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

[flynnibus]

This is kind of a weird way to say this, but I wonder if part of the focus on movie IP is that the corporate leaders think people are...a bit...stupid?

You don’t survive on great reviews… you survive on sales. The customer base, not the intectual discourse is what sustains a business.

You can be righteous and still be broke

 

[flynnibus]

IP-free attractions (for the most part) are timeless, and that makes them much more worthwhile investments.

You are taking some examples and extrapolating to some generalization that doesn’t hold up. Just because a concept maybe timeless that doesn’t make all original concepts timeless, or even atrractions based on relevant concept timeless.

Do not confuse ‘the theme didn’t fall out of favor’ to mean ‘attractions based on this are timeless’.

Attractions like pirates and hm have outlived other pirate and haunted house attractions … why? Because of the kind of attraction they are in addition to the theme.

It’s fair to say an attraction based on a franchise risks having the relevance of that property wanning and being a liability. But yhat does not mean inversely an original attraction will stay timeless. Just that some themes have proven to be popular over many generations.

The bottom line is this: IP-based attractions are only solid investments if the IP is clearly a classic. Guardians, Ratatouille, and the Star Wars sequel trilogy are not, and I think this will come back to bite them in future decades. More replacing and not adding.

People don’t build attractions with the mindset this has to be a 50yr ride. If they are thst successful… great! But to design to that as a requirement would only prove even more limiting.

Imagine a theme park that doesn’t have any concepts that haven’t already proven to have stood the test of time…

 

[flynnibus]

Question for the audience. Why does an operator like cedar fair PAY to license franchises for their rides verse just using generic or self created content?

Tbey have no stake in promoting those franchises… and it costs them huge amounts of money… and many become irrelevant requiring them to spend again to redo it.

So why do they do it? It’s not disney management forcing them…

 

[LSLS]

I'm not sure there is a true answer to this as we don't have actual comparative. For example, the Guardians ride is quite popular. But would it be equally popular if it was themed more generally to be in line with the park theme? I don't think we can answer that either way for sure. For me personally, I would enjoy it more. Guardians I thought at best added nothing to the ride, it was all about how fun the actual ride. But, me as a person (or the small group here that agrees with me) certainly doesn't mean the masses agree.

Now, I do think there is a question of short term vs. long term gains. Once you are decades away from a movie or set of characters, could that impact the timelessness of the ride? Using guardians again, how many people are going to care that much about them in 15 or 20 years? Could that impact the ride at all vs. if it was something everyone/the park related to? Would Haunted Mansion be as popular today if they had made it a ride through a house based on 101 dalmatians? I will say I'm looking at things that are more shoe-horned in as opposed to ones that seem to genuinely fit (where you may get a bit of both worlds).

 

[LSLS]

Question for the audience. Why does an operator like cedar fair PAY to license franchises for their rides verse just using generic or self created content?

Tbey have no stake in promoting those franchises… and it costs them huge amounts of money… and many become irrelevant requiring them to spend again to redo it.

So why do they do it? It’s not disney management forcing them…

I think it's fair to say IP has it's place. But, Cedar Fairs is interesting. They pay for peanuts now because they had to spend a bunch of money to retheme their Bernstein Bear area, which kids started having no connection to, and no desire to go see/buy merch for. Peanuts were much more timeless, which is why (I'm assuming) they made that decision.

And I do think the other aspect of that they don't have the detailed theming Disney is supposed to have. They certainly haven't built things based on site lines or themed specific restaurants based on where they are in the park (though that seems to be changing some), so using IP as a theme is helpful to them (Here's Planet Snoopy). Disney's model has historically been more about the theme of the entire park/lands, not just single sections/rides.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The IP comparison can only be applied to Comcast and Disney

The regional parks are ride and carnie food parks…that is an entirely different approach than the media titans.

Disney parks aren’t ride parks…they were crafted to have multiple elements blend together to support each other and mute each individual part as a way of strengthening the whole. They were brilliant and the receipts back it up.

Comcast is a bit of a wildcard here. Ride parks…albeit nice ones…that put themselves in a different category when Potter went in. They’re trending more towards “theme” than “ride” at this point.
Volcano bay is Disney kinda designed (by ex Disney people)…

This new park is fascinating from this perspective

 

[JD80]

Just to put this out there, the non-IP attractions are built on very popular tropes like a haunted houses and a pirate adventure are arguably IP-lite. You don't have to explain to someone what a Haunted House is. They are timeless because they are very good haunted houses.

The question is, out of the millions of people coming to WDW every year, what does a non-IP attraction get you that an IP attraction can't give you? You can give a personal opinion, but you really need to thinking of large amounts of people and not individually.

 

[BlakeW39]

I'm not sure there is a true answer to this as we don't have actual comparative. For example, the Guardians ride is quite popular. But would it be equally popular if it was themed more generally to be in line with the park theme? I don't think we can answer that either way for sure. For me personally, I would enjoy it more. Guardians I thought at best added nothing to the ride, it was all about how fun the actual ride. But, me as a person (or the small group here that agrees with me) certainly doesn't mean the masses agree.

Now, I do think there is a question of short term vs. long term gains. Once you are decades away from a movie or set of characters, could that impact the timelessness of the ride? Using guardians again, how many people are going to care that much about them in 15 or 20 years? Could that impact the ride at all vs. if it was something everyone/the park related to? Would Haunted Mansion be as popular today if they had made it a ride through a house based on 101 dalmatians? I will say I'm looking at things that are more shoe-horned in as opposed to ones that seem to genuinely fit (where you may get a bit of both worlds).

I agree with all of this.

The Disney parks haven't been made any more popular or successful by the IP mandate. IP has its draws yes, but there many different ways to draw guests to your theme parks and IP isn't necessary for every single individual land or attraction.

The question isn't....is movie IP popular? The question is, is literally anything else popular? To which the answer is yes. Disney can attract just as many people to its parks, sell just as much F&B and merchandise I'd wager, if not everything in their parks is based on movies. We know this, because they've already done it.

 

[BlakeW39]

The IP comparison can only be applied to Comcast and Disney

The regional parks are ride and carnie food parks…that is an entirely different approach than the media titans.

Disney parks aren’t ride parks…they were crafted to have multiple elements blend together to support each other and mute each individual part as a way of strengthening the whole. They were brilliant and the receipts back it up.

Comcast is a bit of a wildcard here. Ride parks…albeit nice ones…that put themselves in a different category when Potter went in. They’re trending more towards “theme” than “ride” at this point.
Volcano bay is Disney kinda designed (by ex Disney people)…

This new park is fascinating from this perspective

IP is fine... in moderation. Once you get to the point where everything in your parks has to be based on some movie franchise, then you have a problem. You're actively stifling creativity as well as compromising the thematic cores of your parks in the process. You're limiting the creative scope of what imagineering can accomplish. You can't get another Pirates, JII, or Kilimanjaro because you won't let something new like that be built. And that is negative for the parks. Don't you agree?

 

[BlakeW39]

Imagine if the Maharajah Jungle Trek had to have a Jungle Book overlay. Imagine how much that would cheapen the world building and theming of that attraction. Are there seriously some people that think this type of thing is 'good' for the parks on any level?

 

[Tha Realest]

Imagine if the Maharajah Jungle Trek had to have a Jungle Book overlay. Imagine how much that would cheapen the world building and theming of that attraction. Are there seriously some people that think this type of thing is 'good' for the parks on any level?

Thank goodness the Jungle Cruise refresh was spared of movie tie ins

 

[LSLS]

Just to put this out there, the non-IP attractions are built on very popular tropes like a haunted houses and a pirate adventure are arguably IP-lite. You don't have to explain to someone what a Haunted House is. They are timeless because they are very good haunted houses.

The question is, out of the millions of people coming to WDW every year, what does a non-IP attraction get you that an IP attraction can't give you? You can give a personal opinion, but you really need to thinking of large amounts of people and not individually.

But that goes both ways which is why I think a mixing makes more sense. You are right, people know what a haunted house is. But how many people have never seen GotG, but would know what an adventure through space means? Or how many have never seen Tron (which, I have not so I can't even make a remark as to what the bigger view would be on it)?

I think the disconnect going right now is that I think both sides here are kind of in the same place. One side has people that think IP is fine/great/makes sense, the other hates it. BUT, I'd make an educated guess the first side would agree it should fit the general theming of the larger area, and the second group most likely hates it because they don't trust it will. Basically, one side thinks it's all like adding Toy Story to DHS, the other thinks it's going to be like more like adding Toy Story to the Japan pavilion.

 

[Jrb1979]

But that goes both ways which is why I think a mixing makes more sense. You are right, people know what a haunted house is. But how many people have never seen GotG, but would know what an adventure through space means? Or how many have never seen Tron (which, I have not so I can't even make a remark as to what the bigger view would be on it)?

I think the disconnect going right now is that I think both sides here are kind of in the same place. One side has people that think IP is fine/great/makes sense, the other hates it. BUT, I'd make an educated guess the first side would agree it should fit the general theming of the larger area, and the second group most likely hates it because they don't trust it will. Basically, one side thinks it's all like adding Toy Story to DHS, the other thinks it's going to be like more like adding Toy Story to the Japan pavilion.

