Specific Business Issues

[YoHo]

DVC, Would that then, be a large scale Resturantasourus, A McDonalds staffed by Disney CMs?


(It may be hard to tell the difference, at least around chicago with the corporate bigwigs close, McDonalds employees are generally pleasent)


Disney will always own support industries, certainly they perform the proverbial Barnicle Scrapping on WDW. If the suggestion is that they outsource the whole shebang, that's one thing. If its used exclusivly for the cruise line which has operating principles close enough to the resort system to make managment of both reasonable, then it doesn't make so much sense. Disney is after all, good at running the whole resort system, why let someone else do it when you do it better (read, their is no real profit advantage.


If your going to Divest, then you have to do it logically, Divest of like industries and focus on those that operate along similar profit positions.
Then once you've done that, you can take a long hard look at what's left and see what can be made profitable, and what can't.

Remember we're talking about real employees here and right now, most of them won't be hired on elsewhere. I know.

 

[Another Voice]

In the crassest terms – entertainment in nothing more than emotional experience wrapped up and sold in the market. Emotion IS the product, that’s what entertainment companies sell and that’s what consumers are looking to buy. It’s not an optional ingredient. The public has a very strong ability to spot products where it’s lacking (‘Tomb Raider’) or where it was poorly created (‘Pearl Harbor’). You may be able to trick people for a short time, but they figure it very quickly (‘The Mummy Returns’). Hollywood is carpeted with the ruins of companies that failed to understand this, or tried to cheat (and cheapen) their product around the public’s desires.

Making good product is difficult, and to create a successful company creating successful product is a challenge beyond measure. There is no formula, there is no method, there is no model. Despite Mr. Eisner’s famous quote about ‘Pearl Harbor’, there isn’t anything even close to a sure thing here in Tinsel Town. To produce good entertainment, it takes the full attention and effort of a company.

Because of this, the “norm” for successful entertainment business has always been different than the norm for other businesses. Even corporate America realizes the difference. The two most “corporately” owned entertainment companies – NBC (General Electric) and Columbia/Tri-Star (Sony) are run at an arm & half length from their parents. Those corporations that didn’t understand the message – Coke, Seagrams, Matshustia, Transamerica – have left the industry. If companies with the business skills as Coca-Cola and Sony both couldn’t handle Columbia Studios – how will an industrial/conglomerate mentality work any better at Disney?

Wall Street backs take-over attempts of entertainment companies when it feels that someone else could run the company better than the current management can. No one is making a play for Dreamworks or MGM right because Wall Street knows that no other management team could run the companies better (although MGM has hit a rough spot). Disney got into trouble in the eighties because Wall Street felt someone could run the company better than Ron Miller and Card Walker. Disney is in trouble today because some on Wall Street feel someone else can do a better job than Michael Eisner.

Few other companies have the resources, and I mean creative resources, that Disney has. As long as Wall Street feels they are being properly used, the company will be safe with or without a cruise line. But, if Wall Street feels that assets are being underutilized, Disney could own General Electric and still not be safe. As the cliché goes, around here you’re only as good as your last movie – it doesn’t matter how big your name is on the marquee.


P.S. Thanks for the kind words Landbaron. It can get cold and lonely way out here in the black depths of The Dark Side. As for taking over for Mr. Eisner, I think I got as close on the org chart as I wanted to be.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

First off to my good friend Peter Pirate!!! Well, we go back a long way. If I were finding my way back home to Kansas, you’d be my scarecrow though this wonderful land. So, I really have to ask - What the #%*@^$#(*^!!

I would like to thank those of you have posted here for showing me the path...I would like to, but I can't. I will instead thank Tannerman …

Tannerman!!! Tannerman !!! Well I like that!!! Thanks a lot pal!!! After all we’ve been through!! Well!! Hurmph!! I never!!

YoHo, my friend!!

DVC, Would that then, be a large scale Resturantasourus, A McDonalds staffed by Disney CMs?

YoHo. First off the Cruise line isn’t important enough to me to waste a whole bunch of time or thought on. I would have a sharp pencil guy (yeah they have their uses) look to see if we should own or franchise or just get out all together. If the best course would be the franchise thing, then the difference comes into play. It is a simple concept. Kind of like the “berm”. You know. The “berm” that Disneyland has and the “berm” that DCA doesn’t. When you’re talking about a McDonalds IN WDW you’re purposely breaking the berm. And you’re doing it consciously. Deliberately. And you didn’t have to!! But, when you take your SHOW on the road (i.e. a cruise ship) you can’t reasonably expect to control the “berm”. I know it’s subtle difference, but to me it makes all the difference in the world. (BTW, is berm spelled right? I could swear I’ve seen it this way, but Microsoft Word doesn’t recognize it. Ah heck! Maybe it’s only a word that Disney People use!!)

AV, sage of the Rumors Board

In the crassest terms – entertainment in nothing more than emotional experience wrapped up and sold in the market. Emotion IS the product, that’s what entertainment companies sell and that’s what consumers are looking to buy. It’s not an optional ingredient.

WOW!! I could have used you in a bicker thread I had not too long ago. I search for the very words you put together so well. And there is nothing at all crass about it!!

we were doing so well with specifics and then--whamo-the thread turned into "quality" generals.

That is the specific!! NOTHING else matters. The other things come and go. Selling emotion (GOD!! I love that) and quality is their core business. See what people want to talk about!!

I mean licensing Walt's name to Carnival Cruise line. Did I really hear (or see) that? And a second to that motion by DVCLB? The same person who dreads corporate sponsors and alliances so much.

Ahhhh! But have you ever really read and understood my posts? If you had, you wouldn’t be surprised at all. As I said to HoYo, first off it’s small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Do away with or keep it. I really don’t care. Or franchise it. Let Carnival own the ship. The SHOW would be Disney’s. No worse than leasing the corner building in Chicago for it’s DisneyQuest. How is that contrary to my usual stance?

As for DVC ownership. Again. Small potatoes. I do have vested interest to see it remain in Disney, but I’m pragmatic enough to say, “what the hell!!” I kind of think that “resort’ functions can and should be Disney run. I suppose this goes for the cruise line too, but as I said, it’s not important enough to worry about. So, the sharp pencil guys can figure that out. They wouldn’t have much else to do, as they would be forbidden to value engineer attractions any longer!!!!

 

[DisDuck]

Just a tidbit from the Duck. Anyone remember The Big Red Boat. Disney tried the license the name bit once before and it FAILED. Outsourcing sounds great but try it once and you do not come back for seconds. The nuts/bolts of the operation are still controlled by the owner not the licensor so customer service can still go down hill.

I have been on DCL and just about all the reports coming from other cruisers, including one who is approaching 20 trips with DCL, is that the ships are a little bit of Magic on the high seas. Just like being at a floating Contemporary or Polynesian.

AV had some good specific ideas and some not so good. I would get rid of sport teams as they tend to eat more more than make money (unless you are the Yankees or Dodgers) but keep TV (including Cable) as it gives the company an outlet for hooking people by keeping their name even more visible.

DCVLB.. do you really want someone else running the villas or any of the resorts for that matter. I think they are a great tie in to the parks. In fact, if I hadn't purchased the current timeshare I own (prior to Disney offering DVC) I would have purchased there. It is a good draw to bring back repeat customers even if no expansion to parks.

While I feel that MGM and AK are full day parks (DVC you claim viewpoint on parks is subjective so my take is full for both, who is right and who is wrong, cannot tell) add new attractions to them to increase the 'buzz'. Also, do same for EpCot.

Maybe the way to accomplish this is to not split up Disney into core/non-core but reorganize the company, making the different units more independent. This way less drain on going portions to subsidize others. Set ROI guidelines for each profit-center and R&D budget for each profit-center independent of each other. In this scheme ABC/TV ventures would have to stand more on its own merits rather than take money from parks.

I find this kind of debate much better than good-Walt/bad-Eisner debating.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

One thing I do understand is that whoever created that dang "Quote" button should buy stock in you!

It is currently selling for $57.63 a share (undervalued!!). Which is much better than Disney.

Now quit quoting and offer some specific ideas.

I've tried to solicit some more because you can leave burn Rome or rebuild it.

Just don't stand there and look at it.

Now come on and leave the amens in the keyboard and propose solutions.

And, please, QUIT SHOUTING SO MUCH

Is there anything else you don't care for in my posts? I mean are there other rules I should observe? Sentence structure, dangling participles, fragments, spelling? Would it be alright if I still spell Ei$ner with the "$" (it's kind of a trademark you know)? Please let me know! THANKS!!

But this caveman like "Walt Good", "Mike Bad" general debate seems to have been tweaked, twisted, and tweened (a word?) from every angle.

But it's quite evident that you still don't get it! And let me further clarify. Mike isn't "bad". He just doesn't get it either. So, while he may not be a 'bad' guy, or even a 'bad' CEO for almost any other corporation in the world, because he doesn't 'get it', he is very, very 'bad' for Disney.

Conversely, Walt is not inherently good. He was supposed to be a real SOB at times. He dipped his donuts in bourbon, for God's sake, first thing in the morning!! No, I am not out to make him a saint. And I realize that times change, peoples perspectives change and stagnation is the surest way to bankruptcy, both financially and creatively. What I ALWAYS point to is his philosophy. And specifically his philosophy regarding the SHOW. And the SHOW should be sanctified. Whether dealing with the SHOW of the theme parks or the SHOW of a film, it must be sacrosanct! It is pure. And if you put your Walt head on, and be just a little practical and maybe a bit pragmatic dealing with time differentials, you can answer all these questions for yourselves. And I'm thinking that there would be little debate. Oh, a couple gray areas, the cruise line and DVC come to mind immediately. But other things are really no brainers. Let's try one, OK? Theme parks - Central to the core or not? Well… hmmm… Let me see…

See how easy it is? And it's even fun! Theme parks, of course, are part of the core!! As is animation. And we can stretch those two just a little to include some live action motion pictures and resorts (which makes the cruise line, DVC and some television venues gray areas).

Let's try another. And this is tricky. At first glance it seems to fit, but… Well… Give it a try. ABC: a keeper or do we dump it? Not from a business perspective (you keep on about sharks, so functionally we may need to keep it until we can get out gracefully. I'm talking philosophically.) We dump it of course!!! (And as an aside, it doesn't matter if it's a money maker or not. While it may generate unbelievable profits, it is not centered to the 'core'. And if it's margins are in fact marginal or a loser, it only makes dumping it imperative instead of just desirable.)

Want to do another one? OK! Let's try: sports teams. Well? What do you think? Keep or dump? Don't think as Walt would, but instead use his philosophy. Not in 1950's style, but extrapolating his 'philosophy' to the 21st Century. You will find that not much has really changed. You will find that the only criteria is, "can it work with what we do best?" (keeping it close to the core) and "If we do it, can we, do it right? Can we make it a Disney experience? Or will it be just like any other ball club in the world, the only difference being a Disney logo on the uniform somewhere?"

The point is you keep forgetting the philosophy. Maybe what you need is a mission statement. Lets try this one from AV:

The purpose of Disney is to make fantasy into reality.

Wonderful. That is a pretty good start to a Disney mission statement!! Can they do that with a sports team? Well, I suppose a very skilled attorney could make a case that it could be so. But I get the feeling that there would be several raised eyebrows within the jury as they retired. I suppose what I'm saying is if you need to hire a lawyer to make it fit within the mission statement, then it doesn't belong there in the first place. And in this case, being just another ball club really only dilutes their brand name in the long run.

How about this one?

entertainment in nothing more than emotional experience wrapped up and sold in the market. Emotion IS the product, that's what entertainment companies sell and that's what consumers are looking to buy. It's not an optional ingredient.

That is the essence of Disney. The only thing that AV left out is that Disney does it right, or they don't do it at all. In other words they are THE best at providing this emotional commodity. Whether it is the passionate response they elicit by providing a resort that blows you away (emotionally) or an hour and a half of (laughing, crying and everything else in-between) animation.

But alas, it is a little long for a mission statement. So, if you agree with the premise, let's whittle it down a bit. And while were whittling, let's make it Disney's. Why don't you have a stab at it. I mean, after all, any good business has a short, simple and clear mission statement, on which ALL other decisions are based. It is there we have to start. Otherwise we are all coming at it from different angles.

Your turn.

 

[YoHo]

DisDuck, I see you subscribe to the YoHo (read 3Com) school of corporate Org.

Give it a try. ABC: a keeper or do we dump it? Not from a business perspective

Landbaron you make it even more simple then it is.

Think of it this way, what is the difference between network television which Disney has not done well and Filmed Entetainment which Disney has had successes in? The difference is the structure needed to realize profits. The way you structure it so is to give them a seperate corporate structure with its own support staff. They run the buisness the way it needs to be run and you watch profits and stock price go up. They need to be kept at arms length.


There's such a thing as non-core buisness that it is highly desirable to keep.

As I said before, unless Tribune or Steinbrenner (I don't know how the dodgers do for profits) are selling, sports teams are bad mojo.

nd we can stretch those two just a little to include some live action motion pictures

Do you say these things for the express purpose of pushing my buttons, or do you really believe this?
Live action is core, there is no strech there. Its as core as animation. Need I remind you of Mary Poppins? True Life adventures? The Love bug? Song of the south? 20,000 Leagues under the sea? Three men and a baby?
Is this forgetfulness? or do you not think that these good films count as core?

Of course all of that is irrelevent. I would defer to AV's superior knowledge, but I believe Miramax/Dimension with their hands off Disney structure do pretty well. So why divest? They sell emotion pretty good.


One good point that I think AV makes, which you landbaron seem to have missed is that

entertainment in nothing more than emotional experience wrapped up and sold in the market.

That's entertainment, not Animation, or theme parks. It encompasses a large variety of products.


I would suggest that Disney is failing with ABC and other Entertainment arms, for the same reason that they are failing in animation. They are trying to be GE instead of trying to be an Entertainment corp.

If they figure that out, we won't be talking of Divesting a lot of this.
The sad part is that Eisner knew how to be a successful entertainment CEO and lost it.


If anything, the biggest division that should be spun is the Disney Stores, UNLESS, you plan on drastically reducing what they sell and how they sell it. Sears would be better at doing the selling.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Think of it this way, what is the difference between network television which Disney has not done well and Filmed Entetainment which Disney has had successes in?

Simple. Making 'MAGIC'! You can do wonderful things with a fair amount of consistency through films. You can elicit a whole bunch of emotions through films. Does this mean that every film you make will do it? No, of course not. But the potential is there every time out of the box. Conversely, you CANNOT do it consistently, 24 by 7, on a TV network. Period! You cannot live up to the mission statement of emotions. It is NOT possible. And by not living up to the mission statement, the brand suffers. It becomes ordinary. Everyday. And some of the 'magic' wears away.

The difference is the structure needed to realize profits.

Sorry, YoHo. But profits don't enter into the equation at this point at all. First you need to hold it up to the mission statement. Does it fit? Can it work, within the confines of it? Then second, can we "Do it right"? Only after these two questions are answered can we then ask if it can be set up profitably. If it fails ANY of these three, we don't do it. Period. But to talk about profits before the other two… well.. I think you're way ahead here.

There's such a thing as non-core buisness that it is highly desirable to keep.

I strongly disagree!

As I said before, unless Tribune or Steinbrenner (I don't know how the dodgers do for profits) are selling, sports teams are bad mojo.

Again I disagree. They are BAD MOJO - Period!!!!

Do you say these things for the express purpose of pushing my buttons, or do you really believe this? Live action is core, there is no strech there.

Well, I suppose I agree, again to a point. Mary Poppins (and the like) I consider animation anyway, but technically you are right. I'm talking about the MANY film divisions they have. I'm talking about restructure so that these divisions fit nicely within the mission statement. And when I said stretch, I did indeed misspeak somewhat. What I meant was:

THE CORE:
1- Animation/Disney type (G) films
2- Theme Parks

Complimentary to the CORE (but every bit as important):
1- Major motion pictures (but very selective!!)
2- Resorts (vacation venues!!)

Is that a better way to look at it? And if you don't like that call it inner core and outer core. Whatever. I think you get the point.

One good point that I think AV makes, which you Landbaron seem to have missed is that:
"entertainment in nothing more than emotional experience wrapped up and sold in the market."

WHAT!! How can you say I missed it when I QUOTED IT!!!! It is the very heart of the mission statement! Or is your point about entertainment vs. animation (which I never postulated)? If that is it, I agree!! Just not with a mundane, archaic and unwieldy device such as a TV network! A TV nework is NOT an art house/business (which a film studio could be). A TV network is a business. Plain and simple. Period! No 'art' about it. And therefore, no emotion. Some of the shows within the network fit the mission statement of creativity and emotional response. But not the entire network!! It is no different than the paint company. In fact it's even worse, for the press it gets and the HUGE potential it has for tarnishing the brand name.

The sad part is that Eisner knew how to be a successful entertainment CEO and lost it.

We will have to agree to disagree!!

 

[YoHo]

thedscoop


I agree with Landbaron to a degree that with what a full blown Television Network (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX) it is highly difficult to run magic 24/7.
similarly, with a Cable channel, it is so much more like a movie house, you have far more creative control with much more manageable goals.


The reason I'm breaking from Landbaron is something AV said. He indicates that one of the reasons that GE succeeded with NBC, is that it let it run at arms length. This suggest to me that in fact, a Television network is like a filmed entertainment company.


I myself have no knowledge about what it takes to run such a company, neither does DVC, therefore, neither of us can truely claim to have a debatable position on the subject. My gut says you keep it, his says you don't So it goes.


DVC has taken a far more hardline approach to what needs to go, I'm not so Hack & Slash.

What I do believe, is that the mission statement should read something like this....

To produce products people enjoy, to enjoy every product we produce. To exceed our expectations, to exceed our customers expectations. We are passionate in all we do. The short hand for this is Disney MAgic.
Our product is Entertainment (emotion, what ever, all entertainment)

This mission Statement doesn't eliminate buisness based on how similar they are to filmed entertainment.

It does require you to do things with passion. To do things with quality. If you don't have the talents to do them right, and/or aren't willing to do what's needed to do it right, then it isn't done.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Landbaron proposed "inner core" & "outer core" and this sounds good but he dismisses television. I suggest a third category, perhaps "supportive". While I too agree that television is not going to be "magic" 24/7, what happend to the Disney quality commitment? Are you guys saying that if Disney had the balls to commit to quality entertainment (on network tv) that they couldn't blow the competetion out of the water? Or at least severly raise the bar? Televison is such a fit with the Disney model that I'd hate to see it given up on. They have done a great job with the Disney Channel (it is on almost all of the time in my house) and I can't help but believe that with quality programming, at the stated arms length (I agree with Yoho - wow) network TV is simply a huge advbantage to the Disney core business...

 

[JeffJewell]

...to quit the boards, but when I read things like "To produce products people enjoy, to enjoy every product we produce. To exceed our expectations, to exceed our customers expectations. We are passionate in all we do. The short hand for this is Disney MAgic" coming from historical adversaries like YoHo, I've got to chime in.

Well said.

Jeff

PS - As long as I've blown my cover anyway, I'll toss in a quick (well, quick for me, anyway) bit pertaining to the conversation in general. DVC doesn't go for the sports teams, YoHo thinks that certain sports teams might be acceptable. I'm gonna go a different direction, entirely.

I hate baseball, and I played it from the time I was six until I was eighteen. Playing the game was tedious, watching it is excruciating. Baseball is three minutes of action packed into three hours of game.

That said, I must admit that one of my fond memories is attending a baseball game a few years ago at Camden Yards. I watched maybe an inning and a half of actual baseball, and the rest of my time I spent roaming the incredibly well-built park, sampling the varied, atypical, and consistently high quality snack stands and paraphernalia shops scattered throughout.

I hate baseball, but I'd pay to go back to Camden Yards.

Creating that kind of feeling is where I feel Disney has fallen down on the job. If Disney is going to have a ball club, so be it, but please, make the games a legitimate Disney quality experience. To me, that does not mean anyone has to guarantee a pennant or a certain number of wins. It means to put everything you've got into it. It means, well, it means what YoHo said, up there. He said it really well.

If ABC affected us to a small fraction of the degree that Pinocchio affected us, none of us would be suggesting it be jettisoned.

 

[Another Voice]

A television network and a studio are two vastly different business. A studio creates product, a network simply distributes it. ABC, from a business sense, is much more like The Disney Stores than it’s like Filmed Entertainment. ABC makes it’s money by selling programs to the audience, and then selling those customers to advertisers. The network's chief concern is to gather only those eyeballs that someone else is willing to pay for. The network itself has no stake in the quality of the programs or of its audience so long as some soap company somewhere is willing to mail in checks. GE is successful with NBC because while GE knows zilch about making quality entertainment, it sure knows how to sell things.

From Disney’s point of view, it doesn’t matter what network carries a Disney program – in the same way it really doesn’t matter if GE Light Bulbs are sold through Kmart or through WalMart. It’s just a path to the consumer. Did everyone hear where the daytime version of ‘Millionaire’ has been sold to CBS? Did everyone see how much ABC is paying Warner Brothers for two more seasons of ‘Drew Carey’? A single studio can’t supply the variety of product that a network needs nor can it make money if it only sells it’s product in house.

