DEBATE: Does Disney understand their market?

[larworth]

Looks like DSP is also having a rough start-up. article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021029/media_nm/leisure_eurodisney_dc_2)

If we look at the last 3 non-Japan parks they all seem to be falling short of THEIR own projections. For the guys who are supposed to be experts in understanding their customer base, it seems more like a random walk.

DAK opens with reasonable adherence to standards, but has potential “theme” and number of attractions issues. A problem they evidently don’t think can be addressed by lowering price points, nor by major additions.

DCA opens with more attractions than DAK, but they skimp on standards and attention to the “Wow” factor. They have to make massive price point adjustments and many unplanned additions.

DSP opens with an even shorter list of attractions, and light application of standards. They do open with lower price points, but still seem to be too high. Corrective action unknown at this time.

Launch and learn is an acceptable strategy, just seems they always over-estimate their value proposition (goes beyond their imperfect ability to forecast the economy). Just guilty of over-selling the street, or a fundamental flaw in their market understanding?

[raidermatt]

Just guilty of over-selling the street, or a fundamental flaw in their market understanding?

A little of the former, a lot of the latter, all guided by a mis-placed philosophy.

I know this sounds like a broken record, but really, it all goes back to philosophy. When your goal is to provide as little as possible to acheive certain financial results, you get things like DSP and DCA.

I suppose if they had a perfect understanding of their market, they would still manage to hit their financial/attendance targets. But when you are trying so desparately not to provide more than you absolutely have to, you're almost inevitably going to undershoot the mark.

And your chances of creating something that is capable of propping up a media conglomerate in troubled times (see DL and MK) is practically nil.

[DisneyKidds]

I know this sounds like a broken record
Welllll gooooollllleeey, ya think so ;). Actually, so much so that I thought of answering for the disenchanted majority as I knew this very answer was coming, but I decided to let them speak for themselves.............................:wave:.

[raidermatt]

You mean there are people "enchanted" by DCA, DSP and their financial/attendance performance?

I know, its all the economy's fault...

(Except in Japan, where such economic law does not apply as it does in America and Europe)


People develop and follow philosophies for a reason. So do businesses.

If you work to develop a good one, and stick to it, it can be used in just about any situation. Hence, the "broken record".

[Bstanley]

Hmm, interesting.

The statistics from Orlando (WDW, Orlando airport stats and USF) show that international travelers are staying home.

But - European travelers are not going to DLP/DSP either...

So where are they going? Are they all just staying home? Or are other vacation spots seeing improved numbers?

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by raidermatt
You mean there are people "enchanted" by DCA, DSP and their financial/attendance performance?

I know, its all the economy's fault...

(Except in Japan, where such economic law does not apply as it does in America and Europe)


People develop and follow philosophies for a reason. So do businesses.

If you work to develop a good one, and stick to it, it can be used in just about any situation. Hence, the "broken record".

Ahh, Matt. I was just kiddin ya :).

I really can't speak about DLP or DSP.

[Luv2Roam]

I have e-mailed back and forth with even die hard Disney fans about DLP Studios. No one has said WOW. They all have said *okay*.
Does seem like another DCA, with maybe even less to offer, from what little I have heard from attendees.

[Bob O]

If disney did understand their market they never would have built DAK/DCA in the manner that they did. They knew their market when they built Epcot but were off when they built MGM and show they havent learned their lessons yet. Now the OLC has shown they understand their marketplace and the attendance shows,

[larworth]

I was trying to separate intent from understanding for a moment. I too complain that they are intentionally making choices at the wrong end of the “better for the short vs longterm” spectrum. That knowingly cutting corners allows for higher returns in the shortterm, at the expense of what is really in the longterm best interest.

Let’s assume they are fully conscious of the trade-offs they are making. That while they have the wrong intent, that they do understand the market enough to design and price the path they pick accordingly.

Are these mis-readings (remember, they also mis-read the TDS situation) an indication that they have poor market intelligence or is this just fundamental to this market. One where it is difficult to predict customer behavior.

[PKS44]

I agree with Matt-it just does not matter what they understand as long as they are misguided by their underlying philosophy...they get data and they massage data to make it fit what they want it to fit so that it jibes with their philosophy...thus they scoff at TDS as a bloated overinvestment not because they don't realize what a hit is would be (which they did not) but because they don't really care if it is a success or not-that kind of success won from risk and investment is not part of their business philosophy...to them it is like playing the lottery (it is not-but that is how they see it...sure somebody wins big, but they are not interested in any gamble) Investment must be cautious, returns and margins must be maximized now -long term is meaningless...the thing their philosophy fails to account for is that such a cautious approach is not cautious it is a loser..innovation is mandatory, risk is inherent in any proposition that is likely to pay out big....Sure things are sure of one thing only- that there are no sure things......it is like the guy who keeps his money in the mattress or the low paying savings account because of the short term risks of the stock market...WISE investment and risk are the ONLY way to stay ahead and win...those who hesitate are lost...as current Disney management has amply demonstrated time and again.

[raidermatt]

Given your assumptions, larworth, yes, there is a certaion amount of uncertainty in this market, and that would certainly lead to some misses.

But I think the degree to which Disney has mis-read these situations is an indication that they are clearly lacking in this area and not doing as good a job as they could.

This seems to be part of a disturbing pattern of drawing poor conclusions from data and failed situations.

Euro Disney's original struggles appear not to be due to an "over-investment" in the park, but more due to the hotels. Yet the conclusion drawn was that "over-done" parks are too risky, and simply will not succeed. So, AK is scaled back, and falls short of expectations.

Apparently, the conclusion drawn was that even AK was too "over-done", so here comes DCA and DSP. Yet they fail expectations by an even greater margin.

Meanwhile, the one park that does get a higher level of investment is TDS, and its a smash.

Yet they still seem unwilling to accept the fact that their cautious strategy is really a major cause of the problem.

Its hard to leave philosophy out of the equation, because it is the guiding force behind all decisions. But even if we do leave it out, its clear that Disney has a fundamental mis-understanding of what makes its guests tick... Its a tough thing to do, especially when you are using the "provide as little as we have to" philosophy, but that's why people get paid the big bucks to figure it out. Nobody's perfect, but they've got to get better.

[PKS44]

IOA suffered two problems-1)it is primarily a park for teens and up with only a little bit for toddlers people with little ones did not realize this when they went and found themselves with little to do and little good to say about the park...the presence of the Dr Suess stuff led people to think the park might have more in general than just the one area...this led to bad word of mouth from the parents with little kids-(we sure heard it from our friends with little ones)and people stayed away 2) Problem #2--...the target audience was just beginning to grow when IOA opened-- that audience is reached differently than the classic theme park Orlando?disney group and that was not appreciated initially---now teens/twentysomethings have found it and the same audience is growing everyday as the echo boom grows...

Paul

[space42]

Originally posted by thedscoop
...this conversation is almost impossible to have without adding the initially very tepid response to IOA.

By all accounts, IOA was designed to directly compete with Disney parks in not just rides but in theming, immersiveness, depth and such.

Yet, when IOA opened, it remained way under projected attendance until Universal finally lowered their attendance projections.

So, what is one to think when they look at IOA, the type of park many seem to be clamoring for, and just see more poor results right out of the gate.

Because IOA is not even close to the Disney we all know and love? They may have spent big bucks on the park, but it still seems half baked to me. Large "un-themed" (but great) roller coasters that you can see from other areas. Ugly "un-themed" space shot. All of this goes a long way in destroying the great theming in other areas like Jurrasic Park and Lost Continent. If you go to IOA looking for a "Disney" type of experience, you will be dissapointed.

I think the park may have a perception problem also as what you see from the road are the big coasters and space shot. It's not really shouting out "come see me, I'm a great family vaction spot"

I know I cannot be the only one who was underwhelmed with IOA. Perhaps this could be part of the reason it underperforms? Or perhaps Universal mis-judged the Orlando market?

[Bstanley]

Islands of Adventure is an example of a Decorated, rather than a Themed park IMHO.

Some of the Islands do have a story, but others are just 'places with rides'.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by space42
Because IOA is not even close to the Disney we all know and love? They may have spent big bucks on the park, but it still seems half baked to me. Large "un-themed" (but great) roller coasters that you can see from other areas. Ugly "un-themed" space shot. All of this goes a long way in destroying the great theming in other areas like Jurrasic Park and Lost Continent. If you go to IOA looking for a "Disney" type of experience, you will be dissapointed.


I guess if they had put a building around them and added Day-glow cardboard cutouts IOA would be beating guest away with sticks?? Isn't it much more likely that IOA attendance will increase as Universal becomes more and more of a destination and not just a 1 or 2 day visit? I mean after all we have an huge number of Disney snobs on the board that will not even admit that Universal has built two really great parks. I'm still not buying that IOA is a failure speech either. Universal will never have that Disney type of experience because Universal is not Disney. I wonder how many people 10-15 years from now will be saying, "I don't want to go to Disney because it does not have that Universal feel to it"? I think Universal is on the right track. They have won my family over. The more they add the less we go to Disney.

[raidermatt]

Scoop, IoA may have been intended to compete directly with Disney, but if so, it fails due to the same reasons Disney is slipping.

IoA may have themed its thrill rides better than others, but the thrill rides are still too high a percentage of their attractions to steal away a lot of families. (hmmm, maybe THAT'S a lesson Disney could learn...)

Also, IoA doesn't have the built in family appeal of Disney's characters and reputation. Yes, Disney is milking that and it will eventually run dry without new creations, but for now, its an advantage Universal does not have. Yeah, Woody Woodpecker is funny, but he is not beloved at the same level as Mickey and the gang.

The roller coasters maybe more exciting than Disney's, but are they really THEMED better than Big Thunder, Space Mountain, and even RnRC?

So, what is one to think when they look at IOA, the type of park many seem to be clamoring for, and just see more poor results right out of the gate.
Frankly, I would be very disappointed in this park had it been Disney. Yes, some of the attractions are strong enough, and its probably better than DCA, but it still falls short of what Disney should be doing. (Note- That does not mean it falls short of most of what Disney IS doing. But that is really pointless, since most of what Disney is doing is falling well short of expectations.)

Also, it relies too much on height-restricted attractions.


Yes, IoA has problems, but its not due to it being TOO good...

[raidermatt]

Would IOA be considered a "full" or "completed" park when built (or for that matter today since nothing much has been added since day one)?

Two caveats...

1- I've never been there because there are too many things my son can't ride, and my wife wouldn't want to.

2- No park should ever be considered "complete".

That said, from what I know, yes, IoA could be considered an essentially full park as it stands today. That's not to say it couldn't become more profitable with further expansion, but I count 24 attractions, and without regard to quality/target/etc, that would seem to qualify as a "full" park, at least at opening.

[Bob O]

IOA is a example of a excellant themed park that matches disney is the ability to create a themed park!! Of course people here on a disney site will never agree but polls by other sites like amusement today golden ticket awards/theme park insider that arent over-run with disney fans differ from the results of a disney site. On other polls that are not stacked IOA rates as good or better than any disney park.
IOA was built as a completed park from day one(unlike dca/ak) and have added a attraction since the park opended(storm force in the marvel comics section.When a park is complete from day one and is new you dont need to add much but im sure as the park grows with age rides will be removed and replaced with updated attractions.
Their is more than enough to keep kids occupied at IOA as compared to either AK/Ecpot/MGM but not as much as MK or US. The park has stolen away days from wdw when my family goes to FLA and my older kids perfer it over any disney theme park which is a negative for disney because when they have kids their allegiance will lie with USF rather than wdw.
Is it different than disney, yes but that is a major postive and not a negative and my family for one wasnt underwhelmed at all with IOA but was w/AK and soon i will be able to judge DCA.

[PKS44]

With a Six Flags near so much of the country, and similar thrill based parks near the rest, that a thrill based park will be a magnet for guests is unlikely. Themed lines leading to unthemed yet great coasters can attract a select niche, but for the WDW level of success (or nowadays Tokyo kind of success) it has to be really special and themed. I don't know about Universal lacking characters as Matt says. Woody Woodpecker may not be much, but the whole Nickelodeon stable is very popular with kids nowadays, more so than Disney characters.

Paul

[raidermatt]

Woody Woodpecker may not be much, but the whole Nickelodeon stable is very popular with kids nowadays, more so than Disney characters.

Yes, but I am referring to appeal to everyone, not just the kids.

30 years ago, Popeye and Woody Woodpecker were probably more popular among little kids than the Disney characters were. But the key is lasting appeal, and the Disney characters have accomplished that to a greater degree than anyone elses.

Plus, you have the Disney movie characters, which haven't been as great lately, but does include characters popular with kid's of the 80's and 90's. Ariel, Belle, Simba etc.

Again, not saying it automatically makes Disney's parks better, its just an element of appeal and reputation where they have an advantage.

BobO, as much as I agree that IoA is a more complete park than what Disney has been doing lately, it still remains true that its not all about putting in things that keep kids occupied. We do not take family vacations so I can go ride 5 or 6 thrill rides while my wife takes my son to the kiddie areas.

Sadly, however, Disney is also starting to move in this direction, which will eventually decrease their advantage in this area.

Europa/BobO, you can point to your family's personal preference all you want, but until the numbers start bearing out the "stealing" theory, its nothing more than anecdotal data. The fact is that Universal's attendance fell more than Disney's did last year. IoA fell short of expectations, period.

Comments like "Disney snobs will not admit that Universal built two great parks" are pointless. If the parks are great, attendance will bear that out, and so far it hasn't.

Maybe that will change, maybe it won't.

Call that snobbish if you want, but its really just the reality of the situation.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Comments like "Disney snobs will not admit that Universal built two great parks" are pointless. If the parks are great, attendance will bear that out, and so far it hasn't.



Just like the local buger joint down the street makes much better food then McDonalds, but we see which one has the most customers.

[Bob O]

Raidermatt- Universal started in FLA being the underdog in regards to name recognition/brand loyalty etc, which has helped disney greatly and does hurt Universal when they build excellant parks. But we will have to wait and see what the situation is in 25 yrs when Universal will ahve the time to overcome their underdog status, escpecially when they will ahve the time to develop loveable family charcters and disney may start to lose the copyrights on their(which im against). So all things considered i think they are doing quite wll and independant surveys bear that out as regards to the quality of their parks.
With the popularity of the Nick channel and the characters they produce Universal has a good chance to even the playing field and with IOA they have shown they can out do Disney!!

[raidermatt]

Ok, I'll debate your way.

Just like the local buger joint down the street makes much better food then McDonalds, but we see which one has the most customers.

But Disney is better than Universal because my family goes there. Only a Universal snob would refuse to admit that.

[raidermatt]

BobO, I have no idea what direction Universal will be going in 25 years. What I do know is that whatever direction is being taken now will have to produce adequate returns long before then, or it will be changed.

How Disney does is still up to Disney. If they stay the current course, they will continue to provide Universal with ample opportunities to steal market share. Whether Universal ultimately capitalizes on that remains to be seen.

[hopemax]

[QUOTE]The fact is that Universal's attendance fell more than Disney's did last year. [QUOTE]

Well...IOA was down 500,000 visitors, and US was down 800,000. MK down 600,000, Epcot 1.6 million, MGM and AK were both down 500,000.

The reason I'm pointing this out is that a lot of families cancelled vacations in 2001. If we look at the extreme example of 1 family with a 6 day vacation with 1 day at each of the parks. From a percentage basis MK would have experienced less of a decline than IOA (due to having more visitors in the first place). But from another POV the decline at both Universal & Disney was the same: 1 less family showed up.

This is where I would love to know how much cross-over there is between Disney and Universal's numbers.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Ok, I'll debate your way.



But Disney is better than Universal because my family goes there. Only a Universal snob would refuse to admit that.

I said...better ?????

[raidermatt]

My only conclusion, hope, was that Universal didn't steal away any market share last year, despite all of the practices that were praised. They, in fact, lost market share.

Don't get me wrong, losing guests is not a positive situation for either resort.

Maybe this year will tell a different story, but we won't know until the numbers come out.

But regardless, the point of Scoop bringing up IoA wasn't who was better, or even whether Universal is stealing guests from Disney's parks.

The question was why was IoA a disappointment vs. projections when more was invested in it than DCA or DLP.

[Bob O]

Regarding the cost of IOA, does the numbers you hear only count IOA, or does it include the costs of IOA/Portifino/Citywalk???
As for projections i think both USF and Disney set the projections high so as to justify the building/expanding they are doing because once its built its too late to stop and tear it down.

[raidermatt]

I said...better ?????

Yes, you did.

Just like the local buger joint down the street makes much better food then McDonalds, but we see which one has the most customers.

You drew an analogy, saying that the local burger joint was better but didn't have more customers, and this situation was "just like" the Universal/Disney situation.

If its just like it, then you are saying Universal is better.

Otherwise, the analogy was pointless.

[EUROPA]

Yeah I know :) just in one of those moods.

Some things at Disney are better then Universal and that works the other way as well. Compare Disney's latest offerings to IOA though and guess what?? IOA wins hands down. I'm sorry if you guys can't see that. :(

[raidermatt]

Yeah I know just in one of those moods.
We all have 'em...
;)

Compare Disney's latest offerings to IOA though and guess what?? IOA wins hands down. I'm sorry if you guys can't see that.
Whoa, timeout....

I can't say "hands down", but I'm willing to say IoA is "better" than DCA (which I have been to) and probably better than DLP.

AK is another story, and I just can't say which is better for sure without having been to IoA.

I think you have some valid points. Even if we think that DCA and DLP are themed and detailed just as much as IoA, the fact remains that IoA is a MUCH more complete park.

My main point when we talk about the future is that NOTHING that either Universal or Disney (except maybe TDS) is doing compares favorably to past Disney parks, particularly MK and Epcot, particularly when it comes to "all family" appeal. There might be an attraction here or there, but not overall. So Disney still has the ability to make what it wants out of its future, and really wouldn't have to worry about Universal if they would just take care of their own business.

That doesn't mean Universal couldn't succeed if Disney were truly focused on the right things, but it would be much more difficult than it is for them right now.

Of course another angle to that is that if Universal really wanted to take a gamble, they could REALLY employ the old Disney philosophy, but they would have to do it without the built in advantages that Disney has, which makes it a much bigger risk for them. I don't expect them to do that because they are an established company that has a lot to lose if it doesn't work.

But yes, if Disney is going to do no better than DCA and DLP, its certainly within the realm of possibility that Universal can make further inroads into Disney's market. I just think that if they really want to do that, they are making some of the same mistakes Disney is, like focusing on the two opposite ends of the attraction spectrum (thrills and kiddie rides) rather than on the middle.

But it is harder to thrill people without using things that create height requirements, so right now everyone is taking the easy way out.

[EUROPA]

Most of what is in AK is on par but not as complete at IOA. I'm talking about the Aladin,DCA,Dinorama, Primevil Hurl, Me you and ABC(or whatever its called)

You might change you thoughts about what Universal is doing (compared to past Disney efforts) once you've been on Spiderman, Jurassic Park, Poseidon’s Furry or step into Seuss Landing.... It really is a great park. I personally think that it needs a couple more smaller attractions and two more E-Tickets and it really will be a "complete knock you socks off... need to spend three days there type of park". Plus Universal is adding Three new E-ticket attractions to the Studios within the next year or so it just seems that Universal is just doing "Disney" type of attractions better right now then Disney is doing right now. With the plans that Universal has for the future and the current direction of Disney seems that Universal is putting themselves in a great position.

PS...I don't consider TDS in the picture for obvious reasons.

[d-r]

Melissa and I have been discussing whether we should spend a whole day at IOA or not. My point is there is no need to. My thinking is, go at opening, fast pass for Spiderman, ride hulk stand by, ride spiderman, walk through suess and ride cat in the hat, walk through jurassic park and ride the river ride, fast pass for dueling dragons and watch the posieden thing and ride dueling dragons, then walk through toon town or whatever they call it on the way out - skip the two water rides since it will be January anyway. Then I say go to USF, ride men in black, T3-D, and back to the future and you've done everything worth doing. Her point is to take more relaxed. I don't see the point of it, I think I'd be bored and don't want to blow two days on it. Of course they probably close at 5 or 6 so I guess it might be sort of tight. That's how I see it though, IOA=3 or 4 attractions, USF = 2 or 3.

DR

[Another Voice]

Wait a minute - Disney builds flops in Anaheim and Paris but that's okay because Universal had a slow start three years ago in Orlando.

Wow - the logic....

[PKS44]

AV-

I think the argument is that Disney was prudent in not spending a lot since even IOA with all of it's spending and "WOW factor" was not "successful." I don't buy it because I think that a properly built AK, DCA, DLP would have enjoyed a DisneySea sort of success because Disney had a brand identity that Universal lacked when they opened IOA. Now Disney has developed a different brand identity- with the theme parks amny people think it best to stay away until they build it up...

Paul

[HB2K]

...and none of Disney's latest theme park offerings can come close to matching IOA.

IOA is so much more than thrill rides & coasters (There are really only 2 costers....unless you count Dueling Dragons as two coasters).

Popeye & Bluto makes Kali look pathetic...the "Me Ship the Olive" play area has drawn raves....Dudley do Right falls short of Splash for theming, but it is still another ride the whole family can ride on...the whole Jurassic park area is fantastic to the point that you feel like you're walking in the movie...Spiderman is another ride which the whole family can go on and enjoy (and it's probably the best ride I've ever been on).

All that and I haven't even spoken of Dr. Suess Island which is visual & theme OVERLOAD for the kids....

For more info I would suggest reading this Jim Hill writes for Amusement Park.com re: IOA (http://www.amusementpark.com/ap/archive/hill/H2001/06/06120101_hill.html)

Jim's article was what made me decide to give IOA a chance on my last trip...and IOA will be included on all future trips in place of DAK....

Ask gcurling....he also wrote a review of IOA on these boards and he also has a younger child....get his input.

P.S. Matt, it was a incomplete pass....

[larworth]

I never thought this thread would veer off into an IOA discussion.

Scoop, I assume you were trying to show that other players in the industry also do a poor job of knowing how the market will respond to their product?????

Universal's mis-read can be taken as another example of the potential inherent uncertainty in this market. However, with only 1/5 the customer base, many less years in the business, and with the added burden of trying to build brand awareness at the same time, I can see why their ability to predict customer reaction might be more difficult.

Best accounts say IOA, the park itself, costs about the same as DCA and DAK (circa $800 million). I have no doubt it has underperformed their goals. However, it doesn’t appear to be the huge albatross that some say. Here is an excerpt from a recent article. story (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-viviendi26oct26.story)
Theme parks, although hit hard by an industrywide slump since the terrorist attacks, have been a profitable business for Vivendi. They contribute more than $300 million a year in cash flow and are worth $2 billion to $4 billion, according to analysts' estimates.
I didn’t bring up the DLP case. I don’t know what they originally projected for attendance, but it didn’t take long to get to 10 million guests. I bet this was not too far off their projections. What we do know is that they really mis-read the culture factor. They had to make a lot of changes after opening to make it more palatable to western Europeans. I would put this in the negative column on market understanding.

[Andrew015]

I don't know about other disney stores around the country....

The one at my local mall has gone down hill quick. Now, 85% of the merchandise is kids clothing. No unique items remain in the store whatsoever. The case that used to have Mickey Watches in it now has little girls underwear. The collectable pieces in the front case now have stuffed animals in them. And I was told that there are only 3 stores in the COUNTRY that now have the collectable pieces. The nearest one to me here in Ohio is in Chicago. :(

The same holds true for the stores in WDW. None of them are unique anymore. You can pretty much count on finding kids clothes in almost any store. Bunea Vista, the World Showcase, and the Centorium used to have the most unique items/shops. Now, for the most part, they're one in the same.

[Bob O]

dr-From your post it seems that you must jog around IOA/USF and miss most of what the parks have to offer. Hb2k makes great points, and as for great rides like Spiderman/Hulk/DD/Cat in the Hat one time is never enough and with a ride like spiederman you notice things you missed the first time thru the ride. And while at USF i dont understand why you wouldnt want to see a great show like the Horror makeup Show, excellant rides like Jaws/Twister/ET and MIB is a ride that cvan be enjoyed numerous times as you try to out do your last score as examples. My family spends 3 days at USF/IOA and on site to avoid lines and that isnt enought time,escpecially when kids can see Barney(makes me barf),Fievel Playland/Curious George,Animal Show. That would be akin to going to MGM and going to tot/rncr/Indy Jones stunt show and then leaving and saying you saw the whole park!!!
The parks at USF are different from disney but i think that is a major positive and not a negative and it definitely in my family appeals to the younger kids which bolds well for the future. As much as we may love Mickey alot of the younger generation doesnt share that appreciation and see little of him on the tv they are watching and who they identify with.

[larworth]

Nope, as Matt correctly pointed out, my question is simply whether IOA should be considered a "full" or "complete" park and, if so, why hasn't it met expectations I would say it was close to being "full" for it’s target market (those that can ride the coasters and the water rides). Less than full as a family / cold weather park.

It didn't met their expectations, but in hindsight is 5MM guests for IOA a poor result given market realities ?? Someone will have to dig up those attendance statistics again (ahhh).

One scenario might have the 5MM IOA customers being net additions for USF in the same saturated market where DAK added few new guests for WDW. If that was the case, than given IOA’s smaller target market (wonder how much this subtracts?), and without the brand identity/existing installed base of WDW to generate awareness and provide ready made guests, maybe 5MM is what they should have expected?

They mis-read their market potential, but may have still built a park that maximized the value that was available to them???

[HB2K]

Nope, as Matt correctly pointed out, my question is simply whether IOA should be considered a "full" or "complete" park and, if so, why hasn't it met expectations much less seen TDS type numbers.

That's a very important question.

The Brand Name.

And the more Eisner does to cash in (i.e. kill) the Disney brand name by associating products which don't fit with the public's perception of the brand name, the more he helps competitors gain marketshare.

The most important & valuable asset ANY company can posses is their brand name reputation. Once you've tarnished it, it's next to impossible to get back to where you were.

Just give Universal & others time. If they keep building parks similar to IOA, and Disney keeps trying to profit off of their name alone, you'll see a difference in numbers.

[All Aboard]

Weighing in late, as is the case these days...

"and USF's new attractions would hardly be considered "destination attractions"

I'm not sure what your definition of a "destination attraction" is, but (at least from the hype) the Shrek and supposed Mummy attraction seem to be of high E ticket caliber. Terminator is the best 3-D experience I've seen and Shrek is supposed to top it (according to Universal.)

This discussion has gone off in a bunch of different directions, but I'll focus on why I think DAK missed the mark with the public.

The chief problem with DAK for us has nothing to do with theming or immersiveness, it's simply attraction volume and attraction quality. Disney took a chance on developing a park that relied heavily on folks "taking to" Maharaja, Pangani, the Oasis & Discovery Island Trails as "attractions" rather than "theming." Kind of like Main Street, a walk through Adventureland and Frontierland being called "attractions." They really aren't, they add to the experience, but they are not really attractions in the minds of most people. "Attractions" as most folks are used to are rides and shows. Given that, DAK opened with very few "attractions" and it hurt the public's perception of the park.

Single example - shortly after DAK opened in 1998, a woman from my office came back from a trip. This was before I had been. Naturally I was very interested in hearing her reaction. In short it was "awful, barely anything there to do." Unfortunately, I think that's the reaction of a whole lot of people. They are accostumed to big "attraction counts." Think of how many rides and shows there are at the Magic Kingdom.

Now, let's look at the attractions that are there. In my opinion, there are three knockouts - Kilimanjaro (but I'd prefer they drop the Little Red thing) It's tough to be a bug and Festival of the Lion King. Kali is way too brief and packs all of it's punch into a single drop, beyond it, there is little or nothing. Dinosaur is built on the same technology as Disney's arguably best stateside attraction. Yet, it falls miserabley short by most accounts. Drive, stop, not our dino, drive, stop, not our dino... Disney can (and has) done so much better than that.

And then to correct these shortcomings, they added Dinorama. :(

Clearly, there's nothing new in this post, no insights or thoughts that we haven't hashed out time and time again. And, it's nothing more than personal opinion. But, I just have to believe that these are the reasons DAK isn't packin' em in. So, in this case, I really do think that Disney misguaged the market. They offered a product that didn't mesh with the public's perception or desire for a theme park. Or, at least not as much as Disney expected it to.

[stlphil]

Okay, I'll jump into the fray...

Maybe it is because Michael is right after all, well half-right anyway. Maybe it really is about the brand.

You can have a great, full featured, fully themed, filled with WOW factor park- but that is not sufficient, and the competitors know it.

You have to have the family-friendly brand as well, and it's only when you put the two together that you get the really huge attendance numbers that generate the really big bucks that make the whole effort worthwhile.

What Ei$ner forgot, or didn't realize, or misunderstood, is that it is also not sufficient to only have the brand and not have the great park. Which leads to AK, DCA, DSP all being disappointments.

Does Disney understand their market? Walt did. But what really distinguishes the current Disney from Walt is that Walt was not afraid to make a mistake (and he made plenty of them), and the current crew is paralyzed by the fear of making a mistake.

[raidermatt]

You see, I'm beginning to think that the benefactor of any reduced value of a Disney vacation won't necessarily be another theme park...why? because nobody who operates theme parks really appears to be working to seize upon this perceived current weakness by Disney.

The only piece of this I would take exception with is that Universal certainly appears to be working to take advantage of Disney. They have invested a large amount of capital over the last 4-5 years.

They may not be doing everything right, and they may or may not succeed in becoming a destination resort on a par with WDW, but you can't say they haven't been trying.

But otherwise, yes, guests who choose to stay away from WDW (or visit less), will not necessarily go to other theme parks, even if those theme parks are trying to become a resort destination.

This leads right back into my contention that WDW should be viewed as a niche player in the resort destination industry, as opposed to the giant in the more narrow theme park industry. Most guests who decide not to vacation in WDW don't instead go to Universal (though Universal is trying to change that). They go to Hawaii, New York, Europe, Washington DC, The Caribbean, etc.


I'd love to hear some of you alls thoughts on why Disney's competitors aren't going for the jugular now that Disney is perceived as wounded...

Because their thinking is similar to Disney's. That's a big part of the point. Disney used to think differently. Now, they are becoming just like 99% of the other companies in the world.

And again, Disney has the built in advantage of characters and theme park assets built-up over 45 years. Everybody knows the public will buy Disney's brand of entertainment, if its done the way they expect Disney to do things.

But will they buy it from Busch?

If somebody wants to be the next WDW, they not only have to top what Disney does today, but they also have to top what Disney has done for the last 45 years.

Who's got the stones to try that multi-billion dollar gamble? Universal? Maybe. They've taken the first steps. The question now becomes:

"And THEN what are you prepared to do?"*


*Semi-obscure movie reference

[raidermatt]

...why hasn't it (IoA) met expectations much less seen TDS type numbers...

Several reasons.

1- As others have said, BRAND. The Disney brand has been tarnished by many different things, but when it comes to theme parks, its still carries more weight than any other company. As stlphil says, Eisner is right when he talks about the value of the brand. The problem is that value is not a God-given right. It was earned with the hard work and innovation of many people, most notably Walt himself. The value has diminished, and it will continue to do so unless things are done to truly ENHANCE the brand, not just capitalize on it.

2- OK, admittedly, I haven't been to either IoA or TDS. But certainly in the pictures it appears TDS has a lot more detail and themeing than IoA. That's not a knock on IoA, its just that some of the stuff at TDS just simply looks amazing. I don't think it has as many attractions as IoA, but given the choice, most people will choose quality over quantity when it comes to attractions.

In other words, based on the "Disney Standard", IoA maybe be closer than DCA or DSP, but it ain't no TDS.


One thing I'm curious about is the height restrictions at TDS. The Disney website vaguely refers to restriction on quite a few attractions, but I couldn't find the specific info on which ones had height restrictions, and what those restrictions were.

I'm of the opinion that IoA falls into the same trap as Disney has been, which is to provide height restricted rides, and kiddie rides, but not enough "whole family" attractions.

TDS may have the same issue, but overcomes it with spectacular themeing and detail.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Matt,

There aren’t as many as "several" reasons and yet there are hundreds. But it can all be boiled down to one. And you said it all. (Several days ago, I was tempted to respond similarly, but really didn't think it was worth the effort (It seems I'm entering a JJ state of mind!), those that understood, I didn't need to tell and those who refused to see, would never 'get it'!!).

In other words, based on the "Disney Standard", IoA maybe be closer than DCA or DSP, but it ain't no TDS.

Perfect!!!!! I would only add that it is also ain't no "Walt" Disney. But it certainly come close to Disney ®.

[Bob O]

For the other companies involved in the theme park business like paramount/Busch the theme parks are a smart part of their business plan as compared to disney where it is a major part and has been a cash cow that helped to make up for the numerous bad decisions the company has made. I think for Universal also the theme park busines is a small part of the overall company and none of these companies put the emphasis on theme parks like disney does. Now for Universal that could change considering what happens to their ownership but they are putting money into their parks with new attractions(no not spinning carn rides). Attractions like Shrek can be part of a major campiagn as likely can be the attraction going into the old Kong building while disney has MIS which is being paid for by another comnpany and has been reduced in both size and scope of the attraction if the rumors are true.
Now i havent been to TDS so i cant say how the park is other than pictures but from what i have seen of IOA personally and the pictures ive seen of TDS i dont see IOA taking a backseat. As for customers, Universal's park in Japan also set major attendance records when built so you are dealing with a different marketplace that seems to love most things American.
And the disney brand is being tarnished by eisner with alot of the tarnish added since 9/11 and all the lawsuits they are involved in like the Pooh lawsuit now and the ovitz/katzenberg debacles which both cost disney alot of money and bad press world wide and a loss of the pooh suit will only magnify things. People expect more from disney due to the greatness of walt and it is being squandered and the upcoming generations may not have the love for the company/name as alot do here.

[Another Voice]

The problem with both Universal and Disney focused on the resort concept rather than on making a theme park. The current business model that everyone subscribes to is that “if I get x number of guests to extend their stay for y number of days at z dollars per day, we’ll be rich.” Animal Kingdom and Islands of Adventures were both simply resort expansion projects: neither park was strong enough to lure people into flying a thousand mile to see them. The local market and the annual market (time share owner, habitual repeat visitors) in Orlando isn’t large enough to support the additional parks. Out west, California Adventure was another resort expansion project that didn’t interest visitors or the substantial local market. Same deal with Disney Studios Paris.

None of these projects were “full sized”, they were simple additions. And the business models were constructed accordingly. Instead of figuring out ways to attract visitors, Disney and Universal simply assumed people would show up anyway based on the strength of the existing attractions.

The problem is the public still thinks in terms of separate full-day parks. You can whine and complain and fuss about why simply looking at the plants at Animal Kingdom make it a full-day park, but the general public doesn’t see it that way. Nor do they see it as “more to do than every before”. A typical will guest will make the decision to drop five grand for WDW on how they answer “is Animal Kingdom worth the trip”. They answered that question for Island of Adventure with a “no” for the same reason – a nice park but not worth the trip. Gee, in Anaheim people figure it isn’t worth a thirty minute drive.

RULE ONE: Make something people want to see and they will beat down the turnstiles to give you money.

As for Mr. Scoop’s complaint that no one else is stepping in – of course they’re not. It’s good old American business blinders at work. And Mr. Scoop could have made the very argument in 1955 about if amusement parks were profitably, how come no one else was in the business. It took Walt Disney five years of convincing to get over that question; it’s going to take people without his skills a little longer to get there.

[Peter Pirate]

Seems to me that you just proved Scoop's point Voice. There will be no new innovation no big, wow parks and no give 'em quality and they'll come philosophies because there is no more Walt and the corporate world does not care to take such "risks" in its strategic planning. Blame Eisner & Disney all you want but nobody is winning at this game because nobody is playing.

Once again Scoop was right on when he said that only the niche market could possibly subscribe to and be successful in these areas because once the company (any company) has reached certain heights and goals it then becomes time to eat or be eaten...And the cycle continues once again...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

Scoop Is wrong!!! It may not be today or tomorrow but somebody will step up to the plate and challenge disney like Universal has. It could be somebody buying Universal due to their money woes or some one we arent even thinking of at this time. As a aside Bill gates has been buying shares of Six Flags, now this doesnt mean he is out to make Six Flags into disney but you never know what person/group of people will see a opening and decide to get involved, escpically us disney contuines to falter and loses the rights to the pooh characters which is a possibility. None of us know what the future may bring and im sure 5-10 yrs ago no one would have imgained disney being in the shape it is today when a small company they partnered up with(pixar) beats them at their own game in creating family movies.

[Another Voice]

In other words Mr. Pirate, you’re basically saying that since Disney is now a big time corporation all we should hope for is the safe, the bland, the unimaginative, and the uncreative tripe that we expect from everyone else.

You, sir, may lower your standards. I choose not to.

If Disney is unwilling to provide the level of excellence that they have in the past, then good riddance to them. If all you’re looking for is a brand experience, then buy a pack of Mickey stickers from K-Mart and slap them on cans of Cheez-Wiz, loaves of Wonder Bread and the cassettes of ‘The Care Bear Movie #19’. Instant Disney® product without the fuss.

What attracted me to Disney in the first place were their products and their attitude. They create things simply for the joy of creating and they worked damn hard to make them as well as possible. A lot of times it didn’t work, but when it did it was genius. And most of all, things were always moving forward onto something new, something exciting, something different.

These days all that appears to be gone. The same rides copied and cheapened; the same movies remade and cheapened. Everything reduced, down-scaled, cut to a lower level. Wonder is no longer cost-effective; amazement doesn’t reflect in the stock price, and the old standards can’t be achieved anymore.

Hooey. Those are just excuses for people who don’t even want to try.

Imagination has nothing to do with corporate size, economics or lowered public tastes. Imagination is only the result of hard work and confidence. Any group, no matter how large or how small, can achieve quality if they wish.

Disney doesn’t care to achieve that level anymore. It’s not because they are structural prohibited, it’s not because powerful outside forces are stopping them – they choose to be mediocre. They have chosen money over creativity, an easy choice to make in Hollywood and all businesses.

I choose not to settle for mediocrity.

[Peter Pirate]

I'm always settling for mediocrity according to youse guys...:rolleyes:
If Disney is unable to provide the level of excellence they have in the past, then good riddance to them.
HEY!!! I agree. I'm just not dilluding myself as to the difference between "what I hope for" and what I think will really happen.

I'm with everyone here in hoping that a return to the days of yore can be achieved. I want new and creative everything but business logic tells us this probably won't happen doesn't it? You said so yourself in so many words. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm no spawn of satan because I happen to be able to see the diffrence between what I hope for and reality.

Look at the current situation. No news, little in the rumor mill. Is Eisner gone? Nope. Any hint of it? Nope. They won the series business is picking up at ABC and the Parks will slowly drift back to where they were. Disney is not the train wreck you naysayers portray nor are they in panic mode.

Sorry to say Disney will continue to drift on its current course. I'm sure there will be some glimmer of hope (Space) and I'm sure there will be clunkers (a lame show replacement for HOND perhaps). But nothing is going to change with the rapidity that everyone here wants.

It is what it is and if it does slip to total mediocrity the drop will not be perceptable to most but more importantly if there is no competetor to rise to the occasion or to challenge Disney's lead, then the Company WILL just become another bright pop icon with new generations garnering little of the magic that we past two or three generations have had the luck to be a part of...If it happens as Voice says, "good riddance"...But it won't be happening by next year...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[PKS44]

out there...lurking in the east... quietly building up power and money and knowledge about how to actually make money AND be creative and quality minded is a company called OLC (Oriental Land Company) In the what may end up being one of the worst economic down cycles in history, they have succeeded in the business of leisure/vacation/theme parks, etc...just because the foolish and shortsighted in this country cannot figure out that making money by cheapening yourself is self-destructive does not mean that "nobody" else is doing it the right way. Ford, GM, Chrysler --all were kings...once--Toyota was just a little Japanese car maker....now, the number one selling car in this country is a Toyota. If Disney and all the others want to keep conducting business as if they have no other choice than to be average- some day someone will take them on and take them out...Peter Pirate needs to read the piece over on mouseplanet by Dan Steinberg about the business of magic and Augmented/Specialty/Commodity markets and providers-if not OLC, some clever and greedy company will eventually folllow the money which sits at the end of a rainbow reached only by following REAL successful business strategies for the long term...it is the only way to distinguish oneself in this market...all other strategies are doomed to fail...but the demand will always be there--people want to have fun.

Paul

[Peter Pirate]

OLC has stepped out on a limb once and succeeded. Do you really think they'll be doing it again?

OLC doesn't have a stirling record for employee or customer concern but has a big reputation as a money maker.

Before anyone trumpets this company as the new ideal lets wait and see what they do next.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[PKS44]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
OLC has stepped out on a limb once and succeeded. Do you really think they'll be doing it again?

OLC doesn't have a stirling record for employee or customer concern but has a big reputation as a money maker.

Before anyone trumpets this company as the new ideal lets wait and see what they do next.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

Once?? Tokyo Disneyland is the Number 1 visited themepark in the world (success once). Tokyo DisneySea was derided by the US Disney people as a folly while they built the much more sensible DCA -TDS has enjoyed enormous success exceeding all expectations (success TWICE).

As for having concern for the customer...they at least make an effort to impress their customers with the quality of their product-from the buses to the hotels to the parks and the attractions- they lavish detail and quality on their on customers from what I have read...and the customers keep coming for more...what a concept.

Paul

[airlarry!]

Ugh. I have to agree with the Pirate on this one. ;) ;)

Everything that I read when I used to hang out on the fool.com boards poiinted out that the success in Tokyo has been because of the partnership of Disney and OLC, and not because of OLC.

AV may disagree with me on this one, but we had some pretty informed people who stated that OLC is not Walt incarnate. In fact, they are a Tokyo version of Ei$ner's perfect ideal for the parks. Spend a little, charge a lot, and rake in the bucks.

But apparently there is a kicker in the whole deal. OLC had to meet IMAGINEER standards anytime they do anything with the resort. Little thing called a license, you know.

So we get a great partnership...kinda Wells-ian...or Royian...but in reverse. There the money people who were desperate to add onto the resort could not cut corners because they had the awesome talent of the Imagineers riding herd on them to create the best. It is why I have said that the TDS isn't something Walt would have done, but if Walt would have wanted to build a water version of the MK, than he would have built TDS.

Here in the States, we've got the reverse...here the money people have control instead of the creative people. But don't fool yourself into thinking that OLC is a knight ready to rescue the parks. I think there is not enough evidence. What we do have evidence of is that if given the proper support, the Imagineers can reate something so astounding to the general public that they will line up for hours just to get in.

I will applaud OLCs efforts, as outlined by Marc Borrelli's excellent series at www.mouseplanet.com to create a beautiful wonderland that all of us should plan to visit, as soon as the crowds start thinning out... ;)

[larworth]

Why hasn’t somebody responded Here are a few reasons:

A. There are few existing competitors who could react

The regional parks did some migration in this direction (themed queue’s, simulators) in the early 90’s. They have since decided “theme” parks are not their gig. Too big a strategic shift for the Premier/Paramount/Cedar Fair’s to make. BG may still have some aspirations, but too small a unit within AB to take this kind of risk. These companies have capital spending issues just competing in their own niche, let alone take a step-out play.

Universal had already hoped to take more advantage of their decline. How could they justify another huge investment at this point. Corporate instability had paralyzed them until lately. They are just now testing the waters to see how vulnerable Disney may be.

For a new entrant the business case would have to be pretty clear, which it is not.

B. The decline is not yet cataclysmic or irreversible.

Even a weaker Disney will continue to pull in it’s share of customers for years. With saturation/economic uncertainties it would not be clear, enough market share, would be available to justify the large investment it would take to "out-do" them. An entrant would also want to be sure Disney is now incapable of mounting a serious counter-offensive. I don’t think one could make that assumption today (although they are working on it).

C. The time lag here is pretty long.

Once someone did decide there was sure vulnerability (don’t we still debate it), how long does it take to get a park into the construction phase. Look how long it takes Disney to do market feasibility, site location, land purchase, approvals, and concept design for a MK clone. How long would this take for a new entrant???? A decade??? An outsider would have had to arrive at the vulnerability conclusion in the early 90’s to be close to greenlighting a new park today.

I don’t think we can take the lack of industry reaction as any indication the decline is not real. The Disney management team knows how big a competitive advantage they have (in terms of being easily displaced by another theme park entrant not by alternative vacation options) and knows they can leverage this position in favor or short-term versus long term gains for many, many years. That doesn't make it right.

[raidermatt]

HEY!!! I agree. I'm just not dilluding myself as to the difference between "what I hope for" and what I think will really happen.

Maybe this is our disconnect. I don't think the rest of us are making predictions here. We are offering opinions for what SHOULD be done. While I wouldn't call it a pipe dream, I think we all realize it might never happen.

I'm just of the opinion that the future is an unknown, and rather than resolve myself to what I think could happen, I'd prefer to call for what should happen.

Make sense?

With respect to OLC, I don't know enough about how they operate to offer much of an opinion. However, I will say that being motivated solely by profits does not have to result in the opposite of what the old Disney philosophy would have resulted in. I think if Disney just put more of a focus on sustaining and gowing LONG TERM profits, and understanding what truly creates those profits for them, the end results of their efforts would be something much closer to what most of us are looking for.

It may not be perfect, and it may not have the "soul" of Walt, but at least it wouldn't be inept.

What we do have evidence of is that if given the proper support, the Imagineers can create something so astounding to the general public that they will line up for hours just to get in.
Your Airness, this is EXACTLY what I mean. One doesn't have to be Walt, or even think like Walt to grasp this concept. One only has to understand the business that Disney is in, and want to profit from it.

He was the creative version of Cy Young. Cy Young set some records, he did some things with a baseball, which will never be done again. Sure, now and then some young gun will start piling up wins early on, but Cy's records always survive. Maris' fall, Cobb's fall, Ruth and Gehrig's record fall, but not Cy's.
True. We may never see anybody start from scratch and build another Disney, just was we may never see anyone win 500 games.

But the concepts behind Cy's success are still valid and can be used by others (in fact they are...).

You seem fixated on saying that we are calling for another Walt. That is simply not true. Concepts like long-term focus, customer satisfaction and showmanship were not invented by Walt, and they did not die with him.

Again, this isn't "settling" or any other type of easy out assignment of the unoccured, it's just reality.
Perhaps defeatist is more accurate...

I mean, simple reality requires that statisically, somebody would rise up and defeat Disney in their perceived time of vulnerability.
Where do you get these statistics? Multiple posters have laid out multiple reasons why this simply isn't true, yet you continually go back to "Walt was one of a kind", and your version of statistical reality.


Quite simply, the theme park industry cannot afford to take the risks which the movie industry can because it cannot survive the inevitable bombs nearly as effectively as the movie industry. I know you know and realize that.
Seriously Scoop, do you really believe what you are typing? You can't get much more of an absolute bomb than DCA. I guess that was your idea of a low risk? I don't see how the theme park industry could handle too many more "low risk" projects like that.

After all, I again repeat the refrain that nearly every CEO is in the game to make money---and if they saw a great way to make money, it only makes logical sense that they'd leap at the chance.

But you see--they don't see it. The creative types see it, but they don't have the business muscle, while the ones with the fiscal muscle to pull it off either don't see it or don't care to strain their eyes lest the realize somebody needs a new prescription.

Of course they don't see it. If they did (in particular Eisner), we wouldn't be having this discussion. But what does what Eisner sees have to do with what he should see?

You try to prove that a philosophy won't work FOR DISNEY (another key point you repeatedly miss) by pointing out that they don't use it.

Then, you lament that many people do "get it", but they just can't turn it into relality, so we should just accept what is given to us by those who can't see creativity/quality/guest satisfaction going together with profts.

I'm hard pressed to come up with a better example of a "settleing" or defeatist mentality.