1. Guest - Welcome to the new DIS Boards! I will create a thread on the tech support board to talk about any issues we are seeing and another thread to discuss new functionality - Alex

A question regarding the growth of WDW

Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by DVC-Landbaron, Jan 13, 2013.

  1. pilferk

    pilferk <font color=red>Jambo Wildbunch Gang<br><font colo

    Swan and Dolphin I think you'll find an explanation of a bit further back. Essentially, they were not supposed to be there til Eisner's ego caused some "renegotiation" (ie: out of court settlement) that resulted in those two hoteliers and their conference center being smack dab in Epcot area prime real estate instead of a bit further away. Also blame Eisner for picking the architect (the one thing he really got in the settlement). You almost wonder if Eisner owed the Grave money from a poker game or insulted his wife or something. Yeesh.

    Bonnet Creek is different. It was/is the ONE parcel in the area that Disney couldn't buy way back when. In fact, Disney tried to effectively block the Bonnet Creek development by denying them road access...but the courts/mediators quickly shut that down and pretty much forced Disney to provide Bonnet right of way. Reedy Creek Improvement District then entered into negotiations with World Union (the owners) and they finalized details that would let the property be developed.

    Essentially, Disney had no say in that one.

    A some what dated (circa 2009) description:

    To be frank, I'm the same way when I'm THERE. When I'm on site, I'm on vacation with my family, and experience the parks that way.

    But when I'm not on site, it's fun to postulate, speculate, debate, and all those other -ates we do around here.
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide this advert.
  3. disneyworld1977

    disneyworld1977 New Member


    Thanks for the info. I think a long time ago, I did some research on some of that stuff but haven't in several and forget the info about it.

    Disney needs to make like a "Disney Parks" board, with like 100, or maybe 1000 (LOL) of like old school and crazy new Disney fans, to consult and help in the efforts moving forward. Then, along with the Imagineers, continue to develop Disney World even better. :)

    I vote me on that board. I have a little bit of Disney knowledge to lend.:rotfl2:
  4. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    I totally agree with this thought. And, it is not only the Parks, but, it holds true for the Resorts and surrounding areas as well!

    I have been to Epcot 20 times! Went this year with my son who was a College Program member working there. He taught / showed me a few dozen things I had no idea existed, or, what the story really was.

    Part of the problem is that visiting these parks are expensive! You make a mental check-list of the big-ticket experiences, and, you really never take that time to stop and smell the roses - the prices are too expensive for that! Why not just ditch 'Soarin for the 10th time - and use that time to explore?

    They teach the CM's / CP's that stuff for free. We too can learn about some of these hidden gems, but, will cost you $75 or more for the tour along with the Park entrance. Perhaps they are missing the mark here?

    Case in point: It took me 25 years after my first visit to explore Tom Sawyers Island. Loved it, never have been back and I know there is a ton to see!
  5. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    Ok Land - here is where I draw the line and disagree (semantics mostly!). I don't want to go in to it - have many times before: I worked as a Contractor on a major software project down there - all behind the scenes.

    These folks care, and, care passionately! They care about title, they care about responsibility, they care about the number of direct reports under them, they care about power, they care about advancement and they are absolutely ruthless to get what they care about.

    I just deleted 5 paragraphs I had written regarding the circumstances - I feel better just saying: They play for keeps. If they are in the right - they are right and demand action within a week. If they are in the wrong - they are righter, fight you 10 times harder and demand action within 24 hours.

    I have worked with over 200 companies in my career - this was the worst client I ever worked with and their is no 2nd worse. It took me 5 years to get over the experience - luckily my kids begged me to go!

    For me, going back was finally separating the Business from the Magic. And, sometimes threads like this are not healthy for me as they bring back the wrong memories. They are a business - they are a Publicly traded company and they are there to increase shareholder value. If they do a bad job - the throngs won't show up. On the other hand, as I said yesterday: We all have an emotional / financial stake in the place - and - are due our frank thoughts.

    How did they get that way? Was it Eisner? Was it Frank "Bean Counter" Wells? My personal thought it was not a Eisner / Wells directive. I think it evolved over years of being lauded as a great company! They grew exponentially during the Disney Decade. Very talented young executives were hired on - they all want to get to the top - and they want to get their tomorrow!

