I think that what you sometimes fail to take into consideration is the value of the dollar over time makes it very difficult for Disney to continue to operate the way it once did. While everyone knows that the dollar is worth less today than in the seventies, some people don't realize that the equivalent amount of money today doesn't necessarily cover what it would have back then. For instance, $5 in 1974 is worth a little less than $21 now. However, that doesn't mean you have the equivalent purchasing power, so you may not be able to buy for $21 what you were able to buy for $5 in 1974. Of course, that depends on what you're buying. I don't make a claim that this justifies Disney's prices, but it can be argued that certain luxuries they offered in the past just were no longer financially justifiable.
Like everyone else, Disney has to pay taxes on its real estate. The more they build, the more they are taxed. The higher they value the experience, the higher the tax rate is. So yes they are bringing in millions of dollars in resorts and parks and restaurants. But all of those have staff, all must have electricity and other supplies. Consider the Animal Kingdom alone, which easily must be Disney's most expensive park to operate. The amount of food required to care for those animals, the number of zoologists they must employ to care for them, not to mention the normal costs of operations of a theme park make somewhat high prices a necessity. While I personally agree that with the quality of food at Disney to be less than adequate (those chicken nuggets are absolutely disgusting), they are still cheaper than most regional theme parks. What Disney is really gouging the public on is gate admission (over a short period of time) and hotel accomodations. Yes, the Grand Floridian and Animal Kingdom Lodge might be about right in price for a comparable hotel elsewhere, the moderates and values are overpriced.
So while I agree with you that Disney may have cut down in quality to save money, I disagree with your assertion that they seem to be keeping all the savings to themselves. The truth is, things just don't cost what they used to. Some things they could probably afford to bring back, but some cuts may have been justifiable. I personally think they would save millions per year if they reduced the fireworks shows. It isn't necessary to have them every day of the year.
You can spin this many different ways. Sure, your point about the dollar and its value and spending power is valid. But then you could also point out that Disney's salaries haven't kept up at all with inflation/cost of living. I remember having dinner with a Disney exec (one of the good guy's and no I won't drop his name here so my pal jake doesn't get on my case!) and he told me that if the company had increased wages to match cost of living that any CMs hired in at minimum wage in the mid-80s would be making close to $25 an hour (and this was a few years back) in the very same jobs. One might say that's fair ... that's the American way. One would also be wrong.
We know the way our current capitalist system is set up you can't have that. You must have a service sector that makes slave wages in order to keep the system operating ... now, we see that even that is no guarantee of anything.
In the end, everything revolves around the value of the stock and how Wall Street feels about the company ... one might argue that is why our country is broken now and why so many are just broke.
It's not even about profit anymore ... it's about making numbers that make The Street and analysts happy.
And they're like an eating machine with a voracious appetite. I remember when Michael Eisner promised investors a 20% annual return ... well, back in the mid-80s when the company was so small and had so many assets that weren't nearly being used to their fullest it wasn't tough to deliver on that.
But is size a factor? Absolutely. Sure DAK is expensive to run. But Disney built it because they knew it would attract millions a year automatically and would keep people at WDW longer. And every day added to a visit, obviously, adds loads of cash to the coffers.
But the more you add, the more it costs, the more you are affected by the economy and the more the overall product suffers.
It's a vicious cycle to be sure ... but even WalMart (in Sam Walton's days anyway) wasn't a bad company.
You get too big and you lose sight of what you are supposed to be about.
What is the vision for WDW? Right now? It seems like it's largely building timeshares, selling a dining plan to every guest and 'getting by' on the bare minimum of investment. Just market the same old tired stuff and hope the repeat guests don't too much.
That's a fundamental paradigm shift from say 20 years ago.
Ultimately, we all lose too ... from the guests/fans to the cast to the Imagineers ... who wins?
I guess the same people who always do.
Oh, and as to your fireworks comment, I had to laugh. I have been arguing with a moron on another Disney site about Michael O'Grattan's decision to end Remember at DL and replace it with a new show that doesn't require a huge part of the park to close nightly. The guy actually thinks I am a Disney management apologist (or Defender of Mediocrity).
Funny stuff.
But I do agree with you. Pyro is very costly and doesn't have to be nightly. The only WDW park that has pretty much had it on a nightly basis year round is EPCOT.
But I'm not looking to give Disney advice on how to cut more. They've cut way too much already, whether people choose to acknowledge it or not.
~Time to Add Some Magic~
look at all these kewl special effects available here too ... there's also pixie dust available!)
