News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

_caleb

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
What’s funny is that this uninformed, kook raider who doesn’t know the parks is still 100% right about that parks comment…

He just butchered how he phrased it.

“If you continue to exploit the parks and overcharge while draining the customer pool to make up for mismanagement in other segments…you don’t have a future”

That is the way.
Click to expand...
The plan all along was to live off parks revenue during the pivot to streaming. Spend like there’s no tomorrow to build the base, capture market share, then in 2023, they reduce production costs, raise subscription prices, and circle back to consider the parks strategy.

Peltz doesn’t seem to understand this, but I’m sure you can!
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
_caleb said:
The plan all along was to live off parks revenue during the pivot to streaming. Spend like there’s no tomorrow to build the base, capture market share, then in 2023, they reduce production costs, raise subscription prices, and circle back to consider the parks strategy.

Peltz doesn’t seem to understand this, but I’m sure you can!
Click to expand...
It’s a patently stupid strategy however…with or without a recession (which are inevitable from time to time)

…because there is no evidence of depending on streaming would ever work. None.
And stagnated amusement parks has been a mistake for 120 years…that is documented.

I don’t think everyone could understand This…but I bet you can!

Any other nuggets today? 😎
 
_caleb

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
It’s a patently stupid strategy however…with or without a recession (which are inevitable from time to time)

…because there is no evidence of depending on streaming would ever work. None.
And stagnated amusement parks has been a mistake for 120 years…that is documented.

I don’t think everyone could understand This…but I bet you can!

Any other nuggets today? 😎
Click to expand...
There’s plenty of room for disagreement with the plan, but it seems to be working so far.

The evidence that pushed Disney to pivot was declining theater attendance, increasing costs, and the established trend away from broadcast/linear toward streaming.

What’s the alternative? If the old way is doomed and the new is (according to you) “stupid,” what would you have Disney do?
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
_caleb said:
The plan all along was to live off parks revenue during the pivot to streaming. Spend like there’s no tomorrow to build the base, capture market share, then in 2023, they reduce production costs, raise subscription prices, and circle back to consider the parks strategy.

Peltz doesn’t seem to understand this, but I’m sure you can!
Click to expand...
that was a really stupid plan then


exhibit A - where we are today
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
_caleb said:
There’s plenty of room for disagreement with the plan, but it seems to be working so far.

The evidence that pushed Disney to pivot was declining theater attendance, increasing costs, and the established trend away from broadcast/linear toward streaming.

What’s the alternative? If the old way is doomed and the new is (according to you) “stupid,” what would you have Disney do?
Click to expand...
Working how?

They’re losing huge money on streaming even after far outpacing their projections upfront.

I hope we aren’t gonna say:
1. More people paying alot more.
2. Watching commercials
3. Nobody ever cancels

I’m definitely missing something.

Use small words and explain it to me.



And by the way…they never said that they’d drain parks to pay for stream.

They said they’d lose money first…but that doesn’t matter because nobody would ever reject any product with their brand on it.

I hope you kept your receipts.
 
GhostHost1000

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
_caleb said:
There’s plenty of room for disagreement with the plan, but it seems to be working so far.

The evidence that pushed Disney to pivot was declining theater attendance, increasing costs, and the established trend away from broadcast/linear toward streaming.

What’s the alternative? If the old way is doomed and the new is (according to you) “stupid,” what would you have Disney do?
Click to expand...

forecast and plan various scenarios with some ounce of intelligence.
 
Slpy3270

Slpy3270

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
Ahhhh…I wondered when the “neutral” Hollywood press was gonna chime in…

I assume we don’t need to annotate this?

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Disney Punches Back Against Nelson Peltz, Says Activist Investor “Does Not Understand” Its Business

In a slide deck published Tuesday, the entertainment giant responded point-by-point to Peltz's argument.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
Click to expand...
Hollywood has never been kind to activist investors. When Dan Loeb tried to go after Sony and force them to sell of their film/TV unit (at the time one of the only divisions doing well, aside from PlayStation), George Clooney went on record calling him a threat to the industry.
 
Ayla

Ayla

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
Working how?

They’re losing huge money on streaming even after far outpacing their projections upfront.

I hope we aren’t gonna say:
1. More people paying alot more.
2. Watching commercials
3. Nobody ever cancels

I’m definitely missing something.

Use small words and explain it to me.



And by the way…they never said that they’d drain parks to pay for stream.

They said they’d lose money first…but that doesn’t matter because nobody would ever reject any product with their brand on it.

I hope you kept your receipts.
Click to expand...
What do you think they should do with D+? Dump it? Change the programming?

(I'm not a subscriber, I dumped it after my free year because none of the programming interested me.)
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
GhostHost1000 said:
forecast and plan various scenarios with some ounce of intelligence.
Click to expand...
Using your incredibly profitable domestic parks like an above ground storage tank full of gas was never wise.

“Didn’t they always?”

No…even evil Mike had enough Control to maintain some attachment to value and hold a little in reserve for downturns.

Not Bob though…nope.

His greatest success in parks was his housing crash response policy. It was brilliant. But he didn’t read the results correctly and it’s gonna crush the little man now.
Little…little…non-creative man
 
F

fgmnt

Well-Known Member
Slpy3270 said:
They expect Disney to take a loss on them. No way in hell they'll do that to two of their core businesses (yes, they ARE core businesses no matter what some people say).
Click to expand...
Yeah, we’re talking about people who don’t understand you want the green number to be bigger than the red number.
MisterPenguin said:
If a current member of the BoD ever said that in an interview, they'd be crucified on these boards.
Click to expand...
unless you like to ignore the general vibe of the guy being a crank and hone in on “wanting to spend more on parks”…

If this crypt keeper gets ahold of significant influence, i can guarantee you that not one red cent of capex will be pursued in the parks.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Slpy3270 said:
Hollywood has never been kind to activist investors. When Dan Loeb tried to go after Sony and force them to sell of their film/TV unit (at the time one of the only divisions doing well, aside from PlayStation), George Clooney went on record calling him a threat to the industry.
Click to expand...
Iger tells the Hollywood reporter what to write.
That’s not a new concept. All the pro-Iger/board Leaks for the last 20 years shows up in the Hollywood reporter.
So we DID need the annotation, huh?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom