PDA

View Full Version : Rasulo: Incomparable Disneyland



Pages : [1] 2

merlinjones
10-09-2003, 01:05 PM
From Jay Rasulo's dog and pony show for investors yesterday:

http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID10017990.asp?Headline=1&Date=10/9/2003&Section=

>>Walt once said, "Disneyland will never be complete as long as there is imagination left in the world." That's true of all of our parks but once Tower of Terror opens, Disney's California Adventure will offer a complete, full-day experience that is different in style but comparable in variety and substance to what is currently available at Disneyland. <<

No it won't.

While a welcome addition, I'll be surprised if ToT clicks up the turnstyle counts at DCA much beyond repeat passholders. Who wouldn't rather go to Disneyland?

Hey - - Is there any imagination left in the world anyway? I can't tell.

zapppop
10-09-2003, 01:17 PM
TOT is such a great metaphor for DCA.
Attendance drops just like the elevators, and guests never return.

:~D

justagrrl
10-09-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by merlinjones
... Disney's California Adventure will offer a complete, full-day experience that is different in style but comparable in variety and substance to what is currently available at Disneyland. <<



Wow - isn't that pretty much admitting that he thinks it's not a "complete, full day experience"?

mousey_girl
10-09-2003, 02:43 PM
When Rasulo came into the picture a lot of the online community hailed him as the 2nd Coming for DLR. So far I have been underwhelmed. Was I expecting too much? Has there just not been enough time to see any changes?

Mr. Wiggins
10-09-2003, 02:56 PM
Hey - - Is there any imagination left in the world anyway? I can't tell.

There is. Lots of it. From Lascaux to today, we’re swimming in it -- don't ever doubt it.

However, the culture of popularly acclaimed entrepreneurial imagination of the sort that nurtured Edison, Ford, Disney, et al., has been pushed off stage by the popular approval -- indeed, outright admiration -- of the power elites of the business world. They occupy center stage in nearly identical fashion to the business/politico elites of a century ago. As with their historical predecessors (and those before them, ad nauseam), they came to power not by coup; rather they were swept onto stage by a popular culture that perceived them as admirable. Which, it can be argued, they may have been -- in their time.

But that Old Man Cultural Cycle, he just keeps rollin' along, and their peak time has passed. (Some cultural anthros place the beginning of their downward slide around five years before Enron self-immolated. Which, interestingly enough, is about the time Mikey began displaying his hard-core arrogance in arenas outside the cloistered conference rooms of TDB.) As in previous cycles the public eventually tires of the elites' narcissism; former heroes become reviled; the elites' increasingly self-destructive behavior propels them into a downward spiral; publicized incidents spark a general call to toss the bums out; a more egalitarian sensibility becomes vogue, and so it goes.

The reversal is occurring right now, with frustrating slowness to be sure. And yet perhaps faster than we think. Consider two recent, simultaneous events: the general public approval of the films of John Lassiter and the Pixar team; and the general public disapproval of CEOs; especially the repeated portrayal by the popular (elite owned!) media (CNNfn, Forbes, et al.) of Michael Eisner -- inheritor of the legacy of Walt Disney's popularly-acclaimed imagination -- as the worst CEO in America.

Bill Catherall
10-09-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally spoken by Jay Rasulo
...once Tower of Terror opens, Disney's California Adventure will offer a complete, full-day experience that is different in style but comparable in variety and substance to what is currently available at Disneyland. Emphasis mine.

Technically, considering everything that is missing from Disneyland and the current state of the park...he's right.

LSPoorEeyorick
10-09-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by justagrrl
Wow - isn't that pretty much admitting that he thinks it's not a "complete, full day experience"?

I don't think there's any other way to think of it, TDA brass or not. I'm not a DCA hate-monger, but it's certainly not a full-day park by anybody's stretch (or lack there)of imagination.

JeffG
10-09-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by LSPoorEeyorick
I don't think there's any other way to think of it, TDA brass or not. I'm not a DCA hate-monger, but it's certainly not a full-day park by anybody's stretch (or lack there)of imagination.

I have spent full days at DCA on several occasions and had no difficulty whatsoever finding enough to do to fill the day. In fact, my first two visits to the park were 12 and 15 hours long.

If you don't like what the park has to offer, it isn't a full day experience. If you like its offerings, there is certainly enough there to fill a day.

-Jeff

merlinjones
10-09-2003, 09:18 PM
I think I'm getting a crush on Mr. Wiggins.

innerSpaceman
10-10-2003, 06:34 AM
That's funny; I thought he was like your sock puppet or something.

merlinjones
10-10-2003, 07:01 AM
>>That's funny; I thought he was like your sock puppet or something.<<

No. I'm not so fabulous as to use sock puppets! What you read from mj is what I'm writing. Though way back before merlinjones I posted under another name for years at add (long unused).

Mr. Wiggins is clearly a Disney-experienced and learned voice, just like yourself, Spaceman. We need all the help we can get to put out the educated word. I give him a most hearty round of applause and wait for more brilliance.

RStar
10-10-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by merlinjones
...... but once Tower of Terror opens, Disney's California Adventure will offer a complete,

Funny thing is, when I read this in the newspaper, I thought you'd get a laugh out of it, MJ.;)

Mr. Wiggins
10-10-2003, 02:41 PM
>>We need all the help we can get to put out the educated word.<<

Merlinjones' kind words are appreciated, as his posts have long been. With respect I'll decline the brilliance, however!

merlinjones
10-10-2003, 03:28 PM
More Rasulo:

Aren't we all sick of the same old hackneyed marketing school buzzwords and buzzphrases dropped throughout every speech and press release like clammy stillborn cliches from planet Mars? Words like:

Product
Contemporary
Relevant
Compelling
Units
Initiative
Market
Reinvestment strategy
Mission statement
Demographics
Cost savings
Survey
Consumer
Magic
Magical
Merchandise mix
Point of purchase
Management
Retheming
Reduced cost
Just in time
Deferred
Five year plan
Brand
Brand building
Brand marketing
Capitalization
Differentiate
Leverage
Content
Software
Hardware
Soft opening
Development
Portfolio
Diverse
Investment levers
Flexibility
Feedback
Disneyland will never be complete as long as there is imagination left in the world
Capital spending
Fiscal year
Spending target
Segment
Strategic
Program
Trend
Material
Multi household
Leisure market
Independant research
Values
Significant
Median income
Asset base
Franchise
Edgy
Hip
Tween
Communicating
Visitation
Line of business
Event
Flexible
Responsive
Services
Processes
Preferences
Sophisticated
Platform
Tracking
Philosophy
Systematic
Customized
Personalized
Maximize
Changing tastes
Internet
Reach
Expandable
Simplified
Streamlined
Experience
Consumer need
Economic condition
Users
User friendly
Spin
Buzz
Effective
Property
Promotion
Product placement
Per square foot
Profit margin
Tool
Marketing
Repetition
Drive
Proposal
Three point
Five point
Powerpoint
Presentation
Effective
Guest spending
Consensus

etc.

It's all so enchanting.

Truly stimulates the imagination.

I'll bet Walt (and even Roy) went most of their careers without using the majority of these words and phrases in this context.

Is there anything of substance behind these words? Or are they just used to hypnotize Pavlov's dogs in the business community (and wanna be sofa stock jockeys) through sheer familiarity and relevant trendiness (oops, now I'm doing it)?

I defy the executives, marketers and PR mavens of the Walt Disney Company to draft a major announcement without using any of them. They won't know how.

Let's keep a tally in the future!;)

LifelongAngelsFan
10-10-2003, 03:49 PM
"if we added an E-Ticket every six months my job would be easy"

A couple comments:

1. What's wrong with having an easy job? By "easy" do you mean that attendance to the resorts will be so strong that you won't have labor over inventing new marketing spin to cover the failure of your present cost avoidance strategy?

2. This paints a very grim picture for the prospects of new, compelling attractions being added to DLR. Consider with the opening of HKDL that Disney will have 11 parks worldwide. For each park to get a new E-Ticket every five years it would required adding a new E-Ticket at an average rate of one per every six months. My take is that after TOT the DLR won't see another E-Ticket for at least a decade.

Mr. Wiggins
10-10-2003, 03:51 PM
>>Aren't we all sick of the same old hackneyed marketing school buzzwords and buzzphrases dropped throughout every speech and press release like clammy stillborn cliches from planet Mars?<<

My personal fave is "audience segment." That, sprinkled with an "edgy" or two, is good for a thorough stomach cleansing at a story conference any day!

Jay's speech is perfect for his two intended audiences: his boss and Wall Street -- primarily his boss. Though others may be listening, from the popular press to Disney fans, he is not speaking to anyone but Michael and the Street. It's the same sort of in-house groupspeak these guys share internally on a day-to-day basis, just formalized and given a bit of PR rhythm. It contains no sense of true imagination, creative passion or connection to Disney customers because those elements are irrelevant -- they're an interference! -- to Jay's job. If he talked otherwise he'd be outta there faster than a landlubber's stomach contents on Mission Space.

merlinjones
10-10-2003, 03:55 PM
"Relevant and compelling" are my overused pet peeves dujour.

But nothing will ever beat the old warhorses "hip and edgy" - - which sort of equal "Mantovani does the Beatles" in Disney marketing lingo.

jazzjunkie
10-11-2003, 11:27 PM
Mantovani does the Beatles

Hehehe

LifelongAngelsFan
10-12-2003, 08:39 AM
I would like to comment on each of his elements for, "the key elements of our [Disney's] plan to continue developing the diverse mix of "uniquely Disney" entertainment offerings that have always characterized our properties. "

From a high level plan it sounds very sound and encouraging. Unfortunately, when he elaborates on what this means it becomes quite disappointing.

1. E-Tickets

I was so happy to see him list this as his first element. An admission that compelling attractions, not stores, are the primary reason customers visit a Disney theme park. My hopes soared that Disney would return to adding E-Tickets to all their theme parks. Then he dashed my hopes with his "can't do an E-Ticket every six months" comment. His comment about continued low capital budget for the theme parks nailed this coffin shut.

