Entertainment cuts

[hauntology]

With all this talk about Six Flags, we shouldn’t forget that Six Flags does have entertainment and shows, character interactions, and seasonal entertainment.

It’s not too grand or spectacular, but they do make an effort!

At least the one near New York City does.

Great Adventure is honestly the only Six Flags I can stomach going to, I do like that it has live bands and stuff, and a pretty good Halloween seasonal event

 

[bUU]

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

It is irrelevant until prices rise to the point where there aren't enough upper-upper-class folks left to afford to visit in numbers sufficient to make up for the less affluent folks who can't afford to visit. People dance around the reality, but the reality is that many companies employ price sensitivity analysis to build pricing models based on optimizing the financial results rather than optimizing attendance. A substantial number of families have never been able to afford to travel on vacation (much less visit WDW). That has never caused any problems of the sort you are alluding to. So basically you're doing a little Chicken Little dance, proclaiming that the sky is falling when it really isn't.

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

I already started to in the message to which you replied.

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.

Let's test this: First - specify which kind of guest you think you are: 3-4 weeks vs. 4-5 days. Then, specify how long you spend at the following attractions on a typical day at Animal Kingdom Park, and how many repeat visits to these attractions you would find entertaining over a single vacation:

• Discovery Island Trails
• Gorilla Falls Exploration Trail
• Maharajah Jungle Trek
• The Oasis

I bet those who cannot see themselves spending more than 4-5 days at WDW in one visit spend less than an hour spread across all four of those attractions while those who can see themselves spending 3-4 weeks at WDW in one visit spend closer to an hour (compared to less than 15 minutes) at each of them . That's one big difference between those who "lose WDW" and those who "win WDW", respectively.

 

[bUU]

We've seen this story before.

Yes, we have. Over and over and over. And yet they're still the market leader by a mile with a radically upward trend in revenues over thirty years.

Maybe instead of Disney needing to "learn a lesson", maybe those who think Disney needs to are actually the ones who need to.

 

[bUU]

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.

Nonsense. I am just mirroring the tone of those people putting themselves up as smarter than the people who actually run Disney, speaking to them in the only language they seem to know. I have never said that I'm the "end-all-be-all" of Disney guests or better than anyone else: Many other people in the forum have made that point. They whine and complain and generally make clear that they're paying grudgingly for something that they cannot muster the capacity to enjoy fully. If you think that is better than actually enjoying what you're paying for, then we need to have a discussion about what words mean.

I think this realization that there are WDW winners (like me) and WDW losers (like those who are constantly complaining) is a novel way of presenting it. It hopefully shocks some people into realizing that they're building a prison for themselves and have no one other than themselves to blame for their disappointment.

Mis-quote Eleanor Roosevelt all you want...

How silly. If you don't understand the concept of consenting to your own feelings, don't blame me.

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".

Except that people like you have been complaining about "removing entertainment" since long before Disney added much of the entertaining that you're now complaining that they're "removing". Disney has always cycled entertainment offerings. Trying to present it as "cuts" rather than replacements is deceitful - lying.

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.

That's your view, and your loss that you hold so tightly to such a view. The objective numbers say otherwise. More people visit Disney now than twenty years ago and they pay a lot more to visit and to visit repeatedly. They're not wrong. And if you think your personal antipathy for the place is more valid than their overwhelming endorsement of the place, then you're wrong.

 

[bUU]

The flaw in your logic is that you don't know the view of "hundreds of guests". You are assuming you know.

False: I'm "assuming" you don't know. There's a difference.

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

Meaningless to the business, which is of course what all the vapid, self-centered bashing of Disney's management, to which my comments were posted as reply, is aimed at. Remember: People aren't talking about what they like versus dislike. They're trying to claim they know how to run the business better. They're wrong. That's the point.

 

[bUU]

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.

You, of course, pre-made the decision that my reply was nonsensical because it contradicted what you wanted to complain about. So it is no surprise that you failed to understand the point I made.

I am somehow consenting to losing said entertainment options by noticing that they are now gone with no replacement announced.

So according to you, every time something ends, something specific must replace it, and presumably, according to you, it would have to be directly comparable to that one certain something that it is replacing. I can't believe anyone is that unreasonably naive.

Provide me a link to where you repudiated your complaint when Camp Minnie Mickey was replaced with Flight of Passage and Na'vi River Journey. Otherwise, admit that you don't really keep track of what comes and goes closely enough to have any perspective on the balance between the two.

Your post are just spin and provide no real contribution to the topic at hand.

If you insist that "contribution to the topic at hand" is agreeing with your complaints, then you're bound to reach that conclusion.

 

[bUU]

Out of curiosity, how many hours do you spend in the Oasis on a given day at AK?

Typically about 35-45 minutes.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Nonsense. I am just mirroring the tone of those people putting themselves up as smarter than the people who actually run Disney, speaking to them in the only language they seem to know. I have never said that I'm the "end-all-be-all" of Disney guests or better than anyone else: Many other people in the forum have made that point. They whine and complain and generally make clear that they're paying grudgingly for something that they cannot muster the capacity to enjoy fully. If you think that is better than actually enjoying what you're paying for, then we need to have a discussion about what words mean.

I think this realization that there are WDW winners (like me) and WDW losers (like those who are constantly complaining) is a novel way of presenting it. It hopefully shocks some people into realizing that they're building a prison for themselves and have no one other than themselves to blame for their disappointment.

How silly. If you don't understand the concept of consenting to your own feelings, don't blame me.

Except that people like you have been complaining about "removing entertainment" since long before Disney added much of the entertaining that you're now complaining that they're "removing". Disney has always cycled entertainment offerings. Trying to present it as "cuts" rather than replacements is deceitful - lying.

That's your view, and your loss that you hold so tightly to such a view. The objective numbers say otherwise. More people visit Disney now than twenty years ago and they pay a lot more to visit and to visit repeatedly. They're not wrong. And if you think your personal antipathy for the place is more valid than their overwhelming endorsement of the place, then you're wrong.

See, you're wrong yet again. I've been complaining about removing entertainment since the early 2000s (not on this board, but that's beside the point). Where are the parades in HS and Epcot? Where are the live entertainers in World Showcase? Where's the night parade at MK? Where are the Mousekeepers that made a game of playing with your stuff when they cleaned your room? Why is it that in 2000, every employee at Dixie Landings knew our names, but today we're just nameless "guests"? The quality of the food isn't as good as it has been in the past, and even the merchandise has become much more watered down in variety and poorer in quality. And just because more people visit today than 20 years ago doesn't mean Disney isn't diluting their own product...it simply means more people are aware of their product because of the internet, and it's become a "rite of passage" for kids to experience WDW at some point as they grow up. The super sad part is that it's a double-edged sword - sure, they may be seeing record guests now, but bad word travels faster than good and how long do you think it's going to take before people are soured by Disney's attempts to squeeze every penny possible from every guest or to squeeze as many bodies into the parks as possible regardless of how that affects the experience? Or before people realize they're paying ridiculous prices for an experience that isn't as good as it was before? You can't run a huge theme park like WDW on cupcakes and dance parties. You also cannot expect theme parks to be able to sustain the quarterly increases Wall Street expects without seriously endangering your ability to maintain attendance numbers. I have many cousins and relatives who have brought their kids to WDW and said (after very short trips...usually 3-4 days) that it was a "one and done" for them. Do you really think those kids are going to have the attachment to WDW that my kids who have been multiple times do or that they'll want to bring their own kids to WDW when they grow up?

And please, stop making assumptions about how I feel about WDW. I could easily spend a month at WDW and not get bored...but I'm not Disney's target audience because I don't buy into the upcharges or cupcakes...the last time I had alone time in MK, I spent a couple of hours relaxing on the boat dock in Frontierland just chit-chatting with other guests, and I loved every minute of it.

Expecting a company to maintain quality that is in line with their pricing is NOT WRONG. Stop saying it is just to read your own words.

 

[monothingie]

Yes, we have. Over and over and over. And yet they're still the market leader by a mile with a radically upward trend in revenues over thirty years.

Maybe instead of Disney needing to "learn a lesson", maybe those who think Disney needs to are actually the ones who need to.

Your rose colored glasses may need to be adjusted.

P&R's late 90's till late 00's weren't exactly the best of times. Iger's rein certainly changed things and certainly made revenue a key metric for park performance, after all its what the investors want to see. But the shortcuts taken to achieve that growth are now starting to bite back. Eventually the price increase and nickel and diming of guests catches up with you and now we see the beginnings of that end.

With regards to learning lessons, I'm not the one sweating bullets knowing how badly the multi-billion dollar SWGE openings got screwed up and that the date promised for one if not both ROTR are now no longer viable, or that the years of price increases are finally enough that a large portion of the most loyal guests (APs) are no longer renewing, or that hotel bookings are way down even for the busy holiday season. Clearly lesson learned.

 

[Lilofan]

Your rose colored glasses may need to be adjusted.

P&R's late 90's till late 00's weren't exactly the best of times. Iger's rein certainly changed things and certainly made revenue a key metric for park performance, after all its what the investors want to see. But the shortcuts taken to achieve that growth are now starting to bite back. Eventually the price increase and nickel and diming of guests catches up with you and now we see the beginnings of that end.

With regards to learning lessons, I'm not the one sweating bullets knowing how badly the multi-billion dollar SWGE openings got screwed up and that the date promised for one if not both ROTR are now no longer viable, or that the years of price increases are finally enough that a large portion of the most loyal guests (APs) are no longer renewing, or that hotel bookings are way down even for the busy holiday season. Clearly lesson learned.

All good things come to an end but hopefully not yet. From an investor point of view, the Disney stock if bought in the late 1990s early 2000s at mid $20 a share and held onto to it made investors very rich over the years ( currently $138 a share) I still believe in this great company and its leadership.

 

[xdan0920]

All good things come to an end but hopefully not yet. From an investor point of view, the Disney stock if bought in the late 1990s early 2000s at mid $20 a share and held onto to it made investors very rich over the years ( currently $138 a share) I still believe in this great company and its leadership.

Do you ever forget which account you are posting from? I do appreciate the toned down rhetoric of this account vs the bombastic know it all that you use with the Buu account. But is it hard to keep them straight?

 

[xdan0920]

I bet those who cannot see themselves spending more than 4-5 days at WDW in one visit spend less than an hour spread across all four of those attractions while those who can see themselves spending 3-4 weeks at WDW in one visit spend closer to an hour (compared to less than 15 minutes) at each of them . That's one big difference between those who "lose WDW" and those who "win WDW", respectively.

Many of us can't see ourselves spending more then 4-5 days at Disney anymore. We used to spend tons of time there. Now, with all the wonderful dumbing down the parks have done, it's just a really good amusement park. And really, who needs more then a few days at an amusement park?

 

[larryz]

All good things come to an end but hopefully not yet. From an investor point of view, the Disney stock if bought in the late 1990s early 2000s at mid $20 a share and held onto to it made investors very rich over the years ( currently $138 a share) I still believe in this great company and its leadership.

Once again, you're not rich until you sell the stock. A stock market crash could make that DIS stock practically worthless overnight.*

*Note that I'm not saying the stock market will crash overnight tonight. But any one of several unforeseen events could push stock prices sharply lower...

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I already started to in the message to which you replied.

You mean the hooey?

So basically you're doing a little Chicken Little dance, proclaiming that the sky is falling when it really isn't.

Not even close, but I guess that sounded good in your head before you typed it. Maybe try more thoughtfulness, less reacting.

I bet those who cannot see themselves spending more than 4-5 days at WDW in one visit spend less than an hour spread across all four of those attractions while those who can see themselves spending 3-4 weeks at WDW in one visit spend closer to an hour (compared to less than 15 minutes) at each of them . That's one big difference between those who "lose WDW" and those who "win WDW", respectively.

While you’re spending 45 minutes at the Oasis, I’m spending 4 or 5 hours at the Tune-In Lounge, spending money on food & bev, and engaging other patrons who stay longer and spend more. But I’m sure WDW appreciates your staring and lingering. And I’m sure you’re having a better time!

I am just mirroring the tone of those people putting themselves up as smarter than the people who actually run Disney, speaking to them in the only language they seem to know.

Yet, you lumped me in with those people.

I think this realization that there are WDW winners (like me) and WDW losers (like those who are constantly complaining) is a novel way of presenting it.

It may not come off as well as you think.

 

[brb1006]

When Great Adventure opened in 1974 there was a circus show. In fact they had several shows. Now they have none except at Fright Fest and Holidays in the Park. It's a shame because they are losing attendance. Six Flags Great Adventure should be the number 1 park in the company since it has the largest potential customer base. It is bad management and lack of marketing.

They used to have a Summer Parade that I remember seeing in the early 2000's (Possibly 2002). But the only shows they have are a Looney Tunes stage show and a show featuring Dolphins and Sea Lions.

 

[brb1006]

For me, the worst entertainment cut in recent memory was the Talking Mickey meet and greet on Main Street..

I have many great memories with that offering. One was my cousin's first time visiting the World and seeing Mickey there. They both interacted so much and was truly magical..

Sad times these days at the parks...

I remember they were actually play testing a Donald Duck and Minnie Mouse at DCA a couple years ago.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

In the lay-off’s thread it’s been reported that live entertainers have been cut from port Orleans French quarter.

 

[Mark P.]

Burudika's contract has reportedly not been renewed; their final performance is October 13th.

This one hits hard; we go out of our way to make it to at least one performance each trip. Starting to get nervous about what might be next.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

ummm yeah this is looking worse than I thought.

 

[wannabeBelle]

In the lay-off’s thread it’s been reported that live entertainers have been cut from port Orleans French quarter.

This is absolutely true, Jason and Billy, both of who worked with Off Kilter in the past, were playing as a Duo most Saturday, Sunday Monday and Tuesday nights at the Scat Cat Lounge at Port Orleans French Quarter. The lounge is going away to be replaced by Beignet Central and the old restaurant Bonfamille's will be getting made over to be the new Scat Cat's. A Dixieland Jazz band is supposed to be playing there and construction has begun. In the meantime Jason and Billy's last day is 9/29/2019. I am very upset for my friends but I cant say I am terribly shocked. Sure save money on two musicians, but now the bar area ( assuming it will be open) will be dead and you will lose money there. WTH??? Marie