Big article on the backstory to MyMagic+

[clsteve]

According to the article " Sources say that the early target date to deliver MyMagic+ was February 2012" the budget was approved in February 2011 and they wanted it in the parks by February 2012. One year. So it was more like a year and a half delayed.

I'm just going by when Rasulo announced the decrease in NextGen spending - either Q3 or Q4 2014. That would put it in the 2 1/2 year range. I am getting to the Geritol stage in life, however.....

 

[BlueMudd15]

I saw this too.

 

[Creekermom]

We started going in 07 & TOTALLY LOVED IT, I'd tell everyone & anyone who would listen about how affordable it really was to go to WDW & how we went every year. Unfortunately I haven't been able to go the last 2 yrs due to a diagnois of a chronic illness. However I am really hoping we can go this year. The new system appears to be intimidating and I guess I'm going to do some serious research so that I can understand the whole concept and be prepared as what to do.

Not sure if a yearly WDW attendee

 

[DDLand]

His words in his article stated the budget was set in 2010/11 at 1 billion. His words in the article stated that it was "overly ambitious" to hit the Feb 2011 date. His words in the article highlighted the need to bring in very costly Partners to right the ship.

The project was 2 1/2 years delayed after the BoD set the budget

He took at face value from Staggs that the Project really had no end date and even finished under budget - without even the insightful journalistic follow up of "Huh??!!"

I mean, for a journal with "Company" in it's name - Really?

Not one question for clarification. So yes, he took their word for it.....

So you're basing it off solely on your conjecture? Alright. Not the guy with sources and research? Okay. So really what you meant to say is I think he took the number at face value.

Also he didn't take Stagg's word as fact. He said

"and claims it wasn’t delayed. “Since we said there’s no set schedule, it’s hard to really say whether we were on that set schedule,” he explains. “I don’t mean to be at all glib with you. Truth be told, it might make better copy to write ‘delay’ than to write ‘certain aspects are taking longer than originally anticipated.’ ”

He clearly made it Staggs quote. Just earlier in the article he was detaing how certain elements still were missing.

 

[clsteve]

So you're basing it off solely on your conjecture? Alright. Not the guy with sources and research? Okay. So really what you meant to say is I think he took the number at face value.

Also he didn't take Stagg's word as fact. He said
He clearly made it Staggs quote. Just earlier in the article he was detaing how certain elements still were missing.

Budgets are never open ended yty. It would be impossible for there to be any budgets for anything in the company if it's largest Project was open ended. No company works that way. It's also impossible for a Project to overrun by 2 1/2 years yet still come in under the budget figure approved 2 1/2 years prior. Budgets must be set yty and every fy. No conjecture. That's a fact for any and every company. Please find even one where that's not the case.

He asked not one question of clarification on the Project coming in under budget nor on the "no set schedule".

Even when both are so outside of the realm of possibility for any major project in any company and any business and accounting convention that he should have fallen out of his chair when they were stated by Staggs....

DDLand, that's FantasyLand stuff, and raises serious questions about the "objectivity" of the article. A 3rd year journalism student would know to ask the basic followups on those statements or at least provide commentary or vet it against an expert and provide their comments on those obviously misleading statements.

 

[Andrew015]

Right on, Steve.

The original budget was smoked in year one while the project deliverables were not even half-baked. Someone had to go back to the board with tail tucked and beg for more money. Regardless of how you slice that - whether it was in the form of a formal (second) funds request for the next fiscal year, or by creating a second project / expense account and in a roundabout way "hiding" the additional funds required to keep the project afloat, there is no business professional that I know that would consider that to be "on budget". Companies have a number of ways to massage numbers and finagle things to give different appearances, but this is flat out obvious.

 

[DDLand]

Budgets are never open ended yty. It would be impossible for there to be any budgets for anything in the company if it's largest Project was open ended. No company works that way. It's also impossible for a Project to overrun by 2 1/2 years yet still come in under the budget figure approved 2 1/2 years prior. Budgets must be set yty and every fy. No conjecture. That's a fact for any and every company. Please find even one where that's not the case.

He asked not one question of clarification on the Project coming in under budget nor on the "no set schedule".

Even when both are so outside of the realm of possibility for any major project in any company and any business and accounting convention that he should have fallen out of his chair when they were stated by Staggs....

DDLand, that's FantasyLand stuff, and raises serious questions about the "objectivity" of the article. A 3rd year journalism student would know to ask the basic followups on those statements or at least provide commentary or vet it against an expert and provide their comments on those obviously misleading statements.

There are other explanations for it coming in on budget, even with the extensions of time. This is completely conjecture, because you have no sources to back up your beliefs. Now, once again you could say I think he took executive's words at face value. That's fine. To simply question his journalistic integrity, and slander his name is another.

You don't know that. It may have not been included in the narrative. However if the budget numbers fit his sources, then they wouldn't require follow up.

Like he said, it was a "claim" just after saying above there were certain features that still didn't exist.

Who's operating in Fantasyland, the guy who was vetted by an Editor, that has no ties to WDC, and has large amounts of access to cast members who quit the program v. some internet posters?

 

[AriesAriel]

Even with all their brilliance and marketing, they still haven't figured out a way to better monetize the magic bands. Why, when you select to customize your band, does it not have a character option for an additional price? I mean, I understand the basic bands being "free" (or included), but with all the posts on here about decorating your band - you'd THINK that their marketing genius would realize a missed opportunity.

plain color included
for $10 more - Elsa, Cinderella, Baymax, etc etc....

It might even help them recoup some of the costs of the system...

 

[rteetz]

Even with all their brilliance and marketing, they still haven't figured out a way to better monetize the magic bands. Why, when you select to customize your band, does it not have a character option for an additional price? I mean, I understand the basic bands being "free" (or included), but with all the posts on here about decorating your band - you'd THINK that their marketing genius would realize a missed opportunity.

plain color included
for $10 more - Elsa, Cinderella, Baymax, etc etc....

It might even help them recoup some of the costs of the system...

They do that in the parks tho just not online. They have all sorts of themed magic bands once on property.

 

[AriesAriel]

They do that in the parks tho just not online. They have all sorts of themed magic bands once on property.

Why waste the $ on sending plain ones in the first place?

After I spend the time & love on decorating my plain one, I promise I will not be buying in the park. There is a huge segment that would pay for that add on perk to just get a decorated band in the mail the first time around. It would not be a difficult or painful addition to the website, so I simply cannot excuse their lack of marketing at the front end. It's really short sighted, imo.

(For the record, I'm a business major)

 

[rteetz]

Why waste the $ on sending plain ones in the first place?

After I spend the time & love on decorating my plain one, I promise I will not be buying in the park. There is a huge segment that would pay for that add on perk to just get a decorated band in the mail the first time around. It would not be a difficult or painful addition to the website, so I simply cannot excuse their lack of marketing at the front end. It's really short sighted, imo.

(For the record, I'm a business major)

I understand but I guess Disney does not.

 

[LeeAndRobin]

Bingo...and to take it a step further...
Everything else was on your room key...and swiping wasnt that tough.

Just a minor nit here... there are several tens of thousands of guests each day who are either true day guests (locals) or not staying on site. None of these guests had anything like a KTTW card before. Now they have a magic band. This allows data mining on a much larger sample of park guests. Once they figure out how to link the magic band to a credit card, it will also open up a way to entice non-resort guests to pay for items in the shops, thus (perhaps) increasing sales there.

It is amazing how many on here totally ignore off-site guests and just assume that everyone going to WDW stays at a resort. it just ain't so.

 

[Andrew015]

Who's operating in Fantasyland, the guy who was vetted by an Editor, that has no ties to WDC, and has large amounts of access to cast members who quit the program v. some internet posters?

In this case, I'll take the internet poster, because he has no skin in the game and his argument is backed by logic and past experience. Editorials are usually written with an "opinion"... especially when the sources used for the basis of the article want to cast a specific "light" on things. Do you really think that Iger and/or Staggs are going to sit down with the writer and admit what a steaming pile MM+ really is?? This is nothing more than a back-patting, cheerleading session that I would put zero stock in.

I don't ever recall having read any sort of back-slapping, cheerleading style editorial for the legacy FP system citing all of Disney's top brass at the time. The reason for that is probably because the old system didn't need any back-slapping promotion, as it worked incredibly well and stood on its own merits. The simple fact that Staggs and Iger are sitting down with an editorial to self-promote and "sell" MM+ is, to me, very telling.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Just a minor nit here... there are several tens of thousands of guests each day who are either true day guests (locals) or not staying on site. None of these guests had anything like a KTTW card before. Now they have a magic band. This allows data mining on a much larger sample of park guests. Once they figure out how to link the magic band to a credit card, it will also open up a way to entice non-resort guests to pay for items in the shops, thus (perhaps) increasing sales there.

It is amazing how many on here totally ignore off-site guests and just assume that everyone going to WDW stays at a resort. it just ain't so.

That is true...I stand corrected on this.

However...it is still not the core of the audience...merely the fringe.

I don't know how successful selling bands to offsites has been...I'd be fascinated to know.

 

[DDLand]

In this case, I'll take the internet poster, because he has no skin in the game and his argument is backed by logic and past experience. Editorials are usually written with an "opinion"... especially when the sources used for the basis of the article want to cast a specific "light" on things. Do you really think that Iger and/or Staggs are going to sit down with the writer and admit what a steaming pile MM+ really is?? This is nothing more than a back-patting, cheerleading session that I would put zero stock in.

I don't ever recall having read any sort of back-slapping, cheerleading style editorial for the legacy FP system citing all of Disney's top brass at the time. The reason for that is probably because the old system didn't need any back-slapping promotion, as it worked incredibly well and stood on its own merits. The simple fact that Staggs and Iger are sitting down with an editorial to self-promote and "sell" MM+ is, to me, very telling.

I find it amusing you immediately call the author's "logic" into question.

Did you even read the thing? He interviewed cast members and ex cast members alike. Tom Staggs (R Iger didn't even get interviewed) made himself available... At the same time former cast members did too. One of which happened to lead the entire project. He has multiple sources backing him up. It wasn't just like he interviewed Staggs and Iger and then it was finished. This thing took 6 months to write. Just because it didn't end with a conclusion you believe in, doesn't mean that it's the product of corporate propaganda. He's a tech writer. Not a corporate shill.

You must not read business publications very often, because even the most successful CEOs make themselves available for interviews. They sell their product. That's what they do.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

If you think that article was written without "consideration" from the author to Disney...

Then "naive" isn't the right word...

We have almost no objective, fact based pieces written about ANYTHING this day and age...

Certainly not in a hack business journal that exists to sell stock and the conversely get paid by those that buy the stock.

What's next: "fracking is safe?"

 

[Andrew015]

I find it amusing you immediately call the author's "logic" into question.

Never once did I call the author's logic into question. Rather, I explained that Steve's argument is based in logic and makes much more sense than does this editorial. If you bothered to read my response, you would see that the only thing that I called into question is the credibility of an editorial, which is based in opinion and is purposefully written to cast what the author wants you to believe. Not truth, not fact. Opinion.

You must not read business publications very often, because even the most successful CEOs make themselves available for interviews. They sell their product. That's what they do.

Coming from the voice of experience, eh?

Most CEO's will make themselves available if a. They get a head's up on what's being asked in the interview or b. if it fits their "agenda". Both Iger and Staggs were directly quoted about a dozen times each. If you think they didn't have some level of input into what was actually published, I really don't even know how to address that. Edited to add "they" meaning Disney Co.'s official position. Whether that is Iger or Staggs directly or indirectly, their office, etc. I think you get the idea...

 

[DDLand]

Never once did I call the author's logic into question. Rather, I explained that Steve's argument is based in logic and makes much more sense than does this editorial. If you bothered to read my response, you would see that the only thing that I called into question is the credibility of an editorial, which is based in opinion and is purposefully written to cast what the author wants you to believe. Not truth, not fact. Opinion.

What's funny is you clearly stated the other poster had "logic" on his side. You don't think he is at all informed by opinion? lol If one one person was informed by logic, then you're clearly calling into question the other side's authority.

Coming from the voice of experience, eh?

Most CEO's will make themselves available if a. They get a head's up on what's being asked in the interview or b. if it fits their "agenda". Both Iger and Staggs were directly quoted about a dozen times each. If you think they didn't have some level of input into what was actually published, I really don't even know how to address that. Edited to add "they" meaning Disney Co.'s official position. Whether that is Iger or Staggs directly or indirectly, their office, etc. I think you get the idea...

Sometimes they'll get hammered. Sometimes they'll be treated kindly. My point is if the author did his job, (which from all signs points to he did) then he'll have properly weighed his options.

If you'd like a sample of how far this author is willing to go in his scathing attacks: http://m.fastcompany.com/3039887/under-fire

He proves here that he doesn't need access to get a great story. He doesn't get pushed around. Heck if Disney allowed him access for any reason it was probably because they got terrified.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I have to generally agree with you. I understand why a lot of people don't like MyMagic+, but it is a success from a Park perspective. People are just hesitant to embrace change, especially when it requires reworking strategy. Seems like a lot of Disney lovers were against the legacy FP system when it was first introduced, too. Those same group of people will probably be missing MyMagic+ once the newest thing replaces it.

I don't see what legacy has to do with MyMagic+. MM+ is way more than FP+.

I may not love FP+, but I don't have any issue with MM+ as a whole or MagicBands.

 

[LeeAndRobin]

However...it is still not the core of the audience...merely the fringe.

Agreed, but still an important source of revenue none the less.

I don't know how successful selling bands to offsites has been...I'd be fascinated to know.

I'd love to know too. It's probably a limited number of people, but remember that once you have a magic band, you can use it over and over. We got our first ones on our honeymoon when we stayed 2 nights in the Poly. We then moved to off-site accommodations for the remainder of the trip. Fast forward a year. We bought annual passes and simply linked those same bands to our passes. Then again, I've heard that most people can't even keep up with the former no-expiration tickets (the remaining days on them are apparently seldom used), so I don't know what luck people would have keeping up with magic bands from trip to trip.