Disney YOU HAD BETTER START LISTENING...

[WDW1974]

I believe they also monitor for complaints and praise.

Disney monitors these sites for all sorts of reasons. None of them really good or healthy.

They even have posters that they particularly enjoy reading ...:wave:

I didn't say that most guests that visit aren't happy. I'm sure they have a pleasant enough time. What I was saying, referencing the posters comment, was that those that would be content to continue paying admission for the rest of their lives if Disney never added another attraction are in the minority.

The reason there has been an increase in attendance is due to several factors. Disney's marketing campaigns and Pixar's success to name a couple. Mcdonald's is still doing pretty well and they continue to build more units and therefore see an increase in sales. Does that mean they are doing all the right things? Not necessarily. Their food is still lousy (I suppose you could argue that it is not but by every standard, health, quality and kitchen staff it's far inferior to a "real" restaurant) but their marketing is as agressive as ever. The American people will fall for a good marketing campaign every time. So to say that Disney seeing an increase in attendance means that they are building quality attractions isn't necessarity true.

Just like the Mcdonalds example, Disney could serve up absolute rubbish and people will still flock to the parks for a while. The company is mostly relying on the strong brand and characters that have been created by the early Disney and Pixar. But unlike Mcdonalds, WDW is more difficult to frequent. Eventually many of those that enjoy WDW but don't think it's the cat's meow will stop making the effort because there has been nothing in the last ten years to attract them. It will be easier to visit the Jersey Shore or more importantly for the international guests, Tokyo Disney or Disneyland Paris or Dubai. The die hards will continue to frequent but as you know that is a small minority of WDW's market share.

I'm not sure why you say getting upset over lower quality and less product is a waste of time. I might agree if I thought the company wasn't capable and did not have the resources to pull it off. I also might agree if it was simply a matter of budget. Disney is a public company and has the right to invest the least amount possible while delivering an adequite product to increase its margin. The issue is that the product has not been adequite for the last ten years. It has been way below Disney standards set by the company in years prior. The other problem is that most of the time it's outright corruption, ego and poor management. I go into specifics in the other thread but I'll be happy to give more examples if you are interested.

As far as your two categories you can place me in a bit of both. Disney has a rich legacy and can stand for more as it used to. Unfortunately Disney has become very much like most of corporate America: a massive leviathon that is too big to care about its product past the sales numbers. When I worked at WDI I personally knew executives that would not step foot in a Disney theme park because they thought it was beneath them. Hell, my boss didn't realize Walt Disney was a real man until he went through orientation. And these idiots were in charge of new projects! They wouldn't know a good quality attraction from a carnival ride. That doesn't make you mad?

It's because of these things that we don't see attractions that inspire awe anymore. We don't see Haunted Mansions or Indiana Jones rides anymore because Laugh Floor will be good enough. Disney knows that the public will consume almost whatever they throw at them. I can't tell you how many times I heard at WDI, "why go into that much trouble? they'll never notice and it will be good enough without it."

I haven't said much on this thread because you're doing a great job, whylightbulb.

I wish people would just read the above post. Close out all other thoughts. Read it. Let it seep in. Maybe then, some folks will open their minds and realize why some of us are so tough on the Mouse.

Sites like this tend to attract three groups -- the old guard who understands what it was that made Disney, Disney; fanboys/girls who believe Disney has never been better, can do no wrong and can't (or won't let themselves) think that Disney ever was better or could do better; and very casual fans who simply think WDW is a fun vacation destination and really don't think much beyond it's a place that makes them happy.

I can't find fault with groups one and three, but the folks in group two bother me tremendously because they are Defenders of Mediocrity and they absolutely contribute to Disney's ability to WalMart its product.

Disney can do better and does every day, even now ... in Anaheim, Tokyo, Paris and even to certain quality standards Hong Kong too.

I'd love to take all the newbies back to WDW in 1988 and show them that bigger ain't better, but my time machine had to be E-bayed when my 401K disappeared and my stock became worthless.

 

[GenerationX]

Sites like this tend to attract three groups -- the old guard who understands what it was that made Disney, Disney; fanboys/girls who believe Disney has never been better, can do no wrong and can't (or won't let themselves) think that Disney ever was better or could do better; and very casual fans who simply think WDW is a fun vacation destination and really don't think much beyond it's a place that makes them happy.

I can't find fault with groups one and three, but the folks in group two bother me tremendously because they are Defenders of Mediocrity and they absolutely contribute to Disney's ability to WalMart its product.

You forgot the other groups that sites like these tend to attract:

4. The people who want to see WDW frozen in time. All change is bad, all retired attractions were exceptional, all new attractions sully Walt's legacy.
5. The people who want to educate the ignorant masses with their vast knowledge of WDW.
6. The people who are CONVINCED THEY KNOW MORE THAN DISNEY EXECUTIVES and the company would be MUCH BETTER OFF IF THEY WERE IN CHARGE.

I find fault with all three of the above because they are, in order, not objective, condescending, and naive.

 

[yankspy]

I didn't say that most guests that visit aren't happy. I'm sure they have a pleasant enough time. What I was saying, referencing the posters comment, was that those that would be content to continue paying admission for the rest of their lives if Disney never added another attraction are in the minority.

The reason there has been an increase in attendance is due to several factors. Disney's marketing campaigns and Pixar's success to name a couple. Mcdonald's is still doing pretty well and they continue to build more units and therefore see an increase in sales. Does that mean they are doing all the right things? Not necessarily. Their food is still lousy (I suppose you could argue that it is not but by every standard, health, quality and kitchen staff it's far inferior to a "real" restaurant) but their marketing is as agressive as ever. The American people will fall for a good marketing campaign every time. So to say that Disney seeing an increase in attendance means that they are building quality attractions isn't necessarity true.

Just like the Mcdonalds example, Disney could serve up absolute rubbish and people will still flock to the parks for a while. The company is mostly relying on the strong brand and characters that have been created by the early Disney and Pixar. But unlike Mcdonalds, WDW is more difficult to frequent. Eventually many of those that enjoy WDW but don't think it's the cat's meow will stop making the effort because there has been nothing in the last ten years to attract them. It will be easier to visit the Jersey Shore or more importantly for the international guests, Tokyo Disney or Disneyland Paris or Dubai. The die hards will continue to frequent but as you know that is a small minority of WDW's market share.

I'm not sure why you say getting upset over lower quality and less product is a waste of time. I might agree if I thought the company wasn't capable and did not have the resources to pull it off. I also might agree if it was simply a matter of budget. Disney is a public company and has the right to invest the least amount possible while delivering an adequite product to increase its margin. The issue is that the product has not been adequite for the last ten years. It has been way below Disney standards set by the company in years prior. The other problem is that most of the time it's outright corruption, ego and poor management. I go into specifics in the other thread but I'll be happy to give more examples if you are interested.

As far as your two categories you can place me in a bit of both. Disney has a rich legacy and can stand for more as it used to. Unfortunately Disney has become very much like most of corporate America: a massive leviathon that is too big to care about its product past the sales numbers. When I worked at WDI I personally knew executives that would not step foot in a Disney theme park because they thought it was beneath them. Hell, my boss didn't realize Walt Disney was a real man until he went through orientation. And these idiots were in charge of new projects! They wouldn't know a good quality attraction from a carnival ride. That doesn't make you mad?

It's because of these things that we don't see attractions that inspire awe anymore. We don't see Haunted Mansions or Indiana Jones rides anymore because Laugh Floor will be good enough. Disney knows that the public will consume almost whatever they throw at them. I can't tell you how many times I heard at WDI, "why go into that much trouble? they'll never notice and it will be good enough without it."

Disney monitors these sites for all sorts of reasons. None of them really good or healthy.

They even have posters that they particularly enjoy reading ...:wave:



I haven't said much on this thread because you're doing a great job, whylightbulb.

I wish people would just read the above post. Close out all other thoughts. Read it. Let it seep in. Maybe then, some folks will open their minds and realize why some of us are so tough on the Mouse.

Sites like this tend to attract three groups -- the old guard who understands what it was that made Disney, Disney; fanboys/girls who believe Disney has never been better, can do no wrong and can't (or won't let themselves) think that Disney ever was better or could do better; and very casual fans who simply think WDW is a fun vacation destination and really don't think much beyond it's a place that makes them happy.

I can't find fault with groups one and three, but the folks in group two bother me tremendously because they are Defenders of Mediocrity and they absolutely contribute to Disney's ability to WalMart its product.

Disney can do better and does every day, even now ... in Anaheim, Tokyo, Paris and even to certain quality standards Hong Kong too.

I'd love to take all the newbies back to WDW in 1988 and show them that bigger ain't better, but my time machine had to be E-bayed when my 401K disappeared and my stock became worthless.

I have bolded two specific parts in these statements because both of you seem to agree and you both seem to be well informed on this subject. However, these two bolded statements somewhat contradict each other.
It does not seem to be the company as a whole is the problem because you both appear to agree that the other parks seem to be performing up to par. If that is the case, then it would seem that the specific management at WDW is the problem and not necessarily the entire company. So which is it?

 

[kucarachi]

I agree that the value of disney has lost a little of its luster...but where are you gonna go thats going to give you 10 hours a day of activities for almost everyone in your party. The rides are clean and work well most of the time, the staff is almost always helpful and friendly, and they are constantly adding bigger and better things no matter what the dow says.

Unless you want the princesses to personally change your sheets i dont know what your missing that most of us seem to be finding every year? Ask the next 7 year old you see at the park if they think they are getting screwed.

 

[Festivus]

Just got back from WDW yesterday. Had a great time. We are new DVC members and stated at Saratoga Springs, great room, great resort...

Did notice some cutbacks compared to last year:

- Fewer fireworks during finale of Fantasmic
- Hot Dogs at Casey's Corner are half the size they were

Also, when comparing the new Pixar Place at DHS compared to something like Mickey's Toontown Fair, all I can ask is what happened to the great Disney imagination? Pixar Place looks like something the bean counters stripped down. It consists of a really nondescript brown brick building with cheap recreations of Pixar characters attached to it. Not impressive at all. Even the Toy Story ride que seemed cut-rate, except for Mr. Potato Head. There was a huge chunk paint and plaster torn from the wall, the hand rails were made from some cheep pvc piping. The ride itself was great, but everything else about Pixar Place was bush league. I know it's not complete yet, but I hope it improves. Compare TSMM to something like the detail in Tower of Terror, well, there is no comparison.

However, went to US and IOA and don't think I'll ever be going back. For starters, it was a virtual ghost town. We were insulted 4 times by workers there because our kids were wearing Disney pins, this after we spent $200 to get in. When we went to DHS, on a week day, it was packed. The cast members were very nice, saw my sons spiderman pin from IOA and didn't make any disparaging remarks.

I think Disney is a smart company. They cut corners when they have to and when they can get away with it, but there dedication to customer satisfaction is second to none, and that is what will keep us coming back for years to come.

 

[WDW1974]

You forgot the other groups that sites like these tend to attract:

4. The people who want to see WDW frozen in time. All change is bad, all retired attractions were exceptional, all new attractions sully Walt's legacy.

I think anyone who would want to see WDW frozen in time or as a museum would be ignorant as to the ideals that created the place in the first place.

And certainly all new attractions don't sully Walt's legacy ... but I sure don't see how much of the crap added in the past decade adds to it, but maybe I'm too much of an elitist to appreciate the simple pleasures of SGE or PW or Imagination 3.0.

5. The people who want to educate the ignorant masses with their vast knowledge of WDW.

Some folks here have a considerable store of knowledge of WDW, theme parks and TWDC. I'm willing to go out on a small limb and suggest that I might have more knowledge than the typical poster here about the above.

I don't know about you but there are plenty of subjects I am not knowledgable about. And I love to listen and learn from the folks who have knowledge and experience and wisdom to impart. I don't feel ignorant or inferior to them. I just feel like I did when I was in school, a sponge looking to soak up as much information as I can and turn it into knowledge.

6. The people who are CONVINCED THEY KNOW MORE THAN DISNEY EXECUTIVES and the company would be MUCH BETTER OFF IF THEY WERE IN CHARGE.

Do you know any Disney park execs? Have you had any professional dealings or personal dealings with any? ... Because I have.

And I can tell you this, there are geeks on sites like this that could do a better job of running the parks (and not simply in fanboy mode, but as profit centers) then some of the WalMart quality folks Disney employs in its P&R division.

There seems to be a fallacy in the USA that just because one has attained a certain position, regardless of how they came to that position, that they are somehow worthy of it. You couldn't possibly be of low intelligence, limited creativity and questionable morals and be an executive with a company like Disney, right?

Wrong.

It's scary how ordinary and unexceptional some of the folks are who are charged with upholding Walt's Legacy.

I find fault with all three of the above because they are, in order, not objective, condescending, and naive.

In order, I would agree that group No. 4 isn't objective, but I'm not sure anyone is truly objective about anything. Everyone brings in bias to a situation. Opinions are formulated based upon all sorts of facts. Most very subjective.

As to Group 5 being condescending, I'd disagree. I think there's nothing wrong at all with having knowledge and sharing it ... and the masses are only 'ignorant' if they choose to be.

Naive? Well, in some cases that's certainly true. But there are a wide range of spirits represented on a discussion board like this. And some of the folks here have actual experience working for Disney and in the themed entertainment and/or media fields. So you're incorrect in making a blanket declaration. There are people here who could step in tomorrow into decision-making positions high up the food chain at TWDC and do quite well, for themselves, for the company, for the shareholders and for the guests/fans.

But interesting points you brought up ...

 

[WDW1974]

I have bolded two specific parts in these statements because both of you seem to agree and you both seem to be well informed on this subject. However, these two bolded statements somewhat contradict each other.
It does not seem to be the company as a whole is the problem because you both appear to agree that the other parks seem to be performing up to par. If that is the case, then it would seem that the specific management at WDW is the problem and not necessarily the entire company. So which is it?

I don't see any contradiction at all.

Disney is huge and as such its products are inconsistent. The quality of anything in the company from films to TV to consumer products to theme park attractions to resorts can range from awful to incredible and everything ine between. Even taking to a smaller level, the difference in quality at one WDW fine dining location to another can be day and night.

So there isn't an easy answer to your question.

Disney's parks really run the gamut right now, but they are all nice places (yeah even DSP and HKDL, both of which I enjoy a great deal ... especially the latter)

I do feel strongly that WDW's parks are worse of than the other resorts largely for a few reasons:

1.) it is the flagship mass market resort and can lower quality across the board with less of a pushback from a largely tourist base of visitors;
2.) it tends to be run largely as a cash cow, especially with timeshare sales and resort stays;
3.) it has weaker, lower quality execs than the other resorts;
4.) it doesn't have a strong local fan base and isn't located in a large world class city/market like Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo or Hong Kong;
5.) because it is so large it can and does market the whole package, which makes it appear to be fresher than it is (hence: the Four Parks: One World tag and my Four Parks: One Stale World mantra);
6.) it has been dumbing down its product a bit at a time since at least 1995, so many guests really don't know any better;

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head ... but since you asked, I'm curious ... have you been to any other Disney resorts outside of WDW? and when was your first visit? and how often do you go?

 

[WDW1974]

I agree that the value of disney has lost a little of its luster...but where are you gonna go thats going to give you 10 hours a day of activities for almost everyone in your party. The rides are clean and work well most of the time, the staff is almost always helpful and friendly, and they are constantly adding bigger and better things no matter what the dow says.

Unless you want the princesses to personally change your sheets i dont know what your missing that most of us seem to be finding every year? Ask the next 7 year old you see at the park if they think they are getting screwed.

No offense, but seven-year-olds don't make decisions on where to spend thousands of dollars on vacations ... at least in any normal household.

And they aren't exactly the most discerning customers when it comes to determining quality and whether they are getting the most bang for their (mom and dad's) bucks.

 

[WDW1974]

Just got back from WDW yesterday. Had a great time. We are new DVC members and stated at Saratoga Springs, great room, great resort...

Did notice some cutbacks compared to last year:

- Fewer fireworks during finale of Fantasmic
- Hot Dogs at Casey's Corner are half the size they were

Saratoga Springs is a lovely resort isn't it? Very peaceful. Great pool area. Nice quiet vibe. Great spa.

As to Fantasmic, they are using less and cheaper pyro in all of their shows right now to save money. Sometimes you notice it (I could tell during Illuminations that a lot less was being used) and sometimes you don't (Wishes looked pretty normal). Didn't see Fantasmic as I don't really like it.

Not surprised your hot dog came up short either. Pretty soon the toilet paper will be that old industrial strength stuff they had for years before upgrading!

Also, when comparing the new Pixar Place at DHS compared to something like Mickey's Toontown Fair, all I can ask is what happened to the great Disney imagination? Pixar Place looks like something the bean counters stripped down. It consists of a really nondescript brown brick building with cheap recreations of Pixar characters attached to it. Not impressive at all. Even the Toy Story ride que seemed cut-rate, except for Mr. Potato Head. There was a huge chunk paint and plaster torn from the wall, the hand rails were made from some cheep pvc piping. The ride itself was great, but everything else about Pixar Place was bush league. I know it's not complete yet, but I hope it improves. Compare TSMM to something like the detail in Tower of Terror, well, there is no comparison.

Pixar Place is designed to look like the Emeryville campus, so I can't fault them for the design. That area never looked any better than it does now.

But I am glad (well, not really, just for the sake of this post) that someone else noticed how horrible the queue looks and all the damage done .... brand new attractions and chunks of the walls are missing from vandals and you just leave it? That isn't Disney. Or it didn't used to be. that's Six Flags. Very bad show.

However, went to US and IOA and don't think I'll ever be going back. For starters, it was a virtual ghost town. We were insulted 4 times by workers there because our kids were wearing Disney pins, this after we spent $200 to get in. When we went to DHS, on a week day, it was packed. The cast members were very nice, saw my sons spiderman pin from IOA and didn't make any disparaging remarks.

I don't know why empty parks would be a bad thing for a visitor. Most people would love to not have to wait. And I have a hard time believing you were 'insulted four times' by workers because your kids had Disney pins on. If that had happened once to me, I'd have been at Guest Relations with the cast member's name and location. Were you really insulted or did they just make a little joke? They sometimes take shots at Disney.

I think Disney is a smart company. They cut corners when they have to and when they can get away with it, but there dedication to customer satisfaction is second to none, and that is what will keep us coming back for years to come.

Smart? No. I don't think so. They were at one time. When they set the standard and always tried to improve on themselves. Now, they sit back and copy the competition and stuff they did years ago .... and they still so often miss the mark.

And I don't believe their customer satisfaction is second to none by a longshot ... they used to demand their workers exceed guest expectations and now they pretty much are happy if they meet guests (already) diminished expectations.

They still provide a high quality product, but they should since they charge a very high price and market themselves as a premium brand. But they don't come close to offering the quality they did in the 70s, 80s and into the 90s.

But glad you and your family enjoyed yourselves. Sounds like you were there just about when I left.

 

[the-reason14]

i think the more you look at "anything", you are bound to find more and more things you dislike about it or would like improvement.

WDW isn't and should never be held up as some sort of "shrine" or "idol". it's a theme park. a fun place to spend with family. my wife and i are looking forward to our trip next month. we are not expecting to feel as if we have arrived at the pearly gates.

it will never ever reach the state of perfection that it seems some people want it to reach. i think when you hyper focus on something for too long, you forget to put things in perspective.

we live in the midwest. i can't think of anywhere that offers anything close to what WDW offers. four theme parks, tons of attractions, rides, shows, any type of food you want to try.

of course it will never be a perfect place. this isn't Heaven we are talking about.

in my opinion, i think some people who go on and on about "this" defect or "that" problem with the park need to stop and just enjoy a few days in a fun place with family and friends.

i'm just really happy that even with the economy so messed up that WDW is still there for my wife and i to take some time off and relax and have some fun.

I agree with you and see what you are saying, but I also can see what the others are saying. On one hand, many people cant go as often as some people can. These are the same people who gripe about a small piece of paint peeling on a curb or something. And it gets annoying to hear all the whines about a place that is so amazing. I think its more amazing in the eyes of those who cant see a steady decline in upkeep or cm behavior, etc. And for most people, it doesnt really matter. They know how hard it is to get to WDW and when they can finally get there, they arent as uptight about one or two nasty bathrooms, or three or five unmagical CMs. But if you are fortunate enough to go as often as a lot of people here seem to go, then its only natural for them to see these things and let them get to them. Maybe they are bored of the rides and shows, and instead sitting back and enjoying them, they only look and see all of the negatives. But isnt that natural? You could easily see a decline on Spl. Mountain after riding it so many times. You can tell that this AA isnt working, or that one isnt doing what it should. Its only natural to those who frequent WDW more.

My advice is to maybe stop going to WDW. Why waste time and money on a place that is declining in every way imaginable? If its so far from what a disney park should be, in your eyes, then maybe you should go check out another disney resort/theme park somewhere else on the globe. Or, try Universal or something. Or maybe dont go as much. I know if I lived in FLA, and I saw alot of things declining at WDW that I wasnt happy with, then guess what? Id go somewhere else. Its as simple or as complicated as you can make it. Sure, you love the place, and you want to see it at its best. So why keep going to a park when you know it hasnt changed since the last time you were there maybe a week or even as far as 6 months ago. If you know nothing has been added or upgraded, why waste time and money to go and then come back here and mention about how this is still the same, of course it is. Maybe you can pop in an old vhs tape and watch WDW from the good ole days and save some money.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I just read 14 pages of WDW being stale. Now a few years ago, this thread wouldn't have lasted two pages much less 14..

but now, this thread had legs and legs and legs..


and judging by a combination of the economy, previous high gas prices and the miserly attitude of Disney World, I see this year as one of being a down year for this attraction..

and I say that Disney, you had better start listening. You have the golden goose but its getting very sick from lack of attention. and Trust me, any place can go out of business. EVEN DISNEY WORLD.

it's fair time that you stop raising prices and giving less to your consumers.

its time that you give more and charge a little less. Or things can turn and go down hill in a hurry..


One thing is that Disney needs x number of dollars to maintain upkeep. Just like the hotel that I USED TO STAY AT.. 20 years ago.. it was busting at the seems . it was free breakfest and a tank full of gas when you left..

and then the owners kept profit taking and no money in to upkeep..

First the gas station closed.. Then the restaurant .. and from what I here the hotel doesn't exist any more..



Disney.. you need to be listening.. because people are starting to talk.. and its not being stopped either.. and that friction means you can get some smoke... and eventually with smoke there is fire..


Its time for a call to action.. Disney.. ARE YOU LISTENING?

I'm sure you have them shaking in their boots! :lol:
Stay by the phone....I'm sure you'll be getting that phone call soon to invite you to help in the rescue effort.

 

[Susan Savia]

In a nutshell, if ya don't like it stay home. Leave the Disney Parks to those of us that go to spend time with our families, enjoy the beautiful gardens and plants, be tempted with wonderful dining, have fun shopping in stores where every corner has something you want, music that fills the senses throughout the parks, a staff of people that care about you, and the little things that bring excitement into your vacation. :ROFLOL::ROFLOL:

 

[Edeyore]

Why would they worry when they're putting out quality entertainment like High School Musical 3 and Beverly Hills Chihuahua? :lookaroun

EDIT: BTW, It doesn't even seem like fans of American Idol are looking forward to the American Idol attraction :lol: The plus side is...if someone from DHS goes far in the actual American Idol...it will give DHS mass "buzz."

The weird thing is Disney must know something we don't. You could not drag me or any of my family to either of the movies mentioned, (Though we have always been huge fans of Disney and Pixar animation films.), but both of those movies made some serious money at the box office.

Sometimes I think it is important to realize there may be a reason the people writing on these boards are not in charge at Disney.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

, but both of those movies made some serious money at the box office.

.

But not from people who decide where the family holiday.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

The weird thing is Disney must know something we don't. You could not drag me or any of my family to either of the movies mentioned, (Though we have always been huge fans of Disney and Pixar animation films.), but both of those movies made some serious money at the box office.

Sometimes I think it is important to realize there may be a reason the people writing on these boards are not in charge at Disney.

Or in charge of much else for that matter....

Many would benefit from a "Walk in their shoes" program!

Disney is first and foremost a business...and just like the oil companies will react as needed to real market forces. If demand is high, they can charge $5 a gallon. If people stop buying it will come down below $2. Disney is no different...and to date, people are buying!

Discounts and specials are not a sign of panic, just another form of advertizing. If you offer half price lodging or free tickets or upgrades for 50 rooms per site, the interest raised will more than compensate. And like so many other responsible companies, they have put short term capital expenditures on hold until this current craziness settles out.

 

[jakeman]

I didn't say that most guests that visit aren't happy. I'm sure they have a pleasant enough time. What I was saying, referencing the posters comment, was that those that would be content to continue paying admission for the rest of their lives if Disney never added another attraction are in the minority.

I would agree here, just like those that demand perfection are also in the minority.

