Guest Surveys as way to gauge interest in new rides/shows: how does this work?

[George]

To answer the titular query - they painstakingly gather data for years with their long, detailed surveys. They note there are a lot of different thoughtful opinions. Then, Monsters Inc 3 makes 1.4 billion and the new show - Mike and Sully Wear Cowboy Hats in the No Longer Seasonal Diamond Horseshoe is born.

 

[Tom P.]

Customers want more Disney than Disney?

Guests want more Disney at WDW? What’s that even mean?

Assuming that you are asking genuine questions and not being snarky:

What I meant, and what I assumed the OP meant -- but I could be wrong -- is the inclusion of more Disney intellectual property (IP) in the parks, rather than attractions that are entirely comprised of original content. It would be the difference, for example, between an attraction like Haunted Mansion, which was not based on any pre-existing Disney media property, and Peter Pan's Flight, which obviously was.

There seems to be an almost kneejerk reaction from a certain rather vocal segment of the fan community that as Disney has moved to include more IP in their parks, that they are losing the heart and soul of what those parks "should be." Although I hear this applied to all of the theme parks, it seems of particular concern where Epcot and, to a lesser extent, Animal Kingdom are concerned.

For me personally, I have no problem with more IP being added to the parks, including Epcot. My concern is whether or not new or changed attractions are done well. If they are, it does not matter to me if they are IP-based or not. I would not want to see Disney completely do away with classic attractions like Haunted Mansion or It's A Small World, but if they add some Disney characters to IaSW in a reasonable way, I'm fine with that.

Similarly, while I hope to see Epcot keep some of what has made it unique over the years, I also do not consider the current design of the park or the original EPCOT Center to be some sacred hallowed ground that must never be altered. Frankly, I think there have been some elements of Epcot that could use a bit of improvement, including a bit more Disney fun. Adding Mary Poppins to the UK pavilion or having a new attraction inspired by Moana does not bother me in the slightest.

As I said in another thread, though, to each his own. Some will love the changes, some will hate them. And I'm sure the majority of vocal people on these forums will continue to decry them as some form of blasphemy that is wrought by Satan's minions Iger and Chapek to turn Epcot into IPCot. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I'm also entitled to continue to enjoy what Disney is doing and plan to continue visiting the parks.

 

[hauntology]

Assuming that you are asking genuine questions and not being snarky:

What I meant, and what I assumed the OP meant -- but I could be wrong -- is the inclusion of more Disney intellectual property (IP) in the parks, rather than attractions that are entirely comprised of original content. It would be the difference, for example, between an attraction like Haunted Mansion, which was not based on any pre-existing Disney media property, and Peter Pan's Flight, which obviously was.

There seems to be an almost kneejerk reaction from a certain rather vocal segment of the fan community that as Disney has moved to include more IP in their parks, that they are losing the heart and soul of what those parks "should be." Although I hear this applied to all of the theme parks, it seems of particular concern where Epcot and, to a lesser extent, Animal Kingdom are concerned.

For me personally, I have no problem with more IP being added to the parks, including Epcot. My concern is whether or not new or changed attractions are done well. If they are, it does not matter to me if they are IP-based or not. I would not want to see Disney completely do away with classic attractions like Haunted Mansion or It's A Small World, but if they add some Disney characters to IaSW in a reasonable way, I'm fine with that.

Similarly, while I hope to see Epcot keep some of what has made it unique over the years, I also do not consider the current design of the park or the original EPCOT Center to be some sacred hallowed ground that must never be altered. Frankly, I think there have been some elements of Epcot that could use a bit of improvement, including a bit more Disney fun. Adding Mary Poppins to the UK pavilion or having a new attraction inspired by Moana does not bother me in the slightest.

As I said in another thread, though, to each his own. Some will love the changes, some will hate them. And I'm sure the majority of vocal people on these forums will continue to decry them as some form of blasphemy that is wrought by Satan's minions Iger and Chapek to turn Epcot into IPCot. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I'm also entitled to continue to enjoy what Disney is doing and plan to continue visiting the parks.

I think you put into perspective a lot of what I feel about IP at EPCOT in a way I hadn't originally thought through in my original post and I thank you for it. I personally don't have an issue with IP when it's used well and isn't taking away from other attractions. I personally don't mind Mary Poppins in UK (actually I love it) or Journey of Water.

My main issue is as you said before, not being able to go for rides that don't require the existing movie to make it so. Even then, I'm a huge fan of the recent films, especially Frozen. From a storytelling perspective I believe Frozen Ever After is using the limited space given to it by Maelstrom effectively, and isn't a confusing ride that ends looking at oceanic oil rigs.

A lot of the issue with recent EPCOT commentary has been about the original mission of the park, etc which as much as I'd love to go back in time and experience all of those original pavilions, etc; I know won't happen because people didn't come to theme parks to be sold on technoutopianism in the first place. But I think it was daring of a company to have continued to create attractions that weren't tied to films like Test Track,etc.


Regarding IP done well and NOT well, what do you consider successful and unsuccessful examples?

 

[ChrisFL]

I'm also under the impression that they ask leading questions, or questions where the only choices are things Disney is already pursuing.

Additionally, I have a feeling the average guest doesn't think about cohesive theming, park history, etc when answering these questions, only that they're often fans of big rides and the latest hit movie.

Then there's the bigger question related to this about what "More Disney" actually means. CLEARLY Bob Chapek and his team have a much different definition than a lot of us do.

 

[Tom P.]

Doing surveys takes a lot of time and a lot of money. It is not simple or cheap for Disney to do, even when the surveys are electronic and sent by e-mail.

I very seriously doubt that Disney would spend all that time and money just to try and generate a phony survey result that says what they want it to say. Some might say that they are doing it to justify their decisions with "well, it's what the fans wanted." But let's be honest. The majority of Disney's customers don't know or care what some survey said, nor do they know or care why Disney makes the decisions it does.

There simply is nothing to be gained by Disney, and a lot of time and money to be lost, by engaging in that practice.

 

[DryerLintFan]

Did you ever end up doing anything else on subsequent trips? Epcot has such varied reception it's kind of fascinating to me. I know they got lots of hype when the Frozen ride happened.

The trip we basically just met princesses. The last trip though we went on more rides and found some favorites in the "classics". My daughter really loves the "silly purple dragon ride" and i really loved the "farm ride".

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Doing surveys takes a lot of time and a lot of money. It is not simple or cheap for Disney to do, even when the surveys are electronic and sent by e-mail.

I very seriously doubt that Disney would spend all that time and money just to try and generate a phony survey result that says what they want it to say. Some might say that they are doing it to justify their decisions with "well, it's what the fans wanted." But let's be honest. The majority of Disney's customers don't know or care what some survey said, nor do they know or care why Disney makes the decisions it does.

There simply is nothing to be gained by Disney, and a lot of time and money to be lost, by engaging in that practice.

With due respect, that is not true at all. In large corporate structures, surveys are often used (and very carefully drafted) to drive particular outcomes so they can present decisions to upper management and the board. If the surveys were meant to really data gather, they would have open ended questions and try to get significantly larger sample sizes. Having taken a few of them, I can't count the number of times I wanted to say none of the answer options they gave me matched. So, I had to pick the one that seemed "least wrong". And, the one time I said that, the gentlemen said he understood and abruptly ended my survey part way through. That's not to say that's always the case. But, "really polling the audience" is typically not the goal of surveys in major corporate America.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

The trip we basically just met princesses. The last trip though we went on more rides and found some favorites in the "classics". My daughter really loves the "silly purple dragon ride" and i really loved the "farm ride".

As an avid original Epcot fan, I'm very intrigued by all of this. I think I've accepted the use of IPs. As others have mentioned, it's all about how.

I have an actual honest question (conducting my own survey of 1. haha). For Frozen, if the entry room or so would have had displays of traditional Scandinavian costumes and how they related to the film. And similar displays to the Stave church. Then you round the corner into the Arendale/Boat dock on the guise of how Norway culture and story telling inspired Frozen - and a new Frozen story as a result. (Then insert something on the walls in Customs-length exit hallway about maybe Norwegian authors or something else about Norway story telling.) In your honest opinion, would that story around the Frozen attraction decrease the enjoyment of you and your family? (I ask since my biggest heartache is that they are oddly blending real world countries with the fantasy-based characters and stories without explaining their use. So, it's more "Disney France" or "Disney Norway" vs. the real country. I'd love to see a way to push it back to reality. And, I'm interested how Frozen fans would feel about the compromise.)

 

[DryerLintFan]

As an avid original Epcot fan, I'm very intrigued by all of this. I think I've accepted the use of IPs. As others have mentioned, it's all about how.

I have an actual honest question (conducting my own survey of 1. haha). For Frozen, if the entry room or so would have had displays of traditional Scandinavian costumes and how they related to the film. And similar displays to the Stave church. Then you round the corner into the Arendale/Boat dock on the guise of how Norway culture and story telling inspired Frozen - and a new Frozen story as a result. (Then insert something on the walls in Customs-length exit hallway about maybe Norwegian authors or something else about Norway story telling.) In your honest opinion, would that story around the Frozen attraction decrease the enjoyment of you and your family? (I ask since my biggest heartache is that they are oddly blending real world countries with the fantasy-based characters and stories without explaining their use. So, it's more "Disney France" or "Disney Norway" vs. the real country. I'd love to see a way to push it back to reality. And, I'm interested how Frozen fans would feel about the compromise.)

I would love that, actually. My daughter is only 4.5 though and still thinks the princesses are real, so she wouldn't make the connection yet. The story has a pretty strong tie in to the culture, and it would be really great to see that displayed.

 

[Hotamber]

If restored audioamatronic Buzzy (a YouTube star) is in Epcot Forever or the Play pavilion you would ...
A) Join DVC B) Buy an annual pass C) Skip it until its removal then cry online D) Steal his hands and face for sale on Ebay

 

[bUU]

I'm also under the impression that they ask leading questions, or questions where the only choices are things Disney is already pursuing.

They don't. Rather, as a poster alluded to earlier in the thread, they do structure their surveys to elicit information that will drive increased revenues rather than quiet griping from the most passionate traditionalists.

Additionally, I have a feeling the average guest doesn't think about cohesive theming, park history, etc when answering these questions, only that they're often fans of big rides and the latest hit movie.

And that kind of guest predominates - their opinion matters much more than the opinion of those who are much more fixated on such things.

Then there's the bigger question related to this about what "More Disney" actually means. CLEARLY Bob Chapek and his team have a much different definition than a lot of us do.

As you yourself pointed out, the average guests has a much different perspective than a lot of you do. Guess which of the two does Chapek's perspective parallel.

 

[bUU]

With due respect, that is not true at all. In large corporate structures, surveys are often used (and very carefully drafted) to drive particular outcomes so they can present decisions to upper management and the board.

That is simply not true. The occasions where that occurs are rare aberrations. The vast majority of market surveys are crafted by professionals with experience and expertise and drive superior business performance.

If the surveys were meant to really data gather, they would have open ended questions and try to get significantly larger sample sizes.

Nonsense. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on either statistics or marketing.

Having taken a few of them, I can't count the number of times I wanted to say none of the answer options they gave me matched.

So because the company isn't interested in your personal preferences, you conclude that they're not pursuing useful information for their business? Wow.

 

[monothingie]

That is simply not true. The occasions where that occurs are rare aberrations. The vast majority of market surveys are crafted by professionals with experience and expertise and drive superior business performance.

Nonsense. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on either statistics or marketing.

So because the company isn't interested in your personal preferences, you conclude that they're not pursuing useful information for their business? Wow.

As typical of your responses, you simply just state that the person you are responding to is wrong or doesn’t know what they’re talking about without offering anything to back your opinion.

 

[xdan0920]

As typical of your responses, you simply just state that the person you are responding to is wrong or doesn’t know what they’re talking about without offering anything to back your opinion.

It really is quite effective trolling though. Gotta hand it to him, if you are gonna be a troll, may as well be the biggest and best troll.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

They don't. Rather, as a poster alluded to earlier in the thread, they do structure their surveys to elicit information that will drive increased revenues rather than quiet griping from the most passionate traditionalists.

And that kind of guest predominates - their opinion matters much more than the opinion of those who are much more fixated on such things.

As you yourself pointed out, the average guests has a much different perspective than a lot of you do. Guess which of the two does Chapek's perspective parallel.

Ya know, everybody started out as "the average guest." I think people defending the parks' slide into mediocrity often forget this. Lest you forget, the standard of original storytelling that we yearn to return to was set by the company itself and caused countless "average guests" to convert to fanatics. There was a time when Disney gave guests what they didn't know they wanted.

Even Walt was somewhat over his studio IP during his last years, and focused almost primarily on original storytelling in the parks, as well as his utopian vision for EPCOT (a place that you certainly would not be meeting princesses).

Also, can somebody explain to me how attractions and parks designed and built by Disney are somehow not "Disney" enough?

 

[Brer Oswald]

They write the questions in a way that skew the results in favour of what ADs they want to put in the park. For instance, if you were to get a question about Journey Into Imagination: With Figment, the question would be: “Do you regularly visit this attraction?”. Most of us would want to click no, and tell them to make an attraction closer in spirit to the original. But that last part wouldn’t be there, and they’d use that to justify replacing it with whatever film they feel necessary.

The average guest doesn’t care, so long as Mickey Mouse is there. Attractions are recommended to them, and those are the big ones they go on. The reason behind adding IP to the parks has absolutely nothing to do with draw, and everything to do with the gift shop at the exit of the attraction.

 

[bUU]

As typical of your responses, you simply just state that the person you are responding to is wrong or doesn’t know what they’re talking about without offering anything to back your opinion.

As typical of your responses, you post a personal attack in response to comments you don't like but for which you don't have a legitimate response.

 

[bUU]

Ya know, everybody started out as "the average guest." I think people defending the parks' slide into mediocrity often forget this. Lest you forget, the standard of original storytelling that we yearn to return to was set by the company itself and caused countless "average guests" to convert to fanatics. There was a time when Disney gave guests what they didn't know they wanted.

They still do.

They simply don't give you what you didn't know you wanted.

You're no longer "the average guest" and it must be quite disappointing but that doesn't justify ignoring the reality that millions of other guests are "the average guest" today and place the quality of what they're offered as high as you ever put Disney in the past.

 

[wdwtopten]

You’d be surprised how many parents take their little princesses to Epcot, ride Frozen, meet Anna and Elsa and immediately leave after.

I would be interested to actually know the answer to this. Is it 1% of guests? 2%?

Ya know, everybody started out as "the average guest."

Exactly.

Steps to becoming a Disney Parks fanatic:

1. Go to a park.
2. Have good time.
3. Inspired by the good time you had, seek out information about the park and talk to others about it.
4. Learn about the parks and gain a greater understanding about how they are designed, the history behind them, etc.

I understand that not everyone will do this. Maybe it is only 10%. But that doesn't mean that Disney should stop trying to build things that are truly special and that are cohesive and inspired. Because once you stop trying to be the best, you'll quickly become less than the best, and then the guests stop coming...so you have to cut costs...and the death spiral begins.

 

[monothingie]

As typical of your responses, you post a personal attack in response to comments you don't like but for which you don't have a legitimate response.

Thanks for proving my point.