Article : Is Animal Kindom a Failure?

[Captain Crook]

Rich, even though it was me who postulated the theory in question, it doesn't mean I'm married to it either.

I can go with the niche thinking as a second avenue. I truly don't believe the park was intended that way but in looking at how it's being handled you (we) could be right that the original goals are no longer the current goals due to failure at some juncture (be it park design, saturation, lack of creativity or whatever opinion someone may have).

I see I've again admitted failure but I reiterate that my take on what that failure was differs greatly from Matt and PKS, for instance, although their impressions are every bit as valid as mine.

 

[raidermatt]

The niche theory just doesn't make sense to me. If that was the idea, then the numbers really weren't that bad, and no changes would have been necessary.

Yet entire lands were scrapped, hours were slashed, and the park is moving in the same direction as the other parks... more typical theme/amusement park rides.

No, if it was merely an attempt at a niche market, we wouldn't have gotten Dinorama. The impetus for such a change wouldn't have been there.


Business over creativity? Once again, absolutely not. Both strategies are in fact business strategies. They are just different theories about how to be successful... specifically about how Disney can be most successful.

One business startegy is being chosen over another, mistakenly I believe, but to portray it as business over creativity is simply not accurate.

Besides, in my opinion, the MOST glaring problem with AK wasn't creativity, it was simply lack of scope and depth. They simply didn't put enough into it, and 6 years later, are still behind the 8-ball.

I'm not discounting AV's points, and I'm not saying creativity was not an issue. But I honestly don't believe it was the biggest issue.

At least not until Dinorama.


I also don't buy the saturation theory. I'm not saying it's not possible, but rather that I don't think its likely the real issue.

Even with AK being so limited in scope (as was MGM), many are still pointing out that it at least added something to the overall attendance at WDW. 6.9 million on the high end, and lets say 2 million on the low end.

One has to allow for the possibility that if AK had been built with more depth/scope, and perhaps even with more 'creativity', it would have brought significantly more to the resort.

This actually makes even more sense if you are in the AK isn't a failure camp, as the improvement would be from what you already consider a success.

And lets take it a step further... If you think that additions like Everest will solve AK's problems, then by definition you are saying that the primary issues with AK are a lack of scope/depth.

Which is ultimate what I am saying. However, I'm also saying that the problem should have been addressed before it ever became a problem, and before the lack of value did damage to the public's perception of what Disney offers.

In other words, doing it right the first time will always be the better choice.

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.

I've already explained why I don't believe AK was aimed at a niche market. I agree that what it has found is a niche market, but unfortunately that is simply not good enough for the investment made.

Perhaps we are seeing this in a slightly more accented way with Animal Kingdom but not in a fanatical sense, not by any means.

It doesn't have to be in a fanatical sense. 10-20% below projections is bad enough. Further, the original projections were based on the goal of the park, which was not to provide customers with consistent value. Always a mistake.

But I would still hold that things are not any where near this bad in the Animal Kingdom.

We need to maintain the proper context. The park is not a failure in the sense that nobody likes it and it will close. Its far more subtle than that, but still significant.

 

[ShadowWind]

Even the MK was not the pinnacle of parks at the beginning. While it did have many rides that were yanked from DL, the great thrills that we have now weren't there. There was no Space Mountain, no Splash Mountain, no Big Thunder Mountain, no Pirates of the Caribbean. The only reason it could open fairly complete is that imagineers did not have to redesign most of the park's attractions, simply build them from specs that they had for the most part. This saved a lot of development cost, etc. We think of the park now, but back then it was a whole different place.

When EPCOT opened, it was missing a lot of attractions as well, Horizons, Journey Into Imagination (which the ride portion didn't open up on Opening Day, leaving just Magic Journeys and ImageWorks), Wonders of Life, the Maelstrom, etc. I remember going there in November 1982, and it was pretty barren. EPCOT opened in Ron Miller's time and I still believe it to have been Imagineering's most beautiful and creative park at WDW (before they gutted it).

The same argument was made about Disney-MGM when it opened.

And then there is Animal Kingdom, which is the first park to build itself on not the latest and greatest, but the cheapest they can get away with. I was actually shocked, even after reading the reviews, of how terrible Dinorama was. Our local carnival has more imagination. Add to this, the fact the Florida heat is brutal in the summer and the cold is bitter in the Winter, doesn't give one an opportunity to spend that much time looking around at the wonders presented. My goal is usually to find a shady spot somewhere, preferably with air conditioning, which AK has very little of. It is also not very wheelchair friendly, from a height point of view, which makes it difficult for mobility challenged guests to see a lot of the sights.

The concept is not a failture, the implementation is. Joe Rhodi set out to build a park that is not quite a zoo, and not quite a theme park, but a combination of the two. He did that, in grand and quite stunning style. However, while he was concerned about the animals and the message that the park portrayed, he and his crew forgot the most important ingredient, guest comfort. This keeps a lot of people from going back a second or third time. If it weren't for a few shows there, Festival of the Lion King (and don't laugh) Flights of Wonder, I wouldn't even bother going there at all. The only animals that are fun to watch for long periods are the otters and even they are not foolish enough to be out in the hot florida sun for too long. I get the park, that it is a slower pace, and I being an artist can appreciate that, and I've spent hours looking around, but given that you cannot offset that with things that prevent heat stroke, it makes that goal difficult.

The other parks have balance and Animal Kingdom is still trying to find that balance. They are making progress by closing in Festival of the Lion King, which lets you experience an awesome show and a cool place for 25 minutes or so. I think the park has an identity crisis between Joe Rhode's concept and the park the investors want it to be and the guests are caught in the crossfire as we watch it flip flop around like a fish in a bucket.

All in all, I think it's a great complement to the other parks, but I cant see it as it's own gate for $55.

BTW, TDS was successful, because it was something that no one had experienced before and it was also the best Imagineering has ever offered because they had whatever they wanted to build it. Even though the Japanese love everything Disney, I'm sure it gets a whole lot of people who are willing to fly there and see what the Disney magic truly is. Unfortunately the Oriental Land Company can't buy WDW.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by raidermatt
The niche theory just doesn't make sense to me. If that was the idea, then the numbers really weren't that bad, and no changes would have been necessary.

Yet entire lands were scrapped, hours were slashed, and the park is moving in the same direction as the other parks... more typical theme/amusement park rides.

No, if it was merely an attempt at a niche market, we wouldn't have gotten Dinorama. The impetus for such a change wouldn't have been there.

Not necessarily aimed at a niche market or, more possibly, heavily aimed at a niche market - given the scale of the project said niche would have had to have been pretty big! No, I think that the park was aimed at a large market niche which they viewed as not having been exploited fully and it turned out that the extent to which they had done this was a little too much, meaning that the new custom base turned out to be smaller than initially planned - it appealed, on face value, to less people when, I think, it was meant to appeal to a fair few on the strength of it not being man made entertainment but rather entertainment based upon the animal kingdom.

Originally posted by raidermatt
Even with AK being so limited in scope (as was MGM), many are still pointing out that it at least added something to the overall attendance at WDW. 6.9 million on the high end, and lets say 2 million on the low end.

Yes, but I think it is nearing saturation in Florida. I believe Orlando to be, amongst other things, associated with the idea of 'lots of parks', so it would take a phenomenonal effort to really catch people's attentions at first glance. All the incentive is - or almost is - there in order to attract the number to travel that distance. Market saturation will reduce when flight prices fall, but not much until then, IMO.

Originally posted by raidermatt
And lets take it a step further... If you think that additions like Everest will solve AK's problems, then by definition you are saying that the primary issues with AK are a lack of scope/depth.

This is simply a good point - this could be seen as a failure.

Originally posted by raidermatt
It doesn't have to be in a fanatical sense. 10-20% below projections is bad enough. Further, the original projections were based on the goal of the park, which was not to provide customers with consistent value. Always a mistake.
...
We need to maintain the proper context. The park is not a failure in the sense that nobody likes it and it will close. Its far more subtle than that, but still significant.

We need to remember that forms of equitable return often cannot be quantified, such as reputation, press, publicity, customer relations, return visits (which may have fallen had it not been for the new park - you can't prove either way) and so on.



Rich::

 

[PKS44]

Several points from different posts-

Rich--California did not have a Tower of Terror until now--in fact it still is not officially open yet...

No way was Epcot a barren place in 1982--while the number of pavillions was not huge--each pavillion was a much more full experience than what is offered up now by the likes of Test Track--a five minute ride and a little post show area---Eisner himself has said he felt they opened with TOO MUCH at Epcot and EuroDisney hence his new strategy after that was to open small and collect bigger profits by offering less and charging the same--then build the parks up...

this leads to the next point which is to reiterate what matt has been saying--this is NOT a struggle of creativity vs business this is good business strategy vs. bad business strategy--the Eisner offer 'em less strategy is BAD BUSINESS-not just because it skimps but because it fails to get decent return on the investment..DCA has been an abysmal investment...though it was much less money than TokyoDisneySeas--TDS has been a good investment-trying to get by with less is a short term solution that leads to long term problems--I have stated it many times on these boards but it has been best dramatized by the 1950's era Hollywood film Executive Suite with WIlliam Holden--please catch it the next time it is on Turner Classic Movies and then maybe you will see why pinching pennies is a money losing proposition as a business strategy.


the idea that 5 milllion guest visiting is okay if 2 million of them hate the park or leave feeling ripped off or mislead is a very typically short-sighted business strategy---the success of Disney and any company for the long term is the good-will and loyalty it engenders in its customer base...in AK, DCA, Studios-Paris, sequelmania, etc..Disney's attempts to give less has ERODED the foundation of this brand's identity...it just has---it is meaningless whether some people like AK or not if many go and don't want to come back as is evidenced by its ever decreasing attendance --losing a customer is a very expensive proposition -they are harder and more expensive in the long run to win back than to keep..but they are more expensive in the short term to keep--and this management has been too focused on the short term for too long....

 

[JKanownik]

Looking over 9 years of annual reports I can say that originally Animal Kingdom was not a failure from a business perspective. In the theme park segment operating income, OI %, attendance and revenues (both from ticket and food/merch sales) were all increasing before 9/11. In 2000 revenue at WDW was up $383 million over the previous year. The impact of Animal Kingdom alone is hard to judge without more detailed numbers, but from what I can see it would be very hard to say it was a failure.

However, after 9/11 there is no way that they would have built AK if they knew what was going to happen. OI % has dropped from 23.7% in 2000 to just 14.9% in 2003. The environment that has caused the decreases is independent from AK, but the $800 million used to build AK could definitely be used in other places to address the disturbing trend in decreasing OI %. And even though they would not go back and build it now, that doesn't mean that it is a failure from a business perspective. You would need very detailed marketing information in order to make any judgements as to whether it is currently a failure or not.

-DH

 

[PKS44]

NO fancy marketing data needed--their actions speak very loudly

...that they have a campaign to tell people that it is not a zoo is proof that they have failed in some way or they would not need a special campaign...

...that they had to hurry up and add Dinoland is proof that they failed in some way or they would not have added it

...that they offer special meal discounts ONLY at AK is proof that there is a problem with this park that is unique to this park or the meal deal would apply at the other parks...again proving that AK alone has special ways in which it has failed and needs "fixing"

Paul

 

[raidermatt]

Last things first....

As has been pointed out, WDW's numbers were improving without AK. The outside environment was a positive one. No terrorist fears and a strong economy. The numbers were going up prior to AK, so one can't credit all of the increase to AK. That's where the discussion over the 6.9 million number comes in.

Really, its just like now. Terrorist fears are still there, but gradually decreasing. The economy is improving. A relatively weak dollar means a WDW vacation is cheaper for potential visitors from overseas, and it means Americans are more likely to stay home because an overseas trip is more expensive.

Consequently, WDW's numbers are improving and will continue to do so without a new park, provided current trends hold. Just as they would have improved well into 2000 without AK. The only question is how much is due to AK, and how much is due to the outside environment.

it appealed, on face value, to less people when, I think, it was meant to appeal to a fair few

Again, this illustrates both parts of the problem... If it was not meant as what Disney's customers and potential customers consider a full and appealing park, the target was flawed.

Further, it did not even meet that target.

Yes, but I think it is nearing saturation in Florida.

Again, I'm not buying into that, at least not as a likely scenario. Certainly the environment is a competitive one, but I don't think theres any real evidence that growth is not attainable.

One can't point to Disney's numbers as proof, as its basically a sefl-fulfilling prophecy... they don't build something strong enough to grow their numbers, therefore their numbers don't grow. Blaming it on market saturation is just a deflectionary tactic.

I know the overall population of the United States continues to grow, but I would be curious about Florida's numbers, and specifically Central Florida's. If I get a chance I'll look it up later.

We need to remember that forms of equitable return often cannot be quantified, such as reputation, press, publicity, customer relations, return visits (which may have fallen had it not been for the new park - you can't prove either way) and so on.

Yes, and that's a big part of my point. Offering something of less value (which is really undeniable in this case, as it was with MGM's opening and DCA) has many difficult to quantify negative impacts in areas like brand perception and reputation.

 

[WDW_DV]

I'd like to throw a new wrinkle into the discussion by saying the building of AK did result in a new and very popular Deluxe resort. So they have (presumably) increased the number of guests that pay deluxe prices to stay on-site.

FWIW

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by WDW_DV
So they have (presumably) increased the number of guests that pay deluxe prices to stay on-site.

FWIW

Strange then that the rooms at the AKL are always on sale and cheaper then the other deluxe resorts.

 

[mitros]

One more comment after all of these long winded posts... If the AK is as bad as some say, why is it always so bloody crowded, even during off season?

 

[JKanownik]

Originally posted by PKS44
NO fancy marketing data needed--their actions speak very loudly

...that they have a campaign to tell people that it is not a zoo is proof that they have failed in some way or they would not need a special campaign...

...that they had to hurry up and add Dinoland is proof that they failed in some way or they would not have added it

...that they offer special meal discounts ONLY at AK is proof that there is a problem with this park that is unique to this park or the meal deal would apply at the other parks...again proving that AK alone has special ways in which it has failed and needs "fixing"

Paul

...It has animals. People are going to associate with a zoo regardless of how the park is. I'm sure Busch Gardens had the same problem when it first opened before they had added many rides. This marketing expense has to be anticipated and I don't see how this could in any way be linked to calling it a failure. Now, if they are still running not a zoo commercials after Everest goes up then it is a different story.

...Dinoland was planned to be added. They cut costs so that they could add it sooner than expected. This in and of itself does not denote failure for the entire park.

...The meal discounts are only offered for children. I assume their margins are around 50% for food. I will also assume that if people feed their kids, they are going to eat themselves. I see nothing wrong with offering meals to kids at cost (they aren't losing money here) to entice adults to buy food at a much higher prices (they are making money here). You can't compare AK to other WDW parks in order to say that it is a failure. Just because MK doesn't have meal vouchers doesn't mean that meals vouchers at AK prove it is a failure. The fact is, is that there is not enough information available to truely know if the park is a failure.

Does the park have its shortcomings? Is it less than it could be? Is it disappointing for some guests? Would it be considered a failure if it was a stand alone park? Yes, Yes, Yes and Most Likely. However, the only way to conclusively state that the park is a failure is to not show an increase in OI at the WDW resort that justifies the Cap. Exp. that is known as AK. For me the $383 M increase in YoY revenue and the extremely high OI% in 2000 point to a success from AK. The author of the article points out that in 2000 all other WDW parks increased attendance and stated that because AK did not it was a bad thing. However, when you dive deeper into this you see that the end result of the numbers is quite the contrary (i.e. it's good). If you look at USO their attendance was flat in 2000. AK only dropped .3 M visitors but overall attendance at the other 3 WDW parks increased .9 M. If revenues and OI are increasing and park attendance is up, as a Disney investor I wouldn't care if guests only spent a half a day at AK.

It is also interesting that the author points out that in 2002 IoA increased attendance, while AK dropped. They ignored the fact that in 2001 IoA dropped 8% vs. a 7% decrease for AK. Without at least a 3 year trend of where IoA grew while AK dropped (and USO grew inline with the other 3 WDW parks), this whole analysis is meaningless.

From a statistical standpoint the author's work is terribly flawed and taken entirely out of context when considering that AK is part of a 4 park resort.

-DH

 

[disneyfreakjackie]

I LOVE Animal Kingdom!!! Not my favorite out of the four (one of the parks has to be #4, right?), but I enjoy it VERY MUCH!!! . . . and it is always crowded!! (as someone else said!)

 

[BRERALEX]

One more comment after all of these long winded posts... If the AK is as bad as some say, why is it always so bloody crowded, even during off season?

Very narrow paths? not many things to do? everyone goes to the same place?

 

[grinningghost]

And really, at this point, what options are there? Close the place? I don't think that's going to happen. There is only one solution and that would be to make it better. And there's no doubt that Disney can do that - if they're ready to shell out the cash.

 

[dcentity2000]

Think:

Animal Kingdom is the fourth of four major parks. It would have been designed as such and should be viewed in such a context. The matter over whether it would have been commercially viable as a stand alone is therefore rather superfluous as it is and always shall be part of a collective of parks.

The addition of attractions post park opening is designed to enhance the park, add to the experience and increase capacity and pulling power. The ongoing process is not a sign that the present compliment of attractions is a failure.

The matter over whether the park opened with too few attractions is hazy at best - as the name suggests, Animal Kingdom is all about, well, animals. The "big" attractions which were "missing" and are now in the process of being added are in fact theme park rides - note that these are in addition to the animals themselves which were intended as the main pulling power.

Figures over park attendance can be useful but they are simply persuasive, not by any means binding; it is impossible, you see, to determine just how useful they are without a control sample, that is, figures from the parks that would have been if Animal Kingdom had not been built - these are of course impossible to get. The numbers are not useless at all - I'm just saying that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. They suggest, not prove.

If the market in Florida is becoming saturated (I think it is, raidermatt doesn't) then a target to appeal more to less would possibly pull a larger customer base in the long run. Universal, MGM, Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, Sea World; they all personalise themselves in some way to attract a slightly biased customer group, thus avoiding a low market saturation level. If you had five Magic Kingdoms not only would people crave variety but those who seek an EPCOT style environment may also think twice about parting with their money.

Finally, success can be qualified in many ways; which do you think is the most important in a Disney world? Large numbers and profits, the "Eisner way" as some put it? Or an overall enjoyment of the park? How can you measure the latter? Again, numbers here are persuasive, not binding.

And who here actually dislikes Animal Kingdom, or protests at having to pay for it in their park hoppers? I know an awful lot of members look at this board and I'll bet a fair few will look at this post and I'll further bet that many of them are like myself, disneyfreakjackie and tazz23 in loving the Animal Kingdom



Rich::

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Think:

Animal Kingdom is the fourth of four major parks. It would have been designed as such and should be viewed in such a context.

Okay. Using your logic, then why is it that Animal Kingdom has DRASTICALLY fewer attractions than any other park? It doesn't have enough to consider it a major park, and this is 6 years after its debut. Don't believe? Ask the folks that leave halfway through the day - and you know they're leaving because of the way Disney screwed around with the hours.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The matter over whether it would have been commercially viable as a stand alone is therefore rather superfluous as it is and always shall be part of a collective of parks.

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?

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.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The addition of attractions post park opening is designed to enhance the park, add to the experience and increase capacity and pulling power. The ongoing process is not a sign that the present compliment of attractions is a failure.

I don't have a timeline handy, but what they have now - 6 YEARS later - in the way of attractions is pitiable. Especially in contrast with what was in their parks to begin with. And I don't care if MGM started the same way. That's a completely seperate debate, and one I'd be glad to discuss in another thread. To think of increasing the price of park hoppers to justify the opening of a fourth park with the meager options I'm sure they had is crazy.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
The matter over whether the park opened with too few attractions is hazy at best - as the name suggests, Animal Kingdom is all about, well, animals. The "big" attractions which were "missing" and are now in the process of being added are in fact theme park rides - note that these are in addition to the animals themselves which were intended as the main pulling power.

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.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Figures over park attendance can be useful but they are simply persuasive, not by any means binding; it is impossible, you see, to determine just how useful they are without a control sample, that is, figures from the parks that would have been if Animal Kingdom had not been built - these are of course impossible to get. The numbers are not useless at all - I'm just saying that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. They suggest, not prove.

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.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
If the market in Florida is becoming saturated (I think it is, raidermatt doesn't) then a target to appeal more to less would possibly pull a larger customer base in the long run. Universal, MGM, Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, Sea World; they all personalise themselves in some way to attract a slightly biased customer group, thus avoiding a low market saturation level. If you had five Magic Kingdoms not only would people crave variety but those who seek an EPCOT style environment may also think twice about parting with their money.

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.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Finally, success can be qualified in many ways; which do you think is the most important in a Disney world? Large numbers and profits, the "Eisner way" as some put it? Or an overall enjoyment of the park? How can you measure the latter? Again, numbers here are persuasive, not binding.

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.

Originally posted by dcentity2000
And who here actually dislikes Animal Kingdom, or protests at having to pay for it in their park hoppers? I know an awful lot of members look at this board and I'll bet a fair few will look at this post and I'll further bet that many of them are like myself, disneyfreakjackie and tazz23 in loving the Animal Kingdom

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.

 

[Bob O]

I would agree that the theme park market in Orland/Tampa is becoming saturated and parks need to do things to stand out from among the throng.
And while i do enjoy AK and visit the park as part of my park hopper, i would never pay the going rate for that park which i would do for any of the other theme parks in Tampa/Orlando.
Its sad that disney wants/expects their guests to subsidize AK for numerous years till they finally decide to make it a park that will keep guests in the park from the opening of the park till a late night closing which does happen at their other parks.
The thing i find is that disney was guilty from the get go with AK. I still have a vhs tape promoting the future Ak with/Joe Rhode waxing on about how it would be a park of animals that were and neve were, the only trouble is that THEY LIED and never gave us the animals that never were that was part of their whole pr scam when initially describing the park for future guests.
If any other company did this you would have people screaming how they were scammed, but since some people here are blinded by pixie dust they buy whatever comes out of disney and say we should be lucky disney even allows us the privilege to spend our money at this park.
Disney as part of there corporate policy started off with a intentionally false pr campaign before the park opened promising things we have yet to see that was supposed to be in the park opening day. And they will take years/decades to finally build a full day park while they get full days park admission from the opening of the park. A cyncial corporate strategy that started with MGM and has contuined until the current time with DCA. Screw the guests with a half day park for a full price admission.
of course when the opposite happens at TDS we see where one is a overwhemling success and where the others are failures both financially and in their creative content. But those blinded by pxie dust are unable to see this.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Okay. Using your logic, then why is it that Animal Kingdom has DRASTICALLY fewer attractions than any other park? It doesn't have enough to consider it a major park, and this is 6 years after its debut....what they have now - 6 YEARS later - in the way of attractions is pitiable. Especially in contrast with what was in their parks to begin with. And I don't care if MGM started the same way.

By my count, Epcot opened with the following: Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, World of Motion, Land movie, Kitchen Kabaret, Listen to the Land, Magic Journeys, American Adventure, El Rio del Tiempo, China movie, Canada movie, and Impressions de France. 12 attractions.

Animal Kingdom now has: Kilamanjaro Safari, Pangani Exploration Trail, Rafiki's Planet Watch, Flights of Wonder, Kali River Rapids, Maharajah Jungle Trek, Dinosaur, Triceratop Spin, Primeval Whirl, Tarzan Rocks, Festival of the Lion King, and It's Tough to be a Bug. 12 attractions.

Yeah, I know I'm leaving out of Epcot Imagination Station, the Innoventions buildings, etc. But I'm also leaving out of AK's list Oasis, the Tree of Life, Pocahontas, the Discovery Island trails, and the Boneyard, and I've lumped the train ride, Affection Section and other parts of Rafiki's Planet Watch together.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Bob O
IAnd they will take years/decades to finally build a full day park while they get full days park admission from the opening of the park.

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?