Disney's $1 billion dollar bet on magical wristband - Wired

[jade1]

I think if you add up what they're spending in AK right now along with what's realistically needed at Epcot and DHS you'd come pretty close to that figure.

Honestly, it's to that point mainly because they kept kicking the can down the road on Epcot for over a decade.

And even at that, the Avatar expansion is basically just building out the space that was supposed to be part of the park when it opened 25 years ago.

To your question above - right now I would not lay out the full $4B, because of the need to recoup some of the $$$ that was sunk into MDE/FP+ The real problem is they put the cart before the horse - they should have spent on the buildup of attractions first, then implemented FP+ when there were plenty of options at the three non-MK parks.

I don't see MDE as that big of an expense. At least the FP+ portion anyway. Even if it were $1Billion "just" on FP+, we are at 6 parks and counting and 3 years in, about $50 Million each. One FP+ headliner could recoup that every year if they wanted. That's not much per park if you think they have already have another $4 Billion going into the parks. At least IMO.

 

[Alfalfa]

I'm guilty. I will pay for BC over a free stay at Four Seasons. It's just what we like/want. Can stay at Four Seasons anywhere else.

And that is exactly why you are mistaken. You are part of a demographic sliver that WDW cannot depend on. Perhaps you don't believe in the certainty of economic business cycles and a reversion to the mean because your disposable income isn't tied to it. But that would place you inside a bubble that you can't see how to puncture. It's an enviable position, for sure, but not one enjoyed by 99% of the world population.

WDW knows these things. It is why they proclaimed during an investors call that P&R "will not follow business cycles". Translation? We will not invest large sums of capital during good times only to lose large amounts of revenue during bad.

Those are the code words for "We'll squeeze everything out of what we have and charge more for it" that analysts love to here.

It's easy for those outside the corporate world to believe that such opinions are nothing but empty gloom and doom predictions. That's probably because they are expecting one big bang that never comes and don't hear the little firecrackers going off in the background. Like when a $2B capital investment firm sells off their entire position in Disney because they think the party's close to being over:

Investment Firm sells off one million DIS shares

 

[Angel Ariel]

That was the point-increase capacity.

If you think folks won't pay for a Tron FP+ then we can disagree...and "wish" Tron would have been built.

Increasing capacity = building more rides. I don't think anyone here is against that.

 

[jade1]

And that is exactly why you are mistaken. You are part of a demographic sliver that WDW cannot depend on. Perhaps you don't believe in the certainty of economic business cycles and a reversion to the mean because your disposable income isn't tied to it. But that would place you inside a bubble that you can't see how to puncture. It's an enviable position, for sure, but not one enjoyed by 99% of the world population.

WDW knows these things. It is why they proclaimed during an investors call that P&R "will not follow business cycles". Translation? We will not invest large sums of capital during good times only to lose large amounts of revenue during bad. Those are the code words for "We'll squeeze everything out of what we have and charge more for it" that analysts love to here.

Mistaken about what?

 

[jade1]

Increasing capacity = building more rides. I don't think anyone here is against that.

I agree, I am looking for ways to get them to do it.

Everybody else comes up with "they just should".

 

[Angel Ariel]

I really agree with pretty much all of this, kinda arguing to argue sorry.

But would you really drop 4 Billion into rides right now with what you just said?

And I'm still not seeing any other ideas.

Where is that 4 billion dollar number coming from? RsR cost appx 200 million. Everest appx 100 million...they don't need to spend 4 billion to significantly increase attraction capacity.

 

[jade1]

And that is exactly why you are mistaken. You are part of a demographic sliver that WDW cannot depend on. Perhaps you don't believe in the certainty of economic business cycles and a reversion to the mean because your disposable income isn't tied to it. But that would place you inside a bubble that you can't see how to puncture. It's an enviable position, for sure, but not one enjoyed by 99% of the world population.

WDW knows these things. It is why they proclaimed during an investors call that P&R "will not follow business cycles". Translation? We will not invest large sums of capital during good times only to lose large amounts of revenue during bad. Those are the code words for "We'll squeeze everything out of what we have and charge more for it" that analysts love to here.

If 99% of the population is going to loose their income or great reduced by a looming recession-why would they go crazy investing in more rides?

 

[jade1]

Where is that 4 billion dollar number coming from? RsR cost appx 200 million. Everest appx 100 million...they don't need to spend 4 billion to significantly increase attraction capacity.

You would have to go back and read.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I don't see MDE as that big of an expense. At least the FP+ portion anyway. Even if it were $1Billion "just" on FP+, we are at 6 parks and counting and 3 years in, about $50 Million each. One FP+ headliner could recoup that every year if they wanted. That's not much per park if you think they have already have another $4 Billion going into the parks. At least IMO.

For that same 1 billion they could ha e put in 10 Everest level attractions. 10 e ticket attractions would go a loong way to helping the other 3 parks.

 

[jade1]

Somebody suggested app the amount.

 

[Angel Ariel]

You would have to go back and read.

Wasn't being snarky, just asking. Don't have time to go back and read everything right now,.so thought I'd ask.

 

[rteetz]

Where is that 4 billion dollar number coming from? RsR cost appx 200 million. Everest appx 100 million...they don't need to spend 4 billion to significantly increase attraction capacity.

Where did you get that 100 million number for Everest? Because just in comparison to the proposed budget for frozen in Norway where they are keeping the same track layout they are spending 75 million. I feel like Everest with all that rock work should've cost more than that.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Googled it, and that's what came up

 

[jade1]

For that same 1 billion they could ha e put in 10 Everest level attractions. 10 e ticket attractions would go a long way to helping the other 3 parks.

Yes but with FP+ they "could" have them pay for it. Plus that's assuming $1Billion which is high IMO for just FP+, and who knows how many future parks will have it and they could sell the rights as well, like to Shanghai.

 

[Alfalfa]

If 99% of the population is going to loose their income or great reduced by a looming recession-why would they go crazy investing in more rides?

Because that's their core competency?

But I think you are missing the point (again). It's not a question. It's a fact. They won't, and they've publicly stated that. And now that most people who pay attention because they have a substantial fiduciary interest believe they won't be investing in more of the things that promote and produce long term organic growth (because they are also short on DIS), they are starting to pull out and move on.

 

[Alfalfa]

Yes but with FP+ they "could" have them pay for it. Plus that's assuming $1Billion which is high IMO for just FP+, and who knows how many future parks will have it and they could sell the rights as well, like to Shanghai.

Interesting that you bring up Shanghai. If you think it would be crazy for WDC to invest in WDW, why isn't it crazy to spend $5B on a new park halfway around the world?

 

[Angel Ariel]

Yes but with FP+ they "could" have them pay for it. Plus that's assuming $1Billion which is high IMO for just FP+, and who knows how many future parks will have it and they could sell the rights as well, like to Shanghai.

I.never claimed they spent 1 billion on fp+, so I don't know where that came from. They did spend 1 billion+ on MM+, and that is the 1 billion I was referring to.

 

[jade1]

I.never claimed they spent 1 billion on fp+, so I don't know where that came from. They did spend 1 billion+ on MM+, and that is the 1 billion I was referring to.

Never said you did-just used to top number as a possible cost.

 

[jade1]

Interesting that you bring up Shanghai. If you think it would be crazy for WDC to invest in WDW, why isn't it crazy to spend $5B on a new park halfway around the world?

I think they are only in part of that-that's what I heard anyway.

 

[jade1]

Because that's their core competency?

But I think you are missing the point (again). It's not a question. It's a fact. They won't, and they've publicly stated that. And now that most people who pay attention because they have a substantial fiduciary interest believe they won't be investing in more of the things that promote and produce long term organic growth (because they are also short on DIS), they are starting to pull out and move on.

1) they already are

2) since many of us want even more, how about some ideas where they can have the rides built for them