Fortune Article on Ei$ner

[Bob O]

Captain Crook, politics aside is not disney stock where it was 5 yrs ago. And is that a postive for stockholders and the company??? And shouldnt the person in charge be held responsible for this or will we just find excuses for his mistakes?? How many times can eisner fire underlings in the imagneering divison/theme park division/movie division until he is held responsible himself as he hired the people he fires?? Or is it ok the stockholders and people who buy disney products pay for his continuing mistakes such as the internet fiasco/ovitiz-katzenberg debacles etc. How much more damage does he have to do until its realized that his time at the helm should come to a end. He made alot of money on disneys vault but has put little back into it for future leaders to utilize as he has. The next leader wont have the advantages he had of thousands of empty acres and a untapped disney vault to make quick money. The next person will have to fill up the vault again by being creative.

 

[raidermatt]

The theme parks are in the doldrums due to decisions eisner made, pure and simple

Attendance at three of Disney's WDW theme parks is off by a lower % than both of Universal's (Epcot being the exception). Attendance at all resort parks, and for that matter resort destinations (Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc) is down, and in many cases by much more than Disney's parks.

I'm not saying DCA is not a bust. The facts say that attendance-wise, it is. But the theme parks are caught up in the recession that began in March, and could be seen coming at least 6 months earlier. That is not Eisner's fault.

 

[YoHo]

If the Recession could be seen six months in advance (and it could, trust me) then isn't it eisner's fault that something wasn't done sooner to protect the parks?

 

[Captain Crook]

nicely put, raidermatt, and while the events of Sept 11 can't be used a a catch all, it certainly exacerbated the growing economic situation and has made a comeback or even a clear cut path for the future very difficult to factor in. Disney can't assume air travel will be back to normal next summer or the summer after that. That can't assume there will be no more terrorist attacks on America and they can't assume the economy will recover given the current world/ecoconmic situation. Certainly, as time goes on and no new attacks or negative developments occur, Disney's approch or path may become more visible but for now how can we expect Disney to launch any huge customer oriented campaigns at people who won't fly or in an environment that could deeply worsen with one more incident (a shoe bomb that gets lit, for instance)?

 

[Captain Crook]

They did Yoho, remember the cost cutting initiative that everyone was blasting so vigorously? Thank goodness they DID tighten their belts exactly when they did or this current blip would be a major disaster (which some feel it is, I do not)...

 

[raidermatt]

As the Captain says, the belt-tightening in the theme parks was to keep them profitable in bad times, like now.

And, btw, Yoho, your theme song is one of my 3 year-old son's favorites...

 

[raidermatt]

Disney can't assume air travel will be back to normal next summer or the summer after that. That can't assume there will be no more terrorist attacks on America and they can't assume the economy will recover given the current world/ecoconmic situation.

I agree completely. These factors need to be monitored very closely, and as separate components.

That said, I think Disney needs to move forward under the assumption that fear of air travel will continue to subside. Unless human nature has suddenly changed, (and it hasn't), the fear will for the most part disappear, the only question is when. They should also plan for the economy to follow the same cycle it always has and rebound at some point. But they need contingency plans in the event either of these should not happen true to form. They need both an "emergency" plan to invoke should an event such as 9/11 occur again, and they need longer-term plans should the economic recovery not happen as soon as we would hope.

 

[Captain Crook]

I totally agree raidermatt, the only sticking point is how far can they push a recovery plan and how much can they "announce" it? If bad situations do again occur they don't want to be held to public scrutiny by "plans" made for an optimistic future that doesn't occur - Which it seems some people are doing now, to some extent. It wouldn't be rational for them to announce BK in 2003, a new Country in Epcot for 2004 & Fire Mountain in 2005...There is just too much uncertainty in the economy to insure that this could be accomplished, even if it were to be in the works...What I'm trying to say is that with Disney & Eisner, what you see is often not what you get & I know this can be held to a negative connotation as well, but I believe it is in Disney's best interest to play it close to the vest now & in the near future...

 

[Another Voice]

I wish I had more time.

Captain sir, you have achieved a milestone. You have a produced a rationalization beyond all measure. Eisner NEVER has to do anything EVER again, and he will be a genius. Fear, uncertainty, a chance for failure – and let us not forgot about the people who might criticize “optimistic plans”. Yep, nothing is a masterful response. Do nothing and I’m brilliant, and if I do anything it proves how generous I am. This is all really funny.

Naturally, all the other major destinations are going ahead with plans and major marketing campaigns. Hawaii, Las Vegas, New City (they not as frightened as Disney is apparently) and California. And guess what, Michael Eisner himself appears in the California commercial. Maybe he thinks that promotion in these time is only bad for Disney, not for others. Interesting.

Of course, that is his mode of operation these days. Don’t spend a dime to help the Company, but seize any chance for self-promotion he can find.


P.S. California Adventure's problems and the first two waves of cutbacks had nothing to do with the economy.

 

[Captain Crook]

AV, I'm very happy to have provided you a New Years laugh...Even thugh you are apparantly unable to undrstand ANY of my POV...I neither think Eisner is a genius, nor do I believe Disney should "do nothing". I just think it is smart for Eisner (and Company) not to stretch too far into the unknown future and this holds true for my opinion of Steve Case at AOL, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner & all of the other media players as well (it's just too bad they aen't under a microscope for their decisions like Eisner is...ALL they have to worry about is $$$).

What saddens me is your continual view of "the other side" and me particularily as an Eisner lover. AV, honestly, I don't give a hoot about Mike and if I were to be proved wrong and Diane Disney brought in Landbaron and he did a great job (as I know he would), I'd be thrilled. I just don't like change (anywhere in my life), I still like WDW, I like the additions to WDW that have occured during Eisner's tenure, so sue me. It is generally the totally unfair and illogical blame that is placed on Eisner here on the DIS that gets me defending him.


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

 

[Bob O]

CaptainCrook How can you not be considered a Eisner lover???? Any move he makes all i see from you is posts defending him, maybe i missed the negatives ones but they seem few. If not a eisner lover a disney apologist. When a company is back where it was 5 yrs ago is that a good thing or should the person in charge be praised for such actions. Or should they be praised for opening a half day park or a creative and fiancial fauilure of a park. Or waisting billions on a internet fiasco and the hiring/firing of ovitz and katzenberg etc. Or the fact that all the parks have attractions that are closed and alot of rides/attractions that need major refurbishment/closing. And with his spending of the money on hand ie-fox family they apparently dont have the money to invest in the parks and are shuttering large parts of their animation dept/imagineering dept.
But of course im sure some will find ways to excuse all the above actions and live in a fanasty world that all is fine with the theme parks and the WDW company as a whole.

 

[Captain Crook]

OK...If personal attacks & missrepresentations are going to be the hallmark of the new year, I'm outta here. I've expalined the rationale I've used in defending Eisner...It is that you people are relentless and clearly you should have gathered as much from my posts (but is equally clear that you haven't).

Call me an apologist, defender or just a moron...It's ok with me.

See ya...

 

[YoHo]

Wow, this is more fun then the Depate board.

Wait,

Wait,


I like Clinton, a flat tax and home schooling.


(if that doesn't generate a few personal attacks, then I have been completely misreading the debate board.)

On to the meat of the matter. Don't worry Capt. Some of us understand.

 

[Bob O]

Of course its easy to use a claim of a personal attack when unable to refute points made by other posters on any given topic, as illustrated here!

 

[YoHo]

Whoa, it really is turning into the Debate board.
Listen guys, things aren't quite as rough and tumble around here.
We tend to play Slightly nicer.

 

[Bob O]

I dont see anything on this topic thats rough or tumble at all. People are expressing their viewpoints on the topics brought up on this thread but ive seen no personal attacks at all,just a difference of opinion of eisners stewardship of the wdw company and its various componets .

 

[Another Voice]

Captain, sir. Certainly no personal attack was meant nor implied. Just simply an observation about an evolving viewpoint that went from “big things are just around the corner” to “well, they have to do something” to “hearing nothing is a good thing”.

As Mr. Raidermatt wrote, Disney needs to start now on the assumption that things will slowly get back to normal. The lead time for development at WDW is measured in years. People won’t travel to WDW unless they have a reason, and there’s certainly no national sense that “we have to go to WDW or the terrorists win!”. People will always make a subconscious mental calculation about the value of a WDW vacation. War and uncertainty complicates things and Disney needs to add a little more to their side of the equation.

As for Eisner haters and lovers. Well, perhaps Mr. Eisner does receive both blame and credit when neither is earned. He’s mostly just a symbol for “the way things are” and that’s part of the price of being a very public figure. And while you’ve been articulate in pointing where we have assigned too much blame to Mr. Eisner, I am simply trying to point out where he is being credited for the work of others. Between the two of us, I hope the readers of this board are seeing a “balanced” picture.

Mr. Eisner’s fate is not for us to decide (although you can guess how I vote my shares), but we can influence The Company. We are their customers and the ones who ultimately decide the success of their products. I believe that an informed and interested consumer is important for the company. Every dollar we give to Disney alters their actions – encouraging some and discouraging others. Personally, I want to encourage them to do more, to be better, to strive.

In the end, we are the ones that determine “Disney standards”, “Disney quality” and “Disney magic”. And I want everyone to participate.

 

[raidermatt]

Bottom Line: He is the man in charge. He deserves credit for things that go well, and blame for things that don't. Whether he developed an idea from the start, or just signed the check is irrelevant.

You can't blame him for not giving a deserving executive autonomy, then withhold credit when an executive in the company does something great. If he's leaving ESPN alone, and its doing great, he deserves credit for that. If he became very involved in AKL, and it turned out great, he deserves credit for that. On the other hand, he deserves blame for DCA, ABC, and Atlantis.

It can be debated whether the minuses or plusses are more plentiful, but there are definitely some tick marks in both columns.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

… and "A whole bunch!" from column "B"

Bottom Line: He is the man in charge. He deserves credit for things that go well, and blame for things that don't. Whether he developed an idea from the start, or just signed the check is irrelevant.

I agree with your entire post, raidermatt! But this first little bit has been what I've been trying to say for the last year or so.

It can be debated whether the minuses or plusses are more plentiful, but there are definitely some tick marks in both columns.

Hmmm. Still in agreement (surprised Captain?). I know it hasn't always come across that way, but that is because I really feel, that although there are a few ticks in the positive column (truly GREAT things), there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many… (sorry)… many more ticks in the negative column.

So on my scale... HE'S GOT TO GO!!!!!




PS: Bob O - CHILL! Captain -You too! I agree with YoHo. We gotta play nice. But I can understand the Captain's frustration. It's hard being nice AND wrong all the time!!