That aside, Eisner/Wells did not “save” Disney. The company as it stood was going to be bought and broken up, yes, but the man who thwarted that effort was Roy E Disney. Eisner/Wells were the men put in place to run things once the company had been “saved”.

Evaluating the Eisner years is not easy. For example, the most obvious and most repeated conclusion is that he was good for the company for about 10 years, then overstayed his welcome. This is supported by the massive growth in those first years, followed by utter stagnation in the stock price in the years following.

There’s a lot of problems with that analysis though. Despite being the CEO, Eisner did not wield absolute power in those first 10 years. In fact, Wells reported to the board, just as Eisner did. And for every story of Eisner wanting to push through something that turned out to be a creative success, there’s 10 more about him trying to kill something that turned out to be a success (The Little Mermaid, for example).

Eisner’s philosophies did not change after the first 10 years. The problem was those around him who had the power to mitigate Eisner’s many negatives were gone after 10 years, or very close to it. The most obvious being Wells and Katzenberg.

While all credit for saving Disney must go to Roy, he ,along with Stanley Gold and the Bass Brothers, unfortunately must share some of the blame for choosing Eisner. It’s interesting that they originally wanted Wells as CEO, and Eisner as President reporting to Wells. However, Eisner wouldn’t accept anything less than the CEO position, forcing Roy and company to either give it to him or find themselves another movie executive.

In retrospect, they unfortunately gave it to him, though it might have been the only realistic option at the time. At least they essentially gave Wells equal practical power or Eisner’s influence might have permeated the company much sooner.

That’s not to say Wells was Walt reincarnated. But at least he was a smart enough exectutive to know the value of true creative talent, and he also didn’t suffer from the severe case of egomania that we all now know Eisner had.

Somewhere in the last week I read a posting that recalled an incident told in Disney Wars about Eisner and Splash Mountain. The prior regime considered this attraction too expensive, but Eisner pushed it forward.

I would agree that in the Eisner era many of the parks opened a bit light, and this strategy has proven to be short-sighted. One need only look at the amount to be lavished on DCA to fix this under-performing park and the disappointing state of HKDL to be reminded again that while it may be a cliche, “penny wise, pound foollish” applies to theme parks, but with a lot more zeros!

But let me take exception with one thing..

Go back to 1984 and Card Walker’s “What would Walt do?” philosophy that ran the company. The company wasn’t growing, nor was it producing new creative product.

To be fair, the company had just produced Epcot less than two years earlier. And unlike the parks that opened under Eisner, this park opened with a full complement of attractions and entertainment. Under Eisner, parks opened with almost nothing. Epcot was a creative achievment that happened before Eisner was there. Let’s be fair about that.

“Would things have been better under a more creative executive?” Go back to 1984 and Card Walker’s “What would Walt do?” philosophy that ran the company. The company wasn’t growing, nor was it producing new creative product. It was stuck. Eisner was the creative executive at the time? It’s easy to fault Eisner as the man who built DCA or Walt Disney Studios Paris and forget the Eisner who built the Swan and Dolphin, Yacht and Beach, Boardwalk, Disney/MGM Studios, Animal Kingdom…. As the post notes, it was Eisner (and Wells) who unlocked the potential of the Florida Project in a way that the successors of Walt and Roy O. had not done.

If Michael Eisner had left Disney in, say, 1997, we’d remember him as a hero. But he changed, and then stayed on too long. That’s certainly a lesson in power and hubris, but not of creative failure.