The reason there has been an increase in attendance is due to several factors. Disney's marketing campaigns and Pixar's success to name a couple. Mcdonald's is still doing pretty well and they continue to build more units and therefore see an increase in sales. Does that mean they are doing all the right things? Not necessarily. Their food is still lousy (I suppose you could argue that it is not but by every standard, health, quality and kitchen staff it's far inferior to a "real" restaurant) but their marketing is as agressive as ever. The American people will fall for a good marketing campaign every time. So to say that Disney seeing an increase in attendance means that they are building quality attractions isn't necessarity true.

I can't argue with the marketing other than to say I'm not sure many folks went down just for a chance to win a fastpass this past year. However, Pixar is Disney, Disney is Pixar. To continously seperate the two is folly and a hollow arguement at this point.

I'm not sure why you say getting upset over lower quality and less product is a waste of time. I might agree if I thought the company wasn't capable and did not have the resources to pull it off. I also might agree if it was simply a matter of budget. Disney is a public company and has the right to invest the least amount possible while delivering an adequite product to increase its margin. The issue is that the product has not been adequite for the last ten years. It has been way below Disney standards set by the company in years prior. The other problem is that most of the time it's outright corruption, ego and poor management. I go into specifics in the other thread but I'll be happy to give more examples if you are interested.

My point is, as you have indirectly proven, that if you get upset over every Blue Sky project that you like that didn't get green lighted you aren't going to be a happy camper.

As far as your two categories you can place me in a bit of both. Disney has a rich legacy and can stand for more as it used to. Unfortunately Disney has become very much like most of corporate America: a massive leviathon that is too big to care about its product past the sales numbers. When I worked at WDI I personally knew executives that would not step foot in a Disney theme park because they thought it was beneath them. Hell, my boss didn't realize Walt Disney was a real man until he went through orientation. And these idiots were in charge of new projects! They wouldn't know a good quality attraction from a carnival ride. That doesn't make you mad?

Not really. Disney is a theme park. If, in my opinion, the quality is slipping then I will take my money elsewhere. I worked there, met my wife, got engaged, honeymooned, bought DVC, and buy annual passes. With that said, I would have no problem never going there again. I have great memories, but I can make memories anywhere.

It's because of these things that we don't see attractions that inspire awe anymore. We don't see Haunted Mansions or Indiana Jones rides anymore because Laugh Floor will be good enough. Disney knows that the public will consume almost whatever they throw at them. I can't tell you how many times I heard at WDI, "why go into that much trouble? they'll never notice and it will be good enough without it."

You are comparing apples and oranges here, especially with Indiana Jones and Laugh Floor. My wife and I enjoy Laugh Floor and we don't expect it to be Indiana Jones or the Haunted Mansion. I'm not sure anyone who goes in there does. As for the bolded statement, if it is what the majority of the public wants, why is that bad?

 

[yankspy]

I don't see any contradiction at all.

Disney is huge and as such its products are inconsistent. The quality of anything in the company from films to TV to consumer products to theme park attractions to resorts can range from awful to incredible and everything ine between. Even taking to a smaller level, the difference in quality at one WDW fine dining location to another can be day and night.

So there isn't an easy answer to your question.

Disney's parks really run the gamut right now, but they are all nice places (yeah even DSP and HKDL, both of which I enjoy a great deal ... especially the latter)

I do feel strongly that WDW's parks are worse of than the other resorts largely for a few reasons:

1.) it is the flagship mass market resort and can lower quality across the board with less of a pushback from a largely tourist base of visitors;
2.) it tends to be run largely as a cash cow, especially with timeshare sales and resort stays;
3.) it has weaker, lower quality execs than the other resorts;
4.) it doesn't have a strong local fan base and isn't located in a large world class city/market like Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo or Hong Kong;
5.) because it is so large it can and does market the whole package, which makes it appear to be fresher than it is (hence: the Four Parks: One World tag and my Four Parks: One Stale World mantra);
6.) it has been dumbing down its product a bit at a time since at least 1995, so many guests really don't know any better;

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head ... but since you asked, I'm curious ... have you been to any other Disney resorts outside of WDW? and when was your first visit? and how often do you go?

I guess what I was trying to say as far as a contradiction was that Whylightbulb seemed to suggest that the whole company was pushing mediocrity whereas you seem to suggest that the problem lies largely within WDW. I was wondering what Whylightbulb's thoughts were on the other parks. From what you say, there does appear to be many inconsistencies.

I think you make good points in one and six. WDW has a huge tourist base that may not be as discerning as others. My wife will be having our first child in March and we are planning an October trip. I must admit that the excitement of bringing my son on his first trip will probably keep me from looking at chipped paint, dirty bathrooms, etc. I guess I am saying that since so many people only go occasionally, they may not be as quick to notice something wrong.

As far as point #6, the area that I, and others constantly talk about on this site is Epcot. I have vivid memories of a much different "Future World" but that is a whole other can of worms.

I am curious to know your opinions on the four parks individually within WDW. I ask because your argument seems to concentrate largely on MK. Could it be MK's specific management that is the problem? If WDW's management is that bad on a whole, what are the chances of having a shakeup from the top down?

I have been going to WDW since 1974 which was the year I was born. We used to go about four times a year up until I was about twelve. Now, we go about once, sometimes twice a year. (DVC). I have only been to Anaheim twice and that was a long time ago. However, I have seen enough video and heard enough from many people (including yourself) to be of the opinion that the other parks look cleaner, and are generally up to snuff. I have said before that I agree with you in that WDW does need attention.

BTW, since you enjoy the "Glory days" so much, you might wish to click below my signature where it says "My photo album" The album consists entirely of pictures from the 70's and early 80's. They are not the best quality but there might be one or two that you enjoy looking at.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I can only comment on Paris, looks great but several rides short of great. The Studios, barely a half day park. Given the marketing spend by Paris, it does make you wonder where the priorities lie. Im more likely to visit Disneyland than go back there.

Now some will argue that attendance figures are key, and lets be honest they are impressive in theme park terms, but I was under the impression that the basic rules were you try to hold onto existing customers while adding new. Paris, in my unscientific poll of friends is Disneys best advert for just going to Florida instead. And there as I have said before many UK visitors class Universal as the must do park cause Disneys for kids. Again just going by a UK based Disney fan site posts.

I can guess that marketing is supposed to get the juices flowing about a return visit to the park, but to be honest even that with its old out of date planning DVDs and buzz word promotions that mean little is fairly shambolic.

Lets be blunt, how many times has something opened and its been good, but not great. There in lies the problem.

 

[DisneyMusician2]

I can only comment on Paris, looks great but several rides short of great. The Studios, barely a half day park. Given the marketing spend by Paris, it does make you wonder where the priorities lie. Im more likely to visit Disneyland than go back there.

Now some will argue that attendance figures are key, and lets be honest they are impressive in theme park terms, but I was under the impression that the basic rules were you try to hold onto existing customers while adding new. Paris, in my unscientific poll of friends is Disneys best advert for just going to Florida instead. And there as I have said before many UK visitors class Universal as the must do park cause Disneys for kids. Again just going by a UK based Disney fan site posts.

I can guess that marketing is supposed to get the juices flowing about a return visit to the park, but to be honest even that with its old out of date planning DVDs and buzz word promotions that mean little is fairly shambolic.

Lets be blunt, how many times has something opened and its been good, but not great. There in lies the problem.

Interesting perspective. Universal is certainly worth visiting, for anyone!

I wonder how many 'great' attractions have really come out that people have torn down to the point where others don't see them that way anymore. I thought M:S was 'great' (at least for me), but many said it was not so. I feel LMA is overrated, but some love it. People are ripping AI, and it isn't even open yet.

Not that the quality is always where it should be, but I wonder if World of Motion opened today what people would say in their reviews. Probably "too sterile" or "not exciting" or "narration is corny" or perhaps "the technology really isn't state of the art".

I'm all for more quality and technology in attractions, but I can still enjoy the ones there.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Interesting perspective. Universal is certainly worth visiting, for anyone!

.

Oh I agree, but I always argue against the Disney = kids line, but its hard if thats how the marketing is pitched.
Most in the UK will be looking for a theme park experience that resembles Alton Towers, so while WDW looks great and even non fans comment about the themeing and layout, the expectation is based on rides like Air and Nemesis, Universal meets and exceeds that. And given the 30% hike in UK ticket prices for Disney from this week from what Ive read more people are looking at the Orlando flex ticket at the expense of a trip to WDW