PDA

View Full Version : ~Disneyland Manifesto~



Pages : [1] 2

napframe
01-20-2003, 07:36 AM
These people make me sick.

The *ONLY* reason Disneyland (note how I use Disneyland, not Disneyland Resort) is what it still is today is because of it's core value. Walt Disney did not initially start this project as a venture capitalist. His focus was to make a place for family and people of all ages to enjoy. Profit always came second. If your customers are happy, you treat profit as a reward and an opportunity to provide more for less. I repeat, provide more for less. Not as a stepping stone for profit growth. If you do it the other way around, currency will not be worth anything because you wont be able to use it for joy, just products. That's why you see nothing but stores and malls all over America. They are using the good ol' American "Checks and Balances" system. Lately all I've been seeing is checks, but no balances.

Michael Eisner and friends think they could turn an original park into their outdoor mall. The cold reality is they succeeded. I'm not making this stuff up, it's right in front of my face. Ever since this armchair excuse for a Disney Company leader has sat chair in his big nice air-conditioned office we've been seeing nothing but declining value of everything-Disney. Don't be fooled by his friendly wolflike smile. Stores with nearly every item listed as 'Disney' is overpriced while the initial value is just a few cents. People will still buy them. I remember in 1995 when a 20oz bottle of water cost $7. That's consumer rape. They strip down an original vision developed to bring joy and slap a price tag on it. Tomorrowland and DCA is excellent proof of this (although DCA is not original in any way).

When it comes to adding value to something, their only idea of value is to sell it under the Disney brand not worrying where it's coming from, who made it, or how it benefits the customer. Today's Disney attitude is:

"AS LONG AS IT SELLS, OUR COMPANY IS DOING GOOD."

Every large corporation CEO thinks this way, that is why none of them will ever come close to Walt Disney. Hell look at Bill Gates for example. His company is making billions selling what they bought from someone else! Nothing but a big retail store with faulty products. Then look how far open source has gotten. I can almost guarantee you if Disney's current business plan remains in place, they will go bankrupt in a decade no matter how much money it has. Disneyland's glory sells itself. DCA failed and will continue to fail because of it's lack of true value. To me magic is joy, magic is something you love. Magic is something you and your kids value. Magic is something that you can treasure and share with photos. Not a big brown wasteland with nothing but tall buildings that advertise other companies products. They are still piggybacking off of Walt's creation like parasites. Really, think about it. Everything they are doing is for their own interest. I can even see it by looking at their website. They have the "but wait, if you buy now you'll get" attitude corporate America has adopted and filled our TV's with. Buy this, buy that, visit here and here and buy more, it's us, The Disney Company! I turn the TV on and I see the same corporations over and over on the air with nothing but their usual infomercials. That makes me change the channel, and not buy their products at all. Is that effective business? Nope. That degenerates a great invention and makes it a sellout. Much like what has happened to Disneyland.

They have been trying to widen their profit margin while giving nothing to the customer in return and their prices are STILL going up while things to do at the parks are going down. Don't blame it on economy "inflation" or theme park competition. That's baloney. Disneyland park alone makes enough money in 1 day to support it's yearly employee payroll. So where is all this money going?! Certainly not to the imagineers who's hard labor helped stuff Michael's mouth and pockets in the first place. Look at their Coca-Cola sales. Coke gives them their product for free because of an advertising deal. What do they do? They sell you drinks for $4+. So they just broke another Disney value. Remember again when Walt said "here you leave the world of today.."? This is no different than the world of today !! How much commercialism vs. attractions did you see pop up in the "new" Tomorrowland? No one really wants to pay $46 to go shopping. They even had to practically lie and steal true Disney innovative magic (electrical parade) to back up their "great new california adventure" park because it wasn't getting enough local visitors. See, they have turned the original vision straight upside-down. Rides and family value have become secondary while shops and anything that sells is main objective.

Walt's famous quote is now obsolete because there is no fantasy left.

One right thing they are doing now is trying to improve Space Mountain. They are not turning the building into a "Future Cafe" or something like that. Once the new SM opening draws crowds to the empty Tomorrowland, stores and restaurants in that area will automatically see a profit increase. This is good business practice. It gives customers their money's worth too. It's ok to blend magic with a little money once in a while. But it's another thing when you start to replace magic with money altogether.

The current board of directors can just sit and grab every bit of money that comes in until they all leave. They all know their business plan isn't working and will fail soon. Consumerism rapes the human soul. Before you know it, every moment you step outside your door and everything you work for will go straight into their pockets and all you will be getting in return is an overpriced product that cost next to nothing to produce in sweat shops by 6 year old children. Innovation is priceless, a pricetag is worthless.

Go ahead, call me anti-corporate for not supporting capitalism. Call me anti-American if you want. You might even tell me to leave the country because of my beliefs. Call me a bloody damn hippy as you wish, because the more you do it the sooner you'll see Walt's original dream has become nothing but a nightmare.
-Jack West
Jan 20, 2003

Klutch
01-20-2003, 07:49 AM
Ho-hum. :o

MonorailMan
01-20-2003, 08:15 AM
Welcome to MousePad JackW!

Please check out our Frequently Asked Questions (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=40) for MousePad rules and policies! :)

Also, if you choose to, please post something about yourself in our Introduction Thread (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4218).

Again, Welcome to MousePad! :)

rexfarms
01-20-2003, 10:18 AM
Sadly, you are right. Everybody can see the loss of magic. :( I still remain a Disney Fan, but eventually something must chage at the company.

idesign
01-20-2003, 10:37 AM
I guess the saying is "Familiarity breeds contempt"

I do wonder how much contempt builds up in we Disneyland enthusiasts. Yup, the past has been screwed with, but if we hadn't had good memories, sweetened with the wide eyes of childhood to draw upon?. How much of the "degredation" is in fact Disneyland's, and how much of it is in our own, disolusioned and "enlightened" eyes. We like the magician's tricks so much, we stay behind to watch him put his tricks away... we watch carefully over and over to figure out how their done... and then what?- Enlightenment... and the loss of the magic.

Again, they may have made bad choices, or perhaps they are doing thier best in an economy driven by the mob-masses appetites. The mod feeds on WB television 364 days a year and goes to Disneyland once, if not once a lifetime. That's a pretty huge wave of junk entertainment and Taco-bell wrappers to go up against.

I just wonder how much I'm at fault. I wonder sometimes how a cute, family 50's-60's dreamland measures up to the MTV, reality show, violent-sex-cinema-money-machine of american appetite.

drjones
01-20-2003, 10:57 AM
so true!!!
yesterday, i actually spent half the day in california adventure. while i do enjoy the rides like California screamin', etc. it seems like another KNott's berry farm or Six flags in it's ambiance. Somehow the magic is not there, therein lies the problem. Disneyland was Walt's baby. He put his soul into that park so much that he had 2 apts on premises. He wouldn't stand for what the "resort" has become.
Last night we took my daughter for her 8th b-day, and let her loose in the star trader, she came back with an armload of candy.
the problem was the prices of the candy. given the huge disneyland suckers are decent because it's disneyland related, but to charge $2.50 for little chocolate coins, or $5.00 for candy you can find in a 99 cent store is insane. we told her we could get twice the same candy for the same price outside the park, and she was ok with that. she did get a large tinkerbell sucker though.. And then there's the issue of McDonald's merchandise............Approx $5 for a happy meal in DCA:mad:

IndyBones
01-20-2003, 11:01 AM
We like the magician's tricks so much, we stay behind to watch him put his tricks away... we watch carefully over and over to figure out how their done... and then what?- Enlightenment... and the loss of the magic.
WELL SAID! *Stands up and applauds*

Kevin Yee
01-20-2003, 11:07 AM
Responding just to the tone, not the content of your points -

Echoes of jmckim and "AmeriKKKa" posts to a.d.d. in 1998:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2FB12823 (leads to google groups after a short delay)

Though not, of course, quite the same histrionics!

LifelongAngelsFan
01-20-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by JackW
These people make me sick.


"AS LONG AS IT SELLS, OUR COMPANY IS DOING GOOD."

Every large corporation CEO thinks this way, that is why none of them will ever come close to Walt Disney. Hell look at Bill Gates for example. His company is making billions selling what they bought from someone else! Nothing but a big retail store with faulty products.

Go ahead, call me anti-corporate for not supporting capitalism. Call me anti-American if you want. You might even tell me to leave the country because of my beliefs. Call me a bloody damn hippy as you wish, because the more you do it the sooner you'll see Walt's original dream has become nothing but a nightmare.
-Jack West
Jan 20, 2003

How about I call you ignorant for stating what you posted? To make such a sweeping generalization shows how little you know of business and what makes it work or not. Even the example you chose to back your claim is inaccurate and shows you know little of what you speak.

stitcher
01-20-2003, 11:49 AM
To add to this, having seen what is going on today at Disneyland and the apparent lack of progress towards preparing for the 50th, I am afraid that the park that started it all will soon come to an end(And may even be the beginning of it):crying:. I saw a news clip the other day from WDW's 30th birthday stating that it had become the most succussful park in the world, and then that Eisner wanted to keep it that way. Well IMO I say that he's doing a great job of it(not that I've been there), because Disneyland seems to be getting the royal shaft when it comes to upkeep and preservation of the magic.

Look at the ROA for example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember not being able to see any part of the dry riverbed when they did the last refurb. Now you could walk over to just about any area and take a peek at some things that, to put it nicely, destroy the magic. I'm not asking for them to encase the entire Matterhorn or King Arthurs Carousel in opaque plastic wrap(This is now partially true for the carousel), I'm just saying that certain areas should not be visible to the guest without a significant effort.

Getting back to the retail issue, this could not be any more true. There is now merchandise in the park that at best is weakly themed to Disneyland(i.e. certain shirts and other clothing in the Adventureland Bazzar). Since when did the pop fashions of today become the fashions of the 1930's.

Many have commented on the attitude of castmembers. I'll tell you one reason why many are more lacksidaisicle than they were in the past. They get some pretty good perks and all but when it comes down to it, Disney treats them as a commodity, and sometimes as a source for revenue, rather than a prized purveyor of the magic, which in a lot of cases can create greater rewards than straight out marketing.(If only the execs would see... magic=happy guests, happy guest= more happy guests, tons of happy guests= $money$)

I could go on and on with random bits.... :crying:

rexfarms
01-20-2003, 12:05 PM
Remember back when Tomorrowland had the Character Shop? Now it seems that there is everything at every store. Nothing specific. Everything is generic in all of the stores.

tiggerandtink
01-21-2003, 12:00 AM
I have to agree with most of JackW's rant, but I try to retain as much of the magic as possible regardless. Perhaps it's because I live far away and don't get to the parks as often, but I still feel the same way everytime I step foot into Disneyland. DCA however, while entertaining is much less magical to me and does seem more of a slapped together profit getter. Having been to all of the U.S. parks in the past 4 years I would say it is the least magical in the Disney sense for me and my wife. And yet my fingers are crossed . . .

Germboy
01-21-2003, 03:16 AM
Couldn't agree with Jack's rant more...bravo!! I also agree on the lack of variety in the shops. My mother and my sister used to love to go shopping in New Orleans Square, where they had a specialty store that sold oddball knick-knacks, antiques, and other random items. Now, the park seems to be one big Disney store. Every shop now is filled with Mickey sweatshirts, Mickey baseball caps, Mickey stationary, Mickey keychains, Mickey Mickey Mickey. Any other item offered intends to market another Disney product--Indy in Adventureland, for instance. You may say that that is great marketing for the company (probably is), but they are missing the opportunity they once had to bring the customer back into the shop for that unique item they can't get anywhere else.

Other bits of ambiance that are sadly missing: a true "Hollywood" type announcer, heard throughout the park, that adds cohesion to the experience. Patriotism the way it used to be displayed--man there was nothing like July 4th at the park--the fireworks were their own SPECIAL show on that date (and not a finale to their regular show). The music heard at the 7/4 fireworks show was a compilation of all of the songs of the armed forces. I'll never forget the tears in my dad's eyes when, years ago, the entire park was asked to sing God Bless America for the July 4th finale). Bands!! From brass bands to the Royal St. Bachelors...don't hear too many of them anymore. Nightly concerts on the ROA by people like Pete Fountain and other outstanding musicians. Characters!! I remember, as a kid, characters coming up and playing around with people while they stood in line waiting for the rides. Now, I hardly see any characters. They seem to be only available at certain times, and are untouchable to almost everyone who hasn't waited in a line to see them.

I'm jealous that WDW still has Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Parade. Our parade pales in comparison--not even close. They still have Fantasy In The Sky Fireworks too! I think it's true that DL in Anaheim gets more upkeep than the FL park, but the "Disneyness" of the Anaheim park is getting hacked away with each change they make.

rexfarms
01-21-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Germboy
I think it's true that DL in Anaheim gets more upkeep than the FL park,

Really?

blusilva
01-21-2003, 11:55 PM
Wow, jmckim. There's a name I hadn't thought of in a long, long time. Heh, well not all that long. When DCA opened and the Soap Opera Bistro was there, I thought of him. He had a thing against soap operas, too. What a loon.

Thanks, Kevin for that flashback.

That is not to say Jack is a loon. Jack, you are correct. And it is sad.

RStar
01-22-2003, 11:07 AM
But Walt was very well aware of money while doing buisness. He had it all on the line more than once (Snow White, DL, ect.). He also wanted to do great things and knew that it took money to do it. So he knew he had to do things to make good amounts of money, so he could do them.

Did he make money to be rich, buy big boats and travel the world? NO. He had to have a nervous breakdown before he took a vacation once.

Did he try to make money. YES. But so that he could do more with his dreams.

Did he enjoy having money, after comming from a time when his family had little, then later he and Roy had none? I bet he did. He enjoyed his train hobby, and spoiling his girls with a stocked soda fountain. But I don't think he was greedy nor extravagant.

But don't think for a minute he didn't want to make money. Think about why he wanted it.

Sailor Butterfly
01-22-2003, 11:38 AM
And therein lies a huge part of the reason why people are unhappy with the Disney company (or any big company for that matter).

Walt Disney's philosophy: You gotta spend money to make money.

Most companies nowadays philosophy: Let's spend as little as possible so that our profit margin will seem larger.

You'll get no complaint from me about the Disney company wanting to make money, it just blows my mind that they keep making horrid business decisions that keep them from making a larger profit- which they can do without sacrificing quality.

Quality product= happy consumers= happy shareholders....maybe. Let's face it, them shareholders are more interested in a fast buck. :rolleyes:

Germboy
01-22-2003, 01:28 PM
I think so, rexfarms. I haven't been to Fl personally, but my best friend just returned. He was amazed at how run down it was--and that it just looks "old". He says that it is clean and very well kept, but that it just feels older. Anaheim's park seems to get more money for replacement. He also said that Fl's audio, both in the park and on the rides, was not up to par with Anaheim's. The parades are not very loud, and rides like Small World and HM were almost inaudible in FL. By what he described, it sounds like they haven't been updated to digital--very poor quality audio (although I'm not sure of that).

There are other things he did not like about FL's Magic Kingdom. Their Small World seems to be less themed. Same with Pirates and Space Mountain. They also don't have the HMH or SW seasonal overlays.

BUT, their fireworks are launched from all around the perimeter of the park. THE ENTIRE PERIMETER, wouldn't that be amazing? They still have Fantasy In The Sky, with all the character voices (even a Xmas version), Jack Wagner's voice can be heard everywhere (even in the airport before you get to the park), and they have most of the old rides intact...even Carosel of Progress!!

Can you tell I am dying to go? I've wanted to go there for 25 years...I'll eventually make it! :)

LifelongAngelsFan
01-22-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Sailor Butterfly
And therein lies a huge part of the reason why people are unhappy with the Disney company (or any big company for that matter).

Walt Disney's philosophy: You gotta spend money to make money.

Most companies nowadays philosophy: Let's spend as little as possible so that our profit margin will seem larger.

You'll get no complaint from me about the Disney company wanting to make money, it just blows my mind that they keep making horrid business decisions that keep them from making a larger profit- which they can do without sacrificing quality.

Quality product= happy consumers= happy shareholders....maybe. Let's face it, them shareholders are more interested in a fast buck. :rolleyes:


Most companies? Perhaps some companies think in such shallow, simplistic terms, but not most. I think that most companies try to spend the right amount of money doing the right things to maximize profit and goodwill among their stakeholders (stockholders, employees, customers, community). There is considerable debate at the executive and Board level of companies as to what is the right amount of money and what are the right things. Just spending money doesn't automatically bring quality, happy customers, and happy shareholders. Nor does cutting costs automatically bring higher profits in the intermediate to long term (sure, over a very short period of time it does, but these gains rarely last).

So, enough with the generalizations about how businesses make strategic decisions.

In the case of what decisions the Disney company makes toward Disnelyland and the DLR, there is little debate that they have decided for the timebeing to spend less than is needed to keep Disneyland properly maintained (i.e., you don't have to look very hard to see the peeling paint, the rusted railings, the potholes in the pavement, etc.). They have also decided to close attractions without replacing them with new ones.

Like others I'm not pleased with the tragectory of these decisions, as the end of this tragectory is the demise of Disneyland and Walt's dream. However, I find it difficult to believe that DLR executives don't see these consequences of the path they are upon and don't have a plan to reverse this tragectory at some point soon.

Let's consider the predicement they are in.

In general, the Disney company is struggling with poor performance across most of their operating divisions. Due to the poor economy and 9/11 their theme park revenue is down considerably. Further, due to poor decisions about DCA and Tommorland '98, recent huge investments in the DLR have delivered poor (if not disastorous) revenue results. Collectively this means that the Disney company is strapped for cash. It has far less cash than it had expected to have available for DLR at this time, which would have paid for new attractions. This makes for little choice but to take a course of action that they have been on for the past couple years.

innerSpaceman
01-22-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by LifelongAngelsFan
Collectively this means that the Disney company is strapped for cash
Strapped for cash?!? Please.

Don't forget that money for the DLR is not limited to money taken in by the DLR. Disney is quite free to take any money earned from the studios, from ABC TV, from worldwide theme parks, from merchandise and spend that money anywhere it wants in its empire.

Also don't forget that Disney finances all major outlays of capital (and does so quite 'creatively'). Lastly - the cost of big, new attractions are almost always offset by contributions from outside sponsors of those attractions.

Problem is, the severe decline in quality has left most sponsors unwilling to have their name connected with the deteriorating Disney parks. Ok, and Disney doesn't seem like such a good risk to outside financiers anymore. Oh yeah, and all aspects of the Disney empire are performing disappointingly.

But it all comes down to letting the Disney brand go to hell. All the shortsightedness of the company is responsible for the predicament it is now in.

LifelongAngelsFan
01-22-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by innerSpaceman
Strapped for cash?!? Please.

Don't forget that money for the DLR is not limited to money taken in by the DLR. Disney is quite free to take any money earned from the studios, from ABC TV, from worldwide theme parks, from merchandise and spend that money anywhere it wants in its empire.

... Oh yeah, and all aspects of the Disney empire are performing disappointingly.

But it all comes down to letting the Disney brand go to hell. All the shortsightedness of the company is responsible for the predicament it is now in.

I'm quite aware that budgets have the ability to move among operating divisions. You make my point which is most operating divisions are suffering so there isn't spare cash to move to DLR to rescue it from some of its missteps and misfortune.

Strategically they have decided that other division need more of their financial capability than Disneyland at this time. There is also no escaping that DLR is way behind its budget. So, DLR is short the cash they expected and there is no Disney cavalry to rescue it.

I agree that what is at stake is the loss of their brand and that the path they are headed at DLR, and arguably at other divisions, is leading to the deterioration of their brand. Given that Eisner is so brand focused I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't grasp that at some point soon he needs to change course at DLR or will lose the brand that is at the center of his corporate strategy.

As far as how they got into this mess...all I'm suggesting is it is a less Draconian reason that others are suggesting. I'm saying it's not because they simply decided to stop spending on DLR because they can get away with it and jack-up profits. They got here through a combination of major missteps (e.g., buying ABC, the DCA concept), unforeseen marco-economic issues, and poor creative and financial results from their core film business (I believe this is the heart of the issue) that forces them to neglect DLR for the timebeing.

Flubber
01-22-2003, 05:59 PM
This has been a most interesting thread to read. AngelsFan makes an excellent point. The lack of budget for DL came from a series of mistakes. I think I've said this before but buying ABC was a HUGE mistake. Buying the Ducks and Angels were HUGE mistakes. There is just no way to consistently make money in either of those businesses. I believe profits from the parks get moved to cover for these money pits. To the stockholders though the bottom line is what matters and all of the divisions figure into the bottom line. Some parts of the company add and some take away.

The OP characterized the current board of directors as profiteers but I think a more accurate portrayal would be they run the company like one of the largest media companies in the world. I can't fault them for that. The theme parks are suffering but they're operating under a different philosophy than Walt used to create the park, it's a philosophy to keep the entire company afloat.

What I think the company lacks today is a creative vision. Check out the film on this site Waltopia (http://www.waltopia.com/) about the idea for Epcot. First, the vintage DL footage is awesome and second, Walt has me excited about building a city! Anything was possible and if the company made some money.......great. Nobody in a position to make a difference today has this kind of vision or the ability to mesh their ideas with Disney's business plan.

Germboy
01-22-2003, 06:36 PM
Well put Flubber. I don't remember Walt ever "buying" another company (Angels, Ducks, ABC...) Did he? I wonder if he would be satisfied with "co-marketing" Disney with other brand names traditionally thought of as competition (The Muppets, Twilight Zone, MGM), like they do today. I doubt it. Sure, he gave credit for those that helped finance his projects (Dole, BofA, GE, Ford, etc), but I don't think there was ever such a lack of creativity at Disney to warrant building "Twilight Zone" or "Muppet" rides, or MGM-Studios. The contracts seem to be taking precedence over creativity (because there doesn't seem to be any).

I also think that if I were a board member, and that lack of creativity were as evident as it is to me, I would be VERY hesitant to allow any new construction spending whatsoever. I feel sorry for those people having to make THAT choice.

Morrigoon
01-22-2003, 07:25 PM
I think it's fair and reasonable for the Disney execs to want the company to make a profit. But their way of going about it (as you described) is not in their best interests or ours. A commonly accepted tenet of business (tenet? feh...law!) is that it is more expensive to get new customers than to keep old ones. What is sorely lacking in the company today is long-range planning. Basically, Disney has fallen victim to a common malaise of publicly traded institutions - stock thinking. The board is paying too much attention to the short-term stock value, rather than the long range return on investment. Everyone is trying to get it, make a few bucks and get out; when it would be wiser (and indeed, less stressful) to go in for the long haul. Of course, the way to make money there is in dividends. (https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/glossaryterm?id=973&traxui=SEARCH)

This would require the company to a)make a profit, and b)decide that the best use of that money is to give it back to the shareholders. What your average non-dividend paying company does is they determine that they have a plan for that money that will earn it a return and reinvest the profits in the company. Ostensibly this would increase the value of the shares. Now, when that company is reinvesting the money unwisely (say, a major investment that does not make money), then it is up to the board and the voting shareholders (in a company the size of Disney, just assume it's the board, no time to explain) to determine that the money would be better used distributing to the shareholders.

On the other hand, perhaps DCA, flop though it is, could be considered something of an investment in an infrastructure which, long term (10 yrs like DLP?) will prove profitable for the company and it's shareholders. We were all hoping for an overnight success, but Eisner & co. were too tight with the pursestrings to make DCA successful from the start. That was a mistake, as the unhappy customers who've seen it in its current state are less likely to come back, and when they do, will be less willing to pay the prices Disney wants to ask for the park. (The same can be said for DL these days). What this means for Disney is that their future demand (let's use 10 yrs from now) is further to the left (lower) than it would have been had DL and DCA been in pristine condition this year. In other words: even down the line, it's gonna cost 'em.

Perhaps Disney's economists just don't/didn't know what the elasticity of demand was going to be (how willing people are to pay higher prices for the product, or how many more would come if prices were lower). You have to admit, with a new product like DCA, it's going to be difficult to predict guest reaction. What they had to go by, then, was past performance of existing parks, and information from when certain of the other new parks opened. Admittedly, some of DCA's troubles were brought on by the bad economy, and certainly 9/11 didn't help. However, the company execs are refusing to admit that those weren't the only factors. They're instead hiding behind these to influences as an excuse for the entire failure. Yet Tokyo Disneysea, also opening in a bad economy (worse than ours!) was a terrific success. So obviously the park's overall lack of interest was a major contributor to the problem.

Now they're faced with several problems: Disneyland is falling apart thanks to Pressler's reign (again, short-sighted stock goals taking precedence over long-term needs of a company that is expected to be around for decades). They must make some major infrastructure investments in DL to get it back into shape, and try to lose as few customers/dollars as possible in the process.
Then there's the issue of making DCA over into a park people (in large numbers, not just individuals) will want to visit - repeatedly. Again, big infrastructure investment. More's the pity they didn't just do it right the first time - it would have been cheaper and not cost them the loss of repeat business from unhappy customers. You might call this the opportunity cost (https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/glossaryterm?id=2567&traxui=SEARCH) of not doing it right the first time. So between the actual increase in costs to fix DCA's problems, and the opportunity costs from the time between opening day and the day that DCA is finally "right," the execs have made some VERY expensive mistakes! One keeps hoping they'll learn from them, yet there is very little evidence of that.

I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the next few years. I'm not saying my spending will remain the same as it did when the park was in good shape, but I won't write them off permanently yet either. I've noticed some slow but positive changes taking place ever since Cynthia took the helm. (Now if we could just get rid of Eisner, maybe it'd pick up the pace!) First thing I noticed was an improvement in cleanliness. That was relatively quick and cheap to fix, yet it is a critical point when discussing public perception (and the price elasticity of demand - you'll pay more for a clean park than a dirty one, and you'll go more often). Next, things began getting painted again. I remember when Al's page had photo after photo of poorly maintained areas of the park. Sure, there are still trouble spots, but I hear of them with far less frequency than I did 3 years ago. Now, it seems, attractions are being repaired. They sustained quite a bit of damage and depreciation during the Pressler years, as regular and necessary maintenance were deferred. An attraction is like a car. Sure, it costs $30 to get an oil change, and maybe it's a strain on your budget to get it done - but just try NOT doing it! $30, 4x/year = $120 vs. new engine = $1200? This is what they're paying these days. On a brighter note, now that they're in this position, it's better they should hurry up and fix things - the sooner the Park will be its old self again (remember opportunity cost here - the longer they put off fixing things, the more angry customers decide not to return!)

I do think it's foolish for them to be raising ticket prices at this time, given the relative entertainment value of the parks right now, but it is possible that someone did an analysis of it and decided that the net effect of fixing the parks and raising prices separately was worse than the effect of doing them simultaneously. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but I recognize that in the long run, they feel it's the lesser of 2 evils. (But that begs the question - are these the same analysts who decided that DCA would get 30K attendance?).

Eisner is another story. Some of the rants above claim that his reign has seen a constant decline of value in the company (both artistically and financially). This is simply not true. Disney was on the verge of a hostile takeover when Eisner was given the job. He brought the Disney company from the verge of being bought out, to its glory days in the mid-80's. He brought us the Little Mermaid, the Lion King, Aladdin etc. Unfortunately for him, he cannot take *all* the credit here. His reign has also been marked with the unpleasant partings of many high-level execs and creatives, all of whom had an impact on the company's product (movies and parks). Some have theorized that the death of Frank Wells (often described as the last guy left with the guts to say "no" to Eisner) signified the beginning of bad times. But that is not the only valuable exec that they lost. Katzenberg certainly was a loss. His time at Disney saw some of their best films - and his new company (Dreamworks SKG) has been quite successful lately. Other bad relations have affected Disney as well. For example, the falling-out with Lucas. Disney's bad business practices under Eisner have made the company quite a few enemies. Which means Disney has to go to second-rate or more expensive sources to provide new product.

What it boils down to is: maybe :rolleyes: Eisner's not so great on his own. Maybe his past success lay in the fact that he had a great team. Now that the team is gone and it is not possible to get them all back, Eisner has lost his value as a CEO. In other words - he's got to GO.

I'm not happy with the current state of Disney by any means, but I have hope of its improvement in the coming years if they are able to learn from and correct past mistakes, and if some new leadership is brought in - leaders who recognize the nature of the company's past success and strive to bring Disney back to the days when the name was more synonymous with quality entertainment/food/product, than with plastic junk and made for tv dreck.

LifelongAngelsFan
01-22-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Germboy
...I also think that if I were a board member, and that lack of creativity were as evident as it is to me, I would be VERY hesitant to allow any new construction spending whatsoever. I feel sorry for those people having to make THAT choice.

I believe the heart of their ills is the lack of creativity. There is little debate that the center of Walt Disney's success was his creative abilities. As a media company, perhaps they have lost sight of this.

If I were on the board I would make this the number one priority.