Well, like the proverbial snowball that enlarges as it rolls down the snowy slope, Michael Eisner and the Disney name are being seen more and more in a negative light. A while back there were those publications that rated Disney's board the WORST in corporate America. Then there were the continuing articles about Disney's dropping stock. Then there was the big article in USA Today about Universal taking on Disney. Now in the same day are TWO articles, one on Slate Magazine and one on Newsweek Magazine, getting really down and dirty about Disney's problems.
Newsweek's article, The Battle for Orlando outlines some of the earlier USA Today article, but gives numbers. Disney's attendance is down 6 percent. Universal's is up 11. In it, Disney once again spouts the line about Universal not being a threat. But it also mentions how hard Disney works at keeping people AWAY from Universal. Mixed messages?
MousePlanet mentions the article also today, but complains of the fact that the article doesn't mention that Disney hasn't bothered to build many attractions lately. MP wanted this mentioned not as an excuse for Disney, but more as a REASON people are staying away. It is a good point, but it was apparently forgotten that WDW built Millionaire, One Man's Dream, TriceraTop Spin, Primeval Whirl, the Magic Carpets of Aladdin and the newest incarnation of Journey into Your Imagination in 2001 or 2002 while the two Universal parks added NOTHING these years. This year got two show rehabs, but that is NOT what is spiking attendance.
The Slate article, The Louse in Mickey Mouse's House, is far more blistering. After that glorious title is something we have not seen in the general media: "Why Disney's Eisner should be fired." The article then lashes out on the recent history of Eisner's control of Disney, including Eisner's insane salaries during Disney's decline, Disney's cronyistic board and the many business debacles Eisner has championed, including recent theme park embarrassments. These are things that we mention quite a bit here but rarely has such an article been so available to the masses.
Both these articles are on the MSNBC website, which did get me to wondering about an anti-ABC thing going on, but the Slate article actually originates on the MSN site and the Newsweek article is actually in this week's Newsweek on newsstands. Furthermore, NBC would probably LOVE to have Eisner remain since it leaves them one less network to worry about. Regardless of motives, millions may see those articles on the MSNBC site and millions WILL see it inside Newsweek. (I have no clue if any of this has had any MSNBC airtime.) Even worse for Disney is that snowball analogy I started with. Some of those millions will most likely be other journalists, and there is nothing journalists like more than jumping on a bandwagon. Even the Newsweek article seemed to echo the earlier USA Today article with a far-too-coincidental clean-cut VS piercings comparison of the park employees. With the current media attitude to American corporations, how could any of them ignore one of the biggies continuing its slide into mediocrity?
Last year we had people being attacked by sharks. This year we have stockholders being attacked by CEOs. Forget the snowball analogy. This could start an avalanche that Eisner might never dig himself out of. Cue the "Jaws" theme since that is appropriate in more ways than one!
Contemplate this: Disneyland once had some 50 attractions, but after going to the "1 price - rides all" business model, having a lot of attractions did not increase your profits. You made money by getting the guest in the park, not by having 50 attractions for him to ride. If you do away with 3 - 5 attractions and the guest still comes, then you've lowered your operating costs and made more profits. Look at how many attractions Disneyland has taken out and not replaced (rocket rods, gondola cars, etc). Disney fans can recite them all. Does this work? In the short term yes. Will guests still come? Yes, at least once more. Twice? Probably not. Not when there is Magic Mountain, KBF, and Universal Studios near by.
Thats my analysis, how about yours?
Uhm, yeah, I think the media's negative attention is the best thing for Disney--I hope it kicks them in the ass because they are clearly not where they could or should be. As I've said before, I've wished that we at this site could take a proactive role at bringing about change--I'd be willing, but, to be honest, I'd like some ideas about what we could do. I'd like to know what sources we'd have at our disposal--whining is fine, but it doesn't change anything. As the saying goes, "It's always the perogative of children and half-wits to point out the Emperor has no clothes, but the fool remains a fool and the Emperor remains the Emperor."
But, I do have high hopes and optimism that this surge in media complaints will allow more creative minds, who love the Disney product, to replace Eisner.
As for USH, it was doing HORRIBLY last year since it really hasn't gotten anything new in ages. This year they introduced a deal where anyone who buys a one-day pass gets an Annual Pass instead. So business is booming over there. We will have to see how Disney's one-day Park Hopper helps out the Anaheim parks.
Now that you mention, I do seem to remember the thread you're talking about. I recall thinking that boycotts and picket lines didn't seem like appropriate methods to get the message across to Disney execs. Boycotts and picket lines seem more appropriate for political statements or to express outrage at moral crimes. Boycotts and picket lines would only make us sound like a fanatic fringe to be ignored...
I was always hoping that we could somehow educate the park-going public about what makes a good themepark--why Disney or IoA is better than a place like Great America (I have students who still think Great America is the best--but that's just because they've never been to Disney or IoA). This site, I think, serves that purpose to a good degree--that's why I still enjoy coming here.
Like any kid, going to WDW was like going to heaven. I just wish my experiences as an adult could be as magical, which they haven't been.
Let's hope Disney get's it's act together and has a healthy, productive competition with Universal.
So, when you say Disney needs to be up to Universal's standards, think about Universal Hollywood, and how bad it is.
You're right. Universal Hollywood leaves much to be desired. The famous tram tour is tired and irrelevant in an age where you can learn more about movie making from the extras on a typical DVD. USH's three, count 'em, three rides don't inspire anyone to visit the park week after week. And the layout of the park on two levels make it one of the most kid-unfriendly parks I've ever seen.
The millions of people on the west coast, and the millions more who've visited USH over the years, see this and many assume that Universal Orlando must be more of the same. How wrong they are.
But, as we said on a previous thread, until Universal finds a way to fix Hollywood, it will never build a popular reputation better than Disney's. No matter how hard Disney's trying to drive its rep into the tank.
Anyhow... Variety jumped on the snowball wagon today. They had a long similar article about Disney's decline. A lot of the article allowed Disney to make heaps of excuses though, and Variety towed the Disney line when it claimed that international tourists aren't coming to visit. (As I posted elsewhere, international tourism is UP this year. Just not at Disney.)
Francois, those things MIGHT work. They MIGHT NOT. Who knows unless they happen. I would be curious to see the results, just as an experiment. But I do think boycotting with your pocketbook IS important. DCA keeps trying things left and right to bring in the customers. Unfortunately, for DCA, they are all cheap solutions. If Disney set aside the amount of money it took to build that crappy park and put it into new rides and lands, then they wouldn't be having these problems. And the only reason they know they are having problems is because people aren't showing up. We have decided for our Orlando trips that we will ONLY go to the Disney park that creates something worthwhile. If enough people only go to Epcot next year and ignore the stagnant parks, Disney will definitely get the hint. Whether they do something about it is a whole 'nother story.
Mark, I don't think anyone likes seeing Disney flounder, but right now I think it is necessary. They have taken us ALL for granted, as if we are all mindless robots and won't notice how quality-free they are becoming. If they had never gotten cheap, then seeing their downfall would certainly be sad. But now they are only getting what they deserve. And better yet, this will be part of their history so they would be even more stupid to attempt this business style in the future.
Nathan and Robert, I have to agree that USH's standard have really fallen. I also can't understand why the Orlando parks have such obvious "lands" and themes while USH's are so willy-nilly. But I have to strongly disagree about the tram tour being tired and irrelevant. The whole thing isn't about seeing how movies were made, but seeing WHERE they were made. The "Psycho" house gives me a chill EVERY time I see it. People have always been fascinated with WHERE movies are made. Tourism always increases in beautiful areas where popular movies were filmed. People still look for that freakin' house from the awful "Mrs Doubtfire" in San Francisco! Besides, there is so much more to the tour than the sets. You've got Earthquake, which is pretty much the same exact experience as the STAND-ALONE ride in Orlando. You've got Jaws. You've got a flood. You've got Kong. You've got a collapsing bridge. And so on. There is simply no attraction in any theme park that compares to all that you get on this ride. NONE!
That said, the rest of the park is a mess! They will get Shrek next year, but they seriously need to theme the areas DISTINCTLY! I don't care if what is in the buildings matches the theming correctly, but it would be nicer to have some atmosphere in that park! They really need to get this park more in line with how UO looks and feels, which would only help ALL the parks.
In regards to your earlier post, I have to ask--boycotting would, undoubtedly, send a message to Disney...but would it send the message we want? Disney execs, no doubt, could interpret the lowered attendance figures as an excuse to turn Disney into a run-of-the-mill thrillpark which would, undoubtedly, draw a large audience of thrill-seekers (teenagers and other Six Flags attendees) but would not appeal to those of us who look to Disney and other parks like it for theming and ambiance as well as thrills.
That is a real problem also with all these copycat articles. No one seems to be doing an in-depth analysis as to WHY people are staying away from Disney. Never do you see anything about what people like us are saying about the parks. All you see is the Disney excuse of 9/11 or a poor American economy. Never are theme park fans asked what they think about declining Disney quality or an obvious lack of non-hotel construction in the parks. I do recall one article where major Disney fans complained about these things, but they were balanced, of course, by some Disney Dorks with their blinders on.
I have a feeling that soon enough the media WILL decide that they can't continue thrashing Disney without some new ammunition. Then the doodoo will hit the fan.
Are any of you regulars members of The Motley Fool? If you're the one who stirred up their interest, thank you. Maybe with a little push here and a little push there, and a lot more little pushes, Disney can be turned around and brought back to where it should be.
If you're one of those people who think that this site is anti-Disney, you're wrong. Most of the regulars here like the Disney parks. We just want management to do a better job of running them so they'll be there 20 years from now when we want to take our grandchildren to them. We also want lots of competition in the industry so we get better rides and attractions.
Two more articles, and in two biggies! LA Times article and NY Times article.
Both involve Disney's board finally growing a backbone. Roy Disney is reasonably upset. Along with Stanley Gold, this is the lone section of the much-maligned Disney board that has actually not towed the Eisner line. Now another voice, Andrea Van de Kamp, has been added to the dissenters.
Problem is, even if these people COULD form a coup, there really isn't anyone out there who knows the business well enough to take over Eisner's position. BUT the NY Times article says that a sort of deadline has been set for Eisner to turn things around. This covers mostly his cronyistic board, ABC's ratings and the stock's price. Obviously he can't turn around the parks by then.
In November his problems may REALLY start. ABC will still stink and the stock market will probably still be all over the place since we are clearly not done with American businesses revealing their dirty little secrets. Then what? Maybe nothing. This board is known to not divide and conquer, and Eisner has a "five-year plan" - is that scary or what??? But what happens in January if it is revealed that a Universal park or two has surpassed a Disney park or two in attendance? THAT will not be pretty!
Around here, people who log in get more credibility. You won't log in so you don't get much respect or credibility. You want to dish out the criticism, but I suspect that you can't take it, thus you remain anonymous. Oh, by the way, if you are going to criticize us, work on your grammar.
"I'll I have to say is good thing there is (sic) more quality site's out there then (sic) yours."
Stay on the porch little doggie.
I wonder if one of the things that may actually be hurting Disney is the fact that it has four parks and Universal only has two. With four parks, the numbers are split four ways whereas Universal only has two parks to worry about (for the record, I'm talking about Orlando--California is likely a whole other story). One of the reason's AK was opened, despite the fact that Disney wanted in on the Busch Gardens/Sea World numbers, was to try and lighten the load at the Magic Kingdom. But AK just doesn't have the fame and allure that MK does, and it probably never will.
Now as for all this other jibber-jabber going on here: the anons do get a lot of flack from the regular posters, that's no big surprise. IP addresses give most of us a general idea who's who anyways. And taking one minute to register or log on to the site doesn't determine what kind of lifestyle you have (except for that of a theme park fan, and I can't see anything wrong with that).
I've heard some thoughtful words and ideas from some anonymous posters and I've heard some useless dribble from even some of our registered users, so it really doesn't matter who's name goes up there--in the end it's what you have to say that counts.
I have to agree and disagree a little with Joe though. AK was mostly built to keep people in WDW for an entire week, thereby eliminating Universal and SeaWorld, and Busch Gardens as well, from the average vacation menu. Problem was, people STILL wanted to go to USF and SW so they simply shortened their Disney portion of the vacation. Instead of two days in Epcot, many dropped down to one. Disney/MGM also suffered, but not as badly. MK will probably NEVER suffer. Even last year it lost about the same number of people as AK and MGM yet had almost twice as many visitors. Like Disneyland, there is no killing that park.
But Disney is killing the other parks. And not actively. They are passively killing the parks, which is probably worse. When the decline is slow and long, you are more likely to lose hope of ever seeing things the way they used to be.
As for the Anonywusses: I have tried to convince Robert to completely remove the ability to post anonymously, but he told me that he wants to make sure that "insiders" can post without getting in trouble. That makes a lot of sense to me. Posting anonymously is NOT for people who just want to come in here, talk trash and feel no repercussions. If we can put our names out there for everyone to see, why should someone too cowardly to do so receive the same respect? Especially when so many anonywusses have so little of worth to add?
But one of the main reasons people may be turning to Universal now has been mentioned before: discounts! While Disney discounts only affect the hotels, the Universal discounts affect hotels, park tickets and travel packages. When money is no object, WDW is a favorite for many. When money is a problem, people will turn to a place that understands that. Instead of these articles comparing Universal's EXPENSIVE hotels to Disney's OCCASIONALLY INEXPENSIVE hotels (I plugged in several different dates into the Disney site and NEVER got the often-mentioned $77 rate at the All-Stars), they SHOULD be comparing the REAL cost of a UO vacation to the REAL cost of a WDW vacation.
Be that as it may, I agree that Disney has *got* to turn its parks around (to say nothing of ABC and its other assets) if it wants to be on equal footing with Universal. The comment(s) about Disney spreading itself out too much (i.e., its 4 parks vs. Universal's 2) couldn't be more correct. I waffled quite a bit in making my vacation plans, nearly cutting out Animal Kingdom entirely in favor of IOA. True, I spent a whole day at AK in the end, but *I* would rather go to WDW than breathe; how many less zealous tourists is Disney losing to Universal?
A lot of excellent points have been made by others, so I'll stop here rather than reiterate. One last thought: Someone pointed out that Disney has done little non-hotel construction in recent times. While this is true, and while I don't think Disney should necessarily favor building hotels *over* building attractions, I very much enjoy the variety of Disney accomadations that are available. In 1987, we patted ourselves on the back for weeks after finally securing reservations at the Polynesian - such was the extent to which demand exceeded supply. Now we delight in trying a new hotel each time we visit, and we are much less inclined to worry about room availability. I haven't stayed in any of the Universal properties, so I don't know how difficult it is to get a room. If they build many more hotels - or maybe even *one* more - it seems like their guests' front-of-the-line privileges might no longer be feasible.
I'm a big fan of Walt Disney (the man and his dream). He showed the world we can really dream, think big, and make it happen. He showed us how an ordinary man with a big heart could make a difference in the lives of people. He also open the route for a new way to entertainement. Before him, theme parks where non existent. Walt had the nerve to risk it all to confront reality, conformism and reinvent entertainment. How many people today would try to reinvent the way we travel, we eat,...? He did it. His concept was simple: tell a story to people to touch their heart. Making the park was just a better way to immerse the guest into the story. He had a vision : telling the world the dream can come throught. He gave hope to a generation full of ideals but also full of fears and lack of confidence, self esteem. That was the "magic factor" of the Walt Disney world experience. Unfortunately when he died, the vision was lost. Eisner, as a good manager implemented thing to increase profitability and short terme efficiency while forgetting the fundamentals of Disney's vision and value. Eisner is NOT A STORY TELLER NOR A DREAMER. He is a good operator/manager. So now that Walt Disney has lost it's own magic, people would like it to imitate Universal. TO MY OPINION THAT WOULD BE THE END OF WDW, THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THEY COULD DO. They need to go back to the basics. Giving us the best stories and enchanted environnements that make our hearts pound. One thing against WDW is the aging factor. A majority of people are getting older. Therefore looking for fast intense thrill rides which is the universal speciality. Disney did not build is park to thrill but to touch the heart. If they target older (50+ and younger (5-15)wich are looking for security, sentiments and great ambiance they will succeed. Loosing the magic would be like killing all the man's dream and i hope we won't see it happened.
My last comment would be for the Disney executives :
1- Give us new great classic stories with lot's of love and magic
2- Create enchanted rides
around those stories
3- MAKE US BELIEVE THE DREAM IS POSSIBLE
4- Get rid of California adventure, admit the mistake and go back to the basics
5- Forget marketshare, number crunching and put more heart in the business.
6- Make us happy
7- Remember there is a kid in everyone of us. Find back the magic touch Walt had to awake our inner child.
8- MOVE NOW
Thank for everyone reading this long response
MARC-ANDRÉ
MONTRÉAL, CANADA
imasun@sympatico.ca
