This idea came up on a thread that's now locked, but I thought it might make interesting conversation.
A couple of people wondered why someone (I suppose me, but others) defend Disney rather vehemently in certain threads. Some even suggested there are plants here; WDW defending its positions on message boards. While I doubt that is true (and if it were, I'd hope they do a better job than I do), it did raise a question in my mind, so I thought I'd answer.
I defend Disney on things I agree with because I don't want the opposite narrative to become fact. People make assumptions about Disney here that sometimes are made in frustration, and sometimes made as easiest answer. I was just in a dust up about June hours, but the same thing could be said about EMM or FP+ or DAH or Wishes parties, that WDW is just working from a maximizing profit standpoint. And while that may be true, it may not be. Any --of not all -- could be considered to be beneficial to some customers. But if you let the narrative go unchallenged, if you don't show another side --and you don't swing back as hard -- then then the narrative that is most vocal becomes fact.
For example, I've seen many times here that rides are working at reduced capacity -- making lines are longer -- as a direct result of staffing cuts. Repeating it as fact has become commonplace. And here's something else I found interesting: I couldn't find anything about it at the Orlando Sentinel about layoffs. I saw stuff on Kenny the Pirate and other blogs, but even they quoted "inside sources" for their information. But The Sentinel or Orlando Business Journal ought to be all over those things. Disney employs 62,000 people in Orlando; if there were big reductions in tat workforce it would be big news. It's not. The last major layoff was 1400 out of 62,000 employees seven years ago. Disney is a publicly traded company; i'm pretty sure stuff like that is promoted and published because reducing costs invariably helps stock prices. But I couldn't find anything beyond the IT layoffs after FP+ and MDE after were rolled out. So i don't know whether the story is true or not; all i know is that it gets repeated around here a lot. And now it's stated as fact when it might not be. The same thing with rides not running at capacity, the same thing with Shanghai overruns being passed down. I know it's said a lot, I just don't know whether it's true.
And it shouldn't matter, because most of the long-time posters here have already formed their opinions on things and they are unlikely to change. But there are other people -- people who find the site when they are looking for Disney ideas, or they are planning a trip. And if all they hear is how badly WDW sucks, how it's crowded all the time, how FP+ makes it impossible to have a good time, how WDW is just about taking as much money as they can however they can, those folks might reconsider what might turn out to be a great vacation. Or, if they are going to reconsider, they ought to know there are two sides to whatever story might be circulating.
I think that's only fair because none of us -- NONE --knows the real stories behind Disney's decisions. If there are less damning possibilities for why things happen -- or if there are potential benefits to things that some consider detrimental -- then they ought to be pointed out, too.
A couple of people wondered why someone (I suppose me, but others) defend Disney rather vehemently in certain threads. Some even suggested there are plants here; WDW defending its positions on message boards. While I doubt that is true (and if it were, I'd hope they do a better job than I do), it did raise a question in my mind, so I thought I'd answer.
I defend Disney on things I agree with because I don't want the opposite narrative to become fact. People make assumptions about Disney here that sometimes are made in frustration, and sometimes made as easiest answer. I was just in a dust up about June hours, but the same thing could be said about EMM or FP+ or DAH or Wishes parties, that WDW is just working from a maximizing profit standpoint. And while that may be true, it may not be. Any --of not all -- could be considered to be beneficial to some customers. But if you let the narrative go unchallenged, if you don't show another side --and you don't swing back as hard -- then then the narrative that is most vocal becomes fact.
For example, I've seen many times here that rides are working at reduced capacity -- making lines are longer -- as a direct result of staffing cuts. Repeating it as fact has become commonplace. And here's something else I found interesting: I couldn't find anything about it at the Orlando Sentinel about layoffs. I saw stuff on Kenny the Pirate and other blogs, but even they quoted "inside sources" for their information. But The Sentinel or Orlando Business Journal ought to be all over those things. Disney employs 62,000 people in Orlando; if there were big reductions in tat workforce it would be big news. It's not. The last major layoff was 1400 out of 62,000 employees seven years ago. Disney is a publicly traded company; i'm pretty sure stuff like that is promoted and published because reducing costs invariably helps stock prices. But I couldn't find anything beyond the IT layoffs after FP+ and MDE after were rolled out. So i don't know whether the story is true or not; all i know is that it gets repeated around here a lot. And now it's stated as fact when it might not be. The same thing with rides not running at capacity, the same thing with Shanghai overruns being passed down. I know it's said a lot, I just don't know whether it's true.
And it shouldn't matter, because most of the long-time posters here have already formed their opinions on things and they are unlikely to change. But there are other people -- people who find the site when they are looking for Disney ideas, or they are planning a trip. And if all they hear is how badly WDW sucks, how it's crowded all the time, how FP+ makes it impossible to have a good time, how WDW is just about taking as much money as they can however they can, those folks might reconsider what might turn out to be a great vacation. Or, if they are going to reconsider, they ought to know there are two sides to whatever story might be circulating.
I think that's only fair because none of us -- NONE --knows the real stories behind Disney's decisions. If there are less damning possibilities for why things happen -- or if there are potential benefits to things that some consider detrimental -- then they ought to be pointed out, too.
Last edited:
