HMF
Well-Known Member
TDO is simply one of MANY symptoms of the current Wall Street mentality.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney(World) vs. Disney(land)?
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Brutus Buckeye
Member
If Wall Street has hurt this country as much as it has helped it, by that logic every bit of technical, industrial, pharmaceutical, and medical advance we've had in this country should be met with a similar back step. If other things equal and in your universe where all pluses are matched by a loss absolutely, we should be back in the middle ages still reading by candle light. The fact is that private enterprise invests and produces nearly every luxury and benefit that man and the world has and for anyone to deny that is blind to the history of the world since the Industrial Revolution began.
I think that's laughable that anyone in light of what happened in 2008 (and was set in motion long before) could ever think that what's good for Wall Street is good for average Americans. Utterly laughable. But you are entitled to your beliefs as this is the USA!
No, they really aren't.
Wall Street is a beast that constantly must be fed and always more and more ... if you (any major company USA) made $15 million in profits last quarter and you make $11 million in profits this quarter then you've had a bad quarter, the analysts start questioning management and the stock falls. Enough is never enough and that results in a mentality where Americans are thrown out of good-paying jobs so that companies can outsource or bring in workers from overseas at vastly lower pay scale and benefits. And these are companies that are making huge sums of money with execs making often obscene sums.
If Wall Street wasn't run the way it was and businesses weren't allowed to do just about anything, then Disney wouldn't be under the enormous pressure it is to ever increase profits, which results in lower quality products across the board at higher price points.
But you don't want a lesson on economics, right? In your first post on the thread and the first time I've ever seen you here.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
In some ways this is part of the problem. Inside of Disney there has become a bit of too much obsession with having the technology but not entirely mastering the technology. It is part of why The Little Mermaid in California fails to resonate with guests. Too much of the experience was built not by a designer but a computer. It's a problem not just in themed entertainment, but it seems that Disney's in-house structure has allowed them to become a bit more distracted than others.
I agree. That's partly due to Bob Iger. The man isn't passionate about much, but he loves tech. That's why he was close to Steve Jobs. That's why he's approved of mass quantities of capital to be spent on things like Next Gen.
But I agree about Mermaid ... it is plastic and doesn't have the warmth those simple Fantasyland dark rides have. Wait 'til it opens at WDW where it is being overhyped to nth degree by both Disney Social Media and desperate for anything new fanbois (even napkins, apparently, bring waves of orgasmic joy!) And tech certainly is a factor. Just like much of the renderings that look so cheap ... why? because they were't created by an artists with paint or pencils, but by someone running a program on a Mac.
There have been no outright allegations of illegality. The allegations are that - TDO does "X" therefore it's obvious they are doing it to increase bonuses as the primary reason for doing it. First, no one knows for sure. Second, if they are doing nothing illegal, then no one outside of those charged with authority over them have any business judging how much bonus is or is not reasonable.
nor'easter
Well-Known Member
I'll leave the first assertion alone, except to say that the record shows lots of benefits but also many hardships.
On the second issue, I can tell you with assurance that you are wrong. The problems of TDO, and he WDC more generally, are directly tied to Wall Street. Immediate returns on equity are all that seem to matter to Wall Street analysts. If projections are missed, Wall St. analysts hit the airwaves, institutional investors sell the stock, and the value goes down. It's all about immeiate returns, and Wall St. and the analysts profit heavily from this approach. So how do you make sure you hit those projections and look like a good corporare manager? You cut corners, hire fewer cleaners, reduce maintenance, cut back on hours, amortize capital spending over many years, etc. etc. (WDW is only one piece of the Disney company, but each unit has its role to play in this.) The product is cheapened, the stock goes up , investment bankers get rich, and company executives and managers who made the cuts are rewarded handsomely for it. Except this cannot go on forever...at some point the cuts kill the basic product the company has to offer, and the thing collapses.
I have seen this over and over again with public companies.It used to be that profits could be reinvested for long term growth, to make the company stronger in the future and to grow it. It can still happen, but you need a leader who can give the finger to the analysts, secure in the knowledge that your vision will win the day. Steve Jobs was such a person...he was no saint, but he did not play this Wall St. game. From my experience, companies with such leaders usually grow in the long term and provide better returns to their shareholders. But the inclination for immediate gratification, to feed Wall Street, is too great for some (or they are too afraid to be bold). The executives can retire rich, and leave the company is a mess.
I'm not saying WDW is a mess, but their management structure is clearly in the "please Wall Street" mode.
I could go on..believe me, corporate governance is a huge issue. I'm not saying to ignore Wall Street...a huge public company cannot do that. But neither to you have to be its slave.
I've had a long day and want to get some actual trip stuff (for my pretend trip, of course!) done. But I think you are reading way too much into things. And, to be fair (and we all want to be fair and balanced), I never posted what you are talking about.
But Disney execs have largely small salaries compared to others in the entertainment/media business and they make up for it in two things: stock and bonuses.
For instance, Meg Crofton likely has a salary that would shock many, but she is a multi-millionaire due to what's usually referred to as 'other compensation.'
Finally, I'd completely disagree with you on the bonus count. If Phil Holmes gets a (this is a hypothetical, but based in reality) $50,000 bonus if he brings MK labor costs in under a certain number, then you might see fewer CMs on attractions or serving at dining locales all resulting in longer waits and less happy guests and cast. As a shareholder, regular guest, fan and friend of frontline cast, I would asbolutely feel right in judging that and casting negative aspersions Phil's way. Oh, I guess as a shareholder I would technically have some right in judging the management under any circumstances.
Anyway, that's my say. ... for now.
M.rudolf
Well-Known Member
Please don't paraphrase my post. And what does private enterprise producing the luxuries I purchase have anything to do with Wall St. The facts show that because of a Wall St mentality we no longer manufacture those luxuries in America. We have hundreds of thousands of people that have lost their retirement and savings. Its funny how these corporate CEOs can cash out millions when there companies are only making thousands. Also remember its no longer a private company once it's publicly traded. I never denied anything I just don't like the fact that when Wall St fails and the banks follow. It's our hard earned money that has to bail them out. If you want evidence to this look out your front door. Where are the mom and pop stores, where is the middle class, and where are the factories. Gone due wall st, corporate greed and poor shop owners not being able to compete. You know what's sad when a Walmart goes into a small town kills all the business in the area and then pulls out because it's not as profitable as predicted.
flynnibus
Premium Member
One needs to look at where the pressure to operate this way comes from - and it is from wall street. Since the introduction of electronic trading and eventually computer generated trading the pressure on short term impacts have been magnified immensely. Huge profits in trading are made not by investing but by buying and selling constantly. Just that little edge but multiplied by millions of shares a day.
The growth of hedge trading and large scale electronic trading has changed when and how 'investors' make money. That is the source of so much pressure on companies to report strong outlooks every quarter.
It's looked down upon saying 'we will have reduced profits for 18m while we invest to build the future.'. Instead now people are expected to finance everything because they can not afford to reduce profits significantly even for the short term.
Pay attention... When a company's reported outlook moves the stock more than the company's actual performance... You should recognize wall street has also moved to the short term strategy to make money.
It's a flawed system exaggerated by the flood of access to the market and the speed of trading.
It is no longer investing and looking for appreciation or dividends- but rather gaming short window movements. Basically it's currency trading over taking public funding.
I hope I didn't lead you to believe that I thought you had posted the comments about questionable bonuses. I was referring to a couple of posts earlier today. I may very well be naive about this topic, however given the popularity of being quick to demonize success in this day and age because of what did happen with the banks and wall street, I just fealt it needed to be pointed out that unless one has hard evidence to substantiate a comment about another's motivation that it's probably best to keep those comments to ones self.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think another issue is that Disney has no desire to associate itself with art like that of a Herb Ryman. Could you image a painting like that being done and published for Fantasyland? That isn't for kids. It's also why The Little Mermaid will be praised, because the little kids love it. The bar has been far to lowered. The art fits that bar. The colors are bight and cheery, there is no vagueness or abstraction to sell an emotion, just clarity of brand.
CinematicFusion
Well-Known Member
As you now 2008 was the perfect storm of the very worst of socialism mixed perfectly with the very worst of capitalism. A beautiful marriage that created the perfect bubble. Like you said...it started long ago.
Wall street, democrats, republicans...it's all people, and people are flawed and people can be greedy.
Please tell me your not talking about government regulations as the answer to everything.
Big government ....bad idea. It's the same ego driven, greedy, bought people. There no different then those on wall street.
Rugged individualism and family, that is how you will make it. That's why I like reading about Walt Disney, George Lucas.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
No, but there was more than enough talent on display.
HMF
Well-Known Member
The sad truth is most corporate-types don't believe in the Free-market stuff they preach. They believe in socialism for themselves and nothing for everyone else.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Again you are so sure they aren't doing it for this reason yet can't offer any feasible reasons that match the known info. You also overlook initiatives that are discussed as happening inside the company from reliable sources.
And using the definition of legal or not as your advisor on how to run a business is a miserable leadership strategy. You'll find if you put your moral compass first, you won't find laws rarely block your strategies but rather guide you in what things you must do along the way.
Legal or not should never be a concern in a culture or business strategy planning - and if it is, your doing it wrong.
nytimez
Well-Known Member
hear, hear
...and bringing this directly around to the state of WDW, an acquaintance in TWDC accounting told me back in... I dunno... I'd say it was 2007, but it could have been 2006 or (pre-crisis) 2008... why there was so much focus on building more DVC and why they would be building new cruise ships: Not because they bring in big money, although they do. But, more specifically, because the percentage growth of those segments was higher than in any other segment of the company except for the one that operates out of Bristol, CT.
Word he used was "exponential." This was someone who would use a word like that literally.
So... theme park stuff gets built over years and years to spread the costs around, but new DVC buildings go up as fast as they can sell them.
Longhairbear
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about Cameron's new studio in Agoura Hills/ Calabasas?
M.rudolf
Well-Known Member
No digital domain the effects house/ the one in agoura hills as of mid april isn't being built. It's supposed to be built in Manhattan beach but nothing has begun on the Lightstorm building yet
SeaCastle
Well-Known Member
The construct of your argument is contradictory. You say that the same people in government are the same people on Wall Street in the sense that they are "ego driven, greedy, [and] bought". This is largely true, but can be attributed to a lack of regulation that would otherwise prevent that from being the case. Furthermore, as you say yourself, people are flawed and can be greedy. So is it in everyone's self-interest that "big government", however corrupt it be, should cease to exist and let these greedy people work without any regulation? If so, take a look at laissez-faire economics of the early 20th century. Rockefeller, Carnegie and all of the other monopolistic bigwigs displayed "rugged individualism", at the expense of the everyday Joe. Of course government isn't perfect, but at the very least it puts speed bumps in what would otherwise be an endless upwards flow of monetary capital to folks like Rockefeller, Jamie Dimon, or even Bob Iger. (This post isn't "socialist", this is precisely what is taught in Economics 101...which is the exact class that I had today!)
More on topic, corporations are making more money than ever before, and Disney is consistently churning out great financial performance. Perhaps now is the time to reinvest those profits, particularly at Walt Disney World where it is bleeding market share. To fix itself, the entire management structure needs to change, and particularly Parks and Resorts should give itself a good look in the mirror and decide what to do. It can take a short-term financial hit and right the wrongs, for the sake of its long-term value. Or it can look at the next batch of quarterly earnings and decide to continue the status quo and keep putting on band aids when major surgery is needed. I would be hard-pressed to find someone that disagrees that WDW's current business model (should one exist) is running itself into the ground.