PDA

View Full Version : Al and other Eisner Naysayers: Careful what you wish for...



Kuzcotopia
06-06-2002, 05:46 PM
Hey, I hate the state of Tomorrowland as much as anyone.

But imagine if the current rumors are true and the *former head of Six Flags* runs the Walt Disney Company.

I start to imagine a world where every single thing special about Disneyland is a thing of the past.

In fact, I can't image a worse executive than someone who used to run Six Flags, and so *thinks* he knows how to run a Disney park.

Spin and Barf rides, bands of smoking teenagers starting riots, tree-stumps with years of guests' chewing gum on them... (remember the Gold Rusher during this guy's reign?).

Anyway.... Eisner may have a tin ear for some concepts (superstar limo, his favorite?!!?)..

But under him the Disney theme parks grew and flourished, and they are still the best in the world, about 20 steps beyond Six Flags.

Go ahead. Imagine a Disneyland run like Magic Mountain. Imagine it.

coronamouseman
06-07-2002, 04:24 AM
Agree with Kuz on this: despite feelings often posted on this site (and others) about Eisner, there are a lot of replacements for ME who could be a lot worse in terms of the effects on the Disney parks and resorts. At this point, I think the "new hope" for many of us Disney park/resort fans is that someone within the Disney organization could arise to become a champion of the parks, pull off a few wins in terms of attractions and/or park improvements that translate into the corporate currency of greater revenues/greater public interest and start a new "golden age" (can't spell renaissance).

Kuzcotopia
06-07-2002, 08:26 AM
That would be great. Think about it. Michael Eisner had zero theme park experience when he began to run Disney. But he took a look at what worked and went with it.

I fear, I really fear someone who thinks they know how Disney theme parks should be run because they've run something more akin to a county fair.

The model the board should be looking at should be people who run destination resorts, not seasonal roller-coaster parks. They should be the people who run things like Atlantis, like the Smithsonian, like some of the destinations in Vegas...

Beyond the upkeep nightmares that Magic Mountain suffered ever since Time Warner bought them...

Just think about the surrounding area of that park. One motel. Is Magic Mountain really a destination for anyone? Or is it merely another place you visit when you're already visiting Los Angeles?

How can it even compare with the Disneyland Resort, or Walt Disney World?

coronamouseman
06-08-2002, 07:24 AM
Kuz - Boy, couldn't agree with you more on the "destination resort" approach ........

Disney has already committed themselves to this concept - again, this is why the possibility of DisneySea being the potential 5th park at WDW makes so much sense because the "in-park hotel" component of that park already is in place ........

In fact, it would be hard to believe that Disney would even think of building another high-end hotel in WDW without some kind of tie-in to either one of the existing parks or a new one (as we have seen with AKL and AK most recently).

Only time will tell if someone can be found to lead the rank and file to an effective new vision for Disney .........

AliKzam
06-16-2002, 09:34 PM
DisneySea better not go to Florida! We need it more here, in California.
Oh, yeah, I completely agree that we could be much worse off. Let's hope that is never the case.

hefferdude
06-20-2002, 11:34 AM
That would be great. Think about it. Michael Eisner had zero theme park experience when he began to run Disney. But he took a look at what worked and went with it.

Only asking cause I'm curious.

How much of a hand did Frank Wells have in the comeback of DL?

Was it Eisner/Wells like a Walt/Roy?

Dawnie
06-23-2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by hefferdude


How much of a hand did Frank Wells have in the comeback of DL?



A great deal. And although Jeffery Katzenberg was the animation guy, he also had a great deal of influence on the Parks. Well, maybe......god knows Eisner sure didn't give him any autonomy....

JeffG
06-23-2002, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Dawnie


A great deal. And although Jeffery Katzenberg was the animation guy, he also had a great deal of influence on the Parks. Well, maybe......god knows Eisner sure didn't give him any autonomy....

Jeffrey Katzenberg was the head of production for the movie studios. It is doubtful that he had any influence on the theme parks, other than greenlighting films that occasionally provided the basis for shows or attractions.

-Jeff

Dawnie
06-25-2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by JeffG


Jeffrey Katzenberg was the head of production for the movie studios. It is doubtful that he had any influence on the theme parks, other than greenlighting films that occasionally provided the basis for shows or attractions.

-Jeff

Occasionally? As in The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and Tarzan?

My point was that Jeffrey was clearly interested in the ENTIRE company. Unfortunately, he was never given the chance to prove his business acumen in other areas.

coronamouseman
06-26-2002, 03:40 PM
RE JK:

Well, isn't it obvious now why ME didn't want to have JK around?

Disney is floundering at the box office (new Lilo and Stitch is recoving a little bit of face but will L&S have legs?) while Dreamworks is hummin along .........

JK is hot, ME is not ...........

No wonder ME didn't want an heir apparent around the castle when things are getting tough .............

Re some "refugee" from Six Flags running the Disney parks:

What if the guy wants out from Six Flags because he was tired of pitching themed rides to a company committed to "Spin and Barf" attractions? One company's rebel may turn out to be another company's new visionary .............

