Originally Posted By smd4 Heard this today on Marketplace Morning Report. <a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/consumed-ii/problem-focusing-shareholder-value" target="_blank">http://www.marketplace.org/top...er-value</a> "When managers are focusing on share price, it's very hard for companies to actually be innovative," Stout argues. "The second problem that short-termism imposes on consumers is that, obviously, when they're trying to cut costs...they're not going to invest in their employees; they're not going to invest in customer support, they're not going to invest in improving their products the way they should." Sound familiar? The audio also mentions that when companies are seeking short-term profits, they need to resort to "gimmicks." Again, Disney seems to rely on gimmicks constantly, with the perpetual "Year of" promotions and such.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Sound familiar?" Yes. It sounds exactly like what's happening at Apple right now. "Again, Disney seems to rely on gimmicks constantly, with the perpetual "Year of" promotions and such." I would have agreed with this point several years ago, but they seem to have turned a corner, at least as far as their theme parks are concerned. Disney has invested billions worldwide in new attractions, shows, and other facilities over last few years.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I also heard this on the radio this morning, and immediately thought of Disney. Sounds like we must listen to the same station! While they have made some investments in the parks in recent years, I still think that they are mostly focused on the short term. Why else would we have all of those stupid promotions that have become so frequent that they've rendered themselves meaningless? Even recent additions like Carsland and the upcoming Avatar land at DAK (if it ever happens) seem to allow for longterm growth, but with trendy attractions that will likely become very dated in coming years. Additionally, for having 6 parks in the US, there is remarkably little in the pipeline at the moment And to take it a step further, what Iger has done to the Studio is a classic example of this style of thinking. Instead of having a well-rounded slate of films, he's relying entirely on a handful of big-budget 'tentpole' films that have the potential to make a huge profit. While this can work on occasion (the older POTC films, Burton's Alice, Avengers, etc), it seems to lead to an endless series of big-budget failures (Mars Needs Moms, John Carter, Frankenweenie...Lone Ranger). Instead of trying to hit a single or double, he's aiming for home runs, and striking out. And shockingly, the revenue from the Studios has been steadily decreasing since Iger took control, and is down by more than 20% in that time (not accounting for inflation).
Originally Posted By HRM Ok..... BUT if you are a shareholder, take Disney out of the equation, how long are you willing to let your investment lose money? 1 year, 5 years? And would you even be willing to invest money on a business losing money, with the HOPE it will start making money with only the promise of Quality. Like it or not, people will only invest money if money is to be made. Shareholder value in Disney stock is increasing, more people are going to the parks and buying "all the foreign crappy merchandise" that Disney sells. [sorry, read the 'foreign made crap' in another post]
Originally Posted By FerretAfros But the story went on to say that it's just plain not good for the bottom line. The current life expectancy is 15 years, rather than 75 years a few decades ago, largely as a result of this practice And if you look at Disney's revenues in recent years, they're either shrinking or growing by a very small amount. The strategy isn't working for the shortterm, and has already turned off a lot of customers for the longterm, and I don't see how the share price will continue to support it. Part of what made Disney so great was its ability to create loyalty and returning customers; however due to recent price increases without the quantity/quality increases to back them up, they've been losing a lot of loyalty. And it's much harder to win someone back than it was to win them the first time
Originally Posted By HRM >> "... recent additions like Carsland..." just curious, should the investment in CarsLand been made, or not?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Part of what made Disney so great was its ability to create loyalty and returning customers; however due to recent price increases without the quantity/quality increases to back them up, they've been losing a lot of loyalty. And it's much harder to win someone back than it was to win them the first time>> They may be losing a few uber-fans visiting the parks on the cheap with APs, but with constantly increasing attendance I doubt Disney worries about that too much.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >> "... recent additions like Carsland..." just curious, should the investment in CarsLand been made, or not?<< Yes, something like Carsland (an immersive area featuring several new headliner attractions) needed to be added. However, I think that theming it to Cars was a little shortsighted. It's fun now because the area is new and so well done, but there are comparably few people who are excited about it because it's based on Cars. Having the recognizable name now brings people in for the shortterm, but I wonder how it will work 10, 15, 20+ years from now; people don't seem nearly so excited about Flik's Fun Fair these days. >>...but with constantly increasing attendance I doubt Disney worries about that too much.<< And with constantly increasing prices, I wonder how many of the non-uber fans will continue to pay the prices. Yes, the uber-fans are the first (and most vocal) to go, but I fear that their sentiment may be shared by the silent majority. When people get home from their Disney vacation thinking "Yah, it was pretty fun, but I can't believe I spent that much," chances are it will be a longer time before the return and/or spend as much time and money with Disney. A typical family is now spending nearly $500 just to enter the park for the day; there are very few scenarios in my mind does that seem like something that most families will be doing repeatedly in any sort of short-ish/mid-length period. But I'm a single person with no kids (who still has trouble affording a Disney vacation) so what do I know?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Part of what made Disney so great was its ability to create loyalty and returning customers; however due to recent price increases without the quantity/quality increases to back them up, they've been losing a lot of loyalty." Financial annalists will disagree. Disney currently ranks as the number one most reputable US company. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/04/24/americas-most-reputable-companies-2/" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...anies-2/</a> As long time fans we all have our personal issues with Disney and Disney's management, but the fact is that consumers love, and I mean L-O-V-E love, the brand. Furthermore, all this talk about Disney losing customer loyalty and not investing in the parks is simply not true.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 BTW Disney has always done gimmicks... At least from as far back I can remember in 1980...
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Having the recognizable name now brings people in for the shortterm, but I wonder how it will work 10, 15, 20+ years from now; people don't seem nearly so excited about Flik's Fun Fair these days." How excited are people about Splash Mountain?
Originally Posted By tashajilek ""Having the recognizable name now brings people in for the shortterm, but I wonder how it will work 10, 15, 20+ years from now; people don't seem nearly so excited about Flik's Fun Fair these days." Flik's fun fair sucks, so not sure who was ever that excited over it in the first place. "How excited are people about Splash Mountain?" Yupp and Indy always has long waits still.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Flik's fun fair sucks, so not sure who was ever that excited over it in the first place." Flik's was a knee-jerk reaction by Disney when people complained that DCA didn't have enough for little kids to do. I guess the problem's been solved because no one seems to be complaining about that any more. Not everything in a Disney park has to be a monumental testament to WDI's creativity. Perhaps Flik's is getting a little long in the tooth and is reaching the end of its lifespan, but I wouldn't say that it's bad when something has a limited shelf life.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I think it's cute in Flik's but the rides are so boring. If they would have put a bit more imagination and fun into the rides, it would have kept the Bugs Life brand alive and fun. Now it seems kinda dated.
Originally Posted By tashajilek I love the look of Bug's land, but the rides are cheap carnival type rides. Now that DCA has better quality attractions it doesn't seem to belong. It's almost like Dino land at DAK which I find even worse.
Originally Posted By smd4 >>Flik's was a knee-jerk reaction by Disney when people complained that DCA didn't have enough for little kids to do.<< Exactly the point of the initial post.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***people don't seem nearly so excited about Flik's Fun Fair these days*** I beg to argue - people were *never* excited about Flik's Fun Fair. Not ever.
