Disneyland General
Topic: So after all this time - Reason? IASW topic

#	Author	Message
121	plpeters70 Fri 5/2/2008 8:09a	"When they do things that the public rejects (like the flood of direct to dvd releases in the past), they'll curtail that and try something else." But just like those DVD sequels, this is really something that they should never have done in the first place. Profit and greed just shouldn't be the top motivator at a company like Disney. The sequels were a bad idea from the beginning - sure, they made them a boatload of money, but they lost the respect of the industry and their fans in the process. The same thing is happening with small world, though on a smaller scale.
122	dshyates Fri 5/2/2008 8:21a	"they lost the respect of the industry and their fans in the process. The same thing is happening with small world, though on a smaller scale." Not so sure about that. I never saw the outrage from the industry and fans over the DVD crapquels that we are seeing over IASW. And everyone knows it is all hooked together in Disney's short-sighted lust for your money. And in peoples minds itis all lumped together as the "do anything for money" business model that has been guiding Disney. I honestly get the feeling the only reason Disney doesn't make porn is their developed demo wouldn't like it.
123	danyoung Fri 5/2/2008 10:22a	>That is still a purely profit motive.< I guess we're moving into a semantic area here. You could say that Walt made cartoons or made movies or built Disneyland purely from a profit motive - he wanted to be successful. We of course know that he really did want to entertain. And if he made money, then that was just more cash to do the next big cool thing. Do I think that current Disney executives sat down in a bunker, rubbed their hands together, and said "let's come up with a way to sell more plush. I know - let's put some crappy Disney characters into the refurbing sw - that'll bring in a pile of dough!"? Of course not. As I said before, my theory is that at some point during refurb planning, it was discussed at the imagineering level the addition of some new characters. Now, it would make no sense to just add in more dolls, as they wouldn't be different enough from what's there to be distinguishable. But taking classic Disney characters, theming them to the Mary Blair look, and putting them in appropriate settings would be a huge plus. And then the marketing department gets involved and says "hey, win win - we can sell the crap out of those new plushes!" It's all in how you look at it. (Sorry for the "ridiculous", by the way - you got me before morning coffee!)
124	Hans Reinhardt Fri 5/2/2008 10:22a	"Profit is a motive, certainly. Buy you can't state with even a shred of certainty that profit was the primary motive for these changes." While I think this is mostly true, Iger has gone on record recently stating that Disney actively searches for ways to expand its various character franchises as part of its synergistic business approach. It isn't much of a stretch to ASSUME that the characters that are creeping into places like Small World, Haunted Mansion, the Tree House, Tom Sawyer Island, Tomorrowland, Paradise Pier, etc, are part of an aggressive move by Disney to increase the exposure of its character "brands". In fact, in a recent interview with Fortune, Disney chairman Bob Iger was asked several questions about how he intends to grow the company financially through the tough economy. His response was there has been a fundamental change in how the company manages its character properties. >>"That was the result of a belief that these great character franchises were all brands unto themselves. But nobody was really managing those brands, and decisions were being made in a vacuum. So if we determine that "Toy Story" is a real franchise for the company, then "Toy Story" should get made. Now, you still have to have a great story and great execution - and in the absence of that, you shouldn't make it. And not everything has to be a franchise. I was recently asked whether "Ratatouille" was a franchise. I said no: "Ratatouille" is an extremely good animated film and will be a classic unto itself, but it is not a franchise. You are not going to see "Ratatouille" attractions in parks. When you look at "Toy Story," we're making our third film, we're opening two Toy Story Mania attractions at parks this summer, we have a very strong consumer products line, we have a "Toy Story" musical opening on the cruise line, we have a game in development - that's a franchise."<< Read the entire article here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/1...08041110 There is a directive from on high that encourages division managers to actively look for ways to advertise these character brands. So you see, there may be some validity to the assumption that there is more to this than just an update a 40 year old attraction. Profit may not have been the primary motive in this case, but profit is surely a motive in the overall directive to increase the presence of characters in every nook and cranny of Disney's theme parks.
125	danyoung Fri 5/2/2008 10:29a	I read that article when it came out, Hans, and it sounded like Iger was making solid business sense. Remember, he was talking to Fortune Magazine, which doesn't give a rat's patootie about magic and characters and attractions. And I've always said that profit is indeed a motive - I just argue about whether it's the primary one or not. It's interesting, with the firm entrenchment that people (not necessarily you, Hans) have in their viewpoints of this situation, that some would see the above quotes as proving that profit is all, while I see it as a good company head making smart decisions that will continue to grow the company and allow them to keep on bringing us entertainment.
126	mawnck Fri 5/2/2008 10:31a	Oh lordy. I agree with both Dan and Hans. It IS a small world after all.
127	mawnck Fri 5/2/2008 10:43a	#126 re: 123 and 124, but not >>I see it as a good company head making smart decisions that will continue to grow the company and allow them to keep on bringing us entertainment.<< Unfortunately, there's such a thing as overkill. Remember Eisner's infamous Peter Pan speech, in which some poor hapless theme park guest made the mistake of telling the main gate folks that Peter Pan was their favorite character, resulting in a months-long multimedia bombardment that would've assured that the guest would never want anything to do with Peter Pan again as long as he lived. Eisner thought this was a great idea, and it seems to have dictated Disney's treatment of every really successful franchise of the last several years. It's a short-sighted, short-term strategy. Art doesn't do well when it's MBA'd and market-researched to death. The artists are the artists, while the people in the focus groups are not. The trick is to find artists that you can trust MORE than your focus groups. Disney used to have 'em. They probably still do. The best CEO for Disney would be one who can recognize these folks and let them have at it, rather than force his own initiatives on his divisions. That's how you build a world-class entertainment brand, as opposed to your typical Nickelodeon/Fox Kids/Six Flags outfit. And believe it or not, there are MBA programs that teach this.
128	dshyates Fri 5/2/2008 10:44a	I agree that as a business principle it is fine. The execution of the principle is about as as subtle as Gallagher's Sledge-o-matic. "Pixie Hollow", a great way to freshen the spot with a synergistic tie in. Tink in IASW. Not so much.
129	Hans Reinhardt Fri 5/2/2008 10:47a	"I read that article when it came out, Hans, and it sounded like Iger was making solid business sense." Absolutely, which is why I can't get as worked up as some over the upcoming changes for Small World. From what I can tell from the HKDL version, the changes will most likely be very nicely executed. Still, it bugs me to no end that Disney's theme parks are losing something through this process. The individual themes that I loved are slowly being replaced by more and more commercial junk. Oh well.
130	dshyates Fri 5/2/2008 10:53a	Eisner's Brain: "Look at those "Who Wants To be A Millionaire" ratings, and we only have it on one hour a week. If we put it on 24 hours a day we will get 168Xs the ratings. Man, I'm good." Disney's not done until the sight of product du jour causes a little throw-up in the back of your mouth.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-143

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Disney Fine Art at
The LaughingPlace Store
The LaughingPlace Store now carries a selection of Disney Fine Art from ACME Archives and Sanders CC Gallery

What's on
The Latest
A Frightfully Good Time Awaits Disney Cruise Line Guests this Halloween
Disney’s Animal Kingdom Welcomes Fourth Baby Giraffe This Year
El Capitan Theatre presents The Nightmare Before Christmas Oct 17-23 and Oct 30-Nov 1
The NAMM Foundation and Disney Channel Announce Sequel to 'Disney's High School Musical: The Music in You' Grant Program
“Entertainment Facility Project” To Be Discontinued
Disney & More One Day Sale October 18th
High School Musical 3 European Premiere photos
Disney Cruise Line Sets Sail For Russia, Northern Europe and Mediterranean in 2010
LP Guide to Sleeping Beauty 50th Anniversary Platinum Edition update
Tokyo Disneyland Resort record attendance

Click here for The Latest