Disney(World) vs. Disney(land)?

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Why would they love having to convince people why Star Tours is better than Simpsons? Or Muppets is better than Shrek? 'Better' is subjective and can be hard to explain or convince. That means slow, expensive, inefficient, and often ineffective. Differentiation creates clear and easy to see gaps. The same way Disney doesn't really compete with regional parks on the same field.. NextGen is to try to create that kind of separation between Disney and competitors in what the theme park experience encompasses.

Moves like this are about the LONG HAUL - not about how good FJ is or not.
Their business decisions are affecting the actual attraction level compared to their competition. Having said that, I would say that Star Tours and Muppets are better than Simpsons and Shrek.

Look at the advertising campaigns going on right now between the two competitors though. Disney is pushing the "experience" of being there, whereas Universal is really pushing their unique attractions.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Look at the advertising campaigns going on right now between the two competitors though. Disney is pushing the "experience" of being there, whereas Universal is really pushing their unique attractions.

One can argue that's also the same model used by your regional park.. which sucks them into the model of 'we must add something every season or there is no reason for people to return...'

I'm not saying that's what's going to happen to Uni.. but to highlight there are different ways to position your product and what you sell.. and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I don't put any weight into park vs park attendance numbers especially when the numbers are 'estimates' and not from the parks themselves.

What really matters is unique visitors... park hopping is a secondary measure.. and which park they prefer is again another metric, but not the defining one.. especially when not taken into context with park hopping. The ability and take-up rate on selling park hoppers or additional days is what is important to Uni, and you can't draw any conclusions on those things from simple TEA attendance reports.

Uneven boosts in IOA vs USF can simply be due to perks of going there first in the day.. That's why one must not read too much into those attendance reports. They aren't indicative of the real measures that count.
 

culturenthrills

Well-Known Member
I don't put any weight into park vs park attendance numbers especially when the numbers are 'estimates' and not from the parks themselves.

What really matters is unique visitors... park hopping is a secondary measure.. and which park they prefer is again another metric, but not the defining one.. especially when not taken into context with park hopping. The ability and take-up rate on selling park hoppers or additional days is what is important to Uni, and you can't draw any conclusions on those things from simple TEA attendance reports.

Uneven boosts in IOA vs USF can simply be due to perks of going there first in the day.. That's why one must not read too much into those attendance reports. They aren't indicative of the real measures that count.
It is not just attendance. It is guest spending. Where wdw seems to keep making their stores and merchandise more generic throughout wdw universal is going in the opposite direction. They have seen the success of the unique retail in HP and are adding it throughout the parks. The sponge bob store, the large selection of merchandise in the Despicable Me gift shop and now they are gonna redo the shop/restaurant next to the Simpsons to a more themed experience. They are just using Disney's old Playbook. If you give people a unique and high quality experience they will spend money. They are upping the ante. They have seen what HP did and they are going thru both parks and upping the experience in different ways.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Steve Burke, the CEO of NBCUni, who worked for Disney in the 80's and 90's. The guy who ran EuroDisney after it was restructured. The guy who LEFT Disney because of Eisner's attitude towards him despite his successes.
Yeah... that guy.

Folks on here need to read DisneyWar!!

I really do need to read DisneyWar. I have said to myself repeatedly, most recently at the start of this summer. It was going to be one of my beach books this summer, and I got a few other books instead. Doh!

I'm going to Amazon right now to get it. It can be my autumn book, for when it cools off enough for the fireplace and reading by the hearth in a month or two.

Thanks for the reminder!
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
I really do need to read DisneyWar. I have said to myself repeatedly, most recently at the start of this summer. It was going to be one of my beach books this summer, and I got a few other books instead. Doh!

I'm going to Amazon right now to get it. It can be my autumn book, for when it cools off enough for the fireplace and reading by the hearth in a month or two.

Thanks for the reminder!
No problem!
 

Cosmic Commando

Well-Known Member
I really do need to read DisneyWar. I have said to myself repeatedly, most recently at the start of this summer. It was going to be one of my beach books this summer, and I got a few other books instead. Doh!

I'm going to Amazon right now to get it. It can be my autumn book, for when it cools off enough for the fireplace and reading by the hearth in a month or two.

Thanks for the reminder!
The prologue is dynamite and then it took me a while to get into, but when the dominoes start falling... fascinating book!
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Why would they love having to convince people why Star Tours is better than Simpsons? Or Muppets is better than Shrek? 'Better' is subjective and can be hard to explain or convince. That means slow, expensive, inefficient, and often ineffective. Differentiation creates clear and easy to see gaps. The same way Disney doesn't really compete with regional parks on the same field.. NextGen is to try to create that kind of separation between Disney and competitors in what the theme park experience encompasses.

Moves like this are about the LONG HAUL - not about how good FJ is or not.

Yes, but as has been said, that separation is mostly in statistics and data mining. Disney has always been doing it, but now they are taking it one step further. The entire "NextGen" initiative is around that core idea; things like talking characters saying your name or Fast Pass + are ancillary little projects compared to the true reason they are spending a billion bucks on this.

To expand on what RSoxNo1 was saying, we aren't talking "Star Tours" vs. "Simpsons" (though, like RSox, I'd pick Star tours myself). It's more like WWOHP against ANYTHING Disney has done in a decade or two. The closest is Everest - and we all know what a sad story that is (and getting sadder).

Basically, it boils down to this : what is going to impress people more? If they had spent one billion dollars on four new amazing E-ticket attractions, one for each park - or FastPass +, especially when that and the characters-knowing-your-name thing (which, has it actually happened? I know it was a concept, but did it ever come to fruition?) can be done by other means (ET has been saying names at Universal for 20 years), especially since so much of it seems it will only be for those who stay on property, unlike new attractions which anyone could experience.

As to the long haul, well, we all lived through the 00's - where Spiderman was crowned the best theme park ride in the world by many sources, and Disney had almost a decade to top it before Universal topped themselves with WWOHP. And Disney gave us SGE, Laff Floor, and Disco Yeti.

I think the reason many of us feel the way we do was because when we were growing up Disney was unquestionably King, the only theme parks that had amazing, immersive experiences. They didn't only do it better than anyone else, they were the only ones doing it, really. And now, not only is Disney not doing it (though Mermaid is a step back in the right direction), but they are letting someone else do it much, much better.

This isn't new, it's been how it has been for the last dozen years or so, and unfortunately, as much as I anticipate New Fantasyland, I just don't see it changing any time soon. They haven't even built an E-ticket since Disco Yeti, nor are any on the immediate horizon. Instead, they are more likely trying to find another lame, cheap show to tie in to they can replace American Idol with, or how they can cut costs by homogenizing napkins and paper cups. The only thing they are spending really big money on is a new way to track you, your purchases, and behavior, so they can find ways to entice you to buy more Duffy the Bear dolls.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Yes, but as has been said, that separation is mostly in statistics and data mining

No, those are benefits Disney gets from it - but are not part of the 'experience' per say that guests will see that is part of the story to create the differentiation. Those are more of the intermediate gains.. not end games.

An area where they overlap would be something like... suggested buying or helping you find something based on your data. But where the pitch would be in terms of the customer experience is more along the lines of the personalized booking, shows, integrated billing, etc all the things that are enabled from the technology.

Imagine as a parent (or lost child), being able to walk up to a kiosk in the park, swipe your ID, and see the last known location of everyone in your party...

