The Spirited 8th Wonder (WDW's Future & You!)

[WDW1974]

Your posts shows you have completely ignored the information provided by @lentesta and @ParentsOf4 or failed to digest it.

It IS all relative.. and the point of their discussions is to show how it's not a 1:1 relative.. and that's why it's not just simply inflation.. or lack of disposible income.. but qualifying that Disney prices are accelerating relative to other costs and income.

Sometimes reading this forum makes me think of wind up robot running in the wall.. repeatedly.

And sometimes it makes me feel like I'm slamming my head against a wall ... but I just head offline, take a happy pill and all is fine.

 

[WDW1974]

As you so sweetly put it... do you need this broken down to you even further? Everything we buy is increasing faster then AFFORDABILITY, with the exception of a McDonalds Sausage Burrito. We have to ask then why are the parks still full, if they are no longer affordable? I think they are overpriced as well, but, that is a personal problem, if others don't have that problem with it or are willing to gripe and go anyway, then that is a matter of personal choice. It is a non-subject in my mind.

Why is a Cadillac so much more expensive then a Chevy? They both do the same job, they both get us from point A to point B, they both consume gasoline and break down if not properly maintained. It is because it is a Cadillac and carries with it a certain status that the Chevy does not. Because of that people pay more for it. Again all is relative. If people continue to pay that rate, then it must be what it is worth to those willing or able to pay it. Just because a few of us think that it is grossly unfair, well, life is a and then we die.

I also think that it is LESS exclusive then it was before. I think, and you can tell by Spirits comments, that it is inhabited by all classes and socioeconomic groups. That wasn't the case early on. Then it was the Sunday go to meeting crowd that frequented the place. All the rest were to busy keeping a roof over their heads to spend money, no matter how little, on such frivolities.

I think you've missed the point (at least mine) as far as affordability and WDW.

I argue, and I'm right (of course), that WDW has never been more costly and more out of reach for more Americans that it is now. I'll let @ParentsOf4 back up the numbers. I just see reality and I'm paid (often quite highly, often by very important concerns) for my observations.

Yes, I have also said that WDW attracts more trash than it ever did before. But no where have I ever said that trash has any correlation with income. You can make $12,000 a year and be classy and highly intelligent. You can make $500,000 a year and have three degrees and be complete and utter trash.

I don't think about the unfair aspect because I can afford to go and if ever I couldn't, then I have friends who would get me in for free. I think about what the current business model means for the long term health of WDW and TWDC.

WDW used to be open to far more people from all walks of life than it is now. No, it's not fair. But it's also not good long term business either.

 

[WDW1974]

That's fascinating. And such a perfect example of how it all changed in the last five years.

I've been following Disney theme park discussion for almost twenty years now, since the alt.disney.disneyland usenet days, and I've seen websites and web personalities rise and fall and come and go. The apparent monopolization of recent WDW media events by amateur bloggers wearing their best XXL polo shirt to go get free food and have their first glass of wine of the year may also have something to do with the near collapse of newspapers and traditional media. But there are still legit Conde Naste and LA Times and Wall Street Journal reporters out there to wine and dine and schmooze.

How funny to see how the whole media schmooze-fest scenario flipped in the last decade. Is this Craig Dezern person still with Disney? Was he at the infamous California Grille blogfest relaunch party last year? That would have been a fun event to chat him up at.

When last I heard he was ... sorta in an upper/middle management position based in O-Town and overseeing parts of ... social media.

But he was a journalist first. He covered Disney for the Orlando Sentinel in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I believe Charlie Ridgway (who I believe is like 91 now), the former Disney PR guru, hired him away before retiring. That was when Disney cared about hiring quality and understanding that if someone could be a problem in the future that you simply paid to ensure that did not happen.

I can't be sure about Dezern without having a friend log onto the Hub (any CMs here want to do a check?)

I have not seen him in any pics from these meet ups, but Craig was always a classy guy (and down to earth to) and I can't see how he'd be comfortable hanging with Ricky Brigante, Tom Corless, Jeff Lange, What'shisname Roseboom, Frosty Josh etc ...

He'd be the type to schmooze Brooks Barnes of the NYT or someone from the Journal or Conde Nast etc.

 

[Funmeister]

I disagree. I think one of Michael Eisner's biggest mistakes was in dropping plans for DVC all over the world (makes more sense than AbD) and letting folks talk him into more DVC for WDW. Of course, HIS plans for WDW DVC involved more stand alone resorts like Saratoga Springs and the old-Florida era Spanish style resort that was planned (and announced to media) to go where Four Seasons currently sits.

That would have expanded the business organically and moved a line of business outward.

Instead, it has allowed WDW's faulty 'the sky is the limit' pricing increases annually model that has, in turn, forced the conversion of deluxe rooms into timeshare.

I agree that plans should have moved forward......but....do you think that same strategy would work today?

 

[ParentsOf4]

I don't disagree with you, but I thought we were talking about affordability not value rated. And if you do go with the value rated measurement, whose value do we base it on? Yours? Mine? It is a subjective thing. It may not be the Disney of Walt's time and by the same token this isn't the world of Walt's time either.

It's not even that much of a problem if all of a sudden people stop paying those prices. All Disney has to do is lower prices and as quick as that... all is good. But that hasn't happened yet. We that have been going since it's early years may or may not see the differences and the lowering of quality. Others going for the first time do not see that. They see what is there and they are coming back again. If we are to speak based on reality, we have to take that into consideration. Will it all catch up with Disney? It is more than possible, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I'm guessing I will be taking my dirt nap before it happens.

I'm trying to keep my response on topic, which mostly is about DVC, particularly a potential conversion of Wilderness Lodge hotel rooms to DVC. So, let's give it a try ...

Affordability (or lack there of) is a central concept in understanding corporate Disney's thinking, in understanding why "WDW is effectively done with deluxe resorts" (as @WDW1974 wrote in his first post on this thread), in understanding why Disney is essentially being forced to convert what once were full hotel rooms to DVC.

Disney needs to convert these rooms because they no longer can fill them. One large chunk of WDW's customer base no longer can afford them while another large chunk of WDW's customer base doesn't see the value in paying $500/night for a small (by luxury hotel standards) hotel room.

With its current management approach of charging more for less, the only way Disney is going to get these rooms filled is to hope that some unsuspecting tourist stops by a DVC kiosk while the pixie dust is flowing and signs up for a loan at 15% to finance their next 40 years of vacations.

There's a reason Disney is allowing a Four Seasons to be built on property, close to the Wilderness Lodge. It's because those used to spending $500/night for a room know that Disney's Deluxe Resorts don't make the grade. Disney is losing that crowd to other hotels such as the nearby Waldorf Astoria. The Four Seasons is Disney's way of trying to recapture some of that lost revenue.

Even the $500/night hotel shopper looks for value.

Whether its ticket price or hotel rates, declining quality, delayed attractions, falling food quality & choices, generic napkins, non-functioning animatronics, or burned out bulbs at the Grand Floridian, these are all symptoms of a bigger problem: corporate Disney's contempt for WDW's paying customers.

In growing numbers, people from North America and Europe have seen this and have stopped paying WDW's prices. They are either being priced out or no longer see the value. Disney's attendance from these markets has declined.

What has propped up WDW's attendance (and revenue) over the last few years has been a growing market from South America, a market that appears to have plateaued. (At WDW prices, Disney was chasing after the top 2-3% of income earners in those countries, a relatively small market anyway.)

WDW's current approach (higher prices, declining quality, delayed attractions) is driving away its traditional market and there are no more new markets on the horizon to replace South America.

What's next? How does WDW grow?

Disney needs to come up with a long-term strategy for WDW growth.

Continued price increases is not a path to sustainable growth. It's like deficit spending. It works today but boomerangs later. As I've analyzed in other posts in the past, there are signs that the price increases of the last few years have backfired on hotel occupancy, as well as food, beverage, and merchandise spending.

Disney needs to stop with the price increases & petty quality cuts and start adding value back into a WDW vacation.

Whether it's someone staying in a $100/night Value Resort or a $500/night Deluxe Resort, Disney needs to make its paying customers feel like they are getting their money's worth. Both onsite and offsite guests need to see the theme parks as dynamic, exciting centers of excellence.

Disney leadership needs to create new opportunities for revenue growth at WDW instead of cashing in on what prior leadership created.

Disney is a company built on creativity. Corporate leadership needs to stop running WDW like a Wall Street investment firm and start running it like a company whose core business is imagination.

 

[BrerJon]

Disney also doesn't own 100% of the foreign parks. They have no economic incentive to lure guests away from WDW or DLR where they get 100% of the money spent to any of the foreign parks where they do not.

Never mind DVC, Disney's real 'best kept secret' is the Tokyo parks - no-one would say the USA parks are better if they knew how good the Japanese parks were, but Disney tries to pretend they don't even exist and does its best to keep Americans from going overseas, and peddling the myth that a Deluxe trip to WDW is always cheaper than one to Tokyo, because they make no money from Tokyo guest spending.

Yet for most people the cost of three or four nights $500 rack rate at the Poly easily offsets the expensive flight to Japan, especially when you consider how cheap Tokyo park tickets are, and accomodation can be had for the same price as a WDW Moderate, but Disney doesn't want its richest fans to know this! They'd rather keep them on home turf where they make all the moolah!

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm trying to keep my response on topic, which mostly is about DVC, particularly a potential conversion of Wilderness Lodge hotel rooms to DVC. So, let's give it a try ...

Affordability (or lack there of) is a central concept in understanding corporate Disney's thinking, in understanding why "WDW is effectively done with deluxe resorts" (as @WDW1974 wrote in his first post on this thread), in understanding why Disney is essentially being forced to convert what once were full hotel rooms to DVC.

Disney needs to convert these rooms because they no longer can fill them. One large chunk of WDW's customer base no longer can afford them while another large chunk of WDW's customer base doesn't see the value in paying $500/night for a small (by luxury hotel standards) hotel room.

With its current management approach of charging more for less, the only way Disney is going to get these rooms filled is to hope that some unsuspecting tourist stops by a DVC kiosk while the pixie dust is flowing and signs up for a loan at 15% to finance their next 40 years of vacations.

There's a reason Disney is allowing a Four Seasons to be built on property, close to the Wildness Lodge. It's because those used to spending $500/night for a room know that Disney's Deluxe Resorts don't make the grade. Disney is losing that crowd to other hotels such as the nearby Waldorf Astoria. The Four Seasons is Disney's way of trying to recapture some of that lost revenue.

Even the $500/night hotel shopper looks for value.

Whether its ticket price or hotel rates, declining quality, delayed attractions, falling food quality & choices, generic napkins, non-functioning animatronics, or burned out bulbs at the Grand Floridian, these are all symptoms of a bigger problem: corporate Disney's contempt for WDW's paying customers.

In growing numbers, people from North America and Europe have seen this and have stopped paying WDW's prices. They are either being priced out or no longer see the value. Disney's attendance from these markets has declined.

What has propped up WDW's attendance (and revenue) over the last few years has been a growing market from South America, a market that appears to have plateaued. (At WDW prices, Disney was chasing after the top 2-3% of income earners in those countries, a relatively small market anyway.)

WDW's current approach (higher prices, declining quality, delayed attractions) is driving away its traditional market and there are no more new markets on the horizon to replace South America.

What's next? How does WDW grow?

Disney needs to come up with a long-term strategy for WDW growth.

Continued price increases is not a path to sustainable growth. It's like deficit spending. It works today but boomerangs later. As I've analyzed in other posts in the past, there are signs that the price increases of the last few years have backfired on hotel occupancy, as well as food, beverage, and merchandise spending.

Disney needs to stop with the price increases & petty quality cuts and start adding value back into a WDW vacation.

Whether it's someone staying in a $100/night Value Resort or a $500/night Deluxe Resort, Disney needs to make its paying customers feel like they are getting their money's worth. Both onsite and offsite guests need to see the theme parks as dynamic, exciting centers of excellence.

Disney leadership needs to create new opportunities for revenue growth at WDW instead of cashing in on what prior leadership created.

Disney is a company built on creativity. Corporate leadership needs to stop running WDW like a Wall Street investment firm and start running it like a company whose core business is imagination.

The only thing that I would contradict is the last paragraph. Disneys core business was imagination, it isn't anymore. I don't think it ever will be again. There might be a continued "imagination" presence in the company but that is only to support their eventual franchises. And then it will only be a small part of the massive company that is The Disney Company.

Other then that, all your points are very valid, no doubt, however, there is one thing that we all seem to ignore. The Disney Parks are becoming a smaller and smaller arm of the company. At one time they counted on the Parks to maintain an overall company profit. I don't think they do anymore. It is a cash generating arm of the company, but, by comparison, not the biggest. It is, I'm sure, a royal PITA to most Disney exec's and they really have no interest in "growing it", in my opinion. Continuing to have it viable, yes, but, they don't care as long as it continues to draw people and cash flow. In my mind, it just isn't that important to Disney anymore, at least in their minds.

The problem is I don't know how to change that attitude, do you? Certainly not as long as they continue to draw an audience that is willing to pay the price. Doing that they don't even need more people to create the same profit. Is that a good long term practice? Certainly not for the parks themselves in terms of creativity and investment. But utilizing the moneys to invest in other brands may more then make up for a possible declining business structure for the parks. I think they would love to sell the park franchise and just collect on property's and franchise fee's, development fees and leave the dealing with the public to someone else.

Remember what I am saying is just something that I think might be happening. I don't know if it is true or not, but, I do think it is possible.

 

[Rodan75]

You just won't see timeshare in Asia. OLC has no interest. Japanese who own timeshare own it ... in Hawaii largely. And in China it is largely a, pun intended, foreign concept.

Also, neither TDR or HKDL have any trouble in filling their hotel inventory.

You could make an argument for Paris, though.

Given the ownership issues across the resorts I can see why this isn't possible, but I'm not talking about blocks of rooms selling points for their local markets I'm talking about being able to use 120-150 points for a week stay in Toyko, Hong Kong or Paris. I do understand the ownership restrictions, but you would think a company with a keen eye toward monetizing every square inch of space would have leveraged this at some point.

 

[GoofGoof]

Given the ownership issues across the resorts I can see why this isn't possible, but I'm not talking about blocks of rooms selling points for their local markets I'm talking about being able to use 120-150 points for a week stay in Toyko, Hong Kong or Paris. I do understand the ownership restrictions, but you would think a company with a keen eye toward monetizing every square inch of space would have leveraged this at some point.

You can trade in DVC points for a Disney hotel room in Paris, Tokyo or Hong Kong. It's more than 120-150 points for a week. I think it's something like 25+ points per night.

 

[Rodan75]

You can trade in DVC points for a Disney hotel room in Paris, Tokyo or Hong Kong. It's more than 120-150 points for a week. I think it's something like 25+ points per night.

Currently it is too much of a premium. Like the cruises. 120-150 points make sense. 200-250 feels like robbery.

 

[GoofGoof]

Currently it is too much of a premium. Like the cruises. 120-150 points make sense. 200-250 feels like robbery.

It is a bad deal. I found the link to the point charts. 200 is actually the lowest during value season in Paris. It goes all the way up to 800 which is insane.

http://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program-85142/points-charts-29677/non-dvc-destinations-9332

 

[Rodan75]

It is a bad deal. I found the link to the point charts. 200 is actually the lowest during value season in Paris. It goes all the way up to 800 which is insane.

http://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-program-85142/points-charts-29677/non-dvc-destinations-9332

Exactly. Honestly, if I knew I could use 150 points to stay at DLP or TDR I would easily buy another 100-150 points. But as it stands now. I would rather pay cash if I would decide to go to DLP at all, I plan on a Paris trip within the next 2-3 years. (If the French stop making really bad foreign policy decisions) Disney could solidify that trip and guarantee at least some of my vacation dollars. Otherwise I would just do normal touristy stuff and avoid DLP.

 

[GoofGoof]

Exactly. Honestly, if I knew I could use 150 points to stay at DLP or TDR I would easily buy another 100-150 points. But as it stands now. I would rather pay cash if I would decide to go to DLP at all, I plan on a Paris trip within the next 2-3 years. (If the French stop making really bad foreign policy decisions) Disney could solidify that trip and guarantee at least some of my vacation dollars. Otherwise I would just do normal touristy stuff and avoid DLP.

I doubt many people take them up on the trade in offer. Maybe someone who is in Paris anyway and decides to spend one night at DLP for 30 or 40 points. Of course you could rent your points and get $330 to $440 for them. I guess it depends how much a cash room costs vs the trade in point value. No clue what the cash rate would be.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Other then that, all your points are very valid, no doubt, however, there is one thing that we all seem to ignore. The Disney Parks are becoming a smaller and smaller arm of the company. At one time they counted on the Parks to maintain an overall company profit. I don't think they do anymore. It is a cash generating arm of the company, but, by comparison, not the biggest. It is, I'm sure, a royal PITA to most Disney exec's and they really have no interest in "growing it", in my opinion. Continuing to have it viable, yes, but, they don't care as long as it continues to draw people and cash flow. In my mind, it just isn't that important to Disney anymore, at least in their minds.

In 2003, Parks & Resorts made up 24% of Disney's revenue.

In 2013, Parks & Resorts made up 31% of Disney's revenue.

Since 2003, Disney has completely revamped one North American theme park, opened a theme park in Hong Kong, and has another in the works in Shanghai. All three projects cost billions.

I don't see signs that theme parks have become less important to corporate Disney's business strategy.

No, what corporate Disney has taken for granted since Iger took over is its single biggest source of revenue, WDW.

By itself, WDW generates about $8B annually, or roughly 17% of company revenue.

Any CEO who would consider 17% of company revenue to be unimportant should be fired.

And at 17% of company revenue, there's no excuse for Iger to fail to spend considerable corporate effort to assure WDW's long-term health and success.

Returning to the point of this thread, as long as corporate Disney focuses on converting hotel rooms into timeshares instead of devising strategies to fill those hotel rooms with cash customers, I'll continue to pontificate that WDW is being run poorly.

 

[Mike S]

In 2003, Parks & Resorts made up 24% of Disney's revenue.

In 2013, Parks & Resorts made up 31% of Disney's revenue.

Since 2003, Disney has completely revamped one North American theme park, opened a theme park in Hong Kong, and has another in the works in Shanghai. All three projects cost billions.

I don't see signs that theme parks have become less important to corporate Disney's business strategy.

No, what corporate Disney has taken for granted since Iger took over is its single biggest source of revenue, WDW.

By itself, WDW generates about $8B annually, or roughly 17% of company revenue.

Any CEO who would consider 17% of company revenue to be unimportant should be fired.

Returning to the point of this thread, as long as corporate Disney focuses on converting hotel rooms to timeshares instead of devising strategies to fill those hotel rooms with cash customers, I'll continue to pontificate that WDW is being run poorly.

And at 17% of company revenue, there's no excuse for Iger to fail to spend considerable corporate effort to assure WDW's long-term health and success.

If only just 1 billion of those dollars or, hell, even just 500 million was reinvested every year we wouldn't have these problems.

 

[TeriofTerror]

In 2003, Parks & Resorts made up 24% of Disney's revenue.

In 2013, Parks & Resorts made up 31% of Disney's revenue.

Since 2003, Disney has completely revamped one North American theme park, opened a theme park in Hong Kong, and has another in the works in Shanghai. All three projects cost billions.

I don't see signs that theme parks have become less important to corporate Disney's business strategy.

No, what corporate Disney has taken for granted since Iger took over is its single biggest source of revenue, WDW.

By itself, WDW generates about $8B annually, or roughly 17% of company revenue.

Any CEO who would consider 17% of company revenue to be unimportant should be fired.

And at 17% of company revenue, there's no excuse for Iger to fail to spend considerable corporate effort to assure WDW's long-term health and success.

Returning to the point of this thread, as long as corporate Disney focuses on converting hotel rooms into timeshares instead of devising strategies to fill those hotel rooms with cash customers, I'll continue to pontificate that WDW is being run poorly.

If I had a goose that laid golden eggs, I would pamper and pet that baby with more love than it knew what to do with, instead of ripping out its feathers to see if I could get any spare change at the market for those. But I've always been a silly sentimentalist.

 

[Gipc]

Wait, you're paying 6-8 thousands dollars for a Disney trip? I'd like to see a breakdown on your costs because that seems incredibly high for someone who's looking to do a decent affordable WDW visit.

Again, stay off-site. You'll get a better room for a substantially better price. Stay in a Disney affiliate like Holiday Inn, who also provide shuttle buses to the parks.

6,000-8,000 is for 3-4 people, abt $2,000 each...we might end up with 6 going...!!
Check out the Disney Your Way Vacation Packages....@ disneyworld.disney.go.com
You can figure it all out there...and then hope to get a special discount come along & they will just adjust your package...
This is to have the vacation of a lifetime & splurge on things that really matter, the experience, not for a fancy room...but with all the extra benefits that are included with staying on-site..
We do not want to go totally cheap....
This includes round-trip airfare, all transportation for the duration of our trip, Our Resort for 6 Nights, ALL our food for 7 days on the Disney Deluxe dining Plan (DDDP), including the refillable mugs, Park Tickets for 5 days & the benefits of the extra magic hours in the parks & it also includes very affordable vacation insurance.

 

[Gipc]

It's all relative. When I was a child you could get a quart of milk and a loaf of bread for a quarter. If someone earned $1,800. a year,they had a good salary. (Boy, I am just about older than dirt.)

The percentage of families that couldn't afford to go to Disney in 1972,1989,2001 or any other date is probably about the same as those who can't aford to go in 2014. Disney's cost may be out pacing affordability, but a good share of the problem today probably rests on the consumers own shoulders because they expect to have the best and are up to their eyebrows in debt. If you are not carrying a load of debt you can afford a Disney vacation even if you earn less than $100,000. per year. This I know because we have never had that amount of income in a year.

To many families the best means the best they can afford. If they can't afford to stay on property, they stay off property. If they can't afford a deluxe resort, they stay in a value resort. They do not want to cook, but it is an easy matter to eat breakfast in the hotel or motel room. Most motels have a small refrigerator and even a microwave. While these are not the least expensive motels, many offer a very nice complementary breakfast. They can eat at fast food counters instead of sit down restaurants. If they want a sit down meal, a late luncheon is less expensive than a dinner for essentially the same meal. Or they can eat off property. They can bring their own snacks and drink water. They can buy park tickets from a discount vendor. While it is not the most convenient, many motels offer shuttle service to the TTC.

Many of the above options do entail a car rental and parking fees and have to be balanced against staying on property as economically as possible. The thing is, you can't let your desires over ride what you can actually afford or you may never get to go on that vacation. The parks are just as magical whether you are there on a shoestring or an unlimited budget. (Naturally, we would all like the unlimited budget, but that's not the way it is.)

it's hard to afford a WDW vacation if you don't have debts, except a mortgage & earn about $30,000 a year...

 

[Goofyernmost]

In 2003, Parks & Resorts made up 24% of Disney's revenue.

In 2013, Parks & Resorts made up 31% of Disney's revenue.

Since 2003, Disney has completely revamped one North American theme park, opened a theme park in Hong Kong, and has another in the works in Shanghai. All three projects cost billions.

I don't see signs that theme parks have become less important to corporate Disney's business strategy.

No, what corporate Disney has taken for granted since Iger took over is its single biggest source of revenue, WDW.

By itself, WDW generates about $8B annually, or roughly 17% of company revenue.

Any CEO who would consider 17% of company revenue to be unimportant should be fired.

And at 17% of company revenue, there's no excuse for Iger to fail to spend considerable corporate effort to assure WDW's long-term health and success.

Returning to the point of this thread, as long as corporate Disney focuses on converting hotel rooms into timeshares instead of devising strategies to fill those hotel rooms with cash customers, I'll continue to pontificate that WDW is being run poorly.

All very good points. I don't know the answer to this, so I will just plain ask. When you refer to revenue are you defining that as profit or just how much then took in? That could make a difference in just how concerned they are with it's continued presence as an income source.

If it's profit, then I am completely wrong in my thinking. You seem to have a handle on all that stuff so I will defer that to you. If it is just revenue (gross income) and if it costs way more to make that revenue and therefore becomes a lot of work for less % of return, then I can understand why they might have lost interest. Especially when a cartoon can pull as much as "Frozen" has with a lot less expense.

 

[DisneyGentleman]

In 2003, Parks & Resorts made up 24% of Disney's revenue.

In 2013, Parks & Resorts made up 31% of Disney's revenue.

Since 2003, Disney has completely revamped one North American theme park, opened a theme park in Hong Kong, and has another in the works in Shanghai. All three projects cost billions.

I don't see signs that theme parks have become less important to corporate Disney's business strategy.

No, what corporate Disney has taken for granted since Iger took over is its single biggest source of revenue, WDW.

By itself, WDW generates about $8B annually, or roughly 17% of company revenue.

Any CEO who would consider 17% of company revenue to be unimportant should be fired.

And at 17% of company revenue, there's no excuse for Iger to fail to spend considerable corporate effort to assure WDW's long-term health and success.

Returning to the point of this thread, as long as corporate Disney focuses on converting hotel rooms into timeshares instead of devising strategies to fill those hotel rooms with cash customers, I'll continue to pontificate that WDW is being run poorly.

Excellent post - you nailed it!