And what's wrong with experience that includes the specification and building of big new attractions with the world's leading vendors when it comes to understanding the nuts and bolts of what costs and timeframes might be for attractions at a Disney park?

AliKzam
06-26-2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by coronamouseman


1. JK is hot, ME is not ...........

2. Re some "refugee" from Six Flags running the Disney parks:

What if the guy wants out from Six Flags because he was tired of pitching themed rides to a company committed to "Spin and Barf" attractions? One company's rebel may turn out to be another company's new visionary .............

And what's wrong with experience that includes the specification and building of big new attractions with the world's leading vendors when it comes to understanding the nuts and bolts of what costs and timeframes might be for attractions at a Disney park?

1. I just thought it was funny that Jeffrey Katzenberg's initials also stand for "just kidding". And as for Michael Eisner's, well, that's one heck of a monogram to have on your towells, isn't it?

2. So, are you suggesting it's the Six Flags company's fault when deeply themed attractions aren't created, as opposed to it being the head of parks (and not the company's fault) for Disney's fault? That was wordy, I know, but you get the idea. If the head of theme parks were to take over, and things at Disney continued to suck, would it be his fault or the company's?
While the knowledge of budgeting and timeframes is important, and while I too hope that things will turn around for Disney, would things improve with this man in charge or would he again be beaten down by another company?

coronamouseman
06-27-2002, 03:30 AM
AK - All I am saying is that the Six Flags model for business is essentially one which emphasizes high-tech and high-speed attractions rather than themed ones and that it might be possible that an exec in that company may yearn for more creativity or for the possiblity to work for the leader in the theme park industry and leave a mark there.

Look at Knott's - they bring in a CP guy and they get: Supreme Scream, Ghostrider, Perilous Plunge and Xcelerator

USH goes for Barry Diller, a movie guy, becuase they want more themed attractions (although nothing has been announced officially yet ......)

Perhaps the best thing about Walt Disney when he started Disneyland was that he wasn't an amusement park guy but a movie guy - ok, cartoons more than anything else but essentially a storyteller. Look at what a guy like Lucas did with Indy at DL compared to what Disney themselves came up with at DLP - one ride is a technical wonder and a themed masterpiece and the other is just an off-the-shelf coaster wrapped around a plaster temple.

kennyhues
06-29-2002, 05:13 PM
Good thread. I like to bash Mike, I'll admit, but maybe the problem is more Pressler than Eisner.

I have to say though, if Eisner were to be fired or resign, I'm very worried about who would replace him. Let's all hope and pray that the Board has heard our cries for quality and a return to Disney innovation and industry leadership and makes any decisions about the CEO with an eye on that issue rather than just being concerned about propping up the stock price. Seriously, does anyone buy Disney for short-term gain? It's a buy and hold, like Coke or Johnson and Johnson. All they need to do is quit screwing around with all this panic cost cutting and return to being a responsible innovation-driven company. I can't imagine anything but a positive outcome if they were to return to letting quality (both of ideas and execution) rule the day.

Kevin Yee
06-30-2002, 12:47 AM
I'm very interested in what many financial journalists these days are writing, because it corresponds so clearly with my thoughts for a while now:

CEOs should never have been granted options tied to stock market price. It should have been some other measure of cash flow or value. Too many problems arise from tying stock market price to options, as we now see. The ongoing stock market crash is related to this glut - it will take a long time to shake all that out of the market, I fear.

And Disney, meanwhile, will continue to lag for similar reasons.

coronamouseman
07-02-2002, 04:18 AM
Kevin:

In some ways, the current phenomenon regarding CEO compensation is just like ridiculously escalating salaries in sports -as soon as one owner (or board of directors) began to dish out the options and bonuses then everybody started doing so in the hope that they were getting the best of the best in management.

Unfortunately, only now are some of these companies realizing that all they were doing was (1) creating a situation where CEOs work as a hobby since if they walked out of their jobs tomorrow or are fired for incompetency they leave with millions or (2) they get CEOs who are only interested in the wealth and not overly concerned with the company or its employees or its stockholders.

Same thing in sports - only now are the leagues and the management of those leagues realizing how dumb it was to knuckle under to all of the free agency demands made by the various player unions - salaries in the major sports have risen to a point where there is no player loyalties except to the next guarenteed contract and only 10% (at best) of the franchises are profitable. So it will only be the Steinbrenners or Detroit Pizza Men that will win since they don't care how much they have to spend to field an All-Star team versus the other cash-strapped franchises ........

Back to Eisner - is it not now simply a case of his ego running the show since he is financially secure for life should he decide to walk out the door tomorrow? And why should he bother being concerned with stockholders other than as a politician trying to make sure that his "hobby" of playing Disney god is retained from year to year .............

At least those "impoverished" sports stars that are only making $1-$2M are year need to keep performing for a while before they retire - with some of these CEOs, a couple years of work are all that is needed to ensure retirement to their ranch, their beachfront condo on Maui or their Beverly Hills mansion (or maybe all three!)