AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
And Wall-E, Alien, pretty much any Marvel that they can use still, honestly theres quite a lot of choices here.
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Josh D’Amaro Named Next CEO of The Walt Disney Company
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
I think that was a side effect of the huge focus on streaming. Now that it’s clearer that the experiences division is leading in profits, I think there’s a shift in thinking towards increased capacity. Unfortunately the parks can, logistically, never have the reach of digital media, but there’s still more they could do with them. Also seems like D’Amaro is focusing more on games in the digital realm.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
I am sorry, but could someone who wants to use the stock as a measurement of park management please offer a few realistic suggestions on what would make the stock go up that would also be good for us as customers and the parks?
The things I keep hearing from people would generally make the stock drop even more. Every last suggestion has boiled down to either cutting revenue or increasing costs, two things that the market generally does not like. The ONLY way either of those things have any sort of positive impact is if you increase your visitation enough to offset the decreased revenue and for many suggestions, that isn't very realistic.
The things I keep hearing from people would generally make the stock drop even more. Every last suggestion has boiled down to either cutting revenue or increasing costs, two things that the market generally does not like. The ONLY way either of those things have any sort of positive impact is if you increase your visitation enough to offset the decreased revenue and for many suggestions, that isn't very realistic.
Last edited:
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
It’s also a stupid argument when you consider the stock is for the WDW company as a whole, not just the parks division. How the stock fluctuates is based on factors that are completely decoupled from the parks themselves.
flynnibus
Premium Member
They aren't using it to measure 'park management' - but COMPANY management. Parks just happens to be a central core of the company, so yes, how parks are ran is essential to the company's success and management plan.
If you want examples of what makes the market move... that's still very different from what makes success in the long run. Disney could turn around tomorrow and announce they are building another DLR and expecting to increase revenue and profits along with it. That would move the stock. Disney could make all kinds of claims.. but I am more confused by your comment broadly. The criticism is about TWDC and their performance as a public company for their investors.
Chi84
Premium Member
I think this is what the poster was referencing.
These two are often conflated in a way that makes it seem the stock is underperforming because of the park management. Yet the fixes the posters suggest to parks management would likely lead the stocks to fall even more.
At least that’s what I’m getting from it.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
That is not how I read many of the posts about the stock. Yes, there are some that look at it from an investors point of view, but many seem to only throw it out there as a way to prove they are right about their opinions on issues or to justify their feelings when in reality, what they suggest often has little to do with the market and their "fixes" would actively decrease the stock price in many cases.
Being a little hyperbolic here, but just as an example, we have stuff like the RoA announcement where the stock drops some random day the following week and some people come out like "See, even the market hates it." No, if the market cared at all they would lean towards Cars having more upside than RoA.
Anyway, my whole point is that bad/good for us (fans) is not the same as bad/good for the stock. Sure, in some instances they can agree but often times they don't, so using it as a measurement of anything other than evaluating investments is generally a bad idea.
Last edited:
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I get what you’re saying but a good park experience is good for the long term value of the company.
That includes a good experience for fans.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Of course. You can't have a business based on discretionary spending if people don't like your product or find no value in it, but I do think a lot of us often conflate our personal feelings with a larger "bad" experience.
A great example would be my own bias for the Muppets. I think replacing it with Monsters is a TERRIBLE idea and the park will be actively worse because of it. However, if I try to set my feelings aside and look at it objectively, it is likely a win for the park long term. Sure, I can find all kinds of issues with the new project, but none of that changes that the park will be improved for most people (even if they are all wrong).
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
Didn’t the stock drop immediately following the announcement that Disney planned to invest billions in the park?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Yes but remember we’re talking about the ceo of the entire company… not just the parks. Chef’s comment was the prior model isn’t working for the stock… so more of the same isn’t going to work.
Customer POV rarely aligns with investor priorities.
flynnibus
Premium Member
He’s just saying the prior leadership direction didn’t drive the stock… so with picking josh you are doubling down on the same formula.
Chi84
Premium Member
I thought he was complaining about how the park experience he loved as a child has been ruined over the decades by parks management.
Then when people questioned it he switched lanes to complaining about the stock.
CoastalElite64
Well-Known Member
It's also an odd stance because the major stock drivers for Disney have not been parks related. Wall Street investors just under value the parks.
Last edited:
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
They don't understand them
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Well…. He’s outside the company now. In his retirement he posts regularly on LinkedIN - fascinating guy!
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
He is but I was using him as an example. When you look at parks across the US and the World and the things they are doing Disney doesn't stand out like they once did.
Yes they have the IP and the attractions themselves aren't as superior as what other parks are putting out.
A good example is that boat dark ride hybrid Dollywood is opening this year
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
I find it interesting that your example is a ride that does not exist yet and is only concept art/video.
Not that I doubt that is will be a very good ride but I don't think its a fair comparison to compare something that isn't even out yet. Disney definitely has the clear standout roster of attractions imo. Dollywood also happens to be a very impressive park from what I've seen. I would like to visit soon!
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
The ride does exist to an extent in Europe minus it being an indoor dark ride. I only used that as an example as most people have heard of it. Unlike much of the newer stuff being built in Europe.
RIght now Disney has a standout lineup but what other parks are doing in terms of innovation is right up there. Epic Universe is a great for all the new things they have used for attractions.
What bugs me about Disney is how much they tend to re use the same ride tech for multiple rides. The trackless dark ride is over played now.