Nahtazu

[All Aboard]

I had to turn on the computer and post this. Just saw a Disney's Animal Kingdom spot on NBC6. The hook phrase at the end was:

"Disney's Animal Kingdom, it's alot of things but remember, it's Nahtazu" Yes, it was spelled out like that on the screen and the voice over had an African flavor.

I'm bumming about this. Now Disney is having to apologize for DAK's identity crisis. Clever way to do it, I guess. But, it's a shame.

[Wes]

I guess it is too early in the morning.

What is "Nahtazu"?

And why does this mean Disney is having to apologize for DAK's identity crisis?

[JeffJewell]

...and you'll hear "Not A Zoo."

One of the common complaints about DAK is that the dearth of theme park style attractions makes the park little more than a zoo. Disney is now apparently airing the commercial equivalent of "Is Not!"

Jeff

[Captain Crook]

Well, gcurling, I guess if we were going to disagree it'd be on AK, right?;) I saw the add last night, as well, and thought it was cute. Certainly I was impressed that it was advertising for the lowest attended Park but I really read nothing more than a "good" commercial into it. Further, the fact that so many detractors find it humorous to refer to AK as a "zoo" doesn't help. It is much more than a zoo (for those of us with opened eyes) and appeals with imagery of the sublime & surreal more than the cerebral...I see nothing wrong with touting it's Nahtazu ...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[All Aboard]

My good friends scoop and captain,

I completely agree that AK is a very nice place. It's my least favorite WDW park (but, that's another thread.) It's just very unfortunate that WDW is having to do damage control on this.

You see what you've written in your posts, defenses that it is not a zoo. Why must you (or WDW) do this?

You build a park based on animals and fail to include much in the way of what folks are used to getting in theme parks. The clear result is that folks dismiss the place on grounds that it's nothing more than a zoo. I'm not speaking for you or me, but for the masses that think otherwise.

The good news here is that this campaign is not likely to work and WDW will be forced to do what it should have done in the first place, load up on a few first rate attractions - then more folks will flock to A and find that it is in fact, Nahtazu.

[DanG]

What could Disney conceivably be thinking! How better to reinforce a general public perception that AK does not provide enough value because its too close to a zoo, then to tell people its not.

Well, better than actually adding more shows and attractions to make it more than a half day visit. And don't blow a gasket folks, I like the shows and attractions that are there, but compared to the other Disney parks its not as compelling a value for your $50 ticket.

Nahtazu? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's right up there with new Coke for stupid marketing ideas.

DanG

[Sarangel]

As I recall, scoop, renknt, landbaron and I all agreed that Animal Kingdom was an "Experience." Yes, it has a number of animal exhibits, but the majority of those are immersive (ie. the animals have more space in the attraction than you do). I have seen one part of a zoo that resembles AK, and that is Seattle's Woodland Park zoo, but even their northern trail is tiny compared to the walk through exhibits at AK.

Disney, as a corporation trying to survive in an ugly marketplace, almost *has* to start marketing this park, since it is under-attended. I haven't seen the commercial in question, but if the general concensus is that AK = zoo it makes sense to try and counter that perception. Is this commercial successful at that, or does it's 'nahtazu' tagline simply reinforce the zoo perception?

Sarangel

[larworth]

I'll second thedscoop's closing defense.

However, while many of us can see the differences it does remind us that what is often most important is what the average Joe thinks (I don't think we have any Joe's who post here, so hopefully no one is offended). These are the people that pay most of the bills and have to be the target audience for PR and attraction design.

Haven't tried to time this out, but I assume the average person spends no more than half their time doing conventional zoo activities (safari, walks, station...) versus conventional Disney theme park activities (rides, shows, playareas...) . With this ratio you would think it would not be perceived as just a zoo? Disney obviously thinks that is their perception, hence the ad campaign.

I think it still goes back to the less than full day experience for the average person. The average person feels underwhelmed when they are done by 2:00 and therefore, blame this feeling on it not being more than a zoo. Something the average person probably spends about 2-3 hours at when they visit (not a full day).

My reaction to BK has always been to feel cheated that we didn't get these cool attractions to enjoy. Maybe, the psychological impact BK might have had on the park's image goes well beyond a couple more hours of amusement. If BK were open would the average person still have this zoo mentality?

Whether the announced new AK land and E ticket is BK or something else, will they be careful to minimize any "live animal" appearances to combat this image?

[All Aboard]

I think the problem with the zoo perception rests with folks that have never been there. Probably a combination of gut feeling and word of mouth from folks that have been there. Sara, I agree, WDW has a problem here and they are trying to fix it. But this is REactive maintenance instead of PROactive maintenance.

Here's a microcosm of what is likely happening out there. Someone here at the office went to AK in its first week. Being the WDW nut I am, I had to get a report. The jist was, "don't waste your time, there's nothing there to do." I, of course, wrote it off as "ah, she doesn't know what she's talking about." But others wouldn't, and that's the rap that AK is taking.

I'm torn. All here know I am a big WDW booster - I want to see AK succeed. But, I also want to see it grow. I want a couple of flat-out outstanding attractions. So, I don't know if I want the ad campaign to be successful.

The bottom line for me is, this kind of reactive, apologetic, damage control processing could have been averted had AK opened as a big-time park. But it didn't and the public has not embraced it, and it has forced WDW to what I saw last night. I couldn't believe my eyes. I thought of all the posters here that would have a field day with it. I had to post first, just to get my thoughts in. I hate that this has had to happen.

[Another Voice]

The problem, from my twisted point of view, is that Animal Kingdom is neither a zoo nor a theme park. It’s a half-hearted attempt to be both and it fails. The stare-at-the-animals parts of AK, while well done, are still not innovative compared to most modern zoos. And the San Diego Zoo has been offering monorail and truck rides through their free range Wild Animal Park for more than two decades. They don’t have the “thrilling” chase to save Little Red at the end of their ride, but is that really a problem? I think everyone agrees that AK is light on the theme park attractions, so I won’t belabor that point.

In order to succeed, Disney must decide on a direction for AK – nature or entertainment. My feeling is that they want to go the easy theme park route. Bring in the carny games, the roller coasters, the branded stage shows. The question is if the company is willing to spend the cash to do that the way they should. They’re not, so you’re going to see a dribble of “attractions” like Din-O-Rama and ‘Soaring Over the Outback’, whatever is just barely enough to slow the attendance hemorrhage. And lots and lots of marketing because that’s easy to do as well.

Personally, I’d like to see a park filled with Discovery Cove-like experiences. Do something that no zoo or theme park has done. Take out the busses and have hiking trails through the African savannah. How many times do you have chance to walk through a herd of elephants? And how much would people pay to swim through a kelp forest filled with sea otters and seals? There are a lot of concepts that are filed away at WDI for some fantastic areas and it’s time to bring them out. Orlando already has too many theme parks, it’s time to try something new.

[DisDuck]

I guess I am in somewhat of a minority, along with my family. We have never viewed AK as a zoo but as a Disney attraction that included animals within its theme. I have been to 'zoos' as attractions, going back to the now defunct Jungle Habitat in NJ, also been to Lion Country Safari, Bronx Zoo, Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. AK is nothing like any of these.

Since there does seem to be a perception about being a 'zoo' then nothing wrong to advertise it is not. Isn't one of the points of advertising, anything, to put forward 'owners' idea of what there product is.

For those here who still think of AK as a glorified zoo, name me a place recognized as a zoo not a theme park/attraction that has the same or similar contents as AK. A combination of themed rides/attractions, shows and restaurants to match AK. If not then drop the 'zoo' label please.

[JeffJewell]

name me a place recognized as a zoo not a theme park/attraction that has the same or similar contents as AK. ...what is a "zoo" if not a park with different attractions, with the underlying theme of "animals?"

Playing this kind of semantics game helps nothing, least of all AK's attendance.

The problem is that Disney itself obviously has no coherent focus with Animal Kingdom. If they did, they would have advertised what AK _is_, not what it isn't.

This could very well backfire on them when AK guests, specifically expecting NOT A ZOO, show up and discover that the place is basically a zoo with a couple rides and shows.

You guys can carp all you want that "zoo" is only used derogatorily by "Disney-bashers," but there's no better single word to describe AK (and in particular, how it is different from the other parks on property) to your co-workers when you return from your vacation.

Jeff

[Captain Crook]

On some days I consider AK my faorite Park and you know, when I've described AK to people I am quite certain that the word zoo has never come out of my mouth...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DanG]

Whether or whether not AK is a zoo is not particularly relevant outside the interpersonal infighting of this board.

Many people love AK. But from an attendance perspective, AK has been a disappointment for Disney. Many, many people in the frenetic rush of their vacations simply do not take the time or do not care about the subtle creative nuances that many see as AK's strength. They compare the AK experience to the other themepark experiences they had in Orlando, and when they get home they share their opinions with everyone they know going to Orlando after them that AK is either not worth the time and money or a full day of a 7 day vacation. Many having been to the AK have decided to substitute days at SeaWorld or IOA or one of the water parks for a day at the AK. The perception of many less passionate about Disney than ourselves is that AK is not a good value and is not a "must do" when you go to Orlando. Many do see AK as a mildly enhanced zoo. This general perception is the problem.

That is what makes the advertising campaign so ridiculous. If you are trying to redirect what you believe to be an unflattering comparison, you don't reinforce that comparison in a 30 second commercial. You advertise the attractions and shows and you never ever mention the word "zoo."

The problem remains for Disney that AK is not a $50/pp attraction (or $160-200 for a family or four, my family is 7). I suspect that many of the people on this board have annual passes and regularly go to Disney several times a year, so there is no incremental cost to spend a day in AK. The vast majority of those visiting Orlando are more occasional visitors who go to Orlando once every one or two or three years. They are more likely to see a day at the AK being expensive and taking a day away from a more compelling themepark.

Finally, Disduck asked what park compares favorably to AK by way of theming, rides, attractions, shows and animals. I would agree that one would be hard pressed to find a park that exceeds AK in all of these areas, but for my money, each of Seaworld and Busch Gardens surpasses AK as an overall wildlife themepark experience.

I'll still go to and enjoy AK, but Disney is facing and to its credit addressing the problem that perception is reality.

DanG

[JeffJewell]

you did not answer DisDuck's specific question. ..I pointed out that DisDuck's question was nonsensical, and could not be answered meaningfully.

He was trying to force a differentiation between "zoo" and "theme park" when "zoo" is linguistic shorthand for "zoological park," which can also be stated as a park with a zoological theme. There is no such thing as a "zoo not a theme park," which his question asked us to name, because the definition of "theme park" includes "zoo."
Says who? Incomplete or unfinished does not necessarily mean unfocused I never said that it did; you made that up yourself (probably because it was easier to negate that what I actually wrote). My post stated that if they had a specific focus for what AK _is_, they would not have had to advertise focusing on what it was _not_. All they know is they don't want people to think it's a zoo (although why they hate that term is a mystery to me, I like a good zoo. It might even _boost_ attendance if AK was seen as a zoo with extra stuff rather than an amusement park with not enough stuff).
However, if this thread does not help anything for you, then obviously no one is requiring you to participate You like to respond to statements I never made. I specifically stated that it was DisDuck's semantics shenanigans that help nothing.

Fine, we can take your route. We'll say the Duck is right, and I'll stop using the term "zoo" in the same post as "AK." Did attendance go up? Does the general population now see AK in a different way?

Or did our "agreeing" on that semantic issue help absolutely nothing?

In your zeal to rewrite my post into something you could make fun of, you managed to miss a very basic point. When Joe, Mary, and little Billy Lunchpail return from WDW and try to tell their friends about AK, what do you think they're going to say? It's certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that the description might start "It's like a zoo, but..."

The perception of AK as zoo has less to do with "Disney-bashers" and more to do with the fact that Disney did little to distinguish AK from a zoo in the public's eyes. Trying to use strategic linguistics on a Disney fan board will do nothing to change that.

Jeff

[DanG]

Sorry, I'm not following. PMs? Help, please.

DanG

[YoHo]

I've used the word Zoo to describe AK and not in a derogatory way.

To play along in the semantics game, Yes, a Zoological Park is a Theme Park with the Theme being animals. The problem with that is that typically the word Park when attached to Zoological means something Different then the Word Park attached to Theme or amusment.

Animal Kingdom actually breaks barriers along the lines of Busch Gardens and seaworld. the difference being that A Busch Gardens (gardens is like Park in the tradition sense) is Amusment park with Animal theme and AK is Animal theme Park with Amusment type attractions.


Zoological Parks are like Golden Gate park(Doesn't have a Zoo as I recall), Central Park, Grant Park/Lincoln Park etc. They aren't gated admission type places (historically) and thus the conotate something different.

[JeffJewell]

Cheap shots at DisDuck are not warranted. DisDuck is a regular, well-stated contributor. I took no cheap shot at DisDuck. I never questioned his contribution. I made a specific comment about a specific question DisDuck posted.He presented a very specific question. Yeah, that's the one.Try reading his posts carefully before blowing them off so casually I read with excrutiating care, without fail. I made a considered response, and even explained my conclusion.But you and johare, not sure why you all do things like calling questions "nonsensical" etc I called the question nonsensical because (and here I quote from my previous post):There is no such thing as a "zoo not a theme park," which his question asked us to name, because the definition of "theme park" includes "zoo." The question had no answer; it made no sense. It was a nonsensical question.Well, guess what? Present us some data from which we can logically derive this recent statement by you.... "Disney did little to distinguish AK from a zoo in the public's eyes. " Are you privy to some poll numbers regarding "THE PUBLIC"S EYES" that DisDuck and I and others who find AK, maybe unfinished, but immersive and unique for what is finished? If so, please share. I noticed that Disney was running advertisements that AK is "Not A Zoo;" not coincidentally, that's the reason I posted on this thread. If Disney thinks they need to spend ad money (in these days of scorched earth theme park budgetting) to help "distinguish AK from a zoo in the public's eyes," that's good enough for me (By the way, what's this obsession with AK being "unfinished"? You've mentioned it in almost every non-PM oriented post, although with a cursory glance back up the thread, I don't see that anyone else has mentioned it at all).I really have no gripe with you. I must confess that I didn't pick that up from reading your post. I guess I just don't understand you.I guess I just don't understand you Well, at least we have that in common.

Jeff

[Sarangel]

Gents (and Ladies) -

I've noticed a lot of sniping that's beginning to border on uncivilized. Dis Duck got a little edgy, Jeff Jewel got edgier in return, thedscoop ran to DisDuck's defense... I ask you all to take a couple of deep breaths and refocus on the discussion about AK.

I think this is a good discussion & may bring up some interesting points about why AK is less successful than Disney wants, but if we can't remain civilized about it, I will have to close the thread (which I don't really want to do).

Thanks -

Sarangel

[JeffJewell]

...Disney's Animal Kingdom clearly has a lot in common with some zoos and wild animal parks. I still don't know why anyone hates the "zoo" label so much; a Disney zoo sounds like a fantastic idea to me, if done right (and I feel that certain parts of AK _are_ "the zoo, done right." I've got the hundreds of photos to back up that opinion). I honestly have no idea why this ad campaign is expected to attract customers.

And it brings up the question, if not a zoo, then what? If it's supposed to be more of an amusement park, well, you can't help but compare it to the amusement parks around it and find it somewhat lacking.

Jeff

PS: Animal Kingdom's current function is mostly as a garden lounge for WDW annual passholders. The park's laid back charm eludes a lot of families trying to cram too much Orlando into too few vacation days. Lest anyone think I'm in some way "bashing" with this characterization, let me point out that I currently _am_ one of those annual passholders that spends a lot of time in AK.

PPS: Also, a huge chunk of folks entering AK in the morning got there on the bus they caught at their hotel; the one "themed" with a thirty foot tall saxophone. Perhaps this enormously broad presentation of theming ill prepares the guest for the subtleties of AK. But that's another thread, entirely...

[Lesley]

I think I've actually used the phrase "Kind of like a zoo, but......" and its usually followed by several very positive adjectives like "amazing", "incredible" and "unbelieveable" (though after seeing pics of TDS maybe I have to reserve my glowing descriptions for a place that is more those things than AK). AK is my favorite park...it does "zoo" and other attractions equally well, BUT I can see where the average family who is paying day by day rather than getting park hopper tickets would see it as not being as worth the admission as the other parks. But I think that the same arguement could have been made about MGM in the early days and could be made by some about Epcot now (those who aren't interested in learning anything new, which I think is a huge portion of WDW visitors).

I don't know that this rather amusing "nahtazu" approach will help the perception at all...because even though AK is not a zoo, its sure like one in many ways...just a whole lot better. Zoo on steriods...lol.

Something tells me the whole point of creating the word "nahtazu" was to try to define AK positively...."nahtazu" is something new that's never been heard of before, its not just a statement of AK being NOT a zoo. Its kind of weak..but I'm guessing that was the aim. Perhaps they're trying to create a buzz word like Volkswagon did with farferghnugen years ago? If so, I don't think its gonna work.

IMO the best thing they could do for AK is create BK....it was the promise in the initial planning- A park devoted to animals that exist, used to exist, and those of myth and legend, a celebration of our interaction with the other living things of our planet both real and imagined. Right now they're missing a third of that theme...and that's why there is an identity crisis...its not what is was planned to be. And that is also what makes it so easy to describe AK as "kind of like a zoo"

[Sarangel]

Two points:

One, when DVC-Landbaron, thedscoop, renknt and I were having drinks in the Contemporary last week, the topic of AK did come up and the best label we could come up with is that AK is an 'uniquie experience.' We debated the zoo-ness of it, the ride level, and the shows and concluded that there was nothing like it in either zoo-dom or theme park-dom.

Two, AK is *very* different than all the other Disney properties and (I presume) most of the Universal properties (I imagine that SeaWorld must share some similarities). But a quick anecdote from when they were imagineering the park: Originally they had discussed using a large number of animatronic animals for AK, but Joe Roth (chief imagineer) strongly backed the real animal philosophy. To prove his point about real animals being compelling, he arragned (without anyone's permission) to bring a live tiger to a storyboard session. He made his pitch without ever looking at the big cat being walked around the edges of the room, while everyone else paid more attention to the tiger than Joe. Point made.

Sarangel

[DVC-Landbaron]

My take is a little mixed on the whole Animal Kingdom experience. I believe it was in the meeting with Scoop that I quoted my daughter, saying that AK, while done beautifully, isn't much of an amusement park and it isn't much of a zoo. This was at about the same time AV wrote: The problem, from my twisted point of view, is that Animal Kingdom is neither a zoo nor a theme park. It's a half-hearted attempt to be both and it fails.Hmmm. Great minds thinks alike, I guess.

The point is that if you strip away the amusement park aspect (rides and shows) you are left with a rather puny zoo. Very well done, mind you, but very, very small. Animals of all sorts, that normal zoos have are missing. No penguins, polar bears, pandas, kangaroos, etc. My seven year old son kept asking all day long. "When do we get to the bears?" He also asked about penguins and seals. And if you take away all the zoo elements, you're left with a very half-hearted attempt at an amusement park. Again rather puny in size and scope. Not even a very good "Disney" style sit-down restaurant!!

Now mix the two together, as it stands today. Very well done. And for someone with a love for theming and exploration AK becomes just passable. For anyone else - it fails! And it fails at fifty dollars and eighty-eight cents a day! That's a hell of a failure.

And, of course, gcurling (a very nice guy) has the answer: The bottom line for me is, this kind of reactive, apologetic, damage control processing could have been averted had AK opened as a big-time park.That is absolutely the answer!!

In 1979 a CM told me that a new park was going in. EPCOT. It would be… It was going to be… Well… She seemed at a loss as to how to describe it. She finally said that it would be a big Tomorrowland in front and a sort of World's Fair in the back. Can you imagine what the response to EPCOT would have been if Future world opened with three pavilions (say Spaceship Earth, Energy and Imagination) and World Showcase had only four countries? Hmmm. Not much of a Tomorrowland and not much of a World's Fair.

But it didn't open that way, did it? No, back then they still did things right!! They opened with six pavilions (a seventh soon added) and nine countries!! Talk about WOW power!!

So, when I say it wasn't 'done right', I mean it's scope and size wasn't overwhelming enough. What they did, they did right. It's just not nearly enough.

[Planogirl]

I always refer to Animal Kingdom as Disney's version of a zoo. And I say this with nothing but praise because I love zoos.

However, I am disappointed in Disney's version of a zoo. Disney had a chance to dazzle visitors with their magic while at the same time examining the questions of conservation and endangered species among others. They instead gave us not much more than a few beautiful animal displays, a good safari and some musical acts. Now they're adding carnival style attractions.

They also had the chance to immerse us in the theming of other continents while teaching us about the animal life and culture of these areas. We do get a bit of this but they could have gone into so much more detail than they did.

Disney could have really pulled out all the stops at Animal Kingdom. They really had a chance to teach. After all, learning is a lot easier if it's fun.

By the way, I really do like Animal Kingdom and easily spend more than a half day there. I'm just lamenting what could have been and perhaps what may still come. One can always hope!

[hogie1]

I went to WDW last Dec for the first time and I wanted to a least try every park. I
did what my Mom always said at dinner, "you won't know if you like it or not until you
try it!" So even though animals are not my thing I made an attempt at going. Well
some people like animals and some don't. I don't really think they fit into my vacation
enjoyment, but some people like going to AK. I do think they have built the place kind
of tight from where I was walking around. They should open it up a little bit to allow
for better walking access. I have never seen what MK is like during peak times of the
year, but I never felt crowded when we went. But whether or not the place is a "zoo"
I think doesn't really matter. The crowds that want to go there will and Disney is
probably planning AK's direction now. That's just my 2 cents anyway. If you like it,
great. If not, I'll c-ya in MK, MGM, or EPCOT!

[Dznefreek]

There is a large billboard in Central Florida on I-4 with this phrase on it and I hate to say it but, "Yes. it is". and a poor one at that.

My wife was right when she said, "I am not paying $50.00 to go to a Zoo."

The animals are too far away. There are not enough rides. The rides that are there are lackluster at best.

Directional signage is poor, 1000 animals; where? Oh I know 30 crocs (3%), 60 fish (6%), who knows how many birds???????

I remember Joe Rhodes saying in an interview, "We won't have 1 or 2 Hippos, but a pod(?) of 30+." Sorry Joe, I cannot wait the 10+ years for that to occur.

Busch Gardens has it all over DAK when it comes to animals (3200+) and yes I klnow they have been around longer but SO WHAT!

What did they spend 800 million dollars on???????????? Oh, I know; Souvenir Design!

I have always been a BIG Disney fan but they missed the boat or should I say Safari on this one.

[YoHo]

JeffJewell,
I am one of the few Non AP holders that refuses to to be rushed when on Vacation. (If I had the money and Vacation Days, I actually would add extra days for AK.)

(More Comments)
But that leads to something I brought up in another Thread. At least Part of AK's Problem has little to do with how good the elements that are there are. Its that WDW has reached a saturation point IMHO. Companies aren't giving employees more days off. If the average family trip to WDW was 1-2 weeks (is it? I don't know) Before AK, then it simply can't change, unless foriegn Tourism explodes (which makes DLP a henderence not a Help).Which means that If AK had opened as a full park, what would likely have happened would be that MGM would lose numbers. Then IOA is Opened and is beginning to draw away people.

At this point, to my mind, the only way your going to increase attendence at AK without hurting attendence elsewhere is to make sure that it and all the other parks draw better then IOA and your other cometitors. When People simply can't devote more then 7 days to you, you have to ace out the competition.


By the way, I agree that a Zoo is not a bad thing to be. HOWEVER, you can not expect the average vacationer to devote the amount of time there that they do at even a regular zoo.


P.S. Landbaron, tell your kids that they're spoiled by having 2 excellent Zoos(World renowned) and a famous Aquarium/Oceanarium right in their backyard. Animal Kingdom is like a big OutDoor Tropicworld. Habitat specific, so no Polarbears :)

[YoHo]

Hey,
Dznefreek
Don't ever go to the San Diego Zoo then, They Charge $50.

Of course they have more animals.....

[Dznefreek]

<b><i>Don't ever go to the San Diego Zoo then, They Charge $50.</b></i>

Yes, I know but is quite possibly the BEST Zoo on the Planet. That is the difference.

[AKemel]

On our trip to WDW just after AK first opened, I did not want to go there. With other Disney parks available, I did not want to waste my time in a Zoo. I can go to a Zoo at home or on vacation to San Diego, were there is not much else to do. That was my perception of the park. A Zoo is a Zoo. That is how many others must feel.

How does one change it? Word of mouth is good. (Safari ride is my favorite of all Disney adventures- it is not a ride.) Advertising also works. (I can't believe what people buy, just because it is advertised to them.) Or you can always add Shamu...

[JeffJewell]

I am one of the few Non AP holders that refuses to to be rushed when on Vacation. (If I had the money and Vacation Days, I actually would add extra days for AK That's the way to appreciate AK as it stands; as kick-back time. I'm an AP holder, but even when I wasn't, I rarely left the property. I'm a big fan of cats, so I spend a significant amount of time taking pictures along the Maharajah's Trek, but most of my cool AK memories involve sitting or strolling, as opposed to the more frenetic type of fun I have in the other parks (well, I guess World Showcase has a similar feel to AK, in this context). I suspect that the "general public" who considers AK "merely" a zoo might not kick back enough on an expensive vacation to appreciate the good parts of AK.Its that WDW has reached a saturation point IMHO. That's true in the context you're using it: it would take something truly spectacular to encourage the average vacationing family to add a day or days to their planned vacation (and as you allude, even something spectacular might, to a certain extent, just cannibalize the other parks).

But I do think that WDW leaves some money on the table, as it were. I don't think it'll come from longer hotel stays (unfortunately, "guests will add a hotel night for this" was a big part of the business model for both AK and DCA. Both are failing to meet expectations), I think it will come from pay-for-play high end experiences. It's hugely disappointing to me that Disney's US parks seem to be completely out of the high-end experience business.HOWEVER, you can not expect the average vacationer to devote the amount of time there that they do at even a regular zoo. Actually, I disagree with that. Despite the backlash against the "zoo" perception, it seems to me that most of the folks (myself included) who really enjoy AK actually appreciate the high-end zoo aspects. We're back to the problem of "if not a zoo, then what?" AK isn't a significantly better zoo than other zoos, and it isn't a significantly better amusement park than other amusement parks. If AK was _either_ of those things, I believe it would be doing much better than it is.

Jeff

[normr]

Instead of Animal Kingdom they should have built something like California Adventure, IMHO.

[Cindy B]

Saw those commercials while we were there...thought it was pretty clever on their parts.. unfortunately, it did come across as an apology than a "come on over, we are a FUN park"

[HBK]

Instead of Animal Kingdom they should have built something like California Adventure, IMHO.

Please tell me you're joking.

[DisneyFanGuy]

We voted AK to be our least favorite park.

So I think that the Crummy attendance has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of days that we spend at the world. We choose to go to Universal Studios, IOA, or Sea World instead of AK because we like any of those parks better.

My families preferences:

Disney/MGM
Universal Studios
Epcot
IOA
Magic Kingdom
Sea World

And a very distant last.....AK.

We drive down to visit my parents every year in South Florida, and always stop for a couple of days in the World. Last year we stayed in Fort Wilderness, and went for two days to Universal Studios and IOA. We debated all the other parks and it was quite a discussion (As it always is!) At no time, was AK even considered.

It just doesn't stack up to the other parks. Kids don't care about brand awareness, or loyality or anything like that. They care that there ISN'T ENOUGH TO DO!

I know of a few folks that really like the AK. Couples mostly, but nobody with kids that I know of wants to go back twice. K. Safaris is very special, and Dinosaur is scary, but the rest.......OK at best. My kids want rides. My wife wants rides. I want rides. Immersive, fun experiences that you cannot find anywhere else. We really felt like we paid 50 bucks to look at the pretty animals. Now with the parks closing earlier than ever, we don't even want to spend 1/2 a day there because we can't find enough time to go anywhere else. It's a beautifully themed park with not enough to do.

Kali River Rapids.....You are out on the water (Away from the dock) for about 1 1/2 minutes. My six flags park ride is longer. (A LOT longer, actually) What the heck were they thinking?

Conservation Station (Now Rafikis...)...My kids practically passed out walking in the heat from the train to find zoo exibits. What the heck were they thinking?

It's tough to be a Bug.....We always enjoy these kinds of shows.....once.

Animal exibits.....We have better locally.
Animal Shows.....We have similar locally.

Disney built 1/2 a park and they are getting 1/2 the attendance. Hmmmm. Have they learned anything here? Add a few really creative rides and make it easier to get around. Give us another real dining option. If people don't like the park, they won't go. Very simple.

Give us a transportation option that doesn't involve busses! (Another discussion for another time!)

[JeffH]

My 7 yo daughter has loved AK since it opened and can never get enough of the shows and play areas. Oh, and I love it, too.