Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts Tres

[The Empress Lilly]

You have to keep 2 points in mind when discussing Iger et al:

First, the folks running TWDC are really smart businessmen. Nuff said on that.

Second, the folks have absolutely no passion when it comes to the theme parks. Film? TV? They live for that stuff but theme parks are at the bottom of their lists. You want to kill your career in Burbank? Just say that you love the theme parks and take your family there all the time.

Every WDW executive is pretty much expected to take one gold-plated WDW vacation (e.g. 3-bedroom villa at the Grand Floridian, dinner at Victoria & Albert, etc.) at least once in their careers. However, saying that you actually enjoyed it and want to take your family again is tantamount to admitting that you have no taste.

The theme parks originally (and still are) largely targeted for the Plebeians. To be a senior executive at TWDC, you have to act like a Patrician. Every up-and-coming exec knows that, meaning that mid and low-level management quickly learns to treat the theme parks with contempt.

When Eisner joined Disney, he quickly started calling the executives running the theme parks "monkeys" as in "even a monkey could run them". At that time, the theme parks were the only profitable business segment. Eisner, who was completely clueless (as is Iger) when it comes to theme park business, thought the business was easy because the folks running them made it look easy.

What Eisner failed to understand was the folks running the theme parks loved them dearly, visited them often, and constantly were looking for ways to improve "Show". They were forced out in the 1990s and replaced by executives more concerned with saving 0.04 cents per napkin than actually improving show. WDW has declined exactly because those making the most important decisions about it don't believe in the theme parks, don't have any passion for the theme parks, and wish TWDC wasn't in the theme park business.

We need an 'awesome' button next to 'like'!

If I may differ at one point: Walt genuinely loved the parks, as did many of his higher ups. The parks weren't designed for plebeians by them, they were designed by mainstream middle class for mainstream middle class. At worst, one can make the allegation that they were designed by middle aged white men for their own.
I think you are spot on in judging that current management feels the parks are not for them, are below them, are for the plebs.

 

[nytimez]

You have to keep 2 points in mind when discussing Iger et al:

First, the folks running TWDC are really smart businessmen. Nuff said on that.

Second, the folks running TWDC have absolutely no passion when it comes to the theme parks. Film? TV? They live for that stuff but theme parks are at the bottom of their lists. You want to kill your career in Burbank? Just say that you love the theme parks and take your family there all the time.

Every TWDC executive is pretty much expected to take one gold-plated WDW vacation (e.g. 3-bedroom villa at the Grand Floridian, dinner at Victoria & Albert, etc.) at least once in their careers. However, saying that you actually enjoyed it and want to take your family again is tantamount to admitting that you have no taste.

The theme parks originally (and still are) largely targeted for the Plebeians. To be a senior executive at TWDC, you have to act like a Patrician. Every up-and-coming exec knows that, meaning that mid and low-level management quickly learns to treat the theme parks with contempt.

When Eisner joined Disney, he started calling the executives running the theme parks "monkeys" as in "even a monkey could run them". At that time, the theme parks were the only profitable business segment. Eisner, who was completely clueless (as is Iger) when it comes to theme park business, thought the business was easy because the folks running them made it look easy.

What Eisner failed to understand was the folks running the theme parks loved them dearly, visited them often, and constantly were looking for ways to improve "Show". They made it look easy because they loved what they did.

They were forced out in the 1990s and replaced by executives more concerned with saving 0.04 cents per napkin than actually improving Show. WDW has declined exactly because those making the most important decisions about it don't believe in theme parks, don't have any passion for theme parks, and wish TWDC wasn't in the theme park business.

If they still sold bricks outside the MK, I would buy one and have this inscribed on it.

(Yeah, I know it wouldn't fit... it's the thought that counts.)

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

Thank you @ParentsOf4 for trying to steer the convo onto something besides bashing fat people and dead women

 

[lazyboy97o]

What Eisner failed to understand was the folks running the theme parks loved them dearly, visited them often, and constantly were looking for ways to improve "Show". They made it look easy because they loved what they did.


They were forced out in the 1990s and replaced by executives more concerned with saving 0.04 cents per napkin than actually improving Show. WDW has declined exactly because those making the most important decisions about it don't believe in theme parks, don't have any passion for theme parks, and wish TWDC wasn't in the theme park business.

It was not just Eisner. It was everybody but the people in the parks. Even Roy E. Disney has an interview where he essentially states the parks' subordinate status to the films. The crew that followed Roy O. Disney was something special, as they were again willing to throw everything into Walt Disney World and the EPCOT Center.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Unrelated question: what was the One Man's Dream space used for in the original 1989 Studio Tour?

 

[Tim_4]

You have to keep 2 points in mind when discussing Iger et al:

First, the folks running TWDC are really smart businessmen. Nuff said on that.

Second, the folks running TWDC have absolutely no passion when it comes to the theme parks. Film? TV? They live for that stuff but theme parks are at the bottom of their lists. You want to kill your career in Burbank? Just say that you love the theme parks and take your family there all the time.

Every TWDC executive is pretty much expected to take a gold-plated WDW vacation (e.g. 3-bedroom villa at the Grand Floridian, dinner at Victoria & Albert, etc.) at least once in their careers. However, saying that you actually enjoyed it and want to take your family again is tantamount to admitting that you have no taste.

The theme parks originally were and still largely are targeted for the Plebeians. To be a senior executive at TWDC, you have to act like a Patrician. Every up-and-coming exec knows that, meaning that mid and low-level management quickly learns to treat the theme parks with contempt.

When Eisner joined Disney, he started calling the executives running the theme parks "monkeys" as in "even a monkey could run them". At that time, the theme parks were the only profitable business segment. Eisner, who was completely clueless (as is Iger) when it comes to theme park business, thought the business was easy because the folks running them made it look easy.

What Eisner failed to understand was the folks running the theme parks loved them dearly, visited them often, and constantly were looking for ways to improve "Show". They made it look easy because they loved what they did.

They were forced out in the 1990s and replaced by executives more concerned with saving 0.04 cents per napkin than actually improving Show. WDW has declined exactly because those making the most important decisions about it don't believe in theme parks, don't have any passion for theme parks, and wish TWDC wasn't in the theme park business.

Interesting but your logic doesn't hold up.

The general consensus, even among the most negative WDW critics, is that DLR, Cruise Line, and the international parks are still shining examples of Quality, Show, Walt's Vision, and on and on. If senior executives replaced all the gung-ho management with folks concerned about "saving 0.04 center per napkin," then why wouldn't we be seeing a similar decline across the ENTIRE TP&R segment? Surely if Iger "wished TWDC wasn't in the theme park business" they wouldn't have expanded DCA or HKDL, and they DEFINITELY wouldn't be building in Shanghai.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Interesting but your logic doesn't hold up.

The general consensus, even among the most negative WDW critics, is that DLR, Cruise Line, and the international parks are still shining examples of Quality, Show, Walt's Vision, and on and on. If senior executives replaced all the gung-ho management with folks concerned about "saving 0.04 center per napkin," then why wouldn't we be seeing a similar decline across the ENTIRE TP&R segment? Surely if Iger "wished TWDC wasn't in the theme park business" they wouldn't have expanded DCA or HKDL, and they DEFINITELY wouldn't be building in Shanghai.

But they don't view WDW as a growth business in the way any of the examples you listed are.

 

[Tim_4]

But they don't view WDW as a growth business in the way any of the examples you listed are.

He didn't say "executives don't view WDW as a growth business." He said "executives wish TWDC wasn't even in the theme park business."

Honestly, WDW probably ISN'T a growth business at this point. Six-night family-of-four vacations are WDW's bread and butter and a fifth gate or anything along those lines would never drive enough additional revenue to be worth it. Like it or not, growth at WDW will be driven by pricing and room nights. This is just a function of how the average family travels. Regardless, WDW not being in "growth mode" has nothing to do with why they wouldn't be all over maintenance, show, etc as it relates to the other properties.

 

[GoofGoof]

But they don't view WDW as a growth business in the way any of the examples you listed are.

This is the key. WDW is a different animal altogether. WDW is a cluster of resorts with theme parks attached. The rest are theme parks with a few resorts attached. People stay at WDW for longer and use multi-day passes. The economics of WDW are very different than DLR or any of the international parks. Probably a big reason why the current management group seems reluctant to go "all in" on WDW. They have spent some money with FLE and Avatar (soon, maybe???) but that's not nearly enough and I'm not sure they see the business reason to sink billions (which is what is needed) into a resort that they most likely view as a mature business with less room for growth. Not saying I agree with any of that, but it seems to be the current line of thinking.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Interesting but your logic doesn't hold up.

The general consensus, even among the most negative WDW critics, is that DLR, Cruise Line, and the international parks are still shining examples of Quality, Show, Walt's Vision, and on and on. If senior executives replaced all the gung-ho management with folks concerned about "saving 0.04 center per napkin," then why wouldn't we be seeing a similar decline across the ENTIRE TP&R segment? Surely if Iger "wished TWDC wasn't in the theme park business" they wouldn't have expanded DCA or HKDL, and they DEFINITELY wouldn't be building in Shanghai.

1. DLR is Burbank's "local" theme park. You have no idea how embarrassing it was at the country club to have your golfing buddies say to you, "So Ted, Carol took the kids to Disneyland yesterday and told me the park is a mess. What happened?" One of the reasons DLR got fixed was because it was extremely embarrassing for certain execs in Burbank. Did they expect to make money? You bet but ego also was a major factor.
2. Disney execs love cruise ships; they are highly profitable and self-contained. Cruise ship != theme park
3. HKDL is majority-owned by the Hong Kong government. Shanghai Disneyland is majority-owned by the Chinese government. Disney loves theme parks when someone else pays for them.
4. Inside sources suggest TWDC explored selling WDW to the Chinese a few years ago but the financials simply weren't there for a buyer. A lot of capital is tied up in Orlando that Iger would love to spend elsewhere. For a guy with a TV background, I don't blame him. WDW is one of the single most expensive land holdings in the country. He'd reduce TWDC's stake in WDW in a second if he could find the right partner at the right price.

 

[Tim_4]

This is the key. WDW is a different animal altogether. WDW is a cluster of resorts with theme parks attached. The rest are theme parks with a few resorts attached. People stay at WDW for longer and use multi-day passes. The economics of WDW are very different than DLR or any of the international parks. Probably a big reason why the current management group seems reluctant to go "all in" on WDW. They have spent some money with FLE and Avatar (soon, maybe???) but that's not nearly enough and I'm not sure they see the business reason to sink billions (which is what is needed) into a resort that they most likely view as a mature business with less room for growth. Not saying I agree with any of that, but it seems to be the current line of thinking.

Again, that's YOUR point and it's probably a fair one. The post I had responded to that everyone loved was saying that the execs DO NOT want to be in the theme park business at all.

 

[GoofGoof]

He didn't say "executives don't view WDW as a growth business." He said "executives wish TWDC wasn't even in the theme park business."

Honestly, WDW probably ISN'T a growth business at this point. Six-night family-of-four vacations are WDW's bread and butter and a fifth gate or anything along those lines would never drive enough additional revenue to be worth it. Like it or not, growth at WDW will be driven by pricing and room nights. This is just a function of how the average family travels. Regardless, WDW not being in "growth mode" has nothing to do with why they wouldn't be all over maintenance, show, etc as it relates to the other properties.

Agreed. Even if the economics don't make sense for a multi-billion dollar expansion it is still bad business to let maintenance and show quality slip. I think many people blame local management (TDO) for this. Quick and easy cost cutting to improve this years bottom line and of course improve management bonuses. I'm not sure what level of management gets involved in which decisions and sometimes TDO becomes the scapegoat for all things wrong with WDW, but in this case it seems to make some sense being that there is a large disparity in show quality between the East and West coasts.

 

[ParentsOf4]

He didn't say "executives don't view WDW as a growth business." He said "executives wish TWDC wasn't even in the theme park business."

Honestly, WDW probably ISN'T a growth business at this point. Six-night family-of-four vacations are WDW's bread and butter and a fifth gate or anything along those lines would never drive enough additional revenue to be worth it. Like it or not, growth at WDW will be driven by pricing and room nights. This is just a function of how the average family travels. Regardless, WDW not being in "growth mode" has nothing to do with why they wouldn't be all over maintenance, show, etc as it relates to the other properties.

For the amount of capital tied up in WDW, WDW is a horrible growth business.

If you have a segment with poor, single-digit long-term growth opportunities tying up a lot of capital, you look to dump it and invest in something with a better return.

Iger is a very smart businessman with no emotional attachment to the theme parks, especially WDW. He'd love to sell WDW and collect an annual royalty fee if he could. For TWDC, it makes good business sense.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I don't believe anything like that that ever happened. If someone had the stones to tell Bob Iger that his park was sh*t, he'd stare them down and say "f*** you. I'm Bob F***ing Iger. Who the hell are you?"

And Iger would need diapers when the response would be "I am the President of the United States, and with one push of this button, I can have that drone up there take your out, no questions asked. So, want to repeat what you just said?" LoL...

 

[Tim_4]

The issue is not what it's on the books for, the issue is how much could Iger sell it for.

The net proceeds from the sale of WDW would represent a tremendous release of capital for TWDC.

They'd also get reamed on taxes. The cashflow from that transaction wouldn't be nearly as grand as I think you're imagining. Anyone with the kind of cash to make that purchase would ALSO be a "very smart businessman" who would demand a price commensurate with the anticipated slow growth and rate of return, making it basically a $0 NPV proposition for both sides. The only sides who come out ahead in a hypothetical sale of WDW would be Orange and Osceola Counties, the State of Florida, and the Department of the Treasury.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I don't believe anything like that that ever happened. If someone had the stones to tell Bob Iger that his park was sh*t, he'd stare them down and say "f*** you. I'm Bob F***ing Iger. Who the hell are you?" Plus, if the "plebeian" mentality you described is so rampant, I guarantee that Bob's golf buddies hold the same contempt for us "commoners" that he supposedly does.

BTW, I did not intend to mean Bob Iger when I wrote "So Bob, Carol took the kids ..." That was an unfortunate and unintentional slip on my part. Instead, I was using names from the 1969 comedy Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice. However, I assure you that such conversations did take place, although I have no idea if they happened with Iger himself. Sorry for the confusion.

P.S. I also might be dating myself by referencing a 1969 movie. There once was a time when everyone knew what you were talking about when you mentioned the names "Bob and Carol".

P.P.S. I changed the name to "Ted" in my earlier post to avoid further confusion.

 

[Lee]

So.... In layman's terms.... The FUPA popped over the restraint & the rest soon followed?

Well....yeah. That pretty much sums it up. At least that's the theory I'm working under.

And for what it's worth, I'm not bashing or making fun of the poor lady who died. I feel bad for her and her family, and whatnot.
Simple fact is, for some people of certain body sizes/shapes, rollercoaster restraints may not function properly, and in such cases I see nothing wrong with not allowing some people on a ride due to safety reasons. Same with the gentleman who flew out of a coaster due to having no legs. Not all rides are suitable for every guest, it's as simple as that.

 

[John]

I'll go further, taxes on soda and processed foods, the elimination of free refills for soft drinks, ending subsidies for corn, and banning processed foods from being advertised on children's shows to get started.

Yea........litigate and tax us into health.....sure that will work.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Yes.

Like the ones who thought that the eliminated contestants on "Whodunnit?" -- a TV show where people try to solve an ongoing murder mystery and win a cash prize -- were actually being killed off for real by ABC, in some kind of snuff film/reality TV hybrid.

Seriously, are people really getting dumber and more gullible every day? Or is it just the fact that, with the proliferation of Twitter and Facebook and their ilk, we're more aware than we were before of just how many dim bulbs are out there? (Whoever said, "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt" obviously saw the future of social media...)

Twitter makes my brain cry.

 

[englanddg]

Twitter makes my brain cry.

I use twitpic to post my pics of twits.

I'm old...