MrPromey
Well-Known Member
** Editing to add that, I think there is still growth potential too, for the very reasons I'm outlining in what I posted below **
We're talking corporate-speak, here, so it's impossible to know.
In some cases I'm sure that is the metric businesses are referring to when they say that but in others, definitely not.
I don't know if you've ever been on the side of crafting messages to be released either to the public or to executives that are intended to create a perception without deliberately saying things that could be accused of being direct lies or even just misleading.
I - and I don't say this proudly - have been.
To that end, I'm inclined to believe if they wanted to say "most profitable" they'd have just said "most profitable" because it removes all ambiguity. The fact they used a statement that can be interpreted multiple ways suggests they wanted it to be positive and still honest, without delving into the specifics of what they mean.
"'highest performing' is synonymous with most profitable." may be what they want you to believe but those are your words - not theirs and it makes sense that if any of them were running these as effective loss-leaders, they wouldn't want to advertise that for a variety of business reasons that aren't Machiavellian in nature. That's all I'm really trying to say.
Bringing Coke back up, it's hard to imagine that any of their stores like this one (I know of at least a few across the US) contribute much to their corporate bottom line. It's apparent that isn't the point of them, though, so their legitimate metric for success would be entirely different and perhaps, hard to effectively communicate to the public and general shareholders even if it still held value to the company.
Coke's a bad example though because they're possibly the biggest brand-awareness marketer in the history of business. Them doing it (to great success) is a no-brainer.
It's all speculation for you and me both, of course. I'm sure rent is crazy high in Disney Springs and it should be. It's high-profile real estate.
I'm also sure Disney isn't expecting 100% occupancy and their ability to plug their own branded stuff in to fill gaps was probably in the cards all along. I hardly see this as a sign of trouble.
It would make sense that rent there would make it very challenging for any business looking to make great profits off of these locations which is why I'm inclined to think that a smartly run one, with deep enough pockets, wouldn't expect to. In fact, if any of these guys are running outlets in town, I'm sure they would be plenty happy if they could connect an uptick in sales at those locations to the opening of a retail location with higher prices in Disney Springs that also brings in some form of revenue.*
Enough of that would still qualify as "highest performing" in my book and be making everyone involved happy.
*Disney's own local outlet stores get as much business as they do because of their proximity to WDW. They don't compete with WDW because people willing to consider $4 for a mug labeled Disney Cruises 2018 isn't someone who was likely to spend $20 on a mug that said Walt Disney World 2019. Just the same, it's impossible to deny that business at the outlet can directly be attributed to the local mothership and their higher prices. I mean, $4 is about what a basic mug that isn't defective or outdated is worth, right? Where else on earth does a mug advertising something not at that location from a year before your trip for that price sound like a good deal?
Last edited:
