Is it Eisner's Fault?

[TiggerFreak]

I don't think I've seen you guys so worked up in months!

Here's my two cents.

Lest we forget, Walt's original concept for DL was a place for families. This concept, credo, corporate culture, zeitgeist,... call it what you want, became so ingrained in the company, that being part of Disney meant being part of a family. Being part of this family you emulated the father figure.

I can only hope that the memory of Walt is enough to sustain the "Disney Family," because no one in the current organization has his vision or sense of "family."

The celebration of the 100th anniversary of Walt's birth shows that his memory is still alive in the organization. Albeit, used to help turn a (Bad Word) PROFIT. Walt was a business man, wasn't he?

I may have to turn up the rose-o-meter on my glasses if I keep reading this thread

 

[Conure]

Ei$ner is in charge, right? EVERYTHING is his fault.



I never let schooling interfere with my education.
-Mark Twain

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by TiggerFreak
-snip-The celebration of the 100th anniversary of Walt's birth shows that his memory is still alive in the organization. Albeit, used to help turn a (Bad Word) PROFIT. Walt was a business man, wasn't he?

I may have to turn up the rose-o-meter on my glasses if I keep reading this thread

No matter what color glasses one wears, it is important to use those glasses to focus on something...PROFIT is not a bad word- but it is a bad thing to focus on- profit is like smoke, try to grab it and it dissipates and disappears...Profit is a side effect- a very good side effect of a business with a successful focus...but that smoke is a byproduct of the fire created by the appropriately focused passion to create/supply/serve a marketable need...Lately, Disney seems to be trying to make smoke, instead of working to make a fire. Whether it is Walt, or Bill Gates or any successful businessman- they don't set out to make profit--they want to light the world on fire with their idea.

Paul

 

[TiggerFreak]

Paul,

I guess was a little to Tongue-In-Cheek.
Profit is not a bad word or goal, unless it is the only impetus.

Walt had a idea, "A place where families could go ..." and I think he did set the world on fire with it. Within the organization there are still embers of Walt's fire smoldering away, waiting to catch fire again. I am just afraid that with the current focus of the company, these embers may be extinguished by a flood of floundering decisions.

PS: My glasses are powered by the same stuff as Rudolph's nose!

 

[DisDuck]

Boy, I miss a few days and now it is deja-vu time. DVC you should also be experiencing a little float back in time. Does not this thread remind you of late 2000/early 2001, when there was just you, JeffH, Pirate/Captain, JJ and I.

I still maintain the subjective versus objective argument. I am in Car #1 until such time as the subjective loses to the objective. My next dose of subjective is last week of June. Since this will be the first time in a long time with the under 12 set I will get to view WDW as a child does. I still believe that the mainstream WDW visitor could careless about Eisner/Pressler and the fight over Walt's vision or not. If the MAGIC still hits them squarely in the heart then that is what matters.

I know that when I step onto Main Street or See the Tree of Life or the Ball at EpCot, my heart skips a beat (not the healthiest of responses right now). If that happens again this June then all is well in Mickey Land.

Comments made about C&H and what it represents or does not and who is to blame if not, I find somewhat tedious because of my subjective viewpoint. You see I look at what was the theme trying to be accomplished and if it matches that theme then great. DCA/Paradise Pier is the closest example to C&H. The nay sayers talk about the tacky/garish carny atmosphere and how it does not belong at DL. I look at what was the idea.. TO CREATE A SEASIDE CARNIVAL.. like in the 'old' days. I grew up in the 50's going to Steeplechase Park & Luna Park in Coney Island. These were great summers for me. That is what Paradise Pier represented to me. My youth. Now if C&H is set to look like a TOURIST TRAP as one might expect to pop-up along side a great attraction like a dinosaur dig and it meets that touchy/feely idea then it works and meets/exceeds my expectations. Subjective as they are.


Above from your #1 Duck Still firmly buckled into Car #1.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

DVC you should also be experiencing a little float back in time. Does not this thread remind you of late 2000/early 2001, when there was just you, JeffH, Pirate/Captain, JJ and I.

