News Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser Permanently Closed Fall 2023

[edfhinton]

Since they lose about 100 Million per movie, the best cost cutting step would be to halt all movie work for a year or two.

I can't say I have an understanding of how their overall business financials combine. I have read that IP is intended to help drive more business to the profitable sectors like parks. In that vein, they would need to keep making movies. But I doubt they intend the movies to take losses or to fail in that mission of driving business to the parks. I will agree with common sentiment that they have really messed up their IP creation for some time now. Heck, if they fixed that they would not need overperformance in the parks to hit good numbers which left them vulnerable to this year's decline in park attendance.

 

[Ayla]

I am NOT buying the accounting loss 1 bit… it obviously needs to be disclosed & do you really think anyone with a brain on Wall St is nit going to see thru that “gimmick”. I assure you they are not….

Wall Street doesn't care how they got there, the only thing that matters are the end numbers.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

My response you quoted was specifically in response to it being a creative failure. Not that they can't one day do something with the building or real estate. That is a seperate argument. Salvaging it creatively is a different drawing board than closing the entire place until the company decides to utilize the real estate. I have been in the themed entertainment industry longer than these boards have been, so it is an industry I understand very well. Wonders of Life, River Country or Disney Institute were all examples of great ideas that they did not salvage before they were replaced in concept or shuttered completely. There are many more.
Galactic Star cruiser is not Woodstock, an event that was so unruly from its rapid demand of a tough crowd that they had to stop charging admission for safety, it is Disney wondering if people would stay the night in a boutique theme park without as much to offer as they should, in a price point they could not figure out a ROI for because theme parks are expensive to staff, so they allow entertainment in bulk with large attendance to pay for it.

That is great that you understand that for business, but as even you say, this product failed the market.
Personally, I am of the business philosophy that while a product that tried really hard can fail the market, if it failed the market, it was not delivering what it said it would do. This is why this product under that, failed in both senses.

Just great stuff (I’m not surprised)

I don’t know how many times “mass model” has to be brought up in EVERY Disney discussion before it’s gonna sink.

And that’s why Bobism has run it’s course. Stay retired and let a new honcho in, dude

I’d be happy to send anyone needing it a copy of Buzz Price’s book on it via Amazon drone

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I can't say I have an understanding of how their overall business financials combine. I have read that IP is intended to help drive more business to the profitable sectors like parks. In that vein, they would need to keep making movies. But I doubt they intend the movies to take losses or to fail in that mission of driving business to the parks. I will agree with common sentiment that they have really messed up their IP creation for some time now. Heck, if they fixed that they would not need overperformance in the parks to hit good numbers which left them vulnerable to this year's decline in park attendance.

The business model is mass to the middle market and above. The IP, parks, media, products, etc was crafted to support each other. Often in deliberate ways. Like they - believe it or not - rejected far more licensing pitches than they accepted…making the product probably higher on the S,D,P curve than you would think. Intentionally.

Now…frankly…I don’t know what they’re doing. There’s a management cult of personality based on no personality whatsoever. That shows in the IP…particularly these last 5 or so years.

 

[UNCgolf]

I feel like there are two separate conversations going on in this thread and people are talking past each other -- one about the quality of the experience itself and one about the business aspects.

It wouldn't be shocking if the Starcruiser was a fantastic experience/creative triumph once you were on board while also being a financial disaster. There's a long list of movies and music, e.g., that were financial flops at the time of release but are now considered all-time classics and/or creative masterpieces.

While I personally agree that some of the areas like the dining room and bridge never looked good at all in photos, I don't think you can fairly judge a two day experience based solely on photos and a couple of marketing videos. Testimony from people who actually attended seems almost unanimously positive, so I'm not going to dismiss that out of hand even if it doesn't look/sound like something I personally wanted to do regardless of price.

 

[Splash4eva]

The accountants don't need your blessing and they've already told the world they are taking these claims.. and already did so in part last quarter. And what happened? Nothing, because this is normal business.

Analysts already look at results with and without major impairments.. nothing new here. What Disney wants is the tax advantages, which aren't a matter of impressions/opinions.

So Disney chose tax benefits over a successful endeavor?

 

[flynnibus]

Testimony from people who actually attended seems almost unanimously positive, so I'm not going to dismiss that out of hand even if it doesn't look/sound like something I personally wanted to do regardless of price.

Simply put... its far easier for people to poke fun at something they've already decided they would never do themselves. It's inevitable that people will do so in a subconscious way to either justify their choice or rally others to the same.

 

[flynnibus]

So Disney chose tax benefits over a successful endeavor?

Glitter is glowing

(See what happens when you insert things that were never in the post to start with? It makes no sense)

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So Disney chose tax benefits over a successful endeavor?

No…they way they did the write off.

Had it to do over again…they would have left it a swamp and resumed Star Wars weekends

 

[Splash4eva]

Wall Street doesn't care how they got there, the only thing that matters are the end numbers.

Not at all. To improve the financials, Disney took multiple publicly visible steps including the SWGS. There are likely to have been a lot of things they did not visible to the public. All those individual steps added together affect the numbers Wall St cares about. But Wall St is not looking at the individual blips that add up to the bigger numbers.

Having been through corporate cost cutting discussions myself on more than one occasion, it would not surprise me if Disney had a specific number they wanted to hit for the year. When you start with a top down number, you end up making tough decisions on things that taken on their own you would have kept. At that point, something like SWGS had little chance with failure to hit margins. They could always retain the most effective concepts and come up with something more profitable after on whatever timeline makes sense to them, but quarterly and annual financials don't wait for later.

No…they way the did the right off.

Had it to do over again…they would have left it a swamp and resumed Star Wars weekends

Seems like that would have been the better option then spending the reported #s they did to only shutter such a highly rated experience

 

[_caleb]

The armchair business analysis on this thread would never have greenlit the Startcruiser project in the first place. I'm glad Disney was willing to lead creative innovation like this, though. They obviously need to work some things out, but I think the future of themed entertainment is going to be more of this sort of immersive, interactive, and personalized experiences.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I got a great deal on a Pikachu costume for one son and a grim reaper for the other. I was able to score a “Doctor with a Secret” costume for me for just $39.99!

 

[Splash4eva]

The armchair business analysis on this thread would never have greenlit the Startcruiser project in the first place. I'm glad Disney was willing to lead creative innovation like this, though. They obviously need to work some things out, but I think the future of themed entertainment is going to be more of this sort of immersive, interactive, and personalized experiences.

What needs to be worked out? According to everyone who went it was great. So they nailed it. They were not willing to reduce prices. So what happens next? A thumbed down version of a successful product?

 

[Dranth]

Just great stuff (I’m not surprised)

I don’t know how many teams “mass model” has to be brought up in EVERY Disney discussion before it’s gonna sink.

And that’s why Bobism has run it’s course. Stay retired and let a new honcho in, dude

I’d be happy to send anyone needing it a copy of Buzz Price’s book on it via Amazon drone if needed

See, you say Bobism but everything they have been doing was done under Eisner as well.

You mention "mass model" which I don't disagree with but they already have examples of successful ventures that pushed those limits. For example, Disney Cruise Line STARTED with pricing 2-3 times the competition back in the 90s. Cruising wasn't even as popular back then and the increased costs further restricted potential customers. We see how that turned out.

How about Adventures by Disney? It has been very successful but it clearly targeted a higher income clientele. For a nice and recent example, they even managed to fill up a plane with crazy people who were willing to pay over $100,000 per person to go to some theme parks.

The star cruiser was just another attempt along similar lines, this one failed but they have had plenty that succeeded.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

It is widely recognized that Betamax was the better quality product than VHS. They had twice the image resolution. Betamax tapes were also about half the size of VHS, which they thought was an advantage, but they clearly botched the recording time issue that going with the larger capacity that the bulkier VHS tapes provided would have resolved. But VHS won the marketing wars except in the case of professional studios that stuck with Betamax for a longer period because they could not settle for the inferior quality of VHS recordings. Higher quality lost.

Urban legend was Sony refused to allow adult entertainment on Betmax format. I like that story better.

 

[_caleb]

What needs to be worked out? According to everyone who went it was great. So they nailed it. They were not willing to reduce prices. So what happens next? A thumbed down version of a successful product?

I think they need to work out the overall model: the pricing, yes, but also the messaging/marketing for this innovative experience.

You can look back through all the discussion here about the Starcrusier since the concept was announced. Loads of fans simply could not wrap their minds around the fact that Disney was building a "hotel without a pool!" To me, this indicates room to improve on messaging and establishing guest/audience expectations.

A great many who went did indeed love it! So then Disney might ask how they might get more people who are willing to pay for this wonderful experience. The reason I didn't take my family was the cost.

I would hope they can find a way to have another go at immersive experiences without "dumbing" anything down. I certainly don't think that would be the ONLY way they might make a profitable business of it.

Ultimately, though, I'd prefer they add many of these immersive/interactive/personalized elements to SW:GE like they said they would.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

See, you say Bobism but everything they have been doing was done under Eisner as well.

You mention "mass model" which I don't disagree with but they already have examples of successful ventures that pushed those limits. For example, Disney Cruise Line STARTED with pricing 2-3 times the competition back in the 90s. Cruising wasn't even as popular back then and the increased costs further restricted potential customers. We see how that turned out.

How about Adventures by Disney? It has been very successful but it clearly targeted a higher income clientele. For a nice and recent example, they even managed to fill up a plane with crazy people who were willing to pay over $100,000 per person to go to some theme parks.

The star cruiser was just another attempt along similar lines, this one failed but they have had plenty that succeeded.

I think you might want to revisit exactly what happened in the Eisner years…for the first 16 years or so it was full bore ahead on expansion to increase the mass model. We know the ending and how it went south…but the Bob fans often claim there were conditions that simply were not the case.

Bob has “hedged” more than anything…some big tickets…but offset by margin math in most ways

He’s been “timid”…as in “timidity in the parks”…

That phrase might ring a bell?

 

[HauntedPirate]

The solution here is simple: Fewer CM’s, more projections, and more pre-recorded dialogue on screens. Voila!!

 

[LSLS]

The armchair business analysis on this thread would never have greenlit the Startcruiser project in the first place. I'm glad Disney was willing to lead creative innovation like this, though. They obviously need to work some things out, but I think the future of themed entertainment is going to be more of this sort of immersive, interactive, and personalized experiences.

Personally? No, I would not have greenlit this, at least not as it came out. I would have leaned much more heavily into creating a cruise ship type atmosphere. Add more rooms, pool (yes, I know said to death at this point), more bars/lounges, kids areas, shows, etc. You have a port of call to Batuu, and maybe even an outdoor pool/beach area for another port. I'm just not convinced this sort of "You are the story" thing is the future. There's a place for it (especially in the parks), but I'm not sure dedicated things like an entire hotel can draw enough people.

 

[_caleb]

The solution here is simple: Fewer CM’s, more projections, and more pre-recorded dialogue on screens. Voila!!

I'd hope not, but as I try to think through how they might try to reduce costs/increase margins, this is certainly one way. Have the character's "visit" and "interact" with guests via screens around the ship and on a mobile app... yikes. I would NOT be interested in anything with this approach.