Originally Posted By WrongWay "I didn't see Spy Kids when it came out, or most of the Disney films. They aren't of interest to me." Then it is no wonder you don't dislike DCA. For this person that Sees everything Disney puts out, and LOVES most of it, DCA is a big disappointment. Again, Disney is building stuff to attract new customers, while makeing their most ardent fans very disappointed with their newer products. Back to the months ago "conflicting goals" thread.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's funny everytime someone says this, almost as though the problem lies completely with those who complain. I sometimes wonder if the people who say this are aware that attendance at Disneyland has been down for almost 4 straight years now." What's funny is that some folks insist that there is only one reason for these numbers. For the last two years, the area has been a construction zone. This year, there's been a pretty harsh recession going on. But all that can be safely ignored, I guess. In fact the whole point o the article posted here was how Anaheim didn't see a giant boom in business from DCA. So it's obvious people aren't coming. Gee, with six million people in the park, you'd think that someone was coming. I guess not. And let's just ignore the fact that the entire country has suffered a severe economic setback this year. Let's ignore that tourism is down all across the country. It's all because DCA sucks, right? If they built anything else there, then it would have all been ok. All the millions who got laid off this year would have flocked across the country just to see this fabulous new theme park. The millions of others who weren't laid off, but were otherwise afraid that they might lose their jobs would just up and come to this new park, because it's so much more important to see a new theme park than have food for your children. After all, let's put first things first. "Now if you don't mind, I'd like to continue discussing WHY they aren't coming, without being told how I'm suppose to think... thank you. " You're welcome, even though I am not telling you how you are supposed to think. Think any way you want. "Other than saying that I think Disney really messed up on DCA, and is heading in the worng direction lately, just what is it that I say/said that makes you think I hate Disney?" Perhaps it's the constant barrage of negative posts. Could it be that? Maybe. "Or being told I should talk about something I don't like." Who is telling you to talk about anything? "It feels too much like I'm being told to sit down and shut up." No one is telling you to shut up. "Well, except to tell me I'm wrong." When you try to state that your opinion is the only correct one, and that everyone feels the same way you do, then you are wrong. It doesn't matter what you're talking about. That concept is never correct.
Originally Posted By driftwood714 Don't forget the fact that tourism nation-wide is hurting badly. Disneyland and DCA seem to be doing fine considering we're in a recession.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "I'm sure you do. You express it very well....um...how, exactly?" Let's see. the other day I was in the Disney store buying a Mickey T-Shirt. The CM says, "You must be a big Mickey fan." I agree, but ask how she knew from the purchase of a single shirt. She said that buying a mickey T-Shirt, while wearing a Mickey dress shirt, under my Mickey coat, and signing my Mickey check with a Mickey pen, was a bit of a give away. "Because it is unrealistic in the extreme to think that everything that any company does is going to be exactly what I want, all the time." I agree, but it is possible to notice a trend. No new great attractions at DL in 6 years. When the company does put in a new attraction, it is cheap, or it seemes designed for the purpose of creating sponsorship oppertunities. One can see a trend in the falling quality of the films as well. From movies with fairytale like stories, to a movie made to resemble a video game? Bad move. I can hear things like "The parks generate positive cash flow that we can use for more aquisitions.", then look and see what the fans of the parks are getting for all that money they are giving to Disney. Closing atrtractions, poorer maintenance, and Six Flags quality rides at the new park. I can see that Disney is taking its most ardent fans for granted, assuming well forever be content with "new parade" of the year, or "new merchandise promotion" of the month. Disney built a fan base by creating Dinsye Magic. I can spot the trend that they are moving further from Magic, and more toward "max profits, over minimal period, with minimal investment". That will work until the cash cow dies form over milking. What Disney will have left is a bunch of poorly watched TV networks.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then it is no wonder you don't dislike DCA." No. I "don't dislike" DCA because it is an entertaining theme park. Once again, you seem to think that only your opinion is the correct one. It is not. It's pretty insulting, frankly, to say that people who somehow know what Disney is all about would automatically dislike DCA. I probably know more about what Disney is and has been about as much as anyone here does, if not more. Strictly speaking, you simply do not know what you are talking about with regards to me, or my interests. Simply assuming that because someone does not act like you do then they are somehow beneath you is quite the statement on your part. But it's always good to see this old story come up again and again. "We don't like DCA because we know better." It's a lie, because you don't. You don't know any better, you don't understand any better, you don't know what Walt Disney would have thought, you don't know anything other than what you personally have an opinion on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've said this many times. Of course, whether that opinion is informed or uninformed is something else. I don't particularly care for the latter type of opinion. As to DCA, if I didn't like the park, I wouldn't go to it or concern myself with it, much like any other aspect of an entertainment offering. It is very emotionally twisted, to me, that anyone would continually invest time in something they obviously hate. That's my opinion. Finally, they aren't trying to appeal to their "most ardent fans" especially if their most ardent fans talk about nothing but how bad they think everything they do is. They are trying to appeal to a broad cross-section of the public. That means not you, or me, or any other particular individual. I think it's time to have an understanding of this.
