EPCOT Entertainment cuts

[DisUniversal]

If they decided to replace them with one guy playing -- ------ with a ----- on ---- all day, and did it because he could be had at the cost of - ----- ------- a day

Please delete your comment on the off chance someone at TDO who has influence over these decisions reads these forums! They're doing a great job destroying the parks without suggestions like this.

 

[Fractal514]

...and if just 3 or 4 thousand guests per year out of the 11.3 million that visited Epcot last year, decide not to go because of the cuts, they've lost their entire $400K in savings. That's just a decline of less than 3 1/100ths of 1 percent before they've screwed themselves. This is the part of the equation I think the bean counters no longer consider.

Care to post the budgetary documents that would back up your assertion?

To which assertion are you referring?

 

[sshindel]

Please delete your comment on the off chance someone at TDO who has influence over these decisions reads these forums! They're doing a great job destroying the parks without suggestions like this.

Plus your way makes what would end up being a hilarious Mad Lib.

 

[Fractal514]

I think I can. I think that Off Kilter packs people in constantly. I think its been proven that they have an insane fanbase. They're a staple thats been there as long as most everyone has been coming.

And my opinion, right or wrong, is youre picking the wrong people to argue with. Because the fact is that Off Kilter is an institution for 17 years. World Showcase Players have been there since the beginning.

And where are the Epcot fanboiz? Is it only their rendition of future world they care about?

Look, all I can tell you is that everyone I've spoken too in real life about this doesn't really seem to care about Off-Kilter. Some of these folks say that they liked them and some don't even know who they are. Now, my anecdotal evidence of a dozen or so Disney fans who regularly go down to WDW doesn't prove anything, but it does demonstrate that this really isn't a universally beloved group.

 

[wannabeBelle]

It is enough of an issue both the group personally as well as the bigger issue of attractions being cut/ changed/ etc and what the reasoning on that one could be to generate a 569 reply posting regarding it, that is for sure!!! Marie

 

[PhotoDave219]

Look, all I can tell you is that everyone I've spoken too in real life about this doesn't really seem to care about Off-Kilter. Some of these folks say that they liked them and some don't even know who they are. Now, my anecdotal evidence of a dozen or so Disney fans who regularly go down to WDW doesn't prove anything, but it does demonstrate that this really isn't a universally beloved group.

Youre right, it doesn't prove anything.

 

[PhotoDave219]

To which assertion are you referring?

That this isnt a budget cut. That they are spending the same amount of money.

Go on, we'll wait.

 

[CDavid]

But, in the end, they aren't actually cutting what is offered to the public, just changing what it is. Now, I understand all of the arguments about changing things that aren't broken when they should be changing things that are, and the posts about how this is just a callous cash cutting coup by Disney execs greedy to pinch pennies where-ere they can, but honestly, it sounds to me like it's just time to change out the acts and freshen up that aspect of the park.

Epcot needs proper, wise investment in new attractions and experiences, fixing problems, enhancing stale elements, but preserving classic experiences. What to preserve and what to replace cannot be left to personal opinion (everything is somebody's favorite), but again, Disney has a poor track record with replacements and far too little respect for its own history. If the park had not been undermined (and generally lost its focus) so badly in the past there would likely be somewhat less negativity. Epcot fans still suffer from "Journey into Imagination" syndrome - fear of a beloved, classic attraction being replaced by one which lowers your IQ ten points every time you ride the thing.

The proper way to "freshen" entertainment in Epcot is not by eliminating acts and promising (cheaper) replacements, but rather "enhancing" the park through the introduction of additional new acts. You may not keep all of them long term, but you improve a park by making additions, not subtractions.

In the spirit of Disney's current business model, you could probably find someone to do a similar job as Iger at a much cheaper price.

Indeed you could. A trained monkey, without the training.

Unlikely. While we may not like how the decisions of current management affect the parks, the owners of the company are pretty darned happy. The stock price has essentially tripled the last three years, as we've all lamented the treatment of WDW. From when Iger took over in 2005 until late 2011, the stock price stagnated. If you wanted to get rid of Iger, that was the time.

Generally we are concerned, including my post above, with Iger's management of parks & resorts, and specifically Walt Disney World. Guests who are touring stale parks and (over) paying premium prices for second class resorts and mediocre restaurants really aren't impressed by the stock price. Before you say it, yes, a business exists to make money for its stockholders (among other functions, I'd argue) rather than please its fans, and while it is good the company has prospered overall, lack of investment in the parks and efforts which serve primarily to prop-up the short term financial numbers are looming problems.

I really hate that I have to be an apologist here, but I just don't seem the doom and gloom. Now, let's talk about all the supposed rides and expansions that are coming, but that we won't see for 10 years, and I'll go to the dark side real quick.

The key point is all the rides and expansions which aren't coming. Little wonder people are so critical when we get new entertainment instead of new attractions - and it comes at the cost of existing popular and time-tested experiences.

Why do you "have to be an apologist" over an unpopular decision? Just because something isn't your cup of tea doesn't make it unimportant. Personally, I could do without the Tower of Terror (can't stand things that drop), but were it slated for removal, I'd be up in arms just as much as anyone, recognizing its importance and proper place in the park. Entertainment doesn't generally rise to the level of an attraction (some exceptions), but again, that doesn't mean it is not critical to the park experience as a whole.

 

[Fractal514]

Youre right, it doesn't prove anything.

And neither does your, or anyone else on this board's, opinion and anecdotal evidence.

 

[toasty]

Apologies if someone else has already raised this, but I kinda disagree with the suggestion that cost would be the primary driving force here. While it's certainly true that a band that has been playing at WDW for a decade or more will likely need to be paid more than one that is just starting out, the difference can't really be THAT great, can it? Best case scenario, I'm thinking they are saving tens of thousands annually, not hundreds of thousands. In Disney terms, that's a drop in the bucket -- they blow through that in fireworks alone pretty much every day.

Perhaps I'm giving Disney too much credit, but if they really thought there would be serious blowback, I can't imagine they would cut these acts to save that relatively small amount of money. Suggests to me that it's more a matter of refreshing the offerings. The overwhelming majority of Disney guests that go every few years are likely to be more happy that there is something new than upset that a live music act that was there on their last trip is no longer there.

 

[Fractal514]

That this isnt a budget cut. That they are spending the same amount of money.

Go on, we'll wait.

You are changing my point to be something it was not. I said that we have no evidence to believe that this was done solely as a budget cut and that it is inherently a bad thing. Now, it is entirely possible that this could in fact reduce the budget AND be a good thing, provided the new entertainments are good. You're challenging me to provide information that you know I don't possibly have access to, nor really do I believe anyone else on this board has, and you're acting as if that proves I'm somehow wrong, it does not. The budgetary arguments being accepted as fact and as the primary motivation for this change is the thing I take issue with. You don't know for a fact that these changes where made because they are cuts any more than I know they were made as part of an initiative to spark new interest in the live entertainment at the parks, we are each simply making a guess. Unless, of course, you can show me the internal documents that indicate this decision was based purely on financials.

For that matter, can YOU show ME any documents that prove your point? Can you show us anything that proves that this IS a budget cut?

Go on, we'll wait.

 

[Fractal514]

Let us also consider something else as a possibility. Now, I know that most of you will dismiss this out of hand based on your preconceived notions of how the parks are run, and perhaps you are wise to do so, but...

What if there is a plan to revitalize Epcot, to once again make it relevant, to put money into the park, to fix things that aren't working and to add new experiences as well. What if this was an initiative introduced by a new Epcot head or a new Parks head, wasn't someone recently promoted to one of those jobs? Anyway, what if they toured around and decided it was time to really revitalize the park and they said, what can we do THIS year, while we get ready for things that could be done in the coming years? Wouldn't bringing in new entertainment such as this be the way to do it? And if the guy was told that he couldn't increase the budget, and so he had to axe stuff that was, in his or her opinion, stale, to do so, wouldn't that make sense too?

I'm not saying that's what is happening, but isn't it at least possible?

I await the bashing...

 

[note2001]

Apologies if someone else has already raised this, but I kinda disagree with the suggestion that cost would be the primary driving force here. While it's certainly true that a band that has been playing at WDW for a decade or more will likely need to be paid more than one that is just starting out, the difference can't really be THAT great, can it? Best case scenario, I'm thinking they are saving tens of thousands annually, not hundreds of thousands. In Disney terms, that's a drop in the bucket -- they blow through that in fireworks alone pretty much every day.

Perhaps I'm giving Disney too much credit, but if they really thought there would be serious blowback, I can't imagine they would cut these acts to save that relatively small amount of money. Suggests to me that it's more a matter of refreshing the offerings. The overwhelming majority of Disney guests that go every few years are likely to be more happy that there is something new than upset that a live music act that was there on their last trip is no longer there.

There are a multitude of reasons why they may be making these changes, Not the least of which could be to cut on salary & benefits if these performers fall under employees verses contractors. Disney ~loves~ hiring contractors these days for the simple reason that they are less expensive if you know the set hours they are to work and will not be putting in extra to get the job done.

 

[Lord_Vader]

As a business person this makes sense the other act made a lot of money cut that person and find some as good for cheaper it happens in sports all the time. I bet Indy colts fans hated to get rid of manning but got a good qb for a cheaper. No luck is not manning but for saving money not a bad move.

Yes, Moneyball the theme park edition.

 

[MichWolv]

...and if just 3 or 4 thousand guests per year out of the 11.3 million that visited Epcot last year, decide not to go because of the cuts, they've lost their entire $400K in savings. That's just a decline of less than 3 1/100ths of 1 percent before they've screwed themselves. This is the part of the equation I think the bean counters no longer consider.

Really, you think accountants 1) are to blame for management decisions, and 2) don't understand how finances work?

A company concerned only with making the cost side lower needn't hire an accountant, a bookkeeper, a bean counter, or finance expert to tell them how to do it. Just close down. Costs go to zero quickly. You only need the people with expertise because it isn't a one-sided consideration. The finance types (far more than just accountants) evaluate the potential upsides and downsides of all kinds of possible company actions and provide that information to the managers. The managers decide what risks to take in the hopes that the benefits of those risks outweigh the costs. No finance person who ignored the potential effects of cost cuts on revenue would survive a month.

 

[LouP]

The chair acrobats in France, the Voices of Liberty, and the Taiko Drummers (which, I love). Now if you're talking about in general and not just performers, I'd list about a dozen or so things.

This is opinion, not right or wrong, and maybe for YOU Off-Kilter is this huge iconic thing, but I don't think you can make that assumption for the general Disney park attendee.

I agree (or should I say "THIS"?).

To offer a data point, I've been to Epcot (and through all of World Showcase each time) 3 times in the last 5 years (and 3 other times prior to that), and had NEVER HEARD OF Off-Kilter before this announcement. In general, the entertainment isn't what draws me to World Showcase (with the possible exception of Voices of Liberty, because, well, they're amazing).


Take Care,

Lou Prosperi

 

[Lord_Vader]

Give the new show a chance. It might be lumberjacks juggling chainsaws:

I'll be waiting for the next axe to fall.

 

[DisUniversal]

Let us also consider something else as a possibility. Now, I know that most of you will dismiss this out of hand based on your preconceived notions of how the parks are run, and perhaps you are wise to do so, but...

What if there is a plan to revitalize Epcot, to once again make it relevant, to put money into the park, to fix things that aren't working and to add new experiences as well. What if this was an initiative introduced by a new Epcot head or a new Parks head, wasn't someone recently promoted to one of those jobs? Anyway, what if they toured around and decided it was time to really revitalize the park and they said, what can we do THIS year, while we get ready for things that could be done in the coming years? Wouldn't bringing in new entertainment such as this be the way to do it? And if the guy was told that he couldn't increase the budget, and so he had to axe stuff that was, in his or her opinion, stale, to do so, wouldn't that make sense too?

I'm not saying that's what is happening, but isn't it at least possible?

I await the bashing...

 

[doctornick]

Know whats the kicker here? The guy, in the photo of your avatar? He's losing his job over this. So he, as well as a lot of other people, will be out of a job.

Of course, other people will now have work that they didn't previously. That counts too, right?

 

[MichWolv]

Let us also consider something else as a possibility. Now, I know that most of you will dismiss this out of hand based on your preconceived notions of how the parks are run, and perhaps you are wise to do so, but...

What if there is a plan to revitalize Epcot, to once again make it relevant, to put money into the park, to fix things that aren't working and to add new experiences as well. What if this was an initiative introduced by a new Epcot head or a new Parks head, wasn't someone recently promoted to one of those jobs? Anyway, what if they toured around and decided it was time to really revitalize the park and they said, what can we do THIS year, while we get ready for things that could be done in the coming years? Wouldn't bringing in new entertainment such as this be the way to do it? And if the guy was told that he couldn't increase the budget, and so he had to axe stuff that was, in his or her opinion, stale, to do so, wouldn't that make sense too?

I'm not saying that's what is happening, but isn't it at least possible?

I await the bashing...

I'll give you a "theoretically possible", as the "facts" could fit that pattern.

However, based on evidence, most of which is admittedly circumstantial and piecemeal, I'd say that there is far far far greater chance that the proximate cause of these changes was budget-related. That doesn't mean it won't turn out positive. It is, of course, possible for something that starts out with a cost-cutting motivation to be turned into something that makes things better all the way around. I hope that happens here, and based on what we've read on the blog about the new acts, I think it's possible that could happen here. And if so, great. But I still don't think this is evidence of a grand initiative coming soon. If it is, I'll be as happy as @sshindel, and he'll be the happiest guy on earth!