The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[lebeau]

Disney is making tons of money off of their assets without even taking the UNI business into account.

Irrelevant. How does that relate to the contract with Universal which is the topic of discussion? It doesn't.

Disney can put Marvel IP in every park they own if they want to do so except Orlando. Disney can do whatever they like with their IP outside of theme parks.

Also irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that Marvel was a good purchase for Disney. That's a different discussion than the one we were having.

They can and are raking in lots of money on their asset including a bug chunk of change from UNI to allow UNI to use a subset of characters in IOA. Yes, the money could be more if Disney had negotiated the contract today but they are not losing money. It does not cost them anything to maintain the status quo.

Irrelevant. The argument is not that Disney is losing money. Or that Disney is not making money. The argument is that the terms of the contract favor Universal which is proven by the fact that Disney could be making more money.

I see your point but at what cost would Disney have to pay to gain that little piece of pie back? There is no need for Marvel IP in WDW at the moment so they might as well collect the fees from UNI for the time being until they need to change the status quo. Right now they can sit back and collect that small piece of income for basically doing nothing.

I fully agree that given the current circumstances, Disney would be foolish to do anything but maintain the status quo. And I agree that Marvel turned out to be a good purchase for Disney. Disney's not hurting.

But that's not the same thing as claiming the contract favors Disney. I keep coming back to this. Universal would be over-joyed to sign this contract today. Disney would laugh at the terms if presented with them today. The contract favors Universal.

 

[cw1982]

You're probably right about that, especially if I was paying OOP for the dining plan.
Don't they lose a ton of money on Free Dining though?
I mean in my case we are booked at POFQ so slim chance of a room discount coming my way anyhow.

I doubt Disney does anything that causes them to truly "lose" money (arguments about MM+ aside).

Haven't others said here over and over again that the cost of free dining is pretty much paid for by increasing prices on food for the rest of the year, changes to menus, etc? As I'm typing this, I just saw your own comment about steak prices at Le Cellier going up $24 in a year... if that's true, I think we have our answer.

ETA: I just looked at their menu, and the most expensive meal that I found was $49. I'm not sure how the $64 for a steak would be accurate... but even a $9 increase over a year is almost 25% if we're talking about the same menu item (which we may not be). I still say food prices are going up to compensate, just maybe not as much as the other post may lead us to believe.

 

[Skip]

I'm gonna lay this out again, because I'm tired of having 90% of peoples' rational statements on this warped.

When I say that Universal got the better end of the deal, I'm not saying that Marvel (don't need to make this a big Disney vs. Universal thing) is getting screwed, is losing money, or is failing. None of that. I'm just saying objectively, Universal is getting more of a monetary benefit out of this deal than Disney is.

"But Disney is getting money for nothing, so they win!"

Not exactly. You could argue (successfully) that Disney could potentially make truckloads more money if they were able to install Marvel headliners, and rake in $$ from associated merchandise, food/bev, and admissions, at their Orlando parks - more money than they're currently receiving out of this deal. They're making money right now, sure, from the cut specified in the contract. (And let's be clear, I'll go back and find the quotes if I have to, some [not all] were implying Uni gets NO money out of merchandise sold in MSHI. That is patently false.)

Upkeep for Marvel Super Hero Island is no more expensive than any of their other lands, especially considering three of the four rides aren't especially complex, so this notion that Uni is hurting because they have to maintain the area is ludicrous... they would've had to do that anyway, regardless of the theme of the area and its rides.

The best way to determine who a contract favors is, as lebeau has pointed out, asking the hypothetical "Would both parties sign the same contract today?" The answer is Marvel would absolutely not - their characters are far more valuable, and Uni is paying exponentially less than they would have if they'd try to negotiate a deal today (never mind the fact Disney wouldn't be interested, since they'd be installing attractions or meet and greets in their Orlando parks).

This isn't honestly a Disney vs. Universal thing, it's a Marvel vs. Universal thing. I'll again point out that no one cared before Disney bought Marvel... and now suddenly everyone thinks Universal is getting screwed. They aren't, they love the arrangement and will continue to profit handsomely from it (and Marvel will get some decent $$, too).

 

[NormC]

Nevermind, not worth arguing over. My only point was Disney benefits greatly for doing very little other than maintaining the status quo. Money for nothing. I'm out.

 

[Cesar R M]

You're probably right about that, especially if I was paying OOP for the dining plan.
Don't they lose a ton of money on Free Dining though?
I mean in my case we are booked at POFQ so slim chance of a room discount coming my way anyhow.

They probably recover by having the people pay full hotel room rate.

I doubt Disney does anything that causes them to truly "lose" money (arguments about MM+ aside).

Haven't others said here over and over again that the cost of free dining is pretty much paid for by increasing prices on food for the rest of the year, changes to menus, etc? As I'm typing this, I just saw your own comment about steak prices at Le Cellier going up $24 in a year... if that's true, I think we have our answer.

Agree fully!

 

[seascape]

Disney is making tons of money off of their assets without even taking the UNI business into account. Disney can put Marvel IP in every park they own if they want to do so except Orlando. Disney can do whatever they like with their IP outside of theme parks. They can and are raking in lots of money on their asset including a bug chunk of change from UNI to allow UNI to use a subset of characters in IOA. Yes, the money could be more if Disney had negotiated the contract today but they are not losing money. It does not cost them anything to maintain the status quo. I see your point but at what cost would Disney have to pay to gain that little piece of pie back? There is no need for Marvel IP in WDW at the moment so they might as well collect the fees from UNI for the time being until they need to change the status quo. Right now they can sit back and collect that small piece of income for basically doing nothing.

Norm, Can you just see the adds in Japan in 10 years or so when the Marvel Charachters leave Universal Japan and go to Tokyo Disney? It may be the reason Disney is taking it slow right now. They know they can run commercials all over the work with the charachters leaving Universal Japan and going to Disney parks all over the world. Sometime in the 2020's the only Universal Park with Marvel will be in Orlando. That is just a fact. Does Universal want to keep them for just one park or concentrate on rides and attractions that are in use all over the world? It is also qustionable if Universal could even advertise their Marvel rides on TV outside of the United States because they don't own the rights.

 

[Skip]

Norm, Can you just see the adds in Japan in 10 years or so when the Marvel Charachters leave Universal Japan and go to Tokyo Disney? It may be the reason Disney is taking it slow right now. They know they can run commercials all over the work with the charachters leaving Universal Japan and going to Disney parks all over the world. Sometime in the 2020's the only Universal Park with Marvel will be in Orlando. That is just a fact. Does Universal want to keep them for just one park or concentrate on rides and attractions that are in use all over the world? It is also qustionable if Universal could even advertise their Marvel rides on TV outside of the United States because they don't own the rights.

Oh please, let's not act like they could show the Marvel characters "leave" the Universal parks to come "home."

Your "fact" is correct - but the thing is, yes, Universal does want to keep the Marvel brand in its Orlando park. It's hugely profitable and marketable - in fact, if certain whispers are to be believed, they may be looking at expanding - and they have Potter to be the draw for the international locations.

And it's not questionable. Universal *does* advertise their Marvel characters licensed to their Orlando parks outside the United States, and they will continue to do so.

You wouldn't care if Disney hadn't bought Marvel. Put down the pixie dust, and let's only look at the facts and not Disney-favored conjecture.

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

My point is that Disney gets money for nothing. All the costs involved are Uni's. Yes I am positive Uni still nets a profit but so does Disney. Disney benefits from the deal that they had nothing to do with.

But couldn't one say that, by Universal having that contract and essentially locking out Disney from using those popular characters to create attractions/m&g that Universal is preventing them from making more long term money off Marvel? (The cost to build an attraction is probably cheaper today than it will be years from now, plus those characters are extremely high in popularity right now.)

