The Spirit Takes the Fifth ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Last time in Nassau (not on a DCL cruise), we went a backwoods Segway tour that including time to swim across a lagoon to a little tiny island where they filmed some scenes from Casino Royale. Fun riding segways off-road and seeing starfish, etc. That was the first excursion I had ever done in Nassau that I really truly enjoyed.

Ive been in that neighborhood, yes. Worked on a Photo shoot there 18 months ago. Its the insanely rich part of the Island.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
A good read: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...y-traded-jerry-bruckheimer-for-indiana-jones/

I really don't care for Disney's current strategy. It's a long term disaster.

It is all that - It's also the only strategy that the wall st types in TWDC can come up with since they are fundamentally gamblers instead of investors so they prefer a single 'tent-pole' to several smaller features which WILL each make a profit but will not move 'The Street' whereas a 'tent-pole' will.
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
I don't either. It ignores the whole reason why the company went into the business of making live-action films in the first place and the number of expensive flops the company keeps putting out, even if Star Wars and Indy are more guaranteed to succeed.

But there's something else I'm wondering about; is DC really a big threat to Disney's comic book movie business? Besides two movies with "Dark Knight" in their title, DC has struggled to get their theatrical output going. Green Lantern was a flop, Green Arrow and Flash have been sent to TV (and Flash doesn't even get to have his own show), they still don't know what to do with Wonder Woman and everyone's too embarassed to even think about Aquaman. Even Man of Steel had a weak foreign return and only made 2/3 what Dark Knight Rises did worldwide at a similar cost to produce. The Batman vs. Superman featuring Wonder Woman movie should at least coast its way to some sort of profit, but it's not guaranteed either (hence, why Batman was even included in the first place).

Yes, but it's Batfleck.
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
It is all that - It's also the only strategy that the wall st types in TWDC can come up with since they are fundamentally gamblers instead of investors so they prefer a single 'tent-pole' to several smaller features which WILL each make a profit but will not move 'The Street' whereas a 'tent-pole' will.

The Street moves on smaller successive profit makers. For example look at when Eisner took over Disney. However, when you offer stock options all the execs care about is short term pops which these buzz movies get.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
The Street moves on smaller successive profit makers. For example look at when Eisner took over Disney. However, when you offer stock options all the execs care about is short term pops which these buzz movies get.

True but it's also about how options are structured, I get options however my company is interested in long term growth, So if I am granted an option today it takes between 1-5 years before I can even think about exercising it.

Hence an option today means continued effort If I want them to be worth anything when they mature.
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
True but it's also about how options are structured, I get options however my company is interested in long term growth, So if I am granted an option today it takes between 1-5 years before I can even think about exercising it.

Hence an option today means continued effort If I want them to be worth anything when they mature.

Disney's options are good for seven years and the top five executive must hold shares for 12 months. That's not long term at all. I'm torn between stock options being bad or good for a company. I think they are good to keep executives from running the share price to a point of potential takeover, for example Ron Miller, but they are bad because of shortsightedness. However, perhaps the shortsightedness is more so because they are just bad executives to start. I think it's also worth noting that Eisner held most of his shares and only sold the majority when he left the company.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Disney's options are good for seven years and the top five executive must hold shares for 12 months. That's not long term at all. I'm torn between stock options being bad or good for a company. I think they are good to keep executives from running the share price to a point of potential takeover, for example Ron Miller, but they are bad because of shortsightedness. However, perhaps the shortsightedness is more so because they are just bad executives to start. I think it's also worth noting that Eisner held most of his shares and only sold the majority when he left the company.


Personally, Executive compensation should be cash so it's visible to all and executive compensation should not be tax deductible as it is now, I'm in the tech industry and I think options are better suited to the general workforce where it becomes a long term incentive to do good work and not hop to the latest hot startup and tends to keep effective teams together.
 

Nemo14

Well-Known Member
That would be a cell phone, yes.

or perhaps this...

74.jpg
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
As much as people go back and forth about the why... I think the quote from Darth Jay actually outlines a reasonable strategy...

""People have been coming to Central Florida for about an eight-day vacation for a very, very long time. And once they get into the market, for all of you who have been down there, you are just bombarded with all of the other things that you can do while in Orlando," Rasulo said. "When people plan at home, they tend to plan a lot more of their time at Walt Disney World. They are also exposed in the planning process to a lot of products that they don't know exist and a lot of things that, when they see it, they say, 'Wow, I would really like to do that…So this is the first, and probably from an economic driver, the most important part of MyMagic+.""

The idea is to suck them into the WDW 'details' early... and fill up their schedule... basically beating everyone else to the punch in terms of trying to grab the tourist's eyeballs. Everyone should be able to understand the idea that if someone offers you something to do, but you already have plans for the night... the 'someone' has to offer more than normal to displace your existing plans. It creates more resistance for people to diverge from the Disney black hole.. and makes sense it gives them a good opportunity to pitch and influence what people see within the Disney bubble.

Certain dinner show or attraction has it's numbers down? Boost it's visibility or offerings in MDE and they can steer people that way very effectively.

By adding reservations.. and basically forcing them... Disney has created a new mechanism to pull people directly into Disney's dynamic marketing engine.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
I guess things will begin to really get interesting January 23, 2014. Will this overshadow the opening of 7DMT in the spring?
Almost as exciting as FastPass+ for offsite guests at DAK. :banghead:

"Gee, I can stand in line for a FastPass+ kiosk just so I can get a Fast Pass for It's Tough to Be a Bug or I can save my money and head to Universal for the most exciting new addition to an Orlando theme park since, well, since the opening of Wizzarding World of Harry Potter in 2010."

"Gee, what should do?" :rolleyes:

Which one do you think will boost revenue and profits more?

Who are these people running Disney? Do they have a clue?

Oh right. They're the same executives that OK'ed John Carter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom