Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

COProgressFan

Well-Known Member
They have taken risks.

Changing the feel inside the building on left, making it into a large store instead of a series of small shops make economic sense.

Having a real 1900s main street was never really possible because like all Disney buildings it is a modern, 2 story concrete box with the external side facing the stage modeled to look like stores.

Improving to flow inside makes it easier for guess to buy stuff.

Great news.... on face lifts.

Really WDW is and always has been a business, people keep coming and keep spending money.

But do you really think that connecting the buildings on Main Street west, opening up paths and aisles in the stores to fit more people in them, and offering the same generic products throughout is "taking risks"? If anything, it appears to me it is a plan of risk aversion.

I'm still not even fully convinced it makes "economic sense" as you say. A longtime poster (I think Lee?) recently commented about the goals of selling generic merchandise throughout the resort regardless of the themed area it was in. But it's not entirely clear whether merch sales have truly increased significantly because of that approach. If I see the same things in the Emporium, Frontierland and Tomorrowland, it's still the same merchandise. It doesn't mean I'm going to buy it twice. Further, if you cut the amount of products you offer, this may look great on paper in terms of efficiently purchasing, warehousing, stocking, etc., but it simply means that instead of 5,000 unique items for sale in the MK which may entice me, if there are only 1,000 then there are fewer things I may actually be interested in buying. Perhaps after stopping in to a few shops seeing the same character-emblazoned merchandise, I may just forgo the rest of them realizing its all the same anyway.
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
But do you really think that connecting the buildings on Main Street west, opening up paths and aisles in the stores to fit more people in them, and offering the same generic products throughout is "taking risks"? If anything, it appears to me it is a plan of risk aversion.

I'm still not even fully convinced it makes "economic sense" as you say. A longtime poster (I think Lee?) recently commented about the goals of selling generic merchandise throughout the resort regardless of the themed area it was in. But it's not entirely clear whether merch sales have truly increased significantly because of that approach. If I see the same things in the Emporium, Frontierland and Tomorrowland, it's still the same merchandise. It doesn't mean I'm going to buy it twice. Further, if you cut the amount of products you offer, this may look great on paper in terms of efficiently purchasing, warehousing, stocking, etc., but it simply means that instead of 5,000 unique items for sale in the MK which may entice me, if there are only 1,000 then there are fewer things I may actually be interested in buying. Perhaps after stopping in to a few shops seeing the same character-emblazoned merchandise, I may just forgo the rest of them realizing its all the same anyway.

This... And diverse, unique, theme-appropriate retail was part of the overall "Show". Even if it didn't move as much merch or wasn't as cost efficient as the current OneDisneyStore model, the former way made WDW as a whole a more attractive, compelling place to take a vacation. I may be an outlier, but I am far less likely to take my family and spend at WDW with the current Pressler-Themeless-Monoculture model, than the former diversity-authenticity model.
 

Florida_is_hot

Well-Known Member
Not about taking risks....

It is about a few things Disney is world class in crowd control, flow and making money.

They do not share sales numbers with me but I bet the make more money now on the west side of Main Street than the ever had in the past.

Redesign at Mouse Ears (hope that is the name)... the big store in Epcot.
Removing the second floor was done for similar reasons.


I can picture a board meeting.....

1) Sales, Where do we place shops? How much can we get away with for price? Marketing if we do this will we sell more?

2) Crowd management, flow control If we place the cash here people line up behind the cash causing a bottleneck. We can serve 40 customers and hour in this configuration ... but if we have several cash here we serve more people, faster and need less staff.

3) Let us watch this security footage... notice people can not get around this obstacle..... see these 3 guests exit to Main Street.... we maybe losing sales.

I doubt Disney builds anything without a solid business plan who they can get ROI
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
They have taken risks.

Changing the feel inside the building on left, making it into a large store instead of a series of small shops make economic sense.

Having a real 1900s main street was never really possible because like all Disney buildings it is a modern, 2 story concrete box with the external side facing the stage modeled to look like stores.

Improving to flow inside makes it easier for guests to buy stuff.

Great news.... on face lifts.

Really WDW is and always has been a business, people keep coming and keep spending money.
It only makes business sense if you look at the micro level. At the macro level the change has been a wash, if not a bit of a loss. The high volume items that have been spread around the parks have had their sales spread around the parks. Disney increased supply wrongly thinking demand would follow.

The unique stores were never a financial burden when the analysis was being done on the whole, and not every single square foot. Disney traded the "Disney magic" for a different accounting system that makes sense at malls, not theme park resorts where you own almost everything and are selling an experience.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Merchandise in the 90's

I can only comment on past practices as I was there years ago.

There was a shift back in the early nineties driven by corporate pressure to show 20% quarter to quarter growth, from park retail being judged holistically, to being held accountable on a square foot and "location by location" basis. Each shop had to justify it's own existence. In addition there was above to "empower" front line CM's and managers to make their shops more "successful" and that included the operating cost of their stores. This resulted in all kinds of ad hoc racks being set up outdoors, requests for "sandwich" signs in the street and all kinds small changes that were hard to track. The Antique buyer that served Liberty Square and New Orleans at Disneyland retired, so there was no new buyer, that ability evaporated and ended that era. At DL, they decided to look at the top selling items and increase those, while liquidating all the smaller selling items, sorting down to less SKU's and selling the top 10 percent in more places. Disneyland Paris had opened and it's stores were the most themed, and of course, the Europeans were not rabid "souvenir" buyers, resulting in the blame for the lack of sales being placed on the fact that the stores were too themed or did hot have slat wall and track lights, not that the merchandise was dreadful, or the reality that the audience was culturally opposed to buying logo T Shirts. Punishment for this eventually resulted years later in strict retail design guidelines that require that props primarily exist above 8 feet and merchandise is displayed in similar fashion with theme applied. The stores were now ruled by merchandise formula and the designers had to heel those guidelines. The success of the WOD and Disney Stores via Paul Pressler brought a certain number of new formulae into the mix, but they would spend more money on the stores as they saw them as most precious. Retailers know that fun displays and fun interiors drive sales. They like theming when it excites the guest. I got along with the merchandise folks, see their side of it, and wanted to build trust as we all had the same challenges. All these events came in waves and evolved the themed retail experience.

WDI wrestled with these new changes as best they could, arguing that stores were part of the "show" and could lose money individually, but collectively would be more successful and shown increased sales. The retailers agreed, but how much of the park is "show" is hard to quantify and when you are forced to increase sales, it's a tough sell. For a period, the shops were lettered A, B and C, meaning high volume stores would be mostly merchandise driven like the Emporium, there was a middle ground store that was somewhere in between where the props were mixed in, and then the C shops were high in "show" (Magic shop, perfume shop), lower performers. there could only be so many of one and the other. I'm not sure if this system still exists.

Now years retired from the mouse, I've watched how these things have played out, not knowing how the "system" has been working if at all, and I will say the best thing to happen is getting outside companies to run the small "Magic" trick shops, as they have the passion and stock the stores best. The key to getting the texture back is getting small vendors to come in and take over the little stores that make a difference. You tend to recall those moments with the glass blower, or magician more than selecting that right mug. Disney invented the flow through store and that's great, but when it becomes a big, over decorated mall, then you've "jumped the shark" as they say in the movies. The result is less to explore and you may feel over merchandised. Having similar product everywhere desensitizes you to the shopping experience overall and you eventually go in less places. "The Disney Gallery" revolves it's shows often and does a great job of keeping things high show and interesting. The challenges we're talking about are beyond the Disney branded items and getting people to buy a themed Frontierland item or something that supports the promise of each land.

Frankly, retail in the "real world" is struggling to sell against the online options, so parks have to generate a bigger impulse to get you past buying that "Founding Fathers" book next to the Hall of Presidents at Target AND Amazon. It's tough.

I think there is a way to achieve a "turn of the century" Main Street with tons of texture and nostalgia, but it would take more effort than Disney is willing to put out there. You have to staff buyers and maintain all kinds of little experiences to add up to the big one and the departments by design are not incentivized to do that. That's why I'm a proponent of the Magic Shop avenue as they off load the hard work to others who have the passion for it and we the guest get a great magic "show" from someone who loves it. Same goes for Silhouettes and other lost arts we need out there. I think they are realizing this via Harry Potter and that guests want the themed Butter beer and Wands when they connect to the experiences and you have to do those things. It's not that they would not love to do it, but the merchandise division is designed and staffed for huge volume sales, not running boutiques with lots of moving parts. That's the reality.

In the nineties, I pitched an idea called the "Sketch Watch". (An artist draws a character you choose and they scan the art, shrink it into the face of the watch, and assemble it for you). One of a kind and you get the artwork. Very unique, but no one in merchandise would even test it without being forced by the President of the company (Those folks are gone now). They thought it was too much effort to find the right scanner, develop the idea, etc. and they thought it could only sell for 75 bucks tops. They were forced to test it, sold a 3 month backlog of them and now they sell for up to 250 bucks. That was almost 20 years ago and they still are selling them and run it beautifully. The mere presence and show value of the watch artist in the store initially raised the sales of the generic Mickey Mouse watches displayed nearby by 35%! We need more things like that. You can enjoy watching the artist even if you buy nothing.
 

Vernonpush

Well-Known Member
I think there is a way to achieve a "turn of the century" Main Street with tons of texture and nostalgia, but it would take more effort than Disney is willing to put out there. You have to staff buyers and maintain all kinds of little experiences to add up to the big one and the departments by design are not incentivized to do that. That's why I'm a proponent of the Magic Shop avenue as they off load the hard work to others who have the passion for it and we the guest get a great magic "show" from someone who loves it. Same goes for Silhouettes and other lost arts we need out there. I think they are realizing this via Harry Potter and that guests want the themed Butter beer and Wands when they connect to the experiences and you have to do those things. It's not that they would not love to do it, but the merchandise division is designed and staffed for huge volume sales, not running boutiques with lots of moving parts. That's the reality.

In the nineties, I pitched an idea called the "Sketch Watch". (An artist draws a character you choose and they scan the art, shrink it into the face of the watch, and assemble it for you). One of a kind and you get the artwork. Very unique, but no one in merchandise would even test it without being forced by the President of the company (Those folks are gone now). They thought it was too much effort to find the right scanner, develop the idea, etc. and they thought it could only sell for 75 bucks tops. They were forced to test it, sold a 3 month backlog of them and now they sell for up to 250 bucks. That was almost 20 years ago and they still are selling them and run it beautifully. The mere presence and show value of the watch artist in the store initially raised the sales of the generic Mickey Mouse watches displayed nearby by 35%! We need more things like that. You can enjoy watching the artist even if you buy nothing.

This is an good example of Disney bringing back "turn of the century" Main Street. http://youtu.be/qco00ME9CIY
I'm not sure if this is "Disney" or an "outside vendor/artist".
I watched one of these "demonstrations" of an Artisan who was creating a piece for a Guest, for well over an hour.
I would have loved to be able join him in creating /learning the art. A friend of mine who lives a few miles from WDW got a "gift" of creating/learning glass blowing from her husband at a local venue (I don't remember where she did that). I remember my first time back to WDW as an adult in the late 1990's and they had "The Disney Institute". I wanted to participate in that, but unfortunately, it was gone by the time I had the funds to try.
Do you think that with the whole "NextGen" experience, something like this could be adapted for a Guest to participate in (for a price, $$$) ?
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
This is an good example of Disney bringing back "turn of the century" Main Street. http://youtu.be/qco00ME9CIY
I'm not sure if this is "Disney" or an "outside vendor/artist".
I watched one of these "demonstrations" of an Artisan who was creating a piece for a Guest, for well over an hour.
I would have loved to be able join him in creating /learning the art. A friend of mine who lives a few miles from WDW got a "gift" of creating/learning glass blowing from her husband at a local venue (I don't remember where she did that). I remember my first time back to WDW as an adult in the late 1990's and they had "The Disney Institute". I wanted to participate in that, but unfortunately, it was gone by the time I had the funds to try.
Do you think that with the whole "NextGen" experience, something like this could be adapted for a Guest to participate in (for a price, $$$) ?

Good example and fun idea. "Glass blowers" were historically handled by an outside vendors, the Arribas Bros. http://www.arribasbrothers.com/t-about.aspx
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
How the Cinderella Castle came to be.

Here's a link to the straight scoop detailing how your WDW Cinderella Castle finally got designed! Artist Herb Ryman who has been credited with the design, just could not get it finalized and time was running out. What to do? There are other amazing insider history tales as well. All told beautifully and first hand by my old boss Marty Sklar. Enjoy.

http://www.iaapa.org/industry/funworld/2011/oct/features/MagicKingdom/index.asp
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Here's a link to the straight scoop detailing how your WDW Cinderella Castle finally got designed! Artist Herb Ryman who has been credited with the design, just could not get it finalized and time was running out. What to do? There are other amazing insider history tales as well. All told beautifully and first hand by my old boss Marty Sklar. Enjoy.

http://www.iaapa.org/industry/funworld/2011/oct/features/MagicKingdom/index.asp

Wow, I can't wait for him to finish that memoir :)
 

ChrisFL

Premium Member
I love it when small, lower budget parks put an effort into theming, even if its quite odd.

For example, I've visited the Philippines for work and vacation and they have a quite nice small park called Enchanted Kingdom.

They have a lunch area that's between 2 lands, one is futuristic/space themed, and the other Amazon Jungle themed...they could have been perfectly at home just making it have no theme from either land, or just consider it part of one land or the other...........instead, they did this:

EnchantedKingdom072.jpg


EnchantedKingdom074.jpg




They split it into 2 equally "themed" sections. I was in such awe of the simulataneous foolishness and cleverness of it......I had to take pics.

The rest of the park has some nice theming as well (and is only $10 U.S. to get in!), here's a photo gallery:

http://s660.photobucket.com/albums/uu329/techno9991/EnK/#!cpZZ1QQtppZZ16
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
I love it when small, lower budget parks put an effort into theming, even if its quite odd.

For example, I've visited the Philippines for work and vacation and they have a quite nice small park called Enchanted Kingdom.

They have a lunch area that's between 2 lands, one is futuristic/space themed, and the other Amazon Jungle themed...they could have been perfectly at home just making it have no theme from either land, or just consider it part of one land or the other...........instead, they did this:

EnchantedKingdom072.jpg


EnchantedKingdom074.jpg




They split it into 2 equally "themed" sections. I was in such awe of the simulataneous foolishness and cleverness of it......I had to take pics.

The rest of the park has some nice theming as well (and is only $10 U.S. to get in!), here's a photo gallery:

http://s660.photobucket.com/albums/uu329/techno9991/EnK/#!cpZZ1QQtppZZ16

Thanks for posting these. Great stuff. You know that theme can be a kind of "wallpaper" where no one knows exactly why they are doing it, just that they think they need to. Reminds me of some of those State Line and "4 Corners" tourist attractions where you stand in two states at once! I'm sure they had several meetings on what to do with that column, but the design committee decided on half and half.
 

Florida_is_hot

Well-Known Member
MAPO - Malaysian Association of Practicing Opticians. ??

What does that have to do with anything. I love how people expect readers to read minds and figure out what all these abbreviations mean.
 

invader

Well-Known Member
MAPO - Malaysian Association of Practicing Opticians. ??

What does that have to do with anything. I love how people expect readers to read minds and figure out what all these abbreviations mean.

It stood for the Manufacturing and Production Organization. They started as they had to create an anamitronic bird for Mary Poppins. With money made from Mary Poppins, Disney had decided to expand the division to where it was.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
MAPO - Malaysian Association of Practicing Opticians. ??

What does that have to do with anything. I love how people expect readers to read minds and figure out what all these abbreviations mean.
MAPO is not an abbreviation, it is the name for Disney's proprietary block system used on their trains (steam and monorail) that was derived from Mary Poppins, because "Nothing goes wrong when Mary Poppins is around" that went on to lend its name to the fabrication division which created the system.

In particular he is referencing the recent sale off of the audio-animatronics inventory, which fell under the auspicies of MAPO, to Garner Holt Productions.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Mapo

There was a time when WED and MAPO went hand in hand. Design and Production. MAPO to me was Disney's side of the road that the AA figures came from. It was very special and magical. Those silver Mary Poppins equipment tags were very cool.

As the world has changed, we have to recognize the concept of outsourcing. So the Garner Holt Company has been building AA figures for about Ten hers now, but not the most sophisticated ones or developing the new technologies. It appears that Disney is best suited to sell the parts to those who use them.

You can read more about it here.

http://www.disneybymark.com/2012/03/26/news-garner-holt-gets-disneys-aa-inventory/

So if this story is true, what do I think about it?

On one hand it's sad, as Disney was in my mind the leader and pioneer of this medium that has been allowed to stagnate in the past and become somewhat generic. Lincoln's head has improved for sure and they still invest in those high end figures. R&D still pushes those boundaries as in Mermaid. That's good. On the other, in my day (1990s) AA technology through the Disney bureaucracy had gotten so expensive that you could not afford to have them at all. We'd avoid designing them in because of the cost against our total budget. So the medium was not only dying from antiquation, but from it's own cost. If outsourcing them to a vendor makes them much more affordable, then I'm reluctantly for that approach. Why reluctantly? Because they are an outside firm and that means that anyone can go there. No longer is AA an exclusive brand advantage of Disney (except some of the features).

If it were possible, they should have spun MAPO off into a Garner Holt type of "meaner leaner" outside business that could stand on it's own, and this problem would not exist. Easier said than done, as you have to admit that you have labor rate issues and things like that. It's messy. They could build both patented Disney figures and ones for others. Lots of parks would want the Disney for their figures and show action equipment. Heresy? George Lucas did this with ILM. He let other peoples movies pay to grow his effects lab.

In light of that situation, it's a good move for the product, but not good for those laid off in any.

The question is, what discipline will be next?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom