Walt stuff - Long (even for me) but GOOD!!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

I saw this recently on another site. I personally have a tremendous amount of respect for the author. He was responding to another post. I do not have the original, but I have encapsulated the quotes in the normal "DIS' fashion. I thought I'd share it with the people on this board because it cuts to the heart of what we talk about so often. And it also happens to mirror my sentiments, 99.9%. Read it, slam it, agree with it. But PLEASE consider it!!!

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I do not think that there's a thing wrong with Walt's ideals, as we've discussed them here. I do think that Disney today has a substantially different audience, and that this audience has to be approached differently *in order* to effect Walt's ideals.
I think you have definitely hit upon something here. Disney has, since the construction of WDW's third gate (MGM), been approaching the aspects of running the theme parks differently. As I have made the point before there has been a shift in focus from quality to cost. This becomes a problem when the very thing that you sell is a quality experience. Many have defended this shift in focus by pointing out that Disney is still better than six-flags, or Universal and the like. And while this might be true for the present, there is nothing that I see in the on-going developments which leads me to believe that this will always hold true for the future. Doing things the Disney way has never been cheap. Walt used to drive Roy crazy with the expenses that he would rack up, but in the end Walt was right. People do feel and know quality. Why did Walt purchase an expensive authentic cut glass light fixture when cheaper fixture would do during the construction of one of Disneyland's restaurants? The logic at the time went, "why spend the money for people to eat 50 cent hamburgers under it".. But the point which everyone missed was that it wasn't the 50 cent hamburgers which was important. It was the experience. Most average people didn't get to experience the beauty of a fixture like that in there everyday lives. People have "cheap" in their daily lives. When they would come to his park, it would feel different than the everyday world. That light fixture, and thousands of other expensive detail items would help to send that message to people. Its part of that hidden quality which makes a Disney theme park what it is, and not like every other amusement park. Well, until Eisner came along..

First the decline starts with "Lets build a park smaller, and cheaper than the normal billion or so that it costs us to build a Disney style theme park." And from that central idea - flows everything else in the project. The message is sent.. this is to be designed smaller, and cheaper. Lets limit the use of Audio Anamitronic technology to one major attraction to keep the costs down. Put more shops in because with less attractions to occupy people's attention, they will have more time to linger in the shops and spend.. and so on. Do you notice the difference in how things are designed? Walt used to start with the principle of building a place that he would be happy to bring his family - or as he used to call it "Making it Friendly". Now, we design the place with the idea that "we have to build this cheaper than we normally would." In any large organization simple things help to set the tone of how a company conducts itself. Because this project (MGM) was deemed to be a success, it has spawned AK , and then finally DCA. And when you look at DCA, and how badly the whole thing was slapped together - you can see just how far they have departed from Walt's ideals.

It's not that I would have the Disney company try to divine the intent of how Walt would handle any given situation, but rather I would like to see them adopt Walt's principles almost as a mission statement about how they go about doing things. Rather than asking "What would Walt do" in any given situation - I would much rather them consider if what they are doing violates any of Walt's principles.. Consider some of Walt's principles;

"Keep the Place Friendly"--

Does over marketing the parks, and packing them full to the brim with people serve the guest experience well? Does Allowing the transportation system to fall behind the needs of the guests help to keep the visit enjoyable?

"A word may be said in regard to the concept and conduct of Disneyland's operational tone. Although various sections will have the fun and flavor of a carnival or amusement park, there will be none of the 'pitches,' game wheels, sharp practices and devices designed to milk the visitor's pocketbook."--

Does the company now have a policy that no new attraction be completed with out a shop at the exit placed in such a way as to have the best shot of "milking the visitor's pocketbook"? Has the company lately undertaken a program to place carnival type "pitch" attractions and games (Including game wheels) within Disney theme parks? Has the company recently developed a theme park basically recreating a seaside carnival park?

"When we consider a new project, we really study it - not just the surface idea, but everything about it. And when we go into that new project, we believe in it all the way. We have confidence in our ability to do it right. And we work hard to do the best possible job."--

Are new projects really studied thoroughly? or are new projects OK'd simply because Eisner "likes" the idea? (See DCA...) For Example where are the extensive studies, such as Walt would have ordered, showing the DEMAND in southern California for a theme park based on California??

"I have never made pictures exclusively for children. But I regard them as important members of the family, and we have always considered their age, experience and taste in selecting our theatrical productions."--

Are the needs and age of children still being considered at Disney? Was DCA constructed with children in mind? Is pleasure island the type of place which is a wholesome environment for children? Are more "roller-coaster" type attractions being installed that because of height restrictions children can't ride?

"I think what I want Disneyland to be most of all is a happy place - a place where adults and children can experience together some of the wonders of life, of adventure, and feel better because of it...I felt that there should be something built where the parents and the children could have fun together...it all started from a daddy with two daughters wondering where he could take them where he could have a little fun with them, too."

Are all the Disney theme parks still places where adults and children can experience all of the attractions together?

"Americans are a sociable folk; we like to enjoy ourselves in crowds, at sports areas, at picnics, fairs and carnivals, at concerts and at the theater. Above all, we like to laugh together - even at our own shortcomings. I don't like to kid myself about the intelligence and taste of audiences. They are made up of my neighbors, people I know and meet every day. Folks I trade with, go to church with, vote with, compete in business with, help build and preserve a nation with."--

Have any recently developed attractions utilized humor as a storytelling device? Is Disney themed entertainment still focused towards the "average" person? or do we see the expense and costs of it getting so far out of line as to be a stretch for the average family?

"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

Is the company concerned first and foremost with money? Is the company run constantly letting the button line dictate creative decisions? Are theme parks now built on "the cheap"? Are long time Disney employees being let go to reduce the salary expense to the company? Are needed infrastructure investments being made, or put off in the interest of short term profit?

"I don't want the public to see the world they live in while they're in the Park. I want them to feel they're in another world."

Are new Disney theme parks developed with a berm so that the outside world is shielded from the view of visitors inside the park?? or are they now building theme parks where you can see city streets from several vantage points in the park (see DCA). Do we need McDonalds restaurants from the everyday world inside the parks??

"I believe the fun is in building something in bringing new things to life. We never do the same thing twice. After we've finished a job....we head in another direction. We're always opening new doors."

How many movie sequels does the company now produce? Which new directions in theme park entertainment has the Disney company taken? What new groundbreaking park is being built in the states? What new doors of entertainment is the company opening?

"Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved."

Does Eisner walk the parks daily? Is there a spirit of constant improvement as regards the attractions, or are attractions shortened and redesigned so as to contain costs and provide opportunites to milk the visitors pocketbook?

"The more I go to other amusement parks in all parts of the world, the more I am convinced of the wisdom of the original concepts of Disneyland. I mean, have a single entrance through which all the traffic would flow, then a hub off which the various areas were situated. That gives people a sense of orientation - they know where they are at all times. And it saves a lot of walking."--

Are new Disney theme parks developed according to this hub and spoke plan? (See MGM, DCA,) Are Disney theme parks looked to as the inspiration the world over for theme park design, or does Disney look at other theme parks for its inspiration and ideas??

"When we were planning Disneyland, we hoped that we could build something that would command the respect of the community and after 10 years, I feel that we've accomplished that, not only the community but the country as a whole."

Does the new Disney theme parks accomplish the respect of the communities around them, and the country as a whole? Is the Disney image becoming something different, based on money rather then good wholesome entertainment.

"It's something that will never be finished. Something that I can keep developing, keep plussing and adding to."

Are new attractions added, or do we loose more attractions then we gain? Is the park constantly being plussed with new E-ticket attractions?

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

Has JUST another amusement park been grafted onto Disneyland's parking lot? Does the company exist to create and have fun, or only to make money?

"To try to keep an operation like Disneyland going you have to pour it in there. It's what I call 'Keeping the show on the road.' Not just new attractions, but keeping it staffed properly... you know, never letting your personnel get sloppy... Never let them be unfriendly. That's been our policy all our lives. My brother and I have done that and that is what has built our organization."--

How are the staffing levels at the parks? Have there been cutbacks in staff levels? Has there been an unusually high number of accidents and injuries at Disney theme parks?

"The first year I leased out the parking concession, brought in the usual security guards - things like that - but soon realized my mistake. I couldn't have outside help and still get over my idea of hospitality. So now we recruit and train every one of our employees. I tell the security police, for instance, that they are there to help people. The visitors are our guests. It's like running a fine restaurant. Once you get the policy going, it grows."

Does Disney subcontract some of its food service? Does it allow outside vendors to sell in the parks? (See Dipping Dots, and McDonalds)

"Well, I think by this time my staff, my young group of executives, and everything else, are convinced that Walt is right."--

Are the executives still convinced? Do they even care anymore? Do they sell this man's image for the almighty buck, but do not care what he stood for?

"That quality will win out. And so I think they're going to stay with that policy because it's proved that it's a good business policy."--

Do they still think its a good business policy to do things in a quality fashion, as opposed to a cheap fashion??

"Give the people everything you can give them."--

Notice he did not say "CHARGE the people as much as you can charge them"

"Keep the place as clean as you can keep it. Keep it friendly, you know. Make it a real fun place to be."

Is it still friendly? Maintained according to the principles and concepts that Walt began?

Finally, the civility and respect for property found in the 1950s no longer apply, and different ways of designing and maintaining the parks must be implemented to respond appropriately to those changes.

By the same token we have newer materials, paints, and so forth which should be more resistant to wear than what we had in the 1950's. Remember also that Walt was testing graffiti resistant finishes in Tomorrowland, and had an eye to engineering EPCOT to be resistant to wear and blight. Had the company continued following Walt's path it could have easily kept pace with the more destructive behavior of the modern guest.

As people living in the modern age, we like to think that our times are somehow more different than those which came before - but the same drives and passions that affect us, also affected those who lived and worked in previous generations. Very true, which is why the classic films still work. (And thank goodness they do!)

Lets not forget that the classic theme park attractions also still work quite well.

And this lack of patience is also a factor. Notice the length of attractions that have closed of late, and that *all* of their replacements (with, I think, Buzz Lightyear as the only exception) are shorter. This shortened attention span impacts the types of attractions than can be attempted, and the length (and therefore the depth) those attractions can run.

Why are most major motion pictures still 1:30 to 2hrs long?? Following this same logic, motion pictures should be shortened to 15 minutes because the attention span would not allow for anything longer. Walt made no distinction between a movie or a theme park attraction because they are both mediums for telling a story. They may have to spend more for effects, as with movies, to keep the attention of the guest - but that is only a reflection of the sophistication of the guest today. Attraction length should be as long as it needs to be to properly tell a story.

No, but human attention span has, more's the pity.

I think the shortened attention span can be compensated for by investing in greater technology for the attractions, not making them shorter.

Story must come first.

I agree.. Indeed Story is what makes a theme park different than an amusement park. The Guest is supposed to have an involvement in the attraction from the story line - not just a cheap physical thrill (see DCA for a classic amusement park - VS Disneyland as a classic theme park).

I'm not sure Disney theme parks are all that different financially, so long as you include a reasonable value for goodwill. Right now, Disney is recouping some of their prior investments in goodwill, drawing it down as one might from a savings account

They are able to do this because people expect certain things from Disney which the company is not any longer providing. They are also selling Walt's memory, and nostalgia. This will not last forever, because people are not stupid. Walt knew that people were smart enough to sense things which are authentic vs. things which are fake. As soon as the word hits the general guest population that Disney is out only for money, and could not give a darn about Walt's principles then the whole card house is going to come down around them. They could use the goodwill for great things, and new accomplishments but instead they are sucking in down to compensate for poor management, and poor creative decisions. This can not last.

and perhaps the Disney company would do well to think about what he stood for, and what he believed in. Or perhaps he passed from being a person to being a symbol. As he once said, "I'm not Walt Disney anymore, all of this is Walt Disney."

If indeed Walt has become a symbol.. then what does he symbolize? Things done the right way, vs the cheap way? Why, even after being dead for so long, does this symbol have so much appeal? It is because people know what he stood for, and the way that he operated his company. Regardless, if the Disney company abandons his ideals, symbol or not, they are sure to be the worse for it.

Thus when we ask ourselves, "What would Walt do?" it's not so much a question of what one old dead guy might have done, it's more, "How does this fit into the whole Walt Disney universe?"

Walt once said, "Somehow I can't believe there are many heights that can't be scaled by a man who knows the secret of making dreams come true. This special secret, it seems to me, can be summarized in the four C's. They are Curiosity, Confidence, Courage, and Constancy". If the company fails to keep CONSISTENT with what Disney has always stood for, and been, then they will fail, and Disney as we know it will be but a memory. It is not to sit around and try to figure how Walt would have done something.. but rather to figure out if what they are doing is consistent with Walt's principles of quality entertainment. Today they seem to have dismissed these principles in favor of a philosophy where by cost is the over riding concern. The whole Walt Disney universe that we have wasn't built on cost concerns, it was built on creativity and quality.

If one takes the question that way, as do many -- Marty Sklar included -- it's not a foolish question at all, for all of us who work there, and all of us who care about what Walt began, *are* now Walt Disney. It's a serious charge, and one I'd like to see more people step up to, inside and outside the Company.

This whole question of Walt's ideals, and the way that Marty feels towards asking that question, really gets to the heart of what is wrong with imagineering. The creativity is still there, yet they don't apply it correctly because they worry too much about cost, and not enough in keeping consistent with Walt's principles. Marty will retire soon (or so Im told) and then this will be a moot point, because I am sure his replacement will have never even had met Walt Disney, let alone worry about keeping consistent with his principles.

If nothing else, they couldn't do any worse then they already are, with the way they are running things now. I don't know, isn't that line from one of those "Famous Last Words" lists?

Not to my knowledge.. But then again someone, somewhere might have said something along the same lines. Regardless it is still true.

- - - - - - - - - -

OK, DVC here again. Yeah, I know. This guy is even more wordy than me!! (That's why I love him!!!) Anyway, what do think?

[JeffJewell]

...as you might expect, I agree with almost all of what this poster has to say.

This will not last forever, because people are not stupid. Walt knew that people were smart enough to sense things which are authentic vs. things which are fake.

This is the only part I currently disagree with. I no longer believe that the mass of consumers in this country are "smart enough" to tell the difference between quality and cheap crap.

In larger numbers, we are realizing that Disney is pretty expensive, considering their cheap crap is no longer qualitatively different than the cheap crap everyone else is pumping out (or so DCA's and AK's revenues would suggest. I can't point to attendance figures anymore, because the new "parkhopper" addition to DL tickets will hugely increase DCA's attendance, but will do squat for actually increasing revenue in WDW West. That's the problem with metrics, maximizing a metric in a vacuum often has no effect whatsoever on what the metric was supposed to measure in the first place), but I have lost hope for a wide-scale backlash against the "cost over quality" mentality Disney has demonstrated.

The fact that so many people seem eager to _defend_ that mentality still baffles and disheartens me.

Jeff

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow a great read! I agree with everything except for ranking Universal with SixFlags. Universal in my ever so HO is a excellent resort destination and is right up there with Disney on the quality scale.

[Wantogo]

Very interesting article, though i notice several errors in logic.:rolleyes:


One is the statement is:

"First the decline starts with "Lets build a park smaller, and cheaper than the normal billion or so that it costs us to build a Disney style theme park." And from that central idea - flows everything else in the project. The message is sent. this is to be designed smaller, and cheaper."

Though DCA is smaller, i think that was due space constraints rather than wanting a smaller park. And $1.4 billion to build the DCA is no small drop in the bucket.

As for Animal Kingdom (again a $billion plus park) is the largest Disney Park at 500 acres. by no means small. No doubt this park will grow and mature over time.

All-in-all i agree with the article. I see some very valid points being made here.:)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Very interesting article, though i notice several errors in logic.

Such as? :confused:

[swinginevilmike]

This article is truely a work of art...http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/biggthumpup.gif I just wish I knew more about the buisness aspect of Disney to join you in your quest Landbaron but I fully agree with your position 100%...

[JimV]

I agree with most of the article, but one point I would like to make is that I feel WDW is now losing the initiative to other organizations. When MK and Epcot were developed they were pushing the state of the art. There is still no place like Epcot it is a marvelous idea (even if I am getting tired of "Sponsored by" ads on the rides I am paying a ton of money to go on).

But since Epcot -- reacting versus initiating... What is outside of WDW stealing money from the Mouse's pocket must be emulated!

Hotel/Motel revenue
Answer : build tons of rooms of a wide assortment of varieties and prices

People going to Wet and Wild
Answer: build waterparks

Universal Studios
Build Disney-MGM

Busch Gardens
Build AK (but leave out the cool mythical beasts)

Mini Golf Courses
Build Winter/Summerland and Fantasia

and these are just the start ...

Well I need to get back to work,

-- JimV

AKL is innovative, but most of WDW developed in the last ten+ years seems to be "me too"

[DVC-Landbaron]

Oh my! What a terrible showing!! I would have thought that a provocative piece of perfect prose (don't ya love alliteration!!) such as this would have had the Ei$ner defenders crawling out of the woodwork! Where are the Peters, Captains, Ducks, JeffHs, YoHos and all the others.

Or perhaps I should take their silence as tacit approval of the piece. ;)

Your turn….

[ww52]

Sorry I don't have a lot of time to reply to this excellent thread. It did hit one particular thought that I had shared on a prior thread. That is, with the "cheapening" of the brand, will "Disney" mean the same to our children and their children as it does to us? Or will the cheaper parks and made for video sequels take their toll?

You can disagree about whether DCA is or isn't good or cheap - but I've never heard anyone compare it to DL or MK or Epcot. Regarding the sequels - unheard of in Walt's day (and he even set up my expectations as a kid for a Lady/Tramp II with the Scamp comic strips in the papers). But no sequels.

Again - will Disney mean the same to our kids and grandkids as it does to us? I doubt it, unless they stop drawing down the goodwill and start building it back up.

[larworth]

Gee, exactly which of his two points did you want us to comment on (lol).

A good summary of the many topics we have debated from time to time. If someone asked me what it is people spend their time arguing about in these forums this would be a nice list to give them.

However, I didn’t gain any new perspective on any single topic. Tying a complaint to a quote, doesn’t make it any more salient for me. I could also take issue with some of the connections he makes, but that seems more like an exercise in semantics, than substance. Also, I was a little afraid to pick on one issue, as it might be easy for us to go off track (lol)

Sure I missed a few, but here are some of the past debate topics it touches on:

Transportation
Crowds and on-site hotels
Exit gift shops
Cost for the average person
Real world intrusions – sponsorships, McDonalds
Park layout DL versus others
Sequels - cheapening of the brand
Profit versus non-profit operation
Half parks
Rate of growth - new attractions
Changing attention spans
Cutting corners on attractions, safety, maintenance
Use of contractors
Eisner too hands-on, too removed

There were a couple of new ones that did catch my attention:

Do classic attractions really still work?
Should all rides really be family rides?
Is lack of humor based attractions really an issue?
Does the average person really perceive a change in quality?

So we could pick a topic to charge off on, or we could just try to look at the list as a whole and ask not if any single one is true, but are enough of them true to make us worried.

I do have some concerns, but I don’t cry foul in every instance.

[YoHo]

A good read, I agree with much of it. (considering the bulk of it asks the reader to think for himself, I was able to draw my own conclusions for better or worse) I agree with Larworth. It would be a waste of time to debate the minutia. here are even some Diney quotes which I would say Walt, I luv ya, but your wrong. (don't start blubbering DVC, its a few minor things that we've gone over before so I won't sa it here)


I guess I'm really not in the mood to debate today. too much work to do, not enough time to do it, and since I haven't got the calle from Roy E. to move out to Burbank :jester:
I'm kinda in a wait and see with Atlantis to see what happens with the company.

[JeffJewell]

will Disney mean the same to our kids and grandkids as it does to us? Nope.
are enough of them true to make us worried. Yup.

Jeff

[pnelson]

"Will Disney mean the same to my kid as it does to me?"

In a word, yes. He doesn't realize or think when he goes there that Disney is being cheap or cutting corners.

He's too enthralled with the magic before his eyes...

...the characters from the moview brought to life

...the parades

... the rides-new and old

...the food

... the souveniours

He also loves the water parks and swimming at night at Port Orleans. He will remember these experiences for a lifetime.

I grew up going to Disneyland and while we had 1 or 2 day trips, my son has 10 day trips to a place with 4 theme parks and three waterparks. He gets to ride busses, boats, ferries, trains and monorails.

On rainy days, he gets to watch his favorite videos (I don't think Walt envisioned the changes "renting" videos would bring to the movie business. He loves the sequels because they bring his favorite characters back to life in a new adventure.

I also mourn the loss of some of my favorite attractions and get very upset when I encounter a rude castmember.

However, the magic is still there every step of the trip for me and my son.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Larworth says:
Tying a complaint to a quote, doesn't make it any more salient for me.
Ahhhh. I see. To me it is just the opposite. Tying a "Disney" business practice to a quote from Walt is very salient. It is in this way I stay grounded. It is through this process that we can ascertain Walt's management and amusement park philosophy. He didn't lay down written tenets. He didn't write a "How To" book on amusement park management. He didn't subscribe to popular business doctrines. He didn't point to other companies and/or individuals who were accomplished businessmen. (In fact he rather disliked and had little respect for most of those "sharp-pencil-guys".) Instead he gave interviews when asked specific questions. And luckily for us, he liked to talk about his park. He was rather proud of it.

So we can learn what was behind the parks. What made Disneyland and later WDW different. The concept wasn't invented in a board room. It wasn't hatched in a business school. If an undergraduate had put out Disneyland as a business plan, complete with dissertation, the poor slob would have FAILED to receive his Ph.D.!! He would have been laughed out of the university. As some business oriented pundits (even on these boards) laugh at us Walt defenders today. My point for this exercise is that it worked. And is working, DESPITE Ei$ner's ineptness. But that it won't work forever unless we hearken back to the words of the founder. The creator of the magic. We have to understand the logic behind the philosophy no matter how illogical it seems to be in a business sense. Many refuse to acknowledge that unusual business practices created the Disney magic that we all LOVE. Some give it a brief nod but cry that "times have changed", "business is not what it was in the fifties" and so on. BALONEY!!! It'd still work today if given half a chance.

But instead we have Ei$ner's version of Walt's dream. And that ain't good enough!!!
So we could pick a topic to charge off on, or we could just try to look at the list as a whole and ask not if any single one is true, but are enough of them true to make us worried.
OH YES!!! Worried right down to my socks!!! Just look at the differences in the original post between the "Walt" philosophy and the "Ei$ner" philosophy. That was the main reason I posted it. For me it clearly laid out the differences. Some minor. Some major. But WOW!!!! Are there a lot of them!!!
Four words: "The good ole' days" As in everyone looks back at the 50s as if it was they were perfect. But, oops, they forget the bad things and only remember the utopic "pleasantville"
Don't quite understand this. How was the past distorted?
I consider the water parks, downtown disney, boardwalk, cirque, disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, fantasia gardens, and animal kingdom to be improvements because they increase the scope and options of my vacation. I realize some may disagree and view these as inferior substitutes to more gates.
I can't believe that you DON'T view these additions as inferior. Some are nice. Some are lousy. But none of them live up to the grandeur of EPCOT or MK!! And I'm not out for additional gates. GOOD LORD!! Quite the opposite. I want them to do the gates they have the right way before they even consider adding anything else. I feel the same way about the rides. PLEASE Disney!!! Do it right or DON'T DO IT AT ALL!!!!!

Ask yourself. How many things have they done "right" lately? Even as far back as MGM? You ask me to name specifics. I say everything. NOTHING has been done "Right"!! In keeping with Walt's philosophy. (With the exception of the Water Parks.) And since you mentioned AK, let's get specific. How can you possibly defend half a park. I will grant you that the half they have is wonderful. And I make it a point to visit every time I'm in WDW. But there really isn't much to do. And you're not talking to a guy that clamors for "E_TICKET" rides every chance he gets! No!!! Absolutely not. But something more innovative has got to be done with the place before I consider it done "right". Do you really think it is a full park? Opened in the way a Disney park should be opened? Like EPCOT was? Or they way they opened WDW? If you really think that, you are easy. IOA should have really knocked you for a loop. I think it's sad when the only amusement park since 1981 to open in a "Disney" style, is a non-Disney park!!!

[hopemax]

I cringe when I see Animal Kingdom brought up as a point of how things aren't being done well on other boards. I cringe because the discussion doesn't seem to go in what I consider a productive discussion and tends to degenerate into rehashes. However since I am new to the rumor board, I will post a few comments.

:)

There is an arguement that in this day in age it is economically unwise to build a complete park like Epcot or the Magic Kingdom or Disneyland Paris. I am not convinced that this is true, but am willing to conceed that point for the time being. I may change my mind after DisneySea. :) Disneyland and MGM are examples of how the strategy of starting small has payed off. So in that respect I think the 1998 Animal Kingdom was a wonderful park, and a good way to lay a foundation for a sucessful park.

Here's what happened in the next 5 years though,

Year Two

MGM - Honey, I Shrunk the Audience Playground, Star Tours, Sorcery in the Sky
AK - Kali River Rapids, Maharajah Jungle Trek

Year Three

MGM - Muppet Vision, Beauty and the Beast Stage Show
AK - redo of Dinoland stage show

Year Four

MGM - Mid-day parade (Aladdin), Voyage of the Little Mermaid
AK - Dinoland coaster, Primeval Whirl

Year Five
MGM - Tower of Terror
AK - ?

When I look at that, I can't help but think that Animal Kingdom should be more than what it is and that with the execption of Year Two the improvements are not of the type that will encourage guests to return year after to year.

[DVC-Landbaron]

If you've followed any of my posts in the past, you will see I have an aversion to lists. I find that they tend to muddy the issue rather than clarify it. I can, and have, although not strictly in list form, named specific items in WDW and about the Disney company in general that are well done. Well done indeed!!! Things that turn my crank so to speak. That I find MAGICAL!! But that really doesn't do anyone any good. We can all come up with our own lists. I mean we're all fans. That's why we're here!!

No. We're talking about business philosophy. Not particulars. Not specifics. We really aren't arguing about what color Mickey's Toon House should be painted, but weather it should be painted before or after a guest might notice! And should the guest see the painter painting!! A subtle difference, but one that makes all the difference. So, I'm talking about the basic foundation of what the company was built on, and continues to build on. And how these concepts have changed over the years. That was what the opening piece was supposed to convey. And for the most part in Walt's own words. Evidently it missed the mark in your case.

Now you may think that I painted with too broad a brush when I said that EVERYTHING was on my list of non-Disney things added to the parks, specifically WDW, since 1981. I wasn't kidding. It all goes to philosophy. When Ei$ner took over, COST became the overriding factor. Magic took a prominent, but secondary role, in the philosophical outlook of the company. If ever there was a conflict between the two concepts, COST won. And it is very apparent in EVERYTHING they have done (with a few minor exceptions: the water parks come to mind, and DVC, but I know the reason for that one!). So, I thought it would be incumbent for you to name a specific that was indeed conceived, built and priced with the old fashioned "WALT" ideals.

And when I read your post I my first thought was, "Oh my God! There are too many to choose from. Where do I start?" Perhaps MGM. Nah! Still too broad. AK wasn't good enough for you. Well what about the rest of your list? Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, Cirque, Disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, Fantasia Gardens. Most, if not all, are glaring examples of what the original Disney concept is NOT!! Downtown Disney family oriented? Cirque Disney at all? Fantasia Gardens!! Are we really down to talking about mini golf!! Come on!!!

But then it occurred to me. We already had a list. And it is about as complete a starting point as I could think of. Of course it still may not match your criteria, but if that is the case then I'm at a loss. You will have to guide me into a conversation, because I really don't know what you are looking for. BTW, I thank Larworth for the list!!!

1. Transportation
2. Crowds and on-site hotels
3. Exit gift shops
4. Cost for the average person
5. Real world intrusions - sponsorships, McDonalds
6. Park layout DL versus others
7. Sequels - cheapening of the brand
8. Profit versus non-profit operation
9. Half parks
10. Rate of growth - new attractions
11. Changing attention spans
12. Cutting corners on attractions, safety, maintenance
13. Use of contractors
14. Eisner too hands-on, too removed

Care to discuss any of these?



Hopemax,

I agree with what you say, but I have a huge problem with the concept that puts us in that position in the first place. You see, I will not concede the point at all. It must be done right - or - DON'T DO IT AT ALL!!!

Given that philosophy we don't have to discuss the rest of your post because it is glaringly apparent that it was NOT done right in the first place.

[YoHo]

I still to this day cannot wrap my mind around how we can allow Walt whgo without reposting numerous quotes:
Was Quality focused
Argued over the budget
Blew the budget away and yet

He did not build a complete park. We allow this claiming, he didn't have the money yadda yadda when in fact we've just pointed out that money was not the concern quality was. You cannot have it both ways. Either Walt intentionally left the park unfinished choosing to build what he built at the level he demanded. Or, he simply built half a park not realizing it was such.

Now I'm not nearly old enough to have gone to Disneyland in 1955. Not even land baron is (by my guess) But I've seen more then enough pictures. And the pictures show a park that has few rides (except fantasyland) and few things to do elsewhere.

Even WDW MK went without certain completing rides for a couple of years.


My point is this. Building "half" a park is both subjective and irrelevent in theory. The Studios are nothing if not a mixed bag. I refuse to debate it, because of all his points, LAndbaron may only be out on a limb with this one. Animal Kingdom as envisioned didn't draw as expected. I suspect its partly due to the lack of beastly kingdom. After all, Disneyland and as far as I know the Studios never promised something they didn't deliver. But it may just have been a nitche market. More then likely, they just relied too heavily on the Animals. After all, World Showcase in Epcot has essentially the same type of atmosphere (you get out what you put in) but there's far more interaction. It may be that AK simply needs interaction.





Anyway, my point is that the HAlf a park argument is a bad one, since about the only complete park opened was Epcot. Size doesn't matter.

[JeffJewell]

My point is this. Building "half" a park is both subjective and irrelevent in theory.

I disagree with both of those assertations.

Taking the second half first, the business models for both Animal Kingdom and Disney's California Adventure were dependent upon the average guest extending their stay one day.

Building "half" a park is relevant when you intended to be selling an extra day. Without the goods, enough of your prospective guests don't buy the extra day, and your business model goes kerflooey. You end up having to do stupid things like cutting meals for which you've already issued PS numbers in a mad effort to cut costs.

Addressing the first part of your quote, I agree it's subjective to debate whether or not you or I personally think it's a full-day park. But I don't think that's important. It's whether or not customers/guests on the whole feel it's a whole day park.

Disney's own press releases site customer disatisfaction with the number of attractions in Animal Kingdom (I lost my link when the old boards went away, does anyone still have that link? They announced a "whole new area" had been greenlighted for AK to respond to guest complaints, spurring Beastly Kingdom rumors yet again, but it turned out they meant Dino-Rama). I don't consider that to be a subjective measure.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

I still to this day cannot wrap my mind around how we can allow Walt whgo without reposting numerous quotes:
Was Quality focused
Argued over the budget
Blew the budget away and yet
Huh? What? I don’t understand any of it. Please explain. I don’t know what “whgo” means.
He did not build a complete park.
No he did not. We can agree on that. When Disneyland was built it was not complete.
We allow this claiming, he didn't have the money yadda yadda when in fact we've just pointed out that money was not the concern quality was.
Well. I’m not sure whether to agree with this or not. I’m going to have to break it down. “He didn’t have any money….”, Very true! “Yadda yadda” I’m not quite sure about this but I think you mean that you don’t believe he didn’t have any money. Well, he didn’t. Plain and simple. No money, comparatively speaking. Anyway, let’s move on. “Money was not the concern quality was.” Yes and no again. Quality was the primary concern. Absolutely!! Right on target. YES!! But money was the obstacle standing in the way of that quality. There wasn’t enough!!! So, where does this leave us? Let’s start again.

Let’s agree that Disneyland was not quite what Walt had envisioned when it opened. Now, contrary to your statement that only Fantasyland was complete, in actuality only Tomorrowland was left a little sparse. That’s not to say that things weren’t added later. Almost everything we really enjoy about the park today was added later. But when it opened Disneyland was what Walt wanted, with the exception of Tomorrowland.

And why was that? Why was Tomorrowland left unfinished? MONEY!! He didn’t have it! Walt had only a finite amount of money to work with. So he faced a very tough question very early on in the development of Disneyland. And his natural philosophy answered it for him. It comes shining through in his quotes and the stories about him. Should he skimp on the other three lands and thereby afford a scaled down, cheap, but complete Tomorrowland? Or should he spend, what needed to be spent on the rest of the park, insuring that it was “Done Right” and leave Tomorrowland for a time when it too could be “Done Right”? From all you know about him, what do you think he would choose? What do you think Ei$ner would choose? And that is the difference!!!!

Walt decided to put off completion until he could do it right, and bought a several thousand-dollar chandelier instead. Come to think of it, Ei$ner wouldn’t do either. He’d skimp on it all.
You cannot have it both ways. Either Walt intentionally left the park unfinished choosing to build what he built at the level he demanded. Or, he simply built half a park not realizing it was such.
Yes I can have t both ways. He did indeed leave the park unfinished intentionally. But he insured that the finished product was done right. AND AS SOON AS MONEY BECAME AVAILABLE, he did Tomorrowland right. The difference is Ei$ner HAS the money!! He CHOOSES not to spend it. He value engineers attractions and parks to SAVE money. Not because he doesn’t have it!! Can’t you see the difference?
Even WDW MK went without certain completing rides for a couple of years.
You’ve got to be kidding!!! Nothing else in the world was bigger that the opening of WDW. The MK was nearly as complete as Disneyland, it even had a couple new ones that the original didn’t have. Neither had any of the mountains at the time. The only one I can remember it not having was Pirates. But that wasn’t budgetary, that was planned. They only built it because of consumer pressure. And remember. They opened the Magic Kingdom, three resorts, a campground, countless restaurants, two and half golf courses and a transportation system ALL ON THE SAME DAY!!!! Talk about grand scale!!!
My point is this. Building "half" a park is both subjective and irrelevant in theory.
I don’t think it’s very subjective. And nothing could be more relevant when discussing the difference in philosophy between current management and Walt. Just look at the debate board. There is currently a thread that asks the question the very validity of AK in the first place. You see this question on every Disney site there is. Do you think that anyone would have even thought to ask that kind of question when WDW opened or when EPCOT debuted? Of course not. It wouldn’t have entered anyone’s thinking. But it certainly does today. And that’s also the difference.
More then likely, they just relied too heavily on the Animals. After all, World Showcase in Epcot has essentially the same type of atmosphere (you get out what you put in) but there's far more interaction. It may be that AK simply needs interaction.
I don’t really know what it is missing either. But you’re right. It is missing something. And that’s the difference, too.
Size doesn't matter.
No comment!!! ;)

[YoHo]

I won't fix my quote, because I can't read it either. :)


My point was. We in one breath discuss Walt's aversion to Sharp pencil guys and in fact we discuss his penchent for quality over everything, then turn around and dismiss Disneyland's incompleteness as being monetary. Well, I say you can't have it both ways. And by the by, Frontierland was SParse at best in 1955. so NO, it wasn't JUST Tomorrowland.
Walt Disney Purposely chose quality over a larger park. I would like to think that that was the choice made with both the studios and AK. The difference In my mind is more subtle, and involves more then just a budget.


Now the excuse is, well obviously the the Disney company has the money now. And I ask do they? They have a lot of Cash in 2001, did they when The DIsney Studios was built? NO, they were middlin around waiting for the Little Mermaid to bring them back from the dead. Did they when Animal Kingdom was built? Possibly, although I suspect the then failure (now success) in PAris put a damper on it.

We are proceeding from the assumption that the Disney Corp had the money to spend on things like AK. (Okay, I'll grant you, not buying ABC would have meant they had the money, but I'd like to leave ABC out of it, it was such a good Idea that failed for numerous reasons.)


At any rate. We then also must define what is half a park? What does that mean? I think its arbitrary. If half a park means that guests only spend half a day there. Then that's one thing. Guests certainly didn't spend half a day at Disneyland even in 1955 with a comparative derth of "Attractions".

If on the other hand, Half a park is based purely on a ttraction count, then we cannot draw comparisons to Walt's Park at all.

My point is this. Park size and attraction count are irrelevent.

ANimal Kingdom is missing something and it has nothing to do with attraction count. I suspect it has to do with interaction in a broad way.

The studios. is a bit more complex. I think it had a fair shot in 1989 and as illustrated by hopemax was on track. it was being built the way Disneyland was and that's fine. I think around 1996-97 they took a left turn and started trashing the place by ripping out everything that made sense and spewing ramant synergy everywhere. This is a big shift in focus to me. ITs so blatant that I can't beleive that people would lump the first 5 years in with the last.


Another though I had about AK and Disney's failure is one of expectations.

Its all well and good (except for landbaron) if you modify your future plans, do Grand Floridian instead of Asian, this ride instead of that. BUT, with Animal Kingdom, they gave us the expectation of Beastly Kingdom. it was part of the Story of the park. When it was canned, part of the story was ripped away and your left hanging waiting for the climax. They could have told that story in a thousand different ways. With Rollercoasters, Dark rides, Spinners, Soarin Overs. Any combination could have worked and disappointment would have been minimal. But they hacked it off. Even the people who never saw the story outline (preview) could sense that soemthing was missing.

I know, I know your all gonna say who cares, its still failure. Well, I care, because AK represents people and Like it or not it represents Walt and when Eisner and Presslar and whoever else is no longer there or even if they have a mystical journey and comeback renewed and changed. It will be very important why, because you can fix what you know.




Here's one last thought I was thinking last night. And I know it will spark debate and possibly slight incredulousness.

I think that given the same budgets today, Walt's 1955 Imagineering team (without him) could do a better DCA then the current one did. You can blame that on layoffs and people leaving the company and that might be true, but I suspect it has more to do with corporate attitudes then anything else. Something Disney has only slight control over.

I feel that a budget should not restrain you. And the fault of that lies not with managment (although they didn't help) but with the Imagineers. JIYI didn't need to be a failure slashed budget not withstanding. So I call the Imagineers to the floor. doing it right doesn't have to mean spending more, it means spending right!

Anyway, there's some rambling to chew on.

[pnelson]

I have a question for DVC-Landbaron-asked in the nicest possible way.

I could swear a while ago I read that you had decided to take a break from the debate board. That being the case, why are you starting a debate on another board?

I personally enjoy the debate board-I just look for other things on the rumor board.

I've always felt you debated fairly and had good points-maybe you would get a better debate over on the other board!!!

By the way, heard any good rumors lately????

[JeffJewell]

Walt Disney Purposely chose quality over a larger park. I would like to think that that was the choice made with both the studios and AK. What evidence is there that Animal Kingdom's budget cuts were made as a result of choosing quality over a larger park? I mean, I'd like to think that way, too, but the reality of the situation leads me to believe otherwise.

We then also must define what is half a park? What does that mean? I think its arbitrary Why must "we" define it? If "we" define something, that definition is subjective and peculiar to us, and is useless in a larger sense. You still haven't explained why you feel Disney's AK guest surveys, which particularly mention an overall lack of attractions and lack of full-day appeal, and upon which Disney itself has based desicions, are "arbitrary."

ANimal Kingdom is missing something and it has nothing to do with attraction count. You certainly have the right to your opinion, but the guest opinions Disney has referred to suggest that attraction count is, in fact, one of the major factors contributing to AK's disappointing (and currently declining) attendance numbers.

Like it or not it represents Walt Not to me it doesn't. I must not be communicating very clearly, the fact that Disney's actions over the past ten years are demonstrably against that which Walt wanted for his parks is the main reason I post so much.

So I call the Imagineers to the floor. You'll have to call them from Islands of Adventure (where a bunch of AK Imagineers ended up after Eisner fired them) and PDI (where a bunch of Dinosaur Imagineers ended up after Eisner fired them). I doubt they'll answer, as they seem to be doing fine and creating some good work in their new positions.

Jeff

[larworth]

The measure seems pretty straightforward. If the average person only believes AK is worth half a day of their time than I’d say they built a half park.

I don’t necessarily think that building a half park at WDW is a big transgression of the guiding principles. If it is done well and adds to the guest experience than why wouldn’t it pass the test? I’m trying to avoid the debate over the quality level of AK, but rather is the half park concept really that big a deal at WDW?

Such a high percentage of people have park hoppers that I can rationalize the added transportation time with the opportunity to experience a very different theme park. Yes, they could have chosen to not open AK at all and invest more in MGM and EPCOT. It would have made touring easier, but less diverse. They could have held off building AK until they were ready to make it a full park (200?). Than I would be deprived of enjoying what is there for all those years. If the quality is high and the logistics reasonable than it doesn’t seem so wrong to me.

Now, I think it was inexcusable to charge the regular single day admission (the half park/full price decision at DCA is even more galling).

I also feel cheated when a ride is proposed than cancelled. However, it seems to happen all the time. So given that I can accommodate half a park at WDW, I don’t feel anymore cheated by no BK than I do by no Fire Mountain. Does the story of the park really suffer from not having the mythical creatures section? Don’t get me wrong the concept behind BK sounds great. Would love to have it. However, would I have thought this theme missing if it had never been announced. No I would just assume the park was designed to celebrate real creatures.

What makes not building BK a violation of the principles to me it that instead of something of high quality we got Dinorama. Plus they don't even have the decency to remove the references to it.

[JeffJewell]

...not to argue with you, we seem to be on pretty close to the same page overall, but I wanted to respond to this:is the half park concept really that big a deal at WDW? It's a big deal if the business model for the park was counting on guests extending their visit an extra day. When they find they can "fit AK in" to their "normal" vacation, the extra hotel bookings Disney was counting on don't show up. As you point out, parkhoppers make low AK admissions a moot point, but AK was not supposed to deliver its benefits through admissions, it was supposed to pull down extra guest nights.

Plain and simple, AK is not bringing in the revenue that Eisner said it would, and all of WDW is feeling the pinch.

You also correctly point out that this idea, as badly as it was implemented at AK, was done even more poorly at DCA.

What makes not building BK a violation of the principles to me it that instead of something of high quality we got Dinorama. Yeah. What you said.

Jeff

PS: I've been trying to stay focused on hard business numbers, rather than my estimation of "Magic" inherent to the park(s) for two reasons. Most obviously, because that estimation is purely subjective and impossible to measure reliably. The other is a more personal reason; when I found these boards, I started commenting on the fact that Disney had been putting less and less Imagineering effort and budget money into new attractions, and that the overall quality was suffering. The response I got was that Walt was obviously a stupid businessman (no, I didn't believe it either) and Eisner was making the great business moves. So I'm trying to make the point that, even from a pure business standpoint, Eisner has made and continues to make magnificent blunders by turning his back on Walt's commitment to quality.

[YoHo]

quite frankly, I don't think guest survey's have enough value to determine what went wrong with AK. If asked the right questions, guest surveys could indicate tearing down cinderella castle and putting up an Arby's. How's that for magic?

So to me all the guest surveys say is that somethings wrong. what the guests say is wrong may or may not be accurate. My opinion is that the Attraction count is fine, but that the average visitor breezes past most of them possibly not even knowing they're there. That is a different kind of failure.

WE must define half a park, because otherwise WE, may be talking about different things. A half-day park is a totally and completely different thing from half a park. I have a sneaking suspicion that the failure to extend length of stay has little to do with AK's Half-day status and more to do with the customer bases inability, or unwillingness to get more vacation hours. This isn't a case of If you build it they will stay longer. When they average high payed Dotcom employee willingly spends 14 hours a day at work and skips vacation and they are your up and coming market. You have a problem. Combined with more extra curricular activities at school and changes in the way school years run. More and more I've noticed that WDW isn't as bad in the summer as it was in my youth, while supposedly quiet times are becomming hot.

I would suggest that you could build a park that made Disneyland look like nothing and would still fail to draw much longer stays.


This actually makes a case for building a park in the midwest. possibley a Disneyland or other themed park. Think of it having Disney 6 hours away instead of 26.


I'm not trying to defend mistakes here. I think I might have dragged us down a side pathway, but nothing exists in a vacuum and the days of cross-country road trips to wally-world may be sadly coming to an end as we are squeezed for time.

Disney is better-off right now maximizing the expireance they have rather then attempt to up length's of stay. Increase the numbers of Landbarons and general DISers who go every year.



P.S. Those are not the Imagineers of whom I speak. Most of the ones I'm talking about are dead, or at least retired. IOA doesn't impress me as being loaded with magic.

[larworth]

JeffJewel

Your right if we want to critique the decision making acumen of management.

If they really believed they could get people to pay full price, and stay the full day buying food/merchandise they were wrong. If this is what they really wanted than I agree they blew it by not adding BK.

I was only arguing from the principles side, not the business side. It seems clear they made this same business misjudgement at DCA.

The fascinating part of trying to understand their logic was the timing. Not only was the economy in a growth phase, but they had their biggest competitive threat (IOA) looming on the horizon. On the surface, not a time when you get conservative.

[DVC-Landbaron]

…critique the decision making acumen of management.
MAN!!! I wish I had said that!!!
Not only was the economy in a growth phase, but they had their biggest competitive threat (IOA) looming on the horizon. On the surface, not a time when you get conservative.
Not only on the surface, but any way you look at it. EXCEPT, if you look at it from the GO.COM (and other failing ventures) perspective. They needed the cash to look better on paper. For Wall Street. To prop up a stock. In other words for the short term gain (can't get much shorter that a quarterly report) rather than long term guest satisfaction.

What really bothers me about this fiasco is the impression that EVERYONE has today that they never had before. That Disney CAN be less than the highest quality possible. That was a thought that was never recognized before. It was laughable. Before, people liked Disney or they didn't like Disney, but I don't think too many would have thought to question the quality. It may not have been their cup of tea so to speak, but they couldn't argue with the quality of the product. Today that is definitely NOT the case. Today, even the most ardent Disney fans, question, or at least are not surprised by others questioning, the quality of Disney. That was unheard of years ago!! Absurd idea!!

As evidence I will reference (once again) our own beloved DIS boards. Look at the number of threads that question the very being of AK. Right now there is a thread that asks the question: AK - Hit or Mistake? GOOD GRIEF!! Can you even imagine a question like that being posed before Ei$ner?

Imagine a thread from twenty or thirty years ago:
Walt Disney World - Hit or Mistake?
Or
EPCOT - Hit or Mistake?

I certainly can't. Yet currently we all accept this as the norm. It never was before. So what has crept into our consciousness that we now take it for granted? It is a given. Whether you agree or not you accept the question of poor quality. THAT ISN'T WHAT DISNEY IS SUPPOSED TO BE!!!

I don't know. Maybe it's just me. I think I need a bouncy!! :bounce:

Ahhh! That's better!

[YoHo]

Landbaron, I agree that you wouldn't see that kind of debate 30 years ago, BUT, at the same time our ability we ordinary citizens have to interact with others in debate on topics for which we have such focus and concern is so new as to be unprecedented. Its quite possible that had the Internet been around at the time, Even Walt himself would receive this kind of falderall, BECAUSE now everyone has an opinion. and all it takes is one person to spark these kinds of debates.

So, yes, I agree with you that it is unheard of that these discussions take place, but I don't contribute it simply to managments failure. that's part of it, but not all of it.

[JimB.]

I don't have much time, but I'll take up the guantlet on a couple of DVC's points of contention, with no attempt to persuade, just a few objective facts:

1. Real world intrusions - sponsorships, McDonalds

Please note the following:

a.) In a National Geographic Article titled "The Magic
Worlds of Walt Disney" 4 different signs of
corproate sponsorship are noted in pictures:
Borden, Kraft, Chicken of the Sea, & Boeing.
Also present in DL park that I know of at this time
were General Motors & TWA.

The date of this article?? - August 1963

b.) Thomas R. Elrod, Disney director of marketing,
quoted in 1983 (before the horrible Days of
Eisner) "......we decided that by ........ October 1,
1982, we wanted every man, woman & child in
the U.S to have at least heard the word EPCOT
..........................without spending any media
dollars at all" He did this by relying on the
independent promotions of the Corporations
that had given $300 million to Disney to
associate themselves with Disney symbols.........

Bottom Line - corporate sponsorship of Disney is not a new "Evil Eisner" thing. It's been around for decades.

2. Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, Cirque, Disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, Fantasia Gardens. Most, if not all, are glaring examples of what the original Disney concept is NOT!!

Donn B. Tatum is quoted as saying:

"There are many strings in our bow. Sometimes I feel the understandable preoccupation with Walt Disney World has tended to overshadow this important fact We are in a position to adjust the emphasis in our activities with the changes in the direction of the economy.

We can & will augment our motion picture and TV effort

We can and will expand in the field of outdoor recreation

We can and.....will pursue very seriously the possibilities of development abroad "

the date ?? December 8, 1973, St. Petersburg Times (once again note the pre "Evil Eisner" days)


That's all I have time for now. The real world beckons.




"Negative waves man, always with the negative waves......."

[JimB.]

Back from the real world ..............................

3. Sequels - cheapening of the brand

Please note the release of those cinema classics "Herbie Rides Again" & "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo", both released in the 70's to unanimously bad results, once again BEFORE the "Evil Eisner" days.

Also, on a slight tangent, but still applicable to the cinema end of things: In 1981 & 82, the company wrote off $21 million for "Something Wicked this Way Comes", $10.5 million for "Night Crossing" (which I personally thought was a pretty good flick), $10.4 million for TRON, and $6.8 million for "The Watcher in the Woods". The ONLY bright spot for the Movie business was $50 million in video rental for "The Fox & the Hound"

Additionally, TV revenues fell from $44.4 million in '82 to $27.9 million in '83.

(September 25, 1983 NYT "The Troubled World of Walt Disney Productions" , Thomas C. Hayse)

Note that in the pre -"Evil Eisner" days, that the motion picture/TV end of the company was falling flat on it's sword.

A telling quote from p 133 of "Vinyl Leaves" by Stephen M. Fjellman: "It wasn't until the arrival of ...... Wells & ....Eisner that the film divisions began to carry their own weight"

4. Half parks

Implying that everything in the pre "Evil-Eisner" days in the parks were hunky-dory..................... but note: EPCOT Center's 1st 6 months............ were spectacular. Crowds were larger than anticipated; but by the last quarter of 1983, the rush was over, and attendance began to drop." but OVERALL attendance rose !!! (sound familiar??? ) Orlando Sentinel, April 23, 1983

5. Cost for the average person

A few years ago, Phil Williams, Philip F. Wood & Harry W. Collison of the Real Estate Consortium of Winter Park claimed that:

"Disney has an elaborate plan to increase attendance by overbuilding the luxury hotel market on it's property and, as a result, forcing hotels away from Disney World to lower their prices substantially to remain competitive.
The goal: making a trip to Disney World more possible for lower income families.

from the "Florida Today" newspaper, July 27, 1986. A bit dated perhaps, but I think still relevant.

6. Changing attention spans


I think the point here is that rides are shorter then they used to be. Lessee: Dumbo - 90 seconds (ditto on the Astrojets, or whatever they are called) & the Mad Tea Party, The late Mr. Toad - approx 3 minutes, ditto on Space Mountain & the Carousel. Peter Pan - 4 1/2 minutes. Same w/ Snow White (& Winnie the Pooh, also).

Some newer attractions: RnR - about 3 mins (same as SM & BTMRR), ToT - about 4 mins. Alien Encounter - approx 12 minutes (?? short? Hmmmmmmm). Legend of the Lion King - approx 25 minutes. The (late??) Timekeeper - 12 minutes.

The point is: There is a mix of quick & not-so-quick rides of every "Disney Generation". IMHO the relevance of this does not hold much water.

7. Eisner too hands-on, too removed

Well, which is it?? Can't have it both ways.

8. Use of contractors

If a contractor can give you equivalent performance at a reduced cost, what's the BFD about this one??

9. Is lack of humor based attractions really an issue?

No. Winnie the Pooh not humorous?? Alladdins (sp?) Magic Carpet Ride not humorous?? I'll admit, I don't laugh much during Alien Encounter, but everyone I see coming out has a smile on their face. If they don't it's usually because they are a small child that shouldn't be there (BTW, I've seen the same thing on SM & HM also)

10. Do classic attractions really still work?

Yes. Personally, I still enjoy the daylights out of CoP.

11. Does the average person really perceive a change in quality?

I doubt it. I don't, & I probably go there more than most people. The most recent being a 3 day stay last weekend, where th FW management was EXCEPTIONALLY professional and respomsive.

12. Should all rides really be family rides?

Tough Question. Dunno. I think MOST should, but there is still a place for rides like RnR (although I would most heartily encourage my 77 y.o. mother to NOT go on it ;) )

13. Exit gift shops

Walt Disney himself was once quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying "Dream, diversify - and never miss an angle " (Quote found on p.7 of "The Disney Studio Story" pub. 1988 by Richard Hollis & Brian Sibley )

Sounds like he would probably think the person who thought this one up was a pretty smart cookie.


Oooops. Real world calls again. Gotta' work tomorrow. Can't reply, but can read (computer firewalls at work :( )



Have Fun!!!



Negative waves man, always with the negative waves........"

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well JimB. Quite a gauntlet!! And quite a peanut gallery in the shape of thedscoop!! A cheering section it seems. OK, let’s get to it!! ;)

ITEM #1
Real world intrusions - sponsorships, McDonalds
You win!! I give up!!

But you got me on a technicality. No. Perhaps not a technicality, but a case of carelessness when cutting and pasting. I lazily re-posted Larworth’s list. I figured it was as good a starting point for discussion as any. But didn’t bother to clean it up. And it needed a little cleaning to make it truly mine. So!!!! Now I have to live with it. And it is not my list!!! Ahhhhhh!!!! I would have NEVER put in the word “sponsorship”. I really wish it wasn’t there. But it is and you ATTACKED it, as I would have. But let’s try to salvage some of this. Let’s see what the original text said. There were two references to McDonalds.

"I don't want the public to see the world they live in while they're in the Park. I want them to feel they're in another world."

Are new Disney theme parks developed with a berm so that the outside world is shielded from the view of visitors inside the park?? or are they now building theme parks where you can see city streets from several vantage points in the park (see DCA). Do we need McDonalds restaurants from the everyday world inside the parks??

And

"The first year I leased out the parking concession, brought in the usual security guards - things like that - but soon realized my mistake. I couldn't have outside help and still get over my idea of hospitality. So now we recruit and train every one of our employees. I tell the security police, for instance, that they are there to help people. The visitors are our guests. It's like running a fine restaurant. Once you get the policy going, it grows."

Does Disney subcontract some of its food service? Does it allow outside vendors to sell in the parks? (See Dipping Dots, and McDonalds)
I guess the only question is: Do you have a problem with Walt’s philosophy when it comes to these two quotes? Because that’s what we’re really talking about. His philosophy on how to run a theme park. And both these issues cut to the heart of a “McDonald’s” in Disney. So again. Do you disagree with Walt’s ideals? I don’t. But Hey!! I certainly don’t know everything. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Walt was wrong. Maybe we’re still talking apples and oranges. In either case, it’s your turn. (And I do apologize once again for my carelessness. It won’t happen again.)

ITEM #2
Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, Cirque, Disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, Fantasia Gardens. Most, if not all, are glaring examples of what the original Disney concept is NOT!!
I really don’t see what your quote from the St. Petersburg Times has to do with this. If you mean that they should expand their market, I agree. If you mean to show that Disney, even in 1973, wanted to be dynamic, again, I agree. But what has that got to do with what we’re talking about? Mini-Golf???!!! Again. COME ON!!! It’s nice and all. I even let my son beat me every time we play. And he LOVES it. But are you seriously suggesting that we should be talking about this? DisneyQuest is indeed an interesting idea. And one that they seem to be frittering away. I think it is just this type of concept that Walt would have loved. I certainly love it. But they seem not to. Or at least they don’t know what to do with it. In either case, it doesn’t merit much conversation. Cirque?? It’s not even Disney!!! Like R&RC it’s “off-the-shelf!! (can a live show be off the shelf? But you know what I mean.) Very nice, but Anytown USA can hire them. Include it in the price of a ticket and now we’re talking. But until then, it’s a separate entity. And the last one; Boardwalk and Downtown Disney (by that I take it to mean Pleasure Island). Maybe I’m a little jaded. But I really don’t like either. First off, they are NOT family. And second, and even more important, it’s nothing I can’t get at home, and usually better. I live in Chicago. I can go to Rush Street (or other hot spots) and find HUNDREDS of clubs that are of a higher caliber that any in Pleasure Island. I think Disney should be unique. But it’s only my opinion. You, evidently disagree.

ITEM #3
Sequels - cheapening of the brand
Well, you certainly know your Ron Miller/Card Walker history. It’s a little part of Disney that I’d like to forget at times. But you are correct. They were as evil as Ei$ner is in some of the things they did. But I thought we were talking about WALT! If you want to talk about Ron Miller vs. Eisner I can do that, but I’ve got to admit it’ll be a little harder for me to win it. But what does Walt have to say about sequels?
"I believe the fun is in building something in bringing new things to life. We never do the same thing twice. After we've finished a job....we head in another direction. We're always opening new doors."

How many movie sequels does the company now produce? Which new directions in theme park entertainment has the Disney company taken? What new groundbreaking park is being built in the states? What new doors of entertainment is the company opening?
You do know about Walt and the Three Little Pigs story don’t you? Seems one of Walt’s early successes was the Three Little Pigs. So Walt set out to do what was even then standard practice in the industry. He produced a sequel. It BOMBED!!!! Taught Walt a valuable lesson. And for the rest of his life he carried a motto from that lesson. “YOU CAN’T TOP PIGS WITH PIGS!!” Now in all fairness, I can’t remember if the right word is “follow” or “top”, but the meaning should come through. Now let’s see what the evil emperor Ei$ner’s take on sequels is.

From the wonderful and insightful Mr. Another Voice!!
"Rumor" has it that Disney will be cutting back new animated features to once every two or three years. In their place, direct-to-video sequels and movie versions of animated television series will be released three times a year. 'Peter Pan 2' is just about complete and 'Cinderella 2' will be out in the near future. There's also talk of 'Dumbo 2' was well as a film about The Seven Dwarves (without Snow White). While these films are made to be direct-to-video releases (and produced overseas by non-Disney animators), some of the better ones [sic] may be given a theatrical release.
Yeah! Gotta love this guy!!!!

ITEM #4 - Half parks
Implying that everything in the pre "Evil-Eisner" days in the parks were hunky-dory..................... but note: EPCOT Center's 1st 6 months............ were spectacular. Crowds were larger than anticipated; but by the last quarter of 1983, the rush was over, and attendance began to drop." but OVERALL attendance rose !!! (sound familiar??? ) Orlando Sentinel, April 23, 1983
I didn’t know I implied that at all. If I did inadvertently imply it, I TAKE IT BACK!!! Heck! There were times in 1955 and 1956 that Walt almost didn’t make payroll. NO!! I never wanted to imply that things were always hunky-dory. Far from it. They spent all their money on the parks, neared bankruptcy, almost didn’t meet payroll and were generally on the brink of disaster many, many times. But they certainly built the parks right, didn’t they? I wonder if that’s where all the money went? You know!! I bet that’s just what happened. They sunk all their money into their idea of what a park should be. Whether it was Disneyland, WDW or EPCOT they gave it their best shot and their very last dime. And had faith that they DID IT RIGHT. (Sound familiar???) What do you think? Did they do it right?

ITEM #5 - Cost for the average person
"Disney has an elaborate plan to increase attendance by overbuilding the luxury hotel market on it's property and, as a result, forcing hotels away from Disney World to lower their prices substantially to remain competitive.
The goal: making a trip to Disney World more possible for lower income families.
Maybe I’m more dense than most. In fact, I’m sure I must be. Because I don’t get this little tid-bit at all. The way I read it - it is exactly the opposite of what actually happened. I know I have a habit of subtle (and not so subtle) sarcasm. But I ain’t kiddin’ guys!! I DON’T GET IT. Please explain. And be kind to an “old” guy. Thanks.

ITEM #6 Changing attention spans
I think the point here is that rides are shorter then they used to be.
YES!!! You get it. Now you’ve given some very good examples of the mixed bag of attractions that I’m always clamoring for, much to the chagrin of some of my supporters. We need a good mix. What we don’t need is Imagination (shorter), Pooh (shorter), Test Track (shorter), Space (shorter), Tiki Birds (shorter), and I’m sure others can think of more. (I have to concede that Space is only a rumor, I don’t need to get sidetracked in that direction!) The point is that many, many attractions and proposed attractions are shorter that the ones they have replaced. In fact I’ve been saying for a while that the very least EPCOT used to have was an attraction. And most were pavilions. Now the norm is turning into rides only. And even Six Flags does rides!!!! IMHO the relevance of this not holds water. It hold gallons of it!!!

ITEM #7
Eisner too hands-on, too removed
Sorry! My fault again. I didn’t pare down the list to make it my own. But I can offer you my take, which surprisingly, falls into lockstep with the original post.
"Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved."
Does Eisner walk the parks daily? Is there a spirit of constant improvement as regards the attractions, or are attractions shortened and redesigned so as to contain costs and provide opportunities to milk the visitors pocketbook?
I personally think Ei$ner hasn’t got a clue. Do you? Can you really type in, with a straight face, that you can picture Ei$ner, in shorts and a Hawaiian shirt, walking the park??!! Come on!! With a straight face type it in. ;)

ITEM #8 - Use of contractors
If a contractor can give you equivalent performance at a reduced cost, what's the BFD about this one?
Sorry. I can’t disagree any stronger. And it goes back to what Walt said about it.
"The first year I leased out the parking concession, brought in the usual security guards - things like that - but soon realized my mistake. I couldn't have outside help and still get over my idea of hospitality. So now we recruit and train every one of our employees. I tell the security police, for instance, that they are there to help people. The visitors are our guests. It's like running a fine restaurant. Once you get the policy going, it grows."
I can’t possibly add to that. To me it says it all!!!

ITEM #9 - Is lack of humor based attractions really an issue?
At last we can agree. I don’t have a problem with this. It is one of the few items that the original poster has, that I don’t quite understand. I do fnd most newer attractions, even the cheap ones, to be fun.

ITEM #10 - Do classic attractions really still work?
WOW!!! We're on a roll. We agree again!!! Hmmm. I may finish this before dawn after all!!!!

ITEM #11 - Does the average person really perceive a change in quality?
I doubt it. I don't, & I probably go there more than most people. The most recent being a 3 day stay last weekend, where th FW management was EXCEPTIONALLY professional and respomsive.
Knew it was too good to last. I disagree. I think that subliminally it does effect the average guest. Just like that several thousand-dollar chandelier effected the guest in a positive way, the Ei$ner school of Disney effect the guest in a negative way. I really don’t think you can prove it one way or the other. But it seems to me that if Walt’s extravagance and obsessive quality goals worked to garner the allegiance of countless fans, then the opposite should hold true as well.

ITEM #12 - Should all rides really be family rides?
Tough Question. Dunno. I think MOST should, but there is still a place for rides like RnR (although I would most heartily encourage my 77 y.o. mother to NOT go on it)
Well, well, well. We agree again!!! But I think the point was the proliferation of height restricted rides and DCA in particular. Again, what does Walt say about it:
["I have never made pictures exclusively for children. But I regard them as important members of the family, and we have always considered their age, experience and taste in selecting our theatrical productions."—[/quote]
I really don’t see that much any more. Do you? I see rides geared for kids OR adults. Not both. Of course this isn’t every ride they come up with, but it certainly seems to be the trend lately.

ITEM #13 - Exit gift shops
Walt Disney himself was once quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying "Dream, diversify - and never miss an angle " (Quote found on p.7 of "The Disney Studio Story" pub. 1988 by Richard Hollis & Brian Sibley )
Nothing like quoting out of context!! I should know. I’m good at it. But if that quote is really true, and you want to tie it to exit gift shops, then why is that Walt had ZERO rides exiting gift shops and his immediate successors (trying very hard to be Walt-like) had only Pirates exit into a gift shop? But Ei$ner on the other hand!! WOW!! What a master!! Not only exit into a gift shop, but right through aisle after aile of plush toys and shiny things that make it a pure joy when exiting with a very alert seven and ten year old. Thank you Ei$ner for forcing me to say “NO” once again. Really a lot of fun!!!


Your turn!!


"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

[Captain Crook]

A hero is born! Not only does JimB makes sense (like me!) but has facts'n'figures to back them up!

Lets start, DVC, shall we? Talking about outside vendors, etc. you askDo you have a problem with Walt's philosophy when it comes to these two quotes?

Not the quotes per se, but Landbaron the vast numbers of CM's needed by Disney is getting harder & harder to come by. It is even reported here how un-CM like the CM's at DL behave on occasion. Therefore if Disney management can pass the buck on employment responsibility in minor non-guest relating areas, then it seems a fiscally prudent move...And one Walt never had to deal with...
Mini-golf???!!! Again. Come on!!!
What's wrong with mini-golf done right? So, it isn't magic to you (even though you like it), who's to say that it isn't a magical, Disney experience for some? No need to be elitist here. As for PI, sure there are better clubs elsewhere, but you're at WDW and it certainly WAS incumbant upon Disney to build an adult escape to lure the monied partiers and conventioneers in after park hours. Who ever said that every facet of Disney had to be held to the same high standards as the Parks? It would make no sense for Disney to create a world class club atmosphere when the types of people attracted (or looking to be attracted) would not be the 'professional club crowd!'
So Walt set out to do what was even then standard practice in the industry. He produced a sequel. It BOMBED!!!
Maybe Walt didn't have desire enough to do it succesfully. We have all heard, ad nauseum, how bored Walt got with the old. Regardless, it's irrelevent as Disney today has made a bundle producing direct to video sequels that only true Disney snobs get alarmed about. A sequel is just that. It stands or falls on its own and has no bearing or reflection on the original artistic endeavor.

: Can you picture...Ei$ner in shorts and a Hawaiian shirt walking the park?
Unlike Walt, Eisner has many, many more things on his plate than the Parks. This may be unfortunate, but it is true and were Eisner walking the Parks daily, I believe you'd be getting your wish for a new "big Cheese" real quick...But, I'll bet Harris & Weiss are Park walking quite a bit and really that's their job in the 21st Century Disney!

OK. Now I gotta go to work, yet I'm only half way done responding...Perhaps we should all learn brevity! LOL!
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

direct to video sequels that only true Disney snobs get alarmed about

...I think I'm done responding to you.

People other than you have valid opinions.

Jeff

[JeffJewell]

I think that subliminally it does effect the average guest.

I think the average guest is below average, these days.

It's obvious that quality means little to the average guest, the quality steadily declines, guests still show up. Anyone who asks "where did the quality go" is dismissed as a snob whose opinion is not worthy of note.

I know I get this way every so often, and here I am again. Let them wallow, Eisner is giving them precisely what they deserve.

Jeff

[YoHo]

McDonalds in DIsney

As I recall, those McDonalds are staffed by Disney Trained CMs. Also, as I recall, the Last 2 times I ate a Disney Hamburger (December 2000 and July 1985) I ended up throwing most of it out, because it sucks. At least McDonalds is a known consistant thing. Plus I have to give props to the hometown boys. :bounce:



Caliber of DTD, PI Mini-golf et al. I have never used the Mini-golf facilities at Disney, So I won't comment. As for PI. Landbaron, I'm probably a little more then Half your age, (you claimed in another post the high end of the forties, I'm 26)so I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I've been to Rush street (and more importantly Division street) more recently then you. If you really think that Chicago has better clubs then Pleasure Island, then please tell me where, because I've never been in one. Now granted, PI is in general an expireance I could get in Chicago (not every small town resident can though) But, not everyone lives in the big citie. AND, PI is unique in that People under 21 can get in (til a certain hour) and have fun in an Atmosphere unlike any club back home. (I've been to under 21 clubs around chicago, they suck)This is something meant for the big kids not ready to go to sleep after leaving the parks (even if the parks closed at midnight) Its the kind of thing some people like to do on vaction even if they can do it at home. Its something many people can't do at home.......

As for DTD. I'm not suchg a fan for the reasons you mention and the reasons you give for PI. I can go to house of Blues in Chicago. But, again, not everyone can.


As I recall, one of the reasons Disney bought so much property in Florida, was because he didn't want other companies intruding like they did in Anahiem. A guest who wants to do these non-disney activities had to leave the magical fantasy of WDW to do it. Now, they don't and they get a free ride back to the hotel to boot. Yes its opertunistic, its also good for the guest who wants to stay in that Disney atmosphere.





ITEM #5 - Cost for the average person

Actually, I think a trip to WDW is now more then ever possible for lower income families. remember that word you hate, INFLATION. The contention is whether that lower income family whether they stay at the Ramada, or the All Stars is getting the same expireance. But, I WILL NOT debate that topic and you KNOW why.
At any rate, that $75 All stars room would have cost $18 in 1972 Whereas the 1979 $75 Poly would have been $46.56
That is why it costs less.

Again, I will not enter any debates on expireance. I offend enough people without trying.



Eisner being hands on


Until he almost had his head taken off on Splash mountain, Eisner rode every single new ride before it opened. He was not in the parks the way Walt was (DL was Walt's baby, I doubt any executive, no matter how Walt like would spend as much time as he did), but he took a very active interest. It is a quite recent trend for him to be so removed.


Contractors,
Maybe I missed something, but Landbaron, your talking about people and JimB is talking about rides. IF(a big if) a contractor can get you the same quality as internal for less. Then yes, the contractor is a good thing. the problem is twofold.
1: Imagineering isn't giving you the required quality thus contractors appear as good.
2: Managment isn't demanding the level of quality and thus contractors are good enough.




Exit gift shops

The Exit to Pirates in Disneyland enters right into the hear of New Orleans square which is entirely made up of shops. Walt Built New Orleans square and THe original Pirates.
Its a small world in Anaheim Exits directly to a gift shop (I don't know when the gift shop was built.)

The following Eisner Rides (that I can think of) exit directly into a gift shop.
Pooh
Star Tours (both)


I may have forgotten some, I'm sure I've forgotten some. The point is that it isn't every ride and it doesn't seem to even be most rides.



At any rate, I'm done being in a good mood. I'm back to brooding over the Motor Launches waiting for some official word.(And ploting Ei$ner's doom should it prove true)

[Captain Crook]

Jeff, I sincerely apologize for inferring that those with differing points of view from mine were the "snobs" I mentioned. But, from the Disney knowledge vantage point I consider myself a Disney snob as well. I just don't feel my opinion is wrong or unenlightened, either, and just because we disagree doesn't mean someone is right or wrong except in our personal perspective.

I have always taken your opinions and given them the respect they deserve. I do feel much of what you and Landbaron preach about deep inside (fear for Disney's future), I just view it from a different perspective (I thought we'd already straightened this out).

Lastly I never saidAnyone who asks "where did the quality go" is dismissed as a snob whose opinion is not worthy of note.
Man! I never said that. Your opinion has always made perfect sense to me and I appreciate 95% of the people who post here for making this little 'get together' fun (most of the time), even, or especially when we disagree. As for the snob comment, again, I was referring to anyone who would look at every film and critique it as if it were meant to be a blockbuster (putting the same factors of judgement on Pearl Harbor as Beauty & the Beasts Enchanted Christmas, for example). Those are (primarily) the people who would be "hurt" by a sequel of a Disney classsic.

If you feel I no longer have anything to contribute I am sorry for that and will miss our interaction. I have always felt kinship here and do not intentionally try to cause ill will.
:( :( :confused: :( :(

[DVC-Landbaron]

Not the quotes per se, but Landbaron the vast numbers of CM's needed by Disney is getting harder & harder to come by.
YES!!! Absolutely!! So it is more important than ever that care be taken in hiring, training, and maintaining high standards. I'm glad we agree that it is indeed a critical time as far as CMs are concerned!!
It is even reported here how un-CM like the CM's at DL behave on occasion.
YES!!! Absolutely!! So it is more important than ever that care be taken in hiring, training, and maintaining high standards. I'm glad we agree that it is indeed a critical time as far as CMs are concerned!!
Therefore if Disney management can pass the buck on employment responsibility in minor non-guest relating areas, then it seems a fiscally prudent move.
YES!!! Absolutely!! So it is more important than ever that care…. Wait!!!! What are you talking about!! I thought we just decided, rather Walt-like, that this was indeed a critical time. It is certainly NOT a time to walk away from Walt's philosophies.

I think it's time to revisit Walt again. Seems you need a refresher!!
"Well, I think by this time my staff, my young group of executives, and everything else, are convinced that Walt is right. That quality will win out. And so I think they're going to stay with that policy because it's proved that it's a good business policy."

And

Give the people everything you can give them.
OK. Lesson over. Learn anything?

What's wrong with mini-golf done right?
Nothing. But I was hoping to talk about loftier issues.

Who ever said that every facet of Disney had to be held to the same high standards as the Parks?
Walt.

Maybe Walt didn't have desire enough to do it successfully.
YOU ARE KIDDING AREN'T YOU????

Disney today has made a bundle producing direct to video sequels that only true Disney snobs get alarmed about. A sequel is just that. It stands or falls on its own and has no bearing or reflection on the original artistic endeavor.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Are you now arguing for argument's sake? If you want to spread that nonsense, go spread it on some business thread. Talk about cost and profit, fiduciary responsibility, shareholder value and p/e ratios. But kindly leave it off the WALT thread. It has no place and no meaning. Here we're talking about Walt's ideals. And how much these sequels damage the brand name. If you can't at least acknowledge that fact, we have no basis for conversation.

But, I'll bet Harris & Weiss are Park walking quite a bit and really that's their job in the 21st Century Disney!
Somehow I doubt it, but for argument's sake I'll concede. But what are they looking for? Ways to cut costs, save money and bolster the bottom line? Or like walt:
"Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved."

"It's something that will never be finished. Something that I can keep developing, keep plussing and adding to."

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

"To try to keep an operation like Disneyland going you have to pour it in there. It's what I call 'Keeping the show on the road.' Not just new attractions, but keeping it staffed properly... you know, never letting your personnel get sloppy... Never let them be unfriendly. That's been our policy all our lives. My brother and I have done that and that is what has built our organization."

"Give the people everything you can give them."

"Keep the place as clean as you can keep it. Keep it friendly, you know. Make it a real fun place to be."

Your turn. ;)

[larworth]

Somewhere along the way the numbers got changed, so I’ll stick with the latest reference and add the missing ones at the end. My concern areas noted.

1. Intrusion (OK) – don’t think corporate influences are materially more intrusive and I don’t see the selling of McD food as a problem (it is all in the presentation)

2. Non-park additions (OK) – It is a resort, so providing non-park experiences are fine as long as parks clearly remain the core. They don’t need to always reinvent these non-park experiences (like they did with water parks), but they should build on the Disney quality image and be money makers providing funds to reinvest in the core business.

3. Sequels (Worry) – The vault properties have a finite value. I think they are milking these.

4. Half park (Worry) – Idea is OK, but worry about their acumen and arrogance in implementation.

5. Cost (OK) – I agree there has been a change here. They now are much more likely to try to get what the market will bear. However, being a pure public company that is their charter. I think they have taken advantage of it, but not to the point where it threatens longterm customer loyalty.

6. Attention Span (Worry) – I think this is an easy excuse for them to lower their standards to build smaller and less emmersive experiences.

7. Eisner Style (Worry) – He is too far up the ladder to be hands-on. Give creative oversight to someone who has the time and skills to do it right.

8. Contractors (???) – If you develop the right strategic partnerships they can become CM’s too. It is all in the implementation.

9. Use of Humor (OK) – Don’t see it as out of balance.

10. Classics (???) – I think tastes change and they should evolve as well. This needs more clarification.

11. People Perception (Worry) – I think they can slack off and most of their customer base will not notice for way too long.

12. Family rides (OK) – It really is in their best interests to have rides that appeal to all people. They don’t want to have to build thrill rides for teens, and kiddie rides, and senior rides. I think they are doing reasonable job.

13. Gift shops (OK) – I’d rather they were not there, but for some reason it doesn’t offend me as long as there is no hawking. Must have become desensitized.

New numbering system

14. Transportation (Worry) – I’m a car renter and never use the busses. I know something needs to be done to improve it for others, but I sure hope it doesn’t suck up too much $.

15. On-site hotels (???) – I’d have to see the books. If they are money makers than they should in the longrun provide funds to re-invest in the core business. If managed properly they add greatly to many guest’s experience. Again the quality and image should not be a dectractor. They also provide a safety net as they have to continue to invest enough to keep all of these rooms filled. Maybe after I read the latest J. Hill article I wll change my ???.

16. Rate of Growth (Worry) – I believe since 95 they have cut their growth rate in new attractions by 20% at WDW. Now I assume I should factor in the growth for guests in other parts of the world, but this one hits home.

17. Corner Cutting (Big Worry) – I’m really worried what they are doing with WDI. This is the heart of their core business. I think they are Splash Mountain and Indy adverse, or value engineering has replaced wowing the guest.

Sorry DVC, but I’m not 99% in agreement. I also don’t think everything is perfect as JimB must. I don’t think the Eisner regime has always been bad. I think it has had its good moments, but things have been on a downtrend recently and my worry meeting keeps getting a little higher all the time. Now, that is starting to worry me.

[JeffJewell]

If you feel I no longer have anything to contribute I am sorry for that and will miss our interaction Other way around, actually. I get the distinct impression that when our gang talks about Disney turning its back on Walt's commitment to quality, that most reactions, at some level, could be described as our being "Disney snobs" (I really wouldn't have minded the term as much if it wasn't in the context of apparently dismissing what I feel to be a valid opinion. "Don't like DTV? Oh, well, you're just a Disney snob" is how I read the original comment). I often feel that DVC and I are speaking an entirely different (but equally defendable) language on this topic, a language that few people seem to acknowledge exists, much less that might want to learn some of it.

A friend of mine is a high-end audio nut. The two primary speakers on his stereo cost more than either of the last two cars I bought; his turntable(!) sits on an eight-inch thick granite slab to eliminate vibration... that kind of high-end audio nut. He used to come over and try to explain to me about aural planes and sound fields and how my crappy little Pioneer system from Crutchfield was, well, a crappy little Pioneer system from Crutchfield. He was not able to understand that I listen to music differently; I don't have a recliner in my speakers' "sweet spot" and sit still there to listen, I just want something rockin' playing while I wash the dishes. His frustration was visible while he was trying to convince me of the error of my ways.

In our situation, I'm him. I feel that I'm trying to explain points that are meaningless to you, or simply irrelevant to the way you enjoy Disney.

Which is fine... in the same way a higher quality stereo was irrelevant to the way I enjoy music. But, like my friend found with me, it means I really don't have anything to say that you're going care about.

The second of those two posts was mostly a little tantrum. Although I did lift the term "snob" from your post, it wasn't my intention to be slicing you up. I was kind of "talking" to DVC, and whining about the unwashed heathen in general. I'm sorry it looked like I was angry with you, I was mostly disappointed with that one comment in particular and frustrated on the topic in general.

Walt's ideals built an empire and unsurpassed customer loyalty, and Disney management's turning its back to those ideals has meant there are parts missing from the experience. I don't mind that some people don't value some of the parts as much as I do, but I wish I was getting the feeling that a few more people at least started noticing the parts were gone.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

… NOTHING!! ;)

I think it has had its good moments, but things have been on a downtrend recently and my worry meeting keeps getting a little higher all the time. Now, that is starting to worry me.
You see. This is where I strongly disagree. I hasn't been getting worse. It's been getting more. (Pardon my awkward sentence!!) You make it sound as though Ei$ner's philosophy has changed over the years. His heart has slowly blackened with age. NO!! No, I say!! He's the same. EXACTLY THE SAME as when he first took the helm. The difference you see is that his methodical chipping away has finally reached your tolerance level.

I suppose that we all have different levels which effect us… well… differently!! I further suppose that if Walt were alive today and merely a guest and fan of Disney his frustration level would have been peaked somewhere in 1984!! He would have probably been annoyed at things that none of us would have noticed. Mine peaked in 1998. Yours is coming close in 2001. I expect DisDuck and the Captain (Pirate) to peak in 2004, 2005 at the latest. But nothing in management has changed. It's been the same since he started this job.

And it's hard to stay focused. It really is. You go to WDW and not all the chipping away effects you directly. For instance, I stay at Old Key West. I haven't taken a launch from the Poly to the MK in twenty-five years. So this little chip doesn't matter to me at all on a personal level. So, I get back from "The World" and give a glowing state of the park address. And for me every word of it was true. I can make a "MAGIC" list with the best of them. HOWEVER, on a higher level, admittedly more esoteric, the launch cuts effect me greatly. Because it points to a management philosophy that is diametrically opposed to that of the founder. And what I fell in LOVE with in the first place.

Am I a little clearer?

[larworth]

DVC

I understand your point. If I can recall a parable you gave about Walt feeding the goose.

I don't know if Eisner ever had any real love for feeding and caring for the goose. Since he inhereted the goose it is unlikely that he had the same feeling for it that the original owner had. Successive generations seldom do.

I can't recall every reading anything where he said that Walt's feelings for the goose were silly or misguided. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that in the beginning he sincerly wanted to learn (or worse yet thought he already knew how) to love the goose.

I am left with what I can observe, being the number of golden eggs being produced. I believe that for many years of his tenure there were plenty of golden eggs being laid. It is possible the goose was fat enough that it could go many years with a worse diet and still lay plenty of eggs.

So my story is that his approach has changed. The demands of wall street, under-performing assets, his own sense of thinking he know's what's right, the ever-present temptation to dip into the vast vault of customer loyatly and brand that exists. Whatever, I do think the path to the goose's pen is less well trodden today.

Clearly debateable. However, I'd rather pick a current issue to muse over than argue about the distant past.

[YoHo]

He's the same. EXACTLY THE SAME as when he first took the helm.


And this statment Landbaron is why we will never, ever, ever, even if you were CEO and I was President of Disney 100% agree.

Since the first time I read one of your posts to today I've been trying desperatly to drill into your head the Eisner has fundimentally changed. I think it has to do with Frank Wells death. I find myself agreeing with Larworth and it sounds like I finally have someone in my Carpool driving down the middle of the highway with the turn signal on.

Eisner could never love and care for the goose like Walt, neither could Walker and Miller, nor anyone else past or present. The difference is that at some point around EuroDisney's failure and Frank Well's Death, Eisner stopped feeding the goose, or let it get sick or some darn thing and it hasn't been the same since.

That's why I'm always more sad then angry, because We had it so good and it turned so sour so fast.

[JeffJewell]

...a question.

DVC says Eisner behaved this way since he took the helm, you mention Frank Wells' death as a possible marker for a change to his current behavior.

Aren't you guys talking about the same point in time? I admit that section of Disney history is my rustiest, but I was under the impression Wells and Eisner operated largely as a tag team, and it was only after Frank was gone that Michael "took the helm" totally.

Jeff

[YoHo]

Possibly, I always assume Landbaron is refering to When Mike became CEO. That He short Changes Wells. If not, then I stand humbly corrected. BUT, I doubt I'm wrong since he claims Eisner was always Ei$ner.

[JeffJewell]

I doubt I'm wrong since he claims Eisner was always Ei$ner. I could be substituting my own thoughts for DVC's. I cite the early nineties as being the point where Disney started making the poor long-term decisions; I've mentioned a couple of times that I feel Tower of Terror was the last real "Disney" attraction. I normally place the disaster around the time of Wells' loss, but I might be overstepping by attributing that to DVC, as well.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

Maybe Wells and Ei$ner are the same.

If not, then I stand humbly corrected. BUT, I doubt I'm wrong since he claims Eisner was always Ei$ner.
I don't claim to know the dynamics of their relationship. But I do know that radical changes were made to WDW as soon as they got there. Now at the time I, for one, was ready for anything!! And they seemed to be moving in the right direction. But as I look back on it (and I'll admit to 20/20 hindsight) I can't help feeling that the little changes, mainly monetarily (and the first inklings of the caste system), began. I think that anyone who made any moves with the property (and supposedly saved the company from a takeover) would have been heralded as the second coming of Walt himself. And by and large, they were. Let's face it. They had GREAT PR!! But I can't understand how someone could do a 180 like you think he did.

[YoHo]

Not having lost a close friend and Intimate buisness associate I'm not prepared to make any assumptions about what happened to Micheal Eisner Emotionally or Buisness sense wise. I just calls em as I see em.


Personally, I don't think any of those minor early years changes track automatically to the errors and failures of today. Perhaps the delicate balance, the Circle of Life that was Disney was upset just enough. Ei$ner=Scar
Eisner/Wells=Symba
Walt= Mufassa (Symba's father's name right?)

And I'm frankly not suprised the balance was so delicate. After all, Roy had a personal close family interest, probably second only to Walt. With Each succeeding managment team, Failure became easier and success (disney success, not financial success) became harder. We often ask who could do better/worse then Eisner, I often wonder if that person or people will even have a chance, not explicitly because so much has been ruined, but because your so far removed from Walt himself. Walt's Ideals are one thing, but Walt's Passion is what drove things. I think EIsner/Wells had a passion for Disney. I suspect that died with Wells and the heart attack.

Eisner no longer has a passion for Disney. Or he doesn't have the same level of Passion for Disney this upset the balance and the Kingdom started tumbling.



O, O, OOOOOO, I got it, Eisner is like Saurman. (Tolkien reference for those scratching your heads) He once was good, the greatest in fact, but he became corrupted.

Now the only question is where the heck is Gandalf? :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Sarangel]

OK, this is really starting to look like it belongs over on the debate board. Kindly recall the 'on-topic' rule for the boards.

Sarangel

[larworth]

I guess Sarangel's warning scared everybody away from this one.

It would be helpful to me if some of my fellow debaters could take the list and give me their quick take on each point. Do any of these worry your, and what is your rationale for why or why not.

Look forward to any replies.

[JeffJewell]

...can only get this thread thrown to the Debate Board by dragging it down to bickering over details. I suspect that's why it was requested in the first place (I notice that the requester has never addressed a single point on the list, despite repeated prods asking for a longer list).

About half of the points on the list are a big worry to me because of the way decisions appear to be driven only by the questions "Can we just buy it from somebody," and "Can we get it any cheaper than that."

Disney built its reputation and fan base by doing things well. Now they do things cheap, when they bother to do them at all. The company's focus is no longer quality, that's what's ultimately worrysome.

Jeff

[DisDuck]

JJ, I still have a problem with the 'buy off the shelf' concept. Do you expect Disney in the current business climate to actual, design and build the ride mechanism (ie. gears, servo motors, rails, cars, etc.)?

Maybe years and years ago this is the only way to go as few other companies built rides. But with ride technology expensive and done just as well (or better) by other companies, why reinvent the wheel. I say buy the technology and spend the money on story/theme.

If on the other hand you are just refering to story/theme maybe you have a point. Disney should never/ever buy off-the-shelf story/theme.

[JeffJewell]

...if you buy off the shelf rides, you have made your product qualitatively the same as that of other companies buying the same products, in this case, Six Flags, Universal, Cedar Point, whatever. Actually, Disney isn't even "at" the same level as those other parks, as they will not purchase the newest rides that the "thrill" parks will. So on a _purely_ ride-based measure, Disney is actually at something of a disadvantage compared to other theme parks, because of buying off-the-shelf rides.

The other part of that equation is, in Disney's case particularly, buying the rides from an outside source has given Eisner the ammunition he wanted to slash Imagineering budgets. Every off-the-shelf ride represents more Imagineers looking for work at Universal. It's the Imagineers who really make the appropriate environment for magic, and the fewer we have left (and the more nervous those few are about keeping their jobs), the less fertile the soil for the magic.

For those two reasons, I feel that buying off-the-shelf rides is a cheap, short-term solution that will actually damage the company's reputation, capability, and ultimately attendance in the long-term.

I personally disagree with your assertation that, overall, these things are "done just as well" by other companies. As several folks have alluded in different threads, a certain chunk of Disney "Magic" has to do with the overall effect, the way things fit and work together. An internal Imagineering staff that attends to those details is the only proven business method for creating that environment.

Jeff

PS: To everybody, please note that I never said anything about a particular ride sucking solely because it was shelf-bought. That's not my point at all.

[JeffJewell]

Disney should never/ever buy off-the-shelf story/theme. As I was re-reading your post, something ironic struck me. Arguably the best "Disney" movies recently have been the Pixar movies. In effect, Disney did buy those stories off-the-shelf.

I bring this up for a reason. A lot of the time, some of us get sidetracked in these discussions because we have personal likes and dislikes, and we tend to project them onto "everybody." I think it's important to try to separate these personal feelings when we're talking about whether or not something was a good business decision.

I love the Pixar movies. But because of the way Disney now works, it's very possible that, a couple of years from now, I will be watching Pixar movies from Dreamworks or Universal. In a meaningful way, there is _no_ "Disney Magic" in the Pixar movies, just Pixar magic, and that can be had by anyone who wants to pony up the dough.

The same can be said for Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, Space, Dino-Rama, Monsters Inc...

Am I making sense? Even though I thought Toy Story 2 was a fantastic movie, and it was clearly a money-maker, I don't think that buying movies from third parties is the long term way to grow a creative business (and I don't even want to think about the DTV animated Buzz Lightyear movie). John Lassiter knows a little something about the Disney style of Magic, and it shows in what his company creates. Eisner doesn't seem to remember much about the Disney style of Magic, and it shows in the way his company buys rather than creates.

Jeff

[YoHo]

Jeff, I think the main problem with off the shellf rides, isn't that they lack the quality needed to be Disney attractions, but that Typical Disney attractions rarely coincide with what outside vendors are creating.

I mean, who cares about a spinner in terms of ride mech. As long as the themeing is done in house, I don't care if Bob the illiterate mechanic from tulsa gets the parts together, as long as he does it well.

Who outside of Disney and in house Universal has ride concepts like Spiderman on the Drawingboard? Or Pirates?

The flaw with contracting outside, is that you are missing all those unique attractions that only the Imagineers seem to come up with.

So, I say, by all means contract out when it makes sense to do so, but don't let those rides be your sole replacement for unique rides that are WDI's hallmark.

[hopemax]

Re: Off-the-shelf

I was wondering if you guys considered "off-the-shelf" any ride purchased from an outside source, or a ride purchased from an outside source that has little differentiation from non-Disney park rides?

I personally don't mind Disney going to an outside source for the ride system as long as they continue to dress them up. After all it's what Walt did. During his life he worked closely with Arrow Development (now known as Arrow Dynamics) and contracted them to design and build many of the ride & vehicle mechanisms. The rides Arrow built: Dumbo, Casey Jr, Snow White, Peter Pan, Mad Tea Party, Matterhorn, Pirates of the Carribean, It's a small world, Haunted Mansion, Flying Saucers, the parking lot trams and I think one or two other rides. After Walt's death, Arrow was "let go" because they decided to move everything in house. You can read about the history of Arrow in "Roller Coasters, Flumes and Flying Saucers" ISBN: 0965735354. They also receive significant coverage in some E-ticket magazine articles; especially the Flying Saucer issue.

Reading the book, it's obvious that Ed Morgan and Karl Bacon had as much invested in Disneyland as any of WED's designers. They really believed in and put everything they could into their projects. That's one of the things I think is missing from going "outside" this time around. The "outside" doesn't feel any closer to Disney projects than they do any other theme park's project. They don't have any incentive to do a better job because it's Disney's new thing that will revolutionize the industry.

[YoHo]

Hmmmm, Its times like this that I wish I had more time to research. Yet another Arrow (pun definatly intended) pierces the Landbaron hide. It seems that between this and the Motels reference on Walt's sketch for WDW, that a few assumptions need to change.

[DisDuck]

hopemax understood my point while other(s) lost it. I was not refering to the story/theme bought off-the-shelf but the physical ride mechanism. The wheels, motors, handle bars, etc. That kind of stuff.

Buy it (instead of build it) and then let WDI theme it to the hilt. Personally, I don't look under the 'dress'. I could not care whose name is on the motor but whose name is on the theme.

That's all folks (oops, sorry about that , Cartoon Network ran all day bugs and I caught it).

[DVC-Landbaron]

That's all folks (oops, sorry about that , Cartoon Network ran all day bugs and I caught it).
So did I. It was great!!!

[TDC Blue Fairy]

Boy, how I wish I would have gotten to write that research paper for my English class......it was to be about EXACTLY what that post discussed..........I am telling you, the current frame of mind is enough to make me weep. I did some exploration into the paper, and I assume we have all seen what DCA COULD have been, versus the park we ended up with. I cannot pass final judgement on DCA, I have not yet been inside her gates, mostly because the original still has enough to enthrall me.........I am sure that it has some good elements to it, but knowing what could have been just makes me sad.:(

[Patch'sD]

Last I looked Walt was Dead. It is now 2001, and things have changed. I still feel that WDW and DL provide what they were intendended to do, Good Entertainment. If they did not, I would not go. It is the consumers choice, No one is forcing you to spend a week or so to Vaction in the world. I have not noticed peeling paint or contractors working during my visit. I guess I was to busy enjoying myself. I saw no difference in the quality in the park in 2000 than when I first vistited in 1973. I was being entertained.


As for Eisner, If he continued on large Capital Projects, High Operating Costs resulting in lower profit margins. Would he still be employed, No some other person who was responsible to the owners of the Disney Company would be in Charge.

Eisner saved Disney. If it was not for Eisner, Disney would no longer exist. It would have been bought up and sold off. Eisner vision has insured that the Disney Brand will be around for a long time to come. So the Go Network didn't take off, There are a lot of . Com companies out of business today, at least he was willing to take the risk. Capital Cities will come back, just like it has in the past. I Think every network has taken a turn at being a loser at onetime or another. Isn't the theme parks the stellar profit maker for the company today. Who is responsible for that. Card Walker, It is Eisner.

What Corporate Executive today, would recommend investing more than need be to achieve the desired return on investment. No one. I can hear it now. Lets spend more becuase Walt would have wanted it that way. "Thank you very much, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.


What was WDW before Eisner, Two great theme parks, four owned Hotels, four partner Hotels, a little shopping place, Two golf courses, and 20 square miles of non revenue generating land. Outside of the gates, lets see. a small but growing entertainment district " Church Street Station", a proposed Movie theme park, a water park, a aquarium, shops, restuarants, and lots of hotel rooms. Disney brings em down and gets them for a few days and the rest of Orlando gets them for the rest of the time. Eisner by building up WDW has captured the entire spectrum of the consumer. Young and Old, Married, Married with Children, and single. Providing something for everyone. I don't know about you. But there have been times in my life where I did not have children, where other things excited me besides a spin on the Teacups. So I welcome the broadening of the World and the choices it brings.

Also, I have been to the World when my kids were 2 and 3, and I have been there when they were 13 and 14. When they were younger I enjoyed rides like Dumbo with them, and now I can enjoy rides like the Rock and Roller Coaster with them. I don't think any of us would have enjoyed ridding Dumbo together now. So I find that these more exciting rides have enhanced the family expierence, not detracted from it. When they were younger, I did not go on Space Mountain and leave them behind. I went with them on the rides they could go on, that was my choice, we were not forced to seperate.

Speaking of Space Mountain. I remember my first ride on it back in 1975, My mother did not go on, Opps so much for family rides. But from what I recall, RCA had a big part in sponsorship. In fact as you went along the Walkway, There were RCA products all over the place.

As for Walts vision, dreams, and ideals that died with Walt. WDW was never to be just about themeparks, it was to be a completly different type of place to live and work. The theme park was one part of it. EPCOT was the big ticket, a city. Next time on the Tomorrow Land Transit Authority, take a look at the Real EPCOT. So don't blame Eisner, he has his vision and Walt had his. You don't leave your mark following someone elses dream, you leave it by following your own. If you are so unhappy with the Way Eisner is running the company , go to the next shareholders meeting and voice your opnion.

As for rides exiting into Gift shops, Isn't Place one of the more important things of Marketing, what do you suggest putting the gift shops in the back of the Park. or perhaps not selling at all.

As I have stated before, I feel that the parks do what I go there for, to be entertained. If I felt that I was not entertained and did not enjoy myself I would not go. It is my choice. I too would like to see things as they once where, but those days are gone and to waste my time wishing they would come back, would just make me waste my time.

[nickglover]

A very interesting essay. I mark "the change" as early as when the decision was made to abandon Walt's idea for an Experimental Community of Tomorrow, and instead build a theme park. I like EPCOT, but I always think how sad Walt would have been to see it and to realize it was not built for people to live in.
The more noticeable change came with MGM and the All Star Resorts.
DCA was conceived during an Aspen brainstorming session, the annual "Aspen Charette", or something, where the wealthy Disney execs gather with their wives each year. I will reserve judgment on DCA until I go there in the Fall, but you do have to realize the space was limited (once they decided to build right there in a parking lot - and to include a Downtown Disney).