The point of the mac&cheese stand is not that there is a meaningful corresponce between that and TWDC of 1984, but to show the meaninglessness of using market cap numbers ouside of context and interpretation.
But no hating on mac&cheese! America's finest are grown up on it by America's greatest chefs!
Fun with numbers time now! However, if one should use market cap for a comparison between Eisner and Iger, then Iger beats your boy Mickey Eisner like Spiderman beats street punks when he gets turned down by J. Jonah Jameson again.
For one example - parents and I have been too lazy yet - it is useful to bring in a general stock index performance to see who performed better. Because riding the current is not a personal achievement. Eisner's thirtyfold (well not really, but we'll play along) increase was realised during a period when the Dow Jones Industrial Average grew twelve fold. So we need to divide his 30 by 12, leaves us 2.5. (2.5 is what Eisner achieves on top of the general index, that is, over a dart throwing chimpanzee) He took twenty years, so we need to divide his 2.5 by two to compare with Igers ten years. This leaves us 1.25. A very disappointing performance compared to Iger nearly tripling market cap during his ten years of the biggest stock slump in Wall Street history. Iger's Dow index increased 0.3 in all.
Compared to the all-conquering Robert 'Augustus' Iger small fry Mickey Eisner had better returned to playing with his Michael Mouse ears indeed.
We all loves pix and graphs! Here's the Dow. Eisner starts at around Dow 1000, leaves at around Dow 12000. Iger starts at that 12k, from which it has slowly crept up to 16.
That it was a small corporation that Eisner grew 1.25 times over the general index per decade makes his performance worse, not better. Smaller corporations are easier to grow than big ones. Market leaders seldom triple in worth - after all, they are already a behemoth. One is not going to grow a car company from 30% market share to one with 90%. But it is easy to grow a car company from 1% to 3% market share. In fact, it is ordinary for small companies to do so, instead of a singular special feat. Especially heavily undervalued and underutilised ones, such as the Disney of 1984.