Originally Posted By Megara But I guess, in the end, we must admit that regardless of rubbish, painting, staff, light bulbs or shows schedules etc – the Disney parks are still pretty darn fantastic and that is why we love them and keep going back and are so passionate about discussing this issue. Every village has an idiot, so the parks are bound to attract several hundred of them - based on the volume of guests that trek through there.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> How many execs have you met? How many do you know? How many consultants do you know? Can you get the true powers on the telephone? << <<I work with some of these types every day. The ones I know are dedicated, Disney people who struggle every day to get the quality done with the resources they've got.>> I don't know who you know/work with, so that makes it tough to comment. I don't even know what you do for Disney either ... but I do know who I know (I know ... wow, what a statement) and I know some very quality people at Disney, but very few are in the parks division anymore. <<You diminish them.>> No. Their actions diminish them. ----------------------------- <<Is there someone way up high who's actually pulling these plugs with glee? Don't know. If so, I've never met them or observed them. Unless you have yourself, then you shouldn't be assuming that they exist just because staffing numbers are low.>> Their names are Jay Rasulo and Al Weiss and I have met them both. I just read here on the LP that Jay named another Florida guy to replace Ed Grier in Tokyo. I'll reserve judgement on the dude until I get some background info. But on the surface, it does appear to be another one of his puppet hires.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Corporate greed and incompetance doesn't imply that they're all Snidely Whiplashes rubbing their hands with glee. Corporate greed only means that middle level management cares much more about the numbers on a spreadsheet than the quality of the product that they're putting out. And greed and incompetance are manifested by upper management that allows the concerns of the shareholders in the short term to override both the value of their product and the long term benefits to those very same shareholders.>> Either I've come down with a bad case of malaria from riding the Jungle Cruise today or you are making a whole lot of sense, Danny. That's exactly what I've been trying to say with much more inflamatory language as I want LP.com to get more hits from 'observers.'
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I guess we'll have to agree that we have different definitions of the term "Corporate Greed." I try not to use terms that can be received emotionally. The word "greed" to me raises that emotional response. Some persons might term the same thing that some would call "Corporate greed" as instead "Fiscal responsibility," which is the same thing only sounds nicer.>> I'm not here to be nice ... or make friends (although I have ... and for that, I am truly grateful). I realize the power of words. Unless I'm tossing something inconsequential out, I measure every word carefully. And I'm not against greed as a concept, as it can be a good thing. But as a Disney shareholder with a CONSIDERABLE investment, I am not at all happy with the direction the company took in the last 10 years of Eisner's reign. I haven't formulated an opinion of Iger, yet. But one thing is clear, all the cost-cutting, outsourcing, blanding/dumbing down/homogenizing of the product has done is lower the long term value of my Disney investment. And that doesn't make me any happier than seeing a Frontierland at DL (and one at the MK) that sell Buzz Lightyear glow toys, Grumpy tees and loads of plush and pins BUT NO western-themed merchandise or seeing a $23 burger at Chefs de France or see a bed in my $400 a night deluxe Disney resort without triple sheeting and with Ivory soap in the bathroom. Funny thing, when Disney always put guest satisfaction, safety and show above all -- and valued its front-line CMs -- my stock always grew. A decade of disaster later and I'm supposed to be excited that it's running at $15 less a share than even 6-7 years ago? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> Their names are Jay Rasulo and Al Weiss and I have met them both. << So have I. And I know them to be different people than you appear to.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<So have I. And I know them to be different people than you appear to.>> You likely know the public faces. Ive never met a Disney exec who wasn't at least semi-pleasant in public, in the parks. Out of view of the masses is a whole different story. I am not saying they are scum ... or should be burned at the stake. I just know they have been inept at their respective jobs overall. I just know what their 'leadership' has meant for WDW. And if you think Disney's better for having them, well, there's nothing I'm going to say to change your mind. I long for the day when they are both no longer employed by TWDC.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >>You likely know the public faces. << Unless you work with or know a person a long time, who knows what face you're looking at? I prefer to dwell on the positive rather than looking everywhere for ulterior motives. >> I just know they have been inept at their respective jobs overall. << But you have met and worked with them? And therefore your conclusions are more accurate than my observations?
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy You can't put people up against Walt. Walt was a special, inspired, imaginative leader. Who didn't have to beholden to stock holders as much as his successors have had to be. Heck, today even Walt probably couldn't be Walt. Do I like that? No.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Either I've come down with a bad case of malaria from riding the Jungle Cruise today or you are making a whole lot of sense, Danny.< You know I only write to please you, oh Spirit.
