Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[Eddie Sotto]

I'm not so much. Of course I trust the Iger/Lasseter/Jobs team. (Check out the latest "Alice" trailer released today)

But there is also the blogging community now. If people are selective and not given to fights that can't be won, then the web can be an instrument for good. WDWMagic and other sites can be the watchdogs.

I agree and compared to the creativity level of other regimes, IMHO this is the best thing out there. Not to say things can't be handled better at the detail level, but I'm sure who i would put in there that's better. Roy was a great force for good, and that will be missed.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Very sad! It is truely a depressing day to see a person who has done so much to protect the direction and image of both WDC and the Disney family. He has gone to battle twice to help realign the company during turbulent times at which he could have lost everything including his creadibility. The amazing part is he succeded both times and earned respect for the loyalty to both his uncle and fathers original directions for WDC.

I will have to go home and watch Fantasia 2000.



I am confident in the current direction of the company, but what happens in another 5 years. WDC has this cyclical issue. About every 10 years it seems the company starts change direction away from it's roots and again struggles. Who will come forward now to grab the wheel and steer the ship back on course? Let's hope that someone out there will!

Maybe Tim Disney? It would be great if a "Luke Skywalker" would emerge from the Disney DNA and learn the ways of the force.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

You have Walt confused with Card Walker.

Nope. Herb Ryman told me that Walt said things like that about young Roy. If it is even true, and who knows what context it was said in, if at all, is that Walt never had a son himself and wanted one badly, perhaps there was a jealousy there to some degree. the two brothers spent years not getting along. I guess it's kind of unknowable.

 

[kcnole]

You have Walt confused with Card Walker.

You're right that it was Card who officially dubbed him that, but it was after conversations with Walt. That said, I wasn't trying to post it to be disrespectful of Roy only to show that he proved far more valuable to the company than anyone ever imagined he would.

Roy's passing has me very sad.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Roy's interventions seemed to have come from the heart, and certainly rang a chord with me. He will be missed. He was a positive force, oppossing what I considered with him poor directions the Disney corp. went in.

RIP.


As an aside, I am always struck by the uncanny physical resemblence he bore to his father, Roy O. Disney - a man whom I hugely admire.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

With Lasseter mainly, I think the company has at least one higher up that will fight for that going the extra mile TRUE Disney quality.

And surrounding him on many levels are other "less knowns" that love the brand and will carry the torch. It's not a company of one.

 

[_Scar]

And surrounding him on many levels are other "less knowns" that love the brand and will carry the torch. It's not a company of one.

:sohappy: exactly

 

[kcnole]

I know there are people all throughout Disney who love the company and want to keep to Walt's ways. Its the financial people who are making all the decisions for the most part though, and they seem more concerned with squeezing water from a rock than placing the quality first.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I know there are people all throughout Disney who love the company and want to keep to Walt's ways. Its the financial people who are making all the decisions for the most part though, and they seem more concerned with squeezing water from a rock than placing the quality first.

I wish it were that simple. It sure seems that way sometimes. As you know, Disney is publically traded. Public companies exist not for the founders, but to survive and show growth. At the end of the day, everyone from the CEO on down is measured by the gold standard of what the stock is doing and the growth of the company. The geist of the company reflects that, stocks reflect that. Now the argument can be made that minding the ways of Walt is good business and it is. It is long term, slow growth thinking. Not very American. When I was there years a ago it was quarter to quarter growth measurement. Not as aggressive today, but growth is still the goal. There are CEO's that do that well and make for succcess. The reality is that the Company under Walt was not a stockholder's dream. Walt took it to the brink many times and only Eisner was able to grow the company exponentially. Iger has been doing long term things with big checks like buying Pixar, Marvel, building new Cruise ships and even reviving DCA and DL for it's 50th.


Walt wanted to get away from the stockholders because he wanted to dream without answering to anyone. Walt was an entrepreneur and innovator. The world has changed too. Companies are far more complex. Today the company has to serve that mantra as much as it makes sense, but also slave for a less benevolent master, the stock. So the whole layer of finance is out there not because they are intrinsically evil, but in their eyes they protect the company from doing things that cannot possibly make the money back, or will not grow the company enough to make the investment as wise use of resources. The CEO has to push the logic, question the numbers and make the judgement calls that are beyond analysis.

What you hope for is a balance of the two worlds of art and commerce to keep each other in check. I find that it's more of a pendulum.

 

[jt04]

I wish it were that simple. It sure seems that way sometimes. As you know, Disney is publically traded. Public companies exist not for the founders, but to survive and show growth. At the end of the day, everyone from the CEO on down is measured by the gold standard of what the stock is doing and the growth of the company. The geist of the company reflects that, stocks reflect that. Now the argument can be made that minding the ways of Walt is good business and it is. It is long term, slow growth thinking. Not very American. When I was there years a ago it was quarter to quarter growth measurement. Not as aggressive today, but growth is still the goal. There are CEO's that do that well and make for succcess. The reality is that the Company under Walt was not a stockholder's dream. Walt took it to the brink many times and only Eisner was able to grow the company exponentially. Iger has been doing long term things with big checks like buying Pixar, Marvel, building new Cruise ships and even reviving DCA and DL for it's 50th.


Walt wanted to get away from the stockholders because he wanted to dream without answering to anyone. Walt was an entrepreneur and innovator. The world has changed too. Companies are far more complex. Today the company has to serve that mantra as much as it makes sense, but also slave for a less benevolent master, the stock. So the whole layer of finance is out there not because they are intrinsically evil, but in their eyes they protect the company from doing things that cannot possibly make the money back, or will not grow the company enough to make the investment as wise use of resources. The CEO has to push the logic, question the numbers and make the judgement calls that are beyond analysis.

What you hope for is a balance of the two worlds of art and commerce to keep each other in check. I find that it's more of a pendulum.

This is so well said. It is in style today to just simplistically attack corporations without honestly evaluating the challanges they face. But in reality they are really run and financed by your "neighbors".

Eisner's agressive quarter to quarter strategy did grow the company amazingly. He should be credited for that. But that strategy, it appears to me, went on too long and created serious long term challanges for the company. As you said, Walt took the company to the brink but so did Eisner for the opposite reasons. Iger's challange has been to try to reverse the Eisner years without then taking the company to the brink in the manner Walt did. That is the challange Iger and company seem to be meeting. And they have done so in very difficult times. I still think in the end it is quality that sells. And I'm encouraged that they have become rather agressive at cancelling or reengineering projects that are not "ready for prime time" rather than just churning out product.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

That's a great summary of the reality of business. Eddie, do you think privatizing the Parks and Resorts is a viable option, like what has happening recently with Cedar Fair. Would that be beneficial, and is it even possible?

 

[misterID]

That's true, but I know with my fathers dealings with Eisner after Wells died a lot of people were making decisions that looked out for themselves at the expense of the company. A lot of that can still be found at The World.

There isn't enough said about all the good people who work there, but if you don't also point out the bad nothing would ever be done to correct it.

 

[HMF]

That's a great summary of the reality of business. Eddie, do you think privatizing the Parks and Resorts is a viable option, like what has happening recently with Cedar Fair. Would that be beneficial, and is it even possible?

I have been put down for suggesting it in the past but am I the only one who thinks things may have turned out better if Walt kept the company private?

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

I have been put down for suggesting it in the past but am I the only one who thinks things may have turned out better if Walt kept the company private?

I think they very well could have. There would certainly be more of personal stake in each park.

However, we do have Tokyo Disney as a shining example of how a property can be properly operated by a publicly-traded company. Would investment on the scale of phase one of Walt Disney World, EPCOT Center, Tokyo DisneySea, etc., be likely if the company were private?

 

[BigThunderMatt]

I think they very well could have. There would certainly be more of personal stake in each park.

However, we do have Tokyo Disney as a shining example of how a property can be properly operated by a publicly-traded company. Would investment on the scale of phase one of Walt Disney World, EPCOT Center, Tokyo DisneySea, etc., be likely if the company were private?

I don't think OLC has the financial burden that TWDC does. OLC almost exclusively deals with TDL, whereas TWDC is an entertainment conglomerate with only so much money to go around to the different branches of the company. When you have to split funds a hundred different ways, there's bound to be some shortages somewhere.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

I don't think OLC has the financial burden that TWDC does. OLC almost exclusively deals with TDL, whereas TWDC is an entertainment conglomerate with only so much money to go around to the different branches of the company. When you have to split funds a hundred different ways, there's bound to be some shortages somewhere.

I suppose that's another good argument for privatizing the parks. The profits made would be assured to be reinvested right back in the parks.

 

[kcnole]

I think that idea of continued growth is a flawed business model. You can only continue to grow a company so much until it begins to implode under its own weight. I believe in having a diversified company with many different profit sectors so that one sector having a bad year doesn't kill everyone. However this ridiculous idea that every quarter should show a larger profit than the quarter before it is completely ridiculous. I know its not the American way, and I'm not being a good Republican by saying this, but what's wrong with just being a company who makes a consistent profit, will do so for a long time because of the goodwill the company generates with its customers by not cutting corners every way that it can.

 

[HMF]

I think that idea of continued growth is a flawed business model. You can only continue to grow a company so much until it begins to implode under its own weight. I believe in having a diversified company with many different profit sectors so that one sector having a bad year doesn't kill everyone. However this ridiculous idea that every quarter should show a larger profit than the quarter before it is completely ridiculous. I know its not the American way, and I'm not being a good Republican by saying this, but what's wrong with just being a company who makes a consistent profit, will do so for a long time because of the goodwill the company generates with its customers by not cutting corners every way that it can.

I agree. This is in part what led to our current mess.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have been put down for suggesting it in the past but am I the only one who thinks things may have turned out better if Walt kept the company private?

Then Walt never would have had the capital to keep the studio going, much less build Disneyland. Walt faced a couple threats and filing of lawsuits from the shareholders. It was not just because Roy was upset that Walt sold WED to the Studio.

 

[HMF]

Then Walt never would have had the capital to keep the studio going, much less build Disneyland. Walt faced a couple threats and filing of lawsuits from the shareholders. It was not just because Roy was upset that Walt sold WED to the Studio.

It worked for George Lucas.