Yeah! That ABC was a good move!! NOT!!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Just picked this up from another site. I tried to link it, but the stupid thing wouldn't work!! So... I copied it instead. Here's the story from Moneycentral:

Future of 'Millionaire' up in the air – ABC

November 28, 2001 2:02:00 PM ET

LOS ANGELES, Nov 28 (Reuters) - "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," the monster game show hit that spawned imitators and propelled ABC to No. 1 in the ratings overnight, could be yanked from the air as soon as next fall, a top network official said on Wednesday.
Lloyd Braun, co-chairman of ABC Entertainment Television Group, characterized the status of "Millionaire" next fall as "unsure."

"I'd like to think that there'll be a place on our schedule for that show" next fall, he told reporters during a conference call to discuss the network's progress so far in the current season. "But at the same time, I'm not going to tell you there will be any guarantees. ... We cannot say with certainty that 'Millionaire' is going to be on the fall schedule."

Braun's words marked the latest development in the unraveling of a game show once feared by other networks for its ability to dominate prime-time television.

The Regis Philbin-hosted show rocketed to prominence after its launch in August 1999, propelling ABC to No. 1 in the ratings as the network carried episodes three and four times each week.

As recently as February, "Millionaire" was still finishing in the top 20 each week for most or all of its editions among total viewers, although the ratings were less stellar for younger audiences.

As the numbers fell, ABC reduced the show to two episodes per week on its current fall schedule. In the most recent week ended Nov. 25, one of the show's two editions finished 40th in the ratings overall for total viewers, while another edition finished 72nd. The nearly 10 million people who watched the show on Nov. 19 was about half the show's average audience for the same time last year.

Seems as though "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" may not be back next season. The show has worn out it’s welcome. I wonder why? Can anybody say saturation?!?! Good old Ei$ner & company really killed this cash cow pretty fast, didn’t they?

And I thought this attraction was the one to ‘save’ DCA? Hmmmm. Maybe I was mistaken.

 

[Dad of 5]

Michael Eisner isn't to blame for everything. Can't blame him for global warming, for 9/11, for sour milk, or for my kids' misbehavior.

And, despite his Grand Exalted Worshipfulness status at the top of the Disney Company, I'd bet the remainder of my little bag of donuts here that he doesn't make ABC programming decisions. Some complete imbecile that thought "Hey, if the great unwashed masses will sit stupefied in front of the idiot box 4 times a week to watch other unwashed play the game, how much *more* will they want to watch the glitterati and sports quasi-celebs?"

Guess again. Rank that guy right up there with the gomer that came up with Microsoft Bob.

Now, as to the wisdom or financial prudence of Disney purchasing ABC, I'll leave that to those who can read a financial statement much better than I. Seems like a good outlet for the vault of Disney TV programming, a great vehicle for all the film studios' advertising, and a perfect place to put "infomercials" for the properties (like the Disney parade shows). One might question Eisner's sanity, however, for the price tag attached to the former Fox Family. Time will tell on that one.

Finally, maybe it's because I could care less about DCA (give me tickets, lodging, and travel, and I might consider visiting), but how does that tie in with the brainlessness associated with the TV program "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Were there some ideas about putting a WWTBAM-PI attraction there? Seems like a good idea to me - from what I read about how it's going at the DS park, it might actually draw a crowd.

 

[Captain Crook]

Do you really think the ABC idea was bad? It seems like a perfect fit and a perfect opportunity to promote what Disney needs to promote.

Now, if you mean that it has been a "losing proposition" and they'd have been better off without it in its current status, with the decisions that have been made, well, thats a horse of a different color.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Dad of 5,

Michael Eisner isn't to blame for everything

Well. In a way you're right. Just everything that happens at Disney!

I'd bet the remainder of my little bag of donuts here that he doesn't make ABC programming decisions.

I'd take that bet. Not with every show of course. Maybe not for any particular show, except their number one hot property and only real 'hit' show. And even if he wasn't the one that came up with the idea of running this show into the ground, I am absolutely sure that he was aware of it and tacitly approved the strategy. It's indicative of his short term thinking.

