A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Cesar R M]

No, but there is a forum for that here.http://forums.wdwmagic.com/forums/imagineer.15/

you're right, I forgot.. only cheese steak talk in here.

 

[Cesar R M]

You mean there's still some left in the wild? I thought they had gone extinct, replaced by paper pushers and business types?

they are extremely endangered.. just shh.. or the poachers might start hunting again.

 

[PhotoDave219]

you're right, I forgot.. only cheese steak talk in here.

Jim's steaks, at 4th & south streets in the Heart of Philadelphia. Blocks away from where America was born!

 

[PhotoDave219]

I just finished the first page of this most exceptional thread (I'm a n00b) and like I hit the bottom of the page and had a Harry Mudd moment when I saw the number of pages in the thread. Oh, well. We're Lauderdale-based AP's and my SO is a TA so as she is booking reservations in the other room (still filled with excitement from the weekend at MK...Garden Festival...Burnt Ends Hash (inspired me to make pickled jalapenos this morning)...FP+ actually working...Pablo Cruise...meeting up with two different groups of friends (morning and night)...seeing the theater as it once was, but lamenting the new stage installation...and the AMAZING experience which is Cafe Tutto Gusto) I'm researching a big trip for my friends who might like to join us at FW for some rustic camping at $10/head.

I'm going to enjoy what is now 353 pages of insight and passion from what I see is someone who embodies the idea of Magic that WD envisioned. I was getting a little jaded because I was looking at the park like the surface of the ocean: I was oblivious to the wonderful things going on under the water, hidden from view.

I am an Aspie. This kind of discussion is wonderful. It feeds my brain really well. I really appreciate this site, this forum, and this thread.

Somewhere, on some page, and in some thread, someone posted about passing a castle turret on the Epcot monorail (it's a topiary). I have a new photo, if you know where that thread was...it was also a princess dresses hijacked thread as well, and I have a video to share with a lady who was looking for advance viewing of what is offered.

Namaste,
K-

TA? Temporary assignment? Where are they statused?

 

[ford91exploder]

ESPN may actually do OK under that model. For a whole lot of people it's going to be in that 20. They could probably get a little more per subscriber too since you are only selling to people who want it.

Question if ESPN cost 14.95 per month - would YOU pay, Sure ESPN is NEVER going away but instead of 100 Million subs I can see 10-20 million tops.

 

[ford91exploder]

A federal investigation of DIS for potentially bribing Chinese officials could certainly make a massive dent though.
But that would never happen!

One never knows if what will happen if a official falls from grace, They will probably want to take someone down with them as they await their swift and messy end.

 

[ford91exploder]

Thats tough. Its at $100+. You could divest it or just some and move it into something low risk for the moment.

The flip side, the siren song of the stock price continuing to climb is hard to fight.

Or take your initial investment off the table and leave the 'gains' still in the stock, It's what I do after a stock has a great run.

 

[Conchchowder]

TA? Temporary assignment? Where are they statused?

Travel Agent

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I've been hemming and hawing regarding my Disney stock. It's at an all time high, but there are signs like China that could hurt it. Conversely, we know that there are two Pixar movies, two Marvel movies, Star Wars and Tomorrowland coming out in the next 9 months and it's really hard to see them not having another good year. Even if China turns out to be a bigger failure than France, even if Iger has to resign, the lineup of movies coming out this year has never been seen before.

The Pixar movies, Marvel movies, Star Wars and Tomorrowland are already reflected in the current stock price (see semi-strong form market efficiency). If they do "as well as expected," they'll have literally zero impact on the stock in the future because those expectations about the future have already been taken into consideration by the market. Their only impact, therefore, will be if they over- or under-perform expectations.

I don't invest in single-company stocks as a general rule. There's way too much risk and relatively minimal reward when compared to aggressive to moderately aggressive growth stock mutual funds.

 

[Frankie The Beer]

With the new blood at the FCC who may approve 'ala carte' cable in the next 12 months or so, Media networks who do not own distribution assets (TWDC) are going to be much less valuable because the leverage they once had will largely be gone because a lot of households who once got Disney properties will not pay for them once broken out.

Let's face it most people watch 20 channels at BEST and watch series via internet on 'smart tvs'.

Disney doesn't need to distribute content, they own the content. If there does indeed become a viable ala carte' distribution system, Disney will rule all. ESPN and the Disney channel are too ingrained in the cable buying public, especially ESPN.

A federal investigation of DIS for potentially bribing Chinese officials could certainly make a massive dent though.
But that would never happen!

Any kind of federal investigation could hurt. Unless they find a viable, financial smoking gun provable in a court of law that would rival Enron, which is highly impossible, Disney's stock price will not be harmed at all. People like to talk about all the bad Iger has done to the company but the stock price keeps growing, the company has tremendous assets yet to be revealed from Hollywood, which will affect stock price, the theme parks will make money hand over fist, which will affect stock, and cable will continue to make money, although not as much as in the past, but still be profitable.

Iger has walls around him not even Rick and the gang from the Walking Dead can breach. Keep your Dis stock until the end of 2015.

 

[ford91exploder]

Disney doesn't need to distribute content, they own the content. If there does indeed become a viable ala carte' distribution system, Disney will rule all. ESPN and the Disney channel are too ingrained in the cable buying public, especially ESPN.



Any kind of federal investigation could hurt. Unless they find a viable, financial smoking gun provable in a court of law that would rival Enron, which is highly impossible, Disney's stock price will not be harmed at all. People like to talk about all the bad Iger has done to the company but the stock price keeps growing, the company has tremendous assets yet to be revealed from Hollywood, which will affect stock price, the theme parks will make money hand over fist, which will affect stock, and cable will continue to make money, although not as much as in the past, but still be profitable.

Iger has walls around him not even Rick and the gang from the Walking Dead can breach. Keep your Dis stock until the end of 2015.

I don't agree perhaps 20-30% of households are rabid sports fans, ESPN caters to the rabid fan and if I could save 5-10 bucks on my cable expense by dropping ESPN content I surely would and I'm pretty sure a majority of households would as well. In that scenario ESPN would still have millions of subscribers but not 10's of millions which is what's baked into the stock price now.

With the exception of ESPN, Disney has few compelling cable properties ABC, A&E and associated channels and the Disney channel(s). Not a great mix in the ala carte universe.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Disney doesn't need to distribute content, they own the content. If there does indeed become a viable ala carte' distribution system, Disney will rule all. ESPN and the Disney channel are too ingrained in the cable buying public, especially ESPN.

ESPN is currently in 94.5 million homes. If it went a la carte I doubt you get 94.5 million paying $6 a month or more for it. This doesn’t even include all the other ESPN platforms, ESPN 2, News, U etc.

One of the primary draws to ESPN is its live game content. Increasingly you are seeing sporting events available online. It’s also very possible you could see in the not so distant future huge events like the Super Bowl and World Series go to pay per view while regular season games bypass the networks and you pay per season, like direct ticket for the NFL and league pass for the NBA. If I could get live games thru direct ticket along with news and analysis online for free, why do I need ESPN?

 

[Nubs70]

Disney doesn't need to distribute content, they own the content. If there does indeed become a viable ala carte' distribution system, Disney will rule all. ESPN and the Disney channel are too ingrained in the cable buying public, especially ESPN.



Any kind of federal investigation could hurt. Unless they find a viable, financial smoking gun provable in a court of law that would rival Enron, which is highly impossible, Disney's stock price will not be harmed at all. People like to talk about all the bad Iger has done to the company but the stock price keeps growing, the company has tremendous assets yet to be revealed from Hollywood, which will affect stock price, the theme parks will make money hand over fist, which will affect stock, and cable will continue to make money, although not as much as in the past, but still be profitable.

Iger has walls around him not even Rick and the gang from the Walking Dead can breach. Keep your Dis stock until the end of 2015.

Totally different than Enron.

A potential problem with P&R is the impending Fed rate increases. When Fed increases rates, the dollar will increase even further than it has to date. This will slow the US economy and make the Bubble more expensive. Interesting times ahead.

 

[hokielutz]

I don't agree perhaps 20-30% of households are rabid sports fans, ESPN caters to the rabid fan and if I could save 5-10 bucks on my cable expense by dropping ESPN content I surely would and I'm pretty sure a majority of households would as well. In that scenario ESPN would still have millions of subscribers but not 10's of millions which is what's baked into the stock price now.

With the exception of ESPN, Disney has few compelling cable properties ABC, A&E and associated channels and the Disney channel(s). Not a great mix in the ala carte universe.

So who is to say that Comcast / DirecTV, etc... will drop their rates by pulling the ESPN channels out of its lineup?? Rates are increased every year... when has anyone ever heard of a cable company voluntarily giving its customers a decreased rate?

 

[PhotoDave219]

Travel Agent

Sorry in Disney and cast member terms… It is referred to as a "temporary assignment"…

 

[chiefs11]

Even if the FCC rules that cable can be offered a-la-carte, would they also rule that it has to be offered that way? If not, why would Comcast (or whatever cable co) do so? For some reason, I just think that no matter what happens, I'll end up paying more $$ then I do now and probably getting less for it.

 

[Rodan75]

I just skimmed over this SDL/Wall St. conversation and might add some insight/color. Wall St sees TWDC as a theme parks and cable channel company. Wall St loves the cable and broadcast channels more than the parks because they are less capital intensive and thus have a consistently higher profit margin. As @ParentsOf4 has pointed out, P&R's record low investments in Capex as a percentage of revenue is an attempt to placate investors who don't like how much money P&R needs. This is one of the main reasons why Disney considered selling P&R so they wouldn't be in such a capital intensive industry which is very dependent on the health of the economy and oil prices.

I cannot understate how much the street loves the media networks, ESPN in particular. Despite increasing, but clearly laid out, programming costs, Wall St loves how Disney can suck $5.54 from 94 million U.S. households for ESPN every month. The Disney Channel is no slouch either with hundreds of millions of subscribers around the world. As I have stated in the past, Wall St wants Disney to have more pay-TV channels around the world, especially in growth markets like China. One of Bob's biggest failures as CEO has been his inability to launch the Disney Channel in China. A Chinese Disney Channel would have been an excellent means to get the public interested in the BRAND and offer a means to educate them on what a Disney theme park is. If you're Wall St, you want to know why a risky, capital intensive theme park was prioritized over a profitable cable channel on the mainland.

This is a long way of saying Bob has prioritized having his name on an opening day dedication plaque over building a strong presence in China, one that is not just in name only.

Good points, although I suspect the Chinese Disney Channel probably would require more compromises than SDL requires. And I agree that not being able to thread that needle, even if SDL is a smashing success from day 1, is one of Iger's biggest misses as CEO.

Analysts seem to be changing their tune a little on Disney, they seem to be 'getting' that the diversification that the parks offer is a net positive rather than a net negative. Although I think two factors have helped that 1. Comcast so prominently and successfully doing the sales pitch on their parks business combined with similar impacts from the DCA re-launch. and 2. The parks and consumer products pull through of Frozen and Marvel.

The fact that the cable channel revenue growth is looking to quickly stall with OTT video providers and more pressure for more original content squeezing margins. The Parks and CP businesses look like gems compared to what Sony, Viacom and Time Warner are left with.

 

[GoofGoof]

Question if ESPN cost 14.95 per month - would YOU pay, Sure ESPN is NEVER going away but instead of 100 Million subs I can see 10-20 million tops.

Yes. I would pay it and so would a lot of other people. Remember, I can cut a lot of other networks that might cost $1 or less now but I never watch them. Right now Disney is only getting a little over $5 per viewer for ESPN so even if they raised he price to $15 they would only need to keep 1/3 of the subscribers. If they only keep 20% of their subscribers as you suggest then the price will rise at least 5X or over $25 a month. If they go to a system where you can select which networks you want to pay for the price for each network is not just going to be the price the cable companies pay now. It's likely to be at least 5Xs as much.

Live sports on TV are the one area that cannot be replaced. It's also why they make so much in advertising compared to regular TV. I know you personally don't watch ESPN, but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of others who can't live without it. College sports are wildly popular. It's almost a religion in some areas. Go to Alabama and tell them they need to pay $15 for ESPN or no more Alabama football games on TV. Not to mention MLB, NBA and some program they air on Monday nights in the fall and winter. ESPN is the highest cost cable network for the cable companies for a reason.

 

[GoofGoof]

ESPN is currently in 94.5 million homes. If it went a la carte I doubt you get 94.5 million paying $6 a month or more for it. This doesn’t even include all the other ESPN platforms, ESPN 2, News, U etc.

One of the primary draws to ESPN is its live game content. Increasingly you are seeing sporting events available online. It’s also very possible you could see in the not so distant future huge events like the Super Bowl and World Series go to pay per view while regular season games bypass the networks and you pay per season, like direct ticket for the NFL and league pass for the NBA. If I could get live games thru direct ticket along with news and analysis online for free, why do I need ESPN?

They can't just show the games online for free if ESPN has a contract. ESPN signed a 15 year deal with the SEC. those games are only on ESPN. They have contracts with the NFL for Monday night football and the NBA and MLB too. If you want to watch those sports you will need ESPN. No legal way to get around it (and the illegal ways will get shut down fast if a la carte takes off). The pay-per-view concept may take off, but again you will be paying ESPN for the right to view that single event.

They won't be changing you $6 for ESPN. If you want it a la carte it will be more likely in the $20s. The idea that we as consumers will just pick and choose which networks we want and continue to just pay the wholesale price for them is fantasy. The networks change so little per subscriber because they are guaranteed a large number of subscribers.

 

[GoofGoof]

Even if the FCC rules that cable can be offered a-la-carte, would they also rule that it has to be offered that way? If not, why would Comcast (or whatever cable co) do so? For some reason, I just think that no matter what happens, I'll end up paying more $$ then I do now and probably getting less for it.

agreed. Comcast would still be able to offer you bundles which for most people would likely be cheaper still. Let's say for example that ESPN is $20 a la carte and NFL Network is $5 and MLB is $1 and throw in a few additional sports networks for $1 each coming out to $30. Comcast might be able to offer a sports bundle for $18. They could do it by offering the networks a bulk rate which would be significantly below the a la carte rate. So if they get ESPN at $10 and the rest for a total of $5 they are still making money and you would get all the sports channels for less than buying ESPN a la carte.

I don't see this as a great thing for consumers. You aren't going to be able to just take your existing bill and existing channel lineup and opt out of ESPN and suddenly reduce your bill by $6 per month. It won't work that way.