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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Your premise here is absolutely faulty. Explain what made Disneyland 1955 an international destination compared to Knott's Berry Farm in 1955.

Not even once. Their IP scares me.

Then you should probably chew on the tongue a little than tell me what mine own eyes have seen 6-10 times.

 

[Jrb1979]

My point has to do with something much more fundamental than that. I’m talking about the magic ingredient that gives the Disney parks an inimitable edge over all their rivals (the clue is in the thousands of guests wearing Mickey and Minnie ears).

Even then IMO it's not what it once was. Mainly cause the younger generation grew up on more than just Mickey.

 

[Jrb1979]

Your premise here is absolutely faulty. Explain what made Disneyland 1955 an international destination compared to Knott's Berry Farm in 1955.



Not even once. Their IP scares me.

It's not the main draw.

 

[el_super]

View attachment 720466

So you admit it was IP now? Great. Glad we could get past that.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Even then IMO it's not what it once was. Mainly cause the younger generation grew up on more than just Mickey.

Well the pull on the core stuff has probably diminished a little

But all of big shot bobs ip acquisitions were done to specifically to reinforce that. That was the premise.

One is a disaster by most analyst takes…
One has been super Strong but showing signs of weakening
One is largely useless in spite of itself
One has fallen into creative stagnation in sequel purgatory

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So you admit it was IP now? Great. Glad we could get past that.

In order to “admit”…one has to first deny. Go find a post where I said IP didn’t matter?

You got 40,000 choices…but I won’t count the first 39,000

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

That is an important point, that non-IP attractions can help draw in different audiences not attracted to your IP.

The larger problem here for Disney though is, the people that ARE attracted to their IP and want more of their brand, are generating far more demand than they need.

Eisner saw Disney as being capable of being all things to all people, and promoted the idea of having rides and attractions that weren't just themed to the movies or characters or studio content. That was the original thesis for California Adventure, that they could expand the brand by bringing more adult-oriented content as a counter to Disneyland. It didn't work. He was wrong. Disney isn't going to do that again.

DCA opened with what, two attractions that were any sort of draw? Soarin and Screamin.

Did the lack of any IP kill early DCA, or was it just a bad park? It would be interesting to see how something like DCA would have fared with no or little IP but offering a much better experience overall.

Having said that, it's true they'll likely never do a theme park that isn't heavy on the Disney IP branding. Of course, no one is arguing that Disney should do that, despite some people continuing to push this false narrative that those of us who want some originality are somehow arguing that Disney shouldn't use their IP at all.

For me the best attractions hit that happy medium of having broad appeal without requiring knowledge of the IP being used. Indiana Jones Adventure for example. An action packed ride through a fantastical temple. It's a great attraction for someone who's never heard of Indiana Jones but also includes some recognizable elements like the boulder, that connect to fans.

On the other hand, I can't imagine someone loving the Little Mermaid ride if they aren't familiar with the source material. It doesn't tell a coherent story on its' own. It strikes me as being strictly for viewers of the movie who enjoy seeing well known scenes come to life.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

DCA opened with what, two attractions that were any sort of draw? Soarin and Screamin.

Did the lack of any IP kill early DCA, or was it just a bad park? It would be interesting to see how something like DCA would have fared with no or little IP but offering a much better experience overall.

Having said that, it's true they'll likely never do a theme park that isn't heavy on the Disney IP branding. Of course, no one is arguing that Disney should do that, despite some people continuing to push this false narrative that those of us who want some originality are somehow arguing that Disney shouldn't use their IP at all.

For me the best attractions hit that happy medium of having broad appeal without requiring knowledge of the IP being used. Indiana Jones Adventure for example. An action packed ride through a fantastical temple. It's a great attraction for someone who's never heard of Indiana Jones but also includes some recognizable elements like the boulder, that connect to fans.

On the other hand, I can't imagine someone loving the Little Mermaid ride if they aren't familiar with the source material. It doesn't tell a coherent story on its' own. It strikes me as being strictly for viewers of the movie who enjoy seeing well known scenes come to life.

There was really zero IP rides in the park when it opened. Intentionally. It failed because it was rushed on a cheap budget and Mikey had lost his fastball by that point.

There wasn’t a popular IP ride in the park until RSR opened
And it’s still the most popular by a mile

 

[el_super]

In order to “admit”…one has to first deny. Go find a post where I said IP didn’t matter?

You tried to suggest that comparing Disney parks to regional parks wasn't fair. I think in a discussion on the importance of IP to a park's success, it's absolutely pertinent to compare the success of non-IP parks to those that utilize IP. That being said, it seems almost impossible to find a US park that isn't utilizing IP of some kind.

So now, instead of just suggesting that Iger is wrong in thinking IP is vitally important, we have the suggestion that every major park operator in the US is also wrong in thinking IP is important.

 

[HauntedPirate]

There was really zero IP rides in the park when it opened. Intentionally. It failed because it was rushed on a cheap budget and Mikey had lost his fastball by that point.

