Frontierland Expansion Rumor

[Krack]

Who Knows? But an insider came on this thread and said that something is being added into the mix of the FLE that will please almost everyone on these forums. Do you have any idea what that is?

I do not. I am not an insider.

 

[lebeau]

This is all a pre-amble to my point that, if I had to sit through these M&Gs for hours on end, I'd be pulling my hair out. I don't find anything appealing about them at all - and I'm not asking for them to design an attraction for me - all I ask is that it have a Peter Pan or Snow White level of appeal for adults. I don't think that's too much to ask. I could even see building one of these M&G areas and cycling the princesses in and out throughout the day. But more than one? I think it's a poor allocation of resources.

That's you. (By the way, were any of those kids yours? You might not pull out your hair if they were.) Plenty of other people feel differently or there wouldn't be hour long waits to get a picture with Tinkerbell.

Is it too much to ask that every ride have the appeal of Peter Pan? Yes, it is. There should be attractions with mass appeal and attractions that appeal to Disney niches.

If there's enough demand to support all of these M&Gs (and there undeniably is) what's it to you? :shrug:

 

[Krack]

That's you. (By the way, were any of those kids yours? You might not pull out your hair if they were.) Plenty of other people feel differently or there wouldn't be hour long waits to get a picture with Tinkerbell.

Nieces and nephews. The occasional child of friends. None are mine.

Is it too much to ask that every ride have the appeal of Peter Pan? Yes, it is. There should be attractions with mass appeal and attractions that appeal to Disney niches.

In my opinion (have to have this qualifier in there or there will be complaints), M&Gs are not attractions. They are excuses for not building attractions. If you love them? Great.

If there's enough demand to support all of these M&Gs (and there undeniably is) what's it to you? :shrug:

When the park gets updates like this once a decade (if that), it bothers me if the vast majority of it is designed for one particular demographic (young girls) and in some instances to chase a fad that (in my opinion) will have little staying power (PH and, to a lesser extent, selling makeup and dresses to girls at $100) - I think FLE as designed is the first paragraph of a Jim Hill story, five years from now,where TDO laments merchandise sales not being what they expected and can't understand why.

 

[jakeman]

In my opinion (have to have this qualifier in there or there will be complaints), M&Gs are not attractions. They are excuses for not building attractions.

Your opinion isn't based on any real facts, though.

Meet and greets are posting hour plus wait times. It would stand to reason that demand is not being met.

I have already refuted your argument that they are manufactured by marketing by demonstrating that commercials in the past as well as the present showed families interacting with characters.

It's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but when there are no facts to support it, it will be understandably questioned.

 

[lebeau]

Nieces and nephews. The occasional child of friends. None are mine.

I was pretty sure that would be the case.

In my opinion (have to have this qualifier in there or there will be complaints), M&Gs are not attractions. They are excuses for not building attractions. If you love them? Great.

Do I love them? No. But it's undeniable lots of people do. So, as you say, Great!

When the park gets updates like this once a decade (if that), it bothers me if the vast majority of it is designed for one particular demographic (young girls) and in some instances to chase a fad that (in my opinion) will have little staying power (PH and, to a lesser extent, selling makeup and dresses to girls at $100) - I think FLE as designed is the first paragraph of a Jim Hill story, five years from now,where TDO laments merchandise sales not being what they expected and can't understand why.

This argument that FLE should be something other than it is because Disney updates MK infrequently really confuses me. So, because they update MK infrequently they need to tailor their updates to your tastes?

Basically, your argument seems to be "I don't like it so they shouldn't build it".

I understand your deep concern for Disney's merch sales. It keeps me up at night as well. But I figure with all of their research and data they probably have a better idea of how to make a buck than you and me. Fret not, Krack, my friend. Disney will find some way to make money.

 

[Krack]

I have already refuted your argument that they are manufactured by marketing by demonstrating that commercials in the past as well as the present showed families interacting with characters.

No, you said that they were, and then proceeded to use a fan-made Disney commercial as your evidence.

:ROFLOL:

Then you backed that up with the "Model Day" video which you don't even realize supports my point of view more than your own; Disney isn't spending any advertising money to use that video to lure people to the resort. That video is something they posted on their website, as a "hey, look at this - it's neat". Let me know when they start using it in their advertising - then you might have a point.

 

[WDWFigment]

Your opinion isn't based on any real facts, though.

Meet and greets are posting hour plus wait times. It would stand to reason that demand is not being met.

I have already refuted your argument that they are manufactured by marketing by demonstrating that commercials in the past as well as the present showed families interacting with characters.

It's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but when there are no facts to support it, it will be understandably questioned.

This was my point when I said Krack is not objective. Rather than articulating an objective response, he gave a smart-______ response that he'd preface everything with "in my opinion."

For example, a statement such as "X is a negative because it causes Y and Z and precludes A as demonstrated by W and Y" would be an opinion, but it would be more objectively formed than, say, "X is bad," without offering any rationale or logic behind the opinion.

 

[Krack]

This argument that FLE should be something other than it is because Disney updates MK infrequently really confuses me. So, because they update MK infrequently they need to tailor their updates to your tastes?

My tastes? No. A wide variety of tastes? Yes.

I understand your deep concern for Disney's merch sales. It keeps me up at night as well. But I figure with all of their research and data they probably have a better idea of how to make a buck than you and me. Fret not, Krack, my friend. Disney will find some way to make money.

Jim Hill - Feb 2010 - Re: The Pirates League

 

[lebeau]

My tastes? No. A wide variety of tastes? Yes.



Jim Hill - Feb 2010 - Re: The Pirates League

How about if it appeals to a lot of paying customers? I'm thinking the number of people the expansion appeals to might be more important than the diversity of the demographics. In fact, I think they'd rather have a large showing from a single demo that has been shown to spend money on their product rather than a smaller cross-section of the population at large.

I suppose you think the Pirates League is proof of something. :shrug:

 

[Krack]

How about if it appeals to a lot of paying customers? I'm thinking the number of people the expansion appeals to might be more important than the diversity of the demographics. In fact, I think they'd rather have a large showing from a single demo that has been shown to spend money on their product rather than a smaller cross-section of the population at large.

Nah, uh, uh ... you already stated Disney doesn't market to Moms with little girls.

Here

and here

and here

No fair changing your stance now. :animwink:

I suppose you think the Pirates League is proof of something. :shrug:

Yup, that when you chase a fad, you shouldn't be surprised when you find yourself underperforming against your projections.

 

[lebeau]

Yup, that when you chase a fad, you shouldn't be surprised when you find yourself underperforming against your projections.

Maybe that whole Pirates area was a little too boy-centric.

Maybe it proves that Disney is better off catering to little girls who will spend money on this sort of thing.

Maybe it proves that every now and then, even a company that excels at making money out of thin air, makes a mis-step.

Maybe it proves nothing and is just a gamble that didn't pay off as handsomely as expected.

By the way, I think the success of the two BB Boutiques kind of cancels out any point you might have been trying to make by bringing up PL. :wave:

 

[jakeman]

No, you said that they were, and then proceeded to use a fan-made Disney commercial as your evidence.

:ROFLOL:

Then you backed that up with the "Model Day" video which you don't even realize supports my point of view more than your own; Disney isn't spending any advertising money to use that video to lure people to the resort. That video is something they posted on their website, as a "hey, look at this - it's neat". Let me know when they start using it in their advertising - then you might have a point.

Yet you ignored the other commercials I pointed out that support my argument.

Krack, you either need to refute the whole argument or none, not just the points that you cherry pick out.

I admitted once I realized it was a fan made video and retracted it.

You didn't even acknowledge my other points.

This was my point when I said Krack is not objective. Rather than articulating an objective response, he gave a smart-______ response that he'd preface everything with "in my opinion."

For example, a statement such as "X is a negative because it causes Y and Z and precludes A as demonstrated by W and Y" would be an opinion, but it would be more objectively formed than, say, "X is bad," without offering any rationale or logic behind the opinion.

