If Disney were alive today, would he like or dislike want his going on in his company?

[luvsJack]

I suppose that that is part of it, but it surely isn't the whole reason. They also have advantages in terms of content, for example.

Again, I believe the objective is quality - not to be better than others. I think basing satisfaction on Disney being better than others is misguided. Universal getting stronger and getting closer to Disney, for example, is good.

In the past, Disney was known for quality above all others and it was their goal. Companies all over the world had their employees trained the “Disney way”. Now I sometimes wonder if Disney even trains that way.

 

[Toolulu22]

At the same time, as many have commented, the quality of the Disney experience has gone up, and has gone up markedly, and the value offered is as good as any in the industry today. The attractions are far more immersive than they were when I first visited the parks. There are so many more characters now, including finally a decent number of characters that appeal to those who don't resonate with the classical Disney characters. The food quality now is far greater than it was when I first visited the parks. Beyond that, starting with Wilderness Lodge, it seems that Disney had finally learned how to theme hotels, something which Walt never managed to figure out. And I can go on and on. I'm confident than an objective comparison of what is offered now would result in acknowledging a net gain in quality and that Disney offers as good or better value as any of its competitors.

I agree with some of the points you've made. Some of the hotels, for example, are themed beautifully. BRV is one of our favorites.

Some attractions are more immersive now and they should be. Technology has advanced and people are spending over a hundred on a ticket- and hoping to get on a few good rides.... I mean honestly, if you have people waiting on line for (ex Pandora) -- how many hours w/o FP?- the wait had better be interesting/worth it and the few minute ride amazing. Then there are some, Small World/Carousal of Progress/Haunted Mansion/Tough to be a Bug....., that never change. That was my point. They add big and better and besides regular maintenance, leave others until they finally decide close the ride. How many rides do you skip because they are just meh?

I guess I was looking at the question from a viewpoint of the whole vacation experience versus individual rides. If you add up the hotel experience (not just deluxe/Villas), the food (most people aren't eating table service at every meal- so quick service/grab and go included), the daily theme park experience - getting there (parking/lines/crowds), cast member interactions, and your overall feeling of joy at the end of the day. Maybe its just me, but I feel like over the past 20 or so years, in the past few I've had a shift. I'm feeling that dollar for dollar, I'm not sure that today I feel ahead of before.

You mentioned competitors- but it depends on what people are looking for in a vacation. Yes, I think that most everyone wants to bring their kids to Disney at least once. But, every vacation doesn't need to be at a theme park- there are lots of choices for people - and thus, competition for vacation dollars. The more and more expensive it gets for families to head to WDW, the more other opportunities will open up.

 

[Hikergirl]

Oh I have always been intrigued by Walt Disney. Never been to Disney Land but went to WDW as a kid only a few years after it opened. It was amazing.

The quality of the parks was astounding. Everything was new and exciting. And there just wasn’t anything else like it.

I was first there when they were building Epcot. I remember seeing the part of Mission Space (or whatever the actual name for the building is) and it is one of the few memories I have of WDW. We visited Seaworld too and I have more memories of there.
The first time I took my kids over a decade ago I was amazed of the quality and cleanliness, and the magic.

 

[vacationer1954]

I guess I was looking at the question from a viewpoint of the whole vacation experience versus individual rides.

So was I. But how would you have responded if I didn't provide any concrete examples. I think we are in a time when people look to see the bad in things and overlook the good and as a result conclude that things got worse when they actually got better. Perhaps that's always been the case.

 

[j2thomason]

In the past, Disney was known for quality above all others and it was their goal. Companies all over the world had their employees trained the “Disney way”. Now I sometimes wonder if Disney even trains that way.

Chik-fil-a needs to train all the cast members, starting with Bob Iger on down. Their customer service is currently much better than Disney's!

 

[Cubbiecakes]

Chik-fil-a needs to train all the cast members, starting with Bob Iger on down. Their customer service is currently much better than Disney's!

...and their products just as boring and tasteless as some of Disney's worst!

 

[bcla]

...and their products just as boring and tasteless as some of Disney's worst!

Yeah - I don't get the fawning over Chick-Fil-A. It's OK, but the loyalty they get seems to be out of line with the quality of their product.

 

[dish rag]

Chik-fil-a needs to train all the cast members, starting with Bob Iger on down. Their customer service is currently much better than Disney's!

They definitely have better trained and nicer employees than other fast food places, by a long shot. At least in Orlando.

 

[LSUmiss]

They definitely have better trained and nicer employees than other fast food places, by a long shot. At least in Orlando.

But that’s not a high bar. I personally find their over-the-top disingenuous “friendliness” annoying. But, I do appreciate that they tend to do things right & usually efficiently.

 

[torene03]

Just gonna throw this out from the audiobook “More Cute Stories, Vol. 1: Disneyland History” by Rolly Crump (you know, a guy who actually knew Walt):

"We were in a meeting with Walt. And we were running out of finances on a project that Walt wanted to build. And he said that we've been charging people 25 cents to park their cars in Disneyland's parking lot. But if we start charging people 50 cents and really work it out financially, that'll pay for the attraction. Which it did. Which is really great."

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That is precisely why he didn't build the park in Missouri, which he initially wanted to do. The pressure was there to sell beer, and they would not budge, so he chose Orlando. The rest is history.

He should have built it in KS. We hadn't officially repealed prohibition until 1948 (3.2% allowed in 1937) with by the drink purchase not allowed until 1986 and we were the first to have prohibition many years before the rest of the States.

In all honesty I'm sure things like weather, land available (and pricing) along with desirability of that land, etc was included in his decision. The park would not have been a full-year round park unless built in a warmer climate. Closing rides for rain is different than closing parks for cold, ice, and snow.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I say this in the nicest way the only completely Disney crazy obsessed people I have ever known are adults.
I think Walt would have recognized that there is a money making opportunity within that market. It may not have been what he wanted to do in the beginning, but any company who isn't willing to evolve in order to survive, won't. If Walt wouldn't have figured that out, his bean counters sure would have.

I think people love the idea that Walt would have never altered his "vision" for his parks, but I don't think that would have been the reality if he alive and remained in charge all these years. Change is inevitable in a span of 50 years.

I agree with this. We know that there have been multiple companies that refused to get with the times so to speak and they've gone by the wasteside or are having major issues (some have been pushed out because of competitions)

I rather doubt that Walt wouldn't at least try to widen his audience as times change. Especially nowadays. People are waiting longer to have kids, they aren't having as many kids. What a good way to keep revenue and interest up than to include adults into the mix of decisions.

 

[bcla]

He should have built it in KS. We hadn't officially repealed prohibition until 1948 (3.2% allowed in 1937) with by the drink purchase not allowed until 1986 and we were the first to have prohibition many years before the rest of the States.

In all honesty I'm sure things like weather, land available (and pricing) along with desirability of that land, etc was included in his decision. The park would not have been a full-year round park unless built in a warmer climate. Closing rides for rain is different than closing parks for cold, ice, and snow.

It wasn't an either/or. He was already committed to Florida at the point where he proposed that indoor theme park in St Louis. And my reading is that it's a myth that Walt nixed the plan because it would have required that A-B could sell alcoholic beverages. It seemed to be more that Walt wanted the redevelopment agency to pay for the costs of the building, which was going to cost double that of Disney's costs for the rides/attractions. Walt actually agreed to the sale of alcohol as long as it was segregated from the rest of the park.

Apparently the redevelopment agency had the power of eminent domain as some sort of quasi-public entity. The history for the original Busch Memorial Stadium is that they acquired the land.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It wasn't an either/or. He was already committed to Florida at the point where he proposed that indoor theme park in St Louis. And my reading is that it's a myth that Walt nixed the plan because it would have required that A-B could sell alcoholic beverages. It seemed to be more that Walt wanted the redevelopment agency to pay for the costs of the building, which was going to cost double that of Disney's costs for the rides/attractions. Walt actually agreed to the sale of alcohol as long as it was segregated from the rest of the park.

Apparently the redevelopment agency had the power of eminent domain as some sort of quasi-public entity. The history for the original Busch Memorial Stadium is that they acquired the land.

I wasn't saying it was either/or.

Just bouncing, in a jovial tone, off of what the other poster was saying so in other words not speaking in a very serious tone. Just making a general comment regarding KS and MO in being quite different in attitudes towards alcohol.

 

[luvsJack]

...and their products just as boring and tasteless as some of Disney's worst!

Lol. As compared to McDs luscious hamburgers? Little fast food is over the top good food. But Chick FiL A is better than most.




Their customer service is what makes people go back. Order is always right. And you have every thing you need when you drive away from the drive thru.

 

[bcla]

He should have built it in KS. We hadn't officially repealed prohibition until 1948 (3.2% allowed in 1937) with by the drink purchase not allowed until 1986 and we were the first to have prohibition many years before the rest of the States.

In all honesty I'm sure things like weather, land available (and pricing) along with desirability of that land, etc was included in his decision. The park would not have been a full-year round park unless built in a warmer climate. Closing rides for rain is different than closing parks for cold, ice, and snow.

Sorry. I got that you were joking about Walt's notorious aversion to the sale of alcohol at Disneyland, but I was serious that alcohol wasn't really why Walt didn't build Riverfront Square in St Louis. I probably should have responded to the previous post, but yours was on the last page.

However, the premise was of a multi-floor indoor park to make it year round. This magazine article has a closeup of the proposed floor layout from a blueprint that was discovered and sold at auction. The bottom of each page says "WDP ST LOUIS PROJECT".

https://www.stlmag.com/history/architecture/walt-disney-riverfront-square-blueprints/

I suppose something like this has been done in recent years, like The Venetian in Las Vegas. It would have been something completely novel back in the 1960s.

 

[cleverclovers]

Only HE could say....
I think he would be very pleased and satisfied with some...
But, simply disgusted and angry about others... I find the sub-standard and cheap quality of much of what Disney offers to be just awful.
Disney wanted to be the best... cutting edge.... NOT K-Mart at such offensively high prices.

Why insult K Mart? At least they tried.