Spirited Spring Break News, Observations & Thoughts ...

[the.dreamfinder]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/maker-disney-new-lawsuit-asks-697366

 

[Stitchon]

There are ...

Not at TWDC/WDI. Unless he gets caught with a 15-year-old fanboi, he apparently can behave however he wants. I actually was angry enough with his Kippel retweet to take some action behind the scenes, but since Disney employs people who hate me and hate Lee and hate Martin and I can't even recall who else he threatened ... it may well have been Steve (he has on other occasions) it seems he can do whatever he wants. Especially since his M.O. is once he's shot his anger load on Twitter, he simply goes back and makes the Tweets disappear like they never happened before. So either someone screen caps them or they never happened and Disney will always view things like they never happened as long as it is convenient to do so.

This time the excuse, if there is one, will be he was stressed over his wife's labor. My answer to that would be then his should have been at her side and not fighting with fanbois either here or on Twitter.

One look at who Phillip follows on Twitter should be enough for Disney to never want him on property. -shudder-

 

[Cody5242]

Most of those have crazy 'fine print' that basically says it may be OK for a 16 year-old girl to date an 18-year-old college freshman ... but if that 16-year-old wants to date and have relations with the 33-year-old fanboi that lives next door in Mom's basement then he's going to jail unless her parents look the other way.

A TRUE age of consent deal for a 16-year-old would give said individual full rights over their sexual choices and their bodies.

A lot of people still think that Disney Animation and Pixar are the same thing

 

[RSoxNo1]

Just a quibble, but age of consent varies from state to state. In fact, more states have an age of consent of 16 than have one of 18.

Back when the NBA was on strike, Sports Illustrated did a tongue in cheek comparison of the NBA vs. NCAA. My favorite line was this (I probably don't have this exactly correct, but you'll get the gist):
Sweet 16
In the NCAA the Sweet 16 is cause for celebration because it means your team is among the 16 best teams in the country. In the NBA the Sweet 16 is cause for celebration because it's the age of consent in New Jersey.

 

[Darth Sidious]

Hey, some of my responses take time to write, but since you asked ...

WDW has never been cheap. However, it’s much more expensive than it once was.

Twenty-five years ago, a theme park view room during Christmas at the Grand Floridian went for $235/night (excluding tax), about $450/night today.

Twenty years ago, that room was up to $345/night, about $550/night today.

Ten years ago, that room was up to $430/night, about $540/night today.

Since Iger took charges, prices have taken off.

That room will cost $928/night for Christmas 2014.

Beyond the price increases, to understand what’s happening financially at WDW today, it’s necessary to recognize where the greatest margins are: the hotels. WDW’s hotels are money-making machines and are the key to WDW’s future financial success.

However, it’s also important to remember what feeds WDW’s hotels: the theme parks. Without the theme parks, WDW’s hotels are overpriced mid-to-entry-level rooms sitting on swampland. Guests don’t stay at WDW hotels because they want to vacation in Orlando, they stay because they want to vacation at WDW’s theme parks.

Anyone who’s compared WDW’s rates with offsite hotels recognizes how profitable they are. Using my favorite example, a 565 sq. ft. Family Suite at Art Of Animation often costs more than a 945 sq. ft. suite at the Waldorf Astoria (within walking distance of Art Of Animation).

If places like the Waldorf Astoria and Wyndham Bonnet Creek (located next to the Waldorf) can provide more for less, then WDW’s hotel prices have nothing to do with their quality or location on land that Walt paid $120/acre for; it has to do with having the “Disney” name as a prefix. It has to do with their direct association to the theme parks.

WDW’s future financial success is dependent on selling complete hotel and theme park vacation packages that attract discerning consumers to its Deluxe Resorts and yet still are within reach of the general public. Guests want to stay onsite but, in growing numbers, they just can’t find the value in it.

WDW’s greatest commercial problems fall into three categories.

First, a change in marketing strategy to focus on families with younger children rather than adults and adults with older children has driven away much of WDW’s high-end customer base. Those who easily can afford WDW’s Deluxe Resort prices are not visiting WDW in the same numbers they used to. WDW is losing this market to other alternatives because WDW no longer as competitive as it once was with an older market, a segment that tends to have more disposable income. This is not a WDW vs. Uni comparison; this is a WDW vs. every other vacation destination in the world comparison. In this market, WDW is competing less effectively than it once did.

Second, combined ticket and hotel prices have risen much more rapidly than those who dream of staying at WDW Deluxe and Moderate Resorts can afford. The lion’s share of WDW’s revenue is from middle-to-upper middle income families who want to experience what they view as “lifestyles of the rich and famous”. To them, a stay in the Grand Floridian represents the epitome of luxury. However, WDW price increases over the last 10-15 years have outpaced this segment’s income, forcing these guests to downgrade their stays to lower-margin Value Resort or even offsite. WDW slowly is pricing itself out of its core market.

Third, the continued expansion of Disney Vacation Club (DVC) has eroded the customer base at WDW’s high-margin resorts.

WDW’s early financial success was driven primarily by what happened at the theme parks. Just like Disneyland before it, the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT were high-risk/high-reward investments in the future that produced a positive cash flow for generations.

Yet the rest of Walt Disney Productions underperformed and Michael Eisner was brought onboard in 1984 to cure Disney’s woes in film and animation.

Early in the Eisner era, Sid Bass encouraged Eisner to expand WDW in order to take advantage of Disney’s land holdings. The strategy worked brilliantly. Theme and water parks were added. New Deluxe Resorts were brought online and operated at near capacity year-round. WDW began to offer moderate and value accommodations to appeal to a wider audience. WDW’s gross margins improved as guests flooded the onsite resorts in order to experience what was considered the complete WDW vacation.

The key to WDW’s success was:

1. Build, build, build – Make WDW an electrifying vacation destination that everyone, including the adults and older children, wanted to visit.
   
2. Price control - Maintain prices that closely tracked people’s ability to pay for them.

As long as WDW grew, customers across all economic and age groups were drawn into the glowing orb of an electrifying WDW. WDW never was inexpensive but it was within reach. As long as vacationers felt they could afford both tickets and WDW hotel stays, they bought both.

WDW’s period of greatest financial success followed the decades when the theme parks expanded and tickets closely followed Median Household Income. WDW knew their target audience and operated accordingly.

The opening of Value Resort beginning in 1994 helped mitigate the effect of rapid prices increases that started in that late 1990s. However, as WDW continued its price expansion into the 2000s, the lower-margin Value Resorts eroded margins as guests downgraded from WDW’s Deluxe and Moderate Resorts to Value Resorts.

Things truly headed south in the post-9/11 era when travel suffered. Parks & Resorts performed well in FY2001 (ending in September 2001) but Eisner was under an increasing strain because of a growing number of misfires outside of WDW.

It was at this time that corporate Disney hastened the trend started in the late 1990s and raised prices even faster.

It’s an understandable strategy. When external market forces adversely impact business and when the CEO is under pressure to produce strong results, companies often sail into a safe harbor to weather the storm. In WDW’s case, this meant higher prices, quality cuts, and stagnation. This strategy can work but only temporarily. Long-term, this approach leads to gradual decline.

It was at the same time that WDW embarked on another short-term strategy with long-term consequences: DVC.

Corporately, timeshares are great; they infuse a company with quick high-margin cash. However, they sacrifice long-term profits for the sake of short-term profits.

In WDW’s case, DVC stole guests away from Disney’s obscenely profitable Deluxe Resorts and provided these vacationers with decades of Deluxe Resort style rooms at significantly reduced rates.

In the 1990s, WDW operated only 2 DVC resorts with a combined total of about 900 units. Since then, the number of DVC units has more than tripled, taking business directly away from Deluxe and even Moderate Resorts, robbing the company of high-margin profits. Families who once might have stayed at Deluxe or Moderate Resorts plopped over big money once for the promise of much less expensive stays for years to come.

Infused with the quick cash from DVC sales, P&R financial performance rebounded in the late 2000s. It never remotely approached peak levels but gross margin did recover modestly after cratering at 13.1% in FY2005.

During the economic downturn that followed, WDW offered a series of incredible discounts in order to keep hotel occupancy rates up. It worked. WDW occupancy was 86% in 2006, 89% in 2007, 90% in 2008, and 87% in 2009.

However, it also whetted the public’s appetite for discounts. Once those steep discounts ended and the flood of DVC inventory began to take effect, occupancy plummeted at WDW’s higher-end hotels. Non-DVC members began to wise up to the value of renting DVC points. Deluxe Resorts had to complete directly with the growing number of DVC members who rented out their points.

Without a series of flashy new theme park expansions constantly repolishing the WDW orb, the luster of a complete WDW vacation faded. WDW now attracts “The Easy To Please” crowd.

WDW has become a rite of passage for the current generation, a place for parents to bring their strollered youngsters before they grow out of WDW’s dumbed-down childish offerings. Rather than appeal to single adults or older parents in their peak earning years, WDW unwittingly is targeting those least able to splurge on high-end hotel stays.

Of course WDW hotel occupancies are down at Disney’s Deluxe Resorts. The crowd that WDW is catering to cannot afford them.

Of course margins are down even as the Magic Kingdom is bursting at the seams. Vacationers are staying offsite, bopping into MK for a day or two, and then heading off elsewhere to enjoy the other offerings in Orlando. WDW no longer is the only game in town and without the Magic Kingdom drawing people in, WDW’s other 3 parks would suffer terribly.

Add it all together and you have an organization that continues to make short-term blunders that will lead to long-term institutional problems.

As demonstrated by the New Fantasyland expansion targeted towards young children, the latest price increases, DVC expansions, nickel-and-dime quality cuts, disappointing Art of Animation Family Suite bookings, decision to proceed with MyMagic+, and delays in Pandora and Star Wars Land, Parks & Resorts is an organization that continues to make the same mistakes that had caused it to underperform in the first place.

As usual, bravo. Drinks on me if you're ever in NY... That's how good that post was. Many of the issues you highlighted here are seen in some capacity at many companies in today's world. Short term strategic plans are currently replacing long term plans as companies hit record highs.

It's fine to grow your profits by increasing margins if it's done in a well thought out matter or by improving efficiencies. However, most companies are improving margins by diminishing the quality of their product and/or service. This runs the risk of disenfranchising your client base, as you exemplified above. It's better to find natural growth by reaching more consumers or by providing more products/services.

It's even okay to make an acquisition if the combined company creates growth and synergy. Take JPMorgan Chase for example, acquiring WaMu was worthwhile because it entered their Chase brand into the West Coast to compete with Wells Fargo. Rather than spend a ton of money to start up on their own they found an acquisition that made sense and grew from there.

 

[jangirl]

I was in mizner's with the polar bear when it happened.... Predictable response was predictable.

 

[BrianLo]

Why would Disney fear this? Bryan Singer and the X-Men franchise are at Fox.

Oh.... I actually totally agree with this. I thought @WDW1974 comment pertained to a similar situation hitting Disney with CM's or exec's fondling children. That's definitely a fear for Disney, but I don't think they care too much about Singer.

The Disney -> Marvel -> Fox -> Bryan Singer (whose participation by far pre-dates Disney's purchase) is tenuous and wasn't even picked up by my semi-informed mind. Marvel is becoming a little more synonymous with Disney, but I think the general public has difficulty with telling who realistically belongs with Marvel between X-men, Spidey, Batman and Superman, at best they only know The Avengers = Disney (Or IOA in the case of the swamps).


As far as whether or not the claims are legitimate... that's for the courts to decide. None of our 'opinions' make it anymore true or false.

 

[PhotoDave219]

.... And you are......?

 

[PhotoDave219]

I'm not really sure where to put this so...... Discuss....

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...rk-side-of-disney-a-documentary-film?ref=live

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

You wrote a lot, so I feel like it deserves some response (BTW, call me old-fashioned, but I think not answering email is just so unprofessional and rude) ... but largely you are just repeating the same things that fanbois have said for years. Much of it is true, but it always winds up something like this: Michael Eisner's last 5-6 years (10 if you have delusions he was nothing without Frank Wells) were a total disaster that almost destroyed the company and, therefore, everything he did before that period should be pushed to the side.

I think that attitude is very much like a sports fan who only remembers the team's last game (like say UF's loss in the NCAA Tourney) and not all the wins that led up to it.

The simple bottom line is this: there wouldn't be a WDC today if not for Michael. There wouldn't be all those parks and resorts at WDW (and around the globe) if not for Michael. There would not be all that amazing IP (much of it milked to death, like say The Little Mermaid, today) if not for Michael. And all of that trumps the bad decisions he and his team made down the road.

He is a Disney Legend in the truest sense. He made it all possible -- including having a company healthy enough to make all those acquisitions that Iger has completed.

Don't worry if you think you're being rude and unprofessional if you don't wish to read or respond to this (you're not, and i'm sure your time is more valuable than wasting it all on a Disney forum). I'll just say that I pretty much agree with all of your response. Eisner deserves a Disney Legend award (for real, not a "shut up and stop causing trouble" concession prize as Tony Baxter sadly got). But I do understand where the fanbase is coming from. I certainly don't hate Eisner, I actually like him and wanted to at least give him a couple more years opportunity to clean up the mistakes made under him (there were signs of that near the end). He deserved that much. I did hate a lot of the choices made under him during his last couple of years though. Many of the fanbase's perceptions are what people started noticing from their surroundings as well as what was being fed to them (again helped along by Roy Jr). While Eisner deserves some blame, he didn't deserve to be booted out before he could even try to do anything about the problems. Iger certainly deserves infinitely worse.

I think the parks were the only things that can be pinpointed as sharply diving in quality directly after Wells' death, so I wouldn't put it past this event to have indeed affected the quality of upkeep and new attractions. Though I am willing to think that it may have been due to Eisner being less hands-off about overseeing new park projects rather than actually being the direct cause. Especially if as you say he was so angry at what they did to rides like Imagination for example (i'm guessing he had similar feelings about the rest of Future World's redo).

I think the movies were more great than not up through Treasure Planet. Adored Hunchback, Mulan and Tarzan. Even the lesser adored movies such as Atlantis, Hercules, Lilo and Stitch i'm a big fan of. And Pocahontas and Brother Bear both have exquisite animation despite their meh stories (and fantastic music in Pocahontas' case). Their drop in quality wasn't as sharp and directly pinpointed to Wells' death. They only really started sucking with Home on the Range and Chicken Little (you won't see me defending that trash). Even some of the animated TV shows (despite not being as original or awesome as Darkwing Duck or Gargoyles) were quite good through the later Eisner years (Recess, Tarzan etc were very solid).

I'd say the parks did drop sharply in quality after Wells' death. Upkeep started to drop like a rock in particular for both US resorts. I don't accept any excuses for this. EPCOT was basically permanently damaged. Animal Kingdom was a gorgeous new park but also suffered from severe budget slashes that limited the ride quality. A lot of people hate the Studios park in Paris, considering it the worst Disney park. California Adventure was received by meh response at best, many disliked it. And again you may have enjoyed it, but Hong Kong Disneyland was initially disliked due to the lack of rides. The new attractions for existing US parks were a pretty consistent string of disappointments throughout his reign. Even Everest (the best new WDW ride in years) is seen by many as incomplete and lacking, though it may have been a sign that there were improvements beginning to occur under Eisner. Disneysea is that one shining gem in that lot of meh or bad (it's stunning and easily a contender for best Disney park), I wonder how much involvement Eisner had with that one, it's a pretty stark contrast in quality compared to the other new parks built in his later years.

I would say Disney during Eisner's second half did go downhill after Frank Wells died, though how sharp the drop was depends on what aspect of the company you looked at. Animated movies held on for some time until they started sucking, same is somewhat true with the cartoon shows. The parks inherited the most damage. As much praise as I'll give to the lovely Disneysea, the rest of the new parks under Eisner solo were disappointments to various extents (I will however argue that the original MGM Studios was similarly lacking in rides when it first opened, and that was a Wells era project). But when he showed it, Eisner still clearly had talent without Wells.

The company definitely was not dying under Eisner, and what happened to him with the stockholder revolt was indeed ridiculous considering his accomplishments (it's also a mystery and absurd why Iger hasn't been thrown out for the same reasons they kicked Eisner out). But in the last few years there was a very serious need of restructuring within pretty much all aspects of the company. If not addressed, could eventually lead to long term damage to the company. The parks all needed cleaning up and new attractions (with fixes for Future World for example). And the animation studios needed to be salvaged before they continued making any more bad movies (especially without using Pixar as a buffer). There were signs he was addressing the park aspect with Disneyland's cleanup and the new Expedition Everest, but he was never given the chance to show anyone the full extent of his plans.

see Eisner's solo years as a mixture of both fantastic and meh (with some terrible mixed in) overall. When he really got into the creative process and kept a good eye on his company's internal affairs, he was amazing. I would have definitely given him at least a couple more years to see what he would have done to correct his mistakes, there were signs he was attempting that and it probably would be far preferable to Iger.

 

[Captain Neo]

Notice the part where I said "they are starting to" associate Marvel with Disney. Disney certainly isn't hiding their ownership.

An instance like this, where there will be a considerable amount of press, will only increase the public's awareness. It is sure to be mentioned in the reporting, something along the lines of "Marvel, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, had no immediate response"....

I don't understand why disney/marvel should respond? Do you think they will also ask for a response from Universal as well?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't understand why disney/marvel should respond? Do you think they will also ask for a response from Universal as well?

Because the rise of the superhero film, which is built heavily around Marvel, started with Singer.

 

[Captain Neo]

You're missing the point. A sex scandal at TWDC/WDI would have much more fallout and would require a very carefully crafted response.

Why would it have any more fallout than when a disney employed child molester was busted on the disney cruise ship or when those wdw cast members were fired for sharing child ography a few years ago? It's not like disney's executives are openly encouraging this behavior or that it's super rampant through the company. If an imagineers gets busted it will probably make the news but no one I will stop going to the parks or anything.

 

[Captain Neo]

Because the rise of the superhero film, which is built heavily around Marvel, started with Singer.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense and does not even remotely answer my question

 

[lazyboy97o]

This sentence makes absolutely no sense and does not even remotely answer my question

• Marvel has become incredibly successful over the past decade and a half.
• That success has been built on the popularity of superhero films.
• The first of these films was X-Men, a Marvel property.
• X-Men was written and directed by Singer who went on to be involved with X-2: X-Men United, X-Men: First Class, and the upcoming X-Men: Days off Future Past.

Singer clearly has no connection to Marvel Entertainment.

 

[Captain Neo]

• Marvel has become incredibly successful over the past decade and a half.
• That success has been built on the popularity of superhero films.
• The first of these films was X-Men, a Marvel property.
• X-Men was written and directed by Singer who went on to be involved with X-2: X-Men United, X-Men: First Class, and the upcoming X-Men: Days off Future Past.

Singer clearly has no connection to Marvel Entertainment.

He does not. All of the x-men movies are created and owned by Fox. They are the license holder not Marvel.

Also, The first popular movie based on a marvel property was Blade in 1998 (made by New Line Cinema) this spawned a successful trilogy that gave other rights holders (sony, universal, fox, etc.) the incentive to make movies which in turn were financially successful.

 

[lazyboy97o]

He does not. All of the x-men movies are created and owned by Fox. They are the license holder not Marvel.

Also, The first popular movie based on a marvel property was Blade in 1998 (made by New Line Cinema) this spawned a successful trilogy that gave other rights holders (sony, universal, fox, etc.) the incentive to make movies which in turn were financially successful.

X-Men is still a Marvel property. The Marvel Studios logo will still be shown before the film. It doe snot matter if they do not have much decision making power, the situation still involves one of their properties.

 

[DisneyDad1977]

Let me guess, you're going for the theme parks?

Seriously, why would anyone want to go to Ukraine (even before this political upheaval it wasn't exactly a Conde Nast Top 10 Vacation Destination)?

I had a friend who did so about 15 years ago, but she was adopting a child ...

That is why I am here as well. Although the theme parks are pretty slow this time of year too!

 

[englanddg]

He does not. All of the x-men movies are created and owned by Fox. They are the license holder not Marvel.

Also, The first popular movie based on a marvel property was Blade in 1998 (made by New Line Cinema) this spawned a successful trilogy that gave other rights holders (sony, universal, fox, etc.) the incentive to make movies which in turn were financially successful.

Actually, Men in Black predated Blade.

Howard the Duck was also a Marvel property, and whilst not a great movie, had it's run in popular culture.

Also, the TV runs of Incredible Hulk and Spider Man were both extremely popular in the 70s.

 

[DisneyDad1977]

Just for the record, this should not be anybody's idea of a Faux Top One Percent getaway. The checkpoint where they were searching buses for Russian agitators gave it away.