Opinions on the "El Rio Del Tiempo" theme.

[Keyser]

The guesstimated annual attendence for Magic Kingdom at WDW, the worlds most visited themepark for 2005, the last year that guesses were made was 16.1 Million guests.


3/4 of that is 12.075 million. Nobody attempts to guess WDW's total attendence. Epcot was 9.1, MGM and AK were both in the mid 8 millions, but much of that is hopper passes. Those pesky multiday passes and hopping ability make it hard to guess.
It's probably safe to just use the MK number though. The number of people that went to WDW and didn't go to MK is probably minescule.

So, yes, the Smithsonian has higher attendance.

That was attendance at Smithsonian venues combined. I expect plenty of people visit the Air&Space museum, the American History museum, and the Natural history museum on one trip. Just like people visit MK, Epcot, AK, MGM on one trip.

In other words, to give a fair comparison, you need to either count unique visitors (i.e. somehow eliminate "hopping" at both WDW and the Smithsonian - as you said, this is tough to figure), or take the combined attendance. By your numbers, the combined attendance gives something like >41 million/year for WDW, vs. maybe 23 million/year at the Smithsonian (and that assumes that the last 3 months had visitation rates the same as the first 9 - not likely since summer is by far the most attended there).

So no, the Smithsonian does not have higher attendance than WDW. If you want to claim that the Smithsonian has greater attendance than just MK, you need to figure out how many unique visitors there were to the Smithsonian. As one example, the Air & Space museum had 9.4 million visitors at its peak in 2003, but was down to 5 million last year**. I don't know that you're going to have any more luck figuring out the unique attendance at other locations. But, it's not clear to me that the Smithsonian unique attendance numbers are going to be higher than MK's.



** See: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-02-20-space-museum-attendance_x.htm

 

[YoHo]

You're answering a question that was never asked.

How many days does one spend at WDW versus the Smithsonian? You can't just generalize the way you're trying to do. We don't have enough figures to do it. We either need to draw a very broad comparison, or we need to draw a very narrow one.

And, none of that matters, because it's NOT THE FRACKIN POINT!!

The point is the frickin millions of frickin people go outto Frickin Museums on Vacation, so the idea that somehow they don't want to be educated, they want to be entertained is a great big stinking pile of bull poop.

 

[TheDogbots]

lol... it is like comparing apples and oranges. Because they also cater to different groups... So it would just be too hard to compare. I only asked for a clarification because I have read so many articles and books that listed WDW having more visitors than the smithsonian, which meant in their eyes, WDW had more of a cultural output on how we perceive history...

 

[raidermatt]

The comparison was to MK, not WDW, so that piece can be dropped.

As for the Smithsonian, the number was actually 17.4 million attendees during the first 8, not 9, months of '06. That makes 21 or 22 million a more reasonable estimate, and that's in a down year.

If the question is unique visitors, I don't think its all that fair to claim so many duplicate visitors at the museums. I doubt many people take the effort to go there, then try to fly through 5 museums in a day. But sure, there are some duplicates I'm sure, just as there are at MK. Really, how many people go to WDW and only spend one day at MK the whole year? Certainly the vast majority of AP holders and DVC owners don't. MYW tickets of anything more than 4 or 5 days almost certainly includes multiple admissions to the MK for individuals. Then there's locals who go a couple of times (or more per year).

No, they both have there fair share of repeat visitors I'm sure.

The Smithsonian had 17.4 million visitors through August this year, down from 18.3 million in the same time period this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-09-20-smithsonian_x.htm

Regardless, as YoHo said, a buch of people apparently are willing to be educated with minimal entertainment.

Imagine what Disney could do with that market using their creative capabilities and resources?

If Edutainment is dead, its only because Disney quit trying.

 

[raidermatt]

lol... it is like comparing apples and oranges. Because they also cater to different groups... So it would just be too hard to compare. I only asked for a clarification because I have read so many articles and books that listed WDW having more visitors than the smithsonian, which meant in their eyes, WDW had more of a cultural output on how we perceive history...

Again though, the claim was vs. MK, not WDW.

I think there is quite a bit of overlap between the groups, but your comment is important. Having an Epcot that focuses on that group broadens WDW's overall appeal.

After all, isn't that what Disney is trying to do with the Four Seasons idea? Expand its market to acheive growth?

If you make every park and land essentially a different version of Fantasyland, aren't you narrowing your focus?

 

[Keyser]

You're answering a question that was never asked.

I'm not answering a question. I was replying to your post (which might lead back to the original claim by AV) that used attendance figures in a way that I don't think is valid.

How many days does one spend at WDW versus the Smithsonian? You can't just generalize the way you're trying to do. We don't have enough figures to do it. We either need to draw a very broad comparison, or we need to draw a very narrow one.

I'm not the one generalizing from these numbers. Yes, if you wanted a real comparsion, you'd need to account for a lot, including things like people who go to the Smithsonian (on field trips/class trips) and WDW (e.g. for band/cheerleading competition) not of their own "free will." In other words, it's tough to compare the two and you shouldn't go around saying things like the Smithsonian clearly has higher attendance, or that this relative attendance between the two really says much of anything. If you want to use the numbers to say "lots of people still go to museums", that's fine.

And, none of that matters, because it's NOT THE FRACKIN POINT!!

OK. But again, I'm not the one who brought it up...

The point is the frickin millions of frickin people go outto Frickin Museums on Vacation, so the idea that somehow they don't want to be educated, they want to be entertained is a great big stinking pile of bull poop.

Seriously, it's not necesssary to get so worked up about it!

Museum attendance was brought up to point out that people are interested in being educated. I don't want to argue that basic point that people like to learn. But, to play devil's advocate, the article I linked to above states that museum attendance has flattened out (and declined at the Smithsonian) recently. This might be an indication that the public is in fact becoming less interested in being educated, and more interested in being entertained.

Of course, Disney used to be one of the best at using entertainment to educate. I don't know if the company even has that interest anymore, though (which is sad). And, if their only motivation is "give people what they want", then less education and more entertainment might be the response.

 

[Another Voice]

But, to play devil's advocate,

Yet attendance at WDW is down too. And the Smithsonian lacks the luxury of offering free food, hotel discounts and a hundred million dollar markerting campaign screaming how "affordable" they are. Imagine were WDW would be at this point without the giveaways.

The point is that the average tourist is interested in a lot more than character dinners and rollercoasters. People travel for all kinds of reasons, far more reasons than the average Disney fan wants to understand.

Disney used to make a point to go after these people. That was the whole reason behind EPCOT Center, to entertain adults and older childern using the techniques developed for the Magic Kingdom.

But instead of continuing along that line, Epcot was dumbed down for the "my five year old laughs" crowd. Disney did it because it seemed like easy money on the surface. But the result has been to narrow the market for WDW - and that is never a good thing. WDW's recovery from its high in 2000 and the downturn of 9/11 has lagged far behind what other destinations have seen.

It can all be summed up in what one person told me about a trip to WDW - "Too crowded, too expensive, too childish".

 

[MJMcBride]

Yet attendance at WDW is down too. And the Smithsonian lacks the luxury of offering free food, hotel discounts and a hundred million dollar markerting campaign screaming how "affordable" they are. Imagine were WDW would be at this point without the giveaways.

Thats not a fair comparison. The Smithsonian is but a part of travelers DC vacation. And it has more of a local crowd.

A trip to WDW may be too crowded, its certainly too expensive. But "too childish". I don't buy it.

 

[raidermatt]

But, to play devil's advocate, the article I linked to above states that museum attendance has flattened out (and declined at the Smithsonian) recently. This might be an indication that the public is in fact becoming less interested in being educated, and more interested in being entertained.

The article also provides a number of other hypotheses on why that is happening. Regardless, its a very short term trend. To say this has all of a sudden happened in the last couple of years just doesn't seem nearly as plausible as the other reasons given.

Besides, Disney started moving away from Edutainment long before this recent blip in museum attendance.

A trip to WDW may be too crowded, its certainly too expensive. But "too childish". I don't buy it.

Why not? It's always been one of the problems Disney has faced, both at DL and WDW. Pre-teens start to see Disney as kid's stuff, and that continues in many cases until they eventually have children of their own. It's long been a market Disney has struggled to get, and that's hardly a secret.

Then you have adults who just don't like cartoons and Disney's "Magical" aspect never has and never will do anything for them. Some of these people will still make the trip "for the kids", but still, Mickey Mouse, cartoons, etc. will always be kids' stuff to them.

Epcot provided a form of family entertainment that didn't hit you over the head with the "kids' stuff". Again, it went after a different segment of that family market, and it did it well.

When you start putting those characters everywhere, yeah, the people who like them and already love WDW will be happy. But really, there is already PLENTY of things at WDW for them. The people that don't want to be inundated with characters, however, will find fewer and fewer places in the parks that pique their interest. Again, its a narrowing of focus at a time when Disney is trying very hard in other area to expand their markets, not narrow them.

And as far as "edutainment" specifically, we need to remember that Disney's philosophy on that was still entertainment first, education second. It's not like Epcot or Tomorrowland were meant to be museums. But Disney used to believe, and rightfully so, that they could entertain people in different ways. At the very least, they have clearly lost some of that belief, and now feel they need to use characters in order to entertain, which is unfortunate.

 

[Buzz2001]

The point is that the average tourist is interested in a lot more than character dinners and rollercoasters. People travel for all kinds of reasons, far more reasons than the average Disney fan wants to understand.

And there are many locations outside of WDW that already exist that fit the bill. WDW isn't for everyone.

Disney used to make a point to go after these people. That was the whole reason behind EPCOT Center, to entertain adults and older childern using the techniques developed for the Magic Kingdom.

Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?

 

[Another Voice]

And there are many locations outside of WDW that already exist that fit the bill. WDW isn't for everyone.

One of those reasons why those locations are setting records while WDW hasn't even recovered to its 9/11 levels, let alone it's highs in 2000. Disney is on the verge of becoming a marginal attraction of interest only to parents of five year-old and the adults with Tinker Belle "issues". WDW didn't really become a vacation destination until the opening of EPCOT Center - and attracting more than families.

Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=17424428&postcount=7

 

[DancingBear]

Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?

EPCOT Center opened in 1982--no, it wasn't tanking in 1984 when Eisner arrived. Under Eisner, however, the place was largely neglected, and the entire theme of Future World was lost in the shuffle.

 

[DC7800]

Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?

Uh...put simply...NO. This is nothing but revisionist history - if you repeat the fiction long enough and with conviction, it may become accepted as fact.

Even if the park's 1980's attendance didn't belie such statements, just where are all these attractions Eisner brought to the place? Yes, Epcot did eventually became stagnant - solely because of the lack of investment in the place. That happens when you don't add much of anything new (or even make major changes) for fifteen years or so.

 

[CanadianGuy]

This thread was an interesting read.

I'm certainly an active complainer about certain attractions. I've complained loudly about Stitch and continue to do so .. actively and openly on the boards and sometimes even at guest relations when I am at the parks.

All that said.. If you were to rate Epcot attractions on the old A thru E ticket scale from years past.. El Rio might have rated a B ticket in my ticket book... maybe. Right now Mission Space, Soarin and Test Track are Epcot's E ticket attractions.

Does any change to El Rio necessitate something that would bring it to a C or D ticket level? I dunno. They can't ALL be E-Ticket level attractions.

When you stop and think about it .. Splash Mountain .. while fun for the log-drop alone .. doesn't have much else going for it. It's a ride through a few audio animatronic scenes from a 40 year old movie that isn't even available for viewing anymore... Those scenes are lushly built and well displayed with a big drop that sometimes gets wet at the end.

It's hardly 'groundbreaking' by today's standards. I still like it tho.

Does Epcot need one or two more things (in addition to the Nemo/Crush stuff) of interest to small children besides a character greet -- in my opinion yes.

Is this the best place to put it?

Uhhh.... my gut says no. I just think if you want to do something for kids, there is a giant pavillion waiting for a rehab (WoL) that would be a great place for something for smaller children.

As for El Rio... I'm reserving judgement till I see it. Might be a tough comparison tho.. I haven't been on El Rio since 1998. I barely remember it. It ranked just above "complete waste of time" -- for me.

I recognize my tastes don't reflect those of the universe at large. For some people it may have been just what they wanted. Fair enough.

Knox

 

[DancingBear]

When you stop and think about it .. Splash Mountain .. while fun for the log-drop alone .. doesn't have much else going for it. It's a ride through a few audio animatronic scenes from a 40 year old movie that isn't even available for viewing anymore... Those scenes are lushly built and well displayed with a big drop that sometimes gets wet at the end.

Uhhhhh, it's those scenes that make this an immersive Disney storytelling ride, and not just another log flume ride. And those aren't just scenes from a 40 year old movie (I don't know why the age of the movie matters anyway), they're from a classic American folk tale.

 

[CanadianGuy]

They are immersive and it is a story telling ride. Yes on both counts.

But I've never seen that movie and I've never heard of that folk tale anywhere but Disney. Must be a Canadian/American difference I suppose. And the age of the movie is less important than the fact that its nearly impossible to see if you haven't seen it already.

I'd like very much to see the movie.. before I die, but because of it's content (or whatever reason), I likely never will unless I buy a Japanese laserdisc on EBay.

All points well off the beaten path.

I guess my post came about in part because I just had my eyes opened by going to Disney with a newbie last month who... while appreciative of some aspects of the parks... wasn't nearly as wowed by the place as I always have been.

He asked a lot good questions about things like Splash Mountain and some other attractions with individual histories and backstories that may not be clear to the casual first-time visitor. And it really made me think about the relevance of some historical attractions in the grand scheme of the parks to the newbie visitor.

I know the history and backstory of a lot of the attractions and appreciate them on a much different level than he did. I tried to explain some things.. but you can't explain everything in the middle of the park.

Now it IS worth noting that we didn't spend a lot of time in queue areas for rides because non-existent lines.. so a lot of the theme-ing leading into certain attractions was lost on him.

Sorry for hijacking the thread off the topic of Rio.

Knox

 

[DancingBear]

Some folks don't get it. So what, I don't want the parks designed around their viewpoint. If they think those "few animatronic scenes" are just a waste of time before the drop, I don't want their approach to prevail. Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion weren't based on any movies, 40 years old or otherwise, and they did just fine.

 

[CanadianGuy]

He didn't think they were a waste of time.. (apologies if I inferred or implied that) he just didn't understand because he did not know the story.

And I'm not suggesting changing anything. It was just eye-opening that's all.

Knox

 

[HarambeGuy]

I thought of this the other day. Let's see, if the description of the rehab is correct we've got a collection of scenes where Donald Duck goes madly chasing through in pursuit of something. Maybe they should change the name to Mickey's PhilharMexico?

 

[raidermatt]

I thought of this the other day. Let's see, if the description of the rehab is correct we've got a collection of scenes where Donald Duck goes madly chasing through in pursuit of something. Maybe they should change the name to Mickey's PhilharMexico?

I like it.

Though I'm not clear if Donald is the chaser or the chasee in this one. "Finding Donald" has also been suggested.

I guess my post came about in part because I just had my eyes opened by going to Disney with a newbie last month who... while appreciative of some aspects of the parks... wasn't nearly as wowed by the place as I always have been.

This is a good point, and I think the comments on Splash specifically made the whole thing sound a little different than intended.

I agree about the ground-breaking part, to the extent that it wasn't necessarily technologically groundbreaking. But the things that were done were done to a far greater degree than what had been done before. In addition to the mountain itself and all of interior and exterior scenes, I think the drop was the steepest around or close to it at the time it opened.

But you're right that there are a lot of people out there, including the majority of the guests at the parks, that are not Disney Fanatics like most of us. To them, WDW is a reasonable choice for a vacation, but its not some magical or mystical place. Sure, they generally have fun, but they don't see Disney as the keepers of all that is Magic and they really do just evaluate the place based on the value they get for their dollar.

That's a lot of what I/we are trying to get at when we take Disney to task for things. It's often said that the average guest doesn't notice the details like we do, but I don't buy that. They may not view it in the same context, but an empty Coke bottle is litter to them just as it is to us. Burned out lights are burned out lights. Audio that doesn't work properly is hard for them to hear just as it is for us (Harder probably, since they can't fill in the gaps from memory). The difference is they won't complain, they'll just let what they see impact their decision about when/if they will come back, same as they do when they visit somewhere else.

To bring this back to Rio/Gran, those average guests want creativity and originality just like we do. Clearly they were interested in the original concept of FW/WS. The park continued to draw well for years despite having most of its expansion and updating plans vaporized.

Edutainment worked. The only reason Epcot's attendance eventually waned was that those expansion and updates largely never materialized. Even then, the new parks, built to entertain the "modern" guest, never caught it in terms of attenadance.

That average guest may not know or care about the inner workings of the company, or about most of its history. But some of them enjoyed Disney's ability to entertain without a cartoon duck (or mouse, or princess, etc.) as much as we did.

If Disney really wants to appeal to a broader market, how does it make sense to convert so many areas and attractions to character-based? Those guests are already coming to WDW, and they already have lots of what they want. Its the guests that are just never going to buy into the "magic", but want family entertainment that is more than "kids stuff" that are going to be turned off by this.