Q3 Parks and Resort revenue up 12 percent

Aug 08, 2017 in "The Walt Disney Company"

Disney has today reported its quarterly earnings for its third fiscal quarter ending July 1 2017.

You can read the full Q3 earnings report, and the park summary is detailed below.

"Parks and Resorts revenues for the quarter increased 12% to $4.9 billion and segment operating income increased 18% to $1,168 million. Operating income growth for the quarter reflected an increase at our international operations, while results at our domestic operations were comparable to the prior-year quarter. Segment results benefited from the timing of the Easter holiday, which fell in the third quarter of the current year compared to the second quarter of the prior year.

Operating income growth at our international operations was due to increases at Shanghai Disney Resort and Disneyland Paris. The increase at Shanghai Disney Resort reflected a full quarter of operations in the current year compared to the prior-year quarter, which included pre-opening costs. Higher operating income at Disneyland Paris was due to increases in guest spending and attendance, partially offset by higher costs for new guest offerings, including the 25th Anniversary celebration. The increase in guest spending was primarily due to higher average ticket prices and increases in food, beverage and merchandise spending.

At our domestic operations, increased costs were essentially offset by increases in guest spending and volumes. Higher costs were primarily due to labor and other cost inflation, increased operations support costs, new guest offerings and the dry-dock of the Disney Fantasy in the current quarter. Costs for new guest offerings were driven by the launch of the expansion of Disney’s Animal Kingdom at Walt Disney World Resort, including the related marketing costs. Guest spending growth was due to increases in average ticket prices for sailings on our cruise ships and admission to our theme parks, as well as higher average daily hotel room rates and food and beverage spending. Higher volumes were due to attendance growth, partially offset by a decrease in occupied room nights and lower passenger cruise days due to the dry-dock of the Disney Fantasy. The decrease in occupied room nights was due to refurbishments and conversions to vacation club units."

Discuss on the Forums
Article Posted: Aug 08, 2017 / 4:29pm EDT
View all comments →

Matt_BlackAug 13, 2017

They MIGHT have access to the Clerks animated series, though, since that was produced for ABC.

Christian FronckowiakAug 13, 2017

Miramax, and I'm assuming its film library, are now owned by beIN Media Group. Disney Double Dare You morphed into a co-production deal between del Toro and DreamWorks Animation that produces Trollhunters, ironically for Netflix.

RSoxNo1Aug 12, 2017

Plus Kevin Smith movies.

rael ramoneAug 12, 2017

There's a good amount of speculation out there of what will and won't be on the 'Disney App'. The Weatherman himself in an interview said they may still sell Marvel & Star Wars films to Netflix still. Would the 'Disney App' just be Disney/Pixar content? Some people may not want anything they deem 'not family friendly' on it. Others may find the content insufficient unless it includes the other content. But a HUGE thing, and one I think current management understands, is that you need to CREATE content (content that currently doesn't exist). A huge section of their audience get's their 'Disney fill' by watching their DVD/BlueRays. You have to give this audience something that they don't already have (but your kid can watch this stuff on his or her phone - oh, wait, you won't let your kid have a phone because they are too young). Creating compelling new content (and a LOT of it because some stuff won't catch on). And a LOT of spending on new infrastructure. For ESPN at least, it's absolutely necessary even if it hurts (and does a LOT) in the short term (and all for something that will very unlikely deliver the margins they got with the bundle), because they have no choice. The 'Disney App' looks tougher to succeed. And all of this while doing everything in their power to keep up the stock price. Not just for their personal compensation, but to keep the Ichans & the Ackmans & the Janus's out there for loading up shares. Which does not appear to be good news for the parks and those who like to get the same experience they are used to without having to partake in upcharges...

Matt_BlackAug 12, 2017

And by "done right" you mean "written & produced by Greg Weisman".

Rosso11Aug 12, 2017

Haha obviously not that version but the potential is there if done right

Matt_BlackAug 12, 2017

You mean the one with Nicolas Cage attached that would have nothing to do with the show except the name? No, I am GLAD that fell down the deepest Abyss in Developmental Hell.

Rosso11Aug 12, 2017

I'm really interested in what the original content is going to be. I think that is going to be the key to the success of this or not. I think in the end they will be smart enough to package Star Wars and Marvel into it. A well made live action Star Wars show alone can almost guarantee success for the service. Disney has so many great ideas they can dust off. Back at D23 in 2009 they announced the partnership with Guillermo Del Toro to create the Double Dare You brand which would have been a little darker and edgier. When I watched Stranger Things I felt a show like that would have been perfect for that brand. The old live action Gargoyles movie they came close to making. Turn it into a TV show set in the Middle Ages and they have their potential family friendly Game of Thrones. Disney needs to have a well rounded product for this to be successfull. I don't think they can simply rely on their past shows and movies. That will only get them so far. It's the original content that has the potential to bring in the masses.

ford91exploderAug 12, 2017

I'd love to see things like the 'Silly Symphonies' etc and I'd pay a reasonable fee to do so. My comment was that Disney does not have a single channel that makes the top ten in an ala carte scenario and only ONE in the top 20 at position 18 is ESPN and its behind The Weather Channel at 17 Thats what i mean Disney barely makes a single spot in the top 20 and misses the top 10 entirely. Disney currently has no programming with mass market appeal

BlindChowAug 12, 2017

If Disney can include Miramax in their new streaming service, that'll be a treasure trove. Basically 365 days of Oscar right there.

Matt_BlackAug 12, 2017

Again, Disney includes all sorts of television (like The Golden Girls), Lucasfilm, Marvel Studios, Hollywood Pictures, and Touchstone. That is a LOT of varied content.

Nubs70Aug 12, 2017

Very much interested in vault stuff. However, paying $20/mo for only DIS content, not so much.

Matt_BlackAug 11, 2017

Are you telling me you wouldn't be interested in all the vault stuff that they don't show anymore? What I find really funny is all the overinflated sense of outrage at this. "How dare they! This is the kind of thing that leads to internet piracy!" No, you being an entitled cheapskate leads to internet piracy. If you think you're getting overcharged for a luxury (which, guess what, entertainment is) you don't have to buy it.

flynnibusAug 11, 2017

No body wants this... but this is what happens when you give in to shortsighted people. Customers are enthralled with 'free' or cheap per month subscription prices. Of course they are, they are cheap and they think "I will only buy what I want!!". But such packaging can't support the full range of content as they are used to seeing because the money simply isn't there, nor the audience to pitch it as a distribution channel the content provider should pay for. Meanwhile, people keep supporting small niche services... and overpay because everyone operating on their own has their own overhead to pay vs pooling all that infrastructure/expense. A future wave of consolidation will happen in the future when the content providers realize they don't want to be in the Internet business.. and a bigger aggregator will come along and sell at a much higher price, or offer 'line item' pricing beyond a minimum price.