Is 'The Magic' Expensive?

[Bstanley]

Well, as an over-Pixie Dusted Car #1 rider I fall in with DisneyKidds on this one.

Having traveled to some exotic (ie Third World...) places I enter AK through the Oasis with the following running through my mind:

I've just left my airplane (OK it looked a LOT like a bus and I'm moving slowly through Customs/Immigration (the gates) and past the street vendors and hawkers just outside the terminal (the entertainers and pollsters just inside the turnstiles). Then I have to travel on foot through 'The Bush', past exotic creatures, down mud tracks, and finally through a cave until I catch sight of my destination - The Tree of Life, Harambe, etc.

Of course it helps if you are traveling with a 12 year old that is willing to play along with you...go find one and take them with you!

 

[Captain Crook]

Attendance numbers are always interesting but according to your numbers, between 2000 & 2001 US/IOA had an 11% decrease and WDW had a 9% decrease...Whose WDW losing people to? It looks to me like its more or less a wash & at these levels that is nothing Disney needs to be real concerned with.

BTW, that's too bad because competetion would probably help WDW achieve greater things...But then again maybe Orlando is just 'too built' and no matter what may come the result would just be cannibalization at some significant level...

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Attendance numbers are always interesting but according to your numbers, between 2000 & 2001 US/IOA had an 11% decrease and WDW had a 9% decrease...Whose WDW losing people to? It looks to me like its more or less a wash & at these levels that is nothing Disney needs to be real concerned with.

Like I said both parks were down last year..do you remember anything important that happend last year ??

Like I said again....if the customer is at another park spending money there and not at a Disney park then they are losing that customer.

 

[DisneyKidds]

3 year olds work pretty well, too . But you know, back when just DW and myself (a 12 year old at heart ) went, we felt the same way about AK.

A look at those attendance numbers......

'01 attendance as a percentage of '00 numbers

MK 95%
Epcot 85%
MGM 93 %
AK 93%
US 89%
IOA 92%
Sea 98%

Looks like Epcot is the attendance loser. AK holding pretty well. I don't see IOA stealing anyone, unless you assume the '99 to '00 WDW attendance growth would have been larger had IOA not been in the picture. If you assume any customer at another park is a customer that Disney lost, then Disney lost 5.5 million customers to IOA in '01? Not the way I look at it. A good portion of that 5.5 mil weren't (and were never going to be) a Disney customer. Perhaps you could say they lost a potential customer, but every business does everyday and it isn't a negative connotation. Now, if the WDW numbers went down in '01 and the others went up, perhaps you could infer that Disney lost customers. Looks like '01 was just a down year for everyone. Hopefully '02 will provide better numbers.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds

I don't see IOA stealing anyone, unless you assume the '99 to '00 WDW attendance growth would have been larger had IOA not been in the picture. Looks like '01 was just a down year for everyone. Hopefully '02 will provide better numbers.

No you are looking at it differently then I am. IOA has not been in Orlando for 30 years. Only three. Now assume IOA is not there now. Where do those 5-6 million people go? Do they go to Disney? Do they even come to Orlando? If they go to Disney or if the stay home...it's still the same. Those 6 million people are spending there money at Universal and not Disney...that is how Disney is losing guest.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I think there is a difference between losing a POTENTIAL guest and losing an EXISTING guest. One is a real negative (losing the existing) and one is a part of doing business (losing the potential). Fact of the matter is, you can't get them all - even if you are Disney. Do most of the people who criticize current management for running WDW into the ground and losing customers refer to the ones Disney had and drove away, or the ones they never had at all?

Anyone have the '97 and '98 numbers? What if the other WDW parks had steady growing numbers prior to and after the AK came on line, and when AK comes along there are another 8+ mil visitors. Under your logic they picked up 8+ mil customers, but no one would to believe that.

Something that clouds all this - these numbers are probably based on people thru the turnstiles At WDW, as well as US/IOA?, you can have one 'customer' counted multiple times (park hoppers). So it is difficult to assume anything about who has what customers from these kinds of numbers. What you can get an idea of is how willing the customers (however many there are) are to go to the various parks.

