Kevin Yee- Airing of Grievances

[WDW1974]

I believe he took credit for reducing the number of different types of french fries on property from something like 12 to 3....or some such. Huge achievement right there....ugh.

Yes, he took the few places that had good fries and made sure they all sold the same crap. We all know that homogenization is MAGICal.

Makes you want to sing showtunes, right ... No. 2?

 

[George]

I would say the youngest can get as much out of a Seuss Landing as they can a Fantasyland, but I don't have young kids and I don't EVER travel with friends and family that do. (what the hell kind of vacation would that be?)

I agree with much of what you say, but FL trounces Seuss Landing with little ones and at least for me, with adults as well. My kids love (7 and 9 now) love all 7 of the big theme parks of O-town and BG. I'd say most kids will have a good time at any of those places and once they are over the age of 6 or 7 can do most if not all of the rides. Thus, the leverage point actually becomes mommy and daddy. Perhaps, Disney is going after a certain type of adult as evidenced by the now infamous "mommy" bloggers.

 

[WDW1974]

I agree with much of what you say, but FL trounces Seuss Landing with little ones and at least for me, with adults as well. My kids love (7 and 9 now) love all 7 of the big theme parks of O-town and BG. I'd say most kids will have a good time at any of those places and once they are over the age of 6 or 7 can do most if not all of the rides. Thus, the leverage point actually becomes mommy and daddy. Perhaps, Disney is going after a certain type of adult as evidenced by the now infamous "mommy" bloggers.

I couldn't agree more, especially with the part I bolded. They are definitely going after a certain 'type' of guest. I'd love to discuss just how smart that is for the long term health of the BRAND ... maybe I'll get that chance, seems like everyone is reading me these days (or any day really).[/quote]

 

[RSoxNo1]

Disney can do decent burgers. I find the Angus burgers at Pecos Bill's to be quite tasty. But fries have always been an issue. They're like Burger King, they just can't ever get them right. ... I was talking to a friend yesterday and we actually talked fries and Disney (I know, what an exciting Christmas Eve I had!) and I recall when DAK Lodge opened and The Mara had these great crinkle cut fries that weren't the usual WDW fries. I think they lasted for about 4-5 years before they switched to the typical across property crap.

I still try and avoid burgers at Disney. I'd rather have Fuddrucker's before heading to a park if I want a decent burger at that price point.

I can't stomach the Pecos Bill's burgers. The burgers at the quick service places at the resorts are decent as are the Kobe Burger at Yak and Yeti and the Burger available for lunch at Rose & Crown

 

[RSoxNo1]

I would disagree to a point. I'd say UNI skews to rides/attractions that the 8 and over set will enjoy, while Disney skews to those that the 8 and under set (and their mommies and gammys will be able to enjoy).

That's the biggest issue with the direction Disney is going. You wonder if an attraction like ToT or RnRC would get approved today because they aren't for the Stroller Brigade. Mermaid is perfect if you are a 4-year-old girl (my 70-something father's reaction to it) or a 23-year-old fanboi or arrested development adult (my response to his!)

Mermaid fits a similar enough demographic to the rest of Fantasyland though - I really have no issue with it's target audience. The thing is, when was the last time a family friendly attraction drove attendance at a park? You could argue Kilimanjaro Safaris and Toy Story Mania, and perhaps Antarctica next year; however the things that typically drive attendance are the things that appeal to that over 8 crowd.

You and I seem to have different opinions on Mermaid. For me there isn't much wrong with the ride. It's a solid addition, but it's problems are more that it is the best offering in the expansion (that we've seen so far). Given the amount of money that was spent on the expansion people expected an E-ticket ride and Mermaid (and by all accounts Mine Train) to meet that expectation. It doesn't mean that the attractions themselves are bad, it just means that they don't meet what guests are craving for a major expansion. The two other expansions that people will use as a basis of comparison are Carsland and Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and both of those expansions have excellent E-ticket attractions to anchor them and drive attendance.

 

[RSoxNo1]

It's a bit higher than that IMO.. and that's the issue. For the marque rides -

Mummy.. 48+ and scarey
MiB - 42+ - accessible..
Simpsons - 40+ - a good family one
ET - 34" - family
Woody Coaster - family

JPark - 42+ and scary
Dragon's Chall - 54+
Dudley - 44+
Popeye - 42+
Hulk - 54+
Spidey - 40+ - accessible
Dr Doom - 52+
Suess - 34+ - family
FJ - 48+
Hipogriff - 36+ - family friendly

Uni's topics and rides are skewed just a bit above that primo 6-10 age demo. The topics are aimed at older properties and hence skewed to older audiences.. and many of the 'thrill' things are too scary or out of the height range for those youngsters.

If you only had kids under 10... IoA is a hard sell. USF has more shows that are friendly (Dispicaable Me, Shrek) and the kid zone which makes it better.. but its also the park dominated by shows/theatres and less ride experiences. E.T. doesn't resonate with my kids because they've never really seen the movie. They liked Simpsons and MiB to a lesser extent.

My kids were old enough to do everything but I can understand hesitation or disappointment from people who had younger kids.

Attractions with newer topics like Shrek, HP, and Dispicable Me help.. but most of their IP is really skewed at the 30+ year olds simply due to it's age.

We went with my 5 year old nephew last year and he could do Spiderman, Seussland (we just did the Cat in the Hat, CarouSeussEl and Red Fish Blue Fish) and Flight of the Hippogriff. I think Cat in the Hat is a great family ride and I actually appreciate that they toned down the spinning. Adding 1 or 2 more of those level of quality dark rides to IOA and/or Universal will go a long way for families.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Disney IP absolutely trounces UNI IP with the toddler and young child demo, but once that child starts growing ... well, I don't know what age Potter or JP or Spidey or MiB or the Simpsons become part of a kid's world.

I would say the youngest can get as much out of a Seuss Landing as they can a Fantasyland, but I don't have young kids and I don't EVER travel with friends and family that do. (what the hell kind of vacation would that be?)

This has plagued Disney for a while. Buying IP like Star Wars and Marvel really helps this. What's frustrating is that they fail to realize that it's the Disney name that's turning off the young adult male demographic yet they put all of this content on "Disney" XD. What they can hopefully do from a movie standpoint is look at things like Marvel and Star Wars and have them released without an obvious tie to the Disney name (a la Touchstone). From a theme park stand point branding an entire park on Marvel or Star Wars without the Disney monicker can also go a long way.

Having said that, I don't really see this happening. In seems that Disney is convinced that they can still change this negative perception from the young adult male demographic but that's going to be far more difficult. They have decades of misconceptions to change and that's not easy.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Again, another topic that will never be factually proven.


Jimmy Thick- Up there with how Potter is supposed to be this mammoth francise it just is not.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Jimmy Thick- Total truth.

 

[HMF]

Disney really has no clue how to market it's parks to a mass audience anymore. If you watch the commercials for new Fantasyland and most of the other ads coming out of the insane asylum that is P&R's marketing department you would think that there is nothing for anyone over the age of 6 in the parks. I strongly believe Disney does not really realize what it has in the parks and I am longing for the day when the current marketing contingent gets it's walking papers and a healthy budget for a marketing campaign that targets all demogrraphics and realisticly depicts what the parks have to offer a mass audience rather than continuous stock footage of princesses.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Disney really has no clue how to market it's parks to a mass audience anymore. If you watch the commercials for new Fantasyland and most of the other ads coming out of the insane asylum that is P&R's marketing department you would think that there is nothing for anyone over the age of 6 in the parks. I strongly believe Disney does not really realize what it has in the parks and I am longing for the day when the current marketing contingent gets it's walking papers and a healthy budget for a marketing campaign that targets all demogrraphics and realisticly depicts what the parks have to offer a mass audience rather than continuous stock footage of princesses.

Since when does one pay a marketing department for 'a realistic depiction of what one has to offer'?

WDW's strategy is to aim for the little beady-eyed girls. 'Daddy, will you take me to Disney, please? Please, daddy?'

Hit 'em when they're young, and they're yours forever. To the adults, sell sweet, cheesy, family fun. They'll think it looks ridiculous, but they still want it to play happy family themselves too.

 

[HMF]

The big problem with the Walt Disney Company today in my view is that with a few exceptions (John Lasseter) most of the higher ups don't have a respect or emotional connection to their own brand. This has been the downfall of more than one company over the years. When the people who make the decisions don't have a personal or emotional investment in what their brand means to people they are not going to make decisions that will be good for the brands long term health Even during the darkest days of Eisner's reign and his bone-headed decision making (IE, Thinking because a man can run a Disney Store he can run Disneyland, trying to build a heavilly budgeted Disney Park, Thinking that every single attraction built had to tie into a film property, Killing traditional animation etc.) you always got the sense from him that he genuinely liked and cared about the brand and what it represented. In contrast you have Bob Iger who comes across as a tech geek who sees Disney's heritage as outdated fluff. for every good thing that has happened under Iger (most noably the acquisition of Pixar and the creative rennaisance at the Disneyland Resort) there have been numerous bad things including branding the stateside Disney Parks as a single entity rather than two unique resorts with unique traditions and identities, Removing Walt's name from the studio title card and the pssesive 's as though the company had no pride in ownership, Changing films titles for dumb marketing reasons(Tangled), buying outside intellectual properties which have connections with rival studios and theme parks (Marvel) and an obsession with branding in lieu of Innovating and creating original characters and concepts.
There are obviously still people who care with positions of power in the company but they are either being undermined (John Lasseter, Tony Baxter) or have beien shown the door (D_I_C_K Cook, Tim Delaney and Valerie Edwards.)
When you have a situation in which the decision-makers at the company do not understand what made the company work in the first place. It will inevetibly lead to disaster. That said I do feel the tide is slowly but surely turning but it might take some time for the company to regain it's creative footing after decades of mis-management.

 

[marni1971]

One of Eisners first theme park jobs was to bring back the demo that they'd pushed away for a decade. 10s thru teens to mid 20s. A large spending base that were going elsewhere. To the competition. They'd outgrown BTM and Space. They didn't care for cartoons. The greenlit list in less than a years time is breathtaking. Videopolis. Captain EOs. Splash Mountains. Body Wars. Pleasure Island. Star Tours.

Just an observation.

 

[unkadug]

Jimmy Thick- Total truth.

Not really.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

@HMF, Dick isn't censored anymore.

 

[George]

On the topic of burgers, last time I ate at Pecos Bills I thought it was tasty. Not Big Kahuna tasty, but pretty good. However, that was a year ago and I wouldn't be surprised if the patties have been replaced by compressed circles of refried beans that they're comfortable charging $14.75 for.

This has plagued Disney for a while. Buying IP like Star Wars and Marvel really helps this. What's frustrating is that they fail to realize that it's the Disney name that's turning off the young adult male demographic yet they put all of this content on "Disney" XD.

What's really interesting is that if done correctly, the Lucasfilm acquisition should target my demo. I was 7 when Star Wars came out and spent all my allowance money seeing the movie again and again (44 times during it's first run. I remember the last time I saw it was at a drive in and my friend and I were acting out all the scenes with our action figures driving my dad crazy). The first Indy movie came out when I was 10 or 11 (I wanna say it was roughly 1980, but I'm too lazy to do research) and I remember that the theatre was full and I couldn't sit next to my dad. Thus, when Indy shoots the surprised swordsman I was punched in the arm repeatedly by the gigantic tatted up, leather vest wearing fellow to my left. I managed a nervous giggle and began to survey the theatre for exit routes. Anyhoo, Disney should realize I've got deeper pockets than a kid or teen. However, it does take work to get into my pockets. :lookaroun

Anyhoo, the Studios is the park that has the most potential to appeal to males (regardless of age). They really could go a long way towards changing perceptions if they handle this correctly.

 

[alphac2005]

Since when does one pay a marketing department for 'a realistic depiction of what one has to offer'?

WDW's strategy is to aim for the little beady-eyed girls. 'Daddy, will you take me to Disney, please? Please, daddy?'

Hit 'em when they're young, and they're yours forever. To the adults, sell sweet, cheesy, family fun. They'll think it looks ridiculous, but they still want it to play happy family themselves too.

Ah-ha.... The marketing wizards at the Walt Disney Company.... Let us not forget about the formulaic and joke of their "ethnic" marketing campaigns. You know exactly how the ad is going to go, an African-American family with their family reunion shirts at the Magic Kingdom, a hispanic family over at Animal Kingdom, etc., etc. It's not only insulting to your intelligence, I always find the fact that they are so blatant, so cynically derived, that they're simply racist in their own right.

In an effort to capture new audiences with various groups of the population, they go with the stereotypical stuff every single time. Besides the television ad spots, you know that you'll get X amount of non-hispanic white, Asian, African-American, and white people in their print ads, printed materials, planning guides, DVD planners, etc. It really disgusts me. It goes along with everything else they do, formulaic, old, tired, and downright insulting. One of our friends was like, "We don't all wear family reunion shirts when we go on a trip!"

 

[twebber55]

This has plagued Disney for a while. Buying IP like Star Wars and Marvel really helps this. What's frustrating is that they fail to realize that it's the Disney name that's turning off the young adult male demographic yet they put all of this content on "Disney" XD. What they can hopefully do from a movie standpoint is look at things like Marvel and Star Wars and have them released without an obvious tie to the Disney name (a la Touchstone). From a theme park stand point branding an entire park on Marvel or Star Wars without the Disney monicker can also go a long way.

Having said that, I don't really see this happening. In seems that Disney is convinced that they can still change this negative perception from the young adult male demographic but that's going to be far more difficult. They have decades of misconceptions to change and that's not easy.

i guess thats why i view avatar as a win for disney (if constructed) different demogrphic
1. non disney people
2. older crowds (teen age and up)

 

[Magenta Panther]

Disney shouldn't have to buy brands that appeal to the "young adult male demographic". It should CREATE brands that appeal to that demo. And it has, via Pixar, and hey, what about "Wreck-It Ralph"? That movie is a success, and it's a giant step away from the princess movies and stuff.

And anyway, why do the suits at Disney think it has to have ALL of the candy in the store? Did Marvel ever appeal much to girls (generally speaking)? And while Star Wars, I think, has much more cross-over appeal, its vast fandom was made up mostly of males. Yet neither Stan Lee nor George Lucas seemed to freak out much that their product wasn't very appealing to half of the human race. They didn't start creating fairies and princesses in order to compete with Disney. I think the Star Wars and Marvel purchases illustrated the greed and laziness that makes up the corporate mindset at the Mouse House right now. And at best all that foreign junk cluttering up the Disney landscape will do little more than dilute the brand. JMHO.

 

[djlaosc]

Disney shouldn't have to buy brands that appeal to the "young adult male demographic". It should CREATE brands that appeal to that demo. And it has, via Pixar, and hey, what about "Wreck-It Ralph"? That movie is a success, and it's a giant step away from the princess movies and stuff.

Doesn't "Wreck-It Ralph" borrow brands that appeal to the "young adult male demographic"?