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

[larworth]

DVC

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JeffJewell]

...a question.

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

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

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

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

 

[JeffJewell]

I doubt I'm wrong since he claims Eisner was always Ei$ner.

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

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Maybe Wells and Ei$ner are the same.

If not, then I stand humbly corrected. BUT, I doubt I'm wrong since he claims Eisner was always Ei$ner.

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

 

[YoHo]

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


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

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

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



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

Now the only question is where the heck is Gandalf?

 

[Sarangel]

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

Sarangel

 

[larworth]

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

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

Look forward to any replies.

 

[JeffJewell]

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

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

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

Jeff

 

[DisDuck]

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

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

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

 

[JeffJewell]

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

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

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

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

Jeff

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

 

[JeffJewell]

Disney should never/ever buy off-the-shelf story/theme.

As I was re-reading your post, something ironic struck me. Arguably the best "Disney" movies recently have been the Pixar movies. In effect, Disney did buy those stories off-the-shelf.

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

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

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

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

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hopemax]

Re: Off-the-shelf

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

 

[DisDuck]

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

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

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

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

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

So did I. It was great!!!

 

[TDC Blue Fairy]

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

 

[Patch'sD]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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