A lot of things to discuss with this...
First, its curious that, according to the article, visitation to the area is at record levels, yet WDW's attendance is not. Meaning that tourism is most definitely no longer the issue, its rather the competition is taking business away from Disney.
Now, Disney would have us believe that this proves that building a new park will not generate proportionate growth. After all, they built AK but have lost market share and failed to reach attendance levels of only a few years ago.
But how can we be sure that its really just a case of the market dictating that 4 parks is enough? What if Disney had built MGM to the same scope as MK/Epcot? What if they had done the same with AK? Forget whether we like what is there, I'm just talking about the scope of the park. The size, the number of things to do, etc. Certainly they had the capital to do so, as they invested billions in other business areas, some with "sub-par" results.
One of two things would have occurred. The company would have you believe that they would have been simply throwing away more money. But the other possibility is that greater growth would have been attained. And if that had been the case, a 5th park would not be such a ridiculous proposition right now.
Its a hypothetical that is impossible to answer definitively, of course. But I truly believe that sticking with the original, proven philosophy of raising the bar, and trying to exceed guest expectations would have yielded better returns than building parks sized to meet a specific marketing goal.
But, since we are where we are, I agree that the current parks should be the focus. Partly because MGM and AK were opened with far less than they ever should have been opened with. Partly because Epcot has been allowed to stagnate far more than it every should have. And partly because current management obviously does not see the true fault with the "build a park to add a day" philosophy.
On the "growth through marketing strategies", I don't have a problem with that per say. However, it has to be remembered that the bottom line is people come for the product, and changing pricing strategies does not change the product. So sure, its fine to re-price things and make offers to get people to stay longer, but that has to happen along with keeping the demand up for the product itself. And that can only happen through capital investment.
Is $1 billion enough to actually maintain that demand? Is it realistic to "limit spending below the lofty $1 billion level that the division enjoyed in earlier years", when there are more parks and resorts on which to spend, and as those parks and resorts age?
I seriously doubt it.
Regarding the parks cyclical nature due to economic and tourism downturns, coupled with high fixed costs, I agree with that. Its true that the movie and tv divisions are not impacted as much by these. However, its also true that the parks benefit from upturns more than these other divisions. The parks are also not as susceptible to the wild year to year swings that the tv and especially film divisions can experience.
Again, something to keep in mind when considering current investment. Cut it too short and it can take years of spending to catch up.
