A Spirited Perfect Ten

[the.dreamfinder]

The talk of Twitter this morning is a mongello piece on how we should move on about the poly lobby and how great it is...

#priorities

 

[Shaman]

It basically has a limited amount of public concern and since speculation is big around here, I'd have to say less then 1% of the public gives a tinkers damn.

Wall Street would care if things were going badly over there. But, yeah I agree with your points. I mean can the average person even find China on a map? I'm scared to find out....

 

[ThemeParkJunkee]

There is no way the twit-verse is going to care about this information. The average theme park guest will not care. Investors, stockholders, investment advisors, financial planners etc. would or should care.

 

[Funmeister]

I'm not saying "what's the difference between pot roast and NY strip," I'm saying "what's the difference between NY strip at Prime Time and NY strip at Sci Fi?" You can still get a NY strip at DHS in post-DDP world (it's on the current Sci Fi menu) so I reject your premise that DDP has killed all the good choices.

If they stopped selling Butterbeer within the WWoHP and only sold it exclusively at Marvel Super Hero Island wouldn't that change your dining experience? No a NY strip is not a unique food item as Butterbeer (even though I could argue that) but food is very much integrated into your dining experience (especially at Disney).

A Cobb salad from the Brown Derby being served at the ABC Commissary could be the same exact salad but the overall experience changes. The environment of where you eat your steak is just as important as the steak itself when you eat at an establishment that depends on its theming to deliver a perfect dining experience.

They cheapened the experience by replacing the steak with what most would consider a lower quality meal.

 

[HenryMystic]

Well, it wouldn't take much of a journalist to take on this story and verify it, if it is verifiable. I'm not saying it isn't, but, the thing that even "Spirit" seems to lose sight of is that this is a concern to about a handful of his followers and no one else. There is so much going on in the world, such as people being burnt alive or beheaded by terrorists, earthquakes, volcano's, climate change, wars in the middle east, and most of all Bruce Jenners transformation to Caitlyn.

The thing is, this is a $5B US investment in China by one of our biggest media conglomerates. My mind has been running wild with the implications since I read that post last night. What protects Disney from China seizing complete control once the park is complete and the staff is trained? What guarantees that Disney sees a dime from this? These are honest questions as international relations and law are not my forte.

Everything could work out great and this is all moot, but then again...

If nothing else, the discussion is interesting.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If they stopped selling Butterbeer within the WWoHP and only sold it exclusively at Marvel Super Hero Island wouldn't that change your dining experience? No a NY strip is not a unique food item as Butterbeer (even though I could argue that) but food is very much integrated into your dining experience (especially at Disney).

A Cobb salad from the Brown Derby being served at the ABC Commissary could be the same exact salad but the overall experience changes. The environment of where you eat your steak is just as important as the steak itself when you eat at an establishment that depends on its theming to deliver a perfect dining experience.

They cheapened the experience by replacing the steak with what most would consider a lower quality meal.

You're kind of making my point. If you want to talk about the "environment" in which you dine, pot roast is much more appropriate at Prime Time than NY strip. If the dining plan were the culprit for removing NY strip from Prime Time, then it would have caused the removal of NY strip from all 1-credit TS locations. The fact that it's still available at Sci Fi (and Mama Melrose's) means the dining plan had nothing to do with it.

Neither you nor @PhotoDave219 have been able to answer that question: If the dining plan caused NY strip to be removed from Prime Time, why didn't it cause NY strip to be removed at Sci Fi or Mama Melrose's?

 

[gmajew]

Why would you pay more? You're already paying more for less ... if the quality was much higher in 1994 at $38 a day, then taking inflation into account the most you should ever pay would be $61 a day (and that isn't taking anything away from the fact that WDW's parks went from being about a 9 on a 1-10 scale in 1994 to about a 6 on that scale today!)

I would pay more to have the parks at that level... To have the crowds at that level so things are not so full so and packed that it is just not fun. That is why... I would pay a premium for things if it was worth the money... What a price of the ticket should be based on inflation etc does not bother me because I don't buy a one day ticket never would never have. All parks are as crappy at making that one day price to high to get you to spend more time at park.

 

[Funmeister]

You're kind of making my point. If you want to talk about the "environment" in which you dine, pot roast is much more appropriate at Prime Time than NY strip. If the dining plan were the culprit for removing NY strip from Prime Time, then it would have caused the removal of NY strip from all 1-credit TS locations. The fact that it's still available at Sci Fi (and Mama Melrose's) means the dining plan had nothing to do with it.

Neither you nor @PhotoDave219 have been able to answer that question: If the dining plan caused NY strip to be removed from Prime Time, why didn't it cause NY strip to be removed at Sci Fi or Mama Melrose's?

In order for the DDP to work at all of the restaurants you have to look at all of the offerings at each restaurant. The steak may not have fit in the blanket pricing to justify the DDP at 50's PT but it does work at Sci Fi. Changes had to be made at numerous restaurants to make it more of an "even playing field" to absorb the discounts at each restaurant.

Each location is/was viewed as its on stand alone business unit. If 50's PT was taking a hit on six dishes (I do not know the number just using six as an example) and Sci Fi was taking a hit on three comparable dishes that would be effected then they spread it out by moving one (or more) from one restaurant to another. That way it lessens the negative impact of offering a discount at 50's PT because they are having to take a hit on more dishes.

Because of this they had to dumb down food or offer lower quality meals to offset the loss.

 

[flynnibus]

On the topic of buy backs... and also dovetailed into the recent layoffs at TWDC... we have a piece @ParentsOf4 is gonna love. It reiterates what he's been trying to get people to absorb about buybacks, motivations, and impacts of them.

Despite posting record numbers, and doing huge buybacks... Cisco still laid off 6000 people last fall. But the story isn't really about the layoffs, its more about corporate motivation and behavior. For anyone who has had trouble connecting why @ParentsOf4 has been going on about this topic.. this story lays a good explanation to understand why its different now and why this isn't a good thing.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...-high-price/8vi1toy4kZBr59ykKYzdNL/story.html

Some teasers to get you interested in clicking...

The raw numbers are startling and revealing. Since the early 1980s, the nation’s top publicly traded companies have gone from having 70 percent of their profits available to reinvest in their business to just 2 percent in 2014.

Stock buybacks were now seen as a quick way to boost share prices — without the hard work of increasing investment in the company or coming up with a breakthrough product

Anyone spot the common theme??? @ParentsOf4 , @WDW1974

This stock buyback boom, while obscure to much of the public, has become one of the most pervasive and divisive practices in corporate America. It affects jobs, investment, and the health of the economy, all in the search for higher share prices. It is also a major driver of the widening economic divide in this country, which could make it a prominent issue in the 2016 presidential election.

It boils down to a basic question being asked more and more these days, and not only by workers in Boxborough: Why are so many companies spending record sums of money buying back their shares instead of reinvesting more of their profits in their business and their workers?

Companies handed out enormous options and awards to CEOs that were tied to the value of their stock. Companies found that making a stock buyback, as allowed under the decade-old SEC rule change, could at least briefly boost share prices, perhaps increasing the value of stock options given to top executives. The result: CEOs now had a vested interest in buybacks that could quickly boost the value of their own personal options.

It's a good read... I encourage people to check it out

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Each location is/was viewed as its on stand alone business unit. If 50's PT was taking a hit on six dishes (I do not know the number just using six as an example) and Sci Fi was taking a hit on three comparable dishes that would be effected then they spread it out by moving one (or more) from one restaurant to another. That way it lessens the negative impact of offering a discount at 50's PT because they are having to take a hit on more dishes.

That's not true. Each restaurant's income statement is reported internally as if they received "menu price" for each item ordered. Otherwise, restaurants would essentially show zero revenue during Free Dine. The over/under of the value of dining plan credits is held in one giant "bucket" and not allocated to any particular dining location.

 

[Rteetz]

The Universal Hollywood version of the forbidden journey will be in 3D for the first time according to IPW on twitter

 

[Goofyernmost]

The thing is, this is a $5B US investment in China by one of our biggest media conglomerates. My mind has been running wild with the implications since I read that post last night. What protects Disney from China seizing complete control once the park is complete and the staff is trained? What guarantees that Disney sees a dime from this? These are honest questions as international relations and law are not my forte.

Everything could work out great and this is all moot, but then again...

If nothing else, the discussion is interesting.

Yes, but, I doubt that would happen. All the Chinese had to do was to just duplicate what Disney has already done and it would be all there is to it. Disney could throw a hissy fit and complain about infringement, etc., but, US law does not apply in China. Short of an invasion there is almost nothing anyone could do about it.

There has to be a trust agreement someplace and when you think about a company the size of Disney, 5 billion is a drop in the bucket. It would sting for a short while, but, they would make it through. It's even better that Disney keep a low profile because there is no guarantee that the Chinese people will be all that impressed with the park anyway. Some will, of course, but it is in the best interest of Disney to keep low and then if there is blame to be passed out, they are not the focal point. If it is a success, then, all Disney needs to do is keep cashing the checks and adding to the bottom line.

It's always a risk, but, it isn't real high as far as I can see. If it's a good park, the world will give Disney that credit, even if Mr. Iger is never seen there. If not, well, then it's Chinese interference that ruined it all.

 

[Funmeister]

That's not true. Each restaurant's income statement is reported internally as if they received "menu price" for each item ordered. Otherwise, restaurants would essentially show zero revenue during Free Dine. The over/under of the value of dining plan credits is held in one giant "bucket" and not allocated to any particular dining location.

You cannot put quick service and full service restaurants on the same playing field and treat them equally.

Right! So if you report them as "menu price" why would one restaurant take a bigger hit than another? By spreading out the higher priced choices it lessens the impact at one location.

The credits are put in one giant "bucket" but each restaurant still has to account for their share and held accountable.

 

[Lucky]

What protects Disney from China seizing complete control once the park is complete and the staff is trained? What guarantees that Disney sees a dime from this? These are honest questions as international relations and law are not my forte.

They would lose a lot of future investment from other companies based in developed countries. That's the main deterrent.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You cannot put quick service and full service restaurants on the same playing field and treat them equally.

Right! So if you report them as "menu price" why would one restaurant take a bigger hit than another? By spreading out the higher priced choices it lessens the impact at one location.

The credits are put in one giant "bucket" but each restaurant still has to account for their share and held accountable.

I'm sorry but you're just incorrect. If you're the manager of 50s Prime Time, you don't see any difference whatsoever in your internal financial statements if you have a dining plan guest or a cash guest. Nobody "takes a hit" at the restaurant level. The "hit" is taken at an overall "general" type cost center. Disney doesn't hold the restaurant managers responsible for what the marketing and sales guys decide to do in terms of DDP pricing and promotions.

 

[ford91exploder]

On the topic of buy backs... and also dovetailed into the recent layoffs at TWDC... we have a piece @ParentsOf4 is gonna love. It reiterates what he's been trying to get people to absorb about buybacks, motivations, and impacts of them.

Despite posting record numbers, and doing huge buybacks... Cisco still laid off 6000 people last fall. But the story isn't really about the layoffs, its more about corporate motivation and behavior. For anyone who has had trouble connecting why @ParentsOf4 has been going on about this topic.. this story lays a good explanation to understand why its different now and why this isn't a good thing.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...-high-price/8vi1toy4kZBr59ykKYzdNL/story.html

Some teasers to get you interested in clicking...




Anyone spot the common theme??? @ParentsOf4 , @WDW1974







It's a good read... I encourage people to check it out

Very good article, I've been to the Boxborogh campus many times as a customer and the shortsightedness cost my organization millions as a key product was dropped and we had to replace it with a competitive product which had less functionality. You would see the the CV's of the product team on LinkedIN, Yet there was no support even when we pulled a CAP.

This was a product that MOST of the service providers used at the core of their network around which there was substantial customer side development. Yet it was dropped in the service of boosting the stock price and based on the last few earnings calls the Service Provider community still has not forgiven them.

You see this in every tech company in the valley these days the 'Street punishes you if you don't do huge buybacks and you see even first line companies buying infrastructure and test equipment from the secondary market rather than buying new, It's the difference between $25,000 capex and $250,000 capex the 10 year old instrument will DO the same measurement as the new one but it takes hours to perform the measurement instead of minutes.

We are so overweighted in financial engineering so the heavy lifting does not need to happen it's not funny.

 

[Funmeister]

I'm sorry but you're just incorrect. If you're the manager of 50s Prime Time, you don't see any difference whatsoever in your internal financial statements if you have a dining plan guest or a cash guest. Nobody "takes a hit" at the restaurant level. The "hit" is taken at an overall "general" type cost center. Disney doesn't hold the restaurant managers responsible for what the marketing and sales guys decide to do in terms of DDP pricing and promotions.

Ok, believe what you want. lol I guess they are paying GMs to sit there and look pretty. Is that how they did it when you worked there?

They still have to account for the discounts.

 

[ford91exploder]

They would lose a lot of future investment from other companies based in developed countries. That's the main deterrent.

They will not simple greed will ensure that for the short term, It will take a few large scale expropriations before the west realizes that China is for the Chinese ONLY.

 

[Bairstow]

They would lose a lot of future investment from other companies based in developed countries. That's the main deterrent.

Would they, though?
No one was deterred by what happened to Fellowes and their shredders.

Even if people took notice, it's not as if people can afford to not to do business with China. The lesson learned from this would just to be more cautious and not to irritate your mainland counterparts.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The thing is, this is a $5B US investment in China by one of our biggest media conglomerates. My mind has been running wild with the implications since I read that post last night. What protects Disney from China seizing complete control once the park is complete and the staff is trained? What guarantees that Disney sees a dime from this? These are honest questions as international relations and law are not my forte.

Everything could work out great and this is all moot, but then again...

If nothing else, the discussion is interesting.

What protects Disney is China's goal of being the framer of global structures and stability. That is why there has been a crackdown on graft and displays of extravagance. Disney planned a huge display of extravagance when the political climate is against such displays. There is NOTHING gained by taking the park and kicking Disney out.