car pools..........I don't get it

[DVC-Landbaron]

That's not fair, Scoop!!!! You know I like to use quotes!! But on your last post I can't!!! Why? Cause I'd have to quote the whole frigging thing!!!!!

Well put, my man!! Bravo, and Ditto!!

 

[hopemax]

If it really involved the latter then most everyone besides WFH and HBK and I think maybe Planogirl would be in Car #1 because we keep going back over and over

You can probably put me there too, because the only reason I keep going back is how cheaply it has cost me recently. We're probably paying 1/3 the price that we used to, and I doubt if WDW were to slash all its prices by 2/3rds we'd be having any of these car conversations anyway.

 

[crusader]

Personally, I think substituting a more concrete expectation from Disney makes everything simpler than if I rely only on "how much fun I had," which depends only partially (and likely, secondarily) on Disney's contribution to the equation.

There isn't a forerunner and second here. Our commitment to how well we are entertained should not take a back seat to the Disney contribution - they go hand in hand.

Tell me where the realist belongs in these categories? This is the person who enjoys just about anyplace they travel. They approach a Disney vacation knowing full well what it is and don't measure their experience on a circumstantial level.

Rather, that conversation has more to do with the most effective way to express your protest of what you perceive to be a bad direction.

This is where I probably disconnect the most. I understand the direction issue but fail to see how it will substantially impact the big picture. We've been experiencing cutbacks in every commodity on the market. Take a good look around, nothing is made as well or as durable anymore - right down to the quality of what you eat and drink. Why would a themepark be immune to this phenomenon?

Some people can't comprehend that one can list all the ways a company has declined, all the special factors their products have lost, and still come to the conclusion that that company and those products are one's best options, so far.

No, I get it. I just don't hear it used in conjunction with Disney enough on these boards. Yet it would appear that to most of the people here, despite everything (including what once was) - WDW remains that viable option.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

This is the person who enjoys just about anyplace they travel. They approach a Disney vacation knowing full well what it is and don't measure their experience on a circumstantial level.

The point is, I'm not talking about me, me, me, how fun much I had on my vacation.

I'm talking about business processes and methods that Disney once stood for, establishing their brand loyalty. Processes and methods that contributed to having a high quality product.

Your "realist" would have to consider Six Flags a legitimate option to Disney, as long as we can find one person who will post that they prefer Six Flags to WDW. What you appear to value in a ride is fleeting and mostly in individual's imaginations.

Disney used to represent quality in production of that which pleases a lot of people, not merely the ability to please a lot of people. "Girls Gone Wild" pleases a lot of people, but that's not a good enough reason to declare it full of "Disney Magic."

We've been experiencing cutbacks in every commodity on the market.

You trip over the very reason for Disney's failure. Treating entertainment as a commodity instead of an art. The Pop Century doesn't sit empty because no one can afford its rich opulence or appreciate its delicate subtleties, it sits empty because money is no longer cheap enough that this TraveLodge-with-company-sponsored-graffiti is worth any of it.

Disney's business plan of "make cheaper crap so more people can afford it... they'll still buy it because it says 'Disney'" has simply failed... failed before 9/11, failed now. Producing and marketing entertainment the same way that you produce and market toilet paper, as a commodity, has failed; at least as far as maintaining Disney's image and market performance is concerned.

Yet it would appear that to most of the people here, despite everything (including what once was) - WDW remains that viable option

Again, I never said WDW was not a viable option for some. The deal is, "most of the people here" don't amount to a hill of beans in Disney's attendance; we're a relatively minor little collection of zealots around these parts. The real truth is, Disney has been losing guests and sales pretty consistently for years (although for a long time they were able to cut costs and play PowerPoint games to keep claiming improvements in what matters to Wall Street... anyone remember the GO.COM write-off? The one year, say "we beat last year, if you ignore the one-time deduction;" then the next year, compare your results to last year's numbers including the deduction. Losing money all the way, but spin it like progress, every year).

-WFH

 

[HB2K]

I'm pretty sure HB2K joins me in being a former Car #3 inhabitant, who, at this point, truly does find themselves in Car #4: for the first time since I've been paying for my own vacations, I do not have a trip to WDW planned

That is correct sir popsicle.

I'm done. Stick a fork in me. And let me tell you this...


IT SUCKS.

I want SOOOO badly to be able to get excited about the new DAK attraction and to run out an plan a trip to WDW.

But then reality sets in.

At this point, I'm looking at alternatives. I may hit a Six Flags or two since my Annual pass to the local park is good ANYWHERE. I will go to the other local park. I'm considering a trip to Virginia to see (among other things) Kings Dominion. I'm still thinking about a Universal trip.

The one thing missing is a Disney trip. In most cases, the cost of the vacation is VASTLY lower for me compared to WDW. In some (Universal) it's probably about the same or a little lower, but I really feel that Universal is trying to get my business. I feel like Six Flags is trying to get my business.

I don't feel the Disney company is trying to get my business. So I won't give it to them.

That's how I define my car.

 

[YoHo]

Hr. Head my he melt in peace alreay commented on this, but I'll bold and oversize it for you.

We've been experiencing cutbacks in every commodity on the market.

WDW and that form of entertainment are not a commdity


And in fact most successful buisness not catering in commodities markets have found significantly more success in making better products not worse.

THAT is the essense of what is going on.

 

[crusader]

You trip over the very reason for Disney's failure. Treating entertainment as a commodity instead of an art.

No way. A commodity is an article of commerce. That is what the theme parks are. Art is the use of skill and imagination in the production of something aesthetic. That is what the theme parks have. Entertainment became a commodity the minute it sold one entrance ticket.

If what you are saying is that Disney today is a failure because it no longer incorporates art in entertainment you may be correct. By diversifying and trying to generate quick returns in the 90's, funds were outsourced and the parks lacked investment.

Disney used to represent quality in production of that which pleases a lot of people, not merely the ability to please a lot of people.

True - and the Tower of terror proved that. But before this attraction, honestly how long ago was the last one installed which met this standard? I disagree with blaming solely the current regime here. I think we live today wanting everything yesterday and it is easier to point the finger rather than accept and possibly even enjoy less than expected.

I want SOOOO badly to be able to get excited about the new DAK attraction and to run out an plan a trip to WDW.

Why not consider it. What happens here is that everyone wants the new attraction to fit their particular preference and rely on rumors to influence judgement. Have any mountain rides failed to deliver? Preliminary guesswork is a hazard. Information and leaks weren't as prominent in Walt's day and couldn't be more dangerous now. Based on what you are implying, it may only take one good attraction to get your money back.

 

[HB2K]

Why not consider it. What happens here is that everyone wants the new attraction to fit their particular preference and rely on rumors to influence judgement. Have any mountain rides failed to deliver? Preliminary guesswork is a hazard. Information and leaks weren't as prominent in Walt's day and couldn't be more dangerous now. Based on what you are implying, it may only take one good attraction to get your money back.

I will not consider a trip back to WDW on the scale of my previous trips based on one addition. There have been too many straws dropped and my back is far from healing. Maybe I'll take a Universal vacation and I'll spend a day in Disney. Total reversal.

I was using the DAK E(hehe) Ticket as an example for my statement because it's the savior du jour.

Information & leaks were not as prominent in Walt's day as they are now, but he didn't need the positve press that is needed today. He valued his name & company's image, and strove to protect it by only putting it on products which he was proud of.

The current regime feels the name will sell whatever product the put out there. For a while it worked, but eventually people caught on. Now Disney has two options:

1) Settle for it's current customer base who will purchase anything with the Disney logo.

2) Change course, invest in new attractions, publicize this change in philosophy...giving the Jim Hill's of the world NOTHING but positive things to write about, and hope this positive press changes customer's minds.

I don't think the company is going to accept 1 (Ei$ner's bonus would shrink) so in the mean time, they've become RELIANT on the Jim Hills of the world to remain in contact with whatever is left of the old customer base who is lurking, waiting for this storm to subside.

It's Disney's own fault that they need Jim Hill and others.

 

[airlarry!]

M. Head:

Your recent explanation is the best I've seen. The difference between the views on the car analogies are that one side sees the direction the company is heading in especially vis-a-vis the theme parks, while the other side sees the question as whether one would return to the parks considering the level of 'fun' or 'magic.'

One is future worries or optimism about the company, the other is present expectation of enjoyment or disappointment.

For us 'old-timers', who I would bet many are neither old nor timely, the car analogy was intended as a barometer of the future of the parks...not whether or not we enjoy the parks now.

Just because someone doesn't quite understand the subtlety of the analogy doesn't mean it is not useful.

 

[crusader]

One is future worries or optimism about the company, the other is present expectation of enjoyment or disappointment.

You lost me again. I don't get how you are worrying about the future without measuring it based on your present expectations - your enjoyment - your disappointment.

For us 'old-timers', who I would bet many are neither old nor timely, the car analogy was intended as a barometer of the future of the parks...not whether or not we enjoy the parks now

Again - how do you reflect on the future and worry about direction without utilization of present conditions.

Just because someone doesn't quite understand the subtlety of the analogy doesn't mean it is not useful.

Ouch! It isn't the subtlety. It is the dilution and misapplication which leads somewhat to a current misrepresentation in my opinion. But I get it now.

 

[All Aboard]

A commodity is an article of commerce

That's the simplified Webster's definition, but you left off the other half. The part about it being processed and resold like agricultural or mining products.

Generally, a commodity is a product with homogeneous qualities. It's virtually impossible for one producer to differentiate its commodity from that of another producer. Hay is hay, shale is shale, no matter who is selling it - it's the the same stuff, nobody can tell the difference.

Is that really the philosophy you believe Disney should take when considering the product it is selling?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Just because someone doesn't quite understand the subtlety of the analogy doesn't mean it is not useful.

You give those on the other side of the aisle way too little credit my friend. It isn't about not understanding the 'subtleties'. Heck, the car 3 focus is not very subtle at all. It is plain as day and we all (ok - most of us) see it. It takes some set of cajones to assume that if someone doesn't agree with the car 3 position that they don't 'understand the subtleties' . And here I thought we were understanding each others' POV better .

It isn't that those in car 1 or 2 don't understand the issue of direction, or even see the 'direction' that you refer to. It is more about what that 'direction' means in the big picture. Simply put, to evaluate that you must consider the experience of today. Experience is what it is all about. Crusader is right........................

Again - how do you reflect on the future and worry about direction without utilization of present conditions.

The answer is that you can't. Perhaps it is those travelling in Baron's car that don't understand that subtlety.

By most car 3 accounts WDW has been in steady decline, headed in the wrong direction, for 19 years now. Despite that 19 years of 'decline' the vast majority of those who might align with car 3 still find WDW a unique and Magical place. I realize that that is today and you are worried about tomorrow. However, while Disney may make some questionable decisions, I don't necessarily see that WDW will be any less Magical in the future. Heck, it has survived 19 years of so-called decline, but that decline hasn't really amounted to all that much. Yes, attendance as of late is down, but there are multiple reasons for that. Sure, you have crancky old timers, but most of them still go. Sure, maybe that fatal straw will fall tomorrow, but it hasn't for most in 19 years.

We can focus on the direction of the business all we want. We can say that the abandonment of old philosophy, the questionable decisions, the improper focus, etc., etc. are all bad. However, if you want to focus on the business aspect, and not the experience aspect, you have to accept the realities of business. That reality is that businesses change over time. They change for many reasons. Sometimes they change for the worse. I'm not saying that that is good, or that we should blindly accept it. However, I believe the business reality is that most people will so long as they find value for their dollar. It is wrong for Disney to rely on that fact, but they are to a certain extent. I do hope that changes. That doesn't change the fact that many, many, many people (car 3ers included) have accepted that for 19 years and I believe they will accept it for another 19 if that is what it comes to. Again, I don't agree that that is good but, if you want to focus on business and direction, I believe it is reality.

Focus on direction all you want. However, you have to consider that in 19 years that direction hasn't degraded the experience of today to the point that some of Disney's biggest critics (and fans) find the place unworthy of their vacation dollars. Tell me why that will be different over the next 19 years. Yes, Disney may lose some customers, but in the big picture it won't signal the fall of Disney, or even the reduction of Disney parks to no more than a Six Flags.

As I've said many a time, I see what car 3 is saying, I see the direction, I see the issues, I just don't agree on what it means and where it will lead. Combine that with a belief that things will change for the better in some ways (there are always ups and downs in business) and I just can't ride with the Baron, or even skitch on the bumper.

Combine this belief with Mr. Curlings earlier eloquent explanation of his car 2 stance (which fits me to a T) and you have my Disney dogma*.

* Yes, I realize that the definition of dogma (in my use) is a view put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. However, I firmly (authoritatively) believe what I say even though I have no proof, no crystal ball, no grounds to support it. However, none of us have that for any of our beliefs on what the future holds.

 

[HB2K]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Don't fool yourself my friend. I'm sure you aren't posting here simply to hone your typing skills.

Scoop.

p.s. Nobody could ever give enough so that Jim or Al or whomever would write only positive articles. If that indeed is your barometer then that pressure ain't going to be rising...

Sorry scoop. I'm still planning on posting and waiting for some type of sign that things are turning around at WDW....but as I said, I am not planning on going anytime in the forseeable future.

As for the positive press issue...there are other outlets which write about Disney. I can't recall any of them producing anything overly glowing about the company. It's not just Hill or Lutz who are writing about negatives in Disney.

It's funny....they seem to find nice things to say about Pixar (at least Hill does. I don't usually read Lutz).

 

[YoHo]

I don't necessarily see that WDW will be any less Magical in the future. Heck, it has survived 19 years of so-called decline, but that decline hasn't really amounted to all that much.

Mr. Kidds sir, I think the point we have all been trying to make is that in fact WDW IS less magical then it was. For some it is so much less magical that they won't go anymore for others, it hasn't gotten that bad yet, but Disney World has a very long way to fall and just because they haven't hit rock bottom yet doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to what's happening. It's foolish to sit and pretend like all these reductions in magic are meaningless in the long term, especially when we can see what's happeneing in front of us now. WDW is actually struggling to maintain attendence, a concept unprecidented in its history regardless of economic times.




Oh and thanks Gcurling for the full and correct definition of commodity. Not everything bought and sold is a commodity and WDW vacation certainly aren't one.

 

[hopemax]

However, you have to consider that in 19 years that direction hasn't degraded the experience of today to the point that some of Disney's biggest critics (and fans) find the place unworthy of their vacation dollars. Tell me why that will be different over the next 19 years.

We're only going to know how seriously Disney has damaged it's position when the children of today either bring or don't bring THEIR children. The 5-10 year olds of 1984 are just now starting to reach the point where they have the option to bring their 5 year olds to Disney.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Mr. Kidds sir, I think the point we have all been trying to make is that in fact WDW IS less magical then it was.

I know the point you have been trying to make - you just don't sell it very well if you ask me. 'Less' is a relative term. Yes, in ways it may be less Magical. However, in the big picture..........................as I said, I don't think it amounts to as much as some would make it.

For some it is so much less magical that they won't go anymore

Sure, but how big do you really think that number is? Sure, if it is one it is to many, but in the big picture.............................

for others it hasn't gotten that bad yet

Right, and after 19 years of decline.

It's foolish to sit and pretend like all these reductions in magic are meaningless in the long term

I don't maintain that they are meaningless. However, in the big picture I don't think they mean as much as you do. I agree that the Disney of today is not the same as the Disney of even 10 years ago, much less the Disney of 1972 or the 1950's. That is sad. The Disney of old was capable of more than what Disney provides today. The Disney of today is capable of providing more. At some point I hope, and think, they will.

Disney World has a very long way to fall and just because they haven't hit rock bottom yet doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to what's happening.

I agree. We should talk about it. We should protest in whatever way we see fit. We should communicate our feelings to Disney management. We should alter our WDW vacation spending to reflect the level of value we find in what WDW offers. Nobody is blind to what's happening. However, in the big picture, I don't feel that what's happening hasn't been as significant as you do.

WDW is actually struggling to maintain attendence, a concept unprecidented in its history regardless of economic times.

True, and for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the decision making that Disney has made in the recent past. Disney has some work to do. However, it's not like were in the bottom of the ninth, or even anywhere near the seventh inning stretch.

 

[raidermatt]

It isn't that those in car 1 or 2 don't understand the issue of direction, or even see the 'direction' that you refer to. It is more about what that 'direction' means in the big picture.

While I don't think that every car 1 or 2 person is lacking an understanding of the issue of direction, to say they are in 1 or 2 because they see the big picture, which therefore implies those in 3 or 4 do not see the big picture, is questionable at best.

By most car 3 accounts WDW has been in steady decline, headed in the wrong direction, for 19 years now. Despite that 19 years of 'decline' the vast majority of those who might align with car 3 still find WDW a unique and Magical place.

Yet a true "big picture" view tells us that 19 years in the life of a company is much more than a fleeting moment. Even for those who point to the death of Frank Wells as the turning point, its been 9 years.

If we wait for WDW to not be a unique and Magical place before we proclaim a serious problem, it will be too late.

The present serves as a point-in-time measurement, a way to judge what has been happening. Its not that the present does not factor into the equation...its just that the present alone does not provide the answer to whether or not there is a problem.

At no matter what height you begin, a downward path only leads one place. You gain momentum and the longer it goes on the more difficult it is to make the change.

Companies, especially those the size of Disney, do not stop on a dime. If one waits until the present day WDW experience for zealots like us is less than viable alternatives, it very may well be too late for ANYBODY to lead a recovery.

 

[raidermatt]

Sure, but how big do you really think that number is? Sure, if it is one it is to many, but in the big picture.............................

Its tough to reconcile your logic on this. On many occasions you point to the fact that the "complainers" on this board still go, so whatever WDW is doing wrong can't be that bad.

Yet when its pointed out that some are NOT going, or going less, you dismiss it as too small a sample.

If those who don't go are too small a sample to matter, aren't those who do also too small a sample?

However, in the big picture, I don't feel that what's happening hasn't been as significant as you do.

That's fine. The extreme viewpoints help keep those of us in the "middle" balanced.

 

[crusader]

That's the simplified Webster's definition, but you left off the other half. The part about it being processed and resold like agricultural or mining products.

Enter the spin cycle -

Commodity is an economic good as:
a) a product of agriculture or mining
b) an article of commerce.

I stand by the context of my reference.

Generally, a commodity is a product with homogeneous qualities. It's virtually impossible for one producer to differentiate its commodity from that of another producer.

In the theme park industry there are very few producers and the Disney differential is not "impossible" to see at all.

Is that really the philosophy you believe Disney should take when considering the product it is selling?

Disney knows it is brokering an article of commerce to the general public. It may market and package it in a "magical" way but everytime you paid them you bought what they were selling.

Not everything bought and sold is a commodity and WDW vacation certainly aren't one.

Confused again - what is it that you paid WDW for?

 

[YoHo]

Ditto to RaiderMatt.

I would add, that we have too many people with inside sources pointing to how bad upper managment is, in fact how bad DIsney is run in general. Some of that is obvious to outsiders, or is re enforced via what everyone can see at Stockholder meetings, press releases and Board actions.

Disney the Company is clearly in a decline. Under those circumstances, how can we ignore the signs coming from withing the park and more importantly, as RaiderMatt said,

At no matter what height you begin, a downward path only leads one place. You gain momentum and the longer it goes on the more difficult it is to make the change.

Companies, especially those the size of Disney, do not stop on a dime. If one waits until the present day WDW experience for zealots like us is less than viable alternatives, it very may well be too late for ANYBODY to lead a recovery.