The Great Deeds of Eisner thread

[DVC-Landbaron]

... that clouds your memory, Captain.

By all means!! Yes! Call the Pirate! Maybe he can shed some light on these so called "Great Deeds".

It apparent that you don't have any!!

 

[Douglas Dubh]

"The term connotes an exploitation of the company's resources by their new owner, without regard for the history and traditions of the company."

My understanding of the term "raider" is that it is someone who buys a company and then sells off the pieces. Eisner does not fit this definition (although I admit it has been claimed he tried).

 

[Peter Pirate]

***Finally in the right place***

Mr. DVCLandbaron, you've called me bakc for examples of Mike's successes...Well, OK.

You surely can't deny that the animated films division made a huge comeback during the Eisner years, can you? Oh, I know you and AV will state that others were allowed to do what they do best and I don't dispute that. But one man, the Midget, is associated with several of these "blockbusters" and brought the Disney name front and center. Now I know the much ballyhooed departure of Katzenberg made Mikey look like a horses***, but the point is, the movies were made. Katzenberg made them. Who was directly responsible for the hiring of Katzenberg? Credit = Eisner.

The unprecedented growth of Disney during the 80's & 90's brought the Disney name and logo to every place and venue imaginable. Good or bad, the brand flourished like it never has before. What has happened since (devaluation & over saturation are different subjects) and do not diminish the fact that world wide brand recognition & family entertainment recognition came to Disney in unprecedented fashion during the Eisner years. Credit = Eisner.

WDW expansion. Disney built Parks, Resorts, Hotels, shopping areas, restaurants and vacation dreams. Orlando became the world's #1 vacation destination. It matters little the scope of these developments or the fact that the perceieved (and subjective magic) is different from what Walt may have done. The fact is it has been supremely successful. Again the recent downturns may expose mistakes in managing this growth but they do not erase the fact that these tremendous 'happenings' occured. Credit = Eisner.

OK, that's enough and I'm sure the spin from the dark side will find many holes to fill but you can't gloss over the fact that many great things happened to the Disney Company during Eisner's watch and if he is to be saddled with the failures (which I believe he should), he should get 100% of these credits as well.

 

[Bob O]

The deeds of recent eisner-
The ovitz debacle which cost shareholders over 100 million dollars
The internet startup which floundered and cost hundreds of millions
The kaztenberg debacle which cost over 200 million dollars
The opening of DCA which has been a complete fiscal flop and alot would say a creative flop as well.
The AK park which was opened as a incomplete park and still isnt finished and no willingness to finish the job by opneing up Beatly Kingdom which was to have been a major part.
The stock price has plummented.
The purchase of fox family. Time will tell on this purchase but alot of so-called experts doubt the wisdom of this choice but it will take awhile for it to play out.
Others have pointed out the more positive deeds but if you weigh the positives and negatives of the recent eisner, escpeically post wells it has been a debacle and if not for a handpicked board eisner may have been forced out IMHO.
Recent animation films havent been successful(pixars's films have been more popular then disneys own films) and expansion just for the sake of expansion isnt necceassarily a postive. escpecially now when alot is being cutback. I think more people would perfer disney to be more magical than just bigger.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Or: Fan mail from a flounder!!

You surely can't deny that the animated films division made a huge comeback during the Eisner years, can you?

I do not deny it. And at first glance it seems as though Ei$ner should indeed take credit for the recent "classics". I know my kids enjoyed them, as have I. Very good films. Very good indeed. But the purpose of this thread was not to look at press clips and appearances, but to delve a little deeper. To take all the actions collectively to see if they support the spin. So, while we do not dispute the fact that these films were made under Ei$ner's watch, just what did he do to help the process or (more importantly) make sure things didn't degrade after a few successes? You seemed to address that question in almost the same way I would have.

Oh, I know you and AV will state that others were allowed to do what they do best and I don't dispute that. But one man, the Midget, is associated with several of these "blockbusters" and brought the Disney name front and center. Now I know the much ballyhooed departure of Katzenberg made Mikey look like a horses***

The only thing I would have brought out that you didn't was the Rescuers fiasco. And how he wanted to deep-six Mermaid. Smart kind of guy, isn't he?

Now, in fairness you do continue the thought with:

but the point is, the movies were made. Katzenberg made them. Who was directly responsible for the hiring of Katzenberg? Credit = Eisner.

Well, I don't know for sure who exactly hired him. Was he part of the deal (Wells, etc.)? Or a crony from Paramount? Maybe AV has the answer. But to me it's irrelevant. I think the bottom line is his very questionable judgement as to the right Disney vehicle (Mermaid vs. Rescuers) and how he let success slip through his fingers and actually become a driving force for the competition!! That's just plain stupid!

Next you mention the growth of the brand. And I will admit that he has a certain obsession with "branding". But you continue with:

What has happened since (devaluation & over saturation are different subjects) and do not diminish the fact that world wide brand recognition & family entertainment recognition came to Disney in unprecedented fashion during the Eisner years. Credit = Eisner.

PETER!!! It is not a different subject!! It is what happens when you single-mindedly push the brand down everyone's throat!! It is the natural consequence of short term gains over long range planning!! It's just like Millionaire. You have to admit that they pushed that show (and milked that show) so hard over the last year or so that everyone in the country knows about. You can't turn on ABC (or even other entertainment news shows) without seeing something about it. Almost every day of the week! But what good is that if NO ONE IS WATCHING!!!??? Or if it seems like noting more than cheap hype? SO yes, I'll credit = Ei$ner with the devaluation & over saturation of the Disney name!!! (say, who's side are you on, anyway? )

WDW expansion. Well, whole threads have been created relative to this issue. I think we all know most of the facts. Which is why I wanted to discuss the expansion in a little bit different light. Not whether or not it should have happened at all, but what choices were made along the way. I know it's terribly subjective, but I personally feel a little cheated when I think about 'what could have been'. And at the same time I feel a little bit guilty criticizing such wonderful places! But, come on! How many "American" made resorts do we need!? Is there really that much of a difference between them? However, I've covered that ground before (see first post in thread).

But you bring up a whole different spin on it. You say:

Again the recent downturns may expose mistakes in managing this growth but they do not erase the fact that these tremendous 'happenings' occurred. Credit = Eisner.

Yes! Credit him indeed! For being ridiculously greedy during the unprecedented good times. And for not being able to foresee that someday the good times may end (something taught in "Basic Business 101) and we would see Disney shuttering resorts, reminiscent of a going out of business sale!! (Did they soap the windows of Port Orleans?) Credit = Ei$ner!!

SO far Capt… Peter, I haven't found one single solitary thing that isn't tainted somehow. (with the exception of the Broadway stuff. But if I mentioned that I couldn't have written "one single solitary thing". And I really like that phrase!!) It doesn't mean it's all bad, it just means he isn't the guy for Disney!!!


PS: Has anyone else noticed the way Bob O seems to hit the mark everytime!

 

[Another Voice]

So Mr. Pirate, the person who hires the guy who can do the job should get all the credit for a job well done?

That sounds like it came straight from a Dilbert cartoon.


I think there is a strong trend to find the “easy way” of assigning credit or blame for events, and its probably just human nature. People go to see ‘The Lion King’, think it’s a good thing and give the credit to Eisner. It’s not because he actually did anything, it’s just that his name is the only one people know. And this especially true of Hollywood; a town who's very existence has been built on cults of personality. Mr. Eisner is nothing but the latest in that long string of self-promoting executives in the vein of L.B. Mayer, Daryl Zanuck, and to a much lesser extant, Walt Disney.

The history of any business is complex and doesn’t fit neatly into the “all the credit” and “all the blame” thought. Giving credit to Mr. Eisner for the beauty of the Wilderness Lodge, the themeing in ‘Tower of Terror’ or the success of ‘The Princess Diaries’ is simply absurd. Then again assigning him sole blame for ‘Scary Movie 2' or even California Adventure is equally wrong. That’s not to say that Mr. Eisner had nothing to do with any of those projects, but his involvement and his impact on each of these projects is different.

