Deacon on Disney - Annoyed

[Captain Schnemo]

I am positive that if there was a way to make River Country profitable again, Disney would jump at the opportunity.

I'm not, because "profitable" simply doesn't cut it for Disney any more. It has to be market researched and shown to be either very profitable or very cheap (ideally both, of course). The theme parks buoy corporate profits, but they don't get love proportionally to the profits they rake in. There's no way RC wouldn't be profitable if they simply spiffed it up, charged a smallish fee for non-resort guests to get in, and sold the usual slightly overpriced food, drinks, sunblock, knickknacks, etc. But would it be profitable enough? Does it fit into any ad campaign ("Come visit our quaint and fun, but not terribly impressive park!")?

It wasn't good enough that Epcot was incredibly profitable and the third most popular theme park in the world for decades (behind only the MK and Disneyland proper), they had to muck with it to try to maximize profits. Sponsored attractions are closed if the sponsors leave, rather than simply maintaining them (which could be done and easily maintain huge profits) or, even better, upgrading them and making them so cool that a sponsor would jump at the chance to associate themselves with the project.

Again, though, I don't have an answer for this either. Corporations are supposed to maximize profits and complaining that they aren't doing enough to create warm fuzzies or make the world a better place is a good way to get labeled as a crank, a rabid fanboy, or any of the other hateful terms the Disney suits have for people like us.

Change has got to come from above, which is why I believe the benevolent lunatic is necessary. And why I'm hopeful, but not optimistic.

Additionally, even if we could get every Internet loon to boycott Disney, they'd never notice it. How long did the Southern Baptists "boycott" before they quietly gave up and stopped depriving their children of Cinderella Castle?

[rdeacon]

My point is this, it's not dormant properties sitting around that disappoint me. It's when they build something and they do a half-assed job. If the tree houses come back and they're poorly done and low quality, that will be disappointing. If River Country ever reopens and it's poorly done, that will be disappointing. If Disney returns to consistently delivering high quality and imagination every time they do something, then I'm ok with some sections of the resort being neglected.

How sad is that we have to have a choice, or should even be talking about this? I mean really. Why can't they deliever top end attractions while maintaining the old ones? Is it that hard. Do they no longer have the talent or drive? Is Disney ceasing to be Disney?

I'm not saying for them to maintain an attraction or resort if its not economically feasible, but its been 7 years that river country has been closed. They don't have a plan or idea for the property for 7 years? If they have no intention of restoring it the tear it down. Nothing is better then an eyesore.

I wonder if when the new DVC property opens at The Contemporary if they will hear outrage and then fix River Country?

But would it be profitable enough? Does it fit into any ad campaign ("Come visit our quaint and fun, but not terribly impressive park!")?

Schnemo.. very good points.

The sad fact is Disney would never have been "not terribly impressive" in the past. They were the trend setters, not just the lets make it acceptable company.

Disney does seem like a rock that is content to weather criticism, by just waiting it out. And it doesn't help they have had increasing attendance and revenues for the park. So it just supports their current model.

I think we all like to view Disney as different and not the standard corporation. That image is degrading fast. As they continue to cost cut, create America Idol attractions that are just out for a quick buck, they will continue to lose ground as being a step above everyone else.

Rich

[miceman]

Change has got to come from above, which is why I believe the benevolent lunatic is necessary.

"Quality is a great business plan." - John Lasseter

Lets hope they found one!

[rdeacon]

Trust me we are all hoping Lasseter is a complete lunatic


Rich

[Captain Schnemo]

The sad fact is Disney would never have been "not terribly impressive" in the past. They were the trend setters, not just the lets make it acceptable company.

Obviously I agree, but there was also room for the smaller stuff that made money, but didn't make obscene quantities of money. Stuff like Discovery Island, which added to the appeal of WDW as a whole, but was never a huge draw on its own.

The small fun things which are obscenely profitable (boat rentals, etc.) or extremely cheap (maids making little animals out of the towels for you at the hotels) hang around, but the things that just make your stay a little bit nicer but have a significant maintenance cost attached tend to get the axe.

Disney does seem like a rock that is content to weather criticism, by just waiting it out.

One of the few possible ways us nerds could effect some change would be to get the press involved and make Disney look bad, but there are numerous reasons why that's difficult.

For one, Disney literally owns some of the media (ABC, etc.) and virtually owns the rest of the media that would care even the slightest tiny bit about our interests (ie, the Orlando media).

For another, our cause is not exactly headline-grabbing. "Disney Nerds Say WDW Somewhat Less Good than Previously" is not much of an attention-getter. Our complaints are complex and therefore too complicated for reporters relegated to the Entertainment section of any paper. Financial reporters care about stuff like "Stockholders Upset with Eisner", but that's also a simple message. They're not interested in what we have to say.

I've tried to get some of the bloggers to care about the media so they can actually have some real world impact, but my suggestions were attacked with such venom that I threw up my hands and realized that these people were more interested in farting in the wind than actually doing something useful.

Again, I have no solutions.

The one area in which Disney can be shamed into action is to post simple, easy-to-understand examples of declining quality. Even an entertainment reporter can understand that chipping paint, decaying structures, and burnt out light bulbs are bad. Explaining that a cartoon fish attraction is not properly themed to a futuristic undersea base is way beyond their capacity for interest and comprehension.

As they continue to cost cut, create America Idol attractions that are just out for a quick buck, they will continue to lose ground as being a step above everyone else.

As far as I'm concerned, that happened about a decade ago, but we're all at different stages of acceptance, I guess.

[Mr.ToadWildRider]

but you have to wonder why on earth they'd look to the past when the money is still rolling in faster than they can count it.

You apparently have different bean counters than Disney! THEY say the company is bankrupt already!!

It's true, the money has not been rolling in as people seem to think. In fact Disney often tells stockholders (I know as I am one) the sugarcoated story but in reality the company is not a huge money maker. It makes a profit but not nearly enough to invest the millions upon millions needed to keep the hardcore happy and still be able to operate and move towards making better attractions i.e. Everest, Soarin', et al. Believe me I'd love to see the parks and properties change as much as the next person, but there are two sides to the story and to fix every problem would mean it'd take away from advancing in other areas. I know that Disney has screwed up a lot recently, I'm p*** about 3/4 of the changes that have taken place over the last 10-15 years but as someone else noted if you expect them to fill every open space and renovate every eyesore you'd have to expect a lot of subpar product, which is what I feel we've been getting as of late simply because while many of us more hardcore guests see really great attractions (Horizons, 20k, Mr. Toad's, Timekeeper, Alien Encounter etc.) the general public, or at least Disney's interpretation of the general public through their gate counters and surveys etc., sees out of date/poorly executed/boring/unfun attractions that need a fix/update. I guess my biggest grip is they've been picking the wrong problem areas but that's just my opinion of what a problem area is - to 80% of the fare paying public that doesn't notice River Country or Pop Century Legendary - Disney is updating the parks and that's what brings them back.

[DIAC1987]

"It's true, the money has not been rolling in as people seem to think. In fact Disney often tells stockholders (I know as I am one) the sugarcoated story but in reality the company is not a huge money maker. It makes a profit but not nearly enough to invest the millions upon millions needed to keep the hardcore happy and still be able to operate and move towards making better attractions i.e. Everest, Soarin', et al. "

In 2006, more than 45 million people visited Walt Disney World, and that number was most definitely topped in 2007 (official numbers come in next month). You still telling me Walt Disney World doesn't turn up much of a profit?

I find it rather hard to believe personally....

[Captain Schnemo]

Theme park profits have been the anchor of the Disney company for many years now.

I never understood why Eisner was regarded as some financial whiz. Frankly, any one of us could have done a better job. He made a purposeful decision to branch out into areas that aren't as profitable or even lost money, because Disney was not familiar with the industries and/or were no longer the big fish in a small pond.

The "problem" was that Disney was cash flush and therefore a prime target for a hostile takeover, so Eisner decided to "diversify", which meant buying a bunch of existing properties (ABC, ESPN, etc.) and getting into a bunch of other businesses with varying degrees of success (cruise lines, DisneyQuest franchises, etc.)

If they'd simply stuck to what they knew best, they could have maintained the enormous profits, but in this screwed up system called capitalism, that's sometimes considered to be a bad thing. Go figure.

Instead, they screwed around in a bunch of different areas, and lost sight of the stuff that made them so profitable in the first place. Theme park quality took a dive, but there aren't a lot of choices, so profits stayed up (and Disney continues to milk this cow for all it's worth). Animated film quality took a dive and they actually lost money, because there are always other choices for family movies. (Rather than trying to improve quality, they shut down the animated film division, and cut a deal with a company that actually made good movies, Pixar. It doesn't take a genius to buy someone else's genius.)

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is that the theme parks make Disney the most money, but they don't get their fair share of money and talent directed at them.

[jasondlnd]

When it comes to profitability vs. creativity, I go two ways.

1: Profitability. I am a Disney shareholder. The amount my shares are worth is important to me, so when the Company makes money, that's a good thing.

2: Creativity. I am a longtime Disney fan, and gravitate toward the creative nature of the Company. When the Company trades in its high standards and creativity in favor of going "on the cheap" to save a few dollars, that is a bad thing.

I believe in a blending of the two. Find a way to make a profit while not sacrificing quality or creativity. Disney certainly has a handle on making money. The legacy of the name "Disney" stands for quality and creativity, and they used to have a good handle on this. This is not necessarily the case any longer.

What I would like to see is a return to both profitability and creativity. This is the success that Tokyo Disneyland is experiencing, as they do not do anything "on the cheap". They make long term investments in their attractions and entertainment, and as a result reap the rewards by making a tidy profit.

Disney as of late, in the United States seems to want to make a quick buck, without considering long term goals. Investors honestly want to see their money grow, and I'd bet that they would be willing to invest with Disney over the long term to see both the creativity and profits grow with the Company.

[RREng77]

I'm p*** about 3/4 of the changes that have taken place over the last 10-15 years but as someone else noted if you expect them to fill every open space and renovate every eyesore you'd have to expect a lot of subpar product, which is what I feel we've been getting as of late simply because while many of us more hardcore guests see really great attractions (Horizons, 20k, Mr. Toad's, Timekeeper, Alien Encounter etc.) the general public, or at least Disney's interpretation of the general public through their gate counters and surveys etc., sees out of date/poorly executed/boring/unfun attractions that need a fix/update.

First, I'll apologize for opening up old wounds by posting to this thread so long after it has become dormant...

I'd have to say the problem is the lack-luster expectation of the public as evidenced through other media - including, but not limited to, recent films: It's not nearly as important or effective to release a truly new or innovative show as it is to take an old, tired movie and re-release it with more high-tech but mindless special effects (Can we say Star Wars?). Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but we can save that for a different post.

The real question is, how sad have we as a larger society really become?!

[luv2cthemouse]

Perhaps they should finish the Contemporary and Legendary YEars of Pop Century before they start new planning. Geesh!

[lebeau]

Perhaps they should finish the Contemporary and Legendary YEars of Pop Century before they start new planning. Geesh!

I had read that the Legendary Years of Pop Century would not be updated. From what I hear, the buildings are going to be demolished.

[Captain Schnemo]

That's very strange. I found Pop Century to be vastly superior to the All-Stars and really enjoyed the design of the property.

Knocking down the existing structures doesn't even make sense...unless they've made the call that they're not going to create any more "budget" hotels. Could be it doesn't bring in enough cash for them.

I was certainly suspicious that I had positive feelings about something new-ish at Disney. It would make sense if Disney doesn't agree with me.

[DisBeamer]

I've heard other rumors that they want to make 'family suites' out of the Legendary Buildings; budget accommodation for larger families (or groups of 5+) that don't want to pay for the DVC suites. I'd personally be surprised if they just knocked them down since that'd be calling a total loss on the money they put into construction. Doesn't mean they won't do that though; Disney decisions don't always make sense to me.

Is it just me, or do they seem to be getting out of the business of building non-DVC hotels? It's not just they don't seem to want to finish the budget ones. It's been a while since they announced anything not-DVC, meanwhile they're letting in whichever company it was (Comfort Inn? I think?) in that new Flamingo Crossing area and Four Seasons with this (silly, imo) 'luxury timeshare homes' thing. I want another themed Disney hotel, dangit. I'm starting to wonder if that's a thing of the past too.

[lebeau]

I've heard other rumors that they want to make 'family suites' out of the Legendary Buildings; budget accommodation for larger families (or groups of 5+) that don't want to pay for the DVC suites. I'd personally be surprised if they just knocked them down since that'd be calling a total loss on the money they put into construction. Doesn't mean they won't do that though; Disney decisions don't always make sense to me.

Is it just me, or do they seem to be getting out of the business of building non-DVC hotels? It's not just they don't seem to want to finish the budget ones. It's been a while since they announced anything not-DVC, meanwhile they're letting in whichever company it was (Comfort Inn? I think?) in that new Flamingo Crossing area and Four Seasons with this (silly, imo) 'luxury timeshare homes' thing. I want another themed Disney hotel, dangit. I'm starting to wonder if that's a thing of the past too.

I had read that too at one point. The most recent rumor I heard at WDWMagic was that they were going to demolish the buildings. Apparently they had been left exposed to the elements too long. I don't remember now if the permits had been filed yet.

I definitely think they need to build something on-property that is affordable for families larger than 4.