Country Bear Jamboree closing for lengthy refurbishment in August

[RSoxNo1]

No, I don't think I worded that right (sorry, limited time and I'm busy dealing with social media and the semantics of asking/framing a question).

It wasn't capacity in terms of guests having to wait ... they wanted (Phil Holmes EDICT -- FACT!) more shows per day and therefore higher capacity at Grizzly Hall, which they now have.

Right, but by having more shows per day they change the total number of guests that the attraction can accommodate. However, do we see the demand changing as a result of any of these changes? For fanboys, I would think that demand would decrease. Say the show accommodated 1100 people per hour, and now it accommodates 1500 per hour but the demand remains the same. It's not going to matter that they added capacity. If only 1000 people per hour want to visit something that previously accommodated 1100 and currently accommodates 1500, it just means that the theaters will have less people.

There was no need to add capacity to this attraction, what it does though is allows them to add this as a Fastpass+ attraction and not really affect the Standby numbers. It's false value, and it's stupid.

 

[Figments Friend]

Wow....

Well just now catching up on what has been going down since i last stopped over...and all i can say is WOW regarding the NYT article.

Completely agree with Spirit and Lee*s comments made earlier about it....

Just wow.

Not looking forward to Next Gen at ALL.....better book a trip now and visit pre-installation.
It shall truly be a completely different *World* post-installation...and not a shiny happy one at that it seems....



Getting back on the topic of the CBJ, this may have already been mentioned earlier, but CBJ was added to the list of attractions open for EMH. Woo..!

 

[Skyway]

However, do we see the demand changing as a result of any of these changes?

I believe the shorter shows DO increase demand.

Case in point: the Enchanted Tiki Room. It always seems to have much fuller shows since the re-do.

Sure, some of that audience is there because they like the original show over UNM.

But I would bet a majority of guests walking up to the Sunshine Pavillion (both now and in the UNM days) had no idea what show awaited them inside.

So what has changed to draw larger crowds in now? The "wait time" sign.

A visitor on a power tour of MK is more inclined to stop and see a show if the wait time is in single digits.

With the clock always showing a low wait time, the show is catching more visitors in its net who stream past, and letting fewer people swim by and never return.

I then think a line begets a bigger line. People see a crowd and are encouraged to check it out, especially if the wait is now just a minute or two.

With bigger crowds attending more shows per day, the guests' average "attractions visited per day" number goes up, giving more value to their ticket price. (Plus, the shorter, more briskly edited shows eliminate the boredom some may have felt before, leaving a more positive impression on the visitor. And happy visitors typically spend more money)

**My low wait time theory probably only applies to non-headline attractions and shows that are "on the way" to bigger attractions. That's why an out-of-the-way attraction like Journey Into Imagination can maintain all-day walk-on status. But I also bet if a CM held the line at the Swiss Family Treehouse, more people would tour it if the wait was 2 minutes versus 10 minutes.

 

[Kuhio]

people inherently don't trust ads. they do inherently trust newspaper articles.

Well, I did inherently trust newspaper articles... until now!

 

[lazyboy97o]

@RSoxNo1, while demand might not increase now, I could see a slight increase in the future with FastPass+ and not as the attraction joining the system. People will be less willing to do an unscheduled attraction as it could take too long and the FastPass will have expired. As Stand By times across the park rise, the now shorter wait at the Country Bear Jamboree will be more desirable as something to fill gaps in one's schedule. It's another attraction experienced during the day, something that tends to make people happy.

 

[Bairstow]

As lazyboy and Skyway pointed out, it's not just about guest demand and ride capacity.
There's a third factor, the amount of people that the attraction can pull off the street- let's call it "ride appetite."
When I was there Sunday there were at least two cast members standing on the front porch of the theater actively calling out to the crowd and trying to entice people into the attraction, promising that the next show would be starting in "only" 5 or 3 minutes or whatever. Disney has reason to pull as many guests off the street as possible into an attraction that might not otherwise occupy roaming guests, and an increased "instant capacity" helps them do this.

This is why shortening the show is much more important than would be, say, adding 4 or 5 extra rows of seats.

I still maintain that it's possible, if not probable that the attraction is still capable of running a full-length program when and if they want to, for low capacity days or special events or whatever. Heck, if WDI was really wanting to be fancy they would have the programmed the show to intelligently alter its length depending on the current park attendance.

 

[RSoxNo1]

@RSoxNo1, while demand might not increase now, I could see a slight increase in the future with FastPass+ and not as the attraction joining the system. People will be less willing to do an unscheduled attraction as it could take too long and the FastPass will have expired. As Stand By times across the park rise, the now shorter wait at the Country Bear Jamboree will be more desirable as something to fill gaps in one's schedule. It's another attraction experienced during the day, something that tends to make people happy.

That's creating false value.

 

[Clamman73]

Shoot! Forgot to go see it today!

 

[Bairstow]

That's creating false value.

Increasing the draw of the attraction to pull guests off the street who wouldn't otherwise get to experience the attraction isn't adding false value. When all of a park's resources aren't being utilized by guests it creates capacity problems for everyone.

Shortening the Jamboree helps fix this.
More people get to discover Buff and Melvin.
Fewer people are in the stand-by line for Splash Mountain.

It's a win-win.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Of course I'm serious! WDI DOES have authority over the parks!

It does not work that way! Anyone who thinks it does is totally incorrect, including yourself!

Nope! Wrong again!

Waiting for one of the more intelligent posters like wannab@dis and jt04 to back me up...

People don't often laugh out loud when they type LOL, but I just did. You're adorable, and in about 2 seconds, you're going to be ignorable as well.

74, like usual, is right, and the PR primer above from baymenxpac is equally dead on. How boring and useless of an article would it have made if they interviewed Phil Holmes instead of Bruce Vaughn and the whole thing was about capacity? Boring and useless, not to mention brand damaging. Sugarcoating is what Disney does best, and I don't judge them for doing it, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter. (Sorry, couldn't resist the pearl-clutching-fanboi smiley)

 

[Thrill Seeker]

I finally saw the updated show yesterday... It looked great, but felt extremely rushed. It's just not as good or relaxing as it use to be. I wish we could lobby to have the original show restored...

 

[midwest_mice]

I am going to take in the CBJ in January and see in person how much different it is. If anything, the audio will sound better, last time I saw it is was rough

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

There's a third factor, the amount of people that the attraction can pull off the street- let's call it "ride appetite."
When I was there Sunday there were at least two cast members standing on the front porch of the theater actively calling out to the crowd and trying to entice people into the attraction, promising that the next show would be starting in "only" 5 or 3 minutes or whatever. Disney has reason to pull as many guests off the street as possible into an attraction that might not otherwise occupy roaming guests, and an increased "instant capacity" helps them do this.

I am guessing that the suit in charge of Frontierland, or whoever spearheaded the changes, wants to make sure the daily ride counts for CBJ reflect what a super fabulous job the refurb was, rather than trying to squeeze a 100 more guests off the walkways.

I'm not convinced that CBJ helps that much with getting folks off the street, no matter the length of the show. 380 guests can fit in the theatre, so maybe you've got 400, 500?, waiting outside. Even pre-refurb, you often had a good size crowd waiting outside.

I think they made the changes so that guests can see more attractions per day, and because the waits for CBJ weren't a lot of fun. Now, on average, you don't have to wait as long, you have a better chance of working in a show into your vacation, but the show is shorter.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I believe the shorter shows DO increase demand.

. . .

So what has changed to draw larger crowds in now? The "wait time" sign.
. . .

With bigger crowds attending more shows per day, the guests' average "attractions visited per day" number goes up, giving more value to their ticket price. (Plus, the shorter, more briskly edited shows eliminate the boredom some may have felt before, leaving a more positive impression on the visitor. And happy visitors typically spend more money)

I think that this is spot-on.

I like to think of attraction quality vs. wait time as basically a "time investment" decision guests make. Guests at DLR will wait hours to ride RSR as it is "worth it", and only wait maybe 15 minutes for the teacups. I think with CBJ, they wanted to make the show more enjoyable for the average guests by making the show shorter to improve what they feel are decreased attention spans, and they wanted to make the wait time much less so that guests don't wait 10+ minutes for a show that bores them. And even if the new show "bores" or doesn't please due to the cuts, it was a much shorter time invested, and the guest "wasted" less time waiting for the show and sitting in the theatre.

The theatre can hold about 380 people, and the old show was 15 minutes or so, and with moving guests in and out, let's say that they did about three shows per hour, that means the ride capacity was about 1,140 per hour. Now the show is about 10 minutes, so maybe they can squeeze in about 4 shows an hour (they have to spend more time per hour now "loading/unloading" the theatre), so maybe ride capacity is now about 1,520 per hour.

In order for the refurb to be a success, some higher up probably made sure they had CMs out front enticing people to see the show.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Right, but by having more shows per day they change the total number of guests that the attraction can accommodate. However, do we see the demand changing as a result of any of these changes? For fanboys, I would think that demand would decrease. Say the show accommodated 1100 people per hour, and now it accommodates 1500 per hour but the demand remains the same. It's not going to matter that they added capacity. If only 1000 people per hour want to visit something that previously accommodated 1100 and currently accommodates 1500, it just means that the theaters will have less people.

There was no need to add capacity to this attraction, what it does though is allows them to add this as a Fastpass+ attraction and not really affect the Standby numbers. It's false value, and it's stupid.

A lot of guests see the 10 to 14 minute wait times after the pre-refurb show just started, and they walk on by. These are the same casual CBJ fans who when they see a 3-5 minute wait think, "what the heck, the next show is only a couple minutes away", and they decide to invest the time for the show.

It's like the steam boat, guests look at the wait time, and if the boat is coming up to the dock, then they'll invest a couple minutes, versus waiting 15 minutes.

Most guests are "casual fans" of attractions, I am guessing that only the hardcore CBJ fans didn't care what the wait time was for CBJ. I'm a big fan of CBJ, but if the wait time was 12 minutes, I'd skip it and ride it later in the day, or at some other time.

So it's not demand, IMHO, it the show quality to wait time ratio. Interestingly, what we have here is decreased wait time, and perhaps decreased show quality as well, but I think the casual guest of CBJ (the majority) Disney hopes will care less about a decrease in show quality, and more about just not having to wait a long time and getting to at least see the bear show.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

3) information is the currency used to trade, not money. it's completely unethical for a journalist to take anything from a PR agency or a subject of an article (and when i say journalist, i mean reporters employed by recognized news outlets, not lifestyle bloggers who exist mostly for the perks they get in exchange for their coverage). therefore, this NYT report could have written this story in exchange for a number of things. one could possibly be an exclusive on WDW's next gen roll out.

There is some truth to this, in that this reporter clearly has developed a relationship with Bruce E. Vaughn, chief creative executive at Walt Disney Imagineering, he interviewed this guy years ago for DCA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/business/media/10ride.html?ref=brooksbarnes

Top reporters, especially for publications such as the New York Times, want to develop a reputation for being fair, and thus they allow Disney to tell their side by interviewing folks like Bruce Vaughn. I think Bruce Vaughn is obviously thinking about Next Gen, and he obviously isn't going to say, "we screwed up, MK doesn't have enough rides, we need to squeeze more folks into CBJ."

Of course, Bruce Vaughn is biased, unless he wants to be fired. Just like when the presidential candidates go on interviews, what they are saying is 100% PR, but reporters can't yell and scream at them every minute to tell what they believe is the truth.

FLE when completed will add more ride capacity when everything is done, but some folks are assuming that just because the author doesn't urinate all over Disney like some posters here, that the article is obviously biased. I think the article let both sides air grievances on the issue at hand, and certainly the article won't pull in nearly as many as guests as all the many, many, many more articles being written about FLE.

Obviously, Bruce Vaughn agreed to be interviewed because he wanted to put his spin on the changes, and because he has a prior relationship with the author and NYT is fairly respectable.

I seriously doubt that a NYT auhor would "hand over" an article to Disney to do work on, sounds like he wrote it himself and interviewed Vaughn. The NYT author lives in the real world, and must print fair articles lest he lose his sources.

 

[Clever Name]

Increasing the draw of the attraction to pull guests off the street who wouldn't otherwise get to experience the attraction isn't adding false value. When all of a park's resources aren't being utilized by guests it creates capacity problems for everyone.

Shortening the Jamboree helps fix this.
More people get to discover Buff and Melvin.
Fewer people are in the stand-by line for Splash Mountain.

It's a win-win.

They ought to give the CBJ CM's electric cattle prods.

 

[baymenxpac]

There is some truth to this, in that this reporter clearly has developed a relationship with Bruce E. Vaughn, chief creative executive at Walt Disney Imagineering, he interviewed this guy years ago for DCA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/business/media/10ride.html?ref=brooksbarnes

Top reporters, especially for publications such as the New York Times, want to develop a reputation for being fair, and thus they allow Disney to tell their side by interviewing folks like Bruce Vaughn. I think Bruce Vaughn is obviously thinking about Next Gen, and he obviously isn't going to say, "we screwed up, MK doesn't have enough rides, we need to squeeze more folks into CBJ."

Of course, Bruce Vaughn is biased, unless he wants to be fired. Just like when the presidential candidates go on interviews, what they are saying is 100% PR, but reporters can't yell and scream at them every minute to tell what they believe is the truth.

FLE when completed will add more ride capacity when everything is done, but some folks are assuming that just because the author doesn't urinate all over Disney like some posters here, that the article is obviously biased. I think the article let both sides air grievances on the issue at hand, and certainly the article won't pull in nearly as many as guests as all the many, many, many more articles being written about FLE.

Obviously, Bruce Vaughn agreed to be interviewed because he wanted to put his spin on the changes, and because he has a prior relationship with the author and NYT is fairly respectable.

I seriously doubt that a NYT auhor would "hand over" an article to Disney to do work on, sounds like he wrote it himself and interviewed Vaughn. The NYT author lives in the real world, and must print fair articles lest he lose his sources.

you didn't say anything wrong here. except i don't think most people think the article is biased. i just think people that its placement is intended to do more than throw weight behind a country bears refurb.

 

[Lee]

you didn't say anything wrong here. except i don't think most people think the article is biased. i just think people that its placement is intended to do more than throw weight behind a country bears refurb.

Exactly. It isn't biased, per se. It is....calculated.

 

[Bairstow]

They ought to give the CBJ CM's electric cattle prods.

Or a walkaround bear character to help entice people in.