Question for Another Voice and others

[DVC-Landbaron]

Will wonders never cease!!!!

YoHo wrote:

In 15 years, You might see that kind of Devotion to the Universal Parks as well.

And the Captain answered:

See, this is where I disagree. While US/IOA have many fans and even a few rabid ones I don't think you could characterize it as anything that approach's the devotion to things "Disney".

Captain, hold on to your tri-corner hat! Here it comes… Get ready… Get set… I AGREE WITH YOU!!

While I certainly understand YoHo's point I think he took a wrong turn in the logic of the subject. I think that instead of pointing to devotion to Universal or IOA, a better argument could be made at the loss of 'rabid' fans at Disney to equal what Universal enjoys! Why? Because in today's market, thanks to the brilliant management team headed by Ei$ner, there is very little difference.

You see, when Disney was the only game in town, and could have easily dumbed down the experience, they chose to achieve excellence over the "good-enough" mentality that is currently employed. So while much credit should be given to Universal for striving to meet Disney head on, an awful lot of BLAME should be given to Disney for discarding their once high standards, and being satisfied with merely matching their competition.

So I agree, Captain!! Universal will not garner the rabid fans that Disney once enjoyed. But neither will Disney. They are both merely part of a corporation. Nothing less, but certainly nothing more. Surely you can see that!

Heck Disney seems to care only because it's their legacy

Well, I knew it couldn't last. You made a mistake with this statement. You left out the word "fans". It should read:
Heck Disney fans seem to care only because it's their legacy

 

[hopemax]

In all seriousness though, besides Captain, does not anyone else feel the intangible? Do you all really believe that Hyatt running the YB/BC would be the same?

The Sheraton and the Westin run the Swan and Dolphin and I don't hear too many complaints that staying there doesn't feel like a Disney vacation. It may not "feel" Disney to you because of your suitcases full of memories, but to the people who haven't been at the World since they were 6 and are bringing their wife and 6 year old down for the first time? I don't think they would feel that strong of a difference between a Hyatt hotel (or another high reputation chain) on Disney property and a Disney hotel. And I've already felt more Disney-than-Disney places to stay already. Now when they start building Disney theme parks around them, watch out!

Or is DVCLB's opinion that nothing has been value-added since Eisner/Wells began in the early 80s really that pervasive

I do know go as far as Landbaron, back to the 80's, like others I pin it around 1994, and the death of Frank Wells. Not everything that was done in the decade prior, made me ecstatically happy, but I can look at what was done between 84 and 94 and the ratios between the Wows! and the "that's nice" and "why did they bother" fall into an "acceptable" range for me. And for the record, I consider things like Tower of Terror and Animal Kingdom from the Wells/Eisner era even though they opened later. The ground work was done in 1990, 91, 92. But I think it was Wells' death that created the juxtaposition that AK is. Some things in Africa, Tree of Life are Wows of the highest order, and other things like Conservation Station...aren't. Half the park enjoyed the luxury of creative being slightly more important than money, and the other half where they were reversed, and I think the outcome is obvious.

Maybe, MGM didn't open with the greatest attraction slate but in the 5 years after opening you can see an effort to add great things like Star Tours, Muppets, ToT, Mermaid, stage shows. And I compare that to what is happening with Animal Kingdom and how their first five years are shaping up to be? It just sits wrong with me.

I see Jeff already asked, "What is there about Disney that is doing today that will endear itself to future generations?" The problem as I see it isn't so much that they are building the Triceratops spinner and the Aladdin spinner, but that there aren't enough of the Wow! rides to come along with it. Maybe 4 years olds now are developing the same sort of love of Aladdin that I did for Dumbo, but it wasn't my love for Dumbo that got my parents to agree to a trip back to Disneyland (being a west coaster and all). And it wasn't my 4 year old love for Dumbo that made the 9 year old me and the 13 year old me want to return to Disneyland either. And it certainly isn't Dumbo that gets the 25 year old and childless me on the plane. Personally, I go for things like the HM and Pirates (DL's), American Adventure, Splash Mountain, ToT and things like Horizons, COP. But those old rides have a limited shelf life, more limited now because of the different maintence policies, and what happens when those attractions get like COP and it just costs too much to restore? A MK without HM or Splash? It will happen, and then what will people see?

What is Disney building now that will want families to return to WDW on a regular schedule, instead of "I took my child to WDW like a good American family does, now it's time to take them to other places that good American families go?" Are Test Track and RnRR really enough? I hear a lot, now, about how it's still fun to go because the children are happy there. But what caused Walt to build Disneyland in the first place? He got tired of simply watching his daughters have fun on the carousel.

If the draw of WDW deteriorates to the point of a place where parents go predominantly to watch the kids have fun, a place where Mom and the baby ride the spinners and Dad and the teens go ride Mission Space? I can't see how that that environment will generate the love and devotion to equal the love and devotion of people who grew up and saw the opening of the things Walt built in the 1960's that everyone rode and were still relatively new enough that the kids of the 70's and 80's were still affected strongly by them. And without the love and devotion, I can't see the money rolling in either.

I don't fear for WDW that people will stop coming, but that it will turn into a place where people go once as a child and then return once, as an adult with their kids. And if Disney wants it to be a cash cow, they need to be thinking about what can we do so that people come once every 3-5 years from the time they are 4 until they are 65 and bringing the grandkids.

 

[hopemax]

I see lots of posts while I was writing....

I'll take it another direction. Prior to the opening of Disneyland and the installation of the interstates, people didn't really take road trips, they stayed close to home. But the world changed. By the 70's when WDW opened, a road trip was common, but cross-country airline trips weren't. Now we think nothing about flying across the country for a vacation.

Well, what happens in another 30 years? Will travel to foreign countries like Japan or Europe still be "out of the norm" for American families? And if it's not, what is WDW doing to make it a better choice than say, the Tokyo Disney Resort?

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Jewell is absolutely correct – “magic” is 100% subjective. It’s an emotional reaction based on thousands of factors, and all of the factors are within the beholder. Each person will react differently and the same person will react differently at different times.

My grandfather would always tell us about his glowing memories of his weekend pass into New York City and the “magic” of Coney Island (okay, I think the grandkids only got the edited version of events…). As a small town boy from southern Arizona, the place was truly “magical” to him – a combination of the time (WWII), the place (small town meets big city), and the circumstances (right before boarding ship). When I went to Coney Island, I thought the place was a dump. I had flashbacks of really bad ‘Starskey and Hutch’ episodes. I left as soon as I could. Different time, different circumstances – no magic.

So, is Coney Island a “magical” place or not? The only answer you can give is: “it depends”. The same thing with Walt Disney World or Universal Parks – it depends. The Contemporary Resort – it depends. It was the first Disney resort I stayed at; it was magical to me at the time. Years later I stayed there for a six week stretch (a long story) and the magic wore off. Years beyond that I brought my family there and saw the magic of the place through the eyes of a child. So – magical or not?

The job of the artist in creating magic is to somehow connect the place, the circumstances and the times to a person’s emotions. It is extremely difficult and very rarely achieved. Why is the movie ‘Dumbo’ magical – because it connects to your emotions. On its surface, it’s about a circus elephant with big ears. But underneath it is about emotions that everyone has: the fear of being different and of not fitting in. It is about the process where every child (and many adults) discovers that their own uniqueness changes from being “different” into being “special”. That connection is the “magic”, your emotions are suddenly made tangible.

‘Dumbo’ the attraction works not because it’s a well decorated spinner, it works because it’s an extension of the movie. The attraction takes on the “magic” many people feel about the film. Seeing the flying elephants already gives the audience a strong jolt of “magic” because they already have an emotional connection. That’s also why the Dino-O-Rama attractions don’t seem magical to many people. Without that fog of prior memories, the ride is seen too clearly to be a carnival spinner.

To declare something “magical” or not, to declare that this person always creates “magic” or that this person never can, is silly. Magic depends mostly on the audience, not the showman. Some artists can create “magic” for many people most of the time, some artists can create “magic” for a few people all of the time, and most of Hollywood never creates any magic at any time. It is always shifting and always changing.

 

[hopemax]

Hope, you must a missed a quite lengthy thread awhile back. I'll try to dig it up...but suffice to say, if Baron and some other Car Threepers aren't all over this quote, then they're just playing nice with their car mates...

Well, then I guess I better clarify what I mean before then. I didn't say that I liked the S&D, personally I want them bulldozed. But the S&D have it's fans, and if you, Scoop, think the S&D fits with Disney, why not the Hyatt run Y&B that you seem to be objecting to earlier? What would be the difference?

 

[YoHo]

UGH, THAT WAS NOT MY POINT

My Point was that if Hyatt fostered there employees to be like Disney employees. If Hyatt ran things at the YC/BC 100% the same. CMs acted 100% the same and everything was the same, it would make no difference whether Disney or Hyatt or Motel 6 owned it.

there is nothing stopping Hyatt from doing this except corporate choice.

The Ghost of Walt is not magically holding other companies back to keep them from making things magical.

 

[YoHo]

You Think the Ghost of Walt is Holding them back.........

That is COOL!!

Now, Why won't he go Haunt Eisner?

j/k

 

[hopemax]

Okay now I think we're back to AV & YoHo's original point, or at least as how I interpret the point.

If the only difference is attitude of the CM's and architecture. Those aren't unique to Disney, they aren't truely "intangible." Any company can set up a hiring policy that is more stringent and looks for things like courtesy and smiling faces. Disney keeps laying off WDI employees, which means someone else is free to hire them and put them to work desiging the look of the hotel or the costumes of the employees.

 

[JeffJewell]

if Baron and some other Car Threepers aren't all over this quote, then they're just playing nice with their car mates

Context is everything, 'scoop.

Had Hope started talking about the "Disney Quality" of the theming at the Swan and Dolphin, that's where we would have had words: not only does the Swan and Dolphin lack the immersive theming required by my personal definition of "Disney resort," the buildings actually destroy carefully planned and constructed visual effects from World Showcase.

I think the Swan and Dolphin were a horrible idea from many angles, but "because their workers are not called CM's" is not one of them.

I've stayed at the Dolphin, and my own experience was that the staff in general was on a par with the Disney resorts where I've stayed (except for the Wilderness Lodge. We seemed to have tremendous luck finding all the "A" CM's when we stayed at Wilderness Lodge).

You asked: "Do you all really believe that Hyatt running the YB/BC would be the same?" If the grounds are the same, yes, there's no reason to believe the guest's experience would suffer. Hotel staff is hotel staff: you're gonna get some good, some bad.

If you're in a mood that the term "CM" carries an inherent Magic, you'll undoubtedly find examples to back that. If that term isn't "loaded" in such a fashion, I think it's likely you'll find the staffs to be, overall, pretty equivalent.

Jeff

PS:

Mr. Jewell is absolutely correct

Sorry for wasting the bandwidth, I just wanted to see that one more time...

 

[DisDuck]

scoop and the rest--- I leave tomorrow for San Diego and mouse points North. Will advise on what I find upon my return.

I AM AN EBBETS FIELD DODGER FAN. Burn Yankees Burn.

 

[Captain Crook]

Speaking as one of the "others", have a great trip Duck...

Jeff, The Swan/Dolphin employees are CM's, just like House of Blues employees, etc. I'm sure what the distiction relevent to them is, but they are CastMembers...

 

[JeffJewell]

something about the Disney Cast Member screams magic to me

...before we go any further, let me just say that none of the following is intended to dissuade you from that opinion.

The bellhop at the Waldorf is a very nice and helpful guy. The CM at OKW is magical...JMHO.

That's fair enough: I'm not going to try to convince you different.

But, if _you_ are going to try to convince _me_ of that, you're going to need more detail as to the precise difference between "very nice and helpful" and "Magic." I'm afraid that this distinction, while true for you and some others, is going to be lost on the majority of customers; particularly if they don't have a lifetime of Disney memories. I don't believe the difference is as obvious as you perceive it to be, anymore.

Roger Clemens is a Blue Jay uniform is a great pitcher..but Clemens in Yankee pinstripes, well, the aura, history, glory, whatever...to me, he, like so many other players...become so much more than just a baseball player...they become a Yankee.

See, this is what I mean. You have a mental "program" for what it means to be a Yankee. Personally, the Yankees hold no Magic for me. Red Sox, Blue Jays, Yankees, makes no difference: Clemens is obviously the same guy: it's just the name on the uniform to which you attribute the aura, history, glory (actually, I realize I'm on real tenuous ground with extending this analogy, because there _is_, in fact, a tangible something the Yankees are doing differently from other teams that has a direct effect on the quality of product they're putting on the field: they pay more in salaries than any one else in the Major Leagues [well, they did last year, anyway, and I'm not going to look it up]).

For me, the analogy would have been the Miami Dolphins: that's the team that, however it happened, I associated with as a kid. I remember racing around the house wildly after the undefeated season, I remember crying when that evil b****** Kenny Stabler led the even more evil Oakland Raiders to beating us in the AFC Championship two years later (hey, I was, like, eight).

But right now, this season, the Dolphins (just like the Yankees) aren't really doing anything significantly different from the other teams (again, except for the Yanks' payroll). Clemens is the same pitcher he was in Boston and Toronto, but he's on "your" Yankees, now. Fiedler is the same qb he was in Jacksonville, but he's on "my" Dolphins, now.

Methinks the difference between "very nice and helpful" and "Magic" has more to do with your own attachment to the locale, rather than any real differences in the service.

Jeff

 

[hopemax]

The Billion dollar question?

Are there more Scoop's or YoHo's in the world?

Do more people love the Yankees because they're Yankees or because they win? What would happen to the Yankee mystique if the Yankee front office was replaced by the Marlin front office? How many years would it take before the Yankees lost their aura?

History is full of the ruins of empires sustained on the belief that no one can possibly defeat them.

 

[All Aboard]

What would happen to the Yankee mystique if the Yankee front office was replaced by the Marlin front office?

See 1997 for reference.

 

[YoHo]

Ironically I'm a Cubs Fan, so I must be Schitzofrenic or something

 

[YoHo]

dscoop, I agree with everything you said, but the reason Disney CMs are like that is because of Policy. Disney (supposedly) Used to put plainclothes managers in the parks to make sure everyone had a smile and such.

Its a corporate policy and just, because the Hyatt Chooses to not have that policy doesn't mean they couldn't, or wouldn't under appropriate circumstance.

 

[Captain Crook]

Scoop is saying what I think, as well. It isn't that CM qiality couldn't never, ever be created elsewhere, but the fact is the process that it would entail is way too prohibitive for any company to consider (can you imagine any company - even Disney today implementing a personnel policy that won't pay big dividends for 10, 15 or 20 years down the road?

 

[Another Voice]

Okay, let me boil down the argument –

“Cast Members” are special because a brand name some people enjoy is stapled to their foreheads. Others may be just as hardworking but since they lack the label; they are not “magical”.

If this “magic” is only available through the traditions of one particular company, way does Disney convince corporations to spend millions of dollars every year on “Disney Way” seminars? Is this not fraud on the part of The Company? And if the hallowed “personnel policy” is so bloody special, why has it been cut by two thirds over the last few years? Isn’t this jeopardizing the future of the Company?

I hate to break this to many of you, but Cast Members are regular people. I have met and worked with many good ones, and I have met and worked with many bad ones. I have met and worked with many good people outside of Disney, and I have met and worked with many bad people outside of Disney. If you perceive that only good people work at Disney, or that Disney somehow makes them better, or that people are “lesser” because they happen to work for Hilton – I suppose that’s a prejudice that cannot be logically argued.

Enjoy the Brand and everything that labeled with it.

 

[YoHo]

But Disney's CM policy paid Disney Dividens on Day 1 as well.

Perhaps the Hyatt is a bad Choice, since they already exist.

Lets say its YoHotels Corp If I created a program like traditions and hired people based in part on their commitment to my program, it would be the same. It may take me 46 years to create the memories, but from Day 1 you would feel that special magic at YoHotels. And If the YoMovies Division managed to create a good movie that resonated the way a Disney film did and I somehow included that in my hotel (or used that kind of expireance in the hotel) it would be every bit the same.

There is nothing mystical here. it is a set of circumstances that combined to create our collective conciousness and create the magic.

 

[Captain Crook]

AV, don't be disingenous. We realize all of the things you mention, but you fail to accept history, it seems. It doesn't matter that Disney is slowly (or not so slowly) dismantling the system. It doesn't matter that the formula could be followed by others. What matters in this context is that the formula and the distinctive results would not show their disneyesque results for years to come.

Yoho, I absolutely loved the idea of Yohotel! And I agree that a personnel formula could emulate disney-type results from the get go, but they could not emulate the Disney myth & legend.