How Did Michael Eisner Make Disney Profitable? [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

YoHo

04-27-2005, 11:24 PM

sigh.

Yes, and no, you people sure are myopic.

Sure, fine, Micheal Eisner gets the credit for hiring Bill Mechanic.

Who get's credit for losing Bill Mechanic?

Eisner.

Who gets credit for creating a corporate culture so offensivly bad that an outside consultant said it was impossible to fix?
Eisner.

Michael Eisner is fully responsible for the corporate culture at Disney. The Corporate culture at Disney is terrible. Offensivly horridly bad. It's so bad that Enron employees say jeez, it must really suck to be a VEEP at Disney.

(Hyperbole? maybe maybe not.)

So, looking at the big picture of the corporate structure ad governance, we can see the big grubby fngerprints of Eisner all over it.
It makes one wonder (and is backed up by sources such as Disney War) just how much of Disney's success snuck out despite Eisner. And how much of it was Well's. After all, even Frank Wells proportedly hated Eisner.

Prior to 1992, Wells had a hand in everything. After 92 wells was dead and the place started to go to hell. The good results become the except slowly but surely. it makes it a lot easier to assume that the credit rests elsewhere.

Or, you could be myopic and huffy and act like you've just matched wits with Plato and won. Whatever floats your boat.

Disney Gator

04-28-2005, 04:44 AM

Nobody is being myopic or huffy. I just don't see that much that is wrong with Disney. I go see the movies and go to the theme parks...seems pretty good to me. I really don't care what the corporate culture is like at Disney. I still have fun at the parks and the theater. Where is all this bad stuff that is going on?

wtg2000

04-28-2005, 06:06 AM

In basketball they talk about quick-fix coaches who can instantly turn around a limping program but tend to sour after a few years and move on. Other coaches are good at maintining winning teams. Other coaches can take talentless teams and wring something out of it. Other coaches can take multi-ego/talent teams and meld them into a winner (Phil Jackson comes to mind).

Perhaps the same is true of CEOs. In 1984, Disney was basically a blank slate. Touchstone had just been launched, the property at WDW sat mostly empty, home video was just starting and Disney had a vault full of properties, the concept of specific retail stores was coming in, etc. Overall, their assets were being hugely underused.

After the purchase of Cap/ABC, Disney was no longer a sleepy little company that needed turning around. There was no longer a "$100 million dollars behind every door" as Frank Wells had said. Perhaps it takes a different type of CEO to run this "new" company.

crusader

04-28-2005, 06:37 AM

Or, you could be myopic and huffy and act like you've just matched wits with Plato and won. Whatever floats your boat.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about certain posters myself.

So if we read a few books and listen intently to ex-employees expose their boss we too can become the Dalai Lama of corporate management for less than the price of a park hopper. Great! Where do I sign?

DancingBear

04-28-2005, 07:06 AM

Anybody says anything positive about Eisner, and instantly they're branded as an Eisner apologist.

I have no problem with holding Eisner accountable for any number of bad things at the Company, particularly after Wells' death, from the particular (the handling of Katz's firing, the hiring and firing of Ovitz, the decline of in-house animation, fools managing Disneyland) to the general (creating a hostile environment for creativity).

And I agree the MSN article is selective in the stats it chose, and is myopic in itself for not considering larger underlying "corporate culture" type issues.

But there are the folks, like our mutual friend LandBaron, who don't give any credit to Eisner for anything, during any time period. And you are the one who chose to enter the thread by trying to take the home video credit away from Eisner.

I hold Eisner accountable for all of the good and bad during his tenure, and agree that the bad has outweighed the good for some time now, and he must go. Why am I the myopic one?

Plus4206

04-28-2005, 07:50 AM

RE: "Anybody says anything positive about Eisner, and instantly they're branded as an Eisner apologist."

That statement has been the one constant on this board for years.

DisneyWorld Delight

04-28-2005, 08:25 AM

There is a season for everything. Eisner was great at making money and poison to relationships. It is a good thing someone else will have thier chance to make a mark. That being said, if it all goes downhill, we may wonder what ever happened to Eisner?

dcentity2000

04-28-2005, 09:23 AM

Some would hold, in spite of all, that his profit making abilities were down to some cosmic fluke.

Yeah, right :rolleyes:

Rich::

YoHo

04-28-2005, 01:02 PM

I used the term Myopic in refrence to the perceived inability to reconcile the blaming of Eisner for failures and not crediting him for success. Those of us who regularly do this have explained ourselves. Explanations that are regularly ignored in favor of the vitriol and bluster of the apparent contradiction. It's like I'm speaking to congress here.

Michael Eisner was not the only man brought in to Disney in 84. In fact depending who you ask, he may have been the junior partner. Therefore, at best, he gets no more then 50% credit for EVERY action positive and negative that this company took until Well's death. Eisner simply didn't have the power back then to be the credit. It's so easy to forget that, because he was the face of Disney. Cathrine Zeta-Jones is the pimp for T-Mobile, does that mean I can credit and blame her for that company's success and failures? I know, not an accurate comparison, but I say fight fire with fire and it makes a good soundbite.

If you want to hear me praise Eisner? We can talk about his successes at Paramount then, or his Gong show creative meetings. Or his apparent early ability to pick movies. A skill he seemed to lose early in his Disney tenure.

The simple answer is to look at what the failures are and what the successes are and make the easy extrapolation as to where the most credit goes. Disney's biggest issues are corporate culture related. That is directly tied to Michael Eisner.

Of course, I might ask this question. What difference does it make to you what I personally think of the Disney Company?

And Crusader, to be fair, most of us have been saying the exact same things Disney War et al have been saying long before said book came out. It sorta re-enforces the opinion. Especially given the reputation of Mr. Stewart

raidermatt

04-28-2005, 01:58 PM

One of the reasons Disney was at the mercy of the corporate raiders was that the sum of its parts was greater than the whole. In other words, they weren't utilizing many of their assets. The two I've seen pointed to most were the film library and the real estate at WDW.

So one of two things was going to happen. Either somebody was going to come in and do something with those assets, or they were going to be sold to somebody who would do something with them.

Roy and the Bass Brothers won out, and they brought in Eisner and Wells. No matter who they brought in, they were going to have to come up with strategies for the library and real estate. Its not like Eisner and/or Wells were geniuses for doing it. Everybody knew it had to happen, which is why so many wolves were at the door. It was a slam dunk.

The only question was HOW, and that's where the arguments come in, especially with respect to how WDW was developed.

I really don't get the fascination with making sure Eisner gets credit for this, or doesn't get credit for that. What's the point? The worst of CEO's can still be tied to good things that happened at their company, and conversely the best can still be tied to negative things.

The only real point is the leader as a whole. And in that sense, I truly believe Eisner was the wrong guy from the start. Yes, many good things happened financially for the company during the first 10 years of his tenure. That was a time when he did not have the autocratic authority he later achieved. How much of it was specifically tied to him and him alone? I don't know, but it is telling that as his power grew, and those with power around him left, the results grew more and more spotty, both financially and creatively.

Did he morph from a "good" leader into a "bad" one? I don't know for sure. I do know that based on what we hear from those who have worked with and under him over the years, it doesn't look like he changed his style. It seems it merely became amplified as his power grew.

Its also important to remember that Eisner was brought in primarily to provide some Hollywood clout. Wells was seen as the right business guy for the company. In fact, the preferred arrangement was Wells as CEO with Eisner as President, however, Eisner would not accept that, which is why it was setup so that neither reported to the other.

So does it really matter if I "give him credit" for The Lion King? The point is he was the wrong guy from the start. The company was not saved by him. He was part of a team brought in to follow through once the company had been saved by the money men. Unfortunately, they made a mistake with respect to Eisner. The financial results over those first ten years, coupled with Wells' untimely passing, gave Eisner the clout to consolidate his position. He did so to the point that when some finally did want to do something about it, it was too late (which of course was a shortcoming on their part).

DancingBear

04-28-2005, 04:43 PM

Excellent post, Matt.

I disagree to a point, in that I think Eisner was a better CEO until Wells' death. Whatever the circumstances of their respective titles, Eisner and Wells made a good team. Wells may not only have been keeping Eisner's worst tendencies in check, but his presence may have extracted the best out of Eisner. Ovitz obviously did not have that power.

[From "Storming the Magic Kingdom":

"You're wrong, Phil," Gold retorted. "You think creative talent can be bought as a commodity. You see guys like Eisner as a little crazy or a little off the wall. I don't mean to be difficult with you," he went on, "but every great studio in this business has been run by crazies. What do you think Walt Disney was? The guy was off the wall. His brother Roy kept him in check."]

Also, as the face man behind the great rise of the Company, Eisner had value not only for his Hollywood clout, but as someone "The Street" perceived as a strong visionary leader.

As to "how much was tied to him and him alone" the answer is none of it. Hell, you couldn't even say that about Walt. But at some point the buck stops with the top dog.

raidermatt

04-28-2005, 07:15 PM

On the Gold quote, I could see using it to compare Eisner to Walt if Wells' death had resulted in Eisner turning into some kind of creative monster. But where Roy might have mitigated Walt's eccentricities, Wells mitigated Eisner's flaws in dealing with people.

Now, I'll agree in that because of that, Eisner did a better job with Wells than without. But I still submit that what drove him was quite different than what drove Walt, and that combined with his people skills challenges made him the wrong guy.

YoHo

04-28-2005, 08:00 PM

Of course, at the time of that quote, what did Gold Know of Eisner besides his track record? Hell, Miller wanted to bring him in to run the studio.

Speaking of Ron Miller, It's hard to find a single startegy that Disney took in the 80s that wasn't also proposed by Ron Miller. Or was first spoken of under Miller. Perhaps if Card Walker had not been so rude to Roy E. or had the buisness sense, we'd be looking at a company run by Miller with the same success.

Obviously, we don't know if that is true, but it is possible. Miller was activly courting Eisner. He was looking for Eisner's studio successes low money good return singles and Doubles. He was looking to increase profits at the parks. It makes one wonder what exactly the Eisner team did that was so earth shattering?

DancingBear

04-29-2005, 08:50 AM

I don't cite the Gold quote to say that's how Eisner/Wells turned out, but as an example of how an effective partnership could be better than the sum of the parts.

As for doing anything earth-shattering, there is an element of luck and good timing in the Eisner/Wells situation, just as in many business ventures, or how the economy did under Clinton, or whatever. And Eisner's ego was probably over-inflated by the Company's successes, which contributed to his worst tendencies becoming exaggerated after that point.

But, even if Eisner wasn't the genius that Wall Street put him up to be (doesn't it seem that The Street is constantly putting people out there as business geniuses that later take a fall), they accomplished stuff. If Eisner had stepped out of the picture 8 years ago, his legacy at Disney would have been a very positive one.

Bstanley

04-29-2005, 09:52 AM

It isn't hard to understand why people question who should get the credit for Disney's wild success from 1984 to 1994 - Disney hasn't been nearly as successful since then and The Big ME is the only constant the whole time.

As much as I'd like to give Frank Wells the credit for the success - it should be pointed out that there were many others involved. In fact quite a number of people who worked at Disney during the glory years are now successfully running other Fortune 500 companies.

And that really demonstrates The Big ME's biggest failure as the head of Disney IMHO - the company hasn't grown/imported truly talented management like it used to. Most of the problems that Disney has experienced are just the symptoms of a corporate culture where The Big ME makes the decisions alone - either because he doesn't let people manage because he doesn't trust their judgement, or because they simply aren't capable of managing.

Let's hope that Mr. Iger gets along with people better.

raidermatt

04-29-2005, 11:48 AM

It isn't hard to understand why people question who should get the credit for Disney's wild success from 1984 to 1994 - Disney hasn't been nearly as successful since then and The Big ME is the only constant the whole time.

That really sums up my take on it, especially if you are just looking at the company's creative output and business results.

I think when you dig deeper, you find that at best, Eisner's positives were put to use when part of the team that ran Disney, while that same team was able to mitigate his negatives. As the team disintegrated and was replaced by the growing power of Eisner, so did the checks and balances.

But that brings up the question of whether it was worth having Eisner as a part of the team for that first 10 years, given what happened since. I say no, that in retrospect, the company would have been better off with a different "creative executive" who was more willing to work with a team, played better with others, AND most importantly, had a better understanding and appreciation for what Disney was all about.

The film library still would have been utilized, resorts still would have been built, The Lion King still would have been made, etc. But I'm convinced the company would be much better off today.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20 (though in this case maybe not, since that is really what we are debating). And since I was in high school when the Eisner/Wells team was installed, I certainly wasn't in a position to see through Eisner at the time. Even some of his harshest critics admit it also took them time to figure out what he was all about.

Without getting into the details about Eisner's "qualities", I'm just saying that in the end, the company would likely have been in a better position if they had gone in a different direction with his position.

Of course, there's also the question of who they could "sell" at the time to make the coup work, and Eisner was a plus in that regard. Still, I believe they could have found someone better, had they realized what they were getting into.

DancingBear

04-29-2005, 01:19 PM

First, again, if Eisner had walked away somewhere in 1994-1996, he would have looked pretty golden, and most of the crap would not have been out there.

Second, who's arguing that Eisner was the best possible CEO imaginable? Can't you always say there could have been someone else? But who else? Who of the crop of potential candidates in 1984 has had an unblemished record of success since then? And, as you say, not everyone was a realistic candidate given the internal politics at Disney at that time (including the squabbles between the Walt and Roy sides of the family, the Bass brothers, etc.).

For example, lots of folks have been throwing Steve Jobs' name around with Disney, but he's certainly had his ups and downs, and his share of critics for his personal style and such--they threw him out of the company he founded, after all.

I wish another Walt had been in charge, but I also wish that I win the lottery and retire.

YoHo

04-29-2005, 02:18 PM

DB, I think you're missing the point. Sure, other CEOs have had failures, but Eisner's failures are so directly tied to the fact that he;s a horrible manager of people, backstabbing and cruel. Would Barry Diller have been the same?

Eisner was not capable of working with other managers. Wells mitigated that. Who else? Anyone that could work with other intelligent and competent managers without creating a culture of fear.

This isn't a complex question who else. Eisner doesn't have magical powers that make him a brilliant entertainment exec. He's paranoid, delusional and has a huge Ego. That can't possibly be hard to find in Hollywood.

If Eisner had walked away in 94, there would be a lot of former Disney employees that complained about him, but nobody would listen. And again, if he had walked away then, his successes would still be as part of a team. They wouldn't be HIS successes.

DisneyKidds

04-29-2005, 02:49 PM

But that brings up the question of whether it was worth having Eisner as a part of the team for that first 10 years, given what happened since. I say no, that in retrospect, the company would have been better off with a different "creative executive" who was more willing to work with a team, played better with others, AND most importantly, had a better understanding and appreciation for what Disney was all about.
This sums up my opinion perfectly. Eisner, as part of a team, was a good man for the job that the moneymen needed done, at a critical juncture in Disney's growth as a company. There was a lot of low hanging fruit to be had, and a rather obvious plan for picking it. Eisner did bring some Hollywood clout. All in all, with the right team around him, he gave Disney what it needed and took advantage of the relatively easy money to be made. However, given that 20/40 hindsight, he was not likely the best man to be the long term, sole leader of the Walt Disney Company. Had anyone anticipated the directions he would take the creative core of the company in the future I'm not so sure he'd have been the man.

I've always said that Eisner deserves a modicum of credit for the successes from the mid 80's to the mid 90's, but in giving those kudos you have to recognize that it wasn't him alone that brought them about. So give him credit, but hold him to his faults.......and unfortunately those faults have outweighed the credits over the long term. Moreso than just having more checks in the negative column, he has entirely changed the corporate culture of the Walt Disney Company and has had a negative impact on too many crucial business relationships. Those will be the hardest things to correct when Michael is gone.

DancingBear

04-29-2005, 04:23 PM

Part of what a new CEO gets credit for is building a team of folks to get things done. He wasn't just part of a team, he was the leader of the team. Plenty of executives come in to a situation where "everyone knows what has to be done" but they can't do it.

MGM had a valuable film library, too.

DancingBear

04-29-2005, 04:32 PM

If Eisner had walked away in 94, there would be a lot of former Disney employees that complained about him, but nobody would listen.The fact is that even now not many folks are listening. Certainly not the institutional shareholders. Most of the issues that folks complain about here (and over there) aren't things that the public takes a lot of note of. Eisner's legacy to most of the world can still be saved, without too much of a stretch.

If ABC has a good 2005-2006 season, Iger re-ups with Pixar, Ouimet gets Disneyland sufficiently cleaned up for the 50th, Scott Rudin makes some movie for Miramax that gets an Oscar nomination in the next couple of years, and WDW continues attendance gains, most folks aren't going to think of Eisner as that egomaniac who destroyed the creative core of the Disney company.

YoHo

04-29-2005, 05:07 PM

The institutional shareholders seemed to be listening last year. Everyone's been waiting to see what the board will do. Don't mistake that for total indifference. (although much of the minutiea we discuss probably is inconsiquential.)

In addition, Disney War has actually been making a pretty big splash. If Iger manages to do all those things sustainably, then nobody is going to think anything new about Eisner, they're going to think good thoughts about Iger. Eisner's already dead and gone. His reputation is not salvageable at this point.

If Iger manages all that it will just cement Eisner's incompetence in everyone's mind and suddenly, NOBODY of consequence will be giving Eisner credit for ANYTHING positive during his tenure.

Frank Wells and a Host of underlings that are currently very successful elsewhere will be the beneficiaries.

As for a Manager assembling a team. Again, just who are you referring to? Katzenberg? He didn't come up with one single storyboard for those Animated features and according to those involved he wasn't all that liked around Feature animation. Most of that success can be attibuted to Animators already in Disney's employ and the recruiting of Ashman and Menken. And can we not attribute that to Musker's and Clements? Two peole in Disney's employ prior to Eisner's arrival?

Both worked on Fox and the Hound in 81 and Clements worked on Pete's dragon.

Plus4206

04-29-2005, 05:11 PM

Exactly right DB. Because of this board and others I know more about ME then I ever wanted too & I actually know very little. But to all the people I interact with - friends,family,co-workers, customers,etc - I'm a freakin' ME genius. IMO about 99.999 % of the population have no idea that Walt had a "philosophy". They can't even seperate Pixar from Disney. Gotta admit, ME's done such a great job marketing other companies products that the general public doesn't even know the difference.

raidermatt

04-29-2005, 05:47 PM

DB, I understand your arguments about perceptions. As with anything, the majority look only at the surface of a given topic, and in this case, that surface says the following:

Eisner had 10 great years. He stumbled, and alienated a lot of important people. But just before he was pushed into the abyss, he righted things enough so that he can (apparently) peacefully ride off into the sunset.

But being the geeks that we are, we are trying to understand the reality of what happened.

When I say that they could have found a better person, I don’t mean just in the Utopian sense. I mean I’m sure there were other legitimate choices who were better suited for the position. I just don’t think Gold and Roy were asking all the right questions about who they needed.

That’s not to say there were 100’s of better choices. Only that there had to be at least several other legitimate ones.

In my view, Eisner’s two most damaging flaws are (1) his lack of ability to deal with the creative types and those he views as a threat, and (2) his lack of understanding of and appreciation for what Disney was all about. He came into the job viewing Disney as an antiquated company that needed to be ran like any other Hollywood studio should be ran.

While that was true in some ways, it ignored the things that made Disney unique and that should have survived the modernization process. Unfortunately, Eisner didn’t get that then, and never did figure it out.

That’s not to say Disney’s leader needs to be a true “fan”, but they do have to have an appreciation for those things that made Disney different, and retain them even if others refuse to do the same things.

MGM had a valuable film library, too.

In many ways, this illustrates just what I’m talking about. Disney’s film library was unique in that its animated films have a level of timeless appeal that others wish they had. Coming up with a limited release strategy for Disney films was much easier than trying to make that kind of money re-releasing MGM musicals from the 40’s and 50’s. It had MUCH greater sustained value on a title for title basis.

I actually think they have did a pretty good job with it, though its not as if they came up with a magic plan nobody else could have thought of. Even today, they change the strategy every few years.

Point is, they were given gifts in the library and land that you just can’t compare to other studios. To reverse your analogy, I don’t think that anything Disney has done indicates they could have handled MGM’s library any better than it was. The strategies Disney employed simply wouldn’t have helped because they didn’t have the loaded lineup they had at Disney.

As Kidd’s said, it and the land were the textbook definition of low hanging fruit.

raidermatt

04-29-2005, 06:06 PM

IMO about 99.999 % of the population have no idea that Walt had a "philosophy". They can't even seperate Pixar from Disney.

Last things first... the Pixar thing is just plain incorrect. Sure, there are still many who don't differentiate, but there are also plenty who do. That's why a Pixar film is guaranteed to open big, while a Disney animated film has to "prove" itself first.

But on your first point, I largely agree, but what does that prove? Most who visit Disneyland have no idea how or why it was created. But the fact remains that they love it because of how and why it was created, even if they don't realize it.

Can they tell you what forced perspective is? Do they realize that many movie-making philsophies were translated into the park to make you feel like you were IN the story? Do they know the steam trains are authentic? Do they know the chandelier is real?

Of course they don't. But that philosophy is still the thing that made them come back.

So just because the general public doesn't know about it, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Same with the CEO situation. Just because the majority of the public doesn't realize (and frankly, doesn't care) that the company could be in a better position, that doesn't have any bearing on whether its true.

YoHo

04-29-2005, 06:15 PM

Just to clarify on the Video release schedule. Disney had been releasing it's films to Theaters every 7 years for some time prior to Eisner's arrival. The only change was moving from the theater to Tape. Again, not much of a challenge.

And I agree with Matt, the comment on Pixar is 100% false. MOST people do distinguish between the 2 now. that's why Pixar feels it doesn't need Disney anymore. Disney's Distribution channel is all it needs and there are others that have that.

Plus4206

04-29-2005, 06:59 PM

I don't know Matt. A lot of people I know think Disney owns Pixar. When they buy the Incredibles DVD, they think they are adding to their Disney library.

I'd be willing to bet the average person doesn't even know Walt was dead 5 years before WDW opened.

My point is that regardless of what we here know and think about ME, the masses will love what they find at WDW and DL and ME will get the credit for it.

raidermatt

04-29-2005, 07:30 PM

But again, the point of this discussion isn't what the masses think of all of this. I've already acknowledged they don't care about most of the background. That doesn't change the impact of all of that background stuff.

Even at that, though, there's some inconsistencies. You're right that people don't know or care about much of this, but it also follows that a lot of them don't even know who Michael Eisner is. Certainly a person who has forgotten most of what Walt was about isn't going to remember Eisner at all in the final analysis.

Still, that's all just public perception of the politics behind the situation.

My point is that regardless of what we here know and think about ME, the masses will love what they find at WDW and DL and ME will get the credit for it.

It is not ordained anywhere that the masses are going to love whatever is created at WDW and DL. People still have to make it happen. And the real point here is that "better" things would have been created with a "better" leader at the helm, putting the company in a "better" position.

That's my contention. Telling me what the public perceives with regard to Eisner has no bearing on that.

Plus4206

04-29-2005, 08:39 PM

Matt and Yoho: I know you guys are left coasters and I don't know how often you guys visit WDW but I'll assume that you, Matt, visit once a year or so because you're a DVC member.

My question: Would you visit WDW as often as you do had Eisner not expanded the resort to it's present day expanse. How often would you fly cross country to stay at a high dollar resort like Poly or CR if all that was availible was MK and Epcot ?

YoHo

04-29-2005, 09:26 PM

Me Personally, I'm sorry to say I haven't been to WDW since 2000 (I took a cruise in 2002 for my honeymoon, but I didn't go to WDW, just the Disney cruise). Prior to that I went oh once every 3 or so years.

The simple answer is I only have stayed in the Poly, the contemp and once at Old Key West and I'd never stay there again. So, does that answer your question?

I have serious issues with significant parts of the expansion under Eisner and I always have. I think catering to the every year or even multiple times a year crowd is a mistake and I as much as I love Disney, I'd never pay the prices to go so often.

I do go to DL twice a month though. It's easy and I make the most of my annual pass. Quite Frankly though, Eisner has done absolutly nothing to DL to make me more inclined to go. I like some of the attractions especially Indy, but I would go just as often without it.

Plus4206

04-29-2005, 09:41 PM

On my 2nd trip to WDW in '97 I bought into DVC. Since I've gone three times a year. While the parks aren't the draw they used to be, WDW itself is. The reason I go so often is that while I'm there I can do as little or as much as I chose without feeling like I've wasted my vacation time.

While I'm not certain of what WDW consisted of pre ME, I doubt I'd have purchased DVC or returned as often had it not been expanded to what it was in '97. So in that sense I'd say ME made Disney profitable.

But I'll also admit that the same or better ( or possibly worse) WDW may have existed under any other CEO. But we'll never know for sure.

BTW: Don't misinterprete my "parks aren't the draw they used to be" as an indication I think the parks are in a tailspin. It just means that I don't feel obligated to hit the parks everyday for 15 hours or so. I take relaxing trips now. I get my monies worth without being a commando.

YoHo

04-29-2005, 10:00 PM

In 1984 WDW consisted of

MK
Epcot
Disney Village (DTD)
Poly
Contemp
Campground
Golf resort (various names now shades of Green)
Disney village treehouses or whatever they were called.
I think 2 of the Golf courses.
River Country
I believe Discovery Island in some form or another
The Disney Village other hotels.

In addition, at least 2 resorts were on the drawing boards for the MK area along with the Hotels that became the Swan and Dolphin.
The Studios was a planned land at Epcot.

So, a lot has happened, but a lot was there.

Obviously DVC was not there, but truth be told, I'm not a big fan of that as a Business move. At least, not to the levels it's being funded. It seems to be the only construction regularly going on.

By 1997 I had been to Disney World 5 times and was planning my 6th trip.

Plus4206

04-29-2005, 10:13 PM

The Studios being planned at Epcot..... interesting. The only thing I've reead about the studios was that ME rushed it into being to beat the opening of US. Didn't MGM open in '88-89 ?

While I'm a big fan of DVC, I'm not a fan of it taking over The World. I love the WL and love owning at VWL, but I'm not a fan of trying to squeeze in a DVC resort at every Deluxe resort. I do like the repurposing of the SSR area rather then bulldozing virgin ground for a mega sized DVC resort.

crusader

05-02-2005, 08:43 AM

Eisner had 10 great years. He stumbled, and alienated a lot of important people. But just before he was pushed into the abyss, he righted things enough so that he can (apparently) peacefully ride off into the sunset.

Perception clouds reality. Like it or not, Eisner will forever be perceived as not only saving disney in 1984 but regaling on almost 15 great years of successful business leadership.

His legacy:

How he maneuvered such control and power to position himself with one of the longest running tenures in the business which ultimately lead to his departure following an unprecedented no-confidence vote from the shareholders.

How he managed to not only mint the vault, but take the guts from a rising star known as Pixar.

How his alienation of certain key contacts was irrelevant to the business sector who are all enemies anyway. Some simply more public than others.

But more importantly, his legacy will forever be accredited in terms of the survival and growth of the Disney company. Which is what the article is really saying.

Under his reign:

The Disney company managed to emerge independent and unscathed through the mergers and acquistions era.

The Disney company remarkably survived one of the worst economic failures since the crash during the late 90's through 2002.

The Disney company never ceased to recapture and recover market share.

All the while, Eisner remains the one constant.

I've always refrained from jumping on this bandwagon because it really is the culmination of phenomenal talent which moves a company to greatness.

Disney's fans have often confused the Disney company from the day it was born as the "little engine that could". They can't stand the knowledge of what corporate management and leadership entails. They can't stand what Eisner is because it's tough to look at and hard to accept.

So what really happened? Absolutely nothing for 20 years. For all these management theories and philosophical diatribes the bottom line is - nothing really happened to the company despite how many players changed hands and how things went down. It continues to grow and prosper to this day.

So as unfortunate as it may be for many fans to accept, Eisner will get a big fat pass from his colleagues on all the turmoil and the pillaging and the fleecing which went on during his tenure. Mainly because they're all guilty as charged and most of them didn't even come close to managing the success he did.

DisneyKidds

05-02-2005, 10:24 AM

If ABC has a good 2005-2006 season, Iger re-ups with Pixar, Ouimet gets Disneyland sufficiently cleaned up for the 50th, Scott Rudin makes some movie for Miramax that gets an Oscar nomination in the next couple of years, and WDW continues attendance gains, most folks aren't going to think of Eisner as that egomaniac who destroyed the creative core of the Disney company.
They won't, but should they?

They won't think of Eisner in that way only because out of sight means out of mind, and to investors and much of the general public a solid bottom line is what matters most. However, this very quote just may be the perfect summary of Eisner's true legacy and the direction in (and depths to) which he has taken the Walt Disney Company.

What was Disney about pre-Eisner? Seems to me that the things you indicate could save Eisner's legacy, save the Walt Disney Company, have little to do with what Disney was best at, was built around, and used to be about prior to Eisner.

Having to rely on a good season from a 4th place television network. Having to rely on re-uping a relationship, simply for marketing/distribution and character rights, with the clear leader in the animation field. Having to rely on "cleaning up" parks which have been allowed to fall to a state of needing to be "cleaned up". Having to rely on a hired gun to make a film to be distributed by a production Company whose name no longer represents the talented individuals who brought it to life and made it successful, hoping to garner Oscar noms on that instead of their own core films. Yes, perhaps all of those can save Eisner's legacy, but that does nothing for the legacy of the Walt Disney Company.........and that just highlights how much Disney has become about Eisner, and how little it has become about what Disney was, what Disney meant, what Disney was built around.

Mind you, I still love Disney for what it provides my family in a personal way. I think WDW is still an incredible vacation destination that offers us everything we want and more. As a stockholder I will see significant gains I'm sure (we'll just forget about how the stock languished for a little too long in the recent past). As entertainment consumers I can appreciate the role that Disney has now in bringing quality entertainment to the big screen for my family to see. I think that the Walt Disney Company will continue to thrive and grow, even while travelling the path upon which Eisner has taken the company. The question is, for those who love Disney for what it used to be about, for what it was in the past, is all that enough?

Feature Animation is what Disney used to be about at it's core. Not just being associated with animated features, but being the leader in animation, discovering new techniques, telling timeless, classic, compelling stories, creating loveable and endearing characters.........and using all that to fuel a budding empire in the establishment of theme parks and merchandising that brought all those things even more to life for the public. Disney is no longer the leader in animation, and the Feature Animation group is all but dead. Disney no longer pioneers animation techniques, putting itself at the forefront of an industry. Disney no longer creates characters, but relies on a relationship with a company that can do so. Eisner has allowed the empire that was fueled by the imaginatitive core of the comapny to become the core of the company. That is a very dangerous thing, and the fact that the core of Disney is no longer about what made it successful in the first place is an unfortunate thing for those who look beyond the bottom line, who look at the values and beliefs that the company was built upon.

If I happen to be travelling in the same car with our good friend Baron, it would solely be due to the fact that creating great animation is no longer at the core of the Walt Disney Company. Beyond that I think Disney will be successful. I think the parks will remain incredible. I think Disney will do a lot of the things it used to do.........but at it's core, one that has nothing to do with creating great animation, I don't see that it will ever be the same. What it would take to rebuild that core was nowhere on your list, and may be next to impossible to do at this point.

Did Eisner destroy the creative core of the company? I don't think the creative core of the company has much to do with what it used to be, so I'd have to say yes...........assuming that creative core should be what it used to be. Should it? To some that is a debateable question but to me it isn't. As successful as Disney has been, as successful as it will be in the future.........it could have been so much more if that core was still there.
For all these management theories and philosophical diatribes the bottom line is - nothing really happened to the company despite how many players changed hands and how things went down. It continues to grow and prosper to this day.
If by nothing you mean that the company grew and prospered at times prior to Eisner just as it grew and propered at times under Eisner.......and contunues to grow and thrive today, then I agree. However, to say nothing happened to the company? Disney doesn't grow and prosper today based upon the things that allowed it to grow and prosper prior to Eisner. That is a significant something that happened along the way. No doubt Eisner should have done many of the things that he did do (things I do give him credit for to a large degree), primarily unlocking the value of the film library and growing the property. However, doing those things and maintaining the creative core that the company used to have didn't have to be mutually exclusive. So yes, Disney is growing and prospering today, and will continue to do so in the future, but for some that isn't the point. Has the creative core of the company remained the same, and does it matter to you? To some those are questions just as important as growth and prosperity........and not just from a misplaced and outdated sense of nostalgia and philosophic ramblings. It's a question of how much more the company could have grown and prospered had that core remained.

crusader

05-02-2005, 11:39 AM

Nice post Kidds -

But you could line em all up -
The fortune 500's/ The fortune 100's/ and everybody in between and say this same speil over and over again ad nauseum.

The core? What is that really? Do you realize how many different answers you'll get?

There's Walt's era where many a corporate empire was formed. An era where a president can serve 4 consecutive terms without the public ever knowing he was the least bit incapacitated. An era where a soldier served his country, and never spoke a word about it. An era of hard labor. That's the age of the core philosophy around here. Forget the fact that none of us walked in Walt's real footsteps and the image of him is far greater left preserved as an enigma by his family than anything we'd ever comprehend or understand.

The sad thing is, nobody actually takes this philosophy and applies it in practice given how the corporate structures of the 40's have had to transform, evolve and adapt to avoid being extinguished by a new wave of demanding, more efficient, redesigned, reconfigured and reformulated entities over the next 50 years.

Welcome to corporate america - where every entrance has been replaced with a revolving door.

That is a very dangerous thing, and the fact that the core of Disney is no longer about what made it successful in the first place is an unfortunate thing for those who look beyond the bottom line, who look at the values and beliefs that the company was built upon.

This is where I disconnect the most around here. You take one business segment and make it the core of the company. Was animation really Walt's core? Funny, it didn't seem to exist anywhere in the E.P.C.O.T. footage.

The real core of the Disney company are the millions of people who patronize it.

DisneyKidds

05-02-2005, 12:11 PM

This is where I disconnect the most around here.
Me too, Crusader.......me too. The whole philosophy thing, while valid, can be subjective, grey, a moving target, whathaveyou. It is a difficult subject for the majority to agree outright on. But is is there. However, one thing that is much more defined, a true core, is the product that was at the core, not the philosophy. So when I talk core I mean product. Network television was never at the core. Film distribution was never at the core. One could argue live action film was never at the core.

Disney started off with Walt drawing cartoon ads, form which he dabbled into moving cartoons, then a mouse, then multip-plane cameras and other sophisticated animation techniques, to animated feature films. There were lots of things that Disney did as a company, but they all centered on animation. Cutting edge animation. The ability to create animated films and characters that touched people. That is the core I speak of, and it has nothing to do with philosophy. The philosophy allowed Disney to take that core and be hugely successful with it. Maybe times changed and the philosphy was no longer as valid (a debate in and of itself) but the core product was never invalidated by the times. It may have had to evolve, but was never invalidated. Yes, as time wore on there was more and more competition that would certainly mean Disney couldn't always continue to be the first in the field, but I still believe that as time wore on in the Eisner error that focus on creating great animated stories and characters was dulled.......then was lost. Good, bad, or indifferent as you may see it, it was lost.

Now Disney can be successful without their own in-house ability to create great animated features, relying on the likes of Pixar, but that was never what Disney was about, and Disney will never be as successful as it could have been had Disney not lost that core focus.

So I don't believe this is all a bunch of rhetoric that can be applied to the corporate flavor of the day. Disney surely should have grown, gotten into partnering, and distribution, and broadcasting, theme parks, resorts, and a lot of other things, but those things should never have allowed Disney to lose focus of it's core and stop doing the things that made it successful in the first place, the things that would insure the greatest success in the future. Creating great animation.

Simple question for you. Do you believe that Disney as a company would be more successful today and in the future if they had the ability and desire to create great animated features (such as the Lion King, Toy Story, the Incredibles, etc.) themselves? Not distibute, but create. That is a huge question? Disney can be successful doing a lot of things, but as they say.....you never get rich working for somebody else. If Disney maintained the ability to create the great animated features they distribute they would be getting the biggest piece of the pie. The characters, the theme parks, the merchandising, the brand recognition, etc. all flow from that. Disney simply is trying to be too many things all at once, and that has dulled the focus that brought about the greatest success in the first place. Eisner is largely responsible for that.

raidermatt

05-02-2005, 12:23 PM

In that sense, the core of every company is its customers. Nice idea, but doesn't offer much in the way of practical discussion, since there is no differentiation between Disney, Coke, IBM and the Widget factory down the street.

Company philosophies do still vary. How it happens has changed, that's all.

And once again, I really don't care what the public's perception of Eisner is.

Perception clouds reality. Like it or not, Eisner will forever be perceived as not only saving disney in 1984 but regaling on almost 15 great years of successful business leadership.

Perception only clouds reality for those who don't make the effort to see the reality. When it comes to Disney, that's the majority of the public. Of course, name the topic, and its also true of the majority of the public.

I'm not sure why so many here are focused on the perception of Eisner as opposed to the substance and reality. As I said, its true many don't look beyond the surface. But its also true that most of those same people will say "Michael Who?" 5 years after he retires.

Yes the company is doing fine financially. Just like thousands of other companies.

The reality is that the company could be doing far better had a different path been taken. And, as unlikely as it is to happen, if it were to follow a different path in the future, the opportunity is still there to separate it from the also-rans, rather than continue to become more and more like them.

Nobody's disputing that Disney is just following the lead of the majority of corporate America. Its just that some have higher standards for them.

No need to lecture about how/why that's not going to happen, because its very clear to anyone paying attention that its not going to happen. The only question is whether one chooses to justify it or call it for what it is.

raidermatt

05-02-2005, 12:34 PM

Would you visit WDW as often as you do had Eisner not expanded the resort to it's present day expanse. How often would you fly cross country to stay at a high dollar resort like Poly or CR if all that was availible was MK and Epcot ?

We do own DVC, but do not visit every year. We bought in 2000, visited in '02 and '03, and the next trip is scheduled for '06.

But I think you are misunderstanding my position. I'm not saying Disney should not have grown WDW. And of course I am not saying that what Eisner ok'd does not bring more people to WDW.

I'm only saying it could have been done better had the growth been managed in a different manner. Better for the customers, and in the long run, better for the company financially.

Plus4206

05-02-2005, 01:09 PM

I don't believe I'm misunderstanding your position Matt, I'm just addressing the OT at a very basic level. Is Disney more profitable under ME ? In terms of WDW I think the answer is definitely yes. That's not saying another CEO wouldn't have expanded the park also, but that's a different question.

As to what your point actually is: Well, that's pretty much in a nutshell what the regulars here have been debating for the last couple years. MAYBE a different CEO "gets it" and builds to Walt's trueist ideals. MAYBE a Ken Lay type takes the helm and now I'm buying AP's for the Six Flaggs park 50 miles north of me.

crusader

05-02-2005, 01:12 PM

The reality is that the company could be doing far better had a different path been taken. And, as unlikely as it is to happen, if it were to follow a different path in the future, the opportunity is still there to separate it from the also-rans, rather than continue to become more and more like them.

I'm not sure if we're in agreement here or not. This sums up my point. Every single solitary company today recites this same speech over and over. Including the beloved Pixar.

The truth is, even if Disney did everything in accordance to your particular standard, someone else would come along and criticize them for not getting more - not doing enough - not demonstrating enough and not applying the correct formula for business. Because unless you hold it all at the end of the day, you haven't done your job 100%. Never leave anything for the other guy. (where is AT&T again?)

When exactly did the analyst emerge as a profession anyway? I love these guys, they're bred from the market and they measure success using a pie.

which leads me back to this.................

Do you believe that Disney as a company would be more successful today and in the future if they had the ability and desire to create great animated features (such as the Lion King, Toy Story, the Incredibles, etc.) themselves?

Depends. The Pixar deal didn't hurt them in terms of success because they own the entire library of feature film. But I've always acknowledged animation as their biggest problem right now. So what are the options? Do they let Pixar go and hire back talent and compete head to head. Do they align themselves with Dreamworks as a second contender against Pixar's films and make Jobs even more vulnerable to the next distributor?

I guess we'll have to use Chicken Little as a first step in determining who emerges the market leader this year - Disney/Fox/or Dreamworks in order see where Disney stands on its' own. Ironically, once again, it won't be Pixar.

I wonder how many are rooting for the other side?

DisneyKidds

05-02-2005, 01:41 PM

So what are the options?
The options, based on how things stand today, aren't great. But animation, the core of what Disney has always been about, being the biggest problem makes a huge statement regarding Eisner and his legacy. Yes, Disney has had successes under Eisner, but they are tempered by the fact that some of those successes have come at the expense of what Disney used to be most focused on, what made Disney so successful, what Disney needed to remain most successful.

I really don't know how Disney recovers from here in regard to animation, but any discussion regarding Eisner's successes has to include acknowledgement that Disney's biggest problem now is the one thing that always had been, and should be, it's biggest strength. As profitable as Eisner may or may not have made the company, those profits were, and will be, limited to a large extent by allowing animation to become the problem that it is.

DancingBear

05-02-2005, 03:48 PM

Just to clarify on the Video release schedule. Disney had been releasing it's films to Theaters every 7 years for some time prior to Eisner's arrival. The only change was moving from the theater to Tape. Again, not much of a challenge.I have more general observations to make, but starting with the specific---

THIS IS JUST WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! This may seem like an obvious plan in retrospect, when all of us have a nice little DVD collection, which we can play in our laptops, minivans, etc., but in 1984 this was a big strategic move. The Betamax case, in which several of the Hollywood studios (including Pre-Eisner Disney) tried to block home video technology, was decided by the Supreme Court in January 1984. VCRs were not in every home, and the conventional Hollywood wisdom was that video would hurt the studios.

DancingBear

05-02-2005, 04:35 PM

Lots of good discussion here. The main difference I have with what's been said here is what Eisner's legacy would have been if he left in 1994 or so, and whether the damage he has done to the Company really dates from since Wells' death.

Imagine, if you will, that Eisner approached the Board in late 1994 and said, "I lost a valuable teammate in Frank Wells. We've had a lot of success in building this company, and I think this would be a good time for the Board to find someone, or someones, who can take what we've done and build upon it for the future."

Leaving aside stock values, the Disney Eisner would have walked away from:

--Had just released The Lion King. #2 movie of 1994. #4 that year was The Santa Clause. #10 was Pulp Fiction, from the Miramax studio Disney had acquired the prior year.

--Coming in 1995: Toy Story, the first production from what would become an amazingly successful deal with Pixar, #1 movie in 1995. #4--Pocahontas. Also in the top 15 of 1995: Crimson Tide, Dangerous Minds, Mr. Holland's Opus and While You Were Sleeping.

--1 billionth guest throught the turnstiles of Disney parks worldwide.

--Grand Floridian was 6 years old, Yacht and Beach Clubs were 4. Boardwalk was under development. Wilderness Lodge just opened.

--Old Key West (first DVC resort) opened 1992.

--In 1994, Tower of Terror and Honey I Shrunk the Audience opened in WDW. Splash Mountain was just 2 years old. All of the Studios were just 5 years old (or less). Wonders of Life was 5 years old (and still open). Norway was 7 years old.

--Indiana Jones was set to open in 1995 at Disneyland.

--Typhoon Lagoon and Pleasure Island were just 5 years old.

--Celebration founded 1994.

--EuroDisney just 2 years old.

AND Capital Cities not yet acquired. Ovitz not yet hired. (At some point during the year, Katzenberg fired, but in my hypothetical, I'll just assume around that).

Freeze that moment in time, and it looks pretty damn impressive.

YoHo

05-02-2005, 05:56 PM

Firstly, yes, the switch to home video did scare execs all over the place. It scared Eisner too. He's on record as being scared of it. Mechanic had to fight Eisner and Wells and Roy E. to get that pushed through. I'm not sure what your point is other then to make it sound like Eisner was smart for making the move when in reality he was forced into it and wouldn't release the "Classics" initially only those considered lesser that could obviously not be as damaging to sales.

Secondly, if Eisner had been capable of stepping down in 1994. If that was within his personal makeup to be that magnanimus, then More then likely, the Disney Record of the 80s would be significantly better then it was.

See, it's hard to isolate things like that.

YoHo

05-02-2005, 05:57 PM

airlarry!

05-02-2005, 06:15 PM

crusader

05-02-2005, 07:13 PM

Airlarry

Lasseter exited Disney to pursue his own vision before Eisner. He wasn't ever coming back. You can't use him in this bio. You can use Jobs/Eisner if you want, but view it as a colossal Jobs failure in terms of how he handled the deal. Not an Eisner one.

Jobs should have had enough guts and belief in his own guy to launch Pixar without selling it away. He hedged. He lost. It's a tragic comedy of sorts when you look at it: animators leave Disney to work for a company they believe in, only to produce something Disney winds up owning anyway. So who did they ultimately work for these past 10 years?

Eisner's deal mitigated the Lasseter factor and bought enough time for the market to catch up.

Because to him, "the real core of the Disney company (were) the millions of people who patronize it," not the silly little ideas a guy or girl would scratch on paper, and fall in love with, and then get an audience or a theme park goer to fall in love.

You're talking about the ideals of the founder. If that's the core, then forget about getting any audience to fall in love with your vision. The founder had moved on to a bigger quest. His focus was on developing his own R&D municipality to test market and solve the urban plight of the inner city. He may have bartered or sold off certain assets to make it happen and utilized to the full extent every other business segments cash flow to siphon every last dime if he had to.

Sadly, we'll never know how far this quest would have taken Walt Disney and what his empire would have emerged to be. So how can we sit here and even pretend to know what Walt's real core for Disney was beyond himself?

raidermatt

05-03-2005, 02:17 AM

Essentially, I agree with Larry's take on the status of Disney in 1994.

However, I think the problems were not too difficult to mend at the time, and the problems associated with Eisner's near autocratic reign were not yet in full bloom.

Certainly his legacy among the masses would be nearly untarnished, and his legacy among those who follow more closely would be more positive than it is.

But since he didn't leave, those budding problems blossomed and while I'm a big believer in the "anything is possible" concept, I don't see things taking a serious turn for the better.

No, that doesn't mean the company is headed to financial ruin. Just that it really has become just like most everybody else. The only real difference being it has a legacy of greatness that can still be seen and touched.

And let's not fool ourselves. Pixar IS the unquestioned leader in animation today. Dreamworks is still largely a one-trick pony, though it's one heckuva pony. Even a huge success in Chicken Little wouldn't re-establish Disney as a market leader. It would let everyone know that the ex-Champ might not be done after all, but one big hit isn't enough to get his crown back.

A dud, however, and the problems only get worse.

The problems with the Pixar deal are more how it fit in with the overall animation strategy. Certainly it was structured well for Disney. And its a darn good thing for Disney they did make a good deal, given the way things stand today, with internal animation on the brink and Pixar the darlings of the industry. Disney's ownership of the prior films is their biggest negotiating chip, and without it, they'd be sunk.

Still, in the long run, without a revival of internal animation, Disney will be destined to be nothing but a distributor. Quite ironic, given Walt's early experience with Oswald.

DancingBear

05-03-2005, 08:04 AM

Firstly, yes, the switch to home video did scare execs all over the place. It scared Eisner too. He's on record as being scared of it. Mechanic had to fight Eisner and Wells and Roy E. to get that pushed through. I'm not sure what your point is other then to make it sound like Eisner was smart for making the move when in reality he was forced into it.Really? The CEO and President were forced into it by the guy that came over with Eisner from Paramount?

Whatever the discussions were within the Company, ultimately, as I said way back, Mechanic got the go-ahead and got the marketing budget, etc. You can parse each decision within the Company all you want, but the point is that stuff got done--stuff that Card Walker and Ron Miller couldn't get done.

DancingBear

05-03-2005, 08:44 AM

DB, judged from the outside, the Disney tree looked healthy. But was it really? There were warning signs in 1994 that you are ignoring.

The Lion King was huge...and Ei$ner saw right then and there that there was gold in animation. So he treated it like a regular movie studio, ramping up production, tossing money at any problem in story, and requiring the animation unit to hit home runs everytime.Are we talking about the Eisner who has gutted internal animation development because he doesn't believe in it, or the guy who threw too much money at animation?

In any event, you're jumping ahead in time. I'm not arguing that Eisner has done well by internal animation since 1994. But certainly they were still going strong with Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan and Fantasia 2000 coming out in 1995-2000. Not to mention Dinosaur. Whether you like all of those movies or not, there was still a commitment to feature animation. Pocahontas had beautiful effects, Hunchback had sophisticated songs, Fantasia was not really a commercial project, and Dinosaur represented an investment in the new CGI technology (the problem was not abandoning that track later).

I agree that Lion King created problems because it lead to a blockbuster mentality about animation.

Pixar's debut: Two sides to this--one that Disney itself let someone else Out-Disney them, which is inexcusable, especially since John Lassiter is an admitted Disneyphile. And two, that Ei$ner didn't better handle the relationship. Don't tell me he didn't mismanage it, i've already admitted to you that you were right about the contract language, but everyone knows that Ei$ner and Job$ let personalities get in the way. In other words, it doesn't come as a surprise considering Ei$ner's pitiful legacy with other people that the Pixar deal has gone sour.Again, you're jumping ahead in time. It wasn't until Toy Story became an incredible success that Jobs wanted to accelerate his separation from Disney.

The Grand Floridian and other hotels. Many critics argue that the GF was Ei$ner's biggest mistake, not the biggest kudo. Impersonal, elitist, devoid of magic and themeing.Many people would also argue otherwise, of course.

But it signaled the end of the managed park era, and instead Disney went all SuperWalmartShopping Center, abandoning any sense of planning in the parks. Traffic, bus delays, separation from parks and shopping, all of these showed an extreme lack of vision for anything other than a quick buck.I guess we could go back to the "no master plan" discussion, but, as to the GF specifically, of course there was a hotel planned for the GF site going way back, so it's hard to see how that proves the "no plan" point.

Studios and other parks. Here's the most damaging. Ei$ner was seduced into thinking that the pent up demand for more activities in orlando means that his 'philosophy' (and it is his and his alone) of building halfsize parks and letting them fill up slowly over the ten or twenty years as the profits roll in---was a viable philosophy. The Euro studios, DCA, and AK parks proved he was dead wrong.Jumping ahead in time again.

Indy Jones. Do you realize that it has been 10 years since Disneyland had an E*ticket ride? TEN YEARS.Again.

But 1994 showed a hunger. Ei$ner wanted more. He saw that he could farm out creativity to other people and still be successful.What are you talking about here? Toy Story was yet to come. What 1994 should have told Eisner was how strong the core Disney Company could be. Instead, without Wells around, he wanted to build an empire.

I think people, and the interaction of people, is a complex thing. People are neither wholly evil or wholly good, and their mix of evil and good may change over time.

Have you ever been part of some group endeavor--an office, a sports team, a volunteer group, whatever, where everything just clicks--folks get along, get things accomplished, and things feel great. And then something changes. Maybe one or two people in the group leave and new people come in, or someone in the group has some distraction in their personal life or change in their situation which affects their behavior. And, although the group is 90% the same as what it was, something has changed. A chemistry is lost, and the group is never the same.

That is essentially how I see the Disney situation. Eisner was never a perfect man, but during his first decade, because of whatever chemistry arose out of what Disney was at the time--the new blood, the old hands, the nature of the business, etc.--his best tendencies were brought out, and his worst tendencies suppressed.

Then, after Wells death, and the various other circumstances (EuroDisney's problems creating an excuse to pursue the 1/2 park philosophy, Lion King leading to blockbuster mentality in animation, Katzenberg pushing for Wells' job, the success of the Pixar movies, etc.), Eisner's worst tendencies, particularly his ego telling him he could make all of the decisions, buy a network, etc., were brought to the fore.

airlarry!

05-03-2005, 08:57 PM

Are you arguing that in 1994 there was a perception that Ei$ner was at the top of his game?

Perhaps.

But is that important?

We know now, and we should have seen back then, that all was not well. From the beginnings of the destruction of WDW's master plan, to the mistakes in animation, to the hunger for a media empire rather than a creative one, and finally the true legacy of Ei$ner's Era: the infamous 10/10 plan and the Ei$nerian philosophy of underbuilding parks....all of these were present in 1994.

The tree was sick to its corein 1994.

1994, IMHO, was the middle of the beginning of the end.

DancingBear

05-04-2005, 09:41 AM

I disagree; I think there was a change in fact, and not just in perception, after Wells' death.

Re WDW, I don't have much problem with the development there anyway, particularly through 1994, when a lot of attractions were being added to the parks. Again, we could revive the master plan debate, but that likely won't lead anywhere. I also don't have any problem with the Studios and AK opening as half-parks, in the WDW context (as opposed to HK, for example). The problem came later, in using EuroDisney's problems and the Studios/AK model to justify the DCA and HK half-park plans.

What mistakes in animation precede 1994? I suppose you might say Pixar, but, IMO, the Pixar relationship itself was not the problem, but the fact that it later (AFTER the success of Toy Story) lead to taking animation in bad directions.

CapCities was after 1994. Whether Eisner had a hunger for a media empire in 1994 or not is immaterial; nothing bad had happened in fact to the Company yet related to such a hunger.

YoHo

05-04-2005, 11:31 AM

Really? The CEO and President were forced into it by the guy that came over with Eisner from Paramount?

Whatever the discussions were within the Company, ultimately, as I said way back, Mechanic got the go-ahead and got the marketing budget, etc. You can parse each decision within the Company all you want, but the point is that stuff got done--stuff that Card Walker and Ron Miller couldn't get done.

I let this one go earlier, but now I have to comment. So Walker and Miller couldn't get this done.

HOMEVIDEO WASN'T AROUND WHEN WALKER AND MILLER WERE IN CHARGE!!!

How could they be expected to take advantage of a market that wasn't just in it's infancy, it had barely been conceived when they got pushed out?

And Eisner still resists. How late was Disney to the DVD market?
I'm not parsing decisions here. I'm relying on the information of people who worked in the company that have written it down in one form or another. You apparently are reading it all through some rose colored glasses.

You know sometimes the public perception of a corporation and it's managment is remarkably different from what the actuallities of the situation are. In fact it happens all the time. It's SOP. Why do you have such a hard time applying this to Disney in the 80s?

sotoalf

05-04-2005, 12:45 PM

The Grand Floridian and other hotels. Many critics argue that the GF was Ei$ner's biggest mistake, not the biggest kudo. Impersonal, elitist, devoid of magic and themeing. But it signaled the end of the managed park era, and instead Disney went all SuperWalmartShopping Center, abandoning any sense of planning in the parks. Traffic, bus delays, separation from parks and shopping, all of these showed an extreme lack of vision for anything other than a quick buck.

This is not entirely true. How is the GF devoid of magic and theming? I will admit that the Caribbean Beach, Port Orleans, and the now-defunct Dixie Landings are basically the same hotel painted in different colors, but the CB was a godsend to our family in 1989. Since back then we couldn't afford to stay at the Poly, CR, or GF (and in those bygone days they were often booked a year in advance), the CB represented the only way we could stay on property – unless we stayed at one of the DTD resorts (yuck).

As for abandoning any sense of planning, well, how do you explain the sudividing of hotels and theme parks? "MK Resorts." "Epcot Resorts." "AK Resorts." If anything, the World feels a touch more intimate than it did in the mid '80s.

You're right about the Walmartization of Disney. DTD Westside is the worst addition to Disney in years, filled with stores and restaurants you can find in any big city. You can argue, however, that it isn't so much that Disney's imitating big-city homogenization but that big cities look a lot like Disney nowadays (ever been to Times Square lately?).

raidermatt

05-04-2005, 01:07 PM

Of course there's been some planning. The point is it should have been much more cohesive than it became, and should also have included better transportation planning, both from an efficiency standpoint and a "Show" pov.

I think everyone also understands the benefit of the budgets and mods to families who want to stay on-site but simply can't afford the deluxes. But again, that's not the point. The point is they could have been executed in a far better manner, rather than appearing to you as the same hotels with different paint.

On what changed in 1994, I'll agree with DB in that it was more than just perception. The biggest change was the increase in power wielded by Eisner. The checks and balances were gone, and his influence on the company became more pronounced.

Plus4206

05-04-2005, 01:56 PM

In defense of DTD West Side all I can say is I don't live in a big city. The only place I'll probably ever run into a Virgin Mega Store,Wolfgangs or Bongo's is at DTD. I do admit that WS is not on my top 10 or 20 list of things to do there ( with the exception of Wolfgangs.... have to sit at the sushi bar and have a few combos ) but it's still a heckava lot better then the shops out on I-Drive or 192.

DancingBear

05-04-2005, 02:33 PM

I let this one go earlier, but now I have to comment. So Walker and Miller couldn't get this done.

HOMEVIDEO WASN'T AROUND WHEN WALKER AND MILLER WERE IN CHARGE!!!

How could they be expected to take advantage of a market that wasn't just in it's infancy, it had barely been conceived when they got pushed out?The Walker/Miller reference was clearly a more general comment than referring to just home video. Even so, the concept was certainly out there, enough so that Disney elected to join the lawsuit to block Sony's Betamax.

And Eisner still resists. How late was Disney to the DVD market?A post-1994 issue.

I'm not parsing decisions here. I'm relying on the information of people who worked in the company that have written it down in one form or another. You apparently are reading it all through some rose colored glasses.

You know sometimes the public perception of a corporation and it's managment is remarkably different from what the actuallities of the situation are. In fact it happens all the time. It's SOP. Why do you have such a hard time applying this to Disney in the 80s?I'm basing my opinion on information also. What exactly is the information you're looking at which contradicts my spin on the situation?

DancingBear

05-04-2005, 02:34 PM

On what changed in 1994, I'll agree with DB in that it was more than just perception.Hold it. I may have to reconsider my position.

YoHo

05-04-2005, 05:32 PM

The most recent example would be Disney War.

Disney War goes into pretty gory detail about who was making what decisions and Eisner's thoughts on those decisions.

The Sony Betamax scandle was not THE watershed moment for the home video market. The home video Market became relevent when companies like blockbuster sprang into existance.

airlarry!

05-04-2005, 05:45 PM

[QUOTE=sotoalf]This is not entirely true. How is the GF devoid of magic and theming? I will admit that the Caribbean Beach, Port Orleans, and the now-defunct Dixie Landings are basically the same hotel painted in different colors, but the CB was a godsend to our family in 1989. Since back then we couldn't afford to stay at the Poly, CR, or GF (and in those bygone days they were often booked a year in advance), the CB represented the only way we could stay on property – unless we stayed at one of the DTD resorts (yuck).

As for abandoning any sense of planning, well, how do you explain the sudividing of hotels and theme parks? "MK Resorts." "Epcot Resorts." "AK Resorts." If anything, the World feels a touch more intimate than it did in the mid '80s.
[QUOTE]

Ken, compare the implementation of the Grand Floridian to the planned hotels, the Venetian etc. In fact, compare, for the time remember, to the Poly and Contemp. These were idealized renderings of themes from the Magic Kingdom. What does the GF evoke in MK? Oh, for about a dollar I can (if needed) contrive a way to fit the GF into the theme of small town America that makes up Main Street, but let's not cheapen the discussion.

Hey, I've stayed there. I'm not knocking the hotel per se. I'm knocking Cou$in Mikey's insistence on a 'real resort' where his 'friends' could stay away from the 't-shirts and burgers' crowd.

For my money, the Dixie Landings resort would have been a better fit for the MK area. Not perfect, mind you, but better.

As for the planning of the resort, just because motels mushroomed around vague boundaries near each park does not make planning.

I'm talking about the serious thoughts about presentation, transportation, connection between hotel and park, entertainment...all of these things were there in the original plan.

Before DB drops his venti latte in his lap and screams in rage at his monitor, I'm not sayiing that the plan was perfect, or that changes could not have been made.

But will it surprise you to read that I think Ei$ner et al were the wrong crew to make those changes? ;)

(Their idea of planning was the trying to find the quickest way to get the money from the motels over into a holding company for Go.com.)

P.S. DB, welcome to Car Three. Please use your cupholder.

sotoalf

05-04-2005, 06:21 PM

Don't worry: I got my coffee in my cupholder (I hate Starbucks!).

You underestimate how well the GF fits in the MK area. If the Polynesian and Contemporary are resort representations of Adventureland and Tomorrowland, respectively, then I posit that the GF represents Disney's idealized version of turn-of-the-century nouveau riche luxury was like, which has a vague connection to Main Street's impossibly fantastical recreation of "small town life."

Of course, all three hotels have about as much to do with the real thing as Starbucks does with regular coffee, but this is Disney, where the fantasy overpowers reality (let's not even consider if WDW could get away with a resort with the offensively generic and nonsensical "Asian" moniker today).

YoHo

05-04-2005, 07:34 PM

except that Mainstreet is very very very specifically themed to turn of the century north east coast small town. In fact it's patterned exactly off a small town in conneticut.

The Grand Floridian does not in any way represent turn of the century small town conn.

If anything it represents Some Like it hot era Coronado Island in San Diego. Represents it badly I might add.

Plus4206

05-04-2005, 08:18 PM

airlarry!

05-04-2005, 09:23 PM

Well.........maybe I wasn't clear.

Polynesian.
Contemporary.
Venetian.
Mediterranean.
Atlantean. (okay the last one comes from an actual LSU grad student proposal circa 1980s)

Grand Floridian?!?!?!?

Be it Marceline or Westbury Conn, it doesn't reeeeeally matter.

Walt's friends were painting with sketches when they put up the hotels. They were using broad swaths of color that envoked a mood or an idea, vaguely referenced back to the parks. Sure neither one is very representational...but it doesn't matter because the themes were so general and broad.

And that was good. It left a little bit to your imagination.

The Grand Floridian, when you read about the history behind this hotel, was meant to do nothing more than go after AAAA ratings, appeal to the Ei$ner's 'friends' and evoke grandeur and plush (before plush was plush). The official Disney backstory is nothing like the backstories of the other two hotels...its an homage to Florida's rail tycoons.

It is a subtle difference in design, and shows the difference between being a 'marketeer' (thank you Mr. Voice for the reference to that new word) and an 'imagineer.'

Ken, nice try on the analogy, but you could have even said that "The Grand Floridian, rising majestically, quietly away from 'Main Street' America, but with a design style that invokes the time period of the thoroughfare, is placed away from the park in a nod to the memories of those railroad tycoons who built huge palaces of safe retreat for their other well-to-do friends who escaped the hustle and bustle of the city to spend some much-needed rest and recuperation time away from the sweaty masses."

Okay. That's probably how Ei$ner himself sold it to the board in a powerpoint presentation ;) but is that really the best that Disney could have come up with? That beats the Atlantean hotel?

1994. The beginning of the middle of the end.

YoHo

05-04-2005, 10:22 PM

The Victorian styling of the GF fits very well with the Northeast beach areas.

And I always thought Walt built Main Street based on his happy memories in Marceline (sp ). Didn't his boyhood hometown even have The Emporium store ? Not saying you're wrong Yoho, but this is the first I've heard that MS was based on a town in Conn. If in fact it was, then the GF is not terribly far off target.

No, it really doesn't. It's almost a direct copy of the Hotel Coronado which is in San Diego California. It was seen in the Film Some like it Hot and used to represent a beach Hotel in Florida. It bares absolutly positivly no stylistic resemblence to anything east coast excepting that parts of the architecture were lifted from the Hotel on Mackinac Island and even that is an amalgamation of styles.

Main Street USA in DisneyLAND is based on Marceline.
Main Street USA in Walt Disney WORLD is based on various town in and around New England.

They look strikingly different.

This is the kind of stuff the old company would do and the company as it is now couldn't even fathom.

Plus4206

05-05-2005, 07:10 AM

sotoalf

05-05-2005, 09:14 AM

The Grand Floridian, when you read about the history behind this hotel, was meant to do nothing more than go after AAAA ratings, appeal to the Ei$ner's 'friends' and evoke grandeur and plush (before plush was plush). The official Disney backstory is nothing like the backstories of the other two hotels...its an homage to Florida's rail tycoons.

It is a subtle difference in design, and shows the difference between being a 'marketeer' (thank you Mr. Voice for the reference to that new word) and an 'imagineer.'

You're not wrong: when Henry Flagler was invoked as inspiration, I did think, even in the early '90s, "Um, the railroad tycoon? the robber baron?" But that's Disney, and their skewed view of history, so I shrugged it off.

Where CAN read "the history behind this hotel"? Any good books about this period of Disney's development? It seems like Disney does a strikingly good job of erasing its own history. Until six or seven years ago you could find an illustrated history of WDW at any resort/park gift shop; even that has gone the way of Discovery Island.

YoHo

05-05-2005, 10:26 AM

You're right about the fly over scene in Some like it Hot. I had never realized it before, but just a few weeks ago while channel surfing I just happened to see that very scene and the first thing that poped in my mind was "hey,thats the GF". But I can also go to local beach resorts here in Jersey and see similar B&B's but obviously on a much less grand scale.

You find Terracotta tiled roofs in Jersey?

Jersey is supposed to be evoked via the Yacht and Beach club.

Of course, the more important issue is that the hotels built and the master plan pre-Eiser called for far more exotic locales then Florida beach and New Jersey Beach. It called for Venice and Asia.

But that's another discussion.

YoHo

05-05-2005, 10:35 AM

You're not wrong: when Henry Flagler was invoked as inspiration, I did think, even in the early '90s, "Um, the railroad tycoon? the robber baron?" But that's Disney, and their skewed view of history, so I shrugged it off.

Where CAN read "the history behind this hotel"? Any good books about this period of Disney's development? It seems like Disney does a strikingly good job of erasing its own history. Until six or seven years ago you could find an illustrated history of WDW at any resort/park gift shop; even that has gone the way of Discovery Island.

A good start would be Since the World Began.

Another comment that is sure to spark an argument.

Sombody mentioned how Caribbean beach resort was a godsend to their family because they could afford WDW.
Not really so much. Looking at hotel rates throughout the 70's and 80's, it becomes evident that right after Eisner came in, the hotel prices had to big boosts that don't tie to inflation or price index at all. Had those rate hikes not happened, but the percentges had remained as they had been, then that room at the poly or Contemp would cost you the same amount as a room at the Caribbean did when it opened.

So really, Disney didn't do you any favors.
Doesn't really help with the lead time to book, but then, that's a capacity issue more then a price one.

Plus4206

05-05-2005, 11:20 AM

No, ya don't see much Terracotta in Jersey, but it is starting to become more popular at the shore. But the GF doesn't have Terracotta either.

I'm not a fan of the GF but more for its "snobbish" appeal rather then asthetics.

I really don't have a problem with the Epcot resort area theming. The World Showcase is showing off other countries, the resort area is showing off a slice of Americana. But I would also have been equally satisfied with a more exotic theme.

Plus4206

05-05-2005, 11:26 AM

Not really so much. Looking at hotel rates throughout the 70's and 80's, it becomes evident that right after Eisner came in, the hotel prices had to big boosts that don't tie to inflation or price index at all. Had those rate hikes not happened, but the percentges had remained as they had been, then that room at the poly or Contemp would cost you the same amount as a room at the Caribbean did when it opened.

But this goes back to the old argument of how much money should Disney leave on the table. Is it fair for a company - any company - to accept considerably less for their product when the market says otherwise ?

raidermatt

05-05-2005, 01:13 PM

But this goes back to the old argument of how much money should Disney leave on the table. Is it fair for a company - any company - to accept considerably less for their product when the market says otherwise ?

That's an over-simplification of the argument. Its phrased that way to justify the hikes, but it fails to recognize that there were valid BUSINESS reasons for not charging "what the market would bear". Those who don't believe it was in the company's best interests to make the hikes (at least to the extent they were made) believe that that by providing a greater VALUE for the guests, the company would actually leave less money on the table in the long run.

The beauty is that the company was already past the early "bite the bullet" stage of that philosophy. Where they were falling short was not expanding the resort quickly enough to take advantage of the strategy.

Hence the under-utilized asset problem which brought the wolves to the door.

Once the new team was in place, the company could have grown the resort while maintaining the strategy, but instead grew while using the more common "market pricing" strategy. Ceratainly it was a valid strategy, and one could even argue that in most cases, its the optimal strategy. I just don't believe that in this case it was the optimal strategy.

sotoalf

05-05-2005, 02:40 PM

[QUOTE=YoHo Sombody mentioned how Caribbean beach resort was a godsend to their family because they could afford WDW.
Not really so much. Looking at hotel rates throughout the 70's and 80's, it becomes evident that right after Eisner came in, the hotel prices had to big boosts that don't tie to inflation or price index at all. Had those rate hikes not happened, but the percentges had remained as they had been, then that room at the poly or Contemp would cost you the same amount as a room at the Caribbean did when it opened.

So really, Disney didn't do you any favors.
Doesn't really help with the lead time to book, but then, that's a capacity issue more then a price one.[/QUOTE]

Since we live(d) in Florida, we got the Florida Residents rate at the Polynesian for $99 a night in 1986, the first time we stayed onsite; we acted like we'd just won the lottery. No, $99 wasn't a lot of money even in 1986, but occupancy at the two resorts then was so high that we felt priviliged to even find a room.

In 1989, when we stayed at the CBR, it was $74 a night. But by then the standard rooms per night at the CR and Poly were in the $130-140 range, which was a lot then. That's a considerable difference. Plus, the CBR had 2,112 rooms, so it was no problem booking one.

Plus4206

05-05-2005, 04:23 PM

but it fails to recognize that there were valid BUSINESS reasons for not charging "what the market would bear". Those who don't believe it was in the company's best interests to make the hikes (at least to the extent they were made) believe that that by providing a greater VALUE for the guests, the company would actually leave less money on the table in the long run.
.

Ummm.. yes and no.

I believe you agree that CR & Poly were charging too little at the time ME took over, ( if not, I apologize for the assumption ), but when raising rates, how does one determine what's too much or too little without using standard business practice ? Also, I don't see where undercharging for a hotel room will leave less money on the table in the long run. Overcharging- Yes. Not reinvesting back into the parks - Yes. But charging what the market will bear.... not to sure.

raidermatt

05-05-2005, 05:05 PM

...how does one determine what's too much or too little without using standard business practice ?

Without seeming flip, you use a non-standard business practice. Lots of companies charge more or less than the true market price for their product for a variety of reasons, most having to do with the long term impact of appearing to "gouge" their customers when demand is higher than normal for some reason. Others do it to maintain a certain image, such as value, quality, etc.

Also, I don't see where undercharging for a hotel room will leave less money on the table in the long run.
Its a matter of opinion, of course, but when you charge less than market, you build up goodwill. That's not to say its necessarily done for benevolent reasons, but in the customer's view, you are doing them a favor.

It's been mentioned by more than one person on this board that the Budgets and Mods are viewed as a "gift" to them, because otherwise they couldn't have stayed on property. Yet, this was not a gift from Disney. They simply provided lesser accomodations at the corresponding market price. Still, it builds goodwill among some.

Now, imagine providing Poly/Comtemp level accomodations, but at a lesser price. Not giving it away, mind you, and not using it at a loss leader. But simply charging a price such that most guests feel like they are getting a real value. Not that they are getting what they paid for, but they are getting even MORE.

How much is that goodwill worth in the long term? How much more likely is that guest to visit more frequently in the future? How much more money will that guest spend on-property because they have an even more positive feeling about their trip? Will they stay longer, and consequently spend more in other areas? How much will that extra goodwill felt toward the Disney brand impact other purchase decisions they make?

Nobody can quantify that definitively, and certainly it varies depending on the company. For some companies, it just wouldn't be worth it. But if in Disney's case, the value of what they gained by not charging as much as they could outweighs the extra cash generated in the short run thorugh higher rates, then they would in fact be leaving money on the table in the long run by adopting the market price strategy.

And, yes, there is even room for Moderates and/or Budgets in that philosophy, but the execution would be very different from the "motel with decorations" we see today (no matter how great one may think those decorations are).

raidermatt

05-05-2005, 05:15 PM

I believe you agree that CR & Poly were charging too little at the time ME took over, ( if not, I apologize for the assumption )...

Actually, I think the biggest issue was not increasing the supply quickly enough. (There's those nasty under-utilized assets again...).

I answered this separately because I think trying to figure out the exact price that should have been charged is near impossible, and detracts from the bigger discussion, which is one of overall strategy/philosophy.

Plus4206

05-05-2005, 05:46 PM

And, yes, there is even room for Moderates and/or Budgets in that philosophy, but the execution would be very different from the "motel with decorations" we see today (no matter how great one may think those decorations are).

Please, let's save this one till next month ;-)

I understand the concept of "Goodwill" moreso then most because of the business I'm in, but I've also seen it backfire a very high percentage of time. People that even recognize the dollar value of the goodwill gesture will stab you in the back for no good reason other then they can. But at least in my business goodwill is measurable & quantifiable to some extent.

IMO, Disney trips - at least to WDW, DL is an entirely different playground - are more an "event" then a simple vacation. Because of all the advanced planning that goes into the trip I don't know that people would recognize a less-then-market value price. Are they perceiving any goodwill at al ? The way I went about planning my first trip started with X dollar budget.Y amount for room,Z amount for food, etc. I came away from my trip on budget and totally WOW'ed.I've since spent mega bucks in The World. I never once gave thought that I was or was not getting greater value then I was actually paying. I'm not saying I'm a typical WDW traveller but I can only speak from my experience.

Plus4206

05-05-2005, 05:55 PM

crusader

05-05-2005, 10:18 PM

Ok enough of the resort pricing issue. You can solve this one very simply using the fundamentals of basic economics - it's called supply and demand.

Or more importantly:

Its phrased that way to justify the hikes, but it fails to recognize that there were valid BUSINESS reasons for not charging "what the market would bear". Those who don't believe it was in the company's best interests to make the hikes (at least to the extent they were made) believe that that by providing a greater VALUE for the guests, the company would actually leave less money on the table in the long run.

Who operates this way? Seriously. This is a theory without any proof. Sounds good but totally unfounded. Name me one hotel/resort in existence right now that proves this theory in the U.S.

But I'd like to answer this:

And Eisner still resists. How late was Disney to the DVD market?

1997. In fact they were one of the first to sign on.

take a look - http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002-10-17-dvd-timeline_x.htm

You do know WB holds the patent on these little gems and collects royalties from every studio. (although that will be changing very soon.)

BTW - It may surprise some to learn that DVD's are the true financiers of Hollywood these days - not the themeparks. Read on - http://sagwatchdog.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi/noframes/read/360

One more thing - It is a subtle difference in design, and shows the difference between being a 'marketeer' (thank you Mr. Voice for the reference to that new word) and an 'imagineer.'

That's exactly how I felt when I saw the way the poly was built vs the original design. So whenever the master plan modifications are tossed out in support of the slope theory, my feeling is all bets were off the minute the Poly was built.

Take a look at the disparity vs. what was planned.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/omniluxe/poly.htm

raidermatt

05-06-2005, 12:06 PM

Rethinking what I wrote, maybe it's possible that I did get hooked on Disney was because of the value I receive but didn't actually perceive. One thing for sure is that I'm certain I got my monies worth.

You're right that we can't make any kind of accurate generalization just based on one, or even a few, experiences.

But at least I think you get what I'm saying with your last post.

I don't mean that everyone sits around with spreadsheets, assigning numeric values to the benefit they get from each experience, and then figures in the cost to determine where they vacation (thought I bet there are a few...).

Its more of a general feeling. If you feel like you got a better than average value, it just sits with you in a more positive manner. You may not realize that's why you have a stronger urge to go back sooner, or why you want to go to WDW more than to some other destination, but it has an impact.

I do agree, however, that its a tricky business, and its not for everyone.

YoHo

05-06-2005, 06:25 PM

A couple of comments for Crusader.
1: Who operated that way?

DISNEY OPERATED THAT WAY FROM 1955 till 1984 !@#$?

This isn't some mythical pie in the sky idea. Disney Really did operate in this manner. Prices remained low, because Walt flew off in a rage whenever somebody suggested they should be charging more. That's why Card Walker was so affraid to raise parking prices.

Disneyland never made much profit, but then, Walt spent every dime on enhancments and E.P.C.O.T. and so forth, so It's not so surprising.

WDW Was always sitting pretty. It was underutilization of assests, not leaving money on the table (well, and a disgruntled nephew) that swept Eisner in.

And it really doesn't matter What other Hotels and resorts charge, because there isn't a single other resort in WDW's category. Disney is their market and there is no other valid reference point.

As for DVDs, I have familial ties to Some of the electronics companies that were involved in the standardizations and I had a bit of an insiders ear to what was going on. DVD came on fast and Divx died a mercifully quick death. Disney was a latecomer to the party. They wanted to release on Divx. One USAToday (of all things) article does not make a very good representation of the events.

crusader

05-07-2005, 12:45 AM

I see, you want to live in 1955.

I asked to name one in existence today that "operates" this way. Quit trying to take me back 50 friggin' years ago when milk was delivered to my front door and only dad had a car and the price of a home was a few grand and if you owned a color tv that was a luxury and the price of an airline ticket was way beyond any family budget.

If Walt was keeping the DL resort pricing down, I'm not the least bit surprised. He built a park in Anaheim.

You need to give it up. It's 2005. The answer is None.

And it wasn't 1955 to 1984. It probably only applies to DL during Walt's lifetime. We could NEVER afford the WDW resorts in the 70's. We were a family of 7 surrounded by families of 5,6,8,9,10 and 11. The only families I know of who stayed in the deluxe resorts back then had 1 or 2 kids.

One USAToday (of all things) article does not make a very good representation of the events.

Why not? Which part of that article is misrepresented? It gives us a good basis for this whole debate. Initially, you weren't even discussing the evolution of the dvd. There were no comments about the development or the standardization or the fued. You were simply criticizing Eisner/Disney for missing the market or coming in too late or whatever the phrase of the day is, and I'm saying it's not true. They jumped on the bandwagon right away in 1997. I see nothing backing up your statement.

Heck, I'll gladly concede this issue but you're gonna have to provide some real figures post WB and Japan which at the very least clearly demonstrates what constitutes "late to the dvd market".