Early Entry [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

raidermatt

06-12-2002, 07:45 PM

The excuse they gave for doing away with it was that guests indicated that they did not make use of it and would rather have something that gave them "more opportunities for character interaction."

Not true. The statement said something like "Not many guests used EE, and many guests wanted more character interaction."

According to this statement, guests did not indicate they didn't use EE, they didn't use it. (after all, Disney only need to check the turnstiles to see how many used EE.) It also does not say that guests said they prefer character interaction to EE. It was merely a way to present a takeaway with an addition.

Rich, your scenario is certainly a possibility, but only if Disney finds that it needs to add a perk to these resorts in order to get the prices they charge. Or, if they feel they can raise prices even more by adding this perk. However, my guess is that this won't happen because the cost to operate the parks during EE is substantial, and if Disney really though they could get more money for rooms by having EE, they wouldn't have gotten rid of it in the first place.

I can see it being used in a "Surprise Morning" format for busy days, as it was for 6/1, but the frequency would probably be very limited.

A more likely feature to be added to deluxe rooms and/or packages would be some sort of "extra" FastPass program. Much lower cost, but clearly a big benefit for theme park visitors. (IMHO)

Bob O

06-12-2002, 08:08 PM

Disney's pr statement about getting rid of EE was just pure BS!!!!!! They did it only to save money with no concern to the guests of their hotels. They produced the CC as a cheap alternative for pr purposes. They took away aot and give little which is disney's new motto!!
And the last things disney needs is a 5th park when they have gaping holes in their current parks, one of which is a half day park!!!

raidermatt

06-12-2002, 08:28 PM

There is no 1/2 day park in WDW. There maybe a park whose attractions do not appeal to a broad enough audience, but that is not the same thing.

Bob O

06-12-2002, 08:36 PM

When you can complete a park in half a day it is a half day park !!!

raidermatt

06-12-2002, 09:05 PM

When you can complete a park in half a day it is a half day park !!!

Nobody can COMPLETE AK in a 1/2 day (5-6 hours) if they experience the attractions as they were intended. This includes three attractions that were not meant to be simply breezed through:

Pangani Trail
Maharajah Trek
Wildlife Express/Conservation Station

Besides these, there are 5 rides, 5 shows, a parade, and various other areas that were meant to be explored, like the Oasis and Tree of Life. There's also the "kiddie" areas (Boneyard, Camp M/M, and Affection Station). There's also live entertainment.

Now, perhaps these things do not all appeal to you, but again, that is a different issue.

DisneyKidds

06-12-2002, 09:37 PM

I agree with the Raiders fan (oh, what will you do without Gruden :().

While not all of the attractions in the AK appeal to all people, if you see the majority of the rides, attractions and shows in the AK there is no way you can do it justice in a half day.

Mr. O - would you consider MGM a half day park? We spend less time there than in the AK. I'm sure others spend less time in Epcot. Is that a half day park?

To each his/her own, but there are no half day parks at WDW.

Another Voice

06-12-2002, 10:26 PM

But I measure the value of my ticket against the things I want to do, not against what other’s tell me I’m supposed to be interested in. If something doesn’t appeal to me – why should I think I’m getting good value for my money just because it’s there? If I feel like AK only has enough interesting things for a three hour visit – THEN IT’S A HALF-DAY PARK FOR ME. What others might think is not relevant.

The problem with AK is that many more people think it’s a half day park than think it’s a full park. When it comes to entertainment, opinion is fact.

BigTigger

06-12-2002, 10:34 PM

An interesting side note ... we were at Disney last October when the post 9/11 cutbacks hit hard. Disney had survey takers outside the parks each night as we were leaving asking targeted questions on hours, attractions, etc.

One question they asked outside MK one day that really made me think was whether an "early open pass" would be an item we'd pay extra for (like the night-time e-ticket for MK is extra). My guess is Disney is looking at a lot of pay-to-play options to allow some a la carte park visits.

PKS44

06-12-2002, 10:40 PM

With AK attendance dropping every year since it opened, apparently there are people (like our family) who find it not a half-day but a no-day park...not that we did not enjoy some of it, but the pay-off for going was too small to make the effort, we will spend our $50/day park time in places with a lot more appeal than our local zoo. (which is free)

DisneyKidds

06-12-2002, 10:48 PM

Good point AV, and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do or enjoy.

If I feel like AK only has enough interesting things for a three hour visit – THEN IT’S A HALF-DAY PARK FOR ME.

This is a fair presentation, and if others don't agree with you it is irrelevant, you are correct.

And the last things disney needs is a 5th park when they have gaping holes in their current parks, one of which is a half day park!!!

Mr. O seems to be making a stronger general statement that isn't necessarily based on his likes or dislikes.

The problem with AK is that many more people think it’s a half day park than think it’s a full park.

Not so sure I agree with this. Do I smell a poll? BTW, what exactly can you get done in 3 hours in the AK? Can't be all that much - and that is fine if it is what makes you happy. However, there are at least several worthwhile shows and several worthwhile rides which probably can't be done in 3 hours. On top of that there is a plethora of animals if you are into them, a parade that is a good or better than the MGM and Epcot offerings - quite a lot to keep many people busy for more than half a day, especially if you have kids.

Going on individual perceived value, for us Epcot and MGM are half day parks, but I wouldn't make disparaging remarks about either.

kenjean

06-13-2002, 07:20 AM

a parade that is a good or better than the MGM and Epcot offerings - quite a lot to keep many people busy for more than half a day, especially if you have kids.

I have an interesting reply to this. I have two daughters, ages 5 and 1.75. We live 2 hours away from WDW. On our last 3 trips, we have never left EPCOT. I have read posts in this thread that people now consider EPCOT a half day park. We do not agree, and neither do our kids.

I'll give a for example. The food rocks show in the land. One of those small, hidden away attractions. But it is done with wit and charm, and my daughters love it. We have to see it two times a trip. I like it too. The Peach Boys, Pita Gabriel, The Refrigerator Police, all singing about good nutrition. All the songs were re-recorded by the original artists (I think). Very well done with imagination.

This is what I think AK is missing. The little out-of-the way experiences that a lot of time, effort, and imagination was spent on. Stumbling onto a memorable experience while exploring the park. The first time I went to Tomorrowland I went to ride Space Mountain, but fell in love with Timekeeper and COP.

I don't see this as much in the studios, and it is practically non-existent in AK. I remember when AK first opened Joe Rhode (sp) was on some TV show saying how there was a "secret" passage somewhere in Africa. A poor attempt to capture the spirit of adventure in MK and EPCOT.

I agree with AV and others that say Disney has just gotten too cheap and lazy.

DisneyKidds

06-13-2002, 08:20 AM

Ahhh, but kenjean you hit the nail on the head - and I was hoping someone would have your exact response to my post. Epcot is no more a half day park than AK. You make very good points about Epcot that I can't disagree with. Our 3 yo DD loved Food Rocks as well. I can make equally good points about AK. I believe it is wrong for anyone to say that any of the parks are half day parks. If you take the time to really enjoy what each has to offer they will take a lot of time to tour. In reality, putting taste, likes, dislikes, etc. aside and if you experience everything, I would say that AK and MGM are 1 and a half day parks, Epcot a 2 day park, and the MK 2 and a half, all minimums.

I have read posts in this thread that people now consider EPCOT a half day park. We do not agree, and neither do our kids.

There is an important distinction in my statement about Epcot being a half day park that you have to note. Just as AV would consider AK a half day FOR HIM, I might consider Epcot a half day FOR US, and as you point out in your post, "WE" do not agree. It is all personal and it is unfair and misleading for someone to let their personal tastes lead them to make a general statement about a park - as I think you are trying to point out.

As for points about the AK, well - sometime you should go and really spend the time to look around. I would submit that there is more attention to detail in the AK than in either MGM or Epcot. The problem is that not many people slow down to realize it. People read things like 'AK is a half day park', they get there, rush from ride to ride, hit a show, get hot and annoyed by a crowded walkway, and leave - never taking the time to enjoy all the little out of the way experiences that are right under their noses. Granted, AK might not be for everyone, especially if you don't have kids, but it has a ton to offer.

The little out-of-the way experiences that a lot of time, effort, and imagination was spent on. Stumbling onto a memorable experience while exploring the park.

I don't see this as much in the studios, and it is practically non-existent in AK.

Ever go down into the seating area behind the Flame Tree BBQ. Sit in the pavillion overlooking the lake, feel the breeze, hear the birds, sit by the pond watching the ducks, RELAX (who ever takes the time to do that at AK?). While you are down there, look at the architecture of the pavillions, the animal carvings and theming. Take the time to really notice the theming throughout the entire park. If you take the time to appreciate it, it is incredible. Next, consider the attention to detail in the plantings, millions of dollars of plantings indiginous to the lands. Who takes the time to even realize these, much less appreciate them. All of the buildings throughout the AK have great architectural details. How many people walk right past the monkey island in Asia as they run to Kali River Rapids. Don't get me going on the walking trails - how many people give these the time? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have that at my zoo. Well, no you don't. Disney still just does things better. Drums in Africa, bells in Asia, plenty of other little things I don't have the time to go on about. The Tree of Life - how often do people really spend the time to walk around it up close and explore and search instead of just glancing as you walk by. All around the Tree of Life there are more interesting things to see. The awakening, how many people even know what this is? The walkways that everyone compains about being too crowded - ever consider that maybe they were designed that way on purpose. Do they have wide boulevards that don't get crowded in Africa and Asia? Have you realized yet that I haven't even mentioned a show, ride or land yet. Just appreciating the AK could take a half a day. I could go on, but I won't.

Now, I'm not trying to win converts to the AK. On the contrary, stay away - it gives us a less crowded park. However, if you really give it a chance, AK can and will impress you.

Bstanley

06-13-2002, 09:14 AM

It appears that the DIS community has discovered a new corollary to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (the more you know about an electron's position the less you know about it's velocity and vvs).

In effect Heisenberg's principle says: It is the observer as much as the observed that reveals Reality.

AK to me (and my family) is a gem, a wonderful example of true Disney Magic. It has detail beyond description (far beyond EPCOT and The Studios as has already been observed), marvelous shows, great opportunites to get up close and personal with the animals, fantastic CMs you can actually interact with (instead of them just loading you into some nifty mechanical gizmo), and oh yeah a number of fine attractions :-)

It is a wonderful complement to the other parks - and that's the key - Why would Disney need to build another MK? Or another EPCOT, etc? Would it be nice to add an Indy type ride? Yeah it would, and I imagine that there are plans to expand. But frankly - if Disney does try to turn AK into something else by adding some grotesque giant roller-coaster I might have to leave Car #1...

P.S. I'll predict 8,000,000 people will visit AK this year. That's a whole lotta people voting with their wallets.

All Aboard

06-13-2002, 09:48 AM

One thing is for sure about the Rumors and News board. Don't open a thread expecting to read anything about the title post. That's sure to die very early.

AK-The-Half-Day park again, eh? What bothers me most about this topic when it pops up is that AK defenders (hasn't really happened in this thread --yet--) often tell the half-dayers "you just don't get AK, so I wouldn't expect you to stay there any longer than a half day."

In order to "get" AK and stay there for much over a half day, you must embrace AK as a zoo. Despite WDW's efforts to get you to believe it's naht. The elements that keep you there more than a half day (the one's listed specifically by raidermatt) are, in fact, the zoo elements. Very well pulled off zoo elements, but zoo elements nonetheless. Seems folks don't go to WDW to go to the zoo.

The most darning evidence in favor of the public's opinion that it was a half day park was the crowd flow in the first couple of years. When the park was regularly open from 8-6, by 3pm AK was nearly completely empty most times of the year. AP discounts on dining have been few in the past several years. Yet, the "after 4pm" discount at Flame Tree, Pizzafari & Tusker pressed on as an effort to keep folks in the park longer.

Unfortunately for us (actually, unfortunately for Disney), AK has taken on a been-there-done-that stigma. It has fallen off the three-day weekend lineup. In the past, it was our last-day park. Even then, we were finished with what we wanted to do before we really had planned to get in the car and head home. In the last year, our last-day has been stolen by the folks up the street at Universal.

daannzzz

06-13-2002, 09:53 AM

"""Ever go down into the seating area behind the Flame Tree BBQ. Sit in the pavillion overlooking the lake, feel the breeze, hear the birds, sit by the pond watching the ducks, RELAX (who ever takes the time to do that at AK?). """
This is my favorite spot in any Disney Park. Don't forget the soothing music that is piped in here too,
This alone takes up an hour of my day at the AK as I am continously drawn back to this spot...with Coke in hand I must admit.
When i first went to WDW in 96 I had read the Unofficial Guid by Bob Sehlinger who said you could do Disney MGM Studios in 3/4 of a day. I found the Studios to be my least favorite park ( won;t go into that here) but if we had tried to see everything of substance it would have taken a day and a half. I alwasy do at least a day and 3/4 at Epcot and can spend a full day at the AK.

All Aboard

06-13-2002, 10:27 AM

Ever go down into the seating area behind the Flame Tree BBQ. Sit in the pavillion overlooking the lake, feel the breeze, hear the birds, sit by the pond watching the ducks, RELAX (who ever takes the time to do that at AK?). Truly wonderul, agreed. BUT, that's not what the vast majority of WDW travellers want to do with their trips. That's not what they want to do with their $250 park hoppers. And certainly not what they want to drop $50 for a one day pass to do.

8 million would be the first uptick for AK since inception. I just don't think Disney invested that much capital to draw 8 million guests. AV likely has a better scoop, but I seem to recall WDW hoping to grow from 10 million at the start.

Kuzco

06-13-2002, 10:45 AM

While I have never spent a full day of my WDW vacation at DAK, I do believe that you could spend open to close at the park and be able to get an entire day's worth of fun out of your admission.

But once again, it all depends on what each person likes and dislikes as far as theme parks go. Not everything at DAK is for me, so I do not spend a full day there. If I only had one day to spend at WDW, I definitely would not chose DAK.

So my input is that DAK can be a full day park, but for a lot of people it isn't. Not too helpful, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents as well :)

DisDuck

06-13-2002, 10:48 AM

Ok first to BobO.. this is getting to be a bit redundent. If AK is 5-6 hour park to you that that makes it a half-day park then IOA which is a 5-6 hour park for me makes that a half-day park. See the theme here.. subjectivity.

My family finds AK to be the kind of quiet, beautifully done (& look at) counterpoint to the hustle & bustle of the other 3 parks. We don't rush thru the trails. We don't rush from one area to another (unless running late for a show).

gcurling.. yes the elements mentioned are more zoo like than theme park like but having now been to San Diego Zoo & Wild Animal Kingdom, San Diego.. AK beats those 'zoo's hands-down. No contest. As I walked from one animal/land area to another in San Diego there was no themeing, no characters, no CM's interacting with the guests. No parades, no landscaping. It was Just a Very Nice Zoo where the majority of the animals are in the open instead of behind bars. AK is more than a 'zoo'. It is an immersive experience if one cares to become involved.

Back to thread.. My losing that 1 hour at AK (& I have been there when opened at 8am) will not kill my enjoyment. Nor will it make me rush around. It is known as pacing. This trip I plan to go back to Conservation Station and yet still do everything because of pacing and planning.

daannzzz

06-13-2002, 10:52 AM

"""Maybe that is it's biggest problem. People want to DO more than OBSERVE""

I think that the people on this board are a bit different in our Love of Disne as opposed to everyday patrons. A huge majority of the people that go to Disney parks go for the "rides" and enjoy the small touches (sometimes) that they come upon without knowing that they are enjoying it.
I will admit that for people who want to do Disney rides, and then move on to do more rides, the AK is a disappointment. Disney needs to be able to fit themselves inbetween these two groups and has done really well in the past. I think they are starting to loose that focus though.

klwally

06-13-2002, 10:52 AM

If you do any park in 1/2 day or even 3/4 a day and never return, you really have missed out on a lot. There are tons of hidden treasures in each park. Because I have young kids, we never spend a full day anywhere, we will do 1/2 somewhere, do a short hotel rest, and then spend 1/2 at another park. But we usually are there for at least 8 days. Since 1997 we've gone 1-2 a year and I STILL find things to do in the parks I've NEVER done before, or never seen. It's so fun to find these new things to do and to see :)

My big complaint about AK - is that it seems that no matter the temperature outside, it feels 95 degrees there all the time. I swear they pump heat in! And the walkways are so narrow and there is no way for the airflow to get around, that it often feels over crowded when it's not.

DisneyKidds

06-13-2002, 10:52 AM

Greg - I would bet you dollars to donuts that some of the folks who claim AK to be a half day park have their favorite place to just sit in the MK and take in all the wonderful sights and sounds, and the general Magical assault on all of their senses.

The people who go to WDW once every five years may not be looking for this. However, I bet all the folks who go once a year or more actually seek it out and are more than happy to plunk their $50 down for it - and it really isn't $50 because many have AP's anyway.

Which group do you think WDW really wants to market to and attract the most? They want WDW to become part of people's families. A place to create and relive memories, to be a tradition passed down from one generation to another. That is a hugh part of the Magic they are still successful with, IMHO.

Bstanley

06-13-2002, 11:08 AM

Just FYI to all - Amusement Business Magazine believes AK had over 8 million visitors in 1999 and 2000.

And frankly if Disney isn't able to make a profit on a park that has 8 million folks a year wandering through the gates then they might as well get into a whole other line of work...

Another Voice

06-13-2002, 12:08 PM

Aye, there’s the rub – if you provide mass entertainment you kind of have to provide entertainment for the masses.

For my perspective, the problem with Animal Kingdom isn’t that there isn’t enough to do or that the guests are too frantic to stop and smell the flowers – it’s a problem with unmet expectations.

Most people go to WDW expecting to see theme parks. You know, rides, attractions, snack foods, screaming children in long lines. These people are not expecting to spend their days sitting on the back porch of a restaurant looking at the water (without boats) or studying the fiberglass animal shapes stapled to the souvenirs shop’s roof. These people expect entertainment, thrills and activities they can’t do at home. Animal Kingdom does not deliver enough of these kinds of activities for the majority of this group.

On the other hand, there are the people going to expect to see animals. I count myself in this group – I enjoy the San Diego Zoo because I go for the animals, not for themeing, not for cast member interaction, and certainly not to watch some sweaty kid run around dressed up like a cartoon panda. I want to see the animals; I want to learn about the animals, I want to be among the animals.

And I expected to see animals at Animal Kingdom. But my actual experience was “there’s an anteater in a cage beside the walkway – this must be the safari ride – there’s a hippopotamus – ‘Do You See BIG RED in the Aeroplane!!!????’ – stop the bus and let’s look at the animals – ‘The Poachers Have Found BIG RED!!!!!!!!!!’ – stop talking about a fake elephant, there’s a real one right there. Tell me about her – ‘We’re leaving the game preserve to SAVE BIG RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’ – Wait, what happened to the animals, why are we driving so fast? – ‘We’ve saved LITTLE RED!!!!! Remember that poaching is BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’ - That’s it?

Yes, there are some nice bits in places like the old Gorilla Falls trail, but there is nothing really different from what most modern zoos have. But the most damning part is that there is absolutely nothing in all of Animal Kingdom that even comes close to what the Monterey Bay Aquarium has achieved. No ride will ever match the complete awe that MBA achieved with the Mid Ocean exhibit; no prancing character musical show will ever come close to the utter alien beauty of the column of floating, irradiance jelly fish.

Why could not Disney have at least equaled that? It would have been so easy for them, and so much more rewarding for everyone from the guests to the accountants. For me, my expectation of seeing the wonder of the natural world is not fulfilled – and this place holds less than a half-day’s interest for me.

No matter how many relaxing moments the place might offer.

All Aboard

06-13-2002, 01:06 PM

It is an immersive experience if one cares to become involved.But isn't that putting a requirement on the guest? A requirement to enjoy it a certain way?

Just FYI to all - Amusement Business Magazine believes AK had over 8 million visitors in 1999 and 2000.Yes, and 1999 was a bigger year than 2000. And, last year it dipped to 7.7 million. My point was that that number needed to be on a steady INcline. Plus, I'm pretty sure the 99 and 00 numbers were WAY below Disney's initial projections.

I'd bet many of the repeat visitors (like Betsy and I) return for the "overlooked attractions" as much as re-riding the same rides.Perhaps, but don't you just get one chance to make a first impression? I could be way off, but I'd bet that doesn't synch up with the opinion of the majority of folks that experience AK for the first time. "Next time let's enjoy the hidden stuff more" is probably only uttered by a select few. Other than me, we are a fairly sophisticated bunch here (no, I'm really NOT laughing as I type).

I think if I lived in Central Florida I'd spend much more time at AK (not just total time, but as a proportion of all time spent at WDW - or theme parks in general.) I think part of the problem for me is that my trips are relatively short (2-3 days) AK just gets lost in the shuffle. We've got Metrozoo, Parrot Jungle and Fairchild Tropical Gardens in Miami - and annual passes to all three. Even on our 9 day stays each January, AK gets a half a day from us - that's it.

AV, I wish that there were certain safari vehicles that would do the loop without the audio, and more slowly.

Bob O

06-13-2002, 01:06 PM

The people who go to Ak say with their feet it is a half day park!!! iF it wasnt a half day park it wouldnt be as empty as it is in the late afternoon. If their was enough to do their to warrant a full day then people would be their a full day. When i go in early dec and their is no lines and you get their when the park opens you can do most attractions easily in 3 hours!!! And a ride like Dinosaur several times included.
Adding thrill coasters doesnt have to mean alot of noise. They can be placed indoors or like at SW they can fill the tubing with sand to reduce the noise which is done on Kraken.
DisDuck when i have been to IOA it wasnt any where near as empty as Ak has been in the late afternoon/early evening, people were in the park going to attractions which werent all walk ons which has been the case at AK. And obviuosly even disney was/is aware its not a full day park as they feel the need to add addtractions(even if they are cheap carny knock off's).
Now i havent been to San Diego Zoo but will this dec. hopefully, but from zoo's i have been too like Colombus Zoo as a example or Brookfield Zoo there zoo's were far superior in terms of variety of animals and explaining animal lifetsyles/habits etc. Disney should have made Ak a full zoo or a theme park but how it is now it fails in both. Since when are serious zoo's suppossed to have people in costumes walking around??? Isnt the purpose of a zoo to see the animals and have a GREAT variety of them??

Bob O

06-13-2002, 01:31 PM

Now even though my posts surely dont indicate it i like Ak alot and they have one of my favorite attractions KS. But from what i heard about AK prior to its opening was that BK was a main part of the park, the animals that are and never were( i know i goofed that up ). And thats what has me upset with the park, and the fact it was opened intentionally not completed to make money without customer concern.
They should have opened the park fully from day one and not scam their guests with the promise of more later, and then when later comes do we get BK NO!!! We get cheap carny games and rides!!
The only comments about the zoo aspect was becasue some posted that AK is better than zoo's(San Diege ZOO). And from being one who always goes to a zoo when i visit a city Ak doesnt have anywhere near the variety of animals to compete with major city zoo's IMHO.
In 3 hourse we easily at least did KS, rode Dinsoaur, did ITTBAB, Lion King Show,Panagani Trail. We have gone twice in Dec and have never had to wait for any rides/shows at all.

DVC-Landbaron

06-13-2002, 01:51 PM

The problem seems to be that AK doesn't fit nicely into ANY category. Yes, part zoo but yes again part shows but yes again part ride. You’re half way there Mr. Scoop! But you don’t go far enough. Just for argument’s sake strip away the ‘shows and rides. (Please bear with me for second) Now, what do you think of the zoo? Hmmm. Not much of a zoo, is it? Ok put in the rides and strip away the zoo. What have you got? Again, not much in the ride category, is there? And finally, put in the shows and strip away the rides. I think you see where I’m going. And I’ll even go one better. I’ll throw the rides and shows in together as a package deal. We’ll call it ‘theme park aspects’. OK? Without the ‘zoo’ element, there still isn’t much to it. Especially if you’re like me and don’t particularly like the live shows! No zoo in the world offers a show like Lion King or adventure rides (even if you hate the rides no zoo has them like this). No zoo has such a detailed interactive theater. Right!! I agree!! But haven’t we already said it isn’t much of zoo in the first place? No zoo has alot of what AK has except for the animals.A commodity that AK seems to be in short supply. I mean if you consider it a zoo, that is.

You see, that’s my point in the first place. They took a zoo concept, pared it down to below the bare minimum and added some rides and shows and called it not-a-zoo (I forgot the cute spelling). And they are right. It is certainly not a zoo!!!Really, I again offer that the only similar analogy to AK would be SeaWorld. NO!!! Only recently did Seaworld offer any thrill rides, or rides of any sort for that matter. It IS an aquatic zoo first! They took care of their first priority and then started to mix it up a bit. We could easily spend the entire day there and not ride a ride. Now they are hoping to do more. I hope they succeed. Then they can say “not-a(n aquatic)-zoo” and mean, “there is more”!! When Disney says it, it means that it is certainly not a zoo. Yep! They’re right. Not much of a zoo at all!Well, we seem obsessed with putting AK into a pre-set "category" when one does not exist.Not we, Mr. Scoop! The general public is obsessed! Just look at the declining numbers!So what's the point scoop? That was the beauty of AK--it created something which did not exist except maybe SeaWorld (catching a theme here, folks? Maybe Disney wanted to compete with the Beer guys, eh?)Yeah, I’m catching a theme!! Too bad they didn’t do it right or they might have beaten them!Sure, it's easy to take AK to task for not meeting the expectations of a pre-set "category" of theme park.It’s not that it’s easy (although it is!). It’s that it’s reality!! The public is speaking! Why can’t you hear them?

As for the Safari ride, I wholehearted agree with AV and Greg. I want to see animals!!!! Not follow some phony poacher! They made the same mistake with the great movie ride. I wonder if I would want to ride Pirates over and over again if they had some lame, phony skit in the middle of it, EVERY TIME!!!?? I don’t think so.

Another Voice

06-13-2002, 02:08 PM

“Kinda zoo, kinda thrill park”

Isn’t that the problem Mr. Scoop – AK does neither very well.

Cobbling together two genres doesn’t automatically create “a new category”. It creates a hybrid that lacks the coherence and cohesiveness that a well planned and well thought out place has. And yes, the guests’ expectations play a huge role in this. People do have preconceived ideas about things and one has to design around that fact.

Another bit of movie wisdom: a really good movie has the ending that people are expecting, but done in a way that isn’t. For the theme parks, Walt knew that people were expecting an amusement park, so he gave them rides and thrills BUT in ways they did not expect. Everyone had seen a roller coaster before, but no one had expected the Matterhorn; everyone had seen boat rides, but no one was expecting ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’.

At Animal Kingdom people either expect a theme park or a zoo. The place simply doesn’t deliver on either category. The zoo elements are very (I should say completely) ordinary and timeworn, the theme park elements are sparse and derivative as well. Simply throwing them together does not make the whole better than the parts.

And yes, the same problem exists at the other parks. ‘Atlantis’ and ‘Kraken’ at Sea World really do feel stapled onto the place. But at least the zoo portion of the park is so strong that the thrill rides come off as additions to the place. AK lacks a strong enough base to pull it off.

There was plenty of “out of the box” thinking going on Animal Kingdom. But I won’t go into the budget and talent spiel again. AK could be a tremendous park, all it truly lacks is a strong vision.

Bstanley

06-13-2002, 02:12 PM

Yes, and 1999 was a bigger year than 2000. And, last year it dipped to 7.7 million. My point was that that number needed to be on a steady INcline. Plus, I'm pretty sure the 99 and 00 numbers were WAY below Disney's initial projections.

You don't actually expect me to accept that the attendance declined in 2001 because of problems at the park do you? Bzzt, sorry, wrong answer...

And considering that the park's capacity (the "shut the gates Donald we're full" kinda capacity) is 28,000 I don't see how the 8.5 million people who showed up in 2000 can be considered "WAY below" acceptable since 28K * 365 = 10.2 Million. Which translates to AK running (during a 'normal' year - one where 757s aren't used as missles) at a better than 83% load factor which is modestly higher than EPCOT's at 76% and absolutely blows by the MK's 62%!

I say again, AK attendance is not a problem.

Bstanley

06-13-2002, 02:38 PM

OK Scoop here ya go:

Animal Kingdom has about 1000 animals from 200 species and covers about 500 acres.

Miami MetroZoo has about 700 animals from 230 species and covers about 300 acres.

San Diego Zoo (the best zoo IMHO) has about 4000 animals from 800 species and covers about 100 acres.

Another Voice

06-13-2002, 02:46 PM

Most zoos built DO now create natural looking environments. Mostly because the role of zoos has changed from exhibiting animals to preserving species. And I can’t recall seeing anything that looks remotely like a cage since I was a child (back when wholly mammoths still roamed L.A.).

And most places have far BETTER environments than the ones created at Animal Kingdom. MANY TIMES better. Look at the exhibit spaces at the San Diego Zoo or their Wild Animal Park among them. Even the Bronx Zoo – the stereotypical example of horrible places – has been completely rebuilt with environments for the animals that far exceed Disney’s attempts. This is a particular sore point because Disney could have done so much better – but they choose not to.

By the way, did you know that the lion exhibit space at Animal Kingdom is supposed to be the smallest of any major animal there? Disney is trying to force the animals into visible positions for the lumbering trucks. And guess where those very same animals spend ever moment they are not on display – in twenty foot cages. NONE of the animals have miles to roam around in. They’re all nicely locked into their own little pens. All that lovely rock work isn’t intended to make the animals feel at home, it’s to hide the bars.

People were expecting an animal park that was generations beyond their local zoo. They were expecting a place that transformed zoos and aquariums the same way that Disneyland transformed amusement parks. Instead they got a rehash of trends from Lion Country Safari thirty years ago and a few value-designed theme rides.

No wonder Discovery Cove is such a strong success while Animal Kingdom is giving away soft drinks just to get loyal customers back through the turnstiles.

raidermatt

06-13-2002, 02:48 PM

Cobbling together two genres doesn’t automatically create “a new category”. It creates a hybrid that lacks the coherence and cohesiveness that a well planned and well thought out place has.

The key here is automatically. Epcot certainly was and is a cobbling together of genres/elements. The need for updating aside, its been very successful. I see the same effort in AK, but as you point out, if the masses don't buy it, it didn't work.

Of course, if the masses love PW, does that make it "good"?

The public is speaking! Why can’t you hear them?

I repeat, if the masses love PW, does that make it "good". If the masses don't care that Mickey butter is gone, does that make it ok?

AK's decline in 2001 attendance was in line with the decline at most other "destination" parks, so it certainly appears that the trend has leveled off.

The "poaching" portion of KS takes up very little time (I road it twice on our last trip), so I find it strange that there are a few here who think it is overbearing. Its also easy to follow what's going on, and generally has a long queue, despite its out of the way location. So it appears the public is ok with this attraction.

And, deserted in the afternoon. Actually, the crowds got bigger the later it got towards the parade. Jewell, did you notice this?

I'm not Jeff, but I can say that on 5/31 and 6/3, the crowds did not start shrinking significantly until after the 4:00 Jungle Parade.

All Aboard

06-13-2002, 03:23 PM

230 species at Metrozoo, 200 at AK. Hmmm.... seems like a much bigger variance than that. But, I guess the numbers don't lie. Sure seems like I see many more species at Metrozoo. And, I can spend as much time with each as I want. That's true of very few species at AK. Many are fly-bys on the safari. Other than parrots, an anteater, various other birds, tigers, gorillas, goats and bats I can't think of too many where that is the case at AK.

FWIW, there's only a couple of cages at Metrozoo. One for the Koala and one for the Austrailian Tree Monkey. Everybody else spends the day out in the open. And, you can pretty much traverse that entire 300 acres on foot. They even got a monorail (albeit a little crappy.) By the way, did I mention that it costs $8 to get in? $20 gets you an annual pass.

Scoop, I really think Baron's "breakdown" analysis is on point. You used a movie example. But in it you said that the dialog is great, the lighting is great and the story is wonderful - the only thing lacking is the cinematography. For that to be a good comparison you'd have to say that at AK, the zoo elements are great, the rides are great and the shows are wonderful the only thing lacking is x. I just don't agree with that.

To me, the zoo elements are ok, just in seemingly short supply. The ride element is severly lacking. There are a couple of good shows.

So, who gets pleased by AK. Does the animal enthusiast looking for numerous interactive displays where they can spend lots of timing "taking in" the animals? I doubt it. That describes my wife. She really, really looked forward to her first trip to AK. She came away utterly disappointed.

Does the person who has come to know Disney theme parks as showcases of fantastic "ride" attractions come away happy? Kali is over before it starts. Dinosaur is the biggest waste of great technology - see Indy. Triceratip spin and PW... see other threads. Four rides (a couple of weak E's, a D and a C ticket) that's it.

BStanley, if 28,000 is the AK max that's a little disturbing. At a development cost of a rumored billion, isn't that a recipe for failure? If you know that there's no way you can ever get more than 10 million through the gates...

If true that AK's attendance is more or less maxed out, we can all just forget about any expansion plans. For Heaven's sake, if AK is performing at peak levels why in the world would they have to change anything?

Raidermatt, I've ridden KS about a dozen times. I can't take the whole "little red" thing anymore. I've ridden Pirates at least 200 times, and if I can I'll ride it another 200 times.

raidermatt

06-13-2002, 03:43 PM

Raidermatt, I've ridden KS about a dozen times. I can't take the whole "little red" thing anymore. I've ridden Pirates at least 200 times, and if I can I'll ride it another 200 times.

...and there are plenty of Disney fans who can't take Small World either but love Pirates...

Bstanley

06-13-2002, 05:01 PM

gcurling,

Well $800M is the published number but let's say AK did cost $1B to develop. If it has 8M guests a year and they average spending $100 a day (pass $40, food $30, 'stuff' $30) AK brings in $800,000,000 a year in Gross.

I don't have any inside information on the bottom line at a Disney park (Voice?) but I imagine it's better than 15%. At 15% NET that works out to a $120M a year in profit and a (greatly simplified) IRR of about 3.5% which isn't great. If the bottom line is actually 20% the IRR is about 9.5% ($160M) and now we're in the ballpark.

This is one area where the Japanese economic system actually gives their companies a big advantage - a Japanese company is very pleased to have a 1% IRR on a 5% NET profit product. An American company would be crucified on Wall Street if those were their numbers.

PS.

IRR = Internal Rate of Return

DVC-Landbaron

06-13-2002, 05:02 PM

I repeat, if the masses love PW, does that make it "good". If the masses don't care that Mickey butter is gone, does that make it ok?Ahhh!!! You just don’t get it!!! Of course not. Just because some rotten TV show is a hit doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good. I made the serious mistake of giving Gilligan’s Island as an example once on these boards in a similar argument. AHHHHH! They nearly strung me up. Which further proved my point I thought, but I didn’t say that at the time! ;)

You see, citing that something is a hit, just because it is popular could mean many things. It could mean that it is a work of art sent from the heavens. It could mean that it was the right idea for the right time. It could mean that the people behind it worked their butts off to get it right and the public appreciated their efforts. Or it could be that they did as little as possible, stuck it in an ailing park, slapped a Disney® on it and called it a day!

But when it’s something you plan, either halfassed or wholeheartedly, and the public doesn’t show up, then it is a failure!! And it doesn’t matter if it is a work of art sent from heaven above that the stupid public doesn’t understand. It is still a failure!!!

Now do see the difference? I repeat, if the masses love PW, does that make it "good". If the masses don't care that Mickey butter is gone, does that make it ok?See above for PW non-argument-argument! As for the butter… No. It doesn’t make it OK. It makes it, doing business the Disney® way. As little as possible according to the survey!!

...and there are plenty of Disney fans who can't take Small World either but love Pirates...Apples and oranges!!! Fruit salad here we come!! The point was a lame show (heck, even a great show) has a huge potential to spoil repeat visits. Whereas rides like Splash, ToT, Haunted Mansion and Pirates don’t seem to lose their appeal. Unless, of course, it is accompanied by an obnoxious song that won’t leave your brain even after days, and days, and Days, and DAYS, and DAYS… AHHHHHHHHHHH!!

I understand what you are saying, but it’s not to the point. The Great Movie Ride is the only other one I can think of that they did this. And it’s bothered me for years!!!!

Another Voice

06-13-2002, 06:28 PM

AK Economics 101

The last time I ran the numbers from the annual report I came up with somewhat over 25% for all of Disney parks. This is a very rough number, and since it includes California Adventure and the cruise line, it’s probably less than what WDW parks generate on their own. In any case – it ain’t a bad business.

The issue with AK is that it was designed to bring in new guests to the property. It failed miserably to do that. Instead it siphoned attendance from the other three parks the first year, and in the second year all those guests went back and haven’t returned. Disney does track these things. Worse still is that the time in park is very low. That means most of the people going to AK are on park hoppers (no $40 for the admission) and they aren’t sticking around to drop the $30 on food and the $30 on stuff. And what money is spent at AK is money that was going to be spent at another park anyway. So the net increase to the company is zero. And just for the salt in the wounds, AK has had no impact on attendance at Universal or Sea World; Disney’s new park isn’t even keeping people on property to spend money.

Gluing Epcot Together.

Yes, EPCOT definitely has a feeling that it’s two different parks nailed together. It was a big criticism during the park’s design, a bigger criticism at its opening, and continues to be a criticism today. But with some cleaver design work and a bit of luck, the problem was turned into an advantage.

If you look at the layout of Epcot you will see that everything about the place is designed as two parks. Future World and World Showcase are separated by a huge gap and there is a strong feeling you are leaving FW and heading into WS. It gives the audience a chance to adjust and to reset their mental state. Someone once called the walk way as “an intermission between the double feature”. People see the places as having separate identities.

Now imagine what the place would look like if it was mixed up. Imagine the Norway pavilion sitting in between The Land and The Living Seas, and The American Adventure taking up half of Communicore. That mixes up the identities of the two places and produces nothing but a jumble.

That’s the problem I have with the ‘Big Red/Little Red/Kill the Bad Guys’ bit on the safari. It’s inserting a phony theme park element into something that’s trying to be “natural” in a very clumsy way. An ‘Indiana Jones’ jeep chase through the bush chasing poachers would have been an excellent thrill ride. And a truck journey through an animal enclosure for close look at real animals also makes for a good attraction. But mixing things up just doesn’t work very well. It’s possible, but it wasn’t done here. All that time taken up by the canned radio chatter could have been used to explain more about the animals staring back at us.

Last Words

There's a big difference between "popular" and "good". But if you're a business, it's much easier to get people to by tickets by being "good".

Bstanley

06-13-2002, 09:18 PM

Theme Parks/Resorts numbers

year : $$$ - MK - EPC - MGM - AK - "TOTAL" (Million)
1999 : 6.1B - 15.2 - 10.1 - 8.7 - 8.6 - 42.6
1998 : 5.5B - 15.6 - 10.6 - 9.4 - 6.0 - 41.6
1997 : 5.0B - 17.0 - 11.8 - 10.4 - 0.0 - 39.2
1996 : 4.0B - 13.8 - 11.2 - 10.0 - 0.0 - 35.0

Well AV I don't know...I'm still not convinced that AK is such a drain. It looks like it's keeping the people on site that the 25th anniversary brought in and the bottom line $$ certainly show growth consistent with the attendance numbers. Example - 1997 to 1999 shows 8.6 million of growth at AK and the growth of $$ aren't that far off of my $100 estimate (maybe they're spending it at the MK, but they're spending it onsite) - figuring that the $$ include DL and the Cruise line, but I'm guessing that DL was basically constant during this time and there would only have been one ship operating that last year (that's why I discounted the 1.1B growth down to 800M).

What did I miss?

Another Voice

06-13-2002, 09:52 PM

Well Mr. Bstanley, take a look at the numbers again.

You spend $800 million to open a brand new theme park, market it to the hilt – and the bump you get is half that of the bump you got for putting on a parade and covering the castle with vinyl. Not exactly the greatest return for the investment is it? And if retaining gains is simply the goal, opening up single E-ticket attractions works just as well for a fraction of the cost of a park. Look at what ‘Tower of Terror’ did for Disney/MGM Studios.

Now take a deeper look at the figures. Notice that the attendance for ALL of the other parks has fallen. Where did all those people go? Yes, Animal Kingdom. So what’s the point of spending $800 million dollars just to reshuffle where people are going to be spending the money? If Disney had spent nothing, all those people would still be flocking to the other three parks, spending just as much money.

And actually the results from Disneyland soared in this period with the farewell season of the ‘Main Street Electrical Parade’ (the highest attended year in Disneyland’s history) and the opening of the New Tomorrowland (yes, we where young and naïve back then…).

The results from the Animal Kingdom shocked Disney. Most troubling was the cannibalization impact on the other parks. Plans were quickly drawn up for major attractions to combat the drain, but only ‘Mission: Space’ seems to have made it (‘cause someone else is picking up the check). It also cased a huge slow down in spending at AK itself and is the reason why something cheesy like Dino-Rama took so long to build (and why it’s so cheesy). Only now you have falling attendance at four parks instead of three.

Doing things on the cheap up front may seem economical, but you end up paying much more to fix the problems that happen later. Good creative decisions can result in great economic outcomes.

Bstanley

06-13-2002, 10:50 PM

Well, I seem to recall that the 25th anniversary involved a bit more than a castlecake and had some marketing of it's own...:-)

I still see a substantial overall growth in dollars and people, EPCOT and The Studios took a minor hit, but the MK was up substantially and stayed up in addition to AK. If Disney could bring in 20% more people anytime they wanted (35 - 42 M) they should do it more often...

According to the same site that I got the WDW figures from the results for DL show a steady decline from '96 (the last year of the Main Street Electrical Parade) on - so any $ growth had to come from WDW, right?

DL attendance
1999 : 13.5M
1998 : 13.7M
1997 : 14.2M
1996 : 15.0M

If the word out inside Disney is that AK is/has been losing money I guess it must be...unless the stories are coming from somebody that just doesn't want to follow through and finish what IMHO is as good an example of real Disney Magic as has been done.

DisneyKidds

06-13-2002, 11:29 PM

From EE, to half day parks, to 'was AK a failure'. Who needs the twists and turns of E ticket coasters at WDW, we can just come to these boards to have things turned upside down.

Where to begin......

AK may (or may not) be a failure in relation to Disney's expectations. A number of you are way too versed on Disney from the 'inside', others impress me with your knowledge of numbers - so I won't opine on the success or failure of AK as a business model or revenue center, et.al. I do think it is somewhat of an assumption (and you know what they say about those) to say that AK is 'cannibalizing' attendance from the other WDW parks. Perhaps without the AK the other WDW parks would have had the same decline, and the beer company would have had the guests the AK was keeping on property. That is just as likely as the 'cannibalization theory'.

Was AK a failure in it's design? Not an adequate zoo, not an adequate amusement park, not an adequate...... I forgot what else YOU GUYS want to define it as. I agree with scoop, you have to accept AK for what it is, not what you want it to be. I think Disney achieved what they set out to design, so no, it wasn't a failure in that respect.

Has AK met the public's (that public being the discontented third, and the indifferent middle third) expectations. Perhaps not.

Did that public have the proper expectations? Definitely not. Like some here, they expected it to be something it wasn't designed to be. The only failure I see in the AK would be Disney's ability to properly set people's expectation regarding the AK. That is unfortunate, because if people weren't looking for something they were never going to find (and getting PO'd because of it), they might have found the real AK and really enjoyed it.

We spend a lot of time in the AK. It is crowded. It stays crowded until after the parade, at the least. Sure, someone might go in March and find the AK empty at 3 pm. You know what, so is the MK. AK is not a half day park, and I'm sorry AV, you only scratch the surface of what the AK has to offer in what you actually toured in 3 hours. But that is ok for you, just down try and force it on anyone else.

Here is what we do in about 6 or 7 hours - KS (and I'm sorry, it seems a bit silly to condemn the ride for a 30 second corny bit that is at the end, after the animals anyway, and where else are you going to be 5 feet from a white rhino who stops your open air, unprotected vehicle in the middle of the road), Planet Watch, Lion King show, Pocahontas show, Kali Rapids, Asia and Africa walking trails, Triceratops Spin, Tarzan Rocks, the parade, a bite or a snack along with that wonderfully relaxing respite behind Flame Tree. Quite a lot of good entertainment, and that doesn't include taking the time to enjoy the plethora of little gems and hidden pleasures I discussed earlier. All the things we don't get to in that time. Dinosaur, Primevil Whirl, Boneyard, ITTBAB, adequate exploration of the Tree of Life and environs. AK a half day park - PISH.

I'm sorry. I don't buy the AK is more restrictive and less natural than other zoos. I love the Bronx Zoo. I can spend as much time there as I do in the AK. But you trudge from animal area to animal area, as you would expect in a zoo, and that's ok - it is what I expect. AK provides an environment with much more entertainment value, and overall is better done than the Bronx Zoo. I do cringe to say that because it only adds to the fruit salad.

Much of life and happiness comes down to expectations. Without the proper expectations, you set yourself up for diappointment. One example might be if I go to WDW in the summer and expect it to be crowded. I know, I deal, I have a great time. Someone else goes the same time and expects to walk on everything - they end up miserable. I think the folks who dislike the AK, and the people who ride in Cars #2 and 3, set themselves up for disappointment. You expect WDW to be what it was, what you want it to be - and when it is not you crucify Mr E, bemoan the decay of Walts values, and create negativity, which begets more negativity, and so on. Accept things for what they are, soak up the abundant Magic - the World can be a much happier place. You already know this BECAUSE YOU KEEP COMING BACK. Some people are like my sister in law, they just aren't happy unless they are complaining.

Have I rambled enough yet?

Another Voice

06-13-2002, 11:58 PM

I’m sorry, I missed the part where going from 17 million to 15.6 million and then to 15.2 million is “up substantially”. Or where the Disney/MGM Studios dropping 10% one year and then dropping another 7% the following year is “a minor hit”.

Team Disney is only interested in looking at the impact the opening of Animal Kingdom. What can before is just the base. Welcome to the “what have you done for me lately” style of management. Yes, the air on the upper reaches of Team Disney is a little thin and occasional leads to some strange thinking. But it’s that thinking that drives the decisions around the property.

Again – the idea of Animal Kingdom was to INCREASE the number of guest/days overall on property. Not redistribute them. Not to keep them steady. But to increase them. There are far cheaper ways to acheive those goals.

Perhaps the goals were high, perhaps the demands that the parks to put out were too great, but the simple fact is that AK did not return the desired results. Notice all the cut backs, the delayed hotels, the cancelled expansion plans, the general belt tightening long before 9/11? Are those the signs of success?

Or perhaps, IMHO, some people just don’t want to follow through and finish what IMHO is a good example of what real Disney Management as has done.

P.S. - "Accept things for what they are, soak up the abundant Magic..."

A nice thought, but doesn't work for the business. Seen all those soaking crowds at California Adventure?

DVC-Landbaron

06-14-2002, 12:33 AM

From EE, to half day parks, to 'was AK a failure'. Who needs the twists and turns of E ticket coasters at WDW, we can just come to these boards to have things turned upside down.Yeah!! Don’t you just love it!!!

Let’s dive in! Was AK a failure in it's design? Not an adequate zoo, not an adequate amusement park, not an adequate...... I forgot what else YOU GUYS want to define it as.No, no, no!! You did it just right. Not adequate is the perfect way to describe it!I agree with scoop, you have to accept AK for what it is, not what you want it to be. OK! Hang on to your hats ladies and gentlemen, but I agree!! But it’s not up to me. And it’s not up to you. And believe it or not, it’s not up to Mr. Scoop either (no matter how important he thinks his opinion is ;))! It is up to the public, who votes with their pocketbook and attendance. And they are voting – NO!I think Disney achieved what they set out to design, so no, it wasn't a failure in that respect.Really? I don’t think so. I think it was compromised along the way (no BK) and value engineered wherever possible (Dino-rama). There are many, many aspects of AK that simply reek Disney magic. And those bright spots Disney should be very proud of. But there simply isn’t enough of them. The only failure I see in the AK would be Disney's ability to properly set people's expectation regarding the AK. That is unfortunate, because if people weren't looking for something they were never going to find (and getting PO'd because of it), they might have found the real AK and really enjoyed it. Well isn’t that a "six of one – half dozen of another"? It doesn’t matter whether Disney didn’t sell it right, or they didn’t build it right. The point is, they didn’t do something right!! And that is their fault. Not the public’s. SO Disney has a PR problem or a concept problem, right? But either way you slice it – They’ve got a problem!!I think the folks who dislike the AK, and the people who ride in Cars #2 and 3, set themselves up for disappointment. You expect WDW to be what it was, what you want it to be - and when it is not you crucify Mr E, bemoan the decay of Walts values, and create negativity, which begets more negativity, and so on. WOAH!!! Time out!! Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Are you seriously saying that we are setting our sites too high? That we expect too much from Disney? That no matter what they did they could never exceed our expectations!!?? Have I got that right!

Well!! What are you doing the last three weeks of July? I’d love to spend some time with you, personally showing you some of the hundreds, maybe thousands of things around Disney that have far exceeded my expectations. It’s just that for the life of me, I can’t think of a single on that they’ve done in the past ten years or so.

I don’t think we set any higher standard than they set for themselves many years ago. They were always raising the bar. Out doing their previous efforts. In other words, “Exceeding expectations”. Today they are lowing the bar. But my expectations are still where they should be setting the bar. Is that wrong? It’s my fault? I don’t think so!! Have I rambled enough yet?Not nearly enough!! If it were not for people like you, I would be sitting and staring at a blank screen!! Keep it coming!! :crazy:

Ps: One more thought, not really on topic(s):One example might be if I go to WDW in the summer and expect it to be crowded. I know, I deal, I have a great time. Someone else goes the same time and expects to walk on everything - they end up miserable.Ahhh! Someone who knows the HELL of a summer Disney visit and the JOY of it at the same time. Yes!! You deal with it. But that was when Disney gave you adequate time to deal with it. I wonder how we’ll deal with it when the MK closes on an event every night at ten in the middle of July!!! And with no EE! I don’t know about you, but I’m expecting to be miserable. I guess anything short of that you would consider ‘MAGICAL”!

aalan

06-14-2002, 12:44 AM

the past 2 years, my wife and i went to AK and spent 1/2 day there both times. its neither a great zoo or a great thrill park. despite being the largest of the 4 parks, there just doesnt appear to be that much to do there. the mix of live animals and rides is not done well. it COULD be great, and hopefully they will add to it. i agree that the grounds are nice, but AK is unfullfilled potential. we only go because we usually get park hoppers. its not terrible or anything, just the weakest park of the four.

kenjean

06-14-2002, 07:25 AM

I agree with previous posts that AK has great theming. The attention to detail on the enviroment is as strong, or stronger than any other park. I also enjoy taking time out to sit and soak up the atmosphere.

It also has good e-ticket attractions. Safari, Lion King Show, Dinosaur (which I personally think was under done but will leave for sake of argument), the rapids ride. It has some nice walk through exhibits.

But....
Where are the middle tier attractions? You know, the ones that some people love, others hate. Small World, COP, TTA, Food Rocks, Cranium Command, Backstage Tour, Studio Tour, Time Keeper, The Making of Me, JIYI, Country Bears, etc.

These entertain me, I don't have to stop and try to find the entertainment in them. People don't want to pay $50 a day and have to create their own entertainment.
That's what Disney is supposed to be doing.

These types of attractions are often controversial, some think they are a waste of time, others, like me, love them.

The Magic Kingdom has the most of them, it is also the most frequented park on earth. Hmmm...........

People like to discover things and have their expectations exceeded, and yes they often like having their experience fed to them.

Try getting a family of five to focus their attention all at once on a group of ducks swimming in the now unused river at AK while sitting in a beautiful spot near the Flame Tree Barbeque. If it were in their local town square, maybe. But to travel 18 hours and spend a small fortune, it doesn't fly.

The only failure I see in the AK would be Disney's ability to properly set people's expectation regarding the AK. That is unfortunate, because if people weren't looking for something they were never going to find (and getting PO'd because of it), they might have found the real AK and really enjoyed it.

What happened to exceeding expectations? Even when, in the past, those expectations were sky high? This sounds like the bad artist who screams "People don't get my work".

Bstanley

06-14-2002, 08:23 AM

OK, one last post and then adios to this thread.

Folks, look at ALL the numbers - don't cherry-pick.

Total person-gatedays at WDW before the 25th/AK = 35M (1996)
Total person-gatedays at WDW after the 25th/AK = 42M (1998)

That is an increase of 20%/7M which is roughly equal to the people supposedly visiting AK. Yes EPCOT and the Studios are down, but the MK is up from 13.8M to 15.2 in the first full year of AK - so maybe the MK stole 1.5M of the EPCOT and Studios people - not the AK!

Total Park/Resort dollars before the 25th/AK = $4B (1996)
Total Park/Resort dollars after the 25th/AK = $5.5B (1998)

This $ increase is totally consistent with the observed increase in person-gatedays at WDW (~20% increase in people and a ~20% increase in $).

DL attendance down from 15M to 13.7M from 1996 to 1998 (almost 10%) - an indicator that any dollar increases during that time must have come from WDW (or other operations - but '99 tthere was only one 'boat' running) and the extra $ made at WDW must have been large enough to make up for the 10% LOSS of $ at DL.

Now if you want to contend that the people who showed up for the 25th Anniversary in'97 would have just kept showing up at WDW for 'lagniappe' in '98, then don't fret the above details.

For me and my house we will continue to enjoy AK, a park abundant with detail, laid out according to decades of Disney experience (weenie and all), verdant and rich with experiences, friendly and a true expression of WDI.

Ciao'

DVC-Landbaron

06-14-2002, 10:47 AM

This one might just be my confusion. Are you saying that parts of AK (besides I agree with DinoRama) don't meet the Disney standard?Mr. Scoop! Calm down. So I reeled you back in. ;) It wasn’t my intention, but I’m glad you’re here. Let me explain.

As you know I'm no real fan of AK. Not only is AK a half park but…. it is probably one of the worse themed places in all the world! There’s hardly any story, for any attraction. They mix up themes and stretch a point to absurdity, and that stupid tree is lame at best.

Is that little heart of yours racing a bit? Did your breathing increase ever so much? Are you pounding your fists into the desk, or worse into your temples? Are you pulling out you hair? Sorry! I couldn’t resist. JUST KIDDING!!! :)

As it happens you are right. It is mainly Dino-rama with which I have an issue. On a personal note, I don’t care for Dinosaur and Kili is way too short and way too wet for my taste. But those are extremely subjective and as such have no bearing on the subject at hand.

My personal take on AK is that this grandiose, Disney style plan was presented and they were told the price tag was simple too much. And in my little Disney brain I like to think that some Imagineer somewhere made a choice between dumbing down everything within the park equally, or making the hard decision of doing what they could do Disney style and simply giving the axe to everything else. I know it’s pretty naive, but I like to think that way.

raidermatt

06-14-2002, 10:47 AM

Ahhh!!! You just don’t get it!!! Of course not. Just because some rotten TV show is a hit doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good.

Oh, but yes, I do! Unfortunately, my misguided attempts at light sarcasm have further muddied my clouded points...

I agree that just because something is popular, it is not automatically "good". And, if something is not popular, it is a failure. However, there is a difference between failure and bad.

Baron, the Golf Inn/resort is an oft-cited example from you of something that did not hit with the people, ie was a failure, BUT is still an example of the Disney philosophy. My point is that its true that AK may not be meeting its goals for attendance and increased "stay-length" (though its possible it is at least close). Therefore, to some degree it is a failure. However, that does not make it "bad". There is true Magic in that park, it may just be that it doesn't have wide enough appeal to make the numbers that were targeted. But it was a noble effort to blend aspects from different types of parks, and if it missed the mark, its still not far off.

Another Voice

06-14-2002, 10:52 AM

Numbers are fun, aren’t they? Unfortunately the interpretation put on them here have no bearing on what happens at WDW. Yes, comparing the attendance now to what it was two years before AK opens does so an increase. If you go back to 1971 it probably shows an even greater increase, “proving” how peachy keen the success of the AK is. But that’s not how the people that control the money see things.

Please do enjoy Animal Kingdom. Accept it for what it is. But don’t ever delude yourself about the real reasons Beastly Kingdom is a field of scrub, that boat docks have been turned into bars, that carnival rides sprout up instead of major attractions and why photographers hound you to squeeze another $10.95 for a picture in front of the Tree.

“Disney is a business” is more than just a rationalization for cutting hours.

DisneyKidds

06-14-2002, 11:20 AM

OK folks - too much to not respond to, but too much to respond to now. You know how it is. As Arnold would say, "I'll be back" - if for no other reason to keep the Baron sane :).

Where was that link to the personality test. Have you all indulged. My fear is that we are all the same type and these threads will go on FOREVER.

Bstanley

06-14-2002, 12:04 PM

Well, when I see numbers that don't make something clear to me I start to wonder why. I certainly don't know anything other than what is published.

If someone (an ambitious someone) were trying to make a case for why 'my' people should develop the next park rather than 'those' people that did all the other parks they might do their best to make sure that the impression people have of 'those' people is that 'they missed the mark with this latest park' or 'they did this park the old way and it doesn't work anymore' or even 'they aren't needed anymore - my guys can do a REAL park for the same money'.

Maybe that's all just TOO Machiavellian, but when I look at DCA and compare it to AK I definitely see the cookie-cutter versus the inventive.

Bob O

06-14-2002, 01:28 PM

I enjoy Ak but the addition of the park hasnt increased the amount of days i stay on site at all. And if it was built(which im sure it was) to increase additional days at wdw im sure it hasnt. It gave people more options to choose from but there are no figures to show that it the masses added days to their stays. As already said, if the park was as profitable as some believe their would be no reason to add onto the park.
And i know im disappointed because wdw sold me a bill of goods that included BK and a full days worth of activites and in that it failed big time. It may meet that goal some day but for me and my family it doesnt now and to be priced the same as MK or Epcot is a joke as you get alot less bang for your theme park buck IMHO.

Bstanley

06-14-2002, 01:58 PM

Well BobO as Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it."

DisneyKidds

06-14-2002, 02:39 PM

Back, holding breath, diving in......

the idea of Animal Kingdom was to INCREASE the number of guest/days overall on property. Not redistribute them. Not to keep them steady. But to increase them. There are far cheaper ways to acheive those goals.

Are you saying that WDW attendance figures would have been the same with or without AK. I know that is what you are saying. But, if you assume that overall WDW attendance would have been down without the AK, and it was static with it, then AK really represented an attendance increase over what would have otherwise been. Is this not possible? If all those people were going to go off property, was there really a far cheaper way to keep them? And even if, why not try and create something new and wonderful, even if it eventually goes on to be misunderstood. I hear so much complaining that the current regime does nothing. Well, they sure as heck tried. If they don't try they are criticized. If they try and fail you say they would have been better off not trying. Is there any station on the Car #3 dial that can keep the occupants happy?

Notice all the cut backs, the delayed hotels, the cancelled expansion plans, the general belt tightening long before 9/11? Are those the signs of success?

Perhaps not. But are they signs of specific Disney failures? Perhaps not either.

A nice thought, but doesn't work for the business.

But the concept is that is the public, not the business, did more of this the business would be better off. And I guess that is a segway into the 'expectations' discussion Mr. Baron would like to pursue.

Not adequate is the perfect way to describe it!

Mr. Baron, now I must quote Matt....

Unfortunately, my misguided attempts at light sarcasm have further muddied my clouded points

and slipped by you. I don't agree that there is anything inadequate about AK - at least not as far as I'm concerned.

It is up to the public, who votes with their pocketbook and attendance. And they are voting – NO!

I think you guys have gone around with Bstanley on this one enough. I'm with he and Matt and don't necessarily agree. Could the numbers be better - they could always be better. But a disaster? I don't think so.

While not every person will like every aspect of a park, if you canmake the statement that it 'reeks Disney Magic' there must be some level of success. Back into our vehicles - I see plenty of reeking Disney Magic in the AK that is very strong, you don't see enough.

But either way you slice it – They’ve got a problem!!

and I don't disagree that there are some problems - just not crumbling, decaying, WDW is good for nothing, the Magic is going, going.....gone type problems.

WOAH!!! Time out!! Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Are you seriously saying that we are setting our sites too high? That we expect too much from Disney? That no matter what they did they could never exceed our expectations!!?? Have I got that right!

No, you haven't gotten that right. You should expect to have a magical, wonderful, entertaining, knock your socks off time at the AK, or any Disney park. I do, and then some - they exceed my expectations for my overall Disney experience. But this happens for me because I don't expect the AK to be a zoo, or a thrill ride par, or a whatever you think it should be. I expect it to be the AK - a unique park that stands on it's own and delivers a heck of a lot. I don't go with preconceived notions and let the park come at me and you know what, it is great. Well up to the Disney standards. "Expectation" when it comes to Disney is a tough word, because the philosophy involves exceeding expectations. But if you expect a Maserati to be a Porche, you may get disappointed - even though they are both wonderful vehicles. Get my point? Probably not.

kenjean - like Triceratops and PW or not - are they not trying to add some of your middle attractions?

DVC-Landbaron

06-14-2002, 04:40 PM

Baron, the Golf Inn/resort is an oft-cited example from you of something that did not hit with the people, ie was a failure, BUT is still an example of the Disney philosophy. HOLY COW!!! HEY!! HEY!! I get it!! Really. No sarcasm. I get it what you’re saying. Finally.

At least I thought I did, until I read my own signature. So, for about ten minutes there, I was with you on the AK pass/fail thing. I could see Disney trying something innovative. Sticking to their principles. But still not quite hitting the mark with the public. And your example of the Golf Resort was perfect. I would add Market Place as well.

But then I read my signature. Yep! My own signature and you know what it says?

From Walt (and my signature): Give the people everything you can give them.Did they? Did they give the people the best zoo they could possible give them? Did they include a beastly Kingdom? Did they really do it, as you say, as an “example of the Disney Philosophy”? Sadly no. They didn’t.Is there any station on the Car #3 dial that can keep the occupants happy?Yes! I’ve said it a thousands times. Do business in accordance with old time Disney philosophy. I will be happier than pig in… (fill it in!) Mr. Baron, now I must quote Matt....
Unfortunately, my misguided attempts at light sarcasm have further muddied my clouded points and slipped by you. I don't agree that there is anything inadequate about AK - at least not as far as I'm concerned. And evidently mine slipped past you!! :crazy: I think you guys have gone around with Bstanley on this one enough. I'm with he and Matt and don't necessarily agree. Could the numbers be better - they could always be better. But a disaster? I don't think so.I guess I’ll have to throw in with the people who don’t really know. So I’ll leave it with the people who are much more knowledgeable. Say! What does Team Disney think of it? AV? Any input? While not every person will like every aspect of a park, if you can make the statement that it 'reeks Disney Magic' there must be some level of success. Back into our vehicles - I see plenty of reeking Disney Magic in the AK that is very strong, you don't see enough.Well, do you think it’s enough? After all the talk on this board and your personal experience do you really think that Disney gave “the people everything you can give them”? I don’t . The bits they gave us do ‘reek’ with that Disney touch. But they didn’t do enough of it.

Suppose EPCOT were just future world. How could anyone argue that it wasn’t up to Disney standards. It ‘reeks’ of Disney magic. No doubt about it!! And these boards would be flooded with wonderful accolades on the brilliant new park. And I would softly clear my throat and shyly step forward and say, “Yes. Quite nice. But… It’s not enough!!!” And the car #1 people would bring out everything from peashooters to cannons to bring me down. I would say how much I really liked what they gave us, but let’s face it people, it’s only a half day park. And AV would tell us about some obscure plan to marry a permanent world’s fair with Future World. And the car #1 people would disregard it, ignore it, or more than likely attack it on the basis of not fitting the theme. And in the end I have to keep telling people over and over again that I like what we have. There’s just not enough of it!!!

Another Voice

06-14-2002, 05:17 PM

“…then AK really represented an attendance increase over what would have otherwise been. Is this not possible?”

From Team Disney’s viewpoint that’s saying “we just spent a billion dollars to keep things the pretty much like they were”.

I would have loved to have seen the PowerPoint presentation that tried to convince Burbank that was a sound investment strategy. Especially after all the big attendance gains were produced by a vastly cheaper marketing event for the 25th anniversary.

The general rule is that new attractions and minor gates encourage repeat business – the “there’s something new to see!” angle. That’s the strategy used to maintain attendance levels. A whole park is meant to bring more total visitors to the property. WDW did not become a multi-day vacation destination until the opening of EPCOT Center. Before then WDW was really a one-day stop on a swing through Florida for most people. With the opening of Disney/MGM, the property became a self-contained resort. Before said they were going to “Orlando” – after 1990 they said they were going to “Disney World”. Of course the hotels helped, but the main driver were the parks.

The Fourth Theme Park was meant to finalize the “cruise ship” model for WDW. It was supposed to be seven days and you only leave our boat for our ports o’call. In fact, WDW was supposed to be so sealed off that plans for the airport were dug out of storage again. Swooped away from plane to hotel by monorail – most guests would never know that Orlando even existed.

As Mr. Bstanley’s number clearly show*, WDW was not overrun by millions of new guests flocking to the new park. Instead AK’s attendance was being draw directly from the other parks. At the “big picture” level, no one Burbank saw the bottom line growing like they had been promised. And at the “little picture” level you now had three VPs who saw their guests (and their bonuses) being sucked away by this upstart. Worse for them, all the wonderful new rides and shows that had been planned for the original three parks were cancelled to fund this new place. Suddenly the swell gig running the Magic Kingdom didn’t seem like swell anymore.

To me, I don’t think Disney really tried with Animal Kingdom. They had a chance to do something truly extraordinary, something so revolutionary that people would have be AMAZED. It should have been the “place you just have to experience”. And a lot of those ideas existed too. But instead we got the very tried and the very tested and the very focus grouped. Instead of mind-blowing, we get what the most ardent supporters of the place telling people they have to accept it for what it is and not have any expectations.

How disappointing.

And Sea World took a Disney concept and has overflow crowds of people dropping over $250 PER PERSON. Those guests should have been at Animal Kingdom.

* - yes Mr. Stanley, there is always a lot of corporate politics swirling around the numbers. And some of it even made its way into California Adventure. That doesn’t meant the explanation of numbers is wrong. Of course, those DCA people have a lot more to answer for than the AK crowd does now.

DisneyFanGuy

06-14-2002, 07:26 PM

I know that this has been said already, but.............

My Family loved Animal Kingdom. For half a day.

We can look at the pretty animals at some beautiful zoos near us. I CANNOT IMAGINE spending a full price ticket on the place. It works fine as a park hopper.

Disney Quest works ok as part of a package too. It doesn't mean that I will spend 32 bucks per person on it.

The Safari is an incredible, amazing, wonderful attraction that is worthy of the Disney Brand.

The Festival of the Lion King is a wonderful, amazing, incredible show that is worthy of the Disney Brand.

Dinosaur and ITTBAG are wonderful, amazing attractions that are worthy of the Disney Brand.

Kali River Rapids has a beautiful waiting area, and then you get 90 seconds actually on the water. It's OK.

Add up these attractions, and you get about 1 & 1/2 hours of fun, plus standing in lines. To us, the other stuff isn't very interesting. Brookfield Zoo in Chicago is bigger and better. So is the Milwaukee Zoo. So scratch the animals for this family.

The shops sure are pretty though.

The AK, for good or bad, has some really wonderful attractions. We actually have a pattern. We go at open, go on the safari, get the kids faces painted, see Bug, see Dinosaur, Eat at Rainforest, and then go to another park. Every time we have more than one day at the World. We are in at open, and out by 1:00.

If they had a really fun area like BK, we would stay longer. If they had evening events, we would like that too.

Coulda Woulda Shoulda.

I like Baron's theory that they made a choice. Go the DCA route with lots of cheap attractions, or have less, but make them really special.

Maybe the economics of these big parks just isn't working anymore. I keep hearing about IOA losing big money, even attracting 7-8 million visitors a year.

AK could have been the most incredible, wonderful, amazing place in the World. It isn't. Kind of a clear example of everything that Disney is doing these days. It's good but it should have been great. Disney is acting like a great painter who chooses to sketch in pencil instead because it's quicker, easier, and less expensive. Talent and resources put to little use. A shame.

hopemax

06-14-2002, 08:01 PM

I like Baron's theory that they made a choice. Go the DCA route with lots of cheap attractions, or have less, but make them really special.

It's not even a theory, Rick Barongi alludes to it in the "Making of Animal Kingdom," book.

"When (inevitably) the budget was cut, Barongi's philosophy was to take out an entire concept, 'rather than nickel-and-diming habitats.' We lost hyenas and wild dogs on the African safari due to budget. But I didn't want to make compromises across the board."

BTW, while I was poking around I found that Rick is now the director of the Houston Zoo, when did he leave Disney and does anyone know why?

JeffH

06-14-2002, 10:30 PM

Tasha spends more than 1 & 1/2 hours at the Boneyard (playyard) alone, loves Tarzan, Lion King, Pocahantas, the Safari and the parade. We rarely have enough time to take the train to CS, which Tasha also loves to visit. You'd be hard pressed to experience everything there in the short day it offers. Of course, before Fantasmic opened, MGMs day ended pretty early as well.
AK is our favorite park, for what it does offer.
But like the rest of WDW, it all a matter of taste.

Bob O

06-14-2002, 11:09 PM

I would agree with AV that it seems disney could have built a truely amazing/mind blowing park but instead crunched the numbers and put in a couple of excellant attractions and then added a couple of things just to get by. They believed just because it is disney the people will come, and while some did they did so at the expense of the other 3 parks. Now to fix AK they have to take away money from the other parks and spend it at AK. And then they repeat the same mistakes at DCA.
And i would agree whole heartedly with DVC "there just not enough of it" But it was built that way intentionly and we should be glad eisner didnt build epcot because we probably would have only had half the park instead of both sides as we have now.

DisneyKidds

06-14-2002, 11:42 PM

OK, I've been trying to avoid doing this, but let the hard core blasphemy begin :eek:. Maybe even my Car #1 compatriots will toss me out of the car and banish me from the kingdom. But I say - people, and apparently ideas, have a way of becoming something more than they might really have been after they are gone.

Let me elaborate - and don't get me wrong, Walt was an incredible showman with revolutionary ideas and a new approach - he did develop a great philosophy and a wonderful empire.

However, when did the cannonization take place? The 'Walt can do no wrong' line of thinking is probably only slightly more valid than the 'evil Eisner' conspiracy.

Yes, Walt had a vision, followed his dream, blew people away and created something wonderful. He wowed everyone. The world was enthralled. Give a great experience and throw on a tag line - "Give the people everything you can give them". But do you really believe that it was a be all end all mantra. Damn the torpedoes, bottom line smottom line, we have to do THIS. Are you saying there wasn't anything that could have been better in what Walt delivered? Walt did put forth better than the current Disney regime, but to say he didn't hold anything back, didn't look at it like it was the business that it was and is - a bit naive I say :earseek:.

So Baron, I'll take that 10 minutes and be content. We'll get another 10 later. Just as you feel Disney is crumbling (when things are really only being chipped at most) I feel the Car #2 and 3 resistance crumbling (ok - only being chipped away at most). We've got you relying on your signature line, an idea that is now something more than it might really have been now that you feel it is gone ;).

Did Disney give EVERYTHING it possibly could have in the AK? Perhaps no. Perhaps yes, considering ALL the relevant factors. I would say the same of Walt and the beloved MK. The one thing I do know is that what they did give has most definitely added to the Magic, something uniquely Disney that will make my family happy for countless years to come and will only get better with time. Maybe current management isn't so far from the old philosophy - only no one can see that in this day and age of scrutiny and accountability for every nit and nat. As I said before, it is a much different business environment than it was 20 years ago. However, they are still churning out abundant Magic that (dare I say again) you all STILL ENJOY IMMENSELY :)

So, in case you didn't infer my answer to your question, I do think it is enough, but that isn't to say it is wrong to ask for more. But just because it is ok to ask for more doesn't mean it isn't enough (a bit of a circular reference, but hey, if I get you going in circles maybe I can squeeze out another 10 :cool: )

AV, I know I will always be on the short end of the attendance discussion. You do know much more than I. However, all of your discussion about the attendance issue assumes a steady baseline. In business that is not always the case. Perhaps the 'Hindenberg Principle' would have applied and the baseline you assume prior to AK just wouldn't have been there. You are right, no one sold the park on "hey, this will keep our numbers where they are". However, in business, like life, not everything works out the way you map it on a sreadsheet or in a PowerPoint presentation.

BTW - I never intended to say that people shouldn't have expectations. They should, high ones. They should expect an incredible time. They just shouldn't expect the AK to be something it wasn't designed to be. I know where people got their expectation of having a Magical time (which I feel the AK delivers). Where did they get their expectation for what they thought the AK was supposed to be?

You know, I was just going to say - lets agree to disagree. That JeffH is right (which he is) and it is all a matter of taste. But then I thought of Baron out there, staring at a blank screen. So on I go.......:p

DVC-Landbaron

06-15-2002, 01:11 AM

Maybe even my Car #1 compatriots will toss me out of the car and banish me from the kingdom.Not to worry!!! There’s always room in my car for you! ;)Walt was an incredible showman with revolutionary ideas and a new approach - he did develop a great philosophy and a wonderful empire. However, when did the canonization take place?For me it was 1998. The year they cut the hours and I started my quest to find out just what went wrong at Disney. I devoured histories, trying to understand what it was that made Walt’s philosophy so popular and why it was that Ei$ner’s philosophy didn’t capture me the same way.
But do you really believe that it was a be all end all mantra. Damn the torpedoes, bottom line smottom line, we have to do THIS. Are you saying there wasn't anything that could have been better in what Walt delivered? Walt did put forth better than the current Disney regime, but to say he didn't hold anything back, didn't look at it like it was the business that it was and is - a bit naive I sayI say this with all due respect, but I think you may be the one that is a little naive. That second sentence there is exactly what he did. I think you may need to read a few books about Walt (and the dynamic that he had with his brother Roy). I will not give my patented stories about backyard trains, chandeliers, cars parked in Frontierland, free admittance into Disneyland, or any of the other hundreds of stories I’ve written here in the past. I’m very afraid that if I do, all the cars may band together to form a lynch mob!! Suffice to say that I think you may want to get a good biography of Walt and read it. You may then begin to understand that he was no businessman. He was a showman. And there’s quite a difference!!Did Disney give EVERYTHING it possibly could have in the AK? Perhaps no. Perhaps yes, considering ALL the relevant factors. What relevant factors?!?!? The relevant factor of doing as little as possible for as much return as possible? If there’s another ‘relevant factor’ please let me know!I would say the same of Walt and the beloved MK. WHAT!!!! You’ve got to be kidding!!!! You just wanted me to use capital letters and the bold function, right? You are just yanking my chain, aren’t you? Please tell you’re kidding. Or you better get specific!!! Cause I haven’t got the faintest idea what you could possibly mean.As I said before, it is a much different business environment than it was 20 years ago. Yeah, you’ve said it before and I never made an issue of it. But I really have to ask now. How? Just how is it different? Just saying it, doesn’t make it true.However, in business, like life, not everything works out the way you map it on a sreadsheet or in a PowerPoint presentation.Well that’s a step in the right direction. Now if we can only get the current administration to see that we may get somewhere!!!! ;)Where did they get their expectation for what they thought the AK was supposed to be?From Disney!!! Where else?? You know, I was just going to say - lets agree to disagree. That JeffH is right (which he is) and it is all a matter of taste. But then I thought of Baron out there, staring at a blank screen. So on I go.......Thank you!!!!! :bounce:

DisneyKidds

06-15-2002, 10:39 AM

Sorry Baron, if they throw me out of the car I will be driving bike #1 all the way to the gates ;) - but thanks for the offer.

Well, you have finally tuned into a level of ignorance I do have :(. I have not read the bios and all the books. Perhaps you can point me to the single best OBJECTIVE source of info, preferably written during the 70's as WDW was exploding. You know how I feel about the way many look back upon deceased people.

However, I stand behind everything I say. I know a bit about business, and I know a bit about human nature, and I know a bit about WDW (but not as much as some others around here). I know Walt was a different breed - but he wasn't from another planet.

Damn the torpedoes, bottom line smottom line, we have to do THIS.

exactly what he did.

Now I was trying for the life of me to find it in one of these thread and can't seem to. However, someone pointed out a number of the truely Magical things in WDW that our beloved Walt would have done differently, or wouldn't have done at all. Perhaps it was someone who possessed that little layer of ignorance that I do, or maybe they are right. I will try and learn more and speak intelligently from fact when I have time to compose more for you to think about. But I would ask this - do you think if Walt was alive today, operating in todays business environment, that all his decisions would be diametrically opposed to those of the management teams since he departed? I know, your answer is yes - but is that a knee jerk response? Mull it over for a while.

I was a kid in the 70's and only know the business environment from the history books. However, I do believe that Walt had more freedom to operate his way in the 60's and 70's. Things were cheaper, even in relative dollars. Accountability to stockholders, Wall St., banks, etc. was not what it is today. I think it was easier for Walt to put his plans into place then, and I don't know that, if he had to do it all over agin in todays environment, it could be done again the same way. I don' t know that a strict showman could pull it off today. I know that probably isn't enough to appease you, but I do believe it is more than just words - that is is so.

The relevant factor of doing as little as possible for as much return as possible?

Come on now - this is a bit extreme. I have agreed that current management doesn't do things as good as Walt did, but to this extreme? As for relevant factors - well, there certainly weren't the same competitive pressures back then. Also, while I know you will say it is part of your downfall of Disney, the company wasn't as complex back then, was it? Disney management needs to be cognizant of probably half a dozen business units today that are as large as Walt's company was back then. Come on someone in Car #1 - help me with some numbers :rolleyes:. Is this because current management are bumbling idiots? (again, I know your knee jerk answer) - or is it because there are many more people to answer to today then there were back then.

WHAT!!!! You’ve got to be kidding!!!! You just wanted me to use capital letters and the bold function, right? You are just yanking my chain, aren’t you? Please tell you’re kidding. Or you better get specific!!! Cause I haven’t got the faintest idea what you could possibly mean.

I mean exactly what I said in the context of the discussion :jester:. I may be a bit naive to some things, but please. Can you tell me there was not one decision made by Walt as he built his empire that wasn't in some way based on dollars, or something other than what would be the ABSOLUTE best thing for the guest. I still maintain that THAT is a bit naive. He never said, 'yeah, I think that would be great but it is just too expensive':confused:. Come on, everyone has a wish list, and even Walt couldn't have gotten all of his.

I am glad that got you going though, after what you did to Scoop :p .

Is that little heart of yours racing a bit? Did your breathing increase ever so much? Are you pounding your fists into the desk, or worse into your temples? Are you pulling out you hair? Sorry! I couldn’t resist.

As for AK - I know people got the expectation to have their expectations exceeded from Disney (and they do that for me :)). However, did Disney give the expectation that AK would be THE best zoo, THE best theme park (rides, shows, etc.) all wrapped up into one? I don't think so, and we have been there from the beginning - AP preview and all. It is that misplaced expectation that leads to so much AK disappointment, despite the fact that it is a wonderful park - but I'm giving up on getting any of the #2 and 3 folks to grasp that.

BTW, you are welcome :bounce:.

One observation as I was searching through old posts looking for things. You, Mr. Baron hop easily to Car #1 while in the World, but revert when you get home and look back to the past. We had you for 10 minutes until you looked to your signature line from the past. See a theme here. You are always looking back, and there is nothing wrong with that, it is part of the Disney legacy and Magic - unless it clouds your enjoyment of the ever present magic today :).

hopemax

06-15-2002, 12:20 PM

I was a kid in the 70's and only know the business environment from the history books. However, I do believe that Walt had more freedom to operate his way in the 60's and 70's. Things were cheaper, even in relative dollars. Accountability to stockholders, Wall St., banks, etc. was not what it is today. I

Even Walt had to fight off potential shareholder lawsuits. It's touched upon in the Bob Thomas biography.

DVC-Landbaron

06-15-2002, 01:02 PM

Perhaps you can point me to the single best OBJECTIVE source of info, preferably written during the 70's as WDW was exploding.There are many. Scoop, JJ and AV have a pretty good recollection for these things. Unfortunately I don’t. And ironically I own very few. Most were borrowed from friends or the library. The Bob Thomas one comes to mind, but I’m sure that we can find some good ones for you. Tell you what. I’ll start a new thread (I’m not sure how many are following this thing currently). I know Walt was a different breed - but he wasn't from another planet.
Read the bios. He may not have come from Mars, but after you read about his business philosophy, you may think so.You know how I feel about the way many look back upon deceased people.Strangely, I usually feel the same way, unless, of course, we’re talking about a philosophy of doing business and not necessarily an individual. I know it’s easy to confuse. And I have a habit of taking a short cut when writing these posts. Instead of saying ‘The founding philosophical concepts upon which the company was based’, I say, ‘Walt’s idea’. Sorry for the confusion. Now I was trying for the life of me to find it in one of these threads and can't seem to. However, someone pointed out a number of the truly Magical things in WDW that our beloved Walt would have done differently, or wouldn't have done at all.OH!! I’m quite sure I would agree!! We wouldn’t have the EPCOT we know and I’m quite sure we wouldn’t have the Studios or AK. And the resorts would be quite different. Now that I think about it, we may have nothing in central Florida but a failed experiment of a city. Oh yes! Things would have been much different.But I would ask this - do you think if Walt was alive today, operating in today’s business environment, that all his decisions would be diametrically opposed to those of the management teams since he departed? I know, your answer is yes - but is that a knee jerk response? Mull it over for a while.I know where you’re coming from on this. I think you’re asking that if for any reason Walt got it into his head to build a zoo (and let’s face it folks, that’s the main concept here) would he have done things differently than current management, or would he be forced into the same decisions that were made because of modern business practices and the reality of the world today? Isn’t that it?

Well, I think there’s really no need to think about, or mull it over, as you say. If Walt had a notion to do something he did it right (as much as his business and personal finances would allow) or he didn’t do it at all! Plain and simple. We would, I’m quite sure, see a park that you may not like personally, but no one could ever even have a thought of calling it a half-day-park. I may be a bit naive to some things, but please. Can you tell me there was not one decision made by Walt as he built his empire that wasn't in some way based on dollars, or something other than what would be the ABSOLUTE best thing for the guest. I still maintain that THAT is a bit naive. He never said, 'yeah, I think that would be great but it is just too expensive. Come on, everyone has a wish list, and even Walt couldn't have gotten all of his.Oh I’m sure there are some ideas that weren’t feasible because of technologies or even price (even Walt had a finite amount of money). But he gave it whatever he could. Always!! Just like my signature says. “Give the people everything you can give them.” That doesn’t mean you can always do everything you can think of, but everything you have!! Did Disney do that with DCA or AK? I don’t think so!!

After you read some of the bios you’ll learn that he didn’t use a spreadsheet to see what he could put into Disneyland. He used his own money instead. He also was forced to go into partnership with ABC, something he clearly did not want to do!! No, his business philosophy is very far apart from the current administration. And that’s why we get ride closings without replacements, DCA, Pop Century and DCA to name but a few.

If you were asking if Walt would have given us any of the above, I don’t thank that would spark much of a debate even from the car #1 folks. A sure-fired one page thread. HE WOULD NOT!!I think it was easier for Walt to put his plans into place then, and I don't know that, if he had to do it all over again in today’s environment, it could be done again the same way.Sure it can. Again, I ask why not. The only difference I can see is that the general public (you and I) are much more aware of Wall Street and the meaning of it. But the key financers were always there. They were constantly breathing down Walt’s neck. He often said that if it weren’t for Roy he’d have been imprisoned for passing bad checks!! No. I don’t think there’s a much different business climate today than back then. It’s just that we are all more aware of it!!Is this because current management are bumbling idiots?YES!! ;)It is that misplaced expectation that leads to so much AK disappointment, despite the fact that it is a wonderful park - but I'm giving up on getting any of the #2 and 3 folks to grasp that. Maybe because it just isn’t true.You, Mr. Baron hop easily to Car #1 while in the World, but revert when you get home and look back to the past. This is something that simply baffles me. JJ has posted on it more than I. Why can’t you understand that Walt left such a legacy (a wall if you will) that much of it still remains. And even the current administration lucks into a hit every now and again (DVC for one). But we are greatly concerned that if the current trends continue, I will not have that great “wall” of magic to show my grandchildren. And that bothers me!!

HB2K

06-15-2002, 01:17 PM

However, did Disney give the expectation that AK would be THE best zoo, THE best theme park (rides, shows, etc.) all wrapped up into one? I don't think so, and we have been there from the beginning - AP preview and all. It is that misplaced expectation that leads to so much AK disappointment, despite the fact that it is a wonderful park - but I'm giving up on getting any of the #2 and 3 folks to grasp that.
Hey I didn't create the expectations....Disney did. Whether they printed the words "best" on the brochure doesn't matter. Over the past 3 decades Disney has positioned their brand name to be synonomus with wholesomeness, family, and QUALITY. I didn't do it. Disney did. They set the standard. Now they have to live up to it every time they come out with something new. When they don't (DAK as it stands, DCA, Return to Neverland, etc) it shows, and the majority of the public sees it.

DisDuck

06-15-2002, 05:21 PM

Baron you should go over to the Surprise Mornings or Disney Decade thread (can't remember which one I found it on) but a poster called...space listed 3 parks that should be considered 1/2 parks. Studios, AK & DCA. Interesting, huh.. Studios a 1/2 day park. Anyone else agree??

I countered that if Studios is 1/2 then so is Epcot because unless one wanders thru the shops in World Showcase all the rides can be done by 1pm (or earlier). So by the definition used by some to indicate that AK is a 1/2 day park then so is Epcot.

Bob O

06-15-2002, 11:42 PM

The studios was a half day park when built. I was their the first year and know first hand it was a half day. But it has grown into a full day park(with some dated attractions that should be removed). Epcot on the other hand was built as a full day experience from day one, unlike mgm/DCA/AK.

DisneyKidds

06-15-2002, 11:45 PM

My good Baron....

No. I don’t think there’s a much different business climate today than back then. It’s just that we are all more aware of it!!

Substitute 'WDW' for 'business climate' and you get what I believe is a fundemental Car #1 belief (Magic wise at the least) and the reason why so many #2 and 3 people are in those cars - and I know, 'I don't agree', 'its not true'...... I could probably start writing threads for you (basic response, without the wit of course ;)).

he did it right (as much as his business and personal finances would allow) or he didn’t do it at all!

Is there no possibility that management since the man is doing this, sans the personal finances of course, and maybe the 'not at all' bit? Maybe some things ended up being wrong, but could they have thought they were doing something right? Again, I know your answer, but I pose the question anyway. Furthermore (me writing your response again :p ) even if the motivations were good, it is the outcomes that concern the 2's and 3's. (how am I doing writing as the Baron?) See, I do understand how you guys think and where you are coming from. However, even if you beat me into submission on this one :crazy: I still maintain that it has no bearing on the Magic :D

We would, I’m quite sure, see a park that you may not like personally, but no one could ever even have a thought of calling it a half-day-park.

Ahhh, but the ONLY reason people call todays AK a half day park is because they don't like it personally. That means a couple of things. 1 - AK is not a half day park, and 2 - Even if Walt was developing something today he would not be able to escape the current criticisms and may not have been any more successful. Could it be that you actually found my point about the 'todays environment' issue without knowing it? :earseek:

If you were asking if Walt would have given us any of the above, I don’t thank that would spark much of a debate even from the car #1 folks. A sure-fired one page thread. HE WOULD NOT!!

Not disagreeing with you or trying to start that one page thread(some things are real stinkers :(), but did Walt ever envision WDW being the behemoth that it is today? I wonder how he would have handled the way things developed, because not every hotel on property could be a deluxe, even with Walt pulling the strings.

Maybe because it just isn’t true.

NOT. :p (yes, I have resorted to sticking my tongue out at you ;))

Why can’t you understand

I do understand, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. So, is this where we agree to disagree? After all, do any of us really want to make anyone change cars anyway?

and HB2K.....

Over the past 3 decades Disney has positioned their brand name to be synonomus with wholesomeness, family, and QUALITY.

I agree that this is the expectation that Disney created in general, and lived up to in the AK. And my point is not about the 'best' part of my position on this one. Try and separate the 'AK concept expectation' issue from the general 'Disney quality expectation' issue and maybe you will see my point about what is driving a lot of the current disappointment with the AK. People never had their expectations about what to find in the AK concept set correctly. They expected to find something that no one would ever be able to find because they didn't know what concept was being delivered. They also had an expectation of a wonderful time and a quality experience - which could easily be found by all if they weren't walking around saying 'but the place isn't......(insert whatever it is they thought the concept was supposed to be)'. I know, I thought I gave up :jester: .

HB2K

06-16-2002, 12:02 AM

Ahhh, but the ONLY reason people call todays AK a half day park is because they don't like it personally. That means a couple of things. 1 - AK is not a half day park, and 2 - Even if Walt was developing something today he would not be able to escape the current criticisms and may not have been any more successful. Could it be that you actually found my point about the 'todays environment' issue without knowing it?

People call the park a half a day park because that's how long they stay (I'm talking about the majority of guests...). It's a half a day park because as it stands it is incomplete. When the blueprints were drawn out park planners counted on adding another land...thus DAK is a half a day park.

Walt would meet some criticisims today just like anyone else, but he had his pulse on his customers and he knew what interested the MAJORITY of them. That's why he was successfull & why the current management concepts are struggling. Disney has lost sight of it's customer's wants. All that matters are the exec's wants.
I agree that this is the expectation that Disney created in general, and lived up to in the AK. And my point is not about the 'best' part of my position on this one. Try and separate the 'AK concept expectation' issue from the general 'Disney quality expectation' issue and maybe you will see my point about what is driving a lot of the current disappointment with the AK. People never had their expectations about what to find in the AK concept set correctly. They expected to find something that no one would ever be able to find because they didn't know what concept was being delivered. They also had an expectation of a wonderful time and a quality experience - which could easily be found by all if they weren't walking around saying 'but the place isn't......(insert whatever it is they thought the concept was supposed to be)'. I know, I thought I gave up .
OK you lost me. You're saying that Animal is a failure because it does nothing right? (It's not a good zoo, and it's not a good theme park....what is it then???)?

Or are you saying we're making Animal into a failure because we don't like it for what it was intended to be (which what the heck is that??? I thought Disney was attempting to build a theme park with an Animal theme.)

Help.

DisneyKidds

06-16-2002, 01:06 AM

Ding, Ding. Round 2 (or is it 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.....) on the AK half day park thing :bounce: .

People call the park a half a day park because that's how long they stay (I'm talking about the majority of guests...).

.....because they personally don't like everything the AK has to offer. And I don't know that that applies to the majority, too hard to make that statement with certainty. I, personally, like what the AK has to offer. But putting that aside, if you go to the AK and experience all of the good entertainment (not that everyone thinks the same things are good) the AK is a full day park. If you do, see, and appreciate everything it would take more than a day. If you skip the things you personally don't like (and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good) that may make it a half day park FOR YOU, but you can't unequivically call it a half day park for everyone. Even if it is 'incomplete', you still can't experience all that it has to offer in a half day. No way, no how.

My point on #2 (I think I had one :crazy: ) is this. If you define failure as people viewing a park as a half day park because they personally don't like it (which is the case with AK), then by Baron's statement he is saying that Walt may have been just as likely to create a 'failure'. BTW, I don't agree with this definition of failure. Yes, Walt knew his customers better and delivered better than current management. However, my wants are satisfied. I'm not greedy and can appreciate what has been offered up (hence, my Car #1 status). That does not mean that I am content with second class and that I am compromising my expectation for a wonderful, Magical experience. Current management delivers that.

Or are you saying we're making Animal into a failure because we don't like it for what it was intended to be (which what the heck is that??? I thought Disney was attempting to build a theme park with an Animal theme.)

You are close. However, people are making it into a failure because they don't like it because it isn't what they thought it was intended to be. They aren't even looking at what it was really intended to be. OK, I know that is confusing you more, but I'll try and clarify.

If people looked at AK for what it was intended to be they might be happy. As you state, it was intended to be a theme park with an animal theme. Nothing more, nothing less. It was intended to be something unique in that regard, and they hit the mark. It was intended to show you animals in a different way from any other park, and they hit the mark with that (KS). It was intended to have incredible animal themed shows, and they hit the mark with that. It was intended to have rides that fit into the overall theme and provided the guests with fun and excitement, and they hit the mark on that (although not as well as the other targets). How can anyone possibly call this a failure? Here's how. They say that AK is not the best zoo in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to be that (remember, the intent was to merge zoo and theme park in a unique way, not be a zoo). They say AK does not have the best rides of any theme park in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to do that (remember, the intent was to provide unique animal themes attractions, not just be another garden variety theme park). If people stopped running around saying 'hey, as a zoo this place stinks', or 'hey, the rides are better in (insert park of choice)' and actually enjoyed AK for what it has to offer they might actually enjoy it, and maybe even love it. Am I getting anywhere here (not to get you to agree that AK is not a failure, but to understand what I am trying to say)?

Hope that is of some help :).

DVC-Landbaron

06-16-2002, 01:16 AM

Is there no possibility that management since the man is doing this, sans the personal finances of course, and maybe the 'not at all' bit? Hmmm. I consider the two parts you so cavalierly threw out as being fundamental to the Walt philosophy. Especially the ‘not at all’ bit! You don’t?
Maybe some things ended up being wrong, but could they have thought they were doing something right?Interesting. Do you mean that they thought they were creating something special for the guests and that their prime-motivating factor was not the spreadsheet placed before them that promised higher profit? Hmmm. Let me think about that for a minute… … ….

… …. …. …. NO!Again, I know your answer, but I pose the question anyway. Furthermore (me writing your response again ) even if the motivations were good, it is the outcomes that concern the 2's and 3's. Well! Once again you have it exactly backwards!! It is the motivation that concerns us. NOT the outcome!! They may accidentally back into something wonderful. But if their ‘motivation’ was to sell more plush, then I am still very, very concerned about the Magic! (how am I doing writing as the Baron?) Not so good. So far you’re batting zero!!See, I do understand how you guys think and where you are coming from. No you don’t! Otherwise you’d know it was motivation (philosophy) that is our primary concern and not the out come. And you’d know that half of the Disney philosophy is ‘doing it right’ or ‘NOT DOING IT AT ALL’!!Ahhh, but the ONLY reason people call today’s AK a half day park is because they don't like it personally.Absolutely not! It’s a half-day park because there isn’t enough to do!! Plain and simple. Even the Imagineers knew it. That’s why an entire section was designed and integrated into the original concept. However, the ‘sharp pencil guys’ (Walt’s term) cut it thereby severely limiting the “things to do’ bit. Can’t you see that?I wonder how he would have handled the way things developed, because not every hotel on property could be a deluxe, even with Walt pulling the strings.OH BROTHER!!! Are you yanking on my chain again!! Surely you’ve been around the boards enough to get a dose of my caste system theory of Disney Resorts, haven’t you? In case you haven’t, just suffice to say that I totally disagree with your statement, start a new thread on the ‘class of resorts’ and you and I can be busy for the next couple of weeks discussing the philosophy of Disney resorts!!! I guarantee a 10 pager at least. But be warned, even the Car #3 people may hate you for starting it!!! ;)yes, I have resorted to sticking my tongue out at youI have to admit this is a first!! It had me laughing out loud! And strangely, I have nothing to add!!After all, do any of us really want to make anyone change cars anyway?Oh don’t kid yourself, pal. I do!!

DisneyKidds

06-16-2002, 01:57 AM

Hmmm. I consider the two parts you so cavalierly threw out as being fundamental to the Walt philosophy. Especially the ‘not at all’ bit! You don’t?

While I will never admit you are right (actually, a result of the fact that I can never be wrong ;)) I did open the door for you to beat me into submission on this one.

Interesting. Do you mean that they thought they were creating something special for the guests and that their prime-motivating factor was not the spreadsheet placed before them that promised higher profit?

Back to that 'considering all the relevant factors' in 'todays business environment' concept I have made you so fond of. I still don't buy into the evil Eisner conspiracy theories and the bottom line is the only line view on Disney management. Walts only motivation was the customer experience, and the customer experience is not a factor at all for current management. Still not buying, not even taking my wallet out of my pocket. (here is where you insert comment about how that is all current regime wants me to do)

Well! Once again you have it exactly backwards!!

No I don't!! I realize the motivation is the key for you guys. What I was unsuccessfully attempting to do was to see if I couldn't get you to see a glimmer of good motivation (although not the only motivation) in what is being done. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that you'd still see failure in a bad outcome, even if you accepted that there was a good motivation.

Absolutely not! It’s a half-day park because there isn’t enough to do!!

Don't make me stick my tongue out again........ you are wrong!!!! Are you telling me that if you saw everything the AK had to offer you could do it in a half day? Don't discredit yourself by agreeing to an absurd statement like this.

Not yanking your chain here, and I am unaware of your caste view on Disney resorts. When I said I wondered how Walt would have handled the development I wasn't implying he would have done what post Walt regimes have. No point, no agenda. I was really wondering. Remember, I am trying to continue an education of sorts. I know there are things that you guys can teach me (despite the fact that you are WRONG about the Magic :)). Remember, a student can never ask a bad question - so don't be so quick to take out that REALLY sharp pencil. Ouch!Could Walt have produced a WDW without moderate or value resorts? Don't jump on me - I don't know :confused: . I don't see how, but I don't know. Daggars or not - perhaps this thread needs another turn on its ear.

You have to appreciate the moderators on this board for not closing a thread when it goes off topic ;). Thanks :):D:).

HB2K

06-16-2002, 02:12 AM

If people looked at AK for what it was intended to be they might be happy. As you state, it was intended to be a theme park with an animal theme. Nothing more, nothing less.
In my opinion, DAK fails as a theme park with an Animal theme. There are only 4 rides (counting Bugs)....that's absurd. But that's not why I say DAK is a failure....it is a failure because the Disney company built the park to increase people's vacations, and to steal attendance away from Bush Gardens & Seaworld.

The numbers show people aren't stretching their vacations and the only attendance being stolen by DAK is from the other Disney parks!

And the main, factual reason DAK is a partial day park is this....it hasn't been completed to spec. A whole land was omitted and an attraction (Discovery river boats) was removed due to this.If you define failure as people viewing a park as a half day park because they personally don't like it (which is the case with AK), then by Baron's statement he is saying that Walt may have been just as likely to create a 'failure'. BTW, I don't agree with this definition of failure. Yes, Walt knew his customers better and delivered better than current management. However, my wants are satisfied. I'm not greedy and can appreciate what has been offered up (hence, my Car #1 status). That does not mean that I am content with second class and that I am compromising my expectation for a wonderful, Magical experience. Current management delivers that.
I define DAK's failure as this....it's attendance is so bad upper management is apparently forgoing any plans on massive upgrades since they feel the park has hit it's ceiling. Isn't that sad? Isn't that indicitive of failure? Do you think if they knew how poorly recieved this park has been, would they build it again? Probably not.

Don't think with your personal feelings. We all love WDW. Think of the business. DAK may be a experinced success for you and your family. It's a business failure since it's not living up to it's purpose of existance.

And I don't feel I'm greedy by deciding to spend my vacation dollars elsewhere...the park in my opinion isn't worth the money. I'm not the only one with that opinion....
It was intended to show you animals in a different way from any other park, and they hit the mark with that (KS).
OK I'll give you that one...
It was intended to have incredible animal themed shows, and they hit the mark with that.
Watch out, the ice is cracking beneath you....what show are you referring to?
It was intended to have rides that fit into the overall theme and provided the guests with fun and excitement, and they hit the mark on that (although not as well as the other targets).
The ice just broke.
DAK FAILS at this target. Period. There are 4 rides in the whole park. Roadside carnival be darned, even the carnival behind my local mall has more to do than this park does.
How can anyone possibly call this a failure?
Because noone is going to the park? It isn't making any money?
They say that AK is not the best zoo in the world.
Of Course not....it's nahtazu after all....which begs the question of what is it?
If people stopped running around saying 'hey, as a zoo this place stinks', or 'hey, the rides are better in (insert park of choice)' and actually enjoyed AK for what it has to offer they might actually enjoy it, and maybe even love it.
Maybe if you didn't blame people for not liking what was given to them and instead blame the company for not giving people what they want we wouldn't be having this discussion :)
Am I getting anywhere here (not to get you to agree that AK is not a failure, but to understand what I am trying to say)?
Sorry, but no :)
I'm glad you like the park. But I think you're letting your personal experinces guide your opinion on the financial success of the park...or lack there of.
Oh don’t kid yourself, pal. I do!!
LOL!

DVC-Landbaron

06-16-2002, 02:21 AM

Ok! Let’s take this one step at a time. I’m getting a little confused. I said: quote: Interesting. Do you mean that they thought they were creating something special for the guests and that their prime-motivating factor was not the spreadsheet placed before them that promised higher profit?To which you replied: Back to that 'considering all the relevant factors' in 'todays business environment' concept I have made you so fond of. Please explain. I don’t get what one has to do with the other. I still don't buy into the evil Eisner conspiracy theories I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I just think he’s inept. And far from magical. and the bottom line is the only line view on Disney management. If you see any evidence that this is not the current thinking, please let me know. I’ve been studying this for about two years now, and to tell you the truth I can’t see any other motivating force behind the decisions they make. Please tell me where I’m wrong,Walts only motivation was the customer experience, and the customer experience is not a factor at all for current management.That is a perfect sentence!!! Are you sure you’re not a car #3er?!?!?! ;)What I was unsuccessfully attempting to do was to see if I couldn't get you to see a glimmer of good motivation (although not the only motivation) in what is being done.Again I ask you to name a few. Heck name only one and I’d be happy!!!!You have to appreciate the moderators on this board for not closing a thread when it goes off topic We happen to have the best moderators that there are. But in all fairness, if they didn’t tolerate off-topic threads, they’d have to close down nearly every one of ours!!!! ;) :crazy:

ps: check your PMs!!!

Bob O

06-16-2002, 06:09 PM

I cant disagree with anything DVC said!!
As for closing off this topic, once a thread it started their is no telling where it may lead too and even though we may disagree i havent seen anything here that could close the thread!! People on this board have a great ability to disagree while being agreeable.

DisneyKidds

06-17-2002, 02:26 AM

HB2K....

I guess the focus of the discussion turned to

the financial success of the park...or lack there of.

without my really realizing it. I have been mostly talking about the view of AK as half day park and trying to explain why people are disappointed in it and feel it is a half day park. My reference to success is in regard to what Disney produced and delivered. As for attendance figures, meeting profit targets, etc. - I can't comment on that other than to say that I don't believe it is the utter failure some see it as.

Baron.....

Please explain. I don’t get what one has to do with the other.

Only that, yes, perhaps they thought they were creating something special for the guest but they considered a wide variety of factors in putting it together, only one being the spreadsheet and profits. I'll read up on Walt, but I'm sure he considered profits as well. Notwithstanding the fact that he used his own money, he didn't create WDW as a not-for-profit or a charity.

If you see any evidence that this is not the current thinking, please let me know.

I see it every time I go to WDW. I'm sure there are lots more things they could do to cut costs and increase the bottom line. It is still a Magical place, and not just Magic fumes leftover from the last refill.

That is a perfect sentence!!! Are you sure you’re not a car #3er?!?!?!

Nope - just another unsuccessful attempt at sarcasm.

Again I ask you to name a few. Heck name only one and I’d be happy!!!!

You mean there has been nothing that has been done or added that didn't have to be? That could have been lesser done or done for less? Disney gets all the criticism for things they didn't do, or did cheaply, but do they get adequate recognition for the things they do right, or even better? It is late and the US is up 1 - 0 over Mexico so I won't put forth examples now - but I bet I can come up with a few, and you could too if you tried.

p.s. - Thanks for the message.

DisDuck

06-17-2002, 10:40 AM

Baron..Baron.. writing novels again I see. Disneykidds is somewhat new to the group so please don't put him/her to sleep on the resort system;)

At least you and I (Baron) have come to an arrangement of sorts concerning subjective versus objective evaluation of WDW. Unless that has now fallen apart. I know you wouldn't be going this summer if there wasn't something (MAGIC) drawing you back.

Sorry, HBK2 we will have to agree to disagree just like before. What else but personal experience draws us repeaters back year after year. Unless you are a stockholder, who cares whether AK is a failed business plan or not. It succeeds because 7-8 million people go there; otherwise, it would be like DCA with bottom of the barrel attendence figures. Even my 17 yo daughter 'gets' want AK is all about. It is not an MK, etc. It was never designed to be an MK, etc. Unfortunately, marketing has yet to figure it out also. But lately marketing has been a failure on several levels (see Pearl Harbor, etc.). Maybe the answer is to keep WDI people and clear out Marketing.

BobO.. I was using another posters definition of what constituted a 1/2 day park and base on that definition (not my own) Epcot can be considered a 1/2 day park. All the rides and shows can be done by 1-2pm. TIME TO LEAVE THE PARK NOTHING ELSE LEFT TO DO. I consider Epcot a full day but consider IOA a 1/2 day because its attractions can only keep me there a 1/2 day.

So everyone.. full day - 1/2 day is purely subjective. If you don't like shopping and browsing the countries Epcot finishes in 1/2 day. If you don't ride coaster, IOA finishes in 1/2 a day. If you are not into exploring trails and watching shows then AK is 1/2 a day. Otherwise if you like to do all these things then Epcot, IOA and AK are full day parks.

Regardless, if the business plan was successful or not.

airlarry!

06-17-2002, 03:02 PM

Baron,

I thought people were kidding about the length of hours (hope this is the right topic)

I'm helping a friend plan a last minute trip to WDW this Wed. We checked the official Disney hours on www.disneyworld.com and they have the MK closing at 10 pm EVERY NIGHT. Is this for real? In June? Not opening until 9:00 a.m.?

Ridiculous. Either this is outdated....and I hope for my friend's sake it is....or a rip-off.

SnackyStacky

06-18-2002, 10:50 AM

I haven't finished reading this entire post (I probably should), but felt like throwing in my $.02 on the AK debate.

I would have to concur with everyone that says that AK is a 1/2 day park, but I don't think that everyone would agree. It's all a matter of your own personal views on the subject.

I live about 2 hours away from African Lion Safari in Canada. It was around LONG before AK ever came to be, but it's like Animal Kingdom lite. They have something along the lines of KS, but it's just not the same. At African Lion Safari, the animals are half dead, and because they allow people through in their own vehicles, they feed the animals and the animals then block the roads and cause MUCH congestion. And themeing? FORGET it!!! The landscaping is atrocious. Outside of the actual ride through, there's a train, a few kiddie water slides, some food shops, and not much else. Having seen this, Animal Kingdom was AMAZING. Absolutely breathtaking! And I loved it, but still feel that it's something I can do in half the time as Magic Kingdom.

I personally prefer the rides, and the rides at AK in comparsion to some others are just incredible. It's Tough to Be A Bug is one of my FAVORITE shows!!!! I can't see anything like that outside of Disney World.

However, I have many friends who don't really care for rides at all. Animal Kingdom is their kind of park. They love it, because there's so much to do outside of the rides!!

In the end, it's not my preference or your preference that counts. What counts is the money they've made, and in the end those who came at opening and leave at 3pm paid the EXACT same price as those who came at opening, and left at closing. And at $50/adult, they're more than making up for any revenues lost on people who don't stay in the parks to purchase food and merchandise.

Once again, I'm not saying I'm right, just contributing my $.02! :D