Originally Posted By mrichmondj << ^^As long as the population of the US continues to boom (projected to approach 500 million by 2050) we will continue to see the cookie cutter neighborhoods appear like mushrooms. After all, those 150-200 million extra people are going to need a place to live. >> Not sure where you are getting your census data, but the U.S. population is hardly booming. Organic population growth (birth vs. deaths) is stagnant and will begin to decline in the next decade. The only significant population growth is coming from immigration, and will add 100M people in the next 30-40 years (about 1% a year). That assumes that the economy maintains a head of steam to encourage immigration. However, it remains to be seen whether the U.S. can maintain its economic clout with a population that is over 50% retired and on fixed incomes. And if the U.S. population growth is entirely coming from an immigrant population that works in the lowest wage hourly jobs, is it any wonder that WDW would need to adjust its model so that people from that demographic have any opportunity to be customers? Otherwise, the customer base with money and middle class jobs is on the decline.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Not sure where you are getting your census data, but the U.S. population is hardly booming<< According to the Census Bureau we should hit 419 Million by 2050. Other forecasters have numbers as high as 500 million. That's 120 million more than we have now (about 3-4 Californias). That's a lot of people.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And if the U.S. population growth is entirely coming from an immigrant population that works in the lowest wage hourly jobs, is it any wonder that WDW would need to adjust its model so that people from that demographic have any opportunity to be customers? Otherwise, the customer base with money and middle class jobs is on the decline.<< No argument with that.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>That assumes that the economy maintains a head of steam to encourage immigration.<< True, the sooner we become an impoverished 3rd world country the sooner immigration will taper off.
Originally Posted By avromark <<. My aught-two RAV4 is a great little SUV, and is about to take me on my Christmas Dan Across America Tour, to L.A. (Disneyland!!!), Idaho and back to Dallas. >> Your RAV4 was built in Japan, the Camry is not. So you're saying that no one can have a problem with Toyota's? I found the prop rod hood a bit cheap, I find the sludging engine a slight problem, I don't think I should be doing over 3700rpm at city speeds just because I have a small class II trailer behind me. I also suppose every Impala built breaks down, eh? It makes me wonder why they don't use Camry's for contractors, or police or taxi's if they were truly more durable. But back on topic. I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be 100% optimal every time you go. Even the best built and maintained items (Be it a ride, a car, a show, a hotel room) will take wear, will need repairs, will have a "shelf" life. You can't expect a projector to last as long as a well built building. I'm ok with things being worked on, I'm glad they do. I don't think things should be broken for months on end, I don't think some peeling paint (Hey it's Florida, I doubt it's the easiest conditions on buildings), but if ALL the paint is peeling so be it. I don't expect all the lights to be lit, but I do expect them to replace the ones that burn out. If i'm on vacation, and I find a light bulb burnt out on the first day by the 14th day I expect that light bulb to be lit. I won't be upset if it does burn out. But please fix it in a timely manner. If a ride is busy I'll excuse the dirt on the floor, but if that floor is still dirty and I'm the first one on the ride the next day. I'm sorry I don't really expect that. However if there was a hurricane last week, I'll excuse the odd awning not being up, or a tree or two down. I'd rather they fix it right once, then put a band-aid on it and proclaim it "good enough".
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < If you are going strictly off quality reports both Toyota and Honda beat the crap out of Mercedes and BMW; so obviously quality ratings aren't the end all and be all. < the quality ratings these days are a load of crap to boost lower end cars....the main ( and usually only) complaint about the BMW is the I- drive is too confusing to work...and they get whacked because some bumpkin can't figure it out...( lkely also does not have an ipod, pc or anything else ) -- if you want to see what a car is worth -- check the residual value 36 months in...it is the true worth of the car as you drive it. It is also why one can drive a BMW of Mercedes on lease ( although I hate leases )- for less than cars costing $15K and more less....
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Curiously our European cousins do not think as highly of Toyotas and Hondas as we Americans do. Complaints that I have heard from across the pond include "tinny" and "poor handling". < compared to driving Bimmers and Benz's without stifling import taxes -- who's to blame them. Ask them about Fords and Chevy's, and when the laughter dies down.............
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The parks don't always get first priority. Especially when other things are much more pressing.< like paying millions and millions to former executives....and let's not bring up go.com
Originally Posted By mrichmondj why not bring up go.com? did you prefer that Yahoo! or AOL purchase the Disney company instead. Both of those companies were ready to engage in a takeover before Disney did the go.com deal. I think Disney lost about $2B on the deal -- about as third as much as Time Warner lost by being bought by AOL.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <And if the U.S. population growth is entirely coming from an immigrant population that works in the lowest wage hourly jobs, is it any wonder that WDW would need to adjust its model so that people from that demographic have any opportunity to be customers? Otherwise, the customer base with money and middle class jobs is on the decline. < and how does one maintain a 'quality experience' while aiming for the low end economically ? I don't believe it can be done. I don't argue with the fact that this countries main population is going to become poorer. We have off shored over 10 million ( correct number as this is the field I wodk in) - white collar jobs in the last 7 + years, never to return. The entry to careers in 'office' jobs is over. If a job can be done remotely, it can be off shored ( unless it supports the federal government directly) - Benefits have been trimmed back everywhere and most people will have NO benefits after retirement. Pensions - the holy grail of verbal contracts between employers and employees over the last 40+ years are being renegged on at an alarming rate, and by the largest of our corporations with the most employees - and the actions being upheld in court. People will only have what they saved themselves in 401K's etc... pensions are disappearing... Add to that the social security financial mess and inability to support itself with the current population skew coming forth....and yes, the country will be poorer overall. However trying to maintain a high end quality experience like WDW, (and regardless of issues we all complain about, for the theme park destination experience, it is still the pinnacle) - and yet target it so that everyone can play, so to speak, creates a serious match issue. As it is now the majority of visitors save for a while before being able to visit ( not counting locals with AP's) - how could the experience be changed to not have that be a reality ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <why not bring up go.com? did you prefer that Yahoo! or AOL purchase the Disney company instead. Both of those companies were ready to engage in a takeover before Disney did the go.com deal. I think Disney lost about $2B on the deal -- about as third as much as Time Warner lost by being bought by AOL.< yeah so was Comcast and a host of others...did it happen ? Disney ventured into an arena it had ZERO knowledge in, and refused to partner with any companies that did. Neither AOL nor Yahoo were the least bit interested in Disney overall...only the media portion of the company which was sorely lacking. And the $2B loss you casually throw out as if it was unimportant, which would be at the low end of the total cost spectrum.... that is the reason shareholders today are still 15% - 20% down from 8 years ago...look at the market over that period of time...there is the reason Comcast was actually serious in their takeover bid. The frustration of stockholders -- especially the retirement funds that have huge blocks of stock and lost their shirt over that period of time..it's what cost Eisner his position.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 go.com lost $1B in 1999 alone. Yahoo powers what is left of go.com now...so why aren't they still buying Disney ? Sometimes you partner or co brand with someone who has actual expertise in an area....you can't be all things to all people, as they learned billions of dollars later.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Disney stock is down about 20% from its all time high. But you know what? 2 out of 3 stocks in the DJIA are down farther from their all-time high. Go.com has very little to do with today's stock price. Even thought Dow is at "record" highs, there's only about a half dozen stocks in the index that are at all time highs by themselves. The economy has been weak for the past 6 years, which adds up to a weak stock price for a lot of issues.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 It is well documented as to why go.com failed - even Disney execs themselves understood why, after it failed. heck they even got sued for the portal name as an infringement on goto.com which won it's case in 200, and is why it is not called go.com today. That's rushing in blindly to me. GO.com failed at its broad-based portal strategy because they came into the game too late and didn't put enough of a focus on what the brand was going to mean to consumers and advertisers," explained Charlene Li, analyst for Forrester Research. "GO.com didn't stand for anything." GO.com's failure to compete with already established top-tier portals such as Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO) and America Online (NYSE: AOL) was a combination of slow-moving bureaucracy and a lack of understanding of what it takes to compete in the Internet arena, according to a former high-level Walt Disney Co. executive with access to the company's interactive strategy
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Disney stock is down about 20% from its all time high< and the reason it has recovered even that far ( as it was closer to 40% down 2 years ago) is because they have returned to their core businesses... Walgreens almost went bankrupt because Charlie Walgreen thought 7 other ventures he invested in, knowing nothing about, was a good idea...and every one of them lost money. Today Walgreens is a quality stock because they understand what their core business is. IT is NOT Disney's core business....media content is.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 go.com had no effect ?? "Published: June 5, 1999 The Walt Disney Company's stock price rose 5.6 percent yesterday amid widespread speculation that the giant entertainment company planned to spin off its Internet-related assets into a separately traded tracking stock, . Disney owns 43 percent of Infoseek, a search engine company, and it has created Web sites for a variety of its businesses including ESPN.com, ABC.com, ABCnews.com, and Disney.com. A Disney spokesman refused to comment on whether Disney planned a spinoff. Disney has been under pressure to lift its sagging stock price, which closed yesterday at $30.625, up $1.625. That is well below its high of $40.313 last July but up from its low of $22.50 on Oct. 9. "
Originally Posted By mrichmondj OK. Yahoo! stock price is down about 80% from its all-time high -- and that's who you would have liked to see Disney partner with? You miss the point entirely of the late-90s internet bubble. The billions of dollars lost in the internet stock bubble in 2001 pales in comparison to the minor losses Disney suffered in go.com. However, Disney was under the gun -- either dump some money into a dot com or be taken over by a stock-rich dot com just like Time Warner (stock down about 80% from its all-time high). Disney's board knew exactly what it was doing by investing in go.com. Had Disney been bought out by a dot com in the 90s, there is no way they would have any capability to be focusing on core businesses today. The company would be a financial mess and restructuring, just like Yahoo! announced it was doing this week.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <2 out of 3 stocks in the DJIA are down farther from their all-time high.< the S&P 500 has averaged a 9.6% per year gain for the past 5 years....I would prefer Disney not follow companies like GM down the path they are going.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj The S&P 500 is still short of its all-time high reached in 2000. So it's taken 6 years to almost make it back to where it was before. Of course, this short-sighted view of Disney in terms of stock price alone is exactly the argument that some folks are making to support the whole "decline by degrees" theory. Instead of looking at a stock price, I would look at the company's free cash flow, debt, and revenue growth as signs of health. I would also compare them to other businesses in the same industry, not a total stock index. And let me know what you think of the S&P 500 next year when the recession hits and the bears take control of the market. I've already started pulling my positions from the S&P. We are at record highs on short positions in that index right now. Once the Wall Street brokers make their Christmas bonuses for making record highs on the indexes this years, expect things to deflate rather quickly.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 After reading management apologist rhetoric all I can say is ... I'd love to talk about my Mercedes (or brand new Honda!) and sleeping in those great Westin Heavenly Beds! Go.com was a disaster. Period. There's no good justification for it. Disney didn't have to lose BILLIONS (you know, enough to build a TDS quality theme park in the USA) in a business it had no business being in -- OH and if you think Disney has learned its lesson you obviously forgot about ESPN Mobile and Disney Mobile. Disney wasn't going to be taken over by anyone in the late 90s. Wasn't going to happen. Remember, the stock (while still undervalued) was much higher than it is now. I guess I am just a rube (albeit one who drives really kewl cars and stays in nice hotels ... a lot!), but I can't understand why Go.com, DRE, the Angels and Mighty Ducks, payouts to execs from Michael Ovitz to Jeffrey Katzenberg to Nina Jacobson etc ... are all fine uses of billions of dollars of MY company's $$$, but investment and reinvestment in core businesses like theme parks, resorts and animation isn't. No one has been able to 'splain it to this simple Nordstrom shopper. I wish someone would.