I agree. IMO its what Disney different. Each park had its own theme. Now all parks are slowly becoming an extension of MK. People like @JD80 love it.

 

[Jenny72]

For me, the other issue is that most movie IP feels so small. Some of it feels big, like the IP based on centuries-old stories. But most of it just feels like some marketing for a specific film that came out at a particular time. It doesn't get me in the feels, as the kids say today. I think of Universal like that: fun, but pop culture fun. Disney is connected to Big Ideas, like adventure, imagination, technology. Universal had Transformers and Woody Woodpecker.

I think, ultimately, what people really want (and what they'll pay ridiculous amounts for) is stuff that makes them feel. Of course, the latest movies can do that for a time, and meaningful time spent with family/friends is a huge part of these trips, but Disney's brand is Magic, and Ratatouille is not as magic in our collective culture as Adventure and Imagination. This is what I think current management fails to see.

 

[el_super]

They build them for capacity reasons first and foremost. But still, I think my point still stands that IP attractions don't like... sell extra tickets or something compared to original attractions. Both can increase park attendance, but IP isn't the deciding factor in that. What's your take?

I think it's too complex to say for certain that IP doesn't drive attendance. I don't think there is anything wrong with testing a hypothesis on this, but taking the estimated attendance numbers and speculating that there is some standard deviation in attendance gains, and then guessing at all the external economic factors that might be pushing and pulling numbers, factoring in any marketing and promotions running those same years... it's all just a lot of guessing.

And you know who doesn't have to guess? Bob Iger.

It seems like ancient history now, but it was Iger that stepped up to remodel the original IP-less DCA, adding Toy Story, CARS, Mermaid and Mickey everywhere. Whether right or wrong at the time, it was praised for "fixing" the problems with the original DCA, and their numbers reflected that. Even if today, Iger is just referring to what happened at DCA 10 years ago, it's hard to argue he is in the wrong on that.

 

[el_super]

The IP comparison can only be applied to Comcast and Disney

The regional parks are ride and carnie food parks…that is an entirely different approach than the media titans.

You lost the forest here.... those regional parks never got as big as Disney because of the lack of IP.

 

[el_super]

I think it's fair to say IP has it's place. But, Cedar Fairs is interesting. They pay for peanuts now because they had to spend a bunch of money to retheme their Bernstein Bear area, which kids started having no connection to, and no desire to go see/buy merch for. Peanuts were much more timeless, which is why (I'm assuming) they made that decision.

Knott's has had a Camp Snoopy area since the early 1980s. If it was a matter of paying for two distinct IPs, it would make sense that Cedar Fair would pick one (Peanuts) and consolidate across the brand. But I am not at all familiar with what the other Cedar Fair parks had as their IP tie-ins.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You lost the forest here.... those regional parks never got as big as Disney because of the lack of IP.

They never were intended to have people fly in for 7 days and they know it.

I grew up at kennywood, dude. It’s a piece of American history with photos of Andrew Carnegie and Henry clay frick walking the grounds.

You really gotta stop trying to “zing”
Me. It doesn’t work

 

[BlakeW39]

And you know who doesn't have to guess? Bob Iger.

Fair enough on the rest of your comment, but— all due respect —it's inductively fallacious to assume Bob Iger has information we don't know he has, just on the basis that he's TWDC CEO. He has a lot of data we don't have access to no doubt, but we can't just assume that he has data which specifically shows the IP mandate makes the parks more successful. To the contrary, that contradicts what little data we do have, and Bob Iger himself has never actually implied that he has information which states the IP mandate makes the parks more successful. He's just said basing attractions on IP is less risky, which is exactly what we expected him to say. He's a risk averse executive, who has always championed "brand" and "syngery"

You lost the forest here.... those regional parks never got as big as Disney because of the lack of IP.

The reason regional parks are not as big as Disney isn't because regional parks aren't based on movie franchises

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

IP is fine... in moderation. Once you get to the point where everything in your parks has to be based on some movie franchise, then you have a problem. You're actively stifling creativity as well as compromising the thematic cores of your parks in the process. You're limiting the creative scope of what imagineering can accomplish. You can't get another Pirates, JII, or Kilimanjaro because you won't let something new like that be built. And that is negative for the parks. Don't you agree?

I don’t disagree…but realize that’s a kinda dumbed down business decision for fools like the bobs.

They justify the overhead and ops costs for things in parks because there’s automatic cross marketing - merch and media - with IP based rides.

It’s stupid…but also obvious