The 12 Milestones in Disney World History part 5; Eisner takes over
September 22, 1984 was the date of another of Walt Disney World’s greatest milestones. It was the day Michael Eisner became the company’s chief executive office and thus began a period of unprecedented growth in all areas of the company including the Florida theme parks.
Though whether or not Eisner’s impact was in the end a positive one is a debatable subject, few can deny how great the impact was. When he began his reign Walt Disney World consisted largely of two theme parks and a couple of hotels. Under Eisner, Disney began pushing the limits of the Florida property and began growing at a dizzying rate. Many of his decisions were ill-conceived and politically controversial, and many times he would cut budgets in mid-stream making the final product something much less exciting then the concepts. But during those twenty-plus years he led the way on an expansion that included some remarkably brilliant additions.
To the purist, Eisner is a four letter word. It is a word that means a change from creative-driven ideas to marketing-driven ideas. Many believe that Eisner removed Disney’s theme parks from Walt’s belief in making the best possible product regardless of cost to a much more corporate and unimaginative direction. To some extent this is true. However, most of what is in Walt Disney World now was built under Eisner’s reign and we all still love to go there.
Would things have been better under a more creative executive? Would we have seen more of Imagineering’s amazing plans that were so often cut by Eisner for budget purposes? Perhaps, but no one can ever say for certain. What we can say, however, is that no single man has had a greater impact on the development of the Walt Disney World we see today…for better or for worse.
Brady Jensen said,
December 27, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
I think it’s more accurate to note that September 22, 1984, was the day the TEAM of Michael Eisner and Frank Wells arrived at the company. I disagree that Eisner’s impact is debatable. While his reputation is tarnished, Eisner and Wells (along with Jeffrey Katzenberg as head of the studio and Roy Disney at vice chairman for Animation) saved the company and made it the force we recognize today. Wells’ tragic death in 1994 plus the massive overspending at Euro Disney both led directly to the more, uhm, fiscally restrained environment of the late 90’s. The Cap Cities/ABC acquisition in 1996 also led to a change in Eisner’s focus, and then the debacle of the hiring/firing of Michael Ovitz…. It goes on. Read the excellent book Disney Wars for the best survey of the Eisner years.
“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.
David said,
December 28, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Brady, thank you so much for your comments. You bring some great points.
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.
Brady Jensen said,
December 31, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Thanks, and I agree, to be fair the Walker/Miller era, you’re correct about EPCOT. Yet, having completed the park, the company stood on the brink of dismantling Imagineering.
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!
Raidermatt said,
January 5, 2008 @ 2:27 am
“A bit light” might be the biggest understatement in Disney history.
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.
David said,
January 5, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Matt, I was patiently waiting for you to show up on this one!! LOL! Thanks for your time.
Raidermatt said,
January 7, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Yeah, just catching up from the holidays and you’re right, this was one I couldn’t resist chiming in on. Thanks.