These are all kinds of new vacation experience things Disney will be able to do FOR THE GUEST. Yes, there are massive benefits Disney will get on the backside as well... but all of this is to alter the theme park and vacation experience first. The point isn't just 'data savvy Disney' but DIFFERENTIATED Disney. People are being way too shortsighted in how Disney will be able to manipulate this integrated platform they are building to be able to touch so many different aspects of a vacation. From the show itself, to customer service, to personalized services, there is massive potential... and Disney aims to stand-alone in being able to deliver these experiences.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
One can argue that's also the same model used by your regional park.. which sucks them into the model of 'we must add something every season or there is no reason for people to return...'

I'm not saying that's what's going to happen to Uni.. but to highlight there are different ways to position your product and what you sell.. and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Right, but at the same time, Disney was puzzled why Star Tours wasn't a bigger hit in DHS. They forgot to tell people about it. Comparitively in Disneyland they ran a campaign throughout California for the same ride with 50% less capacity in a park that accommodates 65% more people. It's going to look substantially better in California.
The biggest problem at Uni right now is USF attendance. USF has increased attendance by 9% in 2 years, a number TDO would be ecstatic with. However, IOA attendance skyrocketed 67%, probably heading up even more this year. IOA's attendance is now 27% more than USF even though the 2 parks are within walking distance of each other. Uni's move is largely designed to improve USF attendance. Having the 2 parks connected by Hogwart's Express is a great business strategy. It's sure to sell more hopper tickets and keep people at Uni longer.

I'm fairly certain Uni will slow down expansion once WWOHP2 & Transformers are realized.
Except Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit's timeline fits in nicely right after Potter.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Right, but at the same time, Disney was puzzled why Star Tours wasn't a bigger hit in DHS. They forgot to tell people about it. Comparitively in Disneyland they ran a campaign throughout California for the same ride with 50% less capacity in a park that accommodates 65% more people. It's going to look substantially better in California.

The same billboards you saw in Cali -you saw in FL too. The same outside the park posters, you would see in both parks. They both had prominent placement on the web. FL even had a traveling show hitting malls to introduce the relaunch.

But beyond that.. I don't see where this is going.

You asked where Disney is taking this.. and the answer is to alter what the theme park experience is. And yes they can market on abstractions and not just 'here is new attraction #1' as marketing campaigns. The 'advertise your new ride' is not the only way one markets a product. Just look at brands like Coke, McDonalds, etc.. they are marketing a brand and slogans more than they are individual products. Disney will ultimately start marketing with notions like 'here is what vacationing can be like.. no lines.. one key to rule them all.. your favorite characters knowing you by name..' -- not 'Come see FP+ and our new RFID!!!'
 

scpergj

Well-Known Member
I'm interested in your opinion. Do you think Uni will continue to expand & retheme lands? It's an interesting idea and I suspect it could happen if a business case for it exists. However, once WWOHP2 & Transformers opens in USF, will something like a Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit's land be able to draw in sufficient additional crowds to justify itself financially?

Don't know about anyone else, but it - in combination with Harry Potter - would bring my family into the parks at least once a year, maybe even get us to purchase an annual pass.
 

Beholder

Well-Known Member
Right, but at the same time, Disney was puzzled why Star Tours wasn't a bigger hit in DHS. They forgot to tell people about it. Comparitively in Disneyland they ran a campaign throughout California for the same ride with 50% less capacity in a park that accommodates 65% more people. It's going to look substantially better in California
Except Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit's timeline fits in nicely right after
Potter.


Would Universal invest in a property like LOTR/Hobbit, something that has so many genre related themes? Magic, wizards, mythological creatures, all in a fantasy setting? Just wondering. Seems a little redundant on their part to have two properties covering much of the same territory. I'd LOVE to see any of Tolkien's works represented, but being biased, I'd like this in a Disney park.
 

nytimez

Well-Known Member
Would Universal invest in a property like LOTR/Hobbit, something that has so many genre related themes? Magic, wizards, mythological creatures, all in a fantasy setting? Just wondering. Seems a little redundant on their part to have two properties covering much of the same territory. I'd LOVE to see any of Tolkien's works represented, but being biased, I'd like this in a Disney park.

I don't know what Universal's plans are, but I did take a "blue sky" survey from them a couple of years ago that asked specifically about a LoTR land.

Why they'd do it? Consider this: They've increased attendance. They're creating more hotel space. The next challenge is to get the people who are coming to stay longer. Potter Phase II will help with that. And since now they know they're drawing people who already love magic, wizards and mythological creatures, a LoTR-based land would further help to get them to stay longer.

This is opinion; I don't have any info beyond an old survey that would lead me to believe that are truly considering adding a LoTR land.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
The same billboards you saw in Cali -you saw in FL too. The same outside the park posters, you would see in both parks. They both had prominent placement on the web. FL even had a traveling show hitting malls to introduce the relaunch.

But beyond that.. I don't see where this is going.

You asked where Disney is taking this.. and the answer is to alter what the theme park experience is. And yes they can market on abstractions and not just 'here is new attraction #1' as marketing campaigns. The 'advertise your new ride' is not the only way one markets a product. Just look at brands like Coke, McDonalds, etc.. they are marketing a brand and slogans more than they are individual products. Disney will ultimately start marketing with notions like 'here is what vacationing can be like.. no lines.. one key to rule them all.. your favorite characters knowing you by name..' -- not 'Come see FP+ and our new RFID!!!'
I couldn't see any of that from my house. Disney's television marketing in my area shows things like the teacups and other B ticket outdoor attractions. The focus is on the "Magic" and not the attractions.

People don't just accidently drive to Florida, see a Star Tours Billboard and elect to go to Hollywood Studios. People weren't unaware of it in the New England area, and presumably other areas of the country as well.

In short, more people knew about The Wizarding World of Harry Potter going into a park and a resort that has a lower attendance than DHS.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
I'm interested in your opinion. Do you think Uni will continue to expand & retheme lands? It's an interesting idea and I suspect it could happen if a business case for it exists. However, once WWOHP2 & Transformers opens in USF, will something like a Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit's land be able to draw in sufficient additional crowds to justify itself financially?
The rumor is that Toon Lagoon (not the two rides, but the rest of it, on the Marvel Super Hero Islands side, would be the location for Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit.
 

Beholder

Well-Known Member
I don't know what Universal's plans are, but I did take a "blue sky" survey from them a couple of years ago that asked specifically about a LoTR land.

Why they'd do it? Consider this: They've
increased attendance. They're creating more
hotel space. The next challenge is to get the
people who are coming to stay longer. Potter
Phase II will help with that. And since now they
know they're drawing people who already love
magic, wizards and mythological creatures, a
LoTR-based land would further help to get them
to stay longer.


This is opinion; I don't have any info beyond an
old survey that would lead me to believe that
are truly considering adding a LoTR land.


I understand the business end of it, but I was wondering about the "danger" of saturating a park with a particular genre. HP, HP 2, Sinbad, the Mummy, and perhaps LOTR. I love Fantasy based concepts, but could it overshadow the rest of the park? I'm not playing devils advocate, I'm just genuinely curious. Also understand, that if it were up to me, Tolkien would get an entire theme park.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
I haven't heard this before. Is that something recent or am I just out of the loop?
Jim Hill has been talking about Lord of the Rings for a while. I guess Peter Jackson has the rights from the Tolkien estate and is looking to offer up the Harry Potter type package (set designers from the movies, etc), but only after The Hobbit movies are done.
 

nytimez

Well-Known Member
Jim Hill has been talking about Lord of the Rings for a while. I guess Peter Jackson has the rights from the Tolkien estate and is looking to offer up the Harry Potter type package (set designers from the movies, etc), but only after The Hobbit movies are done.

I don't think Jackson has any of the rights at all. They're owned by Saul Zeantz, the guy who once sued John Fogerty for sounding too much like himself (after Zeantz bought all the rights to all the early Creedence music). Not, from what I understand, the easiest man in the world to deal with.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom