On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

[Tom P.]

It's not the United States. It's "The States". You are from "The states". People in Europe seem to know all the states so you can actually tell them what state you are from and they will know where it is. Most of us United Statesians are really bad at geography or we just don't care about the rest of the world.

"The States" is a place, though. I'm talking about how to refer to the people. Americans is a widely used, widely understood description for people who live in the United States. I can't think of an equally succinct and easily understood word that would include people from the United States but not from other American nations.

 

[Ldno]

LIke for example yes they are Taught North America Is Mexico/US/Canada, but growing up in central america is easier to say North American and it means north of Mexico, since they like to genelarize the rest as “Latin” America, BUT with that said everyone just says gringos or North Americans, it’s easier to say I’m from such and such country, i.e Colombia, Guatamelan, Than American as a whole.

 

[larryz]

Football vs. soccer is a much simpler conversation.

Americans are right. Europeans are wrong. That's just fact.

LOL Europeans? To be more specific the US is wrong, the rest of the Americas (Central, South) and Europe are Right LOL

Well, if you want to name the sport based on how it's played, what we Americans call "football" should have been named "Carryball" or "Throwball." It's only Soccer that has the "no-hands rule," making it the truer representation of "football" (or futbol).

 

[celluloid]

But also note, when Magic Kingdom opened there were no Mountains, only rides were

Railroad, Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, Hall of Presidents, Small World, Snow White, Mr. Toads, Carousel, Dumbo, Tea Party, Skyway and Grand Prix Speedway. The Contemporary, Poly and Fort Wilderness also opened.

They opened the a Riverboat, Peter Pan and 20,000 Leagues three months later

Some of those were E tickets of the time though. Not to mention a Steam Train around the park, an an entire infastructure including Utilidoors, manmade lakes transportation and support.

 

[Miss Bella]

"The States" is a place, though. I'm talking about how to refer to the people. Americans is a widely used, widely understood description for people who live in the United States. I can't think of an equally succinct and easily understood word that would include people from the United States but not from other American nations.

I agree. Aren’ we the only country that has America in our name like Unites States of America. I think we get to claim it. I was just pointed out that when in Europe they will ask if you’re from the states not United States.

 

[flynnibus]

Not sure zooming in on 1971 helps put things into perspective. Maybe zoom out to see all that Disney had gotten into during the 1950s and 60s: diversification in film and television (live-action, distributing their own films, comics, etc.) educational initiatives/materials, several major corporate (and governmental) partnerships, technology developments (with patents and licensing), in addition to the merchandise, etc.

the problem is you are looking at a Disney history lesson and looking at this as if it were all some expansion... as if the company was doing everything it had and was growing.
Most of that was the company SHIFTING.

the post war era was a change in the markets. Shorts were going away...labor changes made animation less practical so Disney got into live action. Disney got into tv and documentaries but was mothballing other stuff. What people see today as diversity into new fields was actually Disney scrambling to find viable new products as their prior stable burned.

disney was not a studio on the scale of the Hollywood peers.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

the problem is you are looking at a Disney history lesson and looking at this as if it were all some expansion... as if the company was doing everything it had and was growing.
Most of that was the company SHIFTING.

the post war era was a change in the markets. Shorts were going away...labor changes made animation less practical so Disney got into live action. Disney got into tv and documentaries but was mothballing other stuff. What people see today as diversity into new fields was actually Disney scrambling to find viable new products as their prior stable burned.

disney was not a studio on the scale of the Hollywood peers.

“Walt Disney: An American Original” by Bob Thomas, available from your local bookseller, library or Amazon.

 

[_caleb]

the problem is you are looking at a Disney history lesson and looking at this as if it were all some expansion... as if the company was doing everything it had and was growing.
Most of that was the company SHIFTING.

the post war era was a change in the markets. Shorts were going away...labor changes made animation less practical so Disney got into live action. Disney got into tv and documentaries but was mothballing other stuff. What people see today as diversity into new fields was actually Disney scrambling to find viable new products as their prior stable burned.

disney was not a studio on the scale of the Hollywood peers.

“Walt Disney: An American Original” by Bob Thomas, available from your local bookseller, library or Amazon.

Thanks for the perspective. I’ll read more on the history of the company. I’ve read the Thomas book (though I will admit to having bought it for the cover), and I’m familiar with the ups and downs Disney experienced over the years.

But the 1968 market capitalization was around $500 million and went up to $1 billion on Jan. 20, 1970. While this would not have put Disney in the same scale of other Hollywood studios, it doesn’t seem to be accurate to paint Disney in 1970 as the scrappy little animation studio it was in the 30s and 40s (or even upon its IPO in 1957), as @Prog seemed to be doing.

 

[BrianLo]

I know that's adjusting for general inflation, but it's doubtful Disney could build something comparable for that much today.

They definitely have a spending issue. But some of it is incomparable, due to general wage increases in the respective fields with the rise of competitors.

Just like how animated costs skyrocketed with Dreamworks arrival to the scene. Yes even that area overspends, but some of the production increase justifiably had to do with Animators previously being severely underpaid.

The company achieved a lot on the backs of underpaying people for decades. I mean they still do...

 

[_caleb]

They definitely have a spending issue. But some of it is incomparable, due to general wage increases in the respective fields with the rise of competitors.

Just like how animated costs skyrocketed with Dreamworks arrival to the scene. Yes even that area overspends, but some of the production increase justifiably had to do with Animators previously being severely underpaid.

The company achieved a lot on the backs of underpaying people for decades. I mean they still do...

If Disney is just really bad at overspending (I guess they’d be GOOD at overspending), shouldn’t there be a lot more serious competitors to Disney parks (besides Universal)? I know some folks around here are big fans of regional parks, but if the problem is that Disney is bloated and micromanagey, wouldn’t there be an opportunity for someone else to do it better?

 

[BrianLo]

If Disney is just really bad at overspending (I guess they’d be GOOD at overspending), shouldn’t there be a lot more serious competitors to Disney parks (besides Universal)? I know some folks around here are big fans of regional parks, but if the problem is that Disney is bloated and micromanagey, wouldn’t there be an opportunity for someone else to do it better?

Probably because they already achieved a domestic monopoly (or duopoly) prior to their spending getting out of control. Nothing regional can compete because they can neither hit the same attendance levels or charge the same sort of premiums.

There are a few one-off examples though elsewhere. Efteling and Europa Park are managing to build Disney-ish level attractions for a very small fraction, but they are already well established.

I don't want to say the domestic market is saturated, but it is incredibly unlikely to produce another Disney/Universal. That's more likely to rise out of more under-served markets like China and then move in domestically.

 

[_caleb]

Probably because they already achieved a domestic monopoly (or duopoly) prior to their spending getting out of control. Nothing regional can compete because they can neither hit the same attendance levels or charge the same sort of premiums.

There are a few one-off examples though elsewhere. Efteling and Europa Park are managing to build Disney-ish level attractions for a very small fraction, but they are already well established.

I don't want to say the domestic market is saturated, but it is incredibly unlikely to produce another Disney/Universal. That's more likely to rise out of more under-served markets like China and then move in domestically.

Other than Non-compete contracts, seems strange we haven’t seen (former) Imagineers spin up smaller, single-land regional parks that might fill in some of the gaps.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Other than Non-compete contracts, seems strange we haven’t seen (former) Imagineers spin up smaller, single-land regional parks that might fill in some of the gaps.

Like Evermore? Former Imagineers work on a whole variety of projects. They’re not necessarily starting them but that makes sense as they’re not operators.

 

[_caleb]

Like Evermore? Former Imagineers work on a whole variety of projects. They’re not necessarily starting them but that makes sense as they’re not operators.

Thanks! I had never heard of Evermore. Looks interesting. And yes, like just the sort of thing I was asking about.

In the tech world, lots of designers and developers spin off their own companies by partnering with people who can provide the business savvy. This is especially true if they disagree with the direction the original company was taking or if they think there’s money to be made turning a project into a business. Maybe it happens more than I’m aware of, but I don’t hear about this a lot with former Disney Imagineers/CMs.

I do know one former Imagineer who now designs and builds campuses for churches.

 

[JoeCamel]

Thanks! I had never heard of Evermore. Looks interesting. And yes, like just the sort of thing I was asking about.

In the tech world, lots of designers and developers spin off their own companies by partnering with people who can provide the business savvy. This is especially true if they disagree with the direction the original company was taking or if they think there’s money to be made turning a project into a business. Maybe it happens more than I’m aware of, but I don’t hear about this a lot with former Disney Imagineers/CMs.

I do know one former Imagineer who now designs and builds campuses for churches.

Many put their talents to work outside the park realm. Design rules all and can be very powerful if used correctly, not just in theme parks

SottoStudios/LA — collection

Sottostudios is the only experiential design agency for marketing, brand, themed entertainment, pop-up retail, and exhibition.

www.sottostudios.com

 

[lazyboy97o]

Thanks! I had never heard of Evermore. Looks interesting. And yes, like just the sort of thing I was asking about.

In the tech world, lots of designers and developers spin off their own companies by partnering with people who can provide the business savvy. This is especially true if they disagree with the direction the original company was taking or if they think there’s money to be made turning a project into a business. Maybe it happens more than I’m aware of, but I don’t hear about this a lot with former Disney Imagineers/CMs.

I do know one former Imagineer who now designs and builds campuses for churches.

Imagineering is a lot bigger than Disney typically portrays. Many work on a project basis, so they’re only there for a few years before moving on to another project elsewhere. Some do start their own firms or get into consulting. For awhile you could hire the Kirk Brothers, creative leads on Tokyo DisneySEA, to do design work for you.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Imagineering is a lot bigger than Disney typically portrays. Many work on a project basis, so they’re only there for a few years before moving on to another project elsewhere. Some do start their own firms or get into consulting. For awhile you could hire the Kirk Brothers, creative leads on Tokyo DisneySEA, to do design work for you.

┏┓
┃┃╱╲ in this
┃╱╱╲╲ house
╱╱╭╮╲╲ we
▔▏┗┛▕▔ stan
╱▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔╲
the Kirk Bros
╱╱┏┳┓╭╮┏┳┓ ╲╲ ▔▏┗┻┛┃┃┗┻┛▕▔

 

[maxairmike]

If Disney is just really bad at overspending (I guess they’d be GOOD at overspending), shouldn’t there be a lot more serious competitors to Disney parks (besides Universal)? I know some folks around here are big fans of regional parks, but if the problem is that Disney is bloated and micromanagey, wouldn’t there be an opportunity for someone else to do it better?

Besides the great explanation @BrianLo gave, it's also that the Disney Parks are wrapped up in everything that makes the Walt Disney Company the force that it is. Other parks can't have Mickey, Aladdin, Lion King, etc. Yes, they can make their own versions, but the style and character of the Disney interpretations of public domain stories are the definitive versions of these stories for at least a few more generations. Plus, to further @BrianLo's point, just look at Hard Rock Park. There's not really room anymore for a brand new, large scale park on the regional level, let alone the national level, and the time it would take to establish ongoing marketshare while eating losses (or insignificant profits) is beyond the appetite of anyone fronting money these days. The economic reasons you cite aren't really applicable, at least in any kind of near to intermediate timeline, to the "reason" Disney is successful. Looking out another 10-20 years...because of COVID, I think it's possible you might see some kind of more tangible negative impact; otherwise I think if there were any tangible economic impacts due to the reasons you gave, it would be more in the range of 30-40 years out.

 

[_caleb]

Probably because they already achieved a domestic monopoly (or duopoly) prior to their spending getting out of control. Nothing regional can compete because they can neither hit the same attendance levels or charge the same sort of premiums.

There are a few one-off examples though elsewhere. Efteling and Europa Park are managing to build Disney-ish level attractions for a very small fraction, but they are already well established.

I don't want to say the domestic market is saturated, but it is incredibly unlikely to produce another Disney/Universal. That's more likely to rise out of more under-served markets like China and then move in domestically.

Besides the great explanation @BrianLo gave, it's also that the Disney Parks are wrapped up in everything that makes the Walt Disney Company the force that it is. Other parks can't have Mickey, Aladdin, Lion King, etc. Yes, they can make their own versions, but the style and character of the Disney interpretations of public domain stories are the definitive versions of these stories for at least a few more generations. Plus, to further @BrianLo's point, just look at Hard Rock Park. There's not really room anymore for a brand new, large scale park on the regional level, let alone the national level, and the time it would take to establish ongoing marketshare while eating losses (or insignificant profits) is beyond the appetite of anyone fronting money these days. The economic reasons you cite aren't really applicable, at least in any kind of near to intermediate timeline, to the "reason" Disney is successful. Looking out another 10-20 years...because of COVID, I think it's possible you might see some kind of more tangible negative impact; otherwise I think if there were any tangible economic impacts due to the reasons you gave, it would be more in the range of 30-40 years out.

Great input. Thanks!

Somewhere, I remember seeing an article about Great Wolf Lodge (or maybe it was those Legoland Discovery Centers) essentially pushing American families’ first Disney trip to 2 years later (in terms of children’s ages) than before. And in my opinion, neither of those is very high on the quality scale.

Seems like regional parks pretty much live off the crumbs that fall from Disney’s table. But I could see something slotting in between, say, a Six Flags/Cedar Fair park and WDW that would draw in families and make them shift what might have been an annual Disney/Universal trip to every other year. Maybe I’ll reach out to a Saudi prince to raise $500M, hire a couple former Imagineers and furloughed CMs and see what we can come up with.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Great input. Thanks!

Somewhere, I remember seeing an article about Great Wolf Lodge (or maybe it was those Legoland Discovery Centers) essentially pushing American families’ first Disney trip to 2 years later (in terms of children’s ages) than before. And in my opinion, neither of those is very high on the quality scale.

Seems like regional parks pretty much live off the crumbs that fall from Disney’s table. But I could see something slotting in between, say, a Six Flags/Cedar Fair park and WDW that would draw in families and make them shift what might have been an annual Disney/Universal trip to every other year. Maybe I’ll reach out to a Saudi prince to raise $500M, hire a couple former Imagineers and furloughed CMs and see what we can come up with.

Even without Disney’s bloat, $500 million is not that much. You’d probably want a cool billion... or two.