"How could you overlook the fact that Disney was in serious jeopardy of being seized and sold off for parts by corporate vultures? My feeling is that Eisner did what was necessary to save Disney, maybe he became complacent after success, but I believe his intentions were noble. I think we agree for the most part, but the efforts to transform Disney into a profitable machine was indeed -- a necessary evil, to survive and weather the hostile corporate climate."
I shall now fail to address anything you said specifically. I hope it comes together, anyway.
I simply disagree with the notion the Eisner "saved Disney." He saved the name, sure, but I believe the product was diluted and corrupted. He destroyed the story-telling machine and built the trans-continental ATM, and just used the same name for it.
~What's a product without a name? Eisner saved the name, which is arguably the most significant aspect of a corporate entity. The Disney "name" is one the most powerful and recognizable brands in the world. An otherwise overwhelmed media and theme park company, known for its beloved trademark mouse, was just ripe for the picking by corporate raider Saul Steinberg or worse -- Coca-Cola! Disney would have become Coca Cola World!
~Instead, Eisner helped to transform Disney into a formidable global media conglomerate, as in -- a force to be reckoned with. Even, the transition into the cruise industry was seamless, in part, because of the recognizable and trusted Disney brand. Eisner executed precision in achieving the right formula by combining scientific and psychological aspects that enable a good brand to become a great brand -- one that is synonymous with quality and imparts a nice dose consumer confidence with any product that bares its name. Products and trends may come and go, but a good brand can last forever! Eisner also demonstrated tenacity in diversifying the Disney brand by continuing to expand into various streams of revenue.
Are you old enough to remember the Commodore/Atari holy wars in the early eighties? The Commodore 64 was the most successful computer of its day, but there were a number of people (yes, of course I was one of them, why wouldn't I be?) who thought the Atari computers were better designed and built, easier to program for, more capable. There was a point where Atari collapsed financially, and a man named Jack Tramiel bought the company. Some would say Tramiel "saved" Atari, because he kept them in the black for a few-to-several more years, but the ST line of computers he introduced were not designed and built with the same care and sophistication as the earlier machines, they were designed and built to be sold cheaply. The man who developed much of the custom internals of the Atari 800 went on to design another computer, a computer that was much more of a real "big brother" to the early Ataris than the STs ever were.
Now, there's so much irony in this story you'll think I made it all up, because Jack Tramiel had previously been the founder of Commodore, and the computer Jay Miner developed after his Atari days was the Commodore Amiga. Both Atari and Commodore survived (at least for a while), but in a very real way, to people who cared more about the product itself than the name stamped on the side, Atari had turned into Commodore and Commodore had turned into Atari.
In the same way, I suggest that Eisner did not save the Disney that made those wonderful things that brought them early success, indeed, he destroyed that Disney so he could put the name on other products, products designed to be created cheaply, marketed heavily, and sold profitably.
***sigh*** ~
Frozen, I'm not at all familiar with the Commodore vs Atari war. I had no idea Atari made computers! But, the story is very interesting! I do find it ironic that Atari, while not all that relevant, is still around, and efforts are currently underway to redefine the brand! The current
~Atari Flashback 4~ system, appears to have found some success in gaming the retro gamer craze -- based on the reviews, they still have the same issues with quality control! In any case, this is yet another example where the brand outlasts the product(s).
~Anyway, what you have described in your post is globalization. If you can name one corporate brand that hasn't taken this plunge in the name of profit. Please. Do. Tell. The American auto industry was forced to "restructure" and seek help from the government to become viable again. Would Disney have qualified for a buyout? Eisner, possessed the wherewithal and foresight to determine exactly where American manufacturing was headed. It's called evolution and the industrial age as knew it, is all but a memory, as we are now firmly planted in the Information age.
~The amazing American brands that have succumbed to greed, poor management, bureaucracy and globalization -- is nothing short of a tragedy. With that said, "it is what it is." I'm not sure of what could have been done differently? There are no words to describe, how difficult it is for an American based entity to survive. Creative and artistic efforts are even further stifled or drowned in the sea of government and corporate bureaucratic red tape. This is what prompted Walt to create WED Enterprises aka Walt Disney Imagineering, today.
~Take a look a Disney's pin trading. Disney makes good pins, but "scrappers" find there way into the pile, this black market slowly siphons away at Disney's potential revenue. What is the point of paying top dollar to manufacture pins here at a premium, when the scrappers can manufacture the similar pins, at a fraction of the cost. It makes sense for Disney to manufacture overseas for a fraction of the cost to remain profitable and minimize damage from the fake pins. I definitely don't like it, but it's our reality and we are each responsible in some way. This is nothing compared to piracy.
~Simply put, Disney is still here. It's far from perfect, but still remains the gold standard by which all other theme parks, media and entertainment outlets are measured.
Would Disney have been broken up and sold piecemeal, if not for Eisner? I don't know. Maybe. But what if someone like Pixar had been the ones to get hold of the animation division? What if someone like Oriental Land Company ended up with the parks?
~I ***shudder*** just at the mere thought of that happening. If Disney had been sold off for parts, the brand would have suffered. I like Pixar, but as of recent, I'm a little concerned.
[/tangent] ~I thought "Brave" was a disaster, well maybe not. But, with amount of terrified children that had to be ushered out the theater because of "the bear," it's hard to suggest otherwise. While I love Merida's look <especially that hair> -- I can't stand her personality! She was unjustifiably cruel to her mother. I so wanted to love Merida, but I get can't past that character. Toy Story 3 was awesome, but the trilogy is done. Cars 2 - I just cant. I am looking forward to Monster's U. I loved Disney's Wreck It Ralph and Tangled. [/end of rant]
~Disney continues to feast upon the quasi-monopolistic power it yields in defining American & Western youth culture. The Oriental Trading Company, would have never invested 4 Billion to create Tokyo Sea, if Disney's brand was uncertain or lacked stability, in any way. I'm pretty sure, Eisner was part of the brainchild and vision behind Tokyo DisneySea.
(What if Frank Wells had lived, is a fascinating, if unanswerable question, viewed in the light of this discussion. Would the marriage of creativity and commerce have worked on a wider scale as it had in ToT? Would I be agreeing that the Disney Decade was a time filled with Magic?)
~I don't know. But, it's worth repeating, that to this day, ToT remains unmatched in creativity & magic! I couldn't believe my eyes -- I have never experienced anything like ToT. It goes without saying, that I would *love* to have more of *that* on a wider scale!
History is written by the winners, and the imagined terrors are always worse than those of reality. The way things played out, Eisner and his supporters get to say "he saved Disney," and I fully realize how Quixotic I look trying to tell a different story. But the Disney Eisner "saved" is not the Disney I grew up with, and I'm not as willing as some to say that this Disney, simply by still existing as a single business entity, is clearly better than that which "could have been."
~This is the point, I am trying to make. Disney is still here and thriving! The answer to your question is right in front of you. All you have to do, is look at the competition! And, as it stands, Disney is still number one, there is no other entity on this planet that has done "Disney" better. Disney is still number one!
I would be a bad American if I said Eisner was wrong for creating a profit center, so I hope that's not what this appears to boil down to. But I still think the creation he destroyed in the process was much rarer and more valuable to, literally, the culture of the entire world, than even his bloated bottom line was to a relative handful of executives and shareholders.
~
Frozen, you are very fortunate to have experienced an era at the peak of greatness -- but like everything else -- nothing is guaranteed to last. Our culture has rapidly evolved and if Disney refused to evolve with the culture, the company would have dissolved a long time ago, like many other American gems. I understand that you are not pleased with Disney. But, I'm not sure that there is anything of relevance today, that can match or replace what Disney means to you? I know there is life outside of Disney, as I only visit once a year. But, I feel there is nothing that compares to WDW. Is it in the back of my mind that Disney could be better, far better? Yes, it is. But I don't feel confident in saying Eisner is entirely at fault for Disney's shortcomings or "lack of magic."
~Likewise, there are moments in fashion, music, sports, cinema, business, industry(s) that we all want to last forever, but things change, many times for the better. I thought I would never see the end of heroin chic! Eisner may have "destroyed" an aspect of Disney that you identified with and valued. But, it's not impossible, nor is it too late to form a new appreciation for "what's left" of Disney. It's time to get out of "Car 4," and find something new about Disney to get excited about. Eisner didn't "destroy" everything, there has to be something, or else you wouldn't be here!
