bhg469
Well-Known Member
True. If this effect is still broken in a year then maybe I will worry. The effect in Gringotts is also not something that I think is impossible to fix. The yeti is..
-
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
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Yup, the Walt Disney company would never be as forthcoming!
tribbleorlfl
Well-Known Member
While I get the point of your post and agree that generally, UO's full-service restaurants are a better value than WDW's, the filet Mythos serves is NOT a tenderloin filet but rather chuck shoulder center (colloquially known as a petite tender or mock filet). About half the cost of tenderloin, invalidating the comparison imho.
I definitely agree with you on the soups, UO's are the best (though I am biased as one of the recipes is mine). The cream of the crop, unfortunately, is only served in the employee grills (and occasionally festival vendors): Four Cheese and Onion.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
I would not call a B-School paper which cites Wikipedia well researched, but there are other issues.
Some observations:
- Paper fails to mention Viacom's substantial presence in the mainland with its cable channels Nickelodeon China and MTV China. These are by far the most successful American media BRANDs in China, but author either thinks they aren't relevant to his thesis or he simply didn't do his research thoroughly enough.
- Citing Wikipedia is still inappropriate.
- Author doesn't exactly grasp how important the Company sees the Disney Channel in spreading its BRAND.
- Author not doing his due diligence with Nickelodeon China really hurts his paper because it would offer much needed context.
- I can't overstate how not understanding Nickelodeon's popularity cripples his arguments.
- Author does a good job explaining Disney's options to expand its presence in the Chinese market, but then he trips over himself with this.
- What I do find interesting with that last point is that he still believes joint ventures are best even though control means so much to Disney that it would sacrifice it to enter the market "first", not best which has always been a cornerstone of how the company operates. Walt Disney didn't create the first feature length animated film with "Snow White", he and his artists created the first BEST animated feature. There are many inherent values to being the first mover as the author postulates, but taking the time to do it right is more important longer term. Houses should be built on strong foundations and all that jazz.
- I need to give the paper a pass on the issue of foreign releases at the Chinese box office given that last year it was decided the foreign film quota will be eliminated by 2017-2018 to make good on promises the Central Govenrment made to the WTO.
Last edited:
Phil12
Well-Known Member
Interesting analysis on your part. Thanks for your opinion.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
While in Minnesota, we wonder why you have so many clothes on.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
This suddenly explains the behavior of every GLORIOUS Canadian woman I know.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Well @marni1971 Thinks The Yet is fixable. As do I.
It would just involve shutting the ride down for awhile..... which apparently cant happen with a half-day park.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Martin on numerous occasions has said that they can fix the yeti without even taking the ride offline. So even that excuse doesn't work.
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Citing Wikipedia ouch!!! I know a person who failed a class because they cited Wikipedia. Profs even publish Wiki warning in the syllabus.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Until Michael Eisner became CEO, Disney used to report more theme park financial information than it does today, similar to what's contained in OLC's current disclosures.
Generally, companies whose core businesses are amusement parks provide more information than Disney. Those companies often break down revenue by area (e.g. admission vs. food sales), report actual attendance, etc.
At least Disney reports metrics such as changes to Per Capita Guest Spending (i.e. how much is being spent in the theme parks), Per Room Guest Spending (i.e. how much is being spent at the hotels), hotel occupancy rate, hotel available room nights, and changes to theme park attendance (e.g. attendance is up 2%). Up till 2008, Disney reported East Coast and West Coast metrics. Today, they simply report Domestic and International metrics, lumping WDW and DLR together.
IMO, Comcast/Universal is the least informative, reporting the bare minimum for their Theme Parks division (e.g. revenue, operating income, assets, capex, depreciation).
Last edited:
Frankie The Beer
Well-Known Member
Indeed, and a loss it would have been. He's not the most social and does not like to answer questions but how often do you get the chance to have possibly the best chef alive personally make you dessert?
clsteve
Active Member
It's a very interesting quantification game with huge projects like these that include a large service provider. On one hand, it's very easy to quantify the transition to and from capitalization because of the contract(s). Within a majority time and materials (TM) contract, very often the actual software product components can be fixed price - but only those, and only when there is very specific acceptance criteria in place that is independently verifiable.
That verification often takes place in one of the huge independent testing facilities, of which there are several around the country,where they can take the software and simulate 10's of thousand of users banging away on it. And for good reason- the service provider wants to get paid and wants a hard stop on anything fixed price. Too much risk for them otherwise. So, acceptance would happen long before any visible beta.
The vast majority of these projects are under TM contracts because success is largely out of the providers hands and dependent on the quality of the requirements, underlying infrastructure, staff competence and access provided by the contracting Company.
This is where the big overruns almost always happen - in the heavy TM phases like Performance and Tuning, Data Migration, and the user facing components. That's where the meter really starts running.
We all got to experience that first hand with MDE even after NextGen was in production- disappearing accounts and FP's after almost every maintenance patch, along with blue Mickeys, etc. That was after production rollout, after the delay of that rollout. How long that went on is probably the best indicator of how much the project overran its allocations.
I've been thinking about this a lot (20 hours of driving in 2 days will do that) because I have seen it before- where huge projects like these are under capitalized with the intent of yty operational monies to foot the bill as a way of hiding the true cost externally. It's totally above board to throw enhancements and P&T and the like into the yearly buckets. @ParentsOf4, you don't think Disney would want to keep the true full cost away from folks who would be asking questions about the return on that investment - they wouldn't do that, would they....?
The other thing that's unique: (and @WDW1974, kind of ironic) this project is almost a "reverse Shanghai." There's no mention of the Partner(s) in this anywhere externally - no "NextGen, powered by (insert Partner)" or NexGen, brought to you by (insert Partner)" or even the press releases saying "Disney and (insert Partner) have entered into an agreement to create the most advanced Guest Management Solution in the Industry."
Nothing
It's unusual because it's a good thing to show they've reduced the risk of the project by bringing in an expert. Plus, it's a way to share blame if the project doesn't go well or overruns. The "We put it in the hands of the experts" excuse.
And for the Provider, they want to be able to say "look at the great job we did at Disney - nobody else could do that". It's their strongest and best Marketing message - really their only way to differentiate themselves from the rest.
Disney's gone to great lengths to make this an "all Disney" project externally. To make it that way, you pretty much have to contractually spell it out.....
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
It’s my experience that the costs of many projects are almost always low-balled. Frankly, most projects would get canned if their actual costs were revealed upfront.
Lower layers are asked to provide estimates for their pieces and, as these pieces are assembled, they inevitably result in budgets that exceed expectations. Consequently, each layer of management arbitrarily cuts estimates in order to "make the numbers look good". By the time the final budget is assembled through multiple layers of management, it often can be half of what the actual budget would have been if management were not allowed to make these cuts.
MyMagic+ is a difficult beast for Disney to get a handle on. Good estimates often are based on actual costs of similar projects previously developed. MyMagic+ has no comparable predecessor within the company, with its tentacles spreading everywhere. It would not surprise me if those in charge of the project presented Iger with an overly-optimistic budget and schedule in order to get the project funded. It’s a case of “go fever” infecting those making budgetary decisions.
Most companies (understandably) don’t want to reveal the costs of their R&D efforts externally.
In the case of MyMagic+, I suspect its real cost was not presented to the CEO as well.
For accounting purposes, it is not "above board" to put things anywhere other than where they belong.
Enhancements are capital expenditures.
Performance and tuning is jargon that could be anything -- if it's routine stuff during operation, it's expensed; if it's the stuff needed to get the software ready for its intended use, it's capitalized.
Data migration is expensed.
There's judgment, to be sure, as to the line between an enhancement and normal maintenance. But it isn't "above board" to decide to just expense the cost of enhancements.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Well here's the thing - Everything any department could tie or bill into NextGen, it was. Including new Point of Sale machines all across property and "teambuilding exercises" that ended up being BBQs for certain departments here and there. If they found a way to bill it to that budget, they did.
Managers found it a bottomless well of money and used it as often as they could.
Indeed, this is big difference when comparing OLC to Disney. OLC is all theme parks (and related things like hotels), while TWDC has so many other things going on. The less material a segment is to the total company, the less will be said about that segment.
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how quickly the resort where anything was possible has become the resort where nothing can happen.
Refurbs can't happen because they can't afford to take attractions offline due to lack of operational capacity to absorb the loss.
Refurbs can't happen because they can't afford to reshuffle FP+ reservations.
Refurbs can't happen because it will hasten the rate at which guests complete a park.
Whatever truths there are in the above statements... the sad truth is that refurbs don't happen because they are too cheap these days to pay for the cost of doing what use to be a routine part of the Disney Parks culture. Show used to be second to only to safety. Now, both are tossed out the window - see Pirates of the Caribbean and how long its been festering and how quickly its getting rushed through it's refurb. Want to take bets on the condition of the attraction when it magically opens ahead of schedule to meet the winter crowds? Space Mountain will be soon heading into the same discussion. How many quick patch jobs can it receive before it hits the breaking point <puns intended>?
Now, the state of affairs in Orlando is the actual cost in terms of the financial outlay to doing maintenance is the key driver to many projects, let alone the "extended" costs associated with the harm of pulling attractions offline causes.
Again, the reality is that "we" have created this monster in Orlando. Guests keep coming. Our own forums have a thread where FANS debate if the Yeti is moving or not. That's a good barometer for how far the mighty have fallen. Pay more... expect less and less.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
I've examined Disney's SEC filings and believe Disney included a few hundred million of MyMagic+'s costs in SG&A. This is supported by Disney's disclosure in FY2014 that:
Selling, general, administrative and other costs decreased $104 million from $1,960 million to $1,856 million due to the absence of development costs for MyMagic+ [emphasis added], partially offset by higher marketing and sales costs and higher pre-opening costs at Shanghai Disney Resort.
In FY2014, P&R SG&A decreased by over 5% while other P&R expenses increased by approximately 7%. Prior to 2014, it's interesting to note that increases in SG&A outpaced other P&R costs.
In 1Q2015, SG&A increased by about 7%, similar to increases in other P&R expenses.
To me, it appears there was a ramp-up of MyMagic+ development costs recorded in SG&A that lasted a few years, which then ended in 2014.