Are Oranges a good sign ... or just citrus?

[OrangeTree]

At face value? At face value I just see the citrus swirl as a way of making some dough off the retro-initiative consumers. They're one and the same. Simply put, it is in no way different from an orange bird shirt. A little bit of nostalgia creeping back into the world....that you have to purchase.

It isn't what the MK needs. I guess that's what bothers me. It's a sign of people settling for less when they deserve more.

Why build new rides when guests will go gaga over and purchase the hearts and flowers stuff to rekindle their magical memories? It's far more profitable.

But, at the end of the day is the OB/Citrus Swirl really enough to totally placate fans?

Far from it... As I said, it's a nice thing, but...it's not the end all.

Yeah, I am a fan of the OB. I'm very happy he's back. But this doesn't mean that I think AdvL and MK is perfect, Phil Holmes has rectified all his wrongs and Disney is deserving of my money for a trip any time soon.

That's not the definition of settling.

And if people are actually settling? Shame on them. They should want more out of Disney, I fully agree.

(And yes, you do need to purchase things, as Disney is a business. I don't understand why is is constantly brought up..)

 

[misterID]

Man... now I really want a citrus swirl, dammit.

 

[c-one]

I don't think it's our fault ... and I wouldn't/don't fault folks for buying retro stuff.

I think I bought one of the first EPCOT retro tees around 2005 before they were even marketing a line ... it was one grey shirt with the logos on the front in green and the old WDW logo on one sleeve. Didn't sell well either as I got it for $9.99 in the park.

The problem is simply mistaking retro anything for retro QUALITY and retro BUSINESS MODELS/PRACTICES.

I don't want the false belief that I am against retro merchandise or food, even if it provides fodder for me fans in the Twitverse who won't post here.

I agree with you but I think a lot of folks who are buying retro merch ARE into it for what it represents.

My avatar gives me away as someone who's nostalgic for old-school Epcot (specifically early 90s, when my first trips occurred), but no, I'm not satisfied with that alone.

To answer the question in the title: If oranges are just citrus, it's a small good sign. But it could be a BIGGER better sign. Let's hope.

 

[c-one]

At face value? At face value I just see the citrus swirl as a way of making some dough off the retro-initiative consumers. They're one and the same. Simply put, it is in no way different from an orange bird shirt. A little bit of nostalgia creeping back into the world....that you have to purchase.

It isn't what the MK needs. I guess that's what bothers me. It's a sign of people settling for less when they deserve more.

Why build new rides when guests will go gaga over and purchase the hearts and flowers stuff to rekindle their magical memories? It's far more profitable.

They're not making that much money off retro shirts and tiny desserts (even if those tiny desserts are overpriced).

Retro merch is a merchandizing strategy -- not a vast conspiracy (sorry 74) from the top down to keep the fans quiet. Disney would earn more profit from providing incentive for people to take another $3000 vacation, not from a $30 t-shirt.

 

[c-one]

sounds like WDW1974 has a problem with new media in general and mixing with a little PR leads to a voltile mix for him.

Communities are huge in the new world... especially if they can be positive communities.

The newer generations are far more open with their privacy - Google and Facebook represent so much value in terms of 'getting there first'. These are not fads nor fakes.

It's not just about how many eyes - but the weight of the impression. That's why communities are so valuable.. they help give weight to a source.

Gotta agree -- '74, we don't know each other although we agree on most things. But you're seriously underrating the power of social media and mommy bloggers. They're not without (lots of) flaws -- but they're here to stay and they're hugely influential. Disney recognizes this.

We talk a lot about long-term thinking 'round these parts, and where Disney so often lacks it. But Instagram (less than 2 years old) was purchased for $1 billion today -- a few million more than the entire valuation of the New York Times (116 years old). Instagram, itself, is certainly overvalued. But it's indicative of larger media trends. The old media is going bye-bye, the new media is here. In some ways, that does advantage the big corporations. But it's a two-way street, mind...

 

[c-one]

SEO is one of those wonderful newfangled Social Media metrics that I readily admit I don't understand enough to go back and forth with you. But I can guarantee you that the eyes of a NYT reader is more important than a Mommy Blogger from Ohio (who gets invited on free week-long trips with DH and DD11 and DS8 and DS3 to the product) because Disney owns those people.

You don't grow a business by simply targeting the same audience all over again ... the one you own.

McDonald's isn't trying to grow its business by selling Big Macs to 400-pounders because it owns them (and even some of us 175-pounders!) ... It is expanding offerings and trying to expand (successfully I might add) its business with other products and redesigned units ... hell, Apple earned a whole new audience when it created the iPad (those buys didn't all worship at the cult of Jobs, ya know?)

Disney gains little (or nothing at all) from focusing its social media efforts on fan lifestyle sites (they're preaching to the choirs just like all the folks who will be in church tomorrow for Easter or in temples for Passover).

You grow your business with new audiences and guests largely ... and you are going to get far more out of the NYT than a blog.

No doubt growth to new audiences is truly important, but I think you're underestimating the importance of communities (like this one here on this website) -- and while we're talking growth, mommy blogs and Pinterest are growing a hell of a lot faster than the New York Times. Sad? Maybe. But true.

Now, if Disney was smart, they'd be targeting beyond the mommy blogs at travel blogs and communities aimed at other demographics...

 

[lazyboy97o]

I too think the power of social media is being ignored and underestimated, and I barely partake. People like the idea of something being more intimate. A small travel tips blog comes across to many as more relatable and sincere, complete with "insider" tips. The idea of being the "common man" is nothing new. Plenty of big figures have tried to cultivate a "common man" image so as to be more relatable. That power is amplified with the internet because it really could be that "common man."

I think this is part of what bothers WDW1974. A writer for the paper can cultivate a personality, but we still sort of always know that it is partly constructed as part of the paper. Same for somebody on television. With websites it is harder because it could just be that person with a passion, it could be a person who has found a way to get kickbacks, it could be the corporation posing as a person.

 

[yeti]

But, at the end of the day is the OB/Citrus Swirl really enough to totally placate fans?

Far from it... As I said, it's a nice thing, but...it's not the end all.

Yeah, I am a fan of the OB. I'm very happy he's back. But this doesn't mean that I think AdvL and MK is perfect, Phil Holmes has rectified all his wrongs and Disney is deserving of my money for a trip any time soon.

That's not the definition of settling.

And if people are actually settling? Shame on them. They should want more out of Disney, I fully agree.

(And yes, you do need to purchase things, as Disney is a business. I don't understand why is is constantly brought up..)

First of all, I didn't mean to imply that you were "settling". I was indicating the multitudes of folks who walk into Mousegear and think the Captain EO shirts are there to change the world.

Do I think it's a conspiracy? No; if I did I think I'd have to label everything the mouse sells as a conspiracy. It's just business.

Additions to the MK can either be classed as "good"- meaning they improve the overall quality of the park, draw people in, and thus generate profit; or "meh"- meaning they generate profit and...nothing else. The citrus swirl falls into the later category, and is on par with merchandise. Whether it's a good or a bad change is up to anyone's judgement, but it certainly isn't an exciting one.

People are content. And yes, it's alarming. This thread comes to mind: http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=835503

They're not making that much money off retro shirts and tiny desserts (even if those tiny desserts are overpriced).

Retro merch is a merchandizing strategy -- not a vast conspiracy (sorry 74) from the top down to keep the fans quiet. Disney would earn more profit from providing incentive for people to take another $3000 vacation, not from a $30 t-shirt.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

[OrangeTree]

I agree with you but I think a lot of folks who are buying retro merch ARE into it for what it represents.

My avatar gives me away as someone who's nostalgic for old-school Epcot (specifically early 90s, when my first trips occurred), but no, I'm not satisfied with that alone.

To answer the question in the title: If oranges are just citrus, it's a small good sign. But it could be a BIGGER better sign. Let's hope.

