Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 158
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Observations from a Visit to Walt Disney World
I was aware of the "Disney Girl" stereotype; I wasn't aware how many middle-aged women treat Disney and its merchandise with a quasi-religious fervor. This seems to inhabit a different space from the mid-life-crisis buying frenzy in men, where guys purchase all the things they coveted in their youth but didn't have the means or freedom to buy then - with the ladies, it looks more like a deeper and deeper retreat into childish escapism, a desire to return to what the world - and the Disney company - once represented for them and no longer does: possibility and wonder. Whatever the reason, I couldn't help but look on these women as "failure to launch" types, and I wonder if this is the first generation appearing that way in the Disney parks - surely there weren't 40-year-old fanatical Disney moms in the 1980s or 90s.
I had last visited WDW in 2006 and, by the look of things, that was also the last time the park had been properly maintained. Visiting the parks today as an admirer of Walt Disney The Man (TM) seems about as connected as watching modern-day Manchester United as a fan of Matt Busby - everything is a little more pathetic, a lot more expensive, and completely lost from its original intent. It's incredible how the parks had a reputation - not even twenty years ago - of being impeccably maintained experiences so detail-obsessed that even the smells were pumped in. Maybe I'm just older and seeing the things I couldn't have seen as a teenager, but the Disney World of today is about as magical as a Rainforest Café... "okay, I can see that this was probably cool when it actually worked and had a fresh coat of paint."
It was nice to see the world coming together among the attendees and their many accents, but it only made more obvious that the Mexican Spanish accent really is the most annoying sound the human voice can produce. How did that nasal, reedy, words-strung-together-without-a-breath-for-not-even-exaggerating-five-minutes-or-more dialect come to exist? This must be how British people feel about my accent.
With all of the... "cleansing"... the parks have undergone in recent years, I was surprised to still see a performing African "tribal band" in Animal Kingdom, complete with animal skins, grass anklets, and face paint. For what it's worth, they did appear to be real Africans and had a fantastic ensemble sound.
Of Walt's many ambitions for his parks, most hit a high point in the 1990s under Eisner and have been in freefall ever since - the "escapist fantasy," the unrivaled excellence, the obsession with details. The one remaining quality is the melting pot; the mix of the richest and poorest demographics in one place (even if money gets you an "improved" experience). Though I had lost the magical curiosity once felt in Disney World, I did gaze in wonder at near-aristocratic families from Istanbul and Madrid stuck in line behind a family of 400-pound wheelchair-bound Floridians stained with turkey grease. And there are tons - let me make this clear - tons of wheelchairs in the park - like, to the point where the whole place now seems primarily built for the handicapped customer.
You know that saying about Japan - that they've been stuck in the year 2000 for the last 40 years? There's something of that in Disney World too - they've been stuck in 1990 since 1970. For all their "innoventions" of the last thirty years, the greatest rides are still the original ones - It's a Small World, Space Mountain, Pirates of the Caribbean - really all the dark rides still have a magical quality about them.
The biggest detrimental change to Disney World (and the company at large) since my last visit in 2006 is the loss of the "Disney identity" or the "Disney feel" due to their acquisitions - and obsessive marketing - of Marvel and Star Wars. Those brands feel so cheap in Disney's hands when compared with what "Disney" used to represent - Mickey and friends, the idealism of a better tomorrow, the wonder of childhood. Every area, every store, every restaurant that used to have a magical aura about it now seems weighed down with sad Marvel gimmicks or flimsy Star Wars plasticware, and the homogeneity of the parks - a homogeneity that used to be so strong as to make Tower of Terror and Toontown both feel like two places in the same universe - is completely gone.
One thing I was surprised to see thriving at Disney, given the changes in both the parks and the world over the years, was an excellent model of early fatherhood. Many new families still gravitate to the parks, and maybe it's just the now-higher ticket prices, but it seemed a majority of these had a two-parent model with fathers who were sincerely invested in their child's experience - and the wonder of a child at Disney World is really something to behold. I met and got to know a few of these families - many of the fathers were recent military veterans; maybe that has something to do with the demographic being represented.
Finally, I understand that the Disney company of today is essentially a for-profit entertainment arm of the Democratic Party inhabiting the skin of a once-neutral (okay, right-leaning) organization, and therefore has felt it necessary to purge the shadows of the past. Even so, it was frustrating to me as a fan of Walt Disney The Man (TM) that there is no archival or historical experience within the parks as relates to the company itself. Surely there must be acres of warehouses with artifacts and curios and documents from the past 100 years of the company's existence - how is nothing exhibited in the parks? This is yet another area where I've likely completely misunderstood what the Disney experience is to the modern world.
In summary, a disappointing experience only in the sense that yet another thing that was awesome in my youth - that had the potential to only grow more awesome year-on-year - has instead disintegrated into a bland, sanitized, "globohomo" experience with nothing particularly special about it. If you find yourself in the Central Florida area, I highly recommend making the trip to see some of the real, unsanitized history in the region - Kennedy Space Center, the Spanish Forts, the Dali Museum, the Circus tributes in Sarasota - and to avoid that which was once-great.
I can say they for sure existed by the 90s as I interacted with some of them at that time. The "Disney Renaissance" coincided with making Disney versions of damn near everything and really pushing it into all corners of life which made this a viable archetype. Annual passes, especially those for Florida residents, were also cheaper at that time so that going to the park multiple times a year was a lot more accessible financially. In 1997 an annual pass was $269, inflation adjusted to $513 while in 2019 it was $1,119, inflation adjusted to $1,340. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the current crop of "Disney Moms" are the children of the initial crop.
I would not dispute, of course, that their numbers have increased greatly over time. I think the increase in prices and wait times along with the variety of schemes (fast pass, fast pass+, genie, apps, etc) to bypass these wait times has led to a lot more people planning their visit in the sort of obsessive, regimented way that those "Disney Moms" were in the 90s-early 2000s rather than just showing up and making their way through the parks, which used to be how almost everyone handled it. I think once you've spent however-much-time looking into different attractions and prioritizing them it's a lot easier to put disproportionate importance on the parks themselves.
It's obvious Disneylands are too scarce a resource, but I wonder where the sweet spot is. On the one hand, all these tiered priority schemes are basically free money. On the other hand, if the parks are so full, why not build a few more? Right now, there's one park in Europe and two in the US, you could build one in Texas, one in Italy and one in Turkey and all of them would be full.
Well, unless the operating costs of a park are so high right now that you have to incentivize people to buy priority passes to stay profitable, but this only makes me wish we could divorce the management of the parks from the IP somehow and let multiple competitors manage them. Doctorow was right, there are people out there who understand what make Disneyland great better than Disney itself does.
Disney has the name recognition but there is some competition. Portaventura in Spain was just as good as Eurodisney Paris when I visited as a kid, and Gardaland in Italy is apparently also a world class theme park.
EuropaPark in Germany as well.
More options
Context Copy link
And both under $30 for a ticket, damn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Theme parks are just not a great business. For comparison, look at the stocks of Cedar Fair (FUN) or Six Flags (SIX). While obviously a tier below Disney, these companies have massively underperformed the market over a long period of time.
We used to go on family vacations to Cedar Point and my dad was so impressed by the high prices and massive crowds that he bought stock. But what he didn't see was high up front capital costs and huge maintenance expenses. Want to be cash flow negative while still paying high taxes? Build something in America.
If you want to make money, just make software bro. The tax system in America is biased against brick and mortar, even the ones that sell $12 hot dogs.
What does the tax system have to do with it? US software companies have profit margins of ~100%, at least for SaaSs. I’d go so far as to say that basically 100% of productivity gains between 1990 and today are from computers and that the tech industry itself captured the vast majority of that value. Are theme parks more productive than they were 30 years ago? What have they innovated?
Glad you asked. If I pay you to make software, 100% of your salary is deductible immediately. If I build a factory, I have to depreciate it over decades and can only deduct a little each year.
For this reason, software will have great cash flow relative to paper earnings while capital intensive real world businesses the opposite is true.
For an example, take a look at the earnings and balance sheet of Micron (MU) for the last 10 years. They have, on paper, made great profits. Where has it all gone? Dividends? Buybacks? Sadly for investors no. All the money gets dumped back into capital investment (Property, Plant, and Equipment). Warren Buffett warned against buying these type of companies where all the profits go back to equipment. The balance sheet of Micron grows apace, but investors get little.
This isn't how business works. Innovation is not necessary or sufficient to have high earnings. What have cigarette companies innovated? And yet they were the world's best investment of the 20th century. How about Lululemon? Are they innovators? Because their stock is a rocket ship to the moon.
Meanwhile Micron (MU) has been extremely innovative. Yet the stock has done nothing for 25 years.
To make money you need pricing power. You need a moat.. That's another reason software is a great business. Changing your payroll system is a pain in the ass, so when Gusto raises their prices 25% you just pay. Theme parks have no moat. If they charge too much, I can just take my kids somewhere else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It may be worthwhile to look into all the problems Disney had opening Disneyland Paris and the problems they've continued to have there. That's likely a factor in not expanding more into Europe.
For Texas, geographically it makes a lot of sense, but given the problems they've been having in Florida lately I can understand their hesitancy.
To your point:
Would solve this, but would be anathema to Disney itself. The modern vision for Disney parks is very clearly not Walt's, but the company is still highly attached to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link