I Was Totally Wrong

[Peter Pirate 2]

I know there aren't too many of the old guard still around but for those who are here I think it time I publically admit I was wrong.

I thought Disney could still be Diseny and exist in the modern landscape pursuing periferal business, maximizing tie ins, using synergy to the max, exploiting classics and operating as a normal Fortune 500 Company OUTSIDE the realm of the core business that made Disney 'Disney'.

Boy does that sound stupid in retrospect and even though I know I could still argue good portions of what I believed it is painfully obvious to me now that Corporate America and its trappings are too large for any Company to stand up to. Disney is publically held and must behave as such which ultimately tramples on the basis of what Walt intended, IMO.

I recall many fellow DIS'ers hoping for a Disney breakup in hopes that more 'magical' people, folks who 'got it' could control the core business like theme parks and animation, the parts that current Disney probably cares the least about and while I relish this dream, what happened with Pixar pretty much puts a kibosh on that, after all they were more Disney than Disney in the animation field over the past few years but they eventually had to succomb to the huge windfall dangled by, ironically, Disney. Which, IMO seems to indicate that creativity can only succeed so far before the big bad wolf will come a calling.

Does anyone think Walt , with all his genius could accomplish things of the magnitude he did if he were just starting out today? I'm not saying he couldn't but doesn't the deck seem stacked against creativity and quality in favor of mass production and marketing???

OK. I'm done.

 

[daber]

I thought Disney could still be Diseny and exist in the modern landscape pursuing periferal business, maximizing tie ins, using synergy to the max, exploiting classics and operating as a normal Fortune 500 Company OUTSIDE the realm of the core business that made Disney 'Disney'.

......
Does anyone think Walt , with all his genius could accomplish things of the magnitude he did if he were just starting out today? I'm not saying he couldn't but doesn't the deck seem stacked against creativity and quality in favor of mass production and marketing???

I think you captured the essence of it. If you are a publicly held stock company with a board and all the trappings, then no because the standards are pleasing the board, stockholders, etc.

But if you are a privately held Co and don't have to report to them, then I think the dream is still alive for the creative entrepreneur.

 

[raidermatt]

Stinks, huh, Pete.

Unlike some others, I've never argued that its impossible. My point was always that the guys who were/are in charge of Disney aren't the right guys to pull it off. Unfortunately, like you, I'm starting to believe its not possible. Perhaps not practially realistic is a better way to put it.

Anybody (or group) that might actually possess all the tools/talents/resources to pull it off probably wouldn't see Disney as the best use of their tools/talents/resources. Why fight against all that corporate momentum when you can start from scratch somewhere else and build things the way you want them?

Could Walt do today what he did years ago? I think so. In what medium his creations would take form I have no idea, but I think he could pull it off again. Same basic philosophy, but different methods. Some of the tactics would be different, like his management style for example, but just like anybody who would be transplanted from a different era, we have to assume they would be able to conform in those types of areas.

The roots, the core beliefs, would still be the same. He would still have the ability to know what customers wanted before they knew it. He'd still be able to attract and inspire the most creative people around. He'd still know he needed a complement (Roy) to help with the areas in which he was weak. In short, he'd still be the consumate showman with tremendous instincts and drive.

The question, to me, is would it be possible to keep his dream sheltered from all of the corporate BS this time after he was gone?

I guess another way to ask it is could it have happened with the Disney we do know, and what could have been done differently?

 

[DVCconvert]

OK. I'm done

Is this Yet Another Grand Exit????????????

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Edited a second time so I can continue the fun.

 

[ChrisFL]

Good post and I do understand the complexities of the problem, being public vs. private and how there's many different ideas about what today's "Disney" should stand for.

I think the question that needs to be asked is: What is the most important division of Disney right now? Once that is established I think the main focus needs to be making sure that enough of investment goes into sustaining it long-term.

I mean, if we consider how many things Disney has involved itself with in the past 10-15 years, including the standards like movies and animation (and the many changes that have happened to animation), theme parks, merchandising, then there's the non-Disney stuff that they acquired, the sports teams (now no longer Disney), the networks, ABC, ESPN, the websites like Go.com.

I truly think Disney should focus only on what Disney really means to people, instead of taking all of these outside parts to make more money and attempt to synergize everything. I think Disney should focus on its animation, theme parks and the merchandising that is involved with that, plus keeping the Disney Channel. Everything else can go.

 

[MJMcBride]

so what now. We're not going to Disney anymore. Its not the same. So what? What is the same that it was 50 years ago. Not movies. Not TV. Certainly not music. Its not like they turned the parks into Great Adventure. They still are great.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Thanks Chris, I know we haven't always agreed on everything specifically but I think we do see things pretty much the same way in the big view.

Matt, I appreciate your tactful response. With our history you certainly could've given me the good natured bronx cheer!

daber, you disected my feelings well.

Voice and I have discussed this a little and I don't know whether he agrees or not but the main focal point for my (personal) disillusionment was actually ESPN (surprising, huh?). I watch their crap programming, the crap commentating, the obvious demographic choices, the choice to be part of the problem rather than make any attempt at being positive totally disgusts me. They coddle the masses, the pop culture and they blur the issue of right and wrong in the name of ratings. Just look at the handling of Barry Bonds and TO for example. The major sports information programmer in the world could certainly take a proactive stance and be a positive influence but no, they choose to take the easy route.

After this it's easy to look at the way the've been operating their restaurants at WDW lately or their domestic parks, animation and feature film and see that they are making absolutely no concessions to the Mouse himself.

Like all of you (MJ), I still like Disney and will continue to enjoy what they're offering for now. But I'm happy my kids are growing and "my Disney" was far less homoginized than the Disney of the future is shaping up to be.

 

[MJMcBride]

Voice and I have discussed this a little and I don't know whether he agrees or not but the main focal point for my (personal) disillusionment was actually ESPN (surprising, huh?). I watch their crap programming, the crap commentating, the obvious demographic choices, the choice to be part of the problem rather than make any attempt at being positive totally disgusts me. They coddle the masses, the pop culture and they blur the issue of right and wrong in the name of ratings. Just look at the handling of Barry Bonds and TO for example. The major sports information programmer in the world could certainly take a proactive stance and be a positive influence but no, they choose to take the easy route.

And thats different from every other network how? Frankly, I like some ESPN.
ESPN News for example is great. Programs like Baseball Tonight and Outside the Lines are superb. Berman and Jackson are much much better on Sunday night than Costas. But Sportscenter with all their "Booyahs" is awful. And their Monday Night coverage is absolute overkill. But I think you're being a little unfair in your critique of ESPN.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

"But I think you're being a little unfair in your critique of ESPN."

Fair enough, I may be.

The difference between ESPN & ABC and the other networks is they are owned by the Walt Disney Company and I have (foolish or not) always expected much more from them as for years they gave us much more than everybody else.

 

[mt2]

Does anyone think Walt , with all his genius could accomplish things of the magnitude he did if he were just starting out today? I'm not saying he couldn't but doesn't the deck seem stacked against creativity and quality in favor of mass production and marketing???

I think Walt could accomplish anything he set his mind out to do because of his personality. From what I have read he was a difficult man to work for but many many people were loyal to him. He had Charisma.

He was a man that lead from the front not the back. He didn't expect people to do things that he himself didn't do. He surrounded himself with people that were great at what they did. He gave them the ideas of what he wanted and let them run with it. He tweeked thoses ideas and they became better.

Not many people have that ability. Richard Branson is the only person off the top of my head right now that I can think of. (That is alive). Kelly Johnson of Lockheed Skunkworks (40's and 50's) was another. People gravitated toward them. Their employees wanted to do their best because they didn't want to disappoint their employer (or themselves).

I remember reading about how Peter Ellenshaw moved from England to be near Walt Disney after working with him on Mary Poppins. Disney didn't even offer him a job but he moved anyway. Ellenshaw only wanted to work for Disney.

Do you know anyone that would do something like that? I sure don't.

The Stockholder and the corporate board have been around for decades. Didn't they start selling stock in the 40's? He had the charisma, showmanship, and personality to get everyone on board. They might have said something in whispers but Disney was a Pied Piper. Everyone followed whether they wanted to or not. They couldn't help themselves.

I'm sorry that this has hit you hard. It did for me too. I still go to WDW and DL. My kids love Disney too but I refuse to participate in the DVD sequel junk, and the rest of the fad bandwagon that they seem to be jumping on.

I am teaching my kids what classic Disney really is and not to fall to hard for the flash and blink of Disney now.

 

[ChrisFL]

mt2, yeah I really admire some of the works from people who are able, as an individual to come up with something spectacular.

People I consider to be greats at that are Walt Disney, Gordon Murray (creator of the McLaren F1 supercar), Colin Chapman (founder of Lotus), Steven Speilberg, even Peter Jackson and his work on Lord of the Rings took an enormous amount of his own wisdom and hard work to get it accomplished how he wanted it.

So seeing as most of those people I've mentioned have had more recent success, I would say that it IS still possible to do the same kinds of things Walt did, but it would now take a massive change in how the Disney company conducts its business.

 

[Another Voice]

Wow.

There’s a lot to say, but not enough time to say it.

Walt built his organization to support his creative endeavors. It takes a certain amount of resources to market a film, to build a theme park, etc. – but the company was always in a supportive role. The “Wall Street makes it impossible” is just flat out wrong. Raising capital for the public is many times easier than what Walt had to do, convince the stodgy board of Bank of America to hand over a couple bucks every time he wanted to make a movie. Things are different now, but not harder.

The Disney you see today isn’t a place built to support creative works. It’s a machine designed to fund the greed of one man (Michael Eisner) and the swarm of maggots that were drawn to the honey. The Walt Disney Company is not about making things, it’s about figuring out the easiest way to get you to hand over your cash. ESPN, princess dinners, US Weekly photo spreads of Madonna’s latest slave child, what they sell isn’t important.

It’s only important that you buy. And when people don’t care about what they’re selling, they tend to sell garbage (much like when fans don’t care what they’re buying, they grab it eagerly).

Disney as a company has been dead for over a decade now. It’s only capable of regurgitating what it’s already created and strip mining its past. It’s a downward spiral that will last as long as Bob Iger and the next generation can squeeze money out of it. Places like WDW are only of interest for what was created before; the recent “additions” hold no interest.

But I’m still very optimistic about the survival of Disney – the real Disney. There are too many people now who understand what it all really means. And people are the only thing that matters. It’s the spark in John Lassiter, the talent of Andrew Stanton, the enthusiasm of Brad Bird that made Pixar – not the bricks, computers and stock options. It also lives in the kid with his first video camera making movies out in the back yard. She is no different than Walt setting up his first drawing table in his uncle’s garage.

Real Disney is all around. It shows up whenever a child is touched by a fifty year old film, whenever a filmmaker says “we can make this better”, when an adult gets the momentary thrill of "playing make beleive" again. That is what we should celebrate and support. Fake Disney – ESPN, ‘Dancing With the Stars’, Tinkerbell window stickers and all the other commodities of no value – will disappear soon enough.

It’s just too bad they torn down Walt’s legacy to hock them.

 

[DisOrBust]

Its hard to take off the rose colored glasses. It happen for me after reading Disney War. Yea I knew it had all the croporate greed, backstabbing etc that happens in any company. However Eisner and his cohorts took it to an art form. After I read that book I thought how stupid are we to support that mess with hard earned money.

 

[Mickmse2002]

When did Disney go public? I also believe there was DIsney gizmo's and gadget's sold at Disneyland when it oppened. How is that different from today? Scale perhaps?

 

[MJMcBride]

But I’m still very optimistic about the survival of Disney – the real Disney. There are too many people now who understand what it all really means. And people are the only thing that matters. It’s the spark in John Lassiter, the talent of Andrew Stanton, the enthusiasm of Brad Bird that made Pixar – not the bricks, computers and stock options. It also lives in the kid with his first video camera making movies out in the back yard. She is no different than Walt setting up his first drawing table in his uncle’s garage.

Real Disney is all around. It shows up whenever a child is touched by a fifty year old film, whenever a filmmaker says “we can make this better”, when an adult gets the momentary thrill of "playing make beleive" again. That is what we should celebrate and support. Fake Disney – ESPN, ‘Dancing With the Stars’, Tinkerbell window stickers and all the other commodities of no value – will disappear soon enough.

Excuse me while I pick myself off the ground. Is that AV being positive? About the future of Disney?! I agree with virtually everything AV said. Except Tinkerbell window stickers are cool. And Disney has always hocked meaningless merchandise. Its called souvenirs.

 

[dbm20th]

Except Tinkerbell window stickers are cool. And Disney has always hocked meaningless merchandise. Its called souvenirs.

So do you have a Tinkerbell window sticker??

Eisner is gone, and Iger placed John Lasseter into a very important role. Things can get better.

And I am sorry, but to consider ESPN something that will "will disappear soon enough" is just silly.

 

[raidermatt]

so what now. We're not going to Disney anymore. Its not the same. So what? What is the same that it was 50 years ago. Not movies. Not TV. Certainly not music. Its not like they turned the parks into Great Adventure. They still are great.

This misses the point. For decades Disney did its best to top itself over and over again. Of course things didn't stay the same. Tastes change. Societal norms change. But Disney also forced change by trying to do things better and better, and to try new ways to innovate and entertain.

Saying they didn't turn their product into crud wasn't good enough.

Not everything succeeded, of course, but this remained a core piece of their philosophy, and its why they could strike it big so many times when everyone around them said they were crazy.

THAT'S what is gone. It doesn't mean nobody likes visiting the parks. It doesn't mean they can never make an entertaining movie. It means that Disney used to mean so much more than that. If Disney were run from the beginning the way it is run today, many of the wonderful things that drew us here would not even exist.

If you want to defend Disney as still being a viable company that still comes up with some popular products, that's fine. That's all true enough.

The point, however, is that is nothing but a shadow of what Disney meant at one time. To point to all the amazing things Disney has done over the decades, and at the same time not lament what the company itself has become, is something I can't quite reconcile.

 

[raidermatt]

Excuse me while I pick myself off the ground. Is that AV being positive? About the future of Disney?!

I believe AV is using Disney as a name for the type of creative spirit that filled Walt and his company for so long.

And Disney has always hocked meaningless merchandise. Its called souvenirs.

The difference is focus and purpose. The merchandise use to be a means to an end. They were a way to capitalize on creative successes in order to fund further endeavors.

Now, in many ways, it is the end itself.

And I am sorry, but to consider ESPN something that will "will disappear soon enough" is just silly.

To me, ESPN is just another commodity, not a true creative endeavor. It was bought, along with ABC, and is just as likely to be sold again as not. Disney fans love it because the Walt Disney Company bought it and owns it.

I watch it, and certainly I don't believe its disappearing anytime soon. But there's nothing "Disney" about it, and for all I know they will sell it one day. If it is, nobody will lament that "true Disney" is being sold off.

 

[MJMcBride]

The difference is focus and purpose. The merchandise use to be a means to an end. They were a way to capitalize on creative successes in order to fund further endeavors.

Oh please. So you're saying those mickey mouse T-shirts they have been selling for decades was something more than making money.

And I know exactly what the point is. I'm sorry that the 1950s are gone. I can't do anything about it. To me, (and I know I'm beating a dead horse here), but Disney has designed some great things in the last decades which I won;t rehash now. To paint Disney as some sort of creative wasteland of a theme park is ridiculous and oversimplyfing things.