Change in perception of Disney?

[Hikergirl]

Here is the thing though...its both.
And it is important to think about the values of companies, just like you may care if a company has polluted the environment with a large oil spill or makes it clothes in a sweat shop.
I love Disney but csnt deny that I am uncomfortable with the fact that they so desperately dont want to pay a living wage to their CMs that they have cancelled an entire hotel to get put of a local law that would have forced them too

It may be both of those things to you, but to some they are just a company whose sole purpose is to make money. And as long as it is done legally then there is no reason to get all self righteous about why you won't spend your money with them. (not saying you are, I'm referring to the FB post the OP mentioned).

 

[Micca]

I think if we were to delve into some research that as a brand, we'd find that Disney is very positive and powerful. When folks become big devotees of anything they start to pick it apart, and as stated previously we now know what anyone with an opinion thinks thanks to social media.

 

[bcla]

There are very few if no individuals that worked for Walt left to carry on his vision of quality. Disney was a family company because it tried to cater to diverse interests and all ages not just one or two demographics of family. Walt also tried to educate while entertain. Now Disney is out for the almighty dollar only. Walt on more than one occasion risked everything on a innovative idea. Disney has devolved to nothing but a brand. During this holiday season just compare the Christmas Parades of the 90's to the infomericals for the parks and their recording/cable "stars" that are produced now. There was a time as you said Disney stood for quality and you could watch anything produced. Too bad for this and future generations those days are long gone. Thankfully, I collected a number of the Walt-era movies and treasures series that Roy E. Disney pushed to have made on DVD in the early 2000s. They are sitting on a gold mine if the had the sense to go to their vaults and archives to release the contents. Quality never goes out of style and it introduces the next generation to what made Disney great to begin with.

Disney has always been about money though. Even thought Walt took a risk building his own theme park, making money on it was the first concern. His lack of money to buy as much land in Anaheim as he could as a buffer was one of Walt's big regrets. Certainly he wanted quality, but if he could manage to have it while saving a buck he would do it. 101 Dalmatians pioneered the used of photocopying to save on costs. He worked with ABC on programming so that he could finance Disneyland. He was always co-branding in order to make a buck or save a buck. There's nothing particular evil or wrong about it, but he was a capitalist.

 

[mummabear]

It may be both of those things to you, but to some they are just a company whose sole purpose is to make money. And as long as it is done legally then there is no reason to get all self righteous about why you won't spend your money with them. (not saying you are, I'm referring to the FB post the OP mentioned).

I think it is fine for people to also want companies to be ethical, and history shows so pretty deplorable things that were legal at the time.
I think people can be self righteous about not spending their money with companies that pollute the environment for example.
What I do think people.do need to do is research to what the companies are actually doing not just vocally boycott because the read a tweet saying something.
And it does bug me when people are hypocrites and vocally boycott a company because they are doing x while purchasing from another company that also does it

 

[olwyngdh]

be they bra burning liberals or Bible pounding conservatives (though mostly the latter), many people today think Disney is just horrible. The liberals think they're not promoting strong enough female characters, the conservatives just think Disney is trying to lead our children straight to the flames of hell because of their lack of strong parental role models and disobedient youth in the cartoons and their inferential homosexual references in recent lives action movies.

In your opinion, what has contributed to this shift in perception of Disney in general?

Admins: I honestly wasn't sure where to place this, so move as you see fit.

Actual 50something bra burning liberal here -- ok, we were 8 and stole a bra from a friends older sister because we didn't want to be left out and burned it in her dad's BBQ grill-- and my husband, daughters, and I are still big Disney fans. My granddaughter is being raised as the Disney Princess her Mother has always considered herself to be. People who get all offended by Disney movies need to get over themselves. Yes, in the early princess movies, the princess always had to be rescued by a man. They were culturally appropriate at the time. We see a lot more self rescuing princesses now. That just shows that Disney grows and changes with the times. People tend to look for things to be offended by, as if they can't have a happy life without trying to make others miserable. Don't like Disney? Don't watch the movies or go to the parks. Fine by me. That is just one more person I don't have to compete with to get an ADR I want.

 

[porschegrl]

I've noticed a large switch in the perception of Disney over the generations. Quite honestly today, among many people - be they bra burning liberals or Bible pounding conservatives (though mostly the latter), many people today think Disney is just horrible. The liberals think they're not promoting strong enough female characters, the conservatives just think Disney is trying to lead our children straight to the flames of hell because of their lack of strong parental role models and disobedient youth in the cartoons and their inferential homosexual references in recent lives action movies.

I don't think there's anything new about these viewpoints. Sounds like you're just newly aware of it. And I agree with those who have said that social media plays a huge role, not only in what we're aware of, but in taking any extreme viewpoint and running with it.

I just looked it up, and the Southern Baptists started their boycott against Disney in 1997 because they thought the company was too gay-friendly. More than 2 decades ago! (The boycott apparently ended in 2005.) Right about that same time, I had friends who were starting to have kids, and they were adamantly against exposing their daughters to Disney princesses. My boyfriend didn't hold either of these points of view, but he was anti-Disney (or at least, anti-WDW as a vacation destination) because of the artificiality of it. And as far as the perception of Disney as an evil money-grubbing company, Carl Hiaasen's well-known book, Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World, was published in 1998.

And of course, just because that's when I started becoming aware of anti-Disney sentiment doesn't mean that's when it started, either! Could have started long before that, for all I know.

 

[Southernmiss]

I don't think there's anything new about these viewpoints. Sounds like you're just newly aware of it. And I agree with those who have said that social media plays a huge role, not only in what we're aware of, but in taking any extreme viewpoint and running with it.

I just looked it up, and the Southern Baptists started their boycott against Disney in 1997 because they thought the company was too gay-friendly. More than 2 decades ago! (The boycott apparently ended in 2005.) Right about that same time, I had friends who were starting to have kids, and they were adamantly against exposing their daughters to Disney princesses. My boyfriend didn't hold either of these points of view, but he was anti-Disney (or at least, anti-WDW as a vacation destination) because of the artificiality of it. And as far as the perception of Disney as an evil money-grubbing company, Carl Hiaasen's well-known book, Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World, was published in 1998.

And of course, just because that's when I started becoming aware of anti-Disney sentiment doesn't mean that's when it started, either! Could have started long before that, for all I know.

This. I remember the 1997 boycott. It's like fashion. What we wore as kids is suddenly cool and in style with the younger generations who never lived through the style. So many things in pop culture come back in "vogue" after a time by the next generation or 2.

 

[dotfurio]

I think people in general (at least on a lot of social media) are almost looking to be offended by anything they can find so they can rant about it. Disney is a big company so an easy/well known target.

 

[low-key]

I think the target people for Disney has become non usa citizens , who cares right, doesnt bother any of us, but I feel like they had a subtle shift in target people

 

[tvguy]

I have mixed feelings about Disney today. In Walt's life time the goal was to "plus the show" I believe was the way he put it. Now it's "plus the profits".
I'm 61, and my first trip to Disneyland was in 1965. It much more basic then, and a lot less expensive. A 10 ticket book with admission was $4.50. That's $36 in today's dollars. With the "free" attractions, that was enough for an entire day of fun. A far cry from $100 or so today, granted it includes unlimited rides.
I have no idea why Star Wars is coming to the parks. That isn't Disney to me. But the parks are more crowded than ever.
As a Disney nut, I am a bit disappointed in what Disney is today, but as a Disney stockholder, I am getting a nice dividend check that I cash without hesitation. Creativity seems to have given way to being a successful business.

As for my parents, Disney was not part of their childhood. My dad was 18 when Steamboat Willie came out. My mom was 4, but lived in a rural area than even today is 70 miles from a movie theater. I think when my mom was a child the nearest theater was 150 miles away.

 

[mshanson3121]

I don't think there's anything new about these viewpoints. Sounds like you're just newly aware of it. And I agree with those who have said that social media plays a huge role, not only in what we're aware of, but in taking any extreme viewpoint and running with it.

I just looked it up, and the Southern Baptists started their boycott against Disney in 1997 because they thought the company was too gay-friendly. More than 2 decades ago! (The boycott apparently ended in 2005.) Right about that same time, I had friends who were starting to have kids, and they were adamantly against exposing their daughters to Disney princesses. My boyfriend didn't hold either of these points of view, but he was anti-Disney (or at least, anti-WDW as a vacation destination) because of the artificiality of it. And as far as the perception of Disney as an evil money-grubbing company, Carl Hiaasen's well-known book, Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World, was published in 1998.

And of course, just because that's when I started becoming aware of anti-Disney sentiment doesn't mean that's when it started, either! Could have started long before that, for all I know.

I had no idea there was a boycott then! Granted we live a wee bit of distance from that area.

 

[Toolulu22]

I guess this is as good a place to make this comment. I enjoy WDW, more than most of the population but not as much as die hard fans and DVC owners. There is something about going to Florida in general, but setting foot within the gates that feels relaxing, safe, and an escape from responsibilities of work, home, and life in general. The kid in me is able to truly enjoy the magic created within that kingdom. That's why we go, why we pay to stay onsite, and so on. I believe that is why many people probably go and do the same.

I teach now, but originally went to college to study business. In doing research for a project I came across a quote by Michael Eisner that I always remember when discussions come up about Disney. I feel that many of us often have pixie dust in our eyes and while Walt Disney was a beloved individual and Disney's founder, the business has evolved into a global dynasty.

So I looked up the quote to get it right- from 1981, Eisner said: "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective".

The heads may have changed, but the goals have not. They are a corporation and have stockholders. Comparing today to Walt's Disney is mega luxury yacht to steam ship. I definitely notice changes that indicate a change towards less detail in customer experience, and more outlay of cash. So we go less often, but we still go.

I enjoy coming to the Disboards. As others have alluded to, other chat boards seem to be a place where extreme opinions can air their opinions and can go very negative. Sometimes posts here start to lean that way, but get shut down eventually. For the most part the conversations here are civil, entertaining, and fun. And we have a common interest.

 

[shh]

I try to avoid most social media for my own sanity.

Smartest line in the thread

 

[tzolkin]

This was all prompted by a post I saw on a Christian homeschooling group,

My first thought to your original post was that I saw this same negativity about Disney when I was a kid and then I saw your update above.

My siblings were all homeschooled and we were the ONLY family in those circles who were allowed to watch Disney movies (and we lived nearby and also had season passes to the parks!)

I don't think there's anything new about these viewpoints. Sounds like you're just newly aware of it. And I agree with those who have said that social media plays a huge role, not only in what we're aware of, but in taking any extreme viewpoint and running with it.

I just looked it up, and the Southern Baptists started their boycott against Disney in 1997 because they thought the company was too gay-friendly. More than 2 decades ago! (The boycott apparently ended in 2005.) Right about that same time, I had friends who were starting to have kids, and they were adamantly against exposing their daughters to Disney princesses. My boyfriend didn't hold either of these points of view, but he was anti-Disney (or at least, anti-WDW as a vacation destination) because of the artificiality of it. And as far as the perception of Disney as an evil money-grubbing company, Carl Hiaasen's well-known book, Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World, was published in 1998.

And of course, just because that's when I started becoming aware of anti-Disney sentiment doesn't mean that's when it started, either! Could have started long before that, for all I know.

These have been my experiences as well. I very clearly remember the boycott (individuals were definitely boycotting earlier than the official Southern Baptist announcement in 1997 because I was in high school by then and remember boycotts when I was a kid).

As an adult, I have worked in academia at a liberal private university and have also been exposed to countless anti-Disney people there as well. That takes many forms: the gender/princess issues, the commercial/corporate nature of the company, and even the belief that going to the Disney parks is only for people too uneducated to do any “real” traveling.

 

[Planogirl]

My sister-in-law didn't allow anything Disney in her household because she saw them as an evil empire and also didn't like how they portrayed women. She has lightened up on that but the kids never went to the parks which is a shame.

I think that we all view certain companies as big and evil. I see that said about Walmart, Nestle, Starbucks and the list goes on. I personally feel disappointed in Disney nowadays but I don't see them as any more money-grubbing than most other companies.

 

[Fldisneyfamily4321]

I don’t hate disney but as of 2018 I won’t be returning .. still maybe a cruise every so often but now that I can travel overseas for half the cost I have just no interest . I have raised my kids on Disney vacations but with all the cost increases and less return it’s not worth it anymore .

 

[_19disnA]

I think people in general (at least on a lot of social media) are almost looking to be offended by anything they can find so they can rant about it. Disney is a big company so an easy/well known target.

I agree. Typically, you get the most vocal people (usually in a negative way) on social media with each trying to outdo someone else. Expressing an extreme/exaggerated view seems to get the most attention. Being anonymous online also encourages some to behave in a way they wouldn't in real life. I mostly ignore social media and don't see the see need for most of it. Most adults can form their own opinions about most any subject without having to depend on social media rants. To me it has nothing to do with being conservative/liberal (vague terms usually used to discredit someone with a different point of view), but most intelligent, well-informed adults get their information from a wide variety of sources. If someone doesn't like Disney, they can probably find a lot of other places to vacation.

 

[luvsJack]

There are extremes on any side of an issue and Disney is no exception. Some will hate it for whatever overly extreme reason and those that will defend anything Disney does because of their love of the company. FB just gives them a place to rant on either side. As does other social media like the DISboards.



Personally, I have some issues with things in the parks. I realize it’s a business and I realize a business is intended to make money. I have read a lot about Walt Disney but would never assume to speak for what his vision was for this far in the future or how the company would be if he was still around. But, I THINK (and this could just be my pixie dust clouded view of the man), he wanted to make money, he wanted to be a success of course. But I am not so sure he would have wanted it at the expense of the common visitor to the parks. And some things are that way. Can I have a great time in the parks without spending more than a ticket? Sure. But the marketing is totally toward the “extras”. And more and more of the extras prevent the enjoyment without them. Not having as much to just be a part of your entry ticket or it not be “as special” without the extras, sort of dims the glow of my love of the parks. It takes away from the quality and that is where I think Walt would have differed from those in charge today.

Same with things like food quality. What was the quality in the beginning or when Roy Disney was in charge? If it has gone down from there, well, I think it’s a good guess to say they perhaps would have figured out a way to keep the quality.

IMO, Walt Disney was about a quality product. Prices would have still increased and so would hotel rates and food costs. But would the quality have continued to grow too? (And I know for some it has, IMO, it hasn’t)

would he have paid the CMs more? Well, what did they make at Disneyland, when he was around, in comparison to the cost of living at the time? That would give you the answer.

Someone quoted Michael Eisner. Wonder if Walt would have said the same thing? I am not so sure.

 

[Praying Colonel]

I don't dislike Disney for any position (or failure to take a position) on social issues. For me, I'm disillusioned due to the loss of value thanks to the many changes they've made to the customer experience in the last several years.

 

[Firelfy]

I'm split. I think the parks are part of the whimsy that plays to the child in all of us and do so more now than ever... many of the films are still amazing. But the films specifically, it can be said, have shifted to one side and it may not be for good.