Dear Eisner

[Mr D]

Here is an article worth reading from Motley Fool
It paraphrases a lot of sentiment of recent events.

 

[WEDWAY100]

From the article:

Money is something that's best squandered by tourists but spent smartly by the tourist attraction. Are you going to tell me that the same company that was able to dish out tens of millions to kiss off the likes of Michael Ovitz and Jeffrey Katzenberg doesn't have enough jingle in petty cash to keep Carousel of Progress open year round? If Disney is the world's premiere theme park company, why is The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man sitting on Universal's lot?

Amen.

 

[wtg2000]

It's interesting to look at Eisner the creator vs. Eisner the marketeer. Let's look at what's happened under Eisner's tenure.

One of his big projects was EuroDisney which has been in constanty financial trouble since opening and even had rumours of closing recently. By contrast, Tokyo Disneyland, which was built before he took over, is a continuing success.

He opened the Disney Stores which are now rumoured to be closing or being sold off.

He started Hollywood Pictures which is pretty much defunct while Touchstone flourishes.

He opened and apparently brainchilded DCA which is flailing away.

He opened Go.com which got up and went to the dot.com trashbin. It still runs but it never did what it intended.

At WDW, he opened a sports complex and got sued for $200 million for allegedly stealing the idea.

One of his big things was fostering projects with bigwigs like Lucas and Spielberg, but the Star Tours redo fell through, as did the Tokyo Indy coaster project, and I doubt Eisner and Steven talk much anymore.

He hired Ovitz - well, we all know what happened there.

EPCOT - World Showcase added one new pavilion (Norway) which was already in planning when Eisner took over. Other pavilions were rumoured and even announced I believe (Swiss, Russian) but never happened. In Future World Eisner built one new pavilion, Wonders of Life (I think Living Seas was already in the works) which apparently is closing down and just recopied it's main ride from Star Tours anyway. He's built two new mega-attractions by gutting old and loved ones.

D-MGM has been a success but some would argue never the creative or beloved park that the MKs were, and some would say a pale comparison to what Universal achieved.

He built Animal Kingdom, but it has struggled to meet attendance projections despite being a beautiful park. The boat ride had to be shut down and the Beastly Kingdom never happened.

The Disney Channel has flourished but that was started before Eisner, although he can take credit for marketing it I suppose.

He started the Disney Cruise Line which seems to be a rousing success so far.

Disney's most successful animated movies are now being made by an outside company.

He started Hollywood Records - is it even still going? Why didn't they sign Britney, Christina or Justin? Weren't they Mousketeers?

He grew the company by buying things - namely Capital Cities, but he didn't create them.

His one big contribution to Disneyland was redoing Tomorrowland and that failed and rides like Rocket Rods were quickly pulled.

I'm sure I've missed tons of things - both positive and negative - but creatively Eisner's reign has left a lot to be desired. He's done a good job and marketing things that were already successful - like WDW - adding hotels, etc. but projects that he has initiated have proven less than stellar.

 

[hopemax]

another big Eisner idea was the Disney Institute.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Let's not forget failures like DVC, ESPN, Blizzard Beach, GF,WL and DTD.

 

[wtg2000]

>Let's not forget failures like DVC, ESPN, Blizzard Beach, GF,WL and DTD.

Right. Disney Institute was another failure. But DVC appears to be a big success. ESPN came as part of the Cap Cities buyout. Eisner didn't start it.

Water parks were already in the works before Eisner took over, however, he insisted they be themed to the hilt and not generic, so this is a creative plus on his side.

Grand Floridian was in the works before he took over, although he did continue the tradition of building nicely themed hotels like YC/BC, WL and AKL.

However, he did ruin the EPCOT skyline with the Swan and Dolphin.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by wtg2000
However, he did ruin the EPCOT skyline with the Swan and Dolphin.

My understanding is that this hotel was in the works pre-Disney, and would have been a bland mid-rise like the Downtown Disney hotels, until Eisner stepped in with Michael Graves. So, even accepting your presumption (and I must admit I've never noticed the S&D while in Epcot), the S&D is a big sightline improvement over what might have been.

 

[KNWVIKING]

**"However, he did ruin the EPCOT skyline with the Swan and Dolphin."**

From what I've read here, S & D were already in process when ME took over.

 

[raidermatt]

The issue is their height. Stand on the Norway side of WS and look over the countries on the other side of the lagoon. Can't miss the S/D.

If its true he turned bland into something that at least isn't bland, great, but that didn't mean it had to rise to a point where it interferes with the intended sightlines of Epcot.

If they were already in process, then he deserves neither the credit for "un-blanding" them, nor the blame for changing the Epcot sightlines.


Another way to look at Eisner's contributions on the whole is that he has greatly increased Disney's assets. The company is worth a great deal more than it was.

However, the company's income to asset ratio is much lower than it was as well. In other words, they do less with more.

I really don't want to get into the "is Eisner completely worthless" debate, or the "was he bad from day one" debate, because they are pointless as far as the future goes.

Whether he ever was the right guy for the job or not, the point is, he's not the right guy now. Since most of us agree on that point, we could probably accomplish a lot more by focusing on that.

 

[SnackyStacky]

I've never stayed at the GF, and am not in any way defending it; I'm legitimately curious:

How is it a failure? Is it just because it's outrageously priced, or is there something that I'm missing because I never stayed there?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Bear:

and I must admit I've never noticed the S&D while in Epcot

I’m so sorry to hear about this. Tell me. Were you born blind, or did it just happen since those two monstrosities went up?




HEY AV!!

Grand Floridian was in the works before he took over

From what I've read here, S & D were already in process when ME took over.

How about a little historic perspective!


SnackyStacky :

How is it a failure? Is it just because it's outrageously priced, or is there something that I'm missing because I never stayed there?

Yes! It is VERY outrageously priced!!! But that’s only half of it.

I don’t know what you think of the moderates or the economies, but I think you know my take. They are NOT Disney! At least in the sense that the Poly or the Contemporary are. It is the exact same problem with the GF. But in reverse. It’s simply NOT Disney. It tries to be WAY to upscale. You can find that type of hotel anywhere in the country, for the cost. There’s no “Disney” personality, no “Disney” touch, no “Disney” magic and most important, no “Disney” VALUE!!

That’s just my opinion of course. There will be many who disagree. But heck!! There are many who actually like the All-Stars!?!?! Go figure!

 

[Galahad]

Right. Disney Institute was another failure

It was a failure, but we loved it! I think in this case he failed by over estimating his guests, not by having a "bad" idea.

 

[wtg2000]

[

How about a little historic perspective!

In 1984 Disney had a deal with Tishman development to build two hotels. They also were in talks with Marriott to build 20,000 hotel rooms. Eisner saw the good job they were doing running their own hotels and thought why let all that money flow to Marriott's bottom line, so he scrapped the deal. In fact, Tishman was suing them at the time because they thought they had an agreement to be the exclusive developer. Anyway, Eisner had to give Tishman their two hotels, but retained the rights for design. He hired architect Robert Stern to design the Swan and Dolphin. That's why Disney doesn't own those hotels.

So the hotels were in the plans but not the designs as they stand today. That was Eisner's baby.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
I don’t know what you think of the moderates or the economies, but I think you know my take. They are NOT Disney!

Look who came out of hibernation.

I've stayed at only one Disney resort, and I was NOT impressed. It was at the French Quarter, and for what I payed, I was NOT pleased. ~$160 for what I got was NOT acceptable.

And as for the economies (I like how you refuse to call them values), I'd stay if I could get a discount rate, or if they had the cheapest rates on property. Usually though, I can find a better deal at one of the Downtown Disney hotels. I don't think that they are in ANY way any kind of Disney. Just my $.02

 

[wtg2000]

I don't know what you think of the moderates or the economies, but I think you know my take. They are NOT Disney! At least in the sense that the Poly or the Contemporary are. It is the exact same problem with the GF.

I'm just curious. What makes the Contemporary, for example, Disney but the GF or moderates like the CBR not Disney? I'm not even sure myself what constitutes Disney/non Disney but I know what I like, and I've enjoyed staying at the moderates as well as Poly, YC/BC, WL and AKL.

 

[SnackyStacky]

What makes the Contemporary, for example, Disney but the GF or moderates like the CBR not Disney?

I can't speak for Baron, but for me, it's not really the actual property that is non-Disney. It's the theory, the thought-process, and the philosophy behind the moderates and economies (I really like that now!) that make them non-Disney.

When the Polynesian and the Contemporary opened, there was no resort caste system. You had one level of resort, and the beauty was the value. You had deluxe amenities at a moderate price. Picture the Polynesian, but paying rack rates at the CBR, or POR or CSR in peak season.

Eisner began to give less, and charging more for it. And as a result, it drove up the prices across the property; so much so that you end up with $400+ rack rates at the deluxes. And now, the way that Disney has shifted its marketing, you end up with package promotions that don't give any deals, and fewer and fewer discounts.

Truth be told, I thought the French Quarter was gorgeous! It was lovely! But for exterior corridors, cement walls, and a food court, I expect to pay a LOT less than $160/night in the middle of January, when it's deader than dead. And that's why I was so displeased.

And, quite frankly, the Grand Floridian has always confused me. I don't understand WHY it's so expensive. I don't care that it has a spa, and tons of restaurants. You have to pay extra for those! There is nothing I can see at that resort that would entice me to ever pay more than $160-$200 per night. But hey, that's just me!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Sorry Dan, but you sound like my old friend Landbaron to me and on this issue he not only has never made any sense, he was just wrong!

A perfect example of this take has them constantly wailing about the Swan and Dolphin ruining Epcot's sightlines...Because they're "out of place"...Out of place? At Epcot? Isn't this the place that with one 360 degree turn you can see a Mexican pyramid, Japenese buildings, the Eifel Tower, a Canadian Mountain, An English street scene, a giant golf ball and a lake full of pyrotechnic equipment? How does a giant fish or bird way off in the distance negatively impact the schematic of that?

With the Resorts, some folks have the opinion that the Poly & Contemporary were a great value back in the day when I think it has been proven not to be the case. Further, some folks just want to be the arbitor of what Disney Magic means for all folks. As I recall Landbaron once called Pop Century generic but could never tell me where he had previously seen a hotel with a giant cell phone or goofy words before. Also, it seems fine to me that Disney try to employ magical standards to folks at all ends of the socioeconomic ladder, not only for economic reasons but for the social ones as well. I know there are MANY people uncomfortable with doormen, bellhops, tipping and fancy lobby's...Should these folks be excluded from staying at a magically themed Disney Resort because they come from a background where tipping for small assistances is not a part of their 'comfort zone?'

As for the Resort rate schedule, now this is just a two part scenerio, supply & demand for the company and what can be afforded by the guest...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Sir Galahad:

It was a failure, but we loved it! I think in this case he failed by over estimating his guests, not by having a "bad" idea.

If it failed because the concept was flawed or it failed because he overestimated his guests, doesn’t really matter in the end. What matters is that it failed. And failed miserably!! Inherently – THAT – makes it a “BAD” idea!! Surely you can see that!

Mr. 2000

In fact, Tishman was suing them at the time because they thought they had an agreement…

Yes. I know all that. He inherited the lawsuit and even the settlement. My question for AV was more toward the location. I believe I had heard (but I can’t swear to it) that Ei$ner chose the location as well as the architect. I think AV corroborated this some time ago. If that is true, he should have lost his job way back then for sheer stupidity!!



SnackyStacky

And as for the economies (I like how you refuse to call them values)

They aren’t “values”. They are overpriced and over-decorated motel sixes. There’s nothing ‘value’ about them, except perhaps being the ‘cheapest’ on the property. Cheapest in cost. Cheapest in concept. Cheapest in theme. Cheapest in “Disney-Touch”. Cheapest in “MAGIC”. Cheapest in… Well, I think you get it.

It was at the French Quarter, and for what I payed, I was NOT pleased. ~$160 for what I got was NOT acceptable.

See! Cost ratio. Paying for magic. It IS part of the equation. Now, of course, you can carry this out to the point of absurdity, and there is a point of diminishing returns, but…

Suppose you could get the same room for $80.00 a night. Does it then become a ‘VALUE”? And does that add a little ‘magic’? Or on the other hand, suppose the same price, but for Poly like accommodations. How’s that for a ‘VALUE’ resort? Pretty much magic in that equation isn’t there?

And that is what Disney is sadly lacking these days.

Believe it or not, the Poly and the Contemporay started their existence as “VALUE” resorts!! And my God!! They were!!! Today, unfortunately, they are “nice” resorts, even if they are a bit overpriced.

And that is part of the answer to Mr. 2000 on what separtes the Poly and the Contemporary from the rest of the resorts. The other things are items that could be called “Disney Resorts Standards”. Things that sometimes could be found at any hotel in the country and other things that were truly unique. And even some things that other resorts typically offered that you couldn’t get in Disney for all the money in the world!! Care of story. Theme NOT decorations. The list is endless, but maybe you can see the difference now. If not, ask. I’ll gladly discuss it. It is one of my favorite Disney subjects!!

Mr. Pirate!!

With the Resorts, some folks have the opinion that the Poly & Contemporary were a great value back in the day when I think it has been proven not to be the case.

I hate to be so blunt but, THAT IS A LIE!! Ask Mr. Kidds. He KNOWS. He will back me up!

 

[wtg2000]

Theme NOT decorations. The list is endless, but maybe you can see the difference now. If not, ask. I?l gladly discuss it. It is one of my favorite Disney subjects!!

I must admit, I am a little fuzzy on where you're going, but I find it interesting. Please explain further.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
A perfect example of this take has them constantly wailing about the Swan and Dolphin ruining Epcot's sightlines...Because they're "out of place"...Out of place? At Epcot? Isn't this the place that with one 360 degree turn you can see a Mexican pyramid, Japenese buildings, the Eifel Tower, a Canadian Mountain, An English street scene, a giant golf ball and a lake full of pyrotechnic equipment? How does a giant fish or bird way off in the distance negatively impact the schematic of that?

I made no mention of the Epcot resorts. I personally find that they really don't work well within the "world" concept they have going, but that's my personal opinion. I don't think they ruin sightlines.

With the Resorts, some folks have the opinion that the Poly & Contemporary were a great value back in the day when I think it has been proven not to be the case. Further, some folks just want to be the arbitor of what Disney Magic means for all folks.

I'm not trying to be any kind of arbitor of Disney Magic. If someone finds magic at the moderates and economies, more power to them. Monotony is very boring.

As I recall Landbaron once called Pop Century generic but could never tell me where he had previously seen a hotel with a giant cell phone or goofy words before.

Since when did themeing come from what we find at Disneyland to a generic term thrown about to mean any group of décor that supposedly ties together? I don't buy your argument here. A giant cell phone and goofy words do not a Disney resort make.

Also, it seems fine to me that Disney try to employ magical standards to folks at all ends of the socioeconomic ladder, not only for economic reasons but for the social ones as well. I know there are MANY people uncomfortable with doormen, bellhops, tipping and fancy lobby's...Should these folks be excluded from staying at a magically themed Disney Resort because they come from a background where tipping for small assistances is not a part of their 'comfort zone?'

Once again, I don't buy your argument. Didn't Walt say "Give the people everything you can give them." ? If Pop Century is all that Disney can give people that are lower on the socioeconomic ladder, it's a pretty lame effort. And I'm an equal opportunity basher. The All Stars are also a pretty banal effort. I can understand you can't expect room service, bellhops, and valet parking, but when it comes to a cohesive theme that immerses you in another time and place, the All Stars and Pop Century fall WAY short as far as I'm concerned. And that's the pinnacle of a Disney theme park/resort experience. Cut the other services if you have to in order to cut cost, but don't skimp on the theme.

As for the Resort rate schedule, now this is just a two part scenerio, supply & demand for the company and what can be afforded by the guest...

And apparently the demand is quite down. Hasn't much affected the prices. Cha-ching, cha-ching, let that cash register RING!