New rumor?

[Another Voice]

…we simply have no common foundation on which to discuss the issue.

So, unless I agree with you upfront and completely there’s absolutely no discussion and I get the good-bye smiley face?

You really believe the fundamentals of making a good movie suddenly changed fifteen years ago. That no one who made good movies in the 1970’s and 1980’s can make a good movie today. Whether you’re trying to get people into a theater to see your movie, or trying to get them to buy a DVD – the same rules apply because the fundamentals of storytelling still apply –

Or should we burn all the copies of Snow White, trash the negatives for Cinderella, rip apart all those Mickey Mouse shorts because “they can’t compete in today’s MegaWorld”? Isn’t it funny that despite all the changes that have happened in the decades since Snow White was made – depression, a world war, the atomic age, the computer age, the end of the family unit, and Starbucks - that this film is still making money? How can something from the ancient past – when life was so easy – survive in the today’s cutthroat world?

And where, exactly, have today’s super genius business people been spending all the profits from Home on the Range?

Were there no alternatives for the family vacation until 1990? Were peoples’ only decision to vacation at WDW or stay at home this summer? Did the world change so dramatically when Universal Orlando opened that Disney’s business model come crashing down? Was it really so much easier for to borrow money from Bank of America than it was to issue junk bonds?

No – the “business is so hard today” is the flip side of the coin to the “yesterday was better” argument. It doesn’t matter the time, it doesn’t matter the place – things are challenging. To claim that one has it infinitely more difficult today is a sad excuse for not being able to live up to the accomplishments of the past.

 

[bicker]

So, unless I agree with you upfront and completely there’s absolutely no discussion and I get the good-bye smiley face?

That's actually not what I said. What I said was that if you don't believe that this business has gotten substantially more competitive in the last 15 years, then there is no common basis on which to have a discussion. That disconnect would be so fundamental as to make any discussion of any details, such as the nature of those substantial changes, immaterial.

Please understand that rudeness is simply a big turn-off. I typically give the good-bye smiley face when people get too rude. The Debate Board no longer exists. If we cannot disagree agreeably, then "see ya!"

You really believe the fundamentals of making a good movie suddenly changed fifteen years ago.

This really shows the confusion we're having. I posted my message in a thread about theme parks. You're talking about films.

Were there no alternatives for the family vacation until 1990?

Nothing comparable to WDW, other than WDW.

The concept of a destination resort has radically changed since the 1970s and 1980s, and Disney has had to change with the times. Even more critical than that, is the extent to which customers have better information, about pricing and about the offerings, than they did 15-20 years ago. That alone has changed the nature of the customer-supplier relationship. In some ways, customers are far more price sensitive than before, and in other ways, they're far less price sensitive. Business must adjust to these changes. Way-back-when, providing a good product at a fair price was enough. Now Woolworth is gone and Sears is owned by K-Mart. Times change.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well, I haven't seen any rudeness on this thread whatsoever, so 'whatever' is right, I guess.

Yoho, I don't recall that EPCOT Center was ever extremely successful in the early years. It is my recollection that it was looked at as the adult half day park (one day if you wanted to anger the kids). Voice, All Aboard???

I'm not saying it wasn't a quality park and wasn't a great park, I'm remembering it wasn't highly busy...

 

[DancingBear]

Are you really suggesting that the business has NOT become substantially more competitive? We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. The very nature of business itself has changed, and just in the last 15 years. Experts from the 1970s and 1980s have no relevance today.

Yeah, I seem to remember my dot.com clients telling me that back in the 90s.

I gotta go with my often-adversary Another Voice (and Santayana) on this. The nature of the challenges have changed, competitive forces change, but "the very nature of business itself" has not changed. Wal-Mart rules not because "providing a good product at a fair price" is not enough, but because they did just that better than Woolworth, Sears et. al.

 

[bicker]

I was referring the sarcasm, Peter.

I don't think I'd call the early EPCOT Center a "half day park" -- but it surely had limited appeal, limited, as you suggest, to adults. That becomes even more problematic in light of the trend in who is making the decisions in families these days with regard to where to vacation. I personally loved it explicitly because it wasn't attractive for families with children to visit.

 

[Another Voice]

This really shows the confusion we're having.

I was talking about Disney and their main businesses. Besides, Disney theme parks are driven by the same forces that drive the movie business – entertainment is entertainment. The same arts that make people watch The Lion King ten times are the same arts that make people want to ride ‘The Haunted Mansion’ every trip. Disney’s problems mostly have stemmed from their ignoring the art of entertainment in a vain attempt to increase the business of entertainment.

