The Spirited Sixth Sense ...

[Captain Chaos]

I get that Wall Street is very happy with what is going on and sees nothing wrong. However it would seem that Burbank disagrees or it wouldn't be exerting its authority more and more often. My question is why doesn't it use it's authority in a different, more effective, way? Aka- fire the guy.

What exactly do we mean when we say Burbank anyway?

In short I guess my question is how does a branch of the company with authority to compel another branch to do what they want not also have the authority to determine who runs that branch?

I get what you are saying, and I have felt the same way... If upper management of the company is unhappy with the way another division is run by that management team, why not cast out that team? My answer... They aren't unhappy... They are thrilled... They see WDW's bottom line, "record" profits, soaring income... How do you get rid of the team that is producing the results you force them to produce? You can't... Not when Wall Street is happy... Not when your earnings call is filled with quotes such as "We had record breaking profits this quarter"... Rasulo is delivering the results Iger and Wall Street want... TDO is delivering the results Iger wants... That is a padded bottom line... Iger is not a creative or imaginative guy... He is a numbers guy... All that matters to him is numbers... All Wall Street cares about is numbers.. TDO is delivering the numbers to Rasulo, Rasulo is delivering the numbers to Iger, Iger delivers them to Wall Street... They are all happy....

Despite, sometimes uppers in Burbank telling management in TDO they have to have a project done...

 

[GoofGoof]

There's still a lot of unanswered question and apparent misinformation as to how much deliberate responsibility Eisner has has for Iger's (and Rasulo's) rise to power. Some of Eisner's business moves apparently lead to both people becoming part of the company, but just how much hands on responsibility Eisner has for allowing Iger to rise to power is something I really haven't heard a consensus on. I've heard many the claim that Eisner was working with Iger and grooming him to become his successor prior to his firing (much like Iger is now doing with Rasulo apparently). But WDW1974's comments on the matter have contradicted this notion, making it sound like Eisner actually didn't like Iger or want him in power. One also wonders the same about how much Eisner contributed to Rasulo rising to power as well (or even Staggs). What is the real truth of the matter?

If what WDW1974 said about Eisner attempting to prevent Rasulo from becoming the next CEO is true (and his apparently consistent jabs regarding his disappointment with Iger's leadership), why were these people allowed to get as high as they did under Eisner in the first place?

I think Eisner changed his mind a lot. His history with Katzenberg and Ovitz comes to mind. It's likely that both sides are probably right. At one point Eisner supported Iger and Rasulo, but then changed his mind.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I think Eisner changed his mind a lot. His history with Katzenberg and Ovitz comes to mind. It's likely that both sides are probably right. At one point Eisner supported Iger and Rasulo, but then changed his mind.

But see my more recent post that has a quote from July 2013 of Eisner apparently praising Iger, even saying he wished Iger would remain with the company past his retirement date if he had it his way...

Unless there's something political there I'm not seeing, it seems like he's in support of Iger. He toots his own horn a great deal by mentioning how he originally grew the company, but he freely offered praise to Iger that he didn't need to add to the interview. And for someone who originally instigated bad blood between Lucasfilm and Pixar, he is mentioning their success as well.

 

[Nubs70]

It's also trouble to make sense of the contradictory claims from people about the relationship between Eisner and Iger and how Eisner feels about the way the company is being run when there's things like this-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...praises-iger-plays-down-lone-ranger-bomb.html

As of July of last year, Eisner has also CLAIMED he's very happy with Iger, with this quote about how he apparently feels about Iger-
“If I had my choice I would have him stay even longer, God knows, maybe he will. The longer he stays, the better it is for the shareholders.”

I'd like to know what @WDW1974 thinks about that quote. Even if Eisner is lying for political reasons, he had no real reason to add the comment about hoping Iger remains at the company and saying he'd ensure his continued stay if he had things his way. What sort of political purpose would this serve Eisner by praising them if he actually wanted guys like Iger and Staggs out behind closed doors? According to spirit, Eisner is actually trying to stir up a force against Rasulo now. Rasulo might be even worse than Iger, but they're both very similar with the same ideals at running a company like Disney.

It is common to hear this type of praise right up to the day you get fired and find yourself in a bar drinking at 11am.

 

[FrankLapidus]

There's some still unanswered question as to how much deliberate responsibility Eisner holds for Iger's (or Rasulo's) rise to power. Some of Eisner's business moves apparently lead to Iger becoming part of the company, but just how much hands on responsibility Eisner has for allowing Iger to rise to power is something I really haven't heard a consensus on. Some people have claimed that Eisner was working closely with and purposefully grooming Iger to become his successor prior to his firing. But WDW1974's comments on the matter have made it sound like such stories were actually untrue and Eisner actually wasn't an Iger supporter. One also wonders the same about how much Eisner contributed to Rasulo rising to power as well. What is the real truth of the matter?

If what WDW1974 said about Eisner attempting to prevent Rasulo from becoming the next CEO is true (and his apparently consistent jabs regarding his disappointment with Iger's leadership), why were these people allowed to get as high as they did under Eisner in the first place?

Disney War says that Eisner was very dismissive of the idea that Iger could become CEO. The book recounts a BoD meeting to discuss the Roy Disney/Stanley Gold revolt where Eisner said: "Stanley and Roy are trying to get rid of me. They don't think I can run this company. But who do you think can? Bob?" before turning to Iger and adding dismissively, "Bob can't run this company."

They were allowed to get as high as they did because they were lackeys, they massaged Eisner's ego and told him what he wanted to hear. Anyone who didn't do this was ostracised and eventually purged.

The impression I get from the book was that Eisner saw Iger as a means to maintaining power at TWDC even if he gave up the CEO job. He is also said to have wanted to name George Mitchell as his successor and Mitchell was as much of an Eisner loyalist as anyone in the company at the time. I think he saw Iger as someone who would do what he was told, that his unsuitability for the top job could play into Eisner's hands and allow him to keep running the company. But Iger was smart enough to distance himself at just the right time and say and do the right things to make him amenable in the eyes of the SaveDisney campaign and consequently win public approval of his suitability for the job, effectively leaving Eisner high and dry.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Interesting comment from that book, though more interesting is how Eisner has again recently praised Iger and would have him remain CEO for the foreseeable future if he had his way. Seems like an odd comment to offer for no apparent reason. Unless Eisner was initially not interested in Iger but has since changed his mind. Or if he's pulling some sort of political jab there (which yeah again he does toot his own accomplishments in that interview but he still had no reason to offer Iger any undue praise if he actually dislikes Iger as much as WDW1974 seems to indicate).

It's also again unusual that Eisner has praised Iger's acquisition and success with the Star Wars and Pixar movies, give that Eisner completely ruined relations and cut ties with both companies originally...

Unless the political reason behind the comment was Eisner's attempt at trying to get back in good graces with the company's leaders to regain some power and influence by weaving lies they like to hear (his ego still seems quite strong so i'm not sure if he's one to try to suck up to the people that helped kick him out).

 

[flynnibus]

Disney War says that Eisner was very dismissive of the idea that Iger could become CEO. The book recounts a BoD meeting to discuss the Roy Disney/Stanley Gold revolt where Eisner said: "Stanley and Roy are trying to get rid of me. They don't think I can run this company. But who do you think can? Bob?" before turning to Iger and adding dismissively, "Bob can't run this company."

You're also quoting the point in time where Eisner was already on the defensive and trying to hold onto what he had. Do you really think when arguing why he had to stay and you can't do without me... he'd say "Well Bob would be a fine replacement...". You're overlooking the exact behavior that got Eisner into so much hot water... he would never let anyone rise high enough to challenge him. He was all happy to stroke you and call you great as long as you were ready to sit at his feet and rub against your leg like a cat. But go against the grain, or pose a threat... and you're now the worst guy ever.

 

[FrankLapidus]

We can only really guess at this point but Eisner is a very smart man, anything he says in public will have been carefully thought out beforehand. He seems very unpredictable, he can be your best friend one day and worst enemy the next so even if that is what he was saying a couple of months ago, he might be saying something completely different now to the people that matter as speculation surrounding Iger's future begins to ramp up with his expected date of departure approaching.

 

[GoofGoof]

Interesting comment from that book, though more interesting is how Eisner has again recently praised Iger and would have him remain CEO for the foreseeable future if he had his way. Seems like an odd comment to offer for no apparent reason. Unless Eisner was initially not interested in Iger but has since changed his mind. Or if he's pulling some sort of political jab there (which yeah again he does toot his own accomplishments in that interview but he still had no reason to offer Iger any undue praise if he actually dislikes Iger as much as WDW1974 seems to indicate).

It's also again unusual that Eisner has praised Iger's acquisition and success with the Star Wars and Pixar movies, give that Eisner completely ruined relations and cut ties with both companies originally...

Unless the political reason behind the comment was Eisner's attempt at trying to get back in good graces with the company's leaders to regain some power and influence by weaving lies they like to hear (his ego still seems quite strong so i'm not sure if he's one to try to suck up to the people that helped kick him out).

Maybe He sees Iger as the lesser of 2 evils. Keep Iger on board until someone better comes along rather than turn the reigns over to Rasulo. Just a theory, but it could explain his change of heart.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Was Clippy really his name??

Not to be confused with Cloppy:

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Maybe He sees Iger as the lesser of 2 evils. Keep Iger on board until someone better comes along rather than turn the reigns over to Rasulo. Just a theory, but it could explain his change of heart.

I suppose that is plausible. Though unless Iger is voted in to stay again (and there's some word that he doesn't want to be anywhere near the company if the bubble starts bursting), that time has now run out. I'm curious as to how Eisner will react should Rasulo come to power and (at least initially) continue Iger's financial successes. I mean publicly, not behind closed doors. WDW1974 has said that Eisner is attempting to rally support with some of the board members AGAINST Rasulo and that the board may be looking outside the company for future leadership (which I don't know whether this possibility has changed in the past few days with the talks of Rasulo being a real contender). And i'm also wondering whether he has continued to rally against Iger internally as well.

I get that playing politics is a big thing in the industry to maintain status and whatnot. But it rubs me the wrong way (and in its own way comes across at least to the general public as yes man syndrome) when already vilified powers like Eisner make even fake attempts to cozy up to the leaders. Leaders that probably know him well enough to not trust him and allow him to gain any power. Whatever his ego and bad events may have done to Tony Baxter, I respect him for maintaining his work ethics and not shilling for the company when he's so against what they've done.

Eisner was booted out by the company leaders and everyone who likes the way the company is currently growing (which seems to be a huge amount of them unfortunately) probably knows better than to trust him even when he sucks up to them, i'm not sure what he's thinking he can achieve by handing out so much praise to Iger and his buds when they surely realize if he's trying to get back in their good graces. Especially if that Disney War comment from Eisner dissing Iger is true, Iger probably hates him for that.

 

[doctornick]

Neither can the "Soarin"-like D-ticket or the boat ride be elevated to E-ticket status based solely on the themed environment ("visuals") unless, again, the boat ride was something on the scale of Pirates over at the Magic Kingdom. And nobody is suggesting that it will be.

No one is suggesting that it will be because no one seems to know anything about it. Has there been any actual information about the ride besides that it would be a simulator of some sort and that there were leaked blueprints that may or may not represent the current setup. For all we know, it might move from room to room, which was rumored at one time as well, after the blueprints were leaked.

My point being, at this point in time, we really have virtually no information to go on to judge the "level" of the Pandora rides. I'm sure information will come out soon enough, but it's really pointless to debate what type of "ticket" they are given how little is known.

FWIW, haven't people said that there is a separate building with tightly controlled access for WDI and Cameron's folks to develop the Pandora attractions? I'm under the impression that there is a lot of secrecy and behind the scenes stuff being worked on, which tends to suggest that the rides will not be basic, off the shelf kind of stuff.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I see an opportunity for a segue thanks to @flynnibus and I'll take it. When talking about Parks and Resorts, WDI, and the Strategic Planning folks, the impact of EuroDisney's early foundering cannot be ignored.

In part due to the success of the hotels built at WDW in the mid to late eighties (Swan and Dolphin, Yacht and Beach Club, Caribbean Beach), a key component of EuroDisney was to have resorts designed and ready to go as capacity necessitated them to capture as much guest revenue as possible. At some point, according to DisneyWar, Michael wanted to build ALL of the designed resorts. He turned to his newly minted Strategic Planning group and they fudged the numbers to justify building all of that capacity for EuroDisney's Spring 1992 opening. And we all know how that went. While the park itself was doing well, the low occupancy rates and the debt from building and operating all of those large hotels at once brought down EuroDisney which lead to the situation DLP is currently in where TWDC, with Strategic Planners Rasulo and Staggs as CFO and EVP of P&R, will not take the short term hit to its bottom line to address the debt and the lack of additions.

