lentesta
Premium Member
Do you see a way Disney could get to that scenario though?
I always got back to those old commercials with the parents around the computer and see the offer of, something like, "$1,600? For all of us? We can do that!"
Could they do some more structured all-in packages that are maybe limited in when valid but could allow a family to have a stay for like $2,500?
I just looked at undercover tourist and the 4-day tickets for that family alone are $2,579 ... So you basically would need to give them hotel and food for free
Could they do that? Obviously while trying to max out spending by guests from higher income brackets?
I'm just spitballing here, so approach all of this with a healthy dose of skepticism.
- Let's assume that no families in the bottom 60% of American households can afford the kind of multi-day Disney World trip you've outlined. (I'm sure some do. Work with me.)
- And let's assume that all theme parks have to participate, not just Disney, to make things fair across the industry. Not picking on Disney.
- And let's assume Disney's park attendance caps stay the same.
- Assume Disney held a fixed-price lottery for a certain number of 4-night, 5-day all-inclusive Value-resort vacation packages per year. The price is set to whatever amount the BLS said that the middle quintile spent on travel the previous year. So in this case, $1,900 for up to a family of 4. You win the lottery, you pay the $1,900, you get the trip, no questions asked.
- Let's cap the cash value of the lottery at $500MM per year. That works out to a bit over 260,000 trips at $1,900 each. Assuming each trip cost Disney $5,500, Disney's out-of-pocket costs would be ($5,500 - $1,900) x 260,000 = $936MM.
There are obvious objections:
- The wealthy could also enter the lottery and win. Yes, they can. But more middle-class families would go, which is the goal. I'm assuming nobody wants to fill out a FAFSA form to go to Disney World, so means-testing isn't possible.
- Disney would earn $926MM less. The government already imposes on private capital to achieve desired social outcomes through (e.g.,) subsidies, tax rates and credits, and regulations. I'm not sure how this is conceptually different than electric vehicle incentives or pollution laws.
To put that in comparison, Disney's spent ~$2.8B on share buybacks in the last year and $45B since 2010. I'd need to be convinced that the entire house of cards would come crashing down if they only bought back $36B in shares since 2010. Not to harp on share buybacks, but I think until recently the stock was at the same $110 level that it was a decade ago. If the argument is that the share buybacks helped prevent further stock declines, I want to talk about management competency and compensation first.
Last edited: