Something for Everyone at WDW.....NOT Everything for Everyone

[speck76]

This topic came up as a subject in another thread, but I think it could use more discussion.

There are some members that believe that there is polarization happening with the new attractions being built at WDW.....that is, the new attractions are being built targeted for kids, or targeted for adults, but not really targeted for the entire family.

I don't really think this is the case with every new attraction, and if it is happening, I don't think it is really that bad.

Let's look at the new shows and attractions added in the last year, along with those under construction:

Mickey's Philharmagic.....fun for the whole family
Mission Space....good for tweens/teens/adults, but I have ridden with little kids too
Wishes....fun for the whole family
Stitch's Great Escape....fun for the whole family
Soarin'....good for tweens/teens/adults
Cinderellabration....fun for the whole family
Lights, Motors, Action....fun for the whole family, probably aimed at teens/adults
Expedition Everest.....tweens/teens/adults only

Now, I think the new additions are pretty diverse in their offerings. I also think that most of the new attraction are good for the majority of the visitors to the park.

But let's discuss the whole "value" of polarization.

According to some, Walt wanted a family park.....but what is a family? Does a family have little kids, or big kids, or no kids at all?

Can attractions be made anymore that really appeal to the whole family....yes, they can......but how diverse are the offerings of these attractions?

If new attractions have to be gentle enough for a small kid, yet exciting enough for an adult, how many "different" ride types can really be created before everything begins to look the same.

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

Very good points speck76!

I mean none of us will truly know what Stich will have to offer us until it officially opens.

I mean Flight to the Moon, and Mission to Mars were both fun for the whole family. Only AE was more for teens/adults.

 

[tigsmom]

Why can't a ride target a specific audience? I'm all for "family" oriented attractions, but whats wrong with one targeted at the younger set and another for people a little older? I really see nothing wrong with this approach. *shrug*

 

[Legacy]

Very good posting there speck. You bring up valid points.

I agree that the "polarization" that is going on isn't nessecarily a bad thing. The parks themselves are becoming more polarized than the attractions within the park. Look at MGM when compared to Magic Kingdom, even looking at the new attractions. MGM is a more thrill/mature oriented park while the Magic Kingdom is maintaining its family-friendly atmosphere. That though, has to do with the actual theme of the parks themselves. Children (I don't think) would appreciate the "working studio" theming of MGM, were teens and adults do. Do I think that it is right that Disney is essentially causing one (possibly two with Epcot, although to a much lesser extent) of its parks to become a "thrill park", which MGM is close to becoming? Not really, but the Animation Courtyard still has attractions for kids. Disney has to provide an escape not only for the families with children 10-and-under, but like Speck said, also provide an escape for teens coming down for summer vacation or AP-Holders in their 50's.

Disney has been doing a good job as far as attraction variety being installed. They are NOT pandering to any one age-group, which is really the important thing as far as park development is concerned.

 

[Lynx04]

I see nothing wrong with building attractions for a specific demographic. Actually, I think building attractions for specific demographic is important to appeal to all dempgraphics. Example: Disney was known for being a family destination, but the truth was that disney was mostly for children, a place where adults could bring there kids and enjoy it with there kids. However, children grow up and they don't care that much for the fairy tales and pixie dust as much as the want adventure or thrills. So in order to keep the teens coming they needed more thrill or adventurous attractions. For the most part disney got away with having small thrill attraction sparsely placed in their parks. That is where Universal capitalized on the lack of teen and adult based attractions and marketed and based there parks on more thrill based attraction. As an adult with no children, I enjoy Universal and IOA more then the Disney parks when it comes to attractions. Well let me put it this way, if I take 3 or 4 of my favorite Disney attractions and put them against 3 or 4 of my favorite Universal attractions, I would personally rather go on the Universal rides. They just appeal to me more. Having said that, Disney has the luxury of a lot of space, whereas Universal has the same problem Disneyland has. Therefore, cause of size and abundance of attraction, Disney out wits Universal. My point is, Universal took a chunk out of the teen and young adult demographic, Disney's teen and young adult guest. When I go down to for my week stay in Disney World I always take 1 or 2 day out of my trip to go to Universal. To Disney that is 1 or 2 day when I am not in their parks spending money. They want that back. Now they are more aggressively seeking that demographic and rightfully so.

 

[speck76]

From a business POV, why would WDW limit their target audiance to families, or families with kids, why would they not try to appeal to as many people as possible?

I do not see a way that without targeted rides, WDW could appeal to everyone. Yes, many of the classic rides have mass appeal, but would they have mass appeal if they were built today? (Do people only ride them because they are classics) What would people think of IASW if it opened as a new ride today?

 

[PixiePower]

I always find this type of discussion interesting. Unless I have children that are very different from other children their age they outgrow those "family" rides very quickly. My girls don't enjoy much of Fantasyland anymore. They would much rather go on the big thrill rides. They are now waiting to grow to 54" to be able to get on the really big coasters at Universal. My girls, who are 6 and 8, love Disney but truly prefer the thrill rides Disney offers and wish they would build more. They ALWAYS choose a day at Universal or Busch Gardens over any Disney park because of the rides. So to say that the big thrill rides aren't for the family kind of stumps me...I have ridden many of the "thrill" rides with someone that just squeeks past the height limit to someone that is well into the sr age bracket. So how can we define what is a family ride and one that appeals to teens/young adults? There are many adults that won't ride something much more daring then Dumbo and my 6 year old walks past and asks why all those people wait for such a boring ride? It is all in the eye of the beholder and I think the Disney parks are moving in the right direction of developing rides that the entire family can ride/view but appeal to a little more of a mature audience. We usually go on the "family" rides once a trip if the wait isn't bad but we always go on the "thrill" rides numerous times...and if you look at the height minimum on many Disney rides little ones can go on almost any...where do we draw the line on what is family and what is thrill? Height minimum, speed? My family is full of adventurers, others aren't quite so adventurous...don't we need a good mix for those and all those families in between for Disney to maintain its hold on the family vacation market. We love Disney but the rides at Universal are overall way more fun!

 

[speck76]

There will always be a reason why someone can not ride.

Many people can not ride Mission Space because of motion sickness......but many people can not ride the carousel, Dumbo, or the teacups for the same reasons. Some people are afraid of heights, some may be allergic to the smells that are blown out during Philharmagic......my point......there will always be some reason that a certain percentage of the population can not experience every attraction.

Now, should WDW stop building attractions because certain people have conditions that will keep them from riding? (I think not!).....if they were to, where do they draw the line?

 

[Computer Magic]

From a business POV, why would WDW limit their target audiance to families, or families with kids, why would they not try to appeal to as many people as possible?

I do not see a way that without targeted rides, WDW could appeal to everyone. Yes, many of the classic rides have mass appeal, but would they have mass appeal if they were built today? (Do people only ride them because they are classics) What would people think of IASW if it opened as a new ride today?

Very good point and a great discussion topic. This brought to mind a book I read about Future Marketing, “Targeting Senior, Boomer, and Generation X & Y”. I think it applies here. Disney needs to try and appeal to a broad market. As you stated “Something for Everyone, not Everything for Everyone” or how the book states it, “One Size Does not Fit all”.

<O</OYou need Diversity. If Disney targeted solely to family with kids, married couples w/o kids would not vacation there. There is a large market share with a sizable disposal income going elsewhere. The same works the other way.<O</O

<O</O
In addition, as the family grows up, Disney wants to make sure they come back. So they need to tailor their rides to different generations otherwise teens would not want to return to ride soley childrens attractions. “Mom, I’m too old for Disney, I’m bored, Universal has thrill rides”. Disney wants to capture the market share for all generations. Each generation has different tastes and Disney must adjust with the times. <O</O

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

[speck76]

You need Diversity. If Disney targeted solely to family with kids, married couples w/o kids would not vacation there. There is a large market share with a sizable disposal income going elsewhere. The same works the other way.

Another point to consider is "who" has the most discretionary income.....people with kids, or those without?

 

[Computer Magic]

Another point to consider is "who" has the most discretionary income.....people with kids, or those without?

I would say people w/o kids have more discretionary income. I tried to convey that in my post, but maybe not very well. My statement " There is a large market share with a sizable disposal income going elsewhere" I meant married couples w/o kids have more disposal money to spend. Or as you stated discretionary income. Now I don't know who actually spends more on vacation. a family of 4 or a married couple. That research would be interesting to see.

 

[speck76]

I would say people w/o kids have more discretionary income. I tried to convey that in my post, but maybe not very well. My statement " There is a large market share with a sizable disposal income going elsewhere" I meant married couples w/o kids have more disposal money to spend. Or as you stated discretionary income. Now I don't know who actually spends more on vacation. a family of 4 or a married couple. That research would be interesting to see.

oops....

I was making a point, not asking a question.

 

[The Mom]

I would say people w/o kids have more discretionary income. I tried to convey that in my post, but maybe not very well. My statement " There is a large market share with a sizable disposal income going elsewhere" I meant married couples w/o kids have more disposal money to spend. Or as you stated discretionary income. Now I don't know who actually spends more on vacation. a family of 4 or a married couple. That research would be interesting to see.

That is an interesting point, and I would also like to see that study. Although a family has to buy more of everything (admissions, food, souveniers), a couple might be more likely to spend more per person on these things (higher end restaurants, deluxe hotels, etc)
I wonder if there is a standard average amount spent per guest regardless of family situation.

 

[Disnut]

Speck76 makes a good point on the rides and shows. I was one of the ones that thought all the things were being targeted for teens and I felt cheated. Now that he put it that way I don't feel cheated even though I would like to see the inside of these rides just to see and enjoy the atmosphere.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Speck,
I think you answered your own question as well as can be done with your original title.

My take is that for a new ride that doesn't meet with universal approval, it is attacked either as not for everyone or something Walt wouldn't want. I guess those two arguments are considered trump cards.

As long as a balance remains as your original list provided, I think things are just fine. After all, I have no need for Pooh, Sleeping Beauty, even Dumbo (sacriledge, I know), but I do consider them vital parts of the park. Noone attacks their audience "specificity".

 

[speck76]

Speck,
I think you answered your own question as well as can be done with your original title.

My take is that for a new ride that doesn't meet with universal approval, it is attacked either as not for everyone or something Walt wouldn't want. I guess those two arguments are considered trump cards.

As long as a balance remains as your original list provided, I think things are just fine. After all, I have no need for Pooh, Sleeping Beauty, even Dumbo (sacriledge, I know), but I do consider them vital parts of the park. Noone attacks their audience "specificity".

Maybe people are selfish......I don't know. I have never felt the need to have to experience everything in the parks. I guess, presonally, I would rather have WDW build more "Mission Space and Everest" type rides....rides that appeal to my tastes, and if that meant they also had to build more "Dumbo and Playhouse Disney" attractions, so be it.

The "Walt would have never built that" trump card used by traditionalists is really a bunch of crap....because NOBODY knows what he would have done. Not only did he not have the luxury of a diversity of ride systems to use, nor the technology of today, he also never had to do business in the current world, one which is so much different than the world was 40 years ago.

 

[pinkrose]

The "Walt would have never built that" trump card used by traditionalists is really a bunch of crap....because NOBODY knows what he would have done. Not only did he not have the luxury of a diversity of ride systems to use, nor the technology of today, he also never had to do business in the current world, one which is so much different than the world was 40 years ago.

I totally agree with you. :wave:

To me, having "a little something for everyone" is what makes it a family park. I don't think that "every" ride or attraction should be targeted for one particular age group. I like that some attractions are for the little ones, some for older ones, some for the whole family.