PDA

View Full Version : Stupid cutback hits home.


JeffH
03-30-2003, 12:50 PM
We were at MGM yesterday, and on top of the show cutbacks (no B&tB show until 1:45pm, when they usually ran at least 2 shows before then), we found that they had eliminated the only character meal (breakfast and lunch) in the park at Hollywood and Vine. I can understand cutting back CMs and shows to save money, but to eliminate something where they MAKE money, where you PAY to see characters, simply makes no sense to me??? The last few times we've been there they did good business, and if it was a matter of not being busy enough to make money, they could have cut the hours a bit to make it a 10-2 brunch or something like that?
They've managed to establish at least one character meal at each park (2 at Epcot and MK), now MGM has none!
I don't know if it's a cutback or what, but last night was the second time that only 2 princess barges came out during Fantasmic.
I did raise hell at the restaurant and customer service and will through e-mail as well.

HB2K
03-30-2003, 01:23 PM
Looks like JeffH found his straw....

Another satisfied customer.

Anyone want to take bets on how long until Disney finds & drops DisneyKidds' straw?

d-r
03-30-2003, 02:58 PM
One thing I have faith in about Disney is good old fashioned capitalist greed. If they were making money with the character breakfast at Hollywood and Vine, they would still have it.

hopemax
03-30-2003, 03:45 PM
It may not be as simple as does something make money. Take this scenario.

You offer something, anything doesn't matter what it is but it costs you $5000 to do and it brings in $9000. That means your net profit is $4000. But if you cut that thing you've saved $5000. That's $1000 more than you previously had, and it's less work too.

Spreadsheet is happy, bank account is happy, but neither of those takes into account the unhappiness felt by the customer who may decide that they will stop using this other thing too. Then the other thing which also costs $5000, but was bringing in $12,000 now is bringing in only $9000, and it's on the chopping block now.

I think this is what AV means by "cutting costs faster than you lose customers."

All Aboard
03-30-2003, 04:04 PM
You offer something, anything doesn't matter what it is but it costs you $5000 to do and it brings in $9000. That means your net profit is $4000. But if you cut that thing you've saved $5000. That's $1000 more than you previously had, and it's less work too.


Hope, I'll make you two offers - choose only one please.

1) Hand me $5,000 and I'll hand you back $9,000 in return.

2) Do nothing.


That's the way you have to view your scenario. By cutting something that had a cost of $5k and revenue of $9k, you are not better off by $1k, you are worse off by $4k. You cannot view the expense in a vacuum. It is paired with the revenue. You lose one, you lose the other.

Put another way. Let's say the event you described was the ONLY thing you had. Keep it and you keep getting the $4k however often your example is. Eliminate it and you are left with nothing.

curtisl
03-30-2003, 04:07 PM
That's sad. My wife and I enjoyed meals there both times we visited. The character interaction there was very intimate and never felt rushed, due to the cozy size of the restaraunt. This meal will be missed.

Planogirl
03-30-2003, 04:08 PM
I already sent my email of complaint to the WDW website and got the usual "send us your phone number and a Disney rep will call you" spiel. I don't want a phone call so I ignored it this time.

You see, all of these things add up to create a whole WDW. I see the different parts of the whole being chipped away one after the other and I hate it. Epcot was the first to be blown away by the budgeteers IMO and I didn't like what I saw at MGM during our last trip either. MGM felt flat and it WAS my favorite park. Just as Epcot WAS. :(

I still stay hopeful though. :confused:

Luv2Roam
03-30-2003, 06:27 PM
Me thinkith this will not be a bad year to skip a second WDW trip. ;)
I'm sure this is just the beginning.

CasualObserver
03-30-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by gcurling
Hope, I'll make you two offers - choose only one please.

1) Hand me $5,000 and I'll hand you back $9,000 in return.

2) Do nothing.

That's the way you have to view your scenario. By cutting something that had a cost of $5k and revenue of $9k, you are not better off by $1k, you are worse off by $4k. You cannot view the expense in a vacuum. It is paired with the revenue. You lose one, you lose the other.


This is true if you view only the item by itself. This would be like saying that the only revenue source is park admission. Sure, cutting out $5000 cost to get $9000 in park admission is definitely sitting on your hands. However, if your $5000 is an expense AFTER getting the park admission, then Hope is right. I think her point is that Disney Mgmt is looking at every "after the gate" expense in terms of short term balance sheet gain.

They already have the gate, so if it costs more to run something than it generates in profit and that something is in addition to the gate admission, then it looks like they are going to cut it.

Given that philosophy, it seems possible that there could be many more cuts in "after-the-gate" activities that don't make a minimum profit equal to the expense.

I think the signs may point to that philosophy in play:

Plush has such a great profit margin.
Clothing sales have almost as much.
Okay, all merchandise has a huge markup

Food sales, especially sit-down resturants don't have the same markup. More overhead.

Character meals have even more overhead than resturants.

Attractions/Shows have yet more overhead.

So when was the last time you saw a plush/clothing/trinket shop closed down permanently or even had the hours cutback while the rest of the park was open?

Casual Observer.

hopemax
03-30-2003, 08:20 PM
Basically, I object to the idea that "If X closes, it must have been operating in the red."

Businesses also like to play with the efficiencies. If they are operating two restaurants and both are only partially full (but both profitable), they like to think that they can close restaurant B and everyone who used to eat at B will now go eat at A. The business cut its overhead, and they still get all the money. Sure H&V is closed, but people still need to eat breakfast so it means some other restaurant is making more money.

All Aboard
03-30-2003, 09:00 PM
However, if your $5000 is an expense AFTER getting the park admission, then Hope is right. I think her point is that Disney Mgmt is looking at every "after the gate" expense in terms of short term balance sheet gain.



Before the gate or after the gate, if the "thing" is making money, then it's making money. If it has a reduced margain, that's a consideration. But if you don't an alternative to recoup the lost $4000, you are worse off.

If you close off a $5000 expense drain to save money, but in the process you lose a $9000 revenue spigot, you are $4000 worse off than before. It's NOT a savings.

OK, a husband and wife both work. Her job nets them $50,000, but she has to spend $5000 a year on clothes, gas, etc. The pair decide that they need to save on expenses. So, to save $5000 she quits her job. Financially, are they now better off?

In the example Hope used, it doesn't matter that the expense is greater than the profit ($5000 v $4000). It matters that the profit is greater than zero.

Please forgive me on this one. I'm not trying to be argumentative.

CasualObserver
03-30-2003, 10:14 PM
I think the difference between the two versions is that hopemax is offering the proposition that Disney is looking at after-the-gate margins on an item-by-item basis. An item either brings in more profit than it costs to operate or not. She is proposing that Disney is expecting to make a 100% profit on each activity or it gets closed. Whether that number is 100% or not isn't the issue - it may be that an activity must make a 20% profit, who knows.

Whatever the number is, Disney feels that they can make more money by not spending those dollars on the activity they closed.

If they can take that $5000 that they would have spent on the activity and make more than $9K, then they quit the activity. When you are cutting expenses as your primary means of increasing overal profits, then it comes down to margins. You cut the smallest margin activities. They can't cut attractions and shows but so much before affecting the gate (I think the drop in gate revenue due to attraction/show cuts is already happening), so they cut the next smallest margin activity - character meals.


I have been arguing that the notion of cutting expenses, and trying to get more profit from the faithful, is a short-sighted and assinine. Disney would be better off expanding the base, increasing revenue, and that only comes from offering services and value to new customers. Reducing the reasons for a new customer to decide on Disney does nothing for the long term.


... but who says Disney is operating for the long term.


Casual Observer.

DisneyKidds
03-30-2003, 11:08 PM
Please forgive me on this one.
Please Mr. Curling, don't ask for forgiveness. You are 1,000,000% correct.

Take the 'thing' that costs you 5,000 and brings you in 9,000. Cut it out today and you save your 5,000, that is true. You have your 5,000 today. Tomorrow you have your 5,000 plus a little interest, etc. Howver, do the 'thing' today and you have your original 5,000 plus another 4,000. Invest the 5,000 in the 'thing' again tomorrow and you then have your original 5,000 and another 8,000............and so on, and so on. You are making a profit plain and simple. If the 'thing' only brought you in 5,001 you still have a dollar you didn't have before. Even if you do this 'after the gate' you still have more than you started with - and you have satisfied customers.

I think the example Hope should have used is this one. Suppose the 'thing' costs you 5,000 and only brings in 5,000. You just recoup your cost. This still isn't a good enough reason to put it on the block. You aren't out anything, and you have satisfied customers. Now try this one on for size. The thing costs you 5,000, but it only brings in 4,950. Do you do it or cut it? Back in the day of Walt, when all of WDW was a value and Baron could have his Poly for below market rate, I bet he'd say there were lots of things that might not have made money, but were done because they satisfied the customers and created a loyal following.

I really don't know what is going on with things like H&V. One of two things I suppose. Perhaps it, and things like it, are losing money. That would be the most sensible reason to cut it. The only other thing I can figure is that perhaps for Disney to be able to do some longer term things they are looking at they need to cut 5,000 here and 5,000 there in order to accumulate enough money to do something larger, or they will use the 5,000 to do something different that might generate more profit than the old thing. The Casual one touched on it and it is called opportunity cost. By using the 5,000 for one thing, you lose the opportunity to do something else.

My money would be on the scenario where H&V was not making any money, at least not directly. That would be the short sighted, spreadsheet driven decision. Of course, even if it was losing a little but bringing people into the park a case could be made that it would have been worth keeping to satisfy the customers - the way Walt might have done. Hopefully Disney was smarter and evaluated the opportunity cost and determined there were other things they could do with that money that will satisfy more guests.

DisneyFanGuy
03-31-2003, 12:39 AM
As a person who works for a biggggggggg customer service company, the one item not discussed that stands out is that Disney must expect the money that folks spent on the character to be spent elsewhere once it closes. The would have done some sort of study that suggested that they would not lose all of that revenue, and that it would go elsewhere while they saved the cost of the character meal.

For example. I run three restaurants in a small town in Wisconsin. One restaurant needs to be replaced, and generates "x" in revenue, and has "y" in costs. My company may NOT build a new one because they did a study that suggests that 40% of the revenue will go to other locations and that they will save ALL of the costs. So they make more money by closing one location than investing money in it to continue operating......even though it made a profit. So we make more money with two restaurants instead of three.

All of this depends on the remaining two restaurants having enough excess capacity to absorb the extra customers. So I assume that Disney has excess capacity at it's other restaurants either at MGM or outside, and assumes that much of the cash per guest spent at the current location will transfer as revenue to someplace else.

People are promoted on stuff like this. Guest happiness doesn't even come up for decisions like this one. Nobody cares in this kind of deal. (I can picture the presentation "deck" now!)

Planogirl
03-31-2003, 01:06 AM
DisneyFanGuy said:
All of this depends on the remaining two restaurants having enough excess capacity to absorb the extra customers. So I assume that Disney has excess capacity at it's other restaurants either at MGM or outside, and assumes that much of the cash per guest spent at the current location will transfer as revenue to someplace else

I think this is interesting but after factoring in the convenience factor I can't picture where Disney expects the displaced guests to spend this money now. Any thoughts?

Poohnatic
03-31-2003, 01:24 AM
Yes, I probably would spend money on a meal elsewhere at MGM, but not the 60 bucks I'd pay for a lunch at H&V. More like 10 bucks on snackables (then have food back in the room that's in our fridge)....it wouldn't be spent on other stuff, because my family goes often enough that we hardly buy souveniers.

Net loss for a day for my family of four $50 bucks. Multiply that by 100 families, there's the 5,000. Penny wise but pound foolish. It's a shame, because H&V had excellent characters (even if they were the same few you can see at nearly all the other meals) and very attentive servers.

Suzanne

manning
03-31-2003, 02:08 AM
Sure H&V is closed, but people still need to eat breakfast so it means some other restaurant is making more money.

I'm heading over to Bob Evans outside the gate.

All Aboard
03-31-2003, 07:29 AM
We are very, very close to the same page now.

If they can take that $5000 that they would have spent on the activity and make more than $9K, then they quit the activity.

Yes, as long as they take the $5k and spend it elsewhere to generate the $9k+. Absolutely then are they better off.

But, if they simply stop the $5k expense and bank the so-called "savings" then they are worse off.

A margain improvement strategy of eliminating low contribution or underperforming activities is rarely prudent. Especially in a growth company. I don't think Wall Street focuses much on margain vis a vis Disney. Bottom line profit (perhaps even top line revenue) growth is more important.

A strategy of eliminating low margain activities without redeploying the resources to higher margain activities may improve margain, but reduces both revenue and operating profit.

crusader
03-31-2003, 08:01 AM
this debate is conflicting

Two things are failing to be mentioned here:

1. The characters employment agreement and status
2. The actual profitability of a character meal at MGM.

It is impossible to debate the decision making process without being advised of the circumstances.

A strategy of eliminating low margain activities without redeploying the resources to higher margain activities may improve margain, but reduces both revenue and operating profit.

This statement seems to contradict here. Eliminating a low margin activity reduces both revenue and expense. If you improve your margin on an activity how would your operating profit decline? Unless you are saying it will cause you to lose other business. In this case I don't see how that can be? If the character meal was operating poorly - and has continually been doing so then you already were losing business so why retain it?

d-r
03-31-2003, 08:36 AM
fwiw-

Back in the day of Walt, when all of WDW was a value and Baron could have his Poly for below market rate,


Poly didn't exist in the day of Walt-

All Aboard
03-31-2003, 09:13 AM
It's not contradicting at all. Margain (expressed in percents) is operating profit (which is revenue less expense) divided by revenue.

For example:

Let's say our example company has two activities...

One activity has $9000 in revenue and $5000 in expense. Thus $4000 in profit. So, the margain is 44%.

The other activity has $10,000 revenue and $3000 in expense generating $7000 profit at a 70% margain.

In total, this company has $19k revenue, $8k expense and $11k profit. Thus, it operates at a 58% margain.

By cutting Activity One, the company saves the $5k expense, but loses the $9k revenue. Now the company has INCREASED its margain to 70% (since activity 2 is its only activity) but has DECREASED its profit fro $11k to $7k.

Please note - I am not applying any of this to Hollywood and Vine, just trying very hard to point out that the elimination of a profitable activity (no matter the margain, as long as it is positive) is both a reduction to revenue and bottom line profit - IF done without the redeployment of resources to a higher margain activity, WHERE incremental profit (profit that wasn't there before) can be generated.

DisneyKidds
03-31-2003, 09:22 AM
Poly didn't exist in the day of Walt
OK, time for me to pull a Baron.............................

You know what I meant. ;)

Sure, the Poly, same as all of the Florida Project, wasn't built yet. However, it was a product of Walt's plans, Walt's way, Walt's pricing structure, and Walt's concept of value.

Is that better?

crusader
03-31-2003, 09:28 AM
By cutting Activity One, the company saves the $5k expense, but loses the $9k revenue. Now the company has INCREASED its margain to 70% (since activity 2 is its only activity) but has DECREASED its profit fro $11k to $7k.

Ok I understand your argument. Now let's take it one step further. In this example, hasn't the Co. in turn increased its cash flow from $11k to $12k? Not to mention the savings on the general and administrative overhead costs being applied as well. Now how much money are we really talking about?

Please note - I am not applying any of this to Hollywood and Vine, just trying very hard to point out that the elimination of a profitable activity (no matter the margain, as long as it is positive) is both a reduction to revenue and bottom line profit - IF done without the redeployment of resources to a higher margain activity, WHERE incremental profit (profit that wasn't there before) can be generated.

Agreed! Hopefully there is a better plan in play.

All Aboard
03-31-2003, 10:18 AM
In this example, hasn't the Co. in turn increased its cash flow from $11k to $12k? How so? They've now got only $10k total revenue (on which they spend $3k to support). Where does $12k come from?

