Should Disney split the parks from the rest of their non park businesses?

[POLY LOVER]

I think many of their issues come from the fact they are part of a mega corporation. The parks are just one piece a a larger entity that has to produce revenue that gets spent on non park segments. If the parks were totally independent would that take the restraints off and allow them to be more creative and update the parks on a more current schedule. I'm tired of hearing about budgets and the parks making up for less profitable segments of Disney corp. now I know I'm going to hear they are separate but we know that's not entirely true.
I would like to see a Disney that is concerned only with the parks.

 

[JIMINYCR]

Never going to happen. A corporation with diverse holdings benefits by using the capital and write offs from each segment to help hold up those parts that need assistance especially in times of uncertainty or loss. Things constantly fluctuate in the business world and although the parks might appear to do better by being separate, they could not stand entirely on their own. In most cases theres more power behind a corporation as it gets more diversified. And you may recall, Disney almost got swallowed up years ago and it took Wells/ Eisners creativity and dealings to get them stabilized.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

While that may be a good idea in theory, I think you have to consider a couple of things...
Right now, the parks are doing well, probably well enough to sustain their own progress, BUT, a downturn in the economy, less guests through the gates, and all progress will come grinding to a BIG halt...

The use of company funds works both ways...while profits from the parks division may be used in the "general fund" for the rest of the company, i.e. ESPN, movies, TV, etc., in an economic downturn i.e. falling attendance, the parks are now able to use funds from the "general fund" for park improvements. If the divisions are split up, that two way street will be gone.

The biggest concern I would have in "spinning" the resorts off into their own entity, is that it would be MUCH easier, IMO, to have a corporate raider come in and take over (or attempt to take over) the resorts division. I know right now, most of the worldwide parks are co-owned with other companies, but I would NEVER want an outside, non Disney voice, dictating what will or will not go on in the US resorts.

 

[Chef Mickey]

I believe it will happen some day.

 

[larryz]

I believe it will happen some day.

It's not hard to speculate on potential trigger events that might cause Disney to sell off/spin off the parks...

 

[Roakor]

I don't think it will change much, they will still be manged by a corporate ceo that cares more about the bottom line then about the parks. Until that changes then nothing else will. About the only thing the parks share with Walt Disney (the man) these days is his name. Walt never really cared about turning a profit with the parks. That was not why he made them. It was the guest experience that came first and foremost. Today what happens in the parks is more about whether or not it will be profitable. The excuses given are "it takes money to do these things, the corporation is in business to make money etc" all valid points and I don't dispute them. But that is the underlying reason as to why the parks today are not what they used to be. They used to be run by Walt not the corporation. Even in the years after his death things were slow to change but once they did and the corporation mentality fully took over, things changed fast.

there are still the basic tenets of what Walt wanted the parks to be but they are more of a thin veil to cover up the corporate machine that is really running things. A corporations primary goal is to make money and that is what will drive anything it does. If they got a CEO that thought of the parks like Walt did then things will change. However its my guess that CEO wouldn't last long as profits will likely suffer and stockholders would not be happy.

 

[tractor tipper]

What little I have read of Disney history Walt wasn't concerned with making profit, that was Roy's job to see that it was possible to do what Walt wanted to do and survive. Would love to have been a fly on the wall for those conversations.

 

[Goofyernmost]

What little I have read of Disney history Walt wasn't concerned with making profit, that was Roy's job to see that it was possible to do what Walt wanted to do and survive. Would love to have been a fly on the wall for those conversations.

Walt wasn't focused on that, but, he also wasn't stupid. Without the profit there would be nothing for him to create or any money to do it with. This idea that he didn't care is totally bogus and an insult to the man. He knew what was needed, and he made many of those decision on his own, but, so he could concentrate on the creative end of things, Roy was a trusted part of the success. According to reports they did have some friction from time to time, but, one would have been nothing without the other and they knew it.

 

[POLY LOVER]

Walt wasn't focused on that, but, he also wasn't stupid. Without the profit there would be nothing for him to create or any money to do it with. This idea that he didn't care is totally bogus and an insult to the man. He knew what was needed, and he made many of those decision on his own, but, so he could concentrate on the creative end of things, Roy was a trusted part of the success. According to reports they did have some friction from time to time, but, one would have been nothing without the other and they knew it.

The creative person never wants to be concerned about costs, budgets, they want to be unrestrained. Then there has to be the financial guy to keep them from putting themselves out of business. When you get the correct balance then you have success. The greatest partners know that they need each other.

 

[Polydweller]

The creative person never wants to be concerned about costs, budgets, they want to be unrestrained. Then there has to be the financial guy to keep them from putting themselves out of business. When you get the correct balance then you have success. The greatest partners know that they need each other.

Don't fool yourself about Walt. Read a little about how he really operated with his actions against his artists, his hard nosed negotiations with several companies to fund and build Disneyland, and his dealings with P.L. Travers. He learned from losing Oswald that to succeed in business you had to be tough. Sure he was creative and left the day to day finances to his brother, but the tough, often times ruthless business person was always there and not far from the fore front. There was less balance than some presume.

 

[Roakor]

My point is not that Walt didn't care about making money, but that when it came to the parks specificly making money was not his top priority. It was not the reason for building them. that is what is different today. today decisions about the parks seem to revolve around what will make the most money and cater to those guest who have lots of money. thats not to say that Walt didn't cater to the wealthy in his parks (club 33) it just wasn't as obvious or as widespread as it is today.

Thats something else that I really dislike, all the preferential treatment to those who have the money to pay. One thing I really liked about WDW in the past was that once you got there you felt everyone was treated equally. Now it has a very visible and well advertised feel that "if you have the money you will be treated special". Want preferred seating with out having to sit in line? no problem $$$. Want us to reduce normal hours for an after hours party with reduced crowds, no problem $$$. Want to cut even more lines then everyone else no problem $$$. want a better parking spot than everyone else no problem $$$. Want to have fewer people in the park so everything isn't so crowded, no problem we will raise the entrance price to control crowds.

Offering something extra for an extra charge is one thing but what Disney is doing is taking things away that used to be free to everyone and offering it only to those who have money to pay for it. All thinly veiled behind a dessert party + preferred seating/viewing, after hours party that cuts back on normal operating hours, or meal + preferred seating/viewing. It may be good business practice but that doesn't mean i have to like it...

 

[Since1976]

I haven't read much about how (or even whether) failures in one arm of the company leads to cutbacks in the others. For example, if Disney Channel were to lose ratings and advertising dollars, would that stop a new ride from being built at Magic Kingdom?

A failure at a particular resort (Disneyland Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong) is more likely to affect the other parks directly.

 

[thomas998]

I think many of their issues come from the fact they are part of a mega corporation. The parks are just one piece a a larger entity that has to produce revenue that gets spent on non park segments. If the parks were totally independent would that take the restraints off and allow them to be more creative and update the parks on a more current schedule. I'm tired of hearing about budgets and the parks making up for less profitable segments of Disney corp. now I know I'm going to hear they are separate but we know that's not entirely true.
I would like to see a Disney that is concerned only with the parks.

It would be a better way to operate all the operating units that are under Disney control... but it wont happen. You have a CEO that gets to say he's CEO of a company with 56 billion in revenue and a 167 billion market cap... The narcissistic nature of CEO's in general says that no CEO wants to lower that those numbers even if it makes the most sense... if for no other reason than he can command a greater salary when he controls a larger company and that's not going to change.

Though I don't think the most sensible way to cut them up is to have the parks as a stand alone. They probably make more sense keeping the parks in the same group that makes content.... but possibly spinning off the ABC, ESPN type assets that aren't a direct fit into what Disney was originally doing would make sense.

 

[JIMINYCR]

Don't fool yourself about Walt. Read a little about how he really operated with his actions against his artists, his hard nosed negotiations with several companies to fund and build Disneyland, and his dealings with P.L. Travers. He learned from losing Oswald that to succeed in business you had to be tough. Sure he was creative and left the day to day finances to his brother, but the tough, often times ruthless business person was always there and not far from the fore front. There was less balance than some presume.

Yes. He was wise in understanding how business works. Walt experienced hardship getting financial backing in the beginning when he was setting up his studio. He saw tough times at various periods in his studios history especially when WWII broke out and movie goers shrank away and as the economy continued to hurt. He had to fight hard negotiations with the war dept and foreign countries to save his company. And he understood the profits that came in from one successful film could bankroll the next project only so far. Many times he did without and mortgaged his own property to the hilt to get available funds.