EPCOT Entertainment cuts

[Fractal514]

In all fairness, it's hard to not jump to conclusions when it's pretty obvious that the changes are primarily due to money saving efforts on the part of TDO. Many businesses cut corners to save a buck, and those cuts seldom result in increased quality for customers.

That make logical sense, but I don't know that it is actually true. There could be a whole host of reasons as to why new acts would cost less than older ones. As many have pointed out the difference in equity is one, the number of performers in an act is another. I think that while it does seem to make sense, that accepting it as fact is a logical mistake.

 

[cw1982]

That make logical sense, but I don't know that it is actually true. There could be a whole host of reasons as to why new acts would cost less than older ones. As many have pointed out the difference in equity is one, the number of performers in an act is another. I think that while it does seem to make sense, that accepting it as fact is a logical mistake.

Fair enough, but on its most basic level, my point is still a sound one. Name one real-life example where my logic has been proven false, and I'll agree. I personally can't think of one off the top of my head.

Oh, and I didn't say that I was making that assumption. I was simply pointing out that it's not hard to see why it's so easy for some to make that leap. Personally, I've never seen any of these acts, so I can't really compare them to anything else enough to form an opinion.

Also, has anyone established that the new acts will not be Equity?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Also, has anyone established that the new acts will not be Equity?

That is not what needs to be established as Florida is a right to work state. What needs to be established is that Walt Disney World has become non-Equity. That would be HUGE news.

 

[cw1982]

That is not what needs to be established as Florida is a right to work state. What needs to be established is that Walt Disney World has become non-Equity. That would be HUGE news.

I was addressing the point of the person who responded to me last. He or she said that part of the reason the new acts may be cheaper is if they are non-Equity. My point in mentioning that was that I haven't seen anyone say for sure whether or not this is true (although I'll admit I tuned out for a lot of the arguing yesterday so I could have missed part of the thread).

I do agree with you, though, that there might be public interest in the idea that Disney is reducing Equity acts, especially if it can be proven that this change means less protection for the people working in these roles.

 

[DisUniversal]

So you don't understand then why banks don't pay more interest on savings, why McDonald's doesn't sell Big Macs for less, why Apple charges so much for iPhones, why Starbucks raises prices on coffee, why the Showboat Casino in AC closed yesterday? All of those businesses are/were making good money (even Showboat -- whose owners hope the biz will move their other casinos), yet they still seek to make more. So does Disney. Nothing more complicated than that. Easy to understand...hard to accept, because we don't like paying more for iPhones, Big Macs, or coffee, earning precious little on savings, having less places to gamble in Atlantic City, or losing things we like at Disney.

If McDonald's was operated like WDW has been for the past 15 years, a Big Mac would cost about $12 and the meat patties would be the size of White Castle (or Krystal depending on where you're from) burger. Oh, and you'd have to reserve your Big Mac in advance or wait in a long line for it.

If Apple was run like WDW, this would be the iPhone 6.

 

[CDavid]

I'm not trying to defend TDO, I'm simply not as apoplectic as other folks on this board.

Why, then, are you seemingly so desperate to get people to see this change in some small, contrived, insignificant way as a positive development?

This decision was driven by the almighty dollar and is reflective of a string of poor management decisions and general decline in entertainment standards at Walt Disney World. The rest of us are having trouble understanding why this is something to be applauded in any way at all.

 

[mickey2008.1]

Let's get realistic here. If this entertainment cost $500,000 or $5,000,000- it would have no effect on on profits, especially to shareholders. Talking about profitability on these groups is ridiculous. EPCOT will probably lose money by not having them because people will not be hanging out buying drinks or food while watching them, but once again, it is such a small number, that it does not make a difference. It is not about the money, but about the experience for the guest, and maybe TDO does not care anymore. Hey, $500,000 for a $5,000,000 year company is ten percent, but at TDO, it is less than .10% if that. My point in the end is, make no more or less money, but TDO could care less of its guests anymore, "we make the same money with or without it" Such a shame. Declining every year in one way or another. Don't get me wrong, WDW does upgrades, which is basically maintenance, but they do keep a clean park and resorts. TDO makes one's mind just spin.

 

[CeciliaKy]

They have a bear claw cart in Canada. They're really good. And no calories due to the pixie dust...or metric system...or something.

Beaver Tails?

Long gone

 

[CeciliaKy]

When will you be around until?? I might be in soon enough to catch you. Marie

super quick trip -- in on Friday, out on Sunday. Catching all shows on Saturday. Hope the remaining originals are playing that day.

 

[DisUniversal]

Let's get realistic here. If this entertainment cost $500,000 or $5,000,000- it would have no effect on on profits, especially to shareholders. Talking about profitability on these groups is ridiculous. EPCOT will probably lose money by not having them because people will not be hanging out buying drinks or food while watching them, but once again, it is such a small number, that it does not make a difference. It is not about the money, but about the experience for the guest, and maybe TDO does not care anymore. Hey, $500,000 for a $5,000,000 year company is ten percent, but at TDO, it is less than .10% if that. My point in the end is, make no more or less money, but TDO could care less of its guests anymore, "we make the same money with or without it" Such a shame. Declining every year in one way or another. Don't get me wrong, WDW does upgrades, which is basically maintenance, but they do keep a clean park and resorts. TDO makes one's mind just spin.

The 'clean park' has become a matter of opinion. It's still cleaner than a Wal-Mart, but is nowhere near what it was 20 years ago when restrooms were immaculate and you wouldn't see any trash on the ground for more than a minute before someone was along to pick it up.

 

[ParentsOf4]

So you don't understand then why banks don't pay more interest on savings, why McDonald's doesn't sell Big Macs for less, why Apple charges so much for iPhones, why Starbucks raises prices on coffee, why the Showboat Casino in AC closed yesterday? All of those businesses are/were making good money (even Showboat -- whose owners hope the biz will move their other casinos), yet they still seek to make more. So does Disney. Nothing more complicated than that. Easy to understand...hard to accept, because we don't like paying more for iPhones, Big Macs, or coffee, earning precious little on savings, having less places to gamble in Atlantic City, or losing things we like at Disney.

Many businesses decline and ultimately fail because they focus too much on viewing their products through their own eyes rather than through their customers' eyes.

The best companies always balance the two views.

Under Iger, many believe that WDW has been paying too much attention to its own point of view rather than on balancing this with its customer's point of view.

Heck, even respected publications such as The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World are commenting on negative trends at WDW in recent years.

It just might be time for WDW to focus less on leaning its operation and more on satisfying its customers.

 

[Polydweller]

Well, I have a completely different complaint about Disney on this one. Disney should have been changing acts more regularly. Not to save money but to keep changing the visitor experience. Having something new around can freshen the experience. Having an act around nearly 20 years, no matter how good they were (and they were) just means you're seeing the same thing over and over. If they change acts every couple of years you get something new to see and try. They won't all be great acts but at least they'll change.

 

[Polydweller]

The change, while horrible to us Off Kilter fans, is only part of the issue here. two things are far more terrible 1) the way Disney would treat long time Cast Members just terminating them without really much notice at all or any offer of a transfer and 2) Why this is being done namely cost cutting measures ONLY. That is the bigger issues here. Marie

I've known many equity actors over the years and still do. It's not uncommon for them to receive really short notice of closure, sometimes right at the end of a performance. Many shows close abruptly. But in almost all cases they could see it coming due to attendance,cost issues, audience reaction to the performer and so on. Although not formally told it's not necessarily a surprise. They just go on, get their agent to get them auditions and move on to the next gig. It's their way of life being a performer.

As to your point 1, these performers are all independent contractors rather than CMs. Equity performers sign a contract to perform a certain number of performances over a specified amount of time. When the contract ends it's either renewed or not renewed due to either performer or producers choice. That's why they aren't transferred automatically like performers who are under the Teamsters Contract which has a clause about being reassigned if possible.

And as to point 2, that's a big assumption. There may be cost savings, newer acts can't command the same the same salary. Unless we were sitting in the meetings with the managers who made the decisions we can't know all the reasons, even "informed" parties can't really know. I was in management making such decisions and never saw a decision made solely on one factor, there were always multiple factors in play. Even if cost cutting was a big factor (I doubt it because this is a small part of the budget and much of the savings is bring replaced with new acts) it was almost assuredly not the sole factor (see my previous post).

 

[lazyboy97o]

I was addressing the point of the person who responded to me last. He or she said that part of the reason the new acts may be cheaper is if they are non-Equity. My point in mentioning that was that I haven't seen anyone say for sure whether or not this is true (although I'll admit I tuned out for a lot of the arguing yesterday so I could have missed part of the thread).

I do agree with you, though, that there might be public interest in the idea that Disney is reducing Equity acts, especially if it can be proven that this change means less protection for the people working in these roles.

If Florida was not a right to work state, Walt Disney World would be a closed shop and all employees would be union members. Disney would still be able to hire non-Equity performers but they would be required to join Actors' Equity. Disney pretty much cannot offer both non-Equity contracts and Equity contracts. They're all Equity contracts but membership in the union is not mandatory because Florida is a right to work state.

 

[MichWolv]

Beaver Tails?

Long gone

That is sad.

 

[MichWolv]

Many businesses decline and ultimately fail because they focus too much on viewing their products through their own eyes rather than through their customers' eyes.

The best companies always balance the two views.

Under Iger, many believe that WDW has been paying too much attention to its own point of view rather than on balancing this with its customer's point of view.

Heck, even respected publications such as The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World are commenting on negative trends at WDW in recent years.

It just might be time for WDW to focus less on leaning its operation and more on satisfying its customers.

I was responding to those who declared the strategy not understandable. I wasn't saying I agreed with it, just that it's easy to understand. You disagree with the strategy because you think it won't work -- different point entirely. While I'm inclined to agree with you, recent history suggests Iger and his team are right more than I think they are.

 

[orlando210]

This is RUBBISH!

Love the WS Players, Love Off Kilter, Love Mo Rockin and SOA.

What's next? The Adventurer's Club? The Wand? The ride in Germany (Oh never mind...)

British Revolution are also most likely ending.

Updated:
Epcot's most popular live entertainment groups to be retired in September

 

[Communicore]

Lumberjack inspired show?? What the heck lol

 

[PhotoDave219]

Lumberjack inspired show?? What the heck lol

Yes. Lumberjack. And Jack. And Jack. And Jack.

 

[Matt_Black]

That is an excellent analogy. And as somebody else noted, colin didn't turn out to be very good. Hopefully, Disney has found better Steves.

Was Colin really not good, or does every think he's not good in comparison to Norm? Norm's a tough act to follow, as he's regarded by many as one of the best anchors. Now, if Colin had followed someone like Brad Hall or Christopher Guest (a genuinely funny guy who somehow managed to be one of the unfunniest anchors), would he be ranked higher?

All I'm suggesting is that people try to keep an open mind and judge the acts on their own merits.