    I am not naive. The first 14 years of my career were with a Bank that went from the Fortune 5000 to the Fortune 100 during my tenure - we were the same way as I described WDW! I understand turf-wars! But we never came CLOSE in terms of ruthlessness and ferocity. We were 100% customer focused and would spend 50K to fix a 10K problem!

    Long story short: My opinion is the internal focus is based off the wrong premise.

    You don't get to the top of WDW Management by proposing a new Monorail line. You get there by blowing up the existing one and implementing Rickshaws and charge a Luxury fee for the service!

    You don't get to the top by building 5 new cutting edge rides in the new Fantasy Land! You get there by building one, re-purposing a few others and building a new Restaurant and 4 more shops. Then you tell everyone you invested $250 Million "to enhance the Guest Experience"! You finish it off by raising Ticket prices and by having a big Hoo pe Doo at Celebration for the Cash Members!

    And, I read the new WDW Leader got to the top by raising revenue / profits. So, there you go!
  6. YoHo

    YoHo If you have any poo to fling, now is the time.

    This post is completely wrong.

    Or rather, completely misses my point. Sorry to go back 3 pages, but life must at times intrude.

    Are you suggesting that Walt would have purchased other's IP to use in his parks? I'm not positive that isn't true. He might have, but at the same time, he was filled with his own inborn ability to think up and develope such IP within his own company. His talents are such that he never would have needed to do such a thing. Which is not to say he wouldn't have if he thought it the right fit. Only that purely based on his creative output, he likely wouldn't have needed to and so it's a silly consideration.

    Also, I don't believe I used the term "Grand Story" I talked about Storytelling. Pirates and the Haunted Mansion are the best at Storytelling. HANDS DOWN. None better. Some equal.

    And interestingly, they both do it with different methods and types of story.

    If you don't think "Storytelling" was Walt's motivation, then pray tell what other motivation do you think their was?

    My guess is you've miss-identified what I'm calling Storytelling.

    Storytelling is the fundamental Gist of Walt's entire career.
  7. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    An honest question to you:

    Do you think, at times, the company suffers from the Story? Does every ride and attraction have to fit a well-scripted back-story (that few of us are let to see and understand?).

    I have read about the fantastic story and detail provided by Splash Mountain! I think it is fun to watch the story as it evolves, but, even I do not understand it completely. Does the average 15 year old appreciate it - they like the plunge!

    At times - I say Oh YEAH - that is what makes the place special! But, is it the Yeti which sets them apart or holds them back?

    I have ridden Everest 40 times. 30 times with the Yeti, 10 without. I liked it all 40 times! But, if they don't build the Yeti - are we disappointed in the delivery and call it a half-baked Disney ride? They still built a very cool looking mountain! Is it the Yeti which sets them apart or holds them back? That damn Snowman set them back a pretty penny which could be used somewhere else!

    I don't know the answer - I am asking you - and anyone / everyone who reads this!
  8. Peter Pirate 2

    Peter Pirate 2 <font color=red>I may be a Disney curmudgeon but I

    I was done with this rehash...But...

    Someone is wrong here but it isn't me. Walt was a freakin genius. He would use any tool available to him to get his point across. He didn't write Alice or snow white .. He borrowed them and made them his own as he would have done with Spidey, given the opportunity.

    Regarding "storytelling" ... No, I do not believe that was his main motivation. I believe his main motivation was QUALITY. Game, set, match.
  9. DVC-Landbaron

    DVC-Landbaron What Would Walt Do?

    I prefer Baron or DVC, but I’ll answer to anything if there is disagreement in the air!! And you say there is some disagreement!! GREAT!! I was getting tired of this hippie like love-in and mutual admiration society!!

    Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! I just read through the whole thing and can find very little to disagree with!! HOW FRUSTRATING!!!!

    Disagree with this!!?? NO WAY!!! I’m going to print up T-shirts with this on them!!! If it weren’t so long I’d use it in my signature!! It is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for over 14 years now!!

    When I said: they don’t care, I meant about the guests themselves, not their wallets.

    And when I said: They don’t “GET IT”. I meant they don’t get Walt’s business philosophy. They don’t get “Disney”!!! The “Disney” of old (that made millions and millions and increased shareholder’s value tremendously!!) It is a term I started using in 2000 or 2001 when describing the ‘sharp-pencil-guys” heading Disney at the time. It’s a kind of short hand so I don’t have to write “Understanding and following Walt’s business and creative philosophy”. I found that people either “Get it” or not. There is hardly ever an in between. Around that same time I started spelling Ei$ner with the “$”. You should try it. It’s a lot of fun!! And when Pre$$ler was here it was even better. I used to see how many times I could list their names together!!

    The same as in Walt’s day. He increased shareholder value AND utilized his business philosophy. I really don’t see why it cannot be done today.

    There are some things in a company that come from the bottom – up! A company ‘culture’, however, ALWAYS comes from the top - down! Who was in charge when that Disney Decade began? Who hired (by extension of course) those ‘very talented executives’? What culture did he set, not by directive, which never works, but by example, which is the ONLY way a culture is set? YEP!! You guessed it Ei$ner!!! (Ah!! Fun to write that out!!)

    THAT’S THE T-SHIRT!!! Just insert the name Disney somewhere so everyone knows who you’re talking about! How’s this:
    “The internal focus of Disney is based off the wrong premise!”

    Not catchy perhaps, but very apt!!

    Thanks for the input!!
  10. dwaters

    dwaters New Member

    But I LOVE the huge decorations!

    If a 30 foot tall Buzz Lightyear doesn't scream DISNEY, then what does?

    I've stayed at All-Star Movies a few times and will always defend it. For a family of Toy Story fanatics, that section of the resort is just plain fun. The oversized door to Andy's room, getting to sit in RC, the big checkers. The staircases are themed like the bucket of army men, with army men silouettes lining the roof. The bright colors of the buildings.

    Yes, you could argue that it's a Motel 6 with bright paint and decorations, but what decorations they are. The theme is still unique to WDW and you can't duplicate it by driving somewhere near your hometown. They're not gonna have an Andy's Room courtyard.

    (I will concede that the size of the room itself is laughably tiny--even for a Value. A family of four could go nuts on an extended stay. Thankfully at WDW, you're not in your room very long at all.)
  11. akadada

    akadada Doin' It All for My Baby.

    Agreed. Wells was the man behind the tangible experience. Eisner was behind the intangible. Awesome team. Forever grateful for both. Unfortunately today i spend more time remembering how great the 90's were in the parks than enjoying today.
  12. DVC-Landbaron

    DVC-Landbaron What Would Walt Do?


    WOW!!! I sometime ask myself why I bother. I have to ask. Did you trouble yourself to read all the posts within this thread? Did you, for instance, read the several eloquent posts by Walt’s Frozen Head? Or the direct, to the point posts by YoHo? Or how about my new best friend bom_noite? Did you read his? I’m sure you glossed over mine if you looked at them at all (I really don’t blame you, they are kind of wordy). But you certainly couldn’t have read them.

    If you did, did they make any impression on you at all? Did any of the many words, sentences and paragraphs make you think? Did you maybe get the impression that Saint Michael is not so saintly after all? Do you understand why I spell his name with a “$” in the middle? Did any of Walt’s philosophical business concepts sink in, especially regarding how diametrically opposed they are from Ei$nerthink? I’m just curious, because it seems that you read a couple of early posts, grabbed a sentence to quote (and a wrong one at that) and posted away.

    If that’s the case, I welcome your input into the conversation, but strongly suggest that you read the entire thread. I think you may be surprised at the level of Disney acumen that is within. And if I’m wrong, and you did indeed read the entire thread, then…

    Have a good day! Thanks for stopping by…
    We really have nothing else to talk about!

    Now here’s hoping you went back and read the entire eight pages. Let’s continue…
    What do you mean by “Tangible” and “Intangible”? I know how Webster defines the words, what I’m asking is what you meant when you attached one to Wells and one to Ei$ner? I’m think you mean that you consider Ei$ner the idea, creative one. Right?

    I joined the DIS in either 98 or 99, anyway it was WAY before the crash and change in format that made most of us re-sign up. And for years, and years, and years – post after long post after long post I kept lamenting the current Disney saying that for the last ten years Disney has been sinking. Remember this was ’99 or so. I kept boldly, loudly, and obnoxiously SCREAMING that I wish Disney was like it was in the seventies!!!

    My point with that convoluted paragraph above was to illustrate just how lousy Disney really was in the ‘90’s compared to the ‘70’s. And I agree, it was better in the nineties than today!! See how far we’ve fallen?

    Last thing.
    Funny. I forever blame them!! Well not “them”, I guess, but I definitely blame HIM!!!!
  13. DVC-Landbaron

    DVC-Landbaron What Would Walt Do?


    I’m glad. I am happy that you enjoy those ah… well… let’s call them… Places to stay while at Disney!! I really am.

    But that is not the point of this discussion.

    If you wish to discuss the “Values” then you need to define theme vs. decorations in context with the Disney philosophy. Your personal opinion is totally irrelevant. Some like the giant Buzz some hate the giant Buzz. That isn’t the point. The real question is:

    Is a giant Buzz a theme or merely a decoration?

    And we can further ask:

    Are the ‘values’ within the definition of the Disney philosophy?

    According to most, and I am definitely in that camp, it is NOT a theme. And it is nowhere within the Disney philosophy!!

    I’d be more than happy to discuss the finer points of what makes a theme and why decorations fall way short of the mark when it comes to Disney if you’d like.

    Let me know.
  14. pilferk

    pilferk <font color=red>Jambo Wildbunch Gang<br><font colo

    OK....there is one thing that needs to be pointed out, here:

    Many of Walt's movies were based on Fairy Tales/myths. Sure, there were some modifcations done to change things up slightly...but at their core, they WERE someone else's work.

    I think that's evidence enough that Walt would have used other people's ideas or purchased other IP's and incorporated them into his parks. Because, largely...he did just that. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White.

    And then you have Winnie the Pooh, Alice in Wonderland, Mary Poppins, Jungle Book...other literary figures/works that were licensed/used by Walt.

    I won't disagree with the point that Walt was largely about story (and, really, finding new and interesting ways to tell it). I think his larger impetus was delivering a quality product (which meant focusing on story, which, to his mind, enhanced quality more than most/any other facet of the show). But lets not "wonder" too much if Walt would have used other people's ideas in his parks...because he did just that.
  15. pilferk

    pilferk <font color=red>Jambo Wildbunch Gang<br><font colo

    One thing I want to jump in on:

    In the above, there is a certain amount of argument about inside/outside, too. Because Disney has adopted the corporate culture, largely, of the rest of the souless corporate megoliths. And that is a function of catering to institutional investors (who are their largest shareholders, really).

    Now, you can argue (and win) that whoever was at the top of Disney could/should have insulated the corporate culture from those outside influences. And that, if you were looking to do that, Eisner would be the very very very wrong choice to run your company circa the time that decision was made (he was so popular in his sector, with investors, BECAUSE he was seen as someone who would pull Disney corporate culture more in line with the "souless megolith" model). And you could argue (and maybe win) that doing so would have been better for the company's product AND maintained their healthy bottom lines.

    But...and here's the rub...Disney isn't operating any different than, say, BP is. Or Comcast. Or Microsoft. The real difference is that Disney has a reputation that they've been "living off" for at least 20....and arguably longer than that...years. People want to THINK they're not BP. Or Comcast. Or Microsoft. And Disney does what it can (so long as the costs aren't too great) to foster that impression.

    Only Apple really has been able to stand out, become huge, and maintain a more creative and "loose" corporate culture. And they do that because their leader insulated them from the institutional investors and Wall Street mentality. He basically told them: You create amazing stuff that everyone wants and worry about how to market it. I'll worry about the bean counters (and shoot rude gestures in their general direction). Oh, and by the way, I'm the largest shareholder of the company so, really, I'm the guy that needs to be made happy.

    Now it remains to be seen if they can stay that way now that Jobs is gone. I think, for a bit, they will. We'll see how long. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to capitulate. You essentially need a visionary leading your company to resist it. Walt (with Roy providing insulation) could do it (and during a time when the corporate climate was VERY different). Jobs did it. Lasseter did it, for a time, when running Pixar (and Jobs was a factor, there, too). Not many others have been able (or willing) to.
  16. akadada

    akadada Doin' It All for My Baby.


    Yikes. I like most of us have a life outside this board. Yes I did read everything and I disagree on some points. I simply don't have the time to write five chapters of War and Peace about why on this board like you do.

    I feel bad for you that you could get so upset about my post that you'd write that. You know nothing about me. Perhaps had you opened the conversation up you could have found another friend to talk about these things with. I had a lot of respect or your knowledge on the topic. Still do.

    But guys like you obviously have more friends than you need and since you clearly know what's best for everyone, I accept my place in your world. thank you for setting me straight.

    I'm off to add value to the "real" world now.
  17. Peter Pirate 2

    Peter Pirate 2 <font color=red>I may be a Disney curmudgeon but I

    Isn't that what I said? LOL. Regardless, I agree to a tee and am happy to have concurring support!
  18. pilferk

    pilferk <font color=red>Jambo Wildbunch Gang<br><font colo

    Yup....but I hadn't gotten to your reply when I responded. :)

    DRDISNEYMD *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* *+*~The Snow Queen~*+* ~A gi

    ~What's a product without a name? Eisner saved the name, which is arguably the most significant aspect of a corporate entity. The Disney "name" is one the most powerful and recognizable brands in the world. An otherwise overwhelmed media and theme park company, known for its beloved trademark mouse, was just ripe for the picking by corporate raider Saul Steinberg or worse -- Coca-Cola! Disney would have become Coca Cola World! :(

    ~Instead, Eisner helped to transform Disney into a formidable global media conglomerate, as in -- a force to be reckoned with. Even, the transition into the cruise industry was seamless, in part, because of the recognizable and trusted Disney brand. Eisner executed precision in achieving the right formula by combining scientific and psychological aspects that enable a good brand to become a great brand -- one that is synonymous with quality and imparts a nice dose consumer confidence with any product that bares its name. Products and trends may come and go, but a good brand can last forever! Eisner also demonstrated tenacity in diversifying the Disney brand by continuing to expand into various streams of revenue.

    ***sigh*** ~Frozen, I'm not at all familiar with the Commodore vs Atari war. I had no idea Atari made computers! But, the story is very interesting! I do find it ironic that Atari, while not all that relevant, is still around, and efforts are currently underway to redefine the brand! The current ~Atari Flashback 4~ system, appears to have found some success in gaming the retro gamer craze -- based on the reviews, they still have the same issues with quality control! In any case, this is yet another example where the brand outlasts the product(s).

    ~Anyway, what you have described in your post is globalization. If you can name one corporate brand that hasn't taken this plunge in the name of profit. Please. Do. Tell. The American auto industry was forced to "restructure" and seek help from the government to become viable again. Would Disney have qualified for a buyout? Eisner, possessed the wherewithal and foresight to determine exactly where American manufacturing was headed. It's called evolution and the industrial age as knew it, is all but a memory, as we are now firmly planted in the Information age.

    ~The amazing American brands that have succumbed to greed, poor management, bureaucracy and globalization -- is nothing short of a tragedy. With that said, "it is what it is." I'm not sure of what could have been done differently? There are no words to describe, how difficult it is for an American based entity to survive. Creative and artistic efforts are even further stifled or drowned in the sea of government and corporate bureaucratic red tape. This is what prompted Walt to create WED Enterprises aka Walt Disney Imagineering, today.

    ~Take a look a Disney's pin trading. Disney makes good pins, but "scrappers" find there way into the pile, this black market slowly siphons away at Disney's potential revenue. What is the point of paying top dollar to manufacture pins here at a premium, when the scrappers can manufacture the similar pins, at a fraction of the cost. It makes sense for Disney to manufacture overseas for a fraction of the cost to remain profitable and minimize damage from the fake pins. I definitely don't like it, but it's our reality and we are each responsible in some way. This is nothing compared to piracy.

    ~Simply put, Disney is still here. It's far from perfect, but still remains the gold standard by which all other theme parks, media and entertainment outlets are measured.

    ~I ***shudder*** just at the mere thought of that happening. If Disney had been sold off for parts, the brand would have suffered. I like Pixar, but as of recent, I'm a little concerned.

    [/tangent] ~I thought "Brave" was a disaster, well maybe not. But, with amount of terrified children that had to be ushered out the theater because of "the bear," it's hard to suggest otherwise. While I love Merida's look <especially that hair> -- I can't stand her personality! She was unjustifiably cruel to her mother. I so wanted to love Merida, but I get can't past that character. Toy Story 3 was awesome, but the trilogy is done. Cars 2 - I just cant. I am looking forward to Monster's U. I loved Disney's Wreck It Ralph and Tangled. [/end of rant]

    ~Disney continues to feast upon the quasi-monopolistic power it yields in defining American & Western youth culture. The Oriental Trading Company, would have never invested 4 Billion to create Tokyo Sea, if Disney's brand was uncertain or lacked stability, in any way. I'm pretty sure, Eisner was part of the brainchild and vision behind Tokyo DisneySea.

    ~I don't know. But, it's worth repeating, that to this day, ToT remains unmatched in creativity & magic! I couldn't believe my eyes -- I have never experienced anything like ToT. It goes without saying, that I would *love* to have more of *that* on a wider scale!

    ~This is the point, I am trying to make. Disney is still here and thriving! The answer to your question is right in front of you. All you have to do, is look at the competition! And, as it stands, Disney is still number one, there is no other entity on this planet that has done "Disney" better. Disney is still number one!

    ~Frozen, you are very fortunate to have experienced an era at the peak of greatness -- but like everything else -- nothing is guaranteed to last. Our culture has rapidly evolved and if Disney refused to evolve with the culture, the company would have dissolved a long time ago, like many other American gems. I understand that you are not pleased with Disney. But, I'm not sure that there is anything of relevance today, that can match or replace what Disney means to you? I know there is life outside of Disney, as I only visit once a year. But, I feel there is nothing that compares to WDW. Is it in the back of my mind that Disney could be better, far better? Yes, it is. But I don't feel confident in saying Eisner is entirely at fault for Disney's shortcomings or "lack of magic."

    ~Likewise, there are moments in fashion, music, sports, cinema, business, industry(s) that we all want to last forever, but things change, many times for the better. I thought I would never see the end of heroin chic! Eisner may have "destroyed" an aspect of Disney that you identified with and valued. But, it's not impossible, nor is it too late to form a new appreciation for "what's left" of Disney. It's time to get out of "Car 4," and find something new about Disney to get excited about. Eisner didn't "destroy" everything, there has to be something, or else you wouldn't be here! :goodvibes :goodvibes :goodvibes
  20. pilferk

    pilferk <font color=red>Jambo Wildbunch Gang<br><font colo

    Just a small correction:

    Oriental LAND company (and now called OLC).

    NOT Oriental Trading Company (the company that sells cheap party/crafting supplies).

    BIG difference. :)
  21. pilferk

    pilferk <font color=red>Jambo Wildbunch Gang<br><font colo

    Not to speak for The Baron, but:


    In addition, I actually think you've hit the nail on the head, here. Maybe not quite in the way you thought/intended, though.

    Many people object to Eisner's concentration on BRAND over SUBSTANCE, as it were.

    In other words, rather than building the brand by virtue of quality product, Disney (and Eisner) set out to build the Disney brand based on PAST quality of product and overall reputation. The argument has been (and, to be clear, I'm not trying to support either side of it) that Disney is essentially creating a house of cards (one blow from cavin' in). They're more interested in expanding their brand, and their profit margins, than they are in actually maintaining the levels of quality that the reputation is based on.

    Your description, IMHO, actually illuminates exactly that. And I agree with you...there was a business advantage to doing just that.

    The point of discussion, though, is was it the best business practice or just the easiest/path of least resistance?

    You mention that there are a ton of American brands that have failed...and almost every single one took that path of least resistance and corparatization of it's culture. They were, usually, most successful, when being headed by a single visionary/luminary OR a CEO who "got it".

    Look at Kodak, for example. Their failing? Refusing to adapt to the digital platform. Why? Because they realized that doing so would require a radical redevelopment of their business model, including massive capital expenditures which would have "robbed" shareholders of a relatively small % of their annual return over 2 to 3 years. The CEO/CFO and Board were took spooked to pull the trigger, because they couldn't manage to firmly convince their institutional investors of the need for investment. And they lacked any sort of vision (one of their CEO's referred to digital, at a conference I was at, as a "fad"..no lie) to pitch it to the shareholders, too. Instead, they decided to build their brand (and slap it on everything they could...even when not controlling the quality of the product being made) and hope it would allow them to continue to exist. This even AFTER the writing was on the wall.

    And, once enough crud had flooded the market, once they'd ticked off consumers with their APS format (which was never going to compete with digital), allowed Fuji to come in and steal their market share for photo printers and photo paper (because their products were of better quality AND cost less) and once they had no more film processing to bolster their bottom lines...they folded.

    Now, is Disney to that point? No, definitely not. Things are not nearly so dire. But they've been set on a similar path, in terms of corporate management style. That path may or may not lead to a similar destination. But that's the risk of that type of corporate culture shift.

    There are tons of American Brands that have gone the same route. Scared to adapt or change because of the investment required and how it would spook institutional investors....so try to simply "brand". Some have been successful, IMHO far more have failed.

    It's risky, for sure.

Share This Page