Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << How does Apple/Jobs feel about all this?>> I seriously doubt they give a crap. Also, I'm wondering how Lasseter feels about this. Not that he's been anywhere near what I hoped he'd be for the parks, but he loves the dang things. I can't imagine him loving the idea, if it's true.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I get so irate when people bring up OLC as the model for how to operate a Disney resort - they conveniently forget that Japan is an entirely different market to the US. Debt is cheap, the Japanese love to vacation at home and they have societal conventions like meibutsu and omiyage. None of those national peculiarities translate to the US. <<<< Well, no one here brought up that level of intricacy. However, the operational style of how they run their parks... that's something that should be replicated....
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>I seriously doubt they give a crap. Also, I'm wondering how Lasseter feels about this. Not that he's been anywhere near what I hoped he'd be for the parks, but he loves the dang things. I can't imagine him loving the idea, if it's true<<< They are shareholders, I am sure they are concerned. There was a thread on these boards not too long ago about APPLE buying Disney...
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Please - any hotelier would die for the occupancy rates and RevPAR of the WDW and DLR hotels. WDP&R knows how to run hotels and resorts - those are the true cashcows of the business unit. << That's not what is being said Lee. Sure, they still make money. I believe he was referencing what SHOULD be 4 star accomodations are, to the experienced guest now 2.5 star.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I get so irate when people bring up OLC as the model for how to operate a Disney resort - they conveniently forget that Japan is an entirely different market to the US. Debt is cheap, the Japanese love to vacation at home and they have societal conventions like meibutsu and omiyage. None of those national peculiarities translate to the US. << Think you're reaching here. So supposed opposite economies are the reason why the US parks can't have sufficient custodial or working monorails? Also, last I checked there are a lot of conventions and societal gatherings right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. You know, Magical Gatherings. Lee, you yourself, have constantly brought up the fact that Disney imposes its higher standards on OLC than it does itself. Not trying to poke at you, but come on, it's not as simple as pointing to a different flag. On the otherhand, I agree, the OLC comparison has kind of lost its punch in its overuse. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't embarrass someone at Disney someday. Crikes, most of the WDW executives had no idea until a couple of years ago what the DL attractions looked like ...... as in better.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I get so irate when people bring up OLC as the model for how to operate a Disney resort - they conveniently forget that Japan is an entirely different market to the US. Debt is cheap, the Japanese love to vacation at home and they have societal conventions like meibutsu and omiyage. None of those national peculiarities translate to the US. << Think you're reaching here. So supposed opposite economies are the reason why the US parks can't have sufficient custodial or working monorails? Also, last I checked there are a lot of conventions and societal gatherings right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. You know, Magical Gatherings. Lee, you yourself, have constantly brought up the fact that Disney imposes its higher standards on OLC than it does itself. Not trying to poke at you, but come on, it's not as simple as pointing to a different flag. On the otherhand, I agree, the OLC comparison has kind of lost its punch in its overuse. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't embarrass someone at Disney someday. Crikes, most of the WDW executives had no idea until a couple of years ago what the DL attractions looked like ...... as in better.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<>>>Maybe they'll just deed the whole thing to the DVC and let us run it... ;-)<<< Bring back quality and creativity, I'd be a fan.>> The first thing I would do is substantially increase the nightly rates of the Value Resorts. There is no way the existing rates cover the expense of both operating the hotel and paying a fair share of the overall resort infrastructure. People like to blame DVC for the slide in WDW's quality when in truth it is the explosion of Value Resort rooms opened during the same period that has caused the decline in quality. The Values have more rooms than the DVC and Deluxe Resorts combined! And every single one of those rooms is subsidized by other Disney World revenue sources.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Think you're reaching here. So supposed opposite economies are the reason why the US parks can't have sufficient custodial or working monorails?>> You can't compare the US, France, Japan, Hong Kong and China - it isn't like-for-like. Of course the local micro- and macro-issues are important for any operator.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Lee, you yourself, have constantly brought up the fact that Disney imposes its higher standards on OLC than it does itself.>> Precisely - just be a licensor of product. TWDC banks royalties from OLC irrespective of its profitability. Look - I'm not advocating one approach or another. I've said in the past that you would need to have a hole in your head to enter the theme park business - it just isn't an attractive proposition - high barriers to entry, high operating costs and higher capex requirements. However WDP&R is a profitable arm of the Company - the question is whether it is profitable enough and whether it can continue to grow organically. Successive management at WDP&R has failed to work out what the business unit looks like outside the existing berm. I've spent most of my adult life having a clear vision of how WDP&R should look like in the 21st century. Sadly I'm in the minority.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>People like to blame DVC for the slide in WDW's quality when in truth it is the explosion of Value Resort rooms opened during the same period that has caused the decline in quality.<< RT, as you are well aware, my comment was for Spirit's benefit. Your quote is VERY well taken.
Originally Posted By dshyates I am pretty sure the approx. $90 night at the values more than covers the operating a motel and a food court.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, as you are well aware, my comment was for Spirit's benefit.>> No problem... I figured as much. We all have to pay homage to the Spirit's sensibilities.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>You can't compare the US, France, Japan, Hong Kong and China - it isn't like-for-like. Of course the local micro- and macro-issues are important for any operator.<< Agreed. But there is the concept of setting priorities. Macro factors that you pointed out a few messages ago, imo, don't impact the training of CMs or maintenance schedules as much as organizational priorities.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Look - I'm not advocating one approach or another. I've said in the past that you would need to have a hole in your head to enter the theme park business - it just isn't an attractive proposition - high barriers to entry, high operating costs and higher capex requirements. However WDP&R is a profitable arm of the Company - the question is whether it is profitable enough and whether it can continue to grow organically. Successive management at WDP&R has failed to work out what the business unit looks like outside the existing berm. I've spent most of my adult life having a clear vision of how WDP&R should look like in the 21st century. Sadly I'm in the minority.<< Well, I'm right there with you in "s"pirit. With this, we are in complete agreement. We certainly have distinctively different views on how WDP&R should look in the 21st century, but we do share the frustration with their 2011 reality. We have that in common!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Kind of a lazy summer day, right? What's everybody talking about? ;-) So much ground to cover, almost like all the things that need fixing at WDW after 15 years of non-stop growth (in hotels and timeshares etc) and about as long in cutting back 'fat' (read that to mean bone, muscle and QUALITY). First, I've got a feeling there are many out there with opinions (much like on Social Media or any 'deep' thread that is created in the LP pond) who are hesitant to chime in. I'd hope people wouldn't feel intimidated here to offer thoughts or simply ask questions if there are issues they don't understand ... I asked quite a few questions of people before running with the OP because while I understand the business of major media, I am certainly no expert in numbers and much of what happens isn't at my level (so I do take copious notes!) Second, I want to be understood I am not saying Disney IS selling its parks and resorts division (and again, that would include hotels, cruise ships and ancillary businesses as 'splained to me). But I do want to be crystal clear (a term I apparently over use, will have to work on that) in that Disney has indeed expressed a desire to do so, has had 'discussions' with major players on Wall Street about 'what if we ...?' and that many in the company would like to ditch P&R like yesterday. This has all happened ... and may well be right now according to voices on The Street. The once Golden Goose is apparently viewed as an albatross, which tells you volumes about the people running the company and on the BoD. The biggest factor in this not having happened yet, or word appearing in say the WSJ, is that there simply aren't any takers for what Disney is offering. And the spinning off, which intrigues me more, is much less likely to happen for reasons I (and others) have stated. Also, realize that if this were to somehow happen that Disney's parks wouldn't suddenly become Six Flags. You need to look no further than at TDR for a closer example of what would happen. Disney would still own the IP and copyrights (not that that would stop any fanboi DVD seller ... well, maybe it actually would shut them down completely but that's a whole different matter) and be licensing their use to others (hey, isn't that what's happening with the Marvel characters down the road right now?) But to simplify matters and not say things I am not sure of, I'll just state that it is not difficult to have someone else run something everyone thinks you own. So long as Disney is in the name and Mickey and Pals are around, most folks don't know or don't care who owns what. Wandering around TDR when I damn well knew OLC owned 100% of the parks and resorts, I was surrounded by the best of the Disney BRAND. All of that history, characters, good will, synergy and pixie dust would go on in any type of sale or IPO. ... Again, as showcased in Maihama, sometimes it's best when Burbank isn't in charge of everything. Also, to those who poke holes at The Disney Store comparison, make no mistake that is what was going on in Iger's little head when he first floated the idea. It's a big reason why no one is in a hurry to have Fran the realtor (you know, chain-smoking, 58-year-old three-time divorcee from the Bronx driving a 2003 Lexus, now living in Windermere) take them for a walk through of Cindy's Place or the giant golf ball or the big fake tree (with all those bugs in it, probably a good idea!)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I am pretty sure the approx. $90 night at the values more than covers the operating a motel and a food court.>> I truly doubt that. Even the Kissimmee Super 8 charges $65 a night. WDW’s value rooms are about the same size, but the far more extensive landscaping, pools etc. have got to add a lot of expense that the Super 8 does not have. I'm sure the Disney resorts also face considerably greater liability risks and legal cost than a Super 8 does. When is the last time you heard of anyone suing a Super 8 for millions of dollars? When you look at those additional expenses there is NO WAY that the Values pay their fair share of maintaining the roads, grounds maintenance, fire and security protection, transportation, utilities and communications infrastructure of the entire WDW resort. I did not say they make NO contribution to the overall cost of running WDW... just not their fair share. Does a guest at a Disney Deluxe use any more of those infrastructure items than a guest at the Values? You have to know the extra $300 a night charged for the Deluxe's does not all go just to maintain a room that is 100-200 square feet larger. Especially when has been pointed out many times; the bedding, linens, towels, toiletries, etc are of no higher quality in the Deluxe resorts than in the Values.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Oh, also wanted to mention that neither Iger, Staggs or Rasulo has ever gone on the record (or through a company spokesperson) to flat out deny that they would ever consider selling the parks and resorts division or spinning them off. Much the same way as he/they have never said definitively they would not sell ABC (something else that's been on Iger's mind after he's almost destroyed it). You'd think if there were no chance of the above happening, then they'd flat out say so ... so ... what can we take out of the fact they refuse to do so? Anyone else hear crickets ... ?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You'd think if there were no chance of the above happening, then they'd flat out say so ... so ... what can we take out of the fact they refuse to do so?>> Do you think leaving the possibility on the table is perhaps good for stock prices even if they have no intention of actually doing it?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Disney has become in large part a distribution company. The Weatherman has said it repeatedly. Now, no matter how you look at it, there's a huge ocean between distribution ...acquiring work (see Pixar and Marvel) or exploiting existing properties (either acquired content or your own a la Pirates) ... and the other. A company distribute tools, not creativity (see our Al Weiss thread). Iger has shown a profound aversion to making investments in the latter while bolstering the 'value' of the former. That's not wise for any media company, it's a potential poison to TWDC. And maybe that is what we are dealing with now. A poisoned product that as it fades further away looks at a picture of its former self and somehow has convinced itself (deluded itself?) into believing it's a mirror of its present self. That doesn't even work for many fanbois today (see the fan movement exploiting social media to shame Disney into fixing all the things it is neglecting in O-Town now). Sorry, Burbank, but Disney is no longer the brand it once was. It can be cannibalized. And P&R are not the untouchables among the stable of assets held by TWDC. They are but one very troubled dysfunctional division of a massive conglomerate. Fanbois may think Disney revolves around The Walmarted World of Disney, but make no mistake, to Iger and the BoD, they are just another asset to be exploited. No different that ESPN (well, a little since it doesn't require the upkeep) or Cars or Miramar High Dropout Captain Jack Sparrow! A division that requires tremendous capital expenditures merely to staunch the normal operational wear and tear at those properties. As for any 'real' investment beyond the basic upkeep, which TWDC has been skimping on for far too long now ... we all know you can pretty much forget about that. After all, how can Disney be thinking long term (whether they keep the parks or not) when they have NO (read that again) NO ... long term plan to reinvigorate their product in O-Town beyond a small Fantasyland redo ... no long term plan even in Anaheim where the idea of a Phase II to DCA's Extreme Makeover seems more laughable by the day and a third gate is a pipe dream and ... well, I'm not going round the world with you right now unless you're putting out the AmEx Black! And, you know what? that fits what a company ...or even what most of us ... would do if something was put on the market and there was no buyer. Kinda like polishing the '74 Coupe de Vile and shining the rims only to realize nobody was interested in buying it without looking under the hood and taking her out for a ride. That car ends up in the backyard on blocks. Under a tarp ... you know, like the ones that have been hanging in BTMRR's mine scene for over a year now!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>The first thing I would do is substantially increase the nightly rates of the Value Resorts. There is no way the existing rates cover the expense of both operating the hotel and paying a fair share of the overall resort infrastructure.<<< I must respectfully disagree with that viewpoint. I fail to see how the Value Resorts might be "too cheap". They are still more expensive then a large grouping of less expensive and more comfortable hotels on Rte 192. The ones out there seem to be doing OK, some have been there for years and years. The rooms in the Values can only be described as just slightly above the size of a walk in closet and the outrageous amount that is charged for what passes as food in the food courts should pretty much cover expenses, plus! The only difference is the themeing and once that is in place, with the exception of minor maintenance, that isn't highly expensive to maintain. Washing a giant plastic thing once in a while shouldn't break them. They charge extra for the simplest of things that other hotels provide free, like refrigerators. No I think they are cash cows in and of themselves. Even if you factor in the "free dining" that is just a minor percentage of the dollar value they are offering. True they lose the profit but the actual costs is way less then what it would cost the general guest to buy the same thing. In my mind, the selling of the parks would end Disney. When Walt started this whole thing Disney had already established itself as a movie/animation giant. Not so much anymore. Even the most profitable property that Disney has is connected directly to the parks. In todays world, the parks and the connected cruise line are Disney's identity. Without that they are nothing. Hardly anyone besides those of us that follow Disney closely are aware of the other Disney holdings, even the ones as obvious as ABC. I know I wouldn't buy it without realizing that I couldn't change it and in spite of many new attractions, some have been there and paid for themselves many times over, someone new buying in would have to pay for all that all over again. One would really have to know what they were doing to make it work and it could never lose the Disney signature.
