Epcot Closings!

[Dznefreek]

Here is someting for the Rumor Board to ponder:

It seems the recent closing of Epcot due to an electrical fire was not as large a problem as WDW executives thought it would be. They thought the other parks would be overrun with guests, thus leading to the added hours and shows.

It seems they did not take into account the fact that people (traveling seniors) who were going to Epcot would not necessarily opt to visit "family" parks.

It seems the impact on the other 3; (MK, DAK, and MGM) was minimal and now something that has been talked about since 9/11 may come to pass. COMPLETELY closing Epcot several days a week. My guess would be Tuesday - Thursday.

When questioned as to why you would close the park with the second highest attendance in Florida it was stated that MGM is quickly closing in on Epcot's attendance figures and would soon pass it.

Other discussions included a discount ticket to just the countries in the evening and completely closing FW. The majority of the parks revenue comes from WSC, (food, alcoholic beverages, deserts, etc.)

Thoughts, comments. . . .

[Mooobooks]

I think that would greatly anger lots of people, and certainly the people paying big bucks and DVC members staying at Boardwalk, Yacht and Beach, Beach Club Villas, and the Swan and Dolphin, most of them because they like being so close to EPCOT!

[OnWithTheShow]

I have to say that I have heard some outlandish things on this board over the last several years but this one takes the cake. It is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Epcot makes a profit everyday it is open all year long to close it several days a week would cause the company to lose money for maintence and utilities for each day it is closed.

[Testtrack321]

Not to mention it will PO the workers unions.

[dBugged]

Boy, if they shut down that park during the week, it would really eliminate a lot of good food choices. I'd say that it is a little out there to expect disney will do something like this. Lots of lost profits would occur as a result of this!

[Dznefreek]

Remember: "Park Hours and attractions are subject to change without notice."

[Luv2Roam]

I think it would also eliminate a lot of guests, period. Us included.
Well, the bright side. Look at all the money I would save. :)

[toefungus]

COMPLETELY closing Epcot several days a week. My guess would be Tuesday - Thursday.

I'm sorry but http://forums.wdwmagic.com/images/smilies/lol.gif That's the funniest thing I've herd on these boards for a while. Thanks for the good laugh.

Remember: "Park Hours and attractions are subject to change without notice."

Yeah....and.......

[d-r]

Bull-oney.

They'd lose more money closing epcot than they would keeping epcot open - they make money off of the restaurants.

[Another Voice]

Big breath time people – you ain’t going to like the rest of this year.

This idea has been discussed several times in the past, well before 9/11. At the time Orlando thought that the huge negative publicity would have devastating impact on future bookings that would far outweigh any cost savings rotating closings would achieve.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the plans were again advanced and most people assumed they would be put in place. There are lots of rumors swirling about why it didn’t happen (most involve phone calls from a certain political family about “keeping things normal” in Florida). But while the fear of travel could not stop WDW – California Adventure and ABC can.

There are “rumors” that the attendance decline at California Adventure is now in the double digit range. The discounts have not helped, the concert series isn’t even attracting annual passholders, and the even the one day park hoppers are getting only marginal interest. The park itself is at the limit of operational cuts that can be taken without shutting it down for two or three days a week. The place is a serious drag on the earnings fo the entire Attractions division and something has to be done to keep the numbers going (and Studios-Paris isn't helping one dime either).

ABC is the anchor that’s dragging down the entire company. The network is the only one of the six networks to show a DECLINE in their pre-season ad buy. That “big ad sale” they touted early in the summer was a stunt for Wall Street. It turns out that the total package of air time was sold at about discount over the rates from last year. And about half the ad time sold was for ESPN, Lifetime and other Disney cable assets – not for ABC. With the very weak reception the fall schedule has been receiving, most people are now expecting very steep losses from ABC for the foreseeable future. Since Disney has always used the parks to bail out other divisions – guess who is told to dig even deeper in its pockets.

Okay – I hear the howls from the east already. “Why not shut down DCA and leave us alone!!” Simple logic – DCA is a one day visit. Shutting the place down saves costs, but then people don’t buy tickets for that day either. WDW, however, comes as a package deal. People have already bought their tickets and already have their hotel rooms. Disney still gets the money even if one of the parks is closed. And the people still have to eat. A closed park simple makes people fill up other restaurants that are going to be open anyway. So, a closed WDW park savings a ton of operating expense, but doesn’t loose that much revenue.

Besides from Disney’s point of view people will no doubt rationalize park closings as quickly as they have rationalized loss of early entry, early closings, and all the other cuts that have been made in the past. I’m sure that we’ll see postings that say “I don’t go all four parks in the same day so it won’t bother me – it just takes planning and people who think otherwise don’t love the Magic® like us good people do”. The Company assumes those loyal to the brand won’t mind, again. Still, many believe the constant nibbling at WDW has already done its damage. The current soft attendance has more to do with the perceived loss of value in a trip to WDW more than the economy or fear.

P.S. – On the history, Disneyland was closed Mondays & Tuesdays during the winters up until the mid 1980s. There are some days that it doesn’t pay to keep a theme park open which is why Walt looked to Florida and it’s promise of 365 day operation. And the original operating plan for EPCOT Center way back did envisage keeping World Showcase open later for dining and shopping. Why do you think the massive convention hotels were built right next door?

[meowthew2]

I could see Disney returning to the old DL tradition of closing on Mondays or something as a very last resort ... in DCA, though, not any park at WDW.

[Annie&Hallie'sMom]

OUCH! :( :( :(

[Miss Park Avenue]

My family is planning to stay at BCV is 2004. I WAS planning on buying a length of stay pass for the sole reason that I would be walking distance to EPCOT and would like to go in and out of there as I please. If EPCOT is not going to be open for ONE HALF of my vacation I will just purchase my usual 4 or 5 hopper and use half of it and save the next half for the 2005 vacation.

One wonders how much $$$ Disney is losing by others opting out of the length of stay passes since the hours are cut so short. I know my family has discussed buying length of stayers for summer vacations when the crowds are larger but if you really don't have a minute to spare on "park days", you might as well tough it out for one day instead of spreading it out over several.

MY POINT BEING ('bout time) is: How is Disney MAKING money by cutting hours and now possibly closing EPCOT two to three days a week. Those passes aren't cheap!

[Josiah Harper]

...that those who are promulgating this particular rumor have not given one small hint of their sources.

Besides, we're quickly heading toward a season during which Epcot plays a huge role--i.e., Candlelight Processional, with its associated dinner packages.

I would be very, very surprised to find that this rumor has any credibility at all.

When rumors begin with "it seems," the first question to ask is: "It seems to whom?"

Just my two cents.

Joe

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by Josiah Harper
...that those who are promulgating this particular rumor have not given one small hint of their sources.


I am sure AV can defend himself, but his record on this board as far as the internal operations of the Disney Company go have have always been very accurate. He has sources the rest of us wish we had!

[Josiah Harper]

...to Another Voice--I enjoy reading his posts, and take them very seriously--his current response to this rumor is history-based, and does NOT refer to any current rumblings about an imminent Epcot closing.

Hence, my point that NO ONE has referenced any specific source of this outlandish rumor.

Joe

[doombuggy]

I agree with you 100%, Josiah Harper! :earsgirl:

Having "sources" is no guarantee for anything, and is more apt to possibly get that source into trouble. I certainly would not do that to myself or any of my friends. If this hours cut back happens, you will find out about it in a press release, but I don't think it will happen.

As far as DCA, please remember that EuroDisney was in the red for about its first 5 years. I personally liked DCA and so did my two teen DCs that I took with me. :D

JMHO, of course.

[DisneyKidds]

What scares me about AV's post is this.....

you ain’t going to like the rest of this year.

Such 'AV speak' does make me nervous and makes me think he is talking about more than just historical ideas.

However, will all due respect, even the great AV has to be wrong on occasion. Hopefully this is one.

