Eisner talks about failure

[Tannerman]

Read the following paragraph in the latest issue of The Industry Standard. It was part of a series they were doing where they "ask top business, political and scientific leaders to explore the fine line between the appreciation and the cult of failure."

The Disney CEO says companies have to remove the stigma of failure in order to foster new ideas.

-----------------
Michael Eisner, CEO, Walt Disney Co.

How do leaders encourage risk-taking?
By removing some of the stigma of failure. The business landscape is changing rapidly and profoundly, which means companies today must be more willing to try new ideas and take prudent risks than perhaps they were 10 years ago. It's inevitable that even with the best information, the best strategy and the best people, some of those ideas aren't going to meet expectations. However, good leaders will support the person who tries to break new ground, because without that willingness, growth is impossible. Walt Disney said it best: "It's important to have a good, hard failure when you're young." And Walt knew what he was talking about. He achieved great success with a cartoon character named Oswald the Rabbit, but lost the rights to the character. The failure forced him to invent a new character named Mickey Mouse.

Article can be found here.

Thoughts on ole Mikey's comments?

 

[gary]

The key is in the phrase "Prudent Risk". I have a feeling that risking $$$ on an attraction the size and scope of HM or Pirates wouldn't be considered "Prudent" by the current management. However, since Astro Orbiter and/or Dumbo are always full, there can't be much risk in adding another spinner or two.

What's prudent is subject to interpretation. I'd like to see a little more "risk" and a little less "prudent", when it comes to trying to create groundbreaking attractions and the associated technology.

Gary

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Baron, larworth--michael seems to have stolen your book? Guess this is proof that he can read!

Not at all, my good Scoop!! It could just mean his 'handlers' taught him the words phonetically. He certainly has shown he understands the concept behind the words. Or have I missed something?

 

[YoHo]

Sure, ITs just that Mikey Wants new Paradigms and such, Theme parks are old and boring. Cable Channels and Cable companies, that's what's hip

 

[JeffH]

"I have a feeling that risking $$$ on an attraction the size and scope of HM or Pirates wouldn't be considered "Prudent" by the current management. However, since Astro Orbiter and/or Dumbo are always full, there can't be much risk in adding another spinner or two. "
WDW has done nothing BUT add E attractions (and Theme parks) since 1990, and now they simply add a few 'simple' attractions to balance out the park (dinoland area) and they get slammed. When the MK opened it was filled with attractions A through E (with very few Es, Its a Small World was considered one of them), since then they've added mostly Es (all the mountains and Alien Encounter), yet get slammed everytime they add a 'lesser', 'simple' attraction (toontown, aladdin). AK opened with several E attractions (Safari, Jungle Book, Lion King, Dinosaur), but only a couple of lesser attractions (boat ride, pocahantas, Birds), now they add some kid rides and they get slammed. True AK needs more attractions in all areas, but just because they add some kid rides (which can be built quicker than today's E attractions), doesn't make them wrong.
I always thought that WDW was for families, featuring attractions for all age groups from Dumbo to Rock and Roller Coaster.
If they DON'T build these rides, that's when WDW will no longer be Disney.
Test Track was a pretty good risk, which included many technical delays because of the risk undertooken.
Mission Space also seems like a pretty good risk to me.
Animal Kingdom and California Adventure were big risks as well.
AK was judged to be a big risk (typically Animal parks do not make much money), yet the current Disney management (that would be Mister Eisner), undertook 10 years of research and development to build an Animal park Walt Disney would have been proud of. Walt always wanted live animals in his parks, and believed in conservation, both ideals have been carried to fruition at the Animal Kingdom to 'Disney' detail and theme.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

WDW has done nothing BUT add E attractions (and Theme parks) since 1990, and now they simply add a few 'simple' attractions to balance out the park (dinoland area) and they get slammed.

You know, I’ve read this thread over and over again, and I can’t find any indication that anyone’s slammed Ei$ner for adding ‘simple’ attractions. What was said is that there isn’t much ‘risk’ in spinners. And the fact is, there isn’t!! Surely you can see that.

Personally, I happen to like them. As long as they’re extras. As long as they don’t replace an “E” ticket. And as far as I know the new spinner in Adventureland didn’t replace anything. It’s a freebie!! Let’s rejoice!! I like when they add things. Even spinners.


YoHo!! I agree!!

 

[gary]

I wasn't slamming Aladdin's carpets or anything of the sort - I was simply stating, in my opinion, that I'd like to see the balance a little more in favor of *unique* attractions over themed "off the shelf" attractions. I *do* like most of their themed off-the-shelf attractions, like California Screamin' at DCA, or the Astro-Orbiters, or any of the Mountains, or Rock'n'Rollercoaster. But coasters and off the shelf rides are all low-risk, and not rides that set the standard for others to follow. There have been recent exceptions - Indiana Jones is super - but Dinosaur was just a re-themed knock-off of that. Soarin' at DCA is not exactly unique in concept (simulator/film), but is well done with exceptional attention to detail (e.g., varying breezes and scents). Test Track gets an A for effort, lower marks for execution. And, like everyone else, I look forward to Mission Space.

I realize that a park must have a foundation based on what works - that's why the low-risk attractions exist (and why DCA is an amalgam of a traditional amusement park, Epcot, and Studios). WDW MK was basically populated with Disneyland attractions - they're tried and true, and they create the theme. But much of Disney's leadership in the industry is based on innovative and unique rides. They have been making some fairly unique new rides, but they have also been siphoning off park profit to support other parts of the corporation. With that information in hand, I'm simply stating a preference that I would prefer to see them shift the balance of prudence and risk taking more towards the risk - invest more park money back into the parks to maintain or extend their unique and innovative family of attractions.