Dear Eisner

[DisneyKidds]

I can say that my argument is not so much that there's anything wrong with people actually enjoying the All Stars, and Pop Century, or that anybody is LESS enlightened than anybody else, but rather that it's really frustrating to think that Disney is charging money for a lesser experience, and that these people think that it's the best that Disney can do.

Who's to say that these people think that the AS are the best that Disney can do? Sounds like you do think they are rather ignorant. How did we come to possess what level of Disney knowledge we have? How can you assume that anyone who stays at the AS doesn't possess similar knowledge. This ain't rocket science. We aren't PhD's. The info isn't hard to come by. In fact, some of the people I know who stay at the AS ARE PhD's and have Master's degrees. They possess as much Disney knowledge as I do (ok, some think that isn't much - but they can take a long walk of a short pier ). Anyone who stays at the AS knows darn well that Disney has a better resort down the street. Could the value resorts themselves been better? Maybe.......or maybe not. I haven't seen any proposals for different value resorts, built more to the old Philosophy, that could be sold for about $100 a night or less. I know that most of the anti-value crowd around here doesn't like the idea of price points in the Disney equation, but I can live with it. Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I'll outright condemn them. Actually, as you point out.................

[people] LIKE the All Stars, so they DO come back

I don't agree that that.......

perpetuates the cycle of Disney churning out second-rate items that the crowds eat up. That doesn't bode well for Disney ever returning to creating first-rate, quality, truly magical products and services; not the magical® products that are Pop Century and the All Stars.

................as the Caribbean Beach and AS didn't prevent Disney from building new and wonderful resorts such as the Boardwalk, Wilderness Lodge and AKL.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I composed this from last night’s discussion at work today. I have not included the new posts from Mr. kids or Scoop, but from a glance I have already formulated part of my response. But it’s going to have to wait a bit.

Right now, a little catch-up and an assortment of thoughts, ideas and concepts…

First, in this post, we’ll tackle Scoop:




Finally we’ve gotten off those garden wings which, as it turns out, were NOT added as you’ve been espousing since your arrival here, but were a fundamental and intrinsic part of the original design. And it seems that many people CAN see the ‘SHOW’ of them, even if you can’t. Oh well! If nothing else, I’m glad we cleared that up!!

So, after all the banter, after all the positioning, after all the would-be traps were laid and carefully avoided, you finally answered my question.

Answer: Within Walt's philosophy as you've described it: No.

Within how WDW has become a wider scale family resort today: Yes.

Very good! Thank you! It took a while, but it was worth it!

I don't think Walt would have built these type of resorts but I also think they serve a valuable purpose for alot of guests.

How do you rectify the two, philosophically? I mean, you say that you don’t think Walt would have built them, right? And I quite agree. But have you ever asked yourself why? Why wouldn’t he have built them? What, in his philosophical outlook for all things Disney, is inherently wrong with them?

And once you have the answer to that, there is only one other question remaining. And it is NOT if they serve a valuable purpose. It is NOT about budgets, costs and profit motives. And it is NOT about class distinction or exclusion of market segments. It is simply:

What makes them OK today, philosophically, when you clearly acknowledge that they were WRONG in Walt’s time and within his philosophy?

I’m dying to hear the answer to that one!!

NEXT:

And, considering their locations, I don't think they disrupt the overall WDW show.

Don’t you see that ANYTHING the Disney company puts out, whether it be a shirt, plush toy, attraction or a Resort, must, ABSOLUTELY MUST(!) be of the highest quality imaginable? If not, it undermines the entire concept of what Disney is. Of what it stands for. And even if the vast majority doesn’t see the aberration, it is still an albatross around the neck of the company and the perception they are trying to give to the public. It seriously tarnishes the brand!! And worse yet, it is the beginning of that slippery slope that ultimately leads to the likes of a Dinorama or DCA!!

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen rather spotty quality over the past ten years or so in almost everything Disney puts out. We don’t talk about it much, because they are such small items in the grand scheme of things. But the quality for theirs shirts for instance really sucks sometimes!! After two wash cycles you leave it in the closet for a year and then throw it away! Yet I have some that are years old and wear like brand new! Seems to me the resorts are the same way. And it points to the lowering of the standards and ignoring a chief aspect of the Disney philosophy that dictates that quality = Disney. Today, it is sold as a “you get what you pay for”, so Disney does NOT automatically mean quality!! There are different levels of “Disney”. And that taints the brand, their reputation and the relationship that they have built up with their guests and customers over the years.

If capacity was really that big of an issue in 1972 that they really needed the capacity provided by the garden wings then I believe the "Walt philosophy" solution would have been to go ahead and build the Venetian or Persian or Asian from the beginning (well actually not the Venetian...have you seen the original concept art? ghastly... ) from day one to increase capacity rather than build the garden wings which are obviously inferior to the Tower lodging.

Before we cast stones, I think we better turn to some experts on the subject. I believe that those other resorts were stopped because of some bureaucratic and/or political appeasement to the Orlando area, Florida and the world outside of Disney in general. I was led to believe back then that Disney was trying to placate local businesses and politicians. That’s why the Poly was expanded instead of a new resort constructed.

Now, I’m not sure if that was just spin or it was a fact, but that was what the buzz was around that time. We didn’t have the internet or any other communications other than a face to face with cast members. But I got that story from many of them over a period of several years. You see, I was always a bit disappointed that the Asian never went in as planned, so every chance I got, I asked about it. And this was what I was told.

AV, what’s your take?

Next:

Because it's much more important to me that a trip to Disney World make Owen happy that it strictly adhere to a "philosophy".

and

I'm telling you. Seeing my 2 year old screaming "Mickey, Mickey, Mickey" melts me to the point that I'm willing to let a little philosophy slide--even if that exposes a slippery slope.

Good God!! He’s turned into the Captain!! Which is fine. More power to you. Enjoy! Have fun at Disney with your kids! I do! All the time!!

But don’t base your position regarding the philosophical doctrines and long term goals of the company on personal enjoyment! That road goes no where. And it seriously undermines your credibility.

It reminds me of the bickering mothers involved in my kid’s school. They sit on the Local School Council with me and swear up and down that they have the entire school in their hearts. Yet, every issue they bring up, every problem that they turn into a crisis, centers around the grade their child happens to be in at the time. Strange isn’t it? Only so much money to go around and yet the intermediate grades desperately need the funding, at the expense of the other grades! Hmmmm. Last year the crisis was the primary grades. I wonder what changed? Ah! Their child is no longer in the 3rd grade and moved to the 4th!! And sure enough, two years later the funding and ALL problem solving is directed to the upper grades! Coincidence?

The point is, to effectively manage and direct the philosophy of a company like Disney, you have to, YOU MUST, take your personal feelings out of it!! It doesn’t matter if Owen LOVES the giant Yo-yo or not. The question is still; does it fit in the philosophy of Disney? Is it good for the long term? Is it quality?

But, I just don't see the "sadness" of the fact that there is an alternative at WDW.

Because of the standards they lost along the way. It really is that simple. They used to be all about QUALITY!! They’re not anymore. And that IS sad.

I am not suggesting at all that showmanship should completely surrender to affordability factors or age factors. Lower income families with toddlers certainly should not absolutely and finally dictate a philosophy.

Ah! Then it comes down to a question of where you draw the line. I happen to like where Walt drew it. Evidently you don’t. So, just where would you draw the line?

Mr. Voice, I too am grieved by things like Dinorama which I believe--unlike Pop Century and the All Stars--is placed in such a way that it distracts from the rest of the Show.

Anything that is of lesser quality detracts from the show and…

I too am grieved at what this regime has allowed to happen to Disneyland and the mere fact that DCA was built (not created...that's too good of a word).

… naturally leads to these examples. It is the unintended consequences of abandoning the ‘philosophy’. And that’s sad too!!

