Originally Posted By oc_dean >>What makes you so sure that spending more money would have yielded enough revenue to offset the additional expense? Not trying to attack you, but so often people use this kind of logic and it doesn't always add up. << Good point. But look where it got the co. with these very modest parks from the beginning! Either start them off right .. or don't do it at all!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Here I'm complaining about characters in 'it's a small world' .... but the perfect place, really, to point for example is Walt Disney World's Tomorrowland. Buzz Lightyear in 1999 was a hit, and is to this day. Adding Stitch to Alien Encounter has been a controversial discussion since the day he's been added. But (#3) really takes the hilt: Monsters Inc. Comedy Club So the company wants to further exploit their characters right? Okay. Then what does a Monsters Inc. "Comedy Club" have to with the world of the future? And while they are at it ...they can throw in how Buzz and Stitch are appropriate to Tomorrowland.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Does a co. just MAUL their way through with character exploitation without really considering the entire picture? Both short term and long?" Good question and I'm sure the econ majors out there can give you a more educated take on that than I can. In my opinion it's a fine line to walk, and whenever an organization puts too much weight on one strategy there is greater damage to control when the strategy eventually fails. At some point, and it could be decades from now, consumers will get smart and understand what Disney, Viacom, and other entertainment giants are up to and reject these kinds of global character tie-ins. Until then I'm going to expect more mediocrity at Disney's parks and enjoy the odd things that come through the pipeline that I like. I guess in a way I've sort of come to terms with it.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Either start them off right .. or don't do it at all!" *playing devil's advocate* But stockholders and management want growth, and how do you create long term financial growth if you don't look for new markets to build parks and exploit your character franchises? I can think of no better example than Disney's foray into Asia with Disneyland and the company's cavalcade of cartoon characters. HKDL may not be performing up to speed but that doesn't seem to be stopping Disney from eyeballing Shanghai for its next Asian theme park, which could open by 2014.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones It's a constant struggle between Imagineers and accountanteers. One side cannot exist without the other, but certainly one side can overpower the other, and it's usually the accountanteers overpowering the Imagineers.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones DLP is probably the most obvious case I can argue for a situation where Imagineering overpowered the accounting/managerial side. Here was a situation where they opened a lavish park that did not perform, though much of that could be due to cultural differences. I wouldn't say Imagineering overpowered accountants at TDS, since they got a pretty good return on their investment. Here is a case where a ridiculously expensive, lavish theme park was great for business. In the end it all comes down to risk, and The Walt Disney Co. is simply a risk-adverse company. When there is a decision to be made about what to build next at a theme park, a new ride based on a hit movie or a PotC-type original attraction, the movie tie-in ride will win most of the time.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>DLP is probably the most obvious case << It was the hotels. Not the park. >>I wouldn't say Imagineering overpowered accountants at TDS<< Well .. the OLC has a higher regard for the "Old Walt" standard. Thank God for that!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "It was the hotels. Not the park." Has DLP made money yet? Are they still in the red? Whatever the problem was, it would seem to me that those resources could have been better spent elsewhere.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Yes the problem with DLP was overbuilding hotels, not the park. The park began to turn a profit until they build an underfunded DSP, which they rightfully took a financial hit from. DLP, WDW and TKDL were built as full parks and attracted enough visitors to be financially successful. The underperformance of Paris was the result of factors that had nothing to do with the quality of the park. Flash forward to a series of underfunded, underperforming parks, and it is easy to co-orlate a well built park with strong attendance, and a weakly built park with weak attendance. So the fact that ESPN makes more than the Disney parks has little to do with the parks not being profitable in themsleves, and more to do with mismanagement and misfinancing. - Anatole
Originally Posted By oc_dean Well ... I never thought DLP upon opening was huge on attractions. Look at Discoveryland. Until Space Mountain opened in 1995 (along with the Nautilus walk-through) ... it was hardly lavish. And to this day .. I still do not think Discoveryland is lavish at all.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I'm pretty sure someone posted the financials on DLP once, or a brief history, that showed the park struggling to make money in the early years, turning a profit for a few until DSP was built, and then losing money again. - Anatole
Originally Posted By oc_dean And I have enough insiders to tell me how important the revenue from the theme parks are to the co. So, Disney will always need to look out for their theme parks, or watch the bottom fall out from them. (Hence - 1.2 billion dollar overhaul, DCA)
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Maybe theme parks just aren't profitable unless they are simply extensions of other media. Maybe it's just not profitable to build Pirates of the Caribbeans and Haunted Mansions. Maybe it was profitable 50 years ago but it isn't now. Who knows.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Maybe theme parks just aren't profitable unless they are simply extensions of other media.<< That's not what I've heard. The theme park division makes up for a mighty good chunk of the co.'s "treasure chest"!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "It's a constant struggle between Imagineers and accountanteers." Maybe, but I think that view is overly simplistic. I think management is the collective force behind these kinds of mandates, not the accountants.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt >>Maybe theme parks just aren't profitable unless they are simply extensions of other media.<< "That's not what I've heard." The theme parks make money, but you have to understand that the parks have long been nothing more than frosting on the cake for Disney's other brands and vice versa. I know it sounds cynical, but think about it: people spend up to a week at WDW immersed in Disney branding. Ford or Microsoft would kill to have hundreds of millions of customers a year under their spell for days at a time like Disney does. Imagine how that kind of customer loyalty translates into sales across Disney's corporate media divisions - from Disney Channel to Pixar to ESPN. So yes, I would say that management views there theme parks and resorts as a necessary extension of everything Disney.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Anatole69: Yes the problem with DLP was overbuilding hotels, not the park. The park began to turn a profit until they build an underfunded DSP, which they rightfully took a financial hit from. DLP, WDW and TKDL were built as full parks and attracted enough visitors to be financially successful. The underperformance of Paris was the result of factors that had nothing to do with the quality of the park.>> What you failed to note was that the successful parks that Disney built-out from the start (DLP, TDS) were HIGH QUALITY from the start. That is what resulted in their success. DLP was so successful, IN SPITE of the hotel fiasco, that they had to add an additional ten attractions the following year.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<SpokkerJones: Maybe theme parks just aren't profitable unless they are simply extensions of other media. Maybe it's just not profitable to build Pirates of the Caribbeans and Haunted Mansions. Maybe it was profitable 50 years ago but it isn't now.>> I don't think that the facts bear that out. Unfortunately, Disney's management is under the mistaken belief that it IS true. And, due to the current financial structure of the parks, their funding and revenue strategies, it results in a situation where it becomes self fulfilling, though in a very negative way.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Hans Reinhardt: The theme parks make money, but you have to understand that the parks have long been nothing more than frosting on the cake for Disney's other brands and vice versa. I know it sounds cynical, but think about it: people spend up to a week at WDW immersed in Disney branding. Ford or Microsoft would kill to have hundreds of millions of customers a year under their spell for days at a time like Disney does. Imagine how that kind of customer loyalty translates into sales across Disney's corporate media divisions - from Disney Channel to Pixar to ESPN. So yes, I would say that management views there theme parks and resorts as a necessary extension of everything Disney.>> Well, if it weren’t for the parks, Disney would have NEVER have attained it’s position in the entertainment industry. Oh it still could have achieved continued MODERATE growth if their studio operations maintained quality, but it was the parks that provided the foundation of the current conglomerate.
