine those flops with the Katzenberg/Ovitz payouts, and you have some expensive failures.

As Brad said before, nothing about Eisner's tenure was black and white, and you will probably form your own opinion after these readings. He's still my hero, he's just a flawed hero. But then again, most heroes are....

[Another Voice]

To get a complete story surrounding Eisner, it is also important to read Storming the Magic Kingdom by John Taylor. It details the corporate struggles around Disney that lead to the eventual hiring of Michael Eisner.

It also dispels a lot of myths. Disney was, in fact, taken over. It was by Roy Disney and the Bass Brothers. Eisner didn't "save" anything, he was a hired hand brought in to run the newly acquired company. The takeover attempts and greenmail issues started when Roy Disney felt he "lost" to the Walt side of the family and couldn't take it anymore. It's a story of rivalry and greed right out of Dynasty.

A lot of what Eisner is credited for doing was actually well underway by the time he got there. The Disney Channel had launched. Tokyo Disney was open. Touchstone pictures already had a huge commercial success (Splash) and a critical hit (Country). A new group had taken over animation and started working on this little movie about a girl and fish. EPCOT Center had opened and transformed WDW from being just a stop on a trip to Florida into a full vacation destination in its own right.

Eisner was hired to bring "Hollywood street cred" to Disney, something the company sorely lacked. But what Eisner brought (by the way, he was fired from Paramount and hardly "saved" that place either) was a burning ambition to be a Mega Media Mogul - and for better or worse he took Disney along for the ride.

[deej696]

To get a complete story surrounding Eisner, it is also important to read Storming the Magic Kingdom by John Taylor. It details the corporate struggles around Disney that lead to the eventual hiring of Michael Eisner.


I read this years ago and could not for the life of me remember the title. Great book and great story. Hard to imagine if someone like Saul Stienberg had retained control of the company. I'm pretty sure he's in jail now.....

[CanadianGuy]

Moving this one over to the Rumors & News board.

[SpaceAce]

subscribing

[rutgers1]

Since I originally posted this thread earlier today, I did some Googling on Eisner, and while I clearly see that he ruffled feathers and needed to work on his people skills, my thoughts are as follows:
1) I never buy arguments when people try to take credit away from a leader and instead bestow it on the people below him. A bad leader wouldn't allow the people below him to thrive, and if he was truly just an egotistical suit, there would be more negatives than positives to come out of his tenure at the top. From my seat, despite some of the failures, it was a time of huge growth, and the customers (us) are much better off for it.
2) People tend to have an idealized vision of Walt. The biography that I read might not be 100% accurate (what biography is?), but it was clear that Walt had his interpersonal faults, too. Heck, Walt wouldn't even allow anyone at Disney to take credit for anything they did in his early movies, not even a mention in the credits. On top of that, contrary to popular belief, not everything Walt touched turned to gold. There were many mistakes and flops along the way. But, in the end, we remember Walt for what he ultimately brought us - as we should.
3) Back when Walt was in control, we were talking about a much smaller operation. Walt would often fund things out of his own pocket. He still had major "ownership" in every sense of the word. If you fast forward to Eisner's tenure, the company and its leaders were truly at the mercy of its vast number of shareholders. While I think Walt was truly special and would have done even MORE amazing things had he lived another 30 years, I do think corporate America would have caught up to him at some point and changed the way he did business.
4) While I think that things like DVC, Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios are works in progress, I think that my experience at Disney is much improved thanks to those additions. I am glad that the guy got things going in a way that some feared would never happen prior to his hiring.

Thank you to everyone for the book recommendations. I will definitely read them.

[Another Voice]

A bad leader wouldn't allow the people below him to thrive,...
I'm sure Mr. Katzenberg would have plenty of comments to offer along that line. In fact, the most successful studios in Hollywood are filled with ex-Disney staff from the Eisner era who were "resigned" in one form or another. You know, the people making financially successful movies like The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Transformers while those people who "thrived" at Disney are making movies about dancing Chihuahuas.


...not everything Walt touched turned to gold...
Yes, Pinocchio and Fantasia were both considered financial disappointments at the time. Of course they've made hundreds of millions since.

Eisner gave us GO.com., Euro Disney, ABC Family and the Disney Institute just for starters.

Do the math.


Walt would often fund things out of his own pocket.
A nice story, but completely false.

Disney rarely if ever had cash laying around. Walt used outside funding for all of his movies and even to build Disneyland. The famous concept painting of his park idea was literally done over a weekend so his brother Roy could take it on a train to New York and present it to banks. Walt was turned down. He ended up selling a 1/3 of the park and some concessions to ABC Network (yes, they've been screwing up Disney for decades). Walt even borrowed against his own life insurance policy so you could ride the Mark Twain.

Do you think Michael Eisner ever passed up an expense account lunch to help out a guest?

Eisner had access to junk bonds and overseas funds beyond the wildest imagination anyone in the Great Depression (interesting how Walt built his business in the worst times of the 20th century, the depression and WWII, yet Eisner lost money in the greatest financial boon of all time - the Internet Bubble). The cries of "Walt had it easy" don't stand up when you look into them.

Walt also had the habit of taking any profits and turning them into the company. Walt Disney World was stared with the profits from Mary Poppins, the studio itself was built with money earned on Snow White. Eisner gave himself massive bonuses and huge blocks of stock options.

And no one thinks Walt was a saint. He was a crotchy control freak...and that happened to be a genuis. He filled the world's imagination to the point that - almost fifty years since he passed - we're still marveling at his work. Eisner called Pearl Harbor the greatest movie he ever supervised. And "at the mercy of shareholders"...the same man who handpicked a Board of Directors that was voted the worst in the country for years and years?

Again, do the math.


While I think that things like DVC, Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios are works in progress,
Half-day additions built on the fully formed foundation built by better management. Stick Animal Kingdom out on US 192 and the place would filled with lots of animal skeletons. Everything that Eisner created at WDW was only successful because of the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT Center anchors.

And let's not forgot Michael Eisner's other stunning accomplishments in theme park design - Euro Disney and California Adventure. You won't find many who think DCA "much improves" their experience at Disneyland, other than to provide a place to escape the crowds from Dumb Ole Walt's park.


Michael Eisner tried to us Disney to further his own ambition. People inside Disney tried to reawaken the sleeping giant that they knew the company could be. When those two desires were in sync, great things happened. But when the conflicted - Eisner slowly destroyed any aspect of "Disney" that went against him.

The result was the Eisner became a massively wealthy, and temporarily powerful, man. And Disney has become a bloated and soulless marketing machine devoid. Fortunately we all can still enjoy what Walt left us.

[MainStMandy]

I'm another to suggest Disney War. In fact, read both it and Eisner's own book. It is interesting to see the things that are glossed over between the two.

Personally, Michael Eisner truely was my hero growing up. When you are asked in school what you want to do when you grow up, my answer I'm sure was "have Michel Eisner's job." The way I see it, he was responsible for some monumental successes, some monumental failures, and probably not a whole lot in between. Opinions of Eisner seem to vary in the same way. He is either the hero who saved Disney, or the villian who helped destroy what Walt wanted it to be.

The evidence for both opinions is hard to avoid. On the pro side, the company was "saved" from the Wall St. raiders. They went from a $2 billion market cap to over $60 billion. Animation was a crown jewel again, and the parks burst with growth.

On the flipside of that coin, as others have mentioned he pushed away every good leader the company had. Euro Disney, ABC, and ABC Family were largely his babies. Combine those flops with the Katzenberg/Ovitz payouts, and you have some expensive failures.

As Brad said before, nothing about Eisner's tenure was black and white, and you will probably form your own opinion after these readings. He's still my hero, he's just a flawed hero. But then again, most heroes are....

I used to be in the same boat as you. Eisner was my idol, I thought he was one of the greatest men I had ever read about...and had done so many wonderful things.

But he took things TOO far. He stayed well past his welcome and well past when he should for the benefit of the company. A great leader would have recognized that. Even when the board started looking for a replacement he was reluctant to step down. I am not saying he was bad for the company, he did MANY great things but he hurt the company in a lot of ways.




Eisner had access to junk bonds and overseas funds beyond the wildest imagination anyone in the Great Depression (interesting how Walt built his business in the worst times of the 20th century, the depression and WWII, yet Eisner lost money in the greatest financial boon of all time - the Internet Bubble). The cries of "Walt had it easy" don't stand up when you look into them.

Walt also had the habit of taking any profits and turning them into the company. Walt Disney World was stared with the profits from Mary Poppins, the studio itself was built with money earned on Snow White. Eisner gave himself massive bonuses and huge blocks of stock options.

And no one thinks Walt was a saint. He was a crotchy control freak...and that happened to be a genuis. He filled the world's imagination to the point that - almost fifty years since he passed - we're still marveling at his work. Eisner called Pearl Harbor the greatest movie he ever supervised. And "at the mercy of shareholders"...the same man who handpicked a Board of Directors that was voted the worst in the country for years and years?

Again, do the math.



Half-day additions built on the fully formed foundation built by better management. Stick Animal Kingdom out on US 192 and the place would filled with lots of animal skeletons. Everything that Eisner created at WDW was only successful because of the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT Center anchors.

And let's not forgot Michael Eisner's other stunning accomplishments in theme park design - Euro Disney and California Adventure. You won't find many who think DCA "much improves" their experience at Disneyland, other than to provide a place to escape the crowds from Dumb Ole Walt's park.


Michael Eisner tried to us Disney to further his own ambition. People inside Disney tried to reawaken the sleeping giant that they knew the company could be. When those two desires were in sync, great things happened. But when the conflicted - Eisner slowly destroyed any aspect of "Disney" that went against him.

The result was the Eisner became a massively wealthy, and temporarily powerful, man. And Disney has become a bloated and soulless marketing machine devoid. Fortunately we all can still enjoy what Walt left us.

I couldn't agree with this more. And let us all remember that when Walt started the company, he had Roy. Roy was the one to try and bring Walt back to reality and one to control the finances (as much as he could, lol). I am not saying Walt was perfect, but he was the creative piece of Disney. HE is the reason we are all here...as is Roy.

Eisner tried to be both and COULDN'T...and he didn't have Disney's best interest in mind, he had HIS. Disney became a bottomline and nothing more than a business. The Walt Disney Company had always been something extraordinary....something more than just a profit center. The company is still recovering from the mistakes Eisner made. The Disney Stores are a GREAT example (and an entirely other topic).

And can we also remember, it's Disneyland Paris...not EuroDisney...just another mistake Eisner made (the name, not the park).

[rutgers1]

Interesting thoughts. I wonder what you think of this link (http://www.slate.com/id/2116794/).

I am curious then what you think Disney would be like right now had Eisner not come aboard.

[MainStMandy]

You know what ammuses me?

Eisner's Metrics, which are all public numbers:

Category 1984 2004 Percent change
Disney's Revenues $1.5 billion $30.8 billion +2,000
Disney's Income $294 million $4.49 billion +1,600
Disney's Tax-Free Cash Flow $100 million $2.9 billion +2,900
Stock Price (adjusted for splits) $1.33 $28.40 +2,100
Market Value $1.9 billion $57.4 billion +3,000
Disney's Enterprise Value
(market value plus debt minus cash)
$2.8 billion $69 billion +3,200


SO WHAT??? I mean granted yes the company did very well. But at what cost? Apparently a revenue up 2000% despite who you kicked to get there or what values you destroyed along the way are totally worth it.

Bravo Mr. Eisner.

[manning]

Where do I stand on Eisner as if it matters to anyone.

Splash Mountain.

Eisener said "we can't afford to build it"

Wells said " we can't afford NOT to build it"

So, who did more for Disney????

[MainStMandy]

Where do I stand on Eisner as if it matters to anyone.

Splash Mountain.

Eisener said "we can't afford to build it"

Wells said " we can't afford NOT to build it"

So, who did more for Disney????

:thumbsup2

[raidermatt]

Gosh I wish I had more than a quick minute right now. But just one thing for now...

The "credit to the leader" thing is a good point, but it's important to understand the corporate structure at the time. Yes, Eisner was CEO, but Wells did not report to him. Like Eisner, Wells reported directly to the board. That's very key to understanding how things could be getting done IN SPITE of Eisner.

Also, remember that Roy and the Bass Brothers wanted Eisner as the #2 man, with Wells in charge. Eisner would not agree to this, while Wells was willing to accept the the #2 role.

[mitros]

Eisner? He's my hero.

........really? :confused3

[mitros]

One can only wonder what would have happened to Disney if Wells did not die, and if Katzenburg stayed on.

[rutgers1]

If I wanted to learn more about Wells' and Katzenberg's contributions, what would be the best book to read? And what should I read if I want to hate Eisner as much as a few of the people here, lol?

I still can't hate the guy yet. Much of what I love about Disney came about during his tenure. It seems like the company was almost at a standstill in the years following Walt's death until Eisner arrived on the scene. And then the company exploded into growth again.

[deej696]

Well I think Disney War will help explain why many dislike Eisner, and it will give you more insight into both Wells and Katzenberg. I seem to remember that Storming the Kingdom also delved into Wells especially, and how he fit into the equation in the beginning, but I dont know of any others that focus more on he and Katzenberg.

What was mentioned earlier was dead on. Wells reported directly to the board, and the original idea was for him to be CEO. I am as pro-Eisner as anyone, but if I recall correctly, I think the quote from Eisner was "Who needs a Frank Wells?" As it turned out, he did.....

[Safari Queen]

I believe Eisner is responsible for allowing the Swan and Dolphin to loom over the landscape, monuments to ugly architecture completely out of step with the rest of WDW. I can forgive a lot but not that.

[rutgers1]

Someone tell me if I am wrong here, but if I recall, the Swan/Dolphin were the result of "fine print" in the Tishman contract to build Epcot, which pre-dated Eisner. I agree, though, I do not like those hotels.

[DancingBear]

I agree with a lot of the criticism of Eisner, but not the Swan and Dolphin hating. I like Michael Graves' stuff (do you think the Contemporary looks better?), for one thing, but beyond that, per Rutgers comment, the alternative was going to be a standard high-rise box hotel put up by Tischman.

[DancingBear]

I'm no big fan of Katzenberg (I haven't seen a bunch of great stuff coming out of Dreamworks Animation). Maybe he should have been fired in any event, but Eisner's attempt to cheat him out of his contractual compensation was an expensive embarassment. And Eisner is totally responsible for the Ovitz debacle.

[deej696]

Someone tell me if I am wrong here, but if I recall, the Swan/Dolphin were the result of "fine print" in the Tishman contract to build Epcot, which pre-dated Eisner. I agree, though, I do not like those hotels.

Yes I believe that is correct. When Eisner came on board, he originally wanted nothing to do with the hotel business. But after the Grand Floridian was built, he changed his mind and wanted out of the deal with Tishman. The result was Tishman being given the rights to the Swalphin. The Tishman contract as I understand it required that their hotels be on "Disney transportation." The original contract was done during the expansion of Epcot and its probably safe to say that Tishman assumed "transportation" to mean monorail. Disney moved quickly to establish the YandB Club in between the Swalphin and Epcot. In addition, they expanded the canal to DHS and started boat service to eliminate the "transportation" issue. At least thats how I think it all went down, maybe others have more info...

Personally I like the buildings, but I can see why many do not. I know there are many who dont like the fact that a "non-Disney" hotel is on property, but the alternative would have been "by Marriott" following the names of all Disney hotels. Not something I think any of us would have wanted. Although at the rate things are going now with Disney liscensing away the farm, that may happen anyway....

[JimB.]

Personally, IMHO, I think Mr. Eisner's tenure was in 2 phases:

Before Frank Wells died & after Frank Wells died.

I'm not sure of the "creativity" aspect, but it seemed like after FW's death, Mr. Eisner turned to "money squeezing" to keep the company profitable.

I dunno'. Maybe he was in over his head, but too proud to enlist the help he should have.

[pdchris]

Personally, IMHO, I think Mr. Eisner's tenure was in 2 phases:

Before Frank Wells died & after Frank Wells died.

I'm not sure of the "creativity" aspect, but it seemed like after FW's death, Mr. Eisner turned to "money squeezing" to keep the company profitable.

I dunno'. Maybe he was in over his head, but too proud to enlist the help he should have.
I think you're right about that. That was my impression, too, after reading DisneyWar.
I think that's the good/bad side of having a rather large ego. It gives you confidence to take chances thinking they'll work out but blinds you to the fact you may be wrong.
Probably the final straw for Mr. Eisner was when he chastised Apple for movie privacy. That didn't sit too well with Steve Jobs who was CEO of Apple and Pixar.

[Another Voice]

Someone tell me if I am wrong here, but if I recall, the Swan/Dolphin were the result of "fine print" in the Tishman contract to build Epcot, which pre-dated Eisner.
Okay - a long story to tell in little time.

The problem with WDW when it opened was its seasonality. Back in the seventies Dad still got his two weeks so everyone piled in the station wagon and took 'The Great American Family Vacation'. This meant that WDW was jammed during the typical vacation months, but empty at other times.

Disney thought that one way to help balance this out was by attracting more conventions and business meetings. They tended to happen during the times of year when tourism was slow - a perfect counterbalance. And with all the fine dining restaurants being planned for World Showcase at the EPCOT Center project, Disney had an instant nighttime entertainment and corporate event area.

But Disney was also very strapped by the effort of building EPCOT Center. It was said it was the largest project in the country. Also, while Disney had fantastic success running its own family vacation hotels, it knew nothing about running a convention center. Disney wanted first class facilities, that meant getting someone who knew what to do and not trying to do too much at the same time. So Disney signed a deal with Tishman and others to construct a convention facility and hotel adjacent to EPCOT Center.

However, EPCOT Center was barely opened with Michael Eisner took over. His first thought was that he hated EPCOT and wanted it sold off. His plan was to use the money to fund his main stream live action movies. But when that deal fell apart, his next thought was that he was going to squeeze every dime out of it as he could.

That meant not letting anyone in on all those hotel and convention revenues. He tried to break the contract but failed. He agreed to a new deal on the condition that he could select the architect for the new hotel. Eisner had been a life long architecture buff and he was determined that as head of Disney he could become a Patron of The Arts.

It went right to his head.

In his own mind, he was ruling over WDW the same way as the Medici ruled over Florence. It was his mission - no, his obligation - to bring Great Art to those mouth breathing, Wal Mart shopping, churro snorting "little people". Eisner never understood the appeal of something like the 'Haunted Mansion', but he knew that deep down you really wanted to see post-modern deconstructuralism in an ironic juxtaposition to mundane functionalism.

It was rumored he would fume when people didn't recognize the 'Venetian' dolphins on the roof and called them "fishes". I personally prefer to think of them as carp which have been dropped from a great height...but I don't get modern art either.

Anyway, Eisner spent hundreds of millions on his building projects. It all came crashing down with Euro Disney. Because of him the company dramatically overbuilt and forced such a crushing debt that even after 15 years the viability of the resort is in serious doubt. Suddenly Eisner, Savior of Architecture, lacked the funds for any more buildings.

Like all problems, Eisner simply abandoned and ignored the situation.

[DancingBear]

In his own mind, he was ruling over WDW the same way as the Medici ruled over Florence. It was his mission - no, his obligation - to bring Great Art to those mouth breathing, Wal Mart shopping, churro snorting "little people". Eisner never understood the appeal of something like the 'Haunted Mansion', but he knew that deep down you really wanted to see post-modern deconstructuralism in an ironic juxtaposition to mundane functionalism.You're at the top of your game, A-V. Great stuff.

[Another Voice]

A writer once told me that the best comedy was simply to repeat what other people say.

A favorite story about the Bird and Fish was that at the opening celebration, Michael Graves was complaining bitterly to Eisner about "the servant quarters" (an exact quote) being built next door and how they had ruined his entire design plan. He was, of course, hating on the Yacht and Beach Club Resorts. I never heard how those two archeitects got along when both designed hotels for Euro Disney (Graves' New York and Stern's Bay).

[proteus]

On the positive side I liked the dramatic architecture of the new resorts brought in by Eisner. In my opinion the AKL and WL are dramatically improved over the Poly and Contemporary. There is more authenticity, greater realism and less of a "theme park" design feeling. While I like staying at both the Poly and CR it would be nice someday if they did a total makeover of them. After all it has been nearly 40 years.

[Goofster]

subscribing

[wdw4us2]

Walt also had the habit of taking any profits and turning them into the company. Walt Disney World was started with the profits from Mary Poppins, the studio itself was built with money earned on Snow White. Eisner gave himself massive bonuses and huge blocks of stock options.


The result was that Eisner became a massively wealthy, and temporarily powerful, man. And Disney has become a bloated and soulless marketing machine devoid. Fortunately we all can still enjoy what Walt left us.

Once again, AV states exactly how I feel about the situation. Well done!