lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
As @Animaniac93-98 mentioned, the parks are incredibly expensive to operate and expand. More specifically, those huge capital and ongoing expenses go into something (attractions) that generate absolutely no direct revenue. It is also a somewhat volatile industry that definitely has its ups and downs tied to the fluctuations of the economy and can be hit by singular global events like 9/11. Walt Disney World can even be impacted by the economy in places like the U.K. or Brazil. Iger also believed it was a mature market that could not be grown.
The original design behind Euro Disney SCA was to let someone else carry those huge initial costs while Disney reaped licensing and operating fees. This strategy was further refined in China where a government carried those costs and not corporate shareholders who were expecting a return. Around this time Universal also started going crazy with announcing new licensed parks in Singapore, Korea, Dubai and Moscow in addition to their existing licensed park in Japan and half-owned park in Orlando. Universal was paid to design the park, paid licensing fees, a cut of revenues, possibly consulting fees but didn’t have to deal with any of the huge capital or operating costs. It was Comcast who realized there was still money to be made in theme parks.
Do keep this tangentially related to Apple, I doubt Iger would have supported the Apple Store. They too are a bad idea to the “it’s a business” and “we have to do what our competition is doing” crowd. They cost way to much to build, they had way too much staff, have almost no shelf space and let people loiter.
Last edited:
