Dear Eisner

[Another Voice]

"At least I've never seen a Motel 6 remotely like the AS or PC."

Even Motel 6 has standards.

 

[wtg2000]

However, I firmly believe that his business philosophies would never allow the building of the values, or even moderates. Those profits would be left to those who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences.

Who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences? Whose to say that the moderates or values provide a more limited experience, that certain people won't enjoy them as much or perhaps find them less stuffy than say the GF or YC/BC. I don't feel my experiences staying the CBR or DXL were limited in any way. I've certainly never found anything on I-Drive or 192 that compared. And who is better suited than Disney to provide themed hotels at decent prices.

And as for profits, since when does any corporation say, "let's leave those profits for someone else?" Disney restaurants range from V&As at 100 bucks a pop to the $9 buffet at Ft. W. I think that's the great thing about WDW and adding this touch of budget flexibility to the hotels adds to it.

I'm not sure if you guys object to the pricing or to the fact that you just don't like the PC and AS.

That does NOT mean Disney would be passing up on $$$, it just means they would have invested in something else that more closely fit their business model.

I'm curious what their business model is. I really have no idea. And of course they'd be passing up on revenues. That's why they built hotels (which have 60 % profit margins), to increase revenues and profits.

I've thoroughly enjoyed my stays at the CBR and DXL and judging from reviews many people are loving the PC. Isn't that the bottom line?

Even Motel 6 has standards.

Really?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! There always seems to be a point in these debates when the subject changes from Walt’s ‘philosophy’ to walt’s specific plans. And they drag out the secret weapon, designed to utterly obliterate “The Element”. E.P.C.O.T. Yep! Not “Epcot” (in fancy primary colored script). Not even EPCOT Center. No! E.P.C.O.T. The whole acronym.

But that misses the point. It is a given that Walt would not have built EPCOT Center. He would have built (or at least tried to build) his city. Period. We surrender! We give up! We ‘stipulate’! Yes! He would not have gone in that direction.

But again, we are talking about a ‘philosophy’. A way of doing things. A guide that can be applied to all aspects of the company. Philosophical ideals by which all things in the company should be funneled and compared to. Is this really so hard to understand?

And how do we find out what this philosophy is? By carefully examining how Walt did business. Not to copy it exactly. Not to emulate every move, down to the type of bourbon he dipped his donut in. But instead as a guidepost of “HOW” something should be handled or implemented. Some of it comes from his personal life (careful or I’ll start story time again. Hmmmm. It’s been a while since I told the backyard railroad story) and some of it comes from the way he did business (ah! The chandelier story hasn’t been told in quite a while)!!

Anyway, with this thought in mind, and centering on only one aspect of THE PHILOSOPHY, I offer the following:

When the DIS was very young we got to talking about Walt’s ‘philosophy’. Some of the posters didn’t quite grasp what I was trying to say. So I posted the following (cleaned up a bit and some parenthetical phrases have been added to keep it current):

Something which I came across - might be applicable here. It is from the 1965 Disney corporate annual report. Roy Disney had a letter to the shareholders in it. Now remember, this is right around the time that they purchased the Florida Property. The report states that the total profit for 1965, after taxes were $11,378,778. So in round numbers approximately $11 million. I will grant you that this does seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what Disney earns now - but of course this is in 1965 dollars (Mr. Kidds can get the inflation calculator out, I’m not, it is not what the post is about). Anyway - the reason that I mention this here was because after reading this - I came across the following quote (again from the 65 report):

The Company expended $8,026,384 for capital additions during the past year. Installation of new attractions at Disneyland park .... along with the acquisition of certain WED assets comprise the major portion of these disbursements

So - in the same year that the whole company earned $11 million – well over $8 million was spent on capital additions!! (I’ll pause a second or two to let that sink in!) Think about it!! At a level which was 70% of after tax profit - mostly at Disneyland!!!

What is the current after tax profit for Disney in say 1999 (the year it was written)?? $1,300,000,000 .. That’s right - $1.3 Billion. So what would 70% of 1.3 Billion be? Hmmmmm. Let’s see. I know!! $910,000,000!! Well, well, well!! I would guess that $910 million HAS NOT been spent on new attractions! We’re not talking about fixing the old stuff here either - this would be money spent strictly on NEW STUFF. I mean - you could almost build a whole new theme park a year for that. Wait!! There’s more! Much more!!

The 65 annual report goes on to say:

Due to public acceptance evidenced by increasing annual attendance at Disneyland Park and our confidence that such trends will continue, the company, commencing in 1966, will embark upon the largest capital expansion and improvement program in the history of Disneyland. This program calls for approximately $45,000,000 to be spent over the next five years.

$45 Million. $45 Million!! $45 Million!!!

That’s almost $9 million a year for five years. At a time in Disney history (1965) when the company's profit was only $11 million.. Can you Imagine Eisner dumping oh... $900 Million a year in New Attractions today?? It’s almost a joke. Yet that was the standard and level that Disney used to operate at. Think things haven’t changed at Disney folks??? I beg to differ!

That $45 million .. by the way - bought the Tommorrowland redesign of 1967 - among other things.. Also - to give an example of just how much money $45 million was back in the late 60's - about $400 million built ALL of WDW back in 68-71. This included a whole theme park – draining the land (which was quite expensive in it's own right), building roads, support facilities, a fleet of boats, installing a monorail system, building a couple of hotels - and so on.

********* End of old post *********

And that is part of the difference! Now do you begin to understand the ‘philosophy’? At least a little bit?

 

[Mr D]

And now for a totally off-the-wall comment,

5 days into a 28 day vacation in Orlando, been to Universal three times already and no plans in the future to visit WDW.

Why?

because .....

 

[crusader]

So - in the same year that the whole company earned $11 million – well over $8 million was spent on capital additions!! (I’ll pause a second or two to let that sink in!) Think about it!! At a level which was 70% of after tax profit - mostly at Disneyland!!!

I'll agree with this if you can tell me that there was no cash used from debt financing, equity investment or some other non-revenue source that year.

Otherwise, your 70% profit application is not accurate.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by wtg2000
Who are better suited to provide those more limited experiences? Whose to say that the moderates or values provide a more limited experience, that certain people won't enjoy them as much or perhaps find them less stuffy than say the GF or YC/BC. I don't feel my experiences staying the CBR or DXL were limited in any way. I've certainly never found anything on I-Drive or 192 that compared. And who is better suited than Disney to provide themed hotels at decent prices.

A couple of random thoughts:

1.) You mention the Grand Floridian and Yacht & Beach Club as examples of stuffy. Aren't those properties that Eisner built? You mention neither the Polynesian, nor the Contemporary as stuffy. Things that make you go hmmmm.......

2.) Themed hotels exist all over the place. If I want incredible theme, I could just as easily go to Vegas and probably find something even better than Disney can provide. But I'm looking for something more out of Disney than just a dang theme.

Continue with your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[wtg2000]

I would guess that $910 million HAS NOT been spent on new attractions! We?e not talking about fixing the old stuff here either - this would be money spent strictly on NEW STUFF. I mean - you could almost build a whole new theme park a year for that.

After WDW opened in 1971, the property didn't appear to change much until EPCOT opened in 1982. Yes, they built Pirates, Space and BTM, and I guess the Village Resort but I doubt they were spending 70 percent of the profits a year on new stuff. They certainly weren't building a new theme park every year. And keep in mind - this was the regime that had plans to allow Marriott to build 20,000 generic hotel rooms, plus were planning to build an industrial park and a plastic water park.

Do you really think Eisner is going to take the profits from the entire company and spend them all or most in one division? If you look at the 2002 report, Disney did spend $636 million on parks and resorts after dropping $1.278 billion in 2001. I just don't believe the economies work the way you say they do. Numbers can be misleading. Remember, in 1965 Disney was gearing up to build WDW - a major project, at the time the largest private construction company in the country. Plus, they were expanding DL. Look at the outlay Eisner made in late 1980s with the building of D-MGM, water parks, Downtown Disney, all the hotels. Companies do have periods of major expansion, then times when they calm down. So it makes sense that in the 1960s they were spending lots on capital development and infrastructure. As I wrote above, I can point to 2001 (over a billion dollars) and say that exceeds your $970 million, but it would be misleading to say that spend this much every year. Look at the outlay the Oriental Land Company must have had leading up to the opening of Tokyo Disney Seas. I bet it was much more than their yearly profits. But it would be misleading to use that one year (or couple of years) as an example.

And what were Disney's revenues in 1965? Companies can lose money and still expand and have large capital outlays in comparison to profits, especially if they are expanding.

I'll concede happily that Eisner is not Walt, and the business philosophy of the company has probably changed although I'm not convinced. Most companies want to expand and make money. That's what Walt did. That's what Ron Miller did. That's what Eisner has done. But I don't think you can pull out numbers and make comparisons. Walt opened Disneyland in 1955. Did he build a new park every year? Of course not. And it would be silly for Eisner to do that.

 

[wtg2000]

You mention the Grand Floridian and Yacht & Beach Club as examples of stuffy. Aren't those properties that Eisner built? You mention neither the Polynesian, nor the Contemporary as stuffy. Things that make you go hmmmm.......

It doesn't make me go hmmmm. By the way, GF was in the plans before Eisner took over. I've never stayed at the Cont. because it doesn't appeal to me, and walking through it a couple times didn't change my mind. But yes, some people find the GF too formal and upscale and feel uncomfortable and probably the YC/BC as well. Aren't Yachts only for rich people? Well, you don't have to own a yacht to stay there and you don't have to wear an ascot. Get it? Eisner also built the WL and the AKL which are not stuffy. Neither are the moderates or values. So now we're criticizing the actual theme of the deluxe hotels? It sounds like a veiled attempt to criticize Eisner for building "stuffy" or rich-people themed hotels but not giving him credit for building "non-stuffy" themes like the wilderness or the boardwalk.

I'd really love to hear what is acceptable for Eisner to build.

In an ironic twist, I read a review of the Poly at epinions. The guy called it a horribly laid out motel. To each their own.

 

[crusader]

2.) Themed hotels exist all over the place. If I want incredible theme, I could just as easily go to Vegas and probably find something even better than Disney can provide. But I'm looking for something more out of Disney than just a dang theme.

What is it your looking for? Besides quality. Considering the fact that Walt's plan didn't involve building anymore themeparks. He copied Disneyland's blueprint and built the Magic Kingdom. The main difference this time was that he incorporated greatly themed resort properties to accomodate the guests.

There would have been a "city" equipped with a prototype economic development package for you to visit with a big old entertainment component to spend your money. (like a surreal shopping/eating/show extravaganza) No different than a Vegas experience except of course for the gambling.

Honestly, without the theme park options, would your entertainment budget be equally invested in Walt's original plan today?

I know I'd be hanging out at Universal with Mr.D and spending lots more money at SeaWorld.

 

[DisneyKidds]

But again, we are talking about a ‘philosophy’. A way of doing things. A guide that can be applied to all aspects of the company. Philosophical ideals by which all things in the company should be funneled and compared to. Is this really so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand at all......and you get no disagreement that Walt's philosophy and Eisner's are different. However, what you seem to fail to understand is that you look at Walt's philosophy in a vacuum. We have the benefit of knowing what he did up to a certain point, but things changed from there quite a bit. I think it is foolish to believe that Walt wouldn't have change with the times as well. Yes, attention to detail and quality would ALWAYS be part of what he did, but that can be applied to a lot of things.........................even a "moderate" resort.

"Give the people everything you can give them." That is one of LB's fave quotes, no? Had Walt lived, seeing how the Florida project expanded and grew, seeing the demand for the ability to stay in a fabulous WDW hotel, seeing the effect economics and inflation were having on people's purchasing power, would he have changed this quote to "Give the people who can afford the Poly, CR, and Venetian everything you can.............and the rest be damned" ? Or would he have found a way to apply his quality principles and philosophies to new and different resorts that would allow him to give more of the people everything he could? Is that concept so hard to understand?

We can even talk about Walt and markets. Did Walt get into animation purely for the love of it without regard to whether there was a market for it? I don't think so. So Walt very much was into bringing quality and innovation to something for which he saw or believed would have a market. Why on earth could he have not done the same with resort hotels................(assuming he even gave a lick for WDW a few years after it opened, we all know how he liked to move on to new things)?

Walt was such a visionary that there is no doubt he would have found ways to apply his Philosophy to more things, rather than having his Philosophy limit the things that he could develope. So yes, the body of evidence shows that Walt didn't build a "moderate" resort. However, that body of evidence does not indicate that such a thing could never fit within Walt's Philosophy.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by wtg2000
So now we're criticizing the actual theme of the deluxe hotels? It sounds like a veiled attempt to criticize Eisner for building "stuffy" or rich-people themed hotels but not giving him credit for building "non-stuffy" themes like the wilderness or the boardwalk.

Funny.....I didn't say any of that. All I did was make mention that Eisner built the properties that you mentioned as stuffy. I neither agreed nor disagreed with you regarding their stuffiness factor. Nor did I criticize any particular theme. I really would love to know where I stated all of that in the words of mine that you quoted.

Originally posted by crusader
What is it your looking for?

Immersion. I'm not looking to have a few decorations thrown about, and calling it a "theme". And just we're entirely clear, my original random thoughts were specifically regarding this quote from wtg:

And who is better suited than Disney to provide themed hotels at decent prices.

I'm speaking in terms of the "value" properties. (Although, if we're talking about decent prices, I'd have to say that the moderates and deluxes fall FAR short of that assessment, but that's a topic that's already been addressed.....at length)

 

[wtg2000]

I really would love to know where I stated all of that in the words of mine that you quoted.

It seemed implied to me, but you're right. I was a bit harsh.

I understand that some of you don't like the AS and PC but I still don't get the talk of the alleged "caste" or "tier" system. WDW has hotels to fit various budgets. Originally, just taking into account the Poly and Cont. and not Ft.W, they had rooms to fit one budget. I'd like to know why that was better. I can't argue the notion that they were deluxe hotels at moderate prices because I didn't stay on property in those days, but I truly wonder if any more people could afford them than can afford the deluxes today.

I know that in 1986, just after Eisner had taken over, they were too expensive for me to afford. It wasn't until the CBR opened in 1988 that we stayed on Disney property. The building of this moderate allowed me to stay on site and drastically increased my enjoyment of trips to WDW - after staying on ultra-bland 192! Please tell me how this bad! Please tell me why all the people staying at the AS and PC should be escorted off WDW property and back to I-drive where they belong!

To suggest that all the hotels should have similar price structures just doesn't make sense to me. Even cruise ships know enough to build the Admiralty Suite and the lower deck boom-boom room to allow guests a choice in their cash outlay. I think this debate has turned into a broken record but I just don't see this scenario playing out in reality. And you're completely overlooking the fact that people like the AS and PC, and the moderates, and it's given them an alternative to staying on I-Drive and 192. That's right. An alternative. They aren't forced to. The comment that Eisner is trying to find ways to seperate people from their money implies that they don't have a choice. Now, they have more choice than ever.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

wtg2000

After WDW opened in 1971, the property didn't appear to change much until EPCOT opened in 1982.

And then you go on to say a lot more gibberish! I don’t mean to be cantankerous, but this is the second time you’ve used Walker/Miller as an example when we were all talking about Walt! Please stop this!! It does nothing but confuse the issue! If you want to talk about Walker/Miller, that’s fine. I’ll talk about nearly anything. But I have a very addled brain. And it is very easily confused. So please – help me stay on track!!!

Walt opened Disneyland in 1955. Did he build a new park every year? Of course not. And it would be silly for Eisner to do that.

I would like to think that your statement is simply hyperbole, but to tell you the truth, I’m not at all certain. In either case, just to be sure, I don’t know of anyone who ever advocated that Ei$ner add a new park every year. Especially me!! I’m the one in car three that doesn’t necessarily even want a new E-ticket every couple of years! All I advocate is having the old ‘philosophy’ reinstated! Evidently you disagree with that philos…. OH MY GOD!! I just realized what your first sentence in that paragraph really said! I must have skimmed over it the first time!

I'll concede happily that Eisner is not Walt, and the business philosophy of the company has probably changed although I'm not convinced.

HOLD IT!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! You’re not convinced that it changed!!!??? Changed from Walt to Ei$ner!?!? You actually are not convinced that they have different business philosophies!?!?! You really think that the business model and corporate philosophy of Disney is no different today that in Walt’s day??!! WOW!! I’ve NEVER heard that before!! Not on this board or any of the other sites I’ve frequented. Even on RADP (and you hear some crazy stuff over there)!!! This is indeed a first!

Now I can see you saying that the change made no difference. Or even that the change was good! But to not be convinced there was a change at all!?!? I’m afraid we’re talking in wholly separate universes! And I’m afraid that I really don’t understand your space time continuum in the least!!


DisneyKidds:

It's not hard to understand at all......and you get no disagreement that Walt's philosophy and Eisner's are different.

Well!! I’m glad some will stipulate to that at least!!

Mr. Kidds, we’ve had this talk before. But I think we’re not so far apart as you may think. Please consider:

I think it is foolish to believe that Walt wouldn't have change with the times as well.

And I think it is foolish to accept what the current administration has done (that you admit isn’t up to snuff, with the exception of Dixie (maybe!!)) is anywhere close to what Walt would have done. And to tell you the truth, I don’t think it can be done. BUT…

But, I am willing to concede that if such a thing were possible, Walt would have done it!! But you are defending the current system based on some vague and wholly imagined “What If”. Doesn’t that seem a little silly to you? I will agree with you that it may have existed in some, much greater form than today, if Walt had had a mind to do it. But he didn’t. And Ei$ner did. And so today we have a caste system of resorts that suck!! And other than a possibility of Riverside and a belief that “Walt-would-have” we seem to agree! I think! And I’m even willing to meet you half way with the Dixie Landings bit. But at a much reduced price!! (Rack rate of course)!!

 

[KNWVIKING]

It seems that this thread and another have boiled down to a comparison of Walt and ME , (I guess technically every thread beyond three pages become a Walt vs ME). I think it would have been very interesting to know what would have happened had ME had the opportunity to come up thru the ranks at Disney under Walts tutaledge (sp). If I understand my history, ME was basically brought in as a gunslinger type expected to rescue Disney from the Hostile Takeover Wolves. I don't think Roy was looking for someone who "got it" or understood the "philosophy". He wanted someone to bail them out, which ME did. So doing things ME's way saved the company, made Disney grow billions beyond what it ever was, and now when things don't go well and bad decisions are made he's expected to - or at least some want him to- suddenly "get it". I think that is a little much to expect. And honestly, does anyone think the next CEO will "get it" ?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

If I might….

Since I was the one who first postulated this notion...
-----------------------------

In the beginning there was a concept. And this concept was all important. All encompassing. Absolutely everything!!

Budgets didn’t matter. Tearing down half built (but ill conceived) things at great expense, didn’t matter. Market segment didn’t matter. Cost ratios didn’t matter. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING(!) mattered at all – except: THE CONCEPT!!

After the concept was achieved, as richly and quality laden as possible, a reasonable (and I stress the word ‘reasonable’) price was placed on it in order to increase the bottom line (or at least maintain the status quo) so that the next concept could be started!!

And THIS, more than anything else, is a major part of the Disney PHILOSOPHY!!
-----------------------------

Now the above is a bit overblown. But it is not hyperbole run amuck!! The concept was always more important than almost anything else. Now, of course they still had to make a profit and try to keep it in the realm of ‘middle class’, but other than that, nothing else mattered. Remember it’s the concept – not the market segment or profit margin that is the driving force.

Enter Ei$ner! He threw away the concept impetus and instead instituted the typical and mundane – every old business in the world thinks this way – “target marketing and profit motivation”. And he built the Grand Floridian and the Caribbean, NOT because a sterling concept begged to be hatched, but instead to capture a different market segment. To increase profit. With little regard (if any) to the long standing ‘philosophy’ upon which the company was founded and built.

I know this is hard to understand, but I firmly believe it. Pirates didn’t come about for the pursuit of the almighty buck! Haunted Mansion wasn’t built to maximize a market share! They didn’t put in a scaled back version of EPCOT, for those who couldn’t afford the “Disney” version. And in keeping with this…

Originally, just taking into account the Poly and Cont. and not Ft.W, they had rooms to fit one budget.

You see! Right from the start you’re looking at it backwards. For Disney that is. It has nothing to do with “budget”. It has to do with providing guests with “Disney” 24/7. Something that Walt was always sorry he couldn’t do at Disneyland. This time the “berm” was ALL the property.

but I truly wonder if any more people could afford them than can afford the deluxes today.

I can assure you they were!! I did stay there then. I can’t afford to now!

And you're completely overlooking the fact that people like the AS and PC, and the moderates,

People also like strip shows and gambling joints. Does that make them OK for Disney too?

 

[wtg2000]

And then you go on to say a lot more gibberish!

It's not gibberish, you just don't have an answer for it so you slag it. Your $11 million and $8 million numbers don't mean anything. You can't make simple comparisons like that from decades past. Besides, look at the capital expenditures on Disney theme parks and resorts over the past few years. They've been substantial I would say.

I don? mean to be cantankerous, but this is the second time you?e used Walker/Miller as an example when we were all talking about Walt!

Eisner is not Walt. Everyone gets that. He reigns in a different time in a different economic climate, over a far different company. Perhaps you don't want to mention Miller because you don't want to give Eisner the credit for doing things like scraping the Marriott and platic water park deals. All people want to do his shun him for not being Walt. How many Walt's have there been in American business history? It's not a fair standard to lay on Eisner.

You actually are not convinced that they have different business philosophies!?!?! You really think that the business model and corporate philosophy of Disney is no different today that in Walt痴 day??!!

As I mentioned before, in so far that companies wish to grow and make money. Walt did. Eisner does. Walt was a visionary and artist who started a company. Eisner is a glorified bean-counter who was brought in to rescue a company. Just look at how corporate culture has changed - buyouts, mergers, outsourcing. Eisner has to live in this climate, and as much as we'd love him to be insulated from it and become Walt Incarnate it's unreasonable to expect that.

You're assuming that Walt's business philosophy would never have changed. Perhaps you're right, and who knows, he may havev flourished or been buried in the avalanche. I believe he would have adapted and survived, but who knows.

And I? afraid that I really don? understand your space time continuum in the least!!

Simple. Eisner is not Walt. He didn't inherit the company from Walt, but from Ron Miller (oops, sorry!). The basis of the thread has been whether or not Disney should build hotels for varying budgets. I think they should. You say you could afford to stay at Polynesian and now you can't. I can't attest to that. However, many, many people can, and many people who couldn't afford the Polynesian before (or now) can stay at the moderates or values - as was the case with me in 1988 when the CBR opened. I still don't understand your problem with the alleged caste system.

Budgets didn? matter.

Are you saying budgets didn't matter with Walt? If you are, I don't understand. I'm willing to bet Walt was very budget conscious. Any smart businessman is, and Walt and his brother were smart. Beside, Walt could barely scrap together enough money to finish the park so I'm sure budget mattered a great deal. Still, foremost to Walt was the show. No question there.

Market segment didn? matter. Cost ratios didn? matter. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING(!) mattered at all ·except: THE CONCEPT!!

Walt built Disneyland for a market segment - families. He added the Matterhorn to appeal to teenagers. I'm sorry, but as much as I love Walt you have a utopian view of him that is beyond idolatry.

Enter Ei$ner! He threw away the concept impetus and instead instituted the typical and mundane ·every old business in the world thinks this way ·?arget marketing and profit motivation· And he built the Grand Floridian and the Caribbean,

These are wonderfully themed and immersive hotels that are far better than the generic Marriotts we would have gotten were it not for Eisner. Eisner understood and understands the importance of storytelling the Disney concept.

To increase profit.

That's why Eisner was hired. To increase profits and build the company. That's what a CEO does. To expect him not to is bizarre thinking to me.

With little regard (if any) to the long standing ?hilosophy·upon which the company was founded and built.

Eisner was very aware of the philosophy. That's why he built immersive, themed hotels. That's why he built Typhoon Lagoon instead of a plastic park. That's why he had them change the Disney Village Resort because it wasn't themed.

You see! Right from the start you?e looking at it backwards. For Disney that is. It has nothing to do with ?udget· It has to do with providing guests with ?isney·24/7.

Eisner is doing that to, but allowing more people of various income levels to do so. I couldn't afford to stay at the Poly in 1986, but I could afford the CBR in 1988. Thanks Michael!

People also like strip shows and gambling joints. Does that make them OK for Disney too?

You're comparing them to strip shows? So if thousands or millions of people love staying at these resorts (including me) and say things like "the Disney magic was all there" (a review of the PC), or "we stayed at the GF but my DH prefers the AS" (another review), then that's not okay because you object? And if thousands and thousands of people stay on Disney property at moderates and values and enjoy themselves and return year after year that's not okay because Walt probably would not have built it? I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me.

If you go back to the first page of this thread, you'll see that I laid out a litany of things that Eisner has done that I think failed. I was very critical of him. However, I recognize the good things he has done and can't carry my criticism to the extreme lengths that subsequent posts have, especially expecting him to be Walt, and this talk about a caste system.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well. It seems I’m back to my old form. A four pager lies in front of you. Have fun!!!!

It's not gibberish, you just don't have an answer for it so you slag it.

I’m sorry, Mr. 2000 but when I cite a stockholder’s report from 1965, when Walt was in charge, and compare that to the current regime, and your only rejoinder is some lame walk though the Walker/Miller era, well, to me at least, that’s gibberish!!

You can't make simple comparisons like that from decades past.

Can’t!?!? I just did!! Tell me where I’m wrong!

Besides, look at the capital expenditures on Disney theme parks and resorts over the past few years. They've been substantial I would say.

I would say they have NOT been substantial! Further, where’s the back up? What expenditures? How much in relation to revenues? And most importantly, of what value? Are you counting Pop Century? Is that really “value”? Are you counting Dinorama? Is that value? And are you counting DCA? Yeah! Well, you got me there. Value, through and through, eh? (he said with tongue planted firmly in cheek, in case anyone might miss the sarcasm!

Perhaps you don't want to mention Miller because you don't want to give Eisner the credit for doing things like scraping the Marriott and platic water park deals.

Oh my goodness! How many balls do you want to keep up in the air? Why are you constantly bring in Walker/Miller, when EVERYONE else is talking Walt vs. the “bonehead”?

“OK!” he said, throwing up his hands in utter frustration! You want Walker/Miller talk? You got Walker/Miller talk! (Note to everyone else. PAGE DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! This is for Mr. 2000 who seems to want a little Walker/Miller discussion!)

Walker/Miller
Far be it from me to defend Ron Miller, but I gotta tell you, sometimes he really is picked upon and vilified unfairly.

As most of you know, Ron was Walt’s hand picked choice to run the Disney Company. Ron, as so far as I know, never went to Walt wanting to take control of the corporation. Rather it was Walt - on numerous occasions - who went to Ron trying to get him to see that Playing football had no future(at least not as Walt saw it). It was Walt who pushed Ron into movie making - at which he had no prior experience.

And why? Well, it’s simply because, at the time, it was felt that Disney was still a "movie" company - and the leadership of the corporation still had to come from the movie side of the house.

Again, I’m sure everyone is aware that Walt and Lilly only had 2 daughters; one adopted and one natural. However they had no sons. And please remember the times. In the 1960's it wasn’t accepted that a daughter should run the corporation (that’s not my opinion, of course, it’s just a statement of historical fact).

So who could Walt turn to? If you think about it, Walt really had only two choices - Roy Jr. or Ron, his son in law. Walt picked Ron. I really believe that this was due, in large part, to the fact that there was some lingering bad blood between Roy Jr. and Walt from some comments made years prior about how much of a business risk Disneyland was going to be. (I’m sure you know the story. Roy Jr. wasn’t really convinced that they could make a go of it with Disneyland. I’m convinced that this is, at least in part, a major reason why he takes such a hand’s off approach to the theme parks even to this day? Well, up to a couple weeks ago, at least!!) In any event, after Walt died - it was up to Roy Sr. to pick a leader for the company - and he ALSO picked Ron over his own son.

I think Ron did his best with what he had to work with, and what he knew. Really Ron was the first person to follow Walt in leading the company. And that HAD to be a tough position for anyone to be in. The whole company practically grieved for years after Walt died. I mean can you imagine how hard must it have been to get creativity out of people, especially the animators?

Remember too - Ron didn’t have complete control - as Card Walker was also there. And Card took a far, far more active role in the theme parks then Ron ever did. Ron also came up with Touchstone - which has made quite a bit of money over the years for Disney - and was perhaps in my mind, the greatest legacy that Ron left the company.

I have never felt that the Disney Company was in all that bad of a shape when Ron ran it - at least it wasn’t on its death bed - which is what the standard Disney histories all state and evidently you, believe. While it is true that the company was under a lot of pressure from Wall Street, it was not from a lack of success! In fact it is quite the opposite.

Most of that pressure came from the fact that their real estate holdings had skyrocketed in recent years and were grossly underdeveloped. And where was all this ‘undeveloped land that had soared in value? Yep! WDW!!! They caused, by their very presence, the crisis they were facing.

Also their film assets were ridiculously underutilized. Yes, sir!! They were very, very ripe for a take over and major breakup!!

So, because WDW was SO successful, the value of the land became so much - in some instances well in excess of $100,000 - $250,000 an acre - that it started to make sense from a "Wall Street" point of view to buy up the company and sell off the land and film libraries to make a killing. The value of those alone was so much more than what the stock price was selling for. Also you have to keep in mind that we had a few gas crunches during his reign and stagflation as well! Add to this that the Company had also dumped over a billion dollars into Epcot which was one HECK of a lot of money back then. (Heck! It’s even a lot now)!!!.

SO really was it totally Ron's fault? I don't know – but I would suspect that it wasn’t. Sometimes the way Ron is portrayed (typical of your portrayal), it is almost like a character in some of the screwball comedies that were made under his administration. And that’s not really fair.

I do know this much for sure. Under his leadership Walt's ideals and philosophies were very well maintained. The parks were run, as they always had been. EPCOT was built. Plans were in the works for another major resort on Seven Seas Lagoon (NOT specifically the Floridian as you have alluded to several times). The Little Mermaid came into being under his care (and it should be remembered that your great Michael (the one to whom you give thanks!) wanted to ax it over the Great Mouse Detective. Now that would have been a sterling move!!) Several additional attractions were added to WDW. Touchstone Pictures was conceived. And lest we forget, EPCOT was built!! Not a bad run, I’d say!!

Should they (Walker/Miller) have been a little bolder? Should they have developed the WDW real estate? Should they have unlocked the film vault earlier? Yes! Of course they should have. That answer is very easy in retrospect. And I admit they were a little like deer caught in the headlights. But it wasn’t really a dire as you make it out to be.

It is their very tenure that many Disney experts consider the “Golden Age” of Disney (at least for the parks). I really wish that Mr. Peabody would lend me his “Way-Back” and I could take you there for just a day! If that were possible, we’d have no further need to talk! You’d simply “get it”!


As an aside, Ei$ner deserves no credit! Perhaps Wells does. But NOT the “Inept One”


End Walker/Miller

How many Walt's have there been in American business history? It's not a fair standard to lay on Eisner.

Sorry! I don’t buy that for a moment! He could at least try. He placed that mantle on his head when he assumed the role. The very least I expect of a CEO of Disney is that they “get it”!

Simple. Eisner is not Walt.

Eureka!! At last!! Something on which we can agree!

I still don't understand your problem with the alleged caste system.

It was the first step (and the most obvious step) away from the Disney philosophy. It was the first time, in the history of the company when quality was sacrificed for a buck. When “concept” was disregarded and “profit” took its place, becoming all encompassing. When the “Disney experience” became a commodity, to b sold in portions, based on market and cost, to the highest bidder, instead of an “experience”!!

Beside, Walt could barely scrap together enough money to finish the park so I'm sure budget mattered a great deal.

Go on! One more time and it’s the chandelier story for sure!!

That's why Eisner was hired. To increase profits and build the company.

Not quite, sir!! Profits were just fine. He was hired to be the puppet of Wells. And he was expected to keep things together under Disney’s roof. Unfortunately Wells died and your hero started to believe his own press!

You're comparing them to strip shows?

Not at all! Are you trying to be obtuse?

I was saying that not all things popular are necessarily good for Disney. Surely you can see that! You may disagree, but at least give me credit for the point!

 

[DisneyKidds]

So here you have it Baron............I'll readily admit to the difference in philosophies AS WELL AS faulty IMPLEMENTATION of the concept of "affordable" resorts IF you will admit (which it seems you already have but I just want to hear you say it) that "affordable" resorts most certainly could have (heck, very well may have) been possible under Walt's philosophy and the only thing that the fact that he hadn't done them before his death proves is that the need most likely hadn't been apparent at the time (heck, the genius couldn't anticipate everything up front).

Deal?

 

[crusader]

Mr Baron:

What an inciteful reflective post! Wonderful read.

Thank you.

(ahhh...........but not so fast my friend!)

I’m sorry, Mr. 2000 but when I cite a stockholder’s report from 1965,

Hey, where can I get a copy of that report? You still haven't answered my question regarding debt and equity financing arrangements from 1965 though.

Can’t!?!? I just did!! Tell me where I’m wrong!

I believe wtg2000 was specifically talking about the capital improvements numbers when he remarked about simple comparisons. It appears you may have brushed over this relevant fact so let me point you back to what was being referenced in that remark.

Your $11 million and $8 million numbers don't mean anything. You can't make simple comparisons like that from decades past. Besides, look at the capital expenditures on Disney theme parks and resorts over the past few years. They've been substantial I would say

Please, feel free to respond.

I think Ron did his best with what he had to work with, and what he knew. Really Ron was the first person to follow Walt in leading the company. And that HAD to be a tough position for anyone to be in. The whole company practically grieved for years after Walt died. I mean can you imagine how hard must it have been to get creativity out of people, especially the animators?

Well said, and most certainly right on. They lost thier maestro so to speak but they knew his expectations and were very experienced in their craft which was one saving grace entirely attributable to Walt.

Your comments about the company pre-Eisner were very important. Things like.............

While it is true that the company was under a lot of pressure from Wall Street, it was not from a lack of success! In fact it is quite the opposite.

Most of that pressure came from the fact that their real estate holdings had skyrocketed in recent years and were grossly underdeveloped. And where was all this ‘undeveloped land that had soared in value? Yep! WDW!!! They caused, by their very presence, the crisis they were facing.

It's not that simple. In order for a hostile takeover, there had to be a major stock purchase at play or a leveraged buyout issue. Land will typically entice such a suitor, but there had to be an achilles' heel. So my guess is they had depleted their resources, drained all the cash, needed more financing and didn't have the means to buyback thier stock.

That's where creative genius fails and financial genius kicks in to effectively run your company.

Who over there post-Walt possessed this quality before they recruited Eisner?

 

[wtg2000]

I would say they have NOT been substantial! Further, where? the back up? What expenditures? How much in relation to revenues?

From the annual reports. Capital investments in parks and resort:

2002 - $636 million
2001 - $1,278 billion
2000 - $1,523 billion
1999- $1,699 billion
1998 - $1,624 billion

Hey, it's beats me where all that money goes.

It seems like a lot to me, but maybe not.

And most importantly, of what value? Are you counting Pop Century? Is that really ?alue· Are you counting Dinorama? Is that value? And are you counting DCA?

I'm just reading the numbers. Are you saying they did or did not spend this money, or that they just didn't spend on things that you like?

Can?!?!? I just did!! Tell me where I? wrong!

I'm saying you can't just throw out a few numbers from one year and compare it to situations forty years later. It has not context and no relevance. Even my numbers above don't speak to quality or good management but they rather show that numbers on their own don't mean anything.

Why are you constantly bring in Walker/Miller, when EVERYONE else is talking Walt vs. the ?onehead

This topic of this thread is Dear Eisner. It didn't start as a Walt vs. Eisner thread and I don't know who or how it ended up that way. It seems like a pointless comparison to me.

SO really was it totally Ron's fault?

I don't know. I was simply pointing out that Eisner took over the reigns from Ron, not from Walt, and that he was faced with a certainly reality at the time that he had to deal with. By calling him a puppet and the inept one you make your disdain for him obvious. Then what about the GF and CBR? Who gets the blame for them, Eisner or Wells? How can you blame Eisner if he's just a puppet?

I have never felt that the Disney Company was in all that bad of a shape when Ron ran it - at least it wasn? on its death bed - which is what the standard Disney histories all state and evidently you, believe.

The books do indicate that Disney was in danger of being dismantled and Roy Jr. seemed to agree. If you don't think so that's fine. I don't have any inside information to make a qualified opinion, but only what I read from the standard Disney historians.

Not quite, sir!! Profits were just fine.

Again, the standard Disney historians disagree. In 1983, the movie studio lost $33.3 million (there's a one year stat for you!). I couldn't find theme park profits but the indication is that they were so-so, although they were wasting opportunities with WDW property. The stock was cut it half from 1983 to 1984. (which is perhaps why Roy wants to get rid of Eisner now for the same thing - just like he did with Ron).

(and it should be remembered that your great Michael (the one to whom you give thanks!)

As I said earlier, on the first page of this post I criticized him quite heavily. I was just saying that by building the moderates I was able to stay on the property for the first time and have a far more enjoyable experience then when I stayed on 192.

It was the first step (and the most obvious step) away from the Disney philosophy. It was the first time, in the history of the company when quality was sacrificed for a buck.

I'm not sure that providing affordable accomodation goes against Disney philosophy, or that quality has been sacrificed. Yes, they are less extravagant resorts and don't provide the ammenities, but I think they have the Disney experience and magic.

Unfortunately Wells died and your hero started to believe his own press!

Again, I've never called him my hero and criticized him on the first page of this thread. I'm just looking at it realistically. Eisner was hired to be CEO of Disney in 1984, not to be Walt Incarnate. I can't understand why you can't understand that. The situations presenting him were vastly different than those presenting Walt, and yes, Eisner has a different background and a different philosophy. Still, I believe he did retain the Disney philosophy with regards to storytelling and theme.

DVC Landbaron - I'm curious. Are you a DVC member?

If so - is that part of the caste system, having some people be part owners? Was DVC a good move by Eisner? Is it Disney-ish? Do they DVC resorts tell a story? I would have liked to join but it was too expensive for me.