PDA

View Full Version : WDW Dining Changes - Any Conspiracy Theories Out There?


DisneyKidds
03-13-2003, 04:51 PM
Two messages on the machine today. Both involving changes to our May priority seatings.

Here are the details (on our changes at least). 1900 Park Fare used to start serving breakfast at 7:30 am. 1900 Park Fare now opens at 8:00 am. Donalds Breakfastosaurus used to serve until 10:30. 10:00 is now the latest available priority seating. In addition to the changes that affect us personally, the Hollywood and Vine breakfast is closing, and there are other rumored changes.

So, is this an attempt to shorten hours, pay less staff time, and save a buck at the expense and inconvenience of the guest, or are these innocuous "operational changes" (as they call them)?

cindyfan
03-13-2003, 05:42 PM
At least they are just shortening the hours and not cancelling them.....for now anyway.
We have PS at H & V for April. When I heard it was cancelling the breakfast and lunch....I called.
I was told that they would be calling the guests and offering another character meal such as Chef Mickeys or Cape May. But our plan was to be at MGM that day.
Anyway the CM felt strongly that this would be replaced with something else. Not sure how reliable she was????
So I just left my PS and said I would wait til they called me.
So, is this an attempt to shorten hours, pay less staff time, and save a buck at the expense and inconvenience of the guest
Hate to say it, but IMHO....yes!

What are the other rumored changes????

dzneelvr
03-13-2003, 08:40 PM
Definitely ways to cut costs without taking the product away altogether.
When you read other threads about the low levels of attendance since we went on orange alert, I'm sure WDW is trying to shorten the time spans on most services that require larger staffs in order to be cost efficient.
I grew up believing that Disney had a bottomless pocket and that NOTHING would ever impact them as far as what they could spend-- after all, Disney is magical-- unlike the situations those of us in the real world have to live with.
Unfortunately, Disney spends real dollars too and they are hurting right now.
I, for one, accept shortened hours rather than face a consequence of closing something down altogether. I'm thankful only H & V is impacted right now (and I wonder what the attendance levels for that were over the past 6 months....)
Look at some of the stock prices of major companies right now--they are at levels they haven't seen in 10 years, in some cases ever. It is a different economy and WDW is only trying to do what it can to get through it .
:earsgirl: :earsboy: :earsboy: :earsgirl:

BRERALEX
03-13-2003, 11:32 PM
"And to think, it all started with a chicken finger."

YoHo
03-14-2003, 12:53 AM
I grew up believing that Disney had a bottomless pocket and that NOTHING would ever impact them as far as what they could spend-- after all, Disney is magical-- unlike the situations those of us in the real world have to live with.

Disneyland and Walt Disney World Have gone through tourist spells like this before.

The difference was that back then the company just did everything they could to give you more reasons to come now they give you less.


Of course back then they also made good movies and didn't own bad broadcast and cable networks...

crusader
03-14-2003, 09:18 AM
"And to think, it all started with a chicken finger."

"chicks with bricks"

WDWHound
03-14-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by BRERALEX
"And to think, it all started with a chicken finger."
Yes, but more and more it seems like Mr Eisner is giving us the finger.

wtg2000
03-14-2003, 09:57 AM
Disney used to be a company, now it's a holding company. I think there's a difference.

I used to love breakfast at Tony's in the MK - no longer serving, Garden Grill in EPCOT - no longer serving, H&V in MGM - now a character but I think no longer serving.

My solution - I buy power bars at the grocery store and bring them with me!

DisneyKidds
03-14-2003, 11:35 AM
Shortening hours of restaurant operation only makes sense if the restaurant is hardly being visited during the former hours.
Scoop, you know I agree with you in principle here, but in reality...............

I can't tell you how many times we've gone to breakfast at 1900 Park Fare at 7:30 am. Lack of demand is not an issue in that one.

I'll give you that on Breakfastosaurus. We have often done breakfast at 10:30 and it is most definitely wound down by then. Of course, that is one of the reasons we liked doing it at that time. Anywho, Disney saves nothing by shutting down breakfast at 10:00 as the place is open for lunch and it's not like they can avoid paying staff from 10:00 to 12:00.

I'll refrain from saying anything more at this time so Baron doesn't fling the door open and invite me in ;). I feel like I have him sitting on one of my shoulders, chiming in my ear "chip, chip, chip". :eek:. All in all, this change is pretty understandable and isn't that bad. Of course some will point out that Disney has never been about making such statements :(.

All Aboard
03-14-2003, 12:02 PM
Kidds, I think WDW can save on staff at Rest...rus by closing a half hour early. It seems that the staff required at the character breakfast is much greater than when the place turns into a Mickey D's for lunch.

KNWVIKING
03-14-2003, 12:17 PM
So if demands are low and WDW reduces hours at certain restaruants,that's a bad thing. But if demand is high,ie CG, and they add tables to accomodate more guests,that's also a bad thing.

DisneyKidds
03-14-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by gcurling
Kidds, I think WDW can save on staff at Rest...rus by closing a half hour early. It seems that the staff required at the character breakfast is much greater than when the place turns into a Mickey D's for lunch.
You are right..............so the sons-a-******* did do it to save a buck ;).
If there really was a large demand, then the reason must either be that Disney hasn't done a good job control the costs of the meal and/or Disney isn't charging enough for the meal.
I'm not so sure Sccop. First off, I don't believe that 1900 PF is operating in the read. Perhaps on a spreadsheet they found a smidge of red from the 7:30 to 8:00 hour. Far be it from me to take over for AV in the "don't manage by spreadsheets" category, but changing operating hours based on this type of analysis is a dangerous game. You see, we are just as likely to skip the breakfast than we are to go at 8:00. You see, if we go at 8:00 we wouldn't make it to the MK by opening. With hours as short as they are we can't afford that. So, Disney may lose whatever revenue that was being generated between 7:30 and 8:00. People will either choose not to go, or won't be able to because of that defined capacity you mention. If PF was operating in the red before 8am they probably don't care about the lost revenue. However, there will ge guests (how many I don't know - but I've seen a lot of people at PF between 7:30 and 8:00) that will care about a little piece of lost magic.

ps - I know, I know BaronMatt - but don't open the door just yet as I'm not ready to jump ;).

All Aboard
03-14-2003, 12:32 PM
Sure, if you have 800 guests during your operating hours (which will accomodate 1000 guests) you can reduce your operating hours down to that which is just enough to accomodate 800 guests.

Best plan for the bottom line. But, the guests choice of dining time has been reduced. And, the liklihood of a longer wait for a table gets increased.

It's just that tricky cost/service matrix Disney deals with all the time. Just seems like cost is really winning a lot these days.

mudhen
03-14-2003, 12:48 PM
A nickel here..........a dime there..............
Just makes me wonder how the corporate side can
justify these types of moves to "shore up the bottome line" while at the same time award Eisner
another multi-million dollar bonus.

Great quote from earlier...."The difference was back then Disney did everything they could to give you more reasons to come back, now they just give you less."

Amen to that.

wtg2000
03-14-2003, 04:18 PM
Between Eisner's bonuses, the money paid to Katzenberg and Ovitz, the money that has to be paid for lawsuits for the Wide World of Sports and perhaps Pooh, and the one billion dollar loss in go.com - they have to get the money from somewhere! I mean, Are You Hot? can only generate so much revenue!

Another Voice
03-14-2003, 05:00 PM
"I mean, Are You Hot? can only generate so much revenue!"

Which will now all go to pay off the lawsuit Howard Stern just filed over the show.

One gets the feeling Disney would make more money if they just shut everything down and put Eisner's bonus into a passbook savings account.

KNWVIKING
03-14-2003, 05:14 PM
Why would Stern be sueing ? Sounds out of charactor for him.

tracyeliza
03-14-2003, 05:41 PM
I recieved a call from a cm the other day telling me I could not keep my 750 breakfast Easter morning at 1900 park fare. I made this reservation 120 days out! They state that they don't start seating until 800. They could not reschedule me for later because they are booked. Well I guess so now that it is less than 40 days out. They tried to push me into breakfast at O''hana but I will be there for dinner that night. I ended up with a booking much less desirable that the one that I went out of my way in advance to secure. I guess you could say I was disappointed and a bit angry. The thought had crossed my mind that this was due to "cuts" Reading this just convinces me that it is true......sigh! Tracy

wtg2000
03-14-2003, 05:45 PM
If Park Faire is booked, why are they cutting hours?

KNWVIKING
03-14-2003, 05:48 PM
It's so popular nobody goes there anymore...too crowded.

wtg2000
03-14-2003, 06:38 PM
What makes less sense is that you had a 7:50 but they can't bump you to 8! Wouldn't you still have been using your table at 8, or did they think you would eat breakfast in 10 minutes? That puts the "fast" in breakfast. One more reason I'm glad I'm bringing power bars!

raidermatt
03-14-2003, 07:35 PM
I recieved a call from a cm the other day telling me I could not keep my 750 breakfast Easter morning at 1900 park fare...They could not reschedule me for later because they are booked.

Care to explain that one with your demand theory, Scoop?

DVC-Landbaron
03-14-2003, 08:31 PM
I don’t think anyone should really be surprised by this. After all, the parks (all of WDW especially) have a heavy burden put on them by the utter stupidity of the current regime. Failed Internet, ABC, Cable channels, rotten investments, golden parachutes, bonuses. You name it, WDW has to support it!! And in typical fashion they are killing the golden goose!!

Let me just point out a few important points that was in a recent post of the newest member of car #3!!
I don't believe that 1900 PF is operating in the read. Perhaps on a spreadsheet they found a smidge of red from the 7:30 to 8:00 hour.Chip!
Far be it from me to take over for AV in the "don't manage by spreadsheets" category, but changing operating hours based on this type of analysis is a dangerous game.Chip, chip.
You see, we are just as likely to skip the breakfast than we are to go at 8:00. You see, if we go at 8:00 we wouldn't make it to the MK by opening.Chip, chip, chip!!!
With hours as short as they are we can't afford that.Chip, chip and double chip!!
So, Disney may lose whatever revenue that was being generated between 7:30 and 8:00. People will either choose not to go, or won't be able to because of that defined capacity you mention. If PF was operating in the red before 8am they probably don't care about the lost revenue. Chip, chip-ity, chip, chip - - chip, chip!!
However, there will be guests (how many I don't know - but I've seen a lot of people at PF between 7:30 and 8:00) that will care about a little piece of lost magic.CHIP!!!
ps - I know, I know BaronMatt - but don't open the door just yet as I'm not ready to jumpOh I don’t know! Maybe this is finally your last straw. Maybe your wall is now complete!! (mother, did it need to be so – high!)

DisneyKidds
03-14-2003, 10:24 PM
Oh I don’t know! Maybe this is finally your last straw. Maybe your wall is now complete!!
Thought you'd appreciate my post Herr Baron. With......without..........and after all, it's what the fightings all about ;). I do have to say that being without my priority seatings has moved me closer to hitching a ride in your bus. Often I have been heard to say that the cuts, the changes, all this "stuff" hasn't had a significant impact on my family.......................maybe this one does. Is this my straw? No - but it is sad that I actually have to think for a few seconds before I provide that answer.

I'll tell you one thing, I may be tilting toward being a 'hit 'em in the wallet' person. We won't do PF at 8:00. Sure, we'll probably spend the money on some other Disney meal, but maybe not - maybe we'll stock up on a little more food in the villa this time around. Combine that with the fact that I'm not going to support the NYC MTA fare increases effective May 1 by driving as opposed to taking mass transit and I'll see how it really feels to fight back :). Hopefully I won't be biting off my nose to spite my face.

DVC-Landbaron
03-14-2003, 10:51 PM
Thought you'd appreciate my post Herr Baron. With......without..........and after all, it's what the fightings all aboutTo be read in a Bill or Ted (as in excellent adventure) voice:

“Whoa! Totally excellent Floyd reference, dude!!”

Sure, we'll probably spend the money on some other Disney meal, but maybe not - Nah! You will. I do. That’s the beauty of their system. It works!! It makes it very hard to logically argue the point. Because in the short-term it works quite well. They’ve got you (us) and they know it!! And even if they lose you, they figure they’ve got two or three just chompin’ at the bit to take your place, forking over as much as they demand.

Of course long-term that policy is a disaster. But something tells me they really don’t care about anything that is counted in years! Days, weeks and perhaps a quarter is the furthest they’ve ever thought or planned!!

Anyway, anytime you’re ready to make the leap…

… the car is warmed up and ready to go… Wish you were here!!

DisneyKidds
03-14-2003, 11:12 PM
“Whoa! Totally excellent Floyd reference, dude!!”
Well, it does seem you must be playing a lot of Floyd in your car.........so maybe.

You know, with Disney lately, sometimes I just feel like........I don't know..............perhaps..................

...........when I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse (of what Disney was supposed to be) out of the corner of my eye. (But lately) I turned to look but it was gone. I cannot put my finger on it now, the child has grown, the dream is gone.......I.....I.....I.......I've become comfortably numb (to the changes and disappointments)..................

MiaSRN62
03-14-2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by cindyfan
At least they are just shortening the hours and not cancelling them.....for now anyway.
We have PS at H & V for April. When I heard it was cancelling the breakfast and lunch....I called.
I was told that they would be calling the guests and offering another character meal such as Chef Mickeys or Cape May. But our plan was to be at MGM that day.
Anyway the CM felt strongly that this would be replaced with something else. Not sure how reliable she was????
So I just left my PS and said I would wait til they called me.

Hate to say it, but IMHO....yes!

What are the other rumored changes????
Am I understanding correctly that it's not just the breakfast but also the character lunch at H&V that is being cancelled ? Wasn't this the only character meal offered for lunch at MGM ? This past September we did lunch here and found it to be quite busy. Even with our ps for three we had a wait of 30 minutes or so to be seated. So I'm suprised this character meal is coming to an end.

Another Voice
03-14-2003, 11:56 PM
".......................maybe this one does."

And so begins the journey from viewing Disney as a fan to seeing it as it really is.

I wrote in another thread (I think) that the hardest part about working in the movie business is understanding what one likes is separate from what may be good and the reserve (dislike is not the same as bad).

The same applies here. In just about any thread around here there will be people who claim that an action is required because "Disney is a business". Yet often times reading down through their postings it could be argued what they're really saying is "I don't use that perk, so I really don't care that it's gone".

But to really understand Disney Is A Business (I should file for the trademark), you have to see how the change affects that majority of guests, not just one's personal preference. I've never eaten a chicken finger in a Disney theme park and I couldn't care less if they serve two or a dozen, but I can certainly see where many people will see this move as a reduction in value received for their money. I think the 'Timekeeper' show is pedantic and uninteresting, but I understand how the loss of even bad attractions hurts a park's operations. I think the Contemporary observation deck is one of the worst places to watch the MK fireworks, but I know there are a lot of people who find it "magical".

The primary offering of any business is choice. Disney is bit by bit by bit removing choices: a half hour to eat breakfast here, a shop over there, a show closed today. Even if you could care less about the specific cut it should be very clear that reduced choices reduces the value to many others. If there are enough of those others then the business will be in serious trouble.

DisneyKidds
03-15-2003, 12:23 AM
Even if you could care less about the specific cut it should be very clear that reduced choices reduces the value to many others. If there are enough of those others then the business will be in serious trouble.
I hear ya, AV ;). Thing is, even though I could care less about certain specific cuts, it has always been clear to me that the cuts reduce value to others and that Disney is about more than just me.

We can talk about two things around here.

One would be 'is this bad for Disney the business?' You know what, I think the answer to that question is no for just about all the things we kick around here. Why? Well, despite low attendance as of late, the people will come. Disney will make money. Disney will survive. That leads us to the second question.........

'Is this bad relative to Disney's history, and future, of being a unique, magical destination?'. Well, the answer to this one is a whole other story. Some things we talk about I'd say yes, some I'd say no. That's not just from a personal perspective, it really does consider impacts on other quests. Quite honestly, different people find unique magic in different things.

Alas, I do agree that Disney is narrowing the gap between themselves and all the others. That is unfortunate. However, it isn't enough for me to move to car #3 just yet. I'll tell you though, Disney is working on getting me there :(.

WEDWAY100
03-15-2003, 10:47 AM
I think that AV is correct about the way the cuts impact each guest in different ways, and I believe that the accumulation of cuts can eventually have a severe impact on attendance. But it's not all of the cuts that bother me most.

Let's suppose that Ei$ner gets whacked by a hit man, hired by a mouse in dark sunglasses. :smooth: A new CEO is hired, who truly "GETS IT" in every Walt way. It appears to me that it would be relatively easy to re-institute many of the cuts. Put another chicken finger in the basket, open the restaurant an hour earlier, dust off the AA figures in the COP and push the start button. There. The cuts are gone. I realize that guest perception has been damaged. But the Disney that I know and love has been returned. Almost.

But...what is that new CEO going to do with Dinorama, or Paradise Pier. The truly un-Disney things that are being added to WDW/DL/DLP in concrete and steel. Oh sure, that CEO could bulldoze the whole thing and start over. But that's not quite as easy as taking a few tables out of the CG lounge.

At this point, I would actually prefer to see them stop adding new attractions until they can get a handle on this. Maybe MSpace and MPhilharmagic will change my mind. But I doubt it.

wtg2000
03-15-2003, 11:12 AM
When Eisner took over Disney it was a (relatively) small company, and he lots of experienced help like Frank Wells, and long time Disney people like Dick Nunis. Now, most of those people have gone and Disney is a major conglomerate. Also, it's tapped out a lot of its potential withe video boom and the massive development at WDW. It's possible that Eisner is in over his head. It happens all the time.

DVC-Landbaron
03-15-2003, 12:25 PM
Mr. Kidds!! Welcome to the dark side!!

We can talk about two things around here.I think this is what gets me into trouble around here. And it explains perfectly my schizophrenic mind set when it comes to Disney! Anyone who’s read my scathing essays regarding the current Disney philosophy and then sees one of my State of the Parks Addresses would think I’m nuts!! But believe me, it is possible. Two examples to illustrate (seeing Chinatown would help, metaphorically):

There is a place in EPCOT (my beloved EPCOT) that is an aberration to me. It does not fit!! Philosophically it is a disaster!! When I think about this blemish to my favorite park I cringe!! I HATE it!!! And yet, when I’m there, I cannot resist it. Every time I pass that damned Ice Station I stop in for a cool one! I hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)…I think you get the picture!

Second is E-Ticket Night! It runs counter to every fiber in my philosophical being!! And yet, I cannot resist! Again… I hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)… hate it… (slap)… Love it… (slap)…

And there are a myriad of other issues which I could not care less about. HOWEVER!!! I try to see them in a big picture, philosophical context. And I judge them accordingly. One such is the Observation Deck, or the restaurants trimming hours. I think over the past twenty years I’ve used the observation deck, always on the spur of the moment, perhaps five times. Two of which were on the last trip in July. I think having almost a month there had something to with it. What spurred the issue on the other thread was that my wife, again on the spur of the moment as she just happened to be going to the contemporary at about that time for dinner, was denied access. And that just blew me away. Not personally. I happen to agree that it’s not the best place in the world for fireworks. I much prefer the Poly, on the beach, sipping a tropical drink. But philosophically!! I was OUTRAGED!!! Once again Disney, where choices should abound, were limiting choices once again!

As for trimming restaurant hours! Ha! I’m still a teenager at heart. I stay up way too late and sleep in every chance I get! 7:30 is just too early for your friendly neighborhood LandBaron!! I could not feel more apathetic about an issue if I tried!! But again, that’s only personally!! On a philosophical level this move reeks of UN-Magic and ANTI-Dust!!! And again, they are limiting choices and CRAMMING everyone into smaller time periods, insuring maximum guest discomfort, all for the sake of a couple of bucks!!

Now, you say they are two separate things that we discuss:
One would be 'is this bad for Disney the business?' You know what, I think the answer to that question is no for just about all the things we kick around here. Why? Well, despite low attendance as of late, the people will come. Disney will make money. Disney will survive. That leads us to the second question.........

'Is this bad relative to Disney's history, and future, of being a unique, magical destination?'. Well, the answer to this one is a whole other story. Some things we talk about I'd say yes, some I'd say no. That's not just from a personal perspective, it really does consider impacts on other quests. Quite honestly, different people find unique magic in different things.I disagree! I think the two are inextricably woven together.

“Is it bad for Disney the business?” is very, very much the question in the context of it being a unique, magical destination. Yes. In the short term they can increase profits. Yes. They can generate momentary interest in a new addition. Yes. They can defer maintenance, make all the stores the same, cut out valet parking, split EPCOT into two parks and create dark days for the parks. And in the short term they will increase profits. But at the same time they are lowering the bar, diving to match their competition and creating long-term DISsatisfaction that will not only hurt the long-term bottom line, but may very well kill it!!

This, From Another Voice, sums up my view on the subject to a tee!! The primary offering of any business is choice. Disney is bit by bit by bit removing choices: a half hour to eat breakfast here, a shop over there, a show closed today. Even if you could care less about the specific cut it should be very clear that reduced choices reduces the value to many others. If there are enough of those others then the business will be in serious trouble.That’s all I’ve ever been trying to say here. Which is why I try to speak “philosophically” and NOT personally!!

But...what is that new CEO going to do with Dinorama, or Paradise Pier. The truly un-Disney things that are being added to WDW/DL/DLP in concrete and steel. Oh sure, that CEO could bulldoze the whole thing and start over. But that's not quite as easy as taking a few tables out of the CG lounge.It’s OK! Baby steps. One thing at a time!! It took us eighteen years to get to this point. I suspect it will take us more than a few years to get back on the right path.

It's possible that Eisner is in over his head.He’s been over his head since the easy answer of opening up the film library to video idea ran out of gas!! He is INEPT!! (sorry for the broken record refrain!!)

Again, Mr. Kidds!! WELCOME ABOARD!!!

KNWVIKING
03-15-2003, 01:35 PM
In a small blurb in your last post you mention that sitting on the beach at Poly is a favorite place to view fireworks. I never knew about that spot but now I think I'll try it out and pass the word on the other boards.Soon, thousands of us seeking the magic will swarm to the Poly and infest the beach. What would you advise Poly management to do about this problem ?

DVC-Landbaron
03-15-2003, 01:50 PM
What would you advise Poly management to do about this problem ?
Handle it with magic, creativity, pixie dust and an eye toward guest satisfaction and exceeding expectations which, out of all the companies in the world, only Disney knew how to do. I never said that everyone had to be happy with every little detail of every solution to every sticky problem. But we do need to be happy that in the grand scale of things, big picture wise and most importantly philosophically, they did it the “Disney” way.

I'm terribly afraid that if this happens under the current management they'll restrict access, block the view and sell tickets!! Hey!! For those willing to pay for it is MAGIC indeed!!!

And that is the 'philosophical' difference!

KNWVIKING
03-15-2003, 04:56 PM
Great words,but REALLY, what do you do. As leader of the car 3's, one of those that "get it", what do you do? Let me add that this is not a sarcastic or loaded question.

Poly is only so large,beach so big. Your the manager and Mr Smith, whose paying $$$$$ to stay at Poly, just came to you complaining that six monorail trains loaded with AS resort guests have been ruining his resort experience every night down at the beach. How do you fix this without offending someone. And lets assume you would never consider charging admission to the beach. What are some practical solutions where no one gets cheated out of their magic ?

DVC-Landbaron
03-15-2003, 05:41 PM
Great words, but REALLY, what do you do?They are great words. And I’m really not trying to be evasive. But in all honesty, I’m NOT very creative! If you notice I never play the “What if” games around here. I don’t design monorail tracks. I don’t theme rides. I’m not particularly good at story telling.

I would have never thought up something as wonderful as the haunted mansion! I would have been stuck in the mindset of local Halloween haunted houses and never considered that an amusing story which wasn’t all that scary could be used! I would have NEVER thought little Christmas lights on a parade float could be sooooo captivating! And the concept of ‘fastpass’ would have eluded me forever! Maybe that’s why I’m such a sucker when it comes to Disney magic! Although I cannot create it, I recognize it, and appreciate it for what it is!!
As leader of the car 3's, one of those that "get it", what do you do? Let me add that this is not a sarcastic or loaded question.I know you’re not trying to be sarcastic, but it is a loaded question. And as such I will give you my best answer!

Really, what I would do if I were head mouse (and not merely the driver for car #3)!?!? Let’s look at it!
How do you fix this without offending someone?Well, I think that is your first mistake! You just may have to offend someone. As I said in the previous post,
“I never said that everyone had to be happy with every little detail of every solution to every sticky problem. But we do need to be happy that in the grand scale of things, big picture wise and most importantly philosophically, they did it the “Disney” way.”

And I mean that.

And let’s assume you would never consider charging admission to the beach. What are some practical solutions where no one gets cheated out of their magic?Here’s the second mistake. Someone may be disappointed, but NO ONE will be ‘cheated’!!!

So, back the point. What would I do as CEO of Disney. Well…

I would throw the task to my creative problem solver, the man I hired within the first half hour of landing the job. That’s right, AV would charged with the responsibility of finding an equitable solution!! After all, that’s why I’m paying him the big bucks!!

And after he has set about drafting a plan he would take it to his associates, Sir Matt, Sir Larry and of course the resourceful and inventive Frozen One (who were also hired within the first hour)!! They would improve the plan and take it to our “pixie dusted” bean counter, Gcruling. He would growl about the cost but I would override him!! And then as you said in your heading…

… “magic, creativity, pixie dust” would truly thrive at the Poly!! As for the nuts and bolts… Hell!! I’m a perfect manager!! I delegate!! But with authority!!

crusader
03-15-2003, 08:56 PM
I would throw the task to my creative problem solver, the man I hired within the first half hour of landing the job. That’s right, AV would charged with the responsibility of finding an equitable solution!! After all, that’s why I’m paying him the big bucks!!

Well unfortunately for us AV is not handling that department. But thank goodness the real key problem solvers were intuitive enough to cut back on the food so they could continue to reward themselves with those big bucks!

Less food and magic for the quests - more bonus money for the key players at Co headquarters. Sounds pretty equitable to me.

Oh and lets not forget how expensive our legal department has become over these past 35 years. I don't think Walt's initial model factored in the correct rate of inflation on litigation and insurance.

Yes you are feeling the effects of costs continually being pushed down to the consumer level. Why would Disney be impervious to this reality? Suppose the company did change control and reinstated many things which were once taken away. Are those in favor now willing to pay the extra money it will cost to maintain the mandated profit margins? The reality is, the top execs do not typically take the cut until the company is sunk. That means everyone else pays! You can wish all you want, dream away, and continue to believe in pixie dust but every time you visit reality bites!

KNWVIKING
03-15-2003, 09:09 PM
Actually,no,it doesn't ! Despite all the negatives I read on this board, the World has NEVER disappointed me. I have great meals. I see great shows. I admire imacculate landscaping. I enjoy Spaceship Earth,World of Energy,TTA and all those other old, slow, boring to some, rides. Guess what,the new coaster in AK, it's fun. Just because it isn't in a three acre warehouse with the lights turned off doesn't mean it's not a fun ride. People can brag up US/IOA all they want...it aint even close to WDW.

Eyesnur
03-16-2003, 08:54 AM
Great post Mr. Viking. WDW is still what it is to most people and though detractors can discuss issues like attendance though this is still just a short term view. It takes years of statistics (not just one) to evaluate the realities and ramificatins of the trend.

As for PW at AK, my family agrees that this is just fun. We certainly hope the trend (toward the simplistic) stops but there is certainly room for all typs of entertainment and attractions (i.e., if the Mountain is ever built at AK, PW is just gravey).

As for your scenerio with the Poly, I know exactly here you're going and you are absolutey correct. When the situation becomes cumbersome at the Poly, Disney will have CM's checking Poly ID's to access this area. Others will be directed elsewhere, back to the MK perhaps. Some wll be unhappy but the guests of the Polynesian will be happier because of it.

The CG is a fantastic piece of WDW and happens to also be very lucrative. D-R did a GREAT job of exposing the problems (crowds, elevators & confusion) and Disney handled it absolutely properly. They closed the area so only those using the CG facilities had the privalage (after all the CG ledger is footing the bill for this space).

Lastly, please remember that this viewing point was never much more than happenstance or afterthought as evidenced by the utilitarian existence. When a planned perk is intended has Disney ever done this? This is really a non-event and a sign of nothing but good management at work and lets face it, with all of the apparant boneheaded decisions lately they should at least get credit for good problem solving when it's accomplished...

MiaSRN62
03-16-2003, 10:35 AM
As for your scenerio with the Poly, I know exactly here you're going and you are absolutey correct. When the situation becomes cumbersome at the Poly, Disney will have CM's checking Poly ID's to access this area. Others will be directed elsewhere, back to the MK perhaps. Some wll be unhappy but the guests of the Polynesian will be happier because of it.
I feel anyone who patronizes the Poly should have access to the beach if they want. Dining and shopping all put money in the resort's pocket. I know, in the past, we have gone to the Luau or O'Hana's and afterwards, took a stroll down to the beach. The day that CM's start escorting guests like me off the beach will be the day they will lose alot of business from guests that enjoy a meal or shopping. I just hope it never gets to this point.

Eyesnur
03-16-2003, 11:37 AM
Maria, if you were staying at the Poly and, as Mr. Viking hypothosized, tram after tram of monorail guests arrived from the MK to watch the freworks on their way out this would be ok wth you?

No one said this "dreamed up" policy woudn't or couldn't include patrons of 'Ohana for example, but what if, just what if the crowd got so bad every night that the guests staying at the Poly could no longer find room on the beach? Do you think the Poly management should care for guests like yourself, who visit the parks, have an occasional meal at 'Ohana or the actual Resort guest themselves? This is just logic... The Poly management would have to institute this type of restriction or seriously risk the loss of repeat guests. It is exactly the same as handing control of the Observation Deck at the Contemporary over to the CG (or risk losing repeat restaurant patrons) or the wrist bands that keep out interlopers at SAB (or risk pool ovecowding and the potential for unhappy paying guests)...

These are no-brainer decisons that keep the magic alive for the guests intended..

DVC-Landbaron
03-16-2003, 11:57 AM
Suppose the company did change control and reinstated many things which were once taken away.So in other words, just to be sure I understand you, you’re saying that Disney puts in a CEO that “Gets It”. Right? And he “reinstates many things which were once taken away”. OK! I’m with you!!
Are those in favor now willing to pay the extra money it will cost to maintain the mandated profit margins?STOP!! HOLD THE PHONE!!!! TIMEOUT!!!

I thought we agreed that this guy at the top – GOT IT!! Then that means that he also ‘GETS” that Disney in the market to ‘create’ magic, not ‘distribute’ product!! Therefore ABC is GONE!!! See! Isn’t life wonderful!!?? And since there is no longer a black hole in the company sucking the park’s money, there is more than enough to satisfy even the greediest executives AND reinvest back into the parks! WOW!! So simple!!

It won’t happen overnight, but the premise is these people at the top – Get It!! Without that caveat you are right!! It’s just more slippery slope!!

Guess what, the new coaster in AK, it's fun.It very well may be fun. In Chicago (well just outside, actually) is a fun little place called Kiddyland. There are a whole bunch of rides there that are ‘fun’!! And they are “themed” just like the ride you mentioned. The only problem I can see is that the ‘theme’ is accidental. It’s just the way it is. And as far as ‘fun’ is concerned, every carnival in the world captures that kind of fun. Is that your idea of where Disney should set its standards??

People can brag up US/IOA all they want...it ain’t even close to WDW.I agree!! Pirates, Splash, Haunted Mansion, ToT, CoP, R&RC, even Small World is why “it ain’t even close to WDW”. It is certainly not the AK roller coaster that sets them apart. In fact, that ride brings them closer together. And isn’t that disappointing!!??

Great post Mr. Viking.I suspect that what really makes this post ‘great’ in Mr. Eyesnur’s eye is not really what you said, so much as you disagreed with me!!
(i.e., if the Mountain is ever built at AK, PW is just gravy).That’s a mighty big IF, isn’t it? What on earth leads you to even guess that such a thing is in the offing?

(after all the CG ledger is footing the bill for this space).And isn’t it sad that these ‘profit centers’ came into existence in the first place. I truly believe that WDW was much better off when management had a global concept of the place. I guess you disagree!
lets face it, with all of the apparent boneheaded decisions lately they should at least get credit for good problem solving when it's accomplished...Hey Matt!!! Did you catch this sentence? Give him a couple of months! Before you know it he’ll follow Mr. Kidds right into the back seat of Car #3. It’s only a matter of time. Yeah, I know Mr. Eyesnur. Reality sucks!!

The Pirate and Captain have sailed to sea… Hmmmmmmmm…….. ;)

Eyesnur
03-16-2003, 12:48 PM
Fun IS good enough for Disney world. It can't be the end all and it can't be all they do but it IS OK TO JUST BE FUN once in awhile. Walt stole from everywhere. He picked what he liked and transported it to DL...If it was good enough for Walt..

No Mr. Baron, I would never disagree with you just because it's you...Well, almost never. We know your heart is in the right place, it's generally just the verbage that gets in the way.;) Mr Viking offerd a very good "what if" and I think it very pertinent how this 'what if' is answered...

Now onto my supposition on the new mountain at AK...You know that it will be built. The question is when. I will put a bright spin on anything they give during the dark times knowing that eventully things will once again turn around. I believe DCA will someday be a very good second banana to DL (heck, I like it fine right now)...And I see nothing wrong with PW as a second or third tier ride...It's just my outlook..

Your idea of a 'global concept' for WDW just isn't, IMO, a very practical idea. It becomes too hard to know what is working and what is dragging (financially speaking) and like it or not money does have to be the main impetus in running a conglomerate like Disney...

As for Car # 3, I'm afraid the Captain & Peter will never be heard from again (so they die Car twoers'...Unless they've been frozen), but it's still a bit farfetched to see me back there with you hooligans...I'm so disappointed in Mr. Kidds...:o

DVC-Landbaron
03-16-2003, 02:46 PM
Mr. Eyesnur,

Just two points. I won’t waste anyone’s time going over some of the points as it is very clear that we will never see eye to eye on any of this. Over two years and I haven’t made a dent!! I don’t need a house to fall on me! And the two following quotes are evidence enough for me to concede that we should, "agree to disagree”!!!
Fun IS good enough for Disney world. I couldn’t disagree more!! Philosophically, this is VERY dangerous thinking!
Now onto my supposition on the new mountain at AK...You know that it will be built. The question is when. I will put a bright spin on anything they give during the dark times knowing that eventually things will once again turn around.No! I do NOT know that it will be built! In fact I kinda doubt it will!! And you say that you put a bright spin an anything they give you… HEY!! Capt.. I mean Pet... I mean Mr. Eyesnur!!! THEY HAVEN’T GIVEN YOU ANYTHING!!! They aren’t even talking about it anymore, yet you post it as if it is a foregone conclusion!! That isn’t ‘spin’!! That’s ‘fantasy’!!!! And it borders on ‘delusional’!!

I'm so disappointed in Mr. Kidds... Oh! Please!! Don’t be disappointed! Mr. Kidds is just going through what every Disney fan goes through. I know I went through it. The Frozen One and AV went through it! Most recently my shotgun partner, Sir Matt went through it! Heck even good old Scoop is going through it (though he is reluctant to admit it). It happens when you become educated in a little of Disney history and finally see that the upper echelon of Disney doesn’t care one iota about the guest or the ‘experience’. They don’t care about creating or innovating. They don’t even care about the company’s profits. All they really do care about is what the public thinks is just barely good enough. And of course their personal wealth!

crusader
03-16-2003, 03:45 PM
Actually,no,it doesn't ! Despite all the negatives I read on this board, the World has NEVER disappointed me. I have great meals. I see great shows. I admire imacculate landscaping. I enjoy Spaceship Earth,World of Energy,TTA and all those other old, slow, boring to some, rides.

Actually, yes it does. You were overcharged for the shows, landscaping and the slow boring rides with your admission ticket. You were overcharged again for that "great " meal. Very little of that extra money you paid was reinvested in the "World". So while you continue to enjoy all those same non-disappointing things, remember how many things were cut back; removed or neglected so you weren't charged more real dollars for your redundant visit. That is reality, and that continues to bite!

KNWVIKING
03-16-2003, 04:40 PM
Because you have no idea what I paid for anything ! First, I don't measure my fun by the amount of money spent. Second, please tell me where you can get the WDW experience for less money, Six Flaggs ? As is so popular here: Puh-Leezzz.

This year I will get 32 days of magic from my AP's, just about $12.00 a day..boy did I get gouged. In Dec,DW and I bought the Candle Light package at Tappenyakie. I believe total price was $84.00 which got us steak,lobster,squid,shrimp,salad,beverage,dessert & tip as well as great seats to the CLP. Wow,did I ever get ripped off.

d-r
03-16-2003, 04:44 PM
No! I do NOT know that it will be built! In fact I kinda doubt it will!!


I had been doubting it, and I wish that it was beastly kingdom or the original plan for dinoland, rather than an addition to Asia, but I think it will be be built, and I think it will be high quality. My bet is an announcement on April 22.

DR

MiaSRN62
03-16-2003, 04:56 PM
Do you think the Poly management should care for guests like yourself, who visit the parks, have an occasional meal at 'Ohana or the actual Resort guest themselves? This is just logic... The Poly management would have to institute this type of restriction or seriously risk the loss of repeat guests.
Honestly, yeah.....if I drop $400 in less than 3 hours at this resort (and we did this in July 2002), yep, I do feel entitled to 20 minutes of standing on the beach. I know you and others probably don't agree and this is fine. I just know if I was escorted off, I wouldn't feel very much like the "welcomed guest" Disney wants me to be. I'm not saying let everyone unload from the trams and monorail to hang out and watch the fireworks, but people who have just patronized the hotel not 30 minutes prior I find exception---I do feel that 20 min of digging my toes in the sand is not uncalled for. But it's ok....should I ever be restricted I would never feel "welcomed" back at this resort. I would never shop or dine there again.
We had an experience in 1999 at Tony's restaurant in the MK. We walked into the lobby area where they take your name to be seated. I told them we were a party of 6 but just wanted coffee and desserts (I had a craving for bananas foster and a cappacino). In front of all the other guests there, the CM told us that they could not oblige us "simply for dessert" and that we could grab dessert down at the Main Street Bakery if we so chose. Our family easily could have spent $50 there on desserts/drinks/coffe. I was literally embarrassed being sent away like that in front of all those people. I felt very much less than "welcomed guest". This experience has always stuck with me and I've never set foot in there again. So, if the Poly were to ask me to leave the beach area after dining there, I would not lose sleep over it. I doubt it would stop me from returning to WDW on vacation, but with every little slap in the face like these experiences, the so-called magic wanes a little more.

KNWVIKING
03-16-2003, 05:16 PM
..The hypothetical scenerio I laid out wasn't meant to debate who has rights to the beach but rather the hard choices management must make when situations get out of hand. While I am no fan of ME I also don't think he sits back and tries to think of ways to screw guests. Some here believe the sole reason the Observation deck is now closed to the general public is because ME is trying to squeeze more money from CG by adding more tables,(in some respect I think you're giving him too much credit for realizing a way to make money). I, being a Car 1.5 tend to believe that CG is a great restaurant, made Zagat's list, and to allow more guests the opportunity to experience it,added more tables. Are 200 paying guests more profitable then 100 guests? Yes. Is this bad,decietfull,underhanded,etc ? No. Are hoards of people trapesing(sp) thru the restaurant to get a peek at the fireworks "bad show" for those dinner guests ? Yes. What should management have done ?

crusader
03-16-2003, 05:18 PM
I thought we agreed that this guy at the top – GOT IT!! Then that means that he also ‘GETS” that Disney in the market to ‘create’ magic, not ‘distribute’ product!! Therefore ABC is GONE!!! See! Isn’t life wonderful!!?? And since there is no longer a black hole in the company sucking the park’s money, there is more than enough to satisfy even the greediest executives AND reinvest back into the parks! WOW!! So simple!!

Excellent -
He "gets it" alright - in options; perks; bonuses and vip status. But I doubt seriously that there ever will be a cap on how much money it takes to satisfy an executive's greed. So unfortunately, even if the black hole is obliterated, the parks will not be revamped unless the empire restructures itself and removes several top layers.

Another option would be to blind us with pixie dust so everything will continue to go on unnoticed.

crusader
03-16-2003, 05:32 PM
I was literally embarrassed being sent away like that in front of all those people. I felt very much less than "welcomed guest". This experience has always stuck with me and I've never set foot in there again. So, if the Poly were to ask me to leave the beach area after dining there, I would not lose sleep over it. I doubt it would stop me from returning to WDW on vacation, but with every little slap in the face like these experiences, the so-called magic wanes a little more.

This is all part of that disillusionment process a WDW visitor finds themselves in. The conflict is in reconciling that welcomed guest feeling you had when you gave them your deposit money with the not so royal experience you felt when you tried to enjoy something simple.

MiaSRN62
03-16-2003, 05:36 PM
..The hypothetical scenerio I laid out wasn't meant to debate who has rights to the beach but rather the hard choices management must make when situations get out of hand.
No, you're right.....it's not worth debating this. Doubt this situation would ever become a reality---especially since tourism is down as of late.
Of course management has difficult choices, I agree. Unfortunately, I'm not certain they always make the right ones, though on average I believe they do. I was just giving the perspective from the side of the "welcomed guest".....how they are impacted. I think perhaps in a situation such as throngs of people hanging on the Poly beach, that maybe management could check resort ID cards and PS lists. Anyone that could not "prove" they had a reason to be at the resort maybe asked to leave. Because I can honestly say I've never eaten at a restaurant located inside a hotel, and immediately after dinner been asked to leave the premises ? It's just not good business ? But, IF it should ever come to this, which I doubt, I would suppose management would be doing the best they could under the situation. Let's hope it never comes to this though.

KNWVIKING
03-16-2003, 05:42 PM
See,that's the point I'm trying to make. It's very easy to sit at home and poetically type "how dare they", but the truth of the matter is there aren't always good,easy,answers to problems that arise.

MiaSRN62
03-16-2003, 05:49 PM
It's very easy to sit at home and poetically type "how dare they", but the truth of the matter is there aren't always good,easy,answers to problems that arise.
And I absolutely agree with you KNWVIKING. This is why for every action there is always a distinct reaction. Disney and Guests will need to learn to adjust and live with this (changes/policies etc). Neither may be satisfied with the end that the means may bring. And honestly, I'm sorry if this sounds poetic----I don't mean for it to be.

KNWVIKING
03-16-2003, 05:56 PM
I wasn't refering to you Maria.... not to say you can't be poetic :-)

crusader
03-16-2003, 06:00 PM
knwviking....

You are right. I have no idea what you paid and if you are an AP holder who can attend the parks from NJ for 32 days/year you may have felt some sense of savings during your visit(s).

There really is not any other place I can argue with you where you will get more for your money in theme park entertainment. Six Flags is an amusement park, not a theme park and is not popular because it is "soooo" great. It is visited because it is a quick day trip for a family which won't break someone's back to afford.

32 days in WDW is expensive. If you dined for $80/night that adds up. If you stayed onsite and had to travel in - that also adds up. There are ways to balance the budget with this type of vacation and you may very well be one visitor who takes advantage of those opportunities. My compliments.

The point of this thread is that you are losing things not gaining them for your money. The attractions need refurbishment - the parks need a facelift - the restaurants are cutting back. You may have felt a savings but in reality you may have just broke even.

MiaSRN62
03-16-2003, 06:08 PM
I wasn't refering to you Maria.... not to say you can't be poetic :-)
Got ya....I misunderstood. It was actually kinda cool there (for a second) that maybe my posts were a little poetic....;)

Another Voice
03-16-2003, 07:00 PM
"Disney and Guests will need to learn to adjust and live with this (changes/policies etc). "

Absolutely, positively, completely not.

Going to WDW is a personal choice, not a requirement or an obligation. I do not have to accept anything they choose to do. It's my money and I will keep it unless they do things that I am willing to pay for. It the burden of the business to please me – it is not my fate to lower my standards just because the CEO wants a higher bonus.

Judging from the attendance figures over the last three years, there appear to be millions of people who feel exactly the same way.

KNWVIKING
03-16-2003, 07:10 PM
"Judging from the attendance figures over the last three years, there appear to be millions of people who feel exactly the same way."

Or maybe they've lost their jobs, or their portfolio is in the toilet, or they're afraid to fly or travel.

MiaSRN62
03-16-2003, 08:44 PM
Absolutely, positively, completely not.
Going to WDW is a personal choice, not a requirement or an obligation. I do not have to accept anything they choose to do.
Well, to clarify.....this is what I meant. I meant, "if" people choose to go (it is not a requirement by any means), they will need to adapt to the new changes. Of course, we all have free choice to not accept any new management decisions and to not patronize Disney at all. My original post was referring to those people who decide to go along with this new flow of Disney budget cuts & policy changes. Alot of us may be less than impressed with some of these changes but still make the free choice to go to WDW. OTOH, I'm quite certain Disney will lose (has lost) some guests permanently for various reasons discussed here on these boards.

DisneyKidds
03-16-2003, 10:56 PM
I'm so disappointed in Mr. Kidds...
Don't fret, my 'less than car #3' compatriots, Mr. Kidds is not dead yet ;).

Ever see the movie The Patriot. The battle at the end, the colonial troops begin to break and run, Mel Gibson is a bit back from the front line, he sees the line falling, the men retreating, and he picks up the flag and charges forward. He fights more, gets wounded, but refuses to lose. So Mr. Kidds is wounded - but I am far from dead!! Just remember, the colonials won the battle, and the war. So shall we ;).

disneyholic family
03-16-2003, 11:19 PM
Disney is a business.....it was a business when Walt ran it and it's a business now...
would you rather they ran the thing into the ground and went bankrupt? (like several well known conglomerates have been doing this past year?)...

we go every year, and yes we're bothered by some stupid penny wise/dollar foolish sorts of decisions, but at the end of the day, it's a going concern and year in and year out provides my family with a wonderful escape from the real world....

as for restaurants/character meals...
we'll always miss the Melvin the Moose breakfast....our all time favorite...

DVC-Landbaron
03-17-2003, 12:20 AM
I am reluctant to start this mess again, but clearly there has been some misunderstanding! I don’t know how that could have happened after ten+ pages of (dare I say) “poetic” posts, but it did. So, once more - -With feeling!!
Some here believe the sole reason the Observation deck is now closed to the general public is because ME is trying to squeeze more money from CG by adding more tables,(in some respect I think you're giving him too much credit for realizing a way to make money).Ei$ner had nothing to do with it. Directly that is. Indirectly, however, he is ultimately responsible. He sets the agenda, tone and culture for the organization. The smart VPs and managers KNOW his mind or at least what he likes and does not like. They do their best to stay a step ahead of him or at least out of the line of fire and off his radar screen. In this it is no different from any other organization in the world!

What I assert is plain enough. Because it has been decreed that every square inch of WDW become a self sustaining profit center, managers, even middle and lower managers, are under very heavy pressure to increase profit AND cut costs.

Maybe you have to be a bit cynical, but the reason for the deck closure, under these circumstances is quite clear. A middle manage saw an opportunity to increase profits at the California Grill. He put up more tables. Pretty simple! He took a relatively unused portion of the lounge and crammed some tables into it. Even under the best of circumstances it would not have been my choice. It has the feel of the lounge and is quite separate from the dining room! Not the most optimum of choices! But, for a couple extra bucks they decided to do it.

But in doing so they created a huge traffic and crowd control problem. They greatly reduced the capacity of the lounge and more importantly narrowed, severely, the aisle to gain access to the deck. Of course this would become problematic!! And let’s face it, the deck hadn’t just become a popular hang out for the fireworks within the last six months. They knew that a lot of people enjoyed the view and made the nightly trek to the deck. What were they thinking?!?!

I’ll tell you. They did not care!! Plain and simple. Just didn’t care.

“Hmmmm”, they thought. “Paying customers that make me look like a hero because of a slightly better bottom line, or making life easy for the ingrates that don’t put a dime in my ledger books?”

Who do you think would win that battle?

Are 200 paying guests more profitable then 100 guests?Man!! I thought I was… ah… well… let’s say… “creative’, when it comes to numbers when I need to make a point!! But where in the heck did you ever pull out those figures!!

Are hoards of people trapesing(sp) thru the restaurant to get a peek at the fireworks "bad show" for those dinner guests ? Yes. What should management have done ?Simple!! Not put up the additional four to six tables for the greater good of WDW. Gee! That question was easy. Next!!

MiaSRN62 writes:
I'm sorry if this sounds poetic----I don't mean for it to be.Nah! I’m the one who’s ‘poetic’. But I don’t think it was meant as a compliment! But hey!! After dealing with DisDuck, The Pirate, The Captain, Eyesnur, Mr. Kidds and Scoop, I’ll take whatever I can get!! So I will take it as a compliment!! THANKS!!! :bounce:

”Judging from the attendance figures over the last three years, there appear to be millions of people who feel exactly the same way."

Or maybe they've lost their jobs, or their portfolio is in the toilet, or they're afraid to fly or travel.
Yeah, could be, but I doubt it. The economy, while certainly not stellar, isn’t as bad as your scenario would indicate.

I think it’s probably more along the lines of my sister-in-law. She is a Disney fan although not quite as big a fan as me. And she’s in a slightly less economic bracket. Her trips happened every four or five years. However, since Disney has severely cut back on hours (and over all choices) and has gotten even more expensive than before, she is now opting for a Disney vacation every six to seven years. And when she goes next time she’s planning on eating at least half of their meals outside of WDW. I’m afraid Disney has lost her. She’ll still plan on it for her kids, but the reality is, she’d rather not go at all!!

From my good friend and fellow car dweller, Mr. Kidds!!! Don't fret, my 'less than car #3' compatriots, Mr. Kidds is not dead yet NO!! Of course not!! You have seen the light and come alive, my friend!! It is only by knowing and accepting the truth, that you will really become happy!! I have a ball every time I go!! But I can also see the waste, lost potential, ineptness, lack of creativity and unmitigated greed. I just don’t let it interfere!! You’ll get the hang of it!! It just takes a little bit of practice!!

disneyholic family I have to ask a question. Disney is a business.....it was a business when Walt ran it and it's a business now...would you rather they ran the thing into the ground and went bankrupt? (like several well known conglomerates have been doing this past year?)...Do you think they would really be in danger of doing so? Do you think the things Walt did would eventually run the company into the ground? Do you think that by radically changing the Disney Philosophy they prevented a bankruptcy?

I don’t.

crusader
03-17-2003, 06:17 AM
we go every year, and yes we're bothered by some stupid penny wise/dollar foolish sorts of decisions, but at the end of the day, it's a going concern and year in and year out provides my family with a wonderful escape from the real world....

This may be the main reason there is not nearly enough being reinvested into the parks. The subtle changes are tolerated by the regular attendees. The money continues to be spent by these patrons year after year and there does not appear to be an imminent threat of that changing.

I do believe however, that the regulars aren't going to be enough to cover the bottom line. There has to be a reason for that once in a while traveller to attend. This is the person looking at the cost of this trip in a very real manner. They have probably been there before and are very aware of what is and what isn't being offered. You cannot sell them solely on hyped up magic and they do not necessarily feel that invisible pull that gets the disney lover to freely spend their hard earned money! .

KNWVIKING
03-17-2003, 09:20 AM
"Nah! I’m the one who’s ‘poetic’. But I don’t think it was meant as a compliment! "

Not as an insult either, just my sense of humor,( I also never learned how to use the all forgiving yellow happy faces).


"Yeah, could be, but I doubt it. The economy, while certainly not stellar, isn’t as bad as your scenario would indicate."

Or maybe it is. Didn't WDW's peek attendance figures coincide with peek DOW and NAS numbers. Doesn't the attendance now virtually mirror the decline of both markets ? Then throw in 9/11 and Iraq just for good measure. We Diz fanatics notice peeling paint,3 chicken fingers,observation deck,etc, and has it stopped us from going to the World ? Hasn't stopped me. I don't feel the vast majority is aware of the topics we discuss here and I don't think they are the major cause in attendance decline.



"Man!! I thought I was… ah… well… let’s say… “creative’, when it comes to numbers when I need to make a point!! But where in the heck did you ever pull out those figures!!"

Out of thin air,they were never presented as factual,just examples. Personally, I've never been to CG or the "deck". My only point of reference for those numbers basically came from you-your description of all the additional tables being "jammed" into CG. Now you state it's 4-6 table, I assumed many more.


") and has gotten even more expensive than before, she is now opting for a Disney vacation every six to seven years. "

No arguement, Disney is expensive and they have cut back. But I'm also reading of some pretty deeply discounted room offers out there, in the order of 40-50%. In the latest round of annual park ticket price increase, I read in the Or Sent that US/IOA & SW raised theirs,Disney did not. Restaurant prices across the nation vary greatly. I tend to eat at the more up-scale locations while at WDW and don't feel the prices are terribly out of line with my local dining choices.

Love to play more,but gotta get back to work.

raidermatt
03-17-2003, 12:57 PM
Fun IS good enough for Disney world. Is that the policy that got Disney to be Disney? PW is a complete joke as a Disney attraction. Yeah, its fun. But most of us can find that kind of fun within 100 miles of our homes. Why go any further?

I will put a bright spin on anything they give during the dark times knowing that eventully things will once again turn around. Let's get back to reality. This is not a fantasy movie that we've seen before. We do not know how this will turn out. There is no guarantee that the "dark times" will ever end. When you consider that these "dark times" are the direct result of the business model that management subscribes to, there's really no reason to even suspect it might end. Certainly one ride in AK (FM) wouldn't be enough to convince any reasonable person that the philosophy had changed. Even Eyesnur, I mean Eisner, knows you have to build something eventually.

...and like it or not money does have to be the main impetus in running a conglomerate like Disney... Yes, and I'd like to see them continue to make some of it. Like it or not, Disney parks and films are creative content driven. Focusing on financial goals does not produce creativity. But creativity can produce lots of money, and therefore meet those financial goals.

The hypothetical scenerio I laid out wasn't meant to debate who has rights to the beach but rather the hard choices management must make when situations get out of hand. An important piece of good managment is acting proactively, keeping situations from getting out of hand in the first place. Further, it does not settle for the easy solution. Of course, managing this way is not easy, and in many companies, its not even an expectation. That's one of the differences between average companies and exceptional ones.

Disney and Guests will need to learn to adjust and live with this (changes/policies etc). Agree completely with AV here...customers do not need to learn to do anything. Very few companies who think otherwise survive.

The mere fact that so many frustrated folks remain so drawn to discuss and visit it only furthers my resolve that the Scoop sees the light and not just the tunnel walls... True, indifference would be worse, but by the time you get there, its too late.

would you rather they ran the thing into the ground and went bankrupt? I didn't realize the only two choices were the status quo or bankruptcy...

YoHo
03-17-2003, 02:07 PM
The idea that Disney must either file for Bankrupcy or maintain the status quo is absolutly ludicrous.
1: Disney has been through tough economic times before. The 70's, the early 90s...

What's that you say? the Early 90s? you remember? No new Taxes. Japan will become the super power yada yada yada. OR have you all forgotten. And what did Disney DO back then?

Lets see, they opened Disney MGM studios, they built multiple new rides, they built Euro Disney (the quality and logic of what they built is not my point, that they spent the money is) They built pretty much all of the moderate resorts at this time. Along with starting in motion Animal Kingdom. And for nerely 10 years, It was nothing but raking in the cash, SO DON'T TELL ME THAT THE COMPANY MUST CUT BACK IN ORDER TO MAKE MONEY, That kind of comment shows an ignorance of recent Disney history that is inexcusable when discussing these kinds of topics.

The ONLY thing that is Dragging Disney through the mud is ABC, Go.com, ABCfamily etc etc.

When Walt built Disneyland he intended for the steady profits to fund his movie studio, that is true, but he never let funding the studio come in the way of making Disneyland everything he wanted it to be. AND GUESS WHAT, People have a life long love of Disney parks, because they are what Walt wanted them to be, so doesn't it make some small (huge) amount of sense to follow the build it and they will come instead of the Pinch it and they will still stay those fools meathod?

YoHo
03-17-2003, 02:40 PM
Yet, I hear very little suggestion that those "bad times" if not "worst times", were caused by straying from Walt's philosophy. Heck, that's the very time that what many consider to be Disney's last great stateside park was built.


Might I suggest Mr. Scoop that those "Bad" Times (we have some former employee's who may disagree with you) have very much to do with both the Film Library and new Animated releases and very little to do with the Themeparks.

And I would suggest that today's bad Disney situation has also very little to do with themeparks (although Euro DIsney, Animal Kingdom and DCA have something to do with it) but rather poor decisions elsewhere (ABC, Go.com etc.)

The issue vis a vis the parks is that they are now making unWalt like Decisions that will cause trouble down the road.

IT isn't that a lack of mickeyhead butter caused Disney Stock to fall, but that a lack of Mickeyhead butter (along with everything else) will destroy everything in the future.

Notice How Another Voice more often then not discusses a lack of longterm vision. Of only looking from Quarter to quarter. The nickle and DIming of Disney World will have long term effects. he current situation has different causes.


Maintaining a Walt Philosophy with the Parks only serves to make sure the parks are worth going to in the future. the real problem is maintaining a Walt Philosohy with the movies, the purchasing, the television shows. Not that Walt didn't make some clunkers, but, that philosophy of excellence certainly wouldn't have let so much money be spent on so little.

raidermatt
03-17-2003, 02:42 PM
I don't really know which factor is the biggest cause of Disney's attendance drop, revenue drop, stock price, etc, etc, etc.

I have never claimed that outside forces like the economy and geo-political issues are periphery in nature.

When it comes to financial performance and attendane, maybe management's mistakes are 80% of the problem. Maybe they're only 5%. I suspect it's somewhere in between, but again, I don't know for sure.

What I do know is that managment has no control over outside forces, but does have 100% control over their philosophy and their decision-making. They would be falling short in this area regardless of what the outside climate was like. A poor economic environment does not excuse their mistakes, just as a strong economic environment does not excuse them either.

Disney's philosophy and business model are a part of the problem. How big a part is not all that important, in the context of our discussions. The point of our discussions is what is Disney doing, and what should they be doing.

Disney's peformance will continue to rise and fall with the tide of the economic environment in which they exist. But how they rise and/or fall within that tide is what we are discussing.

DisneyKidds
03-17-2003, 03:39 PM
Scoop - see if you think this fits.

Disney would be having a hard time in today's business, political, and tourism environment no matter hat they did. That hard time has only been exacerbated by Disney's bad decisions and wandrings from the traditional Walt philosophy.

What do you think?

The real trick is determining if that hard time has been made 1x, 10x, or 100x worse than it had to be.

In the past, Disney survived the hard times as economic and tourism downturns do tend to pass. The only difference is that the theme park portion of the business is being taxed moreso today than at any time in the past to prop up failed Disney ventures. That is most likely because the theme parks are the biggest fish in a growing pond of Disney fish. In the past the theme parks were really the only fish in the pond.

hopemax
03-17-2003, 04:01 PM
Heck, consider hopemax's research that shows that the largest reduction in park hours occurred around 1994---yet soon after WDW's attendance trends started going to up compared to the late 1980s. In fact, since 1994 until recently, WDW had its peak attendance time of the mid to late 1990s.

This is what you really got out of that?

Combined attendance

1993: 29.5 million
1994 28.9 million
1995: 33.1 million
1996: 35 million

1994: Significant cutbacks in hours (starting October 1993)
1995: Hours returned to 1993 levels
1996 - 1997: Hours increased for 25th anniversary celebration

Attendance did not keep rising after the hours were cut.

hopemax
03-17-2003, 04:17 PM
Where are you getting 1980's hours?

DVC-Landbaron
03-17-2003, 04:50 PM
May I say that the following is the cogent, well thought out and lucid concept regarding Disney, philosophy and the universe!!

Disney would be having a hard time in today's business, political, and tourism environment no matter what they did. That hard time has only been exacerbated by Disney's bad decisions and wanderings from the traditional Walt philosophy.

What do you think?
I think it is WELL SAID!!




PS: Your training is nearly complete, grasshopper!! ;)

DVC-Landbaron
03-17-2003, 04:55 PM
I thought it was in general agreement based upon comments by Baron and other that hours have decreased since 1984 through the 1980s and through today.WHOA!!!!

Never said any such thing, Scoop!!!

I said, time after time, that summer hours (where I am an expert!) used to be midnight!! In 1998 (it may have been 1997 as I wasn’t there that year) they cut hours for the very first time!!!

OK!! That makes 437 times I've written that paragraph!!!

Another Voice
03-17-2003, 04:55 PM
"Heck, consider hopemax's research that shows that the largest reduction in park hours occurred around 1994."

Yep - one time you gotta to pay for Euro Disney. Another time you gotta pay for ABC.

The parks won't be good again until we stop paying for Michael Eisner.

hopemax
03-17-2003, 05:01 PM
I believe Landbaron has stated that the 1980's summer hours were longer than the 1998 - present summer hours. I don't remember hearing him voice any complaints about summer hours in the 1990's up until 1998.

All Aboard
03-17-2003, 05:02 PM
Park hours were cut in '94 around October?? Yet another "mark the beginning of decline" with the passing of Frank Wells.

hopemax
03-17-2003, 05:06 PM
No, the cuts started in October *1993* (isn't that what I said above?) So these cuts were during the Wells era. The accident wasn't until April 1994. It was, however, during the $1 Billion contibution the Disney company had to make to keep Euro Disney operating (thus AV's comment).

KNWVIKING
03-17-2003, 05:18 PM
I'm starting to understand that a major car 3 issue is that monies earned by the parks are being siphoned off for other purposes,ie ABC, GO.Com, yada,yada,yada, ( a condition which is not an uncommon business practice,but that's not the point). I curious to know what kind of funds were channeled back into the parks prior to these acquisitions. Were the profits spent more for man-power or attractions ? Or was it paid out in stock dividends ? I'm not sure of the time line of events, but I assume MK,Epcot & MGM were making billions of dollars before ME went on his spending spree. Is it concievable that this kind of money was ever put back into the parks ?

DVC-Landbaron
03-17-2003, 06:28 PM
Scoop!! Didn’t you read my post?!?! It’s only four away from yours!!! No wonder you never understand what I'm saying!!! ;)

And Hope (as usual) is absolutely correct!!! Let me reiterate!!!

I thought it was in general agreement based upon comments by Baron and other that hours have decreased since 1984 through the 1980s and through today.WHOA!!!!

Never said any such thing, Scoop!!! I said, time after time, that summer hours (where I am an expert!) used to be midnight!! In 1998 (it may have been 1997 as I wasn’t there that year) they cut hours for the very first time!!!

OK!! That makes 438 times I've written that paragraph!!!

Eyesnur
03-17-2003, 06:31 PM
OK...That makes 438 times I've written that pragraph!!!
Yeah, but we thought you were kidding...:p

DC7800
03-17-2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
summer hours (where I am an expert!) used to be midnight!! In 1998 (it may have been 1997 as I wasn’t there that year) they cut hours for the very first time!!!

July 1997 Magic Kingdom hours were still 9 a.m. to midnight. In July 2000 this dropped to 11 p.m. and to 10 p.m. in summer 2001 in the Magic Kingdom. These figures come from WDW "Times & Information" brochures. I didn't immediately find the 1998 and 1999 brochures (I'll look - it's a rather large "collection" (overflowing box) though) or anything prior to '97, but I have every year from at least 1992!

What I can say from memory is that 1980's hours were indeed midnight (Epcot was once 11 p.m.).

DisneyKidds
03-17-2003, 10:37 PM
Just my $.02 with regard to hours since 1990. Up until the last few years we were seasoned summer and Easter WDW visitors. Midnight hours (or later) were the norm during these times right up until about 2000. Sure, there may have been some kind of reduction in 'off-peak' hours back in the 80's, but like Baron, I really wouldn't know about that.

I think that to try and back track to the 80's and say 'ha! hours were reduced back then!' tends to miss the real issue. Yes, Disney has faced hard times in the past. Yes, they may have made a short term decision to react in a certain way by cutting hours (kind of like the way Walt made those compilation films oh so long ago), because yes, Disney was, always has been, and always will be a business. Unfortunately, those running the business today may have lost that concept of reasonable short term reaction to a problem, and taken what could have been an acceptable short term measure (reduced hours) and made it a permanent part of the WDW landscape (as much as 3 years can be considered permanent - and I hold out hope it does change).
I think it is WELL SAID!!
Baron - as I typed that I knew you'd like it. Unfortunately, every time I want to stand up and say "I'm not in car 3!!! someone makes me make such a statement. However................

I'm not in car 3!!

ps to self ;) - read the definition DK, read the definition - I still strongly believe there is hope..................it may just take a little longer than I thought..................

hopemax
03-17-2003, 10:49 PM
Now I was hoping to wait to share this link with the "group" until I could get a few more pieces of information, and formatted the way I want it. However, since Scoop started referring to it:

WDW Hours Database (http://www.geocities.com/hopemax.geo/wdwhours/wdwhours.htm)

DC7800, since you seem to have lots of WDW hours, I would be eternally grateful if you could either scan the brochures or type them up. I really, really, really would love to fill in the holes and have every date verified from official documentation.

But that goes for anyone with old park maps and Times & Info brochures.

DVC-Landbaron
03-17-2003, 11:22 PM
God!! I hate to bury this little gem on page 7 or 8!! But since you asked:Were the profits spent more for man-power or attractions? Or was it paid out in stock dividends? I'm not sure of the time line of events, but I assume MK,Epcot & MGM were making billions of dollars before ME went on his spending spree. Is it conceivable that this kind of money was ever put back into the parks?Well, I can’t answer about the period of time just before Ei$ner took control. But I can give you a little perspective of how Walt did business.

MAJOR ANOUNCEMENT!!

I have often quoted this source (hell, I’ve cut and pasted entire posts!!) but I’ve never named him. My stock introduction has always been, “A poster on another site”. But this time and in the hope he will eventually join us (I’ve invited) I’m outing him!! He is Uttini of WDWBLUES. Now, don’t let the blues site turn you off right away. Contrary to popular belief these people are very much aligned in the same cars as we are.

Anyway, he said on Thu Oct 26, 2000 10:47 am:

Something which I came across - might be applicable here. I was looking at the 1965 Disney corporate annual report, and reading Roy Disney's letter to the shareholders. This is right around the time that they purchased the Florida Property. And it states that the total profit for 1965, after taxes was $11,378,778... So in round figures $11 million. Seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what Disney earns now - but of course this is in 1965 dollars. Anyway - the reason that I mention this here was because after reading this - I came across the following quote (again from the 65 report);

"The Company expended $8,026,384 for capital additions during the past year. Installation of new attractions at Disneyland park .... along with the acquisition of certain WED assets comprise the major portion of these disbursements"....

So - in the same year that the whole company earned $11 million – well over $8 million was spent on capital additions (at a level which was 70% of after tax profit) - mostly at Disneyland..

What is the current After tax profit for Disney in say 1999?? $1,300,000,000 .. That’s right - $1.3 Billion. SO what would %70 of 1.3 Billion be? $910,000,000 Hmm.. I would guess that $910 million HAS NOT been spent on new attractions...We are not talking about fixing the old stuff here either - this would be money spent strictly on NEW STUFF.. I mean - you could almost build a whole new theme park a year for that.. Even Worse... the 65 annual report goes on to say...

"Due to public acceptance evidenced by increasing annual attendance at Disneyland Park and our confidence that such trends will continue, the company, commencing in 1966, will embark upon the largest capital expansion and improvement program in the history of Disneyland. This program calls for approximately $45,000,000 to be spent over the next five years."

$45 Million.. That’s almost $9 million a year for five years. At a time in Disney history (1965) when the company's profit was only $11 million.. Can you Imagine Eisner dumping oh... $900 Million a year in New Attractions today?? It’s almost a joke. Yet that was the standard and level that Disney used to operate at. Think things haven’t changed at Disney Folks??? I beg to differ!

That $45 million .. by the way - bought the Tommorrowland redesign of 1967 - among other things.. Also - to give an example of just how much money $45 million was back in the late 60's - about $400 million built ALL of WDW back in 68-71. This included a whole theme park – draining the land (which was quite expensive in it's own right), building roads, support facilities, a fleet of boats, installing a monorail system, building a couple of hotels - and so on.

Ok. Chew on that folks!!

And thanks Uttini, wherever you are!!!!

DVC-Landbaron
03-17-2003, 11:46 PM
So, let my admittedly somewhat dense brain get this right: From 1984 until either 1997 or 1998, summer park hours at WDW were not reduced. Correct?So why does this (the third time it has been answered in this thread alone) have the feeling of a courtroom drama in some b-movie, just before the murder weapon happens to fall out of my pocket as I’m on the witness stand? I think the defense attorney has a line here. What was it again…. Ah…. Well…. Hang on, it’ll come to me… oh yeah!! I remember…

I object, Your Honor!! Asked and answered!!!

(And for the last time Mr. Scoop!!)I thought it was in general agreement based upon comments by Baron and other that hours have decreased since 1984 through the 1980s and through today.
WHOA!!!!

Never said any such thing, Scoop!!! I said, time after time, that summer hours (where I am an expert!) used to be midnight!! In 1998 (it may have been 1997 as I wasn’t there that year) they cut hours for the very first time!!!

OK!! That makes 439 times I've written that paragraph!!!


July 1997 Magic Kingdom hours were still 9 a.m. to midnight. In July 2000 this dropped to 11 p.m. and to 10 p.m. in summer 2001 in the Magic Kingdom. These figures come from WDW "Times & Information" brochures. I didn't immediately find the 1998 and 1999 brochures (I'll look - it's a rather large "collection" (overflowing box) though) or anything prior to '97, but I have every year from at least 1992!I’m a little confused!! Either you're reading your info wrong, or I am readin your post worng (highly likely!), or they printed one thing and implemented another. I wasn’t sure about 1997. I heard from CMs at the time that hours had been cut the year before as well, but since I had no first had knowledge I never went with it.

HOWEVER!!!! I lived the summer of 1998!! I arrived with Disney shirts, shorts and rose colored glasses!! A true Eisner fan!!! (notice the normal ‘s’) Two weeks later I left with glasses shattered, an “$” had replaced an “s” in the CEO’s name and my back was broken by that very straw! It’s awfully hard to forget something like that! Or be confused about it. Or even make an honest mistake!! It’s what I refer to as a defining moment!!

And I am quite certain that for the last two weeks of July 1998 the MK closed at 11:00!! And the very first week of August 1998 that was further reduced to 10:00!! INSANITY!!!!!!!


Baron - as I typed that I knew you'd like it. Unfortunately, every time I want to stand up and say "I'm not in car 3!!! someone makes me make such a statement.Yeah!! Me too!! Welcome to my nightmare!!!

DC7800
03-18-2003, 12:19 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
[B]I’m a little confused!! Either you're reading your info wrong, or I am readin your post worng (highly likely!), or they printed one thing and implemented another. I wasn’t sure about 1997. I heard from CMs at the time that hours had been cut the year before as well, but since I had no first had knowledge I never went with it.[QUOTE]

Actually just really bad wording on my part. I only (so far) found printed "times" brochures for 1997, 2000, and 2001. The hours listed are actually correct for those years (July dates only). However, when I said "In July 2000 this dropped to 11 p.m." I only meant to compare two years, the drop from the published 1997 hours to the published 2000 hours, ignoring anything in the intervening period. I didn't mean to imply the cut in park hours first happened in 2000 - it didn't. I can clearly remember reduced hours myslef in summer 1998, I just don't have printed "proof" in front of me right now, so I didn't mention it. From what info I can produce, it is a fact there was a reduction in park hours during the time between 1997 and 2000 (and we know it happened in '98).

Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps if I were still fully awake (been a long day), I could type (think) clearly...

crusader
03-18-2003, 06:44 AM
how did this thread deteriorate into and hours debate?

The disney model Roy presented back in the 60's is a true representation of what the initial planners had in mind when they purchased all that land. Invest approximately 80% in new development - which is brilliant. Think how much they saved in not having to outsource to finance this venture beyond getting an investor to buy in. But let's not lose sight of the fact that this was a corporate entity with growth potential. The investor would be inclined to give more dollars to this rising empire if they were lured by the appeal of growth and expansion opportunities - not to mention the impressive rate of return figures!

So there had to be a portion of that 9,000,000 coming from new investment money - not simply from the annual profits of the corporation and it was Roy's job to sell it to the public.

Does anyone have the equity figures of this corp back then to show how much of the cash expended came from new dollars vs earned dollars?

Do we really know how much was siphoned out by the executives percentage wise back then vs. today? My guess is that there may be some relativity. However, I am not blind to the factors of today which continue to be the driving force in a company - for every dollar earned, a feeding frenzy embarks until there is virtually nothing left!

DVC-Landbaron
03-18-2003, 05:04 PM
Do we really know how much was siphoned out by the executives percentage wise back then vs. today?
Well, I’m not sure. Maybe some others can give us some insight. Maybe Scoop would know. Or perhaps Eyesnur could tell us!! All I have is from the same guy who wrote that wonderful analysis that everyone is blatantly ignoring (except you). He posted to a guy named Paul who asked a similar question (actually about bonuses, Ei$ner was getting one at the time I guess).

The response from Uttini was dated: Sat Jan 13, 2001 9:12 am:
Paul - Interesting that you should ask that question. In the course of my research - I have discovered that the most that Walt ever made in outright salary in one year from Disney was about $100,000. I have no idea about Roy - as I have never seen anything about how much he earned. I do know that Roy was, until his death, the largest share owner of Disney- with all of that stock which passed to his son – who more or less still owns most of it.

Walt's stock - on the other hand - mostly passed to CalArts. Some went to the family corporation retlaw. Walt also made some money by selling the rights to his name, and for selling WED - both of which were his totally - before he sold them to the studio. The family also, until recently, owned the trains at disneyland.

And thanks again Uttini, wherever you are!!!!