Originally Posted By WrongWay Sorry jonvn, It should have been: being told I should NOT talk about something I don't like. I din't say I was being told to shut up. I said that being told I shouldn't talk about things I don't like FEELS like I'm being told to shut up. "When you try to state that your opinion is the only correct one, and that everyone feels the same way you do, then you are wrong. It doesn't matter what you're talking about. That concept is never correct." Except when you do it? Many times you've said things that are you opinion, and stated them like fact. In my opinion, it would be too constraing, that if every time you stated an opinion, you had to state that it was an opinion. It is my opinion, that people just don't talk that way in normal conversation. It is my opinion that when people here a statement, they evaluate whether the person is stating a fact, or stating an opinion. It is my opinion that it is unnecessary to lable every opinion as just an opinion. It is my opinion that that would quickly become annoying. In fact, it is my opinion, that you're reading how I'm making that point and that you are probably (In my opinion) becoming bored or angry already. I doubt, which is my opinion, that you'll counter with acknowledgement that I made any point. That is because, it is my opinion, that you don't read these posts to be entertained. It is my opinion that you read my posts looking for things you don't like, and then respond to them. It is my opinion that if you understand why you feel compelled to answer my posts, you understand why I make them. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Originally Posted By woody >>Of course, that is just my opinion. Except when you present it as fact. LOL!!!
Originally Posted By WrongWay "It's pretty insulting, frankly, to say that people who somehow know what Disney is all about would automatically dislike DCA." What I tired to infer, was that if you loved Disney enough to see everything they release, you'd probably dislike DCA. That is becuase, in my opinion, DCA goes against everything that makes most Disney products great. Also, I said that it makes since that you don't dislike DCA, simply becasue, in my opinion, you aren't as big of a Disney fan as I am. If you aren't going out of your way to see everything they do, than you probably look at the company differently than I do. If you don't look at the company the way I do, than in my opinion, it makes sense that you wouldn't see the park as a big departure of everything you love Disney for. It was not intended as an insult. It was, in my opinion, simpley an acknowledgement that we view Disney in a different light. We value, in my opinion, different aspects of the company. Therefore, in my opinion, it is no wonder you feel differently, in my opinion, about the park.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Let's see. the other day I was in the Disney store buying a Mickey T-Shirt." I'm going to have to point something out to you that you might not understand: The people here only know you through what you have to say on this board. They don't know you go to Disney Stores and buy Mickey T-shirts. Besides, I have a bunch of Mickey T-shirts. In fact, I make my wife wear mouse ears to bed. Does that make me a member of the "ardent fan" club, now? "I can spot the trend that they are moving further from Magic, and more toward "max profits, over minimal period, with minimal investment"." The reality is this: They have stockholders. These stockholders are institutional investors, and they own about 50% of the company. If the company does not make enough money, the stock price goes down, and the stockholders are not happy. If the stockholders are not happy, they will remove the current management and replace them with someone who will be more towards their liking. That means someone who is even MORE bottom line oriented. That's how it goes. The people managing the company then have a responsiility to themselves and the owners of the company to make prudent business decisions. They can't go spending ten billion on a park in Anaheim if they won't be able to make it back for decades. They can't go off and do things because it's fun. They have to do things that are fiscally sound. Now, there is a wide range of latitude as to what is sound and what is not. You can overspend, AND you can underspend. The talent comes in knowing where to put the right amount of money. Even though you do put in the right amount of money, however, in this sort of business, you also have to be able to creatively execute with the money handed to you. There have been lots of examples where Disney has spent a ton of cash, and gotten nothing out the other end. And other examples where very little was spent, and they ended up with a big hit. It's not the money you spend, it's how you spend the money you get. "What Disney will have left is a bunch of poorly watched TV networks." That's a stretch. But the situation is that if Disney doesn't continue to diversify and continue to build up and grow, they may then be the subject of a takeover. This is where someone with a lot of money comes in and says, "I will buy the stock from everyone, and own the place myself." Then Disney goes away completely, and nothing is left. If the management does not, again, cater to the bottom line and make sure they are finacially in the best state they can be, then that can happen as well. Growth is a way to keep this from happening, by making the company one that takes over other places, rather than the reverse. These are really very fundamental precepts to operating a business. This isn't magical rocket science, or anything like that. It's simple basics.
Originally Posted By woody >>In fact, I make my wife wear mouse ears to bed. Now wait a minute. Don't go there!!!
Originally Posted By WrongWay "Finally, they aren't trying to appeal to their "most ardent fans" especially if their most ardent fans talk about nothing but how bad they think everything they do is." Only things they've done latley. Well, the early 80s sucked pretty bad too. "They are trying to appeal to a broad cross-section of the public. That means not you, or me, or any other particular individual. I think it's time to have an understanding of this." In my opinion, I do understand that. in fact, it is my opinion, that that was the point I tried to make in my "conflicting goals" post a month ago. It is my opinion that they tried to make a park that would appeal to a lot of people (new customers), and it is my opinion that they gave too little of any one thing to be enough to justify the cost to very many people. It is my opinion that they created this park intended to appeal to mass markets, with a secondary goal to convert the park into a resort. it is my opinion that only the most ardent fans are going to drop $300 a night for a hotel in Disneyland. In my opinion, this park failes to convert the park into a resort, and it is my opinion the failure is because they didn't design it to appeal to the people most likely to vaation in a Disney resort. It is my opinion that in hunting there is a term called "flocking up". At least my dad tought me this term and he claims that other hunters us it. Flocking Up is the process of shooting for a flock of birds instead of individual birds within the flock. The result is that most or all of your shot will usually go right through the center of the flock, missing all the birds. I think Disney Flocked Up with DCA. They shot for the flock, and missed just about everyone. It is my opinion that the park would have been far more sucessful if it had aimed for thier usual customer base. But, that is just my opinion.
Originally Posted By jonvn "In my opinion, it would be too constraing, that if every time you stated an opinion, you had to state that it was an opinion." That's not what I mean. For example, when you extrapolate your personal opinion such that everyone else would feel the same way. That's not really something that I find valid. "What I tired to infer, was that if you loved Disney enough to see everything they release, you'd probably dislike DCA. " That is an erroneous assumption of which I spoke of above. Just because YOU feel a certain way does not mean anyone else does. SOME may feel like you, but others will not. "If you aren't going out of your way to see everything they do, than you probably look at the company differently than I do." I look at it as a source of entertainment, of which some will be good, bad, or indifferent. I don't go do things that I may find unpleasant. There is NO REASON to do so. "it makes sense that you wouldn't see the park as a big departure of everything you love Disney for. " The issue with that is that I don't see it as a departure AT ALL. I see other Disney parks doing things in a similar fashion, and therefore DCA is no different and NOT a departure. It is simply another Disney style theme park with a different theme than the others. There is nothing all that different about this place than other parks in Florida, for example. And you can say "In my opinion...in my opnion...in my opinion" all you want, but if you say something like "In my opinion, everything I say is absolutely RIGHT and the only way people can think" then you have something that others might take issue with. ">>Of course, that is just my opinion. Except when you present it as fact. LOL!!!" Thanks, as always, for contributing so much, woody.
Originally Posted By woody >>If the stockholders are not happy, they will remove the current management and replace them with someone who will be more towards their liking. Theoretically that can happen, but the reality is Eisner has lots of power. The stockholders don't have as much power as you state. More power is held by the board of directors, but they are mostly pro-Eisner. >> These are really very fundamental precepts to operating a business. This isn't magical rocket science, or anything like that. It's simple basics. So what went wrong? I guess everything is fine and dandy. Blame it on the recession.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "The reality is this: They have stockholders." And, in my opinion, there was a time when companies (at least Disney) made investments that would pay off over decades. I'll bet Indianna Jones Adventure has made Disney a lot of money, but it didn't do it in the quarter it was opened. In my opinion, Indianna Jones Adventure will continue to pay back moeny for decades to come. In my opinion, it is a long term investment. The only thing that, it seems to me, Disney is interested in investing in is TV networks, and things intended to pay back in the next 6 months. It is my opinion they are investing in very little that will have a continueing ROI. In my opinion. the direct to video sequals are a great example of this short term thinking. They may make money this quarter, but, in my opinion, have no continuing ROI. In my opinion, many probably cheapen the product so much, that they may harm long term sales of merchandise. I think another example would be the contracts to allow KMart and JC Penny to sell Disney merchandise. I think they made money now from the sell of the license, but that they will lose money long term as the market is flooded with lower cost alternatives to the quality Disney Store and park merchandise. That, of course, is just my opinion. Yet anohter example that I could think of would be, what is in my opinion. the envelope pushing, ratings grabbing but confidence destroying shows ABC has shown lately. They showed Private Ryan, F words and all, on Sunday night in the Wonderful World of Disney time slot. They showed a Victoria Secret fashion show that the FCC is investigating for crossing the line of indecency. These stunts may be good for that nights ratings, but, in my opinion, in the long term, will undermine the company's reputation. I think they need to get away from thinking about how they can double profits in the next year, and start thinking about what investments will increase the value of the company for decades to come. That is just my opinion of how they are, and should be, thinking. "In fact, I make my wife wear mouse ears to bed. Does that make me a member of the "ardent fan" club, now?" Ummm, if that does it for you, then, in my opinion, you may be a bit sick. ;-)
Originally Posted By jonvn "And, in my opinion, there was a time when companies (at least Disney) made investments that would pay off over decades" In my opinion, you don't read these posts very carefully. In any case, Disney does not exist in a vacuum. Disney is a company along with all the others. They have to operate like everyone else does in the economy. To expect otherwise of them is very unrealistic. If you want to rail against capitalism, that's fine. But Disney is no different than any other company in how it has to generate profits. Like it or lump it, that's how it is.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "The stockholders don't have as much power as you state. More power is held by the board of directors, but they are mostly pro-Eisner." << The stockholders vote to determine who sits on the board of directors. If the stockholders (mainly the large institutional ones) become sufficiently disenchanted with the way the company is being operated, they will vote in a new board of directors who will likely then replace the corporate management. -Jeff
Originally Posted By jonvn That's exactly right, Jeff. And if you look up who owns Disney stock, you will see that institutional investors as a group own about half the company. That's enough to fire everyone. But you don't even need 50% of the stock to start making problems. With much smaller percentages you have the right to start bringing up issues for general consideration, such as a takeover or board modification. The stockholders ARE the owners. The company is run for the owners. Not some guy someplace who thinks he knows what Disney Magic is. If the owners want to concentrate on the bottom line, then that's what the company is going to do. Don't like it? Buy the place and run it yourself. It's for sale, you know. Just start picking up shares of the stock. Just make sure that once you own it you keep enough profit rolling in so that the place doesn't shut down in a month.
Originally Posted By JohnS3 This discussion reminds me a lot of how a lot of us freelance writers rail against the big publishing houses and motion picture companies, who don't seem to want to take on writers with very little published work. Why take a chance when the same big name authors - Stephen King, Chrichton, Peter Straub, all the romance novelists, can keep churning things out that continue to sell. The novelist/screenwriter in me wants them to take a chance now and then with new writers like myself (well, new to books, not to magazine articles) and the practical side of me says "who can blame them? Publishing and movie making are big businesses and they don't on a whim try somebody new when they have proven sales with a small number of proven writers with blockbusters under their belts and name recognition that doesn't quit. So, I keep sending out manuscripts and screenplays, but I'm not angry with the publishing houses. They are not in business to distribute charitable gifts, after all. Same thing applies to Disney.
Originally Posted By woody >>Just make sure that once you own it you keep enough profit rolling in so that the place doesn't shut down in a month. If a customer wants a better product, he is told that it isn't realistic because Disney's stockholders want more profits? The truth is always in between because the stockholders do not manage the company. Everything you said about "how it works" is correct, but then why is Eisner still in charge? I think the company is performing very poorly. Eisner has the reputation to keep things in his control despite any disgruntled shareholders because the alternative is dire. No one can replace him without great risk. Wall Street doesn't like surprises despite its reputation for greed. Disney is as much about myth/legends as it is about business.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "What I tired to infer, was that if you loved Disney enough to see everything they release, you'd probably dislike DCA. " "That is an erroneous assumption of which I spoke of above. Just because YOU feel a certain way does not mean anyone else does. SOME may feel like you, but others will not." Which I said was probably. I don't need everyone to agree, just the majority. It is my opinion that the majority of people that love Disney, will not like DCA. As you said somewhere, DCA went for mass appeal. It was not designed specifically for the Disney fan, and for that reason, I still believe most ardent Disney Fans will not like it so I stick with my earlier assumption: "if you loved Disney enough to see everything they release, you'd probably dislike DCA. "if you say something like "In my opinion, everything I say is absolutely RIGHT and the only way people can think" then you have something that others might take issue with." How about if I say, "I think most will feel", or "In my opinion, more people would like", or "I think fantastic is better than mundane", or "California is of or about the world, meaning that by definition, California is a mundane theme"?
