RIP WDI - Is Imagineering Dead?

[airlarry!]

Woah, Jeff, I was with you all the way on your last post. Agree pretty much 100%...except we do know that a "sold Disney" would be worse than what we have had. How? I know you have read the "Kingdom" book that chronicles the nearly successful greenmail raid on the Disney Company right before Eisner.

There was no question from any of the business experts then...heck from any investor...that Disney was going to be carved up into a bunch of little companies and sold at the highest dollar.

Feature films and animation? Worth a pretty penny with their talent and library.

Theme parks? King of the mountain, first mover, you name it. That company would have also been high dollar.

Other parts of the company back then? I don't remember the book that well, but the point made in the book was that the Disney Company would have been no more.

You and I both know the secret to the Disney Company's success. Create magic and use that magic as other companies use R&D to create more magic for the guest experience. Movies drive theme parks which drive attractions which sell t-shirts which move comic books & coloring books which hype up interest for the next movie...and the cycle repeats itself.

Where Eisner et al took a wrong turn is thinking that just because it is called "Disney" means that it will automatically accomplish the above...the same fatal mistake the "kingdom" book argues Card Walker et al made oh so long ago.

Will history repeat itself?

 

[JeffJewell]

sorry for the length

Not at all, in a lot of ways, I really liked that post.

I misunderstood what you meant by "institutional holders," but I've got it now. Thanks for acknowledging my point despite that misunderstanding.

There's also something you misunderstand about me, but it's mostly because I've never really made a big deal out of it on the boards (it sounds rather snobbish).

I do not mind in the slightest being charged more for quality. Truth be told, I would jump at the chance to pay ten times the price for entry to the Magic Kingdom if I believed it would equate to ten times fewer people in the park. While I admit that change, in and of itself, would do nothing for the quality of the rides, I do think the quality of the day's experience would increase. Of course, with ten times fewer hotel rooms necessary, the Values and Moderates evaporate into thin air, freeing up chunks of capital to use on those high quality rides, after all.

Anyway, because no one asked me back when I could have made a difference, that opinion hardly matters.

So, to put words in your mouth, you're telling me that I, as a person who appreciated Disney's history of quality, and who would like once again to enjoy that kind of experience, actually got boned about ten years ago and there's really nothing to be done about it, now.

Hmmph. A couple times in the past I've felt I was fighting a losing battle on this topic, and "retired" from the boards for a while. The thought that the point has been moot for a decade should really take the wind out of my sails.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

My oh my!! Yesterday, a fairly slow day at work, I checked the boards every ten minutes. Hardly a word. And such a juicy topic!!!

But today, my eighth grade daughter’s graduation, I can’t even glimpse the posts until now. WOW!! What action. So many posts that I can’t possibly respond to all of them. And what faulty suppositions some of you make!! I can see that you need my input! No you say? That’s OK I’ll provide it anyway.

I can’t possibly go back to square one, so I’ll start with only one thought from page two:

If it was up to Mr. Buffet and Co., much, much, much, more would be cut than park hours. For one, all non-bus transporation. Second, all non-value added items such as early entry and resort pools. In a nutshell, institutional holders would eliminate everything to the lowest point until ressies suffered.

Where in the heck did you get this from? They would do away with the monorail!!?? Perhaps the most recognizable icon of a Disney park? They would shut down resort pools!!?? Not much of a resort without a pool!

Do you think a guy like Buffet, who spends his time in shopping malls, watching people, studying buying habits and the likes and dislikes of the general public, would actually be in favor of killing the aspect of the business upon which it was built?!! I don’t think so! Now, I’ll grant you he loves sound business practices. And he just adores increasing profits, trimming fat and all that other neat business stuff. And I’m sure he factors that into his take on what to buy and what to sell.

And you know what? When Disney was still maintaining (barely, but still maintaining) the magic he had whole bunches of Disney stock. Absolutely LOVED the company. Included it in his books and recommended it to anyone who would listen. And when they started to get reckless with magic, even down to disregarding innovation and creativity entirely, he dumped it!! Coincidence? I doubt it!!

Now before we go any further let me say that the above paragraph was tongue in cheek. But I used it to illustrate how ridiculous it is to make these type of suppositions. The truth is we don’t know what a guy like Buffet thinks. It could be he did an extensive analysis of the company and found it wanting. It could be that he saw something in the quarterly that struck him wrong. It could be he had a dream the night before he sold. Could be he had a fight with the wife. Could be he stubbed his toe and was in an ornery mood. Or it could be, just maybe, that after a frustrating day of late buses, cut hours, burned out light bulbs and peeling paint, that he suffered while taking his granddaughter to the Magic Kingdom, he was surfing the web and saw a post from that wise sage of Disney decry the reign of Ei$ner. And he agreed!!! Promptly e-mailing the poster saying:

Dear DVC-LandBaron:

Let me thank you. You’re right on the money (pun intended) I’ve just sold all my Disney stock. You should too.
Thanks again,

Your friend and in your debt,

Warren B.


OK. I’m done and I’ve really got a lot of reading to catch up on (not only this thread, but I’ve got to finish some other books in anticipation of a certain gift arriving Sunday). I’ve got to say there hasn’t been one word posted by the one and only Another Voice or the inimitable JeffJewel that I haven’t wholeheartedly agreed with. Conversely, sadly, and once again, the Pirate (or is he the Captain today?) is wrong. How sad.

I wrote the above in a break in the activities and never got a chance to post it. It sat in Microsoft Word since about 6:00 this evening. I almost threw it away, but it amuses me. So I did it a little late, but this one really got me:

Importantly, I do not believe that quality is to be sacrificed. In fact, I believe the overall WDW quality and Animation is better in the last ten years than before (this should get DVCLB back into this thread) Dinosaur, Hunchback, Mulan, Toy Story, Tarzan are all classic animation.

Are you serious or were you trolling for a response, me in particular. Cause if you really believe this, then, and I mean this in the most positive way possible – YOU'RE NUTS!!!

ALSO - Fair warning. I'll have some time tomorrow. You've given me enough bullets in this thread to do my own D-Day reenactment!! Until Tomorrow!!!

 

[F.C. Fan]

People are spending alot more than $100 per person to expierience Discovery Cove. It's $109 without the Dolphin swim, it's $199 to include the Dolphin swim (which almost everyone who goes there does) and can go as high as $369 for Trainer for a day program. Don't forget the photo packages, which can get very expensive very fast, and almost always do. Last but not least the guests expieriencing Discovery Cove also get free admission to Sea World, which can take away a day or two from the other parks, and which also gives Anheuser-Busch more of that important vacation money which might have been spent somewhere else.

So of course Disney and Universal are watching closely that's a good sized chunk of change per person, per family, that's not making it to their pockets daily.

 

[Wes]

A new newsgroup called alt.disney.imagineering was started in April.

It is virtually a dead-on-arrival newsgroup ... there are more ads and junk than anything approaching substance.

 

[F.C. Fan]

If you think Vivendi/Universal has STOPPED everything down here then why are there tons of earth movers mowing down trees, clearing land, building up stuff and letting it settle, then building it up again on their newest property? I see this activity and have been watching it almost daily for the past year, it is a huge clearing of land, not just 5 or 10 acres and let's not forget they are also in the middle of building their 3rd hotel on their current property. So like I said before they may have slowed down, but have not completely STOPPED down here in Orlando.

 

[HorizonsFan]

While you guys have been arguing the details, I kept wondering, "If Fab has the memo, why is she describing it to us and editorializing along the way? Why not just reprint the memo?"
Anyone care to speculate?
Once... Just once, I'd like to read something from the Fab/Hill camp that wasn't of the "unnamed source" variety. I'm not saying she's wrong or lying, I'm just skeptical. After awhile, you'd think the "insiders" would stop talking to her out of fear for their jobs...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well Landbaron, neither the Captain or I know who "WB" is, but we're all awaiting your responses with at least semi-baited breath!and thedscoop, I assure you my friend Landbaron was only being lighthearted with his "troll" comment...He may be verbose, but he plays fair!

Horizons Fan, glad you're back & I hope your trip was good (good job on Millionaire - 4th was the highest I've been). Regarding Fab, no need to specualte IMO. I agree with your supposition...

Now, since thedscoop has altered the dynamic here, no need to repeat the same lines I've been preaching, as he has put it rather well (understatement), and I'm sure DisDuck, Dave & JimB, to name a few, are in agreement!

So, to keep this educational process (for me) going, I would like to ask scoop, is it your opinion that the factor we discuss, commonly known as "Magic," has been kept alive purposly or are we still living off Walt's glow? I ask this because it has been my contention that Michael Eisner is probably a man who has some of Walt's "magic" in him, has respect for Walt's legacy and due to his philosophy has manged to keep as much of it (the Magic) alive as he can while still playing the street & keeping shareholders best interests in mind?

Landbaron and others believe Mike is responsible for the decline of magic based on his business decisions, I contend that despite the necessity of having to make "tough decisions" he has still managed to keep Disney "special."

I know you'll have a lot of response to LB shortly but I think your take on this sidebar would be interesting...

 

[JeffJewell]

Landbaron and others believe Mike is responsible for the decline of magic based on his business decisions

...thedscoop is suggesting that Eisner's personal vision actually has little to do with the equation at this point; that he is shackled by the large institutional shareholders (the pension funds and things he mentions. I didn't catch what he meant the first time through), who really don't know or care _anything_ about Magic, their interest is purely share value. That our Eisner antipathy is misdirected, it was actually Wells' decision years ago that set up the current putrescent financial dynamic (not that Wells antipathy would change anything, either).

If I've got the gist of it, and if he's correct (which would actually explain a lot of the inconsistencies we've tripped over when discussing the history of Eisner's management), the real control is already outside of Disney's hands, and in the hands of these large investors.

Kind of ironic, that the Wells decision made to keep control of Disney appears to acheived the opposite.

I still think there is a market for quality, but as thedscoop has pointed out, that market is actually on the smallish side. From a financial standpoint, I must grudgingly agree that selling a million pieces of crap will fill your coffers more quickly than selling a few hundred masterpieces.

Jeff

 

[DisDuck]

DVC, I hope your NUTS comment was tongue-in-cheek because I thought the list from scoop was guality. I liked each and every one of them. You might not have liked them or thought that they were not quality but that is just your opinion.

I am of the viewpoint that Quality is subjective when it comes to animation. I am not an expert on the subject (in fact have trouble drawing a straight line with a ruler) but I do know if I like something or not and whether in my opinion is measure up to MY expectations.

Scoop has posed a question which deserves an answer and has not been. I, for one, agree with his premise and have been saying much the same thing for over almost a year.

The focus of most discussions has been the Theme Parks yet Disney began as a movie studio. DL and WDW were added later and in the case of DL in order to support the movie side. Also, TV was a big part of the company in the 50's (it is how I got hooked along with animation). I believe if it was viable Walt would have bought a network so buying ABC was following in his footsteps.

It may be unfortunate that the real world has to intrude on our fantasies but without the real world (ie. business) there would be no fantasy.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Thanks Jeff (seriously). I don't mean to imply too much credit to Eisner for the Magic that seems to remain, or perhaps "today's magic" would be a better way of describing it. I have only meant that Eisner's slant on running things have seemed to have a historical Disney bent on it (until recently & JMO). Unfortuenately, scoop's version & sequence makes a lot of sense and it would be ironic if it were actually a Wells decision that has brought us on this current path...

If I've got the gist of it, and if he's correct (which would actually explain a lot of the inconsistencies we've tripped over when discussing the histories of Eisner's management)...

LOL...If he's correct, I suspect we've probably tripped in other places and not even looked back...

DisDuck...Does a lot of this feel like Yogi's famous line, "Deja vu, all over again?"...

 

[Sarangel]

From DisDuck:

The focus of most discussions has been the Theme Parks yet Disney began as a movie studio. DL and WDW were added later and in the case of DL in order to support the movie side. Also, TV was a big part of the company in the 50's (it is how I got hooked along with animation). I believe if it was viable Walt would have bought a network so buying ABC was following in his footsteps.

Just to set the record straight (did I mention I was a history major?), DL was one of Walt's ideas that Roy and the senior management disagreed with at first because they were sure it wouldn't do well. WDW was begun after the concept had been proven by DL. Television was entered in order to help finance DL, though Walt was interested in it because of its ability to reach more people than movies did. I don't know if Walt or Roy would have bought a TV Conglomerate like ABC, it seems more likely to me that they would have started something like the Disney Channel.

The Disney Brothers (to get back to the topic at hand) believed in control of their product, and lived in an era that allowed them that luxury. In today's corporate climate, as thedscoop points out, control is in the hands of the investors in any public corporation. I don't know if it's possible to maintain idealism and good returns for investors. I've been trying to think of any one that has built a co. on Quality rather than Returns, and I haven't come up with one. I have some possiblities in mind, but will need to research them to be more certain.

Sarangel

 

[YoHo]

I'm really lost in most of this, but I have a question.

Would it be a correct conclusion that Wells handled the Investors when alive and Likely handled them better then Mike Does now?

We've just come off of an explosive growth trend in the economy, yet DIsney's building and "Magic" enhancments dropped. They actually did more in a weak Economy then they did in a strong economy. If the Institutional Investors Are truely in charge, then that suggests that Mikey couldn't Handle them.

Kind of the way only a complete fool would let Walt go handle the Banks instead of Roy.


I'm just trying to make sense of it all.
Or are we saying that all of this was simply inevitable. I don't buy that either. Disney's Theme PArk Buisness Plan Must be based on Quality, On Walt's Requirments, otherwise it will stagnate. We've already seen people take an active interest in Non-disney parks. I would suggest that this is because the preceived difference in quality is becoming smaller. IF a time comes when going to IOA is the same or better then going to a Disney PArk, then the entire theme park division will tank.
Similarly, How does making low quality movies equal good buisness?

 

[larworth]

Let’s not draw too many conclusions from Vivendi’s current stance about the validity of the business model. This is probably a good example of what often happens to small, non-core divisions within mega-conglomerates. Vivendi didn’t purchase Universal for their theme parks and I can understand their wait and see approach. The division just recently went for broke with IOA, hoping to one-up the clear leader in the industry. A bold but risky venture. They probably want the dust to clear a little more before they decide what to do next. In most cases, where the success or failure of a division does not have a material impact on overall corporate results, the company will be cautious with their investment capital even if the idea is a good one. They haven’t cancelled anything, just not ready to jump in and fund the next e ticket yet.

I don’t know why Berkshire dumped the stock. But if they really are long-term investors as stated, and if Disney quality is better than ever, they what was their motive? I assumed they owned the stock 10 years ago.

A little discourse on the quality debate. Maybe, magic isn’t important in the institutional investor world, but I can tell you that the concept of striving to exceed customer expectations, and delivering high quality offerings (let’s call this the non-Disney version of magic) as a way to build competitive advantage is an accepted business model in the corporate world.

I totally agree that the institutional influence makes running a public company vastly different than it was decades ago. There has to be a clear understanding of how investments add to the business model, and to continually look at the cost/value equation. Nobody can stay is business with “unfettered” quality. However, I don’t equate offering the customer a high quality, one-of-a-kind experience as necessarily be unfettered

Discovery Cove is striving to do just this. It is really the tried and true Disney business model with just a different target audience. Give people something they can’t do elsewhere and you may be able to charge them enough to make it good business. Throughput of their ride (dolphin experience) is pretty slow loading so occupancy has to be limited and the rates high.

In a nutshell, institutional holders would eliminate everything to the lowest point until ressies suffered. And to date, ressies remain solid.

Quite possible. However, who said institutional investors make the best business managers. It is a dangerous thing to take a brand and test its resilency by dropping quality until the customer reacts. It can take a long time to build the brand back if you find you have made a mistake.

***

Now back to what I thought was the original point of this debate. The potential change in direction and importance of WDI.

I for one think that WDI was a core competency of theirs in a key area that creates competitive advantage and longtern value. It is no different than the R&D division of thousands of other companies. Many examples of companies that have a business model based on high R&D investment to create new high quality products. If the division had some operational problems you right the ship and full speed ahead.

If they abandon approach than I think it is the wrong move. I don’t see any change in the fundamentals in this industry that indicate a change is warranted. I think continued high investment in Disney R&D (WDI) is still the best business model.

 

[YoHo]

Yes, I believe Eisner would really like to be able to add more magic. Why? Well, nothing in his previous business/managment bio indictates he is a numbers guy. Rather, I believe he (and his wife who is very influential in his philosophies and decisions) are on the idea side.

Look, YoHo Has a friend Someone who remembers Eisner even though we now have Ei$ner (for whatever reason)


Anyway, again I'm confused. was the bad financials of the overseas parks due to overseas managment, or Burbank based managment?

 

[airlarry!]

Scoop asked:
>>I've presented an objective examination of the situation, and again ask the question, can anyone present an analogous situation where the model of "create magic and worry about costs later" is working?

Is this really the pertinent question? Even back in the 'good ole days,' we all agree that Walt spent and spent, but it was not bottomless. He cut when he had to. The difference is now they cut under the infamous 10/10 plan because they want to. Isn't the question, when will the company understand that creating magic is R&D for Disney?

Cause I got a company for you: Gillette. They spent a ton of money developing what Consumer Reports says is the best razor ever made -- and look what happened. They made billions. They charge more, they make more. Research & Development. And for Disney, R&D is two things: the creative content for movies (i.e. Feature animation) and the creative content for the theme parks (i.e. Imagineering).

Also, I have some seen mention of WB (Warren Buffet) here. Let's not forget WB's true involvement with Disney. He didn't buy Disney -- he sold his stake in the Eisner-led Disney. Why? What does Buffet's involvement or selling mean anyway?

Buffiet believes in investing in companies he knows something about (he shies away from Biochem and tech stocks), and buys companies that make products that people need everyday -- like Coca-cola, razor blades, and car insurance. Disney does not fit into this business model.

Especially Eisner's Disney.

• Buffett's eventual ownership of Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) came through the share purchase of the US television network ABC in 1984. ABC merged with fellow broadcaster Capital Cities Communications in 1986, which in turn merged with Walt Disney in 1996 (Buffett has been a heavy seller of Disney ever since). It's interesting to also note that Buffett bought Capital Cities in 1977 and sold a year later. He also held ABC for just two years in the early eighties, before his repurchase in 1984.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

DVC, I hope your NUTS comment was tongue-in-cheek because I thought the list from scoop was quality.

Dis, I thought you knew me better. Almost all my posts are tongue in cheek! Especially when it is as subjective as a list such as Scoop's. But on a personal level, I thought the list represented the lower end of the Disney spectrum. But that's just an IMO aside.

By the way, DVCLB I was not trolling simply joking. Please let's not turn this thread into a debate of the quality (that's been done) and keep it centered on the reality of quality (RIP-imagineering)....

I know it was a joke. And I was joking as well. I'll confess. Warren Buffet (WB) has never e-mailed me.

And you are drawing a fine line, but I'll try to focus (something I hardly ever do!!) I think you missed my point (my fault, it was pretty veiled). I'll try it again a little more direct. And it is Sarangel hit the nail right on the head and clarified what I was trying to say:

The Disney Brothers (to get back to the topic at hand) believed in control of their product, and lived in an era that allowed them that luxury. In today's corporate climate, as thedscoop points out, control is in the hands of the investors in any public corporation.

Wasn't Disney a publicly held company in the fifties when Disneyland was being built? Yes, I believe it was. And I will grant you that there has been a change in the public's perception of 'The Market'. But the overall principles of business haven't changed at all. The investors back in the fifties were just a savvy as today's investors. The only change is that there are more of them today. And the general public is a little more knowledgeable about how that mysterious "market" actually works. But the financial people of the fifties were the same as today. They were in business to make money. Period! So what's different?!

I've been trying to think of any one that has built a co. on Quality rather than Returns, and I haven't come up with one.

OH! You said it soooooo well!! This is exactly my point! Which is why I usually leave the financial aspect out of my posts, only to say it will make money. Perhaps not as much as a well oiled profit motivated conglomerate, but it WILL make money. And it is just this philosophy that has brought us together, on this site, having this discussion, over 46 years after it was first established in a theme park.

I have never said that my good friends that are on the other side of the aisle are wrong in a business sense. And I concede. You can make MORE money, quicker, following Ei$ner's plan than if you follow Walt's. If you want Disney to become a bottom line, profit motivated, well diversified conglomerate, focused on a quarterly report, then you are on the right track. Keep Ei$ner and have a "Disney" day. But I'm out of here (and I think most of us, you included, being really honest, would be out as well). I won't (can't) feel any allegiance to a company that ordinary. That "everyday". I don't follow the inner workings of any other company in the world. Do you? (I mean in the way you follow and feel about Dinsey.) And the only reason I follow Disney is because of the philosophy that Walt instituted. If he hadn't, we would have never gotten to know each other. NONE of us would be here. It would just be another company. Fun to visit. Nice to be there. But no different from any other place under the sun. Ordinary.

But if you want Disney to be extraordinary. To become (maintain) the leader of the theme park industry, and insure profits (admittedly smaller) for a VERY long term, then I'm in as well.

"Oh come on, scoop, no way" Well, yes way. For example, Disney Institute never was a good "numbers" financial move. It was an idea (quite likely bad) but nevertheless an idea.

This is of course my second problem with Ei$ner. He hasn't got a clue!! Every once in a while he gets lucky. (Hey, a monkey can get lucky once in a while and hit the right button for a banana!) But by and large, his creativity SUCKS!!!! So not only is he a lousy keeper of Walt's flame, and not only is he NOT a numbers guy, he also lacks creativity. But he doesn't know it!! And that's the worse kind!!!

Now I really tried to find some good quotes in the rest of your post to further my argument that Ei$nsr is NOT the man to head Disney. And I found that every word of it (with the exception of that little side road dealing with OLC) supported his ouster. It doesn't matter what angle we come at this question. I see him being a poor heir to the Disney magic. Lacking creativity. You simply see him as a guy that has a string of mistakes behind him. Inept, if you will. Maybe over his arrogant head. OK. I'll buy that. But either way - HE'S GOT TO GO!!

From airlarry!

Is this really the pertinent question? Even back in the 'good ole days' we all agree that Walt spent and spent, but it was not bottomless. He cut when he had to. The difference is now they cut under the infamous 10/10 plan because they want to. Isn't the question, when will the company understand that creating magic is R&D for Disney?

PERFECT!!! My point exactly.

And as a last note. Scoop, you keep apologizing for the size of your posts. Why? I find them rather short!!!

 

[JeffJewell]

If you want Disney to become a bottom line, profit motivated, well diversified conglomerate, focused on a quarterly report, then you are on the right track.

...I doubt anyone here _wants_ that. It seems to me that thedscoop was trying to explain that the quality/guest experience oriented Disney is years dead and not, as our posts typically assume, merely languishing in intensive care.

The more I think about it, the more I think he's probably right.

Jeff

PS: Yes, it's possible my dark outlook is cloudier than it should be due to the recent carpets Disney has been pulling out from under my honeymoon.

 

[airlarry!]

Scoop, now I'm getting a little confused. We do not have to return to the 50s era to see the Disney way to do something.

EPCOT was built as a nearly complete park, and finished in 1982.

Euro Disneyland (now DLP) was built nearly finished, and now I take note that the park is making money, and the stock is booming. There is another thread that says the mistake with DLP was in resort building, not in the park.

In fact, recent interviews note that famed Disneyphile Eddie Sotto said that the European version of Walt's playground is the most beautiful.

If you spend, within reason, the public will reward you:
a. Feature animation: Spend the bucks to create another Disney masterpiece within reason, and not only will they pay to watch it, wear it, and experience it at the Park, THEY WILL ADVERTISE IT FOR FREE FOR YOU by telling their friends, and introducing their kids to their own Disney obsession.

b. Parks: Spend the bucks to create nearly full (remember Walt did NOT finish DL, but kept adding and changing) parks with a mix of A - E ticket attractions, and not only will they pay to enter it, and shop it, and eat in it, and stay in the hotel at it, BUT THEY WILL ADVERTISE IT FOR FREE FOR YOU by telling their friends and introducing their relatives to their Disney obsession.

That is the business model. And it works. Just substitute "magic" for R & D when you read Celera or Gillette or Nvidia's shareholder report.

I guess this is the real question:

"What is spending on magic WITHIN REASON? What does Within Reason mean?" To Eisner? It has become Profit=Guest Experience=more Profit. To Walt? It was Guest Experience=Profit=More Guest Experience.

 

[airlarry!]

Just a quick follow-up:

How many of us wait with baited breath for the next offering from Coke or Columbia Pictures or Gillette?

How many of us fantasize all their childhood and even adulthood about what it would be like to work for Pepsi or even Dreamworks SKG?

None. Or few.

How many of us Disneyphiles do the same thing every week?

And also, Southwest Airlines *is* a good example. They expand, but every time they do, they do it in the same consistent manner that Herb had when he started. Funny attendants, on-time service, value for your money, sure these are all part of it. But consistency is the key. No matter how big they get, you can rest assured that Southwest will still be the same. Or else it won't be Southwest anymore.

I think this whole mess is part of the cyclical creative business. Iwerks left, Disney went on. Feature animation went down, Disney went on. The Nine Old Man retired, Disney suffered then came out of it. Storming the Kingdom came, but blah blah blah you get the point.