Quotable Disney

[lrodk]

The following article from the LA Times talks about Walt Disney's influence on today's media and business world. His popularity and ever growing "Guru" status seems to pick up more and more steam in the aforementioned circles with each passing decade. Seems very fitting for a man of Walt's background, whose common sense guided him well throughout his career. A friend of mine once threw me a line many years ago that remains with me to this day. "You can't teach common sense. You either have it or you don't." So true. What Disney needs so desperately today, IMHO, is somone with a little bit of Walt's sensibilities, or common sense so to speak. Lets hope they come to their "senses" after reading some of Walt's quotes from Dave Smith's new book. Better yet, it should be required reading for every executive in Burbank. Here's the story:

Say it's Mickey Mouse, say it's goofy, but 35 years after Walt Disney's death, he is having a successful career as a guru.
Disney's bon mots are not as widely known as those of Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill or even Satchel Paige, but Walt is increasingly cited, especially in business books, where such Disney adages as "If you can dream it, you can do it" are fast becoming favorites.
Never regarded in life as the Sage of Burbank, Walt isn't known to have said anything that sings like Churchill's "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." But however pedestrian the phrasing, Walt's wit and wisdom are often quoted by today's business writers.
"His name pops up all the time," James O'Toole, a professor at USC's Center for Effective Organizations, said of Disney. In a world where Moses, Machiavelli and Attila the Hun have all been lauded for their business acumen, O'Toole isn't surprised to see Disney's name in the titles of half a dozen recent books on how to apply the Disney philosophy to business.
"There's a fascination with the company, because it's a quintessential American company, and there's a fascination with him," O'Toole said. "There's Ford and Edison and Disney, and Bill Gates, on the software side. Those are the people who become the subject of fables, and Americans love that."
Now, more than 200 of Walt's choicest sayings have been collected in the book, "The Quotable Walt Disney." Recently published by Disney Books, it was compiled by Dave Smith, the 60-year-old archivist at Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, which houses Walt's papers and other Disneyana.
"It was actually put together about 30 years ago as an internal document," Smith said of the collection of Disney's observations on everything from sequels (he didn't like them) to women as critics ("If the women like it, to heck with the men.").
In an office decorated with porcelain figures of the baby satyrs from "Fantasia" and other Disney kitsch, Smith said that the original collection began circulating inside the company around the time Disney World opened in 1971.
It was designed to introduce the people who were building the Florida theme park to the Disney mind-set that had proved so successful in California. Later, copies were given to new managers and used for training.
The little square book is filled with down-home sayings that sound as if Grandma might have cross-stitched them--if Grandma had run the world's largest entertainment empire. Animation, the theme parks, making your dreams come true are favorite subjects. A section on business and the Walt Disney Co. includes such enigmatic pronouncements as: "As well as I can, I'm untying the apron strings--until they scream for help."
And because Disney was frequently asked the secret of his success, it is no surprise to read, among Walt's explanations: "I suppose my formula might be: dream, diversify--and never miss an angle."
Business consultant Bill Capodagli is one of several authors who counsels his readers to use Disney's principles as a model for how to run a business. Based in Indianapolis, Capodagli is co-author of "The Disney Way: Harnessing the Management Secrets of Disney in Your Company" and "The Disney Way Fieldbook: How to Implement Walt Disney's Vision of Dream, Believe, Dare and Do in Your Own Company," from McGraw-Hill.
Capodagli starts the chapters of "The Disney Way" with quotes from Walt or present-day Disney executives. Capodagli also cites Jiminy Cricket's "a dream is a wish your heart makes." One critic described the book as "so useful you may whistle while you work."
Capodagli said he admires Walt Disney for his willingness to take chances. "A lot of people have dreams, a lot of people have great values, but I think taking risks and putting everything on the line to make those dreams come true is what really sets him apart."
Michigan business consultant Thomas K. Connellan wrote a bestseller on improving customer service titled "Inside the Magic Kingdom: Seven Keys to Disney's Success," published by Bard Press.
Connellan, who said he has no Disney affiliation, paraphrased his favorite quote from Walt because he couldn't remember the exact wording. It goes something like: "Just when everybody's saying how great you are, that's when you're most vulnerable."
Connellan said he interpreted that to mean that a company is in greatest danger of crashing and burning when it seems to be doing especially well. Connellan said it was advice that might have saved some fallen dot-coms.
Those who actually knew Walt don't remember him as being particularly glib or silver-tongued, especially employees who felt his legendary wrath. And while he loved to have talented people working for him, he had little tolerance for prima donnas. As he said: "We allow no geniuses around our studio."
Leo Braudy, author of "The Frenzy of Renown" and one of USC's specially honored University Professors, described Walt's posthumous emergence as a pundit as "an intriguing phenomenon really, because he was never noted for being witty or verbal in his lifetime."
Braudy speculated that many who write about the Disney Way mean today's conglomerate, not the troubled studio Walt left behind when he died. "So much of it is about what Disney has become since his death," Braudy said.
Braudy said he thinks that invoking the name of Disney may be a way for relatively unknown writers to enjoy some of Walt's reflected luster. "People anchor these things in a familiar name to give them some ballast and substance, to make you pay attention to them," he said.
Veteran entertainment reporter Bob Thomas of Encino met Walt in 1945 and worked with him on several book projects, including a biography of Walt for children. Thomas said Walt was no intellectual, and he was "a very homely talker."
But Thomas said Disney's burgeoning reputation as a thinker comes as no surprise. Disney had little more than a high school education, Thomas said, "but he had a native intelligence that was astounding."
Thomas, whose books include a study of brother Roy O. Disney's role in building the company, said his favorite adage of Walt's was one he used in times of crisis.
"Whenever they got into a bad patch, which they did especially after the war, Walt would say, 'We can lick 'em with product,' " Thomas recalled.
"I listened very closely because there was a great deal of natural wisdom there," Thomas said of working with Disney on the juvenile biography. Among Walt's memorable remarks: "Whenever I don't have the answer to something, I find someone who does."
"He advised children to do the same," Thomas said.
Graduate students are among those who contact Smith, seeking quotations from Walt for theses and dissertations. But Smith cautioned that, Geppetto-like, publicists and speech writers may have helped Walt out on occasion.
"As with a lot of famous people--I think it's true here--he didn't actually say all these quotes."
Whoever dreamed them up, Walt delivered them. Smith's own favorite is one of Disney's most quoted: "I only hope that we never lose sight of one thing--that it was all started by a mouse."

[airlarry!]

Maybe in addition to "Traditions", all blue suits at TDA should be required to read and memorize "The Quotable Walt Disney."

Then each meeting would end with the query, "Okay Mr. Blue Suit, your idea to cut out the <Free Afternoon Parade/Fireworks Show at MK/Boat Ride from Port Orleans/Free Mickey Stickers to young kids/Saxophone Guys/Insert Your Favorite Disney Magic Moment Here> in order to save 10% and increase profits 10% is fine, but what would Walt say?"

And each blue suit would then whip out the Waltbook....

[DisDuck]

DVC (& others) what do you thing about this quote.

"I suppose my formula might be: dream, diversify--and never miss an angle."


'dream' is pure Walt, I agree but 'diversify --and never miss an angle' sounds like Who? Do the initials ME come to mind. The last part of the quote seems very non-Disney but very current to me. Never miss an angle just might cover why stores at exit of each ride.

Have fun folks.

[Captain Crook]

DisDuck...I'm glad you're back!!!:cool:
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth:

[Euphscott]

Airlarry - how about WWWD bracelets? :)

What would Walt do?

[airlarry!]

How real would that be to see Michael Eisner or Peter Murphy or Paul Pressler walking around the Animal Kingdom, examining the park with a name tag on their lapel and a WWWD bracelet on the wrist?

I like it. Just like Walt outlawed facial hair for CMs, the new CEO would require the Waltbook and WWWD on the person of every blue suit.

[DisDuck]

Since I haven't got a response yet to below Walt quote, I guess as long as Walt says it, it is OK but when Eisner says it then watch out the World is falling apart.

The quote:
"I suppose my formula might be: dream, diversify--and never miss an angle."


I particularily like the 'never miss an angle' part. It is so Eisner;)

[Captain Crook]

Well DisDuck, it's kind of irrefutable isn't it? The problem is it doesn't fit into the "Walt was perfect" format. It is so revealling however, and it does sound like 'you know who's' philosophy...I suspect that aside from the creative chasam between Walt & Eisner, the business side would see Eisner & Walt/Roy probably not that far apart (i.e. doing whatever they must do to keep the Company going).

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

...no one responded is that you toss the term "angle" around as though it has some inherent, specific meaning in this context. It does not.

Eisner's "angles" include putting up supermarket parking lot carnivals to try and save a park suffering "nothing to do" complaints.

If you honestly believe that's the kind of "angle" Walt was talking about, we have nothing to discuss.

Jeff

[Captain Crook]

Yes, the angles were different in specifics but not in basic intent...All Walt wanted to do was pursue his dreams. He wasn't altruistic, a philantropist or even an artist true to his craft. He was a dreamer (one heck of a dreamer) and a doer (one heck of a doer), but he was egotistical & self centered, as well. Don't mistake his genius...His extreme genius, for perfection. Eisner wants to keep the Company independent and profitable...His success in these endeavors, especially going forward IS debatable...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DisDuck]

Ok. Jeff what were Walt's angles if not to maximize business. As the Captain says he was not an altruistic person doing his thing out of the goodness of his heart.

I am old enough to even remember the rumors but Walt's association with the John Birch Society. Never proven but it is not 'Uncle Walt' we are talking about here.

[YoHo]

Angle has a very specific meaning in this context and you know it.

Its one thing to debate Eisners Strategies and his ability to see the angle, but make no mistake, he and Walt were on the same page when it comes to Growing the buisness. You can be darn sure that If Walt thought Disney could stand out and make money in the retail space, we'd have had Disney Stores across the country in the 50s-60s. Of course, the retail market was extremely different back then.
Similarly, if Walt Thought that a chain of Radio Stations pushing popular kid tolerable (I can't quite say kid friendly, although they never play a song where the words need to be cut) Music and Disney content would do the company good, then you bet there would have been Radio Disney back then too.

Of course, back then the Telecommunications rules were different.


Its so easy to dismiss what Eisner has done saying Walt would never do it when there is simply no evidence that says that. When combined with the changing times and different oppertunities.....

JeffJewel, I think that there are two arguments floating around and The Captain is refuting one. It only confuses the matter to rebutt it with the other doesn't it?

[JeffJewell]

Jeff what were Walt's angles if not to maximize business I never suggested Walt's "angles" were _not_ to maximize buisness, that would be a stupid thing to say. I suggested that Walt would not have considered a supermarket parking lot carnival as a "fix" for a park suffering "not enough to do" complaints. I suggest that Walt would revise his own quote if he knew people would define "angle" that way in his name.

YoHo... Angle has a very specific meaning in this context ...if you feel that's true, please tell me what the specific meaning is. Perhaps then I can make sense out of the rest of your post.

Jeff

[YoHo]

The Angle is to grow and diversify the Disney company in directions both profitable and interesting to the people in charge.

[JeffJewell]

The Angle is to grow and diversify the Disney company in directions both profitable and interesting to the people in charge As in the case of DinoRama, there are some "angles" that were _not_ acceptable to Walt that _are_ acceptable to Eisner (Actually, the marketplace is pretty much proving that Eisner's ideas of "angles," as represented by Animal Kingdom and Disney's California Adventure, do _not_, in fact, "grow and diversify the Disney company in" a direction "profitable").

My posts in this thread have been responses to DisDuck's invitation to state what we think of his Walt quote and his statement "I guess as long as Walt says it, it is OK but when Eisner says it then watch out the World is falling apart." I was pointing out (completely accurately) that Eisner is using "angles" that were _not_ what Walt was speaking of when he made his statement. I still have no idea about what your Disney Stores and Radio Station comments were supposed to mean in context.

I agree completely with Walt's quote, as long as the "angles" you use do not jeopardize the long-term health of the company.

Jeff

[YoHo]

The point is that there are 2 arguments. Eisner looks for angles, Walt doesn't (a very narrow version of a broader argument that is basically, Eisner is evil and Walt is pure as the driven snow)

Argument 2 is in essence, Eisner has made some stupid moves in the recent years (in particular) and made some bad choices on the angles he chooses.

DisDuck's quote refutes argument number one.

You responded with in essence argument number 2.

But the validity of Argument 2 does not change the fact that argument number 1 is invalid.

My comments about the Disney Store and Radio Disney,
Were intended as illustrations of angles that Walt may very well have taken had the climate been right.

you toss the term "angle" around as though it has some inherent, specific meaning in this context. It does not.


My intention was to prove that there is an inherent meaning to the term "angle" In fact, I was nice in my description. Others could have used a harsher description that would have painted both Walt and Mike in a much worse light.

Argument 2, the fact that Eisner made mistakes in the angles he chose does not validate argument 1. Walt and Eisner are both looking for angles. there are at least 3 other threads right now that touch on Walt's failures.

The problem (for some, not neccessarily you) is that argument 2 doesn't villify Eisner nearly enough.


Also, I'm not by Any means suggesting that Eisner is on Par with Walt, merely that their goals were far more similar then some wish to believe.

P.S. There have been a wealth of new people posting on the rumours board of late. I think that in some sense we are going back over things already disscussed by some of us. So I think we need to think fresh, but remember what we've learned from each other in the past.

[Captain Crook]

But see Jeff, there's the rub. Walt ran Disney very close to bankruptcy on more than one occasion. So his decisons, while brilliant in retrospect, were not always the right thing for the right time. I know lots of external factors weighed on the decisions Walt had to make but that is really just part of the game and doesn'treally change the fact that certain results did happen...

Regarding your Dino-Rama comment what do you mean unacceptable to Walt? Because if you're speaking of Walt not liking "carnival rides" I recall reading that this simply wasn't true. As with his concept for all of DL he just didn't want the "cheap, dirty carnival atmosphere."

And not to speak for the others (but I'll give my view) the angle is basically using whatever will work, give them the edge, improve branding, grow the company and as was stated, if Walt saw a fortune in Disney Stores, I think we would have seen them.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

DisDuck's quote refutes argument number one That's where I disagree. Anyone complaining that "Eisner searches for angles, Walt never did" is either using "angle" by your denotative definition in a clearly incorrect statement, or using "angle" with it's modern connotative "sleazy shortcut" definition in what is an arguably correct statement.

For me, there's only one argument, because what you describe as argument 1 is either non-sensical (with your definition of "angle") or just a version of your argument 2 (with the more derogatory definition of "angle").

As businessmen, Walt's and Eisner's goals are functionally identical, once you pare down far enough. No one can reasonably fault Eisner for the goal of trying to make money.

Walt simply had an additional goal that Eisner completely lacks, that's what Eisner apologists forget.

Jeff

[YoHo]

And thus we get to the hear tof the matter.

That "Goal" that Walt had and Eisner lacks is at the heart isn't it?

But not everybody is on the same page. not everybody sees that Difference yet.

Personally, I feel that that goal which I assume to be some form of Quality is something that Eisner in fact had and it is the loss of that goal which caused the company to tumble. not as some might point out Diversifications, (or looking for new angles)
That is a different argument.


There are plenty of intelligent people making Non-sensical arguments here as typically happens when talking about something as close to our hearts as Disney.

Argument number 1 whether you use my generous Definition, or the modern Sleaze version does not devolve in to argument 2. Argument 2 is a more specific critisizm of the moves made.
Bad judgment does not equate to bad motives.

Argument 1 is about motives. Argument 2 is about Judgement.


I'm willing to accept that Eisner has lost that goal that makes Walt different. I'm not willing to accept that there was any actual nefarious motive behind that change.

[DisDuck]

"I'm willing to accept that Eisner has lost that goal that makes Walt different. I'm not willing to accept that there was any actual nefarious motive behind that change"

YoHo, I think you hit the nail on the head. I have been involved with this type of discussion, almost from day one on the old board. There is a group that believe that Eisner has an ulterior motive (other than business) behind each of his decisions and another group which don't. I know where I stand.

In the past 6 months there has been some bad business decisions but Walt also made bad business decisions (Fantasia was a dousy). Eisner as CEO holds ultimate responsibility for them just like Walsh would at GE or any other CEO. But he has also made good decisions.

From the latest comments in the media, I think this has now (later than sooner, I wish it had been sooner) been recognized. I am willing to see what the future holds. If the down trend (bad decisions) continue then he should retire, if the trend is back upward (good decisions) then I think he should be given his due.

[Captain Crook]

Yoho, I too agree with "the" statement in question & DisDuck speaks to my current state of mind regarding Eisner to a "T."

If we get any consensus from the other carpoolers we may ha ve a story for Jim Hill!;)
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[hopemax]

I was going back to old posts I made on radp, this is something I said 3 years ago, and I still think it's true...
it was in a topic about the differences between Walt and Eisner.

****

I don't think the principles have been altered, just that Eisner's order of priorities is different from Walt/Roy priorities or the priority of those running the company after the death's of Walt/Roy and pre-Eisner. A simple list of priorities would include:

Doing what I want (I meaning the head of the company)
Doing what guests want
Doing what Walt would want
Making Money

One could say that in the 70's the #1 priority was doing what Walt wanted, Eisner's #1 priority is obviously something different. So I guess what I'm basically trying to say, is that if Walt and Eisner made a list of all the things they thought were important, (show, quality, guest satisfaction, profit, etc.), Walt and Eisner's list would be more or less identical, but if they were asked to rank each item from most important to least important the list would be different.

*****

My 2001 addition, is that this priority order greatly affects the choice of projects, direction or "angles" and that because the order of priorities for the two men are arranged differently, some "angles" that Eisner has chosen wouldn't be the same ones that Walt chose and vice versa.

And if we, the fans were to use our own priority lists we would find that some of Eisner's or Walt's "angles" do not fit with our priorities and thus we dislike the outcome, sometimes fervently.

[DVC-Landbaron]

... Indeed!! Captain, my man! You bust me up!! ;)


There is a group that believe that Eisner has an ulterior motive (other than business) behind each of his decisions and another group which don't. I know where I stand. I hope you don't put me in that first category Mr. Duck! I've never believed in that scenario at all. No! My take is completely different. And rather simple:

He's just inept!! ;)

[YoHo]

Oh trust me Landbaron, we know your stand, (although you'll slum with the others every now and then)

Disduck has stated 2 positions, you could from both positions conclude that Disney is in trouble. One however presumes something which in the early years of Eisner was shown not to be true.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Great post Hopemax. I don't know what Ei$ner's priorities were/are. But I can definitively tell you what Walt's were. You can find them in Traditions:

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

Notice that the "SHOW" outranks efficiency. It is more important. Efficiency as in profit. Efficiency as in spending enough to put on a proper "SHOW" (read: maintenance at night, enough maintenance to replace torn srims on CoP, attractions that dazzle, etc.). Efficiency as in worrying about the "SHOW" before the bottom line!!

Thanks for reminding me of one of my on-going themes!!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Another Voice]

The difference – Walt was a creator and saw the company as a vehicle to build what he imagined. Eisner is a manager who uses the company to sell what others create, pocketing the difference for the stockholders (and himself).

Yes, Eisner is a better businessman than Walt was. But then again, I know that a balance sheet will never make my children laugh and cry like ‘Bambi’ did. I’ll gladly put up with the occasional business lapse to bring a child wonder, but I can not excuse disappointing a child to fatten stock options.


(And Sir Landbaron – you have no idea how right you are).

[JeffJewell]

I'm willing to accept that Eisner has lost that goal that makes Walt different. I'm not willing to accept that there was any actual nefarious motive behind that change. We're pretty much on the same page, then.

I don't want to get rid of Eisner because he's evil, I want to get rid of him because he's making decisions that I believe will hurt Disney; that I believe _have_ hurt Disney.

Diversification in and of itself is spiffy, just make it a Disney-quality endeavor (like we spoke of when we got talking about the sports teams). It appears to me that you concentrated on the "diversification" portion of the original comment, while I was concentrating on the "angle" and CC's followup "doing whatever they must" quote, which ended up looking to me like an Eisner justification. Our points kinda barrel-rolled past each other in flight.

Jeff

PS to DisDuck - actually, in a manner of speaking, it was _Walt_ that had an ulterior motive. As businessmen, both Walt and Eisner have the "make money" goal on the list somewhere, purt' near the top. It was Walt who had the vast "amaze and delight the guest" conspiracy going. I agree we're all going to have to wait and see, I simply don't have as much hope that Eisner will reverse the trend as you seem to. I don't think Eisner will ever join the "amaze and delight" conspiracy.

[YoHo]

Landbaron, I like your creative definitions for efficency.
To my mind, you've turned that word 180 degrees around to prove a point.


In short the notion that efficiency as used in Walt DISNEYLAND focus has little or nothing to do with Spending money on maintainence or Show. It has to do with making the SHOW operate as smoothly and effortlessly as possible.

Smooth and effortless tend to translate into higher profits, but not as directly as you would try to insinuate.

In essence what it says is, not being able to do the SHOW efficently is no excuse for not doing the show at all.
Profit and costs are 2nd order relationships to this, not direct relationships.


Please, I know you are quite cabable of making your point with out making the hard working people of Merriam-Webster cry. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


As to Another Voice, I agree with your first paragraph.

Please explain who and how ANYONE, Of any Time could take Someone elses baby As Disney Corp was to Walt. And make it there own baby.

Your comments are noted, but really add no Value, Not Eisner, Not NOBODY could be a New Walt for the Disney company. It simply isn't possible.

Its the same reason Apple stagnated without Jobs (not that he's all the brilliant a CEO, but it shows what can happen when the goals of a company are embodied so completely in its founder.


I’ll gladly put up with the occasional business lapse to bring a child wonder, but I can not excuse disappointing a child to fatten stock options.

I also agree here, which is why I'm mad at Eisner RIGHT NOW. But, I don't think the goal was to dissappoint children was it? I'm sure sleeping beauty's goal was not to dissappoint children, yet the box office tells the tale does it not?

[JeffJewell]

...Landbaron reminded me of one of my favorite Walt stories, and for once, it's actually on topic.

Walt's fascination with trains is well documented, and he was building a small ridable railroad in his backyard. A workman, upon seeing the plans, suggested that a certain section of track be altered to better fit the existing landscape. It would be cheaper that way.

Walt's response was approximately "It would be cheaper not to built the damn thing at all."

If primary goal going into the project is to save money, just don't even bother.

Jeff

[YoHo]

I love that quote.

and of course, were it not for that model railroad, there would have been no Disneyland.

[airlarry!]

YoHo theorized:

>>>Not Eisner, Not NOBODY could be a New Walt for the Disney company. It simply isn't possible.

No. No. No. No. No. No. Mike could have. And there are others who would gladly switch places with Mike E for a lot less money.

I do not feel MikeE is evil. He is just not getting it. I read 'Work in Progress' twice (I own it -- please no flames Landbaron ;) ). I have read 'Storming the Kingdom.'

Eisner's priorities seem to have switched from creation of magic to creation of profit, and pleasing the street.

Don't believe me? Compare EuroDisneland (DLP) to California MisAdventure. Men of vision like Eddie Sotto have shown that magic can still be made. No matter how big this company gets.

You can't excuse some of things being done at WDW just because of the company's size. Like when it comes to doing maintenace at the park during the daytime? I saw the castle forecourt being painted during Mardi Gras, and it struck me as something unusual. It wasn't till I got home that I realized that I had never before seen work done ON STAGE before. Come on. Do that after hours. Have some company pride.

This company was built *in the details*. Excellence is in the details. And the reason I'm riding #3 (but hoping to go to #2) is because this company is not getting the details.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Examples of Efficiency

Landbaron, I like your creative definitions for efficency. To my mind, you've turned that word 180 degrees around to prove a point. I disagree.

In short the notion that efficiency as used in Walt DISNEYLAND focus has little or nothing to do with Spending money on maintenance or Show. I could not possibly disagree more!!

It has to do with making the SHOW operate as smoothly and effortlessly as possible. Effort has nothing to with it! Tell me, is it more efficient to have workmen paint Tomorrowland during regular business hours? Is it more efficient to delay maintenance in accordance to material function as opposed to cosmetic requirements? Obviously the answer is YES!! So any business concern would practice this normal, accepted strategy. HOWEVER!!! Walt said, wait a minute!! That may be the most "efficient" way to conduct any other business, but what does that do to the "SHOW"? Why, it makes a bad SHOW!! So, we don't do it!! We find a way around it!! And if that means, "wasting"(?) money, paying premium pay to painters so that they paint at night, then that was the way it had to be. IN ORDER TO INSURE A GOOD SHOW!!!!

And what about the surfaces those painters are painting? Certainly a heck of a lot of paint can wear and chip away before any serious structural damage occurs. So what if it's cosmetically apparent? But Walt didn't like that idea, did he? And why? Come on… Guess!! YES!! That's right!! BAD SHOW!!! So we need to paint much more often than your normal business would. And at night!! Talk about inefficient!!!
Smooth and effortless tend to translate into higher profits, but not as directly as you would try to insinuate. What!!??
In essence what it says is, not being able to do the SHOW efficiently is no excuse for not doing the show at all. So we should do an inefficient SHOW if an efficient one isn't available? If that's what you're saying reread JeffJewell's little Walt story. It's one of my favorites and I've used it often. If it's not what you're talking about then… I'm sorry YoHo, I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, but quite frankly I have no idea what you are talking about!! Please rephrase.
I also agree here, which is why I'm mad at Eisner RIGHT NOW. But, I don't think the goal was to dissappoint children was it? Did it ever occur to you that he never even consider the child? In a way, that's worse.

[YoHo]

airlarry, my point which you unwittingly clarified, was the no matter how much Eisner digs in to the meat of Disney, Ultimatly, he cannot run Walt's company the way Walt did, because it is Walt's company. Unless he creates Eisner Corp. and builds Eisnerworld, he will never truely embody everything the way Walt did and does. And that's why its harder for him, or anyone to focus. An example, While Walt relied on his bevy of Imagineers to turn his ideas (for his back yard railroad, to his early plans for E.P.C.O.T.) into reality, he was ultimatly the creative force behind it. There was no Jeffery Katzenberg sheperding Animation, Walt did that. Walt took a far more immediate interest then anyone who isn't Walt could.

I'm not questioning abilities, merely saying that some things simply aren't possible.

Now sure, I may think I could do it, you may think you could do it. But, then you'd be sitting there, behind the Giant Dopey figurine (I don't remember which one the office is really behind, but Dopey seems funniest) and you realize that you have one of the worlds strongest brands under your complete control, and then you think Wow, If I make a wrong move, Landbaron's gonna drive down from Chicago and throttle me. Plus all those investors will hang me at the next board meeting if they don't see a profit.....Yadda Yadda, they find you curled up in a ball in the broom closet crying.

Make no mistake, Eisner's job isn't easy I suspect there are few people that could be both as hands on and as savvy as Walt, and those people want to make their own companies, not run Disney.

[airlarry!]

Okay, Yoho, I would take on that challenge. Not running the company of course but...

if all Disney fans bought 10 more shares of stock, pooled them together, and elected someone like Eddie Sotto to run the company, with John Lassiter running Feature Animation, and Paul Pressler running merchandising, and Cynthia Harris getting free rein to run theme parks....

You get my drift. You might not like my names...but there are people out there who care enough about the Disney name that they would do things the right way.

How do I know? Read Sotto's comments on the imagineer web site. Read the Doobie's interviews (at www.laughingplace.com) with the Sherman Brothers to find out the secret of Walt's success with music and what happened after he died. Read the mistakes Mike E admits to making at DLP, and mistakes he almost made. Read how John Lassiter get started in this whole business at Cal Arts and with Disney at the www.pixar.com web site.

MichaelE is not the only girl at this dance, I promise you.

[YoHo]

Landbaron, I said that Efficiency was not a synonym for profitability.


You are trying to say that Walt valued SHOW over cost and profitablility by pointing to the fact that Efficiency is ranked lower then show. WHICH IS LUDICROUS, because Efficiency is not a Synonym for low cost and profitability.

You are supporting a valid argument with an invalid example. be thankful bicker isn't here.


You have given some lovely examples of aspects of Walt's Disney that valued Show over efficiency. That's great. All of which does nothing to prove your assertion. All you've done is proven that Walt practiced what he preached.


Some examples of efficiency in the parks.

Dual loading queues on the boat rides (small worl and PotC) which makes the line seem shorter.

Creative use of preshows to improve line managment. (see haunted mansion)
Combineing Park tickets on room keys to reduce guest problems and to simplify computer systems.

Recycling operations and Water reclimation.
The rotating schedule on which they paint so that things are repainted right before they start to look bad.


In Short, I don't disagree that Walt and Eisner may have different priority levels, but please don't support that idea non-sensicly.



Effort has nothing to with it! Tell me, is it more efficient to have workmen paint Tomorrowland during regular business hours? Is it more efficient to delay maintenance in accordance to material function as opposed to cosmetic requirements? Obviously the answer is YES!! So any business concern would practice this normal, accepted strategy. HOWEVER!!! Walt said, wait a minute!! That may be the most "efficient" way to conduct any other business, but what does that do to the "SHOW"? Why, it makes a bad SHOW!! So, we don't do it!! We find a way around it!! And if that means, "wasting"(?) money, paying premium pay to painters so that they paint at night, then that was the way it had to be. IN ORDER TO INSURE A GOOD SHOW!!!!


I have to go back to this, First of all, you imply that many of the above statements such as when and how often they paint are examples of inefficiency, that is ludicrous, painting after hours when the park is EMPTY is exremely efficient. Painting on a rotating basis regardless of whether or not the surface needs it prevents both unsiightly damage and maintains the health of the surface which is more efficient then fixing damaged surfaces.

They also cost more, that in no way makes them less efficient.

A non Disney example. It is possible for me to build an automobile engine that costs lets say $100 in parts. Does it being so cheap make burn gas efficiently? NO, Lets say I place this $100 motor in a stretch limo, Simply, because its cheaper, does it make the limo an efficient car to operate.

What about the costs of refueling the inefficient beast, or the inability to pass on the highway, because its a weak performer.


As I said, Lower costs and higher profits are derivatives of Efficiency, but they are not synonyms.

Your argument made no sense to me.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Your argument made no sense to me.And yours to me.




(bicker style) ;)

[YoHo]

Airlarry, do you think those people really, really want to be in charge of such a huge organization that they have no inherent emotional stake in? Oh sure they love Disney, but do they love it like Walt did?



Landbaron, well if we're missunderstanding each other, then we better set each other straight, because we nearly had a tiff there and I'd rather understand and be proven wrong then not understand (or not be understood)

[airlarry!]

YoHo questioned:
>>>Airlarry, do you think those people really, really want to be in charge of such a huge organization that they have no inherent emotional stake in? Oh sure they love Disney, but do they love it like Walt did
>>>>

Who might we be talking about? All of the people I mentioned, save Pressler ;) eh Baron, are closet Disn-oids. Lassiter was Cal Arts second student (remember it was the Disney co. that lobbied for and supported the the program in Animation arts) and worked for a time on actual Disney animation features.

Eddie Sotto? Cynthia Harris? These are both people with a demonstrated love of all things Disney. Heck Eddie has said so much himself. If you read between the lines, he left to 'consult' because of the same disatisfaction that forced the Sherman Brothers out and the same dissatisfaction spelled out by Roy.

I am not sure who you are talking about?

[DVC-Landbaron]

... In one thread!!! How does he do it?:bounce:



Landbaron, well if we're misunderstanding each other, then we better set each other straight, because we nearly had a tiff there and I'd rather understand and be proven wrong then not understand (or not be understood)Not at all, my friend YoHo!! We could never have a tiff! A spat perhaps. A heated word here or there. But never, never a tiff! Truth be told I was leaving work, looking forward to an hour or so on the Kennedy and you mentioned my friendly adversary bicker. So with what struck me as appropriate humor, I tried to answer like he would. I think I succeeded. ;)


Anyway, now that I am home I have a little time. So, let’s look at the issue in question. Someone posed the concept, “What was important to Walt vs. what was important to Ei$ner”.

I have no idea about Ei$ner, but I think I know enough about Walt to further the theory that the following four items were at least important enough to him to be included (even prominent) in Traditions. They are (in order):

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

Now, my only point was that Walt specifically arranged those four in that particular order. Why? Because let’s face it, if someone was about to lose life or limb at WDW, Efficiency goes right out the window. So does the SHOW and courtesy! And there may be times when courtesy is simply the better option over keeping up the pretense of the SHOW. In other words, the SHOW, for example, is the most important thing at WDW, except when it comes to being courteous or when it involves safety. Still with me?

Now. To me, taking the above paragraph and the four tenets in their particular order, logic dictates that the same must hold true for #4. That is to say that Disney must maintain the most efficient operation possible. UNLESS that efficiency interferes with the previous three! (Asimov’s three rules of robotics!! A hierarchy kind of thing.) Let’s leave the realistic and specific examples out of it. I get sidetracked easily and we start arguing the particulars rather than the concept. So, generally speaking, anything that furthers high efficiency is very welcome within the Disney organization. Most of your examples are perfect within that context. And (this is the really important bit) in so far as they really compliment the previous law (for lack of a better word) and don’t affect the first two at all, they are accepted with opened arms by the Walt philosophy. HOWEVER, there are certain aspects of business efficiency and day-to-day operations of a theme park that might not be so lucky.

Common sense tells you that you can’t mess with safety, so it’s taken for granted. But suppose it was found that by rerouting the cue for Splash Mountain you could save the company mega-bucks and cut the wait time down for the guest to less than half (I don’t know how just bear with me). But in order to accomplish this, the guest would have to walk though the flume at the load area, between the boats!! (DON’T ASK, it’s supposed to be preposterous!) Anyway, that wouldn’t work would it? Why? (I mean other than common sense.) Well, it’s not very courteous to have the guest’s legs get soaked trudging through knee-deep water. And after the first few guests crossed over, the inevitable bone crushing accident would occur shutting the ride down for at least an hour!!! ;)

I’m just saying that the first two tenets, most of the time, are so apparent, so taken for granted, that we instinctively avoid any conflict with them. (That's why the example had to be outlandish). The SHOW is a much more gray area. And efficiency can definitely mean what you referred to. And as far as most of your examples are concerned, they go hand in hand with the previous three tenets. But efficiency can and often does (just ask bicker) involve costs, value and profits. And according the four laws of Disneydom this fourth law is very important. Out of all the words in the dictionary only four are listed. And efficiency is included among them. It seems they like efficiency very, very much. Very important to Walt and very important to the company. But not as important as Safety. Not as important as courtesy. And not as important as the SHOW!!

One final thought. I wrote the piece about what we buy from Disney after you put me on the scent. I think it adequately describes just what the product of Disney is. Therefore, NOTHING should interfere with the delivery of that product (except of course the first two). It comes before EVERYTHING (except of course the first two). That, in a nutshell, is the “Walt philosophy” I’m always on about. The SHOW is the most important thing they have to offer (except of course the first two). Now that the SHOW knows it’s proper place. It’s time that efficiency learned its place as well. Ei$ner has let it go before SHOW way too often lately.!!

Am I a little clearer?

[YoHo]

Landbaron, Thankyou for clarifying. As I think you know, my beef was with your examples, and your use of the term. Yes, efficiency can refer to money matters, but only in a broad sense. An efficient company as opposed to a bloated one. The trick with Efficiency is that, destroying your product, or eating at your customer base is enherently inefficient, its also hard to recover from. Your examples, or I should say the opposite of your examples, IE, not doing maitainence at night, not painting everything on a revolving basis, not Keeping the show more important could have a major impact on the bottom line. So in essence, Eisner et al did NOT put efficiency above Show, they through both out the window. Not intentionally, nobody ever does this kind of foolishness intentionally, but they sure enough did it.

Here's an outside example that's pretty absurd Lets take my Limo with the $100 engine, You know, I could save a lot of money if I didn't put any tires on it. Yeah, that would be real efficient and streamlining. It would lower costs.....Oh, but wait, nobody would buy my car. Gee, it wouldn't be efficient tio build a low cost car that nobody buys.


Airlarry, Being a Disneyfile is not enough, you need to be Disney. Its possible Roy E. could do it, if he had the desire, but even he doesn't really have all it takes. Remember, Eisner isn't the first post Walt CEO, and nobody has done any better overall (they had there successes, but globally, they didn't truely succeed) So, A Disney pedigree isn't enough.

As to how I can handle two at once, Its called avoiding actual work at all costs. :)