Originally Posted By danyoung ^^ But there's still a difference. I'm not sure if I'm hammering a dead nail here, but to me it's an important difference. Fictional discussion with current Disney management about what to do next in the parks - "Well, we could put 3 new C tickets in, and maybe keep DAK open an extra hour. That shouldn't cost too much, and will provide the guests with more value for their dollar." Fictional discussion with Walt and his Imagineers - "Boys, I've got an idea for a new ride. It'll incorporate new designs in AA, bigger lasers than have ever been built, and real working transporters just like in science fiction. I want you to start working on it right away." To me, Walt KNEW how to build the right attractions that would bring in the people (and their money would follow). Current management either doesn't know how to do that or doesn't much care, as long as they're massaging their properties enough to keep the paying customer coming. I'm not sure which way is ultimately better, or if Walt's philosophy could even work in today's world. But I sure liked his concept better!
Originally Posted By basas <<I have to admit...that is a thought that never occured to me...maybe because I would prefer to think that Disney isn't that "anti-off property/local/APers" guests... But you made a valid observation...>> I'd hope so too. But after the latest rumors of Disney perhaps only offering FP's to onsite guests (and even then, more perks depending on the hotel you're staying in), the outlook can be quite scary. However, since Disney has promoted FP as a free-guest service for everyone since the day it started, i hope they won't go back on this and start 'tiering' guests.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>To me, Walt KNEW how to build the right attractions that would bring in the people (and their money would follow). Current management either doesn't know how to do that or doesn't much care, as long as they're massaging their properties enough to keep the paying customer coming. I'm not sure which way is ultimately better, or if Walt's philosophy could even work in today's world. But I sure liked his concept better!<< No argument. I would like new cool e-tickets too. But as long as the parks are full it won't happen. They simply (and sadly) can't justify it from an ROI perspective. Now if guests stop coming, well, that's another matter altogether.
Originally Posted By fkurucz And something to kepp in mind: its a lot harder to build cool new E tickets with parts from a McMaster catalog, as Bob Gurr did back in the golden years.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <True... Still, I much rather have a cleaner, and more updated MK/EPCOT than money spent on those DVCs.< If those were truly the choices I'd have to think about it-- but they are mutually exclusive. In fact without the cash flow from DVC we might be seeing worse conditions -- although most of that money kept separately anyway
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I don't have to like it, but that's the reality of today's Disney company, where more points for the shareholders trumps happy customers. < I know I keep reading statements about keeping the shareholders happy -- is no one else here a shareholder ? If so you woul dknow that stock is down from $37 / share to $25 a share over the last 7 years !!???? If that is keeping the shareholders happy...I am at a loss
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Walt didn't want real estate development with the goal of building income.< and where was this idea put in front of Walt as a concept ? it wasn't so any thought as to whether he would love DVC or hate it is really speculation on either side. DVC has nothing to do with EPCOT -- different ideal completely
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Even the densest MBA understands that money flows in because customers are happy. What differentiates the smart ones is that they understand how to keep customers happy. Walt definitely had his ideas on how to do this. Current management clearly has a different understanding of what makes customers happy. Judging by attendence figures and profitability, there aren't all that far off. This doesn't mean that they can't do better of course. < as a 220 pound MBA ( get it -- dense -LOL) - maybe I shouldbe offended -- but I agree with part of this statement - the difference is that for short periods of time even unhappy customers can support a business at levels beyond what it should if there is no serious competition ( capitalistic market) for the same $$. Unless attendance falls off again in the future -( as some would argue th crowds now are due to pent up demand post 9/11)- then the mgmt team and their dense MBA's aren't that far off of pleasing the 'average guest'. Here is lies the problem for most of us on the board -- they are shooting for the median attendee-- not us. So a little chipped paint -- or a long line -- or slightly shorter hours etc-- doesn;t affect Joe Consumer anywhere near as much as us as long as Disney is not passed by the competition -- and they have not been. And fans, if DVC was not what the customer wanted...it would have stopped long ago..much like the offsite locations did -- Disney going to venture back into vacations I am sure...but will do so using existing resorts owned by others would be my guess.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>as a 220 pound MBA ( get it -- dense -LOL) - maybe I shouldbe offended << None intended. After all, I am a 230 lb MBA.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I know I keep reading statements about keeping the shareholders happy -- is no one else here a shareholder ? If so you woul dknow that stock is down from $37 / share to $25 a share over the last 7 years !!????<< In general the company has been performing poorly. But my understanding is that business is up in the theme park division. It sure looked that way last week in Anaheim. So what has been bringing in the crowds at Anaheim? And its not just locals. The Harbor Blvd Hotels are packed with families. Has it been the 50th hype? Did they all come to see the refurbed SM? Was it the menu at Rancho del Zocalo? The daily Civic giveaway? My guess is that its the Anniversary hype thats bringing them in. And judging by how understaffed DLR seemed, I would venture that DLR management wasn't expecting this level of success.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom If we are going to invoke business principles into this scinario. I can think of at least two companies that HEAVILY reinvested in themselves in order to surpass any competition much to to the shangrins of their stock holders. They would be AOL ( which reinvested in itself initially for years and years ) and Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Being mediocre doesn't get you ahead in this world. Anyone could easily make the agruement that since a company such as Disney has decided to be mediocre ( in just about everything they do ) then perhaps with explains why "other" theme parks and entertainment venues have sprung up all over the world, in many ways surpassing Disney. We have already discussed how Universal Studios has several rides that easily surpass anything Disney has. Looks around. Six Flags has been building higher, faster, larger roller coasters. In terms of quality TDL is a much better conceived park. Then there is Vegas quickly picking up as the "family" vacation ground with all their malls, casios and attractions. Sure attendance at WDW goes up and down slightly each season or year. But that nothing compared to how much the competition has gained steam. Walt Disney was always about inovation. And that exactly what is absent at any of the Disney parks. While Disney is adding more "character meal" the competition is gaining ground. The Disney company need to get their heads of of the Basic Principals of Business Management text book and set themselves apart from the rest. Walt always did!
Originally Posted By danyoung >I know I keep reading statements about keeping the shareholders happy -- is no one else here a shareholder ? If so you woul dknow that stock is down from $37 / share to $25 a share over the last 7 years !!????< Bad management and poor choices by execs including Eisner are responsible for this. But that doesn't change my perception that the Disney focus is far more about money than it is about magic.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN I have to admit this topic was more fun when it was about wrecking Snow...
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Going way back to post #52: <<People can say WDW is the bestest, most magical, fantasmical place on the planet today and that it has never been better. That's their opinion. Now, I know that opinion is wrong but everyone is entitled to think whatever they want.>> Not taking sides here, just picking a nit about "Now, I know that opinion is wrong." I don't think I need to say anymore.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Bad management and poor choices by execs including Eisner are responsible for this. But that doesn't change my perception that the Disney focus is far more about money than it is about magic.>> I don't disagree that Disney management has made some bad mistakes, but at least they still do know how to make so-called magic.They may not do it all the time, or even 50% of the time, but apparently it's enough to keep even the naysayers visiting. I think that those of you that complain loudly here are just like rabid sports fans. A team fan bitches about players or coaches, but they stick with 'em, regardless of how bad they are. They wait for the season to turn around, or the next season; or a new coach, pitcher, quarterback. Good or bad though, they _love_ it. So it is with you, the Disney fan. You hate Eisner, and how the company has sunk so low. Yet you hang on, looking for that turn-around. Prospects for the future? Matt Ouimet DL is one of the up-coming players. Everest looks like it might be a winner. Good or bad though, you _love_ it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Being mediocre doesn't get you ahead in this world. Anyone could easily make the agruement that since a company such as Disney has decided to be mediocre ( in just about everything they do ) then perhaps with explains why "other" theme parks and entertainment venues have sprung up all over the world, in many ways surpassing Disney.<< While standards have fallen at Disney Theme Parks in the US, they are still better that what the competition offers, which is why they outdraw their nearest competitor (Universal). Like it or not, Disney is still the market leader in themeparks. We Disney nerds would like things to be different, but unless those investments are going to bring in a higher ROI, they just won't happen.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>But that doesn't change my perception that the Disney focus is far more about money than it is about magic.<< Unfortunately institutional investors (mutual funds, etc.) don't care about 'magic', they care about profits. And as long as WD Co is a publicly held corporation profits will come first. Now, good management can make a case to the Board and investors that 'magic' is what is needed and that the 'magic' will being in huge profits. But investors are doubters by nature. Management will have to "prove" that attendance, spending and profits will meet a minimum return. All investment is risky, which is why management is cautious. It is also important to remember that the emphasis in the past decade was to build a media company (which proved to be a poor choice). Walt had a great deal of moral capital, and used it (with Roy's help) to persuade investors (and yet many remained skeptical). We can hope that present and future management will be visionary. But we should also not forget the shape the company was in when Eisner took over: Uninspired movies and a stagnant themepark business. He did some things right. If Walt had a failure its that he created a company that was too dependent on him and his creativity. After he died the company slipped into a long period of stagnation. Had it not been for Eisner its quite possibly that Disney today would just be a subsidiary of Sony Pictures.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Correction (we need an edit feature!): Had it not been for Eisner its quite possiblE that Disney today would just be a subsidiary of Sony Pictures.
Originally Posted By MrToadWildRider >>Going way back to post #52: <<People can say WDW is the bestest, most magical, fantasmical place on the planet today and that it has never been better. That's their opinion. Now, I know that opinion is wrong but everyone is entitled to think whatever they want.>> Not taking sides here, just picking a nit about "Now, I know that opinion is wrong." << I also found that sentence was quite funny...
