Disney's Park Strategy

[Laketravis]

Article: Disney CFO Outlines Strategy

I sure hope that doesn't mean what I think it means:

"Rasulo cited the theme parks where they have introduced an app called My Magic Plus in the last year or so. "People who plan spend more time with us on their trip to Orlando," said Rasulo.

Disney's strategy going forward is to do less not more, he explained.."


.

 

[minimemom]

interesting article

 

[JimmyV]

Wow. Do less, not more. An astounding admission and not one that the Star Wars, Pixar and Marvel fans will want to here.

 

[prudence64]

The article has very little to do with the theme parks and more about their outside investments.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Agreed. One paragraph mentions Laketravis's focus. Heck, the article's title - conveniently missing from either this thread's title or the original post - is "Disney CFO Outlines Strategy, Explains Forgoing Third Party Financing". For the entire company. But it's better to react as if the sky is falling.

 

[Laketravis]

The article has very little to do with the theme parks and more about their outside investments.

Agreed.

It has everything to do with their philosophy as a company and as the article clearly indicates that includes the theme parks.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It has everything to do with their philosophy as a company and as the article clearly indicates that includes the theme parks.

Yes, it mentions theme parks. As stated in the interview and posted in the OP, "people who plan spend more".

The paragraph on Disney's strategy going forward is entirely discrete from the previous paragraph. If the two were meant to be together - cause and effect - it'd be a single paragraph. That reporter appears to have a good grasp on the rules of style.

 

[wisblue]

That's an interesting job of taking one clause out of the context of the sentence in which it appeared and the overall article. For those who don't want to read the whole article, the specific context of the "less not more" comment was:

"Disney's strategy going forward is to do less not more, he explained, but to do the things they take on in a bigger way and all over the globe." Narrowing our focus," Rasulo called it. "More investment in properties we think have legs."

I read that paragraph to mean that Disney intends to focus on the things it does best instead of getting itself spread too thin, but to go at those things in a big way.

There are a couple of other important comments from this article:

"Rasulo said it is part of their strategy to focus investment in a limited number of movie franchises, mostly properties from Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar or the Disney-branded films."

"Rasulo said Disney also looks at movies differently than most other companies. They see the release in theaters, on TV and other platforms as only part of their business. "The back end is what the Walt Disney Company is good at," said Rasulo. "The consumer products business, the theme parks and resort business, the interactive entertainment business — all use the feeder that comes out of the theaters and the Disney Channel.""

Of course, time will tell, but I think that taking this article and drawing the conclusion that Disney does not intend to make further investments into its theme parks is quite a stretch. On the contrary, I think the interview suggests that Disney is going to expand the presence of those valuable franchises into its parks. I invite everyone to read the whole article and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Mikie]

I took it exactly as wisblue Explained. The classic decision to "focus on what we do best" and invest in our existing strong brands vs expanding into anything new. To me that would mean exploiting the heck out of the listed movie franchises in movies, tv, theme parks and stores. I hope that's what he meant about doing less, not more.

 

[erc]

I sure hope that doesn't mean what I think it means .

I think it means they don't want to waste money investing in non-growth areas.

What do you think it means?

 

[Laketravis]

How would you interpret this statement?

"There is a long-held belief at Disney," said Rasulo, "that you don't invest around business cycles, because whatever we put out there, whether it's a film, a television show or the Disney Channel, or a show on ABC Family, theme parks or cruise lines, are long-term assets that have a long life and we hope have long-term affinity with consumers."

 

[Laketravis]

I think it means they don't want to waste money investing in non-growth areas.

What do you think it means?

When taken in context with the statement I cited above, I personally think (and I'm sure some will disagree) it means that they see large cap-ex investments in additional park capacity taking a back seat to the "long life assets" that have a a long term affinity with customers.

In other words, leverage the nostalgic equity for as long as possible.

 

[erc]

How would you interpret this statement?

"There is a long-held belief at Disney," said Rasulo, "that you don't invest around business cycles, because whatever we put out there, whether it's a film, a television show or the Disney Channel, or a show on ABC Family, theme parks or cruise lines, are long-term assets that have a long life and we hope have long-term affinity with consumers."

That Disney doesn't throw cash after every flash in the pan, but looks for quality long-term investments?

 

[prudence64]

How would you interpret this statement?

"There is a long-held belief at Disney," said Rasulo, "that you don't invest around business cycles, because whatever we put out there, whether it's a film, a television show or the Disney Channel, or a show on ABC Family, theme parks or cruise lines, are long-term assets that have a long life and we hope have long-term affinity with consumers."

I apparently interpret completely differently than you do. I interpret it as they don't like short term fads for investments.

 

[Laketravis]

To me that would mean exploiting the heck out of the listed movie franchises in movies, tv, theme parks and stores. I hope that's what he meant about doing less, not more.

I agree with that idea, and believe it includes exploiting the heck out of nostalgic equity while not making investments "around business cycles" as I commented above.

I am not intent on convincing anyone to interpret those statements the way I do; as I originally stated, I hope they don't mean what I think they mean.

 

[prudence64]

It sounds like a good thing to me.

 

[kaytieeldr]

When taken in context with the statement I cited above, I personally think (and I'm sure some will disagree) it means that they see large cap-ex investments in additional park capacity taking a back seat to the "long life assets" that have a a long term affinity with customers.

In other words, leverage the nostalgic equity for as long as possible.

Not even close. Read it again. Theme parks are among Disney's long term assets.

 

[Mikie]

I apparently interpret completely differently than you do. I interpret it as they don't like short term fads for investments.

That's how I take that statement on its face as well. I don't see at all how it jibes with the current "slap Frozen everywhere on everything" practice, however.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think it means they see the parks product as mature, no massive expansions. Not necessarily bad, but not exciting. Unlike Universal which is still in the building phase. I think thats what they are addressing.

 

[Mikie]

I agree with that idea, and believe it includes exploiting the heck out of nostalgic equity while not making investments "around business cycles" as I commented above.

I am not intent on convincing anyone to interpret those statements the way I do; as I originally stated, I hope they don't mean what I think they mean.

Yes, I'm with you. . . I hope not, but your take is one possibility with parks pretty much as they stand now qualifying as the "long-term assets" and the new purchases of those movie franchises being the "new fad" or "business cycle" that they aren't chasing.