A Spirited Perfect Ten

Rodan75

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
bakntime said:
Gotta love it when statistics are used poorly.

I threw a party in 2014 and 3 people showed up. Charged $10 a person. Then in 2015 I threw a better party and 6 people showed up. I had a whopping 100% increase in revenue and attendance. My attendance DOUBLED. My gross income DOUBLED.

Meanwhile, my neighbor has been throwing parties at his 4-house complex for decades. 100 people last year, 110 this year. Revenue and attendance only went up a measly 10% at my neighbor's house. I'm gaining on him, right? Because I went up ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!!!!! OMG!!!! He only went up 10%! lol loser.

Except the truth is that his revenue increased more than mine. His attendance increased more than mine. But because I had so much room for improvement, my "numbers" look better if we use percentages rather than raw gains.

Obviously this is an exaggeration of numbers to illustrate a point, but the bottom line is that the numbers provided in the article are cherry picked: There's no scientific analysis to address the article's premise that Universal is "catching up". Rather, it only illustrates that Universal has had a boost comparing one quarter to another quarter a year later.

What is the average length of a guest stay at Universal vs. Disney? What's the average money spend on that vacation? Has the spike in Universal attendance actually taken anything away from Disney's attendance?

And then there's the question of where is it headed? Is Universal's growth sustainable? (Ans: definitely not at the rates stated) Will there be diminishing returns on investments at Universal now that "most" people who wanted to experience the Wizarding Worlds have made their 1 or 2 trips to see them? Will the water park or the new Kong attraction be enough to bring these people back again, maintaining that attendance spike, or will people say "Ok, I've seen the Wizarding Worlds, I'm good for a little while."

Universal is hot right now, growth has been good, but sustainability is a different animal. Wizarding World 1 & 2 resulted in a giant boost, but getting 3rd and 4th and 5th time repeat visits, year after year takes a little bit more. It will be interesting to see how Universal tries to tackle the task of getting those kinds of annual returns and extended stays, especially if the novelty of the two Wizarding Worlds loses just a tiny bit of its edge.

The article may be right that Disney is "moving too slow [sic]", but there's a lack of depth and analysis. Raw percentages and numbers are one thing, but much of the "analysis" is opinion. The article is more editorial and speculative than it is analytical.

But this is a good time, regardless, because both resorts seem to be entering a stage where it's "game on," which is probably good for everyone.
Click to expand...

well said...but I think if you take away any UNI or WDW fanboi-ing, the article is really providing an opinion that the $DIS Theme Park business is sitting on lost opportunity by not investing more and not investing quickly enough to capture new opportunities.

I've started looking at some of those 'Anti-Disney' investment articles as really bait to imply the $DIS stock has more headroom to grow and that the stock 'can't possible be at a peak, because look at these opportunities they haven't touched'. All of these 'Anti-Disney' articles push items that could possible unlock additional 'shareholder value'. So yeah, while those articles are mildly negative, I think they are really about pushing the stock higher.

Also, the more articles and opinions that surface that signal $DIS could unlock 'shareholder value' by investing more CapEx, it will make the actual announcements of CapEx spending look like brilliant moves.

So there is my odd take on the weird psychology of those investor sites.
 
S

seascape

Well-Known Member
Cesar R M said:
a couple to be fully announced and a crabola to be finished?


cell phone companies are no immune. Imagine if there was a project (many cities have already) to have free wireless everywhere.
You wouldnt need a phone carrier if everyone had wireless and skype/wasap.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. I was thinking about me because I have multiple homes and if I wanted tripple play at each of them I would need to buy from each Comcast, Time Warner and CableVision. I would rather buy from one wireless provider and take the service with me but as you said for most people with one home a city wide free internet service is all they need. In fact its shocking the percentage of people who do not have a wired line phone service and don't need or use a triple play package. I basically only use my cell phone for internet and phone service and use my TV for Netflix and YouTube. Who need cable TV? In any case wired cable, phone and internet will be a thing of the past and if Comcast doesn't understand that at least Verizon does because they have severely cust back on FIOS expansion. They know wireless is the future.
 
ThemeParkJunkee

ThemeParkJunkee

Well-Known Member
I own both Comcast and Disney stock in my personally managed portfolio because it is just sort of fun to watch the market interplay. I am concerned that DIS is priced based on "street expectations" more than Comcast. There is a lot of chatter about the new Star Wars movie and the expectation of a blockbuster is built into the price. As long as the movie studio continues to prop up the price, I'll stay at my current position. The theme parks are not contributing to Disney's stock price. Movies and merchandise are. I'm sure TWDC is looking at that fact. I am also sure that they have concerns regarding the Shanghai park...as do I. However, being a bean counter and all, I maybe need to look at fundamentals over sentimentals when it comes to my stock purchases.
 
Fox&Hound

Fox&Hound

Well-Known Member
bakntime said:
Gotta love it when statistics are used poorly.

I threw a party in 2014 and 3 people showed up. Charged $10 a person. Then in 2015 I threw a better party and 6 people showed up. I had a whopping 100% increase in revenue and attendance. My attendance DOUBLED. My gross income DOUBLED.

Meanwhile, my neighbor has been throwing parties at his 4-house complex for decades. 100 people last year, 110 this year. Revenue and attendance only went up a measly 10% at my neighbor's house. I'm gaining on him, right? Because I went up ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!!!!! OMG!!!! He only went up 10%! lol loser.

Except the truth is that his revenue increased more than mine. His attendance increased more than mine. But because I had so much room for improvement, my "numbers" look better if we use percentages rather than raw gains.

Obviously this is an exaggeration of numbers to illustrate a point, but the bottom line is that the numbers provided in the article are cherry picked: There's no scientific analysis to address the article's premise that Universal is "catching up". Rather, it only illustrates that Universal has had a boost comparing one quarter to another quarter a year later.

What is the average length of a guest stay at Universal vs. Disney? What's the average money spend on that vacation? Has the spike in Universal attendance actually taken anything away from Disney's attendance?

And then there's the question of where is it headed? Is Universal's growth sustainable? (Ans: definitely not at the rates stated) Will there be diminishing returns on investments at Universal now that "most" people who wanted to experience the Wizarding Worlds have made their 1 or 2 trips to see them? Will the water park or the new Kong attraction be enough to bring these people back again, maintaining that attendance spike, or will people say "Ok, I've seen the Wizarding Worlds, I'm good for a little while."

Universal is hot right now, growth has been good, but sustainability is a different animal. Wizarding World 1 & 2 resulted in a giant boost, but getting 3rd and 4th and 5th time repeat visits, year after year takes a little bit more. It will be interesting to see how Universal tries to tackle the task of getting those kinds of annual returns and extended stays, especially if the novelty of the two Wizarding Worlds loses just a tiny bit of its edge.

The article may be right that Disney is "moving too slow [sic]", but there's a lack of depth and analysis. Raw percentages and numbers are one thing, but much of the "analysis" is opinion. The article is more editorial and speculative than it is analytical.

But this is a good time, regardless, because both resorts seem to be entering a stage where it's "game on," which is probably good for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes! Very well-stated. Universal is making gains, but that article is so poorly written it's laughable! When you're at the top, it's harder to show gains than when you're at the bottom and had little to offer until recently....
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
Fox&Hound said:
Yes! Very well-stated. Universal is making gains, but that article is so poorly written it's laughable! When you're at the top, it's harder to show gains than when you're at the bottom and had little to offer until recently....
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that Disney World and Universal are in a symbiotic relationship, at least for now.
Disney hasn't had to build new reasons for guests to come back to Orlando during the Recovery; Universal did that for them.
 
Cesar R M

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
seascape said:
You are absolutely right. I was thinking about me because I have multiple homes and if I wanted tripple play at each of them I would need to buy from each Comcast, Time Warner and CableVision. I would rather buy from one wireless provider and take the service with me but as you said for most people with one home a city wide free internet service is all they need. In fact its shocking the percentage of people who do not have a wired line phone service and don't need or use a triple play package. I basically only use my cell phone for internet and phone service and use my TV for Netflix and YouTube. Who need cable TV? In any case wired cable, phone and internet will be a thing of the past and if Comcast doesn't understand that at least Verizon does because they have severely cust back on FIOS expansion. They know wireless is the future.
Click to expand...
Wireless is still unreliable in my opinion.
At least compared to stable fiber optic or copper lines.
 
Rodan75

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
Cesar R M said:
Wireless is still unreliable in my opinion.
At least compared to stable fiber optic or copper lines.
Click to expand...

Wireless is at least 2 generations from providing reliable 1GB+ speeds, plus there is limited spectrum available. Landlines will still be required even for a mostly wireless existence. 'The Internet of Things' is very much reliant on a wireless and landline mix.
 
rael ramone

rael ramone

Well-Known Member
Based on some comments a page or so back, I reiterate my theory that the Mouses most valuable franchise may be College Game Day.

I saw recently that 56% of revenue comes from cable. What percent of that is ESPN (vs ABC, Disneytween Channel, etc) - lets estimate 60%? Then if 60% of that is from subs (vs ads). If my math is correct that comes out to 20% of the companies revenue coming from ESPN carriage fees. Now lets say half of those people who are paying for ESPN aren't watching ESPN. That means 10% of your revenue is coming from people who are paying for (but not watching) your product. That's a pretty big piece of the pie that could potentially go 'poof' with a la carte / skinny cable coming on. Wouldn't that be like the new SW trilogy going belly up?... Or the cruise ships all in drydock for a full year?
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
rael ramone said:
Based on some comments a page or so back, I reiterate my theory that the Mouses most valuable franchise may be College Game Day.

I saw recently that 56% of revenue comes from cable. What percent of that is ESPN (vs ABC, Disneytween Channel, etc) - lets estimate 60%? Then if 60% of that is from subs (vs ads). If my math is correct that comes out to 20% of the companies revenue coming from ESPN carriage fees. Now lets say half of those people who are paying for ESPN aren't watching ESPN. That means 10% of your revenue is coming from people who are paying for (but not watching) your product. That's a pretty big piece of the pie that could potentially go 'poof' with a la carte / skinny cable coming on. Wouldn't that be like the new SW trilogy going belly up?... Or the cruise ships all in drydock for a full year?
Click to expand...

I don't suppose anyone on here actually knows this, but when talking about Disney's cable networks like the Disney Channel and ESPN, how much of that revenue comes from subscription fees and how much from ad revenue? Further, Is the ad revenue they currently receive contingent on the number of people subscribing to a package that includes the channel in question, or the actual viewership of said channel? If I'm an adspace buyer I'm going to certainly push for the latter.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom