DEBATE: Disney for Dummies!! One man’s opinion!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK, guys and gals. There’s been a lot of talk lately about resorts and how they relate to the Disney experience (Pop Century). The disappointment of rides and areas of the parks (i.e. Dinorama, et al). And even entire parks themselves (DCA, AK). Now, I’m not saying that all the negative talk is true (although I agree with the majority of it). But I’ve laid out, below, what I think is the key to understanding my position on all things Disney. Keep in mind that this is, of course, just one man’s opinion, but I happen to think that it pretty much mirrors Walt’s opinion (through reading about him, his quotes and witnessing the parks he was responsible for building). And as far as I’m concerned, that’s all that matters.

Defining the SHOW:

It’s really simple. All of Disney used to be a SHOW!! That’s it!! Keep this simple concept in mind with every move that they do with the company (especially the parks) and you cannot veer far off the Walt path of magic. Use it as a measuring stick when you judge a ride or attraction or a new resort. Everything they do should be with the SHOW in mind!!

The animation is SHOW. The movies are SHOW. The parks are SHOW. Even the stores are SHOW. Substance matters, of course, but only to make enough money to sustain it. And it doesn’t matter nearly as much as the SHOW! (The purchase of ABC and other non-creative outlets kind of screwed up this concept, but then again, the people in charge really never ‘got it’ in the first place, so their other screw up should come as no surprise at all!)

I can’t stress enough how important that aspect of the entire concept is!! You have to keep it uppermost in your thinking at all times, if you want to think as Walt thought. Remember, he wasn’t a technician, although he liked technical stuff. He wasn’t a businessman, although he was in business. He was a SHOWman!! In SHOW business!! The MOVIE business. Pure and simple!!

And what type of show did Walt want to produce? Again, that’s simple!! And it can be found in any biography about him, over and over again. It can even be found in the “One Man’s Dream” exhibit in the Studios this year. The answer: MOVIES!! Whether it’s a simple cartoon, a full-length animated feature or a live action motion picture, it’s always about the movies. That’s how it all began. That’s what he knew. And that’s what he liked. MOVIES!!!!

In the 1940s he began to think of a way to bring the motion picture experience off the screen and make it a three dimensional, living experience for his audience (not guests but audience, the term hadn’t even been applied yet). Being cutting edge all his life, he was toying with very early and crude (by today’s standards) version of animatronics. He instantly thought of a way of merging this technology with his 3-D movie experience concept. Walla!! Disneyland is born!!!

So what is Disneyland? Again, not too tough, if you know the way Walt’s mind worked. It is nothing more than a living, breathing, 3- dimensional movie experience! And that, my friends, is theme!!! It is not the Poly, exactly. And it’s not Pirates, alone. It is the concept behind those structures and/or rides. That’s why STORY is important. That’s why DETAIL is important. But those two concepts alone, don’t make a building (ride, attraction or even a CM’s costume) “Disney”. It must maintain a MOVIE quality. A movie feel. And remember folks, we’re not talking about an Ed Woods movie experience. NO!!! We’re talking about a full blown, big budget, Hollywood extravaganza!! We’re talking DISNEY!!! Which neatly ties into the last criteria.

There is one last thing to we need to think about before we move into implementing such a unique concept. And that is quality! But quality (at least Disney quality) cannot stand alone. Just as “theme” needs story and/or background and/or detail all tied together in a ‘movie’ frame of reference, quality needs one other factor. Cost. Not cost for the company but cost for the consumer. And the two together equals VALUE which (if you get the theme bit right) is absolute MAGIC!!!!

I think that Walt himself can sum the quality/cost issue up best. Just look at my signature. “Give the people everything you can give them.” Or how about the famous, “Quality will out!!” Or maybe the, “Do it right or don’t do it at all!!” This together form Walt’s entire IDEAL about ‘quality’. (Remember, this is the guy who went bust in his first business, had nothing but $40.00 to his name and yet still bought a first class train ticket!!! He’s the guy that spent enormous amounts of money on a back yard train. He’s the one that insisted, even though he had used all of the company’s and his and his brother’s personal funds, to put a very expensive, real crystal chandelier in a hamburger joint!!!)

Now if you connect all the bits I have outlined in the above paragraphs and they are all done right, you have what I always refer to as the Disney Standard!! That was Disneyland. That was WDW. That was even EPCOT Center.

OK!! So now we’ve somewhat defined what type of SHOW he was offering. It wasn’t a Little Rascals, “Hey! Let’s put on a show, Spanky!!” And it wasn’t an Ed Wood’s movie experience. He was going for his type of film. His way of doing business. A Walt movie. But in 3-D!!!

Producing the SHOW:

Now that we know what we want to produce, how can we insure that everyone is on the same page as far as it’s implementation. That’s the next piece of the “Walt magic puzzle”. And it can be found in Traditions (although you have to be quick, for what once was a three-day seminar has been reduced to a one-day class). Remember the almighty four?

1- Safety
2- Courtesy
3- SHOW
4- Efficiency

And the most important sentence is the one that follows: IN THAT ORDER!!!

So every activity, every building, every ride, let’s face it, every bit of business brought into the company or thought up for the company has got to pass the above test, and most importantly, IN THE RIGHT ORDER! So if it doesn’t endanger someone or being forced into a rude situation then SHOW is the most important thing at the Disney company!! MORE IMPORTANT THAN EFFICIENCY!!! (Hmmm. Vacuum cleaners come to mind!!)

The Disney Standard and Competition

There’s an inordinate amount (in my opinion) of Ei$ner defending based on ‘Business’. It really doesn’t happen much here anymore, but on other sites - WOW (!!) are there “business” defenders!! What does happen here, and I suppose everywhere, is the defense of a ride, resort, or what have you, on the basis of “MARKET”. Capturing a ‘segment’ of the market. This can be broken down two ways. Age discriminating rides and/or attractions. And simple class distinction based on economics. I’ll leave the age thing alone for the time being with the thought that Walt also wanted to produce a place where the entire family can have fun together. It is therefore imperative that the easy answer of thrill rides/kiddie rides be avoided as much as possible as the very concept, for the most part, and taken in moderation, flies in the face of the Disney ideal.

Now, for the economic, social, class type thing. Market segments, if you will, and what Disney should do with them. The short answer is nothing. That’s right. NOTHING!!! I suppose there’s a niche group here or there that should sought. And sometimes different income levels can be accommodated, by in the long run no action should take place to capture a new or different market segment UNLESS you can do so without violating the Tradition’s Holy 4! Now I have to stress that this is just my opinion, but in my opinion, the moment the concept was brought up for the Caribbean Beach Resort, someone at that meeting should have asked 4 little questions.

1- Will we have to compromise “SAFETY” if we build it?
Hmmmm. NO!!

2- Will we have to compromise “COURTESY” if we build it?
Hmmmm. Again – NO!!!

3- Will we have to compromise “SHOW” if we build it?
Hmmmm. Well… Gee… We might have to… I mean… well, let’s face it… the Movie theming thing is gonna be a little thin, but maybe we can squeak by. And you’ll be able to see the parking lot from almost every room. And there’ll be no tableside, full service dining. And the rooms are noticeably smaller. And there’s not a corridor in sight!! And… and… and… (the list of SHOW compromises (small as they may have started at the time) goes on and on).

And someone, who “GOT IT”, would have (and should have) said, “I think we need to re-think the concept, boys! It doesn’t wash with the Traditions thing at all.” And the meeting would have broken up and we would have never started down that slippery slope that eventually and inevitably lead to Pop Century. But instead it was more of a, “How much can we get away with?” attitude that has let “Giant Icons” painted with primary colors, shorter hours with e-ticket profits, diesel belching buses and Dinorama slowly creep their way into “One Man’s Dream”.




OK!! Don't make it a lonely thread.

TALK TO ME!!!!!:bounce:

[raidermatt]

I'm sorry, Baron. Did you say something? Do you mind repeating that?

;)




Need to "digest" for awhile...

[Bob O]

From reading your well thought out post i cant think of anything i diagree with. But the problem is the current management doesnt follow Walts teachings/beliefs at all. If they were followed we wouldnt have the system with the resorts where it is premium/moderate/value with the less money paid the less quality invested. I have stayed at the Poly twice and i found the place to be great with the hotel having everything you would expect from disney. Now i havent stayed at a moderate/value but from the posts i have seen and the amenties offered the class/economic deographics are in full display. And i think when it comes to the 2 latest parks ie-MGM/AK they also didnt follow the philsophy of MK/Epcot or they both would have been built as full day parks from the get go rather than promises of doing so a a later date which would voilate the Walts quotes you noted.
And with the company expanding into baseball/hockey teams and Tv they also went from away from Walts vision and branched out into other business's that dont relate to what the core of the business was under Walts leadership.

[Miss Park Avenue]

That was a very good read. I agree that this formula is what drew so many to Disney in the first place. Two things come to my mind.

1. Buses: I have written in some other debate about if EE was responsible for declining occupancy in Disney resorts (if that was the case) and I got on my soapbox and wrote how wonderful transportation USED to be. I'll spare you the novel but the gist was that people flocked to Disney resorts back in the early 80's not for EE or little trinkets given to us but because just getting around was an enjoyable experience in itself. And didn't Walt build the monorail and WEDway to show us clean mass transportation in a fun way. People today stilll pay the extra $$ for a monorail resort! I say, USE his ideas in other areas in the place. Someone on here had the idea to put a WEDway in Downtown Disney. If it had three stops just think of the congestion it would save there if all resort busses only had to go to one end of DD instead of three. And when we stayed there in the early 80's we had to show resort ID to use the monorail. boat transportation, and busses (I know we can't get rid of all the busses). But talk about incentive for staying onsite! If the big cheeses would hire a mass transit expert to redo the monorail system and add some WEDways and made getting around the joint more enjoyable instead of standing at a bus stop people would be clamoring for a Disney room again.

(BTW, people can (and do) reserve a campsight for a night to get things like EE and e-nights, but I'm getting off subject)

2. This is WALT DISNEY WORLD and this is his baby. It is filled with his ideas and dreams for a better world and sad to say he has been gone for quite a while. It went to being one man's dream to being a million other people's stock option (if that is the correct term, I'm not familiar with investment terms). The top brass don't look at WDW as some expression of themselves. They are not looking to put on a show, they don't "get it". They are looking for some good ink on their resumes.

"Look at me, I was vp of such and such of Walt Disney World.
I did this and this and this.
Everyone knows what a wildly successful place WDW is.
I made little kids happy all over the world.
Hire me and I will do the same for you!"

The only hope I can see is if his family take a stand and not let it turn into some run of the mill amusement park. Your name is all you've got. You want to work hard to preserve the reputation of your family's name (if it's a good one). If they can't fight for Walt's vision, I don't know who could.

[mktiggerman]

Originally posted by Bob O
But the problem is the current management doesnt follow Walts teachings/beliefs at all.

not at all.. they follow the almighty dollar and what it tells them to do (and to a lesser extent, the WDW PR department).

I just think this problem is also rooted in Disney's asinine promotion policy. Promotions at WDW are based primarily on attendance (and education to a lesser degree). So, for example, an absolute idiot who has never called in would be preferred for a promotion over a natural born leader that was sick a day or 2.

[hopemax]

I just think this problem is also rooted in Disney's asinine promotion policy.

Yep, and I get the feeling from the way the DL execs answer the "tell us about your background, and how you came to work for Disney?" question...

it is preferrable to hire someone with no knowledge of the "Disney way" over someone who started out as a ride operator and worked their way up or was big into Disney as a kid. The belief is that the person who grew up with Disney wouldn't bring the "fresh" ideas which would translate into growth.

That's fine to a point, but like everything else: there needs to be balance. Fans shouldn't have to explain who the "Fab 5" are and who they aren't, to the DL merchandising people. Nor should the fans have to explain why it is absolutely ridiculous for DL to not have anything planned for Walt's 100th birthday if WDW is going to be celebrating it too. Both of these I know are things that happened. The more you know your own product, the easier it is to sell it.

[DisneyKidds]

Sheesh! Speaking of the Little Rascals, this won't be the 'He man woman haters club', but the Car #3 'S/he person Disney haters club' ;);). This has WDW discontent lovefest written all over it ;).

As Arnold would say - I'll be back - when I have some time. Thanks for the well thought out and provocative post sir Baron.

[Bob O]

mktiggermann-Sad to hear about the promotion policy and im sure that affects the quality of managment that will impact your job greatly.
Now a company cant turn a blind eye towards profit but if they would be more concerned about quality like they were in the past i believe the profit would take care of itself. They are still raking in millions over movies produced in Walts era, but since katzenberg left do you believe they have done much to refill the vault so the leaders in the future will have anything to mine like eisner had?? Or will the next head of the company be left with a bare vault and the need to refill it??

[DVC-Landbaron]

This has WDW discontent lovefest written all over it Boy. That's funny. I was feeling the exact opposite when I wrote it. :confused:

[WDWHound]

Great post Baron. My only exception to it would be with CBR. I think they did a fairly good job with the theming there. They made only one mistake, the lack of a good sit down restaurant. Yes, you can see the parking lot from some of the rooms, but that is true of the poly, contemp, boardwalk, heck its true for nearly every resort on property. Its a very hard problem to avoid. All in all, I find the CBR very imersive. But I'm just picking nits here, for the most part, I agree with what you are saying about WDW in general.

Show should be king. On of the biggest problems I have with the new Pop Century is that it can be seen from the CBR. Walt would have had a bird. The environment from one show should never be allowed into cross with the environment of another, It completely destroys the illusion. Disney used to go to great efforts to prvent this sort of thing. Now they don't seem to worry about it anymore.

I am very worried about Dinrama because of its theme. What kind of show is a roadside carnival. Thats an experience we can all have at home. Why would I want to go to WDW for that when something very much like sets up in the parking lot of our local mall twice a year? Its almost as dumb an idea as putting a park themed to California in California.

The movies are magical experinces that create worlds that don't really exist, but that we love to spend time in. That is what the parks should be. They should be worlds we can only experience through the magic of Disney. Nothing ordinary or good enough. They should be detailed, magical experiences that wisk you away to another place, another time, another world.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Great post Baron. My only exception to it would be with CBR. I think they did a fairly good job with the theming there. The reason I attacked it specifically is because it is the only moderate I have stayed in. And while it is very, very nice, to me, it isn’t quite Disney. More like a Disney wannabe. I don’t know if that makes sense to a great many people, but I really have a mind set, when it comes to Disney, very similar to the designers of the original WDW. I LOVED what they built and I LOVED Marvin Davis's original master plan. I was therefore a little disappointed when they built the Caribbean instead of one of the MK proposals.

To me the theme seemed a little thin and the ‘quality’ was slightly (only slightly! mind you) less than the Contemporary or the Poly. Now I realize that there had to be differences in order to justify the price, but to me it was a little too much and more importantly, fundamentally I didn’t understand why there had to be a difference. Either a place was Disney or it wasn’t. Plain and simple. Cut and dried. They didn’t build a second ride that was just a little bit dumbed down for the people who couldn’t afford the normal e-ticket. They didn’t build a Disneyland “B” for the people who couldn’t afford the real one. I didn’t “get it”! A Disney resort was a Disney resort. It was either built with the same standards and pricing as the Poly or it was no longer a Disney Resort. To me it was simple. Mainly because I thought they did “Get It”! And I trusted them at the time to carry on Walt’s traditions, pricing and philosophy. HA!! What a sap I was!!!!

And when I read further about it, how Ei$ner & crew took the old regime to task because of their pricing ideology, I knew we were on the road to what I now refer to as the caste system of resorts. And it is this very basic philosophical change that paved the way for “Walt’s” Disney to be replaced by Dinsey®. Now, AV may be able to give you an example in the corporate history that pre-dates mine, but for me, my first day in the Caribbean was a defining moment!! My second (as if anyone was interested) was my first trip to the Floridian, shortly afterwards and the comparisons I drew!!! It is my humble opinion that those two resorts played a critical role in diluting the Disney Standard. I am very worried about Dinrama because of its theme. What kind of show is a roadside carnival. That’s an experience we can all have at home.Mr. Hound!! The answer’s simple!! They didn’t get it when the implemented the differing resorts (tearing down the Disney Standard in the process) and they still don’t get it when they built Dinorama! It really is that simple! Why would you think they’d change? The head mouse is still the head mouse! Maybe next year someone will “get it”!! I don’t think it could be much worse.

[manning]

Landbaron, what's your view on DVC?

[WEDWAY100]

Dear Mr. Landbaron,

This is my first post on these boards, although I have posted actively on other Disney boards, sometimes in defense of Eisner (without the $). I have 30+ years of DL/WDW experience under my belt as well, and I have a slightly different take on it than you do. One thing that I have learned from reading and posting on other boards is that while we all love Disney, we love different things about Disney. After reading your post, I think that you and I share many of the same sentiments. So then why would I defend Esiner? Here goes:

Let's ask the question, "Why does WDW exist?". I think that answer has changed over the years. I think that DL came into existence for exactly those reasons you stated, and that Walt took pride in his accomplishments. However, I contend that the reason for WDW's existence has changed dramatically. It now exists to make money. Period. If it did not make money, it would close. In fact, if it does not return a reasonable profit margin, it would eventually have to close. This actually makes me sad, because the pride, creativity and workmanship that was displayed by Walt and his subordinates is slowly being eroded, in favor of profits.

Given the above, here's my take on Eisner. I think that he and Frank Wells made a great team, and that in the first 10 years, dramatically improved what the company had to offer. But two things had a dramatic impact on Eisner. The first was the financial disaster called EuroDisney. After reading his biography, I am convinced that he was ready to close the place in order to salvage what financial position he could. In EuroDisney, cost overruns were rampant, and the resulting theme park is beautiful, but he was rewarded with the French throwing tomatoes at him and by financial ruin.

The second thing that I think has impacted him negatively was the death of Frank Wells. I think he depended on Wells to help with so many of the decisions, both creative and business. He has yet to find a successor that can fill Frank's shoes.

Do I agree with the recent decisions that are being made? Absolutely not. I am completely insulted by Paradise Pier in DCA. In contrast to DisneySea, which shows what can be done, this area is a poor attempt to rehash old amusement park rides. There is absolutely nothing new in that area, and I refuse to give them money to see their half hearted attempt at an entire land of a brand new theme park. It's almost as if the decision makers there had contempt for their audience.

My last point that I want to make is that Disney is currenly a conglomerate, and while that does put a burden on the parks and resorts division (which is currently carrying the profit burden of other divisions), it is a necessary evil to preserve the autonomy of Disney. If they hadn't bought ABC and expanded into new businesses, I fear that the archway on world drive might say, "Welcome to Walt Disney World, a division of AOL/Time Warner.". If Disney was not a conglomerate, it is my opinion that they would have been bought by now, and would no longer be in control of their own destiny. At least what Eisner has set up is a company that can survive, on its own, after he leaves.

One question I have if he is fired is who would replace him. I don't know much about these types of people, but I think that good ones are very hard to come by. I think Disney could do a lot worse.

I just didn't want you to be lonely on this post...;)

[DVC-Landbaron]

This is my first post on these boards WOW!!!! You gotta like this guy right from the start! :bounce: First post and it’s a beaut!! although I have posted actively on other Disney boards, sometimes in defense of Eisner (without the $).You should try it sometime. It’s a lot of fun!! And Pre$$ler is even more fun!! But seriously folks… Let's ask the question, "Why does WDW exist?".Awe, that’s easy. To make money. Can you give me a hard one? However, I contend that the reason for WDW's existence has changed dramatically. It now exists to make money. Period.But that’s the reason it existed in the first place! I thought we already talked about that. I think the question you are really asking is, “Why was WDW built and operated the way it was?” Right?

So the reason it exists is to make money. Same today as “back in the day”. Walt needed a steady income to bridge the financial ruin that he experienced between projects. The fundamental difference is the way the company makes that money. Period!In fact, if it does not return a reasonable profit margin, it would eventually have to close.I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, Walt himself came dangerously close to closing (or at least not meeting payroll) a couple times very early on. Maintaining a reasonable profit is indeed imperative. Hey so far we agree on almost everything!!! This actually makes me sad, because the pride, creativity and workmanship that was displayed by Walt and his subordinates is slowly being eroded, in favor of profits.I agree!!! It makes me sad too. See: :(

But seriously, you’re blaming profits as the culprit in this disaster. You’ve got it wrong, my friend. It is short term thinking and excessive greed along with a great amount of knuckleheadedness (Ei$ner’s propensity to be terribly inept) that has led to the stock trading today at $14 something a share! I contend that if he had kept the business model of Walt as a basic and fundamental philosophy, he could have made me happy (and by that I mean kept to the Walt ideal) AND made GOBS of money!!! Perhaps you disagree with that. If not, there’s not much more to discuss. If so, why?Given the above, here's my take on Eisner. I think that he and Frank Wells made a great team, and that in the first 10 years, dramatically improved what the company had to offer. Well, if you know me at all, you know I despise personal preference lists, but I really gotta ask: Such as? I mean, how did they “dramatically improve” anything!?!? (Now, I’m giving you a lot of room for me to concede things. Animation comes to mind and there may be others. But it ain’t much and I don’t think it comes anywhere close to “Dramatically”.)The first was the financial disaster called EuroDisney. After reading his biography, I am convinced that he was ready to close the place in order to salvage what financial position he could. In EuroDisney, cost overruns were rampant, and the resulting theme park is beautiful, but he was rewarded with the French throwing tomatoes at him and by financial ruin. I tell you, I have a slightly different take on that fiasco. AV posted a beauty about that one!!! AV – How about a little insight through a rerun (TV lingo for a Hollywood type guy!!). You know, about how the superego wanted more resorts. I can’t remember the details, but I remember the warm and fuzzy I felt being vindicated.The second thing that I think has impacted him negatively was the death of Frank Wells. I think he depended on Wells to help with so many of the decisions, both creative and business. He has yet to find a successor that can fill Frank's shoes.BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO ACCEPT ANYONE THAT DOESN’T SAY “YES”!!! It's almost as if the decision makers there had contempt for their audience. WOW!! You make it tough!! There were so many gems in that paragraph I could have done the whole thing, one by one!!! I guess I’ll have to let this represent the lot.

So!! DCA insults you? A poor attempt to rehash… And DisneySea is the way to go? Not much to disagree with here. I have to hand it to you. I like the way you put your words together. Especially in a paragraph like that one. And I will agree with the whole thing, with one minor correction. Take the “It's almost as if” out!! “The decision makers there had contempt for their audience.”

Wait!! After all that!! That wonderfully worded paragraph. You still think the current regime is the one to head Disney? You really think they “get it”? Gee. After reading half of your stuff I think you convince border line Disney-nuts that EI$ner must go after all!! How can you not see that yourself!If they hadn't bought ABC and expanded into new businesses, I fear that the archway on world drive might say, "Welcome to Walt Disney World, a division of AOL/Time Warner."And the down side to that would be…?If Disney was not a conglomerate, it is my opinion that they would have been bought by now, and would no longer be in control of their own destiny.THEY AREN’T!!! You said so yourself!!! The people in charge don’t “GET IT”!! I think you said, “It's almost as if the decision makers there had contempt for their audience.” But it means the same thing!! You use a sentence, I say they don’t “Get It”!! But it boils down to the same thing. “DISNEY”, the Disney we all know and love is NOT in charge of it’s own destiny. Ei$ner is. And that just two completely different things!!
At least what Eisner has set up is a company that can survive, on its own, after he leaves. Tell me. Does the $14 something stock price tell you that or is it something else? Cause quite frankly, I don’t see it!!One question I have if he is fired is who would replace him.I’ve got my resume at the ready. At least I “GET IT”!! And you don’t sound so bad yourself!! Throw your hat in the ring!!

I’m being a little flip, I know. But I am serious at the same Time!! ANYONE could do as good a job. And very few could do worse!!I don't know much about these types of people, but I think that good ones are very hard to come by. I think Disney could do a lot worse.I totally disagree. As I said above, a mere guest who GET’S IT, would do worlds better that an inept, egotist. I just didn't want you to be lonely on this post... :bounce: For that I am truly grateful!! I love talking and you’ve made me think more than I have in a long time around here!! THANKS!!! :bounce:

[MikePezz]

This has WDW discontent lovefest written all over it

Baron and others (sometimes myself included, though never as detailed or as eloquently) point out the shortcomings or even flat out failures of recent developments at WDW because it pains us to see something we love treated with such disrepect. It is a sad state of affairs when the customers have a better understanding of the brand philosphy than the company 'leadership' (and I use the term loosely).

[DisneyKidds]

WEDWAY - a well Disney educated contemporary for the good Baron to disagree with ;). Welcome aboard and I hope we will see more of your posts on this little corner of the net :).

I contend that if he had kept the business model of Walt as a basic and fundamental philosophy, he could have made me happy (and by that I mean kept to the Walt ideal) AND made GOBS of money!!! Perhaps you disagree with that. If not, there’s not much more to discuss.

But lets discuss this Baron. If Walt were alive today would he have 'compromised' any of his 'standards' in running his beloved WDW. I know your knee jerk answer - but hold back the ponies and think. At least admit that not even you can really answer that question. The world is not a vacuum my friend, and what worked for Walt in 1972 he might not have found worked for him in 1992. I'm not saying it wouldn't have - but I can't just assume it would have.

Baron and others (sometimes myself included, though never as detailed or as eloquently) point out the shortcomings or even flat out failures of recent developments at WDW because it pains us to see something we love treated with such disrepect.

I know that Mike - I was just playing with my good friend Baron ;).

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Manning. I did not forget or ignore. I have truly been thinking. It got so that the question bothered me soooo much that I asked all my kids, my brother, my friends and my parents. We all came up with the same answer.
Landbaron, what's your view on DVC?We like it just fine. No complaints and pure MAGIC!!!!

Thanks for asking!

[airlarry!]

Paging Dr. Landbaron:

I re-read one of your classic posts where you argued that we of the not-to-be-named carpool gang where like Disney Doctors looking at a patient that on the surface seemed healthy but in reality had systems that were failing on the inside.

If we look at your summarization of The Disney Way (with apologies to Lasorda et al), and we listen to the rumblings on The Street, and we read the fly-on-the-boardroom-wall hints from M. AV, doesn't it look to you like there are people right now preparing the patient for pre-op?

[mjstaceyuofm]

Originally posted by WEDWAY100
...One question I have if he is fired is who would replace him...

My simple answer is Steven Jobs - head man at Apple and Pixar. He has a creative, maniacal genius about him (although in the last decade he has toned down and mixed a good dose of 'business-sense' into the equation) that I think would be perfect for Disney. I know... far-fetched and ludicrous. But I do think he could do some real good for Disney if he had a decent yin-yang support team to back him up.

[Sarangel]

I'm sorry, but this one has always bothered me:This is WALT DISNEY WORLD and this is his baby. It is filled with his ideas and dreams for a better world and sad to say he has been gone for quite a while. It went to being one man's dream to being a million other people's stock option (if that is the correct term, I'm not familiar with investment terms). Walt Disney World is a memorial to Walt from his brother Roy. Walt died before more than the most preliminary drawings were done. Yes, it incorporates many of his ideas & was built by craftsmen who understood his philosophy, but Walt had very little to do with 'the Florida Project.'

That being said, I think that our own Landbaron (among others) has stated the case for what is wrong with Disney®. This is a point that we often see on this board, that the quality and craftsmanship has gone out of what Disney does. It is our natural tendency to blame the top brass, i.e. Eisner. And it may, very well, be his fault.

I, personally, don't have any problems with hotels like the CBR (although I'm holding my vote re: All Stars and PC). Different people want different things from their lodging. I really liked CBR, but it was my first visit to WDW & I confess I didn't want or need an immersive resort, since I was *way* too pooped at the end of the day to do anything but collapse into bed. I found it entirely pleasant in the morning to wake up, cross the island, feed the Ibis and catch a light breakfast before heading out to the parks again. It felt to me as though I was commuting from a carribean island.

Sarangel

[Miss Park Avenue]

Originally posted by Sarangel
I'm sorry, but this one has always bothered me:Walt Disney World is a memorial to Walt from his brother Roy. Walt died before more than the most preliminary drawings were done. Yes, it incorporates many of his ideas & was built by craftsmen who understood his philosophy, but Walt had very little to do with 'the Florida Project.'
Sarangel

Thank you for clearing up my error. The point I was trying to make was that The place was NAMED Walt Disney World and anyone who tries to run it may not be as concerned with the quality if it wasn't considered a direct reflection of his name of that of his family's. In my opinion.

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
WOW!!!! You gotta like this guy right from the start! :bounce: First post and it’s a beaut!! You should try it sometime. It’s a lot of fun!! And Pre$$ler is even more fun!!

Ei$ner Ei$ner Ei$ner Ei$ner Ei$ner Ei$ner Ei$ner...

OK, you're right. It's fun.


Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
But seriously, you’re blaming profits as the culprit in this disaster. You’ve got it wrong, my friend. It is short term thinking and excessive greed along with a great amount of knuckleheadedness (Ei$ner’s propensity to be terribly inept) that has led to the stock trading today at $14 something a share! [/B]

Short term thinking on whose part? And here we have the problem. In today's trading environment, quarterly numbers matter more than long term growth potential. That's not Ei$ner's (oops, slipped there) fault. That's the fault of greedy inve$tor's thinking that growth should occur every quarter forever. We know that idea must be incorrect - simple math will tell us that, yet we (as inve$tors) demand it. So that's the environment that any CEO of Disney or any other public company will work in. Maybe the way stocks are trading recently will teach us all to go back to investment fundamentals.

