EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
But you're trying to evaluate a CEO
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bob Iger is worse than Michael Eisner ever was - A Discussion on Brand Withdrawal
- Thread starter TROR
- Start date
Yes, based on my personal opinions and how he has effected me.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
If/when you visit SDL however, you will love it. It's a beautiful park with many Garden of Angels esque areas and amazing attractions.
Robbiem
Well-Known Member
I think there has definitely been a withdrawal of sorts since the opening of DCA. At one time disney parks used to be marketed at everyone. In the UK in the 90s WDW was marketed as a resort for all with golf, fine dining etc given prominence alongside park attractions and characters. Now all marketing is geared towards ‘take your little ones to disney’ with small kids riding dumbo and hugging mickey. Parks merchandise is the same. The unique goods themed to each land have been replaced by generic soft toys etc, how much this has to do with Iger vs Eisner i dont know but i think as disney has becime a bigger company the parks in general are used today as a cash cow rather than as core part of the company philosophy
smile
Well-Known Member
precisely... and where one goes from there in their opinion is key
mr i did not change the company, mr. e did, as he laid the first bricks of the path that mr. i has now paved.
there's little doubt roberto has been competent in his handling of the giant media conglomerate he was given, especially when considering the changes which occurred along his timeline.
far as parks go, bob was shy with capex for a bit too long (or was he?)
regardless, he's since approved sizeable capex, and, to my mind, generally does so with brand integrity in mind, something his predessor grossly lacked at times, as his great ambitions were never too far away from lewd brand degradation decisions which are still head-scratchers to this day.
i tend to view one as quantity over quality and the other vice-versa... both having the must of deteriorating strawberries, of course
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
Those are sentiments I've seen all over Disney fanboards. Some say that Disneyland peaked in the 60s, and has been in decline since Walt's death.
As someone who's earliest trip to Disneyland was in '97, and who enjoys a number of attractions that opened after the 60s, I can only imagine how romanticized that view of the early park is, and how bored a modern audience would be with the Disneyland of that era.
Not everything has been great, but I do think that overall, the quality of the park has improved over the last few decades.
I honestly think Disneyland peaked in 1995. That's not to say they haven't had great additions to the park since, but it had the most great stuff at that time. It could definitely peak again in the future but it would take a ton of work that I don't see Disney putting in.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
WDW peaked in 2000...just my opinion
Disney Irish
Premium Member
And this is key. Disney is building out today for modern audiences. Its not going to appeal to someone who thinks a Disney park peaked in a specific era. Sure there will be some things everyone likes, but overall Disney has to build out for the future, not the past. The one thing in life that is constant is change, and the theme park industry is no different.
But that is just my opinion, everyone else has theirs.
I think the problem with this outlook is that it assumes every change is for the better when it's very possible that changes can be harmful.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
This thread is silly... You're looking at what Eisner did during one very specific era of time vs. what Iger is doing during another and -- when it comes to the parks -- you are taking the lack of growth /expansion opportunities at the parks out of the equation.
Eisner served in an era where the parks (especially WDW) still had a lot of room for growth and expansion. Iger does not. Of course any changes he makes are going to be more disruptive and controversial, he has to change and remove things. Eisner had the luxury of far more space for new projects.
And I'm not taking that away from him --he did a lot of good things (some bad) with that space. But let's not sit here and call Iger the devil because he has no where to go but within.
Eisner served in an era where the parks (especially WDW) still had a lot of room for growth and expansion. Iger does not. Of course any changes he makes are going to be more disruptive and controversial, he has to change and remove things. Eisner had the luxury of far more space for new projects.
And I'm not taking that away from him --he did a lot of good things (some bad) with that space. But let's not sit here and call Iger the devil because he has no where to go but within.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
First harmful for whom? Disney? The Fandom? Purists? The Brand? I'll come back to this in a second.
Second no one said that all change is for the better, just that change is constant. Life is about change, its part of the human condition. And in the theme park business you have to change with the times, you can't remain stagnant. This thread has been all over the place, blaming Iger because the parks were stagnant. But then blaming him because there is change. These two thoughts conflict with each other. Now if its the particular changes you don't like fine, but then you can't blame him because the parks were stagnant. So the company is making changes to the parks, so they aren't stagnant anymore. With these changes comes risk, its risky to go from the known to unknown. So even though fans think Disney/Iger don't take risks. They actually do take a lot of risks, but they are calculated risks. Disney is too large of a company, employing over 200k employees, to make uncalculated risks. It would be financially irresponsible to do so. So every time they make a change to Disneyland ir WDW its a risk. Its a risk because its unknown if it will be perceived well by consumers. They do as much research as possible to mitigate that risk, but in the end until its unveiled to the public its a complete risk. Some risks payoff, others don't. But that is the price of doing business. The issue though is how much of a gamble financially is the company willing to take. This is why they take calculated risks on implementing changes in the domestic parks that consumers are more likely to accept. This is the main reason why IP based attractions work, consumers at large are more willing to accept them, even if the fandom grumble while waiting in line.
Now back to the first point, again harmful for whom? And who is the ultimate judge if its harmful? You can take the personal stance and say its harmful to your own personal opinion about the company. But you can't make a blanket statement saying its harmful overall, you don't speak for the entire world on the viewpoint of the company and the parks. Every person that interacts with Disney in some way will make up their own mind if any change is perceived as harmful. But really if consumers are still spending money on Disney how harmful can any change really be. This indicates that consumers are not perceiving these "harmful" changes as actually being harmful to their spending habits, meaning the changes are accepted.
Besides if the changes Iger is making is "harmful" wouldn't that mean attendance to the parks would ultimately go down and would be less crowded. Isn't that what the fandom want anyways.....
Michael Eisner came from an entertainment background but not a theme park one. When he came into that he humbled himself to some degree and went to Imagineering. He even brought his son because he knew ultimately he would not know what kids really want and what they see as quality.
An example.
Michael Eisner had Tony Baxter and other Imagineers show him models and work for Star Tours and Splash Mountain. Thinking for sure that a Star Wars flight simulator would be a win, Breck, Eisner's song mentioned that Star Wars looks cool but Splash Mountain is a great ride.
Let's think about the boom. Part of that DIsney Decade was because of Eisner. Yes the company growed at an expedited rate but Eisner played the business role and creative role with Frank Welles.
We do not have that balance anymore.
An example.
Michael Eisner had Tony Baxter and other Imagineers show him models and work for Star Tours and Splash Mountain. Thinking for sure that a Star Wars flight simulator would be a win, Breck, Eisner's song mentioned that Star Wars looks cool but Splash Mountain is a great ride.
Let's think about the boom. Part of that DIsney Decade was because of Eisner. Yes the company growed at an expedited rate but Eisner played the business role and creative role with Frank Welles.
We do not have that balance anymore.
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
True, WDW may or may not have space for additional parks (and vacationers may or may not have the time to visit another one), but that doesn't mean that there's no room for the existing parks to grow. Only one of WDW's four parks is truly a full-day experience for visitors, and all four have plenty of space to add new experiences within their borders.
WDW has the blessing of size; the parks are built on a scale that allows a lot of infill and incremental expansion. Unfortunately, the few additions we've gotten in recent years have been remarkably poor uses of space, spreading things out in a way that inhibits future expansion and growth. Expansion pads have been split, leaving vestigial plots unsuitable for meaningful future additions; new additions are sprawled out in a way that doesn't reflect the density of their surroundings; shortsighted thinking has scrambled created piecemeal additions, without a longterm vision.
Not only have the parks stagnated under Iger's control, but Epcot and the Studios actually offer substantially less than they did in 2005 when he took over. Facilities have been shuttered, entertainment has been cut, and additions have been small and infrequent. The projects currently underway will help to stop the bleeding, but still won't make up the deficit in the time it takes to consume each parks' attractions.
The MyMagic+ system, WDW's signature project under the Iger administration, has ironically only served to highlight the parks' shortcomings. Instead of adding dynamic capabilities and increased capacity, guests now find themselves twiddling their thumbs by mid-afternoon. Iger has had the ability to make impactful changes to the parks, but instead allowed them to become a shadow of their former selves.
dweezil78
Well-Known Member
Lots of thoughts, I'll collect them later. But I totally disagree about MyMagic+. I spend a week out in WDW every year and never find any time to twiddle my thumbs. Love how much time the system frees up for me and my family now and I get to spread that extra time out all around the resort instead of waiting in lines, waking up extra early to grab FPs, etc. It does exactly what it was intended to and, now that a lot of the kinks have been smoothed out, it does it really well. Yes there are ulterior motives for the company such as crazy amounts of data mining and increased revenue, but as a guest, I can't imagine doing WDW without that system in pace anymore. It'd be a giant step backwards.
smile
Well-Known Member
manmythlegend
Well-Known Member
Couldn't disagree more. FP+ is perhaps the worst thing to ever happen to WDW and perhaps the main reason I despise Iger. The FP system wasn't broken, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. Sure, some lazy folks who showed up to the parks at 2pm may not find FP for the most popular rides but that was their own decision.
The much better idea is what DL has implemented, MaxPass. I used that last summer and thought it was close to perfection. And it's very similar to what some other parks are using such as Shanghai and Tokyo.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Funny thread bump, but it's interesting to re-open this conversation now that Iger is starting to be in the rear view mirror.
I've since read Disney Wars and what I would oversimplify is that Michael Eisner was a bad team captain who was leading a rather fantastic team (that turned into a subsequently pretty terrible team).
Iger was a pretty good team captain who had a pretty good team (some units were fantastic, some meh).
Disney War is quite frankly the most essential reading in Disney 'Corporate' fandom. It's fascinating to watch the de-evolution of Eisner. But he was always prone to be impulsive and reckless and that fostered regardless of who he surrounded himself with. There were a lot of people who were controls and checks for him over the years.
I won't take away from the good he did, Eisner's likely best feature was being very internal-organization growth minded in his first decade. He was excited by and believed in his units. Until he didn't. Regardless of the end-products, he was an egotistical, narcissistic maniac by the end.
Iger did actually leave on his own terms for the most part (we think), and mostly considered at the top by the industry as a whole. Eisner's departure was an embarrassment.
I've since read Disney Wars and what I would oversimplify is that Michael Eisner was a bad team captain who was leading a rather fantastic team (that turned into a subsequently pretty terrible team).
Iger was a pretty good team captain who had a pretty good team (some units were fantastic, some meh).
Disney War is quite frankly the most essential reading in Disney 'Corporate' fandom. It's fascinating to watch the de-evolution of Eisner. But he was always prone to be impulsive and reckless and that fostered regardless of who he surrounded himself with. There were a lot of people who were controls and checks for him over the years.
I won't take away from the good he did, Eisner's likely best feature was being very internal-organization growth minded in his first decade. He was excited by and believed in his units. Until he didn't. Regardless of the end-products, he was an egotistical, narcissistic maniac by the end.
Iger did actually leave on his own terms for the most part (we think), and mostly considered at the top by the industry as a whole. Eisner's departure was an embarrassment.
manmythlegend
Well-Known Member
Haha yeah. I just watched "The Imagineering Story" on Disney+ a few days ago. So I was just googling Iger vs. Eisner and this thread popped up. Figured it was worth a bump since Iger stepped down. Before I get into my thoughts, I just want to say Iger gets bonus points for resigning at basically the perfect time. I'm not sure a CEO has ever had better timing on stepping down given what has happened with the whole Covid mess.
Eisner and Iger were both good but, IMO, in different ways. Eisner was more of a visionary. Iger seems to be completely motivated by adding pennies to the bottomline. It seems like Iger started off wanted to do amazing things for the parks but as time went on seemed to be motivated by adding extra pennies to the earnings reports.
Someone earlier in the thread made a good point. Look at the company that each executive inherited. Disney was a damn mess when Eisner took over. Not even close to the company we know today. He worked magic during his 21 years. Sure he had some misfires, all leaders do. But, as someone who has been going to the parks for most of their life, I really enjoyed going to Disney World in the late 90s and early 2000s. And while we've gotten some more rides under Iger, there has also been a deterioration, at least from a fan's point of view. I firmly understand that Iger has worked magic in terms of making shareholders money. But that is less important to me than the overall park experience. And I know that MY best memories were in the late 90s/early 2000s. I kept going to Disney World until 2015 and haven't been back since. Too crowded, too expensive, FP+ disgusts me and all 3 of these things occurred under Iger's watch. Prior to Iger, Disney World was actually quite affordable.
Of course, Disney World isn't the only park. I'm fortunate enough to have visited every Disney park in the world. For me, the crown jewel is Disneyland, CA. Absolutely love it. It's affordable, crowds can be managed if planned appropriately, MaxPass is far superior to FP+, and I enjoy the location a bit more. You can hit up LA after or Vegas or some national parks which makes for a really nice well rounded trip. So, for me, Disneyland will be my go to park from now on even though Disney World is a bit easier to get to. I do give Iger credit for revamping California Adventure park.
I think Eisner gets too much flack for Disney Paris. TBH, it's probably my least favorite park (with Disney HK), but it's not terrible. It's still Disney and it's still fun. It's just a bit light on rides. Walt Disney Studios is terrible though.
Again, I give Iger credit for Disney Shanghai. It's a beautiful park, Tron and Pirates are marvels. Just amazing amazing amazing attractions. It's affordable and convenient.
So, this takes me back to how I started this post. Eisner and Iger both did a lot of good things. Both had some significant misses. I give the nod to Eisner for 2 reasons. 1) He took over Disney at a really really difficult time and 2) He seemed to think more along the lines of what do fans want rather than what do shareholders want. I think Iger thinks the reverse which isn't wrong by any stretch but it's just not what I want from the leader of Disney.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that Chapek can't hold either's jock strap so I'm a bit nervous what the future holds.
Last edited: