is disney really having problems finacially?

[DisDreaminMom]

I think the reasoning for yanking the discounts at the end of next year like Iger said is because while the parks may be full of people due to heavy discounting, those same people aren't spending very much while they are there. Looks to me like Disney is toying with the idea of stopping the discount mentality and letting the chips fall where they may.

I don't know if it's such a bad theory. The overhead as far as CM's and facility wear and tear would be less with fewer full paying guests compared to overflow of half price guests. Yes, it costs the same to open the parks no matter how many people are there, but at this point the "make it cheap and they'll spend" thing has not worked so well.

I know we've talked about this before, but I am glad to see Disney pull back from the steep discounts, personally. It's just bringing the quality at the parks way down. Now, if the quality doesn't come back up after we're paying full price, then that's when you will see the mass migration to other vacation destinations.

Just my $.02

 

[mitros]

Good points..

I think the reasoning for yanking the discounts at the end of next year like Iger said is because while the parks may be full of people due to heavy discounting, those same people aren't spending very much while they are there. Looks to me like Disney is toying with the idea of stopping the discount mentality and letting the chips fall where they may.

I don't know if it's such a bad theory. The overhead as far as CM's and facility wear and tear would be less with fewer full paying guests compared to overflow of half price guests. Yes, it costs the same to open the parks no matter how many people are there, but at this point the "make it cheap and they'll spend" thing has not worked so well.

I know we've talked about this before, but I am glad to see Disney pull back from the steep discounts, personally. It's just bringing the quality at the parks way down. Now, if the quality doesn't come back up after we're paying full price, then that's when you will see the mass migration to other vacation destinations.

Just my $.02

 

[tjkraz]

I don't know if it's such a bad theory. The overhead as far as CM's and facility wear and tear would be less with fewer full paying guests compared to overflow of half price guests. Yes, it costs the same to open the parks no matter how many people are there, but at this point the "make it cheap and they'll spend" thing has not worked so well.

Generally speaking the theme park operations are driven by fixed costs. It costs Disney "X" dollars to staff all positions regardless of crowd sizes. Encouraging smaller crowds doesn't really save any money.

Wear and tear is irrelevant since ride vehicles continue to run whether the standby lines are 5 minutes or 45 minutes.

As for suggestion that their current approach "has not worked so well", I can't agree with that either. Average guest spending at the theme parks was only down 4% in the last year. That's pretty respectable giving what's going on around the world.

Part of that reduction comes in the area of theme park tickets. When Disney offers a "7 for 4" package, they are giving away 3 days worth of theme park admission to every guest. That negatively impacts theme park revenue on Disney's books.

Let's not lose sight of the big picture here. The US is in the midst of a recession that's going on 24 months now. Nearly every business is facing similar economic challenges and they are responding by laying off workers, combining positions, closing unprofitable locations, reducing salaries and benefits, etc. Being a leisure destination, the Disney parks are subject to the volatility even more than many other industries. It's not realistic to think that they will simply accept mounting losses without looking at ways to reduce operating costs and bring in additional business.

Disney needs to maintain a healthy revenue stream in order to keep investors happy and to fund its planned expansion projects (like Fantasyland, Star Tours 2, California Adventure, etc.) Thinking that they will continue pouring money into the parks at the same rate as 2006/2007--on the assumption that loyal customers will pay them back via increased business--is a fanboy's dream.

Right now the best we can hope is that as the economy improves, discounts will evaporate and parks will get some extra money to play with. History has shown that Disney was willing to do that once the post-9/11 recovery got into full swing.

 

[manning]

One of the problems with wall street is meeting expectations.

Let's say you make a 25% profit (don't we wish) and the expection is for you to make 26%. You missed the target and wall street is all over the place complaining.

I remember reading an article some years back about two companies who were competitors. Wahl and Sunbeam.

Wahl is privately owned and Sunbeam publicly owned. Sunbeam was not meeting expectation and was downsizing plus other steps to improve the bottom line to satisfy wallstreet.

