The more i think about this...the less sense there is to any change in the agreement. (not that there was much in the first place)
I actually agree. For a variety of reasons (most of them fiscal). That's not to say there would be NO benefit to it...but not enough to outweigh what it would (likely) cost Disney.
First, I don't think that disney has any inkling to get into the "teen" market as some have suggested...they wish to offer "boy" offerings to compliment "girl" offerings...
...but as others have correctly identified - the family market is probably 75% (groups and conventions being probably 15% of the remaining...local markets (ie florida residents) making up traditionally about 10% - of which many are still family demographics) of the market at WDW and 9-16 year old boys have generally no say as to where the vacation is planned. Which means that all they have to do to keep business is maintain the "balanced, family first" offerings.
Except...they vocally (and strenuously) object. In the interest of family unity, you'd think (and Disney has all but said this in their corporate speak over the past 2 or 3 years) families would be taking into account how much the WHOLE family is going to enjoy a trip...one that can be a significant expenditure. Mom and Dad just want to relax (to some extent).
The teens might not be paying the bill....but if you think the teenage members of the family have no influence on purchasing decisions...you're not paying attention to the demographic research that's readily available out there. They absolutely do...from electronics to groceries to travel decisions. There's a really good Mintel study about this from a couple years ago (it's not the only one..or even the newest one). That research isn't Disney specific...but I can't imagine it doesn't carry over.
And if they were to lawyer their way around the contract...what would be the advantage?
The same advantage they got by pulling rights back from some of the film studios. Control.
Which is a big advantage. It's just not big enough to outweigh the bucketloads of cash they'd have to pay out (both in re-aquisition costs and then further development costs at their theme parks) vs the cash already coming in from Universal. Now, if they could TRULY "lawyer" their way out of the contract (ie: find a loophole/breach that let them terminate it at no cost), that's a different story.
Because then you can either:
a) take the IP back and use it yourself
b) negotiate a new contract with Universal, getting you more money and slightly more control over the IP (ie: not a contract that basically persists in perpetuity).
c) Negotiate a new contract with someone else, getting you more money and a LOT more control over the IP (approval of concept, development, and location).
THAT would be a huge advantage with very little cost.
It doesn't look like, though, Disney has that kind of leverage right now.
I see plenty of Ironman, Spiderman, and Capt America toys hanging all over the gift carts/ shops at WDW...so thats not really holding them back at all...
Agree, and something I've said before. They can already sell merch...and any bump in merch sales at Universal because of the movie success just pads Disney's pockets even more.
They get money for - literally - nothing from Universal because that's what Marvel had got from them. That's a apple cart you would only upset under lock solid financial estimate that it would be beneficial too...and that's never going to happen...
Not NOTHING. You're allowing another company...a competitor...to control your IP. That's not nothing.
But you're right...the steady income they're getting for minimal effort is likely worth more than a more direct line of income that can only be achieved with significant cost. It's also a heck of a lot less risky.
And say all of the sudden they have full marvel capabilities. Great! now what do they do?
Spend Billions on development...and the reality is that the return on the development is the increase in merchandise sales - which is not really an issue for them since they already sell it.
Agree. They'd get a bigger cut if they were selling it directly, vs letting Universal act as a middle man...but they also don't have to front the overhead.
And the other thing that development could potentially do is lengthen the average stay and consequently average guest expenditure.
You're missing "Could entice more families to make the trip in the first place". Not just increase LOS, but increase total volume. Disney looks to be starting, possibly, further resort construction and expansion (the other half of Pop Century, now the Art of Animation , further DVC offerings, etc). If that continues, they're going to want to fill that inventory. One way to do that would be to find a way to get more people to come visit...AS WELL AS lengthen trips.
That is 90% of the reasoning behind any capital construction in most cases. And the benefits to further expansion are just not look there.
Agreed. Get more people there, or make people stay longer, to spend more money.
Disney did this ultra successfully with the "disney decade"...as the addition of studios, typhoon, pi, boardwalk, blizzard, and west side...along with the vastly expanded lodging unit...significantly raised the average stays.
animal kingdom and its lodging....did not. they hit the wall.
Debatable. Not the effect portion, but the causal. I wouldn't say they hit the wall (meaning there is no further opportunity). I'd say they created a half day park with limited appeal. Part of that was design issue (the park never did have a well defined identity...or, rather, not one that stuck with the average WDW visitor), part of it was an economic one (the park hasn't ever really been "finished", because, much like with Pop, Disney dialed back the expansion plans in the wake of 9/11...and then kept them dialed back during the recession) and part of it was a leadership problem (the suits at WDW seemed to lack vision, in general).
And that is the simple reality: that 7 days is going to be about the max that can be achieved.
That is mostly because the US is the only economically powerful country to not mandate a single day off by law (most others average about 20 per year)...and thats not going to change. The primary national affiliation of wdw travelers live in a country that does not value time off...and is often scorned at for wanting it. Which is counterproductive based on every labor study ever conducted - but let not the fact get in the way of our chest thumping, flag waving, eagle soaring, corporatist rhetoric.
The foreign market seems to be at saturation at that mark as well.
I'm not sure of that. Right now, a significant portion of Universal's guests do NOT stay on site. And those parks seem to be doing just fine.
If you can entice those guests to ignore USF/IOA, and spend another day or two on Disney property.....you're accomplished your goal.
While 7 to 10 days seems to be the max wiggle room....there's some room there for Disney to get more guests to spend more time in their domain.
And, again, even if you're right...you're now left trying to get NEW travelers, or lure back existing ones on a more consistent basis, in order to continue to grow your business.
AK wasn't going to do that. Avatar probably isn't going to do it, either (assuming it still happens). But that doesn't mean there aren't other things, other IP's, that might. I'm not talking, here, about Marvel necessarily. I'm certainly not talking about a 5th gate (we're a long ways from that) But SOMETHING that's going to be "cool" with the teenage set (boys and girls), that might lure those families who might otherwise choose different destinations. But that might be part of a larger discussion, outside this topic.
So the long and short of it is that if disney could realistically expect that all of a sudden the average WDW stay would increase from around 7 (which is both what i remember being the last "official" number available to the public and also a simply arithmetic calculation of posted length of stays posted by travelers on this and other boards) to around 10...or 12....or more...
then there would be not only mass park expansions...but new parks and tens of thousands of new hotel rooms.
We are seeing SOME expansion now, and repurposing/redevelopment of existing spaces. Maybe it's to help draw in certain niche markets (larger families) or maybe it's the beginning of a larger expansion project. I don't know. I don't think we'll see any sort of 5th gate any time soon...which means Disney is looking to "expand" within it's current footprint.
But again...maximizing existing volume isn't the ONLY option, here.
But that isn't reality of what happens. The average length of stay plateaued about 10 years ago and isn't likely to move.
That can be due to the availability of time off and funds for travel - which isn't like to increase and will likely decrease as compared to inflation
and also the disney watched phenomenon know as "park cannibalization"...which of course is the problem they will never solve that sees the traveler just fit new offerings into their travel schedules/ budgets by dumping time and money for old ones.
You've got a good point in there.
Disney's has been and is being canniblized by Universal. Again, I don't think snatching Marvel away from them is the answer..but I'm not willing to concede there ISN'T an answer out there. I think there is. And it isn't the Fantasyland expansion, either. Nor is it waiting out the novelty of WWOHP. Whether Disney will find the answer (or even look for it) is the question.
So i guess what i'm saying is: no marvel.
I agree. For slightly different reasons...but we get to the same place, eventually.
That is the only position that makes any sense to those that matter.
And this is NOT the marvel fans or 13 year old boys.
Again, I agree. There's no way you can make the case to the shareholders (esp the institutional ones) that the COST to get Mavel back from Universal + the cost of developing new attractions based on those IP's + risk of success is worth the loss of guaranteed money coming in from Universal, right now. It's just NOT.
(and i'm really bored at work...obviously)
You think you're bored. I'm watching progress bars move across 2 screens (PC and laptop) and likely will be most of the day.
)
Jackson on a show about the movies stated that he was at the end of a long list of directors that have tried to get the movie rights to the books. 
