Is 'The Magic' Expensive? [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

hopemax

06-16-2002, 11:35 AM

DCA was designed to the tastes and entertainment styles of the executives and imagineers at WDW company. People who may not like the MK and Disneyland. People who are more "sophisticated" who like chataquas and fine wines and museums.

Yes, I saw this on that "other" board. However I'm not sure how much I believe this either. I really can't picture these sophisticates enjoying any of the rides that make up the Paradise Pier area, getting wet on Grizzly River Rapids, enjoying the antics of the characters represented in Muppet Vision or Tough to Be a Bug.

DCA feels "focus group-designed" IMO. Like they tried to give a little something for everyone problem is they didn't provide enough to satisfy anyone. PP feels it was designed for people who like Six Flags over Disney because it's more thrilling, and they don't care for the characters. GRR, Animation & Soarin seem designed for the "Disney" crowd, but they had problems with the lack of characters, the PP area. I've already talked about the sophisticated stuff. And the park separates families. Teen stuff here, adult stuff there, and once Flik's Fair opens the "kiddie" stuff will be over there.

However, back to the main point. I agree that "magic" is more expensive, but I don't believe it is A LOT more expensive. I was also going to bring up that DCA and AK cost about the same, and I think DCA was even more expensive. But look at AK, that area was a SWAMP! Money went to convert that not only to a theme park, but land suitable for the habitation of exotic animals from all over the world! And they still found ways to get very nice things to do. AK's biggest problem is the perception that there isn't enough to do. But that's a pretty minor problem to overcome; they have tons of expansion space. DCA on the otherhand feels "complete" and I look around and wonder, "where did all that money go?"

Gotta run though...off to Father's Day breakfast. Don't forget to call your Dads!

Bob O

06-16-2002, 06:01 PM

Is disney expensive, yes. But i think as far as the theme parks go it is a great deal. Name one other place on earth you can go and get as much entertainment, be it rides or shows in a day with such a great/clean atmosphere. I dont know of any others myself and think the admission price while not cheap is well worth it and i have never spent a day at disney where i didnt think i got more than what i paid for.
I think they have priced the resorts too high and i dont feel the bang for the buck is their anymore but feel the theme parks are a great deal in terms of what you pay and what you get in return!!
As in regards to the other question i do think you have to spend money to make money and disney in the US has forgotten that message and perfer to get by with the bare minimum as compared to what i have read about at DCA as compared to TDS.

HauntedMansionFan

06-16-2002, 08:18 PM

I had an interesting chat with KaterBell last night and she was telling me how she was chatting with someone that Disney operates all their parks just based on admission tickets. Everything else, food, drinks, souveniers, etc. are just pure gravy.

HB2K

06-16-2002, 09:32 PM

I enjoy most of the attractions and love the foliage, walkways and architecture. I like the theme they chose and most of the ways it was integrated into the park.

It seems when anyone defends DAK it's because us folks who don't like the park don't "take the time to find the little things".

I don't know about you, but I don't count the walkways & architecture as attractions to a park. They definitly are accessories to the atmosphere, but they shouldn't be considered attractions at a theme park.

Look mommy!!! That trash can looks pretty! Let's sit here and take pictures in front of it!

Chuck S

06-16-2002, 10:33 PM

Everyone is knocking DCA - while I'm not going to say it doesn't need MORE, I like the PP area - it reminds me of Pierpoint Landing, a now defunct area that used to be a fishing pier and tourist attraction in Long Beach. I think that PP is supposed to give guests a glimpse of what the California seaside amusement areas used to be like. Golden Dreams (is that the name of the Whoopi movie?) was a wonderful (but short) presentaion of the history of California for out of state visitors. Soarin' is just awesome. How many folks won't get to Florida? I can understand putting in duplicates of popular WDW attractions like ITTBAB, Muppet 3-D and WWTBAM. Superstar Limo I could live without :rolleyes:. This park just needs to grow and have more added to it. I am disappointed in DL's Tomorrowland. I can't believe an imagineer couldn't come up with something better to do with the carousel theater than Innoventions! And the Circlevision theater is just sitting there empty, along with the peoplemover/rocket rod tracks - it's just sad.

Bstanley

06-17-2002, 09:06 AM

Well I should have defined the scope of the question better. For the time being let's skip trying to scope out an entire park. Let's go with a single show/ride/attraction (whatever word is correct :-).

Also I think we need to define quality: Quality = meets customer requirements. Doesn't mean that it is 'Magical', doesn't even mean that it is reliable - unless reliability is a part of the customer requirements, concievable you could replace the entire thing every evening and the customer wouldn't know it.

And lastly - it doesn't really matter whether it makes money or not.

OK end of preliminaries.

So far it looks like the consensus is that it costs more to do a 'Magical' show than it does to do a 'Normal' show.

But why? What 'Magical' aspect of your favorite attraction do you think cost 'extra'?

daannzzz

06-17-2002, 11:02 AM

""I don't know about you, but I don't count the walkways & architecture as attractions to a park. They definitly are accessories to the atmosphere, but they shouldn't be considered attractions at a theme park. """
Gee I always thought that was the main part of the magic. Sure the rides are wonderful but if they were lined up in wearhouses it surley wouldn't be the same. I guess if all you want to do is rides than the walkways, gardens and architecture are just a side note.

mikek

06-17-2002, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by HB2K
Is it more profitable in the long run to invest the money and build a quality, magical experince?

Take a look at the success story of TDS vs the failures of the DAK/DCA business model.

It costs money to make money. The sooner Disney realizes that, the sooner things will turn around

EXACTLY.

To make a ton of money you need to spend a ton AND run it correctly. look at Baseball- another major entertainment venue. Take the Yankees- spend a ton and run their business right- make cash hand over fist. Brewers cant make any money 'cause they dont spend money. Dodgers spend a ton- spend it wrong and dont make anything.

Sure occasionally someone real smart can spend a little consistantly and run your stuff right (like maybe the A's) but thats REAL hard to do.

DisneyKidds

06-17-2002, 02:29 PM

Here we go again, AK this, DCA that, not enough to do here, don't like that there............:rolleyes: :) :D

I love it though :) because I had a thought that didn't seem to fit elsewhere but i can throw out in the context of this thread.

A little business first, and I know these weren't part of the original question.

I bet most on this board will agree that experiencing the Magic is expensive, but well worth it. If someone like my sister in law came here she would say, that WDW is just way too expensive and compare admission prices to lesser parks. However, she just doesn't 'get it'.

HB2K, here we go again ;)....

I don't know about you, but I don't count the walkways & architecture as attractions to a park. They definitly are accessories to the atmosphere, but they shouldn't be considered attractions at a theme park.

Please!! What is Main St. USA all about. No rides or attractions there, unless you consider the walkways (called sidewalks) and architecture (called buildings) an attraction - which everybody does!!! THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST LOVED SPOTS IN ALL OF WDW!!! Why? Because of theming, attention to detail, the little details that take you to another place.

So to the point of this thread (I think). Does it cost more to produce the 'Magic'. Yes, it does. I wonder how much Main St. USA cost, and you can't ride it. Back to the AK. How many millions did they spend on plantings indiginous to Asia and Africa. It helps to transport you to another place, and that is a big part of the Magic, IMO. I always count the impeccable appearance of WDW as part of the Magic. Elaborate plantings everywhere (ok except the CR), cleanliness, use of space for places to just relax. All these things cost money. Other destination resorts may spend more on rides or roller coasters, but this is where they put all their money, and they don't have 'the Magic'. While I've never been, didn't Universal get that to some extent and then put in IOA. I get the impression that this has more of the attention to detail required to create 'Magic'. Then you have customer service. A quick example - the light in my DD's light up Magical Moments pin died and we would have gladly paid for replacement batteries, but they just gave her a whole new one. I'm sure everyone has such an example, and it all adds to the Magic, and it all costs money. I know if you aren't in Car #1 you think it is slipping, but I say it is alive and well and Disney is spending money to keep it alive.

Now for that thought I had. Seing as the Magic is expensive, should the decision to add or not to add to the theme park offerings be an all or nothing proposition? Walt said 'Give the people everything you can'. Some people believe in Walt's philosophy that if you can't do that, then don't do it at all. That, because this philosophy is not being followed, that the Magic is slipping away. I say no. Lets say I agree that AK is 'incomplete' and the additions are cheap carny junk. Would WDW have been better off had AK not been built because they didn't give 'everything'? Fact of the matter, for me at least, the AK is full of Magic, expensive Magic at that.

Another Voice

06-17-2002, 04:13 PM

[Sigh]

Main Street is not “magical” because of the gingerbread on the awnings, the stately gas light lamps lining the street, the themeing, the details, the plants…..

Main Street is “magical” because it evokes emotions in people. When first conceived fifty years ago it was meant to evoke the emotion of nostalgia from an entire generation that still remembered the world of their childhood. Today, the place is “magical” because it has become the symbol of another world, filled with many childhood memories and dreams on its own. No one gets excited about Main Street the architecture; they get excited about Main Street represents.

Details and themeing are only tools – they are not the end product. Spend as many millions planting indigenous Asia and Africa greenery as you want – without context all you have created is a nice garden. Disney parks work because their physical aspects are part of a larger product – the story. The story gives the place context and gives a place meaning. And that gives the place “magic”.

How does one go about melding structure and sound and sights and smells and expense into something “magical”? That’s the art of storytelling and no one has figured it out yet. If anyone knew with certainty they could make many fortunes selling the secret.

Each individual is different, and so the “magic” is different. I’ve seen people that get “magical” just by showing up at the place. It doesn’t matter what they see, what they do, or what they experience. It’s Disney – it’s “magical”. And I’ve seen just as many people on the other end. No matter what happens, Disney doesn’t produce any kind of emotions. Most people simply fall in between. Most people are willing to “let the magic happen”, but it still takes a spark to get it going.

It is far easier to create that spark with imagination, talent and skill rather than relaying on money. “Magic” is only expensive if you don’t know how to spend the money well. California Adventure lacks the magic more because it lacked imagination much more than it lacked funding (or even replacement batteries).

kenjean

06-18-2002, 07:22 AM

Magic is in the eyes of the beholder. What makes Disneyworld/Disneyland magical for me may not be what does it for you.

For some, it is the major attractions. For others, the theming. I imagine that the depth of the magic is relevant to how often you go. On your first trip, you might be aware of your surroundings, and how well they are themed, but you are so busy trying to find your way around, and running from attraction to attraction that the majority doesn't sink in.

At the end of the day, and you have experienced 75% of the attractions at the Magic Kingdom, and you trip does not allow any more time there, you say to yourself, I HAVE TO GO BACK. I want to see the rest.

On your second trip, you hit your favorites from last time, and then the discovery happens. You experience things you passed over on your first trip. You didn't have time for the enchanted Tiki Room, but go now. And you are amazed that every flower and face on the totem poles sings along. All of a sudden you notice the music on Main Street matches the timing of the area. And that it changes when you cross over into Adventureland. Wait, what's this? There is a drum and fife corps playing in Liberty Square. And they get some of the kids in the crowd to march along. Then you go into Hall of President's and smile to yourself when you see the President's casually chatting among themselves while roll call is made.

On the next of your now annual trips, you stop in Town Square and sit on one of the vintage benches, soaking up the atmosphere. You are so happy just to "be there". It's amazing, you think to yourself, the place looks like it was built yesterday.

Walt said 'Give the people everything you can'.

It's a package deal. It takes great depth in the experience to create magic. This is what current management fails to understand. They peel away layers of this depth to save money, destroying the very thing that created them.

The story gives the place context and gives a place meaning. And that gives the place “magic”.

A well told story has many levels, much as a well made park does. Everytime you read a good story you get something new from it. Everytime, yes, everytime I visit a "good" park I get something new from it.

attention to detail

Does all this cost more money. Yes. It also costs time, energy, caring, talent, passion, and desire.

DisneyKidds

06-18-2002, 08:26 AM

{Sigh, Sigh}

Main Street is “magical” because it evokes emotions in people.

Details and themeing are only tools – they are not the end product.

Disney parks work because their physical aspects are part of a larger product – the story.

I couldn't agree more. The theming, attention to detail, all the little things (even the batteries) aren't the only thing, even the largest thing, that create 'Magic'. However, without them the 'Magic' might be unattainable.

Main St. evokes emotions, yes. But how does it do that? By the story line AND the setting it puts you in. You're so right. It is nostalgia, it harkens back to another time and place, represents another world. Again, how does it do all that? Yes, with a story, and Walt was great at giving that story. But a story told with wonderful props is much more effective than just putting the story out there with nothing - even Walt knew that. Would the same emotions be evoked on Main St. without the gingerbread and gas lit lamps?

Stroytelling is an art. Two different people can relate the same story. One is boring as anything. One tells it wonderfully. But as wonderfully as a story is told, it is still just words or an idea. Now, add the visual cues and markers that actually put you there, Magic. It is a package deal. You can't have one without the other.

Even Picasso couldn't have done much if he didn't have paint. The ideas for his paintings were in his head, the talent in his hands, but he physically needed paint to express them.

And to keep this thread on topic, it is the tools that can be expensive. Other theme parks don't have the same stories so they aren't Disney, but does this mean they can't create Magic? Most others don't employ the same tools, and they miss the mark that Disney has set.

kenjean - you make a wonderful point. As many time as you go to WDW there is always something more you can find and discover. You can go a hundred times and always find something new. Why is that? The saturation of the story line in the very fabric of WDW AND the layers upon layers of detail that keep that story line going. That is part of the Magic of WDW, and no one else has it. I'll go to Busch Gardens, Hershey Park, Great Adventure (insert any park) once every few years, and yeah, they may have a new coaster. However, it is the same park I saw a couple of years ago. While the rides are exciting, it isn't new to me. Disney seems to have a unique and Magical ability to do that.

airlarry!

06-18-2002, 08:41 AM

After reading AV's post on magic, I can understand why I love AK but The Oasis is a downer for me.

Unlike Main Street which has the story and the architecture and the feeling-evoking memories laced within and without, the Oasis just seems like a stall until the main event. I have always wondered why they built the Oasis the way they did...the recipe for the Magic Kingdom was to get people into the park, with the weenie at the end dragging you forward, and then hitting you with shops as you left ;)

If the question is "Is the magic expensive to make?" The answer to me, looking at the Oasis and the Main Street as an example, is yes. But spending money is no guarantee of success. It is obvious they spent a lot of money landscaping The Oasis, but it just doesn't work for me.

I have seen pictures of the Lost River Delta at Tokyo Disney Seas...I can't wait to see that, because I think that is what should have happened at AK. Try to get a story worked into The Oasis, instead of replicating your friendly neighborhood animal exhibits from your local zoo.

Captain Crook

06-18-2002, 08:53 AM

AV and others, you've received no argument from most Car #1'ers about the magic that Walt created. As Disneykidds so brilliantly has pointed out we agree with what makes Main St. magical, but as he pointed out it is the sum of the whole that works. The attention to detail and accuracy of Walt's fairytale Marcelene is what works. OK so we agree, right? Well, I guess not. You won't let AK be judged with the same criteria. Animal Kingdom directs us to Africa, Asia and a tacky road side amusement park very well.

As Scoop has pointed out in the past, the attention to detail in Harambe is exquisite. The Tree of Life and walking gardens & hidden surprises are so special and Disney like I am stunned by the continual criticisim. I may never visit Africa & this may not be a true represnetation of what Africa is truely like (note: neither is Main Street USA really much like Marcelene, MO.) but the magic in the presentation transports guests from Orlando to Africa instantaneously. These are the dreams of the future my friends and they shouldn't be trivialized because they were not designed by Walt or because the defining characteristics are simply different than Main Street was.

As weak as most people feel Dino-Rama is, is still hits the mark with what they were going for. I know many here feel it's a complete 'miss' and has no place in WDW, but that is a different argument and that doesn't change the fact that they did it well.

AK is getting legs. WDW didn't open AK to Seasonal P*******rs this year & crowds have been heavy on every trip we've taken this year.

I know the speculation around here is that AK failed because it didn't casue longer stays but I say "so what?" Was this truely AK's fault or has Disney saturated & locked the market? US/IOA & SeaWorld still are making no headway against Disney in total numbers so I see this considered flaw of AK as misreprsentative.

AK is a passive park with easily enough to do if you go for this kind of experience. It is a complete and wonderful park unlike ay other and far superior to any Zoo...But then I would go to a zoo for a different experince altogether. Every park doesn't have to be the same or reach the same demo, but AK will make its niche and become Disney Classic whether thrill riders are happy or not.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DisneyKidds

06-18-2002, 09:45 AM

airlarry...

Portrait # 1 of the Oasis.

A 'stall' until the main event. A stetch of underutilized space containing a few animals, exhibited no better than a small zoo. A uncharacteristically weak entrance for WDW park. A disappointment that is not up to the Disney standard. An underwhelming start to a pretty good park.

Portrait #2 of the Oasis

A somewhat dark and apparently desolate path leads into the woods....the mist in the air, the sound of birds beconing, wait....what animal is that over there? and another, and another. A cave ahead, where are we going......???? Ahhh, a clearing in the trees. What do I see, a magnificent tree, etched with elaborate carvings that are a precursor to the adventure that lays before me. Wow, this is cool.

Two different view points. Two entirely different experiences. Each person sees it his or her own way. I'm in Car #1, and I am looking at portrait #2 :).

Look beyond the obvious. Even though AK wasn't developed by Walt, experience it the way he would. Immerse yourself in it - What would Walt do? I think that is what Walt would do. You already like the park, give it another look and you may like it even more ;).

EUROPA

06-18-2002, 10:00 AM

Here are some numbers for attendance of the parks over the last couple of years.

1999

Magic Kingdom - 15.2 million

Epcot - 10.1 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.7 million

Animal Kingdom - 8.6 million.

2000

Magic Kingdom - 15.4 million

Epcot - 10.6 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.9 million

Animal Kingdom - 8.3 million

Universal Studios Florida - 8.1 million

Islands of Adventure - 6 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5.2 million

2001

Magic Kingdom - 14.7 million

Epcot - 9 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.3 million

Animal Kingdom - 7.7 million

Universal Studios Florida - 7.2 million

Islands of Adventure - 5.5 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5.1 million

Disney is not gaining guest either. Both had a down year last year. Looks Like IOA is stealing guest away from Disney weather it be new guest or guest who would have spent more time on Disney property. Anytime they spend their money at another park and not a Disney I would consider that lossing guest.

Bstanley

06-18-2002, 10:13 AM

Well, as an over-Pixie Dusted Car #1 rider I fall in with DisneyKidds on this one.

Having traveled to some exotic (ie Third World...) places I enter AK through the Oasis with the following running through my mind:

I've just left my airplane (OK it looked a LOT like a bus :-) and I'm moving slowly through Customs/Immigration (the gates) and past the street vendors and hawkers just outside the terminal (the entertainers and pollsters just inside the turnstiles). Then I have to travel on foot through 'The Bush', past exotic creatures, down mud tracks, and finally through a cave until I catch sight of my destination - The Tree of Life, Harambe, etc.

Of course it helps if you are traveling with a 12 year old that is willing to play along with you...go find one and take them with you!

Captain Crook

06-18-2002, 10:39 AM

Attendance numbers are always interesting but according to your numbers, between 2000 & 2001 US/IOA had an 11% decrease and WDW had a 9% decrease...Whose WDW losing people to? It looks to me like its more or less a wash & at these levels that is nothing Disney needs to be real concerned with.

BTW, that's too bad because competetion would probably help WDW achieve greater things...But then again maybe Orlando is just 'too built' and no matter what may come the result would just be cannibalization at some significant level...

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

EUROPA

06-18-2002, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Attendance numbers are always interesting but according to your numbers, between 2000 & 2001 US/IOA had an 11% decrease and WDW had a 9% decrease...Whose WDW losing people to? It looks to me like its more or less a wash & at these levels that is nothing Disney needs to be real concerned with.

Like I said both parks were down last year..do you remember anything important that happend last year ??

Like I said again....if the customer is at another park spending money there and not at a Disney park then they are losing that customer.

DisneyKidds

06-18-2002, 10:47 AM

3 year olds work pretty well, too ;). But you know, back when just DW and myself (a 12 year old at heart :D ) went, we felt the same way about AK.

A look at those attendance numbers......

'01 attendance as a percentage of '00 numbers

MK 95%
Epcot 85%
MGM 93 %
AK 93%
US 89%
IOA 92%
Sea 98%

Looks like Epcot is the attendance loser. AK holding pretty well. I don't see IOA stealing anyone, unless you assume the '99 to '00 WDW attendance growth would have been larger had IOA not been in the picture. If you assume any customer at another park is a customer that Disney lost, then Disney lost 5.5 million customers to IOA in '01? Not the way I look at it. A good portion of that 5.5 mil weren't (and were never going to be) a Disney customer. Perhaps you could say they lost a potential customer, but every business does everyday and it isn't a negative connotation. Now, if the WDW numbers went down in '01 and the others went up, perhaps you could infer that Disney lost customers. Looks like '01 was just a down year for everyone. Hopefully '02 will provide better numbers.

EUROPA

06-18-2002, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by DisneyKidds

I don't see IOA stealing anyone, unless you assume the '99 to '00 WDW attendance growth would have been larger had IOA not been in the picture. Looks like '01 was just a down year for everyone. Hopefully '02 will provide better numbers.

No you are looking at it differently then I am. IOA has not been in Orlando for 30 years. Only three. Now assume IOA is not there now. Where do those 5-6 million people go? Do they go to Disney? Do they even come to Orlando? If they go to Disney or if the stay home...it's still the same. Those 6 million people are spending there money at Universal and not Disney...that is how Disney is losing guest.

DisneyKidds

06-18-2002, 11:08 AM

I think there is a difference between losing a POTENTIAL guest and losing an EXISTING guest. One is a real negative (losing the existing) and one is a part of doing business (losing the potential). Fact of the matter is, you can't get them all - even if you are Disney. Do most of the people who criticize current management for running WDW into the ground and losing customers refer to the ones Disney had and drove away, or the ones they never had at all?

Anyone have the '97 and '98 numbers? What if the other WDW parks had steady growing numbers prior to and after the AK came on line, and when AK comes along there are another 8+ mil visitors. Under your logic they picked up 8+ mil customers, but no one would to believe that.

Something that clouds all this - these numbers are probably based on people thru the turnstiles At WDW, as well as US/IOA?, you can have one 'customer' counted multiple times (park hoppers). So it is difficult to assume anything about who has what customers from these kinds of numbers. What you can get an idea of is how willing the customers (however many there are) are to go to the various parks.

Bstanley

06-18-2002, 11:13 AM

Whoa Folks. DisneyKidds touched on it.

We seem to have forgotten some basic principles here. We are not dealing with a zero-sum game.

The available pool of "person-days" is not a fixed number. Just because a park opens (IoA, AK, whatever) doesn't mean that automatically all the other parks lose.

What if people extend their vacations by an additional day to see the new park?

Another Voice

06-18-2002, 11:43 AM

Stories work on different people in different ways. Some people are already inclined to “feel the magic” before the story starts, most people have to prodded a little, some people will never get it. That’s just a fact of life when you try to make entertainment.

When you create mass entertainment, the goal is not to please just the people already predisposed to like it, you have to try to please those that need the push and if you’re good you try to win over the people that are against you from the start. Saying that “this works for me” is nice and a purely personal statement. But if you’re trying to judge if something works as entertainment – you have to ask “does this work for the other guy”?

I understand exactly what the Oasis at Animal Kingdom is trying to do. I understand exactly the techniques it uses. I even know that some people “get it”. And I know that most people don’t. The reasons for that are fairly straight forward*. But blaming the guests for being too stupid to see that “magic” that you see, or to blame others’ foolish devotion to some dead guy is nothing but a bad attempt to shift responsibility.

It is the storyteller’s job to tell the story. It is not the audience’s job to make it up for them selves.

* - yes, the sense of mystery in the Oasis. Problem one, “mystery” quickly gives way to “tedium” in any form of entertainment. If the Oasis was a movie, most of the audience would be screaming “got on with it!” at about the one third mark. The animal “encounters” don’t come off a sudden, as unexpected or as mysterious. They come off looking like petting zoo cages stapled to the side of the trail. There is no sense of being surrounded by the natural world – there is a sense that the natural world has been boxed up in convenient bite size portions for your passing amusement. And any sense of the natural world is bulldozed by the teaming masses forced into the small walkways. It’s real hard to get a sense of “the bush” when you’re surrounded by a seething mass of rain poncho clad flesh.

Finally, the first view of the Tree is stunning, one of the best views in all of WDW. And had it come many minutes earlier it would have captured a wonderful sense of awe and majesty. But for most people the effect has already been lost in a sense of confusion – and the quick mental calculations about how to best avoid the sleazy picture takers trying to rip another twenty out of passing wallets.

P.S. "AK comes along there are another 8+ mil visitors" - we already went over this, didn't we?

Bstanley

06-18-2002, 12:09 PM

Well there are certainly many reasons to visit WDW when you can avoid the masses - sounds like here's another one.

Hmm, I've gotta think about this idea for a bit...Tree of Life as Spaceship Earth...pull me into 'the Magic' instead of surprising me with it.

DisDuck

06-18-2002, 12:10 PM

How's this IOA is stealing from Universal. Why is the assumption that IOA is only stealing from Disney? Maybe also stealing from SeaWorld. Maybe Discovery Cove is stealing from Universal/IOA and/or SeaWorld. Like why watch dolphins when you can swim with them.

AV.. What survey exists that shows the Oasis is not gotten by most people or the Tree comes into view late. Is it the attendance figures and people are turned off going to AK because of the 'poor' Oasis.

I have to say this... So much negativity about one place. AK is what it is and some like it and some don't like it. I know a person who thinks the whole Disney thing is overblown and is only going to go in the next year or two because of young children. Sort of a rite of passage.

Your's truly.. Car #1 driver.

EUROPA

06-18-2002, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Bstanley

The available pool of "person-days" is not a fixed number. Just because a park opens (IoA, AK, whatever) doesn't mean that automatically all the other parks lose.

What if people extend their vacations by an additional day to see the new park?

Ok lets take your scenario....
Did those people extend their stay to go to Disney or a different park? Any way you look at it those 5-6 million people did not spend their money at Disney that Day.

DisneyKidds

06-18-2002, 12:15 PM

Back to the 'theory of thirds' is it......:) :crazy: :confused: ;) :D

Fair enough Mr. AV. To each his own, and in his own way. I think AK appeals to enough that it was a worthwile and justified addition - and it will only get better. Call me crazy :jester: .

the natural world has been boxed up in convenient bite size portions for your passing amusement.

Disney does it better than anyone else, but isn't this what theme (amusement) parks are all about?

EUROPA

06-18-2002, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by DisDuck
How's this IOA is stealing from Universal. Why is the assumption that IOA is only stealing from Disney? Maybe also stealing from SeaWorld. Maybe Discovery Cove is stealing from Universal/IOA and/or SeaWorld. Like why watch dolphins when you can swim with them.

Your correct I was giving an example if you wish to expand it out to the other parks in the area that is fine. Which also means that Disney is stealing from it's self. Just does not sound right though? When you stop to think about it IOA/Universal...same company.....MGM/AK/MK/Epcot same company. So the money still goes to the same company in those cases. Your right though and that is the only thing i've been saying is that if they are spending their money somewhere else then they are not spending it at Disney.

DVC-Landbaron

06-18-2002, 05:31 PM

Hmm, I've gotta think about this idea for a bit...Tree of Life as Spaceship Earth...pull me into 'the Magic' instead of surprising me with it.YEAH! That’s half the idea of the ‘weenie’.

No surprise. All draw (to hear some explain it, almost hypnotically).

airlarry!

06-18-2002, 05:44 PM

Would it be a dumb question to ask:

If the Eisner way is the correct way (i.e. MGM & AK as in "AK appeals to enough that it was a worthwile and justified addition"), then why is the MK pulling in a little less than twice the visitors then BOTH parks combined?

I will assume the answer to be the length of time they have been opened. All right, but I want to see those answers in writing ;) ;) because there will be a test when TDS numbers are unofficially released at the end of this year.... If TDS does 2/3 the numbers TDL does, then could everyone agree that the Eisner way is not the Walt way and is not the Right way?

Captain Crook

06-18-2002, 06:01 PM

I don't think so Larry, I just think Japanese visitors are a different consumer andcomparisons just won't be valid.

They are certainly fortunate to have received TDS as their second Park, but it will be interesting to see what their third Park will be like...This will be where OLC proves if they're truely different from our Disney...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

airlarry!

