Article : Is Animal Kindom a Failure?

[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.

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]

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 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 )

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]

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

 

[grinningghost]

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]

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]

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]

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



Rich::

 

[WDW_DV]

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]

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]

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!!??
please that is the lamest number spin I have ever seen...

 

[OnWithTheShow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wishing Voice would post more is akin to wishing that I would not, I would think...

 

[Another Voice]

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.

 

[mitros]

You guys continue with your long winded posts, but you are not saying anything different then what you have already said. It's all becoming quite fuzzy and out of focus. IMHO.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

And with mitros last post I retire from this thread.

Boy I feel like Michael Jordan all of a sudden.

 

[Captain Crook]

Ouch.