Question for Another Voice and others

[larry_poppins]

What do you think the future is for the Walt Disney Co.? I really respect Another Voice's opinions so I would look forward to reading a response from him, but others are invited to respond as well.

I am finding it hard to believe in the big, bright beautiful tomorrow anymore. Even before Sept. 11 Disney seemed out of touch with its core audience. Anyone who has visited Disney's California Adventure knows what I mean! Do you think it is possible for Disney to reclaim the creative edge in popular entertainment? Or are the best years behind us? Know that America is in a financial recession/depression and a bio-terror war, it will be hard enough for Disney to survive let alone regain its mastery in film and theme park entertainments. Will Disney emerge in the post-war American unrecognizable to us fans who have been following the Mouse for decades.

I am trying to keep hope alive. But it was hard enough prior to 9/11/01. Look forward to reading your insights and opinions regarding what the future may hold.

Sincerely,

Larry

 

[YoHo]

Previous to the last two weeks, there was a lot of rumbling even from AV's direction that things might be getting better for the theme parks. I can only hope that that remains true. I'm not so sure about feature animation. I hope, but I don't have faith.

 

[johare]

I think they will be acquired by another major corporation within 2 years. What happens after that is anyones guess.

 

[JeffJewell]

Do you think it is possible for Disney to reclaim the creative edge in popular entertainment?

...anything is possible, the question is, does/will Disney _want_ to reclaim that creative edge.

The current regime has made it very clear that they do not feel a "creative edge" is necessary in this business: that marketing, advertising, and budget cutting is sufficient to achieve their goals. This might very well be true, assuming your goals do not include having the "creative edge" you mention.

There is a general consensus that something big is looming on Disney's horizon: there are a number of crises coming to a head contemporaneously. The problem is that the whole of the world economy is in such a state of flux right now, that it is not clear precisely what "something big" entails.

I believe AV's allusion that things might get better in the parks in the not-too-distant future comes from a feeling that the board finally gave Eisner enough rope to hang himself, and that the "profitability-through-budget-cutting" policy was a significant section of the noose. I'm quite certain AV will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the feeling is that those policies have worn out their welcome, and their current champion is readying to hit the golden silk (determining whether he jumped or was pushed should give the Discussion Boards some excellent fodder, next year sometime).

Exactly how all this will play out is still anyone's guess, and until we know who's going to be next to wear the hat with the propellor on it, there's no good way to determine if they will be a creator or a marketer, and therefore, whether having a "creative edge" over the competition even appears on Disney's future radar.

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

Since AV hasn't yet drafted his thesis and others have commented, I will, as well...Although, since it is AV's voice you were seeking mine will, quite obviously, be dissenting.

Disney is safe. Anyone interested in buying them is on shaky ground as well. The specture of 9/11 is hanging over business like a ton of bricks and because Disney is particularily susceptible to unfortunate economic woes as the Theme Parks are the most profitable venue, suitors of specific content won't dare take the risk on such a diverse package. But this isn't just econmic woes, the threat of terrorism still exists and can be reinforced at any time, making Disney's situation even bleaker. The good news is the balance sheet & Disney's cash situation...Both strong. Further, I believe that Disney will surpise the street next month, short circuting the gloom & doomers (you heard it here first).

As to down the road, lets say we somehow put a crimp on terrorism, ease America's fear of flying & turn the economy around. Disney will flourish with the plans on the table (still to be announced in DEC, IMO).

But for now, what we have is what we have. Disney will continue to react to day by day issues (and DIS'ers will continue to overeact as has happened this last month). If Floridians continue to pack the Parks on weekends, I think weekends will normalize very quickly. The weekdays are a different story, but Disney is just starting a media advertising blitz so it should be assumed that they do want to resume things to "normal".

In closing, I will say that I hink Disney will recover to the form of the late 90's which I and many others consider to be very good times indeed (although this view is certainly not shared by many here). The chance of Disney ever returning to the oft lamented good ole days (that I think never really existed) is zip...Because like I said, they never really existed.

 

[larry_poppins]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their replies. It is true I was hoping for AV to respond, but I am enjoying everyone input. My biggest fear is that Disney might be purchased. However, if Disney is content to pursue a pure marketing strategy and not attempt to regain a creative edge they might as well be swallowed up by another company. Although with the current world/business environment I can not imagine who that would be. Only time will tell.

Right now I just feel sad that as a Disney lover I could care less about Monsters Inc, but I can't wait for Harry Potter to be released!

Thanks again for all of your comments,

Larry

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

... Waitin' for AV to check in...

I really believe it may not be too late. BUT a serious change in philosophy is needed. And quite frankly, I don't see that change coming from this administration.

 

[Captain Crook]

And quite frankly, I don't see a change coming from this admisistration.

Landbaron...What's Bush got to do with it?

 

[Another Voice]

It’s nice to know that some of my ramblings are respected, although I truly hope my opinions are considered just one of the many good views around here. No one should give them any more weight than anyone else’s opinion and I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been wrong on more than a few occasions. Of course being wrong in the past won’t slow me done in the present…

I’ll try and keep this short (yes, I’ll fail again).

In my mind there are two Disney’s – the company and the idea. The company uses “Disney” as a brand name and produces product, the idea of Disney is a spirit and a set of ideals. Until the late 1990’s, I think the two were indistinguishable and both those who ran the company and the public that bought the product knew it. Over the last six years or so, I think the two Disney’s have drifted apart from each other. The separation may be felt by some, may not be apparent to many, and is ignored by a few.

The future of The Company is extremely uncertain now. Before it was a simple case of a company being mismanaged into a takeover. The entire media industry is going through the greatest change since the inception of the industry over a hundred years ago. The Company, forced to the sidelines by a management without the vision to see what is happening, has far too many good assets and eventually someone is bound to steal the jewels. It is the ultimate irony that Michael Eisner has placed The Company in the same position that allowed him to take control all those years ago; truly a case of those ignorant of history and their damnation.

Yet, what are bad times for The Company may lead to the re-emergence of The Idea. The era of free spending, nothing’s important, what’s in it for me, consumption is the reason for life is over. And with it has gone the easy life that The Company enjoyed for so many years. Simply read all the comments about cuts in park’s operating hours. People aren’t really complaining about loosing ninety minutes to ride the rides; people’s values have changed in ways that we have not been able to articulate yet. It’s not losing E-Nights, it’s that there’s this vague unease about spending lots of money to go to an amusement park to see nothing new. Too many things in life have an importance now, spending thousands to see a painted carny ride with a concrete dinosaur seems so damn shallow. Slickness, carpet-bomb marketing and Brand Worship are things of the past; people are going to have to work for their customers now.

If I had to name just one reason why Walt Disney was a genius as a creator, I would have to boil it down to this sentence: Walt knew there is more to a story then the words you hear or the images you see. Magic is never seen, it’s felt. A true artist connects with an audience’s emotions and expresses them back to the audience. Walt knew how to do that in both film and in three dimensions – that’s why his films has the depth, the “something more”, that still keep them in demand six decades after they are created.

People are in desperate need of that “something more” and are rejecting the products that are only surface deep. There is a reason why ‘Pearl Harbor’ and California Adventure both flopped, yet ‘The Princess Diaries’ and DisneySea are resounding successes. Whether Disney The Company survives is directly linked to their ability recapturing Disney The Idea and creating product the new audience wants. People who can do that still exist – many outside of the company and few that still struggle inside. It will take a massive change for that change to occur, but there is hope. There is even hope, a slim hope, that those running the company might wake up before it’s too late (and California Adventure is making a great alarm clock). If that sense of “true Disney” is reborn, the Company will be safe as it was in the other times of great troubles.

And in a lot of ways, what happens to The Company is no longer as important to me as to what happens to The Idea. To me, ‘Toy Story’ or ‘Shrek’ is not any less “magical” because it wasn’t made by a person on the Disney payroll, but because they were made to a “Disney” level of quality. “Disney” without the talent is nothing but a brand name, and labels don’t make “magic”.

Who owns who is no longer important; it only matters that people carry on with the ideas.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

The LandBaron rises from his seat and applauds wildly!!

BRAVO!! AV!! Well said!! Bravo!!

Thank you!!!!

 

[larry_poppins]

Thanks Another Voice for your comments. I agree with your premise that there are two Disneys: the company and the idea. I think that Disney the company is in trouble right now because it has diverged from the idea. Like you I find the idea of Disney in other places. Islands of Adventure Park is one place I find a lot of quality even though there are some areas of the park that could use some work. I am also looking forward to the Harry Potter film a great deal. I guess when I stay focused on Disney quality and the ideals of Disney regardless of what company is producing them than I don't feel so depressed. Maybe tomorrow will be beautiful after all.

Larry

 

[lodgelady]

Yes, it is discussions like this that keep everything in perspective! Good Question-excellent replies. Thanks.

 

[Another Voice]

I get somewhat miffed when people take about how great Disney is, or how magical Disney is, or how wonderful Disney products are. “Disney” is a company and doesn’t do anything on it own. Films, theme parks, tee shirts, hotels are all created and run by people. THEY are responsible for the “magic”, not a corporation.

Unless you have the talent, sitting in front of a drafting table on the Walt Disney Studios lot does not “magically” make you an artist. And if you do have the talent, sitting at a drafting table across town does not “magically” take it away. Disney at its best is a place where talented people are given the resources they need to create tremendous works. If either the people or the resources are lacking, there can be no magic.

And as we’ve seen with Pixar and even at Islands of Adventure, other companies are capable of putting together teams and giving them a good working environment. There is nothing special about Disney The Company, and Disney The Idea has spread far and wide.

 

[Captain Crook]

Is this a set up? I think even Landbaron would have some problems with this post. Who will be brave enough to (really) respond first? ...

 

[JeffJewell]

Who will be brave enough to (really) respond first

...well said, AV.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

JJ, as usual, beat me to the punch! So - "DITTO"


Captain:

Why would you think I would have a problem with anything AV said? That's what I've been trying to say (and apparently not doing a good job) since you and I met a year and a half ago. Walt himself was the "Great Facilitator". Really nothing more. I'm going to go search for my book and come up with the quote that says just what he thought his job was at the Disney Company.

In the meantime, please let me know how you think AV's and my thoughts are different on this subject. Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

 

[HorizonsFan]

Walt knew there is more to a story then the words you hear or the images you see. Magic is never seen, it’s felt.

WOW!!! Why can't I ever say brilliant stuff like that?

 

[Captain Crook]

Disney at its best is a place where taleted people are given the resources they need to create tremendous work.

Disney is a Company and doesn't do anything on its own.

As we've seen with Pixar and even at Islands of Adventure other companies are capable of putting together teams and giving them a good working environment.

Wow, you've argued the business principal like you were Scoop or myself. Disney certainly is just a business. But like Coca-Cola & McDonalds it is also the premier business in its sector. To be what the Disney Company is can only come from the evolution of what the Disney Company was...Walt Disney. Walt set the motion, Roy built on that, Mike & Frank added more. But the basics were set by Walt and still are entrenched at Disney today. How else can you explain CM's? IOA has employee's but they aren't CM's, Busch has employees, but they aren't CM's. Even Disney peers in the historical world of business (Coke & McDonalds don't have anything more than employees). The only thing that I've heard about that even comes close to CM's in the business place are some of the early relationships in Silicon Valley (Microsoft, Apple, even Amazon in their infancy), do they still have that feeling now that the gleam is off? And what about Pixar? Oh, they have a wonderful creative environment, but have they been tested? Will they survive some failure? Will Steve Jobs offer them the leadership & ideology for them to say years later "what would Steve have done?" Doubtful don't you think.

So Mr. Voice, you can discount pixie dust & Disney Magic as fanciful, hogwash or simply subjective if you choose and I will concur that any company can build quality, any company can be successful but any company cannot be Disney, for if your position is true, Walt was nothing more than a facilitator as Landbaron supposes (and this is where you surprise me, my friend). A "Disney" would not have grown by happenstance. It was Walt's to do, much as Microsoft was Bill Gates'. IOA is a nice Park, but few people see any magic in it. Sure there are rides that are top notch, some theming that's disneysque but the place isn't, won't be and in fact can't be anything more than Disneyesque. For that to happen Vivendi would have to create the loyal, instill the belief and foot the bill that in this day and age won't happen.

Disney is Disney because of Walt's legacy and that can't be duplicated. Without WDW the pretenders to the thrown wouldn't be a factor and if Disney fades from independence they too will become what you say they already are. You can continue to hope that I'm wrong...That the next guy will be more understanding to the creative muse and in fact I'm hoping right along with you. But the best chance for continuing Disney enjoyment is an independent Disney.

I guess I will close by saying that my exception to a lot of your views (all of you) is that you discount the opinions of those of us who actually still love WDW. By saying all of the negative things you feel, you're saying we're chumps for still believing and perhaps thats true, but I'm a chump who has truly enjoyed WDW 21 nights so far this year not to mention enjoying myself at Princess Diaries, Spy Kids, Serendipity & even Pearl Harbor (though I know it's not fashionable to admit).

Disney is certainly not what it once was, but what it once was is an impossible ghost of the past. I agree that many things could and should be done better, but why, when the enjoyment factor for my family is still there, should I ruin it by purposly being too introspective?

 

[hopemax]

In other places I've tried to ask the question, "How does Disney make the magic?" I started asking that question, because I realized that the "pixie dust" wasn't real but it was just regular ol' human beings making choices. And Disney had a reputation for making different choices than company X and the outcomes of those choices were impressive. Then I saw Disney making other choices, and I believe that there is a cause/effect relationship so the outcome would have to change. Like taking a recipe, if you change the ingredients or even change the quantity of some of the ingredients, what you pull out of the oven will taste different. But other people didn't seem to think that way; that the changes behind the scenes affected the outcomes of what we see "on-stage" so I started asking how they thought Disney made it's magic.

But what I found is that a lot of people don't like to answer that question. The typical answer was along the lines of Tinkerbell's pixie dust. What makes Disney special? Magic. What makes it magical. Because it's special. What makes it special? Magic. Round and round.

And I guess if people have never considered "how" it all happens, then I guess that's a big part of the "why" people can't fathom anyone else being capable of providing the types of experiences that Disney typically have provided. I've read a lot of comments since the cutbacks started along the lines of "Why would anyone stop going to WDW even with the changes?" As if there are no other choices that could be as fulfilling as a trip to WDW at the same price as a trip to WDW. I fear what choices the management will make if that is the predominant belief among them, because it provides no motivation for things to change. "If you don't build it, they will still come because there is no other choice."

But as my dissatisfaction with Disney grows, I've spent more time looking for options. It does take more effort on my part than calling CRO every year, but it's amazing to find where little bits of the "idea" have spread. I've been reading the message board on www.themedattraction.com for awhile. Ex-Imagineer Eddie Sotto is the moderator. It's not a very active board, but there are people from within the industry who post little bits. Well, one of the posters started adding a sig file which promotes *his* theme park. They are expanding from a miniature golf couse to a few rides this off-season, so it's certainly not a "destination." It's called Giggle Ridge. I was amazed to find this was only 40 minutes from where I live, and amazed by what I saw in the few pictures online, and when I saw the 2001 prices of $6.50 CN (~$4.10 US) I was blown away. The down side is that it's closed for the season, so I have to wait for the spring to see it first hand. I emailed the owner, and told him my delight and he emailed back a piece of the expansion plans. And in reading some other things he's said, 70% of the visitors are adults so when he designs the fanciful, whimsical things, that is in his mind, not just pleasing kids which is a big YEAH! for me. Learning about this place, gave me hope that the concept of one thing being able to please both "the young and the young at heart" was still valid, and not be cost prohibitive and others could pull it off if they set their mind to it.

P.S. A week ago, I could have helped with Landbaron's quote, I'm pretty sure it's in the Quotable Walt Disney but I had to return my Dad's copy to my Dad before he would let me borrow the Herb Ryman book.

P.S. 2 Here's to the pollinators!

 

[hopemax]

I guess I will close by saying that my exception to a lot of your views (all of you) is that you discount the opinions of those of us who actually still love WDW. By saying all of the negative things you feel, you're saying we're chumps for still believing and perhaps thats true, but I'm a chump who has truly enjoyed WDW 21 nights so far this year not to mention enjoying myself at Princess Diaries, Spy Kids, Serendipity & even Pearl Harbor (though I know it's not fashionable to admit).

Would it be surprising for you to hear that you aren't the only one who feels like a chump over Disney? Over the years of posting about when I see things that disappoint me about Disney, I can't count the times that I've been told that I should just stop noticing things. My nature and personality is one that examines things and thinks of ways to make them better. There have been so many times when I wished I could turn that part of my brain off that asks the questions and does the analysis. But I can't.

And I can't speak for anyone else, but when I sit and type out that analysis, as it applies to Disney, it isn't to prove to anyone that they are wrong for liking something, but to explain why someone else, usually me, might not feel the same way (for reasons other than being a grouch).

Disney is certainly not what it once was, but what it once was is an impossible ghost of the past. I agree that many things could and should be done better, but why, when the enjoyment factor for my family is still there, should I ruin it by purposly being too introspective?

If it's not in your personality to examine, there may be little reason to do so, but in the same regards if it is in someone's personality to do so, I would hope that it would be recognized as a reasonable action instead of coming from some sort of "troublemaker" mentality.