Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Disney Cruise Line's success today is owed in large part to Matt Ouimet's tenure in the early nineties.>> I have no idea where that date came from. More coffee!!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^^^ Who needs coffee when you put out that great post about Matt, Skinner? Seriously would be thrilled if Matt returned... It's certainly interesting that he had a hand in that event a few months ago.
Originally Posted By leemac <<care to tell us if he wasn't that great of a VP? >> His tenure was relatively brief so his impact wasn't great but he is a genuinely nice guy - quiet and unassuming. He seems to just get on with things. I certainly don't have anything negative to say about Jim.
Originally Posted By MousDad >>Same as why I'm sure fanbois will have wet dreams if Jim is given more power. Jim is seen to have done no wrong - mainly because of one event.<< Jim's Epcot 25 "concessions" were beyond awesome because he, in an impressive display of stones and (gasp) leadership, took P&R's pathetic, one-park homogogenization and told Rasulo to suck it. It meant much, much more than coddling to the fanbois.
Originally Posted By leemac <<If they were really a progressive, and good company, they'd keep everything good on BOTH sides of the fence, which is possible. They don't have to radically change to be profitable.>> I'm not sure it is possible. Sure it is possible to keep regular guests happy and keep the resort turning a tidy profit but I think that the desires of the fanbois are at odds with management. Lee brings up AC and it is a perfect example - it was losing money at a tremendous clip. Sure management could have made changes to improve the situation but WDW Co. decided that shuttering it would be the only way to stem the red ink. The fanbois start spitting venom but what can you do - every location needs to be profitable under the current regime - there is no room for dead weight - I don't agree with the mantra but we are stuck with it until Jim Hunt and his crew are gone.
Originally Posted By Manfried Whatever is going on, I hope that it means someone will come in and make a concerted effort to improve the infrastructure of the Magic Kingdom.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper ^^^I don't mean to sound ignorant because I know you know your stuff leemac, but are you sure about the AC bleeding money? You're the only person I've seen say that. Everyone else said it was just above/below water, not that far down.
Originally Posted By leemac <<He is precisely the type of executive sorely lacking at WDW now.>> However he is lacking one thing - an ability to play nice with the other children. Ask any other current executive about Matt and they will demur to comment. He wasn't popular and didn't care - that narrow-mindedness cost him his job and his ability to be a strong positive force inside WDP&R. I like Matt a lot - he was a great asset to DCL in particular - but he needed to learn when to pick his fights. Jay had too much power to wield and he got in the way. Much like the equally affable and competent Tom McAlpin.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>His tenure was relatively brief so his impact wasn't great but he is a genuinely nice guy - quiet and unassuming. He seems to just get on with things. I certainly don't have anything negative to say about Jim.<<< So why not put him in a position of greater power? Can't be worse than what we have now....
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Jim's Epcot 25 "concessions" were beyond awesome because he, in an impressive display of stones and (gasp) leadership, took P&R's pathetic, one-park homogogenization and told Rasulo to suck it. It meant much, much more than coddling to the fanbois.<<< Exactly. It was a HUGE step out of line for the usual MO of TDO. In a good way.
Originally Posted By leemac <<AC bleeding money?>> It was below water - not massively but enough to put it at risk. Many options were considered but ultimately management wanted it gone - the overheads were high for what they perceived to be just a bar (as you'll have noticed WDW Co. doesn't like equity performers - any excuse to cull them for non-equity members and hourly CMs).
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I'm not sure it is possible. Sure it is possible to keep regular guests happy and keep the resort turning a tidy profit but I think that the desires of the fanbois are at odds with management. <<< Really? I honestly think our "demands" are quite, quite simple. Quality upkeep, entertainment, and unique additions to the parks. What's so hard about that? They did that perfectly well up until 1997 or so.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It meant much, much more than coddling to the fanbois.>> You are way over-inflating the situation. Jim found a way in his operational budget to pay for that small event. How did it have an impact beyond the Epcot foamers? What lasting impact has it had three years later? None.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Seriously would be thrilled if Matt returned.>> It would set a precedent. I don't recall any senior executive leaving/forced to leave and then returning under the same leadership. Jay may have gone but the rest of his cronies are still there.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Quality upkeep, entertainment, and unique additions to the parks. >> They all cost money and the way that the revenue streams are structured and how projects are appraised now means it is very difficult to justify significant capex. Until the likes of MYW and the discounting go away (unlikely undercurrent management) then we aren't likely to see anything on the scale of Radiator Springs Racers ($350m and counting) unless one park begins to tank.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>They all cost money and the way that the revenue streams are structured and how projects are appraised now means it is very difficult to justify significant capex. Until the likes of MYW and the discounting go away (unlikely undercurrent management) then we aren't likely to see anything on the scale of Radiator Springs Racers ($350m and counting) unless one park begins to tank.<<< That's wrong. IMO, Disney's brand of quality is built on the exact opposite type of management. Quality comes WITH profit, just not as a means of producing it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<However he is lacking one thing - an ability to play nice with the other children. Ask any other current executive about Matt and they will demur to comment. He wasn't popular and didn't care - that narrow-mindedness cost him his job and his ability to be a strong positive force inside WDP&R.>> If someone like Matt cannot be a "strong positive force" inside the current P&R regime... then I believe they're ultimately doomed without a serious change in leadership. I've heard similar rantings about Ouimet, which I chalked up to one thing: Matt was not a "yes man." Jay and his flying monkeys only wanted yes men around to manipulate and exploit. Unfortunately, Jay's lieutenants are still in place, as you pointed out leemac, which makes it damned near impossible for true change to occur. Weiss needs a serious wakeup call regarding WDW. I have no doubt that Potter is seriously cutting into their profitability, along with the stagnant economy. Now is the time to infuse the resort with new attraction projects while Uni works quietly behind the scenes to expand Potter even further. Disney's current track is short-sighted and will not produce favorable results down the road, once the economy turns around. OK, so Matt is abrasive. Gotta break some eggs if you want world class omelets. And WDW has been offering Egg McMediocre sandwiches at omelet prices for too long. Time to stir things up.
Originally Posted By MousDad >>You are way over-inflating the situation. Jim found a way in his operational budget to pay for that small event.<< I don't think I am. P&R made it abundantly clear, to the point of public announcement, that they wanted nothing to do with celebrating Epcot's 25th. There's no way you can get me to believe that Jim's actions didn't irk Rasulo. >>How did it have an impact beyond the Epcot foamers? What lasting impact has it had three years later? None.<< Sorry, disagree again. A very, very strong argument could be made that Epcot 25 birthed the current, profitable trend in retro merchandising. There was none of that before Epcot 25. Now it's everywhere, and helping those beloved per-guest spending numbers. And you haven't noticed a down-tick in the Disney Parks One World Order propoganda since Tom took over? I have.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Sorry, disagree again. A very, very strong argument could be made that Epcot 25 birthed the current, profitable trend in retro merchandising. There was none of that before Epcot 25. Now it's everywhere, and helping those beloved per-guest spending numbers.>> Excellent point. Which begs the question... did the EPCOT 25th event have any effect, however small, in giving the green light to D23? I'm sure Steven Clark and his team were already in the planning stages for D23 when the EPCOT 25th event took place. But how much did the popularity of that event (especially the merch sales) give Burbank the confidence that D23 would be successful? As for the "Disney Parks One World Order"... apropos description. It is propaganda and the antithesis of what D23 and other Disney fan organizations represent. How both D23 and the generic Disney Parks dogma can co-exist in the same parent company is beyond me. DisCo needs to finally decide how they genuinely feel about its Legacy before launching anymore stupid insipid marketing campaigns.
Originally Posted By leemac <<A very, very strong argument could be made that Epcot 25 birthed the current, profitable trend in retro merchandising. >> Very wrong - I have several '82 styling products that were produced before the 25th. One gray tee has the Future World logos and there was a denim jacket too. And even so those products are niche - they may be profitable (I've no idea as I don't see SKU-specific P&Ls for merchandise) but they are small run orders. The regular guest is far happier with their tie-dyed monstrosity. )
