News Disney CFO Christine McCarthy says Disney will continue to focus on existing intellectual property for new park investments

[BlakeW39]

What information is that?

In terms of financial returns and capacity, IP based attractions haven't proven to increase park attendance or to draw longer lines on average. Journey Into YOUR Imagination was a financial waste, just like The Seas with Nemo & Friends. Expedition Everest increased attendance to DAK more than any singular IP attraction to date (at least the ones we have data on), and that includes Universal Parks and the stellar Hagrid's Magical Creatures Motorbike Adventure. IP attractions also don't have on average longer wait times than original attractions, except when they're brand new. But all new attractions get long lines, especially when they're marketed as heavily as Disney has marketed their latest additions. So yes, based on available information, IP does not make attractions more likely to succeed long term, and we don't even really have strong evidence it increases attendance at the parks short term any more than original attractions do.

I understand why Bob likes synergy and IP and all that, I get it, and from a commercial stand point it kinda makes sense. Like Joe Rohde said, finance-based managers/executives like sequels and established IP....it's safe and easy, and they have limited motivation to invest in new ideas. But IP isn't the only way to make an attraction successful, nor are IP attractions inherently more likely to succeed than original attractions are.

 

[el_super]

In terms of financial returns and capacity, IP based attractions haven't proven to increase park attendance or to draw longer lines on average.

That doesn't sound right. Can you post some examples?

 

[BlakeW39]

That doesn't sound right. Can you post some examples?

Sure, so in terms of increases to attendance:

Between the years 2005 and 2007, DAK's attendance increased ~16% with the opening of Expedition Everest in 2006. Frozen Ever After increased EPCOT's attendance by 5% from 2013 to 2015. The Seas with Nemo & Friends saw EPCOT's attendance increase by a similar 4% between 2006 and 2008. DAK's attendance increased 8.5% in 2006 with the opening of EE, while even when Hagrid's opened in 2019, attendance at IOA only increased 6.1%.

Large parks expansions, like Pandora, increase park attendance substantially more than single attractions do, but that's because they're huge expansions, not because they're tied to IP. Fact of the matter is that new attractions increase attendance whether an IP is attached or not. Expedition Everest was never expexted to fail at DAK because it wasn't based on some movie franchise, and to the contrary, Frozen didn't increase EPCOT's attendance much more than Nemo did in 2007. It didn't come close to EE, because despite it being attached to an IP, its scale/quality is nowhere near that of Everest. So again, the IP wasn't what mattered here.

So yes, Bob is misreading things because he doesn't understand theme parks or why guests patronize them. He's just backing his own decision to mandate IP in the parks, which is what I'd expect him to do.

I can also show how IP attractions aren't more popular (in terms of wait times) either, if you want.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Kind of.

There are treatments for both IPs that kind of work. Zootopia is definitely more of a stretch for DAK than Guardians is for EPCOT. The issue isn't that IP based attractions are bad, the issue (at least for me) is theme dilution. Animal Kingdom and EPCOT, more than DHS and MK have themes that are harder to address. Any time there's an addition, they run the risk of further diluting these themes.

Over the years, Animal Kingdom has been able to keep their underlying themes in check because they've had a creative champion overseeing the park. That is no longer the case.

Over the years, EPCOT has waivered because it hasn't had a creative champion overseeing the park and many of the changes were done without any degree of future proofing.

I'm going to quote from an article I wrote 8 years ago that I cite on these forums every few months.

"I welcome intellectual property based attractions, but the Disney parks need both."

I wonder if that dilution of the individual parks themes will hurt the brand in the long term.

DisneyWorld has about the same number of attractions as Disneyland spread out over four parks instead of two. One of the reasons I think that works is because you feel like you're getting four distinct days of experiences.

Going to Animal Kingdom feels "worth it" as a full day because one doesn't feel like they're just going to a variation on the Magic Kingdom for the third or fourth time.

 

[BlakeW39]

I wonder if that dilution of the individual parks themes will hurt the brand in the long term.

DisneyWorld has about the same number of attractions as Disneyland spread out over four parks instead of two. One of the reasons I think that works is because you feel like you're getting four distinct days of experiences.

Going to Animal Kingdom feels "worth it" as a full day because one doesn't feel like they're just going to a variation on the Magic Kingdom for the third or fourth time.

This is actually a worry I have for UOR. Why does a family need to go to all three parks, IOA, USF, and EU, when they all are pretty similar concepts? Like they'll all be the same type of experience, do we really need to hit them all? Especially when some of them just blatantly have more to do?

 

[flynnibus]

But all new attractions get long lines, especially when they're marketed as heavily as Disney has marketed their latest additions. So yes, based on available information, IP does not make attractions more likely to succeed long term, and we don't even really have strong evidence it increases attendance at the parks short term any more than original attractions do.

I'll take Cherry Picking and conclusion failures for $500 Alex...

You literally are drawing conclusions on all the wrong things. Everest boosting DAK because it's original IP or not? How about, because it was a park lacking rides and was a top level roller coaster experience? You don't know if it would have been even MORE popular with IP... nor can you claim it's success is due to NOT having IP.

Which had more curb appeal for someone walking by? Magic Journeys or Honey I Shrunk the Audience?

 

[flynnibus]

Sure, so in terms of increases to attendance:

Between the years 2005 and 2007, DAK's attendance increased ~16% with the opening of Expedition Everest in 2006. Frozen Ever After increased EPCOT's attendance by 5% from 2013 to 2015. The Seas with Nemo & Friends saw EPCOT's attendance increase by a similar 4% between 2006 and 2008. DAK's attendance increased 8.5% in 2006 with the opening of EE, while even when Hagrid's opened in 2019, attendance at IOA only increased 6.1%.

LOL.. comparing percentage increases on parks that are nothing alike in size or build out? Come on.. do better.

Large parks expansions, like Pandora, increase park attendance substantially more than single attractions do, but that's because they're huge expansions, not because they're tied to IP. Fact of the matter is that new attractions increase attendance whether an IP is attached or not.

What drives attendance is 'something people want to see/do'. Existing franchises makes convincing people attraction X falls into that easier and also builds excitement/attachment for those who are particularly attracted to that franchise. It's that simple.

When space mountain was new... Disney struggled to convince people what it was... because they didn't want to just call it a roller coaster.

 

[BlakeW39]

I'll take Cherry Picking and conclusion failures for $500 Alex...

You literally are drawing conclusions on all the wrong things. Everest boosting DAK because it's original IP or not? How about, because it was a park lacking rides and was a top level roller coaster experience? You don't know if it would have been even MORE popular with IP... nor can you claim it's success is due to NOT having IP.

Which had more curb appeal for someone walking by? Magic Journeys or Honey I Shrunk the Audience?

ahhh, you again... I said EE boosted DAK's attendance despite not being IP, not BECAUSE it wasn't IP...

And as for it being a park that lacked rides and that's why it increased DAK's attendance, sure that's a factor, but it doesn't refute the point that it's the only single IP attraction Disney's produced this century and it also happens to be their most successful one.

FYI— Guardians increased DCA's attendance by only 2.1% between 2015 and 2017, not exactly proof that IP = profits.

 

[BlakeW39]

LOL.. comparing percentage increases on parks that are nothing alike in size or build out? Come on.. do better.

I'm just presenting data. I'm not drawing any specific conclusions other than IP does not drive returns on investments anymore than original attractions, at least not necessarily. Yes I am aware the parks are "differently built," and there are other ways to measure the success of an attraction rather than just raw attendance metrics. But it is better than the evidence you have provided for your assumptions, which is absolutely nothing whatsoever.

What drives attendance is 'something people want to see/do'. Existing franchises makes convincing people attraction X falls into that easier and also builds excitement/attachment for those who are particularly attracted to that franchise. It's that simple.

When space mountain was new... Disney struggled to convince people what it was... because they didn't want to just call it a roller coaster.

Then prove it.

If you don't know how to argue maturely, and I think most people on this forum have experienced that you do not, then we have no reason to talk to one another, and I am putting you on ignore, sorry.

 

[flynnibus]

ahhh, you again... I said EE boosted DAK's attendance despite not being IP, not BECAUSE it wasn't IP...

And as for it being a park that lacked rides and that's why it increased DAK's attendance, sure that's a factor, but it doesn't refute the point that it's the only single IP attraction Disney's produced this century and it also happens to be their most successful one.

FYI— Guardians increased DCA's attendance by only 2.1% between 2015 and 2017, not exactly proof that IP = profits.

See your next post... comparing percentages between completely different things is not a good look.

If you have 5 attractions and add 1... you're going to get a much bigger boost in capacity and relative draw (percentage wise) than if you have 25 attractions and add 1. This is basic math... both could bring in an addition 100k people but the percentages would differ because one park is small and low attendance, the other is already big and mature.

You're misusing stats left and right and drawing horrible conclusions from them.

Who do you think is claiming that IP = profits? The reasoning is not that binary... the reasoning is IP = booster to attracting demand and other value adds. It's a kicker = not something that alone is the value.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm just presenting data. I'm not drawing any specific conclusions other than IP does not drive returns on investments anymore than original attractions, at least not necessarily.

You are drawing conclusions... horribly. Putting numbers out and then misusing them is not 'just presenting data'. It's miserable.

Yes I am aware the parks are "differently built," and there are other ways to measure the success of an attraction rather than just raw attendance metrics. But it is better than the evidence you have provided for your assumptions, which is absolutely nothing whatsoever.

What industry would you like me to highlight for you where we can show the indisputable trend of using franchises to promote products? Are you going to dig in that they are all wrong because you don't have the spreadsheet showing it works? Or will you accept that people making the choice to do it over and over might be for a reason?

If you don't know how to argue maturely, and I think most people on this forum have experienced that you do not, then we have no reason to talk to one another, and I am putting you on ignore, sorry.

Step 1 - Stop misusing facts. That's a good start to your maturity mantra.

 

[JD80]

I'm just fascinated by the use of Blake's logic here.

 

[BlakeW39]

@flynnibus I am going to say this one more time. I am not interested in speaking with you, period. I'm putting you on ignore, and I suggest you do the same for me.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Sure, so in terms of increases to attendance:

Between the years 2005 and 2007, DAK's attendance increased ~16% with the opening of Expedition Everest in 2006. Frozen Ever After increased EPCOT's attendance by 5% from 2013 to 2015. The Seas with Nemo & Friends saw EPCOT's attendance increase by a similar 4% between 2006 and 2008. DAK's attendance increased 8.5% in 2006 with the opening of EE, while even when Hagrid's opened in 2019, attendance at IOA only increased 6.1%.

Large parks expansions, like Pandora, increase park attendance substantially more than single attractions do, but that's because they're huge expansions, not because they're tied to IP. Fact of the matter is that new attractions increase attendance whether an IP is attached or not. Expedition Everest was never expexted to fail at DAK because it wasn't based on some movie franchise, and to the contrary, Frozen didn't increase EPCOT's attendance much more than Nemo did in 2007. It didn't come close to EE, because despite it being attached to an IP, its scale/quality is nowhere near that of Everest. So again, the IP wasn't what mattered here.

So yes, Bob is misreading things because he doesn't understand theme parks or why guests patronize them. He's just backing his own decision to mandate IP in the parks, which is what I'd expect him to do.

I can also show how IP attractions aren't more popular (in terms of wait times) either, if you want.

Eh - I think you need to be a bit more nuanced here.

I would say that any thrill ride (roller coaster) is going to have less of a *need* to have an IP tie-in to be successful because visitors disproportionately love thrill rides of any type. You can see this whether it's at Disney, Universal, Six Flags or any other type of theme park. Expedition Everest is in the thrill ride category, so its success is really judged on whether it's a good roller coaster over whether it has an IP tie-in.

However, the strength of the IP seems to matter much more for the success on everything else, such as new dark rides or anything that doesn't fit that pure thrill ride/roller coaster category. Nemo is frankly about as much of a paint-by-the-numbers pedestrian ride as you can get, so the fact that it drove any attendance increase at Epcot at all is a pretty strong testament to the value of that IP. Frozen is an even more glaring example - I loved Maelstrom as much as anyone, but the Frozen IP alone turned that attraction from a "we'll ride it if we have time" item for the average visitor to a marquee ride.

Likewise, the connection to the Star Wars IP is what makes Rise of the Resistance so compelling as a ride in a way that very few people would care about if it was simply a generic space ride. The draw to Smugglers Run is being able to fly the Millennium Falcon itself - take that away and we'd be even more disappointed in it than we already are.

At Universal, VelociCoaster would have been successful regardless of whether it had a Jurassic Park IP tie-in or not because it's a pure thrill ride. You could even argue that for Hargid's, too. In contrast, though, having generic wizards in Forbidden Journey instead of the Harry Potter IP specifically would provide little connection from a visitor perspective (and Universal certainly wouldn't have invested huge amounts of money into developing a generic wizard ride of that nature).

I would say that the value of having an IP tie-in to even a thrill ride that doesn't necessarily need any IP tie-in to be successful (such as VelociCoaster) is more about marketing and selling it with name recognition upfront. "Universal has a new Jurassic World roller coaster" simply sticks and differentiates in the mind much better from a marketing perspective than "Universal has a new random roller coaster" when the local Six Flags also has a new random roller coaster. In that sense, the IP is the marketing hook and that shouldn't be underestimated at all as to why *everyone* (not just Disney) keeps wanting to mine pre-existing IP whether we're talking about theme park attractions, movies or TV shows. However, at the end of the day, the ride (or movie or TV show) still ultimately has to deliver.

 

[flynnibus]

I would say that the value of having an IP tie-in to even a thrill ride that doesn't necessarily need any IP tie-in to be successful (such as VelociCoaster) is more about marketing and selling it with name recognition upfront. "Universal has a new Jurassic World roller coaster" simply sticks and differentiates in the mind much better from a marketing perspective than "Universal has a new random roller coaster" when the local Six Flags also has a new random roller coaster. In that sense, the IP is the marketing hook and that shouldn't be underestimated at all as to why *everyone* (not just Disney) keeps wanting to mine pre-existing IP whether we're talking about theme park attractions, movies or TV shows. However, at the end of the day, the ride (or movie or TV show) still ultimately has to deliver.

Well put.. unfortunately the purists here think marketing to humans differs in a Disney theme park and absolutes must be followed based on artistic ideals alone.

Your point highlights the significance that franchises bring to story telling and placemaking. A high thrill attraction that only lasts 60 seconds can't really convey a whole lot on it's own -- there simply isn't the exposure time. Contrast this with something slower and more immersive, and you see how your constraints are different. Attractions like Everest spend a great amount of time spreading the pre-show over its massive queue to setup the story and climax... because there is no opportunity to do so in the ride itself... and not just to casually entertain you while you wait which was the norm for most queues. The value of preexisting ideas/notions carries far different values in different environments.

 

[Jenny72]

It would be nice if some IP other than TV shows and movies would be considered. Some people in my family enjoy the theme parks but don't watch all that many Disney movies. I'm quite sure most of them have no idea what Zootopia is. But National Geographic would be a great IP for AK. National Geographic has a bunch of great books and films, a lot of which are aimed at kids and are very fun. There's a ton of stuff on Disney+. But that IP is never mentioned in connection to AK.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm just fascinated by the use of Blake's logic here.

Apparently the difference between relative numbers and absolutes and how you use them is a challenge for some.

 

[flynnibus]

It would be nice if some IP other than TV shows and movies would be considered. Some people in my family enjoy the theme parks but don't watch all that many Disney movies. I'm quite sure most of them have no idea what Zootopia is. But National Geographic would be a great IP for AK. National Geographic has a bunch of great books and films, a lot of which are aimed at kids and are very fun. There's a ton of stuff on Disney+. But that IP is never mentioned in connection to AK.

I'd wager Disney doesn't really see NatGeo as a property really close to the core. But I do like it's potential.. I bet they are just weary of content that they think could be sold off at some time.

 

[el_super]

FYI— Guardians increased DCA's attendance by only 2.1% between 2015 and 2017, not exactly proof that IP = profits.

Doesn't this sort of prove Bob's point though? If you control for most of the variables and you have the same ride in the same park with the same audience, but you see a 2% increase in attendance JUST from swapping out the IP... isn't that proof that the IP is more valuable?

 

[BlakeW39]

Eh - I think you need to be a bit more nuanced here.

I would say that any thrill ride (roller coaster) is going to have less of a *need* to have an IP tie-in to be successful because visitors disproportionately love thrill rides of any type. You can see this whether it's at Disney, Universal, Six Flags or any other type of theme park. Expedition Everest is in the thrill ride category, so its success is really judged on whether it's a good roller coaster over whether it has an IP tie-in.

However, the strength of the IP seems to matter much more for the success on everything else, such as new dark rides or anything that doesn't fit that pure thrill ride/roller coaster category. Nemo is frankly about as much of a paint-by-the-numbers pedestrian ride as you can get, so the fact that it drove any attendance increase at Epcot at all is a pretty strong testament to the value of that IP. Frozen is an even more glaring example - I loved Maelstrom as much as anyone, but the Frozen IP alone turned that attraction from a "we'll ride it if we have time" item for the average visitor to a marquee ride.

Likewise, the connection to the Star Wars IP is what makes Rise of the Resistance so compelling as a ride in a way that very few people would care about if it was simply a generic space ride. The draw to Smugglers Run is being able to fly the Millennium Falcon itself - take that away and we'd be even more disappointed in it than we already are.

At Universal, VelociCoaster would have been successful regardless of whether it had a Jurassic Park IP tie-in or not because it's a pure thrill ride. You could even argue that for Hargid's, too. In contrast, though, having generic wizards in Forbidden Journey instead of the Harry Potter IP specifically would provide little connection from a visitor perspective (and Universal certainly wouldn't have invested huge amounts of money into developing a generic wizard ride of that nature).

I would say that the value of having an IP tie-in to even a thrill ride that doesn't necessarily need any IP tie-in to be successful (such as VelociCoaster) is more about marketing and selling it with name recognition upfront. "Universal has a new Jurassic World roller coaster" simply sticks and differentiates in the mind much better from a marketing perspective than "Universal has a new random roller coaster" when the local Six Flags also has a new random roller coaster. In that sense, the IP is the marketing hook and that shouldn't be underestimated at all as to why *everyone* (not just Disney) keeps wanting to mine pre-existing IP whether we're talking about theme park attractions, movies or TV shows. However, at the end of the day, the ride (or movie or TV show) still ultimately has to deliver.

For sure, I'm not suggesting that raw attendence numbers are super telling here. The reason you invest in your parks isn't short term increases to attendance anyways, it's long term capacity, customer satisfaction, etc. EE drove attendance for a lot of reasons but it did that despite being an original attraction. It managed to draw huge crowds on its own merits, without being tied to a popular brand/IP.

And as for that being because Everest was a thrill ride, I kind of doubt it. Sure thrill rides are obviously crowd pleasers. But Disney guests aren't super infatuated with thrill rides and I think a well done dark ride without IP (like, for instance, one based on dinosaurs) with similar marketing as Everest could also drive ticket sales.

There is definitely some draw that comes with a popular IP, no doubt, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But IP isn't the only way to draw guests, especially if it's coming at the cost of thematic integrity inside the parks. So Bob's comment that IP drives return on investment more than they otherwise could... not necessarily, IP does drive consumer interest, but so do other things, as evidenced by the fact that most of Disney's most popular attractions long term are not based on IP.

As for ROTR.... Star Wars is kind of its own beast, but I still contend that it's popular in large part because it's new. Star Tours as an E-ticket doesn't get longer lines than Space Mountain, which is what you described as a 'generic space ride.'