The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[mgpan]

This became a bit of a thread drift into a history lesson didn't it? Sorry Spirit.

Maybe I should start a "history lessons with Marni" thread...

...or maybe that'd be too pompous.

I believe it would be most welcome! Again, I've learned several little "gems" just in the last 12 pages of this thread or so. NEVER claim you know all there is to know about Disney. I think someone else learned that lesson the hard way several times several pages back.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Total profit is up. Profit margin is down. It's easy to point to increased costs (especially labor and healthcare) and blame that for decreased profit margin.

@ParentsOf4 I know you have a response to this.....waiting patiently.

I'm not PO4 but I think the proper response is that universal has the same increased costs for labor and healthcare and that doesn't stop their margins from climbing.

Labor costs are low. In inflation-adjusted dollars, today's CM makes a few dollars/hour less than they did in the 1970s and 1980s. Meanwhile, don't get me started on what has happened to Median Household Income in the last decade, especially in the private sector. Those of you who don't remember the days when private sector jobs paid better than government jobs don't know what you are missing.

As @Jeffxz mentions, Universal has to operate in the same business environment, and they don't have WDW's advantages of 25,000 cheap acres, a "local government" that's in their back pocket, and a steady stream of over $2B in annual revenue from 27,000 grossly overpriced hotel rooms.

WDW's problem is summed up by the $425M New Fantasyland vs. the $265M Hogsmead.

WDW has become a bloated bureaucracy, incapable of operating efficiently.

Rather than correct their institutional problems, their "fix" is to delay investments, cut quality, and raise prices.

 

[mgpan]

Which begs the question: if these are all reasonably intelligent businessmen, why don't they see that and do something about it? Why isn't Wall St asking questions about it? Forget about the subjective stuff for us as guests, why aren't the pencil pushers trying to figure out how to get to the profit margins of the days of old?

Are they that tone deaf that they can't see that investing in new attractions might actually increase revenues significantly? Have they not reviewed the numbers with Cars Land or have a sense what is going on with Uni Orlando as a peer business?



Even if the current leaders don't seem to "get it", shouldn't they see its an issue enough to try to bring in someone who can address the situation?

Sometimes I wonder if it's like the Andy Griffith Show episode with the brat kid and the bike who's dad finally gets wise to his son's lies and takes him behind the "old fashioned wood shed". When Andy asked Opie what he thought about it he said, "I don't want to say because he's one of my own kind.

 

[wdisney9000]

Michael Eisner speaking on the making of Hollywood Studios:

"I dont think anybody else has the resources to attack quality the way we do. Most people take shortcuts for either economic reasons or because theyre lazy. Most people take shortcuts because they just dont know how to do it right but this company has such a history of not taking that shortcut and going down the path that is the hardest, toughest, most painful, and the most expensive to gain a quality thats fun to be around"

Say what you will about the man, but he left a great legacy behind. Those same shortcuts he mentions are almost commonplace in WDW today.

 

[mgpan]

Ah, classic Fantasyland, back when it consisted of rocks and waterfalls and an underwater ride before this area was converted for half a billion into rocks and waterfalls and an underwater ride![/QUOTE]

Empress,
If there was a quote of the day button, I'd click it right about now.

 

[GoofGoof]

Labor costs are low. In inflation-adjusted dollars, today's CM makes a few dollars/hour less than they did in the 1970s and 1980s. Meanwhile, don't get me started on what has happened to Median Household Income in the last decade, especially in the private sector. Those of you who don't remember the days when private sector jobs paid better than government jobs don't know what you are missing.

As @Jeffxz mentions, Universal has to operate in the same business environment, and they don't have WDW's advantages of 25,000 cheap acres, a "local government" that's in their back pocket, and a steady stream of over $2B in annual revenue from 27,000 grossly overpriced hotel rooms.

WDW's problem is summed up by the $425M New Fantasyland vs. the $265M Hogsmead.

WDW has become a bloated bureaucracy, incapable of operating efficiently.

Rather than correct their institutional problems, their "fix" is to delay investments, cut quality, and raise prices.

I fully agree that their fix is a bad long term plan. Cutting costs and delaying investments is something that is a necessary part of doing business from time to time when circumstances require it. Cutting quality is almost never a good plan. This isn't post 9/11. Business is good for Disney in Orlando and worldwide. Really, really good. They should be taking some of this success and reinvesting for the future. It's a short sited, short term plan. If they are gun shy to green light things now what will the feelings be if the economy worsens or WDW shows signs of slipping. Then it will be even harder to get things approved.

The bureaucracy is also a problem. Not sure how it's even possible that the numbers for those 2 projects could line up that way.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Sorry.. The uniforms and soundtrack alone made up for 20ks lack of a queue/preshow.

The sounds from the film were intoxicating enough for me.

Oh I loved it well enough!
20k, even the queue, can't be beat for sheer expectant adventure, exoticism, atmosphere.

But boy did the queues of MK phase 1 ever show Disney was designed from gentle Mediterranean California! From the Mansion to Jungle Cruise to 20k. They were just too much in summer, despite the later umbrellas and canopies. Thank God Disney learned this lesson forty years ago from phase 1 or else it might've designed the 20k Replacement Project with outdoor queues it then had to fix again later with, say, umbrellas for guest waiting in line for Be Our Guest.

 

[GeneralKnowledge]

Michael Eisner speaking on the making of Hollywood Studios:

"I dont think anybody else has the resources to attack quality the way we do. Most people take shortcuts for either economic reasons or because theyre lazy. Most people take shortcuts because they just dont know how to do it right but this company has such a history of not taking that shortcut and going down the path that is the hardest, toughest, most painful, and the most expensive to gain a quality thats fun to be around"

Say what you will about the man, but he left a great legacy behind. Those same shortcuts he mentions are almost commonplace in WDW today.

It's amazing how anti Eisner I was at the end of his reign as CEO, yet how much I would love to have him back. I feel like Bob Iger has taken everything I hated about late-term Eisner and run with it, basically erasing any semblance of the Disney way from the company. It really is a shame that a company I once dreamt of working for has been mismanaged to the point that I'm glad I never really pursued a career in Imagineering.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

My response wasn't an attempt to defend Disney in any way. I'm just stating a fact. Someone asked why Wall Street doesn't question them on lower profit margin. The answer is they can easily point to the increased expenses and justify the decreased margins. Anyone in a labor intensive business will tell you that those expenses skyrocketed recently.

Universal recently experienced a 30% increases in attendance at IOA in one year. That's like a decade of growth at MK. That kind of super growth in revenues will of course mask increased costs. It's completely apples and oranges. It's not very plausible that any WDW park will ever see a 30% increase in attendance.

Here's a simple way to look at things. We all know revenues are up at WDW. Prices are up. Attendance is up (at least marginally) and although room occupancy numbers are down some the total rooms rented are up vs 10 years ago and the room rates are definitely a lot higher. If profit margin is down but revenue is up that much the only possible reason for it is increased expenses.

Yes, decreased margins alone are not a sufficient sign of mismanagement. If margins are down but absolute profits are up this does not necessarily mean decreased performance. For example, in year one I make 25 profit on 100 revenue. In year two I add another customer segment, lured with more basic offerings with a lower margin. They add 10 profit on another 100 revenue. My profitablity has now decreased from 25% to 17.5%. But in this example this in effect merely denotes better coverage of the market. For this strategy to work, to serve a wider market without dimishing your returns on the more profitable segments, you need pricing differentiation. This can be achieved by segmented offerings, for which you want to know as much individual information per client as possible, for example, by watching his every step with a magic band, to serve the market with differentiated offerings, such as upcharge events to make him pay more and discounts to make him pay less.

 

[CDavid]

I knew someone would challenge that statement, but, I stand by it. If you can tell one fish from another fish in that same species, I'll take it all back. That's probably why they don't name them. I, obviously, am not an expert nor do I have any real interest in watching fish swim. It seems to me that they just swim back and forth and back and forth. I don't know what, if any, just passed me by a few minutes ago or one that I have never seen before. It's a lot like watching grass grow. I don't see any reason to be all excited because a fish can swim any more then they are jacked up because I can drive a car. They are pretty interesting to watch when you first encounter them, but, the fascination wears off, for me at least, very quickly. After that, if you've seen one fish, you have seen them all. The dolphins (mammals that swim) are fun because they will go fetch a stick (not always), but, the rest don't do anything to entertain me. I do like some of them with tarter sauce though, does that count?

If you've seen one Disney dark ride, have you seen them all?

If you've ridden one roller coaster, have you ridden them all?

You may consider viewing an aquarium to be "like watching grass grow", but that's a matter of opinion and you speak only for yourself. Given the popularity of aquariums across the nation (or even a small tank at home), it seems many, many people are indeed interested. Using your own example, while you may not understand the fascination, many person are highly interested in watching others drive cars. It's called Nascar.

Of course, isn't it also true that there is a lot more to an aquarium than just "watching fish swim", just as there is far more to Kilimanjaro Safaris than just "watching animals walk". You're utterly missing the forest because of all the trees.

 

[Bairstow]

Sorry.. The uniforms and soundtrack alone made up for 20ks lack of a queue/preshow.

The sounds from the film were intoxicating enough for me. As for tight... That's how boats are! The biggest issue (even today with nemo) is the sight lines allow seeing the water line when in the lagoon

Yeah, but that main, 9-lane (?!) center switchback was murder, especially when you're 7.

Oh I loved it well enough!
20k, even the queue, can't be beat for sheer expectant adventure, exoticism, atmosphere.

But boy did the queues of MK phase 1 ever show Disney was designed from gentle Mediterranean California! From the Mansion to Jungle Cruise to 20k. They were just too much in summer, despite the later umbrellas and canopies. Thank God Disney learned this lesson forty years ago from phase 1 or else it might've designed the 20k Replacement Project with outdoor queues it then had to fix again later with, say, umbrellas for guest waiting in line for Be Our Guest.

Were they expecting the MagicBands and MDE to solve the Be Our Guest queue problem before it happened?

 

[Goofyernmost]

If you've seen one Disney dark ride, have you seen them all?

If you've ridden one roller coaster, have you ridden them all?

You may consider viewing an aquarium to be "like watching grass grow", but that's a matter of opinion and you speak only for yourself. Given the popularity of aquariums across the nation (or even a small tank at home), it seems many, many people are indeed interested. Using your own example, while you may not understand the fascination, many person are highly interested in watching others drive cars. It's called Nascar.

Of course, isn't it also true that there is a lot more to an aquarium than just "watching fish swim", just as there is far more to Kilimanjaro Safaris than just "watching animals walk". You're utterly missing the forest because of all the trees.

1. Of course, it's a matter of my opinion! Why even bring that up! It goes without saying. I know others like them and that's fine, but, I don't believe that either of us are in a majority. I was trying to explain why, I felt, changes had to be made to the pavilion.

2. If you cannot see the difference between watching fish swim back and forth and a roller coaster, there is nothing else that can be said. I don't like roller coasters either, but, there is a difference!

3. There are no trees, there is a huge piece of plexiglass, water and a school or two of fish swimming around. Oh, be still my heart. I don't hate it, but, it doesn't take long before it's like watching reruns on television.

And just so everyone knows....THAT IS MY OPINION. Like or dislike whatever you want. I am not in the least bit trying to put anyone down for what they like. It's just my view of it.

 

[Bairstow]

If you've seen one Disney dark ride, have you seen them all?

If you've ridden one roller coaster, have you ridden them all?

You may consider viewing an aquarium to be "like watching grass grow", but that's a matter of opinion and you speak only for yourself. Given the popularity of aquariums across the nation (or even a small tank at home), it seems many, many people are indeed interested. Using your own example, while you may not understand the fascination, many person are highly interested in watching others drive cars. It's called Nascar.

Of course, isn't it also true that there is a lot more to an aquarium than just "watching fish swim", just as there is far more to Kilimanjaro Safaris than just "watching animals walk". You're utterly missing the forest because of all the trees.

As someone who's been to a lot of aquariums, I have to agree with @Goofyernmost here. The Living Sea's main tanks are very, very large, but not terribly interesting by modern aquarium design standards. The the quantity and shape of rockwork, the choice of specimens, and the slab-sided viewing walls are all very conventional and uninspired compared to what's been accomplished in the 30-odd years since the Living Seas was built. Even given the pavilion's massive main tank size, I could never imagine spending the kind of time at The Living Seas that I've spent at many newer, though technically smaller, aquariums.

 

[Nubs70]

Yes, decreased margins alone are not a sufficient sign of mismanagement. If margins are down but absolute profits are up this does not necessarily mean decreased performance. For example, in year one I make 25 profit on 100 revenue. In year two I add another customer segment, lured with more basic offerings with a lower margin. They add 10 profit on another 100 revenue. My profitablity has now decreased from 25% to 17.5%. But in this example this in effect merely denotes better coverage of the market. For this strategy to work, to serve a wider market without dimishing your returns on the more profitable segments, you need pricing differentiation. This can be achieved by segmented offerings, for which you want to know as much individual information per client as possible, for example, by watching his every step with a magic band, to serve the market with differentiated offerings, such as upcharge events to make him pay more and discounts to make him pay less.

So what this is saying is:

Provide a basic commodity experience to all then allow to mass customize with upcharged add ons?

This then turns what was special for all into different levels of meh. At best someone who adds many additional up charges may say, "The parks were ok and this upcharge event was nice, but I paid an arm and leg for it." Does value come from what's included or by how much and often you are up sold?

Nothing is more infuriating than to be up sold at an all inclusive resort. (Added for irony and emphasis, I know WDW is not all inclusive.)

 

[Clamman73]

As someone who's been to a lot of aquariums, I have to agree with @Goofyernmost here. The Living Sea's main tanks are very, very large, but not terribly interesting by modern aquarium design standards. The the quantity and shape of rockwork, the choice of specimens, and the slab-sided viewing walls are all very conventional and uninspired compared to what's been accomplished in the 30-odd years since the Living Seas was built. Even given the pavilion's massive main tank size, I could never imagine spending the kind of time at The Living Seas that I've spent at many newer, though technically smaller, aquariums.

But it is fun to scuba dive in!

 

[tirian]

I have to agree, too. Obviously the dolphins, manatees, and small fish exhibits are different, but there's not much variety in the large tank at the Seas. It wasn't always like this; I remember many different species in the 90s.

As someone who's been to a lot of aquariums, I have to agree with @Goofyernmost here. The Living Sea's main tanks are very, very large, but not terribly interesting by modern aquarium design standards. The the quantity and shape of rockwork, the choice of specimens, and the slab-sided viewing walls are all very conventional and uninspired compared to what's been accomplished in the 30-odd years since the Living Seas was built. Even given the pavilion's massive main tank size, I could never imagine spending the kind of time at The Living Seas that I've spent at many newer, though technically smaller, aquariums.

 

[Phil12]

I have to agree, too. Obviously the dolphins, manatees, and small fish exhibits are different, but there's not much variety in the large tank at the Seas. It wasn't always like this; I remember many different species in the 90s.

Yes, they ought to have Bruce in that big tank!

 

[yellowstone7123]

Ah, classic Fantasyland, back when it consisted of rocks and waterfalls and an underwater ride before this area was converted for half a billion into rocks and waterfalls and an underwater ride!

Oh, now that is a classic quote!

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

It's amazing how anti Eisner I was at the end of his reign as CEO, yet how much I would love to have him back. I feel like Bob Iger has taken everything I hated about late-term Eisner and run with it, basically erasing any semblance of the Disney way from the company. It really is a shame that a company I once dreamt of working for has been mismanaged to the point that I'm glad I never really pursued a career in Imagineering.

Agreed to some extent. I'm far from a mindless Eisner lover (or hater). The company went through periods when it was arguably at BOTH its highest peaks and (prior to Iger) also some of its worst lows in regards to quality. Eisner's latter years were definitely far from sunshine and happiness. I'm certainly still hurting over what happened to EPCOT as well as the maintenance woes that have been further accentuated under Iger (started by Eisner). But I do have to say that nearing the end he was at least showing signs of realizing what his mistakes were and attempted to rectify them. He appointed the guy that cleaned Disneyland up for one and it's perhaps reasonable that WDW would eventually get a similar treatment. I suspect he would have taken certain measures to keep the parks in better shape going forward given that he seemed to be upset by how his appointed people had let the parks go tremendously (and also the scandals they caused at Disneyland).

And Everest, while far from achieving its full potential, was at least a solid first step in the right direction regarding new original ride projects. It suffered from mis-managed funds and feels only half done in places, but at least the concept itself works fantastically with park's intent. And it wasn't some movie licensed crap forcibly shoved in where it didn't belong.

Had I known what we'd be getting instead of Eisner, i at least wish Eisner had been given a few more years to see whether he could continue cleaning up the mess he caused. I again think both US resorts were showing signs of gradual but clear improvement late in his reign. And if he had anything to do with Disneysea, that shows he still had clear talent to oversee the creation of world class parks and attractions when he wanted to (though i'm unsure how much he had to do with it given that the OLC runs Tokyo Disneyland).

I actually think the biggest worry for the company going forward was not the parks, but the movie division. Pirates was a surprise hit and kicked off a new era of quality live action Disney films (again that Iger has not come close to matching), but the animation department started putting out an alarming amount of flops going into the 2000's. Now there were STILL good to great ones mixed in there, but they were no longer the almost spotless record of pure quality they had been during the 90's (the only one there I didn't like was Pocahontas). Home on the Range and Chicken Little were the last Eisner era Disney-made movies and both were particularly bad. It didn't help that Eisner killed off 2D animation AND burned bridges with Pixar and Apple. While i'd like to have seen what he would have done going forward still as CEO, it's quite likely that had Pixar been allowed to drift away to exist on its own then it very possible it would have become another competitor to Disney similar to the Katzenberg-Dreamworks scenario (Ratatouille and Wall E may be hints of what a Disney-less Pixar movie could have been like). Unless there was a resurgence in Disney's own movie quality (Eisner would need to reform the studios as he did in the 80's), they may have been in for some hard times with both the Universal/Dreamworks competition as well as potential new Pixar competition. Those were some poor business moves for the company, especially given that Disney was kind of reliant on Pixar for putting out quality animated movies at that point while their own were flopping. Though at the same time it would have been an interesting scenario if Eisner was suddenly faced with a bunch of powerful competition and went into desperation mode to reform the company again. Who can say what could have happened?

 

[culturenthrills]

Labor costs are low. In inflation-adjusted dollars, today's CM makes a few dollars/hour less than they did in the 1970s and 1980s. Meanwhile, don't get me started on what has happened to Median Household Income in the last decade, especially in the private sector. Those of you who don't remember the days when private sector jobs paid better than government jobs don't know what you are missing.

As @Jeffxz mentions, Universal has to operate in the same business environment, and they don't have WDW's advantages of 25,000 cheap acres, a "local government" that's in their back pocket, and a steady stream of over $2B in annual revenue from 27,000 grossly overpriced hotel rooms.

WDW's problem is summed up by the $425M New Fantasyland vs. the $265M Hogsmead.

WDW has become a bloated bureaucracy, incapable of operating efficiently.

Rather than correct their institutional problems, their "fix" is to delay investments, cut quality, and raise prices.

That is why I think that while Hogsmeade was a shot across the bow, Diagon is a dead on cannonbal that takes out the mast. UNI Creative has created something that is so far beyond anything that WDI has created lately. They have taken Disney's old playbook and thrown it right back in their face. Yes, they will never surpass their attendance or build as many hotel rooms but the paradigm has shifted. Universal is now going to be considered the creators of state of the art themed attractions. Something many of us have felt already. The amount of Pixie Dusters is not gonna increase. Kids today have many choices and they don't fall for the Disney Magic as easily as there parents do. They have already been stealing one day from WDW, they are going to start stealing two. UNI is creating their own magic not relying on nostalgia. UNI seems to be taken the long view and building something unlike anything else while TDO stands by and does nothing.