Why do so many people not seem to like Michael Eisner?

[BubblPopElectrc]

I've just recently began a Disney World fan, in the last year or two.

So my question is, why do so many people here seem to not like Michael Eisner? It seems like he did a lot in the time he was there (Animal Kingdom, etc.) and Disney had a lot of movies (Toy Story, Finding Nemo).

I'm just curious..

 

[darlak]

I have also wondered. Looking forward to hearing some replies.

 

[pepe of ohio]

My personal thoughts.......We've been going steady to WDW since 1977 and in the last bunch of his tenure years it seemed to us that he was sitting idle, not doing much other than trying to make as much money as he could letting the parks get in disrepair and alienating the CM's. Attendence dropped, profits were down but his perks, salary and bonus were through the roof. To us it seemed WDW was falling apart from the inside, to me he was there too long and has spent his time. We bought stock years ago and it went up to over $125.00 and split twice and his last years the stock couldn't hold anything over $28.00 a share.

Finally got him out, even went through the would be take over in his stint, and with Iger, things seem to be on a up swing. Profits are up, parks is getting the TLC it needed, slow but there was alot that needed done. The CM's department needs help though to bring back the magic, not all but some CM's seem to disgruntled and should work else where. Not too keen on out-sourcing jobs, with happy CM's better experiences are had on property. Non Disney personnel seem to have a poor sense as to what Disney magic is all about and need to forget the almighty buck, tips.

I know its a tough world, profits need to be made to stay in existence but Eisner didn't come through in his last years. Roy was my first choice, followed him in the end to oust Eisner, needed new young blood and get back to what Disney was all about, enjoyment, fun and relaxation not costing a ton. Seemed to me, Eisner was all for building more resorts, thus crowding what was a easy, relaxing place to the plan, plan place it now is, making vacations alot of planning, avoiding crowds and a real expensive task to plan around.

Glad he's gone, still waiting for the final approval of Iger, but seems to be improving. All my conjucture and 3 cents.

 

[Tinker74]

This is all very interesting..Thank you Pepe for your thoughts..Iam glad you think the parks are improving. ...What years were the worst years for disney..the years when attentandance fell?
I'd love to know more about this.

 

[jazznms]

My problem with Mr. Eisner was that he sold of all the animation stuff got rid of the pen and ink department sold off pixar and completely got rid of any hand drawing of animation features . Thanks for the new board bring them all back where they belong .

 

[Feralpeg]

I liked Eisner. I think he did amazing things for Disney. I haven't seen a lot of positives since he left.

 

[~Brandy~]

I was always on the "Eisner=bad" bandwagon (not for any reasons I could really articulate - just vague grumblings about him not following Walt's vision) but interestingly enough, I'm working on an MBA right now, and he is frequently cited as one of the great strategic managers of the century.

 

[CarolA]

Well, I think the Eisener bashers overlook a LOT

If it weren't for Eisner it is HIHGLY probably Disney as WE know it would not exist. When the Eisner team took over Disney was in HORRID finanical shape and the "investment bankers" were circulating. They wanted to buy Disney and sell it as PARTS.... In other words, Movies was one company with one ownership, Orlando Park would be company two, CA park company three etc...


Eisner and his team convinced the bankers to give them money and time. WIth that they built hotels, new parks etc and revitalized the parks.... without that I think things would have been dramatically different.

 

[mickey0624]

I've just recently began a Disney World fan, in the last year or two.

So my question is, why do so many people here seem to not like Michael Eisner? It seems like he did a lot in the time he was there (Animal Kingdom, etc.) and Disney had a lot of movies (Toy Story, Finding Nemo).

I'm just curious..

I am shocked by this as well. I've been to WDW over 20 times. It blows my mind that so many Disney fans were so down on Eisner. It doesn't seem to make any sense. Does anyone remember what was going on with Disney before Eisner took over in the early-mid 80's. The company was losing money, and there were threats of the company being taken over by corporate raiders. He made Disney a giant in the corporate world. He made the company a ton of money and look at all that was added under his tenure - MGM, Animal Kingdom, countless new hotels and parks around the world. His animation division put out- Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Lion King, Toy Story (with the help of Pixar). Even though he eventually had problems with Steve Jobs, he's the one who helped initiate the joining of Disney with Pixar. Sure he made a few mistakes (firing Katzenberg) but that goes along with risk. In my opinion, he was one of the best things to happen to Disney in a long time.

 

[phisigprincess]

Eisner did great things for Disney in the '80s. By the end of his tenure, he seemed to lose sight of the vision. There are actually books out there on the subject - I'm sure someone can jump in with a title.

 

[profdsny]

I think for the first 10 years or so, Eisner was great. He turned the company and the parks around. But, his last ten were a different story. Every thing was on how much they could make. Retail became the focus of the parks. Every ride you went on had a gift shop at the end so you could buy a picture, t-shirt, plush, mug, pen, etc. It became less about guests enjoying themselves and about what could they sell to guests.
As mentioned also, he destroyed the animation department, after having a number of great films done by them. It's been probably ten years since they had anything good out, not counting Pixar. And as it is, Pixar was very close to walking also if Eisner didn't leave. So it's certainly not just people on the board here who didn't like him.
As mentione earlier, he was making millions while the average CM was barely making about minimum wage. Under his management staff was cut, services were cut, little special things like the candy on the pillow at night in the resorts were cut, but his money wasn't.
There are numerous books out about how his micro-managing cost the company dearly, so while indeed the first half of his tenure was good, he stayed to long at the fair.

 

[phisigprincess]

I did some searching "Disney War" by James B. Stewart is the book I was thinking of.

 

[mickey0624]

I did some searching "Disney War" by James B. Stewart is the book I was thinking of.

Great book if your a Disney fan. I recommend it to anyone who wants to read about the inner workings of Disney.

 

[bradk]

Eisner...

well, okay, first off, i'm a fan of his for the most part. i've followed this argument for quite some time and have yet to be convinced by any of the 'Save Disney' folks as to where things went wrong.

first, yes, Disney was literally about to be broken up and sold off and Eisner was the white knight at the last moment, with a proven record at ABC and Paramount Studios. Some people claim it wasn't so much Eisner there but the people Eisner surrounded himself with. I say even if that's true, it doesn't matter because he obviously knew who to surround himself with. but Eisner also not the easiest guy to get along with. with his temperment and stress on loyalty, it's easy to fall out of favor. case in point, Jeff Katzenberg who easily was the one responsible for the renaissance period of animation, starting with the little mermaid. when katzenberg left, so did the real success of the animation department.

Eisner was very strong on finances. That's because he's a corporate guy, not essentially a hobbyist (Walt Disney was not a financial guy, there's a major difference there). He's said he had to answer to the bottom line (the investors). Would people have been happy losing money by investing in the disney company? probably more so than they were with the money they were making.

EuroDisney was a financial blunder. I don't know how much to fault Eisner. Basically more and more money kept being poured into a park that wasn't producing long before it opened up. My only guess on the matter is that in that environment, you're surrounded by yes men. If there was no money for the project which Eisner championed, I doubt he was told something couldn't be done. Instead, more money was found. I'd like to believe Eisner wouldn't have gone that far deep into the hole with it if he really knew what was happening.

And he's made other mistakes as well. Then again, most people do. But he wasn't cheap as many try to make him out to be, at least not in one respect. He was all about spending money for on stage, just not back stage. One of the first things he did when he joined the company was to approve Splash Mountain which had been shelved for financial reasons.

A lot of the rabid anti-Eisner folks seem to be Disneylanders. The funny thing is, they cite Disneyland falling into disarray as something to be angry at Eisner about. Nobody really opted to blame Pressler or Harris for it. But the really funny thing is, when Ouimet came in under Eisner's reign and started to improve things, guess who gets all the cheers and credits from those anti-Eisner folk? Ouimet, not Eisner.

So Eisner became a figure to blame when you weren't happy, but just someone in the background when things did go your way.

As for Roy E Disney, Walt didn't care for him much either, neither did any of Walt's men. Walt handpicked his own son-in-law over Roy E. Roy E ran the animation department under Eisner before Katzenberg came and all but ran it into the ground. Consequently, after Katzenberg left, the animation department once again floundered and was losing far more money than it was producing and that the fact that CGI from companies like Pixar, PDI, 20th Century Fox was killing the hand drawn animation, something had to give.

i'm sure there was more I wanted to say but I'm done for now.

 

[skier_pete]

It was on Eisner's watch that WDW went from MK/Epcot to the full-week resort destination (20 resorts/4 parks/2 water parks/DTD) that it is today. That was "his" concept to make it a place where people want to stay and never leave. So you can think of that as a positive or negative.

I do agree, initially he saved the company. Towards the end, he (or the company under him) seemed to become a tightwad that pissed off their top talent. (Particular Pixar)

Iger (new CEO) has since made up with Pixar, and essentially let the Pixar boys takeover Disney animation. In particular, John Lassiter (sp?), the founder of Pixar. I have high hopes for Disney animation under him...his mantra is "The story is all important" and I love that he is bringing back hand drawn animation to the studios. I want Disney to stop competing with Dreamworks / Sony / Fox for the "Funny animals making pop culture jokes" market and get back to what made Disney great, classic stories done right. I'm hoping for a 3rd Golden Era of Disney Animation (1st era 1939 - 1965, 2nd era 1989 - 1999).

Lassiter is also now overseeing the imagineering of the theme parks. (I guess that's why we're seeing so much Pixar stuff, but did we really want a "chicken little alien attack" ride anyways?)

Did I get off-topic?

SkierPete

 

[BroadwayGirl]

When Eisner first came on board as Chairman and CEO, he and his ego were kept in check by another top Disney exec, Frank Wells who was President and COO. During the time they were both there to balance each other, Disney began to accomplish great things. Tragically, Frank Wells was killed in a helicopter crash in the early-mid 90s and from that point on, Michael Eisner surrounded himself with cronies and yes-men, effectively eliminating that balance of power that had been a hallmark of Disney success since the early days when it was Walt and Roy. It is my opinon that this was the beginning of the end of Eisner - his ego got the better of him, he thought he could do no wrong and there was nobody in a position to balance the power. So while I think Eisner was part of reason for Disney's turnaround, his own ego and sense of invincibility turned him from hero to zero. (or make that lots of zeroes with all the money he took for himself during his tenure with Disney).

 

[wvrevy]

Just about everything I would have said has already been articulated by others, so I won't go into all of it again. Eisner WAS a great leader for the company, particularly at first and MOST particularly from a business standpoint.

However, looking at it from a creative standpoint, you certainly can't argue that the Disney products of the last 10 years are anywhere near the quality of his first years with the company. The Disney brand has always been about quality, particularly when it came to their features. Over the last couple years, it seemed more about milking every last penny from fans by releasing sequel after low quality sequel, rather than producing anything original. The last real Disney "Classic" was probably the Lion King, and that was well over a decade ago. Sure, they've released some decent - and a couple good - movies since then. But there can't really be any denying that the overall quality of products has declined in favor of Cinderella IV or whatever mind-numbing repetitiveness they're working on now (Emperor's Got His Groove Back...you get the point).

Also, there are the parks to consider. Yes, they've grown considerably. But has the quality of service remained the same? I don't believe so. In fact, I'd say it's declined steadily since about the mid-90's.

I look at Eisner the way I look at a lot of coaches in different sports. He came into a bad situation, turned it around and made it a very GOOD situation. For that he should be thanked most graciously. But in the end, he overstayed his welcome, in my opinion. Killing off the animation department was the last straw, for me.

 

[Soubrette]

I think for the first 10 years or so, Eisner was great. He turned the company and the parks around. But, his last ten were a different story. Every thing was on how much they could make. Retail became the focus of the parks. Every ride you went on had a gift shop at the end so you could buy a picture, t-shirt, plush, mug, pen, etc. It became less about guests enjoying themselves and about what could they sell to guests.

This gets to the heart of the matter, IMO. The anger at Eisner comes mainly from people who consider themselves true Disney fans or coinsurers, people who defer back to Walt's perfectionist attempts to always exceed the expectations of his consumers, whether it be a film or park experience. Walt didn't mind paying extra to develop the next technological advancement or to experiment with new forms of entertainment. Eisner, on the otherhand, came to the company at a moment when it was in financial difficulty; his answer was not new development but merchandising the existing product. Which is a strategy that can only work for so long (even with the storehouse of Disney products and claims on American nostalgia). I think a lot of long-time Disney fans just felt betrayed by the emphasis on making $$$ over making "magic."

 

[#1 Pocahontas]

I'll sum my thoughts up in a nutshell. I think he started off great! I can give him credit for a lot of things he did that were wonderful for Disney. On the other hand I am disgusted at many things he did near the end. I worked for Disney for a number of years. After years of hearing all the inside junk that they were constantly trying to justify I had had my fill. I left the company and it took me many years of being away from the business side of it before I found my love for it again.

 

[SandraVB79]

I have once read "It all started with Mickey and it almost ended with Mikey". While Eisner did great things during his first years at Disney, he didn't do such great things in the end. The war between Pixar and Disney being a fine example of that (let's face it, only the Pixar films have done well during the recent years).

What I learned during my MBA-program, is that such high-up managers should never stay more than 10 years in the same company. And I totally agree with that.