The Great Deeds of Eisner thread

[Captain Crook]

My friend scoop left out the most important item, that being the ability to take a boat from Coronodo to MK...er, ah Epcot.

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Scoop – such an organized list. It will make my comments much easier.

1. Non-WDW Disney resorts. Well, the company owned the Celebrity Sports Center in Colorado decades before Eisner showed up and Walt himself was pushing for the Mineral King development in California’s Sierras long before Eisner made his first million. You could give Eisner credit for the DVC resorts, but since the non-WDW resorts have been pretty much of a financial disaster (long gone are the plans for the Newport Beach, New York, Anaheim, Hawaiian, Paris and Texas resorts) that “credit” might not be an appropriate term. And Disney even sold its property here in Newport to Marriott – makes you wonder about the future of Hilton Head and Vero doesn’t it?

2. Connecting Epcot and the Studios. You’re really giving Eisner credit for that? The only reason the resorts are “connected” is because of flood control and because Starwood pays for the boats. How many years was it before they completed the footpath down to the Studio? Besides, wasn’t it Walt’s concept to make WDW a car-free environment? And have actually made it from the Studios to the Magic Kingdom without a bus in under three hours? And if connecting the property is such a great achievement, how come he kills the monorail expansion year after year after year after year?

3. Theatrical productions. That one I will grant you, and it was a good move on Eisner’s part. I hope they keep it up.

4. Touchstone and other movie labels. Those were started by Ron Miller well before Eisner showed up. ‘Splash’ was the first film released under Touchstone and was a huge hit for the company. Hollywood Pictures was started to appease some corporate egos. The Miramax purchase was Jeffrey Katezenberg’s idea (he wanted to win an Oscar and knew Eisner would never greenlight a picture that had a shot, so Jeff bought a company to make the movies he wanted).

5. Celebration. Again, the town started when Ron Miller and Card Walker bought the Arvida Company and brought Ray Watson on board. Plans immediately began for a development, but were stalled by the takeover. If you want to go back further, the Disney Village was built specifically as a vacation home and residential community, but was converted when someone figured that hotel space was more profitable. The four “Grand Suits” you can rent were the model homes for the development. Eisner may get credit for pushing the concept through, much like the guy how finally put up a mall on that unused piece of land just outside of town.

6. Tower, Splash, Test Track – Splash Mountain predates Eisner by a decade, Tower came from WDI and Test Track too. Give Eisner credit for just signing the check. Besides, ‘Journey Into YOUR Imagination’ is more of his baby than any of the other three attractions.

7. The Disney Channel. Was up and running (and hugely profitable) long before Eisner. Then he came in and tried to shut it down (and would have sold it if someone had come up to his asking price). As for the programming, the credit goes to the team running it, not Eisner.

8. Live productions at the parks. Ah, they’ve been around since Walt’s time. Aside from having Jeffery Katzenburg come up with some better movies, how has Eisner changed these shows?

9. Euro Disney – Yep, the early years were ALL Michael Eisner’s doing (trashing the concept for the park, overbuilding hotels with un-appealing themes). And it’s taken a decade to undo his mistakes. This will be the subject of book one day.

10. Charitable giving. Yes, it’s amazing how much it costs to buy off pressure groups these days (a really unreported phenomenon going on in Hollywood). ‘Pearl Harbor’ and ‘Jay and Silent Bob’ alone cost about $2 million in ‘charitable’ giving and a few loud-mouth DJs add millions above that. Don’t confuse corporate PR with true charity.

Why is there such a need to give Michael Eisner credit for the hard work and imagination of a lot of other people? By proclaiming him as the source of all things good with the company, you devalue the work of hundreds of others (and distort a good amount of history). Mr. Eisner does not design ride, write movie scripts, compose songs, draft plans for hotels or produce television shows. He signs checks. Give him credit for an occansional good judgement in choosing between options, but don't confuse that with true creativity.

Give credit were the credit is due.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

And Disney even sold its property here in Newport to Marriott - makes you wonder about the future of Hilton Head and Vero doesn't it?

Yeah! As a long time DVCer I know I was a little more than upset when I heard about it. So the "other than WDW" destinations, which were certainly implied if not actually stated, are really dwindling away to nothing. And, in my opinion at least, they are rapidly over building their WDW DVC properties. Seems they won't be satisfied until they drain that cash cow as well!!

