This is another example of one of the things that is maddening about the discussions on this (and other) Disney boards.
Disney had a way of doing things unlike just about any other company. Because of that philosophy, they became something that attracted millions of fans. Not just customers. Not just guests. FANS. Its the only reason this board is even here.
However, they have become a company that largely does things like most other companies.
Nothing inherently wrong with that. Many companies make money doing things like everybody else.
But that's not what created the things that have brought us together to have these discussions. If Disney had done things that way from the beginning, we'd all be spending time doing something besides reading and typing about Disney.
Why is that maddening? Because every single one of us should realize the problem with Disney doing things like everybody else. I shouldn't have to explain why the "Disney way" is the best way for Disney to people who already know that.
Yet I (and others) continue to find ourselves having to do just that.
So, here I go again...
Well, #5 AK does ok with #6 and #7 just a few miles north of it. What would #6 & 7's numbers be without 2,3,4 & 5 ? Would that make USF/IOA failures ?
Yes, Universal Orlando owes its existence to Walt Disney World. It would never have been built without WDW.
But that's hardly the doing of AK.
By every possible measurement Disney themselves uses, Einser's Disney, mind you, the park is a failure. It failed to reach attendance projections, it failed to add the length of stays it was supposed to, its had its hours slashed to less than a normal work day, they've had to tell people it ain't a zoo for 5 years now, etc, etc, etc.
It doesn't matter why AK is number 5...It just is.
It matters if you really want to understand what people think, and you know it.
The only reason it struggles at all is that it has to compete with the other established and more conventional Disney Parks.
You've got to be kidding me.
I have to ask for clarification before I really answer this Pete, er Captain. Are you actually saying that AK is HURT by being in WDW?
Besides who ever said that the goal of each Park was to be able to "stand alone"?
Do I have to start breaking out quotes from the dead guy about exceeding expectations and giving the public everything you can give them?
Or if you prefer more "business school" type terms, think of things like consistent value.
The success of DL, MK and Epcot are blessings for Disney. But as is always the case, it comes with a responsibility in the public's eyes. Like it or not, they have expectations. When there's not even an attempt to open a park that provides consistent value, they ain't gonna like it.
If Disney is going to open a park and promote it and price it as an equal to what already exists, they have to deliver. Its hard enough to do that when you try. When you start opening parks with 12-15 attractions, even the slowest of the herd can figure out they are being taken for granted.
That's not the Disney way. Its not why I love Disney (and have given them a bunch of money), and it's not why any of you have done the same.
Disney is fully aware of their failures and new management will address these issues going forward provided they remain an independent company.
So you defend it against being a failure, but then say Disney is fully aware of the failure?
Which is it?
Eisner will go, even if it's not untill his contract expiration in 2006.
Far from a given, though I agree its likely.
Still, as has been said many times by many people arguing against Eisner's ouster now, there is no guarantee that "Magically" solves Disney's problems. If Eisner lasts until his contract expires, it likely means the financial numbers are adequate and we are less likely to get anyone who is going to significantly change things.
We either change the standards by which we measure Disney, or we will get more of the same.
We can sit and complain about the past or we can discuss hope for the future.
Or we can discuss it logically, understanding this is not a Disney film we are watching that will inevitably give us a happy ending.
How they got to be #5, via hoppers or free add on days or single day ticket purchases is irrelevent.
I'm sorry Pete, er, Captain, but that's a ridiculous statement. If IOA cut its prices in half, it would surely pass AK in attendance, but there's no way in heck you would say the price cut is irrelevant.
WDW like any business must massage its policies and procedures to maximize the current profit potential. Mr. Show is right in stating travel and economy concerns, not as an excuse for lowered expectations but rather for changes in policies to adapt to different circumstances...Nothing wrong with that.
Except that they are, in fact, excuses. AK failed to meet expectations before the economy faltered, and long before travel concerns began. Those factors merely exacerbated the problem, they didn't cause it.
As for AK specifically, we know you've long been an detractor of what was built but you fail to give acceptance to those of us who generally like what was built.
That's because what you, AV, I, or anyone else on this board like is irrelevant when we try to determine whether AK is a failure.
Lets all remember that it's the new kid on the block and is still growing. MGM Studios opened in 1989 and was IMHO rather lackluster for many years. TOT was added in 1994 and Rock -n -Roller Coaster not until 1999.
So why is it ok for Disney to operate this way?
Why is it ok for them to intentionally deliver less than what their customers expect?
How does one reconcile that strategy with the strategies Disney used to build DL, MK and Epcot?
IMO..if you leave WDW and your first instinct is to complain, you really need to lighten up. If you can't enjoy WDW, I can't imagine you find much of anything enjoyable.
Your confusing "whether I had fun on my vacation" with "is Disney following Disney-like strategies".
That's what Disney is all about and always has been about. Walt didn't finish DL prior to opening, Roy didn't finisn MK and no park since has opened "finished" except for maybe that silly Japenese Park.
Darn it, Pete, er, Captain, this is what is so frustrating about your posts sometimes.
You KNOW that the reasons for MGM, AK, and DCA opening as so much less than the prior parks has NOTHING to do with why DL didn't open "complete". There's also no comparison to the state in which MK and Epcot were opened.
You KNOW the the reasons current management does this were not what Disney was always all about.
Yet you make a statement like that... why?
AK will evolve as will DCA and The Studios...Heck even Epcot is still evolving.
The evolution of DL, MK and Epcot is not the same as the building out of AK, DCA and the Studios.
AGAIN, you KNOW this.
Picture a Fl res,AP holding Grandma. The grandkids from Jersey visit for a few days. What park is grandmom taking them to. MK is the obvious choice & always will be. It's the top dog. That doesn't make every other park a failure.
No, but when you open parks that every guest figures out weren't even an attempt at similar value, they will fail.
Since it's mere existance can't really upset people - unless they fall into the lion cage - the only thing it can do is ADD to an experience.
Good grief, NO!
A park is a product of Disney. It comes with a price, just like any other product. If the public doesn't get the value it expects from that product, there is a problem.
The public won't pay what you want for that product, and the their perception of the value you provide as a company decreases.
A "bad" product will ALWAYS hurt.
AK added 6.9 mil guests to WDW
If the poor economy and travel concerns contributed to Disney's attendance issues (and they did... not the sole cause, but they did contribute), then didn't the booming economy of the late 90's also contibute to WDW's gain?
In other words, WDW's attendance was going to go up even if AK wasn't built. How much of that 6.9 million would have happened anyway is of course debateable, but 6.9 million is already a less than impressive number for a Disney theme park...