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney/Marvel gets money for nothing. Uni has to do all the work. Uni only gets revenue from the admission to the theme park and they have to spend some of it to pay Disney and maintain the Marvel Universe to Marvel's standards as defined in the contract. I still see Disney/Marvel as the winner here but we can agree to disagree.

My point is that Disney gets money for nothing. All the costs involved are Uni's. Yes I am positive Uni still nets a profit but so does Disney. Disney benefits from the deal that they had nothing to do with.

Remember, universal provides financial compensation to Disney for the Marvel contract.

Disney is making money off marvel without spending a dime.

By this rationale there are no benefits to licensing properties for theme park use. Walt Disney World has an entire park that was built around licensed properties.

Making less than possible is not good in a company like Disney.

 

[Cesar R M]

I'm gonna lay this out again, because I'm tired of having 90% of peoples' rational statements on this warped.

When I say that Universal got the better end of the deal, I'm not saying that Marvel (don't need to make this a big Disney vs. Universal thing) is getting screwed, is losing money, or is failing. None of that. I'm just saying objectively, Universal is getting more of a monetary benefit out of this deal than Disney is.

"But Disney is getting money for nothing, so they win!"

Not exactly. You could argue (successfully) that Disney could potentially make truckloads more money if they were able to install Marvel headliners, and rake in $$ from associated merchandise, food/bev, and admissions, at their Orlando parks - more money than they're currently receiving out of this deal. They're making money right now, sure, from the cut specified in the contract. (And let's be clear, I'll go back and find the quotes if I have to, some [not all] were implying Uni gets NO money out of merchandise sold in MSHI. That is patently false.)

Upkeep for Marvel Super Hero Island is no more expensive than any of their other lands, especially considering three of the four rides aren't especially complex, so this notion that Uni is hurting because they have to maintain the area is ludicrous... they would've had to do that anyway, regardless of the theme of the area and its rides.

The best way to determine who a contract favors is, as lebeau has pointed out, asking the hypothetical "Would both parties sign the same contract today?" The answer is Marvel would absolutely not - their characters are far more valuable, and Uni is paying exponentially less than they would have if they'd try to negotiate a deal today (never mind the fact Disney wouldn't be interested, since they'd be installing attractions or meet and greets in their Orlando parks).

This isn't honestly a Disney vs. Universal thing, it's a Marvel vs. Universal thing. I'll again point out that no one cared before Disney bought Marvel... and now suddenly everyone thinks Universal is getting screwed. They aren't, they love the arrangement and will continue to profit handsomely from it (and Marvel will get some decent $$, too).

I think I get your point.

Disney is positively inflating the Marvel characters(popularity wise) thanks to the movies.
This is a direct benefit for Universal.

Where do people go to see the chars in real life or attractions based on these characters?
obviously UNIVERSAL STUDIOS!!!.(at least for now)


Its a interesting synergy between 2 companies that are supposed to be murdering each other as they are direct competitors in many things.. but also heavily dependant too.

 

[NormC]

Seascape, Universal does not really need Marvel. They keep them and maintain them because they got the license to use them cheaply when Marvel needed cash as Lebeau correctly pointed out. If Universal wanted to they could re-theme the Marvel Universe section of IOA and be done with it. Disney also does not need Marvel in WDW so they are content to collect the steady stream of cash from UNI to let UNI have that tiny piece of the Marvel pie. Both sides benefit now. Disney would have to spend money to change the status quo and it is not currently necessary to do so.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

But Disney sausage is special sausage.

 

[lebeau]

I'm gonna lay this out again, because I'm tired of having 90% of peoples' rational statements on this warped.

When I say that Universal got the better end of the deal, I'm not saying that Marvel (don't need to make this a big Disney vs. Universal thing) is getting screwed, is losing money, or is failing. None of that. I'm just saying objectively, Universal is getting more of a monetary benefit out of this deal than Disney is.

"But Disney is getting money for nothing, so they win!"

Not exactly. You could argue (successfully) that Disney could potentially make truckloads more money if they were able to install Marvel headliners, and rake in $$ from associated merchandise, food/bev, and admissions, at their Orlando parks - more money than they're currently receiving out of this deal. They're making money right now, sure, from the cut specified in the contract. (And let's be clear, I'll go back and find the quotes if I have to, some [not all] were implying Uni gets NO money out of merchandise sold in MSHI. That is patently false.)

Upkeep for Marvel Super Hero Island is no more expensive than any of their other lands, especially considering three of the four rides aren't especially complex, so this notion that Uni is hurting because they have to maintain the area is ludicrous... they would've had to do that anyway, regardless of the theme of the area and its rides.

The best way to determine who a contract favors is, as lebeau has pointed out, asking the hypothetical "Would both parties sign the same contract today?" The answer is Marvel would absolutely not - their characters are far more valuable, and Uni is paying exponentially less than they would have if they'd try to negotiate a deal today (never mind the fact Disney wouldn't be interested, since they'd be installing attractions or meet and greets in their Orlando parks).

This isn't honestly a Disney vs. Universal thing, it's a Marvel vs. Universal thing. I'll again point out that no one cared before Disney bought Marvel... and now suddenly everyone thinks Universal is getting screwed. They aren't, they love the arrangement and will continue to profit handsomely from it (and Marvel will get some decent $$, too).

 

[PrincessNelly_NJ]

I doubt Disney does anything that causes them to truly "lose" money (arguments about MM+ aside).

Haven't others said here over and over again that the cost of free dining is pretty much paid for by increasing prices on food for the rest of the year, changes to menus, etc? As I'm typing this, I just saw your own comment about steak prices at Le Cellier going up $24 in a year... if that's true, I think we have our answer.

ETA: I just looked at their menu, and the most expensive meal that I found was $49. I'm not sure how the $64 for a steak would be accurate... but even a $9 increase over a year is almost 25% if we're talking about the same menu item (which we may not be). I still say food prices are going up to compensate, just maybe not as much as the other post may lead us to believe.

True. I remember someone saying that Disney wanted to do away with Free Dining, so that is where the idea of thinking it must be costing them a ton of money came from.
I was surprised to see that from 2012 to 2014 the prices at Yachtsman dropped by about $3-$6 per entree. Miracles!

They probably recover by having the people pay full hotel room rate.

If it wasn't for free dining, I definitely wouldn't be staying at POFQ. I can't imagine paying rack rate plus OOP for food! Just the thought makes me faint LOL

 

[marni1971]

Someone give the record player a kick.

 

[lebeau]

Nevermind, not worth arguing over. My only point was Disney benefits greatly for doing very little other than maintaining the status quo. Money for nothing. I'm out.

But do they get their chicks for free?

 

[randyrut]

I doubt Disney does anything that causes them to truly "lose" money (arguments about MM+ aside).

Haven't others said here over and over again that the cost of free dining is pretty much paid for by increasing prices on food for the rest of the year, changes to menus, etc? As I'm typing this, I just saw your own comment about steak prices at Le Cellier going up $24 in a year... if that's true, I think we have our answer.

ETA: I just looked at their menu, and the most expensive meal that I found was $49. I'm not sure how the $64 for a steak would be accurate... but even a $9 increase over a year is almost 25% if we're talking about the same menu item (which we may not be). I still say food prices are going up to compensate, just maybe not as much as the other post may lead us to believe.

I swear the bone-in ribeye was 64 a while back. They much have just lowered the price or im still hallucinating from the mushrooms back when I was young. Sorry!

 

[Cesar R M]

But Disney sausage is special sausage.

 

[lebeau]

Someone give the record player a kick.

Better yet...

 

[cw1982]

I swear the bone-in ribeye was 64 a while back. They much have just lowered the price or im still hallucinating from the mushrooms back when I was young. Sorry!

I didn't mean that in a "questioning your credibility" kind of way... I was just trying to figure out the math lol. I did notice that there are several sides listed that, if I'm reading the menu right, don't come with the meals. Maybe the meals came out to about that much per person after adding some of those sides? Either way, it's definitely not cheap