A Spirited Valentine ...

[jakeman]

Man the ESPN discussion has been going on in this thread for days now. Call me when we get back to park discussions.

No, unfortunately there's not a section in this forum for the discussion of matter relating to the larger Walt Disney Corporation.

Wait...wait...breaking news...I am being informed that not only is there is a section for Disney Co News and Discussion, there's also a section for Animation, Movies, TV AND Tokyo, Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Why it's almost like this is just a chit chat thread in News and Rumors!

 

[Rteetz]

Man the ESPN discussion has been going on in this thread for days now. Call me when we get back to park discussions.

While I would agree usually, ESPN hurting very much does affect the parks in many ways.

 

[seascape]

When the advertising model changes to direct advertising and not the same ads going everyone the fee structure completely changes. Networks that sell advertising that are based on how many watch the show will die. Internet advertising is much better as you know who is looking at your ad and you will pay more for it. This is why Chase offers different credit cards to different customers with different spending. Do you think Chase is stupid or the consumer who pays $450 for the Chase Sapphire reserve is? No, they know what they are doing and that people who charge more, even if they pay in full allows them to make more. The consumer wins with benefits that are worth much more than the $450 cost. It is a win win. The same will go with the future of sports programming. The company that can correctly identify the consumer and directly deliver the advertising to them will win. Is it Disney and ESPN, who knows but the model is changing and to say Disney and ESPN will lose misses the entire point of where things are going. Cable TV as a whole is dead. The future is high speed internet and direct programming. Comcast will be there as a delivery company and content provider, but the margins will be lower on the Cable side of the business. Disney will be a bigger content provider. They key though is to make sure there is real competition in the ISP industry to make sure we have more high speed providers and companies like Comcast can't use monopoly pricing for Internet Service. Competition will result in lower prices and better service than regulation.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I agree it will require shifts... but watching sports will not go away, nor will the production of it.

Like signing a bad lease, or bad contract, it will eventually expire and you will be free of the burden.

Even as the business changes, espn still has assets, experience, and skills that are needed in the matket. They can ultimately resize as needed too.

Analogies to dead industries are just wrong

I agree. You really need to have someone that knows how to get the best deal possible without breaking the bank like Dick Ebersol.

 

[MisterPenguin]

While I would agree usually, ESPN hurting very much does affect the parks in many ways.

OK, so this is something I don't understand:

When Disney movies make billions and billions and we say, "Hey, that'll be great for the parks because Disney has money to burn!" Folks say, "Wrong! Different divisions. Parks won't see any of that money (except for a small window of pre-release advertising in the parks)."

But now with ESPN coming under a financial crunch (whether temporary or permanent), we now hear "ESPN's troubles will hurt the Parks because ESPN is hurting Disney!"

So... how is it that the rewards of a non-Park division doesn't help the Parks, but, the woes of a non-Park division does indeed hurt the Parks?

 

[LuvtheGoof]

When the advertising model changes to direct advertising and not the same ads going everyone the fee structure completely changes. Networks that sell advertising that are based on how many watch the show will die. Internet advertising is much better as you know who is looking at your ad and you will pay more for it. This is why Chase offers different credit cards to different customers with different spending. Do you think Chase is stupid or the consumer who pays $450 for the Chase Sapphire reserve is? No, they know what they are doing and that people who charge more, even if they pay in full allows them to make more. The consumer wins with benefits that are worth much more than the $450 cost. It is a win win. The same will go with the future of sports programming. The company that can correctly identify the consumer and directly deliver the advertising to them will win. Is it Disney and ESPN, who knows but the model is changing and to say Disney and ESPN will lose misses the entire point of where things are going. Cable TV as a whole is dead. The future is high speed internet and direct programming. Comcast will be there as a delivery company and content provider, but the margins will be lower on the Cable side of the business. Disney will be a bigger content provider. They key though is to make sure there is real competition in the ISP industry to make sure we have more high speed providers and companies like Comcast can't use monopoly pricing for Internet Service. Competition will result in lower prices and better service than regulation.

Yeah, not exactly true as a lot of us use ad blockers on the internet, and never see any of that crap. The only ad blocker on regular TV is my DVR and a FF button.

 

[seascape]

Yeah, not exactly true as a lot of us use ad blockers on the internet, and never see any of that crap. The only ad blocker on regular TV is my DVR and a FF button.

If they run the advertising around the screen during the action you can't do that, but if you insist on everyone doing as you do, then there should be no broadcasting and everyone should have to go to the event. The trade off is that the advertising pays for you to have the right to watch the event. Further is you are right, then the entire business of sports has no future. As an aside, Football has no future in any case because any parent who lets their child play football should be charged with child endangerment. Football is proven to be dangerous and who cares is ESPN is in business if the long run because Disney Parks and movies will be and is where the money is in the long run.

 

[Rteetz]

OK, so this is something I don't understand:

When Disney movies make billions and billions and we say, "Hey, that'll be great for the parks because Disney has money to burn!" Folks say, "Wrong! Different divisions. Parks won't see any of that money (except for a small window of pre-release advertising in the parks)."

But now with ESPN coming under a financial crunch (whether temporary or permanent), we now hear "ESPN's troubles will hurt the Parks because ESPN is hurting Disney!"

So... how is it that the rewards of a non-Park division doesn't help the Parks, but, the woes of a non-Park division does indeed hurt the Parks?

Yes they are all different divisions and have their own budgets but ESPn is hurting Disney overall. If stocks start to go down. It won't matter much. Disney wants to keep their stocks up and steady no declining.

 

[Bairstow]

OK, so this is something I don't understand:

When Disney movies make billions and billions and we say, "Hey, that'll be great for the parks because Disney has money to burn!" Folks say, "Wrong! Different divisions. Parks won't see any of that money (except for a small window of pre-release advertising in the parks)."

But now with ESPN coming under a financial crunch (whether temporary or permanent), we now hear "ESPN's troubles will hurt the Parks because ESPN is hurting Disney!"

So... how is it that the rewards of a non-Park division doesn't help the Parks, but, the woes of a non-Park division does indeed hurt the Parks?

Gee, it's almost as if people on this forum tend to espouse the most negative conceivable position no matter what the situation.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

It's almost as if people on this forum tend to espouse the most negative conceivable position no matter what the situation.

Yup, and it does get tiring after awhile. And before y'all say it, I will - that's what the ignore feature is for.

 

[jakeman]

Gee, it's almost as if people on this forum tend to espouse the most negative conceivable position no matter what the situation.

Rhetoric > facts

 

[rael ramone]

OK, so this is something I don't understand:

When Disney movies make billions and billions and we say, "Hey, that'll be great for the parks because Disney has money to burn!" Folks say, "Wrong! Different divisions. Parks won't see any of that money (except for a small window of pre-release advertising in the parks)."

But now with ESPN coming under a financial crunch (whether temporary or permanent), we now hear "ESPN's troubles will hurt the Parks because ESPN is hurting Disney!"

So... how is it that the rewards of a non-Park division doesn't help the Parks, but, the woes of a non-Park division does indeed hurt the Parks?

When things were going gangbusters at ESPN, did any of that cash find it's way to plus the parks?... In the 'ESPN Heydey', the parks were seen as 'mature investments'... merely existing to add cash to the bottom line (and the recipient of as little CapEx as possible).... Basically all excess cash was earmarked for the Buyback Fund... (or earmarked to grossly overpay for sports fees)...

Now when the 'cash cow' is no longer delivering the cash that the Street has come to expect/demand, to 'make things look better' margins have to be increased in other areas of the corporate holdings.... So new stuff get's truncated or 'value engineered' and Upcharges proliferate (often at the expense of the regular guest who has the nerve to step on $DIS property without spending over 12-15K for a trip).

 

[RSoxNo1]

Someone was looking for a consolidated list of ESPN talent that got the ax

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/esp...cn=vy-ap-carousel-widget&ici=1202399712_link1

Corless' list has Tom Fitzgerald and Joe Rohde on it.

 

[RSoxNo1]

While I would agree usually, ESPN hurting very much does affect the parks in many ways.

No it doesn't, it's from different money pools. That's why Disney World had all those new attractions when Hong Kong, DCA 2.0 and Shanghai were being built.

 

[ParentsOf4]

So... how is it that the rewards of a non-Park division doesn't help the Parks, but, the woes of a non-Park division does indeed hurt the Parks?

Simplistically ...

When a segment does well, leadership says "Great, that's more we can return to shareholders."

When a segment does poorly, leadership says "The other segments need to do better so we can return more to shareholders."

I know it doesn't sound fair but it's how corporate leadership functions.

 

[jgg]

I don't see it happening for Star Wars (commercially, that is; critical flops are possible though), but Marvel is unfortunately due for one. Thor 2 was okay, but not terrible, but if Marvel makes a movie as bad as their Iron Fist show, it would look bad for the company.

Marvel Television (Iron Fist) is a completely separate division from Marvel Studios (movies)

Also, look up "Gambler's Fallacy"

 

[ford91exploder]

OK, so this is something I don't understand:

When Disney movies make billions and billions and we say, "Hey, that'll be great for the parks because Disney has money to burn!" Folks say, "Wrong! Different divisions. Parks won't see any of that money (except for a small window of pre-release advertising in the parks)."

But now with ESPN coming under a financial crunch (whether temporary or permanent), we now hear "ESPN's troubles will hurt the Parks because ESPN is hurting Disney!"

So... how is it that the rewards of a non-Park division doesn't help the Parks, but, the woes of a non-Park division does indeed hurt the Parks?

It's simple for years DIS has been repurchasing BILLIONS of dollars worth of stock, ESPN and the US parks are the largest contributors of cash to Disney, In order to continue at current levels Disney needs to compensate for the decreased revenue from ESPN by increasing profit margins and decreasing investment in the Parks & Resorts unit. OR Discontinue stock buybacks which will cause an immediate drop in Disney stock prices and LOTS of unwanted attention by Wall St and the Financial press on the ACTUAL financial condition of TWDC.

In effect Iger has a tiger by the tail with probable negative effects if he lets it go. The best course of action would be to spin off ESPN somehow. Let it become a separate company wholly OWNED by Disney yet not PART of Disney.

 

[MisterPenguin]

When things were going gangbusters at ESPN, did any of that cash find it's way to plus the parks?... In the 'ESPN Heydey', the parks were seen as 'mature investments'... merely existing to add cash to the bottom line (and the recipient of as little CapEx as possible).... Basically all excess cash was earmarked for the Buyback Fund... (or earmarked to grossly overpay for sports fees)...

Now when the 'cash cow' is no longer delivering the cash that the Street has come to expect/demand, to 'make things look better' margins have to be increased in other areas of the corporate holdings.... So new stuff get's truncated or 'value engineered' and Upcharges proliferate (often at the expense of the regular guest who has the nerve to step on $DIS property without spending over 12-15K for a trip).

But you're ignoring in this the other part of the equation: Disney's movie divisions (all five of them) are doing gangbusters. So, why aren't you (or others) saying, "It's the Disney Movies Heydey! The parks are a mature investment!"?

 

[RandySavage]

Simplistically ...

When a segment does well, leadership says "Great, that's more we can return to shareholders."

When a segment does poorly, leadership says "The other segments need to do better so we can return more to shareholders."

I know it doesn't fair but it's how corporate leadership functions.

The most important shareholders being themselves. Self-enrichment - by executives compensated mostly in stock - is the primary motivator.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

But you're ignoring in this the other part of the equation: Disney's movie divisions (all five of them) are doing gangbusters. So, why aren't you (or others) saying, "It's the Disney Movies Heydey! The parks are a mature investment!"?

It's not part of their narrative?