Hello. I'm hoping someone here can help me. For a school report we have to write a business proposal and need access to the companies' mission statement. I know Disney has one that is public but I can't find it online. If someone could please point me in the right direction it would be appreciated. Thank you. Lori

P.S. If Disney has a separate statement for each aspect of business (i.e. theme parks, stores etc.) I'm interested in the Disneyland resort theme parks.

Disney actually has one of the most concise mission statements of any major corporation. The official company mission statement is simply "To make people happy."

I can't seem to find the mission statement on the actual Disney site, but here is a third-party link (http://www.how-to.com/Operations/mission-statement.htm) that provides it.

-Jeff

It's an objective statement, not a mission statement, but http://disney.go.com/corporate/investors/index.html shows:

The Walt Disney Company's objective is to be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products. The Company's primary financial goals are to maximize earnings and cash flow, and to allocate capital profitably toward growth initiatives that will drive long-term shareholder value.

Pretty cool, huh? The only change I would make if I were CEO would be to take out the words "one of" in the first sentence.

In the era of Walt Disney Productions, the company had a slogan that defined its mission statement very clearly:

"Look to the name Walt Disney for the finest in family entertainment".

>>The Walt Disney Company's objective is to be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products. The Company's primary financial goals are to maximize earnings and cash flow, and to allocate capital profitably toward growth initiatives that will drive long-term shareholder value.<<

This statement is just the problem with the Disney Company today.

Where are words like quality, family, art, animation, cartoons, movies, heritage, innovation, imagination, entreprenuership, experience, immersion, escape, building, construction, experimentation, leadership, craft, tradition, fun? The artful boutique that made dreams and profits has become an emotionless bank full of brand marketed low end "product".

Feed the Birds.

Those words should not be in the company's overall objective statement. I could see them being used in individual business unit mission/vision statements or in supporting documentation on how to achieve their objectives.

But it's a fact of life that Disney is not in business to make animation, it is in business to make money. The well-written words in this objective statement give a top-level focus to every member of the Disney team as they strive to animate the best cartoons, immerse theme park guests in facinciful escapes, and innovate quality family experiences.

>>But it's a fact of life that Disney is not in business to make animation, it is in business to make money. <<

How ironic, then, that while replacing their creative, innovative and quality ideals with system, function and financial models, they have ceased doing just that.


>>The well-written words in this objective statement give a top-level focus to every member of the Disney team as they strive to animate the best cartoons, immerse theme park guests in facinciful escapes, and innovate quality family experiences.<<

References to quality of any sort in that statement are only blind assumptions on your part. I find no reference to doing anything but shopping branded product for maximum profit and expansion (whatever that product might be).

...And the current corporate culture there festers in just such a vaccuum, sadly, so I find the passionless, valueless wording chillingly accurate.

Feed the birds.

"I've always been bored with just making money. I've wanted to do things, I wanted to build things, to get something going. What money meant to me was that I was able to get money to do that for me." - - Walt Disney

"Money - or, rather, the lack of it to carry out my ideas may worry me, but it does not excite me. Ideas excite me." - - Walt Disney

"You reach a point where you don't work for money." - - Walt Disney

Here is my fav. Disney Statement, I can't really remember where it is from, I think its from Mouse Tales
Disneyland: The Disney company's polite way of taking your wallet and wiping it clean


OR:


Disneyland: The largest human trap bulit by a mouse

:D ;) :p :D :cool: :)

Originally posted by merlinjones
Feed the birds.

If they had birdseed at Disneyland, it'd probably be $24.95.

This company has been a slowly sinking ship since Wells died, and Eisner is just drilling more holes to let the water out.

Walt Disney Productions still exists in the same way as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, United Artists, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Universal, Columbia, and 20th Century-Fox still exist; as a consumer goods concern.

The rebranding seems to have worked: the irritating teenybopper series "Lizzie McGuire" has just made the cover of TV Guide. The 20th anniversary of the launching of The Disney Channel was Thursday, and no one made a peep about it.

They're remaking every movie musical in sight whether it needs one or not, and throwing bones of condescension to minority actors by putting them in settings that would create gross anachronisms.

Michael Eisner seems to want every memory of Walt Disney and what he and his army of artists created wiped away. The title of the upcoming DTV picture "The Search for Mickey Mouse" seems to reveal more than one would think. Are their any plans for anniversary celebrations for Mickey's 75th this year or Donald Duck's 70th next year?

Are we wishing upon a star that's about to go supernova? Would it have been better if WDP had fallen victim to corporate greenmailers in the 1980s?

I find this nostaligic pining for the past somewhat funny and, alas, a little sad. It's not the 1950's anymore. Times change, companies change, the definition of quality products changes.

Does Disney have to continually celebrate every anniversary of everything they've ever done? Why isn't Lizzie McGuire making the cover of TV guide seen as a success--a current Disney production that has managed to win both commercial success and critical support as a wholesome TV effort?

For those who feel that Disney's best days are behind them and that there is no hope for the future, why do you still torture yourself by coming to enthusiast websites? Why don't you latch onto whatever entertainment company you feel is doing a better job and heap your enthusiasm on them? Why do you bitterly complain but do nothing of substance to change what you feel has gone so horribly wrong?

>>Times change, companies change, the definition of quality products changes.<<

Not as many people are defining Disney's efforts as "quality" these days, so which culture is out of touch?


>>For those who feel that Disney's best days are behind them and that there is no hope for the
future, why do you still torture yourself by coming to enthusiast websites? <<

To help preserve what's left of Walt's creative legacy (Disneyland, the film library, the traditions unique to Walt era culture, and the man's reputation, and the jobs and dreams of many "little people" that believe what he and his studio stood for) by shining a light on the antithetical corporate culture, system clones, their cronies, poor products and failed spin that has destroyed much of what had value.

There is always hope for the future - - but only if you can be honest about what is going wrong.

I am an admirer of Walt Disney and his works - - not a Disney Company enthusiast. You need to be able to differentiate here. One is not necessarily the other, particularly as rebranding separates these points more widely. Unfortunately, one owns the assets of the other, so we are stuck together.

Maybe they can sell those assets back to the family or someone who cares... hey - - then go wild with those tweens and lowest common denominator products, baby, and we won't bug you (not that the company would be around long after).

Why do you come here to gloat to/berate fans (who care about creative issues) over corporate system successes and profits that don't exist except in MBA theory?


>>Why don't you latch onto whatever entertainment company you feel is doing a better job and heap your enthusiasm on them? <<

No one is doing a better job than Walt Disney did in his heyday. We want that creative led system back. It had value, not just to fans, but to American society.... as a tradition to be passed to new generations.


>>Why do you bitterly complain but do nothing of substance to change what you feel has gone so horribly wrong?<<

How do you know?

Many who post around here are pros who have tried - - hard - - in real time to make a difference. But you can't fight city hall... or the fervent religious converts of the new society: system theorists, investment theorists and brand marketing hacks. Attack of the clones. There are always more on the horizon, pumped out by the dozens in business schools.

But why pick a fight with us? It's your business savvy brethren that have all the power and vision right now and are reducing the company to ashes. You can't blame the internet or the consumer for not liking their product.

If yours is a better way - - where's the money?

>>I find this nostaligic pining for the past somewhat funny and, alas, a little sad. It's not the 1950's anymore. Times change, companies change, the definition of quality products changes.<<

If you want to go to the 50's - - at that time Walt Disney was bigger than Speilberg, Lucas and Nickelodeon's current cachet combined - - in the studio's impact on American culture of the period. Their mark of quality was omnipresent in the lives of boomer children: Davy Crockett, Disneyland, Disneyland TV, Mouseketeers, Zorro, Annette, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, Lady, Shaggy Dog, 20,000 Leagues, Old Yeller, True-Life Adventures, Donald Duck cartoons... not to mention the already old classics reissued.

Tell me the mildly-popular-with-its cable demographic "hit" Lizzie, the Pooh ride, DCA and direct to video sequels have anywhere near this kind of zeitgeist or impact. If it weren't for Pixar...

While the current corporation undoubtedly generates far more cash flow, its imprint on pop culture can now be compared more accurately to Kmart and MacDonald's - - cheap mass marketed product - - due to the efforts of an MBA ruled kingdom.

And yet the "New" Disney's greatest economic period of growth was when it more closely resembled Walt's theories of business: prior to the mid-90's when reinvestment in top quality animation, spectacular theme park shows and timeless themes dominated the agenda.

This is progress?


As I'd posted elsewehere:

I think the primary shift in vision comes down to the "whos", not "whats":

Walt Disney Productions was driven by creatives, artists, innovators, cartoonists, storytellers, designers, filmmakers and common folk - - utilizing the talents of technicians, accountants, merchandisers, lawyers, PR mavens, industrialists, bankers and marketers to support their point-of-view and sell their product.

The Walt Disney Company is driven by industrialists, corporate culturalists, accountants, business and management theorists, brand marketers, advertisers, merchandisers, PR mavens, social engineers, bankers, technicians, real estate developers, politicians, lawyers and economists and other elites - - utilizing the talents of artisans and craftspeople to package their point-of-view and put a facade on their product.

This key power shift can't help but be reflected in the products and priorities of the company.

What always set Disney Studios apart during good and bad times was the creative drivers, a rarity amongst large corporations. The current Disney only shares its name with the old.

The really scary part to me, mj, is that in the most top-level sense you and I completely agree. I bemoan the accountants who seem to hold sway over creative (or, in my field, engineering) decisions. I look at the numbers of grads in law and MBA schools (and the resultant salaries "earned") and worry about our society. Even when it comes to Disney, I look back with a little sadness remembering how much more excited I was when EPCOT opened than DCA.

But part of that is the fondness of memory. Even as I write this I'm smiling remembering what a good time my wife and I had at DCA on Christmas. When EPCOT opened I was a kid; of course there are wonderful memories of that time in my life. Maybe for you Davy Crockett was on when you were a kid, and so you lament the fact that TV today just isn't the same.

Where we really differ is in how we take the Disney company of today. I guess I just accept that Walt is dead and that the company will never be the same. In fact, I'm GLAD it will never be the same. Society today is a lot different than it was in decades past, and the pace of change seems to be increasing all the time.

I've enjoyed Atlantis and Treasure Planet. TDS and yes, even DCA are extremely enjoyable theme parks that are better than anything else out there. I like to watch Whose Line Is It Anyway, My Wife and Kids, or the George Lopez Show now and again. When I travel, it's nice to have an ESPN Zone to go hang out at.

Those are just a few examples of where the Disney company of today is doing a bang-up job of providing entertainment. It's not all gloom and doom, mj. If you think you can run a company today the way Walt did forty years ago, then take out a small business loan and get started. I don't think the Disney company will ever be like that again, at least I hope not.

I guess the difference is in our overall outlook on life and the resultant difference in how we do things. You remind me of the kind of person who will throw rocks through the window of a Starbucks or a Gap because you hate the crass commercialism. I, on the other hand, simply wouldn't shop there and instead would take my business to the locally-owned corner coffee shop.

>>I've enjoyed Atlantis and Treasure Planet. TDS and yes, even DCA are extremely enjoyable theme parks that are better than anything else out there. I like to watch Whose Line Is It Anyway, My Wife and Kids, or the George Lopez Show now and again. When I travel, it's nice to have an ESPN Zone to go hang out at. Those are just a few examples of where the Disney company of today is doing a bang-up job of providing entertainment. <<

I'm sorry, you sound like a PR person.

Most of these things (some perhaps profitable) have not proved wildly successful in the scope of American media, let alone the popular imagination. I'm sorry, but - - again - - where are the measurable profits for the company from this lineup (TDS obviously excepted, as it is not a Disney Company product)?

Compared to the era of Mermaid, Beauty, Aladdin, Lion King, Roger, Toontown, Star tours, Indy, etc. where has this regime gone? Only down.

>>Maybe for you Davy Crockett was on when you were a kid, and so you lament the fact that TV today just isn't the same.<<

Sorry, it's not just nostalgia. I was born in the 60's, when all of the stuff I listed above was already "old", but it was passed to me as having great value and artistic worth and I found it inspirational. But it wasn't sold to me as old but new. This is simply art that made an impact. Or why would we still be discussing it (and buying much of it) today? Walt Disney was never trendy but timeless. It's a different set of priorities now.

How does the disposable culture of Atlantis, George Lopez and ESPN Zone measure in any way against the lasting acheivements (and profit value) of Sleeping Beauty, Davy Crockett and Disneyland? How will they age as longterm assets to the company?

Short term thinking is a curse.

Iceman,

You are right in saying "if you don't like it, don't buy it..." to an extent. But who is going to fill that void? Nickelodeon? Phe! The only show on their I particularly like is SpongeBob. They ran "Rugrats" into the ground years ago. But none of the shows will ever have the same impact as anything Disney have ever created.

Walt _is_ dead, that we cannot change. But there's no reason why someone can't at least try to fill that void. Michael Eisner was the god that failed, in this respect. Walt may not have been the son of God, but if it ain't broke...

Entertainment companies are different from consumer products firms such as Procter & Gamble. That is a place where an MBA in business and a focus group would not be a hindrance. Nobody knows or cares who William Procter and James Gamble were.

Don't get me wrong; I'm the last one to say making money is not important. But sooner or later the inferior quality product will dilute the brand name.

In the 1970s WDP put most of their concentration on the theme parks and relatively little on the film division. The result was a string of (mostly) mediocre films. They could make decent ones but no one would see them once they saw the name "Disney" on it. There was no one to guide them through the turbulent America of the 1970s. It was not the same place where Walt lived and died. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Walt had lived a little longer and seen the radical cultural changes. What would Walt have done?

In the late 1970s, they'd realized that something had to be done. The changes they made were perfunctory at best: an "update" of the anthology series that consisted solely of a new disco theme song and a shorter title. A PG-rated sci-fi epic called "The Black Hole" fell into a box-office black hole. A repackaging of clips from old cartoons set to disco music, with an album tie-in, is also worth noting (remember "Mickey Mouse Disco"?).

By 1983 the film division was losing money. They could barely get their films booked into decent theatres. NBC and CBS had both dumped the anthology series. The Disney Channel had started but was not yet making money. The studio was truly a Mickey Mouse operation.

Then came 1984, Touchstone, "Splash," and Saul Steinberg. We all know what happened there. It's almost like a Disney fairy tale, rescued by the not-so-handsome princes Michael, Jeffrey, and Frank, WDP lived happily ever after. For awhile.

Read the books "Storming the Magic Kingdom" and "The Keys to the Kingdom" for more information. I recommend them highly. They had creative individuals to counterbalance to a pragmatic financial one, but they've been systematically driven from the studio by Eisner's greed and possessiveness.

Did they destroy the village in order to save it? You have the facts, you decide.