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

[quiltymom]

I think a lot of long-time Disney fans just felt betrayed by the emphasis on making $$$ over making "magic."

I agree. Two comments. I'm a Disneylander at heart, so my comments are mostly regarding what we saw happen at DL. The first was when the "youth" tickets disappeared, making all kids 10+ adults. Eisner's comment? "Well, its not about the money." Basically, his thoughts were that since kids enjoy the parks as much as the adults, therefore they should pay the same price. But if it wasn't about the money, then why do it?

The second was the complete elimination of the fun and inexpensive souvenirs that were marketed toward kids or kids at heart. My family has a tradition of purchasing fun, silly & very inexpensive gifts for the other members that didn't go to DL that day, but now we are hard pressed to find something other than candy, postcard or a refrigerator magnet that is under $6 - $10 (no, we're not into antenna toppers or pins, but then look at the price of those!).

We now forgo the gifts. It was more of a scavenger hunt game for us to find the most fitting & least expensive gift. Now it just costs an arm and a leg. And our kids just keep to pressed pennies for their souvenirs - I'll purchase them Disney stuff when it's on sale at the Disney Store, instead.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

"Disney Wars" is a great book to read if you really want to see the damage that Eisner did to the company.

A couple of notes - one they set an age limit on boards members to force out Roy Disney.

Eisner hired and fired a high level executive in a matter of 48 hours that cost the company a ton of money in severence pay. Something the stock holders eventually took to court as bad spending. His reasoning - all ego.

He alienated anyone assocated with traditional animation.

Katzenberg's firing.

The purchase of ABC which floundered for years and sucked up company money. Then when they got a hit like Millionaire - they screwed it up by putting it on all the time and losing Regis as a host.

The stupid sequel movies. Something in my opinion should have never been started - they are cheap, the storys are worthless, and in my opinion has knocked down the brand that is Disney. Not to mention Walt - was completely against the idea of sequels.

~Amanda

 

[Chloe'sMom]

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.

Agree with everything you said except for "Lion King" being the last clasic movie. Have to disagree there - "Mulan" and "Lilo and Stitch" were both classics in my opinion using old animation techniques with one story being rich in cultural history and the other just being plain fun. Which by the way had a lot to do with Roy.

~Amanda

 

[diznygirl]

Prefacing this by saying that I worked in Burbank from 1995-1999.

It's true - Eisner started off great and things went downhill in the later years as he made decisions that cost the company oodles of money (go.com, Mike Ovitz).

Eisner was right - Katzenburg is a little weasel and it was Jeffrey's own fault that he's not still at Disney.

It's not so much the Yes Man that he surrounded himself with, but the fact that so many THOUGHT they couldn't say no to him.

His expertise wasn't the parks - which was his biggest fault. He left the running of them up to others who ran them into the ground.

His salary never increased - the money he received was in stock options.

Eisner DID overstay his welcome - I wish he recognized that and left earlier, but the guy had the best job in the world.

Gotta run out the door - hope this clears up some stuff.

 

[wvrevy]

Agree with everything you said except for "Lion King" being the last clasic movie. Have to disagree there - "Mulan" and "Lilo and Stitch" were both classics in my opinion using old animation techniques with one story being rich in cultural history and the other just being plain fun. Which by the way had a lot to do with Roy.

~Amanda

Well, the definition of "Classic" is certainly subjective, and I wouldn't really argue that Mulan could probably fall under that heading. But no way would I include Lilo and Stitch, much as I like the movie (and I'm a Stitch collector, so I can back that up ). It was certainly a good movie, and not a bad story at all. But it was just a bit too...I dunno..."modern", I guess, for me to consider it a classic.

Obviously, that's all just my opinion, so it could really go either way.

 

[netMick]

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.

Absolutely right. And he closed the Florida animation studio. Jerk.

 

[brerrabbit]

Well, the definition of "Classic" is certainly subjective, and I wouldn't really argue that Mulan could probably fall under that heading. But no way would I include Lilo and Stitch, much as I like the movie (and I'm a Stitch collector, so I can back that up ). It was certainly a good movie, and not a bad story at all. But it was just a bit too...I dunno..."modern", I guess, for me to consider it a classic.

Obviously, that's all just my opinion, so it could really go either way.

I have to agree with you that the definition of "classis" doesn't really fit Lilo and Stitch, even though I am also a huge fan and have a lot of Stitch stuff at home. To me a Disney Classic is the retelling of a long standing story in the Disney fashion. Take Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid and Mulan. They were all stories that had been around for sometime and gained a huge new audience after Disney did their magic. Lilo and Stitch was a story from scratch that Disney came up with. I know that definition seems a little strange but it's just the way I think about it.

As for Eisner, he did a lot of good things but at the same time their is a school of thought that has always been present that Disney could have gotten to the same place without him. During his first few years with the company a huge source of income was the release of movies from the vault to VHS. Apparently a Disney employee had been pitching the idea for several years to Disney management and been told no repeatedly because "Walt wouldn't have done it that way!" When Eisner joined Disney the idea was presented to him and he was all over it. So could they have done without Eisner? Probably but Eisner gets the credit. That financial success lead to the ability to make some of the classic movies that came during Eisner's reign. I think what happened next was as the successes grew Eisner's head got bigger and the press and the investing public gave him all the credit. Remember Eisner came from the movie business and that was where he felt most comfortable, so he left a lot of the other operations to other people. He had the blowup with Katzenberg and then the Ovitz fiasco and at that point I think made an internal decision that he didn't need anyone else, he was the hero and could do it alone. As a result along the way he made some mistakes that could have really helped Disney. Amoung them were he said no to a Mark Burnett pitch for a new reality show called Survivor. He also said no to a funny little guy from New Zealand who wanted to make a trilogy called Lord of the Rings. He held on to Who Wants to be a Millionaire to long and as a result ran ABC into the ground. The Family Channel purchase as an alternative outlet for Disney programming was a huge loss and at some point the ego overloaded the ability and results and DIsney started to flounder. Add to that the fact that he was feuding with Roy Disney and others within the company constantly and he just ceased to be an effective leader.

Overall Disney had successes and made improvements and grew under Eisner and we are all greatful for that but I think in the end he overstayed his time by about three to four years. But thankfully Disney is still going strong and I hope they continue to do so into the future.

 

[ClarabelleCowFan]

Eisner is not very well liked among long time CMs at all. His focus was always on the almighty dollar no matter what cost. When the Swan and Dolphin hotels went up - basically destroying the theming views from World Showcase from inside the park - the CMs called them "the pagan shrines to the god of Eisner".

Eisner also reassigned the designated conservation area away from the original area that Walt picked into less desirable land so that the old conservation area could be developed with hotels. The whole concept of the conservation area was one of the conditions that Walt agreed to when he got permission from the state of Florida to set up the Reedy Creek Improvement District (the governing body of WDW that allows the company a vast amount of privileges and exemptions from state and local regulations).

Eisner was in some ways the anti-Walt with his focus on making money over making magic. Walt was a businessman as well but Eisner didn't have the vision and would make whatever sacrifices necessary to the magic to bring in the money for the stockholders.

I was a CM for 7 years - leaving in 1993 - and had many chances to meet Eisner as well as the rest of the Board of Directors at that time including the Disney daughters and Sid Bass. Eisner was always by far the rudest of the bunch when it came to dealing with CMs. You would think a man in such a position of leadership would have some respect for those that worked for him but I sure never saw any. Sid Bass on the other hand was a sweetheart and always had a smile and a kind word.

Good riddance to Eisner.

 

[CarolA]

(And here's a hint... Walt is DEAD. We don't KNOW what he would do.)

I love the Walt "theories" LOL! Walt was not running a charity(contrary to popular belief) Walt actually had some business practices that today would be considered inexcusable (Union busting anyone? Signing contracts that divereted sales profits from the company to him personally?) As a manager of people Walt is actually not a shining example.

The "Do it just like Walt and Roy" thoery is why Disney was in such bad shape when Eiser came in.
The team running the parks couldn't do ANYTHING Walt hadn't approved. Of course since he was dead that was a small issue. There was no advertising because "Walt and Roy didn't advertise" (They got ABC to do it for free, but times change!)

 

[profdsny]

One of the posts above mentioned Paul Pressler. This was another Eisner protage who came into to the Disney Stores, ran them into the groud to the point that they could barely find a buyer, went to the parks where he insisted every thing had to be about how much money they could make from the average guest. Seems to me I once saw a figure that they used as a guide to get every guest to spend daily once they were in the park. I think it was in the $40 to $50 range.
He finally overstayed his welcome, and it was no surprise to anyone that he ran the Gap down as CEO and finally was driven from there. Of course, with a $15 million dollar walkaway.
These are the type of people Eisner surrounded himself with.
Again, Eisner's background was as an agent for movie stars. And Cynthia Harris, nice person though she may be, was a President of a now defunct clothing chain. No experience in Park management. But that's who was put in charge of DL.

 

[DawnCt1]

"Disney Wars" is a great book to read if you really want to see the damage that Eisner did to the company.

A couple of notes - one they set an age limit on boards members to force out Roy Disney.

Eisner hired and fired a high level executive in a matter of 48 hours that cost the company a ton of money in severence pay. Something the stock holders eventually took to court as bad spending. His reasoning - all ego.

He alienated anyone assocated with traditional animation.

Katzenberg's firing.

The purchase of ABC which floundered for years and sucked up company money. Then when they got a hit like Millionaire - they screwed it up by putting it on all the time and losing Regis as a host.

The stupid sequel movies. Something in my opinion should have never been started - they are cheap, the storys are worthless, and in my opinion has knocked down the brand that is Disney. Not to mention Walt - was completely against the idea of sequels.

~Amanda

I read that book and the behavior was stunning. Middle School students behave better! Also The Keys to the Kingdom, The Rise of Michael Eisner and the Fall of Everyone else!

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Eisner and Wells = Great.
Eisner after wells = bad.
Iger = The end of Disney.

As to the silly 'what would Walt do' sarcasam, that is never the real point. The point most disneyphiles see is 'what are the governing factors that lead to acheiving the financial goals set out?' Disney was founded on show and story. Do it better than anyone else and you will succeed on so many levels. Good for the guest, good for the Co. This is also what allowed Pixar to bury Disney at their own game in the 21st Century.

Current Disney doesn't care about anything other than profit and this Wal Mart mentality is OK with some people but it isn't with everybody, we all get to have our opinion.

Eisner was a snob. He didn't go to the Parks for fun, only PR (and Iger never went until he was a part of Disney). Are these the right guys to lead Disney?

Disney is riding the profit train fast and furious and when a downswing occurs (and it will) Iger and this board WILL sell to whatever Comcast has the most bucks. Bye, bye Disney, hello theme park. Thanks Mike , way to go Bob , but seriusly, thanks WALT!

 

[disneyfan67]

I have read 3 books on the reign of Einer and the best one was "Disney Wars" and I highly recomend it. His terrible behavior and over sized ego, plus the blunder of Euro Disney are the parts of the book that stand out, IMO.

http://www.amazon.com/Disney-War-James-B-Stewart/dp/0684809931

I will always appreciate what Eisner had done in the early years of his career at Disney, but he stayed too long, IMO. Frank Wells needs to be credited as well and was a buffer for Eisner along with a driving force in what needed to be done.

 

[PoohnPglet]

Eisner is not very well liked among long time CMs at all. His focus was always on the almighty dollar no matter what cost. When the Swan and Dolphin hotels went up - basically destroying the theming views from World Showcase from inside the park - the CMs called them "the pagan shrines to the god of Eisner".

Eisner also reassigned the designated conservation area away from the original area that Walt picked into less desirable land so that the old conservation area could be developed with hotels. The whole concept of the conservation area was one of the conditions that Walt agreed to when he got permission from the state of Florida to set up the Reedy Creek Improvement District (the governing body of WDW that allows the company a vast amount of privileges and exemptions from state and local regulations).

Eisner was in some ways the anti-Walt with his focus on making money over making magic. Walt was a businessman as well but Eisner didn't have the vision and would make whatever sacrifices necessary to the magic to bring in the money for the stockholders.

I was a CM for 7 years - leaving in 1993 - and had many chances to meet Eisner as well as the rest of the Board of Directors at that time including the Disney daughters and Sid Bass. Eisner was always by far the rudest of the bunch when it came to dealing with CMs. You would think a man in such a position of leadership would have some respect for those that worked for him but I sure never saw any. Sid Bass on the other hand was a sweetheart and always had a smile and a kind word.

Good riddance to Eisner.

Remember the trained monkeys comment? A lot of the disgruntlement that you see from some CMs comes directly from this. Knowing that you hold no value to those running the company can be very demoralizing. Especially when it is backed up with poor wages and ever diminishing benefits.