Harry Potter Regrets

[ChrisFL]

Doom and gloom? Nope. Reality check? Yep. Painful as it may for some to admit it.

Disney don't have a through and through kiddie image. WDW does though. Far more than Disneyland and DLP. Possibly Tokyo too but I admit I don't have first hand experience of TDL. Yet.

Tokyo doesn't, as much as adults don't worry about liking cute or "kawaii" stuff, they love it as much or more than the kids do.

Also, DisneySea had a reputation of being a young couple's destination and less for kids, which is why they're adding more kid friendly attractions like Turtle Talk and Toy Story Mania

 

[tl77]

Just out of curiosity then, how many non-disney fanatics do you know that go to Disney every year? Every other year? Every three years? How many of those people are also now planning to go to Universal because of Harry Potter? How many of those people might go to Universal when Harry Potter is in both gates? You can say what you like, but Harry affected Disney's bottom line. Disney will always (well most likely) be the #1 player in Central Florida. However, Disney got accustomed to being the sole destination for a long time, with Universal only being a thought to some people that ventured that way. Now, Universal is getting attention because they built something good. Outside of Disney loyal forums, I have heard nothing but glowing reviews of how great WWoHP is (with crowds being the sole thing people have complained about to me). In regards to Harry, I don't really listen to much on these and like-minded forums. We, for the most part, are biased in our thinking. We love Disney, and most of us want to see them succeed and be #1 always. However, whether we want to accept it or not, Harry has taken market share from Disney. It's immersive, it's got a ground breaking attraction, and it is unique. The rumored new area is going to be more of that as well, and will continue to eat into Disney's marketshare. What used to be a week in WDW for someone, might only be 4 or 5 days now. That is a considerable amount of revenue to lose. If Disney wants to compete effectively against that, then they are going to have to look away from promoting the same things over and over again. The bus can only tell you that "Nemo and Friends" is a new experience for so long before people get tired with it. Like I said, nostalgia works at first, it isn't sustainable forever.

Well first off, everyone I know who goes to Disney World, has bought a Vacation Club, goes every year, and doesn't bother with Universal, but I live about an hour and a half from Six Flags, Hershey Park and Dorney Park and Universal is nothing but an expensive Six Flags to me...

All that aside, I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying about Disney letting things slide for the last decade or so, but when EPCOT Center first opened it was supposed to be this very high tech experience that wouldn't include any of the classic Disney characters. The hard core Disney fans loved the original EPCOT, but the general public showed up and wanted to know "where's Mickey Mouse?" and EPCOT didn't do very well financially in the early years. The same with MGM and it's 2 hour backstage tour, most people weren't interested.

When the average person thinks "Disney World" they think Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Fairytale Princesses, and I guess now Pirates of the Caribbean and Pixar too, and The Magic Kingdom is still the #1 park at WDW because that's where all the classic characters are.

So getting back to my original point Universal and Disney are like apples and oranges, Universal latches on to whatever's the hot thing of the moment, in the 70's it was "Jaws", in the 80's "Back to the Future", the 90's "Jurassic Park", and now it's "Harry Potter", and Disney does best by sticking with their classic characters

 

[notslim99]

So getting back to my original point Universal and Disney are like apples and oranges, Universal latches on to whatever's the hot thing of the moment, in the 70's it was "Jaws", in the 80's "Back to the Future", the 90's "Jurassic Park", and now it's "Harry Potter", and Disney does best by sticking with their classic characters

Exactly. Universal and Disney have their own niches and their own issues. To compare the two is pointless. Yes, I like Disney better than Universal for a myriad of reasons, but I don't trick myself into thinking that they're comparable. Some folks are Disney people, some are Universal people, some like both, and some like neither.

 

[marni1971]

...and EPCOT didn't do very well financially in the early years. The same with MGM and it's 2 hour backstage tour, most people weren't interested.

Both a myth and both incorrect. Just saying.

 

[AEfx]

We are so lucky Universal got it.

Disney would never as gone as far on Forbidden Journey. I mean, a dark ride that has actual scares? Disney wouldn't stand for it. It would have been so watered down I don't even want to think about it.

 

[surfsupdon]

We are so lucky Universal got it.

Disney would never as gone as far on Forbidden Journey. I mean, a dark ride that has actual scares? Disney wouldn't stand for it. It would have been so watered down I don't even want to think about it.

