What is Bob Chapek's Vision?

[Kirby86]

They didn't lose Sky to Comcast. They sold the Fox portion to Comcast for just over $15 billion. Add to that the $5 billion for the RSN's and Disney purchased their Fox assets for just over $50 billion not the $72 that everyone keeps talking about. Then consider the assets in Latin America and Asia. The Fox purchase was actually a bargin. Comcast spent over $40 billion and just got Sky.

Disney spent a lot more then it wanted so they could acquire Fox. Comcast definitely raised the price for the House of Mouse.

 

[Robbiem]

They didn't lose Sky to Comcast. They sold the Fox portion to Comcast for just over $15 billion. Add to that the $5 billion for the RSN's and Disney purchased their Fox assets for just over $50 billion not the $72 that everyone keeps talking about. Then consider the assets in Latin America and Asia. The Fox purchase was actually a bargin. Comcast spent over $40 billion and just got Sky.

Disney’s intention was to complete the Fox planned sky buy out which Murdock was progressing before the Disney bid. Actually this was a legal requirement they had to honour. Comcast out bid Fox for Sky in a takeover and Disney pocketed the money from the 40 odd percent of sky that fox already owned. It got very complicated and actually went to a government run sealed bid auction

Sky: Comcast outbids Fox with £30bn bid for broadcaster

US cable giant wins rare blind auction process set by the UK's Takeover Panel with £30bn offer.

www.bbc.co.uk

While Disney got the profit from the sale Sky was a big asset loss for the mouse. I’m sure they wouldn’t have sold it if they weren’t outbid Sky’s nowtv for example was a kind of European hulu and it has lots of European sporting rights which would have

I’m still not sure $50 billion was a bargain for what Disney ended up with but time will tell.

 

[Tha Realest]

So, what is Bob Chapek's Vision?

$20/$20

 

[MichWolv]

His goal is to not miss any revenue/profit possibility. His vision for achieving that looks like:

1) Ensure that anybody willing to spend money (or more money) has the opportunity to do so. As translated to parks, that means more upcharge experiences.
2) Incur costs in the most efficient way to generate profits. As translated to parks, "show" will be below "efficiency" in the pecking order. They'll look for ways to move crowds to where they can be accommodated most efficiently -- e.g., park reservations. They'll find ways to eliminate time that guests don't like (lines) without spending money -- e.g., Genie telling guests where there are things with no lines., and virtual lines. CapEx that increases efficiency for little $ will be prioritized -- e.g., second deck loading of the ferries.
3) Exploit IPs in whatever ways are possible -- just like Iger in the parks. But other places as well -- look at the bits added to Free Guy. And the billions being invested in Disney+ shows that build on existing IP. More Mandalorians, but no Ted Lassos.

 

[Tha Realest]

3) Exploit IPs in whatever ways are possible -- just like Iger in the parks. But other places as well -- look at the bits added to Free Guy. And the billions being invested in Disney+ shows that build on existing IP. More Mandalorians, but no Ted Lassos.

I've been thinking about this issue, and while I think he's taken it to the extreme, I am not sure anyone would do any differently. All of Universal is their IP, or IP they license. Correct me if wrong, but I don't think it has any new or non-existing IP attractions in their park.

Some of this crystalized with learning about EPCOT and DL's early development, and how many of those attractions were dependent on sponsors. I think we saw this most recently in the early 00's when they closed Horizons (which lost its sponsorship) to make way for Mission: Space sponsored by Compaq. No company is shelling out tens of millions in sponsorship for an attraction that won't be delivered until five more fiscal years pass. So, in the absence of a GM ponying up that cash, it makes new attraction development a much more riskier proposition. Tethering it to an IP that has an existing following and lends itself to merchandise sales helps allay those concerns.

Trust me. I'd love more Ted Lassos. But I'll settle for breaking up the rigid timeline of SW: GE and inserting Mando and The Child wherever they see fit