OT: Bob Iger rolling back Disney price hikes

[11thEagleFan]

Saw a story a bit ago (sorry, no link) about how Iger is trying to make the Disney park experience more friendly. Some things that I remember:

1) Disney will no longer charge hotel guests for on-site parking
2) the number of days where the cheapest tickets are available for purchase will increase
3) no charge for downloading photos from rides (obviously will still cost to print them)

Sounds like a step in the right direction. A Disney vacation used to be something an ordinary family could afford.

 

[Bulldog45]

Interesting timing…just as the Disney status quo faces a challenge from somebody standing up to them. Peltz will get my vote, as small as it may be. Trian owns about 9.4 million shares.

Disney faces proxy fight as Peltz pushes to join board By MICHELLE CHAPMAN yesterday

Activist investor Nelson Peltz is fighting for a seat on the board of Walt Disney Co., claiming that the company is struggling with self-inflicted problems.

Peltz’s attempt to join Disney’s board comes just months after the company brought back longtime CEO Bob Iger to lead Disney again. Disney urged shareholders to vote against Peltz and named current board member Mark Parker as its chairman. Parker, who also serves as executive chairman at Nike Inc., succeeds Susan Arnold, who won’t stand for re-election due to Disney’s 15-year term limit requirements.

Restore The Magic

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I know some people are saying that a lot of the big price increases were happening when Iger was on his first CEO stint, but Chapek was head of the parks division and was probably the big driver behind a lot of these things (paying for parking for resort guests being a major one). I hope Iger brings back the old FastPass+ system. Yeah Disney has always been expensive, but at least once you get to the parks you've already committed to paying for it. It sucks to have to pay even after you get there just to have a shot at riding certain rides.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

\\

 

[JackShephard]

Saw a story a bit ago (sorry, no link) about how Iger is trying to make the Disney park experience more friendly. Some things that I remember:

1) Disney will no longer charge hotel guests for on-site parking
2) the number of days where the cheapest tickets are available for purchase will increase
3) no charge for downloading photos from rides (obviously will still cost to print them)

Sounds like a step in the right direction. A Disney vacation used to be something an ordinary family could afford.

Honestly, I really think their best solution would be to open a new park. I went about this time last year, during one of the slowest times they have these days. Used to, their slow times were awesome. Last year, it was still super crowded at everything you would actually want to do. As hard as it is to imagine, they have outgrown their sprawling park system in Florida. That's why the last boss upped the prices, because they wanted to use it to try to control crowds a little bit. They are overwhelmed.

I know it would be a massive, crazy investment, but if they opened a brand new Disneyworld somewhere in the central US, I believe it would be a smashing success. Especially if it allowed them to make both parks more affordable, and they got back in the business of entertaining their customers instead of dabbling in politics.

I'm sure there's a million reasons why this is a bad idea, but I've been thinking this ever since I went last year. I vowed it was my last trip, and I intend to keep that vow. It's gone from a great, and somewhat affordable, vacation, to an overpriced and miserable experience over the last 10 years. At least imo.

 

[johnson86-1]

Interesting timing…just as the Disney status quo faces a challenge from somebody standing up to them. Peltz will get my vote, as small as it may be. Tri

Disney faces proxy fight as Peltz pushes to join board By MICHELLE CHAPMAN yesterday

Activist investor Nelson Peltz is fighting for a seat on the board of Walt Disney Co., claiming that the company is struggling with self-inflicted problems.

Peltz’s attempt to join Disney’s board comes just months after the company brought back longtime CEO Bob Iger to lead Disney again. Disney urged shareholders to vote against Peltz and named current board member Mark Parker as its chairman. Parker, who also serves as executive chairman at Nike Inc., succeeds Susan Arnold, who won’t stand for re-election due to Disney’s 15-year term limit requirements.

Restore The Magic

Should be a no brainer. If they would have ESPN focus on sports and be more or less apolitical, and just make all their blockbuster budget kids films asexual and make it easy for parents to filter out sexual stuff for pre-teens on Disney+, that would be a lot of low hanging fruit they could grab. They can't erase the challenge that comes from the streaming model cutting out a lot of blockbuster revenue, but it would preserve value for their brands.

THey'd have to deal with some very vocal backlash about people offended that they no longer try to include homosexual or transgendered characters in material aimed at pre-teens, but I really don't think that would show up in actual numbers if they would just ignore it.

 

[Drebin]

Should be a no brainer. If they would have ESPN focus on sports and be more or less apolitical, and just make all their blockbuster budget films asexual and make it easy for parents to filter out sexual stuff for pre-teens on Disney+, that would be a lot of low hanging fruit they could grab. They can't erase the challenge that comes from the streaming model cutting out a lot of blockbuster revenue, but it would preserve value for their brands.

THey'd have to deal with some very vocal backlash about people offended that they no longer try to include homosexual or transgendered characters in material aimed at pre-teens, but I really don't think that would show up in actual numbers if they would just ignore it.

You can't make asexual films. Because there's always someone making up sexism issues that aren't there. I mean, do we really need to change "X-Men" to "X-Persons?" Was it really sexist to name them "X-Men?"

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Honestly, I really think their best solution would be to open a new park. I went about this time last year, during one of the slowest times they have these days. Used to, their slow times were awesome. Last year, it was still super crowded at everything you would actually want to do. As hard as it is to imagine, they have outgrown their sprawling park system in Florida. That's why the last boss upped the prices, because they wanted to use it to try to control crowds a little bit. They are overwhelmed.

I know it would be a massive, crazy investment, but if they opened a brand new Disneyworld somewhere in the central US, I believe it would be a smashing success. Especially if it allowed them to make both parks more affordable, and they got back in the business of entertaining their customers instead of dabbling in politics.

I'm sure there's a million reasons why this is a bad idea, but I've been thinking this ever since I went last year. I vowed it was my last trip, and I intend to keep that vow. It's gone from a great, and somewhat affordable, vacation, to an overpriced and miserable experience over the last 10 years. At least imo.

Speaking of that, Universal is going to open a new resort in Texas.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

 

[aTotal360]

Honestly, I really think their best solution would be to open a new park. I went about this time last year, during one of the slowest times they have these days. Used to, their slow times were awesome. Last year, it was still super crowded at everything you would actually want to do. As hard as it is to imagine, they have outgrown their sprawling park system in Florida. That's why the last boss upped the prices, because they wanted to use it to try to control crowds a little bit. They are overwhelmed.

I know it would be a massive, crazy investment, but if they opened a brand new Disneyworld somewhere in the central US, I believe it would be a smashing success. Especially if it allowed them to make both parks more affordable, and they got back in the business of entertaining their customers instead of dabbling in politics.

I'm sure there's a million reasons why this is a bad idea, but I've been thinking this ever since I went last year. I vowed it was my last trip, and I intend to keep that vow. It's gone from a great, and somewhat affordable, vacation, to an overpriced and miserable experience over the last 10 years. At least imo.

I don't think it's a park issue as much as it's an overall financial issue. Too much money in the system right now. Many tourist traps in the country are covered up with people. I think a lot of the Covid Relief money ended on Jan 11. I'm willing to bet that coupled with inflation and rising utility costs will correct some of the issues. I'm hoping this will help the food service industry are well. Many employers are in need of unskilled laborers. My neighbor runs a landscaping business and can't find anyone to work for less than $16/hr. Another neighbor runs a garbage service. He's paying "slingers" (the guys that hang off the truck and sling **** into it) $68,000/year with 30 hr work weeks. He can't find people either. I know this is anecdotal, but it's what I'm seeing firsthand. Not just some story on Fox News or MSNBC.

 

[TrueMaroonGrind]

It’s a start. They have a lot to figure out. Everyone I talked to felt taken advantage of after the pay for parking and Genie/Lightening-Lane changes. They were starting to pay dearly for that brand wise. Short term they made profits long term they were sacrificing their brand. Then they messed around in politics and got their self contained government rights taken away. Short sighted, foolish behavior.

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

Honestly, I really think their best solution would be to open a new park. I went about this time last year, during one of the slowest times they have these days. Used to, their slow times were awesome. Last year, it was still super crowded at everything you would actually want to do. As hard as it is to imagine, they have outgrown their sprawling park system in Florida. That's why the last boss upped the prices, because they wanted to use it to try to control crowds a little bit. They are overwhelmed.

I know it would be a massive, crazy investment, but if they opened a brand new Disneyworld somewhere in the central US, I believe it would be a smashing success. Especially if it allowed them to make both parks more affordable, and they got back in the business of entertaining their customers instead of dabbling in politics.

I'm sure there's a million reasons why this is a bad idea, but I've been thinking this ever since I went last year. I vowed it was my last trip, and I intend to keep that vow. It's gone from a great, and somewhat affordable, vacation, to an overpriced and miserable experience over the last 10 years. At least imo.

Not a bad idea. Would take a long time to build infrastructure. Not to mention the weather might present difficulties. There is still a lot of room in Florida around there current parks.

 

[dawgman42]

Speaking of that, Universal is going to open a new resort in Texas.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

I wish I lived in the adjacent north Frisco neighborhood. It would be easy to pay off a mortgage in a few short years.

 

[Dawgg]

\\

Sounds made up.

 

[johnson86-1]

You can't make asexual films. Because there's always someone making up sexism issues that aren't there. I mean, do we really need to change "X-Men" to "X-Persons?" Was it really sexist to name them "X-Men?"

I know (think?) you were joking, but aside from the fact that I mean asexual as in not addressing matters of sexuality, I meant their blockbuster kids films. Basically Pixar and whatever else aimed at pre-teens just don't need to address sexuality at all.

I'd avoid making an issue out of non-traditional sexualities and genders in all the blockbuster films just b/c the market for that is relatively small and there's no reason for Disney to try to meet it with their blockbuster films, but I don't think people would be offended about that material being in PG-13 movies nearly as much. Kids those ages are going to see it one place or another. But if Disney would just leave it out of stuff aimed at 7 year olds, I think that would be good enough for the vast majority of parents.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I know (think?) you were joking, but aside from the fact that I mean asexual as in not addressing matters of sexuality, I meant their blockbuster kids films. Basically Pixar and whatever else aimed at pre-teens just don't need to address sexuality at all.

I'd avoid making an issue out of non-traditional sexualities and genders in all the blockbuster films just b/c the market for that is relatively small and there's no reason for Disney to try to meet it with their blockbuster films, but I don't think people would be offended about that material being in PG-13 movies nearly as much. Kids those ages are going to see it one place or another. But if Disney would just leave it out of stuff aimed at 7 year olds, I think that would be good enough for the vast majority of parents.

I agree. 1) we are oversexulized as a nation. 2) Kids should be left to be kids without overtly injecting sex of any variety into their content 3) I am undersexualized as a husband, and finally, I saw this post/meme get surfaced somewhere on twitter and thought it was funny.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I know some people are saying that a lot of the big price increases were happening when Iger was on his first CEO stint, but Chapek was head of the parks division and was probably the big driver behind a lot of these things (paying for parking for resort guests being a major one). I hope Iger brings back the old FastPass+ system. Yeah Disney has always been expensive, but at least once you get to the parks you've already committed to paying for it. It sucks to have to pay even after you get there just to have a shot at riding certain rides.

They also scrapped the meal plans which were really good deals in most cases. Wish they would bring that back.

 

[Drebin]

I agree. 1) we are oversexulized as a nation. 2) Kids should be left to be kids without overtly injecting sex of any variety into their content 3) I am undersexualized as a husband, and finally, I saw this post/meme get surfaced somewhere on twitter and thought it was funny.

View attachment 297279

The meme is funny but it's also disingenuous. In that show, he wasn't celebrating or advocating an alternative lifestyle. He wasn't seeking to normalize anything. He was pretending to be crazy so he would get kicked out of the military. Nobody found it offensive or outrageous because of the obvious context.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

The meme is funny but it's also disingenuous. In that show, he wasn't celebrating or advocating an alternative lifestyle. He wasn't seeking to normalize anything. He was pretending to be crazy so he would get kicked out of the military. Nobody found it offensive or outrageous because of the obvious context.

^^my only point in the matter

 

[Drebin]

I know (think?) you were joking, but aside from the fact that I mean asexual as in not addressing matters of sexuality, I meant their blockbuster kids films. Basically Pixar and whatever else aimed at pre-teens just don't need to address sexuality at all.

I'd avoid making an issue out of non-traditional sexualities and genders in all the blockbuster films just b/c the market for that is relatively small and there's no reason for Disney to try to meet it with their blockbuster films, but I don't think people would be offended about that material being in PG-13 movies nearly as much. Kids those ages are going to see it one place or another. But if Disney would just leave it out of stuff aimed at 7 year olds, I think that would be good enough for the vast majority of parents.

I think we're talking about two different things. I was talking more about accusations of sexism ("why is the lead in this movie a male and not a female?"), which people are always going to make because it's the time we live in. Cowing to those complaints leads to disasters like female Incredible Hulks that flop in the ratings.

Your point about matters of sexuality is something I agree with.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

I am only making the point because nobody wants to see their homogenized movies any longer. They lost a ton of money last year; this shows they're not afraid to keep losing more. Fans wouldn't have any problem with Disney or anyone else creating their original homogenized, modernized characters and movies. Still, they have to take established characters and movie ideas and make them homogenized or modernized for some reason.

They're taking old movies, ideas, books, or whatever to draw in their original audience and fans, only to let them discover that the old bait and switch have tricked them.

God, I remember when it was fun to go to the movies.

 

[Dawgg]

I love that this thread about free parking at Disney World turned into a discussion about whether cartoons should always be heteronormative and a fake news story/controversy about Disney changing the name of the X-Men.