Disney Boycott?

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by PKS44
you cannot make your name as a company that never compromises on quality and then try to have two lines of merchandise-one that sticks with the old values of quality first and another that goes cheap...

OK ... I have to beg to differ on "never comporomises on quality" during the earlier years. "Bon Voyage," anyone? "Robinson Crusoe, USN"? "Rob Roy, The Highland Rogue"? The Disneyland Circus? Disneyland's opening day? And let's talk about all the cheap merchadise that you could buy when The Mickey Mouse Club was popular. They merchandised everything from Buster Brown shoes to cereal boxes. Since the day Disneyland opened there have always been the "cheap souvenirs" and the higher priced stuff. Because even Walt understood that parents want to buy stuff for their kids and they can't always afford the high-priced toys, dolls and books. There was cheap Disney stuff back then too. If you think that parents in the late 1950s weren't complaining about all that "cheap Disney stuff we have to buy", then you're either not old enough, or you're letting nostalgia cloud your memory. (I, unfortunately, am old enough to remember being told that I couldn't get some of the Mickey Mouse Club stuff because it wouldn't last.)

 

[PKS44]

..and if you are thinking about how Disney emerged from the 50's and became the incredibly successful company that it became it was by focusing on QUALITY..a level of quality in creativity and presentation and service that earned the name Disney...this is how they differentiated themselves in the marketplace...not by pricing themselves better than the competition...

 

[crusader]

not by pricing themselves better than the competition...

What competition?

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by crusader
What competition?

well if you don't recognize that Disney has competition there is no discussion -- if you are starting with a premise that Disney has no competition then you cannot possibly understand why those of us who do accept and recognize that it must operate in a real world with competition think that the company has been mismanaged...that it has lost its focus on its core competancies...such focus is largely unnecessary if there is no choice in the marketplace for consumers of what Disney offers...so if your argument starts with the idea that Disney has no competitors I am not going to enter into any "argument about that" we might as well argue over whether there is any reality...it is solipsistic....the notion is just delusional---and there is little hope for any rational discussion with anyone who is delusional.

 

[crusader]

....the notion is just delusional---and there is little hope for any rational discussion with anyone who is delusional.

Well that was uncalled for.

The competition question has to do with your statement regarding the past. You know -

how Disney emerged from the 50's and became the incredibly successful company that it became it was by focusing on QUALITY..a level of quality in creativity and presentation and service that earned the name Disney...this is how they differentiated themselves in the marketplace...not by pricing themselves better than the competition...

I simply asked you what competition you were referring to in terms of Disney's pricing 30 years ago.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by PKS44
well if you don't recognize that Disney has competition there is no discussion --

I think Crusader was saying "what competition?" as it related to the 1950s and 1960s when Disney was pretty much "it" in the theme park world. All of your posts have talked about how Disney quality now does not match the Disney quality of the Walt years, and how Walt differentiated himself in the marketplace by the quality of the product, not by "pricing themselves better than the competition..."

And, I would have to agree with Crusader here ... what competition did Walt have that he COULD have priced himself better than, had he wanted to go that route? Disney was pretty much the only fish in the pond in Walt's day. Not true now.

 

[dcentity2000]

Again, basics:

Magic is nice.
But you can't have magic with no money. Geddit?
And if you have little money, big boy Comcast will buy you as lots of shares owned by big corporations who want money, not pixie dust.

Make money to make magic.

You can try it the other way around when you find a bank account with a reeeaaaally big interest free overdraft



Rich::

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
All of your posts have talked about how Disney quality now does not match the Disney quality of the Walt years, and how Walt differentiated himself in the marketplace by the quality of the product, not by "pricing themselves better than the competition..."

Where have I ever said anything about Walt? ..or the years of Walt? I don't believe I have ever singled out that time frame nor did I intend to--if you can find me a quote where I said that I will retract it...but that is a strawman as far as I can tell--never existed in my argument....the point is that the years when Disney-the company- suceeded the most were because they were the premiere provider of entertainment for families in a marketplace where families have other entertainment choices...cheaper choices but Disney made it so people not only were willing to part with their discretionary income--they were HAPPY to do so...now as Roy pointed out in his letter of resignation the company seems rapacious --that ain't going to work and there will be less magic and less money. This is so amazingly simple it boggles me that so many cannot grasp the concept--You cannot get rich and successful and stay rich and successful trying to get rich and successful...that is not how it works...it is a by-product that comes out of doing a great job--that is the FOCUS of great companies..they are focused on doing the job not the bottom line...the bottom line ends up being huge for those who DO NOT make it their focus and ends up disappearing for those who DO...
Deny it all you want it has and will always be the way the system works whether you can understand it or not.

 

[crusader]

You cannot get rich and successful and stay rich and successful trying to get rich and successful...that is not how it works...it is a by-product that comes out of doing a great job--that is the FOCUS of great companies..they are focused on doing the job not the bottom line...the bottom line ends up being huge for those who DO NOT make it their focus and ends up disappearing for those who DO...

Tell that to Donald Trump.

Seriously, it really isn't a question solely of doing the job - you still need to be able to get the public to buy your product. If you place too much emphasis on content with little or no regard to cost, you may not be able to afford to make whatever it is you are trying to sell. The market places a constraint on price.

That gets more complicated with a service industry.

Disney has to balance quality within the cost constraints of the entertainment industry. Lately, they have been heavily criticized for not placing enough of an investment in the quality of their product. I'm not going to dismiss that. But I will say that they have to continue to balance cost in this equation. It can't work otherwise.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by PKS44
Where have I ever said anything about Walt? ..or the years of Walt? I don't believe I have ever singled out that time frame nor did I intend to--if you can find me a quote where I said that I will retract it...but that is a strawman as far as I can tell--never existed in my argument....

Earlier on, you said,

Originally posted by PKS44 ..and if you are thinking about how Disney emerged from the 50's and became the incredibly successful company that it became it was by focusing on QUALITY..a level of quality in creativity and presentation and service that earned the name Disney...this is how they differentiated themselves in the marketplace...not by pricing themselves better than the competition...

This quote seems to me to say that when Disney emerged from the 50s and became incredibly successful, it was because of the quality -- that is, the quality of the product in the 50s compared to other products of its time. And that when you said, "this is how they differentiated themselves in the marketplace ... " you were talking about the marketplace in the 50s and 60s (what most people consider to be the "Walt years"). Did I misinterpret?

 

[PKS44]

Yes I would say you misinterpreted my comment ...I make no mention of time fram except to note it was after the 1950's my comment specifically talks not about Walt but about the company -which if you look at when it became so successful (with WDW etc) it was AFTER Walt died----- but it was by following the model and TRADITIONS that he started...and if you look at their slide in success it has been because they have decided to go with branding, price competition and moved away from their CORE COMPETANCIES...they have slashed Research and Development--this is a recipe for failure for any company but especially one that has made its name as a CREATIVE company---this is business 101---

Paul

 

[WDSearcher]

My earlier comments were made based on a misinterpretation of comments you made. Had I read it differently -- or had it been more clear -- I would have agreed with you that Disney has, recently, made some basic mistakes in retaining the creative level that Walt fostered while he was there. However, I would also maintain that the recent slide in what many people lump together under the term "quality" is not the only time this has happened. Right after Walt died -- the decade or so following his death -- competition was scarce and the company got complacent. Look at some of the films and other "creative product" that came out of the Ron Miller years and the "What Would Walt Do?" years. There's a lot of dreck there too.

Some of it is bad business decisions. Some of it is the normal cycle of any creative company.

 

[YoHo]

Uh, Yeah, there was a bit of a slide, but it wasn't as bad as some would have you believe. AND the company was making money hand over fist. just not enough for the corporate raiders.

 

[crusader]

YoHo

If it wasn't so bad then why did Roy get rid of Ron Miller?

I'd like to know how much real money the company was making then and compare it to the 2 bil in cash flow the company had last year.

True, the corporate raiders took heavy comp. in the 90's. But that was predominantly the result of a substantial amount of cash flowing in from new investor money - not simply because companies were heavily liquid from operations.

In Disney's case, the 80's were loaded with product revenues which carried them into the early 90's. Many companies experienced the same growth as consumers median income and debt financing grew. By the mid 90's the shift was heavily concentrated with new investor money which was spent in a variety of ways.

Everybody is guilty of it - including the regulatory agencies and tax authorities who had huge inflows from capital gains with no discipline. Corporations spent it like water. Disney expanded the parks globally during that time but I suspect they began to run extremely low on cash around the year 2000.

The first real market drop was a year before 9/11 and the analysts were doing everything in their power to downplay it. Remember, Japan fell first which was even earlier than that. The truth was, the dollar never really came back. Two more hits and then the biggest tragedy to hit American soil erupts.

California Adventure and EuroDisney didn't stand a chance with capital investment. There was no more cash left to invest which means debt grew and the brand began to cheapen and oversaturate - particularly the merchandise.

We're not that same company today. Eisner's reign will have carried Disney spanning three incredible decades in our country. It's time for him to go because it's just time for the company to experience a change in leadership ripe with prospect.

Unfortunately, the morale of the employees has been adversely affected to the point of mass resentment toward management. I don't believe he can ever restore that. The best he can do is generate tremendous growth and provide incredible reward to his staff. He's got two years to retire in a dignified manner.

 

[WDSearcher]

crusader ... that was a wonderful post. Well done. Thank you.

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by crusader
Remember, Japan fell first which was even earlier than that. The truth was, the dollar never really came back. Two more hits and then the biggest tragedy to hit American soil erupts.

California Adventure and EuroDisney didn't stand a chance with capital investment. There was no more cash left to invest which means debt grew and the brand began to cheapen and oversaturate - particularly the merchandise.

so kindly explain how in Japan they have managed to succeed in an economy that fell first and is only now many years later still only barely beginning to recover...

its a rhetorical question..it has been by CAPITAL INVESTMENT in QUALITY..they did not open little half day parks or half way parks...they spent big and they have reaped big rewards and now they sit back and watch as the rewards get bigger as Japan's economy comes back...this nonsense about DCA not standing a chance is pure Eisner propaganda--all part of the "its not my fault" compaign he has had ever since the chickens have come home to roost from his years of mismanaging the companies assets and his wrongheaded cost cutting and his failed foolish investments.

 

[crusader]

Are you talking about the themeparks in Japan or the Japanese economy?

There is a big difference.

For one thing, Japan's financial reporting requirements don't mandate they consolidate subsidiaries. In other words, intercompany transactions aren't eliminated including sales amongst their own affiliates. That gets even more questionable when they trade futures and options on themselves particularly in the tech and oil and gas markets.

Think of what Disney could have done with the numbers if they had that ability.

I don't trust very much that Japan tells me on paper particulary with respect to Capital, Investment and Real Profitability.

DCA is Eisner's fault. Who ever said it wasn't? The original concept was fantastic. The financial environment took most of that away. But things can improve there dramatically with more headline attractions and shows. Two more big guns and that park could be rockin'.

 

[larry_poppins]

All I know is that I will be at Tokyo Disney in less than a month.
Both parks are open late each night of the week. There Buzz Lightyear attraction is opening and from what I hear it will blow away the cheap plywood Florida version.
Can't wait. And the best part is I am paying for my trip from funds I have averted from spending at American Disney since 2001.

Larry

 

[PKS44]

We are talking Disney and I am talking about Tokyo Disney and their ability to succeed and not blame their problems on the economy...but to succeed in spite of a horrible economy much much worse and longer lasting than what Eisner claims is his excuse...

Oriental Land Company financial highlights

Not sure what you mean about their accounting...they show both consolidated and nonconsolidated as separate reports...I don't understand all that..I do know they keep investing and building wonderfully popular things...that attendance is reported to be great and that they increased their dividend and their stock is doing very well...

so again please explain how those theme park operators have done so well despite harsh economics...(so harsh that theme parks in Japan were dropping like flies)--see the excellent Spirited Away for how one such abandoned park is used as a launching point for the story.

The difference is one company managed by sticking to their core compentancies and another has tried to manage by moving away from their core, by cutting their way to success....and only one of them has flourished.

Paul

 

[IloveWINNIEthePOOH]

Just a thought.....
What if the boycott happens (or if it alredy has) and it turns in the wrong direction, and instead of resulting in the way you would like it too, they think that since they aren't generating enough revenue, they start closing down rides that may cost them big big bucks to run, stop certain parade and firework shows. I don't know, just my 2 cents

I'm rumbly in my tumbly, time for something sweet!