See it can be done...I found Ei$ner's replacement

[crusader]

The idea that "Disney will always be magical" is just as hollow as the idea that people will always fly Pan Am, people drink Coke because of brand loyalty or Michael Jackson will always be the King of Pop.

Disney the corporation is not magical. Walt Disneyworld is. That's the problem we keep having with this discussion.

And the idea that Walt Disneyworld will always be magical is as solid as the idea that Elvis will always be the King of Rock-n-roll - in all his flaws and glory. I say this because I see it. I say this because the place touches individuals in a way they remember. Once that takes root it forms a permanence that people tend to hold on to. It is a loyalty within or as the critics like to say, it is the infamous rose colored glasses.

Those glasses provide happiness. A vacation. The dream.

And it sells over and over again because of Walt Disney. Maybe the company will suffer in management and the guest will be seen as nothing more than a wallet. So what. We're not stupid as AV has pointed out. We are also smart enough to see how solid WDW is and that place was built to last forever.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
SIR!! I beg to differ!! It has GREATLY impacted MY WDW. I wonder how it missed yours?

Baron, I gave this one alot of thought.

Given the fact that we both visited extensively during the 70's why is it that I don't feel any real impact of the present day executive orders?

It could be that over the past two decades, I average a visit every 3 years and each time I visit, Disney has always provided even more to do and see. Heck, I used to be happy with the water sprites alone! (Now, it seems I barely manage the time to ride a water taxi!)

It could be that since I no longer get to spend enough time there to begin with, I'm constantly left with weighing options and the unfortunate task of leaving things out. Things I love. Things I wish I had been able to see. Because as you know, the place has evolved to such an enormity it isn't possible to embrace it all within the 5-7 day window I've given it.

If I were in your situation and had the ability to frequent multiple times annually, I'm not sure if my experience would fade. I guess one could argue that too much of a good thing could have an impact on it becoming less eventful in one's life. But since that's not how we view our loved ones, how can it hold true for all the other indulgences? I'll leave that perplexing concept for you to explore.

 

[DisneyKidds]

The Pirate and DK say that M:S and other new attractions are...hmm...well

For the record sir Larry, I haven't weighed in on the quality of the recent additions. I have pointed out that Disney has and is adding a lot of things, and anecdotal evidence from the majority indicates they are quite good...........but like you I will be forming my own opinions in a couple of weeks.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice
They will go out and find good experiences that interest them.

This is my point exactly about M:S and the single rider line comment. M:S is attracting guests in large quantities. You lament what is not there, while others here point out what IS.

And my point with the Del Coronado (other than the fact that it has not had an unbroken history of excellence) was that, while you drone on and on about snowglobes at WDW, the Del's gift shop, and "Some Like It Hot" memorabilia push doesn't seem to faze you. I assume that is because you enjoy the resort so much that you don't really notice, or mind, the marketing. Can you understand that others may have a similar response at WDW?

Of course, I neglected to mention that I was so pleased that you actually liked something Miramax had done (re Master and Commander).

 

[Another Voice]

That 'Mission: Space' is attracting guests in large numbers is rather open for debate. Its purpose was to lift the attendance of Epcot and we won't know if that work for a while. Line size is seldom an indication of true attendance growth; even California Adventure sometimes manages lines of 90+ minutes and that hardly equates to success. And if 'M:S' was such the instant hit that is causing thousands to drop their plans and fly to Orlando, why the sudden rush panic addition of 'Soaring Over Stock Footage' to The Land?

As for Hotel del selling <this word is banned>, I don't have any thing against selling <this word is banned>. It's just another trinket. As I've written before, I used the term <this word is banned> to represent a certain mindset that places merchandise over experience: one that treats guests as nothings but wallets, people who want to treat their happiness like a commodity and those claiming elevated status simply because of the volume of their purchases. Whether they buy shot glasses, trading pins or <this word is banned> is immaterial to the shallowness that drove them to it.

As for Master and Commander, that's the whole point of my posts on this thread. People go for quality no matter what the source. Sure, you can occasionally blind them with silly brand monkey tricks but they usually don't last. The fact that Miramax handed over some money in exchange for distribution rights doesn't impact my enjoyment of that film nor will it affect others. It's the quality of the creation that counts, not the logo up front.

My interest in Disney did not come because I have any interest in Disney as a corporation, but because I enjoyed what they created. For a time they seemed to have be able to do that very regularly and they built a solid reputation on that. But these days they seem only to be able to use that reputation rather than earn it. They slap their sticker on something in a scam to give it an instant aura of quality rather than giving the product real quality. That's the essence of branding – status without effort. People see through that.

Just as the "WDW will always be magic" thought. There has to be substance behind the facade. That takes ongoing work, talent and dedication. It has to be kept alive; it has to be kept fresh.

Even a snowglobe will loose its water if not tended.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Of course, I neglected to mention that I was so pleased that you actually liked something Miramax had done (re Master and Commander)."***

Isn't Fox the distributor ??

 

[DancingBear]

It's a Fox/Universal/Miramax co-production.

A-V, thanks for your thoughtful response. We obviously just have a totally different reaction to the state of things. During my visit to WDW last December, our party found the product very enjoyable. I didn't see any major decline, and I never felt as if merchandising was overwhelming the experience.

Test Track did not overwhelm me, but was certainly an improvement over World of Motion. On a rainy night with few guests around, French CMs in Epcot made over my son. As we strolled on the Boardwalk, we were entertained, at no additional cost, by holiday music from a tuba band and a girls' choir. On another rainy afternoon, desperate to keep my son entertained, we stumbled on a ukelele player singing to kids in the Poly lobby. My son got his first haircut at the Main Street Barbershop, and the CMs there delighted my wife with their humor and care. The Animal Kingdom Lodge was a great outing in itself, as we had breakfast at Boma, watched the animals from the various viewing points, and my son played in their playground.

I agree that there is no guarantee that WDW will always be magic, it takes continuing effort, but I still see the magic there.

 

[bretsyboo]

AV-based on reputation? You are crazy!

How can you call:
Magic Kingdom
100 years of magic
Mickey's Philharmagic
Where the Magic lives
Magical Gatherings
Spectromagic
The Magic cruiseship
The magic of Disney animation
extra magic hour
Magical Moments pins

based on reputation?

It seems like recently everything that happens at WDW is in effort to remind you how magical the place is...I'm starting to get really sick of it.

 

[Another Voice]

Thank you Mr. Bear. I think we're probably a lot closer in our opinions than might be apparent - the hazards of typing on the Internet between phone calls is that sometimes it's difficult for me to clearly express my thoughts.

I don't think anything is beyond redemption. I do have a slightly different perspective on things. I've seen WDW change since my first trip in 1973. And my primary interaction with The Mouse these days (in terms of theme parks) is with Disneyland. I think even the late, lost Mr. Scoop was somewhat disturbed by what he saw. I challenge anyway to say the "the magic will always be here" while standing in Anaheim's Tomorrowland.

For me, anyway, today's Disneyland is nothing but yesterday's fears made real. And that's why I'm worried about the future of WDW. My family and I have had - and still do have - great experiences at Disney parks and I want them to continue. I have seen the impact that films can have and I want that to continue as well.

But I also seen how laziness, complacency and greed can ruin projects and companies. I have also seen where it is a two-way street - the audience is often as much at fault as the producer. In the end we all get what we tend to ask for.

I just hope people will always ask for a little more. That's the only way to grow.

 

[crusader]

What's frightening is hearing Star Jones pipe out the line "it's all part of the magic" in a commercial spot selling holiday accessories. (can't recall the retailer)

And so it begins.

AV - I do thank you as well.

You're right about the need to preserve the parks and I'll concede that my statement regarding the magic "always being there" was based on my own confidence that all of the care, dedication and effort being putforth by the many many employees I witnessed at WDW will continue.

But your comments about Disneyland do tend to raise concern. When I visited in 2000, it was during the millennium celebration and everything was decorated for the holidays. It was absolutely gorgeous! (the weather however, sucked!) The Disneyland resort provided exceptional accomodations and first rate restaurants. I'll never forget it!

So my question is: when did Disneyland start this downspiral?

