Reposting (and expanding) this from another thread:

>>Eisner said, coming into his job at Disney, that one of the first things he was going to do was sell off the parks.... then he got a look at the books, saw what a cash cow they were, and kept them.<<

So... we know Eisner had no interest in the parks or in feature animation - - and in fact wanted to get rid of both (as he's in effect doing now) when he took on the job. But those two divisions, as well as the sale of Walt's animated films on home video, are what fueled the turnaround.

How then, has he been any kind of visionary worth a billion dollars in salary? What has he done, specifically, that was so extraordinary in terms of vision?

Seems like the majority of original notions - - ABC, sports franchises, internet, cruise ships, DisneyQuest, etc (save Broadway, Miramax and Disney Stores initially), have been a relative bust. The company runs on the money generated by things created way back by Walt or his heirs... Touchstone, Disney Channel and Tokyo Disneyland were all initiatives of the previous regime.

Yes, he built alot of hotels, and allowed for skeptical reinvestment in Disney's core businesses. But how is any of that different from any business minded CEo? What did he really CREATE that connected to the American public in a significant way?

Maybe, with all those untapped assets - - even Anna Nicole Smith could have turned Disney around back in 84.

Wow - never made the connection between Anna Nicole and Eisner: both are in the public eye more than they deserve to be, both have assets of considerable size, both have wealth acquired though somewhat questionable means ..........

Personally, I think that many of the assets acquired by Disney during ME's tenure made sense given the particular path that had been chosen (rightly or wrongly). I think the "destination resort" concept is a solid one and it did and will cotinue to pay benefits over the long haul.

But things like the sports franchises and the television thing only make sense if you have the willingness to support those acquisitions over time with the necessary investment and coddling - in other words, don't go and buy a Maserati if you don't also want to buy the outrageous insurance necessary to drive it around ........

So now that times are tough and things didn't go as planned things need to be readjusted .........

And in many cases that means putting in new leadership to signify a change in corporate direction and identity ........

Both consume more than they need...


>>I think the "destination resort" concept is a solid one and it did and will cotinue to pay benefits over the long haul.<<

Agreed.

But the emphasis of his tenure (especially the last ten years) has been to diversify into non-Disney businesses he is more comfortable with, rather than continue to build on the traditional Disney assets, which have fallen fallow from his disinterest (other than overexploitation through brand marketing).

He really seems still a network executive at heart (like Faye Dunaway), rather than a Disney culture/creative type. Ironic that's where he really lost the golden touch.

mj: Couldn't agree with you more - Eisner seems much more like a movie or communications mogule than a creative and dedicated "family amusement park owner". And what is ironic is that those are the areas of the Disney empire that seem to be in such dire straits .........

The obvious love and fascination of the presentation of fantasy which Walt Disney personally used to drive the development of Disneyland (and Epcot too) just seems to be missing these days in favor of the "build what we can afford" philosophy ...........

We can only hope that at some point in the future a hero for the parks emerges who understands that money spent on unique and spectacular attractions will be returned many times in the future for the excitement and interest that results.

What Eisner did for Disney was to recognize that the assets were untapped and to make them available to the consumer. Ron and Card had the same tried, true and loved assets, but they were so afraid of offending the spirit of walt that they kept the assets scarce. Eisner brought the assets to the public through the disney stores, home video and resort expansion. Why did it work out in the beginning? I would venture to say that it was the leadership of Wells and Katzenberg that helped to maintain quality and dosage of the product. I have a theory that because Disneyland Paris was not an immediate payoff that Eisner lost either the stomach for or the focus on long term investments in the company, and without Wells and Katzenberg he lost focus on quality in the right dosage. He now seems to want to milk the company for all it is worth, and he has surrounded himself with yes-men who are ok with the rape and pillage of the company as long as they get a piece of the payout.