GIANT ad in Orlando Sentinel. . . (The Disney Brand)

G

General Grizz

New Member
Original Poster
I just opened up the main section of the Orlando Sentinel to find, just a few pages in, a gigantic page long ad for "Disney." (The Walt Disney Co.)

A GIGANTIC "standard" Mickey Mouse (seemed to be a bit 3-D) took up the entire page with smaller words saying, "The World's Leading Family Entertainment Brand." . . . "Disney."

Intriguing, no? I mean DUH Disney's the leading family entertainment BRAND. . .

Excuse me for the workings of my mind. . . I apologize if I tick off anyone:
=============================================
As for analysis. . .
. . . I think if we were to ask the average family's "best family movie," they would go for Finding Nemo over Brother Bear, Pirates, Freaky Friday, or Treasure Planet. I think a lot of this had to do with the well-roundedness of the Pixar films. . . whereas these recent films GENERALLY hit certain groups.

I think Brother Bear was an excellent film. Probably one of the best feature animation films for several years. . . I might go so far as to put it above Lilo and Stitch (both, ironically, films made by the talented artists laid off from Walt Disney Feature Animation in Florida. (Too bad there was no character/song. That could have helped out so much.) HOWEVER. . . the reason, I believe, that it did not do as well as it should have was based on Disney's constant outslew of cheap, age group-oriented productions.

Such can be seen in "Playhouse Disney", Disney's whole slew of toons on "Toon Disney," and each film that comes out on video. . . Disney's recent sequels and TV animation. Teens begin to see Disney as a "kid's thing," so now Disney comes out with Radio Disney or The Disney Channel with programs and music directly for teenagers that have absolutely no Disney traditional fundamental value. Where is the "family" in Radio Disney? All I know of is Duff and Spears. Who are all over the Internet anyway.

The difference is family. While Disney reaches out in different sections to different age groups (because they think they will make more money this way), and it does get that money, there is no solid family basis - where the parents and the children can have some fun together.

There is nothing like this, you say? I'll offer you three great examples:

(1) The Magic Kingdom - there is so much for family here and such a balance for the family - not just on separate attractions, but in hundreds of general experiences through show and attractions and nostalgia throughout the park. Quality standards established in 1971 set this to where it is today. Unfortunately, the family experience has been disturbed by recent cultural splits, including Goofy's Dancing Jamboree (in which the general Disney image is + kid, - teen, whereas the humor of the original Diamond Horeshoe catered to BOTH kids, teens, AND adults. Adults can watch kids have fun at the new Goofy show. But the long-term success of the parks has come from the experience together.

EPCOT's "Project Gemini" or even in Mission Space where the "Space Base" or a video game is the only kid attraction, whereas Horizons was a family experience for everyone to ride. And Horizons is still seen as more Disneyesque DESPITE how fun Mission Space is. Wonders of Life had the idea in 1989. It was a family pavilion, right?? But it was also was advertised all over the maps -- because of Body Wars - the thrill which was only PART of the Wonders of Life experience.

And now Wonders of Life is closed seasonally. I didn't even mention the quality standards in comparing Space to Life. . . a pavilion made 15 years later has speakers and ventalation systems in full view, whereas Wonders of Life has the integrity to hide all of this. . . in a Disney quality way. Again, Disney is living off the past with these quality attractions (i.e. Splash). And who can forget tradition (audio-animatronics, songs, HEART?? etc.)

These beloved AA shows/attractions are some of the most beloved. . . and when was the last AA-based attraction made?? And how successful was this? And how successful is it today?

(2) Pixar Films. 'Nuff said. EVERYONE likes Pixar.

(3) The Lion King was successful because of appeal (action, romance, characters, song) AND company works (i.e. not releasing a Disney film between 1992 and 1994, thus preserving the the Disney holiday image). Now, sometimes we get 3 or 4 Disney films in the theaters, not to mention...

... a heck of a lot of Disney is living off the past (i.e. Lion King 1 1/2 survives because of the film made nearly ten years ago. . .and the songs heard in the parks, for example, don't go past Hercules - if that's the latest). Disney's recent "Magic Carpets of Aladdin" is not only a eyesore to many, but a NEW attraction based off of a film made twelve years ago. These, along with the TV shows, also take away from the original film (as in, long-term, they become more "standard.")

What is Disney's current attraction update at Walt Disney World? Finding Nemo. At the Living Seas. "Lilo and Stitch," "Brother Bear," and "Treasure Planet" Some of this does not have to do with "poor" films or characters - but rather as an effect of Disney's distribution policies and constant releases. In other words, these new Disney films are no longer a "holiday visit"

Now the general public has come to realize that Disney and Pixar are different things based on the current Jobs/Eisner situation. So I no longer think that at this point Disney is the leading family entertainment creator. . . but distributor. For the next two years.

Let's not forget that "family entertainment" does NOT include ography, which Disney HAS distributed. Or R/NC-17 -rated Miramax or Dimension Films. OR ARE YOU HOT, VICTORIA'S SECRET FASHION SHOW which were on Disney-owend ABC OR "HOWARD STERN" or "WILD-ON", shown on E!, which Disney owns 33% of.

So now, Disney is a "brand." That sounds extremely materialistic. Disney is something you can "own" and "buy." But I think we're all being distracted in these ads from the Disney message - Disney's focus now is on the buck. And Disney has been willing to degrade its image, its products, its parks, its films, its television, its art, and its heritage for the quick buck.
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
Disney has always been a brand Grizz.... just not a good one lately
 
MKCustodial

MKCustodial

Well-Known Member
And about Brother Bear, Grizz, was I the only one who came out of that movie singing "On My Way"? The soundtrack is not available down here yet, so I asked for a little help from my friend eMule and got it... :lookaroun Catchy little tune, really...
 
PhotoDave219

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by GaryT977
The same ad was in the USA Today today. I was trying to figure out what the point was.
Click to expand...

Its all about marketing.

Of course, in my experiences, ive found that you can remove 4 out of every 5 marketing employees at a company and they'll end up better in the end....
 
G

General Grizz

New Member
Original Poster
Originally posted by MKCustodial
And about Brother Bear, Grizz, was I the only one who came out of that movie singing "On My Way"? The soundtrack is not available down here yet, so I asked for a little help from my friend eMule and got it... :lookaroun Catchy little tune, really...
Click to expand...

Haha, ironically, Koda sings the first two lines of that song.

THAT IS WHY!! :lol:
 
GaryT977

GaryT977

New Member
Originally posted by PhotoDave219
Its all about marketing.

Of course, in my experiences, ive found that you can remove 4 out of every 5 marketing employees at a company and they'll end up better in the end....
Click to expand...

That's good to know. I thought maybe I was creatively challenged or something.
 
prberk

prberk

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by mkt
Disney has always been a brand Grizz.... just not a good one lately
Click to expand...

Well, actually, Disney is a NAME. This current "branding" crap is a business-school thing that is going too far, and Disney is suffering from it. It literally goes back to "branding" cattle -- putting your name on it.

So, yes, in a way sometimes Disney is a "brand," when it is slapped on a product. Lately the company has focused on the "brand" instead of the product (not to mention the good NAME). Having your name "brand" on crap just eventually cheapens the name... and makes you have to take out $50,000 ads (yes, that is in the ballpark for one color page in a national newspaper) to convince people that you are what your products obviously have not convinced them of by themselves.

This is the most evidence yet of the decline in the public perception of Disney as a valuable family-oriented product: the fact that they have to tell you!

P.S.: Please read http://www.savedisney.com/vision/work_in_progress.asp (Roy Disney's vision for Disney) for a clear understanding (in the last three paragraphs especially) of how overuse of marketing principles (such as "branding" and "synergy") ultimately hurt the very NAME that they want to "brand" everything with.....
 
GaryT977

GaryT977

New Member
Originally posted by prberk
Well, actually, Disney is a NAME. This current "branding" crap is a business-school thing that is going too far, and Disney is suffering from it. It literally goes back to "branding" cattle -- putting your name on it.
Click to expand...

Sort of like Krusty-brand contraceptives?
 
G

General Grizz

New Member
Original Poster
Now this is just SCARY! :eek: :eek:


Posted on SaveDisney this morning:

"Brand" Awareness
By Roy E. Disney

A few years ago, I was asked to make a presentation to a large group of young Consumer Products folks. It was conceived as a sort of pep talk, with a bit of Disney history and something about the future. At the time, I was becoming more and more concerned about the growing use, within the Disney culture, of the word "brand" in reference to the characters who were-and still are-the foundation of our identity as a company and as a cultural force.

So I thought to comment on that phenomenon...partly as a warning about what was already happening to us as a result of the constant pressure to "sell, sell, sell," no matter the quality.

What follows is the final third of that speech:

Let me tell you about the making of what was far and away our greatest merchandising phenomenon-The Lion King. The film had as many story problems in development as any three normal movies. We went down so many creative blind alleys that we did the unthinkable...and delayed its premiere by seven months. Once we finally got on the right creative track, I remember specific conversations at which we let out a collective sigh and basically said, "It's going to be a nice movie, but it's too bad that there's nothing for Consumer Products to work with." After all, what we had were some animals, some trees and grasslands, and one really big rock. There wasn't a fairy castle or flying pixie to be found.

Well, I don't have to tell you how wrong we were. There are a lot of morals to this story. One of them is that if you get the creative stuff right, the rest will follow.

Another moral is that creativity is a living, breathing force with a life of its own. If our company is to thrive, we must do everything possible to establish an environment in which creativity can flourish.

Creativity is a funny thing. It tends to flower among individuals or small groups. It doesn't always show up on demand...or at convenient times or places. And it often gets killed by committees. So, we need to always be on the lookout for ways to nurture it, and not let it be trampled by a lowest-common-denominator mentality.

Ironically, one mentality that often leads to the lowest common denominator is an insistence on searching for the "best" idea. That's because there is no "best" idea. It's like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You'll just get exhausted and end up having to settle for something less. This is really something a lot of us learned from Walt. To him, there was no "best" idea, but there were-always-"better" ideas. And so, it was "better ideas" that we kept looking for...in a never-ending creative process.

The creative process is the lifeblood of this company...which is why we must beware of creativity's worst enemy-something I call "Institution Think." This is a very tricky issue. Disney is, of course, an institution...the bigger we get, the more people will call us that-and the more we risk falling into the trap of believing it ourselves.

Let me give you what I think is a very specific example of the danger of Institution Think: It is often said that our company's most valuable asset is the Disney name. You'll get no argument from me...I kind of like the name myself. But, in recent times, there's been a tendency to refer to it as the "Disney brand." To my way of thinking, this degrades Disney into a "thing" to be bureaucratically managed, rather than a "name" to be creatively championed. And lately I've been seeing Mickey receive this treatment too, as well as Pooh and a lot of others.

Branding is, needless to say, something you do to cows. If you're a rancher, this is great, since cows do tend to look alike. It's useful to lots of businessmen too, and they brand things like perfume or shoes or insurance companies for almost the same reason as ranchers. These products are pretty much the same as their respective competitors and the main thing that differentiates them is the way they're labeled. Branding is for people who need a fallback when creativity fails them.

But these rules don't apply to us. Our name already means something. It's already differentiated. What sets us apart is not the label, it's the product. We-Disney-mean something to our friends, the consumers. Just consider this fact: No one can tell you what a Warner Bros. film is, or a Fox film, or a Sony film...but if you say, "It's a Disney film," it means something-to everyone from 92 to 9.

I really believe that if we habitually think of Disney as a "brand," we are in danger of eroding-even squandering-all the meaning that has been built into those six letters for more than three-quarters of a century. On the other hand, if we think of it as a "name," to be prized and enhanced, then we'll escape the clutches of Institution Think and continue our trajectory of creative and financial success.

With this in mind, let me give you an assignment: For one whole day, deprive your vocabulary of that one word "brand." And no cheating-you can't say logo or trademark or symbol. I think you will find this exercise instructive and it will force you to really consider what we do and what we stand for.

To get you started, please let me offer my definition of what it is that you-all of you here-do: You make it possible for people to grab hold of the spirit of creativity and take it home with them. This is a fine and noble aspiration, and something in which I hope you take great pride.

As someone with the last name of "Disney," it is my firm belief that we are not a commodity. As long as we continue to believe in the power of creative ideas-then our best years still lie ahead.
 
garyhoov

garyhoov

Trophy Husband
Here's an interesting link:

Disney Fights Back

They've been mentioning this on MSNBC all morning, but they didn't go into detail, so I found the link.

The management is clearly taking the threat seriously at this point.
 
garyhoov

garyhoov

Trophy Husband
Originally posted by General Grizz
"WE ARE DOING FINE. NOTHING IS RUINED. THERE ARE NO AMERICANS IN IRAQ."

:rolleyes:

RoynStan respond: http://www.savedisney.com/letters/response_to_board.asp
Click to expand...

:lol:

I've been holding a somewhat neutral stance, but I'm starting to lean more in Roy's direction. Clearly there are problems. Roy's data shows that in and unambiguous way. It's possible to argue blame, but if the management claims things are fine when 8 years of data indicate otherwise, that concerns me.

How can you strive for improvement when you're not willing to admit that there are areas that need improvement?
 
tigsmom

tigsmom

Well-Known Member
I cannot find Eisner's letter to the shareholders anywhere. On the investors site the Letters portion is down.

As an investor (albeit a small one compared to some) shouldn't I have gotten a copy? (or at least be able to access it on the web).
 
garyhoov

garyhoov

Trophy Husband
Originally posted by tigsmom
I cannot find Eisner's letter to the shareholders anywhere. On the investors site the Letters portion is down.

As an investor (albeit a small one compared to some) shouldn't I have gotten a copy? (or at least be able to access it on the web).
Click to expand...

Considering the coverage they're getting, the site is probably swamped. Keep trying, and if you can cut an paste the text, I'd like to see it.

I'd guess your hard copy is on the way. You're their target audience.

:wave:
 
prberk

prberk

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by garyhoov
Considering the coverage they're getting, the site is probably swamped. Keep trying, and if you can cut an paste the text, I'd like to see it.

I'd guess your hard copy is on the way. You're their target audience.

:wave:
Click to expand...

Not necessarily: they are busy wooing institutional investors with their "brand."

Thanks, Griz, for the link to Roy's piece on "brand."

I saw the whole-page ad for "the Disney Brand" for what it was: image advertising aimed at business-school-junkie institutional investors. The real public doesn't speak that way. Because they know that true value is in someone's NAME ... it is earned, not just "branded."
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom