Disney's Dark Kingdom (Complete list on pg 24)

[nytimez]

Nice post.

The sad fact is that the bus system is nothing more than the cheapest route. Disney needs to become an innovator at some point in time less they allow themselves be viewed as just another company in all facets. The goodwill or 'magic' that was created by Walt's brilliance has all but been used up and the generic 'theme park' label is looking more and more probable, especially since the WWoHP kicked WDW's butt in every way.

Imagine if Igor wanted to actually create a legacy for himself like Walt did (and Eisner at least aspired to in his own demented way) instead of the standard MBA crappola of 'pleasing the street'?

The monorail is just the type of project that could create that legacy. Costly? Yes. Insurmountable? No. Unforgettable? Yes.

Yeah, it's easy to trash Eisner and there's lots of ammo for it especially when it comes to his later years. But for all his faults, he at least had a grand vision and a willingness to take huge financial risks.

Ha. Imagine that. Someday, the Eisner years might be looked on as the "good old days."

 

[DC7800]

Someday, the Eisner years might be looked on as the "good old days."

Now I'm really scared.

 

[Figment632]

Now I'm really scared.

I know because TL 94, DHS, and DAK are bad things???

 

[pilferk]

I don't think it's fair to dismiss our argument as anecdotal evidence only to make yours on the strength of what you admit is no evidence.

If I understand it correctly, your argument comes down to, "Disney is using this bus system, therefore it must work."

Is that a fair summation? I'm not being sarcastic. But I disagree. I don't think Disney's reliance on the system on its own is evidence that it must work, only evidence that it must represent some cost vs convenience tradeoff made in an accounting department somewhere. For example, they may have determined (accurately, in my case) that a mediocre bus system will cause inconvenience, but will not stop people from coming back.

My argument is: Disney has data. We don't.

To ASSUME the system isn't working based on anecdotal evidence isn't apt.

My argument isn't that the system must work. It's that we don't know if it's working or not.

The only thing we know is that Disney DOES know. And by "work" (again, from the perspective of the BUSINESS, not the guest), it may very well be that it's a tradeoff made in an accounting department somewhere. Meaning, FOR Disney, it works.

And it must work "enough" for the guests because we know it's getting guests to and from the parks, for the most part.

Again, go back to the mass production example. You're seeing some bad bottles (possibly on a day when the line is having problems...maybe not) and crying the system isn't working. Disney is both seeing the total throughput and the costs associated with it AS WELL as specific data on every time the system "fails".

Who do you think is best able to pass judgement on the system?

 

[pilferk]

Nice post.

The sad fact is that the bus system is nothing more than the cheapest route. Disney needs to become an innovator at some point in time less they allow themselves be viewed as just another company in all facets. The goodwill or 'magic' that was created by Walt's brilliance has all but been used up and the generic 'theme park' label is looking more and more probable, especially since the WWoHP kicked WDW's butt in every way.

Imagine if Igor wanted to actually create a legacy for himself like Walt did (and Eisner at least aspired to in his own demented way) instead of the standard MBA crappola of 'pleasing the street'?

The monorail is just the type of project that could create that legacy. Costly? Yes. Insurmountable? No. Unforgettable? Yes.

Why?

Seriously, why do they have to do any more than they are right now? As of right now, WDW is the one of the (if not the) top tourist destination in the US. The 4 main parks top the attendance lists every year.

So, again....looking at this from a business perspective and not from a "What would Walt do" perspective, a "blue sky" perspective, or a guest perspective...what reason do they have to change?

ROI. Unless they can see a significant ROI on a project...something tangible that will drive more dollars into their bank account (or prevent a significant amount of dollars from leaving it)...they're not going to change a system they think "works".

That's just fact. It might not be what "we" want to hear. It's certainly not "magic". But it's the way Disney works, now. They're beholden to their shareholders (largely institutional ones) who expect the stock price to increase.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Who do you think is best able to pass judgement on the system?

In this case I think we are.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Why?

Seriously, why do they have to do any more than they are right now? As of right now, WDW is the one of the (if not the) top tourist destination in the US. The 4 main parks top the attendance lists every year.

So, again....looking at this from a business perspective and not from a "What would Walt do" perspective, a "blue sky" perspective, or a guest perspective...what reason do they have to change?

ROI. Unless they can see a significant ROI on a project...something tangible that will drive more dollars into their bank account (or prevent a significant amount of dollars from leaving it)...they're not going to change a system they think "works".

That's just fact. It might not be what "we" want to hear. It's certainly not "magic". But it's the way Disney works, now. They're beholden to their shareholders (largely institutional ones) who expect the stock price to increase.

Why???? How about because they could? Why is it so hard for most business types to see down the road? Why does the thinking always have to lock step with what wall st. wants or what is generally considered prudent or what investors have come to demand? A forward looking CEO and BOD could do a lot better at both if they cared or dared to be imaginative, to think outside the box. Little Bobby isn't able to that, it's obvious but I take exception to the notion that there is only one way.

 

[pilferk]

In this case I think we are.

How so? Seriously..I'd love to hear an explanation.

All you have is an unquatified number of eyewitness accounts. We know they're neither a reliable source of quantifiable data nor are they particularly qualified or informed in their observations.

Again, if you want to talk about guest experiences...great. If you want to talk about your own disappointment, great. Posters are uniquely qualified to add those perspectives. And they're generally useful to other guests who might be reading.

But to judge the system as a whole, in terms of whether it "works" for the business using it? Or whether a monorail expansion is "cost effective"?

You can't really make that argument. Not without a LOT of data to back you up. Data we KNOW we don't have.

 

[pilferk]

Why???? How about because they could? Why is it so hard for most business types to see down the road? Why does the thinking always have to lock step with what wall st. wants or what is generally considered prudent or what investors have come to demand? A forward looking CEO and BOD could do a lot better at both if they cared or dared to be imaginative, to think outside the box. Little Bobby isn't able to that, it's obvious but I take exception to the notion that there is only one way.

Because, like it or not, that's not the way corporate America works.

"Because we can" isn't going to satisfy shareholders when they see a multi-million dollar line item on the budget that isn't going to give a quantifiable return. And then your Board of Directors gets ticked (since they're pretty much all appointees of large institutional investors). And then your CEO is looking for a new job. THAT'S why CEO's don't do things "because they can".

You're railing against corporate culture and climate. I don't disagree with your opinion on it. But what you and I think, want, or dream about isn't going to change what IS. I know..frustrating.

People point to Apple and Jobs as an example of what Iger should do. Except, if you really look at Apple....they operate the same way coporate climate and culture (aka Wall St expectations) dictate they should. Sure, they have creative people driving their product development...which is great. Sure, they've gone the "touchy feely" aw shucks route with PR. But Apple doesn't do things just to do it. I can't think of any Fortune 500 that does, off the top of my head.

If you want a company that does things "because they can", you need to find creative, privately held companies or companies that HAVE to take risks to succeed. Disney isn't that company any more. It hasn't been for a very, very, very long time. It's what comes with success, and with the evolution of corporate America (some would say corporate greed).

If you want to change that...you're going to have to start somewhere other than with Disney (specifically). You're going to have to try to change the entire Wall Street culture.

I wish you luck.

 

[nytimez]

My argument is: Disney has data. We don't.

To ASSUME the system isn't working based on anecdotal evidence isn't apt.

My argument isn't that the system must work. It's that we don't know if it's working or not.

The only thing we know is that Disney DOES know. And by "work" (again, from the perspective of the BUSINESS, not the guest), it may very well be that it's a tradeoff made in an accounting department somewhere. Meaning, FOR Disney, it works.

And it must work "enough" for the guests because we know it's getting guests to and from the parks, for the most part.

Again, go back to the mass production example. You're seeing some bad bottles (possibly on a day when the line is having problems...maybe not) and crying the system isn't working. Disney is both seeing the total throughput and the costs associated with it AS WELL as specific data on every time the system "fails".

Who do you think is best able to pass judgement on the system?

I think the consumer is always able to pass judgment on the produce he/she is consuming (or using).

Whether or not something works from a business perspective doesn't matter to me as a consumer. All I care about is if it works for me.

To use your bad bottle example, I've only twice in my life bought a glass-bottle product that turned out to be broken (once in a case of soda, once in a case of beer). It happens, and I didn't think much of it.

But if, over the years, nearly every case of a certain soda or beer I bought contained broken bottles, I wouldn't care what the company's data showed -- I'm not buying it anymore. Especially if I belonged to an online community where plenty of other people also said their bottles were arriving broken.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Because, like it or not, that's not the way corporate America works.

