Walt stuff - Long (even for me) but GOOD!!!!

[pnelson]

I have a question for DVC-Landbaron-asked in the nicest possible way.

I could swear a while ago I read that you had decided to take a break from the debate board. That being the case, why are you starting a debate on another board?

I personally enjoy the debate board-I just look for other things on the rumor board.

I've always felt you debated fairly and had good points-maybe you would get a better debate over on the other board!!!

By the way, heard any good rumors lately????

 

[JeffJewell]

Walt Disney Purposely chose quality over a larger park. I would like to think that that was the choice made with both the studios and AK.

What evidence is there that Animal Kingdom's budget cuts were made as a result of choosing quality over a larger park? I mean, I'd like to think that way, too, but the reality of the situation leads me to believe otherwise.

We then also must define what is half a park? What does that mean? I think its arbitrary

Why must "we" define it? If "we" define something, that definition is subjective and peculiar to us, and is useless in a larger sense. You still haven't explained why you feel Disney's AK guest surveys, which particularly mention an overall lack of attractions and lack of full-day appeal, and upon which Disney itself has based desicions, are "arbitrary."

ANimal Kingdom is missing something and it has nothing to do with attraction count.

You certainly have the right to your opinion, but the guest opinions Disney has referred to suggest that attraction count is, in fact, one of the major factors contributing to AK's disappointing (and currently declining) attendance numbers.

Like it or not it represents Walt

Not to me it doesn't. I must not be communicating very clearly, the fact that Disney's actions over the past ten years are demonstrably against that which Walt wanted for his parks is the main reason I post so much.

So I call the Imagineers to the floor.

You'll have to call them from Islands of Adventure (where a bunch of AK Imagineers ended up after Eisner fired them) and PDI (where a bunch of Dinosaur Imagineers ended up after Eisner fired them). I doubt they'll answer, as they seem to be doing fine and creating some good work in their new positions.

Jeff

 

[larworth]

The measure seems pretty straightforward. If the average person only believes AK is worth half a day of their time than I’d say they built a half park.

I don’t necessarily think that building a half park at WDW is a big transgression of the guiding principles. If it is done well and adds to the guest experience than why wouldn’t it pass the test? I’m trying to avoid the debate over the quality level of AK, but rather is the half park concept really that big a deal at WDW?

Such a high percentage of people have park hoppers that I can rationalize the added transportation time with the opportunity to experience a very different theme park. Yes, they could have chosen to not open AK at all and invest more in MGM and EPCOT. It would have made touring easier, but less diverse. They could have held off building AK until they were ready to make it a full park (200?). Than I would be deprived of enjoying what is there for all those years. If the quality is high and the logistics reasonable than it doesn’t seem so wrong to me.

Now, I think it was inexcusable to charge the regular single day admission (the half park/full price decision at DCA is even more galling).

I also feel cheated when a ride is proposed than cancelled. However, it seems to happen all the time. So given that I can accommodate half a park at WDW, I don’t feel anymore cheated by no BK than I do by no Fire Mountain. Does the story of the park really suffer from not having the mythical creatures section? Don’t get me wrong the concept behind BK sounds great. Would love to have it. However, would I have thought this theme missing if it had never been announced. No I would just assume the park was designed to celebrate real creatures.

What makes not building BK a violation of the principles to me it that instead of something of high quality we got Dinorama. Plus they don't even have the decency to remove the references to it.

 

[JeffJewell]

...not to argue with you, we seem to be on pretty close to the same page overall, but I wanted to respond to this:

is the half park concept really that big a deal at WDW?

It's a big deal if the business model for the park was counting on guests extending their visit an extra day. When they find they can "fit AK in" to their "normal" vacation, the extra hotel bookings Disney was counting on don't show up. As you point out, parkhoppers make low AK admissions a moot point, but AK was not supposed to deliver its benefits through admissions, it was supposed to pull down extra guest nights.

Plain and simple, AK is not bringing in the revenue that Eisner said it would, and all of WDW is feeling the pinch.

You also correctly point out that this idea, as badly as it was implemented at AK, was done even more poorly at DCA.

What makes not building BK a violation of the principles to me it that instead of something of high quality we got Dinorama.

Yeah. What you said.

Jeff

PS: I've been trying to stay focused on hard business numbers, rather than my estimation of "Magic" inherent to the park(s) for two reasons. Most obviously, because that estimation is purely subjective and impossible to measure reliably. The other is a more personal reason; when I found these boards, I started commenting on the fact that Disney had been putting less and less Imagineering effort and budget money into new attractions, and that the overall quality was suffering. The response I got was that Walt was obviously a stupid businessman (no, I didn't believe it either) and Eisner was making the great business moves. So I'm trying to make the point that, even from a pure business standpoint, Eisner has made and continues to make magnificent blunders by turning his back on Walt's commitment to quality.

 

[YoHo]

quite frankly, I don't think guest survey's have enough value to determine what went wrong with AK. If asked the right questions, guest surveys could indicate tearing down cinderella castle and putting up an Arby's. How's that for magic?

So to me all the guest surveys say is that somethings wrong. what the guests say is wrong may or may not be accurate. My opinion is that the Attraction count is fine, but that the average visitor breezes past most of them possibly not even knowing they're there. That is a different kind of failure.

WE must define half a park, because otherwise WE, may be talking about different things. A half-day park is a totally and completely different thing from half a park. I have a sneaking suspicion that the failure to extend length of stay has little to do with AK's Half-day status and more to do with the customer bases inability, or unwillingness to get more vacation hours. This isn't a case of If you build it they will stay longer. When they average high payed Dotcom employee willingly spends 14 hours a day at work and skips vacation and they are your up and coming market. You have a problem. Combined with more extra curricular activities at school and changes in the way school years run. More and more I've noticed that WDW isn't as bad in the summer as it was in my youth, while supposedly quiet times are becomming hot.

I would suggest that you could build a park that made Disneyland look like nothing and would still fail to draw much longer stays.


This actually makes a case for building a park in the midwest. possibley a Disneyland or other themed park. Think of it having Disney 6 hours away instead of 26.


I'm not trying to defend mistakes here. I think I might have dragged us down a side pathway, but nothing exists in a vacuum and the days of cross-country road trips to wally-world may be sadly coming to an end as we are squeezed for time.

Disney is better-off right now maximizing the expireance they have rather then attempt to up length's of stay. Increase the numbers of Landbarons and general DISers who go every year.



P.S. Those are not the Imagineers of whom I speak. Most of the ones I'm talking about are dead, or at least retired. IOA doesn't impress me as being loaded with magic.

 

[larworth]

JeffJewel

Your right if we want to critique the decision making acumen of management.

If they really believed they could get people to pay full price, and stay the full day buying food/merchandise they were wrong. If this is what they really wanted than I agree they blew it by not adding BK.

I was only arguing from the principles side, not the business side. It seems clear they made this same business misjudgement at DCA.

The fascinating part of trying to understand their logic was the timing. Not only was the economy in a growth phase, but they had their biggest competitive threat (IOA) looming on the horizon. On the surface, not a time when you get conservative.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

…critique the decision making acumen of management.

MAN!!! I wish I had said that!!!

Not only was the economy in a growth phase, but they had their biggest competitive threat (IOA) looming on the horizon. On the surface, not a time when you get conservative.

Not only on the surface, but any way you look at it. EXCEPT, if you look at it from the GO.COM (and other failing ventures) perspective. They needed the cash to look better on paper. For Wall Street. To prop up a stock. In other words for the short term gain (can't get much shorter that a quarterly report) rather than long term guest satisfaction.

What really bothers me about this fiasco is the impression that EVERYONE has today that they never had before. That Disney CAN be less than the highest quality possible. That was a thought that was never recognized before. It was laughable. Before, people liked Disney or they didn't like Disney, but I don't think too many would have thought to question the quality. It may not have been their cup of tea so to speak, but they couldn't argue with the quality of the product. Today that is definitely NOT the case. Today, even the most ardent Disney fans, question, or at least are not surprised by others questioning, the quality of Disney. That was unheard of years ago!! Absurd idea!!

As evidence I will reference (once again) our own beloved DIS boards. Look at the number of threads that question the very being of AK. Right now there is a thread that asks the question: AK - Hit or Mistake? GOOD GRIEF!! Can you even imagine a question like that being posed before Ei$ner?

Imagine a thread from twenty or thirty years ago:
Walt Disney World - Hit or Mistake?
Or
EPCOT - Hit or Mistake?

I certainly can't. Yet currently we all accept this as the norm. It never was before. So what has crept into our consciousness that we now take it for granted? It is a given. Whether you agree or not you accept the question of poor quality. THAT ISN'T WHAT DISNEY IS SUPPOSED TO BE!!!

I don't know. Maybe it's just me. I think I need a bouncy!!

Ahhh! That's better!

 

[YoHo]

Landbaron, I agree that you wouldn't see that kind of debate 30 years ago, BUT, at the same time our ability we ordinary citizens have to interact with others in debate on topics for which we have such focus and concern is so new as to be unprecedented. Its quite possible that had the Internet been around at the time, Even Walt himself would receive this kind of falderall, BECAUSE now everyone has an opinion. and all it takes is one person to spark these kinds of debates.

So, yes, I agree with you that it is unheard of that these discussions take place, but I don't contribute it simply to managments failure. that's part of it, but not all of it.

 

[JimB.]

I don't have much time, but I'll take up the guantlet on a couple of DVC's points of contention, with no attempt to persuade, just a few objective facts:

1. Real world intrusions - sponsorships, McDonalds

Please note the following:

a.) In a National Geographic Article titled "The Magic
Worlds of Walt Disney" 4 different signs of
corproate sponsorship are noted in pictures:
Borden, Kraft, Chicken of the Sea, & Boeing.
Also present in DL park that I know of at this time
were General Motors & TWA.

The date of this article?? - August 1963

b.) Thomas R. Elrod, Disney director of marketing,
quoted in 1983 (before the horrible Days of
Eisner) "......we decided that by ........ October 1,
1982, we wanted every man, woman & child in
the U.S to have at least heard the word EPCOT
..........................without spending any media
dollars at all" He did this by relying on the
independent promotions of the Corporations
that had given $300 million to Disney to
associate themselves with Disney symbols.........

Bottom Line - corporate sponsorship of Disney is not a new "Evil Eisner" thing. It's been around for decades.

2.

Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, Cirque, Disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, Fantasia Gardens. Most, if not all, are glaring examples of what the original Disney concept is NOT!!

Donn B. Tatum is quoted as saying:

"There are many strings in our bow. Sometimes I feel the understandable preoccupation with Walt Disney World has tended to overshadow this important fact We are in a position to adjust the emphasis in our activities with the changes in the direction of the economy.

We can & will augment our motion picture and TV effort

We can and will expand in the field of outdoor recreation

We can and.....will pursue very seriously the possibilities of development abroad "

the date ?? December 8, 1973, St. Petersburg Times (once again note the pre "Evil Eisner" days)


That's all I have time for now. The real world beckons.




"Negative waves man, always with the negative waves......."

 

[JimB.]

Back from the real world ..............................

3. Sequels - cheapening of the brand

Please note the release of those cinema classics "Herbie Rides Again" & "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo", both released in the 70's to unanimously bad results, once again BEFORE the "Evil Eisner" days.

Also, on a slight tangent, but still applicable to the cinema end of things: In 1981 & 82, the company wrote off $21 million for "Something Wicked this Way Comes", $10.5 million for "Night Crossing" (which I personally thought was a pretty good flick), $10.4 million for TRON, and $6.8 million for "The Watcher in the Woods". The ONLY bright spot for the Movie business was $50 million in video rental for "The Fox & the Hound"

Additionally, TV revenues fell from $44.4 million in '82 to $27.9 million in '83.

(September 25, 1983 NYT "The Troubled World of Walt Disney Productions" , Thomas C. Hayse)

Note that in the pre -"Evil Eisner" days, that the motion picture/TV end of the company was falling flat on it's sword.

A telling quote from p 133 of "Vinyl Leaves" by Stephen M. Fjellman: "It wasn't until the arrival of ...... Wells & ....Eisner that the film divisions began to carry their own weight"

4. Half parks

Implying that everything in the pre "Evil-Eisner" days in the parks were hunky-dory..................... but note: EPCOT Center's 1st 6 months............ were spectacular. Crowds were larger than anticipated; but by the last quarter of 1983, the rush was over, and attendance began to drop." but OVERALL attendance rose !!! (sound familiar??? ) Orlando Sentinel, April 23, 1983

5. Cost for the average person

A few years ago, Phil Williams, Philip F. Wood & Harry W. Collison of the Real Estate Consortium of Winter Park claimed that:

"Disney has an elaborate plan to increase attendance by overbuilding the luxury hotel market on it's property and, as a result, forcing hotels away from Disney World to lower their prices substantially to remain competitive.
The goal: making a trip to Disney World more possible for lower income families.

from the "Florida Today" newspaper, July 27, 1986. A bit dated perhaps, but I think still relevant.

6. Changing attention spans


I think the point here is that rides are shorter then they used to be. Lessee: Dumbo - 90 seconds (ditto on the Astrojets, or whatever they are called) & the Mad Tea Party, The late Mr. Toad - approx 3 minutes, ditto on Space Mountain & the Carousel. Peter Pan - 4 1/2 minutes. Same w/ Snow White (& Winnie the Pooh, also).

Some newer attractions: RnR - about 3 mins (same as SM & BTMRR), ToT - about 4 mins. Alien Encounter - approx 12 minutes (?? short? Hmmmmmmm). Legend of the Lion King - approx 25 minutes. The (late??) Timekeeper - 12 minutes.

The point is: There is a mix of quick & not-so-quick rides of every "Disney Generation". IMHO the relevance of this does not hold much water.

7. Eisner too hands-on, too removed

Well, which is it?? Can't have it both ways.

8. Use of contractors

If a contractor can give you equivalent performance at a reduced cost, what's the BFD about this one??

9. Is lack of humor based attractions really an issue?

No. Winnie the Pooh not humorous?? Alladdins (sp?) Magic Carpet Ride not humorous?? I'll admit, I don't laugh much during Alien Encounter, but everyone I see coming out has a smile on their face. If they don't it's usually because they are a small child that shouldn't be there (BTW, I've seen the same thing on SM & HM also)

10. Do classic attractions really still work?

Yes. Personally, I still enjoy the daylights out of CoP.

11. Does the average person really perceive a change in quality?

I doubt it. I don't, & I probably go there more than most people. The most recent being a 3 day stay last weekend, where th FW management was EXCEPTIONALLY professional and respomsive.

12. Should all rides really be family rides?

Tough Question. Dunno. I think MOST should, but there is still a place for rides like RnR (although I would most heartily encourage my 77 y.o. mother to NOT go on it )

13. Exit gift shops

Walt Disney himself was once quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying "Dream, diversify - and never miss an angle " (Quote found on p.7 of "The Disney Studio Story" pub. 1988 by Richard Hollis & Brian Sibley )

Sounds like he would probably think the person who thought this one up was a pretty smart cookie.


Oooops. Real world calls again. Gotta' work tomorrow. Can't reply, but can read (computer firewalls at work )



Have Fun!!!



Negative waves man, always with the negative waves........"

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well JimB. Quite a gauntlet!! And quite a peanut gallery in the shape of thedscoop!! A cheering section it seems. OK, let’s get to it!!

ITEM #1

Real world intrusions - sponsorships, McDonalds

You win!! I give up!!

But you got me on a technicality. No. Perhaps not a technicality, but a case of carelessness when cutting and pasting. I lazily re-posted Larworth’s list. I figured it was as good a starting point for discussion as any. But didn’t bother to clean it up. And it needed a little cleaning to make it truly mine. So!!!! Now I have to live with it. And it is not my list!!! Ahhhhhh!!!! I would have NEVER put in the word “sponsorship”. I really wish it wasn’t there. But it is and you ATTACKED it, as I would have. But let’s try to salvage some of this. Let’s see what the original text said. There were two references to McDonalds.

"I don't want the public to see the world they live in while they're in the Park. I want them to feel they're in another world."

Are new Disney theme parks developed with a berm so that the outside world is shielded from the view of visitors inside the park?? or are they now building theme parks where you can see city streets from several vantage points in the park (see DCA). Do we need McDonalds restaurants from the everyday world inside the parks??

And

"The first year I leased out the parking concession, brought in the usual security guards - things like that - but soon realized my mistake. I couldn't have outside help and still get over my idea of hospitality. So now we recruit and train every one of our employees. I tell the security police, for instance, that they are there to help people. The visitors are our guests. It's like running a fine restaurant. Once you get the policy going, it grows."

Does Disney subcontract some of its food service? Does it allow outside vendors to sell in the parks? (See Dipping Dots, and McDonalds)

I guess the only question is: Do you have a problem with Walt’s philosophy when it comes to these two quotes? Because that’s what we’re really talking about. His philosophy on how to run a theme park. And both these issues cut to the heart of a “McDonald’s” in Disney. So again. Do you disagree with Walt’s ideals? I don’t. But Hey!! I certainly don’t know everything. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Walt was wrong. Maybe we’re still talking apples and oranges. In either case, it’s your turn. (And I do apologize once again for my carelessness. It won’t happen again.)

ITEM #2

Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, Cirque, Disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, Fantasia Gardens. Most, if not all, are glaring examples of what the original Disney concept is NOT!!

I really don’t see what your quote from the St. Petersburg Times has to do with this. If you mean that they should expand their market, I agree. If you mean to show that Disney, even in 1973, wanted to be dynamic, again, I agree. But what has that got to do with what we’re talking about? Mini-Golf???!!! Again. COME ON!!! It’s nice and all. I even let my son beat me every time we play. And he LOVES it. But are you seriously suggesting that we should be talking about this? DisneyQuest is indeed an interesting idea. And one that they seem to be frittering away. I think it is just this type of concept that Walt would have loved. I certainly love it. But they seem not to. Or at least they don’t know what to do with it. In either case, it doesn’t merit much conversation. Cirque?? It’s not even Disney!!! Like R&RC it’s “off-the-shelf!! (can a live show be off the shelf? But you know what I mean.) Very nice, but Anytown USA can hire them. Include it in the price of a ticket and now we’re talking. But until then, it’s a separate entity. And the last one; Boardwalk and Downtown Disney (by that I take it to mean Pleasure Island). Maybe I’m a little jaded. But I really don’t like either. First off, they are NOT family. And second, and even more important, it’s nothing I can’t get at home, and usually better. I live in Chicago. I can go to Rush Street (or other hot spots) and find HUNDREDS of clubs that are of a higher caliber that any in Pleasure Island. I think Disney should be unique. But it’s only my opinion. You, evidently disagree.

ITEM #3

Sequels - cheapening of the brand

Well, you certainly know your Ron Miller/Card Walker history. It’s a little part of Disney that I’d like to forget at times. But you are correct. They were as evil as Ei$ner is in some of the things they did. But I thought we were talking about WALT! If you want to talk about Ron Miller vs. Eisner I can do that, but I’ve got to admit it’ll be a little harder for me to win it. But what does Walt have to say about sequels?

"I believe the fun is in building something in bringing new things to life. We never do the same thing twice. After we've finished a job....we head in another direction. We're always opening new doors."

How many movie sequels does the company now produce? Which new directions in theme park entertainment has the Disney company taken? What new groundbreaking park is being built in the states? What new doors of entertainment is the company opening?

You do know about Walt and the Three Little Pigs story don’t you? Seems one of Walt’s early successes was the Three Little Pigs. So Walt set out to do what was even then standard practice in the industry. He produced a sequel. It BOMBED!!!! Taught Walt a valuable lesson. And for the rest of his life he carried a motto from that lesson. “YOU CAN’T TOP PIGS WITH PIGS!!” Now in all fairness, I can’t remember if the right word is “follow” or “top”, but the meaning should come through. Now let’s see what the evil emperor Ei$ner’s take on sequels is.

From the wonderful and insightful Mr. Another Voice!!

"Rumor" has it that Disney will be cutting back new animated features to once every two or three years. In their place, direct-to-video sequels and movie versions of animated television series will be released three times a year. 'Peter Pan 2' is just about complete and 'Cinderella 2' will be out in the near future. There's also talk of 'Dumbo 2' was well as a film about The Seven Dwarves (without Snow White). While these films are made to be direct-to-video releases (and produced overseas by non-Disney animators), some of the better ones [sic] may be given a theatrical release.

Yeah! Gotta love this guy!!!!

ITEM #4 - Half parks

Implying that everything in the pre "Evil-Eisner" days in the parks were hunky-dory..................... but note: EPCOT Center's 1st 6 months............ were spectacular. Crowds were larger than anticipated; but by the last quarter of 1983, the rush was over, and attendance began to drop." but OVERALL attendance rose !!! (sound familiar??? ) Orlando Sentinel, April 23, 1983

I didn’t know I implied that at all. If I did inadvertently imply it, I TAKE IT BACK!!! Heck! There were times in 1955 and 1956 that Walt almost didn’t make payroll. NO!! I never wanted to imply that things were always hunky-dory. Far from it. They spent all their money on the parks, neared bankruptcy, almost didn’t meet payroll and were generally on the brink of disaster many, many times. But they certainly built the parks right, didn’t they? I wonder if that’s where all the money went? You know!! I bet that’s just what happened. They sunk all their money into their idea of what a park should be. Whether it was Disneyland, WDW or EPCOT they gave it their best shot and their very last dime. And had faith that they DID IT RIGHT. (Sound familiar???) What do you think? Did they do it right?

ITEM #5 - Cost for the average person

"Disney has an elaborate plan to increase attendance by overbuilding the luxury hotel market on it's property and, as a result, forcing hotels away from Disney World to lower their prices substantially to remain competitive.
The goal: making a trip to Disney World more possible for lower income families.

Maybe I’m more dense than most. In fact, I’m sure I must be. Because I don’t get this little tid-bit at all. The way I read it - it is exactly the opposite of what actually happened. I know I have a habit of subtle (and not so subtle) sarcasm. But I ain’t kiddin’ guys!! I DON’T GET IT. Please explain. And be kind to an “old” guy. Thanks.

ITEM #6 Changing attention spans

I think the point here is that rides are shorter then they used to be.

YES!!! You get it. Now you’ve given some very good examples of the mixed bag of attractions that I’m always clamoring for, much to the chagrin of some of my supporters. We need a good mix. What we don’t need is Imagination (shorter), Pooh (shorter), Test Track (shorter), Space (shorter), Tiki Birds (shorter), and I’m sure others can think of more. (I have to concede that Space is only a rumor, I don’t need to get sidetracked in that direction!) The point is that many, many attractions and proposed attractions are shorter that the ones they have replaced. In fact I’ve been saying for a while that the very least EPCOT used to have was an attraction. And most were pavilions. Now the norm is turning into rides only. And even Six Flags does rides!!!! IMHO the relevance of this not holds water. It hold gallons of it!!!

ITEM #7

Eisner too hands-on, too removed

Sorry! My fault again. I didn’t pare down the list to make it my own. But I can offer you my take, which surprisingly, falls into lockstep with the original post.

"Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved."
Does Eisner walk the parks daily? Is there a spirit of constant improvement as regards the attractions, or are attractions shortened and redesigned so as to contain costs and provide opportunities to milk the visitors pocketbook?

I personally think Ei$ner hasn’t got a clue. Do you? Can you really type in, with a straight face, that you can picture Ei$ner, in shorts and a Hawaiian shirt, walking the park??!! Come on!! With a straight face type it in.

ITEM #8 - Use of contractors

If a contractor can give you equivalent performance at a reduced cost, what's the BFD about this one?

Sorry. I can’t disagree any stronger. And it goes back to what Walt said about it.

"The first year I leased out the parking concession, brought in the usual security guards - things like that - but soon realized my mistake. I couldn't have outside help and still get over my idea of hospitality. So now we recruit and train every one of our employees. I tell the security police, for instance, that they are there to help people. The visitors are our guests. It's like running a fine restaurant. Once you get the policy going, it grows."

I can’t possibly add to that. To me it says it all!!!

ITEM #9 - Is lack of humor based attractions really an issue?
At last we can agree. I don’t have a problem with this. It is one of the few items that the original poster has, that I don’t quite understand. I do fnd most newer attractions, even the cheap ones, to be fun.

ITEM #10 - Do classic attractions really still work?
WOW!!! We're on a roll. We agree again!!! Hmmm. I may finish this before dawn after all!!!!

ITEM #11 - Does the average person really perceive a change in quality?

I doubt it. I don't, & I probably go there more than most people. The most recent being a 3 day stay last weekend, where th FW management was EXCEPTIONALLY professional and respomsive.

Knew it was too good to last. I disagree. I think that subliminally it does effect the average guest. Just like that several thousand-dollar chandelier effected the guest in a positive way, the Ei$ner school of Disney effect the guest in a negative way. I really don’t think you can prove it one way or the other. But it seems to me that if Walt’s extravagance and obsessive quality goals worked to garner the allegiance of countless fans, then the opposite should hold true as well.

ITEM #12 - Should all rides really be family rides?

Tough Question. Dunno. I think MOST should, but there is still a place for rides like RnR (although I would most heartily encourage my 77 y.o. mother to NOT go on it)

Well, well, well. We agree again!!! But I think the point was the proliferation of height restricted rides and DCA in particular. Again, what does Walt say about it:
["I have never made pictures exclusively for children. But I regard them as important members of the family, and we have always considered their age, experience and taste in selecting our theatrical productions."—[/quote]
I really don’t see that much any more. Do you? I see rides geared for kids OR adults. Not both. Of course this isn’t every ride they come up with, but it certainly seems to be the trend lately.

ITEM #13 - Exit gift shops

Walt Disney himself was once quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying "Dream, diversify - and never miss an angle " (Quote found on p.7 of "The Disney Studio Story" pub. 1988 by Richard Hollis & Brian Sibley )

Nothing like quoting out of context!! I should know. I’m good at it. But if that quote is really true, and you want to tie it to exit gift shops, then why is that Walt had ZERO rides exiting gift shops and his immediate successors (trying very hard to be Walt-like) had only Pirates exit into a gift shop? But Ei$ner on the other hand!! WOW!! What a master!! Not only exit into a gift shop, but right through aisle after aile of plush toys and shiny things that make it a pure joy when exiting with a very alert seven and ten year old. Thank you Ei$ner for forcing me to say “NO” once again. Really a lot of fun!!!


Your turn!!


"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

 

[Captain Crook]

A hero is born! Not only does JimB makes sense (like me!) but has facts'n'figures to back them up!

Lets start, DVC, shall we? Talking about outside vendors, etc. you ask

Do you have a problem with Walt's philosophy when it comes to these two quotes?

Not the quotes per se, but Landbaron the vast numbers of CM's needed by Disney is getting harder & harder to come by. It is even reported here how un-CM like the CM's at DL behave on occasion. Therefore if Disney management can pass the buck on employment responsibility in minor non-guest relating areas, then it seems a fiscally prudent move...And one Walt never had to deal with...

Mini-golf???!!! Again. Come on!!!

What's wrong with mini-golf done right? So, it isn't magic to you (even though you like it), who's to say that it isn't a magical, Disney experience for some? No need to be elitist here. As for PI, sure there are better clubs elsewhere, but you're at WDW and it certainly WAS incumbant upon Disney to build an adult escape to lure the monied partiers and conventioneers in after park hours. Who ever said that every facet of Disney had to be held to the same high standards as the Parks? It would make no sense for Disney to create a world class club atmosphere when the types of people attracted (or looking to be attracted) would not be the 'professional club crowd!'

So Walt set out to do what was even then standard practice in the industry. He produced a sequel. It BOMBED!!!

Maybe Walt didn't have desire enough to do it succesfully. We have all heard, ad nauseum, how bored Walt got with the old. Regardless, it's irrelevent as Disney today has made a bundle producing direct to video sequels that only true Disney snobs get alarmed about. A sequel is just that. It stands or falls on its own and has no bearing or reflection on the original artistic endeavor.

:

Can you picture...Ei$ner in shorts and a Hawaiian shirt walking the park?

Unlike Walt, Eisner has many, many more things on his plate than the Parks. This may be unfortunate, but it is true and were Eisner walking the Parks daily, I believe you'd be getting your wish for a new "big Cheese" real quick...But, I'll bet Harris & Weiss are Park walking quite a bit and really that's their job in the 21st Century Disney!

OK. Now I gotta go to work, yet I'm only half way done responding...Perhaps we should all learn brevity! LOL!

 

[JeffJewell]

direct to video sequels that only true Disney snobs get alarmed about

...I think I'm done responding to you.

People other than you have valid opinions.

Jeff

 

[JeffJewell]

I think that subliminally it does effect the average guest.

I think the average guest is below average, these days.

It's obvious that quality means little to the average guest, the quality steadily declines, guests still show up. Anyone who asks "where did the quality go" is dismissed as a snob whose opinion is not worthy of note.

I know I get this way every so often, and here I am again. Let them wallow, Eisner is giving them precisely what they deserve.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

McDonalds in DIsney

As I recall, those McDonalds are staffed by Disney Trained CMs. Also, as I recall, the Last 2 times I ate a Disney Hamburger (December 2000 and July 1985) I ended up throwing most of it out, because it sucks. At least McDonalds is a known consistant thing. Plus I have to give props to the hometown boys.



Caliber of DTD, PI Mini-golf et al. I have never used the Mini-golf facilities at Disney, So I won't comment. As for PI. Landbaron, I'm probably a little more then Half your age, (you claimed in another post the high end of the forties, I'm 26)so I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I've been to Rush street (and more importantly Division street) more recently then you. If you really think that Chicago has better clubs then Pleasure Island, then please tell me where, because I've never been in one. Now granted, PI is in general an expireance I could get in Chicago (not every small town resident can though) But, not everyone lives in the big citie. AND, PI is unique in that People under 21 can get in (til a certain hour) and have fun in an Atmosphere unlike any club back home. (I've been to under 21 clubs around chicago, they suck)This is something meant for the big kids not ready to go to sleep after leaving the parks (even if the parks closed at midnight) Its the kind of thing some people like to do on vaction even if they can do it at home. Its something many people can't do at home.......

As for DTD. I'm not suchg a fan for the reasons you mention and the reasons you give for PI. I can go to house of Blues in Chicago. But, again, not everyone can.


As I recall, one of the reasons Disney bought so much property in Florida, was because he didn't want other companies intruding like they did in Anahiem. A guest who wants to do these non-disney activities had to leave the magical fantasy of WDW to do it. Now, they don't and they get a free ride back to the hotel to boot. Yes its opertunistic, its also good for the guest who wants to stay in that Disney atmosphere.





ITEM #5 - Cost for the average person

Actually, I think a trip to WDW is now more then ever possible for lower income families. remember that word you hate, INFLATION. The contention is whether that lower income family whether they stay at the Ramada, or the All Stars is getting the same expireance. But, I WILL NOT debate that topic and you KNOW why.
At any rate, that $75 All stars room would have cost $18 in 1972 Whereas the 1979 $75 Poly would have been $46.56
That is why it costs less.

Again, I will not enter any debates on expireance. I offend enough people without trying.



Eisner being hands on


Until he almost had his head taken off on Splash mountain, Eisner rode every single new ride before it opened. He was not in the parks the way Walt was (DL was Walt's baby, I doubt any executive, no matter how Walt like would spend as much time as he did), but he took a very active interest. It is a quite recent trend for him to be so removed.


Contractors,
Maybe I missed something, but Landbaron, your talking about people and JimB is talking about rides. IF(a big if) a contractor can get you the same quality as internal for less. Then yes, the contractor is a good thing. the problem is twofold.
1: Imagineering isn't giving you the required quality thus contractors appear as good.
2: Managment isn't demanding the level of quality and thus contractors are good enough.




Exit gift shops

The Exit to Pirates in Disneyland enters right into the hear of New Orleans square which is entirely made up of shops. Walt Built New Orleans square and THe original Pirates.
Its a small world in Anaheim Exits directly to a gift shop (I don't know when the gift shop was built.)

The following Eisner Rides (that I can think of) exit directly into a gift shop.
Pooh
Star Tours (both)


I may have forgotten some, I'm sure I've forgotten some. The point is that it isn't every ride and it doesn't seem to even be most rides.



At any rate, I'm done being in a good mood. I'm back to brooding over the Motor Launches waiting for some official word.(And ploting Ei$ner's doom should it prove true)

 

[Captain Crook]

Jeff, I sincerely apologize for inferring that those with differing points of view from mine were the "snobs" I mentioned. But, from the Disney knowledge vantage point I consider myself a Disney snob as well. I just don't feel my opinion is wrong or unenlightened, either, and just because we disagree doesn't mean someone is right or wrong except in our personal perspective.

I have always taken your opinions and given them the respect they deserve. I do feel much of what you and Landbaron preach about deep inside (fear for Disney's future), I just view it from a different perspective (I thought we'd already straightened this out).

Lastly I never said

Anyone who asks "where did the quality go" is dismissed as a snob whose opinion is not worthy of note.

Man! I never said that. Your opinion has always made perfect sense to me and I appreciate 95% of the people who post here for making this little 'get together' fun (most of the time), even, or especially when we disagree. As for the snob comment, again, I was referring to anyone who would look at every film and critique it as if it were meant to be a blockbuster (putting the same factors of judgement on Pearl Harbor as Beauty & the Beasts Enchanted Christmas, for example). Those are (primarily) the people who would be "hurt" by a sequel of a Disney classsic.

If you feel I no longer have anything to contribute I am sorry for that and will miss our interaction. I have always felt kinship here and do not intentionally try to cause ill will.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Not the quotes per se, but Landbaron the vast numbers of CM's needed by Disney is getting harder & harder to come by.

YES!!! Absolutely!! So it is more important than ever that care be taken in hiring, training, and maintaining high standards. I'm glad we agree that it is indeed a critical time as far as CMs are concerned!!

It is even reported here how un-CM like the CM's at DL behave on occasion.

YES!!! Absolutely!! So it is more important than ever that care be taken in hiring, training, and maintaining high standards. I'm glad we agree that it is indeed a critical time as far as CMs are concerned!!

Therefore if Disney management can pass the buck on employment responsibility in minor non-guest relating areas, then it seems a fiscally prudent move.

YES!!! Absolutely!! So it is more important than ever that care…. Wait!!!! What are you talking about!! I thought we just decided, rather Walt-like, that this was indeed a critical time. It is certainly NOT a time to walk away from Walt's philosophies.

I think it's time to revisit Walt again. Seems you need a refresher!!

"Well, I think by this time my staff, my young group of executives, and everything else, are convinced that Walt is right. That quality will win out. And so I think they're going to stay with that policy because it's proved that it's a good business policy."

And

Give the people everything you can give them.

OK. Lesson over. Learn anything?

What's wrong with mini-golf done right?

Nothing. But I was hoping to talk about loftier issues.

Who ever said that every facet of Disney had to be held to the same high standards as the Parks?

Walt.

Maybe Walt didn't have desire enough to do it successfully.

YOU ARE KIDDING AREN'T YOU????

Disney today has made a bundle producing direct to video sequels that only true Disney snobs get alarmed about. A sequel is just that. It stands or falls on its own and has no bearing or reflection on the original artistic endeavor.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Are you now arguing for argument's sake? If you want to spread that nonsense, go spread it on some business thread. Talk about cost and profit, fiduciary responsibility, shareholder value and p/e ratios. But kindly leave it off the WALT thread. It has no place and no meaning. Here we're talking about Walt's ideals. And how much these sequels damage the brand name. If you can't at least acknowledge that fact, we have no basis for conversation.

But, I'll bet Harris & Weiss are Park walking quite a bit and really that's their job in the 21st Century Disney!

Somehow I doubt it, but for argument's sake I'll concede. But what are they looking for? Ways to cut costs, save money and bolster the bottom line? Or like walt:

"Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved."

"It's something that will never be finished. Something that I can keep developing, keep plussing and adding to."

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

"To try to keep an operation like Disneyland going you have to pour it in there. It's what I call 'Keeping the show on the road.' Not just new attractions, but keeping it staffed properly... you know, never letting your personnel get sloppy... Never let them be unfriendly. That's been our policy all our lives. My brother and I have done that and that is what has built our organization."

"Give the people everything you can give them."

"Keep the place as clean as you can keep it. Keep it friendly, you know. Make it a real fun place to be."

Your turn.

 

[larworth]

Somewhere along the way the numbers got changed, so I’ll stick with the latest reference and add the missing ones at the end. My concern areas noted.

1. Intrusion (OK) – don’t think corporate influences are materially more intrusive and I don’t see the selling of McD food as a problem (it is all in the presentation)

2. Non-park additions (OK) – It is a resort, so providing non-park experiences are fine as long as parks clearly remain the core. They don’t need to always reinvent these non-park experiences (like they did with water parks), but they should build on the Disney quality image and be money makers providing funds to reinvest in the core business.

3. Sequels (Worry) – The vault properties have a finite value. I think they are milking these.

4. Half park (Worry) – Idea is OK, but worry about their acumen and arrogance in implementation.

5. Cost (OK) – I agree there has been a change here. They now are much more likely to try to get what the market will bear. However, being a pure public company that is their charter. I think they have taken advantage of it, but not to the point where it threatens longterm customer loyalty.

6. Attention Span (Worry) – I think this is an easy excuse for them to lower their standards to build smaller and less emmersive experiences.

7. Eisner Style (Worry) – He is too far up the ladder to be hands-on. Give creative oversight to someone who has the time and skills to do it right.

8. Contractors (???) – If you develop the right strategic partnerships they can become CM’s too. It is all in the implementation.

9. Use of Humor (OK) – Don’t see it as out of balance.

10. Classics (???) – I think tastes change and they should evolve as well. This needs more clarification.

11. People Perception (Worry) – I think they can slack off and most of their customer base will not notice for way too long.

12. Family rides (OK) – It really is in their best interests to have rides that appeal to all people. They don’t want to have to build thrill rides for teens, and kiddie rides, and senior rides. I think they are doing reasonable job.

13. Gift shops (OK) – I’d rather they were not there, but for some reason it doesn’t offend me as long as there is no hawking. Must have become desensitized.

New numbering system

14. Transportation (Worry) – I’m a car renter and never use the busses. I know something needs to be done to improve it for others, but I sure hope it doesn’t suck up too much $.

15. On-site hotels (???) – I’d have to see the books. If they are money makers than they should in the longrun provide funds to re-invest in the core business. If managed properly they add greatly to many guest’s experience. Again the quality and image should not be a dectractor. They also provide a safety net as they have to continue to invest enough to keep all of these rooms filled. Maybe after I read the latest J. Hill article I wll change my ???.

16. Rate of Growth (Worry) – I believe since 95 they have cut their growth rate in new attractions by 20% at WDW. Now I assume I should factor in the growth for guests in other parts of the world, but this one hits home.

17. Corner Cutting (Big Worry) – I’m really worried what they are doing with WDI. This is the heart of their core business. I think they are Splash Mountain and Indy adverse, or value engineering has replaced wowing the guest.

Sorry DVC, but I’m not 99% in agreement. I also don’t think everything is perfect as JimB must. I don’t think the Eisner regime has always been bad. I think it has had its good moments, but things have been on a downtrend recently and my worry meeting keeps getting a little higher all the time. Now, that is starting to worry me.

 

[JeffJewell]

If you feel I no longer have anything to contribute I am sorry for that and will miss our interaction

Other way around, actually. I get the distinct impression that when our gang talks about Disney turning its back on Walt's commitment to quality, that most reactions, at some level, could be described as our being "Disney snobs" (I really wouldn't have minded the term as much if it wasn't in the context of apparently dismissing what I feel to be a valid opinion. "Don't like DTV? Oh, well, you're just a Disney snob" is how I read the original comment). I often feel that DVC and I are speaking an entirely different (but equally defendable) language on this topic, a language that few people seem to acknowledge exists, much less that might want to learn some of it.

A friend of mine is a high-end audio nut. The two primary speakers on his stereo cost more than either of the last two cars I bought; his turntable(!) sits on an eight-inch thick granite slab to eliminate vibration... that kind of high-end audio nut. He used to come over and try to explain to me about aural planes and sound fields and how my crappy little Pioneer system from Crutchfield was, well, a crappy little Pioneer system from Crutchfield. He was not able to understand that I listen to music differently; I don't have a recliner in my speakers' "sweet spot" and sit still there to listen, I just want something rockin' playing while I wash the dishes. His frustration was visible while he was trying to convince me of the error of my ways.

In our situation, I'm him. I feel that I'm trying to explain points that are meaningless to you, or simply irrelevant to the way you enjoy Disney.

Which is fine... in the same way a higher quality stereo was irrelevant to the way I enjoy music. But, like my friend found with me, it means I really don't have anything to say that you're going care about.

The second of those two posts was mostly a little tantrum. Although I did lift the term "snob" from your post, it wasn't my intention to be slicing you up. I was kind of "talking" to DVC, and whining about the unwashed heathen in general. I'm sorry it looked like I was angry with you, I was mostly disappointed with that one comment in particular and frustrated on the topic in general.

Walt's ideals built an empire and unsurpassed customer loyalty, and Disney management's turning its back to those ideals has meant there are parts missing from the experience. I don't mind that some people don't value some of the parts as much as I do, but I wish I was getting the feeling that a few more people at least started noticing the parts were gone.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

… NOTHING!!

I think it has had its good moments, but things have been on a downtrend recently and my worry meeting keeps getting a little higher all the time. Now, that is starting to worry me.

You see. This is where I strongly disagree. I hasn't been getting worse. It's been getting more. (Pardon my awkward sentence!!) You make it sound as though Ei$ner's philosophy has changed over the years. His heart has slowly blackened with age. NO!! No, I say!! He's the same. EXACTLY THE SAME as when he first took the helm. The difference you see is that his methodical chipping away has finally reached your tolerance level.

I suppose that we all have different levels which effect us… well… differently!! I further suppose that if Walt were alive today and merely a guest and fan of Disney his frustration level would have been peaked somewhere in 1984!! He would have probably been annoyed at things that none of us would have noticed. Mine peaked in 1998. Yours is coming close in 2001. I expect DisDuck and the Captain (Pirate) to peak in 2004, 2005 at the latest. But nothing in management has changed. It's been the same since he started this job.

And it's hard to stay focused. It really is. You go to WDW and not all the chipping away effects you directly. For instance, I stay at Old Key West. I haven't taken a launch from the Poly to the MK in twenty-five years. So this little chip doesn't matter to me at all on a personal level. So, I get back from "The World" and give a glowing state of the park address. And for me every word of it was true. I can make a "MAGIC" list with the best of them. HOWEVER, on a higher level, admittedly more esoteric, the launch cuts effect me greatly. Because it points to a management philosophy that is diametrically opposed to that of the founder. And what I fell in LOVE with in the first place.

Am I a little clearer?