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

[RSoxNo1]

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.


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.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but I don't believe there was significant attrition / cannibalization when Everest and Pandora opened. There was a disproportionate amount of growth for DAK in both cases.

As for the customer opinions it's a means of measuring quality on the heals of you mentioning American Adventure.

I also think this portion of the conversation has moved far beyond the original intent of don't force IP where it doesn't belong.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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.

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

Which goes to show that it's about finding the right balance, not doing only IP or none at all.

I can't imagine many people saying having 'Soarin in DCA is a bad thing. It's an original attraction Disney was able to subsequently use in multiple other parks. Taking those creative risks can pay off.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

But it's not relevant to what makes an attraction successful or not. It's just picking a limited perspective to fit a predetermined point you're trying to make -- about Iger's direction. It's not inclusive of the whole picture, nor is it even a distinction the parties that matter (the guests) actually differentiate with.

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

I think you're blurring discussions. The attitude of the market being mature is not really tied to the discussion over what kind of attraction content you are choosing to build around. It is much more a business minded approach to returns and the belief about market saturation. To go all the way back to the blue ocean discussions of the time.. it's a strategy that basically argues diminishing returns and you should instead focus on open turf that isn't as contested. More upside, better margins, etc.

It was a belief about the product they had built and the market for it... not about original content vs IP usage within that product.

I think the big take away from WWOHP was two fold:

1) What Mel Brooks had already joked about before... but WWOHP illustrated just how the right property done right would not just be an additive... but a game changer

Merchandising. Disney may have invented exit through the gift shop... but WWOHP opened everyone's eyes to just what it meant to truly blend the attraction and merchandise experience.

2) That "going big" on a concept and not just baby steps was a risk worthy of taking. Don't open Star Tours and leave it... go for planet killer and open a whole land. Of course UNI is now going to test just how far you can take that with it's 3rd HP space and experiences like Super Mario... so we'll see how often you can keep going back to that well.

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.

The irony is both I think were largely lauded by online fan experts at the time. Everyone complaining the franchises were no longer relevant, didn't fit, etc.

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

I think missing from the discussion is the point that many of these changes that put people off aren't necessarily just that it's IP or not, it's that the attraction(s) are challenging, conflicting, or slowly changing the identity of the larger park. Take Grand Fiesta for instance, the character overlay didn't really change the spirit or role of the ride in the pavilion or EPCOT. But when you take something like Cosmic Rewind... it clashes not so much because of IP... but because it clashes with the mission and vision laid out for EPCOT. You can simplify that to 'shoehorning' -- but I think what resonates the strongest with hardcore fans is seeing parks lose their identity and connecting tissue. I think that is more worrisome than questioning 'what does donald have to do with a drink stand?'.

 

[BlakeW39]

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.

Thanks. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that is a similar amount to DAK no? Characters and IP exist, but the majority of attractions are not based on movies. So if the primary reason as to why DCA failed was a lack of IP..... why didn't the same issue cause problems in DAK? It's no more "Disney" right now than it ever was.

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?

Well I was just making the simple point that original attractions can be successful. Since there are original attractions currently in the park that are currently successful, I think that reflects the idea that original attractions currently have the potential to succeed.

 

[BlakeW39]

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

Fair enough, then that's an issue for sure. Disney IP is a huge reason for why people visit Disney Parks. But that doesn't justify only basing additions to the parks on popular movie franchises, IMO.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

I don't 'just want IP'

I recognize what IP brings and why businesses use it - instead of holding to ideals and trying to back them with math or comparisons that don't work. I don't make claims like believing a work of art would be as good as it is if you just erased half of it and replaced it with something else. I don't ignore the reality that businesses are trying to predict the future, guests they don't really control and what that does to their decision process.

I acknowledge that this reliance on familiar is not a tactic unique to Disney management - but is a product tool used throughout consumer marketing.

I also don't believe companies would continue to throw money away for decades (and have others copy them) if a strategy wasn't delivering on it's goals.

(as an aside, my other main hobby is Pinball. Guess what the most recurring argument is? People wanting original themes instead of licensed titles... because we had renaissance era games from the 90s that were so good and original... while today almost every title is a licensed property)

I also recognize the difference between management wanting IP inclusion and claiming you are 'banning non IP work'.

I also believe success and longevity is a function of multiple elements - not just if something is franchise tied or not. So trying to compare purely on franchise use or not is just dumb. For every BTMRR... we have a circlevision or America Sings too.

I think attractions like Soarin over California were some of the hallmarks of Disney's willingness to be bold and and unique.. and created a masterpiece for a family theme park. And am saddened when they ruin it by failing to recognize what made it powerful.

I think creating masterful theme parks is far more involved than just bemoaning if franchise material is used or not.

 

[Kamikaze]

Thanks. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that is a similar amount to DAK no? Characters and IP exist, but the majority of attractions are not based on movies. So if the primary reason as to why DCA failed was a lack of IP..... why didn't same issue cause problems in DAK? It's no more "Disney" right now than it ever was.

The primary reason DCA 1.0 failed was because Californians didn't want to go to a crappy version of California while in California.

And there is definitely more IP in DAK than at open. Pandora is the obvious example.

 

[BlakeW39]

The primary reason DCA 1.0 failed was because Californians didn't want to go to a crappy version of California while in California.

And there is definitely more IP in DAK than at open. Pandora is the obvious example.

Agreed

I said DAK isn't any more "Disney" than it was at opening, not that it didn't have more IP. Although I would go as far to say that the main draw of Pandora was the scale and quality of the land, not Avatar as an IP. I think a similar scale land that was based on original IP could have been popular as well

 

[Kamikaze]

Agreed

I said DAK isn't any more "Disney" than it was at opening, not that it didn't have more IP. Although I would go as far to say that the main draw of Pandora was the scale and quality of the land, not Avatar as an IP. I think a similar scale land that was original could have also potentially been popular as well

Like it or not, the properties that they buy ARE Disney.

 

[BlakeW39]

Like it or not, the properties that they buy ARE Disney.

I don't like it or dislike it, but the average person doesn't know about the FOX deal nor associate Avatar with the brand identity of Disney. When someone asks for more "Disney" in the parks, they almost certainly mean WDAS, not Avatar or any of the recent FOX acquisitions.

 

[Kamikaze]

I don't like it or dislike it, but the average person doesn't know about the FOX deal nor associate Avatar with the brand identity of Disney. When someone asks for more "Disney" in the parks, they almost certainly mean WDAS, not Avatar or any of the recent FOX acquisitions.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think theres many people that don't associate their major acquisitions with Disney at this point.

Avatar, sure I can see someone not making the connection - because no one really cares, but Marvel, Pixar, Lucas are all Disney to 'the public'.

 

[JD80]

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 personally (and I think many would agree) don't really care if it's existing IP vs. original park only IP as long as the ride is fun and awesome. The argument comes from a corporate point of view, not an individual one. When the company is investing hundreds of millions in a project from inception to design to shovels in the ground to marketing - it's less risky to go with a popular IP as a baseline than it is to come up with something unknown. This is why Disney is leaning on IP. They have already spent MILLIONS on the IP in other areas. It's market tested and proved through movie sales, merch/toy sales to TV/Streaming ratings etc. It's incredibly smart to build park infrastructure off all that completed work.

I hope that makes sense.

This is not a Zootopia in AK conversation because that is a legit argument to make about specific IP in specific areas. My argument is more broad.

 

[BlakeW39]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think theres many people that don't associate their major acquisitions with Disney at this point.

Avatar, sure I can see someone not making the connection - because no one really cares, but Marvel, Pixar, Lucas are all Disney to 'the public'.

I think much of the general public does associate Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar with Disney. But we're not discussing that. We're talking about Avatar. I do not think Avatar is commonly associated with The Walt Disney Company.

 

[JD80]

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.

I chuckled to myself when I made that list, Tron may as well be an original park IP with how niche it is in the cultural zeitgeist.

 

[JD80]

AK increased its attendance by 8.6% from 2005 to 2006 and 6.5% from 2006 to 2007. (Everest)
AK attendance dropped by -0.7% in 2016 compared to 2015
AK attendance increased by 15.3% in 2017 compared to 2016 (Pandora)
AK attendance increased by 10% in 2018 compared to 2017 (Pandora)
AK attendance increased by 1% in 2019 compared to 2018 (flattened after Pandora influx)

This is of course ignoring any kind of global economics and any comparison about WDW attendance growth over all (was averaging between 2-5% overall), but comparing IP-less Everest vs. IP centric Pandora is pretty eye opening.

 

[Kamikaze]

I think much of the general public does associate Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar with Disney. But we're not discussing that. We're talking about Avatar. I do not think Avatar is commonly associated with The Walt Disney Company.

Its also the most recent purchase, though. In 5 more years? We'll see.

Avatar - despite the movies making a metric ton of money - doesn't have a large 'fandom' like those other properties do. So the public sentiment on the whole thing is a lot more muted. I think that also works for them because no one talks about how 'Avatar is dead' like they do with Star Wars or Marvel because no one really cares more than to just see the movies.

 

[Kamikaze]

AK increased its attendance by 8.6% from 2005 to 2006 and 6.5% from 2006 to 2007. (Everest)
AK attendance dropped by -0.7% in 2016 compared to 2015
AK attendance increased by 15.3% in 2017 compared to 2016 (Pandora)
AK attendance increased by 10% in 2018 compared to 2017 (Pandora)
AK attendance increased by 1% in 2019 compared to 2018 (flattened after Pandora influx)

This is of course ignoring any kind of global economics and any comparison about WDW attendance growth over all (was averaging between 2-5% overall), but comparing IP-less Everest vs. IP centric Pandora is pretty eye opening.

We have found out that anything new that opens draws huge attendance spikes.

We won't get numbers anymore on the specifics since Disney no longer gives them out, but I bet anything new pushes a significant increase at any park.

 

[Jrb1979]

We have found out that anything new that opens draws huge attendance spikes.

We won't get numbers anymore on the specifics since Disney no longer gives them out, but I bet anything new pushes a significant increase at any park.

Except for Tron so far.

 

[BlakeW39]

Its also the most recent purchase, though. In 5 more years? We'll see.

Avatar - despite the movies making a metric ton of money - doesn't have a large 'fandom' like those other properties do. So the public sentiment on the whole thing is a lot more muted. I think that also works for them because no one talks about how 'Avatar is dead' like they do with Star Wars or Marvel because no one really cares more than to just see the movies.

We have found out that anything new that opens draws huge attendance spikes.

We won't get numbers anymore on the specifics since Disney no longer gives them out, but I bet anything new pushes a significant increase at any park.

Agreed across the board...

I'd assume a new attraction would increase revenue whether it's tied to an IP or not. Not that it isn't easier to base attractions on IP.... obviously it is. Like I said, and this is really paraphrasing something that Joe Rohde said as well, but left unchecked, a corporation will exploit a valuable thing until it has no value left. The IP mandate isn't suprising, it's just dumb and bad for the parks. Disney's an entertainment company, they should have the desire to create new things, not just endlessly leverage their acquired properties until the inevitable point at which everyone is tired of them.

 

[erasure fan1]

I personally (and I think many would agree) don't really care if it's existing IP vs. original park only IP as long as the ride is fun and awesome.

That should be step one for sure. Fun and entertaining will make or break a ride, ip or not. Mermaid didn't benefit from ip. Just like thunder mountain wouldn't benefit from a woody toy story makeover.

It's market tested and proved through movie sales, merch/toy sales to TV/Streaming ratings etc. It's incredibly smart to build park infrastructure off all that completed work.

I'd say yes and no. If they really thought that way, Princess and the frog would not be a thing going to the parks. Or tron for that matter. Now Frozen on the other hand, of course it should be in the parks. But then we get into if they did all the work with Frozen, why shoehorn it in Norway? All the things you mentioned say it should have a much grander attraction. And that's where so much of the ip pushback comes from. It's the inconsistent nature of how Disney uses it.