DHS CARS LAND

[spacemt354]

...yet it was the strength of merch that lead to putting Cars into the Route 66 concept at DCA...
... yet virtually every modern attraction real estate set aside for a merchandise location at the exit...
... ... yet the success of breakouts like Harry Potter were fueled by merchandise sales...

Yes, it certainly sounds like these two concepts have nothing to do with each other

I don't think @Tim_4 suggested that merchandise did not have an effect on the decisions of Carsland and such. What he suggested, and what I agree with, is that merchandise by itself does not make an attraction or land successful.

Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey would still be a great attraction even if you couldn't purchase a wand in a gift shop after the ride. Any sort of merch options are a bonus to the actual attractions, which in and of themselves, do not succeed because of merchandise sales.

Mostly every attraction has some kind of gift shop at the end of the ride. But you don't ride the attraction just so you can quickly get off and get to the shop. You ride the attraction for the attraction itself. And you visit the land for the ambiance and the scenery. Not for the gift shop.

It might have been the M.O. of Disney and others these last few years to design lands and attractions regarding films they know are popular, and have an eclectic variety of merchandise options in the land, but Avatar is not one of those films.

No, you don't see Avatar merch in the stores, but quite frankly, I think this is a good move by Disney. Taking a concept and focusing on the substance of the land itself with seemingly very little regard to potential bonuses from selling already popular merch. And there is a track record of successful attractions that follow this notion. Splash Mountain, Space Mountain, Expedition Everest, Tower of Terror, etc...

 

[flynnibus]

I don't think @Tim_4 suggested that merchandise did not have an effect on the decisions of Carsland and such. What he suggested, and what I agree with, is that merchandise by itself does not make an attraction or land successful.

His words again..
"Merchandise power has literally nothing to do with the success of a theme park land or attraction"

I find those words very distant from your suggestion 'merchandise by itself...' - in fact one one is exclusionary.. the other is flipfloppy.

Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey would still be a great attraction even if you couldn't purchase a wand in a gift shop after the ride. Any sort of merch options are a bonus to the actual attractions, which in and of themselves, do not succeed because of merchandise sales.

You overlook a very important concept... 'succeed' in whose eyes? The guest.. or the operator? A ride that pumps great merchandise sales will always be more favored than one that doesn't. It's been played out many times in Disney past.. brands with strong merchandise power win over those without. It's why CBJ can be replaced by Pooh, etc.

 

[articos]

Park structure construction already started last week. Park infrastructure construction is mostly completed, with on-site administration buildings completed earlier this spring.

Here's a photo taken last week of Chinese workers putting up the first structural steel for the Shanghai Disneyland Castle.

Looks incredibly Castle-like, doesn't it?

 

[spacemt354]

His words again..
"Merchandise power has literally nothing to do with the success of a theme park land or attraction"

I find those words very distant from your suggestion 'merchandise by itself...' - in fact one one is exclusionary.. the other is flipfloppy.

How so? Merchandise power = merchandise by itself. Neither exclusionary nor flipfloppy.

You overlook a very important concept... 'succeed' in whose eyes? The guest.. or the operator? A ride that pumps great merchandise sales will always be more favored than one that doesn't. It's been played out many times in Disney past.. brands with strong merchandise power win over those without. It's why CBJ can be replaced by Pooh, etc.

No I didn't. I stated in my post above that a business side of a company would obviously prefer to create lands with the possibility of bonus merchandise sales. However, unless you want to turn a theme park land into a retail Disney mall, the attractions themselves are what "attract" the guests. And needless to say, I don't believe Joe Rhode was traveling the world thinking "Hmm, I think we should create Mt. Everest so that we can sell fuzzy Yeti dolls in the gift shops" Hardly...the substance and the success of a land will always be determined by the attractions themselves. If there are no substantial attractions, then there aren't going to be any guests there to buy the merchandise. It's not the other way around.

 

[articos]

What if...?

Interesting.

 

[flynnibus]

I stated in my post above that a business side of a company would obviously prefer to create lands with the possibility of bonus merchandise sales

That's an odd theory when you support the post of merchandise having ' literally nothing to do with the success of a theme park land or attraction'

If they have 'literally nothing to do..' with each other, why would a business prefer to create lands with the possibility of bonus merchandise sales? If they do - you understand that they are not actually entirely independent and the above quoted text is bunkus.

What makes an attraction successful for the operator is one that drives THE BOTTOM LINE and continues to do so. A large portion of that is how it impacts sales. Ticket revenue isn't what drives the business.. that's why Disney can afford to discount it to almost zero to encourage you to come more.

 

[spacemt354]

That's an odd theory when you support the post of merchandise having ' literally nothing to do with the success of a theme park land or attraction'

If they have 'literally nothing to do..' with each other, why would a business prefer to create lands with the possibility of bonus merchandise sales? If they do - you understand that they are not actually entirely independent and the above quoted text is bunkus.

What makes an attraction successful for the operator is one that drives THE BOTTOM LINE and continues to do so. A large portion of that is how it impacts sales. Ticket revenue isn't what drives the business.. that's why Disney can afford to discount it to almost zero to encourage you to come more.

You've quoted that post 3 times now, and you've bolded "literally nothing to do with the success" but you leave out "of a theme park land or an attraction"

The last part of the quote is important. If they don't sell a Lightning McQueen racecar in a giftshop, would that deter you from riding RSR? If there are no giftshops in Carsland, does that take away or enhance any of the detail, beauty, and impressiveness of the themed land itself? That's my point. Sure, merchandise is a bonus, but that's all it is, a bonus. The success "of a theme park land or an attraction" has already been determined by the substance within. You are reading his quote in terms of monetary success and profits, which is not the main point. If you only view "success" in terms of extra dollars and cents, then sure, the don't have "literally" nothing to do with each other, because merchandise will add to the already established success. Is that what you want me to say? Because that's not the point. The topic of discussion was that Avatar seems to be lacking in merchandise items comparatively to other Disney products like Star Wars/Cars, therefore Disney shouldn't invest into Avatar because then it might not be a success due to lack of merchandise sales. If any notion is "bunkus" ...it's that one.

 

[Gregoryp73]

The topic of discussion was that Avatar seems to be lacking in merchandise items comparatively to other Disney products like Star Wars/Cars, therefore Disney shouldn't invest into Avatar because then it might not be a success due to lack of merchandise sales. If any notion is "bunkus" ...it's that one.

I think the Merchandising aspect of Avatar will be handled at AK like Pirates is handled at MK. The logic behind it is for little boys and girls to become little avatars, which will include a truckload of avatar weapons, gear, and headgear to help augment appearance . You will see just as many little Avatars at AK as you see Pirates at MK.
Also i'm sure that any special characters listed in said motion based ride would be available for sale as a collectible figurine obtainable from no other outlet.

Really every Disney property has been built in detail to maximize every sq ft. per dollar as possible...and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how they measure it. If you can't eat it or ride it, you better be selling it. I don't think Disney green lights any major project without considering these three things equally. And I don't think any three of these things would be considered separate or bonus to each other when constructing a whole theme or land.

I apologize if all this was said prior in the thread, It's just 263 pages is alot to scan.

 

[Tim_4]

Really every Disney property has been built in detail to maximize every sq ft. per dollar as possible...and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how they measure it.

It's not. Kilimanjaro Safaris is the most expensive attraction to operate, overall and per guest. It also has the largest footprint. However, it also receives the highest guest feedback scores of any attraction. Attractions are rated on guest satisfaction. A happy guest generally buys more merchandise, sure, but the main reason Disney focuses on satisfaction is that a happy guest COMES BACK. It's not just about merchandise on this trip, it's about merchandise, tickets, food and beverage, and room nights on future trips.

 

[Tim_4]

That's an odd theory when you support the post of merchandise having ' literally nothing to do with the success of a theme park land or attraction'

If they have 'literally nothing to do..' with each other, why would a business prefer to create lands with the possibility of bonus merchandise sales? If they do - you understand that they are not actually entirely independent and the above quoted text is bunkus.

What makes an attraction successful for the operator is one that drives THE BOTTOM LINE and continues to do so. A large portion of that is how it impacts sales. Ticket revenue isn't what drives the business.. that's why Disney can afford to discount it to almost zero to encourage you to come more.

It's amazing how specific I need to be to avoid being nitpicked to death.

The poster I was responding to was talking about EXISTING Avatar merchandise sales (or the lack thereof) in EXISTING stores. He reference "aisles" so we can assume he was talking about Target, Walmart, Toys-R-Us, and other existing retailers. You left out the post I quoted (i.e. the CONTEXT of my post) when you harped on my response that merchandise has "literally nothing to do with the success of a theme park land or attraction." Obviously, the merchandise sold IN the theme park land has something to do with it's success. That was so far from the point.

The person I quoted was arguing a cause and effect relationship of:
Avatar doesn't have strong merchandise sales so it won't make a good theme park land.

Yes, I stand by my comment that Avatar's EXISTING, NON-WDW merchandise sales have NOTHING TO DO with the success of Avatar land. Just like any Harry Potter merch sold at Target has NOTHING TO DO with the success of WWoHP. In fact, merchandising success in those venues is likely detrimental to theme park success, since someone with a Potter wand from Walmart is less likely to need one from WWoHP.

Instead, the cause and effect relationship is:
A well-executed theme park land will have strong merchandise sales BECAUSE it is well-executed.

I'm getting repetitive but it's proven necessary with some of you. To reiterate one more time. Avatar doesn't need strong merch sales to make a good land. If they make a good land, the merch sales will be a by-product. Land first. Then merch. Potter merch didn't make the land successful. The the land made the merch successful.

The topic of discussion was that Avatar seems to be lacking in merchandise items comparatively to other Disney products like Star Wars/Cars, therefore Disney shouldn't invest into Avatar because then it might not be a success due to lack of merchandise sales. If any notion is "bunkus" ...it's that one.

Not to mention the fact that Avatar merch WILL sell in "Avatar land" a lot more than any existing retail sales would indicate. Like I said in my first post on the topic, nobody buys Song of the South merchandise at Walmart, but they DO buy Splash Mountain merch. And on and on and on.

 

[flynnibus]

You've quoted that post 3 times now, and you've bolded "literally nothing to do with the success" but you leave out "of a theme park land or an attraction"

Really? Its right there for you to read...

The last part of the quote is important. If they don't sell a Lightning McQueen racecar in a giftshop, would that deter you from riding RSR? If there are no giftshops in Carsland, does that take away or enhance any of the detail, beauty, and impressiveness of the themed land itself? That's my point. Sure, merchandise is a bonus, but that's all it is, a bonus

Uhh.. the business model of the park is not 'a bonus' - it's how it freaking stays open.

The success "of a theme park land or an attraction" has already been determined by the substance within. You are reading his quote in terms of monetary success and profits, which is not the main point. If you only view "success" in terms of extra dollars and cents, then sure, the don't have "literally" nothing to do with each other, because merchandise will add to the already established success

A highly appreciated product that doesn't bring revenue = a dead product and usually a dead company. It's not about 'only view success..' - they are intrisictly intertwined.. and that's why saying they have nothing to do with each other is so wrong.

You are trying to say 'I can like an attraction regardless of the merchandise' - which is true.. but also when you are looking at it only as a customer. Which is why I said before.. you are overlooking who 'success' is being measured by. You appreciating the attraction, but not giving the company any more money by having it there = simple debt.

 

[flynnibus]

The poster I was responding to was talking about EXISTING Avatar merchandise sales (or the lack thereof) in EXISTING stores. He reference "aisles" so we can assume he was talking about Target, Walmart, Toys-R-Us, and other existing retailers. You left out the post I quoted (i.e. the CONTEXT of my post) when you harped on my response that merchandise has "literally nothing to do with the success of a theme park land or attraction." Obviously, the merchandise sold IN the theme park land has something to do with it's success. That was so far from the point.

The person I quoted was arguing a cause and effect relationship of:
Avatar doesn't have strong merchandise sales so it won't make a good theme park land.

Yes, I stand by my comment that Avatar's EXISTING, NON-WDW merchandise sales have NOTHING TO DO with the success of Avatar land. Just like any Harry Potter merch sold at Target has NOTHING TO DO with the success of WWoHP. In fact, merchandising success in those venues is likely detrimental to theme park success, since someone with a Potter wand from Walmart is less likely to need one from WWoHP.

Of course they have something to do with each other. Existing merchandise sales gives you an insight into the public's interest and passion for some IP. They are predictors that help guide you to if you will be starting from zero, or you will have a running start in terms of the public's interest if the content.

Sure, sometimes you can sell ice to eskimos with a knockout attraction.. but do we normally pick the LEAST LIKED properties to build attractions around.. or do we build around popular ones? And merchandise is certainly a metric used to gauge just how interested the public is in a property.

 

[twebber55]

Of course they have something to do with each other. Existing merchandise sales gives you an insight into the public's interest and passion for some IP. They are predictors that help guide you to if you will be starting from zero, or you will have a running start in terms of the public's interest if the content.

Sure, sometimes you can sell ice to eskimos with a knockout attraction.. but do we normally pick the LEAST LIKED properties to build attractions around.. or do we build around popular ones? And merchandise is certainly a metric used to gauge just how interested the public is in a property.

Yes i agree
Along with ticket box office sales, dvd blue ray sales, tv ratings all go into the popularity of a IP

 

[WDWDad13]

I'm starting to feel like once Carsland would be built, it wouldn't be a major as DCA anyways...

I'm not a big star wars fan.. but make a mini land of that for sure

Expand Pixar Place (you can still do the inside cars ride and then some)

Expand Muppet presence (maybe small indoor ride or hell even a spinner with muppet characters?

and some don't agree with me on this but redo the great movie ride with DISNEY movies - would be more entertaining to families with kids - I know the older movies are great, but they just don't have a draw or entertainment factor for kids

 

[Tim_4]

Of course they have something to do with each other. Existing merchandise sales gives you an insight into the public's interest and passion for some IP. They are predictors that help guide you to if you will be starting from zero, or you will have a running start in terms of the public's interest if the content.

Sure, sometimes you can sell ice to eskimos with a knockout attraction.. but do we normally pick the LEAST LIKED properties to build attractions around.. or do we build around popular ones? And merchandise is certainly a metric used to gauge just how interested the public is in a property.

Be consistent. Admit that your logic would demand attractions based on Barbie, Angry Birds, and Hello Kitty. For all the Princess crap they throw at us, your model would indicate they're actually underrepresented. Oh and fairies. There will be fairies.

Meanwhile, let's tear down Tower of Terror, all three mountains, Everest, Kilimanjaro, all of Epcot, and anything else without strong national merchandising. After all, doesn't this lack of merchandising indicate that there's no public interest in the IP? What's left standing in your model? Pooh, Pirates, Pixar, and Princesses.

 

[flynnibus]

Be consistent. Admit that your logic would demand attractions based on Barbie, Angry Birds, and Hello Kitty. For all the Princess crap they throw at us, your model would indicate they're actually underrepresented. Oh and fairies. There will be fairies.

Meanwhile, let's tear down Tower of Terror, all three mountains, Everest, Kilimanjaro, all of Epcot, and anything else without strong national merchandising. After all, doesn't this lack of merchandising indicate that there's no public interest in the IP? What's left standing in your model? Pooh, Pirates, Pixar, and Princesses.

You are so predictable..

First.. I said 'merchandise is certainly a metric used'

'A metric' - not THE metric.

Second, I never said this is the only basis to decide to build an attraction or not. My statements are not absolute - yours are. I've said they are related.. you said they have nothing to do with each other.

Third, obviously you can't gauge interest in a property by previous merchandise sales when its AN ORIGINAL CONCEPT. But even still, those original concepts (vs licensed or existing IP) are still expected to generate merchandise sales, and their success or not at doing so is part of the story of gauging if an attraction is successful.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes i agree
Along with ticket box office sales, dvd blue ray sales, tv ratings all go into the popularity of a IP

Certainly - but unlike those.. merchandise sales are things the company (Disney) expects to get a cut on once the property is built. So merchandise is even more interesting to the company because it has a vested interest in being able to capitalize on it.

 

[Tim_4]

But even still, those original concepts (vs licensed or existing IP) are still expected to generate merchandise sales, and their success or not at doing so is part of the story of gauging if an attraction is successful.

That's exactly the point I was making to the poster way back when. I'm fine if you want to judge Avatar in part on the merch sales IN AVATARLAND once it's built. My disagreement was in pre-judging Avatar's in-park success based on out-of-park merchandise sales. People won't be coming to Avatarland to buy merch, they'll be buying merch because Avatarland is awesome. You don't need to see demand before you build if you're confident that WHAT you're building is the thing that will create demand.

 

[flynnibus]

That's exactly the point I was making to the poster way back when. I'm fine if you want to judge Avatar in part on the merch sales IN AVATARLAND once it's built. My disagreement was in pre-judging Avatar's in-park success based on out-of-park merchandise sales. People won't be coming to Avatarland to buy merch, they'll be buying merch because Avatarland is awesome. You don't need to see demand before you build if you're confident that WHAT you're building is the thing that will create demand.

But what you are glossing over in your comparison is.. that this is not an untested property.

Sure we can talk about Everest selling t-shirts and plushes... but they didn't build everest after watching previous efforts to sell the same merchandise fail.

Avatar has been in the market, it has been tested, and it's weak at best. Your betting that you can reverse that trend.

So lets summarize...

Cars - we know we have a running start.. it's a no-brainer (start at 10)
Everest - we have a blank sheet of paper, we think we can win people over (start at 0)
Avatar - we have a previous loser, but we think we can turn it around (start at -5)

The previous sales are an indicator of the public's interest in the property beyond sitting in a chair while watching the movie. Is it something the kid wants to play with? Is it something I want to wear on my back while out in public? Is it something I want to decorate my home with? Certainly a new interactive experience alters that existing decision... they are not the same before there was an interactive experience... but it represents a starting point and how far you must go to win that customer.

What you are trying to say is 'avatarland is not defined by the previous merch sales' - correct, its a new injection into the IP that will make its own new and ADDITIONAL impressions on people about the property. However, avatarland is not untied from the previous impressions of the IP, nor is it completely isolated from them. That's why previous merch sales IS relevant to the projected success of the attraction. And even after the thing is built.. the impression of the IP outside of those that visit avatarland will still impact merchandise sales.

You can goto the Playboy mansion.. and have the time of your life. But will you wear a playboy mansion t-shirt day to day in public? The public's impression of the property still influences your choices.. even when you as an individual liked the property.

 

[tissandtully]

But what you are glossing over in your comparison is.. that this is not an untested property.

Sure we can talk about Everest selling t-shirts and plushes... but they didn't build everest after watching previous efforts to sell the same merchandise fail.

Avatar has been in the market, it has been tested, and it's weak at best. Your betting that you can reverse that trend.

So lets summarize...

Cars - we know we have a running start.. it's a no-brainer (start at 10)
Everest - we have a blank sheet of paper, we think we can win people over (start at 0)
Avatar - we have a previous loser, but we think we can turn it around (start at -5)

The previous sales are an indicator of the public's interest in the property beyond sitting in a chair while watching the movie. Is it something the kid wants to play with? Is it something I want to wear on my back while out in public? Is it something I want to decorate my home with? Certainly a new interactive experience alters that existing decision... they are not the same before there was an interactive experience... but it represents a starting point and how far you must go to win that customer.

What you are trying to say is 'avatarland is not defined by the previous merch sales' - correct, its a new injection into the IP that will make its own new and ADDITIONAL impressions on people about the property. However, avatarland is not untied from the previous impressions of the IP, nor is it completely isolated from them. That's why previous merch sales IS relevant to the projected success of the attraction. And even after the thing is built.. the impression of the IP outside of those that visit avatarland will still impact merchandise sales.

You can goto the Playboy mansion.. and have the time of your life. But will you wear a playboy mansion t-shirt day to day in public? The public's impression of the property still influences your choices.. even when you as an individual liked the property.

So what you're saying is this guy will like it?