speck76 said:
Please explain why you feel branding and product placement is bad for WDC.
thanks!
Thanks for asking. It is not the idea and usefulness of "brand management" as a general business concept that I regret in the WDC. It is its
over-abundant use for decision-making; and in some cases its inappropriateness.
First, its over-use:
Business is just that, "busy-ness." In itself, it has no value. Business management tools, such as "brand management" and "strategic planning," only have true usefulness when they relate to real products or creative content.
Disney has always been good at marketing their products. But the products were valuable and worth marketing, first. That is why Roy and Walt made a good team. There has to be a creative, useful, or meaningful product before even for the best marketing can create and sustain lasting value.
I feel that Disney lately has tipped the scale too far, and let the strategic planners
completely drive the creative decisions, instead of simply providing a
tool (of market analysis) for management to consider.
Disney is a creative company. The creative environment must drive the company, with input from the marketing and strategic planning staff before final approval. But, by definition,
creativity is about starting something, not just answering to a business need alone. Most of Walt's original ideas that are now seen as brillliant (color and sound cartoons; animated features; a theme park) did not start at the balance sheet -- in fact they challenged it. But he worked through Roy and his own business sense to make the business part accommodate his dreams (like when he came up with a deal to put his show on ABC in order to get the down payment for Disneyland -- and ended up revolutionizing both).
Second -- as for "branding" itself to be inappropriate for the WDC:
It may seem like a simple matter of semantics, but it there is a subtle but important difference between "brand" and either "product" or "character," both of which are important to the WDC. Things are "branded" when there is no other readily distinct difference between them (such as soap powders or cows).
Mickey is a CHARACTER, with assigned personality and history, that "colors" what the company can do with him. He is more than a "brand," and he is best managed when everyone understands the "character" and its relationship to products sold or movies made that feature him.
Disney's PRODUCT is a movie or a vacation or a souvenir (or the whole thing: goodwill). While the concept of "brand management" is useful in determining things like whether Disney's NAME will be placed on something, the first consideration needs to be the product itself. Is it a worthwhile investment, period?
You see, I think it translates into the very basis of the company: A "brand" is simply assigned onto an indiscriminate product. A "name," nowever, is
earned, usually by marketing a good PRODUCT (with CHARACTER, in Disney's case) to the point that goodwill is strong.
So, what I am saying is, that while brand management and other business-school ideas are useful as a
tool, they should be just that: a tool to help
manage, NOT suffocate, the creative CHARACTERS and PRODUCTS that suport the goodwill and long-term value of the company.
Disney's mindset should concentrate on the distinctiveness of its CHARACTERS and PRODUCTS, not its "brands" -- and the rest of the marketing will be easier.
The best managers let the creators create, and manage the resources to keep it happening and profitable ... not the other way around.
(Sorry that this post was long. I wanted to explain my view completely.)
