New AK ride/Western River = It ain't built yet!!

[raidermatt]

Here is the rub. 'Magic' is not something to be analyzed in the cold, hard, light of day. 'Magic' is an intangible. It is something you feel. Something you experience. It appears that it is something that is still there, full force, when you are on your vacation.

For the most part, I agree, again!

But, and its a big but, that "feeling" that we sometimes can't quite put our finger on is the direct result of decisions made by people. People who sit in offices like you and I, people who go to meetings and dial into conference calls, like you and I. Just as what you and I do effects the "products" of our respective companies, the folks over at Disney make decisions that directly effect Disney's product, that ever present "Magic".

While shorter hours may meen nothing to you, it should be easy to see that they will effect the "Magic" felt by many others. Further, as someone who has repeatedly pointed out that the power of classic attractions like Pirates ain't what it used to be, it should be easy for you to see how new attractions are going to have to pick up that slack. If they don't, its going to impact the "Magic".

As guests, its fine for us to say the Magic is something we feel, and can't be explained. But, if we are going to seriously discuss how this feeling is created for guests, it really does boil down to tangible decisions on everything from CM training to the next "E-Ticket". Even in good 'ole Walt's day, there was no ambiguity about how Disney would strive to create Magic for its guests. People made tangible decisions in an effort to create a special experience. It doesn't work any differently today.

 

[DisneyKidds]

As guests, its fine for us to say the Magic is something we feel, and can't be explained. But, if we are going to seriously discuss how this feeling is created for guests, it really does boil down to tangible decisions on everything from CM training to the next "E-Ticket". Even in good 'ole Walt's day, there was no ambiguity about how Disney would strive to create Magic for its guests. People made tangible decisions in an effort to create a special experience. It doesn't work any differently today.

Hey, we better stop agreeing so much . I do agree with this statement, and it is why I am in Car #2. Disney today is using business processes that may not be producing products that people consider Magic with the same consistency as throughout Disney's past. However, they still are producing new magic. Whatever little that might be, combined with the Magic of old, makes Disney today a vacation like none other. Not even the most staunch Car #3 advocate can deny that. That is the big picture. That is where I hang my hat.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that reduced hours mean nothing to me. In fact, they mean a heck of a lot more to me than they do to someone who visitis for the first time tomorrow. Why? Because I know what could be, what was. I know what I am missing. Despite all that, I still find WDW to be the most unique and Magical vacation destination for my family. Despite all of that, Disney provides my family with a vacation experience that I cannot find anywhere else. That isn't because I'm enjoying my WDW vacations on the basis of nostalgic memories of what used to be. Rather, I enjoy WDW for what it offers me in the moment. The same is true for all of us who pledge an allegiance to any car numbered lower than 4. Now if we can all see that thru the disappointment of knowing what could have been, you can rest assured that someone who isn't walking around grumbling about Mickey Head Butter and doesn't even know that the MK used to be open until whenever can see it. That is quite a powerful big picture.

 

[Another Voice]

"That is quite a powerful big picture."

But the point is that "big picture" was first created by following a set of standards and beliefs that worked for more than seventy years. It turned a tiny cartoon company into a massive international media corporation that can convince millions to fly to Florida every year to see a fake castle stuck in the middle of a swamp.

The concern is that violating all those standards and beliefs will not produce the same results.

There is nothing in a child's genes that forces them to like Mickey Mouse. There is nothing in a teenager's hormones that makes them prefer 'Rock'n Rollercoaster' over what Universal offers. There's nothing in an adult's life that requires them spend their time at the Grand Floridian rather than the Hotel del Coronado. It all comes down to a choice.

The "old" way believed that you had to do everything possible to please the guest and make them want to come. The current belief is all about explaining away financials with promises of pendent up demand, cost margins and squeezing pennies from the people who decide to show up.

That difference is not about how to create "magic" – it's about how to run the business.

You can wrap yourself in Magic® all you want, you can manage your brand image down to the printing on the napkins, you can have Regis chat with the latest victim from 'The Bachelor' in front of the castle for days on end – but people look, they demand, that something of real value be underneath.

Sure, a lot of that real value still exists at WDW in the form of decades old attractions and those valiant few who remember how the business is supposed to run – but those traces are quickly being bulldozed by cheesy new products and a growing sense that my enjoyment means less to Disney than the ability to squeeze another 1.884787632 cents per hour from my visit.

Disney already has a huge financial disaster on their hands by opening up a theme park in Anaheim that absolutely no one will pay to see – and that wasn't because people where nostalgic for the way the place used to be. There was no disappointment over what was, no clamoring for all those unknown plans that could have been. It was a fresh slate so bright, so shiny, so new.

And now it's so empty.

We don't fret about the passing of the "old ways" out of some desire to relive the foggy memories of the past. We fret because those ideas worked and the new ways don't.

 

[DisneyKidds]

AV - in substance I agree with most of your last post. Believe it or not we agree on a lot of the details about many things. I guess we just disagree with what it all means in the big picture.

We don't fret about the passing of the "old ways" out of some desire to relive the foggy memories of the past. We fret because those ideas worked and the new ways don't.

Change that to 'the new ways don't work as well' and you'll get no argument. But flat out don't work? I don't agree completely.

It all comes down to a choice.

Yes, it does. In the end, we are all still chosing Disney, aren't we?

I do agree that more people are making the choice to try things like Universal. Yeah, some of that is driven by bad Disney choices. How much? That's hard to say. A lot of that is also driven by the fact that organizations like Universal are growing, maturing, and taking steps that will attract guests no matter what Disney does.

 

[Another Voice]

I used to say that things didn't work as well, but there are now too many examples where things really didn't work at all in terms of their business objective. It's not just California Adventure, but Disney Studios Paris is even worse off. And Animal Kingdom without park hopping would be major, major, major trouble if you believe the internal rumblings.

Even on the smaller levels, things like Dino-Rama, Aladdin, or Walt 100th did not produce anywhere near the results that were expected. Nor was even something like Pop Century able to draw enough people from the competition to make its opening worthwhile.

This is not to pass judgment on the quality of these projects, but to simply look at them from the business point of view. Whatever you think about these offerings, the public isn't responding.

And this started long before the present difficulties. Certainly no one can claim that fear of flying has caused the long string of major animated films that have failed to spark the public's imagination.

There are very clear signs that the public is making the choice. Nickelodeon is already a far stronger brand than Disney is among children. Spongebob merchandise, from what I've heard from both corporations, far outsells anything Disney has with the exception of Winnie the Pooh (and we all know what's happening there). The performance at the parks is worse than that found at the competing parks and all the other divisions certainly have been equally lacking in performance for five years now.

While other companies are expanding and trying to present themselves to new audiences, Disney seems content on simply relaying on the past. You wrote about how us old fogies are disgruntled because of nostalgia, but take a look at the WDW's "Where the Magic Lives" campaign. Does it promote anything new, does it promote things they are offering to entice people to come? No, they basically play off nostalgia and brand image (it's Disney, it must be good). It's trying to sell yesterday's creating to the current audience.

There's only so long you can continue to peddle old goods. Tastes chage, new wonders come along, and after a while everyone who wants to see it will have seen it. Unfortunately for Disney, the company is not like a washed up singer that can make a comfortable retirement by doing dinner theater in Branson. At the level Disney is at now it has to move forward or become lunch.

I wouldn't be so worried about Disney future if I believed there was a desire to turn things around. But from everything I hear it's the very head of the company that's trying to serve Disney up as the blue plate special.

 

[Another Voice]

Who is Spongebob…

http://www.modbee.com/business/story/6106639p-7059841c.html

" 'We've become this really large, successful business by doing the exact opposite of what most people in the business do. We don't make shows to sell toys,' said Jeffrey Dunn, president of Nickelodeon Enterprises, whose parent is media conglomerate Viacom Inc., owner of MTV Networks and Paramount Pictures.

Last year, Nickelodeon had 41 of the top 50 TV programs, on both network and cable, aimed at children ages 2 to 11, according to Nielsen Media Research. 'SpongeBob SquarePants,' about a sponge who lives at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, was the No. 1 show with that age group, Nielsen said.

'The Fairly OddParents' was the No. 2 rated show with kids 2 to 11, according to the research company."


"But 'SpongeBob Square Pants', which began airing in 1999, has been the company's biggest surprise, generating revenues of $750 million last year and exceeding expectations of $500 million. The show has attracted a wide audience, although the property had a cool reception at first among merchants, who underestimated consumers' emotional connection with a sponge.

Now, there are about 100 companies that supply products under license for 'SpongeBob', ranging from Bounty paper towels from Procter & Gamble to sporting goods accessories from Sport Fun."

I wonder how many times that is more than the sales of 'Treasure Planet' toys?

 

[crusader]

It turned a tiny cartoon company into a massive international media corporation that can convince millions to fly to Florida every year to see a fake castle stuck in the middle of a swamp.

Hilarious!

No, they basically play off nostalgia and brand image (it's Disney, it must be good).

They have to to some extent. They have been utilizing a cartoon character for over 40 years to symbolize who they are. You cannot simply walk away from that!

And Animal Kingdom without park hopping would be major, major, major trouble if you believe the internal rumblings.

This park does have potential. If designed to be more competitive with the Magic Kingdom it would sustain itself.

We don't fret about the passing of the "old ways" out of some desire to relive the foggy memories of the past. We fret because those ideas worked and the new ways don't.

It really is a combination of the two. But ideas of the past will not necessarily work in today's arena. I agree there have been a tremendous number of failed objectives these past years and understand the demands now facing this organization. The solution is not simple or economical here. It will take equally as long to solve this dilemna as it did to create it.

What will assist temporarily is a more subtle approach - install new thrills; and implement other changes successfully promoted to the consumer complemented with an attractive pricing strategy.

 

[raidermatt]

Disney today is using business processes that may not be producing products that people consider Magic with the same consistency as throughout Disney's past.

Continuing the trend....we agree.

However, they still are producing new magic. Whatever little that might be, combined with the Magic of old, makes Disney today a vacation like none other.

I'm still with you...

But...

Whether Disney is still the best/tops/most unique/whatever vacation is not the point. The question is about direction. If you are heading in the wrong direction, it doesn't matter how far out in front you were, because you will eventually be caught. Further, in a business world that expects growth, Disney's performance can't be measured by how many more people it attracts than Universal. Disney has to prove that it has greater growth potential from where it is now than other companies do. It also has to prove it has the management in place to fulfill that potential.

As you and many others have pointed out, the "Magic power" of Disney's creations erode. Pirates dripped of Magic to just about everyone when it opened. Today, there is no doubt it doesn't quite enthrall new guests as much, though we bicker over how much less. Same with most of the other creations and attractions. For Disney to be Disney, and maintain the same level of Magic for a new guest today as they did for a new guest 20-30 years ago, they must create Magic with that same consistency as in the past.

 

[Testtrack321]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Listen, I don't care if you compare Spongebob with Playhouse Disney, Treasure Planet, or Ahmad Rashad...the fact is that we are now discussing Spongebob. Freakin' Spongebob. My how the mighty have indeed fallen...

Spongebob!

We're comparing The Mole host to a cartoon character that has as much pull as a pro-Segway rally in San Francisco. Sure, it gets murchandise, but after that, it still stands alone in the 'fun for all' catagory. As our friend Barron knows, fun for one is not fun for all.

 

[YoHo]

WHO LIVES IN A PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA?

SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS!!!


Why do you find it so funny Scoop? You like a septaganarian mouse and the Kids today like a yellow square Sea sponge.

Not only that, adult Spongebob merchandise sells really really well.

 

[hopemax]

The only Spongebob story I know is what a friend of DH's told him:

DH's friend was getting ready to put on a T-shirt and his then 3 year old daughter stopped him and said, "No Daddy, not that one. Wear Spongebob!"

 

[crusader]

For Disney to be Disney, and maintain the same level of Magic for a new guest today as they did for a new guest 20-30 years ago, they must create Magic with that same consistency as in the past.

This is not realistically possible. The novelty has worn off; Competition has arrived; Technology is no longer uniquely Disney; Decades have left a remaining sense of familiarity; The mouse has aged; etc....

Today's "new" guest you speak of is more likely to be a minor accompanied by an adult returning, than a whole family arriving for the first time.

This whole idea of magic is greatly overstated. Magic is an intangible. It has no substantive nature. It is used to define the anticipation typically felt when vacationing. And it ultimately wears off.

 

[BRERALEX]

Listen, I don't care if you compare Spongebob with Playhouse Disney, Treasure Planet, or Ahmad Rashad...the fact is that we are now discussing Spongebob. Freakin' Spongebob. My how the mighty have indeed fallen...

thems be fighting words.

have you ever seen two or more episodes of the lovable sponge? do you even know the incredible intelligent Patrick? WHo isnt a fan of Plankton or the Crusty Crab? I was playing a game with my son, you know the one, what kind of a sound does a cat make? what kind of a sound does a dog make? so i go what kind of sound does a snail make; thinking i had him made, and voila he goes 'meow, meow' and im like dude youre so wrong and then i watched spongebob!!!!! Sandy Squirrel kicks @$$ along with Barnacle Boy. you have to be a fan of any show with a character name like barnacle boy. that show has made me laugh louder then many others. When they get 50 or so jelly fish dancing in sequence to techno music you know a show is awesome.

ABOSRBANT AND YELLOW AND POUROUS IS HE.
If nautical nonsense is something you wish then drop on the deck and flop like a fish.!!!

 

[Eyesnur]

Hey, the new guy is always going to be the one to unseat Mickey...But alas it never happens. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Pokemon, Shrek, Spongebob Square Pants...They're all the same. They bring GREAT things to the table. They're great marketing material for their very specific age group and yet they NEVER advance to the next generation.

This is why US will have a tough time with the generation game. Folks can go to US and absolutely love Spiderman, the ride or Shrek, the ride or Jimmy Neutron, the ride but in the future these names attached to the rides will be even less relevent than Aerosmith. The difference is that Disney has all of their clasic characters in place and are even addng new classics (from Monsters, etc.). US may (does) have some great attractions but the achievement of truly 'classic' will never be associated with a ride called Jimmy Neutron...US still just doesn't have the brand to do it. Popeye, Rocky & Bullwinkle and even Spongebb will never have the lasting effect of Mickey Mouse. They are just second & third tier characters. Snow White, Cinderella, Belle &Ariel (to name a few) are timelsess...Shrek will not be in that group.

 

[DisneyKidds]

But...

You and Baron....................enough with the 'buts' already. Stop resisting what you know in your heart.

For Disney to be Disney, and maintain the same level of Magic for a new guest today as they did for a new guest 20-30 years ago, they must create Magic with that same consistency as in the past.

Yes, that would be best, but as the crusader said - I'm not sure they HAVE to.

The question is about direction. If you are heading in the wrong direction, it doesn't matter how far out in front you were, because you will eventually be caught. Further, in a business world that expects growth, Disney's performance can't be measured by how many more people it attracts than Universal. Disney has to prove that it has greater growth potential from where it is now than other companies do. It also has to prove it has the management in place to fulfill that potential.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - I hear you. I get you. This is what should be but isn't completely. However, I still don't see that Disney will be caught. That doesn't mean they don't need to do more to stay further ahead though.

Whether Disney is still the best/tops/most unique/whatever vacation is not the point.

I disagree. It is very much the point, at least of the tangent that we are currently on. Baron questions the Magic and the strength of the current WDW experience. Big picture and all, he is wrong. Disney is the best/tops/most unique/whatever vacation, period. That is proven every time grumpy guys from the DIS board plant their family in the World. They know how 'bad' it is, yet it is still the place to be.

