In a recent interview published in Fortune Magazine, CEO Robert Iger had a few interesting things to say. It was said that he has led a “renaissance” at Disney and that he had turned things around.
One of the things that struck me in this interview was his use of the word “relevance.” In this short discussion he mentions either that or “relevant” three times within a larger framework of how Disney as a company is doing. I think this is very interesting.
Why? Because it is also the same word used quite often by Disney in discussing the Small World changes. They want the ride to be relevant. Nearly every utterance by the Disney Company states that these changes will make the ride more relevant.
Based on what Iger has said, and these other comments, it seems obvious to me that there is a very serious concern within Disney that their offerings are becoming less and less relevant to the public at large. It is likely a major talking point within the higher levels of management, and concern is growing that the things they are offering are not as successful as they should be.
They understand there is a problem.
As Iger stated in the interview, towards the end of the Eisner era, it was becoming understood that not only was there too much Disney product being created, but that the product being created was of low quality. This is not something that popped up since Iger took over, but something that was understood during Eisner’s regime. It was clearly understood then that what they were making was not selling, while what Pixar was doing was in fact selling.
Unfortunately for Disney, it seems pathologically incapable of understanding what exactly is wrong with the things they are trying to put forth. When Pixar was doing well while Disney animated features were not, the idea was that people were tired of traditional animation, so all new Disney animation would be done via computer graphics only. Traditional animation was out. This idea completely missed the fact that the Disney animated features of the time were simply bad films. The myopia and lack of true introspection was astonishing. However, that was not the only era where this occurs. It is still happening.
Now we have a push for relevance. The idea is that their traditional characters are less and less relevant in today’s world. The question then becomes, why put something they feel is not very relevant in Small World and suggesting that it would then make the ride more relevant? That doesn’t really strike home as a very logical course of action. More likely, the change is an attempt to take traditional Disney characters and make the characters more relevant by placing them in a very popular Disney attraction.
Iger talks of heritage vs. innovation vs. relevance. There really is very little innovation going on at all, so that’s out of the picture. What it boils down to, and Disney management appears keenly aware of this, is a choice between maintaining Disney heritage and remaining relevant. But again, their utterly tone deaf response is simply incorrect in its approach.
You don’t become relevant by stuffing your cartoon characters everywhere. You become relevant by creating compelling and worthwhile entertainment that the public wants to see and demands to see. You don’t get rid of a problem of having too high a quantity of low quality entertainment by continuing to produce it time and again in their theme parks and in their movie studios. In the past, when they were doing better, this meant variety and unparalleled offerings that no one else could approach. It did not mean the same tired act repeated ad nauseum. That only worsens the problem.
At least there now seems to be some concept of knowing when to quit with things. When questioned about Ratatouille, Iger states that it’s not a franchise. This statement should not be a surprise considering that the Ratatouille merchandise did not sell very well. It is not popular stuff. The statement by Iger, combined with the low sales of merchandise from the film goes a long way in explaining why the DCA roller coaster themed to the movie was shelved.
They know something is wrong, but they don’t seem to know what to do, and they realize they have problems on several fronts. One of the things I, as well as others, have complained about is that the company is extremely focused on girls, and only the very youngest of boys. Older boys are simply left out in the cold. For this demographic, the idea of adding cartoon characters, yet more princesses, and now Tinker Bell to Disney parks is just not going to cut it concerning relevance. With a five year old boy in tow, it will not be long before these offerings are simply of absolutely no interest. Certainly, a twelve year old male is not going to be all that excited about fairies, and as a father I am not about to encourage his interest in them or dressing up girls like a princess. Not a chance.
In an article from Reuters, Disney Consumer Products spokesman Gary Foster is quoted as saying “The entire company is focused on broadening Disney's appeal to the older boy.” Starting in 2009, Disney is going to try to market things more towards this group.
They are going to make an attempt to butch up their offerings a bit. But how? Disney seems to think that while they can toughen up somewhat, that they can’t really go for the edgy sorts of material that older boys want. That unless it is sports, video games, or music, then they have no interest and their attention span is short. They won’t buy toys.
But this really is not true. Of course, if you’re going to expect a 12 year old boy to play dress up, he’s not going to want to. If you expect a 14 year old boy to be entranced by Stitch, he’s not going to be. The problem lies in a very odd cultural quirk at Disney. There are simply too few heterosexual men working in the design and marketing departments to fully understand or appreciate this set of customers. The gay men and straight women who work in large numbers at the various departments of Disney simply do not know what it is like to be a heterosexual boy at this age. Their continued effete and oh so precious offerings show this to be the case.
Boys this age do have good attention spans for things that they are actually interested in, and that does not have to be ugly violence and brain dead rap music. That is a coarse and superficial view of young men of this age, and one that comes from a lack of understanding of who they are and what they need.
Disney thinks that by offering harsher and nastier things, they will appeal to these kids. But as much as I don’t want my son getting worked up over making over a ten year old girl to look like Belle, I also don’t want his basest instincts appealed to, either.
But this is the only course that Disney seems to be able to understand, because so few of them were regular average boys of this age. This is not meant to be a swipe at gay men, not at all. It’s just that if you want to appeal to a group of people, then you have to be able to understand their interests. If a company that manufactured tools for people employed only left-handed designers and the rest of the world was right handed, their offerings might not always be the most appropriate. It’s not a slam at being either left-handed or gay. It’s about being able to put yourself in the place of your customers and understanding the mindset. By speaking of boys this age in such gross generalities, they show that they cannot, and therefore they will not, understand how to make themselves more relevant to them.
Further, Disney knows that they can’t go all out in appealing to this phantom demographic they’ve conjured up for themselves. They can’t have severed heads spurting blood everywhere, yet this seems all they understand these kids will like. So what are they going to do? They are going to try to push the envelope only a little bit, and count on appealing to a “gentler segment” of teens. In other words, they are going to femme it up, because that is who they have working for them, and that is what they know. That won’t do it. Boys who would be attracted to such stuff will not be satisfied, and it does not fulfill the need for other types of entertainment that they may have enjoyed. They will have failed in their efforts, and Disney will grow even more irrelevant to a very large segment of the population.
For me, it really won’t matter much longer. My son will be adolescent soon enough, and Disney will be a thing of his past, offering little in the way of entertainment he can appreciate, nor anything I would be interested in having him see or in seeing myself. I personally am excited neither by endless princesses nor the mindless drivel that they apparently think boys would like. At that point, Disney will have lost a customer of several decades standing, and the money I bring to them.
There is just not going to be anything left for me to go there for.
Sources:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10505558
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/11/news/companies/iger_interview.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008041110
Discussions on various topics
8 comments:
Very cool thoughts. I'd say they are obsessed with the whole "relevance" idea without a clear direction or idea of what would make them relevant again. Your example of the Pixar success immediately followed by Disney ditching traditional animation and "going digital" (with horrific results) is absolutely spot on.
Thanks.
Once again Jon you are on the money. Although I like musicals, and don't mind some of the more frilly offerings, I love movies like Atlantis and Treasure Planet. If those had been live action features, or marketted properly, I am sure they would have been much, much better.
It seems the modern day Disney fans over the age of 12 who eat up the new attractions are either:
a) Female
b) Gay
c) New to Disney and don't know any better
d) have little children and enjoy it through their eyes
Ok, this is quite a large demographic. But the reality is, what happened to the Disney for all. I hae been quoted many times that Disney inspired me as a kid to be who I am today. Through Disney, I learnt how steam engines and paddle wheelers worked, I played cowboy in the frontier or jungle explorer. Before the oversaturation, PotC inspired me to read many fiction and non fiction books on smuggling and piracy (yes, I do know the difference between pirates, privateers, corsairs and buccaneers, and Disney inspired me to find out). It was Disney that inspired me to take an interest in atoms (quite a dull topic to me, but Adventure Thru Inner Space brought it to life). Epcot and Animal Kingdom show Disney can still come up with the goods. Sadly those offerings are the minority.
The issue around loss of relevence is that they do try to reach the lowest common denominator, and talk down to the masses. And this is where they have lost their way. Instead of reaching for the stars, they look down. Instead of giving us immersive environments and a post card view of the world to enjoy a selection of experiences, we get either toons or thrills.
So, it is ironic that a companty that I and many millions used to hail as the hallmark of excellence, has lost relevence. Well the answer is simply they have been so enraptured that their quest is for approval rather than excellence.
It is ironic that a company that used to say "if you can dream it, you can do it" has forgotten how to dream, and therefore they no longer do.
Well said... though I might even take it beyond Disney.
The question of what is relevant to young boys is seriously a demographic under attack. Our society has become obsessed with turning young boys away from what it commonly perceives adult men to be; sexist, nard scratching oafs who think of little but football and beer and boobs.
Look at the attacks the Boy Scouts have suffered in the last decade. Take a look at the offerings out there in all media, not just Disney. The industry is saturated with gay men... and indeed, the United States pays far more attention to gay lifestyles than straight ones. Time and time again I am surprised at how small the gay community is in countries such as Ukraine, where I often communicate. They are shocked when I tell them of the number of gay friends and relatives I have. And not just a little: they are positively stunned!
The USA is far more geared toward gay lifestyles, and other lifestyles too that used to be extreme fringe groups, such as inner city gangsta (with its rap and violence), sex (virtually any of the reality programs; Survivor to Kardashians) or even goth/occult interests (supernatural and gruesome, gratuitous dismemberment.... like CSI?).
Why? Because media leaders force a wider focus on those lifestyles than they represented in days gone by. Constant saturation of these minority interests have made them more acceptable to society in general... but at the same time, placed an onerous "anti-norm" bias against developing any product to heterosexual young men.
The closest role model they get are guys who are stupid husbands and fathers in commercials, or Beer and Rum drinkin' Frat boys.
I think the reason the growth of alternate lifestyles has occurred is clear: Our schoolyard has become much smaller. Back when I was in High School, we had our mainstream community, and then there were those kids who were "out on the fringe." They tended to be more in the far reaches of the campus: the goth kids, the gay kids, the tough kids.... they were certainly not the main focus of life for us, and received little attention.
But these days, the fringe groups have a more visible way of existing. No longer delegated to the fringe, the vast options available for attention, such as the internet, hundreds of cable channels, etc... gives them a voice equal to and sometimes even greater than the voice of the old norm. And now, it spirals out of control. All groups, and lifestyles are equal in the face of Google.
Frankly, I think we really got off track about two decades ago, when we allowed this insidious idea that appreciation for arts, beauty and other men is strictly for the realm of the homosexual community. It shunned things like hugging or holding the hand of another male somehow making it indicative of internal sexual desire. I like to arrange flowers, give greetings of hugs, and choosing clothes for my wife. That, to many, indicates I am either gay or Metrosexual.... Gotta lable it somehow!... And in so doing missing the mark entirely. I am not gay.
Like I have said, your insights are always provocative to me, in that they truly bring issues to the forefront of my mind, and I appreciate you so very much. Well done.
> "Unfortunately for Disney, it seems pathologically incapable of understanding what exactly is wrong with the things they are trying to put forth. When Pixar was doing well while Disney animated features were not, the idea was that people were tired of traditional animation, so all new Disney animation would be done via computer graphics only. Traditional animation was out. This idea completely missed the fact that the Disney animated features of the time were simply bad films. The myopia and lack of true introspection was astonishing. However, that was not the only era where this occurs. It is still happening." <
BINGO.
I think the Pirates movie was probably as close as Disney will ever get to appealing to the demographic you speak of. They also tapped into it with their Star Wars and Indiana Jones rides. But nothing on their drawing board is at all appealing to older boys. Nothing. Look at the DCA "improvements."
Walt Disney Plaza - What a joke.
Little Mermaid Ride - Princess
Midway Mania - For young kids
World of Color show - Lots of rainbows
Cars - Cartoon
Completely geared toward girls and the very young.
Meanwhile at Universal Studios in Florida you have a ride based on The Simpsons, Spiderman, The Mummy, Jurassic Park, Men in Black and a halloween event that is designed to scare you instead of being something cute for kids.
They say that the things they add to Disney World and Disneyland are designed to keep people from going to other parks. The studios to keep people from going to Universal, Animal Kingdom to keep people away from Busch Gardens and Sea World, DCA to keep people from Universal, Knott's and Magic Mountain. The problem is the demographic that Disney is ignoring the other parks have no problem going after. I'm betting Universal Studios on both coasts has a pretty big attendance jump this year while Disney will remain flat or drop a bit. Maybe this will wake them up a bit on diversifying the kind of things they are doing.
Can't get behind the gay thing, I'm afraid. It's based on a stereotype of gays that just isn't accurate. Besides, what proof do you have that Disneyland management is all gay guys and straight gals? Sounds like quite a stretch to me.
Can't we just say that Disney isn't effectively marketing their themeparks to the teen/tween boy demographic and leave it at that?
There's a lot of stuff they aren't doing effectively, and blaming gays is a pretty inappropriate response. (I could bring up the Nazis, but I guess I better not.)
I was completely with mawnk until the comment in parentheses, but his point was well made, so I’ guess I’ll get over it. Still, as usual jonvn, I almost entirely agree with you.
I think they could target those boys in one simple way – adventure.
Where are the story writers? I’m really burnt out on Pirates (thanks Disney, now go to h*ll for that), but where’s the next Treasure Island? And don’t tell me you tried to do that with Treasure Planet. Sorry Dave, but I thought it was a piece of crap. Where’s the next Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea? Where are the writers?
In my lifetime, Raiders of the Lost Ark was, to me, about the most brilliant movie made. Not my favorite (close), but the most brilliant. It was simple. Never let the audience catch their breath. That’s what I thought was brilliant about it.
Where are the writers?
My son, who will be six in a couple of weeks. spent the other morning watching Cosmos on TV. He's an average young man. Adventure, science, drama, mechanics, conflict, and so on. These things appeal to boys. It does not have to be grotesque caricatures of these things, wrapped in violence and stupidity.
If they did something worthwhile in these areas, they would not need to tone things down. They would not need to appeal to an effeminate teenage boy, they would not have to worry about being able to capture this market. At one time they had this market. But now, they don't even know what appeals to these kids.
I don't mean to stereotype or put down gay people or women. And if some took it that way, I apologize, for that was not my intent at all.
But it simply seems to me that given what they have been creating lately, they just don't understand the mindset of these young men, and they don't know how to appeal to them. That's completely understandable, but it does not serve Disney well in their offerings.
Post a Comment