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

[YoHo]

No, it doesn't

 

[raidermatt]

I'm not the one who made the initial assertions.....they made 'em, their job to prove 'em.

Google it. Hawaii has broke records, NYC, the state of Florida, LV. International tourism topped pre 9/11 levels last year and is projected to continue to rise. Some of this stuff has been posted on this very board in the past.

 

[YoHo]

Hawaii
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/main/news_releases/2007/news-release-0701

Ireland has record tourism in 2006.
http://goireland.about.com/b/a/000085.htm

World Tourism organization
http://www.unwto.org/newsroom/Releases/2007/january/recordyear.htm


And for the record, I really hate having to use google for people.

 

[pilferk]

Hawaii
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/main/news_releases/2007/news-release-0701

Ireland has record tourism in 2006.
http://goireland.about.com/b/a/000085.htm

World Tourism organization
http://www.unwto.org/newsroom/Releases/2007/january/recordyear.htm


And for the record, I really hate having to use google for people.

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.

 

[YoHo]

Matt, you can't expect someone whose never participated in this board before to read what other people have written so they know the facts and are capable of discussing things logically. You need to keep all this information at your fingertips so that you can spam the board with it every time a new ficus shows up.

Also

 

[YoHo]

«Despite downside risks facing global tourism twelve months ago – in particular terrorism, health scares due to avian flu and rising oil prices – 2006 was another year of good growth above the long-term forecast rate of 4.1%, backed up by one of the longest periods of sustained economic expansion », according to UNWTO Secretary General Francesco Frangialli.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17421641/

nternational tourism to pass pre-9/11 levels
U.S. collected a record $107.4 billion in travel receipts in 2006

 

[pilferk]

The "opinions" weren't just about A-V's personal like or dislike of those projects, but about how they aren't meaningful because they're old (OLC--if pre-2001 doesn't count, how can this quarter-century old relationship?), relatively insignificant (Cruise Line), not something created by Disney (ESPN), and/or, although successful, still underperforming expectations (DVC).

His OPINIONS on why they’re not meaningful. I disagree. OLC has generated more revenue in the more recent years than in years prior. Part of that has been the current management, part OLC’s. The Disney Cruise Line is hardly “insignificant” in the tourism industry, or to the company as a whole….it seems you’re poo-pooing it simply because it deflates your assertions. The purchase of ESPN was a good business move. DVC, by all accounts, has been quite successful. I’ve never heard a claim it “underperforms”. Can you point me to that?

Huh? Stock splits dilute value?

Bad use of terminology on my part. I was composing quickly. I should have said “split dilutes stock price”

This is getting confusing. What time period are you talking about here? Surely not in the post-9/11 declining operating income period, right?

At many points throughout Disney history.

Please link some "Wall Street" analysis that says you just throw out the pre-9/11 numbers and don't look at them at all? You saying analysts aren't looking at how quickly tourism and travel driven businesses are recovering from 9/11?

Why? Considering that’s not what I said? What I said is comparing a pre 9/11 year directly to a post 9/11 year isn’t a valid comparison when looking at things like operating income. It’s an invalid comparison because so much has changed. More common is to trend the entire period and “explain out” the peak and valley around 9/11. You simply can’t expect growth to have remained the same between years, or expenses to be the same.

It was you who challenged qualifications.

I did no such thing. I said they were “from someone who doesn’t know THE business”, not business in general. Unless AV is currently serving as a Disney executive or board member, he doesn’t. He only has access to the same info we all do…the publicly available stuff. Sure you can’t think you can make judgement calls about operations based simply on that?

 

[pilferk]

Bull. You've made assertions of your own, then complained that others' assertions don't come with numbers/evidence. If numbers/evidence is required for arguments to be valid, you have to produce as well.

Ask away. Just remember: " I think"'s and "IMHO"'s aren't assertions. They're aptly labeled opinions.

 

[YoHo]

dude, you really need to search through some old threads before you start making assertions about facts in evidence and people's qualifications...I'm just sayin.

 

[pilferk]

Let's just cut to the end here so we can just close this thread.

You can't provide numbers. You don't have any. You don't have any agruement, all you can do is stick your tongue out at others and drop silly little high school debating tactics.

Pot. Kettle. Black. And belligerently, to boot.

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.

The only question left is if palm trees get paid by the word.

WDW has problems. Serious problems. They are the result of bad management decisions and those poor practices continue through today. Many, many people have already seen a lot of what they liked about WDW disappear - what was once the "vacation kingdom of the world" is now perceived by millions and millions as a tacky tourist rip-off filled with long lines, bad food and weird people trading pins.

In your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. The truth is that the financial analysts don’t agree with you. The stockholders don’t seem to agree with you (hey continually support this management). The numbers, by and large, don’t agree with you. So who does?

I’m reminded of the same doom and gloom forecasts from the late 90’s. None of them came to pass. You’re another in a long line sounding the death knell of WDW.

Some of us miss the Real Disney, the things that WDW used to be and what it used to represent. We wish Disney would get back to the hard work and make the place "magical" again - instead of just hiring PR firms to bully people. There is nothing in the laws of nature that says Disney will always be better or good or wonderful. It takes the rentless work of lots of talented people to make things.

But it takes only the greed of a few to ruin a century of effort.

Oh jeesh…not the “what would walt do” argument. Please. Disney has to exist in today’s business environment. People need to accept that. It’s not “greed”, it’s survival.

 

[Another Voice]

The Disney Cruise Line is hardly “insignificant” in the tourism industry,

They’re two modest sized ships! Please at least attempt to look things up before you proclaim “facts” – count the number of cabins Disney sells and then see what Royal Caribbean, Carnival and others offer. Hell, you can probably fit the passenger of both Disney’s boats on the latest Royal Caribbean megacruiser. Insignificant – yes.

The purchase of ESPN was a good business move.

Except the Disney bought ABC, a partial interest in ESPN just happened to come along. And can you sight the numbers that show the post-acquistion profits from ESPN have offset the post-accquistions losses of ABC and the cost of capital?

You demand facts – let’s see them. We’ll wait for your answer.

Unless AV is currently serving as a Disney executive or board member,…

Wanna grab a quick lunch in the Rotunda…?

and point to the fact that those that ARE making decisions have a LOT more data than those second guessing them.

And yet there all such bad decisions... Maybe starring at PowerPoint presentations can't make up for a basic lack of undestanding Disney, the entertainment business and talent.

I’m reminded of the same doom and gloom forecasts from the late 90’s.

From which was followed a period where the CEO was fired, the core of the company (Feature Animation) was closed, the third largest business unit (the Stores) was given away, the stock price hovered in the mid thirties (just like today), the company was rated as having the worst board in the country, maintenace was so poor at Disneyland that guests were killed, the company spent SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS to buy a competitor because Disney couldn't make a profitable movie.

And now WDW is so warm and glowy with half finished hotels, major sections of the all the parks closed and shuttered, empty hotel rooms being turned into time share and OVER ONE THIRD OF WDW PROPERTY BEING SOLD OFF.

But at least ABC is now a distant third place instead of a distant forth.

Stunning golden age - you must glow with excitment.

Disney has to exist in today’s business environment.

And they're doing a miserable job at it.

It’s not “greed”, it’s survival.

Ask the cast member at WDW working for seven bucks an hour.

 

[pilferk]

The "opinions" weren't just about A-V's personal like or dislike of those projects, but about how they aren't meaningful because they're old (OLC--if pre-2001 doesn't count, how can this quarter-century old relationship?), relatively insignificant (Cruise Line), not something created by Disney (ESPN), and/or, although successful, still underperforming expectations (DVC).

His OPINIONS on why they’re not meaningful. I disagree. OLC has generated more revenue in the more recent years than in years prior. Part of that has been the current management, part OLC’s. The Disney Cruise Line is hardly “insignificant” in the tourism industry, or to the company as a whole….it seems you’re poo-pooing it simply because it deflates your assertions. The purchase of ESPN was a good business move. DVC, by all accounts, has been quite successful. I’ve never heard a claim it “underperforms”. Can you point me to that?

Huh? Stock splits dilute value?

Bad use of terminology on my part. I was composing quickly. I should have said “split dilutes stock price”

This is getting confusing. What time period are you talking about here? Surely not in the post-9/11 declining operating income period, right?

At many points throughout Disney history.

Please link some "Wall Street" analysis that says you just throw out the pre-9/11 numbers and don't look at them at all? You saying analysts aren't looking at how quickly tourism and travel driven businesses are recovering from 9/11?
[/quote}

Why? Considering that’s not what I said? What I said is comparing a pre 9/11 year directly to a post 9/11 year isn’t a valid comparison when looking at things like operating income. It’s an invalid comparison because so much has changed. More common is to trend the entire period and “explain out” the peak and valley around 9/11. You simply can’t expect growth to have remained the same between years, or expenses to be the same.

It was you who challenged qualifications.

I did no such thing. I said they were “from someone who doesn’t know THE business”, not business in general. Unless AV is currently serving as a Disney executive or board member, he doesn’t. He only has access to the same info we all do…the publicly available stuff. Sure you can’t think you can make judgement calls about operations based simply on that?

Again, it's certainly sensible to take the effects of 9/11 into consideration. It's absurd to act as if no pre-9/11 figures matter. Also again, certainly the financial analysts are looking at the rate of recovery.

Yes, but that’s not what we were discussing. We were discussing comparing 2000 directly to 2006 numbers. Not trending. Not “taking into account”. Direct comparison. You want to trend from 2000 to 2006 to see where the drop off occurred, and what’s happened since then…go for it. But straight up comparing one to the other is misleading.

In any event, the revenue/operating income figures I posted earlier weren't about the rate of (or "arrest of") growth. In fact, they are allowing for a substantial recovery period.

But not taking into account factors which have changed since that time period which MAY (and I don’t know…I don’t have a detailed breakdown of operating expenses..but then, neither do you) have a significant effect.

Because the operating income figures are not broken down into the East Coast Resorts, among other things. But you brought ESPN into the discussion--not in the business unit.

Again, I was simply providing a list of “successes” for the company and it’s management.

Right. But with opportunity cost.

But we don’t know what that cost is. You can argue “opportunity cost” til your blue in the face, but you don’t know a) the value of the opportunity or b) the evaluated success rate of the opportunity. You’re playing the “what if” game…with little evidence basis for your ‘what if”. What if it fails miserably? And WDW makes money, regardless, from those that DID take the risk?

Whoa! What makes you think that guests arriving in 2010 have already chosen to stay on site? The folks staying at the All-Stars NOW have made that choice, but they don't have the Western Development alternative to chose from, do they? The choices will be altered when the Western Development takes place--you seem to take for granted that this choice won't look any different to the potential guest than the 192 options--I think these may be much more attractive options (and as developer Disney will be working to make it so).

2010 isn’t so far away. They may not have made a conscious decision, but the behaviors of “the mob”, with some market research, aren’t too hard to model. I’d be shocked if Disney didn’t do that kind of research on this project.

You think. But do you have any evidence to back it up? I don’t either, but again, I’m betting Disney does.

They might not have WB to choose from, but they have similar options to choose from. No, not exactly the same, but closer, in price and style, than the Disney Budget hotels. Disney will likely make them more attractive than the surrounding “off property” resorts, but will likely minimize their ability to directly compete with the AS hotels. For example by not allowing them to offer the same perks Disney hotels do.

Perhaps, but even if 25% cannibalize from Disney, that would be significant.

It sure SOUNDS significant, huh. But we don’t know what effect that will have on Disney’s bottom line. But I bet they do. Assuming they can’t fill a good portion of those 25% of rooms (and that’s a big if) with other guests…you’re assuming they don’t make up the loss (some revenue offset by decreased expenses due to lower occupancy) on what they’re getting from the WB development. I’d certainly not be so sure of that.

Of course I know Disney has run the numbers and is happy with their projections. But it's reasonable to question what the nature of the revenue objective is for the number-crunchers. Are they just looking at relatively short-term results by developing this property and selling it off, as with Celebration, or for the long-term revenue stream. Recent history suggests the former.

Sure it is. But questioning implies a certain amount of objectivity. The truth is, you’re not going to get your answers until sometime around 2015 or so. Also, define long term in your mind. And is it the same as what the stockholders and management would define as “long term”.

Well, that depends upon the package of benefits that Disney puts together. The dining stuff and ME and such all are recent developments. And of course they all have a cost. Disney created those benefits because they compete with other properties--they aren't inherent to being on-property.

ME is around for awhile, assuming Disney honors their contracts. The dining plan….we’ll have to wait and see. But Disney has a pretty long term history of offering “perks” that consumers find valuable. I certainly don’t see any evidence that’s going to change.

 

[pilferk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17421641/

Thanks..that's a good link.

So it's taken HOW many years to surpass the numbers attained prior to 9-11?

 

[pilferk]

dude, you really need to search through some old threads before you start making assertions about facts in evidence and people's qualifications...I'm just sayin.

No, I don't.

The discussion is taking place HERE.

And I didn't ask for people's qualifications. I said they don't know the inner workings/specifics of Disney's business.

If they indeed do, please, by all means, correct me. I just didn't think Disney's upper level management, decision support, and bean counters would be posting on the DIS.

 

[Another Voice]

I just didn't think Disney's upper level management, decision support, and bean counters would be posting on the DIS.

You're right somewhat, I'd never think the person who said, "Herbie Fully Loaded - I love the script, let's spend seventy million dollars to make that movie!" would be able to use something as complicated as a computer. Of course not. That's why they pay for a whole garden full of people to do it for them. Then again, on the internets no one knows who's a dog...

So it's taken HOW many years to surpass the numbers attained prior to 9-11?

Well, at least one fewer than WDW. You also missed in the article the fact that tourism to Florida is down...and what's the primary place all the pale, mouse-starved English people come to Florida for....? Please tell us it's Gatorland.

Oh jeesh…not the “what would walt do” argument.

Walt started out as a farmboy and turned a cartoon mouse into the most recognized company on the planet. Bob Iger has been running ABC for decades, has a twenty-five billion media monster behind him and can't even select a sitcom that will last for more than 13 weeks.

I'll stick with my guy that always talked about quality, giving your audiences all you can and respecting them. You can stick with the guy that thinks Wife Swap and Stitch Encounter are crowd pleasing, money making entertainments.

 

[CanadianGuy]

You're right somewhat, I'd never think the person who said, "Herbie Fully Loaded - I love the script, let's spend seventy million dollars to make that movie!" would be able to use something as complicated as a computer. Of course not. That's why they pay for a whole garden full of people to do it for them. Then again, on the internets no one knows who's a dog...

Ok - in the interest of clarity.. I'm NOT defending this movie.. cuz it stunk..

BUT..

It has made over 100 million in world wide box office and according to IMDB.com had an estimated cost of 50 mill.. so let's assume 20 mill for marketing.

It's already profitable..at least in the way Hollywood does the "math". And I'm not counting home video-DVD, video on demand, pay per view, HBO, and network TV airings... or the rest of the life of the title.

Having said that.. none of that undercuts your point about he or she who greenlit this steaming pile of Lohan-poo.

Knox

 

[EUROPACL]

Ok - in the interest of clarity.. I'm NOT defending this movie.. cuz it stunk..

BUT..

It has made over 100 million in world wide box office and according to IMDB.com had an estimated cost of 50 mill.. so let's assume 20 mill for marketing.

It's already profitable..at least in the way Hollywood does the "math". And I'm not counting home video-DVD, video on demand, pay per view, HBO, and network TV airings... or the rest of the life of the title.

Having said that.. none of that undercuts your point about he or she who greenlit this steaming pile of Lohan-poo.

Knox

In the past AV has pointed out that really the way Hollywood does "math" a movie needs to make back 3X its cost to really turn a profit.

 

[YoHo]

No, I don't.

The discussion is taking place HERE.

And I didn't ask for people's qualifications. I said they don't know the inner workings/specifics of Disney's business.

If they indeed do, please, by all means, correct me. I just didn't think Disney's upper level management, decision support, and bean counters would be posting on the DIS.

Why should we be expected to repeat ourselves, because this is the first thread you decided to click on?

 

[CanadianGuy]

In the past AV has pointed out that really the way Hollywood does "math" a movie needs to make back 3X its cost to really turn a profit.

Well in that case I'm happy to redact !!

Thrilled in this case actually.

Knox

 

[Another Voice]

Sadly any money that Herbie FL made for Disney went right out to pay for Lindsay's rehab and to clean up the burn marks from the "birthday" party they threw for her at Disneyland.

But Herbie does look like a winner when compared to Santa Clause 3: Our Other Rehab Project and Mel Should Have Spoken Mayan in Malibu.