But, at some point, I'm perfectly comfortable taking off my critical thinker/connoiseur of true showmanship hat and putting on my daddy of a 2 year old hat.

Me too! But I save that for when I’m there. On these discussion boards it is an entirely different matter. We are discussing what’s good for the company and the philosophy within. We are NOT discussing Owen’s personal likes and dislikes!!

Why don't I see that with the All Stars? Because they have some of the highest occupancy numbers on property. And they have a high returning guest number.

You are confusing popularity with Disney quality and philosophy. Come on, Scoop!! That is a rookie mistake!! You should know better. One has NOTHING to do with the other!! Do I really have to bring up strip clubs again!?!

You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century. I know because I've been told the info and because I fall within that info.

I think someone else called for it before me, but I will too. BACK IT UP!!

I’m looking forward to your thoughtful response!







PS:

I think you are a very dishonest person. You think I am too.

No. I do not think you are ‘dishonest’. I think you are wrong. Wrong in your thinking. Wrong in your understanding of Disney. And wrong philosophically. And I think you cannot concede a point easily. Neither can I. But I do NOT think you are dishonest.

I think you are a very dishonest person.

Not just dishonest, but VERY dishonest. How so?

(Moderators!! Please be lenient. I am very curious!)

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds!

The thing is............there are lots of people who do like the values, and not just because of the price. For those not so hung up on the history and philosophy we throw around here in our (for the most part) isolated "been to the original resorts and know the difference" eWorld, the Disney resorts they spend their time in are just wonderful and a vast improvement over the Motel 6's on I Drive. All our arrogant, elitist "but this is what a Disney resort/experience is and you ain't getting it" debate doesn't mean squat to them.

It doesn’t have to, nor should it. It should only matter to the current administration of Disney and those who care about the long term good of the company. And of course it matters greatly to the ‘philosophy’!!

Surely you can understand that?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Crusader:

So it is imperative to size him or her up before we can draw the line on who gets to stay onsite.

I agree. Surprised? So am I!! But I want to tell you that I understand, inherently, what you’re talking about. But (and here’s where it gets sticky) I think that the questions you are asking is more or less ‘felt’ when the original concept is floated. One ‘knows’ if it fits within the public’s perception. And one ‘knows’ (or at least hopes) that they will pay for it. Now, I will grant you that some are better than others at this game. Walt was particularly good at it. Ei$ner STINKS at it (the Institute, DCA, etc.). It’s all part of “Getting It”!!

So at a certain point in the process a reality check may be required. I understand that. But I firmly believe that the target marketing, and demographics should play a very small role (if any) in the grand scheme of things.

I’ll politely place joe on the back burner for now.

I really think that in the formative stages, that is where he belongs. We may get to him later or we may find that we simply ‘know’ it’ll work, because the concept demands nothing less!!

With that in mind, where do we begin?

I don’t know!! I’m not very good at “What If” games. I think the first thing we have to do is move this subject out of this thread. Only the diehards are here now and we need some brainstorming. So…

… Minimize this one and open the thread that reads

Making the Caste System work within the Disney philosophy – A “What If” game

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Geez Baron, you really don't think much of the American public, do you?

My opinion of the American public has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

If only everyone could be a fraction as enlightened as you..............just think how much better off the world would be.

Is it just me or was this sentence totally uncalled and just dripping with sarcasm, disdain and acrimony? It may be just me, but I really think this type of thing stinks.

Hey Mr. Kidds!! Do you think you can refrain from this sort of thing in the future?

Now, to continue…

.................why is this? It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property.

I take it from your response that you agree with my flow chart. In that case you disagree with Scoop who seems to think that most of the people who have a propensity to stay on Disney property really look elsewhere. I say they do not. Evidently you agree! That’s nice!!

It is because they know that a stay on Disney property is going to be a better experience than a stay off property.

How do they know that? Especially the first timers? Could it possibly be that the Disney reputation, which has been carefully built on quality and creativity since Walt’s train ride after having Oswald stolen from him, has told the public that they can trust Disney?

Are they trading off their reputation and brand name? (Hmmmm. Where have I heard this argument before?) And Don’t just take AV’s word for it! You are talking to the original “Brand-Monkey”!!

Remember? I was the guy who laughed at my uncle when he spent four thousand dollars on a timeshare in Hawaii! I was the guy who refused to own a summer home in the North Woods because I refused to be tied down and “married-to-the-place”. Yet!! I was the guy who plopped down over ten grand for the DVC just because it was Disney, Sight-Unseen!!! No questions asked!! No visit. No tour. No free ice cream!! Just wrote a check and said thank you!! I remember telling my wife at the time, “What’s to worry over? It’s Disney!! How bad can it be??”

No, my friend! I come to you as a reformed drunk – SHOUTING the evils of John Barleycorn!!

I’ve been there. I KNOW how they think!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! I’ll try it again. Every time the questions get tough, Scoop bails! Most of the time with feigned exasperation. Just like this time. So, how about we give him a chance to redeem himself?

One more go around with the offending passage excised.

----------------------------

So, after all the banter, after all the positioning, after all the would-be traps were laid and carefully avoided, you finally answered my question.

Answer: Within Walt's philosophy as you've described it: No.

Within how WDW has become a wider scale family resort today: Yes.

Very good! Thank you! It took a while, but it was worth it!

I don't think Walt would have built these type of resorts but I also think they serve a valuable purpose for alot of guests.

How do you rectify the two, philosophically? I mean, you say that you don’t think Walt would have built them, right? And I quite agree. But have you ever asked yourself why? Why wouldn’t he have built them? What, in his philosophical outlook for all things Disney, is inherently wrong with them?

And once you have the answer to that, there is only one other question remaining. And it is NOT if they serve a valuable purpose. It is NOT about budgets, costs and profit motives. And it is NOT about class distinction or exclusion of market segments. It is simply:

What makes them OK today, philosophically, when you clearly acknowledge that they were WRONG in Walt’s time and within his philosophy?

I’m dying to hear the answer to that one!!

NEXT:

And, considering their locations, I don't think they disrupt the overall WDW show.

Don’t you see that ANYTHING the Disney company puts out, whether it be a shirt, plush toy, attraction or a Resort, must, ABSOLUTELY MUST(!) be of the highest quality imaginable? If not, it undermines the entire concept of what Disney is. Of what it stands for. And even if the vast majority doesn’t see the aberration, it is still an albatross around the neck of the company and the perception they are trying to give to the public. It seriously tarnishes the brand!! And worse yet, it is the beginning of that slippery slope that ultimately leads to the likes of a Dinorama or DCA!!

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen rather spotty quality over the past ten years or so in almost everything Disney puts out. We don’t talk about it much, because they are such small items in the grand scheme of things. But the quality for theirs shirts for instance really sucks sometimes!! After two wash cycles you leave it in the closet for a year and then throw it away! Yet I have some that are years old and wear like brand new! Seems to me the resorts are the same way. And it points to the lowering of the standards and ignoring a chief aspect of the Disney philosophy that dictates that quality = Disney. Today, it is sold as a “you get what you pay for”, so Disney does NOT automatically mean quality!! There are different levels of “Disney”. And that taints the brand, their reputation and the relationship that they have built up with their guests and customers over the years.

If capacity was really that big of an issue in 1972 that they really needed the capacity provided by the garden wings then I believe the "Walt philosophy" solution would have been to go ahead and build the Venetian or Persian or Asian from the beginning (well actually not the Venetian...have you seen the original concept art? ghastly... ) from day one to increase capacity rather than build the garden wings which are obviously inferior to the Tower lodging.

Before we cast stones, I think we better turn to some experts on the subject. I believe that those other resorts were stopped because of some bureaucratic and/or political appeasement to the Orlando area, Florida and the world outside of Disney in general. I was led to believe back then that Disney was trying to placate local businesses and politicians. That’s why the Poly was expanded instead of a new resort constructed.

Now, I’m not sure if that was just spin or it was a fact, but that was what the buzz was around that time. We didn’t have the internet or any other communications other than a face to face with cast members. But I got that story from many of them over a period of several years. You see, I was always a bit disappointed that the Asian never went in as planned, so every chance I got, I asked about it. And this was what I was told.

AV, what’s your take?

Next:

Because it's much more important to me that a trip to Disney World make Owen happy that it strictly adhere to a "philosophy".

and

I'm telling you. Seeing my 2 year old screaming "Mickey, Mickey, Mickey" melts me to the point that I'm willing to let a little philosophy slide--even if that exposes a slippery slope.

Good God!! He’s turned into the Captain!! Which is fine. More power to you. Enjoy! Have fun at Disney with your kids! I do! All the time!!

But don’t base your position regarding the philosophical doctrines and long term goals of the company on personal enjoyment! That road goes no where. And it seriously undermines your credibility.

It reminds me of the bickering mothers involved in my kid’s school. They sit on the Local School Council with me and swear up and down that they have the entire school in their hearts. Yet, every issue they bring up, every problem that they turn into a crisis, centers around the grade their child happens to be in at the time. Strange isn’t it? Only so much money to go around and yet the intermediate grades desperately need the funding, at the expense of the other grades! Hmmmm. Last year the crisis was the primary grades. I wonder what changed? Ah! Their child is no longer in the 3rd grade and moved to the 4th!! And sure enough, two years later the funding and ALL problem solving is directed to the upper grades! Coincidence?

The point is, to effectively manage and direct the philosophy of a company like Disney, you have to, YOU MUST, take your personal feelings out of it!! It doesn’t matter if Owen LOVES the giant Yo-yo or not. The question is still; does it fit in the philosophy of Disney? Is it good for the long term? Is it quality?

But, I just don't see the "sadness" of the fact that there is an alternative at WDW.

Because of the standards they lost along the way. It really is that simple. They used to be all about QUALITY!! They’re not anymore. And that IS sad.

I am not suggesting at all that showmanship should completely surrender to affordability factors or age factors. Lower income families with toddlers certainly should not absolutely and finally dictate a philosophy.

Ah! Then it comes down to a question of where you draw the line. I happen to like where Walt drew it. Evidently you don’t. So, just where would you draw the line?

Mr. Voice, I too am grieved by things like Dinorama which I believe--unlike Pop Century and the All Stars--is placed in such a way that it distracts from the rest of the Show.

Anything that is of lesser quality detracts from the show and…

I too am grieved at what this regime has allowed to happen to Disneyland and the mere fact that DCA was built (not created...that's too good of a word).

… naturally leads to these examples. It is the unintended consequences of abandoning the ‘philosophy’. And that’s sad too!!

But, at some point, I'm perfectly comfortable taking off my critical thinker/connoiseur of true showmanship hat and putting on my daddy of a 2 year old hat.

Me too! But I save that for when I’m there. On these discussion boards it is an entirely different matter. We are discussing what’s good for the company and the philosophy within. We are NOT discussing Owen’s personal likes and dislikes!!

Why don't I see that with the All Stars? Because they have some of the highest occupancy numbers on property. And they have a high returning guest number.

You are confusing popularity with Disney quality and philosophy. Come on, Scoop!! That is a rookie mistake!! You should know better. One has NOTHING to do with the other!! Do I really have to bring up strip clubs again!?!

You may not believe it, but the stats show that there are guests who--even though they have the capacity to stay elsewhere--still choose to go back to All Stars or try Pop Century. I know because I've been told the info and because I fall within that info.

I think someone else called for it before me, but I will too. BACK IT UP!!

I’m looking forward to your thoughtful response!







PS:

I think you are a very dishonest person. You think I am too.

No. I do not think you are ‘dishonest’. I think you are wrong. Wrong in your thinking. Wrong in your understanding of Disney. And wrong philosophically. And I think you cannot concede a point easily. Neither can I. But I do NOT think you are dishonest.

I think you are a very dishonest person.

Not just dishonest, but VERY dishonest. How so?

(Moderators!! Please be lenient. I am very curious!)

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Oh, this is getting almost comical. Replace one ridiculous quote with another one and then say let's move on.

Well, well, well. Look what I found just a couple pages ago, from your rapier wit:

Hmmm....Chill out DVC-Landbaron. Don't act as if I just defrocked your neighbor's wife. Generally, I've found that you resort to the Large Font Bold text of indignation when you've run across a point that you don't really have an answer to within your dogma. Such is apparently the case here, because, quicker than you can take your finger off the Control Tab button...you've decided that this thread needs a changed subject (as if we don't eeevvvveerrrrr change topics in mid-thread....)

How do you do, Mr. Pot? I’m Mr. Kettle. What color did you say I was?

Get a grip Scoop! Why not just admit that you don’t HAVE any answers for me. Even Mr. Kidds abandoned you on the last issue. It’s why you like (heck almost worship, toady style) AV. He counters your points and then lets it go. The frozen one never did that. Sir Matt doesn’t do that. His Airness doesn’t do it! And neither do I. (Hmmm. Funny how you happen to have a problem with all four of us at one time or another. Nothing to do with you, of course!! It MUST be us!!!)

So don’t act all high and mighty. You’re an expert name caller and a master of innuendo. You make sure that you always score points for you’re imagined internet audience. But you do that with utter disregard for the subject at hand and at the expense of worthwhile communication. In other words you make a lousy debater.


Adios Scoop! Is the cameo finally over?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Hey Mr. Kidds!! Do you think you can refrain from this sort of thing in the future?

I apologize...........but you do come off as having a bit of a superiority complex sometimes. Hope that doesn't offend you..........friend to friend. So, I'll refrain from pointing out my opinion on that front if you stop writing off positive response to anything recent as the uninformed lunacy of a brand blinded public. I think people deserve a bit more credit than that. 'Nuff said?

Even Mr. Kidds abandoned you on the last issue.

Well, no. I like to think I...............

counter your points and then let it go.

However, given that you have returned to true Baron form I seem to have lost somewhere in your lengthy retorts the issue you think I abandoned. If you care to remind me I'll let you know if I did abandon anything or if I have answered and moved on. Other than that, I'll see you around the new thread.

 

[WDSearcher]

Y'know ... I don't blame scoop at all for not answering, based on how no answer is ever quite enough, but what the heck ... let me enter the fray.

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron Finally we’ve gotten off those garden wings which, as it turns out, were NOT added as you’ve been espousing since your arrival here, but were a fundamental and intrinsic part of the original design. And it seems that many people CAN see the ‘SHOW’ of them, even if you can’t. Oh well! If nothing else, I’m glad we cleared that up!!

I'm with scoop in that I didn't see "many" peole seeing the 'SHOW' of the garden wings. I saw two. Maybe three. Which is at least as many as said they didn't. I will continue to go on record as being someone who doesn't see the show there. No one has ever adequately, IMO, explained how they DO add to the show. What specific elements of the GW add to the show that the Contemporary is. Never an answer.

So, after all the banter, after all the positioning, after all the would-be traps were laid and carefully avoided, you finally answered my question.

Why wouldn’t he have built them? What, in his philosophical outlook for all things Disney, is inherently wrong with them?

Walt wouldn't have built them because he probably would have wanted to let the "value level" resorts be outsourced to a partnership with Holiday Inn or someone similar. I think he'd have concentrated on moderate-to-high-end resorts and not built anything on-property for those who couldn't afford that level. He would have seen it as more economical to have the "Disney partner resorts" offer the lower-level accomodations, because he could make more money and more impact with something more higher end.

What makes them OK today, philosophically, when you clearly acknowledge that they were WRONG in Walt’s time and within his philosophy?

I’m dying to hear the answer to that one!!!!

This is a trick question. Time is measurable; philosophy is not.

They're OK today even though they were wrong in Walt's TIME simply because it's not Walt's time any more. Lots of things are done today and seen as being OK even though the folks of the 1950s wouldn't have even considered them. If Walt were, indeed, still alive, I think there are a lot of things he would bend to as a businessman that would absolutely apall the purists. As competition grew and other theme and amusement parks sprung up around the country and around the globe, and he had to keep money coming in to satisfy Roy and to give himself funds to create with, I have no doubt that he would have done everything he could to maintain Disney's share of the market and stay ahead of the curve. And if that meant having Disney-branded lower-priced resorts, I think he'd have eventually gone that way.

Would he have built the Pop Century or All-Stars specifically? That's where the PHILOSOPHY comes in. I don't see the ideas themselves -- sports, music, movies, centuries -- being something Walt wouldn't embrace, although he may have approached them differently. I imagine they'd be less about the icons and more about the internal theming. More theme, less decoration.

Don’t you see that ANYTHING the Disney company puts out, whether it be a shirt, plush toy, attraction or a Resort, must, ABSOLUTELY MUST(!) be of the highest quality imaginable? If not, it undermines the entire concept of what Disney is. Of what it stands for. And even if the vast majority doesn’t see the aberration, it is still an albatross around the neck of the company and the perception they are trying to give to the public. It seriously tarnishes the brand!! And worse yet, it is the beginning of that slippery slope that ultimately leads to the likes of a Dinorama or DCA!!?

Yes, but quality is in the eye of the beholder. It's a subjective term. If I have a company in Mexico that is asked to spit out 300,000 $2 Disney souvenirs a year and make them to exact specifications, and I do that, then I am making a "quality" product. I have followed the specs exactly, and I have met my quota, and each piece is exactly as it should be. Yet, you may look at them and call them low-quality crap. Just because something is inexpensive, doesn't mean it's cheap. And, just because 50% of the people don't like something doesn't mean it's not a quality thing, because there are 50% of the people who DO like it. The 50% who think it's cheap, think it's an albatross around Disney's neck. The 50% who like it, think it's swell.

The Disney purists who know every in and out of the company and who first spent days in the parks as children and are forever trying to get back to that childlike place obviously have a much different idea of how they define 'quality' than does someone who just goes to the parks to have a good time with their kids.

Quality also depends on what you're used to. If you've stayed in generic Ramada Inns for your last three vacations, and this time you save up and stay in a Garden Wing, that's going to be of higher quality to you based on what you have to compare it to. However, if you've always stayed in a tower room and you end up in a Garden Wing because of availability or budget, you're going to find it to be of a lower quality. (I know that what we're really talking about here is value, but most people equate the two. Something "high quality" is more expensive; "low quality" is cheaper. I don't agree with that.)

The point is, to effectively manage and direct the philosophy of a company like Disney, you have to, YOU MUST, take your personal feelings out of it!!

I agree. But no one here has been able to do that so far, so why is scoop the only one who has to? You've got people who hate Michael Eisner to such a degree that they can't be objective on anything he says or does. You've got people who believe that the happiness of their families is more important than a business philosophy. They don't care whether Walt would have or wouldn't have built it, as long as their kids have fun. And then other people who deride them for that. If we're going to take emotion and personal feeling out of it, then we have to take all the emotions out, including sarcasm and condescension. You don't just get to take the warm and fuzzy feelings away. No one here is discussing this with no personal feelings.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Time is measurable; philosophy is not.

They're OK today even though they were wrong in Walt's TIME simply because it's not Walt's time any more. Lots of things are done today and seen as being OK even though the folks of the 1950s wouldn't have even considered them. If Walt were, indeed, still alive, I think there are a lot of things he would bend to as a businessman that would absolutely apall the purists. As competition grew and other theme and amusement parks sprung up around the country and around the globe, and he had to keep money coming in to satisfy Roy and to give himself funds to create with, I have no doubt that he would have done everything he could to maintain Disney's share of the market and stay ahead of the curve. And if that meant having Disney-branded lower-priced resorts, I think he'd have eventually gone that way.

Would he have built the Pop Century or All-Stars specifically? That's where the PHILOSOPHY comes in. I don't see the ideas themselves -- sports, music, movies, centuries -- being something Walt wouldn't embrace, although he may have approached them differently. I imagine they'd be less about the icons and more about the internal theming. More theme, less decoration.

Sorry, but that was worth repeating.

Time is measurable; philosophy is not.

They're OK today even though they were wrong in Walt's TIME simply because it's not Walt's time any more. Lots of things are done today and seen as being OK even though the folks of the 1950s wouldn't have even considered them. If Walt were, indeed, still alive, I think there are a lot of things he would bend to as a businessman that would absolutely apall the purists. As competition grew and other theme and amusement parks sprung up around the country and around the globe, and he had to keep money coming in to satisfy Roy and to give himself funds to create with, I have no doubt that he would have done everything he could to maintain Disney's share of the market and stay ahead of the curve. And if that meant having Disney-branded lower-priced resorts, I think he'd have eventually gone that way.

Would he have built the Pop Century or All-Stars specifically? That's where the PHILOSOPHY comes in. I don't see the ideas themselves -- sports, music, movies, centuries -- being something Walt wouldn't embrace, although he may have approached them differently. I imagine they'd be less about the icons and more about the internal theming. More theme, less decoration.

Sorry, but that was worth repeating in bold.

Perfect. DITTO. Quote of the day. (Somebody stop me...................I've turned into Baron ) I hope you can all see it now. Baron has seen it and agreed to everything Searcher just said regarding the moderates.................if someone wants to champion the values it could be a long one, but it might be a winable fight.

Excellent post Searcher

 

[raidermatt]

C'mon DK, you can do better than this.

Walt ok'd the MK so he could build his one of a kind resort and his Epcot CITY.

What equivalent goal was Eisner reaching for when he "buckled" under pressure and approved Pop Century?

 

[DisneyKidds]

What equivalent goal was Eisner reaching for when he "buckled" under pressure and approved Pop Century?

Before I start, let me say that I think there are too many value resorts/rooms. Even if we could find a way to justify the existence, I don't think we could justify the size. So I have no idea why ME went forward with PC. Let's talk about the original values........the All Stars. OK?

I suppose the pressure that ME "buckled" under was growth. I think Walt would have resisted growth longer than ME, and would have limited the growth, but The Florida Project took on a life of it's own and changed the face of the vacation world. That was probably beyond even Walts expectations. Demand required growth. ME's desire to bolster assets and stock prices fed that growth.

In the end ME grew many things the wrong way, most of us agree on that. What we don't seem to agree on is that growth was needed, was a good thing....................especially if done the right way.

Plus, you never know what kind of new and completely unthought of thing Walt would have dreamt up that he would have needed to fund. So all in all I very much could see WDW growing in many directions under Walt's continued leadership.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by thedscoop

Great input, Scoop old pal!! Thanks and keep it up!!

 

[raidermatt]

I don't dispute that WDW had to grow.

I'm not even convinced that it would have grown any slower under Walt. Much differently I'm sure, but not necessarily any slower.

What I have a problem with is the idea that the need to grow justifies the Values. Growth was necessary in order to utilize idle assets and avoid takeover and possibly a break-up. But there seems to be this idea that the only way to grow adequately was to compromise the "Disney" way and build Moderates and Values.

That's just not a realisitic justification. ANYTHING that utilized the land and generated income would have satisfied the financial growth requirements. I just believe that it was possible without compromising the philosophy.

What would that have been? I don't know... Certainly some "deluxe" resorts... maybe other different types of parks...who knows? But I truly believe the company had the ability to achieve the growth requirements in a much more "Disney" fashion.