PDA

View Full Version : DCA comment in the current Newsweek, Eisner Quote...



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Darkbeer
02-15-2004, 08:36 PM
Target Disney (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4271801/) - Newsweek, 2/23/04




Eisner's strategy of late has been to expand the brand without spending much. He tried to transform its properties óin Anaheim and Paris into "destination resorts" by adding second theme parks. The $1 billion Disney's California Adventure, largely made up of rides copied from its Florida parks or purchased off the shelf, left tourists yawning. Attendance was weak and sponsors like Wolfgang Puck fled. "What people have to keep remembering is we are going for magic,'' Eisner told NEWSWEEK last year. "We are not going for perfection."



:rolleyes: :eek: :p

blusilva
02-15-2004, 10:08 PM
"What people have to keep remembering is we are going for magic,'' Eisner told NEWSWEEK last year. "We are not going for perfection."


That would be "Magic" ®, right Mr. Eisner?

Because if you were going for magic with DCA, you missed the mark wildly.

cemeinke
02-15-2004, 11:07 PM
LOL - I guess the only "magic" he knows of is done with smoke and mirrors.

HBTiggerFan
02-16-2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by cemeinke
LOL - I guess the only "magic" he knows of is done with smoke and mirrors.

Or blue screens and computers.

3894
02-16-2004, 08:18 AM
Too classic!

What would happen if any of us used that "magic not perfection" quote at an annual performance review?

teri
02-16-2004, 10:39 AM
He might as well just say, "We are playing a shell game with investor's money."

Guess what? It is in Michaels pocket.

CraigMBA
02-18-2004, 06:39 AM
All you anti-Eisner folks are gonna really LOVE what Comcast or whoever buys Disney next is gonna do to the place.

Eisner had his fair share of screwups, but he will be elevated to sainthood in your eyes in conparision to what the next round of ownership will do.

The reason the Comcast deal wasn't accepted is that there isn't enough money on the table. Another 30% will get the deal done, Eisner retires, the shareholders are happy, and the REAL damage will start as they REALLY accelerate the cost cutting.

There is an old saying, a new broom always sweeps clean...........

Demigod121
02-18-2004, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by CraigMBA
All you anti-Eisner folks are gonna really LOVE what Comcast or whoever buys Disney next is gonna do to the place.


Always got to be one naysayer in the bunch.

:D

-Demigod

David R
02-18-2004, 07:27 AM
The WDC has been using the word "magic" too liberaly to the point that it has lost its true meaning.

It's obvious that Eisner's idea of "magic" is not the same idea of those paying to go into the parks. Maybe he should join some of the Disneyland tours and hear about Walt and his ideas.

danyoung
02-18-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by CraigMBA
All you anti-Eisner folks are gonna really LOVE what Comcast or whoever buys Disney next is gonna do to the place.

If anybody's gonna buy out Disney, I'm really leaning in the direction of Comcast, mainly due to president Steve Burke's past involvement with Disney, including his stint runnin Disneyland Paris. At least we're got getting somebody totally unfamiliar with running a magical division.

Ghoulish Delight
02-18-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by CraigMBA
All you anti-Eisner folks are gonna really LOVE what Comcast or whoever buys Disney next is gonna do to the place.
Sorry, but what happens post-Eisner will not change the fact that over the last 10 years, Eisner has let the company slip right back to where it was when he came in to rescue it in the first place. My ciriticism of Eisner is not a relative thing, and whether or not his replacement is better or worse will not change the fact the he's screwed up royally.

sediment
02-18-2004, 11:42 AM
I believe it will only be a concern if Comcast decides to keep the studios and vacation destinations.
As Comcast already makes more profit on less revenue than Disney, it will likely decide that the Disney portion will have to do the same. This is not right, as the two companies derive net income in different ways. "Not right" might not stop them.

Better idea: Disney, or the takeover company, spins off the studios, film library, Muppets, and vacation destinations as a group. They are highly complementary divisions, worth more together than separately, IMO. And that Eisner is dumped, of course.

RStar
02-18-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Ghoulish Delight
and whether or not his replacement is better or worse will not change the fact the he's screwed up royally.

I agree GD. Short of shuttering the doors, how could anyone do much worse? I don't think any new blood will ignore the condition of their investment to the point that they've squezed all the juice out of the fruit and have an old spent rind that needs to be tossed or replaced the way Eisner has.

sediment
02-18-2004, 02:02 PM
"...going for magic"? As if it can be put in the park AFTER the infrastructure was laid down?

The "magic" is built in, not marketed afterward. Not tacked on like Stitch in Alien Encounter. Not adding an attraction already existing at another park. Not by cutting corners. Not by shortening hours in various magical ways such as: not opening part of a park for two hours after gates open; closing food services; closing park waaay before DL, etc. Not by having minimum-size limits on rides. Not by adding more maximum-size limit rides. Not by having less-immersive attractions involving films. Not by forcing special VIP guests into DCA and away from DL (Rose Bowl participants). Not by creating a giant theme-inappropriate Rose Bowl float.

I don't want to go on. (With the post.) This is too depressing. Uplift me, Mike! Give up!

danyoung
02-18-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by sediment
"...closing park waaay before DL, etc.

I was with ya right up to that point. What did you really mean?

Ghoulish Delight
02-18-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by danyoung
I was with ya right up to that point. What did you really mean? He's referring to the fact that DCA's daily operating hours are significantly shorter than Disneylands, with DCA closing typically 2, 3, 4 hours earlier than Disneyland.

David R
02-18-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by sediment
Not by having minimum-size limits on rides. Not by adding more maximum-size limit rides.

That is for your safety as well as that of your kids. They are following very strict laws and not some random idea someone had to upset guests.

Ghoulish Delight
02-18-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by David R
That is for your safety as well as that of your kids. They are following very strict laws and not some random idea someone had to upset guests. I don't think sediment is suggesting removing or ignoring the size limits on the rides. Rather, it used to be a goal to design rides for Disneyland that did not require size restrictions so that the entire park could be enjoyed as a family by everyone.

CraigMBA
02-18-2004, 07:09 PM
You guys aren't getting it.

Everytime one of these M&A's gets started, one or both of the companies in 180 days time is absorbed. Comcast put Disney into play, and now it's game on.

There are three possible outcomes:

1. Comcast buys Disney.
2. Disney buys Comcast.
3. Somebody else buys Disney.

Either way, they'll pay too much, and the purchasing company will squeze hard on operations to meet thier profit expectations.

If you think the magic is gone now, just wait to see how much pealing paint and how many shuttered rides you get after the purchase.

cemeinke
02-18-2004, 07:52 PM
Eh, Walt died in '66 - and already took with him the original "Disney" Company.

Well's death in '94 marked the end of Disney's comback - we already got lucky with that one.

David R
02-18-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Ghoulish Delight
Rather, it used to be a goal to design rides for Disneyland that did not require size restrictions so that the entire park could be enjoyed as a family by everyone.

Got it, thank you for the clarification.

While the classic rides do not have these restrictions, I cannot imagine Disney parks without Indy, Soaring, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, ToT, etc.

Height limitations are a necessary evil.

Disneyfreak
02-18-2004, 09:29 PM
Eisner and Comcast are both a bunch of [expletive].:):D

Moderator note - edited to remove self-censored word. Please do not attempt to get around the censor in this manner, Either choose a different word, or find another way to express yourself.

Marty
02-19-2004, 12:37 AM
CraigMBA is soooo right with his insights. The hate most everyone on this board directs at Eisner is blinding them to the very real danger Disney and the Parks are facing right now. At least during Eisnerís reign there were important people on the Disney board and employed by the company who had a real love for Waltís legacy. People who understood what exactly it was that was being sold Ė people who had real influence on the direction of the parks even in the face of Eisnerís seeming indifference.

Well, under Comcast those people will be swamped. Any influence they had will be severely diluted. Disneyland in particular will be nothing but an under performing asset. In fact Iím sure the bean counters over at Comcast have already come to this conclusion. They have to be looking at Tower of Terror as just another example of how Disney throws good money after bad. And what about the Space Mountain rehab: it was a perfectly functioning ride Ė why spend so much money on something that wasnít broke in the first place.

I tell you what folks, in a few years the irony of getting rid of Eisner wonít be lost on anyone. As terrible a job as he has done over the last decade, he is probably the last man who actually has the ability to do something positive with the parks. Look at how he has dominated the Disney board. When the faceless corporate hoard from Comcast takes over, who among them will stand up and demand the type of sustained investment those on this board feel is necessary to bring the parks to where they need to be. Nobody has the standing of Eisner and no one else is able to stand up to the demands of investors hungry for dividends and escalating stock prices.

Nope, Comcast will hire someone like me. And I will tell them that the surest way to increase the profitability of the parks is to shutter those expensive to maintain rides and replace them with off the shelf attractions that work so well in places like Magic Mountain. Iíll also tell to close those expensive restaurants and get some more of those cheap food carts. Corn dogs, churros and ice cream bars for everyone. And why will I tell them that, because that is exactly what they want to hear. Low risk, high return.

Hey, tilt-a-whirls are cheap, you can paint Mickeyís face on the back of them (a nod to theming) and a thousand state fairs canít be wrong. Can they?

Germboy
02-19-2004, 12:57 AM
Eisner's quote is outrageous. He's basically saying "Yeah, we know we've lost it...but hey...we're not perfect. And we don't want to be! That's not what we're all about." OK--my words, but that's what I get out of it.

Can you imagine him telling his stockholders that WDC isn't "going for perfection"? Can you imagine ANYONE, trying to keep their job, saying that to their employer??? Unbelieveable.

Newsweek got it right. Eisner is trying to expand the "brand" (Gosh, I HATE it when that word is used to describe Disney. Kevin Yee wrote an article a while ago and called it a "brand"-- it was like nails on a chalkboard to my ears. And all of the Disney management uses that term, particularly Eisner. I was ECSTATIC when I saw Roy Disney's tirade against calling WDC a "brand." It's like he was reading my mind.)

The problem with Eisner's "expansion" is simply that: bigger. And forget the details. Forget that that ESPN sports or the Angels have nothing to do with Disney. Forget that cheap ABC sitcoms have nothing to do with Disney. Forget that Disney is not in the business of running news organizations. And on and on.

Germboy
02-19-2004, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Marty
CraigMBA is soooo right with his insights.

I don't think so. I think you're both wrong.

There's a reason why Disney's legacy continues to this day, and it's not because of Eisner's philosophy of valuing the investor's money over the Company's creativity. That is why the Company is dying.

Whoever buys Disney would be foolish to continue on Eisner's path. And even if they would be so unbelieveably short-sighted as to reinvent a square wheel, they must know that the spotlight will be on them BIG TIME as the whole world watches.

Nope. It would appear to me that it can't get any worse than Eisner--short of folding the company (which may happen if he is allowed to stay in power and suck it dry.) A new company might be willing to seek out suggestions, look at what has worked (and hasn't worked) in the past, and at least CONSIDER dissent. Right now, we have none of that.

Doing things on the cheap and ignoring (or selling off) the Company's assets hasn't worked and everyone knows that except Eisner. I only hope that any purchasing Company chooses Walt Disney's model, and not Michael Eisner's model.

Hey, wonder how long until Roy Disney is welcomed back with open arms...with say...Katzenberg, George Lucas, Steve Jobs, etc etc.? :)