I agree.

I enjoy a good discussion and I would be hard pressed to argue for PH if even a shred of evidence that nothing in its place is better. Simple put right now with the information we have, PH is better.

 

[ERich2010]

i think this thread is getting a bit off-track perhaps?

 

[Random Vids Inc]

i think this thread is getting a bit off-track perhaps?

Welcome to WDWMagic! :wave:

 

[Krack]

Yet you ignored the other commercials I pointed out that support my argument.

Krack, you either need to refute the whole argument or none, not just the points that you cherry pick out.

I admitted once I realized it was a fan made video and retracted it.

You didn't even acknowledge my other points.

You didn't make an argument. You mentioned that a commercial 20 years ago had Donald Duck in it. You mentioned that many commercials from prior to 20 years ago were very similar (and even appeared to contain the same scenes, just spliced in a different order). You mentioned a recent Boom-de-Yada video and then retracted when you realized it was fan made. You mentioned a recent "Model Day" video that Disney made that isn't used in their advertising at all. Yet you drew no conclusions.

That is not "making an argument" and it certainly isn't refuting my argument. It's just throwing stuff at a wall and saying "see?" and hoping someone makes a coherent point for you.

My point, as I made it then and make it again now, is that Disney used to advertise to a broad demographic and market its Resort as a place where people of all ages and genders will have fun. The parks were featured, but so were things like horseback riding, golf, doing things in the lakes, seeing shows - some commercials didn't even feature children. Who cares if the same scene was showed in more than one commercial? That has nothing to do with the point I made. That's what the resort was using as advertising. Was a portion of one commercial 30 years ago focused on a child and how the mother would get her to Disney? Yes. Did commercials 25 years ago have characters in them? Of course. Now, almost every commercial is targeted towards mothers and their kid must hug a character (or hold hands with them) or they are not getting it done as a parent. You cannot watch these commercials and not realize they are leaning on young mothers; the pattern is repeated ad nauseum (right down to the character hug, and the two kids, and the afterthought Dad who is playing backup singer to the mother). The only reason I say "almost every" is because the Muppet "volunteer day" commercials do not follow this pattern.

All that said, it still doesn't change the fact that you didn't make an argument. It's not my fault you didn't. Donald Duck was in a commercial in 1990? Congratulations, that completely refutes my argument (that I limited to the past 10 to 15 years). You're a modern day Abraham Lincoln.

EDIT:
Just so you can't accuse me of not refuting your "argument" anymore:

You are wrong.

There was a commercial from 1990 that had Donald relaxing a pool with a family.

So? Nobody ever suggested WDW didn't use characters in their advertising prior to recent times.

Another commercial from 1992 that showed a family meeting characters.

That's awful specific.

You yourself even admitted that a commercial in 1971 was marketed the same way.

Yes, I did (except you are referring to an early-80s commercial). Is the entirety of your "argument" the point I made in my post? Can you find any more like that? Or is your entire argument based on one commercial in 20 years (1971-1989)?

You know what I did noticed? Most the commercials I viewed that were definitively from prior to your "15-year Disney went down the crapper" timeframe were the same commercial cut up different with a different voice over.

Same flyover of each park.

Same people in white dress dancing infront of Mann's Chinese Theater.

Speaking of Chinese, same Chinese dancers from WS.

Same horses running along the beach of Bay Lake.

Okay, all the old commercials are similar. So what? How does that refute my point? It doesn't. In fact, it supports it. It shows that they were marketing to several demographics instead of one. Unless, of course, you believe all people who like China like horseback riding.

I'll be the first to admit that Youtube won't have a complete conpendium of the commercials, especially the older stuff.

Still not a rebuttal. This is a "the evidence is not available to refute your point" statement. But nice try.

However, I think it is easy enough to refute the claim that all marketing falls into the category that Krack believes it does.

The simplest one would be the Boom de yadda campaign from this year.

I'll let you handle this one ... "However, upon closer inspection of the comment section, it appears that may be a fan based commercial. My revisionist memory swears I saw that on TV though."

In it's place I would submit, the Model Day a Disney videos, which while not actual commercials, promote the park in a different way.

You said it yourself, it's not a commercial. It's not something Disney uses as advertising. I don't even know why you mentioned it.

And that's it. That's the entirety of it. The rest of your contributions has been claiming you refuted my argument and that I wouldn't address your "evidence". Now it's been addressed. You can stop claiming otherwise, you still haven't made a point. I hate to go into a point by point rebuttal on a fun message board like this, but frankly you've been trolling for over a day and on at least three different threads, so it has to be pointed out that you didn't even make an attempt to rebut my comments, you just claimed evidence to support your opinion doesn't exist on YouTube yet.

 

[lebeau]

Nah, uh, uh ... you already stated Disney doesn't market to Moms with little girls.

Here

and here

and here

No fair changing your stance now. :animwink:

One, the first link and the third link lead to the same post. :ROFLOL:

Two, I don't make any claim about Disney not marketing to moms in either post. (Disney markets to moms, dads, gradparents, children, cousins, aunts, uncles. They'd market to dogs if dogs had money!) I'm just making fun of your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Next time you want to make a point, you might want to link to something that actually supports the point you're trying to make.

 

[Krack]

One, the first link and the third link lead to the same post. :ROFLOL:

Indeed it does. Fixed.

For your assistance ... fixed link #3.

Two, I don't make any claim about Disney not marketing to moms in either post.

Care to make that claim about post #3? I'll quote it for you too:

Thinking of the WDW commericials I've seen this year:

1. Muppets building houses
2. Something or other to do with toy Story Mania.

Not a Mom guilt trip in sight.

Bolded for emphasis

 

[cheezbat]

That's you. (By the way, were any of those kids yours? You might not pull out your hair if they were.) Plenty of other people feel differently or there wouldn't be hour long waits to get a picture with Tinkerbell.






As a former 'entertainer' at Disney, I'll let you know it can take an hour just to greet 30 people. So many people want pics, autographs, and to chat with the characters. In that same hour, 2000 people can be riding an attraction like the Haunted Mansion. So what's in higher demand? :ROFLOL:

Obviously this is my personal opinion, but it makes more sense to me to spend money to build actual rides to eat up guests in lines over small meet and greet lines. In the long run, these probably aren't going to eat up anywhere near as much of the crowds as rides would. Little Mermaid Dumbo, and Be Or Guest are all attractions that MAKE SENSE in this addition....the meet and greets, not so much. Build the Princess M&G's, because they are something people do enjoy, and now with the closing of Toontown there is a need for an area for them, even though I don't visit them, but lets not spend so much on them that we miss out the opportunity for another potential ride to help crowds, and axe the Pixie Hollow M&G's.

 

[lebeau]

Indeed it does. Fixed.

For your assistance ... fixed link #3.



Care to make that claim about post #3? I'll quote it for you too:



Bolded for emphasis

There's a difference between marketing to moms (as well as the rest of the family) and basing your entire marketing strategy on telling moms they are bad parents if they don't take their kids to WDW for M&Gs. The former is perfectly normal. The latter is deranged.

 

[jakeman]

And that's it. That's the entirety of it. The rest of your contributions has been claiming you refuted my argument and that I wouldn't address your "evidence". Now it's been addressed. You can stop claiming otherwise, you still haven't made a point. I hate to go into a point by point rebuttal on a fun message board like this, but frankly you've been trolling for over a day and on at least three different threads, so it has to be pointed out that you didn't even make an attempt to rebut my comments, you just claimed evidence to support your opinion doesn't exist on YouTube yet.

So when I link Youtube videos it's trolling and not making a point.

Yet when you do the same it creates a bulletproof argument?

Youtube doesn't have every Disney commercial ever made. Therefore neither point can be made based on the information we have.

I acknowledged that in my original post.

That is the point I was trying to make.

And with that I'm done.

Your post and opinions are illogical and based on what appears to be no actual facts. I'm sure we will cross paths again but for this particular thread I'm out.