Not to mention the savings on the general and administrative overhead costs being applied as well.I was waiting until I had folks on board with my first explanation before I went there. That's the other side of the opportunity coin. (The first being the redeployment) The other side is "how much time and energy does management spend trying to keep the underperforming asset afloat? Here we are talking about resources that don't even hit the particular product's p&l.

crusader
03-31-2003, 10:28 AM
How so? They've now got only $10k total revenue (on which they spend $3k to support). Where does $12k come from?

$12k cash flow, not revenue. $5k cash freed up and available since it is no longer earmarked to be spent on the low performing activity; and $7K more coming in from the higher performing activity.

All Aboard
03-31-2003, 11:41 AM
But Crudsader, that $5k was originally cash coming in (in the form of part of that $9k of revenue). It's gone now, you haven't freed up anything.

crusader
03-31-2003, 11:55 AM
gcurling -

I was waiting for you to catch on to the flaw in my analogy and you're right - my premise only works in a loss situation not a gain. The only other point I was trying to make was that you spent that money to run a program which in the end earned substantially less than if you had more efficiently applied it elsewhere during the same time period.

So back to the formula.

We made $4000 but we haven't paid out the fixed overhead so we may lose it all plus some to run the program. Without any raw data to substantiate what happened at H & V who knows what the truth really is?

hopemax
03-31-2003, 11:59 AM
Here's a what if:

In large companies, profits aren't returned to the place that generated them, right? So you're a manager of a division, your allocated budget has been slashed 10% by the higher ups, something has to go, but nothing on your balance sheets is unprofitable? What do you cut?

I meant aren't, so now editing to match. Can you tell I got no sleep this weekend!

raidermatt
03-31-2003, 01:18 PM
Is H&V actually closed for breakfast and lunch now, or is it serving non-character meals?

Another Voice
03-31-2003, 01:31 PM
"In large companies, profits are returned to the place that generated them, right?"

Unless you've seen the ratings for 'All American Girl' and then ALL the profits go into floating the CEO's favorite hobby.

You can't think about resort operations as a collection in independent shops and restaurants. For a long time time Disney haas been "rumored" to be using a more tops-down approach to their planning. Parks is told how much profit they must contribute to the corporate bottom line, the parks tell WDW how, then WDW Management tells each park, and so on. From the manager's point of view, the exercise has now really become an investment game: I have $5,000 in expense budget, where do I use it to get the greatest return.

The goal right now is maximize the number of guests using each facility. 'Pirates' costs the same amount to run if the boats are empty or full; a restaurant table still depreciates whether someone's sitting at it or not. This is Spreadsheetland, a mystical place that can convince executives that if they close one restaurant everyone will gladly flock to another. The goal is to get the guest flocking to the restaurant that produces the biggest return.

Add into this all the corporate politics of a really bad prime time soap – Parks hate Entertainment, Food is always feels left out, Entertainment is always trying to find ways of making money, licensing at ESPN just soared so another round of cuts is coming, someone else has an "emergency" need for funds…It all leads to decisions that are made for seemingly illogical reasons.

The old boundary of "don't screw the guests" doesn't exist anymore. The Numbers are the only concern and everyone has been given a free hand to meet them by any means possible. Simple budgeting exercises like closing places is much each than coming up with something cleaver. And politically it's infinitely better than proposing something that might make additional money (because of the risk of failure).

d-r
03-31-2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds


Is that better?

Yeah...:)

The only reason I posted it was because I wasn't sure about the pricing. Maybe Walt's hand was in on it, I just wasn't sure.

DR

All Aboard
03-31-2003, 02:14 PM
In large companies, profits are returned to the place that generated them, right? So you're a manager of a division, your allocated budget has been slashed 10% by the higher ups, something has to go, but nothing on your balance sheets is unprofitable? What do you cut?Not sure I understand your question. Since you state that everything is profitable, your example here must be a profit center (rather than simply some administrative function) and since we are talking Disney-MGM studios on the whole, then that example works. So, let's do it this way...

What normally happens mid-stream during an operating year is that expense cut mandates do go out. However, generally no slippage in the bottom line is permitted. So, in our example of the company with two cost centers, they've got a budget of $19k revenue and $8k expense, with a profit target of $11k. We'll assume that is our budget (and goal that our bonuses are tied to) at the beginning of the year.

