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

[CaptainAmerica]

Die-hards spend a ton of money. Think DVC, APs, on property hotels, weddings, VIP guides.

They spend more money on a per-person basis, but they spend much less money on a per-night basis (which is what matters, since there are a fixed number of nights in a year).

People buy souvenirs on a per-trip basis. Disney would much rather have two different families visit for 7 nights each than a single family visiting for 14 nights, because the two seven night familys are going to combine for much more spending than the single 14 night family.

APs are the worst guests of all. They don't even buy food.

Newbies are the life blood of the company. Without them, there is no added revenue.

Obviously they're necessary, but they're not high-margin guests. New customers never are.

 

[drizgirl]

I don't see your logic.

Die-hards spend a ton of money. Think DVC, APs, on property hotels, weddings, VIP guides.

Newbies are the life blood of the company. Without them, there is no added revenue.

Die hards are probably going to spend the money there regardless.

 

[HauntedPirate]

They spend more money on a per-person basis, but they spend much less money on a per-night basis (which is what matters, since there are a fixed number of nights in a year).

People buy souvenirs on a per-trip basis. Disney would much rather have two different families visit for 7 nights each than a single family visiting for 14 nights, because the two seven night familys are going to combine for much more spending than the single 14 night family.

APs are the worst guests of all. They don't even buy food.


Obviously they're necessary, but they're not high-margin guests. New customers never are.

I've long thought that the first-time guest was really their core audience, because they basically "didn't know better" about a lot of things and spent unnecessarily. So the second- and third-time guests are the more high-margin guests and thus the more desired ones TDO wants? I'd guess that after 2 or 3 trips that guests start figuring out what to do and what not to do and fall into the more die-hard or veteran guest category that TDO thumbs their collective nose at.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I've long thought that the first-time guest was really their core audience, because they basically "didn't know better" about a lot of things and spent unnecessarily. So the second- and third-time guests are the more high-margin guests and thus the more desired ones TDO wants? I'd guess that after 2 or 3 trips that guests start figuring out what to do and what not to do and fall into the more die-hard or veteran guest category that TDO thumbs their collective nose at.

First timers are very expensive to get down to property in the first place. They require a lot of marketing dollars. Repeat visitors have brand affinity and nostalgia built right in, so they're the gold mine.

I'm not sure where the inflection point is, but I think a 3rd time visitor is still within that prime band and certainly not a die-hard veteran yet, but I'm just guessing. One visit every 4 to 6 years feels like a sweet spot.

 

[wdwtopten]

They spend more money on a per-person basis, but they spend much less money on a per-night basis (which is what matters, since there are a fixed number of nights in a year).

I'm not really following your logic here. Disney loves the guests that spend more than the average guest. There are only so many guests, too. If you make enough per user, you don't need volume, like you are (I think) saying. Anyhow, there is a reason why Disney caters to the die-hards and it is because they spend loads of money. Why do you think they keep building DVC resorts and offering APs? Why do they create different types of APs and ticketing options? Why do they offer VIP guides and wedding packages? If they are trying to dissuade the die-hards, that is a funny way to do so.

 

[justintheharris]

The average guest wants more Disney IP's everywhere.
My trip last week we ended it with an in park viewing of the HEA fireworks. The adult ladies behind us, all they were interested in during the fireworks was what characters from whatever movies they could recognize. "Oooo that's Baymax from Big Hero 6! Oh, look, there's Elsa!" Went on the entire time. So I can understand why the Bob's wanted to IP everything they can get their hands on in the Parks it's what the average newbie guests want.

Average newbie guest? No. Average guest. The amount of people who hold opinions similar to this forum are a very niche group of people.

 

[bUU]

We want them to create attractions that are innovative and original,

They do. You choose not to acknowledge it, blinding yourself to what is actually being offered.

not attractions that lazily retell familiar stories.

That is one thing they do, and a lot right now, because that is the way most of their target customers want them to direct their innovation and originality.

Even if you don't like it.

What you continue to insist upon ignoring is that the vast majority of us ...

Stop there - there is nothing "vast" about the majority here. There is a cabal of over-the-top traditionalists that are abusive toward anyone who disagrees, including several who get huffy when the tables are turned on them and someone presents the counter-perspective as forcefully and as categorically as they do. It's not a majority that is "vast" in any way, shape or form.

The "hard concept for you to grasp" is that the majority here doesn't reflect a majority of Disney's target customers.

Do you get it, or are we going to have yet another presumptuous response?

You are the pot calling the kettle black... You want to talk about "presumptuous"? How about we start with your calling the majority here "vast". That's presumptuous!

 

[bUU]

While I doubt any guest experience CM cares that much about your responses, it would seem you likely misunderstood the point of that particular survey.

I think that's common. A lot of people think that the point of surveys is to change the parks into something that they would personally enjoy more, rather than the reality, that the point of surveys is to change the parks into something that more reliably generates more revenue for the enterprise.

 

[bUU]

The average guest wants more Disney IP's everywhere.
My trip last week we ended it with an in park viewing of the HEA fireworks. The adult ladies behind us, all they were interested in during the fireworks was what characters from whatever movies they could recognize. "Oooo that's Baymax from Big Hero 6! Oh, look, there's Elsa!" Went on the entire time. So I can understand why the Bob's wanted to IP everything they can get their hands on in the Parks it's what the average newbie guests want.

Precisely. And it may even be more nuanced than that. In casual conversation, we can talk about "majorities" of guests, but that's not even what matters. What matters is the "majorities" of guest spending. There is a myth that some people seem to have invested themselves in: "If you do what I want, your business will thrive". That's not how a consumer-facing business works.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

APs are the worst guests of all. They don't even buy food.

Huh?

They do. You choose not to acknowledge it, blinding yourself to what is actually being offered.

That is one thing they do, and a lot right now, because that is the way most of their target customers want them to direct their innovation and originality.

Even if you don't like it.

Stop there - there is nothing "vast" about the majority here. There is a cabal of over-the-top traditionalists that are abusive toward anyone who disagrees, including several who get huffy when the tables are turned on them and someone presents the counter-perspective as forcefully and as categorically as they do. It's not a majority that is "vast" in any way, shape or form.

The "hard concept for you to grasp" is that the majority here doesn't reflect a majority of Disney's target customers.

You are the pot calling the kettle black... You want to talk about "presumptuous"? How about we start with your calling the majority here "vast". That's presumptuous!

I was referring to the vast majority of purists. Try again.

 

[Rupert901]

Even if guest surveys are accurate (non-biased) and closely adhered to in how the parks are run, that reflects a conservatism and risk-aversion that is antithetical to the innovation and originality that made Walt Disney's creative output successful in the first place. To quote Walt Disney: "Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money." Walt Disney and his team of geniuses were to a large extent by guided artistic instinct instead of polls and focus groups and created an enduring legacy (while making a lot of money.) Of course, that spirit has been gone for a very long time but it's a shame to see what remains from that era defaced by cynical corporate cash grabs.

 

[Tom P.]

Even if guest surveys are accurate (non-biased) and closely adhered to in how the parks are run, that reflects a conservatism and risk-aversion that is antithetical to the innovation and originality that made Walt Disney's creative output successful in the first place. To quote Walt Disney: "Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money." Walt Disney and his team of geniuses were to a large extent by guided artistic instinct instead of polls and focus groups and created an enduring legacy (while making a lot of money.) Of course, that spirit has been gone for a very long time but it's a shame to see what remains from that era defaced by cynical corporate nonsense.

Walt did not go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money, but he definitely went in with the idea of making money. He wanted to be creative and innovative and high quality, yes. But he ultimately wanted to earn a tidy profit as well. He was not blind to what would draw the crowds in. Yes, sometimes you have to take a risk on some creative endeavor, hoping that people will like it and it will make money. But you can't always do that or you will go out of business.

Disney's direction in the parks has been chosen because all of their data they have available is telling them that it's the direction that the consumer wants. And, trust me, Disney is one of the best organizations on the planet at gathering customer data and making effective use of it. Disney is not putting more IP in the parks because they hate original attractions. They are putting more IP in the parks because their research is telling them that a Star Wars ride will draw in more customers than a brand new, original attraction. And in most cases, I would bet that they are correct.

I am the first to admit that the entertainment industry as a whole has become too conservative and unwilling to take risks. It is why we see an endless slew of Marvel films, Star Wars films, and remakes of classic Disney films as 99.9% of the output of the studio side of Disney. No one wants to be the one to take a risk anymore. And I do wish that entertainment companies would get back to taking more risks. Even so, though, I acknowledge the realities of business and realize that the average visitor to Walt Disney World is not clamoring for original, non-IP content, just as the average consumer is clearly happy with the 2,458th Marvel film.

 

[Rupert901]

I know that Disney has always been a profit making operation and there's really no going back to the way things were done in the 60s, but there should be some kind of balance between art and profits: I personally don't see much balance anymore in the Disney parks, excepting the Tokyo parks.

 

[DDLand]

Original attractions, by their very definition, are abstract and difficult to imagine. Would a guest ever request an original attraction over a "Disney" one? No, because an original attraction has no details. You are comparing a non existent idea to a set of characters that are already a known factor and liked. Of course they'll choose characters!

But let's rephrase the question. Do you want attractions like Snow White Mine Train, or Space Mountain? The answer will become more mixed. Even in Space Mountain's dire state, it remains one of the most beloved theme park attractions of all time. Why? Because it seamlessly blends story with a great physical experience(or did... even my young body can only take so many spins). Would you take another Expedition Everest? It's a nondescript ride that is easily one of the most beloved at Walt Disney World. Once the question is rephrased, you will often find more mixed results.

Let's take a look at Tron Lightcycle Power Run over in Shanghai. It's the number one attraction at the park, and it features an IP connection... But actually few (any?) of the Chinese know Tron the franchise, essentially making it an original attraction. It's being built right now over at Magic Kingdom, even though Tron fans are probably fewer than Disney theme park fans. Yet I'm willing to bet it will be have the longest lines for years to come.

IP as a driver of success is terribly overrated. Build a really incredible attraction and people will enjoy it. If you let said ride decay for 30 years something shocking will happen... People won't like it anymore! I'm willing to bet if Pirates of the Caribbean: Battle for the Sunken Treasure received the treatment Space Mountain or Spaceship Earth received over the decades people would start complaining about it.

What's the difference between the oft hated DinoRoma and the beloved Toy Story Land (besides DinoRoma's clearly superior build quality... never have I seen such a poorly built land then TSL. The place was falling apart. The caulk in the bathrooms was smeared around. It looked a little bit better when I went recently, but I was shocked they shipped that as the Disney Difference... Though all the effects on Slinky were broken this time. One step forward two steps back)? IP has allowed the 20 Toy Story attractions around the world to go on, even though they're mostly carnival crap or some of the worst attractions at Disney. IP does allow WDI and Walt Disney Parks to be lazy and ship mediocre stories.

Why didn't people like Ellen's Energy Adventure? Probably because it was 20 years old and effects were breaking down. Why didn't people like Maelstrom? Probably because it went 30 years without a substantive update. What about the Great Movie Ride? Maybe because most of the films featured were from the 80s and older (nothing appeals to young people like movies they have never heard of).

There will be misfires. Like any art, an original attraction can suck. We need only look at Imagination versions 2 and 3. But there will also be incredible highs, like Pirates of the Caribbean and Space Mountain that make it to the heart of popular culture far more than Radiator Springs Racers ever will. Why? Because Radiator Springs Racers is extension of franchise and not a real experience.

So don't be surprised when a young family comes to a park with only six 30 year old rides that have been poorly maintained, and then asks "where's Mickey?" Disney seems to have a new theme park management strategy. Spend billions creating or updating attractions and then let them decay for a couple decades. Then repeat. Never mention the "m word," (maintenance) and don't even think about iterative improvements.

Let the paint peel and the park become tired, because Rocket Raccoon and Ratatouille are on the way!

Walt did not go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money, but he definitely went in with the idea of making money. He wanted to be creative and innovative and high quality, yes. But he ultimately wanted to earn a tidy profit as well. He was not blind to what would draw the crowds in. Yes, sometimes you have to take a risk on some creative endeavor, hoping that people will like it and it will make money. But you can't always do that or you will go out of business.

Disney's direction in the parks has been chosen because all of their data they have available is telling them that it's the direction that the consumer wants. And, trust me, Disney is one of the best organizations on the planet at gathering customer data and making effective use of it. Disney is not putting more IP in the parks because they hate original attractions. They are putting more IP in the parks because their research is telling them that a Star Wars ride will draw in more customers than a brand new, original attraction. And in most cases, I would bet that they are correct.

I am the first to admit that the entertainment industry as a whole has become too conservative and unwilling to take risks. It is why we see an endless slew of Marvel films, Star Wars films, and remakes of classic Disney films as 99.9% of the output of the studio side of Disney. No one wants to be the one to take a risk anymore. And I do wish that entertainment companies would get back to taking more risks. Even so, though, I acknowledge the realities of business and realize that the average visitor to Walt Disney World is not clamoring for original, non-IP content, just as the average consumer is clearly happy with the 2,458th Marvel film.

For a man looking to make a profit, he invested in a lot of moronic businesses. Disneyland was the height of stupidity, until he decided to outdo his moronic bet by making an even more moronic bet to create EPCOT. Yes he wanted money, but that was secondary. Call me a "fanboy," but I really do believe that he put story and his values first.

What did the public do before Marvel Studios? I mean, what did we watch?

 

[bUU]

I was referring to the vast majority of purists. Try again.

Nonsense. By your definition, to be a purist means to agree with you. In that context, you would have used the word "all" rather than the term "vast majority". I think you were trying to make it seem like you were speaking for everyone other than me - "presumptuously". Now you're trying to move the goal posts to distract attention away from being called out on it. Regardless, you failed to acknowledge the point of the message to which you replied: "That is one thing they do, and a lot right now, because that is the way most of their target customers want them to direct their innovation and originality. Even if you don't like it." Your "vast majority of purists" are a small minority as compared to the totality of guests that Disney is aiming to have visit the parks.

 

[bUU]

I know that Disney has always been a profit making operation and there's really no going back to the way things were done in the 60s, but there should be some kind of balance between art and profits:

Let's test that. You are an entity unto yourself: You have gifts and capabilities, and you can offer them to employers. To what extent do you strike a "balance" such that you do whatever it is that would best feed your company's holistic mission beyond what you are compensated for? It is easy to be generous with other people's money.

The reality is that Disney does do lots that doesn't directly track back to profits. Rodhe went into detail about how much of a focus they're putting on conservation at Lighthouse Point and alluded to how much Disney has done for years through its conservation fund. I would stack Disney's efforts in that regard on par with any competitor.

 

[bUU]

Nailed it, that's the whole problem. Upper management wants people that go with what they are trying to do which is increase revenue. They are not interested in real views of the park.

When people say that "everyone knows that the company is in business to make profit" let's post a link back to this comment, which shows clearly that that is not the case.

The "real" view of the parks is how well it serves its mission, which explicit equates creativity, innovation and profitability, based on how they measure each.

 

[xdan0920]

Original attractions, by their very definition, are abstract and difficult to imagine. Would a guest ever request an original attraction over a "Disney" one? No, because an original attraction has no details. You are comparing a non existent idea to a set of characters that are already a known factor and liked. Of course they'll choose characters!

But let's rephrase the question. Do you want attractions like Snow White Mine Train, or Space Mountain? The answer will become more mixed. Even in Space Mountain's dire state, it remains one of the most beloved theme park attractions of all time. Why? Because it seamlessly blends story with a great physical experience(or did... even my young body can only take so many spins). Would you take another Expedition Everest? It's a nondescript ride that is easily one of the most beloved at Walt Disney World. Once the question is rephrased, you will often find more mixed results.

Let's take a look at Tron Lightcycle Power Run over in Shanghai. It's the number one attraction at the park, and it features an IP connection... But actually few (any?) of the Chinese know Tron the franchise, essentially making it an original attraction. It's being built right now over at Magic Kingdom, even though Tron fans are probably fewer than Disney theme park fans. Yet I'm willing to bet it will be have the longest lines for years to come.

IP as a driver of success is terribly overrated. Build a really incredible attraction and people will enjoy it. If you let said ride decay for 30 years something shocking will happen... People won't like it anymore! I'm willing to bet if Pirates of the Caribbean: Battle for the Sunken Treasure received the treatment Space Mountain or Spaceship Earth received over the decades people would start complaining about it.

What's the difference between the oft hated DinoRoma and the beloved Toy Story Land (besides DinoRoma's clearly superior build quality... never have I seen such a poorly built land then TSL. The place was falling apart. The caulk in the bathrooms was smeared around. It looked a little bit better when I went recently, but I was shocked they shipped that as the Disney Difference... Though all the effects on Slinky were broken this time. One step forward two steps back)? IP has allowed the 20 Toy Story attractions around the world to go on, even though they're mostly carnival crap or some of the worst attractions at Disney. IP does allow WDI and Walt Disney Parks to be lazy and ship mediocre stories.

Why didn't people like Ellen's Energy Adventure? Probably because it was 20 years old and effects were breaking down. Why didn't people like Maelstrom? Probably because it went 30 years without a substantive update. What about the Great Movie Ride? Maybe because most of the films featured were from the 80s and older (nothing appeals to young people like movies they have never heard of).

There will be misfires. Like any art, an original attraction can suck. We need only look at Imagination versions 2 and 3. But there will also be incredible highs, like Pirates of the Caribbean and Space Mountain that make it to the heart of popular culture far more than Radiator Springs Racers ever will. Why? Because Radiator Springs Racers is extension of franchise and not a real experience.

So don't be surprised when a young family comes to a park with only six 30 year old rides that have been poorly maintained, and then asks "where's Mickey?" Disney seems to have a new theme park management strategy. Spend billions creating or updating attractions and then let them decay for a couple decades. Then repeat. Never mention the "m word," (maintenance) and don't even think about iterative improvements.

Let the paint peel and the park become tired, because Rocket Raccoon and Ratatouille are on the way!

For a man looking to make a profit, he invested in a lot of moronic businesses. Disneyland was the height of stupidity, until he decided to outdo his moronic bet by making an even more moronic bet to create EPCOT. Yes he wanted money, but that was secondary. Call me a "fanboy," but I really do believe that he put story and his values first.

What did the public do before Marvel Studios? I mean, what did we watch?

Easily one of the best WDWMagic posts of all time.

 

[hauntology]

Wow this thread got heated so fast it’s kind of amazing

 

[Rupert901]

Original attractions, by their very definition, are abstract and difficult to imagine. Would a guest ever request an original attraction over a "Disney" one? No, because an original attraction has no details. You are comparing a non existent idea to a set of characters that are already a known factor and liked. Of course they'll choose characters!

This is a great point. Generally speaking the average person is biased towards the familiar vs. the unknown all else being equal so it's practically inevitable that guests, if asked to choose between more of the same vs. something they are unfamiliar with will choose the former over the latter. It does not follow that a well done non-IP attraction will do any worse than an IP attraction and will, moreover, often have considerably more staying power than an attraction based on a current fad.