The Rumor Tracking Thread

[The Pho]

In their defense film, TV, streaming are much larger for Disney than the parks.

From the info I just looked up, tv brought in 23.51 billion last year, parks brought in 18.42 billion, and films brought in 8.32 billion. So not really much larger, especially with tv on a downward trend.

 

[rteetz]

From the info I just looked up, tv brought in 23.51 billion last year, parks brought in 18.42 billion, and films brought in 8.32 billion. So not really much larger, especially with tv on a downward trend.

Combining the two it’s much larger. The question is where does streaming fall. Is that separate or is that part of TV? Streaming is really what all of these content wars are about.

 

[The Pho]

Combining the two it’s much larger. The question is where does streaming fall. Is that separate or is that part of TV? Streaming is really what all of these content wars are about.

The streaming service will be huge for them, especially with Fox content now. But it's not like the parks aren't huge. I think the issue is they view the parks more as a marketing tool now than a separate product.

 

[rteetz]

The streaming service will be huge for them, especially with Fox content now. But it's not like the parks aren't huge. I think the issue is they view the parks more as a marketing tool now than a separate product.

I can agree with that. To go along with that there is a Jim Hill rumor that Disney is creating a TV series that is Disney’s amazing race through the parks and resorts that shows off different locations and products like Adventures by Disney.

 

[Moliphino]

Just shows how we all differ in our likes and dislikes - we were there for the 25th and thought that the castle was amazing - loved it!

I didn't get to see it in person, but I was jealous that my parents did because I thought it was cool. I was only 10 at the time, though.

 

[mom2rtk]

It's apparent that the top dogs, and various other animals, running Disney are just using the profits from the parks to fund their real interests.

WDW = Disney's ATM.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I think the issue is they view the parks more as a marketing tool now than a separate product.

Curious how you come to that conclusion. I’ve always seen Disney as one of the few real examples of synergy — each SBU helps sell products from others. I don’t see it as one sided.

Besides the rumor Rteetz mentioned, there’s the Disney Weddings show which is a Parks ad, as are the televised Christmas parades and other specials every year. It’s not Walt sitting there telling Americans what he’s building, but it is something.

 

[The Pho]

Curious how you come to that conclusion. I’ve always seen Disney as one of the few real examples of synergy — each SBU helps sell products from others. I don’t see it as one sided.

Besides the rumor Rteetz mentioned, there’s the Disney Weddings show which is a Parks ad, as are the televised Christmas parades and other specials every year. It’s not Walt sitting there telling Americans what he’s building, but it is something.

To me it seems like the state of mind of the top brass like Iger and Chapek and others. We don't exactly get original park content anymore. None of the expansions are new things, they promote the film division somewhere. And we also have closures and reskins of previously unique things made to promote. Look at Star Tours, it went from a Star Wars related ride to a Star Wars film ad, Maelstrom lost for Frozen, Universe of Energy lost for Guardians, Great Movie Ride lost for Mickey Mouse, Backlot and Lights Motors Action lost for Star Wars and Toy Story. Just seems like there's a trend to me. Not saying that this thought process isn't still giving us some impressive stuff, just that it is taking the parks in a different direction that a park centric view would.
And the Wedding show isn't exactly a high expense for them. The weddings are already happening they just add a camera crew.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

To me it seems like the state of mind of the top brass like Iger and Chapek and others. We don't exactly get original park content anymore. None of the expansions are new things, they promote the film division somewhere. And we also have closures and reskins of previously unique things made to promote. Look at Star Tours, it went from a Star Wars related ride to a Star Wars film ad, Maelstrom lost for Frozen, Universe of Energy lost for Guardians, Great Movie Ride lost for Mickey Mouse, Backlot and Lights Motors Action lost for Star Wars and Toy Story. Just seems like there's a trend to me. Not saying that this thought process isn't still giving us some impressive stuff, just that it is taking the parks in a different direction that a park centric view would.
And the Wedding show isn't exactly a high expense for them. The weddings are already happening they just add a camera crew.

An alternate view is that they are getting better at leveraging the inherent synergies (as jargony as that sounds!). As long as a Park offering is solid, I don’t care if it’s based on existing IP or invented from scratch — I might well prefer the former if well-executed; people like things that are new and familiar at the same time.

I guess that I don’t see these things as inherently bad. The more a company leverages their assets to make the whole more successful, the more $$ they have to do more cool things for Parks and other SBUs in the future.

They can’t and shouldn’t run Parks like a separate company — they have to think of it as part of a whole when it comes to any M&A. It’s possible that a shorter term hit to Parks (which we still don’t have concrete evidence to expect, though seems feasible) may result in greater Parks in the future as the company prospers as a whole.

 

[rteetz]

I guess that I don’t see these things as inherently bad. The more a company leverages their assets to make the whole more successful, the more $$ they have to do more cool things for Parks and other SBUs in the future.

They can’t and shouldn’t run Parks like a separate company — they have to think of it as part of a whole when it comes to any M&A. It’s possible that a shorter term hit to Parks (which we still don’t have concrete evidence to expect, though seems feasible) may result in greater Parks in the future as the company prospers as a whole.

The parks need to be invested in, in order to be successful. We saw poor performance from the parks from 1999-2010 when investment was very low. Yes you can say they still invested during that time but the investment was small and poor. Look at DCA, they basically have redone that entire park since it initially opened.

Look at Epcot now or DHS just a few years ago. Both lacking investment. If Disney keeps cutting back on plans that could bite them in the butt. As Disney fans we were brought up to expect the best not just little things here and there.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

The parks need to be invested in, in order to be successful. We saw poor performance from the parks from 1999-2010 when investment was very low. Yes you can say they still invested during that time but the investment was small and poor. Look at DCA, they basically have redone that entire park since it initially opened.

Look at Epcot now or DHS just a few years ago. Both lacking investment. If Disney keeps cutting back on plans that could bite them in the butt. As Disney fans we were brought up to expect the best not just little things here and there.

Wasn’t arguing that point; don’t disagree.

They desperately needed to add to Parks; they’ve done some and have extensive plans to do more — which may or may not be impacted by the merger.

My post was specifically asking about the reasoning behind this thought and the question of new IP vs. leverage IP from other SBUs:

I think the issue is they view the parks more as a marketing tool now than a separate product.

 

[rteetz]

Wasn’t arguing that point; don’t disagree.

They desperately needed to add to Parks; they’ve done some and have extensive plans to do more — which may or may not be impacted by the merger.

My post was specifically asking about the reasoning behind this thought:

Under current management I don’t see that aspect changing. I think they really do use the parks as a marketing tool. They looks to sell them and their experiences in all sorts of ways.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Under current management I don’t see that aspect changing. I think they really do use the parks as a marketing tool. They looks to sell them and their experiences in all sorts of ways.

I agree — I just don’t agree that it’s a one-sided proposition (ie Parks serving as marketing for other SBUs). Parks revenue is still significant — they obviously knew they needed to invest to protect the stream and have. And I think other SBUs serve routinely as direct and indirect ads for Parks.

I agree that I’d expect them to use existing IP primarily in Parks additions. It’s smart. Less risky, less expensive than creating new IP just for Parks, and feeds other SBUs. As I said, if the Parks adds are SOLID, I don’t think that’s a problem.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Under current management I don’t see that aspect changing. I think they really do use the parks as a marketing tool. They looks to sell them and their experiences in all sorts of ways.

That isn’t really new though - heck the reason it is Sleeping Beauty Castle is because that movie was coming out and it would help cross promote. And they had tons with Davy Crockett in Frontierland and the Man in the Moon series represented in Tomorrowland

It’s just they have way more IPs now to draw from that they don’t *need* to also come up with new storylines.

 

[rteetz]

That isn’t really new though - heck the reason it is Sleeping Beauty Castle is because that movie was coming out and it would help cross promote. And they had tons with Davy Crockett in Frontierland and the Man in the Moon series represented in Tomorrowland

It’s just they have way more IPs now to draw from that they don’t *need* to also come up with new storylines.

Very true although I do think back then Walt pushed for creative ideas with the parks which is how we got the classics we have. Today it’s how can we turn this IP into an attraction vs. how can we create a unique story for our guests.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Very true although I do think back then Walt pushed for creative ideas with the parks which is how we got the classics we have. Today it’s how can we turn this IP into an attraction vs. how can we create a unique story for our guests.

Well, outside of Fantasyland at least - some of those original dark rides were quick and cheap ways to get characters into the parks - many just busting olywood cutouts


I do agree it came a bit more organic about come up with an idea and see how it fits - and if you can tie in an IP then great but don’t “force” it as much. And I think more of that would be great rather than “ok, what can we do with Marvel?”

 

[The Pho]

That isn’t really new though - heck the reason it is Sleeping Beauty Castle is because that movie was coming out and it would help cross promote. And they had tons with Davy Crockett in Frontierland and the Man in the Moon series represented in Tomorrowland

It’s just they have way more IPs now to draw from that they don’t *need* to also come up with new storylines.

It's not new but it really seems to have taken over completely. It's not just using existing IP to create new experiences, it's changing and removing existing stuff to now promote IP instead. You could hear Walt talk about how he got into TV as a means of telling people about the parks, well now the parks are a means to tell people about their movies. This doesn't mean they aren't creating worthy stuff for the park, there is just a clear change in focus from previous leadership.

 

[nkosiek]

In their defense film, TV, streaming are much larger for Disney than the parks.

Except in terms of profit. Parks are insanely profitable for the company.

 

[rteetz]

Except in terms of profit. Parks are insanely profitable for the company.

Which is why they are often used as a marketing tool.

 

[Alicenwonderment]

Well they can save $$$ by NOT repeating what they did for the 25th I can do without that hot pink castle monstrosity

Unlike some of the others I totally agree with not repeating the pink castle. During my college program (97) the castle was pink. I didn't even want to get my picture made in front of the castle with Mickey. (They usually offered a picture in front of the castle for MK College Program Cast Members.) I probably would have taken the picture if the castle was normal.