 

[Bstanley]

Whoa Folks. DisneyKidds touched on it.

We seem to have forgotten some basic principles here. We are not dealing with a zero-sum game.

The available pool of "person-days" is not a fixed number. Just because a park opens (IoA, AK, whatever) doesn't mean that automatically all the other parks lose.

What if people extend their vacations by an additional day to see the new park?

 

[Another Voice]

Stories work on different people in different ways. Some people are already inclined to “feel the magic” before the story starts, most people have to prodded a little, some people will never get it. That’s just a fact of life when you try to make entertainment.

When you create mass entertainment, the goal is not to please just the people already predisposed to like it, you have to try to please those that need the push and if you’re good you try to win over the people that are against you from the start. Saying that “this works for me” is nice and a purely personal statement. But if you’re trying to judge if something works as entertainment – you have to ask “does this work for the other guy”?

I understand exactly what the Oasis at Animal Kingdom is trying to do. I understand exactly the techniques it uses. I even know that some people “get it”. And I know that most people don’t. The reasons for that are fairly straight forward*. But blaming the guests for being too stupid to see that “magic” that you see, or to blame others’ foolish devotion to some dead guy is nothing but a bad attempt to shift responsibility.

It is the storyteller’s job to tell the story. It is not the audience’s job to make it up for them selves.


* - yes, the sense of mystery in the Oasis. Problem one, “mystery” quickly gives way to “tedium” in any form of entertainment. If the Oasis was a movie, most of the audience would be screaming “got on with it!” at about the one third mark. The animal “encounters” don’t come off a sudden, as unexpected or as mysterious. They come off looking like petting zoo cages stapled to the side of the trail. There is no sense of being surrounded by the natural world – there is a sense that the natural world has been boxed up in convenient bite size portions for your passing amusement. And any sense of the natural world is bulldozed by the teaming masses forced into the small walkways. It’s real hard to get a sense of “the bush” when you’re surrounded by a seething mass of rain poncho clad flesh.

Finally, the first view of the Tree is stunning, one of the best views in all of WDW. And had it come many minutes earlier it would have captured a wonderful sense of awe and majesty. But for most people the effect has already been lost in a sense of confusion – and the quick mental calculations about how to best avoid the sleazy picture takers trying to rip another twenty out of passing wallets.

P.S. "AK comes along there are another 8+ mil visitors" - we already went over this, didn't we?

 

[Bstanley]

Well there are certainly many reasons to visit WDW when you can avoid the masses - sounds like here's another one.

Hmm, I've gotta think about this idea for a bit...Tree of Life as Spaceship Earth...pull me into 'the Magic' instead of surprising me with it.

 

[DisDuck]

How's this IOA is stealing from Universal. Why is the assumption that IOA is only stealing from Disney? Maybe also stealing from SeaWorld. Maybe Discovery Cove is stealing from Universal/IOA and/or SeaWorld. Like why watch dolphins when you can swim with them.

AV.. What survey exists that shows the Oasis is not gotten by most people or the Tree comes into view late. Is it the attendance figures and people are turned off going to AK because of the 'poor' Oasis.

I have to say this... So much negativity about one place. AK is what it is and some like it and some don't like it. I know a person who thinks the whole Disney thing is overblown and is only going to go in the next year or two because of young children. Sort of a rite of passage.

Your's truly.. Car #1 driver.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Bstanley

The available pool of "person-days" is not a fixed number. Just because a park opens (IoA, AK, whatever) doesn't mean that automatically all the other parks lose.

What if people extend their vacations by an additional day to see the new park?

Ok lets take your scenario....
Did those people extend their stay to go to Disney or a different park? Any way you look at it those 5-6 million people did not spend their money at Disney that Day.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Back to the 'theory of thirds' is it......

Fair enough Mr. AV. To each his own, and in his own way. I think AK appeals to enough that it was a worthwile and justified addition - and it will only get better. Call me crazy .

the natural world has been boxed up in convenient bite size portions for your passing amusement.

