The Spirited Sixth Sense ...

[WDW1974]

How much of those numbers are the result of buying Pixar and Marvel?

Well considering Iger increased market cap from $50 to $138 billion, and Pixar cost $7,4 billion and Marvel $4 billion - and I'll be generous and throw in $4,05 Star Wars too for a tiny grand total of 11.45 billion of acquisitions for 88 billion market cap increase - it means that either Iger made the acquisitions of the century, or 'a small amount'.

Except, market cap isn't based on the amount of money one spends on acquisitions. ... The point being that Pixar and Marvel have added billions to Disney's bottom line (I don't know how much and neither do you), Lucas as well of late. That is on everything from box office profits to licensing ... you know all of this.

Wall Street is nothing if not a giant casino. That's what greatly drives market cap.

Sure. But this is not kindergarten. This is a fifty billion dollar multinational. Eisner can not cry to mama that the other side are mean and petulant.

If you run a $50 billion business, it is up to you to behave in a fashion that allows your company to close the deal, rather than pointing fingers at the other kids. Instead you do what you need to do for your compny.

He did. He stepped down. And he kept a HUGE amount of his stock because he believed in the company then and believes in it now. Who knows ... I never took Michael for a Pixie Dust addict but maybe in his 70s, he's going soft?

Eisner could not close the Pixar deal, so all fingers are correctly pointed at him. That he couldn't do so only (as you remind us) because his insufferable personality deterred others, makes matters only worse.

The shareholders were right. Eisner had come to give preference to his ego over the pensions of his investors. It was time to oust him, tarred and feathered.

How ironic that Michael Eisner gets vilified for being a Hollywood media mogul with an ego and yet The Weatherman, who costs stockholders seven figures a year for 24/7 security, and is widely viewed as teflon like seems to escape criticism for this trait?

When the day draws to a close and the Disney fanboi wants to know which of the Disney executives has the same affinity for some of the same things they do, let them remember that Michael Eisner was the guy who would willingly put those damn Mouse Ears on ... Literally.

Bob ...???

 

[GoofGoof]

Actually I don't like conspiracy theories because they are the antithesis of critical thinking, I do frequently bring up things people including myself don't like to think about.

Disney does 'Hollywood Accounting' in Hollywood accounting there is always a division which has a vastly overstated cost structure and nearly all the costs of the company are placed there, This Division then bills other Divisions for 'services rendered'.

This in turn reduces the overall profit while moving the cash from a profitable department to an unprofitable department after which it is transferred to the mothership for use elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

That's all fine and good. Internal transfer pricing exists everywhere, not just Hollywood. It even happens at Universal Since there are no profit sharing or royalty arrangements I don't see the economic benefit from over inflating the costs. It would not have a positive tax impact. Is it something related to the deal with Cameron. I just assumed they paid him a flat fee for theme park rights plus a piece of the merchandise sales.

 

[WDW1974]

In Conclusion, Bob Iger will be hailed a hero when he steps down from the CEO position in about 2 years time (Something Eisner never wanted to do because he was a power hungry and arrogant maniac who felt he OWNED the company) for saving a company that was on it's way to becoming irrelevant forever.

I left the rest of your post behind because it just is so lacking in facts and depth. It's a typical kneejerk, fan-who-has-read-the-interwebs for years response. You have your world view and you certainly aren't going to let facts get in the way. BTW, how many shares of TWDC does Michael Eisner own now? How many does Bob Iger? Jay Rasulo? Tom Staggs?

Bob will only be hailed a hero by the short sellers on Wall Street, the execs that he promoted and fans who simply do not understand things.

Disney was on its way to being irrelevant forever, carved up like a corpse on the table, when Michael came. Not when he left. You can all you like about cheapquels and parks that weren't built up to prior standards and bad decisions ... but you can't argue with the results. The company was in FAR, FAR, FAR greater shape when Bob Iger took over than when Michael did.

