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

[Frank the Tank]

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?

Yes - I was just thinking the same thing.

Expedition Everest was a pure net new ride and it was a roller coaster on top of it in a park that was previously devoid of any coasters.

Guardians in DCA and Frozen and Nemo in Epcot got more attendance by applying IP (or more currently popular IP with respect to Guardians) to existing rides and not having to build net new rides at all.

Personally, I don't love it (as I'd rather have net new rides), but Blake's numbers are actually proving the point of Iger. The fact that attendance goes up at all by simply changing the IP on an existing ride pretty much shows how important it is (from the Disney perspective) of integrating IP.

 

[BlakeW39]

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?

Not necessarily, because a 2% increase in attendence falls within the standard, year-to-year deviation of DCA park attendance. As in, they don't need to spend huge amounts of money like they did on GOTG in order to increase park attendance by just 2%. DCA attendance also increased in 2014 by 3%, despite no new attractions opening that year.

 

[WaltsTreasureChest]

What forum are you on? You might need to open your mind a bit to what others are saying. Ip is expected in the parks, no one is saying it shouldn't be there. They are also not saying they should never use it. The issue is the all or nothing approach Disney has with it. There's a big difference between I HATE ALL IP AND DISNEY SHOULDN'T USE IT. And, what the actual argument of, they should have balance between when and where Ip is used and original content.

Don’t even bother. Some people on the internet like to exaggerate, and view things in extremes.

I agree with you, I like a balance of IP and none IP

 

[BlakeW39]

Personally, I don't love it (as I'd rather have net new rides), but Blake's numbers are actually proving the point of Iger. The fact that attendance goes up at all by simply changing the IP on an existing ride pretty much shows how important it is (from the Disney perspective) of integrating IP.

Again, they really don't— increases in attendance that small are normal for theme parks; they happen in years where rethemes occur and ones where they don't. IP rethemes may be drawing some guests into those parks... but not in a way that is significant enough to fall outside the typical, year-to-year variation we see in EPCOT/DCA park attendance.

 

[flynnibus]

Reworks like Grand Fiesta Tour are some of the most A/B comparisons you can make.

Was the reimagining that added the Three Caballeros a good or bad thing for the attraction? Is the attraction doing better with guest sat and drawing guests since the overlay?

I don't want every dining spot to be 'Mickeys burgers' or whatever... but one has to acknowledge the design of the familiar. It is used everywhere... even Everest... creating from scratch with such a limited exposed to the customer is very problematic and so the use of familiarity is used. Pirates... abominal snowmen... etc. Integrating franchises for familiarity or appeal is something proven time and time again in marketing.

What I don't like is when it doesn't fit... or is just 'find something that looks like this, and shove it in' vs doing it for real value. Fitting, world building, and experience are what really matters... I could do without 'Moana' in Journey of Water for instance.. and I don't need Donald in the Living Seas... but I don't have a problem with Mickey's Runaway Railroad.

 

[BlakeW39]

I'd like to mention, by the way, that the reasoning for why TWDC invests in IP rethemes isn't primarily to drive short term spikes in attendance, it's to better utilize capacity long-term. Personally, I think original attractions have been proven to accomplish this goal just as well as IP has, because most of the longer term, enduring attractions WDI has built, and the ones that use their capacity most effectively, have been parks-original concepts like Pirates, Kilimanjaro, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Expedition Everest, Small World, and so on. That's because time-honored themes and tropes, concepts like pirates, a voyage into space, or an African safari, have broader and longer-lasting appeal than specific IPs from modern pop-culture.....in my experience.

 

[flynnibus]

do we need to name all the non-IP attractions that didn't survive and were replaced?

What's the point of highlighting the 'successful' attractions that are not IP related if you ignore all the ones that ARE IP related or all the ones that didn't succeed. The funnel vision and selective inclusion is dumb.

Hey, here's the rides that survived, so obviously this one element of them is why and why all rides should be that way -- Said no one ever... including Walt himself.

 

[Jrb1979]

Reworks like Grand Fiesta Tour are some of the most A/B comparisons you can make.

Was the reimagining that added the Three Caballeros a good or bad thing for the attraction? Is the attraction doing better with guest sat and drawing guests since the overlay?

I don't want every dining spot to be 'Mickeys burgers' or whatever... but one has to acknowledge the design of the familiar. It is used everywhere... even Everest... creating from scratch with such a limited exposed to the customer is very problematic and so the use of familiarity is used. Pirates... abominal snowmen... etc. Integrating franchises for familiarity or appeal is something proven time and time again in marketing.

What I don't like is when it doesn't fit... or is just 'find something that looks like this, and shove it in' vs doing it for real value. Fitting, world building, and experience are what really matters... I could do without 'Moana' in Journey of Water for instance.. and I don't need Donald in the Living Seas... but I don't have a problem with Mickey's Runaway Railroad.

I agree with you. IMO that's what most want. It's not that I don't want IP in the parks, I just want to see them implemented in the right places and keep the theme of each park. What really needs to happen is be more innovative and creative with new attractions. It feels like they have this habit of relying on a new ride type too much and over use it. Right now they would be trackless dark rides and projections.

 

[RSoxNo1]

IP is a year one marketing play, nothing more. Quality rises to the top.

 

[BlakeW39]

I agree with you. IMO that's what most want. It's not that I don't want IP in the parks, I just want to see them implemented in the right places and keep the theme of each park. What really needs to happen is be more innovative and creative with new attractions. It feels like they have this habit of relying on a new ride type too much and over use it. Right now they would be trackless dark rides and projections.

Agreed.

My main point is that there are ways for the WDC to successfully run its theme parks without exclusively using IP. As in, the IP mandate doesn't necessarily make Disney's parks more successful. This is current management's way of designing the parks. But there are other ways to design a successful theme park, that can include original attractions, lands, etc. I don't have a problem with any or all IP in the parks, never have, and it was always strawman to paint me and others like me as if we just hate IP and don't want it anywhere in the parks. It's not that I don't want it anywhere.....I just don't want it EVERYWHERE. Big difference.

 

[RSoxNo1]

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?

There's not much cherry picking going on here. We can look at attendance numbers going back 20 years. IP isn't the driver, quality is.

Universal sees a big boost when the open Harry Potter lands though and that's Disney's take away. They're ignoring the quality aspect of it and focusing on the IP. At Disney, the most significant attendance boosts over the last 20 years were Everest and Pandora.

Quality is the best business plan, not familiarity.

 

[RSoxNo1]

do we need to name all the non-IP attractions that didn't survive and were replaced?

What's the point of highlighting the 'successful' attractions that are not IP related if you ignore all the ones that ARE IP related or all the ones that didn't succeed. The funnel vision and selective inclusion is dumb.

Hey, here's the rides that survived, so obviously this one element of them is why and why all rides should be that way -- Said no one ever... including Walt himself.

Name a non-IP based ride built in WDW in the last 15 years? How about stateside? As far as I know the only thing that's been built stateside are the Red Car Trolleys.

Disney executives / decision makers have a simple mindset, the lesson they learned from Harry Potter was that IP based additions are less risky. This is very flawed thinking. The problem is, since Iger took over from Eisner he has been largely averse to creating new things. He'd rather acquire and / or redo things that were previously successful. Case in point...

There's a mindset that IPs are safe, that familiarity is easier to sell than a newly created ride concept. Iger has acknowledged that he's not a parks guy. What he understands is that guests like new things and explaining something that doesn't have a known IP tied to it in a 60 second commercial is difficult. He's also acknowledged that an overhaul of an existing attraction (Maelstrom into Frozen, DINOSAUR into Zootopia) is often just as successful as an entirely new build.

 

[BlakeW39]

IP is a year one marketing play, nothing more. Quality rises to the top.

No doubt it's a marketing play. They use IP to enhance consumer interest/appeal from a marketing perspective.....but again, there are ways to successfully market original attractions as well..... because it's been done before. Essentially what I'm saying is that, contrary to the beliefs of some, there are no economic variables outwardly preventing the creation of original rides/lands/etc. The IP mandate is a business strategy.... but there are many other potential business stragies that could be successful, that allow new ideas to come into play and not randomly force movie franchises into every nook and cranny of the parks.

 

[RSoxNo1]

No doubt it's a marketing play. They use IP to enhance consumer interest/appeal from a marketing perspective.....but again, there are ways to successfully market original attractions as well..... because it's been done before. Essentially what I'm saying is that, contrary to the beliefs of some, there are no economic variables outwardly preventing the creation of original rides/lands/etc. The IP mandate is a business strategy.... but there are many other potential business stragies that could be successful, that allow new ideas to come into play and not randomly force movie franchises into every nook and cranny of the parks.

Agreed, another business strategy is creating new IP for the parks rather than adapting an existing IP for the parks.

 

[BlakeW39]

There's not much cherry picking going on here. We can look at attendance numbers going back 20 years. IP isn't the driver, quality is.

Universal sees a big boost when the open Harry Potter lands though and that's Disney's take away. They're ignoring the quality aspect of it and focusing on the IP. At Disney, the most significant attendance boosts over the last 20 years were Everest and Pandora.

Quality is the best business plan, not familiarity.

Thank you. I'm not cherry picking at all, nor was I drawing far-fetched conclusions that were misleading or misinterpreting data. I'm literally just quoting the resources available to ALL OF US word for word, which proves that yes, IP can be successful! But it's not necessary. Attractions can be successful and popular without it. As has been proven time and time again by WDI.

 

[Tha Realest]

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

I go back and forth on this. You can’t deny the success of Frozen and (at least initially) Nemo returbs of existing rides. But over time Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch didn’t save those attractions

 

[Jrb1979]

I go back and forth on this. You can’t deny the success of Frozen and (at least initially) Nemo returbs of existing rides. But over time Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch didn’t save those attractions

IMO refurbing it to Stitch made it worse. Otherwise agree, most people want to see quality attractions with IP.

 

[BlakeW39]

I go back and forth on this. You can’t deny the success of Frozen and (at least initially) Nemo returbs of existing rides. But over time Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch didn’t save those attractions

Was Nemo successful though? Initially sure, but again, I'm gonna say that's because it was 'new.' Now that time has passed and it isn't new anymore, it gets low traffic and I think a non-IP Living Seas pavillion, without all the corny Nemo stuff, would actually be more successful/give better guest satisfaction. Quality aquarium themed to an undersea base >>>> tacky out of place Nemo & Friends overlay.

 

[JD80]

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

I'm just disappointed that he put you on ignore. Weaksauce.

 

[BlakeW39]

I'm just disappointed that he put you on ignore. Weaksauce.

"Weaksauce?" Are you a child?

I guess that means I should probably ignore you as well.... because that's what a mature adult does when they realize someone is immature or rude. And can't— even if they disagree with someone, even if they disagree with them strongly —at least treat that other person with respect. If we can't have a cordial discussion, then we can't have a discussion at all, period.