Is Disney World becoming a shell of its former self?

[tjkraz]

One of the problems with playing the "What Would Walt Do?" game is that we need to go back to the very beginning. We know that Walt never planned to build Walt Disney World as it exists today. He bought the land with his eyes on a futuristic city.

But even if he had abandoned those plans, under his guidance would WDW still have evolved into four theme parks, three waterparks, 20+ resort hotels and an outdoor shopping complex? It's entirely possible that Walt would have never allowed such growth, knowing the difficulties of applying his brand of customer service, maintenance and overall "show" on such an massive scope.

There are definitely areas Walt would fix if he had his hand on the rudder. I'm not trying to make excuses for poor management.

But when we start to get into specifics of managing today's theme parks, it's important to acknowledge that the last 48 years would have played-out very, very differently if Walt had lived longer. This massive vacation kingdom with lodging and recreation options to suit all ages and tastes was nothing like what Walt had in mind when he bought the 27k acres.

 

[rteetz]

One of the problems with playing the "What Would Walt Do?" game is that we need to go back to the very beginning. We know that Walt never planned to build Walt Disney World as it exists today. He bought the land with his eyes on a futuristic city.

But even if he had abandoned those plans, under his guidance would WDW still have evolved into four theme parks, three waterparks, 20+ resort hotels and an outdoor shopping complex? It's entirely possible that Walt would have never allowed such growth, knowing the difficulties of applying his brand of customer service, maintenance and overall "show" on such an massive scope.

There are definitely areas Walt would fix if he had his hand on the rudder. I'm not trying to make excuses for poor management.

But when we start to get into specifics of managing today's theme parks, it's important to acknowledge that the last 48 years would have played-out very, very differently if Walt had lived longer. This massive vacation kingdom with lodging and recreation options to suit all ages and tastes was nothing like what Walt had in mind when he bought the 27k acres.

That is true. Walts big focus was Epcot. There was still supposed to be a theme park component but some of the early plans show nearly a carbon copy of Disneyland in Florida.

 

[DoingDisney]

My comments in RED.





Then what do you call the period between ~2000 and 2015, in which the only "substantial" addition throughout any of the parks over this 15-year period was NFL (which is arguably mediocre at best, considering that ALL OF EPCOT was built in less time...)? Makes the ~100% plus price increases over that time period a little hard to swallow if you ask me...

This just NAILS it. Now, I am very excited about the improvements coming, that we will see in ... 2 - 6 (or even more) YEARS. But what has actually been DONE ? What has come online. What can I go to wdw and experience NOW that has gone in over the last 15 years ? NFL ? Some DVC ? Some shopping ?

 

[mick1229]

If Walt were to come back to life and had to spend a day at WDW, he would probably leave and tell his driver to take him to Universal..."They seem to be getting it"

 

[zebsterama]

People talk about it because that's what drives the company and thus the parks. Walt can spin like a centrifuge and it won't change anything. He's dead, his family has no say in how the company runs and his vision is not the basis of their decision making. How he ran it is an interesting historical story, but it has no impact on what happens now.

I guess my point was, at one time the vision of WDW was customer/family experience excellence. I think Walt Disney envisioned this and many of us bought into this ideal.

What I'm perceiving at times is this need to compromise this vision due to corporate quarterly results and ROI - which I get - but I don't agree with.

I understand the reality but find it sad when I see people accept this compromise with a shrug of the shoulders and a "that's just the way capitalism works" sentiment.

Disney could still make buckets of profit and stick to the ideal but chooses not to: I'm not so quick to let them off the hook.

I guess I'm just a socialist ... what can I say? I am Canadian after all.

 

[Eoghann]

What I'm perceiving at times is this need to compromise this vision due to corporate quarterly results and ROI - which I get - but I don't agree with.

I understand the reality but find it sad when I see people accept this compromise with a shrug of the shoulders and a "that's just the way capitalism works" sentiment.

Disney could still make buckets of profit and stick to the ideal but chooses not to: I'm not so quick to let them off the hook.

I guess I'm just a socialist ... what can I say? I am Canadian after all.

You don't have to agree with it, I don't. I'm highly critical of Wall Street culture and what it does to businesses. However fixing that goes way, way beyond Disney and would involve a completely new Congress and probably a new political system. Disney really doesn't have a huge amount of choice in how it operates. Making lots of profit is not the standard by which a public company is judged (absurd but true). A company can be hugely profitable but if it fails to grow sufficiently, or pay sufficient dividends, or simply doesn't meet Wall Street estimates it is then punished on the market.

There's really only one action people can take in relation to Disney World. Go, or don't go. That's your only vote that matters on the subject.

 

[Flyerjab]

People talk about it because that's what drives the company and thus the parks. Walt can spin like a centrifuge and it won't change anything. He's dead, his family has no say in how the company runs and his vision is not the basis of their decision making. How he ran it is an interesting historical story, but it has no impact on what happens now.

The first post of 2016 that made me laugh out loud. And I agree with your sentiment here. Everything about how this company is run, both domestically and internationally, is completely microanalyzed by fans on a daily basis. Concept art is torn apart on line, imaginary rides are cut and pasted into overhead satellite photos, and then everything is bad-mouthed due to budget cuts, poor choices, Wall Street, etc - all before anything has even been built in some cases.

This type of reality did not even exist when Walt was here. The company was smaller and he was the big man on campus. Most of the public had no idea of what to expect in DL before they arrived. They were able to accept it for what it was at the time without pre-judgement. And people think that they know how Walt was and how he would react now. People have no idea because we did not know him. We weren't looking over his shoulder on the net watching every move that his company made. And the 1950's was a significantly different period in time than the 2000's.

People have this nostalgic view of him which is fine, but I bet he was nowhere near the person some have him built up to be. He most likely just as complex a person as anyone else. Unfortunately, were he alive today he would be battling the same types of market and BOD pressures that every other CEO does. But you could not have stated any better - he is dead, and the development of the Disney Corporation is in the hands of others.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

This just NAILS it. Now, I am very excited about the improvements coming, that we will see in ... 2 - 6 (or even more) YEARS. But what has actually been DONE ? What has come online. What can I go to wdw and experience NOW that has gone in over the last 15 years ? NFL ? Some DVC ? Some shopping ?

The answer to your question is really "little to nothing"..

And that summarizes exactly why some such as me sharpen our tomahawks and beat the war drums around her and have been for the last 10 years...

Why does everything cost double now than it did 10 years when the experience is net zero?

Because we've been collectively horrible consumers. The defenders of Wall Street say the pricing is some sort of victory of laisse faire...

But many, many of Disney world customers are very frequent, loyal customers - like me - and we've allowed ourselves to believe the hype and ask for nothing in return for our loyalty.

Lives are finite things...we all should be wise to not take time for granted...even on "fun" things.

Are they starting to get worried about their revenues and competiton now? Is it causing stress at TDO and the dwarf building in Burbank?

If the answer is "yes" then GOOD!
It's about damn time.

 

[Eoghann]

People have this nostalgic view of him which is fine, but I bet he was nowhere near the person some have him built up to be. He most likely just as complex a person as anyone else. Unfortunately, were he alive today he would be battling the same types of market and BOD pressures that every other CEO does. But you could not have stated any better - he is dead, and the development of the Disney Corporation is in the hands of others.

I put Walt in the Steve Jobs category. Remarkable indidivual, but I would never want to have worked for him or even had to deal with him on a personal level.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I guess my point was, at one time the vision of WDW was customer/family experience excellence. I think Walt Disney envisioned this and many of us bought into this ideal.

What I'm perceiving at times is this need to compromise this vision due to corporate quarterly results and ROI - which I get - but I don't agree with.

I understand the reality but find it sad when I see people accept this compromise with a shrug of the shoulders and a "that's just the way capitalism works" sentiment.

Disney could still make buckets of profit and stick to the ideal but chooses not to: I'm not so quick to let them off the hook.

I guess I'm just a socialist ... what can I say? I am Canadian after all.

That excuse you highlight...

"Oh well...it's just good old fashioned "American capitalism""

...boils my blood to no end.

First, it's bunk because Disney has gotten more special "governement favors" in Florida that have given them a business that is anything but "free market" over the years...

Second, how little do we think of ourselves? Honestly...no dignity and respect for your work and accomplishments if you voluntarily give it away with no sense of value or return on investment that you as a consumer are getting.

That's what the pounders proudly own: "nothing like it...we'll spend whatever they ask...JUST GIVE ME THE WORLD!!!"

it's so weak...that's my argument.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I put Walt in the Steve Jobs category. Remarkable indidivual, but I would never want to have worked for him or even had to deal with him on a personal level.

Actually...if you read most of the biographical accounts the opinion forms that he was quietly a greedy SOB and was incredibly lucky. The 70's would not have looked good if he had lived through them at disney...and he basically laid pipe that allowed his unqualified son in law to take over the business...that is NEVER a wise move.

 

[mvk]

If Walt were to come back to life and had to spend a day at WDW, he would probably leave and tell his driver to take him to Universal..."They seem to be getting it"

Doubtful

 

[Josh Hendy]

And people think that they know how Walt was and how he would react now. People have no idea because we did not know him. We weren't looking over his shoulder on the net watching every move that his company made.

We know a lot about Walt, his personality and his management style. When it came to Disneyland, he was a hands on guy. We know that he frequently visited the park alone, toured the way a guest does, and that he made decisions based on what he saw and heard.

I have never heard of Iger or one of his top lieutenants doing that. And it shows. To take only one tiny but important example, Walt sat on benches to eat his hot dog, watch and listen. Now the parks are being de-benched. Say what you want about greater crowds, traffic flow, gift shop sales, etc. ... But I doubt that any top decision making authority at Disney would say that the park experience is better for guests when there are fewer benches. If they were ever personally in the position of having a hot, fries and soda in their hands and were looking for somewhere to eat it.

If you're going to insist that Walt's dead and therefore we will never be able to learn anything from him, I'm going to respectfully say, you're wrong. Theme parks have hardly changed except in details, and customers are still the same. When it came to building and improving theme parks, Walt's style was not the slightest bit obscure, mysterious, old fashioned or irrelevant.

And yes, I'm going to dare to nitpick, criticize, second guess and grouse about the way that parks are run. With all modesty, I know more about the theme parks from a customer's perspective than anyone who's in top decision making authority right now. And I also have the distinct impression that I know significantly more about their original vision and history. And I'll bet you do too.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

While we know that walt Disney wasnt perfect...he was a self trained cartoonist by trade...
When they built Disneyland - it was a way for him to bring his two dimensionsal artforms to life...and made it all 3 Dimensional forms of "living art"

But...he believed in the show and the advancement of the themepark craft.

Would he ask his driver to skip studios and take him to diagon alley?
Perhaps not.
But would he be okay with multi year gaps in new rides and
Shows for the customers while condo units, computer systems, and a elaborate outdoor outlet mall was constructed spending several billion dollars?

No...I'm confident to say he would not be.

There's no excuse for Bob Iger either. Stagnation is so dangerous in themeparks that you need not mess with it...playing with fire.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

While we know that walt Disney wasnt perfect...he was a self trained cartoonist by trade...
When they built Disneyland - it was a way for him to bring his two dimensionsal artforms to life...and made it all 3 Dimensional forms of "living art"

But...he believed in the show and the advancement of the themepark craft.

Would he ask his driver to skip studios and take him to diagon alley?
Perhaps not.
But would he be okay with multi year gaps in new rides and
Shows for the customers while condo units, computer systems, and a elaborate outdoor outlet mall was constructed spending several billion dollars?

No...I'm confident to say he would not be.

There's no excuse for Bob Iger either. Stagnation is so dangerous in themeparks that you need not mess with it...playing with fire.

Considering the fact that he gave an interview once wanting to "plus" something every year because he heard someone say they were skipping Jungle Cruise because they'd ridden it last year I doubt he'd like the decade of doldrum we've experienced.

 

[WillJenDisney]

The answer to your question is really "little to nothing"..

And that summarizes exactly why some such as me sharpen our tomahawks and beat the war drums around her and have been for the last 10 years...

Why does everything cost double now than it did 10 years when the experience is net zero?

Because we've been collectively horrible consumers. The defenders of Wall Street say the pricing is some sort of victory of laisse faire...

But many, many of Disney world customers are very frequent, loyal customers - like me - and we've allowed ourselves to believe the hype and ask for nothing in return for our loyalty.

Lives are finite things...we all should be wise to not take time for granted...even on "fun" things.

Are they starting to get worried about their revenues and competiton now? Is it causing stress at TDO and the dwarf building in Burbank?

If the answer is "yes" then GOOD!
It's about damn time.

I mean, when I go to the Smoky Mountains somewhat regularly, I don't say "what's new in the last 15 years?" I'm going because I loved what's there. I don't say "eh, the mountains are still the same, no new mountains, so I don't want to go anymore." So when Disney World hasn't changed dramatically in 15 years, I don't get offended. I love the place, even if it never changes. I don't think I'm owed something more for my loyalty. They already earned my loyalty, why does the cost of my loyalty increase annually?

Now obviously a theme park is different, and some level of change is necessary. But I think the folks who go annually or multiple times a year have an unrealistic view of how much change should occur. No intelligent business is going to simply throw money away to appease a small percentage of it's customers. And I also get that you'll say "the Smoky Mountains aren't charging twice as much as 15 years ago." Fair enough. But again, that's just business. If 100 people will buy tickets for the current experience at $50, and 100 people will buy tickets for the current experience at $100, you sell for $100. A company doesn't "owe" anyone more because the customers decided the current experience is worth the higher price. And those of us who still gladly pay the new prices aren't being "horrible customers," we're simply deciding the experience we love is still worth what they're charging.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I mean, when I go to the Smoky Mountains somewhat regularly, I don't say "what's new in the last 15 years?" I'm going because I loved what's there. I don't say "eh, the mountains are still the same, no new mountains, so I don't want to go anymore." So when Disney World hasn't changed dramatically in 15 years, I don't get offended. I love the place, even if it never changes. I don't think I'm owed something more for my loyalty. They already earned my loyalty, why does the cost of my loyalty increase annually?

Now obviously a theme park is different, and some level of change is necessary. But I think the folks who go annually or multiple times a year have an unrealistic view of how much change should occur. No intelligent business is going to simply throw money away to appease a small percentage of it's customers. And I also get that you'll say "the Smoky Mountains aren't charging twice as much as 15 years ago." Fair enough. But again, that's just business. If 100 people will buy tickets for the current experience at $50, and 100 people will buy tickets for the current experience at $100, you sell for $100. A company doesn't "owe" anyone more because the customers decided the current experience is worth the higher price. And those of us who still gladly pay the new prices aren't being "horrible customers," we're simply deciding the experience we love is still worth what they're charging.

If I believed that the history of Disney parks can be broken down to a Microeconomic textbook and that I have been "undercharged" in the past so I shouldn't look at the history of price as anything but normal...I would agree with you.

But I'm on record as saying that the last 10-12 in Orlando have been shortsighted by the management and dangerous longterm.

Great points...but we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Eoghann]

They already earned my loyalty, why does the cost of my loyalty increase annually?.

Seriously? Because the cost of going increases annually (or more frequently)...

Loyalty isn't a buy once and keep forever thing.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Seriously? Because the cost of going increases annually (or more frequently)...

Loyalty isn't a buy once and keep forever thing.

Yeah...I'm more of the thought of the chapters of the Microeconomics textbook you are referring to...

 

[Eoghann]

Yeah...I'm more of the thought of the chapters of the Microeconomics textbook you are referring to...

I dislike the use of loyalty in the context of Disney World just as much as I dislike companies trying to peddle that their employees owe them loyalty beyond you know doing their job. Those same companies will turn around and fire that "loyal" employee in the blink of an eye if they can save money doing it. Similarly Disney does not give a toss about its theme park visitors beyond how much money they can be encouraged to spend. Everything else is set dressing. All that "welcome home", "Walt's Park", "we're friends" stuff is marketing BS.

A visit to Disney World is a commercial transaction and each transaction should be judged accordingly. Am I getting enough for my money that it's worthwhile?