Budget cuts at Walt Disney World

[rteetz]

Depends who you ask. Carsland? Monsters Inc? A further Star Wars expansion? Those seemed to be the favorite three rumors but I don't think there's any evidence that they settled on a single plan.

Jim Hill is the only one who thinks cars still. And I believe Martin said they decided on one but it hasn't been revealed yet.

 

[DDLand]

Because a rising tide raises all ships.

If the company as a whole fails, the fact that WDW or Star Wars or any one piece was insanely profitable won't matter.

So for the health of the whole, decisions are made that affect the healthy to support the struggling.

That's the conclusion I hope people draw from my post.

I doubt the OP would complain about Disneyland subsidizing WDW back when it first was being opened. Sometimes it just makes sense.

Also worthy to point out that while WDW of today is busy subsidizing the rest of the world's projects, it wasn't always that way. It may not always be that way either. Hindsight will be everything. Say if WDW really does end up having problems, it may very well be Shanghai pulling WDW out of the ditch.

I predict when we look back on Shanghai Disneyland in ten years, most everyone will agree that it's an important member of the Disney Parks family. That it pushed Imagineering and Storytelling to new levels. That it was an effective ambassador of the Walt Disney Company. That it has brought joy to tens of millions of guests and will continue to bring joy to hundreds of millions more in the future.

I doubt most of us on the boards will be complaining about a reduction in hours at Epcot over the summer of 2016 (if that's what is causing it). We'll realize Shanghai for what it is. A beautiful Disney Resort in China. As for me, I'm grateful that our West Coast Friends gave up a little money over at Disneyland to help us get Magic Kingdom and Epcot. We might as well give the same gift to the people of Shanghai. A small price to pay if you think about it.

 

[Eoghann]

Because a rising tide raises all ships.

If the company as a whole fails, the fact that WDW or Star Wars or any one piece was insanely profitable won't matter.

So for the health of the whole, decisions are made that affect the healthy to support the struggling.

And that's an aspect I have no issue with. It's the actual decisions being made that I question. The penny pinching and failure to reinvest for a very long time have a lot to do with the problems they are now facing.

 

[Eoghann]

Jim Hill is the only one who thinks cars still. And I believe Martin said they decided on one but it hasn't been revealed yet.

And he may well be right, he often is. But the fact there's no consensus even in the rumors has me sticking with there's no evidence they've finalized anything.

 

[Planogirl]

That's the conclusion I hope people draw from my post.

I doubt the OP would complain about Disneyland subsidizing WDW back when it first was being opened. Sometimes it just makes sense.

Also worthy to point out that while WDW of today is busy subsidizing the rest of the world's projects, it wasn't always that way. It may not always be that way either. Hindsight will be everything. Say if WDW really does end up having problems, it may very well be Shanghai pulling WDW out of the ditch.

I predict when we look back on Shanghai Disneyland in ten years, most everyone will agree that it's an important member of the Disney Parks family. That it pushed Imagineering and Storytelling to new levels. That it was an effective ambassador of the Walt Disney Company. That it has brought joy to tens of millions of guests and will continue to bring joy to hundreds of millions more in the future.

I doubt most of us on the boards will be complaining about a reduction in hours at Epcot over the summer of 2016 (if that's what is causing it). We'll realize Shanghai for what it is. A beautiful Disney Resort in China. As for me, I'm grateful that our West Coast Friends gave up a little money over at Disneyland to help us get Magic Kingdom and Epcot. We might as well give the same gift to the people of Shanghai. A small price to pay if you think about it.

Do you honestly believe that the average WDW visitor cares one bit about Shanghai? I bet that many don't have a clue that it even exists. After all tons of people still don't know the difference between Universal Studios and DHS. I suspect that the average tourist only cares about their experience and won't be interested in or know anything about Shanghai.

 

[Budshark]

Do you honestly believe that the average WDW visitor cares one bit about Shanghai? I bet that many don't have a clue that it even exists. After all tons of people still don't know the difference between Universal Studios and DHS. I suspect that the average tourist only cares about their experience and won't be interested in or know anything about Shanghai.

Agreed. But Disney still has to make those decisions and invest in China. They really don't have a choice.

 

[Planogirl]

Agreed. But Disney still has to make those decisions and invest in China. They really don't have a choice.

They do. I will never sit around and be happy that all of this is due to China though. It is what it is.

 

[Budshark]

They do. I will never sit around and be happy that all of this is due to China though. It is what it is.

Yes you do. The mouse out front should have told you.

 

[DDLand]

Do you honestly believe that the average WDW visitor cares one bit about Shanghai?

No. Do you honestly think the average guest will care about the vast majority of these cuts? I'd predict no.

These boards are not "average." We look at these things under a microscope.

 

[brb1006]

I hope Marie won't be the next character to get cut at WDW especially after what happened to Lady Tremaine.

 

[Josh Hendy]

I predict when we look back on Shanghai Disneyland in ten years, most everyone will agree that it's an important member of the Disney Parks family. That it pushed Imagineering and Storytelling to new levels. That it was an effective ambassador of the Walt Disney Company. That it has brought joy to tens of millions of guests and will continue to bring joy to hundreds of millions more in the future.

You may be right.

But if you look at their other long-term foreign theme park investments for comparisons, you have one big hit (Tokyo) and one big miss (Paris).

Shanghai may be more like Tokyo in that it's an Asian super-megalopolis which therefore has a built-in local customer base of 10-20 million people within a short commute of the park.

Shanghai may be positioned culturally and politically towards the USA more like France however ... somewhat hostile in other words. It's not a question of whether ordinary people all over the world are attracted to warm-hearted stories and lovable characters ... they are. It's a question of whether the "establishment" of a country feels politically hostile to anything that seems too "American". Not that they have any really strong reason to dislike America, but simply because it's beneficial for the leadership to promote anti-Americanism for reasons of domestic politics.

France is notoriously the most Anglo-phobic and anti-American of any western European country. China is the most Anglo-phobic and anti-American of any eastern Asian country with the exception of North Korea and possibly Viet Nam. You may have noticed a lot of rudeness or hostility towards Iger when he visited Shanghai last year, which not coincidentally happened during a time when warlike tensions were building over the situation in the South China Sea (and other disputes involving trade and investment).

I'm just speculating ... but the political and cultural headwind may be working against Disney in Shanghai as I think it works against them in Paris.

 

[DDLand]

You may be right.

But if you look at their other long-term foreign theme park investments for comparisons, you have one big hit (Tokyo) and one big miss (Paris).

Shanghai may be more like Tokyo in that it's an Asian super-megalopolis which therefore has a built-in local customer base of 10-20 million people within a short commute of the park.

Shanghai may be positioned culturally and politically towards the USA more like France however ... somewhat hostile in other words. It's not a question of whether ordinary people all over the world are attracted to warm-hearted stories and lovable characters ... they are. It's a question of whether the "establishment" of a country feels politically hostile to anything that seems too "American". Not that they have any really strong reason to dislike America, but simply because it's beneficial for the leadership to promote anti-Americanism for reasons of domestic politics.

France is notoriously the most Anglo-phobic and anti-American of any western European country. China is the most Anglo-phobic and anti-American of any eastern Asian country with the exception of North Korea and possibly Viet Nam. You may have noticed a lot of rudeness or hostility towards Iger when he visited Shanghai last year, which not coincidentally happened during a time when warlike tensions were building over the situation in the South China Sea (and other disputes involving trade and investment).

I'm just speculating ... but the political and cultural headwind may be working against Disney in Shanghai as I think it works against them in Paris.

I don't disagree with that concern. One thing that gives me comfort though, is the identity of the majority partner in this project.

Would the Municipal Government of Shanghai invest in a product that they view as too controversial or lacking appeal? It seems dubious. They too must expect that the appeal of these great stories and experiences will transcend cultural barriers and create joy for guests. They probably have more riding on this than Disney does (hard to believe, huh?) because this park and resort is also an extension of the effectiveness of the government. If this bombs, it will be a sharp rebuke of their investment, partner, and also their leadership. It will be humiliating.


This is about making Shanghai into a true "World Class City." On the level of New York, London, and Tokyo. This Resort, I'm starting to realize, has been misunderstood by the fan community. Many have thought that Shanghai would want to keep this only for Chinese Guests or something to that extent. That's not what they want. They want to share this with the world. I've seen many Chinese and other Foreigners in London and New York. They want the same thing only heading to Shanghai. That's another reason this idea of "Distinctly Chinese" is so important. This is their unique resort unlike any other on the planet, and they want to show it off.

One other thing to keep in mind with this cultural hostility. The completely separate Government of Beijing has just entered into a longterm agreement to build a Universal Resort complex their. If both the local municipal governments feel like it's appropriate to invest billions of their own money in foreign brands, it gives me confidence. Sure Shanghai may make a mistake, but Beijing making the same mistake seems less likely.

 

[rteetz]

Fairy Godmother now cut from MK

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Why are we, in the US, paying for you? I'm not trying to be all "Merica, hell yeah!", but seriously, why? Can't Disney figure out a money solution to pay for Shanghi that doesn't involve shortchanging the US parks? What's with this? I don't want to keep paying for a park that I will never see at the expense of a park that I regularly visit.

Feel like I'm getting "Shanghi-ed" here.

I totally get where you are coming from nobody likes to pay for other's issues especially as much as it seems Disney is reducing the experience for the DLR and WDW experiences to make up for losses elsewhere. Don't get me wrong I don't like it anymore than you though.

However, there are multiple things we utilize each day where something around the nation (in the U.S. at least) or globally which affects us regardless of our proximity to it. Using my past experience I used to work for a large insurance company in the auto/home line of business. It's hard for people to remember but for multiple lines of insurance (like auto/home, medical, etc), among other things, is a large pool of money.

People often forget that just because a natural disaster or large losses due to fraud,normal insurance claims,rising medical costs, rising repair costs,etc doesn't happen near where you live doesn't mean you won't end up paying for it in increases in insurances premiums. Tornados in Joplin, combined with wildfires in Colorado and California, wind storms in Oklahoma, significant lower percentage of people without insurance in a specific place and insurance laws of each state all impact your premium regardless of where you live (just to show some examples of things that occurred in 1 year that created impacts to people all over the nation).

If Shanghai is suffering enough Disney will find ways to make up for it..aka trim from their existing parks where they think they can though you can see from my past posts that cuts Disney thinks are little do have impacts to the guests that either Disney doesn't care or even think about. They will also raise prices of things (though the reasons for that are a bit more complicated: profits, make up for losses elsewhere, "solve" other park problems, etc).

 

[Travis B]

Fairy Godmother now cut from MK

That's just rude.

 

[Bluegrrl]

No kidding.

And re: other parks, well I get it, but emotionally, it just feels so wrong. 3 parks in Asia (even if one isn't really a "Disney owned" park) - have they over saturated their market in Asia? What was the motive/rationale for having two parks in Asia anyway?

(Not begrudging it, just confused).

 

[rteetz]

No kidding.

And re: other parks, well I get it, but emotionally, it just feels so wrong. 3 parks in Asia (even if one isn't really a "Disney owned" park) - have they over saturated their market in Asia? What was the motive/rationale for having two parks in Asia anyway?

(Not begrudging it, just confused).

Tokyo was not something Disney sought out. OLC came to Disney really. Hong Kong was done when that city was still very influenced by Britain. Shanghai is really their first big Asia park.

 

[Eoghann]

No kidding.

And re: other parks, well I get it, but emotionally, it just feels so wrong. 3 parks in Asia (even if one isn't really a "Disney owned" park) - have they over saturated their market in Asia? What was the motive/rationale for having two parks in Asia anyway?

(Not begrudging it, just confused).

Asia's a big place with a lot of people. So far at least there's no evidence that Hong Kong and Shanghai will cannibalize each other. The issues the two parks are facing are separate at least for the moment since one isn't even open yet.

Look at it another way, if WDW was having financial troubles would you have a problem with Disney pulling from the other parks to support it?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No kidding.

And re: other parks, well I get it, but emotionally, it just feels so wrong. 3 parks in Asia (even if one isn't really a "Disney owned" park) - have they over saturated their market in Asia? What was the motive/rationale for having two parks in Asia anyway?

(Not begrudging it, just confused).

Oh yea you should have seen my other post (can't remember what thread though) when I was questioning why they have 3 parks that are all closer to each other in distance and time to get there (either by flight or train/car) than the distance and time between DLR and WDW. The thought process there was they are all targeted towards different demographics and means of travel ability which is true but still....

 

[DDLand]

Hong Kong was done when that city was still very influenced by Britain.

The deal wasn't officially struck until 1999 around two years after the handover. While it commenced under British Administration, it proceeded and was finalized after the handover. It wasn't any power in London orchestrating the deal, it was the Government of Hong Kong.