Ahhh! The good old days! But life is more exciting now, even if it seems a bit of a rehash to us old-timers.

I still believe that the mainstream WDW visitor could careless about Eisner/Pressler and the fight over Walt's vision or not.

And I agree. But that’s not the point, is it? Whether or not Mr. Average Joe can tell a difference doesn’t matter at all. It’s whether it’s true or not. That is the question. For if the Vision of Walt is no longer held to the high standard it once was, then where is the company heading? Better or worse than what we came to fall in love with? We can’t crawl inside the brain of Ei$ner. All we can judge him on is what he puts before us. As a doctor checks off symptoms and forms an opinion. Sometimes good. Sometimes bad. But the symptoms tell the story. What kind of story is Ei$ner telling us with his actions and deeds?

I know that when I step onto Main Street or See the Tree of Life or the Ball at EpCot, my heart skips a beat (not the healthiest of responses right now). If that happens again this June then all is well in Mickey Land.

Be careful, my good Duck! We don’t want it to skip too many beats!!!

Above from your #1 Duck Still firmly buckled into Car #1.

And that’s why we love ya!!!

 

[DisDuck]

Tell you what DVC, I only promise to skip 1 beat. Unfortunately, I cannot raise a beer or two (until some medication finished) but will raise a diet-drink or two for our comrades on this board.

Is anyone going to be at WDW from 6/22 to 6/30? It would be nice to meet some face to face.

 

[Bob O]

The eisner regime cares nothing at all about Walt's vision!!!! They want to make money off that vision but dont want to spend the money to add to a disney vision for the future and will leave the next leader with a empty cupboard of materials to work with as everything by then will have sequels/prequels!!( except of course Son of the South which isnt pc).
And as long as they excused for every gaffe they make their will be no incentive for them to improve.

 

[wdwfreak]

I've been reluctant to add my opinion (two cents) to this thread because most of what I think has been stated at some point or another. And, of course, I dare not tangle with the the big boys. However, in reading the entire thread and in finding my own thoughts on the matter at large echoed throughout the various posts, I feel that there is one point that has not necessarily been thouroughly explored/discussed until this statement by Bob O:

Originally posted by Bob O
The eisner regime cares nothing at all about Walt's vision!!!! They want to make money off that vision but dont want to spend the money to add to a disney vision for the future and will leav4e the next lead with a empty cupboard of materials to work with as everything by then will have sequels/prequels!!

My strongest gut feeling tells me that Ei$ner, et al. know that the end is near for whatever reason (retirement, ouster by shareholders, etc.) and they are trying to drain every last dollar from the well with ABSOLUTELY NO thoughts about what harm this could do to the future of the company. Construct some cheap crap, pillage the vault, squeeze a few extra $$$ out of all the arms of the empire. Who cares what we leave for next crew?

Myself, I'll always find my magic at the parks, from the movies, and everything else Disney that I've come to hold dear, no matter what terribly misguided decisions the so-called "Eisner regime" makes. One can only hope that the eventual successor(s) wil be able to get the company back to the mid-80's/early-90's creative Golden Age of Katzenberg, Wells, and, yes, even Eisner.

My two cents ...

 

[airlarry!]

M. Wdwfreak shared the following:

My strongest gut feeling tells me that Ei$ner, et al. know that the end is near for whatever reason (retirement, ouster by shareholders, etc.) and they are trying to drain every last dollar from the well with ABSOLUTELY NO thoughts about what harm this could do to the future of the company.

I personally don't mind the repeats and reposts and rethreads. Yes some of us have been here since when Pete first started this whole thing, but every new person that joins our little fraternity ends up contributing to the thought process at some point or another.

Which brings me to your post...

The original Car#1s scoffed, if I recall correctly, when M. Voice posted the very same thing a year or two ago. I wish we could still search those old posts so I could find it. It was a thread or so about Ei$ner's legacy...one side argued he can't screw this up because he wants desperately to leave a Waltian legacy. The other side (and I've personally slowly succumbed to the dark side through frequent brainwashings from Friend Baron and Friend Voice) believed that Ei$ner's dream of a legacy was one of $$$$ for his children.

M. Wdwfreak, I'm glad you pointed this out. I truly believe that whichever side you choose tends (only tends, I'm saying) to color your view of every rumor we hear about.

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisDuck
-snip- Since this will be the first time in a long time with the under 12 set I will get to view WDW as a child does.

In a nutshell- Disney's problem is that the under 12 market is no longer growing as it did under Eisner's successful regime- it is shrinking...and the teens are growing and going over to IOA--> they'll be back in about 20 years with their kids. I just hope Eisner has not either changed it so much or destroyed it that the echo of the Echo Boom doesn't have as magical a place as we have enjoyed.

Paul

 

[DisDuck]

I disagree about the over 12 set going over to IOA. I had only mentioned the under 12 bit because my youngest is now 17 so I have not had young children for awhile. If my family is a guide, of my 4 children I would say even split between IOA type rides and WDW type rides (age range 17 to 26).

I will try to do an informal head-count by age when there in June. I wonder, does anyone have reliable numbers that breakdown individual park attendence by age group?

 

[Bstanley]

General Question: Is it Eisners fault?

Sub-concept #1. Because he is the Captain of the Ship, responsible for the overall tone of Disney Corporate Culture and because he personally selects, instructs, and monitors his staff.

Comment: It was stated that the big ME is directly responsible for poorly executed, penny-pinching ideas by his subordinates because they must be doing exactly what he told them to do since if they weren't doing what he told them to do he can always fire them. A nice clean view of a hierarchical management system. Unfortunately the real world is never so straightforward.

First, when you're 'the man' at a conglomerate like Disney you do NOT have the time to devote significant energy to one particular area of the business. You provide the individual organizations with their budget and goals (often they do it themselves and it just gets approved) and they are on their own from then on. Only if a serious screw-up occurs will 'the man' poke his nose into your business - and this is NOT a good thing when it occurs either...

Second, unless somebody like PP is REALLY stupid there are literally a thousand ways to shift blame onto virtually any of his underlings, or suppliers, or market researchers, etc. As long as 'his' business segment overall has continued to meet the basic numbers that it's been given by the corporation. And frankly whether or not we like what PP has been doing he's been feeding cash into the corporate coffers as required. So it is quite reasonable to believe that the big ME had no reason to believe that he wasn't doing a good job - until DCA maybe...

Third, Heavens above I hope I never work for a company where you make a mistake and they can you! Basically the only difference between a good manager and a bad manager is the percentage of good decisions they make versus the bad. Having had access to a couple of major corporations senior management - including the fastest growing company in history - I would personally say that a good manager is right 65% of the time and a bad one is only right 45% of the time. All of them make mistakes - it's that 20% that makes the difference. Again - it's quite reasonable to believe that the big ME hasn't put 2 and 2 together yet to figure out that some of his staff are just NOT running at the 65% level...

Sub-concept #2. The big ME is (has always been) devoted purely to the pursuit of the bottom line, ie NET PROFIT, without regard to the Disney legacy. He has actively created a corporate culture and created a management team to support that goal - he has driven away capable people who have tried to keep the older/richer Disney culture alive and he is personally aware of and encourages providing sub-par product (movies, attractions, etc) because it adds to the bottom line.

Comment: It was stated that without FW and JK and the Disney staff that was in place when he took over way back when that the big ME would have shown his true colors immediately. That because they 'deflected' his NET PROFIT goal somehow they were able to produce the parks, movies, resorts etc that today literally make up the Lion's share of what we now know as "Disney".

Does this make sense? It doesn't to me. If it's true why didn't he pick the staff in 1984 with the same goals as in 1996 - other than FW he picked everybody. No matter whether you like the big ME or not it is not reasonable to assume that from 1984 until 1996 that he was not actively involved in day to day operations, and there I think is the more logical argument...

SubConcept #3. My personal opinion is that if the big ME is to be held responsible it should be because he has invested too many of the company's resources and too much of his personal time in the Television/Media side of the business.

Comment: From 1984 until 1996 (maybe even 1995, depending on when he started the company off looking for a network to buy) I give the big ME (and his team) very high marks for the parks, rides, movies, etc. that were done. And curiously this is also the time when he could actually pay some attention to parks and movies - prior to 'MediaLand' being added... The end of this period also corresponds to when FW tragically left the scene and JK/others 'left to pursue other interests' - and a new 'supporting cast' took the stage - just as the 'dark period' (IMHO) began - 1997 to now.

So I am still not convinced who the 'villain' is here.

I feel I must bow to other 'Voices' who appear to have knowledge that I do not have, but frankly in this as in all things I tend to hope for the best and would prefer to believe as soon as the big ME pays some serious attention to the parks - perhaps now that DCA has exploded (imploded?) on the scene he will find the time to really compare DCA to TDL, put 2 and 2 together, educate his 'young apprentice' and there will be a "New Hope"!

 

[YoHo]

Jeez, Its been a while since I participated in one of these.
Rest assured I've only read the first couple posts and Bstanley's latest.

As personal opinion, I've come to agree with what AV has said for some time, that Roy E. Wanted Wells and took Eisner for his hollywood credentials. It makes perfect sense in a hollywood sort of way. (what Can I say I moved to the west coast and gained different understanding)

If you study Eisner's career, you see that he has no expireance in the CEO position, no credentails that suggest he'd be good at it. at best he made some good choices about which soap operas and Movies to make. (Something that hasn't been working in today's Disney)

So, to my mind, Eisner is the problem, not because he meddles with every little thing, but because he simply doesn't know what to do.

 

[larworth]

A quick acknowledgement to an earlier discussion point. Scoop thought he saw a design flaw and tried to separate it from the intent flaw that so obviously exists with Dino-Rama!. Not always easy when there are positions and rhetoric to defend. Hopemax showed how the time-machine parody of PW is a reasonable story line and Scoop stood corrected. However, I thought it was a good use of process.

***

From those earlier debates it does seem like there has been some shift in car membership. I think the poor performance of the other divisions has caused some of this. Questions about the balance between creativity and profitability that once centered on the parks is now a valid topic for debate is so many other areas that it can no longer be discounted.

Earlier arguments suffered from blurrier lines between taste and intent. If there were criticisms voiced about the level of ambition behind Kali, RnR, Buzz, and other resort policies they could be easily discounted as subjective and not structural in nature. Since that time we’ve seen much clearer examples of the deterioration in ambition. I don’t know how anyone can look at parts of DCA, Dina-Rama!, PC, and other recent efforts and not see that something fundamental has changed.

While we’re probably all still divided over when it occurred (post 1995 for me), why it may have occurred, and the longterm implications, do we all now at least acknowledge there has been a significant change in their approach to running the parks no matter which car we ride in?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Closure??!! I think not, my dear Scoop…

p.s. for closure's sake, Baron, I think Disney also screwed up with the Garden Wings, Birthdayland and its progeny, ...

… instead you are opening up a whole new can of worms!!

Why is it that you feel compelled to cite early failures when addressing current ones? You do it rather frequently, you know. Even if we avoid a debate as to the accuracy of your list and accept it as fact, it has absolutely nothing to with the conversation at hand!!

Look closely at Mr. Larworth’s post. Very insightful!! Especially the second paragraph…

Earlier arguments suffered from blurrier lines between taste and intent. If there were criticisms voiced about the level of ambition behind Kali, RnR, Buzz, and other resort policies they could be easily discounted as subjective and not structural in nature. Since that time we’ve seen much clearer examples of the deterioration in ambition. I don’t know how anyone can look at parts of DCA, Dina-Rama!, PC, and other recent efforts and not see that something fundamental has changed.

The whole paragraph is simply wonderful, but it is the end that is particularly poignant.

I don’t know how anyone can look at parts of DCA, Dina-Rama!, PC, and other recent efforts and not see that something fundamental has changed.

something fundamental has changed. That’s the key!! Please get over the garden wings and start focusing on the subject at hand!! It’s the fundamental change that we’re all talking about!! Not a random (and not very common) mistake or accidental failure, but a fundamental change in philosophy!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

...Jeff, I simply was attempting to show that I'm an equal opportunity critic. I gave three pre-Eisner and three post-Eisner after one of your earlier posts inaccurately suggested that DinoRama has been my only criticism of Eisner.

I know you try to be an equal opportunity critic. I just don’t think you succeed!!

And my ‘selective’ quotes were just that. Selective!! I don’t see how it furthered the conversation to quote the entire paragraph when I was specifically talking about the garden wings, et al. You make it seem as though the readers read my responses only and not your entire post!! I think most can glean from the collective what we are each trying to say and what specifics we want to talk about. I wanted to talk about your reference to ‘garden wings’ (again and again and again and…). I did not want to talk about Richard Petty Driving Atrocity! My post… Not yours!! Which leads us to….

Please note for the record though that it's quite ironic that you're attempting to bold-type font me into getting back to "the subject at hand" when this thread is based on my "musings".

Go get your own musings!

Fair enough!!! (he looks a little sheepish and continues) Point well taken!!!

Anyways, except for any poster whose agenda is so engrained that it's beyond malleability I state again:

Eisner has screwed up many different times during his tenure, including DinoRama.
Imagineering also screwed up with DinoRama.

That is my point. You make it sound like isolated incidences. They are not. They are indicative of a (dare I use bold again……… Oh, what the heck!) FUNDEMENTAL PHILOSOPHICAL CHANGE!!!!

Gosh, I hope I never end up in Car #3...

You’re already there. It’s just that you won’t admit it!!



ps: Heavy pet Ei$ner!!!!!!!! UHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bstanley]

Sorry Mr. Scoop, but I've got one more post on the 'Eisner' blame game before I go back and re-read your musing for comment.

While we’re probably all still divided over when it occurred (post 1995 for me), why it may have occurred, and the longterm implications, do we all now at least acknowledge there has been a significant change in their approach to running the parks no matter which car we ride in?

So the question seems to be do I acknowledge that the parks are being short-changed for the sake of profitability as the result of a change of corporate policy (culture?) that dates from approximately 1995 - in this case whether or not the big ME is the reason is not a part of the question.

OK let's do it the old fashioned way - follow the money...

Parks/Resorts $ in and out from the Annual Reports

1992, $3.3B income, $2.7B expenses, $0.6B capital improvements, 19% Gross
1993, $3.4B income, $2.7B expenses, $0.6B capital improvements, 18% Gross
1994, $3.5B income, $2.8B expenses, $0.8B capital improvements, 20% Gross
1995, $4.0B income, $3.2B expenses, $0.6B capital improvements, 20% Gross
1996, $4.5B income, $3.5B expenses, $1.2B capital improvements, 23% Gross
1997, $5.0B income, $3.9B expenses, $1.1B capital improvements, 22% Gross
1998, $5.5B income, $4.2B expenses, $1.3B capital improvements, 23% Gross
1999, $6.1B income, $4.6B expenses, $1.7B capital improvements, 24% Gross
2000, $6.8B income, $5.2B expenses, $1.5B capital improvements, 23% Gross
2001, $7.0B income, $5.4B expenses, $1.3B capital improvements, 23% Gross

Hmm, the bad news is that it looks like starting in '96 the Gross profit target for the segment was indeed raised by 3% - which is certainly an interesting sum ($200 million in 2000 for example), but the good news is that the money is not leaving the Parks/Resorts segment.

So basically for the last 10 years the Parks/Resorts segment have been allowed to keep whatever money they made within the segment to use to expand the segment (AK, AKL, The Cruise Line, DCA) . They haven't received any help from corporate, they haven't been asked to pay a lot for anybody else's toys.

So again - I just don't see the NET PROFIT 'smoking gun' here. These guys don't get bonuses on the GROSS, they get bonuses on the NET. They have indeed been taking in more money, but they have been putting it back into the segment.

I'll admit I don't really like the way they've spent the money in many cases, but they are continuing to spend the money - it is not rolling down to the bottom line as NET profit.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hmmm. I almost forgot about Mr. Bstanley, the Scoop took my mind off the thoughtful response I was formulating…. Anyway:

First, when you're 'the man' at a conglomerate like Disney you do NOT have the time to devote significant energy to one particular area of the business. You provide the individual organizations with their budget and goals (often they do it themselves and it just gets approved) and they are on their own from then on. Only if a serious screw-up occurs will 'the man' poke his nose into your business - and this is NOT a good thing when it occurs either...

I especially like the bit about this NOT being a good thing when it occurs. By ‘poke his nose into your business’ I assume you mean the very micro management style that Ei$ner has honed to a fine art. The type of business management style that he is very, very, well known for. What makes you think he doesn’t do that regularly, as he is reputed to?

Second, unless somebody like PP is REALLY stupid there are literally a thousand ways to shift blame onto virtually any of his underlings, or suppliers, or market researchers, etc. As long as 'his' business segment overall has continued to meet the basic numbers that it's been given by the corporation. And frankly whether or not we like what PP has been doing he's been feeding cash into the corporate coffers as required. So it is quite reasonable to believe that the big ME had no reason to believe that he wasn't doing a good job - until DCA maybe...

WOW what a paragraph!! Assigning blame, CYA stuff, meeting numbers, feeding cash into the corporate coffers!! It sounds like I’m at work!! You left out only one point. Corporate culture.

How is it that Walt was able to surround himself with creative, like-minded, talented people and Ei$ner surrounds himself with the likes of Pre$$ler? Can we ascertain from this that they are also like-minded? Can we tell, by the way he’s handled other personnel matters, chief among them the dismissal of Katzenberg, that he values number crunchers over creative types? Remember, we’re asking if the whole enchilada is Ei$ner’s fault. Not just Dino-rama!! In other words, is the a (there he goes with the bold again) fundamental philosophical change that has occurred since he took over?

Third, Heavens above I hope I never work for a company where you make a mistake and they can you!

We’re not talking about one or two mistakes!!! We’re talking about the very foundation upon which the philosophy of Disney was built!! We’re talking about ‘vision’! The head cheese creates the vision. And his subordinates try to make that vision come true. I happen to think that Pre$$ler is a very good manager. Right up there around (and probably beyond) the 65% rate you were talking about. I think he is very good at what he does. And don’t think that Ei$ner doesn’t appreciate him carrying out his marching orders as well as he does. It’s those ‘marching orders’ that I have a problem with!!

The big ME is (has always been) devoted purely to the pursuit of the bottom line, ie NET PROFIT, without regard to the Disney legacy. He has actively created a corporate culture and created a management team to support that goal - he has driven away capable people who have tried to keep the older/richer Disney culture alive and he is personally aware of and encourages providing sub-par product (movies, attractions, etc) because it adds to the bottom line.

Very well put!!!! I have nothing to add to it! It’s perfect!!!!!

No, wait. After re-reading your comments I find I do have an addition. You give him too much credit for brains. He’s not that smart. So let me re-write the above to state what I really think (Bold are changes I made):

The big ME is (has always been) inept. He has actively created a corporate culture and created a management team that sends mixed messages at best and lately has been very bottom line oriented - he has driven away capable people who have tried to keep the older/richer Disney culture alive, because of his massive ego and he is personally aware of and encourages providing sub-par product (movies, attractions, etc) because it adds to the bottom line and he doesn’t know what else to do because he is… inept!

Yeah! That about does it!! So, yeah. It’s his fault, plain and simple. And it has been since day #1!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop, my man!!!!

Baron
...I love your passion for all things Disney and thoroughly enjoy your writing style...but how you get

You make it sound like isolated incidences.

...from...

Eisner has screwed up many different times during his tenure,

shall simply be the crop circle mystery of this thread...

Can I assume that because you questioned this, you really do agree that while Ei$ner has screwed up many different times, they are not isolated incidences, but instead are indicative of a fundamental change in philosophy?

They are either pieces of a bigger whole or merely isolated mistakes (though they may be many). You can’t have it both ways!!!

So, which is it?