Thank you! Just like most things in life, the issues aren't in black and white but mostly the grey in the middle. I think that's what so many posters are forgetting in these few threads we have going.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney YOU HAD BETTER START LISTENING...
- Thread starter bjlc57
- Start date
Thank you! Just like most things in life, the issues aren't in black and white but mostly the grey in the middle. I think that's what so many posters are forgetting in these few threads we have going.
WDW Monorail
Well-Known Member
I've never called you out on anything Mr. Spirit, but I shall now...
Do I think MILF, Turtle Talk or SGE will be around as you mention? No. They are easily replaceable.
You seem to preach progress, new attractions and such however, you fail to realize that the very attractions that you bash (as being new) are the attractions which will yield to new and progressive ones.
Missing20K
Well-Known Member
I agree with you, but why did you feel the need to bump your own thread after it was obvious people were done with it, as it sat for 10 days with no new replies? Doing your best to get people riled up? When a thread runs its course, just let it die.
Jasper Dale
Member
so......what do you want Disney to do? the economy is horrible, the company has lost millions the past six months with the market crash, they are offering free rooms and if you stay 5 or 6 nights, you are paying, less than 40.00 bucks a day for a whole world of entertainment.
maybe they should just shut down the parks. is that what you want?
it amazes me that people gripe about everything, but the same people would be the first to scream if Disney raised prices to pay for all the stuff they expect them to do for them.
we are heading for WDW in 3 weeks. i can't wait. can you imagine spending your whole day in the park griping about how this could be better, or how that had changed for the worse?
enjoy the Kingdom while you can. if you don't like it, don't go. if it's not "the happiest place on earth" for you, find somewhere else to spend your time.
for my family, the chance to get away for a while and "enjoy another world" is something to look forward to.
negative people irritate me to death.
maybe they should just shut down the parks. is that what you want?
it amazes me that people gripe about everything, but the same people would be the first to scream if Disney raised prices to pay for all the stuff they expect them to do for them.
we are heading for WDW in 3 weeks. i can't wait. can you imagine spending your whole day in the park griping about how this could be better, or how that had changed for the worse?
enjoy the Kingdom while you can. if you don't like it, don't go. if it's not "the happiest place on earth" for you, find somewhere else to spend your time.
for my family, the chance to get away for a while and "enjoy another world" is something to look forward to.
negative people irritate me to death.
Well, this is an interesting discussion. On the one hand we all want cutting edge attractions, with a nice mix of the old and true, in a well-manned and squeaky clean setting. On the other hand, we don't want to pay more to go to Disney because it is expensive enough already. Well, wake up people, you can't have it both ways. Disney, more than anywhere else, does an excellent job of mixing the two so that most hard-working and intelligent people can afford a disney world vacation from time to time, and keeping it pricey enough so that the parks aren't overly-crowded.
In addition, the mix of expensive new attractions and reasonably priced attractions keep things fresh without bankrupting the company. I don't know what the top new attractions cost, but let's say it's $50 million for Expedition Everest. How many people have to come through the turnstiles to pay for that, and how much does it cost in daily manpower and utilities to keep it running? The interest on a $50 million investment is probably around $3 million per year, which is over $8,000 per day. Add in the employee, utility, insurance and maintenance costs, and you probably need to obtain at least two dollars per person entering the park just to pay for interest, utilities, insurance and employee costs on this one attrction. How do you pay for Dinosaur, Nemo, the parade, Lion King, Kilimanjaro and the rest of the place if you add 2 or 3 more Everests? You can't. Animal Kingdom attracts what, 10,000 people a day, or is it far less? At 2 dollars per day, you break even, and the attraction doesn't get paid for, you simply pay the interest on the debt. That is why disney cannot afford too many new hot attractions, it would be financial suicide, and the incremental increase in attendance would not justify the investment in another hot attraction at a place that is already very popular.
In short, number-crunching, although not the forte of most people who love disney world, is a necessary way to understand why certain decisions are made. There is always room for improvement, and Disney addresses improvement needs better than anyone else. Their parks are cleaner, more beautiful, more popular, and less subject to economic downturns than all other comparable vacation destinations.
Many of you, with all due respect, sound like the bride who wants her Daddy to pay for a huge wedding with an opulent banquet hall, steak dinner for 400 guests, limos, hot band, $10,000 dress, European Honeymoon and ice sculptures. Daddy, the one who earned the money and knows how easy it is to waste it, is smart to put the budgetary constraints in place.
Universal and the rest may become a hot attraction for a while, but Disney keeps leading the industry year after year, and keeps the prices within reach of most people for a visit every now and then. Sure, Disney could hire more employees, make it even cleaner, double the rate of new attractions, and spend, spend, spend; but then a daily ticket will cost $200 per person, and far fewer people will go. Then Disney would have to lower their prices to get people there, but lose money in the process. It's a suicidal cycle.
Instead Disney balances the employee and other spending numbers with a projection as to how full they want the parks, and an ability to keep the place financially viable. We all still love it, and we don't grow tired of it, unlike the bride who grows tired of her new husband after the glow of her wedding has dimmed.
There is an old expression among Divorce Lawyers, the bigger the wedding, the quicker the divorce. Similarly, the less wise Disney becomes in its spending, the quicker the price hikes. The quicker the price hikes, (especially if they are out of line with the general health of the economy) the quicker the financial realities cause cuts in employees and "magic" for the guests. And so it goes. They walk the tightrope with exceptional skill, and know that a certain degree of excellence can be obtained by spending X dollars, and that they need to keep the ticket prices and other numbers in line to fill the parks to a certain level without losing long-term vitality.
Have a magical day, and cut out the ice sculptures!
In addition, the mix of expensive new attractions and reasonably priced attractions keep things fresh without bankrupting the company. I don't know what the top new attractions cost, but let's say it's $50 million for Expedition Everest. How many people have to come through the turnstiles to pay for that, and how much does it cost in daily manpower and utilities to keep it running? The interest on a $50 million investment is probably around $3 million per year, which is over $8,000 per day. Add in the employee, utility, insurance and maintenance costs, and you probably need to obtain at least two dollars per person entering the park just to pay for interest, utilities, insurance and employee costs on this one attrction. How do you pay for Dinosaur, Nemo, the parade, Lion King, Kilimanjaro and the rest of the place if you add 2 or 3 more Everests? You can't. Animal Kingdom attracts what, 10,000 people a day, or is it far less? At 2 dollars per day, you break even, and the attraction doesn't get paid for, you simply pay the interest on the debt. That is why disney cannot afford too many new hot attractions, it would be financial suicide, and the incremental increase in attendance would not justify the investment in another hot attraction at a place that is already very popular.
In short, number-crunching, although not the forte of most people who love disney world, is a necessary way to understand why certain decisions are made. There is always room for improvement, and Disney addresses improvement needs better than anyone else. Their parks are cleaner, more beautiful, more popular, and less subject to economic downturns than all other comparable vacation destinations.
Many of you, with all due respect, sound like the bride who wants her Daddy to pay for a huge wedding with an opulent banquet hall, steak dinner for 400 guests, limos, hot band, $10,000 dress, European Honeymoon and ice sculptures. Daddy, the one who earned the money and knows how easy it is to waste it, is smart to put the budgetary constraints in place.
Universal and the rest may become a hot attraction for a while, but Disney keeps leading the industry year after year, and keeps the prices within reach of most people for a visit every now and then. Sure, Disney could hire more employees, make it even cleaner, double the rate of new attractions, and spend, spend, spend; but then a daily ticket will cost $200 per person, and far fewer people will go. Then Disney would have to lower their prices to get people there, but lose money in the process. It's a suicidal cycle.
Instead Disney balances the employee and other spending numbers with a projection as to how full they want the parks, and an ability to keep the place financially viable. We all still love it, and we don't grow tired of it, unlike the bride who grows tired of her new husband after the glow of her wedding has dimmed.
There is an old expression among Divorce Lawyers, the bigger the wedding, the quicker the divorce. Similarly, the less wise Disney becomes in its spending, the quicker the price hikes. The quicker the price hikes, (especially if they are out of line with the general health of the economy) the quicker the financial realities cause cuts in employees and "magic" for the guests. And so it goes. They walk the tightrope with exceptional skill, and know that a certain degree of excellence can be obtained by spending X dollars, and that they need to keep the ticket prices and other numbers in line to fill the parks to a certain level without losing long-term vitality.
Have a magical day, and cut out the ice sculptures!
gettingsmaller
New Member
As I recall, they made something like $700+ million in the most recent QUARTER. While that may be less than they made a year ago, it is STILL $700+ million in PROFIT. I wish I could "lose" so much...
Maerj
Well-Known Member
On the radio last week, when they announced Mickey's 80th birthday, they also mentioned that the Disney company made over $35 Billion last year. They then commented "Definitely NOT a Mickey Mouse operation!" Har har!