Does anyone like Eisner?

[lenshanem]

Just curious...

 

[grinningghost]

Originally posted by lenshanem
Just curious...

On this board? Doubtful.

 

[Another Voice]

How do I like Michael Eisner...?


Unemployed.

 

[Golter]

I dont know him, do I think he loves Disney...Yes, is it time for a change...Yes

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Originally posted by Golter
I dont know him, do I think he loves Disney...Yes, is it time for a change...Yes

Does Michael Eisner love Disney? Michael Eisner loves Michael Eisner. And Michael Eisner loves what Disney has done for Michael Eisner's bank account.

 

[wdwguide]

I did... up until the mid-1990s. As of yesterday, I am not planning to renew my Annual Pass unless the present situation gets resolved favorably. The Walt Disney Company forcing the namesake of the company founder, who was responsible for Eisner coming to the company in the first place, into retirement is not something I am willing to spend any money on.

 

[GeorgeG]

Why do I get this awful feeling we're soon going to see a change to "Eisnerland" and "Mike Eisner World" with Scrooge McDuck being the new icon?

 

[wdw4us2]

No.


Well, maybe his family.

 

[Planogirl]

What's to like?

 

[phisigprincess]

He's getting out of hand. My dad said he heard that Eisner is funding Michael Moore's new documentary linking the Bush family to the Bin Ladens. Now I don't care whether or not you like Moore's work or which political party you support, but when was Mickey Mouse and the Disney name used to promote a political agenda?? Any time Eisner puts his name on anything it is automatically associated with the Disney name as well. I think my dad put it perfectly when he said "I love Disney because it lets me escape the real world. I don't want Eisner taking that away from me."

 

[ppiew]

Well, I will probably get flamed for leaning toward the other side of this bandwagon - but here goes anyway. Let us not forget the first 10 yrs. of Eisners reign - they were the most successful in Disney history, and the company was in VERY tuff straits at the time. The man has done much good for the company, and has also had some very public fiascos, ie. the Michael Ovitz deal, the inability to assimilate ABC etc.
However, Roy Disney WAS the HEAD of the animation department - figurehead or not - it was HIS responsibility, and animation has been on a steep downhill slide for several years with no end in sight! It seems he spent an inordinate amount of time either in his Irish castle or on his yacht, rather than tending to his responsibilities.
I also do not feel that ALL of the success nor ALL of the failures of a company can be attributed to any ONE person. Every employee and every boardmember shares that responsibility.
This very public 'dirty laundry' resignation(s) will not help the company and most certainly won't encourage Eisner to resign. It seems to be a very counterproductive move.
When Eisner was hired he brought along a long string of creative and financial success to a company that was adrift. Now there are some bumps in the road, and everyone wants to tar and feather the man! This type of distraction is NOT needed while the economy and travel are just beginning to recover. So NO, I do not belief that Mr. Roy Disney's resignation letter was appropriate or beneficial to the WD Company. There are other better ways to handle the dissension.

 

[inaminute]

Should Eisner go? Absolutely.

The stock is stagnant. The company has lowered it's standards and it shows.

We will not be renewing our annual passes--a decision reached after our last visit in October. We don't even have another trip planned, which is very unusual for us (we used go two to four--or more!--times a year). We're actually considering selling our DVC membership. We're holding off on that for a little while. We've even dumped our stock.

As long as Eisner continues with Disney, we want little to do with the company. I'm tired of lining his pockets with my hard-earned money.

 

[LoriZH]

Originally posted by ppiew
Well, I will probably get flamed for leaning toward the other side of this bandwagon - but here goes anyway. Let us not forget the first 10 yrs. of Eisners reign - they were the most successful in Disney history, and the company was in VERY tuff straits at the time.

Don't you think it's rather strange that the company's success started to decline AFTER the death of Frank Wells and that maybe just maybe it was NOT Michael Eisner who was the successful one here and he was riding on some serious coat tails? Or do you think it may be just a coincidence? I'm not judging your statement, I'm just curious.

As far as the "every employee and every boardmember" is responsible comment, as in ANY company, if the moral is bad amongst the employees because the head of the company is making BAZILLIONS and the people doing the real work are made to work twice as hard due to budget cuts with half the pay, you can't really blame them can you? The person at the helm is responsible, not every employee, it is unfair to the employees who have absolutely no say whatsoever on how the company is run to try and put the blame on them. The CM's in the parks get so much flack from people who are disappointed in the way the parks are being neglected, it's hard for them to keep spreading the magic. Maybe it is time for a change at Disney and Eisner should step down. Too bad they didn't keep it a family business, I'm sure that is a decision they are probably going to regret.

Hopefully, Roy will not resign, he is a family member, he deserves respect plain and simple.

 

[Galahad]

I'll admit that I used to like him, even after many of you saw through him I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt. That pretty much ended a couple of years back for me.

 

[morphi]

Let us not forget the first 10 yrs. of Eisners reign - they were the most successful in Disney history, and the company was in VERY tuff straits at the time. The man has done much good for the company,

True, Eisner had a successful first 10 years, but was this due to creativity and risk-taking on his part? I don't think it was.

A lot of what Eisner did (by his own admission) was to begin using "under-utilized assets." For example, he began to utilize the immense amount of land at WDW by building more parks, resorts, etc. This caused WDW to become a true week-long vacation destination for families across the globe. But he wasn't the visionary who decided to buy and develop so much land. Walt was. Thanks to Walt's foresight, Eisner had the not-difficult task of utilizing the land he "inherited." Further, this process of expanding WDW was already underway with Epcot and new resorts (Grand Floridian) before he got there.

A second example is video tape sales of classic movies. Eisner was lucky enough for the beginning of the VHS home market to coincide with his start at Disney. It was a no-brainer to sell classic animiated movies via VHS. (The only non no-brainer was to limit the releases to every 7-10 years, but every economist will tell you that scarcity increases price and preceived value.) Further, this is another example of where Eisner got to benefit from his forebears' risk taking and creativity. Walt created many animated masterpieces. Eisner got to sell them on VHS. Again, he gets to ride the coattails of others more talented than himself.

Finally, other true successes (e.g., resurgence of animated movies) seem to have been at least mostly dependent on other people such as Katzenburg and Wells.

 

[Galahad]

I think the model of two leaders might be part of what's been missing....like the Walt and Roy parnership. It probably wasn't that Frank Wells was a genius and Eisner isn't, but that they were more successful with both in place than Eisner could be alone. Roy E. mentioned the lack of a succession plan. Even before you have a succession plan you need to be willing to share power here and now.....something Eisner can't do it seems.

 

[ppiew]

I believe that Frank Wells and Michael Eisner made a great partnership in complementing each others talents. My personal opinion is that Eisner tried to assume too much when Wells died, hence the multitude of problems that have occured since. A co-partner at that time would have smoothed many rough spots and shared responsibility for what has happened. But Eisner chose not to do that (I am sure to his ever regret)
As far as the 'greed' factor - Eisners pay is intimately tied to the performance ($$$) of the company. His base salary is not high by CEO standards in any Fortune 500 company. If anything, the 'greed' factor goes right back to Wall Street and stockholders that EXPECTED a 25% return each and every year and when that stopped occuring any scapegoat was fair game. At that time, Eisner walked on water with the shareholders and the public. Now the honeymoon has ended. As the head of the company you bet Eisner should shoulder the bulk of the responsibility!

Each and every employee of ANY company should always do their utmost to accomplish whatever tasks they are charged with to the best of their ability. Corporate culture today is all about downsizing and cost cutting to achieve the blessings of the stock brokers and shareholders. I worked for a telephone company for 25 years and went thru 7 'reorganizations' and service and response time today is worse than ever, yet there ARE some bright spots even in that group.

Badmouthing is so counter productive wherever it occurs. I sat on a monorail one day and listened to 4 employees (visiting the parks on their free passes) cut down everything about Disney - very loud and long for all to hear. I finally asked them if their jobs were sooooo bad, why didn't they look for employment elsewhere? After a loooong silence, the reply was that Disney paid more for comparable jobs than either Universal or Sea World! I am in no position to judge that statement as being true or not. You can train/teach an employee to do a job, but attitude is not trainable - you have it or you don't. I deeply believe that ANY employee owes a debt of loyalty to his employer or find somewhere else to work.
I have only seen Eisner twice, once attending his sons hockey game (which the kid didn't even get to play in, yet the father came several thousand miles to attend), and the second time was at the California Grill where he was dining with family and friends. He was constantly interrupted throughout dinner by guests asking for autographs/pictures etc. I guess that goes with the territory, but sure seemed rude to me.

I love Disney - the theme parks, the Vacation Clubs, the movies, the cruise line - and it breaks my heart when it is such a target for barbs. Yes, it IS the CEO's responsibility to be cognizant of that type of dissent and to DO something about it. I for one hope that something productive can come out of this and not just berate Eisner forever.

 

[Tekneek]

Eisner has introduced a bean-counting sort of culture to everything the company does. The maintenance problems are very similar to what NASA has fallen into. If you can slash the maintenance budget and still not have any accidents, then those were extra costs that needed to be cut. Just like NASA, this thinking caught up with Disney and burned them.

Never once in all of the releases and press conferences about the resorts, and the theme parks, did they raise the question that their cutbacks (in terms of hours, maintenance, and presentation) and continual price increases could have anything to do with it. They turn a Disney vacation into a "pay-more-for-less" type arrangement and wonder why people aren't continuing to knock down the doors to go there? If you want to be the best, you don't start cutting corners like all the rest. Disney is, today, ran like a company that hopes to be just a little better than the rest rather than a company that really goes above and beyond.

Business analysts love it when a business "matures" and stops doing all the good things it did when it was under the leadership of its founders. They love it when a corporation embraces the almighty dollar and does everything it can (layoff employees by the thousands, cutback on services, cutback on hours, raise prices, and more) to get more of it. They aren't going to side with Roy, or Stanley, because they represent ties to the founders, and are more interested in creativity and core values about the company. Eisner looks like he is prepared to do anything for money, and that's what Wall Street and business analysts like. Don't pretend like you have a soul and give your company some life and soul as well, or they will rip you on CNBC all day. They probably were overjoyed when they heard Eisner and his BOD wanted to run the last Disney off of the property. They probably thought, "Now Mike can really start to make some money!"

 

[PKS44]

The institutions that control 65% of the stock are apparently quite happy with Eisner. Why? I have no idea...he has outlasted his usefulness to this company...THis is not a few bumps in the road as one poster ridiculously suggests. This is a consistently unsuccessful performance based on a change in the way the company has been run over an extended period of time. He has failed and yet he is Teflon--none of it is ever blamed on him and what he has done. I see no hope for a recovery to greatness unless he goes and is replaced by someone who understands the importance of investment and building LONG TERM corporate value not quarterly gains.

 

[ppiew]

TO TEKNEEK: I couldn't agree more with your assesment. It is pervasive in our corporate society today. Wall Street IS the controller of major corporations and shareholders DEMAND returns on their dollar and sometimes THOSE demands are unreasonable.

"Business analysts love it when a business "matures" and stops doing all the good things it did when it was under the leadership of its founders. They love it when a corporation embraces the almighty dollar and does everything it can (layoff employees by the thousands, cutback on services, cutback on hours, raise prices, and more) to get more of it."

TO PKS44

Sorry about the 'bumps in the road' comment - it was an understatement. But the first half of Eisners tenure was extremely successful for Disney and that too should be recognized. I stand by my belief that Eisner was not bad for Disney from day 1.