That wasn’t the reason MagicBands were created.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Iger’s $17 Billion Walt Disney World Investment
- Thread starter ParentsOf4
- Start date
JD80
Well-Known Member
I like this thread from a detail point of view and I was talking with @TheMaxRebo about this topic the other night. I'm not getting hung up about the actual dollar amount, or inflation or actual CapEx spend over a decade. Like @flynnibus stated, it's more about the statement they made about "doubling" their spend.
There are several big buckets here that money could go in to as far as "new" things that people are not considering. Everyone is talking about for WDW at least:
I think it's safe to say that the whatever number of billions out of the 60 goes to WDW will not just be for rides and attractions. The question is what is the split between Themepark, Hotel, Infrastructure and IT?
There are several big buckets here that money could go in to as far as "new" things that people are not considering. Everyone is talking about for WDW at least:
- New Lands
- New Attractions
- New Shows/Parades
- New DVC/Hotels
- New Restaurants
- New Shops
- Infrastructure and new transportation (i.e. skyliner)
- The next IT projects/infrastructure (i.e. MDE, MB+, Genie/Genie+ etc.)
I think it's safe to say that the whatever number of billions out of the 60 goes to WDW will not just be for rides and attractions. The question is what is the split between Themepark, Hotel, Infrastructure and IT?
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
I can see a Skyliner expansion and new DVCs as much more likely than any DHS expansion over the next ten years.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I'd be curious if Disney views Skyliner as a "success" and "good investment". I don't think we've ever had any insider talk about how well it was received and viewed by the higher ups. Does the presence of that transportation help with costs (fewer buses) to warrant its implementation and/or has it been enough of a "hit" with guests to increase bookings at the serviced resorts?
The response to Skyliner would certainly let us know whether expansion of the system or implementation of a different transportation system might be in the cards someday.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
I think it’s boosted the rack rates for the affected hotels?
RunForestRun
Active Member
Iger is an uncreative Weatherman who can't create, he can only stick an IP sticker on things. I give him no credit for buying other companies. Anybody with half a brain could have done that. Plus his buying has gotten him into hot water thanks to his overreach for Fox. It isn't worth the 70+ billion dollars that he spent.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think the metric that matters is inflating the value of the existing properties less the operational costs. Think about it.. CBR is 1500+ rooms. If you boost the prices $80/night... even at 80%.. that's an extra 2.88 million in revenue a month.. over 34 million a year. Art + pop is another 4800 rooms.. even just using $50/night and same math.. that's another 69+million a year.
I'm curious if its meeting it's operational expectations (vs temp downtimes) and if it's considered reliable enough to be expanded to be a revenue driver to other resorts.
No Name
Well-Known Member
Did I say it was?
flynnibus
Premium Member
If the CBR rates are higher than POR rates... that's not a bad thing. Consolidation at a higher price point? That's desirable.
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
Yeah, obviously they'd prefer higher-priced rooms to sell. But I also, can't imagine they're happy with an entire resort sitting empty lol
If anything, that might convince them to add a new route or improve transportation for all the resorts. The biggest challenge over the next few years is if Disney can turn around the general consensus in Twitterland that WDW resorts are overpriced and that you're better off staying offsite at Universal or elsewhere.
The insinuation was there since all you mentioned was tap-to-pay. Apple Pay was released in 2014 and the first MagicBands were 2013. If tap-to-pay was their primary aim with MagicBands, they definitely could have waited. It wasn't. Their goal with them was 3-fold and tap-to-pay wasn't one of them.
Monster! You just want to see more of those riding in a Skyliner turned to ash from the heat or eaten by alligators if lightning strikes one and it falls into a swampy area.
Yep. Bob loves his DVC cash cow, so expect more.
But, in all seriousness, the biggest question is how much downtime the Skyliner has vs. associated costs when its down - They have to still move people around the resort. The longer the route, the more of a chance for downtime, particularly during stormy months. Then there's also the question of if people are willing to pay a premium on top of an already-inflated room price at other, currently-non-Skyliner resorts. And how to fit additional lines in at the parks. Simple stuff, I'm sure Disney already has it all figured out and is ready to spend billions on new lines all over the resort.
DisneyFanatic12
Well-Known Member
I am sure that tap to pay was a part of the reason. Maybe not THE reason, but certainly a great benefit of rolling it out. When one pays with a magic band or charges their room, it is disassociated from cash. Because of this, there is less of an emotional response to cause one to spend less, and overall, guests spend more. Probably not the reason it was created, but it is certainly one of the reasons it was created.
flynnibus
Premium Member
you change the argument when you insert limiting words like 'primary aim'
This was all covered a decade ago.. using their own hardware gave them control over the lifecycle instead of being at the whim of a 12month consumer electronics lifecycle they didn't control and with a tap to pay model that was still fractured.
Clearly POS integration was a lead use case and driver in the solution... being they invested in EVERY POS TERMINAL on property to make it happen.
That's one of the three reasons.
You could say tap-to-pay was a benefit of MB, but not a goal, per se. They wanted a way to remove the sticker shock of guests seeing money leaving their hands.
True, but they wanted more guest data and more control over ticketing. Tapping at cash registers was a bonus.you change the argument when you insert limiting words like 'primary aim'
This was all covered a decade ago.. using their own hardware gave them control over the lifecycle instead of being at the whim of a 12month consumer electronics lifecycle they didn't control and with a tap to pay model that was still fractured.
Clearly POS integration was a lead use case and driver in the solution... being they invested in EVERY POS TERMINAL on property to make it happen.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Come on man... they spent tens of millions if not into 9 figures to design and replace every single point of sale terminal onsite... plus all the software integration to support it. That's no 'bonus' -- that's a commitment to a path.
This was an intentional targeted piece of the puzzle. The savings on swipe and per transaction fees alone are insane.
Payments was a core piece of the story - one that was an insanely expensive piece to get. Probably even more so than the actual entry system.
No Name
Well-Known Member
I was simply pointing out how early the technology was, and how that lead to it being more expensive but also having more of a unique identity. Apologies if you read anything more into it.
Ridonkulously expensive, no doubt. Looking at the rumored overall price tag, it totally fits. But everything I have ever read was that MB was primarily sold to management as a data-gathering and crowd control tool, and that the payment piece was a nice benefit that they took advantage of. I'm genuinely interested to know if that's true and the "getting away from cash and cards" was an original design goal.
I haven't used a MB to pay for anything in a while. Does it still batch process at the end of the day? I'm presuming it does since it would still show up as one daily charge on your hotel folio.