So, who has led since Eisner....and do we like him/her?

[DVC-Landbaron]

As it says in my signature:

For the best "Disney Education" on the web go to:

http://www.july171955.com/

Read the back threads. We've even started a Wiki (which is currently sketchy at best, but we're working on it).

Or just ask a question. Some member of the element will answer. But be careful. We limit the amount of pixie dust we allow in our eyes so the answers will not always be what you want to hear. But it is the truth as we see it!!

And as always - HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!

 

[FireDancer]

OK! That was a bad one! My poor head went into a million little pieces. Anyway…

You head sure come apart a lot, are you a Kennedy by chance?

The DISNEY creative thing to do would have been to NOT put those monstrosities within the sightlines of EPCOT! The creative thing to do would have been letting DISNEY imagineers THEME the those horrible structures in Dinsey-style instead of thinking he was God’s gift to the architecture world. It was a moronic, ego driven move from a VERY UN-creative guy. And the very antithesis of Walt’s Philosophy. Yet you used it as an example of his creativity. I don’t get it.

I was not saying the Swan and Dolphin were creative. They were the price
that had to be paid to break the contract. But without breaking the contract, the Yacht Club, Beach Club, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Coronado Springs...would have never been built.

Yes. As a concept (something he had NOTHING to do with) it was very creative.

And who caused that “financial and political disaster”? Yes folks!! You guessed!! Your creative COE and mine… The one, the only – Mr. Inept himself!!! Ei$ner!!!!!

Well, I would say he did have creative input but since I wasn't in those meetings, who knows. I agree that the root problem of the project was doing it in France instead of outside Barcelona like just about everyone else wanted and that was down to Eisner and all the people who just went along with it.

OH! I see what happened here. You are assuming that since he was a COE, he must be competent. It’s a given that he can run a company. The only question remaining then is what “bucket” to put him in. That’s why you omitted the third bucket. And the only one where Ei$ner belongs. The GARBAGE bucket. Because it really doesn’t matter if he you label him creative or managerial. His true label is simple INEPT. He was ROTTEN at running Disney and he was ROTTEN at running Paramount before that.

Well yes, I am assuming that the CEO is not an example of the peter priciple. Eisner was too egotistical to be CEO without any kind of controls over him. He knew how to approve a script and set a production philosophy in the film and television divisions. He was not capable of setting a strategic path for the company. I believe that for the most part that role was filled by Frank Wells. When Wells died and Eisner started “controlling” that function everything fell apart. The Wells/Eisner era wasn't perfect (that is when Euro Disney happened of course) but Eisner was kept in check at least a little bit. This goes back to my contention that the CEO should be the strategic, managerial type that a Welch or Buffett or even Gates was instead of the "Hollywood" guy that Eisner was.

I think Eisner was a terrible CEO for the most part and should have been there from 1984 to 1994 and then left. There was not one under him with any kind of power and the board, which is supposed to be independent of management, was beholden to him for one thing or another with the only real exceptions being Gold and Roy O.

Somehow you have me defending a guy who I have no real respect for. I just don’t see everything he did as this big disaster though.

 

[FireDancer]

Question for you guys: Are there any publications on the history of operations at WDW. Disney War has talked primarily about films and such up to this point with only a few references to EPCOT or DLP. I'm interesting in reading the history of decision making regarding the WDW resort.

I am going to check out "RealityLand" and have also heard a book called "Spinning The Mouse" or something like that written by an old PR guy is pretty good. If anyone knows of a WDW book that talks about reality instead of fantasy please let me know.

 

[Another Voice]

Are there any publications on the history of operations at WDW.

Sadly, not really.

Books about Disney fall into either three categories. You get the typical academic type that’s all a shred about how capitalism is evil, how America is evil and most of all how Disney is evil. I guess the most famous of these would be “Vinyl Leaves”. These books contain very little actual information about Disney – but their ignorance and Keith Obermann like frothing at the mouth make than funny to read.

The internally produced books – like the series on Imagineering and the old Abrams books are nice, but don’t cover the real history. They have plenty of pictures and drawings but not much the discusses the real decision making that goes into running the company or creating something like WDW.

The other series of books are the glowing puff pieces written during the height of The Finance Bubble (I guess we can now talk that era which ran from the early 1980s until last Sunday). These were the whole series of ‘Michael Eisner – Mega Master Media Mogul!!!” Let’s just say that history has not been kind to those books. Even ‘Disney Wars[/i] started out as one of them, but the author actually dug into what was happening.

The one book I can recommend is ‘Storming the Magic Kingdom’. It details the Bass Brothers takeover of Disney. It provides a lot of essential information about Disney prior to Eisner and the internal conflict (Walt’s side vs. Roy’s side) that really lead the company to implode. Contrary to popular myth, Disney was not “all most bankrupt” and Eisner did not “save” the company.

I haven’t yet read ‘Realityland’, but I read the author’s other books. They provide the kind of information you would here if you worked at Disney (like the author did), but it lacks the corporate office insight where all the really big stuff gets made. It will tell you what it’s like to run the monorails, but it won’t tell you about the tortured history of WDW’s monorail expansion plans.

He knew how to approve a script and set a production philosophy in the film and television divisions.

There is an awful lot of debate about that. At Paramount, Eisner was guided from on top by Barry Diller – the man who eventually went on to create the Fox media empire (and made billions when he sold it to Rupert).

At Disney, it was Jeffrey Katzenberg who was really running the studio. Early Eisner was pretty much like to play big shot in Hollywood, the appear on television whenever he could, to dance about with famous architects and review carpet samples. Eisner spent most of his time zooming on the fun details of the job (yes, like picking out the paint schemes for WDW’s busses). But that didn’t leave any time for really running the business. The actual job of reading scripts and deciding which one to do was left to others.

And you can see that at work. Look at the massive shift in Disney films and fortunes after Katzenberg left. Early Eisner Disney was known for tight, profitable pictures like Three Men and a Baby. After Katzenberg, Eisner was forced to picked projects himself and we got giant, high profile failures like Pearl Harbor and The Alamo. For a while Eisner tried to outsource the studio to Jerry Bruckheimer – and that definitely produced mixed results.

 

[FireDancer]

At Disney, it was Jeffrey Katzenberg who was really running the studio.

I think that Jeffrey was great and I think should have stayed and been named President. The three things that ended the “Disney Decade” in my opinion were the Deaths of Ashman and Wells and Jeffrey leaving.

 

[YoHo]

The Disney Decade was doomed from the Start. Though I think Well's death had the biggest impact. He actually was competent.
I second Storming the Magic Kingdom. It's pretty much the best book out there on what happened. Obviously, it can only deal with what the participants were willing to tell the author, but if generally gives you a good idea what to expect.


Also, people were clamoring for a EuroDisney, both France and Spain, before Eisner and Wells took over. He had very little to do with any of the important design.

I always find the intense need of people to justify why Eisner wasn't a complete dingus rather comical. Yeah, back then I thought his posterior produced magic too. Then I actually learned about what happened and wised up.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Your head sure come apart a lot, are you a Kennedy by chance?

No! Not at all! My head only comes apart when I read OUTRAGOUS statements about Ei$ner on this site. Come to think of it, it does explode a lot! That’s why I feel a duty to make sure everyone is Ei$ner educated!! That way they will know the truth and my head can stay together!!

I was not saying the Swan and Dolphin were creative. They were the price
that had to be paid to break the contract.

So let me get this straight. He was corporately creative. We’re not talking about the placement, the design, the feel, or even the carpeting they used. Right? We’re talking about reviewing the contract with lawyers (probably their idea) and conferring with the finance Department to ask for their options (something tells me he didn’t dream this up himself, but I will grant that he did it). But it’s still financial! Tell me how that’s different than what a managerial CEO would do. Tell how that’s different from what Mr. Buffett would do?

And then when he had the chance to be really creative what did he do. Built hideous monstrosities and placed them within the sightlines of EPCOT! Yeah man!! That’s creative genius!!

But without breaking the contract, the Yacht Club, Beach Club, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Coronado Springs...would have never been built.

And the downside is?

Well, I would say he did have creative input but since I wasn't in those meetings…

No! You got me wrong! I KNOW he had input!! He was the one that insisted that they overbuild the hotels and he was the one who picked the location!! And both of those “CREATIVE” moves cost the company MILLIONS!!

Well yes, I am assuming that the CEO is not an example of the peter principle.

Unfortunately you picked the CEO that is the poster child for that particular syndrome.

I think Eisner was a terrible CEO for the most part and should have been there from 1984 to 1994 and then left

And I think the minute he walked through the door the Walt Philosophy I love got kicked to the street!! In my humble opinion he should never have been involved with Disney at all except as an owner of a park hopper!! (OH! WAIT!! That’s right. He never did that before he became COE of the company!)

Lastly:

The three things that ended the “Disney Decade” in my opinion were the Deaths of Ashman and Wells and Jeffrey leaving.

See!! My friend, there was no “Disney Decade”. It was nothing more than what Ron Miller was doing in the first place! And I’ll lay 10 to 1 he wouldn’t have screwed up Euro-Disney, or started GO.COM or build the Swan or Dolphin how and where they are or dream up the Institute (God! What an insult!! The personification of NON-Disney!!) And all those other things that happened during that Decade that so many here revere!!

AV answered the rest of your post. I just want to say that I don’t mean to pick on you. It’s just that you seem believe all Disney spin about his tenure. And it just isn’t so!

 

[deej696]

Sooo....yyeaaahhhh....I decided I would poke around the site Landbaron and Yoho have in your sig. I'm not so closed minded in my opinions that I avoid info that may be to the contrary Long story short, its possible, that maybe, I may or may not be coming around to the idea that ole Mikey wasnt that great for Disney. It actually was AV's thread ranking the parks that made me say "you know, that was spot on. There might be something to this" So while I am not prepared to say I have been fully converted, I will concede that the Disney Decade probably wasnt all that great for the company in the long run.

Wow I cant believe I just said that...... Maybe I'm not feeling well

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Welcome to the dark-side, my Padawan!!

HOWEVER...

No matter how much you search you're feelings... I am NOT your Father!!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

HEY!!! I just noticed!!! You didn't sign up there!!

GO ON!! SIGN UP AND POST!!


HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[k5thbeatle]

...Conversely, I wouldn’t put Ei$ner in charge of a bake sale for the PTA!! He’d screw it up! Why? Because he is INEPT!!!! He thinks he is creative, but he hasn’t got a clue!!...

It is the "self proclaimed" that usually are the problem!

 

[FireDancer]

Well, we can go back and forth all day on Eisner. I don’t think he was the best CEO but when he came in someone had to. Maybe he wasn’t the best choice but without a management change Disney would have most likely been taken over and split up.

Being a big fan of Milton Friedman I believe the sole purpose of any for-profit public company on Earth is to increase the wealth of its share holders. All the rest is a means to that end.

Breaking it down to that core let’s do a simple financial analysis of Disney from September 24th 1984 to October 1st 2005. If I purchased 100,000 shares of Disney stock the day before Ei$ner took over it would have cost me $133,000. If I put those shares in a vault and did not touch them (meaning when the stock split you took the shares and not cash if it was offered) until the day after Michael quit I could have sold them for $115,824,000. If you adjust the 1984 dollars for inflation (making it $250,000 in 2005 money) you realized a profit of $115,574,000. Maybe someone else would have done even better, but maybe not.

Regardless of how Michael is classified or how he is judged to have performed, I would gladly take my $115 Million Dollars and bid him good day.

 

[Another Voice]

Try that same exercise starting in 1994 and see what happens. You also have to compare your investment against others - just cause you made a lot of money in Disney doesn't mean it wouldn't have done better elsewhere.

Say a small company like Google?

There was tremendous built up potential in Disney pre-1984. If you look at all the big things that brought huge amounts of money to Disney: new animation, live action features, the Disney Channel, expansion at WDW, Tokyo Disneyland - all of them were started before Michael Eisner came onboard. It's impossible to say that Disney wouldn't have done just as well without Eisner as with.

Actually, you can. Given GO.com, Fox Family, ABC, airplane leases, Disney Mobile on and on and on...think of where Disney would be today if they had invested in thier core businesses instead of verging into magazines and shows like Am I Hot or Not.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, we can go back and forth all day on Eisner.

I agree. Let’s call it quits.

Being a big fan of Milton Friedman I believe the sole purpose of any for-profit public company on Earth is to increase the wealth of its share holders. All the rest is a means to that end.

AH! I see the problem now. We are talking apples and oranges.

Tell me. Why are you here? Why are you on a Disney fan site, taking up your valuable time talking to some knucklehead (me) who keeps ranting about something called “Walt’s Philosophy”?

I’m here because at a very young age and then well into adulthood this company BLEW ME AWAY!!!! I didn’t know if it made any money, I didn’t care!!! The “STUFF” they put out, in an amusement park simply WOWed me. It was the ‘creative’ things that I fell in love with. And I actually sought out a place on the web to talk about it.

Now, I know a lot of other companies. And some, as AV said, are making money hand over fist, outshining Disney at every quarterly report. And some of those companies I have invested in. But I have never signed up on a discussion board to talk about these companies. That’s because Disney was/is different. There was something in the atmosphere of this company that set it apart from all other companies in the world. And it is that “SOMETHING” that is disappearing. It is that “SOMETHING” that I want to talk about.

I call that “SOMETHING” the Walt Philosophy. That’s what we have lost in the management tag team of Ei$ner/Igor. I don’t want to talk about making money. Sure the company has to be solvent. And it’s very nice if it turns a nifty profit. But if that is what Disney has been reduced to, then I’m outta here. And it is that criteria by which I judge the CEO of Disney.

If it’s all about the bottom line, quarterly statements and market shares, I can sure as heck find a better company than Disney to talk about.

So if that’s your perspective, I guess we’ll never agree.

 

[SheilaHeartsDisney]

I don't know about you but I really can't stand the title of this thread and seeing all the time. I don't know why. I just can't stand it. K Bye! GO Disney!!

 

[FireDancer]

There was tremendous built up potential in Disney pre-1984.

You bet there was, and people like Murdoch and Hilton saw it. There is a pretty good chance that one of them could have initiated a hostel take over of the company in 1984 or 1985 because the stock was so low. And in the market environment at the time it probably would have succeeded once started.

Maybe another CEO would have done better, actually it is almost certain, but at the time he fit the bill. A CEO with less of an ego could also have let the company be merged with AOL or Comcast and then there would be real problems.

So if that’s your perspective, I guess we’ll never agree.

There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their own opinions and I guess ours is just different. I am not claiming to be the end all, I’m just putting out my opinions.

I am a big fan of parts of the Disney Company. I watch the animated movies and go to the theme parks but I understand that at the root it is a publicly traded company. I haven't over dosed on pixie dust.

In that respect, Disney is no different from Exxon or GM or Coca-Cola. When Walt was alive he wasn't responsible to the holders of 1.8 Billion shares of what used to be his company. Walt ran the company like it was his own, because it was. It now belongs to the stock holders. When they aren't happy they change management (like when they withheld their confidence in Eisner). When the public is unhappy with their product they will stop consuming it and the company will respond.

Maybe it was better back then. Creatively it almost certainly was. I never want anyone to mistake what I say about Eisner (whom I don’t like all that much but don’t hate either) with a comparison to Walt because there is none. But in the end The Walt Disney Company bears very little structural resemblance to the company that existed in December of 1966. If you know of leadership that can take the Walt philosophy and adapt it to the fiduciary rules in place for the modern Disney you would have 100% of my support. I just don’t know who that person is.

Maybe it isn't as magical as it used to be but it is what it is...and what it is is a Fortune 100 company and no longer just a man and a mouse. But whatever the case I call a truce.

 

[rantnnravin]

If you know of leadership that can take the Walt philosophy and adapt it to the fiduciary rules in place for the modern Disney you would have 100% of my support. I just don’t know who that person is.

Steve Jobs

unfortunately, he has less than zero interest in running another company. (Even if it is one in which he is the largest single shareholder.)

 

[YoHo]

Welcome to the dark-side, my Padawan!!

HOWEVER...

No matter how much you search you're feelings... I am NOT your Father!!!!

But are you his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate?

 

[YoHo]

FireDancer, have you ever read Storming the Magic Kingdom? You seem to be talking generalities of the situation rather than specifics.

More to the point, Suggesting that Walt wasn't beholden to anybody is just dumb. You think Bank of America just gave the company money out of it's own good will? They gave money, because they expected a return. Further, Walt Disney Productions went public in 1957 So yes, Walt did in fact have to deal with frackin shareholders. So your premise is flawed there.

And yes, of course, it is the point of any corporation to make money for its shareholders. That's why it's a for profit business and not a charity. What relevance does that have? It was for profit when Walt and Roy were the only owners too.
The key addendum to Friedman's oft misused phrase is that a company of any type is founded to provide some form of goods or services. Disney exists to create entertainment. Not to own 757s. Companies succeed when they make the best goods and services for the lowest cost.

Far to many companies have increased shareholder profits short term by lowering costs below the point needed to maintain quality. That will profit the shareholders, but it will destroy the company.

Therefore, there are really only two ways this can work.
Disney exists and continues to create compelling product or
Disney is torn apart, because there's no value in creating product.

Walt Disney ran the company the way he did, because running it that way made money.

Card Walker didn't run the company the right way and they didn't make the money they should have and so Wall Street gave them what for. The stockholders don't give a flying fig what you do as long as you succeed more than you fail.

So explain to me again why the stockholders are relevant to creativity?

You bet there was, and people like Murdoch and Hilton saw it. There is a pretty good chance that one of them could have initiated a hostel take over of the company in 1984 or 1985 because the stock was so low. And in the market environment at the time it probably would have succeeded once started.

Maybe another CEO would have done better, actually it is almost certain, but at the time he fit the bill. A CEO with less of an ego could also have let the company be merged with AOL or Comcast and then there would be real problems.


There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their own opinions and I guess ours is just different. I am not claiming to be the end all, I’m just putting out my opinions.

I am a big fan of parts of the Disney Company. I watch the animated movies and go to the theme parks but I understand that at the root it is a publicly traded company. I haven't over dosed on pixie dust.

In that respect, Disney is no different from Exxon or GM or Coca-Cola. When Walt was alive he wasn't responsible to the holders of 1.8 Billion shares of what used to be his company. Walt ran the company like it was his own, because it was. It now belongs to the stock holders. When they aren't happy they change management (like when they withheld their confidence in Eisner). When the public is unhappy with their product they will stop consuming it and the company will respond.

Maybe it was better back then. Creatively it almost certainly was. I never want anyone to mistake what I say about Eisner (whom I don’t like all that much but don’t hate either) with a comparison to Walt because there is none. But in the end The Walt Disney Company bears very little structural resemblance to the company that existed in December of 1966. If you know of leadership that can take the Walt philosophy and adapt it to the fiduciary rules in place for the modern Disney you would have 100% of my support. I just don’t know who that person is.

Maybe it isn't as magical as it used to be but it is what it is...and what it is is a Fortune 100 company and no longer just a man and a mouse. But whatever the case I call a truce.

 

[WDWFan4Life]

I have read every single post in this thread so far, but have yet to reply. I find the debate to be very interesting and love hearing about all the information so many people have on Disney. I will say that many years ago I was in the group of people that thought Ei$sner was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I like to blame this on the fact that my first impression of Disney was going to WDW back in '93 when I was 6 years old.

This having been my first experience with Disney I was overwhelmed with how amazing everything seemed to me and all the cool rides that were there. Then when I got a little older, I found out this guy named Ei$ner ran Disney, so being younger I thought he actually created the company. Not really learning about Walt Disney the man yet in my life. So I began to worship the ground Ei$ner walked on.

Then as I continued to get older I became more interested in the Walt Disney Company and tried to find out more about it. My dad told me about Walt Disney and how he was the one that actually started the company. So I set out on my journey to learn as much about Walt as I possibly could.

I probably have 4 or 5 biographies on Walt and have read them a couple times. I also bought Walt: The Man Behind the Myth, which every time I hear Walt begin to talk and talk about his company it gets me choked up and brings a tear to my eye. After looking over all this information Walt's philosophy became clearer to me and I realized the love he had for this company that he created and how much he wanted to give everyone that came to the park the most incredible experience he could.

After I had found out what I considered to be enough information about Walt, I set my sights on learning as much as I could about the company itself. I learned about the early days and how it was run and how it began to be run under Ei$ner.

To me it seems like his biggest objective was to rip out the soul of the company and just turn it into our average company that creates a product and sells it to consumers to earn a profit. I bought DisneyWar and love that book and need to buy some of the other ones that have been mentioned on this thread to continue to get more information. But it bothers me to see something that Walt loved and cared about so much being described as just another company that needs to earn a profit and have a good bottom line.

I only own 2 shares of Disney right now, but am hoping to buy more in the future, but that is not because I am expecting to sell all my shares in the future and make a huge profit. I buy the shares because I love the Walt Disney Company and want to feel as if i own a part of that magic that I fell in love with as a child. I do wish however that Disney was a private company and didn't have to answer to Wall Street. The only thing they care about is how much money any company is making and could care less if it turns out **** or gold as long as earnings increase year after year.

I don't consider myself overdosed on pixie dust or living in Fantasyland. I am a realist, but also believe that if the Disney Company stuck with Walt's philosophy of giving the guests the best experience possible they would be making just as much money. They wouldn't need these suit-conceived celebrations to attract people to the park, word of mouth would work just fine with some sensible advertising about all the magic to be found inside the gates of WDW of Disneyland.

I am not the most eloquent typer so I hope everyone is able to understand my post and see what my opinion is, if there is any confusion let me know and I will try to explain it clearer. There are many more things I would like to say, but I am not the best at finding the words to express what I want to say. So if I find those words I will continue to respond in more posts.