News Disney names D’Amaro as Chairman Disney Parks Experiences and Products

[lazyboy97o]

My impression is that he probably feels that it's really difficult to create something for a theme park that no one else has without differentiating it with IP (though they did so with the river ride in Shanghai). It's not a terrible point. Disney owns characters that have a draw; why not capitalize on that?

He has an entire team of expensive creatives at his disposal to create new, exciting and unique things for theme parks (if you ignore the serious flirting with largelying shutting them down, but what parks fan wouldn't sell the parks and close up most of Walt Disney Imagineering?). The franchise mandate was not a reaction to a stagnation of ideas at Walt Disney Imagineering or some business failing, it came alongside the very successful opening of the nondescript coaster themed like India or whatever.

 

[peter11435]

For what it's worth, Pixar Pier didn't just cost $100 million, it cost more than double that. The makeover was done in an attempt to show that WDI could do things quickly, efficiently, and at a low cost, yet failed at all of these.

Like so many recent WDI projects, it focused on the details without stepping back to look at the bigger picture and ask whether the individual elements added up to a greater sum. For the most part, the execution of each piece was okay, but the fundamental concept was so flawed that it was never going to amount to much. The people approving the project had so little concept of what's reasonable for a construction project that they never thought to question the budget, nor why so many elements weren't completed in time for the grand opening. And all of this for a project that literally added nothing to the park's capacity, just redecorating existing facilities.

Aside from the aforementioned Pixar Pier, the additions to the park under Iger's lead have been rather checkered. Without getting into the failures of the MyMagic+ system, here are a couple of the most obvious missteps from physical park projects off the top of my head:

• The Little Mermaid dark ride cost $100M (the same amount as Everest 5 years prior) for a modest D-ticket attraction, only to require several costly overhauls within the first few years of operation to attempt to fix mistakes that should have been caught early in the design process, especially considering it was built twice
• Luigi's Flying Tires cost around $250M in an attempt to replicate the simple charm of DL's original Flying Saucers attraction from the 1960's, but failed to catch on with guests due to oversized vehicles, inefficient boarding procedures, awkward maneuvering and just a general lack of fun. Its replacement does much better with guest satisfaction, but cost another $75M, making the total cost for that site unfathomable for what it is
• Despite the generally-positive reception of WDW's Toy Story Land, it has a huge cost, not only in terms of money (I believe it was over $200M) but also opportunity cost in WDW's most landlocked park. Instead of maximizing limited space, which has often led to WDI's most memorable work in the past, they used 11 acres to add an exposed coaster, simple flat ride, restrooms, and a snack bar. This was their chance to make the most of an expansion of the park's footprint, and it was squandered
• But perhaps the biggest misstep of all was DL's Galaxy's Edge, which cost over $1B for the land itself, plus hundreds of millions spent throughout the resort for rerouting Rivers of America, park-wide path widening, a massive parking structure, and other general capacity improvements, only to have a summer DL's lightest attendance in years. The ensuing panic caused cuts throughout the resort because they were operating at a capacity that never materialized, and forced them to trot out MSEP yet again in a desperate pleat to draw people in. Summer 2019 at DLR was an unmitigated disaster, which the current pandemic is helping to erase from public memory. The WDW version opened to better reception, due partly to the pathetic state of the Studios park after so many years of reductions with no replacements

Not to mention all the smaller missteps in determining what's possible, feasible, viable and worthwhile in a real operating theme park that aren't as visible to the average park-goer. Sure Flight of Passage is a fun experience, but how many CMs does it take to operate the behemoth building for an embarrassingly low hourly throughput? Why was Be Our Guest originally designed to only have certain dining rooms available during certain meals, when they always knew demand would outstrip supply? Was anybody really expecting that the majority of park guests were going to LARP along with the CMs in SWL? And while we've gotten additions here and there, why have the majority of park areas remained untouched for decades?

Until the creatives, operators, designers and decision-makers can get out of their individual silos and start talking to one another, all these problems are going to persist. Sure, Iger has spent a lot of money on very few meaningful additions to the park, but under better leadership that same amount of money could have been spent much more effectively, both with regard to individual attractions and overall park experience.

I always find is amusing when people throw around numbers like these on the internet. How do you know they are all accurate?

 

[jt04]

For what it's worth, Pixar Pier didn't just cost $100 million, it cost more than double that. The makeover was done in an attempt to show that WDI could do things quickly, efficiently, and at a low cost, yet failed at all of these.

Like so many recent WDI projects, it focused on the details without stepping back to look at the bigger picture and ask whether the individual elements added up to a greater sum. For the most part, the execution of each piece was okay, but the fundamental concept was so flawed that it was never going to amount to much. The people approving the project had so little concept of what's reasonable for a construction project that they never thought to question the budget, nor why so many elements weren't completed in time for the grand opening. And all of this for a project that literally added nothing to the park's capacity, just redecorating existing facilities.

Aside from the aforementioned Pixar Pier, the additions to the park under Iger's lead have been rather checkered. Without getting into the failures of the MyMagic+ system, here are a couple of the most obvious missteps from physical park projects off the top of my head:

• The Little Mermaid dark ride cost $100M (the same amount as Everest 5 years prior) for a modest D-ticket attraction, only to require several costly overhauls within the first few years of operation to attempt to fix mistakes that should have been caught early in the design process, especially considering it was built twice
• Luigi's Flying Tires cost around $250M in an attempt to replicate the simple charm of DL's original Flying Saucers attraction from the 1960's, but failed to catch on with guests due to oversized vehicles, inefficient boarding procedures, awkward maneuvering and just a general lack of fun. Its replacement does much better with guest satisfaction, but cost another $75M, making the total cost for that site unfathomable for what it is
• Despite the generally-positive reception of WDW's Toy Story Land, it has a huge cost, not only in terms of money (I believe it was over $200M) but also opportunity cost in WDW's most landlocked park. Instead of maximizing limited space, which has often led to WDI's most memorable work in the past, they used 11 acres to add an exposed coaster, simple flat ride, restrooms, and a snack bar. This was their chance to make the most of an expansion of the park's footprint, and it was squandered
• But perhaps the biggest misstep of all was DL's Galaxy's Edge, which cost over $1B for the land itself, plus hundreds of millions spent throughout the resort for rerouting Rivers of America, park-wide path widening, a massive parking structure, and other general capacity improvements, only to have a summer DL's lightest attendance in years. The ensuing panic caused cuts throughout the resort because they were operating at a capacity that never materialized, and forced them to trot out MSEP yet again in a desperate pleat to draw people in. Summer 2019 at DLR was an unmitigated disaster, which the current pandemic is helping to erase from public memory. The WDW version opened to better reception, due partly to the pathetic state of the Studios park after so many years of reductions with no replacements

Not to mention all the smaller missteps in determining what's possible, feasible, viable and worthwhile in a real operating theme park that aren't as visible to the average park-goer. Sure Flight of Passage is a fun experience, but how many CMs does it take to operate the behemoth building for an embarrassingly low hourly throughput? Why was Be Our Guest originally designed to only have certain dining rooms available during certain meals, when they always knew demand would outstrip supply? Was anybody really expecting that the majority of park guests were going to LARP along with the CMs in SWL? And while we've gotten additions here and there, why have the majority of park areas remained untouched for decades?

Until the creatives, operators, designers and decision-makers can get out of their individual silos and start talking to one another, all these problems are going to persist. Sure, Iger has spent a lot of money on very few meaningful additions to the park, but under better leadership that same amount of money could have been spent much more effectively, both with regard to individual attractions and overall park experience.

Great content as usual. However I'm not sure TSL gets proper credit here. Everyone overlooks adding the third track to TSMM and flipping the entrance. If Pixar gets an expansion towards RnRC and TSL is just one component of that then it could really resonate even better IMO. Obviously everything is on hold sadly.

 

[rreading]

So how does Bob Iger see the parks when he goes?

I go there and I marvel at how many people are there having the time of their lives. You just get the sense that in a world that can at times feel dark and as sinister as it is, these are people that have escaped all of that. They have spent time and good money, I will say, to provide themselves and their friends, their family, their loved ones, an experience that not only is going to make them feel good, but that they’re going to remember forever.

“Good money” indeed. That may be the only true thing in he says. Do you notice that the premise of this vacuous quote is his shock and “marvel” at people liking Disney parks? He also indulges in a classic trope about theme parks being meaningless escapes. Instead of being great stories that can educate and provide hope, theme parks are about “escape.” Nice.

What about his favorite ride?


“I happen to love Pirates [of the Caribbean]. It was the last attraction Walt was really involved in creating. He died just before it opened. And you go and you think, this is just silly, but it’s great.”

Notice how this is actually a jab. Of course he goes and thinks “this is just silly...” He subtly slams Walt Disney’s creation.

“You look at Main Street and you look at kids meeting Mickey. I love it because of what it means to people. I don’t go thinking, “Wow, look what we’re charging for these churros. Isn’t that great?””

Notice he doesn’t say he likes it. No, he likes it because “people” like it. Also, the fact he brings up the churro price means he does think about churro price. Which is odd.

How do Iger and his family experience the parks? Do they wait in line like all of us?

“It’s different for them, I will admit. They don’t wait in line.”

Nice.

How does Iger view other classic Disney attractions?

