Disney World Magical But Could Be More Meaningful

Photograph copyright 2009 Brian Powell

There's been enough written and said about the Disney World experience and the Disney brand in general that I won't rehash here. Needless to say, the company may have it's ups and downs, but there are few rivals from a brand strength and emotional resonance standpoint. It's consistently ranked a top global brand and different from its top brands peer-set, has a much farther reaching brand-footprint across theme parks, film, TV, products and more. I've had the privilege of partnering with Disney on several movies in the 90s including "A Bug's Life." And can attest to their reputation of standing firm on brand guidelines and "dos and don't" with their intellectual property/characters. They don't mess around and will walk away from a deal. It's what enables them to be consistent across all they do. I've also had opportunity to attend Disney Institute, a consultancy and leadership practice that lets attendees "experience the business behind the magic of our [Disney's] core business strengths: Leadership Excellence, Quality Service, Brand Loyalty, Inspiring Creativity, and People Management. "

Bottom line, I'm a fan of Disney and when you hold respect for something great, you automatically look for ways to make it better. My family visited Disney World in Orlando recently and while I had my "Dad" Mickey Mouse ears cap on most of the time (no not literally), it was hard not to see through the lens of a brand and cause marketer as well.

If you've ever been to Disney World I think you'll agree: it truly is a magical place that provides pure joy to kids and fond memories to adults – all for a fair price. The experience has been created and meticulously cared for across every sight, sound, and even smell. But there were some key areas where I felt Disney missed an opportunity to enrich the experience with more meaning as they held an audience captive. Don't get me wrong, no one wants to come to Disney World and be beat over the head with social issues messaging. But there could be some things changed or added, gracefully. Things that people may not consciously notice but would help raise awareness and education in a non-intrusive way.

So I offer in no particular order:

1. Relocate Smoking areas

I was shocked to see these at a kid focused park in 2009. And right next to kids rides and sitting-areas for families. It's your right to smoke. But my right not to have it blown in my and my family's face. Disney should enclose these areas away from the 90% who don't choose to smoke (and 100% of their kids). If 70% of states in USA have some sort of smoking ban in public places then certainly Disney could follow suit. Nothing takes the magic of a child's laughter away than the cough of second-hand smoke.

2. Be more eco-friendly

Disney actually does quite a but behind the scenes and in operations to be a more sustainable brand. But much improvement is needed from a forward-facing/consumer participant viewpoint. Recycling cans were few and far between. Only disposable paper cups are sold at all concession vs. offering souvenir re-usable cups. Paper towels in bathrooms, not blowers. Only Animal Kingdom, the newest park, had considerably more environmentally sensitive amenities, consistent with it's earth/animal friendly message. Think of the impact Disney could make by reinforcing or introducing the millions of people that walk the park to the easy ways to have less impact on the environment.

3. Offer balanced food options

We're no health nuts. But offering fresh fruit in addition to candy and popsicles would have been nice. For us, and the kids in our group. Don't restrict people from indulging if they want, but enable those who would like choices to have them. Offer 100% juice in addition to soft drinks and water. Wasn't this place built for kids? Disney received much publicity when it pulled-out of it's lucrative deal with McDonald's and now licenses it's characters for more healthier fare in grocery stores. This is one instance where Disney's normally successful cross platform integration between business lines hasn't happened.

4. Execute non-intrusive cause marketing

Animal Kingdom was the one park that stood apart. As the world's largest wildlife park, there are reminders about the natural order and importance of Mother Earth everywhere. At concession stands cashiers politely ask if you'd like to donate $1 to the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund and you receive a little pin for your backpack or lanyard. The new Disney movie Earth was promoted at the entrance and a few days after we left Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures announced a partnership with The Nature Conservancy to plant 2.7 million trees in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, one of the planet’s most endangered rainforests. Epcot's "Universe of Energy Pavilion" does explore use of alternative energy. But imagine reinforcing the importance of cultural diversity after riding "It's A Small World" at Magic Kingdom. Or using Tigger to promote the importance of physical activity (like bouncing!). It doesn't need to be transactional cause marketing. And whether it involves 3rd party non-profits such as Disney's many national partnerships like Make-A-Wish, or projects that are more about reinforcing what dear old Mom and Dad try to instill in their children back at home.

I'll say it again, I understand the brand promise of Disney is to "make magic moments." To provide escape from daily troubles. I'm not advocating in-your-face reminders of serious social issues. I'm talking about using the power of these characters and the aura of the place to naturally weave messages and actions that add just a touch more meaning to the magic.

Smile Pinki

As I've written before in Slumdog The Latest in $100 Million Cause Campaigns Called Movies, the movie industry has a rich history of telling stories that inspire and incite change. Well there was a lesser-known film based on real-world events from India that won an Oscar besides Slumdog Millionaire. Taking home Best Documentary Short was Smile Pinki which tells the story of "Pinki, a girl in rural India whose cleft lip has made her a social outcast...but has a chance for a new life when she meets a dedicated social worker."

The non-profit organization behind this social work is SmileTrain, a charity solely focused on cleft lip and palette in developing countries. You've probably seen their ads in newspapers including The New York Times for which the paper calls "...one of the most productive charities -dollar for deed- in the world." For 10 years now they've provided simple 45-minute surgery that provides "a desperate child not just a new smile, but a second chance at life" – and a $250 donation covers all costs.

The org does a masterful job at marketing the cause. While there are certainly celebrity endorsers like most NPOs these days, the ads focus on the heart-wrenching "before" pictures of these precious children. It's one of the simplest and most effective ways to promote the need for change.

As a documentary, the filmmakers were certainly more able to address the related social issue head-on than say Slumdog. SmileTrain was even mentioned by name in the acceptance speech. And in return, the cause has smartly leveraged the Oscar win in it's newest ads. It remains a collaborative effort to use storytelling in all its forms, film and advertising, to advocate for change.

By the way you can donate to SmileTrain online.

Slumdog the latest in $100 Million Cause Marketing Campaigns Called “Movies”

What responsibility is there to give back to the cause associated with the content?

It was the final victory party most expected Sunday night at The Oscars as Slumdog Millionaire walked away with wins for Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay.

There’s been much talk about the little movie that could, and what makes it click on so many levels to both the public and the press alike. It’s basic structure is the familiar rags to riches story arc of a young boy and his quest for a better life to get the girl. Yet it’s the setting of Mumbai India and the depiction of the determined 25% who live in slums many of us knew nothing about that makes the film different. And finally it’s the visionary director’s execution that makes it memorable.

There’s also been much talk on whether the two children plucked out of the slums, Azhar and Rubina, were adequately compensated to be in the movie and whether the all-to-real story of human suffering in Mumbai is being exploited for commercial reasons. To be clear, by most updated accounts the children’s education has been paid for and a trust fund established to cover basic living costs. As many watched Sunday the two were even flown into Hollywood to attend the Oscar ceremony. But after the red carpet was rolled up, they returned to their lives in the slums as they’ve always known. To that, some say more should be done by those involved with a project that’s made over $130 million with just a very relatively modest $15 million production budget.

Which raises the moral question of what responsibility do the filmmakers owe both to the specific actors and all the people in the slums profiled in the movie? According to CNN:

“Boyle said the film's financial backers have agreed that charitable groups that help children of the slums will also see "a slice of the profits."

‘We've all agreed that we will sit down and dedicate a slice of the profits of the film to be distributed amongst people like those who run the school and other organizations who make a big difference to children's lives there,’ he said.

‘We gained from the city, both from these two children and from the city, in general, and we'll make sure the film gives back some of the enormous success it's had,’ he said.”

Some argue that’s still not enough. But Slumdog is not a documentary, it’s mean to be entertainment first and foremost. In fact it’s the latest in a long line of multi-million dollar “cause entertainment” vehicles called movies that bring needed awareness to an important social issue by sharing people and their stories rather than issues and their statistics. This year alone saw fellow Academy Award nominees Milk bring attention to the Gay Rights issue and Wall*E give both a humorous and sobering take on conspicuous consumption, health/wellness and environment. Other recent Oscar nominated movies that speak to topics of the time include Hotel Rwanda, Brokeback Mountain, American History X, Cider House Rules, Schindler's List, and Philadelphia. All provided a glimpse into a struggle in a raw way never done before. In fact Hollywood has a rich history of using it’s talents to frame significant topics. Think Mississippi Burning, Chariots of Fire, Gandhi, Norma Rae, A Clockwork Orange, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, and The Wild One.

Bottom line: if there’s no one watching the movie then there’s no one talking about the issue. And if no one sees nor talks about it then there’s no money to share with those in need in the first place.

Which brings us back to Slumdog. I agree “slice of the profits” isn't exactly specific nor transparent. And sure a peak at the official film’s website reveals the soundtrack for sale on itunes, and a text-delivery of ringtones and widgets. There could easily have been a “click here to learn how you can help” banner with a brief video showing where the two actors return to and offering a way for consumers to donate directly to those charities referenced by Boyle. And in his own grassroots publicity campaign, especially once Oscar buzz started to build and the film became a media darling, the director could have plugged a “savetheslumdogs.org” type site. But it's a fine line. People watch movies to escape from their everyday world. Sometimes that escape is lighthearted sometimes frightening and sometimes jarring and thought provoking – and when done really well like Slumdog all the above. But people don’t want to be berated or lectured to. Especially as they are deciding where to spend their money. Entertain first. Inform second. Advocate third. That’s following the script for success in cause entertainment.