Why defend Disney

[KnittingMom]

What is the solution?
The only actual way to stop long lines and crowds is to reduce attendance. I think we can all agree that won't happen.lol

I can think of other ways to stop long lines and crowds without reducing attendance, and Disney is already using many of these techniques. (1) increase non- theme park fun things: resort fishing, princess make-overs, meals and teas and boat trips and treasure hunts, water parks and mini golf and real golf and shopping; (2) increase non-ride events at the parks: street entertainment, multiple character greeting spots, photo spots, interactive games, shopping, dining and parades; (3) increase ride capacity by doubling Dumbo, or building another Toy Story segment, or adding more seats to shows, or building another load platform, or doing fewer refurbishments; (4) increase the number of rides by expanding Fantasyland, for example; (5) getting people out of the parks and into their pools in the crowded afternoons, which Disney does by building ever more on-site hotels with better and better pools.

If Disney knows that it has X number of people in the park one afternoon, it wants X spots for those people to be in, and the more people spots there are in shops, restaurants, street entertainment, photo taking, and snack kiosks, the fewer people who will be in lines.

 

[Planogirl]

Not really. Everything is relative. It seemed affordable by today's cost standard, but, when they opened and minimum wage was around 90 cents an hour, it wasn't any easier to put money aside to make a trip to a theme park then it is now. It is all the same. When I was young I always wanted to own a Cadillac or a Lincoln Town Car... Guess what, I was almost 60 years old before I could comfortably afford one. Why are they so greedy. I wanted one and they wouldn't bring the price down so I could get one. Talk about money grubbing. They didn't owe me a Town Car and Disney doesn't owe anyone a visit to the parks. If we can afford it, we can go. Otherwise, we find something else to do that costs less. That, btw, is what being a realist means. Accepting the situations that we have no control of as they are, not, what we would like them to be.

I never said that they owed anybody anything. I just think that they used to be more affordable.

We used to stay at the Polynesian Resort back in the day and even though our income has gone up we find the resort rates there ridiculously overpriced. That is just one example.

 

[Kimberly9701]

@whiporee I understand your point of having no proof or numbers on anything, the thing is that Disney protects these numbers at all costs, this is why we don't know the exact number of capacity for any parks, or, when they sell different packages you will never know how many tickets they are selling.
I will leave you with my own experience and background. I have live in Orlando for 18 years , have been a passholder for 15 years and before I would visit the parks multiple times. Now I visit the parks at least 2 times a week. I have family members and friends working for the company.
I have seen Disney pre fp, when lines were hours long, I have seen Disney go through 9/11 and how brilliant marketing (Year of a Million Dreams and other promotions) and impeccable service brought it back up from years of low attendance.
I can tell you, from experience, that management has gone down in quality. In many areas, it started when they cut down on the number of days CM would get their Traditions (class that teaches new CM about the history of the Company and Walt's story) classes. What used to take 4 days to complete, now it's done in a day and a half.
They used to have job fairs every 3 months, now they are heavily relying on College Program kids that work for only 6 months a year, and many of them are excited to be here, but others are just looking for something to put on their resume, they are very poorly paid and it shows.
The current hour cuts are real. When full time CM are only getting half of what they are promised, part timers only work 1 or maybe 2 days a week. You can see it when you go to the parks and managers in plain clothes are doing jobs that a costumed CM should be doing.
When you are waiting longer than usual for meals at QS because they closed half of the kitchen and/or because they are under staffed.
It's real and no, you will probably not find any newspaper article talking about this, one because again Disney protects their numbers and two because Disney is the driving economic force of Orlando and Central Fl.
I'm not saying it's all bad, it's not. There is still plenty of magic left, but the turn that management has taken is worrying. When they expect the guest to book rooms months in advance, plan months in advance, but cannot give operating hours 3 weeks in advance, that's a problem, and no amount of sugar coating will fix that.

I'm just so happy to read someone finally say that there has always been long lines!!!lol. Thanks for finally making me feel not so old.

Space mountain and even Mr Toad's seemed to me the worst as a kid. But worth it.

 

[cobright]

Do you read Josh's blog. Hes done some pretty interesting comparisons of wait times in the FP+ era vs. the FP era.

I don't. But I would like to. Links?

 

[Davey Jones II]

The articles are on the first two pages. Ariel found a Sentinel article. The others are from a blog.

The only numbers I could find are ones that said 20 percent of employees were finding hours cut 2-4 hours a week. That's less than 10 percent of a 32 hour week (which they maintained for ACHA reasons) but I rounded up.

.2 x .1 = .02. That's where the 2 percent comes from.

As for the rest, lines were longer because more people came. And they had made their seasonal reductions, which employees even agree is what they do every year.

You could blame them for being caught off guard, but according to what I've read, the staff fact that there was less staff during Jan-Feb is a seasonal norm.

Half a billion dollars in cuts is a lot more than just a seasonal norm. Maybe they timed it as such to fool people into thinking that's all it is.

And we are no longer in January and February. These cuts were also in effect during spring break, one of the busiest times of the year. And there's no indication that they will be rolled back anytime soon, even with summer coming.

 

[whiporee]

The only person saying half a billion is the guy on the blog. He quotes no one. Nothing from Wall Street, nothing from stockholder meetings. Her may know a lot -- he might not. But he's throwing out a slanted article and accusations without a single thing to back them up.

Disney is a publicly traded company. They can't operate without a degree of transparency, and if they told the Parks division to reduce operating costs by half a billion, they can't keep that secret. It affects revenue and bottom line stuff -- they aren't just allowed to whisper about it. And if they did whisper about it, and it got out, it would be known by more than a guy with a blog.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Considering the wide-ranging effects that have been reported for months (reduced hours for CMs, rides running at reduced capacity, shorter park operating hours, attractions randomly closed or running only part of the day, etc.), half a billion sounds about right. And even if the figure is not accurate, the bottom line (so to speak) is that the parks are very crowded, and Disney is doing little to alleviate that situation. That has been reported all over the place, not just in the article links I provided.

And I've been reading the MiceAge updates for years, and they have been remarkably accurate. The only exception is when Disney has reversed a decision. I don't know what insider sources they use, but they're definitely not making this stuff up.

 

[Rubicon_SS]

Now that Disney has released it's quarterly report after market close today and indicated that park attendance had experienced a "moderate" decrease as well as a decline in resort bookings, I wonder if this changes anyone's opinion? Especially those who primarily cited ever-increasing-attendance as a possible reason for all that ails Disney?

 

[Rubicon_SS]

The only actual way to stop long lines and crowds is to reduce attendance. I think we can all agree that won't happen.lol

Yet that is exactly what happened. Attendance was reduced for the most recently reported quarter and I personally have seen no reports of a reduction in long lines and crowds.

I'm confident Disney was aware of this reduced attendance real-time and instituted cost cutting measures as explained by other posters.

 

[Boski]

The only person saying half a billion is the guy on the blog. He quotes no one. Nothing from Wall Street, nothing from stockholder meetings. Her may know a lot -- he might not. But he's throwing out a slanted article and accusations without a single thing to back them up.

Disney is a publicly traded company. They can't operate without a degree of transparency, and if they told the Parks division to reduce operating costs by half a billion, they can't keep that secret. It affects revenue and bottom line stuff -- they aren't just allowed to whisper about it. And if they did whisper about it, and it got out, it would be known by more than a guy with a blog.

Yea but what "data" or "facts" are you using to back up your argument? (I still couldn't find that link to the article, its probably there I just can't see things right in front of me, ask my wife) What are you thoughts on @yulilin3 comments. She is one of the ones I was talking who is in the parks every week with ties to Disney employees.

 

[Boski]

I don't. But I would like to. Links?

http://www.easywdw.com/easy/blog/how-fastpass-is-affecting-wait-times-at-disney-world-attractions/
http://www.easywdw.com/easy/blog/disney-world-summer-wait-time-trends-june-3-2014/

 

[yulilin3]

Here are some facts and quotes from Bob Iger himself.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-earnings-20160510-story.html
"We like the steps we've taken in terms of pricing," he said. "We've taken a number of steps … to essentially grow revenue, in some cases actually at the expense of some attendance."

Iger said the company is "changing our pricing approach, sometimes in part to moderate attendance so the park experience is a little bit better, but all designed with the effect of essentially raising revenue."

In the end Disney is a company, and you can clearly see Iger stating that it's all about making money, and that's what companies do. But when you get to that point at the expense of your guests, the people you are supposed to sell to, that's where I have a problem.
If the Disney's Product was the same quality and standards as it was a couple of years ago then I would say "go ahead, make all your money" but the quality of the product has been reduced, in many ways at the expense of making money.
How many times have you called the Disney line to ask questions only to be met with "I don't know" or worse, getting conflicting information? A company of this size should not have these simple problems, and I could go on and on.
Like I said before, I've experienced all of it first hand and I am worried about the direction it's taking.

 

[Nancyg56]

And yet you respond defensively and argumentative.

Saying somebody is an apologist is not name calling or an insult. I also did not say anybody was wrong.

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner;
informalcheerleader

In general, on these boards being called an apologist is basically an insult. Your intention may not be to label someone in an insulting manner, but when the label has a history of being used derisively, you will touch a nerve.

I know I have responded to being placed in this category, as have other, yet you continue to use the term and to say you mean no harm. This is the reason your comments seem to be met with defensive or argumentative responses.

 

[Nancyg56]

I am not making it personal, I do not even know you...............what I was trying to do, is to show how while there is a dictionary definitions the real definitions of words is how they are used in every day conversation. Apologist implies any one supporting Disney in some issue or action is apologizing as if to say Disney is wrong and therefore they are wrong. Realist implies they are looking at a action or issue as if they are implying the correct or real facts or position and the apologists are all wrong.

My own feelings is as Davey jones II put it..I have supported Disney and raked them over the coals.

However I have found when I supported the unpopular position at times and that is when I find some folk attack as a group anyone who does not agree with them, and that is terms like *kool aid drinker* and *apologist* come out and I find it insulting.


AKK

AS do I. I think that once the terms start flying teh discussion is over.

 

[Nancyg56]

While I think the way Lothlorian used the two terms in inaccurate and unfair, the problem is that the "common" definition of a few key terms are not at all what you think them to be. In particular, "apologist" and "realist".



An apologist is someone who is willing to offer an argument for or defense of some thing within the context of a public discussion. C.S. Lewis was a very vocal apologist for Christianity at a time when his religion was getting some very vocal criticisms. It is not someone who defends something even when they know it is wrong or for the sake of argument alone. An apologist may argue a point they do not personally hold if doing so raises the quality of all of the arguments on the subject, meaning they would not like any side (even one they agree with) to win a debate simply because no one on the other side was comfortable making their case. In any case, the term, on its own is not, nor ever has been a pejorative.

I would propose that apologist cannot have a "common" definition, other than its correct one, simply because it is a very uncommonly used word. If one in a place where this word is being used a lot one should expect it to be used correctly.



Again, this is simply not what a realist believes. The opposite of a realist is not a fictionist, it is not someone who believes in things that are not real. The opposite of a realist is an idealist and neither term refers to the correctness or accuracy of their beliefs. They refer to the philosophy by which a person judges things, sets goals, and makes decisions. A realist does so based on what is currently known and the most likely outcome of unresolved issues. If a coin flips heads 100 times in a row, the realist bets it will flip heads for the 101st toss. Throughout history, realists have actually been wrong about important events far more often than right but it is still a much safer path. In contrast idealists suffer far more disappointment because their expectations are more often set by what is possible and desirable than what is likely.



Asking that someone stop using a word correctly because your incorrect understanding of it results in you being insulted is not reasonable. We live in a society. I don't tell the black kid at the coffee shop to stop calling me his n-word. I find the term abhorrent in most cases (including any case where I personally say it) but he's using it correctly and it does me no harm.

He can use any word he wants. And he can be technically correct when he uses words to describe people on these boards. However, when there are people, myself included, who find the terms insulting based on how they are used on THIS board, I find it disingenuous that he finds the comments to be "argumentative or defensive". People have pointed out that these terms are tossed around a lot and are not complimentary. People can continue to use them, but all of the definitions in every dictionary will not change how people react. Each time someone uses those "names" to validate their own positions, the thread loses.

 

[whiporee]

@Boski -- I don't have argument. All I've said is that there might be other explanations for what is happening than Disney is a money grubbing evil corporation that has gone down the tubes. And that if someone is going to make a narrative that Disney is those things, I'm likely to argue against it unless there are actual facts to back it up. And that rumors restated are not facts. One of my favorite sayings in the world right now (and it goes for everything) is "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'"

Take these budget cuts. Someone notices that, say, the parks aren't being maintained as carefully as they remember them being maintained. Then someone else notices that Shanghai has cost overruns. So then someone else puts two and two together and postulates that there might be a connection between those cost overruns, and the lack of maintenance in the parks and the cost overruns. And at the same time notices there are wait times for things there didn't used to be wait times for. Now, that could be because there are more people in the park. Or that could be that FP+'s appointment window has pulled people out of lines for bigger rides and those people, frankly, need something to do. Or it could mean that Disney's cut staff and there aren't enough CMs to load and unload, or they are only using one track where there's a choice.

And then someone blog his idea, because he's got a blog and if you don't post some sort of insight into the Magic Kingdom, you don't get the clicks which means you don't have the advertisers. He's not lying, he's just guessing. And because he's a guy who runs a blog about Disney, people give his guesses some extra credit. So then other blogs see it, and maybe even the mainstream media picks it up because no one really knows what counts as facts anymore, it gets reported. To back up their story, they find a CM or two willing to talk. But here's the thing about employees -- I've worked for four companies in my life and I've run one. You never have 100 percent employee satisfaction You almost never get 50 percent satisfaction. People always complain about their jobs because it's what people do. So they find someone saying their hours are cut, and suddenly there's the proof. They don't mention how much they've been cut, jus that they've been cut.

Then people read it and come to a message board where people talk about Disney and say there are budget cuts, and that explains it all. Then people repeat it and repeat it and repeat it, and suddenly the narrative becomes that WDW is drastically cutting costs to pay for Shanghai.

Now, that may be true. But there's absolutely no evidence of it. So that's my argument -- not that Disney isn't cutting costs, because I don't know -- but that there's a pretty good chance that the things we're seeing in the park are not indicative of a cultural change at Disney at all.

I think the biggest point yullin3 made was about the training. I think that's gone down a lot. I think the quality of CMs has gone down, but I think that's a societal function in a lot of ways. The biggest factor with the CMs, IMO, is that a lot of them the are doing it as a necessary way to make survival money as opposed to training -- you've got a decent number of people who are working at Disney because it's the only gig in town. But they aren't happy about it -- who would be? No one likes sweeping streets for minimum wage. But the question about training goes to that as well -- did they need four days of training? Are today's employees likely to embrace four days of training, or are they more likely to get cynical about it? I don't know know, and none of this is anything other than my theory.

I disagree that the Sentinel would protect Disney. I've known a lot of people at that paper, and while I have personal and family reasons to dislike it (mostly from 40 years ago, so I might want to let it go) I don't believe they would cover up massive layoffs or massive hour reductions, of for no other reason than someone else would eventually discover it and then they'd be embarrassed. Orlando is a tourist town, but it's not a company town, and Disney's influence, while substantial, isn't overpowering. So the idea that the media there wouldn't report what is happening at Disney because of protecting WDW from bad news is hard for me to believe.

 

[GPC0321]

Here are some facts and quotes from Bob Iger himself.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-earnings-20160510-story.html
"We like the steps we've taken in terms of pricing," he said. "We've taken a number of steps … to essentially grow revenue, in some cases actually at the expense of some attendance."

Iger said the company is "changing our pricing approach, sometimes in part to moderate attendance so the park experience is a little bit better, but all designed with the effect of essentially raising revenue."

Iger's statements make sense to me.
There is absolutely NO WAY Disney is going to make everyone happy. None. If they do specials to reduce the of a vacation (free dining, resort discounts, etc.), people complain that there's never a "slow time" and that Disney is just trying to keep the resorts packed 12 months out of the year and the place is always too crowded. If Disney raises prices, people complain that they're trying to price them out of a Disney vacation. Regarding the parties, there have been complaints on this board about them being way too crowded. Disney could limit the number of tickets they sell, which would result in guests being completely shut out of the experience. Instead they've tiered the ticket prices so that the more popular nights are more expensive. This still allows budget-conscious guests to choose a party on a less-expensive night, and maybe thins the crowds a little on the more popular nights so that the experience is more enjoyable for everyone.

Disney has some HUGE and very expensive expansions and additions currently underway. Obviously these expenses are going to be reflected in the price of a ticket, and yes, maybe in some cuts elsewhere.

What can Disney do to earn the money it needs to fund the new expansions/additions, maintain the parks as they are currently, and keep crowd levels to everyone's liking if not raise prices and trim excess spending?

 

[Boski]

@whiporee I understand your point about becoming the "narrative" and I for one, really appreciate hearing all views. I think, in this particular case, the writing is a little more on the wall then say something like crowds in September.

 

[yulilin3]

@GPC0321 on your comment about the up coming things.
There are a lot of things coming but the expansions and new park (Shanghai) shouldn't come at the expense of the product already offered.
Increasing prices to make more money and not offering the same quality and quantity of your product is not good business.
Imagine buying a phone and then the company comes out with a new phone but to be able to launch the new one they need to cut parts of your service to finance it.
You already bought your phone and had plans to use it but now have to plan around the cuts. ..
If they were making money while not curing things it would be fine.
I see the cuts everytime I come, it's not everyone exaggerating, again, I'm not saying is all bad, it's just not the same as before

 

[GPC0321]

@GPC0321 on your comment about the up coming things.
There are a lot of things coming but the expansions and new park (Shanghai) shouldn't come at the expense of the product already offered.
Increasing prices to make more money and not offering the same quality and quantity of your product is not good business.
Imagine buying a phone and then the company comes out with a new phone but to be able to launch the new one they need to cut parts of your service to finance it.
You already bought your phone and had plans to use it but now have to plan around the cuts. ..
If they were making money while not curing things it would be fine.
I see the cuts everytime I come, it's not everyone exaggerating, again, I'm not saying is all bad, it's just not the same as before

Can you give me specific examples of the cuts you've experienced and how they've impacted your time at WDW?
I'm not doubting you, I just read the generic "all these cuts" complaint over and over in so many posts, but I rarely see specific examples cited.
And what, do you think, is the solution? It seems people want these new areas, and they want the same amount of service, lower crowds, and no price increases. How do you propose Disney completes the expansions and additions, restores the level of service and quality some say is now missing, lowers crowd levels and wait times, and keeps prices affordable for everyone?