A few thoughts but let me first preface by saying that some of you aren't going to like this so you can quote this post, call me names, say I'm not rooted in reality, whatever you want, but I'm really not interested in arguing or responding. That energy is needed elsewhere at the moment. These are my opinions. You're entitled to disagree.
What is happening here is a choice. The investors aren't holding the executives at TWDC hostage. Yes, revenue is down in unprecedented ways but how that materializes is a choice. I mean if they really wanted to, TWDC could pay every employee 75% of their pay and still be around after the pandemic. The Walt Disney Company has access to credit lines that some of the wealthiest individuals in the world only dream of. If the Company's survival was dependent on entertainment cuts like these, that would be the result of years of financial mismanagement and would indicate much larger problems for the Company. Now, if they paid every employee, would they see even deeper losses? Of course they would, but that's not to say they couldn't do it. I'll remind everyone that, per the precedent set in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, corporations are not obligated to max out profits. Public for-profit enterprises must be transparent and make the necessary disclosures, but if a shareholder doesn't feel like they're receiving adequate ROI, then they have to sell their share.
Am I saying they should partially pay every one of their employees until each one comes back? Not necessarily (though it would be a shocking deviation from the norm so who knows what would happen?). But it's about priorities. Certainly they could've a saved a nice chunk of change by keeping their VPs, SVPs, Presidents, and executives on reduced pay (paycuts that, I remind everyone, continue at most other major media companies), but again, it's about priorities. They decided that that those were priorities. They could've decided that live entertainment was enough of a priority in distinguishing them from their competition that many needed to be kept on. It all depends on where you personally draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable.
It's not like they can't keep them on. They just know that they can get a way with it at WDW where the "Cast Members are the entertainment." Look at Shanghai. Only weeks after SDL's reopening, we saw them bring back virtually all of their live entertainment at once. The Frozen Sing-A-Long, the PotC stunt show, various performing acts in the park all came back quickly, well before they were even admitting enough Guests to be dealing with the queue management issues we are seeing at WDW. Why was that? One could cite the ownership agreement between Disney and the Chinese, but that agreement leaves these decisions basically up to Disney, so they clearly felt like there was some reason they needed to prioritize the entertainment so early on. Perhaps the virus situation is different there? I'm not so sure. Disney seems comfortable doing the low-cost, high-profit IP Frozen (all indoor) show here. You don't have to look much further than SDL's own website to understand why the strategies are so different. When you visit the FAQ on Shanghai Disney Resort's website, the very first question is not "Where are the parks hours?" or "How much does a ticket cost?". It's "What makes Disney theme parks so special?" What a peculiar question to include upfront, but it is a reminder of just how deeply engrained Disney is in our cultural zeitgeist. Whether you love Disney or hate it, whether you've been to WDW or not, you know what it is, you the know the characters, you know what it represents. Why a premium is attached to that brand, what makes it "special" are widely understood concepts amongst Americans and in many other countries (even if some don't like or get it). Most people understand the difference between a vacation to Disney World and a day at your local Six Flags. But when you look at a place like China, whose people have not had that familiarity with American pop cultural and media for a slew of geopolitical reasons, there's no preconceived understanding of the Disney brand as a premium brand and what is represents. There's nothing inherent in the word "Disney" that distinguishes a Disney Park from any other amusement park/leisure activity. To demonstrate "Disney show," they still have to prove it there. TWDC knows that, here, they don't have to.
Will some of these shows/offerings come back to WDW at some point? It's likely but don't expect it for a long time and don't expect them to be showing 8, 9, 10 times a day like they used to. The casts will likely be paired down and Disney may look to hire newer, younger (and cheaper) performers with less experience. Many other entertainment offerings just will not return, and that isn't as a reversal of what WDW is about but rather an escalation of what TWDC executives want WDW to be about. It's a "mature" resort. It's not about people, it's about popular characters. It's not about live shows, it's about themed attractions. And look, I get it. I love what they're doing to Epcot and think the additions to DHS and DAK are wonderful. It's not that I don't like IP in the parks but, like everything in life, it's a balance. You don't want too much of one thing and not enough (or in this case, very little) of the other. But these are the changes they've been wanting to make for a considerable amount of time and now they have an excuse to do it quickly and swiftly.
Yes, these are unprecedented times. I've looked into it and I cannot find any proportionally larger layoffs than these in the entire history of TWDC, even during WWII. But every deviation from normal business has been unprecedented in a way. When 9/11 happened, it was unprecedented too. Neither Disney nor the entire tourism industry had ever seen or expected an event where one day it was business as usual and then literally the next day people were scared to come to your resort. In 2008/2009, there were legitimate questions for a brief period over if we would actually have a banking system. That was unprecedented in the history of TWDC. In each case, major business like TWDC generally adapt and survive. But in each of those events, its often people like these same CMs (who usually can afford it least) who get the short end of the stick. People like most of these entertainers could theoretically be brought back to work in some capacity but because they're not deemed corporate priorities, they're out of a job. That's a conscious choice on Disney's part. We now have at least one whole generation of kids who has seen this happen at least twice within 15 years, and what do we tell them? It is what it is? And then people wonder why you have so many young people disillusioned with or radicalized by the system.
All in all, tonight is about where Disney sets priorities. I can assure you the Company would've been just fine had they not laid off these performers or even better brought some of them back to alleviate crowd congestion. Believe it or not, it's quite possible that those executive pay restoration would've cost them more than bringing some of these folks back. But that's not where the priorities are right now. And that's a deliberate choice. No loss in revenue or economic downturn or unprecedented event "forced" them to set those priorities that way. They've always held themselves to higher standards (and they certainly charge a premium for it). They tell all their new hires "We're all Cast Members," but their priorities don't seem to back that up. And to add another layer of confusion to an already rambling post: one can be put off bt their decisions and still love the parks, the people who work in them, and give them business. The two are not mutually exclusive.