Walt Disney World Parking Fee now $9 dollars

[Another Voice]

Just remember, Dumbo is just a spinner.

Then you don't have a clue how things really work.

 

[Aintdisablast]

Uh..... how did you know I joined in Dec ?

Oh yeah..... the same way I know you joined in Nov '99, raidermatt in Sept 2000, Another Voice Jan 2000.

Add up all the combined posts and it's quite obvious you've all had this same conversation a few times.

 

[peter11435]

But don't you see how contradictory these statements are? I'm fine with accepting that AK is making money, and doing just fine, as far as that goes.

But if Disney is "being Disney", wouldn't they consider AK to be a collossal failure? Really, if they were "being Disney", they never would have considered even opening the park with the limited scope it had (let's forget for now the "quality" issues). Same with MGM and DCA. "Disney", especially when it was doing something major, was about topping what they did before, not trying to add a day to somebody's stay.

Beyond that, if you read the annual reports, listen to the quarterly conference calls, read the press releases and really take a hard look at their decisions, you'd see they aren't doing things, especially of this magnitude, just to be Disney.

Obviously Disney is above all a business. And sure you can point to some things as AV has done that were un-Disney. However for the most part the company is still "Disney." I will agree that AK needs more. However I have a very hard time understanding where the "quality issues" you speak of come from. With the exception of Kali (the ride not the queue) everything at AK is some of the most well themed and well done at WDW. The amount of detail and (dare I say) “Disney” throughout the park, its attractions, and its restaurants rivals (or even exceeds) that seen at the MK. The park just needs more. But in the same way Disneyland is a much better park (both in quantity and quality) than it was in 1955. You have to give them time. Although I agree the park should have had more at opening.

 

[YoHo]

Nice try. How do you know that most of my 2000+ posts aren't on the Resturant board discussing all my failed attempts at getting a PS for a princess breakfest?

 

[YoHo]

Obviously Disney is above all a business. And sure you can point to some things as AV has done that were un-Disney. However for the most part the company is still "Disney." I will agree that AK needs more. However I have a very hard time understanding where the "quality issues" you speak of come from. With the exception of Kali (the ride not the queue) everything at AK is some of the most well themed and well done at WDW. The amount of detail and (dare I say) “Disney” throughout the park, its attractions, and its restaurants rivals (or even exceeds) that seen at the MK. The park just needs more. But in the same way Disneyland is a much better park (both in quantity and quality) than it was in 1955. You have to give them time. Although I agree the park should have had more at opening.

I don't think that DIsneyland is of better quality today at all. Quantity yes, newer tech advances yes, but Quality? no.

Also, I say again, what of Dinoland USA or whatever it's called?

 

[peter11435]

How do you measure success with DAK?

Was it not built to increase length of stay and to generate guests in the park for in-park revenues, also?

According to industry reports, the park has done neither.

Perhaps you have copies of internal memos lying around that show that DAK is exceeding all expectations in terms of net revenue for the company?

I'd love to see 'em.

Because you are the first person on the DIS (and I've been here since at least '98) that I can recall that argued that DAK is a success. There have been many to say its a great park, it is/isn't half-day park, it is/isn't in the Disney tradition blah blah blah, but you are the first to say DAK is "doing just fine" and "doesn't have the problems" we think it has.

I never said that AK exceeded expectations. I know as well as anyone else that they expected more from the park. However the park is not loosing money, nor is there massive problems they are trying to fix. They are simply making a good park better. And with time it will become great. Not meeting expectations does not make something a complete failure.

 

[YoHo]

I never said that AK exceeded expectations. I know as well as anyone else that they expected more from the park. However the park is not loosing money, nor is there massive problems they are trying to fix. They are simply making a good park better. And with time it will become great. Not meeting expectations does not make something a complete failure.

And you know that this is how Disney managment feels because.......?

 

[raidermatt]

Peter, I purposely left out the quality issues because that's not the point right now.

The comparison to DL just doesn't hold water. DL opened with everything the company could possibly put into it. That was Disney-like. AK was not opened "small" because the company couldn't do more. They simply chose "open small" as their strategy. That's decidedly unDisney-like.

Its so unDisney-like that somebody who suggested it back in the day might not have finished out that day.

 

[raidermatt]

Not meeting expectations does not make something a complete failure.

No, but setting expectations that are unDisney-like should be viewed as a failure if you are looking for Disney.

The fact that they didn't even meet those expectations is just piling on.

 

[airlarry!]

"However the park is not loosing money, nor is there massive problems they are trying to fix. They are simply making a good park better. "

What is your authority for this statement?

 

[raidermatt]

Add up all the combined posts and it's quite obvious you've all had this same conversation a few times.

Forgive me, but I think you'd have to agree that it would be EXTREMELY rare for somebody to either lurk for so long, or actually go back and read 6 years worth of posts, THEN immediately become extremely active to the point of posting advice to newer posters about the personalities and intentions of the "old-timers".

Certainly you'd agree that the far more likely scenario is that said new poster is a reincarnation.

Hence the skepticism.

But I'll not ask again.

 

[peter11435]

I don't think that DIsneyland is of better quality today at all. Quantity yes, newer tech advances yes, but Quality? no.?

Really. Did you visit the park in 1955? I highly doubt it. If you did you were certainly not old enough to clearly remember it (unless your over 70, in that case then I apologize). I would be willing to bet that not one of Disneyland opening day attractions would satisfy you if it were built today.

Also, I say again, what of Dinoland USA or whatever it's called?

DinoRama! aside, the rest of dinoland is a perfect example of Disney themeing and WDI story telling. No where else in a domestic Disney park can you find an entire "land" that is as story intensive as Dinoland.

 

[peter11435]

Peter, I purposely left out the quality issues because that's not the point right now.

But you see you didn't leave out the "quality issues." You very clearly saw the need to stick that in. Now you can conveniently say you don't want to talk about it because it was in quotes. Why mention it in the first place if it’s not the point.

The comparison to DL just doesn't hold water. DL opened with everything the company could possibly put into it. That was Disney-like. AK was not opened "small" because the company couldn't do more. They simply chose "open small" as their strategy. That's decidedly unDisney-like.

Agreed. Although it is my understanding that the (admittedly misguided) open small strategy was used to prevent another DLP disaster.

 

[YoHo]

Really. Did you visit the park in 1955? I highly doubt it. If you did you were certainly not old enough to clearly remember it (unless your over 70, in that case then I apologize). I would be willing to bet that not one of Disneyland opening day attractions would satisfy you if it were built today.


DinoRama! aside, the rest of dinoland is a perfect example of Disney themeing and WDI story telling. No where else in a domestic Disney park can you find an entire "land" that is as story intensive as Dinoland.

Hmm, a pointless statement. Were DIsneyland built today, I would expect rides of a modern technology. That does not speak to the quality of Attractions from 1955.
Quality is not synonymous with new technology. Trust me, I have some crappy consumer electronics that prove that out.
And as a matter of fact, The railroad. It should not be changed one bit.


I think it may be more interesting to go back and look at what stayed. The Jungle Cruise, The dark rides (Peter Pan in particular)

Some quality attractions I'd say.

 

[peter11435]

What is your authority for this statement?

And what’s our authority for stating that the park is loosing money or has massive problems? And please don't use the very weak (I’m talking to you Yoho) I know people explanation.

 

[YoHo]

Hey, Saying I've heard rumblings from the corporation is a lot more meaningful then:
"I pulled it from betwixt my cheeks cause it made me feel better then those nasty rumors."

 

[raidermatt]

But you see you didn't leave out the "quality issues." You very clearly saw the need to stick that in. Now you can conveniently say you don't want to talk about it because it was in quotes. Why mention it in the first place if it’s not the point.

Because you mentioned the park being a "good park", etc. I don't mind talking about it, but its a more subjective and subtle thing. And frankly, I agree that some of the quality is there. I don't, however, think you can say Dinorama! aside. Its there. They chose to build it.

Further, I understand the points about the themeing and storytelling of Dinoland, but nonetheless, its attractions are essentially a nice playground and a cheaper clone of a DL attraction, plus Dinorama.. Is it horrible, meaning nobody likes it? Of course not. But there's no way around the fact that "Disney" does not = those attractions as built.

As for why I wanted to stick to scope, its simply a matter of it being the more obvious and frankly, undebateable example of unDisney-like, and its being repeated at every opportunity. (MGM, AK, DCA, even the overseas parks)

 

[airlarry!]

First off, what happened to my original post? (edit: never mind, it scrolled off to the previous page.)

Second, do I need to search the boards and newsmagazines like Amusement Business for proof that the the average length of stay has not appreciably climbed since the opening of DAK, and the turnstile 'numbers' posted for the park don't really support the idea that its creating much internal revenue?

Maybe my memory's playing tricks on me, but I don't recall anyone ever positing that DAK from a financial standpoint is 'doing just fine.' I don't think it is. Its not the unmitigated disaster that DLStudios has been (or DCA for that matter) but it ain't a double or triple either. At best, its a single. A bunt single, for that matter, and the runner from third got picked off in the process.

 

[raidermatt]

Agreed. Although it is my understanding that the (admittedly misguided) open small strategy was used to prevent another DLP disaster.

Again, though, that in and of itself is a significant strategic shift in what Disney means.

Further, the park wasn't even the problem with EuroDisney.

 

[peter11435]

Further, the park wasn't even the problem with EuroDisney.

No the hotels were the problem with DLP. However the basic problem with the hotels was too much too fast.