Now WDI was thrown under the bus for EuroDisney as a result of the extravagant spending for every aspect of the resort. Folks in Strategic Planning believed the cost of Disneyland Paris Park, considered to be WDI's finest Eisner era park alongside the incomparable TDS, as a reason for the parks financial failure. Think about what happened after EuroDisney in Strategic Planning's heyday; Westcot/DisneySea was abandoned for the value engineered DCA 1.0, Animal Kingdom didn't get its planned opening day menu because Burbank did not want to increase the budget, Hong Kong Disneyland, a park that was likely sold to the HK legislature under the impression it would be their Disneyland Paris Park, had its attraction lineup cut back to its detriment in the resort's early years. One cannot not acknowledge the poor state of WDI; from the political infighting, the appointment of WDI heads like Tom Fitzgerald and Bruce Vaughn/Craig Russell who do not have the skills to run such an important division, the firing of WDI's top talent like Steve and Tim Kirk (Journey Into Imagination, Tower of Terror, Tokyo Disney Sea), Tim Delaney (The Living Seas, DLP Discoveryland, HKDL Tomorrowland and the aborted Pirates Mountain), Valerie Edwards (WDI's head sculptor and protege of Blaine Gibson), and Tony Baxter (You know what he has worked on), and lastly the abandonment of Audio-Animatronics and outsourcing of remaining AA production to Garner Holt.

I must also add that the attraction that are built are not the complete product of WDI. In addition to the three stooges, you have a division like TDO that is run by folks who don't care/know how to run a theme park. These are the kind of folks who will freak out because County Bounty was going to go away in one version of FLE even though the Fab Five meet and greets which drove its merchandise revenues was moving to the Main Street us Exhibition Hall/Theater/Hospitality House. How do you expect folks like that to get behind the next big E-Ticket or something ambitious like the original 1 Billion dollar FLE with the FL D-Tickets all being rebuilt from the ground up or just maintaining SQS? We know WDI is still capable of great things when conditions allow it do so as has been the case with DCA 2.0(Boy Georgie, you took all the credit for that one! ), HKDL's recent additions (Thanks Hong Kong Legislature!), and WDSP's new Ratatouille ride (Thanks Brad Bird and Roger Gould and co. at Pixar's Theme Park division!).

 

[kap91]

No one is suggesting that it will be because no one seems to know anything about it. Has there been any actual information about the ride besides that it would be a simulator of some sort and that there were leaked blueprints that may or may not represent the current setup. For all we know, it might move from room to room, which was rumored at one time as well, after the blueprints were leaked.

My point being, at this point in time, we really have virtually no information to go on to judge the "level" of the Pandora rides. I'm sure information will come out soon enough, but it's really pointless to debate what type of "ticket" they are given how little is known.

FWIW, haven't people said that there is a separate building with tightly controlled access for WDI and Cameron's folks to develop the Pandora attractions? I'm under the impression that there is a lot of secrecy and behind the scenes stuff being worked on, which tends to suggest that the rides will not be basic, off the shelf kind of stuff.

As far as I know everything you stated is more or less the latest info.

 

[FrankLapidus]

You're also quoting the point in time where Eisner was already on the defensive and trying to hold onto what he had. Do you really think when arguing why he had to stay and you can't do without me... he'd say "Well Bob would be a fine replacement...". You're overlooking the exact behavior that got Eisner into so much hot water... he would never let anyone rise high enough to challenge him. He was all happy to stroke you and call you great as long as you were ready to sit at his feet and rub against your leg like a cat. But go against the grain, or pose a threat... and you're now the worst guy ever.

Eisner was pretty much on the defensive from the day Frank Wells died up until the day he was ousted; he couldn't work alongside Katzenberg, he couldn't work alongside Ovitz, he couldn't work alongside Iger. There isn't a time from 1995/1996 onwards that he wasn't on the defensive and impressing on the BoD that he, and only he, was fit to steer the company. But I don't think Eisner was ever convinced by Iger. He was inherited from the ABC/Cap Cities merger and the book details more than one occasion where Eisner moaned about Iger even before he became a realistic option as a potential successor. But Iger was obedient and would do as he was told so he served a purpose. But to answer your question, no I don't think Eisner would have talked up Iger's credentials when he was trying to cling onto his own job but then again I really don't think Eisner saw very much in Iger to begin with.

 

[jlsHouston]

There's still a lot of unanswered question and apparent misinformation as to how much deliberate responsibility Eisner has has for Iger's (and Rasulo's) rise to power. Some of Eisner's business moves apparently lead to both people becoming part of the company, but just how much hands on responsibility Eisner has for allowing Iger to rise to power is something I really haven't heard a consensus on. I've heard many the claim that Eisner was working with Iger and grooming him to become his successor prior to his firing (much like Iger is now doing with Rasulo apparently). But WDW1974's comments on the matter have contradicted this notion, making it sound like Eisner actually didn't like Iger or want him in power. One also wonders the same about how much Eisner contributed to Rasulo rising to power as well (or even Staggs). What is the real truth of the matter?

If what WDW1974 said about Eisner attempting to prevent Rasulo from becoming the next CEO is true (and his apparently consistent jabs regarding his disappointment with Iger's leadership), why were these people allowed to get as high as they did under Eisner in the first place?

I don't think Eisner ever wanted anyone to succeed him. I think he took Iger on reluctantly as a President because he was forced into it by the board. I think Iger and Rasulo rose in power at TWDC because Eisner lost his balance after Wells died. Eisner alienated so many people during his tenure as CEO. Yes he did great things for the parks and the studios, but he was a terrible leader inasmuch he did not inspire loyalty, nor did he reward it. Eisner was about power when it came to leading and managing. He was creative and he was also mindful of budgets. He totally got Walt Disney's legacy and saw himself as the rightful heir to it, which is one of the reasons I think he was so good for the Parks & Resorts.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm a bit intrigued by the idea of Staggs as CEO because to me he does come across as a man with ideas, someone who could have a grasp of what needs to be done on the creative side but at the same time I'm still skeptical, I just feel like the company needs to go outside and agree with you completely on your points about a creative CEO and leadership pairing. Maybe I'm being overly harsh on Staggs but I've just become so jaded by the corporate culture at TWDC today that I think a clean break is needed and this rumour about Rasulo has really compounded that. The notion that Rasulo is being put forward as the favoured candidate is just ridiculous to me.

Staggs was head of Strategic Planning. I do not see what he has done to be forgiven for that. If Strategic Planning as a group has rightly deserved ire for their role in hurting the company during Eisner's later years, I do not think the man who spent time at the helm of this very group should get a pass because people now know his name, he took some good promotional photos in the parks and pushed a good story about he "rescued" New Fantasyland.

 

[jlsHouston]

Eisner was pretty much on the defensive from the day Frank Wells died up until the day he was ousted; he couldn't work alongside Katzenberg, he couldn't work alongside Ovitz, he couldn't work alongside Iger. There isn't a time from 1995/1996 onwards that he wasn't on the defensive and impressing on the BoD that he, and only he, was fit to steer the company. But I don't think Eisner was ever convinced by Iger. He was inherited from the ABC/Cap Cities merger and the book details more than one occasion where Eisner moaned about Iger even before he became a realistic option as a potential successor. But Iger was obedient and would do as he was told so he served a purpose. But to answer your question, no I don't think Eisner would have talked up Iger's credentials when he was trying to cling onto his own job but then again I really don't think Eisner saw very much in Iger to begin with.

I totally agree with this. I don't think there was ever anyone Eisner saw himself on equal ground with, maybe Wells, but only after Wells had died did MAYBE Eisner see Wells and himself as the remarkable team they truly were. I think in general Eisner was all about power. And he was paranoid and a bit of a sociopath. If there is any kind of behind the scene maneuvering Eisner is up to about Iger's successor, it would be because Eisner has the ear and confidence of a big shareholder. Eisner totally understands the power of a large shareholder. Who is a current large shareholder of Disney stock that sits on the BOD?

 

[Rodan75]

It's also trouble to make sense of the contradictory claims from people about the relationship between Eisner and Iger and how Eisner feels about the way the company is being run when there's things like this-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...praises-iger-plays-down-lone-ranger-bomb.html

As of July of last year, Eisner has also CLAIMED he's very happy with Iger, with this quote about how he apparently feels about Iger-
“If I had my choice I would have him stay even longer, God knows, maybe he will. The longer he stays, the better it is for the shareholders.”

I'd like to know what @WDW1974 thinks about that quote. Even if Eisner is lying for political reasons, he had no real reason to add the comment about hoping Iger remains at the company and saying he'd ensure his continued stay if he had things his way. What sort of political purpose would this serve Eisner by praising them if he actually wanted guys like Iger and Staggs out behind closed doors? According to spirit, Eisner is actually trying to stir up a force against Rasulo now. Rasulo might be even worse than Iger, but they're both very similar with the same ideals at running a company like Disney.

If we assume the Spirits stance, then Eisner is signaling to anyone who will listen that TWDC doesn't have a better option today, directly pushing off Rasulo and Staggs.

 

[Funmeister]

If we assume the Spirits stance, then Eisner is signaling to anyone who will listen that TWDC doesn't have a better option today, directly pushing off Rasulo and Staggs.

But why? What personal interest does he have? or is it just an ego move?