Disneyworld needs updated to better attract tweens and teens

[Mad Hattered]

Originally Posted by North of Mouse

Disney was never meant to be another Busch Gardens or Six Flags.

Do you see the attendance down or something, that makes you think they need to attract more people?

I, for one, do not want it to turn into a series of parks that attract mainly thrill seekers, ie. teenagers, adults that mainly want that type of rides. That is not what Disney is all about. It's to attract *families*.

I don't see by the attendance crowds that anything needs changing. Don't worry, Disney is watching their bottom line and has it under control. The crowds are growing by the year, and it's hard to even find a slow (er) time anymore to go.

Why do you think Disney got on the DVC bandwagon? People are basically compelled (to a degree, as long as they're owners) to spend time at Disney. There are thousands of units that are rented out 52 times a year (using a i wk. timetable). Disney is smart like a fox, they know exactly what they are doing.

stag·nant
adj.
1. Not moving or flowing; motionless.
2. Foul or stale from standing: stagnant ponds.
3.
a. Showing little or no sign of activity or advancement; not developing or progressing; inactive: a stagnant economy.
b. Lacking vitality or briskness; sluggish or dull: a stagnant mind.

[minnie mum]

Originally Posted by davedmaine

What?? If Disney can't attract teens, they're going to make mom & dad go somewhere else. Teens/tweens are critical to Disney; 15 years from now when these kids have kids of their own, they're not going to think Disney..

This might actually matter if:

1. Teens were the people who determined where families went on their vacations.

2. All teens hated visiting WDW as things stand right now.

I don't think either one of these is true in the vast majority of cases.

[andyman8]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

This is rather ridiculous. I would have said the same thing 10 years ago when I was childless.

Disney does not NEED to do anything. It does just fine focusing on the demographic it has chosen. It has not chosen teenagers wanting thrill rides. They are not interested in catering to that demographic. They also know that if they did, if they started changing the timber of their guests, they could drive away their bread and butter.

If thrill rides are your thing, that's fine. There are plenty of options for you. Disney is not going to cater to that 'thing'.

Well, no Disney doesn't need to do anything but if they want to maintain their strong lead in theme parks, then they need to; it's simple economics. Disney has enjoyed monopoly-like power (in that UOR was merely an after-thought) for years but with the WWoHP, they've been challenged and WDW has recognized it and responded with things like Avatar-land.

As far as my personal preference goes, it means nothing to WDW if I prefer thrill rides or dark rides but when you're trying to beat the competition, most economists would argue (I assume) that expanding your demographics is a good place to start.

I don't see why someone would honestly have a problem with Disney expanding their current selection of attractions. It's not like they're tearing down "it's a small world" and putting in a turbo-coaster. They have plenty of space, so why not EXPAND their demographics. The only logical reason that I could see someone being opposed to more thrill rides at WDW would be them wanting the money to be spent elsewhere.

[tinkerpea]

I've been going to Disney for years and I love it!

But it could do with a few more thrill rides, we all know how amazing space mountain, RnR TOT etc are and so why not add a few more? Where is the harm.

I can't see how adding a few more thrill style rides will take from the magic in any way!
I have 3 boys aged 10,7,7 everyone says about Disney being a family park, where everybody rides together well sorry but not all the rides they have now can be done together?!

There's been plenty of times where the youngest boys did not make the height to ride with the oldest and mum & dad so what's the difference between that & how it will work if a few more where added?.
I'm sure Disney won't just stick a random coaster in the middle of a park it would be themed suitably just like the rest.

[North of Mouse]

Originally Posted by davedmaine

Seems like I'm the only one here who gets what you're saying. Disney is lacking a coolness factor. I agree with what you're saying.

Disney has never been about the *coolness* factor, that's not the type park it is, and what draws so many families year after year to it.

Originally Posted by Mad Hattered

stag·nant
adj.
1. Not moving or flowing; motionless.
2. Foul or stale from standing: stagnant ponds.
3.
a. Showing little or no sign of activity or advancement; not developing or progressing; inactive: a stagnant economy.
b. Lacking vitality or briskness; sluggish or dull: a stagnant mind.

Ma-lar-key - meaningless talk!
noun

Disney is not *stagnant* in the majority of people's minds. If that is your opinion, so be it, but IMO, it's great the way it is, and the growth that I see that is still attracting what was intended - *families*

[Laketravis]

It's a good thing some of these people don't actually run Disney or WDW would be nothing but Bippity-Boppity-Boo and Dole Whips and if you don't like it then stay out of our park because Disney knows that's what we like.

Somewhat a myopic point of view, don't you think?

Some put forth that Disney is a "family" park. And Six Flags isn't? Are parents not allowed in? Last time I went to Six Flags (which is several times a year) with my seven year old, there was nothing but families. Little kids there have just as much fun on the lame-duck rides like the bus that goes up and down as kids who ride Dumbo. Frankly, a four year old doesn't know the difference, they are both fun.

But a fourteen year old does see a difference. And they aren't as interested in Dumbo as the mom with a three year old, which sometimes it's hard to tell who is having a better time - mom or the three year old.

If you think Disney doesn't need to be paying attention to that, then you probably need to go back to reading your newspaper and waiting for the milkman to ring your doorbell. In twenty more years that fourteen year old isn't going to be much interested in taking his/her five year old daughter to WDW, because that fourteen year old didn't derive the same nostalgic value from their time at WDW "present day" as some of us did 25 or even 35 years ago.

Epcot is not going to lure "tweens" back for decades to come. Nor is HS or AK or even the new Fantasy Land. They aren't seeing the same level of "magic" we did decades ago.

People who talk about increased attendance don't know the reality. Disney is squeezing more $$$ out of each guest visit, but attendance is flat. There wouldn't be CM's with clipboards taking guest surveys if everything was rosy.

[Gumbo4x4]

Originally Posted by minnie mum

This might actually matter if:

1. Teens were the people who determined where families went on their vacations.

2. All teens hated visiting WDW as things stand right now.

I don't think either one of these is true in the vast majority of cases.

We ask our kids' opinions before picking a vacation spot. Last thing I want to do is spend thousands of dollars to drag my kids somewhere they don't want to be. That's no fun for anyone. My oldest is 12 & I can only see my concern for her "approval" re: our vacation destinations increasing as she gets older.

[disneycat321]

Originally Posted by minnie mum

This might actually matter if:

1. Teens were the people who determined where families went on their vacations.

2. All teens hated visiting WDW as things stand right now.

I don't think either one of these is true in the vast majority of cases.

Exactly - all teens definitely do not hate Disney! DLR is my home park, and there are TONS of teens there, believe me! I remember being really jealous of my friends with DLR APs back in high school. They used to go with huge groups of friends. Some of them also loved going up to Six Flags Magic Mountain and riding all those thrill rides. They didn't like Disney any less because there were less thrill rides - they liked them both for different reasons. Obviously not all teens will like Disney, but plenty of them do!!

[Planogirl]

Actually, Disney is a little tame for me and I'm no teenager! However I can get my more thrilling fix elsewhere while Disney is still its easy, comfortable self which is fine with me.

[Mad Hattered]

Originally Posted by North of Mouse

Disney has never been about the *coolness* factor, that's not the type park it is, and what draws so many families year after year to it.




Ma-lar-key - meaningless talk!
noun

Disney is not *stagnant* in the majority of people's minds. If that is your opinion, so be it, but IMO, it's great the way it is, and the growth that I see that is still attracting what was intended - *families*

I've been attending WDW regularly since 1972 so forgive my ever-evolving opinion of it. Believe it or not, as much as I still like Disney, I can tell that they switched up the Kool-Aid recipe to include the magical pink packet stuff instead of real sugar.

If you got past my malarkey in the post then you will see my ticker states I will be at Disney pretty darn soon. Exactly two of those days will be spent at Disney while the next four will be spent at other parks in the area. That is a stat that is increasing and beyond any argument. Perhaps if the Execs running the show would do something about it then they could go back to using real sugar in their coffee instead of having to settle for the pink packet stuff.

[BadgerGirl84]

There are theme parks all over the country that focus on thrill rides. They are called Six Flags and many aren't doing well financially.

OP, seems like you are mostly sad that your little girls are growing up and riding Small World with mom isn't as fun to them as it once was. Sorry to hear that...must be a sad moment for a Disney parks fan.

My sister and I loved WDW since we were young girls in grade school, through high school, and we took a trip with our mom just las year. I was 28 and my sister was 24. Our love for WDW just as it is has never changed.

I love thrill rides, but I would be disappointed if Disney focused all of their investments in the parks on scary coasters. I'd like to see more E-ticket rides that the whole family can enjoy (things like Soarin, RSR in Cars Land, TSM, etc)

[fla4fun]

Originally Posted by andyman8

I don't see why someone would honestly have a problem with Disney expanding their current selection of attractions. It's not like they're tearing down "it's a small world" and putting in a turbo-coaster. They have plenty of space, so why not EXPAND their demographics. The only logical reason that I could see someone being opposed to more thrill rides at WDW would be them wanting the money to be spent elsewhere.

Well, they did take out one of my favorite dark rides, Snow White, with the excuse that they didn't want the similarly themed new mine coaster to be in the same area. Since I don't like coasters (never have, as a child, tween, teen or adult) I lost an attraction in that swap.

I don't mind if they ADD so long as they don't REPLACE. When the balance of family attractions vs. thrill rides tips too far over in the thrill direction, then those of us who don't enjoy thrill rides won't have any reason to go. The balance is what is important so that there is always plenty of attractions that the whole family can ride together.

If you look at most of the marketing Disney does, it appears their target demographic right now is mostly families with young children up to the tween years. You seldom see tweens, teens, or adults targeted in the ads these days. I remember when they did target adults and empty nesters in their ad campaigns, but that's been quite a while ago. I think that mindset is obvious from the configuration of the new Fantasyland. Although I won't be riding the new coaster, it will probably be a family coaster along the lines of BTMRR, and no one can accuse the rest of NFL of being skewed toward anything but families.

[Goofy_Girl]

My DD16 loves Disney =) I think like others have said it's more about the atmosphere than thrill rides. You go there to be immersed in magic and feel like a kid again. It's the one place I get to see my big girl act like a little girl again

[bytheblood]

I don't see any issues as far as rides and attractions go. Either you love Disney-themed attractions or you don't. I think the area where they really lack is souvenirs and clothing.

[FortForever]

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

I don't agree. Disney World's demographic is not thrill rides. It is not teens touring alone in screaming bundles waiting to drop from some obscene height. Its demographic is families. Rides are theatrical experiences, not just a pit in your stomach while you briefly wonder if you might die. That's Universal Studio's demographic.

Exactly. Besides, just about every other park in the country caters to those looking for thrill rides. Why try to change Disney? It's different from everything else out there and I hope it always is.

Originally Posted by ThreeBeans

Ours too. I don't think they 'blew it' at all. And I think Disney would miss the mark if it opened a thrill ride park.

Agree again. I love Animal Kingdom. A separate thrill park would just not fit with Disney's model.

Originally Posted by Mad Hattered

So just to be clear here.....most of you are stating that if Disney were to include just one single ride somewhere in one of the parks that the entire family couldn't be included in it would destroy Disney?? Would the "magic" just up and poof on you?

Ummm, those already exist.

Originally Posted by andyman8

That being said, OP won't find much sympathy as most posters on this board are parents of younger ones thus that money must go to attractions for their kids.

A ridiculous statement. My kids are grown and my family all enjoy thrill rides. I would just hate to see Disney ever become a place that wasn't kid friendly.