”The acquisition of these brands and the creation of intellectual property behind them have had a tremendous impact on growing our returns at the parks. When you have Star Wars to market at the parks...Avatar is a good example, Cars Land, we’re building a Frozen land in [Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Paris parks], the interest among the potential audience is higher. It’s not like, “Well, I’m going to ride some nondescript named coaster somewhere that maybe is like, maybe is in India or whatever.” No, you’re going to Arendelle and you’re going to experience Frozen with Anna and Elsa. Or you’re going to fly a banshee into Pandora. Go to Cars Land. We built Radiator Springs. You’re with the characters in that town.

....

People are coming not just to visit a theme park, they’re coming to experience the stories and the characters, the places, that were part of the movies they loved.”

Not just to a theme park. Who would want to go to just a theme park? He slams Expedition Everest and praises Frozen Ever After.

This disdain for theme parks follows to Bob Chapek.

“And that’s why we have a franchise orientation, and frankly, that’s why the Walt Disney Co. far and away outperforms all of our peers.””

What a sad reason to be “outperform.” Not because of storytelling or service. The cast member and imagineering organizations have been poorly managed and gutted. Things like value or creating a great experience don’t matter. That was how Disney used to differentiate their products. Now they create attractions like Alien Swirling Saucers. Any attraction with a superficial tie to a franchise is seen as an acceptable “Disney” ride.

These guys are maddeningly frustrating.

To repeat myself, sure, if we have extra time to go to Busch Gardens or Universal, then we will. If one of them steps up their game to make amazing rides then we will go more often. However, the thing that will keep up going back to Disney (which is why I purchased into DVC) is their IP. The music and characters developed over the years (but also including during Iger's tenure) bring a richness to our experience which is often as subtle as background music walking into the parks or riding the boat from WL. Were it not for Disney's IP, a competitor could create a theme park just as special.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

My impression is that he probably feels that it's really difficult to create something for a theme park that no one else has without differentiating it with IP (though they did so with the river ride in Shanghai). It's not a terrible point. Disney owns characters that have a draw; why not capitalize on that?

Like almost everyone here, I don't like the IP invasion of the parks. I'm not against IPs, but the fact that almost every single new attraction has to have a tie-in is ruining a big part of what attracted me to the parks in the first place.

That said, I do recognise that it is not exactly insane to decide that one of Disney's biggest competitive advantages in the theme park market is all the beloved IPs it owns and therefore new attractions should take advantage of that. I don't love the strategy they've taken and think it will ultimately be counter productive. I also wouldn't kid myself, though, that I could mount a credible case that it would have been a better investment to build a new ride exploring myths and legends from Norwegian culture instead of a Frozen ride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That said, I do recognise that it is not exactly insane to decide that one of Disney's biggest competitive advantages in the theme park market is all the beloved IPs it owns and therefore new attractions should take advantage of that.

How is it one of their biggest advantages? Was Disney not already the leader in themed entertainment before the franchise mandate?

 

[rreading]

Like almost everyone here, I don't like the IP invasion of the parks. I'm not against IPs, but the fact that almost every single new attraction has to have a tie-in is ruining a big part of what attracted me to the parks in the first place.

That said, I do recognise that it is not exactly insane to decide that one of Disney's biggest competitive advantages in the theme park market is all the beloved IPs it owns and therefore new attractions should take advantage of that. I don't love the strategy they've taken and think it will ultimately be counter productive. I also wouldn't kid myself, though, that I could mount a credible case that it would have been a better investment to build a new ride exploring myths and legends from Norwegian culture rather than a Frozen ride.

I can't imagine that a new ride that was basically Maelstrom 2.0 would be likely to bring people into the parks - especially if it used the same footprint as Maelstrom. It's a limited ride in a limited space so squeezing Frozen into it is - to me - about the best that they could do with that space (short of keeping Maelstrom and just losing the oil rig backdrop in the end - I always loved the idea of Maelstrom much more than the ride itself). They certainly did a great job of expanding the still gorgeous area of Norway and made it more of a destination.

I do think that a Mount Fuji roller coaster in Japan or a legit ride in Germany could be a draw, however. We'll see how excited people are about Ratatouille

 

[rreading]

How is it one of their biggest advantages? Was Disney not already the leader in themed entertainment before the franchise mandate?

Sure...but competitors can certainly catch up in general themed entertainment; being the first does not mean the only. But their IP is unparalleled. If nothing else, you could give Iger credit that there is a greater breadth of IP under their umbrella that they can draw off of.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

How is it one of their biggest advantages? Was Disney not already the leader in themed entertainment before the franchise mandate?

And many of those nondescript rides themed to Haunted Houses, Jungle Rivers, Space Volcanoes or whatever are still more popular than many newer rides based on popular characters.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sure...but competitors can certainly catch up in general themed entertainment; being the first does not mean the only. But their IP is unparalleled. If nothing else, you could give Iger credit that there is a greater breadth of IP under their umbrella that they can draw off of.

