I usually enjoy what Robert Niles has to say. Unlike most lifestylers and worse, the ones who proclaim themselves to be journalists, the man actually was one. He doesn't appear to be most interested in growing his BRAND by feeding at the whoring trough.
That said, his column today really got my dander up (and it doesn't get up as easy as it once did). He was quoted in that Washington Post story from Friday on Disney's pricing and how they have priced the vast majority of Americans out of their parks in Florida, despite ever lowered standards and what you are actually getting for your money.
The storyline, which I'm sure will play well with his friends at Disney, is that America killed its middle class and Disney is just doing what it can do to be a premium BRAND and market to the top wage earners. This inevitably winds up as a discussion on class and why you may have none, shop at Walmart not Nordstrom or Saks, drive a Chevy not a Benz and still make $300,000 a year on your defense contractor gig and take the family to the Grand Flo where you picnic on burger baskets in the lobby with your filthy shoes on the tables and sofas. I'm not really sure I want to go there yet again, even if I know I'm largely correct and that it will add another few hundred pages.
And I do get that, like anyone who places something online, Robert is looking for clicks. So anything that starts with ''Don't Blame Disney For Abandoning a Shrinking Middle Class'' is going to be a major subject in Disney social media circles.
I don't disagree with the point that what Disney is doing may well be good business, at least for the short term (the long term use of this model has yet to yield a single success story, just once great BRANDS that are now almost forgotten). That aside, I sorta take issue with a 'man of the fans' justifying the behavior.
It's sorta akin to saying ''let the poor die in the streets'' since they can't afford medical care ... (Before anyone jumps on me for something provocative, understand that just like theme parks, healthcare in the USA is run as a for massive profit business. There is no difference in a country where bastardized capitalism is so ingrained in its people that you have working class folks protesting in the streets to protect the profits of insurance and drug companies. The cult of capitalism makes the cult of Pixie Dust appear to be a 24-hour flu by comparison.)
Now, on one hand, what Robert wrote bothered me because his family background is most definitely upper middle class. His lovely mother actually toured me around Golden Oak in 2013 as she is a top tier Realtor to the rich in O-Town. Very conservative as well. VERY. Nothing wrong with that, but his perspective is coming from someone that likely has never skipped a meal to save money, never had to drive a car that was falling apart to save money, never worried that his children wouldn't get healthcare etc.
Anyway, when I go to WDW I don't feel like "look at all these rich people I'm surrounded by'' ... no, for much of the last 10-15 years it's been ''how do all these poor folks afford to even be here.''
What Robert fundamentally missed on is this idea that Disney has decided to suddenly place itself as a PREMIUM BRAND. Um, guess what? Back in the 70s, and 80s and 90s ... Disney was considered a PREMIUM BRAND. Disney was THE premium BRAND in themed/family entertainment-- just look at all of the corporate surveys from the 70s, and 80s and 90s. No, not just about BRAND recognition but surveys about what the BRAND represents. The difference then was that it was affordable to far more people and it actually offered a premium product across the board.
Rubes may think that $80 cupcake parties or $50 breakfasts with Goofy dressed like Chewbacca are premium products, but they're not. Not close. And while a small segment of the truly wealthy may come and spend like crazy for crap like that, they'll only do it one time. One and done. And while they may exist, the idea that we're creating ever more truly top one percenters annually who will make that pilgrimage to WDW is just not reality. I don't know how the analysts who ARE some of these people don't wake up and say ''My firm isn't going to be growing people like myself at a rate of 10% annually. And we're the ones who can drop $300 for a BREAKFAST.''
They simply are digging a huge hole ... maybe one all the way to China.
Oh, and to overlook the fact that TWDC is Florida's -- America's third largest state by population -- largest single site private employer is quite the journalistic betrayal as Disney and its lobbyists are more than a bit responsible for helping to form policies and wages that are limiting and diminish the ranks of those folks who can actually afford their product. (See profiteering.)
But, regardless, let's look at some of what Robert did write:
<<In short, American workers are increasingly more productive than ever, but for the past four decades, it's been their bosses who are reaping the reward.
And
that is why Disney raises its ticket prices, introduces the Disney Vacation Club, adds after-hours hard-ticket events, and upsells dessert parties and character meals. Disney is marketing to where the money is — families that earn $100,000+ a year and are seeing their incomes rise while everyone else is watching their income stagnant or fall.>>
Is that why they are doing it or is it simply corporate profiteering? Back in 1994, when a day at Disney would cost you $38 at WDW (less at DL), were they having trouble keeping the lights on (or the bulbs lit)? Wouldn't a column, a soapbox such as yours have been better served nailing Disney for what it is really engaging in: corporate profiteering?
<<With income inequality rising in America, Disney — like every other long-time business — faced a choice: discount to chase market share among the declining middle class and growing population of poor households, or re-position as a premium brand to attract the wealthy?>>
This is where Robert goes totally off the rails. Disney has always been a premium BRAND. Always. At least in my lifetime. It wasn't Gucci though. It wasn't Ferrari. It wasn't Tiffany. It wasn't Armani. It was a company, a BRAND, named DISNEY -- and for many millions upon millions of consumers that said something. Hell, it said all that needed to be said for so many individuals and families.
And, no, $15 burger basket meals on tables that feel like they haven't been properly cleaned since they were installed ain't premium. Nor would those 'decorated' motels that serve as the foundation for the Vegas model of building a vacation where you, the consumer, subsidize the BRAND's unquenchable thirst for ever greater profits.
He also is so off on the concept of discounting. Indeed, Disney's business model has included ever more discounting in the 21st century. Sure, prices go up every year. And then discounts come out. Is Disney making more? Absolutely. But Disney is constantly in discounting mode and has created an environment whereby a discount is required because 'nobody pays retail'. Again, does this sound like truly catering to the wealthiest among us or the lowest common denominator?
When I used to shop on Rodeo Drive, I don't recall people in that group clipping coupons.
Yet, people are annually booking 35% off discounts on WDW vacations that may have increased by 10%. How is this sustainable for the long term? Even numbers folks like
@ParentsOf4 haven't told me I'm wrong.
<<Disney chose the second option, and the company is
doing spectacularly well by it, making
$7.5 billion in profit on $48.8 billion in revenue last year.>>
And, Robert, how much of that money is going back into the parks or into the pockets of the workers? How much is being spent on buying back the stock to keep it artificially high?
<<So don't blame Disney for its rising ticket prices, "charge now and think about the price later" MagicBands, or even replacing Epcot's Norway ride with a
Frozen-themed overlay. Disney is doing what will make it more money, because what Disney is now doing appeals to those Americans who
can afford to pay for what Disney is selling.>>
Actually, just because people are coming and spending simply does not mean they are loving what they are experiencing. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that people are visiting what Disney is now, not what it was or what it could be. But maybe they don't know what it was or what it could be? Worse, how many folks are visiting only to be one-and-dones and vocal critics of the product -- the BRAND -- that scammed them by delivering a far lesser/different product than what was being advertised.
Disney flat out, except for true VIPs like an Oprah, can't and doesn't deliver a premium product.
My significant other never visited WDW before 2004. I literally have 30 years of experiences and perspective that she'll never have. Does she get more out of WDW now than I do? Absolutely. But the notion of a WDW that wasn't full of clogged roads and buses, employed only the brightest and best (and best looking onstage), didn't cater to special needs 8-year-olds and their Mommy Bloggers, didn't offer things like timeshares, character meals, refillable mugs, etc is totally foreign to her. Like putting butter on a pretzel is to me! And still, without my pointing it out, she notices shortcomings or things that simply should not be for the prices Disney charges.
Disney is putting out a Walmart quality product largely at Nordstrom prices, which they then discount . That's the business model. A model, again, that has never succeeded long term.
Any why shouldn't I blame Disney -- or any/every American corporation -- for destroying the middle class through corporate profiteering? Once more, Robert, if I had the stage you do, I might actually be attacking Disney (although I know it would not make your mother happy at all!)
<<I bring Epcot into this because Disney's changing approach to that park further reflects Disney's response to a changing America. When it opened in 1981, Epcot reflected an optimistic view of future and of the world around us — an optimism consistent with a society in which incomes were rising with productivity and each generation enjoyed more prosperity than the last.
Today, that's no longer the case. As I mentioned before, for most Americans, household income stopped rising with productivity back in the 1970s. Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1984, will
face retirement with less wealth than the Baby Boomers who preceded them. The situation looks even more grim for the Millennials who followed Generation X. It's tough to get excited for a future than seems to be bringing harder and harder times for most of us.
Which leads us to more uncomfortable truth: Disney stopping investing in the "old" Epcot because too few Americans believe in that optimistic vision anymore. And who can blame them? The reality of our economy and our environment today tells us that believing in the future and in the good of the world around us is about as logical as, well, believing in a fairy tale.>>
I guess Tomorrowland's attempted message went right over your head as well. If anything, Walt Disney was an optimist. As were his Imagineers, his fans, his Guests. If the future is an idiot snowman who loves summer and warm hugs, then wouldn't you say we should all just give up? Or is that what you're saying? That Disney wasn't too cheap to invest in an optimistic future, and instead decided to destroy a place dedicated to a future of endless possibility and opt for a future of endless (they think) profits based on appealing to the least common denominator?
Are you saying that the future is hopeless, so we should all just belt out Let It Go and go grab our authentic Norwegian $8 Anna/Elsa cupcake? (maybe pick up a $300 dress for the little princess too!)
<<No... scratch that. Believing in a fairy tale allows us a few moments of escape into a world where good overcomes evil, hard work triumphs over adversity, and everyone lives happily ever after. So believing in the future today is
demonstrably worse than believing in fairy tales.>>
If you have no hope, sure, that's true. If so, however, that is our collective and ultimate failure as a people and a society. You might as well rob a bank, use meth and ... well, just do whatever you want. It's an evil world after all ... and Disney isn't part of the solution (they're a major part of the problem, but we can't write that if we want to eat those cupcakes for free, can we?)
<<And
that is why we are getting
Frozen in Epcot.>>
No, Robert. We are getting Frozen in EPCOT because it is cheap and easy and will pump up the park's numbers for 2-3 years without doing anything else. Anything of substance. Anything that has a cost.
<<So if you're angry with Disney for not appealing to a large, prosperous, and optimistic middle class, well, might I suggest that the problem really is not with Disney... the problem is that there is no longer a large, prosperous, and optimistic middle class in America for Disney to appeal to any longer.
This is a problem 40 years in the making. What's the solution? This is a theme park community, and not one for political activism, so you'll have to go elsewhere to find your path toward that. But know this: Trying to shame Disney into not raising its ticket prices won't bring back America's middle class. The way to do that lies elsewhere.>>
I'd argue that when people with strong and respected voices in the fan community are all more interested in self interests than in truly calling Disney (or any other company) out that they are part of the problem. You don't think shaming would work? I think shame is one of the only things that actually DOES work with Disney. Because the corporation lies and pretends that it still stands for what the man named Disney once stood for. Rest assured, he wasn't a 'glass is half empty' guy and he wasn't ever about corporate profiteering.
Do we have a definition for what constitutes a 'fair profit'? No? Well, I'm reasonably confident that every single individual reading this right now has been the victim of an unfair profit. Like that much?
If several of the largest Disney sites and bloggers all agreed that they'd criticize Disney (maybe put out one column) for corporate profiteering the next time it announced ANY major pricing increase immediately, I can assure that Disney would be rethinking it's decisions.
You see, as I've told people online for years now, there is power in social media. People can act and bring about positive change. But they need to be as cold and clinical as the Power Points that Disney has showing the next five years of price increases right down to day/date. Now ... is that hopeless? It shouldn't be. As without YOU, what is Dizzy World?
Having said all of that, Robert, I do feel sorry that you likely were 'taken to the woodshed' over being quoted in that Post piece. FWIW, I wouldn't worry about it. You pretty much justified Disney's obscene prices, even if they would have rather not read your name in the story at all. Sad, really.
