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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Saying that is the point to be made.

Telling you…again…would be like teaching web design to a hamster.

It just won’t take and do we really have time to do it all over again tomorrow? I have a consult early and it’s “margarita Friday”

 

[BlakeW39]

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

I think regional park operators created a different product than 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).

The Disney IP is the primary reason people go to Disneyland/Disney World, no argument there. However original attractions fall under the purview of Disney IP. They just aren't based on movie franchises. Which doesn't make or break a theme park land/attraction.

When???

When Disney continued to dominate the theme park marketplace despite most of their most popular attractions not being based on movie franchises. And when the different Disney parks were all very different, but still successful.

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.

Fair enough. Why didn't DAK fail similarly then? Or Tokyo DisneySea? Or EPCOT? Or MGM Studios?

DCA failed because DCA was a cheaply built park. I agree that there is some demand for Disney parks to be "more Disney," but one can accomplish that while still building original lands and attractions. That's literally what both MK and DL do.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

I thought you were 40? You’re 30 now?

Ok…you are frankly too young to know. Can you stop now?

And to be clear: not all 20…errr I mean…”30” year olds are too young. Many here are thoughtful and intelligent…
You should try to apply to be in that group and I’ll see if I can rush your application through

 

[BlakeW39]

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.

Yeah, I don't get why this same strawman keeps getting parroted over and over again. We all know Disney IP is one of the main reasons people go to Disney World. There's no reality in which Disney parks have no Disney IP and frankly, no one is asking for that. We just want new, creative ideas also. Which is what Disney always did in the past, and they succeeded at doing so.

I thought you were 40? You’re 30 now?

Ok…you are frankly too young to know. Can you stop now?

And to be clear: not all 20…errr I mean…”30” year olds are too young. Many here are thoughtful and intelligent…
You should try to apply to be in that group and I’ll see if I can rush your application through

I'm 22, just to note

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm 22, just to note

You’re in, baby

 

[flynnibus]

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.

It's fine to say "we want variety" "we don't like the lack of original attractions"

Problem is people ARE making up arguments like IP doesn't matter or i't's ineffective' in their efforts to support their belief. That's the problem, coming up with false narratives to bolster what is otherwise just a fine opinion and where things go sideways.

Literally you have people saying attractions would have been just as good without the IP and the success of certain attractions proves IP isn't needed. They are discounting the value the IP brings and act as if the outcome would be the same without the IP. Pretty much making the argument that the IP doesn't add anything.

I mean, arguing RSR is the best ride in DCA and discounting the cars portion of it? What would the ride be without the franchise element? A dark ride through what? Abandoned fields and an old gas station followed by 15 seconds of speeding through a gully? This discounting of what the franchises bring in an attempt to justify a simple "I'd like diversity" belief is where things go off the tracks. The Test Track ride system alone can't carry the attraction... just like an Omnimover doesn't bring internal popularity nor does 'haunted house' on it's own. It's the sum of the attraction experience that ultimately carries an attraction's success.

You can't rip out core elements of an attraction's success and say "well that piece didn't matter..."

When Disneyland had already been open for basically 30 years... and opened it's first outside franchise attraction in StarTours.. it literally kept the park open for days with demand. Are people going to argue that the motion simulator is what made that so popular and if Disney had just put "mission to mars" in there instead of Star Wars it would have been just as popular?

Why is it in one breath fans are like "corps are greedy!" "businesses are cheap!"... then in the next believe those same companies would pay to license properties (in nearly every industry) if it didn't add value to what they are trying to do?

 

[LSLS]

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.

The argument is IP alone is not important. And it's not close to the MOST important either. People who scream about IP mostly complain because the first thought is "Lets build a Moana ride" followed by "GREAT, now lets find a place to stick it." As opposed to "Animal Kingdom needs a new land with 4 new rides. Here are the types of rides we need, and then general theming to make it work," followed by "GREAT, do we have any IP that would fit into this, or do we need to go without it?"

 

[BlakeW39]

The argument is IP alone is not important. And it's not close to the MOST important either. People who scream about IP mostly complain because the first thought is "Lets build a Moana ride" followed by "GREAT, now lets find a place to stick it." As opposed to "Animal Kingdom needs a new land with 4 new rides. Here are the types of rides we need, and then general theming to make it work," followed by "GREAT, do we have any IP that would fit into this, or do we need to go without it?"

Exactly. Again, everyone here understands Disney IP is an important aspect of Disney theme parks. Families take their kids to Disney to see the castle, Mickey, and the princesses. But that doesn't mean also creating original lands and attractions would be detrimental to Disney's success in any way. As I have mentioned before, we have plenty of proof that original attractions are just as successful as ones that use IP. Space Mountain and Pirates of the Caribbean are just as successful as Indiana Jones Adventure or Star Tours at Disneyland. But Bob would only ever even consider building the latter two.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

People don't want originality. They want comfort in the known, and there is no reason for Disney to buck that trend.

There were two recent articles on the state of the motion picture industry, and they told a telling story on just this issue. Original ideas/concepts simply are not selling. For the past 5 years, sequels, reboots, and franchises, or based upon stories have dominated the entertainment industry, and the box office. From recollection in the US domestic market, the highest grossing original movie over the past 3 years was only the 18th overall grossing movie.

Disney already has an amazing backlog of tried and true IP. Could imagineers come up with new IP to use for rides, sure its possible. But it carries with it a risk. When the market is dictating that people want what they already know and like, why would Disney elect to take that risk?

 

[RSoxNo1]

Last 5 years:

• Toy Story Land
  • Slinky Dog Dash
  • Alien Swirling Saucers
  • TSM (if it counts)
• SWGE
  • Falcon
  • Rise
• MMRR
• Tron
• GotG
• Remy
• Lightning McQueen (if it counts)

That's 10 attractions, assuming I'm not forgetting anything. If you are in charge of the parks, which ones are you pulling for an unknown new IP and why? What makes this new IP a better draw for the parks? In your opinion would it sell more park tickets, vacations and merch?

What is your optimum ratio of balance between new IP for the parks and leveraging existing IP? For every 10 rides, 3 need to be original park IP? 2?

The next question is, how much more are you willing to spend on marketing for each attraction to explain and showcase the new IP? Existing IP already has an existing fan base and base content to build from, new IP you need to build up everything.

How much are you spending on things like market research? How many iterations are you willing to go through doing focus groups to make sure your story/characters are worth spending hundreds of millions on?

There is a real world cost of developing new IP for the parks instead of leveraging existing IP. Leveraging popular existing IP skips a lot of development costs. How many animatronics are you willing to sacrifice on the development of a new ride because you need to firm up brand new IP?

I think you can argue that TRON and Remy don't get extra gate clicks because of the IP, but at the same time neither one is a thematic leap.

Guardians is a big enough IP that it may play a small role in the initial success of the attraction, but it's also the one attraction on the list that has been called into question for being a poor thematic fit. For what it's worth, I think the EPCOT damage was more Harmonious, Frozen, Nemo (just the ride, Turtle Talk makes sense) and Gran Fiesta Tour (even that isn't atrocious).

But of all the attractions you listed, other than Rise, Guardians and M&MRR I don't think people would be persuaded one way or another for a comparable attraction without IP.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Now to your point…

I have a saying for my sales teams. If i always had the best product at the best price… why would I need you?

You can’t keep only the attractions that are the top winners. There are attractions that are quality and just wiff. There are gems that go unappreciated.

Marketing and awareness still matter.

That's a very fair and reasonable point.

So you’re saying build more empty boat rides?

You know that's not at all what I'm saying.

The pointing to dak attendance is a horrible stat because the park was so under utilized to start with. There is s big difference between ‘previously 2 out of 5 people skip this attraction, now 4 kut of ( use it’ and ‘this attraction moved the property from 5 to 7 guests’

DAK received a significant spike from Everest and then became the #2 park in Florida after Pandora. It's attendance is absolutely relevant in exactly the same way IoA's attendance is relevant.

Disney doesn’t share enough data to know the difference between attracting people already there and actually bringing in new guests. What really matters is stays and tickets… neither of which tea data is worth anything for.

You don’t operate on one dimension alone. I’d argue the american adventure is the highest quality attraction in all of epcot. Why isn’t it then the one pulling the highest demand?

When you're looking at opinions we do have quantifiable bits of information at our disposal. Touring Plans keeps demographic numbers from their reviews and while certainly not perfect, they are valuable pieces of data at assessing attraction quality.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Do your ideas of whats something successful or not only apply go the last 15yrs? What is relevant about that to the discussion about success or not?




You think buying into franchises started with wwohp? Come on…

Even when we look at the worst of blatant slap-ipon-it for disney it goes back to the 80s/90s of Disneyland.

The power of licensing goes back over 100yrs.

This mentality of trusting the value add of familiar is not unique to iger theme parks.

The 15 year window (more like 17 years) is to put us at the beginning of Iger's first term. That's the relevance here.

During the first few years under Iger the perception was that the theme park market, especially in Central Florida was mature and the need to invest was limited. Then Universal built the first stateside land devoted entirely to a specific movie based IP and Disney realized there was room for growth. The problem is the parks were headed by money people (Jay Rasulo and then Tom Staggs) and Iger himself wasn't a parks guy either. They didn't fully understand the lessons they should have learned from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

There are absolutely movies that lend themselves to theme park lands and attractions both in terms of world building and popularity of the IP. Disney has done a decent job in picking those IPs including some questionable decisions that worked out (Pandora, Cars) in part because of execution.

My objection to IP integration is not the purpose built lands, but shoehorning IP in potentially questionable places. That's primarily EPCOT and DAK.

If I had a vote, I would say the following for EPCOT:

• Frozen doesn't belong in EPCOT, it belongs in Fantasyland. Story wise, they made more of an effort on the Meet and Greet than the ride. Maelstrom wasn't sacred but World Showcase and the Frozen franchise deserved more than what we got in WDW.
• Coco is one of the few IPs that does work in EPCOT, why are we discussing putting it in MK?
• Ratatouille could have used a few tweeks to make it better fit in the France Pavilion but it's not a hill I'm going to die on
• Harmonious' concept was fine but there was no unifying thread to tie together what they were doing. Also, barges.
• The Seas with Nemo and Friends needed a different story to fit in EPCOT (Example, Mr. Ray is giving the kids a tour of the ocean). Turtle Talk absolutely makes sense for that park. Both Turtle Talk and the Mr. Ray hypothetical attraction could fit in DAK.
• Gran Fiesta Tour slaps characters into an environment but they don't add any cultural value, just familiarity value.
• Moana Journey of Water isn't a great fit. But that's more to do with them deciding they want another land devoted to nature that isn't in DAK. If that's the decision for EPCOT's future, so be it.
• Guardians isn't a great fit, but it's not as bad as some make it out to be. I know a franchise with a talking tree and mechanized raccoon is already a leap for some people, but the presence of a Celestial in the attraction is really my biggest objection.

For DAK:

• I was consistently in the wait and see camp for Pandora, and I think they absolutely blended that IP into the park seamlessly.
• The proper story treatment for Moana could work, but I don't see why dinosaurs should go away.
• The themes of Zootopia aren't consistent with the themes of DAK. The only way I'd accept Zootopia in that park is if they largely ignored the themes of the movie and used the characters in a way that's more consistent with DAK's theming. This could be a tour of the Earth's biomes or something that doesn't focus on animals in clothes telling human stories.

 

[RSoxNo1]

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.

We've seen this in non-castle parks and it always reverts back to adding more characters. EPCOT had characters almost immediately, Tokyo DisneySea had hints of characters but added more rather quickly. DAK largely had characters from the beginning.

Despite what may seem like arguments to the contrary, Disney parks absolutely unequivocally need characters and IP. The expectation exists. What they also need are general enough themes whereby the addition of new IP be it original to the park or movie based can be done seamlessly and logically. It's that last part that has proven difficult.

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).

No IP was one of the many issues with DCA 1.0.

 

[Jrb1979]

The 15 year window (more like 17 years) is to put us at the beginning of Iger's first term. That's the relevance here.

During the first few years under Iger the perception was that the theme park market, especially in Central Florida was mature and the need to invest was limited. Then Universal built the first stateside land devoted entirely to a specific movie based IP and Disney realized there was room for growth. The problem is the parks were headed by money people (Jay Rasulo and then Tom Staggs) and Iger himself wasn't a parks guy either. They didn't fully understand the lessons they should have learned from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

There are absolutely movies that lend themselves to theme park lands and attractions both in terms of world building and popularity of the IP. Disney has done a decent job in picking those IPs including some questionable decisions that worked out (Pandora, Cars) in part because of execution.

My objection to IP integration is not the purpose built lands, but shoehorning IP in potentially questionable places. That's primarily EPCOT and DAK.

If I had a vote, I would say the following for EPCOT:

• Frozen doesn't belong in EPCOT, it belongs in Fantasyland. Story wise, they made more of an effort on the Meet and Greet than the ride. Maelstrom wasn't sacred but World Showcase and the Frozen franchise deserved more than what we got in WDW.
• Coco is one of the few IPs that does work in EPCOT, why are we discussing putting it in MK?
• Ratatouille could have used a few tweeks to make it better fit in the France Pavilion but it's not a hill I'm going to die on
• Harmonious' concept was fine but there was no unifying thread to tie together what they were doing. Also, barges.
• The Seas with Nemo and Friends needed a different story to fit in EPCOT (Example, Mr. Ray is giving the kids a tour of the ocean). Turtle Talk absolutely makes sense for that park. Both Turtle Talk and the Mr. Ray hypothetical attraction could fit in DAK.
• Gran Fiesta Tour slaps characters into an environment but they don't add any cultural value, just familiarity value.
• Moana Journey of Water isn't a great fit. But that's more to do with them deciding they want another land devoted to nature that isn't in DAK. If that's the decision for EPCOT's future, so be it.
• Guardians isn't a great fit, but it's not as bad as some make it out to be. I know a franchise with a talking tree and mechanized raccoon is already a leap for some people, but the presence of a Celestial in the attraction is really my biggest objection.

For DAK:

• I was consistently in the wait and see camp for Pandora, and I think they absolutely blended that IP into the park seamlessly.
• The proper story treatment for Moana could work, but I don't see why dinosaurs should go away.
• The themes of Zootopia aren't consistent with the themes of DAK. The only way I'd accept Zootopia in that park is if they largely ignored the themes of the movie and used the characters in a way that's more consistent with DAK's theming. This could be a tour of the Earth's biomes or something that doesn't focus on animals in clothes telling human stories.

You said it perfectly. That IMO is where a lot of disconnect in this thread comes from. A lot of it to is for many they don't care, like @JD80 and @flynnibus. They just want IP.

 

[el_super]

As I have mentioned before, we have plenty of proof that original attractions are just as successful

No we don't. That's been the objection to this discussion since I chimed in. You can have a preference for original attractions, you can admit that both have their place, but specifically to what Iger said, we have no proof it was incorrect.

 

[BlakeW39]

We've seen this in non-castle parks and it always reverts back to adding more characters. EPCOT had characters almost immediately, Tokyo DisneySea had hints of characters but added more rather quickly. DAK largely had characters from the beginning.

Despite what may seem like arguments to the contrary, Disney parks absolutely unequivocally need characters and IP. The expectation exists. What they also need are general enough themes whereby the addition of new IP be it original to the park or movie based can be done seamlessly and logically. It's that last part that has proven difficult.

There is 100% the expectation that Disney IP/characters should exist in Disney parks. That's not the issue here. The problem is that Disney parks shouldn't be exclusively Disney IP/characters. I think this is a fairly simple point that most people should be able to agree on. The problem isn't IP in the parks. The problem is only IP in the parks.

No IP was one of the many issues with DCA 1.0.

Excuse my ignorance but, how little IP was there on opening day? Surely the characters were present.

 

[BlakeW39]

No we don't. That's been the objection to this discussion since I chimed in. You can have a preference for original attractions, you can admit that both have their place, but specifically to what Iger said, we have no proof it was incorrect.

Yes we do. There are literally original attractions that exist in the parks today that have remained successful for, in some cases, more than half a century.

 

[flynnibus]

DAK received a significant spike from Everest and then became the #2 park in Florida after Pandora. It's attendance is absolutely relevant in exactly the same way IoA's attendance is relevant.

You're not getting what I'm trying to highlight. DAK attendance boost is not the same as boosting WDW attendance, nor IOA attendance for that matter. DAK was in a situation where as part of WDW it was severely underutilized. In terms of WDW days from guests, it was getting far less. Example: Imagine a guest on a 4 day trip. They may choose to spend 1 day at each park, and spend an extra day at MK. Or many wouldn't invest in seeing DAK at all... instead spending their days at other parks.

When Everest boosted DAK attendance... did people add more days at WDW? Or did they shift how they spent their time at WDW? Just looking at DAK estimated attendance does not tell you that. In the WDW and USO landscape, DAK was not on the same footing as it's peers. This under utilization basically was a void. When the attractions with demand were added, attendance can SHIFT to DAK without specifically increasing actual WDW guest counts. How much is a realignment of guest days vs WDW attendance boost you can not tell from simple DAK attendance estimates.

Second, you have the skewing that happens when you compare percentages between two unequal sized things. 5% attendance boost at a park having 5mil guests is not the same as 5% boost at a park with 10mil guests. So when Blake tries to directly compare percentage boosts between different parks of different sizes... that's just bad math. You should be comparing counts - not percentages. Third, when you view growth as a percentage... growing something small by X percent is far easier than growing something big by the same percentage. Again, comparing percentages as a 1:1 comparison of success between different things is just bad math.

The whole comparison of attraction success using park attendance boosts by percentage is just so fundamentally broke it's meaningless.

When you're looking at opinions we do have quantifiable bits of information at our disposal. Touring Plans keeps demographic numbers from their reviews and while certainly not perfect, they are valuable pieces of data at assessing attraction quality.

But you're talking about different things. Survey's of customer sat opinions is not the same as 'assessing attraction quality'. One is a measure of subjective acceptance -- the other is an assessment of the attraction that can be completely independent of how well it is received by the market. You can have the highest quality attraction focused on early beathoven music.. it doesn't mean it will get high review scores from random guests.

You are basically interchanging 'quality' with 'broad success' - They can overlap but they are not interchangable. Quality is typically is a present element of these successes, but quality alone does not bring success with the market.

That's why I said in the other post - these elements do not operate in isolation. You can't just hone on one and say "just focus on doing that" -- That alone won't get you to the promised land.

 

[el_super]

Excuse my ignorance but, how little IP was there on opening day? Surely the characters were present.

There were DCA specific versions of the fab five meeting in the Sunshine Plaza, and the Steps in Time theater show, which utilized Disney IP. They had 'tough to be a bug' from opening, and also Muppets. They also had ABC Soap Opera Bistro at opening.

Yes we do. There are literally original attractions that exist in the parks today that have remained successful for, in some cases, more than half a century.

That's a different argument isn't it? I thought we were arguing if these original attractions would work if they were developed and built today. Iger and McCarthy are insisting that their focus needs to be building IP today, and that's what some were objecting to ... no?

 

[RSoxNo1]

There is 100% the expectation that Disney IP/characters should exist in Disney parks. That's not the issue here. The problem is that Disney parks shouldn't be exclusively Disney IP/characters. I think this is a fairly simply point that most people should be able to agree on. The problem isn't IP in the parks. Thr problem is only IP in the parks.



Excuse my ignorance but, how little IP was there on opening day? Surely the characters were present.

They were largely across the street. There was next to nothing on day 1.