Robbing Peter to pay "PAUL"

Larworth:

I totally agree with almost everything you say, with one major exception. And I suppose this exception really counters my first sentence and causes me to disagree somewhat. Confused? Me too!!

First let's cover the agreeing bit:
I think the corporate raider fear is way overblown.
Not only is it overblown today, it was overblown when it was happening. And the really sad fact is that we were taken over. From the inside. And it was a slow process that no one saw coming. Some are even still in DE NILE (denial, for Safari Steve. lol). But it happened all the same. We are no better off today than we would have been if raider from the outside had snatched Disney up. We merely traded outside raiders for inside raiders.
I think their first inclination would be how can we protect and preserve the brand, rather than to rape and plunder.
Absolutely!! Same then as today. Do you really think the would have turned the castle into condos? Not on your life!! They would have raised prices, cut costs, built up the property and kept as much brand name magic as bottom line, short term profit would allow. Hmmm. Sounds like Ei$ner to me!!
Why, one of the reasons they may even buy it is to bring Disney's old-time customer and quality focus to the rest of their organization
Yeah! It could have been the greatest thing that ever happened. Or not. But certainly no worse!!

And lastly the whole ABC thing I totally agree with (too long for even me to quote). You sized it up perfectly.

Now for the major disagreement.
At some point Eisner will come to the realization that he doesn't have the time, or his attention is better spent trying to fix the broken parts, to be creative oversight for the parks anymore. He will turn it over to someone who can at least counter, if not totally return us from, the Presslerite era.
Two thoughts. First, what makes you think it wouldn't be Pre$$ler himself?! Hmmm. Come to think of it, it could be worse!! lol

And second, the culture Ei$ner has set up within the company. In any corporation, or group structure, a certain culture takes shape, FROM THE TOP DOWN. Either through tacit approval or overt action, the head (boss, leader, CEO) sets up the culture. And his subordinates either go along with this culture or they don't stay around very long. In other words, do you really think that an employee of Ei$ner's would, even if given sole administrative responsibility of WDW, actually do anything that he didn't think his boss would approve of? Do you suppose that this person would be oblivious of Ei$ner's business philosophy? I think he would totally understand his job and his position within the company. Simply put, maintain as much as possible, but SHOW A PROFIT!!!!

OK. I haven't told a Walt story in a long time (Alright. No eyeball rolls. It's not very long). I think it may clarify things:

Seems there was a particular time in the building of Disneyland when money was especially tight. Roy was trying his absolute best to keep things under control. The banks were breathing down his neck, business investment were drying up and his personal bank account didn't look much better. While musing about his lot in life on this particular dreary day, he was handed an invoice. The invoice was for a chandelier for one of the fast food restaurants. It cost thousands of dollars. In 1954 it was a small fortune. Roy was fed up. Time to have it out with Brother Walt. He found Walt and went off on him. He told Walt that he'd never sell enough burgers to ever get a pay back. He said that it was frivolous and a waste. Walt, so the story goes, listened and tried to explain that it was his goal to give the guest something that he wouldn't get anywhere else in the world. And if someone, sitting eating his fast food, admired this chandelier and it added to their experience just a little bit, the company would get a bigger payback than could ever be noted on a balance sheet. Roy and Walt didn't talk for weeks after that. But Roy paid for the chandelier.

Now tell me. If Ei$ner's hand picked man did run the parks and when doing some renovations had the audacity to think in Walt's terms, do you really think that Ei$ner would do what Roy did? And do you think that his hand pick "park manager" would be there two months from then?

OK, I'm through for a while. I suddenly have a desire to go to Crown Book Store. The title Quotable Walt Disney keeps going through my head!!! ;)
 
JeffJ,

Just checked the boards in a free moment and although pressed for time felt like I needed to correct a few things. Here are a couple of quotes from your post that bear no resemblance to anything I said:

To you, "Disney" apparently means a particular batch of income sources.
If I understand your stated position, it follows that as long as Eisner was able to keep renting and repackaging the creations of third parties well enough to show the shareholders a profit, this would be fine with you and good for the Disney Company, no?

I'll be back to explain myself when I have more time. In the mean time, please don't put words in my mouth. Disagree with what I actually wrote, not with what you assume I really mean.

Just because I don't hate Eisner doesn't mean I want to see the parks fail. We're all here because we love WDW, right?
 
I believe it would be very vunerable to a takeover and that takeover could be just for profit/bottom-line sake only. Which to me translates no differently then your take on Eisner. Profit before quality.

You understand my position precisely.

What I don't understand is why you think Eisner and his definite, demonstrated lust for profit at the expense of the customer is just plain better than who-knows-who and the possibility that the same thing _might_ happen with them.

It's like we're on a plane flying directly into the ground, and I'm yelling that we need to try a different pilot. Your argument is that a new pilot might fly us into the ground. So what? The _possibility_ that someone else might fly us into the ground is far more desirable than following the _demonstrated_ into-dirt flight plan our current pilot filed and has faithfully followed thus far.

As long as WDC is too big then there is hope that the future will be bright.

Why? What is it that suggests to you that Eisner will about-face his management style? On the contrary, with his stock options, he's probably the single person who _most_ profits from the current system. Further, what actions could these "corporate raiders" possibly take that could damage the foundation of the Disney Company the way Eisner's leadership has?

If you want to have hope for Disney quality with Eisner at the wheel, be my guest. I hope you own a lot of Disney stock and will at least make some pocket change while Eisner finishes the dismantling of both the Imagineering group and the quality and creativity that used to be synonymous with "Disney."

Jeff
 
...check the dictionary for the meanings of "apparently" and the words in the phrase "If I understand your stated position."

I put no words in your mouth, I read what you wrote and replied to it.

Jeff
 


You "apparently" intentionaly misrepresented what I said to bolster your own position. "If I understand your stated position" it's alright to demonize someone for your own purposes.
Very nice...
 
...
You "apparently" intentionaly misrepresented what I said to bolster your own position.

Untrue. I took your stated position to its farthest possible logical extent to prove a point and request clarification. Many of these conversations have to do with where individuals draw lines. The question "if a line drawn HERE is okay, what's to keep someone from saying the line drawn THERE is okay," is valid if you are trying to determine where, precisely, another stands.

That post was directed at you. How could I possibly misrepresent your own words to you? Wouldn't it be more sensible to assume the wording was chosen to compel you to reply and clarify your position?

"If I understand your stated position" it's alright to demonize someone for your own purposes.

Again untrue. I demonstrated why I felt a particular point of view was a short-sighted one in terms of Disney's financial health. This is a far cry from "demonizing" a particular person.

When you use the word "apparently" and the phrase "If I understand your position," I take it as an opportunity to clarify that which I want to be apparent, and to help you more explicitly understand my position. I look forward to your doing the same with regard to my post you originally referenced.

Jeff
 
Jeff,

I took your stated position to its farthest possible logical extent to prove a point and request clarification.

My statement was pretty clear. I believe Disney has to stay large. You blew that completely out of proportion. I want quality too. But I want quality from all parts of WDC, not just theme parks and animation. If you wanted clarification, why didn't you just ask for it?


The question "if a line drawn HERE is okay, what's to keep someone from saying the line drawn THERE is okay," is valid if you are trying to determine where, precisely, another stands.

The question is perfectly valid. You never asked me that question.

That post was directed at you. How could I possibly misrepresent your own words to you?

Because this is a public message board. My words were misrepresented to everyone reading this thread (not that there are that many any more :D )

Wouldn't it be more sensible to assume the wording was chosen to compel you to reply and clarify your position?

Wouldn't it be more sensible to just ask me to reply and clarify my position?

I demonstrated why I felt a particular point of view was a short-sighted one in terms of Disney's financial health.

Unfortunately, the point of view you demonstrated was so short sighted is not mine. It's the one you created out of what I said.
I will clarify my position on WDC later...
 


...whatever you say. I apologize for turning you into a demon. I hope you get well soon.

Let me know if you want to talk about Robbing Peter and Paying Paul again.

Jeff
 
Jeff,
I'm feeling much better, thank you.

Maybe both of us will be less tense after our upcoming trips. I spent my honeymoon at WDW too and it was the best trip ever.
Congratulations and have a good trip.

BTW, I don't think there are a "Peter" and a "Paul". I think there's just "Peter". And you can't really rob "Peter" to pay "Peter" can you?

I think I kind of "Petered" out there at the end...
 
...actually, I do see a "Peter" and a "Paul." That analogy is just another way of describing the schism between the two "typical" factions here.

"Peter" is the old-time core business; the animation and the theme parks. More importantly (to some of us, anyway), "Peter" is representative of the care and quality Walt used when creating his animations and theme parks.

"Paul" is the new, media empire Disney. More importantly (to some of us, anyway), "Paul" is representative of the "buy it, don't build it" and "cheaper is better" business practices Michael uses when establishing market dominance.

Rumor has it (this is a rumors board, I seem to recall) that Disney might be ready to spend $3 to $5 billion for some television networks. Not higher quality networks than they have, just more networks than they have.

Just this month, WDW was so short on cash that they had to cancel a character breakfast sooner than the sixty day window for which they had already issued PS numbers.

I think I understand your point, that in LandBaron's scenario Peter grew into Paul and is therefore the same entity.

I look at it differently. Why was Paul ever necessary? Why not continue to do a mighty fine business and continue to create life-long customers by putting as much as possible back into the quality of the guest's experience?

The answer I most often get is that Paul protected Peter from "corporate raiders." The implication is that these "corporate raiders" would leech money out of the core theme parks and animations and not put any back in the form of quality.

Unfortunately, Eisner's introduction of Peter to Paul, for Peter's own protection, mind you, resulted in exactly the fate it was supposed to prevent.

As I've seen suggested, perhaps Eisner is a business genius after all, and pulled off the corporate raid from the inside. It's kind of ironic that the best chance for more investment in Peter's needs, in Imagineering for the parks and animation, now lies in some "corporate raider" wresting control from Eisner (preferably, some raider who actually appreciated the quality of the old style Disney).

Jeff

PS - Dave, I'm glad you're feeling better, I honestly meant no offense with my tactics. My post was written in the spirit of lively conversation, not personal attack.
 
… I wanted to jump in right away, but somehow it didn't feel appropriate, however, I think the conversation between HorizonsFan and JeffJewel has slowed somewhat so...

I know this thread is overly long as it is, and this a rather fine point of clarification, but I really do need to clarify my position a bit. As in:
I look at it differently. Why was Paul ever necessary? Why not continue to do a mighty fine business and continue to create life-long customers by putting as much as possible back into the quality of the guest's experience?
Just for the record THIS is exactly my position!! Furthermore:
Unfortunately, Eisner's introduction of Peter to Paul, for Peter's own protection, mind you, resulted in exactly the fate it was supposed to prevent.
Yes!!! Yes!!! Yes!!! Perfectly put!! As I recall I first broached the subject around October in a thread called EPCOT's Mission: Space article and was politely (and not so politely) called an IDIOT!!! I'm glad to see that some minds have changed on the subject. Or it could be that since this is page 8 no one else has read it!!! lol

Anyway, thanks for listening.
 
Now that I am all caught up. Let me see. Peter robbed Peter to pay Paul but Paul is Peter just grown up or is Paul still Peter and never grow up. All very confusing.

What I do remember is that Peter was more than animation and theme PARK (not parks). It was also live action movies (think Old Yeller); wild-life adventure movies (I have one pictured in my mind but can't think of title) and TV (Wonderful World, Mickey Mouse Club, Zorro, Scarecrow, etc). So I think Peter was on its way to becoming Paul long before we got involved.

Also, wasn't DL built to generate a continuous source of funding for animation and movies (seems like little peter robbing from Big Peter). Now fast-forward to 2001 and Disney is this big media giant with several different divisions (movies, records, books, TV and theme parks). Not much different then when just Peter but Paul has a bigger appetite than Peter so must be fed more often. Where else to get the food but from the best food (revenue) sources. (Now the shock for Landbaron), at some point Peter is going to get to thin to feed Paul so something must now be done to fatten up Peter also. When will this happen, my food (crystal) ball is clouding right now (probably needs to be washed). Is Eisner the right cook, maybe yes, maybe no longer? Is Pressler the right cook (would probably burn the water)? Is Iger the right cook (never saw him at the stove so don't know)?

Unfortunately (or forttunately, depending on for Peter or for Paul) we are not in a position to know. We will have to just wait it out and converse back and forth with each other until it plays out. I think that in 1 or 2 (at most) years something will happen, if Peter becomes too thin.
 
I think that in 1 or 2 (at most) years something will happen, if Peter becomes too thin.

The main reason I'm so vocal about this topic is my concern that, by the time it becomes obvious to everyone that Peter is too thin, it will be too late.

I didn't decide to go to WDW for my honeymoon next month based on what's happened down there over the past year or two. A big part of my decision was made in the early seventies, when I was a kid who was overwhelmed by the way Disney did everything right. My guess is that's true for a lot of the thirty-somethings who are taking their kids there now. It was the overwhelming, uncompromising quality and attention to detail that made the guest loyalty... that same quality and attention to detail that is steadily thinning.

So how thin is too thin? One group thinks the measure should be hard business numbers, like p/e ratio. Part of that group's rationale is that Disney is a big business competing against big businesses and those are the measures used. Tough to argue against that directly.

The group I'm in thinks the real measure is inextricable from the customer experience; that the important thing in some businesses is not a momentary snapshot of cash flow, but the probability of creating a lifetime customer with the product you've put out there.

We've all gone over the details before, to sum it up, I don't feel Disney has put forth its best effort at WDW recently, and has not done so since Tower of Terror (I'm educable on this, so if I'm wrong, let me know... but the reason I say this is because to my knowledge, ToT was the last ride that was completely Disney (WDI developed the ride mech and the theming), and the last one themed so immersively (to the guest, any way, it appears no expense was spared creating ToT)).

It's the attractions going in today that will (or will not) generate the brand loyalty that might make customers three decades from now. But the attractions going in today are off-the-shelf or recycled rides with low budgets for theming (Space, Dino-Rama, Aladdin, Dinosaur, Journey Into Your Imagination, Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, and Pooh all fit this description). This doesn't mean that every one of those rides is going to stink, but it _does_ mean that WDI (the creative, innovative arm of Disney that most contributes to the Magic, the sense of doing everything right, the group that attends to all the details) withers from budget cuts and general disuse.

Without WDI, Disney doesn't create anything, they acquire it. If Disney is in the business of acquiring attractions rather than creating them, _they_ have placed _themselves_ on the creative level of Six Flags. There is no reason to think that Six Flags or Universal could not have bought Space, Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, or Dino-Rama... there's not even a meaningful Disney licensing tie-in to any of those.

So what is it about Disney today that makes them different enough from every other company out there that thirty years from now, today's 7 year olds will be introducing _their_ kids to WDW? What is Disney doing that other companies can't do?

These days, the answer is "nothing." I'm so down on Eisner because I feel irreparable damage has already (and demonstrably) been done, and that each new decision takes us farther away from creating quality and closer to buying and re-labelling the same crap everyone else is buying and re-labelling. I feel he's already mortgaged the future, and he keeps re-financing with every budget.

I'm not cranky that Eisner has made today's WDW no fun. I'm disheartened that the essence of the Disney Magic that created life-long fans is dissolving before our eyes, and that today's 7 year olds, once they reach my creaky age, will see Disney as but one of many equivalent choices.

Jeff
 
WOW!!! The LandBaron stands a wildly cheers!!! The applause is deafening!!!

VERY, VERY well said!!

Thank you!!


Let me just add:
My guess is that's true for a lot of the thirty-somethings who are taking their kids there now.
And "OLD" ;) forty-somethings!!!

Thanks again!!
 
Jeff - you make a great point about what today's kids will think of Disney when they grow up. I think they should be very concerned about that, judging from my own kids' evolving opinion. They'd still go back to WDW at the drop of a hat, but when they have to spend their own money on a vacation (and that day is coming for them in not too many years) I suspect they'll look at it and say "you know, we've been there enough - time to see other places". I know the direct to video sequels turn them off - and they don't have the sense of perspective about just how old and classic Snow White, Dumbo, Peter Pan etc. are (with upcoming sequels that make me cringe).

Several threads are touching on this same subject - the brand is slowly eroding. Many people argue that it isn't - based just on their own feelings and their kids' feelings. But if many people feel it is - and I doubt my kids are the only ones (early to late teens) who feel this way - then I believe it is.

Disney is drawing down their "bank" of goodwill. It's time to start building it back up. Announce BK as part of the 100th celebration (Walt would be proud, I think). Knock our socks off with the 3rd gate at DL. Do something to get us excited again. (Well, I can dream, can't I?)
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top