Quotes of the day...from the Save Disney site

[cristen]

"I knew if this business was ever to get anywhere, if this business was ever to grow, it could never do it by having to answer to someone unsympathetic to its possibilities, by having to answer to someone with only one thought or interest, namely profits. For my idea of how to make profits has differed greatly from those who generally control businesses such as ours. I have blind faith in the policy that quality, tempered with good judgment and showmanship, will win against all odds." - - Walt Disney



"We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." - Michael Eisner

 

[bassoongirl]

Wow!

Don't those two quotes illustrate the different philosophies well. Disney vs. Eisner is like water vs. oil. How sad for the future of the company that Michael Eisner continues to run it.

bassoongirl

 

[Chuck S]

Different philosophies, yes. Also, very different legal obligations now from what Walt faced in the 1950s. And don't forget that Roy (the elder) had many arguements with Walt about the legal financial responsiblity to stockholders. Walt could NOT operate today as he had while he was alive.

 

[Another Voice]

Walt could not have operated in which way?

As opposed to that paragon of business virture, ethics and "looking out for the shareholders" that Michael Eisner has turned out to be?

It's so nice that today's tight, rational controls (unlike yesterday's "anything for money" approach") would never allow a CEO to hire his friend just to pay him off with hunderds of millions of dollars, break contracts to executives and lose hundred more millions in lawsuits, drop $5 BILLION over cocktails to buy a floundering cable channel (and lose even more money by running the thing), allow the stock to drift without direction for a decade, buy sports teams on the company dime as a hobby, suffer a quad bypass and still refuse to name a replacement, shut down division after division, change his employment contract to continue bonuses when his performance no longer allows for them, make himself the company's largest shareholder all through options and "awards", put his kids' school principle on the board of directors, and remain on the "worst CEO list" for year after year after year.

Yup, Walt had it easy - and we should all just sit in amazement at the horrendous conditions that Eisner struggles under to do his good deeds.

 

[raidermatt]

Walt could NOT operate today as he had while he was alive.

Of course he couldn't OPERATE as he did then. That was 35+ years ago. But the quotes aren't about how he operated. They were about a business philosopy which proved to be successful. No legal constraints against that.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Walt could NOT operate today as he had while he was alive.

Why not? I mean specifically. Not some grand statement that “times have changed”. But specifically, why not?

 

[Chuck S]

The financial marketplace and laws governing it have changed. Workplace laws have changed. Handicap access laws have changed. While all these changes are good, they come as a financial price. Stocks are more highly regulated. Do you really think majority stockholders would give Walt a blank check for theming a new ride in this day and age.

If Disney were the exact same company Walt founded and was run the same way, it would have closed ages ago. Remember, the company came close to liquidating it's theme parks in the 1980s when Eisner was hired to "save them", until then everyone was running the comany the "way Walt would have done it." In fact, the company wasn't even sure there was enough $$ to build WDW after Walt died. He was not a financial planner. Disney also was considering selling of the hotels or having them managed by outside concerns in the 1980s. Walt did NOT want to be in the hotel business, and in fact wasn't during his lifetime. The Disneyland hotel was operated by the Wrather corp. Now, if Disney had sold those hotels, do you think WDW would be the resort it is today...thanks mainly to Eisner, who aggressively built hotels and kept the management under Disney control. There is more to running a business today than magic and pixie dust.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by Chuck S
Do you really think majority stockholders would give Walt a blank check for theming a new ride in this day and age.

Eisner has been allowed to waste billions. Do you really believe that stock holders would prevent him from spending millions on popular attractions/movies that actually produced revenue for the company? ABC Family channel is the easiest example. Eisner wasted $5 billion (over paying by a couple billion) on a station that would no longer be on cable/satellite networks without Disney threatining to pull ESPN if they dropped it.

Eisner's problem hasn't been that he won't spend money, instead his failing is that he stipped the companies core assests to the bone in order to produce products/attractions/parks/movies that no one wanted.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Why not? I mean specifically. Not some grand statement that “times have changed”. But specifically, why not?

ChuckS already answered this but quite frankly requesting specifics beyond a grand statement sounds a bit contradictory coming from you.

And there's AV firing back with the 20 year bullet itemization of failures attributed to Eisner.

AV - if you really want to believe the CEO ranking system is bulletproof, then please explain to me how Eisner moves into the black during the month two of his board members publicly walked.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/21/cx_ceomedia.html

Truthfully, the business model of Walt Disney would have been a real problem to implement today. How would he have handled the demand for top quality at today's prices? He probably would have turned into a stingy old-timer demanding premium at rock bottom rates and straining his health buckling under all the concession.

Benefits/Litigation/Competition/Teamsters/energy crisis/recession/regulatory agencies/activists/inflation/wallstreet - all with their hands out on top of this latest project:

How much would it have strapped the company to construct these dreams anyway? A concept design; artist's rendition and scaled model are the easy parts. How many contract negotiations are we realistically talking here?

http://home.cfl.rr.com/omniluxe/epcot.htm

http://home.cfl.rr.com/omniluxe/asian.htm

Comeon!

 

[cristen]

Originally posted by Chuck S
Do you really think majority stockholders would give Walt a blank check for theming a new ride in this day and age.

I think with his track record being what it is, yes they would.

Here are some reasons why Walt could not do it.
http://www.mouseplanet.com/david/waltalive.htm

 

[airlarry!]

Do you really think majority stockholders would give Walt a blank check for theming a new ride in this day and age.

This statement flies in the face of every published report I have seen regarding the history of the Disney company. Walt NEVER had a blank check, had to fight the accountants (and his own brother) for many of the ventures, and in fact, started some of the most important ones either with his own money or by cashing in his own securities, equities, etc.

Walt did NOT want to be in the hotel business, and in fact wasn't during his lifetime. The Disneyland hotel was operated by the Wrather corp.

Again, this contradicts histories written about the Disneyland Hotel deal. Walt was in such a financial bind operating the park, that he nearly gave the farm away on the hotel deal, preferring (rightly in my mind) to sacrifice as little for the first park in exchange for control over the hotels near the park.

He said it a million times, the surrounding area around the park was never in his plans...that's one of the reasons he wanted to start all over with a huge tract of land in Florida, because he hated the way developers tore up the orange groves and allegedly (I've never been there during that time) made the area around DL a cheap and tacky tourist trap (a la 192 near WDW).

M. Chuck S, I understand what you are saying, but IMHO it is based more upon an idealized version of a Happy Uncle Walt with open purse strings spreading magic all over Southern California, when in reality, Walt Disney risked everything he had (and sometimes the company had) on his Next Big Idea.

Real Disney versus that other Disney with the symbol I keep forgetting how to make.

 

[crusader]

I believe Walt's EPCOT project would have consumed so much of his time, he'd have to relinquish control elsewhere or jeopardize the timing of completion.

From the looks of what he was trying to accomplish - the investment would at a minimum, span over a decade which automatically moves the empire well into the 80's and no way guarantees this project was operating for business on schedule.

10 plus years of substantial capital investment this size means unfathomable stress on financial resources and massive diversion of funds. He could have lost his company to finish this - HIS WAY! (and he certainly had the track record to gamble it given the circumstances)

This wasn't some happy-go-lucky immersive/animated theme park with catalogued ride vehicles; fancy animatronics and a clever design he was building. It was more along the lines of the ghost of Bugsy Malone rising up and attempting another construction morass only this time it happened to be in the swamp instead of the desert.

Cristen -

I read that link and was turned off by the last sentence. Cheap shots like that are why mouseplanet continues to lose my attention and support.

Sure the theme park industry is certainly manageable and operational under the "philosophy" of 1950. But what about the media empire?

Funny how mouseplanet shys away from the realities of hollywood.

Here's some fun read for today's America.

http://www.frankston.com/?name=tv2007

(can't you just picture Walt lobbying congress!)

There's an old Maslow theory which establishes a "heirarchy of needs" philosposhy in an attempt to identify human motivation and behavior used often as a management template in business practice.

Whether or not it is right on the mark today is debatable but given the fact that it was designed in the 50's, it is fun to explore in relation to our precious Disney corporation for great discusssions like:

Why we pay to see such wonderful quality entertainment films as Bad Santa or
Why we buy pet rocks and cheap plush made in China or
Why we spend obscene amounts of money on "magic".

Here's the underlying premise - (courtesy of http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm)

Each of us is motivated by needs. Our most basic needs are inborn, having evolved over tens of thousands of years. Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs helps to explain how these needs motivate us all.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs states that we must satisfy each need in turn, starting with the first, which deals with the most obvious needs for survival itself.

Only when the lower order needs of physical and emotional well-being are satisfied are we concerned with the higher order needs of influence and personal development.

Conversely, if the things that satisfy our lower order needs are swept away, we are no longer concerned about the maintenance of our higher order needs.

Maslow's original Hierarchy of Needs model was developed between 1943-1954, and first widely published in Motivation and Personality in 1954. At this time the Hierarchy of Needs model comprised five needs. This original version remains for most people the definitive Hierarchy of Needs.

and here's a nice little diagram. http://www.businessballs.com/maslowhierarchyofneeds5.pdf

 

[raidermatt]

Watch it, or I'll have to use Pathagoreon's Theorom to explain Eisner's actions...

Do you really think majority stockholders would give Walt a blank check for theming a new ride in this day and age.

Walt never had a blank check. Nor does anyone need a blank check to use the philosophy outlined in Walt's quote. Walt's quote even includes "...tempered with good judgement...".

Sure the theme park industry is certainly manageable and operational under the "philosophy" of 1950. But what about the media empire?

