DEBATE: The difference in philosophy

[DVC-Landbaron]

I believe that the difference in philosophy all boils down to motive. In other words, what is the driving force behind the decisions made? In essence, what is the ultimate goal! To create? Or to make money? While they are not mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily the same things. It is the age-old question of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Or in our specific case, what is the primary (first) motivating factor? The chicken (profits)? Or the egg (creativity)? It is to that end that I offer the following:

Walt:
To create, showcase and experiment with new and exciting entertainment concepts, attractions, vehicles, shows, etc., establishing the highest standards of quality possible, while maintaining prices relatively low, thus creating tremendous brand recognition for a quality product, unheard of and unprecedented long-term brand loyalty and in the process, and almost as a byproduct, raking in unbelievable amounts of cash!!!

Ei$ner:
To make as much money as possible by utilizing and marketing a well established brand name and providing entertainment venues for the public, pricing that product as high as the market can possibly bear.

Anyone disagree?

 

[Peter Pirate]

...and almost as a byproduct, raking in unbelievable amounts of cash!!!

This is just too niave LB. If you've read as much about Walt as you say, especially the early years you'd know that making "unbelievable amounts of cash" was no secondary accomoplishment...

 

[Bstanley]

Herr Baron, first I should answer the question - I agree in concept with your descriptions (although the provocative language used made me smile .

Second - for some reason I hadn't thought of this before reading your posting Herr Baron - but you know - one big difference between the two of them is that Walt had 'ownership' of what he did. And i don't mean company ownership.

As someone pointed out in another thread - it's 'DISNEYland' and 'WALT DISNEY Pictures'.

When it's YOUR name on something you don't want people to remember it for the WRONG reasons...


PS - Congratulations on fitting it all into 189 words ;-)

 

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Ei$ner:

Does the $ crudely inserted into his name mean you see him as a very successful buisness man (which he is)?

And as Pirate pointed out, you must have the blinders on when it comes to Walt if you believe the cash just started rolling on in as if by some lucky accident.

 

[raidermatt]

And as Pirate pointed out, you must have the blinders on when it comes to Walt if you believe the cash just started rolling on in as if by some lucky accident.

We all know Walt wanted his business to be successful. If he didn't, he wouldn't have even started it in the first place.

Different businesses have different philosophies. And certainly there is more than one way to succeed in business.

There are plenty of successful people who have set out with the goal of making money in mind. However, there are also many successful people who set out to do what they love, and made money because they loved what they did, had a talent for it, and were passionate about it.

The question is, where do Eisner and Walt fall with regard to these differences. Forget for a minute whether Walt's style is right for today, or if Eisner's was right for 1950 Disney. Just focus whether there is a difference in their philosophies.

Given that, do you really think there is no difference?

If you do see a difference, and don't like Baron's analysis, how would you describe the difference?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

This is just too naive LB. If you've read as much about Walt as you say, especially the early years you'd know that making "unbelievable amounts of cash" was no secondary accomplishment...

And

And as Pirate pointed out, you must have the blinders on when it comes to Walt if you believe the cash just started rolling on in as if by some lucky accident.

OK fellas. How would you word it? Come on. Lay it on me! What were the motivating factors?

Peter, you’re especially good at criticizing my work. How about if you dazzle us with some of your own!! Come on - Go for it. Lay it out as succinctly as possible. A little paragraph on each. Same as I tried to do. Describing both of their philosophies. PLEASE!!! I’m dying to hear it!!

Does the $ crudely inserted into his name mean you see him as a very successful buisness man (which he is)?

SUCCESSFUL!!!?? Have you checked out the stock prices lately?!?!? What about GO.COM? How about that great FOX deal!?!? And that ABC thing… Well… NAH! He’s good at lining his pockets. And for thinking in terms of $$$ instead of pixie dust! That’s why the ‘$’. (Hmmmm. I thought this was common knowledge!!) (Hmmmm (again). I don’t think it’s ‘crudely’ inserted!!)

Herr Baron, first I should answer the question - I agree in concept with your descriptions (although the provocative language used made me smile .

And

PS - Congratulations on fitting it all into 189 words ;-)

THANKS!! FOR BOTH!!!

 

[caseymaureen]

I think part of the difference is that Walt was willing to risk money for many reasons, one being to make more money, but others being to make a better park or a better movie just to keep up the integrity of the Disney name. Eisner wants to make as much money as possible with no investment or risk.

 

[Bob O]

Ditto's too DVC!!!!!!
While Walt wanted to make money, he put the "show" first and foremost which has NEVER been the model for eisner!!!!
Which is why as a example he started the Magic Kingdon Club which has now been reduced to a simple charge card scam.
Does anybody think eisner would have had the forthought to have started a whole new industry like Theme parks on his own and would have had the vision to buy up thousands of acres of land for his dream???? Would have he had the guts to do this with his own money like walt did when he made Snow White/DL??? And came close to bankruptcy doing so??

 

[Planogirl]

I agree with BobO that Walt put the "show" first but he also had Roy there to deal with a lot of that annoying money stuff. If Eisner has anyone like that, I'm certainly not aware of it.

The Disney company is also a megamonster of a company now, much more of a headache to manage than what Walt was dealing with. Should this fact change one's philosophy? No, but it is bound to have some kind of influence.

Should any of this excuse Eisner's actions? Not in my opinion because Eisner seems way too busy trying to squeeze every penny out of what works or at least did work at one time. He seems to have no vision on how to keep the magic strong or how to make it even better.

 

[JDH]

Perhaps we're talking methodology as opposed to philosophy. Both methods achieve the same results however it seems to me that Walts was long term focused and included the people who worked with/for him. Ei$ner's is more focused on himself, his legacy, his survival, his ego and his personal finances.

The real difference is that one lasts and the other fades away with the individual. Somehow, unless you're a member of the same corporate club as he is, I can't imgaine we'll be singing Ei$ner's praises or celebrating his 100th birthday 30 or so years from now as we do Walt.

 

[BRERALEX]

are we comparing apples and oranges?

Ei$ner will never be able to reach the same level of accomplishment as Walt. We shouldnt even compare the two.

doesnt feel right.

I wonder if Ei$ner has a philosophy

Eisner is in the company to make money and exploit the brand as much as possible which is obvious.

Walt I think had money secondary no matter what anyone tells me. Walt was a thinker a brainstormer a guy who went to sleep never satisfied because he knew there was more to do. there was more to create.

He couldnt be satisfied with just disneyland not cause he needed more loot but because he knew he could build something grander something else unique unto itself. ex. epcot. I dont think he was looking at his bank account regularly. I f he did it was to see how much he could spend to build the biggest and best next thing.

I think people like to think Walt was out to mostly make money because that puts him in a category with Ei$ner and makes them feel better.

Ei$ner is a pimp. not the second comming.

but to me it's apples and oranges.

 

[Cricket2]

Agree! (Unsure of the by-product part though)

Walt Di$ney: I ask the accountants for a "green light" after the intial R&D and ignore them if I want to make the end product work = "Bambi"

Ei^<big>$</big>ner: Ask the accountants for a "green light" before I have an idea, and then make any idea fit the amount I am allowed to spend and blame it's failure on someone else's shortcomings. Hey I got paid = "fill in the blank"

Notice that the $ is higher in Ei^<big>$</big>ner than in Di$ney? I did this because they both wanted to make money, just one of them put it higher than anything else.

 

[WEDWAY100]

Interesting topic, my good Barron. I mostly agree with your ideas, but find them just a wee bit different than my own.

My stab at methodologies goes like this:

Walt:
Assemble a team of the best artists and craftsmen. Using those talents, find the best possible new idea and work on it until it’s perfected. Then execute the idea, regardless of financial risk.

Card Walker:
Do what Walt would have done, whatever that is. Except put a heavy emphasis on reducing financial risk. Don’t do anything, unless we are guaranteed good results.

Eisner (pre EuroDisney):
Use all current assets in the manner that maximizes profit for each asset. Create new assets with tried and true (read old) ideas, regardless of financial risk.

Eisner (post EuroDisney):
Use all current assets in the manner that maximizes profit for each asset. Buy new assets if possible. If not, create new assets with as little financial risk as possible.

 

[raidermatt]

Notice that the $ is higher in Ei$ner than in Di$ney? I did this because they both wanted to make money, just one of them put it higher than anything else.

I suppose you could say that's accurate, provided you put the $ sign into every single businessman's name that has ever lived...

However, if we can't get beyond the point that ALL businesses are supposed to make money, and instead focus on the differences within those parameters, there's not much point in talking about it.

 

[ohanafamily]

I really think that Walt was out to make something, a legacy if you will. I think he was conscious of the $, but he did as much as he could within the budgets. I bought a book of quotes from him while we were at WDW 2 weeks ago, and many of those quotes seem to show that $$$$$ were secondary...I bought the book to keep up with the barons...at least as far as the quotes go...

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by raidermatt
I suppose you could say that's accurate, provided you put the $ sign into every single businessman's name that has ever lived...

No, just those with the letter "s"

JC

 

[BRERALEX]

The Quotable Walt Disney is an awesome example of the differences between these two men and why we cant compare them.

The Quotable Ei$ner would be about how many cuts were made to increase profits at any cost. And he'll use the brand to market the book and exploit it to the fullest extent

 

[Peter Pirate]

The quotable Walt Disney, while being an excellent source of Waltisms and quotes is a highly biased and flattering portrayal of the man. Now, there is nothing wrong with that but don't use this book as a testimonial as to what he is all about unless you're just as willing to use "A Work In Progress" as an accurate portrayal of Eisner.

 

[BRERALEX]

define "A Work in Progress"{pimpin aint easy?}
is thats Ei$ners book? i didnt read it

 

[raidermatt]

There's a reason there is a "Quoteable Walt Disney" and not a "Quoteable Michael Eisner".