Walt stuff - Long (even for me) but GOOD!!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

I saw this recently on another site. I personally have a tremendous amount of respect for the author. He was responding to another post. I do not have the original, but I have encapsulated the quotes in the normal "DIS' fashion. I thought I'd share it with the people on this board because it cuts to the heart of what we talk about so often. And it also happens to mirror my sentiments, 99.9%. Read it, slam it, agree with it. But PLEASE consider it!!!

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I do not think that there's a thing wrong with Walt's ideals, as we've discussed them here. I do think that Disney today has a substantially different audience, and that this audience has to be approached differently *in order* to effect Walt's ideals.

I think you have definitely hit upon something here. Disney has, since the construction of WDW's third gate (MGM), been approaching the aspects of running the theme parks differently. As I have made the point before there has been a shift in focus from quality to cost. This becomes a problem when the very thing that you sell is a quality experience. Many have defended this shift in focus by pointing out that Disney is still better than six-flags, or Universal and the like. And while this might be true for the present, there is nothing that I see in the on-going developments which leads me to believe that this will always hold true for the future. Doing things the Disney way has never been cheap. Walt used to drive Roy crazy with the expenses that he would rack up, but in the end Walt was right. People do feel and know quality. Why did Walt purchase an expensive authentic cut glass light fixture when cheaper fixture would do during the construction of one of Disneyland's restaurants? The logic at the time went, "why spend the money for people to eat 50 cent hamburgers under it".. But the point which everyone missed was that it wasn't the 50 cent hamburgers which was important. It was the experience. Most average people didn't get to experience the beauty of a fixture like that in there everyday lives. People have "cheap" in their daily lives. When they would come to his park, it would feel different than the everyday world. That light fixture, and thousands of other expensive detail items would help to send that message to people. Its part of that hidden quality which makes a Disney theme park what it is, and not like every other amusement park. Well, until Eisner came along..

First the decline starts with "Lets build a park smaller, and cheaper than the normal billion or so that it costs us to build a Disney style theme park." And from that central idea - flows everything else in the project. The message is sent.. this is to be designed smaller, and cheaper. Lets limit the use of Audio Anamitronic technology to one major attraction to keep the costs down. Put more shops in because with less attractions to occupy people's attention, they will have more time to linger in the shops and spend.. and so on. Do you notice the difference in how things are designed? Walt used to start with the principle of building a place that he would be happy to bring his family - or as he used to call it "Making it Friendly". Now, we design the place with the idea that "we have to build this cheaper than we normally would." In any large organization simple things help to set the tone of how a company conducts itself. Because this project (MGM) was deemed to be a success, it has spawned AK , and then finally DCA. And when you look at DCA, and how badly the whole thing was slapped together - you can see just how far they have departed from Walt's ideals.

It's not that I would have the Disney company try to divine the intent of how Walt would handle any given situation, but rather I would like to see them adopt Walt's principles almost as a mission statement about how they go about doing things. Rather than asking "What would Walt do" in any given situation - I would much rather them consider if what they are doing violates any of Walt's principles.. Consider some of Walt's principles;

"Keep the Place Friendly"--

Does over marketing the parks, and packing them full to the brim with people serve the guest experience well? Does Allowing the transportation system to fall behind the needs of the guests help to keep the visit enjoyable?

"A word may be said in regard to the concept and conduct of Disneyland's operational tone. Although various sections will have the fun and flavor of a carnival or amusement park, there will be none of the 'pitches,' game wheels, sharp practices and devices designed to milk the visitor's pocketbook."--

Does the company now have a policy that no new attraction be completed with out a shop at the exit placed in such a way as to have the best shot of "milking the visitor's pocketbook"? Has the company lately undertaken a program to place carnival type "pitch" attractions and games (Including game wheels) within Disney theme parks? Has the company recently developed a theme park basically recreating a seaside carnival park?

"When we consider a new project, we really study it - not just the surface idea, but everything about it. And when we go into that new project, we believe in it all the way. We have confidence in our ability to do it right. And we work hard to do the best possible job."--

Are new projects really studied thoroughly? or are new projects OK'd simply because Eisner "likes" the idea? (See DCA...) For Example where are the extensive studies, such as Walt would have ordered, showing the DEMAND in southern California for a theme park based on California??

"I have never made pictures exclusively for children. But I regard them as important members of the family, and we have always considered their age, experience and taste in selecting our theatrical productions."--

Are the needs and age of children still being considered at Disney? Was DCA constructed with children in mind? Is pleasure island the type of place which is a wholesome environment for children? Are more "roller-coaster" type attractions being installed that because of height restrictions children can't ride?

"I think what I want Disneyland to be most of all is a happy place - a place where adults and children can experience together some of the wonders of life, of adventure, and feel better because of it...I felt that there should be something built where the parents and the children could have fun together...it all started from a daddy with two daughters wondering where he could take them where he could have a little fun with them, too."

Are all the Disney theme parks still places where adults and children can experience all of the attractions together?

"Americans are a sociable folk; we like to enjoy ourselves in crowds, at sports areas, at picnics, fairs and carnivals, at concerts and at the theater. Above all, we like to laugh together - even at our own shortcomings. I don't like to kid myself about the intelligence and taste of audiences. They are made up of my neighbors, people I know and meet every day. Folks I trade with, go to church with, vote with, compete in business with, help build and preserve a nation with."--

Have any recently developed attractions utilized humor as a storytelling device? Is Disney themed entertainment still focused towards the "average" person? or do we see the expense and costs of it getting so far out of line as to be a stretch for the average family?

"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

Is the company concerned first and foremost with money? Is the company run constantly letting the button line dictate creative decisions? Are theme parks now built on "the cheap"? Are long time Disney employees being let go to reduce the salary expense to the company? Are needed infrastructure investments being made, or put off in the interest of short term profit?

"I don't want the public to see the world they live in while they're in the Park. I want them to feel they're in another world."

Are new Disney theme parks developed with a berm so that the outside world is shielded from the view of visitors inside the park?? or are they now building theme parks where you can see city streets from several vantage points in the park (see DCA). Do we need McDonalds restaurants from the everyday world inside the parks??

"I believe the fun is in building something in bringing new things to life. We never do the same thing twice. After we've finished a job....we head in another direction. We're always opening new doors."

How many movie sequels does the company now produce? Which new directions in theme park entertainment has the Disney company taken? What new groundbreaking park is being built in the states? What new doors of entertainment is the company opening?

"Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved."

Does Eisner walk the parks daily? Is there a spirit of constant improvement as regards the attractions, or are attractions shortened and redesigned so as to contain costs and provide opportunites to milk the visitors pocketbook?

"The more I go to other amusement parks in all parts of the world, the more I am convinced of the wisdom of the original concepts of Disneyland. I mean, have a single entrance through which all the traffic would flow, then a hub off which the various areas were situated. That gives people a sense of orientation - they know where they are at all times. And it saves a lot of walking."--

Are new Disney theme parks developed according to this hub and spoke plan? (See MGM, DCA,) Are Disney theme parks looked to as the inspiration the world over for theme park design, or does Disney look at other theme parks for its inspiration and ideas??

"When we were planning Disneyland, we hoped that we could build something that would command the respect of the community and after 10 years, I feel that we've accomplished that, not only the community but the country as a whole."

Does the new Disney theme parks accomplish the respect of the communities around them, and the country as a whole? Is the Disney image becoming something different, based on money rather then good wholesome entertainment.

"It's something that will never be finished. Something that I can keep developing, keep plussing and adding to."

Are new attractions added, or do we loose more attractions then we gain? Is the park constantly being plussed with new E-ticket attractions?

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

Has JUST another amusement park been grafted onto Disneyland's parking lot? Does the company exist to create and have fun, or only to make money?

"To try to keep an operation like Disneyland going you have to pour it in there. It's what I call 'Keeping the show on the road.' Not just new attractions, but keeping it staffed properly... you know, never letting your personnel get sloppy... Never let them be unfriendly. That's been our policy all our lives. My brother and I have done that and that is what has built our organization."--

How are the staffing levels at the parks? Have there been cutbacks in staff levels? Has there been an unusually high number of accidents and injuries at Disney theme parks?

"The first year I leased out the parking concession, brought in the usual security guards - things like that - but soon realized my mistake. I couldn't have outside help and still get over my idea of hospitality. So now we recruit and train every one of our employees. I tell the security police, for instance, that they are there to help people. The visitors are our guests. It's like running a fine restaurant. Once you get the policy going, it grows."

Does Disney subcontract some of its food service? Does it allow outside vendors to sell in the parks? (See Dipping Dots, and McDonalds)

"Well, I think by this time my staff, my young group of executives, and everything else, are convinced that Walt is right."--

Are the executives still convinced? Do they even care anymore? Do they sell this man's image for the almighty buck, but do not care what he stood for?

"That quality will win out. And so I think they're going to stay with that policy because it's proved that it's a good business policy."--

Do they still think its a good business policy to do things in a quality fashion, as opposed to a cheap fashion??

"Give the people everything you can give them."--

Notice he did not say "CHARGE the people as much as you can charge them"

"Keep the place as clean as you can keep it. Keep it friendly, you know. Make it a real fun place to be."

Is it still friendly? Maintained according to the principles and concepts that Walt began?

Finally, the civility and respect for property found in the 1950s no longer apply, and different ways of designing and maintaining the parks must be implemented to respond appropriately to those changes.

By the same token we have newer materials, paints, and so forth which should be more resistant to wear than what we had in the 1950's. Remember also that Walt was testing graffiti resistant finishes in Tomorrowland, and had an eye to engineering EPCOT to be resistant to wear and blight. Had the company continued following Walt's path it could have easily kept pace with the more destructive behavior of the modern guest.

As people living in the modern age, we like to think that our times are somehow more different than those which came before - but the same drives and passions that affect us, also affected those who lived and worked in previous generations. Very true, which is why the classic films still work. (And thank goodness they do!)

Lets not forget that the classic theme park attractions also still work quite well.

And this lack of patience is also a factor. Notice the length of attractions that have closed of late, and that *all* of their replacements (with, I think, Buzz Lightyear as the only exception) are shorter. This shortened attention span impacts the types of attractions than can be attempted, and the length (and therefore the depth) those attractions can run.

Why are most major motion pictures still 1:30 to 2hrs long?? Following this same logic, motion pictures should be shortened to 15 minutes because the attention span would not allow for anything longer. Walt made no distinction between a movie or a theme park attraction because they are both mediums for telling a story. They may have to spend more for effects, as with movies, to keep the attention of the guest - but that is only a reflection of the sophistication of the guest today. Attraction length should be as long as it needs to be to properly tell a story.

No, but human attention span has, more's the pity.

I think the shortened attention span can be compensated for by investing in greater technology for the attractions, not making them shorter.

Story must come first.

I agree.. Indeed Story is what makes a theme park different than an amusement park. The Guest is supposed to have an involvement in the attraction from the story line - not just a cheap physical thrill (see DCA for a classic amusement park - VS Disneyland as a classic theme park).

I'm not sure Disney theme parks are all that different financially, so long as you include a reasonable value for goodwill. Right now, Disney is recouping some of their prior investments in goodwill, drawing it down as one might from a savings account

They are able to do this because people expect certain things from Disney which the company is not any longer providing. They are also selling Walt's memory, and nostalgia. This will not last forever, because people are not stupid. Walt knew that people were smart enough to sense things which are authentic vs. things which are fake. As soon as the word hits the general guest population that Disney is out only for money, and could not give a darn about Walt's principles then the whole card house is going to come down around them. They could use the goodwill for great things, and new accomplishments but instead they are sucking in down to compensate for poor management, and poor creative decisions. This can not last.

and perhaps the Disney company would do well to think about what he stood for, and what he believed in. Or perhaps he passed from being a person to being a symbol. As he once said, "I'm not Walt Disney anymore, all of this is Walt Disney."

If indeed Walt has become a symbol.. then what does he symbolize? Things done the right way, vs the cheap way? Why, even after being dead for so long, does this symbol have so much appeal? It is because people know what he stood for, and the way that he operated his company. Regardless, if the Disney company abandons his ideals, symbol or not, they are sure to be the worse for it.

Thus when we ask ourselves, "What would Walt do?" it's not so much a question of what one old dead guy might have done, it's more, "How does this fit into the whole Walt Disney universe?"

Walt once said, "Somehow I can't believe there are many heights that can't be scaled by a man who knows the secret of making dreams come true. This special secret, it seems to me, can be summarized in the four C's. They are Curiosity, Confidence, Courage, and Constancy". If the company fails to keep CONSISTENT with what Disney has always stood for, and been, then they will fail, and Disney as we know it will be but a memory. It is not to sit around and try to figure how Walt would have done something.. but rather to figure out if what they are doing is consistent with Walt's principles of quality entertainment. Today they seem to have dismissed these principles in favor of a philosophy where by cost is the over riding concern. The whole Walt Disney universe that we have wasn't built on cost concerns, it was built on creativity and quality.

If one takes the question that way, as do many -- Marty Sklar included -- it's not a foolish question at all, for all of us who work there, and all of us who care about what Walt began, *are* now Walt Disney. It's a serious charge, and one I'd like to see more people step up to, inside and outside the Company.

This whole question of Walt's ideals, and the way that Marty feels towards asking that question, really gets to the heart of what is wrong with imagineering. The creativity is still there, yet they don't apply it correctly because they worry too much about cost, and not enough in keeping consistent with Walt's principles. Marty will retire soon (or so Im told) and then this will be a moot point, because I am sure his replacement will have never even had met Walt Disney, let alone worry about keeping consistent with his principles.

If nothing else, they couldn't do any worse then they already are, with the way they are running things now. I don't know, isn't that line from one of those "Famous Last Words" lists?

Not to my knowledge.. But then again someone, somewhere might have said something along the same lines. Regardless it is still true.

- - - - - - - - - -

OK, DVC here again. Yeah, I know. This guy is even more wordy than me!! (That's why I love him!!!) Anyway, what do think?

 

[JeffJewell]

...as you might expect, I agree with almost all of what this poster has to say.

This will not last forever, because people are not stupid. Walt knew that people were smart enough to sense things which are authentic vs. things which are fake.

This is the only part I currently disagree with. I no longer believe that the mass of consumers in this country are "smart enough" to tell the difference between quality and cheap crap.

In larger numbers, we are realizing that Disney is pretty expensive, considering their cheap crap is no longer qualitatively different than the cheap crap everyone else is pumping out (or so DCA's and AK's revenues would suggest. I can't point to attendance figures anymore, because the new "parkhopper" addition to DL tickets will hugely increase DCA's attendance, but will do squat for actually increasing revenue in WDW West. That's the problem with metrics, maximizing a metric in a vacuum often has no effect whatsoever on what the metric was supposed to measure in the first place), but I have lost hope for a wide-scale backlash against the "cost over quality" mentality Disney has demonstrated.

The fact that so many people seem eager to _defend_ that mentality still baffles and disheartens me.

Jeff

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow a great read! I agree with everything except for ranking Universal with SixFlags. Universal in my ever so HO is a excellent resort destination and is right up there with Disney on the quality scale.

 

[Wantogo]

Very interesting article, though i notice several errors in logic.


One is the statement is:

"First the decline starts with "Lets build a park smaller, and cheaper than the normal billion or so that it costs us to build a Disney style theme park." And from that central idea - flows everything else in the project. The message is sent. this is to be designed smaller, and cheaper."

Though DCA is smaller, i think that was due space constraints rather than wanting a smaller park. And $1.4 billion to build the DCA is no small drop in the bucket.

As for Animal Kingdom (again a $billion plus park) is the largest Disney Park at 500 acres. by no means small. No doubt this park will grow and mature over time.

All-in-all i agree with the article. I see some very valid points being made here.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Very interesting article, though i notice several errors in logic.

Such as?

 

[swinginevilmike]

This article is truely a work of art...

I just wish I knew more about the buisness aspect of Disney to join you in your quest Landbaron but I fully agree with your position 100%...

 

[JimV]

I agree with most of the article, but one point I would like to make is that I feel WDW is now losing the initiative to other organizations. When MK and Epcot were developed they were pushing the state of the art. There is still no place like Epcot it is a marvelous idea (even if I am getting tired of "Sponsored by" ads on the rides I am paying a ton of money to go on).

But since Epcot -- reacting versus initiating... What is outside of WDW stealing money from the Mouse's pocket must be emulated!

Hotel/Motel revenue
Answer : build tons of rooms of a wide assortment of varieties and prices

People going to Wet and Wild
Answer: build waterparks

Universal Studios
Build Disney-MGM

Busch Gardens
Build AK (but leave out the cool mythical beasts)

Mini Golf Courses
Build Winter/Summerland and Fantasia

and these are just the start ...

Well I need to get back to work,

-- JimV

AKL is innovative, but most of WDW developed in the last ten+ years seems to be "me too"

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Oh my! What a terrible showing!! I would have thought that a provocative piece of perfect prose (don't ya love alliteration!!) such as this would have had the Ei$ner defenders crawling out of the woodwork! Where are the Peters, Captains, Ducks, JeffHs, YoHos and all the others.

Or perhaps I should take their silence as tacit approval of the piece.

Your turn….

 

[ww52]

Sorry I don't have a lot of time to reply to this excellent thread. It did hit one particular thought that I had shared on a prior thread. That is, with the "cheapening" of the brand, will "Disney" mean the same to our children and their children as it does to us? Or will the cheaper parks and made for video sequels take their toll?

You can disagree about whether DCA is or isn't good or cheap - but I've never heard anyone compare it to DL or MK or Epcot. Regarding the sequels - unheard of in Walt's day (and he even set up my expectations as a kid for a Lady/Tramp II with the Scamp comic strips in the papers). But no sequels.

Again - will Disney mean the same to our kids and grandkids as it does to us? I doubt it, unless they stop drawing down the goodwill and start building it back up.

 

[larworth]

Gee, exactly which of his two points did you want us to comment on (lol).

A good summary of the many topics we have debated from time to time. If someone asked me what it is people spend their time arguing about in these forums this would be a nice list to give them.

However, I didn’t gain any new perspective on any single topic. Tying a complaint to a quote, doesn’t make it any more salient for me. I could also take issue with some of the connections he makes, but that seems more like an exercise in semantics, than substance. Also, I was a little afraid to pick on one issue, as it might be easy for us to go off track (lol)

Sure I missed a few, but here are some of the past debate topics it touches on:

Transportation
Crowds and on-site hotels
Exit gift shops
Cost for the average person
Real world intrusions – sponsorships, McDonalds
Park layout DL versus others
Sequels - cheapening of the brand
Profit versus non-profit operation
Half parks
Rate of growth - new attractions
Changing attention spans
Cutting corners on attractions, safety, maintenance
Use of contractors
Eisner too hands-on, too removed

There were a couple of new ones that did catch my attention:

Do classic attractions really still work?
Should all rides really be family rides?
Is lack of humor based attractions really an issue?
Does the average person really perceive a change in quality?

So we could pick a topic to charge off on, or we could just try to look at the list as a whole and ask not if any single one is true, but are enough of them true to make us worried.

I do have some concerns, but I don’t cry foul in every instance.

 

[YoHo]

A good read, I agree with much of it. (considering the bulk of it asks the reader to think for himself, I was able to draw my own conclusions for better or worse) I agree with Larworth. It would be a waste of time to debate the minutia. here are even some Diney quotes which I would say Walt, I luv ya, but your wrong. (don't start blubbering DVC, its a few minor things that we've gone over before so I won't sa it here)


I guess I'm really not in the mood to debate today. too much work to do, not enough time to do it, and since I haven't got the calle from Roy E. to move out to Burbank
I'm kinda in a wait and see with Atlantis to see what happens with the company.

 

[JeffJewell]

will Disney mean the same to our kids and grandkids as it does to us?

Nope.

are enough of them true to make us worried.

Yup.

Jeff

 

[pnelson]

"Will Disney mean the same to my kid as it does to me?"

In a word, yes. He doesn't realize or think when he goes there that Disney is being cheap or cutting corners.

He's too enthralled with the magic before his eyes...

...the characters from the moview brought to life

...the parades

... the rides-new and old

...the food

... the souveniours

He also loves the water parks and swimming at night at Port Orleans. He will remember these experiences for a lifetime.

I grew up going to Disneyland and while we had 1 or 2 day trips, my son has 10 day trips to a place with 4 theme parks and three waterparks. He gets to ride busses, boats, ferries, trains and monorails.

On rainy days, he gets to watch his favorite videos (I don't think Walt envisioned the changes "renting" videos would bring to the movie business. He loves the sequels because they bring his favorite characters back to life in a new adventure.

I also mourn the loss of some of my favorite attractions and get very upset when I encounter a rude castmember.

However, the magic is still there every step of the trip for me and my son.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Larworth says:

Tying a complaint to a quote, doesn't make it any more salient for me.

Ahhhh. I see. To me it is just the opposite. Tying a "Disney" business practice to a quote from Walt is very salient. It is in this way I stay grounded. It is through this process that we can ascertain Walt's management and amusement park philosophy. He didn't lay down written tenets. He didn't write a "How To" book on amusement park management. He didn't subscribe to popular business doctrines. He didn't point to other companies and/or individuals who were accomplished businessmen. (In fact he rather disliked and had little respect for most of those "sharp-pencil-guys".) Instead he gave interviews when asked specific questions. And luckily for us, he liked to talk about his park. He was rather proud of it.

So we can learn what was behind the parks. What made Disneyland and later WDW different. The concept wasn't invented in a board room. It wasn't hatched in a business school. If an undergraduate had put out Disneyland as a business plan, complete with dissertation, the poor slob would have FAILED to receive his Ph.D.!! He would have been laughed out of the university. As some business oriented pundits (even on these boards) laugh at us Walt defenders today. My point for this exercise is that it worked. And is working, DESPITE Ei$ner's ineptness. But that it won't work forever unless we hearken back to the words of the founder. The creator of the magic. We have to understand the logic behind the philosophy no matter how illogical it seems to be in a business sense. Many refuse to acknowledge that unusual business practices created the Disney magic that we all LOVE. Some give it a brief nod but cry that "times have changed", "business is not what it was in the fifties" and so on. BALONEY!!! It'd still work today if given half a chance.

But instead we have Ei$ner's version of Walt's dream. And that ain't good enough!!!

So we could pick a topic to charge off on, or we could just try to look at the list as a whole and ask not if any single one is true, but are enough of them true to make us worried.

OH YES!!! Worried right down to my socks!!! Just look at the differences in the original post between the "Walt" philosophy and the "Ei$ner" philosophy. That was the main reason I posted it. For me it clearly laid out the differences. Some minor. Some major. But WOW!!!! Are there a lot of them!!!

Four words: "The good ole' days" As in everyone looks back at the 50s as if it was they were perfect. But, oops, they forget the bad things and only remember the utopic "pleasantville"

Don't quite understand this. How was the past distorted?

I consider the water parks, downtown disney, boardwalk, cirque, disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, fantasia gardens, and animal kingdom to be improvements because they increase the scope and options of my vacation. I realize some may disagree and view these as inferior substitutes to more gates.

I can't believe that you DON'T view these additions as inferior. Some are nice. Some are lousy. But none of them live up to the grandeur of EPCOT or MK!! And I'm not out for additional gates. GOOD LORD!! Quite the opposite. I want them to do the gates they have the right way before they even consider adding anything else. I feel the same way about the rides. PLEASE Disney!!! Do it right or DON'T DO IT AT ALL!!!!!

Ask yourself. How many things have they done "right" lately? Even as far back as MGM? You ask me to name specifics. I say everything. NOTHING has been done "Right"!! In keeping with Walt's philosophy. (With the exception of the Water Parks.) And since you mentioned AK, let's get specific. How can you possibly defend half a park. I will grant you that the half they have is wonderful. And I make it a point to visit every time I'm in WDW. But there really isn't much to do. And you're not talking to a guy that clamors for "E_TICKET" rides every chance he gets! No!!! Absolutely not. But something more innovative has got to be done with the place before I consider it done "right". Do you really think it is a full park? Opened in the way a Disney park should be opened? Like EPCOT was? Or they way they opened WDW? If you really think that, you are easy. IOA should have really knocked you for a loop. I think it's sad when the only amusement park since 1981 to open in a "Disney" style, is a non-Disney park!!!

 

[hopemax]

I cringe when I see Animal Kingdom brought up as a point of how things aren't being done well on other boards. I cringe because the discussion doesn't seem to go in what I consider a productive discussion and tends to degenerate into rehashes. However since I am new to the rumor board, I will post a few comments.



There is an arguement that in this day in age it is economically unwise to build a complete park like Epcot or the Magic Kingdom or Disneyland Paris. I am not convinced that this is true, but am willing to conceed that point for the time being. I may change my mind after DisneySea. Disneyland and MGM are examples of how the strategy of starting small has payed off. So in that respect I think the 1998 Animal Kingdom was a wonderful park, and a good way to lay a foundation for a sucessful park.

Here's what happened in the next 5 years though,

Year Two

MGM - Honey, I Shrunk the Audience Playground, Star Tours, Sorcery in the Sky
AK - Kali River Rapids, Maharajah Jungle Trek

Year Three

MGM - Muppet Vision, Beauty and the Beast Stage Show
AK - redo of Dinoland stage show

Year Four

MGM - Mid-day parade (Aladdin), Voyage of the Little Mermaid
AK - Dinoland coaster, Primeval Whirl

Year Five
MGM - Tower of Terror
AK - ?

When I look at that, I can't help but think that Animal Kingdom should be more than what it is and that with the execption of Year Two the improvements are not of the type that will encourage guests to return year after to year.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

If you've followed any of my posts in the past, you will see I have an aversion to lists. I find that they tend to muddy the issue rather than clarify it. I can, and have, although not strictly in list form, named specific items in WDW and about the Disney company in general that are well done. Well done indeed!!! Things that turn my crank so to speak. That I find MAGICAL!! But that really doesn't do anyone any good. We can all come up with our own lists. I mean we're all fans. That's why we're here!!

No. We're talking about business philosophy. Not particulars. Not specifics. We really aren't arguing about what color Mickey's Toon House should be painted, but weather it should be painted before or after a guest might notice! And should the guest see the painter painting!! A subtle difference, but one that makes all the difference. So, I'm talking about the basic foundation of what the company was built on, and continues to build on. And how these concepts have changed over the years. That was what the opening piece was supposed to convey. And for the most part in Walt's own words. Evidently it missed the mark in your case.

Now you may think that I painted with too broad a brush when I said that EVERYTHING was on my list of non-Disney things added to the parks, specifically WDW, since 1981. I wasn't kidding. It all goes to philosophy. When Ei$ner took over, COST became the overriding factor. Magic took a prominent, but secondary role, in the philosophical outlook of the company. If ever there was a conflict between the two concepts, COST won. And it is very apparent in EVERYTHING they have done (with a few minor exceptions: the water parks come to mind, and DVC, but I know the reason for that one!). So, I thought it would be incumbent for you to name a specific that was indeed conceived, built and priced with the old fashioned "WALT" ideals.

And when I read your post I my first thought was, "Oh my God! There are too many to choose from. Where do I start?" Perhaps MGM. Nah! Still too broad. AK wasn't good enough for you. Well what about the rest of your list? Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, Cirque, Disneyquest, DVC, most of the golf courses, Fantasia Gardens. Most, if not all, are glaring examples of what the original Disney concept is NOT!! Downtown Disney family oriented? Cirque Disney at all? Fantasia Gardens!! Are we really down to talking about mini golf!! Come on!!!

But then it occurred to me. We already had a list. And it is about as complete a starting point as I could think of. Of course it still may not match your criteria, but if that is the case then I'm at a loss. You will have to guide me into a conversation, because I really don't know what you are looking for. BTW, I thank Larworth for the list!!!

1. Transportation
2. Crowds and on-site hotels
3. Exit gift shops
4. Cost for the average person
5. Real world intrusions - sponsorships, McDonalds
6. Park layout DL versus others
7. Sequels - cheapening of the brand
8. Profit versus non-profit operation
9. Half parks
10. Rate of growth - new attractions
11. Changing attention spans
12. Cutting corners on attractions, safety, maintenance
13. Use of contractors
14. Eisner too hands-on, too removed

Care to discuss any of these?



Hopemax,

I agree with what you say, but I have a huge problem with the concept that puts us in that position in the first place. You see, I will not concede the point at all. It must be done right - or - DON'T DO IT AT ALL!!!

Given that philosophy we don't have to discuss the rest of your post because it is glaringly apparent that it was NOT done right in the first place.

 

[YoHo]

I still to this day cannot wrap my mind around how we can allow Walt whgo without reposting numerous quotes:
Was Quality focused
Argued over the budget
Blew the budget away and yet

He did not build a complete park. We allow this claiming, he didn't have the money yadda yadda when in fact we've just pointed out that money was not the concern quality was. You cannot have it both ways. Either Walt intentionally left the park unfinished choosing to build what he built at the level he demanded. Or, he simply built half a park not realizing it was such.

Now I'm not nearly old enough to have gone to Disneyland in 1955. Not even land baron is (by my guess) But I've seen more then enough pictures. And the pictures show a park that has few rides (except fantasyland) and few things to do elsewhere.

Even WDW MK went without certain completing rides for a couple of years.


My point is this. Building "half" a park is both subjective and irrelevent in theory. The Studios are nothing if not a mixed bag. I refuse to debate it, because of all his points, LAndbaron may only be out on a limb with this one. Animal Kingdom as envisioned didn't draw as expected. I suspect its partly due to the lack of beastly kingdom. After all, Disneyland and as far as I know the Studios never promised something they didn't deliver. But it may just have been a nitche market. More then likely, they just relied too heavily on the Animals. After all, World Showcase in Epcot has essentially the same type of atmosphere (you get out what you put in) but there's far more interaction. It may be that AK simply needs interaction.





Anyway, my point is that the HAlf a park argument is a bad one, since about the only complete park opened was Epcot. Size doesn't matter.

 

[JeffJewell]

My point is this. Building "half" a park is both subjective and irrelevent in theory.

I disagree with both of those assertations.

Taking the second half first, the business models for both Animal Kingdom and Disney's California Adventure were dependent upon the average guest extending their stay one day.

Building "half" a park is relevant when you intended to be selling an extra day. Without the goods, enough of your prospective guests don't buy the extra day, and your business model goes kerflooey. You end up having to do stupid things like cutting meals for which you've already issued PS numbers in a mad effort to cut costs.

Addressing the first part of your quote, I agree it's subjective to debate whether or not you or I personally think it's a full-day park. But I don't think that's important. It's whether or not customers/guests on the whole feel it's a whole day park.

Disney's own press releases site customer disatisfaction with the number of attractions in Animal Kingdom (I lost my link when the old boards went away, does anyone still have that link? They announced a "whole new area" had been greenlighted for AK to respond to guest complaints, spurring Beastly Kingdom rumors yet again, but it turned out they meant Dino-Rama). I don't consider that to be a subjective measure.

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I still to this day cannot wrap my mind around how we can allow Walt whgo without reposting numerous quotes:
Was Quality focused
Argued over the budget
Blew the budget away and yet

Huh? What? I don’t understand any of it. Please explain. I don’t know what “whgo” means.

He did not build a complete park.

No he did not. We can agree on that. When Disneyland was built it was not complete.

We allow this claiming, he didn't have the money yadda yadda when in fact we've just pointed out that money was not the concern quality was.

Well. I’m not sure whether to agree with this or not. I’m going to have to break it down. “He didn’t have any money….”, Very true! “Yadda yadda” I’m not quite sure about this but I think you mean that you don’t believe he didn’t have any money. Well, he didn’t. Plain and simple. No money, comparatively speaking. Anyway, let’s move on. “Money was not the concern quality was.” Yes and no again. Quality was the primary concern. Absolutely!! Right on target. YES!! But money was the obstacle standing in the way of that quality. There wasn’t enough!!! So, where does this leave us? Let’s start again.

Let’s agree that Disneyland was not quite what Walt had envisioned when it opened. Now, contrary to your statement that only Fantasyland was complete, in actuality only Tomorrowland was left a little sparse. That’s not to say that things weren’t added later. Almost everything we really enjoy about the park today was added later. But when it opened Disneyland was what Walt wanted, with the exception of Tomorrowland.

And why was that? Why was Tomorrowland left unfinished? MONEY!! He didn’t have it! Walt had only a finite amount of money to work with. So he faced a very tough question very early on in the development of Disneyland. And his natural philosophy answered it for him. It comes shining through in his quotes and the stories about him. Should he skimp on the other three lands and thereby afford a scaled down, cheap, but complete Tomorrowland? Or should he spend, what needed to be spent on the rest of the park, insuring that it was “Done Right” and leave Tomorrowland for a time when it too could be “Done Right”? From all you know about him, what do you think he would choose? What do you think Ei$ner would choose? And that is the difference!!!!

Walt decided to put off completion until he could do it right, and bought a several thousand-dollar chandelier instead. Come to think of it, Ei$ner wouldn’t do either. He’d skimp on it all.

You cannot have it both ways. Either Walt intentionally left the park unfinished choosing to build what he built at the level he demanded. Or, he simply built half a park not realizing it was such.

Yes I can have t both ways. He did indeed leave the park unfinished intentionally. But he insured that the finished product was done right. AND AS SOON AS MONEY BECAME AVAILABLE, he did Tomorrowland right. The difference is Ei$ner HAS the money!! He CHOOSES not to spend it. He value engineers attractions and parks to SAVE money. Not because he doesn’t have it!! Can’t you see the difference?

Even WDW MK went without certain completing rides for a couple of years.

You’ve got to be kidding!!! Nothing else in the world was bigger that the opening of WDW. The MK was nearly as complete as Disneyland, it even had a couple new ones that the original didn’t have. Neither had any of the mountains at the time. The only one I can remember it not having was Pirates. But that wasn’t budgetary, that was planned. They only built it because of consumer pressure. And remember. They opened the Magic Kingdom, three resorts, a campground, countless restaurants, two and half golf courses and a transportation system ALL ON THE SAME DAY!!!! Talk about grand scale!!!

My point is this. Building "half" a park is both subjective and irrelevant in theory.

I don’t think it’s very subjective. And nothing could be more relevant when discussing the difference in philosophy between current management and Walt. Just look at the debate board. There is currently a thread that asks the question the very validity of AK in the first place. You see this question on every Disney site there is. Do you think that anyone would have even thought to ask that kind of question when WDW opened or when EPCOT debuted? Of course not. It wouldn’t have entered anyone’s thinking. But it certainly does today. And that’s also the difference.

More then likely, they just relied too heavily on the Animals. After all, World Showcase in Epcot has essentially the same type of atmosphere (you get out what you put in) but there's far more interaction. It may be that AK simply needs interaction.

I don’t really know what it is missing either. But you’re right. It is missing something. And that’s the difference, too.

Size doesn't matter.

No comment!!!

 

[YoHo]

I won't fix my quote, because I can't read it either.


My point was. We in one breath discuss Walt's aversion to Sharp pencil guys and in fact we discuss his penchent for quality over everything, then turn around and dismiss Disneyland's incompleteness as being monetary. Well, I say you can't have it both ways. And by the by, Frontierland was SParse at best in 1955. so NO, it wasn't JUST Tomorrowland.
Walt Disney Purposely chose quality over a larger park. I would like to think that that was the choice made with both the studios and AK. The difference In my mind is more subtle, and involves more then just a budget.


Now the excuse is, well obviously the the Disney company has the money now. And I ask do they? They have a lot of Cash in 2001, did they when The DIsney Studios was built? NO, they were middlin around waiting for the Little Mermaid to bring them back from the dead. Did they when Animal Kingdom was built? Possibly, although I suspect the then failure (now success) in PAris put a damper on it.

We are proceeding from the assumption that the Disney Corp had the money to spend on things like AK. (Okay, I'll grant you, not buying ABC would have meant they had the money, but I'd like to leave ABC out of it, it was such a good Idea that failed for numerous reasons.)


At any rate. We then also must define what is half a park? What does that mean? I think its arbitrary. If half a park means that guests only spend half a day there. Then that's one thing. Guests certainly didn't spend half a day at Disneyland even in 1955 with a comparative derth of "Attractions".

If on the other hand, Half a park is based purely on a ttraction count, then we cannot draw comparisons to Walt's Park at all.

My point is this. Park size and attraction count are irrelevent.

ANimal Kingdom is missing something and it has nothing to do with attraction count. I suspect it has to do with interaction in a broad way.

The studios. is a bit more complex. I think it had a fair shot in 1989 and as illustrated by hopemax was on track. it was being built the way Disneyland was and that's fine. I think around 1996-97 they took a left turn and started trashing the place by ripping out everything that made sense and spewing ramant synergy everywhere. This is a big shift in focus to me. ITs so blatant that I can't beleive that people would lump the first 5 years in with the last.


Another though I had about AK and Disney's failure is one of expectations.

Its all well and good (except for landbaron) if you modify your future plans, do Grand Floridian instead of Asian, this ride instead of that. BUT, with Animal Kingdom, they gave us the expectation of Beastly Kingdom. it was part of the Story of the park. When it was canned, part of the story was ripped away and your left hanging waiting for the climax. They could have told that story in a thousand different ways. With Rollercoasters, Dark rides, Spinners, Soarin Overs. Any combination could have worked and disappointment would have been minimal. But they hacked it off. Even the people who never saw the story outline (preview) could sense that soemthing was missing.

I know, I know your all gonna say who cares, its still failure. Well, I care, because AK represents people and Like it or not it represents Walt and when Eisner and Presslar and whoever else is no longer there or even if they have a mystical journey and comeback renewed and changed. It will be very important why, because you can fix what you know.




Here's one last thought I was thinking last night. And I know it will spark debate and possibly slight incredulousness.

I think that given the same budgets today, Walt's 1955 Imagineering team (without him) could do a better DCA then the current one did. You can blame that on layoffs and people leaving the company and that might be true, but I suspect it has more to do with corporate attitudes then anything else. Something Disney has only slight control over.

I feel that a budget should not restrain you. And the fault of that lies not with managment (although they didn't help) but with the Imagineers. JIYI didn't need to be a failure slashed budget not withstanding. So I call the Imagineers to the floor. doing it right doesn't have to mean spending more, it means spending right!

Anyway, there's some rambling to chew on.