I'm not saying that I agree with everything Eisner has done. Obviously in my first post, you can tell that I have a real problem with many of the current decisions. But remember that because of the short term mentality of inve$tors today, making a huge investment in a new park or attraction represents more risk to him than it would have in the past. He learned that in a big way with EDL. I think that with him there has been a pendulum (sp?)at work, and that with EDL, it probably swung too far in the direction of huge capital investments and risk taking. Now it has swung too far in the other direction, with attempts to minimize capital investments and reduce costs, while still growing the company.

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
I contend that if he had kept the business model of Walt as a basic and fundamental philosophy, he could have made me happy (and by that I mean kept to the Walt ideal) AND made GOBS of money!!! Perhaps you disagree with that. If not, there’s not much more to discuss. If so, why?Well, if you know me at all, you know I despise personal preference lists, but I really gotta ask: Such as? I mean, how did they “dramatically improve” anything!?!? (Now, I’m giving you a lot of room for me to concede things. Animation comes to mind and there may be others. But it ain’t much and I don’t think it comes anywhere close to “Dramatically”.) [/B]

It may have made big money, and may not have. Not sure about that. Depends on how much it costs to build and maintain it. As far as dramtic improvements, I should have elaborated more. My thinking is dramtic improvements over prior management (Card Walker, etc..). Although that group was able to open Epcot, it was a pale image of what Walt had in mind. The company was in financial trouble, and Eisner and Wells dramatically turned that around. Both live action and animation are clear examples of that. If we want to talk about specific impact to the parks, I noticed a very conscious attempt to raise quality from say 1984 until 1994. I notice some of these things more than others would because I visit the parks frequently. For instance, the entrance to Liberty Square in the MK was redone and looks much better. The partners statue at the hub and the fact that the terrible black pavement in FL and Dumbo has all been redone. These are examples of things that will have no bearing on bottom line profit, and had not been done in the past. Maybe that's not dramatic, but I really appreciated it.


Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Wait!! After all that!! That wonderfully worded paragraph. You still think the current regime is the one to head Disney? You really think they “get it”? [/B]

I'm not sure if they don't get it, or if they think they are constrained by what they think the market will bear. If you had asked me that question on April 12, 1992 (opening day of EDL), I would have said yes, they get it. So was it only Frank Wells that got it? I don't think so. One thing's for sure: it's not always true that if you build quality and give people the best that you can, that you will make money. Wells and Eisner worked together well as a team, but it's only been Eisner that's had to deal with company expansion post EDL. I'm not sure what changes Wells would have made.

One thing that we disagree on is that it is easy to find a replacement for Eisner. There are lots of CEOs that fail. I just don't think it's an easy position.

As for Disney being aquired by someone else, just ask how the people at Universal feel reporting to a French water and sewer company who has them on the block. I may have disagreed with several of Eisner's recent decisions, but at least whoever is in that position can make a final decision and not have to bounce it up another level.

Man, It takes too long to do this, and my brain hurts. Thanks for the debate!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

WEDWAY100!! I thought you’d gone away. Even if it is a long time between posts, I can tell you’re going to be a lot of FUN!! :bounce:

So let’s get at it, shall we?Short term thinking on whose part?On Ei$ner’s part, of course. Now, I agree with an awful lot of what you say in you’re assessment of modern day investing. But I think that much too much emphasis is placed on it.

It is important to keep in mind that the type of LONG TERM thinking that I say they lack, is definitely NOT exclusive. There is no reason in the world why both short term (quarterly, even yearly) cannot coexist with a carefully thought out long term plan. In fact, in my opinion, there is every reason in the world to encourage that type of thinking!! I never said that they should concentrate solely on the long term to the exclusion of any short-term gains. But they have so skewed their plan that there is NO long term thinking (let alone planning) at all!! EVERYTHING, every ounce of their beings, is going into bolstering the next quarter’s bottom line. And most of the time it is an inflated picture, painted as rosy as possible, and being financed and funded by “the parks”, to their LONG TERM detriment!! Don’t you agree?

And please remember that the short term thinking I was referring to is just one aspect of several other (and perhaps even larger) problems with the current management. The other two (and there are probably hundreds more) are ‘excessive greed’ and sheer ‘knuckleheadedness’.

Now, maybe it’s only me, but I’m getting a little upset reading the recent stock quotes for Disney, seeing my hard earned cash going down the toilet and at the same time realizing that Ei$ner has a quarter of a billion in his pocket and he won’t even keep the MK opened a measly extra hour for me in the middle of July!! I’ll admit that there’s some mixed up thinking there on my part. But I just can’t help feeling a little screwed over at times by this guy!! So the esoteric conglomerate concepts mixes with the highly personal feelings and comes spewing out of my fingers and onto the keyboard in rants calling for the tar and feathering of the guy who’s causing me pain!!

And the last of my major complaints is his ‘knuckleheadedness’. Now, we’ve been through it all before on this site, and I’m definitely NOT the money and accounting type (more your Disney philosopher type I think ;)), but I believe that for the same amount, or even substantially less in some cases, significant investments can be made in “The Parks” than is spent on stupidity (i.e. ABC, some cable outlets, big budget bombs, etc.). There are many here who deal with these numbers and the logic behind them all the time (Mr. Head, AV). They may be able to fully debate the issue. I can merely point to the failures and say, “See guy!! I couldn’t tell you why, but I did tell you I felt this was a bad move. And I was right!!” I guess the bottom line for me, and most of the world the past few days, is Ei$ner is just inept. Period!

He learned that in a big way with EDL.I am afraid you are right. He did learn that lesson in Paris. However, as typical of character and indicative of his ‘knuckleheadedness’, he learned the WRONG lesson. What he should have learned is that WDI knew what they were doing when planning the parks and hotels. What he should have learned was to keep his micro managing nose out of things that are clearly over his head. What he should have learned was that he was an upper class American, not French or European, so he may not have ‘instinctively’ known all the answers. Instead, he learned NOT to do things the Disney way. See!!! The guy’s a knucklehead!! Plain and simple!!

I think that with him there has been a pendulum (sp?)at work, and that with EDL, it probably swung too far in the direction of huge capital investments and risk taking.First off your spelling is impeccable (not that I would know without my spellchecker, but “pendulum” didn’t pop up!!) Anyway, you say that it swung too far in the direction of “huge capital investments and risk taking”. But do you know what direction that was? It was in the resort area that he micro managed the project into the ground, over the strong objections of WDI. One of the first and another clear example of his ‘knuckleheadedness’.

My thinking is dramatic improvements over prior management (Card Walker, etc..). Although that group was able to open Epcot, it was a pale image of what Walt had in mind.Oh!! On this we agree!! Very pale. And there are other threads currently alive that point to this concept. But to just leave the sentence out there that, “it was a pale image of what Walt had in mind” leaves the impression that the Walker/Miller administration was nothing but pale. And yet they had the ba... the ah… well… they had the “GUTS” to build a theme park that was radically different than anything on the face of the planet. And to the tune of a BILLION dollars of risk!! And it became second only to their own MK. Not bad, I’d say. And you really have to consider that, for good or bad, they were terribly constrained in concept, as they really tried to at least keep the ideal, however loosely, of their mentor. I personally believe that Ei$ner would have rejected EPCOT immediately with no further consideration. So, in retrospect, I think Walker/Miller did a damned good job of it!! Much better than Ei$ner would have done. Don’t you?

The company was in financial trouble, and Eisner and Wells dramatically turned that around.WRONG!!! I’m sorry!! Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts!

Seriously. This one really bothers me. And everyone thinks it at one time or another. Even I did. The truth of the matter is that they were NOT in “financial trouble”. They had under developed and unused asset that made them very ripe for a take over. They had vast real-estate holding which had risen to unbelievable heights because it was situated next to WDW in Florida that were not being utilized to its full potential. And they were sitting on a film vault that was better than a gold mine; it was a cash machine!! Now they did get lucky with Katzenberg. The Studio segment of the business soared with him in charge. But it soared in spite of Ei$ner, not because of him. And it failed miserably after Ei$ner gave him the boot. So in reality, all Ei$ner and crew did, was nothing more that an undergrad college student would have done with a couple of business courses under his belt. He unlocked the film vault money making machine and built up the Florida land holdings. I really want to know what else he (and even Frank Wells) did that was so dramatic?

Both live action and animation are clear examples of that.Well, I must say that Jeff K. did a wonderful job!! But remember that The Little Mermaid was well in development under the Walker/Miller reign. And also remember that EI$ner didn’t like the project. He didn’t want to do it. His “BIGGIE” and personal favorite was The Rescuers Down Under”!! Sorry. But I have to say it again: Another clear example of his ‘knuckleheadedness’.
For instance, the entrance to Liberty Square in the MK was redone and looks much better. The partners statue at the hub and the fact that the terrible black pavement in FL and Dumbo has all been redone. These are examples of things that will have no bearing on bottom line profit, and had not been done in the past. Maybe that's not dramatic, but I really appreciated it.OH MY GOD!!! Don’t say that again!! Of course it has a bearing on the bottom line!!! My goodness!! It is EXACTLY what I’m all about!!! “These are the things that dreams are made of!!” (Obscure movie reference!) ;)

And you noticed some improvements that coincided with Ei$ner’s beginning. Fair enough!! LET’S TALK MAINTENANCE!! Let’s talk Paul Pre$$ler and Disneyland!! Let’s talk Paul Pre$$ler and WDW a couple of years ago!!! Nothing and I mean NOTHING in the Walker/Miller era could even come close to the dilapidated shape of the parks under his reign!! And to be honest, I really didn’t notice, and not many have posted, about the sorry condition of the parks before Ei$ner took the helm. Quite the contrary. They usually say the opposite.
One thing that we disagree on is that it is easy to find a replacement for EisnerWHOA!!! I think you misunderstand what I said. And in all fairness I may have said it wrong (I don’t know and I’m way to lazy to look it up!)!! I said (I think) that ANYONE. Who “Got It” would be better than Ei$ner. And I truly believe that. But only in the sense that it would be no worse at all and probably a little better. I believe, for a company like Disney he is the worst! We need someone with a vision, and someone who not only will attend Traditions, but also understands the underlying principles that are taught there. It is, after all, a somewhat unique company.

No, It will not be easy to find a replacement. It’s only easy to find someone who won’t screw it up as much as Ei$ner. Any poster on this board who do better, at least as far as the parks go. But to find a true leader, the will guide Disney to the very top of it’s game and that fully “Gets It”? Very hard indeed!!
As for Disney being acquired by someone else, just ask how the people at Universal feel reporting to a French water and sewer company who has them on the block.And yet I see WONDERFUL things coming from the northwest direction I-4. Why is this, do you suppose?

I may have disagreed with several of Eisner's recent decisions, but at least whoever is in that position can make a final decision and not have to bounce it up another level.What difference does it make if the ultimate decision turns out WRONG anyway??!! What’s the difference between a ‘higher level’ allowing them to build a very “Disney-like” park or a sole decision maker getting it wrong? Or worse yet, being inept!

Man, It takes too long to do this, and my brain hurts. Thanks for the debate!!Ahhh! No, my friend!! The pleasure is all mine! I THANK YOU!!!! :bounce:

And if it’s any comfort, my brain hurts, too!! :crazy:



PS: I like your name!! They should never have let WEDWAY or least the concept of it go by the wayside!!!

[raidermatt]

When good long-term planning is strong for a long period of time, and then goes by the wayside, it takes awhile before it shows up in the numbers. After all, that's why its called long-term planning. The effects, good or bad, usually don't show-up right away.

The problem is that once the negative effects do show-up, you've got a serious problem. It takes an up-front investment to reverse the trend, and the positive impact likely won't be felt for at least a few quarters, and maybe even a year or two. That's not what Wall Street wants to hear from somebody who has managed a company into declining performance.

So even if the light bulb did go off in Eisner's head, I'm not sure he could do anything about it now anyway.

[treesinger]

So even if the light bulb did go off in Eisner's head, I'm not sure he could do anything about it now anyway.

Matt, that's a view I've held as well. If Eisner was literally possessed by the spirit of Walt with every great idea in the world, Wall Street, the investors, and the board STILL wouldn't trust him to turn it around.

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Seriously. This one really bothers me. And everyone thinks it at one time or another. Even I did. The truth of the matter is that they were NOT in “financial trouble”.....

...So in reality, all Ei$ner and crew did, was nothing more that an undergrad college student would have done with a couple of business courses under his belt.

I may be wrong about this, but if I remember correctly, profits were decreasing every year, and the studio was capable of "B" movies at best. I have to admit that I liked Snowball Express, but the Apple Dumpling Gang never did anything for me. If my memory serves me right about the numbers, profits were under $100M/year. The business was shrinking. Now maybe Card Walker and Ron Miller should have hired an undergrad college student, because they didn't know how to use the assets they had. Ei$$$$$$$ner did. (Now THAT was fun!)

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
What difference does it make if the ultimate decision turns out WRONG anyway??!! What’s the difference between a ‘higher level’ allowing them to build a very “Disney-like” park or a sole decision maker getting it wrong? Or worse yet, being inept![/B]

The point is that if the CEO is someone that we both agree "gets it", then I want them to have control.

Let's say that you, Mr. Landbaron, were now in Ei$ner'$$$$ position. You have a fabulous high quality idea to add a $300M E-ticket attraction to the parks. Since Disney is still its' own company, you could say, "So shall it be written, so shall it be done!" And just like that, thousands of new budget codes would be created.

But suppose that your predecessor had sold out to Vivendi a few years before you took office. You fly to France to convince the execs to give you the money. The conversation might go more like this:

LandB: I have a great idea for a $300M attraction. It will increase revenue and profit in our parks and resorts division!

V exec: No. We are installing ze X-2000 sewer filter this year, so zat our customers will have ze very clean toilet water. And by the way, ze X-2000 is $500M, so we will be needing extra profit from you this year.

LandB: But you can't have higher profits while letting the product deteriorate!

V exec: Go away. You annoy me. Viva la France!!!

Seriously, I agree with most of what you say, so we're really not that far apart. In all honesty, I am on the fence about Eisner and whether he should stay or go. If he goes, I just want the board to be very careful with who they hire.

Your turn...

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hello Mr. 100!! And welcome back!!

BTW, before we start Ei$$$$$$$ner is even too much for me!! ;) (but you're right!! It is fun!!! :crazy: )


The point is that if the CEO is someone that we both agree "gets it", then I want them to have control. Exactly!! I agree!! That is indeed the best possible solution. But that's not what we were talking about. You see, there are more possibilities here. First we need to establish one tiny given that we can both agree on. A stipulation, if you will.

The current CEO is someone doesn't "get it"
I feel this is the current situation. Ei$ner doesn't "get it". Plain and simple. Never has, never will. If we accept this as a working premise we can explore options. Can we so stipulate?

If so, that leaves us with four possible scenarios. Two that 'get it' and two that don't. Also, two that are part of a bigger corporate structure and two where Disney stands alone.

The next CEO doesn't "get it" either but Disney is still stand alone.
There's not much of a potential for being better. And we really can't get much worse and remain competitive.

The next CEO Doesn't "get it" either and is part of a bigger corporate structure.
No better, that's for sure. And could be a little worse, but, but not by much. Hey! We're pretty close to bottom right now!!

The next CEO "gets it" but is part of a bigger corporate structure.
Better off!! And I'd venture to guess that we'd be much better off. We'd have a champion in our corner. An anti-Pre$$ler type, perhaps! You're right. It ain't perfect, but boy oh boy, it'd be GOBS better that what we have today!!

The next CEO "gets it" and Disney is still stand alone.
Much, much, much better off!! Walt reincarnate!! HOORAY!!! The LandBaron stops posting on the DIS!!! Spends untold amounts buying more DVC points!! Was heard say, "There's no such thing as enough points!!!!" He truly does become a (DVC) Landbaron!!! :bounce:

But suppose that your predecessor had sold out to Vivendi a few years before you took office. You fly to France to convince the execs to give you the money. The conversation might go more like this:... I understand what you are saying. And in the long I have to agree. BUT!!

But, I contend that Disney has already been swallowed or 'sold out'. Ei$ner did that over the years turning the Disney company into MEGA-Disney!! A monolithic conglomerate that cannot possibly look at the parks as anything more than printing presses for cash. And I know it's selfish. And I know it's probably unrealistic. But I look at EVERY move this Corporation makes and relate it to how it affects MY parks!! And he has already sold us to the highest bidder. And that turns out to be ABC, GO.COM, under performing publishing companies, under performing animation studios, under performing film studios, etc. etc. etc!!

The list of his ineptness is almost endless!!!

Seriously, I agree with most of what you say, so we're really not that far apart. In all honesty, I am on the fence about Eisner and whether he should stay or go. If he goes, I just want the board to be very careful with who they hire.I'm glad you agree. And I agree as well. I too, hope that board considers very carefully. Very carefully indeed. They need to hire someone who knows the difference between a commodity and the SHOW! And which one Disney should be 'selling'!!!

[BRERALEX]

And he has already sold us to the highest bidder. And that turns out to be ABC, GO.COM, under performing publishing companies, under performing animation studios, under performing film studios, etc. etc. etc!!

that was awesome. never looked at it that way. i feel like ME is a pimp and the parks his H@3$. wow

ahh i just wanted to get my post count up

and my walt quote down there read sum more :p