So, what's the point? Well, I now appreciate, more than ever, how incredibly daunting a challenge WDW has. To create a place which keeps the attention and interest of young married couples without kids to retirees with an empty nest to families with toddlers or teens.
Yeah, it is quite a challenge. Frankly, I think it might be one of the few impossible things to accomplish. As long as there is a certain segment of the population that puts physical thrills above all else, there just isn't much of a way to be #1 on their list and still be #1 on the list of those who don't place such a premium on physical thrills.
So, Disney should probably stick with this strategy:
Or should Disney simply say, like some other parks, we are going to have something for everyone, but we are going to focus primarily on [FILL IN THE BLANK].
Except that I don't think this is exactly the right way to phrase it. I'm not sure what the best way is, but essentially, Disney parks have been in the business of providing creative, innovative, appealing, whole-family entertainment in a way that nobody else does. I see no reason to change that.
When they start saying "How can we get at this market segment, or that market segment", the danger is the efforts will hurt them in keeping the guests they already have won over.
The tough question is whether anyone, including Disney, has ever (and if so examples) or really ever can create a new attraction broad enough to perk the interests of all these demographics.
Certainly I think Disney has done this before, with Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and some others. I either wasn't around or wasn't paying much attention when these opened, so I can't speak from experience, but I'm pretty sure that while these were a huge hit in the "family entertainment" area, they still got at least some of the thrill seekers to take note. They were unique and entertaining.
They've also swung the pendulum a bit in the other direction with the "Mountains" (Matterhorn, Space, Big Thunder, Splash). Attractions that provided more of a physical experience, but aren't as restrictive as they could have been, and still provide excellent stories and "show".
The above two categories are likely where Disney should stay. When you do this right, you don't completely lose the teens, and you maintain your position with the rest of the family entertainment crowd as well. And lets face it, that family entertainment crowd is where the dough is....if not, Six Flag's would be building 4 park destination resorts.
Now, I'm not saying M:S can't be a "mountain-like" attraction, one that is still more family entertainment than physical thrills. But from what we hear, its likely to be more restrictive from a physical standpoint.
If you need evidence as to the dangers of trying to provide different experiences for all "market segments", check out Dinorama. They read "not enough to do" and "nothing for the kids" on a survey and BAM! Triceratops Spin, carny games, and Primeval Whirl. Gives the adults something to do, and the kids something to do. Granted, its possible to better execute these kind of ill-conceived ideas, but they do still remain ill-conceived ideas.
If they had instead followed their basic mission of whole-family entertainment and combined these funds into one whole-family attraction, it would have been much more of a benefit to AK. They wouldn't have even needed to read the surveys, but still would have addressed the concerns.
Families are typically split whenever they attend any amusement type activity. It is more common than not and easily accomodated.
Yes, as gcurling said, it IS typical and common....in other parks. The intention was that this would be one of the differentiating points for a Disney park. Disney is losing that differentiation.
)