So, a couple of months in it's evident that we won't make your revenue goal for the year of $19k. In a projection that you send to corporate each week, we indicate that for the year it looks like revenue will be off by $3k. We attribute all of it to the activity that nets you the $4k in profit. Corporate responds by saying that they are not budging on our profit goal - we still have to deliver the $11k. And, since they are now on notice that we are going to be missing revenue by $3k, they immediately tell us to come up with a plan that saves us $3k in expense.

So, what do we do? Could we simply cut the first activity? Nope, then we have absolutely no way to make our profit goal. Can we cut the first activity, redeploy some of the resources to the other and hope that it can generate enough revenue to get to the $11k, maybe. More likely, we scale back operations a little everywhere to see if we can find the $3k without further eroding the revenue.

Our example is extremely simple of course, but where we first look is advertising and promotion, then we cut some jobs, but we most likely will try to keep every business function alive (albeit reduced) that is making a positive net profit.

crusader
03-31-2003, 03:44 PM
The goal right now is maximize the number of guests using each facility. 'Pirates' costs the same amount to run if the boats are empty or full

This goal is faulted by the time element. Older omni-mover large capacity transport venues are no longer capable of maximum utilization with a few exceptions during peak times. Guests ride them once and move on.

Restaurants may have a different effect entirely though.

betterlatethannever
03-31-2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
......OK, time for me to pull a Baron.............................




:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: DisneyKidds sounding like Baron????:confused: :confused:

Things haven't been the same on this forum since the Tag Fairy made her appearance. ;)

JeffH
03-31-2003, 08:24 PM
They were open for 'dinner' from 3pm-7.
Breakfast was being served at the ABC Commissary

crusader
04-01-2003, 07:44 AM
Our example is extremely simple of course, but where we first look is advertising and promotion, then we cut some jobs, but we most likely will try to keep every business function alive (albeit reduced) that is making a positive net profit.

I wanted to get back to this because of something hopemax addressed. What if you arbitrarily implement uniform budget cuts with no basis beyond enhancing the next quarterly earnings report? Your profit centers are continually making money but your revenue base remained relatively constant. The only option was to cut costs in order to affect earnings and bolster that press release!

How do we know this isn't the reason vs assuming the character meal was losing money?

IASW Rider
04-01-2003, 12:13 PM
Sorry to interrupt, for a second, but with regard to JeffH's original post, the reason that B&B is starting later now is because that show is now sharing its cast / crew with that of Fantasmic. Since that is a nighttime show B&B's schedule has been changed to accomodate the shared resources. As for the 2 Princess barges - were there 3 Animal barges? If so, maybe there was a technical difficulty in the middle of the show, preventing the 3rd Princess barge from appearing. If not, maybe there is just a temporary issue with that barge. I'm sorry to hear about the H&V character meals - those were great!

raidermatt
04-01-2003, 12:41 PM
Since that is a nighttime show B&B's schedule has been changed to accomodate the shared resources. End result is still a reduced number of performances, correct?

If so, maybe there was a technical difficulty in the middle of the show, preventing the 3rd Princess barge from appearing. If not, maybe there is just a temporary issue with that barge. Good point. Unless we hear of this happening at other times, you're probably right.

Was the music changed to match the reduced number of princesses, did one of the barges "double up" with 2 princesses, or did they just spotlight the "wrong" princess during the missing princess's music? Wouldn't necessarily prove anything regardless, but just curious...

Regarding H&V, I seriously doubt it was losing money....that would be pretty difficult to do. Its far more likely that it wasn't making "enough" money (margin), and Disney felt it could shift the business to other restaurants that weren't running at capacity. Theoretically, they lose no revenue, but eliminate the costs at H&V, improving margins while boosting cash flow.

Getting back to the example of a $5000 cost that generates $9000 in revenue. If the company believes it can eliminate the $5000 cost, and simply transfer the $9000 in revenue to another location, they'll most likely do it. There will be an increase in cost at the other locations (let's say $2000), but not the $5000 cost associated with a separate location.

Of course, the reality is that they will lose some of the $9000, but unless they lose more than $3000 (losing $3000 in revenue leaves them at $6000 in revenue. With the $2000 in cost, $6000 in revenue still allows for $4000 in profit, just as before, only now with better margins), its still a "win".

Just like a bank who consolidates branches, or a supermarket who consolidates stores. Its not that any particular locations are losing money, its just that the company feels it can peform better overall by closing certain locations. This becomes particularly appealing when you have a captive audience, like at WDW.

Of course this doesn't take into account the benefits of having a character meal in each park, or the "bad show" of a closed restaurant, or the impact of reduced choices on the guest experience, etc...

All Aboard
04-01-2003, 01:39 PM
Thanks Matt, that was where I was going next. But, it started to be too much like work. It's what I take breaks from to post here. Loses its purpose when it's the same thing. :)

JeffH
04-01-2003, 07:27 PM
I'm pretty sure all three barges were used during the monkey/bigbird loop, since we've seen Fantasmic so many dozen times, looking for the differences is the big thing for me.
Only 2 princess came out on only 2 barges and they highlighted the 'wrong' princess during the music of the missing princess. And since it was 2 different princesses is can't be a matter of the barge dressing being damaged.
Otherwise, last Saturday's show went off perfectly.

I would like to also note that the crowd at MGM was pretty 'normal', Fantasmic filled as did the Indiana Jones show we attended, as well as all the other shows except for Muppets 3D (which doesn't normally fill anyway).

Instead of eating at H&V (where we did eat for dinner) for breakfast, we instead had an early lunch at the ABC Commissary where we ate kid's meals (which are generally a great bargain for the price).

raidermatt
04-01-2003, 07:43 PM
Thanks Matt, that was where I was going next. But, it started to be too much like work. It's what I take breaks from to post here. Loses its purpose when it's the same thing. Point taken...glad I could be of service!:teeth:

Only 2 princess came out on only 2 barges and they highlighted the 'wrong' princess during the music of the missing princess. And since it was 2 different princesses is can't be a matter of the barge dressing being damaged. Interesting. Hopefully we can hear from others in the coming weeks to find out if this is permanent, like the CM on KS, or if there was some kind of problem with that particular showing. (Maybe Ariel ate some bad seafood?)

If it is by chance an "efficiency" move, I think we could agree its a pretty lame one...

JeffH
04-01-2003, 08:18 PM
I seem to recall that in each case, the missing princess was on the boat later.
Maybe the princess didn't make the transfer to MGM in time?

IASW Rider
04-03-2003, 05:15 PM
I have it on good (and reliable) authority that the barge issue was specific to that recent performance of Fantasmic - they have definitely not removed the third barge from the show.

ChairborneRangr
04-04-2003, 04:39 PM
Thanks for the Economics 101. But that is not what Disney is built on.

Walt was the dreamer

Roy was the practical one

Walt pushed and dreamed. Roy played the role of restraining the vision to make sure the company stayed afloat. Right now we don't have a dreamer in charge. If any activity (x, y, z, or whatever) is profitable or is (to use a military term) a force multiplier to make OTHER things profitable they should be doing them. If Disney looses the "Magic" they loose everything, because they are no longer special.

C.Ann
04-05-2003, 09:33 AM
When you return from your next trip to Disney World, don't forget to send them a "thank you" card for instituting yet another cut that the "customers" wanted....;)

CHIPSTER
04-05-2003, 01:55 PM
There is hope - maybe they will close H&V and bring back Cafeteria of the Stars which was one of the best values on Disney property.

Perhaps the attendance is down at H&V because of all of the characters out and about.

gazeborob
04-05-2003, 09:02 PM
How about this thought, look for ways to MAKE money. Not JUST CUT COST.

vacationwoman
04-05-2003, 09:18 PM
Getting a headache reading all that profit / loss explanations.

I'm confused - Is H&V closed altogether or did they just do away with the character meals?

I have a PS there next week with the fantasmic package. Will they be open?

:confused: :confused: :confused: