Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Never said or implied as such.
Edit to add: Just because someone doesn't experience or think about think about theme parks the same way as you do, doesn't mean they don't like them.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney plus Imagineering
- Thread starter blocker.shane
- Start date
Never said or implied as such.
Edit to add: Just because someone doesn't experience or think about think about theme parks the same way as you do, doesn't mean they don't like them.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
“My point is that for many though, the theme park is not the draw.”
So these people like theme parks, it’s just not the reason they go to theme parks? Yeah, that makes even more sense...
TROR
Well-Known Member
And by having the first episodes be clearly honest, the audience assumes the rest are as well...
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
The reason Disney and Universal have such higher attendance numbers in relation to the competition is the IP associated with their companies. Without it, the numbers would fall much closer to the rest of the pack.
Tony Baxter has said as much as he pushed to get Star Wars into the park as the IP in Disneyland was stagnant and not resonating with the public at the time.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Utter bullocks. Plenty of parks and experiences have been associated with popular IP that didn’t do anything for their attendance. Disney dominated attendance well before the franchise mandate. EPCOT Center didn’t lag well behind in attendance. Six Flags attendance didn’t surge with hype for The Dark Knight.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Disneyland and Universal Studios are also tourist traps. They are know though out the world. Someone in Kansas has never heard of Knotts.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Hmmm I wonder why they are so well known.
I'm sure Universal Parks and Resorts doubling their attendance in a decade had nothing to do with a certain boy wizard.
Please explain how Disney IP has nothing to do with their high attendance numbers. That it doesn't influence anyone into choosing Disneyland over another theme park. I'm sure Disney execs would appreciate finding out they don't know what they are doing and have been all wrong about their strategy.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The decades where Disney dominated attendance without focusing on IP or operating under a franchise mandate... Expedition Everest was a better return on investment than anything Iger has approved.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Disneyland attendance stagnated for decades. After a brief uptick for the 30th it took an infusion of IP that Disney didn't own at the time for attendance to rise.
Prove EE is a better ROI than anything Iger has approved. What do the financials say?
Disney didn't invest much in Orlando for 2 decades. The parks were stagnate until Universal blew that wide open. I'm not sure we can return to that era. Universal EPIC will arrive soon. Disney had better be ready.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Just compare the cost of Everest and what it did. Despite these IPs that are the “real” draw, Disney is spending more and more to attract each new dollar and guest.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
So as I thought. You are guessing.
I would imagine DCA 2.0 was more significant considering the financial situation it was in. Even though Pandora cost more the percentage increase in attendance was nearly double that of EE. Also there is this. When EE debuted, the other parks at WDW also went up. When Pandora debuted MK and DHS were flat. Epcot gained thanks to a Frozen Ever After bump, but not the other parks. Try and convince me that all of WDW went up in 2006 due solely EE opening. Something tells me there are other factors at play as to why all of WDW went up that year. It's a non descript coaster after all.
IP doesn’t cost Disney any additional money. They already own a lot. Everest has that expensive Yeti that doesn’t work. Most of the ride is in the dark. IP has more merchandise opportunities since more people know what it is. ROI should be measured against many elements, not just the cost to build it.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
As much as we only want to talk about the parks, this is an entire Eco system of brand integration. Shanghai Disneyland for example was not built purely to make money off of the resort. It is as much or more about a way into mainland China for merchandise and film/TV.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Wow... you've just been promoted to head revisionist. Stagnant for decades? The park attendance climbed steadily from opening all the way through to the early 80s.. when it finally hit a snag. Climbing even through the stagnant 70s that saw Disney's style falling from favor. The only thing 'stagnant' was the park itself!
By the 80s, we entered a new generational of GenX that hadn't grown up the same as the generation before.. and Disney as a whole brand was stagnant and seen as 'old fashioned' and out of date. That's why we had the whole kurfuffel with the Ron Miller era. This wasn't a lack of IP in the parks - it was a complete cultural collapse of WDP as they floundered in the 'WWWD' years of the 70s and even when they tried to fix it, were failing.
People do not dismiss the importance of IP in attracting guests... but your postualation that it's the ONLY differentiating factor and why people come to the parks is absolutely absurd. You are taking some anecdotal comments and completely misinterpreting them.
Then add in the correlation does not mean causation elements you've mashed in as well. The idea the parks would drop to six flags levels without the popular IP has got to be the richest thing I've ever read in these forums. Congrats... you've even topped jt.
