Entertainment cuts

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I hate to quote Pete Warner, but as he pointed out the signs are there, Disney is prepping for a recession if it happens.
Companies lay off, those conventions are cancelled, the parks became ghost towns at times as people focused on keeping all funds they had close to home. Orlando tourism sticks out like a sore thumb when it comes to recessions, and is one of the first to feel the hit.

I know - preaching to the choir, it just blows me away that some folk still don't understand how recessions work in the minds of companies, investors and employees.
You don’t have to say anything...it was so wrong on every level and produced by the deafest of ears...

Best not think about it...other than this:

First thing people cancel in a recession: vacations
First thing companies do in a recession: cancel conferences and perks
First thing Orlando does in a boom: over borrow/build and cause crashes in debt/bankruptcy when the recession returns
 
Last edited:

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I think everyone understands it. Doesn’t change the fact that we don’t approve, enjoy, or look forward to what happens when a recession does hit.

Especially when it’s the unique, “Disney” aspects they choose to slash and cut, while buying up billion dollar brands that don’t align with Disney.
Actually...in so many ways a recession is needed...especially when it comes to the consumers failing to regulate Disney.

Nobody likes hardship...but it is inevitable. Best to always look for the “net gains”
 

Orangeanna

Active Member
The entertainment is what makes Disney special. It's the last thing that should be cut. My kids have more fond memories of dancing in tomorrowland than the rides. They love the pool games at the resorts. The actors at Hollywood studios make people stop and smile. Take the entertainment away and it's a six flags. These are the moments people film. Does anyone remember the band "mulch, sweat and shears"? We loved them. Everyone did. Huge crowds, everyone filming, everyone dancing. During a recession aren't these things more valuable, not less? Otherwise I'll just save money and go to my local amusement park. People experience rides alone, for the most part, they experience entertainment with other people. It's social and it's special. It's worth saving, and it's cheaper than another ride.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
So here’s the actual offerings -
Main Street -
Trolley Welcome Show (at least 10 years?)
Casey’s Corner Piano (opening day)
Dapper Dans (opening day)
Philharmonic (opening day)
Citizens of Main Street (at least 10 years?)

Adventureland -
None

Frontierland -
Hoedown with country bears

Liberty Square-
Great Moments with Muppets

Fantasyland -
Castle Show (basic format for over 10 years)
Opening Show (replaced the train station show).
Royal Majesty Makers (started with fantasy forest).

Storybook Circus-
None

Tomorrowland -
None

So where’s the new offerings? Muppets is the most recent on the list.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
One of the most entertaining offerings no longer around was the sexy and groovy Mo Rockin at Epcot Morocco by the lagoon. The belly dancer even invited the little ones to dance with her.
 

bUU

Well-Known Member
That wouldn’t fill two weeks unless you’re doing five-hour days in the parks and not showing up until 11.
Nonsense.

It sounds like you are one of those people who run through The Oasis because you don't recognize it as an attraction. I wonder how much of the misbegotten criticism in this thread is a product of the critic simply being incapable of appreciating what is a Disney attraction versus an amusement park ride.

So it really does boil down to different kinds of resort guests: The kind of guest that Disney targets, who could legitimately spend probably closer to three or four weeks enjoying all that Disney offers, and the kind of guest for which nothing practical will ever be acceptable, which the company is surely better off sloughing off. I'm glad to be on the winning team.
 

bUU

Well-Known Member
Disney seems to have forgotten that their biggest shareholder is the customer in the gates, not always the paper shareholders.
That's incredibly naive. Regardless, as we have just seen demonstrated above, there are clearly two different sets of "customers at the gate" - the vast majority that enjoy what Disney offers and the small minority, perhaps including you, who aren't capable of appreciating all that is offered.

You are correct in a sense, but as customers why do we have to lose something to gain something at a time when prices are rising at an unprecedented pace?
There's nothing being lost, except within the minds of people making a deliberate decision to be losers. Eleanor Roosevelt once said that Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent. Then same kind of thing applies to this: You are consenting to "losing something as a customer" by putting yourself in that small minority of guests incapable of appreciating all that is offered.

Except that entertainment is not sold as an upcharge in this case.
That's a cop out. You want to blind yourself to the objective measurement probably because it leaves you the wiggle room you want to be upset.

The point here is that ancillary entertainment options do impact guest satisfaction. And that is completely subjective to the guest.
And becomes objective in the aggregate. However, as long as you refuse to acknowledge and integrate into your consideration the fact that you are one guest among hundreds of thousands, you're not going to be able to understand that.

Why would anyone spend 2 weeks at any theme park? Wdw prob has more than any other theme park in the world and 5 days is stretching it. You want 2 weeks explore the world
Perhaps, perhaps not. There are numerous guests who do spend two weeks and enjoy every day.

And yes, they're the winners.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Nonsense.

It sounds like you are one of those people who run through The Oasis because you don't recognize it as an attraction. I wonder how much of the misbegotten criticism in this thread is a product of the critic simply being incapable of appreciating what is a Disney attraction versus an amusement park ride.

So it really does boil down to different kinds of resort guests: The kind of guest that Disney targets, who could legitimately spend probably closer to three or four weeks enjoying all that Disney offers, and the kind of guest for which nothing practical will ever be acceptable, which the company is surely better off sloughing off. I'm glad to be on the winning team.

Well, that’s a lotta hooey.

Three or four weeks, I’d be bored out of my mind and/or in debt for the rest of my life.

“Sloughing off” would be pretty stupid, though.

Posting from a high horse is tricky, and doesn’t often come out well.
 

bUU

Well-Known Member
Well, that’s a lotta hooey.
Not at all. People appreciate different things differently, and some people appreciate a greater portion of what is offered than others.

Three or four weeks, I’d be bored out of my mind and/or in debt for the rest of my life.
Debt is irrelevant to this discussion though.

“Sloughing off” would be pretty stupid, though.
Deliberately telling people not to visit would be stupid. Directing resources toward satisfying other customers isn't. Deciding which customers to target is a standard part of doing business.

Posting from a high horse is tricky, and doesn’t often come out well.
It seems to me that you stepped in it, Tony.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Not at all. People appreciate different things differently, and some people appreciate a greater portion of what is offered than others.

Debt is irrelevant to this discussion though.

Deliberately telling people not to visit would be stupid. Directing resources toward satisfying other customers isn't. Deciding which customers to target is a standard part of doing business.

It seems to me that you stepped in it, Tony.

Yes, of course people appreciate different things differently. The hooey part was the conclusion drawn from that.

Debt/pricing is nearly always part of the discussion. You can’t go to WDW for 3-4 weeks without considering it.

Go ahead and explain how Disney directs resources towards people staying 3-4 weeks vs. 4-5 days.

bOO.
 

monothingie

Too bad, sugar puff. We could have been something.
Premium Member
Actually...in so many ways a recession is needed...especially when it comes to the consumers failing to regulate Disney.

Nobody likes hardship...but it is inevitable. Best to always look for the “net gains”

I don't know, it seems like the the market is working it out right now with SWGE's slow opening. Disney put out an incomplete product and guest reaction is causing Disney to react. Will they learn their lesson? Maybe for a short period of time, but then they always go back to their old habits. We've seen this story before.
 
Last edited:

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Why would anyone spend 2 weeks at any theme park? Wdw prob has more than any other theme park in the world and 5 days is stretching it. You want 2 weeks explore the world
It's all about personal choices. If one wants to spend 2 weeks at a theme park, all the power to them and they are " blowing that dough! " and hopefully having a magical time!
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Not at all. People appreciate different things differently, and some people appreciate a greater portion of what is offered than others.

Debt is irrelevant to this discussion though.

Deliberately telling people not to visit would be stupid. Directing resources toward satisfying other customers isn't. Deciding which customers to target is a standard part of doing business.

It seems to me that you stepped in it, Tony.
YOU continually step in it by posting as if you are the end-all-be-all of Disney guests and therefore better than everyone else on this forum. Mis-quote Eleanor Roosevelt all you want...removing entertainment that is one of the major things that sets Disney apart from other theme parks is still removing entertainment...it has nothing to do with feeling inferior or "deciding to be a loser".

Disney has been gradually watering down it's product in WDW for nearly two decades and as paying guests, we have every right to dislike it and to be vocal about our disappointment in current leadership. Disney is straying from the very standards they themselves set over many decades, and to expect guests to just accept it while paying the highest admissions in the industry is ridiculous. But hey, if they want to become nothing but a glorified Six Flags...that's on them.
 

Bender123

Well-Known Member
First thing Orlando does in a boom: over borrow/build and cause crashes in debt/bankruptcy when the recession returns

The best time to build at a tourist location is during the recession, not during the boom. Recession means lower costs and operational improvements that are ready for the end of the recession and people blowing out money on trips, etc...
The amazing thing about the current boom period is how companies suddenly figured that out and started buildouts at the most expensive time that will (likely) gain the least immediate impact on opening.

Combine that with the insane costs and TDO is either going to have some amazing bargains coming up or they really are looking to move out of the range of people that can be that affected by a recession.
 

"El Gran Magnifico"

Bring Me A Shrubbery
Premium Member
We started here:

Absent a direct comparison of all the entertainment added during the same time period, the litany of what has been discontinued is pretty meaningless

I asked to whom it was meaningless. You deflected and said:

In our society, when you're talking about the relationship between a supplier and a customer, such things are measured in dollars

I pointed out that the "entertainment in question" was not subject to an additional charge. To which you replied:

That's a cop out. You want to blind yourself to the objective measurement probably because it leaves you the wiggle room you want to be upset.

Then you added:

And becomes objective in the aggregate. However, as long as you refuse to acknowledge and integrate into your consideration the fact that you are one guest among hundreds of thousands, you're not going to be able to understand that.


The flaw in your logic is that you don't know the view of "hundreds of guests". You are assuming you know. Do you have facts that back up that statement? You know what happens when you assume. The view of "hundreds of guests" would be subjective. Would it not?

You've not only moved the goalposts, you've switched to a an entirely different game altogether. Congratulations on that.

I'll stick with my original question in response to your post as you haven't addressed it: Meaningless to whom?
 
Last edited:

Oddysey

Well-Known Member
I’m saying that Disney has a pattern of making cuts, cutbacks or sudden price adjustment after making large charitable donations. I’m not saying it’s definitely a result of them but you can’t deny there is a pattern of it.

Charitable contributions are appreciated, but if you are a publicly traded company and said contributions are the reason for budget cuts and handing out pink slips then you are doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:

Oddysey

Well-Known Member
There's nothing being lost, except within the minds of people making a deliberate decision to be losers. Eleanor Roosevelt once said that Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent. Then same kind of thing applies to this: You are consenting to "losing something as a customer" by putting yourself in that small minority of guests incapable of appreciating all that is offered.

My initial post asked the question "why must we lose something to get something in a time when prices are rising at unprecedented rates?" And somehow you spin this into some sort of nonsensical argument that I made a deliberate decision to be a loser by expecting not to lose entertainment options when I am continuously asked to pay more. I am somehow consenting to losing said entertainment options by noticing that they are now gone with no replacement announced. According to you, this is all in my own head, and I am only perceiving a loss. In fact, not only is it just my perception that cuts were made to entertainment options, but I am incapable of appreciating the other existing options.

I have read quite a few of your post now and they all seem to amount to word salad. They are typically well written, but do a terrible job of addressing the actual argument. Your post are just spin and provide no real contribution to the topic at hand. I am convinced you are being contrarian just to amuse yourself. Actually a self-amusing contrarian is a kind way to say that I perceive you to be a troll. I have never been one to use the ignore function and never will. However, I will not be one of the sources that feeds your insatiable appetite for trolling these forums and will not dignify any of your post with a response moving forward.

Don't mistake this for anger. I do not feel an ounce of anger towards you. I just do not feel the need to engage with someone who is clearly and constantly baiting posters whom are attempting to have a legitimate discussion. All said, I look forward to your next word salad because for the time being I find the way you attempt to spin things mildly amusing. Nevertheless, this will be the last time I personally will provide you an opportunity to troll. Enjoy!
 
Last edited:

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
I’ve also found bUU’s posts in this and other threads to be arguing for the fun of arguing.

He seems to like to bring other people down, rather than making his own view be known. I’m interested in knowing what his view is. Does he like or not like the muppets show?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom