Originally Posted By MPierce >> Folks who stayed a week at the Poly or FW or Golf Resort (anyone know what that was/is?) and spent all or most of their time at WDW were the exception. << Isn't that what is now Shades of Green?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<People like to say EC almost caused the company to be broken up, yada, yada, yada. But I believe Disney might have been broken up IF EC hadn't been built because animation was dead ... live action was a corpse with a punchline ... consumer products was failing because people weren't buying Disney crap.>> <<This reminds me of Philip Roth's The Plot Against America where an alternative universe is presented whereby FDR is defeated by Lindbergh and anti-Semitism and Nazism prevail. What if Disney had been broken up back then? The odds are that we would have a separate company for the media assets and another for the parks - the latter could do as it chooses. I wonder if WDP&R would be in a better position if that had happened?>> Who knows? I often wonder how different the world would be if any number of things hadn't happened or did ... it's a fun game at cocktail parties. But it's safe to say that Eisner and Wells were pretty committed to investing in the parks and making WOW statements in the 1984-1994 time period. And then Wells died, Eisner had a heart attack, ABC/Cap Cities became available and Disney diversified waaaaay too much ... something that continues today. Parks and Resorts just aren't that important anymore ... except when The Weatherman needs to show Wall Street he can cut 'fat'. <<There is little doubt in my mind that if someone wanted to buy WDP&R at a small premium that the Board of Directors would bite their hands off - theme parks aren't a great business to be in as a public corporation in the US even if the name above the door is Disney.>> Sadly, I could see that. The Board is there strictly as a tool for Wall Street and institutional investors (is it too soon after the Fourth of July for me to start my anti-USA of 2010 rhetoric?). No one cares about the Disney Legacy ... unless it's using Walt's 'Daddy's Day with His Girls' video in a tacky way to sell TIMESHARES (God, I'd love to get Diane Disney Miller to talk about how she feels about that!) And while I feel you're correct about the BoD, I wonder who would want to be the CEO of TWDC when it sells off one of its greatest creative legacies, so it can focus on building estate homes, making Marvel films and adding the 116th ESPN channel. Iger may have a huge ego, but he doesn't have the balls needed to go along with it and do something like that.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Sadly, if TDO of 2010 were making the decisions (along with the current Burbank leadership) EC would never have been built.>> <<Likely very true - but the real question is why? There are a host of reasons: 1) Spiralling development costs due to WDI's cost structure; 2) Conservative management that want built-in brand recognition for virtually all projects; 3) Competing projects for every dollar required; 4) Changing guest dynamics; etc. It is a complicated picture. Past and present management are partly responsible for the current situation due to their stewardship - heavy discounting, O&M cost cutting, etc.>> Yes. But it all comes down to business models. It all comes down to the current bastardization of capitalism in the USA (and therefore, worldwide). As someone who loves Disney, but has a business background, how can you reconcile the fact that almost EVERY great thing, every amazing groundbreaking innovation, every WOW thing that needed creative vision and a financial leap of faith, would NOT have been undertaken by the WDC of 2010? Seriously, do you ever sit back and think about that? Everything from Snow White to Mary Poppins to DL to attractions like PoC and Mansion to WDW to EC to Touchstone Pics to etc would NOT be greenlighted by the leadership today. You couldn't justify the 'risk' to the Street, to the institutional investors to the analysts. It's sickening really. Because what will destroy this country won't be any band of radical religious loons from the desert, but it will be from losing our CAN DO ANYTHING attitude. It will be because it's so much easier to offer Walmart at WDW than Neiman Marcus. I truly feel bad for today's youth ... because when they finally lift their eyes from their iPhones they're going to realize what a mess our generation and the past left behind. <<As I said in another thread this Harry Potter Land thing at IoA is critical to the theme park industry as a whole. If it fails or doesn't meet NBC-U's lofty expectations then you won't see this type of investment again for a generation or more. If it is successful then WDW Co. will need to step up to the plate to defend their market share and value. >> At least UNI is trying. And I pray it succeeds because in the background, TWDC is hoping the opposite because it no longer has any appetite for the cost of being the best. Much better to have a cutting edge bottom line than cutting edge products.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>Isn't that what most lawyers and judges do?<<< <<Thank you for saying MOST, and not ALL. ;-) You are learning!!!!! :-D>> I should have said 99.7%. I think that would be most accurate.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> Folks who stayed a week at the Poly or FW or Golf Resort (anyone know what that was/is?) and spent all or most of their time at WDW were the exception. << <<Isn't that what is now Shades of Green?>> Yes! It began life in 1973 as the Golf Resort. Got a Snow White motif and was rechristened as The Disney Inn around 1986 and then leased to the military in the 1990s.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Yes. But it all comes down to business models.>> Actually it doesn't. A positive NPV is an important element to any decision but it is also just that...an element. There are a host of other intangible benefits to any projects. Adventures by Disney never had a positive NPV worth chasing but it is an interesting proposition that could lead WDP&R down other avenues. The Company still doesn't seem to know what to do with AbD but I strongly believe that it is an important element of any outside-the-berm project - storytelling is the heart and soul of the Disney Difference. <<As someone who loves Disney, but has a business background, how can you reconcile the fact that almost EVERY great thing, every amazing groundbreaking innovation, every WOW thing that needed creative vision and a financial leap of faith, would NOT have been undertaken by the WDC of 2010? Seriously, do you ever sit back and think about that?>> No - it doesn't do me or my colleagues any good to think like that. Despite my "business" background I'm the link between creative and the business/delivery side of the business. I need to help the creative side make something that is attractive to the business side. It is an impossibly difficult task but I do the best I can. I'll never understand the American Way of doing business - it is steeped in politics where everyone is only looking out for their own ass. In our industry senior management usually come and go quickly (before they have to make a big decision) - I'm in for the long haul.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> And while I feel you're correct about the BoD, I wonder who would want to be the CEO of TWDC when it sells off one of its greatest creative legacies, so it can focus on building estate homes, making Marvel films and adding the 116th ESPN channel. << ESPN Classics is fantastic. Did you see Saturday's repeat, sponsored by the no strings attached people?
Originally Posted By MPierce >> No - it doesn't do me or my colleagues any good to think like that. Despite my "business" background I'm the link between creative and the business/delivery side of the business. I need to help the creative side make something that is attractive to the business side. It is an impossibly difficult task but I do the best I can. << That's like 2 teenage girls fighting over who's turn it is to talk on thier 1 cell phone. Creative is always going to want bigger budgets while business has to always look to that dreaded bottom line, while still delivering a quality project. How often have you had to have treatment for ulcers so far Lee Mac?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Ask EE, he's the devil....I mean lawyer in training. <<< *glare*
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I should have said 99.7%. I think that would be most accurate.<<< Soooooo...I'll be in the 0.3%. I'm fine with that.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Yes. But it all comes down to business models.>> <<Actually it doesn't. A positive NPV is an important element to any decision but it is also just that...an element.>> NPV to me is largely folly when talking about things that have never been done before. Can you imagine talking with Walt about that in the 1950s when he was mortgaging his house to buy orange groves out in the hicks of Anaheim? Did the term even exist back then? Can you imagine discussing NPV in terms of the future of WDW when Card Walker and Donn Tatum and Ron Miller were getting EC built. Many of the most gifted economists feel that NPV lacks legitimacy and has no real purpose, yet it's one of the most-often used tools by consultants who tell companies like Disney how to break their businesses. It's a way to justify expenditure when companies spend, but it doesn't offer tangible proof of any kind of return. NPV, to me, is all about proving the value of an unknown. <<There are a host of other intangible benefits to any projects. Adventures by Disney never had a positive NPV worth chasing but it is an interesting proposition that could lead WDP&R down other avenues. The Company still doesn't seem to know what to do with AbD but I strongly believe that it is an important element of any outside-the-berm project - storytelling is the heart and soul of the Disney Difference.>> First, don't use that last sentence because it is PR and I like it much better when I feel like I'm talking to Leemac and not Corporate Communications! AbD will never be what Disney thinks it will because it's price points truly are so absurdly high that only the most affluent could afford them (and even then, why do I see massive discounting and offers for CMs, APers etc?) I guess it gives Karl Holz something to do since he's such a good solider. And while I have heard nothing but good things about the tours, I just wonder what market Disney thinks it's going to tap with this. There's a very limited number of 'I've got money because I'm a defense contractor or the government pays me for being disabled or I inherited this from my late Aunt Fudgey and I'm afraid to travel outside the USA unless Mickey is holding my hand'. THAT IS the audience AbD is going after. <<As someone who loves Disney, but has a business background, how can you reconcile the fact that almost EVERY great thing, every amazing groundbreaking innovation, every WOW thing that needed creative vision and a financial leap of faith, would NOT have been undertaken by the WDC of 2010? Seriously, do you ever sit back and think about that?>> <<No - it doesn't do me or my colleagues any good to think like that. Despite my "business" background I'm the link between creative and the business/delivery side of the business. I need to help the creative side make something that is attractive to the business side. It is an impossibly difficult task but I do the best I can.>> I admit, I don't know how you do it. Because creativity and today's model of American capitalism are at constant odds. The only reason you can have something like Toy Story 3 is because every Pixar film has made a fortune. And that's the only reason you get RSR's huge budget because Lasseter and push some of that through despite going against the business plan. But where's the value in replacing WoL at EPCOT? Or adding a real E-Ticket to the MK every 4-5 years? <<I'll never understand the American Way of doing business - it is steeped in politics where everyone is only looking out for their own ass. In our industry senior management usually come and go quickly (before they have to make a big decision) - I'm in for the long haul.>> On that, my friend, we are in complete and utter agreement.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<ESPN Classics is fantastic. Did you see Saturday's repeat, sponsored by the no strings attached people?>> Yes. I did. I won't comment on it further (even though I have 2-3 appropriate tags) because I have noticed an increase in ADMIN activity in this sector. Likely some newbie weasel who is 'afraid to ask whether he should have breakfast or dinner at Chef Mickey's' ... or maybe just the work of some bored housewife!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<How often have you had to have treatment for ulcers so far Lee Mac?>> He gives them! Just ask him why he likes DCA better than TDS! On second thought PLEASE DO NOT!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>I should have said 99.7%. I think that would be most accurate.<<< <<Soooooo...I'll be in the 0.3%. I'm fine with that.>> It is a soul-sucking business. Just wait until I try and explain my current 'situation' in which everything being done is illegal and I have basically no recourse ... makes you want to go buy a flag!
Originally Posted By ExpDave The Tiki Room has long been my favorite Disney attraction, I love the atmosphere, the music, everything. I HATE the Under New Management version it's insulting to Walt Disney. I do however think the Tiki Room could be easily adapted for changes as long as those changes stayed true to the setting and atmosphere. Sure mix it up, add new songs in keeping with the theme - often even, just keep it IN THEME! Sure, add new jokes and dialog, just don't insult the original show!!!!!!! This show could be like TOT with so many variations programed in that it is a different experience virtually every time. Actually Disney could make even more money with the Tiki Room by turning it into a dinning experience with a living character initiative where the birds, flowers, tiki's interact live with guests.
Originally Posted By ExpDave Keeping it simpler than what I suggested above, Disney could have the original Tiki Room show, plus three more with little to no changes other than different (in theme) music and dialog, and rotate the shows about every 5 years. That would keep it fresh for every generation, give older people who remember a show with fondness something to look forward to (when it comes out of the Disney Vault) and really shouldn't cost a lot of money.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Actually Disney could make even more money with the Tiki Room by turning it into a dinning experience with a living character initiative where the birds, flowers, tiki's interact live with guests. << If they turned it into a dining experience using LCI it would be broke all the time.
Originally Posted By Manfried Maybe I'd have been a better Imagineer if I knew this. What the heck is an NPV?
Originally Posted By Manfried Maybe I'd have been a better Imagineer if I knew this. What the heck is an NPV?
Originally Posted By leemac <<What the heck is an NPV?>> Net Present Value - it is a way of discounting future cashflows to justify the upfront capital expenditure. The inherent problem is that it uses a number of inputs that are entirely subjective - you can manipulate it to do what you want.
