Article : Is Animal Kindom a Failure? [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

Captain Crook

04-26-2004, 07:10 PM

I agree with you Vike about Kali as well. Sadly, I doubt that there is any improving that is possible either.

Otherwise I agree with Show. It doesn't matter why AK is number 5...It just is. Vike's point about #'s 6 & 7's proximity to WDW is also valid. We keep getting told how great they are yet their attendance still can't overtake AK...Further, would there even have been a USF without WDW??? USF is a great addition to Orlando and doesn't need to be compared to WDW.

...but would struggle to survive if it were a stand alone park somewhere else...
Like Vike, I simply disagree with that assessment. The only reason it struggles at all is that it has to compete with the other established and more conventional Disney Parks. Besides who ever said that the goal of each Park was to be able to "stand alone"? Certainly MK was built this way because Walt had died and the future was muddled but in viewing WDW today it is just wrong, in my mind, to view each park independently. Everyone will have different favorities and dislikes and even USF is thrown into the mix, which is OK, as well. But WDW is the sum of its parts and each individual component just isn't that important and isn't intended to stand on its own. Disney looks to utilize the whole picture of what WDW is, they have no need to have one park simply cannibilize from another, this is why we'll probably NEVER see another gate at WDW and particularily a state of the art one like Disney Sea. The die is cast in Orlando and the future will revolve around the current focus, for better or for worse.

Lastly, Dinorama...Even I admit this was a big mistake...But it's now there and holding its own. My hope is that Disney adapts it further to become a real viable area. I'd like to see the height restrictions on PW somehow lowered. I'd like to see the games consolodated to a lesser area, I'd like to see a dinosaur themed carousel for the kiddies and I'd like to see a water fountain/splash area (ala Epcot) for the kiddies on hot days.
pirate:

grinningghost

04-26-2004, 07:38 PM

I also think we need to address the whole "Conservation Station" issue. Now here's something that could definitely be reworked. The train ride is a good start. But please, when we get to our destination, could you put something in there that's worth getting to???;)

I felt like a kid who ran to the candy store with a dollar I found, and then, alas, it was closed.:( ;)

Captain Crook

04-26-2004, 07:42 PM

GREAT point GG, Conservation Station or Rafiki's or whatever it's called has never been a going concern. This area should be utilized much, much better.

I also think more animal attractions need to be in the future. I don't want AK to turn into a ride park with a few animals on the side...
pirate:

OnWithTheShow

04-26-2004, 07:52 PM

I bet the first year Everest is operational for a majority of the year it will pass the Studios in attendance. Will that then make the Studios a failure? Animal Kingdom will then have the attendance level that it took the Studios 15 years to reach, and it would have done it in just 6.

grinningghost

04-26-2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
I bet the first year Everest is operational for a majority of the year it will pass the Studios in attendance. Will that then make the Studios a failure? Animal Kingdom will then have the attendance level that it took the Studios 15 years to reach, and it would have done it in just 6.

Which brings me to a question that is probably a little off-topic, but I'll risk it anyway.;)

With all the fanfare and build up that surrounded Mission:Space - has Epcot seen record crowds since it's opening? I was REALLY disappointed with MS. It was being heralded as totally unique and thrilling - and in the end, it's another simulator. Terribly overblown IMHO. But what are the crowds telling us?

OnWithTheShow

04-26-2004, 11:22 PM

Well according to industry "experts" Mission: Space has increased attendance at Epcot. I am sure they are no where near record levels, but the industry as a hole is stiff soft because of the economy and terror threat.

Another Voice

04-26-2004, 11:56 PM

By Disney's own justifications for investing the money – Animal Kingdom is a dismal failure. It's only saving grace was that it's not the complete Disney's Chernobyl Adventure out in Anaheim…but that's not a not much of positive.

In terms of extending guest's length of stay, increasing their spending, in keeping them on property and in driving new visitors to WDW – the park has been an abject failure when measured against Disney's own projections and anticipation. The fact that they've lowered their expectation levels year after year after year doesn't make the park anymore successful – it simply makes the annual PowerPoint presentation look less embarrassing.

The problem with AK isn't that Camp Minnie-Mickey is missing a dark ride, that there are no sit down restaurants or the puke crowd misses a roller coaster. The problem is much more important (and to borrow a phrase).

There's no there there.

Disney touted the place as being the next great thing. But as a zoo it's an absolute failure – you learn and see less about animals than at a small sized metropolitan zoo. And the place is an absolute disgrace when compared to the country's best zoological parks and aquariums. Why in the world would anyone that's interested in animals go to AK? TO drive past them at 30mph while listening to a really, really, really, bad phony "we're chasing the poachers" plot line? How 'bout actually saying something new and interesting about the animals we're looking at. Then again, Disney took dinosaurs – living, breathing twelve tons of muscle with foot long daggers-f-or-teeth running towards you at thirty miles per hours – and the best they can come up with is are run down carnival games?

That's Disney imagination?

And for the theme park crowd…like I said – no there there. A store bought flume ride with a "be nice to Mother Nature" theme isn't exactly the way to complete with Universal's 'Hulk' coaster (by the way, the only reason Disney even built AK). And 'Expedition: Everest'…no one's booking airfare to see 'Mission: Space', I don't see any reason why all the people would suddenly decided to Visit: Now. Single attractions don't affect attendance at destination resorts.

AK exists from siphoning off the three other parks at WDW. Most people buy park hoppers, so you might as well visit the place because it's "free". Charge a separate admission – and you'd have the empty walkways of California Adventure right there in Florida.

Actually, perhaps AK's biggest problem is us – the guests. Disney likes to selectively listen to the public these days. Every time they hear someone say "but I just like to sit and stare at the bushes", it deepens their conviction that the park's problems are the fault of the guests. No one goes to AK because they don't "get" the concept, because they don't "get" the non-commando style of park, because those guests just don't appreciate the wonder that Disney built.

Therefore, Disney doesn’t doesn't have to spend any money to fix the parks because the guests are stupid and will eventually come around.

Of course, it's complete denial meant to cover-up their business failings and to justify spending the money elsewhere. Just like Euro Disney was never fixed and just as California Adventure is not being fixed, Animal Kingdom will slowly wilt in the sun unless people start to speak up.

WillAndFinn'sMom

04-27-2004, 12:13 AM

I really like AK (as does the rest of my family). I think its main problem is its layout. It's kind of confusing and easy to miss some areas. I kind of look at it as a big, fun, interactive WS.

Captain Crook

04-27-2004, 07:51 AM

Mr. Voice, you may be right concerning Disney's hopes and projections for Animal Kingdom but my friend that is all water under the bridge now. Disney is fully aware of their failures and new management will address these issues going forward provided they remain an independent company. Eisner will go, even if it's not untill his contract expiration in 2006. The parks are in capable hands of Rasulo, Weiss and Ouimet, all of whom seem to "get it" , IMO...So Eisner is the sole remaining cog to the mistakes of the past and he even seems to realize the need for quality upgrades at this point. We can sit and complain about the past or we can discuss hope for the future.

The fact that most people use hoppers at WDW has no bearing on whether AK is successful or not as all parks are entered the same way. WDW is looking at their resort as a whole, perhaps realizing that new parks can't necessarily always lead to longer guest vacations. The law of diminishing returns has to kick in eventually and I think WDW and perhaps all of Orlando bear witness to this.

No one here is saying the "guests don't get" Aimal Kingdom but we are saying it is the 5th most attended theme park in the US ahead of the highly touted IOA or Knotts or any Sea World. How they got to be #5, via hoppers or free add on days or single day ticket purchases is irrelevent. WDW like any business must massage its policies and procedures to maximize the current profit potential. Mr. Show is right in stating travel and economy concerns, not as an excuse for lowered expectations but rather for changes in policies to adapt to different circumstances...Nothing wrong with that.

As for AK specifically, we know you've long been an detractor of what was built but you fail to give acceptance to those of us who generally like what was built. If you find the Safari lame and preachy that is OK but to most guests it certainly is not. Poaching very well may not be the biggest problem facing the real Africa but the theme is a good one for young American children who are isolated from the "real" Africa to get their feet wet with a simplistic, yet compelling scenerio.

pirate:

Donald-n-Daisy

04-27-2004, 09:38 AM

Failure?? I think not.

Our Disney family loves AK because of its unique theming and less hurried atmosphere. Dinosaur is one of the best rides on Disney property, and the safari is also one of our favorites.

Lets all remember that it's the new kid on the block and is still growing. MGM Studios opened in 1989 and was IMHO rather lackluster for many years. TOT was added in 1994 and Rock -n -Roller Coaster not until 1999.

Do I think the Dinoland area carnival needs to be changed to something more worthy of the Disney name. I have a feeling it was a quick fix addition and will eventually, to stay on theme, go the way of the dinosaur.

Give it a chance people. It's still a work in progress.

Personally I am amazed by the number of negative posts on this, and many other topics (parks, food, resorts, etc.)

IMO..if you leave WDW and your first instinct is to complain, you really need to lighten up. If you can't enjoy WDW, I can't imagine you find much of anything enjoyable.

HAKUNA MATATA!

grinningghost

04-27-2004, 10:34 AM

Just to let you know D&D, I think the reason we find the negatives at WDW is because we all really LOVE it there. Much more than the average visitor. Many of us are FANATICS, and that makes us more observant. Many of us have been doing Disney for years and we notice when things aren't up to their old grand standards.

Certainly not that we don't have fun there. I know I do at least. I don't want to leave once I'm there, but the Rumors Board can be a tough crowd - so you just have to roll with the punches around here.;)

Planogirl

04-27-2004, 10:41 AM

Who's to say whether the no. 6 and 7 parks would do better or worse if WDW wasn't there? I wouldn't even attempt to project that but I do keep in mind that Florida was a major tourist destination before WDW was built. Would Universal be a bigger deal if WDW wasn't there? Or less of an attraction? Who knows but it's probably likely that none of the Universal parks would have been built and Cypress Gardens and Busch Gardens would be mopping up.

As for AK benefiting from hoppers, I know that's the reason why we go at the present time. I would personally not pay over $50 to visit this park whereas I would gladly pay much more to visit MK and Epcot. I can justify visiting AK when we already have passes. I do however believe that AK has the potential to become a much greater park, maybe even becoming number 2 at some point.

But of course this is just my own subjective opinion.

Captain Crook

04-27-2004, 11:36 AM

PG, I wouldn't pay over $50.00 to go to Animal Kingdom either...Nor would I to go to The Studios, Epcot or the Magic Kingdom...This is the beauty of "hoppers" or Annual passes. This is why the single day price just isn't too relevent. But guests through the turnstiles is how numbers are taken and the success of those figures are gleaned in the annual report. It just doesn't matter that only 5% (made up figure) were day guests anymore than it does at USF or SW...

As for how would USF have fared without Disney well, I think you got part of it right in that (the old) Cypress Gardens would probably be the only game in town. Orlando was a sleepy ag town before Disney and I don't think too many people were setting their sites on Central Florida as a potential vacation destination until Walt put his ideas into play.

Certainly we have no idea what would have taken place would WDW not have come to Orlando but I'm relatively certain that Central Florida would not have evolved the way it did.

pirate:

Bob O

04-27-2004, 12:57 PM

AV is right!!!!
The park has been a failure from day one and hasnt done increased overall attendance to wdw or increased the total amount of time people spend at the resort. All it has done is siphon part of a day from one of the other parks and hasnt incrased the total amont of time people spend at the resort.
Without park hoppers AK would have lower attendance than alot of seasonal parks. While i would pay $50 for the other disney parks as well as Universal parks i would never pay that much to go to AK which is still a half day park at best with only KS coming across as a top notch attraction and the collection of animals is better at numerous zoo's around the country for alot less molney!!!
As for a supposed "work in progress", if that is the case then why doesnt disney charge less till the park has progressed enough to have a full days worth of activities, where the park can be open from 900am till midnight in summer with enough activities to keep one busy???.

SnackyStacky

04-27-2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
IMO...So Eisner is the sole remaining cog to the mistakes of the past and he even seems to realize the need for quality upgrades at this point. We can sit and complain about the past or we can discuss hope for the future.

Is it really a matter of upgrades?

It's sort of like fixing the symptoms, but the disease is still there.

Although Animal Kingdom has it's problems, it's true solution isn't going to come until somebody realizes that it's the philosophy that has to be fixed.

Animal Kingdom should NOT have been opened when it was. They had all these great plans to add to the park. Why didn't they just wait until they could afford to build the WHOLE thing?

I'll tell you why! They were looking to increase the price of park hoppers. They wanted to advertise their new park, and get lots more people to central florida, and boost their bottom line. BUT - as has happened with many other Disney projects, all it did was serve to dillute the brand by opening with something less than they were capable of.

This can be argued until we're blue in the face - but the numbers are showing that they need to do something with this park. I, along with everyone else, can be accused of not "getting" the Animal Kingdom, but those of you that do claim to "get" it, can stay in there by yourselves until it closes, because the masses will have left. And Disney will STILL have a park with half-day stigma.

dcentity2000

04-27-2004, 01:45 PM

In law I was taught that equity (what a company seeks to gain) may not only be measured in terms of money but also in terms of 'goodness' or 'promotion of future equity'.

Take a look at the opening of Animal Kingdom - clicky (http://www.lionking.net/movies/circleoflife-lebo.mov) (from lionking.net (http://www.lionking.net)) - this promotion, coupled with the general awareness of the park gained by anyone who touches the topic of Disney parks (and many who don't) could be considered to give Disney a return in equity as it earns them 'goodness' and 'promotion of future equity'.

You see, there is a chance that the fact that there stand four parks instead of three, or that there stands a park themed on animals, or even the fact that there stands a brand new park dedicated to the preservation of animals (as it could be seen) could play to the advantage of Disney - it could attract more people to the image that Disney wants to impress upon itself, it could encourage more people to visit WDW even if not in order to see Animal Kingdom.

What I'm saying here is that success is not measured upon cash alone. Not to say that success in this field can be measured in emotion alone either - depending on the situation, it's somewhere between the two. Personally, I feel that the financial success of the Animal Kingdom has been a tad under par, whilst the intangible successes have been acceptable.

Feel free to flame :D

Rich::

DancingBear

04-27-2004, 02:02 PM

A couple of points:

--As has been mentioned above, Disney/MGM had the same rap when it opened. AK has already been significantly expanded, with Asia and the oft-maligned amusement-park rides, and has Everest coming.

--If AK is siphoning off enough parkhopper holders to be the #5 theme park in the country in attendance, then, if nothing else, it has to have improved the experience in each of the other three parks by spreading the crowds.

Captain Crook

04-27-2004, 02:05 PM

Again Snacky No ONE is saying you don't "get it" !!! I appreciate that you don't like it. Fine. That is truly OK. But lots of people DO like it as indicated by its national ranking.

I've been there three times this year and AK was the most crowded Park once, with MK getting the honor once and Epcot the third time! What can be learned from this? Nothing.;)

Is it really a matter of upgrades?
You bet ! That's what Disney is all about and always has been about. Walt didn't finish DL prior to opening, Roy didn't finisn MK and no park since has opened "finished" except for maybe that silly Japenese Park.;) Dcenity2000 is correct in his view that sometimes more is more and sometimes more is less...:eek:

Show is right when he speaks of what E:E will do for AK's numbers. Like Epcot where, despite what naysayers on this board might think, M:S is a huge success. Over Spring Break the line was nearing the Mousegear gift shop, Ive been told! AK will evolve as will DCA and The Studios...Heck even Epcot is still evolving. The only ones short on evolution are the originals and thats because they are the model and epitome of a theme park.

Bob, if you really, truly think USF is better than WDW then I suggest you buy passes for USF and stay at their hotels and forget that Disney exists because the Disney you folks are waiting for ain't coming back, even when Eisner leaves.

Oh and Snacky, one more thing, that half day stigma is recognized by a total of about 150 geeks on the internet. Is that a real life problem for Disney, do you think?
pirate:

dcentity2000

04-27-2004, 02:28 PM

^^ Exactly what he said ^^

Rich::

KNWVIKING

04-27-2004, 02:32 PM

When AK opened it's attendance was somewhere near 9 mil. If you added up the totals of MK,Epcot & MGM from the previous year, was that total 9 mil less the year AK opened ? My point is that if opening AK only robbed its numbers from the existing parks - ala IOA taking guests away USF when they took the halloween holiday - then I'd agree AK was a financial failure.

PKS44

04-27-2004, 04:03 PM

Failure or success have nothing to do with who likes it and who does not...Disney has failed to achieve what they set out with this park

the numbers have been hashed here before and AK has only cannibalized its attendence from the other parks...there has been no increase in the number of visitors--if the goal was to increase total guests -which it was--it has FAILED at that goal.

It has failed to keep people on property longer...it has failed to keep people from visiting Sea World and Busch Gardens as was one of its goals...

Attendance at AK dropped every year of its first 6 years of existence...every year fewer and fewer people attended the park than the year before---that smells like failure to me...now attendence is flat and that has been accomplished partly by making AK an EMH park now...the turnstile count is made from the First park visited by a parkhopper--those who go to AK on Monday and Friday for EMH are counted as AK guests even if they leave at 9 to go to another park for the rest of the day...Previously AK did not participate in the EMH surprise mornings whatever so the fact that it is the first and ONLY park open two days a week for that hour are bound to spike up attendence totals for the park--and still attendence has not gone up--despite additions to the park (Asia-Hester,etc..Parade--special food deal discounts)--if the goal was to have fewer guests visit each year than the park is a roaring success...if like most parks it is supposed to grow attendence as it adds things.. that is failure...

And finally--the idea that parks don't open complete is really misguided...Walt never felt any park was complete as long as there was imagination...but he also did not try to use his name and reputation to prop up projects that were not ready for the public...he got it right first---Tokyo parks were not opened complete--DisneySeas is adding Tower of Terror and trying to add other things to more evenly balance the incredible number of guests they enjoy from opening a park that WAS ready for the show....AK, DCA, MGM Paris Studios--these Eisner specials were specifically designed to be less to make more money early on--except they failed to that because the public is not so easy to hoodwink...they failed to acheive what Eisner thought they would...and still they seem bent on doing it again in Hong Kong...well they are consistently stupid anyway...

SnackyStacky

04-27-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Again Snacky No ONE is saying you don't "get it" !!! I appreciate that you don't like it. Fine. That is truly OK. But lots of people DO like it as indicated by its national ranking.

WHOAH there trigger. WAY too many generalizations for my taste.

First of all, I never said I didn't like it. I said that I'd leave halfway through the day. I like rides, and Animal Kingdom just doesn't stack up in that department - but that doesn't mean I don't like it. I've said many times that aesthetically, it's my favorite park.

Secondly - since when can you decipher who LIKES a park based on attendance figures? All attendance figures measure is how many people have gone into the park. It doesn't take into account any opinion they may have.

I've been there three times this year and AK was the most crowded Park once, with MK getting the honor once and Epcot the third time! What can be learned from this? Nothing.;)

You can't personally call the attendance shots because the layout of the parks is WAY different. Fewer sit down restaurants + fewer attractions = lots of bodies on walkways. There could have easily been lots more people in the Magic Kingdom, it just didn't seem that way because they were eating or were on rides. Not to mention that maybe on the particular day you were there, it was more crowded, but the attendance figures will show you that overall, there's fewer people in the Animal Kingdom.

You bet ! That's what Disney is all about and always has been about. Walt didn't finish DL prior to opening, Roy didn't finisn MK and no park since has opened "finished" except for maybe that silly Japenese Park.;) Dcenity2000 is correct in his view that sometimes more is more and sometimes more is less...:eek:

I'm not saying that the park should have been open completed - but DEFINITELY more needed to be built.

And everyone seems to like to bring up MGM - but I won't get into that. By Disney's OWN admission, it had 2 - count 'em - 2 rides. That to me stinks of a half-day park. And I still don't think it's up to snuff, but this debate is about Animal Kingdom.

Show is right when he speaks of what E:E will do for AK's numbers. Like Epcot where, despite what naysayers on this board might think, M:S is a huge success. Over Spring Break the line was nearing the Mousegear gift shop, Ive been told! AK will evolve as will DCA and The Studios...Heck even Epcot is still evolving. The only ones short on evolution are the originals and thats because they are the model and epitome of a theme park.

My point with my first posting in this thread, that seems to have been missed is that you can keep adding things but until the philosophy behind the additions is fixed, it won't help. Otherwise you end up with Dino-crap-o-rama.

Oh and Snacky, one more thing, that half day stigma is recognized by a total of about 150 geeks on the internet. Is that a real life problem for Disney, do you think?
pirate:

How do you know? Have you personally sat and monitored when the people leave? Attendance figures ONLY show how many people entered in a day. It didn't say when each of those people left. Prime example - my friend who visited for the first time, is not a Disney geek, was DONE with Animal Kingdom by about 2:00 after having entered at noon. Get back to me with that figure once you've been able to prove it.

KNWVIKING

04-27-2004, 04:37 PM

***"the numbers have been hashed here before and AK has only cannibalized its attendence from the other parks...there has been no increase in the number of visitors--if the goal was to increase total guests -which it was--it has FAILED at that goal."***

So you have the statistical data that I was asking for that shows the total park attendance was virtually the same. Three parks in 98 had the same attendance as four parks in 99. Could you post those numbers please.

Captain Crook

04-27-2004, 04:45 PM

How do you know? Have you personally sat and monitored when the people leave?
You mean you never noticed me???:confused:
pirate:

KNWVIKING

04-27-2004, 04:56 PM

In 98, MK had 15.6 mil, down 8%, EPCOT had 10.5 mil, down 10%, MGM had 9.5 mil,down 10 %. That would account for about 3 mil less in those parks. In the partial year AK was open, they had 6 mil guests. Plus 3 mil for WDW.

In 99, MK had 15.1 mil,down 2.8%, EPCOT had 10.1, down 4.6%, MGM had 8.7 mil, down 8.1%.

Total loss,98 vs 99 = 1.7 mil
AK attendance 99 = 8.6 mil

AK added 6.9 mil guests to WDW

Planogirl

04-27-2004, 05:03 PM

Viking, I don't understand your logic. The AK guests likely visited the other parks too so you can't really count them separately.

Troubling to me is that far more people visit MK than AK. Assuming that most people have hoppers or are pass holders, that might indicate that many people are bypassing AK even though it doesn't cost anything extra.

DancingBear

04-27-2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Prime example - my friend who visited for the first time, is not a Disney geek, was DONE with Animal Kingdom by about 2:00 after having entered at noon.What did he do?

KNWVIKING

04-27-2004, 05:10 PM

***"Viking, I don't understand your logic. The AK guests likely visited the other parks too so you can't really count them separately."***

It's my impression based on info posted here & other places is that Disney only counts you one time a day,first park you enter gets the stat. You can visit all four parks, but you only count once in their totals.

DancingBear

04-27-2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Planogirl
Viking, I don't understand your logic. The AK guests likely visited the other parks too so you can't really count them separately.As I understand it if you are using a parkhopper only the first turnstile use is counted.

Whoops-Viking beat me to it.

KNWVIKING

04-27-2004, 05:17 PM

***"Troubling to me is that far more people visit MK than AK. Assuming that most people have hoppers or are pass holders, that might indicate that many people are bypassing AK even though it doesn't cost anything extra."***

Picture a Fl res,AP holding Grandma. The grandkids from Jersey visit for a few days. What park is grandmom taking them to. MK is the obvious choice & always will be. It's the top dog. That doesn't make every other park a failure.

OnWithTheShow

04-27-2004, 05:33 PM

Well since Disney doesnt release attendance figures I am not sure where the amusement business figures come from. Disney can figure the number of unique visitors to a give park in a year, I have just never heard the numbers. They also have some sort of method for dividing the revenue from park hopper tickets amongst the parks and extras.

dcentity2000

04-27-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
You mean you never noticed me???:confused:
pirate:

:rotfl:

Originally posted by PKS44
Failure or success have nothing to do with who likes it and who does not

I smell a banana here. You're one of the 'cost isn't as important as quality' posse, so by logical connection you must appreciate that if an extra park adds to the overall quality of experience then it is in fact the Disney way. Since it's mere existance can't really upset people - unless they fall into the lion cage - the only thing it can do is ADD to an experience.

DancingBear - SnackyStacky's friend obvioiusly got lost and missed the entire park. Either that or he didn't care for the animals, in which case he really was in the wrong place :p

As for building new attractions in parks, if this didn't happen we'd all get bored wouldn't we? Improvements = good and you can't swat that one down! Of course opening with TOO FEW attractions would be bad - but no-one has proven that yet and as I said, according to many people on this board the Disney thing to do is pay for the gold leaf on the merry-go-round: in this case another, arguably superficial park, in order just to add to the Disney experience.

What is a half day stigma?! Everyone here just thinks it's a long movie :p

Rich::

SnackyStacky

04-27-2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by DancingBear
What did he do?

She did both of the animal trails, Primeval Whirl (twice), Dinosaur, the Safari, and Tough to Be a Bug. She doesn't like shows, so was not interested in Pocahontas, Tarzan, and Lion King, and it was too cold for Kali.

Bob O

04-27-2004, 11:56 PM

Captain-Im proud to say that when i do visit this Dec im not staying on site at wdw but will be staying onsite at a Universal hotel(the best hotel perk bar none is FOTL!!).
Every time one goes into a theme park that counts as a separate visit, if you go to 3 parks in on day that is 3 visits which is thonly reason AK has the attendance it has, if one checked with wdw for attendance for non-park hopper passes ie-those who buy single day passes for a short visit im sure the result would be few purchases for AK,
AK lack of attendance is shown by the fact that if you are there any time after mid-afternoon the palce is a ghost town. A popular park wouldnt have such few people in it near closing time, but since there is so little to do people flee by mid-afternoon because they have easily seen it all in half a day.

Planogirl

04-28-2004, 12:15 AM

I don't know about that BobO. They're saying that the figures we see only count the first time that a hopper is used on any given day. So if you go to three theme parks then only the first park is counted. I assume that attendance when using AP's is counted the same way?

I still believe that MANY people visit AK because they have a hopper or AP and it's included. Of course, there's no way to know the truth about this.

BobO, we're staying at a Universal hotel during our next trip too. I'm looking forward to FOTL but I also like the Loews chain so I'm hoping for a really nice stay. We've always mixed staying offsite with onsite anyway.

raidermatt

04-28-2004, 02:21 AM

This is another example of one of the things that is maddening about the discussions on this (and other) Disney boards.

Disney had a way of doing things unlike just about any other company. Because of that philosophy, they became something that attracted millions of fans. Not just customers. Not just guests. FANS. Its the only reason this board is even here.

However, they have become a company that largely does things like most other companies.

Nothing inherently wrong with that. Many companies make money doing things like everybody else.

But that's not what created the things that have brought us together to have these discussions. If Disney had done things that way from the beginning, we'd all be spending time doing something besides reading and typing about Disney.

Why is that maddening? Because every single one of us should realize the problem with Disney doing things like everybody else. I shouldn't have to explain why the "Disney way" is the best way for Disney to people who already know that.

Yet I (and others) continue to find ourselves having to do just that.

So, here I go again...

Well, #5 AK does ok with #6 and #7 just a few miles north of it. What would #6 & 7's numbers be without 2,3,4 & 5 ? Would that make USF/IOA failures ?

Yes, Universal Orlando owes its existence to Walt Disney World. It would never have been built without WDW.

But that's hardly the doing of AK.

By every possible measurement Disney themselves uses, Einser's Disney, mind you, the park is a failure. It failed to reach attendance projections, it failed to add the length of stays it was supposed to, its had its hours slashed to less than a normal work day, they've had to tell people it ain't a zoo for 5 years now, etc, etc, etc.

It doesn't matter why AK is number 5...It just is.
It matters if you really want to understand what people think, and you know it.

The only reason it struggles at all is that it has to compete with the other established and more conventional Disney Parks.
You've got to be kidding me.

I have to ask for clarification before I really answer this Pete, er Captain. Are you actually saying that AK is HURT by being in WDW?

Besides who ever said that the goal of each Park was to be able to "stand alone"?
Do I have to start breaking out quotes from the dead guy about exceeding expectations and giving the public everything you can give them?

Or if you prefer more "business school" type terms, think of things like consistent value.

The success of DL, MK and Epcot are blessings for Disney. But as is always the case, it comes with a responsibility in the public's eyes. Like it or not, they have expectations. When there's not even an attempt to open a park that provides consistent value, they ain't gonna like it.

If Disney is going to open a park and promote it and price it as an equal to what already exists, they have to deliver. Its hard enough to do that when you try. When you start opening parks with 12-15 attractions, even the slowest of the herd can figure out they are being taken for granted.

That's not the Disney way. Its not why I love Disney (and have given them a bunch of money), and it's not why any of you have done the same.

Disney is fully aware of their failures and new management will address these issues going forward provided they remain an independent company.
So you defend it against being a failure, but then say Disney is fully aware of the failure?

Which is it?

Eisner will go, even if it's not untill his contract expiration in 2006.
Far from a given, though I agree its likely.

Still, as has been said many times by many people arguing against Eisner's ouster now, there is no guarantee that "Magically" solves Disney's problems. If Eisner lasts until his contract expires, it likely means the financial numbers are adequate and we are less likely to get anyone who is going to significantly change things.

We either change the standards by which we measure Disney, or we will get more of the same.

We can sit and complain about the past or we can discuss hope for the future.
Or we can discuss it logically, understanding this is not a Disney film we are watching that will inevitably give us a happy ending.

How they got to be #5, via hoppers or free add on days or single day ticket purchases is irrelevent.
I'm sorry Pete, er, Captain, but that's a ridiculous statement. If IOA cut its prices in half, it would surely pass AK in attendance, but there's no way in heck you would say the price cut is irrelevant.

WDW like any business must massage its policies and procedures to maximize the current profit potential. Mr. Show is right in stating travel and economy concerns, not as an excuse for lowered expectations but rather for changes in policies to adapt to different circumstances...Nothing wrong with that.
Except that they are, in fact, excuses. AK failed to meet expectations before the economy faltered, and long before travel concerns began. Those factors merely exacerbated the problem, they didn't cause it.

As for AK specifically, we know you've long been an detractor of what was built but you fail to give acceptance to those of us who generally like what was built.
That's because what you, AV, I, or anyone else on this board like is irrelevant when we try to determine whether AK is a failure.

Lets all remember that it's the new kid on the block and is still growing. MGM Studios opened in 1989 and was IMHO rather lackluster for many years. TOT was added in 1994 and Rock -n -Roller Coaster not until 1999.

So why is it ok for Disney to operate this way?

Why is it ok for them to intentionally deliver less than what their customers expect?

How does one reconcile that strategy with the strategies Disney used to build DL, MK and Epcot?

IMO..if you leave WDW and your first instinct is to complain, you really need to lighten up. If you can't enjoy WDW, I can't imagine you find much of anything enjoyable.
Your confusing "whether I had fun on my vacation" with "is Disney following Disney-like strategies".

That's what Disney is all about and always has been about. Walt didn't finish DL prior to opening, Roy didn't finisn MK and no park since has opened "finished" except for maybe that silly Japenese Park.
Darn it, Pete, er, Captain, this is what is so frustrating about your posts sometimes.

You KNOW that the reasons for MGM, AK, and DCA opening as so much less than the prior parks has NOTHING to do with why DL didn't open "complete". There's also no comparison to the state in which MK and Epcot were opened.

You KNOW the the reasons current management does this were not what Disney was always all about.

Yet you make a statement like that... why?

AK will evolve as will DCA and The Studios...Heck even Epcot is still evolving.
The evolution of DL, MK and Epcot is not the same as the building out of AK, DCA and the Studios.

AGAIN, you KNOW this.

Picture a Fl res,AP holding Grandma. The grandkids from Jersey visit for a few days. What park is grandmom taking them to. MK is the obvious choice & always will be. It's the top dog. That doesn't make every other park a failure.
No, but when you open parks that every guest figures out weren't even an attempt at similar value, they will fail.

Since it's mere existance can't really upset people - unless they fall into the lion cage - the only thing it can do is ADD to an experience.
Good grief, NO!

A park is a product of Disney. It comes with a price, just like any other product. If the public doesn't get the value it expects from that product, there is a problem.

The public won't pay what you want for that product, and the their perception of the value you provide as a company decreases.

A "bad" product will ALWAYS hurt.

AK added 6.9 mil guests to WDW

If the poor economy and travel concerns contributed to Disney's attendance issues (and they did... not the sole cause, but they did contribute), then didn't the booming economy of the late 90's also contibute to WDW's gain?

In other words, WDW's attendance was going to go up even if AK wasn't built. How much of that 6.9 million would have happened anyway is of course debateable, but 6.9 million is already a less than impressive number for a Disney theme park...

DancingBear

04-28-2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
She did both of the animal trails, Primeval Whirl (twice), Dinosaur, the Safari, and Tough to Be a Bug. She doesn't like shows, so was not interested in Pocahontas, Tarzan, and Lion King, and it was too cold for Kali. No freakin' way did she do all that and get in and out in two hours. Did she run full blast through the trails?

Captain Crook

04-28-2004, 08:11 AM

Matt, Matt, Matt...Still fighting the good fight, eh? It's easy to take my quotes and add your meanings to them but half the time you choose to see them as literal and half the time general...You can't do both.

Why AK is number five doesn't matter in any sense other than it proves that it is still a more attended park that either USF park and the annual report shows just how profitable each division is yearly. It would be ok for USF to pad their numbers by offering deep discounts and freebies but the proof will come out at reporting time...In fact this is what has happened to USF. Their numbers are relatively good because of DEEP discounts but they still struggle financially. Beyond that attendance figures are muddled, at best. I think Viking's numbers showd that AK did put 'butts in the seats'...

Are you actually saying that AK is HURT by being in WDW?
Hurt or helped? What's the point? AK is successful because it is a Disney Park and it suffers because it is a Disney Park. Did anyone seriously think the AK, built in any form, would replace the Magic Kingdom as top dog? If so, I'd say you're the one who's got to be kidding!

Entry to WDW parks is now primarily the job of 'hoppers'. Whether a park can stand on its own is irrelevent today. MK will always be the main Disney park in Orlando. The others have their fans and as a whole (four parks, two water parks, DD, etc) constitute the draw. MK is the mainstay and the other parks allow more guests to visit the resort and be entertained in the Disney way at alternate style parks. Do you think WDW would be anywhere near the tour de force with just Epcot, The Studios and AK? Heck no! They're great Parks, to be sure, but still second draw to the big dog, Magic Kingdom. Therefore your expectations for the greatness comes from a different place than mine. I know Disney will NEVER build Disney Sea (or equivelent in Orlando) while you seem to think there is still a chance for that altrusitc greatness in some form.

Do I have to start breaking out quotes for you from the dead guy? Please don't. But in case you didn't notice, Walt is still dead. He did not finish DL before opening and yes I know all of the reasons, but the fact is DL WAS a shell of what it was to become and virtually every park built since then has been the same. I agree that the philosophy behind the "why" is vastly different, but the net result is the same...

So you defend it from being a failure and then say Disney is fully aware of its failures. Which is it?
AK is no failure, IMO, but they have had failures...Dinorama within AK, Kali Rapids was shortsighted and DCA in California. Just because I recognize Disney as being generally very successful over the years doesn't mean some VERY boneheaded things weren't attempted. Both DR and DCA came, IMO, as a result of Pressler, in an attempt to use just brand name as the selling point. It didn't work and we've seen a turnaround in the quality of offerings since then.

...Or we can discuss it logically.
Logical is as logical does. Discussing the past is fine...Been done ad nauseum, but fine. It's just that the Disney ideal, to a "T" will never be back. We are living with a hybrid and thats about our only choice. Disney can make inroads towards Walt's ideals under new management, should they "get it", but those roads will be tempered as Disney, being the multinational conglomerate that it is will never again see the day when the 'Big Cheese' will be able to run roughshod over shareholders to do it his way ever again. That ability died with Walt (and will be buried deeper with Eisners exit) and the public gentrification of the company...And you know that.

This has been helter skelter but thats as complete as it gets for now...Except for a comment to Bob O...Kudos Bob for putting your money where your mouth is. I disagree with virtually every word out of your mouth but I respect your integrity...
pirate:

DancingBear

04-28-2004, 08:29 AM

From the viewpoint of a visitor who comes to WDW every couple of years for a full week at a time and uses the parkhopper passes, AK was a pure enhancement, even when it first opened. Sure, they didn't build all of their great ideas at first, but what they did build was nicely realized. The effort put into landscaping, and the structures in Africa, were extraordinary--definitely up to the highest of Disney standards.

Epcot was more fully realized because it was the second gate opened. Even then, there was no Living Seas, Wonders of Life or Norway, AND several countries in WS with no attractions (still), even though there were many attraction ideas related to those countries.

KNWVIKING

04-28-2004, 08:32 AM

If I just looked at the thread & not the poster, I'd swear the Baron was blessing us with his presence again. How long it take you to compose that post ? Anyway:

***"If the poor economy and travel concerns contributed to Disney's attendance issues (and they did... not the sole cause, but they did contribute), then didn't the booming economy of the late 90's also contibute to WDW's gain?

In other words, WDW's attendance was going to go up even if AK wasn't built. How much of that 6.9 million would have happened anyway is of course debateable, but 6.9 million is already a less than impressive number for a Disney theme park..."***

By the late '90's the economy was already on it's way down. In 98 MK,EPCOT & MGM numbers were already declining from 97. Was that economy or AK that caused it ? I don't know. My point though was that with AK open just part of 98, WDW exceded attendance figures for 97 by 3+ mil, and in 99 - with the economy really starting to tank - it improved by 6.9 mil. It also appears that in a year or two AK will surpass MGM & be on the heels of EPCOT. Will that make those parks failures if AK does pass them ?

Disclaimer: The new attractions at Epcot & MGM may also boost their attendance figures as I'm sure EE will for AK, so it's quite possible AK will not pass them.

***"Disney had a way of doing things unlike just about any other company. Because of that philosophy, they became something that attracted millions of fans."***

I'm already on record as saying AK is my favorite park but I'll also readily admit it's far from being "done". But how can you deny that "The Tree" is anything but pure Walt. IMHO even the Castle pales in comparison. The park has all the right elements, it just needs some tweaking.

mitros

04-28-2004, 08:56 AM

I'll have to agree that it may not be a full day park, but we really love the safari ride. We usually go to AK first thing in the AM, look for Wes Palm, look for his "keeper", then go into the park, take the safari ride, do Tough to be a bug, Countdown to Extinction, oops, I mean Dinosaur. Always liked that original name though, then pretty much leave and go to Epcot.

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 12:37 PM

Does anyone else share the notion that Animal Kingdom is at least at present aimed, perhaps not intentionally, at a niche market? To "get" the park (or perhaps "enjoy" would be a better word) you need to have a longer attention span than with the other worlds, be observant and not mind being surrounded by animals as a main attraction.

I can just see Mr. and Mrs. Average walking through the four parks now - enchanted by Magic Kingdom, amazed at the futuristic feel of EPCOT (and secretly pleased at the Mission: Space and Test Track rides) and giggling in childish glee at the MGM ride-a-lot-a-rides philosophy.

I can also see them wondering in to Animal Kingdom, thinking "What the hell, who cares about a whole load of Animals?" and not returning until some "decent" attraction popped up.

This is just a personal hunch people. I mean, I just get the feeling that Disney overestimated people in the sophistication field here which rather compounded the usual number of people who just don't like the park in terms of poor figures.

I dunno.

I rant.

Rich::

Mickmse2002

04-28-2004, 12:43 PM

***Does anyone else share the notion that Animal Kingdom is at least at present aimed, perhaps not intentionally, at a niche market? To "get" the park (or perhaps "enjoy" would be a better word) you need to have a longer attention span than with the other worlds, be observant and not mind being surrounded by animals as a main attraction.***

I think you are on to something here. All of the other parks have a much faster "pace" to them than does AK. You have to be a lot less frantic in your touring approach to fully enjoy the AK experience, it is a lot less hurried than running from line to line at MK. I think the pace is more on par with a leisurely tour across the World Showcase.

IMHO Disney set out to create an entirely different park experience and have been successful in doing so.

raidermatt

04-28-2004, 01:12 PM

Why AK is number five doesn't matter in any sense other than it proves that it is still a more attended park that either USF park and the annual report shows just how profitable each division is yearly.
If that's all that AK being number 5 proves, why in the heck is it brought out as a reason why AK is not a failure? If its irrelevant to that topic, leave it out of the conversation.

As far as being profitable, that's nice. Time Warner is profitable. So is PepsiCo. Let's go to those discussion communities and talk about them.

If profitability is all that matters, why talk about Disney? Further, why is the stock wallowing in muck?

Beyond even that, results are what they are... results based on what actually happened. Disney having a bottom line in the black doesn't mean they are even close to optimizing their potential.

Beyond that attendance figures are muddled, at best. I think Viking's numbers showd that AK did put 'butts in the seats'...
They also show they hardly put very many butts in the seats, when you consider the investment made.

What's the point? AK is successful because it is a Disney Park and it suffers because it is a Disney Park. Did anyone seriously think the AK, built in any form, would replace the Magic Kingdom as top dog? If so, I'd say you're the one who's got to be kidding!
Suffers because it is a Disney park? Again, that is simply ridiculous. 17 million people entered the MK the year before AK opened. The benefit from being next to that far outweighs any negatives that come along with public expectations. That's why they put it there.

Entry to WDW parks is now primarily the job of 'hoppers'. Whether a park can stand on its own is irrelevent today.
Irrelevant to our Marketing friends, but still very relevant to customers. Customers actually do care if a new park is offering less value than they expect.

MK is the mainstay and the other parks allow more guests to visit the resort and be entertained in the Disney way at alternate style parks.
Who's feeding you Disney's powerpoints? Again, this completely loses sight of the most basic business concepts... those concerning value and customer wants/needs/expectations.

I know Disney will NEVER build Disney Sea (or equivelent in Orlando) while you seem to think there is still a chance for that altrusitc greatness in some form.
You are completetly missing the point. Its not about whether AK actually surpasses MK's attendance. Its about whether Disney sets out to create what their customers want/expect, or whether they set out to create something that gets x% more dollars out of their pockets.

Its hard to be successful in creative endeavors. But its even harder when creative, product driven goals aren't your driving force.

I know Disney will NEVER build Disney Sea (or equivelent in Orlando) while you seem to think there is still a chance for that altrusitc greatness in some form.
If Disney never builds such a thing in Orlando, its simply out of short-sightedness. There's nothing altruistic about it. It would be a highly profitable endeavor for Disney. The fact that you still assign terms like altruistic to what I'm talking about shows that you are still missing my point.

Agree or disagree, the point is that such endeavors will MAKE MONEY for Disney. More money than AK makes them, and a heckuva lot more than DCA makes them.

So once again, leave the "selflessness" aspect out of it. Its got nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and never has.

But in case you didn't notice, Walt is still dead.
Thanks. I thought the fact that I referred to him as the dead guy would make it clear I knew he was dead, but since it didn't, yes, I know he is in fact, dead.

I agree that the philosophy behind the "why" is vastly different, but the net result is the same...
Many problems with that. Philosophy, strategy and vision is the starting point of every successful business endeavor. When you change it, you change the results.

The net result may have been that DL opened as much less than it would end up being, but the public's expectations were also not yet set. The value proposition was not yet clear.

Now, it is. And now, Disney does not lack the resources to maintain the consistent value proposition. However, since the philosophy is different, they fail to meet the public's expecations.

They intentionally give the public less, choosing instead to invest in other things.

So we get parks with less not because there is some Darwinian desire within Disney to see evolution take place, but because they simply lack the understanding of what has made them so successful in the past.

AK failed to meet their expectations because it failed to meet the public's expecatations. DCA and DS-Paris failed by an even greater margin.

Until they understand that they need to look first at what their customers want, they will continue to be unable to maximize their potential, from both the creative AND financial pov.

It's just that the Disney ideal, to a "T" will never be back. We are living with a hybrid and thats about our only choice.
That which makes money can always return.

Disney, being the multinational conglomerate that it is will never again see the day when the 'Big Cheese' will be able to run roughshod over shareholders to do it his way ever again.
Whoever said that's how it has to be done? Besides, the current Big Cheese seems to have done a good job of running roughshod over shareholders, so I guess even that is possible.

If I just looked at the thread & not the poster, I'd swear the Baron was blessing us with his presence again. How long it take you to compose that post ?
Too long, but probably not as long as one might think.

Still, I almost feel like this is my last gasp attempt to get through to somebody (anybody) before I fade into oblivion like the Baron.

By the late '90's the economy was already on it's way down.
The rate of growth was slowing, but it was still growing quite nicely. For the most part, people didn't feel ill affects until 2000.

It also appears that in a year or two AK will surpass MGM & be on the heels of EPCOT. Will that make those parks failures if AK does pass them ?
In some ways, all of the parks are failing, but its not that the 4th most attended park of the group is automatically a failure. That's not what has made AK a failure. Much like DCA simply being less attended than DL does not make it a failure.

Its a failure on two levels:

1- The goal of adding x hours to guest stays is a failed goal when compared to how Disney became successful.

2- Even measured against that already flawed goal, all indicatations are that it failed to meet expecatations, though not by as great a margin as DCA or DSP.

Captain Crook

04-28-2004, 02:20 PM

You fail to understand my points the same as I apparantely do yours and I too am tired of trying to be logical...ButIt is a failure on 2 levels:
The goal of adding x hours to a guests stayis a failed goal when compared to how Disney became successful.
Try this on for size. I agee with this statement at face value. I really do, but I think its a flawed conclusion because the fact that AK failed to meet this stated criteria DOES NOT mean that it was the fault of AK itself. The market saturation, the economy, the competetion were all factors thrown into the mix without the benefit of knowing what certain outcomes would be. It's very easy to follow the plan as long as it works but what if it's just that ideal that is no longer workable? What if Orlando is reaching all the tourists they're going to reach? What if there are just too many theme park choices? What if Americans really do have a finite amount of vacation time and money available to spend at WDW or any other venue?

Animal Kingdom may have failed Disney in what it was originally seeking from it, but its place as number 5 theme park in the country tells me it is not a failure as a theme park. The blame goes somewhere else, IMO...

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Animal Kingdom may have failed Disney in what it was originally seeking from it, but its place as number 5 theme park in the country tells me it is not a failure as a theme park. The blame goes somewhere else, IMO...

I think that depends upon the targets set, hmm? Maybe the targets included creating publicity (check), expanding the size of the resort (check), paving the way for a wider spectrum of appeal (check) or simply adding to the overall experience (debate). The most controversial target which I'm sure existed is more people going to WDW and as Raidermatt rightly pointed out, profit is not exactly the only thing and if we were to primarily concern ourselves with that we might as well neuter the park of the Disney tag.

One does not decide to build a theme park without having more than one goal. 'Make money' doesn't work without the how. And I'm sure that many of those hows have happily transpired.

Edit: Yes, it has failed as a success if we compare it in any way shape or form to the original Disneyland opening - but then again we might as well be complaining that an Opal doesn't have as much 'Wow' factor as a Jaguar. What becomes common loses shine.

Rich::

PKS44

04-28-2004, 02:43 PM

The notion that AK requires some sophistication to get because it involves animals is really silly...and typical of the misguided attempts to defend this park---what I suspect the unwashed masses who are staying away from AK will tell likely tell you is that they just did not see it as much more than a zoo--why do you think they had the ad campaign in the first place about Nahtazoo--because that is the impression people had of the place and that impression was coming from the word of mouth from those who went and did not want to go back...as a day's experience it feels like a zoo with a small amount of added stuff--too small to make it special enough for people to say _"Go down there and see this!" Or "I can't wait to go back"

Our local zoo and another local animal park have attractions as themed and interesting as anything at AK---and they are essentially free--even the Bronx Zoo and the San Diego Zoos as expensive as they are offer as much family entertainment for a day as AK does for less...are they the same entertainment? No. Is AK so much more to make it seem worth the dough...the yearly drops in attendance say no.

The notion that AK put an additional 7 million people in the place assumes that there would have been no more growth in the other parks--a pretty big assumption that cannot be substantiated...whatever it added -even if it was the whole 7 million pales next to DisneySeas effect on the Tokyo resort.

DisneySeas was built to make money and is doing very well-and in an economic climate far worse than what we have experienced...an economic climate that has seen huge losses in the theme park industry....

The idea that AK's deficiencies can all be explained away as:
1) Economy
2) Market saturation
3) Stupid public misperception of the park

is all Eisner-speak--point the finger at anybody but where it belongs...they made a very deliberate move to achieve something for less and as is so common in business -when you aim low you succeed even lower...I am unconvinced that AK has done everything it could have done if there had been a DisneySeas type of investment in the park...The Eisner park strategy has been open little and build off the profits generated...it is a gamble that people will not be ticked off at paying for less while you gather the money to deliver more--the sophistication it takes to "get" AK apparently is different from the sophistication it takes to understand when you have been charged the same for "less."

Captain Crook

04-28-2004, 02:57 PM

PKS, seriously you feel that those factors have not contributed to what has happened. That's amazing to me.

TDS succeded in a poor economic climate because (1) visitors stayed home due to that climate (2) TDS was only the second Disney Park in Japan and (3) Japenese folks tend to love everything Disney.

I've been to the San Diego Zoo and it is not more entertaining than Animal Kingdom.

D2000, I didn't mean to suggest that this was Disney's only goal for surely I agree with you that it was looked at from many different angles but I was merely responding to those who call it a failure for not meeting or exceeding that specific goal, like I said, even if those goals could be shown later to be unattainable...Saturation in Orlando is a big issue.
pirate:

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by PKS44
The notion that AK requires some sophistication to get because it involves animals is really silly...and typical of the misguided attempts to defend this park

Well, I feel it does. Not sophistication as you wrongly interpreted but a general attitude, a desire to take things slowly, take in the atmosphere and admire the attractions; the need to go on something fast, backwards and in pitch black does not really hold true to those same character features. I still think my idea that to appreciate AK you need to be of a certain persuasion still holds true, possibly more so following your latter comments about how a zoo, as you see it, does not constitute a full blown properly thought out Disney park.

Originally posted by PKS44
The idea that AK's deficiencies can all be explained away as:
1) Economy
2) Market saturation
3) Stupid public misperception of the park

Actually, they're all good ideas. Especially the last one.

Originally posted by PKS44
is all Eisner-speak--point the finger at anybody but where it belongs

This is a bit silly really, the design and concept of the park wasn't left to him, nor were any of the fine details. At most his comrades along with him decided that expansion was in order, would cost x much (which was probably not a fixed amount that early on) and concepts were subsequently passed along taster groups.

No, no matter how much of an irrational hatred you have for the man you cannot pin your perception of Animal Kingdom's success on him.

Originally posted by Captain Crook
D2000, I didn't mean to suggest that this was Disney's only goal for surely I agree with you that it was looked at from many different angles but I was merely responding to those who call it a failure for not meeting or exceeding that specific goal, like I said, even if those goals could be shown later to be unattainable...Saturation in Orlando is a big issue.
pirate:

Gotcha :) Sorry, didn't really understand first time around - my apologies.

Rich::

PKS44

04-28-2004, 03:01 PM

I never said the san diego zoo was MORE entertaining...and yes I seriously think those excuses are a lame attempt to cover up the failure of the overall approach in the US Disney parks...and if they had built a DisneySeas type of park (by type I mean invested in a park at a lever to really WOW people) I think they would have been reaping the rewards many times over what AK has done...seriously--

Paul

Planogirl

04-28-2004, 03:03 PM

Again, do people go to AK because it's included and in a manner of speaking "free" or do they go because it's a worthy park to the masses and can thus stand on its own merits? Some say that it doesn't matter but I believe that it fundamentally does matter even if there is really no way to determine the answer.

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by PKS44
I never said the san diego zoo was MORE entertaining

I know - that's the problem! ;) You said that it was LESS entertaining, using it as an example with which to illustrate Animal Kingdom. Therefore, by logical connection, you think that zoos cannot constitute a Disney park?

Rich::

Captain Crook

04-28-2004, 03:08 PM

Seriously...I think you're wrong.

Disney Sea would have been a major hit, cannibilizing from the other parks to a much greater extent. Would the increase of guests coming to Disney Sea have been greater enough (over what AK had) to offset the mamouth price tag? No way. We'd see tons of people going to WDW for the new park while the old parks whither because all of the money for new attractions was eaten up by the monster new park, which couldn't possibly earn its keep within the WDW environment...People just don't have more vacation days to give. I think Disney has learned this but folks here don't seem to accept it.
pirate:

PKS44

04-28-2004, 03:17 PM

I don't hate Eisner-- I hate what he has done to Disney---and anything done including AK is ultimately his call--the decisions to open up parks small and build later is squarely his responsibility and that is not irrational at all --your defense of him is nonrational--there is no "reason" behind it--you have some sort of blind faith that he is doing good things...despite all the real world evidence to the contrary....

A zoo as a Disney park would have been fine if it were marketed and priced as one...as it is AK is neither priced nor marketed appropriate to its value--the market has spoken on this..
I agree the park takes a different pace--but that pace has nothing to do with it being animals...zoos take a different approach than theme parks--but they are also priced quite differently from theme parks...as I said some are even free...AK is not good enough to warrant it's price or the hype it presents itself as a WOW place--it is a nice place...but not a WOW...you claimed it takes sophistication because you have to-
not mind being surrounded by animals as a main attraction.

I can just see Mr. and Mrs. Average walking through the four parks now - enchanted by Magic Kingdom, amazed at the futuristic feel of EPCOT (and secretly pleased at the Mission: Space and Test Track rides) and giggling in childish glee at the MGM ride-a-lot-a-rides philosophy.

I can also see them wondering in to Animal Kingdom, thinking "What the hell, who cares about a whole load of Animals?" and not returning until some "decent" attraction popped up.

First of all MGM does not have" a lot of rides" it has too few--still...it suffers from the same Eisnerification as AK -opened with too little still trying to catch up---

And what Mr and Mrs Average probably say is closer to "What the hell? The other parks so amazing and this is just like the zoo with a couple of rides thrown in? What is the big deal?" Sophistication has nothing to do with it....the little boy who noted that the emperor had no clothes was certainly not more sophisticated or less sophisticated...he just called it as he saw it...as has the general public in not going as much as they did when the park opened.

Paul

KNWVIKING

04-28-2004, 03:27 PM

***"TDS succeded in a poor economic climate because (1) visitors stayed home due to that climate (2) TDS was only the second Disney Park in Japan and (3) Japenese folks tend to love everything Disney."***

Not to mention the fact that there are 130 mil people living on an island smaller then California.

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by PKS44
What the hell? The other parks so amazing and this is just like the zoo with a couple of rides thrown in? What is the big deal?

You prove my point :p

Originally posted by PKS44
I don't hate Eisner-- I hate what he has done to Disney---and anything done including AK is ultimately his call

Not really. If that was so, he'd be just a bit busy really. Plus he's not exactly skilled in any of the professions involved - unless you think that Eisner is an architect, imagineer, CEO and cast member extraordinaire?

Originally posted by PKS44
but they are also priced quite differently from theme parks...as I said some are even free...AK is not good enough to warrant it's price or the hype it presents itself as a WOW place

I believe animals cost money to keep, especially to keep legally :p

Originally posted by PKS44
I don't hate Eisner

:rotfl:

Originally posted by PKS44
First of all MGM does not have" a lot of rides" it has too few--still...it suffers from the same Eisnerification as AK -opened with too little still trying to catch up

Lots of white knuckle rides, proportionally, as I was trying to infer.

Originally posted by PKS44
there is no "reason" behind it

I'm guessing there was ;)

That is all :)

Rich::

Sarangel

04-28-2004, 03:34 PM

Not really. If that was so, he'd be just a bit busy really. Plus he's not exactly skilled in any of the professions involved - unless you think that Eisner is an architect, imagineer, CEO and cast member extraordinaire?Actually, despite not having any of those qualifications (except, possibly, CEO), Eisner did micromanage much of the AK construction process. He likes to feel that he's part of the creative process. And he certainly had a lot to do with the slashing of the budget that killed Beastly Kingdom.

Just my $0.02

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 03:38 PM

I am corrected :)

Sarangel, I bow down ;)

Rich::

raidermatt

04-28-2004, 03:58 PM

It's very easy to follow the plan as long as it works but what if it's just that ideal that is no longer workable? What if Orlando is reaching all the tourists they're going to reach? What if there are just too many theme park choices? What if Americans really do have a finite amount of vacation time and money available to spend at WDW or any other venue?

All speculation because Disney did not even do what it could have done to succeed.

In other words, they didn't try.

They obviously didn't think the market was saturated or they wouldn't have built a park in both Anaheim and Orlando.

And again, it gets back to the most basic of principles... your product is everything. You can't sacrifice its quality/scope/etc because you are afraid your product might not be supported. Even if all of the things you say are true, producing something of less value only makes things worse.

You either raise the bar to the point where you can succeed, or you try something else. A less than full effort just isn't going to work, and that's even more true in the competitive environment you describe.

DancingBear

04-28-2004, 04:45 PM

A couple of points:

--The critics say Disney didn't "try" because they didn't build everything before they opened. I say if you look at the quality, not quantity, of what was opened, they clearly "tried" and succeeded in creating top Disney-level quality.

--The critics keep talking about AK's pricing (vs. zoos, etc.), but then also say folks go there because they have APs or parkhoppers. You can't have it both ways. If folks use their parkhoppers to spend 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at AK, then spend their evenings at Epcot, what's the problem with AK's pricing?

DancingBear

04-28-2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Captain Crook
...People just don't have more vacation days to give. I think Disney has learned this but folks here don't seem to accept it.
pirate: Wow, that's an enlightening, big picture statement.

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by raidermatt
They obviously didn't think the market was saturated or they wouldn't have built a park in both Anaheim and Orlando.

Possibly there are individual markets.

Anaheim is the original: Disneyland, "The Most Magical Place On Earth". Whilst it has a Tower Of Terror, a Monorail, two separate parks, etc, etc, it clearly possessed too little room to expand. So along came Florida, a large scale emulation of Disneyland which turned out to possess its own brand of unique characteristics. Florida was aimed at longer vacations - vacations primarily based on Disney, vacations that appealed more to the overseas market.

But not everyone overseas could afford this; along came Disneyland Paris, aimed at attracting the local countries and probably also at being a gateway introduction to all things Disney. Tokyo Disney was designed to the same end.

So perhaps the market is not yet saturated, at least as far as the global market goes. But in terms of the Floridian market only goes, or the Californian market (there lies Universal, SeaWorld, the San Diego zoo and so on), perhaps the market is indeed saturated and the areas already draw the numbers they warrant, that number only likely to change as a result of world economy and trends or a MAJOR shift in service within the areas.

Rich::

raidermatt

04-28-2004, 07:10 PM

TDS succeded in a poor economic climate because (1) visitors stayed home due to that climate (2) TDS was only the second Disney Park in Japan and (3) Japenese folks tend to love everything Disney.

Why is it not possible that the biggest factor is that its a product that met its customers expectations? Unlike the 4th park in Orlando, the 2nd park in Anaheim, or the 2nd park in Paris?

Not sophistication as you wrongly interpreted but a general attitude, a desire to take things slowly, take in the atmosphere and admire the attractions; the need to go on something fast, backwards and in pitch black does not really hold true to those same character features.
We're not talking about something people are forced to do. This isn't required training for a job, or courses one must take to get a degree. We are talking about entertainment. If it doesn't succeed on that level, then it isn't a success.

Actually, they're all good ideas. Especially the last one.
Stupid or not, the public is where your customers come from. Its the job of the company to properly analyze what their potential customers want, or are capable of understanding, and providing it.

Providing something they "just don't get" is the fault of the company, not the customer.

No, no matter how much of an irrational hatred you have for the man you cannot pin your perception of Animal Kingdom's success on him.
When the problem is the direction and vision that drove the park, that most certainly falls at the feet of Eisner. He got what he asked for. A park designed to milk an extra day and an extra dollar out of his customers' wallets. Had he asked for something more focused on what his customers actually wanted and expected, but it was not delivered, perhaps more responsibility could be shifted downward. (Even though it would still be his responsibility to get the right people in the right jobs to execute his vision). But since that isn't what happened, you cannot absolve the man of the responsibility. (For what its worth, my personal feelings towards the man are indifferent. Don't know him. I think he is doing a bad job overall, but that's an analysis of his actions, not of him.)

raidermatt

04-28-2004, 07:14 PM

People just don't have more vacation days to give. I think Disney has learned this but folks here don't seem to accept it.

Wow, that's an enlightening, big picture statement.

If that is the case, why in the world is Disney building parks trying to get more of those days?

If there just isn't that demand out there, it makes AK even more of a failure because it never should have been built.

Again, what you are describing is a highly competitive environment. The only way to succeed in such an environment is to raise the bar. That's a harsh, and maybe even unfair, reality of business.

But its a reality nonetheless.

Intentionally producing something that lowers the bar is not going to get the job done.

KNWVIKING

04-28-2004, 07:27 PM

Knowing the way Disney tracks data, I think it's fair to say they thought adding AK would keep guests in the parks an extra day or two without people having to book more then the normal 7-8 day trip. To some extent they were right, WDW basically have added approx 7.5 mil guests to their parks- thats more then twice the total going to Seaworld. Maybe some of you old timers can answer this: Back when it was just MK, how many days out of a weeks vacation were spent on property.When EPCOT was added, did you spend less time at MK, less time off property, or add more days to your trip. What happened when MGM opened ?

Captain Crook

04-28-2004, 07:36 PM

I'm sorry Matt but I just don't understand your argument to my view...I mean it seems like we're not talking about the same issues at core...:(

Disney isn't building any parks in the US that I know of and I haven't heard of plans to build any. Building a park in China will have no bearing on WDW.

Maybe in your view AK is more of a failure because it should have never have been built but can't you accept that maybe, just maybe they just hit the wall? That perhaps they finally misjudged their acceptance levels? That after AK they realized that 'build it and they will come' just doesn't work? I know this plays into your quality theory and I can accept that except that it is my belief that Orlando just isn't going to be pulling in anymore people. This is how it appears to me as no one is experiencing boom times. Everyones getting by but the heyday is over.

RE: Raising the bar. On this I'd like to agree and hope that this will happen, after all it'd be good for me too, but I just go back to the saturation issue of Orlando. I think we could see a Disney Sea type venture in the US but it won't be in Orlando...

Therefore, I don't think they are intentionally lowering the bar but rather playing to the prosective audience. I'll agree that I'd like more and that it would be heraded by Disney affecianados everywhere as an awesome move, but if the numbers aren't there it isn't going to get done. Business over creativity? Sadly, yes.
pirate:

dcentity2000

04-28-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by raidermatt
We're not talking about something people are forced to do. This isn't required training for a job, or courses one must take to get a degree. We are talking about entertainment. If it doesn't succeed on that level, then it isn't a success.

No, you never have to take a life exam, this is true - I am simply pointing out that people of certain dispositions may find themselves rather more attracted to the park than others, more so in this park than any of the others (in my opinion) as it appears to be aimed at rather more of a niche market.

On the subject of customer satisfaction, this is sadly a rather difficult thing to quantify - for example, if 5 million people visit the park, that's good. If 3 million visit the park and love it whereas 2 million visit the park and soon leave, realising that it isn't their cup of tea, then that could actually be seen to be better - though not from the point of view of those who did not like it. This is a problem in each park - I know two people who consider Magic Kingdom to be too cute, several who see E.P.C.O.T. as dull and a couple who see MGM as 'just not me'. Perhaps we are seeing this in a slightly more accented way with Animal Kingdom but not in a fanatical sense, not by any means.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Providing something they "just don't get" is the fault of the company, not the customer.

No product is free from criticism, no product absolved from compliment. If a product is unilaterally slated or done so by a majority then yes, the company or producer is at fault in the research carried out into market conditions. But I would still hold that things are not any where near this bad in the Animal Kingdom.

Originally posted by raidermatt
For what its worth, my personal feelings towards [M. Eisner] the man are indifferent. Don't know him. I think he is doing a bad job overall, but that's an analysis of his actions, not of him

Fair enough :)

Originally posted by raidermatt
Had he asked for something more focused on what his customers actually wanted and expected, but it was not delivered, perhaps more responsibility could be shifted downward. (Even though it would still be his responsibility to get the right people in the right jobs to execute his vision). But since that isn't what happened, you cannot absolve the man of the responsibility.

Sadly, that's just speculation of the contents of one man's thoughts and also rather off topic I guess; whatever his involvement with the park design (quite hefty according to Sarangel) or his execution of the research you are right in saying that it is impossible to absolve him of responsibility; what he is responsible for (a success or a failure) is what is under discussion.

As for business over creativity, I'm not convinced Captain. I'm not entirely dismissive though - the subsequent modifications would credit that take on the park. But the niche nature of the fundamentals still suggest "let's try something interesting" to me. Thinking out loud here though, that could be traced back even further to suggest that the unique quality would play from a business standpoint. Which it didn't. I dunno. Discuss :teeth:

Rich::

Captain Crook

04-28-2004, 08:41 PM

Rich, even though it was me who postulated the theory in question, it doesn't mean I'm married to it either.;)

I can go with the niche thinking as a second avenue. I truly don't believe the park was intended that way but in looking at how it's being handled you (we) could be right that the original goals are no longer the current goals due to failure at some juncture (be it park design, saturation, lack of creativity or whatever opinion someone may have).

I see I've again admitted failure but I reiterate that my take on what that failure was differs greatly from Matt and PKS, for instance, although their impressions are every bit as valid as mine.
pirate:

raidermatt

04-29-2004, 02:08 AM

The niche theory just doesn't make sense to me. If that was the idea, then the numbers really weren't that bad, and no changes would have been necessary.

Yet entire lands were scrapped, hours were slashed, and the park is moving in the same direction as the other parks... more typical theme/amusement park rides.

No, if it was merely an attempt at a niche market, we wouldn't have gotten Dinorama. The impetus for such a change wouldn't have been there.

Business over creativity? Once again, absolutely not. Both strategies are in fact business strategies. They are just different theories about how to be successful... specifically about how Disney can be most successful.

One business startegy is being chosen over another, mistakenly I believe, but to portray it as business over creativity is simply not accurate.

Besides, in my opinion, the MOST glaring problem with AK wasn't creativity, it was simply lack of scope and depth. They simply didn't put enough into it, and 6 years later, are still behind the 8-ball.

I'm not discounting AV's points, and I'm not saying creativity was not an issue. But I honestly don't believe it was the biggest issue.

At least not until Dinorama.

I also don't buy the saturation theory. I'm not saying it's not possible, but rather that I don't think its likely the real issue.

Even with AK being so limited in scope (as was MGM), many are still pointing out that it at least added something to the overall attendance at WDW. 6.9 million on the high end, and lets say 2 million on the low end.

One has to allow for the possibility that if AK had been built with more depth/scope, and perhaps even with more 'creativity', it would have brought significantly more to the resort.

This actually makes even more sense if you are in the AK isn't a failure camp, as the improvement would be from what you already consider a success.

And lets take it a step further... If you think that additions like Everest will solve AK's problems, then by definition you are saying that the primary issues with AK are a lack of scope/depth.

Which is ultimate what I am saying. However, I'm also saying that the problem should have been addressed before it ever became a problem, and before the lack of value did damage to the public's perception of what Disney offers.

In other words, doing it right the first time will always be the better choice.

I am simply pointing out that people of certain dispositions may find themselves rather more attracted to the park than others, more so in this park than any of the others (in my opinion) as it appears to be aimed at rather more of a niche market.
I've already explained why I don't believe AK was aimed at a niche market. I agree that what it has found is a niche market, but unfortunately that is simply not good enough for the investment made.

Perhaps we are seeing this in a slightly more accented way with Animal Kingdom but not in a fanatical sense, not by any means.
It doesn't have to be in a fanatical sense. 10-20% below projections is bad enough. Further, the original projections were based on the goal of the park, which was not to provide customers with consistent value. Always a mistake.

But I would still hold that things are not any where near this bad in the Animal Kingdom.
We need to maintain the proper context. The park is not a failure in the sense that nobody likes it and it will close. Its far more subtle than that, but still significant.

ShadowWind

04-29-2004, 02:16 AM

Even the MK was not the pinnacle of parks at the beginning. While it did have many rides that were yanked from DL, the great thrills that we have now weren't there. There was no Space Mountain, no Splash Mountain, no Big Thunder Mountain, no Pirates of the Caribbean. The only reason it could open fairly complete is that imagineers did not have to redesign most of the park's attractions, simply build them from specs that they had for the most part. This saved a lot of development cost, etc. We think of the park now, but back then it was a whole different place.

When EPCOT opened, it was missing a lot of attractions as well, Horizons, Journey Into Imagination (which the ride portion didn't open up on Opening Day, leaving just Magic Journeys and ImageWorks), Wonders of Life, the Maelstrom, etc. I remember going there in November 1982, and it was pretty barren. EPCOT opened in Ron Miller's time and I still believe it to have been Imagineering's most beautiful and creative park at WDW (before they gutted it).

The same argument was made about Disney-MGM when it opened.

And then there is Animal Kingdom, which is the first park to build itself on not the latest and greatest, but the cheapest they can get away with. I was actually shocked, even after reading the reviews, of how terrible Dinorama was. Our local carnival has more imagination. Add to this, the fact the Florida heat is brutal in the summer and the cold is bitter in the Winter, doesn't give one an opportunity to spend that much time looking around at the wonders presented. My goal is usually to find a shady spot somewhere, preferably with air conditioning, which AK has very little of. It is also not very wheelchair friendly, from a height point of view, which makes it difficult for mobility challenged guests to see a lot of the sights.

The concept is not a failture, the implementation is. Joe Rhodi set out to build a park that is not quite a zoo, and not quite a theme park, but a combination of the two. He did that, in grand and quite stunning style. However, while he was concerned about the animals and the message that the park portrayed, he and his crew forgot the most important ingredient, guest comfort. This keeps a lot of people from going back a second or third time. If it weren't for a few shows there, Festival of the Lion King (and don't laugh) Flights of Wonder, I wouldn't even bother going there at all. The only animals that are fun to watch for long periods are the otters and even they are not foolish enough to be out in the hot florida sun for too long. I get the park, that it is a slower pace, and I being an artist can appreciate that, and I've spent hours looking around, but given that you cannot offset that with things that prevent heat stroke, it makes that goal difficult.

The other parks have balance and Animal Kingdom is still trying to find that balance. They are making progress by closing in Festival of the Lion King, which lets you experience an awesome show and a cool place for 25 minutes or so. I think the park has an identity crisis between Joe Rhode's concept and the park the investors want it to be and the guests are caught in the crossfire as we watch it flip flop around like a fish in a bucket.

All in all, I think it's a great complement to the other parks, but I cant see it as it's own gate for $55.

BTW, TDS was successful, because it was something that no one had experienced before and it was also the best Imagineering has ever offered because they had whatever they wanted to build it. Even though the Japanese love everything Disney, I'm sure it gets a whole lot of people who are willing to fly there and see what the Disney magic truly is. Unfortunately the Oriental Land Company can't buy WDW. :(

dcentity2000

04-29-2004, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by raidermatt
The niche theory just doesn't make sense to me. If that was the idea, then the numbers really weren't that bad, and no changes would have been necessary.

Yet entire lands were scrapped, hours were slashed, and the park is moving in the same direction as the other parks... more typical theme/amusement park rides.

No, if it was merely an attempt at a niche market, we wouldn't have gotten Dinorama. The impetus for such a change wouldn't have been there.

Not necessarily aimed at a niche market or, more possibly, heavily aimed at a niche market - given the scale of the project said niche would have had to have been pretty big! No, I think that the park was aimed at a large market niche which they viewed as not having been exploited fully and it turned out that the extent to which they had done this was a little too much, meaning that the new custom base turned out to be smaller than initially planned - it appealed, on face value, to less people when, I think, it was meant to appeal to a fair few on the strength of it not being man made entertainment but rather entertainment based upon the animal kingdom.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Even with AK being so limited in scope (as was MGM), many are still pointing out that it at least added something to the overall attendance at WDW. 6.9 million on the high end, and lets say 2 million on the low end.

Yes, but I think it is nearing saturation in Florida. I believe Orlando to be, amongst other things, associated with the idea of 'lots of parks', so it would take a phenomenonal effort to really catch people's attentions at first glance. All the incentive is - or almost is - there in order to attract the number to travel that distance. Market saturation will reduce when flight prices fall, but not much until then, IMO.

Originally posted by raidermatt
And lets take it a step further... If you think that additions like Everest will solve AK's problems, then by definition you are saying that the primary issues with AK are a lack of scope/depth.

This is simply a good point - this could be seen as a failure.

Originally posted by raidermatt
It doesn't have to be in a fanatical sense. 10-20% below projections is bad enough. Further, the original projections were based on the goal of the park, which was not to provide customers with consistent value. Always a mistake.
...
We need to maintain the proper context. The park is not a failure in the sense that nobody likes it and it will close. Its far more subtle than that, but still significant.

We need to remember that forms of equitable return often cannot be quantified, such as reputation, press, publicity, customer relations, return visits (which may have fallen had it not been for the new park - you can't prove either way) and so on.

Rich::

PKS44

04-29-2004, 09:02 AM

Several points from different posts-

Rich--California did not have a Tower of Terror until now--in fact it still is not officially open yet...

No way was Epcot a barren place in 1982--while the number of pavillions was not huge--each pavillion was a much more full experience than what is offered up now by the likes of Test Track--a five minute ride and a little post show area---Eisner himself has said he felt they opened with TOO MUCH at Epcot and EuroDisney hence his new strategy after that was to open small and collect bigger profits by offering less and charging the same--then build the parks up...

this leads to the next point which is to reiterate what matt has been saying--this is NOT a struggle of creativity vs business this is good business strategy vs. bad business strategy--the Eisner offer 'em less strategy is BAD BUSINESS-not just because it skimps but because it fails to get decent return on the investment..DCA has been an abysmal investment...though it was much less money than TokyoDisneySeas--TDS has been a good investment-trying to get by with less is a short term solution that leads to long term problems--I have stated it many times on these boards but it has been best dramatized by the 1950's era Hollywood film Executive Suite with WIlliam Holden--please catch it the next time it is on Turner Classic Movies and then maybe you will see why pinching pennies is a money losing proposition as a business strategy.

the idea that 5 milllion guest visiting is okay if 2 million of them hate the park or leave feeling ripped off or mislead is a very typically short-sighted business strategy---the success of Disney and any company for the long term is the good-will and loyalty it engenders in its customer base...in AK, DCA, Studios-Paris, sequelmania, etc..Disney's attempts to give less has ERODED the foundation of this brand's identity...it just has---it is meaningless whether some people like AK or not if many go and don't want to come back as is evidenced by its ever decreasing attendance --losing a customer is a very expensive proposition -they are harder and more expensive in the long run to win back than to keep..but they are more expensive in the short term to keep--and this management has been too focused on the short term for too long....

JKanownik

04-29-2004, 10:40 AM

Looking over 9 years of annual reports I can say that originally Animal Kingdom was not a failure from a business perspective. In the theme park segment operating income, ** %, attendance and revenues (both from ticket and food/merch sales) were all increasing before 9/11. In 2000 revenue at WDW was up $383 million over the previous year. The impact of Animal Kingdom alone is hard to judge without more detailed numbers, but from what I can see it would be very hard to say it was a failure.

However, after 9/11 there is no way that they would have built AK if they knew what was going to happen. ** % has dropped from 23.7% in 2000 to just 14.9% in 2003. The environment that has caused the decreases is independent from AK, but the $800 million used to build AK could definitely be used in other places to address the disturbing trend in decreasing ** %. And even though they would not go back and build it now, that doesn't mean that it is a failure from a business perspective. You would need very detailed marketing information in order to make any judgements as to whether it is currently a failure or not.

-DH

PKS44

04-29-2004, 10:46 AM

NO fancy marketing data needed--their actions speak very loudly

...that they have a campaign to tell people that it is not a zoo is proof that they have failed in some way or they would not need a special campaign...

...that they had to hurry up and add Dinoland is proof that they failed in some way or they would not have added it

...that they offer special meal discounts ONLY at AK is proof that there is a problem with this park that is unique to this park or the meal deal would apply at the other parks...again proving that AK alone has special ways in which it has failed and needs "fixing"

Paul

raidermatt

04-29-2004, 11:26 AM

Last things first....

As has been pointed out, WDW's numbers were improving without AK. The outside environment was a positive one. No terrorist fears and a strong economy. The numbers were going up prior to AK, so one can't credit all of the increase to AK. That's where the discussion over the 6.9 million number comes in.

Really, its just like now. Terrorist fears are still there, but gradually decreasing. The economy is improving. A relatively weak dollar means a WDW vacation is cheaper for potential visitors from overseas, and it means Americans are more likely to stay home because an overseas trip is more expensive.

Consequently, WDW's numbers are improving and will continue to do so without a new park, provided current trends hold. Just as they would have improved well into 2000 without AK. The only question is how much is due to AK, and how much is due to the outside environment.

it appealed, on face value, to less people when, I think, it was meant to appeal to a fair few
Again, this illustrates both parts of the problem... If it was not meant as what Disney's customers and potential customers consider a full and appealing park, the target was flawed.

Further, it did not even meet that target.

Yes, but I think it is nearing saturation in Florida.
Again, I'm not buying into that, at least not as a likely scenario. Certainly the environment is a competitive one, but I don't think theres any real evidence that growth is not attainable.

One can't point to Disney's numbers as proof, as its basically a sefl-fulfilling prophecy... they don't build something strong enough to grow their numbers, therefore their numbers don't grow. Blaming it on market saturation is just a deflectionary tactic.

I know the overall population of the United States continues to grow, but I would be curious about Florida's numbers, and specifically Central Florida's. If I get a chance I'll look it up later.

We need to remember that forms of equitable return often cannot be quantified, such as reputation, press, publicity, customer relations, return visits (which may have fallen had it not been for the new park - you can't prove either way) and so on. Yes, and that's a big part of my point. Offering something of less value (which is really undeniable in this case, as it was with MGM's opening and DCA) has many difficult to quantify negative impacts in areas like brand perception and reputation.

WDW_DV

04-29-2004, 11:28 AM

I'd like to throw a new wrinkle into the discussion by saying the building of AK did result in a new and very popular Deluxe resort. So they have (presumably) increased the number of guests that pay deluxe prices to stay on-site.

FWIW

Phoebesaturn

04-29-2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by WDW_DV
So they have (presumably) increased the number of guests that pay deluxe prices to stay on-site.

FWIW

Strange then that the rooms at the AKL are always on sale and cheaper then the other deluxe resorts.

mitros

04-29-2004, 02:43 PM

One more comment after all of these long winded posts... If the AK is as bad as some say, why is it always so bloody crowded, even during off season?

JKanownik

04-29-2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by PKS44
NO fancy marketing data needed--their actions speak very loudly

...that they have a campaign to tell people that it is not a zoo is proof that they have failed in some way or they would not need a special campaign...

...that they had to hurry up and add Dinoland is proof that they failed in some way or they would not have added it

...that they offer special meal discounts ONLY at AK is proof that there is a problem with this park that is unique to this park or the meal deal would apply at the other parks...again proving that AK alone has special ways in which it has failed and needs "fixing"

Paul

...It has animals. People are going to associate with a zoo regardless of how the park is. I'm sure Busch Gardens had the same problem when it first opened before they had added many rides. This marketing expense has to be anticipated and I don't see how this could in any way be linked to calling it a failure. Now, if they are still running not a zoo commercials after Everest goes up then it is a different story.

...Dinoland was planned to be added. They cut costs so that they could add it sooner than expected. This in and of itself does not denote failure for the entire park.

...The meal discounts are only offered for children. I assume their margins are around 50% for food. I will also assume that if people feed their kids, they are going to eat themselves. I see nothing wrong with offering meals to kids at cost (they aren't losing money here) to entice adults to buy food at a much higher prices (they are making money here). You can't compare AK to other WDW parks in order to say that it is a failure. Just because MK doesn't have meal vouchers doesn't mean that meals vouchers at AK prove it is a failure. The fact is, is that there is not enough information available to truely know if the park is a failure.

Does the park have its shortcomings? Is it less than it could be? Is it disappointing for some guests? Would it be considered a failure if it was a stand alone park? Yes, Yes, Yes and Most Likely. However, the only way to conclusively state that the park is a failure is to not show an increase in ** at the WDW resort that justifies the Cap. Exp. that is known as AK. For me the $383 M increase in YoY revenue and the extremely high **% in 2000 point to a success from AK. The author of the article points out that in 2000 all other WDW parks increased attendance and stated that because AK did not it was a bad thing. However, when you dive deeper into this you see that the end result of the numbers is quite the contrary (i.e. it's good). If you look at USO their attendance was flat in 2000. AK only dropped .3 M visitors but overall attendance at the other 3 WDW parks increased .9 M. If revenues and ** are increasing and park attendance is up, as a Disney investor I wouldn't care if guests only spent a half a day at AK.

It is also interesting that the author points out that in 2002 IoA increased attendance, while AK dropped. They ignored the fact that in 2001 IoA dropped 8% vs. a 7% decrease for AK. Without at least a 3 year trend of where IoA grew while AK dropped (and USO grew inline with the other 3 WDW parks), this whole analysis is meaningless.

From a statistical standpoint the author's work is terribly flawed and taken entirely out of context when considering that AK is part of a 4 park resort.

-DH

disneyfreakjackie

04-29-2004, 03:06 PM

I LOVE Animal Kingdom!!! Not my favorite out of the four (one of the parks has to be #4, right?), but I enjoy it VERY MUCH!!! . . . and it is always crowded!! (as someone else said!)

BRERALEX

04-29-2004, 03:55 PM

One more comment after all of these long winded posts... If the AK is as bad as some say, why is it always so bloody crowded, even during off season?

Very narrow paths? not many things to do? everyone goes to the same place?

grinningghost

04-29-2004, 04:22 PM

And really, at this point, what options are there? Close the place? I don't think that's going to happen. There is only one solution and that would be to make it better. And there's no doubt that Disney can do that - if they're ready to shell out the cash.

dcentity2000

04-29-2004, 04:37 PM

Think:

Animal Kingdom is the fourth of four major parks. It would have been designed as such and should be viewed in such a context. The matter over whether it would have been commercially viable as a stand alone is therefore rather superfluous as it is and always shall be part of a collective of parks.

The addition of attractions post park opening is designed to enhance the park, add to the experience and increase capacity and pulling power. The ongoing process is not a sign that the present compliment of attractions is a failure.

The matter over whether the park opened with too few attractions is hazy at best - as the name suggests, Animal Kingdom is all about, well, animals. The "big" attractions which were "missing" and are now in the process of being added are in fact theme park rides - note that these are in addition to the animals themselves which were intended as the main pulling power.

Figures over park attendance can be useful but they are simply persuasive, not by any means binding; it is impossible, you see, to determine just how useful they are without a control sample, that is, figures from the parks that would have been if Animal Kingdom had not been built - these are of course impossible to get. The numbers are not useless at all - I'm just saying that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. They suggest, not prove.

If the market in Florida is becoming saturated (I think it is, raidermatt doesn't) then a target to appeal more to less would possibly pull a larger customer base in the long run. Universal, MGM, Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, Sea World; they all personalise themselves in some way to attract a slightly biased customer group, thus avoiding a low market saturation level. If you had five Magic Kingdoms not only would people crave variety but those who seek an EPCOT style environment may also think twice about parting with their money.

Finally, success can be qualified in many ways; which do you think is the most important in a Disney world? Large numbers and profits, the "Eisner way" as some put it? Or an overall enjoyment of the park? How can you measure the latter? Again, numbers here are persuasive, not binding.

And who here actually dislikes Animal Kingdom, or protests at having to pay for it in their park hoppers? I know an awful lot of members look at this board and I'll bet a fair few will look at this post and I'll further bet that many of them are like myself, disneyfreakjackie and tazz23 in loving the Animal Kingdom :)

Rich::

SnackyStacky

04-29-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Think:

Animal Kingdom is the fourth of four major parks. It would have been designed as such and should be viewed in such a context.

Okay. Using your logic, then why is it that Animal Kingdom has DRASTICALLY fewer attractions than any other park? It doesn't have enough to consider it a major park, and this is 6 years after its debut. Don't believe? Ask the folks that leave halfway through the day - and you know they're leaving because of the way Disney screwed around with the hours.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The matter over whether it would have been commercially viable as a stand alone is therefore rather superfluous as it is and always shall be part of a collective of parks.

So....Disney's guests should expect LESS because it's part of a collection of parks? Do you collect stamps? Here's a real gem! But, because you already have a few of them, I'll give you half. That would be what sort of logic?

Disney wanted to get guests to spend more time on property. At that - they failed. It certainly doesn't make the park miserable, bad, or unwanted, it means that Disney failed at the goals they set out.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The addition of attractions post park opening is designed to enhance the park, add to the experience and increase capacity and pulling power. The ongoing process is not a sign that the present compliment of attractions is a failure.

I don't have a timeline handy, but what they have now - 6 YEARS later - in the way of attractions is pitiable. Especially in contrast with what was in their parks to begin with. And I don't care if MGM started the same way. That's a completely seperate debate, and one I'd be glad to discuss in another thread. To think of increasing the price of park hoppers to justify the opening of a fourth park with the meager options I'm sure they had is crazy.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The matter over whether the park opened with too few attractions is hazy at best - as the name suggests, Animal Kingdom is all about, well, animals. The "big" attractions which were "missing" and are now in the process of being added are in fact theme park rides - note that these are in addition to the animals themselves which were intended as the main pulling power.

Okay - so you've got two animal trails, a safari, and few displays at the entrace. Big deal. Do you KNOW how vast the Toronto zoo is? It's huge. It could EASILY take 2 days to see all of the animals within. So - if animals were their main deal, I'm thinking they fell flat there too.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Figures over park attendance can be useful but they are simply persuasive, not by any means binding; it is impossible, you see, to determine just how useful they are without a control sample, that is, figures from the parks that would have been if Animal Kingdom had not been built - these are of course impossible to get. The numbers are not useless at all - I'm just saying that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. They suggest, not prove.

You can see a steady drop. I think that speaks volumes that the additions they've made haven't helped in the least. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the park were a success its numbers would, at the very LEAST, maintain themselves? Or better yet, as word of mouth spread, increase? "Hey! You've got to get to Florida to see this amazing new park!" I don't get your argument that a steady decline in numbers proves nothing.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
If the market in Florida is becoming saturated (I think it is, raidermatt doesn't) then a target to appeal more to less would possibly pull a larger customer base in the long run. Universal, MGM, Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, Sea World; they all personalise themselves in some way to attract a slightly biased customer group, thus avoiding a low market saturation level. If you had five Magic Kingdoms not only would people crave variety but those who seek an EPCOT style environment may also think twice about parting with their money.

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying, but you think that because someone thinks Animal Kingdom is a failure that they think Disney should have built another park with the same theme as one that's currently operating? If that's not what you're saying, then i really don't understand your point here at all.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Finally, success can be qualified in many ways; which do you think is the most important in a Disney world? Large numbers and profits, the "Eisner way" as some put it? Or an overall enjoyment of the park? How can you measure the latter? Again, numbers here are persuasive, not binding.

How can you measure the latter? Easy. If people enjoy it, they will come back. If people enjoy it, they will spread the word. Look at the Magic Kingdom when it opened. Numbers were nowhere near what they projected, but within 3 years, the numbers had SKYROCKETED. They broke all predicitions and records. Animal Kingdom hasn't even leveled. It has steadily dropped. Maybe it doesn't PROVE anything, but it sure suggests a helluva lot.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
And who here actually dislikes Animal Kingdom, or protests at having to pay for it in their park hoppers? I know an awful lot of members look at this board and I'll bet a fair few will look at this post and I'll further bet that many of them are like myself, disneyfreakjackie and tazz23 in loving the Animal Kingdom :)

What does that have to do with anything? I like the Animal Kingdom too. I love it in fact. But that doesn't mean that I can't look at it objectively.

Bob O

04-29-2004, 05:39 PM

I would agree that the theme park market in Orland/Tampa is becoming saturated and parks need to do things to stand out from among the throng.
And while i do enjoy AK and visit the park as part of my park hopper, i would never pay the going rate for that park which i would do for any of the other theme parks in Tampa/Orlando.
Its sad that disney wants/expects their guests to subsidize AK for numerous years till they finally decide to make it a park that will keep guests in the park from the opening of the park till a late night closing which does happen at their other parks.
The thing i find is that disney was guilty from the get go with AK. I still have a vhs tape promoting the future Ak with/Joe Rhode waxing on about how it would be a park of animals that were and neve were, the only trouble is that THEY LIED and never gave us the animals that never were that was part of their whole pr scam when initially describing the park for future guests.
If any other company did this you would have people screaming how they were scammed, but since some people here are blinded by pixie dust they buy whatever comes out of disney and say we should be lucky disney even allows us the privilege to spend our money at this park.
Disney as part of there corporate policy started off with a intentionally false pr campaign before the park opened promising things we have yet to see that was supposed to be in the park opening day. And they will take years/decades to finally build a full day park while they get full days park admission from the opening of the park. A cyncial corporate strategy that started with MGM and has contuined until the current time with DCA. Screw the guests with a half day park for a full price admission.
of course when the opposite happens at TDS we see where one is a overwhemling success and where the others are failures both financially and in their creative content. But those blinded by pxie dust are unable to see this.

DancingBear

04-29-2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Okay. Using your logic, then why is it that Animal Kingdom has DRASTICALLY fewer attractions than any other park? It doesn't have enough to consider it a major park, and this is 6 years after its debut....what they have now - 6 YEARS later - in the way of attractions is pitiable. Especially in contrast with what was in their parks to begin with. And I don't care if MGM started the same way.By my count, Epcot opened with the following: Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, World of Motion, Land movie, Kitchen Kabaret, Listen to the Land, Magic Journeys, American Adventure, El Rio del Tiempo, China movie, Canada movie, and Impressions de France. 12 attractions.

Animal Kingdom now has: Kilamanjaro Safari, Pangani Exploration Trail, Rafiki's Planet Watch, Flights of Wonder, Kali River Rapids, Maharajah Jungle Trek, Dinosaur, Triceratop Spin, Primeval Whirl, Tarzan Rocks, Festival of the Lion King, and It's Tough to be a Bug. 12 attractions.

Yeah, I know I'm leaving out of Epcot Imagination Station, the Innoventions buildings, etc. But I'm also leaving out of AK's list Oasis, the Tree of Life, Pocahontas, the Discovery Island trails, and the Boneyard, and I've lumped the train ride, Affection Section and other parts of Rafiki's Planet Watch together.

DancingBear

04-29-2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Bob O
IAnd they will take years/decades to finally build a full day park while they get full days park admission from the opening of the park.But as has been pointed out here repeatedly, the vast majority of folks at AK are using parkhoppers or APs. Again, if they go to AK from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., and then spend their evening at Epcot, how are the guests being ripped off?

raidermatt

04-29-2004, 06:35 PM

dcentity, obviously we're going in circles. You continue to provide justification for AK's lack of scope through marketing reasons, but your viewpoint continues to miss the bottom line, which is how customers perceive what you are doing, not the marketing goals you are trying to accomplish.

Customers will accept "supplementary" products if they are presented as such. Examples are the water parks. Obviously they do not provide the same bang as the theme parks, but they are not promoted or priced as such. So they work as additions to the overall experience.

You simply cannot, however, offer less but try to pass it off as an equal, through both promotion and price, without suffering consequences.

But as has been pointed out here repeatedly, the vast majority of folks at AK are using parkhoppers or APs. Again, if they go to AK from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., and then spend their evening at Epcot, how are the guests being ripped off?

Hoppers are sold as a great benefit because you have access to 4 great parks. Not 1 great one, one that used to be great but was left to deteriorate, one that is pretty good now that we added some major stuff after 10 years, and another one that you will consider a half day.

Also, in this scenario, they can't convince guests who don't have hoppers/APs to pay the admission price because they either feel they got ripped off when they did pay before, or looked at what's listed on the map and passed.

Here's what I'm really having a hard time figureing out. Just about everyone in this discussion agrees that Eisner's way is the wrong way, and that he is no longer the right guy for the job.

Many are willing to wait for his contract to expire, but still, they acknowledge that his strategies are not right for Disney.

Opening lesser parks out of choice (not necessity) is one of the cornerstones of his park strategy. Marketing over substance. Open it and people will come because its Disney, and then we'll add what we have to later.

The strategy behind AK is the same as the strategy behind DCA and DSP, its just that the execution was even worse on the latter two parks. What is in AK does show signs of imagination and creativity, which is fortunate, or it really would be another DCA.

So if you (generic you) support this strategy, what is the problem with Eisner? If AK is not a problem, and it shouldn't have been opened with Dinoland, Beastly Kingdom, Everest, and/or many other things that would make it a "full" park by most standards, then that means Eisner isn't really that far off base after all.

DCA and DSP really aren't his fault, as the concept was solid, but the creative folks failed to deliver things as good as what is in AK.

Also, he promotes the same concepts in other areas of the business, so those issues aren't really his fault either.

Yet I know most of you want him out.

If not for these types of strategies, then why?

dcentity2000

04-29-2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by raidermatt
dcentity, obviously we're going in circles. You continue to provide justification for AK's lack of scope through marketing reasons, but your viewpoint continues to miss the bottom line, which is how customers perceive what you are doing, not the marketing goals you are trying to accomplish.

Nope, sorry, you've missed me there entirely :teeth: Read on...

Customers or potential customers look at what's there and decide based on that whether or not to turn an invitation to treat into an offer. Simple. Most customers couldn't give a rat's banana what anyone is trying to do, what the park would be like if there were more rides or anything. They care that there is the Animal Kingdom, how sweet, animals, that would be nice to see, four parks.

Originally posted by raidermatt
The strategy behind AK is the same as the strategy behind DCA and DSP, its just that the execution was even worse on the latter two parks. What is in AK does show signs of imagination and creativity, which is fortunate, or it really would be another DCA.

Yes - they turned out as tag on parks. But as long as the true Disney spirit is retained this is no bad thing in Animal Kingdom's case - it is supported by 3 other large parks. It does not need to be large.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Opening lesser parks out of choice (not necessity) is one of the cornerstones of his park strategy. Marketing over substance. Open it and people will come because its Disney, and then we'll add what we have to later.

Yup.

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
So....Disney's guests should expect LESS because it's part of a collection of parks? Do you collect stamps? Here's a real gem! But, because you already have a few of them, I'll give you half. That would be what sort of logic?

No. They just shouldn't expect each park to be earth splittingly huge, or peppered with rides. Why should they be in this case? There are 3 parks there anyway! Besides, you seem to infer that AK is "less" in a generic sense; do you intend that? Because that says an awful lot: not as big, not as magical, not as interesing, not as well planned, not as entertaining, not as original, not as well built, etc.

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Okay - so you've got two animal trails, a safari, and few displays at the entrace. Big deal. Do you KNOW how vast the Toronto zoo is? It's huge. It could EASILY take 2 days to see all of the animals within. So - if animals were their main deal, I'm thinking they fell flat there too.

I live near Drusillas Zoo. It's small, perhaps a quarter of the Animal Kingdom? No rides. No Safari. Nothing. But it takes a day. It takes a day because you get there and you slow down and watch and listen. When I went to Animal Kingdm, I took it slow. I finished about two thirds in one full day? It was a smaller park than EPCOT (it seemed) but if you were attentive there was more there. So, no, no failure there really. They provided enough to keep people there for a day should they wish.

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
How can you measure the latter? Easy. If people enjoy it, they will come back. If people enjoy it, they will spread the word. Look at the Magic Kingdom when it opened. Numbers were nowhere near what they projected, but within 3 years, the numbers had SKYROCKETED. They broke all predicitions and records. Animal Kingdom hasn't even leveled. It has steadily dropped. Maybe it doesn't PROVE anything, but it sure suggests a helluva lot.

Unfair comparison: Magic Kingdom worked off the reputation of Disneyland; it was also a fairly new thing. Animal Kingdom is the fourth park to come along and is embedded amongst six other full day parks I can think of off hand. Very different.

They will come back: When? Just cause to think.

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
You can see a steady drop. I think that speaks volumes that the additions they've made haven't helped in the least. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the park were a success its numbers would, at the very LEAST, maintain themselves? Or better yet, as word of mouth spread, increase? "Hey! You've got to get to Florida to see this amazing new park!" I don't get your argument that a steady decline in numbers proves nothing.

The argument is that unless you can provide the opposite numbers the first lot are imperfect. In order for them to be binding as opposed to persuasive you would have to provide evidence that park attendence would have performed differently in the absence of the Animal Kingdom in the same years. Clearly impossible to do as evidence would be little short of actual numbers which don't exist. As for word of mouth, again, it's different to MK. AK is the fourth, it's yet another park. That's what Orlando is now. Parks. So what's another one, even a Disney one? Heck, there are three of those there anyway... and so on. You just don't in the end know. Sorry. The numbers are just persuasive, that's all. It's merely an intellectual challenge, nothing more.

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
What does that have to do with anything? I like the Animal Kingdom too. I love it in fact. But that doesn't mean that I can't look at it objectively

Why bother? You like it so in the Disney world there has been a success. Another person has been blessed with that magic :) (this is continued at the bottom and in fact constitutes my entire point - thankyou :teeth: )

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying, but you think that because someone thinks Animal Kingdom is a failure that they think Disney should have built another park with the same theme as one that's currently operating? If that's not what you're saying, then i really don't understand your point here at all.

I don't understand you trying to understand me here?

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Disney wanted to get guests to spend more time on property. At that - they failed. It certainly doesn't make the park miserable, bad, or unwanted, it means that Disney failed at the goals they set out.

That makes Disney Corporate a failure, not the Animal Kingdom.

People do expect too much, I feel. The fact that Animal Kingdom isn't as large as Magic Kingdom or as ride ridden as Universal causes feathers to fly - why? Why should it be? Disney(by which I mean the name) is about magic and nothing else. Universal is large - but it desn't feel as wonderful as Animal Kingdom to be in, does it? You can argue until you turn red in the face about how Mr. Eisner stabbed the park in the back, or how the lack of rides is an abomination unto Nuggin, or how YOU are so sure that it is the fault of the park that numbers are slowing. But until you demonstrate in perfect reason that the Kingdom failed at the Disney spirit of touching the hearts of those who visit, I will stick by my guns and defend the park.

I am not trying to argue away corporate failure, be it there or not. I am trying to argue away sweeping statements of "It has failed because the business end is a bit poor". Above I have offered some minor challenges to some criticisms of the business surrounding the park, mostly as an intellectual exercise, but none of the arguments raised so far deal specifically with the park itself.

Disneyland is "The happiest place on earth". It's role and goal is to make you happy.

Now, the park is an entity which does not share much with the corporation who built it; it's trying to make you smile, the company is trying to make you pay. So far all that has been proven - if that - is that the corporation has failed in various fields relating to the park. The park doesn't care. It has a different role in life, as is seen by the masses who visit. I like the park. tazz23 likes the park. disneyfreakjackie likes the park. SnackyStacky likes the park. So in the Disney spirit, which is according to most people here the most important thing to do with the company, the park has at least succeeded four times.

I'm sure it has done so millions more.

OnWithTheShow

04-29-2004, 08:21 PM

I like Animal Kingdom, and with that I retire from this thread.

grinningghost

04-29-2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
I like Animal Kingdom, and with that I retire from this thread.

OK, I'm with you. But can I just bash Dinorama ONE more time...;)

raidermatt

04-30-2004, 01:40 AM

They just shouldn't expect each park to be earth splittingly huge, or peppered with rides. Why should they be in this case? There are 3 parks there anyway!

But as long as the true Disney spirit is retained this is no bad thing in Animal Kingdom's case - it is supported by 3 other large parks. It does not need to be large.

Says you.

Says Disney.

But that's not what the public said.

The public wants what it wants. There is no right or wrong. And one of the things they want is value. Disney has been lowering the value bar pretty much with every new park, and the public acceptance has followed.

Open a "lesser" park, and promote and price it as such, as Disney has with the water parks, and you might get a nice supplement.

Promote and price it as a 4th theme park and the public doesn't expect a supplement. They expect another them park of the depth and scope of the first three.

Again, talking about whether the public should or shouldn't feel this way is pointless. They simply do, and that's the reality Disney must deal with.

The only caveat I need to throw in is that these points do not apply to every company in every industry. In many industries, the tangible differentiation between products is not great, and therefore ancillary things like marketing and production efficiency do become more important to a company's success.

I like Animal Kingdom, and with that I retire from this thread.
Gee, if I had known that was the only point, I could have agreed with you and skipped the thread entirely!

DancingBear

04-30-2004, 07:50 AM

Matt, regarding your Eisner comments:

--Just because I think opening AK small and building from there is defensible, doesn't mean I think doing similar things in Hong Kong, DCA or the Paris Studios is a good strategy.

--Again (and I don't think your criticism runs along this line), but I think in terms of quality, instead of just quantity, AK stacks up well with the other WDW parks. Dinorama may be an exception, and Kali Rapids may be a bit too short, but otherwise I think the park stands up well. I'd rather it be long on quality and temporarily short on quantity than the other way around. To the extent that I have a problem with Eisner regarding the parks, it would be about quality issues, not quantity.

--I think AK is a bold adventure for Disney as an attempt to create a truly different type of theme park, which is commendable in itself. In that sense, I don't see it as a greedy attempt to trick people into paying full price for half value, but an attempt to truly complement and enhance the experience provided by the other 3 parks.

--There is plenty reason to think Eisner should go based on his handling of the media side of the business, and the retail side, outside of the park business. Plus, a shortcoming in his apparent lack of an integrated vision of the company as a whole, of truly enhancing (rather than just exploiting) the Disney brand.

dcentity2000

04-30-2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by raidermatt
Says you.

Says Disney.

But that's not what the public said.

The public wants what it wants. There is no right or wrong. And one of the things they want is value. Disney has been lowering the value bar pretty much with every new park, and the public acceptance has followed.

Numbers suggest the park to be floundering. Is that because it is too small or because it's surrounded by a multitude of other theme parks? You can only guess here matt, as can I :)

Just another food for thought point :teeth:

Rich::

WDW_DV

04-30-2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Phoebesaturn
Strange then that the rooms at the AKL are always on sale and cheaper then the other deluxe resorts.

OK by me, we love it! And as I noted, I was merely speculating for the purpose of adding a new wrinkle to the discussion. Time to move on.

OnWithTheShow

04-30-2004, 12:15 PM

Ok, I am coming out of retirement for this. First off everytime I have stayed at DAK Lodge it has been above 90% occupancy, it is not discounted as much as you make out. It is slightly less than the other deluxe resorts because it is not on the monorail loop. Believe it or not you pay a premium for those resorts, far far too much of a premium in my opinion for the average quality of the rooms at Contemporary and Polynesian (though I havent seen the new rooms at Poly yet.)

Also I do not read Animal Kingdoms numbers as the park floundering, it is the #5 theme park in North America, and in a year when IOA, Universal, Magic Kingdom, Disneyland were all flat, and the Studios dropped in attendence. Are all these parks also floundering?

Ok, according to you DAK has lost attendence every year since it opened. Well lets review:

http://www.amusementbusiness.com/amusementbusiness/images/pdf/2002-top-50-north-america.pdf

In 2002 Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Universal, Sea World, Studios, and Animal Kingdom were all down.

http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/news/stories/012102_02.shtml

In 2001, Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Studios, Animal Kingdom, Universal, Islands of Adventure, Disneyland and Sea World were all down. Many had larger percentage drops than DAK, which was still #5.

http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/news/archives/january01/stories/010101_02.shtml

If you go back to 2000 you see that Animal Kingdom was the only Orlando park to lose attendance. But the 3% drop could be due to the Millennium Celebration activities at Epcot.

In 1999, Animal Kingdom saw a 43% increase in attendance (due to the fact it was its first full year of operation).
http://www.solarius.com/dvp/wdw/attendance_figures.htm

You all are spinning the numbers as much as Disney's own accountants. If you want to make blanket statements, then this is the only appropriate one I see:

The theme park industry has been floundering since the beginning of 2001. The was only one year since it opened that Animal Kingdom did not perform within the trend of the industry, which was the year 2000.

Thank you for your time.

PKS44

04-30-2004, 12:39 PM

According to Amusement Business:

-- 1999 -- 8.6 million guests

-- 2000 -- 8.3 million guests (down 4%)

-- 2001 -- 7.7 million guests (down 7%)

-- 2002 -- 7.3 million guests (down 6%)

-- 2003 -- 7.3 million guests (flat)

up 43% it';s first full year!!??
:confused: :rolleyes: please that is the lamest number spin I have ever seen...

OnWithTheShow

04-30-2004, 01:28 PM

I wasnt spinning. I even stated that the only reason it went up was the fact that it was only open for part of the year prior.

Universal Orlando

1999 - 8.1 million

2000 - 8.1 million (flat)

2001 - 7.2 million (down 10%)

2002 - 6.9 million (down 6%)

2003 - 6.9 million (flat)

Therefore they must be floundering

Magic Kingdom

2001 - 14.7 million (down 4%)

2002 - 14 million (down 5%)

2003 - 14 million (flat)

Floundering...

I could go on with this for every park, but I dont have the time. Anyone else want to figure it out.

PKS44

04-30-2004, 03:13 PM

try not eliminating the number for 1999 and 2000 when making comparisons just picking the 2001 numbers with 9/11 and its effects is misleading...

just trying to say anything about a 43% increase was deliberately exaggerating the numbers--there is no way you can compare the total for a full year to the total for a partial year...to even try is misleading...

Your use of Orlando Studios while leaving out IOA is misleading as the resort as a whole enjoyed an increase in attendance and surely cannibalized some of the Studio attendence as well...and how about IOA why did it go up 10% if the market saturation is the problem? Maybe offering something the people want actually works?

Why did MK only go down 4% but AK down 7% in 2001?

Why does the attendance at AK always go down? Has it ever had an up year? Is there any other park that has always gone down the first 6 years of its existence? Why is its drop in attendence always more than the MK?

Why would anybody say something about AK being a failure if it were not true? What in the world is supposed to be the motivation of matt, and me, and the guy who wrote the piece that started off this whole thread???

Also can anybody comment on this :
The meal discounts are only offered for children.
My understanding was that there are discounts for both adults and kids..the kids are more discounted than adults but the fact is that at no other park that I can recall has Disney EVER--EVER resorted to meal discounting of any significance..until AK....food for thought anyway...

DancingBear

04-30-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by PKS44
Your use of Orlando Studios while leaving out IOA is misleading as the resort as a whole enjoyed an increase in attendance and surely cannibalized some of the Studio attendence as well...But I thought each park had to stand on its own?

Phoebesaturn

04-30-2004, 03:41 PM

Its nice to see that even after I've being gone for a while...something that I post can be turned into a 8 page slug fest with all the same divisions among the group with a new one from across the pond. You would think that some people would have come over to the dark side considering all of the Roy and Eisner laundry being thrown around lately.

I think many people are tying up emotion into their defense of AK. Because you enjoy it does not mean that it is a failure in every aspect of what it was intended do to. Because other people see this failure does not mean they think your opinion on the park is crazy or wrong. They are just simply stating that AK is a failure at what it was designed to do. I really like AK and wish it had more to offer. It by far is not my favorite park in Orlando...in fact....its last. That does not mean that I don't enjoy what is there. The main problem that I still see on this board is that people still don't understand the AK failure is a symbol and shows the direction and thinking of the company over the last x years and until Eisner is gone...we will still be going in that direction. Lets just hope that Disney as we know it is still in one piece when that gloriously day happens.

PS I miss the Baron and Wish AV would post more. :(

Captain Crook

04-30-2004, 06:40 PM

Wishing Voice would post more is akin to wishing that I would not, I would think...:(
:o :teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

pirate:

Another Voice

04-30-2004, 07:51 PM

Actually Captain we're just amazed you have any time to post at all. I thought you'd be spending all your free time enjoying Beastly Kingdon, Austrailia, The American Wilderness, the new Lion King show, the expanded river cruise and all those big and bold additions Disney had to construct at Animal Kingdom just to keep up with all those millions and millions and millions of extra happy people (Mr. Show has the numbers if you don't believe me).
And the new nighttime spectacular they just opened...beyond words.

I mean, you can tell a place is successful when Disney can just turn on the money hose and drench the place with cash. Really, with all those guests clammoring to get in Disney had no choice but to open up attractions to for the additional room. I mean they have to keep the Discovery Boats going just for the hourly capacity - don't they?

And they way AK's booming business has spilled over too. The Lodge, you know, that place is almost as expensive as the Grand Floridian (I'm sure you get a nice discount Captain). Disney can charge what they can get and with a year long waiting list for reservations, that means a premium. But since Disney always looks out for our best interest first, it was so wonderful of them to rush the other half of Pop Century so all those little people could find a place to stay.

And the ancillary markets from Animal Kingdom too. What child doesn't wait all Saturday for that TV show to air. And the magaizne they started when the park opened...TimeLife is just kicking themselves, aren't they?

Yes, Captain, the signs of success are all around Animal Kingdom. The place is simply buzzing with activity and I can the screams of joy coming from Team Disney all the way out here in California.