PDA

View Full Version : 1,000 Jobs Cut - LA Times


DVC-Landbaron
06-08-2001, 09:32 AM
1,000 Jobs Cut - LA Times

LA Times Article (http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Search-X!ArticleDetail-35253,00.html?search_area=Articles&channel=Search)

And so it continues!! Did you notice:

Among the areas expected to be hit hardest by the layoffs are Disney's theme parks in Anaheim and Orlando and its feature animation department, where Disney is cutting several dozen jobs and slashing salaries by 30% to 50% in response to the unit's declining profits.

Just what we need. More cuts to the heart of the company.

Sarangel
06-08-2001, 10:03 AM
I love quotes, since you can almost always slant them to your point of view. These aren't new layoffs, since the first sentance is: In the final phase of its plan to cut 4,000 jobs

Also, I believe that the animation layoffs depend upon the success (or lack therof) of Atlantis. About a paragraph before the quote that DVC-Landbaron used citing where the layoffs would occur, is the following quote: [John Dreyer] would not say where the cuts will occur, but acknowledged that they are companywide.

And (as a complete aside) did anyone but me notice that the author of this piece is Richard Verrier, who also writes regularly for the Orlando Sentinal? I wonder how objective our coverage of Disney is when we're limited to just a few writers (Jim Hill & Richard Verrier being among the most read)?

Sarangel

DVC-Landbaron
06-08-2001, 10:12 AM
Sarangel!!

Now how can I practice yellow journalism if you follow it with the facts!!?? ;)

And (as another complete aside):
I wonder how objective our coverage of Disney is when we're limited to just a few writers (Jim Hill & Richard Verrier being among the most read)?
Or it could be that since they write about it all the time they are most familiar with the subject. Ergo, they get the call when a story breaks.

I like them!!

JeffJewell
06-08-2001, 10:15 AM
I believe that the animation layoffs depend upon the success (or lack therof) of Atlantis ...you're right that this set of 1000 lost jobs was to "clean up" after not enough chose the separation package a month or so ago.

I was under the impression, though, that animation would likely be vulnerable to _further_ cuts, should Atlantis sink at the box office.

So far, the buzz I've seen on the actual movie Atlantis has been generally good, with the violence level typically being the first complaint. It's very possible Atlantis might make some money.

What will be interesting to watch is what happens to animation if Atlantis _does_ make money. That might be the last piece in the puzzle of determining whether Eisner even cares about Disney's animation heritage.

Jeff

Another Voice
06-08-2001, 10:25 AM
The cuts in Animation are coming even if 'Atlantis' makes all the money that 'Pearl Harbor' failed to. Those cuts have already been planned and represent a major shift in focus for Disney, they have nothing to do with the performance of any one film. Besides, there is no possible scenario where ‘Atlantis’ pulls a profit – the production costs are too high and the box office/home video appeal is too limited. The profit goes to the theme parks (new movie-based shows and merchandise) and to consumer products (selling happy meals in the millions). Only ‘The Lion King’ has been an exception – and ‘Atlantis’ ain’t no king.

I think the 1,000 figure represent the number of involuntary lay-offs that Disney is going to perform - a figure much higher then they anticipated. The response to their "early retirement" packages was not as strong as they had projected, and that's forcing more firings. According to rumors, the response was weakest at WDW and most of the firings will happen there.

And why is it that anyone who reports on Disney is considered hostile to the company. It's funny because the Orlando Sentinel is considered by many to be nothing more than a Disney Human Resources internal publication, unwilling to report on Disney the same way they do on other local businesses. Same thing with Mr. Hill - everyone is thrilled to quote him when he mentions that a movie is going to be good or a certain ride is on the way. But the moment he says that “gee, maybe Disney really should give the employee's underwear an extra washing”, it's assumed he's part of The Vast Anti-Disney Conspiracy and on the payroll of evil forces out to destroy our the very soul of The American Way.

Maybe Disney just isn’t working too well as a company these days – and they’re simply reporting.

HBK
06-09-2001, 06:39 AM
Maybe Disney just isn’t working too well as a company these days – and they’re simply reporting.

Well said Voice, well said.


In his address to the shareholders, didn't Ei$ner claim that the Disney company is a multi-cylinder engine, and the engine only has a couple of cylinders firing....and one of them was the theme park business?

If Disney is so worried about a downturn in the economy, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on what's currently working (theme parks) and make your cuts in areas which aren't working (television)?

Buckleybunch
06-11-2001, 12:43 PM
If Disney is so worried about a downturn in the economy, wouldn't it make moreIf Disney is so worried about a downturn in the economy, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on what's currently working (theme parks) and make your cuts in areas which aren't working (television)?

I agree with this.. Lets see. Disney theme parks are making money, plus you have people visiting to see the magic. Do you watch ABC to see the magic? Let's not take it from the profit to make the big shots at ABC happy.

Sarangel
06-11-2001, 02:08 PM
As regards Jim Hill & Richard Verrier, Anoter Voice said:And why is it that anyone who reports on Disney is considered hostile to the company.
I didn't mean to imply that Hill or Virrier were biased for or against Disney. Frankly, I like both of them and I envy them their sources. This is just the history major in me coming out & noticing the source material. Since so much of the reporting of Disney is located in so few hands, some of their knowledge/bias/personality is bound to creep into what they write and, consequently, to what we know about the company.

Think how different this board would be if DVC-Landbaron & HBK moderated it instead of lrodk & me... It would be a very different place.

Sarangel

HBK
06-11-2001, 02:17 PM
Think how different this board would be if DVC-Landbaron & HBK moderated it instead of lrodk & me... It would be a very different place.


I'm not sure what that is meant to imply. I've never had issue with IRODK or Your moderating.

Or to be more precise, I'm not sure what problem you have with my post here. I still stand behind what I wrote. It makes no sense to continue to pump money into the areas of your company which aren't performing at the cost of your strong points.

But hey, if you felt that the captain of the Titanic should have kept sailing instead of evacuating the ship, you can feel free to keep that view.

DVC-Landbaron
06-11-2001, 02:24 PM
I know what you mean about slant. I don't know how to address it though. I guess we either accept it or not depending on the point of view we came in with.
Think how different this board would be if DVC-Landbaron & HBK moderated it instead of lrodk & me... It would be a very different place. LOL!!! :crazy: You couldn't pay me enough!!!


But if I did (he trails off in a dream).... Hmmm.....

... first (out of 100) of the new rules:

Thou shall spell Ei$ner with a "$" or Thou shall be deleted!!! ;)

HBK
06-11-2001, 02:55 PM
So, they could get rid of abc, but then they become riper as an acquired. I think rather than harping on sarangel and wdw, the true focus should be fixing the non cash gainer properties

1) I've never harped on Sara or IDROK....as moderators, they have to be less opinionated.

2) Disney has already started to follow my concept. By cutting out Go.Com they basically admitted they didn't know how to make the concept work, so they dropped it.

I'm obviously not saying Disney should drop ABC. But for christ sake, make more of the deeper cuts there. Not in the theme park division which has been a cash cow for Disney for many, many years.

My discussion on this topic has nothing to do with reduced magic...it's about business. Noone has shown me a logical counter opinion. It's all been childish name calling....

DVC-Landbaron
06-11-2001, 02:55 PM
So, they could get rid of abc, but then they become riper as an acquired. I think rather than harping on sarangel and wdw, the true focus should be fixing the non cash gainer properties.So what's the answer? I personally don't see how you can fix a TV network. In today's market the profit margin is VERY small, if at all!! So, how do you fix it? How do stop the tremendous drain on the parks? Which is what I really care about.

HBK
06-11-2001, 03:23 PM
But, please, let's not just let it die on the vine because that will ultimately kill the rest of the grapes on the vine.

If one grape dies, it makes the vine stonger since there aren't as many grapes to sustain.

My point remains: fix abc (creatively? economically? management?) rather than ignore it.

Ahhh....but do you fix it at the expense of something that is working?

If your wife's car gets a flat, do you take one of your tires off of your car and ride on a doughnut?

DVC-Landbaron
06-11-2001, 03:26 PM
But, please, let's not just let it die on the vine because that will ultimately kill the rest of the grapes on the vine. I agree. Within Disney's current structure it CANNOT die. But I have to disagree with you as to the advisability of keeping it. I'd dump it in a hot second, they way they did GO.COM. (Come to think of it, they took a lot longer than a 'hot second'! lol) But hey, that don't make you wrong. I'm just "more" right!! ;)

Peter Pirate
06-11-2001, 03:34 PM
It appears to me that Disney see's the maturation of DL & WDW already. It is and has been a cash cow for the company but the law of diminishing returns is bound to exist at some point. I don't believe Disney can possibly continue the expansion with the same profit return as has happend the past 20 years and I think it's obvious that they know this, too. Therefore to pine for more Park development without solid profit return numbers in management's greedy little hands is unreasonable. That is why the worldwide expansion is taking place. That is why Disney is continually interested in other ares around the country & the world to do "WDW" all over again. It looks bigger & better because it is. They are speaking to the next generation of Park goes with the next generation of Parks.

Ever since WDW came onto the scene DL has been the stepchild, now with he focus on ED & Tokyo WDW fans are left grumbling that we don't get Disney Seas, blah, blah, blah...DL will get it's third Park. DCA will be turned around eventually to an acceptable gate. WDW will get a completed AK & another Park someday and maybe an occasional crumb in the form of a well spaced e-ticket ride, but face it, the big money ain't coming back to WDW or DL without Corporate sponsorship unless it's in the form of a new Hotel.

The profits continue to roll in and Disney knows that it wouldn't see a return on its investment for the big ticket items we dream of...The potential is not there, the Hotels already run quite full, the Parks already run quite full there aren't that many more people to be lured to Orlando! They obviously saw a bigger market for DL & either blew it or had bad information, but facts is facts, Disney's emphasis will be on corporate earnings and if that means milking the Parks to prop up ABC that's what it'll continue to be if that's where they see the potential...


:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

YoHo
06-11-2001, 03:34 PM
ABC still has some value to it, but Landbaron is right, it typically isn't a high margin endeavor. NBC may be making GE money, but I doubt its making it hand over fist. Lightbulbs probably have a higher margin for them (BUT, I digress and await the likes of AV to clue in the clueless). The problem with ABC as opposed to the cable endeavors is the costs of running a major network vs. the costs of running a cable network. In today's economy and with today's viewing habits. Disney would be better off Dumping ABC and maintaining the cable properties, or creating a PAX network kind of thing. Lower the costs and move into nitches where Disney can performe well. Think for instance what could happen if Disney moved the Disney channel over to broadcast from cable, OR, created a broadcast channel that complemented it. That could do extremely well and be profitable.

DVC-Landbaron
06-11-2001, 04:13 PM
It is and has been a cash cow for the company but the law of diminishing returns is bound to exist at some point.I couldn't agree more!!
I don't believe Disney can possibly continue the expansion with the same profit return as has happened the past 20 years and I think it's obvious that they know this, too. I don't think there's anything obvious about it. They DON'T believe it. They think the goose will go on laying the golden eggs FOREVER!!!
Therefore to pine for more Park development without solid profit return numbers in management's greedy little hands is unreasonable. I'm glad you agree they are "greedy little hands".
Ever since WDW came onto the scene DL has been the stepchild
I totally disagree. It is true that we've had to share some assets, but by and large DL gets (MK stuff) before WDW. Now when Pre$$lar was in charge of DL, I'll grant you things got a little one sided. But today, we are in the same boat.

Peter!! Take a hard, cold look at this list.
1- DL will get it's third Park. (I assume you mean by that it will automatically be successful)
2- DCA will be turned around eventually to an acceptable gate.
3- WDW will get a completed AK
4- (WDW will get) another Park someday
5- (WDW will get) maybe an occasional crumb in the form of a well spaced e-ticket ride

Now what in the wide, wide world leads you to these conclusions!!?? It's not a question of a glass half full, half empty or half anything!! To you the glass is overflowing!!!!
and if that means milking the Parks to prop up ABC that's what it'll continue to be if that's where they see the potential...
I guess that's the point of all this discussion. I don't see any potential. Ei$ner does. So do you, evidently. So since Ei$ner has turned down (tacitly) the invitation to a summer barbecue in my back yard to discuss the 'state of the magic', maybe you can fill me in. Where do you see potential for this nonsense?

YoHo!! You are 100% correct!! We agree!!!:bounce:

Peter Pirate
06-11-2001, 04:35 PM
Landbaron, I'm not really disagreeing with you that much.

I don't necessarily believe keeping ABC is a good thing. For example if what they're doing now...This green apple quick step with the other networks...If this is the best they can do, then what is the point? I do see potential in any tv network but it takes balls to be bold and Disney doesn't seem to posses them right now...Maybe they've been swimming in cold water...

As for the Parks, I don't necessarily believe they will put in a succesful third park, but it appears part of the plan and if it bombs like DCA, it too, will be eventually propped up just enough to produce its necessary profits.

I am saying that it appears to me (now) that Disney is not seeing things through magical eyes except when it's the product du jour (i.e ED or Japan or the AKL - what a beautiful property this is!), it can still do these things magically, but I'm afraid we may have hit the wall at WDW...:(
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron
06-11-2001, 04:45 PM
it can still do these things magically, but I'm afraid we may have hit the wall at WDW
Wasn't that my line when we first met in that thread with ParrotHead? Hmmm. Only took you ten or eleven months to see the light, eh? ;)

DVC-Landbaron
06-11-2001, 04:49 PM
... but I forgot to mention:
Maybe they've been swimming in cold water...
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!

:jester: :crazy: :crazy: :jester:

HBK
06-12-2001, 06:18 AM
They think the goose will go on laying the golden eggs FOREVER!!!

Let me take this analogy a step further....Disney seems to think the goose will live forever....even if they don't feed it....


Money can still be made in Disneyworld.....but it will require a continued investment from the parent company.

Peter Pirate
06-12-2001, 08:59 AM
Money can still be made at Disneyworld...but it will require a continued investment from the parent company.
Right & wrong. Money IS still being made at WDW and money will continue to be made at WDW. You are seeing the extent of the investment the parent company is going to make right now...Aladdin (spinners), new parades, new hotels, e-tickets in sponsorship with corporations, yearly "celebrations"...

Disney is in the milking stage. They have set up the cash cow so that it can run on auto-pilot for quite some time with little investment. It looks to me like they see no incentive to spend heavily when the turnstiles just keep turning. We will see tweaking and an occasional gem but no concerted effort for the Smiths'(Disney) to keep up with the Jones' (US) when the Jones' still aren't impacting the Smiths' business (good business model poor emulation of Walt's ideals)...

There are plenty of people who will squawk and maybe even quit going but the overall attendance numbers don't give Disney anything to really worry about and the expenditure for great, mind blowing rides obviously can't be qualified in dollars & cents...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool: