A Spirited Perfect Ten

[ParentsOf4]

Like I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. The world is ran by the laws of supply & demand and clearly Disney is giving people what they want otherwise they wouldn't be more successful now than they have ever been.

Disney's theme parks have not been "more successful now than they have ever been".

During the WDW era prior to Michael Eisner, Disney's Parks & Resorts business averaged a gross margin of 18.8%.

During Michael Eisner's 21 years as CEO, Disney's Parks & Resorts business averaged a gross margin of 22.2%.

Under current CEO Bob Iger, Disney's Parks & Resorts business has averaged a gross margin of 15.0%.

The domestic parks continue to age while investment levels at WDW have averaged less than 2% of domestic Parks & Resorts revenue, less than one-fifth of what they averaged under Eisner. Quality cut after quality cut is made at WDW while ride elements are allowed to remain broken for years. Disney no longer can fill its hotels and has stooped to filling them using shady timeshare practices. WDW's ticket prices are up a whopping 63% since Iger took charge. Meanwhile, domestic Parks & Resorts revenue is up by 62%, meaning Iger's "success" is driven by higher prices.

Under Bob Iger's leadership, Disney has forgotten how to run its theme parks.

Disney's Parks & Resorts has never been less successful.

 

[asianway]

By the way, it's been months since they announced some new up charge event. What's up?

 

[BrerJon]

I might make an exception if I was just in the area for a weekend, and if I got a deal, somehow, on a hotel on Disney property that was anywhere near a park. But really, I'm never there for a weekend, and you can rent an entire condo in Kissimmee for a week AND a rental car for less than the cost of some Disney rooms.

I did my share of on-property car free vacations, then realised Disney rooms were so overpriced, even when compared to the unofficial on-property hotels by Downtown Disney, let alone further afield, that when you roll in a rental car, or taking taxis everywhere if you don't drive, you not only still save a fortune in dollars, but you get from A to B far quicker than waiting for Disney buses.

Yet still the consensus persists that it's worth staying on-property and paying rack-rate because the convenience of transport making it good value. The ones who suffer the most from this is all those families paying a fortune to stay at the All-Stars, in the middle of nowhere with crowded buses, when they could stay in bigger rooms in LBV and take cabs and be at the parks much quicker for the same money, but, like with DVC, Disney exploits peoples ignorance massively.

On property is good value when you have several in a room and it's free dining, or if you're getting a large discount (although as rates rise many rooms are still way more expensive than their counterparts, even with discounts), but paying a couple of hundred extra a night to avoid a forty dollar cab fare? Crazy.

 

[bhg469]

By the way, it's been months since they announced some new up charge event. What's up?

Whenever I see upcharge event, I scroll to the next post. Seems like there have been a dozen of them.

 

[Clamman73]

By the way, it's been months since they announced some new up charge event. What's up?

Seems like it was getting a little saturated.

 

[bhg469]

I did my share of on-property car free vacations, then realised Disney rooms were so overpriced, even when compared to the unofficial on-property hotels by Downtown Disney, let alone further afield, that when you roll in a rental car, or taking taxis everywhere if you don't drive, you not only still save a fortune in dollars, but you get from A to B far quicker than waiting for Disney buses.

Yet still the consensus persists that it's worth staying on-property and paying rack-rate because the convenience of transport making it good value. The ones who suffer the most from this is all those families paying a fortune to stay at the All-Stars, in the middle of nowhere with crowded buses, when they could stay in bigger rooms in LBV and take cabs and be at the parks much quicker for the same money, but, like with DVC, Disney exploits peoples ignorance massively.

On property is good value when you have several in a room and it's free dining, or if you're getting a large discount (although as rates rise many rooms are still way more expensive than their counterparts, even with discounts), but paying a couple of hundred extra a night to avoid a forty dollar cab fare? Crazy.

A heavily discounted room would have to be 50% and up for me to consider it again. Moderates were my price level of choice before but it's just insane now.

 

[BrerJon]

Forgive me. I'm not Spirit. But trust me. NO ONE on this board needs the "Disney is a business" lecture again for the 1000th time.

Did you read that blog article that was mentioned earlier in the thread? It rather neatly sums up why we seem to go round in neverending circles - there are two Disney's, and the 'Disney is a business' crowd will never get it, in the same way the old-school fans will never understand the Brandies.

You know how in internet arguments they say the first person to mention Hitler loses... I think we should have a rule like that here for anyone who says 'Disney is a business'.

 

[George]

I often wonder if WDW had been what it is now, what my younger self would have made of it, and whether it would have been as life-changing, but then I realised there's no way my family would have been able to afford it at today's (inflation adjusted) prices, so we would never have gone in the first place.

Well my first visit was 1972. My son's first visit was 2005. He's 11 now. He told me last year that he liked WDW, but not as much as I seem to. A lot of my WDW love is residue of days gone by. I recognize the decline. I still have hope for the future but, perhaps, that hope is misplaced. I've had hope for so long now, I could start a series of movies with the title; "Theme Park Wars: An Old Hope". When we finally got around to making prequels, they would kick the original trilogy's butt, so here the analogy breaks down. :lookaroun

 

[ford91exploder]

Did you read that blog article that was mentioned earlier in the thread? It rather neatly sums up why we seem to go round in neverending circles - there are two Disney's, and the 'Disney is a business' crowd will never get it, in the same way the old-school fans will never understand the Brandies.

You know how in internet arguments they say the first person to mention Hitler loses... I think we should have a rule like that here for anyone who says 'Disney is a business'.

Perhaps instead of Godwins rule we could call it the Iger rule

 

[ford91exploder]

On one of the more "Pixie Dusted" websites, the subject of the new Poly DVC villas are being discussed by members of DVC. The comments made are more rationalizing, pro business, but falling short of saying the villas at the Poly are fabulous, and practically none have said "I can't wait to add on points there".

I suspect the changes to the lobby have A LOT to do with the current 'Meh reception of the Poly DVC changes along with the lack of 1 and 2 BR units as a LOT of us prefer these units over studios especially for a LONG trip.

The water feature WAS iconic and contributed greatly to the atmosphere of the lobby, Did the lobby need a refresh. Yes, yes it did but not at the cost of removing an iconic feature of the hotel.

The buzz at MouseOwners (DVC centric pixie duster site) is NOT positive for the Poly DVC.

 

[orky8]

Disney's Parks & Resorts has never been less successful.

Excellent analysis, as always. And, for @WDW1974, this would probably be my shareholder question:

Investment in Disney Parks and Resorts, particularly at WDW, is at historic lows and, based on the margins over the company's history, the division has never been less successful. When is management going to start reinvesting at a historically appropriate level in the most iconic part of the company, especially considering that the last 10 years have demonstrated that failing to invest or investing at the current historically low levels has lead to diminished margins?

As @ParentsOf4 has consistently demonstrated, the lack of investment in the parks has has not only caused the loss of the parks we knew and loved, it has also hurt Disney's bottom line. I know Iger does not have an emotional attachment to the parks, but any smart CEO, especially a numbers wonk like Iger, should be concerned that Parks and Resorts is performing at an historically underwhelming rate of return.

 

[PhotoDave219]

And supply and demand and market forces and other buzzwords aren't enough on their own. We don't live in a lab, Many other forces are at work. Best believe Walt understood all of that. Keep in mind, Kodak was giving the public exactly what it wanted. Until that changed. Disney is in a far better spot, for now, at least. As to its theme parks, even Iger talks about making "Brand deposits" as crucial to the company. Hopefully, that applies to the Florida parks sooner than later -- before coasting on a brand goes too far.

Kodak's problem was not for seeing the rise of the digital camera market… And getting in on it early. Even though they were, sort of.

The first digital SLR's… And I have one of them, came out in the middle 90s and was literally the size of a cinderblock. Not a mere Brick, a cinderblock. Without a lens on it. They cost about 10 grand then they were roughly 1 megapixel. And you had to do a lot of postprocessing. Also, no screen to look at it on.

They made their debut around the 96 Olympics.

Anyways, they file the right Patends and… They're still in business today. But that didn't happen.

Somewhere along the line I think we've lost a lot of value in photography. There is a lot of crap out there.

Sir trying to time is back into our lovely mouse conversation, it's another example of how all upper management believes "it will always be this way" and insisting the business fit to their terms.

 

[ford91exploder]

Kodak's problem was not for seeing the rise of the digital camera market… And getting in on it early. Even though they were, sort of.

The first digital SLR's… And I have one of them, came out in the middle 90s and was literally the size of a cinderblock. Not a mere Brick, a cinderblock. Without a lens on it. They cost about 10 grand then they were roughly 1 megapixel. And you had to do a lot of postprocessing. Also, no screen to look at it on.

They made their debut around the 96 Olympics.

Anyways, they file the right Patends and… They're still in business today. But that didn't happen.

Somewhere along the line I think we've lost a lot of value in photography. There is a lot of **** out there.

Sir trying to time is back into our lovely mouse conversation, it's another example of how all upper management believes "it will always be this way" and insisting the business fit to their terms.

So you had the F3 with the digital back, that was a BEAST,

Kodak insisted that customers do business the way Kodak wanted them to, Sound familiar MM+/ADR's anyone

Kodak never got into digital photofinishing like Fuji did with the Frontier line of mini-labs which not only processed C41 film but if you had digital media it could ALSO print it and since it scanned and made digital C-prints it could also turn your negatives into digital files.

Kodak could have OWNED the digital to print market they had all the Kodalux facilities but they refused to put the CAPEX in for the necessary network infrastructure and replace the optical enlarging systems with digital C-print systems.

 

[bhg469]

Kodak's problem was not for seeing the rise of the digital camera market… And getting in on it early. Even though they were, sort of.

