Disney reads DISboards - Fact!

[twinmomplus2new]

DVC themselves regularly read these boards from thier little offices in Celebration. I know this because I contacted an old friend who worked for them and they responded rather quickly VIA a posting here.

That said thats a job most of us could embrace pay me to peruse the DIS.

Just kidding..... they are not actually paid to just read the boards. But they do read them.

 

[crisi]

Walt Disney, union breaker, was certainly interested in the bottom line. Disney got where he did by running a very saavy business - including trying to break unions, including protecting his intellectual property, including charging what the market would bear and marketing his property as far as he could. He was innovative - and he recognized his market was middle class families - but he was no charitable saint.

 

[twinklebug]

Dump
the scary clown at the boardwalk pool

Yea, what IS with that thing? My DD(13) won't let me make reservations back at the BW all because of this clown and I LOVE the place! (Psst Disney rep: I know a Disney character who would have worked just as well or better!)

 

[spiceycat]

Yea I don't appreciate that clown either - you would think they could have used Goofy, Pooh, Donald, or the Blue Fairy. and it would be much more in kepting with the Disney not to mention DVC experience.

they have always looked here and as someone mentioned at the other boards too.

if they see a problem developing - hopefully they can stop it before it starts to turn away business. Any smart business does this. Mind certainly watchs the internet too.

You don't want a problem that can easily be fixed to turn customers or guests away from your business.

 

[psu4glory]

What made Disney the place that we love was Walt. If Walt had made his decisions based upon financial outcomes there probably wouldn't be a Disney today. Walt was a dreamer and a, make it happen kind of guy who was not the best money manager. He left the finances up to his brother Roy. They new that if they did it right a reasonable profit would come some day in the future. They were in it for the long hall.

Walt believed in keeping it within the Disney family. Even if it cost a little more. He knew that he could expect and receive the Disney level of quality from his own people.

yes...walt was a dreamer and a visionary. but he was also a businessman. just b/c his brother ran the finances of the company didn't mean that walt was naive to the business side of things. anyone who thinks that walt - or disney in general - hasn't ALWAYS had the goal of making money should take off the disney-colored glasses.

a good idea rarely makes it all the way to market - and NEVER becomes as successful as disney's has - w/o a sound business plan...

 

[cobbler]

I am all for the Poly DVC too.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

First, here's an interesting news report about how the Disney Company monitors Disney fan websites and forums:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT4l8qZfu04

Then, a few comments about the issue of profit motive vs. doing what's best for customers...

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the best way to achieve ongoing profits and growth is to have extremely satisfied customers. Sometimes executives at companies, including Disney, make poor decisions to drive short-term profits. But that ultimately hurts a company.

Visionary leaders like Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, and Steve Jobs don't bother with customer research. Such leaders take risks by anticipating what will absolutely delight their customers, and then following through with great results.

 

[disneynutz]

First, here's an interesting news report about how the Disney Company monitors Disney fan websites and forums:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT4l8qZfu04

Then, a few comments about the issue of profit motive vs. doing what's best for customers...

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the best way to achieve ongoing profits and growth is to have extremely satisfied customers. Sometimes executives at companies, including Disney, make poor decisions to drive short-term profits. But that ultimately hurts a company.

Visionary leaders like Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, and Steve Jobs don't bother with customer research. Such leaders take risks by anticipating what will absolutely delight their customers, and then following through with great results.

That's what I ment to say. Very well put.

 

[pilferk]

I don't.

What made Disney the place that we love was Walt. If Walt had made his decisions based upon financial outcomes there probably wouldn't be a Disney today. Walt was a dreamer and a, make it happen kind of guy who was not the best money manager. He left the finances up to his brother Roy. They new that if they did it right a reasonable profit would come some day in the future. They were in it for the long hall.

And if starting out today, Walt would likely be bankrupt, unfunded, or left without resources. Sad? Maybe, but the fact is that Disney needs to function in TODAY'S business environment in order to actually exist. Pining for the halycon days of yore is fruitless. Thinking Walt would be able to do better in an environment he had no exposure to, or experience in is equally as pointless. Wishing Disney would harken back to the days of Walt is, essentially, wishing a death sentence on them.

Today corporations want ridiculously high profits and they want it now. Left unchecked they will cut, cut, cut, until it breaks. The executive management team are rewarded with millions of dollars for cutting and there is very little pride in what they do. If on paper they can save a buck by having someone else do it, they will. They don't expect to be around for very long. They collect their bonuses, move on, and let someone else clean up the mess. Walt believed in keeping it within the Disney family. Even if it cost a little more. He knew that he could expect and receive the Disney level of quality from his own people.

Do you know WHY corporations operate that way? Because shareholders demand they do. If they don't, their stock prices plummet, their credit rating is junked, and they cease to exist. I'll agree on management compensation...it's completely over the top at the upper echelon. But you can't begrudge Disney doing what it needs to do to survive.

Walt might have been willing to "spend a little more", but the shareholders aren't/won't be, unless there is a tangible benefit in doing so. It's the world we live in. It's not the 20's, 30's, and 40's, where ideas and idealism could conquer the world. Sad? Maybe....

 

[psu4glory]

Visionary leaders like Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, and Steve Jobs don't bother with customer research. Such leaders take risks by anticipating what will absolutely delight their customers, and then following through with great results.

i would be more than surprised if walt disney or steve jobs never bothered with customer research...

being able to anticipate what's going to delight your customers - and to provide such things - is a mark of a good leader. however, to do so with no regard to your company's bottom line is just foolish. neither disney, nor jobs, nor any other successful "visionary" ever did that.

the fact is that we would not be having this discussion about walt disney being a visionary if he had not ALSO been in the business of making money...one rarely achieves 'visionary' status among the masses with a money-losing venture...

 

[Mtnman44]

My post about wanting Disney to continue to make decsions based on the best financial outcome was simply a comment about market economics. Whether we are talking about the Walt Diseny studios company in the 50's or the massive empire today, both succeed or fail based on whether they are providing something that consumers want and will pay for. That is measured by revenue and the company's ability to control costs and efficiency is largely measured by the profit margins.

If they are making a lot of money, it is because a lot of people are spending money there. You can say that they are "greedy" and charge to much for this or that, but that is really just an opinion. the market determines the price and if people continue to pay X for the product at a steady or increasing rate, then the price is not too much. If people stop paying or the number of customers begins to decline, then the price can be said to be too high or the quality of the product vs. the competion. The market adjusts.

Seeking one's best economic interests, whether you are a manufacturer, consumer, retailer, service provider, etc, does not constitute "greed". It is actually a natural and necessary aspect of a market economoy. all of us, companies included, seeking our own economic interests keep the market in balance and provide prices that mesh with demand and provide an almost automatic, unconcious way for products to be steered to areas where demand or need is higher. There's a lot more to the discussion..anyway.

 

[fishermouse]

I wouldn't doubt that IF free dining came out, that it's in part because of everyone talking about it.

not a suprise that they are monitoring web sites, just good bussiness to listen to your customers.
free dining is just not feasable in a "timeShare" world. Remember there are no free lunches, Free dining is given to resort guests as part of a package and is really dining included, not FREE. Some one has to pay for it, I'm not a big eater and would hate to see dues go up to cover dining. On the bright side it's not going to happen.

 

[pilferk]

My post about wanting Disney to continue to make decsions based on the best financial outcome was simply a comment about market economics. Whether we are talking about the Walt Diseny studios company in the 50's or the massive empire today, both succeed or fail based on whether they are providing something that consumers want and will pay for. That is measured by revenue and the company's ability to control costs and efficiency is largely measured by the profit margins.

If they are making a lot of money, it is because a lot of people are spending money there. You can say that they are "greedy" and charge to much for this or that, but that is really just an opinion. the market determines the price and if people continue to pay X for the product at a steady or increasing rate, then the price is not too much. If people stop paying or the number of customers begins to decline, then the price can be said to be too high or the quality of the product vs. the competion. The market adjusts.

Seeking one's best economic interests, whether you are a manufacturer, consumer, retailer, service provider, etc, does not constitute "greed". It is actually a natural and necessary aspect of a market economoy. all of us, companies included, seeking our own economic interests keep the market in balance and provide prices that mesh with demand and provide an almost automatic, unconcious way for products to be steered to areas where demand or need is higher. There's a lot more to the discussion..anyway.

Very well said.

 

[pilferk]

not a suprise that they are monitoring web sites, just good bussiness to listen to your customers.
free dining is just not feasable in a "timeShare" world. Remember there are no free lunches, Free dining is given to resort guests as part of a package and is really dining included, not FREE. Some one has to pay for it, I'm not a big eater and would hate to see dues go up to cover dining. On the bright side it's not going to happen.

Exactly. And "free dining" at the resorts isn't "free", exactly (as you point out). To get it, you have to pay rack rates for your room, and buy a package including a ticket. So you forgo any room discount for that "free" dining.....which, in the end, probably is a good deal for you...but it's also a good deal for Disney, I'd bet.

 

[rbuzzotta]

Better park admission options at reduced rates....no just the AP one!! As a family of 5 we spend quite a bit of time at OKW and other DVC resorts and do not enter the parks!!!!!! Last year we rented out quite a bit of our points (we have 500) and went elsewhere!!

Don't get me wrong..........I love OKW and my DVC. Visiting the parks is no longer worth it to me for the price we pay for 5 of us!!! We have been opting to spend time at those other parks in town!! LOL!! and we enjoy hanging at the pool and venturing off site!!!

 

[jarestel]

Who knows what Walt Disney would or wouldn't have done in today's business climate? I don't think any of us knew him well enough to claim to know his thoughts that intimately. The one thing he did was to create a theme park where children and adults could have fun together. Of course he wanted to make money, but the vision was the thing that differentiated Walt Disney from so many others.

In the 50 years since Disneyland came into existence, nobody else has done much more than embellish the original idea. I would argue that what's needed is more originality and fewer copy-cat corporate thinkers. (Of course, nobody ever got fired for copying somebody else's original ideas)

If you build it right, they (we) will come and plunk down the $$$ with big smiles. Walt got it, but too many of those that came after him are content to simply milk the cash cow rather than take the risk of innovation.

 

[texdisneygal]

Oh... if the powers that be are reading...I'd really like to see a Poly DVC.

Me too!!

 

[Anal Annie]

Well, I hope hope they know they've got a lot of unhappy DVC members that have been waiting for over 2 months now for those DCL point charts. Feelin' like 2nd class citizens 'cuz they didn't release the point charts at the same time they released the cruises for booking. What kind of way is that to treat guests who've actually made a financial commitment by buying your timeshare?

 

[JimC]

...Walt bought the land in Florida believing he could build a mega-empire that could be built into something that would attract people for multiple days....Chris

Actually, Walt bought land in Florida to embark on a completely new adventure in urban planning and land use. He may have been one of the few to pull off what he was contemplating. There is an excellent book on the topic -- Walt Disney and the Quest for Community by Steve Mannheim, published by Ashgate Publishing Limited.

 

[rantnnravin]

My post about wanting Disney to continue to make decsions based on the best financial outcome was simply a comment about market economics. Whether we are talking about the Walt Diseny studios company in the 50's or the massive empire today, both succeed or fail based on whether they are providing something that consumers want and will pay for. That is measured by revenue and the company's ability to control costs and efficiency is largely measured by the profit margins.

If they are making a lot of money, it is because a lot of people are spending money there. You can say that they are "greedy" and charge to much for this or that, but that is really just an opinion. the market determines the price and if people continue to pay X for the product at a steady or increasing rate, then the price is not too much. If people stop paying or the number of customers begins to decline, then the price can be said to be too high or the quality of the product vs. the competion. The market adjusts.

Seeking one's best economic interests, whether you are a manufacturer, consumer, retailer, service provider, etc, does not constitute "greed". It is actually a natural and necessary aspect of a market economoy. all of us, companies included, seeking our own economic interests keep the market in balance and provide prices that mesh with demand and provide an almost automatic, unconcious way for products to be steered to areas where demand or need is higher. There's a lot more to the discussion..anyway.

I agree. However...
TWDC is simply NOT producing the same quality "products" that they used to.
While it may make them short-term profits, what they are putting out in the marketplace (cheaply made, low-quality merchandise and entertainment at exorbitant prices) is NOT what will keep consumers coming back for more.
Why do you think people are looking for cheaper park tickets? They want to be paying admission that is equivalent to what they are actually receiving.
If I overpay you once, shame on you. If i overpay you twice for the same "crap" offerings, shame on me.