There wasn’t a popular IP ride in the park until RSR opened
And it’s still the most popular by a mile

Wait... are you trying to say that designing a theme park by spreadsheet was a bad idea??

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You tried to suggest that comparing Disney parks to regional parks wasn't fair. I think in a discussion on the importance of IP to a park's success, it's absolutely pertinent to compare the success of non-IP parks to those that utilize IP. That being said, it seems almost impossible to find a US park that isn't utilizing IP of some kind.

So now, instead of just suggesting that Iger is wrong in thinking IP is vitally important, we have the suggestion that every major park operator in the US is also wrong in thinking IP is important.

I’m not suggesting anything

Comparing disney parks to regional parks is not fair at all. Cost and length of stay needs make them a whale versus a minnow.

You’re tangling different concepts to try and twist out of it.

So the same as usual…check

 

[BlakeW39]

I think the broader point here is... we have no data. We have a lot of guesses and theories, but we don't have any data that proves anything one way or another. At all. We have a parks business that has seen it's revenue triple under Iger, and if Iger says that the parks need to be run a certain way, there is a really good case for him being right here.

If that's the case, then none of us should be making any financial arguments for or against the IP mandate. Because we don't have enough data to go on.

OK... so why do you think Disney totally took over the amusement park space in the course of 30 years?

They didn't. A regional amusement park like CP and a major theme park like MK are differenr products doing different things. Six Flags has IP, too.

That is an important point, that non-IP attractions can help draw in different audiences not attracted to your IP.

The larger problem here for Disney though is, the people that ARE attracted to their IP and want more of their brand, are generating far more demand than they need.

Eisner saw Disney as being capable of being all things to all people, and promoted the idea of having rides and attractions that weren't just themed to the movies or characters or studio content. That was the original thesis for California Adventure, that they could expand the brand by bringing more adult-oriented content as a counter to Disneyland. It didn't work. He was wrong. Disney isn't going to do that again.

View attachment 720464

Eisner was proven right. It strategy works. That's the these for all four theme parks at WDW, and that's why the parks are successful. DCA failed not because it wasn't based on IP....lol. It failed because it was cheap and sucked.

 

[el_super]

Did the lack of any IP kill early DCA, or was it just a bad park? It would be interesting to see how something like DCA would have fared with no or little IP but offering a much better experience overall.

Maybe. But it's also the sort of given that something like Silly Symphony Swings is somehow a much better product than the Orange Stinger. Or that Goofy's Sky School is better than Mulholland Madness. Those simple changes toward IP seemed to divert attention away from their inclusion in a Disney park in a way that isn't brought up anymore.

The inclusion of those IPs stopped the community grumbling over DCA like a light switch had been flipped.

There wasn’t a popular IP ride in the park until RSR opened
And it’s still the most popular by a mile

It's still the most popular, but you forgot about Midway Mania.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Wait... are you trying to say that designing a theme park by spreadsheet was a bad idea??

Office of strategic planning… @marni1971 ’s personal favorite

 

[BlakeW39]

Again, no one is saying IP isn't a draw to WDW. We're saying it's not the only draw, and that you can have lands and attractions not based on IP that do just as well among park guests. Original lands and attractions have ALWAYS been successful in the parks.

 

[el_super]

Comparing disney parks to regional parks is not fair at all.

Saying that is the point to be made.

 

[BlakeW39]

Maybe.

The failure of DCA had nothing to do with IP. DCA failed because DCA sucked. RSR is the most popular ride in the park because it's the best ride in the park. Not because Cars is a stellar IP (it has lost most of its relevance).

 

[el_super]

If that's the case, then none of us should be making any financial arguments for or against the IP mandate. Because we don't have enough data to go on.

That's most likely true.

They didn't. A regional amusement park like CP and a major theme park like MK are differenr products doing different things. Six Flags has IP, too.

Do you think that the regional park operators purposefully decided not to be as successful as Disney?

Disney became successful because of the access to their IP. They even called their park Disneyland to play on the draw of Walt Disney himself (Disney's Original IP).

Eisner was proven right.

When???

It strategy works. That's the these for all four theme parks at WDW, and that's why the parks are successful. DCA failed not because it wasn't based on IP....lol. It failed because it was cheap and sucked.

Iger said why DCA failed when he announced the plans to change it: their surveys and feedback collected showed that people didn't think the park was Disney enough. That's why he sat out to add more Disney to that park. Had the DCA remodel failed in 2012, we'd probably be having a far more balanced discussion here, but it didn't. Iger was proven right.

 

[el_super]

The failure of DCA had nothing to do with IP.

We will just have to agree to disagree on that and maybe wait to see what further IP placement in parks provides in the years ahead.

 

[erasure fan1]

So now, instead of just suggesting that Iger is wrong in thinking IP is vitally important, we have the suggestion that every major park operator in the US is also wrong in thinking IP is important.

Who has suggested that ip isn't important? I've read a lot of posts about this ip debate. But this, Disney shouldn't use ip narrative, keeps getting argued for some reason.