Then with the company getting rid of Chapek and giving him a $23M good bye gift, the Board got with Iger to come back and then gets a contract extension.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Is attendance really down at WDW this or…
- Thread starter coachb
- Start date
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
He purchased Lucasfilm and flew it into the side of a mountain. Swing and a miss!
EDITED: In my opinion
Last edited:
Dranth
Well-Known Member
If you can make more money by selling something directly to the consumer vs. renting it out to other companies to sell or partner then it makes sense to own it directly. It doesn't work for everything but for a lot of stuff it does.
You bring up Star Wars so let's look at that. Execution aside, as they drove it right into the ground, they still made more money off of it then they ever would have made just trying to partner with Lucas directly. I doubt Disney wanted to steer it directly off a cliff as they could make even more money if it was still doing well but running it into the ground is still more profitable than having to beg Lucas to let you tag along every X number of years when a contract expires all the while hoping someone else doesn't come along and buy it cutting you out.
Companies buying up IP or each other is generally bad for consumers, not the companies.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
ABC/ESPN was probably a bigger acquisition than Pixar, Star Wars, or Marvel -- arguably a bigger acquisition than the three of them combined.
ESPN alone made Disney tremendous amounts of money, and may have been singlehandedly propping up the rest of the company at one point. Even in 2022, when cord cutting was already well into effect, ESPN provided almost $3 billion in operating profit.
Last edited:
If you look at inflation-adjusted box office numbers, 2 of those were released under Iger.
The number of tickets sold, according to Box Office Mojo, is an interesting study.
In regards to ESPN, it is amazing when ESPN had their round of layoffs one of the cast that was laid off was ex Michigan, NBA star Jalen Rose on air personality. He was earning $3M per year at ESPN.
Last edited:
MickeyLuv'r
Well-Known Member
If I'm dining off-property I might do that. Though sending food back to the kitchen is risky.
At WDW, we often have post-meal plans, so a $10 bad vegetable isn't worth missing out on the $$ MVMCP or the 4 G+ passes we stacked.
[We did say something about the plastic in the food, because it was a choking hazard (In case more plastic was served to someone else). Alas, reporting it to our waitperson did not go well. They reacted with hostility and - I think- assumed we had contaminated the food ourselves! The meal just went further downhill from there. As i said, it was so bad, that it was the only time we ate there. It closed a little while later.
The crazy part is, we had the DDP, so the meal was pre-paid. If they had said the meal was 'free,' it would not have mattered; we would have just ended up with unused credits.]
But the above partly shows why Disney's pre-paid, non-refundable policies are part of the current turn-off. It isn't just the high prices.
MickeyLuv'r
Well-Known Member
I've been going to WDW pretty much since it opened.I don’t doubt they serve food that people don’t care for. When I hear “inedible” I think literally inedible though. Like if a restaurant is routinely serving things that are literally not edible because they are so hard, chewy, or contaminated, someone should call the health department.
It’s probably just lingo that I’m not up on though. The Young People these days, they do confuse me with their slang and whatnot.
Mind, I'm sure people posting elsewhere exaggerate. The past few years there has been an explosion of people talking and posting in hyperbole.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Why do these things seem to only negatively impact WDW? Every other park in the world is immune to the changes?
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I can’t remember which version of the restaurant it was - spoodles, etc. but I had the rudest and most hostile server ever at Disney at that location. Was honestly shocked at how bad he was.
I’m not suggesting it was the same server, but probably an issue with management there. Hopefully it’s gotten better with the current name change.
Last edited:
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Is WDW the equivalent of a regional park or is it a world class resort?
MickeyLuv'r
Well-Known Member
I am happy to report, the Trattoria is MUCH better. I dined there earlier this year; the service was outstanding. The food was also decent. It was one of the better meals that visit.
el_super
Well-Known Member
At this point I'm just comparing WDW to DLR. DLR has always charged for resort parking, and never had free transportation to the resort. Somehow removing these things has somehow destroyed the WDW experience but the other parks are just fine?
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Pop Century alone has almost the same number of rooms that Disneyland has in total.
Comparing them is difficult.
It’s certainly affected the occupancy rates hasn’t it?
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
I see the logic in what you're saying, but I'd like to think of multiple parks resulting in a constant raising of the bar, not a race to the bottom. That if one park does something particularly well or has something that is particularly beloved, it serves to inspire the other parks. Not the opposite, that they say "Hey, they live with X, Y, or Z at this park, let's cut it from all the parks."
bwr827
Well-Known Member
Offering a perk and then taking it away is very different from never offering it.
Before the pandemic, many office workers would have been thrilled to be allowed 2 days a week work from home. After enjoying 100% work from home, being asked to return 3 days a week is not going well.
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
Something else we can thank Iger for, Chapek and then the goodbye gift
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. In my opinion never having the perk is better than having the perk and having it taken away.
This is exactly the experience of the old, long time WDW visitor compared to the new WDW visitor.
The old, long time WDW experiences "getting less and paying more" and feels the loss in many things in WDW.
The new WDW visitor does not know any better.
Having said all that, I think WDW will be able to replace all their old, long time WDW visitors with new WDW visitors who don't know any better.
Bob and Josh are counting on that. I don't know how successful it's going to be, though, but maybe they aren't done doing damage to the brand and the parks yet? I mean, they haven't countered a decline in attendance with a commensurate price hike yet, because that always solves the problems they've created.