DRDISNEYMD
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* *+*~The Snow Queen~*+* ~A gi
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
~Yes, of course! Normally, I would be thrilled! But, I had to rush unexpectedly with no time to edit and refine a few points, thus catching your eye!I really havent been involved in the conversation that YoHo, DRDISNEYMD and pilfer have been engaged in. But I do read everything. And this caught my eye.
~I need shoes! It's a basic necessity, surely you understand! This is my first home, and I dont have any furniture, yet. If you agree with pilferk , youre basically suggesting, I should not build a home until I buy a full house of furniture & décor -- as in, put the cart before the horse.Now let me see if I have this straight. Were using this analogy for Disney and how they have a recent propensity for building half-day parks, right? And you couldnt furnish your house completely because WHY? You couldnt afford?
~Hey, I need handbags, too! Plus, Im so tired of living at home. Im working around the clock and only get four hours of sleep a day. I just built a new home, so I quickly purchased a bed & couch. I will add custom window treatments; select art, tapestry and color for the bare walls; decorative rugs; and all of the furniture. I also need a full assortment of cooking apparatus, stone ware, silverware, and crystal. I have an interior decorator who will help me acquire pieces & sort through yards of fabric.You couldnt think of what else to put in there? You kept searching for that Louis the 14th end table but just cant find it yet? What reason is it unfurnished? Why didnt you get some art?
~But, I can only decorate one room at a time, spanning over several weeks or months. I see it as an opportunity to adapt and adequately define my space(s). By your logic, I should not attempt to *build* my home and move in until I have purchased all furnishings and decor for the house, before I begin construction.
~I will agree that Disney may have been curt on creativity. But, the majority of complaints/ issues are cosmetic and can be quickly remedied by applying Walts concept of plussing; in addition to, impeccable maintenance of the parks and resorts. The difficult stuff like the gate(s), infrastructure, permanent fixtures have been establish, all that is needed is more attractions and features, anyone can do that!Now. Do you really think that Disney couldnt afford it? Do you really think that the idea factory ran dry and they just didnt know what else to put in there? Do you think theyre waiting for someone to invent the next state-of-the-art ride mechanism and then they will install it?
~Rome was not built in a day. No, Eisner was in line with most of Disneys philosophy. He only had so much time and so much money. He accomplished a lot; he gave us boats & gates!Sorry. None of those make sense to me. Does it to you? Or is there another reason other than being downright cheap and greedy.
Look at my signature. Walt always used to say, Give the people everything you can give them.
Ever since Ei$ner the company line seems to be, Give the people only what we can get away with and nothing more!!
~What about Fantasyland??? When I first saw the plans for Beasts castle, I was blown away. Then later, I discovered it was just a forced perspective to give the viewer an optical illusion of a grandiose structure. Really?!? It looks like a dollhouse plopped on top of a prison wall! j/k For the record, Disney made up for it with BoG and the entire Storybook Village, but still.
~Seriously, would Walt have done this?
~I'm glad you got through it unscathed. Okay, I give up, please enlighten me. It is my understanding that the majority of Disneys revenue and profit comes from media. Example: $6.1 Billion overall total from ESPN which is worth 40 billion.OK. I finally finished your post.
NO!!!!! That is exactly opposite of what YoHo said! He said:
@ the "magical parking lot!" That's so mean. ~I have never been to Disneyland. I love the WDW bubble; one day I will make it over to the West coast for a few days. Okay, I'm in agreement! You've are right to declare DCA as fixed purely from a financial standpoint!I'm not sure, maybe you've mentioned this before, but did you ever go to the original DCA? I have and let me tell you, it was more magical as a parking lot.
I'm not sure fixed is the right word and enhanced is a better one, not because I agree with you though. In fact the opposite, the place is so bad that the 1billion spent wasn't enough to fix it. it only enhances it.
Of course on the other hand, from a purely financial standpoint, it is most assuredly fixed. Prior to this year, DCA had NOBODY entering it except the occasional APer looking for a rest and short food line. Now its actually doing huge attendance. If that isn't fixed then I don't know what is. .
~Take heed of your own advice, go back and read post number 1! The Baron was very clear about the topic for this discussion; its not entirely about history and philosophy. Nor is it your place to define and regulate how this discussion should flow and evolve, so please refrain by keeping your DIS police baton safely at your side. With that said, I totally agree with some of your posts. Thats part of why Im here, Im intrigued with the history of Disney and enjoy reading all of the different perspectives. I have nothing but respect for each and every one! It is very important that we acknowledge and recognize all of the contributions to WDW appropriately. Its not about right or wrong, its about perspective, please recognize that if we all shared the same opinion, there would be no discussion. Lets embrace the art of debate for what it is!!!Fair enough, I was born after Walt died. I didn't grow up watching the Mickey Mouse Club and wearing a coon skin cap either, we all have our biases.
I want DTD destrioyed and Pleasure Island returned to the glory it was when I went to WDW at 21.
My first strong attachment to Disney was "Wonderful World of Disney" on Sunday night. Specifically I remember Michael Eisner walking on the beach on Discovery Island discussing Swiss Family Robinson as the Contemporary resort came into view (I'd been to WDW before this and been to Disney movies, but I was just a toddler, this was the first attachment) So I GET having an attachment to Eisner's Disney.
BUT, the fact that that is what my memories are SHOULD NOT excuse me from knowing the history of this company and being able to step back and take the whole thing in from the beginning and do some critical thinking.
I like Eisner, because he was in charge when I learned about Disney is a perfectly valid thing to say, but it is NOT sufficient in a discussion about the history and operating philosophy of a man and a company that was a household name, famous world wide decades before you were born. There is and was so much going on here that should be addressed if we're going to discuss what was done right or wrong.
Eisner's walking on Discovery Island and piquing my interest doesn't excuse the many many many mistakes he made. It doesn't make up for Roy E.'s family squabbles. It doesn't make any of it all right.
See, that's a bad analogy. A house is someplace YOU, personally, are going to dwell for years and years. The only person you're really inconveniencing is you, if you wait to furnish it. And, without furniture, it still is a fully functioning house (you have plumbing, windows, walls, electrical service, etc). It's just not as comfortable.
This is more akin to building an apartment building. You put up some walls. But you leave out doors, plumbing, electricity, fixtures, windows, carpet/flooring...basically, you've assembled something you can roughly call an apartment building.
And you start renting out units, with promises that you will, eventually, someday expand. And you know it will be an inconvenience to your tenants when you do...but them's the brakes. Oh, and you're charging the EXACT SAME rent that you charge in your luxury highrises a couple blocks away.
So, yeah....I don't think that's such a great move.
~Again, by your logic, I cant begin construction on my apartment complex, until I have secured a tenant to lease every single unit, *beforehand*. And, then my tenants will not be allowed to move in their apartments until they have completely furnished them! I think I've got it.
~I just wanted to emphasize how fickle some construction projects are and some of the variables that can negatively impact a project from getting completed. Thats exactly what that statement means, forever unfinished. The space is already prepped and zoned to be plussed, the groundwork for creating the impossible is ready!I'm not sure I see your point in that. It's all true. But it doesn't change the lack of substance in both Pop and AoA. But this goes back to the "decorated" vs "themed" discussion.
Which opened with no substance. And needed to be "fixed". I think that's been adequately demonstrated, actually.
A "platform for growth, innovation and expansion" sounds like marketing speak for "unfinished", to me. And not in the "forever unfinished' Walt-ism, either.
~I dont agree that Disney's brand was harmed by DHS & AK. Both parks have experienced consistent, steady growth in attendance every year. Patrons having fun vacations, has every bit of relevance! Disney is selling memories & magical experiences at the parks.I, too, was at AK the first year. I, too, had fun. But then, we've covered how AK is, maybe, "my kind" of park..but it doesn't seem to pull the masses in, in huge numbers. You can check the annual attendance figures to see that. And listen to the conversations here, and in other "tour" type forums, that all peg AK as a half day park, at most.
Again, I think we need to talk about separation. You can go to an unfinished park and have fun. I'm sure there are people who enjoyed DCA even in it's initial "broken" state, for example.
That doesn't make it right when you open a park (DHS) with precisely 2 working attractions and charge full gate price for it. Just because you will find people who will pay that price doesn't mean it doesn't harm your brand, ultimately, to charge it.
Whether patrons could find a way to "have fun" isn't really relevant. I know it seems like it should be, but....not when we're just talking about substance vs brand.
~Again, you really keep dancing around substance and what it consists of. I think in many instances substance is subjective. Ill use Magical Express for example. I love this service; I exit the plane and walk right on a motor coach, check in at the resort, visit a park, DTD and/or dinner. When I return to my room, my luggage is there waiting for me! For some guests substance just means clean and safe parks; or good dining experiences; the deluxe resorts; or the rides and fastpass; or park transportation; or all of the above (and more).
~I understand the pricing structure. I know they are four separate gates. There is nothing wrong with this. My experiences are not diminished just because they happened to be at DHS or AK. I dont compartmentalize my memories and experiences based on the park. I dont ride ToT and then think, that was fun but since DHS opened back in 1989 with only two rides, it will never be as fun as it should to be.But..that's not the way Disney is charging you. It IS exactly the way they want you to think of it. That's their marketing and "guest conditioning" kicking in (and I don't mean that as a dig..I'm right there with you dolling out my money to them).
The fact is: They are 4 different, separate, gates. You do not buy discounted tickets/add ons to enjoy AK or DHS. They are part of the "base ticket" experience. They should provide equivalent experiences, in terms of substance and quality.
I expect less of DisneyQuest and the Waterparks. Those ARE add ons.
~Iger is a media mogul, no doubt. But theme parks and resorts were neglected for too long, until their recent knee jerk reaction to Harry Potter!3 theme parks that were broken and/or unfinished and DCL, yes.
And I'm not saying Iger is the savior, either. But I look at the SUBSTANCE of what he created (vs a large quantity of much less substance), and I'm a little more hopeful. Not a lot, but a little.
~Thanks for the update! That's great news, it gives me a little more hope for WDW!They have fared better, actually.
Eisner, once they had completely botched the stores, sold them to another company: The Childrens Place. They almost bankrupted themselves by buying, and then trying to run, them.
Disney bought them back under Iger. They've undertaken a complete (and pretty interesting) re-do of the stores, both in terms of appearance AND in terms of the merch they carry. It's still not the boutique level experience that they started with, but it's coming closer. Last set of numbers I saw, in the most recent annual report, shows their numbers improving quite a bit. I don't think they're profitable, yet (they're still paying off the capital expense of the redos), but they're getting closer than they have been since the early years.
~Well, the values existed long before the Nick hotel and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!< j/k> I will agree that Disney did not have to go the way of motels for the values and moderates. But, the public responded in a huge way! The values are extremely popular. Whenever I check in for ME, the deluxe line is always empty and for buses that share more than half of the bus is for value and mod guests! You dont like them, but many people love them. Why is your preference more important than theirs???I would suggest you were likely in the minority. Maybe it was your upbringing or region or age..I don't know. But I can promise you that Disney has been largely in the public consciousness since the 50's (at least). They DID fade a bit in the late 70's...largely after Walts death..but not THAT far.
See, and that's the misconception. I'm not worked up over the existence of the values. I'm not too keen on the execution of the values. They're a budget motel with enormous decorations on the grounds. Yes, they serve a purpose...they're just not all that much differentiation between those, and, say, the Nickelodeon hotel. Except, of course, proximity to WDW.
Again, part of this goes back to the other discussion: decorated vs themed, and other (more substantive) ways that Disney could stratify their hotel offerings. I don't want to rehash here.
~In your opinion, how did Disney continue to strengthen their brand and build fierce loyalty with inferior products that lack substance?In terms of Disney, consumers wanted better access to the back catalog, and more substantive offerings in both California and Florida. Now...that wasn't ALL they wanted, but it was a big part of it. At least, that's what consumers were asking for in Disney's market research when they brought Eisner on. Roy talked about exactly that when installing Eisner as CEO.
There are a number of ways a brand can become stronger and successful without actually providing as much substance as previously. I don't think you could START a company and do it...you have to first build the brand to mean something.
Bose is a good example, though. They originally built their brand on quality sound equipment...really high end, hi-fi equipment. They originally continued that, while also "shrinking" the footprint.
Then, a new executive team came in, in 1979. They completely changed direction. Lower quality components, lower quality products, slapping their name on related items, licensing/buying existing tech (where before they did their own R&D), generally reducing the substance of their products.
And they ramped up the marketing machine, to an extreme level. And they raised prices to reflect the strength of their brand (pricing them at premium high end). The brand continued and has actually grown stronger.
The products? Not so much. They're overpriced, and you're paying for the name. They're not TERRIBLE...because that would actually cause harm to their brand. But they're not of the same relatively quality they were back in the 60's and 70's.
The business hasn't suffered.
It's a privately held company, which is a bit different than Disney. But it is an example of a brand able to live off their brand, strengthen it, and not actually improve or maintain the substance of their products.
~Subliminal messaging!It depends on what Disney was selling. You only remember the marketing aimed at your folks (like WDW marketing is aimed at families with young children). I have comic books from the 1970's littered with Disney marketing...and it's aimed squarely at kids of that generation. Wonderful World of Disney was, at times, a 30 minute commercial block aimed squarely at kids. The Mickey Mouse Club was a daily commercial for the Disney brand, it's merchandise, and it's movies. It was out there. Some of it was cleverly disguised...but it was there.
Anyway...with that, I'm "out" til Tuesday.
Family time weekend!
Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!
Same here! Off for a couple days unless my plans don't come together.
Love this discussion, hope I don't miss too much.
I appreciate the welcoming and hazing now that I get it.
Cheers
~Have a great weekend! It's going to take the whole weekend for me to get caught up on this thread!!!
~I get it now, & I agree. However, I have come across several reviews from guests who were initially not aware of the wing rooms, it was somewhat off-putting to discover at check in, they weren't in the tower and had to go out back.The Garden Wings were added later.
AND, the contemporary (architecturally) theme certainly matched with the original Tomorrowland as was intended.