It's all about moving the goods; it's all about shoving them out for as little cost as possible and taking as much as you can from your "customers".
You're right. This is the way it is.
It's not pretty.
...
The public chooses accordingly.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Yes, its the way many think. But not everybody.
In that way, its not different than the 20th Century.
The only real difference is on which side of the fence Disney has chosed to be on.
Where is all this leading? I think Disney Corporate doesn't have a plan much beyond $$$ and putting out fires (in grand fashion some times) where need be and yes I'd like a better quality based plan...My problem in discussing it is I just don't see it happening any time soon so I look for the good in the here and now...
Fair enough, nobody is trying to tell you that you shouldn't have fun at WDW. Remember, many of us still go and still have as great a time as you do.
But if you think Disney's Corporate plan is flawed, it is inevitible that it has some kind of impact on everything the company touches. That doesn't mean WDW is bad vs. good. Only that its not what it could, and SHOULD be, and that is detrimental to all of us who care about the place, as well as the other products the company produces. Its also detrimental to the health of the company.
I have no problem saying as much, but still having great vacations, or enjoying L&S.
It's too bad you can't be at the Poly for the Jets game. I would really like to discuss this business model face to face. Walt's business model is great, no disputing that. BUT, why aren't the great business schools of this country teaching it. Name me another large cap,mid cap or even small cap company that comes close to this model,( and before we jump on the Costco bandwagon, let's see what a few more losing quarters do for their CEO's bravado) ?
Are you sure Scoop is not "channeling" through you?
(This was one of his arguments for quite some time)
There's a variety of reasons. Jlambrig touched on one. No matter what company that is mentioned as having at least some of the old Disney philosophy, there are going to be holes that can be poked in the philosophy. The company is not the same size as Disney, or is not in the same business, or faces less public scrutiny, whatever.
Since you can't really find a company that closely resembles Disney at all, you sure aren't going to find one you can compare philosophies with.
Also, remember that the Disney model was not taught prior to Disney using it either... Rarely does doing the ordinary bring about exceptional results.
Admittedly, the model is a risky one, which is a big reason why so few are willing to take the approach. Achieving average results will rarely cost you your job, but shooting for the stars and falling on your face certainly can. That's not a justification for mediocrity, just reality.
If you are going to invest heavily in creativity and quality, you are going to have to hope the public buys it. That is a big risk to take.
But Disney doesn't have to take nearly the risk other companies have to take. Yes, its still going to require the courage to do things differently, but Disney has a built-in customer base that has proven they WANT Disney to go this route. Disney doesn't have to take the risk of starting from scratch.
The Disney brand is what it is BECAUSE they took the road less taken. In their case, there is little doubt as to the success that comes with that road.
Of course, its a lot easier to make more common choices, and to milk the brand. But following that long term strategy is going to have some serious repurcussions over that long term, and maybe we are already seeing those repurcussions.
Now, there are some things Walt did that I just can't see happening now no matter what. Like risking the entire existence of the company on a single, completely unproven project. Similar to what Walt did several times, and was working to do again with EPCOT (the city).
Yes, perhaps Walt would have pulled it off, and perhaps today he would be working on a project to colonize the Moon, but I never expect to see anyone in charge of Disney taking risks on that scale again.
But that doesn't preclude them from quality, innovation, and most importantly a belief that if you "give the public everything you can give them", you will be paid back in far greater amounts than any business school professor would have calculated in his Excel spreadsheet.
Now, it maybe that Disney has acquired some assets that do not lend themselves as well to this kind of philosophy, such as a TV network. While I don't accept this as a given, if it is the case, they should shed the asset(s) and invest elsewhere in a business that does lend itself to what the company's mission should be.
Anyway,back to the OP: If Orlando animators are on a roll with L&S and BB, why pull the plug. Seems more a Burbank ego issue rather then a $$$ one.
Maybe that's it. Or maybe its a question of risk. Or maybe its just another decision based on the same business model Disney has been using in recent years... why invest in something, and therefore take on the associated risk, when you can pay somebody else to do it. The Pixar deal looks good on paper because Disney made money with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the opportunity cost to Disney of not commiting to the investment themselves.
So, they sign other deals with outside studios.
AV's terms may seem "dramatic", but really, it does boil down to a belief that you don't really have to create anything, and really can just get rich by "slapping the Disney label" on others creations.
