Can we go to instant replay for a ruling here

[mrgoofy]

I can end this debate right now. They simply cannot legally build a slingshot ride at DTD because there is one at an amusement park on US-192 just south of Celebration, and the company that builds these rides gives the user a guarantee that none will be built within so many miles (not sure exactly how many, but WDW falls within that limit). Six Flags Magic Mtn. wanted to build one, but the company said no because another park already had one within the area specified in the guarantee.

I know the mouse gets whatever he wants in Florida, but this is a fight with a manufacturer not the state, so I will go to sleep tonite sure in the fact that no slingshot will be built soon at WDW.

 

[MickeyMoose15]

I hate it when Disney tries to find a cheap way to try to get people to come to there theme parks and think it is going to work. I thought they were better and more imaginative then the amusement parks.

 

[JeffJewell]

I've truly enjoyed this civil discussion between Jewell and I

Ditto (and thanks for the nice words in the PM). Let's see if this horse'll take just a little more beating.

Or asking the same question--- Whether some proposed addition or subtraction meets or satisfies the "Disney standard"

You're correct; that question is completely subjective. You can't tell which details will the be ones to spark that Magic in someone, and each will probably make someone's "must-see" list.

All the more reason to jam-pack Disney World, every inch of Disney World, with as many wonderful and unique details as imagination allows. Just from a purely business perspective; with the intention of maintaining your two best assets: your customer loyalty and industry-leading reputation.

...FAIL to satisfy what I consider Disney's standard...[snip]
NONE of the above are up to Disney standards IMHO.

Actually, here in Car #3, several people will agree with you on several of those points. I personally think the convention center and garden wings at the Contemporary are abominations, commited in the name of squeezing out every possible dollar (judging from your comment, I'd say you at least partially agree with me). I also agree with you that the Tower itself could use an interior re-theming. By the way be careful; talk like that there'll getcha kicked right out of Car #1.

I'm pretty much a one trick pony: my evil agenda is to convince everyone at least remotely fond of Disney to yap back at the company when Magical standards, however subjective that measure may be, start to slip, and particularly so if the direct cause was budget cutting/groping for the last dollar; I think that's a shameful, and ultimately harmful to the business, trend for Disney. If I seem to poke at Car #1 folks sometimes, it's because they're at least remotely fond of Disney, and I think that deep down, they really do have concerns worth yapping about.

Jeff

PS - How many of us, from any car, would honestly be surprised with a SlingShot-class attraction at DD? I think the fact that the rumor was so plausible should in itself be somewhat bothersome.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, since you asked, its because thedscoop really, really believes that everyone has different standards

Agreed. Some are satisfied with 'just good enough' other are not.

… and this is because everyone has different tastes, different opinions, different gray areas....

Again, agreed. Each to their own personal tastes, opinions and gray areas. When they decorate their own home they get to set the standard.

Baron. I believe in my heart of hearts that your standard for Disney may well be different from my standard, and gc's different from mine, and captains different from gc, and guide's different from ducks and jeff's different from rentk and so on and so on and so on and on and on.....

Again, agreed!! But we don't get a say in it. Disney sets the standards. No one else. Just Disney. They chose the height of the bar way back in 1955. Actually Walt set it for himself when they first started making cartoons. It is a standard of excellence. Of pushing the envelope. Of making extravagant things affordable for middle class people. Of 'Exceeding Expectations'!! Of... well, just look around at how he did things, 'in the day'. Not everything, of course, was a hit. There were some mistakes made. Mission to Mars - SUCKED! And I'm sure everyone can come up with their own failure list. You did with the Contemporary wings (but I'd really like to know when they were built. Could it be after 1984?) But by and large there was a standard they tried to maintain. They had a bar they set for themselves that they forced themselves to hurdle, every time at bat (how's that for a mixed metaphor!!)

It's not my standard. It's not your standard. It's Disney's standard. And sadly, the have slowly, almost imperceptibly, lowered that standard in recent years. Until they have convinced a great deal of people that, "It's always been that way'. It has not!!

My Disney standard cannot be defined without including, among other things, the Broadway properties, DCL, and Celebration.

I don't know how to put this nicely. Hmmm. I'll try to be diplomatic. -- WRONG!!!!!

Seems I failed diplomacy . It has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the things you mentioned. By associating their name with anything their standards MUST be applied. Does that mean that they'll hit a home run every time? NO!! Of course not. But the failure should not be a direct result of 'lowered' standards. If they put on a Broadway Production, I don't need to see the reviews. I know that 'Disney' quality will simply ooze from it!! Their high standards will insure that they will do their damnedest to hurdle the bar that they themselves set, so many years ago.

And it goes for everything they do!! Everything!! EVERYTHING!!! The Disney Store HAS to be a different, unique, one-of-a-kind, 'magical' shopping experience!! If it isn't, don't do it!! If you want to build a town it has to be a different, unique, one-of-a-kind, 'magical' living experience!! If it isn't, don't do it!! If they want to build a timeshare it has to be a different, unique, one-of-a-kind, 'magical' vacation experience!! If it isn't, don't do it!! That's why I bought the vacation Club sight unseen. It was Disney! That was good enough for me.

How sad that given that choice today I would have to carefully examine, scrutinize and thoroughly study just what they were going to do with it. I'd have to be very, very careful because while most (Yes!! I said most) things they do still carry that mark of quality. But many things, especially recently, don't. And I find that very sad and very disturbing!

but, I don't think you really give a flying flip about Celebration, Broadway, or maybe even DCL....

You see. You keep saying that and it really doesn't matter. That was the point of the little Marketplace story. I don't like shopping. No one could create enough magic to make me like shopping. It is a pointless exercise. It cannot be done. Yet! Yet, I can appreciate and understand the 'magic' they were trying to create when designing the place. They 'quality' was there, even though it didn't move me. It was undeniable. It was NOT a few brightly painted, cardboard cut outs, in primary colors, done on the cheap. Or worse yet, rather ordinary retail vendors, bunched together, under a 'Disney' umbrella.

So in a way you're right, I don't really care about Celebration. I don't plan on living there. I could easily ignore it. And with Disney being so big, it's hard to pay a great deal of attention to everything they do. But in the bigger sense, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't care about DCA either. For me at least, a visit there is years and years in the future. So again, personally, I could easily ignore it. Put the old blinders on and just pay attention to what I like to do. But I don't. While I don't seek out these things (who has the time!!??) I care a great deal about them.

You see, all these things are indicative of their corporate philosophy and what they really care about. And lately, it seems to me, that they care more about money than they do about quality. And that's all the SHOW really is. Quality.

So, how then can Disney either have it or not?!? Answer: IMHO, it is completely impossible for everyone to look at each Disney product, entity, whatever, and agree whether that meets a single objective standard.

To a point I agree. But the question I ask myself is, "Does this meet (or even better 'exceed') the level of quality that I would expect to see from Disney?"

So I ask you. Does a ride such as this thread suggests meet or exceed the quality (of design, concept and… well… SHOW) that you've come to expect from Disney? To me it falls way short of the mark. They're not even close. And it doesn't matter where it's going, all that matters is that Disney is doing it!!

One last thing. JeffJewell once again says it all. He writes:

I'm pretty much a one trick pony: my evil agenda is to convince everyone at least remotely fond of Disney to yap back at the company when Magical standards, however subjective that measure may be, start to slip, and particularly so if the direct cause was budget cutting/groping for the last dollar; I think that's a shameful, and ultimately harmful to the business, trend for Disney.

Me too!!!

 

[All Aboard]

You did with the Contemporary wings (but I'd really like to know when they were built. Could it be after 1984?)

Baron, we had this discussion at the Dolphin. Recall, my family stayed in one of the wings in 1979.

"Does this meet (or even better 'exceed') the level of quality that I would expect to see from Disney?"

There you go, defining Disney quality in terms of your own expectations. It's inescapable and impossible not to.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Gcurling writes:

There you go, defining Disney quality in terms of your own expectations. It's inescapable and impossible not to.

On the surface it would seem so. So we need to dig a little below the surface to see where the truth lies.

And thedscoop writes:

DVCLB, I see your point. And do not disagree just to disagree. Rather, I just strongly believe that the "Disney Standard" cannot be the same bright line rule to all...

Ahhhh! But it can be!! Perhaps not applied to all individuals, but the standards that you recognize (and we're not that far apart) should be the rule by which you measure everything they do. That 'same bright rule' can (and I argue strongly that it should) be applied evenly throughout your own personal take on what the magic is. If it's no good in the MK because of obviously poor concept, according to your personal view, it's no good anywhere!!

I'll grant you both that the term 'magic' and the standards it represents is subjective and there may be some out there that would quibble as to what those standards should be, but I don't think that's what our debate is about at all!! If we do get into that type of disagreement, it should be over such minor minutia (because by our very "Disney-nut" nature we are very close to either side of the line) that the general population would really want us all locked up if they casually overheard the talk.


No!! We are NOT talking about that! We are talking about standards upon which we're pretty much in agreement. Case in point:

So, for me, a themeless MK would probably ruin it all.

Now, larworth, I agree if they placed any type of "unthemed" thing like this at any of the parks, or even the Boardwalk, I would find this very disturbing.

Don't get me wrong. An unthemed slingshot would be bad anywhere.

If it was up to me, I'd tear down Wide World of Sports and Downtown Disney altogether....

Finally, remember my first statements: If this type of thing were done on the boardwalk or the mercantile area of fort wilderness or even on the island formerly known as Discovery, well Objection!

Now to me all those statements, plus all your previous posts, seem to indicate that we're pretty much on the same page as far as standards go. Where we disagree is where they should be applied. I think it is absolutely imperative that those standards be applied wherever the Disney name is displayed!!

For some reason or another you don't think so. You make excuses for Disney instead of trying to hold them to the standards, which we pretty much agree on, that they have set for themselves!! The following is what I cannot, for the life of me, understand:

They even provide a buffer from the true horror and common enemy called I Drive. So, if Disney decides to add a slingshot ride to the area...it does not bother me. Oh, I don't think its a good idea. But it really has no effect on us.

I'm pretty indifferent about what they do at Downtown Disney. While we usually stop by there once during each vacation, I don't really consider it part of the show.

So, even if Hill were correct that this was going in, and even if it went in unthemed (which would really surprise me for it to have not even minimal theming), I'd just shrug because IMHO Downtown Disney was never intended to convey the magic of the parks or even the boardwalk or fort wilderness downtown area.

And besides the annoying spotlights, its far enough away from my definition of the real "show" for me to say "Hey, whatever"

Guess a good summary is that just because something is on property owned by Disney does not mean it is automatically part of the show.

That's like me saying I don't care, in the overall scheme of things, about their Broadway plays. Uneducated. Yes. Not enough time or resources to fully investigate. Absolutely. But make no mistake, I care greatly!!! I sure as hell ain't 'indifferent'!!

But it even gets worse. You sort of personalize it in a way that totally confounds me:

But, unless I was staying at the Disney Villas, it would not bother me.

...if it somehow does, or even if it was a THEMED slingshot, as long as it is not placed within what I define as the show, then hey, let the kids swirl in the air.

I do not include Downtown Disney or, for that matter, Wide World of Sports, within the Show my vacation consists of.

Both DD and WWS are to me real world intrusions into my Show.

Their outer fringe geographic placement in the overall WDW design allows me to ignore them while still enjoying the portion of Disney property on which I think the magic resides--that is the parks and resorts.

I really don't know how, on some level, that doesn't infuriate you. Just the existence of DD really pis… well… makes me mad!

DD and WWS are nice places. Better than nearly all comparable outdoor malls or sports complexes.

But, on the other hand, I know some people, especially some local friends, really prefer DD over Church Street Center....

But that doesn't make them Disney! We can all think of a lot of things that we like better than Church Street Center. Many are in Las Vegas. But that don't make them Disney!!!

However, if I hear that Bongos will be closing at 8...well, I'll get my Estefan fix back in the real world.....

I agree!! You are 100% right!! It doesn't belong in Disney at all!

 

[larworth]

I'm not sure that makes the question go away.

When Disney sets out to do a project don't they try to guess what the subjective reaction of the audience will be. I'm sure the people that did JIYI didn't escape judgment just by telling Mike that the project was really great...in their subjective opinion. And it sure doesn't seem to make sense to sit back and wait the 3-5 years before everyone has had a chance to sample the new product, before we try to grade it.

I will grant that what we find enjoyable can be quite subjective. The same thing might be said about what we believe is an acceptable effort. However, I think this is much easier to calibrate against. Is Disney in the unthemed thrill ride business. Surely, this isn't that subjective a call.

The contention seems to be where Disney no longer has to act like Disney. DVC says there are no exceptions. Do it the best or don't do it. I am willing to allow some exceptions as something becomes more distant from the core (not talking geographically here). I don't think every aspect of running a resort has to be the best, but attractions and entertainment should not be one of the exceptions.

 

[JeffJewell]

Likewise, there may be slingshots everywhere, but imagineering could make only one "Disneyified" version!

...but would Imagineering be given the opportunity to make the Disneyfied version, or would we get precisely the same structure as the Pavilion at Myrtle Beach?

I'd be first in line for an enclosed SlingShot surrounded by an IMAX screen placing you inside Fantasia 2000, flying and bouncing around with the whales. I'd be the first in line for the B&M hypercoaster, Monstro, built on and around Pleasure Island, with its drops into the whale, its vertical LIM launch out the beast's blowhole, with whatever fantastic details they come up with. This paragraph brought to you by the cartoon whaling industy, apparently.

But with some of the lapses I've subjectively detected, and even if we consider the lapses you've subjectively detected, I'm afraid that Imagineering will not get the chance to Disneyfy the SlingShot (or whatever. I'm trying to big picture, here, not suggesting the 'Shot is a done deal, or even likely, at this point). I'm afraid Disney's "profitability through budget cutting" business plans end up supplying us experiences that satisfy relatively fewer subjective defintions of Magic.

The Contemporary garden wings, Downtown Disney, Wide World of Sports, these are all aspects of WDW that seem to fall below the Magic radar for an alarming number of folks, even some of the occupants of Car #1; who theoretically gained entry to that car in the first place by believing that all aspects of Disney _were_ still on that radar. I personally don't think it's coincidental that all of those aspects were designed and implemented with purely financial goals in mind (cross-promotion with ABC Sports, renting shop space to outside vendors/selling more plush, squeezing more rooms onto Deluxe properties), rather than the principle goal of providing the guests a first-rate experience.

I agree the "first-rate guest experience" is a moving target. I'm hoping that others will agree with me that Disney's business decisions appear to favor "cost savings" over "guest experience" to an unhealthy degree, with the result that the moving, subjective target is being hit less and less.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

Those that want true excellence strive for it in all of their activities. Disney was known as an organization that obsessed over details that no one would notice because the pride of the creators would not allow substandard work no matter how slight or unseen. They knew that the “big picture” is made up of thousands of individual points and each point contributes to the whole. If one element is slighted, then the whole work is diminished.

It is only the lazy, the untalented, the uncaring, the greedy that willingly accept the mediocre to be presented under their name.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

You asked for no knee-jerk reactions. Fair enough. Besides, while reading your post I nearly broke my knee on the desk, as it was jerking so much!!

I think you have indeed finally defined the question in very succinct terms. You write:

If Disney can create a really nice but not magical experience because of whatever reason--should Disney still do it?

I think I have to finally throw in with AV. He said once that the very term 'magic' is inherently the wrong word to use. He elaborated a bit (help me out AV) but the crux of the matter came down to it being to subjective. To personal. And finally I see what he was talking about.

I think a better term would be 'Disney Standards'. That way you don't have to personally experience the 'magic' to appreciate it. You would know that familiar 'Disney Standards' would be inherent in the endeavor whether it had personal appeal to you or not. It also can help define relative costs as an aspect of those standards. It would address the cost of the experience no matter how personally 'magical'. I've always said that there is nothing magical about the Pirates if it would cost you $100.00 a ride to see it! I really think that this is as important an issue as 'if they should do it at all'.

Maybe a little further explanation is needed. Say that you catch the tail end of a commercial. Nothing more than the name of the film and that it is produced by Disney. Not Touchstone or any of their other companies, but just Disney. There are certain assumptions that you can make from just that. If you happen to like other Disney films, chances are you'll enjoy the new one. You KNOW that you can bring the kids as it is guaranteed to be family fare. You KNOW your teenagers will roll their eyes at the suggestion, but secretly like it. You KNOW that grandma will be giving the tape as a Christmas present next year.

Now say that you catch the tail end of another commercial. Again just the name of the movie but this time it is produced by the Playboy Company. Can we still make some assumptions based on this information? Yes, we certainly can. What if the company was Penthouse? The same kind of sleaze, just more of it.

A while back we talked about mission statements for Disney. I don't think it would be quite a mission statement, but recently, within this very thread, AV perfectly and succinctly defined 'Disney". He said:

Those that want true excellence strive for it in all of their activities. Disney was known as an organization that obsessed over details that no one would notice because the pride of the creators would not allow substandard work no matter how slight or unseen. They knew that the "big picture" is made up of thousands of individual points and each point contributes to the whole. If one element is slighted, then the whole work is diminished.

I really thought that after this, refined, concise and to-the-point statement that no further discussion was needed. Read it carefully. Every word rings true. For Disney to be 'Disney' they must adhere to that concept in every enterprise they undertake. It is what 'Disney' is all about. It makes no difference whether or not it is our own personal cup-of-tea. Whether we find it, on some personal level, 'magical'. After all, we all have subjective tastes that can differ vastly. What matters is that this firm concept be applied equally, across the board, in everything that Disney does.

On a personal level you can ignore whatever you like. You can strap on blinders and not see Downtown Disney. Heck, I do every time I go there. I come back filled with pixie dust. But at the same time I realize that all that personal 'magic' does not mask the fact that Disney is no longer living up to the standards that they once held so dear. Not in every case of course. But it's getting more and more lately. It's even creeping (some might say galloping) into the theme park aspect. Case in point: DCA!

I can no longer count on discovering I'm in 'Disney' by the surroundings, whether to my personal tastes or not (my MarketPlace story). I can no longer assume that because it is Disney the product will naturally exceed my expectations (as was the case when I bought DVC sight unseen). I can no longer associate their product with absolute, unmitigated excellence. They've become 'iffy' at best. And I, for one, find that terribly disappointing. How sad.

Two other issues. First:

And more importantly they do not have to. Nobody should be discredited because their definition of Disney magic is not synonymous with an exhaustive critique of all things Disney.

OH MY GOD!!!! Is this the same guy that got all over me for not seeing Lion King on Broadway or visiting Celebration often enough??!! Care to explain, my good Scoop?

And:

Is not positive feedback also helpful to a manager in prioritizing and planning? I look forward to your thoughts!

Ahhh, Mr. Scoop! The flip answer, of course, is if they ever do something right, I'll be the first in line!!

But in reality, I do compliment. And compliment often!! I make it a habit to visit Guest Relations many times when I'm there. I formally complain about 'big picture' things (the hat, hours, ride closing). I rarely complain about little things (rude CMs, mechanical breakdowns, etc.). And most importantly I never accept anything for my complaint (and they do try to pacify you with 'free' stuff!).

Addionally, I have sent complimentary letters as well. When my son had several brain seizures and strokes and had to rushed to the hospital, Disney personal were exemplary!! They held onto those high standards that AV talked about and I wholeheartedly seconded. I wrote many letters, one to Ei$ner, which he personally answered. Yes, positive feedback is just as important. And when they do something right, I'm first in line. The "one trick pony" is actually a two trick attack to a one trick problem. The problem is holding Disney to their own standards. The attack is to complain LOUDLY and compliment, very often!!!

 

[JeffJewell]

For me, the WDW experience is the parks and resorts. That's it.

I don't think any good can come from trying to convince you that your definition of WDW is not a universal definition, but one thought springs to mind. In threads where we've discussed whether "Disney" is going downhill, you are always diligent about pointing out that we must take into consideration the quality of the Cruise Line and the Broadway shows, even if they're not our cup of tea; yet when we talk about "WDW," you seem willing to overlook or ignore certain areas that are clearly a part of WDW, even though they might not be a part of your personal trip to WDW. Why the different criteria for inclusion in the two discussions?

I say that maybe DD or WWS are not "magical" but then again maybe their existence as good solid enjoyable areas is better than nothing at all....in particular when they serve IMHO a different audience than the parks or resort vacationeers and quite likely different purpose than the parks or resorts

I can't agree, I'd much rather see them do less but do it well, do it with what Baron took to calling Disney Standards (much better than my unweildy "details and theming so as to create the best possible environment for the perception of Magic"). Even if certain parts are serving a different audience (I disagree with you on that, too, but again, I see no value in that discussion), Disney Standards would clearly differentiate DD as something on a different level from CityWalk or Church Street Station. Without Disney Standards, they are three largely equivalent choices.

You mention a doubt that Disney can always do that financially, but I think that's a little deceptive. Disney is still spending lots of money lots of places, the concern is caused by precisely what they're bringing home from the shopping sprees, and why they spend in some areas while cutting certain others.

I do not factor the parts of Disney which I do not experience into my choice of Car.

I must again point out that this statement is 180 degrees in opposition to your arguments about the quality of DCL and Broadway and how they must be taken into consideration when ruminating on Disney's quality as a company. It seems your ground rules on including a data point change depending on whether or not that data point fits your argument.

And with that, I think I'm outta here. It seemed for a while that the conversation was going somewhere, but I now realize it isn't. Like the locked threads, your ground rules still change to suit each post, and the basic argument "thedscoop loves Disney" is still the only one you seem to care to make, even though not a single person has ever questioned that point.

I respectfully refuse any attempts to disqualify my choice because its scope is too narrow

Disqualify is an interesting choice of words. I was trying to point out that your experience of WDW is largely equivalent to the experience that suggested Car #3 to most of us in that car. You insist I'm wrong. Whatever.

Why do the self-described "one trick ponies" or any other non-Car #1 passenger not also encourage Disney management with positive feedback when they do something right (Baron, AKL?) in addition to critiquing management when they make a mistake?

You seem to be again ignoring existing evidence. I have a history of pointing out precisely the things I thought were done right; recent posts have included thumbs up for the Disney Standards inherent in Tower of Terror, certain parts of AK (unfortunately, the parts I thought were the best were mostly the parts where AK is like a zoo with Disney Standards. Now I understand it's NAHTAZU at all, so what the hell do I know) and the Osborne lights.

During our trip in March, we were stopped outside MK for one of the guest surveys. Ninety percent of our answers were highest possible rating, we mentioned a couple things that bothered us specifically on this trip (the new managment at the Tiki birds added animatronics for Zazu and Iago, and the associated new spotlights have an awful tendency to shine directly in your eyes if you're over six feet tall (it bothered Bill and I, but not Susie and Suzy)--we didn't have that problem with the spots for the four original stars), and I mentioned a couple long-held pet peeves.

In other words, I do, in fact, give the positive feedback as well as the negative. What sparks interest in writing is those folks who experience WDW as does Car #3, but decide to sit behind the rose colored (and partially blacked out, apparently) windshield of Car #1.

You assume much, and incorrectly, about the occupants of Car #3.

Jeff