Eisner

[Chef Mickey]

Eisner largely built the WDW we see today.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Eisner though was starting to realize they had gone to far with the parks with projects like Mission: SPACE and Expedition Everest, while not without their issues, showing a somewhat revived ambitiousness. In his excitement over it, Eisner revealed the “Forbidden Mountain” project on an earnings call before it’s planned announcement. Iger didn’t build on the momentum of the generic coaster themed to India or whatever’s success but shut it all down, for years only acting when pushed by outside actors. Disney’s theming may be “more” but so much of it is theming by clutter, it exists to say it is detailed, as something that gets slathered on to whatever, and not as a thoughtful part of an experience.

I still find it hard to believe the parks would have fared well had Eisner stayed on, and I'm sure he'd still be Chairman and CEO if no-one had of forced him out. Eisner seemed to fancy himself as a modern day Walt Disney which could work well if something good and original like Everest grabbed his attention, but this still seemed the exception and overall I think his instincts were not great by the end. This was also the era of pushing DisneyParks, which is emblematic of how far Disney began during this period to drift from the notion that each park and resort should be a unique destination. The initial approach to "fixing" DCA by tacking on A Bug's Land & a scaled-down ToT also suggested they didn't want to accept that perhaps the biggest reason the park flopped was precisely their drive to get away with investing in as little theming as possible. WDS in Paris was and remains even more of a disaster in that respect. HKDL was a model of how to build a castle park as cheaply as possible in part by including almost none of the signature attractions, and locals recognised it as a cheap and small version of DL.

In sum, Eisner seemed to spend the first half of his tenure building up the notion of Disney as the gold standard in theme parks and the second half destroying it to the point where the low quality of new Disney parks could be a punchline on The Simpsons.

Iger does have his own issues. After a promising reboot, DCA in particular is increasingly emblematic of the IP-driven excesses of the Iger period.

In my opinion at least half of the issue in the later part of his tenure was his mental health. I think the stress of the job really started getting to him and sucked all of the joy out of it. He was paranoid, micromanaging, and so stressed he out himself in the hospital.

I wonder about this too. One notable thing about Eisner's later years is that he just didn't seem to be able to get on with anyone and that really harmed Disney's ability to build relationships. My suspicion is that this reflected a paranoid and micromanaging mindset, which also led to Disney as a whole suddenly going from being bold and exciting to becoming a strangely conservative and reactive company. I think this orientation mirrored Eisner's own thought process, particularly as he seemed to believe he was the singular genius who could intuitively guide the company.

In criticising the later-Eisner period, I am not defending Iger. I will say, though, that it's notable that Iger at least seems well-liked by those who know him. Eisner seemed to have a unique ability to alienate people.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I still find it hard to believe the parks would have fared well had Eisner stayed on, and I'm sure he'd still be Chairman and CEO if no-one had of forced him out. Eisner seemed to fancy himself as a modern day Walt Disney which could work well if something good and original like Everest grabbed his attention, but this still seemed the exception and overall I think his instincts were not great by the end. This was also the era of pushing DisneyParks, which is emblematic of how far Disney began during this period to drift from the notion that each park and resort should be a unique destination. The initial approach to "fixing" DCA by tacking on A Bug's Land & a scaled-down ToT also suggested they didn't want to accept that perhaps the biggest reason the park flopped was precisely their drive to get away with investing in as little theming as possible. WDS in Paris was and remains even more of a disaster in that respect. HKDL was a model of how to build a castle park as cheaply as possible in part by including almost none of the signature attractions, and locals recognised it as a cheap and small version of DL.

None of this has meaningfully changed under Iger. While Iger now spends more in terms of actual dollars, a lot of that is bloat while significant effort still goes into schemes to avoid developing the parks. It's one thing to not invest and its another to invest huge sums in trying to not invest. Iger was made President and COO, Eisner’s number 2, in 2000, so he was there going along with those quick fixes to Disney's California Adventure. Iger also had his plan to fix the small parks by dumping the parks all together. The DisneyParks branding launched with the Year of Million Dreams just over a year after Iger officially became CEO. While that branding has largely been dropped, other similar internal initiatives continued and of course the inability to control costs combined with the franchise mandate means many of the same experiences get plopped into different parks with little regard for individual identity, as every park is treated as a DisneyPark.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

None of this has meaningfully changed under Iger. While Iger now spends more in terms of actual dollars, a lot of that is bloat while significant effort still goes into schemes to avoid developing the parks. It's one thing to not invest and its another to invest huge sums in trying to not invest. Iger was made President and COO, Eisner’s number 2, in 2000, so he was there going along with those quick fixes to Disney's California Adventure. Iger also had his plan to fix the small parks by dumping the parks all together. The DisneyParks branding launched with the Year of Million Dreams just over a year after Iger officially became CEO. While that branding has largely been dropped, other similar internal initiatives continued and of course the inability to control costs combined with the franchise mandate means many of the same experiences get plopped into different parks with little regard for individual identity, as every park is treated as a DisneyPark.