Disney does it better than anyone else, but isn't this what theme (amusement) parks are all about?

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DisDuck
How's this IOA is stealing from Universal. Why is the assumption that IOA is only stealing from Disney? Maybe also stealing from SeaWorld. Maybe Discovery Cove is stealing from Universal/IOA and/or SeaWorld. Like why watch dolphins when you can swim with them.

Your correct I was giving an example if you wish to expand it out to the other parks in the area that is fine. Which also means that Disney is stealing from it's self. Just does not sound right though? When you stop to think about it IOA/Universal...same company.....MGM/AK/MK/Epcot same company. So the money still goes to the same company in those cases. Your right though and that is the only thing i've been saying is that if they are spending their money somewhere else then they are not spending it at Disney.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hmm, I've gotta think about this idea for a bit...Tree of Life as Spaceship Earth...pull me into 'the Magic' instead of surprising me with it.

YEAH! That’s half the idea of the ‘weenie’.

No surprise. All draw (to hear some explain it, almost hypnotically).

 

[airlarry!]

Would it be a dumb question to ask:

If the Eisner way is the correct way (i.e. MGM & AK as in "AK appeals to enough that it was a worthwile and justified addition"), then why is the MK pulling in a little less than twice the visitors then BOTH parks combined?

I will assume the answer to be the length of time they have been opened. All right, but I want to see those answers in writing because there will be a test when TDS numbers are unofficially released at the end of this year.... If TDS does 2/3 the numbers TDL does, then could everyone agree that the Eisner way is not the Walt way and is not the Right way?

 

[Captain Crook]

I don't think so Larry, I just think Japanese visitors are a different consumer andcomparisons just won't be valid.

They are certainly fortunate to have received TDS as their second Park, but it will be interesting to see what their third Park will be like...This will be where OLC proves if they're truely different from our Disney...

 

[airlarry!]

Mon Capitaine,

I have no illusions about the 'generosity' that OLC has toward giving the people what they want. I don't think they are a modern day Uncle Walt.

I believe it was M. AV that gave us an extended history lesson a year or two ago about how OLC was forced by Disney to fund the park. The irony was that the Imagineers were given a free hand to design the park of their dreams (literary license here) while one of the Brains that Ate Glendale kept OLC's nose to the contract and made them spend the money.

That's why I can give a mark or two to Glendale for this park. I don't give the credit to OLC. I just think it is ironic that the suits MAKE OLC build a new Walt park, with OLC's money, probably snickering the entire time that OLC will fall flat on its butt and they will swoop in and buy the park for cheap. Ha ha. Very funny, Michael. All the while, they were constricting the Imagineers at every turn during the DCA debacle, and snickering that they were building a 'New Millenium park' which had 'Cost Containment' and a 'Guaranteed Return on Investment' and they would laugh all the way to the bank.

That sound you hear is the sound of OLC patting its back while turnstiles flip like mad at DisneySeas AT THIS VERY MOMENT, and the silence is the nighttime clean-up crew at DCA thanking God that Michael created this dud and they have little or no trash to pick up.

What's the point here? OLC ain't no Lone Ranger, and The Suits ain't no White Knight in Tokyoland. You know what's funny? They build one park much like Walt would design if he was starting from scratch, and its gangbusters, and they build another one in Eisner's eyes, and its a dud. A billion dollar mistake. And all they had to do was spend $4.00 on a collect call to the Baron to find out that before they even started.

One last thing if I may...I think the whole LA versus Japan thing is a bit overblown. LA has been supporting one park for years...they apparently just won't be suckered in for something less than Disney quality.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Once again, I agree with the Crook. It just so happens that Epcot was WDW's second park. Unless I'm mistaken, the numbers seem to show that Epcot brings in 2/3 the MK numbers. So if TDS brings in 2/3 of the TDL numbers they will be right on par with the Orlando development track. Lets wait and see what the third and fourth parks bring. Each time a new park was added at WDW the concept and scope seemed to become more narrowly defined. This is not a bad thing. You don't want to just keep churning out the same general idea. However, when you narrow the scope to a park focused on movie studios or animals you are bound to attract fewer people because everyone might not be into movie studios or animals. When these new parks draw fewer numbers than a MK or Epcot, which have broader depth and appeal, it doesn't mean they were done wrong or were failures.

No comment on DCA. Debacle or not, I don't know enough about the park. Maybe the shortcomings are Mr. E's fault - again I don't know. I will agree, Eisner's way is not Walt's way. Walt's way was better. But that doesn't mean that Disney is now doomed, or that everything that Eisner touched is wrong or a failure. I didn't say his way was THE correct way. Is there only one right way? (I know, the answer is yes for all you 'Walt's way or the highway' folks in Car #3) His is just one way to go, and while it hasn't all been coming up roses, the place has had a lot of Magic added in the recent, post Walt, past.

Before we get too carried away with all that back slapping over in Japan, lets keep in mind that the Japanese consumer is a different animal, especially when it comes to things American - ideas, concepts, parks, etc.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

So if TDS brings in 2/3 of the TDL numbers they will be right on par with the Orlando development track.

But that’s the point!! They don’t do things that way anymore. EPCOT was truly the last park built “the old way”. IT was mature the first day it was opened.

 

[DisneyKidds]

The point! The point? Is there a point ?

Where to start.......

Epcot was the last park built the 'old way'. This is a good thing as far as you are concerned, right? As such, it was done the right way, no huge philopsophy departures, no glaring mistakes. Despite the fact that it is nothing like Walt originally planned, it is what Walt would have done. You are into stipulation as of late. Can we stipulate to this? OK, good .

Now, Epcot brings in 2/3 the MK numbers. You still think Epcot is fine. No Magic erosion. The crumbling has not yet begun. The only erosion that may have been around would have been the margin erosion Eisner would have seen had he been around because he could have done it cheaper . Still on beam?

Correct me if I'm wrong regarding your thinking (wouldn't be the first time ), but you seem to be saying that lesser attendance numbers are ok, so long as the park was 'mature' from day one - that is was complete and done the 'old way'. Lower attendance than the MK (or the previous park) (a 33% drop to be specific) does not equal failure in this case. Have we perhaps found something we can agree upon ?

My point regarding the quote you placed was that if TDS brought in 2/3 TDL is wouldn't be a bad thing. It would actually be a good thing, showing development that would be consistent with WDW in the days of Epcot. Could it be we agree on two things : ?

The only reason I made the point is because it seemed to be implied that if TDS realized 2/3 of TDL attendance it would imply more success than MGM or AK, which only realized (less than) 1/2 of the original (MK) park attendance, and that that wasn't really a valid comparison and wouldn't indicate the implied success. I was trying to say that you can't compare MGM or AK numbers (3rd or 4th park) to MK (1st park) numbers and draw valid comparisons of TDS (2nd park) numbers to TDL (1st park) numbers.

Let me reiterate a concept I also threw out regarding successive new parks. Basically, that each new park will realize some decline in attendance numbers as compared to the previous park, due to narrowing of scope and appeal as new ideas (that might not appeal to everyone) are given to the public. (That new, original entertainment you agree is so important) A valid concept ? or am I day dreaming in left field again ?

Lets assume it is a valid concept, which might explain why the Epcot numbers (an agreed upon success ) were not the same as the MK numbers. So, where is this all going........ I don't know, just kind of flowing right now.

Oh, this. Epcot = 2/3 MK attendance = success. MGM/AK = 2/3 Epcot attendance = failure. I submit that the only reason MGM/AK is seen as failure (in these equations that should both end in success under the assumption) is because you feel the inept, post Walt management designed and implemented these parks - that they weren't done the 'old way' or the 'right way'. Your view of failure can't be based on the attendance figures, they imply success on the level of Epcot.

My point (I usually try and get to one - just taking a little longer tonight ) is that just because MGM/AK weren't done the 'old way' doesn't make them failure. I think they are wonderful Disney successes. So AK doesn't have BK, I still see them both as complete parks. Sure you could ask for more, you always could. But they are successes nonetheless.