What is Bob Chapek's Vision?

[Sean W]

There is an article I read in Forbes about the value of investing in loyal customers & customer loyalty. Bob needs to read this.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...investing-in-loyal-customers/?sh=991550d21f6b

The 5 Quickest Ways to Lose Loyalty

1. Increase Cost without Adding Value. ...
2. Show Customers How Little You Really Care. ...
3. Provide No (or Poorly Executed) Personalization. ...
4. Forget About Social Responsibility. ...
5. Don't Offer a Loyalty Program.

Any of this sound familiar? This short term, short sighted policy, will cost in the long run. What happens when loyal disney brand people realize there are other choices out there? Example instead of staying on property the whole stay and only using disney transportation, to split stays and splitting time between Disney, Universal, & Sea World parks. You don't get that Disney only loyalty back after you've lost it.

 

[gpanza]

Reduce Park Capacity. As an Annual Passholder I am probably not going to renew this February. They have become like Great Adventure, Nickel and Diming Everything.

And add to that the impossibility of using your DVC room, (Can we say lawsuit as they obviously are mismanaging it, keeping rooms closed, renting to non members) , it has become a joke

 

[KaliSplash]

Higher than expected earnings reports ever quarter, forever

 

[Kirby86]

Keep the lower and middle class out of the parks or at least make their day more inconvenient so the upper class won't be bothered?

 

[Beacon Joe]

And add to that the impossibility of using your DVC room

Go on. It sounds like I've missed some DVC developments.

 

[Po'Rich]

They had a couple of quarters that were in the red, I believe. I honestly thought it would be a lot worse, with cruises, parks, and theaters closed. I think he wants to be seen as the guy who rescued Disney from the brink of financial disaster (or whatever) and brought it back stronger... at least from the bottom line perspective. None of that matters to us guests/customers/consumers, though, other than the pain of all cuts and extra fees.... just answering what the OP asked.

Disney also took out some huge loans to stay afloat. I'm sure paying them off will be one of Chapek's financial goals.

 

[SpoiledBlueMilk]

Disney also took out some huge loans to stay afloat. I'm sure paying them off will be one of Chapek's financial goals.

I don't like Chapek and I think he's a better fit for an institutional consumer products company like Nike rather than Disney, his sole job is to navigate the company through the effects of the pandemic back into the black. If he breaks a few eggs along the way, so be it. Of course, those eggs are the hopes and dreams of Disney fans, but that's for another forum...

 

[Kirby86]

In all seriousness right now Chapeks main goal as stated by others is to recoup money from all the spending Iger did. FOX wasn't cheap.

 

[Po'Rich]

I think that this is inevitable that Universal will overtake Disney.

The difference is:
- Universal invests in its parks because it wants to, proactively
- Disney invests in its parks because they have to, retroactively

What Disney is currently doing is making up for ≈20 years of lack of improvements/attractions. They're cutting corners wherever possible (maintenance (see:monorails)) and increasing the costs to the customers. There doesn't appear to be anything coming after the current projects are completed so I'd expect a good 10-20 years of close to zero improvements - unless Epic Universe has spooked them. Currently, it's probably a concern but people are still at the gates so it could be a "not a big deal - we have our customers"-situation.

Universal is trying to compete by showing value:
- cost less than Disney
- They're constantly improving / adding attractions / going around the park and fixing things.

Universal is saying: "Hey, average customer! Over here! We want you!"
Disney is screaming: "You need to be upper tier/wealthy to visit out parks" - which could work but you can't go for 10-20 years without additions and skimp on maintenance and (long term) expect the wealthy to keep coming. The wealthy didn't get to be wealthy by being idiots with their money. If you cater to them then you had better "cater to them". I don't think Disney is doing that at this point. Disney is offering the same product that they had before which was for "average people" but pricing it for "super wealthy" and that really doesn't fly with the wealthy. Some, sure. Most, know it's a bad deal.

It'd be like your local chain steak-house doing nothing more than doubling their prices and thinking, "Now THAT makes us a PREMIUM establishment!" - no, you're still selling the same stuff you did before but thinking that raising your prices is all you needed to do to attract the wealthy and that really doesn't cut it.

Of course, there's supply and demand here in that Disney parks are a limited resource so, over time, they can't help but become more expensive as there aren't any new parks but there is an ever-increasing population.

This post demonstrates exactly why I get upset when people compare Universal to Disney on these boards. The posters tend to overstate the values of Universal compared to Disney.

Universal is saying: "Hey, average customer! Over here! We want you!"
Disney is screaming: "You need to be upper tier/wealthy to visit out parks"

Hmmm, doesn't Universal have its own version of paid FP? It's how much? $89? For Disney, Genie+ is $15. Additionally, there could be two rides with individual prices of up to $25 per. Altogether, this still only makes $65, but Disney is only looking for the wealthy, and Universal attracts the average consumer. Give me a break!

I don't like the new pricing at WDW anymore than anyone else, but let's please stop presenting Universal as sooo much more affordable. Of course, it's possible that Brad Bishop works for Universal, and he's just doing his job.

 

[jonnyc]

Hmmm, doesn't Universal have its own version of paid FP? It's how much? $89? For Disney, Genie+ is $15. Additionally, there could be two rides with individual prices of up to $25 per. Altogether, this still only makes $65, but Disney is only looking for the wealthy, and Universal attracts the average consumer. Give me a break!

I don't like the new pricing at WDW anymore than anyone else, but let's please stop presenting Universal as sooo much more affordable. Of course, it's possible that Brad Bishop works for Universal, and he's just doing his job.

I'm under no illusions that Universal's main goal is to extract as much change from their visitors as possible, but I don't think it's fair to compare the two paid FP offerings on just price.

Express doesn't have the same restrictions that Genie+ will have (one attraction at a time etc.) - which whilst not having a dollar value, does increase the value for money proposition.

Barring exceptionally busy times, you're able to get round all the attractions in one park at Universal within a day without Express - so it very much makes Express a 'nice to have'. It remains to be seen whether that will be possible in the Disney parks without having Genie+ plus the 2 attraction bolt-on, hopefully it will be a 'nice to have' but I wouldn't be shocked if that make it a 'must have'.

 

[Brad Bishop]

In all seriousness right now Chapeks main goal as stated by others is to recoup money from all the spending Iger did. FOX wasn't cheap.

Yep. I question what Fox brought to the table.

Star Wars? Yeah - I can see that.
Marvel? - they've made a good bit of money there.

Fox? What does that do for them? Extra old shows on D+?

 

[Brer Panther]

Yep. I question what Fox brought to the table.

Star Wars? Yeah - I can see that.
Marvel? - they've made a good bit of money there.

Fox? What does that do for them? Extra old shows on D+?

Maybe Iger is just a really big fan of The Simpsons.

 

[Kirby86]

Yep. I question what Fox brought to the table.

Star Wars? Yeah - I can see that.
Marvel? - they've made a good bit of money there.

Fox? What does that do for them? Extra old shows on D+?

The main theory I've heard floating around is they wanted content for Disney + and since Rupert Murdock wanted to get out of the entertainment business Disney decided we'll buy that from you. I'll admit The Simpsons are a major part of the Disney + echo system. Not 83 billions of dollars worth but still.

 

[Bill653]

Actually, I think Bob Chapek is trying to prove he is capable of running the company for the stockholders. Maximize profits while reducing costs. Boost the stock price higher to keep the Board happy. Also helps him to keep his job. Just my humble opinion...

 

[Kirby86]

Actually, I think Bob Chapek is trying to prove he is capable of running the company for the stockholders. Maximize profits while reducing costs. Boost the stock price higher to keep the Board happy. Also helps him to keep his job. Just my humble opinion...

Oh of course he's trying maximize profits gotta keep the shareholders happy.

 

[John park hopper]

Actually, I think Bob Chapek is trying to prove he is capable of running the company for the stockholders. Maximize profits while reducing costs. Boost the stock price higher to keep the Board happy. Also helps him to keep his job. Just my humble opinion...

Does Bob really need this job he can leave the company walking away with millions. Just proves he is personally greedy and runs Disney the same way.

 

[Robbiem]

The main theory I've heard floating around is they wanted content for Disney + and since Rupert Murdock wanted to get out of the entertainment business Disney decided we'll buy that from you. I'll admit The Simpsons are a major part of the Disney + echo system. Not 83 billions of dollars worth but still.

Fox gave Disney a other few things like Star TV in asia and quite a few IPs to exploit (Avatar, Die Hard, Alien, X Men, Fantastic Four, the blue sky stuff etc). I think it was very overpriced, especially as they lost sky TV to comcast. They could have revived touchstone to go back into more adult movies and probably made licensing deals with other studios or purchased someone like MGM for content.

I think the fox deal was more about removing competition and inflating Bob Iger’s ego. It will be interesting to see how Chapek uses his new assets

 

[guardianmonkey]

"Vision," you say?

Spoiler: **obvious joke told obviously**

 

[seascape]

Fox gave Disney a other few things like Star TV in asia and quite a few IPs to exploit (Avatar, Die Hard, Alien, X Men, Fantastic Four, the blue sky stuff etc). I think it was very overpriced, especially as they lost sky TV to comcast. They could have revived touchstone to go back into more adult movies and probably made licensing deals with other studios or purchased someone like MGM for content.

I think the fox deal was more about removing competition and inflating Bob Iger’s ego. It will be interesting to see how Chapek uses his new assets

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.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Fox gave Disney a other few things like Star TV in asia and quite a few IPs to exploit (Avatar, Die Hard, Alien, X Men, Fantastic Four, the blue sky stuff etc). I think it was very overpriced, especially as they lost sky TV to comcast. They could have revived touchstone to go back into more adult movies and probably made licensing deals with other studios or purchased someone like MGM for content.

I think the fox deal was more about removing competition and inflating Bob Iger’s ego. It will be interesting to see how Chapek uses his new assets

It seems that most of the studios have lost interest in the kind of niche that Touchstone formerly occupied... lighter, generally not too racy entertainment meant to appeal to adults. At least, they've lost an interest in these kinds of films for theatrical release. They go straight to streaming services nowadays, and since Disney+'s target demographic is mostly children and families, I don't think the company has much interest in Touchstone-type movies anymore. Unless they use it again for a crossover-IP product like Roger Rabbit where they need to maintain a legal fiction that it isn't a Disney movie, but it seems unlikely Chapek would ever have the vision or legal patience to greenlight such a project.