When did the IP idea really start?

[Californian Elitist]

And yet, in customer surveys when addressing the overhaul of California Adventure, cutomers said they wanted *more* rides and attractions based on films, not *less*. So, that's what they're doing now, re-dressing existing attractions to fit current movies and building rides based on existing movies. Might not be what Disney theme park buffs want, but apparently it's what the audience wants.

Disney purposefully skews the questions to where they will be answered in their favor. Disneyland’s general audience wants what Disney wants. They don’t think the same way other types of fans think. If Disney were to ask in a survey if guests would enjoy and welcome a land such as Discovery Bay, I can bet people would respond positively. General guests will eat up anything Disney throws at them, and Disney knows this, hence the reason they take advantage of the bogus surveys.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Well I wouldn't call Iger risk adverse just because they aren't building non-IP attractions. Iger and Disney take calculated risks as do most CEOs of large corporations. And if they see data to show guests aren't going to be receptive to something they aren't going to do it.

Let me give you two scenarios:

A. If I told you, hey give me $100 and I will invest it and guarantee you will make 100x in return with little to no risk of losing money.
B. If I told you, hey give me $100 and I will invest it and you may make 100x in return with no guarantee or you may lose everything plus 100x more.

Which would you take? Likely A., the 100x with more guaranteed return. Because if you say B., then I have some investments I'd like to talk to you about.

That is the decision Disney is making everyday, they want the more guaranteed money, as would you if in the same position. That is what they have to do, Disney has over 200k employees to think about. This is not the same company that it was 64 years ago when it only had less than a thousand. Yes Walt took risks and luckily they paid off. If he did that now he'd lose his own company, and not just because of shareholders, banks would demand payments on debt immediately causing the company to collapse.

Its easy to sit back and criticize when we have no real decision making power or money and jobs on the line. But when its our responsibility and money and jobs are on the line we'd make a similar call.

What risks has Iger taken?

Also, I'm sorry, but your illustration is a bit far-fetched. You're assuming that if DLR built one, just ONE new non-IP attraction, it would potentially, A: be a disaster and B: lose them everything plus millions? Have a little faith in Imagineering

If we were in the pay-per-ride system of old, it might be different. But Disney isn't losing money over one attraction. Someone can buy a ticket or have an AP and go to the parks, not visit a single attraction, and Disney still makes their money. Heck, there are attractions in the parks I've never set foot on, but others have. It balances itself out. If someone decided to cancel their AP or trip because Disney suddenly offered something that is unattached to a movie/tv show/property then that is just sad for that person. Furthermore, as we have seen with TLM in DCA, not all IP attractions are handled that well, and aren't really bringing in hoards of guests.

IP's are utilized to ease guests into a new experience. Like swimming with floaties. But if you only swam with floaties, sure, you might feel inherently "safer" in the water, but you'd also never really get the full use out of your pool.

 

[DanielBB8]

What risks has Iger taken?

Also, I'm sorry, but your illustration is a bit far-fetched. You're assuming that if DLR built one, just ONE new non-IP attraction, it would potentially, A: be a disaster and B: lose them everything plus millions? Have a little faith in Imagineering

If we were in the pay-per-ride system of old, it might be different. But Disney isn't losing money over one attraction. Someone can buy a ticket or have an AP and go to the parks, not visit a single attraction, and Disney still makes their money. Heck, there are attractions in the parks I've never set foot on, but others have. It balances itself out. If someone decided to cancel their AP or trip because Disney suddenly offered something that is unattached to a movie/tv show/property then that is just sad for that person. Furthermore, as we have seen with TLM in DCA, not all IP attractions are handled that well, and aren't really bringing in hoards of guests.

IP's are utilized to ease guests into a new experience. Like swimming with floaties. But if you only swam with floaties, sure, you might feel inherently "safer" in the water, but you'd also never really get the full use out of your pool.

Just because Iger made homeruns does not mean there were never any risks. If you didn’t realize, Disney’s stock actually under performed when the stock market went up in the last year. Disney’s acquisitions costed money and lots of construction projects added to Disney’s debt. Disney is barely keeping its head above water. They won’t take “more” risks by not exploiting its IP that they paid a lot of money for. It’s a minus to not use the IP.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Just because Iger made homeruns does not mean there were never any risks. If you didn’t realize, Disney’s stock actually under performed when the stock market went up in the last year. Disney’s acquisitions costed money and lots of construction projects added to Disney’s debt. Disney is barely keeping its head above water. They won’t take “more” risks by not exploiting its IP that they paid a lot of money for. It’s a minus to not use the IP.

It was a minus to think Disney needed to become an IP distribution factory in the first place. But that's what happens when you're CEO doesn't trust his creative workers.

Also, I'm not saying they shouldn't use the IP they have bought. Never would say that. All I'm fighting for is balance in the parks. Build SWL. Build Marvel Land. Build Pixar Pier. But also balance that out with something else. I don't get why that's asking too much.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Well I wouldn't call Iger risk adverse just because they aren't building non-IP attractions. Iger and Disney take calculated risks as do most CEOs of large corporations. And if they see data to show guests aren't going to be receptive to something they aren't going to do it.

Let me give you two scenarios:

A. If I told you, hey give me $100 and I will invest it and guarantee you will make 100x in return with little to no risk of losing money.
B. If I told you, hey give me $100 and I will invest it and you may make 100x in return with no guarantee or you may lose everything plus 100x more.

Which would you take? Likely A., the 100x with more guaranteed return. Because if you say B., then I have some investments I'd like to talk to you about.

That is the decision Disney is making everyday, they want the more guaranteed money, as would you if in the same position. That is what they have to do, Disney has over 200k employees to think about. This is not the same company that it was 64 years ago when it only had less than a thousand. Yes Walt took risks and luckily they paid off. If he did that now he'd lose his own company, and not just because of shareholders, banks would demand payments on debt immediately causing the company to collapse.

Its easy to sit back and criticize when we have no real decision making power or money and jobs on the line. But when its our responsibility and money and jobs are on the line we'd make a similar call.

Plenty of “sure things” bomb spectacularly. Comparing dollars spent to increased attendance, Expedition Everest was a better investment than Pandora.

 

[Disney Irish]

What risks has Iger taken?

Also, I'm sorry, but your illustration is a bit far-fetched. You're assuming that if DLR built one, just ONE new non-IP attraction, it would potentially, A: be a disaster and B: lose them everything plus millions? Have a little faith in Imagineering

If we were in the pay-per-ride system of old, it might be different. But Disney isn't losing money over one attraction. Someone can buy a ticket or have an AP and go to the parks, not visit a single attraction, and Disney still makes their money. Heck, there are attractions in the parks I've never set foot on, but others have. It balances itself out. If someone decided to cancel their AP or trip because Disney suddenly offered something that is unattached to a movie/tv show/property then that is just sad for that person. Furthermore, as we have seen with TLM in DCA, not all IP attractions are handled that well, and aren't really bringing in hoards of guests.

IP's are utilized to ease guests into a new experience. Like swimming with floaties. But if you only swam with floaties, sure, you might feel inherently "safer" in the water, but you'd also never really get the full use out of your pool.

This was brought up and answered in the "Iger" thread. But it really depends on what you consider a risk. But it was risky to buy Pixar, Lucas, and Marvel. So far those have worked out. But they were a risk none the less. It was a risk to build a new park in mainland China. And so far its worked out, but a risk none the less. It was a risk to spend money on MM+. That too so far has worked out albeit with a few kinks at the beginning, which if you know technology is par for the course.

As for my illustrations, they were just examples. I wasn't assuming anything, other than to show a real world decision brought down to our level. Take that same example and multiply it by 10k% and maybe you get the idea of what decisions Iger has to make.

Also you're just looking at Disneyland, and not affects on the rest of the company. Disneyland is no longer the only park in the company. Decisions at Iger's level affect the whole company not just Disneyland. Just look at how some are expecting the financial disappointment of Solo to affect all of Lucas, from Kathleen Kennedy to decisions on the next films. Now I personally don't buy into it and think Lucas will be fine, but its discussions being had by not just fan sites. Imagine now if Disney has a major flop of non-IP new attraction at a domestic park. That flop would reverberate out to the rest of P&R, if not the whole company. Just like the #thanksshanghai costcutting that was starting to happen, thankfully Shanghai performed well and there was no permanent damage. But if it had then it'd be the 90s and Pressler all over again, but worse.

 

[DanielBB8]

Disney purposefully skews the questions to where they will be answered in their favor. Disneyland’s general audience wants what Disney wants. They don’t think the same way other types of fans think. If Disney were to ask in a survey if guests would enjoy and welcome a land such as Discovery Bay, I can bet people would respond positively. General guests will eat up anything Disney throws at them, and Disney knows this, hence the reason they take advantage of the bogus surveys.

Taking a survey on the great unknown is completely bogus. Why would you think this survey should exist? Discovery Bay already exists at Disneyland Paris and Tokyo DisneySea. We don’t need more such ideas. Guests don’t eat up everything. That’s the failure of the original California Adventure and Epcot.

 

[TROR]

It could not have been any less risky for Disney to buy Lucasfilm

 

[Disney Irish]

Plenty of “sure things” bomb spectacularly. Comparing dollars spent to increased attendance, Expedition Everest was a better investment than Pandora.

And non-"sure things" thing bomb out far more than "sure things". Just because its a "sure thing" doesn't mean there is no risk, it just means its less risky.

 

[DanielBB8]

It was a minus to think Disney needed to become an IP distribution factory in the first place. But that's what happens when you're CEO doesn't trust his creative workers.

Also, I'm not saying they shouldn't use the IP they have bought. Never would say that. All I'm fighting for is balance in the parks. Build SWL. Build Marvel Land. Build Pixar Pier. But also balance that out with something else. I don't get why that's asking too much.

Good ideas don’t always remain at Disney. That’s the problem with every big corporate company like Disney. Funny thing is when Star Wars and Indiana Jones came out, everyone knew Disney should have released it. Disney just brought it back home.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

The only thing riskier than buying outside companies with histories of success is putting your faith in your own people to produce good, quality products. If Pixar, Marvel, and SW were unknown start-ups at the time of acquisition, then yes, they'd have been risky purchases.

 

[Disney Irish]

It could not have been any less risky for Disney to buy Lucasfilm

Actually it could have, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

Again just because something is less risky doesn't mean there is no risk at all.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Good ideas don’t always remain at Disney. That’s the problem with every big corporate company like Disney. Funny thing is when Star Wars and Indiana Jones came out, everyone knew Disney should have released it. Disney just brought it back home.

Care to cite your sources for those claims?

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Actually it could have, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

Again just because something is less risky doesn't mean there is no risk at all.

And what risk was there? That people didn't care about Star Wars anymore?

 

[Disney Irish]

The only thing riskier than buying outside companies with histories of success is putting your faith in your own people to produce good, quality products. If Pixar, Marvel, and SW were unknown start-ups at the time of acquisition, then yes, they'd have been risky purchases.

Since Pixar has a lot of former Disney artists, it was actually like putting faith in their own people.

Also as I stated before, no such thing as a sure thing. So just because you feel there was no risk, doesn't mean it wasn't risky.

 

[Disney Irish]

And what risk was there? That people didn't care about Star Wars anymore?

The risk that because it wasn't under George anymore that SW fans wouldn't accept anything Disney put out.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Since Pixar has a lot of former Disney artists, it was actually like putting faith in their own people.

Also as I stated before, no such thing as a sure thing. So just because you feel there was no risk, doesn't mean it wasn't risky.

I see it more as "hey, your movie studio is more successful than ours is currently, and we feel bad we let you go long ago, so let's bury the hatchet and just work together! You'll make me...er, I mean, the company, a lot money!"

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

The risk that because it wasn't under George anymore that SW fans wouldn't accept anything Disney put out.

SW fans had a hard time accepting some stuff George put out too...

Only with Solo underperforming has the idea of "risk" shown itself.

 

[Disney Irish]

I see it more as "hey, your movie studio is more successful than ours is currently, and we feel bad we let you go long ago, so let's bury the hatchet and just work together! You'll make me...er, I mean, the company, a lot money!"

That is not how it works, but ok you have your opinion.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

That is not how it works, but ok you have your opinion.

lol. Maybe your sarcasm-dar is a bit off. Obvious I know that's not "how it works".