Was this Walts secret to success?

[crusader]

There's no zero tolerance standard of excellence for Disney around here, just a zero tolerance for Disney not striving for a standard of excellence.

You're not saying anything different here with the exception of inserting the word "striving". I'll agree with you that Disney has failed to strive to my liking on varying counts. I'll contend that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't be able to agree with that statement in some regard.

But that doesn't make it the end all for the company as a whole. If I find animation lacking, which I do, that's one thing. I don't automatically assert that as a complete failure of the entire Disney enterprise. It's not.

What happens too often with the vets around here is an all or nothing approach to discussions on any topic. I've never heard sir airness support one thing about this company today. Yet, he continues to financially contribute. That's the irony. If you really harbor a complete disdain for the boss or the corporate operation or the philosophy or the direction or the decline in quality or the demise of a great founder's contribution to society then why on earth would you buy any product from this cesspool?

It's hypocrisy to me. Jump and don't look back.

Unless......................

deep down,

you really love this company.

Surprise! You're in the same car we all are.

Have a magical day!

 

[gmalinowski]

I think times are looking up at Disney - they are getting their crowds back and now they can dump all the people who stood by them even in the slow times.

Disney Club was a tremendous loss - I was a member since it first started. Disney Visa doesn't come close to giving the deals you got with the Disney Club.

Now Disney Magazine, another great thing for those who love Disney is being tossed out.

I'm getting very upset with Disney and I have been a very loyal customer with months and months of time spent at their resorts. My house is loaded with Disney stuff.

Also from my recent trips to the parks the lines are getting extremely long, they are removing some of the more popular "classis" or replacing them with trashy updates.

The new fad is Character Meals - the one really nice place to eat lunch at the Magic Kingdom was the castle - now that is a character lunch. I guess I have to live at EPCOT.

My children (grown up with families) have recently told me that they are not so sure they want to go to WDW in the future - some of them have stayed off-property with many trips to other places the last time they went to Orlando and were pleased with the cheaper prices and accomodations at least as good as WDW. These kids have been going to WDW since they were 4 years old - every other year. I fear I see a trend - I hope someone at Disney hears the whispers going around and put Disney back on track before it is too late.

My 2 cents - and I hope management at Disney reads it.

 

[raidermatt]

I've never heard sir airness support one thing about this company today... It's hypocrisy to me. Jump and don't look back.

Then, again, you are missing the subtleties of the issues. In this case, that makes all the difference. Its not a matter of whether the company produces anything worthwhile today. Of course it does. Just like Walt produced some duds. The point is what the company is striving to be.

If it strives to be a creative force, and to maintain the company's legacy of leading the pack, then there will be more successes than failures, and the failures become irrelevant from a strategic point of view. Similarly, if its creative process is flawed because it focuses too much on aspects other than creativity, then there will be far fewer successes than there could have been, and the ones that do come along are irrelevant from a strategic point of view.

Mediocre/Good organizations will still produce good, and occasionally even great work. But those examples of their best do not make them a great organization.

THAT is why most of us see no point in saying movie x or attraction y is truly great. Our point is that the organization is not great, and THAT is what we are pushing for.

When we are complaining in those absolute terms that the company is broken, it is because in the context of what we are discussing, it IS absolutely broken. "Not great" = broken. It doesn't equal bankrupt, or even necessarily worse than most of the other companies out there.

It simply means it is not striving to reach the levels that it once did. Levels that are the only reason we are here discussing this company in the first place.

So yes, they have done well with the Cruise Line, Illuminations is a great show, and PotC was a movie the company should be proud of. The company is not on the verge of bankruptcy, and likely will continue to be a decent, not spectacular investment.

Acknowleged.

But that isn't enough for those of us who expect more from a company that once gave us more. You can tell us its not going to happen, and you are probably right. Again, acknowleged.

Still, we will continue to fight the good fight, because...

Unless......................

deep down,

you really love this company.

Crimany, yes, of course we do. More than you know.

 

[mrsR123]

Amazing post, Matt. You synthesized the viewpoint really well.

And with apologies to the baron...


DITTO

 

[airlarry!]

or be labelled the other side

Ah, therein lies the problem. There is only one side.

But I hear you. I understand what you are saying. I sense your frustration. But, I too get frustrated, especially when we have a good negative topic going that points out Walt's successes and vilifies Cou$in Mikey, and someone like you ruins it with thinly disguised support for Ei$ner.

Admit it. Taking potshots at Stewart's writing style? Holy Straight From The PR Bluebook Batman! That's a classic tactic to ignore the facts and point out the style.

I consider it my life's quest to expose to the world the fraud that Ei$ner is. Mainly, because I was so convinced early in his career that he got it, but didn't realize that I was falling for the same publicity machine that continues today.

Unless you are an absolute neophyte to this board, which I doubt, you would never question my admiration for the Disney spirit that enfuses so many of the creative successes over the last 20 years. Surely you've read my positive comments from everything to B&B to Cranium Command to Paris Magic Kingdom to Adventurer's Club to TDS to Tokyo & Orlando Pooh to...oh the list goes on and on.

But in my mind, there are certain things that mark a poster as potentially blinded by pixie dust. M:S, Dinoland, Poop Century, tons of Direct To Trash Video, the death of DFA's traditional animation department (I still can't believe I'm saying that), etc. Just looking at one of these is tooooo subjective--perhaps I'm wrong on dinoland or M:S individually, but collectively, its a good broad sample. When a poster constantly excuses these or other obvious missteps, then I think it is fair to question that poster's bias.

There really are people out there who believe that Disney's spirit is in those who consume the products not in those who create the magic. Sad.

I sense that the spirit is strong within you, Crusader. Do not let the dark side of the spirit tempt you.

 

[manning]

Seems like Jame B. Stewart has an impressive investigative background.

http://www.roycecarlton.com/speakers/stewart.html

 

[YoHo]

This thread may be a new low on the Dis rumors. Slander against a reknowned WSJ contributor , Pulitzer prize winner and acclaimed author because it contradicts you.

Nice.

Jim Hill's a self obsessed idiot with delusions of granduer a fact that if you went over my entire bredth of posts here yould see is the consistant view I've had of him whether I agree with him on the topic at hand or not.

And Mr. Pirate would have us believe that Disney is forced to be another Walmart or Home Depot despite the fact that last I checked, they don't sell 2x4s or inexpensive poorly made sweatshop clothing in cavernous retail centers. (they do market paint and expensive clothing though for what it's worth.

And despite the fact that companies like Pixar or even Dreamworks have managed to succeed as small non-Walmart style companies. And that's not even hinting at companies in other fields like EBay or Amazon or Apple or dozens of retail chains. Hell, even Microsoft embraces innovation though I hesitate to include them for obvious reasons.

What really bothers me is the blinders about corporate america that so many want to put on. The companies that produce the kind of innovation Disney USED to be known for are the kind that are nimble and innovative ready to create the next marvel or innovation or great film. Big or Small,THAT's what creates a company with the kind of brand loyalty and broad respect that Disney used to have.

Why are so many content to reject that and turn them into Dismart or DisDepot?

 

[airlarry!]

Pulitzer Committee To Sanction Author

by Skip D. Wards
Friday, May 20, 2005

New York (WDI) - The use of a little known provision contained in the will of a 19th century giant in journalism has caused an uproar in academic circles around the country this week, and the controversy shows no signs of slowing. The Pulitzer Prize Board, named after Joseph Pulitzer, the famous owner of the New York World and St. Louis Post-Dispatch who established in a codocil in his last testament a foundation to oversee awards of excellence in print journalism, has taken the unprecedented step of scheduling a vote next week whether to confiscate an award given in 1988, the first time in history that an author may be stripped of his award.

James B. Stewart, the Bloomberg professor of Business and Economic Journalism, and former Page One reporter at the Wall Street Journal, is the best-selling author of HEART OF A SOLDIER, BLOOD SPORT, and DEN OF THIEVES. He, along with co-author Daniel Hertzberg, were awarded the Pulitzer Prize by the Board in 1988 for their stories about an investment banker charged with insider trading and the critical day that followed the October 19, 1987, stock market crash, but it is his most recent title, DISNEYWAR, that has some critics up in arms and illustrates the power of the Internet as a new medium for evaluation of journalism excellence.

The Board will vote on Thursday whether there is enough evidence to strip the author of his 1988 Pulitizer Prize, and quickly issued a press release basing its decision upon receiving "hundreds of thousands" of complaints from journalists around the globe concerning Stewart's latest release, DISNEYWAR. A Board member, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the rise of the internet blog and discussion board was the catalyst for the inquiry.

"We had no choice," quoted the source. "The sheer size and number of emails calling for Stewart's head was like a crusade." The board's vote came quickly after its home offices were flooded with requests to sanction the author, although curiously the source claimed there was a dearth of requests from those actually in the journalism field.

According to the souce, the crusade began with postings on internet discussion boards that followed an expose by noted Disney author, Jim Hill, of JimHillMedia.com, a website devoted to the inner workings of The Walt Disney Company. Despite numerous journalistic awards, and extensive experience at respected news providers like The Journal, the New Yorker, and Smart Money, Stewart was vilified as a hack journalist and his book about the fight between Roy Disney, nephew of founder Walt Disney, and Michael Eisner, former chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, over the recent struggles creatively and economically within the Company, was called "lacking in quality and printed purely to gouge the consumer."

A previously unknown clause in Pulitzer's will allows the retraction of any award if the journalist fails later in his or her career to live up "to the standards of excellence which led to the initial award," a vague standard which up until now has never been used. Critics who have contacted the Board cited examples of Stewart's lack of continued "excellence" by comparing and contrasting his work since 1988, including DISNEYWAR, with the work of Disney reporters such as Hill, and in hundreds of emails and postings, argued that Stewart's submissions lack the "intellectual training" required by Putlizer.

Stewart's publicist, Mort Eyefied, said the attacks on Stewart, who posses a J.D. from Harvard Law School, were "groundless" and mean-spirited. "Mr. Stewart put his career on hold for eighteen months and had unprecedented access to both sides of this story, and these recent attacks on his character and considerable talent are appalling," said Eyefied. "While Mr. Stewart is saddened by this turn of events, he will use his skills honed from years as an attorney to investigate the souce of these complaints."

 

[crusader]

Slander against a reknowned WSJ contributor , Pulitzer prize winner and acclaimed author because it contradicts you.

My remarks have to do with this being a waste of money. But feel free to add it to your collection of literary classics. Who are any of us to judge?
Afterall, many a great, talented, critically acclaimed, creative marvel have fallen victim to signing on to a project corrupted by the money tree. I'm sure Simon & Schuster thank you for your support - OH WAIT A MINUTE - Isn't that Viacom lurking in the shadows!!!! - Milking the Disney brand - how clever of them.

What really bothers me is the blinders about corporate america that so many want to put on.

Exactly, read above.

And despite the fact that companies like Pixar or even Dreamworks have managed to succeed as small non-Walmart style companies.

Ok back up. I agree Pixar is pure talent with the exception of the guy controlling it. Dreamworks is a separate animal and not small by any means, being widely supported by the mighty Universal Studios who accomodate Spielberg's every whim. There's no comparison to Dreamworks library of films and Pixar's empty shelves.

But to fail to hold anyone accountable for Pixar not having one major asset to show for their efforts after 20 years kills any credibility you guys have.

Tell me honestly, would you have nothing to say about this if the tables were turned and Eisner signed away those pictures? Until Pixar actually holds something of worth beyond a cash account, there's nothing to really discuss.

And forget about tossing out the old talent card as the sole measurement "shtick" here for that company's worth. Nobody buys a creative company that only has employees for sale. Talent is everywhere and the population ain't gettin' any smaller. Just look around at all the fresh young faces entering the workforce this month ripe with decades of new creative blood.

and Now, for something completely different............

But I hear you. I understand what you are saying. I sense your frustration. But, I too get frustrated, especially when we have a good negative topic going that points out Walt's successes and vilifies Cou$in Mikey, and someone like you ruins it with thinly disguised support for Ei$ner.

You can't stand it can you. There's no way to balance this in your view. That's what I like. That willingness to stand up and be counted no matter the consequence. Maybe we have something in common afterall.

There really are people out there who believe that Disney's spirit is in those who consume the products not in those who create the magic. Sad.

I sense that the spirit is strong within you, Crusader. Do not let the dark side of the spirit tempt you.

Not don't fall victim to Lucas on me, darn it. All he cares about is raping the brand. Preserve the sacred trilogy (and accompanying action figure collection) please!
Don't ante up any cash this weekend - remember how much is filtering to the dark side of his privately held enterprise.

Seriously though, listen to what you just said here, Disney's spirit is in those who create the magic not in those who consume the products.

Where does that leave you?

Disney's spirit lives in the hearts and souls of millions of consumers who feel the magic. They don't create it - they experience it.

If it strives to be a creative force, and to maintain the company's legacy of leading the pack, then there will be more successes than failures, and the failures become irrelevant from a strategic point of view. Similarly, if its creative process is flawed because it focuses too much on aspects other than creativity, then there will be far fewer successes than there could have been, and the ones that do come along are irrelevant from a strategic point of view.

I agree. I see Disney walking a tightrope 4-5 yrs ago. They have maintained the company's legacy of leading the pack despite the fact that they were on a very thin line with certain core segments of their business at the worst possible economic juncture in recent history. (with the exception of animation but only in terms of inhouse development since they rule the ownership kingdom here)

You can hate Eisner etal for taking that level of risk.

I happen to view something as reparable when broken - not necessarily replaceable, (eventhough we now live in a disposable society) - which is why I don't have a major problem with promoting executives within a company and giving them a fair shot.

 

[manning]

I have no problems when someone is fairly promoted from within.

 

[Euphscott]

Disney's spirit lives in the hearts and souls of millions of consumers who feel the magic. They don't create it - they experience it.

OK - I am confused here. If Walt never existed, a cult of Disneyphiles could sustain a "spirit?"

And then the comment regarding Disney leading the pack? In what segment do they lead anymore? (besides Accountaneering)

Someone must be sniffing too much pixie dust...

 

[crusader]

Someone must be sniffing too much pixie dust...

Really. Based on your own personal definition of leading I suspect?

This is mine...................

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results...Media&category1=Category&fromColumnClick=true

 

[Bstanley]

That's actually quite enlightening.

 

[Euphscott]

That is true - one's definition of leading is subject to interpretation.

If it is all about money and numbers, you can make a case. But at one time the Roman Empire had scoreboard - well, we know what happened there don't we?

When was the last Disney had an animated hit? Lilo and Stitch was a mild one. And how many years ago was that? Do we even need to discuss ABC? Theme Parks do lead in terms of attendance, but in recent years what attraction have they built that the entire industry stood up and noticed and worked to "one up" it? None.
What hit movie has the studios put out recently (and don't try to give me Pirates - that's a Bruckheimer film that succeeded because Bruckheimer was not going to put up with Ei$ner's meddling). Leading? I am having a tough time swallowing that Disney is leading anything these days. A once proud company that broke ground, caused industries to play catch up and innovated at every turn has now become a just a Egomaniac's play toy that is more interested in short term balance sheets than long term risk taking based upon creative wit. Throw in a board of director's that seems to have been hoodwinked to go along and well, you have a nice bit of profit, but so very little material that will stand the test of time.

 

[raidermatt]

This is mine...................

Really? The list is Forbes' attempt to measure size, not what we've been talking about.

But even so, Disney is 99th on that list, and 2nd in media companies. Wouldn't it then follow that discussion boards for Citigroup(1), TimeWarner(51), or BBVA-Banco Bilbao Vizcaya(66) would merit more of your attention?

Or perhaps you have other criteria after all?

 

[crusader]

Forbes attempt?

Now that's interesting. Who would you prefer we utilize to determine where Disney truly stands? A disenchanted vet with no reliablility beyond creative writing talents? Seriously, enlighten me. I'm really curious.

Disney is 99 out of the coveted 2000 - worldwide.

They've made the 100 list and believe me, it's not just based on size.

I said they're leading the pack. They are. This proves it.

Look at Viacom - look at News Corp - Look at Vivendi - What the heck are you talking about?

Honestly, Im beginning to think you guys just wish half the crap you toss around here is true, and make up the rest to suit your purpose. Once the alternative seems more credible, you dismiss the poster as not on topic or pull the proverbial smoke and mirrors act with age old subjective philosophical drivel which you never prove.

Get real.

The truth will set you free - right after it pisses you off.

 

[disneyworldgirl]

My turn to rant...

Okay, this is ridiculous! What started out as a thread about a nice article on Walt has turned into alot of backbiting. Now we've got people using profanity and abusive language!

If you don't agree with something, fine-- everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you can express that. But there's no need to be vulgar or venomous about it. I'm off this thread before it ends up being closed!

 

[DancingBear]

Crusader, I'm with you a lot, here, but the Forbes list certainly is just measuring size.

 

[Sarangel]

Just a reminder from your friendly moderator - PLAY NICE. I've been out of town for work the last day or so, so I'm a little behind on this thread, but it seems to be getting out of hand. If you can't argue nicely, I will close this thread.

Sarangel

 

[SoCalKDG]

OK, this is getting good. Crusader points out that Forbes ranks Disney #2 among Media companies. Others have said, rather nicely "That is true - one's definition of leading is subject to interpretation. ".

So for the ones of you that don't think Disney is leading(or not doing as well as 10-20 years ago), how about giving a national source that shows that they aren't doing so well. If not, then how do you measure how Disney is doing with some sort of scale that can be used on other companies as well as comparing Disney to its previous years?


By the way, someone mentioned their unhappiness with a character lunch at the Castle. Is it so wrong to offer something that is high on the consumers list of things to do? With breakfast the most popular character meal, and frequent requests to extend/add more character meals at the castle, Disney listened to the Public.

Someone also mentioned Dinoland and Mission Space. Agree on Dinoland. Hopefully this will get modified someday. Mission Space I disagree on. This is the first ride I was actually nervous to go on, and after riding it I felt like it was something I had never experienced before and look forward to trying it again.