Trackmaster
Well-Known Member
Exactly. People need to hold them accountable, and not eat the overpriced in park food until they start investing in the attractions and not the stuff that you have to spend money on and can get anywhere.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Parks are Taking a Back Seat?
- Thread starter Michael T
- Start date
Exactly. People need to hold them accountable, and not eat the overpriced in park food until they start investing in the attractions and not the stuff that you have to spend money on and can get anywhere.
That's funny -- Amazon (and a lot of other people) sure think they've been turning profits...
It’s true: Amazon has been profitable for nearly two years, even without AWS cloud windfall
Amazon has compiled a run of record profits over the last few years. There's a perception that the highly profitable, market-leading Amazon Web Services
www.geekwire.com
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19218416/acastro_190920_1777_amazon_0002.0.jpg)
Amazon doubled its profit during a pandemic
Despite economic turmoil, Amazon profited immensely
www.theverge.com
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-1248364818-d6f6d28199d740a4a1e87b6009099772.jpg)
How Amazon Makes Money
Amazon’s biggest source of revenue is e-commerce, but cloud services currently generates the bulk of the company’s operating income.
Amazon has already had its most profitable year ever, and just set a record for sales in a quarter
Amazon.com Inc. reported record quarterly sales Thursday and has already reached a record profit total in 2020 amid ramped up pandemic spending, and it still...
www.marketwatch.com
Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
As I predicted, Disney+ is a serious business and the future of Disney content distribution. It’s a massive part of their company, particularly now.
The parks will always be a “bad” business for investors because they require a tremendous amount of money to run, need maintenance, and always have capital expenditures to keep people interested.
Markets love “service revenue” because its repeatable, consistent, and higher margin.
I believe Disney+ to be worth as much as all of Netflix, particularly with future subscriber growth potentially passing Netflix and the ability to increase prices.
Parks will always be a part of the “circle,” but the future or Disney is in streaming their content. After all, Disney is a content company.
The parks will always be a “bad” business for investors because they require a tremendous amount of money to run, need maintenance, and always have capital expenditures to keep people interested.
Markets love “service revenue” because its repeatable, consistent, and higher margin.
I believe Disney+ to be worth as much as all of Netflix, particularly with future subscriber growth potentially passing Netflix and the ability to increase prices.
Parks will always be a part of the “circle,” but the future or Disney is in streaming their content. After all, Disney is a content company.
Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
Facebook and Google are 2 of the most profitable companies in the world. In fact, only companies more profitable than Google are Apple and Microsoft.
You are correct that early profitability of Disney+ literally doesn’t matter. It will be hugely profitable in time.
Profitability during growth phases is not a factor. Look at Tesla, which is a better example of your point. Netflix early on, same thing. Netflix still isn’t very profitable....which I believe is becoming a problem. Eventually, you have to show the goods. Disney+ is FAR from having to do that to satisfy investors. Now, it’s grow that subscriber count. And they are doing that.
Was this a new subscription or did you upgrade to the yearly membership? What was the reason for your signing up?
WondersOfLife
Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I was on my sister's plan but they needed more devices so I got my own yearly subscription.
The reason? It's easier to watch any and all Disney that I want to on demand than constantly buying DVDs to pop in the player... Plus I keep discovering older movies and tv shows I had never watched before that I find myself getting into! It's genius, honestly. I don't know why Disney didn't do it a lot sooner.
ppete1975
Well-Known Member
What i liked about Eisner that we havent seen outside of Walt is he tried to be the face. Eisner was on every special, every intro to a tv movie (like walt did). It made you feel closer to Disney, now it feels more like a company. Not sure if that makes sense but i would love a more public figure head that gave you that family vibe.. as you welcome him into your home. And bring back the specials, you own abc. Make a ratatouille special with special guests. Ill never forget the living seas special, thats the kind of publicity that makes people want to visit.
sorry that became a rant
Trackmaster
Well-Known Member
That's funny -- Amazon (and a lot of other people) sure think they've been turning profits...
It’s true: Amazon has been profitable for nearly two years, even without AWS cloud windfall
Amazon has compiled a run of record profits over the last few years. There's a perception that the highly profitable, market-leading Amazon Web ServicesAmazon doubled its profit during a pandemic
Despite economic turmoil, Amazon profited immenselyHow Amazon Makes Money
Amazon’s biggest source of revenue is e-commerce, but cloud services currently generates the bulk of the company’s operating income.www.investopedia.com
Amazon has already had its most profitable year ever, and just set a record for sales in a quarter
Amazon.com Inc. reported record quarterly sales Thursday and has already reached a record profit total in 2020 amid ramped up pandemic spending, and it still...
Very low profits for what their valuation shows. Those articles actually support my point. I may been exaggerating a little to get a point across, but the concept is that with tech companies the goal isn't to turn a profit, its to get rounds of investments and pump up your valuation.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I felt the opposite. Only Walt could be Walt and Eisner's face showing up was annoying to me. All I could think of was that he thought he was Walt's equal and my connection with Mr. Disney went to far back to see that as acceptable. However, I guess that is a personal thing and everyone has there own. I didn't complain about it because I did feel that it was just my interpretation. I didn't really have a problem with Eisner until the last 5 years or so, but I wasn't knowledgeable enough about Disney and the Parks to really know if he was any good or not. Since then I have read up on it and I can see that he declined when he didn't have his right hand man Frank Wells to lean on.
ppete1975
Well-Known Member
can i roughly know your age? I only say that cause im 45 so i was 9 when he took over. Walt was long dead (i remember seeing his introductions for some disney stuff...im assuming they just reran those shows when i was little) but since i was so young eisner didnt have the same effect on me as it sounds like it did on you. Im assuming you might be 10-20 years older than me (not trying to be rude), and i can certainly see if you grew up with walt that it would seem like a wanna be and not very genuine.
Like you i didnt understand as much about disney history till the last 5-7 years after my 2013 trip is what rehooked me.
1. Disney parks is indeed taking a back seat to all of Disney's streaming services precisely because Iger and Chapek have been saying so for the past two years. So... yes. They not only admit it, they boast about it. Home streaming is going to be a huge, huge, huge industry, and Disney wants to be the forefront of it. The main focus of the company is on streaming.
2. The lack of parks at the Disney Investor web event is not at all an indicator of the parks are forgotten because Investor Days are not about all the segments of the company. Yeah, I know... that makes "Investor Day" a misnomer. The Investor Day in 2014 was about ESPN. The two Investor Days in 2019 and 2020 were just about streaming. Anyone expecting the parks to get mentioned didn't read the press release of what was going to happen. It was just about the streaming.
3. Parks aren't forgotten.
2. The lack of parks at the Disney Investor web event is not at all an indicator of the parks are forgotten because Investor Days are not about all the segments of the company. Yeah, I know... that makes "Investor Day" a misnomer. The Investor Day in 2014 was about ESPN. The two Investor Days in 2019 and 2020 were just about streaming. Anyone expecting the parks to get mentioned didn't read the press release of what was going to happen. It was just about the streaming.
3. Parks aren't forgotten.
- So many expensive projects that could have been kept on hold indefinitely were only paused and have now restarted. Disney is holding back some projects just so they can have something to advertise a 'return to parks' drive.
- If you wanted Disney to mention the parks on Investor Day, then you should have paid attention to the recent D23 web event which had plenty of park news, or, the quarterly webcasts which always mention how the parks are doing financially.
You are completely correct. It is just a shame the people here don't know the truth. Listen to Comcast's quarterly conference calls, there are hardly any questions about their parks. Comcast is a cable company. Disney is a media company. The parks make a nice profit and are growing slowly. The company cares about the parks but the future profits will be from streaming. We should be happy because those billions on profits will provide the capital to invest more in the parks.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I'll be 73 next year. To be fair I never even started to pay attention to detail until I was about 35, but I had a massive Disney obsession for about 20 years after until I got older and still like it but, in a much more tempered way. I did spend many a late afternoon laying on my belly on the floor eating a fluffernutter and watching the original Mickey Mouse Club and my sweet Annette exploring the brand new Disneyland.
Last edited:
ppete1975
Well-Known Member
Im really glad you commented. When ive always thought about Eisner i have never contemplated what people who grew up with Walt must have thought. Totally opened my eyes to a new way of thinking.
Have a wonderful holiday season
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
In the beginning Eisner basically saved Disney from being cut up and sold for scrap. He and Frank were hero's as they embarked on the Disney Decade. He was responsible for saving it during that time. Then Frank was killed in a plane accident and he lost his anchor and calming influence. Then he went a little bit crazy. But his constant appearing to want to convince us that he was Walt's reincarnation was sacrilege to many of us. Walt created it, Eisner just took over and he did get more involved with the Parks but at the time there wasn't a lot more to Disney other than the parks and animation. At least for most of the public.Im really glad you commented. When ive always thought about Eisner i have never contemplated what people who grew up with Walt must have thought. Totally opened my eyes to a new way of thinking.
Have a wonderful holiday season
FTFY
Rlandrigan
Active Member
Those companies only don't record profits because they have good tax teams - they make money hand over fist. Disney + will likely always be run as a break-even or at a loss on paper, but it is the heart of the company's growth strategy for the future - it makes money. Lots of money.
Trackmaster
Well-Known Member
I don't think that Disney+ is necessarily a threat to Disney Parks. Disney+ may be doing great, but it doesn't mean that Disney is just going to sell all of their land and divest themselves of the parks. If Disney+ became the cashcow, the parks would still be valuable for cross marketing purposes and promoting Disney+. Plus, if they're still making some money on the parks, why not keep them going?
I think that the BIGGEST threat to the parks is this idea that you just want to turn them all into restaurants and shopping with very rides and things to go other than spending money. I don't understand why people pay all this money for a Disney vacation just to go to restaurants and "drink around the world" all day. You can eat and drink anywhere. There are tons of awesome restaurants and bars around the country. You don't need to pay $140 for the right to go to an overpriced restaurant.
As long as Disney executives see themselves as running an entertainment company, the parks are safe. If they decide, however, they're running a media/content provider company, all park bets are off.
Theme parks, hotels, transporation systems and food service networks are not core competencies of media/content providers.
Theme parks, hotels, transporation systems and food service networks are not core competencies of media/content providers.
Trackmaster
Well-Known Member
I kind of see the rides as 3-D+ versions of media/content, so under this scenario an optimistic version might be them focusing more efforts on the rides and attractions in order to cross market the media/content and take it to the full spectrum, and leaving the food, hotel, and transportation up to the guests and Central Florida. Obviously people have to eat, but they can provide counter-serve to get with through the day without having to have sit-down restaurants in every crevasse and corner of the parks and resort.