The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[hopemax]

Iger was a TV guy and former weatherman. To my knowledge he never had a high level job that was remotely close to being related to Finance or Accounting. Staggs and Rasoulo are former Wall Street guys so I guess an argument could be made that they are looking at things with an "accountant's eye".

The real issue for P&R is they don't have a strong, charismatic leader who could rise up to the rank of CEO but still favor the parks since that is where they came from. Staggs is the closest thing, but he isn't a real P&R guy. He's just spending time there until the next job comes along. I'm gonna get killed for saying this, but maybe he would favor the parks some as CEO. Do we really know that he agrees with Iger on all things P&R? He allegedly pushed for swapping out the pixie meet and greet with Mine Train. Maybe he would be more loose with the purse strings than Iger. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible. Problem is I don't see him being much of a champion for WDW even if he pushes through P&R spending.

How's this as a theory. I've been out of the loop, so I don't know how much Iger actually involves himself with P&R. I've had impressions, that he simply doesn't care about it, other than it's a big part of the business and he sort of has to. But what if "Iger's P&R" decisions are already Rasulo/Staggs decisions? That Iger has already been treating P&R as "hands off, I'll let those guys take care of that area of the business" Which is why it's been so much a numbers game management operation. Maybe if one of them had come to Iger with actual creative projects, they could have been approved, but they never went to Iger, so nothing happened, and Iger is operating under the assumption that P&R is just fine without them because the head of P&R didn't ask for them. Staggs might be a little bit more perceptive about P&R needs than Rasulo, but I wouldn't assume he'd start spending more if he were in charge, because he may already be effectively making the spending choices?

 

[GoofGoof]

How's this as a theory. I've been out of the loop, so I don't know how much Iger actually involves himself with P&R. I've had impressions, that he simply doesn't care about it, other than it's a big part of the business and he sort of has to. But what if "Iger's P&R" decisions are already Rasulo/Staggs decisions? That Iger has already been treating P&R as "hands off, I'll let those guys take care of that area of the business" Which is why it's been so much a numbers game management operation. Maybe if one of them had come to Iger with actual creative projects, they could have been approved, but they never went to Iger, so nothing happened, and Iger is operating under the assumption that P&R is just fine without them because the head of P&R didn't ask for them. Staggs might be a little bit more perceptive about P&R needs than Rasulo, but I wouldn't assume he'd start spending more if he were in charge, because he may already be effectively making the spending choices?

I guess it could be possible. It's a nice speculation, but Iger is still in charge. Major decisions still need board approval and he's the chairman of the BOD. I'm not saying that others don't have input, but at the end of the day major projects like FLE, Avland, Carsland and Shanghai are made by Iger. Smaller scale decisions and park operations are left to lower level executives.

 

[GoofGoof]

Honestly, I think the Speedway has real potential, even if they still keep the same infrastructure in place.
Replace the noisy lawnmower engines with a fleet of electrics like Hong Kong has, then spend a couple million to build some neat scenery for the track.
Sugar Rush, Radiator Springs, or even a generic "Tomorrowland" race course would be welcome and shift the emphasis from being on the attraction hardware itself (which is and always will be lame) to the experience of driving in whatever themed world they build.

They could do all of this for virtually nothing. Bring in a sponsor to pay for it. We talked about it on another thread, but a company like Tesla could be brought in if they convert to electric cars. Great advertising opportunity. If not Tesla then another company with electric cars like Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf. It would finally fit into the futuristic theme too since electric cars will be a bigger part of the future.

 

[Mike S]

They could do all of this for virtually nothing. Bring in a sponsor to pay for it. We talked about it on another thread, but a company like Tesla could be brought in if they convert to electric cars. Great advertising opportunity. If not Tesla then another company with electric cars like Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf. It would finally fit into the futuristic theme too since electric cars will be a bigger part of the future.

Chevy already sponsors Test Track so maybe they would be interested in the chance of sponsoring an electric redo of the Speedway as well. A kind of monopoly on sponsorship of car based rides in WDW if you will.

 

[1023]

Chevy already sponsors Test Track so maybe they would be interested in the chance of sponsoring an electric redo of the Speedway as well. A kind of monopoly on sponsorship of car based rides in WDW if you will.

Sound marketing strategy to monopolize a theme and at different parks. Anyone know how long the current sponsor's contract is?

*1023*

 

[Mike S]

Sound marketing strategy to monopolize a theme and at different parks. Anyone know how long the current sponsor's contract is?

*1023*

Does it have a sponsor? I don't think it does which is why it's not called the Indy Speedway anymore, unless they got someone new and I haven't been paying attention.

 

[1023]

Does it have a sponsor? I don't think it does which is why it's not called the Indy Speedway anymore, unless they got someone new and I haven't been paying attention.

I know the deal with Chevron at Disneyland ended a couple years ago. I would love to see an electric version of this ride. If it were themed as @GoofGoof proposed, it would be a low budget, high impact re-imagining. Not to mention the "Green" credit the could crow about...

*1023*

 

[TP2000]

Being that the parks are 2500 miles apart I personally don't see the issue with "cloning", heck half the MK in Orlando is "cloned"

Agreed. For the first 20 years of Magic Kingdom, almost every attraction was a direct clone or slightly altered copy of the Disneyland original. The only exceptions I can think of were:

Hall of Presidents - A very noticeable upgrade from the 1964 Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln
Mickey Mouse Revue - An all-new show never seen before
Swan Boats - A ride not found at Disneyland
Country Bear Jamboree - Opened six months earlier than the double-theater Disneyland version that opened in March, 1972
If You Had Wings - A ride not found at Disneyland

Every other attraction found at Magic Kingdom in 1971, and everything added for about the next 20 years, was a clone or close copy of something already at Disneyland. Space Mountain was the lone opposite of that trend, as it opened first in '75 at MK before a version could open at Disneyland in '77.

Not until the mid 1990's, when New Tomorrowland opened at MK, did the cloning practice finally taper off for MK.

 

[stevehousse]

If they redid the speedway with electric vehicles, hell, build a huge building around it and (I know I will get hate for this) add screens everywhere and theme it to Wreck it Ralph Sugar Rush!

 

[marni1971]

I guess it could be possible. It's a nice speculation, but Iger is still in charge. Major decisions still need board approval and he's the chairman of the BOD. I'm not saying that others don't have input, but at the end of the day major projects like FLE, Avland, Carsland and Shanghai are made by Iger. Smaller scale decisions and park operations are left to lower level executives.

If all fairness, you couldn't put a new restroom sign up without asking uncle Mike. Eisner was notorious for micromanaging every aspect of everything.

Iger has his people below him whom he trusts to make decisions for him. Quite big ones. Not new parks obviously but he doesn't have the same oversight his predecessor had. For right or wrong.

 

[ParentsOf4]

They can tell shareholders that the market is mature and that's why attendance growth is only 1-2%. The reality is, the marginal increases are a function of the lack of updates.

They can tell shareholders that they're net getting into a costly attraction building war with Universal and then spend $2 billion on a misguided ruse to deceive guests out of more money. Then when that doesn't work, they raise prices and continue to try to create something out of nothing with premier experiences.

At least some things will improve at WDW in the coming years. Fund managers are expecting Disney to expand Iger’s IP acquisitions at the theme parks. Iger and Rasulo have promised as much.

Wall Street has seen the success of Harry Potter at Universal. They expect Marvel and Star Wars will be equally successful at Disney’s theme parks.

Some form of Star Wars Land eventually will happen in Orlando, along with a greater presence of other properties. There’s a business case for it and investors want it.

When it does happen, casual vacationers will consider WDW to better than ever. Naysayers will be relegated to a fringe group.

It’s not a matter of if but of when.

The problem with getting these projects started is Disney’s total budget for all projects.

Generally, capital expenditure (capex) is evaluated as a percentage of revenue. For Iger’s first 3 fiscal years (2006-2008), Disney Parks & Resorts (P&R) capex as a percentage of revenue was at an all-time low.

After Eisner’s disastrous last few years, Iger was viewed as a breath of fresh air. These historically low budgets were viewed as a return to fiscal sanity.

The problem is they weren’t. They were too low to support a healthy long-term business model.

With this new norm established, Wall Street expressed concern when additional capital investments were announced in the late 2000s.

Generally, they understood the plan for two cruise ships. DCL’s fleet was sailing at near-100% capacity year-round.

Theme park expansions were viewed with more trepidation. Eisner’s last major theme park projects were fiscal disappointments. At best, the new projects announced by Iger were seen as opportunities to improve efficiency and increase per guest spending. At worst, they represented a return to Eisner’s ‘bad days’ (in Wall Street’s eyes).

Attitudes changed with the tremendous success of WWOHP. Still, Disney had gone from a total capex of around 8% in 2008 to 23% by 2011. Wall Street wanted Disney to cut back.

Shanghai (with its large capex) already had been committed to. Disney needed to find another way to bring down total expenditures in 2013 and beyond. With International capex at an all-time high and MyMagic+ continuing to be a money pit, other projects had to be delayed.

When the artistic talent expressed desire for more time to do their projects right, certain budgetary planners embraced these opportunities to defer investments.

As a result, Disney's domestic capex is once again approaching a historically low level.

It won’t remain there but, for now, it gives me something to complain about.

 

[GoofGoof]

I know the deal with Chevron at Disneyland ended a couple years ago. I would love to see an electric version of this ride. If it were themed as @GoofGoof proposed, it would be a low budget, high impact re-imagining. Not to mention the "Green" credit the could crow about...

*1023*

To my knowledge Chevron sponsorship ended in 2012 and there is still no replacement sponsor at DL. Every other Disney park around the world has a sponsor except for WDW. I'm not sure how long the deals run or how much money is paid, but it's possible to bring in a car manufacturer. I have first hand knowledge that a company that doesn't manufacture cars but is pretty big in the electric car charging business looked at stepping in a sponsor. I don't think it went far, but it was looked at. If they got a company to sponsor at both parks it could be a nice, cheap upgrade.

 

[PeterAlt]

Iger was a TV guy and former weatherman. To my knowledge he never had a high level job that was remotely close to being related to Finance or Accounting. Staggs and Rasoulo are former Wall Street guys so I guess an argument could be made that they are looking at things with an "accountant's eye". It's a fanboy urban legend that if someone comes from the creative side of the business that they will automatically have a "vision" for the company and inspire the creative process but if they come from the finance side they will only look at things from an "accountant's eye". I guess what I'm saying is that having a finance background doesn't mean you will automatically be a penny pinching, budget cutting executive once you move into operations management. The opposite is true too. Iger came from the operations and creative side of the business, not finance, so he is a perfect example of why the urban legend doesn't hold water. Even if a guy like Alan Horn or even John Lassiter took over the top post there is no guarantee they would be any better for the P&R business. They would certainly favor the studios side of the business at first since that is what they are familiar with. It's a big leap to assume they would automatically champion the needs of WDW.

The real issue for P&R is they don't have a strong, charismatic leader who could rise up to the rank of CEO but still favor the parks since that is where they came from. Staggs is the closest thing, but he isn't a real P&R guy. He's just spending time there until the next job comes along. I'm gonna get killed for saying this, but maybe he would favor the parks some as CEO. Do we really know that he agrees with Iger on all things P&R? He allegedly pushed for swapping out the pixie meet and greet with Mine Train. Maybe he would be more loose with the purse strings than Iger. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible. Problem is I don't see him being much of a champion for WDW even if he pushes through P&R spending.

And he pushed for Disney Springs instead of Hyperion Warf, if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[1023]

I just re-read this:

Iger was a TV guy and former weatherman. To my knowledge he never had a high level job that was remotely close to being related to Finance or Accounting. Staggs and Rasoulo are former Wall Street guys so I guess an argument could be made that they are looking at things with an "accountant's eye". It's a fanboy urban legend that if someone comes from the creative side of the business that they will automatically have a "vision" for the company and inspire the creative process but if they come from the finance side they will only look at things from an "accountant's eye". I guess what I'm saying is that having a finance background doesn't mean you will automatically be a penny pinching, budget cutting executive once you move into operations management. The opposite is true too. Iger came from the operations and creative side of the business, not finance, so he is a perfect example of why the urban legend doesn't hold water. Even if a guy like Alan Horn or even John Lassiter took over the top post there is no guarantee they would be any better for the P&R business. They would certainly favor the studios side of the business at first since that is what they are familiar with. It's a big leap to assume they would automatically champion the needs of WDW.

The real issue for P&R is they don't have a strong, charismatic leader who could rise up to the rank of CEO but still favor the parks since that is where they came from. Staggs is the closest thing, but he isn't a real P&R guy. He's just spending time there until the next job comes along. I'm gonna get killed for saying this, but maybe he would favor the parks some as CEO. Do we really know that he agrees with Iger on all things P&R? He allegedly pushed for swapping out the pixie meet and greet with Mine Train. Maybe he would be more loose with the purse strings than Iger. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible. Problem is I don't see him being much of a champion for WDW even if he pushes through P&R spending.

And I thought this:

"Accountant's Eye for the Creative Guy...."

*1023*

 

[Mike S]

At least some things will improve at WDW in the coming years. Fund managers are expecting Disney to expand Iger’s IP acquisitions at the theme parks. Iger and Rasulo have promised as much.

Wall Street has seen the success of Harry Potter at Universal. They expect Marvel and Star Wars will be equally successful at Disney’s theme parks.

Some form of Star Wars Land eventually will happen in Orlando, along with a greater presence of other properties. There’s a business case for it and investors want it.

