DEBATE: The difference in philosophy

[DVC-Landbaron]

I believe that the difference in philosophy all boils down to motive. In other words, what is the driving force behind the decisions made? In essence, what is the ultimate goal! To create? Or to make money? While they are not mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily the same things. It is the age-old question of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Or in our specific case, what is the primary (first) motivating factor? The chicken (profits)? Or the egg (creativity)? It is to that end that I offer the following:

Walt:
To create, showcase and experiment with new and exciting entertainment concepts, attractions, vehicles, shows, etc., establishing the highest standards of quality possible, while maintaining prices relatively low, thus creating tremendous brand recognition for a quality product, unheard of and unprecedented long-term brand loyalty and in the process, and almost as a byproduct, raking in unbelievable amounts of cash!!!

Ei$ner:
To make as much money as possible by utilizing and marketing a well established brand name and providing entertainment venues for the public, pricing that product as high as the market can possibly bear.

Anyone disagree?

[Peter Pirate]

...and almost as a byproduct, raking in unbelievable amounts of cash!!!
This is just too niave LB. If you've read as much about Walt as you say, especially the early years you'd know that making "unbelievable amounts of cash" was no secondary accomoplishment...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bstanley]

Herr Baron, first I should answer the question - I agree in concept with your descriptions (although the provocative language used made me smile :-).

Second - for some reason I hadn't thought of this before reading your posting Herr Baron - but you know - one big difference between the two of them is that Walt had 'ownership' of what he did. And i don't mean company ownership.

As someone pointed out in another thread - it's 'DISNEYland' and 'WALT DISNEY Pictures'.

When it's YOUR name on something you don't want people to remember it for the WRONG reasons...


PS - Congratulations on fitting it all into 189 words ;-)

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Ei$ner:


Does the $ crudely inserted into his name mean you see him as a very successful buisness man (which he is)?

And as Pirate pointed out, you must have the blinders on when it comes to Walt if you believe the cash just started rolling on in as if by some lucky accident.

[raidermatt]

And as Pirate pointed out, you must have the blinders on when it comes to Walt if you believe the cash just started rolling on in as if by some lucky accident.

We all know Walt wanted his business to be successful. If he didn't, he wouldn't have even started it in the first place.

Different businesses have different philosophies. And certainly there is more than one way to succeed in business.

There are plenty of successful people who have set out with the goal of making money in mind. However, there are also many successful people who set out to do what they love, and made money because they loved what they did, had a talent for it, and were passionate about it.

The question is, where do Eisner and Walt fall with regard to these differences. Forget for a minute whether Walt's style is right for today, or if Eisner's was right for 1950 Disney. Just focus whether there is a difference in their philosophies.

Given that, do you really think there is no difference?

If you do see a difference, and don't like Baron's analysis, how would you describe the difference?

[DVC-Landbaron]

This is just too naive LB. If you've read as much about Walt as you say, especially the early years you'd know that making "unbelievable amounts of cash" was no secondary accomplishment...And
And as Pirate pointed out, you must have the blinders on when it comes to Walt if you believe the cash just started rolling on in as if by some lucky accident. OK fellas. How would you word it? Come on. Lay it on me! What were the motivating factors?

Peter, you’re especially good at criticizing my work. How about if you dazzle us with some of your own!! Come on - Go for it. Lay it out as succinctly as possible. A little paragraph on each. Same as I tried to do. Describing both of their philosophies. PLEASE!!! I’m dying to hear it!!

Does the $ crudely inserted into his name mean you see him as a very successful buisness man (which he is)?SUCCESSFUL!!!?? Have you checked out the stock prices lately?!?!? What about GO.COM? How about that great FOX deal!?!? And that ABC thing… Well… NAH! He’s good at lining his pockets. And for thinking in terms of $$$ instead of pixie dust! That’s why the ‘$’. (Hmmmm. I thought this was common knowledge!!) (Hmmmm (again). I don’t think it’s ‘crudely’ inserted!!)

Herr Baron, first I should answer the question - I agree in concept with your descriptions (although the provocative language used made me smile :-). And PS - Congratulations on fitting it all into 189 words ;-) THANKS!! FOR BOTH!!! :bounce:

[caseymaureen]

I think part of the difference is that Walt was willing to risk money for many reasons, one being to make more money, but others being to make a better park or a better movie just to keep up the integrity of the Disney name. Eisner wants to make as much money as possible with no investment or risk.

[Bob O]

Ditto's too DVC!!!!!!
While Walt wanted to make money, he put the "show" first and foremost which has NEVER been the model for eisner!!!!
Which is why as a example he started the Magic Kingdon Club which has now been reduced to a simple charge card scam.
Does anybody think eisner would have had the forthought to have started a whole new industry like Theme parks on his own and would have had the vision to buy up thousands of acres of land for his dream???? Would have he had the guts to do this with his own money like walt did when he made Snow White/DL??? And came close to bankruptcy doing so??

[Planogirl]

I agree with BobO that Walt put the "show" first but he also had Roy there to deal with a lot of that annoying money stuff. If Eisner has anyone like that, I'm certainly not aware of it.

The Disney company is also a megamonster of a company now, much more of a headache to manage than what Walt was dealing with. Should this fact change one's philosophy? No, but it is bound to have some kind of influence.

Should any of this excuse Eisner's actions? Not in my opinion because Eisner seems way too busy trying to squeeze every penny out of what works or at least did work at one time. He seems to have no vision on how to keep the magic strong or how to make it even better.

[JDH]

Perhaps we're talking methodology as opposed to philosophy. Both methods achieve the same results however it seems to me that Walts was long term focused and included the people who worked with/for him. Ei$ner's is more focused on himself, his legacy, his survival, his ego and his personal finances.

The real difference is that one lasts and the other fades away with the individual. Somehow, unless you're a member of the same corporate club as he is, I can't imgaine we'll be singing Ei$ner's praises or celebrating his 100th birthday 30 or so years from now as we do Walt.

[BRERALEX]

are we comparing apples and oranges?

Ei$ner will never be able to reach the same level of accomplishment as Walt. We shouldnt even compare the two.

doesnt feel right.

I wonder if Ei$ner has a philosophy

Eisner is in the company to make money and exploit the brand as much as possible which is obvious.

Walt I think had money secondary no matter what anyone tells me. Walt was a thinker a brainstormer a guy who went to sleep never satisfied because he knew there was more to do. there was more to create.

He couldnt be satisfied with just disneyland not cause he needed more loot but because he knew he could build something grander something else unique unto itself. ex. epcot. I dont think he was looking at his bank account regularly. I f he did it was to see how much he could spend to build the biggest and best next thing.

I think people like to think Walt was out to mostly make money because that puts him in a category with Ei$ner and makes them feel better.

Ei$ner is a pimp. not the second comming.

but to me it's apples and oranges.

[WebmasterCricket]

Agree! (Unsure of the by-product part though)

Walt Di$ney: I ask the accountants for a "green light" after the intial R&D and ignore them if I want to make the end product work = "Bambi"

Ei^<big>$</big>ner: Ask the accountants for a "green light" before I have an idea, and then make any idea fit the amount I am allowed to spend and blame it's failure on someone else's shortcomings. Hey I got paid = "fill in the blank"

Notice that the $ is higher in Ei^<big>$</big>ner than in Di$ney? I did this because they both wanted to make money, just one of them put it higher than anything else.

[WEDWAY100]

Interesting topic, my good Barron. I mostly agree with your ideas, but find them just a wee bit different than my own.

My stab at methodologies goes like this:

Walt:
Assemble a team of the best artists and craftsmen. Using those talents, find the best possible new idea and work on it until it’s perfected. Then execute the idea, regardless of financial risk.

Card Walker:
Do what Walt would have done, whatever that is. Except put a heavy emphasis on reducing financial risk. Don’t do anything, unless we are guaranteed good results.

Eisner (pre EuroDisney):
Use all current assets in the manner that maximizes profit for each asset. Create new assets with tried and true (read old) ideas, regardless of financial risk.

Eisner (post EuroDisney):
Use all current assets in the manner that maximizes profit for each asset. Buy new assets if possible. If not, create new assets with as little financial risk as possible.

[raidermatt]

Notice that the $ is higher in Ei$ner than in Di$ney? I did this because they both wanted to make money, just one of them put it higher than anything else.

I suppose you could say that's accurate, provided you put the $ sign into every single businessman's name that has ever lived...

However, if we can't get beyond the point that ALL businesses are supposed to make money, and instead focus on the differences within those parameters, there's not much point in talking about it.

[ohanafamily]

I really think that Walt was out to make something, a legacy if you will. I think he was conscious of the $, but he did as much as he could within the budgets. I bought a book of quotes from him while we were at WDW 2 weeks ago, and many of those quotes seem to show that $$$$$ were secondary...I bought the book to keep up with the barons...at least as far as the quotes go...
:bounce:

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by raidermatt
I suppose you could say that's accurate, provided you put the $ sign into every single businessman's name that has ever lived...

No, just those with the letter "s" ;)

JC

[BRERALEX]

The Quotable Walt Disney is an awesome example of the differences between these two men and why we cant compare them.

The Quotable Ei$ner would be about how many cuts were made to increase profits at any cost. And he'll use the brand to market the book and exploit it to the fullest extent

[Peter Pirate]

The quotable Walt Disney, while being an excellent source of Waltisms and quotes is a highly biased and flattering portrayal of the man. Now, there is nothing wrong with that but don't use this book as a testimonial as to what he is all about unless you're just as willing to use "A Work In Progress" as an accurate portrayal of Eisner.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[BRERALEX]

define "A Work in Progress"{pimpin aint easy?}
is thats Ei$ners book? i didnt read it

[raidermatt]

There's a reason there is a "Quoteable Walt Disney" and not a "Quoteable Michael Eisner".

[BRERALEX]

There's a reason there is a "Quoteable Walt Disney" and not a "Quoteable Michael Eisner".

swear i was gonna say that as i was staring at my copy of the quotes book but thought nah too easy. darnit!

[raidermatt]

Nah, I took the easy way out. Your "pimpin" comment took much more effort!:)

[WebmasterCricket]

I think that was the "revised fifth edition", which also went straight to video and Disney DVD:

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid38/p1915795e648d649c82687d6914c4954b/fd111919.jpg

JC

[DVC-Landbaron]

Oh come on! There you go again, Peter!!! Spouting off, condemning, criticizing and being plain old ornery without giving us your own views. I'm still waiting for you to tell us all what your thoughts on their philosophies are.

Still thinking it over? Good!! Take as much time as you need. Think it over carefully. I'll bet it will change the DIS community forever once you let us in on it!!! Heck!! It might even thaw out that frozen one!! Before you know it, we won't have anything to talk about except where to go for dinner!!! ;)

But something tells me I shouldn’t hold my breath!!



Originally posted by Mr. J. Cricket
I think that was the "revised fifth edition", which also went straight to video and Disney DVD:

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid38/p1915795e648d649c82687d6914c4954b/fd111919.jpg

JC WONDERFUL!!!!! :bounce:

[SnackyStacky]

How could a man who, in efforts to realize his own dreams, went bankrupt COUNTLESS times before finding success use money as a bottom line? That doesn't make any sense. If he did, the first time he went bankrupt, he would have given up and did something lucrative yet completely unfulfilling.

He may very well have wanted money out of the realization of his dreams, but after all, who doesn't? Who doesn't want to leave a hearty nest-egg for their kids, grandkids, and any number of descendants to follow?

I'm not sure that there is enough understanding for what an artist feels. And let's face it, when all is said and done, Walt is an artist. An artist will go through ANYTHING to realize a dream. And while money is usually a byproduct of the realization of that dream, it is NOT the driving force.

This isn't something that's easy to explain to anybody that doesn't have a dream like that. When you hear a singer say "All I can do is sing.", or an actor say "All I can do is act.", it's not some cliché, horrible expression. It is the truth, and it comes from the heart. It doesn't mean that acting, or singing, or drawing or is the only thing that the artist is capable of, it means that that is the only thing that they can do to be happy. They could easily take some office job, but be completely miserable. And when they look back after retiring from that office job, even if there are BILLIONS sitting in the bank, saying "I wasted my life. I accomplished nothing". It is the worst fear of an artist.

I can say this with some of the strongest convictions I've ever held for ANYTHING because I am there. I'm a singer, and the only thing I can do is sing. I won't get into specifics about exactly what I've given up, but I've given up a lot to be where I am. The paycheck I bring home is because I work my butt off as an ARTIST.

And the thought that I will have worked my whole life, to build something up, to have somebody come in, take it over, and focus on MONEY using [i]MY NAME makes me sick to my stomach.

People have used different examples of things to show one side of Walt, and others have come along and said that it was due to his ego, or some other feeble excuse.

Walt's name was on his product, and it was his dream. Be it a movie, a theme park, a city of tomorrow...it was all HIS. And if it was his, then he wanted to make sure that his dream, his work were to his standard; to the quality that he deemed appropriate, and if that meant a strain on the budget, then that meant a strain on the budget. It didn't matter, because it was his DREAM.

I see absolutely none of that with Eisner. So there are some road signs. So there are some fountains. So WHAT?!?! There is NOTHING that has been accomplished by the hand of Eisner that tells me he can relate to that artist's feeling.

Would Walt have purchased cable networks? Maybe. He very well may have. But you can rest assured, that he would have made sure it was quality. Tell me where the quality, the vision, and the art are in running Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? four times a week until people are so sick of it that it is cancelled.

Walt very well may have ventured into internet services had he lived to see the internet. But it would have been quality. The only reason I can see that Go.com was bought is because of the boom of the .com's. And Eisner wanted a piece of that multi-billion dollar pie. But the pie overheated and blew up in his face.

Eisner, even if his motive isn't profit, has it all backward. The visionary should be head of the company. The finance people should be next. Eisner ain't no visionary.

[DVC-Landbaron]

This isn't something that's easy to explain to anybody that doesn't have a dream like that.Yeah!! I know the feeling!! I've tried my best to explain it to Mr. Kidds and he just doesn't get it!!!! ;)

[BRERALEX]

Tell me where the quality, the vision, and the art are in running Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? four times a week until people are so sick of it that it is cancelled.

drew carey complained about this on Howard Stern last week relating to his own show saying that the ratings suffers because he is on TOO much.

Nah, I took the easy way out. Your "pimpin" comment took much more effort!

and look at the wand above Spaceship Earth {pimp stick}
selling out the brand at every turn
:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by BRERALEX
and look at the wand above Spaceship Earth {pimp stick}
selling out the brand at every turn
:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: Yep!! Isn't it funny the way the different cars look at things? It seems as though I remember having this discussion with others who point to this sign as added magic. And yet, without ever really knowing Sir ALEX's take on it, I knew he would HATE it!! And he does!! I'll bet Sir Raider does as well!! And Scoop, Peter and Mr. Kidds either don’t care or may even like it!!

I don't think it's anything you can really put into words. It's more or less a feeling... an impression that attacks you the moment you see it! It just FEELS wrong!!

Hmmmmm. And after thinking about it for quite some time I think I know why.

JUST CAUSE IT IS!!!! ;)

[raidermatt]

You know, you'll probably want to beat me with that wand for saying this, but I have trouble with that one...

I definitely don't like "Epcot" being up there. That's an insult to my intelligence (what limited amount there may be...). It would be like putting a "Magic Kingdom" sign on Cinderella's castle, or "Animal Kingdom" on the Tree of Life.

Duh!

But the wand with the stars.... its like I know it shouldn't be there, and I wouldn't have a problem if it went away, but I also can't hate it.

I guess its just one of those guilty pleasures... (Even though its only a "sort of" pleasure, if that makes any sense)

I know it doesn't fit with the concept of the park, and especially Spaceship Earth. I know the right thing to do is to take it down, and I realize the motiviation behind it is faulty. But still, I just can't get too angry about it... at least until I see the Epcot part.


Note: Edited for worse grammer than I usually spew out...

[DVC-Landbaron]

I know it doesn't fit with the concept of the park, and especially Spaceship Earth. That's all I meant. Lord knows we all have guilty pleasures!! But it's that 'feeling' I'm talking about. That sense of "Disney". That sense of right and wrong!

[aalan]

for me, its very simple:

disney was an artist, a creative person with a vision. that's what drove him. i think he was aware of costs and money, but that was really roy's problem. walt understood "magic," no matter what the cost. i am an artist (painting, drawing, computer graphics), and its just a different point of view on life. pushing ahead, creating something NEW and different was what excited walt. he would be APALLED at the travisty that is called epcot. (another debate, i know, just mho)

ei$ner is a money man. this is all he really understands. he does not have a creative bone in his body and has little vision. its all about the bottom line. wells and katzenburg and ei$ner were a decent team, but without the other two, ei$ner is lost and has outlived his usefulness. he cant wait to collect his stock options. seeing a profitable bottom line is what ei$ney gets excited about, never mind that it got made by cutting shows, cutting hours, taking away ee, etc, while 2 half parks remain open and the other two parks havent even been seriously upgraded in any way in years...(hopefully ms is as good as it promises)

it wont be an easy person to find, but disney needs a creative visionary to replace the bumbling ei$ner a.s.a.p.

[SnackyStacky]

he would be APALLED at the travisty that is called epcot.

Definitely a different debate, but I just had to say that maybe he would have, but the vision he had for it, I believe, could have only been realized by him. I think that the Imagineers did a good job, and made it the best they could without Walt's vision and guidance.