Analyst's Questions - "No church for Easter Sunday"

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Well, I think sometimes, those of us who go every year (or every month) prematurely find staleness in the parks. I'd guess most guests go probably once every 7 or 8 years (maybe a little more, maybe a little less). So, if you're only doing two trips a decade, alot of the "staleness" perceived by regulars may well still be "newness" to the more typical guest.

That's absolutely true.

But Disney is busting its butt trying to convince folks to come back more often than two trips a decade--or at least the heavy effort put forth by their marketing machine would seem to indicate this. Every year they have a "special" event going on. So many of them, in fact, that they're not really so special any more. But the point is that they're continually working hard to put out the message that there are new things to do at Walt Disney World.

As for the staleness of Epcot... Well, I wasn't really putting forth my own opinion on it. I was just commenting on what the Disney suits said in the memo I read, and their comments were based on guest surveys (although I certainly don't think the surveys are flawless). Epcot's attendance was dismal (the worst of the 4 parks), and their solution was to freshen things up and add new rides.

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by ParrotHead
Epcot's attendance was dismal (the worst of the 4 parks), and their solution was to freshen things up and add new rides.

Where does this come from? I have a hard time believing Epcot had worse attendance than AK...the last numbers I saw showed AK with the least of the 4 parks...you may be referring to the largest decrease in attendance by percentage, but remember that was after compared to the Millenium celebration numbers which inflated Epcot's attendance so the next year was bound to sink...and EPCOT is getting old--I think the really interesting thing is that just a few years into AK the numbers were declining-for a new park!...talk about people voting with their feet-they realized Disney was offering less and are staying away (we have not been back and don't plan to unless we find some extra time-AK is a nice zoo/animal park-not a destination to us).

As for WoM and Horizons, I loved Horizons, loved the retro/future thing, the huge IMAX screen part of the ride (before the days of Back to the Future Ride at USF), but what I remember about a trip in 1989 when MGM was new was feeling WAY over Audio-Animatronic'ed by the end of the trip... It was all too much of the same thing- from POC, HM, COP, WoM,SE, JII, H, American Adventure, HoP, etc, etc.- they need a mix -TT is a good idea but executed suboptimally (no wonder GM is the sponsor)...

The real problem is philosophy- Disney has become preoccupied with making money-I think they should make money- but true success stories in business don't come by making the bottom line the goal--concentrating energy on the bottom line will not increase it for long...make your product better, the bottom line will follow...simple, but proven true time and again...

Paul

 

[ParrotHead]

Originally posted by PKS44
Where does this come from? I have a hard time believing Epcot had worse attendance than AK...the last numbers I saw showed AK with the least of the 4 parks...you may be referring to the largest decrease in attendance by percentage...

I got it from very reliable sources.

You're correct--I'm not talking about raw attendance numbers. I'm talking about percentage decreases, and attendance vs. operating expenses. Epcot was, I was told, "hemorrhaging money."

 

[JeffJewell]

...just a few years into AK the numbers were declining-for a new park!

...this is not technically correct. It's even a bit worse than you make it sound.

The truth is, if you correct for 1998's numbers representing only three-quarters of a year (AK opened in April), AK's attendance numbers have declined every year since the park opened.

Jeff

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by ParrotHead
Epcot was, I was told, "hemorrhaging money."

Interesting turn of a phrase. That is the way a colleague described how he felt he was doing on his last trip to WDW. I know what he meant, I don't know what Disney is measuring or talking about with such a statement. Epcot is not drawing like it did in 2000. Still they only run half the park for a full day and they keep people on property to spend some time there...I doubt it is a loser like you imply. They are probably not making as much as they used to and that gets interpreted as losing. Epcot needs to change, but the fix will not come from cutting costs and expenses there.

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Based upon the ages of the parks and attractions, every park is going to have some attractions which could use an update/rehab/redo every year. The massive number of combined attractions between Epcot, MK, and MGM will ensure this.

But that's just the problem - I think Disney has spread themselves to thin at WDW. They've added so many theme parks, hotels, water parks, etc that they don't seem to be able to mantain the quality and still make as much profit as the company requires.

I really don't know what the fix to all this is, but I often wonder if they should have waited another 10 years or so before adding Animal Kingdom. I just don't think there was enough demand for a 4th theme park in Florida to justify the expense of the expansion - and I think Disney's realizing this too -- hence the cheap carnival rides and lack of general maintanence at all the parks.

 

[Bob O]

AK was built intentionally as a half day park in a very crass way to make money and try to add more nights at their hotels!!! They hyped it as some great park that would showcase all animals that are here and never were, but of course what they built never met the hype!! They would perfer to have 4 parks with gaping holes rather than 3 complete parks and believe because of past good will built up by prior people mangers that we will buy what ever they sell. Their was no need for a 4th gate until they fixed the other parks but that isnt a priority. Why else would theSub ride at MK be empty for as long as it is!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop says:

As I've posted before, I'm a big proponent of redos/updates/etc. However, improvement cannot be done within a vacuum without development.

But my new best friend Tic Toc says:

but I often wonder if they should have waited another 10 years or so before adding Animal Kingdom.

And that is the fundamental difference in philosophies!!

Let’s dive in a bit further. Scoop also says:

If Disney waited until everything had been rehabbed to build a new park, then the new park would never be more than concept art.

What makes you think it should have developed beyond that point regardless of the ‘rehab’ program (if one even exists!!). In other words I think you’re mixing up his points. His point (I think, and if not it’s my point) is that central Florida and WDW in particular was not ready for another theme park at this time. If we accept that premise (and the numbers seem to back it up somewhat) then some (and the operant word is some) of the money that brought us AK could have been BETTER spent within the three existing parks!!

I’ll agree with you that the building of a new park should not be predicated on the ‘rehab’ or maintenance of the others. But it is the continuation of your thought process afterwards that I don’t follow. So I guess I need a little clarification (knowing that I may have to wait until after the big meet that I can’t attend!!!). In your opinion, time wise, should AK have been built? If you agree with the wise Tic Toc and myself that it should NOT have been (at least the timing of it), then we can move forward to other great topics. If you disagree, then the next question is: Should it have been built the way it was? Or Bigger? Or perhaps smaller? Give us the Scoop scale of things.

AK was built intentionally as a half day park in a very crass way to make money and try to add more nights at their hotels!!!

There’s that Bob O again!!! Hitting the nail squarely on the head!!!

 

[HB2K]

Personally I'm of the opinion that DAK should have been built, but it's purpose should be better defined. There's nothing wrong with being a zoo. If Disney had no plans on expanding past Asia the park's main mission should be to provide a zoo (albeit a Disneyfied one).

Then noone is let down, there's no need for a round of advertising is "Am not, are too, am not".

Instead of telling your customer's they're wrong, why not fix the problem which gave the preception that the park is little more than a zoo?

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by Bob O
Why else would theSub ride at MK be empty for as long as it is!!!

I think the answer to this, and why also Carousel of Progress and Timekeeper sit closed as well, is because Disney managment feels that MK already has enough for guests to do without those rides, and I think they are trying to see just how little they can do to keep people coming back to the MK. It's almost as if they have a magic number in their heads of exactly how many rides they feel a park needs (and can support and continue to make big, big profits), and I have a feeling they will scale the parks until they all hit this magic number. You can see this philosophy at work at Epcot -- they don't add anything new without first closing something else. And now that philosophy seems to have spread to the Magic Kingdom.

And when you think about it, it's true that the MK had almost twice the amount of things to do than the other parks at WDW - which I think is a good thing, and one of the reasons why that park is so popular. But I just don't think managment sees it that way. They tend to look at attractions as money-eaters, and restaurants and shops as money-makers -- so they want less attractions, and more shops for you to spend your money. They just seem to forget that people come to the parks for the rides, and only eat and shop because they are enjoying the attractions so much. I just wish managment would get this through their thick skulls and start spending the money on big new attractions again without shutting down what's already there.

 

[Tik Tok]

Originally posted by HB2K
If Disney had no plans on expanding past Asia the park's main mission should be to provide a zoo (albeit a Disneyfied one).

If Disney was going to promote Animal Kingdom as a zoo, then they would need to charge admission accordingly. I've never heard of a zoo that costs $50 a day.

But I think that's really a moot point, as I feel that AK is already so much more than an ordinary zoo. While I don't feel it lives up to MK or Epcot, it still has far more than any zoo I've ever been to.

You're right though, I think they are having an identity crisis - hence the Nathazu commercials - but I think that comes from having to few attractions to sell to the public. If they had a few more Disney-style rides to advertise then I think they would have less problems with people think Animal Kingdom is only a glorified zoo.

 

[HB2K]

If Disney was going to promote Animal Kingdom as a zoo, then they would need to charge admission accordingly. I've never heard of a zoo that costs $50 a day.

Agreed. What I was alluding to was something Chad referred to....another "specialty" location...not an actual theme park. Think of a gate similarly priced to PI or BB.

DAK is a zoo with polish. If they added more themed areas, and used the Animals as an "added attraction" instead of the crutch the park wouldn't suffer from the "Nahtazu" stigma it does.

Six Flags in NJ has a drive through safari....but it doesn't suffer the "Nahtazu" stigma?

What's the difference? There are other attractions at the park, which allows people to avoid dwelling on the animals. At Animal Kingdom, there's nothing other than the Animals to think about when reminicing about the park. Everything else is run of the mill, or it takes a back seat to the Animals (other than ITTBAB possibly....)

 

[Bob O]

I dont think they should have built AK until they were ready to do it right!!! That they had the proper amount of money set up and built it as a complete park from day one, rather than what they are doing now by adding things slowly so that in another decade it may be a complete park. To me if you shouldnt do things hafl a**ed, if you arent going to do it right from the get go, dont do it. Dont give us initial sketches with BK and make it a big part of the pre-opening prestsentation and start to hype the park with images of Unicorns etc, then dont put it in. Hopefully they have learned from the mistakes at AK/DCA and from the success of TDS and wont do this again. In the disney show on the travel channel they talked of land being available for more theme parks, i just hope when it happens they finally do it right!!!

 

[PKS44]

Originally posted by thedscoop
AK's target was SW (and to a much lesser degree Cypress Gardens). Disney wants that market segment.

Almost right...AK was built to compete with A-B's Sea World and Tampa's Busch Garden's - also if you look at these two "animal themed parks" what rides do you see? Thrill rides! Kracken and Atlantis at SW and tons of coasters in Tampa...Disney is doing everything half-**ed these days because they are TOO focused on the bottom line instead of on their product...You can't be everything to everyone...too much towards thrill rides and you will alienate the Disney base (families with young kids -example DCA failure)-not enough thrill rides though and you risk losing a large segment of the market (the Echo Boom kids are no longer attracted to Fantasyland style attractions and they drive the market) You have to go after them somehow...As a zoo, AK is overpriced and incomplere, as a theme park it is overpriced and underdeveloped and as such, as a destination and a development it is a disappointment. The people have voted with their feet and as a previous poster said, stop trying to tell people they are wrong- the market has spoken- Disney is wrong.