"Because we can" isn't going to satisfy shareholders when they see a multi-million dollar line item on the budget that isn't going to give a quantifiable return. And then your Board of Directors gets ticked (since they're pretty much all appointees of large institutional investors). And then your CEO is looking for a new job. THAT'S why CEO's don't do things "because they can".

You're railing against corporate culture and climate. I don't disagree with your opinion on it. But what you and I think, want, or dream about isn't going to change what IS. I know..frustrating.

People point to Apple and Jobs as an example of what Iger should do. Except, if you really look at Apple....they operate the same way coporate climate and culture (aka Wall St expectations) dictate they should. Sure, they have creative people driving their product development...which is great. Sure, they've gone the "touchy feely" aw shucks route with PR. But Apple doesn't do things just to do it. I can't think of any Fortune 500 that does, off the top of my head.

If you want a company that does things "because they can", you need to find creative, privately held companies or companies that HAVE to take risks to succeed. Disney isn't that company any more. It hasn't been for a very, very, very long time. It's what comes with success, and with the evolution of corporate America (some would say corporate greed).

If you want to change that...you're going to have to start somewhere other than with Disney (specifically). You're going to have to try to change the entire Wall Street culture.

I wish you luck.

In our current culture Jobs did it with PIXAR (not apple). If his health hadn't gotten in the way I think he would have further shown us how to do it. The upgraded version of Walt's model (my opinion) is there, what is lacking is the imaginative leadership. Maybe Mark Cuban will get tired of sports one day and take a swipe at it.

And yes I'm jousting at windmills ... Because I'm right and I don't give a darn if my silly words on the net change anyones minds but the fact is the current blueprint we are following is akin to the road to hell. From your posts I can tell you know this. Our difference is I'm going to squawk about it all I can even if I'm just spitting into the wind, knowing full well it's the epitome of futility.

 

[pilferk]

I think the consumer is always able to pass judgment on the produce he/she is consuming (or using).

Whether or not something works from a business perspective doesn't matter to me as a consumer. All I care about is if it works for me.

Great! But if you look back at my posts, you'll see that's not the bent I took. Not from the start of the conversation. I was strictly talking about whether the system works for DISNEY (and, really, this offshot from talks about whether a monorail expansion was cost effective or not).

And your chances of seeing change, whether the system works for YOU or not, are directly related to whether the system works for the BUSINESS or not.

To use your bad bottle example, I've only twice in my life bought a glass-bottle product that turned out to be broken (once in a case of soda, once in a case of beer). It happens, and I didn't think much of it.

But if, over the years, nearly every case of a certain soda or beer I bought contained broken bottles, I wouldn't care what the company's data showed -- I'm not buying it anymore. Especially if I belonged to an online community where plenty of other people also said their bottles were arriving broken.

And if enough people didn't buy the product, the business would find the system no longer met their needs and they'd change it. Or they'd go out of business. However, if their product was so good that many were willing to take the chance OR if the people who were seeing it were only a vocal and unlucky minority OR if the system failings were confined to a relatively small geographic area or if a million other things were going on that counterbalanced or invalidated the consumer observations...they'd succeed anyway.

Again, anecdotal guest experiences are great for US. They keep us informed, give us tips to solve problems, etc. I'm not going to say "Hey, don't express your disappointment with the system". You should. We all should.

But you can't really use them to pass judgement on the system from DISNEY'S perspective. Only from yours. See the difference?

 

[pilferk]

In our current culture Jobs did it with PIXAR (not apple). If his health hadn't gotten in the way I think he would have further shown us how to do it. The upgraded version of Walt's model (my opinion) is there, what is lacking is the imaginative leadership. Maybe Mark Cuban will get tired of sports one day and take a swipe at it.

And yes I'm jousting at windmills ... Because I'm right and I don't give a darn if my silly words on the net change anyones minds but the fact is the current blueprint we are following is akin to the road to hell. From your posts I can tell you know this. Our difference is I'm going to squak about it all I can even if I'm just spitting into the wind, knowing full well it's the epitome of futility.

Well, if you ever need a vote somewhere...let me know.

And as for Pixar...look back at what I wrote. Pixar fits the mold of one of the choices I laid out, pretty well.

 

[nytimez]

Great! But if you look back at my posts, you'll see that's not the bent I took. Not from the start of the conversation. I was strictly talking about whether the system works for DISNEY (and, really, this offshot from talks about whether a monorail expansion was cost effective or not).

And your chances of seeing change, whether the system works for YOU or not, are directly related to whether the system works for the BUSINESS or not.



And if enough people didn't buy the product, the business would find the system no longer met their needs and they'd change it. Or they'd go out of business. However, if their product was so good that many were willing to take the chance OR if the people who were seeing it were only a vocal and unlucky minority OR if the system failings were confined to a relatively small geographic area or if a million other things were going on that counterbalanced or invalidated the consumer observations...they'd succeed anyway.

Again, anecdotal guest experiences are great for US. They keep us informed, give us tips to solve problems, etc. I'm not going to say "Hey, don't express your disappointment with the system". You should. We all should.

But you can't really use them to pass judgement on the system from DISNEY'S perspective. Only from yours. See the difference?

I get what you're saying... like I said earlier, I believe they may have internal data that shows how the system is screwed up... but not quite badly enough to stop people from visiting (it hasn't stopped me thus far) and spending money, which is always the bottom line.

Like Peter, I'm just going to squawk about it... and lament what we don't have or no longer have.

I won't stop visiting -- yet -- because there's still enough there that I enjoy myself, flaws and all. But eventually, there may come a time where they make cost vs convenience tradeoffs in too many places -- and I'll be going less, or not at all. I already find myself spending more time in Universal than I used to, and I'm not sure if it's because standards there have risen to approach Disney or if Disney's have fallen enough to approach Universal's... or somewhere in the middle -- but the two are not as far apart as they used to be (except in size, of course).

But that's me -- and that, I guess, is the very definition of anecdotal.

 

[bgilson1973]

[/BNew park would be sweet. I do beleive that WDW needs a park for the tween seen.

 

[ASteelersMidget]

[/BNew park would be sweet. I do beleive that WDW needs a park for the tween seen.

they do. However, Instead of making a new park, Update an existing one (probably DHS since it is already considered the "Thrill park" by many people) to do a more tween/Thrill park.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

I agree that Disney has poor vision lately.

I often think of them as the company in a great Business book I read once called "I Know it When I See It!"

It's about a company that starts listening to much to themselves that they kind of forget, that it is not themselves they are serving!

It's a great book by the way for any of you avid readers.

THe bright spot is the comapny finally turns around, hope Disney does

 

[morethananyonex]

On the topic of the monorail expansion discussion, I'm sorry but I have to laugh every time its brought up. Other then the "coolness"factor, I think it would be a horrible idea to expand it to all resorts and parks, and basically a trainwreck.

First of all, the cost. Maintaining and building the expansion would be much much more costly than the bus system. Are you willing to pay monorail resort prices to stay at Pop Century? I'm sure not about to. There's no way Disney will expand the monorail system out of the goodness of their hearts, the cost is coming out of every guest's pocket.

Second, logistics. The current monorail system works well (relatively) because its a very simple design. You have a fairly short loop that covers the 3 resorts, MK and the TTC. These locations were built with the monorail in mind, it was not added after the fact. To get to Epcot everyone goes to one place (the TTC) transfers and then you only have ONE line going into Epcot, easy peasy right? Now start thinking about the layouts of the rest of the parks and resorts in WDW and how many different lines and TTC like hubs you would need in order to make the monorail convenient. Can you imagine all the transfers that could be potentially necessary to make it from one resort to one park? Especially because these resorts were not designed for the monorail (or their stations).

Third, monorail issues. If we're talking about anecdotal evidence in here, raise your hand if you've been stuck on a monarail in WDW.. *raises hand*. The nature of a monorail system is NOT flexible. You can't send out another train if one is experiencing issues, you can't bypass a broken train on a track. The bus system allows flexibility that the monorail system just can't. Line up getting long? Send out more buses! Bus broken down? Send another bus for the passengers! Road closed? Take an alternate route!

While Disney's bus system is not perfect, IMO a full monorail system would be a disaster with wait times and transfers being a much bigger issue then we ever see with the buses.

 

[Asellus]

....Dark Kingdom.....I thought Princess Sailor Moon destroyed that....?

I don't see Disney expanding until the dollar is stronger. its incredibly weak right now. It wouldn't hurt them to run more buses though....like a previous poster said....if people are waiting for the bus, they aren't spending.

oh....and need more Hades.....

 

[fannatic]

For Dfan79, did you make up the rumor about Dark Kingdom? If not, where did you read or hear about it?