Michael Eisner's Legacy

[Enderikari]

Two weeks into his new job, Michael Eisner suggested building a hotel shaped like Mickey Mouse. It wasn't feasible, but to Disney Insiders, the freshly hired CEO's willingness to swing for the fences signaled a whole new ball game in terms of setting. Shortly thereafter, Eisner scrapped plans for two new, but architecturally mundane, hotels at Walt Disney World. It was a gusty move that risked a long-term relationship with a valued development partner, but it paid off. The 1514-room Walt Disney World Dolphin Hotel and the 758-room Swan Hotel replaced the canceled hotels. Designed by world-renowned architect Michael Graves, they created a new standard for setting at Walt Disney World.
The Swan and the Dolphin signaled a renaissance in Disney Architecture. Soon, the best architects in the world were working on commissions for the company. At Walt Disney World, resorts such as the Grand Floridian, Wilderness Lodge, Boardwalk, and the Yacht and Beach Club (the latter designed by Robert A.M. Stern) took settings to a whole new level. "Our hotels became experiences and entertainments onto themselves," wrote Eisner in his book Work in Progress, "successful as our hotels are in artistic terms, the simplest tribute to them comes from our guests. To this day, the occupancy rate at each of them runs in excess of 90 percent - the highest in the world."
---- Be Our Guest - Perfecting the Art of Customer Service

Say whatever you like about Michael Eisner, but I almost take personal offense when people start to say he wasn't willing to spend money. I mean, I would hate to let facts get in the way of the pure jealousy that a so-called "Disney Fan" shows whenever they bash Michael Eisner. But being unwilling to spend money isn't one of those. Look at the things that were created in Eisner's time. Excellent movies which caused the second golden age in Disney animation. Disneyland Paris is a symbol of Eisner's willingness to put money where his mouth is, seeing that the castle itself cost 56 million dollars. Theme parks? Disney-MGM studios and Disney's Animal Kingdom (the largest Disney theme park I might add) Attractions? Mission:Space (still the most expensive theme park attraction to date. Soarin... Mickey's Philharmagic. Tower of Terror and Rock N' Rollercoaster... Where is the unwillingness to spend money here.
But most importantly, ever stayed at a Disney Resort? You like the Animal Kingdom Lodge? Or the service provided at all Disney Resort, and enjoying the perks involved there? Then you like Eisner... You like to see the Disney company go big? Look at the grandest opening we ever did , opening a theme park, a water park, and an entertainment/shopping district, all within a month.
I can see some of you "Disney Fanatics" oiling your keyboards now, ready to respond with some charactheristic lies and rumors about a man who saved the company you claimed to love. My response to you is thank god you are not C.E.O. Thank god you never were in a position to make decisions affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Know this.. whether you want to believe it or not... You can't be C.E.O. and it is the jealousy of that fact that makes you write such vitriol against Michael Eisner.

And, you know what... It is also alright to support Eisner, and Iger... and Lasseter, because they are all important to the company you claim to love... and I really do.

 

[clarksfan95]

Early in Eisners Disney career he was very willing to spend money to take Disney to the next step. His business savvy is what allowed Disney to begin and take part in the animation rennaissance of the late 80's and 90's. He did a fantastic job and even up to the time he left, he was constantly pursuing new technologies to advance Disney to the next step, but the man also lost control of the way that things were handled (esp. in animation). Walt was very much about quality over cost and his films displayed that as did films up to...............probably Pocahontas or Hunchback. At that point, animation had become a huge money maker for the company. Nobody expected animated films to gross more than $100 million in those days...and when they started, the company splurged and hired new management and artists. The artists were good, the management were bean counters and the fall of Disney animation as everyone had known it, was beginning. Eisner was unwilling to release any of these management people and laid off hundreds of animation employees when things started to not work out, blaming the artists rather than those in charge. Now, granted, animators find themselves generally unemployed at the end of every feature films that is completed. They are not hired on a full time, all the time basis...once the picture is done, so are they, but that is something that they all deal with because it's part of the job. Everyone, but myself, seemed stunned at the closing of the Orlando Animation facility and my wife looked at me and went "You called it". This lack of control over management and the penny pinching (that occurs with any company) destroyed that which the company was best known for - traditional animation that had heart - many of the later Disney films under Eisner lacked that (exception: Lilo and Stitch) - a gentleman who still works for Disney Animation occasionally, as he's now older, said in an interview that when he walked the halls of Pixar - tho totally new to him, seemed familiar - it was later that he said he remembered those feelings from when Walt was still alive and he was working at Disney Feature Animation. The new regime that has just taken control (believe it or not...it is a Pixar takeover of Disney) know how to run a company where quality comes first. Eisner lost that sense when Katenberg was shown the door.

 

[landauh]

Many people on this board seems to forget that John Lasseter is a graduate of CAL ARTS and worked at Walt Disney Feature Animation. He left Disney because of the change in working conditions and lack of quality in the feature films. This is why Pixar has that "Disney Animation Feel" to it.

The issue with Eisner is that after about 10 - 12 years, as clarksfan95 stated, he was more interested in making as much profit as he could and would cut corners to save in costs throughout the Disney empire.

Iger and Lasseter seem to want to bring Disney back to where it is the quality and not quantity that matters again, but I feel that we need to give them time to show if they have what it takes.

As for Eisner basing, many just remember the last few years of decline that he brought to the company and not all the good that were a result of his early years.

 

[Enderikari]

The issue with Eisner is that after about 10 - 12 years, as clarksfan95 stated, he was more interested in making as much profit as he could and would cut corners to save in costs throughout the Disney empire.

Thus the reason that Eisner is in charge, and the internet yahoos are not, Disney is a business, beholden to stockholders. But, you still can't tell me he didn't spend the money he needed to in order to provide Disney's stock in trade, Magic. I point to Animal Kingdom... I point to Mission:Space.... I point to Animal Kingdom Lodge and all other examples of spending the money he needed to.

 

[jeffb]

My 2 cents. During his first decade, Eisner was willing to spend money and spent it wisely. I think he suffered a bit of mental anguish with the Paris park which was expensive and had financial difficulty in the early years and this may have changed or started to change his way. In the latter years, he still spent money but it was not necessarily spent wisely (i.e. ABC, Family channel, Orvitz and Katenzberg termination payouts). While looking back at ABC, it may be deemed a sucess, I doubt, at the time of the deal and thereafter for some time, he believed that the crown jewl in the ABC deal was ESPN.

 

[DisneyJester77]

Geez Enderikari, I just love the way you tell me what I can and cannot do. And I love how show me what I am and am not capable of. You make some decent points in your post, I just don't get your tone. It's like it's you againt the internet world - good luck pal. You must have a major beef with a lot of people. But of course, we ALL said that Eisner was unwilling to spend money, so we must ALL be wrong.

 

[fredtom]

I think much of Eisner's earlier achievement and progress was heavily influenced by Frank Wells. Unfortunately, after Frank's tragic death, Eisner started his spiral downward. He seemed to lose sight of the vital elements that constitute Disney-- at the heart of it, animation; and the willingness to lead the company forward stressing its core values, rather than usurping them.

"An Adventurer's life is best!"

 

[DisneyWales]

Eisner

Personally i did not like the way he conducted himself, but thats my personal opionion. As for him being a penny pincher, i think he just learned a valuable lesson with DLRP or :hurl: EuroDisney :hurl:.

As for WDFA it was showing a decline before Katzenburg left, Hunchback and Pocahontas were all in production while he was there. Plus Disney struggled to have a good live action film under his last few years. Look at the Tommorowland Redesign that couldn't have coem cheap. I just feel Eisner became more careful with how he spent Shareholders money. At the end of day all companies have ups and downs, Michael had a few of them under his belt, and im sure Bob Ieger will see his fare share.

 

[landauh]

I think much of Eisner's earlier achievement and progress was heavily influenced by Frank Wells. Unfortunately, after Frank's tragic death, Eisner started his spiral downward. He seemed to lose sight of the vital elements that constitute Disney-- at the heart of it, animation; and the willingness to lead the company forward stressing its core values, rather than usurping them.

I agree with you that Frank seemed to be what Michael needed to keep him focused on how to get the best for the money spent, even for the stock holders. Once Frank wasn't around, Michael appeared to go astray.

 

[Enderikari]

Geez Enderikari, I just love the way you tell me what I can and cannot do. And I love how show me what I am and am not capable of. You make some decent points in your post, I just don't get your tone. It's like it's you againt the internet world - good luck pal. You must have a major beef with a lot of people. But of course, we ALL said that Eisner was unwilling to spend money, so we must ALL be wrong.

It may not be me against the entire internet world... But it is a major portion of it... You see, I am a fan of Walt Disney World, and the Walt Disney Company. Just about every happy memory from my earlier days come from my many visits to Walt Disney World, or watching a Disney movie. I love these internet boards because there are people on the boards who share my love of Disney, of going to the parks and smiling because you are having a geniunely good time.

That which I cannot tolerate are the folks who claim to love Disney... but actually despise the parks, and despise the company. People who are able to go to the parks, but observe what they see around them without comprehending the whole point of it. People who complain about the financial decisions that are difficult to make, but required for the future of the company. People who nitpick, who take pictures of every little chip of paint, of every little bit of dust, and put it on the internet for everyone to see. The paint will be fixed, the dust will be wiped away, but thanks to some internet jerk, it will last forever. People who would rather take pictures of those things, instead of a child smiling while seeing Mickey Mouse, or a little princess standing in front of Cinderella Castle.

And then there are the others, who read the words of these folks... Folks like Kevin Yee, Al Lutz and the ultimate Jim Hill. People who read these words, believe everything they read without realizing that these internet demagogues also have no idea what's going on, who have no real world understanding of what it takes to run a fortune 100 company. Those who post rumors from the lowliest sources as fact, and then whine when those rumors that had no basis in reality, don't come true. That's why I love WDWmagic, Steve allows good discussion, but only reveals what he knows when it is coming true. This is the much more responsible route then Jim Hill's "Let's Throw Everything at the Wall, and See What Sticks" method.

People who love Walt, and all his dreams, but don't realize those dreams would have remained just that, dreams... if it weren't for Roy. Walt was a good storyteller, but bankers don't invest in Happily Ever After, they don't subsidize dreams. They invest in profits, in getting a return on investment. And without both Walt and Roy, the Walt Disney Company would have never been built.

Am I against the whole internet community? Absolutely not. But, see if you can see the meaning behind what I try to sign off with after every poingant post.

I love Walt Disney World for what it is, not what I want it to be.

 

[peter11435]

It may not be me against the entire internet world... But it is a major portion of it... You see, I am a fan of Walt Disney World, and the Walt Disney Company. Just about every happy memory from my earlier days come from my many visits to Walt Disney World, or watching a Disney movie. I love these internet boards because there are people on the boards who share my love of Disney, of going to the parks and smiling because you are having a geniunely good time.

That which I cannot tolerate are the folks who claim to love Disney... but actually despise the parks, and despise the company. People who are able to go to the parks, but observe what they see around them without comprehending the whole point of it. People who complain about the financial decisions that are difficult to make, but required for the future of the company. People who nitpick, who take pictures of every little chip of paint, of every little bit of dust, and put it on the internet for everyone to see. The paint will be fixed, the dust will be wiped away, but thanks to some internet jerk, it will last forever. People who would rather take pictures of those things, instead of a child smiling while seeing Mickey Mouse, or a little princess standing in front of Cinderella Castle.

And then there are the others, who read the words of these folks... Folks like Kevin Yee, Al Lutz and the ultimate Jim Hill. People who read these words, believe everything they read without realizing that these internet demagogues also have no idea what's going on, who have no real world understanding of what it takes to run a fortune 100 company. Those who post rumors from the lowliest sources as fact, and then whine when those rumors that had no basis in reality, don't come true. That's why I love WDWmagic, Steve allows good discussion, but only reveals what he knows when it is coming true. This is the much more responsible route then Jim Hill's "Let's Throw Everything at the Wall, and See What Sticks" method.

People who love Walt, and all his dreams, but don't realize those dreams would have remained just that, dreams... if it weren't for Roy. Walt was a good storyteller, but bankers don't invest in Happily Ever After, they don't subsidize dreams. They invest in profits, in getting a return on investment. And without both Walt and Roy, the Walt Disney Company would have never been built.

Am I against the whole internet community? Absolutely not. But, see if you can see the meaning behind what I try to sign off with after every poingant post.

I love Walt Disney World for what it is, not what I want it to be.

:sohappy: :sohappy:

 

[HunnyPot]

It may not be me against the entire internet world... But it is a major portion of it... You see, I am a fan of Walt Disney World, and the Walt Disney Company. Just about every happy memory from my earlier days come from my many visits to Walt Disney World, or watching a Disney movie. I love these internet boards because there are people on the boards who share my love of Disney, of going to the parks and smiling because you are having a geniunely good time.

That which I cannot tolerate are the folks who claim to love Disney... but actually despise the parks, and despise the company. People who are able to go to the parks, but observe what they see around them without comprehending the whole point of it. People who complain about the financial decisions that are difficult to make, but required for the future of the company. People who nitpick, who take pictures of every little chip of paint, of every little bit of dust, and put it on the internet for everyone to see. The paint will be fixed, the dust will be wiped away, but thanks to some internet jerk, it will last forever. People who would rather take pictures of those things, instead of a child smiling while seeing Mickey Mouse, or a little princess standing in front of Cinderella Castle.

And then there are the others, who read the words of these folks... Folks like Kevin Yee, Al Lutz and the ultimate Jim Hill. People who read these words, believe everything they read without realizing that these internet demagogues also have no idea what's going on, who have no real world understanding of what it takes to run a fortune 100 company. Those who post rumors from the lowliest sources as fact, and then whine when those rumors that had no basis in reality, don't come true. That's why I love WDWmagic, Steve allows good discussion, but only reveals what he knows when it is coming true. This is the much more responsible route then Jim Hill's "Let's Throw Everything at the Wall, and See What Sticks" method.

People who love Walt, and all his dreams, but don't realize those dreams would have remained just that, dreams... if it weren't for Roy. Walt was a good storyteller, but bankers don't invest in Happily Ever After, they don't subsidize dreams. They invest in profits, in getting a return on investment. And without both Walt and Roy, the Walt Disney Company would have never been built.

Am I against the whole internet community? Absolutely not. But, see if you can see the meaning behind what I try to sign off with after every poingant post.

I love Walt Disney World for what it is, not what I want it to be.

Well Said.

 

[HADESgou]

I felt compelled to reply. at first I thought to myself "Why am I reading this?" then after Enderikari last post, which was great by the way, I thought ok this really is not an angry post.

The one thing that makes forums, blogs or any other of these types of services is that you can share your opinions. If I wanted FACTS then I would read my shareholders annual report. But, it is the opinions that make this enjoyable.

so someone takes a picture of something that needs to be painted, big deal, in the grand view of things that is only a speck. people care because they beleive, as Walt wanted us to beleive, that this is our park, a park for families and normal people. Love makes you do Crazy things.

in the end we all love Disney, some people have a strange way of showing it! a really strange way....

 

[imagineer boy]

Could someone get me a violin?

 

[Dragonrider1227]

I always thought Eisner had what it took to properly lead Disney. Half the stuff he had done with the parks says that. But the corprate greed got to him. Also, I always had this feeling that even though he did good things, his heart always seemed to be into "making money." Not always neccerelly a bad thing, but near the end of his career, "making money" seemed to be taking over his thoughts more and more. Plus, I always had a thought that when Walt wanted to do something new, he'd be like "Let's do this. They'll love it and it'll be cool" When Eisner wanted to do something new, it was more among the lines of "Let's do this. They'll love it and we'll make lots of money." Which again, isn't always a bad thing and it's proboly not a good idea to compare him to Walt, but that's my say on it.
Another thing, I think Eisner was willing to spend money, but most of the time, it was only if he new he'd be getting money back from it. Like most buisnessmen are. He knew if you did the resorts right, people would come and spend money in there, therefore, spending money on building them wasn't an issue for him. He however didn't believe that 2-D animation would sell anymore therefore, he was unwilling to spend money on that. See what i'm saying here?

 

[uglybug2005]

I think Michael Eisner's greatest accomplishment of his last 5 years with Disney was reccomending Bob Iger as his successor, and then so graciously stepping back (earlier than he said he would) and letting Bob start to run the show more and more.

 

[Enderikari]

Wow, bringing back one from the dead...?

Let me be the first to say welcome to the boards!

 

[CaptainMichael]

Wow, bringing back one from the dead...?

Let me be the first to say welcome to the boards!

At least this one was worth bringing back. Yay for Eisner and his many accomplishments!

 

[I,Walt]

Yes

At least this one was worth bringing back. Yay for Eisner and his many accomplishments!

Roy O Disney say Thank you.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Eisner did good things but just got consumed in greed towards the middle/end of his run. Those parts of his career are what a lot of people focus on. Sure, Disney is a business but it needs to uphold it's quality. Now that I think of it, Paul Pressler was MUCH worse then Eisner, he was a corporate scumbag from the begining, a model Cog, to use a term from Toontown Online. This was the man who had the briliant thought that Disneyland should be a shopping mall with rides scattered through it and an admission price. But the thing with Eisner was that his corporate evil was so much fun to make fun of and it still is being made fun of.