While arguments can be made that it might make sense, I doubt it will happen. However, AV is right to an extent. Most of us would suck it up and plan around the closings. We have the AP's anyway. But would we buy an AP next year if it happened? Well, I never had to think about it before, so even just thinking about it is something Disney doesn't want. Even if we renew, there would be many who wouldn't. Such a change would surely knock everyone down a car - and that would be a strategic, long term mistake for WDW. While short term revenue wouldn't be affected, long term I think such a move would be a problem. If they made such a change I guarantee we will visit the Orlando competition - something we haven't done in 11 years of visiting the Orlando area.

[KNWVIKING]

Would Disney be allowed to shutdown the World Showcase,aren't these countries operated and staffed by the actual Country they represent ? Wouldn't that be like the owner of a shopping mall telling its stores they can be open if they want,but we're not going to unlock the enterances ? I just think this rumor is more then just a little far fetched. The trickle down affect of closing Epcot in the middle of the week would be disastrous.

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by Josiah Harper
...to Another Voice--I enjoy reading his posts, and take them very seriously--his current response to this rumor is history-based, and does NOT refer to any current rumblings about an imminent Epcot closing.

Hence, my point that NO ONE has referenced any specific source of this outlandish rumor.

Joe

The above is true about all Disney rumors. All we have to go on is company history (ie. they made decision A. last year, that means that B. decision might happen this year), and people who have inside sources. Until Disney makes an announcement then obviously this is all just speculation, but to completely rule it out because Disney has made an announcement is pretty silly.

Looking at AV's post, the cuts of the past year really lead to parks being closed on certain days. What more can they cut without closing down a park? Hours have been slashed, EE and E-Ride have been cut, and several rides now operate on reduced schedules. It would appear to me that if management continues their current course, this would be the next logical cut.

[DisneyKidds]

As good a short term financial case as might be made for such a change (and the jury is still out on that one), the headlines would read:

WDW Closes Its' Doors.

Anyone going to take the position that that is not going to affect future bookings in any way? Is that a headline Disney can live with? Elimination of EE, E nights, hours - none of these are newsworthy but here on these types of Disney discussion boards. However, closing a park, even if JUST :rolleyes: a couple days a week would be larger news. Especially now that people expect things to be more normal the farther we get from 9/11, not that that is what might have precipitated the need for such a change. Furthermore, with investor confidence as shaky as it is now, this type of change would be included in news at the national level as further evidence of a big company everyone knows having financial troubles. Who knows, many might start looking for reasons for such troubles. Did someone cook the books at Disney during their acquisitions like someone did at AOL when they wanted to look strong enough on paper to acquire Time Warner? Perhaps Disney could have slid this change in with minimal media fanfare right after 9/11, touting it as a short term change in response to reduced travel and then not giving the days back. That would have been very opportunistic, but it could have worked. But now, very bad PR that I think would have a negative effect in the long run.

[Another Voice]

Some people seem to feel that Disney is run by a vast brain trust that plots and plans each and every maneuver months or years in advance.

Guess what – the company is run just like everyone else. A bunch of people sit and squirm and fret and hesitate and make last minute decisions. People have different opinions, people fight among each other. Sometimes to do what they think is best, sometimes just for corporate politics.

As far as I know, there is no definite decision about park closures. The rumors are not true and the rumors are not false because no one knows at this point. But the issue has been discussed. If it happens, it will happen very quickly – just like the slashing of operating hours, the elimination of Early Entry, closing the Disney Institute and discounts at California Adventure all happened within a very short amount of time. If parks do go to full day closures you’ll hear about at the same time most of Disney does as well.

As for “outlandish rumors” without a “specific source”, no one wants to lose their job just to satisfy the curiosity of some on the Internet. I go to great lengths to keep people out of trouble. Believe what you wish – there were people who claimed that early rumors about Surprise Mornings and 20K were “outlandish” as well. I would also like to ask why should these rumors be labeled “outlandish” or “laughable” – what evidence do you have that Disney wouldn’t do this? And certain decisions can be changed even after they are made (anyone remember the late opening for Adventureland?). Does that make the rumors "outlandish" or just something that didn't happen?

On the money issue: remember that most of the World Showcase restaurants and shops are not owned by Disney (but with some very nasty leases about who sets operating hours). WDW would only be losing a percentage of the revenue lost, an amount that would be more than offset by the cost savings Disney could gain throughout the parts of Epcot that it does own. And as someone mentioned, most guests already have a length of stay or multi-day passport. Disney isn’t going to lose any ticket revenue at all – but it will fill up the other parks with additional wallets. Each park has a certain level of crowds that maximizes profit (guests in park vs. the operational costs). The goal for Disney is to get each park to that level. Having three parks producing the optimal amount of money and a fourth park saving lots of money is a better situation than having four parks producing only marginal returns. And I would not expect that the first park would be Epcot.

So which parks, or any park, go to full-day closures? We'll just have to wait and see. Just don't dismiss it out of hand no matter how badly you don't want to believe.

By the way – anyone else hear the rumor about WDW multi-day passports expiring just like the Disneyland passports do?????

[raidermatt]

Two things about AV. First, clearly the information he has is legitimate. We are lucky he passes some of it along to us. Second, as we all know and AV has repeatedly pointed out, rumors are rumors. Nothing more, nothing less. Some are more likely than others, but by definition, no rumor is definite.

Now, on to the topic at hand. We do have a little more than history to go on when it comes to what may happen once the Summer crowds start to dwindle in the next 2-3 weeks.

Check out the hours for September at the Magic Kingdom. 9-6 everyday except Saturdays. I checked laughingplace for last years hours, and it was 9-7 most days, even after 9/11. I've been comparing last year's hours to this year for the past several months. Unfortunately I don't have the exact numbers handy, but the gist is that this year's hours have been shorter than last for every month, HOWEVER, the difference had been shrinking every month through July. In other words, as mgmt had indicated would happen, hours were slowly returning to pre 9/11 levels as attendance also slowly returned.

August, however, showed an increase in the gap between this year and last, and now, September is almost a bare bones schedule. Yes, September is one of the slowest times of the year, but still, this year's schedule is light even by past standards. Remember that 9-6 is considered the bare minimum for MK to be open. (On a side note, the hours are also 9-6 on the first Sat in September, I guess due to a "special event". That leaves only three days during the entire month that the park is open beyond the minimum).

Consider that Epcot's attendance in 2001 dropped at a much faster rate than the other three parks. There's no reason to think that it somehow recovered this year, considering the only "addition" is the re-opening of JIYI. MK is always the big draw, MGM has the Walt exhibit and BAH, and AK got a parade and DR. Say what you will about the quality of the additions, but its very possible that Epcot's attendance will again see the worst percentage change compared to the other three parks.

The comments about ABC's poor ad performance do not appear to be exaggerated. The most positive report I've seen claimed that ABC is maintaining revenue from last year, while all of the other networks were seeing increases. That was several months ago, however, and more recent reports jive with what AV said.

Add it all up, and an Epcot closure one or more days during the week is not all that far-fetched.

With DCA, it would seem to be inevitable.

From my point of view, it would stink, particularly with Epcot. EE is a nibble. Shorter hours are a bite. Complete closures would be mouthful of raggedly torn flesh. At least that's the view of this AP holding, DVC owning, DC card carrying, plush buying, animated feature watching, stockholder.

(sorry if that was a bit graphic. Too much Animal Planet lately I guess... ;) )

[stevets]

I understand that ABC is doing lousy, and I get it that California Adventure is losing money. But the more pertinent question remains: is Epcot losing money?


As far as 9-6 MK hours: I've seen them that short during certain times of the year for some time now (Sept. 2001 after labor day (but before 9/11) and Jan. 2002)


The other reason I believe there is no truth to this rumor is that Disney has lots of competition in Orlando, and I thought they wanted to keep people on property? The types of tickets you get at some other Orlando attractions (Universal for instance) might make it worthwhile for a Disney guest to turn one or two days off-site to 3 or 4 days off-site.


Another reason I find this rumor dubious is that Disney recently put a major new attraction in Epcot and is soon to open another.

[Galahad]

You'd be hard-pressed to get public numbers on how much each park within WDW is contributing to any profit or loss. My guess, though, would be that Epcot is not the most likely park to be on the losing end.

[DG-12]

I never post on this board- and really have nothing top contribute except to say that I would NEVER vacation at WDW with a major park closed for days during my stay!!!!! EVER! We have often gone during the off-season when the MK closed at six- in fact in the years we have gone we have never once gotten to see the MK fireworks b/c it was off-season- I always thought it was worth it b/c the crowds were minimal... BTW, I LOVE DCA- but I can see where they would close that park for a few days a week (too few attractions- making wait times insane but I guess that's another thread). Sorry if I have no useful info to pass on here but I just couldn't resist adding my two cents!
Dana:rolleyes:

[DisneyKidds]

DG 12 - if you have lurked around here you probably know that we spend a lot of time debating certain things and a thread like this will soon focus on whether making such a move would be a good thing or a bad thing for Disney considering all the factors. As such, your $.02 is very valuable and is very useful info :). It goes to show that making such a move would have an adverse effect on WDW visits and will drive people away or to the competition :(. Thanks for posting and come around more often. :cool:

[raidermatt]

I understand that ABC is doing lousy, and I get it that California Adventure is losing money. But the more pertinent question remains: is Epcot losing money?
I really have no idea how seriously Disney is considering closing the parks on certain days. However, its important to note that a park does not have to be actually losing money to be closed. Let's say Epcot earned a profit on Tuesday's, but its only $10. (not 10 thousand, just 10). Well, that would be a profit, but it would be horrible for ratios like return on expense.

So in this example, Disney could close Epcot with the hope that enough guests would shoot over to the other three parks (or DD/BW), improving their profitability. The improved profitiability would only have be $10 more than Epcot's fixed costs on a non-operating day for the move to be a break even.

Again, not saying they WILL do this, or that they SHOULD, only that a park doesn't have to be losing money to be a drain.

[DisneyKidds]

Ah, the good old loss leader or operation that exists solely to cover sunk costs. Many companies take projects knowing they will do nothing more than cover their overhead and not really generate a profit. Sometimes it makes sense, but too many is a recipe for disaster. Not that that is what Epcot has been reduced to or ever was. How much of the carrying costs of Epcot are a sunk cost and how much of their daily burdened operating cost can they eliminate with a closure. Salaries, yes. However, does Disney generate their own power? How much can they really save there? Water - they have their own water supply so how much there? Capital equipment is paid for. I suppose putting on Illuminations can be expensive materials-wise. What can they realistically save?

[d-r]

I think you would see illuminations going to less than every night before you would see epcot completely close for a day.

I honestly don't think this will happen - but then I didn't believe they would close port orleans either, so I'm shakey about making an absolute statement.

[Bstanley]

It's curious that the park that is being considered for closing is EPCOT.

With all of the internal debate about Animal Kingdom not being a full-day park and that the people going to AK are 'stolen' from the other parks I find it surprising that AK isn't the park being considered for closing a day or two per week.

You could also spin a much better story about giving the animals a rest, etc...

[raidermatt]

I find it surprising that AK isn't the park being considered for closing a day or two per week.
Maybe it is. The original poster heard Epcot, AV thinks otherwise. However, IF one is to be closed, attendance might not be the only factor. Maybe Epcot costs more to operate than AK, or maybe it has lower fixed costs. Just rambling here, but if you close Epcot, 100% of the labor goes away, except for landscaping and some maintenance, which is common to all parks. If you close AK, the animals still need to be fed and cared for, so more of the labor costs move into the fixed category.

Who knows, at this point?

how much of their daily burdened operating cost can they eliminate with a closure.
Quite a bit probably. Labor is probably pretty significant, especially when you factor in ToD and the other live entertainment. Illuminations I'm sure is a decent chunk of change.

If Disney generates its own electricity, there is still a cost to doing that. Also, maybe they can sell it back to the local utility if they have an excess?

We know that the variable operating costs are significant because of the inclination to cut hours and EE. If there weren't significant costs involved, they wouldn't be so quick to cut these.

Of course the difference is on the revenue side, but they maybe banking on that being small, since some single days will go to the other parks, and APs/hoppers have already paid. Short term, revenue wouldn't be hit too hard.

Again, not saying this WILL happen, only that it is conceivable that it could be a money saver, at least in the short term.

[Bob O]

I hope this is just a BS rumor that wont come to pass but AV comments make you wonder what the brass is thinking about. And i wonder what the people who usually support disney think about this. Because most of the other cutbacks have been supported by the majority(but not me!!!) but once the cutbacks start you never know when they will stop and what they will lead too.

[DC7800]

This idea stinks. Of all the boneheaded, lame-brained, half-baked ideas to emerge from Disney in the past few years, this one tops them all. I completely trust what AV has to say, so this unthinkable idea has at least been considered - and that is scary. The loss of EE, progressively shortened hours, and attraction closures (and reduced hours) are bad enough, but a complete park closure is simply unacceptable. It is my hope that this "plan" is in a similar vein to the Adventureland rumor of some months ago, and that public reaction will sink these plans just as quickly.

the recent closing of Epcot due to an electrical fire was not as large a problem as WDW executives thought it would be. They thought the other parks would be overrun with guests, thus leading to the added hours and shows. It seems they did not take into account the fact that people (traveling seniors) who were going to Epcot would not necessarily opt to visit "family" parks.

It seems the impact on the other 3 was minimal and now something that has been talked about since 9/11 may come to pass. COMPLETELY closing Epcot several days a week. When questioned as to why you would close the park with the second highest attendance in Florida it was stated that MGM is quickly closing in on Epcot's attendance figures and would soon pass it.

Am I missing something here? It sounds like the results from the electrical fire shutdown should make Disney less likely to close one of the parks, especially Epcot. As Raidermatt explained, the idea is that by closing one park those guests will just visit another park that day, improving its margins whilst saving the operating costs of the "closed" park. Just one problem with that - it won't work.

On paper it no doubt sounds like a winning idea to the "sharp pencil guys", but reality is another matter. Based on the above example, a majority of persons didn't shift their visit to another park that day ("impact on the other 3 was minimal"). Maybe they stayed at the resort or spent money at Downtown Disney, but what about all those people who left the property? Were Epcot to close even one day a week, people will find something else to do on vacation, and they may or may not get back around to Epcot another day. Worse still, off-site guests can just as easily switch to IOA as they can to AK. All this means lost revenue to Disney and an extreme drop in Epcot attendance.

Most of our vacations are short enough already. Let's say we get a week in WDW, allowing for 5-6 theme park days. But with even one park closed just a single day per week, maybe we don't need Unlimited passes anymore - a five day hopper will do. With one day less spent in the WDW theme parks, we now have time (and money to spend) for Universal or Sea World. That also means less meals eaten in (expensive) World Showcase restaurants, and fewer souvenirs from Disney shops. If the vast majority of guests (say, 90% or more?) would indeed reschedule to a open park this plan could work, but if they don't, Epcot's financial numbers will resemble the Tower of Terror. My prediction, should the unthinkable ever come to pass, is that people will spend less time in the Disney parks, not just reallocate their days to accomodate WDW's schedule.

Originally posted by Bstanley
It's curious that the park that is being considered for closing is EPCOT. With all of the internal debate about Animal Kingdom not being a full-day park and that the people going to AK are 'stolen' from the other parks I find it surprising that AK isn't the park being considered for closing a day or two per week.

That's a very good point. Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but there was this comment from AV:

Having three parks producing the optimal amount of money and a fourth park saving lots of money is a better situation than having four parks producing only marginal returns. And I would not expect that the first park would be Epcot.

Epcot is the third most attended park in the nation, so it is hard to see how a complete shutdown would help Disney's finances. However, Animal Kingdom does not have those World Showcase restaurants and shops, and attendance there is already suffering... (just thinking out loud, of course).

[DVC-Landbaron]

As manning said in my thread:

"If we ever lose our audience, it will cost us 10 times as much to get them back."


Walt Disney :(

[Testtrack321]

A good lesson Disney is learning now, right DVC?

The big question, is how accurate is the orgional post. Was anyone there (Steve, OWTS?) can tell how bad the crowds were?

Also, when Epcot closes, it does something incredibly stupid, and nieve and Disney has yet to realize. There would be no reason to stay at the Boardwalk, BC, YC, or Swan or Dolphin if Epcot is closed. Their one BIG vangate point that Disney keeps relying on in promotion is that they in walking distance of Epcot. We tried to get to MGM from BC, but it was a good 45 mins.

Then we got the corportations. Kodak (sp?) and a few others still sponsor other shows and rides in other parks. How would it be to them and the others to find out their $50 million down payments were closed half the time? I ganantee you that the whole WoL ordeal will look like a sprain ankel compared to the huge, armogedon like, consequences Disney will have with GM, Compac, Exxon-Moble, Segway LLC, AT&T, Kraft, and Kodak, plus manny more.

If a park would close, it would be a small park that one could tour in less than a day. AK is a perfect fit.

Plus, why don't they closed down a water park, Disneyquest, mini-golf, or one of those place before they close a park? Think, we will close a park, but leave your hands off our sacred mini-golf.


BTW, only 11 more days :p

[raidermatt]

Plus, why don't they closed down a water park, Disneyquest, mini-golf, or one of those place before they close a park?
River Country is already closed, and during the winter one of the others closes. (they might both close, though not at the same time...)
We tried to get to MGM from BC, but it was a good 45 mins.
Its 20-40 minutes from the BW, depending on whether you walk or take the boat, where in the resort you are staying, and whether you catch a boat as it arrives or just miss one. But your point is well-taken.

I don't think anyone hear is saying closing Epcot or even AK would be a good idea. However, its seems that the possibility has at least been discussed, no matter how cockamamy an idea we think it might be.

[Another Voice]

“As long as Sea World, Universal, and even Busch stay open everyday, Disney MUST.” That’s the key phrase as far as WDW’s management is concerned. But every corporate decision is not based squarely on what is happening at WDW. It may not depend on attendance, it may not depend on the competition, and (more often than not these days) it doesn’t really depend on what WDW thinks.

This is a corporate game – and the person who will make the call has his eye on a bigger number than what Epcot, Animal Kingdom or even WDW adds to the pool. The game is to keep Attractions total growing, and that is only a way to keep the entire company’s income going up. Disney is much more than WDW and the parks are along way from Team Disney Burbank. However, the ABC building looms right over their heads.

From one perspective, closing a single park is not a problem. Very few guests hit all four parks on the same day. Taking one out of the mix will redirect which park people will visit but won’t encourage people to go off property. Look at the average length of stay at Animal Kingdom and you’ll see that this won’t be much. Nor will people change their ticket buying patterns – again, who goes to all four parks in a single day? You'll be there five days no matter which parks are open and which are closed. Just because you can't go to the Disney/MGM Studios on one day doesn't mean you woun't to another. I’m sure both sides have already spun what happened during the Epcot power outage to “prove” both sides of the argument.

Nor would the closings be year-round. They would occur during the “lean months” with 7-day operations reinstated for summer, holidays and spring break periods. It’s no different than shutting down attractions at off peak periods (which many people don’t have a problem with) – this is simply a way to shut down an economical number of them all at once. The thought is that Disneyland thrived for decades doing this – it won’t hurt WDW.

My personal feeling is that Disney would be completely insane to do this – but the company hasn’t acted rationally in about five years now. I can also see this as a vital contingency plan given that the war is about to really heat up soon, but then again I was at WDW during the first Iraq War and there was never any thought given to rolling closures of the parks. I think closings would seriously degrade the consumer’s opinion of the value of a WDW trip – but hours have been hacked, amenities taken away and prices have risen and no one really seems to care.

So I’m left in the middle – I can see all the reasons why they shouldn’t do it, but I don’t have the confidence that they won’t.

[raidermatt]

Just my personal musings, but if I were visiting during a slow period, and Epcot were closed, I'd consider it a signficant problem unless the hours were extended at MK or MGM. Epcot has been the only park open "late" during slow periods. MK was usually open until 7, and now it appears 6 is the norm. MGM cuts back to 7 or so during slow times. AK closes at 5. Closing Epcot takes away the only "late" night option.

Just to be clear, I think its a pretty bad idea, period. But if they are going to do it, I think they would need to give the people SOMETHING to do in the parks past 7pm, even if it is slow.

Now, in SUPER slow periods, like those that came after 9/11, I could understand it a little better.

AV, I might be wrong, but I think a war with Iraq would have a bigger effect on tourism than it did last time. While the Gulf War made Americans uneasy, the majority still didn't really feel threatened. I think it would be different story this time.

Of course, another actual terrorist incident on American soil could have the same effect as well.

I can understand having closure plans should these types of things occur.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Testtrack321 asks:The big question, is how accurate is the original post. Was anyone there (Steve, OWTS?) can tell how bad the crowds were?The Landbaron rises sheepishly and though clearly not a CM says, “I was there.”

And I can tell you from first hand experience that MGM was a piece of cake that night. And the two fantasmic shows AND the late closing was a little slice of heaven!!!!

Others in our party went to MK. Their report was exactly like mine. No significant increase in crowds, and a delight to be opened later than 10:00!!!

I cannot speak for the minor distraction known as AK. ;)

And now hold on to your hats guys but I’m about to shock the heck out of you. Especially my lord-liege, AV.
So I’m left in the middle – I can see all the reasons why they shouldn’t do it, but I don’t have the confidence that they won’t.And I can see (mainly from your post) all the reasons they should do it, but am afraid they won’t!! With the caveat that more traditional hours for the other venues accompany the closings!

Without that concession I may seriously consider selling my DVC interest!!! :mad:

[Bstanley]

Speaking as someone who has chosen to visit only during off-peak periods and who accepted fewer parades, fireworks displays, shorter hours, etc. as the result of that choice - I find the very concept of Epcot not being open 365 days a year an abomination and a blight on the Land o' Disney.

If the cost-cutting fanatics of Team Disney felt it necessary to shut down their second most popular venue simply to raise their NET profit level I would be forced to round-up a bulk emailer and explain my position to them.

Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim. George Santayana

[Disney Adventurer]

I wan't going to comment but as many have already done I'll throw in my 2 cents. There is much more to look at then just the savings generated by closing Epcot on certain days. What would this do to resort bookings at the Epcot Resorts? I'm sure you would see a dramatic decrease, after all one of the big calling cards for those resorts is the walk to Epcot. And then I'll give you one word "IMAGE". As many have already said, if Universal etc. stay open this will be a marketing boom for them. Hey look at us, all our parks are open every day, come stay at our hotels! It is a known fact that it costs 10x more to get back a lost cutomer than to keep them in the first place. Disney would be foolish to loose cusomers in times when competition for the vacation dollar is high. Some times you have to look at the long term picture (2-5 years) not just what the bottom dollar looks like today. As a manager I am faced with such decisions every day, and there are those who feel you need to make a profit today even if it costs you your profit in the future. This thought process is nothing but a downward spiral. I hope Disney doesn't think this way, it will change the way I vacation, and I'm a DVC owner.

[raidermatt]

And I can see (mainly from your post) all the reasons they should do it, but am afraid they won’t!! With the caveat that more traditional hours for the other venues accompany the closings!

You know, I was going to ask this as a hypothetical question, but thought the answer would be a resounding NO. Honestly, Lord Baron, I'm surprised by your stance. I would expect your answer to be something like "NO, why should we have to choose? Why either/or?".

Beyond that, my fear would be that even if hours at the other parks were extended, it would be a temporary move to mitigate the backlash. Especially given the reports of no increase in crowds at MGM or MK that night. I can see mgmt actually regretting the later closings and extra shows now...

However, I suppose if the later hours at other parks stuck, it would be ok for us since our trips our longer and we could schedule around a closed day or two. But it could make things more difficult for those on shorter trips.

Oh, one other caveat if Epcot is to close one or more days....no "dark" days for any of the live entertainment.

You know, even with those caveats, this still doesn't sit right. If business is really that bad, and the reason is tourism in general, then ok (but everytime Disney puts out an attendance report, the drop from last year gets smaller). If the reason is to just squeeze another .2% of ROE so ABC can be propped up, I don't like it. I think the risk of doing significant damage is greater than the benefit to be gained.

[JeffH]

The conclusions here make no sense.
If the other parks were not flooded with guests, then they lost a parks worth of people/guests. Now if the overflow equaled the # of
guests that would have been at Epcot and were managed well, then there might be a point.
The problem with AK when it opened was that instead of bringing in a new niche of people, existing guests instead bled over into the
park.
These situation showed that Epcot serves a specific niche bringing in new/different guest, instead of simply stealing them from other
parks. This is exactly the type of separate park that Disney wants, a park that brings in a parks worth of new/different guests to fill the
hotels, and buy tickets.

This will never happen, will never be considered, at least at Epcot.

[DVC-Landbaron]

You know, I was going to ask this as a hypothetical question, but thought the answer would be a resounding NO. Honestly, Lord Baron, I'm surprised by your stance. I would expect your answer to be something like "NO, why should we have to choose? Why either/or?".Normally that would indeed be my stance. However, after the ridiculously marshmallow answers I received from Mr. Holmes (a genuine nice guy, but thoroughly Ei$nerized) I have come to accept that hours will NEVER change back. And after my recent stay, and the absolutely rotten time we had trying to live with those hours, I am, quite frankly, DESPERATE!!! To me it comes down to a choice of closing a park and restoring hours or living with the unlivable hours they have instituted. And I really have to tell you it is very hard to keep that cheery, rose-colored outlook I usually have when I visit WDW with these hours during the summer.

And to do both is totally unacceptable and I would seriously resign my commission as Disney booster and really join the basher crowd (I know most of you feel I’m there already, but believe me, I’m not)!! And I would try really hard to talk my wife into selling the DVC (just plain LandBaron, thank you).

No. Please don’t get me wrong. I surely feel that the hours should be restored and that further talk of closing a park for a day should be met with swift and terrible punishment!! But the realist in me believes, like the scarecrow, that it’s going to get darker before it gets lighter. So I’m willing to take any bone that I can at this point. And to me, hours is way more important that a park closing for a day. Heck!! Like AV says, I’m there for three weeks!! I’ll hit them all as many times as I like even if they close them for two days a week!! It’s the per day hours that are much more precious to me!!

[mattjs]

So lemme get this straight, they're gonna open the highly anticipated Mission: SPACE this spring, but you'll only be able to check it out on the 5 days a week Epcot's gonna be open.

Please, that's ridiculous. Next rumor.

[Jasmine13]

Well, I've heard some really wild rumors, but that one tops them all! Where do you all come up with these things?

[Planogirl]

I can see why some people think it's ridiculous for Disney to start closing parks and I can also understand the LandBaron's position on why Disney should. My fear is that Disney may decide to close a park or parks and WON'T extend their hours at other venues. Then what? :(

[raidermatt]

Barring another negative impact to tourism, I honestly don't think this will happen, for whatever its worth (at least not at WDW. DCA? Maybe.).

However, I don't see the potential closing of a park as an accounting trick. Its a pretty up front move, and if a park really is under-performing, closing it can have a positive impact on the financials, at least in the short term. Its just that the backlash from guests, especially those who have booked in the Epcot area could be intense.

I really don't know if current management is engaging in any "questionable" practices. I certainly wouldn't be shocked, but I could say the same of a lot of companies right now. Hopefully, Scoop, your scenario plays out, and we get a more long-term focused mgmt team who understands how to treat assets as valuable as the parks.

So lemme get this straight, they're gonna open the highly anticipated Mission: SPACE this spring, but you'll only be able to check it out on the 5 days a week Epcot's gonna be open.

Please, that's ridiculous. Next rumor.
We've now had several posters who we know have inside info state that the closing of a park for 1-3 days per week is being or has been discussed at high levels.

So its far from ridiculous. Unlikely? Probably, but clearly not ridiculous.

Maybe the most likely target is AK, but M:S does not take Epcot off the list until its ready to open. Its a long time until Spring...

[raidermatt]

And to me, hours is way more important that a park closing for a day. Heck!! Like AV says, I’m there for three weeks!! I’ll hit them all as many times as I like even if they close them for two days a week!! It’s the per day hours that are much more precious to me!!
Point taken, and I agree. Our trips look like they will be no shorter than 12 nights, so we could schedule so as to not feel the impact of the closed park. I'm just concerned about those whose first trip to WDW is only 3-4 days. Park closings could make things more difficult for them.

And to do both is totally unacceptable and I would seriously resign my commission as Disney booster and really join the basher crowd
I'd have to gain an understanding of the whole plan before I'd commit to going that far, but I would at least think about picking up a rock or stick myself...

[raidermatt]

Nah, you were clear enough, Scoop. Just another example of my well-documented poor reading comprehension skills...;)

Your scenario raises some hope for an improved situation in the relatively near future. Rumblings about the lack of movement (upward) in the stock price are definitely growing louder...

[Lewisc]

No one has commented on this part of the original post:
Other discussions included a discount ticket to just the countries in the evening and completely closing FW. The majority of the parks revenue comes from WSC
I wonder if Disney could get away with closing FW 1 or 2 days a week and just opening WS at 12:00. This would avoid the stigma of closing an entire park and would still give the EPCOT resort guests the WS restaurants and illuminations experience.

Not a rumor but I wonder if Disney would charge resort guests for parking (in the resorts). Universal hotels have been doing this for about a year. This might reduce the incentive for non-resort guests parking in deluxe. This might also give some people a reason not to rent a car.

[Dad of 5]

Originally posted by Lewisc
No one has commented on this part of the original post:

I wonder if Disney could get away with closing FW 1 or 2 days a week and just opening WS at 12:00. This would avoid the stigma of closing an entire park and would still give the EPCOT resort guests the WS restaurants and illuminations experience.

Not a rumor but I wonder if Disney would charge resort guests for parking (in the resorts). Universal hotels have been doing this for about a year. This might reduce the incentive for non-resort guests parking in deluxe. This might also give some people a reason not to rent a car.

This is even wackier than the idea of closing the whole of Epcot.

Hey, here's a cost-saving idea: On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we'll only open attractions in FW that begin with A-M, and WS countries in NATO. :rolleyes:

[rasvar]

One thing I would find interesting is possible legal action brought by annual passholders for diminsihed value by the closing. Yes, Disney has a "catch all" disclaimer on the ticket; but, that might not protect them from charges of dishonest advertising based on the current advertising saying all parks, 365 days a year. Not too mention more local ill-will. Plus, loss of future pass sales. I can say, that without Epcot available during the week, I would really have no reason to keep an annual pass. Any of the other parks I go to, I usually go to with friends who work for Disney and can pass me in. I go to Epcot after work in the evenings on a regular basis. I already dropped from premium annual pass to regular when they closed River Country. Universal/IOA is looking like a better deal all the time if they start to close Epcot. I bet the non-Disney parks start to see attendence increases if Epcot closes. Disney is on thin ice as it is as far as theme parks go. They need to be finding better ways to serve their customers and cut without ticking customers off. They would be better off if they raised parking a buck or two then to close the park, IMHO.

[C.Ann]

Hmmm.. I live a considerable distance from WDW and therefore am not able to make the several-times-a-year or even yearly trip there that most folks do..

Although I was just there this past September (yes - during the tragedy of 9/11) I have been trying to plan another short trip for this December to help me get over the shock I felt on my last trip.. (I also happen to be a New Yorker..)

If I were to be there for let's say 5 days - and on one (or two) of those days Epcot was closed it would really cause a MAJOR problem for me and I would have to reconsider whether the trip was really worth taking or not..

It just so happens that MK is my favorite - followed closely by EPCOT - then MGM - and my least favorite, Animal Kingdom..

While there last Sept. we also ran into problems with weather (many torrential, long-lasting rainstorms - as well as a hurricane) and it totally threw our plans out of whack so we ended up "doing" Epcot in small pieces each evening.. As someone else has already mentioned, it's a great place to go once the other parks have already closed and I would be devastated if they took this away.. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that the reason Disney didn't hear MUCH louder grumbling over shortened hours in the other parks is because people felt they could still get their moneys worth by going to Epcot every evening instead..

I'm no financial wizard by any means, but I think this would be a VERY bad idea.. Not everyone who goes to WDW is there for an extended stay - and some not even for a full week - so I'm pretty sure those customers would feel as though they weren't getting their full value with their park hopper passes..

If this rumor ever comes to be, I would really have to think long and hard about whether or not I would ever take a short trip there again (such as 5 days) or if I would opt to just go back every 5 years or so.. If others feel the same, can Disney survive that?

Just my personal opinion..

[YoHo]

As AV pointed out way back on I think Page 1, Disney makes very little money on World Showcase as they don't own the resturants and Gift Shops. I too can see this happening and it being not so bad. Remember Landbaron, the rumor is for off peak times, you're summer vacatition schedule would be unaffected for better or for worse. (well, we know that's not really true, but I theory)


Now then, Mr. Scoop, I want to know where the Disney Family fits in your NYC rumblings?

[WDWHound]

I would hope that even the Disney accountaneers could see that this is a bad idea. Sadly, I don't put anything past them these days. The singal this would send to the world is "we are in such deep financial trouble that we can no longer to keep all of our parks open all of the time".

The guests would hate it The investors would hate it. Where is the upside? Oh yes, I forgot, there might be some short term profit to be made. I guess it must be a good idea then.:mad:

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I believe you will find them to be a counter-balance to any short-sighted Pressler efforts which could cause long-term damage. What has changed that we should believe they'll suddenly be a counter-balance, when, as recently as in your post about the DinoRama that never was, there was no such effect in evidence?

I respect your need to protect sources, but understand that the information you've deemed safe for distribution makes your view of this situation "sound" exactly the same as your view of DinoRama, pre-construction; a view that turned out not to reflect the reality of the situation.

When it came to DinoRama, it was scepticism, not belief, that led to the more accurate assessment of what was going to happen. I'm willing to weigh evidence that that situation has changed, but there's been none of that offered.

When I attempt to figure out what Disney is going to do, the bulk of the evidence I consider is simply the actions they've recently taken. Although we might want to _hope_ certain things are beyond consideration, I've seen little _evidence_ that the powers that be share that outlook. I'm not reassured by what appears to me to be a line you've drawn in sand.

I hope you're right about the big happenings afoot... but as we've learned, not even your well-placed sources can consistently predict Disney's actions in this environment.

-WFH

[Bstanley]

Other than the spelling of their last name what influence does the family have? Roy Jr. is Vice-Chairman, but he doesn't even own as much stock as he did when he had to get massive help from the Bass boys 20 years ago to get his parking space back.

To apply a lot of force you either need a lot of weight or a long lever. I don't see either in the hands of the Disneys.

Now if ABC continues to do poorly this fall - well perhaps the sheer mass of the disgruntled stockholders will be weighty enough to convince the board to bring in some new management.

[Walt's Frozen Head]

external forces now exist which did not exist when DCA or even DinoRama were opened Fair enough assertion.

When you first came to the board, we had a discussion where (and here I color based on my recollections of the thread, it is not my intention to attribute anything falsely. Feel free to contribute your own memories of the posts in question) you countered my Eisner-targetting vitriol with the point that it wasn't Eisner's fault, he was ham-strung by the institutional investors who were _really_ Disney's bosses (I don't think I'm too far off, that conversation had a real effect on me. To a great extent, that conversation marked the point I gave up).

It seems to me that at one point, you were arguing that the nebulous "Wall Street" was the source of the "cheap" problem, now it looks as though you hope it will be part of the solution to that problem.

I'm sorry, I know you think I wait around for you to post so I'll have something to filet for a few minutes, but I swear I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to tell me, and looking for some reason to again believe things that Disney has systematically trained me to no longer hope for.

-WFH

[Lewisc]

I don't have any the "inside information" it appears some of the posters have. My impression: a few years ago people wanted to stay on-site. People (even if they didn't use it) liked EE. An afternoon pool break was eaiser. Now there are no more EE and shorter park hours reduce the afternoon break. Allowing EE for MK (or at least half the park) 2 days a week isn't that much to ask. Although Disney can't offer the same FOTL access Universal does they really should offer something to resort guests.
A few years ago Disney seemed to be able to maintain their "rack rate" (with a few 10-20% DC discounts). Now people seem to wait for deep discounts (code, AP...)and only pay full price during holiday weeks.

[4cruisin]

Oh boy,

I had to choose this thread as my first jaunt into the rumors board. Normally I just surf the DCL board, but AV message and the subsequent discussion peaked my interest.

I have been to WDW 4 times. 1979 (It was just the MK), 1988, 1989 and again in Dec. 2001. The decline in service and overall trip value/satisfaction was so noticeable on our last visit; it was very sad.

Although we do not visit every year like some people, we really enjoy Disney and had looked forward to our long planned trip. We stayed at P.O. Riverside (our first time on site) and were very excited about the anticipated service we would receive. It was a nightmare from day 1. The check in line snaked around the lobby, took over 1 hour to get to a CM, we did not have adjoining rooms as requested(there were 4 rooms booked for our party), the CM was less than helpful or understanding. The overall check in time was over 2.5 hours. The room was lovely, as was the grounds, but boat service had been discontinued which we were never advised of. We only found out when we tried to find out how to board the boat to get to P.I.

Because we visited during December, we knew the parks had limited hours but we were willing to have that as a swap for the convenience of lower attendance numbers. I also noticed that the overall maintenance and cleanliness of the parks had deteriorated considerably. My husband said we were probably just getting older (late 30's) and maybe Disney didn't hold the same magic for us anymore, but I think it is a sign of the overall lack of attention on the part of corporate Disney. They are so busy trying to find ways to make more and more money, they are losing sight of the real money maker ... the Disney ideal.

We are booked for our second Disney cruise in Jan. 2003. I felt the cruise offered a better value ratio than another trip to WDW,
however, I would not hesitate to try another cruise line in the future if DCL starts to slip in the same way WDW has.

I know this probably isn't the correct thread, but I think the Epcot closing rumor is just another instance of Disney missing the bigger issue. If they keep cutting back on service, whether it is park hours, shows, hotel service, etc., they will eventually close for good because people just will not tolerate less service and increased costs. At least I won't.

And that's all I have to say....:rolleyes:

[raidermatt]

I don't have any inside info, but over the last 6 months or so I've seen and heard reports that questions about the financial performance have intensified. The gist is that there is a great deal of value in Disney's name and assets, yet it is not being properly utilized.

This goes back to a point I have tried to make in the past. An emphasis on financial performance is not AUTOMATICALLY bad for Disney.

Being driven by financial performance is ok, as long as you understand what is truly driving your finanical performance.

It's become clear that current mgmt does not truly understand what drives Disney's financial performance. They think its driven by synergy, marketing, and "efficient" production (ie, goods driven, as Scoop says). If they were right, the stock would be performing well (at least with respect to the market in general).

[Walt's Frozen Head]

He decided he wants his stock up and its now more likely to go up with more focus on WDW's interests. See, now I would say that that's an adequate summation of the main point I've been making from the day I showed up here; that more focus on the content, particularly in the parks and animation divisions, would be what led to an improved situation, not budget-cutting.

I agree with an awful lot of what you've been saying recently. It's just confusing to me, because it sure felt as though you were arguing with me for saying the same things a year or two ago.

-WFH

[mjstaceyuofm]

Originally posted by thedscoop
...This whole story has so many subplots that its really developing into a soap opera. Right now, there is a good bit which I cannot share, but to say that, unless a radical change in strategy occurs, 2003 will be remembered for more than just Mission:Space....

Hello - I know, I know... total Johnny-come-lately to the party.

Scoop - I'm reading your posts (very intriguing and quite enjoyable reading BTW) and I'm just trying to get a feel for your current stance on things. Respecting that you can't blurt out the exact who, what, when, where, etc., would you say that 2003 holds good things or bad things in store for WDW (and Disney for that matter) in your mind? Just curious.

For the record (and to keep to the original thread): I think closing Epcot for a day a week is a REALLY BAD idea. Especially during non-peak times seeing as everything else closes so early. Ever try to walk through DTD at night in September - wall to wall people - yuck!

-matt

[DisneyKidds]

Ahhh... WFH, but some were arguing with you and just trying to point out that management wasn't trying to louse things up - just doing what they thought would be in the best interest of the company by doing what they thought it would take to meet the expectations on the street and raise the stock value. There are a number of folks who have been going on for a while about how the changes at WDW to some extent have been driven by the market and the economy and the analysts and the street......etc., etc. while others have said that that isn't a factor and management just doesn't get it and is ruining the joint on their own. Funny thing about the business environment and expectations on the street - they persist and evolve and might eventually require a company to take a different direction from what they thought in the recent past might have helped meet those street expectations. Even in a cryogenic state you had more foresight than many Disney execs - but their motivations were not necessarily impure - perhaps there really is no Evil Ei$ner- just a misguided one.

(apparently soon to be on the street?)

[YoHo]

In any shake up that might occur, I would expect the Disney family to hold some sway. There were mutterings a couple months ago that Mrs. Miller was uping her interest and in fact making her feelings known. The real question is what her current relationship is with Roy E., cause if they are on the same side in this battle, they would have some significant power.


WDI should never have been integrated back into the company.

[Another Voice]

I have exactly 48 seconds to jump in here (flying – a lesson in customer service), but I need to throw in a few comments right now.

There’s a bit of the old “blind men and the elephant” going on right now. Not even the players in this current round of reindeer games know the full picture and it becomes fuzzier the further you are always from it. And there’s an awful lot of positioning and maneuvering going on right now. Far too many corporate types try to play the Washington game of leaks, counterleaks, disinformation, and good old bashing.

On Eisner, there are many different opinions. Mine is that the man fell into corporate Hollywood simply by accident. High-priced breeding doomed him to the Captain of Industry role, family connections led him to corporate ABC then to Hollywood. He is not, in my opinion, a man of any particular wit, intellect, talent or imagination – he’s a perfect Hollywood suit. He was hired at Disney to give that battered company credibility with all the other stuffed Hollywood suits. It was that simple. To wake a slumbering giant all you have to do is find a big enough fool to give the monster a good swift kick. Everyone in Disney KNEW where the real creativity slept; Eisner simply provided the boot.

And for a long time it worked great. There was a tremendous reserve of energy inside the company and a series of excellent executives let it out. With so many great ideas around, it was easy for people with real talent to weed out the really rotten ones. But people without talent always have a way of crashing in, don’t they. And in Hollywood it’s all too common for people to believe the oversimplified and over-sensationalist press. This is a town about illusions – and the illusions everyone most fervently want to believe are always about themselves. What’s happening now is not a shocking turn of events. It is not a change in behavior or capabilities. It’s the result of things that have been present all along.

There is nothing more dangerous in the world as a person brimming with ideas but lacking in judgment. One by one the people that said “no” were cast aside and others where found to say “yes”. Without real talent, things began to go wrong. So others were found to take blame and the cry of “woe, for the evil that Wall Street has forced us to do” echoed throughout the building. There’s a very good reason ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ is the fairly tale that most animators wish to produce next.

We’re witnessing the third act of the movie right now. The first brave little girl to call out from the crowd has spoken (and she is one that cannot to be ignored). As more of the crowd sees the situation as it truly is all the fear is diminishing. That doesn’t mean things will change overnight, or that this story will have a happy ending – it just means events have been put into motion.

[mjstaceyuofm]

No offense AV, but that's a rather lengthy way of saying "things will be changing"...

[raidermatt]

No offense AV, but that's a rather lengthy way of saying "things will be changing"...
Maybe, but it also says WHY things will be changing.
If anyone knew how it would all play out, and whether it would be good or bad for Disney, they would be a very valuable commodity to a lot of investors...

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Even in a cryogenic state you had more foresight than many Disney execs - but their motivations were not necessarily impure - perhaps there really is no Evil Ei$ner- just a misguided one. But the "Evil" Eisner was mostly a pejorative term used by posters wishing to make others' opinion look silly.

I do not believe anyone ever suggested that Eisner should be removed simply because he was "evil," only because the decisions he was responsible for did not appear to be in Disney's long-term best interests.

This appears to be what Chad is now saying, and I see no need to assume he really means "Eisner is evil." It is certainly what I was saying, all along, and I regret that so many people saw the need to assume I really meant "Eisner is evil."

This is why I get so cranky about the intra-Car stuff... if there hadn't been so much "good-natured" crap about how Car #3 secretly believes Eisner is evil and Car #1 secretly believes anything with "Disney" printed on the side is inherently Magical, then we might have actually listened to what the other had to say.

I meant it when I said I thought our opinions on Disney were far more alike than they were different.

And I believe harmony on the R&N board has an inverse relationship to the number of posters who feel personally insulted by that statement.

-WFH

PS: "Impure" is an interesting choice of words, by the way. It's a loaded term: given no other data, most people would say the term "pure" carries a much more positive connotation than "impure," when those words could both describe either a positive or negative situation. Saying, for instance, your last post was your purest effort to date, sounds positive unless what I really mean is that it was pure horse****. On the other hand, if I say "DK's pure horse**** will come in handy," it might seem a smart-assed, derogatory comment, unless we're scheduled to do some work in the garden this afternoon; suddenly, it becomes an appreciative sentiment.

So when you say "motivations not... impure," I need more data to respond meaningfully. Saying their motivations were "purely money-based" or "purely Magic-based" are opposites (pretty much, for the sake of our conversations, anyway); saying merely "pure" or "impure" doesn't really take any position, one way or the other, even though it "sounds" positive.

[DisneyKidds]

I can't help but think that either way I mean impure, horse**** will be associated ;) :crazy: - and you may be right :eek:.

Guilty as charged on the Evil Ei$ner. Inept certainly is a word that many have used.

As for my use of impure I mean it in this sense. I have gotten the impression that many feel Eisner said 'I'm doing this - guest experience be damned' - that his motivations were not pure - purity here being focused on doing what was best overall for the company. He was an inept fool acting in an irresponsible fashion. Perhaps this was not the case and he was just a guy trying to do the right thing and making the wrong decisions. Either way he got it wrong so it really is a moot point.

That is my horse**** and I'll stick with it for now :).

[raidermatt]

Maybe this is over-simplifying, but...

If I combine AV's analysis with yours, Scoop, would it be true to say that the only reason Eisner found himself being forced to capitulate to the money guys was that he was already killing the creative content portion of the business? It was this creative content that was really the driver for earnings/financial success. Had he been able to keep the creative, service-oriented edge the company had, he could have avoided the calls for cuts from Wall Street.

Fair? Off-base?

[DisneyKidds]

I guess a question to be answered is - was the downturn in the stock which preciptated the need for cuts an inevitability given the cyclical nature of the markets, etc., or did the stock go down because Ei$ner undermined it by cutting the creative legs out from under Disney?

[YoHo]

To me, the problem isn't that Disney was the purchasers, but that they made incredibly stupid purchases. after all, Time Warner was mindnumbingly emense and was doing fine until AOL got involved and tried to alter the dynamics of the company. Eisner's company made poor choices.

I've been harping on the idea that Micheal Eisner has no real skills of any sort for some time now and Mr. AV backs me up. The only skills at Team Disney on the upper managment level were firmly in the possession of Frank Wells. Not that Disney would not try some of the same ideas (Frank wanted to buy a network), but perhaps (and we'll never know) better decisions would have been made. Not to mention that with Frank in charge, there wouldn't have been the mass brain drain that occured.

So, no, I don't think Eisner is evil. Inept, clumsy and stupid DEFINITELY!

[DVC-Landbaron]

I agree with an awful lot of what you've been saying recently. It's just confusing to me, because it sure felt as though you were arguing with me for saying the same things a year or two ago.Ditto!! If I didn’t know you better Mr. Scoop, I’d say there was some back-peddling going on here. Luckily I do know you better. So I’ll caulk It up to miscommunications. But I really gotta tell you, your current position and your position from just a few weeks ago, is… well… let’s say… confusing!! But what you have said today has made me sit up and take notice!! Perhaps I wasn’t listening hard enough before!! ;)However, Eisner got scared and then promoted either "pleasers" or goods folks. Anyways, I always objected to the idea that Eisner screwed it up from day one. Baron often takes that approach and I just don't think that approach is accurate. In fact, I believe the proof shows just the opposite.I think, my dear Scoop, that there really isn’t any proof. I believe, absolutely, in what my liege, AV says about the man. Mainly because it was my assessment of the man way before I knew an entity named AV even existed.

I firmly believe he screwed up since day one. That’s not to say that some things of greatness didn’t make their way into the light despite him, or that he was malicious in his intent. It only means that he never ”GOT IT”!! And by never ‘getting it’ he screwed up!!!

I think that’s what the people were saying when they talked about him killing the creative content. If he truly “got it”, right from the start, there would have been little to fix. Go back and re-read some of AV’s stuff. I think that’s pretty much what he infers as well, and he’s been pretty much on the mark with everything he’s posted so far.Smile, Baron, the genie liked you...See!! I like what you’re saying lately!!! :bounce:

DisneyKidds: Guilty as charged on the Evil Ei$ner. Inept certainly is a word that many have used.I believe sometime last year at this time I used that term to describe Ei$ner in a post to my good friend the Pirate. I said, “He didn’t do these things on purpose or with intent, he’s just inept!!” Now, AV doesn’t cut loose with a lot of PM’s, but that day he sent me one consisting of only seven words. “You don’t know how right you are”, was all he said!!

[raidermatt]

As AV pointed out, creativity was able to flourish during Eisner's regime for quite awhile.
But I think he means it flourished because there was so much of it within the company at that time. As the people who truly caused it to flourish exited, the negative effects started showing up.

After taking over the Cowboys, Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl for pete's sake. That alone proves that if something is good enough, nobody can screw it up right away...



It seems that both models fit the timeline. Creativity and content seemed to take a nosedive around 1995. This coincides with the Cap Cities acquisition. It also coincides with the combination of Wells' death and the cummulative "removal" of the creative folks. I don't pretend to have the definite answers, but my opinion is that its probably a combination.

Eisner MAY have wanted to make great content at one time, but it appears that he is not very good at it, nor is he very good at retaining people who are good at it. The effects of this took several years to begin to take hold, but since many projects take years to hit the public, it wasn't felt until the mid-90's.

At the same time, Wells passes and the Media model comes into play, making things worse. A TV network takes a while to screw-up too. It took about 6 years to see the full effects, and would have been 5 had it not been for Millionaire. What if the network didn't have Home Improvement and Rosanne when Disney took it over? It could have been a much quicker demise.

[The Duchess]

This is ridiculous. I would not pay big bucks to stay at an Epcot resort (YC,BC,CBR,BW, S&D) if Epcot was closed three days out of that week! They've already eliminated the Disney Institute.
Get rid of Pleasure Island and the Water Parks first.
I have heard on several financial shows that Disney is gearing up for new head management.....

[raidermatt]

was the downturn in the stock which preciptated the need for cuts an inevitability given the cyclical nature of the markets, etc., or did the stock go down because Ei$ner undermined it by cutting the creative legs out from under Disney?

If we look at the Disney stock price compared to the DJIA and S&P, its clear its not all cyclical.

From mid '92 to mid'97, Disney's performance pretty much mirrored the above indexes.

From late '97 to mid '98, Disney outperformed both, only to immediately fall back below. Since then, both the S&P and Dow have outperformed Disney, with a brief exception in early to mid 2000.

However, the gap has been significantly greater since Aug/Sept of 2001.

So while the stock price doesn't really give us any real indication of when the internal problems started, it does tell us that the drop in stock price is not solely attributable to the overall market declines.

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I have gotten the impression that many feel Eisner said 'I'm doing this - guest experience be damned' - that his motivations were not pure - purity here being focused on doing what was best overall for the company. Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, I think the root of Eisner's failure was that he either a) forgot or b) never understood that Disney Magic is a product that is more like art and less like art supplies.

For me, any definition of "pure Disney" would have to include some modern equivalent of the Nine Old Men... some central core of creators and storytellers who provide a cohesive focus and creative framework for Imagineers to build Magic on.

In that particular sense, I feel Eisner represents impure Disney... a Disney whose focus and framework is purely financial, that considers creativity not a resource to be invested in, but an expense to be minimized and contracted out.

I think Eisner started putting less quality into his products with the intention of producing favorable quarterly reports, rather than continuing to put as much quality as possible into his products with the intention of producing great products. Eventually, this subtle but basic shift in focus caught up with Disney.I often hear about people "making a stand" or "standing up for principle". The "pure Disney" referenced above would be the principle I'd say the CEO of Disney should stand up for.

Your short "what if" example focuses mostly on out-spending Wall Street's patience, which misses the main point of what, precisely, you spend money on. If they'd spent the Pearl Harbor money on the Rings, we'd all be talking about Eisner differently. But he preferred to go with the formulaic blockbuster rather than the guy who had a vision of how to tell a classic story (and isn't that what Disney always used to do best?).No, the buck never stopped with Eisner nor did it ever stop with his board. "The buck" may not have, but uncounted billions of bucks did. Wall Street is no excuse for poor choices within the bouandaries of what was actually spent.As AV pointed out, creativity was able to flourish during Eisner's regime for quite awhile AV was also careful to point out that it was the oversight of talented executives that enabled creativity, executives now out of the system.Eisner and Co. decided to be purchasers rather than purchasees Fair enough. But as CEO, doesn't Eisner have some responsibility for failing to replace the talented executives he lost (I'll stop short of saying "for running off" said executives, just to play well within bounds)? Media conglomerates that aren't a one-man show stand a much better chance of surviving.I still think Plushler is the current issue much more so than Eisner. Eisner has gone through a whole crapload of executives; and all the evidence I've seen suggests that the more Eisner fingerprints on a project, the worse the result.

Pressler may be poorly assigned, but that's ultimately Eisner's fault, too.

I have no confidence that executing Pressler helps, or even affects, anything important. In all my experience with bottles, I've found the necks are nearly universally at the top.

-WFH

[airlarry!]

Dang! A quick week vacation at the Beach...and I miss some of the best debates the board has seen in years...


Chad: WFH and Baron are correct in my mind. There is a change in your posts. My bones tell me it is a new attitude toward management, but since the 'search' function has conveniently been taken down--and I believe it is not a coincidence and you must have had something to do with that ;) ;) --I will let it rest a bit until I have my proof. Then the cross-ex will begin again... ;)

Since this post is about the 'ridiculousness' of a rumored park closing for an entire day a week, thought I'd pipe in. It is inconceivable and utterly ridiculous to believe that anyone in the company has even thought about this. It is as ludicrous as closing down a water park permanently (one actual Imagineers as detailed in Boys Life circa 1980 worked on), opening an entire land an hour later, opening an entire section of a park three hours later, shutting down hotels, putting logos on a park with a land that may never open (saw another one on the net last week at www.disney.com -- I can't believe the dragon is STILL in the AK logo!). None of these things have happened or will ever happen, right?

Do not lose faith in this company's ability to use a short-sighted fix on a long-term problem. They would never say "WE WILL PERMANENTLY CLOSE ANIMAL KINGDOM ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS." Never. They would say, just as they did with the DxL, "Due to the Economic Crisis/War on Terrorism/War with Iraq/Upcoming Eisner Bonus/Whatever we regret to announce limited closings of Animal Kingdom while we continue to refurbish the park."


Oh yeah, AV's record speaks for itself. 'Nuff said. Chad's close, though. ;) I just think his law degree gets in the way... ;) ;)