now I hate him even more.
The circle of life
now I hate him even more.
Why don't we hate both? D'Amaro is just as bad anyway, he's just better at hiding it.I think we can evolve. D'Amaro is head of parks now, he should take the heat for the parks (that he's in charge of...which is all of them...because he's chairman).
I understood the Chapek hate when he was head of the parks we love, but now we can hate him for screwing up marvel contracts and such
We certainly shouldn't hate Chapek when the goal of the unscrupulous article was to get people to hate him over unsubstantiated claims of personal hatred. That does LITERALLY NOTHING except stroke the ego of a blogger
I think we can evolve. D'Amaro is head of parks now, he should take the heat for the parks (that he's in charge of...which is all of them...because he's chairman).
I understood the Chapek hate when he was head of the parks we love, but now we can hate him for screwing up marvel contracts and such
We certainly shouldn't hate Chapek when the goal of the unscrupulous article was to get people to hate him over unsubstantiated claims of personal hatred. That does LITERALLY NOTHING except stroke the ego of a blogger
Why don't we hate both? D'Amaro is just as bad anyway, he's just better at hiding it.
If he's pretending to only care about money and "leveraging the brand" in order to make Chapek happy, he's doing a very good job of it.Disagree. Josh is a good guy under a dictator. He’s biding his time
Exactly. People need to wake up and acknowledge this .If he's pretending to only care about money and "leveraging the brand" in order to make Chapek happy, he's doing a very good job of it.
If he's pretending to only care about money and "leveraging the brand" in order to make Chapek happy, he's doing a very good job of it.
Strongly agree, unlike this lady.Exactly. People need to wake up and acknowledge this .
That's a "Grade A" pixie duster, right there.Strongly agree, unlike this lady.
View attachment 601336
View attachment 601335
View attachment 601334
I think she took too much pixie dust.That's a "Grade A" pixie duster, right there.
Wise choice, though. There was none to be found that day at the park.I think she took too much pixie dust.
Please cite your source that Josh totally, on his own, and not because he's being paid to do a job is:Why don't we hate both? D'Amaro is just as bad anyway, he's just better at hiding it.
Yep. He's always been focused on the cast members. I'd imagine he feels he can move the needle and support CMs in his role, but has to fall in line with the initiatives presented to him as well. That doesn't make him a bad person.Please cite your source that Josh totally, on his own, and not because he's being paid to do a job is:
For extra credit, please explain what someone in his position, if he didn't like the CEO's mandates, could do to countermand the CEO's policy without getting fired.
- onboard with IP everywhere all the time;
- OK with nickel and diming guests;
- and OK with diminished offerings.
Please cite your source that Josh totally, on his own, and not because he's being paid to do a job is:
For extra credit, please explain what someone in his position, if he didn't like the CEO's mandates, could do to countermand the CEO's policy without getting fired.
- onboard with IP everywhere all the time;
- OK with nickel and diming guests;
- and OK with diminished offerings.
Why don’t you hate the company culture and systems that result in the decisions you see the company make? One person being vanquished, to then be replaced by someone else within the company, will not change anything of substance.Why don't we hate both? D'Amaro is just as bad anyway, he's just better at hiding it.
While I agree with this premise, the same must equally be true for Chapek as well.Please cite your source that Josh totally, on his own, and not because he's being paid to do a job is:
For extra credit, please explain what someone in his position, if he didn't like the CEO's mandates, could do to countermand the CEO's policy without getting fired.
- onboard with IP everywhere all the time;
- OK with nickel and diming guests;
- and OK with diminished offerings.
Disagree. Josh is a good guy under a dictator. He’s biding his time
Yep. He's always been focused on the cast members. I'd imagine he feels he can move the needle and support CMs in his role, but has to fall in line with the initiatives presented to him as well. That doesn't make him a bad person.
The difference with Chapek is that he's now in a position to speak his mind and the big decisions are under his rule and watch. So, the things we all hate are in his lap. Those under him, might agree with what he's doing, or, they might not -- we don't know. As employees who wish to retain their jobs, they do what he says in either case and don't publicly disagree with their boss.While I agree with this premise, the same must equally be true for Chapek as well.
Meaning, Iger too was just as bad.
Either way, the decisions that group is making are anti-customer. They're making it harder to want to give them my money. That used to be the opposite of their job. It was two steps - 1) make customer happy 2) get moneyLol, do you still have the shirt you wore on October 1 to Magic Kingdom?
I don't think he's a bad person, but it was D'Amaro that ultimately made the call on Cast layoffs. He did manage some crocodile tears at Downtown Disney while handing out the pink slips, so that's a good thing, I guess.
At the end of the day, either he's a completely ineffective and unnecessary executive that is in lockstep with Chapek, or the park decisions that are being made are *GASP* actually his ideas
There are no saviors in executive leadership right now, despite our hopes and Bald Man Bad petitions
Except for the flocks of consumers who will run each other over to get that insipid Starbucks tumbler. And the eBay trolls who buy up gobs of merch to resell and Disney pretends to care but in all honesty doesn’t really give a whit about it because they are making money.Either way, the decisions that group is making are anti-customer. They're making it harder to want to give them my money. That used to be the opposite of their job. It was two steps - 1) make customer happy 2) get money
Unfortunately they figured out that they can make shareholders happier by rewriting: 1) get money 2) cut costs to get more money.
It's short-sighted and you'll never be able to maintain the pace of growth made from cuts. Whereas building growth through loyalty can reap rewards. Until you get too greedy. I saw a plastic Starbucks tumbler in the parks yesterday for $49.99. I think we've passed the point of no return.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.