EMH To Be Cut By An Hour?

[GoofGoof]

In all honesty - I am actually thinking the way they are. Not the way the guest is. Unfortunately, its not reading into what is happening. These decision makers do NOT have an emotional connection to the parks. They could care less if Wishes is shown every night or twice a week. Or if the daytime parade is discontinued. They truly do not care. Their job is about making a series of spreadsheets look better and better every quarter. They don't analyze the emotional impact of Disney lovers if they make a strategic move that could save thousands of dollars a night. This move - reduction of EMH by one hour - will save probably tens of thousands of dollars each night evening EMH are offered. Be rested assured whatever committee made this move will be congratulated and get a bonus in the end... The next question for them will be..."Now what can we do next.."

Again, it's not about ruining or perserving the parks to them...its about having a job that is rewarded for finding ways to make more money without trying.

That is an interesting point of view. I agree this is all about saving money. However, i have trouble believing that Disney management has no care for the well being of the parks. Why build FLE, Avatarland, DCA refurb or really anything new at all. If they really didn't care they would just ride the parks as is and collect their money. I am sure you are right that someone looked at the cost of that extra hour and compared it to the benefit (from surveys or actual turnstile numbers probably). They concluded that not enough people took advantage of the extra hour or more likely there would not be enough anger over canceling it to justify the cost.

Like it or not the Walt Disney company is a massive fortune 500 company with shareholders to answer to and 10s of thousands of employees. Management has the responsibility to keep those people employed and make a return for shareholders. It is not a non-profit organization. Management has to weigh the costs of thousands of things to come up with a solution that works best. For all we know they could have been weighing running illuminations and wishes less frequently against cutting 1 hour off EMHs and concluded that cutting EMHs was the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[flynnibus]

I was just thinking of something.....If I was Uni....tommorrow I would send out a press release saying they were extending hours.......even if it was by one hour.

No need - they're going to be sending out PRs about actual new attractions

 

[dxwwf3]

Charging more and giving less. Sounds about right for the current state of WDW.

 

[JustInTime]

This is such a huge letdown. Less of a reason to stay on property.

 

[Captain Chaos]

That is an interesting point of view. I agree this is all about saving money. However, i have trouble believing that Disney management has no care for the well being of the parks. Why build FLE, Avatarland, DCA refurb or really anything new at all. If they really didn't care they would just ride the parks as is and collect their money. I am sure you are right that someone looked at the cost of that extra hour and compared it to the benefit (from surveys or actual turnstile numbers probably). They concluded that not enough people took advantage of the extra hour or more likely there would not be enough anger over canceling it to justify the cost.

Like it or not the Walt Disney company is a massive fortune 500 company with shareholders to answer to and 10s of thousands of employees. Management has the responsibility to keep those people employed and make a return for shareholders. It is not a non-profit organization. Management has to weigh the costs of thousands of things to come up with a solution that works best. For all we know they could have been weighing running illuminations and wishes less frequently against cutting 1 hour off EMHs and concluded that cutting EMHs was the lesser of 2 evils.

Maybe he should have said TDO has no care... After all, they are the culprits behind the reduction of capacity and slashing of pretty much anythign they could slash to save a buck while giving guests less for higher costs... which led the higher ups to FORCE Fantasyland onto TDO... And let's face it... Iger is forcing Avatar on TDO as well... So, maybe saying Disney management doesn't care should be changed to WDW management doesn't care...

 

[flynnibus]

Yes they might do a bonus hour, but IOA is only open until 9pm everyday this summer. I don't think MK has a SINGLE night that closes before 10, as well as DHS since they are running Fantasmic! at 10:30pm every night. Also - talking about Universal cutbacks, I get you have Halloween Horror Nights, but your day guests get to see this now:

Universal's Cinematic Spectacular: No shows on 9/6 - 9/8, 9/19, 9/21 - 9/22, 9/27 - 9/30, 10/4 - 10/7, 10/11 - 10/14, 10/17 - 10/21, 10/24 - 10/28, 10/31, 11/15, 12/5

Cute - should we compare the # of nights people don't have MK entertainment because they are thrown out for Mickey's Holloween party too? Oh wait - a one to one comparison doesn't fit your slant. Nevermind we could throw the Christmas parties in there too.

everyone is speculating right now. The company realizes the pros in EMH because Disneyland enacted a 7 day plan now so before we have a meltdown, let's see the schedules for 2013 get finalized, as they always do change.

They've updated the website. And the changes in DL aren't really a direct comparison either. The changes there are in large part to opening early for APs to help diffuse the AP surge.

 

[menamechris]

Like it or not the Walt Disney company is a massive fortune 500 company with shareholders to answer to and 10s of thousands of employees. Management has the responsibility to keep those people employed and make a return for shareholders. It is not a non-profit organization. Management has to weigh the costs of thousands of things to come up with a solution that works best. For all we know they could have been weighing running illuminations and wishes less frequently against cutting 1 hour off EMHs and concluded that cutting EMHs was the lesser of 2 evils.

The Walt Disney Company has that responsibility. Not Meg Crofton. Not the MBA's in Celebration, Florida. Iger doesn't seem to have a problem with an embarrassment of entertainment offerings at DCA. Or discusison of possibly more than one E ticket to Disneyland in the near future. And yet, WDW is offering one or two major projects for this decade. Fantasyland Expansion - which was for selfish reasons of capacity and the added (obscene) revenue that will come from BoG restaurant; it clearly wasn't to add worthwhile attractions. Avatar? I think we all see the corporate politics behind that move...

Essentially, it is TDO dumbing down and chipping away at the guest experience at WDW, not the Walt Disney Company. Cutting EMHs and park entertainment in the WDW segment of the Parks & Resorts segment of The Walt Disney Company has absolutely nothing to do with increasing shareholder value...

 

[Zummi Gummi]

They've updated the website. And the changes in DL aren't really a direct comparison either. The changes there are in large part to opening early for APs to help diffuse the AP surge.

Exactly, and further, Disneyland is open until midnight pretty much every night from April through August. Their regular operating hours consistently involve a much later close than WDW.

 

[GoofGoof]

Maybe he should have said TDO has no care... After all, they are the culprits behind the reduction of capacity and slashing of pretty much anythign they could slash to save a buck while giving guests less for higher costs... which led the higher ups to FORCE Fantasyland onto TDO... And let's face it... Iger is forcing Avatar on TDO as well... So, maybe saying Disney management doesn't care should be changed to WDW management doesn't care...

Fair point. I am not that familiar with the internal structure of Disney management. I have heard a lot of people come down on TDO so I assume the thought process is that they have the authority to make these kind of decisions unilaterally. Don't they have to run major changes past a senior executive like Tom Staggs whose title is Chairman of parks and resorts? I have read that he is the most likely successor as CEO so I would think he would have a lot of pull and would have had to green light projects at all of the parks. Like I said I am not that familiar with the structure so I could be dead wrong.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Fair point. I am not that familiar with the internal structure of Disney management. I have heard a lot of people come down on TDO so I assume the thought process is that they have the authority to make these kind of decisions unilaterally. Don't they have to run major changes past a senior executive like Tom Staggs whose title is Chairman of parks and resorts? I have read that he is the most likely successor as CEO so I would think he would have a lot of pull and would have had to green light projects at all of the parks. Like I said I am not that familiar with the structure so I could be dead wrong.

That would be something for Lee or 74 to answer... And hopefully Staggs isn't the CEO.... i don't find him any better than the others honestly..

 

[GoofGoof]

The Walt Disney Company has that responsibility. Not Meg Crofton. Not the MBA's in Celebration, Florida. Iger doesn't seem to have a problem with an embarrassment of entertainment offerings at DCA. Or discusison of possibly more than one E ticket to Disneyland in the near future. And yet, WDW is offering one or two major projects for this decade. Fantasyland Expansion - which was for selfish reasons of capacity and the added (obscene) revenue that will come from BoG restaurant; it clearly wasn't to add worthwhile attractions. Avatar? I think we all see the corporate politics behind that move...

Essentially, it is TDO dumbing down and chipping away at the guest experience at WDW, not the Walt Disney Company. Cutting EMHs and park entertainment in the WDW segment of the Parks & Resorts segment of The Walt Disney Company has absolutely nothing to do with increasing shareholder value...

Walt Disney World absolutely has an impact on shareholder value.

 

[menamechris]

Don't they have to run major changes past a senior executive like Tom Staggs whose title is Chairman of parks and resorts? I have read that he is the most likely successor as CEO so I would think he would have a lot of pull and would have had to green light projects at all of the parks. Like I said I am not that familiar with the structure so I could be dead wrong.

No, he would probably be mad if they were calling him about such things... Crofton probably doesn't even get involved, just has veto power....which I doubt she would ever do if it saved a couple bucks...

 

[menamechris]

Walt Disney World absolutely has an impact on shareholder value.

I didn't say that. I am saying WDW is one small piece of what you yourself called a "massive" Fortune 500 Company. This would be more about management hitting internal goals on the Balanced Scorecard so that they can claim incredible bonuses for themselves. Shareholder value is not affected by these kinds of decisions.

 

[Zummi Gummi]

Walt Disney World absolutely has an impact on shareholder value.

The parks are very small potatoes when you are talking about the value of the Disney Company as a whole. Very, very, small potatoes. In the minds of most shareholders, the parks exist as a way for Disney to advertise their films and sell merchandise (units of the company that are both exponentially more profitable than Parks and Resorts).

 

[John]

No need - they're going to be sending out PRs about actual new attractions

Touche'....very well played.

 

[GoofGoof]

I didn't say that. I am saying WDW is one small piece of what you yourself called a "massive" Fortune 500 Company. This would be more about management hitting internal goals on the Balanced Scorecard so that they can claim incredible bonuses for themselves. Shareholder value is not affected by these kinds of decisions.

I am pretty far out of my element here so I can't intelligently debate about bonus plans that I know nothing about so I will concede the point to you. This was an interesting discussion, but I think we got way off topic. At the end of the day I don't really want to defend this move even though i think i somehow ended up doing just that. My only point was that I won't personally miss this particular perk anyway but I would be upset if they started cutting back on illuminations and wishes so I am glad they picked this to cut. Maybe next round of cutbacks I will be disappointed and/or angry.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Fair point. I am not that familiar with the internal structure of Disney management. I have heard a lot of people come down on TDO so I assume the thought process is that they have the authority to make these kind of decisions unilaterally. Don't they have to run major changes past a senior executive like Tom Staggs whose title is Chairman of parks and resorts? I have read that he is the most likely successor as CEO so I would think he would have a lot of pull and would have had to green light projects at all of the parks. Like I said I am not that familiar with the structure so I could be dead wrong.

You know all of those bad ideas that so well define Eisner's later years? They were all approved the guys over at the now defunct Strategic Planning, headed by a Mr. Thomas Staggs. From there he was promoted to CFO, a position he maintained through the shareholder revolt and when Bob Iger became CEO. He retained that spot until switching jobs with Jay Rasulo to become head of Parks and Resorts.

As has been already said, it just stinks f cost cutting. But why not? We've already seen a few people admit they're just going to enjoy whatever is tossed at them and not think about the loss of access despite a higher price.

 

[ParentsOf4]

The parks are very small potatoes when you are talking about the value of the Disney Company as a whole. Very, very, small potatoes. In the minds of most shareholders, the parks exist as a way for Disney to advertise their films and sell merchandise (units of the company that are both exponentially more profitable than Parks and Resorts).

The parks generate a lot of consistent, steady growth revenue for Disney. I agree they represent only one business segment of a much larger corporation. I can't speak for what's in the minds of most shareholders but I speak with some confidence when I state that senior executives at many companies care very much how all business segments perform.

My knee-jerk reaction is that the evening EMH reduction from 3 hours to 2 hours represents one segment's attempt to improve its profit margins. From a business perspective, it's an excellent decision. Those of you who have been at a theme park during the third EMH, especially when that hour occurs after midnight, know that there's a relatively large number of CMs servicing a relatively small number of guests. But it also represents what (IMHO) is wrong with "Corporate Disney" today, namely the focus on squeezing profits out of an existing product rather than trying to develop a product that people will want to spend more on.

Fundamentally, leadership at "Corporate Disney" has lost site of the following quote from Walt Disney:

I've always been bored with just making money. I've wanted to do things, I wanted to build things. Get something going. People look at me in different ways. Some of them say, 'The guy has no regard for money.' That is not true. I have had regard for money. But I'm not like some people who worship money as something you've got to have piled up in a big pile somewhere. I've only thought of money in one way, and that is to do something with it, you see? I don't think there is a thing that I own that I will ever get the benefit of, except through doing things with it.

 

[GoofGoof]

The parks are very small potatoes when you are talking about the value of the Disney Company as a whole. Very, very, small potatoes. In the minds of most shareholders, the parks exist as a way for Disney to advertise their films and sell merchandise (units of the company that are both exponentially more profitable than Parks and Resorts).

Not trying to start an off topic debate, but Parks and resorts makes up over 25% of revenue. They are actually the 2nd largest segment to network media with close to double the revenue and net income of the Studio segment. Parks and resorts is larger than studios and consumer products combined. The segment includes all parks and cruise ships, but domestic makes up 9 of the 11 billion in revenues. This is per the 2011 10K.

 

[GoofGoof]

You know all of those bad ideas that so well define Eisner's later years? They were all approved the guys over at the now defunct Strategic Planning, headed by a Mr. Thomas Staggs. From there he was promoted to CFO, a position he maintained through the shareholder revolt and when Bob Iger became CEO. He retained that spot until switching jobs with Jay Rasulo to become head of Parks and Resorts.

As has been already said, it just stinks f cost cutting. But why not? We've already seen a few people admit they're just going to enjoy whatever is tossed at them and not think about the loss of access despite a higher price.

Don't take my post as an endorsement for Staggs. I just read somewhere that he is thought to be one of the front runners to replace Iger. Jay Rasulo was the other mentioned. Staggs is a finance guy who came from wall street.