Improvements vs Cutbacks: Commentary & Discussion of Current Disney Management

[GothMickey]

And notice I said "meeting" guest expectations and not "exceeding." I think they're consistently aiming for "just good enough to keep people coming back" and that's about it.

Just to think, there used to be a time when meeting expectations was a failure and exceeding them were the norm. Makes me sad this is what it has come to.

[Ian]

GM....is going down (eventually) because the "perception" is that their product is in inferior to foreign counterparts. That is extemely difficult to shake when you are talking about expensive machines made of thousands of parts.

Stop ... just stop with this. It's ridiculous. Honestly, I understand your negative image of GM. That's fine. It's America. You are entitled to an opinion, regardless of how uninformed and incorrect it may be.

But seriously, just knock it off with "they're going down eventually" stuff ... it will never happen.

I'm telling you there is no way in the world Obama will allow GM to fold. The unions are one of his staunchest supporters and, if he let GM go under, he'd be out on his keister come 2012.

Don't take it from me ... read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayof...nds/index.html

And pay close attention to this paragraph:

Should GM owners be worried?
According to most automotive industry watchers and professional economists, it's highly unlikely that the government will allow General Motors to disappear.

[Ian]

Just to think, there used to be a time when meeting expectations was a failure and exceeding them were the norm. Makes me sad this is what it has come to.

Oh, I know. I always think back to the time when Disney published books and held corporate seminars on customer service and how to exceed expectations every time you interact with a guest.

Not anymore, man. Not anymore.

[GrumpyFan]

Stop ... just stop with this. It's ridiculous. Honestly, I understand your negative image of GM. That's fine. It's America. You are entitled to an opinion, regardless of how uninformed and incorrect it may be.

But seriously, just knock it off with "they're going down eventually" stuff ... it will never happen.

I'm telling you there is no way in the world Obama will allow GM to fold. The unions are one of his staunchest supporters and, if he let GM go under, he'd be out on his keister come 2012.

Wow, Ian, sounds like you're taking it kinda personal.

I have to agree with you though that Obama will not allow them to fold, there's just too much at stake politically and economically. However, in my own opinion, they SHOULD fail/fold, or at the least declare bankruptcy and go thru a major re-structuring. The company has been horribly managed over the past 20 years or more and now it's caught up with them. Yes, it would be a huge blow to our economy, and I would sympathize for all those who lost jobs, but companies who fail to properly manage their business shouldn't be saved without some consequences. Doing so sets bad precedence and stifles competition and growth possibilities for other businesses.

It's tantamount to the laws of nature and survival of the fittest. There has to be a balance. And, when one species (business) dies off, others rise up in its place. It's not pretty, and its sometimes a painful process, but it must happen in a healthy environment.

[GrumpyFan]

Longterm decline in product is a huge concern for disney....

But i think it's hard to equate Disney with GM....

GM peddles working (sometimes), physical machines.....Disney peddles emotions and perceptions more than physical product. Everything that you buy with Disney...utlimately...is about the perception

Sure they're different in their products, but I would argue that GM's product is also about perception. People who buy their product will only buy another one if their perception is that it's a good value for their money. The same can be said of Disney. People will only return if they perceive it to be worth their money. So while Disney isn't actually selling something tangible, they are hoping to achieve the same thing that GM is, and that's a happy and satisfied customer who will return and/or recommend them to others. In short, that means providing a product (or experience) that people actually want, at a price they can afford.

[Scar]

... it will never happen.

Never?... as in ever?

Sorry, just getting back at you for calling me out last year when I said oil would last forever. Actually, I think the oil supply will outlast GM.

[Ian]

Never happen in this go-round, no.

They could obviously fold up the tents later on, but in this current situation with this Administration ... no. Never happen.

And look I agree with you 110% that nature should just take its course with not only GM, but every business struggling today. That's how the free market works.

I'm just telling you how it is, not how it should be. Big difference!

As far as taking it personal goes ... not in the least. I got laid off from a GM company and certainly have no love lost for their miserable management team. I just tire of all the sometimes.

[lockedoutlogic]

Sure they're different in their products, but I would argue that GM's product is also about perception. People who buy their product will only buy another one if their perception is that it's a good value for their money. The same can be said of Disney. People will only return if they perceive it to be worth their money. So while Disney isn't actually selling something tangible, they are hoping to achieve the same thing that GM is, and that's a happy and satisfied customer who will return and/or recommend them to others. In short, that means providing a product (or experience) that people actually want, at a price they can afford.

we're basically on the same page here.....

Disney may have longterm concerns....they realistically don't have the short term ones that GM does....

but that doesn't mean they don't have to be careful of this....something they've already recklessly ignored in many situations in recent years and dealings

[lockedoutlogic]

Stop ... just stop with this. It's ridiculous. Honestly, I understand your negative image of GM. That's fine. It's America. You are entitled to an opinion, regardless of how uninformed and incorrect it may be.

But seriously, just knock it off with "they're going down eventually" stuff ... it will never happen.

I'm telling you there is no way in the world Obama will allow GM to fold. The unions are one of his staunchest supporters and, if he let GM go under, he'd be out on his keister come 2012.

Don't take it from me ... read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayof...nds/index.html

And pay close attention to this paragraph:

Wow....it apparently is touchy friday....

Listen....GM will be sold, absorbed, raided, divided up, or sold off at some point....

there product is not good enough....say what you want....but theres a reason why they went from controlling 2/3 of the market to about 1/4 in a few decades (and it's not a vast left wing conspiracy)

AND....they are racked with labor costs.

What do you want? The simply dissolution of GM? or the change of everything that was GM where (i.e. non-union, outsourcing, shutdown of domestic manufacturing and production, low cost work practicies in foreign countries)?

I think we know that it will happen....maybe not to day...maybe not tomorrow....but soon...and for the rest of you....

oh, nevermind


Seriously, what's going on here? The foxes seem to be guarding the henhouse today....

Can we stop with the lashing out?

[DizneyRox]

Stop ... just stop with this. It's ridiculous. Honestly, I understand your negative image of GM. That's fine. It's America. You are entitled to an opinion, regardless of how uninformed and incorrect it may be.

But seriously, just knock it off with "they're going down eventually" stuff ... it will never happen.

I'm telling you there is no way in the world Obama will allow GM to fold. The unions are one of his staunchest supporters and, if he let GM go under, he'd be out on his keister come 2012.

Don't take it from me ... read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayof...nds/index.html

And pay close attention to this paragraph:

WOW, Who saw this coming?

Obama denies bailout funds for automakers
White House says neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans

Associated Press
updated 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House says neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit and putting in motion what could be the final two months of two American auto giants.

Above taken from msnbc.com They do have a last minute deadline to resubmit. The head honcho is out, which is like duh!

[Ian]

That story is a bit misleading ...

While it's true that the Administration was critical of both companies' restructuring plans, money has already been committed to keep them running.

See below:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Obama administration gave General Motors and Chrysler LLC failing grades Monday for their turnaround efforts and promised a sweeping overhaul of the troubled companies. The government plans to give the automakers more money, but it is also holding out the threat of a "structured bankruptcy."

The federal government will provide operating funds for both automakers for several weeks, during which time the companies will have to undergo significant restructuring, administration officials said late Sunday night.

[joonyer]

Rick Wagoner has resigned as GM CEO, reportedly as a condition for continued Gov't bailout money, per the request of Obama.

[Stu29573]

Rick Wagoner has resigned as GM CEO, reportedly as a condition for continued Gov't bailout money, per the request of Obama.

Regardless of what you think of Rick Wagoner, am I the only one who finds this amount of government control a bit unsettling? Of course, working in public education for the past 14 years has taught me that as soon as you take money from the government, you have little, if any, independance. We call it "shaking hands with the devil."

[Ian]

Regardless of what you think of Rick Wagoner, am I the only one who finds this amount of government control a bit unsettling? Of course, working in public education for the past 14 years has taught me that as soon as you take money from the government, you have little, if any, independance. We call it "shaking hands with the devil."

No. You aren't the only one.

[Tekneek]

Regardless of what you think of Rick Wagoner, am I the only one who finds this amount of government control a bit unsettling?

If it had been a company that had not asked for, and been given, public funding through the government, I would find it very unsettling. Since this is a different situation, I find it a bit strange that anyone would complain. Supposedly, if the government had not interfered in their business they would have already gone under.

You would have to be very naive to think that government intervention stops at giving you "bailout funds." If Rick Wagoner really believed that, then he surely deserves to be shown the door. Given the performance of the company, I find it hard to believe he has done a great job either, so that would indicate that showing him the door isn't the worst idea on the table.

[Ian]

Just FYI, it's a public misconception that the auto industry received "bailout funds."

I'm not 100% certain of the terms, but I believe they either borrowed the money on very favorable terms or they exchanged equity stakes in the companies for the funds. It was not "free money" handed to them at the expense of the taxpayers as some would have you believe.

Truth is, in any other market aside from this one, they could have gotten access to private capital and not required assistance from the Feds. But with the credit crunch, they just weren't able to find anyone willing to pony up.

Either way, it's highly inappropriate (in my opinion) for an elected official to essentially force his will on a privately held corporation.

I mean I hate to point this out, but what if the shareholders wanted to retain Wagoner? Isn't it their call?

[lockedoutlogic]

Just FYI, it's a public misconception that the auto industry received "bailout funds."

I'm not 100% certain of the terms, but I believe they either borrowed the money on very favorable terms or they exchanged equity stakes in the companies for the funds. It was not "free money" handed to them at the expense of the taxpayers as some would have you believe.

Truth is, in any other market aside from this one, they could have gotten access to private capital and not required assistance from the Feds. But with the credit crunch, they just weren't able to find anyone willing to pony up.

Either way, it's highly inappropriate (in my opinion) for an elected official to essentially force his will on a privately held corporation.

I mean I hate to point this out, but what if the shareholders wanted to retain Wagoner? Isn't it their call?

What is your understanding of the situation?

Here's mine:

Two of the BIG 3 (what an ironic term these days) recieve around 17.5 billion in government "loans" about 3 months ago to pay the bills....at the time admitting that they would be back for more because they would again not be able to remain afloat in 3-9 months....

lo and behold....here they are. Asking for more "loans" to again....pay the bills

So here's my question....

if they are borrowing money to pay operational costs.....auto sales are in severe decline.....and labor and healthcare costs continue to rise relative to revenue.....

how are they going to pay back said "loans"...without asking for more?

How do they get solvent?

Because unless i'm mistaken....the only way to is to basically destroy how the cars are made from the ground up....slash everything....change the operation and labor structure....

My only other question is....if that is the "right" course...then are they still, in fact, the American car makers?

I'm not being sarcastic....i just don't think you prognosis for their saving or recovery will leave anything that looks like GM, Chrysler...and possibly Ford...in the end.

So what's to save?

(I do agree however that they will not be allowed to fail by the government in the short term.....they are still politically useful, they employ too many, and the shockwaves would be fairly damaging to an already listing ship)

...but i don't think it's about "credit" What credit? They have proven that they have nothing to pay it back with other than 2 dollar stock.

[Tekneek]

Just FYI, it's a public misconception that the auto industry received "bailout funds."

There is a reason I had it in quotes.

I'm not 100% certain of the terms, but I believe they either borrowed the money on very favorable terms or they exchanged equity stakes in the companies for the funds. It was not "free money" handed to them at the expense of the taxpayers as some would have you believe.

I never said it was free money, but they obviously came begging for government intervention in their enterprise. Kinda hard to complain about the consequences later, isn't it?

Truth is, in any other market aside from this one, they could have gotten access to private capital and not required assistance from the Feds. But with the credit crunch, they just weren't able to find anyone willing to pony up.

Capitalism can be hard. Sometimes you fail. They made an end-run around the marketplace and got government intervention on their behalf. Sometimes you get the bad with the good.

Either way, it's highly inappropriate (in my opinion) for an elected official to essentially force his will on a privately held corporation.

Highly inappropriate to go to Washington and beg for money, too. Guess we've got a bunch of people behaving badly.

I mean I hate to point this out, but what if the shareholders wanted to retain Wagoner? Isn't it their call?

I would wonder why they would want to retain someone who invited government intervention in their enterprise without consulting them first (as I recall, this was not subject to a shareholder vote). When you invite the government into your business, things don't go that well. They should have sold their shares, taken their losses, and moved on once that happened. They decided to accept that risk when they stayed on.

[Tinkermom]

Wow! I came here looking for info on Wishes possibly changing and a discussion about Disney management since this is what the first post says this thread is about. I finally had to do a search to find that info.

I have to say that I am surprised that this thread is still open since the last several pages has nothing to do with the title. If you wish the arguing er...discussion to continue maybe at least the title should change and it be moved to the Water Cooler.

[GothMickey]

Wow! I came here looking for info on Wishes possibly changing and a discussion about Disney management since this is what the first post says this thread is about. I finally had to do a search to find that info.

I have to say that I am surprised that this thread is still open since the last several pages has nothing to do with the title. If you wish the arguing er...discussion to continue maybe at least the title should change and it be moved to the Water Cooler.

The title of this thread is Improvements vs. Cutbacks: Commetary and Discussion of Current Disney Management. It was opened by a moderator. And this thread has followed that title exact. Has nothing to do with Wishes. Even though the first few posts deal with a possible Wishes cutback, we are completely on topic.