 

[All Aboard]

Why is there such a need to give Michael Eisner credit for the hard work and imagination of a lot of other people? By proclaiming him as the source of all things good with the company, you devalue the work of hundreds of others (and distort a good amount of history). Mr. Eisner does not design ride, write movie scripts, compose songs, draft plans for hotels or produce television shows. He signs checks. Give him credit for an occansional good judgement in choosing between options, but don't confuse that with true creativity.

I'm not sure that's what is happening. It's such a huge double standard, though. Whenever ANYTHING is less than perfect the masses are quick to point the finger directly at Eisner. The rationale being that "he's the boss, it's his fault." If that so goes, then logic would dictate the opposite. Both perspectives are, of course, not entirely correct.

 

[Eeyore2U]

Why is there such a need to give Michael Eisner credit for the hard work and imagination of a lot of other people? By proclaiming him as the source of all things good with the company, you devalue the work of hundreds of others (and distort a good amount of history).

If I extract the name Michael Eisner and replace it with Walt Disney the tenor "should" be the same from the Eisner detractors. Walt didn't do it alone but got all the credit.

 

[JeffJewell]

Give credit were the credit is due.

...there's a certain amount of kiwis and kumquats going on, here.

AV makes the valid point that a lot of talented individuals are responsible for whatever Magic is inherent to Disney's products, Eeyore2U makes the equally valid point that it has always been such, even under Walt.

The function of a manager (at whatever level) is to put his charges in a position to do their best work. In my estimation, Walt Disney was uniquely and profoundly talented at performing this function for creative groups, and Frank Wells was at least pretty darn good at it.

I do not believe that Eisner has displayed much talent for performing that function, at the very least, not when it involves creative people; I do not believe he has given his creators the environment they need to create to the best of their abilities.

If you look at Eisner's Disney career in that light, it sure appears as though Disney's problems have increased in direct proportion to precisely how much creative direction he took on. Whereas, while Walt was alive, Disney's fortunes grew in direct proportion to how much creative direction Walt delegated to his talented folks.

Jeff

 

[JeffJewell]

The creative side, even if externally pressured, can still turn out a great product on a limited budget.

...we've gotten to that point, again, where we're all blind men describing the elephant. AV feels the trunk and says an elephant is like a big snake, Landbaron feels the skin and says an elephant is like a rough leather sack, a couple others are feeling the legs and say an elephant is like a tree trunk (I, of course, am standing directly behind the elephant, pointing out that an elephant is a warm squishy pile that smells bad).

In a way, we can't give credit or blame to Eisner for any specific project: the meaningful creation went on well below Eisner's level in the org chart. What we must judge Eisner on is the direction he sets, the goals he champions, the methods he rewards.

At the heart of the issue, I believe Eisner's message has been "make money at all costs," which contrasts to Walt's message "make good stories at any cost." Talented people are talented people, but even talented people will do what they are rewarded for. If the CEO sets the company tone that the best way to improve the bottom line is to cut budgets, the employees are going to fall over themselves cutting budgets. Even though Eisner can't be directly blamed for cutting budget X, I guarantee you that whoever _did_ cut budget X did so because he believed that was the way his bosses would want him to behave.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Walt didn't do it alone but got all the credit.

Well, I guess that's what this is all about. You see, I don't agree with that statement at all. Sure Walt didn't put on the trusty tool belt and hammer in all the nails. Nor did he drag out the T-square and draw up the architectural plans. But it was his vision, and his vision ALONE, that made the dream a reality (even his wife thought he was crazy). Yes, he had a lot of help. But no, no one else can take credit for Disneyland. It's his and his alone.

To me that's very different from Ei$ner taking credit for things he either backed into or were already in motion before he took control or even tried to stop in the first place. And JJ is right with his "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while". What I'm looking for is intent. I'm trying to look past the cosmetics of the 'great deed' itself and see if we can glean a little of his philosophy from it. Both business and creative philosophy. I want to dig a little deeper and find out the reasons why a particular thing happened. Was it sheer creative genius or a poor third quarter that needed propping up? Did the 'great deed' achieve it's full potential or did short term gains or lack of talent preclude it from reaching great heights, turning something wonderful into something merely 'good'? Did he take a sad song and make it better, or did he water down the recording session with market research until it sounded like every other tune on the top 40 station?

In a way, we can't give credit or blame to Eisner for any specific project: the meaningful creation went on well below Eisner's level in the org chart. What we must judge Eisner on is the direction he sets, the goals he champions, the methods he rewards.

Through all my ramblings and diatribes on the subject, this is the very heart of the matter. JJ, thank you for putting it so succinctly.

This whole thing started because of a remark made by the Captain (and not for the first time) regarding all the good things Ei$ner has done. I sat there and thought about that simple statement for quite a while. And came up blank! I couldn't think of one single solitary thing!! It wasn't that things didn't happen on his watch, they did. And some very good things. But the more I thought about the stories and reasons behind these good things the more tainted Ei$ner's role became. So I put out the question in just those terms, hoping to see what you people see in him. Hmmm. Maybe I'm too jaded, but I still don't see it!!!

At worst, the Great Deed score is now 1 instead of 0

Agreed!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

And I would suggest that one thing truly defines Eisner's philosophy, his being, his vision:

The Disney Institute.

That's right. The Disney Institute.

OK. I'll run with this one. Being naïve and a loyal Disney nut back when the Institute started, I tried real hard to like the concept. Gee! It was different, that's for sure. Hmmm. What else? Something else. Surely there had to be something more to it. Well… it was… ah… I know(!)… different.

And I tried to get enthused about it. I talked it up to my teenaged daughters. Got all the brochures and pamphlets. Read up on it in my Disney guide books. But never once did I, or any of the members of my family take the plunge. Why? Because of the way it was structured. Package deals. Had to stay at the Institute. I was staying at the Caribbean (couldn't afford the Institute for the entire family) and later I was DVC.

To me, even after trying my hardest to like it, it came off as elitist and pandering to the money crowd. And more importantly (JJ touched on this before) it took valuable park and resort time away from my precious vacation!! It sure sounded good on paper, but even with every fiber in my body desperately trying to embrace it, I never did it. Upon reflection I can now see why. It's a rich kid's view of what the masses want. And, as history has so aptly proven, the rich kid was wrong!

Maybe another company could have run with it. Maybe another location. But to me it never 'felt' Disney!

Look at the concept behind AK. Disneyland Paris. Dinosaur.

WOW! Scoop! A glutton for punishment!! I'll leave this for a while and hope AV answers. He could do a much better job than I could (I'm surprised at the examples as AV has touched on all of these before!!). But if he doesn't I'll be back to answer!!

 

[gary]

Gentlemen,

You're letting the Baron deal to you from a stacked deck. Here are the rules:

1) You must list the great deeds that have taken place during Eisner's tenure.
2) You must remove from the list anything that was someone else's idea.
3) You must hold Eisner personally responsible for all failures, since he was at the top, whether or not it was his idea.
4) You must remove from the list anything that was conceived as greater in scope, and was reduced because of $$.
5) Eisner, as a financially oriented CEO and not a Walt, had no unique creative input that was solely his own.

Without examining the remainder of the rules, you can see that the intersection of rules 2 and 5 leave a null set.

Baron, your cards are marked!

Gary

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well! You see, I don't consider it a game. While I do like discussions, and I do like to make my point (is that winning?) I'm really not keeping score (even though it would appear that way). And I also don't want a list. I want to know what others (who clearly see things differently than I do) think are Ei$ner's 'great deeds'.

Now I'll admit that I do employ some ground rules. But it is NOT to skew the argument (or game, if you will) but it is to help define the parameters. Let's take a closer look at your list (which BTW gave me quite a chuckle! Thanks).

1) You must list the great deeds that have taken place during Eisner's tenure.

Again. I'm not looking for a list. I'm looking at a conversation starter that may enlighten me as to these "great deeds" I always hear about, but quite frankly, don't believe. Maybe you could point me in the right direction.

2) You must remove from the list anything that was someone else's idea.

Not necessarily. If the concept was fostered within his management team, under his guidance and more importantly under the influence of his philosophy and the tone he set for his team then I am more than willing to hear it out. But it really doesn't make much sense to give him credit for Touchstone or Little Mermaid, for the obvious reasons that were stated in AV's post. I think that's fair. Isn't it?

3) You must hold Eisner personally responsible for all failures, since he was at the top, whether or not it was his idea.

Absolutely!! Like Truman. The buck stops with him!!

4) You must remove from the list anything that was conceived as greater in scope, and was reduced because of $$.

I will agree that it might seem that way. And I don't want to stretch this point to absurdity. But I really didn't know how else to explain the resort examples any other way. In my view it's lost potential, plain and simple. Or at the very least a much narrower vision that what Disney once stood for. And again, this is not to say that his resorts are blatantly 'wrong'. It is only used as an indication as to his creative philosophy. Which, again in my opinion only, isn't very good!! Commonplace at best.

5) Eisner, as a financially oriented CEO and not a Walt, had no unique creative input that was solely his own.

As I said before, I would prefer that we leave Walt (and Miller/Walker) out of it. We should only use Walt as a yardstick or comparison of philosophies, not accomplishments.

Does this make more sense?

 

[JeffJewell]

In other words, was it the concept or rather the execution of the concept which doomed the Disney Institute.

...I'm not sure whether you're yanking me or not, on this. If you're not, we might be approaching a "Eureka" moment, here.

As the Baron alludes, I used many of the same words you did in a recent post where I said I thought DI was a good idea executed poorly. I also agree with your other examples of arguable "failures" being hamstrung by their execution, not their ideas.

As a matter of fact, that's a reasonable assessment of my overall indictment of Eisner. I don't believe Disney's recent project execution speaks well of Eisner's ability as a Chief Executive Officer.

What you are calling "execution," I've often referred to as "trends." For instance, I think DCA and AK are both examples of a trend toward cheap parks as opposed to quality parks (I know, I know. Let me have it for the sake of brevity), whereas you might say they were good ideas executed badly. Tuh-MAY-toe, Tuh-MAH-toe, at some level.

So it comes down to this: I agree with your last post pretty much completely. My problem is not necessarily _what_ Eisner has had done, but _how_ he has had it done. As Chief Executive Officer, his job description includes setting the course for how things get done in his company.

These failures are Eisner's failures.

Jeff

PS: I consider the discussion of whether an _idea_ was good or bad to be one of personal taste, so I'll not bother trying to convince anyone DI was actually a good idea. The execution of the project is the reality we're faced with, so that's where I concentrate my energies.

Beyond all that, think about how many smart people thought Disneyland was a really bad idea. But Walt made sure that the execution of that idea was second to none, and those people ate some crow. If superlative execution can bestow that kind of success on a consensus bad idea, imagine how we threemees'd be dancing around Eisner's feet if he showed that same kind of dedication to the execution of good ideas.

 

[mikek]

pretty much my knowledge exists from experience merely as a consumer, reading through these boards, and a book or two here or there.

But my understanding was that the boobs before eisner almost ran the who shabang so poorly it almost wound up in the hands of some big multi-whatever conglomerate like philip morris or rjr/nabisco? Didnt eisner or at least eisner with wells keep that from happening?

If thats correct (and learn me if it aint )- it seems that comparing anyone to walt is a little steep- apparently no one could do it like him. So wouldn't it be fairer to ask- "who could do a better job?"

(I think mr. voice could answer that best- i suppose....)

 

[gary]

Baron -

Thanks for taking the post the way it was intended. What I was really trying to do was point out the subjective nature of the "game". IMHO, for those at the top, if you're going to get the blame for what goes wrong, you should get the credit for what goes right - whether or not the "idea" was yours or not, whether it was already underway or not (if you inherit the top job of a company in a downward spiral and don't turn it around, you'll receive your share of the blame - nobody will say "oh, well, it was already going down the tubes anyway"). Otherwise, the management chain is simply a chain of people who get in the way of good ideas, saying they cost too much. They don't create, they manage. They'll never get credit for the wonderful successes, except for the rare case of someone who creates a wonderful new product AND manages it to the top. For the other unlucky managers, they'll never get credit - too many "BUT"s get in the way -

BUT it wasn't his original idea
BUT it was a grander idea when it started
BUT it was already underway when he got there
BUT it was developed despite his objections

The only way Eisner will get credit from all sides is if he has an original idea, develops it himself, and creates a raging success on a shoestring budget.

I think that you're absolutely correct in avoiding comparisons to Walt. Walt was a creator. He was the entrepeneur who started Disney. Like any founder of a rags-to-riches company, he had the initial idea and developed it into an industry leader. Comparing Eisner to Walt is truly apples and oranges - Walt was a successful entrepeneur who founded and developed a company with his vision and leadership. Eisner is an established high-level manager who was given the task of leading an already developed company, maintaining industry leadership, and maintaining Wall Street's favor. Two totally different tasks. Eisner's job is "balance" - keeping the company on financially good footing while maintaining its growth and power. That's how he should be evaluated. I'm not saying he's great (but right now I'll take him over Carly Fiorina). I'm just saying he needs to be evaluated as a CEO who took over the helm of an industry leader. The BUTs are pretty much avoidable for someone in that situation.

BUT that's just my 2 cents.

Gary

 

[Captain Crook]

...Didn't have almost this same exact argument with an infamous but well loved Pirate on the CB over a year ago?

Needless to say, I believe Gary & scoop have the right idea firmly in their grasp!

 

[airlarry!]

The only way Eisner will get credit from all sides is if he has an original idea, develops it himself, and creates a raging success on a shoestring budget.

I am sure Baron will respond, but I do not think this is Baron's agenda at all. I disagree totally. Eisner does not have to sit on his thinking chair, come up with an idea, develop it himself, make it a #1 attraction/movie/resort, and do it for a $1.

But he can't let his son look at a decades old model of Splash Mountain that he (and by he I mean him and the other accountaneers) consisently rejected, and then greenlight it when the kid says, "Why don't you build that thing?" I don't want someone to give him credit for that!


In every success story there is, the back story is that Ei$ner it pooh-poohed the idea, dismissed it completely, or botched it up the first time (cf. the whole EuroDisney mess) and let others fix it. I have had an ephiphany with this topic Baron. I am patiently waiting for anyone to mention an Ei$ner-pushed project be named as great -- wait, you do have to give him the Broadway/Time Square stuff. That one is his.

Oh, and for the guy that said "But he saved the company from raiders from Nabisco." Baron's point has always been that he hasn't. HE WAS A RAIDER IN DISGUISE. He just kept the Disney name.

 

[Captain Crook]

Baron's point has always been that he hasn't. HE WAS A RAIDER IN DISGUISE.

Yes, Mr. Air, that has been Baon's mantra...It is wrong, but still...

The fact is Eisner repositioned the comppany not once but twice from outsiders...If you believe Eisner is an outsider himself, then fine. I guess that IS the argument. But I still say (as he harkens back to long lost discussions) better Eisner than (1) Ted Turner (2) Rupert Murdoch, or (3) Bill Gates...Shall we continue? It's the old who do you fear most argument, the devel we know (Eisner) or the devil we don't know? Landbaron wants to take his chance with Jeff Bezos or George Steinbrenner (joke examples), I prefer Mike to the unknown.

 

[JeffJewell]

The fact is Eisner repositioned the comppany not once but twice from outsiders...If you believe Eisner is an outsider himself, then fine.

...everyone's an "outsider" until they get hired; that's not the connotation of "raider" that makes the big difference, here.

If Lucas somehow took control of Disney and suddenly we started getting new Lion Kings and Beauties and the Beasts and Towers of Terror, very few people would cry "raider." The term connotes an exploitation of the company's resources by their new owner, without regard for the history and traditions of the company.

In that sense of the term, I believe Eisner did indeed "raid" Disney from the inside.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

...Didn't have almost this same exact argument with an infamous but well loved Pirate on the CB over a year ago?

Yes! We did. It was when we first met. And I believe Parrothead of WDWBLUES fame (shameless plug of a GREAT site!) also participated in the conversation. You were wrong then and you’re wro… hmmm… now that I think about it… you’re strangely silent now. Come on Capt!! Scoff across with the goods. It’s from your statement that this thing came from. Name the “Great Deeds” you’re always on about!!!

Airlarry!

I am sure Baron will respond, but I do not think this is Baron's agenda at all.

I don’t have to respond. You did it perfectly!!!

wait, you do have to give him the Broadway/Time Square stuff. That one is his.

WAIT!!!! That’s only because I don’t know of any back-story, one way or another. So, I’ll err on the side of car number one, just to keep the peace. If AV or anyone else has the story behind, clue us in!

JJ says:

In that sense of the term, I believe Eisner did indeed "raid" Disney from the inside.

Ditto!!!

 

[Captain Crook]

Landbaron...As I recall, the Pirate ended up winning that debate didn't he? Maybe we should call Peter to the table!