so sometimes familiarity counts and sometimes it doesn't?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Assuming familiarity is more often a negative than positive.
I would say familiarity never is a negative....
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Then you really are the IP guy you constantly try to claim to not be. If Splash Mountain was built so that it only made sense if one had seen Song of the South there'd be a massive attraction at Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom that would have been a bunch of nonsense to most people less than ten years after opening. You also wouldn't have the classic Fantasyland dark rides (except Snow White's Scary Adventure) because most of the films were box office duds. Instead the parks would be a bunch of half baked experiences that only appeal to those who have seen a wide swath of the Disney film catalogue.
once again not at all....IP can only help....doesn't make it a better attraction which is the entire point of the last several posts....which I ve explained many times already and have given countless examples why im not an IP guy....its not black and white...IP can help but it doesn't guarantee success..i think star tours is pretty lame but I love TOT.. which is the better IP?
an IP guy to me is someone who says they want the vecoma motorbike launch coaster to star wars but will not go on it if its avatar....that's silly to me
anyways lazy im done for night ill be sure to enjoy your post tomorrow..i certainly appreciate your take on the parks
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
Wow, I was going through some of my old posts on this site and found this great post from 2004 that I wrote...
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/...s-rehabs-we-would-bancrupt-the-company.42812/
It reminds me of the type of great posts @ParentsOf4 would write today!
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/...s-rehabs-we-would-bancrupt-the-company.42812/
It reminds me of the type of great posts @ParentsOf4 would write today!
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I will say, since it is the topic at hand, that both of the new Harry Potter rides IMHO require a certain familiarity with the books/movies to truly appreciate them. The HE has some neat tech, but if the references to Harry Potter mythos don't resonate with the rider, then it simple becomes a nice ride in the countryside where you see some scenes that aren't really fleshed out. The stuff outside the door in particular is fairly pointless IMHO if you don't get the references.
Gringotts is a fun ride regardless, but things move so quickly that it's tough to appreciate what is happening unless you already get the scenes.
I'm not saying this to disparage DA -- which as a walk around land is awesome and accessible to anyone since it is pretty cool -- but I think the rides depend too heavily on the books'/movies' storylines and should have been more generic "showing you the wizarding world". I hope that any future additions are less about Harry and more about having Muggles take a peek at magic in general. YMMV.
Gringotts is a fun ride regardless, but things move so quickly that it's tough to appreciate what is happening unless you already get the scenes.
I'm not saying this to disparage DA -- which as a walk around land is awesome and accessible to anyone since it is pretty cool -- but I think the rides depend too heavily on the books'/movies' storylines and should have been more generic "showing you the wizarding world". I hope that any future additions are less about Harry and more about having Muggles take a peek at magic in general. YMMV.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
None of this has anything to do with assuming familiarity with the source material during development and how such an attitude impacts the accessibility of the built attraction.
DisUniversal
Well-Known Member
Don't know of any attraction or area where people are getting lost because they aren't familiar with the films.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
They had a funny SNL skit tonight where they basically commented that (following the success of unknowns with GOTG) Marvel could slap their name on almost any movie and make a crapload of money. I don't think that's too wrong either, at this point in time.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Marvel's "Some Office Chairs"
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
Spirit, are the Lasseter projects coming to MGM Studios going to be Cars Land/Ratatouille quality or is it just going to be some Toy Story play land bs? Seems like a waste of time and money to do the later.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
Why not both? A new "Frozen" ride AND an upgrade to Norway?
Oh yeah, right. Iger and his flying monkeys.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Iger doesn't have flying monkeys, all he has are pigeons sewn onto the backs of rats.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
But as RsoxNo1 pointed out, even the non-ip areas of Disney have references/easter eggs that you need some prior reference to understand. For example the names on the windows on Main Street are a nice detail to the average guest, but you have to know that history of Disney to truly understand what the names represent. Haunted Mansion is another example, anyone can enjoy it, but it's even cooler if you know the back story which isn't ever directly explained to the rider.
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
Some people like IP based attractions other very much enjoy Original attractions just like some like vanilla ice cream others like chocolate, some enjoy both. That's that. I will say enjoying something is not always based on how familiar you are with something. Also in regards to Harry Potter, I know people who are not familiar with Harry Potter who are more intrigued and spent hours upon hours in Diagon Alley than actual fans because its sparked their interest into Harry Potter.
I don't remember exactly who said that Avatar lacks merchandising purposes but I agree. Its going to be a great and lovely land visually unless they are selling live bio-luminescent plants that can survive the flight from Orlando to home, there is nothing I personally would want to buy Avatar related.
I don't remember exactly who said that Avatar lacks merchandising purposes but I agree. Its going to be a great and lovely land visually unless they are selling live bio-luminescent plants that can survive the flight from Orlando to home, there is nothing I personally would want to buy Avatar related.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
This is among the biggest criticisms of the Little Mermaid, it attempts to retell the story in 5-6 minutes. While I personally think it does a good job in doing so, others disagree.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
You could make an argument that Kevin Feige and John Lasseter are the two most valuable assets in Disney right now.
matt9112
Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
There are many ways to judge WDW. Some are subjective, resulting in endless debate.
One less subjective way is to look at WDW as a business. As a business, is WDW being run as effectively as in the past?
In their annual reports and SEC filings, Disney does not break down the financials by resort. However, since WDW represents more than half of Parks & Resorts (P&R) revenue, the published P&R numbers generally reflect what’s happening at WDW. These numbers are consistent with the limited numbers that Disney reports for domestic P&R. (Domestic P&R is 80% of P&R’s business, while WDW is about 80% of that.)
Looking at the numbers, it’s apparent that despite successes elsewhere, Disney’s leadership under CEO Bob Iger has made some poor decisions in P&R.
There are many ways to evaluate leadership’s effectiveness but, generally, gross margin is a good measurement of management’s overall performance, especially when compared with prior performance within that same company. Is current management making things better or worse than previous management?
Furthermore, it’s relatively easy for a company to boost short-term profitability by making bad long-term decisions. In order to consider whether leadership is making the right strategic decisions, it’s necessary to examine trends over multiple years.
Corporate Disney’s average gross margin under Iger is 21.3%, up from former CEO Michael Eisner’s 19.0%. This margin demonstrates that Iger has been an effective leader for Disney as a whole.
However, the situation is reversed in P&R. Eisner’s average P&R gross margin is 50% higher than Iger’s (22.0% vs. 14.7%).
Iger has been CEO for 8 full fiscal years. He is close to finishing his ninth year. As it so happens, his P&R margins fit neatly into 3 distinct periods of 3 years each.
For Iger’s first 3 years, P&R’s margin averaged 16.0%.
From 2009 to 2011, P&R’s average margin dropped to 12.9%.
Since 2011, Iger’s P&R margin has been climbing and, depending how the current fiscal quarter finishes, should finish back above 16% for the most recent 3-year period.
What gives?
Eisner’s organization produced strong P&R margins throughout his 21 years as CEO. Even during the horrendous post-9/11 period which decimated the tourist industry, Eisner managed an average 15.6% margin.
By comparison, Iger’s 12.9% margin from 2009 to 2011 represents a historic low for the company.
What Eisner did throughout his tenure was invest in P&R. Eisner’s annual P&R capital expenditures as a percentage of P&R revenue averaged 50% higher that Iger’s, resulting in consistently better margins, even during the most difficult economic times.
Boosted by Eisner’s higher P&R investments during his last years as CEO, P&R revenue increased an average of 8.5% during Iger’s first 3 years. As a result, P&R margin averaged 16.0%. After that, the P&R margin plummeted.
When Iger took charge in late 2005, he immediately slashed P&R investments. P&R capex was cut from $1.4B (Eisner’s last year) to $0.9B (Iger’s first year). It would be one thing if it were a one-year blip. However, P&R capex remained low for 3 years.
For amusement parks, capex is what drives future growth. The money spent this year pays for the new attraction next year.
In Disney’s case, projects take multiple years to develop. Thus, when Iger reduced capex from 2006 to 2008, it wasn’t until 2009 to 2011 that its effects were felt.
Some might blame a recession. However, it’s important to recognize that WDW and DLR attendance increased slightly during this period, so blaming the falling performance on a recession is a red herring. Throughout its history, P&R has reported strong margins during numerous economic downturns.
More recently, Universal reported impressive margins in 2010 and 2011 after the opening of WWOHP, which happens to coincide with the period when Disney’s P&R margins cratered. Universal invested in the right product and was rewarded for it.
Investing in the right product improves profitability regardless of business climate.
Except during the most dire circumstances (such as the Great Depression), consumers will spend when offered the right product. Profits can be adversely affected by a poor economy but, nearly always, a company will experience better profits by investing than by halting investment.
There are legitimate reasons to reduce investments. However, for a company like Disney with tremendous financial resources to weather the worst economic storms, reducing investment results in avoidable negative consequences.
With Disney’s P&R capex budget slashed from 2006 to 2008, few brick & mortar projects were started. As a result, consumers from 2009 to 2011 had fewer reasons to purchase Disney’s P&R products at Disney’s P&R prices.
Without any appreciable P&R content added, Disney was forced to offer steep discounts to keep attendance up. These discounts hurt revenue which, in turn, hurt margins.
Iger’s decision to reduce P&R investments in 2006-2008 hurt P&R’s profitability in 2009-2011.
Beginning in 2009, Iger started increasing P&R investments. He approved a complete redo of DCA, the New Fantasyland, and MyMagic+. He approved 2 new cruise ships. As these new projects completed, the P&R margin began to improve. It was 15.8% in 2013 and is climbing further in 2014. Depending on how the last quarter of the fiscal year finishes, it might reach 18% for 2014, Iger’s best ever.
Investing in Cars Land and the New Fantasyland helped boost margins.
Investing in theme parks supports higher prices, improves attendance, and leads to increased consumer spending.
It’s really simple. Build something people want to buy and they buy it. Offer last year’s product at this year’s prices and discounts become necessary.
This is not rocket science.
A company needs to invest in itself if it wants to improve profitability. Cutting investments today hurts sales tomorrow.
With WDW generating more than half of P&R’s revenue, corporate Disney needs to invest in WDW.
Unfortunately, it appears that Iger has repeated his earlier mistake. P&R’s domestic investments for 2013 and 2014 will be less than half what they were in 2011 and 2012.
Although Iger has invested internationally in Shanghai, domestic investments are down to 2006-2008 levels.
Some exciting times lie ahead for WDW but did it really need to take 9 years to figure this out?
One less subjective way is to look at WDW as a business. As a business, is WDW being run as effectively as in the past?
In their annual reports and SEC filings, Disney does not break down the financials by resort. However, since WDW represents more than half of Parks & Resorts (P&R) revenue, the published P&R numbers generally reflect what’s happening at WDW. These numbers are consistent with the limited numbers that Disney reports for domestic P&R. (Domestic P&R is 80% of P&R’s business, while WDW is about 80% of that.)
Looking at the numbers, it’s apparent that despite successes elsewhere, Disney’s leadership under CEO Bob Iger has made some poor decisions in P&R.
There are many ways to evaluate leadership’s effectiveness but, generally, gross margin is a good measurement of management’s overall performance, especially when compared with prior performance within that same company. Is current management making things better or worse than previous management?
Furthermore, it’s relatively easy for a company to boost short-term profitability by making bad long-term decisions. In order to consider whether leadership is making the right strategic decisions, it’s necessary to examine trends over multiple years.
Corporate Disney’s average gross margin under Iger is 21.3%, up from former CEO Michael Eisner’s 19.0%. This margin demonstrates that Iger has been an effective leader for Disney as a whole.
However, the situation is reversed in P&R. Eisner’s average P&R gross margin is 50% higher than Iger’s (22.0% vs. 14.7%).
Iger has been CEO for 8 full fiscal years. He is close to finishing his ninth year. As it so happens, his P&R margins fit neatly into 3 distinct periods of 3 years each.
For Iger’s first 3 years, P&R’s margin averaged 16.0%.
From 2009 to 2011, P&R’s average margin dropped to 12.9%.
Since 2011, Iger’s P&R margin has been climbing and, depending how the current fiscal quarter finishes, should finish back above 16% for the most recent 3-year period.
What gives?
Eisner’s organization produced strong P&R margins throughout his 21 years as CEO. Even during the horrendous post-9/11 period which decimated the tourist industry, Eisner managed an average 15.6% margin.
By comparison, Iger’s 12.9% margin from 2009 to 2011 represents a historic low for the company.
What Eisner did throughout his tenure was invest in P&R. Eisner’s annual P&R capital expenditures as a percentage of P&R revenue averaged 50% higher that Iger’s, resulting in consistently better margins, even during the most difficult economic times.
Boosted by Eisner’s higher P&R investments during his last years as CEO, P&R revenue increased an average of 8.5% during Iger’s first 3 years. As a result, P&R margin averaged 16.0%. After that, the P&R margin plummeted.
When Iger took charge in late 2005, he immediately slashed P&R investments. P&R capex was cut from $1.4B (Eisner’s last year) to $0.9B (Iger’s first year). It would be one thing if it were a one-year blip. However, P&R capex remained low for 3 years.
For amusement parks, capex is what drives future growth. The money spent this year pays for the new attraction next year.
In Disney’s case, projects take multiple years to develop. Thus, when Iger reduced capex from 2006 to 2008, it wasn’t until 2009 to 2011 that its effects were felt.
Some might blame a recession. However, it’s important to recognize that WDW and DLR attendance increased slightly during this period, so blaming the falling performance on a recession is a red herring. Throughout its history, P&R has reported strong margins during numerous economic downturns.
More recently, Universal reported impressive margins in 2010 and 2011 after the opening of WWOHP, which happens to coincide with the period when Disney’s P&R margins cratered. Universal invested in the right product and was rewarded for it.
Investing in the right product improves profitability regardless of business climate.
Except during the most dire circumstances (such as the Great Depression), consumers will spend when offered the right product. Profits can be adversely affected by a poor economy but, nearly always, a company will experience better profits by investing than by halting investment.
There are legitimate reasons to reduce investments. However, for a company like Disney with tremendous financial resources to weather the worst economic storms, reducing investment results in avoidable negative consequences.
With Disney’s P&R capex budget slashed from 2006 to 2008, few brick & mortar projects were started. As a result, consumers from 2009 to 2011 had fewer reasons to purchase Disney’s P&R products at Disney’s P&R prices.
Without any appreciable P&R content added, Disney was forced to offer steep discounts to keep attendance up. These discounts hurt revenue which, in turn, hurt margins.
Iger’s decision to reduce P&R investments in 2006-2008 hurt P&R’s profitability in 2009-2011.
Beginning in 2009, Iger started increasing P&R investments. He approved a complete redo of DCA, the New Fantasyland, and MyMagic+. He approved 2 new cruise ships. As these new projects completed, the P&R margin began to improve. It was 15.8% in 2013 and is climbing further in 2014. Depending on how the last quarter of the fiscal year finishes, it might reach 18% for 2014, Iger’s best ever.
Investing in Cars Land and the New Fantasyland helped boost margins.
Investing in theme parks supports higher prices, improves attendance, and leads to increased consumer spending.
It’s really simple. Build something people want to buy and they buy it. Offer last year’s product at this year’s prices and discounts become necessary.
This is not rocket science.
A company needs to invest in itself if it wants to improve profitability. Cutting investments today hurts sales tomorrow.
With WDW generating more than half of P&R’s revenue, corporate Disney needs to invest in WDW.
Unfortunately, it appears that Iger has repeated his earlier mistake. P&R’s domestic investments for 2013 and 2014 will be less than half what they were in 2011 and 2012.
Although Iger has invested internationally in Shanghai, domestic investments are down to 2006-2008 levels.
Some exciting times lie ahead for WDW but did it really need to take 9 years to figure this out?
Last edited: