Epcot Closings!

[Lewisc]

I don't have any the "inside information" it appears some of the posters have. My impression: a few years ago people wanted to stay on-site. People (even if they didn't use it) liked EE. An afternoon pool break was eaiser. Now there are no more EE and shorter park hours reduce the afternoon break. Allowing EE for MK (or at least half the park) 2 days a week isn't that much to ask. Although Disney can't offer the same FOTL access Universal does they really should offer something to resort guests.
A few years ago Disney seemed to be able to maintain their "rack rate" (with a few 10-20% DC discounts). Now people seem to wait for deep discounts (code, AP...)and only pay full price during holiday weeks.

 

[4cruisin]

Oh boy,

I had to choose this thread as my first jaunt into the rumors board. Normally I just surf the DCL board, but AV message and the subsequent discussion peaked my interest.

I have been to WDW 4 times. 1979 (It was just the MK), 1988, 1989 and again in Dec. 2001. The decline in service and overall trip value/satisfaction was so noticeable on our last visit; it was very sad.

Although we do not visit every year like some people, we really enjoy Disney and had looked forward to our long planned trip. We stayed at P.O. Riverside (our first time on site) and were very excited about the anticipated service we would receive. It was a nightmare from day 1. The check in line snaked around the lobby, took over 1 hour to get to a CM, we did not have adjoining rooms as requested(there were 4 rooms booked for our party), the CM was less than helpful or understanding. The overall check in time was over 2.5 hours. The room was lovely, as was the grounds, but boat service had been discontinued which we were never advised of. We only found out when we tried to find out how to board the boat to get to P.I.

Because we visited during December, we knew the parks had limited hours but we were willing to have that as a swap for the convenience of lower attendance numbers. I also noticed that the overall maintenance and cleanliness of the parks had deteriorated considerably. My husband said we were probably just getting older (late 30's) and maybe Disney didn't hold the same magic for us anymore, but I think it is a sign of the overall lack of attention on the part of corporate Disney. They are so busy trying to find ways to make more and more money, they are losing sight of the real money maker ... the Disney ideal.

We are booked for our second Disney cruise in Jan. 2003. I felt the cruise offered a better value ratio than another trip to WDW,
however, I would not hesitate to try another cruise line in the future if DCL starts to slip in the same way WDW has.

I know this probably isn't the correct thread, but I think the Epcot closing rumor is just another instance of Disney missing the bigger issue. If they keep cutting back on service, whether it is park hours, shows, hotel service, etc., they will eventually close for good because people just will not tolerate less service and increased costs. At least I won't.

And that's all I have to say....

 

[raidermatt]

I don't have any inside info, but over the last 6 months or so I've seen and heard reports that questions about the financial performance have intensified. The gist is that there is a great deal of value in Disney's name and assets, yet it is not being properly utilized.

This goes back to a point I have tried to make in the past. An emphasis on financial performance is not AUTOMATICALLY bad for Disney.

Being driven by financial performance is ok, as long as you understand what is truly driving your finanical performance.

It's become clear that current mgmt does not truly understand what drives Disney's financial performance. They think its driven by synergy, marketing, and "efficient" production (ie, goods driven, as Scoop says). If they were right, the stock would be performing well (at least with respect to the market in general).

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

He decided he wants his stock up and its now more likely to go up with more focus on WDW's interests.

See, now I would say that that's an adequate summation of the main point I've been making from the day I showed up here; that more focus on the content, particularly in the parks and animation divisions, would be what led to an improved situation, not budget-cutting.

I agree with an awful lot of what you've been saying recently. It's just confusing to me, because it sure felt as though you were arguing with me for saying the same things a year or two ago.

-WFH

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Originally posted by thedscoop
...This whole story has so many subplots that its really developing into a soap opera. Right now, there is a good bit which I cannot share, but to say that, unless a radical change in strategy occurs, 2003 will be remembered for more than just Mission:Space....

Hello - I know, I know... total Johnny-come-lately to the party.

Scoop - I'm reading your posts (very intriguing and quite enjoyable reading BTW) and I'm just trying to get a feel for your current stance on things. Respecting that you can't blurt out the exact who, what, when, where, etc., would you say that 2003 holds good things or bad things in store for WDW (and Disney for that matter) in your mind? Just curious.

For the record (and to keep to the original thread): I think closing Epcot for a day a week is a REALLY BAD idea. Especially during non-peak times seeing as everything else closes so early. Ever try to walk through DTD at night in September - wall to wall people - yuck!

-matt

 

[DisneyKidds]

Ahhh... WFH, but some were arguing with you and just trying to point out that management wasn't trying to louse things up - just doing what they thought would be in the best interest of the company by doing what they thought it would take to meet the expectations on the street and raise the stock value. There are a number of folks who have been going on for a while about how the changes at WDW to some extent have been driven by the market and the economy and the analysts and the street......etc., etc. while others have said that that isn't a factor and management just doesn't get it and is ruining the joint on their own. Funny thing about the business environment and expectations on the street - they persist and evolve and might eventually require a company to take a different direction from what they thought in the recent past might have helped meet those street expectations. Even in a cryogenic state you had more foresight than many Disney execs - but their motivations were not necessarily impure - perhaps there really is no Evil Ei$ner- just a misguided one.

(apparently soon to be on the street?)

 

[YoHo]

In any shake up that might occur, I would expect the Disney family to hold some sway. There were mutterings a couple months ago that Mrs. Miller was uping her interest and in fact making her feelings known. The real question is what her current relationship is with Roy E., cause if they are on the same side in this battle, they would have some significant power.


WDI should never have been integrated back into the company.

 

[Another Voice]

I have exactly 48 seconds to jump in here (flying – a lesson in customer service), but I need to throw in a few comments right now.

There’s a bit of the old “blind men and the elephant” going on right now. Not even the players in this current round of reindeer games know the full picture and it becomes fuzzier the further you are always from it. And there’s an awful lot of positioning and maneuvering going on right now. Far too many corporate types try to play the Washington game of leaks, counterleaks, disinformation, and good old bashing.

On Eisner, there are many different opinions. Mine is that the man fell into corporate Hollywood simply by accident. High-priced breeding doomed him to the Captain of Industry role, family connections led him to corporate ABC then to Hollywood. He is not, in my opinion, a man of any particular wit, intellect, talent or imagination – he’s a perfect Hollywood suit. He was hired at Disney to give that battered company credibility with all the other stuffed Hollywood suits. It was that simple. To wake a slumbering giant all you have to do is find a big enough fool to give the monster a good swift kick. Everyone in Disney KNEW where the real creativity slept; Eisner simply provided the boot.

And for a long time it worked great. There was a tremendous reserve of energy inside the company and a series of excellent executives let it out. With so many great ideas around, it was easy for people with real talent to weed out the really rotten ones. But people without talent always have a way of crashing in, don’t they. And in Hollywood it’s all too common for people to believe the oversimplified and over-sensationalist press. This is a town about illusions – and the illusions everyone most fervently want to believe are always about themselves. What’s happening now is not a shocking turn of events. It is not a change in behavior or capabilities. It’s the result of things that have been present all along.

There is nothing more dangerous in the world as a person brimming with ideas but lacking in judgment. One by one the people that said “no” were cast aside and others where found to say “yes”. Without real talent, things began to go wrong. So others were found to take blame and the cry of “woe, for the evil that Wall Street has forced us to do” echoed throughout the building. There’s a very good reason ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ is the fairly tale that most animators wish to produce next.

We’re witnessing the third act of the movie right now. The first brave little girl to call out from the crowd has spoken (and she is one that cannot to be ignored). As more of the crowd sees the situation as it truly is all the fear is diminishing. That doesn’t mean things will change overnight, or that this story will have a happy ending – it just means events have been put into motion.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

No offense AV, but that's a rather lengthy way of saying "things will be changing"...

 

[raidermatt]

No offense AV, but that's a rather lengthy way of saying "things will be changing"...

Maybe, but it also says WHY things will be changing.
If anyone knew how it would all play out, and whether it would be good or bad for Disney, they would be a very valuable commodity to a lot of investors...

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Even in a cryogenic state you had more foresight than many Disney execs - but their motivations were not necessarily impure - perhaps there really is no Evil Ei$ner- just a misguided one.

But the "Evil" Eisner was mostly a pejorative term used by posters wishing to make others' opinion look silly.

I do not believe anyone ever suggested that Eisner should be removed simply because he was "evil," only because the decisions he was responsible for did not appear to be in Disney's long-term best interests.

This appears to be what Chad is now saying, and I see no need to assume he really means "Eisner is evil." It is certainly what I was saying, all along, and I regret that so many people saw the need to assume I really meant "Eisner is evil."

This is why I get so cranky about the intra-Car stuff... if there hadn't been so much "good-natured" crap about how Car #3 secretly believes Eisner is evil and Car #1 secretly believes anything with "Disney" printed on the side is inherently Magical, then we might have actually listened to what the other had to say.

I meant it when I said I thought our opinions on Disney were far more alike than they were different.

And I believe harmony on the R&N board has an inverse relationship to the number of posters who feel personally insulted by that statement.

-WFH

PS: "Impure" is an interesting choice of words, by the way. It's a loaded term: given no other data, most people would say the term "pure" carries a much more positive connotation than "impure," when those words could both describe either a positive or negative situation. Saying, for instance, your last post was your purest effort to date, sounds positive unless what I really mean is that it was pure horse****. On the other hand, if I say "DK's pure horse**** will come in handy," it might seem a smart-assed, derogatory comment, unless we're scheduled to do some work in the garden this afternoon; suddenly, it becomes an appreciative sentiment.

So when you say "motivations not... impure," I need more data to respond meaningfully. Saying their motivations were "purely money-based" or "purely Magic-based" are opposites (pretty much, for the sake of our conversations, anyway); saying merely "pure" or "impure" doesn't really take any position, one way or the other, even though it "sounds" positive.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I can't help but think that either way I mean impure, horse**** will be associated - and you may be right .

Guilty as charged on the Evil Ei$ner. Inept certainly is a word that many have used.

As for my use of impure I mean it in this sense. I have gotten the impression that many feel Eisner said 'I'm doing this - guest experience be damned' - that his motivations were not pure - purity here being focused on doing what was best overall for the company. He was an inept fool acting in an irresponsible fashion. Perhaps this was not the case and he was just a guy trying to do the right thing and making the wrong decisions. Either way he got it wrong so it really is a moot point.

That is my horse**** and I'll stick with it for now .

 

[raidermatt]

Maybe this is over-simplifying, but...

If I combine AV's analysis with yours, Scoop, would it be true to say that the only reason Eisner found himself being forced to capitulate to the money guys was that he was already killing the creative content portion of the business? It was this creative content that was really the driver for earnings/financial success. Had he been able to keep the creative, service-oriented edge the company had, he could have avoided the calls for cuts from Wall Street.

Fair? Off-base?

 

[DisneyKidds]

I guess a question to be answered is - was the downturn in the stock which preciptated the need for cuts an inevitability given the cyclical nature of the markets, etc., or did the stock go down because Ei$ner undermined it by cutting the creative legs out from under Disney?

 

[YoHo]

To me, the problem isn't that Disney was the purchasers, but that they made incredibly stupid purchases. after all, Time Warner was mindnumbingly emense and was doing fine until AOL got involved and tried to alter the dynamics of the company. Eisner's company made poor choices.

I've been harping on the idea that Micheal Eisner has no real skills of any sort for some time now and Mr. AV backs me up. The only skills at Team Disney on the upper managment level were firmly in the possession of Frank Wells. Not that Disney would not try some of the same ideas (Frank wanted to buy a network), but perhaps (and we'll never know) better decisions would have been made. Not to mention that with Frank in charge, there wouldn't have been the mass brain drain that occured.

So, no, I don't think Eisner is evil. Inept, clumsy and stupid DEFINITELY!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I agree with an awful lot of what you've been saying recently. It's just confusing to me, because it sure felt as though you were arguing with me for saying the same things a year or two ago.

Ditto!! If I didn’t know you better Mr. Scoop, I’d say there was some back-peddling going on here. Luckily I do know you better. So I’ll caulk It up to miscommunications. But I really gotta tell you, your current position and your position from just a few weeks ago, is… well… let’s say… confusing!! But what you have said today has made me sit up and take notice!! Perhaps I wasn’t listening hard enough before!!

However, Eisner got scared and then promoted either "pleasers" or goods folks. Anyways, I always objected to the idea that Eisner screwed it up from day one. Baron often takes that approach and I just don't think that approach is accurate. In fact, I believe the proof shows just the opposite.

I think, my dear Scoop, that there really isn’t any proof. I believe, absolutely, in what my liege, AV says about the man. Mainly because it was my assessment of the man way before I knew an entity named AV even existed.

I firmly believe he screwed up since day one. That’s not to say that some things of greatness didn’t make their way into the light despite him, or that he was malicious in his intent. It only means that he never ”GOT IT”!! And by never ‘getting it’ he screwed up!!!

I think that’s what the people were saying when they talked about him killing the creative content. If he truly “got it”, right from the start, there would have been little to fix. Go back and re-read some of AV’s stuff. I think that’s pretty much what he infers as well, and he’s been pretty much on the mark with everything he’s posted so far.

Smile, Baron, the genie liked you...

See!! I like what you’re saying lately!!!

DisneyKidds:

Guilty as charged on the Evil Ei$ner. Inept certainly is a word that many have used.

I believe sometime last year at this time I used that term to describe Ei$ner in a post to my good friend the Pirate. I said, “He didn’t do these things on purpose or with intent, he’s just inept!!” Now, AV doesn’t cut loose with a lot of PM’s, but that day he sent me one consisting of only seven words. “You don’t know how right you are”, was all he said!!

 

[raidermatt]

As AV pointed out, creativity was able to flourish during Eisner's regime for quite awhile.

But I think he means it flourished because there was so much of it within the company at that time. As the people who truly caused it to flourish exited, the negative effects started showing up.

After taking over the Cowboys, Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl for pete's sake. That alone proves that if something is good enough, nobody can screw it up right away...



It seems that both models fit the timeline. Creativity and content seemed to take a nosedive around 1995. This coincides with the Cap Cities acquisition. It also coincides with the combination of Wells' death and the cummulative "removal" of the creative folks. I don't pretend to have the definite answers, but my opinion is that its probably a combination.

Eisner MAY have wanted to make great content at one time, but it appears that he is not very good at it, nor is he very good at retaining people who are good at it. The effects of this took several years to begin to take hold, but since many projects take years to hit the public, it wasn't felt until the mid-90's.

At the same time, Wells passes and the Media model comes into play, making things worse. A TV network takes a while to screw-up too. It took about 6 years to see the full effects, and would have been 5 had it not been for Millionaire. What if the network didn't have Home Improvement and Rosanne when Disney took it over? It could have been a much quicker demise.

 

[The Duchess]

This is ridiculous. I would not pay big bucks to stay at an Epcot resort (YC,BC,CBR,BW, S&D) if Epcot was closed three days out of that week! They've already eliminated the Disney Institute.
Get rid of Pleasure Island and the Water Parks first.
I have heard on several financial shows that Disney is gearing up for new head management.....

 

[raidermatt]

was the downturn in the stock which preciptated the need for cuts an inevitability given the cyclical nature of the markets, etc., or did the stock go down because Ei$ner undermined it by cutting the creative legs out from under Disney?

If we look at the Disney stock price compared to the DJIA and S&P, its clear its not all cyclical.

From mid '92 to mid'97, Disney's performance pretty much mirrored the above indexes.

From late '97 to mid '98, Disney outperformed both, only to immediately fall back below. Since then, both the S&P and Dow have outperformed Disney, with a brief exception in early to mid 2000.

However, the gap has been significantly greater since Aug/Sept of 2001.

So while the stock price doesn't really give us any real indication of when the internal problems started, it does tell us that the drop in stock price is not solely attributable to the overall market declines.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I have gotten the impression that many feel Eisner said 'I'm doing this - guest experience be damned' - that his motivations were not pure - purity here being focused on doing what was best overall for the company.

Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, I think the root of Eisner's failure was that he either a) forgot or b) never understood that Disney Magic is a product that is more like art and less like art supplies.

For me, any definition of "pure Disney" would have to include some modern equivalent of the Nine Old Men... some central core of creators and storytellers who provide a cohesive focus and creative framework for Imagineers to build Magic on.

In that particular sense, I feel Eisner represents impure Disney... a Disney whose focus and framework is purely financial, that considers creativity not a resource to be invested in, but an expense to be minimized and contracted out.

I think Eisner started putting less quality into his products with the intention of producing favorable quarterly reports, rather than continuing to put as much quality as possible into his products with the intention of producing great products. Eventually, this subtle but basic shift in focus caught up with Disney.

I often hear about people "making a stand" or "standing up for principle".

The "pure Disney" referenced above would be the principle I'd say the CEO of Disney should stand up for.

Your short "what if" example focuses mostly on out-spending Wall Street's patience, which misses the main point of what, precisely, you spend money on. If they'd spent the Pearl Harbor money on the Rings, we'd all be talking about Eisner differently. But he preferred to go with the formulaic blockbuster rather than the guy who had a vision of how to tell a classic story (and isn't that what Disney always used to do best?).

No, the buck never stopped with Eisner nor did it ever stop with his board.

"The buck" may not have, but uncounted billions of bucks did. Wall Street is no excuse for poor choices within the bouandaries of what was actually spent.

As AV pointed out, creativity was able to flourish during Eisner's regime for quite awhile

AV was also careful to point out that it was the oversight of talented executives that enabled creativity, executives now out of the system.

Eisner and Co. decided to be purchasers rather than purchasees

Fair enough. But as CEO, doesn't Eisner have some responsibility for failing to replace the talented executives he lost (I'll stop short of saying "for running off" said executives, just to play well within bounds)? Media conglomerates that aren't a one-man show stand a much better chance of surviving.

I still think Plushler is the current issue much more so than Eisner.

Eisner has gone through a whole crapload of executives; and all the evidence I've seen suggests that the more Eisner fingerprints on a project, the worse the result.

Pressler may be poorly assigned, but that's ultimately Eisner's fault, too.

I have no confidence that executing Pressler helps, or even affects, anything important. In all my experience with bottles, I've found the necks are nearly universally at the top.

-WFH