Chapek's comments - he doesn't want anyone on this board at WDW any more

[Cliff]

There’s more like 50 mil annually in Florida - unofficially…

And there’s not definite numbers…but the price of EVERYTHING they sell has gone up minimum of about 140% in total in the last 20 years. Defenders will say that’s “normal”…but that’s self soothing. Aka “false”.

The more I think about Chapek the more I think he's "financially" correct. Honestly, it's posssible that Magic Kingdom could draw the exact same bottom line finacials in the next 5-10 years...with ZERO new investment money. Disney just needs to focus on getting customer dollar spent at the other 3 parks up to MK's level.

We got no significant "real" parks announcements at D23...because investing in expensive WDW attractions is just not necessary???

Making Blue Sky paintings and saying "what if we..." a dozen times last week costs nothing. But there is no need to green light ANY of that cost if the parks are already jam-packed. (On average)

I dunno....Diisney will only green light stuff if they are desperate to raise park attendance. Today?...Disney is doing the opposite. They dont want "more" guests. They want LESS but "better" guests. And yeah....they have no fear of turning away the complicated "legacy fans".

Us "legacy fans" look at stuff WAY too closely. We pay WAY too much attention. We criticize and complain WAY too much. "Legacy fans" are extremely hard to please...and we dont spend as much as the casual "normie" fans do.

Hmm....wow. Is this true? No....it can't be.

 

[mysto]

Pixie dust is real...you forgot that one.

Say it isn't so, they've cut pixie dust!? I must have missed that announcement at d23.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The more I think about Chapek the more I think he's "financially" correct. Honestly, it's posssible that Magic Kingdom could draw the exact same bottom line finacials in the next 5-10 years...with ZERO new investment money. Disney just needs to focus on getting customer dollar spent at the other 3 parks up to MK's level.

We got no significant "real" parks announcements at D23...because investing in expensive WDW attractions is just not necessary???

Making Blue Sky paintings and saying "what if we..." a dozen times last week costs nothing. But there is no need to green light ANY of that cost if the parks are already jam-packed. (On average)

I dunno....Diisney will only green light stuff if they are desperate to raise park attendance. Today?...Disney is doing the opposite. They dont want "more" guests. They want LESS but "better" guests. And yeah....they have no fear of turning away the complicated "legacy fans".

Us "legacy fans" look at stuff WAY too closely. We pay WAY too much attention. We criticize and complain WAY too much. "Legacy fans" are extremely hard to please...and we dont spend as much as the casual "normie" fans do.

Hmm....wow. Is this true? No....it can't be.

Yes…I believe you are correct. Except the part about an “wanting less”…no.

The key is “blue ocean”…Iger made the mistake of making reference to it a number of years back and he showed their hand. I highly suggest any Disney parks fan read it…it’s “illuminating”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think you spend a lot less than them on admission per day?

Admission is not to generate profit…it’s to cover overhead and open the “gateway” to profits in the parks.

That’s the truth…we need to use it in our favor…and they’re lying when they say it’s a “burden” to them.

B. U. L. L.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Say it isn't so, they've cut pixie dust!? I must have missed that announcement at d23.

….they stopped pumping it directly into the hvac…that’s why you heard boos.

I bet the Anaheim City Council wanted to charge a tax or something?

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

A lot of people say that Disney needs to increase capacity at their resorts, but I don't see it.

The Disney parks aren't at capacity.

They day they fill up constantly with with guests buying full price tickets is the day they need to expand capacity.

Annual passes are a tool to fill in the existing attendance gap and squeeze out some extra revenue by enticing people to visit often and spend some money on food and merch. The fact they still sell passes means they have capacity to spare.

 

[el_super]

We got no significant "real" parks announcements at D23...because investing in expensive WDW attractions is just not necessary???

Correct. I agree.

I dunno....Diisney will only green light stuff if they are desperate to raise park attendance. Today?...Disney is doing the opposite. They dont want "more" guests. They want LESS but "better" guests. And yeah....they have no fear of turning away the complicated "legacy fans".

Us "legacy fans" look at stuff WAY too closely. We pay WAY too much attention. We criticize and complain WAY too much. "Legacy fans" are extremely hard to please...and we dont spend as much as the casual "normie" fans do.

On this part... I disagree. People have read way too much into idea that they want "better" guests and have assumed the worst.

Their focus is on making the experience better. They know in some way they need to start reducing the number of guests in the parks to do that. Shorter lines, less congestion, easier access to experiences.

For far too long Disney felt that growth came in higher attendance and more bodies in the park, without real regard for what that was doing to the overall experience. Sure they added Fastpass as a way to make up for long attraction lines, but the jokes have been out there for years that they needed to add Fastpass to the restaurants and shops and even down to the bathrooms. That was a big sign that things had been out of control.

Disneyland's Project Stardust seems to have been the breaking point. This is the project where Disney invested gobs of cash into eliminating planters, tearing out trees, widening walkways and even tearing out merchandise locations to make room for more people coming in. Somehow I think looking at the dollar figured of accommodating more and more people, and the realization that you are doing this for a group of people that are generally paying less for the experience is what is triggering this. Something needs to change.

Looking at ways to improve the experience, aside from just adding more and more attractions is in their best interest.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A lot of people say that Disney needs to increase capacity at their resorts, but I don't see it.

The Disney parks aren't at capacity.

They day they fill up constantly with with guests buying full price tickets is the day they need to expand capacity.

Annual passes are a tool to fill in the existing attendance gap and squeeze out some extra revenue by enticing people to visit often and spend some money on food and merch. The fact they still sell passes means they have capacity to spare.

They need ride capacity…places to put more of the butts in seats that are already there…

Not “capacity” to add new customers…that ends up costing more overhead.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

On this part... I disagree. People have read way too much into idea that they want "better" guests and have assumed the worst.

Their focus is on making the experience better. They know in some way they need to start reducing the number of guests in the parks to do that. Shorter lines, less congestion, easier access to experiences.

For far too long Disney felt that growth came in higher attendance and more bodies in the park, without real regard for what that was doing to the overall experience. Sure they added Fastpass as a way to make up for long attraction lines, but the jokes have been out there for years that they needed to add Fastpass to the restaurants and shops and even down to the bathrooms. That was a big sign that things had been out of control.

Disneyland's Project Stardust seems to have been the breaking point. This is the project where Disney invested gobs of cash into eliminating planters, tearing out trees, widening walkways and even tearing out merchandise locations to make room for more people coming in. Somehow I think looking at the dollar figured of accommodating more and more people, and the realization that you are doing this for a group of people that are generally paying less for the experience is what is triggering this. Something needs to change.

Looking at ways to improve the experience, aside from just adding more and more attractions is in their best interest.

It is not. At all.

right company, wrong time…they don’t subscribe to that philosophy anymore.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

They need ride capacity…places to put more of the butts in seats that are already there…

Not “capacity” to add new customers…that ends up costing more overhead.

They can also reduce the number of butts by curtailing annual passes, which they have done to a degree with the reservation system, caps on number sold, and pricing.

Not too long ago, when debates over the AP program were really raging, especially at Disneyland, there were so many people going to the parks super frequently and paying almost nothing on a per visit basis.

Annual passes are getting closer to something many people argued they should have been replaced with all along - a discount program for frequent visitors that doesn't give a million+ people unlimited access to the theme parks for next to nothing.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Princess and the Frog did pretty well, and it was cut off a bit by Avatar opening a week or so after its release. I bet it did better than Song of The South.

I understand what you are saying but Splash Mountain was not based on "Song of the South". Some of the familiar music from the movie was used, however, the story line for Splash Mtn. was from..."Uncle Remus the fictional title character and narrator of a collection of African American folktales compiled and adapted by Joel Chandler Harris and published in book form in 1881". The incentive for the movie came from those stories just like Mary Poppins was from a book written by P. L. Travers.

Uncle Remus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[el_super]

It is not. At all.

right company, wrong time…they don’t subscribe to that philosophy anymore.

So why did they spend the money to remove that merchandise location at Disneyland?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

They can also reduce the number of butts by curtailing annual passes, which they have done to a degree with the reservation system, caps on number sold, and pricing.

Not too long ago, when debates over the AP program were really raging, especially at Disneyland, there were so many people going to the parks super frequently and paying almost nothing on a per visit basis.

Annual passes are getting closer to something many people argued they should have been replaced with all along - a discount program for frequent visitors that doesn't give a million+ people unlimited access to the theme parks for next to nothing.

Are we talking about Orlando and annual passes?

They’ve already stopped selling them. That’s not a crowding issue.

If you don’t want Florida resident passes…that’s a more difficult trigger to pull.


I think something will be known about all passes soon. They’re kinda “lingering” and that’s not something they’ll continue

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So why did they spend the money to remove that merchandise location at Disneyland?

Because Iger doesn’t understand star wars and thought episode 7 box office was “legit” for reasons it was not?

Remember “the mobs” were coming?

Have you forgotten what the context of “stardust” was? Hell - it’s ripped from ROGUE 1!!!

 

[flynnibus]

I hate to say this,...but "empty" parks are THE best thing we could hope for. This, of course, would need to be a long term trend. We could hope for a "relatively" light holliday season then move into a light winter and Easter/Spring break month.

You crazy if you take the crowds of the first two weeks of sept as signs of anything.

Instead celebrate there are at least two week periods disney hasn’t managed to ruin line the rest of the calendar.

 

[el_super]

Remember “the mobs” were coming?

Yeah... and they didn't want the experience to be miserable for all those people coming.

You keep trying to paint them in the worst light possible, but yeah, even they understand that sometimes to make money you need to provide a quality product.

They are smarter than you want to give them credit for.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Princess and the Frog did pretty well, and it was cut off a bit by Avatar opening a week or so after its release. I bet it did better than Song of The South.

I disagree, at least if we adjust for inflation.

SothS belonged a very different era of movies. Social norms aside, back then there was no such thing as cable/dvd's. Original releases lasted much longer than they do today. On to of that, Disney movies were re-released multiple times. Song of the South originally premiered in 1946, then was re-leased in 1956 (10th anniversary); in 1972 (50th anniversary of Walt Disney Productions); in 1973; in 1980 (100th anniversary of Harris's classic stories); and in 1986 for the film's 40th anniversary.

So SotS had 6 box office releases. It earned $65million at the box office, but that is not adjusted for inflation. In 1986 alone, it grossed over $17 million at the box office.

PatF grossed $271 million at the box office.

Between 1946-1948 SotS grossed 3.4million . In the 1656, 1972, and 1973 SotS = 44.6 million. In 1986 alone SotS grossed 17million = 33.3million in 2009 dollars.


In1940's box office3.4 million=37.4million in 2009 dollars. The 1986 release = 33.3 million.

If SotS had only earned the remaining 44.6million in 1972 that would be equal to almost 229 million (adjusted for 2009 inflation), but that is too low.

So SotS earned more than the equivalent of 37.4 +229 +33.3 = 299.7 million at the box office. [source: CPI Inflation calculator]

Adjusted for inflation, SotS earned more more at the box office than PatF.

 

[el_super]

Adjusted for inflation, SotS earned more more at the box office than PatF.

So Song of the South grossed slightly more over the course of 40+ years than PatF did in 1?

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

But the comparison on spending isn’t comparing your spending over let’s say the 10 times you visit in a year, versus the spending of a family that visits once a year. It’s your spending over your 10 visits versus the spending of 10 individual family’s all doing their annual or every 5 year trip. Disney thinks it can fill its attendance daily with those types of guests, and those are the guests that’s spend more per visit. As long as they are right and have the steady supply of those customers, their marketing strategy is correct

You'd really have to run the numbers. The AP holders might eat signature dining (Cali Grill and the like) every night including wine, plus buy lots of collectables. It is very likely the frequently flyers who even know about all the cool collectables.

The once in a lifetimer probably sets a budget before the trip, and is far more inclined to nickel and dime their visit as low as possible. They likely don't even know they can dine in the castle or spend $500 on a Disney pocketbook. They CERTAINLY aren't going to spend all day in line for a $20 plastic popcorn bucket. Odds are high, they see no value in staying onsite, or if they do, they are likely to choose the least expensive hotel, maybe a moderate.

I know people who go to WDW for events, like sporting events, and they don't eat any $50/pp breakfast buffets. They think that is absurd. Instead, they spend a total of $10/day on groceries and make breakfast in the hotel room. (cereal, fruit, granola bars) For dinner, they maybe get carry out, usually from an offsite pizza place or something along those lines.

I'm inclined to think the WDW sweet spot is the folks who are somewhere in the middle. People who have waited 90minutes for attractions, know the appeal of character meals, collectables, and get excited to see rare characters during the parties. The people who pay for something like firework dessert parties are the people who already know what that is, and why they want to have a seat during the MK fireworks.

 

[el_super]

The once in a lifetimer probably sets a budet before the trip

This isn't just about the family that has to save up just to come once in their life though... this is about taking people who are not fans and not regular visitors and convincing them to visit more often.

That theoretical family from Denver, that maybe hasn't been before, might just be turned off from visiting again if the requirements for trip planning are so strenuous, the lines for the bathrooms so long, and the general feel of the place is crowded and unwelcoming.

You only get one try to make a first impression.