PDA

View Full Version : Eisner... question



Pages : [1] 2

disneymeimei
09-26-2003, 05:42 PM
I am wondering...how many of you are stock holders? If you are a stock holder do you take your responsibility seriously? I not inclined (nor able) to attend a stock holders meeting, however, I do fill out my stock holder ballot card. It gives me great pleasure to "not re-elect" Eisner. I realize my shares are nothing compared to his, however, I would think if more people exercised their right to "not re-elect", maybe, just maybe someone might take notice.
Anyway, that is how I deal with my dissatisfaction over how he has built up WDW and left DL to fend for it's own.
So, the next time your ballot is mailed to you... VOTE... do not throw it aside!!

Off my soapbox and on to other things...

Mark Goldhaber
09-27-2003, 05:40 PM
Unfortunately, voting to "not re-elect" isn't the same as voting to remove. If you read the wording on the proxy, it's basically the same as abstaining in the vote on any particular director, not voting against their election. It doesn't affect the re-election in the slightest, just the count of how many re-elected him. Sort of a built-in "go to the head of the company" card. Fair? No. Legal? Yep.

That said, I do indeed personally exercise my right to selectively vote to "not re-elect" certain members of the board of directors. I just harbor no illusions that it will have any practical effect.

Mr. Wiggins
09-28-2003, 12:20 PM
Today's "In the Money" program on CNN issued what may be the strongest public call yet for Michael Eisner to leave the Disney company.

Describing a CEO who is essentially out of control, the show's panelists concluded he "keeps killing off his [potential] successors," blatantly manipulates the board of directors and is "ruining the company."

Of particular interest to some of the posters on this board, one of the show's hosts said he had relatives who have worked for Disney and who report the same working conditions that have been cited here. Eisner was described as a CEO who plays games with the minds of his employees and who has "hurt a lot of [employee] families."

From its profile of Eisner's management style to its reference to Disney's intolerance of employees who are Disney fans, the overall tone of the segment was astonishingly (or perhaps, not so astonishingly) parallel to the complaints that Disneyland fans have long posted here.

malin
09-28-2003, 02:16 PM
Anyway, that is how I deal with my dissatisfaction over how he has built up WDW and left DL to fend for it's own.





I fail to agree with you on this.During Michael Eisner control of the company he has done a lot of great things for Disneyland.Here are just a few things that spring to mind.

Star Tours
Splash Mountain
Fantasmic
Mickey's Toontown
Indy
Paradise Pier Hotel
Disney's California Adventure
Disney's Grand Californian Hotel
Downtown Disney
Tower Of Terror(Opening 2004)

Yeah a great number of things you could probely criticise Eisner on.But how he has built up DLR I disagree with.I think he has done a good job.Ok we never got Westcot or the California version of Disney Seas.But what we have got instead Im happy with.I don't agree with his current TDA management team,but that has nothing to do with how he has built up the Anaheim Resort.And while Mr Eisner spent more time and money on WDW I belive Walt would of probely done the same thing.

[Mod. note: vBcode fixed around quoted material. -- Andrew]

newhdplayer
09-28-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by malin
I fail to agree with you on this.During Michael Eisner control of the company he has done a lot of great things for Disneyland.Here are just a few things that spring to mind.

Star Tours,Splash Mountain, Fantasmic, Mickey's Toontown
Indy, Paradise Pier Hotel, Disney's California Adventure
Disney's Grand Californian Hotel, Downtown Disney
Tower Of Terror(Opening 2004)

But how he has built up DLR I disagree with.I think he has done a good job....<snip>...But what we have got instead Im happy with...<snip>...And while Mr Eisner spent more time and money on WDW I belive Walt would of probely done the same thing.

[Mod. note: vBcode fixed around quoted material. -- Andrew]

Please be advised that is not a popular stance at all to say that Mr. Eisner has done anything of value, or added significantly to the "resort experience".

Morrigoon
09-28-2003, 07:07 PM
originally posted by newhdplayer
Please be advised that is not a popular stance at all to say that Mr. Eisner has done anything of value, or added significantly to the "resort experience".
newhdplayer: Luckily, unlike on certain other boards which shall remain nameless, disagreeing with the populace here is not grounds for having your posts edited for content or deleted entirely (without any notice by the moderators that such censorship has taken place, I might add). If one wishes to disagree here, they are welcome to do so - and we are welcome to rebut the arguments. Isn't that nice? :)
______________________________________________

Malin: I challenge your assertion that Paradise Pier is a major Eisner achievement. That hotel existed there for many years as the Asian tourist-focused "Pan Pacific Hotel." Disney bought the property in the late 90's, threw in a few Disney decorations, renamed it the Disneyland Pacific, and then when DCA was getting ready to open, they threw on a quick remodel (read: paint) job, and renamed it the Paradise Pier Hotel.

I will grant you the rest of those improvements, but I'd like you to consider changes in leadership. First, ask which of these changes occurred before, and which after, the death of Frank Wells. Second, find out who was in charge of the DLR and parks in general the year Eisner took over the company, which changes took place under their leadership, and which changes occurred under the leadership of his successors.

Oh, I take one thing back: I also challenge your assertion that DCA is added value to the company. I understand more than many that you have to invest in an asset to create an income stream, but given that the park has yet to turn profitable, AND seems to be stealing attendance from DL.... Well, let's just say they have a lot more to invest before that park can be said to add value to the company.

Feel free to disagree with me :)

Cadaverous Pallor
09-28-2003, 07:30 PM
Eisner did great things when he was originally hired. Putting it simply, he saved the company in the 80's.

But it's obvious that he's lost his vision and that it's time for him to go.

Mark Goldhaber
09-28-2003, 08:03 PM
Ah, but when did those great things stop happening? Now, compare that date with the death of Frank Wells. Notice any correlation? I'm not necessarily saying that Wells was the brains behind the operation. But I think that he was able to keep Eisner focused on what they should be doing, and I've heard that -- on more than one occasion -- he had to tell him "Michael, we can't do that. We're Disney."

merlinjones
09-29-2003, 02:28 AM
Mr. Wiggins - - fascinating report on the CNN story. I'm glad to hear of it. There is a common bond between anyone who has heavy experience with the WDC - - it can be unspoken upon first meeting, just a roll of the eyes says it all. I'm glad this is going public.

malin
09-29-2003, 12:15 PM
Malin: I challenge your assertion that Paradise Pier is a major Eisner achievement. That hotel existed there for many years as the Asian tourist-focused "Pan Pacific Hotel." Disney bought the property in the late 90's, threw in a few Disney decorations, renamed it the Disneyland Pacific, and then when DCA was getting ready to open, they threw on a quick remodel (read: paint) job, and renamed it the Paradise Pier Hotel.

I will grant you the rest of those improvements, but I'd like you to consider changes in leadership. First, ask which of these changes occurred before, and which after, the death of Frank Wells. Second, find out who was in charge of the DLR and parks in general the year Eisner took over the company, which changes took place under their leadership, and which changes occurred under the leadership of his successors.

Oh, I take one thing back: I also challenge your assertion that DCA is added value to the company. I understand more than many that you have to invest in an asset to create an income stream, but given that the park has yet to turn profitable, AND seems to be stealing attendance from DL.... Well, let's just say they have a lot more to invest before that park can be said to add value to the company.

Feel free to disagree with me :)


Ok the Paradise Pier hotel isn't exactly the crowning goal during Michael Eisner control of the company.But it did help DL become more of a complete Resort.

Star Tours came because of the good freindship between Eisner and George Lucas.

Splash Mountain was built because Eisner's son Breck liked it during a tour of WDI.

Yeah the Fantasmic and Mickey's Toontown ideas was probely thanks to both Well's and Eisner.

But DCA,Indy and TOT are all ideas that came after Well's death.

As for DCA,I think we finally starting see how much vaule this park has.But sadly its all for the wrong reasons.Guest are spending more time at DCA due to DL having far to many lines and many attractions closed for refirb.But I don't think Eisner can be hold completly to blame for that.Like I stated before most of that blame most be held against TDA.Who are now under the leadership of Jay Rasulo.

[Mod. note: vBcode fixed around quoted material. Please remember to Preview your posts before submitting to avoid this problem. -- Andrew]

Morrigoon
09-29-2003, 03:04 PM
Rasulo hasn't been in power long enough to be culpable for the state of TDA - that's like blaming Bush for the economic nose dive that began at the end of Clintons term. :rolleyes:

However, in blaming TDA, I must also blame those responsible for TDA: Eisner. TDA's culture is set by its leadership, who are hired by Michael Eisner. Therefore, Eisner is far more culpable than Rasulo. Heck, Pressler is more culpable than Rasulo.

OTOH: So far, I don't see Rasulo doing much to change it either.

Mark Goldhaber
09-29-2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by malin
Star Tours came because of the good freindship between Eisner and George Lucas.

*cough* Tony Baxter *cough*

malin
09-30-2003, 12:57 PM
Morrigoon I agree that Eisner is to blame for some of it,as he was the guy to hire Paul Pressler who in return hired TDA.But Eisner isn't to blame for the day to day running of the DLR.So blaming him for it isn't fair.And Jay Rasulo has been in the job for over a year now and I don't see any changes in the pipe line.Maybe he needs time.But I think if we give Rasulo time we must also give Eisner more time.2003 so far has been a better year for the company then 2002.Disney's movie studio has had one of its best years ever.WDW attendance is up thanks to the special 7 nights for 4 deal.And even its ABC network has seen improvments.So lets give Eisner more time.Disney is in beter shape then it was last year.Imagine where the company will be this time next year.With such arrivals as Disney's California Adventures Tower Of Terror.

Mark Goldhaber what about Tony Baxter? All Im saying is that it was Eisner's freindship with Lucas that helped Disney sign the theme park rights to all the Star Wars and Indy movies.Which in return made it possible for the likes of Tony Baxter and WDI to design all these great attractions.

Mr. Wiggins
09-30-2003, 01:33 PM
...lets give Eisner more time.... Imagine where the company will be this time next year.
With all respect, Eisner has had 19 years. And I shudder to think where the company will be this time next year.

malin
09-30-2003, 02:00 PM
And look at what he has done in those 19 years.Eisner has taken the faltering Disney organization back to its original glory.

And atleast with Eisner he understands the theme park business.Which a new Chairman may not do.A lot of people think the grass is always beter on the other side.Well its not and thats why I honestly still think Eisner is still the right man for the job.

Yeah he has had a few bad years recently.But what large media company hasn't.Part of Disney's sucess has been because its kept Eisner as its Chairman for so long.And not just decided to get rid of him,when he has bad days.

Disney's recovery isn't going to be a over night thing.Its going to take years to recover.But if 2003 so far is any indication then atleast Disney is back on that road to recovery.

merlinjones
09-30-2003, 03:40 PM
>>And look at what he has done in those 19 years.Eisner has taken the faltering Disney organization back to its original glory.<<

Hardly.

In the first ten years he >helped< - - not single handedly mind you - - bring the faltering company back to glory - - but not its original glory - - the quality has never been on par with Walt. But still that turnaround was a great acheivement of those first ten years (even though much of it was accidental on Eisner's part - - from feature animation, which Eisner would have shuttered upon taking the job if not for Roy Jr.).

The last ten years Eisner spent dismantling the old Walt Disney Productions as effectively as Saul Steniberg would have sold off the peices, all in order to become the ABC/Disney global media conglomerate. It's not the same thing as the great boutique content company we remember.

Ten to build, ten to tear down. I say we are at the same place now as 1984, except that all the assets have been over exploited (save Song of the South of course) or dismantled or tossed away in the gold rush of greed.

Mark Goldhaber
09-30-2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by malin
Mark Goldhaber what about Tony Baxter? All Im saying is that it was Eisner's freindship with Lucas that helped Disney sign the theme park rights to all the Star Wars and Indy movies.Which in return made it possible for the likes of Tony Baxter and WDI to design all these great attractions.

Baxter was already working on the idea before Michael and Frank came aboard. From this interview (http://pizarro.net/didier/_private/interviu/baxter.html) with Didier Ghez:


In 1984, there was a great turmoil of takeover events, and we did not know what was going to happen to The Walt Disney Company. Actually, Roy Disney was partly responsible for getting it back on track and working to get Michael Eisner and Frank Wells to join the company. Meanwhile, I had been looking for some new heroes that would enhance the image of DL. I felt George Lucas was the man. I had been developing an attraction idea that turned out to be Star Tours. When Michael and Frank came on board, we took it to them and said: "We really need to do this because DL needs to have an attraction based on characters that children today are growing up with. We need a mythology that really touches people's heart, like Walt used to do." They said: "Fine, great, wonderful, but 3 years is too long to wait while it is being built. Can you do something faster ?" So we did Captain EO right away which opened in just over a year. Then we added Star Tours a year later.

Also this:


Star Tours was also very exciting, because no one had ever done simulators before. Ron Miller was still President of Walt Disney Productions. We went over to Ron and talked to him about it. He was uncomfortable partnering with someone from the outside, George Lucas, but he finally decided, "You are right, we need to have the best at DL." So he took his plane up his vineyard in Napa Valley in Northern California. He flew Marty Sklar, one other designer and me. George Lucas drove to Ron's house in his car. And Diane Disney Miller was serving the lunch !

And I am sitting there thinking, "This is Walt's daughter, and this the head of the company, and this is George Lucas, who might be considered a modern-day Disney. If the plane crashes on my way back, it does not matter, this is the best day in my life." Diane said: "Do you want some more salad ?" I had never met her personally until then. It was like being in a family... George Lucas was in jeans and I thought this is amazing, this guy has done Star Wars and Indiana Jones and I am here talking with him about a ride.

Does that sound like it predates Eisner?

Kevy Baby
10-01-2003, 10:03 AM
When Disneyland was built, Walt's brother Roy kept insisting that it would be a financial disaster ("Walt's Folly"). Walt took advantage of Roy being out of town to make the final commitments, figuring he would create the Magic and let Roy figure out how to make it profitable. And he did.

Eisner's role IMHO is that of Roy (not to be confused with Roy E Disney, who is still with us today). Frank Wells was the Magic man (not Walt, but he still had the eye). They were a good team. When Frank departed, there was no one left to create the magic. Any time you leave the money man in charge, the business fails because the focus is too short-term (as it would if the idea guy is on his own except his vision is too LONG term). This is true in most any business. You need the idea guy to create the Magic and the money guy to keep the idea guy in check.

Eisner is (fairly) good at making money. There just isn't anybody to maintain Walt's vision.

JeffG
10-01-2003, 11:32 AM
Eisner's role IMHO is that of Roy (not to be confused with Roy E Disney, who is still with us today). Frank Wells was the Magic man (not Walt, but he still had the eye). They were a good team. When Frank departed, there was no one left to create the magic. Any time you leave the money man in charge, the business fails because the focus is too short-term (as it would if the idea guy is on his own except his vision is too LONG term). This is true in most any business. You need the idea guy to create the Magic and the money guy to keep the idea guy in check.

If you read any of the early histories of the Eisner/Wells era, their roles are generally recognized to have been the opposite of what you say. Eisner was primarily the creative executive while Wells was more of a money man. Many feel that the biggest issue since Wells' death has been that Eisner has shifted too much of his focus to the business aspects of running the company, which doesn't play well to his strengths.

-Jeff

Kevy Baby
10-01-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by JeffG
If you read any of the early histories of the Eisner/Wells era, their roles are generally recognized to have been the opposite of what you say. Eisner was primarily the creative executive while Wells was more of a money man.

Well, I guess I'm reading the wrong stuff!:)

merlinjones
10-01-2003, 03:23 PM
Wells was definately the business guy (with a consience) and Eisner was originally supposed to have been the creative guy (without), but he had bigger ambitions, I guess. Becoming the Big Cheese CEO of the Universe clearly didn't help his creativity, presumably, nor the reluctance to keep another creative around to take up the slack (JK, et al).

I think one of the biggest problems was that awful Network television culture he was part of and brought with him.

Morrigoon
10-01-2003, 04:22 PM
Eisner may have been the ideas guy (I had heard this too), but Wells was apparently the one to say "whoa, that's not Disney, Mike" when Mikey's ideas were stupid.

I'm not here to sing Wells' praises, from what I understand he had just as much ego as Mike (including correcting CMs who called him by the name on his nametag by saying "You will call me Mr. Wells"), but the record stands... Eisner was better WITH Wells than without, and there's something to be said for that.

malin
10-02-2003, 02:30 PM
I think Frank Well's passing had a massive effect on Eisner,but I don't think it was he only thing that did.His heart problems and the lost of Jeffrey Katzenberg(Head of Disney Studios)were also big time factors.But there is nothing here saying that Eisner still can't turn Disney around.

ABC so far has kicked of to a good fall season.

The Disney Studios like I said before are having a great year at the Box Office.And will no doubt repeat that performance on DVD and Video sales.

Disney will really happy with the sucess of the 7 nights for 4 offer.And are thinking of making similar offers in the future.

And as for attractions things are looking up.DLR will be getting a brand new Space Mountain(Same version as Hong Kong)Tower of Terror,Buzz attraction and new parades and shows.

While WDW is officially opening Mission Space and Mickey's Phillarmagic.Plus new fire works show Whishes and some new annoucements being made on Oct 8th.

So things in my view look promising and praise must be given to Eisner.He is taking Disney back to the top.

merlinjones
10-02-2003, 06:20 PM
>>But there is nothing here saying that Eisner still can't turn Disney around.<<

But whose going to turn Eisner around?

In the last months the man has castrated the historic Disney Feature Animation Studio and the equally historic Imagineering division for low-budget outsourcing.

He is unable to make a deal with their only major hit supplier Pixar.

He has committed a slew of cheesy sequels to video against the explicit policies of the founder himself and changed a premium boutique brand to a common Kmart label.

Tomorrowland is laid waste.

DCA exists.

And someone just died at the park through no fault of their own (again!) - - possibly due to deferred maintenece.

By contrast, you want us to be enthusiastic about the prospects of a ABC's minor post-Ritter ratings bump, a 7 night sale, a hideous CGI Mickey and some plywood additions?

As a Walt Disney fan, I PLEAD with you to get some perspective on what is important and irreplacable!!!

Wake up, Alice, wake up!

Mr. Wiggins
10-02-2003, 07:52 PM
...praise must be given to Eisner...

Dear Malin,

With all due respect, please give us poor, unuspecting Yanks a bit o' warning before posting a phrase like that. When it appeared on my monitor, my video card blew out. The whole office smelled like burned Melba toast for an hour.

Put "Danger! Video Spoiler Warning Below!" or "Dive! Dive!" or something?

...Please?

Many thanks.

Your friend in Disney,
Mr. Wiggins