New perspectives: Changes at WDW

[mmouse52]

Went to WDW for my 20th birth in 72. Those were the days. Two hotels. Poly and Contemp. Great potroast dinner at Liberty Tree Tavern. Wonderful icecream sundaes at Polynesian. It was to use an old expression "charming". No arcades in the hotels. I love Disney but it got too big for its" own good.

 

[Bob O]

dscoop Im not ready to cash it on in regards too disney. If i was i wouldnt be here, But i am pessmistic because the direction ive seen since my first time going their(1982) is downhill. And that direction has mainly been the last 5 years with all the cutbacks and little improvements to the existing parks. They have gotten a lot bigger but i dont think neccesarily better. And now due to alot of bonehead company decisons they either wont or cant spend the money they need to improve the parks and update the attractions needed. And then all you hear from the head honchos is how once attendance improves they will make loads of money with little talk of how they are going to improve their product. And i fear that younger generations arent going to have the love for disney we have and that will only make matters worse. I see little on the horizon to be optimistic, they may add a carny attraction here or their(like they have) or a bigger attraction(if they can find a sponsor to pay for it) but it seems the MO is too maximize parks profits as the expense of the guest experience. And from speaking from my kids perspective they already perfer Universal to disney and with a recent article about disney having trobule with the"tweeners" i hope they arent wearing out the goodwill that they have built over generations for only a short term viewpoint. I think disney takes alot of us for granted and feels we will buy whatever they give us just because it has a disney label attached to it.

 

[Planogirl]

Bob makes a real good point IMO. The little kids love Disney but what about the older kids and the teenagers? My son at the tender age of 9 keeps asking to go to Universal. As he puts it: "we don't have to go to Disneyworld every year." Danger, danger Will Robinson!

OK, so kids his age lose interest in WDW "for a while". The question is do they come back? Presumably, they come back with their own kids. I can't help but wonder what they'll find and if Pop Century will be a luxury resort by that time.

By the way, I love this:

Disney will continue to lurch around, a soulless zombie of sequels and spinners, and still manage to turn a profit... and you'll say that's a good thing.

Great comment JeffJewel, a bit too harsh IMO but still wonderful.

 

[hopemax]

But what I am pretty sure of is that Disney will survive this purported problem just like they survived Walt testifying at the McCarthy hearings, Steinberg attempting to take over, violent union confrontations, etc. Why am I so confident? Because Disney has a history of surviving. In law we call it precedence.

Hmm, found an interesting article while doing some research. Seems like there was this company that created a brand new market, they dominated it for awhile, then another player entered the game and they started losing ground. Then the company lost a visionary to the new player, and then the economy went sour. They brought in a new guy, a tough-business type. He cleared out the executives and turned losses into profits. Another economic downturn hit, and this guy lead the company through in superb condition. But then the CEO thought the company needed to do one thing to prepare for what he believed were "economic certainties" and anyone who disagreed with him was fired. It took 10 years for this CEO to be replaced and a new regime brought in. This company never recovered from the stagnation inflicted by the CEO who was at one time the savior of the company. There was no return to market domination, but the company did survive another 42 years before declaring chapter 11. And this former "institution" disappeared entirely in 2000.

Of course that company was Montgomery Ward, and the CEO that they could never really recover from was Sewell Avery. Avery in his prime, led Montgomery Ward through the Great Depression and WWII, something that parallels to some degree Eisner & Disney in the 1980's and early 90's. I do have a "back of the neck tingling" fear though that Eisner's stance on the internet and computer world, the mishandling of go.com, and the philosophies regarding capital improvements & maintence Pressler has brought to the parks, may turn out to be like Avery's stance that the US was going to go into a deep depression following WWII and opening more stores like Sears would be folly.

Maybe Disney is different than Montgomery Ward in that Disney originally had an even larger "brand" and an even bigger market share, maybe entertainment is different enough from retail, but to say that survival is "guaranteed?" I'm not sure I can go that far.

So to your latest post...

After all, does anyone really believe that Disney is fragile enough that Pressler or Eisner alone could ever destroy the magic?

I don't know, history credits Avery Sewell as the root of Montgomery Ward's collapse. 40 years, new strategies, infusion of cash by Mobil and General Electric didn't fix it. I don't know... in 1955 when Avery was removed did people believe that Montgomery Ward would never return to a retail leader?

If I could place a bet, I'd put a $20 down on Disney surviving, but I'd get my husband to put a $20 down on "not surviving." I just don't know. Depends a lot on how long Eisner & Pressler stay.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by thedscoop

p.s. Baron, based on what d-r said, the chocolates are still at the deluxes with turndown. Also, someone PM'd me to confirm that Mickey butter is still at Chef's Mickey. I'll check in May to confirm both.

The trick about it is that now they do not do turn down for all rooms by default, you have to say that you want turn down service when you are asked, or ask for it if you are not. Now, what I'm not sure about is if the resorts still have their own chocolates. For example, the polly used to have chocolates with a pineapple on them, the grand floridian had their own as well. I'd guess they still do, it isn't that big of a cost.

Also, someone mentioned resorts having their own toiletries. The Grand Floridian does, they are shaped like old fashioned victorian bottles, (and I think they still have "white rabbit brand" cotton... it was on this show on the travel channel at least). Most everywhere else I've stayed in has the traditional Mickey stuff, with the all stars having dispensers - I can't remember ever seeing anything different.

Honestly, the butter thing, I think that is a local decision of the restaurants themselves - some of them still have butter, others have margarine - I don't think it was a an over-all decision. But of course the decision of a given restaurant was probably to cut costs to meet some budget constraints that were decided by higher-ups.

DR

 

[Captain Crook]

hopemax, interesting analogy between monkey wards and Disney, I guess...But the last time I checked WDW still has no real competetion. Sure US/IOA is nice...But it's a two park locale with a couple of hotels...A nice diversion for a day or two, which Disney could address if they felt compelled (and I hope they soon will)... And Planogirl, as to "tweeners" & Disney, Disney has never been cool to this group as a whole so why should that be an issue now? But, as an aside, my 12 year old daughter went to IOA last year and thought it was nice. She liked some of the rides, thought their employees sucked and has no desire for us to return as a family (not a bad WDW endorsement for a "tweener").

Bob o says "they have gotten a lot bigger but not necessarily better". Well, I just disagree. WDW is A LOT better today than it was in 1971 or 1981 or 1991. There is more to do, better places and more choices to stay and 4 parks to enjoy...We've gone down this road before and I guess it's purely subjective. If you liked the one or two parks and two hotels better, I can't refute that, but I like 4 parks, 2 water parks and a choice of hotels & restaraunts to choose from (the catagory depending upon how many old ladies purses that Peter Pirate pilfered that week).

...there's the rub...I'm not willing, simply because some corporate entity still exists, to say that"Disney" survived.

Wow! That's a rub alright. Because the fact is Disney was almost always a cororate entity. If you're willing to overlook that fact and say 'yeah, but Walt was in charge'...Then Disney was gone for you the moment he was placed in the deep-freeze. He ain't coming back, neither is the company you remember...

Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it (some more than others) but you still sound like a lot of folks who hate Michael Eisner. You give me little evidence otherwise (keep trying). You say no, no, no, but every complaint is leveled squarly at him with absolutely no nod to the successes. You don't care that Space is on the way, you choose to focus on Dino-Rama. You seethe about Pop Century and yet generally refuse to hail accolades on the AKL (which has only been open 1 year). You lament the losses of little touches that obviously were caught in the numbers game & don't accept the new touches (because you want both). Yes, Landbaron, I get it, you want it all...But you can't have it all... Nobody gets it all. It wouldn't be prudent for Disney to give, give, give & ignore the concerns of Wall st. or the stockholders. Walt didn't give it all either. Remember his opening DL with virtually NO WATYER FOUNTAINS to insure soft drink purchases??? No one gets it all!

I see many things different about Disney today. Most is good (IMO), but still some I don't like. My recent fear is the 'generic menu' hitting the fine WDW restaraunts. I liked the fact that the unusual could be tried and I dislike the trend toward sameness. I have no problem with Aladdin, the ride or the lcation. I like the DR, but I too, beleive that 3 spinners is enough. The shorter hours bug me and they took away the free valet parking (just kidding-that doesn't bug me). So I don't think all the moves are great, but I'd rather have some cost cutting, profitizing & belt tightening if it means Disney can continue as it is for another 10-20 years. I still believe the current, independent corporate Disney is better than AOL/TWX/DIS, or whatever...Many of you simply see that change as already having taken place under Eisner...

 

[JeffJewell]

quote:"...there's the rub...I'm not willing, simply because some corporate entity still exists, to say that"Disney" survived"
Wow! That's a rub alright. Because the fact is Disney was almost always a cororate entity.

...well, you once again completely misrepresented what I actually said. It is clear in my statement that I understood Disney was always a "corporate entity," but that they were once more than that. If the one and only qualification of what "Disney" means is that someone will pay for a product that says "Disney" on it, then you're absolutely right, Disney is hugely successful. And you will continue to have value-engineered knock-off products to consume rest of your life... enjoy!

You never did answer the question "where will the next Pirates come from," and few of the rest us care where the next Triceratops Spin will go up. More and more people are realizing that Disney's current offerings are a very generic flavor of Magic.

Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it (some more than others) but you still sound like a lot of folks who hate Michael Eisner.

I still don't see how reducing anyone's opinion to a character flaw advances your position one iota; it just makes you sound unwilling to accept that someone might think differently than you do.

You still sound like a total homer, but it doesn't promote a lot of intelligent conversation to point that out, now does it?

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

Yes I am. No doubt about it. I love WDW and I won't apologize for it. I have great trips each & every visit and I won't apologize for it. My last trip was for one night & two days and it may have been the most fun ever! WDW is still fitting the bill & whether it's in the context of 'family building' or not, it's irrelevent. The truth is the truth whether it's your truth or my truth...

As to your opinion, well it's yours & your welcome to it. I don't begrudge it, I embrace it. That's what the DIS is all about.

You ask where the next "Pirates" will be coming from? Well, I'm sure there are some that will argue "TGMR" is the next "Pirates" or "Dinosaur" is the next "Pirates". You just look from your POV which, IN MY OPINION seems stuck in a particular time warp that you were happy with... Fine, not a thing wrong with that, it's your view...But new generation's will see the next offerings with the same delight. Grow with them just like we did and when the time comes to compare "Dinosaur" with the next generation they will cry inferior bloody murder, just like we do...They will ***** & moan about the closing of "Test Track" or "Pooh" (when the time comes) just like the last generation did about "Horizons" or "Mr. Toad".

You accuse me of blatenly dismissing opinions in my post and I feel the same about yours. Scary though it seems, our styles may be closer than we'd like to admit (or not)...

 

[JeffJewell]

As to your opinion, well it's yours & your welcome to it. I don't begrudge it, I embrace it.

...hmm. I guess I don't see reading a complaint and concluding "This guy just hates Esner" as equating to "embracing" an opinion.

You accuse me of blatenly dismissing opinions in my post and I feel the same about yours.

Whatever. I've routinely pointed out that I believe in and fully support the notion that you and your family enjoy riding Triceratops Spin... and you've even managed to work up unbrage at _that_ on at least one occasion.

I say you appear to be a homer, and you follow up with the statement that you _are_ a homer. You say I'm an Eisner basher, I try to show that I'm bashing a business strategy, not a man, and you say I'm still an Eisner basher, no matter what I say.

Your "embrace" is a distinctly chilly one.

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

I say the car threepers in general seem to be Eisner bashers. Everyone has varying degrees of disdain toward the man, the policies & practices of the regime. If I ever said "Jeff Jewell you're an Eisner basher" I can't recall it...Although I know for a fact that there have been innendo & tounge in cheek comments I've made (that have been taken too seriously). Half the time you respond to my posts that are generally pointed at one of the others. I guess thats my fault for not being more specific...

As to the "chilly embrace", well that too is your perception. Ask Landbaron & gcurling what kind of guy I am (as they've both met me face to face) and I seriously doubt "cold" is the word you'll hear (but I do worry about Landbarons characterization). That is why I am looking forward to this summers "meets"...To put more faces & real life personality with the opinions...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

But the last time I checked WDW still has no real competition

Captain!! Listen carefully. This is an emergency!! You must do what I say!

First, close your eyes! Place your hands near the temples of your head. Go slowly. No sudden movements. Now take the fingers of your hands and GENTLY grasp the objects going toward your ears. Now lift away from your head slowly, but steadily. OK!! Put your hands and the object you hold, in your lap. Very good!! Now you can open your eyes. Go on. Look at you hands. Do you know what those are? Yes!! You're right!! Those are the famous rose-colored-glasses you've heard tell about.

Now!! Look around you. There!! Isn't that better? See! The real world. Now turn around and look over your shoulder. Do you know what that is? Yes! That's right!! It's universal and IOA. I know, I know. They look very close and you're a little surprised. It's the glasses. Instead of blueblockers, they're competition blockers. And yes, they are still behind us, but they are gaining on their own. See how big they are? To the younger generation, they're even bigger!! Now look down at our speedometer. Yes, we seem to be slowing. Again you're surprised!! WOW, we're not traveling at the speed of light with cutting edge technology and artistry any more. No! In fact if we keep up the current pace, IOA and Universal may pass us by. NO!!! STOP!!! Don't turn around any more!! Just use the rear view mirror. Otherwise, it's too scary!!

OK! OK! My, you're sweating. You look a little pale. And what's with the shallow breathing? I guess that's enough for now. You can put your glasses back on. I know! You're saying, "Hey!!! Where did Universal go?!?! And look at the speed!! My GOD!! I didn't think we could go this fast!!!!!"

Walt didn't give it all either. Remember his opening DL with virtually NO WATER FOUNTAINS to insure soft drink purchases??? No one gets it all!

That's a lie and you know it!!! Come on Captain. It's hard enough to discuss these lofty concepts without muddying the waters with revisionist history!!

and I seriously doubt "cold" is the word you'll hear (but I do worry about Landbaron's characterization

'Cold'? No, not cold. Hmmm. Let's see… (thumbs through thesaurus) Wild eyed. Silly. Far off. Cheery. Engaging. Fun. Amusing. Enthusiastic. Devoted. Spirited. Happy. Light-hearted. Talkative. Lively. Effervescent. Vivacious. Excitable. Charming. Ridiculous. Absurd. Inconsistent. Frivolous. Silly. Pleasant. Likeable. Jovial. And not a logical bone in his body!!!!!

OH!! Wait!! That was Peter! I don't know about the Captain!!

 

[hopemax]

hopemax, interesting analogy between monkey wards and Disney, I guess...But the last time I checked WDW still has no real competetion.

But the Walt Disney Company is more than just WDW. I know this is a WDW thread, but Scoop’s question required a view on the company at large.

I’m not sure how healthy ABC really is. This month the news & entertainment departments are at odds, before it was ABC trailing in the advertising wars, poor schedules, relying to much on Millionaire. I remember ABC and NBC duking it out for top honors, now I hear more about ABC struggling to keep up with the newly vamped CBS and the WB whose pulling in all the young viewers.

Feature Animation is up in the air, but the Pixar people proved that someone other than the Disney people could make a good film. Pixar's biggest unknown is can they stand alone or do they really need the Disney name, but I can't imagine Jobs & Lasseter not attempting to go it without Disney; finding some other studio to work with perhaps. And the other question is how will Dreamworks be able to capitalize with Shrek? Will "from the people who brought you Shrek" be able to get people into the theaters the way Disney uses the "people that brought you Snow White, or the Lion King."

Inside the theme parks, I wonder if it's not competition that's going to be the achilles heel; but something else. I know a lot of you don't follow Disneyland much. But an interesting thing seems to be happening down there. The Fantasyland sewer system reached critical last fall as a result most of Fantasyland needed immediate closures, the Matterhorn has been fighting intermitant closures as the steel structure is in the process of being replaced. The Haunted Mansion's rehab following Nightmare was delayed because one of the walls had severly rotted (they haven't been painting the building). All through the park, years of neglect are starting to rear their ugly heads. Tom Sawyer Island, Tiki Room, not to mention the failure of the New Tomorrowland At what point does the only viable solution become bulldozing and starting over and would that even be too expensive? Off-season is starting to mean that 10+ attractions are down at the same time, including 3 or 4 E-tickets when it used to be that 1 or 2 E-tickets and no more than 5 overall. At WDW you can kind of see the same phenomenon at Epcot - so many areas are still in need in revitalization and Epcot's attendance does seem to be reflecting the public's dissatisfaction.

The life-action parts of the studio...I don't know I guess the sense I feel is Disney's studios are becoming more of a foot-note instead of the power player. Disney seemed surprised that Pearl Harbor did poorly, and surprised that Princess Diaries did so well. How long can you misread the public before it catches up with you.

So although I wouldn't expect Disney to completely follow the path of Montgomery Ward. I can definetly envision that type of thing happening to ABC. And seperately maybe happening to animation (although this is highly dependant on what Dreamworks and Pixar decide to do). An entirely new problem could affect the parks; deterioration to the point that a 5 billion dollar investment would be like using a bandaid to cover a nicked artery.

But the analogy was more to counter-point Scoop's "precendence." Companies are not guaranteed future recoveries simply because they survived before and they are "institutions." Montgomery Ward survived Sears intially entry to their market, the defection of Robert Wood to Sears, the Great Depression and WWII. Also it provides precendence for a "savior" CEO taking the same company and running it into the ground later in his career.

 

[Captain Crook]

Landbaron...Without my glasses, I'm blind! But if you want me to be unhappy and beat myself up over the loss of imagination at Disney or Eisner's total egocentricity I can give it a try. I can even try to see the failings of Disney animation & ABC...But the theme parks? Why would any of you, my good, close cyber friends want me to see WDW through your eyes?

Think, if you will, of entering your favorite Park, seeing all of the magical things you've come to know over the years. Feeling totally at peace with your family smiling, laughing and playing right by your side under the beautiful Florida sky. Think of the mickey bars and those turkey legs that always smell sooo good (but never quite taste that way ). Think of the joy of eating at your favorite Disney restaurant or accidentaly running into the big cheese himself (Mickey, not Mike). Harken back to the days of showing your kids the Disney Magic. Think about those wonderful Castmembers, who AV points out are really just ordinary people, yet somehow rise to the Disney occasion at least 9 times out of10. Think of all of the best memories you've had and then think of ole Captain Pirate who still sees all of these things without noticing peeling paint, burnt out light bulbs or dirty bathrooms. Who sees each new attraction as an opportunity instead of (potentially) another nail in the coffin. Who can still enjoy the new magical touches as grand without crying over spilt milk.

Would you, my friends, really want me to see it through your eyes? Or do you wish you could maybe still see it through mine?

 

[larworth]

It would have been interesting to discuss the importance of the “little touches” in the overall magic equation. Are they critical elements in the average guest’s experience? Do they really make a big enough impression on a sufficient enough percent of the curve to be nurtured and expanded, or it is money better spent elsewhere (not banked)?

But alas “Car Wars” is back on the tube again.

At least for me its not about Eisner, its not about entitlements, its just about what is in the best interest of the parks. I have no problem with them running it to maximize its revenue generating value. Just as long as they do it for the LONGTERM.

The parks were built around certain philosophies and strategies. It created that wonderful competitive advantage that exists today and decades of apparently very healthy returns. If market conditions change than philosophies/strategies might need to evolve. It just isn’t clear to me that the old business model is outdated.

I think there was a clear change starting in the mid 90’s. A dip into that great pool of goodwill to finesse some extra profit out of the division by doing less than the guest deserved. I’m open to the idea that it was even a result of being a victim of past success, rather than outright greed. If you really think you have to deliver 20% annual growth (that was their stated target back than) you start to make some poor short-term decisions when the assets you got can’t support this anymore.

Now, a clever manager doesn’t do this by abandoning all standards outright, but by cutting them back here and there. While our lists are often impediments in our discussions, it really is all about batting averages. Is the effort being made today, on average, as good as it should be? Clearly seem less than it use to.

I’m willing to entertain how saturation, changes in customer wants, the discovery that cash flow is really king makes this the right approach in the new order and how we should demand more of the same in the future. It just ain’t Eisner bashing (I’ll leave that to AV he seems to have it down).

Funny, in some ways it makes me cherish the great things in the parks even more. I think I no longer take some things for granted.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Ahhhh! How refreshing.

It would have been interesting to discuss the importance of the "little touches" in the overall magic equation.

Exactly what I wanted to do!!

Actually I linked to this other thread because I was hoping to point out that some of the non-'regulars' have very similar complaints. And the way I read it, it could have gone two ways. First was the overall theme that delineated how some very small things were very, very important to these people. What was insignificant to one guest may very well define the magic for another.

The other course it could have taken was a discussion regarding overall philosophy. What especially caught my eye was the shopping mall theme on Main Street. Those little shops, eclectic and different somehow 'fit' with the magic. A change has occurred in management's thinking over the years that many people have noticed. And many people don't like. At least that's how I read the thread.

It was a starting point for discussion. It was NOT supposed to be about trading touches and keeping things the same. It was NOT supposed to be about Ei$ner bashing (although I personally don't know who else is responsible). It was to go deeper than that. But in the end, you're right, it turned into yet another, "My car is better that your car".

So let's try again.

The parks were built around certain philosophies and strategies. It created that wonderful competitive advantage that exists today and decades of apparently very healthy returns.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. No truer truism could ever exist!!

If market conditions change than philosophies/strategies might need to evolve. It just isn't clear to me that the old business model is outdated.

Again, the nail being hit squarely on the head!! But I'd go further than that (part hyperbole and part to spark a little debate). I'd say it is very clear to me that the old business model is not outdated!! Instead the company has willfully chosen a different strategy. One that concentrates on short term gains only and totally ignores and dismisses the long term philosophies that used to serve the company so well.

I think there was a clear change starting in the mid 90's.

It's a fine point, I know, but I really think that it started way earlier than that. It was the mid-90's when it became apparent to the masses (myself included). I believe it started the first time they opened the vault and deliberately sold the item for the sole purpose of boosting the bottom line for the upcoming quarter only. Now, I'm not saying that it was a mistake. I'm saying they saw a golden goose, recognized it for what it was and made that sucker lay eggs until it's very health was in danger.

Now, a clever manager doesn't do this by abandoning all standards outright, but by cutting them back here and there.

No one (with the exception of Mr. Scoop and Mr. Pirate of course) has accused Ei$ner of being a 'clever manager'.

It just ain't Eisner bashing (I'll leave that to AV he seems to have it down).

HEY!! He doesn't have a monopoly on it, ya know!! I was bashing Ei$ner here before AV ever got his first DSL!!!

Funny, in some ways it makes me cherish the great things in the parks even more. I think I no longer take some things for granted.

AGREED!!! That's why I'm spending a month down there this year!!!

 

[Captain Crook]

Ahhhh, how refreshing.

Well! I can certainly take a hint.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Captain!! Lighten up!! You forgot the smilie faces!





So, what'd think of Mr. larworth's post?

 

[raidermatt]

First, I just want to clarify my car #1 position. IMHO, a car #1'er does not necessarily believe that the "goods" philosophy has had no negative impact whatsoever on the parks. (And I'll extend it to the resorts, since we have had so much fun with chocolate and butter...)

There are a few things that have bothered me. The ride closures without replacements is the big one, but I still don't see this as being out of control. But, for me at least, there is so much Magic in the things that are there, the negatives are not nearly enough for me to say the Magic has faded. To me, the negatives are little things that any dynasty is going to go through. Its inevitable that over time, mistakes will be made. But, with respect to the parks and resorts, I don't see any mistakes that are siginficant enough to fade the Magic, and certainly nothing that makes me think Disney is in a death spiral.

Shops on Main Street? I really believe this is another one of those "taste" questions. I can understand how someone would want the eclectic mix that many are lamenting. But take the magic shop for example. Its a nice, quaint idea, but frankly, it does not interest me in the least. I PREFER it to be more of a general goods store. As long as the CMs are still Disney quality, the architecture and "feel" remain Disneyesque, I am happier. Now I know, there are many who consider this catering to the lowest common denominator, and if that's how I am to be defined, so be it. This is one guest whose experience is enhanced by many of the changes.

Baron, you are absolutely right when you say:

What was insignificant to one guest may very well define the magic for another.

Replacing the magic shop may have hurt the Magic for some, but keep in mind it enhanced it for some as well.

I'd say it is very clear to me that the old business model is not outdated!! Instead the company has willfully chosen a different strategy. One that concentrates on short term gains only and totally ignores and dismisses the long term philosophies that used to serve the company so well.

I agree that the strategy has at least been modified. But I am not yet convinced that the long term philosophy has been abandoned. Hopefully you will at least grant that it is at least possible to increase short term gains without sacrificing long term gains?

Making sequels, in and of itself, does not hinder long term success. As long as new, successful product is created, success will endure. However, if creativity is abandoned, then long term goals have also been abandoned. But I believe Atlantis was a successful attempt at creativity and innovation, it just was not a commercial success. I am very interested in Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet, and even moreso in the company's reaction to their commercial success or failure.

But back to the parks/resorts...

If the info posted by others is correct, chocolates and turndown are still available on request. I can see where somebody who thinks these are wonderful services would be upset that they must now request the service. However, there are those who don't want to be bothered with Mousekeeping in the evening. They are at least sometimes in their rooms at this time and actually don't want the intrusion. So making it an on-request service, in theory, makes everybody happy.

What is my point? Wait, what IS my point.... Oh yeah, its very easy to jump to the conclusion that everytime a decision is made that we don't like, its an example of a short-sighted, penny-pinching philosophy. I'm just saying that there is frequently more to it than that, and while its clear that current management has been tightening the belt, its not nearly to the extreme many portray it to be.

 

[roymccoy]

Couldn't agree more with you about the ride closures with no replacements. It's the big one for me, too.
Roy

 

[raidermatt]

Yeah, I'm willing to cut some slack for 20k. There were issues with keeping it open, and there are issues with trying to replace it. But they can only put it off for so long. They can at least pretty the area up...

Closing CBJ at DL was kind of a bummer, but things seem to be full steam ahead with the replacement. The skyway is a good spot for a restaurant or something, but again, not a big deal to me. But Tomorrowland at DL is in sad shape (as you well know), and the closures of CoP and Timekeeper at MK without any clear replacement strategy was very troubling. However, they have opened back up on busy days, and I guess its not clear whether they will both permanently close or not, so we'll just have to see.