Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
It makes perfect sense.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bob Chapek Confirms Disney Will Overhaul Epcot
- Thread starter Bacon
- Start date
It makes perfect sense.
RobidaFlats
Well-Known Member
I think I get what you are saying, but I would like to offer a slight amendment. There seems to be a false dichotomy between what is right for the customer and what is right for the bottom line. I would argue that they are one in the same, with one very important qualifier. What is right for the customer is right for the bottom line in the grand scheme of things. My biggest issue with a lot of publicly traded companies, is that they focus on the bottom line right now, with little or no regard for the long term.
The irony is that what makes the profits higher right this moment can often lead to problems later on. This is especially problematic because many institutional investors operate on behalf of pensions and retirement accounts that are inherently in it for the long game.
I like to point to Amazon as an example. For most of its existence, Amazon has plowed money back into the business and continued to innovate instead of stepping back and just taking profit. Wall St. hates it. Amazon would frequently post earnings reports showing money being put right back into the business and traders would have a fit. They would "punish" Amazon and the stock would tank for a few days. Then, sure enough it would bounce back and set new highs because the investment was good for the business in the long-term and Amazon became an even more attractive company.
Just because Wall St. rewards a certain type of behavior doesn't mean that that behavior is good for the business.
In my opinion, defending what TWDC/TDO has done with regards to WDW over the past 10 years is the embodiment of Rizzo's "They're tourists... Whadda they know?". P&R have been generating an unprecedented amount of money for TWDC in recent years. Annual profit from P&R since 2010:
2010 - $1.3 billion
2011 - $1.5 billion
2012 - $1.9 billion
2013 - $2.2 billion
2014 - $2.7 billion
2015 - $3.0 billion
2016 - $3.3 billion
That's $15.9 billion in profits in the past 7 years from Parks & Resorts. Where has that money gone? One can go look at the charts from @ParentsOf4 and see how much investment has been made in the parks in the Iger era. The last E-ticket was opened in 2005, in AK. Where have their priorities been since Iger took over? TWDC/TDO has known for years that Epcot and DHS have needed massive improvements. Then Universal opened up TWWOHP at IOA in 2010 and then an expansion to USF a few years later (and reportedly for less than $500 million for both). What was Disney's response? The Fantasyland expansion at Magic Kingdom, the park least in need of major CapEx. They knee-jerk announced Pandora in 2011, but here we are, 5+ years later and it's still not open. FP+. Continued non-investment in both of the parks that still desperately need it, unless you consider more festivals at Epcot "investing" in the park. Upcharge events. Higher prices all around. Cuts or, at a minimum, close-and-replace, which is a net-zero-gain for entertainment/attraction count and hourly capacity.
Look, I was as big of a Disney freak as you'd be likely to meet from the 80's thru around 2005. But with age comes wisdom, and reality has a way of cutting thru the marketing BS and PR fluff and shining light on things that may not necessarily want to have light shone upon them. It doesn't mean that I don't still enjoy going to the parks, and we just booked a last-minute Disney Cruise for later this month. But by now we should all know what WDI is capable of producing - Look at Universal this decade if you want some examples. That is what irritates me beyond belief, because instead of what we could have at the parks, we get what The Weatherman© (*cough*Shanghai*cough*) and the pencil pushers and the bean counters will let happen after running the numbers thru their spreadsheets. Don't push the envelope, don't build something that people didn't know they wanted until they experienced it, don't try to reverse the curse they've placed upon WDW's "blessing of size". Play it safe and make as much money as they can while spending as little as possible. They're tourists, whadda they know?
2010 - $1.3 billion
2011 - $1.5 billion
2012 - $1.9 billion
2013 - $2.2 billion
2014 - $2.7 billion
2015 - $3.0 billion
2016 - $3.3 billion
That's $15.9 billion in profits in the past 7 years from Parks & Resorts. Where has that money gone? One can go look at the charts from @ParentsOf4 and see how much investment has been made in the parks in the Iger era. The last E-ticket was opened in 2005, in AK. Where have their priorities been since Iger took over? TWDC/TDO has known for years that Epcot and DHS have needed massive improvements. Then Universal opened up TWWOHP at IOA in 2010 and then an expansion to USF a few years later (and reportedly for less than $500 million for both). What was Disney's response? The Fantasyland expansion at Magic Kingdom, the park least in need of major CapEx. They knee-jerk announced Pandora in 2011, but here we are, 5+ years later and it's still not open. FP+. Continued non-investment in both of the parks that still desperately need it, unless you consider more festivals at Epcot "investing" in the park. Upcharge events. Higher prices all around. Cuts or, at a minimum, close-and-replace, which is a net-zero-gain for entertainment/attraction count and hourly capacity.
Look, I was as big of a Disney freak as you'd be likely to meet from the 80's thru around 2005. But with age comes wisdom, and reality has a way of cutting thru the marketing BS and PR fluff and shining light on things that may not necessarily want to have light shone upon them. It doesn't mean that I don't still enjoy going to the parks, and we just booked a last-minute Disney Cruise for later this month. But by now we should all know what WDI is capable of producing - Look at Universal this decade if you want some examples. That is what irritates me beyond belief, because instead of what we could have at the parks, we get what The Weatherman© (*cough*Shanghai*cough*) and the pencil pushers and the bean counters will let happen after running the numbers thru their spreadsheets. Don't push the envelope, don't build something that people didn't know they wanted until they experienced it, don't try to reverse the curse they've placed upon WDW's "blessing of size". Play it safe and make as much money as they can while spending as little as possible. They're tourists, whadda they know?
RobidaFlats
Well-Known Member
I hate to break it to you, but if you still care enough to post on a WDW forum, you're probably still a Disney freak.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The 90s are over and Walt Disney World is not a mall.
Oh, yes it does. When the team keeps or signs on a sports personality who is... controversial... and very well payed because they are good at the sport, in defense of keeping that person on and overlooking their personal faults, the "it's a business" defense gets trotted out, mostly in the form of "the team is in the business to win!" And very explicitly, the owners justify some truly exorbitant contracts with "it's a business, they're worth the $40 million dollar contract."
That has recently changed.
With regard to "it's a business" -- That shouldn't be used to defend every seemingly bad decision. But it is true. Disney is a business. And sometimes businesses need to make a hard and unpopular decision based on things like, you know, the cost of things. Therefore, when "it's a business" is used, it shouldn't be knee-jerked mocked.
RobidaFlats
Well-Known Member
I don't think those are good examples of the "we're a business" defense that occurs here.
The first is more an example of arguing that private stuff is separate from business stuff. Whether or not that is true or a good argument, it is not analogous to Disney doing or not doing something because "it's a business".
The second isn't a defense of a move because it is a business, not a charity (or something to that effect). Rather, it is merely a justification that the player is worth it because they will drive ticket sales, get us to the playoffs, etc. If you removed the "it's a business" from the beginning of your quote, the effect would be the same. That would be more in line with "Magic Bands will do X to improve Y" as opposed to "Disney can't spend because they're a business that has to make money". The former is an argument for a specific move while the second is a worthless statement that implies the move is valid merely because "business".
flynnibus
Premium Member
My point is there is more than one way to skin a cat. Chasing margin above all else.. is not the only way to be successful. Monetizing every possible need is not the only way to success. People have this belief that 'maximum return' is what defines a business and use it as a justification for any decision - that is undeniably WRONG. It is not the only way to run a business. In fact, its typically the way to become labeled as 'evil'.. and people only patronize you out of need or selfishness.
Disney was built upon the idea of do great, and the money will take care of itself. Create greatness, and success will follow. We see it time and time again... when you build champions and wow your customers.. they will keep coming back. They will pay more for the experience vs the alternatives. You will create demand. You do not have to be a charity, you do not need to give the farm away.. but if you do things with a PURPOSE and a grander plan.. you can afford to give up that margin because you will make it back in volume or reduced costs elsewhere.
Disney got to where it was in our culture, in our hearts, and in our bank statements... based on building greatness and champions... not because they improved investor return over a specific time period. And without those champions or product greatness... what last year's investor returns were won't mean JACK when they can't keep projecting them forward.
In my industry we see it time and time again... those who try to win on price.. lose. It's the companies that build champions that win in the long haul. And you do that by making your customers successful and happy.. not by ensuring you've properly sucked them dry on their first encounter.
flynnibus
Premium Member
You'd do great at Walmart.
njDizFan
Well-Known Member
Also I disagree. The true measure of themed entertainment is story. If the story is strong the ride will be a success. The problem I have with existing IP rides is that I go onto the ride with a preconceived notion of what the story is going to be about. It's tied into a 90 minute movie with years of branding and merchandise. And even worse if you look at the more recent IP rides they are simple retellings of the original story. That is the laziest form of storytelling. I want to be surprised, awed and wanting more.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The problem runs deeper than even that. A new franchise attraction is not approved because the attraction has a great story and will make for a great experience. Approval is instead based on box office performance and merchandise sales, metrics not at all related to the final experience. A best selling book does not automatically become a great, blockbuster movie.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately yes, It seems to be the favorite "fall back" when some people lose an argument with the well established members in the forum regarding the state of the parks.
Noone said that, stop with the nosense.
The problem is with many people use "Disney is a Business" argument in a similar way as someone would use Goodwin's Law or any other "finishing" or "conversation ending" techniques.
Aka like forcing a final nail in a coffin when the persons using that excuse ran out of other excuses, opinions or facts.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Isnt that technique as bad as the FIFA claiming they are "not for profit" organization while racking billions in bribery and scandals and the directors ended being ultra rich?
RobidaFlats
Well-Known Member
To be honest, I'm not up on FIFA at all, so I can't speak to it. But in general, the exemptions that sports tend to get from governments are bad news. My opinion only, of course.
njDizFan
Well-Known Member
Just a note. 501(c)3 are also corporations and generating profit is essential to them keeping in business.
Also not for this disucssion
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Given that its Epcot's 35th anniversary this year, does anyone wanna speculate that they'll announce at least some of their prospective "overhaul" plans this year?
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
Maybe at D23? Can anyone confirm that?
There's a strong possibility.
More details were planned to be given at the last fan geek out in November but were pulled at the eleventh hour.
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
Thanks Martin