OK, here is the park hour comparison June 2001 v June 2000

[JeffJewell]

Profitable is as profitable does

The crux of our disagreement is that Disney used to be synonymous with high quality productions, particularly animation and theme parks.

To many of us, this "high quality" is more than merely important, it is the critical factor that built the name and the company of Disney.

Eisner's Disney, to a very great extent, doesn't actually "produce" anything anymore, they rent or buy it from someone else, and with an eye towards low cost of acquisition rather than high standards. The consistent, high-quality productions are not occuring, despite Eisner's ability to show a profit.

To many of you, this "turning a profit" is the sum total of your measurement of Disney.

"Many of you" think "many of us" are wacky idealists, lost in the clouds and the past. Conversely, "many of us" think "many of you" are a sad reflection of a culture that reveres money rather than quality.

Peter, you're definitely right about one thing... this is the point of the discussion where we're either going to agree to disagree or we're going to get banished to the Debate Board.

Jeff

 

[Peter Pirate]

Jeff,
We've gone from arguing apples and oranges to apples, oranges and lemons!

I understand your & DVC's position on goals and expectations from Disney (as opposed to other companies). I even subscribe to a lot of it. Yoho stated his opinion that Eisner was not a good businessman and that The Disney Corporation was not in 'great shape'. I beleive Eisner to be an astute businessman and that the Company is in very good shape, which is to what I have been arguing...Not necessarily the Magic that you, DVC & I have discussed occasionally!

But still, as you perceived, this argument is at an impasse...

 

[YoHo]

Its mirrors and hat tricks, because its earnings are before the go.com hit is taken. they actually have negative numbers after go.com is factored in. This is typical Wall Street Chicanery and has nothing to do with Disney specifically, I also must maintain my stance that the late 80's and early 90's have trained me to expect significantly better then this.


I can't argue the issue of Capital spending, but what I can say is that they have had significant failures in both their core buisnessess (film is starting to get back on track with SPy Kids and that other film. And Theme Parks, (DCA disaster and less then satisfactory AK numbers.)

Granted they are taking steps to improve things at the themeparks, but one has to wonder how they got into this position with their two most profitable usually firing on all cylinders industries. Not to mention the poor showings outside of these core groups. Its a pretty forest, but the trees are all deseased.


MY main point was and is that Eisner was not the driving force behind the Fiscals, he was not the sharp pencil guy, he was the creative guy. HE did many great things that brought in revenue and promoted growth, but he did it by leading Imagineering and Disney animation and listening to people like Frank Wells who unlike him, understood fiscals. Eisner has no credentials, he has never previous to Frank Well's death had sole fiscal control and as such, he has not been able to run things as well.

I see Disney as coasting, they may be on an upslope, but its not a particularly steep one. Atlantis and Pearl Harbor will give then some wiggle room if successful, nice and good, but If frank Wells were still alive, they wouldn't have needed wiggle room, they'd be soaring.

 

[YoHo]

Okay, I'll come down a little, I can't really argue that Disney isn't profitable, only that they aren't as profitable as they should be, as profitable as I expect them to be. The reason that they aren't as profitable as they should be is because Micheal Eisner is not the fiscal Talent that Frank Well's was, so I suppose my biggest problem is the word astute.

Micheal Eisner is NOT an astute buisnessman, Frank Wells, WAS an astute buisnessman. Or if you insist on calling Eisner Astute, then I will claim that Frank Wells was a phenominal Buisnessman, a prince amoung buisnessmen, god of buisness, because its quite obvious to me that Eisner,....is no Frank Wells.


ITs all about expectations and in 2001 Disney is not meeting the expectations set by Eisner/Wells, Eisner/Wells met those expectations, exceeded those expectations blew the lid off those expectations, all while suffering from that late 80s early 90s recession that makes the current economic climate look like a cake walk. So no, I can't refute Disney's numbers, but what I can say is that they aren't good enough.

I have expectations about Disney's financial performance, much as Landbaron and JeffJewel have them about the parks and Eisner is not meeting them, EIsner/Wells did. What other conclusion is there to draw?

 

[Another Voice]

I promised myself I wasn’t going to write anything more, but…

But I just want to remind both sides that this is Hollywood, the place where the old saying goes “the glitter goes up on the screen, the real creativity goes into the books”. There’s no way of really knowing – one way or the other – without getting a detailed look at the financials (and that ain’t going to happen). The key is to see what the company thinks, and for that just watch their activity. If you see a MAJOR acquisition in the next two quarters and some serious capital investments to shore up the parks, things are going well. If they continue to accumulate cash and if cutbacks continue in parks and film, then the company is hankering down for a storm.

Only time, and the box office for ‘Pearl Harbor’, will tell.


Now, let’s see. Who do I know that worked on ‘The Mummy Returns’, I think SHE can pick up the lunch check this time…

 

[DisDuck]

Sorry guys/gals actually had to do some work. Back to the fray.

JJ.. What I posted about on the times concerned the reverse of what you see. Yes, the listed times for April 2000 did not match real park times (for MK & Epcot & DS). They exceeded the posted times. So all I was saying that the reverse can happen. In your case it went from more to less; in may case from less to more.

Maybe when you get down there enough guests will be present to change times upward. The passes do say 'Times subject to change without notice'.

As to all the other stuff about Eisner/Wells versus Eisner stand-only. Profitable; Not profitable. Magic versus less Magic, etc. etc. etc. (to quote a certain King).

May take is Disney is undergoing a retrenchment like many companies right now. It pains us since we have such a love of the place (& entire company, for me). But would any of you rather they just threw money around and a recession does hit. Then what, make dramatic/traumatic cuts then. A little pain now with some sugar makes the medicine go down better. Based on my experience every year since 1995 (plus the every other year between 1975 and 1989), I am willing to cut Eisner a little slack. From my viewpoint, if I see the Magic lesson over the next year then I might have to join that carpool. But until then my motto is next year at WDW (this year is DL).

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well Dis, I'm glad you're back. And I do understand your point of view. However:

From my viewpoint, if I see the Magic lesson over the next year then I might have to join that carpool.

I think my problem with the "wait till next year" bit is that I'm from Chicago. That has been our Chicago Cubs motto since 1907 (I think). I'm running out of next years!!

Last year you and Peter Pirate kept telling me that after the GO.COM thing took off and the minor cost cutting that went along with it, we'd see TREMENDOUS things happening very soon.

Ah! But now! Wait! Gas prices! Economic slowdown! Well… That's OK!! Just wait till next year!!

 

[DisDuck]

Sorry no sympathy for the Cubs, I am a Dodger fan (stayed loyal after the move).

I think something will happen next year (or sooner) because after the 100 year celebration is finished there will be a need for a new draw.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I really hope you're right, DisDuck. I am ever hopeful. Despite my rather dour tone most of the time, I'm usually pretty optimistic. And I really think it may not be to late to turn things around (otherwise I wouldn't be here). But time is getting short and they really need to do something more than a band aid fix.

 

[YoHo]

DArnit, Where is that stupid mule, I'll unjinx DIsney.

ANyway, I have to agree, I'm out of wait til next years. As I've said earlier, in the past, we didn't have to wait til next year even when the economy was in the crapper (I'm talking during Eisner's reign) Disney simply didn't have these kinds of problems.
Another interesting cubs analogy, much like the cubs, Disney can suck and people will still flock to it. And therefore, managment will not upgrade the parks, because they don't have to.

 

[All Aboard]

Hey, call me crazy and perhaps I am looking at the Emporer's New Clothes, but I thought that some pretty good enhancement were made to the Florida parks in 1998-1999. Of course, they sat on them and milked the Millennium Celebration last year. But, I liked what was done in the previous two years.

 

[Peter Pirate]

gcurling, I agree with your opinion. I wonder if the improvements we appreciate are because of our frequent visitor status? If for some reason we appreciate the subtle changes more because we know they're not going to add a new E ticket every time we visit.

Hope you had a good visit the other week. Ours was great!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I thought that some pretty good enhancement were made to the Florida parks in 1998-1999.

And

gcurling, I agree with your opinion.

OK, I'm sorry to rain on your little love-fest parade, but could either of you two be a little more specific? What improvements could you possibly be refering to?

Come on. I usually hate lists, but this time I really want a long one

Thanks.