cosmicray
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this, really cool!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Perfect Ten
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
flynnibus
Premium Member
That video Tony Baxter did during d23 expo seems to be as close as you can get to having it built
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
It was not part of the UNI mailings I get since I now also hold a UNI AP that's all I can say.
spacemt354
Chili's
If we're focusing on long-term trends then why are we comparing an entire body of work over 21 years to someone who has held the position for slightly over 1/3 of the time?I see that you joined the forum 2 days ago. Welcome to WDWMagic.com.
This is what Parks & Resorts (P&R) domestic revenue has done since the opening of WDW in 1971.
View attachment 80799
Under Eisner, domestic revenue grew at a compound annual rate of 9.7% over 21 years. Under Iger, it's grown at a compound annual rate of 5.5% over 9 years.
Please focus on long-term trends rather than comparing one CEO's worst years with another CEO's best years.
I could take a 9 year span of domestic revenue under Eisner and make the annual rate of growth greater or less than the 5.5% compound annual rate under Iger's 9 years. Or I could take 21 years and compare it to 9 years (3 of which included The "Great Recession") to show how Eisner's compound annual rate is better than Iger's rate. It's all about how you use the statistics.
By no means am I an Iger apologist and as much as I want to criticize his performance, I'm not going to make a conclusion by comparing a full body of work to something that isn't finished.
The most understandable numbers I've seen in a while.As somebody who studies statistics, I would like to know your sources of your information. Graphs are pointless and potentially misleading if there aren't sources to back you up. Anybody can post a random graph with some nonsense and people will believe it because...it's a graph. See...I can do it, too!
Rule number 1 in statistics: Cite your sources, or else your information is pointless
asianway
Well-Known Member
Tokyo pays a hefty licensing fee off their top line that rolls into parks and resorts numbers
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Please don't take this the wrong way but in the business world, 9 years is a long time. Whether it's 9 or 21 years, is irrelevant in determining an annual growth rate. Certainly more than enough time to judge a CEO's performance.If we're focusing on long-term trends then why are we comparing an entire body of work over 21 years to someone who has held the position for slightly over 1/3 of the time?
I could take a 9 year span of domestic revenue under Eisner and make the annual rate of growth greater or less than the 5.5% compound annual rate under Iger's 9 years. Or I could take 21 years and compare it to 9 years (3 of which included The "Great Recession") to show how Eisner's compound annual rate is better than Iger's rate. It's all about how you use the statistics.
By no means am I an Iger apologist and as much as I want to criticize his performance, I'm not going to make a conclusion by comparing a full body of work to something that isn't finished.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't judge Iger's performance because he's been CEO for 'only' 9 years?
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Disney's SEC filings and annual reports.As somebody who studies statistics, I would like to know your sources of your information. Graphs are pointless and potentially misleading if there aren't sources to back you up. Anybody can post a random graph with some nonsense and people will believe it because...it's a graph. See...I can do it, too!
Rule number 1 in statistics: Cite your sources, or else your information is pointless
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I would normally agree with you, especially in the context of an online forum. In this case I personally trust the source. Between info he has posted in the past and some additional stuff through PM I would be comfortable vouching for him. He's not making the numbers up to just to make his point. There are some here who will occasionally twist facts or greatly exaggerate to try to paint a certain picture, but PO4 isn't one of them. Plus I'm pretty sure most of the numbers are available in publicly filed SEC filings. You just need to know where to look to find them.As somebody who studies statistics, I would like to know your sources of your information. Graphs are pointless and potentially misleading if there aren't sources to back you up. Anybody can post a random graph with some nonsense and people will believe it because...it's a graph. See...I can do it, too!
Rule number 1 in statistics: Cite your sources, or else your information is pointless
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
You do realize that some sources (such as a company's annual report) used to be published on actual paper.It looks more professional if you post the links to those alongside your graph.
It was a rather common practice in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
More recent Disney annual reports can be found on the company website.
spacemt354
Chili's
Hardly. You didn't understand my post then.
It's not the amount of time, because 9 years is a long time. However you're comparing it to 21 years where there is more chance to improve or decline annual growth rates, then making a conclusion regarding performance. If the next few years before Iger's departure improve, (comparable to 9.7%) then you're conclusion wouldn't hold anymore. That's why I'm saying wait till the end of Iger's term before you start using these types of statistics.
I don't need a graph to grade his "performance". A simple eye test can do just fine.
DisneyDrum
Well-Known Member
While skepticism is good, It's pretty easy to find financial data via a quick google search. We're on a forum here - do you expect PO4 to post a page of methods along with every graph? It seems more reasonable for you to do the work to come up with actual alternative explanations or questions about the data, rather than just asking for sources.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Yep, sometimes you just need to learn who to trust. I often make statements based on things in permits, but I don't post the link to the permit every time.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
If you have been reading his posts long enough, you would know that this isn't needed. He has explained many times where his statistics come from. Most of us trust that he hasn't suddenly started making up numbers.
spacemt354
Chili's
I think some people can generate a sense of infallibility around their posts, yet someone who hasn't read the forums as much doesn't know this and just sees a home-made graph.
That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning statistics. Stats can be inferred many difference ways and as long as it's discussed with decorum I think it can be good for debate.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Yes, you are supposed to just believe him
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Questioning the statistics is fine, I just have a problem with the idea that people who post here on a regular basis need to include a full set of source references every time they post a piece of information. This is actually the second time this sort of thing has come up recently.
Yes, you are supposed to just believe him
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
I saw this comment on tumblr after the 60th Anniversary announcements and it made me lol:
"take a shot everytime under the sea is played for a show or parade"
with the note
"under the sea is the original let it go"
Seriously, Disney has thousands of songs in its library and they keep using the same 5 in every show.
I really like Steve Davison's work, but c'mon man, pick something different for a change.
"take a shot everytime under the sea is played for a show or parade"
with the note
"under the sea is the original let it go"
Seriously, Disney has thousands of songs in its library and they keep using the same 5 in every show.
I really like Steve Davison's work, but c'mon man, pick something different for a change.