The Red Button Option

[EricsBiscuit]

I think Disney should sell HKDL and SDL and focus on investing in WDWR, DLRP and DLR.

 

[Lilofan]

To be honest, Iger spent those years obsessing over IP purchases and his planned political campaign; a rotating group of execs, each with a separate agenda, were running the parks. Remember Staggs? Rasulo? “In-over-her-head Meg,” the former HR director who was a really nice person but knew nothing of park operations? Matt Ouimet, the excellent guy Iger dumped when his popularity surpassed Iger’s own among the fan base?

Part of the reason those stories sound far-fetched is that the reality was indeed complicated, and driven more by Iger’s personal agenda than anything else. Think about it. The man spent most of his own book promotion tour emphasizing his friendship with Steve Jobs. He needs people to think he’s a genius business tycoon who fits in with the legacies of Walt himself, Jobs, etc.

Plus, who can really prove anything on a fan forum anyway? Anyone doesn’t believe it can take a grain of salt and enjoy the gossip.

I surprised that Staggs and Rasulo after resigning haven't worked in years. Maybe the severance package, options etc with them walking away with millions will keep them content for the rest of their life. In regards about Eisner he left Disney a rich man also. Now after many years after leaving Disney he is now part of the billionaire club. It must have been some good investments.

 

[Jrb1979]

I think Disney should sell HKDL and SDL and focus on investing in WDWR, DLRP and DLR.

Invest in a coaster like the Jurrasic Park one and I will jump on the first plane down

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Invest in a coaster like the Jurrasic Park one and I will jump on the first plane down

Trim and cosmic rewind aren’t enough?

 

[Jrb1979]

Trim and cosmic rewind aren’t enough?

No not thrilling enough and hidden in a warehouse. A coaster like Iron Gwazi is what I consider a good coaster.

 

[UNCgolf]

No not thrilling enough and hidden in a warehouse. A coaster like Iron Gwazi is what I consider a good coaster.

If Disney built a coaster like Jurassic Park that wasn't hidden in a warehouse, they'd be ruining whatever park they put it in -- or at least whatever section of the park it was in.

As bad as the Tron and GotG warehouses are, it would be even worse if it was just giant exposed unthemed coaster track.

 

[Jrb1979]

If Disney built a coaster like Jurassic Park that wasn't hidden in a warehouse, they'd be ruining whatever park they put it in -- or at least whatever section of the park it was in.

I disagree. That Jurrasic Park coaster is very picturesque.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

No not thrilling enough and hidden in a warehouse. A coaster like Iron Gwazi is what I consider a good coaster.

Ah. Then I don’t think Disney is for you? Disney isn’t a coaster park, nor do I think they should be. I’d suggest Dollywood!

 

[Jrb1979]

Ah. Then I don’t think Disney is for you? Disney isn’t a coaster park, nor do I think they should be. I’d suggest Dollywood!

I never said it was for me. When my little gets a bit older I would take her. I do have interest in Disney but normally I travel the US visiting multiple theme parks and riding the new coasters. I would take any of the SeaWorld coasters over ROTR any day. I'm just not init to slow moving dark rides at Disney prices.

 

[UNCgolf]

Ah. Then I don’t think Disney is for you? Disney isn’t a coaster park, nor do I think they should be. I’d suggest Dollywood!

Trying to turn Disney into a coaster park would be disastrous for their bottom line. Why would people travel to Disney to ride coasters when they likely have regional theme parks with coasters better than anything Disney would have anyways? The Six Flags near me probably has 7 or 8 coasters that top anything at Disney if that's what you're interested in. Disney can't compete with that.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I think Disney should sell HKDL and SDL and focus on investing

that money.............in a Monumental rebuild of the Adventurers Club.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Thanks, but I was there. I remember.



Dead or dying? Hyperbole or just a gross overstatement? At the time being considered here (2008-2009), Parks and Resorts accounted for 1/3 of the revenue of the entire company and about 1/5 of their net income. Their market share among the top theme parks was about 40%. You could maybe argue that they were seen as not having the same growth potential as other divisions of the company, but that's always been the case. But Dead and Dying? Hardly.



None of this though is really unique to the time period. Disney is always questioned about their investments, all the way up to Star Wars Land. Stating that they are looking at new growth opportunities and investing in R&D isn't really indicative of a plan to sell the parks either. How many bowling alleys, ski resorts and Olympic games did Walt consider investing in? How serious was he considering building an indoor park in St Louis? That's just the normal course of business.



OLC was around before Disney. Disney was their side venture.



But they kept making them. That's the whole point. For all this chatter about them wanting to sell the parks, and thinking they were a bad investment, they kept investing in them anyway.

Which really questions how seriously they thought they were bad investments. At this point, I'm pretty sure there is no direct evidence for this theory at all, but even if there was somehow a quote from Iger that said year after year, "The parks are bad investments and I want to sell them," but he keep investing in them and NOT selling them, how much weight would you really assign to those comments? None.

I want to make it clear here that there are seemingly two parts to this whole argument:

First, on the position that Iger wanting to sell the parks is just a rumor, there has still been no published independent corroboration provided on this. No New York Times, no WSJ or Forbes. Not even a deadline or Variety article. If seems so strange that if people are so willing to spill the beans on the story of Fastpass+, that you would think this story would have made the rounds several times over. It's still just a rumor.

Second, on whether the rumor is plausible enough to be believable. I don't think any serious effort was ever mounted to sell off the parks. There has been almost no media attention given to this rumor and nothing other than unverified internet sources claiming it's true. It doesn't meld with my perceptions of Iger's long term strategy (spending money on big acquisitions and growing the company). During this whole time being considered, the parks were still far too valuable to Disney and Disney never showed any sign of discontinuing investment in their division. The potential for a serious buyer doesn't really exist in the market either, since Disney's park competitors would have a serious struggle raising the cash to purchase them, and the companies that could afford them, would have almost no integration opportunities with them.

Now, at a fundamental level I have to seriously ask: What does it even matter at this point? These rumors are over 10 years old now. Even if we accepted this as absolute truth, and accept that Iger was considering selling off the parks, we know that he didn't. If we want to believe that selling off the parks would have been a terribly bad idea, we can rest easy in knowing that they never went through with it. The point of this whole silly rumor seems to be a negative assessment of Iger's abilities based on a fleeting thought from a solitary moment of time. That is not how you judge the performance of a CEO. It is inconsequential.

I must admit that I struggle to get particularly outraged at the notion Iger considered the option of selling the parks at some point. Presumably his job was to consider different options rather than just throwing his hands up in horror and this one doesn't seem too out there considering Disney has experience (good and bad) running parks in various arrangements with outside investors. For whatever reason, though, exploring that option doesn't seem to have gotten much further than the (rumoured) meeting/s with potential outside investors.

As for his record running the parks, it seems like a mixed bag to me. Despite his amazing start, though, the same can be said for Eisner. My impression is that Iger doesn't personally enjoy the parks as much as Eisner seemed to, but then Iger during recent years has been far more willing to invest in themed experiences than the stripped-down, 'post-theme' direction that was the hallmark of Eisner by the end of his tenure.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

My impression is that Iger doesn't personally enjoy the parks as much as Eisner seemed to, but then Iger during recent years has been far more willing to invest in themed experiences than the stripped-down, 'post-theme' direction that was the hallmark of Eisner by the end of his tenure.

I don’t think Iger gets the parks or likes them. There has been some good investments into the parks but some really painful decisions as well (Great Movie Ride and Pixar Pier being the absolute worst.)

 

[el_super]

It was announced at shareholder meetings. I don’t know where to find the recordings, but @lazyboy97o is right. NextGen and FP+ were part of a “Blue Ocean” strategy* to avoid further investments in new attractions. The company also hoped the ease of tapping a band would lead to increased merch sales, helping offset the cost of the initiative. All of that is known fact.

I see what you're getting at here, but I think there's a slightly different focus between what they were trying to accomplish with NextGen and overall parks investment. The point of NextGen was to get more capacity and spending out of their existing facilities, and not necessarily to circumvent or avoid continued investment in new attractions and facilities. In the most simplistic terms, building a 5th park or a 6th park was not going to do anything to convince people to stop visiting MK, and the MK was so miserably crowded that they were having a real guest service crisis. NGE was meant to address those areas.

History has shown that they continued to invest in their other parks though. AK got Pandora. DHS got Toy Story and Star Wars. Epcot would have been next but ... well you know. It makes sense to invest in the other parks in order to draw attendance and capacity away from MK, but after literally *decades* of trying, their successes have not been so great. If MK has literally reached the plateau of how many people they can cram into the place, then yeah, investment will be on a scale comparable to maintenance rather than expansion. But that still leaves the potential to invest elsewhere.

 

[WDW Pro]

To be honest, Iger spent those years obsessing over IP purchases and his planned political campaign; a rotating group of execs, each with a separate agenda, were running the parks. Remember Staggs? Rasulo? “In-over-her-head Meg,” the former HR director who was a really nice person but knew nothing of park operations? Matt Ouimet, the excellent guy Iger dumped when his popularity surpassed Iger’s own among the fan base?

Part of the reason those stories sound far-fetched is that the reality was indeed complicated, and driven more by Iger’s personal agenda than anything else. Think about it. The man spent most of his own book promotion tour emphasizing his friendship with Steve Jobs. He needs people to think he’s a genius business tycoon who fits in with the legacies of Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, etc.

Plus, who can really prove anything on a fan forum anyway? Anyone doesn’t believe it can take a grain of salt and enjoy the gossip.

This is a perfect take. It also explains why Iger wasn't interested for much of his tenure in the domestic parks while simultaneously selling the company's soul for China. Iger believed he could eclipse Walt with the Beijing box office and Shanghai resort.

 

[JoeCamel]

that money.............in a Monumental rebuild of the Adventurers Club.

The adventurers would just blow it on - - "adventuring"........... you know

 

[el_super]

I must admit that I struggle to get particularly outraged at the notion Iger considered the option of selling the parks at some point. Presumably his job was to consider different options rather than just throwing his hands up in horror and this one doesn't seem too out there considering Disney has experience (good and bad) running parks in various arrangements with outside investors. For whatever reason, though, exploring that option doesn't seem to have gotten much further than the (rumoured) meeting/s with potential outside investors.

Yeah, I wouldn't really fault them at all for considering it, since it would seem a good management practice to always keep your options open. But the practicalities of such a deal are so hard to fathom actually getting accomplished. I can't imagine a scenario where the world leader in theme parks very publicly states "we can't make the parks work and we don't want them anymore," and someone is gleefully there to pick them up and make a case to Wall Street for more investment.

As for his record running the parks, it seems like a mixed bag to me. Despite his amazing start, though, the same can be said for Eisner. My impression is that Iger doesn't personally enjoy the parks as much as Eisner seemed to, but then Iger during recent years has been far more willing to invest in themed experiences than the stripped-down, 'post-theme' direction that was the hallmark of Eisner by the end of his tenure.

Iger has spent fantastically on the parks, but I don't think anyone will ever match Eisner's personal connection to Disneyland Paris. It really is a shame what happened there.

 

[el_super]

Plus, who can really prove anything on a fan forum anyway? Anyone doesn’t believe it can take a grain of salt and enjoy the gossip.

And to be fair... I do enjoy the gossip. So far the most interesting take away here has been that very few people have read Iger's book.

 

[WDW Pro]

I see what you're getting at here, but I think there's a slightly different focus between what they were trying to accomplish with NextGen and overall parks investment. The point of NextGen was to get more capacity and spending out of their existing facilities, and not necessarily to circumvent or avoid continued investment in new attractions and facilities. In the most simplistic terms, building a 5th park or a 6th park was not going to do anything to convince people to stop visiting MK, and the MK was so miserably crowded that they were having a real guest service crisis. NGE was meant to address those areas.

History has shown that they continued to invest in their other parks though. AK got Pandora. DHS got Toy Story and Star Wars. Epcot would have been next but ... well you know. It makes sense to invest in the other parks in order to draw attendance and capacity away from MK, but after literally *decades* of trying, their successes have not been so great. If MK has literally reached the plateau of how many people they can cram into the place, then yeah, investment will be on a scale comparable to maintenance rather than expansion. But that still leaves the potential to invest elsewhere.

Magic Kingdom can always be expanded with ease. East Avenue giving Main Street increased throughput, use the Adventureland Pad, etc. Crowding at MK has always been an issue that can be resolved.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I don’t think Iger gets the parks or likes them. There has been some good investments into the parks but some really painful decisions as well (Great Movie Ride and Pixar Pier being the absolute worst.)

True, but I think there were plenty of comparable painful decisions under Eisner, too. For example, Mr Toad into Winnie the Pooh, 2000 Leagues into a playground, Horizons into Mission:Space, Journey Into Imagination into whatever it is now, etc.

This is a perfect take. It also explains why Iger wasn't interested for much of his tenure in the domestic parks while simultaneously selling the company's soul for China. Iger believed he could eclipse Walt with the Beijing box office and Shanghai resort.

I find this kind of analysis super hard to take seriously, to be honest. The idea that Iger is somehow obsessed with eclipsing Walt Disney or that he got rid of executives because they were too popular with the fans, that is. He certainly seems to want to be seen as up there with Steve Jobs, but, ridiculous or not, that makes sense for a high-profile CEO at this point in time. The other stuff seems like what Disney fans would imagine Iger would be thinking about but from which he always seemed aloof. Iger certainly never struck me as using Walt Disney as his yardstick.