@WDW1974 :
I agree that Eisner was generally better for the company than the management that began in 2005. But in your opinion, what made Eisner go off the deep end in the late 90s into the 2000s? What initiated the cheap-quels, the rise of Strategic Planning, DCA v. 1.0, and the eventual dumbing down of the American parks? In his final days, many big-league players refused to work with him. His early track record was stunning; is he an example of a successful man who believed his own press?
I know people want a simple answer, and it is complicated. But I think I will try here and offer one: insulation.
As Eisner grew Disney it became a far different animal than the small neglected fawn he rescued from the hunters. Instead of a tiny company, Michael was leading a huge corporation that was growing in all sorts of ways from new film banners to new theme parks to all sorts of new business ventures -- some good (cruise line, retail stores, TV networks), some bad (Internet portals, regional entertainment ventures), some in between (sports franchises, animation studios all over the globe).
The bigger Disney grew, the less Michael was able to truly gauge what was going on at the micro level because he was on top and folks always fear the top guy (we have folks here who are afraid to contact George Kalogridis because they think a phone call or an email will result in a lifetime ban from Disney and the FBI coming to their doors!) and because people in every division would only focus on the good things happening. There is an example I'd love to share on just how much Disney execs would lie and cover things up when Michael was around, but I won't because it, frankly, is too valuable to me to place here.
Michael became so insulated. I recall trying to speak to him at a Disney Parks event a few years before he stepped down (now, realize that I knew him, he knew me and my family ... I wasn't a fanboi angered that Disney was closing Horizons. Well, I was but that was another side of me.) and Disney PR and marketing staff literally played keep away with him. They were blocking like they were the freaking Seattle Seahawks. ... So, I saw Jane head to the restroom, parked myself in front with a glass of champagne and waited for her to come out. She saw me, smiled, we chatted and I then escorted her back right through the crowd of 'obstacles', right back to Michael. I watched the then head of DLR PR Dept. seethe and visibly turn red as he shook my hand and greeted me by first name.
Mind you, while people were leaving the company and others who shouldn't have been coming (Mike Ovitz) came, Michael was dealing with health issues, the death of Frank, the ''gall'' of ''the little midget'', the financial troubles with Euro Disney, the delays starting the DCL, park/resort ideas that were met by resistance and fell apart (in California and Virginia) and many other issues that have been detailed in books and online. But Michael was kept in a bubble that, despite what some believe was not self-imposed, largely by his own exec team for their own reasons. I once overheard him talking about DL maintenance issues with another top level exec who is no longer with Disney by saying ''How did this get so bad?''
INSULATION. That's my simple answer. By the time he realized how bad so many things really were, there were no palatable options. He didn't want to leave Disney, even in 2005. But he just had no choice.
When did it start? Probably way back in 1984. But it got serious around 1997 and it never got better. That's why the fanboi in me wishes he would have resigned after opening DAK.
Now ... just to touch on a few things you brought up above.
The cheap-quels were not a terrible idea in and of themselves. And what brought them about was the success of the first few (the first Aladdin one made a boatload of $$$, despite not having Robin Williams back) and the sheer number or artists Disney was employing at the time. They had animation studios from Australia to France back to Japan. Like everything else with Disney (then and now), they went nuts with them, thinking that you could make hundreds of millions on Aladdin 5: Jafar Tours with a Boy Band and Cinderella 11: The Castle Gets a Queen.
Strategic Planning was just a bad move that was en vogue with every 'cutting edge' company in the 90s. If you read some of the corporate drivel, then it didn't sound so bad. It seemed to make sense. It was all about synergies and taking advantage of existing BRAND strengths to grow the business as a whole. But at the end of the day, it was just drivel.
DCA 1.0 ... uhm ... ah ... that's way too long of a topic to even begin. But the best analogy is a snowball starting at the top of a mountain and rolling. And it should have been stopped multiple times before it became an avalanche, but people (often very respected like Marty Sklar and John Hench) were left back in the ski lodge when that little ball started picking up size and steam. DCA 1.0 happened because multiple high level folks at Disney simply wouldn't stand up and say 'This isn't smart and here are all the reasons why!'
Dumbing down of the US parks (more FL)? That came from the whole Strategic Planning mindset. That came from moving folks into the business from hospitality (Lee Cockerell) and retail (Paul Pressler), listening to consultants who came up with new business models (no, why have an antiques store in Liberty Square that can't carry its own financial weight?) that basically pit every location against every other one. Instead of being parts of a show, things like unique merchandise, entertainment, not allowing costumes off property and themed trash cans became 'fat' ... things that could be cut. Disney had so much quality back in the 90s that cutting was easy. It helped the bottom line and didn't hurt quality all that much ... but well, there's only so long that you can play that game. 15-plus years later and they still are following that.
I probably should have just stopped with one word, but I am quite passionate about this particular subject.
