News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[October82]

Well, no. If they had, as you said, “just slapped Mickey’s face on it and called it a day”, then I’m sure people would still have problems with it (I’m envisioning the same sphere with Mickey ears added or something?). Instead, they lovingly crafted a tribute to classic boardwalk swing rides, complete with trim and murals and yes, Mickey Mouse, but in the form of an accent, a flavor, to the attraction. IP did not redeem the Orange Stinger. Good design redeemed the Orange Stinger, with Mickey Mouse as a bonus. (Which of course worked fabulously with the retooled turn-of-the-century vision for Paradise Pier 2.0, which is now pretty much gone.) The same goes for the rest of California Adventure, or at least the 2012 version. It might have more IP now, but it is also better designed. And correlation is not causation, before anyone tries to argue this that way. But I digress.

If only the Stinger had stuck around to become the Pixar Ball.

 

[flynnibus]

Charts like this don't answer (and can't) that.

a single chart isn't intended to explain an industry...

I'm suprised you didn't recognize the chart... it was made for a very specific message. To support the message Disney was pushing to support the idea of increased capital investment in the parks.. to specifically show that investment was leading to a multiplier in revenues. This is all from the deck when they pitched the big new investment.

And all of this is stuff filed with the SEC - not just hand wavy stuff... stuff shared with investors specifically.

 

[JD80]

So what is your opinion- that only IP should be built? And is that opinion only because you think Disney should do what’s best for the business?

Yes unless you can make a good business case for a brand new IP that you believe is worth thr cost of building it and maintaining it in the parks for a decade or two.

And yeah, I think Disney should do whats best for business. People like to point to the stock and criticise Disney for it yet want Disney to do things that go against better business practices.

Disney building bigger and better lands and attra tons leads to more.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm just amazed how the many, many parks around the world manage to survive with original attractions when Disney is unable to do so, apparently.

The IP mandate isn't the result of any rational decision, it's an ideological pursuit and may actually be part of causing a decline.

When you compare apples and oranges... you might not be shocked to find differences in them?

Disney is a conglomerate that spans many disciplines. You won't find many theme park operators around the world that are in that same situation. Different types of companies will have different motivations and their economics will differ too.

So it's kinda useless to say why should they be different...

 

[JD80]

Funny how information that contradicts this is a non-answer.

The franchise mandate at Walt Disney World hasn’t yielded better ROIs than the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever.

EPCOT attendance was up 20% in 2023 largely due to the addition of GOTG.

 

[JD80]

And yet when Epcot opened there wasnt any IP driven attractions and the park did well, as it was something new and unique. Also one of the IP to come out of that, Figment, is wildly popular today. IP or not, a good attraction is a good attraction. Marie

Figment is wildly popular? Are we basing that on popcorn bucket sales?

 

[el_super]

Instead, they lovingly crafted a tribute to classic boardwalk swing rides, complete with trim and murals and yes, Mickey Mouse, but in the form of an accent, a flavor, to the attraction.

Ok so just extend this logic a little bit: they are going to lovingly craft a tribute to the wilderness of the American west, and add Cars characters as a bit of flavor. Sure to be a home run!

 

[October82]

Ok so just extend this logic a little bit: they are going to lovingly craft a tribute to the wilderness of the American west, and add Cars characters as a bit of flavor. Sure to be a home run!

Carsland at DCA is basically that. What’s proposed for MK isn’t.

Execution matters - which was the point of the comment you’re referring to. The kind of detailing seen in Paradise Pier makes sense for the time period and place they were aiming to evoke. Cars in the old west doesn’t.

 

[el_super]

The IP mandate isn't the result of any rational decision, it's an ideological pursuit and may actually be part of causing a decline.

There is no decline. Just wishful thinking.

 

[el_super]

Carsland at DCA is basically that. What’s proposed for MK isn’t.

Execution matters - which was the point of the comment you’re referring to. The kind of detailing seen in Paradise Pier makes sense for the time period and place they were aiming to evoke. Cars in the old west doesn’t.

They changed the time period for Paradise Pier, so why not do the same for Frontierland?

 

[JD80]

Disney's 3+ billion dollars at the box office are all from existing IP. So much decline. Anyone want to guess what Incredibles 3 will bring in?

 

[Stripes]

This is what we call a 'junk chart' in my profession. Lots of choices (such as obscuring the y-axis) and picking specific percentage changes to make it look like revenue growth is way up. Including logos of specific IPs also makes it look like there's a causal relationship - good for PR but not good for understanding the business fundamentals.

Well, it’s not a measurement of revenue. It’s measuring the CAGR of their investments prior to the IP mandate versus after the IP mandate. 5% CAGR for investments between 2002 and 2012. And 14% CAGR between 2012 and 2022. Total inflation between those two time periods is almost identical.

Obviously there’s no proven cause and effect but that is a very clear correlation.

I’ll have to look into your revenue analysis later.

 

[October82]

They changed the time period for Paradise Pier, so why not do the same for Frontierland?

When they make an announcement to that effect, I trust you’ll let me know?

Until then, Cars doesn’t belong in Frontierland.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

When they make an announcement to that effect, I trust you’ll let me know?

Until then, Cars doesn’t belong in Frontierland.

They literally did though? "Reimagined part of Frontierland" The new message for Frontierland is not about a specific period in time but about the place and the idea of exploring the American Wilderness + "Pioneering" your own path which even if you don't like it, is a theme that fits all of the attractions currently part of the new Frontierland.

 

[October82]

Well, it’s not a measurement of revenue. It’s measuring the CAGR of their investments prior to the IP mandate versus after the IP mandate. 5% CAGR for investments between 2002 and 2012. And 14% CAGR between 2012 and 2022. Total inflation between those two time periods is almost identical.

Obviously there’s no proven cause and effect but that is a very clear correlation.

I’ll have to look into your revenue analysis later.

The percentages are labeled CAGR, the graph appears to be revenue/income.

Providing the quantitative rate of change in percentage terms on an unlabeled graph is designed to be misleading. This sort of thing is a famous example - usually picking on Apple for doing this very publicly - of how to lie with a chart.

And yes, I checked the inflation adjusted revenue numbers. It’s not a complicated analysis and not one I would trust beyond an Internet forum post, but it’s interesting to me that Disney’s long term parks + resort revenues basically haven’t changed from their long term trend.

I actually expected to get the opposite answer - and I tried several ways of treating the data to get it - because Disney has done so much to increase per guest revenues.

It seems what those things have actually done is just changed how guests spend rather than how much they do. LL/upcharge events would have just shown up in higher ticket or hotel prices/etc. Not at all what I expected.

And not due to increasing use of IP. At least not in any way that would justify the framing of that junk chart.

 

[October82]

They literally did though? "Reimagined part of Frontierland" The new message for Frontierland is not about a specific period in time but about the place and the idea of exploring the American Wilderness + "Pioneering" your own path which even if you don't like it, is a theme that fits all of the attractions currently part of the new Frontierland.

Saying that on stage and investing in a rebuild of Frontierland are very different things.

They aren’t literally rebuilding Frontierland. They are quite content to leave Big Thunder next to Cars. That’s a problem for me as someone who actually thinks Cars makes for a great land - at California Adventure, on an expansion pad, or in another park.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I'm curious why you asked the question about what other people would do if you were planning to just restate your position in response? You're just restating that your personal preferences are for IP themed experiences. Mine aren't. And I don't think most high end hotel guests love IP decorations in their rooms either. So when you ask me how I'd run Disney, I'm going to say I'd run the company the way it was run for decades and that attracted me to spend money on the Disney Parks. I can also state unequivocally that I put my money where my mouth is - I spend a small fraction of what I once did on the Disney Parks.

In the scenario you outlined, I am the person betting a billion dollars and I don't have bosses to answer to beyond my bank account (or those of my shareholders). And if you ask me if I'm going to bet a billion dollars on Cars or Tokyo DisneySea/EPCOT Center, I'm going to pick the latter. Because I want two billion dollars, and another two billion after that, and so on and I think the design experts that I carefully hired from the best design colleges and poached from my competitors are a better judge of what people might want than simply going with what the marketing MBAs think is best.

(I'll listen to them too - I just don't think the former group needs to be subservient to the latter anymore than I think my movie studio creatives should be subservient to what marketing thinks is best - this is how we end up with Toy Story 5.)

I like how now we are just bad-faith comparing a single franchise with 2 lands to an entire theme park that also has IP in both... interesting point but I don't know why you made it.

Thats like saying I am going to bet on Magic Kingdom as a whole over the Frozen Ever After ride... like yeah? Obviously, thats not really a fair comparison. We aren't even comparing apples to oranges anymore. This is apples to a Private Open Bar Yacht.

 

[mickEblu]

We’re comparing the Rivers of America to the Orange Stinger and Paradise Pier 1.0 Lol. Man, some people (that rhyme with Pooper) will say anything.

 

[October82]

I like how now we are just bad-faith comparing a single franchise with 2 lands to an entire theme park that also has IP in both... interesting point but I don't know why you made it.

Thats like saying I am going to bet on Magic Kingdom as a whole over the Frozen Ever After ride... like yeah? Obviously, thats not really a fair comparison. We aren't even comparing apples to oranges anymore. This is apples to a Private Open Bar Yacht.

This is a misreading of my point - but to be honest, I should have been more clear - I’m saying I trust the designers of those parks to design an attraction more than I trust the marketing genius behind demolishing the RoA for Cars.

 

[JD80]

This is a misreading of my point - but to be honest, I should have been more clear - I’m saying I trust the designers of those parks to design an attraction more than I trust the marketing genius behind demolishing the RoA for Cars.

Marketing people aren't behind the demo of RoA. Your use of that derogative is telling.