The broadcast networks themselves are dying anyway. The days when 90% of the country plopping down on the couch and watching one of The Big Three are long gone – killed by cable, the VCR and the remote control. A show with huge ratings today would have lost its time slot to ‘I Dream of Jeannie’ during the heydays of Network TV. Of course the networks won’t disappear overnight, but the days of them as a profitable growing business are done.

My suggestion that Disney get out of broadcast television is based on it being a dying industry and the fact that there’s more money to be made in product creation than in product distribution (ask anyone who works for a trucking company). For long term survival, Disney and all of the other studios need to think ahead and, in thedscoop’s words, evolve into the next means of distribution.

The smartest thing I have ever heard anyone at Disney ever say was from a head of Network Television. He said that “No one wants a television set with 500 channels. What they want is a television set with only one channel, but a channel that only shows what they want to see, when they want to see it.”

Next note, in my view “entertainment” can cover a vast range of businesses. It does not need to be confined to the traditional forms of films, music and books. In fact, on of the most popular form of entertainment is shopping. It’s fair to say that entertainment is more of a function of presentation than anything else – think of the difference between a Target store and Downtown Disney. Definitions of “core” and “non-core” are never going to be precisely made. (Welcome back Mr. Jewell – I completely agree about Camden Yards).

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

... but first a couple thoughts for thedscoop

Now doesn't that feel better… you talked specifics DVCLB and you did so quite well

I don’t know where you’ve been for the past year, but I’ve done little but talk specifics. I’m the one that gets bogged down in the minutia. You know, the famous ‘Mickey faced butter’ thread and ‘Workmen in broad Daylight” thread, to name just two. I’ve always talked specifics. And I always talk about how those specifics affect and reflect the show and Walt’s ‘philosophy’. In this I am consistent. It’s really easy. Just think of it in terms of a stage production and all the seemingly complex issues go away. It’s either right for the SHOW or it isn’t!! Even business related stuff. It is this basic premise that sets Disney apart from all other companies. You see, GE has complex problems and issues. General Motors has a whole bunch of business problems. Any other company on the world has multifaceted opportunities and business directions that simply boggle my little brain. But not Disney. Disney is different. Disney has a simple mission. Make magic. And ANYTHING that interferes with that, or detracts from it even slightly, MUST GO!!!!! And on the other hand, ANYTHING that furthers that cause, should be embraced or at least seriously considered. So, sometimes I do speak generally, but it is only because I have ranted so much on the specifics that I think everyone should know the ONLY specific that really counts. The SHOW!!!!

Now about this magical mission statement assignment from Professor DVCLB (adjunct of course ). I look back to some of my old posts

Well, let’s take a look at them all together. (BTW, I’m glad to see you’re using the quote thing. It’s fun, ain’t it?)

1- WDW evolves. It has to. Because after we go, its still here.
2- increase the scope and options of my vacation
3- a unique adventure

Hmmm. Doesn’t quite make up a mission statement, does it? You know, I’m in management. A couple of years ago a new Director was hired to head our Department. He went to all of the section heads and wanted a brief, on sentence, few words, mission statement from us all that would be the “WORD OF GOD” for our respective divisions. Now, you all know me. It takes me several sentences just to say hello!! How in the heck was I supposed to write a well-honed sentence describing my entire division and my life’s work!!! It was, by far, the hardest piece of writing I ever did. It started life as a page and a half of full-blown paragraphs and bullet statements. And the editing and condensing started. OH GOD!!! The agony!!! But I finally did it (with a lot of help, from anyone who would listen). And it really did set a focus for my Division. I had a sense of priority before the mission statement just because I lived it. But afterwards, EVERYTHING became crystal clear. There was no question whatsoever concerning prime goals, priorities and accomplishments. A very enlightening exercise.

And when I was pressed here, to put my feelings about Disney, into clear terms, I thought up the Walt Philosophy thing. Which to a certain extent is the mission statement. Exceed expectations and take care of the SHOW at all costs. And I have NEVER strayed from that one simple concept.

And that's why I preach specifics. Fix the fumbles. Protect the ball. And try to win the game.

I agree. But you can’t win the game if you don’t know where the goal line is!! You need to focus. You need to know where you’re trying to go, otherwise you won’t know when (or if) you get there. You need a mission statement!!!! A general principle to guide you through the nonsense. To keep you away from ABC and paint companies. To steer you into automatically exceeding expectations and taking care of the SHOW at all costs.

Whew, that was long-winded, now back to details. Maybe, Disney should sell the sports teams, place live action and animation all under one wing, keep ABC, ESPN, and modify the Disney Channel to a fox family type channel. Then, put DCL and DVC into a division together. And then really put some meat into Celebration as an immersive attraction.

Under what criteria did you make those decisions? To me they are all over the map.

YoHo

It does require you to do things with passion. To do things with quality. If you don't have the talents to do them right, and/or aren't willing to do what's needed to do it right, then it isn't done.

NO!!!! It does not go far enough. Quality in what? We can have the best quality paint in the market and that still doesn’t make it fit with what the mission statement should say. You have to narrow the focus a bit otherwise, like thedscoop, you’ll be all over the map.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well, I tried to be concise, to the point and specific, but apparantly I was wrong again! You guys are brutal

Jeff says

If ABC affected us to a small fraction of a degree that Pinocchio affected us, none of us would be suggesting it be jettisoned.

So, because the current ABC philosophy is wrong , that's it? I thought we were discussing the specific possiblities for running Disney the "Disney way"? Certainly you devout Disney fans don't doubt that Disney could install absolute quality to its programming do you? To dump ABC would be a huge mistake especially since so many extremely useful & profitable synergies still exist to aid the core mission statement...By the way, Pinnochio affected me very little...

AV, you mention that network tv is "dying" as a reason for it not being worth the effort. But as I recall the development of home video at one time led many to see the demise of movie distribution as we knew it and didn't the advent of the internet cause many to see the immediate downfall of numerous established business models? Have these things come to pass? No. Will they? Probably yes, but not in a blink. Therefore it seems totally incumbant on Disney to bring ABC into the quality fold of a Disney product even while keeping its operation at arms length (I do belive that would be sound). There is just too much potential with ABC to give up. Heck, one show alone allowed them to be number one for awhile. I say make it work Disney style then sell it when it is profitable and when AV's prediction for the decline of network influence seems more concrete.

 

[JeffJewell]

So, because the current ABC philosophy is wrong , that's it?

Actually, I ducked a certain aspect of the "specifics' discussion, and wasn't suggesting anything in particular be done with ABC. I suggested that if ABC was doing some higher quality programming, that viewers and advertisers would follow and it wouldn't even come up to be searching for specific things to do better.

I don't have all the answers, I don't think I ever implied that I did. Suggesting specifics, in a lot of cases, has a lot more to do with personal preferences than does dealing with certain generalizations (not that folks shouldn't do it, I personally simply don't care to go in that direction).

For instance, I've never been much of a fan of Disney's live action, particularly the television live action. Even so, I can recognize the quality and care put into the old Mickey Mouse Club, or the Davy Crockett show. And I can appreciate the value those shows added to the company. If we were talking "specifics" at the time, I'd probably have said to cancel both of them, to label them "non-core," largely because I simply didn't care for them, didn't think they "fit." I don't think my thoughts on specifics would have been valuable to anyone, even me, in the long run.

So I'm not intentionally mucking about the question, nor even disagreeing, necessarily, with anything anyone has said. I just don't think my version of "specifics" should carry any particular weight, so why go into it?

If forced concerning the ABC topic, I'd squirm a bit and say that they should broadcast shows where talented creators were given the freedom to make something they loved, like, for instance, the pre Sci-Fi channel Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Happening to light on ABC briefly this evening, I instead saw PeeWee Herman wearing Austin Powers' clothes and hosting the short-bus version of Win Ben Stein's Money.

I don't have anything personal against Paul Reubens or anyone else involved with the show, I just didn't feel the love, if you see what I mean (also, I happen to think my expressions of disdain are far more entertaining than my gushing. You be the judge).

I didn't mean to try to divert anyone from specifics, and I think everyone's specifics are perfectly valid if we look at things from a particular point of view.

There have been times that Disney has done something I _never_ would have specifically suggested, but that has grabbed my imagination, once I saw it. I don't want Disney to do the things I specify, I want them to grab me some more. Do it so good I have to like it.

I certainly didn't mean to be brutal, nor imply that I thought you were wrong about anything in particular.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

NO!!!! It does not go far enough. Quality in what? We can have the best quality paint in the market and that still doesn’t make it fit with what the mission statement should say. You have to narrow the focus a bit otherwise, like thedscoop, you’ll be all over the map.

I'm tempted to quote the CEO of my company who said that mission statements are for companies that don't know what they do......for companies that will fail.


Having said that, Landbaron I'm so dissappointed, you didn't even read my mission statement. Here I'll retype it.

To produce products people enjoy, to enjoy every product we produce. To exceed our expectations, to exceed our customers expectations. We are passionate in all we do. The short hand for this is Disney MAgic.
Our product is Entertainment (emotion, what ever, all entertainment)


That is plenty specific and NO, Paint could NOT fall under that mission statement.

(Did you know that Disney actually DOES make paint? Actually, I assume its some sort of License deal with a company. Head on Down to Menards and check it out, it comes premixed.)




As to ABC. I agree with Another Voice that Network T.V. is a Dying medium, but my problem is I can't figure out how you sell off JUST ABC and keep all the cable properties.(well, They can get rid of E! its offensive, but you understand) Cable properties as AV has alluded to and oothers have agreed with offer many oppertunities. Ideally, I'd turn ABC into a PAX/UPN/WB. the Broadcast version of TNN. That way you reach a bigger segment of the country, the problem is that you still need to generate ad revenue and court affiliates and the like. So, if they could sell ABC alone, I could deal with it. I would like to keep it, but I understand the nay-sayers.


P.S. I actually met the man who invented the Remote control. Crankey old Zenith Employee that was on Jay Leno when Jay did his show from Chicago a couple years back. I think He's still alive.
The guy doesn't watch T.V.

 

[doombuggy]

Whoa - cut down to 50 Disney Stores? You'll put me out of a job! while I agree that we have two many stores - I live just outside Philly and there are 6 - count 'em - 6 right off of consecutive Turnpike exits. That doesn't count the ones nearby in South Jersey. I haven't been to the new one in Cherry Hill, but I do not hear anything exciting about the decor. We do need to close stores, not a majority of them though. they are already closing some, anyway. I used to work 15 hours per week, now I am down to 4 - 7, if I am lucky. Yes, the merch needs to be improved. The economy is slowing down, which doesn't help. We have to be competitive in the market; unfortunately, the wheels turn slowly in a large corp.

We don't get a lot of guests in our store who have been to DCA, so I have heard nothing about it.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

YoHo's Mission statement:

To produce products people enjoy, to enjoy every product we produce. To exceed our expectations, to exceed our customers expectations. We are passionate in all we do. The short hand for this is Disney Magic. Our product is Entertainment (emotion, what ever, all entertainment)

OK!! Great start. And I did get a little confused when I first read it (sorry). For many this would work. But for me, I think, it still needs to be more succinct. Or maybe just fine tuned a bit.

Did you know that Disney actually DOES make paint?

Yes!!! That's why I said it!!!

Thedscoop writes:

You have to narrow the focus a bit otherwise, like thedscoop, you'll be all over the [map].

"Or maybe thinking outside the box."

You know, you could be right. All the ideas we've talked about, with a few exceptions (ABC and Paint companies come to mind quickly) could be a Disney product. I really thought that ball teams were out of the question. Until YoHo and JeffJewell described a less mundane experience. And with a little Imagineering I can see it turning into part of the "SHOW". But the simple acquisition of a Baseball Team just doesn't cut it. They don't have to win. They don't have to be good (although it would help). But it is imperative that they make it special. CMs in the stands hawking hotdogs! A "Disney" seventh inning stretch. Special scorecards and probably hundreds of other little unique touches that make the team a Disney team. And some of that uniqueness must be translatable to TV!!! If they were to commit to that, then, and only then, can it be a "core" Disney product.

So you're right. We may need to do a little "outside the box" thinking (one of my favorite terms at work. My employees have come to hate it!! )

I applaud your enthusiasm for specifics and your hope that it may cause a change, but I really think it's rather pointless with the current regime. It doesn't matter how many grand ideas we postulate on these boards. Ei$ner ain't listening!!!

(Now I'm really hoping AV steps in and tells the old LandBaron that he's very, very WRONG!!)