My only problem with this news is that the seriously-problematic schizophrenia of the Disney trademark shows itself, once again.
"Almost 60% of KB Home homebuyers are families with children," said Wendy Marlett, senior vice president of sales and marketing for KB Home. "Collaborating with this incredible brand that has universal appeal to families will not only drive traffic to our communities but will also allow us to offer something that no other homebuilder can - a little Disney magic built into their new KB home."
I imagine the likelihood of ventures, such as the one with KB Homes, failing will be determined by the insistence people inside Disney have about making the Disney trademark synonymous with children.
No one wants to buy a "kiddie house".
The Disney brand-name should divorce any associations it may have with children in favor of "owning" human creativity and imagination.
Disney should present itself as the most creative organization in the world, and the institution should aspire to as much. The schizophrenia the trademark has been exhibiting since the death of the founder needs to end, now.
Tract homes with "High School Musical" curtains and "That's So Raven" wallpaper are a perversion of the Disney that envisioned EPCOT.
hasn't disney been 'kid' associated since they stopped showing the shorts in the theatre?
I mean.. the Mickey Mouse club was never adult either..
Stick to hotels and theme parks Disney. They already have the dreadfully cheap Disney Home lines. Isn't that enough?
When ABC had such success with the weekly anthology series, the advertising-supported network asked Disney to create a daily show, specifically for children. So, the Mickey Mouse Club was revived in a different form.
Disney was careful to have the Mouseketeers functioning as a brand extension that was separate from, but still related to, the Disney brand.
I'd like to see any future kid-specific content distributed under such brand extensions in the future.
Somewhere along the way, Disney became less about the creative and visionary, as exemplified by the original concept for EPCOT, and, instead, became a name to sell generic products and services that merely fit a family lifestyle. The City of Celebration in Florida is a good example. That development certainly didn't attempt anything especially imaginative or groundbreaking.
The pirate themed room looks cute.
Enter to win a free kids bedroom makeover.
This merely comes across as jealousy that you can't have a Mickey Mouse themed master bedroom in your home.
You are correct sir!
I know the fanboys of MiceChat aren't used to b. school case studies, but company shareholders, like myself, do need to evaluate the actions that Disney takes in order to make judgments regarding the quality of the management. And, the persistence individuals inside the organization have towards transforming "Disney" into a consumer-lifestyle brand for "families" is not good business.
The question is whether or not Disney continues this flawed strategy, which was begun under Eisner, who has since resigned in disgrace.
I don't necessarily see the concept as flawed. Families enjoy all aspects of Disney together. Parents watch Disney movies with their children, play Disney games with them and take their children to Disneyland/Disney World in great numbers. It seems to me the "family" business model is eminently successful. In addition to being successful it is also conducive to family unity. The problem I have with it is the attitude that if something is geared towards children/families it is acceptable for it to be of lower quality. That's where I see Disney falling down. Not with the family-oriented model, but with the lowered standards and expectations that come with it. There's no need for something family-oriented to be of low quality.
If Disney abandoned family marketing, there wouldn't be a Disney.
The thing that doesn't make sense to me, is that you can already buy this furniture and put it in your own (non KB) home.