Since this very salient point was glossed over (for good reason if you are in Car 3+)...................

AV indicated that it all comes down to choice. Again I say, if Disney isn't the best/tops/most unique/whatever vacation why do we all still choose it?

 

[crusader]

Disney is the best/tops/most unique/whatever vacation, period. That is proven every time grumpy guys from the DIS board plant their family in the World. They know how 'bad' it is, yet it is still the place to be.

So true. But these avid fans are continually tormented by this. Somehow the World got "in" and took root. The driving force behind it is not apparent which defies fundamental logic. This is where fantasy and reality collide. This is where magic hauntingly breeds.

 

[raidermatt]

This is not realistically possible. The novelty has worn off; Competition has arrived; Technology is no longer uniquely Disney; Decades have left a remaining sense of familiarity; The mouse has aged; etc....

You've done a great job of describing what is wrong with the philosophy of Disney's management. It is no less possible to create quality, innovative entertainment today than it was 50 years ago.

Magic is an intangible. It has no substantive nature.

Of course, as has been stated.

It is used to define the anticipation typically felt when vacationing. And it ultimately wears off.

Sorry, but I really don't get what you are getting at. Disney IS selling a feeling. But its not just an anticipation, its an enjoyment of the moment as well. If its wearing off for guests, Disney is not doing its job, and those guests will vacation elsewhere, in places where that feeling does not wear off.

In some places, like Hawaii, the feeling is not largely created by a company, but is a factor of the natural beauty and terrain, and of the culture and attitude of the people that live there. In Disney's case, the feeling is the direct result of decisions made by a company.

Honestly, I'm really having trouble figuring out where you are coming from. You seem to be very cynical towards Disney's decision-making and the experience they provide. Yet you are also cynical about any changes that should be made, except adding thrill rides.

Yes, that would be best, but as the crusader said - I'm not sure they HAVE to.

HAVE to in order to stay out of bankruptcy? No. But HAVE to in order to consistently remain one of the top companies in the World, and remain a preferable investment over most other companies? Then yes. (At least that's my position...which you may still disagree with?)

This is what should be but isn't completely. However, I still don't see that Disney will be caught. That doesn't mean they don't need to do more to stay further ahead though.

But that's my point...whether they are caught or not is only a by-product. They are out in front because they were the leader in creativity and innovation for many years, and they considered themselves a service company whose ultimate goal was to please its customers. They believed that as a result of doing these things, financial results would follow, and they did.

To focus just on whether or not another vacation destination catches you is very limiting, and creates a scenario where you end up following, not leading.

It is very much the point, at least of the tangent that we are currently on. Baron questions the Magic and the strength of the current WDW experience. Big picture and all, he is wrong. Disney is the best/tops/most unique/whatever vacation, period. That is proven every time grumpy guys from the DIS board plant their family in the World. They know how 'bad' it is, yet it is still the place to be.

"Bad" is relative. When its used by Baron, or just about any other car 3'er, it does not mean WDW is bad compared to anyone else. It means it is slipping from what it was. Again, direction.

There are varying opinions on who is or isn't closing the gap, but that is not the point when we talk about what direction Disney is taking. Particularly in a service or creative field, its very difficult to succeed when you make your goal staying ahead of your competition at a given moment. Of course that is a key selling point, and is ultimately important, but its the end, not the means. If the means are faulty, i.e. your direction is faltering, the end will eventually suffer.

Hey, the new guy is always going to be the one to unseat Mickey...But alas it never happens. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Pokemon, Shrek, Spongebob Square Pants...They're all the same. They bring GREAT things to the table. They're great marketing material for their very specific age group and yet they NEVER advance to the next generation.

For the most part, I agree with Eyesnur on this one, at least when discussing Spongebob. Until he proves otherwise, he is just the latest fad. Of course he is a profitable money-making fad, but still a fad.

I would actually prefer Disney either stay out of the "flavor of the month" competition, or at least make it a secondary goal, and instead focus on maintaining their characters with long-term appeal, as well as focusing on new creations. Not with marketing as a goal, however.

 

[DisneyKidds]

HAVE to in order to stay out of bankruptcy? No. But HAVE to in order to consistently remain one of the top companies in the World, and remain a preferable investment over most other companies? Then yes. (At least that's my position...which you may still disagree with?)

Well you know I have to disagree with that one . They don't HAVE to and Dinsey will still remain above the competition - at least form a vacation destination POV. We can agree to disagree on this point.

As for everything else you said, I won't agrue with you. I get your point about direction, about where Disney is trending, which would be down (compared to the past). Heck, let's even assume that other parks are trending up. I do believe that given the relative slope of those trend lines, the two will never cross. Yes, by the laws of mathematics they would have to cross at some point, but who the heck knows what the world will be like in 2203 . Furthermore, by the fact that I am in Car #2 I do believe that Disney's line will turn up at some point. Sadly, Disney will probably never gain the ground that was lost to the competitors (some of which would have been lost despite Disney's actions) and that is unfortunate, but not fatal.

PS - There was a reason I said 'bad' and not bad .

 

[Testtrack321]

The ever lasting appeal of Mickey has stayed and proven itself over and over again. While some characters hit a huge boost in popularity durring the 5 years they are on TV, that dies off. People grow up. When you go to Universal, you are in a grown-up world of interstate highways, parking structures, and alcohol. At Disney, you are a kid. Monorials, pop, and themed hotels are king.

As for the attractions, every time Universal replaces a less popular ride with a popular one, they find out that this costs LOTS of money. Jimmy Neutron is a mediocure series with a flimsy movie attached. This new 'ride' will waste tons of money by throwing effort and creativity into a character that won't make it past the 5 year mark. Then they have to go in again and build another show based on their latest hit show.

 

[cristen]

This just makes me sad. I grew up in Cali & my parents would take me to Disneyland 4-5 times a year from 3 years on. I hold Disney so dear to my heart, as all of you. I have since moved to Colorado so I do not get to go that often. But when I started to have children, I take them once a year. My oldest is only 5 & has been 4 times.

I read Mouse Tales & More Mouse Tales, & was very upset to hear about how the parks were run regarding maintenence & the budget cuts. But everytime I had gone, it looked good to me. (those rose colored glasses?) But then when my daughter was 3, we took her & I invited my parents. They had not been since I was a child, so I thought it would be fun for them to go back. They were appalled & shocked at what the park looked like. We were sitting by the saloon across from the Mark Twain and my parents made the comment that the park looked shabby. My mother noticed on the saloon front that the building had peeling paint by the ground. I would never had noticed this, but she said that it NEVER would have looked like that when they were bringing me. That would be the 70's. My father said it is a shame how bad the parks looked & that it was showing it's age. He said it's just not the same anymore and that was too bad. I was furious. I guess I went to car #2? As you guys would say, and if I am correct in my understanding.

Now I started reading these boards about a year ago. I love your discussions and have learned quite a bit about what's going on. It doesn't take a genius to know that the quality of stuff they are putting out is bad, but when you read how you guys here state it, it puts things into better focus. And now reading about this whole river ride, I am now in car #3. And to me everything the Baron says is right. He is the one that makes the most sense to me on the board. I know, I know!! I used to like to read his posts because I thought they were entertaining and funny. Now I see how serious this all is.

BUT NOW!!! I got the book Disney, the Mouse Betrayed. Have any of you read this? I am on page 30 and had to put it down to come write this. Are they really into porn? They sent out plastic bongs to promote one of their groups for Hollywood Records? I am no prude, but I think maybe we should leave the plastic bongs for someone else. Please someone pick me up off the floor and tell me this is someone who has got a problem with Disney and they are bashing them out of spite. I thought Eisner was bad for the company, I had no idea!! Is there a car #6?

I am so sad. Cristen