DEBATE: "Removing Blinders" or "How I stopped worrying & came to disrespect Ei$ne

[Another Voice]

Okay –

The story I heard at the time about the road signs was that it came from a comment by Michael Graves (the architect of the Swan & Dolphins resorts at WDW and Team Disney Burbank). Up until that point, the few road signs on property followed the national highway standards because that design has proven to be immensely effective in actually directing traffic. Until the late 1980’s most people got to WDW by car, it was always felt that maintaining signage the guests had already been following for hundreds of miles would be the best and safest plan.

Back to the tale – apparently during one of their many artistic tours of WDW, Mr. Graves mentioned to Eisner that traffic signs are boring and the he, Mr. Graves, demanded that better, more fashionable and all around more fabulous signs must be used for his glorious Dolphin and Swan hotels. Eisner at the time viewed himself as the Patron Saint of Big Time Architecture and took the comments to heart. Thus phone calls were placed and a Big Time Fashionable Graphic Design Firm was hired to create Big Time Fashionable Road Signs. Which they did.

And they didn’t work. There were rumors at the time that rates of traffic accidents and lost guests soared on the property. Instead of clear simple signs that were easy-to-read-at-55 mph signs, the guest was blasted with colors and signage that worked wonderfully when you’re standing in the middle of Los Angeles wondering where the synchronized swimming contests are going to be held. Even I had a difficult time figuring out which lane to which Mickey was pointing and why this sign red and that sign blue.

But, they were fashionable, they were trendy, and they got Eisner another gold star on his Fashionable CEO report card. Over time they’ve been revised into something that mostly works. They weren’t created for show. The real reason WDW has new signs: it boasted Eisner’s ego.

Eisner killed his own proposal for a light rail system (first line from the TTC to Fort Wilderness, Dixie Landings, and Downtown Disney). His rational was it was cheaper to let people drive their own cars and to build parking lots.

Oh – ya, putting a couple of garden hoses into Epcot (one of which was paid for by Coca Cola by the way) – that pretty much qualifies him for sainthood doesn’t it Mr. Pirate?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Sainthood? LOL Mr. AV you are a funny guy.

Certainly it qualifies him for nothing. Certainly he never made a decision on the idea personally and most likely he never even heard of it...But it does answer the question of what was given with no profit motive. You can sarcastically say that it's just a couple of garden hoses although really it is much more than that (certainly you know this )...And even though it was relatively cheap in the big picture it doesn't change the fact that it was given with no profit motive (he says again).

As to Coke sponsoring one of them, I find that hard to believe as there is no advertising touting this fact at the play fountains and clearly there would be. Perhaps you're thinking of the Coca-Cola sponsored misting station just outside of TT?

 

[raidermatt]

Vastly different motivations and philosophies will still sometimes yield similar results. If you're looking for somebody to say that Eisner's poor philosophy sometimes produces something people like, consider it said.

Great. Let's move on.

A good philosophy will yield better results more often than a poor one. So rather than prop somebody up based on the "every blind squirrel finds a nut philosophy", I find it more productive to focus on finding a squirrel with some vision.

At some point someone has to throw a dose of reality into the mix around here. When the original monorail was put up, even when the monorail to Epcot was put up, it most likely represented a fraction of the total construction cost for either park. To expand that mode of transportation to all points within an area the size of Manhatten - you would be talking hundreds of millions. Same with subways - hundreds of millions.

A dose of reality? Please.

Hundreds of millions over what timeframe? Clearly the entire system, whatever it is, wouldn't need to be built in one year, or even 3 or 4. DCA cost hundreds of millions and is an embarassment to the company. Fox Family was purchased for $5.2 billion.

This company HAS the capital to invest in such projects. Its just a question of whether the money would be better spent on infrastructure improvements in WDW, or on a cable channel for "re-purposed" programming. THAT is a reality.

The original monorail was a fraction of the total WDW construction costs? If you want to look at it that way, then you need to add up the costs of the two parks built since then, the two water parks, Downtown Disney, the new resorts, WWoS, the golf courses, etc, and figure the new transportation cost as a percentage of those construction costs in present day dollars. After all, the new form of alternative transportation would be support for all of those things, just as the original monorail was support for MK, and later Epcot.

Another question is what benefits such a transportation project would bring.

I don't understand how you will not acknowledge room rate increases without hard, documented proof, yet you would write off an expensive transportation project without any info on the benefits.

Improved alternative transportation would increase the value of a Disney vacation. It would increase demand for resorts that it services. It would alleviate many of the complaints we see today about the current transportation system. It would enhance the SHOW for the entire resort. All of these benefits (plus others) ultimately carry a revenue number with them, and its a revenue number that would continue for years, just as it has for the current monorail.

You simply cannot shoot down a transportation project based solely on costs.

Last I checked, "reality" still included the benefit side of a cost/benefit analysis...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hi everyone!! Sorry! This is a little dated, but I wrote it out yesterday and then forgot to bring it home on a disk!! I’ve got more to say regarding the direction the thread has taken, but in the mean time, I had to get this out!! Thanks all!!

According to the first, and only concise, authorized history of "The Vacation Kingdom of the World" the original signs at WDW used plain white type on a brown background.

Why is it that when I try to be as specific as possible you bring out the wide brush and paint everything the same color? And when I speak in generalities you focus your electron microscope to the smallest crevice you can find and blast away as if that wins your entire argument? Do you do this on purpose? Just to cloud or confuse the real issue? Or is it something that comes naturally to you? In either case I find it quite bothersome. And it really tends to bog down the conversation! Did you truly miss the point I was trying to make? Maybe you did. Maybe I give you too much credit for seeing the big picture. Or maybe my references were too obscure and not focused enough. So, lets make one last stab at it!

Literally, my point is that while you admire those signs and point to them as an example of Ei$ner doing things “Disney”, I see the same signs, as a sign, that he has (at best) lost the original focus or mission of what’s really ‘Disney’. And my reasoning is twofold.

First, the signs indicate that they have given up on the concept of “getting there is half the fun”. They have abdicated their previous mission of providing a unique vacation experience by whisking the guests around the property by means of distinctive, creative and radically unconventional modes of transportation. And in doing so they have allowed more and more of the ‘real world’ to enter the ‘berm’ of WDW. Not only have they tacitly allowed this to happen but in fact they have encouraged it (perfect example: those cute little signs). And by promoting and abetting this concept they have made the choice of providing alternative modes transportation all the easier to delay, defer and put off. Indefinitely!! So it should not come as much of a surprise that I find that sad. Sad that they are no longer even willing to do their best at what once was second nature to them. And those signs remind me of this.

The second reason I dislike the signs:

Why then would he bring in Sussman/Prezja (that firm that did the 1984 LA Olympics signs) to redo the signs to be so meticulously detailed and coordinated (just the way Walt liked to do things)?

I don’t think so!! “The way Walt liked to do things”?!?!? Not a chance!! I don’t recall him hiring high priced consultants for something his Imagineering crew can do in their sleep!! Why did he feel the need to hire outside the company? Why not use Imagineers? They know Disney! They know how to make things look and feel Disney. They are experts at theme and story and well… Disney!!! Yet, they were not used!?!? Why?

OK, let’s wrap up this bit:

Again, was it to increase his profits?

Yes!! Profit motivated, through and through!!! You put up signs, print maps and basically encourage personal driving, you cut down significantly on your own mass transit system. You bet your bottom dollar it was profit driven!!!

Now hear this. It isn't about signs. The signs are only a sign that Eisner had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about.

And I see it as a ‘sign’ that he doesn’t, and never did, understand “what Disney was supposed to be about”. If he did, we’d see him attacking the transportation problem instead of spending (wasting) money hiring outside consultants to design signs!! Again, it’s just another example of the ‘little as possible’ mentality that so permeates the company today. I expect to see mundane signs at Six Flags. I expect to see Sussman/Prezja signs at Universal. I expect something more from Disney!! Don’t you?

Sure, I get it. I guess we'll assume that the lack of quality and attention to detail that you and others point out in all those discussion we have is just a byproduct of the bottom line mentality. Somehow I really don't think you believe that. But I'll take your word for it

You know, this really bothers me! First of all, I said it!! You can bet the farm that I believe it and meant it!! What in all the world could have possibly led you to infer that I didn’t believe it!?!?!

And second, even you have admitted to a certain downturn. The only thing we seem to disagree with is about the precise time that downturn began. But we both agree that NOW it has certainly turned south!! So how do you account for it? Do you think he spends his nights thinking of ways to screw the public!!?? I don’t. I really do think it’s nothing more than a byproduct of his short term profit mentality, inexorably mixed with his magnificently inflated ego and his remarkable propensity for ineptitude (which he has mastered to fine art)!!

Am I a little clearer now? Clear enough so that you can stop paraphrasing my thoughts in a context that is clearly erroneous? I hope so!! You certainly don’t have to agree with me, but at least allow me the courtesy of trying to understand my position. If nothing else, I’m getting a little tired of saying the same things ten different ways!!

 

[raidermatt]

Scoop, I disagree with you about the specifics regarding the monorail. However, you're right that both of our opinions are purely subjective on this. It would take some seriously well-done survey data to even think about backing up one position or the other.

But overall, I agree with you. It doesn't have to be a monorail. It just needs to be more than it is now. Whether its open-air busses (interesting idea), boats, light rail, subway, monorail, peoplemover, something else, or a combination of those things.

The only real point I've been going for that's specific to the monorail is that the cost alone of such a project should not automatically classify it as "impossible".

 

[ohanafamily]

I like the monorail, and you have to admit, it runs on a much better schedule than the busses. Magical? on our last trip we rode up front in the pilots car. He had been a pilot for 6 years. (talk about going around in circles in your career choice) He told us a tale of an 80 year guest from India that only wanted to ride the monorail; this is what he came to WDW for, not the parks.

As far as other forms of transport, how about a train?, or even a roller coaster from the TTC to MGM. What about a swiss Chalet Sky ride, like the one that was removed from MK. You could have a themed boat-ride, or something imaginative that would be forced to a schedule and not be as environmentally offensive.


(BTW, pardon if I ramble a little, still on strong drugs from my dental surgery)

 

[Peter Pirate]

(BTW, pardon if I ramble a little, still on strong drugs from my dental surgery).

Rum & coke does fine for me...Give me some tequila and I'll be typing naked...Is this too much information???

 

[ohanafamily]

My DW seems to think the Percocet is making me try to insight a riot, she actually stopped me from posting how happy I was that Baron likes the bus service and road signs sooo very much. I think I did get the idea out about the flying carpets between parks. How about this for the bottom $$$$, a peoplemover with 24 hour shopping.....

I am getting silly, so I will stop for now....

 

[Peter Pirate]

You're really starting to make some sense now. Perhaps we could get some things accomplished, if only... ... ...Mike! ... ...Mike ... Mike Eisner!, you out there tonight?

 

[ohanafamily]

I got it, Baron is secretly EI$NER

 

[Peter Pirate]

Funny thought, but I know Baron and he's not Eisner! He is a really great guy though...Eisner would be another participant around here...hmmmmmm....

 

[DisneyKidds]

To say that Eisner doesn't get it or never got it is nothing but an arbitrary arrow. Certainly many good things aimed primarily at the guest experience have been given by Eisner's regime over the tenure. This doesn't change the mistakes, this doesn't mean he shouldn't go now but the current company status doesn't change what was accomplished previously...

Looks like I have some catching up to do, but thank you Peter - that is the ONLY point I have been trying to make!!!!! Signs, water play areas - small things, but they make a point.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Baron.............

And when I speak in generalities you focus your electron microscope to the smallest crevice you can find and blast away as if that wins your entire argument?

Why? Well, the only thing that has a hope of making a point is concrete proof in the form of examples. So I throw in examples (when I can - but I don't always have them - there is a reason you and I sometimes speak in generality, or get specific, eh? ) that I think make a point to the argument I am trying to make. Am I trying to argue that Eisner is a saint? No. Am I trying to argue that he hasn't made mistakes? No. Am I trying to argure he shouldn't go? No. Am I trying to argue he is Walt incarnate? No. I get your big picture - you think Eisner doesn't get it and never did. You think he never did anything other than for the love of money. Signs = mundane, no matter how well done, and Eisner should be developing transportation modes of the 22nd century. I see what you are saying, but it doesn't mean I have to agree. All I have tried to point out is that he has done things that I don't believe were purely motivated by profit. I guess I will just go back into generality speak and we will get nowhere - as if we are getting anywhere now (but the discussion is fun ).

I don’t think so!! “The way Walt liked to do things”?!?!? Not a chance!! I don’t recall him hiring high priced consultants for something his Imagineering crew can do in their sleep!! Why did he feel the need to hire outside the company? Why not use Imagineers? They know Disney! They know how to make things look and feel Disney. They are experts at theme and story and well… Disney!!! Yet, they were not used!?!? Why?

Minor things here. Baron, it is you who miss my point. I am not saying that Walt hired outside consultants - you know that, although I bet he did now and again . The signs were meticulous and detailed - that is how Walt did things. There, are you happy you made me waste my time retyping that - I know that was your only motivation here . Why didn't the imagieers design the signs. Well, if you think it is that easy to perform infrastructure design you are sorely mistaken. There was a lot more to it than a color scheme and shape.

You know, this really bothers me! First of all, I said it!! You can bet the farm that I believe it and meant it!! What in all the world could have possibly led you to infer that I didn’t believe it!?!?!

Well, a lot of the other things you have said, and common sense. Even you know that Eisner knows that something done cheap will be of lesser quality, and provide less experience. So, it is impossible to say that he can decide to do something cheap without consciously deciding to forgo some level of quality and experience. You don't have to disagree angain, I said I believe you .

If nothing else, I’m getting a little tired of saying the same things ten different ways!!

Roger that my friend - on both ends. Now it appears there are other threads to attend. See you there.

 

[SnackyStacky]

I think this whole thread is funny.

I didn't think that this thread was to discuss signage, or Eisner's motive. I thought it was to discuss when or why any and/or all respect was lost for Eisner.

Which is why I said:

And you can list signs as being magical all you'd like to, but I don't give a damn about signs. I'm talking about real, tangible things that added up leave me feeling HORRIBLY cheated. And I know full well that wasn't the intent of Eisner and crew, but that's the result, as Baron would say, of INEPTITUDE!

And it's already been pointed out that cost is a selective factor. They had 9 digits to invest in a new park, or some 10 digits to invest in cable networks, but none to put together some mass transit system? Doesn't make sense!

And as for a fountain or two, quite frankly, I would feel a lot less cheated with more hours and 10 fewer fountains. Hell, take all of those play founatins off property. They're great, and they do enhance the guest experience, but what's the point of fountains if the parks aren't open to enjoy them?!

 

[raidermatt]

Looks like I have some catching up to do, but thank you Peter - that is the ONLY point I have been trying to make!!!!! Signs, water play areas - small things, but they make a point.

Its clear its the only point you're trying to make, and its clear its mostly wrong.

Disney became what it is by doing things beyond ordinary customer service. Signs and water play areas show only that Eisner can see a guest survey that says "not enough for kids to do at Epcot", or "We think your busses stink, but at least give us some signs so we can drive".

However, this in no way proves at all that he gets what DISNEY is about. The old Disney way wasn't to try to provide the easiest solution to fix a problem. Now, it usually is (unless its on somebody else's dime).

Rather than address the stagnating family attractions at Epcot, he puts in a couple of water play areas. Its not that the water play areas are bad, they are examples of what any reasonable CEO could approve to address the issue at hand.

Same thing as the signs. Rather than address the overall transportation issues, he puts up signs. Again, better than nothing, but it was the easy way out. Predictably, the impact on the transportation issue as a whole is minimal.

Yes, putting in signs and water play areas IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. But BETTER THAN NOTHING is not what caused the public to embrace Disney like no other company in existence. They don't prove he understands anything about how and why Disney got to be the beloved brand name he is so adept at taking advantage of.