Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I've been busy today and just got a chance to check out the LP, but did I miss something? Or did Disney NOT announce anything at their big 'media event' that we did not already know? As a shareholder, I sure hope they took good care of the media so they'll get great coverage because otherwise they wasted a lot of MY company's money on free booze and rooms and gifts and flights etc ... Oh, and NO, I don't consider announcing Posh's hubby will play Prince Phillip in an ad campaign, anything most Disney fans will care about as opposed to new shows, attractions, parks.
Originally Posted By Labuda Keep in mind that rumors WE have all heard are still likely news to the general public, my dear departed friend.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << As a shareholder, I sure hope they took good care of the media so they'll get great coverage because otherwise they wasted a lot of MY company's money on free booze and rooms and gifts and flights etc ... >> I'm not sure why anyone would continue to hold stock in a company that they think is so poorly managed.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Maybe because there's always hope for a better turnaround? Or maybe because--despite how poorly managed it is--that doesn't mean it's ALL bad. In any case, throwing the baby out with the bath water certain isn't the answer.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Geez, Spirit's unhappy about something. That's so unlike him!>> Right back at ya, girlfriend!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I'm not sure why anyone would continue to hold stock in a company that they think is so poorly managed.>> Because until the past decade, Disney was always a GREAT investment. Because it was the first stock I ever owned. Because I have a deep emotional connection to many of the company's products. Oh, and because management can change with the wind. TWDC will exist and prosper long after Jay Rasulo and his puppets no longer are around. AND/OR: <<ORDDU: Maybe because there's always hope for a better turnaround? Or maybe because--despite how poorly managed it is--that doesn't mean it's ALL bad. In any case, throwing the baby out with the bath water certain isn't the answer.>> Exactly. I look at TWDC, and especially its theme parks, as ill relatives. You don't toss out Cousin Orville just because he needs surgery. You don't tell Cousin Cynthia you're tossing her out of your life just because she's got a touch of mental illness. You do your best to support them. Offer tough love. And do what you can to see they recover and are better than ever. Does that answer your question?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Because until the past decade, Disney was always a GREAT investment. Because it was the first stock I ever owned. Because I have a deep emotional connection to many of the company's products. >> Disney rode a very positive demographic tide up until the end of the 20th century. There really wasn't anything they could have done wrong and not made a ton of money. There was very little competition to speak of in the themed entertainment market until the 1990s. Now that the swell of Baby Boomers with young families is beginning to ebb, the demographics are no longer in favor of Disney having gangbuster profits. Competitors are increasing Disney's marketing costs -- remember when WDW used to run zero advertising? They'll continue to tweak the business model to make things work for the best, but the heydays of the Baby Boom are heading into the sunset. It's great to have emotional ties to a product, but also realistic to understand that corporations exist to make profits and please investors -- most of which are institutional investors. If profit margins can't be maintained, management will adjust the business model to adapt. No amount of emotional angst is going to change that fact.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Disney rode a very positive demographic tide up until the end of the 20th century. There really wasn't anything they could have done wrong and not made a ton of money. There was very little competition to speak of in the themed entertainment market until the 1990s.>> You mean when Disney started listening to the consultants and broke its mold to be 'lean and mean for the 21st century'? <<Now that the swell of Baby Boomers with young families is beginning to ebb, the demographics are no longer in favor of Disney having gangbuster profits. >> Sure. That's why DVC isn't a cash cow? And franchises like PoC aren't bringing in billion and billions with content spread across a wide range of platforms, right? <<Competitors are increasing Disney's marketing costs -- remember when WDW used to run zero advertising?>> You're gonna make me cry when I think about the good old days when just the mame WALT DISNEY WORLD said all the consumer needed to know. <<They'll continue to tweak the business model to make things work for the best, but the heydays of the Baby Boom are heading into the sunset. It's great to have emotional ties to a product, but also realistic to understand that corporations exist to make profits and please investors -- most of which are institutional investors. If profit margins can't be maintained, management will adjust the business model to adapt. No amount of emotional angst is going to change that fact.>> You and I can argue this ad nauseum, I think we've proven that ;-) But I just am not willing to concede the only way WDW (or TWDC really) can make enough $$$ (and please those god-like institutional investors) is by dumbing itself down and becoming the WalMart, Olive Garden, Southwest Airlines etc ... no, WDW likely can't return to the quality of the mid-80s ever again, but I think it can return to mid-90s quality AND keep the stock sufficiently high to please 'The Street' ... I guess I'm just a good old-fashioned optimist at heart
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Sure. That's why DVC isn't a cash cow? And franchises like PoC aren't bringing in billion and billions with content spread across a wide range of platforms, right? >> As a stockholder, you should know that no matter how much money DVC is bringing in today, Disney Parks are still less profitable than they were in the year 2000 -- that was six years ago!! Costs are on the increase and the income isn't coming in to make up the difference. Maybe next year Disney will make it back to where they were 7 years ago, but if you take time to read your annual reports you will see that it has been a hard road for theme parks to make as much money in the 21st century as they did at the end of the 20th century. Thank goodness they have a new product like DVC to try and make up the difference. Who knows what will happen when the DVC well dries up? It's the same story with the movie studios. Again, check out your annual reports, Mr. Stockholder. Even with the success of Pirates, Disney's profits in films were less in 2006 than they were in 1995!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<As a stockholder, you should know that no matter how much money DVC is bringing in today, Disney Parks are still less profitable than they were in the year 2000 -- that was six years ago!! Costs are on the increase and the income isn't coming in to make up the difference.>> As a stockholder, and someone who casually follows business, I am smart enough to know you can make figures back up whatever line you're shoveling. 2000 was a record year for P&R, if I recall. For a lot of reasons, including the Millennium Celebration. Again, you can use everything from 9/11 to recession (one of your faves) to the cost and failure of parks like DCA as reasons why Disney hasn't hit those levels since. <<Maybe next year Disney will make it back to where they were 7 years ago, but if you take time to read your annual reports you will see that it has been a hard road for theme parks to make as much money in the 21st century as they did at the end of the 20th century. >> Again. Numbers often lie. They certainly never tell the whole story. <<Thank goodness they have a new product like DVC to try and make up the difference. Who knows what will happen when the DVC well dries up?>> I wouldn't call DVC a new product. It began in 1991 and had thousands of members in 2000. <<It's the same story with the movie studios. Again, check out your annual reports, Mr. Stockholder. Even with the success of Pirates, Disney's profits in films were less in 2006 than they were in 1995!>> Yeah. This is the same line Paramount uses to explain why Forrest Gump wasn't profitable. Disney had a record year at the BO in 2006. PoC and Cars are going to make BILLIONS more for TWDC going forward ... as will the Narnia franchise, which also figured in etc ... Why do I bother? Why ...
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Also, add to the fact that margins across business as a whole is down. Hence profit being lower than 10 years ago as well. I will admit Disney is no longer the hallmark of quality it once was (Powerangers and cheapquals are not quality), but the profit dips run concurrent with other entertainment providers with lower margins for the taking.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I'm not sure why anyone would continue to hold stock in a company that they think is so poorly managed. < it's the million monkeys with a million typewriters thing..eventually enough managers will come and go to eventually get it right... that and we are just now recovering from out losses over the past 7 years --( last major purchase was at $109 for my kids - in 1999 I believe - after the 3:1 split it's almost back to even) almost back to the price it was then...stock is for the long term, not jumping out when it tanks....
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Any stock holders vote on line? When I clicked to read the questions I got a blank page. Not nice.
Originally Posted By Indigo Yeah. I was really hoping for an announcement about a big celebration for EPCOT's 25th anniversary. Nobody in Management cares for the ugly stepchild of Disney theme parks, I guess.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: Yep, it was a non-event, all right. All that hype fer nothin'! They oughtta all be boiled alive in my bubblin' cauldron fer gittin' folks all riled over nothin'!!
Originally Posted By bayrr326 I say shenanigans. Am I the only one who thinks that this is lame? This was the big annoucement? Even though Scarlett is beautiful.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: If'n ya been readin' other posts, here, bayrr326, ya should already know ya ain't the only duck in the pond what thinks it was lame!!
Originally Posted By bayrr326 The thing that irks me is this is just another example of Rasulo wasting money on marketing. I mean how much money did they blow on this? Do they really think that some picture of Beck's or Beyonce is gonna make somebody go hey I think I will go to Disney World. I really hope this year is the end of Rasulo and his cronies. Iger spent last year cleaning house in the rest of the company. I hope he focuses on the theme park division. The management at WDW is awful. Instead of working together to create the best experience for the guest you have a bunch of fiefdoms trying to keep their power and bleeding each guest dry and running the place just enough to get by, not exceed expectations. The Disney Parks crap needs to go. Each resort needs its own unique marketing campaign. The crazy thing is they may not even celebrate Epcot's 25th! You could market that one as a "World Reunion" you know, Come to the place where innovation and imagination is born, etc, etc. I know the parks have to be marketed but the money spent on this could have been used much better elsewhere like on our Magic Kingdom.
