Monday MouseWatch : These days, there's 'way too many rooms at WDW's inn

[larry_poppins]

Thank you AV!
You speak the truth more clearly than I ever could.
Keep up the good work!

Larry

 

[raidermatt]

Which proves record "attendance", and record revenue, and record per capita spending just like WDW had in '06...but doesn't show they have "recovered" growth lost since 9-11. It also doesn't show anything about profitability, that I can see.

Nobody said it had anything to do with profitability. You're mixing arguments.

Nobody said "potential growth" had been recovered.

But at least I’ll admit it, and point to the fact that those that ARE making decisions have a LOT more data than those second guessing them.

And once again your fallback, "trust in them". Why are you choosing to spend time discussing something you believe you are not qualified to discuss, with others you believe are also not qualified to discuss?




Mr. Guy, another point on Herbie (or any other project) is that of opportunity cost. Perhaps it did make a neat little profit on the $70 million investment, even with creative Hollywood accounting. A profit that will largely be realized over the course of about 2-3 years, and then trickle for a few years after that to nearly nothing.

In order to evaluate that in the proper context, we have to ask what else could Disney have done with that $70 million?

Same thing with the Four Seasons deal. Disney will not likely have to invest a huge amount of capital (though we don't yet know who is paying for all the infrastructure), and will likely make a nice profit off of the lease payments and land that is sold.

But what else could they have done with that land? Is it possible that they have the capability to create something with that valuable assetand some capital that could generate more profits in the long run than they will make as a landlord?

If one's answer to that is "no", and I'm not saying that is your answer, I would have to ask what exactly it is about today's Disney company that one finds interesting...

 

[Tyler's Dad]

Here is where I get lost on some of the arguments against deals like these. I see people saying they could have used the land for something Disney designed and runs, but then everyone is quick to point to Disney's failures at California Adventure and the Asia parks? Which do you want. Perhaps Disney is seeing this as a way to make some immediate income from the land development deals and parlaying that money into the growing number of refurbs throughout the parks? I just don't see how finishing the POP would possibly create more revenue for Disney?

Another thing that Disney has in their pocket in all of this is the ability to manipulate the deals guests get at the parks by staying onsite. While the dining plan being offered for free is in one case a sign that Disney is doing everything possible to fill rooms during slow periods, it also creates a sense of familiarity for people with it, which means they will be more likely to look for it in future visits.

 

[Another Voice]

...Disney has in their pocket in all of this is the ability to manipulate the deals guests get...

But that's exactly the problem.

Disney knows how to bring in people - you create something truely amazing, wonderful and unique. You make people go "oh" and "ah", you get people to wonder "how did they do that?". You astound people, you make a place that's like no other on earth.

But doing that takes talent, it takes effort and it takes imgination.

Today's Disney can't be bothered.

So instead we get manpulation of resort pricing and available to squeeze a couple more bucks out. We get parks that are created to wow accountants and not paying guests. Disney would rather throw free churros at us than honestly entertain us. Disney cab produce marketing campaigns and run pointless business gimmicks that an MBA can understand, the problem is that simply don't work to make Disney a successful entertainment company.

With the proper application of imagination Disney could finish Pop Century (even without the current themeing and without spending anymore money) and have guests banging down the doors because it would be such an amazing place to stay. People will always pay money to be truely amazed. But Disney can only sell "cheap" these days, not "value". Free food and special ticket pricing isn't going to make up for the lack of innovation and shear entertainment in the parks.

 

[Tyler's Dad]

And that is why I say they are in a sort of no win situation. There are a lot of rides in need of refurbishing, they could use some new attractions, and the hotels they already have need to be on a constant schedule of refurbishment. This all takes money and the easiest way to get that money is to do the deals that are unpopular right now. (i.e. the Ritz and the Alfredo's contract) These are quick revenue makers and as any business would show, sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions to make larger changes. I guess I am just not sure what you think would be a better option at this point. This thread is full of people pointing out things Disney should do, but nobody pointing out how to pay for them.

 

[EUROPACL]

And that is why I say they are in a sort of no win situation. There are a lot of rides in need of refurbishing, they could use some new attractions, and the hotels they already have need to be on a constant schedule of refurbishment. This all takes money and the easiest way to get that money is to do the deals that are unpopular right now. (i.e. the Ritz and the Alfredo's contract) These are quick revenue makers and as any business would show, sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions to make larger changes. I guess I am just not sure what you think would be a better option at this point. This thread is full of people pointing out things Disney should do, but nobody pointing out how to pay for them.

Dear God...Disney makes enough from the parks to pay for refurbishing and then some. For the last 20 years Disney thanks to Eisner and his type have used the money the parks have generated on wasted projects like Go.com, buying Power Rangers, crappy TV shows and even worse really crappy movies.

 

[YoHo]

No win situation?
This isn't 1955, they aren't struggling to make enough money to pay the animators here. They are making obscene amounts of money. For goodness sake, We have to accept that Disney would sell off the dreams of the company because as a giant multinational entertainment conglomorate they can't afford to refurb their parks? Are you frickin kidding me?

 

[Tyler's Dad]

Yet all you read about on these boards is their financial failures with California Adventure, the Asia parks, and Animal Kingdom? Why put more money into development when it is obviously not working? Even with the refurbs, there is constant complaining about the timing and how they are doing it. What exactly do you want them to do with these profits?

 

[YoHo]

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

Hong Kong, Studios Paris and DCA were both incredibly cheaply. The money put in was absolute peanuts compared to say Disney Seas or even the struggling Animal Kingdom which also had it's budget cut. You can't say they put money into development on any significant scale, because they didn't. They spent nothing and got nothing for it.

The fact that they also suck at knowing what to build is important, but doesn't excuse anything.
You can't maintain profit margins without innovations in that field.

 

[Another Voice]

Why put more money into development when it is obviously not working? Even with the refurbs, there is constant complaining about the timing and how they are doing it. What exactly do you want them to do with these profits?

The parks failed becasue they were designed under false assumptions about "economics" and "financial realities" - you can't build a theme park using more PowerPoint than imagination. The industry doesn't work that way and Disney are fools (and paid the price) for ignoring lessons the company had painfully already learned.

Build a good, Disney level park and people will flood the gates.

The Company spent a lot of money to refurbish Disneyland for the 50th Anniversary of WDW's Marketing Department - and it's paid off for them massively. All of Southern California has "rediscovered" the park. It's no longer a place of closed rides and rotting buildings. New attractions, freshed older attractions and the general improvement of the place is booming.

If Disney does things right the business can be tremendously profitable. However Disney tries to cut corners and creates show less than what the audience demands - and that's causing all the problems. California Adventure isn't a falilure because it's a bad business decision - the park is a flop because it's a bad theme park. Just like Disneyland, it's within Disney's ability to fix. That will take money, money the parks already generate. But instead of being thrown away on ESPN Mobile and 'The Bachelor #73 - Another Bucket of Bimbos', it needs to be reinvested back into mainteance and new attractions.

Disney needs to treat all the parks as full-fleddged businesses of their own, not some get-rich-quick scheme needed to fund inept mangement of the other businesses. I'm tired of seeing all the money I pay for the parks wasted on webistes and horrible cable channels no one watches.

 

[Tyler's Dad]

I guess my point is that if they don't have the people in place to make the correct decisions on what to build and how to build it, why keep banging your head against that wall? I think if anything, Disney has realized from the CA park, once you build it, you are pretty much stuck with it.

 

[EUROPACL]

I guess my point is that if they don't have the people in place to make the correct decisions on what to build and how to build it, why keep banging your head against that wall? I think if anything, Disney has realized from the CA park, once you build it, you are pretty much stuck with it.

The point is...they do have and have had the people in place that can make the correct decisions. They have in the past fired those people ...and allowed them to build IOA....or fired them to start Drreamworks and Pixar. The point is that some of us aren't ready to just say "oh well I guess this is the best Disney can do...here is my wallet take as much as you need to get that Caveman TV show on the air while we watch WDW rot into the ground".

 

[Tyler's Dad]

And my point is that I would rather them take the time to refurbish the existing rides and attractions (which it seems like they are doing at a better rate now) than jump into somehting they obviously aren't prepared to do right now. Maybe the extra revenue from a couple of places will give them the ability to add on in a quality way, rather than cheaply and make both the business side and the consumer side happy for once. With the addition of EE and the Nemo pavilion at AK, the addition of Soarin' and Mission Space at Epcot, along with the refurbs of SE and The Living Seas, and the new attractions at MGM, I think they are doing a pretty good job of adding some quality to each existing park like they should.

 

[EUROPACL]

And my point is that I would rather them take the time to refurbish the existing rides and attractions (which it seems like they are doing at a better rate now) than jump into somehting they obviously aren't prepared to do right now. Maybe the extra revenue from a couple of places will give them the ability to add on in a quality way, rather than cheaply and make both the business side and the consumer side happy for once. With the addition of EE and the Nemo pavilion at AK, the addition of Soarin' and Mission Space at Epcot, along with the refurbs of SE and The Living Seas, and the new attractions at MGM, I think they are doing a pretty good job of adding some quality to each existing park like they should.

Its almost as if you didn't read the thread at all. Or undstand anything that has happened with Disney in the last 25 years.

 

[tidefan]

Here is where I get lost on some of the arguments against deals like these. I see people saying they could have used the land for something Disney designed and runs, but then everyone is quick to point to Disney's failures at California Adventure and the Asia parks?

OK, I'll give you HK, but haven't the Tokyo parks been a success, especially with the opening of DisneySea in 2001?

 

[YoHo]

Disney doesn't run the Tokyo parks.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

And my point is that I would rather them take the time to refurbish the existing rides and attractions (which it seems like they are doing at a better rate now) than jump into somehting they obviously aren't prepared to do right now. Maybe the extra revenue from a couple of places will give them the ability to add on in a quality way, rather than cheaply and make both the business side and the consumer side happy for once. With the addition of EE and the Nemo pavilion at AK, the addition of Soarin' and Mission Space at Epcot, along with the refurbs of SE and The Living Seas, and the new attractions at MGM, I think they are doing a pretty good job of adding some quality to each existing park like they should.

Agreed. I love the new attractions. Disney is a quality company.

 

[YoHo]

Agreed. I love the new attractions. Disney is a quality company.

How can you have Epcot Rocks in your username and say this?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

How can you have Epcot Rocks in your username and say this?

Very easily.

There's room for improvement of course, but it (almost) always seem Disney is working hard to improve the quality of their parks.

 

[EUROPACL]

Very easily.

There's room for improvement of course, but it (almost) always seem Disney is working hard to improve the quality of their parks.

Calm down your job is safe.