06-18-2002, 09:42 PM

Mon Capitaine,

I have no illusions about the 'generosity' that OLC has toward giving the people what they want. I don't think they are a modern day Uncle Walt.

I believe it was M. AV that gave us an extended history lesson a year or two ago about how OLC was forced by Disney to fund the park. The irony was that the Imagineers were given a free hand to design the park of their dreams (literary license here) while one of the Brains that Ate Glendale kept OLC's nose to the contract and made them spend the money.

That's why I can give a mark or two to Glendale for this park. I don't give the credit to OLC. I just think it is ironic that the suits MAKE OLC build a new Walt park, with OLC's money, probably snickering the entire time that OLC will fall flat on its butt and they will swoop in and buy the park for cheap. Ha ha. Very funny, Michael. All the while, they were constricting the Imagineers at every turn during the DCA debacle, and snickering that they were building a 'New Millenium park' which had 'Cost Containment' and a 'Guaranteed Return on Investment' and they would laugh all the way to the bank.

That sound you hear is the sound of OLC patting its back while turnstiles flip like mad at DisneySeas AT THIS VERY MOMENT, and the silence is the nighttime clean-up crew at DCA thanking God that Michael created this dud and they have little or no trash to pick up. ;)

What's the point here? OLC ain't no Lone Ranger, and The Suits ain't no White Knight in Tokyoland. You know what's funny? They build one park much like Walt would design if he was starting from scratch, and its gangbusters, and they build another one in Eisner's eyes, and its a dud. A billion dollar mistake. And all they had to do was spend $4.00 on a collect call to the Baron to find out that before they even started.

One last thing if I may...I think the whole LA versus Japan thing is a bit overblown. LA has been supporting one park for years...they apparently just won't be suckered in for something less than Disney quality.

DisneyKidds

06-18-2002, 11:29 PM

Once again, I agree with the Crook. It just so happens that Epcot was WDW's second park. Unless I'm mistaken, the numbers seem to show that Epcot brings in 2/3 the MK numbers. So if TDS brings in 2/3 of the TDL numbers they will be right on par with the Orlando development track. Lets wait and see what the third and fourth parks bring. Each time a new park was added at WDW the concept and scope seemed to become more narrowly defined. This is not a bad thing. You don't want to just keep churning out the same general idea. However, when you narrow the scope to a park focused on movie studios or animals you are bound to attract fewer people because everyone might not be into movie studios or animals. When these new parks draw fewer numbers than a MK or Epcot, which have broader depth and appeal, it doesn't mean they were done wrong or were failures.

No comment on DCA. Debacle or not, I don't know enough about the park. Maybe the shortcomings are Mr. E's fault - again I don't know. I will agree, Eisner's way is not Walt's way. Walt's way was better. But that doesn't mean that Disney is now doomed, or that everything that Eisner touched is wrong or a failure. I didn't say his way was THE correct way. Is there only one right way? (I know, the answer is yes for all you 'Walt's way or the highway' folks in Car #3) His is just one way to go, and while it hasn't all been coming up roses, the place has had a lot of Magic added in the recent, post Walt, past.

Before we get too carried away with all that back slapping over in Japan, lets keep in mind that the Japanese consumer is a different animal, especially when it comes to things American - ideas, concepts, parks, etc.

DVC-Landbaron

06-18-2002, 11:43 PM

So if TDS brings in 2/3 of the TDL numbers they will be right on par with the Orlando development track.But that’s the point!! They don’t do things that way anymore. EPCOT was truly the last park built “the old way”. IT was mature the first day it was opened.

DisneyKidds

06-19-2002, 12:50 AM

The point! The point? Is there a point :confused: ?

Where to start.......

Epcot was the last park built the 'old way'. This is a good thing as far as you are concerned, right? As such, it was done the right way, no huge philopsophy departures, no glaring mistakes. Despite the fact that it is nothing like Walt originally planned, it is what Walt would have done. You are into stipulation as of late. Can we stipulate to this? OK, good :cool: .

Now, Epcot brings in 2/3 the MK numbers. You still think Epcot is fine. No Magic erosion. The crumbling has not yet begun. The only erosion that may have been around would have been the margin erosion Eisner would have seen had he been around because he could have done it cheaper ;). Still on beam?

Correct me if I'm wrong regarding your thinking (wouldn't be the first time :rolleyes: ), but you seem to be saying that lesser attendance numbers are ok, so long as the park was 'mature' from day one - that is was complete and done the 'old way'. Lower attendance than the MK (or the previous park) (a 33% drop to be specific) does not equal failure in this case. Have we perhaps found something we can agree upon :bounce: ?

My point regarding the quote you placed was that if TDS brought in 2/3 TDL is wouldn't be a bad thing. It would actually be a good thing, showing development that would be consistent with WDW in the days of Epcot. Could it be we agree on two things :Pinkbounc: ?

The only reason I made the point is because it seemed to be implied that if TDS realized 2/3 of TDL attendance it would imply more success than MGM or AK, which only realized (less than) 1/2 of the original (MK) park attendance, and that that wasn't really a valid comparison and wouldn't indicate the implied success. I was trying to say that you can't compare MGM or AK numbers (3rd or 4th park) to MK (1st park) numbers and draw valid comparisons of TDS (2nd park) numbers to TDL (1st park) numbers.

Let me reiterate a concept I also threw out regarding successive new parks. Basically, that each new park will realize some decline in attendance numbers as compared to the previous park, due to narrowing of scope and appeal as new ideas (that might not appeal to everyone) are given to the public. (That new, original entertainment you agree is so important) A valid concept :smooth: ? or am I day dreaming in left field again :jester: ?

Lets assume it is a valid concept, which might explain why the Epcot numbers (an agreed upon success :)) were not the same as the MK numbers. So, where is this all going........ I don't know, just kind of flowing right now.

Oh, this. Epcot = 2/3 MK attendance = success. MGM/AK = 2/3 Epcot attendance = failure. I submit that the only reason MGM/AK is seen as failure (in these equations that should both end in success under the assumption) is because you feel the inept, post Walt management designed and implemented these parks - that they weren't done the 'old way' or the 'right way'. Your view of failure can't be based on the attendance figures, they imply success on the level of Epcot.

My point (I usually try and get to one - just taking a little longer tonight :() is that just because MGM/AK weren't done the 'old way' doesn't make them failure. I think they are wonderful Disney successes. So AK doesn't have BK, I still see them both as complete parks. Sure you could ask for more, you always could. But they are successes nonetheless.

Another Voice

06-19-2002, 01:25 AM

Fun with numbers…..

Epcot used to pull near Magic Kingdom numbers, but things went south several years ago. The “erosion” at Epcot is that the park has not been kept up-to-date. That was not only the key business concept of the park but written into the sponsorship agreements as well.

In the deals, every Future World pavilion was to receive a make-over every ten years. The “Tomorrowland” problem was well known (the future keeps catching up) and even in the dark, dimly lit ancient days of 1982 people understood that technology would change.

So along comes 1992 and the expiration of the sponsorship agreements. What started as a mechanism to insure that Epcot was fresh and interesting is suddenly seen as a PROFIT CENTER. Yes, Disney now wants to turn a hefty profit on the deal itself, not just on happy smiling guests.

Naturally, any CEO is going to have an “interesting time” trying to explain why this cartoon company is suddenly demanding $150 million just to keep their sign on some amusement park ride. Many participants simply bailed – General Electric, United Technologies, Unisys, Kraft. Others simply hemmed and hawed for delay after delay while Disney did nothing to enhance their pavilion (like AT&T). Others got a minor makeovers like Energy (Exxon) and The Land (paid for by a new sponsorship from Nestle – which in turn was a ****y prize for the Switzerland Pavilion). Seas, without any sponsor, rots in place. Only General Motors opted for the full bang – and THAT’S a story all on its own.

The result is that Epcot is filled with shows that should have been replaced a decade ago. It’s gone stale and the public sees that. ‘Mission: Space’ will help a little, but as a park Epcot needs more than just one ride every ten years. It’s little wonder why the attendance has been falling.

On Tokyo Disneyland, the resort is built on landfill in Tokyo Bay. There is no room left for a third major theme park. The notion about “crazy Japanese throwing money” is nothing but a lie thrown out to the analysts. The greater merchandise spending in Japan (usually on small gift items) is offset by Americans spending more on meals and hotel stays. Anyone trying to say that people buying rice candies with Mickey Mouse on the wrapper offsets the profit margin on a $200 a night motel room needs to find another excuse.

The other simple fact is that Tokyo is in a hugely competitive market and so they spend money to constantly improve and add to the parks. Quality wins out in the end.

P.S. Rumors say that Nestle is bailing out of their argeement as well. At least the Annual Pass holders get a nifty new lounge out of that business problem.

Bstanley

06-19-2002, 10:01 AM

AV - weren't the various Future World pavilions/attractions always subsidized by sponsors?

I remember reading that roughly half of the money for the 'original' EPCOT came from sponsorships. So using the company's numbers that means $500M was put up in the early 80's for the 7 pavilions that were in Future World by 1983. Dividing it up equally works out to ~$70M per pavilion in sponsorship money. Now it wouldn't surprise me a bit that in that ten years (especially remembering the inflation of the early eighties) that the new sponsors would be expected to fork over 2 times as much (ie ~$150M).

Were the make-overs in the original contract supposed to be done 'without additional cost'?

If TDS continues to be a huge hit I imagine that in 15 years the OLC will fill in a hundred more acres of Tokyo Bay to build the third park - just like they did to build TDS.

One advantage that a Japanese company does have is profit margin expectations - they can re-invest 5-10% more than an American company can back into their business simply because 3% NET is perfectly acceptable to their shareholders. Also nobody is going to sue them if somebody gets hurt on a ride...so the lawyers don't end up designing the rides...

DisneyKidds

06-19-2002, 11:01 AM

AV- lets say we trash the idea that 2/3 MK attendance represents any modicum of success for Epcot. I was affraid that someone who blow me out of the water with just such Epcot info. It opened to equal MK attendance numbers and was a success as such. Then, in 1992, all hell breaks loose. Sponsorship fades, pavillions get dated or go into disrepair, attendance drops to 2/3 the MK numbers, and Epcot begins to experience some degree of 'failure'.

Keep in mind, some people want to stipulate that Epcot was the last great park done the 'old', 'right' way. Complete and mature from the start, up to Walt's philosophy, everything that could be given.

So riddle me this. Who is responsible for the 'failure' in Epcot that hits in 1992? Is it current management that allows the sponsors to get away or doesn't pony up the cash to keep the pavillions fresh and up to their opening day standard? Was it ever envisioned that that would be the case when Epcot was first opened - did they intend for that type of financial burden to be placed on the company? Was the failure perhaps in the design, concept and implementation of a park so heavily dependent on sponsorship? Could the 'old', 'right' management have made a mistake? Is it possible they made a bad decision, based solely on the spreadsheet, that allowed them to have a 'complete', 'mature' park from day one that would be unable to sustain its attendance numbers on its own in the future?

Where am I going with this, you ask. Well, perhaps 'old' management may have made a few more mistakes than people realize, and perhaps current management doesn't make as many as everyone thinks. People say AK is incomplete, no BK you know, not the full, original concept. Well, perhaps if SoBe (they use a dragon, right?) was brought in as a sponsor we could have put BK in from the get go. But wait, that whole sponsorship thing didn't work out in Epcot. Lets not create an accident waiting to happen. Is it possible that current management (not perfect I know) should get a little more credit? Maybe, just maybe AK isn't the failure some of the 2's and 3's see, but a smart, viable park that will provide lots of Magic now, and can be improved upon in the future when the company is in a position to make those improvements. I asked the question before, does anyone feel that WDW would be better right now, or in the future, if AK was not done at all just because the original concept including BK couldn't be given all at once?

DVC-Landbaron

06-19-2002, 07:52 PM

The point! The point? Is there a pointOf course there’s a point!!! There’s always a point with me. To show the vast difference in philosophies!!! So!!! Let’s dive in!!! Epcot was the last park built the 'old way'. This is a good thing as far as you are concerned, right? As such, it was done the right way, no huge philosophy departures, no glaring mistakes.Oh, I’m sure if we look closely enough we might (and I stress ‘might’) find some little mistakes. But overall you are 100% correct! Despite the fact that it is nothing like Walt originally planned, it is what Walt would have done.Now this little, seemingly innocent, sentence could start a 12 page thread all by itself. Suffice to say that yes, I stipulate!!! (If you really want to delve into the ‘what ifs’ of EPCOT (city vs. amusement park), start a new thread. I will gladly join in! I just might surprise you!!)Now, Epcot brings in 2/3 the MK numbers. I cheated and read ahead. If you happened to miss it, go back to AV’s post.!!You still think Epcot is fine.Fit as a fiddle, when it first opened!No Magic erosion. The crumbling has not yet begun. The only erosion that may have been around would have been the margin erosion Eisner would have seen had he been around because he could have done it cheaper. Still on beam?You fell off the beam, crashed and burned!!! Again, see AV’s post regarding the stagnation of EPCOT. ALL of it under Ei$ner’s watch!!!!

And because you’ve made this absolutely wrong assumption, the rest of your post is meaningless to me, simply because it does not address, in the least, my argument. Basically, that each new park will realize some decline in attendance numbers as compared to the previous park, due to narrowing of scope and appeal as new ideas (that might not appeal to everyone) are given to the public.This really doesn’t need to be said again, as AV addressed it as only he could, but you’re wrong!! When EPCOT first opened it rivaled MK for attendance!

OK – NEXT POST!! Then, in 1992, all hell breaks loose. Sponsorship fades, pavilions get dated or go into disrepair, attendance drops to 2/3 the MK numbers, and Epcot begins to experience some degree of 'failure'.You see, nothing ‘broke loose’. It was so gradual that no one, except the most vigilant of us ;) noticed. Even to this day many refer to EPCOT as their favorite park (me included). But the difference between the car #1 folk and me is that I say, “While it is still my favorite, it has grown stale and stagnate. And it needs a complete overhaul as quickly as possible”!! I believe the car #1 people either ignore the stagnation (a most popular stance) or make excuses (lack of funds, corporate sponsorship, etc.). And to add insult to injury the current regime seem hell-bent on replacing “way cool, very long, immersive attractions” with a rather short rides!! Kinda misses the mark for EPCOT, don’t you think?Keep in mind, some people want to stipulate that Epcot was the last great park done the 'old', 'right' way. Complete and mature from the start, up to Walt's philosophy, everything that could be given.{to be read as Gary Cooper} Yep!

The rest of your questions I could probably muddle my way through, taking pages upon pages to do. But I really am anxious for AV to answer it!! (Yes!! Every time that guy posts I learn something!!) So, have at it AV!!!!

Another Voice

06-19-2002, 10:48 PM

Okay here we go.

The Problem with Epcot is that the conditions that allowed for the “World’s Fair” model of corporate sponsorships don’t exist anymore. Corporate image making is a very different art today than it was in 1980. Ad dollars are spent differently and the audience is more targeted. Spending on an amusement park ride seems rather wasteful when you could by a lot of cable ads for the same amount of money.

And Disney is a much less desirable “partner” now as well. The reason all these companies signed up for Epcot was so that a little of the “magic” would rub off on them. Disney was known for being super-high tech, Sperry/Unisys and United Technologies signed on for that reason. Disney had a number of long time sponsors (going back to the opening of Disneyland), so AT&T, Coke and Kodak came along for the ride. Disney was also just an entertainment company – who better than squeaky clean “G” movies to soften the images of hard-edge companies like Exxon, GE and General Motors.

But on the road to media giant, Disney changed. It’s a direct competitor of GE’s own NBC network. The company lost its squeaky clean image. Business dealings tweaked other sponsors. Worse, Disney lost the aura of high tech wonder that it used to enjoy.

So for various reasons Epcot lost it business model. The tragedy is that the current management has not replaced it with anything. The financial resources of Disney today are many times the size of the 1980’s and Disney could easily afford to maintain Epcot without sponsors. Disneyland used to be just as dependent on sponsors as Epcot and it’s survived without them. But instead of putting making the investments to maintain the park, current management has let things slip in order to maintain profits.

As Epcot’s attendance figures show, that’s going to be a loosing model. The more Epcot grows stale, the less people attend and the less revenue is created. That forces another round of cuts which further weaken attendance, and so on. New attractions are the force that keep all parks fresh – a park that uses tomorrow as its theme compounds that problem immensely.

I should also add that the old pavilion style of Future World attraction was designed so that new show could be added often. The big show was supposed to change every ten years, but the smaller shows were to change more often. The 3-D theater in Imagination is a good example. There is no reason why other shows in the The Land, Seas, or Health couldn’t continue. Even reprogramming ‘Body Wars’ would be a very inexpensive but very popular change. Instead, the small shows were tweaked inplace of the changing out the main attractions. And that’s not what was intended.

In the end I’m wondering if the biggest issue with Epcot isn’t the sponsorship problem, but is the failure to address the problem at all.

DisneyKidds

06-19-2002, 11:18 PM

Uh....ummmmm....oh, ?? but......, how about...... D**N! I'll think of something :crazy:.

Others have said it, but have I? This place is so cool. (the DIS that is :))

Ah, here we go.....kind of goes to show just how expensive, and complicated, the Magic really is :cool:.

I guess Epcot was a cutting edge business model in the 80's. Problem is, cutting edge often times equals risky. Current management inherited that risk and must deal with the fallout. As I have said before, I don't envy them. If all that AV says is true (come on, I can't agree outright ;)), perhaps the ball has been dropped :rolleyes: , but that doesn't mean the Magic isn't as strong. As the Car #1 optimist I remain, I have to believe that the problem of failing to address the problem will be resolved. We know not when, we know not how, but just as the decline was gradual, so shall be the revival.

Bstanley

06-20-2002, 07:59 AM

Well, EPCOT has always been the 'red-headed stepchild'. My favorite Disney 'character' put it thusly: "There isn't a practitioner of the somewhat arcane art of business-school management that would have ever built EPCOT".

But IMHO - EPCOT isn't that far off the beam as it stands today:
Test Track is excellent and is sponsored,
Space will be excellent - crossing my fingers - and is sponsored,
Life is very good to excellent - let's say with a new Body Wars movie it is excellent - and is sponsored,
Energy is OK to good - put it second in line for a make-over - and is sponsored,
JII is very good to excellent - crossing my fingers since I haven't seen the new ride yet - and is sponsored,
Land is very good and is sponsored,
Seas is bad to OK - put it first in line for a make-over - and NEEDS a sponsor,
Earth is good to very good - put it third in line for a make-over - and is sponsored.

And basically the World Showcase pavilions are just fine - although if I were King I would replace 'The Outpost' with Australia and do a 'Soarin' attraction. Or maybe convince China that they need to expand their pavilion to do a 'Soarin' down the Yangtzee attraction - now that would be kewl...

After all of the above EPCOT would be just fine and dandy, dandy and fine. Put everything back onto a 10 year 'recycle' schedule and watch the money roll in. :-)

AV - what would that all cost? Body Wars Movie + Energy moderate makeover + Seas major rebuild + Earth moderate makeover + China Soarin' down the Yangtzee? Oh, yeah, would somebody go schmooze Nestle' also? :-)

DisneyKidds

06-20-2002, 08:55 AM

Bstanley - thanks for rechecking my seatbelt :cool: .

Bstanley

06-20-2002, 09:07 AM

Roger, Kidds.

There are no problems, only opportunites. :-)

Another Voice

06-20-2002, 11:27 AM

What’s interesting is that with all its problems, EPCOT Center is the real reason why WDW changed from a one day visit into a full resort. The shear size of the place immediately made WDW the focus of a trip instead of being just “one of the sights to see around Orlando”. Building MBA-approved Eisner-sized parks would have left WDW as being no better off than Universal Orlando. And the exact same problem is going on with the Disneyland Resort; there simply isn’t enough there to make people see a “resort”.

Yes, Epcot can be fine and dandy. But Mr. Bstanley you’ve listed six projects you want to see done in the process of discussing how wonderful the place is. That’s been my point – Epcot needs that kind of constant tuning. Everyone knows that. So why hasn’t it been done? Why isn’t there a new ‘Body Wars’ film in the works? Why isn’t ‘Energy’ being worked on.

The difference between #1 is that you seen to believe that it will all just happen somehow, by someone, at sometime, for some reason. There are others who are looking for the who’s, why’s, when’s, and how’s. We’re not seeing a lot of answers (and a lot of evidence that they won’t be coming anytime soon).

P.S. – Yes, I’ve heard Mike’s “I hate Epcot” speech a lot too. It usually comes between his “Walt wasted money by keeping a personal photographer on staff” speech and his “they were going to let someone else build a hotel” speech. Someone suggested we could all save a lot of time by programming the "dead guy" speeches into an AA figure and propping it outside his office.

Funny thing is that all his “business school perfection” talk didn’t stop after he built Euro Disney. And what’s even funnier is that all the exact same things he “hates” about Epcot and Tokyo are exactly the same programs he’s putting into place at this very moment at Disneyland Paris, Disneyland Hong Kong, Animal Kingdom and California Adventure.

For all the “arcane arts” he blasts Epcot for, he sure turns to them when he gets himself into trouble.

Bstanley

06-20-2002, 12:27 PM

larworth

06-20-2002, 12:33 PM

A key car differentiator is our confidence about the future. I have to believe that the problem of failing to address the problem will be resolved. We know not when, we know not how, but just as the decline was gradual, so shall be the revival. I think in business parlance this all has something to do with milk, cash, and cows. Some have faith the milking will stop. Others, won’t be convinced until there are signs to the contrary. Even this scenario has me concerned. A prolonged period of slow decline that eventually becomes a prolonged period of slow recovery. As the saying goes “ a prolonged period here, a prolonged period there and it adds up to…”.

We’ve identified a number of WDW “opportunities” for capital.
·EPCOT updating $$
·DAK expansion $$
·New transportation $$$
·DD parking $
·New water park to replace RC $
·DL has aging issues. When will these hit the MK? $

On a positive side there doesn’t appear to be a dire need for more resorts, or a fifth park. On the negative side is the poor health of the rest of the company, lack of management interest, infrastructure investments are not sexy to Wall Street, and post opening fixes for DSP and DCA appear greater than they expected.

Even if I saw signs the current approach had reversed, I’m concerned about the backlog.

DisneyKidds

06-20-2002, 01:19 PM

I think in business parlance this all has something to do with milk, cash, and cows.

Maybe it has something to do with that 'cyclical nature of business' thang ;).

Bstanley

06-20-2002, 02:35 PM

Iarworth - roger that - the 'confidence' thing is THE differentiator IMHO.

I believe every occupant of every car (except perhaps the car#4 people) 'get' The Magic and wants to feel more of it when they visit DLResort or WDW or go to the latest Disney movie, etc.

From 1996-2001 there was a bit more than $8B spent by the Disney corporation on 'Theme Parks and resort - Capital Expenditures'. During that same time period the 'Theme Parks and resort' NET was just under $8B so I have confidence that the money is there.

It isn't that the milk was going to buy a new truck, the milk was going to the new baby cow. It remains to be seen how much more milk the baby will need before it becomes a milk producer...

DVC-Landbaron

06-20-2002, 06:50 PM

Well AV, being over-medicated with Pixie dust (my favorite Car #1 mental image :-) doesn't preclude me from imagining things that would improve my EPCOT experience. But The Magic was still as strong for me at EPCOT in Nov 2001 as it was when I first visited in Dec 1991. Bstanley. Why is it so hard for you to understand. This paragraph could have been written by me, with just a few very minor changes. Take a look: Well AV, being over-medicated with Pixie dust (my favorite Car #3 mental image :-) doesn't preclude me from imagining things that would improve my EPCOT experience. But The Magic was still as strong for me at EPCOT in July 2001 as it was when I first visited in July 1982.Notice the few changes? Not very important and even extends the time period!!

SO, am I over-medicated with pixie dust, too? Sometimes I think I am!! But the statement is true nonetheless. Yet I am firmly the driver of car #3. Does it occur to you to wonder how this could be? Or do you discount my gleeful “State of the Parks Addresses” and anecdotes about the marvelous, and very magical, times I have there. And there have been updates done at EPCOT since I first visited, and there are others ongoing as we 'speak'Well, I don’t know about you, but overall I feel the updates fall on the losing side of the ledger. In fact, just thinking about it as fast as I can type, I can’t recall any!! (that doesn't mean that you can't remind me some!! It wouldn't be the first time I was dead wrong! ;)) Now, many of these are personal taste issues, but for me, most point to a radical change in management and ‘magic’ philosophy. However, in all fairness, I can’t understand for the life of me how someone as well informed and ‘Disnified’ as yourself can’t possibly see that!! So I guess we're even! :)and I'm sure there are more on the drawing boardsI really gotta ask!! What, in all the wide, wide (Disney) world, could possibly lead you to that conclusion? I will agree though with the concept that other 'business distractions' have impacted the 'rate' of updating at EPCOTSee. To me this is merely another indicator of the philosophical change.but I really feel we DISers need to stop blaming everything that happens on the big METhen who would you hold accountable? If he isn’t in control, who is? And does that mean that if he were replaced, nothing could change the direction in which Disney is heading? It isn't that the milk was going to buy a new truck, the milk was going to the new baby cow. What baby cow? It was (is) going to ‘feed’ the other animals at the same farm (read ABC, internet, etc.)!! The baby is starving and the old cows themselves could sure use some help as well!!Iarworth - roger that - the 'confidence' thing is THE differentiator IMHOSo, I'm really wondering. What gives you that 'confidence'?

raidermatt

06-20-2002, 07:20 PM

So, I'm really wondering. What gives you that 'confidence'?

Even though it appears that nobody in Disney senior management has ever taken their family to a theme park, they STILL haven't managed to screw the place up.

Now, I'm well aware of the list of "takeaways", and I agree with most of them.

Yet, there are some plusses that have been added that I see as having increased the Magic as well. The biggest is probably FastPass (a true "gift from the gods" for my family"). Others include the Cinderella castle show, an apparent increased emphasis on maintenance (even if its due to necessity), Character Caravan, AK (there are Magical things there, and the resort is better off with it from a guest perspective), AKL, new Figment, the Grand Californian (I know, not WDW, but since DCA comes up so much...), and others I could come up with as well.

All in all the negative changes probably outweigh the positive ones, but even with a mgmt team that doesn't "get it", the place is still Magical. So I've only moved to somewhere around car 1 1/4. Maybe I'm naive, but these parks have such tremendous value that I don't see anyway that they will be allowed to be run into the ground.

DVC-Landbaron

06-20-2002, 07:44 PM

Even though it appears that nobody in Disney senior management has ever taken their family to a theme park, they STILL haven't managed to screw the place up.WHAT!!!!!!!???????

You mean to tell me that even though you realize that senior management clearly doesn’t ‘get it’, just because they haven’t taken away all the magic, or even most of the magic, you think the future is just peachy-keen!!?? What kind of logic is that!!?? All in all the negative changes probably outweigh the positive ones, but even with a mgmt team that doesn't "get it", the place is still Magical.So, negatives outweigh the positives and again you mention Team Disney ‘not getting it’, but that’s still OK with you. Their current course is just fine! Steady as she goes!! Full steam ahead!! Go Ei$ner!! He’s the man of the future, creating magic by the minute!!! No concerns about tomorrow.

After all, Car number doesn’t worry about anything at all. And Car number two is certain that any diminished magic will bounce right back. Being a car 1.25 says to me, “Don’t worry. Be happy.” Current management knows what it’s doing.

And I really don’t understand that. Because it flies in the face of your first sentence. Remember: Even though it appears that nobody in Disney senior management has ever taken their family to a theme parkThat sentence alone would plant me firmly into Car #3. even if they had screwed nothing up…… yet!!!!

hopemax

06-20-2002, 08:06 PM

Even though it appears that nobody in Disney senior management has ever taken their family to a theme park, they STILL haven't managed to screw the place up.
All in all the negative changes probably outweigh the positive ones, but even with a mgmt team that doesn't "get it", the place is still Magical. So I've only moved to somewhere around car 1 1/4. Maybe I'm naive, but these parks have such tremendous value that I don't see anyway that they will be allowed to be run into the ground.

I am so utterly... I am so... I can't believe... I just don't know what to say!!!!

Bstanley

06-20-2002, 08:40 PM

Herr Baron,

My understanding of the Car thing is that Car #1 is 'the magic is as strong as ever' and Car #3 is 'the magic is in serious jeopardy'. So if your Magic is as strong as ever perhaps you should change cars?

As the NewK here (New Kid) I plead ignorance of your previous postings - I do promise to pay attention though!

As to updates - Speaking strictly about Future World - During my 10 years of EPCOT attendance I have seen WoM replaced with TT (+), watched Ellen be added to Energy (+), heard Jeremy Irons replace Walter Cronkite (=), saw Figment Out and now back In at JII (- then +), and finally Horizons flattened and Space rising (+). I consider these as 'updates' even though some were/are whole blood replacements. Sorry you don't like them.

I believe the odds are high that there are more updates like the above on the drawing boards simply because I never heard about any of the changes listed until after the contracts were signed so I suspect there is more going on than I know about...

There have been 2 baby cows in the last six years that drank much of the Parks and resort milk - AK and DCA (not ABC nor Internet). I personally think AK has beaucoup Magic, and DCA does not.

My confidence for the future comes from my belief that there are plenty of people in the world willing to pay big bucks to experience the The Magic and that there are many thousands of people producing The Magic today and it inconceivable that they will all forget how to do it before the people with the money will forget that they want it!

raidermatt

06-20-2002, 08:48 PM

You mean to tell me that even though you realize that senior management clearly doesn’t ‘get it’, just because they haven’t taken away all the magic, or even most of the magic, you think the future is just peachy-keen!!?? What kind of logic is that!!??

(Raidermatt emits another exhaustive sigh.....)

I've tried to explain this before, but obviously still lack the communication skills necessary to at least come to an understanding with the 3's...

But, I've got quite a stubborn streak in me, so here goes again...;)

Here's an analogy I've tried before, one that I think explains my logic very clearly, but perhaps got lost in the shuffle.

Let's say there were 1,000,000 units of Magic at WDW. The net change I see is -100. That's not enough for me to say the Magic has faded. Literally, it has, but by such a small amount it hasn't, practically speaking. At the current rate of decline, it will be eons before the Magic truly fades noticeably.

So, even though mgmt doesn't get it, the Magic is so strong that even the net negative vibe they are putting out hasn't made a dent.

Now, you may disagree with my evaluation of how much things have faded, but beyond that, please explain the fault in the logic, because I still don't see it.

I am so utterly... I am so... I can't believe... I just don't know what to say!!!!

Fortunately, Baron did (a shock, I know), so please see above...;)

DVC-Landbaron

06-20-2002, 09:22 PM

Well, there’s certainly enough in that post to keep my quote function busy for a while. And I may delve into it. But I think we need to clear up a little (and may be a huge) issue first. It has to do with: My understanding of the Car thing is that Car #1 is 'the magic is as strong as ever' and Car #3 is 'the magic is in serious jeopardy'.Why can’t something still be strong, but in grave danger? You take your ordinary Superman and put him in a room. Then take a lead box and put that into the room. Everything OK? He can still bend steel in his bare hands? Good! Now, a guy named Lex whispers in your ear that inside that lead box is a copious quantity of (yes, you guessed it) green kryptonite!! Well! I would say that Superman is as strong as ever, but is also in jeopardy. Now a hand is unlocking the lead box. The “Supe’s” situation just changed from jeopardy to serious jeopardy. But as of this moment he is as strong as ever!!!

Greg!! You made this thing up!! Do I have the right take on it?

OK, on to other things.
WoM replaced with TT (+) You call the replacement of a 15 minute (or so) attraction, very, very rich in AA figures with a somewhat lame (yes in my opionon very lame) ride as a plus? I don’t, but it just may be a matter of taste. And believe me I tried to like it. I tried very, very hard.
Ellen be added to Energy (+)Agreed. But guess what? It’s time for another!!! Jeremy Irons replace Walter Cronkite (=)Fine. Same feelings either way. Figment Out and now back In at JII (- then +)I don’t think so. I might give you a plus on the new one over the middle one, but the middle one was sooooo bad, you’d have to reach up to touch bottom!! Over all (from first to last) a minus!!! (according to reports. I’ll let you know when I get back in July! Horizons flattened and Space rising (+)I was going to say that the jury is still out, but that isn’t quite right. It hasn’t had it’s day in court yet!!! Why would you automatically give it a plus (OVER HORIZONS!!!) when it hasn’t even been built yet!!! Good God!!! Talk about rose-colored-glasses!!! YIKES!!!!

As the NewK here (New Kid)This goes with the next one. Bear with me. Keep reading….. I believe the odds are high that there are more updates like the above on the drawing boards simply because I never heard about any of the changes listed until after the contracts were signed so I suspect there is more going on than I know aboutAhhhh! But we do!! And we certainly haven’t heard anything lately. In fact we haven’t heard squat!!! My confidence for the future comes from my belief that there are plenty of people in the world willing to pay big bucks to experience the Magic and that there are many thousands of people producing The Magic todayWho are these thousands you’re talking about? The thousands that produced DCA? They thousands that produced Dino-rama? The thousands that left out a good portion of AK? The thousands that built AKL but forgot that you can see a Motel 6 sign from it? Are those the thousands you’re talking about?

Well, come to think about it, maybe there are. AK sure shows some glimpses. But no matter how many thousands want to create that magic, all it takes is one single guy to stop it. If that one guy happens to be the top guy. And that is why I’m in car #3!!!

DVC-Landbaron

06-20-2002, 09:59 PM

Raidermatt emits another exhaustive sigh.....)
I've tried to explain this before, but obviously still lack the communication skills necessary to at least come to an understanding with the 3's... But, I've got quite a stubborn streak in me, so here goes again... I know the feeling!!!

Let's say there were 1,000,000 units of Magic at WDW. The net change I see is -100. That's not enough for me to say the Magic has faded. Literally, it has, but by such a small amount it hasn't, practically speaking. At the current rate of decline, it will be eons before the Magic truly fades noticeably.I understand the analogy. And maybe it goes right to the heart of the matter. The first question I have is, “What in the heck happened to that extra 100 we used to have!!!! Instead of adding we are now subtracting!!! Who’s the lamebrain that started this trend?!!”

Does that make any sense to you? It is the way I think. And it doesn’t matter at what rate we’re moving backwards. The point is WE ARE MOVING BACKWARDS!!!

And my great fear is that the rate won’t stay the same. (not in chronological order) They first took away Mickey head butter. No big deal. Then the chocolates disappeared in EPCOT. No big deal. Then they did away with 20K with no replacement. No big deal. Then they built Pop Century. No big deal. Then they built AK, but only half of it. No big deal. Then they built DCA. No big deal. Then they took away EE. No big deal. Then they didn’t do a damn thing to World Showcase in twenty years. No big deal. Then they cut two to three hours out of the MK in the middle of the summer! For me, that was the last straw!! It was finally a big deal!!!!!! (and there are sooooo many other examples!!)

So, even though mgmt doesn't get it, the Magic is so strong that even the net negative vibe they are putting out hasn't made a dentSo even with the above you still think it’s ‘no big deal’?

Now many things on that list don’t directly affect me. Pop Century I will not even drive by. So for me, it is ‘no big deal’. And many others have no ‘direct’ correlation to my personal magic. It is evidently the same for you. It was only when my precious summer hours were reduced that my eyes started to open to the underlying problem. One of philosophy. The philosophy that drew me to Disney in the first place, as opposed to the philosophy that cut into my personal magic!! And the cause of that radical philosophical change? Anyone? Anyone? Matt! You already said it. Several times!!

THEY SIMPLY DON’T GET IT!!!

And I’m very afraid that the little hundred units of magic, that even you notice is missing, will shortly accrue interest, compound interest. At a very high rate!!! And that worries me, because it will destroy what drew me in, in the first place. And I’ll have no desire to take my grandchild’s hand and walk down Main Street with him, telling him stories about ‘back in the day’.

Scoop!! My god!! I have to agree with you. Good points. But one observation: Well, anyways, since Captains been back and DK and Stanley have joined Matt and I and Duck, I've really noticed this strange dynamic and thought it worth pointing out. Maybe someone has an idea on this.Yes. I have an idea. You’ve been posting as DK, Stanley, Matt and in reality you’re still all alone!! (can’t count on the Duck all the time and the Captain…. Well….. the Captain…… ;)

hopemax

06-20-2002, 09:59 PM

Strange indeed how most of Car #1 and most of Car #3 just cannot comprehend the other sides views to the point that we bang our heads against a tirewall trying to clarify.

See this why I posted the link to the personality test. I was wondering how the Car 1s vs Car 3's fell. Of course, only like 3 people responded :(

I've been wondering if Car 1's tended to be SP's and if Car 3's tended to be NT's.

From the Keirsey website

NT - "They are usually pragmatic about the present, skeptical about the future, solipsistic about the past, and their preferred time and place are the interval and the intersection. "

SP -"They are usually hedonic about the present, optimistic about the future, cynical about the past, and their preferred time and place is the here and now."

DVC-Landbaron

06-20-2002, 10:02 PM

Sorry about not responding Hopemax. I took the test. It turns out I'm ......

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

NT

DisneyKidds

06-20-2002, 10:30 PM

This isn't the stipulation thread, but we have a jumble of crossovers here so what the hey ;). Mr. Scoops powers of observation (I bet he likes to people watch at WDW like I [and since were the same person that's not surprising], but others would say no one pays $50 to go to WDW and do that :cool: ) and a few more posts by the group and a light may have come on.

This is non Disney related so, you know what, I hope we can all agree. If not we might as well hang up the modem line and go home :rolleyes:

I stipulate this - a building, structure, what have you, is only as strong as the foundation that it is built upon. Are we good? (and yes, Baron - down the garden path again........)

Now, keeping that in mind........

Why can’t something still be strong, but in grave danger?

It can be :eek:. I get you Baron!!:bounce: There is not the oxymoron here that some might see in having strength and weakness (danger) at the very same time. However, to have the two simultaneously implies that it could all come crashing down around you (the grave part, right?). Sounds a lot like a 'house of cards' scenario to me. Can that be possible? WDW has been building and building. Strong , stronger, stronger. Uh oh, a card a little askew, but we are still ok. Many layers later, another bad card or two, but we still have a Magical structure. The way the cards currently mesh, notwithstanding those badly placed cards here and there, we still have a strong house of cards. The Car #3ers fear though is that that next badly placed card will bring the whole enchilada crashing down around us. How am I doing? If I believed this could I ride shotgun?

Ok, but here is the thing. Somewhere along the line you gave up on the strength and ability for the foundation to keep the structure up :(. And another thing that we can all stipulate to (I think :confused: ) is that Walt built an absolutely bombproof foundation that couldn't have been done better. Isn't that what his philosophy, the 'old' way is all about?

Even if someone outside of Car #3 agrees that at some point in time there may be some 'collapse' of some degree (which I don't think we'd stipulate to), the foundation is going nowhere. In fact, we might even belive that the wonderful strength of the foundation will be enough to keep the entire structure standing tall, however many bad cards are added. We also believe, and I'm still not quite sure where the Car #3 folk stand on this (AK for example), that there have been more 'good' cards placed since the foundation was cemented than bad.

In a nutshell, we have Walt to thank for our ability to remain in Car #1. Add in the growing, learning, making mistakes, producing hits, pluses and minuses, the cyclical nature of business, the divergent nature of Disney business in the post 80's era, etc., etc. - you have an entity that will see some good and some bad, but in the end will always reamin Magical due to the strength of that beautiful foundation. That foundation is a very real thing that no one can argue with.

Now, on top of that, us Car #1 folks have something others may have had but appear to have lost - faith. And, yes, faith alone could be a foolish thing - but faith on top of that wonderful foundation - you just can't put us down :p .

Lets talk about faith for a minute. Faith is believing without seeing, believing when you have no concrete evidence to actually point to to prove something exists or will happen. So you ask

I really gotta ask!! What, in all the wide, wide (Disney) world, could possibly lead you to that conclusion?

and

Ahhhh! But we do!! And we certainly haven’t heard anything lately. In fact we haven’t heard squat!!!

Well, it is that faith. Foolish alone, but on top of that foundation it is very well placed. Also, you have to admit, as inept as you think management is, can you truely believe that they have absolutely no plans to do anything? and anything they do do will be dodo? To believe that would be foolish. And I could turn your own question around on you.

I really gotta ask!! What, in all the wide, wide (Disney) world, could possibly lead you to that conclusion?

What, because you haven't heard anything. Don't take this the wrong way, but who (no one in particular, read 'generic John Q Public') the h*** are you. Rumors boards sometimes know things, but more often don't. Who are any of us that we think we are in the know. OK, maybe AV has an inside line, but is he in the boardroom? (maybe he is - I'm still learning the players so don't jump on me if I am wrong) Any going concern is going to change and evolve. Even the most inept of businessmen knows this is necessary. Sure, what gets done may not all be hits, we may lose some things we will dearly miss, but management will also add to the Magic - and the foundation will always remain.

That is why I am in Car #1.....and I am an NT (sorry max).

p.s. Baron

all it takes is one single guy to stop it.

Do you really believe that this can happen to Walt's legacy? If you do you'd better re-examine your beliefs in Walt, the philosophy, the 'old' things you hold so dear. However, you have shown me enough that I believe you cannot believe this.

DVC-Landbaron

06-21-2002, 12:04 AM

DisneyKidds, you proving to be a lot of fun. Almost totally wrong, but a lot of fun!!! ;)
However, to have the two simultaneously implies that it could all come crashing down around you (the grave part, right?).Yes!! Yes!! Yes!! Except it’s a little stronger. It doesn’t ‘imply’ it emphatically states!!! Sounds a lot like a 'house of cards' scenario to me.Almost, but not quite!! WDW has been building and building. Strong , stronger, stronger.Again, almost but not quite. (I have a garden path too you know!!!)

You see, you hit the mark with the house idea. It’s even better than my Superman analogy. And it’s much better than trying to quantify ‘magic’ in units. So let’s go with it for a minute or two and see what happens.

Let’s start building!!! Disneyland, Traditions, the SHOW, Details, Exceeding expectations, QUALITY!! WOW!! The basics of the very foundation that is Disney!! Cool!! We'll call it - the table.

OK! Time to start laying on those cards!!! Innovative stuff (Matterhorn, AA figures, monorails, etc.) State-of-the-art rides (CoP, Small Worlds, Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, etc.). More cards – WOW rides, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, etc. Time for more cards. WDW!!!!! WOW!! More cards, Space Mountain. More cards, Resorts, the Polly and Contemporary!! Even the Golf Resort (Ooops, did that card line up right. Hmmm. Maybe not). More cards – EPCOT!!! WOW!! That’s a couple of levels worth of cards!!!

More card, but this time we change the dealer. EuroDisney! (Ooops!) That’s OK, more cards, MGM (Ooops again!!). More cards, Floridian, Caribbean (and the full price range covered) Are those cards lining up right at all? They’re really not in danger of falling, but they look a little out of alignment. Anyway - - - MORE CARDS!!! AK – DCA – Pop Century – Dino-rama!!

WOW!! Is that thing tilting! Like the leaning tower! How can that be? We’re being very careful. Fiscally responsible. Trying our best!! But still, the whole thing looks like a gentle breeze will bring it down!! WHY!!!???

Oh my God!!! LOOK!!!

No! Not at the cards!!! At the table the cards were put on!!! The legs are wobbling and the top is warped!! OH MY!! The very ‘FOUNDATION’ has been changed!!! While we were all watching all those cards go on top, someone changed the foundation!! Or philosophy, if you will!!! So no matter how we try to line up the cards, they just won’t go where we want. And it isn’t the cards that will bring the house down, but the weakened, diluted and very much altered foundation that is risking the entire project!!!!

Am I a little clearer? The Car #3ers fear though is that that next badly placed card will bring the whole enchilada crashing down around us. How am I doing? If I believed this could I ride shotgun?Change that from ‘badly placed card’ and change it ‘the very foundation’ and you can not only ride shotgun!! Heck!! You can drive!!!!

And another thing that we can all stipulate to (I think ) is that Walt built an absolutely bombproof foundation that couldn't have been done better. Isn't that what his philosophy, the 'old' way is all about? If it were in the least bomb proof we wouldn’t have DCA in Disneyland’s Parking lot!!! Any going concern is going to change and evolve. Even the most inept of businessmen knows this is necessary.Quick!! Someone tell Mike, since he’s one of the most inept there is!!!

hopemax

06-21-2002, 12:26 AM

Ok, but here is the thing. Somewhere along the line you gave up on the strength and ability for the foundation to keep the structure up . And another thing that we can all stipulate to (I think ) is that Walt built an absolutely bombproof foundation that couldn't have been done better. Isn't that what his philosophy, the 'old' way is all about?

Can you define what pieces you believe make up the "foundation?"

Another Voice

06-21-2002, 12:53 AM

“And another thing that we can all stipulate to … is that Walt built an absolutely bombproof foundation that couldn't have been done better”

A question: If the foundation was so “bombproof”, why did the company need rescuing by Michael Eisner in the first place?

And if the “bombproof” company can be put at risk once, why could not the same circumstances happen again?

DVC-Landbaron

06-21-2002, 01:35 AM

Do you really believe that this can happen to Walt's legacy? Oh yes!! Not only can it happen – IT IS HAPPENING!!!

If you do you'd better re-examine your beliefs in Walt, the philosophy, the 'old' things you hold so dear. I have!! That’s why I know a radical change has already taken place. It is the ‘old’ things I hold dear. Ei$ner doesn’t. And I believe in the way Walt built things. Ei$ner doesn’t.

I’m afraid ‘faith’ isn’t going to change that basic fact. What fact you ask? The fact that Ei$ner (and crew) just doesn’t "get it". And don’t take my word for it, alone. Car #1 people also agree!! Ask Raidermatt!! Right Matt? You don't think Team Disney 'gets it' either, do you?

DisneyKidds

06-21-2002, 06:05 AM

Hey, if we never come together on this, at least the ride will keep us entertained :bounce:. And it is you, my friend, who has it almost totally wrong :p.

Clearer? NO! ;)

First off, it seems there are some things we will never agree on :rolleyes:. MGM, Floridian (I assume Grand? - remember, I'm new), AK - these woeful mistakes that tilt the universe on its edge. PUH! LEAS! Even if I agree that they are the result of a different philosophy, they are hardly the downfall of Disney. I have tried to get people to play on this before, but you really seem to be saying WDW would be better off without these. Again, PUH! LEAS!! The idea of WDW without these is rediculous. We've been down the AK path enough already and sure, it would have been nice to have BK up front. But AK is still Magic. MGM, come on. I've heard the piecemeal argument. Even if, still Magic. Someday I must hear the diatribe on the caste system of resorts, but if it is as ludicrouse as the idea that AK and MGM are catastrophes that threaten the very being of WDW then I don't want to waste my time :eek:. Even if each of these could have been done differently (maybe better, maybe not) they are not mistakes in my book. DCA, Pop Century - you can have them. D-R, could have been better, but it serves a purpose. Throw in cutbacks in hours, EE and the like if you want. I still don't see the 'leaning tower of Disney'. Even worst case, what few true 'mistakes' have been made can be worked upon and cutbacks will come around. Maybe we don't get the same things back, but other things will come along. This is life - things change. In fact, change is the only constant in life :smooth:. You can say I have no proof, but you have none to the contrary. Yeah, we are in a down time right now. But someone with your experience should know better than to panic during this 'down' time. Keep you wits about you man, use your head, don't panic (grab, shake, slap) !!!!!!

Ok, now that I have that out of my system :crazy:, lets look at the 'table' - which I really don't see as much different than my foundation, except a table can not be built as strong. I do feel bad here. The mighty Baron has stated that Walt was only successful in fashioning a table :(. Even I don't believe that :mad:.

But ok, table it is for the sake of argument. I don't buy how the stacking cards can have any effect on the underlying table (much less a foundation). So the horrific DCA mistake is in the DL parking lot. That doesn't change DL. All the Orlando mistakes don't change the MK. Then you say it is not about DL and MK, but the 'new' philosophy that diverts creative energy and resources from those staples. Well, I don't see them run into the ground. Most of the changes in the MK are the result of the economy and attendance, and things will come around. Epcot - we've discussed that business model and yeah, it could use some work, but I still don't see the sky falling chicken little ;).

One thing I see is this. Car #3ers are always talking about the change in philosophy as the downfall of Disney. But it always seems that that change in philosophy impacts the decisions in implementing new parks, building new resorts, upgrading existing parks, making infrastructure improvements, and the like - at least in discussion anyway. There is not really a lot of talk of the 'new' philosophy effecting the 'old' exisitng parks (other than some over due upgrades at Epcot). I don't think the 'new' philosophy is all that detrimental to the MK, therefore the MK's Magic is not in jeopardy. And I will stipulate another thing - MK hours cutbacks and loss of EE are not necessarily a byproduct of the 'new' philosophy. Perhaps they are just a byproduct of the times.

My last post was long - but here was the point, and you have confirmed it......

Car #3ers have lost faith in the ability of the foundation that Walt built to withstand the rigors of time, and keep the stucture, and the Magic, standing.

That foundation is the Constitution of WDW. It is an existing, concrete, 'pen on paper' thing - just like THE Constitution. Rememeber, the Constitution has seen many leaders come and go, it has seen so many changes in society and the people, it has been challenged many times, it has been shown to have some faults, but it withstands the test of time. So too shall the Disney constitution, which I submit is the tangible foundation and not just the philosophy that begat it.

THERE IS THE DIFFERENCE :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Car #1, foundation = the tangible things that resulted from Walt's philosophy.

Car #3, foundation = Walt's philosophy.

We don't think the foundation can be shaken, you see the philosohy as gone. Could that be IT :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :earseek:.

Bstanley

06-21-2002, 10:46 AM

It's threads like these that make me wish we were all on some sort of 'Instant Messenger'! The 1 baud nature of the conversation is frustrating...I may have to adopt Herr Baron's technique of longer postings, so much to say so much to do...

I answered somewhat flippantly when the Herr Baron asked why I had confidence in the future of The Magic. I actually woke this morning thinking - "you know, that was a mistake. A serious question deserves a serious answer.". First - I know I need to get a life (if that's the thought that I awoke to), but skipping past my obsession...

1st - there is no doubt in my military mind that Walt Disney was almost singularly responsible for 'believing' into existence the original DL. It is conceivable that without that unique collection of genes, experiences, training, resources...etc...that was Walter Elias Disney there would never have been a DL.

2nd - there is no doubt in my military mind that Walt Disney was one of the luckiest people in the history of the species. Why? Simply because all through history great storytellers have lusted after ways to tell stories - and Walt was the one who was on the ground when all the 'infrastructure' needed to support what is now referred to as a Theme Park (a misnomer IMHO) first came together. The technology, the trades people, the transportation, the population density, the media, an audience who recognized the difference between a collection of attractions and DL, and perhaps most importantly - that audience had enough disposable income to pay for it...

An aside - WD was also lucky enough to have been on the ground for Movies and TV as well. I can only imagine the angular velocity of the great storytellers in their graves all the way back to Thespis - cursing the gods - asking why hadn't they been born in 1900AD?

3rd - there is no doubt in my military mind that since 1955 there have been literally hundreds of thousands of storytellers trained, first directly from Walt Disney, later indirectly at the hand of those lucky few, and even later (now) through study of the work of those who preceded them.

Conclusion:

Even during the present management's tenure (the last 6 years) - not particularly good storytellers, not particularly good businessmen - there has been the creation of a bunch of The Magic. Why?

Because everything required is still there to continue to produce The Magic - the demand, the resources, the capabilities, the people. And producing The Magic is, in fact, the way to make the most money. And even the present management wants that.

Basically I am just as confident that the The Magic will never be forgotten as I am that the Greek Tragedy will never be forgotten.

DisDuck

06-21-2002, 12:15 PM

Well, I am off to the World in 6 hours (leaving work at 2 then home then to airport). I will let everyone know how the 'foundation' is doing when I get back.

DisneyKidds

06-21-2002, 12:21 PM

Have a great trip. We'll try and keep them from running us off the road while you make sure your 'over-dusting' of pixie dust is replenished. :wave:.

larworth

06-21-2002, 01:36 PM

Because everything required is still there to continue to produce The Magic - the demand, the resources, the capabilities, the peopleI assume we all agree that the fundamental demand for this form of entertainment is still there (if not then a worthwhile discussion). Just don't have the same confidence in resources, and competencies?

With no new baby cows on the horizon there should be plenty of space in the capital spending budget to up their reinvestment in the legacy parks. However, they have made it clear to Wall Street they have very aggressive cash flow targets. I believe these are based on a very conservative approach to future capital spending. The capacity is there, but the need to continue to shore up the equity value will continue to get in the way.

Disney has lost quite a few good story-tellers over the last 5 years with the purges at WDI and now animation. Doesn't look like they acquired all that many good storytellers with ABC. Plus, some of those original framers of the Disney culture (it's not a constitution) have moved on. The culture is surely evolving around whatever current philosphy is being rewared internally.

From a business perspective I have to suspend my faith and look at the odds. If the parks were a tracking fund I wouldn't be worried about the presevation of my capital, but I would be concerned that I'm going to get as good a return as I should be.

DisneyKidds

06-21-2002, 01:57 PM

If the parks were a tracking fund I wouldn't be worried about the presevation of my capital

I like this sentence a lot (even more so if you substitute 'Magic' for 'capital'), I just forget what car you are in (I'm guessing 2).

Aren't all the Car #3 folks worried about this 'preservation of capital'? The Car #1 folks are not. That is what I was trying to say in my long winded fashion :). I should hire you as my ghost writer - my posts could be a lot shorter ;).

A new definition in your financial terms perhaps.......

Car 1 - Not worried about initial investment, and currently getting bond rate returns at least.

Car 2 - Not worried about initial investment, but little, if any, return is being provided.

Car 3 - Losing initial investment with no reason to believe the bleeding will stop.

Car 4 - Bankrupt

What do you all think?

raidermatt

06-21-2002, 02:06 PM

First and foremost, have a great trip Mr. Duck!

Hopemax, I took the test and came out as ENTJ...

Scoop, I think you summarized the situation very well. I don't really have any deep thoughts on what it really means, or why its so, but if anything comes to me I'll post it.

I will say that I really think we are closer to being in agreement on most things than it might seem. Really, we are passionate about a common interest, and want whats best for that interest. That's 95% of the battle, its just that the other 5% can get pretty interesting! (I imagine Walt and Roy had some pretty "fun" times hammering out that 5%)

“What in the heck happened to that extra 100 we used to have!!!! Instead of adding we are now subtracting!!! Who’s the lamebrain that started this trend?!!”

Does that make any sense to you? It is the way I think. And it doesn’t matter at what rate we’re moving backwards. The point is WE ARE MOVING BACKWARDS!!!

Baron, that DOES make sense, and I think I should try to clarify something (probably a mistake, but I'll try anyway). In no way do I see any negative trend as a good thing. Were I "in charge" of the whole thing, I'm sure I would be doing some things differently, and certainly doing my best to create a positive trend. I often make little "wish lists" about things that I would like to see happen (not just Disney, but in lots of things). For things that I control, or in which I at least have input, I try to turn these into "to do" or "to look into" lists. But for Disney, they generally just take up space on my hard drive. (I have mentioned some of them in surveys, or communications to the company.) So I am definitely not happy about the trend, and frankly find some of the decisions embarassing (at least I would be embarassed if I had to tell Walt they were MY decisions).

I know this is long, but bear with me... Another related point is the issue of philosophy, oft-mentioned by Baron and AV. The issue of creating Magic and letting it drive business goals vs. letting the business goals drive the Magic. I have no doubt that the pendulum has swung too far in the latter direction. But in all fairness, Walt needed Roy to keep the pendulum from swinging too far to the former. He has said as much, and while a portion of that is modesty, I'm convinced its rooted in truth. Still, while the two philosophies seem diametrically opposed, they can both create Magic. After all, a GOOD business decision includes factors like long-term guest satisfaction. Its just that when making decisions in this way, its very easy to miss some of the less obvious factors that should be considered in any business decision.

So what's my point?

I look at this from two viewpoints:

1- As a guest who is asking if the Magic has faded or is in jeopardy. From this perspective, I don't see the experince being damaged, overall. Yes, there have been some takeaways (not all of which we agree on), but there have also been some adds (again, not in complete agreement on these). Even with a philosophy that focuses on the numbers rather than the Magic, mgmt has managed to tread water. To me, this is what the cars are about. WDW is not heading down the toilet. It will be fine.

2- As someone who wants to see Walt's vision continue, and be all that it can be. THIS is where I see mgmt falling flat on its face. As I said in #1, WDW will be fine, still as Magical as ever. However, it could be so much MORE. Same with the DLResort. As much as I enjoy AK, and can see true effort in the park, I understand how it could have been MORE (and still could be). Rather than just keeping the Magic as it was, it could have ADDED to the Magic in a way that even the most devout cynics would have to stop slinging mud. Even for someone focused on the business of making Magic, a solid business model can be built that supports the "all-out" approach. But alas, mgmt has not gone this route, and for that, they should be flogged. Or just disposed of.

So, for those still with me, THAT'S how I can be critical of current management, yet still ride in car #1.

Walt's Frozen Head

06-21-2002, 03:05 PM

I look at this from two viewpoints Your first viewpoint is the one I feel we must consciously remove from our discussion if we ever want to have a meaningful conversation.

That first viewpoint boils down to nothing more than "hey, _I_ like it," or worse yet, "hey, I think it's still better than Six Flags." Everyone in all the Cars has differing personal opinions; you cannot discuss WDW from that viewpoint without it devolving into a shouting match between cheerleaders and gripers.

I absolutely disagree that the point of the Cars is to organize teams for shouting matches.

Your second viewpoint, on the other hand, deals more objectively with the business culture created by Walt versus the business culture that evolved after he was gone. The pros and cons of those cultures _can_ be discussed without endlessly relating how much someone's nephew enjoyed Triceratops Spin.

I believe that the Magic, the capital "M" stuff, is a direct result of a certain business philosophy; a business philosophy that, while Walt was alive, made Disney unique among their competitors. I believe that this uniqueness was the single most important driver of Disney's success.

I also believe that that business philosophy is gone, replaced with the same business philosophy in evidence at Six Flags, Vivendi, and Enron: "make as much money as you can, any way you can." I don't believe that that business philosophy has _ever_ produced capital "M" type Magic (although it can produce a fun ride, I don't think "fun ride" adequately captures the meaning of "Disney Magic"). I believe Disney has abandoned its unique philosophy, and in so doing abandoned the most valuable portion of its brand identity.

When I say the Magic is fading, I mean that Disney no longer operates by the rules that defined Magic in the first place. When I say that it won't be coming back, I mean that I see no evidence that anyone in a position to do anything about it cares about the old business philosophy any more, they are all perfectly happy confining their magic to the Accounting department.WDW will be fine, still as Magical as ever. However, it could be so much MORE. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but that's the part I simply can't reconcile. You seem to be saying that the Magic has _always_ been Magical, but could always have been so much more.

Perhaps this is an example of AV's point about people having different baselines depending on the dates of their first visit. I just don't see how anyone could have seen WDW in the 70's and said that that Disney Magic was certainly Magical, but could have been so much MORE.

I don't want to argue back and forth about who likes what; I think that's a stupid waste of time. On the other hand, I think it's enormously important to discuss the business philosophy, both for the sake of Disney's future and, quite honestly, the future of American capitalism. I don't see much qualitative difference between Disney's current philosophy and the philosophy that got Enron where it is today.

Jeff

Dznefreek

06-21-2002, 03:59 PM

Take a look at the success story of TDS vs the failures of the DAK/DCA business model.

UH. . . TDS was paid for with $$$ from the Oriental Land Company. Disney is great at spending someone else's $$$ but they are stingy with their own. (DAK/DCA)

Is it expensive, of course! Do you get "Magic", of course not. Perception is reality and is the case of WDW the magic is gone!

Walt's Frozen Head

06-21-2002, 04:54 PM

When did this business philosophy change? Like most huge swings, I think it changed gradually... and I think you've likely hit the most significant shift-points.

Walt's death cannot be underestimated. The creative side of Disney never did recover and never will recover the focus and inspiration Walt provided. And I say that out of awe for the accomplishments of the dead guy, not as an indictment of any live guys. I'm not demanding any new Walts.

Frank's death should not be underestimated. I don't attribute to Wells any kind of Walt-ian creative force, but it seems that he understood how to effectively manage creativity in a modern business environment... how to balance the need for quality products with the need to deliver financial results.

EuroDisney made Eisner afraid of "frontloading" his products, even though that was not the real root cause of ED's early struggles.

Splash Mountain made Eisner distrustful of his own Imagineers.

About four fifths of a billion dollars made Eisner think he must be the best damn executive extant.

All those things together left us with a CEO who believes he's bullet-proof, espouses the philosophy that acquiring and re-labelling is just as Magical as creating, feels "plussing" is an unconscionable waste of capital, and who values stock position so much more than guest experience that it leads some people to the conclusion that he cares nothing at all for the guest experience.

It's not my intention to "demonize" anyone or anything when I call for Eisner's immediate ouster. I just don't think it's in his make-up to about-face and start to re-establish the Magical philosophy. I think Mike needs to be gone-gone before there's any hope of things changing, and I'm not particularly optimistic about things changing unless Eisner's exodus includes a big ol' batch of his corporate cronies.

Jeff

YoHo

06-21-2002, 04:57 PM

So I don't remember if I've posted in this topic already and If I have I clearly don't remember what I said or what anyone else is talking about, but here's what I think now.

Is 'The Magic' Expensive?
Well DUH.

HEre's something to think about though

IOA and Tokyo Disney Seas.

And I don't care about Japanese Consumers versus American, or Liking Rollercoasters or not. I was just thinking while perusing the Tokyo Disney Seas website how much this Park excites me. IOA which I don't think I'll like has some Pictures that excite me too.

DCA doesn't excite me, Dinorama doesn't excite me.

TDS drips Magic and Excitment regardless of the economics.

Now Here's another thought. I was thinking about Tomorrowland the otherday and specifically I was thinking about how much I enjoy the TTA, but how they really didn't retheme it to fit in. So I thought about what I might do. IT hit me that a great way to theme it would be advertisments.

Specifically I thought about the Chicago El which has entire trains with a single Ad silkscreened on them. or the Portland MAX which has Television ads on them.

Wouldn't it be cool for the people walking about Tomorrowland (not the people riding the ride) if fake advertisments for futuristic appliences, or Holographic news or what have you. I think it would be a subtle, inexpensive addition that would utterly drip with magic.

We won't talk about the improvments I'd make to the ride itself as they are more expensive.

In short, its not that magic is expensive on a piece by piece basis, but it can be expensive when you put the whole thing together.

stlphil

06-21-2002, 05:57 PM

Hi, I'm new to this board (which I find really fascinating), and this thread is particularly interesting.

At first I was wondering about all this Car # business, but now that I think I have figured it out, sadly I find myself in Car #3.

In an earlier post, thedscoop was wondering about the differences between the Car #1 vs. Car #3 folks since they are so similar in many ways. As a newcomer, I certainly don't have pretend to have an answer, but possibly a little bit of light. Many (most) of the posters on this board view matters from a totally WDW centric point of view, while others seem to have more of a Disneyland background and focus. It may be that those with more of a DL focus also tend to be likely to be in Car #3. This seems reasonable to me, as it is hard for me to believe that anyone who loves Disney could walk down Main Street at DL and make the right turn at the hub into Tomorrowland and still be in Car #1. The magic has clearly faded significantly at DL, and from the changes occuring at WDW it could appear that the cancer has begun to spread to WDW as well.

All is not doom and gloom, and there is still plenty of Magic to go around. But it is the current trend that breaks my heart, and it is in the heart where the Magic lives.

I've read with interest the attempts to quantify the Magic which appeared earlier on this thread. All of this missed a very important point- well, at least its important to me. To a long-term repeat visitor to WDW (and DL), I have found it amazing that over the years Disney have continually added to the Magic and have always seemed to top themselves. Every time I go, there await new marvels. In fact, to me a big part of the Magic has been the fact that there is always a lot of new Magic each time I go (which is relatively often).

In the last few years the increase of Magic has stopped, and some Car #1 riders even admit the Magic has declined a smidgen. To me at least, a decline in Magic is a huge blow to my total feeling of Magic. Yes, I know that Disney is somewhat a victim of their own success in this regard. If I felt that they were trying at least, I might be able to overlook the decrease. But the change in philosophy that many of you allude to is so clear that it makes the decline impossible to ignore.

Finally, I think that demonizing Eisner (or even Pressler, who probably deserves most of the blame at least in the case of DL) is not productive. Similarly, deifying Walt will accomplish nothing at this late date. Fixing the problems does not require slavishingly studying Walt's life and asking what would he do. What is required is deciding to make the commitment that "I will try to make a little Magic today", and then following the pathway that then opens up.

DVC-Landbaron

06-21-2002, 06:37 PM

WOW!! What a busy Friday!! And me, not by a computer :(. OK!! We’ve got a lot to cover!! I’ll probably only hit the highlights and still be all over the map. Soooooo…. HANG ON!!!!!!

DisneyKidds! You’re first in my sights!!! First off, it seems there are some things we will never agree on. MGM, Floridian (I assume Grand? - remember, I'm new), AK - these woeful mistakes that tilt the universe on its edge. PUH! LEAS! Even if I agree that they are the result of a different philosophy, they are hardly the downfall of Disney.Like the Broadway show: “What’s the matter with Kidds to – day!!!” Or if you prefer, “What we’ve got here, is a failure to communicate!!”

And we do have a ‘communication breakdown’. Look close at your passage. Did I ever say that MGM or the Floridian (yes Grand) would be the downfall of Disney? Now, you might think I’m splitting hairs, but it really is quite a substantial difference, so I’ll say it very slowly (please read it just as slow, and let it sink in a bit).

MGM and the Floridian are merely symptoms. Admittedly they added some (relative term) value. They (and all the other symptoms I’ve ever mentioned) are just that. SYMPTOMS!! They will not, in and of themselves cause ‘the downfall of Disney’. However, the underlying philosophy, which caused them to come into existence, will!! I have tried to get people to play on this before, but you really seem to be saying WDW would be better off without these.Yes. Plain and simple!The idea of WDW without these is ridiculous.Only because you know no other way. Picture yourself having this conversation ten years from and someone whose first trip is next year says, “The idea of WDW without Pop Century is ridiculous!!”Even worst case, what few true 'mistakes' have been made can be worked upon and cutbacks will come around.Counselor!! Present your evidence. Or is it just a gut feeling? You can have your feelings. That’s fine. But don’t expect me to take it for fact. You got to at least give some evidence. I’ll tell you as plainly as I can, “I DON”T SEE ANY”!!! If you’ve got some that lead you to this conclusion, show it!!!!You can say I have no proof, but you have none to the contrary.Do I have to go through the laundry list again!! Go back through the threads. And if that’s not enough, maybe we could impose upon AV to favor us with some choice quotes from the current big cheese himself!! Talk about self incriminating!!! There are some classics there.Keep you wits about you man, use your head, don't panic (grab, shake, slap) !!!!!! Or I’ll be piloting a chicken??? ;)But ok, table it is for the sake of argument. I don't buy how the stacking cards can have any effect on the underlying table (much less a foundation).See!!! Right there!!! You’ve got it wrong!! Completely. 100% backwards! The cards don’t affect the table, the table affects the cards!!!! The perfect, pristine, made like iron table (or foundation if you like) that Walt built is being perverted. The legs have rusted and the top is warping. The cards have nothing to do with it. But the table affects the cards above.

Put plainly, Ei$ner never understood ‘the dead guys’ philosophy (or table) and went about changing it. He wanted to put in his own talble. But he really couldn’t because the house of cards would have fallen. So instead he ignored the table. He didn’t take care of it and even twisted it a bit to suit his own ends. The table (Philosophy) started to atrophy and rust. It became warped and broken. It still holds the cards, but the cards are all over the place now, because the table isn’t strong anymore. Or use a foundation that the termites have been in. Either way the house, while still standing, is in grave danger of falling.

And when I talk about falling, I’m talking about falling from the tremendous standards that was once Disney, and ‘falling’ to the standards of 6 Flags. For me, though Disney still stands and may even turn a tremendous profit for those of you who like to talk numbers, it will be over. My Disney will have crumbled. You see, I didn’t fall in love with a 6 Flags type place. I fell in love with Disney!!!!!Car #3ers have lost faith in the ability of the foundation that Walt built to withstand the rigors of time, and keep the structure, and the Magic, standing.If I understand you right you equate the “foundation” with Walt’s “Philosophy”. Right? Well in that case, the table isn’t broken. It doesn’t exist anymore. It has been replaced by Ei$ner’s philosophy.

Next! Mr. Bstanley, could you please step into my office!! 1st - there is no doubt in my military mind that Walt Disney was almost singularly responsible for 'believing' into existence the original DL. It is conceivable that without that unique collection of genes, experiences, training, resources...etc...that was Walter Elias Disney there would never have been a DL.I agree!! However I disagree with your number 2 & 3. I think it was fortunate for us that Walt lived when he did. But if it were five hundred years ago, we may have had to read about him instead of (or alongside) Shakespeare! And born fifty years later, who knows what marvelous things he’s be doing now. Pushing a technological envelope as exists today is mind boggling!!!3rd - there is no doubt in my military mind that since 1955 there have been literally hundreds of thousands of storytellers trained, first directly from Walt Disney, later indirectly at the hand of those lucky few, and even later (now) through study of the work of those who preceded them.Yeah! No doubt. But hardly any of them work for Disney anymore. Now why is that do you suppose? Even during the present management's tenure (the last 6 years) Excuse me… Excuse me… I hate to interrupt a good quote, but where did you grab that number? 6 years? Please explain. Maybe I missed something! Because everything required is still there to continue to produce The Magic - the demand, the resources, the capabilities, the peopleWell, two out of four ain’t all that good when it comes to Disney. I agree with the demand. And I totally agree with the resources (although one has to question the gutting of WDI). But I do not agree that they (at least top management) have the capabilities or the people (people like Paul Pre$$ler you mean?). And producing The Magic is, in fact, the way to make the most money. And even the present management wants that.What kind of Magic? Disney magic? Or 6-Flags/DCA type magic? To me there’s a difference. How about to you?Basically I am just as confident that The Magic will never be forgotten as I am that the Greek Tragedy will never be forgotten. I agree! But I think you’ll notice that there haven’t been any of those on the best sellers list for quite some time now. It seems no one writes them anymore. Kind of like that old time Disney MAGIC!!

Sir Raider!! May I have a word with you? So I am definitely not happy about the trend, and frankly find some of the decisions embarrassingSounds like car #2 at least!!! ;) The issue of creating Magic and letting it drive business goals vs. letting the business goals drive the Magic. I have no doubt that the pendulum has swung too far in the latter direction.Still heading for that 2 car. By the way. That is a very good sentence there about driving the magic. I wholeheartedly agree!!!! As someone who wants to see Walt's vision continue, and be all that it can be. THIS is where I see mgmt falling flat on its face.Well, I cheated!! I read ahead and can add nothing to what JJ (…er.. ah… I mean…) Walt's Frozen Head said. I’d just like to point out that the way I read your position, you’ve moved past car #2 and actually opened the door of #3. Even for someone focused on the business of making Magic, a solid business model can be built that supports the "all-out" approach. But alas, mgmt has not gone this route, and for that, they should be flogged. Or just disposed of.Are you really sure about that car choice??!! ;)

Walt's Frozen Head - :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

‘nough said!!

Scoop my fiend!!Query: When did this business philosophy change?From the very first day EI$ner signed in for work!1. How entrenched has this change become?Very entrenched!!!2. How could that original event(s) have been offset or countered?Not hiring someone who doesn’t “get it”!!!3. Can we learn from that event(s) about how to change back or revise the current philosophy?Yes!!! Get rid of the knucklehead that doesn’t “get it”, and hire one that does!!!

Bstanley

06-21-2002, 08:07 PM

Herr Baron, REPORTING FOR DUTY, SIR!

I didn't mean to give the impression that Walt wouldn't have been as good a storyteller 500 years before now or 500 years later than now - but frankly his storyteller skills may not have made him a great playwright - and who knows about the future. I tell you what - I'll agree that it was very fortunate for me personally that he lived when he did so I can enjoy what he started.

As to storytellers at Disney today. First - I'm not sure how many people that know how to tell a good story still work at Disney - But I just watched Lilo and Stitch and frankly it made me cry and cheer along with hundreds of other 'kids' (the theatre was packed) so there are definitely some people there that know how to do it.

But even if there were only a few left there more can be found, more can be trained, and more can be hired back. The Djinni is out of the bottle, The Magic is loose in the world. I am not a big ME apologist, I think he has made it harder for the storytellers at Disney, and people have left because of him - especially since FW died.

And the reason I called the present management's tenure 6 years is because that's how long the big ME has been on his own - without the balance that FW provided. Even the big ME himself has acknowledged that without FW he 'lost his keel' at Disney. IMHO the big ME and FW were good for Disney, but the big ME on his own hasn't been.

What kind of Magic do I want? How's this - I have never been to a Six Flags park, a hotel near a Six Flags, or a dog track near a Six Flags. I do go to WDW virtually every year and I spend a bunch of money to stay at Disney resorts. Oh - I also visit DL many times when I'm returning from trips to Japan.

I am just as confident that you can make the most money by providing The Magic as I am that LEXUS has a higher profit margin than TOYOTA.

Well according to AV the principles of 'the show' embodied in The Greek Tragedy are as crucial today as they have ever been. That's good enough for me...

DVC-Landbaron

06-21-2002, 08:32 PM

Herr Baron, REPORTING FOR DUTY, SIR! At ease! At ease!!
But even if there were only a few left there more can be found, more can be trained, and more can be hired back.But my dear General (you did mention the military. If general doesn’t work, let me know an appropriate rank). Anyway, My dear General, the trend is going the opposite way. What could possibly lead you to the conclusion that they are even half way interested in hiring anyone back? Heck!!! They just chased them all away!!!! Doesn’t look, to me at least, that they want to find any.
The Djinni is out of the bottle, The Magic is loose in the world. I am not a big ME apologist, I think he has made it harder for the storytellers at Disney, and people have left because of him - especially since FW died.Again, I really gotta know!!! Why do you trust in him? After all, he’s in charge of “The Magic”. He has final say! So, what do you see in him that leads you to believe that the Magic is in good hands? IMHO the big ME and FW were good for Disney, but the big ME on his own hasn't been. And still you trust him with “The Magic”. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
I am just as confident that you can make the most money by providing The Magic as I am that LEXUS has a higher profit margin than TOYOTA.Are we talking money or magic? Because I think you can probably make more money doing things like Ei$ner does (only not so stupidly!)!! I think a competent CEO could make a ton off Disney and totally suck the place dry. Is that what you want? A company that is making money? Or a company that is making magic?

I think you can do both. Maybe you do too. But you don’t do it by squeezing every division within the park for that extra profit and extra cost reduction. You need to concentrate on the Magic first. And the money will take care of itself!!!

Bstanley

06-21-2002, 09:17 PM

Herr Baron, thank you sir.

Actually since my parents were married to each other I was an NCO - Sergeant for the non-military among us (this is an 'inside joke' for former Non-Commissioned Officers - I apologize to all the Commissioned Officers I have just slandered :-).

I do not recall the Disney board asking me who my choice would be for the CEO/Chairman position...actually for that matter I don't recall you asking me either. In fact I believe I have said several times recently that without FW around the big ME is not my first choice.

As to the 'Brain drain' at Disney - I seem to recall Don Bluth taking a big chunk out of the Animation Studio way back when and yet even with the big ME in charge just a few years after that Disney produced a marvelous string of very magical animated movies - although he did have FW and JK around to help. Even more recently without FW and JK to help Disney managed to produce Tarzan and now Lilo and Stitch, both of which I found magical.

I do not 'trust him' with The Magic any more than I 'trust' anyone. Even people that are good at The Magic don't do it well all the time. And sometimes The Magic that is done isn't 'my' kind of Magic. You see I don't think the big ME has to be good at The Magic for Disney to continue to have The Magic anymore than I think that Enzo Ferrari has to be alive for the Ferrari company to be able to produce magical cars.

And from there on out I basically agree with every single word you said! Holy cow - a pile of stipulation!

DVC-Landbaron

06-21-2002, 10:16 PM

Oh that’s just terrific! You wouldn’t know it from my posts (as I always use my Word program and paste it in) but I am an absolutely horrible speller!! And now I have to learn to spell Sergeant!! But Sergeant Stanley has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? (By the way, is Sgt. Ok?)

I do not recall the Disney board asking me who my choice would be for the CEO/Chairman positionAh! And they didn’t ask me either, mores the pity!! And I agree!! Ei$ner would not be my first choice either. That doesn't surprise you, does it? ;)

Now, maybe I haven’t been clear. Or maybe I’ve been clear a year ago and you weren’t here to hear my eloquently persuasive dissertation as to the state of the “magic”. In a nutshell it all boils down to vision and philosophy.

Now, I’ve read lately on these boards and on threads that I haven’t been directly involved with that some people can’t understand (and actually want us to stop ‘demonizing’ Ei$ner. And to a point I can understand it. At first glance he looks like too easy a target. And after all, he can’t make every stinking decision. I mean, do you think he’s even aware that they no longer serve my Mickey head butter or after dinner chocolates in EPCOT? No!! Of course not!! He probably wasn’t aware that they served them in the first place!!

.

.

.

.

Just waiting a moment for that to sink in.

.

.

.

.

OK! Do you see it!?? "He probably wasn’t aware that they served them in the first place!!"

I’ve seen a couple of posts recently allude to the fact that Team Disney doesn’t get it (and one, from a car #1 rider no less, directly accusing Ei$ner & crew of never having placed a foot in a Disney park until they came to work for them). Yet this guy is the keeper of the kingdom. The steward of the Magic. Walt’s magic. Let’s face it, if he falters, the magic could be lost. I agree it would take ineptness to a degree to which even Ei$ner doesn’t aspire. But it is possible.

What’s more possible however, and even more probable (I think it’s already happening) is that the curator of all things ‘magical’ will bumble so badly that we will not die. It will survive. Yes!! Disney will go on. And maybe (although not likely) make money. But in doing so it will become plain, ordinary and mundane. Mediocrity will become the watchword. Pop Century, Dino-rama and huge decorating icons for everyone!! Plenty to go around!! Now isn’t that magic!!!

So, for me, it boils down to management. After all it’s management that sets the culture of the company. It’s management that sets the tone. It’s management that creates and/or maintains and/or changes their philosophical business model. And I’m afraid that between his ego, ineptness and general unmagical qualities, he has changed the direction of the company. That, my good Sergeant, is the green kryptonite in the lead box. And he is opening the box!!!!!
You see I don't think the big ME has to be good at The Magic for Disney to continue to have The Magic anymore than I think that Enzo Ferrari has to be alive for the Ferrari company to be able to produce magical cars.I was going to write at least a page and a half on this one!! But I’ve run out of time. Besides, when I first read it I immediately thought of what fun AV would have with it. So…. I’ll leave it alone! (for now!!)

DisneyKidds

06-22-2002, 09:42 AM

Whew! (says DK exhausted from reading.....:crazy: )

Where to start..........Nah, not gonna go there ;).

Alas, my good Baron, we do have a communication problem :(, but I don't doubt that a subtle change would eliminate it :). Also, communication problems do help lead to solutions as you spend the time to find out why you aren't communicating. However, that is not where I want to go this morning. Plus, I fear that if we resolve the communication problem we may have bigger problems :confused:. Bad enough when I thought you were saying the misaligned cards helped warp the table, but to believe that the table was capable of warping without the cards, rotting on its own while the cards were being misplaced......... we could continue to discuss, but how productively :p ? (but I'm game if you are - however, I predict I will eventually toss my cookies from all that going round, and round, and round......).

I submit this to all. Everyone has been making good points. Most everyone has a flaw or two. We all have very much in common. So keeping that in mind I want to point out the constants and some of the best points, IMHO (and surprisingly, some come from Car #3ers). (see there are things I can stipulate to :smooth: )

1. WDW, Disney, and the Magic are different for each individual.
2. There are many things, new and old, that many like and many dislike - at the same time.
3. I forget which frozen body part stated it, but to have an effective discussion we need to seperate somewhat from our personal feelings.
4. Change is a constant in life. Good, bad, or indifferent, the Disney Corp, WDW, DL, etc., etc. are constantly changing for a variety of reasons.
5. Different management regimes, the current being the prime culprit, have made many mistakes - some small, some whoppers.
6. Different management regimes........have done some good things - some small, some whoppers.
7. The current Disney philosophy is not Walt's philosophy.
8. There is most likely a way to make different Disney philosophies 'work'.
9. We all love WDW and want to find a way to better enjoy it, or to be able to keep enjoying it.

I could find more, but that is enough (primarily) common ground to work from. So from there I would like to address the productivity of the discussion :cool:. While it has been very productive from a Disney education standpoint, where is it going? What is the point? Baron aside ;), do we really want to get people to change cars? Would it be right to do so? Would it be good to have everone in one car? I say no (but guess we could do half a dozen pages on that :jester: ). So with that...........

Coming soon to a discussion board near you......... :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

The Pilfering and Proliferation of Disney in the Post 'Walt' Disney of the 80's, 90's and Tomorrow.

A productive discussion of all things Disney yesterday, today, and tomorrow. A fascinating journey of discovery and open, unbiased, objective discussion regarding the pasks, the business, the management, and how we can enjoy the Magic that everyone agrees is present. Guaranteed to be an edge of your seat thriller, with a few twists and turns along the way!

The NY Times says......" a lot of fun for the Disney set. I couldn't put it down"

The Washington Post said..."fascinating insight into Disney. An education for the most educated Disney fan.

E!...."Now this is entertainment! Not to be missed!"

and................

Benchmarking the Disney Magic

A retrospective look at what makes the Magic for everyone. A forward looking piece that askes what will make the Magic in the future. A helpful and informative work that will ask the hard hitting questions. 'Do those from different generations enjoy the same Magic?' 'Can the younger generations appreciate the whole of the Disney Magic?' 'Can enjoyment be found in the Magic of today, coupled with the Magic of yesteryear?' 'How can we all continue to enjoy the Magic, shortcomings, changes, and all?' At times emotional, often exciting, and bound to be a roller coaster ride!

Funny thing is, the reviews are the same as all of those above!

BTW - if anyone wants to use these if you write the book before I do I will only require a small royalty ;).

I promise to get those started soon. For now, back to spreading that 5 yards of mulch.........:wave:

raidermatt

06-24-2002, 03:14 PM

Mr. Head-

I just wanted to touch on a few things you said...

("Stop rhyming, I mean it."

"Anybody want a peanit")

Your first viewpoint is the one I feel we must consciously remove from our discussion if we ever want to have a meaningful conversation.

I agree that this viewpoint makes for a tiring debate, but since the definition of car's 2 and 3 includes "the Magic has faded", I can't just ignore this viewpoint. I see the "Magic Car" being driven by a mgmt team that looks to be wrong for the job, but the Car was so well built, they haven't screwed it up.

Perhaps I need my own car that says "The Magic has not faded, but I am concerned that it could".

That first viewpoint boils down to nothing more than "hey, _I_ like it," or worse yet, "hey, I think it's still better than Six Flags."

I really try to stay out of using that kind of "logic" when defending my "Magic hasn't faded" position, and apologize if I have dipped into it. I agree, it gets us nowhere and completely misses the point of what we are talking about.

I absolutely disagree that the point of the Cars is to organize teams for shouting matches.

YIKES! If it sounded like I was trying to organize shouting matches, I truly apologize. I couldn't agree with you more.

When I say the Magic is fading, I mean that Disney no longer operates by the rules that defined Magic in the first place. When I say that it won't be coming back, I mean that I see no evidence that anyone in a position to do anything about it cares about the old business philosophy any more, they are all perfectly happy confining their magic to the Accounting department.

I understand, and to a certain extent, agree. I'm just saying that there is a lag between the time mgmt starts doing dumb things and we start seeing the negative impact. The stronger things were to begin with, the longer the lag. We're starting to see some impact now, but Eisner has fewer years ahead of him than behind. There's also the possibility that he will learn from his mistakes. Not to necessarily become Walt's reincarnation, but to realize he has gone too far and he can't build another DCA. Honestly, if he doesn't figure this out, I don't see him running this company for much longer.

You seem to be saying that the Magic has _always_ been Magical, but could always have been so much more.

Well, in all honesty, yes, it always could have been more. Nobody is perfect. Walt came pretty close given his financial limitations, but even he made mistakes that could have been avoided. But that's not what I was talking about. Walt may have not been perfect, but he accomplished more than anyone could realistically be expected to accomplish.

The same cannot be said for current mgmt, and that's what I was referring to. One can objectively look at what they have created/added and said, yes, they could have and SHOULD have done better.

Baron- I remain in car 1, if only because of my apparently unorthodox interpretation of car definitions. ;) But I think we agree on more than it might have first appeared....