Rivers of Light opening delayed

[rteetz]

Your point is taken, all large companies face bumps in the road. Top executives make mistakes yet still survive. That's not the point. When I use word like "gargantuan snafu" and "epic fail" I really am understating the gravity of situation. In the world of big business the only thing that is more important than money is ego. The biggest mistake was setting a date before the show was ready. That can NEVER happen. That embarrassment alone is enough to bruise egos bigger than Staggs. The premature roll out date was likely driven by the rush to start raking in money hand over fist rather than technical advice from experts. Think of it like baseball, you get three strikes before you are out. You can even foul off a few pitches and still stay alive. Problem is, RoL was a big swing and a miss at the wrong time. Strike three... Staggs is outta there!! Timing is everything

They thought the show would be ready at the point of the announcement. Testing was going on and previews were planned. Then they ran into issues causing the delay. That has happened and yes it's an embarrassment but it's not something bigger than Staggs ego. Like I said do you know about the test track problems? How about the Shanghai delays? Avatar being overbudget? MyMagic+? Should I keep going? RoL is one of the smallest things here definitely not what caused his departure. If we're talking baseball Staggs was given way more than three strikes more like 10.

 

[LaidBackDad]

Believe it or not, you are actually talking yourself into my point of view, you just don't realize it yet. RoL is different than TT because of the extended park hours and lost revenue. You can't say it will make money, then turn around and say they aren't losing money because it's not open. I'll stick with the baseball references because the seem to help. Shanghai was a breaking ball he chased that was outside and in the dirt when the count was 3 and 1. It really hurt him swinging at a bad pitch. He could have been safe at first, but it tainted his whole at bat. You could say he fouled off a bunch of other bad pitched but stayed alive. Even if you don't believe that the delay is as big of a deal as I do you admit it's an embarrassment but you cant deny the timing and the suits don't like to be made to look like idiots. As I said in my first post, I'm convinced RoL is the straw that broke the camels back. The delay effected too many areas of the parks, cost too much money, and was way too embarrassing to simply be written off as just another one of those things. Disney will survive, adjust and move on; but Staggs won't be because of it.

 

[mburstein]

This article is pretty thinly sourced, but makes it sound like Staggs's departure was the result of ordinary boardroom politics. Not unusual in companies of Disney's size.

http://nyti.ms/1SgUbG4

 

[rteetz]

This article is pretty thinly sourced, but makes it sound like Staggs's departure was the result of ordinary boardroom politics. Not unusual in companies of Disney's size.

http://nyti.ms/1SgUbG4

I posted that in the Staggs thread.

 

[rteetz]

Believe it or not, you are actually talking yourself into my point of view, you just don't realize it yet. RoL is different than TT because of the extended park hours and lost revenue. You can't say it will make money, then turn around and say they aren't losing money because it's not open. I'll stick with the baseball references because the seem to help. Shanghai was a breaking ball he chased that was outside and in the dirt when the count was 3 and 1. It really hurt him swinging at a bad pitch. He could have been safe at first, but it tainted his whole at bat. You could say he fouled off a bunch of other bad pitched but stayed alive. Even if you don't believe that the delay is as big of a deal as I do you admit it's an embarrassment but you cant deny the timing and the suits don't like to be made to look like idiots. As I said in my first post, I'm convinced RoL is the straw that broke the camels back. The delay effected too many areas of the parks, cost too much money, and was way too embarrassing to simply be written off as just another one of those things. Disney will survive, adjust and move on; but Staggs won't be because of it.

Nope we'll just have to disagree. I don't believe RoL has anything to do with Staggs leaving.

 

[plutoloversmom]

This is terrible. I live in Vermont. So obviously I can't just go to disney when ever I feel like. People plan trips around these things and then a two weeks before they cancel. Well it's too late to rebook a trip. Maybe they should have to give discounts to people that plan for their events.

 

[Eoghann]

Oh... and a lot of people in this world will tell you there is no such thing as a coincidence.

A lot of people in this world are mistaken. Coincidence is commonplace as is the ability to see patterns where none actually exist.

That's a nice way to try to put a positive spin on things but doesn't wash the stink off of the big picture. When you try to break things down to individual or isolated incidents it may not sound as bad. When you take everything together the bigger picture emerges and it's easy to see what a debacle the RoL delay was. A pig is still a pig even if you put lipstick on it.

It has nothing to do with putting a positive spin on things. I'm not interested in spinning in either direction, that's the point. You're trying to take individual incidents and build them into some giant structure, but at best it's wild conjecture. Which is why you are using melodramatic language like "gargantuan failure" rather than a measured assessment.

There is a difference between a delay being embarrassing and it being an actual business problem. Nor have you in any way been able to tie Staggs to it.

 

[Nancyg56]

This sucks for the people who had trips planned around this. But i would caution never to schedule a trip around one show or attraction, if not for this very reason. However, I hope this is solved sooner rather than later. I wonder what kind of issues they are having. Seems significant since they cant put a new opening date on it.

I agree. I have favorite attractions but never plan around not one of them. If I was hoping for a new show(I am!!!) I plan it way far out and hope for the best.

 

[Nancyg56]

I understand but if anything caused Staggs to leave its Shanghai. RoL very likely had nothing to do with it. From what I've seen they need to place the Shanghai blame somewhere and Staggs was going to be one of those guys so he left before that could happen. I just don't see how RoL would be the thing that got rid of Staggs. That doesn't make any sense.

Agreed. Perhaps ROL would have been positive, but if you ask me, it's the least of his worries. Shanghai is his problem, and not even an ontime opening of any show will change that.

They thought the show would be ready at the point of the announcement. Testing was going on and previews were planned. Then they ran into issues causing the delay. That has happened and yes it's an embarrassment but it's not something bigger than Staggs ego. Like I said do you know about the test track problems? How about the Shanghai delays? Avatar being overbudget? MyMagic+? Should I keep going? RoL is one of the smallest things here definitely not what caused his departure. If we're talking baseball Staggs was given way more than three strikes more like 10.

Yes.

 

[goofy4prez]

For me the way I see it is that Disney has made my decision what to do my AK day much easier. I had ADR reservations for back to back days (a Tues. & Wed.) for Jiko and also on our AK day (Tues.) I had an earlier ADR for Yak & Yeti as well and also had a Citrico's ADR for Wed. I did all of this so that I had flexibility for RoL. Now that it looks like Disney has made it easy for me, I'll keep Jiko for Tuesday and cancel it for Wednesday, cancel Y & Y for Tuesday, cancel Jiko for Wednesday and keep Citrico's for Wednesday... Sounds confusing for you all but easy for me. Thanks Disney, one less thing to worry about now. (I think).

 

[LSLS]

The only way Disney sees a significant loss in profit at this point is if A.)People decide not to go down to WDW now because ROL is not open (HIGHLY unlikely) or B.)They don't just go do other things around the resorts/other parks (more likely). Lets say people were planning on going later to AK. They were going to have dinner there, and maybe a later snack. If they instead go in the morning and do breakfast and lunch, the net loss is not much. If they then go to a resort for dinner, the net loss is essentially nothing. Now not all will do that, but probably enough.

For a more concrete number, lets do this. Lets factor dinner in vs. lunch (lets say people come after lunch because most will say that the park is still not going to be a full day park). Last year you had an average of 28,500 visitors. Lets say RoL will bring an extra 1500 people per day (these are people that would not be at any park for a particular night, may be low, but it's just for estimation. Lets say the average difference in price between lunch and dinner is $5 per person (and we are going to assume this across the board and that everyone is going to eat here). So with these numbers (and not counting the added expenses for operating the park with new attractions), you are looking at a net loss over say 2 months of $8.5 million (which is WAY higher than actual numbers considering no operating expenses). That is around 0.3% of profits for the year assuming there is no increase in WDW profits. Now lets assume that only half of the 30,000 are off site and would not be eating around the resorts for dinner anyways, thus making the percent loss closer to 0.2% of profits for the year. Once again, this does not factor in operating expenses. I highly doubt investors see that as a "Giant or Epic Snafu." I think most know that the significant money flow for the night time work will begin with the opening of Avatar. I'm not even sure they are THAT embarassed by this. I mean,

Further, I have a tough time thinking a COO of a $59 billion company is going to see an axe because of an extremely minor project in relation to all other work saw a slight delay. I think the Iger power push sited in the article posted in the Stagg thread makes a LOT more sense.

Obviously I'm making up numbers here for arguments sake, but I just don't think there is a correlation. At any rate, guess we will never know the true answer.

 

[LaidBackDad]

This article is pretty thinly sourced, but makes it sound like Staggs's departure was the result of ordinary boardroom politics. Not unusual in companies of Disney's size.

http://nyti.ms/1SgUbG4

Clearly it is okay to agree to disagree. However, if you believe this article it only bolsters my point. There was no single incident that lead to his departure. No "smoking gun" that did him in; merely an erosion of confidence in his ability to lead. Even if I believe for a second that the RoL delay was just a blip on the radar of the corporate juggernaut as the PR spinsters would like us to believe; it highlights Staggs inability to guide even the simplest and insignificant project to a successful conclusion without problems. The article claims Staggs was well liked and maybe even a nice guy, just a perception that he couldn't get the job done. This could explain why he hung onto his lofty perch as long as he did. But, when a project such as RoL turns into such an abject failure in full public view, it tarnishes the brand. How can the next CEO of Disney be someone who doesn't have what it takes to make magical things happen when they are supposed to? We agree on many of the other factors that may have lead to this perception of Staggs. RoL may not have been the biggest bungled project under his purview; but, it was his latest monumental embarrassment to the company and the timing fits.

 

[rteetz]

Clearly it is okay to agree to disagree. However, if you believe this article it only bolsters my point. There was no single incident that lead to his departure. No "smoking gun" that did him in; merely an erosion of confidence in his ability to lead. Even if I believe for a second that the RoL delay was just a blip on the radar of the corporate juggernaut as the PR spinsters would like us to believe; it highlights Staggs inability to guide even the simplest and insignificant project to a successful conclusion without problems. The article claims Staggs was well liked and maybe even a nice guy, just a perception that he couldn't get the job done. This could explain why he hung onto his lofty perch as long as he did. But, when a project such as RoL turns into such an abject failure in full public view, it tarnishes the brand. How can the next CEO of Disney be someone who doesn't have what it takes to make magical things happen when they are supposed to? We agree on many of the other factors that may have lead to this perception of Staggs. RoL may not have been the biggest bungled project under his purview; but, it was his latest monumental embarrassment to the company and the timing fits.

How is RoL a failure? It hasn't debuted yet. Yes it's embarrassing to miss a target opening date but it's not a failure by any means.

 

[Nancyg56]

Truth

Clearly it is okay to agree to disagree. However, if you believe this article it only bolsters my point. There was no single incident that lead to his departure. No "smoking gun" that did him in; merely an erosion of confidence in his ability to lead. Even if I believe for a second that the RoL delay was just a blip on the radar of the corporate juggernaut as the PR spinsters would like us to believe; it highlights Staggs inability to guide even the simplest and insignificant project to a successful conclusion without problems. The article claims Staggs was well liked and maybe even a nice guy, just a perception that he couldn't get the job done. This could explain why he hung onto his lofty perch as long as he did. But, when a project such as RoL turns into such an abject failure in full public view, it tarnishes the brand. How can the next CEO of Disney be someone who doesn't have what it takes to make magical things happen when they are supposed to? We agree on many of the other factors that may have lead to this perception of Staggs. RoL may not have been the biggest bungled project under his purview; but, it was his latest monumental embarrassment to the company and the timing fits.

Truthfully, I am not sure this latest delay would make a difference if there were not so many issues occurring now. I really do nto think it is that proverbial "straw" that would send him toppling. I think he needed to go so when Disney finally has to explain why they have made so many errors in finance and judgement, they can say they have corrected the issue....he is gone. I do think that if Disney can get folks to believe ROL is the issue, and if folks end up believing that is the problem, which I really doubt, maybe they hope chatter about money pits like Shanghai take a back burner. Again...I doubt that will happen.

 

[LaidBackDad]

The only way Disney sees a significant loss in profit at this point is if A.)People decide not to go down to WDW now because ROL is not open (HIGHLY unlikely) or B.)They don't just go do other things around the resorts/other parks (more likely). Lets say people were planning on going later to AK. They were going to have dinner there, and maybe a later snack. If they instead go in the morning and do breakfast and lunch, the net loss is not much. If they then go to a resort for dinner, the net loss is essentially nothing. Now not all will do that, but probably enough.

For a more concrete number, lets do this. Lets factor dinner in vs. lunch (lets say people come after lunch because most will say that the park is still not going to be a full day park). Last year you had an average of 28,500 visitors. Lets say RoL will bring an extra 1500 people per day (these are people that would not be at any park for a particular night, may be low, but it's just for estimation. Lets say the average difference in price between lunch and dinner is $5 per person (and we are going to assume this across the board and that everyone is going to eat here). So with these numbers (and not counting the added expenses for operating the park with new attractions), you are looking at a net loss over say 2 months of $8.5 million (which is WAY higher than actual numbers considering no operating expenses). That is around 0.3% of profits for the year assuming there is no increase in WDW profits. Now lets assume that only half of the 30,000 are off site and would not be eating around the resorts for dinner anyways, thus making the percent loss closer to 0.2% of profits for the year. Once again, this does not factor in operating expenses. I highly doubt investors see that as a "Giant or Epic Snafu." I think most know that the significant money flow for the night time work will begin with the opening of Avatar. I'm not even sure they are THAT embarassed by this. I mean,

Further, I have a tough time thinking a COO of a $59 billion company is going to see an axe because of an extremely minor project in relation to all other work saw a slight delay. I think the Iger power push sited in the article posted in the Stagg thread makes a LOT more sense.

Obviously I'm making up numbers here for arguments sake, but I just don't think there is a correlation. At any rate, guess we will never know the true answer.

There may some validity to all of these points and would be arguments against expanding park hours or installing RoL at all; but, it disregards the fact that it has already been determined that RoL and expanding hours will make money or they wouldn't have expanded at all. The fact is, the infrastructure is in place and money is gushing out of the coffers every day that passes without RoL being open.

 

[Nancyg56]

There may some validity to all of these points and would be arguments against expanding park hours or installing RoL at all; but, it disregards the fact that it has already been determined that RoL and expanding hours will make money or they wouldn't have expanded at all. The fact is, the infrastructure is in place and money is gushing out of the coffers every day that passes without RoL being open.

Maybe not gushing out....just not gushing in.

 

[LSLS]

There may some validity to all of these points and would be arguments against expanding park hours or installing RoL at all; but, it disregards the fact that it has already been determined that RoL and expanding hours will make money or they wouldn't have expanded at all. The fact is, the infrastructure is in place and money is gushing out of the coffers every day that passes without RoL being open.

Yes of course it will make money, but my point is it's not making so much money that they will label it a huge or epic blunder. In fact I find myself wondering if the reason they are doing this now as opposed to waiting for Avatar (when people will actually spend full days at the park and the real money for a full day park will roll in) is to try and get some of the minor issues out of the way before the big opening. No evidence at all, just thinking out loud at this point.

Was Staggs even really working on this project? Sure his name is all the way at the top, but so is Iger's for that matter and it sure doesn't sound like he is anywhere near being thrown under the bus for any of the deadlines/budgets at any parks. I'm sure someone got a talking to about not being fully prepared to announce an opening date, but I doubt it had a role in someone that high up getting ousted. And I'm not sure we should even call this lost revenue the more I think about it. I mean, if they hadn't announced the opening date, would this even be an issue at this point? I don't think missing a targeted opening on a relatively small project is factoring into the job of a COO of a $60 billion company. That said, I'm no business man, so I'm probably hitting my limited knowledge base, so I may just defer to others from here on.

 

[LaidBackDad]

How is RoL a failure? It hasn't debuted yet. Yes it's embarrassing to miss a target opening date but it's not a failure by any means.

The delay is the failure. A public debacle, that tarnished the magical image of the company. No ones life were ruined, or lives changed because they won't see RoL when they thought they were going to. It did however, make their vacations a little less magical than they thought it was going to be. That is getting close to brand suicide; or, at least not inspiring the kind of confidence you want in a future CEO, or being just another company. We aren't even talking about "what ifs". What if they can't fix the technical issues, or if the issues drag on for months or longer? The delay is a much bigger issue than some people want to admit.

 

[rteetz]

The delay is the failure. A public debacle, that tarnished the magical image of the company. No ones life were ruined, or lives changed because they won't see RoL when they thought they were going to. It did however, make their vacations a little less magical than they thought it was going to be. That is getting close to brand suicide, or being just another company. We aren't even talking about "what ifs". What if they can't fix the technical issues, or if the issues drag on for months or longer? The delay is a much bigger issue than some people want to admit.

I really think you are exaggerating this. RoL delay is disappointing yes but it's not a public debacle. It has not tarnished the company image if anything is doing that it's ESPN and Shanghai. People aren't cancelling trips because RoL is delayed. Yes it's a problem but only a small one. This isn't something like Disney closing a theme park because of a delay or something. This is nowhere near brand suicide. You are looking way to far into this delay. It happens it's okay.

 

[Eoghann]

Truth

Truthfully, I am not sure this latest delay would make a difference if there were not so many issues occurring now. I really do nto think it is that proverbial "straw" that would send him toppling. I think he needed to go so when Disney finally has to explain why they have made so many errors in finance and judgement, they can say they have corrected the issue....he is gone. I do think that if Disney can get folks to believe ROL is the issue, and if folks end up believing that is the problem, which I really doubt, maybe they hope chatter about money pits like Shanghai take a back burner. Again...I doubt that will happen.

I'm not convinced that the Disney Board sees the need for a fall guy at all. I think they are perfectly happy with the way the company is going.

I'm much more inclined to believe this is just the usual corporate level politicking. Staggs would hardly the first senior executive to be cast by the wayside because he didn't mesh with the corporate vision.