For example: I don’t blame Michael Eisner for the fact that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was a lousy movie. Mr. Bruckheimer, Mr. Bay and Mr. Wallace will all have to atone for the way the film turned out. But I do blame Mr. Eisner for making a lousy business decision to make the movie in the first because he should have known better. He read the script and knew the people involved and then he still bet the studio on the project. So who’s to blame for the film’s failure – the people who made the movie or the guy who let them spend $150 millions to do it? As a filmgoer I have one answer; as a stockholder I have another.

On the Broadway matter – yes, ‘The Lion King’ is an amazing piece of theater. Do I give Eisner credit for that? Again, only in the business sense about allowing the company to spend money on that project. Eisner didn’t design the costumes, he didn’t cast the play, he didn’t come up with the concept or even have that mush to do with the original movie. He showed up to the premier. So why on Earth should I give any credit to Eisner for the creative success of the show? Shouldn’t that go to the show’s director and creative team? And shouldn’t they be afforded more than just the status of pawn’s in Michael’s Master Plan?

The strength of Disney is in its people, not in a name at the top of the org chart. That’s why I’m not as terrified about someone else stepping in as most people are around here. Companies that aren’t run by Michael Eisner make good movies and the parks did very well for themselves before he showed up (by the way, whose to say all the hotels and new parks wouldn’t have showed up anyway).

The problem these days are that fewer and fewer people are willing to work with Michael Eisner's ego. There are fewer to make good projects, and fewer to correct bad ones. Talk to anyone at WDI privately and you will an earful about California Adventure – but no one dares say anything publicly out of fear. Good creative decisions are still being made, but many of these are being overruled by bad business decisions. Any corporate executive that begins to believe his own press is bound to cause problems and the Company’s been reaping more than its fair share lately.

P.S. Jeffrey Katzenberg was one of Eisner’s executives at Paramount (he was there before Eisner showed up, so no credit for “hiring” can be awarded by the judges) and came to Disney when he was offered an immensely lucrative offer. Of course at the time, no one knew it came with that special “midget” clause that cost a quarter billion dollars.

And since this came up: Eisner did not takeover Disney. Walt Disney Productions was essentially taken over by Roy Disney (and friends at Shamrock) with the help of the Bass Brothers. Michael Eisner was hired help. He was hired help that ended up stealing the silverware, but that’s another long story. He didn’t “save” Disney from other takeovers, he didn’t stop corporate raiders. Keeping 40% of the stock in friendly hands did that.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I agree that DI would have been much better at another location. Maybe VB or HH. But, that's "execution".

NO!!! Execution is policy regarding reservations. It's cost. It's the details of the the program. It's hiring the right people to teach. It's a whole bunch of things. But it is NOT location!!! The idio… ah… moro… lamebrai… (ok, let's be nice)… ahh… Ei$ner actually thought it would take off in WDW!?!? How silly!!

Look deeper than your original reaction.

I have! And the idea (at least in WDW) still stinks!!

Well, I don't know for sure who exactly hired him. Was he part of the deal (Wells, etc.)? Or a crony from Paramount? Maybe AV has the answer. But to me it's irrelevant.

Ugh! That CAN'T be irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant in the context of what you didn't include in the quote. That being:

I think the bottom line is his very questionable judgement as to the right Disney vehicle (Mermaid vs. Rescuers) and how he let success slip through his fingers and actually become a driving force for the competition!! That's just plain stupid!

So to me, it doesn't matter if he hired him or not. What's the bottom line? Did he recognize the things he was doing as being the "right" moves (Mermaid vs. Rescuers) Did he keep him (nope!)? Did he make sure that the competition didn't get him (Shrek)? Did he totally screw things up in the end?? Answer: YES!!!

Great Deed: Negotiating the Pixar deal. A truly great deal which led to massive commercial and creative success. Eisner did the deal. A great, great deal.

That he is in the process of screwing up!! (don't you and I read the same threads?)

The score is still only 1

...Baron, like a post Thanksgiving day family picture in front of the picture window...you are overexposed, my friend...

YIKES!!! Put the binos down!!! How did you find my address?!?!?!

 

[YoHo]

I don't see how Eisner and Disney are doing anything Overtly Antagonistic to Pixar AND I HAVE Read the sme threads. Disney is dealing from a position of weakness now and Jobs has a Head as large as Eisner's. Thus the Score is two.



Another Voice, You make some very important points and I would request that everyone listen. (both sides please) What AV says is not (as I read it) that Eisner takes the blame for everything in the company so he is in charge. He is to blame for those things which he did which caused the failures further down the chain.

Example, Eisner is responsible for setting the budge for Dinorama and for pushing the theme. He is not responsible for how that money was used by Imagineering and the parks. Certainly something better could have been done with the same money.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

YoHo says:

Another Voice, You make some very important points and I would request that everyone listen. (both sides please)

OK.

But this is gonna be hard. I usually agree 100% with everything AV says. And to bring up those minor, inconsequential items of contention seems… counterproductive. But here goes anyway!!!

I think there is a strong trend to find the "easy way" of assigning credit or blame for events, and its probably just human nature.

I quite agree. Which is why I started this nonsense. I wanted to look past the cosmetics. The simple, right or wrong. I wanted to get to the core philosophy of the man. And see if that philosophy 'gels' with our understanding of "Disney".

People go to see 'The Lion King', think it's a good thing and give the credit to Eisner. It's not because he actually did anything, it's just that his name is the only one people know.

Well AV, our first disagreement. And I find that I'm in car #1. At least for a minute or two. See, I really don't know much about the Broadway stuff. I hear they're great and they seem to be a moneymaker. A win/win kind of thing. And because I don't know any back story on it, I have to assume that at the very least Ei$ner didn't do anything to screw it up. No he didn't design the costumes. He didn't write the score. He didn't handle the spotlight for the touching love scene. Instead, he did what I would expect of a Disney type CEO. He gave either a tacit or nodding approval to the project and then got the hell out of the way to let those who know how to do it - DO IT! The only thing that could have been better is if he called the producer (or the guy in charge) and asked him what help he needed. And for all I know, he did that. So I give him credit for the Broadway productions. CREDIT = Eisner (notice no "$").

This would NOT be the case if he cried loudly about the thing (as in the Little Mermaid) or cut the budget or any of the hundreds of things he we hear he has done on other projects, many of them still successes in spite him. And I guess that's what it all boils down to. Are these so called "Great Deeds" great because of him or in spite of him?

The strength of Disney is in its people, not in a name at the top of the org chart.

Again, a minor disagreement. Heads of companies set the tone. They devise the corporate strategy. They make key hiring decisions (that trickle down the chart). And they create the culture in which the employees of the company have to work. And again, this is the heart of my question. Does he create a climate or culture that fosters creativity and art. Does he hire thinkers, ponderers and visionaries who can also get the job done? Does he care more about what is produced than his own image and next quarter's balance sheet? Do talented people flock to him because of the culture he sets up? Or do they leave his company because they feel stifled and unfulfilled? I give the upper management much more credit and blame than my colleague in Disney, Mr. Voice.

I understand that the strength of any company, especially Disney, is in it's people. But when Walt was in charge, even though there were horror stories about how hard he was to work for, talented people were breaking down his door!! Does Ei$ner command the same kind of respect? Or even half? Or even a quarter? Or even a tenth? Or eve… Well I think you get it!

And since this came up: Eisner did not takeover Disney. Walt Disney Productions was essentially taken over by Roy Disney (and friends at Shamrock) with the help of the Bass Brothers. Michael Eisner was hired help. He was hired help that ended up stealing the silverware, but that's another long story. He didn't "save" Disney from other takeovers, he didn't stop corporate raiders. Keeping 40% of the stock in friendly hands did that.

Hmmm. Pretty much what some of us have been saying for quite some time now. But in fairness I always gave Ei$ner more credit (both positive and negative) than he apparently deserved. I didn't consider him "hired help'. But I like the phrase, very much!!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Good thread idea Baron. Just bad execution.

Nah. I don't think so. I think that those who hold him in high esteem are hard pressed to come up with any examples.

I started this thread because of all the vague references to the 'Great Deeds" Ei$ner has accomplished on his watch. With no concrete or definable terms. I did not want a list. I didn't even necessarily want examples. I wanted to know what qualities they saw in him (which I suppose could be represented in a list or by deed) that lead them to the conclusion that Ei$ner was the type of leader and/or visionary that Disney required.

I think by my demeanor and history you could pretty much guess that I was predisposed to the concept that Ei$ner does not have the leadership qualities, nor the creative talents to run a company like Disney. So I wanted enlightenment. I wanted those who 'like' him to show me why. They have not. It was a challenge. And they have failed. If anyone can be blamed for poor execution within this thread it is the Ei$ner lovers!!! (at least you tried)

 

[Peter Pirate]

If I am one of the people not holding up his end of the argument, I apologize. I'm in the process of buying a new house & moving, so things are hectic.

But, I take offense to the dismissal of my main points simply because you disagree. Your arguments to refute are no more valid to my POV than mine to yours (apparantly). But I like the fun & games so I will try again.

You point to Eisner's tacit or nodding approval to Broadway as a plus, but REFUSE to give credt for the Animation Dept. based on several comments regarding Eisner's hatred of & attempt to halt The Little Memaid. I'm sorry, but where does this supposition come from? I have read much on this area and have never seen this alluded to & unless we can be pointed to some factual background, this is nothing more than heresay & it really tilts the debate to one side. I'm not saying this isn't tue, mind you, but I've never seen this theory stated anywhere but here, and no offense, but I need more than that for this to be entered into evidence (or gospel)...

 

[Another Voice]

Let me shock people around here and answer Mr. Baron’s challenge directly. Here is my (serious) list of Eisner’s accomplishments:

1. He actually turned the Studio around. This turn around started well before Eisner showed up, but it was a long time coming and one got the sense that the move was only half hearted. Eisner stepped in and changed the focus. He made “real” movies starting with ‘Down and Out in Beverly Hills”. I don’t mean “real” in the sense of Oscar winners, but in mainstream Hollywood films that theaters actually wanted to show. He also made very important decree that ALL Disney movies were supposed to turn a profit. That imposed a strong sense of discipline throughout the Studio. He also used his ties with “real” Hollywood to attract “real world” talent. At first it was kind of a joke – the complete casts of those early movies were either just left a hit TV show or rehab. But after a few careers were brought back to life, slowly others thought that working on a Disney film wouldn’t be so bad.

2. Eisner made Disney a “real” company. Disney’s reputation was summed up to me in one sentence, “Disney is either the first or the last company you work for in Hollywood”. Before Eisner, you always heard people talk about how “special” Disney was. That was meant as a slight insult – Disney had their niche but they couldn’t exist outside of it. Eisner changed that, mostly through his efforts with the studio and a whole heck of a lot of PR work (which he’s good at). People used to feel that working at Disney was a form of charity work, now they come for a real job. That brought in a whole level of professionalism that the Company had never experienced before, and a level of respect that Company hadn’t enjoyed either. Eisner still shouldn’t be given credit for the work produced by the people who came to work for the company, but he does deserve credit for (at one time) creating an atmosphere that did attract those people.

3. He stripped mined profitable ideas from the Company’s partners. Eisner’s mission in life to grab as much money as he can, and he forced that philosophy onto the parks as well. The driving force behind the expansion in the 1990’s was based on a simple statement, “find out who’s making money off us, and make it ourselves”. Any reason why people dared step foot off property was analyzed and copied. International Drive brought about the new resorts. Church Street brought about Pleasure Island, miniature golf courses, improved recreation, timeshares, and especially the cruise line were nothing but attempts to drive the competition out of business by duplicating their business. The key element to the plan, however, was profitability. All of these extraneous businesses were profitably for someone else and they were suppose to be profitably for Disney.

There it is. As CEO, I give him credit for setting those agenda items that he put into place and for any execution of those concepts that he was involved with.

 

[Patch'sD]

I was all set to fight for Mr Eisner, but somehow when I looked at the numbers I became dismayed. I used to Believe that he was responsible for the resurgance of Disney as a Company with the building and vision he had. I believe if you look at the Fact books he did do a lot for the company in terms of growth. However, he also must be measured on the Disney Co. financial performance.

When you look at the numbers, boy they don't support him at all. Over the course of his tenure from 1985 - 2000, (I reviewed the Disney Fact books under investor relations). Net Income Increased from $0.2 B to $0.9B but at the same time revenue increased from $1.7 B to $20.0 B, so return on revenue dropped over the long term by more than half. Long Term Debt was $.8B in 1985 and is at $8.9 B for 2000. This by the way is down from an all time high of $12.0 B in 1996. On the other side he has done little to reduce the debt load over the last three years and with the purchase of Fox Family it has nowhere to go but up. Total Assetts in 1985 was $3.0B and in 2000 was $45.0B. Return on assets for 1985 was 6.2% and in 2000 it was a third of that. Earnings per share have increased from $.32 to $.58 but are about half of what they were in the late 80's.


He has built the Disney Company into what it is today. An underperforming financial Behmoth. His achivements over the years has lessoned the performance of the company and has thus served a great injustice to the stockholders.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I really have nothing to add (but that won't stop me ). I'm basically bumping this because I really think that everyone should read at least the last two posts. (AV's and Patch'sD.)

I also want to thank you AV, for answering my question so directly. I thought sure your post would spur some conversation from the passengers in car #1. But I guess their silence speak volumes!!

My own take pretty much mirrors AV's.

1. He actually turned the Studio around.

Now it's my turn to surprise everyone. When Ei$ner took over I was elated!! You could feel the revitalization in the air. Things were popping!! I even agreed with his hefty price increases at the resorts. I remember reading an interview with him at the around that time. He basically said that Disney didn't know how to run a resort! The old management team told him that they were very proud of the fact that their two resorts were booked solid (100%) for at least two years into the future. In the article Ei$ner stated that this type of thinking was stupid. He wanted an 80% reservation rate. And prices were going to go up until they achieved that mark. At the time, even though that priced me out of the Poly, I applauded him. I thought maybe this guy could get the business back on track. This is part of the reason why I know the pricing structure so well when he took over (YoHo). And why I know, almost to the day, when the Poly became out of reach for me.

As for the Studio, I had pretty much guessed most of it. I'm glad AV put it in such succinct terms. BTW, you didn't have to be a Hollywood kind of guy to make the jokes about the "Star-quality" of their earlier films. It even hit the Midwest with local papers referring to the fact that most of them were Betty Ford graduates!

2. Eisner made Disney a "real" company.

I suppose this pretty much ties into the first one. Even I felt (in his early days) that he was the guy for Disney. If he created that 'feeling' in the work environment as well, then he surely must be given credit for it. So what went wrong? Did he change drastically? Was it merely a hype that couldn't be maintained? Or is it a combination hype, good PR and of anyone looking great compared to Walker/Miller? I really don't know.

3. He stripped mined profitable ideas from the Company's partners.

Again, when this type of thing first started I was elated! Revitalization of my beloved WDW!!! But the longer it went on the… well… (hmmm, the right word)… ah… CHEAPER it became. Until it appeared that Disney would sink to any level just to make a buck! Or keep the competition from making a buck of their own. It appeared to me, that the normal care that Disney used to take into consideration in everything they did, was blatantly disregarded. No thinking as to infrastructure, transportation, theme, keeping things out of sight, etc. Again, it painted a picture of someone who just didn't quite "get it". Almost. But not quite!

Any other thoughts?

 

[d-r]

This is one of the few times that I will pull for the vols... a UT loss - and the bowl shakeup - could blow it for Auburn. So maybe you should plan your meeting for Disneyland?

DR

 

[larworth]

Sorry, for jumping in so late, but being in WDW last week I’m way behind on all these threads.

I guess all of this debate has only served to confirm my place in between Landbaron and the car #1 contingent. I assume that the end result is whether we believe Eisner is still the right man to be in charge. This has always been one of my problems with the car definitions. While there is still plenty of magic left in WDW for me to hop in Car #1, it is my concern about the future that causes me to take a seat further back in the bus.

Here is my take:

We can give Eisner credit for a number of things in the first half of his tenure. Some outright (see AV's list as a starter) and some by inference that they happened during his watch. Eisner inherited a richly untapped Disney company. There were waiting opportunities to be exploited in park expansion, merchandizing, movies, video, etc. The company did a pretty good job mining these opportunities (a problem later on), and enough good products (movies, attractions…) were developed during this time period that it would be tough for me to hang an inept tag on him, even in hindsight. I would actually be inclined to give him a pretty good grade.

However, we also started to see a growing number of mistakes, both in business dealings and direction. I think a combination of things (changes in the management team, scars from events like DLP) had a real impact on how the company was being run. I’m not a big fan of his style. I tend to think that very centralized, ego-centric, hands-on managers are not ideal for creative enterprises, unless the leader is especially gifted in these matters himself. Again, here it would appear that on this score he is only average.

I also think that the easy money became a trap that Eisner fell prey to. Disney not too long ago had a corporate goal of 20% annual growth. Pretty tough act to sustain longterm in some fairly competitive marketplaces. What happens when the Street, your ego, your big pay-day are predicated on continued high growth, yet many of these untapped opportunities you have been riding, no matter how well managed, eventually mature. Easy to forget about what is in one’s longterm best interest in order to try to continue to hit those unrealistic shorterm earning’s objectives. Been there, still doing that.

I wouldn’t say that trends can’t be reversed under his watch, but I’m at the stage where I think these is a better chance of this happening under new management.

 

[TheTexasKid]

. . . that have occurred under Eisner's watch. (Some of which have already been mentioned, but I thought I mention again.) American Teacher Awards: the best awards show on televison -- Disney Adventures: one of the best magazines for children on the newstand -- Disney Channel: one of the best channels on television. Yes, it may have been up and profitable under the previous administration, but the viewership of it was broadened, when it was taken from a pay channel to a premium cable channel -- Disney Cruise Lines: took my first cruise on it this year, and will take my second cruise on it next year -- Disney Store: where else would I get my short stockings at discount and the toys for the annual city toy drive at a discount -- Disneyland Paris: first saw it five years ago and am going back in three years.
Be sure to visit the cemetery outside of Phantom Manor. You will never see its like in any American theme park -- ESPN Magazine: one of the best sports magazines on the newstand --
Hyperion Press: which has two best sellers on the bestseller list from the current "New York Times Book Review." One in fiction and one in non-fiction -- Hyperion Junior: the junior member of Hyperion Press -- Jump to the Sun: a book imprint specifically aimed at Afro-American children -- Radio Disney: the only radio station I listen to as i drive home from work at night -- Theatrical unit of Disney: which is responsible for the Broadway hits: "Beauty and the Beast," "The Lion King," and "Aida." -- and Toon Disney: with some of the best toons on television.
Actually, more then ten, but who is counting. That is not to say, that these might not have occured if someone else had been CEO at Disney, or that Eisner had not made any mistakes, some of which have already been mentioned at this thread. Having said that, this list is still incomplete, and I am sure others can add to it. Enjoy!

 

[gary]

Thanks to the Baron for starting all of this off, and thanks to all the contributors. I unfortunately haven't had the time to keep up with all posts, but I've got to say that this has been the most interesting Ei$ner discussion I've seen in a while (probably since the last time the Baron attempted this). Particularly interesting to me is the way the Disney CEO job appears different than most other CEO positions. Almost every time I read about a CEO, the analysis focuses on revenue growth and stock price. Discussions surrounding the Disney CEO take into account the quality of the product produced during his tenure.

Or, it may just be the forum.

Have a happy holiday!

Gary