Disney's California Adventure Project Tracker II

[bfdf55]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

Not really - that is just ONE business model. Not the only. You can also build around convenience (do your consider your local 7-11 or gas station the BEST store?) or on cost (WalMart) or on quality, or any other number of factors. 'best' is a relative thing and lies in the definition of the customer's needs. You can cater to many different types of customers. The market and needs of even the different Disney Parks are different.

Yes. There are all levels of quality and ranges of products. However, Disney has established itself at the upper levels of both. To maintain that, they must continue to keep the quality levels at the high end. Especially as competition, which Disney never really had for most for their early years, has been increasing and has actually surpassed Disney in some areas.

Disney must either strive to achieve the best if they still want to be considered the leader in their own field, OR, they can continue to take the cheap, quick return route, only satisfied with bringing in profits AT ANY COST, at the expense of their long-term outlook.

[bfdf55]

Originally Posted by disneylandfan95

Does anybody know if DCA will get any Celebrate Today decor??? It doesn't look like it as of right now, but everthing seems to come together for the campaign in March, so it could happen then???

If the marketing campaign were done properly and successfully, the parks WON'T NEED ANY of the marketing decor inside.

[lazyboy97O]

Originally Posted by HMF

In retrospect Walt should have kept the company' private.

And if he did (it was probably more Roy's idea and implementation), the Walt Disney Studio could be included amongst Laugh-o-Grams and Iwerks-Disney as another of Walt's failed business ventures.

[stitchon]

Originally Posted by HMF

In retrospect Walt should have kept the company' private.

[Oswald the Rabbitt]

Originally Posted by bfdf55

If the marketing campaign were done properly and successfully, the parks WON'T NEED ANY of the marketing decor inside.

Thats like saying Disney advertises the holiday season but doesn't decorate for Christmas.

[HMF]

Originally Posted by lazyboy97O

And if he did (it was probably more Roy's idea and implementation), the Walt Disney Studio could be included amongst Laugh-o-Grams and Iwerks-Disney as another of Walt's failed business ventures.

We don't know that. If Walt had kept his company private he would have kept it in the Disney Family and his standards and legacy would be carried on today. The fact that TWDC is publicly held is the reason why things have gone wrong.

[k_peek_2000]

Originally Posted by Oswald the Rabbitt

Thats like saying Disney advertises the holiday season but doesn't decorate for Christmas.

Not exactly. One is tradition and the other is a marketing campaign.

[bfdf55]

Originally Posted by HMF

We don't know that. If Walt had kept his company private he would have kept it in the Disney Family and his standards and legacy would be carried on today. The fact that TWDC is publicly held is the reason why things have gone wrong.

I believe, to be more accurate, that should be "The fact that TWDC is publicly held is the reason why SOME things have gone wrong."

I will agree though that a good portion of the problems the company has faced since the '90's has been due to the company focusing on appeasing stockholders instead of maintaining the quality and standards that had been the company's hallmark and the basis for it's success.

[ROBONICS95]

Originally Posted by HMF

We don't know that. If Walt had kept his company private he would have kept it in the Disney Family and his standards and legacy would be carried on today. The fact that TWDC is publicly held is the reason why things have gone wrong.

Bold Mine:

I think what Lazyboy was getting at was that Disney went public out of necessity. With the war in Europe, Pinnochio's disappointing returns at the box office, and the high amount of debt still owed to Bank of America, the company was struggling to stay above water. Walt and Roy finally agreed to go public, something they had fought for quite some time. Had he not, the studio may have failed in 1940. In Neal Gabler's The Triumph of the American Imagination (pg.332), he shares a story of Walt reflecting back to the time they went public, "...wondering if he had crossed a bridge and could never go back, wondering if he had surrendered ultimate control."

So, to Lazyboy's point, we may not have had anything out of the Disney Studios beyond the mid 1940's.

[k_peek_2000]

I was bored so I decided to update the concept/elevation art of the sun wheel to have the new color scheme.

[disneyfann121]

Originally Posted by disneylandfan95

Well, the reason that Disney is investing all of their money in DCA/Disneyland Resort is because they want it to be a multi-day tourist destination. Everybody that goes to Walt Disney World already spends a few (2-3 at least) days at the resort, while the Disneyland Resort is a maximum of 2 days. Usually we go to Disneyland, for lunch go to DCA and ride 2-3 rides and then head back over to Disneyland. Disney doesn't want this. They want DCA and Disneyland to be 2 seperate days of fun. Once most of the DCA expansion is done around 2013-2015, Walt Disney World will get some attention. It is not that they asren't investing their moneu unwisely, it is just that they want the Disneyland Resort to be a multi-day destination, while Walt Disney World already is one!!! Whew!!!

First of all, if you think investing just over one billion is "all of their money", you haven't looked at their balance sheet. Leaving aside their vast assets, if you look at just their cash, as Flynn pointed out, they had $3 billion on hand in 2008, and reported net income after taxes of $4.4 billion. The company makes billions in profits every year, people. Look it up, the information is available online. That money doesn't belong to the banks, it belongs to Disney.

They don't even need to borrow in order to do the right thing for their parks. But, even if they did... anyone who thinks that a company worth tens of billions can't borrow anything -- even in this credit crunch -- is really letting them off the hook. Ever hear of collateral? Disney has huge collateral. Total assets of $62.4 billion versus liabilities of $11.5 billion. I think you can do the math. Just because banks won't lend to failing businesses, consumers with debt up to their eyeballs or start up entrepreneurs doesnt mean they won't lend to a huge, very profitable company with a proven track record, great balance sheet and vast assets.