Wahl was making strong profits and has superior products. Asked why, the owner said he didn't have to worry about stock holders, the othe guy has to think short term because of stockholders. Wahl plans long term and use the money they would have to pay stockholders to improve their products.

So when wallstreet says XYZ co. will make .10 a share next quarter and makes only .095 they are considered to have failed to meet expectation. It doesn't matter they made a profit, they have failed to meet expectation.

The result, stock prices go down.

 

[eliza61]

Whatever the case here is, the parks, resorts and restaurants are all still jammed. Every time we go, there seems to be more and more bodies on property than ever. Again, whatever the reason for them making less money {supposedly} the place is still jam packed. We are taking a few short trips in January and February, and what a devil of a time I had making reservations {DVC} both at the DVC resorts and at the restaurants. Friends of ours have been going fairly regularly, and they say the parks are always busy, as are the eateries. They also do not understand what the problem is, as there are still a LOT of people going.

Do not equate packed parks with profit. Yes they have been able to fill rooms but at substantially lower prices. Also a lot of people who are taking advantage of the discounts are not "spenders". People are holding onto their disposable cash and not buying the "extras" which alot of the time is where you make your profit on.


The problem is it turns into a vicious cycle. Disney is not making the profits margins they want to so they make cutbacks. cutbacks lead to people not returning unless there is a great discount. Would you pay rack rates for the subpar service disney offered last year? Great discount means lower profit margin and the cycle repeats itself.

My concern is that when the economy bounces back will Disney return to it's former glory? I find once a company finds out it can manage with 3 cm's even if they quality is not as good, they don't return to 4 cms. Once cuts are made, I don't see things returning pre economic collaspe.

 

[tjkraz]

The problem is it turns into a vicious cycle. Disney is not making the profits margins they want to so they make cutbacks. cutbacks lead to people not returning unless there is a great discount. Would you pay rack rates for the subpar service disney offered last year? Great discount means lower profit margin and the cycle repeats itself.

I think that's mostly--if you'll pardon the expression--a fanboy myth. We frequent guests would selfishly (and I'm including myself) like to see Disney continue business as usual rather than responding to its economic troubles. And the best weapon in the arsenal is "oh, if you don't treat people right you'll lose that business forever!" But history from as recent as 2002-2004 seems to paint a different picture.

Back in the post-9/11 years the cutbacks were even more severe than they are today, IMO. Magic Kingdom fireworks were only shown a couple nights per week. Extra Magic Hours were discontinued. Parks were closing earlier than ever (I distinctly remember eating dinner at Tony's at the MK in 2002 when the park closed to guests at 6pm.) Entire resorts were shuttered to keep expenses down.

As the economy began to recover, guests returned and Disney did a pretty good job of ramping things up again. EMH was reinstated and it offered even more hours than before. Nightly fireworks are still a staple at the MK. Street performers that were temporarily phased-out returned, sometimes in new venues.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that the parks operate the same as they did 20 years ago. Certainly they have suffered in some areas from decisions made to control costs. (They have also improved in many areas due to things like new technology and management focusing on areas which are of greater import to guests.)

But I do question how many frequent guests will really walk away from the Disney parks entirely due to shorter park hours and limited Fantasmic showings during periods of economic turmoil. Disney does face a responsibility to increase services as conditions improve, but historically they have been willing to do so.

 

[kindra657]

here's my $.02 on why merchandise sales are down. I, and many others like myself, will continue to go to Disney World no matter what. I was laid off for 4 months, my husband's income was slashed in 1/2 and we went to wdw 3 times in 2009!....that's more than any other year and we went on those trips for less than 1 trip used to cost us before this crazy recession.

How'd we do it? We spent a whole lot less money! Instead of doing the basic DDP every trip or the deluxe ddp, we did the QSDDP instead. Instead of spending a ton of money on souvineers, we barely bought any. Instead of conveniently flying out of Cleveland, we drove 2 hours and drove out of Detroit for the cheapest airfare. We are dvc members and AP holders. When we go, we pay for transportation to get there and food. During a bad economy, when times are tough, that's all we paid for. No new ears, t-shirts, extra snacks, bottled waters, nada. We went for dirt cheap. I think that a lot of other dedicated disney goers, who were feeling this rough economy, did the same thing. If a disney trip was a once in a lifetime thing for us, than we would've saved and had spending money for souvineers, but the reality is; we already have a TON of them from previous trips and so do a lot of you.

If I can cut out going out to eat or buying a morning coffee in order to save for a disney trip, I can still afford to go......but I really can't afford to spend $1000 on souvineers living on 50% of our normal household income.

 

[eliza61]

I think that's mostly--if you'll pardon the expression--a fanboy myth. We frequent guests would selfishly (and I'm including myself) like to see Disney continue business as usual rather than responding to its economic troubles. And the best weapon in the arsenal is "oh, if you don't treat people right you'll lose that business forever!" But history from as recent as 2002-2004 seems to paint a different picture.

Back in the post-9/11 years the cutbacks were even more severe than they are today, IMO. Magic Kingdom fireworks were only shown a couple nights per week. Extra Magic Hours were discontinued. Parks were closing earlier than ever (I distinctly remember eating dinner at Tony's at the MK in 2002 when the park closed to guests at 6pm.) Entire resorts were shuttered to keep expenses down.

As the economy began to recover, guests returned and Disney did a pretty good job of ramping things up again. EMH was reinstated and it offered even more hours than before. Nightly fireworks are still a staple at the MK. Street performers that were temporarily phased-out returned, sometimes in new venues.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that the parks operate the same as they did 20 years ago. Certainly they have suffered in some areas from decisions made to control costs. (They have also improved in many areas due to things like new technology and management focusing on areas which are of greater import to guests.)

But I do question how many frequent guests will really walk away from the Disney parks entirely due to shorter park hours and limited Fantasmic showings during periods of economic turmoil. Disney does face a responsibility to increase services as conditions improve, but historically they have been willing to do so.

LOL we are. I think you will always get the first timers who are caught by the hype of the commercials. Myself and a few other dvc members that I know are giving the world a break. Now I go annually so it might be a case of "too much of a good thing" but were skipping the world for the next couple of years (I'm renting out my points). I've just had too many mediocre meals, cuts in my perks (and yes I know perks are not guaranteed but I liked and used them) and cuts in service (yes I miss Fantasmic and don't like planning like a D-day invasion simply to see the show)
Couple that with just as magical experience else where & I just can't justify the what I call "rush to great adventure land experience".
It's funny all other industries are giving MORE bang for your dollar to get consumers hard earned money. Cruise lines are slashing fares left and right and increasing the caliber of your food, experience, shows, and on shore excursions. Don't even get me started on the deals in Vegas.

We're off the Paris next year, for roughly what we spend at the world (~3K) we'll get 2 less days (5 instead of 7) but we're book in a true luxury resort (not the Disney 3 star version) even though European hotel rooms tend to be smaller. I can't predict every thing but I'm willing to bet a paycheck that the food will be better and the sights just as "magical"

I'm not giving up on Disney all together, I fell in love with it many years ago, but I know many frequent guest who are definitely taking a hiatus and I think we're the ones who tend to spend more. I know many dvc'ers who have multiple contracts and are selling off their contracts and keeping maybe one.

And lately I know too many first timers primarily on my job who have gone and when they come back and you ask them how was their trip, they say "it was ok" with no thought of going back in the near future.

I admit that part of my problem is that as an annual visitor for 10 years I do remember the "good ole days"

 

[justskip70003]

great points everyone. thank you for all your replies!!!!

 

[Magic Fanatic]

im not saying they shouldnt make a profit at all. but a lot of people on the board keep saying that disney is making cutbacks and that the strain is being put on the employees. i am just saying that Disney is in fine shape and is making huge profits, HUGE profits. I personally think they need to start charging more so less people can afford to go to the parks. they are way to crowded all the time as it is.

