Article : Is Animal Kindom a Failure?

[Captain Crook]

PKS, seriously you feel that those factors have not contributed to what has happened. That's amazing to me.

TDS succeded in a poor economic climate because (1) visitors stayed home due to that climate (2) TDS was only the second Disney Park in Japan and (3) Japenese folks tend to love everything Disney.

I've been to the San Diego Zoo and it is not more entertaining than Animal Kingdom.

D2000, I didn't mean to suggest that this was Disney's only goal for surely I agree with you that it was looked at from many different angles but I was merely responding to those who call it a failure for not meeting or exceeding that specific goal, like I said, even if those goals could be shown later to be unattainable...Saturation in Orlando is a big issue.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by PKS44
The notion that AK requires some sophistication to get because it involves animals is really silly...and typical of the misguided attempts to defend this park

Well, I feel it does. Not sophistication as you wrongly interpreted but a general attitude, a desire to take things slowly, take in the atmosphere and admire the attractions; the need to go on something fast, backwards and in pitch black does not really hold true to those same character features. I still think my idea that to appreciate AK you need to be of a certain persuasion still holds true, possibly more so following your latter comments about how a zoo, as you see it, does not constitute a full blown properly thought out Disney park.

Originally posted by PKS44
The idea that AK's deficiencies can all be explained away as:
1) Economy
2) Market saturation
3) Stupid public misperception of the park

Actually, they're all good ideas. Especially the last one.

Originally posted by PKS44
is all Eisner-speak--point the finger at anybody but where it belongs

This is a bit silly really, the design and concept of the park wasn't left to him, nor were any of the fine details. At most his comrades along with him decided that expansion was in order, would cost x much (which was probably not a fixed amount that early on) and concepts were subsequently passed along taster groups.

No, no matter how much of an irrational hatred you have for the man you cannot pin your perception of Animal Kingdom's success on him.

Originally posted by Captain Crook
D2000, I didn't mean to suggest that this was Disney's only goal for surely I agree with you that it was looked at from many different angles but I was merely responding to those who call it a failure for not meeting or exceeding that specific goal, like I said, even if those goals could be shown later to be unattainable...Saturation in Orlando is a big issue.

Gotcha Sorry, didn't really understand first time around - my apologies.



Rich::

 

[PKS44]

I never said the san diego zoo was MORE entertaining...and yes I seriously think those excuses are a lame attempt to cover up the failure of the overall approach in the US Disney parks...and if they had built a DisneySeas type of park (by type I mean invested in a park at a lever to really WOW people) I think they would have been reaping the rewards many times over what AK has done...seriously--

Paul

 

[Planogirl]

Again, do people go to AK because it's included and in a manner of speaking "free" or do they go because it's a worthy park to the masses and can thus stand on its own merits? Some say that it doesn't matter but I believe that it fundamentally does matter even if there is really no way to determine the answer.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by PKS44
I never said the san diego zoo was MORE entertaining

I know - that's the problem! You said that it was LESS entertaining, using it as an example with which to illustrate Animal Kingdom. Therefore, by logical connection, you think that zoos cannot constitute a Disney park?



Rich::

 

[Captain Crook]

Seriously...I think you're wrong.

Disney Sea would have been a major hit, cannibilizing from the other parks to a much greater extent. Would the increase of guests coming to Disney Sea have been greater enough (over what AK had) to offset the mamouth price tag? No way. We'd see tons of people going to WDW for the new park while the old parks whither because all of the money for new attractions was eaten up by the monster new park, which couldn't possibly earn its keep within the WDW environment...People just don't have more vacation days to give. I think Disney has learned this but folks here don't seem to accept it.

 

[PKS44]

I don't hate Eisner-- I hate what he has done to Disney---and anything done including AK is ultimately his call--the decisions to open up parks small and build later is squarely his responsibility and that is not irrational at all --your defense of him is nonrational--there is no "reason" behind it--you have some sort of blind faith that he is doing good things...despite all the real world evidence to the contrary....

A zoo as a Disney park would have been fine if it were marketed and priced as one...as it is AK is neither priced nor marketed appropriate to its value--the market has spoken on this..
I agree the park takes a different pace--but that pace has nothing to do with it being animals...zoos take a different approach than theme parks--but they are also priced quite differently from theme parks...as I said some are even free...AK is not good enough to warrant it's price or the hype it presents itself as a WOW place--it is a nice place...but not a WOW...you claimed it takes sophistication because you have to-

not mind being surrounded by animals as a main attraction.

I can just see Mr. and Mrs. Average walking through the four parks now - enchanted by Magic Kingdom, amazed at the futuristic feel of EPCOT (and secretly pleased at the Mission: Space and Test Track rides) and giggling in childish glee at the MGM ride-a-lot-a-rides philosophy.

I can also see them wondering in to Animal Kingdom, thinking "What the hell, who cares about a whole load of Animals?" and not returning until some "decent" attraction popped up.

First of all MGM does not have" a lot of rides" it has too few--still...it suffers from the same Eisnerification as AK -opened with too little still trying to catch up---

And what Mr and Mrs Average probably say is closer to "What the hell? The other parks so amazing and this is just like the zoo with a couple of rides thrown in? What is the big deal?" Sophistication has nothing to do with it....the little boy who noted that the emperor had no clothes was certainly not more sophisticated or less sophisticated...he just called it as he saw it...as has the general public in not going as much as they did when the park opened.

Paul

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"TDS succeded in a poor economic climate because (1) visitors stayed home due to that climate (2) TDS was only the second Disney Park in Japan and (3) Japenese folks tend to love everything Disney."***

Not to mention the fact that there are 130 mil people living on an island smaller then California.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by PKS44
What the hell? The other parks so amazing and this is just like the zoo with a couple of rides thrown in? What is the big deal?

You prove my point

Originally posted by PKS44
I don't hate Eisner-- I hate what he has done to Disney---and anything done including AK is ultimately his call

Not really. If that was so, he'd be just a bit busy really. Plus he's not exactly skilled in any of the professions involved - unless you think that Eisner is an architect, imagineer, CEO and cast member extraordinaire?

Originally posted by PKS44
but they are also priced quite differently from theme parks...as I said some are even free...AK is not good enough to warrant it's price or the hype it presents itself as a WOW place

I believe animals cost money to keep, especially to keep legally

Originally posted by PKS44
I don't hate Eisner

Originally posted by PKS44
First of all MGM does not have" a lot of rides" it has too few--still...it suffers from the same Eisnerification as AK -opened with too little still trying to catch up

Lots of white knuckle rides, proportionally, as I was trying to infer.

Originally posted by PKS44
there is no "reason" behind it

I'm guessing there was

That is all



Rich::

 

[Sarangel]

Not really. If that was so, he'd be just a bit busy really. Plus he's not exactly skilled in any of the professions involved - unless you think that Eisner is an architect, imagineer, CEO and cast member extraordinaire?

Actually, despite not having any of those qualifications (except, possibly, CEO), Eisner did micromanage much of the AK construction process. He likes to feel that he's part of the creative process. And he certainly had a lot to do with the slashing of the budget that killed Beastly Kingdom.

Just my $0.02

 

[dcentity2000]

I am corrected

Sarangel, I bow down



Rich::

 

[raidermatt]

It's very easy to follow the plan as long as it works but what if it's just that ideal that is no longer workable? What if Orlando is reaching all the tourists they're going to reach? What if there are just too many theme park choices? What if Americans really do have a finite amount of vacation time and money available to spend at WDW or any other venue?

All speculation because Disney did not even do what it could have done to succeed.

In other words, they didn't try.

They obviously didn't think the market was saturated or they wouldn't have built a park in both Anaheim and Orlando.

And again, it gets back to the most basic of principles... your product is everything. You can't sacrifice its quality/scope/etc because you are afraid your product might not be supported. Even if all of the things you say are true, producing something of less value only makes things worse.

You either raise the bar to the point where you can succeed, or you try something else. A less than full effort just isn't going to work, and that's even more true in the competitive environment you describe.

 

[DancingBear]

A couple of points:

--The critics say Disney didn't "try" because they didn't build everything before they opened. I say if you look at the quality, not quantity, of what was opened, they clearly "tried" and succeeded in creating top Disney-level quality.

--The critics keep talking about AK's pricing (vs. zoos, etc.), but then also say folks go there because they have APs or parkhoppers. You can't have it both ways. If folks use their parkhoppers to spend 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at AK, then spend their evenings at Epcot, what's the problem with AK's pricing?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
...People just don't have more vacation days to give. I think Disney has learned this but folks here don't seem to accept it.

Wow, that's an enlightening, big picture statement.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by raidermatt
They obviously didn't think the market was saturated or they wouldn't have built a park in both Anaheim and Orlando.

Possibly there are individual markets.

Anaheim is the original: Disneyland, "The Most Magical Place On Earth". Whilst it has a Tower Of Terror, a Monorail, two separate parks, etc, etc, it clearly possessed too little room to expand. So along came Florida, a large scale emulation of Disneyland which turned out to possess its own brand of unique characteristics. Florida was aimed at longer vacations - vacations primarily based on Disney, vacations that appealed more to the overseas market.

But not everyone overseas could afford this; along came Disneyland Paris, aimed at attracting the local countries and probably also at being a gateway introduction to all things Disney. Tokyo Disney was designed to the same end.

So perhaps the market is not yet saturated, at least as far as the global market goes. But in terms of the Floridian market only goes, or the Californian market (there lies Universal, SeaWorld, the San Diego zoo and so on), perhaps the market is indeed saturated and the areas already draw the numbers they warrant, that number only likely to change as a result of world economy and trends or a MAJOR shift in service within the areas.



Rich::

 

[raidermatt]

TDS succeded in a poor economic climate because (1) visitors stayed home due to that climate (2) TDS was only the second Disney Park in Japan and (3) Japenese folks tend to love everything Disney.

Why is it not possible that the biggest factor is that its a product that met its customers expectations? Unlike the 4th park in Orlando, the 2nd park in Anaheim, or the 2nd park in Paris?

Not sophistication as you wrongly interpreted but a general attitude, a desire to take things slowly, take in the atmosphere and admire the attractions; the need to go on something fast, backwards and in pitch black does not really hold true to those same character features.

We're not talking about something people are forced to do. This isn't required training for a job, or courses one must take to get a degree. We are talking about entertainment. If it doesn't succeed on that level, then it isn't a success.

Actually, they're all good ideas. Especially the last one.

Stupid or not, the public is where your customers come from. Its the job of the company to properly analyze what their potential customers want, or are capable of understanding, and providing it.

Providing something they "just don't get" is the fault of the company, not the customer.

No, no matter how much of an irrational hatred you have for the man you cannot pin your perception of Animal Kingdom's success on him.

When the problem is the direction and vision that drove the park, that most certainly falls at the feet of Eisner. He got what he asked for. A park designed to milk an extra day and an extra dollar out of his customers' wallets. Had he asked for something more focused on what his customers actually wanted and expected, but it was not delivered, perhaps more responsibility could be shifted downward. (Even though it would still be his responsibility to get the right people in the right jobs to execute his vision). But since that isn't what happened, you cannot absolve the man of the responsibility. (For what its worth, my personal feelings towards the man are indifferent. Don't know him. I think he is doing a bad job overall, but that's an analysis of his actions, not of him.)

 

[raidermatt]

People just don't have more vacation days to give. I think Disney has learned this but folks here don't seem to accept it.


Wow, that's an enlightening, big picture statement.

If that is the case, why in the world is Disney building parks trying to get more of those days?

If there just isn't that demand out there, it makes AK even more of a failure because it never should have been built.

Again, what you are describing is a highly competitive environment. The only way to succeed in such an environment is to raise the bar. That's a harsh, and maybe even unfair, reality of business.

But its a reality nonetheless.

Intentionally producing something that lowers the bar is not going to get the job done.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Knowing the way Disney tracks data, I think it's fair to say they thought adding AK would keep guests in the parks an extra day or two without people having to book more then the normal 7-8 day trip. To some extent they were right, WDW basically have added approx 7.5 mil guests to their parks- thats more then twice the total going to Seaworld. Maybe some of you old timers can answer this: Back when it was just MK, how many days out of a weeks vacation were spent on property.When EPCOT was added, did you spend less time at MK, less time off property, or add more days to your trip. What happened when MGM opened ?

 

[Captain Crook]

I'm sorry Matt but I just don't understand your argument to my view...I mean it seems like we're not talking about the same issues at core...

Disney isn't building any parks in the US that I know of and I haven't heard of plans to build any. Building a park in China will have no bearing on WDW.

Maybe in your view AK is more of a failure because it should have never have been built but can't you accept that maybe, just maybe they just hit the wall? That perhaps they finally misjudged their acceptance levels? That after AK they realized that 'build it and they will come' just doesn't work? I know this plays into your quality theory and I can accept that except that it is my belief that Orlando just isn't going to be pulling in anymore people. This is how it appears to me as no one is experiencing boom times. Everyones getting by but the heyday is over.

RE: Raising the bar. On this I'd like to agree and hope that this will happen, after all it'd be good for me too, but I just go back to the saturation issue of Orlando. I think we could see a Disney Sea type venture in the US but it won't be in Orlando...

Therefore, I don't think they are intentionally lowering the bar but rather playing to the prosective audience. I'll agree that I'd like more and that it would be heraded by Disney affecianados everywhere as an awesome move, but if the numbers aren't there it isn't going to get done. Business over creativity? Sadly, yes.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by raidermatt
We're not talking about something people are forced to do. This isn't required training for a job, or courses one must take to get a degree. We are talking about entertainment. If it doesn't succeed on that level, then it isn't a success.

No, you never have to take a life exam, this is true - I am simply pointing out that people of certain dispositions may find themselves rather more attracted to the park than others, more so in this park than any of the others (in my opinion) as it appears to be aimed at rather more of a niche market.

On the subject of customer satisfaction, this is sadly a rather difficult thing to quantify - for example, if 5 million people visit the park, that's good. If 3 million visit the park and love it whereas 2 million visit the park and soon leave, realising that it isn't their cup of tea, then that could actually be seen to be better - though not from the point of view of those who did not like it. This is a problem in each park - I know two people who consider Magic Kingdom to be too cute, several who see E.P.C.O.T. as dull and a couple who see MGM as 'just not me'. Perhaps we are seeing this in a slightly more accented way with Animal Kingdom but not in a fanatical sense, not by any means.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Providing something they "just don't get" is the fault of the company, not the customer.

No product is free from criticism, no product absolved from compliment. If a product is unilaterally slated or done so by a majority then yes, the company or producer is at fault in the research carried out into market conditions. But I would still hold that things are not any where near this bad in the Animal Kingdom.

Originally posted by raidermatt
For what its worth, my personal feelings towards [M. Eisner] the man are indifferent. Don't know him. I think he is doing a bad job overall, but that's an analysis of his actions, not of him

Fair enough

Originally posted by raidermatt
Had he asked for something more focused on what his customers actually wanted and expected, but it was not delivered, perhaps more responsibility could be shifted downward. (Even though it would still be his responsibility to get the right people in the right jobs to execute his vision). But since that isn't what happened, you cannot absolve the man of the responsibility.

Sadly, that's just speculation of the contents of one man's thoughts and also rather off topic I guess; whatever his involvement with the park design (quite hefty according to Sarangel) or his execution of the research you are right in saying that it is impossible to absolve him of responsibility; what he is responsible for (a success or a failure) is what is under discussion.

As for business over creativity, I'm not convinced Captain. I'm not entirely dismissive though - the subsequent modifications would credit that take on the park. But the niche nature of the fundamentals still suggest "let's try something interesting" to me. Thinking out loud here though, that could be traced back even further to suggest that the unique quality would play from a business standpoint. Which it didn't. I dunno. Discuss



Rich::