From where do you get your optimism?

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Oh, it can ALWAYS get worse. As poorly suited as we may think Eisner is, there is alwasy somebody worse out there.

How true it is. My words were chosen poorly. I just mean that there is no optimism for me anywhere until he is gone. Once he is gone, I will approach with optimistic caution.

And in reality we are much further from Eisner's departure now than in anytime in the last five years.

Which is where my lack of optimism comes in.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I was away for a bit, but I'm back (carpel tunnels and all ). A couple of takes on optimism out there, and a lot of Eisner talk. I don't believe you have to be counting the days to ME's departure to possess optimism. With that, on with the loooong response .

Now I don’t want to be argumentative with any of you.

Suuuuuurre…………………………………. (hehehehehe) The Baron is back!!!!!!!

That only compounds my confusion!!

Mission accomplished

So, Mr. Kidds!! Again I ask. From where do you get your optimism!?!?! Cause other than having a good time when your there (same as me) and some obscure blind faith, you haven’t told me anything!!

Yes, I figured my first salvo was just short enough to confu……………..er, I mean frustrate you . Now let me elaborate on a few things.

Before I do that, I want to make it known that no one here can give you the answer you are looking for. No one can point to a documented strategic plan that says Disney will spend $x,xxx,xxx,xxx……over the next x…..years to do X, Y, and Z in the old time tradition of Walt himself. No one can point to a new management team that “gets it”. No one can give you the tiniest shred of concrete proof that things will get “better”. I understand that you would accept no less than some such forms of evidence (if you really thought there was an adequate or reasonable answer to the question at hand that might make you feel the teeeensiest bit o’ optimism ). I realize that no small shifts in trend or reversal of decision, occasional worthy additions, and unfounded rumor will sway your thoughts. In fact, folks like AV have a better chance at providing chunks of concrete (that has yet to set) proof that things will get “worse”. Yes, things have “declined”, “philosophy” has changed, and the World isn’t what it used to be. As much as I hate to admit when the cold cranium is correct, the question the optimists are answering is more along the lines of “Where do you get your optimism that your Disney vacations will continue to be magical?”, as opposed to “Where do you get your optimism that Disney will return to processes that generate Magic like they used to?” (I’ve REALLY got you on the brink of optimism now, don’t I? – but don’t clear that seat in car #3 for me just yet!) So on we go…………………

Let’s try an analogy – we all love those – just to put things into perspective. Granted, with the dozens of people contributing to this thread you will have dozens of different perspectives, but here is my take…………

The WDW of old was the most decadent flourless chocolate torte. So incredibly dense and chocolaty, with the most amazing chocolate ganache with just the slightest hint of Grand Marnier. Ohsooooooooooooogooooood!!! To me, the WDW of today is that same decadent torte, with the chocolate ganache, but they did away with the touch of Grand Marnier. They got cheap, they got lazy, the new pastry chef has a different philosophy……………..it could be any of a dozen reasons. So, how can I say…………….

“Nothing that I can't deal with?”

Well, I liked the Grand Marnier in the sauce, but it isn’t something I looked for, or wanted all the time, and I enjoy the wonderful torte just as much without it.

You see, “deal with” might be a strong statement. I’ll rephrase it as “nothing that has a significant negative impact on my WDW experience”. No more MHB (Mickey Head Butter for any newcomers ), no more chocolates with the bill, no more midnight hours – no big deal for me. None of these has detracted from my WDW experience. Yes, “my”, “I”, and “me” are all over those statements – but I am the only one that matters in my evaluation of WDW, and my optimism for the future of my WDW vacations.

A big problem we have here is that many of those without optimism, and those who are actually pessimistic, see the WDW of today as a Duncan Hines cup cake with store bought frosting. I not sure there is a way to reconcile the chocolate tortes and the cup cakes, as personal, objective opinion and individual experience is such a big part of each persons WDW experience and their view of Disney as a whole.

Trying to move outside the question of ‘optimism for my visits’ and into ‘optimism for magical processes’, and so you don’t think that I don’t get the “big picture”, I realize that leaving out the Grand Marnier, the MHB, the chocolates, the midnight hours, adding “less than past Disney quality” attractions like DinoRama (not that all additions fit this bill) or adding any new attractions at a slow pace, etc.………………..all are the result of a conscious decision to offer something different, something less, in order to increase the bottom line. There is that philosophy of yours. I realize that, for some, it comes at the expense of customer satisfaction. Someone is bound to be upset that the parks don’t remain open until midnight, or that their butter doesn’t come in the shape of the Head Mouse’s head (ok – not many, but a few ). For some that translates into less magic. Once again, for me, none of that matters and the magic quotient hasn’t been reduced. Yes, I should, and do, keep my eye on the future of the Disney Company, but I have yet to see them make decisions, even those that I think are bad or wrong, that are leading the company down the road to bankruptcy and the parks to ruin. They may even make some more “bad” decisions, but I don’t see that any of those would “have a significant negative impact on my WDW experience”. Really, why should I? All the egregious decisions some feel have been made are water under the bridge, with each subsequent trip we have taken being just as magical as the last, each trip providing some new element of magic (and maybe an element I wouldn’t have discovered had the parks been open until midnight). Furthermore, how on earth is it convoluted to say that (recognizing bad decisions and things I might think hurt the company) despite the bad decisions Disney offers an unequalled family vacation in an environment like no other? They do!!!! It is that simple. Even you agree, or you wouldn’t bring the Baron clan there for the annual summer sojourn. Am I right? How is that convoluted?

Yeah, yeah, yeah – you will say, “So it hasn’t affected you yet, but what about when they do this or that and it gets worse?” Let me turn the tables on you – why should I be so pessimistic? All those “bad” things haven’t amounted to a hill of beans for me so why should I believe they ever will? Not that I am an apologetic pacifist when it comes to Disney. I will stand up and voice my opinion on changes that I don’t like. I won’t just accept what they want to give me if it doesn’t provide my family what we are looking for. I won’t allow my expectations and plans to be dictated by Disney. If it ever got to that point I would take HB2K type action – but it isn’t there, isn’t close, and I don’t think it will be for me - I have no reason to.

Optimism for the future restoration of the magical processes of old? Well, that is a tough question. As mentioned earlier, there have been some decision and trend reversals, there are some Disney quality additions coming (M:S, Philharmagic), and there are always the rumors (Epcot cash infusion, Forbidden Mountain). Combine those with the fact that it isn’t all that bad now (decline and “flawed philosophy” and all) and I have more reason to be optimistic than I do to be pessimistic.

Time for you to answer some questions, Herr Baron. You happily agree to the stipulation of more deletes than adds, changed philosophy, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…... Well, given all that, do you still go? Do you still go as often as you ever did? Do you still enjoy WDW when you are there? Do you enjoy it as much as you ever did? If someone told you 20 years ago that Disney would have done all the terrible things you believe they have, would you have thought that your answer to these questions would have been the same? Bottom line is that all the egregious decisions haven’t amounted to all that much for you either, or for many people. Why should you believe that there will be further changes that finally will? And where is your proof? I doubt that Disney will shorten hours any more – heck, they have been reversing that trend as of late and have been bringing back more entertainment, not providing less. I don’t view that as an add in any way, but perhaps a stoppage of the bleeding? They have already hit a low on resorts with the All Stars and Pop, and those don’t have to affect you anyway. Where are all the terrible things coming down the line that will finally break the Baroncamels back? I don’t believe they are coming and have no reason to.

Well, that rambled a bit , but it should keep you busy typing for a page or two .

 

[raidermatt]

All those “bad” things haven’t amounted to a hill of beans for me so why should I believe they ever will?

Logic.

Unless you have come to the conclusion that you are exactly in tune with what the new philosophy thinks is important, the only logical conclusion is that eventually you will be hit.

Though, I do have to seriously question how you've come to the conclusion that the closing of CoP, Timekeeper, Sky Ride, 20,000 Leagues, etc. without replacemnet has no impact on you. Even if you had no desire to ever experience those attractions, the folks that did are now in front of you in line for attactions you DO want to experience.

The closing of Hunchback at MGM will have the same impact on you.

Also, if the closing times are earlier, it most certainly impacts you even if you don't stay until closing. That's because the folks that would have arrived later and stayed later, now have to arrive earlier, when you are there.

Of course it goes much deeper than just that, and these are only a couple of easy examples, but your experience most certainly has been impacted. You just choose not to acknowlege it. Nothing wrong with that, its your choice of course.

but I am the only one that matters in my evaluation of WDW, and my optimism for the future of my WDW vacations.

Kind of a narrow view of reality don't you think? Taking it to the extreme, if others are negatively impacted in significant enough numbers, that most certainly will have an impact on future offerings. I mean, we've already seen evidence of how this works. When a new park draws less than expected, or attendance falls at an exisiting park, the immediate reaction is to close, cut and retract.

As mentioned earlier, there have been some decision and trend reversals,...

Decisions yes, like EE. But trends? Where? The trend is still to cut as much as possible, and only keep or return something if there is a negative impact to the bottom line. Hasn't changed a bit.

there are some Disney quality additions coming (M:S, Philharmagic),

Probably true. In 1998-9 there was TT and RnRC. (Its debateable if these really match up well with other "classics", but for now, let's say they do).

Seems like a looooong time between such attractions for a 4 park mega-complex.

and there are always the rumors (Epcot cash infusion, Forbidden Mountain).

Even if true, it takes quite some time from ground-breaking to opening, so its still going to be awhile. One attraction does not solve AK's problems. With the talked about initial investment, Epcot could be put back on track, but only if there is a commitment to continued development (big question there). And what happens with MGM and MK while this supposed Epcot development happens? You see, this Epcot move (if true) is only a reactionary move being taken because a problem is smacking them across the face. So they will move to plug the hole that is Epcot's plummeting attendance. By the time they do have Epcot back on track (assuming the do), something else will need to be fixed, probably MGM, or maybe MK. Then they will run over to plug that hole...

Reactive vs. proactive. A trend that can only lead to increasing problems.

I doubt that Disney will shorten hours any more – heck, they have been reversing that trend as of late

Granted, I haven't done any full month comparisons of late, but I have spot checked here and there. Again, the "increases" are really just decreased decreases from last year's hours. That wouldn't be so bad, except last year's hours were slashed from the year before, after being chipped away for several years before that.... In other words, they set hours that are say, 10% less than last year, then later change it to a 5% decrease. Bottom line, still a negative trend.

I do agree though, that they eventually reach a point where they can't cut any further. They just don't seem to have reached that point.

 

[larworth]

As mentioned on the cars thread, a key difference in our positions is the severity of the perceived drift. Many may nod their heads in agreement when DisneyKidds says

Yes, things have “declined”, “philosophy” has changed, and the World isn’t what it used to be….I realize that leaving out the Grand Marnier, the MHB, the chocolates, the midnight hours, adding “less than past Disney quality” attractions like DinoRama (not that all additions fit this bill) or adding any new attractions at a slow pace, etc.………………..all are the result of a conscious decision to offer something different, something less, in order to increase the bottom line.

, but we seem to differ greatly on the impact of these changes.

If one feels the masses are likely to care little about these reductions in value, than there is little reason not to be optimistic.

If one thinks the changes are material, but are currently being masked by the legacy of goodwill developed over decades, than less optimistic about the future. Righting the ship would take time, the will, and the right business climate. Not a given even with a change in management.

We’ve periodically touched on Disney’s market intelligence capabilities. We’ve seen some questionable survey results from time to time. What is their real capability to understand shifts in customer sentiment in advance of an impact on attendance?

 

[raidermatt]

What is their real capability to understand shifts in customer sentiment in advance of an impact on attendance?

Good question. My answer is its shaky at best. They obviously misjudged EE in a big way. They also missed the boat on Epcot, and misjudged what the response would be to AK. "Misjudged" would be too kind a term to describe the error with DCA.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Logic.

Who's logic?

the only logical conclusion is that eventually you will be hit.

Who's logic was that again? Will there eventually be a ride that I might have wanted to see that gets the ax? Perhaps. Are there times I might wish the MK was open a few more hours? Sure. Is it going to have a significant impact on my vacation? Hasn't yet, and I don't see that it will. Again, while I'll do my part to effect change and voice displeasure over bad decisions, life is too short, and WDW too big, to sweat the small stuff.

Though, I do have to seriously question how you've come to the conclusion that the closing of CoP, Timekeeper, Sky Ride, 20,000 Leagues, etc. without replacemnet has no impact on you. Even if you had no desire to ever experience those attractions, the folks that did are now in front of you in line for attactions you DO want to experience.

CoP - Great attraction - both the Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow version and the This Is The Time version. However, even when it was open all the time, once you'd seen it it wasn't COMPELLING enough to do every trip. It was also open the last time I was there. Sky Ride - hardly COMPELLING as I can ride one at the Bronx Zoo, or Six Flags, or any of a dozen other amusement parks. Timekeeper - well, that was just cheesy, and not very COMPELLING, 20,000 Leauges - ok, there should be a replacement. But is one less MK ride than there should be a significant impact? For us it is not. Maybe we are lucky and we have been flying under the radar, or maybe the things you mention aren't that big a deal. As for all those people in line in front of me - well, they closed those rides because there weren't quite so many people in line for them - so no, no big deal.

Also, if the closing times are earlier, it most certainly impacts you even if you don't stay until closing. That's because the folks that would have arrived later and stayed later, now have to arrive earlier, when you are there.

The proof is in the pudding, my friend. I don't wait in any longer lines now that I did before the hours were shortened. Granted, much of that is because our touring patterns have changed. Back in our pre-child days we would be on Splash at 11:59 when the park closed at midnight. I guess we are just fortunate that the reduced hours coincided with the arrival of our children and we don't have any use for midnight hours any longer - so no big deal.

Of course it goes much deeper than just that, and these are only a couple of easy examples, but your experience most certainly has been impacted.

Notice I said "significant negative impact". Have we been impacted? Sure, we might do things a little differently now than we did 5 or 10 years ago. Has it been a significant impact? Not really. Significant negative impact? No, it hasn't - and that is the truth. As I said, maybe we are just lucky. However, if we take a smattering of folks from this here board and use them as a sample, most others haven't been "significantly impacted" either as we all still go and have a heck of a good time. Sure, we might complain about it, but the impacts haven't been COMPELLING enough to force a change in most. Is it because we are stupid? Is it because we are lemmings, blinded by the brand? Or is it that, despite the change in philosophy and some disappointment here and there, it hasn't been that big a deal. Remember, the proof is in the fact that we go -plain and simple. Of course you can point to declined attendance figures and say there is proof that people don't go - but you can't tie that to any specific reason, can you?

Kind of a narrow view of reality don't you think?

Yes, it is a rather narrow view. However, as you point out, it IS reality. Not just for me, but for you, and Baron, and, and, and...........All of our vacation experiences continue to be so good that we are COMPELLED to go - again, and again, DESPITE the changes.

The trend is still to cut as much as possible, and only keep or return something if there is a negative impact to the bottom line. Hasn't changed a bit.

But it has changed. Six months ago the trend was to cut as much as possible. Forget about returning something for any reason, it was cut, cut, cut. So that innocent little "return something if there is a negative impact to the bottom line" IS a change. Small, and nothing to brag about, but a change nonetheless.

Seems like a looooong time between such attractions for a 4 park mega-complex.

A long time indeed. Too long in fact. That is a bad thing. However, has that bad thing been COMPELLING enough to keep you or I from going? Combined with all the other bad things, has it been COMPELLING enough to keep you and I from going? No, and that isn't because we lack the intelligence to know exactly what is going on.

Even if true, it takes quite some time from ground-breaking to opening, so its still going to be awhile.

You most certainly are right, and it will be too long, much longer than it should be. Care to tell me when you have your next trip planned for? I guess not having any major new attraction for too long a while isn't COMPELLING enough to keep you from going. Bad, yes. A COMPELLING factor that will have a "significant negative impact"? Doesn't appear so.

One attraction does not solve AK's problems. With the talked about initial investment, Epcot could be put back on track, but only if there is a commitment to continued development (big question there). And what happens with MGM and MK while this supposed Epcot development happens? You see, this Epcot move (if true) is only a reactionary move being taken because a problem is smacking them across the face. So they will move to plug the hole that is Epcot's plummeting attendance. By the time they do have Epcot back on track (assuming the do), something else will need to be fixed, probably MGM, or maybe MK. Then they will run over to plug that hole...

If "ifs" and "buts" were....................ah, I forget how it goes. Anyway, as another saying goes, s*** happens, but I'd bet money that I know where you will be vacationing in 3 years. Hey, maybe if you take that bet I can get back some of the dough I lost when your @#$%^& Raiders beat my Jets .

Again, the "increases" are really just decreased decreases from last year's hours.

I agree. However, a decreased decrease means those hours are going in a different direction than they were six months ago. Again, nothing to brag about, and there is a long way to go, but it is a change.

In other words, they set hours that are say, 10% less than last year, then later change it to a 5% decrease. Bottom line, still a negative trend.

That all depends on where you set your baseline. As far as Disney being back to where it should be I would set my baseline at 1990 hours. As far as starting a trend, I would set my baseline at the lowest point on the chart. Have we reached that point? Only time will tell.

 

[DisneyKidds]

but we seem to differ greatly on the impact of these changes.

Most likely because they impact each and every family in a different way.

If one feels the masses are likely to care little about these reductions in value, than there is little reason not to be optimistic.

If one thinks the changes are material, but are currently being masked by the legacy of goodwill developed over decades, than less optimistic about the future.

Good distinction, and I guess time will only answer the question of which view is right.

 

[Bob O]

The changes disney has made has affected their bottom line. As stated in another article they have suffered attendance decreases and have lost market share to their competitors and there lack of giving their guests much of anything new to see has had to have had a impact on the guests staying for shorter periods of times and visiting their competitors more frequently. So while some may want to believe all is well and nothing has changed the numbers of people going to the parks doesnt lie nor does the fact they are losing market share abd are doing nothing to try to stop that trend!! Escpecially when competitors have new attractions in the pipeline to steal away more guests!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

So while some may want to believe all is well and nothing has changed

I don't think anyone believes this. I know I don't. However, I don't believe that things are as bad as some others do. I also am leary of analyzing attendance numbers and trying to determine exactly what they mean.

Yes, attendance may be down. Yes, Disney should do something about it. Will they eventually? Sure. Now before you all ask, "How can you say that?", let me just point out that this is all about business. Sometimes businesses respond slowly. Sometimes they make bad decisions. That is going to have an effect, more so on some than others. However, do you realistically see Disney going bankrupt? Do you realistically see the parks closing? Do you realistically not see Disney resonding at some point in the future? If you do, I can only say that is unrealistic pessimism, as business is business, and things will change over time. Change is the only constant. Bad change, good change, all kinds of change. In the mean time, I don't see things changing so significantly in either direction that it will change my WDW vacation habits, or many other people's for that matter.

 

[Bob O]

Well people are changing their vacation habits(i know my family has and it doenst benefit disney)and it is affecting disney and the onger it takes them to re-act to this the more they will be hurt by the attendance numbers!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Well people are changing their vacation habits

Sure some are. No matter what Disney does (good or bad) that is bound to happen. People change their habits for many reasons. However, I'll even agree that Disney is shooting themselves in the foot by not making more/better changes and responding to things that (if we can see them) they should be able to see - forcing some to change their habits when they might not have otherwise. But still, I heven't seen a fatal mistake yet. Some big one's sure, but I don't think the SS Disney Titanic is going to sink. Do you? Well, I guess you do. Another "time will tell" item . You know, it would be interesting if someone saved a few of these debates for future comparison. How interesting it would be to come back and read some of this stuff 2 or 3 years from now and compare it to where things ended up. I guess if these Baords do save everything 'from the beginning' we will be able to.

 

[raidermatt]

CoP - Great attraction - both the Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow version and the This Is The Time version. However, even when it was open all the time, once you'd seen it it wasn't COMPELLING enough to do every trip.

Never said this, or the other attractions really were COMPELLING. Only that the people who did experience them are now in front of you for what you want to experience.

If they aren't COMPELLING, shut them down. But don't leave them boarded up like a failed shopping mall. Put something in that is COMPELLING for today's audience. That WAS part of the Disney way, and part of what made Disney parks what they became. By largely dropping that philosophy, everyone's experience has been diminished, even those who choose not to notice it.

The proof is in the pudding, my friend. I don't wait in any longer lines now that I did before the hours were shortened.

The proof is in the pudding, my friend. I don't wait in any longer lines now that I did before the hours were shortened.

That just might have something to do with the fact that there are fewer people going to WDW now than there were back in 1997, yet there is one more park. I have numbers that go back to 1992, which had WDW at 29.5 million. Now its 37.6 with a whole (well, 1/2) park added, and another significantly built out from where it was.

That maybe good for keeping the lines constant, but as you pointed out, Disney is a business, and the lack of postive response they are getting from the public as a whole is a pretty good indication that plenty of folks aren't all that thrilled with the new Disney experience.

I guess we are just fortunate that the reduced hours coincided with the arrival of our children and we don't have any use for midnight hours any longer - so no big deal.

Ah, yes, lucky for you. And I guess you are optimistic that later hours will return when your kids are older?

Has it been a significant impact? Not really. Significant negative impact? No, it hasn't - and that is the truth.

Fair enough, but why should you have been negatively impacted at all? And, as you point out, if your family situation hadn't almost perfectly synched up with certain cuts, you would have been impacted to a greater degree.

Sure, we might complain about it, but the impacts haven't been COMPELLING enough to force a change in most.

It doesn't have to be COMPELLING for MOST. WDW's peak attendance was 43.2 million in 2000. It does not take 22 million people to get significantly irritated for a problem to exist.

It only has to be a minor irritant to some, and a significant problem for a few.

You continue to use the fact that we still go to WDW as proof that negatives are not significant. Yet, I know that you are very aware of the fact that the touring habits of a few fanatics on a Disney message board are hardly a significant sample.

For every one of us, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands who go to WDW, but are closer to the fence in the first place. They go, but they don't need a bunch of significant negative hits to change their mind. They actually have family discussions every year about where to go on vacation. And believe it or not, they actually STRUGGLE with the decision! So every little cut and hit that you see as insignificant is enough to push some folks to the other side of the fence.

And they aren't going to go back on the internet to see when hours get longer, or if EE came back. As Walt and many others have said, it costs 10x as much to get a customer back as it does to keep one in the first place.

Of course you can point to declined attendance figures and say there is proof that people don't go - but you can't tie that to any specific reason, can you?

Its very rare that you can tie a decrease in sales in any industry to one single specific reason. That offers no proof that there isn't a correlation to a specific reason. But certainly a dip in attendance is a far better indication than the habits of a few internet geeks like us...

All of our vacation experiences continue to be so good that we are COMPELLED to go - again, and again, DESPITE the changes.

The fact that we still go ONLY means that is our choice out of the available options. Given the amount of time we are willing to spend discussing this stuff, there's a very good chance we are in the top 5% on Disney's list of "commited" guests. Geez, by the time it gets to the point WE won't go, WDW would be long gone, since 95% would have already bolted.

So, once again, using our propensity to return as the indicator of how good or bad things are is a mistake.

But it has changed. Six months ago the trend was to cut as much as possible. Forget about returning something for any reason, it was cut, cut, cut.

No, its not a change. Its just that they found something that gave them a direct corellation to lost business. The negative response was so profound, it was obvious in the decrease in bookings. Its only when they reach this point where things slap them in the face that they respond. Its just that it takes time for people to start having negative reactions to small, incremental cuts. And when they do, as you say, nobody can prove the negative response is tied to a specific reason. Unless the situation is as obvious as EE.

However, a decreased decrease means those hours are going in a different direction than they were six months ago.

But they're not. Disney has been in this pattern for quite awhile now. They release minimal hours, than put a few increases in. The net result continues to be a decrease from the year before. They lower your expectations 2 notches, then give you a one notch pleasant surprise. How is that any better than the one notch drops that were taking place before that?

but I'd bet money that I know where you will be vacationing in 3 years.

Can't take that one...I'm one of those "commited" 5%, remember. Now, if you want to bet on the 5% at the other end, and how they will react if current trends continue, I can double the loss the Raiders put on you...

 

[raidermatt]

But still, I heven't seen a fatal mistake yet. Some big one's sure, but I don't think the SS Disney Titanic is going to sink. Do you?

The question isn't whether they already have made "the fatal mistake". Rather, what is going to change to keep them from making that fatal mistake? Further, does there have to be one fatal mistake? Can't a multitude of small mistakes eventually have the same effect, and be harder to spot even?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Only that the people who did experience them are now in front of you for what you want to experience.

And once again………….no big deal . Unless you are one of the people who found these rides COMPELLING, I don’t think their loss had a significant negative impact on most people’s WDW experience. However, you are right...............

don't leave them boarded up like a failed shopping mall. Put something in that is COMPELLING for today's audience.

………..Disney shouldn’t do this. Has the fact that they have done this “diminished” everyone’s experience? That is debatable. Certainly, if you wouldn’t have gone on them anyway the impact is negligible at best, but technically “diminished”. If you want to hang your hat on technicalities, fine .

That just might have something to do with the fact that there are fewer people going to WDW now than there were back in 1997, yet there is one more park. I have numbers that go back to 1992, which had WDW at 29.5 million. Now its 37.6 with a whole (well, 1/2) park added, and another significantly built out from where it was.

That maybe good for keeping the lines constant, but as you pointed out, Disney is a business, and the lack of positive response they are getting from the public as a whole is a pretty good indication that plenty of folks aren't all that thrilled with the new Disney experience.

I have to say, so what? And what can you really tell from those numbers about the impact of Disney decision making? The numbers I was able to dig up put 2001 attendance figures for Disney at 93% of the 2000 numbers. Gasp – a decline, must be Disney’s terrible management and decision making, right? Well, the same numbers put the Universal parks 2001 attendance at 92% of the 2000 numbers. So how can you draw any significant conclusions about Disney from that? Granted, I don’t have 2002 numbers, but maybe we need to start a new attendance analysis thread, or I’ll revive an old one. Disney was not underperforming the Universal Orlando theme parks in 2001, despite all the terrible management decisions. 2002 numbers are down, but I suppose that 9-11 and the stock market tumble had nothing to do with that? I’m not saying Disney couldn’t have weathered those events better, but I think we need to look at where things go over the next year or two before we can condemn Disney based on attendance figures.

An interesting twist is that even with shorter hours and MK guests dispersed over fewer attractions, the lines aren’t any longer. Of course we could go chicken and egg here, but if attendance was declining prior to the shorter hours and closed rides, it would appear that the decision to shorten hours and close rides was a prudent one. It is hard to conclude that Disney decision making resulted in lower attendance when other area theme parks also had declines.

And I guess you are optimistic that later hours will return when your kids are older?

Haven’t really given that much thought. Of course, speculating on what might happen 10 years from now is a rather futile effort.

Fair enough, but why should you have been negatively impacted at all?

Perhaps because many things in life change, for many different reasons.

But certainly a dip in attendance is a far better indication than the habits of a few internet geeks like us...

Yes, but when that decline affects the competition as well, what exactly is it an indicator of?

For every one of us, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands who go to WDW, but are closer to the fence in the first place. They go, but they don't need a bunch of significant negative hits to change their mind……………………………… And they aren't going to go back on the internet to see when hours get longer, or if EE came back.

How many of those people are even aware of all those ‘negative hits’. Sure, they don’t go back to the internet to see if the hours got longer, but they might not even know that they were ever cut. We are in the unfortunate position of knowing what it was like so we are way more critical than the masses. It is unfortunate that Disney isn’t giving these people what Disney used to give us, but are people really being driven away from Disney due to the fact that they don’t have something they never knew existed?

So, once again, using our propensity to return as the indicator of how good or bad things are is a mistake.

Is it really? Sure, we are the “committed” ones (or the one’s that should be committed ), but we also possess a knowledge base that creates a level of dissatisfaction most other guests will never have. We go and the MK closes at 6:00 and we get pissed. Others go and 6:00 is it, whether it be Disney, or Universal, or wherever. They don’t exit the park all upset that the park isn’t open as late as it used to be. If anyone is likely to bolt Disney because of the changes it is those who possess enough Disney knowledge to recognize them in the first place.

The net result continues to be a decrease from the year before. They lower your expectations 2 notches, then give you a one notch pleasant surprise. How is that any better than the one notch drops that were taking place before that?

It isn’t. However, if things are changing, those changes are just beginning. Let’s talk more about that when we get some real 2003 hours experience under our belt.

Now, if you want to bet on the 5% at the other end

Sorry Matt, I won't take that sucker bet. The 5% at the other end is an ever changing group of people no matter what Disney does.

The question isn't whether they already have made "the fatal mistake". Rather, what is going to change to keep them from making that fatal mistake? Further, does there have to be one fatal mistake? Can't a multitude of small mistakes eventually have the same effect, and be harder to spot even?

Forget the size or number of mistakes, do you think the Disney ship is going to sink?
I know, I know...........

speculating on what might happen 10 years from now is a rather futile effort. **

** Hey, that was a first. I quoted myself before I even posted .

 

[mitros]

Wow! the length of the last couple of posts is making my ears bleed.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by mitros
Wow! the length of the last couple of posts is making my ears bleed.

You ain't seen nothin' yet . If the Baron ever gets going again...............look out!!!!

 

[manning]

But still, I heven't seen a fatal mistake yet.

Raidermatt you beat me to it. Many times it a series of mistakes that bring down the house of cards. And they don't have to be major ones.

 

[raidermatt]

Has the fact that they have done this (boarded up instead of replacing attractions) “diminished” everyone’s experience?

Yes. Closed locations is bad show. Even if you never intended to experience any of the closed attractions, them being open contributed to the overall atmosphere of the park. Certainly much more than an empty building. I know, "no big deal".

Yes, but when that decline affects the competition as well, what exactly is it an indicator of?

I thought we'd covered this in another thread, but maybe not... 2002 numbers are available, and WDW attendance dropped 6.0% in 2002 when compared to 2001. Universal Orlando rose 1.6%. Sea World Florida dropped 1.9% in 2001, and 2.0% in 2002.

So, since 2000, WDW is down 13.0%, USO 7.8%.

AK opened in 98, IoA in 99.

Since 1997, WDW is down 4.1%. Yes, down, even though there were only three parks in '97.

Since 1997, USO is up 46.1%, obviously due to the addition of a park.

Sure, there are alwasy a multitude of factors that could be contributing, but to ignore at least the possibility that part of it is due to mis-management is a mistake.

Perhaps because many things in life change, for many different reasons.

Very true. However, I hardly see that as the justification a company should be using to reduce the value if its offerings. That would make quite a press release...

How many of those people are even aware of all those ‘negative hits’.

Another one we've covered before. You're right in that the casual guest is not likely to know exactly what has changed. They won't know for example, that the MK is open 5 less hours the week they are there. What will happen however, is that they will see less of the park at night, or find there day cut a little shorter than they remembered. They might not know for sure why things were a little different, but they will notice SOMETHING is different.

Really, its a reality of business. If you offer less to your customers, as we can agree WDW is at least to some degree, the customers will figure it out. Those that still think its the best value available will continue to come, those that don't, won't. You don't disagree with this concept, do you?

Sorry Matt, I won't take that sucker bet. The 5% at the other end is an ever changing group of people no matter what Disney does.

Alright, but my point was that if things go unchecked, the 5% they lose won't be replaced in equal numbers.

Now, the wild card in all of the this is the economy and tourism. Clearly, if those continue to improve, WDW should benefit. But how much they benefit is dependent on how well WDW is being managed. The economy is like the tide. When its low, even big waves cannot reach as far inland as they normally could. And when its high, everybody gets a boost. The idea is to make sure you are making a big wave, so you can do the best you can no matter what the tide is doing.

 

[WEDWAY100]

I have enjoyed reading the debate. I wasn’t going to respond to this thread, because I’m in car 3.5, and have little optimism. But now I’m thinking that 3.5 is not 4. Why am I not in car 4? There must be some optimism somewhere, or I would burn my AP and never return.

So where does this minute glimmer of optimism come from? Well, many of you will disagree completely with me, but here is a “Hypothetical Reason for Hope”:

Imagine a world 10 years from now. Ei$ner is still in charge. No new E-tickets the entire 10 years. Just some carnival add-ons in the first few years, but those didn’t work, so he stopped all investment. The parks are dirty and the hotels are less than half full. DVC guests make up 90% of the attendance, since they can’t trade their points. Nobody wants to go to WDW anymore.

But other things are just as weird. ABC is now number 1. It is sucking in money like never before. Turns out that Ei$ner got tired of all the short term planning and poor results, and hired some new blood for the network. The company has cash now, but the parks are underperforming. So in a rare case of justice, Ei$ner decides to invest the ABC profits into the parks and resorts division rather than close or sell them off. Glorious new E-tickets are built in every park, with incredible detail, and stories that would make Walt proud.

End of a “Hypothetical Reason for Hope”.

I don’t perceive the purchase of ABC as the bad and evil thing that many of you seem to. Disney may have paid too much, I can’t really calculate the value. But ratings in network television have constantly changed, and I have hope that ABC will eventually turn around. Yes, even under Ei$ner. It will be a long time, and will take a change in philosophy from short term to long term thinking. But once that happens, I believe that there will be money available to re-vitalize existing businesses that are stagnating. I further believe that this re-investment could restore WDW to the early 90’s level of magic. The pessimist in me tells me that the magic will never be restored to the late 60’s – early 70’s level of magic. Not without a true visionary at the helm.

Is this a probability – of course not. After all I’m in car 3.5. But can some of you admit that it is at least a possibility?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Yes. Closed locations is bad show.

Perhaps yes. However, how many people do you think go by many of those locations and think "Gee, look at that empty boarded up space?" I don't think it is all that many. Again, it would be better if something was there, but it is...................

As for attendance numbers, maybe it does need it's own thread. As I've always maintained, numbers can be misleading. Looking at "since 1997", and looking at 1998 and 1999 is tricky because of the addition of new parks. In 2000 and 2001 everyone was down. No, of course you can't............

ignore at least the possibility that part of it is due to (Disney) mis-management

...............especially when you consider that Universal parks gained in attendance in 2002. However, it is a leap to say that mis-mamagement is the primary factor - we just don't know. Why is Disney down in 2002 while Universal is up? Disney management could have done better, but is it possible that Disney took a bigger hit from 9-11 and the economy as it is more of a destination resort than Universal? What other factors could have had an impact. Not trying to make excuses - just thinking out loud.

Now, the wild card in all of the this is the economy and tourism.

And it will be interesting to see where things go in the next year or two.