News Paradise Pier Becoming Pixar Pier

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Not sure exactly, but the Google Earth shots seem to suggest a bit smaller than DCA.

Not too bad. I wonder what a third park would consist of, besides Star Wars or Marvel. The fact that there will be a huge Star Wars/ Marvel presence at DLR proper means that a third park would probably have some Disney/ Pixar IP attractions as well. Which makes you wonder, what would the theme be? Other than A combo of all their hot IP. How do you make Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar and Disney work in any meaningful way that resembles a theme park and avoids being DCA- the remix.
 
D

Deleted member 107043

Remember, theme parks are low on the totem pole.

Are they?

Revenue of the Walt Disney Company in the fiscal year 2017, by operating segment (in billion U.S. dollars)

Capture.PNG


Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193140/revenue-of-the-walt-disney-company-by-operating-segment/
 

smile

Well-Known Member
Are they?

while not debating or disputing, when looking at TWDC revenue, it's always wise to be aware of how much P&R costs to run. it's still the 2nd largest piece of the pie, but it's interesting food for thought.

the figures below are net income (in billions) and percentage of that revenue:
  • MN - 6.902 - 29%
  • P&R - 3.774 - 20%
  • CP - 1.744 - 36%
  • SE - 2.355 - 28%
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
while not debating or disputing, when looking at TWDC revenue, it's always wise to be aware of how much P&R costs to run. it's still the 2nd largest piece of the pie, but it's interesting food for thought.

the figures below are net income (in billions) and percentage of that revenue:
  • MN - 6.902 - 29%
  • P&R - 3.774 - 20%
  • CP - 1.744 - 36%
  • SE - 2.355 - 28%

Are we talking profit here or just revenue? As you said, P&R cost a lot to operate and revenue #s typically don't account for those costs unless I'm mistaken.
 
D

Deleted member 107043

Anyway @Dr. Hans Reinhardt I think my original point stands which is that they can’t possibly have some sort of long term plan for the parks as fast as they are growing. The stuff being built at the parks is all reactionary to the rapid additions in content.

Agreed, however whatever plans they do have likely don't include a 3rd park in Anaheim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

smile

Well-Known Member
Are we talking profit here or just revenue? As you said, P&R cost a lot to operate and revenue #s typically don't account for those costs unless I'm mistaken.

you are mistaken, my friend...
revenue is the money you brought in selling widgets - net income (ie. profit) is the money you have left after deducting all of the costs to produce and sell those widgets
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
you are mistaken, my friend...
revenue is the money you brought in selling widgets - net income (ie. profit) is the money you have left after deducting all of the costs to produce and sell those widgets

Right right, thanks for clarifying! (I clearly was not a business major!) Either way I just mean the revenue #s don't actually give a good indication of how profitable these different lines of business are, right?
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
On the 3rd gate discussion, when the Fox deal is done they have more than enough content to warrant it. But while Toy Story lot has always been slated as the location in Anaheim. Until they find a way to connect it to the rest of the resort in some meaningful way without making guests just walk, it won't happen. And sorry a Peoplemover isn't the answer, no matter how many times we wish and talk about it. So they will have to purchase more land to make that connection happen. And as we know that isn't gonna happen on a large scale basis. So no 3rd gate in Anaheim anytime soon, sorry.

Now if they wanted to build something outside of Anaheim, then the sky's the limit. How about a park somewhere in NorCal? I like that idea....
 
D

Deleted member 107043

Right right, thanks for clarifying! (I clearly was not a business major!) Either way I just mean the revenue #s don't actually give a good indication of how profitable these different lines of business are, right?

They should since according to the Business Dictionary net income is defined as:

The total revenue in an accounting period minus all expenses during the same period. If income taxes and interest are not deducted, it is called operating profit (or loss, as the case may be). Also called earnings, net earnings, or net profit.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/net-income.html
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
They should since according to the Business Dictionary net income is defined as:

The total revenue in an accounting period minus all expenses during the same period. If income taxes and interest are not deducted, it is called operating profit (or loss, as the case may be). Also called earnings, net earnings, or net profit.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/net-income.html

Doh, sorry -- I completely overlooked the part in the post where they said those #s were net income!! I kept referencing that chart from earlier when replying. Should've read more closely :)
 

smile

Well-Known Member
Right right, thanks for clarifying! (I clearly was not a business major!) Either way I just mean the revenue #s don't actually give a good indication of how profitable these different lines of business are, right?

'profitable' can get funky

in the example below, consider that the first company had greater profit, while the second had greater profit margin

company A brought in $100, for every $10 sold, they made $2, so profit was $20
company B brought in $50, for every $10 sold, they made $3, so profit was $15
 
Last edited:

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
D

Deleted member 107043

What is studio compared to media networks? Media is TV and studio is movies? I would have thought movies were the biggest revenue driver!

This is why analysts were sounding the alarm last year when it was apparent that Disney Media's biggest revenue generator, ESPN, was hemorrhaging customers as consumers fled from cable to streaming. The Media division is big now, but just wait until the Fox merger goes through and Disney launches its own streaming service!
 

Suspirian

Well-Known Member
Just an observation:
Like a lot of people here, I have a lot of family, friends and co-workers who enjoy the parks every year or two but aren't super-fans who follow the park news. Every single time (about a dozen at this point) one of them asks me what's new at the parks and I tell them that California Screamin' is being re-themed into the Incredicoaster, the reaction has been exactly the same: A baffled "Whaaaaat??? (pause) Whyyyyy?" :D

Same here lmaooo
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom