Disney Theme Parks: Today vs. Yesterday

[Another Voice]

"What if all of the new hotels weren't built by Eisner, but by a mix of chains, without any Disney theming? Could have happened."

You mean like the Swan and Dolphin? And since when does a box motel with "Do the Funky Chicken" stapled to the roof qualify as "Disney themeing"?


"If the parks had been spun off separately, it probably would have been saddled with license agreements and such which siphoned off a good bit of the park revenue stream anyway."

They already are – thanks to the magic of intercompany accounting. It's not like the three bucks you spent on a coke sits in a bank vault in Orlando. Or do you think the Walt Disney World Co. gets to use The Walt Disney Company's mouse character for free? And look at the financial returns. Compare the margins the parks return (because that's what they're told) to the rest of the company. Imagine how the parks with their 20%+ return could operate if they had the studio's 3%+ requirement.

The parks are a giant cash machine to fund the rest of the company. They'd be much better off without the burden of ABC and a billionaire CEO.


"Oh, so Katzenberg's the creative genius."

No, but he did know how to run a movie studio.


"Disney has plans upon plans upon plans for the property."

Actually – they don't. They haven't had for a long time. Example: Disney announced to the world they were building the new DVC timeshare up by the Eagle Creek golf course. Suddenly, the Disney Institute closed and the new timeshare was cancelled and replaced by a remolded villas development. The opening of the Pop Century was delayed long for lack of demand long before the downturn and the Animal Kingdom Lodge offers more discounts than Howard Johnsons. Things are now very much shoot from the hip.

Hardly the signs of master plans upon plans. And what about all the other announced resorts from a few years ago? I'm still waiting for my reservation at the Magic Kingdom" Suites. Oh, and the transportation issue – Eisner said you're not worth the investment.


"Hollywood has evolved so that studios don't generally have a bunch of captive in-house talent. Studios don't want the cost and risk, and talent doesn't want the creative restrictions."

Funny how everyone that made Finding Nemo was on Pixar's staff.

And it's not like all that freelance talent is banging down Disney's doors for the chance to work cheap. Eisner is paying Jerry Bruckheimer far more than pirate's booty because Disney's could get the movie made in house – and Eisner kicked out that "no talent schmuck" who wanted to spend $150 million to make The Lord of the Rings. But I hear The Hot Chick was so tightly budgted it didn't loose that much money.


"I think y'all need to direct some of that anger toward the institutional stockholders."

Yes, they all deserve a huge amount of the blame. But until someone can show me that Morgan Stanley put a gun to Eisner's head and forced him to sign the contract for Cinderella 3, I'll blame to guy with the office behind Doopey's butt rather than Wall Street (if you could call a board with his kid's school teacher, his private architect and three close friends "Wall Street").

 

[DisneyKidds]

You mean like the Swan and Dolphin? And since when does a box motel with "Do the Funky Chicken" stapled to the roof qualify as "Disney themeing"?

Yes, that terrible Swan/Dolphin...............Sorry AV, that isn't exactly a stellar example of how things are exactly what DB said they aren't. Also, as much as some might not like them, those resorts were designed by some of the premiere architects in the world. Would that have happened if anybody and their brother with a big bankroll were able to place such a resort on property? Maybe, maybe not.

Furthermore, while the way WDW Resorts developed might not have been perfect, it is a hell of a lot better than seeing Red Roof Inn stapled to the roof of the box motel on this corner............Super 8 on the next.................Larry's By The Hour on the next.............and so on. Walt bought all that acreage in the Florida swamp for a reason. Had everything been broken apart would you be pleased if the DL situation Walt sought to prevent was exactly what we had at WDW?

We all talk a lot about Walt's Philosophy. Yes, many aspects of that were forgeotten and/or abandoned under the post-Walt regimes. However, at least the Florida Project remained a comprehensive Disney project, as good or as bad as that may have turned out. Do you think that it would have been likely that, if it happened, the Florida assets would have been broken up in a manner that allowed even the little bits of Philosophy we still have to survive? Afterall, that Philosophy needed the whole of the Florida Project to stay together for it to have truely survived in any way, no?

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Yes, many aspects of that were forgeotten and/or abandoned under the post-Walt regimes. However, at least the Florida Project remained a comprehensive Disney project, as good or as bad as that may have turned out. Do you think that it would have been likely that, if it happened, the Florida assets would have been broken up in a manner that allowed even the little bits of Philosophy we still have to survive? Afterall, that Philosophy needed the whole of the Florida Project to stay together for it to have truely survived in any way, no?

You acting as if this was all of Eisner's doing. The only reason that Disney stayed together is because Eisner could not find a bidder willing to pay the price he wanted to sell Disney for.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by EUROPA
You acting as if this was all of Eisner's doing. The only reason that Disney stayed together is because Eisner could not find a bidder willing to pay the price he wanted to sell Disney for.

Sorry, I'm not an actor, nor do I play on on TV..........or the internet . I'm not acting "as if" anything. I don't really care who/what is responsible for Disney not being "broken up" back in the 80's, or why it happened - even if it was only because Ei$ner was so inept that he couldn't even make THAT happen. All I'm asking is, from a Philosophical perspective, does it seem any more likely that we'd be much better off today had Disney been sold off piece by piece without all of the Florida property staying together? For that matter, if a selloff ends up happening (when ME finds it the last way to pillage and plunder the company) are we likely to be better of if the selloff doesn't keep all of the Florida holdings one lot?

Please stop trying to put up walls and peg everyone into a love ME/hate ME camp and answer the question posed .

 

[crusader]

They already are – thanks to the magic of intercompany accounting.

Here we go again. As if this corporation is run so unique. The returns from the studios are market driven not corporate driven. I have yet to see how much the company actually lost this past quarter in their studios division and how much money the theme parks really transferred in. Take corporate overhead off the table and look at the actual cash flow here so we can really discuss the truth.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Sorry, I'm not an actor, nor do I play on on TV..........or the internet . I'm not acting "as if" anything. I don't really care who/what is responsible for Disney not being "broken up" back in the 80's, or why it happened - even if it was only because Ei$ner was so inept that he couldn't even make THAT happen. All I'm asking is, from a Philosophical perspective, does it seem any more likely that we'd be much better off today had Disney been sold off piece by piece without all of the Florida property staying together? For that matter, if a selloff ends up happening (when ME finds it the last way to pillage and plunder the company) are we likely to be better of if the selloff doesn't keep all of the Florida holdings one lot?

Please stop trying to put up walls and peg everyone into a love ME/hate ME camp and answer the question posed .

Of course it's better if the Florida project stay whole. I don't see any post where someone suggested otherwise do you? So what is you point in all of this? Your answering a question that nobody asked.

You know exactly what you were tying to do and that is paint Eisner as some sort of savor of the company who kept it to together when the sharks were circling. All I'm saying is that Eisner was the one baiting the sharks for a while.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice
You mean like the Swan and Dolphin? And since when does a box motel with "Do the Funky Chicken" stapled to the roof qualify as "Disney themeing"?

Good stab at Pop Century--I don't like it either, but we'll see how the public takes to it. Swan and Dolphin, though, are an Eisner triumph IMO--love that Michael Graves' stuff.

"If the parks had been spun off separately, it probably would have been saddled with license agreements and such which siphoned off a good bit of the park revenue stream anyway."

They already are – thanks to the magic of intercompany accounting. It's not like the three bucks you spent on a coke sits in a bank vault in Orlando. Or do you think the Walt Disney World Co. gets to use The Walt Disney Company's mouse character for free?

I know all that. I was responding to Baron's comment that a separate parks company would have had a bunch of revenue to reinvest in the parks.

Compare the margins the parks return (because that's what they're told) to the rest of the company. Imagine how the parks with their 20%+ return could operate if they had the studio's 3%+ requirement....The parks are a giant cash machine to fund the rest of the company.

If 20% is what the theme parks can return, that's what any owners/management/shareholders would expect/demand. Obviously, some management might vary this to some extent to allow more reinvestment for long term return, but the comparison to the studios is irrelevant.

No, but he [Katzenberg] did know how to run a movie studio.

As someone else said, when did he forget? And didn't Eisner know how to run one also?

Things are now very much shoot from the hip....Hardly the signs of master plans upon plans.

Yes, there have been fits and starts to respond to changing situations, but that's to be expected in any large (or in this case, huge) complex commercial development. Have you seen any type of land use planning that doesn't end up getting revised many times over the years. That doesn't mean there aren't long-term plans in existence.

Funny how everyone that made Finding Nemo was on Pixar's staff.

Actually, I think the existence of Pixar proves my point. It's a fairly specialized production house, not a large diversified vertically-integrated studio.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by EUROPA
You know exactly what you were tying to do and that is paint Eisner as some sort of savor of the company who kept it to together when the sharks were circling. All I'm saying is that Eisner was the one baiting the sharks for a while.

But I think it's true that Roy and his allies brought Eisner/Wells on board to preserve the independence of the company, and it worked.

I don't know of any public company, particularly a media company, that wasn't on the block at some point since 1984. Eisner wouldn't have been doing his duty to shareholders if he didn't see what price the company could get in the market; however, I think he deserves credit for putting Disney in a position of strength in these negotiations.

 

[DisneyKidds]

You know exactly what you were tying to do and that is paint Eisner as some sort of savor of the company who kept it to together when the sharks were circling.

Nnnnnntttttttt........................wrong answer, thanks for playing. I, however, don't want to play that game. This IS NOT my belief of Ei$ner. Do I think ME is as inept as Baron...........no (but Baron is working on that ). Do I think ME was some white knight...........no. Once again, the truth lies somewhere in between, albeit shaded to the selfish and greedy, if not inept, side. Is it more likely that the company stayed together as a result of ME being brought in when he was? I can't rule that out. Being a sophomore in high school at the time, business savvy and the fate of The Disney Company wasn't something I was as aware of as I might be today. I'll rely on some other perspectives, considering them ALL, in forming my opinion, but again - I can't rule it out. However, if what you want is to be derisive we don't have much to talk about as I have been endeavouring lately to avoid division and find things we can actually talk about without arguing.

Your answering a question that nobody asked.

Nnnntttttt.......................wrong answer yet again. DB asked..................

What if all of the new hotels weren't built by Eisner, but by a mix of chains, without any Disney theming?

............to which you saw AV's response and ensuing discussion. Yes, I added the Philosophical angle................sue me for beating Baron to that punch . Furthermore, I haven't answered that Philosophical question, I've asked it. Let's look at your answer...........

Of course it's better if the Florida project stay whole

.................an answer I happen to agree with. But is it likely that would have been the outcome? Hard to say for sure, but what do you think?

I don't see any post where someone suggested otherwise do you?

Well, DB implied that it could have happened, to which AV implied we wouldn't have been any worse off if it had. I don't think we need to consult our legal professor here, the esteemed Scoop, but in a court of law I'm quite confident that 'da judge would allow my line of questioning based on the door opened by the prosecu........er........I mean AV .

 

[EUROPA]

I think really what AV was pointing out is that on some levels it has not all stayed together. Some proprety has been sold. Other non-Dinsey hotle chains have come in and bult the Swan and Dolphin. You also have the Downtown Disney hotels which many people(non Disney fans) think are part of Disney. I also think he was pointing out again, were things that Walt would have not built or in most cases overbuilt or bragged about. All-Stars, AKL, Pop Centruy. Heck Baron even would thorw in the Moderates.

But is it likely that would have been the outcome? Hard to say for sure, but what do you think?

I don't understand the queston. Outcome of what?

 

[DisneyKidds]

I think really what AV was pointing out is that on some levels it has not all stayed together.

I suppose technically you are correct, although this seems to be a pretty weak example and not something I'd want to build a case around. Furthermore, given the way AV communicates he was most likely saying a whole lot more .

I don't understand the queston. Outcome of what?

If nobody was brought in back in '84 who (for whatever reasons) allowed the company to remain intact, in your opinion would the resulting split up of Disney have resulted in all of the Florida property remaining with a single entity, or would it have been more likely that the theme parks themselves would have been sold off (together or individually?) as one item, other venues as another item, other parcels of land yet another item?

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Furthermore, given the way AV communicates he was most likely saying a whole lot more .

I'm sure I only scratched the surface.

If nobody was brought in back in '84 who (for whatever reasons) allowed the company to remain intact, in your opinion would the resulting split up of Disney have resulted in all of the Florida property remaining with a single entity, or would it have been more likely that the theme parks themselves would have been sold off (together or individually?) as one item, other venues as another item, other parcels of land yet another item? [/B]

I'd be guessing wildly to asnwer any of that. Your making a pretty big jump saying that not bring Eisner in would have resulted in a split up of Disney.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by EUROPA
Other non-Dinsey hotle chains have come in and bult the Swan and Dolphin. You also have the Downtown Disney hotels which many people(non Disney fans) think are part of Disney.

My understanding was that Disney built the Swan and Dolphin but don't operate the properties. Eisner certainly wanted the Michael Graves buildings (to go with the Robert A.M. Stern properties). Also, the Downtown Disney hotels date back to the golden era of the 70s.

It is my understanding that two of the undeveloped resources held by Disney pre-Eisner, which were considered to be undervalued in the stock price, were (1) the movie library, and (2) the real estate. In that sense, the Eisner development projects (including not only the hotels but Celebration, Downtown Disney Westside, Blizzard Beach, etc.) was the equivalent of releasing the movies on video (which most agreed was too long in coming). That is, they were realizing upon the value of an underutilized asset held by the company.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Your making a pretty big jump saying that not bring Eisner in would have resulted in a split up of Disney.

I'm not jumping at anything and I don't assume this. Someone suggested the possiblility with respect to resorts, AV noted that such a possibility might not be any worse than what we have now, and I'm exploring that territory. That's all.

You know, one of the problems around here is that everyone thinks everyone else has an agenda. Used to be pretty guilty of that myself..............and it got in the way of effective discussion. I'm not trying to prove right/wrong about anything in particular, just talking and learning......................

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DancingBear
My understanding was that Disney built the Swan and Dolphin but don't operate the properties. Eisner certainly wanted the Michael Graves buildings (to go with the Robert A.M. Stern properties). Also, the Downtown Disney hotels date back to the golden era of the 70s.

It is my understanding that two of the undeveloped resources held by Disney pre-Eisner, which were considered to be undervalued in the stock price, were (1) the movie library, and (2) the real estate. In that sense, the Eisner development projects (including not only the hotels but Celebration, Downtown Disney Westside, Blizzard Beach, etc.) was the equivalent of releasing the movies on video (which most agreed was too long in coming). That is, they were realizing upon the value of an underutilized asset held by the company.

Yes but they were never "Downtown Disney Hotels" until Downtown Disney was built. These hotel get you EE into the parks now..not in the 70's. So many people consider them part of Disney. In fact I have people here at work tell me all the time they are staying onsite(At Disney) when I ask them where they always say one of the Downtown Disney hotels.

I have no problem with Eisner releasing the classics on video. I have no problem with Eisner increasing the size and scope of WDW. The issues are if he did it in regards to keeping Disney around for years and years to come or were his goals more short term? Did he do more harm then good? Did he overbuild? Did he blow his wad and not develop any classic which the future Disney too milk? Has accruing ABC, fox Family, the Angles, The Ducks wasting billions on Go.com made the company a better company? Has it secured its future? What has all of this recent spending done to the parks. Well quite a few people will tell you it's hurt the core of the company. Has going billions of dollars in debt helped the Parks? Has going Billions in debt help produce better films? We all know that the Parks and the Movies are what Drive Disney....some of us see these ancillary aspects of Big E's ego killing those parts of the company.

 

[crusader]

I believe we should judge for ourselves whether or not the company is doing better or worse in comparison to the industry.

Take a look:http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/research/wizards/srwfund.asp?Symbol=dis

We don't have the 10-K for this fiscal but there's plenty to digest including debt/equity ratios.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by EUROPA
Yes but they were never "Downtown Disney Hotels" until Downtown Disney was built. These hotel get you EE into the parks now..not in the 70's. So many people consider them part of Disney. In fact I have people here at work tell me all the time they are staying onsite(At Disney) when I ask them where they always say one of the Downtown Disney hotels.

Well, there was no EE in the 70s, but I stayed at the Hotel Royal Plaza in the early 80s and they had full-bore bus service to Epcot and the TTC. And the Disney Marketplace was there.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DancingBear
Well, there was no EE in the 70s, but I stayed at the Hotel Royal Plaza in the early 80s and they had full-bore bus service to Epcot and the TTC. And the Disney Marketplace was there.

Yes and many hotels on I-Drive do the same thing today.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by EUROPA
Yes and many hotels on I-Drive do the same thing today.

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but when I visited the Hotel Royal Plaza the "Downtown Disney" hotels all had very regular, free DISNEY bus service. The last time I checked, the frequency of this service had been dramatically reduced. Also, the last time I checked, no I-Drive or other off-site hotels (I've stayed at a few) had anything comparable.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by crusader
I believe we should judge for ourselves whether or not the company is doing better or worse in comparison to the industry.

Take a look:http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/research/wizards/srwfund.asp?Symbol=dis

We don't have the 10-K for this fiscal but there's plenty to digest including debt/equity ratios.

Numbers are fun...but they don't tell if what Eisner is doing is help the company in the long run. Look at Enron, MCI(worldcom) or pick you favorite. Numbers look great for years and then bam. SSome funny accounting here and these companies are in the trash.

Ok lets say that the company(Disney) did great between 84-now and Big E got his Billion and the company was split up and sold next year. Suddnly Big E is not looking so good uh? Now were those shot term profits worth killing the company and breaking it?