Needed Changes at Disney: Reader Results

[lenshanem]

From savedisney.com -

http://savedisney.com/contact/needed_changes_results.asp

 

[Chuck S]

It is interesting to note that the first several "recommendations" deal with expanding the parks, building more attractions and increasing pay and benefits for CMs. Yet they want LOWER prices for products and admission. I don't think they can do BOTH and remain in business.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I don't think they can do BOTH and remain in business.

And you would be wrong.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Landbaron, still jousting at windmills? Chuck's point is completely valid and your's is...Well, wrong! This is a sophomoric, laughable list of dreams with no eye on practicality. We all love the pie in the sky possibilities of unbridled customer pandering and altruistic concerns as far as profits are involved bt this is not how it works and I know you know this...

 

[lenshanem]

Sure this list is what a perfect "world" would be like, but yet they all mirror ideals Walt had for his company. While at this point, to have all would certainly be unattainable since the company has had years of neglect, I think it is fair to say Disney is worth salvaging and there is always potential if in the right hands to turn around to somewhat more glorious days.

This list was sent in by people concerned about Disney and then savedisney.com complied into a top list. This list is simply saying what people wish or would like to see.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't know if this is so impractical. Better movies, make more money. Better TV, the same. New appealing attractions, more visitors. And so on and so on.

You have to invest money to make money IMO.

 

[DancingBear]

Whaddya know, it's important to keep the Disney family in management. Why is that, exactly?

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Does anyone know what year the WDC went public?

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
Does anyone know what year the WDC went public?

It would have to have been a public company by the 1960s, and I would assume much earlier. Wasn't there a disagreement betwen Roy and Walt about WED being a separate entity vs. a subsidiary of Disney Productions? Roy felt that WED should be a subsidiary because he had fiduciary responsibility to stockholders.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, how about that!!

Innocently answering Chuck, and what-do-you-know… I catch a Pirate!!

How are you Peter? I hope all is well in the sunshine state!! And I sincerely hope that the only big wind coming out of Marathon Key is merely emanating from your house!! As usual!!!

Landbaron, still jousting at windmills?

Well, I don’t know about that. Let’s see what those windmills were over the years, shall we?

I said that ABC was a bad venture for Disney and was in fact dragging the rest of the company down! It seems to me, you VEHEMENTLY disagreed!!

I said that GO.COM was a disaster. It seems to me, you VEHEMENTLY disagreed!! (In fact you pointed to it as the future, spouting nonsense about AOL and Yahoo and Time-Warner!!! Just plain SILLY!!!

I said that the cable acquisitions were a very poor fit for Disney. It seems to me, you VEHEMENTLY disagreed!!

I said that Pressler was the devil incarnate for all things Disney. It seems to me, you VEHEMENTLY disagreed!! Same with Harris!! (WOW! How do you look yourself in the mirror!!!)

And lastly, when I first came here I said that Ei$ner had to go. That he was inept and just plain wrong for Disney. It seems to me, you VEHEMENTLY disagreed!! In fact, it seems to me, that you were rather enamored with him!!

Chuck's point is completely valid and your's is...Well, wrong!

Tell me Mr. Pirate. Will it be another two or three years before you finally see the folly of this statement too? You seem to be behind the curve by at least that much!!! I mean even now agree with all of the above, which caused quite a debate at the time between you and I!!!

IF (And I will agree that it would take tremendously bold leadership to turn that ‘if’ into a ‘when’) but, if they could rid themselves of ABC, poor cable acquisitions, DCA(!!!), underperforming internet ventures and a myriad of other LOUSY BUSINESS DECISIONS, then think of all the money they could sink into the core of their business.

Ah! The CORE!! YES!! Seems some jerks at the top of Disney forgot they had a CORE! And a money making CORE at that! A CORE that has propped up the rest of the company for many years now. Much to the detriment of the CORE itself!!! Just stop and think for a moment, if they stripped away everything that was sucking the life out of that CORE!! GOBS and GOBS of profit!!! The golden goose anew!! The money making machine running full tilt WITHOUT handing the profits to FAILING operations!!

Who know!! They may even be able to exceed our expectations once in a while!! And with some money left over!!

But what do I know!! Back in 1999 or 2000 I thought Ei$ner was a poor manager for Disney!!! Not a smart take on things, eh?

You’re right. Nothing but windmills!!

 

[eringj]

Actually, building more rides - efficient rides with a high loading capacity and low running costs - could be the way to increase park capacity. With a higher number of visitors to the parks, higher expenditure could be consistent with lower entry costs and higher profits. It's economy of scale.

Whereas not building new and better rides is a sure-fire way down the kazi, since Disney's competitors will be making improvements sure as heck (excuse my French).