A Spirited Perfect Ten

[ParentsOf4]

Hardly. You didn't understand my post then.

It's not the amount of time, because 9 years is a long time. However you're comparing it to 21 years where there is more chance to improve or decline annual growth rates, then making a conclusion regarding performance. If the next few years before Iger's departure improve, (comparable to 9.7%) then you're conclusion wouldn't hold anymore. That's why I'm saying wait till the end of Iger's term before you start using these types of statistics.

I don't need a graph to grade his performance in terms of delivering quality attractions and giving guests what they want. A simple eye test can do just fine.

The problem with an "eye test" is that it's a subjective standard. As we've seen on these forums countless times before, one person will look at WDW and say it's never been better. Another will say it's never been worse. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

I fully agree with you that Iger is a work in progress. When it comes to WDW, Iger's best years are ahead of him.

However, I'm "making a conclusion regarding performance" based on performance so far.

Are you suggesting that we should not judge someone's performance until they retire?

9 years is more than enough time to go through complete business cycles. It's certainly more than enough time to judge a CEO's performance. It's fair game to judge Iger's performance to date based on the previous 9 years.

 

[TP2000]

Thanks for making me spit all over my monitor! Literal LOL's.

I didn't spit on my monitor, but I certainly got a good laugh out of that line. Among others.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think some people can generate a sense of infallibility around their posts, yet someone who hasn't read the forums as much doesn't know this and just sees a home-made graph.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning statistics. Stats can be inferred many difference ways and as long as it's discussed with decorum I think it can be good for debate.

Agreed. But in a debate you present an opposing view. Like comparing 9 years to 21. That's fair game.

Just saying the numbers aren't "viable" because there aren't sources cited is just being standoffish. If they are inaccurate then prove it. Post a link to evidence that they are not correct.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you have been reading his posts long enough, you would know that this isn't needed. He has explained many times where his statistics come from. Most of us trust that he hasn't suddenly started making up numbers.

Every one knows it's princess @marni1971 who makes things up. Just look at his avatar trying to tell us there is a ride inside Spaceship Earth.

 

[GoofGoof]

You misunderstand me. I don't care about seeing the sources, I think it's more professional to place sources along with your graph. It's professional and gives the statistics more credibility.

This isn't his job. It's a discussion forum for fun. No need to be professional.

 

[spacemt354]

The problem with an "eye test" is that it's a subjective standard. As we've seen on these forums countless times before, one person will look at WDW and say it's never been better. Another will say it's never been worse. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

I fully agree with you that Iger is a work in progress. When it comes to WDW, Iger's best years are ahead of him.

However, I'm "making a conclusion regarding performance" based on performance so far.

Are you suggesting that we should not judge someone's performance until they retire?

9 years is more than enough time to go through complete business cycles. It's certainly more than enough time to judge a CEO's performance. It's fair game to judge Iger's performance to date based on the previous 9 years.

I think the only place we differ is comparing Iger's years to Eisner's (at this time).

It's certainly fair game to judge Iger's performance up until this point, however to me this is kind of like judging professional sports athletes, while still playing, to past legends with complete careers.

"LeBron is worse than Michael Jordan because ...(insert stats here)...."

Well, I always feel like he's not done yet. He's got years to go, so why are we claiming these things?

Where I would get on board with comparing Eisner to Iger is if we simply compared their first 9 years. Heck that just makes the argument even more clear that Eisner was better, but at least its a bit more fair.

 

[TP2000]

You misunderstand me. I don't care about seeing the sources, I think it's more professional to place sources along with your graph. It's professional and gives the statistics more credibility. EMPHASIS on professional.

We get it. I think the best thing to do now is notate this on his record, and then bring this up for discussion at his next Quarterly Performance Review.

 

[danlb_2000]

You misunderstand me. I don't care about seeing the sources, I think it's more professional to place sources along with your graph. It's professional and gives the statistics more credibility. EMPHASIS on professional.

Who ever said he was a professional Disney analyst? Most of us just to this for fun. If he was a professional financial adviser providing this info I would be much more concerned about sources. I have read enough of his posts to know that he is on the level and that if I ever really wanted to analyze one of his posts, I could ask him to provide his sources.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I saw this comment on tumblr after the 60th Anniversary announcements and it made me lol:

"take a shot everytime under the sea is played for a show or parade"

with the note

"under the sea is the original let it go"

Seriously, Disney has thousands of songs in its library and they keep using the same 5 in every show.

I really like Steve Davison's work, but c'mon man, pick something different for a change.

I don't think song selection is Davidson's fault. Seems rather likely managment wants their parades to be greatest hits over making interesting choices with other songs. I know he won't talk about it, but I would love for @WDW1974 to describe Davidson's original vision for World of Color because it sounds like the original approach for that show is something different as opposed to Disney's greatest hits.

 

[danlb_2000]

There are some people out there who like seeing the numerical data alongside a graph. When people place it, they show that this is the exact place where they got the numbers to create their graph. At this point, it's not just professional, it's common courtesy. If you include a graph, include sources to know you're not B.S.ing it like I showed you can do with graphs. Any person can create a random graph that can be believable. Heck, commercials do it all the time! Including the source tells people that you know what you're talking about. He doesn't post graphs ALL the time, so it shouldn't be too much of a burden. Come on...he spends his time making a precise graph...he really couldn't spend an extra minute to post his citations alongside it?

Professional=believable

But he doesn't need to post sources for us to know he is not B.S.ing. Sure there is a slight possibility that he could just freak out one day and all of a sudden start posting made up numbers, but that's pretty unlikely. He has built a reputation on the board and he is trusted. As I said in another post, I am sort of in the same boat with this. If I say "permit X said Y", people generally do not question this since people know I am not just making this stuff up and they could find, or I could provide the source if they really wanted it.

 

[ford91exploder]

Methinks there a denizen of Burbank or Celebration Place here - who does not like the actual numbers being seen outside of a dusty file cabinet in the bowels of the SEC.

If the numbers are OUT THERE it contradicts the messaging that things have never been better at TWDC. And how better to do it by attacking the credibility and source data of Po4 who has for years provided excellent numerical analysis of TWDC's data.

Just my 0.02

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I don't think song selection is Davidson's fault. Seems rather likely managment wants their parades to be greatest hits over making interesting choices with other songs. I know he won't talk about it, but I would love for @WDW1974 to describe Davidson's original vision for World of Color because it sounds like the original approach for that show is something different as opposed to Disney's greatest hits.

You can hear the full audio for the original World of Color elsewhere online.

The Alice in Wonderland segment is pretty neat.

 

[danlb_2000]

So it's not your job, but you study. As in you're a university student demanding academic standards? This is a message board where lots of other information goes unsourced due to the nature of the topic.

Yeah, this is one of the few areas that could actually be vetted if someone really wanted to.

 

[danlb_2000]

http://www.statisticshowto.com/misleading-graphs/

Because this stuff can notoriously happen.

Nobody here is trying to say that statistics and graphs can't be misleading, we all understand this. What is being debated here is the need for a person a message board to constantly have to provide the sources for their data. If PO4 had kept posting these things without ever saying how he reached his conclusions or where he got that data from, that would be one thing, but that just isn't the case here.

 

[spacemt354]

I think people are over-blowing that stats/sources thing a little.

You don't need a source to state an opinion. However when someone posts a graph or fact, usually it's helpful to post a link or source to where the info comes from.

This is not new. I've seen sources posted here many times. I've also seen sources asked for many times, especially for supposed "facts."

While it's up to the user's discretion whether or not to post a source, nobody should feel criticized or start arguing over a valid question of source material. If people don't want to give it, then you go find it on your own, but it's not a crime to ask. If it was anyone other than @ParentsOf4 or another long-time member, nobody would be be questioning the right to ask for a source right now.

 

[danlb_2000]

*You're

And I'm not comparing apple to oranges, I'm just applying their rationality to other situations that use data and why it's important. And I never said it was deceptive, but who knows? He could have made an error or interpreted the data wrong, which is why it is crucial to have data alongside a graph!

Grammar police, sure sign that a thread has gone totally off the rails.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not academic standards. This guy takes his time creating a graph...and really can't spend an extra couple of minutes incorporating that in his post? Really...? Sources are what make stuff believable. I see it on every post here where people aren't making rumours unless they have a source claiming their rumour.

Instead of trying to play university big shot, try reading and following along. You're asking for forty years worth of citations. Is he supposed to scan all of the paper sources and maintain a website directing people to these resources? There is not just one link because he pulled it from the first thing Google spit out.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think we've wasted enough time on this.

@ParentsOf4 posted that the source of the particular graph in question is publicly available SEC files and a link to the company website. You can go to each year's 10K and check the numbers if you don't believe him. If that's not good enough then I guess he will have to learn to live with the disappointment that someone finds his graph unbelievable.

Anyone had any good cheesesteaks lately? I hear Jim's is good

 

[Mike C]

*You're

And I'm not comparing apple to oranges, I'm just applying their rationality to other situations that use data and why it's important. And I never said it was deceptive, but who knows? He could have made an error or interpreted the data wrong, which is why it is crucial to have data alongside a graph!

You can see a member's post history, and you can find all the sources listed in that over time. Maybe you could pay him to provide a footnoted list.

Unsourced speculation would be like saying a large Islands of Adventure Lord of the Rings expansion is on and has been greenlighted and rights secured in secret months ago by extrapolating a few recent posts.

 

[danlb_2000]

If he takes the time to make a graph, he can put his sources in for a couple of extra more seconds. It's not like I'm asking him for a statistical analysis or T-tests or an explanation of how exactly he made the graph. I'm not asking him to do some laborious task; I'm simply asking for a copy and paste website, OR something that says "Source:[insert source name here(e.g. The Washington Post)]

I agree that this would be nice, but him not doing it doesn't change my opinion of his credibility.