What I find is missed by "Disney is a business"

[DisneyKidds]

Thank you…..The point is they have ALWAYS relied on corporate money. It's always been about business decisions since day one.

Geez, how could you all not have mentioned Carnation, which has been a part of DL since the park opened? As to your point, is anyone arguing otherwise? I won’t….but the “Disney was always a business” argument, in and of itself, seems lazy to me, IMHO it’s more complicated than that. No real time now, but we’ll talk later!

In the mean time, if everyone doesn’t mind me asking….what would everyone say their two favorite Disney related books are?

 

[Jonfw2]

Geez, how could you all not have mentioned Carnation, which has been a part of DL since the park opened? As to your point, is anyone arguing otherwise? I won’t….but the “Disney was always a business” argument, in and of itself, seems lazy to me, IMHO it’s more complicated than that. No real time now, but we’ll talk later!

In the mean time, if everyone doesn’t mind me asking….what would everyone say their two favorite Disney related books are?

Of course it's more complicated than this. It's also more complicated than "the Disney of today is nothing more than a commodity".

 

[Aluminum Falcon]

Pete put it out there again today about changes being "good" or "bad" based on being financially successful.

Good business from a consumer point of view .gives a product that surpasses the cost of the product

Yes you can explain why Disney does something by stating "they are a business" but that does not make it a correct or proper move. This also applies to companies like Nintendo, Apple, and others.

can you define the bolded? I think most businesses gauge consumer sentiment on whether or not something makes money.
I would say that you're really talking about "value", and that is defined on a personal level, and almost impossible to quantify if you're a business.

An example that comes to mind would be that for years, Apple hasn't added much to their Iphones, but consumers still gobble them up, and I'm sure if paneled, most Iphone users would say that the product does not surpass the cost

 

[Aluminum Falcon]

Exactly. Further, Disney has been a publicly traded company since 1957. Using their status as a public company to justify changes ignores the fact they have been public for 64 years.

i have no idea what point you're making here, the composition of Disney has completely flipped multiple times since the company went public, changing the makeup of the company, and how they make their decisions. On top of that, they have always put things in place to drive profits, even before they were public, so i really don't have a clue why being public for so long means you can't use it as an "excuse", they have shareholders they have to answer to, and all shareholders care about are profits, typically the same rings true for private companies

 

[sethschroeder]

can you define the bolded? I think most businesses gauge consumer sentiment on whether or not something makes money.
I would say that you're really talking about "value", and that is defined on a personal level, and almost impossible to quantify if you're a business.

You can outline it as value if you want but I think sometimes that is talked about too vaguely. My point is that the normal customer themselves would apply a price tag higher than that of the business itself for all included aspects of what is being paid for.

Not the upper limit of what a customer would pay which is what various businesses target.

Apple hasn't added much to their Iphones, but consumers still gobble them up, and I'm sure if paneled, most Iphone users would say that the product does not surpass the cost

I would not gauge them as a good business then by a consumer standard. They can be financially successful while not being a good business from a consumer perspective.

What you will find is that the most successful businesses that don't follow being a "good business for consumers" have some of the best marketing which allows their dedicated followers to cover up shortcomings. (See all the threads defending and making excuses for Disney regarding removing entertainment, FP+, Magical Express, ect)

A simple concept is over deliver as a company. If a company is over delivering compared to the price you are paying on their promises, service, and products then that is a good business from a consumer perspective. Doesn't mean a business can't be successful just means I would not view them as a consumer friendly or good business. It also doesn't mean I don't like their product, solution, service.

 

[Aluminum Falcon]

You can outline it as value if you want but I think sometimes that is talked about too vaguely. My point is that the normal customer themselves would apply a price tag higher than that of the business itself for all included aspects of what is being paid for.

Not the upper limit of what a customer would pay which is what various businesses target..

I guess what I’m asking, is how can a business quantify that/ how can consumers as a group quantify that, it sounds like ghost hunting. You are talking about it like it is easily defined to a business, or to the general public, but I still can’t see a way that it can be done.
Can you give an example of it? Maybe I’m just not thinking through it enough

 

[sethschroeder]

I guess what I’m asking, is how can a business quantify that/ how can consumers as a group quantify that, it sounds like ghost hunting. You are talking about it like it is easily defined to a business, or to the general public, but I still can’t see a way that it can be done.
Can you give an example of it? Maybe I’m just not thinking through it enough

If you are trying to measure it here is a simple question. Is this company doing X to make more money or to provide me with a better product/service/experience.

If the answer is the later its likely they are over delivering to the consumer.

I have been extremely lucky to work for the organizations I have and know the leaders I have. It's really easy for companies to only look to maximize profit.

I do recognize though it's slightly different for B2B vs B2C which Disney is in. We will see Disney can turn it around and bringing back entertainment is a good first step.

 

[Bruggok]

... An example that comes to mind would be that for years, Apple hasn't added much to their Iphones, but consumers still gobble them up, and I'm sure if paneled, most Iphone users would say that the product does not surpass the cost

I wouldn't compare Apple to WDW. Apple keeps raising prices but gives their happy owners what they want. WDW keeps raising prices but takes away what their customers are happy with in order to make even more money.

If you ask hardcore Apple phone owners, they won't say they're being nickle and dimed or ripped off as hardcore WDW fans often feel. They will say they wish their Apple 13 weren't so expensive and had features that android phones have had for years, but they're still proud owners of their new iPhone. The closest that Apple has come to cheaping out is that Apple stopped including phone charger plug with each phone.

One of the reasons people continue to fly Southwest is because they bundle in no change fees, 2 checked bags per person, and drinks/snacks. What WDW has done, if it was an airline, is to keep the same high prices but now ask customers to pay for previously free features. The least that WDW could've done to take away FP+ would be to give value/moderate onsite guests 1/2 free LLs upon Genie+ purchase (deluxe guests get 2 LLs and Genie+ included per day) and a bundle of 12 free LLs (3 usable each quarter) per AP. That would've wiped out most of the complaints here and reinforced the value proposition of the high prices charged by onsite resorts.

 

[CBMom01]

Pete put it out there again today about changes being "good" or "bad" based on being financially successful.

Good business from a consumer point of view gives a product that surpasses the cost of the product.

Yes you can explain why Disney does something by stating "they are a business" but that does not make it a correct or proper move. This also applies to companies like Nintendo, Apple, and others.

Good business has one rule for a public company: Does this increase shareholder value. That’s it. One standard.
Heck, Disney board members can be sued for intentionally choosing a different standard.

 

[sethschroeder]

Good business has one rule for a public company: Does this increase shareholder value. That’s it. One standard.
Heck, Disney board members can be sued for intentionally choosing a different standard.

They are over valuing short term gains over long term strength.

So I do not agree with them being required to charge more and deliver less as a requirement of not getting sued.

The beauty of over delivering on your service/product is that in the long run when you raise prices a much smaller percentage of customers will have an issue with it. Additonally if you do slip up there is less blow back based on your historical track record.

At some point if Disney operates solely based around driving short term profit they will run out of historical good will capital from their customers. Won't be today but it will happen.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

They are over valuing short term gains over long term strength.

This keeps getting brought up over and over by a lot of different posters. While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, it is important to note that this is not a fact. This is an assumption and/or an opinion. It's important to recognize this when forming your opinion, and I feel from what I've read over and over is that people are treating this as a fact in their mind.

Price elasticity is a measure of how much demand drops based on price increase. Most products elasticity is not linear.

The opinion that Disney is valuing short term over long term is making the assumption that A WDW vacation has "elastic" demand" (more dollars will be lost by people stopping from coming than will be brought in from the increase in price).

Disney is making the assumption that the demand is "inelastic". They believe that although some people may stop coming, the price increases will more than offset that loss. In other words, not enough people will stop coming to have a negative affect.

Which one is correct? I have no clue. I haven't studied the data. I don't even have access to the data. All I have is a small sample size of anecdotal data where I can recognize the sample bias.

 

[BadPinkTink]

The opinion that Disney is valuing short term over long term is making the assumption that A WDW vacation has "elastic" demand" (more dollars will be lost by people stopping from coming than will be brought in from the increase in price).

Disney is making the assumption that the demand is "inelastic". They believe that although some people may stop coming, the price increases will more than offset that loss. In other words, not enough people will stop coming to have a negative affect.

thank you finally someone who understands how business and economics works and that Disney will not just go back to how things were because of emotional outbursts on social media from a small minority of guests

 

[Aluminum Falcon]

If you are trying to measure it here is a simple question. Is this company doing X to make more money or to provide me with a better product/service/experience.

If the answer is the later its likely they are over delivering to the consumer.

I have been extremely lucky to work for the organizations I have and know the leaders I have. It's really easy for companies to only look to maximize profit.

I do recognize though it's slightly different for B2B vs B2C which Disney is in. We will see Disney can turn it around and bringing back entertainment is a good first step.

I think you also have to account for all the things that Disney has added over the last decade, you can't just look at a price increase, and toss out all the other things they've added

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

For the amount of money, the CEO's make its a shame that cast members may live paycheck to paycheck or have to even pay for medical insurance at all.

I dislike this argument because the CEO salary doesn’t amount to much when applied across such a huge team.

Chapek made 14.2 million last year and Disney parks has 110k cast members. If Chapek gave his salary to all cast member equally, it would be $129.09 per cast member. Don’t spend it all in one place.

 

[CBMom01]

Any company with a business model that relies on huge numbers of low wage workers should be having a moment of reckoning right now. Disney among them

 

[Jonfw2]

Any company with a business model that relies on huge numbers of low wage workers should be having a moment of reckoning right now. Disney among them

How so?

 

[CBMom01]

How so?

The Great Resignation

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akgy7a/we-all-quit-how-americas-workers-are-taking-back-their-power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...isputable-truths-about-the-great-resignation/

 

[Jonfw2]

They are over valuing short term gains over long term strength

Tron, Remy, Guardians, Galaxy’s Edge, Space 220, and Star Cruiser all beg to differ.

 

[Jonfw2]

The Great Resignation

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akgy7a/we-all-quit-how-americas-workers-are-taking-back-their-power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...isputable-truths-about-the-great-resignation/

Amazon hired 500,000 employees last year.

 

[CBMom01]

https://www.newsweek.com/footage-di...ate-labor-shortage-tiktok-viral-video-1616884