Originally Posted By oc_dean Which brings me to the thought of sponsors. I don't see the number of sponsors the parks use to have. I bet that's also a factor to the overall condition of the parks.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Just a comparison of sponsors in TL: Mission to Mars - McDonnell-Douglas Stitch's Great Escape - none Circle-Vision -Monsanto Timekeeper -none If You Had Wings -Eastern Airlines Buzz Lightyear -none Space Mountain 1975 -RCA Space Mountain 2006 -none Carousel of Progress 1974 -GE Carousel of Progress 2006 -none ..... and the list goes on throughout the park. If only Disney had a better relationship with outside companies ... I'd like to place a bet with everyone for a dollar ... the park's ride conditions and overall quality would be significantly better.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>You can actually say this when stock price is down 20% from 8 years ago ? << Not to pick a fight with you vb, but I think that a major reason that the stock is down has to do with the poor performance at ABC, the Family Channel and the disastrous attempt with go.com. A lot of good money was spent on these and therer is little to show for it. On the other hand ESPN and the Theme Parks do generate steady profits, IIRC.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>If only Disney had a better relationship with outside companies<< I think that part of the problem is that sponsors are a lot stingier than they used to be. In the past, there might have been a aura of prestige associated with a Disneyland or World attraction sponsorship. Now, they hagve to justify it. What are we getting for the $$ we spend? Unless it meets an ROI expectation, they just won't do it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Not to pick a fight with you vb, but I think that a major reason that the stock is down has to do with the poor performance at ABC, the Family Channel and the disastrous attempt with go.com. A lot of good money was spent on these and therer is little to show for it. On the other hand ESPN and the Theme Parks do generate steady profits, IIRC.>> Yes ... and for years, Eisner took profits out of the parks and resorts division to prop up his other poor business decisions. Gee, I wonder if any of the billion that POC has made (just so far) there'll be much more with DVDs and merchandise, will get pumped back into the parks ... actually, I don't because I know they won't.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^Most likely they will try to fix ABC and the Family Channel. Good luck. The only thing we ever watch on ABC Family are the Whose Line reruns.
Originally Posted By danyoung Kyle XY was a pretty incredible show for ABC Family this summer. If they continue with shows of that quality, they'll do OK.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <vbdad55, my guess is that you are a lot more patient than most of the other stockholders. I'm sure none of them hold on to their stock for very long especially if it is doing as badly as you say. What serious investor would? < <I find all the defense of the stockholder world fascinating ... for the company sold stock during Walt's years. The difference though ..... He didn't let stockholders/financial community bully him around about what was necessary for his empire - Quality! < oc dean, the stockholders have changed over the years. They do not have the same attitude toward invsesting that they had during Walt's day.< Large stockholders, or market knowledgeable ? The majority of stock ( outside of Jobs and Eisner now) is held by other corporations, as part of their pension funds usually. This trend started long before Walt passed away, and now is evident, all you have to do is look at those who helped for Mike E from office.... and Walt himself was a significant stockholder in Berkshire Hathaway at one point... SO before we start invoking the name of Walt and changes in stockholders, look a little deeper. Major stockholders drive a lot of what goes on at Disney -- even overseas: Founded in 1960, OLC-whose major stockholder is the Keisei Electric Railway Co-were responsible for the original bayside reclamation between 1964-75 and the construction of the first Disney park between 1980-83. OLC was founded while Walt was still alive and he certainly didn't mind large stockholders like Keisei Electric RR - This image of Disney being a self financed venture much past 1940 sounds nice, but just isn't true. They went to the public for help because company debt was so high. you want a stockholder that was not patient --Warren Buffett. "Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. sold more than 80 percent of its stake in Walt Disney Co., the world's No. 2 media company, during the last quarter of 1999 and the first quarter of last year. Berkshire and affiliates of the Omaha-based insurer reported holding 3.9 million shares as of March 31, 2000, down from 20 million shares reported Sept. 30, 1999, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>You can actually say this when stock price is down 20% from 8 years ago ? << Not to pick a fight with you vb, but I think that a major reason that the stock is down has to do with the poor performance at ABC, the Family Channel and the disastrous attempt with go.com. A lot of good money was spent on these and therer is little to show for it. On the other hand ESPN and the Theme Parks do generate steady profits, IIRC.< absolutely a contributing factor, but then you have to look at the high side with things like ESPN ...likely the most valuable property they hold ...look at the returns on theme park profit...you would not be seeing any new e tickets without other ventures...and the much maligned DVC.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'll stand on the man's track record and how much he is loved by Glendale. Thanks.>> I'm steering well clear of this debate but I'm intrigued as to why you said this, Spirit. I presume by Glendale you are referring to WDI (although the new campus is already opening up to all it seems) and as Jay is ultimate the boss of that department. However I certainly don't see any love for the man there (in fact many miss the warm and inclusive personality of Paul).
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Kyle XY was a pretty incredible show for ABC Family this summer. If they continue with shows of that quality, they'll do OK.<< I believe that Kyle is also shown on regular ABC, which dilutes ABC Family's brand.
Originally Posted By danyoung I think ABC Family will always be a feeder for ABC. If a really good show comes along, it'll show on both. The wise thing they did was show the first run episodes on Mondays on Family, and the repeat on the following Friday on ABC. That at least gave Family the first shot at the audience.
Originally Posted By idleBrain <<I'm steering well clear of this debate but I'm intrigued as to why you said this, Spirit.>> Ya think? <<I presume by Glendale you are referring to WDI (although the new campus is already opening up to all it seems) and as Jay is ultimate the boss of that department. However I certainly don't see any love for the man there (in fact many miss the warm and inclusive personality of Paul).>> I feel that's precisely the point Spirit was making, Lee. Some folks call it sarcasm. For me, Jay is like Frank Burns filling in after Henry Blake left the 4077th. No one likes the guy, but Frank doesn't care, as long as he's commanding officer. In the meantime, everyone does their best to deal with Frank while patiently waiting for another officer, like Sherman Potter, to arrive and take charge. Hopefully for Glendale, the wait won't be too much longer.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I'm steering well clear of this debate but I'm intrigued as to why you said this, Spirit.>> You should't steer clear. We love you Lee and I enjoy nothing more than a spirited debate about something I'm passionate about. And I always aim to intrigue ... as well as entertain and educate ... maybe titilate as well ( can I say that here?) <<I presume by Glendale you are referring to WDI (although the new campus is already opening up to all it seems) and as Jay is ultimate the boss of that department. However I certainly don't see any love for the man there (in fact many miss the warm and inclusive personality of Paul). >> You presume correctly. And, while Paul was very ill-suited for heading the parks, he certainly was a lot warmer individual ... and in my opinion articulate and intelligent. I just don't get why someone who so profoundly misunderstands his own 'product' remains (for however longer remains to be seen) in such a prominent position. I am sure there are places, even in TWDC, much more suited to Jay's talents.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I think ABC Family will always be a feeder for ABC. If a really good show comes along, it'll show on both. The wise thing they did was show the first run episodes on Mondays on Family, and the repeat on the following Friday on ABC. That at least gave Family the first shot at the audience.>> ABC Family will always be a mistake because of the price paid for it at a time Disney could ill afford to throw billions away. The fact that now, years later, the network barely registers a pulse says all that is needed. So they have one decent show. Big deal. There are 100 cable networks out there that can at least find one program worth a look.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN I think the last time I watched ABC was during the Moldavia Massacre episode...