 

[bretsyboo]

I personally have never been to DL, but from what I've seen and heard on the net about Disneyland from a few months ago (its apparent low point) calling it a souped up Six Flags is an insult to six flags. It really does look very run down, good to get some new management into the place. I don't know how he'll do but I do know that the new person always wants to leave his mark and gain a positive legacy, which can usually translate into an immediate improvement.

 

[raidermatt]

I agree with you boo....................it (doing things in the spirit of Walt Disney) certainly could be done. But will anyone ever actually do it?

I assume you mean will anyone ever actually do it at Disney, and my answer is I don't know. How could anyone know? But I do know it can happen, and I know that the more the public (of which we are a tiny portion) asks for it, the more likely it is to happen.

So who knows? I just know it should, and it would be to Disney's financial benefit. As Lord Baron said:

Just like Walt? NO!! Of course not! But still enough to set Disney apart once again.

And Pete:

I don't think anyone is saying the old philosophy can't be done...As I clearly stated much like world peace it certainly COULD be done. What I'm saying is that it will not be done. Not by Eisner, not by anyone in this environment ever again.

I guess we have found an area where my optimism far outpaces yours...

I do agree that a basic mission statement, a goal to strive for...Kind of like the Pirates code, "more of guideline than rule" could be maintained and perhaps useful but it would never be able to surplant the profit motive as the number one corporate goal...

It doesn't have to... it just has to make the profit motive a result of actions, not a reason for taking specific actions

To some M:S, E:E, Wishes, Philharmagic, a cloned Soarin, Lilo & Stich, Brother Bear (while not doing Nemo-like numbers the % drop off's are the same if not better), Disney's hand in Pixar films (however much or little it is), etc. etc. etc. are and will be nothing but crap churned out for all the wrong reasons. Yes, one could say that to others they are the greatest things since someone ran a knife through bread.

DK, while certainly the end result is critical, and apparently debateable in some cases, its more than that. Its the process behind the creations. What happens if HP swallows Compaq a few years earlier, and there is not outside funding for M:S?

I'm sure one of the reasons "Soarin" is not getting a new film is because Disney didn't want to pay for it. Even though we pretty much all agree that a new film would be the best move.

You see, some of the operational details may have changed, and perhaps we have at least made some progress from the "Pressler Years" (talk about a synergy based attraction opportunity), but the guiding philosophy has not changed.

So we are really just applauding an improved based on lowered expectations.

I saw you comment on increased park investment being a positive. I can't remember which thread it was on, but it follows with what I was just saying.

Yes, same-park investment is up.

But why?

Has Eisner finally realized he has to feed the cash cow for it to keep giving milk? Or better yet, does he realize the full potential Disney has in the resort vacation industry, and that people will be drawn to new innovative attractions and other unique offerings like ants to sugar?

Nah. There is just a decreased amount of new park investment going on right now. That allows for same park investment to increase, while Disney still touts a significant reduction in overall capital investment.

Same park investment is likely to go nowhere but down from here, unless the actual philosophy changes.

You're right about the need to preserve the parks and I'll concede that my statement regarding the magic "always being there" was based on my own confidence that all of the care, dedication and effort being putforth by the many many employees I witnessed at WDW will continue.

I'm glad you acknowledged this, because I was meaning to address it as well. I agree that Disney's place in history, like Elvis's, I firmly secured. But its future is completely dependent on the decisions the company makes going forward.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I guess we found an area where my optimism far outpaces yours.

I agree and that give us a little much needed perspective. I just think the world is getting smaller and companies larger. I think we have only seen the tip of the 'Wal-Mart' iceberg and if bush is in 4 more years the freedoms for unlimited proliferation will roll fast and furious, IMO. It can stop, I guess, but I'm afraid it's going to take a world wide clamity that does it and at that point worrying about WDW will be moot for most...

I'm sure one of the reasons Soarin' is not getting a new film is because Disney does not want to pay for it.

Agreed...But as I said 'Soarin' Over California' is lot more nerve settling that 'Soarin' Over Florida' would be. Certainly 'Saorin' Over America' would be the best of all choices but 'California' really has been seen by very few of the WDW going guests and is truly a great show. The biggest real drawback is the fit into Epcot and I'm not one to worry about that because I don't figure they have much of a plan for Epcot's future right now anyway...

Has Eisner finally figured out that he has to feed the cash cow in order for it to keep giving milk?

Suprisingly (or maybe not) I actually think this IS true to a degree. Certainly the spotlight had been on the theme parks underperformance and it wouldn't take a genius to realize that new attractions at other parks were causing a stir but 'Dinorama' really didn't even in the midst of depressing times. I think somebody's thinking DID change and we're benefiting from it.

But its future is completely dependent on the decisions the company makes going forward.

Certainly I agree 100% in the big picture, but I still think the company can continue to run on autopilot, frantically fixing what needs to be fixed, following no apparant strategy other than constant monitoring of the wall st. ticker and the division profitibility charts. This may catch up to them but it may take a long, long time and lets face it, much like Castro in Cuba, Eisner no longer has a long, long time...

 

[DisneyKidds]

but the guiding philosophy has not changed.

No, Matt - it may not have changed. But so long as whatever changes have taken place (be they to operations or philosophy) continue to provide things like M:S, E:E, Wishes, Philharmagic, a cloned Soarin, Lilo & Stich, Brother Bear, a Disney hand in Pixar films, etc. etc. etc. then I really don't care at what level the change took place. Sure, there is the ideal...........but then there is the realistic.

So we are really just applauding an improved based on lowered expectations.

I don't think it has anything to do with lower expectations. Yes, "things" could be better. Sure, M:S could have had more images and a moon rock for AV to caress. But Splash and Pirates could have been better too. To be quite honest, when we visit next week we will be able to ride M:S, see Philharmagic and Wishes, take a sleigh ride at the WL, as well as a few more things that are new to us even if they aren't new (and we even go often). My expectations are high..............and there is no way I could expect more than that.

Its the process behind the creations.

This gets back to what I want a real answer to. Some people might be too caught up on the process. Say that the philosophy, the process, hasn't changed. What does that really mean in the big picture? I submit it doesn't mean as much as some would make it out to be. The process behind the creations. I know you are not alone in disagreeing (but you did type this line), but I believe they are creating. There is innovation and quality. That is the bottom line. Were there years when it didn't seem we were getting those things? Sure. Was it all a process problem? Maybe, maybe not - but you have to admit things are moving now, and pretty substantially. You can dismiss that movement because of a belief that an underlying process is not the ideal..........but that would be failing to see the forrest through the trees.

Who knows what changes have truely taken place behind the scenes. It will be very interesting to see where things go over the next couple of years. I'm sure a year ago most didn't think we would be where we are (new attractions open, more in process, leading the box office, profits soaring)..........and I'm still optimistic for more. Yes, I'll take less than 100% Philosophy along with all those things..........and I'm not settling one bit.

 

[raidermatt]

I don't see it as a "forest for the trees" situation... Maybe our trusty old football analogy will help:

Pick any team that is poorly run, or at least run in no better than an average manner.

Will they have good years? Sure. Only most dreadfully-run teams fail to make the playoffs year after year. But really, even they will pop-up and sneak in once in awhile, like the Bears and Chargers.

But when an "averagely" run team has a good stretch, what does it mean? Does it mean an improvement from the year before is an indication of a linear improvement going forward?

Nope. Draw dots around the record every year and the average is going to come up no better than that... average.

That's similar to what I'm trying to say about Disney right now. When we say the philosophy has not changed, it means we can't expect a long-term improvment. The process hasn't changed, only some of the surrounding circumstances, which has led to an increase over what's been happening in recent years, at least as far as capital investment in the existing parks.

But, even in this time of marked improvement, there are serious flaws, and hints that the attitudes really haven't changed all that much.

In other words, the team may have hired a better coach, or been fortunate in the draft, or had an easier schedule, whatever, but they aren't really being run better for the long term.

Does that mean as a fan we don't enjoy the good years? Of course not. But a bad philosophy is bad in the long run, despite short term anomolies.

Look at Disney's stock over the last 10 years or so. Quite a few momentary recoveries. Does that mean the philosophy was good during those times? Nah, its just there are other variables that can temporarily make things look better.

Similar to the bad economy, only in the other direction. No matter how the parks were being run, they were going to see some downturn after the economy turned, and most definitely after 9/11. The opposite will happen in a recovery, as it is now.

Bottom line... In order for the long-term results to change, the philosophy has to change. In the big picture, that makes the why's and how's far more important than the latest news.

As for lowered expectations, your "profits are soaring" comment is exactly what I mean. Profits are not soaring by any means. They are significantly improved over same quarter a year ago, but to be frank, that quarter, along with the 4 or 5 before it, stunk.

Many blamed the economy and terrorism fears for Disney problems. Well, since those factors have significantly improved, it makes sense that the numbers would significantly improve as well.

Again, its the why's and how's that are important.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Again, its the why's and how's that are important.

I know what you are saying.........and Disney could be using better whys and hows, but even as such it just seems as a group we are all over the place as to what those hows and whys mean.

To continue with the football analogy, I'll say once again that Disney under Walt was the '72 Dolphins. You know that I believe that that won't be replicated. But what do we have now? That is where opinions quite differ. My guess is AV and those like-minded see the Disney of today a 2-12 team. Perhaps you see them as 7-8, maybe 8-8? I'd peg them at 11-5. Yes, that is far from the perfection required to go 16-0, but it is far above average.

That's where we stand. Some think the Disney of today is below average, some average, yet others above. There will never be another 16-0 coaching staff, but you don't have to settle to realize that 15, 14, 13, 12............even 11 wins is a great performance.

 

[bretsyboo]

GO UGA OVER TECH!!!

I think Disney punts on 3rd downs. Their QB takes a knee at the first sign of danger. They've released all of their big name players. And their mascot is a dirty sex driven criminal santa.

 

[crusader]

Many blamed the economy and terrorism fears for Disney problems. Well, since those factors have significantly improved, it makes sense that the numbers would significantly improve as well.

Many others blamed the philosophy. How many times were we reminded of the economic conditions of the past having no effect on attendance in pre-9/11 times.

So how does that theory explain improved numbers if the philosophy hasn't improved?


ps -
bretsyboo: Go USC beat UCLA!!! Hello Sugar Bowl!

 

[hopemax]

Because most people have never said the economy/terrorism has had no impact.

Many do not believe that the economy and terrorism accounts for 100% of the woes affecting Disney's theme parks.

 

[raidermatt]

My guess is AV and those like-minded see the Disney of today a 2-12 team. Perhaps you see them as 7-8, maybe 8-8? I'd peg them at 11-5. Yes, that is far from the perfection required to go 16-0, but it is far above average.

I don't like speaking for AV, or anyone else for that matter, but if I had to guess, I'd say he probably pegs Disney as much closer to 8-8 than 2-14. He just has a tremendous disgust for their willingness to accept and pursue medicority, when they were, and still could be, so much more.

The only difference is that I, for better or for worse, am willing to point blank say, "yes, mediocre when compared to competitors is better than being worse than all of your competitors". I suppose that for some, that makes conversations easier, but on the other hand, it is irrelevant to those who want Disney to remain (or again become) Disney, and not just be in the x'th percentile when compared to others.

...but you don't have to settle to realize that 15, 14, 13, 12............even 11 wins is a great performance.

My only point here is that the 11 win season you are looking at is going to be the high point, unless the "philosophy" is changing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it really has.

Forgetting whether or not anyone agrees with the 11-win assessment, the point is that an average philosphy will still produce average results over the long run. For every 11-5, there will be a 5-11, and a whole bunch of 8-8's.

Many others blamed the philosophy. How many times were we reminded of the economic conditions of the past having no effect on attendance in pre-9/11 times.
So how does that theory explain improved numbers if the philosophy hasn't improved?

You'll have to ask someone who subscribed to that theory. Since I never espoused it, I'm not in a position to explain it.

Again, fluctuations in the numbers are going to occur for a variety of reasons. Never will there be one reason for any upward or downward movement. If there were only one reason, succeeding in business would be pretty simple.