DEBATE: "Removing Blinders" or "How I stopped worrying & came to disrespect Ei$ne

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by Testtrack321
Where is our good friend Barro anyway...
Originally posted by Peter Pirate
I think he's locked in a room with no windows and no doors, just going round and round and round...:jester: :jester: :jester:
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool: Don’t pay the ransom!!! I’ve escaped!! ;)

And since I agree things have been VERY dull here lately, I thought I’d give a reasonable answer to a reasonable question posed a few threads back. Maybe you’ll have some time on a lazy Autumn Sunday afternoon to read it and comment or give your own account.

------------------------

Ohanafamily,

Glad you asked! (Although you may not be!! A little longer than usual, I’m afraid!! And if I’m admitting it, you know it’s gotta be long!! :crazy: )

I have a question for you, have you ever met Ei$$ner?No.

you seem to ha...disrespect him so much!Ah! I’m glad you corrected yourself. Otherwise I would have had to. For I do not hate the man. Heck, if I met him, I may even like him. I’ve found that most people in his position have at least a modicum of charm; otherwise they would never have gotten that far. It may be phony, but that is something you should judge only when you physically interact with someone. No! I do not hate him.

However!! Yes, I do disrespect him. I first ‘met’ him as many did. He saved Disney!!! I clearly remember an article I read at the time where he stated his views on the previous administration and specifically regarding the two resorts that were in WDW. He said, in a nutshell, that they were crazy!! He cited how they were proud of the fact that they were solidly booked, two years in advance, and that they had a 98% (or so, it may have even been 100%) rental rate, at any given time. He asked the interviewer what that fact alone told them. His answer was that it told him that they were ‘grossly’ undercharging and seriously underdeveloped!! He stated that his goal was to have an 80% rental rate! And he was going to achieve that by hiking prices until the demand was at that level. And at the same time build more resorts!!

Well, I agreed with him, wholeheartedly!! I KNEW that the Poly in particular was very, very inexpensive and I fixated on the “build more resorts” aspect of the plan. I was EXCITED!! That was my major complaint about the Walker/Miller era. Stagnation! The five year plan simply ignored!! Now here was someone with vision!!

And I weathered the first price hike. Bit the bullet because I knew it was for the greater ‘Disney’ good. And he made good on his promise. He built new resorts and water parks and mini-golf joints and Pleasure Island and Downtown Disney! And he created Little Mermaid, which is probably my least favorite now, but at the time it BLEW ME AWAY! WOW!! Revitalization!! Hooray!!!

And I found that it didn’t stop there! They kept it up, and up, and up, and… Until one day, I turned around and found I could no longer afford my beloved Poly! And I had more than doubled my salary (inflation included)!! WHOA!! I hadn’t counted on that! But I was still an Ei$ner supporter. He was “THEE” man! After all, he ‘saved’ MY Disney!!

And that great man even went one step further. He kindly and benevolently ‘gave’ me a new place to stay that was in my price range. I totally ignored the fact that the Poly used to be easily within my price range. Instead I said to myself, “This new place was Disney! How bad could it be!!??”

So, I happily booked two weeks in the Caribbean!! And it was GREAT!! Not quite as great as the Poly, but it was still… ah… well… Nice! Very, very nice. LESS, but nice!! And I contentedly, almost blissfully, went along my ‘Disney’ way.

I visited the Floridian!! Not quite what I had in mind when he said he was going to build resorts, but I FORCED myself to LOVE it! My wife, who is a Disney nut as well, but has no background (not much of a reader) didn’t like it all. When questioned she said it didn’t ‘feel’ Disney. It ‘felt’ too extravagant. As if it was blatantly trying to appeal exclusively to the very rich. My brother felt the same way. He even commented that he saw one of the lizards there scurrying into the bushes wearing a polo shirt with a person logo embossed on the chest! Quite frankly I couldn’t see it! It became my favorite! (How’s that for an disclosure!!!??)

Now the next bit is partly my fault. We had another kid! Now it was four! I clearly needed two rooms now. And that really bit the old pocketbook. And at the same time the prices kept going up! It wasn’t until I found out about the building of a new resort that I figured out why. The All-Stars was coming on line. And prices in the Mods had to rise in order to make way for the ‘lower’ priced place or they’d find themselves giving the rooms away. It all made sense. And I figured it out all by myself, way back then. No internet conversation, no talk to anyone else. Like a light bulb going off, for the first time, I saw the “Money” aspect of Ei$ner. But still I supported. Take every argument that Peter Pirate, Scoop or lately Mr. Kidds use and wrap them all together and you have the LandBaron philosophy roughly ten years ago. Even with this ‘revelation’ I still had my rose col… Heck, I admit it; they were BLINDERS, well in place!!

We bought into the Vacation back in ’92 quite simply because it was the ONLY way I could legally afford to feed my habit. I had become used to getting a ‘Disney fix’ at least every other year, and for at least two weeks at a time. DVC was the ONLY answer. And talk about WOW!! It was the Vacation Club back then!!

Fast forward to 1998. When we arrived we were handed a little piece of paper. On it was something about a new program they were instituting. It was called E-Ticket Nights. For and extra ten bucks limited attractions were available. WOW!! Now this was a place that just kept on giving!! MK opened until three in the morning!! Ah! Not so fast there, the CM said delicately. The new MK hours were only to 11:00 now. Yeah! But still! Look at all the magic you can get!! My wife, the money manager for the family, was less than enthusiastic. In fact, she was downright mad!! She pointed out that we were ‘buying’ back the same hours that they used to give us for the price of admission. Remember the 1:00 am closings? Yeah but there’s and extra hour now!! She answered that it didn’t seem worth it, as only a handful of rides would be opened. As is my usual habit, I ignored her. This was DISNEY!!! It had to be good!!!

So the first week of our trip (the last week of July) we fought the crowds and the summer heat and more than our share of rain and did Disney!! We did two E-Ticket Nights, though the second one we did in a very wet, slightly ‘more-than-drizzle’ rain all night! And I was $140.00 less for the experience. Those little hairs started to act up. And my wife’s attitude didn’t help at all!!

On the first Sunday of August, the last day of my sister-in-law’s vacation, we wanted to visit the MK. Finish up on a high note!! They had spent two mornings in the MK and several evenings, but rain on those two or three nights (out of their six-day stay) really put a damper on their MK experience. They needed to catch up on a few things. So tonight would be that night! They had yet to see the parade due to cancellations, because of rain, every time they were in the MK, and CoP and the Space Mountain somehow were missed as well! (Nobody said they were good at doing Disney by themselves!!) Anyway, it was a clear night for a change and their last night in Disney!! So, we mapped out the strategy!!

We would get to the MK at about 4:30 or no later than a little before 5:00 if we wanted to see CoP. Having already had dinner, we would not waste any time on that kind of nonsense!! We’d make a beeline to CoP and then hit anything under a fifteen-minute wait (Peoplemover, of course, was a given and anything else we lucked into). Then we’d bite the bullet and stand in line for Space Mountain, no matter what the wait! Afterwards, it should be closing in on the first parade time. We’d hit a few of the less crowded things, maybe Pirates and Small World (her one kid LOVED that one) and anything else under a fifteen-minute wait. Fireworks time. We’d watch and then on to the bigger rides in the Splash area as many times as possible, the adults staking out a claim for the second parade near the end. Afterwards, slowly walk out with a very long stop at the Ice Cream shop and finally be one of the last ones out of the Magic Kingdom!! What a PERFECT last night for them!!

Well, we were a little late getting to the bus stop at around 4:10 or so. CoP would be a close call! The bus finally picked us up at 5:20, after waiting a little more that an hour!! (After talking to the bus manager the next day he offered to give our party free shuttle service all day long. Of course I refused, telling him the perk I wanted was to fix the system!! I can be such an idiot sometimes!!) So arrival at the MK was now estimated to be around six-ish!! CoP was right out of the question!! And it turned out the rest of the night didn’t go much better.

I am probably no better than anyone on this board, but I am good! I know Disney. So it should come as no surprise that I don’t use a map. Since 1974 I haven’t used a map. No need for one. They usually don’t relocate attractions (kinda hard to pick them up and move them!). And closing times from mid-July to Mid-August haven’t changed since the World began (except of course, when they increased the hours in the late ‘70’s early ’80’s!!). I say this in defense and to let you know that I had no forewarning about the radical change that was about to kick the blinders right off my head!!

As we pulled up to the Magic Kingdom it was announced that the MK would be closing at 10:00!! I asked the driver if she could have possibly been mistaken as she said 10:00. Nope! That was closing! For the entire month of August! Summer was over, she said as she rolled her eyes in disgust. (She was very nice. She was the one who told me to call the bus manager and complain. She said that the cutbacks had left them very short staffed and it was taking its toll on everything!)

So, we make our way over to Tomorrowland. CoP is closed! And the MK is packed!! And it’s a Sunday!! Supposedly the least crowded of times. There is a line for the Peoplemover which extends to CoP!! I had never seen that before!! Space Mountain is 70 minutes. Everything had HUGE lines!! And it occurs to me that most of the people there are in the same boat as us. The parades and fireworks have been cancelled for three or four nights of the last seven. And EVERYONE is now hanging around for the one and only parade on the first clear night in quite a while!! And it also occurs to me that the people sitting on main street at a little after 6:00 pm when we rushed to Tomorrowland, were not just biding their time, but were already staking out a claim!! I ask my sister-in-law what is more important, the parade or rides? She wants to see the parade!!

OK!! I send my son and her son off to Space Mountain and the rest of us walk through the huddled masses to Frontierland. Right around the Diamond Horseshoe we finally found a spot that most of us could squeeze into. An hour and a half before the Parade!! We watch the parade and at 9:45 or so it finally passes us. We now have fifteen minutes before the place closes! And we haven’t gone on one stinking ride!!!

On the way out we still stopped for ice cream. And spent an hour, taking our time and soaking in the sights of the MK at night. It was then I noticed, for the first time, SEVEN vacuum cleaners, frantically making their way up and down Main Street. At times you could not out-shout them. It was after this that I made my first trip ever to City Hall.

The CMs there were very friendly. And in hushed voices, told me about the real reason for the E-Nights. And the early closings. And the vacuum cleaners. They told me about the wildfires in Florida and how they were terribly afraid their numbers would go down, so they cut hours and implemented a money making scheme to make up for lost revenue (I HATE when my wife is right!!!!) How every division within the company needed to cut 10% of their budget and increase 10% of the profits (the first time I had ever heard that)!! That explained why they had less bus routes. Less hours. Less CMs. Less food stands opened later in the evening. And many, many more plush pushers and cheap trinkets.

Over the next week I started to look at the place with the blinders off. And I can tell you, I did NOT like what I saw. But, true to LandBaron form, when I got home I forgot about it. Another trip saw the same type of things only a little worse. And more time spent at City Hall. And Guest Relations in EPCOT!! Talk about erratic hours for attractions!! You really needed a score card for that place!! And again, at home, it left me. Around this time I finally got connected to the Internet. Some searching for sites and I stumbled upon the DIS. And I lurked there for quite some time.

One day, on the community board, someone brought up the name of WDWBLUES and how this guy was simply BASHING Disney!! I read the thread and went to the link. It did NOT seem like bashing to me at all. I was in total agreement. And I worked up the nerve to post it. At just the same time ParrotHead (the owner of WDWBLUES) posted in his own defense. And it was ParrotHead and LandBaron defending their anti-Disney position, which really was a deep LOVE for Disney position, and a realization that the true Disney was eroding before our eyes. This is when I first met Peter Pirate. And my education about all things Disney grew!!!!! Until I came to understand that Walt’s philosophy and Ei$ner’s are diametrically opposed! And the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that EI$ner was definitely NOT the kind of guy that should head a company like Disney. I lost every ounce of respect I ever held for him and in fact replaced that with double the disrespect!! He is inept! And he has been since day one! You see, a guy just can’t ‘become’ that inept overnight. Or in a short while. It takes years of practice to be as inept as he is. He doesn’t even do things right by accident anymore!! So I would guess, in this particular case, he’s been practicing ineptness his whole life (or at least his life with Disney)!!

So, in the end, I don’t hate him. But I blame him. I hold him personally responsible. For taking what was once a great service company, one that made the ‘guest’ feel special, and turned it into a commodity outlet for the ‘customer’ with enough cash. Or as AV so vividly put it, taking “Walt’s” Disney and turning into Disney ®!!

Sorry I went so long (even for me)!! If anyone is still out there, you are to be congratulated for your tenaciousness if nothing else!!!! Thanks for listening and as always:

I welcome any thoughts, comments, questions or debates? ;)

[Testtrack321]

Good point(s) Baron.

The general attatude NOW for Esiner is of disgust and rejection.

But face it, he saved Disney in the 80's. If it wasn't for him, there would be no more Disney, instead we would see Universal treading Mickey like a prisoner and Goofy would be locked outside.

But now he's gone too far. VERY. Sure, recession, we're in one, but that shouldn't hinder the parks. Keep them going. This will pull you guys out faster.

[scooby-the-doo]

Nice commentary from Baron.

Although on these recent times 'little' things such as service, opening times and that inexplicable Disney-factor have erroded in the park sector before our eyes, we must still continue to give Mr. Eiser his dues. His contributions to Disney are not limited to the parks, but most notably the film and animation division. Coming from Paramount, he oversaw the rivitalisation of the then dismal animation situation and created Touchstone to produce successful mainstream, commercial films. Although we are not currently happy with the handling of the parks, there is a dim shining light that allows us to see that Disney, as a company, has been built up to a position where they are able to turn things around again and are not liable to hostile takeovers or sell-offs that would hurt the company (selling the Angels won't hurt the company one bit).

Of course, hearing stories of the imagineers being laid-off make me want to get the noose :confused:

[DVC-Landbaron]

But face it, he saved Disney in the 80's. If it wasn't for him, there would be no more DisneyI could not disagree any stronger without coming to blows!! He did NOT save the company!!! Or rather he merely did what any other mega-company that took them over would have done. And I truly believe that if they had been split up we may even have been better off!! Read back in the Scoop threads. He keeps saying that a mega-corporation cannot possibly run the company with Walt’s ideals or standards. That only a niche company could pull it off. While I don’t completely buy into his argument, I find that I agree more than I disagree.

So tell me how he “saved” the company. Cause maybe I missed something.



scooby-the-doo: Coming from Paramount, he oversaw the rivitalisation of the then dismal animation situation and created Touchstone to produce successful mainstream, commercial films.Sorry Scooby, but Touchstone was started under the Walker/Miller period. And as for this “revitalization”… Well, remember that Ei$ner's sure fired hit back then was “The Rescuers Down Under”.

Also, at the same time, thankfully he didn’t get his way and deep-six the project begun under Walker/Miller and wholeheartedly supported by Katzenburg. A small offering called “The Little Mermaid”.

Nah! I think we can thank Katzenburg for the majority of that ‘revitalization’ you mentioned. Don’t agree? Well do you think that it’s merely coincidence that Disney hit the toilet just as Katzenburg was told to hit the road? And that a relatively short time later he hits with Shrek and Ei$ner consistently strikes out!?

[Testtrack321]

Baron, I my book, if a company that isn't destroyed into little bits is saving it. I cannot see where theme parks, animation, live action, and others being owned by other companies with lower morals and standards would help this company.

I think he saved the company, but that was his job, to do that, not to run it for the next 20 years.

[BRERALEX]

darn just wanted to say thanx for takin the time to post such a good long post about your personal disney experience.

lizards there scurrying into the bushes wearing a polo shirt with a person logo embossed on the chest!

that was just too good had to tell my gf that one.

He is inept! And he has been since day one! You see, a guy just can’t ‘become’ that inept overnight. Or in a short while. It takes years of practice to be as inept as he is.

that should be in your signature when you post.

[Planogirl]

So much of my experience is just like yours LandBaron. I guess that is why I keep hanging on for dear life to the door handle in the back seat of Car No. 3. ;)

I do have one question though. Who gets the credit for the big turnaround in your view? I tend to give most of the credit to Katzenberg (PLEASE come home, all is forgiven!) but he couldn't have done it alone.

I want to comment on the opinion that no other company could run the Disney parks well. I don't think the company matters, just finding someone, ANYONE who understands the Disney vision and what makes it all work.

[Werner Weiss]

Eisner, Wells, Katzenburg and an army of creative people and business people -- some who had been with Disney for many years, and some who were brought on by the new management -- achieved amazing results in the last half of the 1980s and into the early 1990s.

The new management leveraged the initiatives of Walker and Miller -- including the new Touchstone label (which had made Splash), the Disney Channel, Epcot Center, and the fledgling video business. The new management made numerous price increases, ramped up of movie and TV production (to become the top grossing studio most years), starting a real advertising program for the theme parks, built more hotels, launched Disney-MGM Studios Theme park and Pleasure Island, started the Disney Vacation Club, dramatically increased character merchandising (including starting The Disney Store chain), and milked the company's library of movies (especially through video sales) all they could.

Sure, they raised prices and milked existing resourcing -- but they also approved a lot of wonderful creative efforts. It doesn't really matter exactly who did what; they deserve to share credit for the renaissance at Disney.

Alas, Wells tragically died and Katzenburg left Disney because of his famous split with Eisner. So now Eisner gets the credit or blame. Unfortunately, as a fan and shareholder, I'm now disappointed with Eisner. I wish he could understand why The Walt Disney Company enjoyed such great success when he, Wells, and Katzenburg first came onboard.

[VintageKnight]

Sad way to start my posting career after lurking for 2 yrs., but i do agree with baron on most things i just read...

Eisner and Katz were a good couple, but it should have been eisner out , not katz.

VK

[Pinnie]

Baron,

Thanks for posting your reasons for your position. As one who came recently to the board, it was good to see how you came to your convictions.

I think that Eisner has served his time and it's time to move on to someone with fresher ideas. Face it, Eisner did some revitalizing but he did them in economic times that are quite different from what we are experiencing now.

Right now they are running ads up in my neck of the woods aimed at Empty Nesters. While it appeals to me ;), I'm not sure if it will get the families down there.

Thanks again for a thought provoking post

pin
remember the magic
DVC/BCV 2002

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by VintageKnight
Sad way to start my posting career after lurking for 2 yrs., but i do agree with baron on most things i just read...
VK TWO YEARS!!!! And a post so short!?!?! I really don't know how you do it!! :crazy:

But WELCOME!!! Post early and post often! (Or is that vote early, vote often(?)... Well in Chicago it works both ways, I guess!! ;)) Anyway, there's plenty of room in car three!!

BTW - you also said:I'LL STILL GOIf you've really been lurking for two years, you KNOW that's what I do!!! In fact, that's what everyone in car #3 does!!

And you know what? We HAVE FUN too!!!

Welcome again!!

[ohanafamily]

WOW, Baron, I didn't relize all that you had been through!

It seems to me that CoP is closed for good, I have been told it is a seasonal attraction. This hurts my "Spirit" a little. On our last trip we really didn't have enough time to do everything we wanted; we even cut out most of AK (We had an early breakfast there then went to Epcot and never made it back).

As far as US goes, been there, done most of it, may go again someday, but it is not planned for any trips in the near future. One day is enough if you don't mind missing some of the shows and if you stay on property. The difference between the Poly and the RP is night and day. The poly has lots of theming, and the Disney experience imbues from the walls. The RP has a few bits of theming, but reminds me mostly of a Lowes Hotel (it is one). I have never stayed at any of the All Stars, but I would assume it is similar. I sprang for the concierge level. We got our use out of it, but I would not do it again. We ate Continental Breakfast there every morning, I would have preferred real food. We took (they let us take some into the park each day) about 24 bottles of water with us (the large bottle was $7.00 in the room, and these were ½ size). I guess I can say that the top floor room was worth a little more, but US does very little to hide the parking lot and neighboring buildings. We stayed there for 3 nights and then went to the Poly. Our worst experience was on our last trip there (1 night last April). We got in at 10:00 PM ish, wanted a light snack. We went to the restaurant in the Hard Rock. We asked the waitress for a recommendation. She said that a lot of adults liked the Macaroni and cheese. We ordered 2 adult portions, one with Shrimp, One with chicken, and two salads, and a Coke. We only got one salad, so they didn’t charge us for the second. During the meal the fire alarm went off and we were told to ignore it. The meal cost $50.00 Plus Tax and tip. I am trying to say that they gouge for food at US.

Back to my rose colored glasses. I understand that Ei$ner makes a huge salary. I can understand why they would want him out. I think that without his salary they could increase all departments by more than 10%. There are some bad things, but WDW seems to correct their mistakes with enough complaints. They refuse to recognize them, but they do seem to correct them. EE is back, but the hours are shortened. The new JIYI (3) is back to a decent ride. I was partial to the original, but this one can stand on its own.

I am greatly upset by the closing of the Magical Engagements department. I proposed to my Darling Bride with their help. I could not have done what they did for me on my own (and I don’t need a map either) If someone wants to know, I will post the specifics. I cannot fathom how this could save them money; and there is even a current commercial with a couple getting engaged in a Disney way that is running on their Company Clips channel. I guess I wish that the Magic were still out there for everyone… My Darling Bride and I will always be extreme Disney fans if for no other reason than that one memory.

Closing the Disney Club is a slap in the face to all of the faithful, and removing the Gallery items from the Disney Stores is another place that may look like a cost savings but is actually costing them money. If you use cost centers to play with the numbers breakage in the stores looks expensive, but if you trace the items back to where they were made, by Disney authorized production, and don’t show the huge profits by department, you will find that Gallery Items are some of the most profitable.

Customer service? We were with a friend one of our days there, and she told me that a CM rudely insulted her sister. A lot of them don’t seem to care. If you notice a few CMs have pins on their name tags. The Steam Boat Willey on means that they have been there at least a year. There weren’t a whole lot of CMs with even the one year pins. Most of the ones I ran into were DVC, or Ex DVC. Two of those had an excellence award, and BOTH OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE IN THE POLY. There is less interest in the quality of service than the pay rate…IE more turnover and less magic.

I am also still waiting on responses on letters that I wrote to TDS Management. I have to write them another round of letters. Do you know that for International Guest Relations at TDS there are 2 people and a voice mailbox? You have to leave a message. They say they return calls. This isn’t very Disney

BUT, I am still in car 1. I love the parks, and have no need to go to TDS since they removed the collectables. TDS Online wants my business badly and they still have great customer service. I have 2 more trips planned for next year, and have yet to bank a point with my DVC. Indeed, I have already used all of next years and have reservations for all of the year after that.

So My Dear Baron, I guess I am like you were 10 years ago, but I will say this…My DVC membership, I can get most of the money I have spent back if I were to sell it. Figuring that I could rent my points out for $10 each, that would give me $6.23 after fees. That is much more interest than I could make in the bank right now, and If I were to sell, I would have had all of my vacations for virtually nothing. My point, DVC was the best investment I made in the last 3 years.

Sorry for the long post,
< EOR > (End Of Rant)
:bounce:

[DisneyKidds]

From silence to 5 pages :eek:. The Baron is back – whew!!!

Thanks for sharing your story my good man – and thanks for disclosing your dirty little WDW secrets, you GF lover you ;).

A couple of observations. Get ready for this one because it might floor you………………………………………………………………………………………………………………I agree with a lot of what you say. You see, we agree on a lot more than one might think. Fine lines and shades of various colors. The specifics on many subjects we can agree on, it is that philosophy thing that gets in the way. I just don’t buy into some of philosophical things you do. The wanton disregard for the guest experience. The wholesale disregard of quality for the sake of the almighty buck. The sole Ei$ner strategy to fleece the WDW public. Eisner the person is not evil, but these things would probably fit the definition of MEvil (bwaaaaahaaaahaaaa………), if such a word existed to describe business practices. You and I just disagree with how much MEvil exists in the World. Take for example the roadway signs on WDW property. In my readings it says that the redo of all the signs on Disney property was an Eisner initiative. They spent big bucks to develop road signs. They are only road signs for crying out loud. Do road signs themselves feed the bottom line? No. Do the road sighs that were designed add a distinctive element of Magic to the Disney experience? Absolutely. There are many little such example that just might show some kind of understanding for what made/makes Disney 'Disney'. Ultimately, the symptoms of something amiss I can agree with. Diagnosing the disease is a little harder. So on to the specifics……

First and foremost………..
Well, I agreed with him, wholeheartedly!! I KNEW that the Poly in particular was very, very inexpensive and I fixated on the “build more resorts” aspect of the plan. I was EXCITED!! That was my major complaint about the Walker/Miller era. Stagnation! The five year plan simply ignored!! Now here was someone with vision!!
Agreement with the ‘caste system’. Hmmmmm………….who’da thought :crazy:. Now you might say that this agreement was strictly ‘blinder induced’ at the time, but I find that hard to believe. You see, either you have fooled some people around here (maybe just me :jester: ) or you are a pretty intelligent person. At some level you instinctively knew that raising resort rates and building new kinds of resorts was good for the company, it was the right thing to do. Now you would call it a slippery slope, but the change was good for the company – and you knew it. Well, everything in moderation – and things may have gone too far. However, you can’t fault the original concept. Gets back to the MEvil. Was there a MEvil plan all along, or did things just evolve and go bad somewhere along the way?
And at the same time the prices kept going up! It wasn’t until I found out about the building of a new resort that I figured out why. The All-Stars was coming on line. And prices in the Mods had to rise in order to make way for the ‘lower’ priced place or they’d find themselves giving the rooms away. It all made sense. And I figured it out all by myself, way back then.
This is a perfect example of your propensity to blame a MEvil plan that just might not exist. Where is the proof. The day that AS Sports opened was there a corresponding jump in the ‘moderate’ rates that wasn’t in line with an appropriate measure of inflation? We have danced around the ‘deluxe’ rate thing to no avail and we could probably do the same thing here.
Until I came to understand that Walt’s philosophy and Ei$ner’s are diametrically opposed! And the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that EI$ner was definitely NOT the kind of guy that should head a company like Disney. I lost every ounce of respect I ever held for him and in fact replaced that with double the disrespect!! He is inept! And he has been since day one! You see, a guy just can’t ‘become’ that inept overnight. Or in a short while. It takes years of practice to be as inept as he is. He doesn’t even do things right by accident anymore!! So I would guess, in this particular case, he’s been practicing ineptness his whole life (or at least his life with Disney)!!
I’ll invoke the gray color again. Many mistakes? Yes. Mistakes that could call his business acumen into question? Yes. Mistakes that shout MEvil philosophy to me? No. We talk so much about regimes around here. The early Eisner regime was a good one as he had the right people around him. Well, money corrupts and that didn’t last long enough, but I don’t know that Ei$ner was corrupt from day one. Maybe inept, but he had a good team around him.
Also, at the same time, thankfully he didn’t get his way and deep-six the project begun under Walker/Miller and wholeheartedly supported by Katzenburg. A small offering called “The Little Mermaid”.
You say earlier that Eisner didn’t save anything, much less the Disney Company. However, if Disney was taken over from the outside (as opposed to from within as you like to say) do you think things like the Little Mermaid would have survived? Who knows. Eisner stepped in and had a positive effect on the company that is impossible to deny. Since then many mistakes have been made, but double disrespect may not be in order.

In the end we all have feelings about Eisner we wouldn’t want to write in a Christmas card. However, in every case you have to take the good with the bad. It is unfortunate when the bad gets such a strong hold. Has everyone donned a pair of blinders? I think not, and we all view the things we see a little differently.

[raidermatt]

It does not matter if the new CEO was ME, FW, or Steve Wynn... Disney's assets were under-utilized and the new CEO was going to utilize them. So from that perspective, Eisner did his job. Congratulations. But to say he SAVED Disney is ludicrous. He did what he was hired to do, which was no small feat, but the saving was done by those who hired him, and there were probably dozens of others who could have done just as well at the time.

BUT, I am still in car 1. I love the parks, and have no need to go to TDS since they removed the collectables. TDS Online wants my business badly and they still have great customer service. I have 2 more trips planned for next year, and have yet to bank a point with my DVC. Indeed, I have already used all of next years and have reservations for all of the year after that.

Ohanafamily, you seem to be missing the key to the car definitions (pun intended). We ALL love the parks (or at least most of us do). Most of us continue to plan trips, and us DVC members are not selling our interests.

That's not the point.

The point is in what DIRECTION do you think that current management is taking the company with respect to the parks. If you think of the Disney park Magic as a big piece of pie (pick your favorite flavor), we all still think the pie is great. Most of us still think its better than anybody else's pie. But is current management making the pie better than it was, having no affect, or are they actually making it worse? When I say worse, that means worse than it WAS, not worse than anybody else. If worse doesn't sound right because its hard to put a negative word with such a wonderful place, we can instead say "not as wonderful as it could be". Whatever. But we have to get beyond "we still go and have a wonderful time". We all do. If we didn't have a wonderful time, we wouldn't keep going.

Think of Disney as a child. Let's say your child's grades have always been perfect. Then, they slip, just a tad. Still better than their schoolmates, but not quite what they were. Do you ignore the decline because they are still great, or do you try to find out what's causing the decline.

Hopefully, you would try to find the cause. Let's say you find out the cause is due to a change in attitude from your child, one that places less importance on studying, and more on something you consider detrimental to their long-term education. What do you do? Do you "leave well enough alone", or do you acknowledge the strong performance, but try to get your child to live up to their potential?

We in car 3, at least from my perspective, are taking the latter approach. The Disney park Magic is still our destination of choice (or at least one of them). But we are concerned with the changes that have taken place, and with where the current direction will ultimately lead... at best to parks that are still wonderful, but not what they could be, and at worst, to a day when Disney no longer is the destination of choice for us or our children.

[raidermatt]

However, you can’t fault the original concept. Gets back to the MEvil. Was there a MEvil plan all along, or did things just evolve and go bad somewhere along the way?
You know, we could go back on forth on this all day long (again), but in the end, what's the point? In its current form the plan is seriously flawed, and there is no desire on management's part to do anything about it. In fact, they don't even see it as flawed and are continuing to "enhance" it.

The early Eisner regime was a good one as he had the right people around him. Well, money corrupts and that didn’t last long enough, but I don’t know that Ei$ner was corrupt from day one. Maybe inept, but he had a good team around him.
So Eisner has a strong team around him, but gets rid of the strong peformers because they don't agree with him. He replaces them with lessor performers who will do his bidding, and the team's performance declines.

What exactly are you giving him credit for? I'm not sure about who was responsible for building the team, but I don't think it was Eisner for the most part. (Certainly he is not responsible for bringing in Wells...)

[Peter Pirate]

Mr. Matt, what can you show to support that many businesmen could have 'saved' Disney in the same way ME did? I mean it is widely regarded in the business community what a spectacular job he did in saving the Company and it seems to me too pat to simply say any number of people could have done it. Walker & Miller couldn't. Roy didn't want to try.

Look a the original compensation arrangement made with Eisner...All predicted on earnings (I know that changed in later years)...But people were appalled at his bonus's despite the fact that the Company was thrilled to be in the situation of having to worry about paying him TOO much. I'm sure when the terms were negotiatd Disney NEVER expected such success which is why you neve heard any complaints from inside the Company when the profits started rolling in...Even if Mike was getting rich.

I think Eisner was the right man to save Disney just as Walt was the right man to invent it. It's too bad that the game has pased Eisner by and it is time for him to go (IMO) but it doesn't change what he did in the past.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[raidermatt]

I disagree. If this was really such a "Duh!" move, then there would have never been the need for a replacement in the first place.

If this was so obvious, why didn't Miller or Walker then just do the obvious?

It was obvious to enough people that Walker/Miller found themselves fending off corporate raiders by purchasing greeting card and real estate companies.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and maybe it wasn't obvious to Walker/Miller. But the overall strategy of making use of stagnant assets was a done deal by the time Eisner took over. It had to happen, or the raiders would have shown up at the door again.

I'm not saying any John Doe could have done it, only that there were other CEO types who could have. The whole reason Disney was in danger of being taken over was that those who took the time to do an asset valuation realized they were undercharging at their resorts, they had a shipload of land sitting idle next to hot commodities like MK and Epcot, and they had a film vault full of titles that people would LOVE to get on VHS.

Eisner was not the only man in America capable of raising room rates, building hotels, and releasing videos.

He was handed the keys to a Corvette that had never been taken out of 2nd gear by Walker/Miller.

[VintageKnight]

In life its the slippery slopes that get you.....and eisner is learnin hard it is to stop.....:smooth:


VK

[Testtrack321]

TIME OUT!!!

ESINER DID SAVE DISNEY FROM SHARKS!! Why? He saved it. Period. No lower morals, even now with out b-ing around about lower quailty, it's still better off than Six Flags, or hell, Universal (pust on falme retardent materal.) The thing is this, HE DID HIS JOB AND HE DID IT WELL. We're mixing up our feelings of him now and the feelings of him when Beauty and the Beast, Splash Mountain, and the other great things came out. Should be behead him for not having a huge, sucesfull 3 years? Many companys go through many years of recesson untill them come up to par.

Do I dislike Eisner, hell ya, lowering standards and cutting prices, but do I HATE him and think his head should roll (NOT figuratively), NO!

He did what he was supposed to do. He just outstayed his invatation when all those sparkaly new things came out.

[ohanafamily]

I am not sure I know enough about Ei$ner to post in this column, but I feel a little responsible...I also do not like the recent cutbacks, and My Darling bride thinks I am in Car #2...
:bounce:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds. Since my good friend and colleague, Sir Raider, is easily handling Scoop and the sadly mistaken Pirate, I thought I might spend my time conversing with you a moment. OK?

The specifics on many subjects we can agree on, it is that philosophy thing that gets in the way. You know, I had to read this section three or four times before I understood what you meant. And the reason is really quite simple. You see, for the past few months we’ve been talking about two different things I guess.

I couldn’t understand how on “The specifics on many subjects we can agree” yet you couldn’t understand or at least agree with the “philosophy thing”. I’m telling you I was simply baffled!! And to tell you the truth my brain kind of stopped working as I read the rest of the paragraph. I was fixated on this “philosophy thing” impasse. Besides, the rest of the paragraph was typical Ei$ner defending nonsense, most of which I could never really understand why you include in almost all of your posts. (Hang on!! Don’t go brain dead like I did with your post. There’s about to be a revelation!!)

After the third time I re-read your post I continued on, but this time I had my brain in at least first gear. And then it hit me!!! You spew that nonsense because you think, that I think, that this defines the Ei$ner philosophy!! HOLY COW!! (I says to myself, I says – self!) HOLY COW!!! He thinks that I think that!!
The wanton disregard for the guest experience. The wholesale disregard of quality for the sake of the almighty buck. The sole Ei$ner strategy to fleece the WDW public.MY GOODNESS!!! I don’t think that at all!!!!!! The whole time you and I have been talking about ‘philosophy’, I’ve been meaning Walt’s way of doing business. HIS take on things. I never once meant to define Ei$ner philosophy, other than it wasn’t even close to Walt’s. I believe he’s a businessman. I believe he’s out to make money. I believe he’s out to make money for the company as well as himself. If you want to call that a ‘philosophy’ I suppose you could. And to a certain extent I have to admit that I have inferred as much when I say that his and Walt’s ‘philosophy’ are diametrically opposed.

But please be clear on this. I do not believe, for a minute, that he is antimagic. Or that he sits up late at night and dreams of ways to screw the public. NO!!! NOT AT ALL!!!! He’s simply inept!! He doesn’t know HOW to be magic! He doesn’t know HOW to create! He doesn’t even know what his product is!! And this isn’t because he’s evil!! NO!! Nothing could be further from the truth! He’s not evil!! He’s just stupid!!!

Walt's philosophy I know, and that is what I’ve been talking about. I don't think Ei$ner really has one, unless it's to make money. And that really isn't such a bad philosophy for a CEO, when you think about it. I would imagine most CEOs have the same outlook. But Ei$ner has two things working against him. First is, of course, he's inept (have I mentioned that before?). And second, that's just not the right mission for Disney!! Sorry, but it's not! Oh! Don’t worry. The money comes. In buckets and barrels. But ONLY if the philosophy is followed. And he STILL doesn't "get that", does he?

But let’s face it Mr. Kidds. An honest mistake may be easier to forgive, but it’s still a mistake!! And when you add up all his mistakes, no matter how well intentioned, or self delusional, they are still monumental mistakes! And they’ve been going on for quite some time now!!
Take for example the roadway signs on WDW property. In my readings it says that the redo of all the signs on Disney property was an Eisner initiative. They spent big bucks to develop road signs. They are only road signs for crying out loud. Do road signs themselves feed the bottom line? No. Do the road sighs that were designed add a distinctive element of Magic to the Disney experience? Absolutely. There are many little such example that just might show some kind of understanding for what made/makes Disney 'Disney'Thank you for providing a perfect example. Now, you see the road signs and say “Yea! Ei$ner!! What a guy!! Mouse ears on the signs.” And I see the signs and lament for a time when the Disney “philosophy” called for Disney to provide the transportation and there was no need for signs!! Ei$ner had to initiate SOMETHING to ease the busing situation! And in the end he said, “The heck with it!! Open the roads, put up signs and even print maps! We cannot move all those people by bus and I refuse to create any magical transportation, so let them drive themselves!! Oh! And by the way. Put some mouse ears on them!! It’ll look cute and we’ll remind them of the ‘brand’ at the same time!!” (a little cynical perhaps, but I’ll bet not far from the truth!)
Agreement with the ‘caste system’NO!! Not at all!! Remember what was said. He said he would raise rates and build more resorts. I naturally assumed he meant up to the standards or the same caliber as the Poly or Contemporary. I really thought he’d dust off the five year plan. You know, the Venetian, Asian, Persian and the like. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever envision the caste system!
This is a perfect example of your propensity to blame a MEvil plan that just might not exist. Where is the proof. The day that AS Sports opened was there a corresponding jump in the ‘moderate’ rates that wasn’t in line with an appropriate measure of inflation?I can’t ‘prove’ it to you, Mr. Kidds. I have no documentation. All I can tell you is I LIVED IT!! One year I could afford the Poly and the next year I could not! One year the Caribbean was an easy touch for me and the next year it wasn’t so easy. And all the while my income is outdistancing inflation by quite a bit (pretty upwardly mobile in those days!).

I wish I could produce a paper and say “Here it is!! In black and white!!” But I can’t! I related a story and my perception of the events as I saw them! I cannot PROVE it. All I can tell you is that it happened. Can you PROVE to me it didn’t happen!
I’ll invoke the gray color again. Many mistakes? Yes. Mistakes that could call his business acumen into question? Yes.And that is enough for me. Again, he’s NOT evil. Just dumb! Not corrupt!! Heavens no!! Just a knucklehead! And a knucklehead that doesn’t even come close to understanding the business of Disney. And I say it again – He never did!!
You say earlier that Eisner didn’t save anything, much less the Disney Company. However, if Disney was taken over from the outside (as opposed to from within as you like to say) do you think things like the Little Mermaid would have survived?Maybe yes, maybe no! But it doesn’t matter. The harm he has done FAR, FAR, FAR outweighs any good that he may have accidentally caused (or more likely allowed to happen in spite of him). Heck maybe an even better movie would have been produced!! Maybe the Rescuers Down Under wouldn’t have been made and the money saved would have been sunk into the finest E-Ticket ride of the century, leaving pirates and even Spiderman in the dust! Who knows! And who cares! I hate ‘what if’ games!! All I said is that all you folks that think he “saved” the company are mistaken. He did a ‘take over’!! The only difference is that it was peaceful as opposed to hostile. But there the difference ends. He did everything else, exactly according to the ‘take over’ script!!
However, in every case you have to take the good with the bad. It is unfortunate when the bad gets such a strong hold.Really Mr. Kidds. I’m not trying to goad you. I am very, very sincere. I cannot see any good that he is directly responsible for. Sure he put mouse ears on the signs, but I’m really talking about something of value. Something magical. Something creative. Something… well… I guess… SOMETHING DISNEY!!!

Please tell me what you see. I truly want to agree with you. Or you with me.


And if we can’t agree, how about a nice game of darts!! :crazy:

[Testtrack321]

Wow Baron, what have you been on lately?

Because Esiner puts up road signs and prints maps dosn't mean that he's opposed to all sorts of new "costly" transportation intitives.

Many people still drive to the parks or other resorts because they can or because they don't have a choice. They stay outside. Why must everything he do be negative? I bet that there were only green road signs everywhere before the inititive was set to create new ones.

Does everything need to be spinned to be negative about this man?

[DisneyKidds]

MY GOODNESS!!! I don’t think that at all!!!!!! The whole time you and I have been talking about ‘philosophy’, I’ve been meaning Walt’s way of doing business. HIS take on things. I never once meant to define Ei$ner philosophy, other than it wasn’t even close to Walt’s. I believe he’s a businessman. I believe he’s out to make money. I believe he’s out to make money for the company as well as himself. If you want to call that a ‘philosophy’ I suppose you could. And to a certain extent I have to admit that I have inferred as much when I say that his and Walt’s ‘philosophy’ are diametrically opposed.
Mr. Baron – I guess I know you better than you know yourself ;). Let’s look at one of the bedrock anti-Ei$ner principles you espouse (or should I say spew?) and see if it doesn’t clearly show that you do believe all of that. That nonsense would be the ‘Caste System of Resorts’. Let me recap your (conspiracy) theory and you correct me if I am wrong. Under this ‘Caste System’ Ei$ner determined that Disney resorts were underpriced and Disney land was underutilized. What ME proceeds to do is create a whole new class of resorts called ‘moderate’. The goal of these ‘moderate’ resorts was two fold. First, by creating this second class of resorts ME could justify jacking the existing resort prices up to exorbitant levels. ME thinks to himself – I am Disney, I have the Brand, people will pay whatever I want to charge, even if it is no longer a value. Second, in the ‘moderate’ resorts ME figures he can build cheap. Who cares about the guest experience. View of the parking lot, exterior corridors, smaller rooms, smaller beds, less, less, less. But who cares, I am Disney, I have the Brand, people will buy this lesser experience and love it, and we capture a new piece of market share. A few more years go by, a few more ‘moderates’ go up, and it is time to repeat the drill. Along come the ‘value’ resorts. The goal of these ‘value’ resorts was two fold. First, by creating this third class of resorts ME could justify jacking the existing resort prices up to more exorbitant levels. ME thinks to himself – I am Disney, I have the Brand, people will pay whatever I want to charge, even if it is no longer a value. Second, in the ‘value’ resorts ME figures he can build even cheaper than he did before. Who cares about the guest experience. No themeing, view of the parking lot, simple motel structures, even smaller rooms, even smaller beds, even less, less, less. But who cares, I am Disney, I have the Brand, people will buy this lesser experience and love it, and we capture a new piece of market share. There you have the ‘Caste System’. A clear plan to disregard the guest experience, disregard quality for the sake of the almighty buck, and an Ei$ner strategy to fleece the WDW public when it comes to resorts.
But please be clear on this. I do not believe, for a minute, that he is antimagic. Or that he sits up late at night and dreams of ways to screw the public.
The ‘Caste System’ you believe in diametrically opposes this statement. You appear to believe it was ME’s intention to give less, less, less (antiMagic?). Perhaps screw is a strong word, but you appear to believe it was his intent to give the WDW public less of an experience while he made beaucoup bucks, and price the ‘real’ Disney resorts out of the range of Joe Public, knowing that the old money and the nuveau riche would still provide the occupancy, or at least 80% of it.

This is but an example. You can’t talk about Walt and ME being diametrically opposed without believing that ME had a philosophy, a bad philosophy. All the rhetoric you spew paints a clear picture of what you believe the ME philosophy to be, even if you think you have never said so.
[quote] Thank you for providing a perfect example. Now, you see the road signs and say “Yea! Ei$ner!! What a guy!! Mouse ears on the signs.” And I see the signs and lament for a time when the Disney “philosophy” called for Disney to provide the transportation and there was no need for signs!! Ei$ner had to initiate SOMETHING to ease the busing situation! And in the end he said, “The heck with it!! Open the roads, put up signs and even print maps! We cannot move all those people by bus and I refuse to create any magical transportation, so let them drive themselves!! Oh! And by the way. Put some mouse ears on them!! It’ll look cute and we’ll remind them of the ‘brand’ at the same time!!” (a li

[FantasticDisFamily]

Man, I've been away for a bit (trying to instill critical thinking into the kiddies;) ) and return to find what amounts to a dissertation!

Hey guys...throw in a few citations and a bibliography and you could publish.:cool:

Seriously, I have one short comment to make on Eisner. His is an entrepreneurial spirit. It was the right approach at the time, and something I didn't see in the foregoing is that HE was the RIGHT person at the time because key decision makers trusted him to do the job. The job was to utilize the resources more appropriately to stave off the raiders. Period. End of discussion. He did that in the 80s and through much of the 90s with development. Development of the parks, development of the resorts, and development of the cruise line.

And YES, he DID (does) have the brand and people will pay for that brand, and he DID (is) capturing additional market segments. That is called strategy. Growth strategy. We may disagree with the direction of that strategy, and it MAY be time for a new CEO to take over. But he did do the job he was brought on board to do.

The Professor

[raidermatt]

Professor- Yes, you are right that he was brought in to do those things, but he was not supposed to do ONLY those things. He was not brought in to exploit the brand without maintaining and enhancing it.

Which leads to this from DK:

However, that doesn’t change all the wonderful things that were added to WDW from 1984 through the mid-90’s.

Again, Eisner did have a great team around him, capable of creating many wonderful things.

One by one, he got rid of them all because they disagreed with him (or maybe he percieved them as a threat). Never mind that these people created wonderful things that made large sums of money. They didn't go along with Eisner, so they are gone.

Let's say a baseball manager takes over a team full of wonderfully talented players that are winning games left and right. But these players are not adhering to the manager's philosophy. So, one by one, the manager gets rid of his players. First the right fielder. Then the shortstop. Etc, Etc, Etc.*

The manager is happy. He has a team who will do things HIS way. Only now, they don't win as much. Talented superstar players are no longer interested in playing for his team. The team's performance suffers, and they no longer even do as well as the average team in the leauge. They are under .500.

Why in the name of Casey Stengal would we want to give so much credit to this manager that inherited this incredibly talented team? Sure, he got them to win when the previous manager couldn't, but he almost immediately tried to dismantle it. And many of the wonderful accomplishments made by the team were actually things he didn't want them to do!

(If we had any Cowboy fans around here, I'd bring up Barry Switzer...)


*Obscure movie reference

[raidermatt]

Do I dislike Eisner, hell ya, lowering standards and cutting prices, but do I HATE him and think his head should roll (NOT figuratively), NO!

Nobody hates him. (at least nobody that I know of who is posting in this thread).

He has just not made many decisions that are for the long-term good of the company. And the ones he did make (utilizing assets) were "no-brainers".

By definition, poor long term decisions do not immediately result in poor results. It takes time. Even if you only see the last three years as the "under-performing" years, the decisions that have led to that under performance started long before then.

(for the record, Disney has been under-performing vs. the Dow since mid-'98, except for a few months in 2000. Prior to that, Disney's performance has done no better than to mirror the Dow for at least 10 years.)

[FantasticDisFamily]

And it is probably time for a change - a CEO in positoin with one company for as long as ME has been (and not a family member) is highly unusual.

Indeed the strategy has changed. Perhaps he is not listening as well as he once was.

Although I would respectfully disagree with the comment that he hasn't enhanced the brand. It would appear he has - more people than ever are considering Disney as a viable vacation, entertainment option. No longer is it the family (translation kiddy) venue it was once considered to be. That is enhancement of the brand.

Indeed a good CEO must be an outstanding leader, and it is to his discredit that he didn't share credit and celebrate his people as he should have, particularly of late.

And now I must run to a meeting so can not comment further - speaking of crafting strategy that is the task at hand.:p

The Professor

[raidermatt]

Although I would respectfully disagree with the comment that he hasn't enhanced the brand. It would appear he has - more people than ever are considering Disney as a viable vacation, entertainment option. No longer is it the family (translation kiddy) venue it was once considered to be. That is enhancement of the brand.

But, with respects of course, more people does not automatically mean enhancement. Utilizing/exploiting, yes.

This example doesn't apply here, but I just want to quickly prove that more guests does not equal brand enhancement... If you lower the price of something, demand will increase, but the brand has not been enhanced, and could even be seen as damaged.

The Disney brand does have tremendous value. But does the brand itself REALLY have MORE value than it did 15 years ago? Forget whether Disney utilizes that brand more or less, that's not the point.

The Disney brand, with respect to the parks, used to translate into "WOW!". But Disney-MGM far from wowed most people from day one. It has grown stronger, but people had come to expect "WOW"! and VALUE from day one from Disney. Then AK, which has disappointed many, and now DCA and DSP, which are bombs.

In the meantime, Disney has gained a reputation for penny-pinching and cost cutting. Their customer service used to be pointed to as the shining example of how to make it work. Now, while still better than average, they have clearly slipped.

So, I must maintain that the brand has not really been enhanced. Better utilized? Absolutely. But enhanced? No.

[DisneyKidds]

Matt.........I don't think anyone, even car 1's and 2's, would say that things haven't gone afoul and that Eisner hasn't made mistakes. That certainly isn't what I'm saying. However, to say that after he was appointed and began to successfully utilize Disney's assets that....................
he almost immediately tried to dismantle it. And many of the wonderful accomplishments made by the team were actually things he didn't want them to do!
.............seems a bit strong and a bit too black and white.

That manager you speak of who failed to keep the right team together - he should be fired. Eisner should be fired. Are you saying that if that manager happened to win a couple or three World Series before he let the team fall apart that they should give the rings back because he screwed up later on?

To be honest, people should have stood up when the whole Katzenburg fiasco took place. When did that happen? Oh, about the time things really got bad. Hmmmm...............

[ohanafamily]

This is really interesting as far as the history goes, I am having a little trouble with the fact and fiction areas..maybe it is because of the dental surgery this morning.
Katzenburg- did he leave or was he fired.
how much of what our Dart Hero did that was good came out of projects started before his time, and would those projects have surfaced if it were still the previous administration.

one more thing, I am a Dallas Cowboy fan and I think that Jerry Jones is trying to destroy the local spirit so he can move it to Arkansas. Do you think ME has a hidden agenda?

:bounce:
I apologise if I am not really with it, I had 4 very bad wisdom teeth taken out this morning and have been told I would be in serious pain for 3-5 days...numbness hasn't quite worn off yet, and DW wants to hit me over the head with a hammer to keep me from pacing...I will be back as consciosness permits...
:bounce:

[BRERALEX]

please pass the vicadon* to everyone please or even better if you have percaset*

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
I cannot see any good that he is directly responsible for.

As I said before, you can thank Eisner for Disney being a major player in the motion picture industry.

Disney Era: 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, best animation studio in the buisness
Card Walker Era: Herbie Rides Again, The Arisitocrats
Eisner Era: <No classics, but regularly in the top two grossing studios of the year>

[raidermatt]

That manager you speak of who failed to keep the right team together - he should be fired. Eisner should be fired.

Problem is, if you wait until he has actually accomplished the dismantleing, the damage is already done.

If I'm chopping down a tree, the last blow is no less responsible for the tree falling than the first. And when looking in hindsight, if you want to look for the point where the tree's demise began, its with the first blow, even though it didn't even cause the tree to wobble.

To be honest, people should have stood up when the whole Katzenburg fiasco took place. When did that happen? Oh, about the time things really got bad. Hmmmm...............

Well, we're making progress. For awhile there, you only classified the "bad times" as the last year or two...

Eisner did not all of a sudden "get dumb" with Katzenburg. Decisions that are not in the best long-term interests of a company take time to manifest themselves to the outside world in the form of results.

For example, if a chimp were put in charge of Pixar, what would the impact be on Finding Nemo? Probably minimal, because Lasseter and crew are still there, and the picture is almost finished. So assuming their next picture comes out in 2005, it would be at least that time before any of us saw the results. And if Lasseter has the pull to still get his way on the films, they might even make a few more successful films. Again, nobody thinks anything is wrong. But does that mean the chimp is doing anything really postive for Pixar? Eventually Lasseter will no longer want to work for a chimp who is threatened by him, so Lasseter will leave. But it might be 2007 or 2009 before we see a decline in results. Does that mean the chimp did a great job for 5 or 7 years?

Now, I am not saying Eisner is a chimp, but I am saying that nobody can screw up a company the size of Disney very quickly. Even if he had the clout on day one to go in and fire every executive in the company, it would have taken time for the impact of that to reach the consumers. But he didn't have the clout, and probably didn't even know who he would eventually want to get rid of. So it took time. But that doesn't mean the problem hadn't already started.

[FantasticDisFamily]

Ok, I am going to stand by my statement that ME HAS enhanced, not exploited the brand.

To enhance something in a marketing context means to make it more attractive to a targetted market segment. Those participating in this forum are NOT the segment for whom it was enhanced. In that respect for the segment of the market we might describe as Disneyphiles, an error was made. The enhancement of the brand towards segments that were ripe for capture actually decreased the brands value to an extent in the eyes of that segment. However, I would also point out that it has not decreased it to the extent some would like to claim as everyone who is engaged in the conversation is still going to WDW, buying merchandise and blatantly supporting the brand.


The Professor

[DisneyKidds]

Well, we're making progress. For awhile there, you only classified the "bad times" as the last year or two...
Sorry Mr. Raiders-Lost-Four-In-a-Row-and-Soon-to-be-Five-Fan, I have maintained that the last two or so years have been the so called 'doom and gloom' years. I have consistently labelled the last 5 or so as bad, with the good times right up through the mid 90's. It is back in the mid to late 90's when someone should have seen the axe coming out, but ME was Mr. Appleseed up to then.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Because Esiner puts up road signs and prints maps dosn't mean that he's opposed to all sorts of new "costly" transportation intitives.Patience, please. All will be revealed soon. Just let me gather a few more quotes.
I bet that there were only green road signs everywhere before the inititive was set to create new ones.You’d lose that bet.
Does everything need to be spinned to be negative about this man?I spin nothing! I relate things the way I see it. You don’t have to agree. All I ask is that you consider it. Just as the previous quote clearly shows (green road signs), you don’t know everything that was Disney before. So all I ask is that you please listen, learn a bit, and consider it. In the end you may decide that every word I write is nonsense. That’s fine. As I said before, it’s only my take on things. But I do have a bit of history to offer. You may disregard it, but it doesn’t change the fact that it happened. I’ll get back to your first quote in a minute. But first I need to clear up a couple of things from the erroneous Mr. Kidds!!

There you have the ‘Caste System’. A clear plan to disregard the guest experience, disregard quality for the sake of the almighty buck, and an Ei$ner strategy to fleece the WDW public when it comes to resorts.Now, I used this quote only as a reference to the ridiculous stuff you printed regarding my caste system. It is ALL blatantly WRONG!! The outcome is the same, but the motivations that move the plot along are 100% wrong. Not my take on things at all!!! I see no other way to do it but go line by line!! Sorry folks, but he keeps spinning me into an Ei$ner hater, giving motives that are inappropriate, distorted and quite simply, just plain wrong. He needs correcting if we are to keep up any semblance of civilized conversation. Under this ‘Caste System’ Ei$ner determined that Disney resorts were underpriced and Disney land was underutilized. What ME proceeds to do is create a whole new class of resorts called ‘moderate’. The goal of these ‘moderate’ resorts was two fold. First, by creating this second class of resorts ME could justify jacking the existing resort prices up to exorbitant levels. Agreed! Simply motivated by profit. Nothing sinister or ominous in the air. Money is the motivating factor.
ME thinks to himself – I am Disney, I have the Brand, people will pay whatever I want to charge, even if it is no longer a value. He may have thought that, he may not have that. I certainly don’t know. I suspect it didn’t enter his thinking at all. He was motivated by money, pure and simple. Second, in the ‘moderate’ resorts ME figures he can build cheap.Money again. Nothing but money. Profit. Don’t you get it? Nothing despicable. Nothing nefarious. Just trying to be the best modern day CEO he can be. Unfortunately, it takes a bit more for Disney!Who cares about the guest experience. View of the parking lot, exterior corridors, smaller rooms, smaller beds, less, less, less. But who cares, I am Disney, I have the Brand, people will buy this lesser experience and love it, and we capture a new piece of market share.Here’s where the slant really begins. I do NOT believe that he consciously gave this concept any thought at all. If he did it may have gone your way and it may have really pained him. But again, MONEY, was the motivating factor. He was doing what he thought he was supposed to do. Make money.

Anyway, I grow tired of refuting your spin. Every word you say might be true and it might not be true. I don’t know and I don’t care. The motive was money. Profit. That’s all. Nothing more. It’s all those little, “Who cares about the guest experience.” Bits that drive me crazy!!! THAT IS NOT WHAT I THINK!! It’s only what happened. He is motivated by profit. ARE WE CLEAR YET!?!?!

He didn’t set out to ‘disregard’ the guest experience. He didn’t plan to ‘disregard’ quality. He didn’t actively scheme to ‘fleece’ the public. These were merely byproducts of the actions he took. Actions that were motivated by MONEY. (Scoop warning!! Double quote coming up!!!)
But please be clear on this. I do not believe, for a minute, that he is antimagic. Or that he sits up late at night and dreams of ways to screw the public. The ‘Caste System’ you believe in diametrically opposes this statement. You appear to believe it was ME’s intention to give less, less, less (antiMagic?). Perhaps screw is a strong word, Way too strong a word. In fact that aspect of his ‘intentions’ had nothing to with motivations. He was after money. And my statement does NOT diametrically oppose this view. NOT ANTIMAGIC!! Just motivated (highly motivated) by profit. Are we still clear!?!?!
This is but an example. You can’t talk about Walt and ME being diametrically opposed without believing that ME had a philosophy, a bad philosophy. All the rhetoric you spew paints a clear picture of what you believe the ME philosophy to be, even if you think you have never said so.I guess this is as good a place as any to fill you in on what I think so there can be no question about it. His philosophy (if you really want to call it that) is to make money. Increase profits. That’s it!! And that is diametrically opposed to Walt’s philosophy. UNDERSTAND!?!?!! It really couldn’t be more plain. (And I’m not even talking about the fact that he’s terribly inept at it!!!)

OK Testtrack!! Here we gooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!
Guess what – roads and road signs existed before Eisner.WRONG!!!! No signs in Disney!! But thanks for playing. We do have conciliation prizes!! A four page essay by yours truly on the true meaning of the painted stripes by the Magic Kingdom parking gates!!! No signs, Mr. Kidds!! You could get lost real easy back then! I know!! I did!!
He didn’t “open the roads”. That is ridiculous. People were already driving themselves – or did Disney put in all those parking lots at the CR and Poly after 1984? Oh, and the MK parking lot and tram system – was that an Ei$ner creation? Get real.Do a little research pal!! And then you can “get real”!! :rolleyes:
And look at your very quote. You clearly state that Eisner refused to create magical transportation. Wouldn’t that be antiMagic?No! He’s trying to be fiscally responcible. For him it’s business as usual. Nothing antimagic about it. Just saving a few pennies while forgetting, once again, what his true product really is. Typical!
It is more recently that decisions have been made that might be contrary to a quality and guest experience based philosophy.Why can’t we just agree to this and call it quits?
After you do that you come back and tell me that nothing magical, nothing creative, nothing Disney was added. Well, you can’t. All you can say is that Eisner was not responsible for any of it. That is hogwash.I disagree!!

Many things were put out there in that time period that I can call Disney. But this in spite of Ei$ner not because of him. Surely you’ve read AV accounts? Do you totally ignore them or worse discount them? And these recent developments. How can you account for these? Did he just suddenly go brain-dead one day? Did he wake up one morning and think his wallet was a bit too thin and on that same morning turned greedy and stupid at the same time? I really don’t think so. So I challenge you. Put up or shut up!! Show me the PROOF (or at least a preponderance of the evidence) that he was responsible for anything that was created under his tenure. I don’t think you can. But have fun trying!!! ;)

[Testtrack321]

I'm a nice guy Baron, I liked when you told me to enjoy my trip to DL and other things, but I don't see you taking our thoughts and ideas that mabey, just mabey, Eisner has some good still left in him.

Also, the road sign refrence was to the 'norm', what Universal and others do. Disney didn't have to do that, but they did.

And DisneyKidd, I think he does too. ;)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Also, the road sign refrence was to the 'norm', what Universal and others do. Disney didn't have to do that, but they did.I understand. And I also understand how you might assume it would be true for Disney as it was for EVERYWHERE else in the country. And that’s where the old Disney magic comes into play.

The whole concept was a place that simply steeped you in the “experience”. To let absolutely no hint (or as much as humanly possible) of the real world into your Magical Dream Vacation. So they took the Disneyland ‘berm’ idea and times it by the power of ten!! They bought up land to insure that they controlled EVERTHING!! And they provided innovative, themed, magical and just simply fun ways to get around!! I think I remember that from a little pamphlet that Disney used to give out. Goofy saying that “getting there was half the fun”!! And it used to be.

When you drove up to the gates, you told them your destination. And they told you what line to follow to the resort of your choice. No signs. No need for any. You left the driving to them. Once there you locked the car and didn’t return for it until it was time to go home!!

Scoop and others LOVE WDW for the immersive-ness of the experience!! That experience is being intruded on constantly today. Planet Hollywood. AMC. McDonalds. Rainforest Café. Workmen painting while guests are present. Non-themed partitions. And part of that intrusion comes from those damned buses belching diesel fumes. And thousands of cars cutting off those buses. And even the pretty, picturesque, purple signs.

To you those signs are cute. To me they say that Goofy’s “getting there is half the fun” is dead and buried in the long forgotten past.

but I don't see you taking our thoughts and ideas that mabey, just mabey, Eisner has some good still left in him.Sorry Mr. Track. I really don’t see it. But you can see that I never saw much good in him. At least in retrospect. So it’s especially hard to for me to see any good still left in him!!

If you do, well, God bless!! But I think you’re heading for a real hard fall!! Even Scoop and Mr. Kidds agree there ain’t much good left, no matter how much he started out with!

[Testtrack321]

Cute, mabey, but for me it isn't Esiner's stupidity/reluctance/cheepness that their there. People DRIVE to WDW. People actually come from OUTSIDE to spend a day at WDW, then DRIVE out and then DRIVE back in tomorrow. That's why MK, Epcot, MGM, and AK all having PARKING LOTS! So does DD and all the other minor parks! A great concept! Have options for people who don't want stay at WDW or day visitors. Or hell, those who want to check out the other resorts.

With all those painters, unthemed walls, and those damn buses, I can tell you of one family who could stay at WDW, because it was cheeper. Were complaining about how un-themed All Stars is when we stay at Poly. But when my friends go to WDW, they can't afford the Poly or anyothers. They stay at the All Stars. They want to stay at Disney. They don't want to re-morgage their house to stay at a price on site resort. Nor did they want to stay offsite.

And Baron, Walt-did-no-harm, why then did Disney include Fort Wilderness Campgrounds? They could bring cars (SHOCK!), cook (HORROR!), and sleep in an RV (DESGUST!)? Because there were people out ther who wanted to do Disney, but not the expensive, rich people Disney that people are steriotypicaly refering to everywhere. Look at us. We stay at the $150 per nite sites for weeks instead of days. We look outside, OH MY GOD! It's a worker! HOW THE HELL DID HE GET IN! SHOT HIM! I want a refund.

But there are people who want to go to Disney who can't spend that much a night. They want to do Disney cheeply. But they want to stay on-site. They like the All Stars and think it's a wonderful theme (and IT IS! I've stayed there for FIRST!) for a resort. They then might drive to (OH MY GOD! UNDISNEY!) to Epcot to ride Test Track (IT REPLACED WOM! KILL THEM!!).

Should there be a bigger monorail line, yes. Should there be a better alternative to buses, yep. But look at the big picture Baron. It's a COMPANY. Pure and simple. It's here to MAKE money. Walt did it. And face it, if people don't pay, then it can't happen. Simple as that.

Money dosn't grow on the Liberty Tree.

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK!! EVERYONE!! Scoop, Mr. Kidds! Pirate!! Please re-read the above post by Mr. Track. This is what the younger generation thinks Disney is all about!!






I rest my case! ;)

[Peter Pirate]

But look at the big picture Baron. It's a COMPANY. Pure and simple. Its here to make money. Walt did it. ...
Is it this quote that has your panties in a wad Baron? If so, my parents who are in their upper 70's always felt this way about Disney. They loved the show, they liked the movies (for us kids). We occasionally visited Disney World (we kids loved it, Mom & Dad did it for us) but they never thought much of Walt and they have always looked at Disney as a money making machine...Even way back then.

So this 'new' attitude is really nothing new. It's just different from yours.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[ohanafamily]

OK, Mr. Baron, I know you can defend yourself, but I would like to know that I undertsnd some of where you are coming from...

No Streets signs, Follow the (pardon the non-disney reference) yellow brick road...

I can see where this would be part of the magic, but becoming untenable with the influx of new parks and resorts. I still have trouble telling the colors of the monorails.

Speaking of the monorails, If I remember 12 Million per train, a Million per track segment (I don't have my notes with me) Maybe they could build more, but it isn't likely in the near future.

Walt Disney out for money? from I always thought (admittedly from the propoganda) that a park for the family was primary, and the money came... ME is reversing the equation. (submitted for your correction/approval)

As far as parking lot views from the All-Star, is that true? that seems un-disney. They tend to hide ugly things like that (Case in point the "A" ride..much better once hidden (oops, I shouldn't have)

:bounce:
.......
BTW, BRERALEX

Valium and Percocet...:smooth:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Walt Disney out for money? from I always thought (admittedly from the propoganda) that a park for the family was primary, and the money came... ME is reversing the equation. (submitted for your correction/approval)BINGO!!!!!

You have been a student for such a short time, yet it seems you understand much more than many others seem to be able to grasp. You now fully understand the basic and fundamental difference between “Walt’s” Disney and Disney®. Congratulations!!!

Now can you perhaps explain it to Mr. Kidds and that hardheaded pirate!!! I don’t seem to speak their language!!

[DisneyKidds]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet that there were only green road signs everywhere before the inititive was set to create new ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You’d lose that bet.
Baron, you are right, he would lose that bet. According to the first, and only concise, authorized history of "The Vacation Kingdom of the World" the original signs at WDW used plain white type on a brown background. So there may not have been as many of them pre-Eisner as the World was a lot smaller back then, but they were there. Is that real enough for you? That gate you talk about, where they told you what line to follow, exists deep into Disney property. Perhaps many had no reason to spend time in the Disney hinterlands, but for those who did there were signs.

Let's linger in your lala land for a bit and assume that those plain white type on brown background signs were put in place by Eisner because there weren't any before :rolleyes: (I know, I know - that isn't true, but I want to try and get Baron to see my point). Why then would he bring in Sussman/Prezja (that firm that did the 1984 LA Olympics signs) to redo the signs to be so meticulously detailed and coordinated (just the way Walt liked to do things)? Again, was it to increase his profits? Or maybe someone else forced him to do it :rolleyes:. Now hear this. It isn't about signs. The signs are only a sign that Eisner had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. He SPENT money to create and improve something that would add to the guest experience. I guess your solution, Herr Baron, would have been for the World to remain so small that signs weren't necessary. After all, when you followed those lines there were only a couple of resorts and one park. I hate to think what your beloved Disney would be like now if that had been the attitude.
I relate things the way I see it.
I know that, but maybe you didn't see everything, or things weren't quite as you recall.
In the end you may decide that every word I write is nonsense.
I'm with that so far ;).
Money again. Nothing but money. Profit. Don’t you get it?
Sure, I get it. I guess we'll assume that the lack of quality and attention to detail that you and others point out in all those discussion we have is just a byproduct of the bottom line mentality. Somehow I really don't think you believe that. But I'll take your word for it ;).
His philosophy (if you really want to call it that) is to make money. Increase profits. That’s it!! And that is diametrically opposed to Walt’s philosophy.
So that would mean Walt's philosophy was to...................................lose money? :crazy: :) :p
Why can’t we just agree to this and call it quits?
Please, and thank you.

TestTrack...........
And DisneyKidd, I think he does too.
........I suppose I'd replace think with hope, assuming he stays around for a while. But if he soon departs I'll be almost as happy as anyone else.

Good night all :).

[airlarry!]

I always wondered how Ei$ner convinced the group that monorails were unnecessary and that busses would do just fine for the average Jeaux Visitor at WDW. Who in their right mind would not want monorail expansion? Who in their right mind would equate a parking lot at the TTC (with a ferry boat or a monorail ride over to the MK) with the parking lots at AK or MGM or the All-stars?

Now I know. There are actually people, Disney fans even, who would say in those insipid focus group sessions, that monorails are unnecessary hinderances to the 'bottom line' and that busses, parking lots, roads, and signs are "only a sign that Eisner (sic) had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about."

Man. I didn't realize it was impossible to create two or three different priced resorts with unique transportation to and from parks and nighttime activities without bringing the entire economic system of the World to the ground.

After reading these comments, I'm now surprised that WDW has made any money in the first place with all those expensive boats and monorails and...and...and...water transportation to and from Fort Wilderness to the MK!!

[ohanafamily]

airlarry!,

Don't loose heart! Please remember that with all the problems of transportation, we all still go back and have a great time. One can get a little cynical reading these boards...
:bounce:

[DisneyKidds]

Who in their right mind would equate a parking lot at the TTC (with a ferry boat or a monorail ride over to the MK) with the parking lots at AK or MGM or the All-stars?
Hmmmm.............last time I checked a parking lot was a big, open space with lots of lines where people left their cars. Yep, TTC parking was/is no different. So they removed it from the MK by placing is across a lagoon and making you take a boat or monorail. Did they do that because it made for nicer parking? Noooooooooo. They did it so that the park would be shielded, unlike DL. Guess what, it was still a parking lot. For some the boat or monorail ride added magic. For others it added headaches as you had to spend extra time after a long day waiting on line and cramming on to a boat or monorail. Some might say that the other parks, without TTC type remote parking are not shielded as the MK was, but I don't buy that. Once you are in any of the parks you can't see the parking lots. It doesn't matter how far away they are, you can't see them. This next statement is big time subjective opinion, but I much prefere parking at MGM or the AK. If you park at the TTC for the MK, you get a space in a vast lot, take a tram to the TTC, and you still have to spend time getting to the MK via boat or monorail. At MGM or the AK you park in a lot that is no different than the TTC lot, except that it is smaller. You hop a tram, same as TTC parking, and voila - you are there. No extra time or hassle on a boat or monorail. Heck, with small kids in strollers we can actually walk to the gate from our car, which would be no different than walking from our car to the TTC (where we would only be half way to the park). The idea behind designing the MK parking the way it was had a time and place, but it was simply unecessary at Epcot (which I notice you left out), AK, and MGM. Would you care to elaborate if you believe there are other 'benefits' to TTC parking?
After reading these comments, I'm now surprised that WDW has made any money in the first place with all those expensive boats and monorails and...and...and...water transportation to and from Fort Wilderness to the MK!!
Well, last time I checked there were boats in more places than the MK resort area. As for noats, some locations lend themselves to them as there were existing, or easily expanded, waterways to accomodate them. A completely land locked just doesn't allow for a boat. Oh, sure, they could have created mini versions of the panama canal throughout the Disney property, but then you wouldn't have the resorts because all the money would have had to be spent on the waterways. I'll take the resorts. As for monorails, just think about how short the MK run is compared to what it would take to connect all of the resorts. Epcot is a bit longer and was very expensive, but it was still a relatively staright and easy shot. At $12 mil per train and $1 mil per track segment (if that is what the numbers were/are) you would probably have had to take the entire budget to build MGM just to connect all the resorts to the system. I'll take the theme park. With the rapid expansion of WDW can you not see how it just might not have been feasible to connect everything by monorail, no matter how much anyone (Eisner included) would have liked it? And where is the and....and....and. Is there some magical transportation other than boats and monorails I am missing?

It is so easy to say that Eisner didn't do things because he was cheap. It is also easy to forget the fact that Walt also had to forgo things he would have liked to do because they were simply too expensive.

[DisneyKidds]

that busses, parking lots, roads, and signs are "only a sign that Eisner (sic) had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about."
Well.........the only thing that from this list that didn't exist prior to the expansion of the World was the (insidious) bus. Roads, they were there, just not that utilized pre-Eisner as there weren't many places to go. Signs, I think we covered that one. Parking lots, ditto. So why don't we look at what is really being attacked in this statement - Eisner's understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. First off, Disney had always been about providing new ways of enetertaining the public. Eisner's expansion plans allowed Disney to do that. We don't need to get into the muck and mire of moderate resorts and incomplete parks (been there, done that), but what was added provided new, exciting, Disney entertainment and experience. No, it wasn't always done the way Walt would have, but it was still stuff to be proud of, stuff that most people (sans most of those who frequent this board) find very Disney. Secondly, those signs we talked about help to show that Eisner understood on some level (as he implemented his expansion plans) the need for show, the need for even something as simple as a sign to be magical. That has been my point. You can choose to ignore it as long as you like.

[raidermatt]

Secondly, those signs we talked about help to show that Eisner understood on some level (as he implemented his expansion plans) the need for show, the need for even something as simple as a sign to be magical.
Oh dear God, now putting up a road sign and foregoing the expansion/development of less intrusive forms of transportation qualifies as MAGICAL?

Forget whether it should or shouldn't have been done, but now it proves Eisner understands the SHOW and MAGIC?

Somebody, anybody (besides Baron and Larry)... PLEASE tell me I don't need to post an actual counterpoint to this arguement! PLEASE tell me that regardless of what you think of Eisner and his actions in the past, that you DO understand those roadsigns (and the accompanying lack of alternative transportation development) are NOT examples that Eisner understands THE SHOW and MAGIC? Maybe it shows that he understands the need to reduce complaints. But please tell me you understand that SHOW and MAGIC and WOW mean more than just putting up signs?

[SnackyStacky]

Eisner's understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about.

I think Eisner knows full well what Disney is about. There is proof. Because:


No, it wasn't always done the way Walt would have, but it was still stuff to be proud of, stuff that most people (sans most of those who frequent this board) find very Disney.

That's ves that's very true! Lots of Disney stuff to be found everywhere. But it's all spread out and intermingled with things that AREN'T Disney.

I guess your solution, Herr Baron, would have been for the World to remain so small that signs weren't necessary. After all, when you followed those lines there were only a couple of resorts and one park. I hate to think what your beloved Disney would be like now if that had been the attitude.


So.... because Walt Disney World is big, they can't have magical, affordable means of transportation outside of cars? Check out New York sometime. Mahattan and Disney World are of equal size, and Manhattan has a nifty little subway system. It also has roads, but then again, New York wasn't going for the magic factor. Point is that size doesn't mean you can't have some larger system of transportation. One that is just as magical, but maybe somewhat more affordable than a monorail system.

Walt was obviously out to make a profit. But the way he did it was such a far cry from the way Eisner is doing it.

Walt knew that if you charged a reasonable rate for what you were giving, people would come, they would pay, and profit would be made. It was more expensive than anything else, but not excessively so. And you were given what you paid for. It's the difference between buying something generic and buying name brand. For a little bit more money you'll get something a little better.

It doesn't take a genius to know that if you build more hotels, you HAVE to charge more. But you don't charge more and give less, which is what Eisner has done.

[DisneyKidds]

SnackyMatt...........you guys are a pill. I know how Scoop feels now, dealing with all theory and talk and not a workable idea in the bunch. Complete monorail networks, a WDW subway system.............whatever.

As for monorails, where is any sort of reasonable analysis that shows they could have possibly worked on the scale required to cover the entire property? They wouldn't.

As for subways, I happen to work in New York for the very company that built the original subway system under New York. That will never be feasable in WDW.

Are there alternatives? Sure. Light Rail systems are starting to come into their own and that might work. It would actually be pretty cool. However, 15 years ago that wasn't the case, not even 10 years ago.

It is a shame that you are all so offended by cars. Get over it. Granted, there are too many buses navigating the property now and something should be done about it. What, I don't know.

All of that doesn't change the fact that roads, and vehicles using them, have been one of the best options. There are a lot of people who like driving. You can cry that that isn't magic all you want but, while you may be the vocal majority on this board, I bet your contempt for wheeled transportation and how it offends the memory of Walt is a rather minority opinion. So, if you are going to have those roads (it is a fact of life) you have a choice. You can have roads signs that make a difference, or you can have road signs that don't. Eisner was willing to spend money, reduce the bottom line, to have road signs that made a difference. While that doesn't show he knew how to do things like Walt, it did show that he wasn't a cheap SOB that didn't realize that little things make a difference to the guest experience. Sure, it would be better if we had individual jet packs, or maybe a transporter, but we don't. My only point has been that if Ei$ner is everything you say he is he never would have invested in signs that people notice and remember. There are plenty of people who know they have arrived when they see those signs. You have crossed a threshhold and it is noticeable. That helps add an element of magic. Just a small detail, when combined with all the other small details, that contibutes to the magic. Show and Magic and Wow are a combination of many, many, many, many different things.

[Testtrack321]

Oh dear God, now putting up a road sign and foregoing the expansion/development of less intrusive forms of transportation qualifies as MAGICAL?

But if he didn't do it, then you guys would be complaing about how he wasn't pay attention to the fine details.

Somebody, anybody (besides Baron and Larry)... PLEASE tell me I don't need to post an actual counterpoint to this arguement! PLEASE tell me that regardless of what you think of Eisner and his actions in the past, that you DO understand those roadsigns (and the accompanying lack of alternative transportation development) are NOT examples that Eisner understands THE SHOW and MAGIC? Maybe it shows that he understands the need to reduce complaints. But please tell me you understand that SHOW and MAGIC and WOW mean more than just putting up signs?

Uh, you don't. Why? Because the signs improve on the guest experence, not improve the 'show'. There's a differnce. Their related and go hand in hand, but guest experence and show are differnet.

This is what the younger generation thinks Disney is all about!!


I know the good ole days and still do. But the fact remains that Disney is out to make money. Esiner and Walt did it differently, but they both had their fallouts and sucesses.

Let's linger in your lala land for a bit and assume that those plain white type on brown background signs were put in place by Eisner because there weren't any before (I know, I know - that isn't true, but I want to try and get Baron to see my point). Why then would he bring in Sussman/Prezja (that firm that did the 1984 LA Olympics signs) to redo the signs to be so meticulously detailed and coordinated (just the way Walt liked to do things)? Again, was it to increase his profits? Or maybe someone else forced him to do it . Now hear this. It isn't about signs. The signs are only a sign that Eisner had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. He SPENT money to create and improve something that would add to the guest experience. I guess your solution, Herr Baron, would have been for the World to remain so small that signs weren't necessary. After all, when you followed those lines there were only a couple of resorts and one park. I hate to think what your beloved Disney would be like now if that had been the attitude.


Ah ha! DisneyKidds, I love how you think.

Now I know. There are actually people, Disney fans even, who would say in those insipid focus group sessions, that monorails are unnecessary hinderances to the 'bottom line' and that busses, parking lots, roads, and signs are "only a sign that Eisner (sic) had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about."


But wait! Every park has a parking lot. What's the problem with that? And was my asumption that mabey, just mabey, Disney might be in a worse postition if they made a monorial go to every men's bathroom in the whole property. And here's one, how would someone who dosn't want to join the DVC, fly, or just wants to hang with their friends at WDW get around without 'busses, parking lots, roads, and signs'?

It is so easy to say that Eisner didn't do things because he was cheap. It is also easy to forget the fact that Walt also had to forgo things he would have liked to do because they were simply too expensive.

Then the queston arises: Has Esiner done anything that was expensive, and did Walt do anything that was cheep? Yes to both.

[raidermatt]

SnackyMatt...........you guys are a pill. I know how Scoop feels now, dealing with all theory and talk and not a workable idea in the bunch. Complete monorail networks, a WDW subway system.............whatever.
And you, DK, are very similar to Scoop in that you state things cannot be done, sighting only the fact that nobody else does it as proof.

Of course, if the fact that nobody else does it were proof, DL and WDW would not exist in the first place.

If the monorail is practical for two parks, and 3 or 4 resorts, why does it all of a sudden become impossible for 4 parks and over a dozen resorts? Yes, its more space to cover, but there's also more revenue flowing in to support it.

But who says it has to be monorails? Boat service could also be expanded, but even that is thinking too small. If we were discussing this in 1954, would any of us have said, "Disney should build a monorail."? Likewise, I don't pretend to know what is possible when it comes to modern transportation. I just know that more is possible in 2002 than in 1955. You on the other hand, have convinced yourself that LESS is possible.

You expect people with time to kill on the internet to be able to give you a detailed transportation plan and prove it is finanically beneficial to Disney? And if we can't produce that, it means its not workable? Your thinking is becoming narrower everyday...

I couldn't have proven to you that the monorail was workable in 1970 and I can't prove it today. I can only point to it as an example of something that your line of thinking would have called "unworkable" then, just as it does now. And that is more proof than you have, unless you have some specific info on the long-term financial benefits of an exanded monorail, or other "impractical" modes of transportation?

I'm surprised that you would write something off as impractical when all you have to base your decision on is the cost side of the equation, and even that is unverified.


Disney was built on things that most others said were not practical.

If we want Disney to be just like most other companies, and only do what is easily proven on a spreadsheet as practical for the upcoming quarter, then fine, add more busses, build more parking lots, and put up more freeway signs.

After all, its what most others would do...

[raidermatt]

But if he didn't do it, then you guys would be complaing about how he wasn't pay attention to the fine details.
No, the fact that he is ignoring alternate forms of transportation are proof that he doesn't pay attention to the basic concepts behind Walt Disney WORLD, never mind the fine details.

Uh, you don't. Why? Because the signs improve on the guest experence, not improve the 'show'. There's a differnce. Their related and go hand in hand, but guest experence and show are differnet.
The statement was made that these show that Eisner understands the show on some level, and can provide something Magical, which is not true (and I think you are agreeing?). It said nothing about enhancing the guest experience.

But now that you mention it, sure, given the lack of alternative transportation in many parts of WDW, yes, road signs enhance the guest experience for those driving cars around.

However, a lack of alternative transportation is not a given, its just the decision of Eisner and gang. The signs are a cheap way to get the number of complaints down rather than addressing the real problem, which is that the lack of alternative transportation makes WDW less of the WORLD it was intended to be.

[SnackyStacky]

SnackyMatt...........you guys are a pill. I know how Scoop feels now, dealing with all theory and talk and not a workable idea in the bunch. Complete monorail networks, a WDW subway system.............whatever

Perhaps you missed this:

Point is that size doesn't mean you can't have some larger system of transportation.

The POINT (you seem to have missed it) is that because Walt Disney World is big doesn't mean that it can't have some mass transit system serving it. I was citing New York as an example that if it can be done in the real world, there's no reason that it can't be done in Walt Disney World.

It is a shame that you are all so offended by cars. Get over it.

I bet your contempt for wheeled transportation and how it offends the memory of Walt is a rather minority opinion.

Point me to where I ever said I was offended by cars, or that it offended the memory of Walt. I personally never said anything of the sort. You always seem to think I have some hidden agenda, but, really! I've never said that or thought it. Honest!

I AM offended by the busses, but not by their mere existance, but by the fact that it can take up to 30 minutes to get a bus. That's too long. WHATEVER kind of transportation system you're going to use, be it busses, monorail, train, boats, WHATEVER....you need to make sure that it is an EFFICIENT system. And the bussing system has not proven itself to be efficient.

I don't know how the bussing system was once upon a time, but with the way Eisner has run things, it seems VERY simple to take something that was, in fact, working, and louse it up when the bottom line is priority number one.

Both MGM and Animal Kingdom could have been, and SHOULD have been amazing places to visit. But because Eisner's driving force was the profit, both opened as half-day parks.

You're not supposed to see maintenance workers painting during the day, but because Eisner's motive is profit, the cheaper labor is available during the day.

The Magic Kingdom should NEVER EVER under ANY circumstances close before sunset. But because Eisner's driving force is the profit, it closes by 6pm.

EVERYONE should be able to see fireworks at the Magic Kingdom at least once during their stay, but because the driving force is profit, at least under Eisner, they only happen once a week during the off season.

It's easiest for me to get to Disney World in the off-season, and usually I can't stay over a weekend. I'm a church music director, so I have to be available for Saturday and Sunday masses. So, combine these two, and what do I get? I pay the same admission price as people who go in peak season, but I get SUBSTANTIALLY less. Shorter hours, seasonal attractions closed, no fireworks, and no spectro magic parade..... THAT'S when my blinders came off. And I'm SO sick of hearing "If you want more, go when those things are available!" Well, if I could, I would, but I can't. I shouldn't be excluded from SO much because I can't get there when those things are offered.

IF (big if...I can't even get a hypothetical in my head with this one....) Eisner lowered admission prices in the off-season, then I wouldn't have a beef with it. (Well, as much as a beef...I'd still miss those things, but I wouldn't feel cheated on top of it) I'm not saying that he has a personal vendetta against me, or that he plans on how to alienate those in similar circumstances, BUT, when the driving force is profit, people DO end up in the same situation that I find myself. Feeling cheated because they pay the same as someone who goes in July, but get less.

And those things I mentioned, I feel that they are an integral part of the Magic Kingdom experience. It's just not the same without those things. So for me, it's like being charged $30 for a long sleeve shirt in October. But come June, they rip the sleeves off, leaving frayed edges that are unfinished, and the shirt is now less. You don't really NEED the sleeves in the summer months... the shirt is no less wearable, but DEFINITELY less, and I'm still being charged full price for a demi-product.

And you can list signs as being magical all you'd like to, but I don't give a damn about signs. I'm talking about real, tangible things that added up leave me feeling HORRIBLY cheated. And I know full well that wasn't the intent of Eisner and crew, but that's the result, as Baron would say, of INEPTITUDE!

[DisneyKidds]

You on the other hand, have convinced yourself that LESS is possible.
Matt, I know full well what is possible in the way of modes of transportation. That doesn't mean they are feasable for an operation like WDW. I work for one of the oldest and largest infrastructure companies in the world. We work on some of the largest transportation and infrastructure projects in the world. Rail, subway, highway, light rail - any mode of moving people, we do it. At some point someone has to throw a dose of reality into the mix around here. When the original monorail was put up, even when the monorail to Epcot was put up, it most likely represented a fraction of the total construction cost for either park. To expand that mode of transportation to all points within an area the size of Manhatten - you would be talking hundreds of millions. Same with subways - hundreds of millions. Why can a city like New York have subways? It is called federal money, state money, tax revenue - a heck of a lot more money than a business like Disney can throw at a transportation system. Sorry to burst your bubble, but monorails and subways just won't work - and I don't say that just because no one has done it. Light rail would be more affordable. Perhaps that would be the way to go, but I think I recall hearing whispers that that was looked at and shot down. Would it be simply too expensive or was it a matter of Disney being cheap? I really don't know. Beyond these things, there are not a lot of other mass transportation options besides buses.
The statement was made that these show that Eisner understands the show on some level, and can provide something Magical, which is not true (and I think you are agreeing?). It said nothing about enhancing the guest experience.
Gee, seems to me that anything a guest can see becomes part of the show. But that is niether here nor there. You can pick apart the words all you want, but the context of what I have been saying is that Eisner has had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. That is providing guests with a unique Disney experience. Signs can add to that experience, and become a teensy part of the overall show. Eisner spent the money to make that happen, at the expense of the bottom line. That is a fact and it is contrary to what many people contend about Ei$ner. End of point - it was only a minor one to begin with. Move on to something else please.

Snacky................I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However...............
And you can list signs as being magical all you'd like to, but I don't give a damn about signs. I'm talking about real, tangible things that added up leave me feeling HORRIBLY cheated.
.........you are way to focused and obsessed on the signs. No where in this discussion was I talking about being cheated, or disagreeing with the concept that we are being cheated. The sign discussion has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. In case I need to point it out again, this is what the sign discussion is all about. Baron said Eisner never did anything that wasn't driven by the bottom line, that he had no clue about what Disney was. I pointed out that Eisner, at some point, did realize that Disney was about the guest experience. Eisner spent money on signs that improved the guest experience. He did this at the expense of the bottom line. End of story, end of point.

BTW - I got your POINT about mass transit systems on a large scale. I think my comments above address that POINT. And the 'you' with respect to cars was a collective you - as some do seem to be taken back by the vehicles clogging the World.

[ohanafamily]

I agree, let's get over the signs before someone like me sarcasticly makes a comment about using flying carpets and starts another series on that...
:bounce:

[Peter Pirate]

Not to be a buttinski, but well over a year ago Baron challenged (the much more focused) Pirate...(Or was it the Captain?) on this same very issue.

I pointed out to him that under the Eisner watch Disney installed water play areas in Epcot (two, I believe) that were totally negative to the bottom line. They give the company nothing other than a better experience for the little kids who love to get soaking wet.

To say that Eisner doesn't get it or never got it is nothing but an arbitrary arrow. Certainly many good things aimed primarily at the guest experience have been given by Eisner's regime over the tenure. This doesn't change the mistakes, this doesn't mean he shouldn't go now but the current company status doesn't change what was accomplished previously...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[FantasticDisFamily]

Can you hear the virtual applause Peter Pirate? :Pinkbounc :bounce: :Pinkbounc :bounce:

The Professor

[Peter Pirate]

Thank you Professor!!! It's been awhile since I've posted anything north of obtuse I believe but I'm sure I'll be wandering out back with the little animals again real soon...:eek:
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool:

[Another Voice]

Okay –

The story I heard at the time about the road signs was that it came from a comment by Michael Graves (the architect of the Swan & Dolphins resorts at WDW and Team Disney Burbank). Up until that point, the few road signs on property followed the national highway standards because that design has proven to be immensely effective in actually directing traffic. Until the late 1980’s most people got to WDW by car, it was always felt that maintaining signage the guests had already been following for hundreds of miles would be the best and safest plan.

Back to the tale – apparently during one of their many artistic tours of WDW, Mr. Graves mentioned to Eisner that traffic signs are boring and the he, Mr. Graves, demanded that better, more fashionable and all around more fabulous signs must be used for his glorious Dolphin and Swan hotels. Eisner at the time viewed himself as the Patron Saint of Big Time Architecture and took the comments to heart. Thus phone calls were placed and a Big Time Fashionable Graphic Design Firm was hired to create Big Time Fashionable Road Signs. Which they did.

And they didn’t work. There were rumors at the time that rates of traffic accidents and lost guests soared on the property. Instead of clear simple signs that were easy-to-read-at-55 mph signs, the guest was blasted with colors and signage that worked wonderfully when you’re standing in the middle of Los Angeles wondering where the synchronized swimming contests are going to be held. Even I had a difficult time figuring out which lane to which Mickey was pointing and why this sign red and that sign blue.

But, they were fashionable, they were trendy, and they got Eisner another gold star on his Fashionable CEO report card. Over time they’ve been revised into something that mostly works. They weren’t created for show. The real reason WDW has new signs: it boasted Eisner’s ego.

Eisner killed his own proposal for a light rail system (first line from the TTC to Fort Wilderness, Dixie Landings, and Downtown Disney). His rational was it was cheaper to let people drive their own cars and to build parking lots.

Oh – ya, putting a couple of garden hoses into Epcot (one of which was paid for by Coca Cola by the way) – that pretty much qualifies him for sainthood doesn’t it Mr. Pirate?

[Peter Pirate]

Sainthood?:confused: LOL Mr. AV you are a funny guy.

Certainly it qualifies him for nothing. Certainly he never made a decision on the idea personally and most likely he never even heard of it...But it does answer the question of what was given with no profit motive. You can sarcastically say that it's just a couple of garden hoses although really it is much more than that (certainly you know this;) )...And even though it was relatively cheap in the big picture it doesn't change the fact that it was given with no profit motive (he says again).

As to Coke sponsoring one of them, I find that hard to believe as there is no advertising touting this fact at the play fountains and clearly there would be. Perhaps you're thinking of the Coca-Cola sponsored misting station just outside of TT?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[raidermatt]

Vastly different motivations and philosophies will still sometimes yield similar results. If you're looking for somebody to say that Eisner's poor philosophy sometimes produces something people like, consider it said.

Great. Let's move on.

A good philosophy will yield better results more often than a poor one. So rather than prop somebody up based on the "every blind squirrel finds a nut philosophy", I find it more productive to focus on finding a squirrel with some vision.


At some point someone has to throw a dose of reality into the mix around here. When the original monorail was put up, even when the monorail to Epcot was put up, it most likely represented a fraction of the total construction cost for either park. To expand that mode of transportation to all points within an area the size of Manhatten - you would be talking hundreds of millions. Same with subways - hundreds of millions.
A dose of reality? Please.

Hundreds of millions over what timeframe? Clearly the entire system, whatever it is, wouldn't need to be built in one year, or even 3 or 4. DCA cost hundreds of millions and is an embarassment to the company. Fox Family was purchased for $5.2 billion.

This company HAS the capital to invest in such projects. Its just a question of whether the money would be better spent on infrastructure improvements in WDW, or on a cable channel for "re-purposed" programming. THAT is a reality.

The original monorail was a fraction of the total WDW construction costs? If you want to look at it that way, then you need to add up the costs of the two parks built since then, the two water parks, Downtown Disney, the new resorts, WWoS, the golf courses, etc, and figure the new transportation cost as a percentage of those construction costs in present day dollars. After all, the new form of alternative transportation would be support for all of those things, just as the original monorail was support for MK, and later Epcot.

Another question is what benefits such a transportation project would bring.

I don't understand how you will not acknowledge room rate increases without hard, documented proof, yet you would write off an expensive transportation project without any info on the benefits.

Improved alternative transportation would increase the value of a Disney vacation. It would increase demand for resorts that it services. It would alleviate many of the complaints we see today about the current transportation system. It would enhance the SHOW for the entire resort. All of these benefits (plus others) ultimately carry a revenue number with them, and its a revenue number that would continue for years, just as it has for the current monorail.

You simply cannot shoot down a transportation project based solely on costs.

Last I checked, "reality" still included the benefit side of a cost/benefit analysis...

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hi everyone!! Sorry! This is a little dated, but I wrote it out yesterday and then forgot to bring it home on a disk!! I’ve got more to say regarding the direction the thread has taken, but in the mean time, I had to get this out!! Thanks all!!

According to the first, and only concise, authorized history of "The Vacation Kingdom of the World" the original signs at WDW used plain white type on a brown background.Why is it that when I try to be as specific as possible you bring out the wide brush and paint everything the same color? And when I speak in generalities you focus your electron microscope to the smallest crevice you can find and blast away as if that wins your entire argument? Do you do this on purpose? Just to cloud or confuse the real issue? Or is it something that comes naturally to you? In either case I find it quite bothersome. And it really tends to bog down the conversation! Did you truly miss the point I was trying to make? Maybe you did. Maybe I give you too much credit for seeing the big picture. Or maybe my references were too obscure and not focused enough. So, lets make one last stab at it!

Literally, my point is that while you admire those signs and point to them as an example of Ei$ner doing things “Disney”, I see the same signs, as a sign, that he has (at best) lost the original focus or mission of what’s really ‘Disney’. And my reasoning is twofold.

First, the signs indicate that they have given up on the concept of “getting there is half the fun”. They have abdicated their previous mission of providing a unique vacation experience by whisking the guests around the property by means of distinctive, creative and radically unconventional modes of transportation. And in doing so they have allowed more and more of the ‘real world’ to enter the ‘berm’ of WDW. Not only have they tacitly allowed this to happen but in fact they have encouraged it (perfect example: those cute little signs). And by promoting and abetting this concept they have made the choice of providing alternative modes transportation all the easier to delay, defer and put off. Indefinitely!! So it should not come as much of a surprise that I find that sad. Sad that they are no longer even willing to do their best at what once was second nature to them. And those signs remind me of this.

The second reason I dislike the signs:
Why then would he bring in Sussman/Prezja (that firm that did the 1984 LA Olympics signs) to redo the signs to be so meticulously detailed and coordinated (just the way Walt liked to do things)?I don’t think so!! “The way Walt liked to do things”?!?!? Not a chance!! I don’t recall him hiring high priced consultants for something his Imagineering crew can do in their sleep!! Why did he feel the need to hire outside the company? Why not use Imagineers? They know Disney! They know how to make things look and feel Disney. They are experts at theme and story and well… Disney!!! Yet, they were not used!?!? Why?

OK, let’s wrap up this bit: Again, was it to increase his profits? Yes!! Profit motivated, through and through!!! You put up signs, print maps and basically encourage personal driving, you cut down significantly on your own mass transit system. You bet your bottom dollar it was profit driven!!!
Now hear this. It isn't about signs. The signs are only a sign that Eisner had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. And I see it as a ‘sign’ that he doesn’t, and never did, understand “what Disney was supposed to be about”. If he did, we’d see him attacking the transportation problem instead of spending (wasting) money hiring outside consultants to design signs!! Again, it’s just another example of the ‘little as possible’ mentality that so permeates the company today. I expect to see mundane signs at Six Flags. I expect to see Sussman/Prezja signs at Universal. I expect something more from Disney!! Don’t you?
Sure, I get it. I guess we'll assume that the lack of quality and attention to detail that you and others point out in all those discussion we have is just a byproduct of the bottom line mentality. Somehow I really don't think you believe that. But I'll take your word for itYou know, this really bothers me! First of all, I said it!! You can bet the farm that I believe it and meant it!! What in all the world could have possibly led you to infer that I didn’t believe it!?!?!

And second, even you have admitted to a certain downturn. The only thing we seem to disagree with is about the precise time that downturn began. But we both agree that NOW it has certainly turned south!! So how do you account for it? Do you think he spends his nights thinking of ways to screw the public!!?? I don’t. I really do think it’s nothing more than a byproduct of his short term profit mentality, inexorably mixed with his magnificently inflated ego and his remarkable propensity for ineptitude (which he has mastered to fine art)!!

Am I a little clearer now? Clear enough so that you can stop paraphrasing my thoughts in a context that is clearly erroneous? I hope so!! You certainly don’t have to agree with me, but at least allow me the courtesy of trying to understand my position. If nothing else, I’m getting a little tired of saying the same things ten different ways!!

[raidermatt]

Scoop, I disagree with you about the specifics regarding the monorail. However, you're right that both of our opinions are purely subjective on this. It would take some seriously well-done survey data to even think about backing up one position or the other.

But overall, I agree with you. It doesn't have to be a monorail. It just needs to be more than it is now. Whether its open-air busses (interesting idea), boats, light rail, subway, monorail, peoplemover, something else, or a combination of those things.

The only real point I've been going for that's specific to the monorail is that the cost alone of such a project should not automatically classify it as "impossible".

[ohanafamily]

I like the monorail, and you have to admit, it runs on a much better schedule than the busses. Magical? on our last trip we rode up front in the pilots car. He had been a pilot for 6 years. (talk about going around in circles in your career choice) He told us a tale of an 80 year guest from India that only wanted to ride the monorail; this is what he came to WDW for, not the parks.

As far as other forms of transport, how about a train?, or even a roller coaster from the TTC to MGM. What about a swiss Chalet Sky ride, like the one that was removed from MK. You could have a themed boat-ride, or something imaginative that would be forced to a schedule and not be as environmentally offensive.


(BTW, pardon if I ramble a little, still on strong drugs from my dental surgery)

[Peter Pirate]

(BTW, pardon if I ramble a little, still on strong drugs from my dental surgery).
Rum & coke does fine for me...Give me some tequila and I'll be typing naked...Is this too much information???:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

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

[ohanafamily]

My DW seems to think the Percocet is making me try to insight a riot, she actually stopped me from posting how happy I was that Baron likes the bus service and road signs sooo very much. I think I did get the idea out about the flying carpets between parks. How about this for the bottom $$$$, a peoplemover with 24 hour shopping.....

I am getting silly, so I will stop for now....
:bounce:

[Peter Pirate]

You're really starting to make some sense now. Perhaps we could get some things accomplished, if only... ... ...Mike! ... ...Mike ... Mike Eisner!, you out there tonight?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[ohanafamily]

I got it, Baron is secretly EI$NER ;)

[Peter Pirate]

Funny thought, but I know Baron and he's not Eisner! He is a really great guy though...Eisner would be another participant around here...hmmmmmm....
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[DisneyKidds]

To say that Eisner doesn't get it or never got it is nothing but an arbitrary arrow. Certainly many good things aimed primarily at the guest experience have been given by Eisner's regime over the tenure. This doesn't change the mistakes, this doesn't mean he shouldn't go now but the current company status doesn't change what was accomplished previously...
Looks like I have some catching up to do, but thank you Peter - that is the ONLY point I have been trying to make!!!!! Signs, water play areas - small things, but they make a point.

[DisneyKidds]

Baron.............
And when I speak in generalities you focus your electron microscope to the smallest crevice you can find and blast away as if that wins your entire argument?
Why? Well, the only thing that has a hope of making a point is concrete proof in the form of examples. So I throw in examples (when I can - but I don't always have them - there is a reason you and I sometimes speak in generality, or get specific, eh? ;)) that I think make a point to the argument I am trying to make. Am I trying to argue that Eisner is a saint? No. Am I trying to argue that he hasn't made mistakes? No. Am I trying to argure he shouldn't go? No. Am I trying to argue he is Walt incarnate? No. I get your big picture - you think Eisner doesn't get it and never did. You think he never did anything other than for the love of money. Signs = mundane, no matter how well done, and Eisner should be developing transportation modes of the 22nd century. I see what you are saying, but it doesn't mean I have to agree. All I have tried to point out is that he has done things that I don't believe were purely motivated by profit. I guess I will just go back into generality speak and we will get nowhere - as if we are getting anywhere now (but the discussion is fun ;)).
I don’t think so!! “The way Walt liked to do things”?!?!? Not a chance!! I don’t recall him hiring high priced consultants for something his Imagineering crew can do in their sleep!! Why did he feel the need to hire outside the company? Why not use Imagineers? They know Disney! They know how to make things look and feel Disney. They are experts at theme and story and well… Disney!!! Yet, they were not used!?!? Why?
Minor things here. Baron, it is you who miss my point. I am not saying that Walt hired outside consultants - you know that, although I bet he did now and again ;). The signs were meticulous and detailed - that is how Walt did things. There, are you happy you made me waste my time retyping that - I know that was your only motivation here :p. Why didn't the imagieers design the signs. Well, if you think it is that easy to perform infrastructure design you are sorely mistaken. There was a lot more to it than a color scheme and shape.
You know, this really bothers me! First of all, I said it!! You can bet the farm that I believe it and meant it!! What in all the world could have possibly led you to infer that I didn’t believe it!?!?!
Well, a lot of the other things you have said, and common sense. Even you know that Eisner knows that something done cheap will be of lesser quality, and provide less experience. So, it is impossible to say that he can decide to do something cheap without consciously deciding to forgo some level of quality and experience. You don't have to disagree angain, I said I believe you ;).
If nothing else, I’m getting a little tired of saying the same things ten different ways!!
Roger that my friend - on both ends. Now it appears there are other threads to attend. See you there.

[SnackyStacky]

I think this whole thread is funny.

I didn't think that this thread was to discuss signage, or Eisner's motive. I thought it was to discuss when or why any and/or all respect was lost for Eisner.

Which is why I said:

And you can list signs as being magical all you'd like to, but I don't give a damn about signs. I'm talking about real, tangible things that added up leave me feeling HORRIBLY cheated. And I know full well that wasn't the intent of Eisner and crew, but that's the result, as Baron would say, of INEPTITUDE!


And it's already been pointed out that cost is a selective factor. They had 9 digits to invest in a new park, or some 10 digits to invest in cable networks, but none to put together some mass transit system? Doesn't make sense!

And as for a fountain or two, quite frankly, I would feel a lot less cheated with more hours and 10 fewer fountains. Hell, take all of those play founatins off property. They're great, and they do enhance the guest experience, but what's the point of fountains if the parks aren't open to enjoy them?!

[raidermatt]

Looks like I have some catching up to do, but thank you Peter - that is the ONLY point I have been trying to make!!!!! Signs, water play areas - small things, but they make a point.

Its clear its the only point you're trying to make, and its clear its mostly wrong.

Disney became what it is by doing things beyond ordinary customer service. Signs and water play areas show only that Eisner can see a guest survey that says "not enough for kids to do at Epcot", or "We think your busses stink, but at least give us some signs so we can drive".

However, this in no way proves at all that he gets what DISNEY is about. The old Disney way wasn't to try to provide the easiest solution to fix a problem. Now, it usually is (unless its on somebody else's dime).

Rather than address the stagnating family attractions at Epcot, he puts in a couple of water play areas. Its not that the water play areas are bad, they are examples of what any reasonable CEO could approve to address the issue at hand.

Same thing as the signs. Rather than address the overall transportation issues, he puts up signs. Again, better than nothing, but it was the easy way out. Predictably, the impact on the transportation issue as a whole is minimal.

Yes, putting in signs and water play areas IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. But BETTER THAN NOTHING is not what caused the public to embrace Disney like no other company in existence. They don't prove he understands anything about how and why Disney got to be the beloved brand name he is so adept at taking advantage of.