Fair enough, though I don't think it has to really be an Eisner vs. Iger issue. Under Iger, I do think some things got better in terms of investing more in attempts to provide a higher-quality experience (we seem to disagree on that) but other things got worse such as the IP invasion, general neglect of WDW, and insane attempts to ring every dollar out of visitors. On the latter point, it's gotten to the point that I have no real desire to visit WDW in the near future due to the ridiculous costs and planning involved.

This thread is about Eisner, though, and I think things were positively grim for the whole company by the time he was forced out. Everything in pretty much every division seemed like a cheap cash grab, ranging from the stripped-down parks to the DTV sequels to Disney Animation being reduced to producing cheap DreamWorks knock-offs like Chicken Little. Disney really wasn't the gold standard in anything anymore. Perhaps the lesson is that CEOs almost inevitably over-stay their welcome, though I am struggling to imagine a future in which a new Disney CEO who is also welcomed by Wall Street runs the parks in a way fans will like.

 

[ChrisFL]

IMO, Every CEO after Walt had very good things and very bad things about their tenure....yes even Iger has good things about him and I don't know why nearly everyone is 100% negative about him. Did he inject more IP into the parks? Yes, but he also did spend a lot of money investing in the parks....we're seeing a lot of it now, though much of it is under construction at the moment. Before that, a lot of the parks were stagnant.

I really wonder how people will think of the parks in 3-4 years when all of this is finished.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Eisner..Iger / Iger..Eisner.....

I've got a feeling that whoever the successor is........we will be longing for either....

 

[TrojanUSC]

Eisner though was starting to realize they had gone to far with the parks with projects like Mission: SPACE and Expedition Everest, while not without their issues, showing a somewhat revived ambitiousness. In his excitement over it, Eisner revealed the “Forbidden Mountain” project on an earnings call before it’s planned announcement. Iger didn’t build on the momentum of the generic coaster themed to India or whatever’s success but shut it all down, for years only acting when pushed by outside actors. Disney’s theming may be “more” but so much of it is theming by clutter, it exists to say it is detailed, as something that gets slathered on to whatever, and not as a thoughtful part of an experience.

Eisner spilled the beans about Everest on the call and that remains the last stateside non-IP E-Ticket.

It's not true to say that Iger only acts when pushed by outside actors. DCA was a massive failure and their revitalization of that park was fantastic and one of the last great Imagineering projects.

However, as Iger began to acquire so many properties that he was proud of now owning and feeling an obligation to show their vitality to the board, he went far too hard in the "everything must be based on an IP" mentality. If there's one thing we've learned from both Paul Pressler and Bob Chapek, who each have their own, but very different, faults it's that putting consumer products people in charge of the parks is not good for creativity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Fair enough, though I don't think it has to really be an Eisner vs. Iger issue. Under Iger, I do think some things got better in terms of investing more in attempts to provide a higher-quality experience (we seem to disagree on that) but other things got worse such as the IP invasion, general neglect of WDW, and insane attempts to ring every dollar out of visitors. On the latter point, it's gotten to the point that I have no real desire to visit WDW in the near future due to the ridiculous costs and planning involved.

This thread is about Eisner, though, and I think things were positively grim for the whole company by the time he was forced out. Everything in pretty much every division seemed like a cheap cash grab, ranging from the stripped-down parks to the DTV sequels to Disney Animation being reduced to producing cheap DreamWorks knock-offs like Chicken Little. Disney really wasn't the gold standard in anything anymore. Perhaps the lesson is that CEOs almost inevitably over-stay their welcome, though I am struggling to imagine a future in which a new Disney CEO who is also welcomed by Wall Street runs the parks in a way fans will like.

What I am saying is that it is not Eisner v. Iger, but Iger just continued on much of Eisner's work. The big myth that Iger has perpetuated is that he was some sort of radical who came in, found a house in disarray and shook things up. That just is not true. He was Eisner's second for five years. He disbanded Strategic Planning as a formal group, but did not dismiss the people or their ideas.

The idea that Iger is running the parks the way Wall St. wants is just bunk. Wall St. had no problems with Expedition Everest generating a whole bunch of new revenue and customers. Wall St. isn't going to balk at getting a better return on invest with attractions by better controlling costs. The parks' problem with Wall St is indirect, because they are run by people who don't know or like them those people cannot stand up for how their business operates.

IMO, Every CEO after Walt had very good things and very bad things about their tenure....yes even Iger has good things about him and I don't know why nearly everyone is 100% negative about him. Did he inject more IP into the parks? Yes, but he also did spend a lot of money investing in the parks....we're seeing a lot of it now, though much of it is under construction at the moment. Before that, a lot of the parks were stagnant.

I really wonder how people will think of the parks in 3-4 years when all of this is finished.

Much of the stagnation occurred under Iger. He tried to sell off the parks and then spent billions trying to avoid investing in the parks. He's investing now because they ran out of other ideas, not because of a commitment to the parks.

It's not true to say that Iger only acts when pushed by outside actors. DCA was a massive failure and their revitalization of that park was fantastic and one of the last great Imagineering projects.

The Disney's California Adventure reboot was a response to pressure from the City of Anaheim and threats that they would make changes to the Resort District.

However, as Iger began to acquire so many properties that he was proud of now owning and feeling an obligation to show their vitality to the board, he went far too hard in the "everything must be based on an IP" mentality. If there's one thing we've learned from both Paul Pressler and Bob Chapek, who each have their own, but very different, faults it's that putting consumer products people in charge of the parks is not good for creativity.

The franchise mandate predates Iger's acquisitions. Chapek is not something unique either. The only head of the parks under Iger with any prior experience in theme parks was Jay Rasulo, who was very open in his disgust for theme parks.

I wouldn't call DCA a massive failure. Most new parks has less rides and struggles (Islands of Adventure, Epcot, MGM, Starwarsland).
You can't make an accurate assessment until it has had some years to build more rides and hit on something that works.

Disney's California Adventure was absolutely a massive failure, both financially and creatively. Disney's Animal Kingdom, Disney's California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Park and Hong Kong Disneyland were all intentionally built with the absolute minimum amount of offerings. Iger though has not really rejected this philosophy and spent billions to try and not fix the issue by just building more attractions. Even now with billions being spent, its the bare minimum to keep up with huge sums spent because costs are out of control.

 

[TrojanUSC]

The Disney's California Adventure reboot was a response to pressure from the City of Anaheim and threats that they would make changes to the Resort District.

Having been directly involved with some of the key stakeholders involved, I can say that this is partially, but not entirely, true. DCA as it was immensely unpopular and had dismal attendance. It was a blight on the company with the city, the shareholders and the general public. Something had to be done because the capital investment in building it did not generate anywhere near the return they had hoped, between the hotel revenue or the multi-day trips which were expected to follow-suit. Many ideas were bandied about, even at one point expanding DTD to include the DCA area, effectively removing admission and charging per attraction. Alas a massive capital investment was greenlit to fix the problems and make DCA competitive within its neighbor next door, which was more popular than ever from the 50th onwards.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Having been directly involved with some of the key stakeholders involved, I can say that this is partially, but not entirely, true. DCA as it was immensely unpopular and had dismal attendance. It was a blight on the company with the city, the shareholders and the general public. Something had to be done because the capital investment in building it did not generate anywhere near the return they had hoped, between the hotel revenue or the multi-day trips which were expected to follow-suit. Many ideas were bandied about, even at one point expanding DTD to include the DCA area, effectively removing admission and charging per attraction. Alas a massive capital investment was greenlit to fix the problems and make DCA competitive within its neighbor next door, which was more popular than ever from the 50th onwards.

You're describing someone who was finally forced to act. Iger was part of the piecemeal approach and we're seeing history repeat itself now at Walt Disney World where work was put off and they have finally run out of ideas as to how to stall and not build attractions.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

Seriously under the parks current direction, I'd take Eisner any day. For all his faults, at least Eisner respected originality and creativity.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Seriously under the parks current direction, I'd take Eisner any day. For all his faults, at least Eisner respected originality and creativity.

I don't think it is as much that as the fact that Eisner's focus was on the parks and Iger felt that he had inherited a diamond with the parks. Iger then concentrated on what he knew best which was expanding TWDC's footprint with mergers and acquisitions. Both had a big hand in creating a giant organization that is diverse enough to outlast some bad times which will happen at some point or the other. The faults are expressed depending on if one see's TWDC as just theme parks vs. those that see it as a mega-entertainment empire.

Yes, the current changes happening at WDW were necessary and because of that they were forced. But, by the time that happened the company was so solid that they could spend billions on new stuff without concern. That ride will end soon and another few years will probably pass before any significant things happen. Hopefully they have learned that no money is saved by ignoring the needs for a long time. I think they will do yearly projects in the parks to enhance them and continue to build an audience. Even the dumbest executive knows that just raising prices will eventually be counter-productive.

The problem right now is that the upper level, mostly Iger, is set to retire after making his successful mark. When a new crew comes in, they will need to step up to be favorable with the BoD and the stockholders after Lord Iger has left. He will be taking a lot of that financial success with him attached to his security umbrella. He will buy his island in the Caribbean (if he hasn't already), stock up his yacht, implement the horde of olives, gin and vermouth and never think about TWDC again.

 

[larryz]

Eisner..Iger / Iger..Eisner.....

I've got a feeling that whoever the successor is........we will be longing for either....

We may already be longing for early Eisner...

 

[Tink86]

Interesting thread. I found it interesting that the documentary didn't mention Animal Kingdom at ALL.

 

[juniorthomas]

Iger would not be the CEO he is, or have the company to run the way the way it exists, without Eisner.

Eisner hand picked Iger to succeed him, despite some reservations, and forever changed the future of his career.

In terms of accomplishments, Eisner turned the small, family owned Walt Disney Productions into the media giant that is The Walt Disney Company. No other Disney CEO will likely achieve that kind of transformation, or do it as successfully as he did.

What the third episode of the Imagineering Story captures is that feeling of boundless ambition and success that characterized the first decade of his time as CEO. For those who were alive back then, it was a really exciting time to be a Disney fan because you truly believed that the next big thing the company was doing was going to live up to the hype and Eisner's enthusiasm and charisma on television made it seem like he honestly did too.

After Frank Wells died and Euro Disney under-preformed, Eisner's enthusiasm, confidence and trust in himself and others continued to dwindle and there was no one around at his level that he trusted to say what he was doing was wrong and not good for the company in the long term. He had to go in order for the company to move on and save its reputation.

Iger's main accomplishment as CEO has been to purchase and imitate the success of others and keep the company's business running with a certain level of consistency. He does not really understand, or have much passion for, what made Disney a success before he was given control of it, in particular the movies and parks. He lacks the charisma and imagination of his mentor, something Eisner assumed would be the case going forward with most corporate CEOs. Iger has never soured Disney to extent Eisner did, but he hasn't really left much of a mark and the biggest hits during his tenure (like Frozen) are really the result of others doing the heavy lifting for him.

That first sentence sums it up perfectly.

Eisner truly changed the game, creating the WDCo as we know it - setting the stage for those major acquisitions (Lucasfilm, Marvel, and Pixar). Of course, his name and experience was entirely built upon the traditions of second generation Hollywood. The era where studio heads and only studio heads knew what was right and what was wrong. Steve Jobs was, in my opinion, the first to successfully challenge and confound that reputation. Without that signature clout of his, Eisner had little else going for him.

I participated in the shareholder vote that ousted him, after it became clear that he wasn't going to be able to lead the company to the degree he once had. I had no problem with Iger then, and I have no problem with Iger now. The Pixar deal was a great combination of taking what he had learned from Eisner, and adding his more practical and realistic take on things. Eisner was too stubborn to allow Pixar to take a larger share of returns from their own films. Iger knew that a partnership for both would more than pay off, for both sides.

Now from there, everyone has their own opinion. Some love the fact that Iger injects IP into parks liberally. Some hate the fact that their favorite rides of old have been updated or changed. There's no right answer there - it's completely acceptable to miss rides that have since passed or changed. The parks are living entities and will always change. It's also okay to get excited for whatever new fun WDI comes up with. The only right answer here is that Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter isn't coming back, so it's time to move on.

 

[wdwfanbob]

Eisner was probably one of the best! Right up until he started to get into ing contest with everybody!

 

[Cado603]

Iger has made Disney world everything that Walt hated about Disneyland and bought all this land in Fl so it would never be Disneyland area. Eisner loved creating and the dream...Iger is cold and loves money!

 

[Goofyernmost]

Iger has made Disney world everything that Walt hated about Disneyland and bought all this land in Fl so it would never be Disneyland area. Eisner loved creating and the dream...Iger is cold and loves money!

Walt was pretty fond of money too. Walt had great ideas and he used those great ideas to make money. Not like they are making today, of course, but back then they were literally rolling in it. Almost all the original Disneyland was as a support for some Disney movie or some animation. In other words an IP. The idea of making Walt into some kind of perfect person or saint, is just hero worship. He was as flawed as anybody, and there were many times if it hadn't been for Roy there would be no WDC today. The Florida project would be a swamp that bankrupted the company.

 

[Magenta Panther]

To people who were around or know more than me, what do/did people think of Eisner? I’m watching the Imagineering story and seems like a good CEO.
How does he compare to Iger in your opinion?

Mike Eisner at least seemed to genuinely like, appreciate and somewhat understand Disney for itself - unlike Iger, who only sees Disney as a "brand". But he had his failings, among them nearly losing Pixar, and buying the Muppets - a mistake that started the tradition of Disney buying off-studio non-Disney-generated/adapted creations. A tradition that Iger has pushed to maximum greed and tastelessness. Too bad.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Walt was pretty fond of money too. Walt had great ideas and he used those great ideas to make money.

“Disneyland is a work of love. We didn’t go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money.” - Walt Disney

“Money doesn’t excite me, my ideas excite me.” - Walt Disney

"We don't make movies to make money, we make money to make more movies." - Walt Disney.

Stop making assumptions and do some research, okay?