New Titles and Positions Announced including Jim MacPhee

[PhilharMagician]

I hate to see Jim McPhee leave. He has done a good job and he has only been in this position for maybe 1 1/2 years. It seems like Epcot is just seeing some love and he is already gone.

 

[peter11435]

You are correct. But there's something about those words "MK" and "Merchandising" that send shivers down me spine.

As someone else already pointed out, GM of MK merchandise was just one of many position Dan has passed through in him time with the company. Unlike Pressler he is not a "merchandise guy."

 

[MousDad]

As someone else already pointed out, GM of MK merchandise was just one of many position Dan has passed through in him time with the company. Unlike Pressler he is not a "merchandise guy."

So are you saying we should not judge the product (MK merchandising) that existed under his tenure?

 

[tirian]

Very few people on this forum or the internet in general really know anything about Dan Cockerell. We will have to wait and see, but I highly doubt it will be nearly as bad as some on here are predicting.

Everybody who worked with Dan at the All-Stars loved him. The resort itself needs a lot of TLC, but I don't think we can blame that on him, since TDO is too busy building DVC villas.

Here's a thought: "Change" was considered good for America, yet every policy coming from our new administration has driven Wall Street lower and lower; meanwhile, we're online complaining about changes at a theme park resort? :veryconfu (And I'm only trying to put things into perspective, so don't get political!)

Plus, as long as Mr. R stays in charge nationwide, we aren't going to see the creative renaissance we really want.

 

[peter11435]

So are you saying we should not judge the product (MK merchandising) that existed under his tenure?

Most of that was set in motion prior to him becoming GM of MK Merchandise. Additionally the merchandise GM primarily deals with the day-to-day operations of the retail locations they oversee and have nothing to do with merchandise planning and product development. That is handled by others in even higher positions.

 

[tirian]

Just remember, folks, nothing is really going to change as long as Rasulo remains in charge. I hereby retitle this thread "Much Ado About Nothing."

:ROFLOL:

 

[MousDad]

Most of that was set in motion prior to him becoming GM of MK Merchandise. Additionally the merchandise GM primarily deals with the day-to-day operations of the retail locations they oversee and have nothing to do with merchandise planning and product development. That is handled by others in even higher positions.

So who's going to tell him how to run Epcot? :ROFLOL:

(I think we all know the answer to that one.)

 

[WDWFigment]

TDO is too busy building DVC villas.

So many of the "in the know" posters regard DVC as a terrible thing for Disney. An elaborate Ponzi scheme mixed with an "attractions leech".

I disagree. (This next part was copied and pasted from another post I made). Remember, only part of the profit of DVC is in the initial investment and yearly maintenance fees. So if TDO continues to put out a stale product, DVC owners will stop visiting WDW. That means TWDC won't get the money from their ticket, souvenir, and food purchases.

There also is the chance that those disinterested individuals will sell their memberships (thereby becoming competitors of DVC via the resale market), which is also not in TWDC's interests.

Even worse, there is the chance that the potential DVC market will shrink, as the young demographic that begins to enter "DVC purchasing" age won't see DVC as something in which they want to invest due to a declining product.

So, in short, I see DVC as a positive for WDW, as it brings the audience closer (closer, not the same) into line with DLR's, and thus, the parks should start to cater more to repeat visitors (as DLR does). Doesn't mean it'll happen, but that's how, in my opinion, it should happen.

Over saturation of DVC, well, that's a different story. I believe it is they have over-saturated the parks with DVC, and the current inventory is beginning to reflect that. Disney isn't exercising ROFR as much on resale contracts because of that (bringing down the value of ownership, as well).

However, one could make the same over-saturation argument regarding the resorts in general. With that over-saturation alone, it makes it difficult to justify even routine unkeep.

While I don't think the problems with the Parks & Resorts and DVC are mutually exclusive, I think you could point to problems within each area as the reasons why that area is struggling or stagnating.

Regarding this new shake-up: hopefully it will at least provide somewhat of a shot in the arm. I'm not holding my breath; I just hope yesterday's news will not amount to further "Rasuloization" of the parks.

 

[Enigma]

So many of the "in the know" posters regard DVC as a terrible thing for Disney. An elaborate Ponzi scheme mixed with an "attractions leech".

I disagree. (This next part was copied and pasted from another post I made). Remember, only part of the profit of DVC is in the initial investment and yearly maintenance fees. So if TDO continues to put out a stale product, DVC owners will stop visiting WDW. That means TWDC won't get the money from their ticket, souvenir, and food purchases.

There also is the chance that those disinterested individuals will sell their memberships (thereby becoming competitors of DVC via the resale market), which is also not in TWDC's interests.

Even worse, there is the chance that the potential DVC market will shrink, as the young demographic that begins to enter "DVC purchasing" age won't see DVC as something in which they want to invest due to a declining product.

So, in short, I see DVC as a positive for WDW, as it brings the audience closer (closer, not the same) into line with DLR's, and thus, the parks should start to cater more to repeat visitors (as DLR does). Doesn't mean it'll happen, but that's how, in my opinion, it should happen.

Over saturation of DVC, well, that's a different story. I believe it is they have over-saturated the parks with DVC, and the current inventory is beginning to reflect that. Disney isn't exercising ROFR as much on resale contracts because of that (bringing down the value of ownership, as well).

However, one could make the same over-saturation argument regarding the resorts in general. With that over-saturation alone, it makes it difficult to justify even routine unkeep.

While I don't think the problems with the Parks & Resorts and DVC are mutually exclusive, I think you could point to problems within each area as the reasons why that area is struggling or stagnating.

Regarding this new shake-up: hopefully it will at least provide somewhat of a shot in the arm. I'm not holding my breath; I just hope yesterday's news will not amount to further "Rasuloization" of the parks.

One of the big problems with DVC, and timeshare in general, is that Disney can change the rules on you at any time they feel they need to (change the value of the points, etc.). Plus if you ever do want to get out of the DVC it is very difficult to sell a timeshare and you would have to sell it at a major loss.

 

[jt04]

One of the big problems with DVC, and timeshare in general, is that Disney can change the rules on you at any time they feel they need to (change the value of the points, etc.). Plus if you ever do want to get out of the DVC it is very difficult to sell a timeshare and you would have to sell it at a major loss.

Sounds like a timeshare is not for you. I know others who love them. Disney is offering what many people want and I don't see the problem with that.

 

[Crazy4WDW1]

Ah . . . does this mean I have to change my avatar? :lol:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I hate to see Jim McPhee leave. He has done a good job and he has only been in this position for maybe 1 1/2 years. It seems like Epcot is just seeing some love and he is already gone.

I share this thought.

Everybody who worked with Dan at the All-Stars loved him. The resort itself needs a lot of TLC, but I don't think we can blame that on him, since TDO is too busy building DVC villas.

Here's a thought: "Change" was considered good for America, yet every policy coming from our new administration has driven Wall Street lower and lower; meanwhile, we're online complaining about changes at a theme park resort? :veryconfu (And I'm only trying to put things into perspective, so don't get political!)

Plus, as long as Mr. R stays in charge nationwide, we aren't going to see the creative renaissance we really want.

True...R has to go and soon.
:dazzle:

Just remember, folks, nothing is really going to change as long as Rasulo remains in charge. I hereby retitle this thread "Much Ado About Nothing."

:ROFLOL:

I would rather have things stay the same then get worse.:dazzle::lol:

 

[mcjaco]

*fingers crossed* They should hold a press conference and have Lansberry apologize, and then, have MacPhee come out and announce that the Adventurers Club will reopen on September 25, 2009 with future plans for a new Pleasure Island to be announced that day as well.

AC is done. I've been told as much. Most of the props have been shipped to Tokyo. They use it for corporate gatherings, but it's a shell of what it was.

Management loved AC, but it wasn't drawing the crowd they hoped. It's main demographic was fanboys, and castmembers, neither of which shelled out cash for alcohol.

If they find somewhere to recreate something similiar, they will, but AC as we know it is done.

 

[jt04]

I share this thought.
True...R has to go and soon.
:dazzle:

I would rather have things stay the same then get worse.:dazzle::lol:

But JM is not leaving. What am I missing here?

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

But JM is not leaving. What am I missing here?

Someone has control over EPCOT. Someone from MK. That's what scares me.

 

[Computer Magic]

So many of the "in the know" posters regard DVC as a terrible thing for Disney. An elaborate Ponzi scheme mixed with an "attractions leech".

I disagree. (This next part was copied and pasted from another post I made). Remember, only part of the profit of DVC is in the initial investment and yearly maintenance fees. So if TDO continues to put out a stale product, DVC owners will stop visiting WDW. That means TWDC won't get the money from their ticket, souvenir, and food purchases.

There also is the chance that those disinterested individuals will sell their memberships (thereby becoming competitors of DVC via the resale market), which is also not in TWDC's interests.

Even worse, there is the chance that the potential DVC market will shrink, as the young demographic that begins to enter "DVC purchasing" age won't see DVC as something in which they want to invest due to a declining product.

So, in short, I see DVC as a positive for WDW, as it brings the audience closer (closer, not the same) into line with DLR's, and thus, the parks should start to cater more to repeat visitors (as DLR does). Doesn't mean it'll happen, but that's how, in my opinion, it should happen.

Over saturation of DVC, well, that's a different story. I believe it is they have over-saturated the parks with DVC, and the current inventory is beginning to reflect that. Disney isn't exercising ROFR as much on resale contracts because of that (bringing down the value of ownership, as well).

However, one could make the same over-saturation argument regarding the resorts in general. With that over-saturation alone, it makes it difficult to justify even routine unkeep.

While I don't think the problems with the Parks & Resorts and DVC are mutually exclusive, I think you could point to problems within each area as the reasons why that area is struggling or stagnating.

Regarding this new shake-up: hopefully it will at least provide somewhat of a shot in the arm. I'm not holding my breath; I just hope yesterday's news will not amount to further "Rasuloization" of the parks.

You make some good points, you should be a lawyer

It is hard to have a topic on DVC because people on both sides become very emotional. It is like you are not suppose to talk about politics, strollers, pool hopping etc.

You stated:

So many of the "in the know" posters regard DVC as a terrible thing for Disney. An elaborate Ponzi scheme mixed with an "attractions leech".

My question, are you a DVC owner? I'm asking because your first statement is kind of a put off to people right off the bat. It might be the air quotes and the term "in the know".

I want to state I have not stated DVC is a bad decision. I will not get into that debate. I will discuss Disney business decisions and have a healthy debate on that subject.

Disney offers DVC to hook people to Disney. DVC people are locked in for 50 years. What is the incentive to keep the parks fresh, Disney has somebody's annual fee? You can't get out of that, well maybe bankrupt will get you out of the contract. You either pay the yearly fees or sell to someone. If no one buys, you are still stuck for the term of the contract. I don't think you can void the contract and say I'm done.

It does sound short sighted on Disney part but that is what business are doing these days. They are selling out long term for that quick dollar today to please stockholders. They don't have to worry about selling the existing DVC under contract for 25-50 years, Iger will be long gone, with his billions.

Some people say they will take the DVC points elsewhere. That is the only hope where Disney DVC causes competition within other Disney resorts or ABD. Whether you spend the points at WDW, DL or Tokyo, Disney gets the money.


Bottom line, I do think Disney can keep from having to refresh the parks as much as the past because DVC brings in repeat visitors. Before DVC, Disney would have to refresh the parks more often to get the repeat visitors.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

My one point...

Matt Ouimet needs to come back and fill Rasulo's position (and part of me thinks that was supposed to be the original plan back when Pressler left).

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

My one point...

Matt Ouimet needs to come back and fill Rasulo's position (and part of me thinks that was supposed to be the original plan back when Pressler left).

Anyone needs to fill it.:lol:

 

[jt04]

You make some good points, you should be a lawyer

It is hard to have a topic on DVC because people on both sides become very emotional. It is like you are not suppose to talk about politics, strollers, pool hopping etc.

You stated:

My question, are you a DVC owner? I'm asking because your first statement is kind of a put off to people right off the bat. It might be the air quotes and the term "in the know".

I want to state I have not stated DVC is a bad decision. I will not get into that debate. I will discuss Disney business decisions and have a healthy debate on that subject.

Disney offers DVC to hook people to Disney. DVC people are locked in for 50 years. What is the incentive to keep the parks fresh, Disney has somebody's annual fee? You can't get out of that, well maybe bankrupt will get you out of the contract. You either pay the yearly fees or sell to someone. If no one buys, you are still stuck for the term of the contract. I don't think you can void the contract and say I'm done.

It does sound short sighted on Disney part but that is what business are doing these days. They are selling out long term for that quick dollar today to please stockholders. They don't have to worry about selling the existing DVC under contract for 25-50 years, Iger will be long gone, with his billions.

Some people say they will take the DVC points elsewhere. That is the only hope where Disney DVC causes competition within other Disney resorts or ABD. Whether you spend the points at WDW, DL or Tokyo, Disney gets the money.


Bottom line, I do think Disney can keep from having to refresh the parks as much as the past because DVC brings in repeat visitors. Before DVC, Disney would have to refresh the parks more often to get the repeat visitors.

People are not "locked in". That is just your way of looking at it. Put it this way, they DVC purchasers have "locked in" Disney at a certain price that 10 and 20 years from now will be MUCH more expensive. I'm talking about resort prices. People choose to purchase and if it's not for you it's not for you.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

People are not "locked in". That is just your way of looking at it. Put it this way, they DVC purchasers have "locked in" Disney at a certain price that 10 and 20 years from now will be MUCH more expensive. I'm talking about resort prices. People choose to purchase and if it's not for you it's not for you.

I agree with you on that. Disney offers DVC members all sorts of other opportunities as opposed to parks as well. If people start seeing negative returns from Disney then they might use their points for something else. That of course leads Disney to much less profit from merch and food (huge money makers).