PDA

View Full Version : I have proof of the infamous "If it's good enough for Six Flags ...." comment



Pages : [1] 2

Darkbeer
01-26-2003, 02:58 AM
Somebody was kind enough to send me an internal PointPoint presentation file from over 5 years ago. I totally trust this person in the fact that this is the real Mc Coy, and not a fake. If I could share my source, I am sure you would agree that it is a true document.

Sorry, guys I will not post the file, nor will I share it. I am sorry, but you are going to have to trust me on this one. I will clearly identify my comments with brackets [like this]. I am also only going to post selected information, mainly related to the infamous comment, and other points discussed over the last few years.

I received a 10 slide presentation, based on the wording, is an internal WDI presentation.

The first slide is the title slide...


THE "OFF THE SHELF" DECISION

Slide 2 is titled "1995 Company Mentality", which had 7 points.

Point 2 is "Can we do a "E" attraction for $70M?"

Point 6 is "With Paul Pressler's arrival our client became the "parks", not MDE."

Slide 3 is
1996 KEY TO A CHEAPER PARK

Facility, Show or Ride - Pick any 2.

Capitalize on an improving ride industry.

Take known technology & theme it with paint color, lighting & graphics.

Take advantage of engineering already spent by others.

"Direct Lifts"

If it's good enough for Six Flags ....

The "Guiding Principles"



As to the second point of Capitalizing, [To me, this is looking at outside companies, such as S&S Power, since the outside vendors have been making better products in the last decade or so]

And the fifth point, "Direct Lifts" [and as described in a later slide, this is taking attractions from other Disney parks, such as Muppets 3-D (the example they used)]

Slides 4 and 5 talks about the Guiding Principles.

The 4th slide is titled "How can Disney's California be realized for less than traditional practice?"

Then we have 11 points for the sub-category "Park Planning/Design/Theming" (the next slide has the other sub-category).

Point 1 is "No berm around the park", other points mention outside visual intrusions are OK, themed facades are faux, show-like, not immersions or period reproductions, that only the entries and front facades are to be themed, and to keep the Monorail as is.

Slide 5 contains 5 "Backstage Philosophy" points, including "First cost before life cycle savings"

Slide 6 is titled "Embracing the Industry... Their way"

5 points, my favorite is "We don't have any lawyers & we don't want to get any."

Slide 7 is titled "Our Experience", with the category of "good" and 11 points

Slide 8 is the category "Lessons Learned" and 6 points.

Slide 9 is just a title slide, "Would we do it again?" and nothing else.

Slide 10 starts with "Yes" in large letters, and then the sentence "The pros far out weigh the cons. But..."

Then we have 5 points, my favorite on this page is, "Have attractions partners sign(underlined) in advance of the buy." [I read this as get the prospective sponsor to pay up before spending the money, or at least be guaranteed that they will pay for it]

[OK, this is the end of the PowerPoint presentation. So what have we learned, that the statement "If it's good enough for Six Flags..." was actually made at a meeting inside the Disney company, and not made up, as some folks wanted us to believe! That Disney had serious cost control issues while designing and building DCA. That Disney made the decision to use "Off the Shelf" rides instead of designing and building their own. That Disney is looking to keep the costs down on new "E" attractions (the $70 million comment, and now the LA Times report of DCA's ToT costing $75 million). That Disney purposely cut back on the theming at DCA.]

merlinjones
01-26-2003, 06:02 AM
Thanks for posting this.

These are exactly all the Powerful Points Disney has been paying through the nose for at DCA and the Paris Studios... and it is these very intiatives that are degrading the public perception of the brand in general.

Whomever generated these theories should be have some awful karma coming at them (if it hasn't already).

Would we do it again? Do the pros outweigh the cons? Sad thing is you know they will. What greedy, short-sighted idiots.

I hope those that have been skeptical of insider horror stories from the WDC as the rantings of disgruntled ex-employees should take note.

Nobody can make this stuff up!

DisneyGuy03
01-26-2003, 09:58 AM
Point 6 is "With Paul Pressler's arrival our client became the "parks", not MDE."
You see, there is a difference, the key here is Paul Pressler was in charge when this document was used, Cynthia Harris doesn't believe quite the same things as this, but she is still trying to clean up his mess, which is quite substansial.

Gauchograd99
01-26-2003, 10:28 AM
While it is true that this was started under Pressler, how long and hard a battle do you think it will be to grab the needed money for a complete overhaul? How long do you think it would take to change a whole company mentality put into place and solidified over a period of 10 years (I hope I have a good number here)? Change is not easy to get through at ANY company let alone one the size of this behemoth. I have trouble getting a 5 person lab to recognize the importance of saving hard copy of computer files ("they are on the server, why do I need to keep a copy?").

Great information! This explains why there no longer is a Thumper's Easter Egg Hunt around Easter (no sponsor shelling $$ ahead of time), why ride removal is replaced with graphics, and why Superstar Limo was EVER CREATED!! :)

HBTiggerFan
01-26-2003, 10:38 AM
thank you darkbeer :crying: This explains a lot! :crying:

Morrigoon
01-26-2003, 11:01 PM
Very insightful...

These people actually graduated from business school?

merlinjones
01-27-2003, 11:14 AM
>>These people actually graduated from business school?<<

Business and marketing school graduates ARE the problem - - with their clone-line groupthink, tends, formulas, surveys, greed, arrogance, spreadsheets, competitive nature, loose way with the truth and oh-so-common bottom line short term wisdom.

All of this Ivy league MBA bull adds up to harmful and idiotic Power Point presentations that kill vision, quality, imagination, taste and showmanship and ultimately - - true growth and profit.

The original Borg collective.

Darkbeer
01-27-2003, 11:41 AM
Let's look at the fourth slide, and the "Park Planning/Design/Theming" points.

point 1, "No berm around the Park", matches up with what was built.

point 2, "Each attraction will be designed to achieve a specific emotional impact. “Mega E’s with elaborate facilities, shows and rides will be avoided in favor of story.", and the park opened with no Mega-E's, finally we are getting a large E with ToT, but nothing of that level was included in the original park.

point 3, "Some visual intrusions are okay, including structures outside park boundary", as people have mentioned (and complained about) seeing the city from GRR, the Sun Wheel, etc. detracts from the attraction.

point 4, "Themed facades are faux, show-set like; not immersions into replications of period themed architecture." Once again, matches up with what is offered at DCA.

point 5, "Themed facades are limited to entries and front facades and thus cover only a portion of the visible facility." Once again, a perfect match to what was delivered with DCA.

point 6, "Keep the Monorail as is". And that is exactly what happened, they didn't move one inch of track, instead the attractions and other park structures were built to accommodate the Monorail. Disney did try to hide and/or use the monorail a part of the design, for example the Golden Gate Bridge at the front entrance, or the Superstar Limo sign. And they helped to limit the intrusion, but by no means did it eliminate it. They also helped keep costs down by not moving the Monorail, or adding a DCA station.

Point 7, "Use “direct lifts” (e.g. Muppets 3-D) where possible." And we got direct lifts, Muppets 3-D, WWTBAM-PI (but of course, without the pre-show offered at WDW) and ITTBAB. And Animation, which I would not call a "Direct Lift", but the majority of the attraction was.

Point 8, "Surf City rides are “off-the-shelf” except for paint, lighting, graphics and show features.", And what did Paradise Pier (the revised name for Surf City) get ?

Point 9, "Where possible no new ride systems to be invented. We will use developed technology." And what did we get, the one new ride system (Soarin') was actually part of the Westcot design, so much of the design work was already completed.

Point 10, "Make “provisions only” for the future addition of a parade or water spectacular." And what did they do, build a large path through the park to accommodate a Parade, and added no infrastructure to the lagoon. They had to build the Parade building after opening, and had to add many features when they attempted LuminAria. And some of those "provisions" for the water spectacular were not that well thought out in regards as to where the guests were going to gather to watch the future show.

And the last point "No upgrades or tie-in to the existing Disneyland systems.", also how DCA was delivered.

LifelongAngelsFan
01-27-2003, 12:45 PM
Well, they certainly executed their plan quite well...unfortunately their plan has become a disaster measured by park attendance and revenue.

I doubt that any Disney executive today would answer the question "Would we do it again?" as an affirmative. They would have been better off saving the nearly $1 billion they put into this ill-conceived venture and left it as a parking lot (see thread "I liked it better as a parking lot"). Today, they have a money-losing park that is drastically missing its revenue goals. I won't be surprised to discover that to fix this park and get the attendance/revenue they seek that they eventually spend more (perhaps much more) than the savings they gained through these cost cutting measures.

See, those that say you maximize profit by cutting cost miss that profit is equal to the difference of revenue and expense. As I have said on another thread, cutting cost doesn't automatically lead to higher profits. Those who conceived DCA presumed that making all these cost cutting measures wouldn't impact revenue (perhaps doing a few of these would have been okay). Boy, were they wrong! They must have thought that people wouldn't notice. That people who attend Disney theme parks would be okay with it having little in common with a Disney theme park. In the end, the consumer has all the power.

LifelongAngelsFan
01-27-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Darkbeer
...So what have we learned, that the statement "If it's good enough for Six Flags..." was actually made at a meeting inside the Disney company, and not made up, as some folks wanted us to believe! ...

I can't imagine what fools would say this...this is declaring that it is okay, if not preferable, for Disney to lower their standards and to weaken their brand! Six Flags clearly has an inferior product compared to a Disney theme park, especially circa 1995 when this PP was created.

Given the Disney corporate strategy centers on brand, this is quite the executive gaff to have seen this PP and not reprimanded the person making this statement...or worse, to not recognize that this strategy would severely undermine the brand.

merlinjones
01-27-2003, 01:10 PM
>>point 2, "Each attraction will be designed to achieve a specific emotional impact. “Mega E’s with elaborate facilities, shows and rides will be avoided in favor of story.", and the park opened with no Mega-E's, finally we are getting a large E with ToT, but nothing of that level was included in the original park.<<

I would add that not only did they deliver on this point but went beyond it - - for the most part excising "story" from the equation as well. Most initial rides at DCA were completely context free California shopping mall themed environment type "experiences" rather than emmersive escapist "stories" where suspension of disbelief is involved (as in Disneyland).

I'm not sure how they can whittle down emmersion and elaborate facilities and shows and still maintain convincing story. That is where their "feel the magic" phony spin comes in to cover up the mess - - and nobody really buys that hollow sloganeering when its not attached to truly deliverable goods.

Sheila
01-27-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by LifelongAngelsFan
Given the Disney corporate strategy centers on brand, this is quite the executive gaff to have seen this PP and not reprimanded the person making this statement...or worse, to not recognize that this strategy would severely undermine the brand.

Unfortunately, this is not the work of *one* individual. It was a group-think decision. The Disney company in recent years has consistently only rewarded those who can demonstrate their ability to cut costs -- the mandate has been to cut costs, no matter what. Truly a result of too many MBA's and not enough foward thinking (which seems to be antithetical to the MBA mind-set of maximizing profit).

I've personally heard about some of the things said in planning sessions, and frankly, they're much worse than what was in the Power Point presentation.

Sheila

merlinjones
01-27-2003, 01:26 PM
From experience, the current mangement across all levels of the Walt Disney Company are now comprised of very arogant people who look down on their consumer base and truly beleive that "they don't know the difference". (There are good folks out there too, but they have little to no power in the current Kingdom).

This was true with DCA, it's true of the "direct-to-videos", of the Disney Store garbage - - its true across the board.

The problem is that people CAN tell the difference even if they can't articulate it - - which marketing surveys do not account for as a principle.

Also most of these executives do not appreciate (and sometimes outright disdain) Walt Disney and his product, let alone his wacky theories of quality and reivestment.

Not appreciating the original material anyway, they see the whole Disney thing as an "Emotional" brand-driven sales sham aimed at "Wal-Mart shoppers" and therefore deliver the appropriate cheap merchandise to support this cynical view.

Only the personality types that were willing to follow the collective and slah and burn were rewarded with top positions at the company over the last ten years. Those with artistic, moral, forward thinking, longterm, historic or original - - and especially passionate ideas ont he subject have been pushed aside and either driven out or politically minimized.

Now this sort of thinking is so fully ingrained in the system, no one can work their way out of it. That's why the company is in the toilet.

Ghoulish Delight
01-27-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by LifelongAngelsFan
Six Flags clearly has an inferior product compared to a Disney theme park, Well, hold on now, that's not quite the way I'd put it. Six Flags has an entirely different product than Disney. Six Flags has "thrill parks," and, by many measures, are the tops in that industry. Disney has "theme parks." Apples and oranges. Six Flags never purported to offer highly themed entertainment, they offer thrill rides. Just becuase they offer something different than what you happen to look for in an amusement park, doesn't mean it's "inferior."

I will give you this, though. If you look at what was meant by that statement, it seems they are referring to theming, and in that one aspect, yes they are, purposely, inferior. They do not try, they do not care if their theming is thin and half-concocted. It's not what they are trying to sell. And THAT'S the problem with the statement. Sure, Six Flags can get away with it because behind the theming (which is there only catch the eye for a second, not to immerse you), is the REAL point of their parks, the best thrill rides in the world. Disney doesn't have that. The theming IS (or was) the product. How the suits forgot that little fact is beyond me. People don't love Disneyland because Pirates is the most thrilling ride on the planet. They love it because Pirates is richly themed, and because the rest of the park's theming is more than surface deep.


You see, there is a difference, the key here is Paul Pressler was in charge when this document was used, Cynthia Harris doesn't believe quite the same things as this, but she is still trying to clean up his mess, which is quite substansial.Not exactly. You're confusing the many hats that Pressler wore. Yes, the decissions made that are reflected in these slides were Pressler's, but Cynthia is not in a position to rectify it. Her position deals more with day to day operations of the parks (plus some bigger long term decission making), but not really the design/construction decissions, and not the decissions affecting new parks construction. That's Rosulo's position. It remains to be seen what his MO will be. He hasn't been around long enough for us to see his impact. We're still seeing the residuals of Pressler's decissions over the past year or so, it'll be another few months (or more) before all that clears out of the queue and we really get to see how Rosulo is running the place.

LifelongAngelsFan
01-27-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Darkbeer

Slide 3 is ...
Take known technology & theme it with paint color, lighting & graphics....



So, this thinking has the essence of a Disney theme park being the use of paint, light, and graphics? What competitive advantage is there in that?

I'd suggest that their defendable competitive advantage comes from WED and its ability to create unique, compelling attractions that you can only experience at a Disney theme park. The notion of using exclusively off-the-shelf (OTS) rides and just paint them to a given theme is a recipe for disaster.

People certainly arent' going to fly to Southern California to experience attractions they can experience at their local state/county fair or local amusment park. Southern Californians who find OTS rides acceptable would much prefer Knotts or Magic Mountain where there are significantly more OTS rides.

Morrigoon
01-27-2003, 05:12 PM
I think I've come up with a way to articulate the difference here:


Originally posted by Darkbeer
Slide 3 is ...
Take known technology & theme it with paint color, lighting & graphics....


What makes Disney parks *Disney* parks is the use of paint, lighting, landscape, and TEXTURE.

Current Disney thinking is only 2-dimensional, when people are looking for 3-dimensional experiences. These guys need to stop thinking within the box and try the cube for a change.

Imagine a Sleeping Beauty's Castle if it were merely a big square building with a castle painted on the side! Compare the background of Toontown (which, though fairly flat actually has contour and texture) to the Bountiful Valley farm *mural*. This is the core difference.

The truth is, if it's not a real studio, people don't want big soundstages (Now I'm covering DCA and the Paris Studios). What they want is a fully immersive film environment. They want to feel as if they're INSIDE the movies they love so much. This is why the Hollywood city street thing actually works (though pity there's so little to do along that street at present) This is why Frontierland works, why Fantasyland works, and why Tomorrowland and DCA don't. This is why Tokyo DisneySea works, but DCA and DSP don't. It's NOT the economy, stupid! It's the lack of understanding what your guests really want, and the refusal to ask (or the inability to ask the right questions).

What the execs need to do is take a few random days (I'd say at least once a month if they're seriously involved in park development or management) and visit the park alone, in a t-shirt. That is, to visit not as a Disney exec, but as a guest. Perhaps bring one of those little micro recorders along and listen to guest conversations in lines, restaurants, etc. Maybe bring along a video camera and tape guests (candidly).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But anyway, there's the difference: 2-D vs 3-D thinking.

nednub77
01-29-2003, 06:51 PM
One minor correction.

The comment : "Have attractions partners sign(underlined) in advance of the buy." It does not refer to a Corporate alliance.

It refers to Disneyland Resort Executive Management. As the project approached completion and then passed opening day, acusations were quick to fly. Resort partners quickly developed a case of selective amnesia. A select few members of Operations Management forgot that they approved and bought into all of the same cost cutting measures that were forced upon Imagineering.

There was a short period post opening where blame was being tossed around. The comment relates to hindsight.

From now on, when Imagineering designs and builds a new attraction for the Disneyland Resort, the Resort Executive management will need to "sign" for the design in advance, there by avoiding after sale conflicts.

Interestingly enough, this was less of a problem in terms of maintenance related issues. T Irby's team asked enough questions to choke a horse when it came to engineering issues. If you can step back from the issue of DCA's creative failure, you will find one of the most technologically advanced Theme Parks in the World. State of the art controls, networking, lighting, Parkwide audio, the list goes on....

Unfortunatly, hardware NASA would be proud of still does not sell tickets.

LifelongAngelsFan
01-30-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Sheila
Unfortunately, this is not the work of *one* individual. It was a group-think decision. The Disney company in recent years has consistently only rewarded those who can demonstrate their ability to cut costs -- the mandate has been to cut costs, no matter what. Truly a result of too many MBA's and not enough foward thinking (which seems to be antithetical to the MBA mind-set of maximizing profit).

I've personally heard about some of the things said in planning sessions, and frankly, they're much worse than what was in the Power Point presentation.

Sheila

Your comment leads me to believe that my "or, worse..." rational applies. That executives don't recognize that these tactics lead to brand deteriation.

There is precident for this type of executive thinking in US business. In the late 50's, Ford brought in John McNamara, an accountant, as their CEO. The strategy was to cut costs, especially related to design/creative. The thinking was American car buyers wouldn't notice or care about things such as style or quality and that cutting costs in these areas wouldn't impact revenue.

For a few years this strategy worked. This was because GM, Chrysler, et al American car manufacturers took similar tacts and there was little choice for the US consumer. Revenue wasn't impacted and profits increased. In turn, accountants were encouraged to do even more cost cutting.

This corporate strategy created the opportunity for the Japanese to enter the US market and eventually dominate the US market. It took about a decade to ruin the US auto industry. By the early 70's, Ford had lost its brand. It took them nearly 20 years to regain their brand.

Sound familar?

80S ERA
01-31-2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Darkbeer
Let's look at the fourth slide, and the "Park Planning/Design/Theming" points.

point 1, "No berm around the Park", matches up with what was built.

point 2, "Each attraction will be designed to achieve a specific emotional impact. “Mega E’s with elaborate facilities, shows and rides will be avoided in favor of story.", and the park opened with no Mega-E's, finally we are getting a large E with ToT, but nothing of that level was included in the original park.

point 3, "Some visual intrusions are okay, including structures outside park boundary", as people have mentioned (and complained about) seeing the city from GRR, the Sun Wheel, etc. detracts from the attraction.

point 4, "Themed facades are faux, show-set like; not immersions into replications of period themed architecture." Once again, matches up with what is offered at DCA.

point 5, "Themed facades are limited to entries and front facades and thus cover only a portion of the visible facility." Once again, a perfect match to what was delivered with DCA.

point 6, "Keep the Monorail as is". And that is exactly what happened, they didn't move one inch of track, instead the attractions and other park structures were built to accommodate the Monorail. Disney did try to hide and/or use the monorail a part of the design, for example the Golden Gate Bridge at the front entrance, or the Superstar Limo sign. And they helped to limit the intrusion, but by no means did it eliminate it. They also helped keep costs down by not moving the Monorail, or adding a DCA station.

Point 7, "Use “direct lifts” (e.g. Muppets 3-D) where possible." And we got direct lifts, Muppets 3-D, WWTBAM-PI (but of course, without the pre-show offered at WDW) and ITTBAB. And Animation, which I would not call a "Direct Lift", but the majority of the attraction was.

Point 8, "Surf City rides are “off-the-shelf” except for paint, lighting, graphics and show features.", And what did Paradise Pier (the revised name for Surf City) get ?

Point 9, "Where possible no new ride systems to be invented. We will use developed technology." And what did we get, the one new ride system (Soarin') was actually part of the Westcot design, so much of the design work was already completed.

Point 10, "Make “provisions only” for the future addition of a parade or water spectacular." And what did they do, build a large path through the park to accommodate a Parade, and added no infrastructure to the lagoon. They had to build the Parade building after opening, and had to add many features when they attempted LuminAria. And some of those "provisions" for the water spectacular were not that well thought out in regards as to where the guests were going to gather to watch the future show.

And the last point "No upgrades or tie-in to the existing Disneyland systems.", also how DCA was delivered.

You forgot Point 11, "Disregard what is being done in TDS. That's ancient, obsolete Disney thinking.":rolleyes:

screamin4ever
02-01-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Sheila
Unfortunately, this is not the work of *one* individual. It was a group-think decision. The Disney company in recent years has consistently only rewarded those who can demonstrate their ability to cut costs -- the mandate has been to cut costs, no matter what. Truly a result of too many MBA's and not enough foward thinking (which seems to be antithetical to the MBA mind-set of maximizing profit).

I've personally heard about some of the things said in planning sessions, and frankly, they're much worse than what was in the Power Point presentation.

Sheila


NO VISIONARY AT THE HELM. What we have is a committee. And we all know that a jack-*** is a horse created by a committee.

AVP
02-01-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Morrigoon
Imagine a Sleeping Beauty's Castle if it were merely a big square building with a castle painted on the side! . [/B]

I don't think we're going to need to imagine this for much longer, if the noises coming out of the Hong Kong park are true. :mad:

AVP

AVP
02-01-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by screamin4ever
NO VISIONARY AT THE HELM. What we have is a committee. And we all know that a jack-*** is a horse created by a committee.

Oh, and Point 12 -

"Jackass" is allowed on these boards. As you said, it's a horse.

If you added the hyphen and the asteriks in an attempt to avoid the auto-censor, it was not only unecessary, but we ask that posters don't try to defeat the censor. It's there for a reason, and our language guidelines are pretty reasonable.

If you aren't sure is a word will be caught by the auto-censor, type in your message and hit "Preview Reply" instead of "Submit Reply" below. If the word clears the auto-censor, then either it's ok, or the auto-censor missed it. (In which case, we'll deal with the auto-censor if necessary).

If the auto-censor does edit the word, kindly find another way to say what you are trying to say.

Thank you,
AVP

Darkbeer
10-05-2003, 11:47 PM
A requested bump.... some Good history in this thread

dshimel
10-06-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by LifelongAngelsFan
Given the Disney corporate strategy centers on brand, this is quite the executive gaff to have seen this PP and not reprimanded the person making this statement...or worse, to not recognize that this strategy would severely undermine the brand.


Once upon a time...... Disney was about brand. Now, Disney is about doubling profit ASAP in order to justify that 41+ P/E ratio the stock is trading at. Problem is, the current profit is based on trimming everywhere reasonable, and making TV annimation quality sequils of every classic that a sequil is reasonable to do. How do you double profit, quickly, when you've already been squeezing every nickle out of the company?

The real answer is that they won't be able to. Eventually, the markets will get sick and tired of Disney promising to increase profit in the next 6-12 months. The stock price should fall back to a more reasonable 20 P/E, then they can get back to building a fan base instead of milking the cow for every drop she has.

Doodle Duck
10-06-2003, 09:52 AM
"building a fan base instead of milking the cow for every drop she has.."

Considering that Rossane (Barr) is the upcoming voice of the Cow, that is a disgusting image.

(Sorry to interupt an otherwise excellent thread.)







:fez: