DEBATE: The Commerce and Business of WDW, and Walt Himself.

[DisneyKidds]

Might it not be more accurate to suggest that Eisner believes in attention to detail and Walt's original ideas but has allowed his second in commands to get sloppy?

My good Professor - I'm sure you will get a lot of 'the apple doesn't fall far from the tree' arguments on this one. Some probably believe that the Ei$ner machine is a many headed monster, all taking direction from the main head, which is the only one that can be cut off to stop the beast . (note to Professor - you will find we like analogies around here, too )

I do think that Disney under Eisner has provided a lot of offerings with great attention to detail. Some of that attention is so subtle and well incorporated that many people won't even notice - just like the gold leaf on the carousel. Alas, I doubt that Eisner would ever paint anything with gold the way Walt's Disney did.

 

[airlarry!]

Professor:

Good points, I will admit. But I am one (of the few it seems) that likes both the idea and the presentation of DAK. I just think they haven't finished it. (but that's a whole 'nother topic).

Yes, the Imagineers have shown great attention to detail in their Disney offerings. I will not budge on one point...anything that John Lassiter et al put out from Pixar is Pixar's alone...and no credit should be given to Cou$in Michael. Disney has a relationship with Pixar that is wholly unlike its relationship with WDI or other in-house efforts, and I don't think they should be compared.

Sticking to the original topic as best as I can, we can still say that the two regimes focus on different business plans that can't be blamed on second-in-commands. That cutting problem you alluded to? It goes way back...way before the terrorist attacks...way back to 1998 or so when Ei$ner started calling for the infamous 10/10 plan...of cutting each year 10% in operational costs while increasing net profits 10% in each department. It is his mantra..

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

I was just getting the pulse of this group. I would agree that ultimately the head of the organization is ultimately responsibe. And it is that head's biggest responsibility to clearly articulate the vision.

However, in an organization the size and scope of Disney there must also be delegation. Unfortunatley in this situation it seems to me that the 1998 mandate was not a full nor clear articulation of the strategy. The focus was too heavy on the cost cutting. And underscored by actions such as the appointment of Paul Pressler. That mandate also seemed strange to me, coming along with the cruise line launch, opening and ongoing plans for DAK (which BTW airlarry! is my favorite park - but not all of it, a different topic), and so forth. The stock had just gone through a 3 for 1 split.

To discuss the need to control costs is always appropriate. To me the bottom line (pun intended) of this discussion is that efficiency is out of balance with effectiveness. Doing the right thing (effectiveness) in the right way (efficiency) is a management foundations principle. It doesn't mean using the fewest possible resources, but using the optimum resources to achieve the desired results.

Walt knew this at times spending more than the minimum, and taking relatively short term losses in order to achieve long term gains. Not that he always measured success in terms of profit or failure in terms of loss. Making a profit is a requirement of staying in business. Without doing so Disney would fold, as would any business.

Now let me extend the discussion by suggesting another possibility. Throughout the 1990s the stock market was soaring to higher and higher heights. Stockholders were happy. Then as the 1990s drew towards a close things began to falter. Possibly Eisner and his seconds "saw" something that suggested a tightening of the belt was necessary?

That being said - the tightening should not have overridden the ultimate goal of the organization. Unless I have missed something Disney has not rewritten their primary mission statement, "To Make People Happy", and the direction they are taking is not meeting that mission.

Deb

 

[Bstanley]

Professor,

Rather than advising you to go back and rummage through gajillions of old messages I will summarize:

1. The Big ME has never done anything Magical/useful/valuable during his tenure as CEO of Disney.

2. Anything Magical/useful/valuable that has occurred during his tenure as CEO of Disney has been done DESPITE his obstructionism/incompetence.

Please note that these are not my opinions, but if you continue to say anything that doesn't lay the blame firmly at The Big ME's feet you will be introduced to those that expouse them.

Forewarned be ye, say I.

;-)

 

[airlarry!]

Not much of a debate here, Professor, 'cause I keep agreeing with your points.

Have you studied that favorite Disney law of LandBaron's? That of the order of business that every department of Disney is supposed to govern their actions? (sort of like the 4-way test in Rotary)?

It has Efficiency down at the bottom of it. (The Baron is better at remembering the order, and in fact had a whole topic devoted to where in the chain it was). I would be curious to know if your studies of the Disney company...specifically the company led by Walt Disney...include whether or not the company really lived by that ordering of Safety, Courtesy, Show & Efficiency (help me out here Baron) back then under Uncle Walt's guidance, and whether or not the company is still doing so today under Michael'$ guidance.

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

In fact I have studied that "law". In the days of Disney University extensive training in this area was available for college/university educators. The Disney folks also took that show on the road so to speak putting on seminars around the country. Somewhere in this mass of books, binders, shelves, and files I have the spiral from that training.

Safety is always #1 - it overrides all other considerations

I know Show & Courtesy were in the middle and closely linked. As I recall (and as noted can not find the reference at the moment) which came before the other was in some instances dictated by the circumstances. For instance, Cast Members were not to "fall out of character" to provide detailed directions to a guest if they were working Haunted Mansion or Tower of Terror, but were to pay attention and within character do what they could. Up to the point safety was at issue.

An example is at Tower of Terror several years ago when my children were younger and were not going to go on the attraction. They were 10 & 12. I debated on leaving them in the courtyard where the attraction empties. A cast member overheard the conversation and, in character, advised that, "Oh madame, they will be well looked after" with a bit of a sinister grin. And they were. The CM never broke character maintaining the show but was also courteous. Although others might not have interpreted this as being courteous. Safety was also observed. However, had a lone child shown up obviously scared and lost I am also quite certain the CM would have broken character to preserve the safety requirement.

Ok, back on track of your question. Efficiency is at the bottom of that list. It was made clear that Disney looks for ways to maintain efficient operations, but not at the expense of safety, show or courtesy. This was the foundation of my original comment.

Bstanley - please note that many of my comments have included reference to playing devil's advocate and extending the debate. I was not necessarily defending Eisner nor bashing him either. Note that I did state in agreement with others that as the head of the organization he is ultimately responsible. That means he gets to take credit as well as blame. I be forewarned...and shall never hesitate to push the boundaries of the discussion...

regardless of my personal opinion.

The Professor

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Forewarned be ye, say I.

Too late!!

Might it not be more accurate to suggest that Eisner believes in attention to detail and Walt's original ideas but has allowed his second in commands to get sloppy?

NO!

I was just getting the pulse of this group. I would agree that ultimately the head of the organization is ultimately responsible. And it is that head's biggest responsibility to clearly articulate the vision.

YES!!! GOOD SAVE!!!

And underscored by actions such as the appointment of Paul Pressler

{NOTE: the proper spelling is P-R-E-$-$-L-E-R} I don't care if he's gone or not!!

That being said - the tightening should not have overridden the ultimate goal of the organization. Unless I have missed something Disney has not rewritten their primary mission statement, "To Make People Happy", and the direction they are taking is not meeting that mission.

Ah! Evidently you have never hung around RADP. There is a certain sect that claims this ‘mission statement’ is inherently WRONG!! They claim that their true mission statement is to ‘increase shareholder value’. PERIOD!

"To Make People Happy", does not have a place in the mission statement. I believe that Ei$ner would fit right in with this thinking. Especially given his propensity to take the huge profits of the parks and use them to prop up his many other failing enterprises or increase a quarterly report!!

Have you studied that favorite Disney law of LandBaron's? That of the order of business that every department of Disney is supposed to govern their actions? (sort of like the 4-way test in Rotary)?

I wish I could take credit for it, but it’s not mine, it’s Walt’s. It is directly from the Traditions Program (the training program for new CMs). And the concept is simple. They are to follow four rules in any situation and most important, in the correct order. They are:

1- Safety
2- Courtesy
3- SHOW
4- Efficiency

It’s really that simple. And if Ei$ner had followed those simple principles since 1984 we would not be in the predicament that we now find ourselves!!

or

OK, back on track of your question. Efficiency is at the bottom of that list. It was made clear that Disney looks for ways to maintain efficient operations, but not at the expense of safety, show or courtesy. This was the foundation of my original comment.

WOW!!! Professor!! First, let me take this opportunity to welcome you!! And second - VERY WELL WRITTEN!!!! BRAVO!!

I be forewarned...and shall never hesitate to push the boundaries of the discussion...

Professor, I think this may be a start of a beautiful friendship!*







* (obscure movie reference. Point given! )

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

Thanks for the welcome DVC-Landbaron.

Ok, guys you're gonna love this (I think)...I am on a break from my Principles of Management course - have to grade quizzes while "the kids" work on a communications and teamwork worksheet. Well they also had to select their term project cases.

I ALWAYS eliminate Disney as an option. Do not want a hint of conflict of interest, my take influencing my assessment of their work, etc. So several were lobbying to do Disney anyway.

I finally convinced them this would be a bad idea by letting them know I was presently involved in a rather extensive online discussion on the strategic direction of Disney, the appropriateness of the present mission statement, etc etc. They decided it was a bad idea after all.

So THANKS everyone. You saved me from reading a bunch of poorly written, kiss up to the prof papers!

The Professor

 

[DisneyKidds]

So THANKS everyone. You saved me from reading a bunch of poorly written, kiss up to the prof papers!

Glad we could be of assistance .

 

[Patch'sD]

When Walt and Roy decided to take the Disney Studios public, all things changed. No longer was the company Walt's and Roy's it was the share holders. I believe that today the mission statement is to improve share holder value. Which up to now ME has done a very poor job of, and should be held accountable for that. That's Today's business model, What Disney needs is someone who can do that while holding to Walt's vision of quality. Can someone be found to do that?

I have only come across one thing that showed Walt's vision for the Florida Project. It was a hand drawn sketch. I think it included a theme park, hotels, EPCOT, and a swamp ride. It was in the book Since the World began. Someone borrowed it from me and never returned it ( The Sketches for Animal Kingdom in it's complete intended form are excellent). From the book Vinyl leaves. I gathered that Walt was so concerned with EPCOT that he spent many hours of every day in a room go over plans for the Florida Project. According to Legend he had the only key to this room. From what I could gather this consumed much of his time until his death. Again According to Legend, he made several tapes of himself to be played out at future board meetings to status the company's projects in the outyears. I believe if Walt survived that the Florida Project would be as diagramed a Themepark and resorts and the Centerpiece EPCOT a city of tomorrow.

I agree with many that Walt was a true visionary, who was unique and the world will never see the likes of him again. But in today's business climate would Walt have survived. Today Return on Capital Investment is measured in month not years. Would Walt have survived owning a private company, WED, that was responsible for all of the planning and development of the Disney Studios projects.

In my Opinion, Walt would have used MK to fund EPCOT. and inturn EPCOT would have funded MK.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

The Aladdin's Magic Carpets discussion in another thread made me think of two business situations that illustrate my concept of the inherent difference between the way Walt viewed money and the way his modern counterparts view it today.

As you exit Pirates of the Caribbean, you are met with Pirate-y knick-knacks and toys for your spending needs. As you exit Magic Carpets of Aladdin, you are met with Aladdin paraphernalia for the same purpose.

What I need to know is this: does anyone believe that the business motivations behind those two projects were the same? That "cost, "show," and "profit" were given the same value when those two areas were designed?

The difference between money being the goal and money being a tool you use in service of real goal is the difference between Aladdin and Pirates. The Aladdin ride is a cheap and common ride designed to provide a focus for the merchandise. The Pirates ride is a unique, creative tour-de-force, designed to entertain and delight... and it happens to be expensive to do that, so we're selling some overpriced crap to help us pay for it.

Pirates focused on the ride... the merchandizing was intended to help supply Disney the money to do the ride right. Aladdin focuses on the merchandizing... the cheap catalog-purchased ride was intended to help supply Disney the maximum profit margin on the merchandise.

We can get awfully lost in tangential and semantic arguments... but at the center, at the root...

...does anyone _not_ agree that there's a basic difference in philosophy there?

...does anyone _not_ think that describing that difference as "a focus on money, instead of focus on product" is accurate?

Subjective? Sure. But can anyone honestly step forward and claim the opposite subjective viewpoint... that Pirates of the Caribbean was thrown together so they'd have a place to sell plastic swords, while all those remaindered Aladdin toys were flown in to offset the tremendous expense of the incomparable Flying Carpets?

With Pirates, the money was something Walt used to create his real goal, the ride. With Aladdin, the ride was something Eisner used to generate his real goal, plush sales.

-WFH

 

[Sarangel]

As you exit Pirates of the Caribbean, you are met with Pirate-y knick-knacks and toys for your spending needs. As you exit Magic Carpets of Aladdin, you are met with Aladdin paraphernalia for the same purpose.

Actually, (with acknowledgement that I don't know if this is true in Florida), the souviner shop at the exit of Pirates is a recent ammendment. The shops in New Orleans Square used to be more unique and themed: the One of a Kind Shop, a Kitchen Shop, a mask shop, etc. Yes, there was some Pirate paraphanealea, but it was not anywhere near as overwhelming as it is today and it was more generic than it is now.

I guess my point here is that the focus on Merchandising is part of the Eisner/Pressler regime, and not a legacy of Walt and Roy. I'm not saying that Walt & Roy didn't merchandise, just that (as Walt's Frozen Head points out) their focus was on the quality products and attractions they were creating not on the souviners that were sold as a by-product of their creativity.

Sarangel

 

[DisneyKidds]

Not much time now, but are you actually saying that they put the Aladdin ride in as a way to sell plush? I find that rather absurd. Ei$ners Disney will take any opportunity to sell plush, even throw it in your face so you can't avoid it . However, to put in a ride just to capture people to buy plush.....................

I'll get back to you on that philosophical question.............

 

[Another Voice]

Ah... have you heard about the reduced 'Winnie the Pooh' ride that's going into Disneyland?

Guess the one and only reason why that ride's going in.

P.S. - And guess how two clever WDI people convinced Pressler to put in the WP ride at WDW in the first place. It wasn't because it was cheaper than leaving 'Mr. Toad' where it was...

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

are you actually saying that they put the Aladdin ride in as a way to sell plush?

I'm saying the choice of ride mechanism, theme and level of detail were chosen and implemented so as to move the most possible product with the least possible investment.

I contrasted this with Pirates, where I said the choice of ride mechanism, theme, and level of detail were chosen and implemented so as to delight and amaze the widest possible variety of guests to the greatest possible degree.

What I said was the focus was now different... that decisions were made based on money, not the quality of the product. I even asked specifically: "does anyone _not_ think that describing that difference as 'a focus on money, instead of focus on product' is accurate?"

-WFH

 

[Patch'sD]

In response to Sarangel, in Florida, Pirates always exited into a shop. As for the merchandising it always existed. Walt with the plush toys and Mickey Mouse watches and the Mickey Mouse Club stuff. Isn't main street in Disneyland and WDW loaded with shops. Yes I remember the Magic Shop, and them selling leather goods in some of the stores in the 70's. Some of the merchandise was nice and some was crap. Now they basically have Disney Branded Crap and Nice stuff.

I have not seen the new Aladdin ride, so I can't say if the ride is just there to sell merchandise. But I would ask this question. Are there children on this ride with smiling faces having fun. If the answer is yes, than the ride is being enjoyed and there is some magic there, it may not be Walt's type of magic but it is there a little cheaper than it should. We as the faithful, see it as a bad thing, through the eyes of the new guest how do they see it. After all is it geared to us aging baby boomers or towards those generation X'rs with young families now.

Looking at the charts posted with regards to attendance. It shows through the 90's that attendance was increasing. After 9/11 everything went thought the crapper, but has not recovered. As craftsmanship went down people still were throwing their money the Disney way. Why, we all know they don't make them like the used to but we still buy them anyway for the older consumer, and the newer consumer just does not know how good we used to have it. Then in the late 90's the second shoe dropped, ME trying to increase share holder value Capital Investment was stopped and cost cutting measures were implemented. Big mistake. Now your effecting the customer with less hours, less service, less magic, and dated attractions. (As you can tell, I don't ride in any car, I sort of just hitch a ride and see where it will take me). I equate what Disney did here to the Peter Principle. I call it the Pressler Principle. Disney didn’t know how deep to cut. They cut a little and people still came, cut a little more and people still came. It sort of like complaining about the state of the parks, but still taking a 28 day vacation at WDW. Keep on turning those thumb screws until they say Uncle. I think that Disney after 9/11 made some drastic cuts that must have really gotten to some people and they finally reached the “ I mad as heck, and I am not going to take it anymore” level. So what do they do, give it back and call it something else so the newbie thinks he is getting something extra. Great marketing.

In my opinion, Eisner's a bum. I feel that he brought the Disney Company back from the brink only to run it into the ground again. Yeah I know when things were good it was the midget and Frank Wells, but come on Eisner had to say yes and green light those projects. But Eisner then bent on becoming a Media Giant took that "three hour tour" in 1995 and bought Capital Cities. Can you hear that big sucking sound Ross Perot talked about. It wasn't the North American Free Trade Agreement, it was ABC sucking all the money out of the Disney Company. That is what has brought us today's problem taking from Peter to pay Paul.

Walt was the most magnificent marketer ever created. Walt used to come into my living room every Sunday Night and Sell me on Disneyland, Sell me on the Florida Project, New Movies and alike. Every Sunday he used to talk to me through the medium of television. I would in turn tell my parents I want, I want, I want. I Believe it was all about Merchandising and using one medium to pay for the other. It started with Walt and still goes on today. Walt was in the open about it, Eisner is just a lot more slicker.

 

[airlarry!]

Two great things have emerged from this thread.

#1 is 'The Pre$$ler Principle'. I love it.

#2 is the knowledge that one question really can divide our audience better than any other I've read:

Do you believe that under the current regime attractions can be greenlighted almost solely on their ability to 'sell plu$h' (a euphemism for crass merchandising)?

In other words, do you think that Aladdin & the Ca. Winnie adventure were given the go-ahead based upon merchandising increases as *the primary reason* and not for creativity, show, staying on the cutting edge of entertainment or any other reason except for plush sales?


How you compare Walt's philosophy to the Pre$$ler philosophy is a direct result of your answer to that question, IMO.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Back with thoughts on the Head's earlier question and the view of his airness.

How you compare Walt's philosophy to the Pre$$ler philosophy is a direct result of your answer to that question, IMO.

I think that Ei$ner and Pre$$ler are given too much credit for having a philosophy at all. Heck, if they had a real philosophy, even one we disagreed with, we might be better off than we are today. However, many of the decisions they have made seem to lack the cohesive thought that would indicate a philosophy of any kind. Walt had philosophy, vision, creativity, and the wherewithall to make it into something real. Ei$ner and Pre$$ler seem to lack these items and focus solely on the business end, without realizing that philosophy, vision, and creativity all go into making a business successful. When Prei$$ner had folks around him that did have some creativity and a little bit of Walt in them things worked out. Unfortunately the Prei$$ner monster consumed these people and things took a turn.

Do you believe that under the current regime attractions can be greenlighted almost solely on their ability to 'sell plu$h' (a euphemism for crass merchandising)?

In other words, do you think that Aladdin & the Ca. Winnie adventure were given the go-ahead based upon merchandising increases as *the primary reason* and not for creativity, show, staying on the cutting edge of entertainment or any other reason except for plush sales?

Do I belive that Ei$ner and Pr$$ler had an articulated philosophy whereby they determine first what will produce the highest plush sales and then develop an attraction around that? No. I could be wrong, but I don't believe this is the case.

Now I won't say they don't consider merchandising in the mix, even as a large ingredient - but not the primary one. Take replacing Mr. Toad with Pooh in the MK. Mr. Toad wasn't setting records for ridership. Pooh is one of the most popular of the 'Disney' characters. Prei$$ner figures - why not replace a less popular, aging ride with one that will be very popular and can be done cheaply by using a similar ride mechanism? It will be viewed by many as an improvement and will add to the guest experience. Give the people something they will like that can be done pretty cheap. That is what I see as the Prei$$ner prime directive. Of course, the decision is aided by the fact that Pooh is big for merchandising - and that made the two headed Prei$$ner beast salivate.

Aladdin, Pooh in CA - same deal. Cheap rides based on exisiting platforms that people like, ok - some people like . Not very creative, not the greatest show, not cutting edge - but cheap and safe additions or improvements. That is what I see as the primary reason for the rides - not that I agree that should be the case. All the plush is gravy. Granted, Prei$$ner was good at making gravy, but that is just something they heap upon these rides to make them taste better.

That how I call it. I call em as I see em - but my vision ain't always 20/20 .

 

[Andrew015]

Slightly off topic....just a thought inspired by this thread:
Before WDW was set up, and during the period of time right after the opening of WDW, Orlando especially, as well as the rest of florida was nothing but open fields and cow pastures. It was the little mouse that made Florida what it is today. I have in my possession the ENTIRE collection of every issue of Orlando Magizene from my dad. The early issues of this magizene would give credit where it was due, to WDW, for making florida into the bustling place that it was becoming, and is now today. The people of orlando, and most of florida, hate to admit that it was a little cartoon mouse that gave birth to their home area. In recent issues of Orlando magizene, they hardly even mention WDW, and you're lucky to even get a comment/article about the place. Just an interesting thought......

 

[raidermatt]

Are there children on this ride with smiling faces having fun. If the answer is yes, than the ride is being enjoyed and there is some magic there, it may not be Walt's type of magic but it is there a little cheaper than it should.

Go take a look a the jungle-gym at a local park. Lots of children with smiling faces, huh?

Fortunately, Disney was built on more than that. Its built on the concept of finding attractions and entertainment that not only put smiles on children, but elicit looks of wonder from children and adults alike.

So, sure, I think we can all agree that children have fun on Aladdin, and that's a good thing. But that's just not enough for Disney. Or at least it shouldn't be.


DK, I am pretty sure plush plays a bigger part in park decisions than you believe they do. But since I don't sit in on the discussions, I can't prove it.

However, given how unfortunate even your scenario is, there's not much point in debating the issue. Its just a question of whether things are bad, or "bleep"ing bad.