Fossilizing Disney

“Anonymous” wrote an impassioned and lengthy response to my post called “A Horrible Decision.” In part, it read (and you can read the whole thing here):

“I guess where you and I differ is that you want to mummify Disney where I am excited to see it develop. “How can you possibly call POT "mediocre"? Millions of people around the world beg to differ with you. … And you are just plain wrong on the Disney Channel. The truth is this - the "Vault Disney" strategy which the Channel so dutifully embraced through most of the 80's and 90's was an abject failure. … You continually say that you know Disney better than Disney's own executives. But I don't think you do. As important as the "core fans" are, they don't own Disney. Disney has to innovate and evolve, not just because that's what's required of it to remain vital as a business, but because that is what is in its DNA. … There were many people back in the 30's who would have liked Walt to stick to his kniting(sic and keep making more Mickey serials. Snow White was called "Walt's Folly,” but in the end he was right to push forward.

“You would fossilize the company and turn it into a museum and I am here to tell you that its that kind of thinking that is the reason Epcot is in the state it is today. … Sure, there are things you can still complain about, but give Bob Iger a break. He has been on the job only 16 months now ... (I)t is really disappointing that you cannot give Disney any credit for what has been a spectacular year and a great turnaround and that you constantly poo poo anything new or fresh or innovative coming out of Disney. I think for you complaining about Disney has become your favorite sport …

“The difference between you and me is that the public actually agrees with me.”

It’s a viewpoint that deserves a response – at least partly because “Anonymous” has misinterpreted my stance, or I have not done a particularly good job at making it.

I absolutely do not want to “fossilize” Disney or turn it into a museum. Such a thought is anathema. Indeed, the references “Anonymous” makes to Walt Disney are ones I would use to show why “fossilizing” is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The reader is right that Disney “has to innovate and evolve,” and that such pursuits are “in its DNA.” So why, I wonder, has the company spent so much time going against its nature? Where is today’s “folly”? Disney is doing nothing but playing it safe, creating entertainments that are harmless enough but hardly memorable.

I stick to my belief that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest was mediocre. The first movie was brilliant: Engaging, fun and original, despite being an adaptation. (Let’s not forget it also was a movie no one expected to succeed; coming off of The Country Bears, the concept of a movie based on a theme-park attraction was laughable and even Disney, which barely licensed the movies or got promotional partners on board, doubted its prospects.) But instead of moving on, Disney’s resident marketing geniuses decided to sail forth with a sequel … no, two … wait, three! That’s absolutely the way today’s entertainment industry works. But remember when your mother used to ask, “If everyone jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you?” The lackluster Pirates 2 was Disney’s attempt to be like everyone else, instead of following the “Walt model” of taking some extraordinary profits and doing something even more extraordinary with them.

As for the Disney Channel, once again I can’t fault the logic “Anonymous” uses. Everyone wants to reach the ‘tween market, and if everyone wants to do it, it must be right, right? Nevermind that in Disney’s case, anecdotal evidence holds that pre-teen girls don’t watch Hannah Montana or High School Musical because they’re on the Disney Channel, they watch the Disney Channel because that’s where Hannah Montana and High School Musical are.

Disney covets this audience because everyone else does, and they can tell advertisers that Disney Channel reels ‘em in. What’s suspect is not only whether the kids care any more about Disney because of the shows, but also whether the kids are the “core” Disney audience, anyway.

We could debate endlessly about this “core” audience, but two things are of relevance to this particular blog and its readers: 1) If the thousands of 20-, 30- and 40-somethings who read this and other Disney blogsites are to be believed, they care passionately about Disney in a way that the fickle teen audience simply can’t; and 2) Disney’s zeal to capture that young audience has absolutely come at the expense of these most loyal fans.

Most companies would kill to have a fan base as active (particularly financially) as these “adult” Disney fans, and would do anything to ensure their satisfaction. By and large, Disney ignores them. I’ll go one step further: In many cases, Disney actively disdains them, actually criticizing them for their comments and observations and going out of its way (as in this year’s shareholder’s meeting) to ensure that they cannot participate in the management of the company that they own by virtue of those stock shares.

If Steve Jobs, now Disney’s largest single shareholder, had allowed Apple to disregard its most active users in this way, do you think the company would have experienced the rebound it did? Disney will gladly take $10,000 or $20,000 out of your pocket to sell you a timeshare (disclosure: I’ve never done that), just don’t expect any sort of special consideration for that move.

Certainly Disney could make small moves to make this constituency a little happier? (And judging by the way writers at sites such as Mouseplanet and Miceage write about Disney, they’re increasingly discontent with the company’s direction.) I would be the last person to advocate the “Vault Disney” concept to the exclusion of all else; but when there are five Discovery Channels, 11 HBOs and a bazillion Showtimes, couldn’t there be two Disney Channels? (Maybe three, if that EPCOT Channel could get underway!)

Fossilizing Disney is the last thing I’d advocate. A creative Disney? That’s something I’d like to see – one that doesn’t pre-package and pre-define the name “Disney” to mean pabulum for kids and pre-teens.

The 1970s and early 1980s have long been considered the leanest years for Disney. But, wait a second. If that Disney acted like today’s Disney, we’d still be riding theme-park attractions based on The Black Hole, The $1,000,000 Duck, The Fox and the Hound and The North Avenue Irregulars. But when it came to the theme parks, particularly, we got “Space Mountain,” “Big Thunder Mountain Railroad,” “America Sings,” “Mission to Mars,” Tokyo Disneyland and, of course, EPCOT Center. None of them (well, with the exception of the Tokyo park) were based on Disney movies, none of them were simple film-based attractions, all of them were complex, multi-sensory experiences that expanded the definition of “Disney” and showcased why no one could build a theme park the way Disney could.

Compared with them, “Monsters Inc.: Mike & Sully to the Rescue,” “Stitch’s Great Escape,” “Primeval Whirl” and “Sounds Dangerous” seem like third-rate efforts, at best – and this is putting them up against attractions created when Disney was supposedly at its most moribund and least creative.

That’s the Disney I want … one that doesn’t let anyone on the outside define what it is, one that doesn’t look to focus groups and exit surveys to figure out what it’s doing wrong and right, but decides on its own. I want Disney to become the company that excites and thrills me with something new and unexpected, not that meets my most scaled-down expectations by delivering yet another mediocre theme-park attraction based on a recent movie – or a mediocre movie based on a classic theme-park ride.

After 16 months of enduring more of the same from Disney, especially with its callous disregard for EPCOT’s creative spirit, I do not give Mr. Iger a break, any more than I or any other executive would get a break if we got paid $16 million but didn’t exceed every expectation that the company’s owners had for us. I’ve known many an executive, at Disney and elsewhere in the entertainment world, who was fired for performance less lackluster than Iger’s.

I’m not stupid – as an investment, Disney has been a good one in the past two years. (That said, I’m still waiting to make a profit on shares I purchased in 2000.) On that front, Disney has delivered. As a short-term investment, it’s been great. But for the long term? I have my serious doubts. It’s creating entertainment that is about as good as what it turned out in the late 1960s through the early 1980s, though it is marketing it much better. But well-marketed pabulum is still drivel.

Sure, the public likes it. If that’s all the justification you need, then you’ll get exactly the company you deserve.

I want Disney to be more than it is. I want it to look closely at itself and learn what once made it great – genuinely great. I want it to lead, to forge a new path, not simply to follow the grooves in the ground that were created by everyone else it’s following.

EPCOT is, for my money, the most visible symbol of today’s Disney: It’s financially successful, it’s becoming more and more like its competitors, and it’s a far cry from what it was just 10 years ago. I don’t want that EPCOT back and fossilized. I just want its spirit to be rekindled. I want EPCOT to amaze me. I want Disney to inspire me.

Anything less is a waste.