How the media "empire" should be run is certainly debateable. How it has been run has certainly not yielded the results expected or promised. That aside, whether the media portions can or cannot be run the "old" way should have no impact on the parks.

Benefits/Litigation/Competition/Teamsters/energy crisis/recession/regulatory agencies/activists/inflation/wallstreet - all with their hands out on top of this latest project:

I don't know, he managed to get through a few tough times... Like the Depression and a couple of wars.

Regardless, I don't think anyone is going to argue that the way Walt went about implementing his philosophy would not have had to change. But that goes for any business model. Take any successful businessman from decades past and he would have to adapt to succeed in today's environment. That doesn't mean he would have to change his basic philosophies.

It's highly presumptuous to assume Walt would not have been able to adapt over the last 35 years when he had been successful for the previous 40 years.

But that's a tangent... the quotes aren't about whether Walt would or would not have succeeded over the last 35 years. It merely comes down to whether you generate profits as a result of a product-focused philosophy, or if you attempt to develop products that fit a profit-focused philosophy.

Both have the shareholders best interests in mind, so we can drop all of the talk about fiduciary responsibility. Neither requires a blank check, and neither requires a particular management style, so we can steer clear of that junk as well.

It just comes down to what works best for Disney, given their business lines and reputation. Clearly SOMETHING has been lacking in their philosophy over at least the last 10 years...

 

[KNWVIKING]

***" Clearly SOMETHING has been lacking in their philosophy over at least the last 10 years..."***

Why would you say "last 10 years" ? Weren't the mid-late '90's the record attendance years ? From what I've seen and read, my impression is that 98-02 were the "lacking" years at WDW.

 

[crusader]

I don't know, he managed to get through a few tough times... Like the Depression and a couple of wars.

Oh Yeah! so'd my stingy grandparents who didn't trust any bank or own any credit cards and hid their money all over the house God bless 'em!

What does surviving world events have to do with the collaborative expense pool I'm referring to anyway? Walt would have had a feeding frenzy to payoff on that monster! (which probably explains the profit-motive behind the park cloning idea)

But we're talking massive investment beyond the cash flow from any theme park which would make the sacred cow look very appetizing on a leverage block!

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by cristen
"We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." - Michael Eisner

Cristen -- what's the source for this quote? I have the source for the Walt quote, but was just wondering what meeting or interview or whatever, the Eisner one came from.

Thanks.

 

[raidermatt]

Why would you say "last 10 years" ? Weren't the mid-late '90's the record attendance years ? From what I've seen and read, my impression is that 98-02 were the "lacking" years at WDW.

Attendance is a lagging indicator of whether or not guests are satisfied. A dissatisfied guest might not return, or might delay their return, but since they wouldn't have returned anyway for months or even years, it takes awhile for the dissatisfaction to show up in attendance. Also, there are other factors that affect attendance, so we can't just say an "up" year equals success (likewise, a "down" year does not automatically equal a philosophical failure). The question is would a different philosophy result in BETTER attendance/growth over the long term?

Before we get into another discussion about absolutes, I'm not saying different means every single aspect of what Disney does is wrong. Only that the overiding philosophy does not allow them to maximize results.

What does surviving world events have to do with the collaborative expense pool I'm referring to anyway?

I was more addressing the idea that Walt didn't have to adapt, or overcome obstacles during his lifetime, and therefore could not have done so in the 70's, 80's and beyond.

But we're talking massive investment beyond the cash flow from any theme park which would make the sacred cow look very appetizing on a leverage block!

The philosophy in Walt's quote does not require that kind of financial investment. Yes, that was part of Walt's way... he would risk EVERYTHING on his next dream. On that point, I agree that we can't expect someone to lead Disney in the same way today.

But again, the philosophy in the quote would not require Eisner, or whomever, to invest in something on the relative scale that Epcot was to the Disney of the 60's.

 

[cristen]

Crusader-

Was there ever any numbers thrown out about how much EPCOT would have cost? You keep saying that it would have been too costly to make it happen. I know the Epcot today cost close to a billion dollars to make. A BILLION dollars, that is quite a bit of money, even more back in the early 80's.

 

[cristen]

The quote was posted here:
http://www.pruiksma.com/letterofsupport.html

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by cristen
Crusader-

Was there ever any numbers thrown out about how much EPCOT would have cost? You keep saying that it would have been too costly to make it happen. I know the Epcot today cost close to a billion dollars to make. A BILLION dollars, that is quite a bit of money, even more back in the early 80's.

I'd have to look into the cost projections. My comments were purely driven upon observation of the footage provided from this site:
http://www.waltopia.com/epcot film.html

A billion dollars isn't coming close to this plan. Believe me, whatever figures were being tossed around were an understatement. This was to consume a quarter of a century.

It appears The Truman Show wasn't an original.