car pools..........I don't get it

[YoHo]

Eisner did it for Disney.

Lets look at this accuratly, Eisner has never done anything positive for Disney. He was a figurehead for Frank Wells who knew how to make the company a profit and knew how to delegate. Micheal Eisner has always been a talking head and nothing good has come from HIS managment skills.

 

[crusader]

The fact that we do not have absolute confidence about the future does not preclude us from forming opinions about what we think the future is likely to hold, or how a certain course of action will impact the future.

You're right. I just don't share your pessimism when it comes to the future of this co. Conversely, I am not overly optimistic either. Why look for a guarantee here? It would be much simpler to enjoy it for what it is rather than what you need it to be.

Personally, I've always had a great time - but I don't go every year. And when I do it is carefully planned to avoid feeling taken. Would I have noticed the cutbacks - not nearly as well as some of the diehards. The question is: would I have cared so deeply that it adversely affected my outlook on this company? No way.

Say nothing improves and what you see is what you get. Are the car 3'ers really leaving? Why don't I think so.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Man, the longer Wells stays dead, the greater he becomes. A few more years and he'll rival Walt! ...

Eisner was never a figurehead & while it seems apparant that Eisner definatly needed Wells (and he was lost when he died) it takes no more than reading accounts of Wells personal comments on Eisner to prove that Eisner was NEVER just a figurehead. Wells alone would have fared no better and HE knew it...

As for Disney's bad performance, I don't think it's specifically bad management decisions, but rather one part this two parts that with a dash of this that and the other.

For example, Disney grows with tremendous success in the 90's. Wells dies. Eisner makes some very bad hires. The economy flies leaving a pretty much grown out Disney vulnerable to takeover. Disney grows where it has to - away from its core to remain independent. Pressures mount on the core. The economy sours. Upstarts without the overhead or periferal problems compete in the core. The economy sours further. 9/11. We go to war...What is bothering Disney is far to complex to be catagorized by a vocabulary of big words or of simplistic business accumen. But one thing is for sure, we will never all agree.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I'll go back and read the post in a second and I'm sure it will be good, but.........................

OH! MY! GOODNESS!! The Pirate lives!!!!!!!!! We've missed you Peter . Good to see your ship has come into port.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

WELCOME BACK, PETER!!!










PS: Strong, sarcastic post to follow, due to the utter nonsense the Pirate still spews!!!

 

[HB2K]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't inevitable that a DIsney Theme park become a commodity. It is a failure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



not at all - it is where the realist and idealist collide.

That's one heck of a mis statement. If the theme parks become a commodity, it is indeed a failure.

Why?

Because Disney controls their own destiny in this regard.

Had Disney kept pumping out products with such flair as their previous ones, they would have remained unique. You couldn't compare a Universal, six flags or anything else to it. It's a one of a kind experince. Thus the commodity tag doesn't fit because you could NEVER make an apples to apples comparison.

Fast forward to a time where Disney's expansions are more off the shelf, anyone can buy them, thrill rides.

Now you can start to make those apples to apples comparisons.

Add to that the fact that Disney let a HUGE chunk of the R&D folk go to the competition, and now even the custom stuff they do isn't so unique anymore.

Disney controlled their own destiny with the theme parks. It was never pre-determined that a WDW vacation would become a commodity, but it's inching closer to the point that in my eyes, it has (although I'll grant that that is only my opinion).

If Disney stock were to drop to $10 and you had some extra cash to invest, would you be more inclined to sell what you currently own before the bottm drops out, or increase your holdings?

Interesting point Kidds. I'd say it depends.

If the stock price keeps inching downwards due to the lack of any viable, successful products being produced by the company, I would not invest. To be honest I would probably just cut my loses.

You would invest in a company who's share value droped 2/3 over a period of a couple of years and who hasn't produced very many successful products during that time....and then in turn let ANYONE who worked on said products leave the company.

You would invest in a company who's main successful deal was purchasing & marketing animated films from an outside source, and then let the relationship sour to the point that this outside source no longer wants to do business with the company? Not to mention that the fact that the company who made it's name in animation now feels compelled to become a distributor?

What kind of business model is this?

No I wouldn't invest in that company. Seems like they don't know what they are, or what they're doing.

 

[crusader]

YoHo is right..........

We need to agree on a definition before we can have a discussion.

I'll admit I had to reread a few comments to address this. When I introduced the word commodity on this thread I used it to describe the theme park as an object. (artisitic yes!) However, uniqueness was irrelevant to the basic fact that the parks are objects. I was not engaging in a debate on the implications of this term as viewed by the business community.

quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't inevitable that a DIsney Theme park become a commodity. It is a failure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



not at all - it is where the realist and idealist collide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this example my inference is that in reality a theme park is a "thing" you pay to see or "experience" as many put it. To the idealist who wants desperately to hold onto the sales pitch that it is a "unique and special place where magic lives" it couldn't possibly be "just a thing" - which sounds so disillusional and impersonal and cold. Hence the realist and idealist collide!

 

[All Aboard]

To the idealist who wants desperately to hold onto the sales pitch that it is a "unique and special place where magic lives" it couldn't possibly be "just a thing" - which sounds so disillusional and impersonal and cold. Hence the realist and idealist collide!

It's not idealism to me. That's certainly not how Walt went into it. Trying to see if he could bilk money out of the public by huckstering them on the notion that what he was creating was special or possessed any qualities that could build feelings where guests truly felt they were in a Magical place.

 

[crusader]

First of all - to imply that Walt wasn't trying to make money on this enterprise is really stretching the imagination. No one is saying Walt bilked the public but he was an entreprenuer. Otherwise the parks would have been free. No way was he looking to just break even on this venture.

the notion that what he was creating was special or possessed any qualities that could build feelings where guests truly felt they were in a Magical place.

How isn't this idealism?

 

[All Aboard]

How isn't this idealism?

Are we going to get into another "definition discussion?"

Hey, maybe you are right. Perhaps WDW never generated anything "Magical". Perhaps it was all one big hoax and we were all fooled by the cleverly marketed commodity. I'm not sure that's what you are saying, but in other threads you've alluded to how the "illusion wears off over time."

I just don't happen to believe it's an illusion. To me, it's the outcome of extremely hard work by extremely creative people who are tuned into what makes people happy. Just like an excellent novel, film or stage production. I've seen performances that struck me in the soul.

When it comes to WDW, it's what sets it apart from every other theme park experience. I believe that if someone enters into a project with the notion that they are going to try to fool the public into believing what they are experiencing is Magic, they'll fail. They absolutely have to deliver. They have to generate indescribable feelings in the guests.

No, I don't think it's an illusion at all. No more than I think it's an illusion when I taste a great meal or drive a superbly engineered automobile. The quality comes through, it's very real.

 

[crusader]

To me, it's the outcome of extremely hard work by extremely creative people who are tuned into what makes people happy.

I agree. The talent and imagineering provide a brilliant level of artistic creativity. But this was only for some of the attractions never for all of them.

What I constantly hear over and over again is that there is not enough change relative to todays standards. I disagree, given that the bar is superficially raised by high tech in todays market and the consequence of failure could prove fatal for someone trying to make inroads in this industry. How is creativity supposed to thrive under these constraints?

I believe that if someone enters into a project with the notion that they are going to try to fool the public into believing what they are experiencing is Magic, they'll fail. They absolutely have to deliver.

It's not that they are trying to fool the public. Magic is the catch phrase used to describe an illusion. Usually when I refer to the guest as being disillusioned it is in response to a "not so magical experience" comment. They expected a surreal environment to escape to and had to deal with real life experiences during their stay.

They have to generate indescribable feelings in the guests.

They couldn't possibly do this in every capacity given the amount of visitors they have to deal with. Honestly - that feeling comes from both the person and the place. Too much emphasis is placed on the WDW delivery and not enough on the guest personality.

 

[raidermatt]

I just don't share your pessimism when it comes to the future of this co. Conversely, I am not overly optimistic either.

That's fine. We all have opinions.

Why look for a guarantee here? It would be much simpler to enjoy it for what it is rather than what you need it to be.

Who's looking for a guarantee? Not me. I'm merely posting my opinion about what I believe some of the problems are with Disney's current business model, and that if they want to succeed financially, there should be some changes.

As for enjoying it for what it is...that's EXACTLY what I do when I visit the theme parks, or watch a movie, or listen to the Millineum CD. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't go, and I'd be in car 4...

The question is: would I have cared so deeply that it adversely affected my outlook on this company? No way.

Its not that the cutbacks affect ME so deeply that its affecting my outlook on the company. Geez, a lot of 'em don't affect me at all. It's how I believe they are affecting Disney's overall customer base, and how they are contrary to what separated Disney from the competion, that is affecting my outlook on the company.

First of all - to imply that Walt wasn't trying to make money on this enterprise is really stretching the imagination.

No one is implying this.

No one is saying Walt bilked the public but he was an entreprenuer. Otherwise the parks would have been free. No way was he looking to just break even on this venture.

Of course he wanted his business to be a success. But Walt had as his primary goal providing a product the he could be proud of, and that would be what the public wanted. He believed that if you did that, the public would respond, and you would make money.

Today's Disney is much more focused on the money first, and the product second. They look for ways to profit from the name, rather than ways to create in the best tradition of the name. Consequently, they are not creating much that the public wants, let alone things that the public truly finds amazing.

Its my opinion that this is hurting them financially.

 

[raidermatt]

Girstner did wonders for IBM once. Eisner did it for Disney. Someone will do it for Disney again.

What differentiates Disney from the companies who also had strong assets but are still looking for, or never found, their "wonderman or wonderwoman"?

While Disney's balance sheet is not horrid, their debt load has become a concern for many investors and analysts, and has resulted in the downgrade of their bond ratings, making borrowing more expensive.

So, too, will Disney management. Eisner can't live forever. No, I don't know who we will get, but it is hard to imagine it getting worse.

The next team does not have to be worse than Eisner and his orcs.

You claim to be a big picture person, and if so, you have to acknowledge that finding somebody capable of reversing a downward trend in a company as large as Disney is far from easy, even for good, smart CEOs. Also, Eisner is being asked to pick a successor, and his current leaning appears to be towards Iger. Even if he picks someone else, what in the world makes you think he'll pick somebody much better than himself.

If Eisner doesn't do it, eventually the Board will do it. The Board that Eisner largely has in his pocket.

Again, this doesn't all mean that Disney IS in for much tougher times, but a logical, non-pixie dust influenced analysis does not point to anything better than a 50/50 chance things will improve significantly in the next 5 years....beyond that, its far too murky.

Back in 1997 when the Silver and Black went 4 and 12, did you throw in the towel on them or was there some optimism there that eventually they'd have another AFC championship in them .

Ah yes...my Raiders. Lets take a look, shall we?

At one point, the Raiders HAD a very large and loyal following. The customers loved the team, and they loved the owner. The owner ran the team well, and knew his product.

Ah, but then the owner let his greed take over. He wanted bigger markets, and in the process, alienated his loyal customers.

But his plan failed. He stopped putting the same quality product out that he used to. These new markets had no real loyalty to him or his team...being the fickle market that they were, they merely wanted whatever was hot at the time.

So, still struggling with his product, he returned to the market that used to love and adore him and his product. But many of those loyal customers had been lost. They either lost interest in the mediocre product that didn't cater to them any longer, or they found a new product. A new product from a company that was just across the Bay, and used to be the "weak sister" of the area. Times remained tough for the Raiders. The product was still not up to snuff, and, as a wise man once told us, once you lose a customer, you've got to work 10x as hard to get him back.

The owner finally brought his product back to where is should be, winning the division three years in a row, advancing to the AFC title game twice, and to the Super Bowl once.

But guess what? They still can't sellout their stadium. There are still rumors that the owner will once again seek greener pastures. In they eyes of the majority of the Bay Area, THEY are now the weak sisters of the region.

Its hard to fathom exactly how hard "10x as hard" really is until you actually have to do it.

Now, as a Raider fan, it pains me to write stuff like this. But the simple fact is, the team was mismanaged for years, and strayed from what once made it great. Now, even though the product has improved, its not enough. Further, there are questions about how the man who led the recent revival was run out of town because the owner wouldn't give him more responsibility, and the owner also didn't like the way the upstart was stealing his thunder. (Sound familiar?)

Yeah, as a fan, I never lost hope or lost interest. But as an impartial observer, I also can't ignore the impact of the errors that have been made. Clearly not every Raider fans was as passionate as I.

There's quite a few things that can be learned from the Raiders' example...thanks for bringing it up!

 

[DisneyKidds]

There's quite a few things that can be learned from the Raiders' example...thanks for bringing it up!

No problem. The single most important thing that can be learned from the Raiders is that DESPITE all the negatives, DESPITE where they were a few short years ago, the Raiders are one of the premier teams in the NFL. Agreed, they may not sell out their stadium because they drove away some not so loyal fans. However, that doesn't change the fact that they play high quality football and the team is healthy and making money. Could they make more? Sure. Is it a fatal flaw that they don't? No. Is attendance likely to improve now that they have righted the ship? Likely. All the same will be true for Disney if you ask me.

Again, this doesn't all mean that Disney IS in for much tougher times, but a logical, non-pixie dust influenced analysis does not point to anything better than a 50/50 chance things will improve significantly in the next 5 years....beyond that, its far too murky.

You may be right. In the end, even if Disney doesn't improve from where they are today I still believe that it will be more than enough for Disney to remain a premier, unique entertainment company. That will be more than enough to keep the ship not only afloat, but steady. Granated, not as good as it ever was or should be, not enough to make people like us stand up and cheer Disney's efforts, but Disney isn't going anywhere. Not that I think that is how it shoud be.

Again it gets back to looking at direction and what it means to you. Disney may be running in a direction that will prevent it from ever getting back to what it once was. If that is the direction you are concerned with you have cause to be alarmed. However, I don't believe that Disney is headed in a direction that will run the company into the ground and reduce it to the level of a Six Flags. If that is the focus on direction there is reason to be concerned, but not enough to write the company off.

 

[raidermatt]

However, that doesn't change the fact that they play high quality football and the team is healthy and making money. Could they make more? Sure. Is it a fatal flaw that they don't? No. Is attendance likely to improve now that they have righted the ship? Likely. All the same will be true for Disney if you ask me.

This is where the analogy breaks down... Every NFL team makes money. They have the most management-friendly labor agreement of any of the major pro sports, and the NFL is the king of pro sports in America right now.

Is attendance likely to improve? Sure, but after back-to-back division titles, last year's attendance was only marginally improved. Season ticket sales remain slow.

From a fan perspective, its great that the team is performing well, and with respect to the Raiders, all I really care about is where they play and how good they are.

But again, they are being out-performed financially by many other teams in the NFL who have far inferior product. Why? Because the Raiders (with help from the local politicians, to be fair) have exhibited indifference when it comes to anything that is important to its customers, with the exception of the on-field performance. And even that has only come around in the last three years.

Disney isn't in an industry where you can perform in the middle of the pack financially and expect to thrive.

We need to remember why we are all here posting on a Disney discussion board, while other companies don't even have fan discussion boards. There's a different level of expectation that has come with Disney's creative and financial success. I guess its ok to just accept that they will no longer be exceptional and instead go with mediocrity, but medicrity doesn't exactly justify all of the attention they get from us loonies on Internet message boards.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

The single most important thing that can be learned from the Raiders is that DESPITE all the negatives, DESPITE where they were a few short years ago, the Raiders are one of the premier teams in the NFL.

And why is that? Could it be that the owners WANT a winning team? Is it just happenstance that they are “one of the premier teams in the NFL”? I think not. There is a commitment to winning that is not as apparent on other teams. Case in point:

Da Bears!

Yes!! My home team. Way, way back in 1985 they had a winning team. An awesome team. Arguably one of the best teams to ever take an NFL field. And that year, right after their Superbowl victory, both Jim McMahon and Mike (da coach) Ditka said in various interviews (and McMahon in his book) that the Bears were going to become losers again as soon as the next season. Plain and simple the ‘glory’ was over already. Why? Well, it seems that the answer was pretty simple. They said that it was management’s "lack of commitment to win" that would do them in. That along with personal and corporate greed.

And sure enough the salary demands went in. And management refused to pay. And players left. Now, the Bears management could have easily spent a few bucks more and kept that winning team for years! But they CHOSE not to. They were content to make money. And the NFL structure fed into that plan very well for them. Money was their primary goal. Winning took a far, far second place.

THAT -- is what I see in Disney today. When I first discovered Disney I was enthralled with their dedication to excellence. Their “commitment” to win! I saw in them the same things I saw in the 1985 Bears!! But today I look at Disney and lament. Instead I see a 1986 (and everafter) Bears team. In other words I am struck with their ‘lack of commitment to win’.

And until that very basic philosophy changes, things will not improve. They will only get worse. Slowly if we’re lucky, but surely nonetheless. And it won’t matter if we decide it’s a commodity or not (BTW, Greg’s right in my opinion). And it won’t matter if the place is packed 365 day a year or not. And it won’t even matter if M:S is the sliced bread of the theme park world.

You see, ultimately it will just be an anomaly. Because the core is what’s rotten. it is the basic, fundamental, primary and very, very essential concept that has been corrupted. You know – “that lack of commitment ti win” that is soooooo very apparent in virtually (happy Mr. Kidds ) everything they do lately!!

 

[YoHo]

that lack of commitment to win

Yes, yes a thousand times yes.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I like the Al Davis/Raiders example because it so vividly displays a point I've long tried to make.

Whatever else you say about him, Al Davis is a man that makes things happen. True, sometimes the things he has to make happen are just undoings of things he did in the first place, but he always had a vision for what the Raiders were.

While the emphasis was on football and the team was in Oakland, you had football guy's football guy John Madden at coach and a drive and determination to play excellent football. The team succeeded from a football standpoint and (coincidentally?) from a financial standpoint.

While the emphasis was off of football and on maximazing market potential and making litigation into an Account Receivable, the Raiders went to LA and largely floundered.

Chewed up and spat out of LA for reasons that I will stamp my feet and shout until I'm in my grave are based in Davis' lack of focus on his core business, he slinks back to Oakland and buries himself in the football, again. Steady improvement, on the field and off.

The point is not to shake a finger at Davis (or Eisner) for past mistakes. The point is to hope, like Davis, that Eisner remembers what Disney considered its core business, back when it was successful, and decides that it's worth the Company's attention, again.

Focus matters. Intent counts. Commitment shows. Profits follow.

Keep "maximizing the flow" of that progression by cutting corners, and you end up with a nice round zero.

-WFH

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

The point is to hope, like Davis, that Eisner remembers what Disney considered its core business, back when it was successful, and decides that it's worth the Company's attention, again.

Mr. Head!!!

I usually save this for the Pirate (it is my patented Pirate response #1)

Do you really believe this nonsense you’re spewing!?!?!

I mean do you think that Ei$ner ever had an inkling of what is really the "core business' of Disney? I don't!

And so it follows that he could NEVER get back to what he never understood in the first place!!

Don't you agree?






Ah! The petty squabbles of Car #3!! The fine points of "magic"!!!

 

[crusader]

Hate to break it to you but in the NFL success is measured in championship rings. And the last time I checked the "post Madden" Raiders have alot of empty fingers - including this past year having lost to a team that for decades was considered one of the the worst teams in football.

Who is the key to success? The coach or the owner?

Not sure if that commitment to excellence and winning is the best analogy to apply here given the end result. Now what?