Budget cuts at Walt Disney World

[justgrace]

It's China most companies in China aren't reputable.

I don't have much experience with China (or even Asia) so wasn't too sure. I wonder why they didn't hire an outside company to come in for construction? Surely it would have costed less than how much they are over budget now.

 

[rteetz]

I don't have much experience with China (or even Asia) so wasn't too sure. I wonder why they didn't hire an outside company to come in for construction? Surely it would have costed less than how much they are over budget now.

I'm not sure the Shanghai government would have allowed that since that government is majority owner in this Disney park.

 

[Eoghann]

I think we need to keep some perspective on the "Shanghai disaster".

It's clearly overbudget (like every single Disney park ever) and there have been some construction issues, but there are construction issues everywhere (remember the nets around the Tree of Life to stop bits falling off and hitting someone?). People are getting just a bit too eager to anticipate failure with not much in the way of evidence at this point. I don't think the Castle is going to collapse on opening day.

 

[justgrace]

I'm not sure the Shanghai government would have allowed that since that government is majority owner in this Disney park.

That's true! I forgot about that.

 

[mikepizzo]

I think we need to keep some perspective on the "Shanghai disaster".

It's clearly overbudget (like every single Disney park ever) and there have been some construction issues, but there are construction issues everywhere (remember the nets around the Tree of Life to stop bits falling off and hitting someone?). People are getting just a bit too eager to anticipate failure with not much in the way of evidence at this point. I don't think the Castle is going to collapse on opening day.

I would think people would want this to be a smash hit. If Shanghai bombs, won't it just result in more cuts having to be made around the company? If it is a home run, that gives Disney more money to play with, right? Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[ChipnDale79]

I would think people would want this to be a smash hit. If Shanghai bombs, won't it just result in more cuts having to be made around the company? If it is a home run, that gives Disney more money to play with, right? Maybe I'm missing something?

If it fails people want to laugh and say "i told you so" to Iger, I think thats why some want it to fail. However we shouldnt want it to, if it fails, you're right, its just more budget cuts. If it doesnt fail, it still doesn't mean more budget cuts for Domestic, it probably just means less.

I say less cuts because I don't think they'll bring everything back, they are going to try to get away with cutting as much as possible to increase profits. Gone are the days of disney going the extra mile for their guests, or creating things that are "pure disney" as my family and I like to call things.

After Shanghai opens I think Disney should put a hold on building any more parks internationally for awhile, their international parks aren't holding up that well as compared to the Domestic US parks.

 

[Eoghann]

I would think people would want this to be a smash hit. If Shanghai bombs, won't it just result in more cuts having to be made around the company? If it is a home run, that gives Disney more money to play with, right? Maybe I'm missing something?

It is human nature to revel in others failure, particularly if it's someone they dislike, and Iger is unpopular with Disney Parks fans.

There's also this strange tendency to only look at the extremes. If it bombs, if it's a home run... what about the more likely scenarios of if it does okay or if it limps along?

 

[Josh Hendy]

... what about the more likely scenarios of if it does okay or if it limps along?

If it limps along then I guess we can call it "DL Paris 2"

Shanghai is after all nicknamed The Paris of the East.

I think "does ok" or "limps" is as good as a bomb because of the huge amount of capital and reputation invested in the park.

 

[Eoghann]

If it limps along then I guess we can call it "DL Paris 2"

Shanghai is after all nicknamed The Paris of the East.

I think "does ok" or "limps" is as good as a bomb because of the huge amount of capital and reputation invested in the park.

No there's a significant difference in terms of the financial drain on the company. Embarrassment is unpleasant for companies, but entirely survivable. You fire a few people announce a bold new direction and on you go. Disney is easily big enough and established enough as a brand to survive that (though perhaps not Iger).

If it was to bomb there's going to be some real financial pain felt everywhere. The sort of cutbacks and project slashing we haven't seen since the early 2000s. But really it's not going to bomb, limps along might be the real risk here.

 

[zaccaglin]

May have already been posted on here but the budget cuts have hit the cast again. They've lost their cast service centers. A place where they could rent DVDs, books, and self development tools for free, use computers for anything they want or needed, get assistance working on resumes or transfers, find out about Disney experiences, and just get help when ever needed with whatever they needed. They have been turned into self service computer labs for Disney corporate websites only and everything else including the CMs who ran them packed away.

 

[manning]

CM: Excuse me I need a pen to fill out this application.

Personnel: Ah here's one but it won't work.

CM: Why?

Personnel: Cut backs, the ink for the pen was first to go. We found out we could get them cheaper without ink

Hmmm, sounds reasonable to me. After all that's how corporate thinks.

We knew when cutbacks were coming. They would start with supplies first.

 

[rg35]

Disney is also impacted because the ESPN money printing machine is slowing down. Cable companies are no longer willing to pay the kinds of fees that ESPN has been demanding, especially in the light that millions of consumers are no longer subscribing to cable. ESPN, is by far the most expensive channel in terms of fees (they get about $7 per subscriber. TNT is the next closest at $1.65 - huge difference.) As more cord cutters emerge, ESPN is a bubble waiting to burst.

 

[rteetz]

Disney is also impacted because the ESPN money printing machine is slowing down. Cable companies are no longer willing to pay the kinds of fees that ESPN has been demanding, especially in the light that millions of consumers are no longer subscribing to cable. ESPN, is by far the most expensive channel in terms of fees (they get about $7 per subscriber. TNT is the next closest at $1.65 - huge difference.) As more cord cutters emerge, ESPN is a bubble waiting to burst.

It's not that cable companies don't want to pay for ESPN it's just that people are flat out getting rid of cable.

 

[rteetz]

Disney is also impacted because the ESPN money printing machine is slowing down. Cable companies are no longer willing to pay the kinds of fees that ESPN has been demanding, especially in the light that millions of consumers are no longer subscribing to cable. ESPN, is by far the most expensive channel in terms of fees (they get about $7 per subscriber. TNT is the next closest at $1.65 - huge difference.) As more cord cutters emerge, ESPN is a bubble waiting to burst.

It's not that cable companies don't want to pay for ESPN it's just that people are flat out getting rid of cable.

 

[rteetz]

Disney is also impacted because the ESPN money printing machine is slowing down. Cable companies are no longer willing to pay the kinds of fees that ESPN has been demanding, especially in the light that millions of consumers are no longer subscribing to cable. ESPN, is by far the most expensive channel in terms of fees (they get about $7 per subscriber. TNT is the next closest at $1.65 - huge difference.) As more cord cutters emerge, ESPN is a bubble waiting to burst.

It's not that cable companies don't want to pay for ESPN it's just that people are flat out getting rid of cable.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

It's not that cable companies don't want to pay for ESPN it's just that people are flat out getting rid of cable.

It's actually that...the other...and more

To add:
The overall percentage that follows professional sports is declining. Especially with kids - limited time and over scheduling.

Many sports can be bought directly for on demand programming...all
Will be soon.

ESPN is just not very good/interesting as they were in the earlier years. They're like the weather channel - all the programming is designed to be as low cost as possible - and so they've collectively overstuffed and then jumped the shark.

And honestly their tent poles - the NBA and college football - are not increasing in popularity on a national scale.

I keep trying to care about the Warriors - I really do - just can't. I'm not alone.

 

[rteetz]

It's actually that...the other...and more

To add:
The overall percentage that follows professional sports is declining. Especially with kids - limited time and over scheduling.

Many sports can be bought directly for on demand programming...all
Will be soon.

ESPN is just not very good/interesting as they were in the earlier years. They're like the weather channel - all the programming is designed to be as low cost as possible - and so they've collectively overstuffed and then jumped the shark.

And honestly their tent poles - the NBA and college football - are not increasing in popularity on a national scale.

I keep trying to care about the Warriors - I really do - just can't. I'm not alone.

See I don't necessarily think the percentage that follows sports is declining. As a high school male the majority are involved, or at least watch sports. When the first two round of March madness was on every kid was on their phone watching. Even the masters this past week kids were watching.

I will agree that the on demand sports is the future and I'm not opposed to that. Most sports watching apps still require a television provider though. Watch ESPN, Big Ten to go, the March Madness app, etc. all require a TV provider.

Personally I don't care about the NBA but maybe that has to do with the fact our team is the Milwaukee Bucks. I'm a much bigger fan of college basketball. I do love college football though.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

See I don't necessarily think the percentage that follows sports is declining.

But it has...ratings for sports have not increase with population growth - or to be more accurate: cable subscriptions slowed, plateaued, and will now fall.

That's less people watching sports...which throws the advertising/revenue model out of whack for ESPN.

Epsn is screwed...ill be surprised if it lasts for 10 years

 

[rteetz]

But it has...ratings for sports have not increase with population growth - or to be more accurate: cable subscriptions slowed, plateaued, and will now fall.

That's less people watching sports...which throws the advertising/revenue model out of whack for ESPN.

Epsn is screwed...ill be surprised if it lasts for 10 years

I don't disagree I just don't think it's only sports. I feel like all television is decreasing more people are just watching Netflix or Hulu and get their news on Twitter.

 

[cmash95]

actually espn ratings are very strong it's just that it's linked to cable and satelite
tv. also that 7 dollars isnt for just one chanel, it's for the whole espn package. that includes espn, espn2, espn3. espnnews and a few other chanells I can't remember. and sometimes it's even linked to disney channel packages too depending on when contracts are up. TNT is just one channel. Time warner doesn't bundle their product.