MyMagic+ article from Fast Company magazine

[GLaDOS]

Actually, I was saying the same thing you were, and I think other people are trying to distract everyone from the truth. We both understand that just because USF may have had a larger PERCENTAGE increase in attendance, doesn't mean that Disney didn't have a larger increase in ACTUAL number of visitors.

Again, I completely agree with you. When it comes to 2013's attendance gains.

2014 will be a very different story.

 

[BJones82]

Lee is source enough for a lot of us.

lol... That gets into a whole different level of issues I trust on this topic he is probably write because as I said he probably knows more than me that is fine...

But just simply trusting someone without sources because in the past they have been reliable is not the best decision no matter how many times they have been right...

 

[Lee]

Sources besides I know what I knows lol?

Yes.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I don't know if you are saying I am redirecting what is really happening but I feel the actual numbers are extremely important either way because large companies simply cannot grow at the same percentage as a smaller company... Eventually you pick the easy apples from the trees and growth and "farming new customers or guests or profit" becomes much more difficult to do. USF is still getting the easy Apples using Harry Potter, WDW decided to setup infrastructure to make it easy to pick those easy Apples and then plant them into return business.

But, you're missing the fact that both the percentages AND the numbers tell a different story. See the pic below:

Since 2009 when there was the economic downturn, Disney grew attendance by just 2.6 million, while Universal added 5 million. Specifically telling is 2010 when Disney was down, Universal added 1.7 million.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Howdy! Thanks for your comment -- one thing that I'm surely impressed by: there's so much passion here and throughout this forum for Disney. It's great.

I would encourage you to read the piece, WDW1974, and can understand why you might be skeptical. A few thoughts to help ease your concerns:

- First off, no ulterior motives re: why I'm here! After spending months reporting a feature, we typically do live Q&As with our readers (like I did for my last feature on Amazon: http://live.fastcompany.com/Event/Amazon_2?Page=0). This time, we thought it might be fun to jump into one of the Disney forums instead, since this is such a specific topic. This forum seemed to have the most vibrant community (yes, I've been aware of it for some time), so we reached out a few weeks ago to the site's moderator, who very kindly welcomed us here.

I like that this is apparently a skeptical/probing community, as you say! It's good fun. And no, I do not intend on becoming some sort of "all-knowing NGE guru" who prowls these here forums from now until eternity. As much as reporting this story was a lot of fun, I'm already onto my next long-term assignment, so I'm afraid I probably won't be back here after this week (sorry, Stephen!). You mention that I filed the story and was paid (FWIW, I'm on staff, so I would've been paid regardless ; ), and then wonder why I would waste time with fans on a fan site. Super simple answer: because we thought y'all might be interested in what I wrote! I found this topic fascinating -- I wouldn't spend six months+ reporting on it if I didn't -- and I'm hoping you all do too : )

- Second, I appreciate your predictions about my sourcing, but again, I'd encourage you to read the story before painting it such a bad light. Yup, I talked to Tom; yup, I talked to Jim; yup, I talked to Nick; yup, I talked to a ton of CMs (with and without handlers, over multiple trips); and yup, I talked to a ton more former/current executives + Imagineers, employees, partners, and so on. Not quite sure why you're making so many assumptions about my work, but perhaps it's because you've had bad experiences reading other Disney pieces before this one? No worries if so; I stand by my reporting, and my only allegiance is to telling the truth to our readers.

- Lastly, nope, I'm not Moses.

If you don't have time now to read our ~9,000 word feature, perhaps this preview will suffice in the interim:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3044922/...illion-attempt-to-reinvent-its-iconic-theme-p

His main problem is that his internal "sources" seem to completely disagree with yours on just about every point made in the article. He cannot and will never accept any other version. His is right, and yours is wrong, or so he believes.

 

[BJones82]

Yes.

Ok, this is quickly turning into something other than a debate so time for everyone to just move on with their lives.... lol....

 

[TalkingHead]

The same Old-timey roster which all over this forum people complain about being replaced? There hare hundreds of threads about bringing back old rides or how horrible it is to change the old rides for a new generation...

This community is heavily skewed. The average guest doesn't care if the Tiki Room is under old management or new management. The average guest isn't visiting MK because Carousel of Progress is there. The average guest thinks Horizons is a new energy-efficient automobile model.

Universal recognizes that people come to theme parks for the rides. I can't imagine how many millions in consulting dollars it would take to convince Disney management of the same thing.

Agreed, but infrastructure upgrades at the expense of keeping your parks fresh seems like it could have negative consequences down the road. I know for my family, it's kept us away from WDW and has made us more frequent consumers of Universal's parks.

 

[RandomPrincess]

It's actually detriment for many, including myself so keeping it would be taking something away from us and a failure.

See...goes both ways.

It's keeping you away, but park attendance is up so Disney has no reason to go back. It's here to stay for the foreseeable future.

 

[sshindel]

Ok, this is quickly turning into something other than a debate so time for everyone to just move on with their lives.... lol....

You've not been around here long, have you?

This can go on for years...

 

[lebeau]

lol... That gets into a whole different level of issues I trust on this topic he is probably write because as I said he probably knows more than me that is fine...

But just simply trusting someone without sources because in the past they have been reliable is not the best decision no matter how many times they have been right...

I've been around here for years. During that time, I have seen Lee (and others) weigh in on many subjects relating to Disney and Walt Disney World. I can't think of a single time he has ever been factually inaccurate. I understand that he cannot provide sources for reasons that should be obvious. The minute he does, he loses the source. Such a decision could have even worse consequences for the actual source. So asking him to name a source is more than a little silly.

All we have to go on is track records of the posters. Lee's is unimpeachable. I'm more than comfortable taking him at his word on this one. If he tries selling me a bridge, that would be another matter.

 

[BJones82]

To each is own in this, we can go back and forth forever we just disagree, I think you need a strong foundation to build the rides in the future, you do not agree that is fine it just is what it is...

 

[LuvtheGoof]

But, you're missing the fact that both the percentages AND the numbers tell a different story. See the pic below:

Since 2009 when there was the economic downturn, Disney grew attendance by just 2.6 million, while Universal added 5 million. Specifically telling is 2010 when Disney was down, Universal added 1.7 million.

View attachment 89937

So according to your chart, even though Disney has added pretty much nothing over the last few years (according to some), Disney had 2,676,000 more visitors, and USF had 1,485,000. Quite the difference!

 

[BJones82]

I've been around here for years. During that time, I have seen Lee (and others) weigh in on many subjects relating to Disney and Walt Disney World. I can't think of a single time he has ever been factually inaccurate. I understand that he cannot provide sources for reasons that should be obvious. The minute he does, he loses the source. Such a decision could have even worse consequences for the actual source. So asking him to name a source is more than a little silly.

All we have to go on is track records of the posters. Lee's is unimpeachable. I'm more than comfortable taking him at his word on this one. If he tries selling me a bridge, that would be another matter.

Clearly it is obvious I am newer to these forums... You telling me he has sources that can't be named is extremely helpful and I would never push that for the reasons you stated... Him just saying yes. is not the same thing and in no way helpful. To me it was him saying it was not worth his time to provide an answer to my question just because I was new...

You've not been around here long, have you?

This can go on for years...

Lol yea I am getting that lol...

Edit: spelling

 

[GLaDOS]

So according to your chart, even though Disney has added pretty much nothing over the last few years (according to some), Disney had 2,676,000 more visitors, and USF had 1,485,000. Quite the difference!

Why are you only judging USF? That makes no sense. Universal, as a whole, as gone up by 5 million.

 

[GrumpyFan]

So according to your chart, even though Disney has added pretty much nothing over the last few years (according to some), Disney had 2,676,000 more visitors, and USF had 1,485,000. Quite the difference!

By my calculations, if you just look at the last 4, Disney had 2.6million more, while Universal had 5million more. Or, did I mis-calculate that?

 

[chiefs11]

By my calculations, if you just look at the last 4, Disney had 2.6million more, while Universal had 5million more. Or, did I mis-calculate that?

He was looking at just the last 2 years.

 

[BJones82]

By my calculations, if you just look at the last 4, Disney had 2.6million more, while Universal had 5million more. Or, did I mis-calculate that?

But the last two by your calculations WDW did almost 2.6 and Universal did 1.6... So we can all just pick random years to calculate... Sense they opened Disney Has added over 50 Million Universal has added over 15 million... See I can do it too

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Why are you only judging USF? That makes no sense. Universal, as a whole, as gone up by 5 million.

By my calculations, if you just look at the last 4, Disney had 2.6million more, while Universal had 5million more. Or, did I mis-calculate that?

I was looking at only the last 2 years. See how you can make numbers look anyway you like? It's pointless to keep spouting off percentages, as they can mean anything the poster wants them too, just like I did, and lot's of others here are doing as well!

 

[lebeau]

Clearly it is obvious I am newer to these forums... You telling me he has sources that can't be named is extremely helpful and I would never push that for the reasons you stated... Him just saying yes. is not the same thing and in no way helpful. To me it was him saying it was not worth his time to provide an answer to my question just because I was new...

If you stick around long enough, you're going to figure out who knows what. There's certain people - and Lee is among them - that you don't ask for a source.

 

[DDLand]

For the first quarter of Disney's fiscal 2015, which corresponds to Universal's last fiscal quarter of fiscal year 2014, Disney's Parks & Resorts revenue grew by 8.7%. Universal, which opened Diagon Alley, grew Theme Parks revenue by 29.9%.

If anything, WDW's failure to open a new land comparable to Diagon Alley has placed it at a disadvantage to Universal.

Bells and whistles aside, amusement parks are still about what Disney likes to call "Guest experiences", a.k.a. rides and shows.

After the success of the original Wizzarding World of Harry Potter and Disney's own Cars Land, has Disney recognized that MyMagic+ might not have been the wisest investment. That's why Disney is building Pandora in Disney's Animal Kingdom and some exciting () new lands in Disney's Hollywood Studios. That's why Disney does not plan to role out full versions of MyMagic+ at its other resorts.

This does not mean MyMagic+ was a bad investment, only that there probably were better ones for Disney to make.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion. Remember when all this was taking place. It was mere years after one of the biggest waves of E Tickets in Walt Disney World Resort history. The likes of Soarin, Expedition Everest, and Mission Space were only a couple years old. TSMM was on its way. They were building attractions, but still WDW was having issues. Executives were worried. Your thesis ignores the fact that WDW was on a scary path. More of the same was not cutting it. WDW was under attack by the Internet Age. MyMagic was a response.

Also, technology moves quickly. The fact that MyMagic in its full glory isn't being shipped globally doesn't mean its not done good. WDW is not like DLR. I don't think it's any condemnation of the system. They'll pick and choose what they want.

If Disney really felt they had missed something with expansion, they'd be moving a little quicker.

Though you're exactly right that Universal and Disneyland's strategy has worked wonderfully.
I'm just not sure if we can conclude WDW's didn't.