And yet they just keep going back to the same few properties... Nobody was catching up when the mandate was given. Of course if you sell of the parks that’s extra licensing fees.

 

[No Name]

The old stuff could have just been left to degrade.

Let’s not give them points for continuing to operate the business instead of being blatantly idiotic.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Let’s not give them points for continuing to operate the business instead of being blatantly idiotic.

Agree...

There’s a cost to business.

I can’t really laud Disney with a “big number” that includes the bottom line costs that they never looked for credit for prior that is an automatic cost for parks they designed and built.

They COULD add nothing new...Wall Street would be happy...for awhile.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Let’s not give them points for continuing to operate the business instead of being blatantly idiotic.

I wasn't.

I was responding to the idea the Iger never spends money on the parks. If that was true, then there'd be a lot degraded attractions (other than the few degraded ones). The billions spent on maintenance capex is proof that Iger did spend, whether willingly or unwillingly, cheerfully or begrudgingly, he spent.

If he didn't spend, how can all those WDI projects be over budget and also completed?

This is the Catch-22 of the haters: You can't say Iger/Disney never spends (in this past decade) and then say they overspend at the same time.

 

[BrianLo]

I do think Iger has developed less contempt for the parks as his tenure has worn on.

Perhaps that's not a glowing comment, but he has made some strides.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I wasn't.

I was responding to the idea the Iger never spends money on the parks. If that was true, then there'd be a lot degraded attractions (other than the few degraded ones). The billions spent on maintenance capex is proof that Iger did spend, whether willingly or unwillingly, cheerfully or begrudgingly, he spent.

If he didn't spend, how can all those WDI projects be over budget and also completed?

This is the Catch-22 of the haters: You can't say Iger/Disney never spends (in this past decade) and then say they overspend at the same time.

I think the point is not spending on maintenance was never an option. That has to be done or the lawyers aren’t happy.

My problem with Iger is that he continued the late Eisner stagnation and got zero blame for that...but then is lauded for spending on “so much” this last decade that is really catch up. They closed and mothballed ALOT under early Iger.

That’s the catch 22 of “defenders”. Can’t act as though he didn’t sit on it for quite a while.

The truth is definitely more in the center lane...but there are pluses and minuses.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think the point is not spending on maintenance was never an option. That has to be done or the lawyers aren’t happy.

My problem with Iger is that he continued the late Eisner stagnation and got zero blame for that...but then is lauded for spending on “so much” this last decade that is really catch up. They closed and mothballed ALOT under early Iger.

That’s the catch 22 of “defenders”. Can’t act as though he didn’t sit on it for quite a while.

The truth is definitely more in the center lane...but there are pluses and minuses.

There was very considerable less maintenance capex spent in the previous decade than this one.

This decade saw a huge (and much needed) increase in both maintenance and growth capex.

So, yes, you can spend too little on maintenance capex. And for the last decade, Iger didn't.

So, again, the point that Iger doesn't spend on the parks has been wrong for a decade.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There was very considerable less maintenance capex spent in the previous decade than this one.

This decade saw a huge (and much needed) increase in both maintenance and growth capex.

So, yes, you can spend too little on maintenance capex. And for the last decade, Iger didn't.

So, again, the point that Iger doesn't spend on the parks has been wrong for a decade.

I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing.

But you can’t say “this decade” and start from zero.

I see Eisner get slammed over and over and over again by Iger lovers because his last 10 years was relatively bad...but the first 10 saw Disney go from rinky to a juggernaut.

The whole of the book tells the story on both and we end up with “flawed” and “successful”

 

[MisterPenguin]

I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing.

But you can’t say “this decade” and start from zero.

I see Eisner get slammed over and over and over again by Iger lovers because his last 10 years was relatively bad...but the first 10 saw Disney go from rinky **** to a juggernaut.

The whole of the book tells the story on both and we end up with “flawed” and “successful”

Someone said "Point A!"

I took the AntiPoint A argument with evidence the reputes point A.

You want to take what I'm saying as Point B and take an AntiPoint B stance.

I'm not making that Point B point. Put a mask on the straw man!

 

[UNCgolf]

From a quality perspective, Iger has been great. I cannot think of a major park whiff to occur during his tenure (HKDL 1.0 technically debuted during his tenure, but it was entirely Eisner's project as he had just left the role).

Toy Story Land and spending $100 million on that Little Mermaid ride come to mind as gigantic whiffs, although the cost for the Little Mermaid ride isn't really relevant. It could have cost $10 million and it would still be a whiff because it's such a low quality ride and far below Disney standards.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Someone said "Point A!"

I took the AntiPoint A argument with evidence the reputes point A.

You want to take what I'm saying as Point B and take an AntiPoint B stance.

I'm not making that Point B point. Put a mask on the straw man!

This is gonna be like that Star Wars stuff, huh?

“Die on that hill” even if the war is over?

You win.