Nahtazu

[All Aboard]

I had to turn on the computer and post this. Just saw a Disney's Animal Kingdom spot on NBC6. The hook phrase at the end was:

"Disney's Animal Kingdom, it's alot of things but remember, it's Nahtazu" Yes, it was spelled out like that on the screen and the voice over had an African flavor.

I'm bumming about this. Now Disney is having to apologize for DAK's identity crisis. Clever way to do it, I guess. But, it's a shame.

 

[Wes]

I guess it is too early in the morning.

What is "Nahtazu"?

And why does this mean Disney is having to apologize for DAK's identity crisis?

 

[JeffJewell]

...and you'll hear "Not A Zoo."

One of the common complaints about DAK is that the dearth of theme park style attractions makes the park little more than a zoo. Disney is now apparently airing the commercial equivalent of "Is Not!"

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

Well, gcurling, I guess if we were going to disagree it'd be on AK, right? I saw the add last night, as well, and thought it was cute. Certainly I was impressed that it was advertising for the lowest attended Park but I really read nothing more than a "good" commercial into it. Further, the fact that so many detractors find it humorous to refer to AK as a "zoo" doesn't help. It is much more than a zoo (for those of us with opened eyes) and appeals with imagery of the sublime & surreal more than the cerebral...I see nothing wrong with touting it's Nahtazu ...

 

[All Aboard]

My good friends scoop and captain,

I completely agree that AK is a very nice place. It's my least favorite WDW park (but, that's another thread.) It's just very unfortunate that WDW is having to do damage control on this.

You see what you've written in your posts, defenses that it is not a zoo. Why must you (or WDW) do this?

You build a park based on animals and fail to include much in the way of what folks are used to getting in theme parks. The clear result is that folks dismiss the place on grounds that it's nothing more than a zoo. I'm not speaking for you or me, but for the masses that think otherwise.

The good news here is that this campaign is not likely to work and WDW will be forced to do what it should have done in the first place, load up on a few first rate attractions - then more folks will flock to A and find that it is in fact, Nahtazu.

 

[DanG]

What could Disney conceivably be thinking! How better to reinforce a general public perception that AK does not provide enough value because its too close to a zoo, then to tell people its not.

Well, better than actually adding more shows and attractions to make it more than a half day visit. And don't blow a gasket folks, I like the shows and attractions that are there, but compared to the other Disney parks its not as compelling a value for your $50 ticket.

Nahtazu? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's right up there with new Coke for stupid marketing ideas.

DanG

 

[Sarangel]

As I recall, scoop, renknt, landbaron and I all agreed that Animal Kingdom was an "Experience." Yes, it has a number of animal exhibits, but the majority of those are immersive (ie. the animals have more space in the attraction than you do). I have seen one part of a zoo that resembles AK, and that is Seattle's Woodland Park zoo, but even their northern trail is tiny compared to the walk through exhibits at AK.

Disney, as a corporation trying to survive in an ugly marketplace, almost *has* to start marketing this park, since it is under-attended. I haven't seen the commercial in question, but if the general concensus is that AK = zoo it makes sense to try and counter that perception. Is this commercial successful at that, or does it's 'nahtazu' tagline simply reinforce the zoo perception?

Sarangel

 

[larworth]

I'll second thedscoop's closing defense.

However, while many of us can see the differences it does remind us that what is often most important is what the average Joe thinks (I don't think we have any Joe's who post here, so hopefully no one is offended). These are the people that pay most of the bills and have to be the target audience for PR and attraction design.

Haven't tried to time this out, but I assume the average person spends no more than half their time doing conventional zoo activities (safari, walks, station...) versus conventional Disney theme park activities (rides, shows, playareas...) . With this ratio you would think it would not be perceived as just a zoo? Disney obviously thinks that is their perception, hence the ad campaign.

I think it still goes back to the less than full day experience for the average person. The average person feels underwhelmed when they are done by 2:00 and therefore, blame this feeling on it not being more than a zoo. Something the average person probably spends about 2-3 hours at when they visit (not a full day).

My reaction to BK has always been to feel cheated that we didn't get these cool attractions to enjoy. Maybe, the psychological impact BK might have had on the park's image goes well beyond a couple more hours of amusement. If BK were open would the average person still have this zoo mentality?

Whether the announced new AK land and E ticket is BK or something else, will they be careful to minimize any "live animal" appearances to combat this image?

 

[All Aboard]

I think the problem with the zoo perception rests with folks that have never been there. Probably a combination of gut feeling and word of mouth from folks that have been there. Sara, I agree, WDW has a problem here and they are trying to fix it. But this is REactive maintenance instead of PROactive maintenance.

Here's a microcosm of what is likely happening out there. Someone here at the office went to AK in its first week. Being the WDW nut I am, I had to get a report. The jist was, "don't waste your time, there's nothing there to do." I, of course, wrote it off as "ah, she doesn't know what she's talking about." But others wouldn't, and that's the rap that AK is taking.

I'm torn. All here know I am a big WDW booster - I want to see AK succeed. But, I also want to see it grow. I want a couple of flat-out outstanding attractions. So, I don't know if I want the ad campaign to be successful.

The bottom line for me is, this kind of reactive, apologetic, damage control processing could have been averted had AK opened as a big-time park. But it didn't and the public has not embraced it, and it has forced WDW to what I saw last night. I couldn't believe my eyes. I thought of all the posters here that would have a field day with it. I had to post first, just to get my thoughts in. I hate that this has had to happen.

 

[Another Voice]

The problem, from my twisted point of view, is that Animal Kingdom is neither a zoo nor a theme park. It’s a half-hearted attempt to be both and it fails. The stare-at-the-animals parts of AK, while well done, are still not innovative compared to most modern zoos. And the San Diego Zoo has been offering monorail and truck rides through their free range Wild Animal Park for more than two decades. They don’t have the “thrilling” chase to save Little Red at the end of their ride, but is that really a problem? I think everyone agrees that AK is light on the theme park attractions, so I won’t belabor that point.

In order to succeed, Disney must decide on a direction for AK – nature or entertainment. My feeling is that they want to go the easy theme park route. Bring in the carny games, the roller coasters, the branded stage shows. The question is if the company is willing to spend the cash to do that the way they should. They’re not, so you’re going to see a dribble of “attractions” like Din-O-Rama and ‘Soaring Over the Outback’, whatever is just barely enough to slow the attendance hemorrhage. And lots and lots of marketing because that’s easy to do as well.

Personally, I’d like to see a park filled with Discovery Cove-like experiences. Do something that no zoo or theme park has done. Take out the busses and have hiking trails through the African savannah. How many times do you have chance to walk through a herd of elephants? And how much would people pay to swim through a kelp forest filled with sea otters and seals? There are a lot of concepts that are filed away at WDI for some fantastic areas and it’s time to bring them out. Orlando already has too many theme parks, it’s time to try something new.

 

[DisDuck]

I guess I am in somewhat of a minority, along with my family. We have never viewed AK as a zoo but as a Disney attraction that included animals within its theme. I have been to 'zoos' as attractions, going back to the now defunct Jungle Habitat in NJ, also been to Lion Country Safari, Bronx Zoo, Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. AK is nothing like any of these.

Since there does seem to be a perception about being a 'zoo' then nothing wrong to advertise it is not. Isn't one of the points of advertising, anything, to put forward 'owners' idea of what there product is.

For those here who still think of AK as a glorified zoo, name me a place recognized as a zoo not a theme park/attraction that has the same or similar contents as AK. A combination of themed rides/attractions, shows and restaurants to match AK. If not then drop the 'zoo' label please.

 

[JeffJewell]

name me a place recognized as a zoo not a theme park/attraction that has the same or similar contents as AK.

...what is a "zoo" if not a park with different attractions, with the underlying theme of "animals?"

Playing this kind of semantics game helps nothing, least of all AK's attendance.

The problem is that Disney itself obviously has no coherent focus with Animal Kingdom. If they did, they would have advertised what AK _is_, not what it isn't.

This could very well backfire on them when AK guests, specifically expecting NOT A ZOO, show up and discover that the place is basically a zoo with a couple rides and shows.

You guys can carp all you want that "zoo" is only used derogatorily by "Disney-bashers," but there's no better single word to describe AK (and in particular, how it is different from the other parks on property) to your co-workers when you return from your vacation.

Jeff

 

[Captain Crook]

On some days I consider AK my faorite Park and you know, when I've described AK to people I am quite certain that the word zoo has never come out of my mouth...

 

[DanG]

Whether or whether not AK is a zoo is not particularly relevant outside the interpersonal infighting of this board.

Many people love AK. But from an attendance perspective, AK has been a disappointment for Disney. Many, many people in the frenetic rush of their vacations simply do not take the time or do not care about the subtle creative nuances that many see as AK's strength. They compare the AK experience to the other themepark experiences they had in Orlando, and when they get home they share their opinions with everyone they know going to Orlando after them that AK is either not worth the time and money or a full day of a 7 day vacation. Many having been to the AK have decided to substitute days at SeaWorld or IOA or one of the water parks for a day at the AK. The perception of many less passionate about Disney than ourselves is that AK is not a good value and is not a "must do" when you go to Orlando. Many do see AK as a mildly enhanced zoo. This general perception is the problem.

That is what makes the advertising campaign so ridiculous. If you are trying to redirect what you believe to be an unflattering comparison, you don't reinforce that comparison in a 30 second commercial. You advertise the attractions and shows and you never ever mention the word "zoo."

The problem remains for Disney that AK is not a $50/pp attraction (or $160-200 for a family or four, my family is 7). I suspect that many of the people on this board have annual passes and regularly go to Disney several times a year, so there is no incremental cost to spend a day in AK. The vast majority of those visiting Orlando are more occasional visitors who go to Orlando once every one or two or three years. They are more likely to see a day at the AK being expensive and taking a day away from a more compelling themepark.

Finally, Disduck asked what park compares favorably to AK by way of theming, rides, attractions, shows and animals. I would agree that one would be hard pressed to find a park that exceeds AK in all of these areas, but for my money, each of Seaworld and Busch Gardens surpasses AK as an overall wildlife themepark experience.

I'll still go to and enjoy AK, but Disney is facing and to its credit addressing the problem that perception is reality.

DanG

 

[JeffJewell]

you did not answer DisDuck's specific question.

..I pointed out that DisDuck's question was nonsensical, and could not be answered meaningfully.

He was trying to force a differentiation between "zoo" and "theme park" when "zoo" is linguistic shorthand for "zoological park," which can also be stated as a park with a zoological theme. There is no such thing as a "zoo not a theme park," which his question asked us to name, because the definition of "theme park" includes "zoo."

Says who? Incomplete or unfinished does not necessarily mean unfocused

I never said that it did; you made that up yourself (probably because it was easier to negate that what I actually wrote). My post stated that if they had a specific focus for what AK _is_, they would not have had to advertise focusing on what it was _not_. All they know is they don't want people to think it's a zoo (although why they hate that term is a mystery to me, I like a good zoo. It might even _boost_ attendance if AK was seen as a zoo with extra stuff rather than an amusement park with not enough stuff).

However, if this thread does not help anything for you, then obviously no one is requiring you to participate

You like to respond to statements I never made. I specifically stated that it was DisDuck's semantics shenanigans that help nothing.

Fine, we can take your route. We'll say the Duck is right, and I'll stop using the term "zoo" in the same post as "AK." Did attendance go up? Does the general population now see AK in a different way?

Or did our "agreeing" on that semantic issue help absolutely nothing?

In your zeal to rewrite my post into something you could make fun of, you managed to miss a very basic point. When Joe, Mary, and little Billy Lunchpail return from WDW and try to tell their friends about AK, what do you think they're going to say? It's certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that the description might start "It's like a zoo, but..."

The perception of AK as zoo has less to do with "Disney-bashers" and more to do with the fact that Disney did little to distinguish AK from a zoo in the public's eyes. Trying to use strategic linguistics on a Disney fan board will do nothing to change that.

Jeff

 

[DanG]

Sorry, I'm not following. PMs? Help, please.

DanG

 

[YoHo]

I've used the word Zoo to describe AK and not in a derogatory way.

To play along in the semantics game, Yes, a Zoological Park is a Theme Park with the Theme being animals. The problem with that is that typically the word Park when attached to Zoological means something Different then the Word Park attached to Theme or amusment.

Animal Kingdom actually breaks barriers along the lines of Busch Gardens and seaworld. the difference being that A Busch Gardens (gardens is like Park in the tradition sense) is Amusment park with Animal theme and AK is Animal theme Park with Amusment type attractions.


Zoological Parks are like Golden Gate park(Doesn't have a Zoo as I recall), Central Park, Grant Park/Lincoln Park etc. They aren't gated admission type places (historically) and thus the conotate something different.

 

[JeffJewell]

Cheap shots at DisDuck are not warranted. DisDuck is a regular, well-stated contributor.

I took no cheap shot at DisDuck. I never questioned his contribution. I made a specific comment about a specific question DisDuck posted.

He presented a very specific question.

Yeah, that's the one.

Try reading his posts carefully before blowing them off so casually

I read with excrutiating care, without fail. I made a considered response, and even explained my conclusion.

But you and johare, not sure why you all do things like calling questions "nonsensical" etc

I called the question nonsensical because (and here I quote from my previous post):

There is no such thing as a "zoo not a theme park," which his question asked us to name, because the definition of "theme park" includes "zoo."

The question had no answer; it made no sense. It was a nonsensical question.

Well, guess what? Present us some data from which we can logically derive this recent statement by you.... "Disney did little to distinguish AK from a zoo in the public's eyes. " Are you privy to some poll numbers regarding "THE PUBLIC"S EYES" that DisDuck and I and others who find AK, maybe unfinished, but immersive and unique for what is finished? If so, please share.

I noticed that Disney was running advertisements that AK is "Not A Zoo;" not coincidentally, that's the reason I posted on this thread. If Disney thinks they need to spend ad money (in these days of scorched earth theme park budgetting) to help "distinguish AK from a zoo in the public's eyes," that's good enough for me (By the way, what's this obsession with AK being "unfinished"? You've mentioned it in almost every non-PM oriented post, although with a cursory glance back up the thread, I don't see that anyone else has mentioned it at all).

I really have no gripe with you.

I must confess that I didn't pick that up from reading your post. I guess I just don't understand you.

I guess I just don't understand you

Well, at least we have that in common.

Jeff

 

[Sarangel]

Gents (and Ladies) -

I've noticed a lot of sniping that's beginning to border on uncivilized. Dis Duck got a little edgy, Jeff Jewel got edgier in return, thedscoop ran to DisDuck's defense... I ask you all to take a couple of deep breaths and refocus on the discussion about AK.

I think this is a good discussion & may bring up some interesting points about why AK is less successful than Disney wants, but if we can't remain civilized about it, I will have to close the thread (which I don't really want to do).

Thanks -

Sarangel

 

[JeffJewell]

...Disney's Animal Kingdom clearly has a lot in common with some zoos and wild animal parks. I still don't know why anyone hates the "zoo" label so much; a Disney zoo sounds like a fantastic idea to me, if done right (and I feel that certain parts of AK _are_ "the zoo, done right." I've got the hundreds of photos to back up that opinion). I honestly have no idea why this ad campaign is expected to attract customers.

And it brings up the question, if not a zoo, then what? If it's supposed to be more of an amusement park, well, you can't help but compare it to the amusement parks around it and find it somewhat lacking.

Jeff

PS: Animal Kingdom's current function is mostly as a garden lounge for WDW annual passholders. The park's laid back charm eludes a lot of families trying to cram too much Orlando into too few vacation days. Lest anyone think I'm in some way "bashing" with this characterization, let me point out that I currently _am_ one of those annual passholders that spends a lot of time in AK.

PPS: Also, a huge chunk of folks entering AK in the morning got there on the bus they caught at their hotel; the one "themed" with a thirty foot tall saxophone. Perhaps this enormously broad presentation of theming ill prepares the guest for the subtleties of AK. But that's another thread, entirely...