Nice sentiment, but no substance.

He then described what alternative entertainment to E-Tickets they would use as these alternatives were dramatically less expensive.

2. Live Shows & Spetaculars

He stated that live shows and spectaculars drive attendance and guest satisfaction as much as E-Tickets do but a fraction of the cost.

Okay, as a consolation prize I'd accept more spetaculars as a replacement for more E-Tickets. From what I see, they are reducing live shows and spetaculars not increasing them. Further, a "live show" doesn't mean it is a spetacular. Fantasmic! is a spetacular, Playhouse Disney live is not.

The two examples he used were the Aladdin and Playhouse Disney shows. What I've read here is the attendance for these shows have dramatically gone done. Playhouse Disney performs to an empty house regularly. Over at DL, I understand the number of live shows are going down.

So, I'd say this proves that live shows and spetaculars are replacement for E-Tickets only when, a) the show is a true spetacular like Fanstasmic! that guest never get tired of watching, or b) they are replaced regularly with new shows.


3. Leveraging Disney Brand

He claims that guest want more Disney. His solution for this is by adding C-Ticket and B-Ticket, off-the-shelf attractions with Disney characters painted on them ala "A Bugs Land". He is quick to point out how inexpesive it was to do this. He also uses the C-Ticket "Winnie the Pooh" as an example.

The overriding reasoning is this element if very cheap. The attitude expressed was, "paint a Disney character on it and people will think it is 'Disney'...they won't notice the underlying attraction is crud."

4. WDI R&D

Another point that on the surface sounds great. To use R&D to continue to expand the envelope of compelling attractions. He used Lucky and Stich as his examples.

I like this thinking. Unfortunately, if they aren't going to put these items into every park then it doesn't help. The scale they are discussing is too small to be impactful.

In conclusion, I was pretty discouraged by the time I finished reading this article.

merlinjones
10-12-2003, 04:47 PM
LlAF: I have to agree on all points. The speech announced nothing new, beyond continuing the unfortunate policies of Paul Pressler. Very short sighted.

LifelongAngelsFan
10-13-2003, 07:28 AM
Merlin,

I would add that those who point to PP as the root of all evil will be dismayed to learn that this article illustrates that the thinking regarding the theme parks are deeply rooted at the executive level.

merlinjones
10-13-2003, 07:43 AM
>>I would add that those who point to PP as the root of all evil will be dismayed to learn that this article illustrates that the thinking regarding the theme parks are deeply rooted at the executive level.<<

We agree, with no dismay.

Pressler was merely a sympton/product of upper management (Eisner and Staggs) bottom-line, cost-slashing, anti-Walt, anti-consumer, management elitist beliefs. No one who beleived otherwise would have gotten the job at that time - - and his continued promotion underscored executive approval for his stance (and perhaps his nice butt). He was the hatchet man. But don't forget that Paul was a human being with choices - - he was more than willing to lay waste to Disneyland, to living history, art and tradition - - in order to be part of the gang and line his pockets and climb the ladder of success. He is still to be reviled for playing along with this greedy, myopic game, not seeing what is truly important - - for simply being the person he is - - a small minded retailer/marketer. And so it goes for anyone else who buys into this corporate culture mindset.

One must remember Rasulo would not have this job if he were not one of the sharp pencil boys himself. Faith in anyone at a high executive level at Disney is misplaced at this time (save Roy, who comes from another, better time at the studio).

LifelongAngelsFan
10-13-2003, 09:53 AM
I was hoping that Rasulo wasn't one of the sharp pencil boys. That hope was naive. I now realize that anyone with the job will be a sharp pencil boy or girl.

Those thinking that replacing Cynthia Harris will solve all DLR woes will be gravely disappointed. She would be replaced with another sharp pencil person.

Taking a step back, the root of the evil probably isn't even ME and crew. The root of this evil was the day that the Disney family no longer had the controlling interest in their company. The day that institutional investors gained controlled was the death of the Disney company as Walt knew it. In other words, that was the day the sharp pencil boys took over the company.

Today the overwhelming majority of Disney stock is owned by a handful of very large, institutional investors. These entities could care less about the Disney legacy. They only care about return on capital over the very short term.

Rasulo's speech illustrates the grip of the institutional investor. It is all about pitching to these entities hot buttons.

merlinjones
10-13-2003, 10:10 AM
>>The root of this evil was the day that the Disney family no longer had the controlling interest in their company. <<

I pin that moment to the day that Diane, Ron, Lilly and Sharon sold the copyrighted name and likeness of Walt Disney (and Retlaw's other assets) to Walt Disney Productions for a mere ten million dollars.

Walt knew this family held trump card was needed as a check and balance against the bankers.

LifelongAngelsFan
10-13-2003, 10:35 AM
You are kidding me? $10 million dollars...why in the world did they do that?

I understood why Walt had to go public and sell a portion of the Company. The Disney family still owned the majority of the stock until after Walt passed. After Walt died did the Disney family simply not care anymore?