The first digital SLR's… And I have one of them, came out in the middle 90s and was literally the size of a cinderblock. Not a mere Brick, a cinderblock. Without a lens on it. They cost about 10 grand then they were roughly 1 megapixel. And you had to do a lot of postprocessing. Also, no screen to look at it on.

They made their debut around the 96 Olympics.

Anyways, they file the right Patends and… They're still in business today. But that didn't happen.

Somewhere along the line I think we've lost a lot of value in photography. There is a lot of **** out there.

Sir trying to time is back into our lovely mouse conversation, it's another example of how all upper management believes "it will always be this way" and insisting the business fit to their terms.

If you're ever in western ny, you need to visit the George Eastman house in Rochester. Pretty cool museum and it is sort of sad knowing what ultimately happened to the company... and the guy... no spoilers!

 

[Rodan75]

Bob has the ultimate say on every major expenditure related to the WDW resort. As to knowledge, well, that's another subject as he certainly isn't nearly as into the parks as his predecessor.

As to avoiding WDW, Bob is here every now and then ... and Tom Staggs more often. And they both are very aware of what has -- and hasn't -- happened in the swamps.

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned all of the fluff pieces that Iger seems to be getting all of a sudden, someone at TWDC is going out of their way to put Iger in front of folks in a way that they haven't before. The Fortune article is one of a number of smaller 'news' items that have come out in the last two months to prominently discuss Iger as a successful leader.

 

[DougK]

OK, I think we all know that I like @WDWFigment and agree with many of his views on things about the parks biz.

That said, in combing the Twitverse I read that he advises people to not rent cars when visiting WDW and I just don't know how many degrees of wrong that is. He feels it takes away from the ''resort experience''. My comeback to that is that TDO has done everything and anything possible to do just that over the last decade plus themselves. And I think it's dangerous to tell folks they don't need a rental because that basically tells them, despite all common sense to the contrary, that they should give Disney their $$$ for resorts and dining. And if they want to go to UNI 'for a day' they can simply take a cab or shuttle service.

My advice: whatever you do, don't visit WDW and be stuck in a Mouse Trap. You can have an amazingly great time, even if you (shudder!!!) leave EPCOT for dinner at Uno's or lunch at Chik-Fil-A. Really ...

I agree, we always rent a car. It allows us to eat at some great restaurants (Columbia in Celebration for example or Bern's Steak House which is only an hour away in Tampa) at much lower prices than eating at WDW. Also of course it makes trips to Universal, Sea World, etc easy to do. I have found for the most part except during peak periods car rental prices are very reasonable in Orlando. Often we save more money on food by being able to eat offsite than the cost of the rental car. And we have so much more freedom.

I can understand why some people would rather not ever leave the bubble of WDW but for us it works well.

 

[ford91exploder]

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned all of the fluff pieces that Iger seems to be getting all of a sudden, someone at TWDC is going out of their way to put Iger in front of folks in a way that they haven't before. The Fortune article is one of a number of smaller 'news' items that have come out in the last two months to prominently discuss Iger as a successful leader.

Whenever something like that starts happening, watch out for the blowup soon to follow.

 

[culturenthrills]

Gotta run ... but saw this when last post posted ...

I didn't know the permits were filed. So, I guess I was right again. Shocking.

I was told it was going to be a Princess Pavilion headlined by Frozen's gals ... I'd expect a rotation.

And this is what is wrong with WDW. Instead of using the expansion pad between Mexico and Norway for a state of the art Frozen ride they are gonna use it for a freaking Meet and Greet.

 

[stlphil]

Excellent analysis, as always. And, for @WDW1974, this would probably be my shareholder question:

Investment in Disney Parks and Resorts, particularly at WDW, is at historic lows and, based on the margins over the company's history, the division has never been less successful. When is management going to start reinvesting at a historically appropriate level in the most iconic part of the company, especially considering that the last 10 years have demonstrated that failing to invest or investing at the current historically low levels has lead to diminished margins?

As @ParentsOf4 has consistently demonstrated, the lack of investment in the parks has has not only caused the loss of the parks we knew and loved, it has also hurt Disney's bottom line. I know Iger does not have an emotional attachment to the parks, but any smart CEO, especially a numbers wonk like Iger, should be concerned that Parks and Resorts is performing at an historically underwhelming rate of return.

This is the obvious question to ask Bob, and may even clue in the analysts that follow Disney that they should dig a little deeper.

Another somewhat less serious question to ask him is "Since the expansions of Soarin' and Midway Mania are to address the two main attractions whose capacity is wholly incompatible with Fastpass+, shouldn't the capex for these expansions be considered as part of the MM+ budget since the money is being spent here and not on something new?"

 

[PhotoDave219]

And this is what is wrong with WDW. Instead of using the expansion pad between Mexico and Norway for a state of the art Frozen ride they are gonna use it for a freaking Meet and Greet.

Eh. I'm not shocked.