The concept of a destination resort has radically changed since the 1970s and 1980s…

Not in the slightest. The concept of a “resort” – a place to stay for rest and recreation – is as old as the Romans who took the chariot down to swim off the coast of Pompeii (and wonder why all that smoke was coming from the top of the volcano). Nothing radically has changed at all in that; the morning jet to Hawaii flies over my house carring people to lay and a beach and watch smoke rise from a mountain.

What does change, often, is the market a resort targets. By 1980 WDW had a lock on the “let’s take the kids to a theme park” market. To continue to grow, Disney had to choose between convincing more families to take children to their amusement park – or – Disney could expand WDW an include things to appeal to another market.

That was EPCOT Center – an adult park for people that really didn’t want to eat breakfast with an actress pretending to be a princess. The park focused on activities for adults in adult ways – dining, shopping, inspirational rather than stomach churning attractions.

And it was a huge hit. Before EPCOT Center, WDW was the number one children’s attraction. Afterwards – it became the nation’s number one honeymoon destination. WDW and Orlando started a booming convention business. Adults that would have normally avoided Orlando on the way to cruises or a beach vacation, now included WDW on the trip.

But the most fundamental change was that WDW stopped being part of a trip to Florida and became the reason for going to going to Florida at all*.

The expanded WDW resort grew until late 1999 and 2000. Disney had once again hit a limit – they had reached market saturation on the number of people wanting to go to a resort based around theme parks. So the question was how to grow the business.

After a few attempts at expanding the market failed because they focused on attracting Michael Eisner’s “right kind of people” with The Disney Institute and a string of luxury hotels (only the Grand Floridian was ever completed). Unable and unwilling to put in capital for a true expansion – Disney sought the cheapest, easiest way of increasing revenues.

They got all of you to show up more often.

The Value resorts are not meant to bring the poor, huddled masses on I-Drive who yearn for the Disney magic – they’re meant so that you’ll come for two “cheaper” vacations instead of just one stay at an “expensive” resort. Annual Passes, dining discounts, Disney Vacation Club, year-long marketing events – all are designed to increase the frequency of visits.

Now the people most likely to visit every year, or even a couple times a year, are people in love with “Disney” – the characters, the merchandise, the brand. These people come to see Mickey Mouse, not have an authentic Moroccan dinner in an authentic Moroccan setting. In order for Disney to keep these people coming back, they need to over-emphasize the “Disney” in the parks.

So the real dolphins and the real education in ‘The Living Seas’ gets replaced by a fiberglass fish with a recording of Ellen DeGeneres.

While a lot of people, especially on a board like this one, are more than happy with seventeen princess meals – there are signs that the boarder vacation market is being turned away. WDW’s attendance recovery from 9/11 lags all other resorts – in fact Hawaii, Vegas, and Florida are experiencing record years. But in the second quarter of 2005, WDW’s attendance fell from 2004.

It’s not change that people don’t like, it’s turning away from proven business practices that had ensured the success of WDW. The failures of places like Animal Kingdom and Disney’s California Adventure are the direct results of ignoring the lessons learned over the decades.



* - EPCOT Center was called many things, but a “half day” park was not one of them. Yes, the park wasn’t all that interesting for a thirteen year old looking for motion-induced nausea, but EPCOT Center wasn’t designed for them. The “EPCOT was a failure” line is nothing but a lie used to cover the embarrassing failures of Animal Kingdom and Disney’s belief that it catering to thrill seekers is the cheapest way to success.

 

[raidermatt]

I was referring the sarcasm, Peter.

There was no sarcasm in my post. Unless, of course, you consider a "right back atcha" to be a return of your own sarcasm.

You, however, disregarded a poster's entire argument based on your assumption that it was motivated purely by personal preference. I truly do find that unfortunate, as it doesn't do much to further the conversation.

That level of dismissiveness is the closest thing to rudeness in the exchange.



Epcot's performance only became a problem when stagnation set in.

 

[bicker]

There was no sarcasm in my post.

Absolutely none. Which is why I held your message up as an example of a disagreement that I could respect.

You, however, disregarded a poster's entire argument based on your assumption that it was motivated purely by personal preference. I truly do find that unfortunate, as it doesn't do much to further the conversation.

If you really believe that, please present that argument. I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

That level of dismissiveness is the closest thing to rudeness in the exchange.

Not at all; if anything, I'll grant, it must be frustrating to some that I retain such a polite demeanor while I refuse to engage them (or ignore them), as is my choice. I've been here a long time, as you know, and I've learned what's best for my participation in such discussions. I substantially left the DIS for most of a year because the Debate Board was allowed to get out-of-control, and I have no intention of participating in such out-of-control discussions ever again.

And we're still not discussing the issue.

 

[crusader]

While a lot of people, especially on a board like this one, are more than happy with seventeen princess meals – there are signs that the boarder vacation market is being turned away. WDW’s attendance recovery from 9/11 lags all other resorts – in fact Hawaii, Vegas, and Florida are experiencing record years. But in the second quarter of 2005, WDW’s attendance fell from 2004.

Do you have the stats on this? And not just on the recovery - but on the actual pre and post 9/11 impact on attendance at these respective destinations vs Disney.

Unable and unwilling to put in capital for a true expansion – Disney sought the cheapest, easiest way of increasing revenues.

They got all of you to show up more often.

So from your perspective, all those convention; wedding; and private event facilities at the Boardwalk, Grand Floridian and Yacht and Beach Club are nothing more than idlely dormant dust collectors.

Now the people most likely to visit every year, or even a couple times a year, are people in love with “Disney” – the characters, the merchandise, the brand. These people come to see Mickey Mouse, not have an authentic Moroccan dinner in an authentic Moroccan setting. In order for Disney to keep these people coming back, they need to over-emphasize the “Disney” in the parks.

Not even close.

The failures of places like Animal Kingdom

Past, not present failure and certainly not future - Just wait 'til Spring.

 

[YoHo]

I love how you've demanded proof from AV and then rejected his claim with mere dismissal and not having proof of your own.

Nice how that works.

I would like you to prove that the majority of visitors in particular repeate visitors are not brand obsessed.

 

[DancingBear]

Orlando tourism up 13% in revenue dollars in 2004 over 2003:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/BUSINESS/511150322/1003/business

WDW attendance in 2004:

The world's No. 1 park by visitation was again the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., which drew more than 15.1 million guests in 2004. The park, which also topped AB's 2003 rankings, drew slightly more than 14 million guests last year.

EPCOT at Walt Disney World claimed seventh place with 9.4 million visitors, and Disney-MGM Studios theme park in Florida was eighth with 8.26 million.

In 10th place was Disney's Animal Kingdom in Florida, with 7.82 guests in 2004, compared with 7.3 million in 2003.

http://www.amusementbusiness.com/am...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000736270

To compare bodies to bodies:

According to the first link above, there were 47.7 million 2004 visitors to Orlando. According to this report:

http://www.orlandoinfo.com/b2b/research/annual_report.cfm

2003 visitors were 45 million. So, a 6% overall increase in bodies.

Some overall Florida stats:

http://media.visitflorida.org/about/research/

 

[raidermatt]

Absolutely none. Which is why I held your message up as an example of a disagreement that I could respect.

Your going to have to help me here... where did you do this? I do see the "Whatever" response, but certainly that's not what you are talking about.

If you really believe that, please present that argument. I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

I hate using so many quotes, because I know it turns some off, so I'm just going to paraphrase. YoHo gave his reasons why he thought characters didn't belong in Epcot, and that the original plan for updating should have been followed, but wasn't.

You responded by telling him in the end "that the only issue you're raising is that you don't like the changes.".

Tell him you disagree, tell him you aren't convinced by his evidence, but there is no basis for dismissing the discussion in that manner. Making the assumption you did has no more basis than somebody saying you support the changes only because you personally like them.

Not at all; if anything, I'll grant, it must be frustrating to some that I retain such a polite demeanor while I refuse to engage them

Again, you assume far too much. There are no problems with the polite demeanor, except when its used as a cover for dismissiveness.

You can't tell somebody that they are making up justifications to cover their personal motivations, then say its ok because you put a smiley face at the end of the post. Well, you can, and did, but its still dismissive and counter-productive.

The talk around here maybe direct at times, but it has not degenerated into another "debate board". There's a variety of reasons for that, but one is that we, for the most part, do not toss around veiled insults under the protection of the terms of service. When that was not controlled on the debate board, it led to escalation after escalation, to the point where things were simply unmanageable.

And we're still not discussing the issue.

Exactly my point.

 

[YoHo]

Orlando tourism up 13% in revenue dollars in 2004 over 2003:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/BUSINESS/511150322/1003/business

WDW attendance in 2004:

http://www.amusementbusiness.com/am...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000736270

To compare bodies to bodies:

According to the first link above, there were 47.7 million 2004 visitors to Orlando. According to this report:

http://www.orlandoinfo.com/b2b/research/annual_report.cfm

2003 visitors were 45 million. So, a 6% overall increase in bodies.

Some overall Florida stats:

http://media.visitflorida.org/about/research/

Since Disney doesn't release attenedence figures, those are obviously guesses. Good guesses, but what does it mean? Magic Kingdom saw around a 7% increase from 2003 to 2004 (AV specified 2005, so these numbers don't mean much, but that's that) What it doesn't tell me is Hotel bookings for Disney resorts or how the attendence for the other 3 parks is tracking.

All it says is that the Magic Kingdom is still gaining popularity. And even then, it could just mean that guests are spending more time there then in the other resorts. We also know that Animal Kingdom tracked very slightly up.

But again, the Point was about 2005 numbers and what Disney has been doing in 2005 (can anyone say free food) that suggests the numbers aren't as good.

 

[raidermatt]

DB, moreso than a basic one year comparison, its important to look at longer trends. After all, many of the more subtle changes in the parks wouldn't be reflected in numbers for years, good or bad.

Yes, WDW's attendance did well in '04, up I think 7.4% over '03. But its still below where it was in '00, '99 and even '98.

Meanwhile, the links you posted show Florida tourism is at record levels, not just higher than the year before, or higher than post 9/11. Hawaii is also on the verge of setting records, despite the fact that international arrivals are still well below 2000 levels.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Nov/30/bz/bz01p.html

 

[bicker]

And that raises the question as to whether WDW isn't doing as well as pre-9/11 because of anything other than other places doing better. WDW has much more and better competition, both from other FL venues and from other US locations, such as Las Vegas. The prototypical "gotta take the kids to Disney" urge is something other destination have pursued for years, and it seems are very effectively doing so now.

 

[crusader]

I love how you've demanded proof from AV and then rejected his claim with mere dismissal and not having proof of your own.

It wasn't a "demand". I merely wanted to see the stats he used to make that claim - to which I did not dismiss at all.

I would like you to prove that the majority of visitors in particular repeate visitors are not brand obsessed

And you want me to prove that before the person who makes the claim in the first place has to prove otherwise.

Nice how that works.

 

[YoHo]

And that raises the question as to whether WDW isn't doing as well as pre-9/11 because of anything other than other places doing better. WDW has much more and better competition, both from other FL venues and from other US locations, such as Las Vegas. The prototypical "gotta take the kids to Disney" urge is something other destination have pursued for years, and it seems are very effectively doing so now.

This is non-sense. For a brief time Vegas tried to attract a family crowd and has recently for the most part given up.
To suggest that Hawaii has some how stepped up it's appeal to typical tourists is ludicrous. Disney has always delt with vacations to other destinations. National parks, Hawaii, etc, etc. The only competition that has changed to any extent is Universal.

In either case, for your assertion to prove out, you'd have to show that Disney's losing guests at the rate that other locations are gaining them. I think you'd be hard pressed to do so. If anything, I think you'll find domestic tourism is up at the expense of international travel.

 

[raidermatt]

And that raises the question as to whether WDW isn't doing as well as pre-9/11 because of anything other than other places doing better.

YoHo's right about the difficulty in finding evidence to support this, but beyond that, even if its true, what does that say about Disney's ability to compete moving into the future?

If Disney has this figured out, and have modernized their management systems for the better, why are they not keeping up? They can't simply throw up their hands and say "sorry, we can't grow as fast as the competition".

Disney's great advantage was that they provided things that people wanted (even if they didn't realize they wanted them) and that weren't provided by others. When the competition tried to catch up, Disney simply continued raising their OWN bar, rather than looking to meet some industry bar. That's what kept them ahead.

True, they could not run the company today exactly as it was run 30+ years ago. However, in the process of trying to become more efficient, they threw the baby out with the bath water and threw away the core of their competitive advantage. Now, their primary advantage is the brand name, instead of the talent and creativity behind it.

This isn't about "free quality" or other such catch terms I've seen thrown about. Its about understanding the core product and the primary drivers of the business. Why did DL and WDW become icons? Why did (and do) families consider the parks a must do, and some even make them a family tradition? These are the questions that have to be answered first and foremost. THEN you build the appropriate support and management systems.

But when the company looks for the "easy" solutions, and relies too heavily on the brand name instead of the product that built that brand, the chance to excel is lost. Sure, they can remain viable and competitive, but this company once had a higher standard, and as a result, profited greatly. Again, that doesn't mean nothing ever needs to change. Just that some of the wrong things have changed.


As an aside of sorts, if anything, Vegas has helped Disney in recent years in that they are not courting the family crowd any longer, at least not to the extent they were. This is clear from their "what happens in Vegas" ad campaign, as well as many of the changes at the resorts themselves. MGMs theme park is gone, Treasure Island's pirate adventure show now features showgirls, and the newer resorts like Wynn and The Venetian are clearly not targeting families.

 

[DancingBear]

Just to be clear, I just threw out some numbers I found; I haven't looked at anything close enough to draw any conclusions, nor can I vouch for the reliability of Amusement Business's figures.

 

[DancingBear]

Meanwhile, the links you posted show Florida tourism is at record levels, not just higher than the year before...

I don't think the links I used really prove that, the link for the FL figures says their methodology changed so pre-2000 figures aren't a point of comparison in their charts.