A lack of all of those things leads to a decrease in revenue over time, since competition, as Peltz points out (namely Universal), is placing an emphasis on that. If there is a better bang for your buck up the road, guests are inclined to go there. Also, if you don't have new things for people to see, they'll be less inclined to visit.
I honestly do not know what being broken up means.
I agree, but a guy who's only concern is making himself money isn't exactly the guy I'd be jumping up and down with excitement to use as the replacement.
Revenue is not ROI; it has to bring in more revenue than the increased costs to impact ROI positively so to improve on what they are already getting they must either charge a lot more so they can spend more or decrease cost and spend the same or less.
Think Walt Disney World but with a third-party operator, and maybe even owner. It would likely be a near-identical arrangement to Tokyo Disney Resort. The average guest wouldn't know they're not Disney unless they asked.
I don't think comparing it to Tokyo is realistic - in a world where Parks gets sold off, Disney itself is a very different company and may not have the same incentive to suppoor the parks with its branding / IP.
The parks would also no longer be part of an integrated whole, in which one part of the company supports the other. The lack of this synergy would be profoundly damaging. This is true even if you, like myself, are frustrated by the current IP-centered direction of the parks.
You can also drive revenue with increased attendance. The problem is they have failed to build out the parks and surrounding infrastructure in a way that can handle more guests satisfactorily.
This is from Trian's materials:
Later, he says he would, among other things:
He has complained about admission prices increasing by more than 35%, so I don't see how you could then turn around and raise the prices even more. If we are to take him at his word (which I would imagine we would have to give him at least some benefit of the doubt, as he's making these statements as part of his run for a board seat of a publicly traded company), he merely wants positive ROI on the $60bn of announced capex.
The screechings of a small group of loud people have nothing to do with the general investor sentiment in Disney. Underperform ratings by analysts don't have emotions. Simply saying the other guy will just make it worse, when current cadre of suits is doing just a good of a job to screw it up is not a valid excuse.
How does introducing a worse influence somehow turn things around? Is the board going to somehow be so shocked by their positions that they change and do the opposite? Rasulo was one of Iger’s bad decisions, why keep that going?
If Disney had not jumped head first into streaming Wall Street would have absolutely slaughtered them.
They would if the studio business, or whichever company holds the IP rights, gets royalties from the theme park ownership company.
Even if the OLC Group themselves bought the parks, people assume they’d 1) agree to an extension of the same deal they signed nearly 50 years ago in the late 70s, and 2) would not recognize that other countries are not Japan and would not operate different parks in different locations differently.
These are Trian's own words. How are we to read this statement and say that he would never expand the parks? What would the $60 billion go towards? If anything, he's saying they are behind on expansion and panning them for that.