Captain, oh my Captain!! I've read and re-read your brief post many times. And frankly, I'm a bit confused. Maybe you can help me out. Let's look at it together, slowly. First you ask:

Do you really think the ABC idea was bad?

YES!!! I think that should be painfully obvious by now.

It seems like a perfect fit and a perfect opportunity to promote what Disney needs to promote.

NO WAY!!! Now, I'll be honest with you. I really couldn't put my finger on why it raised the hairs on the back of my neck when it first happened. It just seemed sooooo wrong! And months passed by and that feeling only grew. And then Another Voice summed it up beautifully. He wrote a post (maybe a couple) that cleared it up for me. His words brought the whole issue into crystal clear terms that even I could understand. Now, I'm not going to do it justice, it's only to tickle your memory, but remember what was said:
Disney = Creativity, Production, the making of art and/or commercial pieces
ABC = Distribution

At first glance might seem that the old 'synergy' would just skyrocket. But that's not the case. Disney creates!! Or at least that's what they used to do. ABC distributes someone else's product. So what looks like a natural fit, is in reality, something that is at opposite ends of the spectrum. And the mindset (management philosophy) that it takes to run one side of the company will ruin the other side, and vise-versa.

Now, if you mean that it has been a "losing proposition" and they'd have been better off without it in its current status, with the decisions that have been made, well, that's a horse of a different color.

Now unless I'm way off base, from they way you structured this sentence, you and I are of a like mind on this.

Will we ever agree again?

Hey-Hey!! Seems we just did!!!!

 

[JeffJewell]

Now, if you mean that it has been a "losing proposition" and they'd have been better off without it in its current status, with the decisions that have been made, well, thats a horse of a different color

...I can't speak for the Baron, but that's my take on it, anyway.

I think my complaints about "milking" the parks apply, in a way, to ABC, as well. When they found they had a couple hit shows (Millionaire and Who's Line), they just ran them over and over until not many of us could stand to look at them, anymore (I was never much of a Millionaire devotee, but I was a big fan of the old Clive Anderson Who's Line. Drew kinda ran it into the ground, for me).

I never saw the show, but in another thread, Captain Crook mentioned "Thieves" as a critically successful show (I seem to recall he implied that he thought it was a high-quality show, too... correct me if I'm wrong, CC) that Disney bailed out on because it didn't see an immediate cash influx after six episodes.

I guess that's my big problem with Disney and ABC, not simpy that they own it, but that they're running it using the same kind of short-sighted policies with which I feel they're running their parks.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

Actually, Mr. Eisner does make the final programming decisions for ABC. While devising the schedule is not his doing, he does have final review and approval. He’s also been known to get involved with scripts, casting, costume design, and all the fine points of television production. Whether he’s “hands on” or “meddlesome” depends on who you talk to (and which company their paycheck is from). But in either case he enjoys playing Studio Boss. So you can lay part of the blame for ‘Millionare’ and other woes at ABC on his desk (Mr. Eisner does the same thing with movie too).

By the way – it’s now official. ABC landed in fourth place this sweeps and that’s got to be a record for the “big three networks”. Sweeps month is used to set advertising rates for both the network and for the local stations. For Disney, this means that many of the ads you see on that network will be aired for free as ABC tries to make up ratings guarantees to its sponsors. For the local affiliate stations, it means their revenue will be lower as well. It also means that Disney will have a harder time attracting quality programming because outside producers are after ratings as well. They’ll take their new shows somewhere else in search of money.

“Finally, maybe it's because I could care less about DCA” – that’s exactly what’s wrong with the place. If the park can’t generate any interest among Disney fans (those who even take the time to post on fan websites), what chance does it have of attracting an audience? And the “Play It” version of ‘Millionaire’ was supposed to jump start attendance at DCA by giving us Southern Californians that chance to see a make-believe TV game show. Of course, we can go see a REAL game show being filmed almost any day of the week around here for free. And Disney wonders why the park is a flop…


P.S. The L.A. Times article on ABC’s ratings and the future of ‘Millionaire’ is at: http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-000094945nov29.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business

 

[Captain Crook]

These past few comments bring me to a point. Around here I seem like a loyal Eisner defender and I guess I am, but it's mainly because I look at things from different perspectives and seperate what I read about Disney from my actual WDW experiences.

As for Eisner, I am not happy with short sightedness as I feel I expressed about ABC regarding Thieves (your were right JJ) and I wish recent decisions made more sense to me. But I always remember DisDuck pointing out that unless you are the fly on the wall, you don't really know what's intended or what's upcoming.

I believe he has done some great things for Disney...I just don't think he's done many of them recently and that is as bothersome to me as to practically everyone else here. But I am optimistic and hope that the next decision he makes will be a huge success & the tide will turn...But don't mistake my support for blind loyalty. I THINK I know what I see, but I am smart enough to know that I could be dead wrong, too. I may be riding in car #1, but thats because the fun we still have at WDW far outweighs the negatives I read about in the press. So for now my glass is still half full.

 

[YoHo]

I think the problem with ABC has more to do with Ei$ner and the amount of control he likes to have over these things (ever read his book about how he wanted to be like a broadway star or producer, kinda explains things huh).

I agree that a lot of good things have happened while Eisner was in charge, I just have come to believe that he had little to do with those successes.

(Yes Yes, I understand that if like DVC, I'm going to blame him for things he didn't personally do, then they must praise him as well, but I personally will lay the blame soly at the feet of the person imediatly responsible for it.)

 

[Another Voice]

Captain, I think here we come to the root of our difference of opinion. It seems that you believe that Eisner was the source of Disney’s “Second Golden Age” and that he is capable of performing the same feat again.

My perspective is quite different. When Roy Disney, Stanley Gold and others took over the company from the Walt side of the family, they really hired Frank Wells to run it. Michael Eisner was brought in later to give the new owners/management credibility with the Hollywood community. It was well know long before the takeover that Disney would have to become a real studio again if it hoped to recover, and Eisner at the helm (almost a figurehead) would make it easier for the “movers and shakers” to take Disney seriously. Frank Wells was too much of a businessman and a suit to put out on the Hollywood party circuit (which he loathed anyway).

Eisner and Wells created an extremely capable management team – Katzenberg to get the studio working again, Bill Mechanic to drive up the Home Video group, and many others. The company as a whole was loosed from grip of Burbank’s minions and began to run the individual businesses the way they always wanted to be run. Individual line managers were given much more freedom to innovate and explore new opportunities. It wasn’t Eisner that came up with The Disney Stores or Pleasure Island or the like, it was the rank and file in the company.

Eisner’s role at this point was still pretty much the front man. It was his job to smooze the creative community (and raid the Betty Ford Clinic for actors) and to be the “public face” of the company. His actual decision making was limited to reviewing the decisions of others and to bask in the glow of the company’s success. With the passing of Frank Wells and the departure of most of the key staff, Eisner began to assume more and more control. He was never one to distrust his own publicity in the first place and he soon began to see himself in a different light. Playing Big Time Media Mogul is really fun and it made him incredibly wealthy.

But it isn’t easy. What you’ve been seeing for the last several years is Eisner’s true business skills, his true ability unfiltered by layers of other people. And it’s not all that hot. As I’ve said before, he has no particular talent for entertainment. He was just born into a class that would end up as a corporate executive of some sort and simply stumbled into the media industry. One person can not run a company the size of Disney and there will be no turnaround until the company once again has its management staffed talented people skilled in their particular businesses. Right now you’ve got a shopping mall developer running the parks, a running shoe merchandiser running consumer products and no one running the studio. The failure of the top management company and division-wide is now hurting all aspects of the corporation. As anyone whose ever worked for a company knows, it's much easier for a bad manager to mess up a good department than it is for a good manager to improve a bad department.

I remain hopeful about the future of Disney because there is still an amazing amount of talent within the company. Perhaps one day soon this talent will be allowed to flourish again.

 

[YoHo]

It reminds me a bit too much of my Former employer. The CEO's skills as a CEO are lacking. The indivdule managers in many cases are extremely intelligent and great people. The company is falling apart though.

 

[Dad of 5]

Originally posted by Another Voice
“Finally, maybe it's because I could care less about DCA” – that’s exactly what’s wrong with the place. If the park can’t generate any interest among Disney fans (those who even take the time to post on fan websites), what chance does it have of attracting an audience? And the “Play It” version of ‘Millionaire’ was supposed to jump start attendance at DCA by giving us Southern Californians that chance to see a make-believe TV game show. Of course, we can go see a REAL game show being filmed almost any day of the week around here for free. And Disney wonders why the park is a flop…

I'm going to stray a little (but isn't that what forums/fora are for?).

I was always unimpressed by the idea of DCA. It struck me as a California-only park (hence the name, I guess). I live in Louisiana - never been to the "left" coast - why should I care about California? And what the heck does that have to do with Disney? I just get a big "duh" look on my face when someone brings up DCA. Makes me think it's "Six Flags over California" or something. Big deal. (and fire away)

And I had to pick myself up off the floor when I realized the complete silliness of the very notion that DCA, located in SoCal, would draw more visitors with a mock game show. It never occurred to me because the whole concept was so far out of the realm of rational thought.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

While I agree that Eisner and Wells made a great team, and the company does not seem to be achieving the consistent successes it did prior to 1995, I think AV is seriously undervaluing Eisner's role, and overvaluing Wells's. Nothing I have read (not counting posts on message boards) supports the view that Wells was more important to the company's rebirth than Eisner was. I've even seen posters claim that Wells was the creative one. My understanding is that Wells was to Eisner as Roy was to Walt. If anyone has a credible, published source which contradicts this, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Another Voice]

Disney’s turnaround was not the result of either Frank Wells or Michael Eisner – it was the result of hundreds of people allowed to try to do their best. Frank Wells ran the “business” side of the company and set the demand for excellence. Michael Eisner gave the company the cache it needed to attract the high power talent that drove the company.

History is written by the survivors. It helps if the Big Boss also has a publishing company that has to publish his autobiography. But at least some of it has appeared in court records (Katzenberg made sure to get a lot on the record) and there are a lot of people waiting for their non-disclosure agreements to expire…

 

[Douglas Dubh]

I get your point much more clearly this time, AV. Thanks for the clarification. This post and your other recent one on the "great feats of Eisner" thread really give me a reason to look into this further.

 

[KidDurango]

I don't see ABC as a bad move or a bad fit. ESPN alone generated almost as much revenue in its first two years under Disney, than Disney paid for the entire CapCities package When you look at all the other networks and propeties that Disney acquired outside of ABC, it was a real bargain. ABC gets the most attention, but those other networks and media outlets are great pieces of the Disney puzzle.
Along the lines of the Disney=Creativity vs. ABC= Distribution argument, if we were to accept this as evidence of it being a bad thing, then must we also condemn Walt for creating Buena Vista distribution company. After all Disney shouldn't be in the distribution business, right? Walt created Buena Vista because he couldn't get the things he created distibuted. Likewise, there was a fear with the mergers and consolidations going on in the entertainment industry, Disney would not be able to get its creative content distributed on networks owned by other studios, or at least it would get bumped to less favorable spots. ABC is simply a pipeline that allows that Creativity to still make it to the public on Disney's terms, something Walt would have been very fond of.

 

[Captain Crook]

Kid...You don't post often enough but that little piece of "what would (did) Walt do?" logic seems pretty irrefutable to me!

 

[AKemel]

1. Eisner=Entertainment
I have been enjoying all the comments, which without him would not be possible.
2. Eisner=Wrong
I do not know if the decisions he makes are right or wrong. Making decisions and taking chances is what must be done and only those who take chances can ever succeed. Or fail.
3. Eisner’s WWTBAM=Fad
The only mistake that they made was not to put it on 24/7. It is a game show in prime time TV. I cannot believe that people would watch it. I can believe that they do not.