A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Mike S]

At the rate they're going, PETA will get more backlash than the ADA or people exploiting service animals. PETA's done a pretty A-class job trashing their name and those also against animal cruelty. I've only even seen two instances of PETA media attention in the recent past, both negatively reflecting their organization. One was protesting Super Mario (a fictional video game character) wearing a raccoon-like costume. The other was PETA killing thousands of their "saved" animals per year (tens of thousands since the late 90's)-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/u...iving-end-of-others-anger.html?pagewanted=all

Animal activism did help tarnish Seaworld's reputation in recent years, but PETA had little to nothing to do with it (Blackfish was the motivator there). There was a general public and media backlash against Seaworld, anything PETA said on the matter was largely drowned out.

I am myself (ironically) a vegetarian of almost a decade now (vegan for most of it, as I am currently) with no desire to go back to meat. Health benefits aside, ethics do factor into it substantially (though I won't attack someone for enjoying a steak). Yet despite my deep distaste for animal cruelty, PETA's way of protesting it accomplishes little to nothing. It also causes more problems for their side in the long run. No one on either side appreciates being attacked. Particularly in the extremist, comical and hypocritical manner that PETA goes about it. Their reputation is poop as a result. And because they're basically the biggest name in animal activism out there, their poor reputation often compromises legitimate attempts to help fix animal exploitation.

I don't feel comfortable with PETA being the primary representative of (and the name generally associate with) animal ethics. Their hate fueled methods remind me of the Westboro Baptist Church. I feel PETA has harmed animal activism more than helped it.

I remember their attack on Super Mario 3D Land. Complete and utter imbeciles.

 

[Goofyernmost]

At the rate they're going, PETA will get more backlash than the ADA or people exploiting service animals. PETA's done a pretty A-class job trashing their name and those also against animal cruelty. I've only even seen two instances of PETA media attention in the recent past, both negatively reflecting their organization. One was protesting Super Mario (a fictional video game character) wearing a raccoon-like costume. The other was PETA killing thousands of their "saved" animals per year (tens of thousands since the late 90's)-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/u...iving-end-of-others-anger.html?pagewanted=all

Animal activism did help tarnish Seaworld's reputation in recent years, but PETA had little to nothing to do with it (Blackfish was the motivator there). There was a general public and media backlash against Seaworld, anything PETA said on the matter was largely drowned out.

I am myself (ironically) a vegetarian of almost a decade now (vegan for most of it, as I am currently) with no desire to go back to meat. Health benefits aside, ethics do factor into it substantially (though I won't attack someone for enjoying a steak). Yet despite my deep distaste for animal cruelty, PETA's way of protesting it accomplishes little to nothing. It also causes more problems for their side in the long run. No one on either side appreciates being attacked. Particularly in the extremist, comical and hypocritical manner that PETA goes about it. Their reputation is poop as a result. And because they're basically the biggest name in animal activism out there, their poor reputation often compromises legitimate attempts to help fix animal exploitation.

I don't feel comfortable with PETA being the primary representative of (and the name generally associate with) animal ethics. Their hate fueled methods remind me of the Westboro Baptist Church. I feel PETA has harmed animal activism more than helped it.

I totally agree, however, that wouldn't stop a cr ap load of attention not necessarily because it's PETA but because it is addressing a problem at Disney. That would certainly be considered news to the media.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I totally agree, however, that wouldn't stop a cr ap load of attention not necessarily because it's PETA but because it is addressing a problem at Disney. That would certainly be considered news to the media.

How much media attention it gets will depend on who picks it up, and how big of a story it may seem. People exploiting service animal laws doesn't sound like it would make a very juicy story to the media. PETA might attempt to stir things up, but their words are largely ignored in recent times for reasons I discussed. Legitimate story though it may be.

The media ate up the Seaworld thing because people died and there was a rather popular movie made about it. Big drama, big press and big money was made off of the story. I can't see people trying to take their dogs with them on Disney rides getting the same sort of media hype or mainstream attention... Perhaps if there was an escalation of events like a service dog attacking someone (particularly at Disney), that could potentially provide a juicy spin for the media and public to circle around.

 

[Goofyernmost]

How much media attention it gets will depend on who picks it up, and how big of a story it may seem. People exploiting service animal laws doesn't sound like it would make a very juicy story to the media. PETA might attempt to stir things up, but their words are largely ignored in recent times for reasons I discussed. Legitimate story though it may be.

The media ate up the Seaworld thing because people died and there was a rather popular movie made about it. Big drama, big press and big money was made off of the story. I can't see people trying to take their dogs with them on Disney rides getting the same sort of media hype or mainstream attention... Perhaps if there was an escalation of events like a service dog attacking someone (particularly at Disney), that could potentially provide a juicy spin for the media and public to circle around.

I agree, if they were going to get all hyper about that, they would have done it by now. However, they haven't and I find it odd that the fact that these poor animals are made to be in this heat and have no way of conveying their hurt or discomfort is ignored as if it is not important. It seriously is important to those that call themselves animal lovers. Sort of a "Love them when it is convenient" stand. Otherwise they will be here to serve me whenever and wherever I want it. Who cares about the dog. It's about me!

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I agree, if they were going to get all hyper about that, they would have done it by now. However, they haven't and I find it odd that the fact that these poor animals are made to be in this heat and have no way of conveying their hurt or discomfort is ignored as if it is not important. It seriously is important to those that call themselves animal lovers. Sort of a "Love them when it is convenient" stand. Otherwise they will be here to serve me whenever and wherever I want it. Who cares about the dog. It's about me!

There are a lot of legit animal lovers who really do care about animal welfare and comfort (I consider myself one, I try not to make myself annoying to others and go overboard with the nut rage however). But there are also just as many out there (if not more) who place themselves in the same guise but in actuality only do it for attention and to be obnoxious to their fellow man. Or for personal profit. And that's one of the many problems I have with PETA, they seem more like the latter than the former to me.

Not sure if this is on topic or not, sorry 74 and mods if it's inappropriate.

 

[SJN1279]

I saw Mortdecai today starring Johnny Depp and enjoyed it. It was a fun crime farce. I think Depp gets a bad rap from critics.

 

[twebber55]

I saw Mortdecai today starring Johnny Depp and enjoyed it. It was a fun crime farce. I think Depp gets a bad rap from critics.

whats funny is a just read a review that said it s one of the worst movies made in a while

 

[spacemt354]

Not sure if this is on topic or not, sorry 74 and mods if it's inappropriate.

There is talk about cheese-steaks and movies. I don't know if there is an "on-topic" for these threads.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I saw Mortdecai today starring Johnny Depp and enjoyed it. It was a fun crime farce. I think Depp gets a bad rap from critics.

It sucks.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

DON'T MAKE ME TURN THIS CAR AROUND!!!

 

[ParentsOf4]

A theme park or attraction however, doesn't have a set end date.

Correct, an attraction does not have a fixed closing date, although each will have a depreciation schedule.

Even though it's original cost is fully depreciated by now, there's no reason for WDW is close Peter Pan's Flight (or the Magic Kingdom ). However, it's original 1971 cost is just a fraction of what its replacement cost would be today. In order to keep Peter Pan's Flight in "like new" condition, Disney almost certainly has spent more than its original cost in the 40+ years since on maintenance capex (e.g. roof repairs, mechanical part replacements, etc.) .

That's the point. Disney didn't just pay for Peter Pan's Flight (or the Magic Kingdom) once back in 1971 and then set it aside. In addition to the usual opex costs, Peter Pan's Flight (and the Magic Kingdom) needs capex for maintenance.

Depreciation is a way of estimating how much should be spent on maintenance capex. The original cost of an attraction such as Peter Pan's Flight is fully depreciated by now. However, it still requires capital expenditures. Each of those capital expenditures must be, in turn, depreciated.

Peter Pan Flight's queue recently was resigned. Presumably, Disney will depreciate that for years.

Heck, with the way that WDW is run today, it's possible that the new Peter Pan queue cost more in absolute dollars than the entire attraction did in 1971.

Historically, the years in your graph that have the highest value of capex/depreciation derive from 1971 (Magic Kingdom resort area opens), 1981/1982 (Epcot and monorail expansion), and 1987-1990 (roughly when TL and DHS opened).

Yes, the years with the highest capex/depreciation ratio were the years with the highest investment levels but we are not examining investment levels. (I did that earlier on this thread. ) If we were, we'd also consider revenue.

If, for example, WDW annual revenue was $1 trillion in 1982 and they invested "only" $1.4 billion of that in Epcot, I'd say Disney's investment levels sucked in 1982.

I'm completely on board with Disney cutting costs maintenance over the last 10 years but I don't think you need this graph to explain that. I think the numbers in the graph persuade the reader to think "wow, look at what Disney used to invest, why can't they do that now?"

Anyone who read my earlier posts on this thread on the topic wouldn't be asking this question now.

Well, could a possible explanation be that the resort has simply expanded so far as it cannot invest at the same rate and ferocity that it did with Epcot? According to your figures and adjusting for inflation, (in 1979 a $1.4B investment into Epcot would be $3.39B in 2015), it seems like Disney would need to spend billions and billions of dollars to compete with the standards set in the 80s/90s. Epcot basically doubled the size of entire resort. To compete with those figures, Disney would need to build 5th/6th gates and tons of hotels.

With the exception of a few commodities, inflation calculators generally are poor ways to measure the cost of something today.

Do you really think Disney could build this in central Florida for $3.4 billion today?

Your final point about SDMT, Disney Springs, and Pandora speaks to what I'm trying to get at.

In 1971, there's going to be a huge percentage of capex/depreciation compared to the years prior when there was no MK. As well as the other boosts in capex/depreciation over the years.

1998 was a huge year for Disney in terms of attractions and property expansions, yet its percentage of capex/depreciation was 7.6x less than the percentage in 1982. So I think we have to consider the size of the resort more when determining what the actual old standards were.

Your final inference makes it seem like the WDW standards in 1982 were 252x better than they are in 2013 because of the graph. I know some Disney fans (perhaps even myself) would like to agree with that, however that's where fact morphs with opinion and I think we should be careful to consider the influence of other variables.

The point of my earlier post is that there is a minimum level of maintenance capex. Anything above that can be considered growth capex. This does not imply that "WDW standards in 1982 were 252x better than they are in 2013". This only shows that growth capex levels were higher in 1982 than they were in 2013.

The point of my earlier post was to examine historical data to identify what was the minimum level of maintenance capex needed to maintain Disney's former standards of quality and maintenance.

For the reasons I described in my earlier post and in the Peter Pan example in this post, Disney probably needs to spend more than just depreciation in order to maintain the level of quality and service that it was famous for in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[Excitable Boy]

There's a time and place for everything. Having a child in a bar is neither.

My kids are more exposed to offensive behavior every time we walk into a Walmart vs. their exposure sitting at a bar in a restaurant on Disney property. Though, they sure do get a kick out of peopleofwalmart.com.

 

[Cesar R M]

Peeta is not impressed with all your bread related puns.

good job, the whole conversation was full of puns. Kim approves.
I'm pretty sure President Snow will be happy as well.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

good job, the whole conversation was full of puns. Kim approves.
I'm pretty sure President Snow will be happy as well.

Here's your friendly reminder that "The Interview" is available on Netflix*.
Http://nflx.it/1ye6ybv
*US and Canada only, sorry @Cesar R M

 

[RSoxNo1]

Correct, an attraction does not have fixed closing date, although each will have a depreciation schedule.

Even though it's original cost is fully depreciated by now, there's no reason for WDW is close Peter Pan's Flight (or the Magic Kingdom ). However, it's original 1971 cost is just a fraction of what its replacement cost would be today. In order to keep Peter Pan's Flight in "like new" condition, Disney almost certainly has spent more than its original cost in the 40+ years since on maintenance capex (e.g. roof repairs, mechanical part replacements, etc.) .

That's the point. Disney didn't pay for Peter Pan's Flight (or the Magic Kingdom) once back in 1971 and then set it aside. In addition to the usual opex costs, Peter Pan's Flight (and the Magic Kingdom) needs capex for maintenance.

Depreciation is a way of estimating how much should be spent on maintenance capex. The original cost of an attraction such as Peter Pan's Flight is fully depreciated by now. However, it still requires capital expenditures. Each of those capital expenditures must be, in turn, depreciated.

Peter Pan Flight's queue recently was resigned. Presumably, Disney will depreciate that for years.

Heck, with the way that WDW is run today, it's possible that the new Peter Pan queue cost more in absolute dollars than the entire attraction did in 1971.

Yes, the years with the highest capex/depreciation ratio were the years with the highest investment levels but we are not examining investment levels. (I did that earlier on this thread. ) If we were, we'd also consider revenue.

If, for example, WDW annual revenue was $1 trillion in 1982 and they invested "only" $1.4 billion of that in Epcot, I'd say Disney's investment levels sucked in 1982.

Anyone who read my earlier posts on this thread on the topic wouldn't be asking this question now.

With the exception of a few commodities, inflation calculators generally are poor ways to measure the cost of something today.

Do you really think Disney could build this in central Florida for $3.4 billion today?

View attachment 80308




The point of my earlier post is that there is a minimum level of maintenance capex. Anything above that can be considered growth capex. This does not imply that "WDW standards in 1982 were 252x better than they are in 2013". This only shows that growth capex levels were higher in 1982 than they were in 2013.

The point of my earlier post was to examine historical data to identify what was the minimum level of maintenance capex needed to maintain Disney's former standards of quality and maintenance.

For the reasons I described in my earlier post and in the Peter Pan example in this post, Disney probably needs to spend more than just depreciation in order to maintain the level of quality and service that it was famous for in the 1970s and 1980s.

Depreciation is also a large reason why you see mistakes like Stitch's Great Escape stick around for a while. It's far more beneficial for them to depreciate the work rather than write it off as a mistake.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

The Huffington Post has published an article on our favorite multinational media conglomerate earlier today. It's primary concern is if Disney is Marvel and Pixar and Lucasfilm and ESPN is Disney still special or relevant? This could be called an assault on Iger The Acquierer's legacy at TWDC. The author makes a shout out to our beloved @wdwmagic too.

http://huffpost.com/us/entry/6520290
Disney CEO Readies Magic Carpet for Exit
You know them well. Perhaps too well.

The Fab Five and their friends.

From Kermit the Frog to Buzz Lightyear. From Iron Man to Darth Vader.

Among the stable of American cultural touchstones, they stand emblematic as a cross-generational binder of a people and a product. More a symbol of America in its minted-by-Wall-Street and cemented-on-Main-Street role as a global ambassadorthan Lady Liberty herself, the Walt Disney Company has risen from a cartoon maker of its eponymous animator to a warehouse of media brands unrivaled in its sheer breadth.

And it is that last part that might well be a big part of why the 'remaking' of Disney under the direction of outgoing Chairman and CEO Robert A. "Bob" Iger may well signal the decline of the brand itself. Mickey Mouse is Disney. Minnie Mouse and Donald Duck are Disney. As are Pluto and Goofy. But, once we move beyond the endearingly drawn and meticulously marketed page jumpers sketched by Disney -- the man and not the brand -- and his Nine Old Men, the marquee becomes harder to define as being Disney.

Such was the intent of Bob Iger when he succeeded Michael D. Eisner in his transition from one-time weatherman to programming executive and now chieftain of a media empire. A noted manager and delegator, two defining words not in sync with the traditional studio head, Iger went about acquiring content creators as the steward of America's premier producer of content that defied the limits of age and transcended cultures.

With success unrivaled, it is hard to conceive how the man who delivered for Wall Street, for the financial community, could have somehow diminished the brand or worse. Then again, it is often difficult to analyze the climb from the summit. Still, the fall is a given.

"It's in our best interest to put some of the old rules aside and create new ones and follow the consumer -- what the consumer wants and where the consumer wants to go," said Mr. Iger back in 2005.

Disney, Walt Disney, understood the people and the product. He knew of the wants of the consumer, often before they themselves knew, and the needs of the machine of manufacture. He also instilled a sense of significance at his company of the work being done and for the workers, or cast members in Disney jargon, doing it.

As Mr. Eisner said to the Harvard Business Review in February of 2000:

[A] few years ago, I was walking around Walt Disney World, midnight, by myself. I got to a pavilion that was being renovated. I figured I would climb over the barricade and see what was going on. I started walking around, and pretty fast a junior security officer came toward me with a flashlight. I introduced myself. Luckily he had heard of me. So, we got talking, and he knew where all the plans were. He wasn't involved in the construction at all, but he knew all about it. He was interested. He cared. He went through every page of the plans with me. He knew everything, and he really was passionate and intelligent about the project. It was obvious to me that this guy was special.
Now, while it can rightfully be said that times change, the life cycle of a brand is dictated by its ability to deliver the product welcomed by a wanting marketplace. When that product drifts into territory foreign to the consumer, the once reliable revenue streams created by these individual consumers will follow.

To date, the Walt Disney Company has largely drawn from the remainder. A sizable crowd, no doubt. But, there is a difference between the toe-dipper and the marathoner. For years, for generations, Disney has been the ultimate beneficiary of the latter. Successively, without pause, families turned to Disney for their prepackaged entertainment of all sorts.

And as Ron Suskind -- whose son Owen is autistic -- documented in his book Life, Animated about piercing the autism spectrum through the dialogue and songs of Disney's animated movies, so strong is the bond between the product and the people that Disney's content has even been adapted for therapy.

Whether speaking of an outing to the multiplex to catch the latest from its feature animation division, raiding the store aisles of its consumer products division's offerings or making that pilgrimage to Walt Disney World or Disneyland, the Walt Disney Company has delivered without fail.

In the cyber world, Disney has built a fountainhead of near-endless adulation that runs perilously close to cult status. While in the world outside of its electronic confines, families have even migrated from points afar to build "the Disney Driven life" centered at or adjacent to Disney's parks and resorts.

But, perhaps as the bellwether of the new century and new economy, even among these most loyal and forgiving of fans of all that represents the iconic Disney brand a splintering of sorts has challenged whether Disney is deserving of such praise and devotion.

Drawn from a report co-authored by this contributor:

Starting in the mid-1990s, superfanAl Lutz became a prominent voice on the Disney brand as the Burbank-based media behemoth increasingly relied on the cash heavy theme parks and resorts as a backstop for failures and deficiencies in other segments of the company. Using at first the MousePlanet.com imprimatur and later that of MiceChat.com, Lutz championed the vaunted Disney of Walt's day.Delivering management changes at the parks, specifically in Anaheim at the industry making Disneyland, Mr. Lutz became a well-known personality and pundit of the Disney product from the consumers' lens. With that, for the first time, Disney found itself being questioned not by Wall Street but by Main Street.
Not long after Mr. Lutz launched into the Disney-verse, Stephen Frearson, an import from the United Kingdom, premiered wdwmagic.com -- a Walt Disney World centered site. And around both, communities grew and conversations were had. Still today, these conversations occur with regularity. Only, the dollars spent on Disney by these most devoted of fans have dwindled.

Visit any one of these sites today and you will likely find discussions ranging from the minutia of Disney's parks and resorts to the import facing the Walt Disney Company with no apparent successor in place for the Wall Street-maker and Main Street-breaker Bob Iger. Who, somewhat ironically, was ushered into his role as CEO by Walt's nephew, the late Roy E. Disney, after the twenty-one year tenure of Mr. Eisner.

Now, as the play is on for that post, Disney has few inside candidates for the role. Disney CFO Jay Rasulo, an often puckish glad-hander, and Parks & Resorts Chairman Tom Staggs, an oddly waifish man of anemic personality, are the only two names in the already full throttle effort to succeed Iger. In 2010, they actually swapped jobs. Yet, with pause, many media types note that Disney experienced the greatest period of growth in the company's history when it last went outside of the company to fill the top spot.

That was in 1984, when Sid Bass and Roy Disney brought Michael Eisner on board along with Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

In spite of his effortless transition from an entertainment executive into an 'Uncle Walt'-like figure and widely admired media head, Mr. Eisner was ultimately dismissed from a company he is both credited with having saved and criticized for having somehow diminished. And yet, it is Bob Iger who has almost certainly done the latter by approaching a creative powerhouse like a floor manager at a manufacturing camp on the outskirts of Shenzhen.

In his successor, it may now be time, for only the second time since its founding in 1923 as the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio, for the Walt Disney Company to close the door on rotating internal candidates into this role and bring back the perspective only an outsider can deliver.

As to the consumer, whose focus is not on slick and sappy marketing but the actual product delivered, Disney is not a jumble or inventory of creative content. It is not a Time Warner or a Comcast. Disney has the liability and the gift of being Disney.

Only these days, more of its most zealous followers are straying as they question whether Disney remains Disney. Whether the company that delivered Steamboat Willie and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has any connection -- any sense of heritage -- with a company spitting out popcorn and pop culture products under the shingles of Marvel Entertainment and Lucasfilm placed upon a castle built by a man named Walt Disney.

Or, for that matter, a studio stuck in a cycle of sequels named Pixar led by the equally entrenched John Lasseter and Ed Catmull.

"Sometimes you just have to be there with your people. You have to be in the same room with them, look them in the eyes, hear their voices," said former Disney CEO Eisner.

As his successor Mr. Iger said at the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit held just last fall of the typical Disney consumer, "We have no idea who they are. We don't know what they are willing to spend, what they like and what they don't like."

Walt knew. Michael too. Gary Snyder is a member of the Redstone family, whose company, National Amusements, owns Viacom and CBS, among other media assets. He is an advisor on Western media and culture to China.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

"We have no idea who they are. We don't know what they are willing to spend, what they like and what they don't like."

That should have been the first line, heck the headline, of the article.

The CEO not knowing who their customer is?

How many drinks did he have before he let that one slip out?

 

[GoofGoof]

"We have no idea who they are. We don't know what they are willing to spend, what they like and what they don't like."

That should have been the first line, heck the headline, of the article.

The CEO not knowing who their customer is?

How many drinks did he have before he let that one slip out?

My guess is he was talking about Nextgen and MyMagic+. "We didn't know enough about our customers before, but now we will with this new technology." Something along those lines.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

My guess is he was talking about Nextgen and MyMagic+. "We didn't know enough about our customers before, but now we will with this new technology." Something along those lines.

It sounds very fishy out of context. That kind of statement, if made out loud in a room full of reporters, would have been pounced on instantly by the media.

There's probably more to it. Or at least one would hope.

 

[GoofGoof]

It sounds very fishy out of context. That kind of statement, if made out loud in a room full of reporters, would have been pounced on instantly by the media.

There's probably more to it. Or at least one would hope.

I'm just guessing, but it sounds similar to some of the stuff said to justify the need for MyMagic+.