And with that they still made a ton of money , had record attendence ! Seems with every disgruntled WDW "veteran" ther are 2 families behind you chomping at the bit to go ! My 2 daughters LOVED the New Fantasyland. When Mine Train opens it will only get that much better. Disney hasn't wanted people to leave thier properties for a looooonnnggg time now, not just with the FP+ system. Who can blame them ? Same with any store owner , the longer you stay the more likely you'll spend. Sounds like you need a couple years away, to refresh . When I went in the 70's no way could I afford $50 for the Poly so staggeringly expensive is all relative.
Why so defensive? And who said I was disgruntled? Saw you not my last sentence that reiterated the fact that I loved going to WDW? I think you're missing my point - and I guess that's my fault for not making it more clearly.
The point here is that Disney is running on the momentum of the past. And businesses with that much headroom can go a long time on that momentum. The problem is that by the time they realize that momentum has been exhausted, rather than enhanced and perpetuated with new, fresh, compelling offerings, it's way too late.
Of course Disney is raking in big park profits and attendance - but, at the same time, Disney is trading its brand value for commoditization, which is precisely what the short-term bean counters want, but its shown to be detrimental for long-term brand health if you rely on it in perpetuity.
Look at it this way. Yes, they spent a ton on New Fantasyland. And, to be sure, its fresh and new and attractive merely because its new and attractive. But is there anything truly
Disney distinctive there? Not just allusions to a few movie characters, but something as iconic as, say, Cinderella's Castle? Or Spaceship Earth? Something that just
says "Disney" that
compels people to go there? Not based on what I've seen myself, the reactions of my own kids, or the reactions of many other observers here and elsewhere. There's some attractive forced-perspective mountains, some nice scenery, and yes, a pending new ride. Very nice. But
compelling? Not to me.
By extension, when a company starts trading on its history, it cannot do so indefinitely. Look at any big company that was deemed "too big to fail." IBM nearly failed because they assumed everyone would "always" buy IBM,
until they didn't. Everyone assumed everyone would "always" buy GM,
until they didn't. Some companies, like IBM, learn the lesson, and figure out a way to reinvent themselves. Others, like GM, flush their brand goodwill down the toilet, go bankrupt, and (worst case) rely on public money to bail out their own short-sightedness.
Will Disney recognize what they are doing and how they are spending that corporate "brand" capital right now? Yes, as you state, they're making big dollars and attendance numbers. But their decision to craft a situation wherein it is more difficult to
leave the park necessarily implies they don't
want to invest in infrastructure and attractions that
compel people to stay. That's the essence of resting on your laurels - which is a far different thing from a grocery store owner wanting you to go down the high-profit aisle before you hit the bread counter. Maybe Disney will pull it off, and all the other parks and attractions that seem to have a more contemporary methodology are all going to fail. And maybe, one day, people will start buying Oldsmobiles again....oh, wait....
Telling someone to "decompress" and "take a couple of years off" makes it sound like Disney is a job, not a vacation destination, and the consequent expectation is for me to accept and abide whatever Disney does, and make prior visits where superior performance was experienced seem distant and less relevant, so as to make the slowly lowering standards more acceptable. Surely you don't mean that.
No "disgruntled Disney vet" here. Just recognizing a trend. It's up to Disney to recognize, if they ever do, how much they are reliving the history of other big companies that followed a similar corporate path.
