Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts Tres

[ParentsOf4]

They had no choice but to make a substantial investment in that park because the piecemeal approach was not bringing guests, and their money, in.

Looks like the same is happening now at WDW, DHS in particular.

Good management prevents problems from happening. Poor management manages by crisis.

Given what's happened in relatively recent years at DLR and WDW, you can decide what TWDC's management is like when it comes to the theme parks.

 

[HMF]

What worries me is about DHS and DAK is that they don't think it needs the same level of investment that DCA received.

It depends on what you mean by "Investment". DHS has a strong entry statement with Hollywood Boulevard and Sunset, What requires work is the areas that were initially designed to be back lot/Working Studio areas which I feel need to be themed to the different divisions of the Disney Studios, Lucas, Muppets, Pixar Etc. In terms of investment it is not quite as dramatic as DCA but it can make a world of difference in the overall experience. To put it simply with DCA the entire park had an identity crisis, with DHS only part of the park has an identity crisis.

 

[doctornick]

What worries me is about DHS and DAK is that they don't think it needs the same level of investment that DCA received.

I worry about this as well. I kind of hope that attendance (and length of time in the park/guest spending) are as bad as some on here have suggested because that may be the only thing that motivates Burbank to put a ton of money into the parks. If the attendance numbers are as good as the TEA estimates, then I fear that the motivation from Disney would be to stay the course and not pursue the drastic improvements needed.

I mean, we are already hearing numbers of only $600M for DHS, which is a ton of money, but far less than the $1.2B that DCA got for its makeover. And DHS IMHO needs a lot more work than DCA did (at least DHS needs a lot more rides, which seem to be the most expensive part of any park construction).

 

[WDWFigment]

They had no choice but to make a substantial investment in that park because the piecemeal approach was not bringing guests, and their money, in.

I don't buy that. If that were the case, the Walt Disney Studios Park in Paris wouldn't still suck, and wouldn't currently be continuing the piecemeal approach. Very similar situation there, and a different choice has been made (so far).

We consider it a no-brainer decision because we want to see spending on the parks. I have no doubt that a less aggressive "solution" was on the table for California. Iger chose the extreme makeover. As history has proven, it was the right decision. The big budget expansion was by no means a surefire thing, and had it been less successful, I'm sure there are plenty of investors who would be saying "Iger made a poor choice by going all in on DCA."

There are plenty of ways to knock the Iger regime's decisions with theme parks, but the decision on DCA shouldn't be called a no-brainer simply because we now know the decision was the right one.

 

[GoofGoof]

They had no choice but to make a substantial investment in that park because the piecemeal approach was not bringing guests, and their money, in.

DCA 2.0 would have happened regardless who the CEO was. DCA was an epic disaster that more or less tied TWDC's hands. They really had no choice.

Agreed, and that is where I'm coming from on the broken clock being right twice a day comment. I also think most people would agree that Star Wars Land is in the same boat as what they did with DCA. If built right it will be wildly successful and we'll all be looking back saying Star Wars was a no brainer for the parks. Lets hope its the second time the broken clock is right.

Looks like the same is happening now at WDW, DHS in particular.

I really hope so. Possibilities started to really look up with the big wave of rumors, but until shovel hits dirt I'm not sure how much I'm buying in.

 

[HMF]

We consider it a no-brainer decision because we want to see spending on the parks. I have no doubt that a less aggressive "solution" was on the table for California. Iger chose the extreme makeover. As history has proven, it was the right decision. The big budget expansion was by no means a surefire thing, and had it been less successful, I'm sure there are plenty of investors who would be saying "Iger made a poor choice by going all in on DCA."

There are plenty of ways to knock the Iger regime's decisions with theme parks, but the decision on DCA shouldn't be called a no-brainer simply because we now know the decision was the right one.

It always seemed like a no-brainer for those of us who understand the way the parks work, something many in the financial world who see the whole world in terms of numbers on a paper have difficulty processing and even now are drawing the wrong conclusions from the success of the DCA re-do.

 

[misterID]

I worry about this as well. I kind of hope that attendance (and length of time in the park/guest spending) are as bad as some on here have suggested because that may be the only thing that motivates Burbank to put a ton of money into the parks. If the attendance numbers are as good as the TEA estimates, then I fear that the motivation from Disney would be to stay the course and not pursue the drastic improvements needed.

I mean, we are already hearing numbers of only $600M for DHS, which is a ton of money, but far less than the $1.2B that DCA got for its makeover. And DHS IMHO needs a lot more work than DCA did (at least DHS needs a lot more rides, which seem to be the most expensive part of any park construction).

$600 million? That'll like be one ride when WDI gets through.

 

[flynnibus]

It always seemed like a no-brainer for those of us who understand the way the parks work, something many in the financial world who see the whole world in terms of numbers on a paper have difficulty processing and even now are drawing the wrong conclusions from the success of the DCA re-do.

Well here's the issue.. When you say 'how theme parks work' - to whose metrics of success?

There obviously things that we as fans of theme park design admire, but may not result in the valued forms of 'success' when applied to the mass market that is actually spending money.

There are changes made to dcav2 that weren't simply people being oblivious, but rather things not working to the measure of success they needed.

Like the shops... The latest sb's menu change... I find it hard to believe they would sabbatoge things they saw as working in delivering their targets

 

[Disneyhead'71]

While I mostly agree with you, he did hit a home run with DCA 2.0. I know even a broken clock has the right time twice a day, but it did take stones to authorize that big of a cash outlay during a shaky economy. I'm no Iger fan, but I do give him some credit for at least that move. The studios...that's another story altogether.

They had little choice. All other fixes failed miserably and DCA was sucking the resort flat like Honey Boo Boo and a Capri Sun.

 

[GoofGoof]

They had little choice. All other fixes failed miserably and DCA was sucking the resort flat like Honey Boo Boo and a Capri Sun.

They could have added benches and planters and maybe a themed rest room instead. I still hold firm that if we are going to blame Iger and the board for not spending money at WDW (which we should) then they have to get some credit for spending in Cali even though the ROI was a lot easier to quantify in that project.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I don't buy that. If that were the case, the Walt Disney Studios Park in Paris wouldn't still suck, and wouldn't currently be continuing the piecemeal approach. Very similar situation there, and a different choice has been made (so far).

We consider it a no-brainer decision because we want to see spending on the parks. I have no doubt that a less aggressive "solution" was on the table for California. Iger chose the extreme makeover. As history has proven, it was the right decision. The big budget expansion was by no means a surefire thing, and had it been less successful, I'm sure there are plenty of investors who would be saying "Iger made a poor choice by going all in on DCA."

There are plenty of ways to knock the Iger regime's decisions with theme parks, but the decision on DCA shouldn't be called a no-brainer simply because we now know the decision was the right one.

The less aggressive make-over was simply parts of the plan that was implemented. But they determined that all that PLUS Cars Land was needed. Then Cars Land went 200 Million over budget.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

They could have added benches and planters and maybe a themed rest room instead. I still hold firm that if we are going to blame Iger and the board for not spending money at WDW (which we should) then they have to get some credit for spending in Cali even though the ROI was a lot easier to quantify in that project.

I agree. WDTC is spending money. Just not on their flagship resort that has been coasting for 20 years. You literally have to pay me real money to get me to go onto WDW property. Literally!!!!!!! The fact that people pay ridiculous amounts of hard earned American $$$$$ for the crap TDO has produced over the last 8 years blows me away. WDW faithful must be the "low information" voters that keep electing the American Taliban.

 

[articos]

I'm actually curious to see his political stance on issues given his background. It will directly effect me since he's likely coming back home to NY for governor.

You and me both. I'm told he's explored both CA and NY. I don't know which direction he'll go.

Intelligence really does depend on what ones aptitudes and what they are passionate about. People can have a genius level knowledge of one thing but be completely clueless about other things. Iger came from the world of television that is his specialty, his forte, What he is good at/understands and that is largely why the Television stations are the company's strong point right now. He clearly has no idea or little interest in Theme Parks or a Film Studio especially with making Television Executive Rich Ross Studio Chairman a few years back or putting Finance guys Jay Rasulo and Tom Staggs in charge of theme parks.. Television and films are two very different industries, they have many similarities but they are by no means the same. You can't just get a guy who has been trained to do one thing and expect him to do something else just as competently.

I agree with this, but will add what you stated about who they're listening to and relying on adds more to the picture than their own personal aptitudes. If you have smart, passionate creative business-apt people (or a good team that combines them all) running your businesses and you listen to them, your business flourishes. If you have all finance with no passion, you likely have a problem, no matter how creative or good you are, because you're only being given one side of the picture. None of the the guys in the C-suite have enough time in the day to keep a clear, full picture of their businesses. They have to rely on what they're being told.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

Aquaman>The Big Bang Theory. Seriously, that show is awful.

 

[unkadug]

Aquaman>The Big Bang Theory. Seriously, that show is awful.

BBT is awful????????

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Like @HMF said, it depends on what you mean when you're comparing DCA and DHS/DAK. DHS needs to finish changing its back half from a production facility to a theme park. DAK needs to un-water down its headlining rides (Safari, Everest, Kali and Dinosaur are all worse than on opening day) and fill in expansion pads.

There's some quote that gets thrown around that Walt Disney may or may not have said to the effect of "once you lose someone, you spend twice as much money getting them back". DHS and DAK have some "meh" to them, but DCA was toxic. DCA was uncool. They had been adding things piecemeal to DCA since opening, but it didn't make a dent. Here's my (to the best of my ability) list of the additions to DCA since opening day up through Midway Mania (which was budgeted before the giant makeover):
-Who Wants to Be a Millionaire - Play It! (new build)
-a bug's land (new build)
-Tower of Terror (new build)
-Toy Story Midway Mania
-Aladdin: A Musical Spectacular (new show in existing theater)
-MSEP (old parade brought back, but rehabbed)
-Block Party Bash (new parade)
-Pixar Play Parade (new parade)
-Turtle Talk with Crush
-Monsters, Inc.: Mike and Sulley to the Rescue! (rethemed ride)
-Playhouse Disney - Live on Stage! (new build?)
plus various smaller attractions like your High School Musical stage show things and whatnot

I know some of those specific attractions will draw groans, but if DHS or DAK saw that level of investment over a seven year time period like DCA did, I don't think we would be complaining much about either park.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

I have no doubt that a less aggressive "solution" was on the table for California. Iger chose the extreme makeover.

We got the less aggressive solution. Ask @WDW1974 about the "Phase II" for the DCA makeover that was quietly dropped and he sporadically hints about. They were not going to let DCA 2.0 fail.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

We got the less aggressive solution. Ask @WDW1974 about the "Phase II" for the DCA makeover that was quietly dropped and he sporadically hints about. They were not going to let DCA 2.0 fail.

I am not breathing until I get my Golden State redo complete with a train around Grizzly Peak.

 

[IHeartArt]

Aquaman>The Big Bang Theory. Seriously, that show is awful.

Seconded. This myth about Aquaman being useless and a joke is silly.

 

[WDWFigment]

Phase 2.0 was pretty widely discussed on the Disneyland-centric sites; I'm familiar with it. Just because there was a more aggressive solution doesn't mean what we got wasn't aggressive. Besides, Phase II almost never happens in any Disney project. DCA 2.0 might be the one expansion to buck that trend, as it looks like we're about to get a Phase 2...

If Disney had no other choice with DCA, I'd like to see WDSP explained. Disneyland Resort needed to have draw as a destination resort and its second gate wasn't pulling its weight. Disneyland Resort Paris has even more rooms to fill, and its second gate is an absolute mess that does a worse job pulling its weight. Yet somehow, there is a choice in Paris?

There's a choice in Paris, just as there was a choice in Anaheim. If Iger takes the blame for the failures, he should take credit for the successes, too. DCA 2.0 was a success, and he deserves credit. Not it being dismissed as a no brainer.

It's easy to say X or Y is an easy decision when you're sitting in the peanut gallery judging decisions through the narrow lens of a fan...