Agreed. It just wouldn't have been as good an attraction.

 

[Testtrack321]

While visiting DAK last week, a Photopass photographer was telling me that J.K Rowling had at one time discussed bringing Harry to Disney Parks and now she has regrets about going to Universal and wishes that she had gone with Disney instead. This is the first that I've heard of this and frankly, I'm wondering if he got his info from one of the bus drivers. Any one else heard of this or is this just another one of those "stories".

All that creative control and large cut of profits, yeah she's probably totally regretting it.

 

[Club34]

Disclaimer: I have no business/marketing credentials.

WDW need to keep the kiddie image, BUT they definitely need to tap what they aren't right now too. The thing about WDW is its size. It is a "world" and an international destination. Potter is great but until they expand, its an "also ran". In order for Disney to get the "others" they need to exploit other relationships/properties (yes, not getting potter was a misstep and they are plain stupid if they don't start exploiting their marvel licenses in their properties soon) and they might want to think about luring those who DO think its just kiddie stuff and thus don't want to go and check it out. specific marketing/improvements/expansions to draw those audiences.

I have people in my life who fall into this category. My previous gf wanted nothing to do with WDW until i tantrumed and then we went. This was around 2000 and the dining (which was better then) hooked her. She saw this was a nice place for adult fun. Further, I have guy friends who wouldn't mind taking their sons to a park but they want uber-thrills, so if they go south they are checking out busch gardens and uni. I know my research isnt scientific but its the things that disney doesnt hit or doesnt hit hard that seem like an untapped well to me. although, there is evidence such as the failure of PI that maybe it can never be.

 

[tl77]

(doubble post)

 

[tl77]

Both a myth and both incorrect. Just saying.

Well in the Disney film "Waking Sleeping Beauty" there's a clip from the Today in the early 80's show that mentions the "weak earnings from the Epoct center in Florida" and they wouldn't have shut down the 2 hour MGM tour within its first year if it was a huge hit, not saying I'm happy about it, just saying "them's the facts"

 

[ChrisFL]

Well in the Disney film "Waking Sleeping Beauty" there's a clip from the Today in the early 80's show that mentions the "weak earnings from the Epoct center in Florida"

I'm not going to disagree with that fact, however that isn't enough of information. Were they referring to a single quarter? That doesn't define how the park did over the first several years.

Earnings also doesn't necessarily mean attendance, it could mean merchandise issues.

Universal a few years ago (pre-Harry Potter) was having smaller attendance numbers but higher earnings due to a few things they were promoting.

 

[Captain Neo]

I don't know Martin...I think that the "kiddie" image might be company wide and I think it has to do with the revitalization of Disney Animation in the early 90s with Eisner. Maybe it's just me, but Disney Animation of the 90s seems more "kiddie" to me than Disney Animation of the 30s-50s. And it seems like today's focus for the company is more Tween than anything. But you're definitely spot on about the problem being amplified and promoted at WDW.

Actually Eisner helped break the kiddie image by approving several thrill rides and attractions for older audiences like Captain EO and Alien Encounter. In California, Disneyland is not viewed as a kiddie park at all and you will see a huge variety of guests there on any given day not just families with young children. In fact I think you will probably see more adults and college & high school students there.

On the east coast it's a different story though when I was living in NJ alot of people considered Disney World just "a fun place for kids" and the there is that sentiment here in FL too. It's really strange.

 

[marni1971]

Well in the Disney film "Waking Sleeping Beauty" there's a clip from the Today in the early 80's show that mentions the "weak earnings from the Epoct center in Florida" and they wouldn't have shut down the 2 hour MGM tour within its first year if it was a huge hit, not saying I'm happy about it, just saying "them's the facts"

EPCOT Center was so successful after opening they had to expand the parking lot in 1983. And extend park hours. The demand for characters was from guests who expected them in Disney theme park. EPCOT Center was like no other park.

The 2 hour studio tour stayed for over a decade. Don't know where you heard that. They did have to split into 2 halves, not to make it shorter but to open Mickey Av and New York St to foot traffic since they needed every bit of space to accommodate guests. Park hours went to 9 to 11+ for months at a time and Sunset Blvd design began in 1990. The park was too successful for its limited space.