Anyone familiar with Walt Disney Productions in the early 1980s would tell you, no matter how much they may personally dislike Michael Eisner, it is an entirely unfair comparison to even make. Disney was nothing when Michael came in ... a tiny company in disarray still looking for direction from a founder that had died a decade and a half before. Even with all the issues, look at what he left behind ... no, created. Hell, just look in Orlando if you don't want to look around the globe or on your DVD shelves or in your stock portfolio.

You need to live in reality.

 

[WDW1974]

Suggesting the multi-billion dollar Disney is somewhat similar to a mac&cheese stand is disingenuous. The simple truth is that it was Eisner, not Iger, who turned Disney from a small cap company with great name recognition into the multi-billion dollar megacorporation it is today.

The old adage "It takes money to make money" holds true for Iger. Iger inherited a megacorporation and grew it. In today's economy where wealth is being concentrated, Iger's performance is by no means unique. Heck, Iger doesn't even make Forbes' list of best CEOs.

Nothing to add, just wanted to repeat because this very integral point keeps going over heads and out to Never Land.

 

[yellowstone7123]

You are talking about the School's graduation rates. I am talking about the FEDERAL graduation rate, i.e. once enrolled did the student earn a degree ANYWHERE. That number is below 50%, Remember if a student transfers to another college they no longer count toward the school graduation rate, Same holds true if the student is unable to attend due to financial issues.

The Fed's figure for a change is the most accurate in that it tracks students through their entire college career.

No, the numbers I am quoting are the GSR (Graduation Success Rate) numbers, not the FGR (Federal Graduation Numbers) numbers.

I think you have the two transposed. FGR method keeps track of first-time freshmen who are full-time students. It follows those students over the course of a six-year period to see if they graduate at the same institution at which they began their secondary education.

The GSR uses the same type of data as the FGR, but the GSR data also takes into account students who transfer into a school and graduate from that same school. It also doesn't count against a school's rate when a student-athlete in good standing transfers out of that institution to attend another.

 

[WDW1974]

The statement 'Eisner grew market cap thirty times, Iger three times' is in itself meaningless. For so many reasons, of which you explore a few more.

I disagree. See my previous post on the subject if you have questions.

Secondly, I still think a dart-throwing chimpanzee could've taken the Disney of 1984 - 100% name recognition, perfect brand image, under-exploited p&r - and capitalize on all that.

Oh, really. That's why the company was about to disappear from existence. Where were all the chimps? On vacation? I guess only chimps like Michael and Frank (and Roy and Jeffrey) applied for the banana-eating gig.

I thought you knew more about the media business and Disney's history.

 

[WDW1974]

Having been hyped reading Disney's official magazine and internet articles about the Asian ride throughout it's development you can imagine my disappointment when Kali River Rapids opened and was just a brief 2 minute raft ride with bare bone theming.

This is something we call reality, the reality of running a business, something I seemingly am reminded of by our PRO-BIG BUSINESS cabal every time I get into a serious discussion here.

You were disappointed in KRR? Awe. So was I. Such is life. WDW is a business after all.

Nothing ever gets built as seen in the artwork.

Oh, and to your longer rant, if you wish to blame Michael for all your theme park disappointments since 1994, then you must credit him with everything that opened after that ... stuff from Indy at DL ... to Space Mountain at DLP ... to Hunny Hunt at TDL ... to entire parks such as DAK and, the best park ever built, TDS.

Those all go in the positive column, so you go run and place KRR, deservedly so, in the negative now.

 

[WDW1974]

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder in what year Captain Neo was fired by Eisner?
So much anger. It's almost as if it were personal. Not just someone who says "I don't like what he did to my beloved Disney world/land/company.

Nope. Just a fanboi with lots of animosity and it is much easier to blame someone who is long gone from the decision making than the guy who is gripping tightly a bloody hatchet (and, unlike @Lee, not while singing showtunes!)

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, "Song of the South" was re-released into movie theatres in 1986 in honor of it's 40th Anniversary in a short, limited run.
My memory is fuzzy, but i believe it was a Summertime release. I have the old newspaper adverts for it somewhere in my archive...they were nice.
Anyone who went to see the film for the first time then were unknowingly being primed for what was about to unfold at Disneyland with the opening of 'Splash Mountain' in 1989.

It has been said that part of the reason for the 86' re-release was so the film could help promote the upcoming attraction....although i personally cannot recall if 'Splash Mountain' was even being talked about/promoted at that early stage.
The earliest i remember hearing about it publically was late 1987...early 1988.

The tale i have heard told was that 'Song of the South' was chosen as the theme as it fit the planned area the original Attraction was being placed in DL, and it would also make it possible to re-use all the critters left over from the 'America Sings' show that was slated to be closed.
Certain parties involved in the project did not want to see those fabulous AAs disposed of, so they were purposely recast as 'bayou critters' to fill out the cast ( and save a lot of fabrication costs).

Even back in the mid 80s when the film was re-issued i don't think Brer Rabbit and his friends were recognizable to most people.
I don't recall their really being a awareness of them...besides the random character appearance in the Parks.
They really came into the spotlight once 'Splash Mountain' opened.
They were EVERYWHERE...in marketing spreads, truckloads of merchandise, numerous tie-ins, and the like.
Most Guests today, as many did then, only associate the characters with the Attraction..not the movie...since many have still not seen it.

A shame too...as the animated segments are great and the film itself is worth seeing.

I was referencing the 1980 release. The film may not have been big, but it was not yet locked away.

 

[ParentsOf4]

It was a simple question. I was not disregarding what you were saying. I was just thinking about other factors that could have also contributed. Don't get all defensive on me now.

Per Disney's 10-K, WDW attendance increased 5% in 2005, and another 5% in 2006. (This was back in the day when Disney reported WDW & DLR data separately.)

Despite much lower ticket prices, Per Capita Guest Spending (PCGS) increased 2% in 2005 and 1% in 2006. Disney was able to make up the revenue lost from lower ticket prices through other guest spending.

By putting over $400 back into the pocket of a family of 4, that family ended up spending more on other things at the theme parks, while the lower park ticket encouraged a 10% increase in attendance.

What also jumped was the WDW hotel occupancy rate: 77% in 2004, 83% in 2005, and 86% in 2006. WDW gained 1.1 million room nights in stays.

By lowering theme park ticket prices, more guests could not only visit WDW's theme parks but also could stay in WDW's high-margin hotels. Lower ticket prices meant they had more money to spend elsewhere, allowing them to shift their expenditures away from non-WDW to WDW hotels, because they now felt they could afford to stay onsite due to lower ticket prices.

The other thing Disney did in 2005 was introduce Disney's Magical Express, offering "free" transportation from and to the airport, which further lowered the price of a WDW vacation.

The key was to lower the total cost of a WDW vacation package (i.e. transportation, hotel, and tickets), encouraging guests to shift their hotel dollars from less expensive offsite hotels and car rentals to WDW's more expensive onsite hotels.

 

[WDW1974]

In case anyone missed it, WDW is raising parking another $2, from $15 to $17.

Yep, Georgie K needs another revenue increase to cover for NGE/MM+.

If I were him, I would have had the balls to just make it an even $20 and get more. At this point, what difference does it really make?

 

[WDW1974]

Think what you like but the economy was pretty decent in the mid 2000's. Unemployment was actually low and people were spending a lot more money than they are now. You can call it a bubble if you would like or an artificial boom, that's fine, but that doesn't change the facts.

How about a lie spurred on by a war-mongering administration and Wall Street ... a lie that almost destroyed this nation and one that continues to harm it greatly (let's not talk about how many unemployed or underemployed people we have that are never counted and therefore must be invisible!)

 

[Computer Magic]

Per Disney's 10-K, WDW attendance increased 5% in 2005, and another 5% in 2006. (This was back in the day when Disney reported WDW & DLR data separately.)

Despite much lower ticket prices, Per Capita Guest Spending (PCGS) increased 2% in 2005 and 1% in 2006. Disney was able to make up the revenue lost from lower ticket prices through other guest spending.

By putting over $400 back into the pocket of a family of 4, that family ended up spending more on other things at the theme parks, while the lower park ticket encouraged a 10% increase in attendance.

What also jumped was the WDW hotel occupancy rate: 77% in 2004, 83% in 2005, and 86% in 2006. WDW gained 1.1 million room nights in stays.

By lowering theme park ticket prices, more guests could not only visit WDW's theme parks but also could stay in WDW's high-margin hotels. Lower ticket prices meant they had more money to spend elsewhere, allowing them to shift their expenditures away from non-WDW to WDW hotels, because they now felt they could afford to stay onsite due to lower ticket prices.

The other thing Disney did in 2005 was introduce Disney's Magical Express, offering "free" transportation from and to the airport, which further lowered the price of a WDW vacation.

The key was to lower the total cost of a WDW vacation package (i.e. transportation, hotel, and tickets), encouraging guests to shift their hotel dollars from less expensive offsite hotels to WDW's more expensive onsite hotels.

This explains alot and wraps everything together. It was about this time when guests started to become rude, over saturation of strollers and the parks over crowded.

Quantity over Quality

 

[FigmentJedi]

What a horrible thought, I need a container of ACME Brain Cleanser STAT, It's amazing how Disney screwed up an Edgar Rice Burroughs classic.

Toning down Barsoomian fashion and the whole "Red not filming" well messing up the Red Martian's coloring aside, I think they handled John Carter pretty well. It had a fun pulpy adventure tone, but the problem was marketing and Andrew Stanton overestimating the character's iconic status.

 

[ParentsOf4]

It was a simple question. I was not disregarding what you were saying. I was just thinking about other factors that could have also contributed. Don't get all defensive on me now.

One other point to consider.

Inflation adjusted Median Household income was $53,891 in 2004, $54,892 in 2006. That's an increase of less than 2% in 2 years.

If the economy was improving, it was not being reflected in the population as a whole.

Again, consider what a $400 decrease in theme park ticket price ($316 per person in 2004 vs. $210 per person in 2006 for an adult 7-day ticket) had on a family of 4 who was only making $1000 per year more in real income.

 

[WDW1974]

Unemployment levels and GDP growth in the middle 2000's say otherwise.

You mean right before we went over the abyss?

 

[FrankLapidus]

They're planning Harry Potter spinoff films based on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them right now with JK Rowling writing them. Plus Potter has proven itself as a timeless franchise, which you can't say about Avatar. Going for Avatar first instead of a Star Wars/Pixar Place expansion for the Studios comes off as some seriously skewed priorities.

I find it very amusing how some people here seem to have convinced themselves that Harry Potter is some kind of fad that is going to slip out of the public and cultural consciousness in order to try and talk up Avatar. I wonder if they would have felt differently had Disney and Rowling been able to forge a creative partnership...

 

[WDW1974]

In other news...

Just saw this.
Is this a thing now? A new cottage industry?

Does anyone remember some crackpot that ran a scam called 'Howie's Angels' or something like that back in the late 90s? Basically, he had a flock who would call to Disney's CRO every morning at 7 a.m. and book phony ressies for Cindy's Royal Table character breakfast because it was so popular and then people would have to go through him to get them (he supposedly wasn't selling them, although I never bought that and when I first found out about what a Lou Mongello was I got the same slimy vibe!)

 

[ford91exploder]

Unemployment levels and GDP growth in the middle 2000's say otherwise.

The unemployment numbers these days are outright lies and they have been since the early noughts, If we counted unemployment today as those ELIGIBLE to work and unable to find a job the unemployment rate would be 24-26% in 2004-6 it would have been about 15%.

The workforce participation numbers are the most accurate and they show only 53% of the eligible workforce has a job.

 

[Computer Magic]

The unemployment numbers these days are outright lies and they have been since the early noughts, If we counted unemployment today as those ELIGIBLE to work and unable to find a job the unemployment rate would be 24-26% in 2004-6 it would have been about 15%.

The workforce participation numbers are the most accurate and they show only 53% of the eligible workforce has a job.

The problem with employment number is the lack of accounting for the under employed. So many good jobs lost and good employees having to find a lessor paying job. In some cases they have to work 2 jobs.