When it does happen, casual vacationers will consider WDW to better than ever. Naysayers will be relegated to a fringe group.

It’s not a matter of if but of when.

The problem with getting these projects started is Disney’s total budget for all projects.

Generally, capital expenditure (capex) is evaluated as a percentage of revenue. For Iger’s first 3 years, Disney Parks & Resorts (P&R) capex as percentages of revenue was at an all-time low.

View attachment 65042

After Eisner’s disastrous last few years, Iger was viewed as a breath of fresh air. These historically low budgets were viewed as a return to fiscal sanity.

The problem is they weren’t. They were too low to support a healthy long-term business model.

With this new norm established, Wall Street expressed concern when additional capital investments were announced in the late 2000s.

Generally, they understood the plan for two cruise ships. DCL’s fleet was sailing at near-100% capacity year-round.

Theme park expansions were viewed with more trepidation. Eisner’s last major theme park projects were fiscal disappointments. At best, the new projects announced by Iger were seen as opportunities to improve efficiency and increase per guest spending. At worst, they represented a return to Eisner’s ‘bad days’ (in Wall Street’s eyes).

Attitudes changed with the tremendous success of WWOHP. Still, Disney had gone from a total capex of around 8% in 2008 to 23% by 2011. Wall Street wanted Disney to cut back.

Shanghai (with its large capex) already had been committed to. Disney needed to find another way to bring down total expenditures in 2013 and beyond. With International capex at an all-time high and MyMagic+ continuing to be a money pit, other projects had to be delayed.

When the artistic talent expressed desire for more time to do their projects right, certain budgetary planners embraced these opportunities to delay investments.

As a result, Disney's domestic capex is once again approaching a historically low level.

It won’t remain there but, for now, it gives me something to complain about.

If this isn't a reason to try to push Guardians at WDW since it can be used I don't know what is. Listen to Wall Street and take full advantage of this opportunity (never thought I'd say that).

 

[Rteetz]

No, I think the people doing the podcast are nearly not at all on the boards itself with the exception of the "podcast board". The do have all kind of different moderators. I think they are all more involved with the travel agency business side of things than the forum side.

I also find that it is far less the moderators on those forums, but the general crowd that provides the "pixie-duster" atmosphere. In the last year there has been quite a change in tone though with price increases and MM+ problems.

Well the people who are on the podcast run the boards. Pete is the owner of it all he hosts the show. The rest are all moderators on the boards. They do have a podcast board and that is where most of them post. Kevin does some stuff in at he ABD board but thats about it. I also agree that the general people give it the pixie dust feel. I normally stay on the news and rumors board because the rest gets to be too disney can do no wrong. There are some good people on the news and rumors boards at least ones with common sense.

 

[spacemt354]

So you really think Song of the South is racist and bad and stuff, huh?

I think it's simply speaking to the point that not everything in a Disney park has to be sunshine and butterflies to be acceptable. Just because Guardians has some language and adult content, doesn't mean it cannot be included in a Disney theme park.

Avatar is PG-13 with violence and language, The Twilight Zone is not the most kid friendly show, and The Great Movie Ride contains adult films, including the R-rated Alien.

It's happened before and it's happening now (with Avatar), so I don't see a reason to exclude GotG because of a few adult one-liners and violence.

 

[doctornick]

I think it's simply speaking to the point that not everything in a Disney park has to be sunshine and butterflies to be acceptable. Just because Guardians has some language and adult content, doesn't mean it cannot be included in a Disney theme park.

Avatar is PG-13 with violence and language, The Twilight Zone is not the most kid friendly show, and The Great Movie Ride contains adult films, including the R-rated Alien.

It's happened before and it's happening now (with Avatar), so I don't see a reason to exclude GotG because of a few adult one-liners and violence.

Totally agree. There are arguments for not using GOTG (or any Marvel IP) in the parks, but the "adult content" in the film would be a terribly silly rationale. As noted, GOTG would be no worse than a bevy of other properties already used in Disney parks. And there would be little reason for a GOTG attraction to have any "adult" quality to it like cursing or adult situations so, regardless of the source material, an attraction would be perfectly fine for the parks.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

Does anyone else mentally picture regular posters here when reading their posts?

Because @ParentsOf4 is this guy, in my mind

The take no nonsense numbers guy teacher with graphs at the ready.

And that's not a bad thing, because I love me some Sam the eagle.

Carry on.

 

[wdwmagic]

I'm always using my phone. Maybe the site should be updated so we can see signatures on Mobile.

Turn your phone to landscape and you can.