Word.

First of all, I didn't mean to imply that you were "settling". I was indicating the multitudes of folks who walk into Mousegear and think the Captain EO shirts are there to change the world.

No worries!! :wave:

And no, I don't think merch will change The World. But I do think it can have a marginal, positive impact. As can Swirls... and Birds.

Do I think it's a conspiracy? No; if I did I think I'd have to label everything the mouse sells as a conspiracy. It's just business.

Agreed....

Additions to the MK can either be classed as "good"- meaning they improve the overall quality of the park, draw people in, and thus generate profit; or "meh"- meaning they generate profit and...nothing else. The citrus swirl falls into the later category, and is on par with merchandise. Whether it's a good or a bad change is up to anyone's judgement, but it certainly isn't an exciting one.

Well, I think that's blurring the lines a bit too much. Is the return of a unique dessert a good thing or a bad thing?

Implicit answers are best.

I mean, I know Spirit loves bread bowls from the Columbia Harbor House's second floor... if those came back, would be find anything negative about it? Even if there was a #CultOfBread on the Twitter?

Yes, there are MANY shades of grey in every choice that's made about Walt Disney World....

...but the thing is, they usually fall on one side of the spectrum.

This one, I think, falls deftly on the side of the good, even if there are a few caveats with how this all came to be.

 

[WDW1974]

My LinkedIn profile appears the way that it does because TouringPlans and my website have more recent start dates than my job as an attorney. Aside from that ordering (which I don't control), I think the legal areas of my profile are emphasized more than anything else (not only that, but "Attorney" is listed in my byline--not that other stuff). I do marketing & photography for TouringPlans (a site for which Merf also works, FWIW), which is why those skills are listed. Not because I'm seeking a job with Disney. Given that almost all of my connections are attorneys or people with whom I previously worked in IT when I was in college, I'd be doing a pretty lousy job of Disney-networking if that were the case.

I don't want to tell you what you should do. But I will tell you that if I was looking to hire an attorney and I saw a professional networking page where the thing that jumped out at me was the man/woman's hobby (be it Disney, sky-diving, the NY Jets, Bon Jovi or flyfishing), I'd be looking for a different attorney.

I'm sorry, but I am always honest here and I'm just giving some unsolicitated advice.

I take shots at Disney once every 16 weeks? Come on. If you can find my LinkedIn profile, you can find my Twitter profile (or even my post history here) and see that clearly isn't true. I take shots on a daily basis.

You do ... I was joking, obviously. But the closer one gets to Disney Social Media, the criticism tends to drop. When they get credentialed by Disney and given free trips, it pretty much disappears.

I disagree with you that a random person reading the Miami Herald is more likely to book a cruise than someone specifically searching for cruises on Google. I also disagree that people are leaving Facebook and Google (in mass) because of privacy concerns. The privacy concerns are there (and a little scary, to be sure) for some people, but you're not seeing any mass exodus from Facebook and Google. I'm sure the next big thing will come along at some point and siphon users away from one or the other, or both, but we're not at that point.

Nope. A person reading the Miami Herald travel section's cover story on a new DCL ship is primed for a cruise and likely a Disney one, even if they've never been.

As to privacy issues, I was reading about another company that didn't exist two years ago -- Pinterest -- and looks so amateurish, yet it is an 'in' thing now because basically people under 35 have all lost their minds regarding privacy and what expectations they have ... go READ what you agree to by taking part/signing up with them. ... You could have a billion dollar idea and it's there's ... you can have a poignant poem you write to your dying child and they own it. You have no rights.

I'm sorry if I am rightly paranoid ... but I think a lot of folks need to go read 1984 ... and in BOOK form.

Facebook is VERY dangerous. Some of the smartest people I know ... and wealthiest stay far away from it.

I would hazard a guess that plenty of the people you're attacking (even if indirectly) have read these threads and are biting their tongues because they realize it's a no-win proposition for them. If they come in and defend themselves, there will just be something new--even if what they're doing is totally innocuous.

BS. Pure and simple.

If they aren't doing anything wrong or unethical or just being themselves, then they'd have no problems posting here. I've had some of these losers complain about me to Steve and the mods ... I've had some engage in some VERY bad behavior with TWDC regarding me ... but no one has the guts to come and talk about their 'business' here (with plenty of folks like yourself who will make sure I am not the Evil Spirit!)

And, to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying what everyone is doing is totally innocuous. I'm sure a lot of these people have poor motives (there's a certain group that Disney is attracting with its social media campaigns that is not the "Disney Lifestyle Sites" that comes to mind in particular); I don't know everyone's thought processes. I just think you might be reading too much into the behavior of some people.

Good. I also don't believe that everyone involveed in the Disney Lifestyle business is in it for the wrong reasons (lying to fans and spinning PR for Disney to support oneself would be) ... I do think the majority are, though.

Regardless of whether I'd be a good fit, I still live in the real world where I have a mortgage, car payments, and other bills that I presumably can't pay with pixie dust, magic, and the like.

I'm quite in content with my current career and the Disney-related "stuff" on the side. I'm not the biggest fan of Indianapolis, but I'm not about to make some brash career change after being out of school for less than two years--especially when the change would not make an iota of sense from an economic perspective.

I'm just saying to keep your options open. In FLA, for instance, we have waaay too many lawyers and many are actually broke (in a field where money was never supposed to be an issue) ... and since much of the USA is broke, I can see that only spreading.

Besides, think of all those cast freebies!:lol:

Here's where I see improvements:
-Main Street refurbishments
-Fantasyland detail
-Merchandise
-Menus (yes, really--and not just because of the Citrus Swirl)
-Big CapEx investments
-Resort (hotel) refurbishments

Agree. Disagree. Not enough info to offer an opinion. Disagree. Disagree. Sort of mostly agree.

Just so it's clear that I'm not some rosy "everything is great and MAGICal" type person, here's the flip side (and you'll notice more substantial problems on this list)...

Here's where I see faults:
-CapEx investments that are a bit misguided, unnecessary, or not truly in the best interest of the parks (constant DVC expansion, Avatarland (even though I don't hate the idea like some, I think it's at least misguided), NextGen)
-Monorails
-Yeti
-Downtown Disney
-A good chunk of Future World
-Imbalance and thematic "issues" at DHS

Agree on all counts.

Those are just some examples that quickly come to mind... (does that fulfill my once-in-16-weeks negatively quota? ). Of course, if I had to make the same list for Disneyland, the 'faults' side would be MUCH shorter!

Agree again.

Also, just because I use and (I think) understand social media doesn't mean that I think how it's being used is a great thing. I just think it's difficult to assign blame or fault. I still think some (many) things occurring as a result of the rise of social media aren't great. The idea of InsidEARs displacing forums like this is cause for concern (although it appears nothing has happened with that in several months, so maybe there's no cause for concern). I lament the loss (or at least decrease) in real journalism in favor of new online media. I'm not saying I'd rather have a bunch of Disney blogs covering cruises than the NYT or Miami Herald covering them, I'm saying I can see Disney's rationale in going that route. It's a business decision, and I don't think it's a bad one. I also don't think most of these "Disney Lifestyle" website owners/podcasters/whatever have the type of motives you think they have. Some very well may.

I truly believe social media can be insidious ... and, yes, I'm an old media guy (I won't be streaming Thor on my iPhone, Mr. Iger, sorry!)

But when real journalism dies (and it is in this country), it can mean disaster for society as a whole.

That's not an old fart who hates FB and would sooner put his hands in acid talking. That's someone who knows what media and journalists do in a democracy.

 

[WDW1974]

A Spirited response! Oh my...

The avatar ain't helping your cause!

We all know you only have one mode.... And that's a good thing!

I am honest and blunt all the time. It's much easier than trying to recall what lie you told what person and where and when!

Well, of course. If WDI/TDO/Ops is actually looking at what fans want, why isn't this the first step to restoring things? It's a formula, and one that is profitable for them.

WDI wasn't involved in returning a food product.
And TDO/Ops isn't looking at what fans want because they don't care.

I'm still waiting for Crawford to return here and tell us the real tale of how this tasty dessert (better than Dole Whips!) returned! ... And maybe he can figure out how to get my beloved Fantasia ice cream back at DL again ... or maybe just the original WDW italian salad dressing!

It would certainly make sense, but I think the refurbishment of the building, and the subsequent return of Tropical Serenade, that it's obvious that someone knows their history about the facility. WDI? Do things work like that? Makes sense.

Nothing would have happened to the birdie show if the building hadn't caught on fire. That is fact. ... But, of course, WDI knows its history ... they save everything (since they stopped selling it on Disney Auctions!)

The torches are back. Those were added in later.

But I certainly agree that the rest of the MK is rotting.

....and I would hope that this level of attention would be paid to the rest of MK on a grand scale.

Glad to hear they are back. Now, are they actually functional?

And if MK wasn't rotting you wouldn't see the massive work done on MSUSA recently.

Oh, not at all.... and I suppose I am happy to be here. I usually... lurk... in these waters just observing the fun? Insanity?, but this issue looked exceptionally aPEALing to discuss...

Please, leave the humor to the experts ... and the singing of showtunes to Lee.:wave:

 

[Lee]

... and the singing of showtunes to Lee.:wave:

Not sure how to take that....:lookaroun

 

[WDW1974]

Gotta agree -- '74, we don't know each other although we agree on most things. But you're seriously underrating the power of social media and mommy bloggers. They're not without (lots of) flaws -- but they're here to stay and they're hugely influential. Disney recognizes this.

No, I am not.

The issue is people are making up social media metrics and what they mean as they go.

They are putting absurd values on things that have no real, tangible assets beyond collecting vast amounts of PRIVATE (or what should be in a FREE country) info and selling it to as many people as they can. That leads into what I was gonna mention and you already did ...

We talk a lot about long-term thinking 'round these parts, and where Disney so often lacks it. But Instagram (less than 2 years old) was purchased for $1 billion today -- a few million more than the entire valuation of the New York Times (116 years old). Instagram, itself, is certainly overvalued. But it's indicative of larger media trends. The old media is going bye-bye, the new media is here. In some ways, that does advantage the big corporations. But it's a two-way street, mind...

Yes. A company that didn't exist two years ago. One with 13 employees or as many people as I can fit here in my family room is somehow worth $1 billion ... why? Because it's an inside job ... because Mark wants it and his company is so absurdly overvalued that he can toss a billion to what amounts to a start-up?

And what's more important -- valuable -- to our nation. Yet another social networking photo site or a free news organization?

It is scary how so many people just overlook the real life, long term societal implications as to what has been going on in media (old and new).

 

[WDW1974]

i too think the power of social media is being ignored and underestimated, and i barely partake. People like the idea of something being more intimate. A small travel tips blog comes across to many as more relatable and sincere, complete with "insider" tips. The idea of being the "common man" is nothing new. Plenty of big figures have tried to cultivate a "common man" image so as to be more relatable. That power is amplified with the internet because it really could be that "common man."

i think this is part of what bothers wdw1974. A writer for the paper can cultivate a personality, but we still sort of always know that it is partly constructed as part of the paper. Same for somebody on television. With websites it is harder because it could just be that person with a passion, it could be a person who has found a way to get kickbacks, it could be the corporation posing as a person.

yes!

This!!!

 

[Lee]

Hey!
You folks keep it down in here!

I'm trying to invent an app so's I can make myself into a 1%er!
:king:


~Money for nothin' and the chicks for free...~

 

[WDW1974]

Hey!
You folks keep it down in here!

I'm trying to invent an app so's I can make myself into a 1%er!
:king:


~Money for nothin' and the chicks for free...~

That's the great thing about the whole social networking/social media game ... you don't have to actually have a product worth anything, you just have to fool enough people to think you do. ... And PR spin it to death.

And then off-shore the money quickly!

 

[c-one]

No, I am not.

The issue is people are making up social media metrics and what they mean as they go.

They are putting absurd values on things that have no real, tangible assets beyond collecting vast amounts of PRIVATE (or what should be in a FREE country) info and selling it to as many people as they can. That leads into what I was gonna mention and you already did ...



Yes. A company that didn't exist two years ago. One with 13 employees or as many people as I can fit here in my family room is somehow worth $1 billion ... why? Because it's an inside job ... because Mark wants it and his company is so absurdly overvalued that he can toss a billion to what amounts to a start-up?

And what's more important -- valuable -- to our nation. Yet another social networking photo site or a free news organization?

It is scary how so many people just overlook the real life, long term societal implications as to what has been going on in media (old and new).

These guys swindled users into voluntarily giving up all their private data, though -- brilliant business decision! Just a touch shady. A touch.

I won't argue with you that good, important news is far more valuable, but the economy thinks otherwise. And even when the bubble bursts and social networking's market self-corrects (which will happen someday...right?), that won't change the fact that old-guard media is still in a death spiral and can't find an escape hatch. (Far more worrying than the Instagram thing is that the new sites that ARE making money... Gawker, Huffington Post, Glenn freakin' Beck? God help us.)

And blogs are so low-cost and low barrier-of-entry that they'll go on, in some form of another. Low risk for the bloggers themselves, thus low risk for Disney to cater to. Would I prefer a newspaper writer to be doing this dirty work? Eh... with the newspapers you might have a BETTER chance of an objective review from an expert who's not compromised, but it's by no means a slam dunk. There are a number of bloggers I trust, who (I hope) couldn't be bought off. But Disney isn't even bothering with them, for obvious reasons.

And, of course, the mommy blogger audience probably wouldn't be the NYT audience, even in the olden days of a bustling newspaper industry.

 

[c-one]

Hey!
You folks keep it down in here!

I'm trying to invent an app so's I can make myself into a 1%er!
:king:


~Money for nothin' and the chicks for free...~

I think I've got it... one insider tidbit from Lee a day, delivered straight to your smart phone. I'd pay $2.99 for that (but no more!).

 

[c-one]

That's the great thing about the whole social networking/social media game ... you don't have to actually have a product worth anything, you just have to fool enough people to think you do. ... And PR spin it to death.

And then off-shore the money quickly!

Partially true -- but to get good money, people really need to love it.

Take Color, the photo-sharing app that was supposed to be the next big thing last year. Got $41 mil from VCs, and it fell flat on its face. D'oh!

The thing with Instagram is... 1. Facebook hasn't figured out mobile. All the cash it makes comes from desktop, and its app still sucks. 2. Instagram has a large, closely-knit community. People LOVE Instagram. Far more people use Facebook, but long ago it lost the ability to be loved, and spent more time p!ssing people off instead.

All these guys traffic in data, and users give you exponentially more data if they're addicted to your product. And now I fear I just steered the conversation towards Nextgen.

 

[shmmrname]

Retro is big everywhere in the last few years... from cars to hair. I see Disney it disney tapping two flows... nostalgia for those that knew it.. and retro for those too young to but who have a thirst for the brand association.

There is nothing necessarily deceiving or manipulative by people who want to associate with things that may predate them. Be it music, art, pop culture, sub cultures... people often find trends or themes in things of the past that resonate for them.

You don't have to have been 16 in 1970 to love muscle cars.. nor do you have to have lived in the 1800s to find love in steampunk styling.

Disney has built a model of 'limited access' to much of it's properties.. it's done it for years with movies (Disney Vault), it does it with characters, and it does it with merchandise.

This clashing in question sounds more like ego clashing and snobbery then anything to actually do with the Disney company.

Pretty well summed up...