Crowds are down? Curious about the claims . . .

[Nubs70]

But this long... It was a good point to bring up, but this is excessive.

This is nothing compared to the cheesesteak incident.

 

[Daveeeeed]

This is nothing compared to the cheesesteak incident.

Out of curiosity what was that?

 

[ford91exploder]

Out of curiosity what was that?

We could tell you but we would have to drown you in a vat of Cheez Whiz...

 

[Daveeeeed]

We could tell you but we would have to drown you in a vat of Cheez Whiz...

 

[ford91exploder]

Let this be the end of the 'Cheesesteak Incident'.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Let this be the end of the 'Cheesesteak Incident'.

 

[ford91exploder]

Disney did have the thought of selling off the parks in the early 80's.

Just saying.

Iger Shopped P&R to Prince Alaweed in 2007, The economic crisis put an end to that but the point is within the last 10 years Iger had a 'For Sale' sign on the parks.

 

[ford91exploder]

Not disagreeing, but perhaps coming at it from a different angle, I think there has been a noticeable uptick in 3 and 4-day vacations throughout the year vs. the traditional week in Summer.

How much of that is increased prices, how much of that is uncertainty in the economy at large, how much of that is people learning about the crowds (now declining, ironically) and heat in July? Impossible to tell.

Driven of course by the fact that taking a week off at most major US corporations paints a target on you.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

No idea what RADA means.

OK. I don't even fully remember the original post to which I responded at this point, or exactly what I said back, and I'm not going to research it. For whatever reason, it seems to take my laptop 20 minutes to scroll up a page on this site.

Yes, cringing. When someone is making assumptions about the personal goings-on of someone else's family - whether it be Bob Iger or WDW enthusiasts who bring food into the park, it makes me cringe to read it. There is such arrogance and presumptuousness in those statements.

It's worse when there is no "I guess," or "I assume," or "maybe" but this attitude of "of course" - as if there could be no other interpretation, or that the poster is so much more in tune than the rest of us.

In this case, I believe the poster called into question Bob Iger's authenticity/honesty because they read his father's obituary or wikipedia page and deduced that the family could have afforded a DL vacation based on where his father worked, contradicting Bob's statement that they could not.

My point was: That's not enough information to judge someone. And the way in which it was presented rubbed me the wrong way.

There are so many variables at play as others have discussed. If Bob's perception was that his family "couldn't afford it" then I take him at his word, and assume that is his best recollection.

No assumptions by anyone on this board about what his family could afford carry more weight than Bob's own statement.

If he was a kid in the 60's, then chances are his parents lived through the Great Depression. Many people came out of that with a very frugal way of living that they continued their whole lives. They also must have lived through at least the second World War, which potentially had similar effects.

Notice I use phrases like "chances are" and "potentially" and I am not speaking with absolute certainty because I cannot possibly know for certain, and neither can the person who claimed to know the Iger family finances.

On top of that, I sensed a bit of a "know-it-all" attitude which always makes me cringe. People who already don't like me on this board and are probably invisible to me are familiar with that phrase coming from my fingers.

I have no beef with the person, I just tend to speak up in situations like that.

And I had no intention of going on so long about this, but apparently my previous reply did not suffice.

You have invested a lot of effort and what appears to be a great deal of emotion in this lengthy but ultimately inconsequential twaddle. I know that I omitted to put my post was rhetorical so the hard of thinking could grasp that. But for the avoidance of doubt I don't really care. Simply passing comment that I simply don't believe the claimed discomfort. Though on reflection the mental state of corporate apologists is such that it may be true after all. My bad as you colonials are fond of saying.

 

[SorcererMC]

Good points, but again it doesn't deserve to be continued for this amount of time

I've shown how it's relevant to this thread, and rewrote the post so it could be moved if necessary.
You don't think it's relevant, and you're also saying revenue is 'more important' than attendance.
Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
If you don't like the subject of the thread, I'm sure there are others that could pique your interest.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I've shown how it's relevant to this thread, and rewrote the post so it could be moved if necessary.
You don't think it's relevant, and you're also saying revenue is 'more important' than attendance.
Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
If you don't like the subject of the thread, I'm sure there are others that could pique your interest.

Oh, my GOD! Let it go! You are the one arguing for the sake of arguing and you certainly aren't talking about the subject of this thread--crowds at Walt Disney World in Summer 2016. Give it a rest!

 

[SorcererMC]

Oh, my GOD! Let it go! You are the one arguing for the sake of arguing and you certainly aren't talking about the subject of this thread--crowds at Walt Disney World in Summer 2016. Give it a rest!

I pick my battles and I'm not a doormat, thanks though. I won't apologize for being a 'know-it-all' as I've been called, amongst other things. [edit - and I have little or no tolerance for posts that serve no other purpose than to make an attempt to shut down conversation]

People fail to understand that the perception of value is quantified in the pricing schedule set by TWDC (edit: TWDC run by a certain CEO who shall not be named), and that affects an individual consumer's willingness to pay - which affects....ATTENDANCE.

Is that on-topic enough for you?

 

[Daveeeeed]

I pick my battles and I'm not a doormat, thanks though. I won't apologize for being a 'know-it-all' as I've been called, amongst other things. [edit - and I have little or no tolerance for posts that serve no other purpose than to make an attempt to shut down conversation]

People fail to understand that the perception of value is quantified in the pricing schedule set by TWDC (edit: TWDC run by a certain CEO who shall not be named), and that affects an individual consumer's willingness to pay - which affects....ATTENDANCE.

Is that on-topic enough for you?

We're not saying your not right, it just doesn't deserve this many pages on this thread. It is relevant, but it has been milked enough.

 

[Daveeeeed]

I've shown how it's relevant to this thread, and rewrote the post so it could be moved if necessary.
You don't think it's relevant, and you're also saying revenue is 'more important' than attendance.
Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
If you don't like the subject of the thread, I'm sure there are others that could pique your interest.

I was simply stating that revenue is more important because it is, so we should not think that Disney is going to budget cut everything if they are making even more money. If you sell 100 hamburgers that cost a dollar, and another place sells 10 hamburgers that cost 20 which place would you invest in? Money is what matters from a business perspective not quantity, unless you can surpass the profit, but again it comes down to money not quantity, or attendance. For the people that are priced out now and used to go every year, then go every other year, and enjoy less crowds. It depends on your priorities.

 

[Alejandro]

I was simply stating that revenue is more important because it is, so we should not think that Disney is going to budget cut everything if they are making even more money. If you sell 100 hamburgers that cost a dollar, and another place sells 10 hamburgers that cost 20 which place would you invest in? Money is what matters from a business perspective not quantity, unless you can surpass the profit, but again it comes down to money not quantity, or attendance. For the people that are priced out now and used to go every year, then go every other year, and enjoy less crowds. It depends on your priorities.

And like I said before, less people paying more,less crowds, less staff needed to manage the place.

 

[Daveeeeed]

And like I said before, less people paying more,less crowds, less staff needed to manage the place.

True. It seems like Disney is making more money, by having staff cuts, higher prices, and other things. All the while less people are going. Not necessarily a bad thing though as you can enjoy the parks much better with less crowds.

 

[21stamps]

And like I said before, less people paying more,less crowds, less staff needed to manage the place.

Which should be a win/win. I haven't been since Fall '15, so before all of the alleged cuts. I guess I'll make my own judgement call in 2016. I'm optimistic that this trip will be just as wonderful as any other...I'm not optimistic about the probability of low crowds...but I won't be complaining if it happens!

 

[betty rose]

True. It seems like Disney is making more money, by having staff cuts, higher prices, and other things. All the while less people are going.

All good for them, not the customer's. We are locked into DVC at the moment, we still enjoy Disney, but I see the changes, and wish we could go to the Disney of the past. Think, when it first opened. Yes, there was only one park, but it was spotless, and most dressed up to go there. I remember two people in bathrooms at all times. Oh, for the good old days. But, people are to blame also, no respect for another's property. We were taught to leave a place, better then we found it. Now, many don't seem to care.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

All good for them, not the customer's. We are locked into DVC at the moment, we still enjoy Disney, but I see the changes, and wish we could go to the Disney of the past. Think, when it first opened. Yes, there was only one park, but it was spotless, and most dressed up to go there. I remember two people in bathrooms at all times. Oh, for the good old days. But, people are to blame also, no respect for another's property. We were taught to leave a place, better then we found it. Now, many don't seem to care.

You're never locked in to DVC. You can sell your points at any time. Resale market is quite healthy.

 

[betty rose]

You're never locked in to DVC. You can sell your points at any time. Resale market is quite healthy.

I understand, but the grandkids and kids love our time at Disney, we enjoy spending time with them for vacation. For now, it works. But, we....hubby and I are spending less time in the parks. We went to Universal for the first time, and loved our time there.