No more WDW Blues in RADP
ParrotHead
understand that everyone here is passionate about the parks, and I know
some of them take criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them. I
also recognize that some people don't have the historical perspective I
have (in the sense that I've been visiting Walt Disney World for over
20 years), and guests who only recently started visiting will probably
never understand why my standards are so high.
I'm going to keep operating WDW Blues until such a time as I and my
partners deem it no longer necessary. But until that time, I'm rarely--
if ever--going to bring it up in RADP. It's just not worth the hassle.
I do want to make a few things clear before I shut up about this
topic:
1. I *love* Disney, and I *love* Walt Disney World. I'm not out to hurt
the company or the parks--I only want to make them better.
2. I don't run WDW Blues for any reason other than this. I make no
money off the venture--in fact, it COSTS me money. You don't see any
ads on the site, and I hope you never will. I don't want anyone to
think I and my partners have any ulterior motives for putting in the
countless hours of time we put in.
3. I'm not doing this for personal publicity of any sort. I want
publicity for the *site* for obvious reasons, but I personally don't
want any. Heck, I don't think I even use my real name anywhere on the
site.
4. I have no delusions of grandeur. I am well aware that Disney fixes
many problems that are never mentioned on WDW Blues, and that sometimes
it's sheer coincidence that problems get fixed shortly after we
publicize them.
HOWEVER... Too many Cast Members have written to us telling us that
we're making a difference for every instance of this to be coincidence.
We know that Disney visits our site on a regular basis. We know that
we've been discussed in maintenance meetings. We know that some
managers have decided to use us to identify problem areas. These are
facts, not my personal opinion.
5. We are not the group of crazies on the fringe that some of you make
us out to be. I've received countless e-mail messages from "ordinary"
guests--folks who don't visit anywhere near as frequently as I do--who
have been concerned about the same problems that concern me. In fact,
many times these folks point out problems that I hadn't even noticed
myself!
And of course, there's the large number of CMs who write to us and
let us know that we're not imagining the decline--that it's very real.
Those folks are in a better position to know than any of us.
6. I do believe our numbers are growing, but of course I have only
anecdotal evidence to that effect. I know I've seen more posts in RADP
sharing views similar to mine, and I know I've seen stockholders in The
Motley Fool's Disney message board expressing similar sentiments. It
simply wasn't like this a year ago. But at this point, I believe the
budget cuts are starting to catch up with Disney and more people are
starting to notice.
7. I don't know Al Lutz inside and out, but I've yet to see any
evidence that he knowingly publishes false information or that his
reports on the condition of Disneyland aren't accurate. Sure, Al's
opinionated and is a harsh critic--but that doesn't warrant the kinds
of attacks on him I've seen take place from RADP. I guess I'm missing
something.
I think that's everything. I keeping making some of the same points
over and over in separate posts, and it was getting old. I thought I'd
lump them all together in one final post on the topic and be done with
it.
In closing, I would caution folks from engaging in personal attacks
on people who have differing opinions than you do. This is an
unmoderated group, so it's up to each of us to police ourselves. I have
no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
opinions is unacceptable. Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
one another with a bit of dignity?
___________
ParrotHead
http://www.wdwblues.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Melanie
It's not too much at all, for myself anyway. :) And I agree with you to the
fullest about just letting people state their own opinion, it is just how they
feel. Why judge them harshly because of it, even if you feel differently than
that person doesn't mean anyone has the right to punish them because of it.
Usually you can't change someone's mind about something they feel strongly
about even if you tried to and criticizing people sure isn't the answer to help
someone change their mind. I'm not sure what topics have made you post this, or
who or why someone critcized that person, but I do feel, that I know better
than to criticize someone for how they feel. :)
^i^ Always Living With the Magic of Imagination with the Ghost of Figment
Floating By My Side ^i^
Take Care and God Bless You!!
<3 Melanie <3
Paul T.
> In closing, I would caution folks from engaging in personal attacks
>on people who have differing opinions than you do. This is an
>unmoderated group, so it's up to each of us to police ourselves. I have
>no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
>someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
>opinions is unacceptable. Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
>one another with a bit of dignity?
>___________
>ParrotHead
Paul T. responds: You mean like how you called me a schmuck?
One thing I've learned about newsgroups is that you likely won't change
sentiments forevermore. A year from now, you'll see the same arguments, maybe
the same people or maybe not, against you so arguing back will never permanantly
quell sentiments.
I have some respect for you and your efforts. However, much of that is lessened
by the fact that you always only point out evidence of your claims, and ignore
evidence to the contrary. This hubub in this newsgroup has centered largely
around people disagreeing with you, almost 100%. Your contention and that of
some of your cronies on Motley is that this is a fan board so of course we are
going to disagree about flaws. But anyone with enough experience with this group
knows that there is probably no harsher criticism forum for the parks flaws,
than radp. Oh how many times in here everything from prices, to light bulbs to
messed up reservations gets documented and discussed in here. So any claims that
so much disagreement in radp abou the need to have a site that specializes in
only flaws is a result of enamored fandom, are unfounded by you. These enamored
fans in here are more critical of Disney than you or your site is. The
difference is, they do consider altering viewpoints, and present a balance
between the very small percentage of things that are flawed and the immense
amount of things that arent. You don't do that. You, I contend, are the one who
refuses to consider altering viewpoints as being able to help formulate your
own.
There's not even that much credence in simply listening to opposing views
respectfully. The only real virtue comes, when someone will allow their own
perspectives to evolve in response to contrary evidence. And the fact that so
many people disagree with you, about a flaws site being necessary, should
perhaps indicate to you that your claim that the flaws site is so obviously
necessary, may not be so supported by the public. Instead, you only choose to
point to the aspects that supports your claims, and while respectfully listening
to contrary claims, you readily dismiss them as unfounded. That much would seem
to be just as disrespectful as calling someone a schmuck.
And I wish you would quit making financial claims of lowered budgets. You are
lying if you can not prove it. Paul T.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> I've grown weary of defending WDW Blues and my opinions lately. I
> understand that everyone here is passionate about the parks, and I know
> some of them take criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them.
It's not a personal attack on me if you decide to behave in an
irresponsible manner and make yourself look extremist.
> I
> also recognize that some people don't have the historical perspective I
> have (in the sense that I've been visiting Walt Disney World for over
> 20 years), and guests who only recently started visiting will probably
> never understand why my standards are so high.
>
I've been going to Disney parks for over 40 yeras, and I still don't
understand what you are talking about. My guess is that either you have
gone too often and are bored, and so are finding these things to
entertain yourself, or that you are in your early 20s or so, and are
starting to look at the park with an adult set of eyes and can see that
the place is not pristine and perfect. Somehow, instead of just
accepting this as a part of life and moving on, you have gotten angry
over it.
The place has NEVER EVER been pristine and perfect. Never. Not now,
not 20 years ago, and not when Walt Disney was alive.
The things you are complaining about are inconsequential and nearly
worthless. People on this newsgroup who are familiar with the company
in general and WDW in particular know that what you are putting on your
web page is basically negative hype, and you are being told this in no
uncertain terms. The folks here are not some disinterested newspaper
reporter out to tell the story of some whack job who thinks a burned out
light bulb is the end of the world.
> I'm going to keep operating WDW Blues until such a time as I and my
> partners deem it no longer necessary. But until that time, I'm rarely--
> if ever--going to bring it up in RADP. It's just not worth the hassle.
>
And that hassle is people telling you that your website is a large set
of what amounts to lies. I suppose I wouldn't want to be confronted
with that basic truth, either.
> I do want to make a few things clear before I shut up about this
> topic:
>
> 1. I *love* Disney, and I *love* Walt Disney World. I'm not out to hurt
> the company or the parks--I only want to make them better.
>
That you are not going to do.
> 2. I don't run WDW Blues for any reason other than this. I make no
> money off the venture--in fact, it COSTS me money. You don't see any
> ads on the site, and I hope you never will. I don't want anyone to
> think I and my partners have any ulterior motives for putting in the
> countless hours of time we put in.
Why don't you put up a page showing all that is right with WDW?
>
> 3. I'm not doing this for personal publicity of any sort. I want
> publicity for the *site* for obvious reasons, but I personally don't
> want any. Heck, I don't think I even use my real name anywhere on the
> site.
>
You loved the fact it was in the paper. You made mention of how you
were quoted several times now.
> 4. I have no delusions of grandeur. I am well aware that Disney fixes
> many problems that are never mentioned on WDW Blues, and that sometimes
> it's sheer coincidence that problems get fixed shortly after we
> publicize them.
Disney has a schedule of repairing items.
> HOWEVER... Too many Cast Members have written to us telling us that
> we're making a difference for every instance of this to be coincidence.
> We know that Disney visits our site on a regular basis. We know that
> we've been discussed in maintenance meetings. We know that some
> managers have decided to use us to identify problem areas. These are
> facts, not my personal opinion.
There are thousands of WDW cast members, each with their own agenda.
The fellow on the west coast also claims to have insider information. I
have insider information that says he is nothing but disdained. I can't
speak for WDW, though.
>
> 5. We are not the group of crazies on the fringe that some of you make
> us out to be.
Actually, yes you are. By putting up a web page of small sections of
chipped paint here and there on a 44,000 acre resort complex, you are
completely out of line with reality. Paint chips happen. So do burned
out lightbulbs.
> I've received countless e-mail messages from "ordinary"
> guests--folks who don't visit anywhere near as frequently as I do--who
> have been concerned about the same problems that concern me. In fact,
> many times these folks point out problems that I hadn't even noticed
> myself!
If they don't visit so often, and they've noticed the problem, then
maybe it's not a new issue. Maybe because that's what happens in life.
Paint peels, bulbs burn out, fabric tears.
> 6. I do believe our numbers are growing, but of course I have only
> anecdotal evidence to that effect. I know I've seen more posts in RADP
> sharing views similar to mine, and I know I've seen stockholders in The
> Motley Fool's Disney message board expressing similar sentiments. It
> simply wasn't like this a year ago. But at this point, I believe the
> budget cuts are starting to catch up with Disney and more people are
> starting to notice.
>
You will see what you want to see. Zealots are like that. What I see
are a lot of people who go to WDW a lot, and find what you are saying to
be ridiculous.
> 7. I don't know Al Lutz inside and out, but I've yet to see any
> evidence that he knowingly publishes false information or that his
> reports on the condition of Disneyland aren't accurate. Sure, Al's
> opinionated and is a harsh critic--but that doesn't warrant the kinds
> of attacks on him I've seen take place from RADP. I guess I'm missing
> something.
>
This is what helps push you into the realm of the absurd. Giving that
guy any credibility whatsoever. I posted one item, about the park
bench, which indicates his level of dishonesty. Practically nothing he
says is accurate.
> In closing, I would caution folks from engaging in personal attacks
> on people who have differing opinions than you do. This is an
> unmoderated group, so it's up to each of us to police ourselves. I have
> no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
> someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
> opinions is unacceptable. Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
> one another with a bit of dignity?
>
You're not offering opinions. You are creating propaganda that is
simply untrue.
--
See 1970s Disneyland!
http://home.pacbell.net/jonvn
The WDWguide
posted a similar post last night to explain my position. I, however,
will keep bringing problems at WDW up in this group when I think it is
worthwhile and necessary.
I think about it this way: There are and will always be people who have
a different opinion than we do. Usually, I think, that leads to healthy
discussions. It had in the past and can in the future.
Those few that get personally insulted by these things aren't worth
withdrawing the discussion of quality issues from the newsgroup. They
may spoil it more than a horde of Brazlians wielding giant whiteboards
ever could, but I'll just ignore these attacks on our personalities and
mental health from now on.
I can think of about half a dozen people who routinely respond to these
sort of posts, several of which do so just to flame others (or should I
say freeze their heads off?). I really appreciate the input of the
others that have led me to change my opinion on a variety of issues.
To me, I don't think a handfull of trolls are worth it.
In article <8suqku$vig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
ParrotHead <jo...@pcs-online.com> wrote:
> I've grown weary of defending WDW Blues and my opinions lately. I
> understand that everyone here is passionate about the parks, and I
know
> some of them take criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them. I
> also recognize that some people don't have the historical perspective
I
> have (in the sense that I've been visiting Walt Disney World for over
> 20 years), and guests who only recently started visiting will probably
> never understand why my standards are so high.
>
> I'm going to keep operating WDW Blues until such a time as I and my
> partners deem it no longer necessary. But until that time, I'm rarely-
-
> if ever--going to bring it up in RADP. It's just not worth the hassle.
>
> I do want to make a few things clear before I shut up about this
> topic:
>
> 1. I *love* Disney, and I *love* Walt Disney World. I'm not out to
hurt
> the company or the parks--I only want to make them better.
>
> 2. I don't run WDW Blues for any reason other than this. I make no
> money off the venture--in fact, it COSTS me money. You don't see any
> ads on the site, and I hope you never will. I don't want anyone to
> think I and my partners have any ulterior motives for putting in the
> countless hours of time we put in.
>
> 3. I'm not doing this for personal publicity of any sort. I want
> publicity for the *site* for obvious reasons, but I personally don't
> want any. Heck, I don't think I even use my real name anywhere on the
> site.
>
> 4. I have no delusions of grandeur. I am well aware that Disney fixes
> many problems that are never mentioned on WDW Blues, and that
sometimes
> it's sheer coincidence that problems get fixed shortly after we
> publicize them.
> HOWEVER... Too many Cast Members have written to us telling us that
> we're making a difference for every instance of this to be
coincidence.
> We know that Disney visits our site on a regular basis. We know that
> we've been discussed in maintenance meetings. We know that some
> managers have decided to use us to identify problem areas. These are
> facts, not my personal opinion.
>
> 5. We are not the group of crazies on the fringe that some of you make
> us out to be. I've received countless e-mail messages from "ordinary"
> guests--folks who don't visit anywhere near as frequently as I do--who
> have been concerned about the same problems that concern me. In fact,
> many times these folks point out problems that I hadn't even noticed
> myself!
> And of course, there's the large number of CMs who write to us and
> let us know that we're not imagining the decline--that it's very real.
> Those folks are in a better position to know than any of us.
>
> 6. I do believe our numbers are growing, but of course I have only
> anecdotal evidence to that effect. I know I've seen more posts in RADP
> sharing views similar to mine, and I know I've seen stockholders in
The
> Motley Fool's Disney message board expressing similar sentiments. It
> simply wasn't like this a year ago. But at this point, I believe the
> budget cuts are starting to catch up with Disney and more people are
> starting to notice.
>
> 7. I don't know Al Lutz inside and out, but I've yet to see any
> evidence that he knowingly publishes false information or that his
> reports on the condition of Disneyland aren't accurate. Sure, Al's
> opinionated and is a harsh critic--but that doesn't warrant the kinds
> of attacks on him I've seen take place from RADP. I guess I'm missing
> something.
>
> I think that's everything. I keeping making some of the same points
> over and over in separate posts, and it was getting old. I thought I'd
> lump them all together in one final post on the topic and be done with
> it.
> In closing, I would caution folks from engaging in personal attacks
> on people who have differing opinions than you do. This is an
> unmoderated group, so it's up to each of us to police ourselves. I
have
> no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
> someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
> opinions is unacceptable. Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
> one another with a bit of dignity?
>
> ___________
> ParrotHead
> http://www.wdwblues.com
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Please visit
The Unofficial Online Guide to Walt Disney World Preview Pages!
wdwbook.cjb.net or
http://members.tripod.com/~WDW-Guide
Now again frequently updated!
WDW:
Jan 99: Days Inn Maingate West
Oct 99: Fort Wilderness Campground
July 00: All Star Music
September 00: Grosvenor Resort
October 00 (I): Econo Lodge, Sheraton Four Points
October 00 (II): Sheraton Safari
plus too many day trips to count...
DL:
June 97: Sister in Law
April 00: Sister in Law
DLP:
May 00: Sequoia Lodge
Carol Kennedy
brother went regularly from the mid-'60s till today. From our overlapping
experience with the entire history of Disneyland, we think that maintenance
there has been an overall parabola-shaped graph, with lots of little blips:
In the early years, much better than the typical amusement park, but not
fantical; rising through very good to fanatical at some point; then slipping
in more recent years.
We may be right, we may be wrong, but we were there, between us, to observe
it for the whole time.
It's possible--I'm only saying *possible*--that the same thing has happened
at WDW, so that those who've been going the longest don't see any bad
changes, just some cycles and fluctuations, and those who first started
going during the apex years see nothing but a downhill slide. That would
explain some of the disparate viewpoints, and would explain why younger
people who've been going their whole lives and older people who've been
going since it opened might see it differently--it could be an age
difference only in the sense that the older people (not *all* older people,
just those who've been going since the opening) have seen a bigger cycle.
Nonetheless, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the maintenance slippage,
whether it's normal wear-and-tear, a long-term deterioration, or part of a
better-and-worse maintenance cycle. Trying to make something good better is
a worthy endeavor, in my opinion. It might turn out to be pointless or
futile, as some here say. Or it might not, as some feedback to you
indicates. But I think that your *attempting* it is worthwhile.
I think that some of the sniping at you on this list is jealousy. Many
Disney fans would like to somehow have their voices heard, somehow "get
through" to Disney about something--keeping open a favorite ride, retheming
an out-of-date one, opening a certain kind of resort, whatever. But *you*
have put forth the possibility that you've actually achieved that--and that
doesn't set well with some people.
Best wishes,
--
Carol Kennedy, TDC Pollo Grande, Speaker of Inadequate Spanish, and
Translator without Portfolio
Paragon
ParrotHead <jo...@pcs-online.com> wrote in message
news:8suqku$vig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I've grown weary of defending WDW Blues and my opinions lately. I
> understand that everyone here is passionate about the parks, and I know
> some of them take criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them. I
> also recognize that some people don't have the historical perspective I
> have (in the sense that I've been visiting Walt Disney World for over
> 20 years), and guests who only recently started visiting will probably
> never understand why my standards are so high.
>
> I'm going to keep operating WDW Blues until such a time as I and my
> partners deem it no longer necessary. But until that time, I'm rarely--
> if ever--going to bring it up in RADP. It's just not worth the hassle.
That's how I felt, John.
>
> <snip>
> In closing, I would caution folks from engaging in personal attacks
> on people who have differing opinions than you do. This is an
> unmoderated group, so it's up to each of us to police ourselves. I have
> no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
> someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
> opinions is unacceptable. Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
> one another with a bit of dignity?
That's how I felt, John. It just turns into a flame war, anyway--and no one
is going to change anyone's mind here anyway.
Instead of fighting about this stuff, all threads should be about me, and
how great I am. Thank you.
DCassetta
>
>Instead of fighting about this stuff, all threads should be about me, and
>how great I am. Thank you.
>
All Hail the Mighty Paragon - Magnificent Keeper of the Boxcutters and Chief
Loin Inspector
Thea
TDC Rabbit - Pooh Pal, Keeper of Extra Hunny Pots, and Searcher of Small
Friends-and-Relations.
Rachel
please just stop reading here - this is my spare time and I do will not be
spoken to like I am back in kindergarten. By shouting at me, your opinion
will simply not be heard. 'Smile' - (I had to add one silly, mermaid like
thing to counteract the rational-ness of this post!)
So, moving on.... I just want to contribute one small thing to the
discussion. I am a travel agent and book many people to WDW, so I have a
chance to hear their views on it; some are veterans, some are first-timers
to the world. So -
What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
"Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came back in
and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
There are plenty of customers who don't notice anything - good or bad - but
then that's not exactly anything to shout about. Take a car for example...
if someone has a standard Ford - in good condition but an average car, then
people will walk straight past it in the car park (parking lot!). The cars
that would get noticed are a) Ferraris/Corvettes, etc or b) Banged up cars
that badly need repair. Surely the fact that many people don't have any
comment at all on the maintenance of the parks isn't anything to be proud
of?
Rachel
TDC Ariel, Royal Mermaid and Mistress of merriment throughout Trimobia
Rachel
> By putting up a web page of small sections of
> chipped paint here and there on a 44,000 acre resort complex, you are
> completely out of line with reality. Paint chips happen. So do burned
> out lightbulbs.
Agreed. Paint chips happen... Burned out lightbulbs happen...
... at *Six Flags*!
That's the point, Jon, they happen - fair enough - but they don't get fixed
quickly enough. You sound like you are happy to settle for a lower standard
of maintenance, which is your perogative. If others want to aim for
perfection - then good on them. I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs work -
but hey, thats life folks!" So, if they are not happy to give that
impression to the public then it follows that they are not happy for the
situation to continue in their parks. If they don't know guests are aware of
it, then they may think cutting corners doesn't matter. The fact that Disney
does fix things, either prompted or unprompted, is evidence that they do not
think of it as reality that this stuff happens and doesn't get fixed.
Perhaps it's you who is out on a limb with your opinion?
I haven't meant to offend or anger anyone with my views here - apologies if
I have - but Jon, I have found your posts very condescending and your
message somewhat uninspired. I hope we can agree to disagree on this
important topic...
With regards,
Rachel
Prouty
Just want to put in here that I thought all of your info was interesting...
Keep your chin up!
Katherine
Zamgwar
I don't agree with you on most things....But by all means keep posting.
Specifically on the issue of "not enough new quality stuff. WDW, however, is
"theater on agrand scale" in a sense and everyone has different views.
Viva la difference.
I visit guest services when I see something I think may not be up to snuff. You
have a web site. In the end, it's both the same ain't it?
>>Instead of fighting about this stuff, all threads should be about me, and
>>how great I am. Thank you.
>>
On other matters, Isn't Paragon just the greatest.
She rarely if ever has any maintanence problem, and the last time I saw her,
she didn't show one sign of chipping or flaking.
Her animatronics are by far the best at WDW. Not matter how hard I looked, I
couldn't find where she was attached to the floor.
A great job by imagineers IMHO. She's a great and timeless attraction, that I
don't anticipate will be re-habbed anytime soon.
Well, I must be off. The number four subway calls me...I mean how else would I
get to THE WORLD SERIES!!!!!!!
John
Office of Paragonians
The Zamgwar Institute
ParrotHead
> You mean like how you called me a schmuck?
That's right. Despite knowing better after years of experience in
Usenet, I allowed your chain-yanking to get the better of me. I was
immeditely sorry for it.
>This hubub in this newsgroup has centered largely around people
>disagreeing with you, almost 100%.
Goodness... One of us must have a skewed perception. I've not
counted the posts "for" and "against" me, but I certainly never felt as
though "almost 100%" of the people here disagreed with me.
Regardless, it doesn't bother me. I get enough "positive
reinforcement" from other sources to keep me satisfied that I'm not
alone in my sentiments.
And just to make it clear, I'm not saying that I plan on no longer
discussing perceived problems at Walt Disney World. I simply mean that
I'm not going to discuss/defend WDW Blues any more.
> And I wish you would quit making financial claims of lowered budgets.
>You are lying if you can not prove it.
This statement makes absolutely no sense from a logic standpoint. If
I tell you that the earth is round but don't have the information handy
to prove it, does that mean the earth is really flat?
Brian
wrote:
> ParrotHead wrote:
> > I have
> > no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
> > someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
> > opinions is unacceptable.
> simply untrue.
I was going to take issue with the word "propaganda" but realized that
that is actually the most appropriate word. There is no need for
propaganda to be false, and clearly ParrotHead's photographs aren't
false. What they are is *selected* (a key word in the definition of
propaganda) and that's Jon's main point. By focusing on the veins on
a leaf on a tree instead of on the forest, truth is not being served,
but is rather being short-changed.
--
Brian Charles Kohn (¤bicker¤)
CLP(R4)-Principal Application Developer
CLP(R5)-Application Developer
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bicker
Paul T.
I am a travel agent and book many people to WDW, so I have a
>chance to hear their views on it; some are veterans, some are first-timers
>to the world. So -
>
>What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
>"Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
>They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
>Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
>
>And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came back in
>and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
>and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
>someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
>the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
>when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
>we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
>
>Rachel
Paul T. responds: IOA was literally filthy when I was there. Trash cans that
were literally overflowing with garbage and a three foot diameter of the stuff
all around it's base. Such filth even made several newspaper articles, and only
from reporters themselves who were sent there to cover the park's first summer.
I saw chipped paint in several attractions at IOA and that was much more
disturbing than any I may have seen at MK because IOA was brand new. That told
me they used cheap paint to begin with. That is more important than seeing
chipped paint itself. Sure, some of Disney's paint may be chipped...from being
10 years old. Some of IOA's paint wasn't 10 weeks old, and quite chipped.
But I won't begrudge that maybe some of your customers have come back and told
you about flaws at Disney. But then let me ask you this: Do you continue to sell
Disney World trips to people as their travel agent, without first warning them
of your now admitted idea that it is an (un)clean, pitiful, trash laden place?
Truth now. Your job may be on the line. Paul T.
ParrotHead
> What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando
>saying "Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-
>themed. They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all!
This topic occassionally comes up in here. I've noticed more and
more people willing to sacrifice a day or two at WDW to head over to
Universal--people who, in the past, would've spent every day of their
vacation at WDW. Disney says this hasn't affected their bottom line,
but I don't see how that's possible.
> And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came
>back in and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used
>to be so clean and tidy.
The fact that the Sentinel wrote an article about it is, to me,
rather telling. Now, I don't have the highest regard for the Sentinel--
I certainly understand the sentiments of those who call it "the
Slantinel." But a few years back, there would have been no story about
(perceived) declining maintenance standards in the parks. At least *I*
don't recall seeing any. That the Sentinel felt it was worth putting on
the front page tells me that we must not be TOO much of a fringe group,
or Richard Verrier wouldn't have wasted his time writing the article.
ParrotHead
>those who first started going during the apex years see nothing but a
>downhill slide.
That's an interesting point! When I started going to WDW as a child,
the park was only a couple of years old. There's nowhere to go but down
from there, in terms of maintenance.
Although maintenance isn't my only concern--other things also bother
me, like the state of the transportation system and the quality of some
of the new attractions. Epcot's Future World, for example, isn't nearly
as amazing to me now as it was in when I first went in the late '80s.
Is it because I've grown up since then? Or because I've been so many
times? Or because the quality of that area has actually declined
(again, I'm not just speaking of maintenance)? I suspect it's a
combination of all three factors.
ParrotHead
> On other matters, Isn't Paragon just the greatest.
>
> She rarely if ever has any maintanence problem, and the last time I
>saw her, she didn't show one sign of chipping or flaking.
I don't know... She seems pretty flaky to me...
;-)
Brian
wrote:
> Agreed. Paint chips happen... Burned out lightbulbs happen...
> ... at *Six Flags*!
All some folks are resting their arguments on vis a vis WDW is their
own, jaded impressions of the past. If ParrotHead wants to post 365
daily photos of Main Street USA in 1984, and show that there was never
two days in a row when the same light bulb was burned out, then I'll
start buying into his argument. The fact is that you and he, and your
customers, for that matter, are comparing their experience to some
idealized view of the past. It's human nature.
That's not to say that the condition of the parks isn't different than
in the past. The point is that if there is a difference, it's rather
small, and is as likely due to any number of factors beyond those that
some folks would have us believe. Specifically, the finger of Blame
is always pointed at Disney's allocation of funding for maintenance,
and (again, without saying that they haven't shifted priorities a bit)
that myopic view overlooks the impact of less disciplined and
respectful guests, poorer quality of candidates in the labor pool
attributable to the economic situation, and perhaps most importantly,
the lesser value guests-in-general place on that incremental level of
perfection (or a refinement in our understanding of the phenomenon).
That is to say that the things that ParrotHead and his ilk are saying
might be meaningless, or off-target, or both.
> That's the point, Jon, they happen - fair enough - but they don't get fixed
> quickly enough.
Yes they do.
> You sound like you are happy to settle for a lower standard
> of maintenance, which is your perogative.
You sound like you're interested in doubling the cost of admission to
ensure that light bulb efficacy is 100%, which is your prerogative.
> If others want to aim for perfection - then good on them.
Aim? How is anyone here "aiming" for perfection at WDW? I hate to be
the bearer of sad tidings, but as far as I know, no one participating
in this thread is a WDW manager authorized to take action even
remotely related to "aiming for perfection", and the CMs that ARE here
aren't even allowed to interact here in an official capacity.
No, no one here is "aiming" for perfection; perhaps they're aiming for
attention or aiming for consolation for having their dreams
unrealized.
> I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
> statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
> sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs work -
> but hey, thats life folks!"
What kind of idiotic statement is that? Rachel: "When did you stop
beating your mother?" (to quote an equally silly statement.)
> So, if they are not happy to give that
> impression to the public then it follows that they are not happy for the
> situation to continue in their parks.
You've used a magic phrase here: "then it follows." Please explain
how "it follows". (Clue: It doesn't. Overblown, myopic criticisms of
a nit picky nature have nothing to do with any real managerial
decisions.)
> If they don't know guests are aware of
> it, then they may think cutting corners doesn't matter.
Perhaps this is the problem. Perhaps you weren't aware that Disney
surveys its guests continuously and through many *normalizeable*
mechanisms. No less than three times during my visit did I observe a
CM with those funky palm-top like devices politely asking some guest
about their impressions of the park.
Those are normalizeable surveys: they know that people like Lutz and
ParrotHead aren't stuffing the ballot-box, so to speak, and so they
can rest assured that THOSE surveys show what guests REALLY think and
really care about, and what impact their managerial decisions have on
guests.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> This post is to everyone, but for Jon: if you are going to shout at me -
> please just stop reading here - this is my spare time and I do will not be
> spoken to like I am back in kindergarten. By shouting at me, your opinion
> will simply not be heard. 'Smile' - (I had to add one silly, mermaid like
> thing to counteract the rational-ness of this post!)
I am not shouting. THIS IS SHOUTING. I am speaking calmly. If you
take it as shouting, that's your interpretation. If you don't want to
have things explained to you like you are in kindergarten, then you
might want to make statements like those of an adult who understands
things on a higher plain than "It's Magic."
>
> So, moving on.... I just want to contribute one small thing to the
> discussion. I am a travel agent and book many people to WDW, so I have a
> chance to hear their views on it; some are veterans, some are first-timers
> to the world. So -
>
> What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
> "Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
> They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
> Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
>
What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
dollars a year?
> And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came back in
> and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
> and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
> someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
> the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
> when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
> we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
It says they are making a good choice in not going back for a few
years. I was just at WDW recently, and it was totally spic and span.
Jon Nadelberg
> >chance to hear their views on it; some are veterans, some are first-timers
> >to the world. So -
> >
> >What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
> >"Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
> >They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
> >Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
> >
> >and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
> >and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
> >someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
> >the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
> >when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
> >we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
> >
>
> Paul T. responds: IOA was literally filthy when I was there. Trash cans that
> were literally overflowing with garbage and a three foot diameter of the stuff
> all around it's base. Such filth even made several newspaper articles, and only
> from reporters themselves who were sent there to cover the park's first summer.
>
> I saw chipped paint in several attractions at IOA and that was much more
> disturbing than any I may have seen at MK because IOA was brand new. That told
> me they used cheap paint to begin with. That is more important than seeing
> chipped paint itself. Sure, some of Disney's paint may be chipped...from being
> 10 years old. Some of IOA's paint wasn't 10 weeks old, and quite chipped.
Problem is they spent so much in building the park, that they can't
afford to properly maintain it.
>
> But I won't begrudge that maybe some of your customers have come back and told
> you about flaws at Disney. But then let me ask you this: Do you continue to sell
> Disney World trips to people as their travel agent, without first warning them
> of your now admitted idea that it is an (un)clean, pitiful, trash laden place?
>
Good question.
Rachel
> Paul T. responds: IOA was literally filthy when I was there. Trash cans
that
> were literally overflowing with garbage and a three foot diameter of the
stuff
> all around it's base. Such filth even made several newspaper articles, and
only
> from reporters themselves who were sent there to cover the park's first
summer.
Whilst I will not dispute your experience, as I was not there, I have to say
my experiences at IOA have been nothing but delightful. When did you notice
all of this? I was last there March and it seemed okay then.
> I saw chipped paint in several attractions at IOA and that was much more
> disturbing than any I may have seen at MK because IOA was brand new. That
told
> me they used cheap paint to begin with. That is more important than seeing
> chipped paint itself. Sure, some of Disney's paint may be chipped...from
being
> 10 years old. Some of IOA's paint wasn't 10 weeks old, and quite chipped.
So, if you're noticing it at IOA, then why do some people find it so hard to
believe many other guests notice it at WDW? And if WDW's paint is 10 years
old then it's their own fault it's falling off... :o)
> But I won't begrudge that maybe some of your customers have come back and
told
> you about flaws at Disney. But then let me ask you this: Do you continue
to sell
> Disney World trips to people as their travel agent, without first warning
them
> of your now admitted idea that it is an (un)clean, pitiful, trash laden
place?
Let me answer you: Yes.
But for the record, and future searches on deja, *pitiful = your word, not
mine*; *trash laden = your words, not mine* I have never described WDW as
either.
> Truth now. Your job may be on the line. Paul T.
Truth now. Truth always. There's really no point in anything else...
When a customer asks me my opinion of WDW, I cannot contain my excitement; I
think the place rocks. As for arning them off - I prefer to give people an
opportunity to make up their own minds. After all, not everyone has the
same standards - some of my customers may think it is the sparkliest place
on earth and others may expect more than they get. If I were to warn them
in advance, then they may not go and then they would be missing out on the
holiday of a lifetime. I simply do not, and should not, have that kind of
power of another person's life.
Out of interest, the hardest situation for me, is when someone asks me to
compare it to DLP. I find that very difficult.
I hope I have answered your questions, but if there is anything else I can
tell you, please just ask.
Good day...
Rachel
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Jon wrote (in amongst other things...):
> > chipped paint here and there on a 44,000 acre resort complex, you are
> > completely out of line with reality. Paint chips happen. So do burned
> > out lightbulbs.
>
>
> ... at *Six Flags*!
No. Everywhere. Disney parks don't exist in a separate reality. They
exist in the real world like everything else.
>
> That's the point, Jon, they happen - fair enough - but they don't get fixed
> quickly enough. You sound like you are happy to settle for a lower standard
> of maintenance, which is your perogative.
Um, no. I'm not. I'm happy to settle for a realistic viewpoint where
things are not always perfect all the time, because they can't be.
> If others want to aim for
> perfection - then good on them.
That's fine. They will never achieve it and become chronically
depressed over it.
> I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
> statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
> sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs work -
> but hey, thats life folks!"
No, they don't have to, because people realize that is what will be
there anyway. Most people are able to ignore these things as part of
every day wear and tear.
> So, if they are not happy to give that
> impression to the public then it follows that they are not happy for the
> situation to continue in their parks.
The situtation will continue. It has continued from day one, it
continued while Walt Disney was alive, it continues now, and it will
always continue. Things wear out, things break, things rust. To think
otherwise is to be unrealistic.
> If they don't know guests are aware of
> it, then they may think cutting corners doesn't matter.
They're not stupid. If there were something wrong, they work to fix it
as best they can.
> The fact that Disney
> does fix things, either prompted or unprompted, is evidence that they do not
> think of it as reality that this stuff happens and doesn't get fixed.
The reason they fix things is because if they didn't, then everything
would eventually rot away or break, and they would not be protecting
their investment.
> Perhaps it's you who is out on a limb with your opinion?
I don't think so. I think that what I'm saying is a pretty rational
expectation. To expect a place to be absolutely perfect and to whine
about it when it is not, is rather childish.
>
> I haven't meant to offend or anger anyone with my views here - apologies if
> I have - but Jon, I have found your posts very condescending and your
> message somewhat uninspired. I hope we can agree to disagree on this
> important topic...
>
I'm sorry if they sound condescending, however, the views espoused here
by certain individuals are ridiculous. Demands for perfection and howls
of derision when these demands are not met are extremely distasteful and
makes all Disney fans look rather foolish.
Rachel
Thank you!
> If you don't want to have things explained to you like you are in
kindergarten, then you
> might want to make statements like those of an adult who understands
> things on a higher plain than "It's Magic."
See? There you go again...
> What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
> the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
> dollars a year?
It says nothing to do with the discussion in hand. Next point (or lack
thereof...)
> It says they are making a good choice in not going back for a few
> years. I was just at WDW recently, and it was totally spic and span.
By your standards, you mean?
As I pointed out in my last post - everyone's standards differ. And that is
good...or else we would all be living in Pleasantville for real. Whether or
not they are making a good choice, to me, is not the point. The fact that
regulars are choosing to stay away says to me that the WDW experience as a
whole, is not as good as it has been in previous years. If it were simply a
case of the customers outgrowing it, or getting bored of it, they would not
have looked so disappointed.
Anything else I can answer for you?
Regards,
Rachel
Rachel
> > But I won't begrudge that maybe some of your customers have come back
and told
> > you about flaws at Disney. But then let me ask you this: Do you continue
to sell
> > Disney World trips to people as their travel agent, without first
warning them
> > of your now admitted idea that it is an (un)clean, pitiful, trash laden
place?
Jon wrote:
> Good question.
Indeed, it was a good question. I have already responded to Paul's post...
Cheers!
Rachel
Paragon
> zam...@aol.com (Zamgwar) wrote:
>
> > On other matters, Isn't Paragon just the greatest.
> >
> > She rarely if ever has any maintanence problem, and the last time I
> >saw her, she didn't show one sign of chipping or flaking.
>
> I don't know... She seems pretty flaky to me...
>
> ;-)
Only during a certain time of the month.
Paragon
> Paul T. <pa...@tm.net> wrote:
>
> > And I wish you would quit making financial claims of lowered budgets.
> >You are lying if you can not prove it.
>
> This statement makes absolutely no sense from a logic standpoint. If
> I tell you that the earth is round but don't have the information handy
> to prove it, does that mean the earth is really flat?
Is he kidding, John? There are plenty of CMs here who have seen the budgets
for themselves, in black and white. From year to year. Budgets have been
cut. It's a fact. You know it because plenty of us have told you, John.
Rachel
Okay - this is a difficult reply - I feel like I've suddenly jumped into a
board meeting of a huge company. I will try to explain my feelings as best
I can...apologies in advance if my wording is incorrect.
> All some folks are resting their arguments on vis a vis WDW is their
> own, jaded impressions of the past. If ParrotHead wants to post 365
> daily photos of Main Street USA in 1984, and show that there was never
> two days in a row when the same light bulb was burned out, then I'll
> start buying into his argument. The fact is that you and he, and your
> customers, for that matter, are comparing their experience to some
> idealized view of the past. It's human nature.
Why are *you* so sure of this. You haven't been there 365 days a year for
the last 20 years anymore than I have (at least I don't think you
have...uh-oh! JK!) so how can you say it was never that good? But also, do
you honestly think (this is a real question) that 10 years ago that
customers would have rated a competitor park higher on the 'sparkle' scale
than WDW? That is what some of my customers are saying.
> That's not to say that the condition of the parks isn't different than
> in the past. The point is that if there is a difference, it's rather
> small, and is as likely due to any number of factors beyond those that
> some folks would have us believe. Specifically, the finger of Blame
> is always pointed at Disney's allocation of funding for maintenance,
> and (again, without saying that they haven't shifted priorities a bit)
> that myopic view overlooks the impact of less disciplined and
> respectful guests, poorer quality of candidates in the labor pool
> attributable to the economic situation, and perhaps most importantly,
> the lesser value guests-in-general place on that incremental level of
> perfection (or a refinement in our understanding of the phenomenon).
<gets dictionary...>
Okay. I am educated, but I'm lost for the meaning in this. Am I right in
thinking that you are saying guests generally are placing less value in the
little things? Let me know, and then I will comment from there...Nowhere in
my posts have I apportioned blame for the situation...my post is simply to
point out that it is not just John and Fudgie who feel that way about the
parks. Everything you have said is curable though - quality of staff is
Disney's responsibility; less funding for maintenance is Disney's
responsibility. the lack of care on part of some guests is not Disney's
fault... but it is their responsibility to overcome the issue and not allow
the change in guest attitude to affect their end product.
> That is to say that the things that ParrotHead and his ilk are saying
> might be meaningless, or off-target, or both.
Why would they be meaningless? Or off-target? I'm sorry, I don't
understand.
> > That's the point, Jon, they happen - fair enough - but they don't get
fixed
> > quickly enough.
> Yes they do.
Okay, <Re-phrasing> they don't get fixed quickly enough for my liking.
> > You sound like you are happy to settle for a lower standard
> > of maintenance, which is your perogative.
>
> You sound like you're interested in doubling the cost of admission to
> ensure that light bulb efficacy is 100%, which is your prerogative.
No, not at all. If they were once able to survive with a full crew of
custodial staff, and the parks in pristine condition then why can't they
now? Park admission has not been lowered, so they cannot be making less
money...yet they're obviously spending less.
> > If others want to aim for perfection - then good on them.
>
> Aim? How is anyone here "aiming" for perfection at WDW? I hate to be
> the bearer of sad tidings, but as far as I know, no one participating
> in this thread is a WDW manager authorized to take action even
> remotely related to "aiming for perfection", and the CMs that ARE here
> aren't even allowed to interact here in an official capacity.
"Aiming for perfection, as a regular user of the park". By suggesting
things on a website that WDW can choose to look at or not, they are aiming
for a high standard within the park. I don't see that I am so wrong in this
statement.
> No, no one here is "aiming" for perfection; perhaps they're aiming for
> attention or aiming for consolation for having their dreams unrealized.
I am almost certain that is not the case. I aim for perfection in almost
everything I do. It is not because I want fame, or because my dreams are
unfulfilled - I just like trying. I like challenges, and if I settle for
things the way they are, the easy way - then I will never know if I could
have made a difference.
> > I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
> > statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
> > sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs
work -
> > but hey, thats life folks!"
>
> What kind of idiotic statement is that? Rachel: "When did you stop
> beating your mother?" (to quote an equally silly statement.)
It was meant as sarcasm, Brian... And it went with the next bit:
> > So, if they are not happy to give that
> > impression to the public then it follows that they are not happy for the
> > situation to continue in their parks.
> You've used a magic phrase here: "then it follows." Please explain
> how "it follows". (Clue: It doesn't. Overblown, myopic criticisms of
> a nit picky nature have nothing to do with any real managerial
> decisions.)
Clue: It does.
WDW = Happiest Place on Earth
WDW Guests = Unhappy about state of maintenance
WDW = No Longer Happiest Place on Earth
So, what I am saying is that WDW do not want their guests disappointed in
their park...so therefore they do not want the park to be disappointing.
> > If they don't know guests are aware of
> > it, then they may think cutting corners doesn't matter.
> Perhaps this is the problem. Perhaps you weren't aware that Disney
> surveys its guests continuously and through many *normalizeable*
> mechanisms. No less than three times during my visit did I observe a
> CM with those funky palm-top like devices politely asking some guest
> about their impressions of the park.
Yes, I was aware of it. My point is that "if they don't know guests are
aware of it" they take steps to find out if guests are aware of it. One way
is the surveys. Others are Travel Trade Questionnaires that I fill out as
an Agent. They also check Newsgroups and Websites as another measure. A
company as good as Disney would rely solely ona surveys taken by guests
talking to a CM and therefore possibly too enbarrassed to speak the truth.
If you catch people on the way home, they are tired and most likely cannot
be bothered to stay to talk about the problems they noticed. IMO, the guest
surveys are not necessarily that accurate.
> Those are normalizeable surveys: they know that people like Lutz and
> ParrotHead aren't stuffing the ballot-box, so to speak, and so they
> can rest assured that THOSE surveys show what guests REALLY think and
> really care about, and what impact their managerial decisions have on
> guests.
Normalizeable? See my above comment on the accuracy of the surveys.
Whew. This discussion thing is hard work. I am not a knowledgable person
in this field, all I can do is say how I feel. If I have misunderstood a
question, then I would be happy to try again.
Meanwhile, I am going to take a breath...
Regards from London,
Rachel
Rachel
> No. Everywhere. Disney parks don't exist in a separate reality. They
> exist in the real world like everything else.
Agreed. :o)
> Um, no. I'm not. I'm happy to settle for a realistic viewpoint where
> things are not always perfect all the time, because they can't be.
Realistic is what you make it, though, Jon. 2 days ago, a realistic world
record for a paralympic event in sydney was 4.09 minutes. As of the end of
today, realistic is now 3.91 minutes. Reality changes...and all WDW Blues
is trying to do is change it for the better.
> > If others want to aim for
> > perfection - then good on them.
>
> That's fine. They will never achieve it and become chronically
> depressed over it.
Trust me, I don't think there is a way in hell that Peter could ever be
accused of being depressed. On the contrary, the delight as things are
fixed and go onto the "Fixed" page, outweighs any depression caused by the
problem in the first place. (for me, anyway!)
> > I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
> > statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
> > sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs
work -
> > but hey, thats life folks!"
> No, they don't have to, because people realize that is what will be
> there anyway. Most people are able to ignore these things as part of
> every day wear and tear.
How do you know what most people are able to do? How many people have you
actually asked?
> The situtation will continue. It has continued from day one, it
> continued while Walt Disney was alive, it continues now, and it will
> always continue. Things wear out, things break, things rust. To think
> otherwise is to be unrealistic.
See my previous comments on unrealistic...
> They're not stupid. If there were something wrong, they work to fix it
> as best they can.
As best they can with the budget they have.... If the budget was higher,
they could work harder and things could be fixed better, faster.
> The reason they fix things is because if they didn't, then everything
> would eventually rot away or break, and they would not be protecting
> their investment.
True, true
(watching the game..havin' a bud...<G>)
> > Perhaps it's you who is out on a limb with your opinion?
> I don't think so. I think that what I'm saying is a pretty rational
> expectation. To expect a place to be absolutely perfect and to whine
> about it when it is not, is rather childish.
Rational, yes... I don't have a problem as such with what you're saying - I
just think that perhaps you are unfair in trying to criticise others for
wanting to better a situation. I personally, have not whined, so I'm
leaving that comment...
> I'm sorry if they sound condescending, however, the views espoused here
> by certain individuals are ridiculous. Demands for perfection and howls
> of derision when these demands are not met are extremely distasteful and
> makes all Disney fans look rather foolish.
I do understand your viewpoint, I feel similarly about the continual
throwing of the cup at AC... Once is funny - to keep on with it is just
irritating to the characters and other guests. oops - veering off topic,
here, lol! And I'm not particularly in union with this TTAthon either - so
please don't think I'm up for every kind of Disney clique. I don't know
what I'm rambling about anymore - I'm tired, and I'm at least 5 hours ahead
of you guys...
zzz...
zzzzzz....
Regards,
Rachel
Mickey Birt
"ParrotHead" <jo...@pcs-online.com> wrote in > Regardless, it doesn't
bother me. I get enough "positive
> reinforcement" from other sources to keep me satisfied that I'm not
> alone in my sentiments.
Careful, John, you sound dangerously like His Nibs with this statement.
Fortunately, I know YOUR claim to support is true. Count me in and keep up
the good work!
--
Slainte'
Mickeymomşoş
TDC High Priestess Villainess Temple
Commander, Bodacious TATAS
Apprentice LIB Inspector
Old age and treachery will win out over youth and vigor in the end...
Mickey Birt
Loin Inspecter Extraordianire!!!!!
HUZZAH, HUZZAH, HUZZAH!!!!!!!
How's that?
--
Slainte'
Mickeymomşoş
TDC High Priestess Villainess Temple
Commander, Bodacious TATAS
Apprentice LIB Inspector
Old age and treachery will win out over youth and vigor in the end...
"Paragon" <par...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:IIEI5.1389$LX4....@sjc-read.news.verio.net...
>
> ParrotHead <jo...@pcs-online.com> wrote in message
> news:8suqku$vig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I've grown weary of defending WDW Blues and my opinions lately. I
> > understand that everyone here is passionate about the parks, and I know
> > some of them take criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them. I
> > also recognize that some people don't have the historical perspective I
> > have (in the sense that I've been visiting Walt Disney World for over
> > 20 years), and guests who only recently started visiting will probably
> > never understand why my standards are so high.
> >
> > I'm going to keep operating WDW Blues until such a time as I and my
> > partners deem it no longer necessary. But until that time, I'm rarely--
> > if ever--going to bring it up in RADP. It's just not worth the hassle.
>
> That's how I felt, John.
>
> >
> > <snip>
>
> > In closing, I would caution folks from engaging in personal attacks
> > on people who have differing opinions than you do. This is an
> > unmoderated group, so it's up to each of us to police ourselves. I have
> > no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
> > someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
> > opinions is unacceptable. Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
> > one another with a bit of dignity?
>
> That's how I felt, John. It just turns into a flame war, anyway--and no
one
> is going to change anyone's mind here anyway.
>
Paul T.
>
>> That's right. Despite knowing better after years of experience in
>Usenet, I allowed your chain-yanking to get the better of me. I was
>immeditely sorry for it.
>
you advocate? You are sorry for calling me names but not apologetic? Absense of
apology is absense of regret/sorry.
>> And I wish you would quit making financial claims of lowered budgets.
>>You are lying if you can not prove it.
>
> This statement makes absolutely no sense from a logic standpoint. If
>I tell you that the earth is round but don't have the information handy
>to prove it, does that mean the earth is really flat?
>___________
>ParrotHead
Paul T. responds: No. I never claimed Disney hasn't cut their maintenance
budget. I only claim that you can't factually know if they have therefore can
not be being entirely honest to insist they have. Unless of course you have
access to their numbers. I simply claim that you make monetary claims without it
being possible for you to do so truthfully.
How much was their maintenance budget ten years ago? How much is it today? What
percentage has it risen or fallen? How much more square footage do they have to
maintain? Can/have you factored in depreciation factors? For heaven's sakes can
you even tell us how many more or less maintenance workers they have today than
in any time in the past?
You can't just spout rhetoric that you think proves your points when in fact
nothing is ever substantiated. Here, let me show you how easy it is if you have
TRUTH on your side:
In a matter of minutes I can find documented history proving the earth is round.
Heck, I can prove it's round: The castle at Disneyland, if it were the same
height as the castle at Disney World and on the same longitude, would cast a
different lenght shadow.
Here's a partial picture of the earth, demonstrating that it's round (satellite
photos are considered valid proof of spherical attributes of earth.)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5177/earth.html
Aristotle proved it was round 2,300 years ago by showing that only a sphere can
cast a shadow on the moon the way the earth does.
History documents that Magellan circled the globe in 1522, only possible if the
earth was round.
This is easy Parrothead. It's called putting your proof where your claims are.
Obviously you have no evidence other than rumors that satisfy you, that Disney
has cut it's maintenance budget. I would be much more willing to bet, that with
a record number of attractions and parks, and record crowds that spending at the
parks for maintenance has reached an all time high.
Why don't you email them and ask? I bet that even if the company themselves told
you that their maintenance budgets have realized no cutbacks, that you would
then claim the company is in error too.
You really should consider the integrity in backing up your financial judgement
claims about Disney, and consider the lack of integrity of not doing so. You
should stop making claims you can not prove except through parodies. Taking a
John Hornbuckle word-snap shot of the company's expenditures isn't the same as
pointing your Cannon at a crack in the sidewalk. You really MUST be able to
prove what you say financially. Especially being such the respected analyst over
at Motley...Motley who does not welcome false knowledge of company finances.
I challenge you to prove that Disney World has cut maintenance budgets, and to
any significant degree (they may wane from month to month anyway depending on
how they have it set up) or ask you to recant your testimony. Or reword them to
indicate that it is rumored they have cut maintenance spending. Paul T.
Larry Cram
>
> 1. I *love* Disney, and I *love* Walt Disney World. I'm not out to hurt
> the company or the parks--I only want to make them better.
I believe that most who visit your site will know you that are trying to
help.
[snip]
> In closing, I would caution folks from engaging in personal attacks
> on people who have differing opinions than you do. This is an
> unmoderated group, so it's up to each of us to police ourselves. I have
> no problem with debating things in here, but to personally insult
> someone (as I have been insulted) because you disagree with their
> opinions is unacceptable. Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
> one another with a bit of dignity?
I feel strongly as you do, although there are some on this news group that
would say [erroneously] that you take offense only if you yourself choose to
do so. As with any human interaction, it is *certainly* possible for
someone to cause offense, and I am sorry that you have been subject to such
treatment in a forum intended to promote enjoyment of the parks.
Paul T.
>
> When did you notice all of this?
Paul T.: June, 1999 and as I indicated, the park was being written up in
newspaper articles for having trash laying around and attraction queue elements
falling apart. But I will say that all new parks seem to experience things like
this to some degree. Although I will say that being a carpenter for 25 years I
can tell you that materials used at IOA are cheaper in many attractions than
materials in most WDW attractions. (drywall, soft woods, sponge props)
>
>So, if you're noticing it at IOA, then why do some people find it so hard to
>believe many other guests notice it at WDW? And if WDW's paint is 10 years
>old then it's their own fault it's falling off... :o)
Paul T.: Did I mention that I like conversing with you? Oh, ahem. Okay. Your
question. I don't think people have a hard time believing that guests at WDW see
chipped paint, I just maintain that chipped paint isn't that uncommon in
somewhere that has who knows how many millions of square feet of painted
surfaces to begin with. I will say that I myself one time on here complained
about paint chips before WDW blues existed. The Crystal Palace is aging and
shows signs of paint on top of paint. But for me to make a notice is much
different than for others to look for "every" chip of missing paint. A
distinction needs to be made there.
>
>But for the record, and future searches on deja, *pitiful = your word, not
>mine*; *trash laden = your words, not mine* I have never described WDW as
>either.
>
Paul T.: You suggested that your perceptions are influenced by your customers
accounts. And you indicated that your customers did in fact use those words. You
wrote: "...it use to be so CLEAN." and "we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it
was still there when we went to lunch at 1:45pm." And you wrote: "It's a pity
how they've let the park slip."
So you see, Raich, can I call you Raich? You see, Raich, "pity-pitiful"
"rubbish-trashy" and "clean-unclean" are words (and my derivitives) gleaned
directly from what you wrote. And you indicated a support for what those
customers of yours were saying as likely truthful.
>Truth now. Truth always. There's really no point in anything else...
Paul T.: I...I think I love...(snap out of it paul)
>
>When a customer asks me my opinion of WDW, I cannot contain my excitement; I
>think the place rocks. As for arning them off - I prefer to give people an
>opportunity to make up their own minds. After all, not everyone has the
>same standards - some of my customers may think it is the sparkliest place
>on earth and others may expect more than they get. If I were to warn them
>in advance, then they may not go and then they would be missing out on the
>holiday of a lifetime. I simply do not, and should not, have that kind of
>power of another person's life.
Paul T.: I appreciate that and I would have expected no less a quality answer
from you. Thank you. I will say, however, that it may indicate a sliiiiiight
double standard (said with the utmost respect) to convey excited enthusiasm for
the place to paying customers, but convey a lessened reality about the place in
your post here. See what I mean (I said very mousily, afraid to offend).
>
Paul T.
Matt
"Paul T." wrote:
>
> In article <8sv7pd$au8$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Rachel" says...
>
> I am a travel agent and book many people to WDW, so I have a
> >chance to hear their views on it; some are veterans, some are first-timers
> >to the world. So -
> >
> >What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
> >"Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
> >They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
> >Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
> >
> >And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came back in
> >and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
> >and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
> >someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
> >the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
> >when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
> >we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
> >
> >Rachel
>
> Paul T. responds: IOA was literally filthy when I was there. Trash cans that
> were literally overflowing with garbage and a three foot diameter of the stuff
> all around it's base. Such filth even made several newspaper articles, and only
> from reporters themselves who were sent there to cover the park's first summer.
Gotta agree. The paint in Spiderman's queue was terrible. Ripped up
completely.
Matt
--
Have a problem with what I am saying?
Please visit: http://www.kungaloosh.com/matt.asp
All you need to do is fill out the complaint form.
Fudgie
Er, you called me a crackpot! ;-)
No hard feelings, though.
--
Fudgie ºoº
TDC Lord BrerBeaver
Trimobian Webmaster Royal and Keeper of All Things Brer
fud...@mail.com
http://surf.to/fudgie
http://welcome.to/trimobia
"If e can ream t, w ca do it."
Horizons - January 2000
" ca ea t ca "
Horizons - March 2000
Fudgie
> shows signs of paint on top of paint.
Kind of inconsequential, but I had dinner about four hours ago at the
Crystal Palace. We had a wonderful waiter - probably the best I've ever had
at WDW, and we discussed the inside of the CP (immaculate) to the outside
(quite the opposite) with him for quite a bit. We were all quite shocked at
some of the things we saw outside our window, but for the sake of not
getting anyone perturbed, I'm going to leave that to the Blues site. ;-)
Tigger rocked.
Fudgie
that
> > were literally overflowing with garbage and a three foot diameter of the
stuff
> > all around it's base. Such filth even made several newspaper articles,
and only
> > from reporters themselves who were sent there to cover the park's first
summer.
>
> Gotta agree. The paint in Spiderman's queue was terrible. Ripped up
> completely.
In that case, let me offer my personal viewpoint. Last weekend, I observed a
park (IOA) that has really brought things up to par. I did not see a single
thing wrong with the Spidey queue (other than some misc trash), and the park
is looking pretty swell. Other than Dudley's Ripsaw Falls (which is falling
apart, and is waaaay filthy), IOA has shaped things up quite a bit.
Uni, on the other hand, needs work. Badly.
Fudgie
> accused of being depressed. On the contrary, the delight as things are
> fixed and go onto the "Fixed" page, outweighs any depression caused by the
> problem in the first place. (for me, anyway!)
Agreed. I'm in a wonderful mood when I see things being fixed, and I have to
say that the time I spent in the parks today (8 hours) put me in a great
mood.
I took a lot of pictures today. Of what? Well, there's the usual Blues
stuff. (Boy, the Crystal Palace exterior needs work.)
But... I think I took a lot more pics of things being fixed today, with new
coats of paint, than any stuff that still needs work. Here are a few things
I can remember from today....
- Universe of Energy - new paint, exterior bright colors, blue curb. The
huge screen rip in theater two has been patched, and new screens are on the
way (to the tune of $90,000!)
- The Food and Wine festival has wonderfully themed booths for each country,
and the topiaries and new flower beds all over the place (MK & EC) look
gorgeous.
- Those new signs all over Epcot look fantastic at night.
- Tomorrowland has new paint everywhere! The rocket-tower plaza building is
beaming, along with new light color filters (gels), all over Tomorrowland.
- There's fiberglass work being done on Main Street, then there are the new
light strings, as well as some new trim on the buildings.
- The confirmed list of monorails with new carpet is up to 6, with the
pleasure of sitting in a freshly redone Monorail Lime cabin today.
This is just a smattering of things that I saw. I'm not sure what's spurred
it on, my guess is the latest fiscal year combined with the low season.
(Don't most of the rehabs take place now?)
The end result is that things are happening, and I'm very glad to see it. So
don't think we're just complaining. We're working on changes to the site,
and have a big backlog of updates, but I'm happy to say that the tone of
things is getting much better in the World.
Fudgie
>
> She rarely if ever has any maintanence problem, and the last time I saw
her,
> she didn't show one sign of chipping or flaking.
>
I
> couldn't find where she was attached to the floor.
>
> A great job by imagineers IMHO. She's a great and timeless attraction,
that I
> don't anticipate will be re-habbed anytime soon.
Unfortunately, I tried to partake of the wonder that is Paragon today, but
my travels to the southern land of Mexico were thwarted with an un-answered
phone call....
Carol Kennedy
"Actually" implies some objective standard. If there are 6 bulbs out and
someone claims there are 12, that person is making "more of something than
it actually is." But I haven't read the WDW Blues crew as doing that. They
are showing photos of things, so unless they're using trick photography or
computer gimmicks, those things exist. I admit that I have not read every
single word of every single page of WDW Blues, but I don't see anything like
"This one picture represents 10 other things just as bad." So I don't see
them as making more of anything than it "actually" is.
If you mean to say, "The problem is that when you make more of something
than it appears to me to be" or "The problem is that when you make more of
something than I think it is," then say so. But why should anyone accept
your viewpoint of what "actually is" rather than the WDW Blues' crew's?
> At one time, Disney was concerned about what
> was said about them on the internet. Due to extremist web pages with
> unrealistic and impossible to fufill demands, they've pretty much given
> up on it, and don't consider it a credible source of customer input.
So you say. What is your evidence? Why should I believe you rather than the
WDW Blues crew, who claim to have evidence that Disney is paying attention
to, and being influenced by, their site?
--
Carol Kennedy, TDC Pollo Grande, Speaker of Inadequate Spanish, and
Translator without Portfolio
Jeff Spencer
>
> "Paul T." wrote:
> >
> > In article <8sv7pd$au8$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Rachel" says...
> >
> > I am a travel agent and book many people to WDW, so I have a
> > >chance to hear their views on it; some are veterans, some are first-timers
> > >to the world. So -
> > >
> > >What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
> > >"Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
> > >They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
> > >Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
> > >
> > >And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came back in
> > >and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
> > >and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
> > >someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
> > >the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
> > >when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
> > >we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
> > >
> > >Rachel
> >
> > were literally overflowing with garbage and a three foot diameter of the stuff
> > all around it's base. Such filth even made several newspaper articles, and only
> > from reporters themselves who were sent there to cover the park's first summer.
>
> Gotta agree. The paint in Spiderman's queue was terrible. Ripped up
> completely.
I haven't been to IOA but have been to Universal Studios Hollywood
several times over the last few years (as late as this past June)
and saw trash, rust and peeling paint.
Jeff Spencer
--
Visit the Spencer Family's Disney Page
http://home.hiwaay.net/~jlspence/
Brian
wrote:
> > And I wish you would quit making financial claims of lowered budgets.
> >You are lying if you can not prove it.
> This statement makes absolutely no sense from a logic standpoint. If
> I tell you that the earth is round but don't have the information handy
> to prove it, does that mean the earth is really flat?
While you're correct that Paul T's ridiculous final statement is
logically invalid, his earlier assertion still has merit: You don't
have access to WDW's maintenance budget.
Jeff Spencer
>
> Jon wrote (in amongst other things...):
> > By putting up a web page of small sections of
> > chipped paint here and there on a 44,000 acre resort complex, you are
> > completely out of line with reality. Paint chips happen. So do burned
> > out lightbulbs.
>
> Agreed. Paint chips happen... Burned out lightbulbs happen...
>
> ... at *Six Flags*!
Hello there my friend Rachel :-)
I'll politely disagree here. Chipping/wearing of paint and burning
out filaments in light bulbs happens everywhere. There is nothing
that makes Disney immune to such things. On the contrary, the sheer
volume of people using (and misusing) the facilities makes
chips/wear a certainty. Similarly, the fact that there are literally
millions of light bulbs makes burn outs and delays in replacing them
a certainty.
> That's the point, Jon, they happen - fair enough - but they don't get fixed
> quickly enough. You sound like you are happy to settle for a lower standard
> of maintenance, which is your perogative. If others want to aim for
> perfection - then good on them.
There's nothing wrong with aiming for perfection as long as folks
realize it's an unattainable goal. Those that don't will always be
disappointed and dissatisfied. Furthermore, you mention a "lower"
standard. Lower than what? I've been going to WDW since 1984 and
my wife has been going since 1978. We have always seen maintenance
problems in the parks, but we've also seen some of the best family
entertainment, eaten some of the best meals and had the most fun
of anywhere that we've ever been. When put in perspective, the
problems we've seen and experienced over the years are really
trivial.
> I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
> statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
> sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs work -
> but hey, thats life folks!" So, if they are not happy to give that
> impression to the public then it follows that they are not happy for the
> situation to continue in their parks. If they don't know guests are aware of
> it, then they may think cutting corners doesn't matter. The fact that Disney
> does fix things, either prompted or unprompted, is evidence that they do not
> think of it as reality that this stuff happens and doesn't get fixed.
> Perhaps it's you who is out on a limb with your opinion?
I don't believe that is what Jon is saying at all but he can certainly
speak for himself. First of all I think giving Disney feedback on any
part of one's Disney experience is great. Disney wants to hear what
its guests have to say...that's why they do all of those surveys.
What is lacking, in my opinion, in the criticism expressed in the
"Blues"
site and in threads in this newsgroup is perspective.
Jeff Spencer
I, for one, appreciate your noting the good with the bad Peter. -)
Paul T.
>
>> Paul T. responds: You mean like how you called me a schmuck?
>
>Er, you called me a crackpot! ;-)
>
>No hard feelings, though.
>--
>Fudgie ºoº
Paul T. responds: But there are three differences between my "crack" and yours.
When I made mine, I wrote (just kidding) after it. That should have been the end
of it right there. Secondly, and you don't have to believe this if you don't
want to, but when I wrote it I had no idea you were the picture taking guy, or
whatever. I didn't have you in mind no more than the man in the moon. And
thirdly, once I found out "you" took offense, inspite of my "just kidding"
notation, I immediately apologized.
So there are really no similarities to the schmuch remark which was directed at
me, not said in fun, and not apologized for. As Ross Perot would say, "I rest
your case." ;-)
Brian
wrote:
> I'm sorry if they sound condescending,
Don't be. This seems to be a common refrain whenever emotional
arguments are met with logic.
Brian
wrote:
> > All some folks are resting their arguments on vis a vis WDW is their
> > own, jaded impressions of the past. If ParrotHead wants to post 365
> > daily photos of Main Street USA in 1984, and show that there was never
> > two days in a row when the same light bulb was burned out, then I'll
> > start buying into his argument. The fact is that you and he, and your
> > customers, for that matter, are comparing their experience to some
> > idealized view of the past. It's human nature.
> Why are *you* so sure of this.
About the bulbs or about human nature? About the bulbs, I don't need
to be. I'm pointing out the lack of basis to believe your assertion
that "the good ol' days" were better than today. A lack of basis is
its own evidence.
About human nature, it's all there in the journals. We learned this
stuff in grad school.
> You haven't been there 365 days a year for
> the last 20 years anymore than I have (at least I don't think you
> have...uh-oh! JK!) so how can you say it was never that good?
I'm not. I'm only saying that there is no reason to believe it was.
> But also, do
> you honestly think (this is a real question) that 10 years ago that
> customers would have rated a competitor park higher on the 'sparkle' scale
> than WDW? That is what some of my customers are saying.
Big whoop. The value of my AAA stock is now higher than the value of
my BBB stock; does that mean my BBB stock is worth less than it was
worth before? No. It isn't. What has happened is that my AAA stock
has simply increased in value faster than my BBB stock. There is no
question that Disney's competition has finally done some good work.
It's always easy to be #2 with a bullet. The hard part is being #1
with a bullet.
> > That's not to say that the condition of the parks isn't different than
> > in the past. The point is that if there is a difference, it's rather
> > small, and is as likely due to any number of factors beyond those that
> > some folks would have us believe. Specifically, the finger of Blame
> > is always pointed at Disney's allocation of funding for maintenance,
> > and (again, without saying that they haven't shifted priorities a bit)
> > that myopic view overlooks the impact of less disciplined and
> > respectful guests, poorer quality of candidates in the labor pool
> > attributable to the economic situation, and perhaps most importantly,
> > the lesser value guests-in-general place on that incremental level of
> > perfection (or a refinement in our understanding of the phenomenon).
> <gets dictionary...>
> Okay. I am educated, but I'm lost for the meaning in this. Am I right in
> thinking that you are saying guests generally are placing less value in the
> little things?
That's one possibility.
> Everything you have said is curable though - quality of staff is
> Disney's responsibility;
Bull-puckies. If there are no good worms in the barrel, then you have
to just live with the bad worms you've got on the hook.
> less funding for maintenance is Disney's responsibility.
I never said anything about less funding; I was saying you were
implying that was the only culprit, and I was disagreeing with that.
> the lack of care on part of some guests is not Disney's
> fault... but it is their responsibility to overcome the issue and not allow
> the change in guest attitude to affect their end product.
Who says? It's actually not true. It's Disney's responsibility to
find the right mix between all these variables (maintenance, policies,
cost, price, etc.) that satisfies guests-in-general in the best
interest of the stockholder value, not to blinding achieve some
magically-ordained metric of maintenance that any one guest or group
of guests sanction.
> > That is to say that the things that ParrotHead and his ilk are saying
> > might be meaningless, or off-target, or both.
> Why would they be meaningless?
If guests-in-general don't care about those things.
> Or off-target?
If the problem isn't within Disney's control to affect change without
causing a worse result, such as much higher prices.
> > > That's the point, Jon, they happen - fair enough - but they don't get fixed
> > > quickly enough.
> > Yes they do.
> Okay, <Re-phrasing> they don't get fixed quickly enough for my liking.
Okay.
> > > You sound like you are happy to settle for a lower standard
> > > of maintenance, which is your perogative.
> > You sound like you're interested in doubling the cost of admission to
> > ensure that light bulb efficacy is 100%, which is your prerogative.
> No, not at all. If they were once able to survive with a full crew of
> custodial staff, and the parks in pristine condition then why can't they
> now?
My boss used to pay $100,000 for two principal developers; now just
three years later he can't attraction even one principal developer at
that salary. Same situation.
> Park admission has not been lowered, so they cannot be making less
> money...yet they're obviously spending less.
And remember, that might be okay for a variety of reasons: greater
efficiency or the realization that this incremental spending on
maintenance isn't valued by guests-in-general.
> > > If others want to aim for perfection - then good on them.
> > Aim? How is anyone here "aiming" for perfection at WDW? I hate to be
> > the bearer of sad tidings, but as far as I know, no one participating
> > in this thread is a WDW manager authorized to take action even
> > remotely related to "aiming for perfection", and the CMs that ARE here
> > aren't even allowed to interact here in an official capacity.
> "Aiming for perfection, as a regular user of the park". By suggesting
> things on a website that WDW can choose to look at or not, they are aiming
> for a high standard within the park. I don't see that I am so wrong in this
> statement.
That's not "aiming." That's simply criticizing. You're criticizing a
lack of perfection from your point-of-view. No problem with that,
except when you try to couch it in misleading verbiage.
> > No, no one here is "aiming" for perfection; perhaps they're aiming for
> > attention or aiming for consolation for having their dreams unrealized.
> I am almost certain that is not the case. I aim for perfection in almost
> everything I do.
The point is that it isn't your role to aim for perfection at WDW.
You didn't get that job. Perhaps you can aim for perfection in
presenting your opinions here in RADP and on the Internet, by being
careful not to present them in a misleading fashion; by not implying
they're any more important than the opinions of any individual or
small group of people.
> > > I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
> > > statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
> > > sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs work -
> > > but hey, thats life folks!"
> > What kind of idiotic statement is that? Rachel: "When did you stop
> > beating your mother?" (to quote an equally silly statement.)
> It was meant as sarcasm, Brian...
As was my reply. As such, neither were of any value in actually
making a point.
> And it went with the next bit:
> > > So, if they are not happy to give that
> > > impression to the public then it follows that they are not happy for the
> > > situation to continue in their parks.
> > You've used a magic phrase here: "then it follows." Please explain
> > how "it follows". (Clue: It doesn't. Overblown, myopic criticisms of
> > a nit picky nature have nothing to do with any real managerial
> > decisions.)
> Clue: It does.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you regarding
management science credentials. (I think most folks here know how
that shakes out, anyway.) Regardless, your original basis for the
implication was sarcasm, as you pointed out, and therefore had no
merit anyway.
> WDW = Happiest Place on Earth
> WDW Guests = Unhappy about state of maintenance
> WDW = No Longer Happiest Place on Earth
> So, what I am saying is that WDW do not want their guests disappointed in
> their park...so therefore they do not want the park to be disappointing.
And as long as it isn't disappointing to a *significant* number of
guests, there's no problem.
> > > If they don't know guests are aware of
> > > it, then they may think cutting corners doesn't matter.
> > Perhaps this is the problem. Perhaps you weren't aware that Disney
> > surveys its guests continuously and through many *normalizeable*
> > mechanisms. No less than three times during my visit did I observe a
> > CM with those funky palm-top like devices politely asking some guest
> > about their impressions of the park.
> Yes, I was aware of it. My point is that "if they don't know guests are
> aware of it" they take steps to find out if guests are aware of it. One way
> is the surveys. Others are Travel Trade Questionnaires that I fill out as
> an Agent. They also check Newsgroups and Websites as another measure. A
> company as good as Disney would rely solely ona surveys taken by guests
> talking to a CM and therefore possibly too enbarrassed to speak the truth.
Wrong. I actually had occasion to discuss this with a Disney manager
prior to retiring from consulting. They, like most other major
commercial enterprises, have recognized the danger of bias that
unnormalized modes of feedback represent. They politely reply to
unsolicited feedback, but discount it unless confirmed by normalized
modes. It's the new reality for the science of customer feedback:
customers have gotten wise to the power of feedback, and have learned
that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Consequently, unsolicited
feedback is no longer a trusted mechanism.
> If you catch people on the way home, they are tired and most likely cannot
> be bothered to stay to talk about the problems they noticed. IMO, the guest
> surveys are not necessarily that accurate.
Surely unsolicited feedback has less accuracy.
> > Those are normalizeable surveys: they know that people like Lutz and
> > ParrotHead aren't stuffing the ballot-box, so to speak, and so they
> > can rest assured that THOSE surveys show what guests REALLY think and
> > really care about, and what impact their managerial decisions have on
> > guests.
> Normalizeable? See my above comment on the accuracy of the surveys.
And see my replies.
Brian
wrote:
> bicker_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com wrote:
> > You sound like you're interested in doubling the cost of admission to
> > ensure that light bulb efficacy is 100%, which is your prerogative.
> that the cost would be virtually insignificant (in the grand scheme of
> things) for Disney to start once again replacing all unlit bulbs on a
> nightly basis.
If that were true, then the only reasonable explanation for their
current practice is to specifically annoy you.
> They maintained higher standards in the past without charging
> obscene prices. What can't they do it now?
Conditions change over time.
Randal Sheppard
"Paul T." wrote:
> Paul T. responds:
>
> This hubub in this newsgroup has centered largely
> around people disagreeing with you, almost 100%.
I think I've stepped through the looking glass...
All the best,
Randal Sheppard
--
=================================================
RANDAL SHEPPARD
Melbourne, Australia
webm...@sir-cliff.com
THE SIR CLIFF RICHARD HOME PAGE
http://www.sir-cliff.com
=================================================
GREAT MOMENTS WITH MR DISNEY
"All you've got to do is own up to your ignorance
honestly, and you'll find people who are willing
to fill your head with information"
-Walt Disney
=================================================
ParrotHead
> What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
> the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
> dollars a year?
It says "two theme parks does not a resort destination make." I read
that somewhere in an analysis of Universal's problems. Disney wasn't
sure this would be the case, and had prepared an arsenal of new
attractions to fight back with if IOA had hurt their attendance.
This, some say, is why Disney is already announcing their third
California park and won't be wasting any time getting it built.
Although it could be argued that Walt Disney World was a "resort
destination" even when it only had ONE theme park. I think the size and
quality of the park(s) in the equation make a big difference.
___________
ParrotHead
http://www.wdwblues.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ParrotHead
> You sound like you're interested in doubling the cost of admission to
> ensure that light bulb efficacy is 100%, which is your prerogative.
I realize that you're engaging in hyperbole, but it should be noted
that the cost would be virtually insignificant (in the grand scheme of
things) for Disney to start once again replacing all unlit bulbs on a
nightly basis.
They maintained higher standards in the past without charging
obscene prices. What can't they do it now?
Jon Nadelberg
>
> > I am not shouting.
>
> Thank you!
>
> > If you don't want to have things explained to you like you are in
> kindergarten, then you
> > might want to make statements like those of an adult who understands
> > things on a higher plain than "It's Magic."
>
> See? There you go again...
Thank you Ronald Reagan. Be that as it may, if you are going to start
resorting to saying things should be perfect for "the magic" then you
need to have your world view adjusted.
>
> > What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
> > the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
> > dollars a year?
>
> It says nothing to do with the discussion in hand. Next point (or lack
> thereof...)
Actually, it was specifically to the point with which you were speaking,
which you removed. It's always a nice tactic to remove what was
originally said, leave only the static reply, and then claim it makes no
sense. Well, no it may make no sense because you quoted it out of
context.
>
> > It says they are making a good choice in not going back for a few
> > years. I was just at WDW recently, and it was totally spic and span.
>
> By your standards, you mean?
>
Actually, my standards are pretty darn high. I don't go to places like
Six Flags, or carnivals, or other such things because they are unlcean.
To claim superiority in your standards because they are unrealistically
high is a fallacy. You don't know what my standards are, so you can not
claim to know what they may or may not be.
> As I pointed out in my last post - everyone's standards differ. And that is
> good...or else we would all be living in Pleasantville for real. Whether or
> not they are making a good choice, to me, is not the point.
My standards are realistic. What are you going to do if the place ever
does go to hell in a hand basket? You're firing all your ammunition now
for inconsequential matters.
> The fact that
> regulars are choosing to stay away says to me that the WDW experience as a
> whole, is not as good as it has been in previous years. If it were simply a
> case of the customers outgrowing it, or getting bored of it, they would not
> have looked so disappointed.
Meanwhile, WDW is generating record numbers of visitors and profits. I
can't really put a lot of faith in your anecdotal comments considering
they fly in the face of the reality of the situation.
>
> Anything else I can answer for you?
>
Not really. You're the one who started talking to me, if I recall.
--
See 1970s Disneyland!
http://home.pacbell.net/jonvn
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Jon Nadelberg <jo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
> > the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
> > dollars a year?
>
> It says "two theme parks does not a resort destination make."
No. It says "If you spend more money than you could ever possibly hope
to recoup, then you have spent yourself into financial ruin."
> I read
> that somewhere in an analysis of Universal's problems. Disney wasn't
> sure this would be the case, and had prepared an arsenal of new
> attractions to fight back with if IOA had hurt their attendance.
That's interesting, if it is true.
> This, some say, is why Disney is already announcing their third
> California park and won't be wasting any time getting it built.
Some say this, do they? Do they also say that the park, if it is built
at all, will not open for at least 10 or 11 years? I would not call
that exactly making haste. IOA flopped within a year, dragging all of
Universal down with it. Paris Disneyland, which spent a similar amount
of money, basically went broke for the same reasons.
> Although it could be argued that Walt Disney World was a "resort
> destination" even when it only had ONE theme park. I think the size and
> quality of the park(s) in the equation make a big difference.
>
Does anyone consider Universal a resort? When WDW opened, it not only
had a theme park, but beautiful hotels, golf courses, and tons of other
activities. Epcot didn't open for 10 years giving it another theme
park. It's not the number of theme parks that make it a resort.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> > No. Everywhere. Disney parks don't exist in a separate reality. They
> > exist in the real world like everything else.
>
> Agreed. :o)
>
> > Um, no. I'm not. I'm happy to settle for a realistic viewpoint where
> > things are not always perfect all the time, because they can't be.
>
> Realistic is what you make it, though, Jon.
No. To expect a place to sit in the Florida weather all year and have
millions of people file through it and not have simple wear and tear is
not realistic.
As I said before, if they really stopped doing maintenance, what words
will you have to say then? Who will believe you? You are lutzing
yourself. If you complain so strongly now about something so
insignificant, who will listen when something is really seriously wrong?
>
> > > I'm sure Disney wouldn't issue a press
> > > statement saying "Come to our theme park - we have chipped paints,
> > > sellotaped chairs, lines full of trash and not all of our lightbulbs
> work -
> > > but hey, thats life folks!"
>
> > No, they don't have to, because people realize that is what will be
> > there anyway. Most people are able to ignore these things as part of
> > every day wear and tear.
>
> How do you know what most people are able to do? How many people have you
> actually asked?
Take a look at this newsgroup. You seem to be in the camp where there
is untold horror in every corner of WDW. Most people who have been
there don't seem to agree, including me. It seems perfectly fine. Now,
why is that? Could it be because you are being hypercritical and others
are simply accepting of the fact that not everything can be exactly
right always?
>
> > The situtation will continue. It has continued from day one, it
> > continued while Walt Disney was alive, it continues now, and it will
> > always continue. Things wear out, things break, things rust. To think
> > otherwise is to be unrealistic.
>
> See my previous comments on unrealistic...
>
You are going to marginalize your viewpoint by crying wolf.
> > They're not stupid. If there were something wrong, they work to fix it
> > as best they can.
>
> As best they can with the budget they have.... If the budget was higher,
> they could work harder and things could be fixed better, faster.
>
If the budget were infinite, then maybe. However, the budget is not
infinite, and they seem to be able to repair things fairly quickly in
any case. They have so much money to spend, and can only spend it in
certain ways. The stock price has to be maintained, or the company
faces takeover and breakup. That's the basic truth.
>
> > > Perhaps it's you who is out on a limb with your opinion?
>
> > I don't think so. I think that what I'm saying is a pretty rational
> > expectation. To expect a place to be absolutely perfect and to whine
> > about it when it is not, is rather childish.
>
> Rational, yes... I don't have a problem as such with what you're saying - I
> just think that perhaps you are unfair in trying to criticise others for
> wanting to better a situation. I personally, have not whined, so I'm
> leaving that comment...
>
I would want a better situation if the situation at hand were actually
bad. It is not. That is the problem with this whole argument. A very
big deal is being made out of very small things that are being worked on
anyway. Things simply can not be perfect. They can't. People do the
best they can, and what Disney does is far and away better than anyone
else in the industry.
If Al Lutz right now actually managed to come up with a true horror
story about Disneyland, would anyone believe him? Everything he says is
suspect because he has made himself an extremist who appears to hate
everything Disney. That is what you have to be leery of. You have to
be able to balance the idea of a pristine park with the financial
realities that the parks must endure so that they can continue to exist.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Nonetheless, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the maintenance slippage,
> whether it's normal wear-and-tear, a long-term deterioration, or part of a
> better-and-worse maintenance cycle. Trying to make something good better is
> a worthy endeavor, in my opinion. It might turn out to be pointless or
> futile, as some here say. Or it might not, as some feedback to you
> indicates. But I think that your *attempting* it is worthwhile.
>
The problem is that when you make more of something than it actually is,
it diminishes your voice. At one time, Disney was concerned about what
was said about them on the internet. Due to extremist web pages with
unrealistic and impossible to fufill demands, they've pretty much given
up on it, and don't consider it a credible source of customer input.
Thanks to the nuts, we have all lost a voice.
The WDWguide
trip this Thursday.
In article <sv73t34...@corp.supernews.com>,
> --
> Fudgie ºoº
> TDC Lord BrerBeaver
> Trimobian Webmaster Royal and Keeper of All Things Brer
> fud...@mail.com
> http://surf.to/fudgie
> http://welcome.to/trimobia
>
> "If e can ream t, w ca do it."
> Horizons - January 2000
>
> " ca ea t ca "
> Horizons - March 2000
>
>
--
Please visit
The Unofficial Online Guide to Walt Disney World Preview Pages!
wdwbook.cjb.net or
http://members.tripod.com/~WDW-Guide
Now again frequently updated!
WDW:
Jan 99: Days Inn Maingate West
Oct 99: Fort Wilderness Campground
July 00: All Star Music
September 00: Grosvenor Resort
October 00 (I): Econo Lodge, Sheraton Four Points
October 00 (II): Sheraton Safari
plus too many day trips to count...
DL:
June 97: Sister in Law
April 00: Sister in Law
DLP:
May 00: Sequoia Lodge
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
:In article <8suqku$vig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ParrotHead says...
<snip>
:>Is it too much to ask for all of us to treat
:>one another with a bit of dignity?
:Paul T. responds: You mean like how you called me a schmuck?
But ya aw, Blanche! Ya aw!
Rşoşb
TDC Apprentice to Sorcerer Mickey & When-You-Wish-Upon-A-Star Future
Imagineer
Bring back Light Magic!
Our Home on The Hill:
http://www.freespeech.org/chickapin
Jon Nadelberg
>
> > The problem is that when you make more of something than it >actually is,
>
> it actually is."
When someone takes some here and there minor problems, and uses close up
pictures (shot with a telephoto lens in some cases, it appears) and then
uses them to say that WDW is falling apart, then that is making more of
something than it actually is.
> They
> are showing photos of things, so unless they're using trick photography or
> computer gimmicks, those things exist. I admit that I have not read every
> single word of every single page of WDW Blues, but I don't see anything like
> "This one picture represents 10 other things just as bad." So I don't see
> them as making more of anything than it "actually" is.
You are conveniently ignoring the entire message of the web page.
>
> If you mean to say, "The problem is that when you make more of something
> than it appears to me to be" or "The problem is that when you make more of
> something than I think it is," then say so. But why should anyone accept
> your viewpoint of what "actually is" rather than the WDW Blues' crew's?
>
No. I mean to say that they are overblowing regular wear and tear and
stating that maintenance on the entire resort is faltering.
> > At one time, Disney was concerned about what
> > was said about them on the internet. Due to extremist web pages with
> > unrealistic and impossible to fufill demands, they've pretty much given
> > up on it, and don't consider it a credible source of customer input.
> So you say. What is your evidence? Why should I believe you rather than the
> WDW Blues crew, who claim to have evidence that Disney is paying attention
> to, and being influenced by, their site?
I find their claims difficult to believe, as I have gone down this road
before with another person of similar bent. You are free to choose to
believe who you want. However, if you think a multi-national
corporation that has historically had harsh critics of all stripe are
going to start jumping in line because one web page mentions a paint
stain (when there is another page that does the same stuff and is
totally ignored) then I would suggest that you try to rethink the
situation.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
: bicker_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
: They maintained higher standards in the past without charging
:obscene prices. What can't they do it now?
Because now Theme Parks is carrying all those business units that the
Company has acquired that are more liabilities than assets.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
<snip>
:Instead of fighting about this stuff, all threads should be about me,
and
:how great I am. Thank you.
I hereby declare this thread to be about PARAGON.
HAIL PARAGON!
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
:Unfortunately, I tried to partake of the wonder that is Paragon today,
but
:my travels to the southern land of Mexico were thwarted with an
un-answered
:phone call....
What is with you people? Am I the only one who can consistently pull
this off ? ;-)
Paragon
The Sorcerer's Apprentice <Fant...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7HNI5.13758$ze4.2...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Paragon
> Fudgie wrote in message ...
> :Unfortunately, I tried to partake of the wonder that is Paragon today,
> but
> :my travels to the southern land of Mexico were thwarted with an
> un-answered
> :phone call....
>
> What is with you people? Am I the only one who can consistently pull
> this off ? ;-)
Results are best when I am not on vacation.
Matt
Jeff Spencer wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> > Gotta agree. The paint in Spiderman's queue was terrible. Ripped up
> > completely.
>
> I haven't been to IOA but have been to Universal Studios Hollywood
> several times over the last few years (as late as this past June)
> and saw trash, rust and peeling paint.
Yep. ALl these parks have problems. Some are more pronounced than
others. However, seeing the stuff never made me want to do a webpage on
the problems.
Matt
--
Have a problem with what I am saying?
Please visit: http://www.kungaloosh.com/matt.asp
All you need to do is fill out the complaint form.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
:news:7HNI5.13758$ze4.2...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
:> Paragon wrote in message ...
:> <snip>
:> :Instead of fighting about this stuff, all threads should be about
me,
:> and
:> :how great I am. Thank you.
:>
:> I hereby declare this thread to be about PARAGON.
:>
:> HAIL PARAGON!
Paragon wrote in message ...
:There. Now isn't this a lot more fun?
Actually, yes. I do believe it is.
Rēoēb
Fudgie
> out filaments in light bulbs happens everywhere.
I definitely see your point here. But then again, does stuff like this
happen overnight?
http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal1.jpg
I took this picture today on the porch of the Crystal Palace. It's one of
the many rusting poles, holding up the porch in front of the Crystal Palace,
feet away from where hundreds of people daily wait for their meals. The
molding that is simply cracking on the other poles is completely missing. In
its place is a rag, stained with rust, tied in place with plastic ties.
The inside of the restaurant is immaculate, heck, even the hallway to the
men's bathroom (even though it's approx 6 ft long), had about 10 wet paint
signs all over it! ;-) Here's a great viewpoint I shot of the main atrium...
http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal2.jpg
But the porch outside, is, er... not so immaculate. And it's not something
that happens overnight.
As we were finishing our meal, the sun was setting, shining through the
stained glass that surrounds the ceiling, illuminating the entire restaurant
in colored light. Very, very nice. Probably my favorite restaurant in the
MK!
I'm just presenting what I see - both good and bad. Like I said in another
post, these past two weeks, I've been spotting a lot more good than bad, and
that's good.
I won't be posting any more negative stuff here on the group, since we've
all stated our points, and I don't want to see another flamefest...
Denise
Second, I don't know how anyone can compare IOA favorably with Disney. Even in
preview (before opening), dinosaurs had tears in them, the Spiderman queue was
looking like garbage, and hunks of colored concrete were torn off in Seussland.
I still believe Disney does it better than anyone - though the parks
definitely don't look as good (to me) as they used to.
Denise
Denise's Webhome
http://members.aol.com/tinybeetle/index.htm
Matt
Fudgie wrote:
>
> > I'll politely disagree here. Chipping/wearing of paint and burning
> > out filaments in light bulbs happens everywhere.
>
> I definitely see your point here. But then again, does stuff like this
> happen overnight?
>
> http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal1.jpg
Who cares. When I sit on that porch I look at the wonderful vista out
towards the castle. I see a beautifully landscaped garden with a
waterway and a cool castle. I doubt very many people even look up. You
ever goto Club 33 at Disneyland? You can stand out on the balcony naked
and no-one will see you. Rusty poles and chipped paint aren't looked at
by the public. And if they are, its no big deal. When the castle
spires start to fall off, then there is a problem.
>
> I took this picture today on the porch of the Crystal Palace. It's one of
> the many rusting poles, holding up the porch in front of the Crystal Palace,
> feet away from where hundreds of people daily wait for their meals. The
> molding that is simply cracking on the other poles is completely missing. In
> its place is a rag, stained with rust, tied in place with plastic ties.
If there is a rag, it seems that they are aware of the problem and are
in the process of fixing it. That is what I get out of your story.
> The inside of the restaurant is immaculate, heck, even the hallway to the
> men's bathroom (even though it's approx 6 ft long), had about 10 wet paint
> signs all over it! ;-) Here's a great viewpoint I shot of the main atrium...
Well its inside. It doesn't have to deal with constant rain, heat,
mildew and winds. So it will generally look nicer. Not to mention kids
cant touch the domes in there.
> http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal2.jpg
>
> But the porch outside, is, er... not so immaculate. And it's not something
> that happens overnight.
Its also something that looks to be going through a maintence process.
> As we were finishing our meal, the sun was setting, shining through the
> stained glass that surrounds the ceiling, illuminating the entire restaurant
> in colored light. Very, very nice. Probably my favorite restaurant in the
> MK!
I like it there too.
> I'm just presenting what I see - both good and bad. Like I said in another
> post, these past two weeks, I've been spotting a lot more good than bad, and
> that's good.
You were only presenting the bad. You were shunned into showing both
sides from the negative criticisms from people like myself.
> I won't be posting any more negative stuff here on the group, since we've
> all stated our points, and I don't want to see another flamefest...
You just did. What else is there to talk about? Which Tiffany Town Car
driver uses Degree anti-persperant? Its not Jack.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> > I'll politely disagree here. Chipping/wearing of paint and burning
> > out filaments in light bulbs happens everywhere.
>
> I definitely see your point here. But then again, does stuff like this
> happen overnight?
>
> http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal1.jpg
>
> I took this picture today on the porch of the Crystal Palace. It's one of
> the many rusting poles, holding up the porch in front of the Crystal Palace,
> feet away from where hundreds of people daily wait for their meals. The
> molding that is simply cracking on the other poles is completely missing. In
> its place is a rag, stained with rust, tied in place with plastic ties.
No, of course it doesn't happen overnight. But you have to realize that
the resort is the size of San Francisco (of course not all of it is
developed). They can't be everywhere all the time fixing everything.
Some things can be fixed right away, some take longer. Stuff outside is
going to weather more, and given the Florida weather, it will weather
quickly.
>
> The inside of the restaurant is immaculate, heck, even the hallway to the
> men's bathroom (even though it's approx 6 ft long), had about 10 wet paint
> signs all over it! ;-) Here's a great viewpoint I shot of the main atrium...
>
> http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal2.jpg
>
> But the porch outside, is, er... not so immaculate. And it's not something
> that happens overnight.
>
Of course, because the exterior is much harder to maintain. I'm not
saying it is just wonderful that the thing has rust on it. But it's to
be expected.
Now, you've shown me one pole, and you say it is one of several poles
that are rusting. What about the rest of the poles in the park? Are
they all rusting too? Maybe not. Maybe this is a very very small
percentage of all poles in the park, and the ones on this building are
rusting for some reason.
Now what should they do about it? Should they fix it? Yeah, they
should fix it. When? As soon as they can. When is that? Depends on
the other things that they have to do first. It's wear and tear. It's
also an integral part of the building. Perhaps to replace the poles,
they would have to close down the building, and spend tens of thousands
of dollars to fix it. Maybe they are waiting for parts.
I have no idea, and neither do you.
What you do have, though, is an idea on how that picture was taken. Was
it with a telephoto lens? How high up is that rust spot? How far out
of the way is it from normal viewing? How much does something like this
matter when the maintenance crew is out trying to keep the rides in
repair? Should they not repair the rides and instead fix the cosmetic
problems? Should they fix both? What if they don't have the manpower?
Things like this are just a simple fact of life. Wear and tear.
Eventually they will be fixed. I personally would rather just enjoy my
meal and not concern myself with the negativity that one can fall
into.
The parks are not perfect. They never have been, they never will be.
There will always be things wrong. You have to accept that, or you'll
end up being very unhappy.
Bashful
>
>Agreed. I'm in a wonderful mood when I see things being fixed, and I have to
>say that the time I spent in the parks today (8 hours) put me in a great
>mood.
Thank you Fudgie! This is just the sort of post I like to read just before a
trip! (less than three weeks to go now!)
(Well, of course I always enjoy reading all the posts about Paragon, too!) :-)
Kitty >^..^<
TDC Bashful, student & caretaker of Treasured Disney Documents
If you're *bashful* and you need some advice on tackling WDW,
http://www.homestead.com/wdwkitty/index.html
Paul T.
>
>
>No, of course it doesn't happen overnight. But you have to realize that
>the resort is the size of San Francisco (of course not all of it is
>developed). They can't be everywhere all the time fixing everything.
>Some things can be fixed right away, some take longer. Stuff outside is
>going to weather more, and given the Florida weather, it will weather
>quickly.
>
>was there as I recall, one of the bathroom stalls looked more like one you would
>find in a bar; somewhat delapilated.
I suspect that CP like any other Disney element will one day be scheduled for a
makeover. In the meantime, it's probably one of the most popular spots at Disney
and one that brings in income to boot. Disney probably doesn't place a high
priority on rusting iron when it apparantly doesn't shoo guests away.
When I see iron elements as outside decor, I almost kind of expect some
oxidation and in fact, it almost adds to the charm. Iron+outside=oxidation.
Although the picture linked
http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal1.jpg
looks like possible a more serious, structural problem but it's hard to tell
from the one picture. Appearance wise I don't view the slight reddish of iron
oxidation as any kind of serious breach of company quality. I could see,
however, that someone may go to that restaurant years 'n years ago, witness it's
grandeur, then come back and be disappointed. But that disappointment may have
to bear the consideration that it may not account for the time and weather
element.
Time and it's effects on art, building and even us, is what can be disappointing
and sometimes no amount of human effort can keep up with it (time).
So Disney will just reschedule a makeover in time. Paul T.
Paul T.
>the resort is the size of San Francisco (of course not all of it is
>developed). They can't be everywhere all the time fixing everything.
>Some things can be fixed right away, some take longer. Stuff outside is
>going to weather more, and given the Florida weather, it will weather
>quickly.
>
Brian
wrote:
> What is lacking, in my opinion, in the criticism expressed in the "Blues"
> site and in threads in this newsgroup is perspective.
Hear, hear!
Brian
<colf...@minn.net> wrote:
> > The problem is that when you make more of something than it >actually is,
> it actually is." But I haven't read the WDW Blues crew as doing that.
The objective standard is the impact that the alleged problem has on
the average guest: their propensity to spend more money on Disney in
the future, and the secondary impact on potential guests they may
speak to. I believe very few, if any, of the maintenance issues
raised here have the potential to qualify against that standard.
> > At one time, Disney was concerned about what
> > was said about them on the internet. Due to extremist web pages with
> > unrealistic and impossible to fufill demands, they've pretty much given
> > up on it, and don't consider it a credible source of customer input.
> So you say. What is your evidence? Why should I believe you rather than the
> WDW Blues crew, who claim to have evidence that Disney is paying attention
> to, and being influenced by, their site?
Personally, I have seen no evidence that we *ever* "had a voice."
However, back when I was an international management consultant, I did
have an opportunity to discuss this with a Disney manager and did
confirm that they now realize they must suspect all unsolicited
feedback. If we ever did have a voice, we surely have none now.
Brian
> Rusty poles and chipped paint aren't looked at
> by the public. And if they are, its no big deal.
Well, again, perspective. A few instances aren't anything worth
noting. When all the poles are rusty throughout the park, and there's
clearly obvious chipped paint on every attraction building, then
surely there is a problem. There is a "sweet-spot" somewhere in
between, which Disney needs to aim for.
Brian
<spre...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> in article 39fea104....@bicker.news, Brian at bic...@bicker.news wrote
> on 10/22/00 10:52 PM:
> > Wrong. I actually had occasion to discuss this with a Disney manager
> > prior to retiring from consulting. They, like most other major
> > commercial enterprises, have recognized the danger of bias that
> > unnormalized modes of feedback represent. They politely reply to
> > unsolicited feedback, but discount it unless confirmed by normalized
> > modes.
> This may be true, but one also has to carefully consider the content of a
> survey when determining its validity - asking questions of a randomly chosen
> group of people doesn't give you accurate data if you don't ask the right
> questions.
Without a doubt. It isn't only the way you choose the folks being
surveyed and the questions you ask that's important, but there is even
a science behind the manner in which the question is asked, how long
the questions are, how long the survey is, etc. I think I remember
reading that in longer surveys it isn't uncommon to ask substantially
the same question as was asked earlier, to gauge the reliability of
the accuracy of the answers given all the way through.
> I can't speak of the guest surveys, not having ever taken one,
> but I know that our Cast Excellence "rate your manager" surveys are
> generally considered a waste of our time by most CMs that I've discussed
> them with - the questions and allowable answers are worded such that a
> manager can be a complete incompetent but still be able to be rated well on
> the CE scores, and there are important aspects of a manager's performance
> that are completely absent from the survey.
From who's point-of-view? Remember, the manager doesn't work for the
CM; the manager works for the company.
Having said that, I can confirm that HR is typically leagues behind
Marketing in the science of surveying.
> Another mechanism Disney may benefit from looking into is talking to the
> front-line CMs themselves. I can't count the number of upset guests I've
> spoken to that were really wound up about something, but for whatever reason
> didn't speak to anyone in Guest Relations about. I know I and everyone else
> in my department personally talk to a lot more guests than any survey person
> does in the course of a day, and there's some seriously helpful data to be
> found there.
That's very true. Of course, that information is more valuable in
determining *remedies* to problem rather than identifying what issue
really *are* problems.
Randal Sheppard
Jon Nadelberg wrote:
> I am not shouting. THIS IS SHOUTING. I am speaking calmly. If you
> take it as shouting, that's your interpretation. If you don't want to
> have things explained to you like you are in kindergarten, then you
> might want to make statements like those of an adult who understands
> things on a higher plain than "It's Magic."
Very patronising.
Still, all she talked about in the previous post was customers of hers being
disappointed with Disney World.
> > What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
> > "Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
> > They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
> > Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
> >
>
> What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
> the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
> dollars a year?
So you believe that Seagrams sold Universal because of IOA?
>
>
> > And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came back in
> > and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
> > and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
> > someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
> > the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
> > when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
> > we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
>
> It says they are making a good choice in not going back for a few
> years. I was just at WDW recently, and it was totally spic and span.
>
People who enjoy going to Disneyland every two years are making a bad choice?
All the best,
Randal Sheppard
--
=================================================
RANDAL SHEPPARD
Melbourne, Australia
webm...@sir-cliff.com
THE SIR CLIFF RICHARD HOME PAGE
http://www.sir-cliff.com
=================================================
GREAT MOMENTS WITH MR DISNEY
"All you've got to do is own up to your ignorance
honestly, and you'll find people who are willing
to fill your head with information"
-Walt Disney
=================================================
Randal Sheppard
Jon Nadelberg wrote:
> Rachel wrote:
> >
> > > I am not shouting.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > > If you don't want to have things explained to you like you are in
> > kindergarten, then you
> > > might want to make statements like those of an adult who understands
> > > things on a higher plain than "It's Magic."
> >
> > See? There you go again...
>
> Thank you Ronald Reagan. Be that as it may, if you are going to start
> resorting to saying things should be perfect for "the magic" then you
> need to have your world view adjusted.
What do you think Walt Disney World is trying to create for its guests? A
'magical' experience at a park called 'The Magic Kingdom' perhaps?
I've never understood how people think it's rediculous to bring 'magic' into a
discussion about the experience a company which markets their products as
'magical' actually delivers. If 'The Magical World of Disney' doesn't deliver a
'magical' experience for its audience then it's not living up to its promise. Same
goes for The Magic Kingdom.
I think few people expect pixies to fix every problem that arises, but if you no
longer find The Magic Kingdom experience magical, then presumably you have a right
not to be labeled as someone who needs their world view adjusted.
>
>
> >
> > > It says they are making a good choice in not going back for a few
> > > years. I was just at WDW recently, and it was totally spic and span.
> >
> > By your standards, you mean?
> >
>
> Actually, my standards are pretty darn high. I don't go to places like
> Six Flags, or carnivals, or other such things because they are unlcean.
>
> To claim superiority in your standards because they are unrealistically
> high is a fallacy. You don't know what my standards are, so you can not
> claim to know what they may or may not be.
Umm, you're saying this after proclaiming that people who would normally visit the
parks every two years are making a 'good' decision to lengthen the gap between
trips. Presumably this is by your standards and is not arbitrary, and thus your
discounting of her point that decreased maintainance was causing people to
schedual less trips as a 'good' decision was discounted by your above statement?
>
>
> > As I pointed out in my last post - everyone's standards differ. And that is
> > good...or else we would all be living in Pleasantville for real. Whether or
> > not they are making a good choice, to me, is not the point.
>
> My standards are realistic. What are you going to do if the place ever
> does go to hell in a hand basket? You're firing all your ammunition now
> for inconsequential matters.
Ahhh, so once again your standards are the 'realistic' ones...
Tiggerfan
wrote:
>- The confirmed list of monorails with new carpet is up to 6, with the
>pleasure of sitting in a freshly redone Monorail Lime cabin today.
>
Green peter, Green is the newest redone one.
The list is
Lime, Coral, Black, Blue, Green, Gold confirmed as having new carpet.
I'm going to guess on Orange as it reappeared yesterday after a long
time off the beams also has fresh carpet.
Tiggerfan
---------------------------
ATTN: All WDW Locals - subscribe to the WDW Locals mailing list.
Send a message to wdwlocal...@tiggerfan.net with the word subscribe in the body.
Tiggerfan
then they were this summer. I must say, the only thing now that I
find really REALLY bad in the MK is the porch of the Crystal Palace.
The rest of the park has a few scratches and what not, but main street
is definitely getting fresh coats of paint and lights, tomorrowland
looks awesome with the new paint, they've repainted in front of JIYI,
The Land, and Universe of Energy at Epcot and the new signs there are
awesome. I wish they could figure out a way to put signs like epcot's
in the other parks. Really, the last two weeks have been full of
surprises at all the GOOD things that have been happening. Even main
street has fewer blubs out then I've seen in the last year.
Tiggerfan
On 23 Oct 2000 02:35:04 -0700, Bashful <Bashful...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
---------------------------
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Jon Nadelberg wrote:
>
> > I am not shouting. THIS IS SHOUTING. I am speaking calmly. If you
> > have things explained to you like you are in kindergarten, then you
> > might want to make statements like those of an adult who understands
> > things on a higher plain than "It's Magic."
>
No, it's not. She complained about being talked down to. If she showed
adult reasoning, she'd be spoken to like an adult.
> > > What does it say to you that a lot of people come back from Orlando saying
> > > "Islands of Adventure is such a good park, so clean and so well-themed.
> > > They must have spent an awful lot of money on it all! I was surprised at
> > > Disneyworld though, it wasn't as good as I had expected."
> > >
> >
> > What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
> > the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
> > dollars a year?
>
> So you believe that Seagrams sold Universal because of IOA?
>
One of the reasons. Actually, the new owners are planning on selling
off the parks because they are not money makers.
> >
> >
> > > And what does it say to you that customers who go every 2 years came back in
> > > and said "It's a pity how they've let the park slip, it used to be so clean
> > > and tidy. I remember a time when as soon as a piece of rubbish was dropped,
> > > someone would sweep it up with a friendly smile. This time, when we were in
> > > the Magic Kingdom we walked past rubbish at 10am, and it was still there
> > > when we went to lunch at 1:45pm. It's a shame isn't it really... I think
> > > we'll wait a few years before we go back again this time"
> >
> > It says they are making a good choice in not going back for a few
> > years. I was just at WDW recently, and it was totally spic and span.
> >
>
> People who enjoy going to Disneyland every two years are making a bad choice?
>
If they end up not enjoying it, it is a bad choice.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Jon Nadelberg wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > I am not shouting.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you don't want to have things explained to you like you are in
> > > kindergarten, then you
> > > > might want to make statements like those of an adult who understands
> > > > things on a higher plain than "It's Magic."
> > >
> >
> > Thank you Ronald Reagan. Be that as it may, if you are going to start
> > resorting to saying things should be perfect for "the magic" then you
> > need to have your world view adjusted.
>
> What do you think Walt Disney World is trying to create for its guests? A
> 'magical' experience at a park called 'The Magic Kingdom' perhaps?
It's a fairy story. You know, like elves and gnomes and such? Those
aren't real either.
> I've never understood how people think it's rediculous to bring 'magic' into a
> discussion about the experience a company which markets their products as
> 'magical' actually delivers. If 'The Magical World of Disney' doesn't deliver a
> 'magical' experience for its audience then it's not living up to its promise. Same
> goes for The Magic Kingdom.
Because there is no such thing as magic, and as grownups we should know
this.
> I think few people expect pixies to fix every problem that arises, but if you no
> longer find The Magic Kingdom experience magical, then presumably you have a right
> not to be labeled as someone who needs their world view adjusted.
>
You might have a "magical" experience, however, it's not magic. It's a
real world functioning business and location. When you see some
magician cut a woman in half on stage and "magically" put her back
together, do you think it's real? It's an illusion. It's not real
because there is no magic.
Now, I don't like being a curmudgeon and saying this, but what happens
is that some people enjoy pointing out flaws and errors on their part.
"Look at these burnt out lightbulbs!" They are shocked that the place
does not run on pixie dust. I feel this is akin to someone at a
magician's show yelling out the secrets for the audience to hear.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > It says they are making a good choice in not going back for a few
> > > > years. I was just at WDW recently, and it was totally spic and span.
> > >
> > > By your standards, you mean?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, my standards are pretty darn high. I don't go to places like
> > Six Flags, or carnivals, or other such things because they are unlcean.
> >
> > To claim superiority in your standards because they are unrealistically
> > high is a fallacy. You don't know what my standards are, so you can not
> > claim to know what they may or may not be.
>
> Umm, you're saying this after proclaiming that people who would normally visit the
> parks every two years are making a 'good' decision to lengthen the gap between
> trips. Presumably this is by your standards and is not arbitrary, and thus your
> discounting of her point that decreased maintainance was causing people to
> schedual less trips as a 'good' decision was discounted by your above statement?
No. I am saying that if you go to the park, and it is not to your
liking, don't go back. This is not my "standard," this is simply
common sense.
>
> >
> >
> > > As I pointed out in my last post - everyone's standards differ. And that is
> > > good...or else we would all be living in Pleasantville for real. Whether or
> > > not they are making a good choice, to me, is not the point.
> >
> > My standards are realistic. What are you going to do if the place ever
> > does go to hell in a hand basket? You're firing all your ammunition now
> > for inconsequential matters.
>
> Ahhh, so once again your standards are the 'realistic' ones...
Yes. If someone expects every problem in the entire park to be fixed
overnight, and I'm willing to accept a little wear and tear, then it is.
ParrotHead
> But ya aw, Blanche! Ya aw!
Does anyone have a New-Orleaneese-to-English dictionary handy?
___________
ParrotHead
http://www.wdwblues.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ParrotHead
> ALl these parks have problems.
Yeah, they do NOW. In the past, there was one that didn't (at least
not to a degree that was noticeable). If WDW had been this way from day
one, it wouldn't be so disturbing.
ParrotHead
> It says "If you spend more money than you could ever possibly hope
> to recoup, then you have spent yourself into financial ruin."
Clearly, Universal's owners thought they COULD recoup the money.
They believed that a second theme park, a new hotel, and a "downtown"
shopping/eating/entertainment area would turn them into a resort
destination.
> That's interesting, if it is true.
I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that it is--Disney
wasn't sure what to expect from IOA, but they were prepared to bring
out the heavy guns to fight back if need be. The competition would've
been great for guests.
> Some say this, do they?
Yes. That's why I wrote it.
> Do they also say that the park, if it is built at all, will not
>open for at least 10 or 11 years? I would not call that exactly
>making haste.
When have you ever heard Disney announce the addition of a third new
gate to a resort before the second one has even opened?
And double-check the Web site :
http://www.thirdthemepark.com/#beyond
They're saying that the third gate will open in 2003. Now, I believe
there's still some question as to whether this site is actually an
official Disney site. It's possible that the whole thing is bogus.
>Paris Disneyland, which spent a similar amount of money, basically
>went broke for the same reasons.
And Tokyo Disneyland, which which has spent more money than anyone,
has been the biggest success of them all.
> Does anyone consider Universal a resort?
I think Universal WANTS people to.
>It's not the number of theme parks that make it a resort.
It's the amount of things to do that make a place a resort
destination. Clearly, WDW has plenty to do. The vast majority of those
things are in the theme parks. If the four parks disappeared, how many
people do you think would go and visit just to play golf, stay in the
hotels, visit the water parks, and shop? Many would, but clearly the
theme parks are the backbone of the resort. I haven't seen any WDW
commercials focusing on golf lately, but I see the MK and Epcot in them
all the time.
ParrotHead
> Because now Theme Parks is carrying all those business units that the
> Company has acquired that are more liabilities than assets.
Exactly!
Oh, well... At least the new Disney Stores will rescue the Consumer
Products segment (note: there would be sarcasm in my voice if I were
speaking these words)...
ParrotHead
> http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal1.jpg
It's a matter of standards, and I don't think anyone here is likely
to change anyone else's mind.
By *my* standards, what's in that picture is unacceptable in a
Disney theme park. I believe it would've been unacceptable to Disney in
the past, but that current budgetary limitations now allow for it. I
believe that Walt Disney would've found it unacceptable, but he's not
around for us to ask (and few people these days seem to care how he did
things, anyway).
Clearly, others have no problem with it. I would love for those
people to raise their standards, but I certainly can't force them to.
Jon Nadelberg
> not to a degree that was noticeable). If WDW had been this way from day
> one, it wouldn't be so disturbing.
>
This is exactly what is wrong. They have not never had problems. There
have always been problems of one sort or another. To think otherwise is
to look back with rose colored glasses. It's just not true.
Matt
The Sorcerer's Apprentice wrote:
>
> ParrotHead wrote in message <8t0130$s5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> : bicker_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com wrote:
> <snip>
> : They maintained higher standards in the past without charging
> :obscene prices. What can't they do it now?
>
> Because now Theme Parks is carrying all those business units that the
> Company has acquired that are more liabilities than assets.
They always have been. Think movies like Condorman and Black Hole
helped the company?
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Jon Nadelberg <jo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > It says "If you spend more money than you could ever possibly hope
> > to recoup, then you have spent yourself into financial ruin."
>
> Clearly, Universal's owners thought they COULD recoup the money.
Clearly, they were wrong. I suspect that they had people within the
corporation that told them such, but they were not listened to. This is
what happened with Euro Disneyland, anyway. Eisner and the imagineers
were warned about the money they were spending, but did not listen, and
went ahead with spending more than they should have.
>
> > Do they also say that the park, if it is built at all, will not
> >open for at least 10 or 11 years? I would not call that exactly
> >making haste.
>
> When have you ever heard Disney announce the addition of a third new
> gate to a resort before the second one has even opened?
> And double-check the Web site :
>
> http://www.thirdthemepark.com/#beyond
That's not exactly an official announcement of a third park opening.
It's a web page that basically says "We're thinking bout this."
>
> They're saying that the third gate will open in 2003. Now, I believe
> there's still some question as to whether this site is actually an
> official Disney site. It's possible that the whole thing is bogus.
No. It says the first phase will be done in 2003, and completion in
2010. First phase generally means design.
>
> >Paris Disneyland, which spent a similar amount of money, basically
> >went broke for the same reasons.
>
> And Tokyo Disneyland, which which has spent more money than anyone,
> has been the biggest success of them all.
>
Tokyo Disneyland did not spend the equivalent amount of cash for its
time. The new TDS project is being built with a lot of money, but it is
being done with sound financial backing. Do you think that money just
grows on trees? That there is some sort of giant pot of gold someplace
that Disney plucks money from at an infinite level?
Paris Disneyland shows that they can spend too much, that they can mire
themselves in excessive debt, and that it can threaten the future of the
company. That is not the path a prudent management team goes down if it
wants to stay the management team.
> > Does anyone consider Universal a resort?
>
> I think Universal WANTS people to.
>
> >It's not the number of theme parks that make it a resort.
>
> It's the amount of things to do that make a place a resort
> destination. Clearly, WDW has plenty to do. The vast majority of those
> things are in the theme parks. If the four parks disappeared, how many
> people do you think would go and visit just to play golf, stay in the
> hotels, visit the water parks, and shop? Many would, but clearly the
> theme parks are the backbone of the resort. I haven't seen any WDW
> commercials focusing on golf lately, but I see the MK and Epcot in them
> all the time.
>
>
That's right, but just having a couple of theme parks does not make for
a resort.
Matt
Tiggerfan wrote:
>
> Kitty, don't think the parks are that bad at all, they are far better
> then they were this summer. I must say, the only thing now that I
> find really REALLY bad in the MK is the porch of the Crystal Palace.
> The rest of the park has a few scratches and what not, but main street
> is definitely getting fresh coats of paint and lights, tomorrowland
> looks awesome with the new paint, they've repainted in front of JIYI,
> The Land, and Universe of Energy at Epcot and the new signs there are
> awesome. I wish they could figure out a way to put signs like epcot's
> in the other parks. Really, the last two weeks have been full of
> surprises at all the GOOD things that have been happening. Even main
> street has fewer blubs out then I've seen in the last year.
>
> Tiggerfan
You think maybe you guys were jumping to conclusions? Its really hard
to do work during the summer when the parks are open late, and the place
is packed. Usually this is the time of year where the park does A LOT
of maintenance. At DL they shut down whole areas and redo them. It
seems at WDW they hardly ever shut a ride down for long periods for
maintenance, rather they continually do work at night. I guess the
exception is Space Mtn. I'm thinking that maintenance schedules might
have been deferred for backstage work and now they are getting back to
the stuff on stage. Of course this just makes sense, I don't know
what's really going on.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> The Sorcerer's Apprentice wrote:
> >
> > ParrotHead wrote in message <8t0130$s5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > : bicker_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com wrote:
> > <snip>
> > : They maintained higher standards in the past without charging
> > :obscene prices. What can't they do it now?
> >
> > Because now Theme Parks is carrying all those business units that the
> > Company has acquired that are more liabilities than assets.
>
> They always have been. Think movies like Condorman and Black Hole
> helped the company?
>
That's exactly right. If it weren't for the parks, the studio would
have gone under with the release of Sleeping Beauty.
That would about 40 years ago now. Gee, guess the parks propping up the
company is not a new thing.
Jon Nadelberg
>
> "Fudgie" <fud...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.loranges.com/disney/crystal1.jpg
>
> It's a matter of standards, and I don't think anyone here is likely
> to change anyone else's mind.
> By *my* standards, what's in that picture is unacceptable in a
> Disney theme park. I believe it would've been unacceptable to Disney in
> the past, but that current budgetary limitations now allow for it. I
> believe that Walt Disney would've found it unacceptable, but he's not
> around for us to ask (and few people these days seem to care how he did
> things, anyway).
> Clearly, others have no problem with it. I would love for those
> people to raise their standards, but I certainly can't force them to.
>
I love the "standards" bit. It's also simply ridiculous. Your
standards are higher? I'd say they are more like nearly unachievable.
As I have said before, my standards are a clean park, with courteous
employees in a well maintained atmosphere. This is exactly what Disney
delivers.
Walt Disney died when Disneyland was 10 years old. Right now,
Disneyland is 45 years old, and WDW is about 30. Stuff happens over the
course of time. This apparently is not going to sink in, but wear and
tear is simply to be expected.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the place to be perfect, but to
expect otherwise is going to make you a very disappointed person. But
in that, my standards are the same as yours -- I'd like perfection. But
knowing it's a real world business, I understand that this is going to
fall short many times. To the extent that they do manage to keep the
place up, it's amazing. And what they do should be appreciated for the
large scale work that they accomplish, and not tear down their efforts
with nitpicky complaints about things most people will never see.
My question to those of you who are whining about nothing is what are
you going to do if it ever truly does start falling apart? You'll have
nothing to say then.
The WDWguide
In article <39F46CD2...@kungaloosh.com>,
Matt <Ma...@kungaloosh.com> wrote:
>
>
> The Sorcerer's Apprentice wrote:
> >
> > ParrotHead wrote in message <8t0130$s5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > : bicker_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com wrote:
> > <snip>
> > : They maintained higher standards in the past without charging
> > :obscene prices. What can't they do it now?
> >
> > Because now Theme Parks is carrying all those business units that
the
> > Company has acquired that are more liabilities than assets.
>
> They always have been. Think movies like Condorman and Black Hole
> helped the company?
>
> Matt
> --
> Have a problem with what I am saying?
> Please visit: http://www.kungaloosh.com/matt.asp
> All you need to do is fill out the complaint form.
>
--
Please visit
The Unofficial Online Guide to Walt Disney World Preview Pages!
wdwbook.cjb.net or
http://members.tripod.com/~WDW-Guide
Now again frequently updated!
WDW:
Jan 99: Days Inn Maingate West
Oct 99: Fort Wilderness Campground
July 00: All Star Music
September 00: Grosvenor Resort
October 00 (I): Econo Lodge, Sheraton Four Points
October 00 (II): Sheraton Safari
plus too many day trips to count...
DL:
June 97: Sister in Law
April 00: Sister in Law
DLP:
May 00: Sequoia Lodge
Brian
<webm...@sir-cliff.com> wrote:
> > What does it say that IOA cost so much money to build, that it forced
> > the owners to sell the place, and it's losing hundreds of millions of
> > dollars a year?
> So you believe that Seagrams sold Universal because of IOA?
Hmmmm.... I haven't thought much about it, but is there any reason to
think otherwise? It was a big out-lay of money, more than most films,
and if a film tanks badly financially, that often can bring down a
studio.
Mark Guttag
>
> Whew. This discussion thing is hard work. I am not a knowledgable person
> in this field, all I can do is say how I feel. If I have misunderstood a
> question, then I would be happy to try again.
>
> Meanwhile, I am going to take a breath...
>
> Regards from London,
> Rachel
Rachel,
My two cents (or I guess in your case, my two pence? my tuppence?),
for what it's worth: I agree with you on your posts on this thread.
And I really identify with your statement about "This discussion thing is hard
work."
Personally, a few weeks ago I go so tired of a particular poster seeming to
attack each and every thing negative I said about a Disney theme park that I
finally created a killfile for the poster so I wouldn't be tempted to waste time
responding anymore; even if the poster occasionally made worthwhile comments, it
wasn't worth wading through the blizzard of responses to seemingly every little
nitpicky detail of my posts to read the worthwhile ones.
Since I created my killfile, radp is not nearly so much work and it is a lot
easier to find the opinions I value on RADP without having to sort through so
much chaff.
Also, every single member of my immediate family, including my in-laws, has
noticed a decline in the quality of maintenance at WDW and DL in the last 5
years, and most of them never read any internet info on Disney theme parks.
Whether other people have noticed a decline, we certainly have and it has
nothing to do with so-called "cynical comments' on radp, WDW Blues, Al Lutz'
site, etc.
Mark
TDC Spiritual Guide to Lost Souls
in the WDW Transportation System
Carol Kennedy
Brian <bic...@bicker.news> wrote in message > However, back when I was an
international management consultant, I did
> have an opportunity to discuss this with a Disney manager and did
> confirm that they now realize they must suspect all unsolicited
> feedback. If we ever did have a voice, we surely have none now.
So because *one* manager said it at some time in the past, it was a
companywide truth then and continues to be so now?
--
Carol Kennedy, TDC Pollo Grande, Speaker of Inadequate Spanish, and
Translator without Portfolio
Carol Kennedy
ParrotHead <jo...@pcs-online.com> wrote in message
> Does anyone have a New-Orleaneese-to-English dictionary handy?
>
Wouldn't that be Yat-to-English? Or have I confused the various New
Orleaneese dialects?
EnergiFlow
debate about it may be because visitors' perceptions of the condition of WDW's
parks are a variation of the Rashoman tale, where 5 people seeing the exact
same event have 5 very different impressions-descriptions of what they've
witnessed.
Then too, this issue may be a reflection of today's society, where extremely
low unemployment rates affect the ability of employers to get things done
properly (I know at my workplace, the shortage of employees means certain
chores are ignored or dealt with very slowly), where less considerate attitudes
("If you make me follow the rules, I'll sue you!" or "It's not my son's fault
he's throwing trash all over the place, it's your fault for not having trash
bins every 5 feet!") mean harder wear-and-tear on everything, and where many
more people have a more casual response towards the workplace in general
(sometimes so bad, in fact, that I know of one retailer where workers are
required, before they leave the premises, to search one another for
shoplifting).
Add to this Wall Street's tough demands on investor return (or similarly, as I
just read in the New York Times, the Wal-Mart company's -- soon to pass General
Motors in annual sales volume -- changing America's pricing structure by
pressuring vendors and suppliers, the huge ones and the small, into following a
demanding cost-containment strategy), and you're bound to have a CEO, such as
at the Disney Co., responding in kind with a focus on "relatively modest,"
"little cost," "cost-effective," "half the amount," "without building,"
"substantially reduced," "cost-effective," and "far less cost," as he indicated
in a letter to stockholders, which I've pasted below (thanks,
Laughingplace.com!).
All of this added together must have some impact on the running of many, if not
most, businesses, Disney's parks included. Certainly the airline industry is
full of customer comments about the reduced tidiness of planes, bad meals or no
meals, and the cattle-call nature of air travel today, fostered in part by mass
usage due to cost-affordable ticket prices.
Simply put, soaring consumerism (that more Americans than ever before are
investing in stocks is by itself a big change), rigorous bargain hunting, a
competitive employer/employee environment, a strict bottom line, a me-first
culture, and flexible standards (e.g., I've read that grade inflation at high
schools is far more common nowadays) have to affect the way Americans think,
and the way we manage and deal with things.
Janet H.
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-PID10001130-10001133.ASP
From Michael Eisner's 1999 Letter to Shareholders:
At Disneyland, we unveiled Tarzan's Treehouse. This was really a repurposing of
the venerable Swiss Family Treehouse, which was scheduled to be closed
temporarily for general maintenance. For a relatively modest added investment,
we incorporated Tarzan-themed design elements to the existing structure that
resulted in an entirely new attraction. I went through it the other night at
our cast holiday party at Disneyland and was once again impressed by how much
we got for so little cost.
At Walt Disney World, we opened two completely new, cost-effective attractions:
Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin at The Magic Kingdom and the Rock `n' Roller
Coaster Starring Aerosmith at Disney-MGM Studios. The Buzz Lightyear ride
utilized the space and track layout of the former Delta Dreamflight, bringing
an unprecedented level of interactivity to a Disney attraction. The Rock 'n'
Roller Coaster utilized technology acquired from an outside vendor, which we
combined with Disney storytelling to create a completely unique thrill ride for
roughly half the amount that we have spent for other "E" ticket rides in the
past. I also rode them in the last couple of weeks. Both are awesome, one
brilliant and creative, the other aggressive and loud and scary ... and the
teenager in me immediately wanted to do it again! Meanwhile, at Epcot, we
inaugurated our 15-month Millennium Celebration -- a special event that will
help drive greater attendance at Walt Disney World without building an entirely
new attraction.
With all of these initiatives, we have been able to meaningfully improve the
quality of the guest experience while investing a substantially reduced level
of capital. This approach is also being brought to our development of new theme
parks.
In 2001, we will be opening two completely new theme parks -- Disney's
California Adventure and Tokyo DisneySea.
Disney's California Adventure will offer guests a day-long immersion into many
of the wonders of the Golden State. But, we are producing this all-new magic
with a number of cost-effective tricks up our sleeve. As with the Rock `n'
Roller Coaster (which, by the way, has been extremely popular with our guests),
a number of attractions are similarly being built by integrating
third-party-provided technologies with Disney showmanship and innovations in
order to create dazzling entertainment experiences at far less cost than if we
had designed them completely from the ground up.