This comment should be posted in the message board hall of fame. "Charge more to attract less customers." Interesting business model....

 

[eliza61]

This comment should be posted in the message board hall of fame. "Charge more to attract less customers." Interesting business model....

It's actually a sound business model.
What you want to do is charge more, attract less customers with more disposable cash. As Disney and many department stores are finding out, more bodies in the parks does not equate to more profits.
That's one of the reasons business love, love, love DINKS (dual income,no kids) and seniors. They have free money to spend. So if I have 10 rooms to fill and I rather fill 5 of them at full price with folks who have loose pocketbooks, than discount the rooms fill them all up with people who have tight purse strings. If I've got a choice between filling up 5 concierge rooms at the AKL or filling up 15 values. I'm taking the 5 deluxe people.

Seniors, especially retirees with grandbabies will come and buy those Mickey hats, light sabers etc etc that mom and dad will not. Grandmom will drop 150 bucks on the deluxe bibbidie bobbidei boutique while mom will go with the basic package. DINks will do the $300 sunrise spa package at Saratoga springs. Mom with 3 kids will not.

As a previous poster stated, take away free dining and sure you lose some customers but you more than make up that lose by pure profit from the people who come and now have to pay full price for their meals. Mark up on food and drink is outrageous. You know it doesn't cost them $2.50 per coke so if people are getting drinks free that's lost revenue.

 

[mitros]

It's actually a sound business model.
What you want to do is charge more, attract less customers with more disposable cash. As Disney and many department stores are finding out, more bodies in the parks does not equate to more profits.
That's one of the reasons business love, love, love DINKS (dual income,no kids) and seniors. They have free money to spend. So if I have 10 rooms to fill and I rather fill 5 of them at full price with folks who have loose pocketbooks, than discount the rooms fill them all up with people who have tight purse strings. If I've got a choice between filling up 5 concierge rooms at the AKL or filling up 15 values. I'm taking the 5 deluxe people.

Seniors, especially retirees with grandbabies will come and buy those Mickey hats, light sabers etc etc that mom and dad will not. Grandmom will drop 150 bucks on the deluxe bibbidie bobbidei boutique while mom will go with the basic package. DINks will do the $300 sunrise spa package at Saratoga springs. Mom with 3 kids will not.

As a previous poster stated, take away free dining and sure you lose some customers but you more than make up that lose by pure profit from the people who come and now have to pay full price for their meals. Mark up on food and drink is outrageous. You know it doesn't cost them $2.50 per coke so if people are getting drinks free that's lost revenue.

Wow, you hit the nail right on the head!

 

[SorcererDonald16]

Disney has to walk a fine line between satisfying their stockholders and satisfying their guests. Pardon the generalizations, but IMO the average guest is concerned about quality and fun, while the average stockholder is worried about how much the stock is valued at. There are always exceptions of course. Now me, owning no stock, would look at the numbers and think, wow! They made over $3 billion in profit! But if I was a stockholder who owned more than a couple shares, I'd be very worried about the % of profit decrease in the past year. The point of any for-profit business in a capitalist society is to make money, preferably as much money as humanly possible.

As others said, they invest the money in park expansions, films, etc. It's not as if it's sitting in a bank somewhere, racking up interest. And even if it were, IMO, that's their call. Their business, their call. Of course, people can choose whether or not to patronize them based on that and other factors.

For me, we stopped going after 9/11 and didn't return until 2004. We've gone regularly (once a year) since then, but only because we've been able to get discounts every year but maybe once. Once Disney stops discounts or cuts way back, we'll have to stop going too. We can't afford to go on a rack-rate WDW vacation anymore. Well, we could, but we'd basically be saying "Adios!" to the occasional day trip, every other month restaurant meal, and spending on any extras. The quality is down, and it doesn't make me happy. But I am one of those people who feels most relaxed and worry-free in WDW, so as long as quality doesn't get even worse (which could still happen! ), the cost is what determines whether we go or not.

And I agree with you eliza... I'm also concerned that once the recession subsides, they won't return to pre-economic disaster levels in terms of CMs, shows, etc.. If they can get by with less, they will. Again, that's their right, but it's our right to go elsewhere based on that decision.

 

[KateMW]

please tell me that Disney is not still making billions in profits. everyone keeps talking about cutbacks and Disney's profits. please, they are the strongest company in the world. from what you are going to read, their profits are off 3% here and 7% there. but they are still profiting billions upon billions of dollars. please read and if you are good with financial speak help me with this. it is like reading chinese...

Burbank, Calif.-based Disney said it earned $895 million during the three months that ended Oct. 3, compared with $760 million a year ago. Revenue climbed 4 percent to $9.9 billion.

Operating profit at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts fell 17 percent during the quarter to $344 million, on revenue that slid 4 percent to $2.8 billion. Park attendance improved, but ongoing discounts continued to eat into profit margins.

The results capped a difficult fiscal year in which Disney was squeezed hard by the recession. Disney said it netted $3.3 billion for the year, down 25 percent from last year, on sales of $36.1 billion, down 4 percent.

For the year, parks-and-resorts’ operating profit tumbled 25 percent, dropping from $1.9 billion to $1.4 billion. Sales fell 7 percent to $10.7 billion.

The fourth-quarter results illustrated the challenge Disney faces in predicting a full recovery at its parks, as wary consumers are booking trips ever-closer to when they actually intend to travel.

Attendance at the company’s U.S. theme parks rose 3 percent during the quarter, when the effect of an extra week in Disney’s fiscal calendar was stripped out, as a 3 percent decline at Disney World was more than offset by a 15 percent jump at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif. The combined result exceeded Disney’s initial prediction that domestic attendance would be flat with a year ago.

But looking forward to the company’s first quarter — essentially October through December — the company said U.S. bookings are still trailing last year’s pace by 5 percent.

“As we saw in the last few quarters, bookings are tending to take place closer to actual travel dates,” said Disney Co. Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs, who will take over as chairman of the parks-and-resorts division at the end of the year. “It’s difficult to predict how long the downturn will impact consumer spending and travel.”

Disney executives offered no clues about when they will end the discounting that has helped sustain attendance but generated lower returns from the sale of hotel rooms, tickets, food and merchandise. Per-capita guest spending in Disney’s domestic theme parks was down 10 percent during the quarter compared with last year, and per-room spending in its domestic hotels was off 7 percent.

Just after its fourth quarter concluded in early October, Disney decided to bring back a seven-for-four hotel-night discount that covers travel until nearly the end of March, though the promotion is slightly more restrictive than the earlier iteration.

“Booking trends have actually picked up significantly since we announced the discount, and they had been somewhat sluggish before we did,” Iger said, adding that Disney isn’t worried that customers will become accustomed to promotions. “We have not had a problem weaning consumers off discounts in the past.”

The full-year performance of Disney’s parks division was also hampered by the inability of its time-share unit, Disney Vacation Club, to continue bundling new time-share mortgages and selling them off to investors.

Iger warned that the parks will take longer to fully rebound than some of Disney’s other divisions. “If you look back to prior economic downturns, we tend to lag the recovery a bit,” he said. “That has to do with the way vacation.

i see a lot of percentages all over the place but the number that sticks out to me is that the "netted"... in other words profited 3.3 BILLION DOLLARS. Disney is in no way hurting according to me. but then again i make 750.00 a week and am happy with that.

...

 

[eliza61]

Disney has to walk a fine line between satisfying their stockholders and satisfying their guests. Pardon the generalizations, but IMO the average guest is concerned about quality and fun, while the average stockholder is worried about how much the stock is valued at. There are always exceptions of course. Now me, owning no stock, would look at the numbers and think, wow! They made over $3 billion in profit! But if I was a stockholder who owned more than a couple shares, I'd be very worried about the % of profit decrease in the past year. The point of any for-profit business in a capitalist society is to make money, preferably as much money as humanly possible.


For me, we stopped going after 9/11 and didn't return until 2004. We've gone regularly (once a year) since then, but only because we've been able to get discounts every year but maybe once. Once Disney stops discounts or cuts way back, we'll have to stop going too. We can't afford to go on a rack-rate WDW vacation anymore. Well, we could, but we'd basically be saying "Adios!" to the occasional day trip, every other month restaurant meal, and spending on any extras. The quality is down, and it doesn't make me happy. But I am one of those people who feels most relaxed and worry-free in WDW, so as long as quality doesn't get even worse (which could still happen! ), the cost is what determines whether we go or not.

And I agree with you eliza... I'm also concerned that once the recession subsides, they won't return to pre-economic disaster levels in terms of CMs, shows, etc.. If they can get by with less, they will. Again, that's their right, but it's our right to go elsewhere based on that decision.

No way would I want to be a Disney executive right now. LOL.

Disney also suffers from a great reputation (never thought that would be a bad thing). Disney built their business on great customer service so we just expect it but we are also a walmart society now We expect a really low price We are just conditioned to getting a baragin so we really howl if we have to pay full price. So you're right Disney has a hard job.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Good points. As we see with Walmart, low prices and good service don't exist together. (I suppose they can, but certainly not at Walmart)

Disney does have a hard job in maintaining service standards while dealing with costs and prices.

 

[DisDreaminMom]

The interesting thing to follow in the current unemployment crisis is that overall, in the last quarter, corporate profits for companies rose about 5+ % and Worker Productivity rose at almost 7%. Meaning that overall, companies still made money, cut extra expenses like employee costs, and the remaining employees worked a hell of a lot harder than they did when there were more of them. If you were a company trying to get investors to hang onto your stock, would you go around hiring people? Hell no!

So for Disney, this means that they are doing "OK" with the amount of CM's they have now. People are still coming to the parks. But they need to change the target market from the discount seekers to the luxury vacationers.

From my man-on-the-street view, retail in general has sunk to the lowest common denominator. The Walmart model of service is what the majority of people expect now. Self checkout, stand in line, settle for less.

People go to Disney expecting to break out of that Sheeple mode. I want to feel special, not like I am checking out my own groceries. I work at TDS and everyday I've worked since Thanksgiving, guests thank me for taking time to help, talk, and slow down a little. It's the older people that say things like, "I wasn't going to buy anything today, but you've really helped me out today!"

I'll pay more for my vacation at Disney if I can have the same experience at the parks that I try to deliver at the store. I admit it's ironic that we'd want to feel special while standing in line to get on a ride. But even the ride ques are imagineered to make us feel like we're special. It's what happens in between the rides that counts.

 

[tjkraz]

It's actually a sound business model.
What you want to do is charge more, attract less customers with more disposable cash. As Disney and many department stores are finding out, more bodies in the parks does not equate to more profits.
That's one of the reasons business love, love, love DINKS (dual income,no kids) and seniors. They have free money to spend. So if I have 10 rooms to fill and I rather fill 5 of them at full price with folks who have loose pocketbooks, than discount the rooms fill them all up with people who have tight purse strings. If I've got a choice between filling up 5 concierge rooms at the AKL or filling up 15 values. I'm taking the 5 deluxe people.

Seniors, especially retirees with grandbabies will come and buy those Mickey hats, light sabers etc etc that mom and dad will not. Grandmom will drop 150 bucks on the deluxe bibbidie bobbidei boutique while mom will go with the basic package. DINks will do the $300 sunrise spa package at Saratoga springs. Mom with 3 kids will not.

As a previous poster stated, take away free dining and sure you lose some customers but you more than make up that lose by pure profit from the people who come and now have to pay full price for their meals. Mark up on food and drink is outrageous. You know it doesn't cost them $2.50 per coke so if people are getting drinks free that's lost revenue.

In the case of the Disney parks its quite a bit more complicated than that since you have multiple revenue streams which impact hotel occupancy, theme park admissions, dining revenue and merchandise sales.

Those 5 concierge guests may spend more on their hotel and souvenirs, but hosting 5 guests instead of 15 equates to a 66% drop in theme park admissions. Great for wait times but not so great when you figure ticket prices would have to triple to sustain the revenue. As I stated in another posts, the theme parks are largely driven by fixed costs. It costs Disney XXX dollars to open the doors regardless of whether there are 4000 people in the park or 40,000 people. So they'll gladly take the 40,000.

That said, Disney doesn't need to decide between the 5 concierge guests and the 15 value guests when they can cater to both. If Disney doesn't offer $100 per night accommodations at a Value resort, the guests will pay $75 per night to stay off-site. Even when Disney is forced to discount, generating revenue from those rooms is preferable to losing it to another vendor.

And again I'll point out that these unfavorable numbers are limited to a single year-to-year period. Guest spending was on the rise from 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008. It was only in '09 that the number dipped, obviously due to rising unemployment and other economic factors. I think it's quite a bit premature to conclude that Disney was wrong to ever cater to guests living on more modest budgets.

 

[mitros]

The interesting thing to follow in the current unemployment crisis is that overall, in the last quarter, corporate profits for companies rose about 5+ % and Worker Productivity rose at almost 7%. Meaning that overall, companies still made money, cut extra expenses like employee costs, and the remaining employees worked a hell of a lot harder than they did when there were more of them. If you were a company trying to get investors to hang onto your stock, would you go around hiring people? Hell no!

So for Disney, this means that they are doing "OK" with the amount of CM's they have now. People are still coming to the parks. But they need to change the target market from the discount seekers to the luxury vacationers.

From my man-on-the-street view, retail in general has sunk to the lowest common denominator. The Walmart model of service is what the majority of people expect now. Self checkout, stand in line, settle for less.

People go to Disney expecting to break out of that Sheeple mode. I want to feel special, not like I am checking out my own groceries. I work at TDS and everyday I've worked since Thanksgiving, guests thank me for taking time to help, talk, and slow down a little. It's the older people that say things like, "I wasn't going to buy anything today, but you've really helped me out today!"

I'll pay more for my vacation at Disney if I can have the same experience at the parks that I try to deliver at the store. I admit it's ironic that we'd want to feel special while standing in line to get on a ride. But even the ride ques are imagineered to make us feel like we're special. It's what happens in between the rides that counts.

What is TDS?

 

[tjkraz]

The interesting thing to follow in the current unemployment crisis is that overall, in the last quarter, corporate profits for companies rose about 5+ %...

I'd be curious to read more about those figures. If you're referring to a quarter-to-quarter comparison, it wouldn't surprise me. Profits fell prohibitively in late 2008 and early 2009 so it should come as no surprise that some recovery is happening. But most industries are still seeing significant drops comparing FY 2008 to 2009.

...and Worker Productivity rose at almost 7%. Meaning that overall, companies still made money, cut extra expenses like employee costs, and the remaining employees worked a hell of a lot harder than they did when there were more of them.

As for the "employees worked a hell of a lot harder" statement, most business majors will tell you that this sort of belt-tightening is often a good thing for the business. Reality is that during the prosperous years, companies get fat with middle managers and even front line workers who are not utilized to their full potential.

I couldn't help but notice the quote from 'The Office' in your signature. If you're a fan of the show, I suspect you realize that a good 1/3 of the staff in that company could be let go without the branch missing a beat. When you eliminate the web browsing, solitaire, crossword puzzles and general mischief, workers aren't coming close to a legitimate 40-hour work week.

Sure it's just a television show, but most people who work in a large corporate environment know that similar things are going on all around them. When things get tight some workers are given greater responsibilities and many will increase productivity on their own for fear of being downsized. That doesn't necessarily mean people are being asked to do 45 hours of work in a 40 hour week. Instead it means doing 35-40 hours of work during the week rather than 25-30.