So it is reasonable if Disney lets WDW languish for the next four to six years? In the theme park business (and probably all other businesses, too) that's called stagnation. I don't need an M.B.A to know that stagnation is not a good business plan. Take a look at the WDW message boards on this site to see all the complaints about how WDW has already gone stale for many people. That can only get worse if we don't get exciting new projects in Orlando until the middle of the next decade.

WDW is already a multi-day destination, and will stay that way. But does that mean they can neglect the four parks they have in Orlando just because they had to make a large investment in DCA? Is that the way to stay on top in a competitive business? These geniuses overexpanded by building new parks left right and center for decades, then they neglect them. Oh how brilliant, wise ones. I would argue that they are short changing us, their fans, and short changing themselves. A business cannot thrive without massive reinvestment. That is Business 101.

It is appalling to me that Tokyo Disneyland Resort has apparently stolen the thunder of the stateside parks (judging from the growing contingent on these boards who insist that the U.S. resorts pale in comparison) simply by spending a lot more money, and reinvesting constantly in their parks. That's the OLC's decision, not the WDC's. For example, Tokyo DisneySea cost $5 billion to make. Can you imagine the skinflints at the WDC opening a second gate for that kind of money? No, they opened DCA instead (spending a billion to try to fix it is the least they can do). Is it a coincidence that a different company owns and operates the Tokyo resort, and that resort has earned by far the most praise on these boards?

The difference is in the business culture; the current business culture at the WDC is one of budget cuts, cutting corners, and trying to get away with doing the minimum -- anyting to make the fast money boys on Wall Street happy. Never mind that that's the kind of idiot get rich(er) quick mentality that got us in our current financial mess.

This started long long before the current recession; it reached its toxic peak at the end of Eisner's tenure, but it hasn't fundamentally changed. The almighty budget still rules, and Tomorrowland still needs tons of TLC, and new E tickets outside of DCA are still scarce as hen's teeth. And major new project annoucements for the other parks? All I hear is a cavernous silence.

If Disney continues pinching pennies, that is nothing but a lose-lose proposition, for the fans and for the company.

[disneyfann121]

Originally Posted by bfdf55

I believe, to be more accurate, that should be "The fact that TWDC is publicly held is the reason why SOME things have gone wrong."

I will agree though that a good portion of the problems the company has faced since the '90's has been due to the company focusing on appeasing stockholders instead of maintaining the quality and standards that had been the company's hallmark and the basis for it's success.

I agree, and I have just finished reading another Walt biography, The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney. Unfortunately, Walt had launched so many features at once and spent so much on a new studio after the huge success of Snow White, that he ended up over leveraged and was forced to go public. It probably insured the survival of the company, but we now see the downside of public ownership all too often.

I would argue that it is weak kneed to be this slavish to Wall Street, and actually foolish in the long run. Any company run for the short term, with a constant eye on the next quarter's earnings statement, is actually doing a disservice to the shareholders, the customers, to everyone. Build great quality and reputation for the long term, and the company's share price will inevitably reflect those sound business practices.

As a related example, before Disney bought it, Pixar was a company that did nothing but make one animated movie a year. Think about that: a studio that only makes one movie a year? Unheard of. And yet, the quality was so high and their reputation so sterling that Disney felt compelled to pay a whopping $7.4 billion for Pixar. One may argue whether or not they overpaid, but the point is that the quality was there, and the public followed. As Lasseter says, "quality is a great business plan."

I have to wonder whether the suits and bean counters at WDC will ever get it...

[disneyfann121]

Originally Posted by bfdf55

Yes. There are all levels of quality and ranges of products. However, Disney has established itself at the upper levels of both. To maintain that, they must continue to keep the quality levels at the high end. Especially as competition, which Disney never really had for most for their early years, has been increasing and has actually surpassed Disney in some areas.

Disney must either strive to achieve the best if they still want to be considered the leader in their own field, OR, they can continue to take the cheap, quick return route, only satisfied with bringing in profits AT ANY COST, at the expense of their long-term outlook.

Indeed. Well said.

[DATman]

Originally Posted by k_peek_2000

Not exactly. One is tradition and the other is a marketing campaign.

So you really believe that DL only decorates the park for Christmas out of respect for tradition? I'm sorry, but if it didn't pull in the massive numbers, there would be no Christmas at Disneyland. It is all about the marketing campaign.

[HMF]

Originally Posted by ROBONICS95

Bold Mine:

I think what Lazyboy was getting at was that Disney went public out of necessity. With the war in Europe, Pinnochio's disappointing returns at the box office, and the high amount of debt still owed to Bank of America, the company was struggling to stay above water. Walt and Roy finally agreed to go public, something they had fought for quite some time. Had he not, the studio may have failed in 1940. In Neal Gabler's The Triumph of the American Imagination (pg.332), he shares a story of Walt reflecting back to the time they went public, "...wondering if he had crossed a bridge and could never go back, wondering if he had surrendered ultimate control."

So, to Lazyboy's point, we may not have had anything out of the Disney Studios beyond the mid 1940's.

Well' maybe at that time' but could'nt he re-privatize it after the war.