Is WDW Declining by Degrees - Kevin Yee

Originally Posted By vbdad55

<For what it's worth, GM and Ford sell twice the number of vehicles as BMW or Daimler in Europe<

at the average price of each vehicles - of course....I am not saying the BMW 3 or Benz C becomes a Cobalt there...it does not...

I also assume you are including Opel etc, as well as other companies now owned by GM and Ford ?

 

Originally Posted By vbdad55

Also here would be the reason Davewasbaloo feels the cars are more there than here.... there are more in the UK than almost anywhere....

<a href="http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/cars/reports/buying_and_selling/Car_price_rip_off_news_article_557_94917.jsp" target="_blank">http://www.which.co.uk/reports
_and_campaigns/cars/reports/buying_and_selling/Car_price_rip_off_news_article_557_94917.jsp</a>

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

I didn't include Opel. VW has the largest market share in Europe, followed by Peugot/Citroen. BMW/Daimler are way down on the list -- below Fiat.

 

Originally Posted By vbdad55

<<For what it's worth, GM and Ford sell twice the number of vehicles as BMW or Daimler in Europe<

<

the top selling brand by far is Volkswagon with almost 20% and then Peugeot with 13% - before both GM and Ford will 10%-11% each. Of course BMW and Benz are not going to be in the total volume when the top 5 selling models in Europe are mini type economy cars... a market they do not play in....

Let's talk about the market where they compete head to head...hard to outsell someone in a market you're not in..




<a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-parischr0609-27.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/public/r
esources/documents/info-parischr0609-27.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By avromark

I don't like any stability control programmes on my auto

In some markets such as the Philippines Fords are seen as a luxury mark, and Toyota losing market share to everyone from Honda, to Kia, to Renault, to Chevrolet.

Of course decline now can be seen easier with the advent of the Internet, digital cameras etc. Disney is probably more documented in a month now then it was in a year when it first opened.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<There is so much in this one paragraph. I'll caveat this whole response from me by saying that I don't view the GO.com deal as a success but it is also far from the TOTAL failure that some people will have you believe.>>

Why? Because Disney only lost a few billion?

Lee, before I even attempt to 'splain where I'm coming from, I think it's important to point out that you ARE a numbers guy. That's how you make your living.

I'm a creative spirit. I make no pretentions otherwise, but I do know a fair amount about how finance works, especially at major media factories like Disney.

My opinion/POV is that numbers may not lie, but they do tell tall tales when creative accountants play their games.

That's why Paramount still claims it made little if anything on Forrest Gump and some pundits claim Cars and Pirates didn't make 'enough' despite bringing in billions (and that number grows every day with DVDs and merchandising).

I don't know if you follow sports at all, but you can make statistics back up your POV ... and turn around and have them make the exact opposite.

Anyway ... on to your post ...

<<That enabling technology enabled Disney to get into the .com game without having to build up its own division. The Online team feed every division from Studios Entertainment to Media Networks to Parks & Resorts to MY Team Disney portals. Disney have a great IT infrastructure both internally and externally thanks in no small part to the GO.com. >>

I won't argue that point. I'll again just point out the cost and the overall failure of the investment. In cold hard numbers, it was an abject waste of a huge sum of money ... as was Fox Family ... as was the Angels and Mighty Ducks ... as was Regional Entertainment ... as certainly were absurd payouts to execs. The Ovitz hiring and firing alone should have cost Eisner his job and would have any other CEO.

<<And why does a pure content player have no reason to be part of online content? Absolute nonsense.>>

I agree. So please point out where I said Disney has no reason to be part of online content. I made no such statement. I said Go.com was a huge mistake and, again you can spin, spin, spin but it doesn't change that fact. And Wall Street would actually agree with me on that.

<<They were behind the curve and overpayed (and using the terms "losing billions" shows exactly how poorly you understand how transactions work particularly those involving stock and SPA covenants) that is for sure.>>

I don't have your knowledge about how big financial deals are structured. But I don't have to in this case ... or in any of the examples above.

Hell, let's say I give you Go.com as not being as bad a mistake as I (and most experts) feel it was ... Fine. Point to the lanky, UK lad.

Can you justify the other examples? Can you justify what Disney lost on sports franchises? Or Fox Family? Or Mike Ovitz? Or Club Disney and DisneyQuest?

How much spin is too much?

<<But the Company has (and still does) have every right to be in that game even if it is predominantly a marketing tool. Also it shows how little you understand the Company's business when you have to refer to a park project when the Company wasn't necessarily diverting cash from WDP&R to fund that development.>>

Cheap shot. I tossed that in there because the money folks here always say that because of the theme park business and market realities, Disney must build cheap, half-day parks and then spends years (and billions) to cover not building solid parks to begin with.

I never was suggesting that it was a USA DisneySea type of park OR Go.com ... although if it were, you know where I stand on that.

I will say, though, that most of the money people here have no problem with Disney diverting parks and resorts $$$ to cover for broadcast networks (see ABC: the post-Millionaire years) or consumer products (see the last 4-5 years of The Disney Stores under WDC ownership and the dearth of quality new characters from poor animation in the last part of Eisner's reign.)

Again, if it's not OK to say take studio money this year and go build a E-Ticket in the MK with some of it, it conversely shouldn't be OK for ABC to wind up with funds taken from theme parks (even indirectly ... like cutting costs by outsourcing at WDW to make that bottom line look better.)

<<ESPN Mobile was a genius concept.>>

Please. Even the folks at ESPN don't speak of it in those terms.

<<Executed to perfection. Anywhere else in the world (and it is being rolled out globally as a virtual network) and it would have been a huge success. The menus were user-friendly and the content was amazing. The US is just too far behind the cell-phone technology curve to be able to adopt it properly. It is too early to tell about Disney Mobile but I'm told it is doing reasonably well. Again it also feeds content to other networks with ringtones, screensavers etc.>>

So, it's perfectly OK in your worldview for Disney to take a bath on mobile phone technology, but not OK to spend $100 million plus on something to replace WoL ... or far less for a new nighttime parade at the MK?

<<Spirit that one paragraph is so black-and-white that it renders your argument moot. It reads like something I'd expect from Murdoch's NY Post.>>

Obviously, I disagree wholeheartedly. But I'll take it all as a compliment as I know you intended

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<I totally disagree. Disney doesn't need to be boxed into being a pure content player and that old definition of content vs distribution just doesn't fit any more. Disney needs to be at the cutting edge of distribution. You only need to look at their success with iTunes to see that. You make it sound like it should have PBS's brief. Quality content on its own isn't going to work. You only have to look at how shows like The Nine (which was critically lauded by just about every critic) don't latch on. You need a hook and if you can get that through other methods of communication so be it.>>

The problem is being so afraid of being left behind that you jump into any new platform just because 'all the kids ... I mean, companies are doing it.'

I never said Disney should ignore ditribution. What I said was:

"I don't think Disney needs to be at the frontier of new platforms. I think Disney needs to be at the forefront of providing amazing, compelling creative content be it theme park attractions, animated features or TV shows."

I stand by that.

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

<<< I will say, though, that most of the money people here have no problem with Disney diverting parks and resorts $$$ to cover for broadcast networks (see ABC: the post-Millionaire years) or consumer products >>>>

It's pretty clear in the annual reports from in the late 90's through 2004 that the opposite occured -- Disney used broadcasting and media $$ pay for building new parks and resorts. Prior to 2004, the cash flow in the parks & resorts segment was entirely negative, meaning that they spent more in capital expenditures than the parks were generating in operating profit. To say that parks were propping up week broadcasting and media assets is an entirely false statement. The truth is that Disney has always relied on the media business to pay for the cash intensive parks business. The parks business model doesn't work the other way around.

 

Originally Posted By TDLFAN

>>And your point is what? I have to like a place to do business there?<<

My point is that it makes you a hypocrit Leemac. You rant on Orlando just because you don't like it, but get here asap to collect your pot of gold.

>>Please.<<

Please yourself.

>>Orlando is a Stepford town in architecture only.<<

There is more to Orlando than Celebration sir.

>>One of the most barren cities I've ever seen<<

We are not in the middle of the desert.

>>You live there and must like it. Good for you. There are a multitude of places I would rather live. It takes all sorts to make the world go around.<<

Whether I like living in Orlando or not is besides the point. However, you come across quite ignorant about this town concidering you are so intent in NOT giving it a chance. You need to get out of Disney property and experience what many like your yourself (the casual visitor/Disney property lodger) do not care to experience. It's quite ignorant of you to call Orlando a town with no culture, concidering how many cultural backgrounds now thrive in the area. Not every city in the World should be measured by the size of a Broadway stage, which seems to be what you are doing.

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<So, it's perfectly OK in your worldview for Disney to take a bath on mobile phone technology, but not OK to spend $100 million plus on something to replace WoL ... or far less for a new nighttime parade at the MK?>>

That is a tough one to answer. The problem with the parks is that it is difficult to work out the economic benefit of making changes. Standalone products can be easily measured in profit & loss and cash flow. Tough to know what benefit Epcot would really get from a $100m investment. That said I believe wholeheartedly that Disney should be in mobile telephony as a virtual network. Once the US finally catches up with the rest of the world and concepts like streaming TV and movies on your cell are more common it will be a great business to be in. Who would have thought five years ago that millions of people would have the capability of watching entertainment on a glorified Walkman? Incredible.

I always see Disney as an entertainment company first and foremost and a theme park operator second. I love the parks but they are nothing without good content and that is the domain of Studio Entertainment.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<I never was suggesting that it was a USA DisneySea type of park OR Go.com ... although if it were, you know where I stand on that.>>

I think where we diverge on thinking is clear in this one sentence as I would always say "anything but another park". If I were responsible I would be hugely skeptical about building another Disney theme park in the US. I see no business rationale for it and I don't think the risk is worth taking. Concentrate on those parts of the business that are significantly more profitable and cash-flow positive.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<Obviously, I disagree wholeheartedly. But I'll take it all as a compliment as I know you intended >>

I was particularly grouchy yesterday as I was stuck in the Bradley terminal at LAX waiting for a flight back to London. The temporary BA lounge was not very inviting. I still stand by my comments though although the vitriol may have been misplaced.

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By leemac

^^ As classy a post as ever X. So eloquent. Back the name calling of old I see. I wonder what your next LP ID will be.

<<Practically every other post from you is about what great place you are staying at, or what great airline you fly first class on, or how much of a VIP you are.>>

Yup me and the tens of thousands of others that fly on business every day. And I've never said I'm a VIP. Not once.

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

Everyone is raising some very good points here. I'm not sure if I agree that Disney should not consider building another park state side. Always something to consider.

I agree that Disney needs to be investing in more positive cash flow areas. I don't see Pixar as one of them. Why doesn't Disney have more "Pirate" themed stuff? Given the popularity of Pirates you would think Disney would have a daily cartoon going. I can't imagine that many people like stich and even that has a daily cartoon doing.

Walt Disney World is a very intresting place. If one thinks that it basically about the theme parks they would be grossly wrong. Walt Disney World is all encompusing. They are in the business of offering the best quality theme parks in the US. The "World" also provides unique resort experiences, foods as well as merchandising. I suppose I should throw in "other" offerings like spa treatments as well as floral/ Wedding capabilities. Disney continues to pursue Real Estate ventures ( something extremely profitable ). Again if you think they are just about parks. Think again!

I don't see Disney ever being a viable player in the cell phone market. They are a small fish in a really big pond.

In terms of US cell phone technology. There are no other countries on this planet that have the beaurocy to go through like the telecommunication companys in this country. We are so regulated its unbelievable.

Also no other country in the world offers "free" calling areas the size of the free calling areas available in the US. Heck Atlanta was doing 10 digit dailing ten years ago. Atlanta now has four local area codes. We had to buy two from Mexico.

To make a blanket statement suggesting that the US is behind the rest of the world in telecommunication / cellular capablities is SOOOO missing the point. In reality most of the rest of the world's telecommunication and cellular offerings are being built with American technology, equipment and Engenerring capabilities. Marconi would have been dead a long long time ago if it wasn't for US technology and Bell Labs.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<Also no other country in the world offers "free" calling areas the size of the free calling areas available in the US. >>

I'm not sure what point you are making here Tom. In the UK (much like most countries I've visited) there is no notion of local or long-distance calling. Long distance is international, plain and simple.

<<In reality most of the rest of the world's telecommunication and cellular offerings are being built with American technology, equipment and Engenerring capabilities.>>

I do disagree with this. As far as I am aware the 3G technology developed by the likes of NTT DoCoMo in Japan and 3 (in Europe) is based on non-US technology. Most of the rest of the world uses GSM technology for cellular communication and I thought that was European in origin. Only CDMA technology is truly American (thanks to Qualcomm). But you only need to look at companies like Blackberry (RIM is Canadian) and Nokia for the way even handset technology has come away from the US model. Motorola have rebounded (and very successfully) but the look and design of their handsets is very European.

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< Walt Disney World is a very intresting place. If one thinks that it basically about the theme parks they would be grossly wrong. Walt Disney World is all encompusing. They are in the business of offering the best quality theme parks in the US. The "World" also provides unique resort experiences, foods as well as merchandising. I suppose I should throw in "other" offerings like spa treatments as well as floral/ Wedding capabilities. Disney continues to pursue Real Estate ventures ( something extremely profitable ). Again if you think they are just about parks. Think again! >>>

I think a good analogy would be Las Vegas. These days, the major Strip casino/hotel/resorts make more money off of non-gaming activity than they do in the casino, but nobody would come and spend if the casinos weren't there.

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< I don't see Disney ever being a viable player in the cell phone market. They are a small fish in a really big pond.

In terms of US cell phone technology. There are no other countries on this planet that have the beaurocy to go through like the telecommunication companys in this country. We are so regulated its unbelievable. >>>

I think this comment is totally off base. There are certainly *some* aspects of the telecom market that are highly regulated, but much of where the innovation and profit is these days is completely unregulated. Consider the mobile market and all of the enhanced services where a lot of the revenue and earnings growth going forward are likely to come from: things well established today like ring tones and downloadable games, things just coming online such as custom caller ringback music, and things for the future such as mobile video on demand are all unregulated. Once you have the base wireless infrastruture in place, you don't need to get any regulatory approval to offer these other services.

<<< To make a blanket statement suggesting that the US is behind the rest of the world in telecommunication / cellular capablities is SOOOO missing the point. >>>

Not at all. Leemac is right when he says the US lags behind in this area. Whether it be innovations in mobile handset design or services, we're usually several years behind other countries. SMS has only caught on here in the past few years, whereas it was popular long before in Europe and Asia. South Korea has widespread deployment of mobile video, whereas we're just now getting started. When I see a new handset innovation in the far east that I hadn't seen before, I think "Wow - I guess I'll see that in the US in 2-3 years" and I'm usually right. It's never the other way around.

Regarding standards, we still have this odd situation of three different standards in the US: non-GSM TDMA (Verizon), CDMA (Sprint), and PCS 1900 which is more or less GSM but on a different frequency (Cingular & T-Mobile). Want to switch carriers? Well, unless it's between Cingular and T-Mobile, you have to replace your handset. Until 3G came along, my understanding is that all carriers in Europe used GSM, meaning you could freely switch without buying new hardware, and roam without problems.

I think it's wise that Disney is trying to get their foot into this market, as the enhanced mobile services are certainly going to make billions of dollars for someone. And there's a lot Disney has to offer, between ABC/ESPN/Studio video content, to lots of interactive gaming possibilities.

I think the mistake with ESPN Mobile and Disney Mobile is the notion that you must drop your current service and subscribe to the Disney offering lock, stock, and barrel. I think the eventual model that will work is selling Disney content through the traditional operators as add-ons to current service, much as ringtones are done today. Disney Mobile is interesting in that it has many family-friendly services, and perhaps there's a sustainable market for that. But I think to reach the broad market with content, they have to work with the carrier of the customer's choosing.

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< That is a tough one to answer. The problem with the parks is that it is difficult to work out the economic benefit of making changes. Standalone products can be easily measured in profit & loss and cash flow. Tough to know what benefit Epcot would really get from a $100m investment. >>>

That's certainly a big problem, isn't it? I think that one way that many businesses get themselves into trouble is to focus on what can be easily measured. Certainly, measurements should be taken and decisions justified, but it's very tempting to do things only that can be justified numerically (financially or otherwise), and it's not necessarily the case that the things are directly measurable in proportion to their importance. There are certain aspects of the operation where someone just has to know what the right thing to do is.

Leemac, I'm curious as to what your opinion is for the long-term prospects of the Theme Park division is. If it's unlikely that a new park (let alone a resort) will be built in the US, how is Disney going to continue to grow earnings in that division in the long run? There's already a labor problem in Orlando, with the area seemingly at its maximum ability to provide labor at the price point that Disney needs, and certainly a substantial increase in pay isn't going to help earnings any. And although they probably have many more things that can be done on the cost side, that can't go on forever. So, if you were charged with making sure that earnings grew x% over the next 10, 20, or 30 years, how would you conceive that as even being possible?