From where do you get your optimism?

[raidermatt]

But can some of you admit that it is at least a possibility?

Sure, its a possibility. But I think its less likely than Eisner actually leaving within those 10 years. Of course, its uncertain who would replace him and what direction they would take the company, specifically the parks/resorts.

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.

I agree, probably not many think of it in those specific terms. More than likely, its something like "Gee, it seems like there just isn't as much in Tomorrowland as there used to be." Again, your point about how many this actually cheeses off is well taken, and if it were just this one thing, that would probably be the end of it.

But how many people notice the decreased level of package delivery?

How many people notice the shorter hours?

How many people did actually consider at least one of the "closed without replacement" attractions COMPELLING, or at least enjoyable?

How many people do care about the lack of transportation development (whatever that might be)?

How many people did notice that DR seemed out of place?

How many people did notice the 1 or 2 degree up-tick in air conditioning?

How many people do miss the Magical touch of MHB?

How many people are annoyed by the earlier appearance of the vacuums by Harley Davidson?

That doesn't even take into account those that perceive lessor maintenance, a higher percentage of "less than Disney" CMs, or dirtier parks. Things that certainly many feel have slipped, but we can't prove or disprove here.

And certainly there's other little dinks and doinks. Picking any one of them and saying "how many people really care?" is missing the point. The point is, all of those little hits, that affect relatively small numbers of people, keep adding up. Eventually you get overlap. Most won't feel strongly about all of them, but maybe its one or two. And worse yet, they might not even be able to articulate exactly what it is that's missing. They just know SOMETHING is missing.

It takes a long time, but eventually, chip-chip-chipping away at the value will be felt in the bottom line.

However, it is a leap to say that mis-mamagement is the primary factor - we just don't know.

Very true. But it doesn't have to be the primary factor to be a problem. Even if its weight is only 10%, its a problem.

 

[DisneyKidds]

But it doesn't have to be the primary factor to be a problem. Even if its weight is only 10%, its a problem.

Agreed, even if only 1%. How many times have I said that Disney has it's problems? I see the big picture. The problems layer and they add up. However, in the end, in the REALLY big picture - do you think these compounding problems, layered with more that are bound to crop up, are going to sink the Disney ship? You still haven't answered that question my friend - and I think it is because I know your answer .

 

[raidermatt]

do you think these compounding problems, layered with more that are bound to crop up, are going to sink the Disney ship?

Define sink.

Will it take the company into bankruptcy, and force the closure of the parks? Nah...

Will it take them down a road that makes them no better or worse than many others? Yes. Nothing morally wrong with that, but it truly is a shame. Disney was, and still is, so much more than that.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Disney was, and still is, so much more than that.

So after 3, 5, 10, 15 years of decline (what number would you put on it?) Disney still is so much more than the others. So what will it take before it isn't? Another 1, 3, 5, 10, 15? Is it possible that Disney will hold it's edge (granted, a narrower edge than it used to have), and has a shot at turning things toward the positive when some new management blood takes over (which will happen eventually).

You seem to agree with much of what I have said. That is that Disney has problems, but those problems heven't amounted to enough to bring Disney down to the others. Who's to say it will? At best (for your side of the aisle) you can say it could go either way. I'll stay on the positive side of the equation.

 

[CasualObserver]

It really gets to me when I hear the "how many people will notice ____, not many so it really doesn't matter". It reminds me of a story....


A guy gets on an airline and orders a Coke only to be told they only serve Pepsi. He really likes Coke, but takes a Pepsi instead. The next flight, our fellow, ever the optimist, tries again for his beloved Coke, only to be turned down. Eventually, he quits asking for Coke and only order Pepsi on this airline. The question is "Did the airline meet his expectations?" Well, to the airline "Yes" because they gave the passenger what he asked for. To the passenger, "No" because the didn't have exactly what he wanted.


The question isn't about how many people notice, it's about delivering exactly what the customer wants, not training the customer to expect what you want to deliver.

If you keep trying to find the lowest point where EVERYONE notices, then you are dooming yourself to failure. Disney is trying to find that point and then deliver juuuussst a smidge above it. In the mean time, all of those who do notice are talking on boards like these and the word is getting out. My wife and I decided to take a trip in March to Las Vegas to see Cirque rather than go to Disney to see La Nouba. Why? Because we feel that the resorts in Vegas will more likely deliver exactly what we want rather than forcing us to accept what they have. We don't gamble, we enjoy entertainment.

The one thing that you "how many people" type seem to forget is that EVERYONE notices something. How long has that building between TestTrack and WorldShowcase (the one that is now just a bathroom stop) been dormant? I noticed it three years ago and it's still dormant. You know, the Lagoon is one thing - it looks like decoration at least - but a building with chairs and tables that looks like an abandoned user's conference is another.

Does Disney deliver exactly what the customer wants or does Disney train the customer to want what it can deliver?

Hmmmm?

End of Rant.

 

[DisneyKidds]

The question isn't about how many people notice, it's about delivering exactly what the customer wants, not training the customer to expect what you want to deliver.

Right, and the wonderful thing about the American consumer is that he or she will go and get their Coke from someone else if their usual store doesn't provide it. Some think that that is already happening at Disney, as evidenced by lower attendance the last few years. Others aren't so sure that is the case.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

WOW!!! I hope this guy doesn’t remain a “Casual Observer”!!! The following is going into the “OFFICIAL” Disney Philosophy According to the LandBaron!! What a powerful sentence!

The question isn't about how many people notice, it's about delivering exactly what the customer wants, not training the customer to expect what you want to deliver.

But he stop there? NO!!! He continues:

If you keep trying to find the lowest point where EVERYONE notices, then you are dooming yourself to failure.

And what is the response? Well mine, of course, is a “HOLY COW!! THIS GUY GETS IT"!!! Strangely, Mr. Kidds does not have the reaction. He says,

Right, and the wonderful thing about the American consumer is that he or she will go and get their Coke from someone else if their usual store doesn't provide it.

Clear cut evidence, yet once again, that Mr. Kidds, doesn’t get it!!

Why? Simple. By doing what the CasualObserver says they are doing (and I can’t see anyone refuting it) they are doing EXACTLY what their competition is doing. Thus leaving a huge hole at the top that no one is capable of filling! You see, the analogy is close, but not quite on target. And the twist that Mr. Kidds puts on it supposes that your product of choice, Coke in this instance, is readily available at the competition’s establishment. So let me see if I can straighten out this little tale and perhaps hit the mark a tad bit closer. And it really doesn’t take much imagination because the idiots at Coke really did it!!

The soft drink is a fine vehicle for the story, but the airline is the wrong setting. It has to be the company itself. Suppose, just for a moment that you are truly addicted to Coke. You love it so much you spend countless hours typing away at message boards arguing the finer points of your product. Oh, sure you downed an occasional Seven Up once in a blue moon, and the last Pepsi at least, didn’t make you ill, you’d even drink it when the airline offered nothing else. But Coke was your breakfast, lunch and dinner choice!! Then one day the lame brained management (who you told everyone to watch out for) decided to do away with your “magic” elixir and put out something called New Coke instead!! Which tasted surprisingly like Pepsi!! Which while not making you sick, is a far cry from your precious Coke!!

And the very next day you find yourself typing feverously to your Board-Buddies about the ruin of your life!! How the ‘magic’ is drying up!! And the response is that early sales figures show no significant decrease and the new stuff ain’t bad. Besides, if it bothers you that much, just buy a Pepsi!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, got a little carried away with the analogy. But that “ahhhhhhh” is really the frustration I feel about Disney!! If I wanted Universal I would have gone to a Universal site. Yeah, their parks are nice. Yeah, they don’t make me sick. And Yeah, I even have a good time there.

BUT THEY AIN’T NO DISNEY!!!!

And they are certainly NOT a Disney substitute!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Clear cut evidence, yet once again, that Mr. Kidds, doesn’t get it!!

Ah, Baron - I don't think so. You may be right in that I mispoke a bit. Let's clarify a few things. First, Coke (in this instance) equals the Magical experience that Disney has provided in the past. Second, and you are right (this is where I misspoke), you can't get Coke anywhere else.

So what point was I trying to make? Well, just this. If the American consumer can no longer get their Coke, they will stop going to the place that used to provide it, and get a non Coke product somewhere else. So why isn't everyone now going elswhere? Well, because not everyone agrees that Disney is doing this............

...... trying to find the lowest point where EVERYONE notices, then you are dooming yourself to failure.

 

[CasualObserver]

Mr. Kidd,

You are correct, they will go somewhere else and find the company that provides them with exactly what they want. However, you can't say that current Disney management trends aren't leading down the "Lowest Level of Service without SIGNIFICANTLY reducing visitors". There are too many examples to show just the opposite. In all areas of the company the mantra is "cut costs until the screaming is REALLY loud".

I'm not saying they have reached the lowest level yet. I simply see a trend and it gets under my skin to see such stupidity running rampant in Disney.

Disney is in the experience business, whether it's a physical experience in their parks, or an emotional one in their other divisions, the still are in the business of providing their customers a unique experience.

If Disney management drops the operation of the company to the lowest level of service then they are a commodity - no different than any other entertainment offering. As a commodity, they lose the ability to charge a premium for their offerings.

I can't really say that Disney of the 60's was great, I was too young to notice. What I can say is that the Disney of the 70's, 80's and early 90's were doing things that, at least, attempted to provide their customers with a unique experience.

I'll say it again, the change happened with EuroDisney. That was the point that the company lost it's guts. That was the point that the B-School types took over. The Creatives lost the war to The Suits. They built their masterpiece and it failed financially (initially) and it was used to wrench power from their hands by The Suits.

I'll also say this again - Eisner is NOT a business genius. He simply exploited properties created by others. The early successes in Feature Animation were in the works prior to him and the others were in the hands of Katzenberg (and when Katzenberg left, you find the offerings in steady decline). He has run out of other people's ideas to claim as his own and he has run out of creative people to have ideas.

Back the question at hand, though.

There is a measure of Customer Sacrifice which is "Exactly what the customer wants minus what the customer will accept". That used to be an extremely low ratio for Disney. The company would offer things that the customer wanted before the customer knew they wanted them. I see a reactionary company now. I see a "let's see if we drop _____ will it hurt the attendance" or "We took a survey and the customers want _____" Both are wrong-thinking but the first is worse.

The first one simply increases the sacrifice until the screaming is deafening and it turns your experience into a commodity. The second one seems like a good thing at first, but under closer examination it, too, is flawed. You are basically asking the customer to be the creator of your ideas. Yes, it sounds like you are trying to find out exactly what the customer wants and deliver it, but it's the wrong way to do it in this environment. Let's look at Early Entry. It was taken away because the survey said that people wanted more character interaction and their internal numbers showed that not "enough" people used EE. So what did they give their customers? Take away EE (which was a selling point for OS resorts) and cart around characters in a truck a couple of times a week. Is that what the survey really said to do? My point is that if you have to ask your customers what to build, you are too late - they only say they want something if they've seen it somewhere else. Anyone ever heard "Disney should do something like Spiderman at IOA - that would be great!"? You see, to create a unique experience, you have to be unique in the first place. Merely creating an also-ran with your characters doesn't do it.

In entertainment, you are always looking for the "wow, what was THAT!?" reaction. You don't get that by waiting until you customers can create the attraction for you by telling you that you need a ride like Park-o-the-day has. Do you ever get surveys asking about what storylines for films would you like to see?

Getting back to it AGAIN (I think I'm channelling Landbaron in my longwindedness).

1) Disney is in the business of creating unique experiences
2) Unique, pleasant, experiences mean giving the customer exactly what they want without the customer having to ask.
3) Disney is attempting to find the Lowest Level of Service without excessive complaints
4) The Lowest Level of Service means achieving the Greatest Amount of Sacrifice from the customers


Rant #2 is now over....

 

[DisneyKidds]

Rant #2 is now over....

.....................and a good rant is was . Now don't get offended - I don't think you are giving the Baron a run for his money in the longwinded category.....................................I think you are the Baron!! . Only kidding, of course. You two will get along well .

Very good post, really. I don't disagree with all of it. However, let's look at the end if we can............................

Getting back to it AGAIN (I think I'm channelling Landbaron in my longwindedness).

1) Disney is in the business of creating unique experiences
2) Unique, pleasant, experiences mean giving the customer exactly what they want without the customer having to ask.
3) Disney is attempting to find the Lowest Level of Service without excessive complaints
4) The Lowest Level of Service means achieving the Greatest Amount of Sacrifice from the customers

I like this and think this might be useful in helping the cars understand one another (not that we will ever agree ).

Let's look at #1 first. I think Disney still is in the business of creating unique experiences, and they continue to do so today. As unique as they were 20 years ago? Well, no - if I thought that I'd be in Car 1 and none of us would be having this conversation. However, I believe they are doing it, and will continue to into the future - that is my Car 2 stance. Do the majority of Car 3ers believe that Disney is doing #1?

OK - on to #2. I think Disney still is giving unique, pleasant, experiences without the customer having to ask (this customer at least, and I fancy myself as a pretty well educated, discriminating, savvy WDW guest). Same deal as #1, perhaps not as unique as 20 years ago, but my Car 2 belief is that they are doing it. Again, do the Car 3ers believe Disney is doing this?

Did someone say #3 and #4? Well, I'll say it again, I don't believe that this is Disney's primary focus and way of thinking. Most certainly the Car 3ers do, right?

 

[WEDWAY100]

I see a "let's see if we drop _____ will it hurt the attendance" or "We took a survey and the customers want _____" Both are wrong-thinking but the first is worse.

The first one simply increases the sacrifice until the screaming is deafening and it turns your experience into a commodity. The second one seems like a good thing at first, but under closer examination it, too, is flawed. You are basically asking the customer to be the creator of your ideas.

CasualObserver,

I agree completely with your statement. You have expressed this better than I could.

As proof of your concept, I would ask the question:

Suppose that surveys were done in 1956 and 1957. Suppose they asked the question, “What type of new attraction would you like to see at Disneyland?” How many guests do you think would have said, “I think you should build a roller coaster, but it should be built inside a mountain. And while you’re at it, you should invent steel tracks because the wooden ones are really too rough. Also, Tomorrowland should have more innovative transportation. Like some kind of monorail. And you know what else? I’ve always wanted to ride in a sub. I think that would make a good theme park ride.”?

I don’t think any guest would have answered that way, because these were things that didn’t exist. It was outside the customers’ realm of experience.

A believe that all of those attractions opened in 1959. Not because someone said they wanted to see it, but because Disney relied on their own imagination and ability to entertain people. They are no longer willing to take that kind of risk.

As an aside, I visited DL in the late sixties and early seventies. The gap between them and their competitors was huge. It became narrower in the 80’s and 90’s, to a point today where there are arguably better attractions outside of Disney.

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I think Disney still is in the business of creating unique experiences, and they continue to do so today. As unique as they were 20 years ago? Well, no ---....SNIP---OK - on to #2. I think Disney still is giving unique, pleasant, experiences without the customer having to ask (this customer at least, and I fancy myself as a pretty well educated, discriminating, savvy WDW guest). Same deal as #1, perhaps not as unique as 20 years ago, but my Car 2 belief is that they are doing it. Again, do the Car 3ers believe Disney is doing this?

One thing that Mr Kidds most certainly does not get is the meaning of the word "UNIQUE." as we car #3 occupants use it. Something cannot be more or less unique than it once was. Unique is a property without quantification of more or less. It is like being pregnant. Either you or you are not.

Here is a Merriam-Webster definition: (note the commentary at the end about how it is used more broadly by some now BUT not how Disney should be configuring itself....In business it is an advantage to be unique not just more unusual than your competition)

1 : being the only one : SOLE <his unique concern was his own comfort> <I can't walk away with a unique copy. Suppose I lost it? -- Kingsley Amis> <the unique factorization of a number into prime factors>
2 a : being without a like or equal : UNEQUALED <could stare at the flames, each one new, violent, unique -- Robert Coover> b : distinctively characteristic : PECULIAR 1 <this is not a condition unique to California -- Ronald Reagan>
3 : UNUSUAL <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch -- J. D. Salinger>
synonym see STRANGE
- unique·ly adverb
- unique·ness noun
usage Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique; the statement that a thing is either unique or it is not has often been repeated by them. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary. Unique dates back to the 17th century but was little used until the end of the 18th when, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was reacquired from French. H. J. Todd entered it as a foreign word in his edition (1818) of Johnson's Dictionary, characterizing it as "affected and useless." Around the middle of the 19th century it ceased to be considered foreign and came into considerable popular use. With popular use came a broadening of application beyond the original two meanings (here numbered 1 and 2a). In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3. When sense 1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying modifiers.

Paul

 

[DisneyKidds]

One thing that Mr Kidds most certainly does not get is the meaning of the word "UNIQUE." as we car #3 occupants use it.

That's because you car #3 occupants have it all wrong . I guess you can call me a 2b and 3 kind of guy .

Seriously though, when I look at Disney attractions I believe they have to have something that gives them a distinctively Disney characteristic or makes them unusual (in a good kind of way). Very 2b and 3 ish . I strongly believe that Disney IS doing that.

As for the more or less qualifier - I think it has some place. That is primarily because the theme park world is a vastly different place than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Back then Disney was the only game in town. As such, everything was unique in a 1 and 2a kind of way. However, now there are many more players, and with offerings like IOA the other guys are bound to come close to Disney, not necessarily by any fault of Disney's. So, the themed, immersive attraction experience is not as unique as it once was - however, Disney still does it better than anyone else. That is what I require of Disney - that they be better than everyone else. Others may come up with good stuff and give Disney a run - Disney can't keep that from happening no matter how good their decisions - but Disney has to be better.

In the end, even if I use the 2b and 3 meaning of the word, I still think most of what Disney does meets the 1 and 2a versions. However, with things like Dinorama Disney made it so that not everything in a Disney park is 1 and 2a unique. However, the overall experience you get at Disney today is still unique in every sense of the word.

Nice try though .

 

[raidermatt]

Still a little pressed for time, but I just wanted to say to the Casual Observer:

Welcome to the party, pal!*



*Not so obscure movie reference

 

[CasualObserver]

First off, no I'm not DVC (I don't do quotes as well as Master Baron).

I'll agree that there is more competition now than there was in the 60's, and 70's. Let's look at their closest FL competitor, US/IOA.

Where did Universal get their people? From those sent packing by Disney, that's where. They took their skills and went working for the other guy. This is part of the short-sightedness on the part of current Disney management. The smart thing would be to keep your good people working for you, rather than your competitor. Unfortunately, that doesn't suit THE SUITS because it doesn't look good on the quarterly statements. Unfortunately for the company that they no longer have talent to create new attractions and experiences for their customers who will now gladly head down the highway to US/IOA for an experience of similar quality and imagination. The thing THE SUITS understand is that the market has a short attention span, so they boost this quarter's numbers and so, when the slide in attendance reaches noticable proportions they make a statement blaming external circumstances. In fact, the attendace slide is due to the ability of the company to create new experiences for the customers because the talent that imagined those experiences is no longer available.


Disney would not have the level of competition it has now if they had:

- kept the talent in Imagineering
- realized that consumers don't care that you built things in places where they can't afford to travel while leaving the attainable parks unimproved or worse, DCA'd
- continued investing in their assets rather than going on the multi-year cost-cutting party in order to temporarily boost the quarterly financials.

Those three mistakes are what has bred the level of competition Disney has today. They used to find talent and keep it for themselves, now they believe the talent lies only in THE SUITS and the surveys.

 

[Bstanley]

Those three mistakes are what has bred the level of competition Disney has today. They used to find talent and keep it for themselves, now they believe the talent lies only in THE SUITS and the surveys.

Not really a complete answer.

The reason the competitors came into being is because of the big bucks that could be made - not because Disney ran off the talent and the talent went to Universal management and said - "Hey we've got an idea - let's open a Themed Amusement Park".

The money was there to be made - and the competitors wanted a piece of it so they watched Disney, learned from Disney, hired from Disney, and then as they got going they created their own talent and thought up ideas to compete a little better.

The fact that Disneyland was way ahead of a typical 1955 amusement park and that WDW Magic Kingdom is only somewhat ahead of Islands of Adventure is due more to the fact that Disney showed Universal how to do it than that Disney has been standing still.

 

[CasualObserver]

Sure, it wasn't the designers who ran to Universal and begged for the opportunity to build a theme park. It was the top talent that Disney let slip through their fingers that made Universal and IOA attain the level of quality that is giving Disney a run for their money.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by CasualObserver
Sure, it wasn't the designers who ran to Universal and begged for the opportunity to build a theme park. It was the top talent that Disney let slip through their fingers that made Universal and IOA attain the level of quality that is giving Disney a run for their money.

I'm with Mr. Stanley, he elaborated on my sentiments very well.

If Disney never let an Imagineer slip away, I most certainly think that parks like IOA would still give Disney a run. There are simply too many talented people in this world for Disney to hire them all and Disney showed the world what could be done with a theme park. Yes, the training Disney used to provide their Imagineers made those talented people even better, and that is why Disney might have made it a bit easier for others by letting a few Disney trained creative types to make IOA a teensy bit better than it might have been (notice I say might, as this could be debatable), but the competition was going to be there.

 

[HB2K]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Right, and the wonderful thing about the American consumer is that he or she will go and get their Coke from someone else if their usual store doesn't provide it. Some think that that is already happening at Disney, as evidenced by lower attendance the last few years. Others aren't so sure that is the case.

How do you explain the drop in attendance???

Seriously

And please don't blame Sept 11 or the economy. Others are doing well and not cutting beyond belief.

 

[mitros]

These posts are getting so long and complex. Let me just answer a question posed by CasualObserver. That "abandoned " building between test track and world showcase used to be the Odyessey restaurant {counter service}. If I'm not mistaken, the last time it was used for that purpose was back in the early 90's. Now they use it for special events, especially during the food and wine festival. It is also used by companies and groups to hold lunch and dinner meetings.