DEBATE: When does the "Disney Experience" cease to exist?

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK!! I’m running out of time!! So, I’m going to put these out one at a time. This first one happens to be the one right after I posted last. Professor! This is for you!

Ok gang. I'm echoing Ohanafamily's statement here. Despite the negatives, and there certainly are some, Eisner is not all bad.

Ah! Professor! I had such high hopes for you!! Let’s see if we can enlighten you a bit!

On the plus side - if he had not been willing to take on the job of CEO in 1984 THERE WOULD BE NO DISNEY TODAY!

This is a very common misconception. It is simply NOT TRUE!!! Disney was not, contrary to popular belief, on the verge of bankruptcy. Indeed! The opposite was in fact the case! They had sooooo much untapped value that they were very, VERY, VERY ripe for a take over!

Disney had a film library that was not being used in the new video market. That was riches beyond belief! And a strange thing happened to their real estate holdings. It seemed that they had huge parcels of undeveloped land right next to what had become the hottest vacation destination in the world!! A conglomerate could have broken that little company up and sold off the just the film library and the Florida holdings and made a mint!!

OR! Yes, or they could have swallowed Disney, exploited the film library on video and developed the real estate holdings. HEY!! Guess what Ei$ner did!! Just that! And suddenly they were no longer very attractive to the sharks!

Saved the company!?! NO!! He took it over!! From within!

At that time Disney was in serious danger of disappearing in all forms that are even remotely familiar.

Do you mean that someone would have sold off the castle as condos? Ripped up Main Street and put in a mini mall? No! I think you are right, however. It did disappear from all forms we were familiar with. He substantially changed the philosophy while retaining the outward façade. He kept up the lip service about quality and guest experience while experimenting with how much he could get away with. Just how much under the minimum he could go. Heck! We don’t even do cartoons anymore!!

He did launch initiatives - that have been debated at length as to their "true" Disney quality - but which kept the company moving.

Hmmmm. Kept the company moving. Something to ponder. You mean moving like Pop Century? Moving like Dino-rama? Moving like DCA? Moving like the Rescuers Down Under? Moving like the Disney Stores? Moving like… I really don’t think I care for that kind of movement.

The "evidence" suggests that efficiency has been put ahead of at least show, if not safety & courtesy, far too often.

Ya see, in my mind, that alone is enough to hang him. His philosophy is diametrically opposed to Walt’s. And it was Walt’s philosophy, his way of doing business, which caught my attention in the first place. It was his innovations across the board. Technologically, economically, emotionally and especially his innovation of putting SHOW above efficiency in the pecking order. My Goodness!! That alone would have made the place unique!! Forget about the dancing ghosts and rowdy pirate robots!! Just that one singular concept would have been enough for me. Heck!! It sustained me through the stagnant Walker/Miller years!

And Ei$ner totally, without regret or remorse, blatantly disregards it!!

His appointment of Pre$$ler as head of parks was just plain wrong. That has been corrected

What makes you think it’s been corrected? I’m all for giving the guy a fair trail before we hang him (), but as far as I see so far NOTHING has been corrected!!

Does any of this make sense Professor?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

WEDWAY100. You made two very good points in your post a few pages back.

I do think things will improve, because I think (or rather hope) that management realizes they went too far with DCA and possibly Dinorama. But that improvement will be just enough to get that generally positive reaction, and then it will stop.

I agree! I really don’t see how anyone could disagree. They will indeed STOP(!) when they reach that minimum level. And I find that sad.

If the internet were available then, people like us would have been posting, putting $ signs in Card Walker and Ron Miller’$ names.

You may very well be right. I find myself, not unlike Mr. Kidds, defending the indefensible sometimes. In the middle of some post, in some Ei$ner related thread, I find myself defending the Walker Miller era! And I happen to think they were boneheads too! Just as inept at running Disney as Ei$ner is. But with one VERY important difference. They tried to the best of their ability to hold to the Walt philosophy!! And I really think that this ‘saving grace’ makes all the difference in the world.

Their tenure was marked by big announcements and almost no movement whatsoever!! Their movies SUCKED!! And they didn’t realize they were sitting on a video gold mine. I often say they were like deer caught in the lights. But in their defense, they maintained that ever elusive philosophy I’m always ranting about.

They didn’t have vision, that’s for sure. They couldn’t even come close to building “EPCOT - the city”, but they did build EPCOT Center. And they built it with every ounce of Walt philosophy they could muster. I remember reading shortly before they were ousted that Card Walker was questioned once about the cheap price for an EPCOT passport. It was something like twelve dollars or so. The interviewer said they could get double that!! Easy!! Card replied, in all seriousness that, “We don’t want the public to think we’re crooks!” And he really believed it!! That’s how ingrained the philosophy was in him.

Now I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have a problem with Ei$ner if he had the philosophy within him. He’s still mighty inept after all!!! But I certainly wouldn’t be calling for his head on a silver platter!! If he maintained the fundamental concepts I would have little to complain about! A mistake here or there. Perhaps a little stagnation once in a while. But by and large, the philosophy covers a multitude of sins.

So yeah! We’d probably be on them for not building the city, scrapping the 5 year plan and doing NOTHING for very long periods of time! But it would be nothing compared to what is happening now!! Today we have a guy who’s very inept AND has a totally opposite philosophy. In all seriousness, I really believe it can’t get any worse!!

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

My dear Landbaron,

Your comment that, "They had sooooo much untapped value that they were very, VERY, VERY ripe for a take over! " was PRECISELY what I was referring to - perhaps I should have more clearly referenced other postings.

Bankruptcy has always been a fallacy - the untapped potential is precisely why it would no longer be a single entity, with a recognizable name, image, etc. Ok, so within this forum of Disneyphiles we might debate what that image is, how shiny or tarnished it is, and so forth until we give each other headaches
. But I sincerely doubt given the usual nature of hostile takeovers that Disney would still be intact. Someone would have purchased the movie archives. Someone else Disneyland and maybe or maybe not WDW. Torn down for strip malls or condos - no. But names changed? Appearance altered? You bet! We (that generation that grew up on Disney before that time) would still remember what Disneyland and WDW were. But the masses born after that point in time? No.

The general public doesn't see these changes. They don't perceive the subtle shifts. To the 33% of the target market that is making their first trip to WDW for instance it is still Disney with all that stands for. To a significant portion of the 67% of visitors to WDW that are tagged as return visitors many (I can not say all because of some in this forum ) still are willing to take the experience as pure enjoyment while they are there. Then come back here inbetween visits and debate the plusses and minuses of the changes.

As for Eisner taking over the company from within - as I would say to my students...DUH! What CEO wouldn't/doesn't/shouldn't? If the vision of that CEO isn't understood - whatever that vision might be, and no matter how it is interpreted by others - understood by the rest of the organization he/she has no ability to do anything.

I could go on responding point by point. I don't however, think everything he has done is all bad - on that point we will never agree. Room for improvement - definitely. And, I certainly think we need to give Mr. R. at the parks more than 2 weeks to determine and implement change, much less have said change visible to the masses!

The Professor

 

[DisneyKidds]

Two fundemental truths................

1) Change is a constant.

2) As confirmed by Baron...........

In all seriousness, I really believe it can’t get any worse!!

............lead to all the proof I need that things will eventually get better. Things will change, and there is only one way to go .

 

[BRERALEX]

but thats still assuming its hit rock bottom.

has it?

 

[ohanafamily]

So let me get this starght, Disney was ripe for a takeover, and Ei$ner did a good job of making it not so good of a target. Too Good?

Wow, Baron and The Professer agreeing...this is apocolypse material here...

 

[raidermatt]

Last things first...

Things will change, and there is only one way to go

Even if it really has hit rock bottom, saying "it can only go up, so I'm optimistic" doesn't really say much, does it?

If this were a football team, rock bottom would be 0-16. Can't get any worse. And, as many inept franchises have proven, its very difficult to screw things up enough to go 0-16, and darn near impossible to do it repeatedly.

So, if you go 0-16, chances are, it won't happen next year. Espeicially if the NFL is cyclical, like the economy.

But so what? I'll admit that 2-14, and even 6-10 is better than 0-16. 6-10 or 8-8 even makes you better than plenty of other companies. But you'll never make the playoffs relying on the cyclical nature of the NFL.

Likewise, you'll never be a stand-out company relying on the cyclical nature of the economy.

Besides, what happens when it cycles down again?

0-16.




When Baron says it can't get any worse, I think he means the direction can't get any worse. Its heading South. That doesn't mean the end results have hit rock bottom.

 

[CrayzeeDiz]

Lighten up guys !!!!!!!

Disney is still the number one vacation destination in the world despite its faults. There is plenty of Disney cash to go around and hey GO ANGELS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[raidermatt]

But I sincerely doubt given the usual nature of hostile takeovers that Disney would still be intact.

Given who was pursuing the company, this is probably very true. (though its a very real possibility that the parks would have remained intact. They were too valuable, and the Disney name was, and still is, a big part of that value.)

But Eisner was merely the "creative" guy brought in towards the end of the play. And even then, the deal could only be made by including Wells.

Yes, Eisner and Wells quickly put to use many of Disney's under-utilized assets. This was a necessary step to avoid further takeover attempts.

I'll give credit for that, but that was going to happen whether it was Eisner or whether Gold and Roy E. recruited somebody else.

Disney had a huge pipeline of products to sell to the public. Land to be put to use, movies to release on video, etc. Eisner and Wells unleashed that pipeline. But Eisner fought against movies like The Little Mermaid. It was only because he hadn't yet consolidated his power, and there were still strong forces within the company, that he couldn't win all of these types of battles.

Slowly, he got rid of most of the people responsible for these creations, the creations that continued to feed the pipeline.

Yes, he did some necessary good for the company, but the same could have been done by plenty of other execs.

So if we look at only his answers to the test, his early years result in A's, followed by a steady decline.

However, if we check his work behind the answers, we find that that the early results were the work of a collaborative effort. As Eisner's power and influence grew, the grades fell.

That tells me that even the early results could have been achieved just as well (or maybe even better) with somebody else at the helm.

 

[raidermatt]

Just a quickie here...

There is plenty of Disney cash to go around

Then why is there $13+ billion worth of debt, and why was Disney's credit rating lowered again?

 

[BRERALEX]

true but actions speak louder then words and im hoping it doesnt get worse. im hoping this IS rock bottom and can only get better but not 1-15 better thats not much better and even 8-8 isnt better when we used to go to the superbowl every year.

i just hope it goes north and am actually surprised Baron doesnt think it can go any far south. i'm not usually the pessimist but lately it seems you never know.

i personally say "it can always get worse" NOT that I'm bieng pessimistic but it CAN always get worse.

It's hard to keep that happy go lucky disney smile on when it keeps getting slapped off.

CrayzeeDiz

true it still is the #1 vacation place......in my heart but it also used to be #2 and #3 now other things are creeping up.


Time will tell i hope we go north like a snowball goin south it keeps picking up speed and gathering momentum to something huge hopefully MI will start all that

 

[BRERALEX]

13 billion in debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6 tons of fertalizer WHOAH THESE NUMBERS ARE SCARY

 

[raidermatt]

However, you are missing something, and that something is that there are many different targets that Disney aims to please.

I'm not missing it at all. Its just that focusing on those individual targets causes a loss of focus on the big picture and what the over-riding philosophy is.

I've got three basic issues with Aladdin:

1- Doesn't mesh well with Advnentureland, and it could have without spending anymore money. I know, we disagree.

2- Part of the philosophy is that when you build something, don't build the same thing you built 45 years ago.

I think Aladdin short-changes everyone, including the little kiddies. I think children can be entertained in a variety of ways, and when given the choice between another spinner to entertain them, or SOMETHING DIFFERENT, they would like to have something different to enjoy along with the old spinner.

3- It is a ride with mostly "kiddie-only" appeal. This isn't automatically a problem if you look at Aladdin as an individual attraction. You're right, it is ok to have SOME of these types of attractions. Disney has always balanced these with attractions with "whole family" appeal, and attractions with some thrill appeal. (I think we've already agreed to this...).

Disney has been different in that their primary focus was on those "whole family" attractions, rather than the other ends of the spectrum. Yet they found ways to "thrill" us with these attractions without making us lose our lunch, and with our 3-year olds at our side, just as thrilled as we are.

So, adding a kiddie appeal only attraction isn't automatically wrong. It only becomes a problem when you are not maintining your balance with new attractions. And Disney is not. They have skewed to the thrill side, and then throw out a kiddie bone with some spinners. Look at DR, two attractions, one with kiddie only appeal, and one with a 48" height requirement.


So to sum up, its fine to build a kiddie-appeal only attraction here and there, as long as the focus is on "whole-family" attractions. Within that philosophy, Aladdin falls short.

And when you do build a kiddie-appeal only attraction, put the same effort into it as everything else. (note- effort does not have to equal cash, but does include creativity).

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Just got in and skimmed a bit. Two thoughts right off the bat. First BRERALEX:

i just hope it goes north and am actually surprised Baron doesnt think it can go any far south.

I think Sir Raider answered that for me.

When Baron says it can't get any worse, I think he means the direction can't get any worse. Its heading South. That doesn't mean the end results have hit rock bottom.

You can read my mind, my brother!! You can speak for me anytime you like!!

Hmmmm. How do you like that! It turns out it was two quotes but only one idea!! Well, I have the weekend now to work out my DIS style and really bug the HECK out of everyone!!! To bad the Pirate is in WDW!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK! I’ve a little time now. I can properly address the ever optimistic (and oft times erroneous) Mr. Kidds!!! {Scoop alert! Double quote!!}

Then why didn’t they!?

Because they are tight wads lately. Not that that is right, but it just is. But just because they could have done something different that might have been better it doesn't mean they did a bad job with the thing they decided to do.

OK. Here is the crux of the problem. We BOTH agree on each and every word of the above. We even agree to the meaning of each word. And for the most part we even agree as to the grouping of the words and the meaning these shared words take on in groups! But you stop there. You want to stay on the surface. You see the words and take them in, at the shallowest level possible.

I see those very same words and feel IRATE!!! I instinctively want to dig deeper. I want to know WHY!!! And I can’t understand why you don’t! Why do you just accept the words and seem not to care one whit about underlying reasons, concepts and philosophies!!??

Let’s look a little closer. “Because they are tight wads lately.” Is that true? Are they just being ‘tight wads’? Or does it go deeper? Perhaps it really touches upon a philosophical concept that is unintentional in nature but is a by-product of the current minimalism that seems to permeate the company. And of course there is a second question within that short sentence. Is it really just ‘lately’? Or could it be a concept that has been slowly growing since day one? Or perhaps it could be that their philosophy on this subject isn’t recent at all, but is only more apparent given the type of spinner ride to which it was employed? Aren’t you the least bit curious about their motivation and the true meaning behind your own words? I am.

Or what about your next sentence, “ Not that that is right, but it just is.” I ask, “why?” You seem not to care.

And the next sentence, to me, just raises more questions. ” But just because they could have done something different that might have been better it doesn't mean they did a bad job with the thing they decided to do.” I really can’t understand why your normally probing mind doesn’t want to scratch the surface and really dig into what is behind all this apparent apathy and recent(?) cheapness from the company we both admire.

There. I’ll let this go for a while. That was just your first three sentences. And you have at least 50 in your post!! Besides, I need a little time to mount my defense regarding (unfounded) charges of “kid-perspective” abuse!! We go to trial tonight!! I must prepare a brief!! Or, given my reputation for eloquent(?) prose, a ‘long’!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it!! Father of five accused of belittling kids!!

This is not tongue in cheek and I say it most seriously. It amazes me how belittleing you (and others) can apparently be to children. They are much more complex individuals than you seem to want to give them credit for.

Well! I’ve been accused of many things in my time. And some of them were even true!! But I have NEVER been accused of not understanding or belittling a child!! (BTW – If you didn’t read this with righteous indignation, go back and use the proper inflections!)

OK! Let’s see how all this started, shall we? Now, let me see…. Who said what first… Was it Ohanafamily who said:

Baron was the one who had the snippy remark about the cardboard boxes.

No, no. That wasn’t it. And I don’t recall anything ‘snippy’ either! (Hmmm. Another groundless charge that I need to defend!!)

Where did it all start? AH! I remember!! It was the linking of two thoughts! The first was Montessori saying:

The fact that little children like it, is not argument enough for it's existence at the Magic Kingdom.
Little children LOVE empty cardboard boxes too!

I read this and being the father of five, and uncle to 11 in a very close extended family, I smiled, nodded my head and remembered, from personal experience, several Christmas days watching my own children and their cousins play with boxes, wrapping paper, wrapping paper tubes and stocking stuffers (i.e. silly putty, etc.) INSTEAD of the hundreds of dollars of high quality toys, games and other such presents!!

And the most important point for the defense!! I watched them smile and laugh as they played! They really enjoyed it!!

Next I turned my attention to a post from Mr. Kidds. It was the usual drivel, but one point struck me as salient. He used the smiles and enjoyment of kids as a measuring stick to make the point that something should be included in Disney!! I found that almost comical!! Remember when he said:

How do we know it hit the target? I can only base my conclusions on my direct observations. First hand knowledge of the fact that young kids really enjoy the ride. They get excited about it. Go and watch.

So I said in response (and I take the liberty to quote the entire paragraph):

I forgot who said it, but someone mentioned a box. Come on over to my parent’s house at Christmas some year. You’ll witness that very phenomenon. Thousands of dollars worth of presents and most of the kids are playing in the boxes!! Making tunnels, forts, house, etc. It is really amazing. So, maybe, given your Disney proving ground and measuring stick for what hits the ‘Disney’ mark, we should put a couple of cardboard boxes in the middle of the walkway and call it an attraction. Is that it?

Now I ask you, how the HELL does that belittle kids!!!!???? How does this elicit a response like this:

I suppose we should boil down your childhood memories, those things that helped shape the person that you are, to nothing more than a box

Or…

Actually, your comments toward children belittle your idyllic DL and beloved MK of 1971.

Or…

You have successfully reduced Walt to a peddler of boxes, and this from a man who believes he is an authority on the man and his philosophy. It is a sad day my friend

I ask again! How does my equating a child’s smile at Allidin to an empty cardboard box ‘belittle’ kids and reduce Walt to a ‘peddler of boxes’?

In case you need it really spelled out Mr. Kidds I was insulting your measuring a kid’s smile as a reliable gauge of something ‘Disney’. I was NOT insulting the Disney. I was NOT insulting the kids. Hell! I wasn’t evening insulting Aladdin!! I was insulting your concept of how we can tell if something "hits the target"!!

AM I CLEAR NOW!!??

The defense rests!

 

[ohanafamily]

Dear Baron...I was just showing that you were insighting the other posters. You said that the ride could be replaced by cardboard boxes (whether intended in alegory or not). When Montessory was attacking the Professor...You were the one who drew the comparisson...I just was pointing it out. ..I stand behind what I have said even though I have been misquoted...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

But I sincerely doubt given the usual nature of hostile takeovers that Disney would still be intact.

So what?

………..

……..

….

..

.

I don’t mean to be flip, but again I ask, ‘so what?’ You see, I’m a rather selfish type. (Older posters please skip to the next paragraph. You’ve heard it all before!!) I never cared much for Disney cartoons, much preferring Bugs Bunny and the other Warner Bothers fare. I was a bit young for the Mickey Mouse club, but when I did see it I found it a bit silly (and didn’t even care all that much for Annette, much preferring Karen as she was more my age). I also didn’t particularly like Walt’s Show on Sunday. I found it boring and it reminded me of school the next day (I HATED Sunday shows!!) and I wasn’t interested in Disneyland. I had never been there; didn’t know what it really was! But that all changed the summer between eighth grade and freshman year of high school. I visited Disneyland!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

On a peripheral sense, I guess, I do want Disney to be good at all it does, but I really only care about the parks! And specifically WDW (with a nod to Disneyland for being the first). So with that thought in mind I ask again, so what? In fact I’ll go even farther. I would be comfortable that if a break up would have occurred the Disney name would have been kept and WDW and Disneyland would have been a package deal. And just think how cooooooooool that would have been. A company that owned and controlled and profited from the parks alone!! A company that had no other responcibilities other than to provide magic for the guests!! No ABC!!!!! No dot.COM sucking millions from the parks. No NOTHING!!! Just the parks!! Making ALL that money!! Heck, even if the new CEO was as greedy as Ei$ner he’d still be forced (or by accident alone) to put MILLIONS back into the parks every year!!! It’s a cash cow and it would then have nothing sucking it dry!! Ahhhhhhhhhh!! To dream!!

So again I ask, “So What?”

As for Eisner taking over the company from within - as I would say to my students...DUH! What CEO wouldn't/doesn't/shouldn't?

Well, I suppose you’re right, but my point was HIS taking over was no different whatsoever from THEM taking over, if they had decided to keep Disney together. You had alluded (no outright stated, I believe) that he “saved” the Disney company. I contend that he ‘saved’ nothing and merely made the take over a little smoother. Let’s take a closer look.

A Giant firm, say a media conglomerate complete with a network television division, takes over Disney. They exploit the film library, build relentlessly (and at times what seems like randomly) on the vast Florida property and prostitute the brand until everyone in the country is fairly tired of hearing about it! And, of course, they give special attention to the “money making machine”, the parks. But the attention they give them is NOT concrete attractions and ideological backing, but lip service about ‘remembering the magic’, all the while pillaging the profits to prop up the company’s failing enterprises. And when that is not even enough, the cutbacks begin!

So tell me again Professor, how is this different than what Ei$ner has done?

I could go on responding point by point. I don't however, think everything he has done is all bad - on that point we will never agree.

Well we may never agree, but I do want to understand your point. And as I sit here writing this, I am really trying my best to come up with one (JUST ONE) thing he did that could at least make me understand that you point of view might have some validity. And I can’t think of any!! Can you?

And, I certainly think we need to give Mr. R. at the parks more than 2 weeks to determine and implement change, much less have said change visible to the masses!

You’re right, Professor! You’re right! Two weeks is hardly long enough. But…. Well... Ah... I don’t suppose you’d like to place a small wager on it, would you? Say, give him a year and check back. We’ll let an impartial like Gcurling or Sara be the judge? Eh? Whadda ya say? Is it a bet?!?!

 

[montessori]

Originally posted by ohanafamily
Dear Baron...I was just showing that you were insighting the other posters. You said that the ride could be replaced by cardboard boxes (whether intended in alegory or not). When Montessory was attacking the Professor...

I didn't attack the Professor. I don't THINK I attacked anyone.
I admit, I was the one who brought up the "children playing with boxes" and it was a valid statement in reply to the post that said the Aladdin ride has been proven a success because children like it.

 

[DisneyKidds]

NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!!!

Bold, CAPs, exclamation marks !!!!!!!!!!!, Large Font , and COLOR!!!!! don't make a rediculous argument any less rediculous.

DVC-Landbaron........we could discuss they myriad of ways you are WRONG!!!!! on this one, but I'd rather offer a plea bargain. Just plead guilty to letting tongue in cheek getting in the way (something I have been guilty of in the past) and all charges will be dropped. No allocution required, your record on this one will be expunged, and we can move on. The offer is one the table. Your counsel has rested before the trial had even started. I don't think you want to go to trial .

just think how cooooooooool that would have been. A company that owned and controlled and profited from the parks alone!! A company that had no other responcibilities other than to provide magic for the guests!!

It is quite an assumption that that is what you'd have today if the company was ravaged and split apart 18 years ago. I won't be stupid and ask for proof of your speculations , just pointing out that that is all they are.