Iger to take over as CEO of Disney on 9/30/05!

[DancingBear]

How much do you know about the European disaster? My source is from the man himself. Ei$ner's own book illustrates the level of input he had in the creation of Eurod'eisneyland....

The more salient point, that you gloss over, is that Ei$ner rode a wave of creativity that the previous administration had in place, and that Disney was successful despite his leadership, not because of it.

Just so I understand, then, if Eisner claims EuroDisney "credit" in his book, you believe him, but if he claims credit for The Lion King, et. al., he's overreaching.

 

[DancingBear]

Now then. Name another 'success' you attribute to Ei$ner that is sustainable.

The Cruise Line. Broadway. DVC.

 

[crusader]

If you don't think that Fox Family, the Katzenberg mess, the Ovitz Affair, the airplane leases, and the mismanagement of animation both CGI and traditional is corruption, then I'm not quite sure what it is.

You're talking about items in a 20 yr history which equate to a fraction of money compared to the billions the Disney company reaped over those years in profits as a result of many components - some great as DancingBear has pointed out - some not so noble in terms of the Pixar deal.

I suggest you read up on Enron or Worldcom or Tyco to help you better define corporate corruption. Or better yet, concentrate your attention toward big U.S. gov't contractors right now who appear to be fleecing money the likes of you wouldn't believe. Eisner looks like a boyscout in this cesspool.

 

[WDSearcher]

I don't know but I would gladly take a kick butt animation again over everything else.

Well, unless you're one of us wacky CMs who work in the theme parks. Then you kind of tend to look at that a bit differently ....

 

[airlarry!]

DB, I don't understand your position. Could you clarify?

Crusader, good point. Next time I jaunt over to the Enron Information Station, I'll be sure to post how livid I am that Lay's debacle took place.

Meanwhile, back on the DIS, I thought we could stick to the subject at hand. The fact that you, either as a shareholder or a fan, are outraged at the level of gross mismanagement Ei$ner has shown, gotten away with, and even been praised for.

I'll give DB that Broadway has been successful, and I won't even mention the fact that the biggest successes have been with three shows that absolutely depend on past success with DFA. Why cloud the issue with reality? How exactly would Ei$ner kept up his success on Broadway, which has largely been with cross-over promotion of popular animation hits translated into fine Broadway productions, if he's closed the unit? Hmm...

Cruise Line, yes, another success under Ei$ner's reign, and one which I'll give him credit for. DVC? Oh, I don't you and I would see eye to eye on whether DVC has been good for the company or the parks or the consumers or the fans as a whole.

Okay, so in twenty years, my list of regrets is a mile long, and your list is retreaded shows at Broadway, two ships in the Cruise line (so far), and the ever-controversial DVC. Legacy indeed. Walt's epitaph: "And to think it all started with a mouse." Ei$ner's epitaph: "Broadway. Cruiselines. DVC."

 

[crusader]

I would like to see your reference as to how Disney saved themselve 3.6 billion on the Fox deal.

There's a thread not too far down on the boards about a Roy/Stan letter which talks about the acquisition having a $2 bil inflated pricetag chargeoff which netted $400 mil in tax savings.

So around $3 bil looks to be the proper valuation. The company overspent by $1.6 bil.

As far as EuroDisney - There is so much written out there identifying socio-economic failures we can pick and choose our poison. The initial park was designed and created with a tremendous amount of effort. That wasn't the problem.

I like this grad student's take. Read it carefully. You'll see the benefits identified and ignored by the French particularly in the press, who preferred to exploit Disney as the posterchild for their disdain toward U.S. culture. The failures are on so many levels here. http://www.attw.org/TCQarticles/7.3/7-3Forman.pdf

I'm not sure where we're at now with this venture.

 

[DancingBear]

DB, I don't understand your position. Could you clarify?

Not sure what you're looking for here, but, generally, it's just the "Element" in your post that tries to put everything in black and white terms. Every bad business decision was Eisners. Every business success the Company has had in 20 years is in spite of and not because of Eisner. Every business success that you have to give Eisner "credit" for (e.g., WDW hotel development) is flawed philosophically. Everything Eisner gets credit for in "Disney War" in his early CEO years is because that portion of the book is based only on what Eisner told James Stewart, but every story that makes Eisner (or Iger) look bad later on vs. Jobs, Katzenberg, Ovitz, Braun, etc. rings true. Eisner has managed to dupe all of the major institutional investors, etc.

It just seems to me that things are more complicated than that. I know the LandBaron pegs me as a huge Eisner apologist, but the fact is that I am perfectly willing to discuss negatives about Eisner, but the good Baron could never bring himself to give Eisner credit for anything.

I'll give DB that Broadway has been successful, and I won't even mention the fact that the biggest successes have been with three shows that absolutely depend on past success with DFA. Why cloud the issue with reality? How exactly would Ei$ner kept up his success on Broadway, which has largely been with cross-over promotion of popular animation hits translated into fine Broadway productions, if he's closed the unit? Hmm...

Well, there is Mary Poppins, plus a lot of old operas around. But, this is a perfect example of what I just said. Clearly, Eisner had a visionary moment (linked to his self-aggrandizement) when he brought Robert A.M. Stern to Times Square, and, whoever made the decision to hire Julie Taymor to direct Lion King, that was a magnificent moment.

DVC? Oh, I don't you and I would see eye to eye on whether DVC has been good for the company or the parks or the consumers or the fans as a whole.

Now I'm confused. Are we talking about the business success of the Company or Philosophy? [Okay, I forgot, they are one and the same.]

Okay, so in twenty years, my list of regrets is a mile long, and your list is retreaded shows at Broadway, two ships in the Cruise line (so far), and the ever-controversial DVC. Legacy indeed. Walt's epitaph: "And to think it all started with a mouse." Ei$ner's epitaph: "Broadway. Cruiselines. DVC."

Well, I know that anything else I bring up (releasing the Library, Celebration, the Studios, the Tower of Terror, Animal Kingdom, WDW resort development, WDW Downtown Disney development, an amazing run with Pixar, the Pirates of the Caribbean movie, ESPN, etc.) will be dismissed as either somebody else's achievement, or a flaw in Philosophy, or a poor version of "What Might Have Been" (or, God forbid, "What Walt Would Have Done"), or something, so why bother?

 

[WDSearcher]

Okay, so in twenty years, my list of regrets is a mile long, and your list is retreaded shows at Broadway, two ships in the Cruise line (so far), and the ever-controversial DVC. Legacy indeed.

From reading your post, your position seemed to be that Eisner brought nothing to the company. Others disagreed, so you asked for examples to prove that he had. You were given examples, and now you're criticizing the number you were given. Was your expectation that someone would go day-by-day, year-by-year throughout the entire 20 years? What number of examples would have been a satisfactory answer? My guess is that no amount would be satisfactory, since you'd manage to eke criticism out of pretty much any success that was attributed to Eisner's time at Disney. (Although I'm sure that both Michael and the Cruise Line are thrilled that you're okay with them.)

To say that you have a "list of regrets a mile long" while there are only three items in the plus column is false accounting. And a cheap shot, to boot. I don't know your beef with DVC, so I can't speak to that. But there are thousands of children who got their first exposure to Broadway and live theatre due to those "retreaded" Disney shows. There are also plenty of top shows there now who piggy-backed off effects and styling innovations of Disney Theatricals productions. Would you really rather that Disney had not put Beauty & the Beast on Broadway? Would you really rather than Aida, Lion King, and now Mary Poppins had never hit the stage? Or do you just dislike them because they happened while Eisner was in charge?

 

[crusader]

Well said DancingBear.

AirLarry: "livid" is an understatement when it comes to my expressions toward Ken Lay. But I agree. We should stick to the topics at hand.

I took the liberty of checking on the status of EuroDisney - This six week old WSJ article is the best I could find if anybody's interested.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0501/31/C04-74005.htm

 

[raidermatt]

The Cruise Line. Broadway. DVC.

Doesn't "quite" offset the problems.

Just so I understand, then, if Eisner claims EuroDisney "credit" in his book, you believe him, but if he claims credit for The Lion King, et. al., he's overreaching.

Just look at the relative levels of input. He had far more influence in Euro than in LK, both strategically and tactically.


Crusader, Wall Street's "satisfaction" with Eisner is based on two things. (1) Improvement in the short term numbers, and (2) the fact that he has agreed to leave.

If he were to announce he was staying another 5 years, and the Board agreed to it, we would see a very different response from what we are seeing now.


On EuroDisney, the biggest initial problems were with the hotels and resort structure, not the park itself. Given that its no secret that the French do not exactly hold Americana in the highest regard, the location may have been a mistake as well.

Regardless, as Larry points out, the company struggled to make it work for years, and then screwed it up all over again with the addition of DSP.

Interesting to note that the one thing some think was done right with EuroDisney was the park itself, yet Disney has gone more toward opening small parks done on the cheap (relatively speaking). Which is another one of my beefs with Eisner... misidentification of root causes and issues.

But as usual, we digress.

Let me ask this. Given what we were told about how extensive the search process for the new CEO would be, is anyone really satisfied with what actually occured?

 

[airlarry!]

I cannot tell a lie.

I do enjoy arguing about philosophy, i.e. Ei$nerian philosophy versus Disney's.

What is Ei$ner's philosophy and has it been successful? I do not think DB nor Crusader ever nail this one down, and IMHO its important to the discussion.

His philosophy in theme parks for example. It is well-documented that DCA, AK, MGM, DLPStudios, and HKDL are all prime examples of Ei$ner's philosophy of build small in terms of attractions and grow later. (Let's not debate themes just yet). The opposite philosophy is build it nearly complete (as Walt himself said, no Disney park is ever complete) a la Tokyo Disney Seas.

Which philosophy is more successful?

Thank you Crusader for the article. It shores up what I said, that Euro was on its way to profitability, until Ei$ner's right hand man, Jay Rasulo, personally built (hyperbole alert) by hand the second gate. Ei$ner literally dictated that a small crappy addition be added, and the gamble, of course, backfired. Don't even think to compare the work at the Studios level to the heart and soul imagineers poured into creating the initial park.

"The strategy has backfired in Disneyland's Anaheim, Calif., flagship destination, where the new California Adventure park is a disappointment, and in Paris, where a troubled Hollywood-themed second park was the key trigger of Euro Disney's latest brush with bankruptcy."

They are even calling it "The Strategy." Everyone knows that this is Ei$ner's pet philosophy, and it doesn't just apply to theme parks.

A close inspection of his involvement in DFA shows examples of Ei$ner's philosophy now of create a story, sell the story, duplicate the story for cheap. DB, you would be well to remember Walt's quote on duplicating pigs, here. Is there really a serious doubt that Ei$ner himself has had a hand in the destruction of DFA, while it was the hard work, creativity, and dedication of the staff at DFA that was actually responsible for its successes? I guess I see myself as a Disney fan, not as a Disney(c) fan. I'm a fan of the men and women who work their arses off to do what I only dream about.

When Beauty and the Beast came out, I was proud to be a shareholder in Disney. When I watched Mulan II (why oh why did my wife buy that) I was ashamed.

Yes, the object of my derision goes toward one man. Two different men led this company by the sheer will of their existence, one created characters and stories and fostered the encouragement of artists all over the lot. The other, literally bragged about finding a motherlode of money sitting there waiting to be exploited, and did his best to help himself to a share of the profits.

You're wrong about my take on Ei$ner. Since the early 90s, I have watched his career, first excited that he was finally expanding the parks and hotels, then watching in horror as the monster he unleashed seemed to feed on itself. He was and is beholden to the Street and to his own focus on power and greed. And it finally appears to have taken him down, although greater people than you two have counted Ei$ner out before and paid dearly for it (or at the least the company did).

 

[DancingBear]

I'm not sure here, but do you expect me to argue that Eisner was better than, or even equal to, Walt?

Or that Eisner is a good guy who should stick around longer?

Or that Paris Studios is a wonderful park? Or what?

'Cause I pretty much agree with everything in your last post.

 

[airlarry!]

Welcome to Car Three (or maybe Car Two).

I'm willing to give Iger a chance. He and the rest of the crew are in Stage One: repairing that which hath been wrought weakened by Ei$ner (see Lutz on Disneyland). Stage Two is tougher. What is MiniME's vision for the future? Does he agree that Ei$ner's philosophy is bankrupt, and that it was only good for ploughing cash from the fertile ground of Walt's footsteps?

I'm sure, like most, what we really care about (cause we hang out here on the DIS and not the ABC chat room or the Lyric Street Information Station or the Mom's For Miramax fan page) is parks and movies. Can MiniME lead another 'golden age' of animation? Will Pixar be a part of the Disney magic? Can Igor ressucitate DL and finish what was started in WDW? Will we ever see Pooh's Hunny Hunt technology in America? Will Baron ever see mickey-headed butter again?

Or will Ei$ner assume Mitchell's place, and the looting will continue? The elections took place last year, the shareholders still have their purple ink on their finger, but the board is still in a quagmire over which will win: Disnocracy or Greedocracy.

Stay tuned.

 

[WDSearcher]

I'm willing to give Iger a chance.

Wow. That'd be a lot easier to believe if you stopped calling him "MiniME." Doesn't exactly scream "sincerity." Or "objectivity," for that matter.

If you're expecting Iger to come in and lead another golden age of animation, "ressucitate" the parks, and get Pixar back at terms that are a whole lot better than the ones Jobs was offering last time, and to do it all before dinner on October 1, I'm thinking you'll be disappointed. Unfortunately, I'm also thinking that might be the bar you've set for him. Just curious ... when you say you'll "give Iger a chance," what do you consider to be a reasonable amount of time?

 

[raidermatt]

I don't see anything where Larry even indicated that kind of timeframe was his bar.

Imho, a lot of it depends on what kind of transition we are looking at, and we won't know that for awhile. Namely, is Eisner really going to be calling all the shots until September? And, is he really not going to be calling any shots in October?

If Iger really believes he is going to do things on the scale that we are talking about, there's no way he would have agreed to be Eisner's front man. So giving him the benefit of the doubt that he really does have such goals as reviving internal animation, bringing Pixar back*, ressucitating the parks, etc, then we should start hearing rumblings about this over the 6 month transition period. Maybe just rumors and such, nothing necessarily concrete. Over the first 6 months or so after the changeover, we should be hearing of much more definite changes. That doesn't mean we see the next great Disney attraction open in the parks or next great Disney animated film open at the box office, because that does take time. But we should be hearing rumblings from within that they really are committed to such things. "Eisner-troopers" should begin leaving (similar to Pressler's Pals migration from the parks), talented creative people will be looking to work FOR Disney instead of leaving Disney.

There will be signs of any such revival within the next year, if it is to take place.


*On the terms offered by Jobs, its interesting to note that the qualifier "whole lot better terms than what Jobs offered before" is not being attached to the task Iger has. The gap between what Pixar has shown they can do and what Disney has shown it can do is so great, that analysts view it as something Disney needs to do. Period. Wall Street wants Disney to get this done. Disney needs access to that creative pipeline.

Now, as usual, the analysts discount the creative variable, in that they don't account for the possibility that Disney could revive its own animation department and actually compete with Pixar. However, in this case, they are corrrect in that there is little to no evidence that will happen in the near future.

We have to remember that just because Disney says the terms weren't good doesn't mean they were right about it. Of course, there is also the possibility that Jobs offered terms he knew wouldn't be accepted because he wanted to stall until the leadership issue at Disney is resolved.

 

[DancingBear]

IThe gap between what Pixar has shown they can do and what Disney has shown it can do is so great, that analysts view it as something Disney needs to do. Period. Wall Street wants Disney to get this done.

Where's your evidence for that? When the recent announcements were made about negotiations breaking off, did the stock take a dive? What analysts are you talking about?

 

[crusader]

If he were to announce he was staying another 5 years, and the Board agreed to it, we would see a very different response from what we are seeing now.

I don't know about that. The Street only cared if the stock was impacted. It wasn't - despite the efforts of SaveDisney. Pretty darned impressive considering Comcast was lurking to strike. The Institutional Shareholders only cared about corporate governance and the lack of segregation of duties, which the board complied with.

I suspect Roy and Stan called in a few favors to garner support from the fund managers and the publicity came free and easy from the competition. But this really was a one shot deal in my opinion.

Eisner could have stayed and rode it out and called in a few favors as well. Roy could have kept up the campaign and used the fans and the employees to continually pressure the company from the outside - but the problem is: without the big guns support his numbers were dropping. The message was weak and the soundbites were fading.

I believe Eisner could have weathered this if he really wanted to. (but not without a price.) The Street would have backed anything that meant money. They don't care who's in charge. Look at Trump.

If Iger really believes he is going to do things on the scale that we are talking about, there's no way he would have agreed to be Eisner's front man.

why not? How else do you succeed internally?

airlarry what can I say?

I think we should all give Iger a shot.

As for Eisner's philosophy - Leadership. Market share. No different than any other CEO.

 

[airlarry!]

Fine, M. Searcher, you don't like MiniME, then how 'bout Igor, Ei$ner's "stupid and weak" assistant--(his words, not mine)?

Three months is all it would take for me to energize the Disney faithful while still satisfying the board and the stockholders. I'll give him that much.

But since some of his own co-workers have said this about him:

"Lack of character; incompetence; taking credit for things (he) had nothing to do with; and running away from decisions (he) made." Lloyd Braun on MiniME; and

"He will not get the company into trouble. He is a corporate executive. He is not an enlightened or a brilliantly creative man but, with a strong board, he absolutely could do the job." Michael Ei$ner on Igor.

Maybe three months is too long. We've already had twenty years of ME, why should we get 90 days of MiniME?

This guy may be nice to puppies, loves rainbows, and everybody says is a joy to play The Great Dalmuti with, but let's face it, the second coming of even Ron Miller he is not.

Really, people, have we sunk this low as a corporation that we are satisfied with a guy Ei$ner wanted to put an allowance on when it came to risking money on movies and television shows? Without a creative bone in his body?

This company was built on innovation and creation, and it is a sad, sad, sad, sad day that Robert "I Hate 'Lost'" Iger is the new leader.

Think about it.

Robert Freaking Iger is taking Uncle Walt's place. Robert Freaking Iger will be the next host of Disney's Wonderful World of Repurposed Shows." Robert Freaking Iger is sitting in the seat reserved for John Lassiter or someone of his stature.

This company doesn't need another money man. Or even an insider's insider. Or a drone. Or an assistant.

It needs a visionary. One who is smart enough to hire competent and creative people to lead each division.

Ah, fooey. Who am I fooling here? We've reached an impasse, I'd say, 'cause I refuse to give Ei$ner credit for most of the creative successes that rightfully belong to hard working people who poured their sweat and blood and tears into projects, all because the first day they signed the back of that check they were excited to see the words "Walt Disney Company" as the payor...

Iger really is Ei$ner-lite, when you think about, because neither one of them can draw, write, produce, edit, create, or humanize their way out of a papersack.

I enjoy the debates, I really do, I just get frustrated that my kids will inherit a company that is a brand name like "Xerox" or "Kleenex" instead of the place where dreamers were appreciated.

 

[DancingBear]

"Lack of character; incompetence; taking credit for things (he) had nothing to do with; and running away from decisions (he) made." Lloyd Braun on MiniME

Gee, I'm so surprised somebody Iger fired has bad things to say about him. And just which other brilliant shows did Lloyd "I created the Sopranos" Braun greenlight during the last several years at ABC, before "Lost."

"He will not get the company into trouble. He is a corporate executive. He is not an enlightened or a brilliantly creative man but, with a strong board, he absolutely could do the job." Michael Ei$ner on Igor.

Good, you're now trusting the judgments of an "enlightened and brilliantly creative" Michael Eisner.

Really, people, have we sunk this low as a corporation that we are satisfied with a guy Ei$ner wanted to put an allowance on when it came to risking money on movies and television shows?

Not sure I follow this. He had a budget?

Robert Freaking Iger is taking Uncle Walt's place.

No, he is taking Eisner's place at the head of a much different company than Walt left.

Robert Freaking Iger is sitting in the seat reserved for John Lassiter or someone of his stature.

You've got to be kidding. Lasseter would have no business being CEO of Disney.

It needs a visionary. One who is smart enough to hire competent and creative people to lead each division....We've reached an impasse, I'd say, 'cause I refuse to give Ei$ner credit for most of the creative successes that rightfully belong to hard working people who poured their sweat and blood and tears into projects...

I don't get this either. You say it's the top guy's job to hire these competent and creative people, but don't give Eisner credit for bringing in Katzenberg? Or several of the world's top architects? Or whoever it was that greenlighted "Down and Out in Beverly Hills"?

 

[airlarry!]

1. Lassiter: I'm curious. What exactly is your beef with John Lassiter, and why do you not think he is an excellent choice for head of TWDC?

2. Trusting Ei$ner's judgment: I'm assuming you are sarcastic in thinking I am trusting anything Ei$ner said. The post was mean to illustrate how even the bumbling Cou$in Mikey thinks Igor is plain vanilla. If Cou$in Mikey thinks you are a talentless hack, wow, that's saying something. Heck, now I can see why many are happy Igor is coming...cause even his old boss agrees its 20 more years of the same.

3. Bob's Budget: Rumor has it Orcner wanted to limit MiniME's budget when it came to investing in new shows and movies, at least according to Stewart:

http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_2205Iger
"Eisner then went on to call Iger's management of two other executives "stupid and weak" and to suggest that Iger's authority should be curbed with spending limits on movies and television shows. Iger seemed aware of Eisner's ambivalence. When Eisner suggested elevating him to president, Iger said: "Are you sure? You seem to be hot and cold on me," Stewart says."

4. Ei$ner's past successes: Katz? Wow, there's an old chestnut. Is that still even on Ei$ner's resume: "I brought in Jeffrey?" Well, Mikey, you are only as good as your last fumble, and the departure erases a lot of the 'good will' built up over that hire. Besides, the whole JK experience is so complicated, with so many versions, its hard to tell who ends up getting credit. I'd rather say that DFA deserves the credit for B&B and The Lion King, and JK deserves the credit for Pocohontas, but I'd be accused of Anti-Mike bias.

5. Architects: Puhlease. Suffice it to say that the Swalphin stands for everything Cou$in Mikey believes in when it comes to the WDW resort. Quick question, where would you rather stay if it was free? Poly or the Swalphin? What if I threw in a Michael Graves toaster if you stayed at the Swalphin, would that change your mind?

We've already opened up Ei$ner's California Adventure. I can't wait to see what the new resort in India, rumor has it named Robert Iger World, will look like.

DB, I believe you would agree with me that Ei$ner should have left a long time ago. Those that believe like I do usually fall into two camps, the ones who think Ei$ner and Wells made a great team and that Ei$ner's earlier moves fizzled out especially since the health troubles, and the ones who think he was the proverbial flunky talentless coach who inherited a talent loaded team and won the superbowl.

If you fall into or somewhere between those two camps, why are you not outraged that a man who deserves the President's title even less than Cou$in Mikey is going to be sitting in Walt's chair?