Analyst's Questions - "No church for Easter Sunday"

[larworth]

Earning’s Call Q&A (Parks only)

Usually they spend a lot of time giving speeches. This time much briefer. Allowed more time for questions. Quite a few about the parks. My synopsis. Some interesting comments on cost reductions and building new parks.

Q. Attendance? A. Adjusting for earlier Easter week; WDW attendance down 8% versus this time last year, DL up 8%. Bookings look good, but still short time horizon, making it hard to predict summer crowds.

Q. International visitors? A. Typically 20% of WDW, today running 15%. Slow signs of recovery in Germany and Latin America.

Q. When will parks turn the corner? A. 3Q numbers will still be down, hopefully by Q4.

Q. Cannibalization from new parks? A. No effect, and not concerned this will happen. TDS, for example, is mostly locals.

Q. Cash flow outlook? A. Parks should be at or better than last year.

Q. Detail on cost savings? A. The number you may remember was $250 million on an annualized basis. A substantial amount of this is VOLUME related. Will try to make as much of these as possible permanent. Probably, no more than half.

Q. Easter impact on results? A. Profit associated with this week has a 10’s of million profit impact.

Q. Plans to reopen hotel rooms and PC outlook? A. We didn’t really close any hotels units just slowed the opening of new ones. Still in a wait and see mode.

Q. What are your plans for tweaking weak attendance at DCA beyond price discounts? (this was all one long answer by Eisner. Wording pretty accurate “” to emphasize some things) A.

As you know we decided with these second parks, with the exception of TDS, not to “build a church for Easter Sunday” but build them with a digestible budget.

The new Bug’s Life play area should fill a gap for kid’s in not being enough to do there. About a year and half later we will open ToT. This will make DCA “a full service, gigantic park”!!

I think that even if you look back at DL it didn’t really take off, from 3 to 10 million in attendance, until Space Mountain was put in. Same thing in Europe.

In Florida we just opened a new “kid’s play area” in the AK which should enhance that park. Will continue to tweak with Mission:Space pavilion in EPCOT, and on, and on, and on.

Just opened a second park in Europe. It was opened on an “economic basis”. Have plans as time goes on to “judiciously” place new attractions there.

We are very comfortable with the way we have learned how to build a theme park, creatively and under a fiscal responsible budget. The company, historically, whether with the original DL, EPCOT, TDL, or DLP built pretty big to begin with and than let the audience catch up. “This time we built it the right size”. Extremely comfortable with the creative content and the business way we did this.

[Sarangel]

We are very comfortable with the way we have learned how to build a theme park, creatively and under a fiscal responsible budget. Too bad that the fans are less impressed with Disney's Theme Park plan than the company is...

Sarangel

[Bstanley]

We are very comfortable with the way we have learned how to build a theme park, creatively and under a fiscal responsible budget. The company, historically, whether with the original DL, EPCOT, TDL, or DLP built pretty big to begin with and than let the audience catch up. “This time we built it the right size”. Extremely comfortable with the creative content and the business way we did this.
How self-serving can you get! Both DL and EPCOT were shadows of what they are today when they were built!

Truly spoken like a CEO covering up faster than a cat with diahhrea!

[Bob O]

Even with the additions i doubt that DCA will be considered a "gigantic full size park" Typical pr anwsers with the hope that people will just buy it and not think for themselves. Just goes that the new disney will only give you in their new parks as little as possible to get you in the door but will be happy to charge full price for up to a decade till they (might) complete it. Luckily this idea failed in CA.

[airlarry!]

The company, historically, whether with the original DL, EPCOT, TDL, or DLP built pretty big to begin with and than let the audience catch up.

Can I shorthand a quick argument here?

Eisner says they have 'learned' how to build the park the 'right size' instead of the way it was done with DL, Epcot, Tokyo, or DL-Paris. (And of course, by extension, he admits earlier in the answer that DisneySeas is also built old-style.)

MGM, DCA, Disney Studios Paris, and AK were all built the Eisner Way.

Of the four, which were successful right off the bat? Only time will tell, but I will submit to you that MGM was the only successful start-up out of the Eisner bunch (and this is juiced a bit because of the very low predictions expected for the park -- if you went there that first summer, they had the smallest parking lot you have ever seen, and had to close it by 10:00 am each morning -- they were overwhelmed). ** And that was when customers were probably expecting another EPCOT, but got only got a half-days park.

I wish an analyst had cornered Cousin Mike and asked him why did he think that their way is the right way when DisneySeas is DOUBLING its first year profit projection?

[JeffJewell]

Talk about moving-target subjectiveness ...while I understand what you mean about subjectiveness in that _some_ people _can_ spend a whole day in AK, the reality (reflected in Disney's own guest surveys, referenced in their own press releases) is that _most_ people _don't_ spend a whole day there.

And the only reason "half-day" is even an issue is because Disney _intended_ for AK (and DCA) to be a "full-day" park in the sense that vacationers would buy an extra night in a Disney hotel (or cancel a vacation day spent off-site at a competitor's park, almost as good) to spend the day in AK.

Park-hopping leaves the term "full-day park" virtually meaningless from a guest's point of view... it's only a concern when you step back and look at it from the "numbers of hotel nights sold" perspective.

That's why I can say (with a high degree of accuracy and no subjectivity at all) that AK is a hugely disappointing park: it did not result in more hotel nights sold, and that was its primary purpose.

If you consider the term "full-day park" in a micro sense, meaning whether or not one family can fritter away eight hours there, you're correct, we've got a subjective stand-off. If you use the term "full-day park" in the macro sense, meaning whether or not the addition of the park resulted in the addition of a day to the average WDW vacation, it's not subjective, and it's not a full-day park.

Jeff

[larworth]

What is subjective here?

Disney (Disney I say) admits they have changed their approach to building new parks. If the new strategy is to build a park, with the need to add new attractions at a rate above what your mature parks warrant, than it is pretty obvious it wasn't a full park to start with.

No, the subjective part must only be whether this a good strategy?

Seems what they are saying is: They will no longer make the mistake of giving away too much value early on. They used to invest more than was needed, which ended being bad business. Like a grocery store and loss leaders. They built a couple extra E tickets to make sure they got you in the door, and you left happy, but this just didn't generate a good return.

Perceived value (by the average consumer) seems to have been an issue with DAK, but we also have the saturation issue to consider. Perceived value (by the average consumer) seems to have been a problem with DCA, but we have the lower standards issue as well. It will be interesting to see how DSP fairs.

I don't see a problem in questioning the strategy. Is this a rant?

[airlarry!]

Let me echo and add on to Mr. Larworth's comments...

Michael Eisner is admitting that the parks are not as 'full' as TDS or MK. But if we still need to argue the point, I would submit that I don't know anyone who considered MGM -- when it was opened in '89 -- to be a full days park. It may be now, it may not be to you. But back then, it was universally called a half-day park.

AK may take a full day to enjoy and appreciate -- I am one of the ones who have banged the drum for AK -- but that doesn't mean that AK truly IS a full day park. It CAN be but is not Necessarily. There is a difference.

By anyone's human experience, Epcot and/or the MK need more than a 1/2 to enjoy and appreciate.

I think that the point is clear enough.

[Bstanley]

Animal Kingdom might be 50% of a day for some folks and 100% of a day for other folks, but when it comes right down to it - it keeps people at WDW for ONE MORE DAY.

The fact is AK has been VERY positive for the WDW bottom line - especially hotel room occupancy. According to Disney's Annual reports "Theme Park & Resort" NET income went up 10% in '98 (the year it opened) compared to '97, another 10% in '99 and an even larger 15% in'00. Thousands of hotel rooms were added between '97 and '00 and there is no doubt that AK keeping people at WDW for 1 additional day is a significant contributor to keeping those rooms occupied.

I personally think AK is a great park - it takes us most of a day to enjoy it and really the only reason it gets picked on IMHO is because it is full of critters instead of animatronics...

[Another Voice]

Mr. Scoop -

Your analysis seems to include not only mutliple rides on the same attraction, taking in shows that do not appeal to all people (such as Flights of Wonder), and most of all a generous amount of time standing in line or waiting.

Frankly, if the idea of a "full day park" is a place where everyone has to wait in the long lines for the limited number of attractions, then perhaps the California Department of Motor Vehilces should charge a $45 enterance fee. My local DMV office is more "full day" than Animal Kingdom...

[JeffJewell]

That's how the scoop family always ends up staying more than 1/2 a day at AK ...delightful itinerary, but I said right up front that some people can spend a full day there; you proved a point that was not in question.

I'm trying to talk about this from the business end, you're trying to talk this from the 'Scoop family's personal vacation end.

If the business reality of AK and your vacation don't match up, that's precisely the same scenario as the business reality of EE and my vacation not matching up. If Disney doesn't care about my experience contradicting their studies and surveys about EE (and by your own arguments, they shouldn't), why would they care about your experience contradicting their studies and surveys about AK?

Your arguments seem to flip-flop from "personal vacation POV" to "business reality POV" quite a bit... and always in service of whatever your current point might be. The only reason I have to ambush you is because you're never shooting from the same position.

Jeff

[OnWithTheShow]

My entire group of friends as well as myself also enjoys conservation station/rafiki's planet watch.

I also believe Animal Kingdom to be a full day park, in fact I often spend more than a full day there.

Just weighin in!

[airlarry!]

Scoop, I am laughing with you here, I think.

Are you really arguing that AK is by the sheer objectivity of the number AND quality of attractions, a full day park? And if you are, are you saying that when it opened (the standard we are using to look at TDS and DCA, and EPCOT, and MGM in '89) it was a full day park?

How 'bout this. If Animal Kingdom is a full day park, then is MK a four day? Epcot a six day?

I would answer thusly....yes, you CAN spend four days of your week's vacation at MK (been there done that), but in reality, most people would PLAN for two days at MK, two days at Epcot, close to a day at MGM (I can) and, last but not least, alllllllmmmooooooooooost a full day at AK.

Hey, it's almost, but not quite. And I'm a fan of AK. Imagine how Bob O feels about AK. It's a full park for him and his family...a full hour. ;)

Oh, one more sneak shot at you Scoop. You would agree with me that the addition of Fastpass at the back area attractions justifies spending nearly a whole day now. I know we can get a fast pass for Kilminjaro, and then enjoy the Trail at our leisure, and do the same thing for the Raft Ride and its complementary trail. But before? Most people would just not take the time to explore the trails and stay a whole day, like they would hitting every attraction in Adventureland, or Futureworld.

[OnWithTheShow]

You guys have really struck a nerve with me now...

If you take the time to actually explore the trails, (Pangani Forest, Maharajah, Tree of Life, and the Oasis) and enjoy the beauty and wonder of nature and the animals you can easily spend more than a full day at Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately the mentality of today's society and more specifically the mentality of theme park goers is "get on all the rides" no one stops to notice the details or explore the more thought provoking attractions. Some people seriously believe that the only place to see animals in Animal Kingdom is on the safari. In a town where long lines and extreme thrills are becoming the standard Animal Kingdom dares to be a different breed of theme park. Animal Kingdom is a park that combines classic theme park attractions with live animals in realistic natural settings and is truly unique in my mind (cannot be compared to Busch Gardens). Unfortunately the general public and apparently some people on this board have rejected this daring concept. Instead of saying "there is not enough to do at Animal Kingdom" what you are all really saying is "there are not enough rides in Animal Kingdom". Well guess what, that is not the vision for the park!


This view of "no time for looking at things" and "hurry up and wait for the next ride" is what has destroyed EPCOT over the past 5-10 years. It is amazing how no one stops to explore the wonderful exhibits at Wonders of Life, Innoventions, or The Living Seas, in fact I find it shameful. You all complain about the new attractions (Test Track and Space) being built without the post-show exhibits and innoventions has been replaced by video games, but why build creative, educational experiences when only 5% of the guests stop to enjoy them? In fact I would dare to say that the same people who think Animal Kingdom is not a full day park are the same ones who do not bother with exhibits in Future World.


I believe of all the parks at Walt Disney World (perhaps with the exclusion of Magic Kingdom) Animal Kingdom would have been Walt's favorite (sans Dino-rama). It is a wild departure into a new concept that was very brave and not cheap. It brings one of Walts favorite topics, nature, into a detail filled theme park environment in a way unequaled any where except in the actual homes of the majestic creatures that call the park home.

[kenjean]

This is my first quote from another post, I will have to learn how to do it.

Quote: "Seems what they are saying is: They will no longer make the mistake of giving away too much value early on. They used to invest more than was needed, which ended being bad business."

What a sad thing to see in print. And I am not attacking the poster, I think he is right on the money. What a complete and total opposite of what Disney used to stand for. Give them just enough so that they won't feel cheated when they leave. Tell everybody upfront that this is a half day park so they won't be disappointed that there is really not much to do.

I don't think the real issue is whether DAK is a half day park, but the loss of the mentality that Disney should WOW guests with their new experiences. This current attitude is like being in college, and taking the mindset that getting passing grades so I can get a mediocre job is good enough, vs going for a 4.0. Disney used to go for the 4.0.

And no arguments that its not good business. It is Disney's past 4.0 report card that made them what they are today, not the current mediocre crap. So, therefore, I say that exceeding guests expectations is a good business move.

[Peter Pirate]

KenJean, why sad? It's jut a business philosophy and Walt himself adhered to the same philosophy with DL...Yes Walt probably would have went that extra mile with what was given but remember Walt was charting new terriitory. There were no exit surveys or past history to refer to. I believe this philosophy has been well served at WDW...Certainly DCA was a misguided, ill-concieved and unsuccessful attempt at this philosophy (they really got greedy & blew it).

Show, your description of AK is great. Walt would love AK the way it is & were he here today I believe he'd even smile at DR...I'm not saying he'd have green lighted it but then he wouldn't have green lighted Epcot, MGM or the Water Parks either (they are all too pedestrian). But were he here AK would be his favorite & I'll bet more passive than it is now - given his love of nature & wildlife & his reluctance to 'reinvent the wheel'.

1/2 day, full day...This is moot. Obviously the go, go, go set (which is the majority) thinks AK is not a full day park but those who truly take the AK theme find it easily a complete day. Now, AK is never open very late and given that, Disney realizes that AK will always be a part of a guests 2 park day...On the other hand we (the Pirate clan) NEVER spend a whole day at ANY park since park hoppers & annual passes...Never. The question is has the Park (AK) extended peoples vacations (not do people buy one day AK passes), and I think they have...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Another Voice]

Walt stopped only because he ran out of money. He even put his own personal money into the park. He knew that if built a place that the captured the public’s imagination then the financial returns would be there. He didn’t believe in “value imagination”, that’s a recent invention for those that can demonstrate neither. Walt's business philophsy proved out to be true, Eisner's is turing out to be disasterously wrong.

This whole corporate line about “we intentionally build them small and fill them in as the audience builds” is nothing but a flat out lie. Disney/MGM Studios was built complete. Animal Kingdom was the way it was not because it was a phased development – they just didn’t want to put in more money so they hacked a few sections off. And California Adventure, the “filling in” there seems to be a panic reaction to its failure rather than a planned expansion due to its popularity.

This half-day, full-day discussion is off the topic. The real issue is that Michael Eisner has finally spoken his true intensions. He will give you as little as possible because he knows people will suck up anything he plasters with DISNEY®. He’s not interested in your enjoyment, he’s not interested in your child’s – he wants money. And he’ll do the least amount of work as he can for it. And some people might actually be blinded by the logo to think that Walt would approve of this tactic.

Fortunately people understand that attitude. And that’s why we stay away from California Adventure by the millions. So much for "knowing how to build economically viable parks".

[Bob O]

So how did people get Walt's opinion, did we go to a psyhic medium of maybe talk to him on the crossing over show???
And of course i would agree with AV!!!! Its seems some people will buy whatever disney throws are way and call it steak, even if they know its dog food!!! Disney is happy under eisner's regime to sell the public a inferior product knwoing that people will lap it up and say thanks at the end, unwilling to hold the company to any type of standard, take the pr lock/stock and barrell!!! If the parks had been run this way from the start we wouldnt have had wdw at all. Just think what Walt would have done if he had eisners money at his disposal.
And how can a park with very limited hours like AK be a full day park??? Then what would you call MK or EPCOT, supersized full days parks??? It may be a full day park for some when busy but when i have went(offseason/early Dec) we had little to no waits at all and no need for fastpasses.
Speaking of visions for AK what of BK??? That was most defintely part of the vision, the part they always talked of, of animals that never were and featured Unicorns in early pr shots and i think on the main entrance they have depicted fictional animals. But the cheap disney company doesnt care about vision if it gets in the way of making easy money, because they know a certain segment will always bend over for them and sing their greatness!!!

[larry_poppins]

Current Disney Management has broken my heart. I used to love Walt Disney Attractions and sing their praises day and night. Living in SOuthern California I would serve as a tour guide for friends and relations who would visit. I was at Disneyland weekly. Buying towels, dishes, clothing, etc..

With the dumbing down of Disneyland and DCA I know longer visit weekly. I am no there no more than once a month. When I visit I barely buy anything. I no longer feel a proud spending my money at Disney or that they are following in the glorious traditions of Walt and his Imagineers. I no longer feel that Disney is connected with being AMerican. Afterall the Oriental Land Company felt that the Japanese public was worthy of better attractions than the Disney Co. originally wanted to build in Japan; they splurged on DisneySea and the rest is history.

Lately, I am saving my pennies to visit Tokyo and Disney in 2004.

Larry

[OnWithTheShow]

The limited hours of Animal Kingdom doesnt even factor into it. You should judge the full-day half day park issue on the basis of available park hours. And don't start complaining about the short hours at AK because it is completely based on the care of the animals.

[Peter Pirate]

Well, most of you are reading into what I've said...I admit DCA is a failure and the plan a flop (so I'm not calling everything steak, Bob). As to Walt's opinions, I clearly stated that this was MY OPINON of what Walt would/wouldn't like...Based on my knowledge of the man this is what I believe...

Next, Walt opened DL unfinished becase he was so bull headed he couldn't stand a postponment until it was complete. As for AK, come on Voice, you know the original plans and you know why they cut it short (IOA turned out NOT to be the factor they worried it would be)...You can't tell me you don't understand that strategy? They'll build BK when the time is right but why forge ahead with a complete park and hope it pays off? I'm sure Vivendi wishes the buildiers of IOA hadn't been so hasty for now they're stuck with a high tech, complete park 'dog' that they'd unload the minute they could find a sucker...er, buyer to pay for it!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Peter Pirate]

I thought I was agreeing with you :confused: ...But, the hours are significant to the "AK is not a whole day crowd". I don't believe it matters at all in the scheme of what WDW was trying to accomplish & I don't beleive it has been too worrisome that AK doesn't draw a lot one day park purchases but I'll bet they CAN quantify that it has added to peoples 'on property' time...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[PKS44]

Oh where to begin...

First-
AK offers the guest fewer options/attractions than any other park-OBJECTIVE FACT.
AK admission COSTS the same as every other park-OBJECTIVE FACT.
AK does not feature the architectural whimsy/"weenies" that Walt insisted were vital to park layout-OBJECTIVE FACT-(The Tree of Life is one "weenie"..I guess that yellow dinosaur they just added to Dinoland is finally a second...every other park features interesting and or large structures to "draw" the guest around.
AK walkways are narrower than any other park walkways-OBJECTIVE FACT

The whole build it small and wait til they come mentality is a mistake -opinion, but this will be proven by Objective Facts. Some facts already exist. They have the AK meal coupons-why? No other park has to discount to get guests to buy food there...DCA discounting has been well covered- I do not believe they have EVER had to discount admissions like this in the past. People have figured out to NOT come when they open these new parks because they have now come to associate new with Unfinished and unsatisfying because that is what happens when you try to save money by cutting the one thing you built your whole business on-SERVICE. People have been willing to pay a premium to go with Disney because Disney offered superior SERVICE. Now Disney is cutting service to try to boost the bottom line- works in the short run- kills in the long run. Kills customer goodwill and loyalty, kills employees satisfaction on the job...did I read somewhere that CM were told to work to increase per guest spending? What idiot gave the CM's that mandate. That is not a CM goal, that is an end achieved through CM's doing an amazing job providing that Disney magic. What number on the earnings report will leave the CM's and the management feeling fulfilled and satisfied? Numbers/Money won't do it...get them working for that and you have destroyed what really satisfies anyone working...that they are doing a good job, creating something be it a product or service...

In Tokyo they have understood thing need to be different...service is the goal, and the profits are rolling in -in a country/region parlyzed by recession for a decade! You know they have a different system.. You can buy a nonride admission to the parks, or a limited ticket or the sort of passes we have here...Brilliant! People come in -they shop, they buym some probably get sucked into the magic and upgrade...no such imagination here...just cut down the product to the bone and watch the short term growth---and if no change, the long term death of a once great company...

[Bob O]

Peter Pirate where is their any eivdence that Universal wants too or is trying to unload IOA???? And what the defintion of a "complete dog park"??? If you are trying to build a park to "wow" your guests you dont scale it back just because your competition may not be as rough as you thought it was going to be. If thats the case why wasnt Epcot opened with just future world or World showcase and open the other portion a decade ot two later??? They had a idea and built it to that idea and didnt scale it back intentionally to save money like they did at AK.
And park hours have to be built into any equation to decide if a park is a half day or full day park!!! If the demand was their for increased hours disney would keep the park hours open longer and and the animals would still be fine if the park was open till midnight!! But due to low attendance they have no need at all to extend park hours, but if the park was a full day park like MK or Epcot they would have to increase the hours.
So according to Peter Pirate the new disney philosphy should be to build a park with as little as possible to get people in the door, charge full price for it and only add on when it is has to be done, dont have the intention to give the guests a complete park. But of course the results of that are DCA/AK which have attendance problems and TDS, built to a different game plan where people make reservations far in advance and the park is going over their projections!!
If that was the case at Epcot maybe now they would be in the process of adding either future world/world showcase because their was no reason to have both sections when the park was opened, no reason to "wow" your customers with a full day park.

[ParrotHead]

Larworth... Would you happen to have a transcript of the conference call? I listened to it live, but would like to read one...

[Peter Pirate]

Bob the evidence that IOA is a 'dog' and I use that as a financial metaphor only, is that it (the building of it) nearly bankupted it's previous owner, Vivenidi upon buying Universal made many not so thinly veiled comments about wishing to divest of the theme park business. In future business discussion they have purposly highlighted the underperformance of the parks in order to highlight the general well being of the American holdings. They have recently been forced to hire a true theme park professional (one who should still be with Disney) to try and minimize the drag on the spreadsheet...

If Vivendi received any decent offer for the theme parks, the french congclomerate would glady be out of the theme park business.

As for AK...Perhaps you're right Bob, maybe it could be adapted to nightime hours without undue stress on the animals but I have always perceived (and this is JUST my perception) that AK was never intended to be an evening park...

Now, as to the Peter Pirate philosophy...No that isn't my philosophy Bob, it's Disney's...I just understand it and I believe it works well for WDW, but not in all cases. Now pay attention here for I will again say that this WAS A MISERABLE FAILURE IN CALIFORNIA. Eisner and all the rest should have known better and should have their hands held to the fire for it. Further, any new venture (i.e. a Park in Texas or Virginia) would have to be built to much more COMPLETE standards and IMAGINATION than DCA, AK, or MGM as more duplicity in another American park JUST WOULDN"T FLY.

Now, I know I'm the opposing voice here, but hope I've at least shown that I'm not a walking rubber stamp...Also, you guys have got to remember that very often without my view (accurate or misguided) of the other side our discusions would become nothing more than a 'bash-in'...And what chance of learning anything do we have from that? And in the final analysis I actually do hope to learn something from you clowns!:jester: :jester::jester:
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[PKS44]

I have a hard time understanding how Ak cannot have nighttime hours for the sakeof the animals and yet AKL stays open 24 hours a day with the animals out about over there.

[Peter Pirate]

AKL animals get a break during the day for their check-ups & so forth. Further, the Savannah's at AKL were built with the thought of continuous presentation in mind and according to the AKL CM's, AK was not built that way and the animals have not been 'trained' that way. I'm not saying it coudn't be changed, but I don't believe night time viewing was ever planned at AK.

Note: There HAVE been a couple of nightime events at AK with the use of the animals, so perhaps the only nightime drawback is the animal check-up time. I realize I could be wrong on this, I'm relaying what I have come to believe...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Another Voice]

It is my understanding that Animal Kingdom was designed and built to operate will “normal” operating hours, i.e. nights. Bad attendance and a desire to shuffle people off to other ticketed attractions (Pleasure Island) and other money-making activities have keep both AK and the Studios are reduced hours. And will for the foreseeable future.

The San Diego Zoo runs a wildly successful “Zoo After Dark” program all summer long. In fact, they host sleepovers too. And SDZ certainly has many more animals, and many more sensitive animals, than AK. The “animals need a rest” line is just more spin. In fact, most of the animals at AK are more nocturnal than they are day-active. That’s the reason why Walt dropped the idea of having real animals on the original ‘Jungle Cruise’ – the critters are only interesting at night. Kinda funny when you think about it.

Universal’s theme parks had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the problems at MCA and its sale to Vivendi. Universal had their version of Michael Eisner to deal with and he promptly drove the company into the ground by selling off key components, dropping gobs of cash on the internet, and spending tons of money on bad movies. Universal’s big plan was to become the dominant music company in the world and spent HUGE bucks in acquisitions – just as the global music industry went bust.

Vivendi is a sewer, bottled water and cell phone company. Worse, they’re French. The parks are a microscopic part of their enterprise. They don’t even break it out on their financials statements. They looked to sell the parks after buying MCA as a way of raising some quick cash. Exactly the same deal that Michael Eisner tried to pull off with EPCOT Center and Disneyland when he first took over. And no one ever accussed Eisner of dumping the parks because they were “dogs”.

The executive that Universal brought on board was hired to open the amazingly successful Universal Studios Japan, not to rescue a flounder theme park in Florida that threatened to shut down every toilet in Paris. Like any good company, you move your best executives to where they will do the most good. For Universal, that means moving him to Orlando. For Disney I suggest they move their top executive to Paraguay, but that’s another thread.

All of the spin coming out of Disney these days is nothing but excuse-making for incompetent management. They complain about market conditions and the weather for the problems at DCA – yet Legoland has been tremendously successful because they identified their audience and built a place that meets their expectations. And Legoland is stuck in the middle of no where, not a fifty yards from the best known theme park in the world. The entire “we’ll fill it out” lie is just a way to paper over their initial miscalculations and their fear about investing real money into a real product.

If Animal Kingdom was supposed to be this master planned, controlled expansion development designed to return the maximum return – why did they throw in the slapped-together Dino-Rama instead of following with the “plan” for Beastly Kingdom? Pee Wee Herman might be able to get away with saying “I meant to do that!”, but Michael Eisner just doesn’t have that kind of acting ability.

[Bob O]

I wish i was as articulate as AV but another great post that i wish i had written!!!
Peter Pirate i always enjoy reading your posts and the captains/dscoops posts, because even though we may disagree it does make me think about my position and justify it the best i can, and that is good and fun!!!
Im in favor of disney using the standards that built DL and MK/Epcot/TDS but that they have gotten away from in their newer parks to make more money by not giving the guests a full day experience. Its a calculated company plan to make money money by barely meeting expectations and getting by on their reputation.
I always believed Ak was going to have later hours but due to people leaving the park en masse befole its closed they have used the spin that the animals need a rest. They can always schedule animal health checkups so that their are animals to be viewed by the public.
Points regarding IOA/Universal were made by AV better than i could have!!
Maybe its me or other parts of this site and not the people on this board but i find people here to be alot more forgiving of disney's screwups than they would be of their local grocery store as a example. Because of decades of goodwill people give disney the benefit of the doubt that they wouldnt give to other companies and except IMHO a lesser product from parks like Ak/DCA as examples or animated films that dont live up to the companies standards(you know, films like that now made by pixar).

[Peter Pirate]

But then why has AK NEVER operated at those normal hours?

Again, I don't know how to respond to most of your post, but I see the arguments of what has happened at AK & DCA sooooo differently. AK IS a great park with still more potential. The additon of DR is a small thing but in no way signals the end of AK expansion. BK will come and so will another animal adventure. DCA was a blown opportunity, but that doesn't mean it can't/won't be salvaged (reworked) into another very good park & remember park # 3 is on the drawing board at DL (right?).

Perhaps the curent regime is stuck with in a poor business model with regard to building their parks and attractions at the current time, but still MGM wasn't complete when it was opened and now it is as big a part of WDW as MK or Epcot (if you don't agree here we're just jousting at windmills) and so is AK. EuroDisney failed (asyou noted) but it was brought back quite well. The DD idea was stagnent as VillageMaketplace but a hip, new idea for the same premis has been hugely succesful & copied. So I contend that just because Disney makes a mistake or two or thre doesn't mean the end product won't have developed its own magic by the time the next generation comes around.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Another Voice]

AK was never opened “full” hours because even Disney recognized that the place was a half-day park. With the cancellation of Beastly Kingdom and the budget slashing postponement of Asia, there simply wasn’t enough to do. And it was born out even during the very first week of operation when the entire park was a ghost town by 1:00pm. Going back even further, it was also recognized that Disney/MGM was a half day park when it opened. There was a huge internal debate about charging full price for the place. As ever, greed won out.

The best fix Disney has these days to any problems is to slash. Animal Kingdom is underwhelming – it gets cut. Hours, entire lands, food service; everything was cut. California Adventure was even worse. They had to give the place away just to avoid the embarrassment of closing the entire park.

It doesn’t seem that Disney is building small and then growing. It seems they’re building cheap and then shrinking to match their customer’s disappointment.

Mr. Pirate, please read Mr. Eisner’s comment at the top of this thread again. It’s obvious that he doesn’t think there are any problems to fix. How can one create a fix when one doesn’t see the problem? Certainly neither Dino-Rama nor Flick’s Fun Faire are going to fix either Animal Kingdom or California Adventure. Both are small ideas for small budgets from small minds. The Studios and Euro Disney were fixed because people understood the problems. Those people were laid off years ago.

What will cause the places to be fixed is for the public to respond. Or I should say continue to respond. The only reason even the gestures of Dino-Rama and Flick’s were created in the first place was because the public is shunning both parks. When both of those additions fail to produce the desired results, we’ll see another round of cuts and hopefully another gesture. But the solution won’t come for a while.

Building a public failure and then trying to fix it is not a sound business method.

[Bob O]

Peter Pirate AK has never run at noght because their is no need to with there current attendance prbolems. But if the park would have been built to its original concept things would be much different. If disney had wanted to wow the guests Bk/Asia would have been built at the begining, things would have been different and it may have been a great park. How many years should the consumer pay full price to go to the park till disney decides to give their guests a complete park. And of course eisner laughs all the way to the bank as he gives us half day parks for decades until he does what should have been done at the park opening. Its just nice the people at DL have sent the proper message by not going to the park!

[lrodk]

I think that even if you look back at DL it didn’t really take off, from 3 to 10 million in attendance, until Space Mountain was put in. Same thing in Europe.

This phrase demonstrates perfectly just how out-of-touch Mr Eisner is with the parks. You would think he'd know the ins and outs of a division that accounts for over 30% of the company's revenues.

I've looked back at DL as he suggested, and even double checked Disneyland Paris' numbers.

Disneyland reached the 10 millionth guest mark at the end of 1957, just two years and three months after opening. By the time SM opened in 1975 DL had drawn close to 150 million guests(avg of 7.5 million per year). Space Mountain did not open until 1977, thus having little impact on attendance prior to that.

Disneyland Paris' numbers were even more impressive. In it's first year of operation(1992), after having opened in April, DLP drew 10 million guests, without the benefit of Space Mountain. Essentially they went from 0 to 10 million right off the bat. Attendance slumped by 2% the second year, compounded with an 8% slump in 1994. This prompted the developement and subsequent opening of Space Mountain in May of 1995. Attendance went from 8.8 million in 1994(it's weakest year) to 10.7 million in 1995( a 22% increase). While SM had a dramatic effect on attendanec in 1995, it did not take off from "from 3 to 10 million in attendance" as was originally implied.

Me thinks Mr Eisner is in dire need of a refresher course at Disney U.

[PKS44]

Disagreed. Disagreed. And then disagreed again. To me, this is totally subjective. I think Harambe is one of the best themed "places" in all of WDW.

No-the absence or presence of a "weenie" is not subjective, it has nothing to do with theming-it has to do with architectural fact. There are architects who have written about the brilliant design of Disneyland and Dinsey parks in general with special attention to how the parks use architecture in very specific ways...if you are not familiar with the "weenie" concept it refers to a treat that a trainer gives an animal to get it to move in a particular direction. Other than Tree of Life they have ignored the "weenie" concept---in Camp MinnieMickey they have given up almost any attempt to draw the guest in- yes there is design and theme in AK but when you stand in the central hub and look off in any direction WHAT does one see to draw you in any particular direction? Answer- narrow pathways. When one stands in any other park there are large, fanciful structures to see that "beckon" the visitor away from the center...

As a stockholder I am glad there are at least a few people like scoop who like AK- As a stockholder and theme park fan who does not think AK is much more than a very expensive zoo-like experience (maybe we are spoiled in Saint Louis)-AK is a disappointment. I think the people have spoken as to whether AK is a success-you know there is a reason Disney is offering food discounts there and only there and special deals for Florida residents to visit that park and that park only...never had to do with that with any other park...those discounts and special offers are OBJECTIVE FACT- and Disney would not have to offer them if enough people liked the park.

Paul

[kenjean]

But, other than maybe the World Showcase, AK was designed as a passive experience...kind of like Tom Sawyer Island or the island formerly known as Discovery.

I wonder if it was designed that way, or just built that way.

[larworth]

Vivendi: No argument that IOA probably wasn’t the hit the previous owners expected out of the gate, but Seagram’s was a pretty big company and I don’t think IOA brought them anywhere close to bankruptcy. I agree with the previous comments that cash and questions about whether theme parks are core assets for mega media giants were the major drivers in Vivendi’s deliberations.

Given Vivendi’s current corporate performance I find it very encouraging they may start reinvesting in their parks again. I was afraid they were going to limp along while Vivendi used their cash to fix other more broken parts (sounds familiar doesn’t it).

The audience: We do need to remember who they are talking to in these calls, it’s the stock analysts. They are trying to make the future look better than today and to reinforce how good of managers they are. They think cost cuts and conservative investment strategies are what the street wants to hear. Unfortunately, it does leave us guessing if it is just spin or do they really believe some of this. Given the DL/DLP data provided the space mountain comments are disturbing, and do they think ToT is really all that is standing in the way of DCA being a gigantic park?

Each resort is different: I don’t have as much of a problem as others with DAK being a partial park. I think this strategy can work at WDW. I do have a problem with misrepresenting (or misreading) the value provided. Neither are signs of a good management team.

Another mindset example? There are plenty of gray areas in these business decisions. Building it “light” to start with may be the right choice for DSP, HKDL and maybe even for DCA if it had been done correctly!! It just seems like another example of an “error on the shorterm profit side” mindset. When confronted in the past with these gray areas they used to make sure they errored on the side of the customer. Both have the potential to not deliver optimum results, but one may be a more effective operating style.

[airlarry!]

Sir Scoop:

I'm trying to follow this fast moving thread as best as I can...but some of these statements bandied about lately seem to assume we are talking about AK as it exists today.

I am an AK fan. I will stress that again.

But AK as it existed on its opening day did not have the River Rapids nor its complementary trek. I can't remember if CTX was open or not, but I liken not having Asia or BK to opening the MK or a similar park without two of its signature lands, something we know would never happen.


Oops.


Hmm.


<checks his map of Hong Kong's MK>


Er....I think the term is "Modus Operandi".

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by thedscoop

Sure, this is not unique at Disney, especially not at World Showcase and some Epcot pavilions, but it's a strong emphasis at AK.




I wonder if that is really the entire problem with Animal Kingdom - it's passive nature. I think we can all agree that most people expect a lot of rides when they visit a Disney park - it's just something we've all come to expect over the years. So I would imagine that most visitors to AK would be expecting more attractions, and would probably be dissapointed by the offerings found there -- especially when compared to the number of attractions at MK or EPCOT.

I have a feeling that AK would work a lot better for the vast majority of guests if they took some time to add about 5 or 6 new attractions (maybe two E's and the rest C's and D's) - but attractions that are truly rides, and not walk-throughs experiences. I realize that Imagineering was going for something else with AK, but I just don't think the average tourist is looking for that sort of thing from a Disney park, and Disney should adjust their strategy accordingly.

[OnWithTheShow]

How many true "Rides" does EPCOT have? Hmmm....Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, Body Wars, Test Track, the Land, and Maelstorm. I would have to say that EPCOT is at least as Passive as AK if not more so.

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
How many true "Rides" does EPCOT have? Hmmm....Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, Body Wars, Test Track, the Land, and Maelstorm. I would have to say that EPCOT is at least as Passive as AK if not more so.

Which is one of the reasons that Epcot's attendance started to take a beating long before 9/11...

[Peter Pirate]

Which is is one of the reasons hat Epcot's attendance started to take a beating long befoe 9/11.
I disagree my blues friend, Epcot did quite well for itself during the Millenium Celebration, as I recall, and even taking that event out of the equation, I think the biggest problem Epcot has had is that too much was getting stale...

I agree with the camp that see's AK as more passve than even Epcot, because the character of Epcot WS is alive with a different type of passivity...That of food, drink & live entertainnmet...I'm not sure passive accurately describes this...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
How many true "Rides" does EPCOT have?

In all honesty, I was thinking more about the original EPCOT, and not the disastor area that Future World has turned into today.

Never the less, I still think that EPCOT today is more of a "full day" park than is AK.

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
I disagree my blues friend, Epcot did quite well for itself during the Millenium Celebration, as I recall, and even taking that event out of the equation, I think the biggest problem Epcot has had is that too much was getting stale...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the attendance at Epcot pretty much took a nose-dive after the Millenium Celebration ended. But I do agree with you that Epcot's Future World was getting stale - unfortunately their attempts to help Future World have all been dismal failures - except Test Track. Let's just hope their new Imagination and Mission SPACE live up to the hype, or Epcot's going to be in serious trouble.

[space42]

The thing about EPCOT pre 1994 was that most of the attractions were in the 10-15 minute range.

It took me almost 1/2 the day to just see Future World with only minimal waits. Every attraction that has been replaced/refurbished has been shorter than the origonal. Test Track is at least 1/2 the length of WOM. JIYI was 1/2 the length of JII (dont think the new one is going to be any longer unless they extend the ride track and put the carrousel begining part back). Mission Space is supposed to be about 4 minutes long (at least 1/3 the time of Horizons) No more ride in The Living Seas.

Sadly EPCOT today for me is nothing more than dinner, a trip arround WS and Illuminations. I dont even bother going into Future World anymore. Its too depressing.

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate

I disagree my blues friend, Epcot did quite well for itself during the Millenium Celebration

Yes, but afterwards attendance started to really hurt. Staleness definitely was a factor (check out the '80s-style clothes on the "Oh, Canada" movie), but so, too, was a lack of rides. Or at least that's what Management concluded in a memo that an insider was kind enough to pass on to me. The solution? More rides--and update the stuff that's already there.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Tik Tok: In all honesty, I was thinking more about the original EPCOT, and not the disaster area that Future World has turned into today.You can say that again!!!

But I do agree with you that Epcot's Future World was getting stale - unfortunately their attempts to help Future World have all been dismal failures - except Test Track.Again I agree with you!!! But I would include Test Track! To me it is a ride, not an attraction and certainy not a pavilion! Don’t get me wrong. A very nice ride. An exciting ride. But not up to the early EPCOT standards that opened the park.

ParrotHead: The solution? More rides--and update the stuff that's already there.Soooo???? When they gonna start?!?!?! Especially WS. Nah. Strike that. The whole thing needs it. And needs it bad!!!



(Welcome ParrotHead! I’m glad you found us! I hope to see you here more often. We’ve got a great little group here and I know you’ll fit in well.

But I do have a little problem. I always bring my fair share of nice rumors and news bits into this group, and most of them come from your site and associated e-mail group. So if you see something overly familiar, remember… Keep it under your hat!!! :crazy: )

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Again I agree with you!!! But I would include Test Track! To me it is a ride, not an attraction and certainy not a pavilion! Don’t get me wrong. A very nice ride. An exciting ride. But not up to the early EPCOT standards that opened the park.

I would actually tend to agree with you about Test Track - I've never really felt it was a good fit for Future World, and it certainly doesn't live up to its predecessor World of Motion (imho of course). The only reason I consider it a successful addition is because most of the guests to Epcot seem to really enjoy the ride - and besides, it's not like there's that much else to do in Future World these days.

[ParrotHead]

I seem to be in the minority, but I really enjoy Test Track. In terms of theme, I do believe it's out of place in Future World. In fact, I'm not really sure where it WOULD fit in thematically.

But I think it's an attraction, not a ride. It's a unique experience with a unique ride system. I'm not aware of any other ride in the world quite like Test Track. That uniqueness makes it an attraction, in my book (as compared with the plain old rides at DCA's Paradise Pier).

[Peter Pirate]

Just the silent majority...I think TT is great. It is educational & and exciting without being vomit inducing. Further, the whole "it doesn't fit" argument just seems tired. Parks change...They evolve with the time and there is no law that says an original theme, format or goal has to be strrictly adhered to or adhered to at all. In fact the only real goal should be guest satisfaction. FW sounded like a great idea and initially it was, but the cost of keeping ahead of the curve became unjustifiable and changes were bound to take place. Let's just hope something nice is done for The Living Seas and that Space is a success...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Parks change...They evolve with the time and there is no law that says an original theme, format or goal has to be strrictly adhered to or adhered to at all. In fact the only real goal should be guest satisfaction. FW sounded like a great idea and initially it was, but the cost of keeping ahead of the curve became unjustifiable and changes were bound to take place.

I do agree that Tomorrowlands and Future Worlds are mighty hard to keep up with.

But perhaps if the theme of Future World is changing, the name should, too...

[Peter Pirate]

Excellent point scoop! As an Ap holder I often forget that everyones perception IS NOT based on the same POV and this is very relevent...

As to the name change...In the immortal words of Timon, "what's in a name?"...But seriously the name FW & WS mean little to me, I have always just visited Epcot...But perhaps a more reflective monniker would be a good thing.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[space42]

Scoop & Pirate!

Yes, I agree 100%. That is exactly the "problem". Perhaps those that go more than once a year see it more than those that go once every few years.

Its just that EPCOT hasn't aged as well as MK IMHO (besides, they redid all of Tomorrowland in 1994.. ) Perhaps the type of changes done in Tomorrowland could be done with Future World. Going more for a retro/future look.

I suppose thats the price for making Future World.

[larworth]

I wonder if that is really the entire problem with Animal Kingdom - it's passive natureWe often talk about how DAK was designed to be a very different type park. Passive being the common experience adjective. Was this really the intent or an unintended byproduct of the theme? If BK had been built (per design) would DAK really have that different a mix of experiences than an MGM?

Quick comparison (MGM – DAK).

Motion based thrill rides (ToT, RnR, S Tours – Dino, Dragon Coaster, Kali, Whirl)
3D Movies (Muppets – TTBaB)
Broadway style stage shows (Beauty, Hunch – L King, Poco)
Action shows (Indy – Tarzan)
Ride and see (GMR, Canyon – Safari)
Close encounters (Animation, Sounds – Cons. Station, Flights)
Walk and see (Streets, Backlot tour – Jungle Treks)
Parade (Cars – Jungle)
Playground (HIS – Boneyard)
Kids (Mermaid, Bear – Unicorn, Spinner, Camp Mickey)
Win prizes (WWTBAM – Carney games)
Evening show (Fantasmic – xxx)
Other (??? – Tree of Life)

[Tik Tok]

but I'm still not totally convinced that the only problem Epcot has is one of perception. True, when we go often (and I do go about once a week :D ) we tend to see problems faster and get bored quicker, but that doesn't mean problems don't exist. And I think this excuse that a Future World is to hard or expensive to do is just a big cop out on Disney's part. The Future is just as exciting and stimulating as it always was - but it does cost money to keep fresh. Disney just needs to make the commitment to keeping the parks fresh and current - while staying within the existing theme of the park. (Or else just drop the Future World name already - but I really hope they don't go this route).


space42 said
The thing about EPCOT pre 1994 was that most of the attractions were in the 10-15 minute range.

I truely think that THIS is probably the thing that irritates us EPCOT lovers the most - the end of the "feature-length" attractions. 80's EPCOT was all about long, detailed attractions - and that was what I loved about EPCOT Center the most. And slowly, over the past 10 years, we have lost almost all of the "feature-length" attractions in favor of more thrilling short attractions. And while I've always felt (even in the 80's) that EPCOT needed a thrill ride or two, I wish they didn't have to come at the expense of Horizons and World of Motion. They could easily have added a roller coaster mountain or two to World Showcase, but that never happened. Instead, they haven't touched World Showcase since Norway opened, and they've gutted Future World instead. I just hope someone at Disney eventually realizes that only the Disney company can offer these special "feature-length" attractions, and they begin to build a few at their parks again soon.

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by larworth
Quick comparison (MGM – DAK).

This is actually a very interesting list, and something I had not thought about before, but you're right - if BK had been added, then they probably would have had a park with about the same attraction mix as MGM - except, don't forget, if BK had been built there would not have been a Camp Minnie-Mickey, so you would have to drop that stuff from the list. But you're right, the addition of Beastly Kingdom would definately have done a long way towards making AK more an experience like the other parks.

Now if they would only add that, and some C and D attractions that are sorely missing, then maybe AK would finally be worth that $50 to the average day-guest.

[Peter Pirate]

I don't dispute much of what you say with the exception of the expense of keping FW relavent. I don't see this as a cop-out at all, but rather a business decision. It could not be fiscally responsible to attempt to continually keep current in the times that we live. The idea of a realistic future world is a pipe dream that would require constant change and updating...How could a theme park budget this?

Next the change in direction of attraction from informative to exciting, long to short is a product of what was needed. World of Motion seldom had wait lines of 90 minutes but test Track does regularly. Also don't forget that Horizons had to go...The building wasn't good...

I also agree with scoop's analysis on what was being attempted despite the apparant similarities of the list...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[larworth]

There is clearly a difference.

I started thinking about this after Rohde's comment about DAK needing more kinetics. However, it seems that the passive label doesn't come from the types of activities people are offered (the mix is very similar) but the context in which they are executed. Just goes to show how important creating a mood is.

If we assume DAK needs to become more popular does this speak any to what type of project they should do next?


I tend to agree with Peter on the potential investment impracticality of keeping things relevant. EPCOT has less attendance and therefore less capital to reinvest than a MK. Now, sponsor contributions do impact on the equation. Guess I'd want to see the relative income statements before I said it could not be done, versus they chose not to do it.

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Next the change in direction of attraction from informative to exciting, long to short is a product of what was needed. World of Motion seldom had wait lines of 90 minutes but test Track does regularly. Also don't forget that Horizons had to go...The building wasn't good...


I'll grant you that these attractions never had long lines towards the end, but I'm still not certain that ripping them out totally and building thrill rides is the answer to all of Epcot's problems. Let's take Test Track for example - sure, it has 90 minute waits, but that's probably more a factor of it a)being the newest ride in the park, b)being the only "thrill" ride in the park, c)FastPass making the Standby Line longer, and d)low capacity. Let's not forget that attractions like Horizons, JII, WoM and Spaceship Earth had (and have) amazing capacity, so they can move a lot of people through there faster.

So sure, thrill rides always have longer lines, but are they really what's bringing all the people to the Disney parks -- I would think no. Sure, there should be one or two in each park (and for Epcot I think WS would be a better place for them), but I think what makes Disney truely Disney is it's fully immersive Audio-Animatronic spectaculars. They're just something we've all come to associate with Disney - and only Disney can do them well. I'm just sorry to see that Disney is to cheap to even attempt to build them anymore.


As for keeping Epcot relevant, I really don't think it would have been as expensive as you all claim. Think about it - was Horizons really that out of date? Sure, it represented more of an 80's vision of the future, but almost none of those things represented in that attraction have come to pass yet -- it's still all in the Future. I would wager that a simple cosmetic makeover, some new AA's and a new ending could have revitalized that ride and made it "current", and I think this could have been done with JII and WoM as well -- they did not need to be ripped out.

Also don't forget that Horizons had to go...The building wasn't good...

For some reason I have trouble believing this, and tend to think it was just an internet rumor, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

[Bob O]

I think part of the problem at Epcot is they havent added any new lands. Their are alot of rumors over the years but none were acted upon! And in the countries they have, they have the same films and havent done nothing to update them. I think TT was a big improvement over the World of Motion and hopefully Mission Space will be abig improvement. But without a additon of alot of money it will be hard to update Future World. Thats why i feel that before they added Ak they should have done work that weas needed in all of the parks, fixe some holes before building new, or if they were going to build Ak it should have been completed from day one and not where they give the guest a little with the promise of more to come.
Horzions was dated and people voted with their feet so the attraction had no waits and was a walk on, same with world of motion and now the same with the ocean pavilion(forgot the name/brain fart). JIYI they changed for the worse and took away space so they could sell more!

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by Bob O
Thats why i feel that before they added Ak they should have done work that weas needed in all of the parks, fixe some holes before building new, or if they were going to build Ak it should have been completed from day one and not where they give the guest a little with the promise of more to come.

I completely agree with this, but I think all the suits think is "new theme park == more nights for people to stay at our hotels == more money", and they did just as little as they could to get people to come. This is the new Disney "give the guest as little as possible and still make the most money possible" as opposed to the old Disney "give the guest the best experience possible, and they will spend their money". Sad, isn't it.

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Well, I think sometimes, those of us who go every year (or every month) prematurely find staleness in the parks. I'd guess most guests go probably once every 7 or 8 years (maybe a little more, maybe a little less). So, if you're only doing two trips a decade, alot of the "staleness" perceived by regulars may well still be "newness" to the more typical guest.

That's absolutely true.

But Disney is busting its butt trying to convince folks to come back more often than two trips a decade--or at least the heavy effort put forth by their marketing machine would seem to indicate this. Every year they have a "special" event going on. So many of them, in fact, that they're not really so special any more. But the point is that they're continually working hard to put out the message that there are new things to do at Walt Disney World.

As for the staleness of Epcot... Well, I wasn't really putting forth my own opinion on it. I was just commenting on what the Disney suits said in the memo I read, and their comments were based on guest surveys (although I certainly don't think the surveys are flawless). Epcot's attendance was dismal (the worst of the 4 parks), and their solution was to freshen things up and add new rides.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by ParrotHead
Epcot's attendance was dismal (the worst of the 4 parks), and their solution was to freshen things up and add new rides.

Where does this come from? I have a hard time believing Epcot had worse attendance than AK...the last numbers I saw showed AK with the least of the 4 parks...you may be referring to the largest decrease in attendance by percentage, but remember that was after compared to the Millenium celebration numbers which inflated Epcot's attendance so the next year was bound to sink...and EPCOT is getting old--I think the really interesting thing is that just a few years into AK the numbers were declining-for a new park!...talk about people voting with their feet-they realized Disney was offering less and are staying away (we have not been back and don't plan to unless we find some extra time-AK is a nice zoo/animal park-not a destination to us).

As for WoM and Horizons, I loved Horizons, loved the retro/future thing, the huge IMAX screen part of the ride (before the days of Back to the Future Ride at USF), but what I remember about a trip in 1989 when MGM was new was feeling WAY over Audio-Animatronic'ed by the end of the trip... It was all too much of the same thing- from POC, HM, COP, WoM,SE, JII, H, American Adventure, HoP, etc, etc.- they need a mix -TT is a good idea but executed suboptimally (no wonder GM is the sponsor)...

The real problem is philosophy- Disney has become preoccupied with making money-I think they should make money- but true success stories in business don't come by making the bottom line the goal--concentrating energy on the bottom line will not increase it for long...make your product better, the bottom line will follow...simple, but proven true time and again...

Paul

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by PKS44
Where does this come from? I have a hard time believing Epcot had worse attendance than AK...the last numbers I saw showed AK with the least of the 4 parks...you may be referring to the largest decrease in attendance by percentage...

I got it from very reliable sources.

You're correct--I'm not talking about raw attendance numbers. I'm talking about percentage decreases, and attendance vs. operating expenses. Epcot was, I was told, "hemorrhaging money."

[JeffJewell]

...just a few years into AK the numbers were declining-for a new park! ...this is not technically correct. It's even a bit worse than you make it sound.

The truth is, if you correct for 1998's numbers representing only three-quarters of a year (AK opened in April), AK's attendance numbers have declined every year since the park opened.

Jeff

[PKS44]

Originally posted by ParrotHead
Epcot was, I was told, "hemorrhaging money."

Interesting turn of a phrase. That is the way a colleague described how he felt he was doing on his last trip to WDW. I know what he meant, I don't know what Disney is measuring or talking about with such a statement. Epcot is not drawing like it did in 2000. Still they only run half the park for a full day and they keep people on property to spend some time there...I doubt it is a loser like you imply. They are probably not making as much as they used to and that gets interpreted as losing. Epcot needs to change, but the fix will not come from cutting costs and expenses there.

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Based upon the ages of the parks and attractions, every park is going to have some attractions which could use an update/rehab/redo every year. The massive number of combined attractions between Epcot, MK, and MGM will ensure this.

But that's just the problem - I think Disney has spread themselves to thin at WDW. They've added so many theme parks, hotels, water parks, etc that they don't seem to be able to mantain the quality and still make as much profit as the company requires.

I really don't know what the fix to all this is, but I often wonder if they should have waited another 10 years or so before adding Animal Kingdom. I just don't think there was enough demand for a 4th theme park in Florida to justify the expense of the expansion - and I think Disney's realizing this too -- hence the cheap carnival rides and lack of general maintanence at all the parks.

[Bob O]

AK was built intentionally as a half day park in a very crass way to make money and try to add more nights at their hotels!!! They hyped it as some great park that would showcase all animals that are here and never were, but of course what they built never met the hype!! They would perfer to have 4 parks with gaping holes rather than 3 complete parks and believe because of past good will built up by prior people mangers that we will buy what ever they sell. Their was no need for a 4th gate until they fixed the other parks but that isnt a priority. Why else would theSub ride at MK be empty for as long as it is!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop says:As I've posted before, I'm a big proponent of redos/updates/etc. However, improvement cannot be done within a vacuum without development.But my new best friend Tic Toc says:but I often wonder if they should have waited another 10 years or so before adding Animal Kingdom.And that is the fundamental difference in philosophies!!

Let’s dive in a bit further. Scoop also says: If Disney waited until everything had been rehabbed to build a new park, then the new park would never be more than concept art.What makes you think it should have developed beyond that point regardless of the ‘rehab’ program (if one even exists!!). In other words I think you’re mixing up his points. His point (I think, and if not it’s my point) is that central Florida and WDW in particular was not ready for another theme park at this time. If we accept that premise (and the numbers seem to back it up somewhat) then some (and the operant word is some) of the money that brought us AK could have been BETTER spent within the three existing parks!!

I’ll agree with you that the building of a new park should not be predicated on the ‘rehab’ or maintenance of the others. But it is the continuation of your thought process afterwards that I don’t follow. So I guess I need a little clarification (knowing that I may have to wait until after the big meet that I can’t attend!!!:(). In your opinion, time wise, should AK have been built? If you agree with the wise Tic Toc and myself that it should NOT have been (at least the timing of it), then we can move forward to other great topics. If you disagree, then the next question is: Should it have been built the way it was? Or Bigger? Or perhaps smaller? Give us the Scoop scale of things. AK was built intentionally as a half day park in a very crass way to make money and try to add more nights at their hotels!!!There’s that Bob O again!!! Hitting the nail squarely on the head!!!

[HB2K]

Personally I'm of the opinion that DAK should have been built, but it's purpose should be better defined. There's nothing wrong with being a zoo. If Disney had no plans on expanding past Asia the park's main mission should be to provide a zoo (albeit a Disneyfied one).

Then noone is let down, there's no need for a round of advertising is "Am not, are too, am not".

Instead of telling your customer's they're wrong, why not fix the problem which gave the preception that the park is little more than a zoo?

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by Bob O
Why else would theSub ride at MK be empty for as long as it is!!!

I think the answer to this, and why also Carousel of Progress and Timekeeper sit closed as well, is because Disney managment feels that MK already has enough for guests to do without those rides, and I think they are trying to see just how little they can do to keep people coming back to the MK. It's almost as if they have a magic number in their heads of exactly how many rides they feel a park needs (and can support and continue to make big, big profits), and I have a feeling they will scale the parks until they all hit this magic number. You can see this philosophy at work at Epcot -- they don't add anything new without first closing something else. And now that philosophy seems to have spread to the Magic Kingdom.

And when you think about it, it's true that the MK had almost twice the amount of things to do than the other parks at WDW - which I think is a good thing, and one of the reasons why that park is so popular. But I just don't think managment sees it that way. They tend to look at attractions as money-eaters, and restaurants and shops as money-makers -- so they want less attractions, and more shops for you to spend your money. They just seem to forget that people come to the parks for the rides, and only eat and shop because they are enjoying the attractions so much. I just wish managment would get this through their thick skulls and start spending the money on big new attractions again without shutting down what's already there.

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by HB2K
If Disney had no plans on expanding past Asia the park's main mission should be to provide a zoo (albeit a Disneyfied one).

If Disney was going to promote Animal Kingdom as a zoo, then they would need to charge admission accordingly. I've never heard of a zoo that costs $50 a day.

But I think that's really a moot point, as I feel that AK is already so much more than an ordinary zoo. While I don't feel it lives up to MK or Epcot, it still has far more than any zoo I've ever been to.

You're right though, I think they are having an identity crisis - hence the Nathazu commercials - but I think that comes from having to few attractions to sell to the public. If they had a few more Disney-style rides to advertise then I think they would have less problems with people think Animal Kingdom is only a glorified zoo.

[HB2K]

If Disney was going to promote Animal Kingdom as a zoo, then they would need to charge admission accordingly. I've never heard of a zoo that costs $50 a day.
Agreed. What I was alluding to was something Chad referred to....another "specialty" location...not an actual theme park. Think of a gate similarly priced to PI or BB.

DAK is a zoo with polish. If they added more themed areas, and used the Animals as an "added attraction" instead of the crutch the park wouldn't suffer from the "Nahtazu" stigma it does.

Six Flags in NJ has a drive through safari....but it doesn't suffer the "Nahtazu" stigma?

What's the difference? There are other attractions at the park, which allows people to avoid dwelling on the animals. At Animal Kingdom, there's nothing other than the Animals to think about when reminicing about the park. Everything else is run of the mill, or it takes a back seat to the Animals (other than ITTBAB possibly....)

[Bob O]

I dont think they should have built AK until they were ready to do it right!!! That they had the proper amount of money set up and built it as a complete park from day one, rather than what they are doing now by adding things slowly so that in another decade it may be a complete park. To me if you shouldnt do things hafl a**ed, if you arent going to do it right from the get go, dont do it. Dont give us initial sketches with BK and make it a big part of the pre-opening prestsentation and start to hype the park with images of Unicorns etc, then dont put it in. Hopefully they have learned from the mistakes at AK/DCA and from the success of TDS and wont do this again. In the disney show on the travel channel they talked of land being available for more theme parks, i just hope when it happens they finally do it right!!!

[PKS44]

Originally posted by thedscoop
AK's target was SW (and to a much lesser degree Cypress Gardens). Disney wants that market segment.

Almost right...AK was built to compete with A-B's Sea World and Tampa's Busch Garden's - also if you look at these two "animal themed parks" what rides do you see? Thrill rides! Kracken and Atlantis at SW and tons of coasters in Tampa...Disney is doing everything half-**ed these days because they are TOO focused on the bottom line instead of on their product...You can't be everything to everyone...too much towards thrill rides and you will alienate the Disney base (families with young kids -example DCA failure)-not enough thrill rides though and you risk losing a large segment of the market (the Echo Boom kids are no longer attracted to Fantasyland style attractions and they drive the market) You have to go after them somehow...As a zoo, AK is overpriced and incomplere, as a theme park it is overpriced and underdeveloped and as such, as a destination and a development it is a disappointment. The people have voted with their feet and as a previous poster said, stop trying to tell people they are wrong- the market has spoken- Disney is wrong.