ChrisRobin124
Active Member
Vision? Mr. Magoo comes to mind.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What is Bob Chapek's Vision?
- Thread starter NelsonRD
- Start date
Beacon Joe
Well-Known Member
A cynical mind might think that turning attraction lines into a Profit Center will only mean that leadership will now focus on making attraction lines even worse.
THEMEPARKPIONEER
Well-Known Member
that’s ok he’s already chased me to Universal
91JLovesDisney
Well-Known Member
JohnD
Well-Known Member
He doesn't have one? It goes beyond the parks. He grossly mishandled the Scarlett Johannsen situation.
So his appointment was specifically "Increase revenue streams?"
SpoiledBlueMilk
Well-Known Member
- Make his numbers
- Keep the Board happy
- Make the shareholders happy
- Content! on Disney+ (not good stories, but content!)
- Maximize IP
- Replace cast members with technology
- Synergy!
- Squeeze out any of the creativity or risk-taking in favor of data-driven, homogenized decision-making.
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
I don't think he sees it as: "Oh, those crappy poor people!," but, instead, sees it as, "The wealthier people have more money. I can make more money from wealthier guests."
I think he sees himself as a shopkeeper of sorts. In his mind the idea is: "How do I make as much money as possible with this shop?" Everything he does is within that mindset. "Why am I giving <whatever> away for free? I should be selling that!" He sees fastpass or Magical Express or even normal site transportation as nothing more than "a gallon of milk" that he keeps giving away and, to what end? He's not making money off of it.
If he thinks he can make money off of it then he sells it. If he doesn't think his customers will buy it for the price he'd want for it then he cuts it (Magical Express).
"What about nostalgia?" He doesn't see a way to take "nostalgia" to the bank. It has no value to him.
"What about the experience?" I think he sees this as: "You bought the park for the agreed upon terms. I delivered the park. Done."
I don't think he's some evil greedy monster. I think he's like a shopkeeper that has inherited a store and doesn't understand how it used to run but he's going to run it the way he knows how which is: Don't leave anything on the table for free. Charge for it!
Now, keep in mind: Every step of the way he's been proven right. He charges for <whatever> and:
- People make excuses
- People defend Disney
- People line up at the gates the next day.
With regards to the clientele: You could run a crappy little road-side diner all day picking up average people's money in exchange for soda's and burgers OR you could run a high-end restaurant, attracting wealthy people, and using the same amount of space to make many times that diner's income. He's going for the latter.
I'd also argue that he's not going to "hit the breaking point" but is actively searching for it. He wants to know the maximum amount of money that he can charge/head before he tips the scales in the other direction. At that point, just hold that line for a year or two, to tip it back, and then gauge future increases based on that line. At the same time, reduce the value of the product to increase your margin? Why have all of this extra entertainment when you can boost the price, shorten the hours, and make more money?
Why sell the park just once a day?
I think you can see this happening with the after hours events: Boo Bash and the Christmas deal are much more costly than in the past but offer much less and he's very likely that people will line up to buy it. They spend more to get in. He doesn't have to pay as much for entertainment / employees and more money is made.
This is happening with everything that's being sold.
He, and his team, are going to look great to Wall Street.
MattC
Well-Known Member
Bingo
Goofnut1980
Well-Known Member
If Disney doesn't pull their heads out of their booties, Uni will overtake them for parks. Uni adding a 3rd park doesn't leave too much extra that Disney will have over them. They best start fixing and "plus'ing their parks otherwise, market share will start to fall in the direction of Uni. JMO, but still feel like they go so long without fixing and refreshing things in the park to stay one step ahead of Uni. Doesn't seem to be that way when you let the investors run your business until they need someone to blame.
9. Hang guests up by their heels for one last shake before they leave the parks.
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
I think that this is inevitable that Universal will overtake Disney.
The difference is:
- Universal invests in its parks because it wants to, proactively
- Disney invests in its parks because they have to, retroactively
What Disney is currently doing is making up for ≈20 years of lack of improvements/attractions. They're cutting corners wherever possible (maintenance (see:monorails)) and increasing the costs to the customers. There doesn't appear to be anything coming after the current projects are completed so I'd expect a good 10-20 years of close to zero improvements - unless Epic Universe has spooked them. Currently, it's probably a concern but people are still at the gates so it could be a "not a big deal - we have our customers"-situation.
Universal is trying to compete by showing value:
- cost less than Disney
- They're constantly improving / adding attractions / going around the park and fixing things.
Universal is saying: "Hey, average customer! Over here! We want you!"
Disney is screaming: "You need to be upper tier/wealthy to visit out parks" - which could work but you can't go for 10-20 years without additions and skimp on maintenance and (long term) expect the wealthy to keep coming. The wealthy didn't get to be wealthy by being idiots with their money. If you cater to them then you had better "cater to them". I don't think Disney is doing that at this point. Disney is offering the same product that they had before which was for "average people" but pricing it for "super wealthy" and that really doesn't fly with the wealthy. Some, sure. Most, know it's a bad deal.
It'd be like your local chain steak-house doing nothing more than doubling their prices and thinking, "Now THAT makes us a PREMIUM establishment!" - no, you're still selling the same stuff you did before but thinking that raising your prices is all you needed to do to attract the wealthy and that really doesn't cut it.
Of course, there's supply and demand here in that Disney parks are a limited resource so, over time, they can't help but become more expensive as there aren't any new parks but there is an ever-increasing population.
mf1972
Well-Known Member
World_Showcase_Lover007
Well-Known Member
First, I highly doubt Iger went into the job with such lofty and crafted goals. He can say what he wants, but forming a narrative after the fact is rather easy.
Chapek has a classic business “vision”. Squeeze every last penny out of guests…then when things eventually go bad, he will issue a pseudo apology with the tag line “we’ve been listening to what our guests want and will blah blah…” But they’ll never lower prices, so it doesn’t really matter does it.
Chapek has a classic business “vision”. Squeeze every last penny out of guests…then when things eventually go bad, he will issue a pseudo apology with the tag line “we’ve been listening to what our guests want and will blah blah…” But they’ll never lower prices, so it doesn’t really matter does it.
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
The corporate statements are the worst.
I think one thing Bob really needs to look out for is: maintenance. The problem with reducing maintenance is that costs build up to the point where the thing isn't worth fixing. If it had simply been maintained then that latest cost wouldn't matter.
A well maintained car can last a VERY long time.
A poorly maintained car won't be worth what it costs to repair it 3-5 years out.
Simply understanding those costs and figuring them into the budget goes a long way to keeping that car running.
The same is true for the parks. Replacing the monorail trains should have been figured into the budget as: "Just something you have to do" and not "we can get around it with some fresh paint and new carpet." They didn't do it. I don't "replacing the monorail" is anywhere in the budget right now and, in reality, it should have been there 10+ years back. That's just one instance.
Space Mountain has the same problem: They should have replaced the track 10 years back. They "saved money" and now that's no where in their budget to fix.
This is how things slowly deteriorate to the point where you can no longer operate or sell them (as attractions for the park).
I think Bob Chapek (and it wasn't all on his watch but he seems to be pushing the same methodologies forward) is short-sighted on this.
I think another one he's short sighted on is employees / entertainment. If you treat them as a commodity you're going to end up with Six Flags employees and Six Flags entertainment.
All of this will be reflected in the experience of customers and if it looks like they're paying $$$$ for a sub-par product then they're going to notice it and that is going to be considered for their next potential trip along with them telling their friends.
Tribal Prophet
Member
He was brought in to make a lot of very unpopular decisions that will make Disney even more money by squeezing every penny they can from their fans.
After a short time he’ll step down, Disney will announce a new CEO, and everyone will cheer that things will be improving now that he’s gone. Disney will keep almost all of his changes in place though.
He’ll retire with tens of millions of dollars for being the bad guy to us and shifting Disney towards being much more exploitative than they were before, and people will be happy just because he’s gone, even though his changes will stay.
After a short time he’ll step down, Disney will announce a new CEO, and everyone will cheer that things will be improving now that he’s gone. Disney will keep almost all of his changes in place though.
He’ll retire with tens of millions of dollars for being the bad guy to us and shifting Disney towards being much more exploitative than they were before, and people will be happy just because he’s gone, even though his changes will stay.
SpoiledBlueMilk
Well-Known Member
Now with this, you hit the nail on the head. Disney can't simply price to the wealthy and leave it at that. I have the discretionary income to pay more or to choose an upgrade, but for the price, I expect something - a higher level of service, flexibility, or a level of exclusivity that justifies the expense. Disney can't keep cutting their way to prosperity here. I know Chapek is trying like hell to cut, cut, cut to balance out the fall in revenues due to COVID, but the better long-term play is to invest in the parks, create new experiences and give people a reason to come and spend the money. And by new experiences, I mean new attractions instead of clones or rethemes. New entertainment aside from refreshed firework show replacements.
Chapek is obviously placating to the shareholder. The elimination of cost centers such as Parades, MagicExpress, AP, and others all support the bottom line. He is focused on spending less (cost center) and retaining more (profit center) to add to shareholder value. He's missing one thing, the consumer. As he lessons consumer interest by removing the fringe benefits they will turn away from Disney parks. Park attendance decrease results in shareholder value decrease. Balancing Shareholder and Consumer is business 101. This is even a lesson in Roller Coaster Tycoon.