Shareholder with more concern over future of the Disney Co.

[jimmytammy]

I have been a shareholder of Disney stock for more than 4 yrs now. I bought at a time when the stock was doing very well. Lets just say its down and has been for a while now. I have a ways to go to ever break even.

But here is what bugs me more. Since 1999 my family has had annual visits to WDW with plans for many more in the future. With all thats going on these days with the company it bothers me that the Disney Co. as we have known it will no longer be in existence in the coming yrs. We have seen a rapid decline in the parks since '99 and it doesnt look like those at the top are too concerned about it.

If the stock goes up, great. But if things keep deteriorating as they are now, what will it matter what the stock does? There will no longer be a Disney Co. We have to remember that first and foremost, Disney is about entertainment, pure and simple with costs not getting in the way of making things the way Walt would have wanted them to be.

I think they have lost sight of one thing...it was all started by a big kid with bigger dreams that would spare no expense at making things right. His name was Walt Disney.

If I lose out in Disney stock, well I took the chance. But I can hope that the Disney Co. and all the things that made it great will one day be back.

Any other shareholders feel this ?(or am I just )

Ill get off my soapbox now.

 

[Chuck S]

Well, I haven't noticed any "big declines" in the quality of the parks over the 12 years since I bought into DVC. In fact, since then WDW has opened Animal Kingdom and every attraction and show located there, added Mickey's Philharmagic, Honey I Shrunk The Audience, Test Track, Mission Space, Alien Encounter, Rehabbed CoP (Yes, it could use it again), Timekeeper, Millionaire, Buzzlightyear Spin, Spectromagic, did the Millenium Celebration with Tapestry of Nations and the Millennium village, Rehabbed Universe of Energy, put Country Bears through several show cycles (original, vacation hoedown, and Christmas Show), MuppetVision 3-D, Fantasmic, Beauty and The Beast Theater, Tower of Terror, Voyage of the Little Mermaid.

Built California Adventure (yes, it needs to be expanded...but overall is a nice park).

They are adding Soarin', Expedition Everest, and new Stunt show to WDW.

Roy is NOT Walt, granted neither is Eisner, but it wasn't too long ago on these boards that everyone was slamming Pressler for the way he managed Disneyland....guess what, Pressler is one of the "talented people" Roy regrets losing...read the statements on his savedisney website.

 

[jimmytammy]

Uh OK Chuck, I guess thats a vote towards for me.

I have trouble expressing in words what I am thinking, especially writing them. I do agree that the parks have been enhanced with new attractions and rides through the years. Where I have noticed the rapid decline is in the cleanliness and also the attitudes of the CMs.

What I am after in this post is shareholders who are more concerned for the future of the Disney Co. to be what it once was in its glory days rather than wanting to see their stock go up for a few weeks because someone at the top is cutting back in places they dont need too. That is a short term effect but with long term problems. It eventually catches up to the stock price anyway.

I own my own Co. and know that cutting corners will come back to bite cha!

 

[raidermatt]

Many people have noticed the decline you mention, jimmytammy. You are not alone.

 

[disney_parrothead]

I'm not a shareholder, but my brother is. I've mentioned the savedisney.com fight, and he says he'll go with whatever I advise him to do. (Don't get excited - he owns probably 10 shares or so). I'll ask him to follow Roy's advice, because I truly believe we need new voices in the board room. Now exactly WHO that new voice will end up being is a whole nother story, but anyway...

I've been mostly a lurker here for a few years. My wife and I go to DW about twice a year. We haven't been since June 2003 because we're in the process of moving to another city, but we've going again in April. We just can't wait any longer.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but it won't be the first time, and it won't be the last. DW is more than a vacation destination for us. The trips we have taken over the years have been more than a vacation; they're more like a complete transformation from our regular 9-5 life into a colorful, charming, enchanting diversion... at least for a few days.

DW is more to me than burned out lightbulbs, a piece of trash here or there, or a coke bottle that a cast member has yet to pick up. It's my definition of wonder, delight, and relaxation. A place to forget about programming for awhile and just walk around the boardwalk, take in a show at MK, or walk hand in hand down the center of Downtown Disney.

The breathtaking sight of the lobby at the Wilderness Lodge is worth all the missing lightbulbs, trash, coke cans, and whatever else happens to be wrong that day. The laughing kids, the nature walks, heck -- the warm weather -- makes everything work for us.

Yes, I am concerned that things are moving in the wrong direction. I'd like to THINK that Eisner is 100% to blame, and once he is (eventually) shown the door, that things will magically improve. But I keep thinking about service in general here in the real world. People care less now about giving great customer service than they did 10 or 20 years ago -- and people seem to be accustomed to it, so they just move on and add it to the never-ending list of bad customer service experiences. I know the service at WDW hasn't descended to that level, but will every single CM -- from the new CEO down to the hot dog salesman -- return to the ways of 10 or 20 years ago simply because the CEO has been replaced?

Or is this just another telltale sign that we have entered the 21st Century, and we'll have to adjust our expectations of Disney service just like we do everywhere else now? I don't know. Time will tell.

I read some of the opinions here and know there are some pretty darn smart people on these boards. We all love what Disney stands for -- or STOOD for, depending on how you think now -- but I guess I'm lucky because I CAN see DW with rose-colored glasses. It may not be the smartest way to approach this subject, but no one ever accused me of being very smart. I guess this comes down to one thing -- Disney and the whole experience is only what you make of it. I choose to make the very most I can out of it for as long as I can continue to do so.

OK, rant over. Thanks for "listening".

 

[WDSearcher]

Nice rant, parrothead ... thanks!

 

[DemoBri1]

Here here parrothead. I am tired of seeing all these posts about burned out bulbs, and trash as well. It's like the parks have turned into a slum with garbage piled up all over the place.

I had not been back to WDW for five years before our trip last December, and to tell you the truth, the only difference that I noticed to the negative was that our check-in CM at BCV was not as "chipper" as some of the other CMs I had come in contact with.

Other than that, I would say WDW was just as magical a place as I remembered, and maybe more, because this time our children were with us, and it was the Holiday Season.

Brian

 

[raidermatt]

Everybody has different experiences, and nobody is arguing the parks have turned into a slum.

But again, a significant number have noticed issues. Besides that, there's things that cannot be disputed, like shorter hours, closed attractions, and reduced services.

This is not about whether or not you love WDW. Just about everyone here does, or they wouldn't be here. Its about what you want WDW to be in the future.

Does everything magically improve upon Eisner's departure? Of course not. The right people have to be put in place to make that happen. But one thing that is definite is that Eisner's departure is part of what must occur.

Customer service is not a thing of the past. Companies can still provide whatever level of service they decide. The employees will follow when they see it is a true committment from management.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
But again, a significant number have noticed issues. Besides that, there's things that cannot be disputed, like shorter hours ...

OK ... this is TOTAL semantics, but it makes me crazy. There are not "shorter hours." There are fewer days with "extended hours."

Back when the parks first opened, standard hours for MK were until 6pm or 8pm, depending on the season. During peak seasons and holidays, hours would be extended to 9pm or midnight. As additional parks opened, they all followed the same pattern.

During the heydays of travel in the late '70s / early '80s, and in order to rake in revenue, MK extended hours more and more often, as did the other parks, until people got used to it. And then when MK would go back to normal hours due to lower volume or a need to reign in expenses, everyone would start grousing about "shorter hours." But Disney has never actually shortened hours. They have simply had fewer days of extended hours.

I know ... I know. But still ....

 

[Chuck S]

So, would everyone prefer the operating hours that were in effect for Disneyland while Walt was living?

 

[raidermatt]

OK ... this is TOTAL semantics, but it makes me crazy. There are not "shorter hours." There are fewer days with "extended hours."

Point taken. However, as a practical matter, guests compare their current experience with their past experience.

So for somebody who experienced certain hours through the 90's, then sees lesser hours now, they see them as shorter.

The customer perception is all that matters.

So, would everyone prefer the operating hours that were in effect for Disneyland while Walt was living?

Not sure what they were, but probably not, especially if you consider "dark" days. Of course, those hours, in and of themselves, have little relevance to today's hours. I'm sure you know that, but I mention it just in case there are some rookies perusing the boards...

 

[Chuck S]

.... have little relevance to today's hours.

That is my point, trying to "return to company" to the way Walt ran it has very little relevance today, doesn't it? After all, closed Monday and Tuesday during the winter season WAS the way Walt ran it, for years and years, up until the time of his death.

Everyone keeps thinking that Roy will return the comapny to "Walt's way of Doing Things" I'm trying to point out that Walt's Way wasn't always as full of Pixie Dust as many want to believe. Just as KNWViking pointed out "normal hours" are NOT what folks experienced in the years leading up to 9-11. He made decisions to save money and protect his bottom line. Not all of his attractions had the "WOW" factor people think they did, especially pre-1964 World's Fair.

 

[raidermatt]

That is my point, trying to "return to company" to the way Walt ran it has very little relevance today, doesn't it? After all, closed Monday and Tuesday during the winter season WAS the way Walt ran it, for years and years, up until the time of his death.

Ahh, but see, you are mixing business philosophy with operational details.

Walt's business philosophy, "give the people everything you can give them", and "Show", etc, has great relevance to today's Disney. Or at least it should. And more to the point these days, Disney would profit greatly if it were.

Those calling for a return to such a philosophy are not saying everything should be like the good 'ole days... same hours, same services, same processes, same everything.

Only that the decisions and changes made should be based on that same philosophy.

Shorter hours (or, for Searcher, not extending them as long ) are not automatically a "bad" thing, but the philosophy behind shortening them IS a problem.

Just as KNWViking pointed out "normal hours" are NOT what folks experienced in the years leading up to 9-11.

Again, as a practical matter, customers don't care about what you SAY is normal. They care what you DO.

Further, 9/11 did not represent a turning point in hours. It only resulted in a hastening of the process. Hours were reduced in '99 and '00, despite RISING attendance in those years.

 

[Goofyposter]

Perhaps not "the hours".....but the maintainence levels, and the level of importance subscribed to CM's attention to Guest Relations is in fact a result of what management decides is 'important'.

Traditions.

Need I say more?

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Point taken. However, as a practical matter, guests compare their current experience with their past experience.

So for somebody who experienced certain hours through the 90's, then sees lesser hours now, they see them as shorter.

The customer perception is all that matters.

True, hence the 'I know ... I know. But still ... '

It's just one of those things that I had to finally comment on. Thanks for seeing the point.

 

[crusader]

Ahh, but see, you are mixing business philosophy with operational details.

I thought the operations of the company had everything to do with the business philosophy.

Again, as a practical matter, customers don't care about what you SAY is normal. They care what you DO.

And.............

They care how something effects them irregardless of policy. They use every forum they can to express dissatisfaction looking for a shared viewpoint. Which is why the internet is so great. It provides access to a worldwide complaint department.

Welcome.

 

[raidermatt]

Thanks for seeing the point.

No problem...

I thought the operations of the company had everything to do with the business philosophy.

Sure it does. But you also know that you can't compare an operational detail from 40 years ago with that same detail today and conclude they define the similarity or difference in business philosophies.

They care how something effects them irregardless of policy.

Right, which certainly is in line with what I said.

They use every forum they can to express dissatisfaction looking for a shared viewpoint. Which is why the internet is so great. It provides access to a worldwide complaint department.

Welcome.

ok.

 

[KIMHELMS99]

I, like some others have lurked here for sometime. I have been going to WDW since 1986. I do see a decline in some areas of Disney as others have mention, but have also seen new and exciting things happening.

I am not an Eisner fan but I don't think things will change magically when he is gone. I believe some of the changes are a lot larger than just Disney.

I too am in a family run business and have see a decline in the availability of quality help. It seems like so many have gotten the they don't pay me enough, it's not my job attitude.

I love Disney and will continue going because I still feel the magic overpowers the bad. I also hope that time changes everything back to the way Walt would want it to be. Here's to a lot of Pixie Dust. Sorry for the rant......

 

[jimmytammy]

Seems we have split sides going here and yet it remains civil. Thats good.

With 37% of shareholders witholding their votes for Eisner according to CNBCs Squawk Box it seems that the people are speaking and loudly. More so than Roy and Stanley even expected.

On a simpler level, I build houses. I build the cabinets for those houses. I build those cabinets out of solid 3/4" wood frames and 3/4" plywood sides. It costs more this way BUT I could "trim the fat" and build with 1/2" particle board sides. But over time those 1/2" sides begin to deteriorate and people start talking about the sorry cabinets that Jimmy builds. It may save and even make me $$s short term but long term effects wont go away.

Point of my nonsense is Eisner and his team of tag-alongs are and have been for some time "trimming the fat". But the "fat" is what makes Disney so special and head and shoulders above other entertainment companies. They make money off of the fact that they dont spare expense. Yet now they spare expense in maintenance in the parks, animation, and keeping their CMs happy. If the CMs are happy we as customers are more satisfied.
I own lots of other stocks and like to see them be cost effective. But Disney is different. We hold them to a higher standard. Is that fair? Maybe not. Who knows?

An editor at Forbes magazine described Eisner as a prized heavyweight fighter way past his prime who doesnt know when to quit. He was great in his day,but his better days are behind him.

It is way past time for Eisner and his cronies to hit the road.

Concerned more as a customer than a shareholder.

Jimmy

 

[crusader]

I own lots of other stocks and like to see them be cost effective. But Disney is different. We hold them to a higher standard. Is that fair? Maybe not. Who knows?

Do you think a company like Comcast will compromise cost effectiveness to provide you with that standard?

No way. Expect things to get worse.

I've heard Disney is one of the few companies held to this standard because its' products really strike the heart of people.

Sometimes I find it difficult to ascertain how a zero tolerance policy on purchasing nothing short of quality at every level can be effectively measured without charging us a lot more for that mandate of premium.