GRizz & Jim Hill Round 2

Captain Hank

Well-Known Member
Gregory said:
Jim needs to realise its not what you say, its how you say it.
I actually completely agree. Whenever I read an article by Jim Hill, I fell like I am constantly being talked down to. I personally find that style of writing very aggrivating, and therefore rarely read anything on his site. I find the thought that we could be influencing massive budget cuts to be laughable at best. I agree that our "sharp pencil" friends are looking for an excuse to save a cent. But, if they really have been keeping close tabs on what we've been saying on this and other boards, won't they also know that hearing the two magical words "cut budget" will send us into a flurry of angry posts and letters to the company?
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
hcwalker16 said:
I actually completely agree. Whenever I read an article by Jim Hill, I fell like I am constantly being talked down to. I personally find that style of writing very aggrivating, and therefore rarely read anything on his site. I find the thought that we could be influencing massive budget cuts to be laughable at best. I agree that our "sharp pencil" friends are looking for an excuse to save a cent. But, if they really have been keeping close tabs on what we've been saying on this and other boards, won't they also know that hearing the two magical words "cut budget" will send us into a flurry of angry posts and letters to the company?
Very well stated. Whatever knowledge Jim offers gets buried in his condescending style of writing. The first article about Grizz was actually the first time I visted Jim's site in quite a while. I just don't enjoy reading negitive material.
 

Gregory

New Member
Well.. since we're into conspirecy theories (thanks to Jim and his reports of whats going on over in Glendale)... Personally, I think that Grizz is a plant by the sharp pencil boys, who is just here to ruin the land, hidden under the clever disguise of a "The Land" fan... And, this is even harder to believe- but I really don't think Grizz is even a bear (gasp!)

Really, though- people need to lighten up a bit... Sure, Jim has some good points... But, he makes everything into something bigger, and is usually negative about it... For his second article, he used some fairly weak letters, and tore them apart- often not even actually responding to them...
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
I see an interesting "thread" if you will, running thru most of the comments here. People are actually opposed to cutting budgets with respect to certain issues at Disney. My question is this: When IS a good time to cut budgets in that case? I mean, shouldn't the powers that be at Disney be fiscally responsible in certain cases? I know, I know, if they hadn't bought ABC/ESPN, the Anaheim Ducks, the baseball team, yada, yada, yada.

That's not what I am talking about. I'm talking strictly Theme Park Operations here. I mean, should Disney be "forced" (see union), to keep full staff, even though they might be in a "value" season? Having to pay max. payroll, yet not having enough work to go around? Which then leads to lowering the hours/wk for the cms. Which then causes other issues within cm world. Now, I know what's coming. Maybe if they fired some of those overpriced executives.......yada, yada, yada. Again, not what I am talking about.

When SHOULD Disney cut budgets? Plain and simple.

Any answers?
 

DarkMeasures

New Member
There shouldn't be any more budget cuts because all of the attractions made in the past while have been budget cutted.

People wouldn't even be complaining about Dino Rama if it did not suffer from Budget cuts.
 

Lynx04

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
I see an interesting "thread" if you will, running thru most of the comments here. People are actually opposed to cutting budgets with respect to certain issues at Disney. My question is this: When IS a good time to cut budgets in that case? I mean, shouldn't the powers that be at Disney be fiscally responsible in certain cases? I know, I know, if they hadn't bought ABC/ESPN, the Anaheim Ducks, the baseball team, yada, yada, yada.

That's not what I am talking about. I'm talking strictly Theme Park Operations here. I mean, should Disney be "forced" (see union), to keep full staff, even though they might be in a "value" season? Having to pay max. payroll, yet not having enough work to go around? Which then leads to lowering the hours/wk for the cms. Which then causes other issues within cm world. Now, I know what's coming. Maybe if they fired some of those overpriced executives.......yada, yada, yada. Again, not what I am talking about.

When SHOULD Disney cut budgets? Plain and simple.

Any answers?


When dealing with budgets and employment it is a very tough sticky situation.

Now on the conversation of overpriced executives, I think majority of us think they are completely overpriced. One of things about free market societies, be it good or bad, is we can name any price we want to work. If a company is willing to pay that price, be it a couple hundred thousand dollars, or even a couple million dollars, then they will pay it. I actually don't blame Michael Eisner for what he makes, as far as compensation goes, he does what any of us would do, ask for money. I put the blame on the board for allowing these types of compensations for going on. This is obvisously fiscal incompetence on the board. Yes, I know, Eisner is on the board so it is his fault too. That is what you get when you have the wolf guarding the hen house.
 

Lynx04

New Member
DarkMeasures said:
There shouldn't be any more budget cuts because all of the attractions made in the past while have been budget cutted.

People wouldn't even be complaining about Dino Rama if it did not suffer from Budget cuts.

Good point! I think that is one wasted space in AK. Well not completely, it does draw a crowd, but only in absence of other attractions at the park. I just hope that after they add some well worthy attractions, Dino Rama sees the cutting board.
 

Calamar

New Member
I'm disappointed that Jim Hill's article has quelled some of the fervor for the integrity of the Land Pavilion. Firstly, like others, I find it difficult to believe that the movement could be used as ammunition to cut the Imagineer's resources. More importantly, I take issue with the implications of Jim Hill's article. Are we supposed to squelch ourselves simply because WDI's accountants might intentionally misinterpret the message? I don't think Grizz ever complained about the allocation of resources to improve the Land -- in fact, I'd bet he'd be happier if WDI was spending more, rather than less, to upgrade the pavilion, even if these upgrades entailed some radical changes to the Pavilion. Sure, remove that nice fountain, but replace it with something even better.

Is this what WDI is currently doing? Well, I believe some skepticism is appropriate here. Certainly there are plenty of competant and creative Imagineers, but remember that they aren't necessarily making all of the important decisions. It doesn't take Walt Disney to notice that the addition of California Adventure's version of Soarin' is inconsistent with the theme and 'story' of the Land. Based on what I've heard, the travel agency retheming is even less consistent, unless WDI intends to change altogether the pavilion's name and the ideas behind it. Even then, I'll be curious as to why there's a Travel Pavilion in Future World. Hence, carry on with the constructive criticism, I say. Jim Hill's Sharp Pencil Boys will likely twist your words regardless of what you say, so you might as well express your honest, unfiltered feedback.

What if we weren't talking about changes to Land, but the construction of Dinoland USA instead? Would you remain silent while Imagineers implemented a lousy idea?
 

Thelazer

Well-Known Member
Jim Hill's a FLIP-FLOPER and Grizzly is a wannabe cowboy who wants to draft all of us into his plan to ruing imaganeering.

There. Had to say it.
Jay
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Again, when SHOULD Disney cut budgets? We can debate endlessly about parks, ideas, attractions, salaries, etc. etc. What I'm asking for is to get some opinion on WHEN Disney should cut budgets, lower payroll, etc. etc.
 

Lynx04

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Again, when SHOULD Disney cut budgets? We can debate endlessly about parks, ideas, attractions, salaries, etc. etc. What I'm asking for is to get some opinion on WHEN Disney should cut budgets, lower payroll, etc. etc.
It depends on what needs cuts need to be made. If the parks are not meeting the quota of visitor and they need to cut hours, then it would make sense to reduce the hours. Maybe reduce hours on attractions that are not as popular as others.

I don't think the budget should be cut on maintainence, specially for attractions where safety is an issue. A theme parks number one concern is safety for their guests, and reducing mantainence is a risky game of roulette.

As for services, if the services are not being utilized then no point in keeping it. Or if the company is trying to find ways to cut expenses then they have to find out what services are being used the least, or which make sense to cut.

If your talking about budget cuts for an attraction that is in construction, to be honest I am not sure why, maybe after reading some other peoples post on this I could think of some good reasons to cut budgets for proposed attractions or attractions underconstruction. The only thing that pops into mind is if the park spends more or is not fiscally responsible which leads to the cuts.

These are just some of my thoughts, I am sure I will have some later. Good question though.
 

Legacy

Well-Known Member
DarkMeasures said:
People wouldn't even be complaining about Dino Rama if it did not suffer from Budget cuts.
What cuts? The original plan for Dino-Rama involved an off-the-shelf coaster, carnival games, tacky theming and weak story. The budget had nothing to do with it. People complain about Dino-Rama because it is just in poor taste.
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Again, when SHOULD Disney cut budgets? We can debate endlessly about parks, ideas, attractions, salaries, etc. etc. What I'm asking for is to get some opinion on WHEN Disney should cut budgets, lower payroll, etc. etc.
There are unforseen events where revenue can take a nose dive, ie recession. Spending needs to slow down during that time. Reduction in operating expense should see that reduction. Maybe no bonuss for execs, reduce park hours, etc?. Capital expense (new attractions) should not be cut or scaled back. Capital will bring market share by customer singing Disney praise ie Customer Loyalty.

Disney should we working off a 5 year plan and a yearly budget. Disney knows the trends of the parks. Cost reduction is not the answer, you can only cut so much. You need to increase the market share.

Disney needs to stop taking the theme parks revenue and transfering it to failed ventures. If those ventures can't stand on their own, sell them. The theme park is making plenty and for years has been funding other ventures which has taken a toll on the parks.
 

lebernadin

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Again, when SHOULD Disney cut budgets?

Are you honestly surprised hardly anyone has responded?
:)

Lynx has already touched on a few instances, i'll add a few off the top of my head, some may be redundant....

From the perspective of a publicly traded company, the most straight-forward answer is when profits are nowhere to be found.

Maintenance/Engineering: Nope, its the backbone to this business, witness the BTMR incidents due to these types of cuts.

Food/Beverage: There are plenty of ways to make cuts here, from finding cheaper purveyors, to personnel cuts based on rushes and low points. There isn't much that can be done on the front end of the quick service counters though. At Disney they tend to be busy from morning til night at the same clip as a McDonalds. So i don't think there's a personnel overflow there in most instances.

Merchandise: There are a ton of shops/kiosks that are dead most of the day due to theming, flow, or simply the merchandise itself. They could stand to shave off this dead weight in favor for strategically planned high-flow shops that have sections that incorporate such theming, similar to the feel of the emporium and other larger shops. Yes i understand in a case like adventureland you have to feel like you're in a middle-eastern bazaar et al, but this can be done without sacrificing wasted cast members drooling as they watch all the guests walk by outside these shops. I think they do a poor job of paying attention to what themed merchandise sells well and adapting to it. This means the stockers have less work to do, when they aren't constantly replenishing what's been sold. Again, i'm referring to the niche/themed merchandise locations throughout property that don't do much business at all. Ambiance is great, but if these CM's are just standing around, not having to fix displays, replenish displays, or even use their register, then a change is needed. The "Emporiums" of property are the polar opposite, and do xmas season business almost everyday.

Attractions: I think having certain parameters for guest flow should, and it seems already does, dictate whether an attraction goes seasonal or is eventually scrapped. The electricity and manpower involved, from the person that puts you on it, to the person who inspects and fixes it, to the person who picks up that gum wrapper you threw costs money. So while many on sites like this get flabbergasted over COP closing for awhile, if 5-10 people are sitting for each rotation, then its not worthwhile to keep open. A business exists to make money, how they attract you is marketing. Saying Walt would want this or that is based on marketing over the years. The only time they're going to cave in to an argument like "but Walt's vision..." is when the negative press incurred by an uprising would project to a greater revenue loss than if they were to keep it open for those few people every so often through that season to go on it.

Recreation: Again, its seasonal flow. Disney already makes these cuts by alternating which water parks are open throughout the year, and closed RC down permanently.

The easiest cut to make is personnel, since its the most expensive. What you said about hiring, for example 10 people to do the job that 5 people could do, and therefore cutting all ten of their hours in half is a good point. But like any company, its dictated by the economy and how well you're doing. Sometimes that job is going to take 10 people, hence seasonal employment.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Legacy said:
What cuts? The original plan for Dino-Rama involved an off-the-shelf coaster, carnival games, tacky theming and weak story. The budget had nothing to do with it. People complain about Dino-Rama because it is just in poor taste.

I have no problem with Dino-Rama, except that is does not really fit into the area very well. If you look at it for WHAT it is, they actually did a very good job with it.
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
I have no problem with Dino-Rama, except that is does not really fit into the area very well. If you look at it for WHAT it is, they actually did a very good job with it.
My problem with Dino-Ramo. I feel like I'm in Six Flags. I don't want to travel 1200 miles to visit Six Flags, as I have a Six Flags 150 miles away.

But that's okay because there are many other attractions I can visit. Something for Everyone, not Everything for Everyone :D

BTW: What was Disney intension without risking Thread Drift?
 

ZHoyt

New Member
Computer Magic said:
Disney needs to stop taking the theme parks revenue and transfering it to failed ventures. If those ventures can't stand on their own, sell them. The theme park is making plenty and for years has been funding other ventures which has taken a toll on the parks.


Here here! I won't begrudge using a profitable segment of a company to help out less profitable ones, but if those less profitable ones are a continued liability, cut'em and put that money into something more worthwhile.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Computer Magic said:
My problem with Dino-Ramo. I feel like I'm in Six Flags. I don't want to travel 1200 miles to visit Six Flags, as I have a Six Flags 150 miles away.

But that's okay because there are many other attractions I can visit. Something for Everyone, not Everything for Everyone :D

BTW: What was Disney intension without risking Thread Drift?

It is one very small section of the park......is it really that big of a deal? In a 500 acre park, I can live with a 5 acre area looking like a carnival.
 

speck76

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah....Disney's intention with Dino-Rama:

From what I have read (not on the forums) and what I have heard from some managers, the intention was two-fold.

1. Add a few traditional attractions to DAK. Since DAK is short on attractions, and many are walk-throughs (which for some reason the general public does not really consider to be an attraction) the park needed to add a few rides in a short amount of time to appease the public. The area took less than a year to build, compared to 2+ years for Everest.

2. Add additional revenue sources for the park. Since the park was losing its crowds mid-afternoon, (and therefore revenue from things like F&B were lower than expected) the park needed to add additional ways to generate revenue (i.e. the carnival games).
 

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

Back
Top Bottom