DEBATE: Debunking the AK "half day" myth.

[raidermatt]

Any reasonable person would , agreeing that AK is a full day park that some people just choose to spend a half day in.

For all practical purposes, the entire concept of labeling parks objectively based on how long it takes to "experience" everything in the park is irrelevant.

You're right, calling it a 1/2 day park is a subjective evaluation. However, so is calling it a full-day park. It does not matter that it takes 8 hours to do everything. All that matters is what folks view it as. More specifically, all that matters is what Disney guests in general think. Perception is everything, and more to the point, the perception of the audience as a whole thinks.

Certainly the individual evaluations fall along a curve some kind, and it most likely resembles a bell curve. All that matters is that when you ask folks to rate AK based on "days", its curve comes out more skewed to the 1/2 day notch than the other three parks.

It wouldn't matter if it had 1000 attractions. If folks rated it as a "1/2 experience", it IS a 1/2 day experience. Any argument that says "yeah, but there's 1000 attractions that take 10 minutes each..." is pointless.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Percentage-wise, its drop in 2001 and 2002 was second only to Epcot each year.

Numbers can be a funny thing, and can mean a lot of things. A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002? That would be no, right? So if the AK declines are solely due to the fact that people are speaking with their feet and abandoning the AK because it is less of a park and less of a value, how do you explain the declines at the other parks? or could it be that the decline in AK attendance doesn't necessarily mean what some want to make it out to be?

For all practical purposes, the entire concept of labeling parks objectively based on how long it takes to "experience" everything in the park is irrelevant.

Sure, but it does make for interesting conversation .

More specifically, all that matters is what Disney guests in general think. Perception is everything, and more to the point, the perception of the audience as a whole thinks.

And this is what I hope we have all moved on to discussing. So what do you think the audience is thinking, and why?

 

[raidermatt]

Numbers can be a funny thing...

I don't think too many folks at Disney think these particular numbers are at all amusing.

A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002?

No. Epcot dropped faster. So AK can hang its hat on something. Of course, Epcot didn't get a whole new "miniland" in 2002 either.

MK and MGM also dropped in both 2001 and 2002, but again, their percentage drops were not as large as AK's in either year.

So if the AK declines are solely due to the fact that people are speaking with their feet and abandoning the AK because it is less of a park and less of a value, how do you explain the declines at the other parks?

Clearly there are many factors impacting attendance. Certainly the economy and tourism are factors, but when it comes to comparing the 4 WDW parks to each other, they are on equal footing. AK even had the advantage in 2002 of getting the most significant addition of the year. Epcot only received its re-made JIYI, MGM got One Man's Dream and a BAH, and MK got Aladdin earlier in the year (but lost Legend of the Lion King, and mostly lost CoP and Timekeeper).

AK also got a brand new resort right next to it, the often praised Animal Kingdom Lodge. That should have helped also.

or could it be that the decline in AK attendance doesn't necessarily mean what some want to make it out to be?

I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to make it out to be anything. The decline is what it is.

Sure, but it does make for interesting conversation

I suppose it all depends on how you define "interesting". After doing my catch-up reading since Friday, "maddening" was more the word that came to mind!

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
----go to Busch Gardens. I believe AK was trying to be something different

Beliefs and facts are very different animals, no matter how often people mix them up.

AK was created specifically to try to capture the market going to Busch Gardens..it was not necessarily supposed to be different, just closer to WDW and one would have hoped better than BG..

Thank you, matt for the attendence figures, etc- GO Raiders!
DK-this is where your claim falls to the ground...

Also, you concede:
(from Disney Kidds post)

However, most zoos aren't free. Zoos like the Bronx Zoo and Philadelphia Zoo might be half the price of the AK, but I do believe that AK is worth more. I can spend a day plus at the Bronx zoo - there is that much to do. I can spend a day plus at the AK - there is that much to do. I do think that the AK is worth more when you look at the offerings. Yes, zoos are relatively cheap, but even adding 5 rides and 5 shows (to the zoo elements that the others have) warrants a higher cost, IMHO. While a day at the Bronx Zoo is fun and interesting, a day at AK is much better.

How much better- how much more is it worth? two times? Three? Four? Five? Six? I wish I had you on the witness stand to give your answer before I called my surprise witness:

The Bronx Zoo admission rates are:

Regular Admissions: Adults Child (2 - 12) Seniors (65 +)
Thurs. - Tues. $8.00 $5.00 $6.00
Children under 2 years are always free.
Wednesday: Suggested donation is the same as general admission.

Wednesdays are FREE if you so desire!!!! Try that at AK.

Philadelphia is $9.95. To be fair these are the Winter rates, I cannot find a resource for the summer rates- if they are different, as I would guess they are. Still right now the cost for the Bronx Zoo, which offers much in the way of animal related edutainment is less than one sixth the cost of AK. Once again what you believe might be true (that the zoos cost half as much as AK) and what is fact (the zoos cost much less than half of AK)are not the same.

If Disney wants to compete with Busch Gardens they need to do more than stick the Disney name on a zoo and a few rides. This is the problem...more rides will go a long way towards fixing AK...either that or tear the whole place down and start over with something better because no matter how much you or Disney tries after all this time there is little likelihood that the public is changing its mind about what they want for their $50....and it is not AK.

 

[raidermatt]

Numbers can be a funny thing...

I don't think too many folks at Disney think these particular numbers are at all amusing.

A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002?

No. Epcot dropped faster. So AK can hang its hat on something. Of course, Epcot didn't get a whole new "miniland" in 2002 either.

MK and MGM also dropped in both 2001 and 2002, but again, their percentage drops were not as large as AK's in either year.

So if the AK declines are solely due to the fact that people are speaking with their feet and abandoning the AK because it is less of a park and less of a value, how do you explain the declines at the other parks?

Clearly there are many factors impacting attendance. Certainly the economy and tourism are factors, but when it comes to comparing the 4 WDW parks to each other, they are on equal footing. AK even had the advantage in 2002 of getting the most significant addition of the year. Epcot only received its re-made JIYI, MGM got One Man's Dream and a BAH, and MK got Aladdin earlier in the year (but lost Legend of the Lion King, and mostly lost CoP and Timekeeper).

AK also got a brand new resort right next to it, the often praised Animal Kingdom Lodge. That should have helped also.

or could it be that the decline in AK attendance doesn't necessarily mean what some want to make it out to be?

I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to make it out to be anything. The decline is what it is.

Sure, but it does make for interesting conversation

I suppose it all depends on how you define "interesting". After doing my catch-up reading since Friday, "maddening" was more the word that came to mind!

And this is what I hope we have all moved on to discussing.

I hoped that too, but then you go and say all us "reasonable" people think AK is a full day park that some choose to call a 1/2 day. That conflicts with the whole idea that the park is defined by what guests (in general) perceive it to be (1/2 day), as opposed to what a time study shows (full day).

So what do you think the audience is thinking, and why?

See next post...

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Numbers can be a funny thing, and can mean a lot of things. A question - was AK the only park to lose attendance in 2001 and 2002? That would be no, right?

And from what number was Epcot dropping from 2001? That would have been a big number from the Millenium Celebration, right? So of course after the party was over there would be a drop. MK had a drop after the 25th anniversary...you need to look at more than just one or even two years, so-- here is a question...name any Disney park BEFORE AK (DCA is not eligible) that had attendance shrink every single year since it opened? {Crickets chirping} Anyone? anyone? Bueller??

Paul

 

[raidermatt]

So what do you think the audience is thinking, and why?

Its simple. They're thinking its a 1/2 day park.

Why? The most siginifcant reason is there are not enough compelling AND unique things to do.

What is compelling and unique? Kilamanjaro Safaris stands out. Dinosaur has some appeal, but leaves out the little ones. Festival of the Lion King is probably the only show that really hits the mark. Tarzan Rocks! isn't bad. Its Tough to Be a Bug is good, but it is after all, another 3D movie, two of which already exist elsewhere in the parks. Soon, all four parks will have one.

What else is there, that is both compelling, and at least somewhat unique? Maharajah and Pangani are nicely done, and are unique at WDW, but they just aren't that COMPELLING (PKS told us why).

Conservation Station, Tree of Life, Flights, etc, all nice, and in some cases unique. But far from COMPELLING.

So what does Disney add? A character parade. Not bad, and we know Disney guests like parades, but its hardly unique. Not when there are three other character parades on property.

PW? Must admit, its unique for WDW in the way that it is a mouse type coaster with minimal themeing, but that's not unique to outside of WDW, and its hardly COMPELLING to the DISNEY AUDIENCE (and important clarification when defining compelling with respect to WDW).

TS? A spinner, just months after Aladdin was added to MK, and with Dumbo already entrenched at MK. On top of that, its part of a Dinoland meant to be cheap and tacky. Again, unique to what's elsewhere in WDW, but not unique to the outside world.

Carnival games. Yeah.

Besides attractions, there are other factors. The theme itself is a factor, at least initially. An animal theme is not a compelling theme on its own. That doesn't mean it was a bad choice, it just means you have to convince people your animal park is better than anyone else's. Whereas a theme like Epcot is much more unique, and can at least get an initial bump just from the curiosity about the themes.

And then there's a lack of restaurants and nightime activity, as well as there being no monorail/boat service.

But the major problem is that people are not compelled to spend time in this park. More to the point, they are not compelled to spend more time in WDW because of this park. If Disney wants to fix that, they need to incorporate some more stuff that the Disney audience feels like they just MUST see and do, and that they MUST see and do again.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I don't think too many folks at Disney think these particular numbers are at all amusing.

Sorry Matt, I meant funny thing in that they can be twisted and turned into whatever people want them to be. I don't know why the numbers are what they are,and I'm not going to pretend to know.

AK was created specifically to try to capture the market going to Busch Gardens

Yes, but was it to give them a Busch Gardens experience? I don't think so. If it were they would have put in mega coasters and whatnot. While they wanted to take some market from Busch Gardens, I don't think they intended it to be Busch Gardens a' la Disney.

DK-this is where your claim falls to the ground...

If you say so Mr. Numbers Guru.

Sorry Paul - your zoo winter rate numbers (and those rates for the Bronx Zoo are the winter rates) mean nothing. I looked up those rates but didn't want to make myself look foolish by actually posting them as it is an apples to oranges comparison and proves nothing. If I recall correctly, last summer we paid about $30 each for the Philadelphia and Bronx Zoos. That surprise witness has only hurt your case as your credibility is shot. So called expert witnesses can be a bad thing if they don't come through for you - and this one didn't.

And from what number was Epcot dropping from 2001? That would have been a big number from the Millenium Celebration, right? So of course after the party was over there would be a drop. MK had a drop after the 25th anniversary...

I'm sure these celebrations bumped the numbers for all parks, so I don't get your point. I know when we went to Disney during each of these we didn't limit ourselves to one park. These celebrations generally lure people to WDW, not necessarily a particular park.

name any Disney park BEFORE AK (DCA is not eligible) that had attendance shrink every single year since it opened?

I don't know what all the numbers mean, but I bet that Disney tinkered with the AK numbers for that partial opening year - and I wouldn't read anything into the drop in 2000. Other than that, every park has been down since AK opened, so your little scenario here doesn't mean much. It is not as if AK had decreases while the other parks were growing. I think it is very difficult to pinpoint the cause for the drops. YOu could be right, but you could just as easily be wrong.

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds


Sorry Paul - your zoo winter rate numbers (and those rates for the Bronx Zoo are the winter rates) mean nothing. I looked up those rates but didn't want to make myself look foolish by actually posting them as it is an apples to oranges comparison and proves nothing. If I recall correctly, last summer we paid about $30 each for the Philadelphia and Bronx Zoos. That surprise witness has only hurt your case as your credibility is shot. So called expert witnesses can be a bad thing if they don't come through for you - and this one didn't.

Huh?
I posted the winter rates. I identified that they were winter rates and allowed that the summer rates probably are higher...where did I shoot my credibility? I was completely open about it. How is it not a valid comparison? The zoo is open for business and on a nice day that one gets occasionally in the winter one can enjoy all it has to offer for a fraction of the AK. Again, where did anything get shot other than your argument-shot full of holes...As for your credibility? Do you want to stake yours on that "recollection" that it cost you $30 a person to go to those zoos? I have already told you I don't have a source to check on that, but I lived in both places and frequented both zoos in summers and there is no way I ever paid anything like $30 for a zoo...$16 tops.

At the risk of stating something over- since you said you don't get it, I have to go over it again...

I'm sure these celebrations bumped the numbers for all parks, so I don't get your point

No AK did not get any bump- it has dropped every year. You are only entitled to your opinion not to make up facts.

every park has been down since AK opened, so your little scenario here doesn't mean much.

Again wrong, or false. Maybe matt can address each of the numbers specifically -I think that every park was up before 9/11 except AK of course which only has gone down, but I know that Epcot numbers were definitely up in 2000... then they started down. But that is somewhat understandable because the Millenium Celebration drew people to Epcot specifically. The attendence is measured by the first park people visit. I have no doubt that in 2000 many came to go to Epcot or only to go to Epcot and that drove its numbers to a level from which it had no place to go but down -without something else to draw them in..instead Epcot has gotten less than that...it has been ignored, while AK has been given a new parade, new rides and a vigorous ad campaign (Nahtazoo!) and it still can't get the rest of us to join you in admiring it. Every year fewere people visit it that the year before. You can keep flying into that window pane like the fly does, but it's still going to be a window pane the next time you bump into it...not a way out...AK has failed. The people have spoken-deal with it. Half-day, whole day, the park as it exists is not going to suddenly become popular enough to justify it's investment. The "wait until people just understand it" strategy has failed. We get it. We don't like it- not at that price.

Paul

 

[DisneyKidds]

Do you want to stake yours on that "recollection" that it cost you $30 a person to go to those zoos

Sure do - it is closer to $30 than $16.

I posted the winter rates. I identified that they were winter rates and allowed that the summer rates probably are higher...where did I shoot my credibility?

By trying to lead people to believe that $8 to $50 was anywhere near a valid comparison. Hey, next time you are in NY and it is 28 degrees your trip to the Bronx zoo is on me .

but I know that Epcot numbers were definitely up in 2000...

Correct. MK and MGM probably were as well. If Disney hadn't done something to skew the 1999 opening numbers for the AK high (to be able to make some great claims), the AK might have shown an increase in 2000 as well. Since 2000 they have ALL been down.

AK has failed. The people have spoken-deal with it.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - and it isn't much to deal with. However, it's failures are for much more significant reasons that the fact that it was a so-called "half day" park.

 

[SnackyStacky]

AK is a full day park that some people just choose to spend a half day in.

I do not agree to that. What I agree to is that if you do each and every attraction, there's enough to fill a whole day. There's a difference. I am not flat out saying it's a whole day park. Matt said it way better than I could:

It wouldn't matter if it had 1000 attractions. If folks rated it as a "1/2 experience", it IS a 1/2 day experience. Any argument that says "yeah, but there's 1000 attractions that take 10 minutes each..." is pointless.

Continuing...

Unfortunately they do, and unfortunately that is not what was intended to be the focus of the AK.

As others have said, what difference does it make what the focus was supposed to be? You said it yourself. All that matters is what the guests think. And the guests ain't too happy with it!

can spend a day plus at the Bronx zoo - there is that much to do. I can spend a day plus at the AK - there is that much to do. I do think that the AK is worth more when you look at the offerings.

Again I say, so what? That's your opinion! What you mean to say is:

I do think that the AK is worth more when I look at the offerings.

Because if you like the offerings, that's great for you. Not everybody feels that way. Case in point, I think the offerings at the Toronto Zoo are just as good as the Animal Kingdom's for half the cost. It's about $24 american for a SUMMER day at the Toronto Zoo. So my opinion is different than yours. That doesn't further the discussion in any manner.

If someone goes expecting rides, doesn't find them, and proceeds to skip what is there - they will only spend a half day - but they miss so much.

WRONG. I can't say it any other way. They aren't missing anything BECAUSE they want rides. They don't want shows, they don't want to go to a petting zoo, they want rides. (They being the hypothetical group you brought up that is "missing so much")

You want the proof?? RIGHT here. I was looking for rides with the animals the first time I went. I found next to none. I went to the Planet Watch, and the jungle treks...I did almost everything except the live shows. The next time I went back, my friend made me sit through the Legend of the Lion King. And I'll tell you. After doing it all, I can honestly say that if I hadn't done it, I personally wouldn't have "missed" out on anything.

(I'd also like to say that I do think it's a beautiful park brimming with potential... I'm not knocking the park...I just feel like I've gotten everything I'm going to get out of it in a couple of hours)

And I don't bring this up to bring in the half day argument again, I bring it up only as some sort of suggestion as to WHY people feel the way they do. Am I right? I don't know. I don't know if everybody else feels that way. But you wanted discussion as to why people consider it a half day park.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I do not agree to that.

Let me rephrase - AK is a park capable of filling a whole day that peopel choose to only spend a half day in.

As others have said, what difference does it make what the focus was supposed to be? You said it yourself. All that matters is what the guests think. And the guests ain't too happy with it!

Agreed, and it seems that a lot of people don't like it. I'm not disagreeing with that. I just look at why - and it may be because the full days worth of attractions just don't appeal to those people.

Again I say, so what? That's your opinion!

Never represented any of this as anything else. After all, that is all any of use really have around here.

They aren't missing anything BECAUSE they want rides.

So Disney should just give us what they think we want? Isn't that rather un-Walt-like? I think Disney should strive for something more, but sometimes that risk is met with failure.

You want the proof?? RIGHT here. I was looking for rides with the animals the first time I went. I found next to none. I went to the Planet Watch, and the jungle treks...I did almost everything except the live shows.

Wasn't it you over on the Theme Parks board on my AK poll that said you only saw 0 - 5 of the 20 + attractions? So which is it - did you see almost everything, or did you see 0 - 5 things . By the way, in early polling, the majority of those who dislike the park/spend half day or less have seen less than the whole park. The majority of those who have seen the whole park like it and spend a full day. As I said, it is early, but I bet we see some interesting trends.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

The term "half-day park" has an historical legitimacy in regard to WDW, and does not apply solely to Animal Kingdom.

Magic Kingdom opened: you paid for a day, you got a full day at Magic Kingdom. E.P.C.O.T. Center opened: you paid for a day, you got a full day at one park or the other.

It was only when Disney MGM Studios opened that a "multiple parks in a single day" ticket was required... that Disney had to acknowledge that one of their parks did not hold the attention of the average family for a full day. "Half-day park" was useful shorthand for the concept of a purposely cost-engineered, down-sized park, where the most popular late afternoon attraction is the bus to some other park.

Animal Kingdom was planned, designed, and built as a half-day park.

-WFH

 

[airlarry!]

Golf claps for M. Head.

Why exactly are we debating what Ei$ner and crew have ADMITTED IS THEIR BUSINESS PLAN!

AK, DCA, MGM, and HK DL were all intentionally built as 1/2 to 3/4 day parks...build 'em cheaper and fill 'em up later as the revenues (allegedly) come piling in!!

I don't mind the debate. I'm not saying that. But let's ground it in the reality that Herr Ei$ner's plan was to build AK like it was...and see if the public would buy it before filling it up.

 

[raidermatt]

I don't mind the debate. I'm not saying that. But let's ground it in the reality that Herr Ei$ner's plan was to build AK like it was...and see if the public would buy it before filling it up.

Excellent point made by yourself and the Head! We can talk all we want about WHY the public doesn't come, but one of the major points to be made is that AK is less of a park than MK/Epcot because it was designed to be less of a park. An "add-on" park at a full price.

And yes, the stated plan was to fill it up (or at least add some stuff) once it was proven guests liked it.

But, oops! The guests don't like it. Why? Is it ONLY because there wasn't more stuff? Or did the stuff that was there also miss the mark? Its both. There aren't enough compelling things for guests to see/do. If every current attraction WERE compelling, honestly, AK's attendance problems probably wouldn't be nearly so bad. But the lack of GREAT attractions, combined with the lack of ENOUGH attractions has lead to attendance woes.


His Airness (and anyone else of course), here's a question... We know that the PLAN was to add more to AK after it opened, and the company's idea that the public would eat it up was validated. But when the public didn't eat it up, the response was to basically do nothing. Open up what was already in progress (Asia), then find a cheap way to increase the "things to do" quotient (Dinorama).

What would have happened if the park HAD been a hit? For some reason, I think the additions STILL would have been cut, just for different reasons. Mgmt would have said, "Hey, if they love it as is, why should we spend money on additions?" Its the whole idea of give them as little as we think we can get away with.

Since they are a big 0 for 2 on their latest parks, we can't know for sure, but do we really think BK would have been built if AK had been a smash? Or have I crossed the line and become TOO cynical?

 

[SnackyStacky]

I just look at why - and it may be because the full days worth of attractions just don't appeal to those people.

That's EXACTLY why. But you make it sound like "those people" are wrong. (read: I'm not saying you said this, just that is what it sounds like to me) How did I come to this conclusion?

This is just one of the reasons:

If someone goes expecting rides, doesn't find them, and proceeds to skip what is there - they will only spend a half day - but they miss so much.

But, no! They're NOT missing out! I personally can attest to that! I am looking for rides, but because I was with a group of 5 other people, I had to do what others wanted. So I DID those other things, and they're NOT missing out if all they're looking for is rides.

To me (and obviously others, since you've been called on it before) by saying things like I quoted there, it's like saying that those who DO call it a half-day park are flat out wrong. And I know that's not what you're trying to say, but be advised that that's how it comes across! To a few at least.

Never represented any of this as anything else. After all, that is all any of use really have around here.

Right, BUT, you can't say something like this:

can spend a day plus at the Bronx zoo - there is that much to do. I can spend a day plus at the AK - there is that much to do. I do think that the AK is worth more when you look at the offerings.

to further your argument. Well, you can say it all you want to, but it doesn't help your argument. All it says is that YOU like what they offer. It doesn't offer any help was to why you are in the minority on that issue.

So Disney should just give us what they think we want? Isn't that rather un-Walt-like? I think Disney should strive for something more, but sometimes that risk is met with failure.

That just seems crazy to me. Of COURSE Disney is supposed to give us what we want! We just wouldn't know that we want it yet.

Not to mention the fact that as I have said before, the basis of a theme park is RIDES. The creativity factor and giving us something we don't know we want is in regards to the rides that fill a theme park.

If they wanted to re-create the zoo experience, then re-create it! Don't slap some themeing on a half built zoo, and the Disney logo and call it a theme park! THAT'S their biggest mistake in my opinion. I'm clearly thinking of what everyone is saying about California Adventure. How it is now obvious that Disney feels they can slap their name on anything and the public will swallow it. Animal Kingdom doesn't seem to be far off in that regard. At least to me.

If you believe that I'm not right in my analysis of not enough rides, then answer my, and Baron's question that was asked way back on the 2nd or 3rd page. Remember Baron's question? Let me refresh you:

Why wouldn’t “adding another 10 attractions” (assuming of course they were “Disney” attractions) help?

And lastly...

Wasn't it you over on the Theme Parks board on my AK poll that said you only saw 0 - 5 of the 20 + attractions? So which is it - did you see almost everything, or did you see 0 - 5 things .

Allow me to clarify. The first time I went to Animal Kingdom, I did almost everything. The second time, I went to Tough To Be A Bug, the Safari, Dinosaur, Legend of the Lion King, and Kali River Rapids. In any return trips to the Animal Kingdom, I would go to Tough To Be A Bug, Dinosaur, and the Safari.

I thought you meant what do you do, not what have you done.

Which is another reason I think your question is faulty. Since the majority on this board are repeat visitors, I think the question should read, "Of the 20 or so attractions, how many do you do on a typical visit to Animal Kingdom".

And lastly, I think it's funny that you cling to the fact that it's a full day park when two people have stated that the park was DESIGNED as a half day park. Both Frozen Head, and Voice have said as much.

Also, as I type my response, matt wrote:

What would have happened if the park HAD been a hit? For some reason, I think the additions STILL would have been cut, just for different reasons. Mgmt would have said, "Hey, if they love it as is, why should we spend money on additions?" Its the whole idea of give them as little as we think we can get away with.

No need to type a response. I agree completely with you.

 

[Mikelly1221]

I have been lurking on this thread and WOW! You guys are good debaters. I am a terrible debater, but I am a hard core, looong time WDW fan. But here is our pattern regarding AK:

1) How in trouble is AK? Summer of 2001, they let Seasonal Passholders (only FL residents) in during the summer blockout dates. Basically, we went for free! How often did my family take advantage of this? Once, only once during the whole summer, and all the other parks were blocked out.

2) January 2002-our family is on vacation for 5 nights staying at OKW. We do every other park all day and until close. Did we visit AK? Nope.

3) I go to Disney bare minimum 2-3 times a month. I last went to AK around 2 months ago. Before that, it had been our one visit during the Summer of 2001!

I enjoy animals, I enjoy all the attractions, but I don't know why, I just don't feel the need to go there, the "Disney" pull is not that strong regarding that park. None of the others (even MGM) have this problem.

Anyway, this is very unscientific, and certainly JMO but hopefully here's a perspective from a Disney vet.

 

[DisneyKidds]

WFH - glad to see the light come on in the kitchen, and thanks for the perspective on what Disney considered "half day park" in industry lingo. While I have agreed with what you are saying, that AK was designed to be less of a park than the MK and Epcot, do you believe that people today, on this board, are using the term in the same way Disney might have considered it?

Animal Kingdom was planned, designed, and built as a half-day park.

Half day park meaning less of a park than the MK and Epcot, or half day park meaning that Disney only intended for guests to spend only 5 hours there?

All it says is that YOU like what they offer. It doesn't offer any help was to why you are in the minority on that issue.

Am I, though? On this board we kick around attendance figures and speculate on what they mean and how they reflect the public's opinions - but how do any of us know we are right? Have people studied other theme park destinations that have four seperate gates and determined that the 4th gate never lagged in attendance as the overall resort grew larger and larger? Have we studied attendance trends as a four gate destination ages? I really don't know. What I do know is that it is only here that I hear so much negativity about AK and the supposed "fact" that the majority of people don't like it. I'll continue to follow the Ak poll over on the Theme Parks board, but so far over 90% of those that voted like the AK. So, no - I don't know that I'm ready to concede that I am in the minority.

AK has several problems. One is that it is less of a park than the MK and Epcot. That is a pretty straight forward issue. Another problem is that some people don't like what is there. I don't think that is a function of the parks size, but the type of entertainment it offers.

We just wouldn't know that we want it yet.

I think you are saying that Disney should give us what we want, before we know we want it. That I agree with and that was what Walt did. Is it just possible (AK size issues aside) that Disney thought they were doing just this in the type of entertainment they did include in the AK?

the basis of a theme park is RIDES.

The basis as theme parks as we know them, but does that mean they can never be something different?

How it is now obvious that Disney feels they can slap their name on anything and the public will swallow it. Animal Kingdom doesn't seem to be far off in that regard. At least to me.

Are you trying to say that Disney just slapped up a cheap half zoo and put the logo on it figuring that the public would swallow it? While they may have cut some things out, and while they may have missed the mark that you wanted them to hit, the AK represented quite an investment. Disney put a lot into the themeing and plantings, etc. Would they spend so much for that stuff if the intent was to feed substandard fare to the guest? I don't think so.

If you believe that I'm not right in my analysis of not enough rides, then answer my, and Baron's question that was asked way back on the 2nd or 3rd page. Remember Baron's question? Let me refresh you

No need to remind me, and I finally figured out why we aren't getting anywhere. You aren't reading my posts!!!!! I answered that question a couple pages back. Here it is..............

That question is, why won't 10 new attractions fix the AK problems? If you ask me, even with 10 new attractions, if people continue to tour the Ak the way they currently do, those 10 attractions might add only a handful that those people want to see. So it adds a couple of hours to the time they spend there, but that isn't going to solve the problem of why people don't see fit to experience the whole of the AK.

Really, if they add Beastly Kingdom it will probably include an E ticket, another ride, and a number of other shows or exhibits. Maybe if Disney added 10 new attractions and they were all rides you might feel differently. However, 10 new attractions would likely only include a handful of rides, among other things, as that is the way the AK was designed - not necessarily focused on rides. If that were the case I doubt it would change your feelings about the park, would it?

I thought you meant what do you do, not what have you done.

No. What I am attempting to determine is whether people have seen all of what is there before they decided they didn't like the park. Problem is, most people on that poll seem to like the park .

ps - welcome to the debate Mikelley 1221. Glad to see another lurker come out of the shadows!!!! No need to be good at debating - you just need to have an opinion. The stronger the better - if we want to keep the discussion interesting .

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I'm not sure how others tour the parks, but I'll stick with Walt's idea of a park the entire family can enjoy together. I'll give you that the MK could be viewed not as a two day park, but a one day park that keeps everyone happy at the same time.

I have been avoiding analyzing why my family found Ak so disappointing but now that I think about it your own words from this early post in this thread are a problem...How is a whole family supposed to enjoy Dinosaur, Primeval Whirl and Kali- I am not talking about sitting out with the baby- I am talking about toddlers who just don't measure up or many of them don't like getting soaking wet- that is not their idea of fun- that eliminated over an hour of attractions by your count right there that the family cannot enjoy together. The Boneyard is hardly enjoyable to the parents and older kids so there goes some more...ITTBAB is a great 3D movie but many a screaming child is taken out of there and I know many younger kids want nothing to do with 3 D movies -oops there goes another half hour...now you are down by your count to about 6 hours and most of it is shows and looking at animals not much different from a zoo....so for the family with the 4 and 6 year old how is that worth it to spend $20+ or more than the Bronx Zoo? This is why so many find that this park offers too little for a family with toddlers in tow to spend a whole day at those prices...

Paul

 

[raidermatt]

While I have agreed with what you are saying, that AK was designed to be less of a park than the MK and Epcot, do you believe that people today, on this board, are using the term in the same way Disney might have considered it?

Ok, try this. Get out your DVD of Meatballs, starring Bill Murray. Now find the scene where he is giving his pep talk, and make this your mantra:

It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

Disney designed it to be a park they knew the public wouldn't pay full price for. The public has decided the goal was met.

I'll continue to follow the Ak poll over on the Theme Parks board, but so far over 90% of those that voted like the AK. So, no - I don't know that I'm ready to concede that I am in the minority.

Yeah, I said I like it too. Because I do, as does my family, and most of those that we travel to WDW with. But the more important questions are how do we like it when compared to the other offerings? How much time do we actually spend there? And, ultimately, do we actually stay longer because AK is there?

In other words, is it a COMPELLING reason to go to WDW? Disney felt they already had the compelling reasons, and they just wanted to add something that could get you to stay longer while you were there, and still charge what they do for the truly compelling parks they already had.

So, they built the park with that in mind. Problem is, some people decided that AK isn't worth staying another day, so they skip it. Others decided it was worth their time, but since not a lot of new stuff has been going on at the other parks, they just took the time away from those. After all, AK closes early enough that they can still get over to Epcot and catch the nightime shows, or have dinner in WS.

Most of the people that go to AK don't hate it. But there's just not enough that truly LOVE it to have any kind of positive impact on WDW's overall attendance. If you want people to stay 7 days instead of 5, or 8 instead of 7, you have to give them a darn good reason. AND further, you have to give them a darn good reason to keep spending the same amount of time in the places they were already going.

However, 10 new attractions would likely only include a handful of rides, among other things, as that is the way the AK was designed - not necessarily focused on rides. If that were the case I doubt it would change your feelings about the park, would it?

If they are COMPELLING reasons to go for Disney guests, then it would greatly improve AK's appeal. If the current offerings are not COMPELLING, then of course it wouldn't help all that much to just add the same kind of stuff.

Of course, even if some great new additions came AK's way, it wouldn't help WDW as whole all that much if the other parks were allowed to stagnate.