MyMagic+ article from Fast Company magazine

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
I've gotta admit something. I'm loving the jouranalistic schwartz comparing contests that are going on here. It's the highest of high entertainment to someone who has little knowledge or interest in journalism. In the day and age where we're as likely to get timely and accurate news from "Broneyboy_316" on Reddit as we are from CNN, the journalistic lines have shifted so much that it's nearly impossible to follow.

I'm also digging on people complaining on this thread getting off topic, when every single thread devolves into discussion of random things like cheesesteaks, peppered with varied levels of joke telling, and the same points getting discussed over and over with no end. Complaining that this thread got off topic is like complaining that an internet discussion compared someone to Hitler. It's inevitable, and only acceptable when you are the one doing the Hitler comparison to someone else.

IMO

Of course it's ok to question the source. It's one of the first things that happens to anyone on these boards when someone brings in information. We get 6 pages of "sources please!!!". This however has seemed to go on longer than usual, and it's odd to me that we're spending more pages questioning someone with named sources who works for a national publication than we do for those that have never once (for good reason likely) gave a source. Of course there is some history to some of those posters, and varying degrees of how good or bad their rumors have panned out, but it feels like from following through this post that the author has been questioned far longer and far beyond a reasonable level for someone who's reputation is pretty easily verifiable.

Is there a chance that a reporter was told what the company wanted him to hear? Of course. Just as there is a chance that our insiders have been told what the company wanted them to hear. As some dude on the internet said (Abraham Lincoln??) "Question Everything". I do tend to believe that since the author of this article spent time talking to both current employees as well as past employees with a less rosy picture to paint, it is likely that the article holds a good basis in truth. I also tend to believe that anything that came from a current employee of the company was a crafted response to tell the story they wanted told. It's what every single person in the world does to varying degrees. The old quote "History is written by the victors" holds true here.

Of course we should question the author to some degree, just like we should question each and every person who is putting out information. But I do think that there comes a time when questions are asked and answered, and it's time to move along to other conversation.

So while we're now devolving back into PML vs. Spirit and pals, I think it's likely time to consider this thread mostly dead. I thank the author @AustinC for researching and publishing the story and coming in here to have further discussions with us crazy Disney fans. I thank folks like @WDW1974 and @wdisney9000 for adding the degree of skepticism to add perspective. I thank @jakeman and @xdan0920 for questioning their questioning once it went on longer than it probably should have. And most importantly, I thank myself for being as inoffensive as possible.

Thank you, and God Bless America
tumblr_mbps8fTLRp1qcpel0.jpg

Well said. I'll take a shot and be the offensive 'ying' to your inoffensive 'yang'.

My personal belief is that the article was the hidden hand of misdirection. A small dose of controlled opposition, if you will. While there is no doubt the article was well researched and written, its objectiveness was elusive to me. Any mention of flaws in the program were brief and shrewdly peppered in between glowing paragraphs of excitement with an almost enchanted fairy tale-esque biography of the birth of NGE and the struggles of the 'founding five' in that trailer behind Epcot who embarked on a crusade to truly enhance the vacation experience for all who journey to this magical place, and in no way were they attempting to,.. how did Rasulo put it?....oh ya, "get a bigger share of their wallet"

The authors journey to discover NGE's effectiveness led him to adorable characters such as the frail old couple who overcame their fears of technology and now embrace it, to the father carrying his tuckered-out little princess and described it as a "life saver" and cant imagine ever going back to the archaic system of legacy FP (which oddly enough never suffered resort wide failure multiple times), yet his quest failed to discover and speak with any of the very real antithetical characters one may discover at Guest Relations any given time of day whose life had not been saved by the magic band and whose FP+ had vanished, again, or whatever random error occurred and they were forced to take more time out of their vacation day. I guess that email Disney sends describing MM+ as giving you "unprecedented control of your vacation", is just for fun.

I did learn some fun facts though. Apparently there were disgruntled but extremely talented parents who could be seen skillfully "juggling" multiple park maps and SPF 75 lotion and strollers with room keys and credit cards ALL AT ONCE! I found it strange that in all my years I never had to use my credit card at the exact same time i applied sun tan lotion while trying to find my location on multiple park maps with my room key in hand. But these people are real, and fret not, because Ms Crofton and her team did not let their struggles go unnoticed. Im sure any day now they will release the prototype Magic band that protects your child from the harmful UV rays of the sun while simultaneously serving as a stroller.

My personal opinions aside, I honestly give kudos to the author for a very well written article and I look forward to any follow up stories that may come along. Even though I feel the objectivity of the story was a bit lacking in some areas, i sincerely appreciate what is by far the most in depth story on the subject yet.
 
Last edited:

fillerup

Well-Known Member
Well said. I'll take a shot and be the offensive 'ying' to your inoffensive 'yang'.

My personal belief is that the article was the hidden hand of misdirection. A small dose of controlled opposition, if you will. While there is no doubt the article was well researched and written, its objectiveness was elusive to me. Any mention of flaws in the program were brief and shrewdly peppered in between glowing paragraphs of excitement with an almost enchanted fairy tale-esque biography of the birth of NGE and the struggles of the 'founding five' in that trailer behind Epcot who embarked on a crusade to truly enhance the vacation experience for all who journey to this magical place, and in no way were they attempting to,.. how did Rasulo put it?....oh ya, "get a bigger share of their wallet"

The authors journey to discover NGE's effectiveness led him to adorable characters such as the frail old couple who overcame their fears of technology and now embrace it, to the father carrying his tuckered-out little princess and described it as a "life saver" and cant imagine ever going back to the archaic system of legacy FP (which oddly enough never suffered resort wide failure multiple times), yet his quest failed to discover and speak with any of the very real antithetical characters one may discover at Guest Relations any given time of day whose life had not been saved by the magic band and whose FP+ had vanished, again, or whatever random error occurred and they were forced to take more time out of their vacation day. I guess that email Disney sends describing MM+ as giving you "unprecedented control of your vacation", is just for fun.

I did learn some fun facts though. Apparently there were disgruntled but extremely talented parents who could be seen skillfully "juggling" multiple park maps and SPF 75 lotion and strollers with room keys and credit cards ALL AT ONCE! I found it strange that in all my years I never had to use my credit card at the exact same time i applied sun tan lotion while trying to find my location on multiple park maps with my room key in hand. But these people are real, and fret not, because Ms Crofton and her team did not let their struggles go unnoticed. Im sure any day now they will release the prototype Magic band that protects your child from the harmful UV rays of the sun while simultaneously serving as a stroller.

My personal opinions aside, I honestly give kudos to the author for a very well written article and I look forward to any follow up stories that may come along. Even though I feel the objectivity of the story was a bit lacking in some areas, i sincerely appreciate what is by far the most in depth story on the subject yet.

While I probably disagree with you on several points, congrats anyway for taking the time to offer a thoughtful and well reasoned analysis.

You've actually used some brain cells to present your view of the article rather than the lazy tactic of implied smear and attacks on the writer's credibility and suggesting possible crimes against journalism and possible payoffs.

Well done.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Well said. I'll take a shot and be the offensive 'ying' to your inoffensive 'yang'.

My personal belief is that the article was the hidden hand of misdirection. A small dose of controlled opposition, if you will. While there is no doubt the article was well researched and written, its objectiveness was elusive to me.

Well I also think people try to set their own definition of what the article is trying to do.. and then tearing it down.

I found the piece interesting as it highlighted a lot of the activities that went on in development that many of us here would assume... but here we have a sourced article that 'lifts the veil' a bit into how the concepts developed and were pitched.

I don't think the article really tries to make a claim on validity, success, or 'value' of the solution.. yet people want to be critical because those are the points they think any MM+ discussion should include.

If anything I find the problem with the article @AustinC to be.. you setup that the 'need' for the solution at the beginning was to address several key metrics. Yet, I don't see anything in the piece that tries to return to that point and get Disney's comment on how the solution is matching up against those metrics.
 

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
Well I also think people try to set their own definition of what the article is trying to do.. and then tearing it down.

I found the piece interesting as it highlighted a lot of the activities that went on in development that many of us here would assume... but here we have a sourced article that 'lifts the veil' a bit into how the concepts developed and were pitched.

I don't think the article really tries to make a claim on validity, success, or 'value' of the solution.. yet people want to be critical because those are the points they think any MM+ discussion should include.

If anything I find the problem with the article @AustinC to be.. you setup that the 'need' for the solution at the beginning was to address several key metrics. Yet, I don't see anything in the piece that tries to return to that point and get Disney's comment on how the solution is matching up against those metrics.
Whats your take on the metrics we have seen produced by @ParentsOf4 on the financials or the great work the team at touring plans and @lentesta have put out in regards to wait times compared to that "need" proposed in the article?
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
You need to separate the idea of discussing Disney as a company and thinking it's about discussing how you personally consume Disney. Just like you can discuss the good and bad choices by the builder of your home with your neighbors or friends... without thinking you are labeling yourself an idiot for living in the house.

This forum is not just about being a CONSUMER of Disney, but many people are interested in the way Disney OPERATES. In the most innocent sense, it starts with many in wanting to know how things work, or be an imagineer, etc.. They want to not just have fun at Disney, but are inspired to want to BE a Disney... BE someone that makes that happen. Then you start exposing and thinking about the decisions that happen behind the magic.. and ultimately that rolls up into 'how do you run a company that does this?'. Add into that people's own industry experience and it becomes a business discussion.. and not just armchair 'what if' imagineering.

The two topics of operations and being a consumer are intertwined because ultimately the company is building products for consumer entertainment... the end-goal of the 'company' side is to succeed at that aim of entertaining people. However, how one builds a beast to do that... isn't always sunshine, rainbows and unicorns.

The process of making magic isn't always a pretty one.

I find the juxtaposition between the Internal corporate Disney politics And the message the Disney company tries to put out to be pretty much a polar opposite.

I find that how they run their business does have a direct impact on the "magic" guests receive. I would like to think that there still some companies in this world that are more interested in the Ethics with how they run their business versus strictly just the bottom line.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Whats your take on the metrics we have seen produced by @ParentsOf4 on the financials or the great work the team at touring plans and @lentesta have put out in regards to wait times compared to that "need" proposed in the article?

See here you are asking me to judge if things are successful or not. My point was the piece lays out a hypothesis and need... it should have researched if the solution as implemented has met those and quoted the disney sources on that topic.

I found the piece to be more about 'the making of...' and less about 'evaluating the success of MM+' - which some people think it must be. I'm commenting more on the article itself.. and its value.. and less about 3rd party evals of MM+ or metrics.

If I tell you I'm doing something because I need X... and you tell me the history of your attempt... tell me if you actually got X. Otherwise.. you just left me hanging.
 

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
See here you are asking me to judge if things are successful or not. My point was the piece lays out a hypothesis and need... it should have researched if the solution as implemented has met those and quoted the disney sources on that topic.

I found the piece to be more about 'the making of...' and less about 'evaluating the success of MM+' - which some people think it must be. I'm commenting more on the article itself.. and its value.. and less about 3rd party evals of MM+ or metrics.

If I tell you I'm doing something because I need X... and you tell me the history of your attempt... tell me if you actually got X. Otherwise.. you just left me hanging.
Apologies. I should have phrased it differently. I do understand that the work we have seen from parentsof4 and touring plans is not exactly applicable in terms of what the article proposed as metrics the company had in mind. I wasnt grouping the two together. I was only asking your opinion of their results compared to pre and post days of NGE, which I feel is the best/only data we have seen that attempt to evaluate any results of the program. I fear we may never know if the metrics of what Disney was aiming for were met or not.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
Normally I stay outside of other people's arguments but since you invoked my name, it might be helpful if I replied. Please be patient with my long-winded response. :)
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing *tough* about that poster's questions. Literally, *anyone* can look up a patent -- so, I found his comments to be kind of off putting and bizarre, to say the least. This is public information, of which, is readily available in an instant for anyone to find, if they so desire. It's not some ground breaking revelation that could somehow discredit Fast Company Magazine or @AustinC .
Given the article’s subject matter, I don’t understand why @AustinC would have felt compelled to look up patents. However, in his earlier post, @clsteve explained his thinking behind this:

I do hope you write a follow-up to your article because there's a key area where I think you were misdirected as to the main driver to NextGen - the interactive part.​

My opinion is that @AustinC’s article contains an appropriate amount of discussion regarding the RFID short and long range scanners, as well as current and possible future interactive elements. Therefore, it’s difficult for me to see how @AustinC was “misdirected”.

Beyond that though, please keep in mind that just because something is available online, that doesn't make it easy to find. A quick Google search for "Walt Disney World" shows 98,800,000 hits. Good luck with your research. :D

Seriously though, I suspect looking up patents is a bit like looking up DVC resales or SEC filings. The information is out there but you need to know exactly which website to use and how that website's search tools work. You often have to scroll through gobs of unrelated material to find items you're interested in. It can be tedious.

It might be obvious to you how to look up a patent. Me? I don't have a clue.
On the other hand, I just can't up and google and wiki, six months of *unprecedented* research and observation at Disney World, on a whim. This author provided us with a fascinating glimpse from behind the scenes -- granting readers access to everything Disney -- stemming from leadership to Imagineers to Cast Members to first hand experiences within the parks and from the guests, themselves. As a reader, I find this kind of information to be refreshing, insightful and enlightening.
I rarely speak in absolutes. I generally don't believe in them. However, I am pretty confident in writing that absolutely no company likes negative press. If Disney was willing to grant "unprecedented" access, then it was because Disney believed it could control the message.

The article paints Iger, Staggs, and Rasulo as corporate heroes, overcoming internal barriers to deliver what the author called a "story of a success" that "ultimately led to a successful conclusion".

If you've read my earlier posts on this thread, then you know that I've presented financial data indicating that it is premature to declare MyMagic+ a success. In my opinion, the jury is still out.

Elsewhere, I've written that Disney's corporate leadership has failed WDW on more than one occasion in recent years. When it comes to WDW, I certainly wouldn't consider the Disney triumvirate to be heroes.

It is wrong to question the journalistic integrity of the author. However, we have to ask ourselves: Would Disney have granted this access if there was risk that the article could have been negative?

To be clear, this does not mean the author conspired with Disney. Instead, it simply means that, for whatever reason, corporate Disney felt confident in the outcome.
It's a major embarrassment for some random poster to attempt to discredit the author and this article with something that took literally five seconds to google. The patent guy, @danlb_2000 has done an exceptional job of keeping our online community informed of all the relevant and intriguing patents. The other poster, however, enters this board riding in on your coat tails, but he has brought literally nothing new to the table.
I did not interpret @clsteve’s post as an “attempt to discredit the author”. I interpreted the questions as, “Did you consider A? Did you consider B?”

Anyone who has stood in front of a large audience with a Q&A session knows that some questions come out of left field. That doesn't invalidate the questions.
He cannot hold his own weight against posters like @MichWolv , @ParentsOf4, who are also the real deal, IMO. They don't require Mr. Spirit to come in and rescue them -- because these guys truly know their stuff -- you can tell they don't form their arguments from google and wiki.
Thank you. :)
The poster attempts to present himself like he is on their level of expertise, but he is most certainly not, IMO. And, I mean no disrespect to him, I'm sure he is a nice person and all, but that is my personal opinion.

I was offended by his hostile and dogmatic approach toward our new member @AustinC. He posted his little debacle of a question once, which should have been more than sufficient. But, to post it here twice is simply disgraceful and reflects poorly upon our, otherwise, highly intelligent and insightful community, IMO. He could have even sent the author a private message or just ask in another post if the author had an opportunity to read his questions, without posting the whole thing all over again. I was sorely embarrassed when I read his post. I don't want people thinking we're all like that here or anything -- it just looks bad, IMO.

Frankly, I am so glad the author did not answer his questions -- no legitimate journalist would. You are an author and have a huge thread, I'm quite sure you have been presented with off putting and rude questions that you have chosen not to answer, so you can relate to @AustinC on some level.
From what I can tell, @clsteve simply re-asked 2 questions that were not answered. I fail to see what's embarrassing.

Certainly for one of the questions:

So, how can this size of a Project that goes on for 2 1/2 years longer than anticipated, with a now much larger and expensive group of Partners, come in under-budget - the budget approved 2 1/2 years prior?​

There is a hint of this within the article. MyMagic+ was over 2 years behind what the author called an "optimistic" schedule. My experience is that projects that are 2 years late are never, as Staggs indicated, “under budget ("not enough to do a victory lap over").”

Is it believable that a project that is more than 2 years late is under its original budget with original content?
The rest of your post is okay, I suppose. I don't have any real problem with it, you've made some excellent points. But, I don't get your pixie dust and magical comment. You visit the parks and have fun at Disney World just like I do, the only difference is that I only visit for a week, once a year. This concept of chastising people for having fun on vacation at Disney World doesn't really bode well with me, because you visit Disney World, too. From my observations, there is nothing that excludes you from being a 'pixie duster', as well.
When it comes to “pixie duster” vs. “doom and gloomer” debates, there tends to be two camps:
  • Those who like Walt Disney World the way it is.
  • Those who like Walt Disney World the way it was.
The two are not mutually exclusive. A pixie duster can think today’s WDW is just fine the way it is and still reminisce about a time when it was better. A doom and gloomer can still think today’s WDW is good but complain that it’s not as good as it should be.

My opinion is that Disney is running its theme parks in California and cruise line well. Is it really too much to ask Disney to run WDW as well as its other domestic Parks & Resorts operations?

Remember, in a free market society, consumers have a right to complain. Smart businesses listen to their paying customers before they become former customers.

In fact, the premise for implementing NGE was in response to customer complaints. As stated in the article:

In the mid-2000s, however, Disney executives had reason to worry about the future of the business. Disney World, Parks’ crown jewel, seemed to be losing its luster. According to multiple sources, certain key metrics, including guests’ "intent to return," were dropping; around half of first-time attendees signaled they likely would not come back because of long lines, high ticket costs, and other park pain points.​

WDW Standby lines are longer than ever while ticket prices are up more than 60% since Iger took charge. Exactly how has MyMagic+ solved these problems?

How can MyMagic+ be declared a “success” if it has not improved profits, reduced wait times, or lowered consumer costs?

Calling MyMagic+ a “success” at this time seems like a mischaracterization of its current state. Certainly making Iger, Staggs, and Rasulo out to be champions of WDW is. Even with MyMagic+ and the New Fantasyland, I've written lengthy posts suggesting that they've underfunded WDW by at least $2 billion since Iger took charge. For WDW, Iger is the worst CEO that Disney has ever had.

IMO, it seems @clsteve asked a couple of questions that I don’t believe were answered the first time they were posted. To me, it seems reasonable for @clsteve to ask them again. :)
 
Last edited:

Figment2005

Well-Known Member
Normally I stay outside of other people's arguments but since you invoked my name, it might be helpful if I replied. Please be patient with my long-winded response. :)

Given the article’s subject matter, I don’t understand why @AustinC would have felt compelled to look up patents. However, in his earlier post, @clsteve explained his thinking behind this:

I do hope you write a follow-up to your article because there's a key area where I think you were misdirected as to the main driver to NextGen - the interactive part.​

My opinion is that @AustinC’s article contains an appropriate amount of discussion regarding the RFID short and long range scanners, as well as current and possible future interactive elements. Therefore, it’s difficult for me to see how @AustinC was “misdirected”.

Beyond that though, please keep in mind that just because something is available online, that doesn't make it easy to find. A quick Google search for "Walt Disney World" shows 98,800,000 hits. Good luck with your research. :D

Seriously though, I suspect looking up patents is a bit like looking up DVC resales or SEC filings. The information is out there but you need to know exactly which website to use and how that website's search tools work. You often have to scroll through gobs of unrelated material to find items you're interested in. It can be tedious.

It might be obvious to you how to look up a patent. Me? I don't have a clue.

I rarely speak in absolutes. I generally don't believe in them. However, I am pretty confident in writing that absolutely no company likes negative press. If Disney was willing to grant "unprecedented" access, then it was because Disney believed it could control the message.

The article paints Iger, Staggs, and Rasulo as corporate heroes, overcoming internal barriers to deliver what the author called "story of a success" that "ultimately led to a successful conclusion".

If you've read my earlier posts on this thread, I've presented financial data indicating that it is premature to declare MyMagic+ a success. In my opinion, the jury is still out.

Elsewhere, I've written that Disney's corporate leadership has failed WDW on more than one occasion in recent years. When it comes to WDW, I certainly wouldn't consider the Disney triumvirate to be heroes.

It is wrong to question the journalistic integrity of the author. However, we have to ask ourselves: Would Disney have granted this access if there was risk that the article could have been negative?

To be clear, this does not mean the author conspired with Disney. Instead, it simply means that, for whatever reason, corporate Disney felt confident in the outcome.

I did not interpret @clsteve’s post as “attempt to discredit the author”. I interpreted the questions as, “Did you consider A? Did you consider B?”

Anyone who has stood in front of a large audience with a Q&A session knows that some questions come out of left field. That doesn't invalidate the questions.

Thank you. :)

From what I can tell, @clsteve simply re-asked 2 questions that were not answered. I fail to see what's embarrassing.

Certainly for one of the questions:

So, how can this size of a Project that goes on for 2 1/2 years longer than anticipated ,with a now much larger and expensive group of Partners, come in under-budget - the budget approved 2 1/2 years prior?​

There is a hint of this within the article. MyMagic+ was over 2 years behind what the author called an "optimistic" schedule. My experience is that projects that are 2 years late are never, as Staggs indicated, “under budget ("not enough to do a victory lap over").”

Is it believable that a project that is more than 2 years late is under its original budget with original content?

When it comes to “pixie duster” vs. “doom and gloomer” debates, there tends to be two camps:
  • Those who like Walt Disney World the way it is.
  • Those who like Walt Disney World the way it was.
The two are not mutually exclusive. A pixie duster can think today’s WDW is just fine the way it is and still reminisce about a time when it was better. A doom and gloomer can still think today’s WDW is good but complain that it’s not as good as it should be.

My opinion is that Disney is running its theme parks in California and cruise line well. Is it really too much to ask Disney to run WDW as well as its other domestic Parks & Resorts operations?

Remember, in a free market society, consumers have a right to complain. Smart businesses listen to their paying customers before they become former customers.

In fact, the premise for implementing NGE was in response to customer complaints. As stated in the article:

In the mid-2000s, however, Disney executives had reason to worry about the future of the business. Disney World, Parks’ crown jewel, seemed to be losing its luster. According to multiple sources, certain key metrics, including guests’ "intent to return," were dropping; around half of first-time attendees signaled they likely would not come back because of long lines, high ticket costs, and other park pain points.​

WDW Standby lines are longer than ever while ticket prices are up more than 60% since Iger took charge. Exactly how has MyMagic+ solved these problems?

How can MyMagic+ be declared a “success” if it has not improved profits, reduced wait times, or lowered consumer costs?

Calling MyMagic+ a “success” at this time seems like a mischaracterization of its current state. Certainly making Iger, Staggs, and Rasulo out to be champions of WDW is. Even with MyMagic+ and the New Fantasyland, I've written lengthy posts suggesting that they've underfunded WDW by at least $2 billion since Iger took charge. For WDW, Iger is the worst CEO that Disney has ever had.

IMO, it seems @clsteve asked a couple of questions that I don’t believe were answered the first time they were posted. To me, it seems reasonable for @clsteve to ask them again. :)
I feel like I just ran a marathon. Great post though.
 

LuvtheGoof

DVC Guru
Premium Member
When it comes to “pixie duster” vs. “doom and gloomer” debates, there tends to be two camps:
  • Those who like Walt Disney World the way it is.
  • Those who like Walt Disney World the way it was.
The two are not mutually exclusive. A pixie duster can think today’s WDW is just fine the way it is and still reminisce about a time when it was better. A doom and gloomer can still think today’s WDW is good but complain that it’s not as good as it should be.

I think there is a third option as well. Those of us that think that Disney is doing lots of positives at WDW, but not everything is positive. I would be in this third camp. I like a lot of what they are doing, but dislike other areas. I don't like buildings being used as a Festival Center only, or temporary happenings. I don't like the pace of construction, even if I understand why they are doing it. I like the new hub, NFL, and Storybrook Circus area in MK. I like that they have refurbished pretty much all of Main Street, and it is looking great. I am really liking what they are doing with Disney Springs. We stay at SSR a lot, so visit there quite a bit during our trips. I could go on and on about likes and dislikes, and I would resent anyone calling me a "pixie duster" just because I think that quite a lot of what they are doing lately is actually pretty awesome.

My opinion is that Disney is running its theme parks in California and cruise line well. Is it really too much to ask Disney to run WDW as well as its other domestic Parks & Resorts operations?
I have to completely agree that DCL is a first-class Disney experience. No question about that. As far As DL, well, I was just there a few short years ago and saw every single problem that y'all complain about with WDW, because I was looking for them. I saw light bulbs burnt out during the entire week we were there, I saw peeling paint on railings, rides were down many times (I think Ariel was down almost as much as up, and that ride is young compared to a lot of others). They are now doing a lot of work at DL for the 60th, so I have no doubt that things are improved. They are starting to do a lot of work at WDW, and things are going to improve.
 

clsteve

Active Member
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing *tough* about that poster's questions. Literally, *anyone* can look up a patent -- so, I found his comments to be kind of off putting and bizarre, to say the least. This is public information, of which, is readily available in an instant for anyone to find, if they so desire. It's not some ground breaking revelation that could somehow discredit Fast Company Magazine or @AustinC .

On the other hand, I just can't up and google and wiki, six months of *unprecedented* research and observation at Disney World, on a whim. This author provided us with a fascinating glimpse from behind the scenes -- granting readers access to everything Disney -- stemming from leadership to Imagineers to Cast Members to first hand experiences within the parks and from the guests, themselves. As a reader, I find this kind of information to be refreshing, insightful and enlightening.

It's a major embarrassment for some random poster to attempt to discredit the author and this article with something that took literally five seconds to google. The patent guy, @danlb_2000 has done an exceptional job of keeping our online community informed of all the relevant and intriguing patents. The other poster, however, enters this board riding in on your coat tails, but he has brought literally nothing new to the table.

He cannot hold his own weight against posters like @MichWolv , @ParentsOf4, who are also the real deal, IMO. They don't require Mr. Spirit to come in and rescue them -- because these guys truly know their stuff -- you can tell they don't form their arguments from google and wiki. The poster attempts to present himself like he is on their level of expertise, but he is most certainly not, IMO. And, I mean no disrespect to him, I'm sure he is a nice person and all, but that is my personal opinion.

I was offended by his hostile and dogmatic approach toward our new member @AustinC. He posted his little debacle of a question once, which should have been more than sufficient. But, to post it here twice is simply disgraceful and reflects poorly upon our, otherwise, highly intelligent and insightful community, IMO. He could have even sent the author a private message or just ask in another post if the author had an opportunity to read his questions, without posting the whole thing all over again. I was sorely embarrassed when I read his post. I don't want people thinking we're all like that here or anything -- it just looks bad, IMO.

Frankly, I am so glad the author did not answer his questions -- no legitimate journalist would. You are an author and have a huge thread, I'm quite sure you have been presented with off putting and rude questions that you have chosen not to answer, so you can relate to @AustinC on some level.

The rest of your post is okay, I suppose. I don't have any real problem with it, you've made some excellent points. But, I don't get your pixie dust and magical comment. You visit the parks and have fun at Disney World just like I do, the only difference is that I only visit for a week, once a year. This concept of chastising people for having fun on vacation at Disney World doesn't really bode well with me, because you visit Disney World, too. From my observations, there is nothing that excludes you from being a 'pixie duster', as well.
Hmmm...

I didn't know their was vetting process for posting here. That's good to know. If you could post your list of do's and dont's, as well as what your parameters and qualifications for intelligent conversation, that would help me greatly. I'll try to stay within those "boundaries" from now on ....

Staying civil, I'll try to address some of your "points". The Patent App: we've actually been discussing it and it's implications in depth on another site since Dec. '13. Why?

Because there's absolutely nothing groundbreaking or earthshaking in Disney's NextGen Solution. MBs? GreatWolf has been using them for years - including for charging. MDE? every Service-based company has one, has for years. Ones a lot more efficient and stable. Reservation and POS Systems? Ditto. RFID short and long range scanners? Ditto. Across industries.

So, what was the hugely complex, outside of their skill set, component that caused the delays, the additional expense and the need to bring in the big gun providers, like Accenture, with a very specific skill set?

What's in the patent.

You see, the BPO (Business Process Optimization), Data Warehousing, Data Mining community is a very tight one. Not a lot of folks, or organizations in that space. A lot of movement in between. A lot of discussion about the major projects going on around the world, what's trying to be accomplished, what went right, what went wrong.

It's the space I've been in - all the way back to its crude and early days in the late '80's/early 90's as a grunt coder and consultant, and all the way up to running the Consulting Org of one of the big software providers that allows these projects to happen. Projects in every industry vertical, on every continent - many larger and more complex than this one. Believe it if you want. I really don't care.

Back to your post (I'm assuming it was directed at me, though you didn't quote nor tag me). Why did I ask the question again? Well, have you noticed that no article, including this one, ever talks about what one of the main goals of NextGen is? Almost seems there's a concerted effort not to.

Disney did the equivalent of the industry "Hail Mary". Instead of building rides, they built a system for yield and capacity management, with us being what's managed, and being managed with not enough assets or quality of asset (Tiering shows that). Take it beyond the Theme Park industry, actually attempting to use technology to manage human behavior real time is shockingly groundbreaking and b allsy risky.

Passive manipulation of all of that mined data to tailor offirings to real people? Absolutely. That's a strength of these things. But previously, most have shied away from actually trying to change what people do naturally and behaviorally.

They could well be studied for years because of its success, or it's failure - yet, they very much seem controlling of the narrative at this stage. Instead, the narrative is all about things that have been done long before, like MBs, or things they haven't even incorporated yet, like interaction. So, I'll ask it again, what sophisticated, incredibly difficult instantiation did they spend their money on, if not this part of the narrative, outlined in the patent app, which we can actually point to daily on every Disney-focused Internet board ad nauseam in all of those countless FP "How to Break Disney's System" or "Why is there no availability for what I want, when I want, until I do this" threads....? Btw, we are the test case for this.

Kinda relevant to the conversation,IMHO ...

At the same time, Disney jumped from the 8th grade level of technical sophistication all the way to sitting for their PhD. We've seen that with the still lengthy outages and a real time backup plan consisting of brute force, boots on the ground. And we've seen an official tempering of how far this will extend to the other Parks after the early excitement.

At some point, someone will document the real meat and potatoes. It may well be a success story on this major technological shift - one that other companies, and in other industries will line up to copy (or license). But, until it is a success, Disney doesn't even want to acknowledge it, much less want to spread it to their other assets. OP asked for feedback, OP responded quite a bit, to a point. After complementing him on the article, I asked, and asked again.

If I embarrassed you...? Well, you're in good company.......
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Normally I stay outside of other people's arguments but since you invoked my name, it might be helpful if I replied. Please be patient with my long-winded response. :)
[...]
IMO, it seems @clsteve asked a couple of questions that I don’t believe were answered the first time they were posted. To me, it seems reasonable for @clsteve to ask them again. :)

Sorry, you approached the topic logically... prepare for a judo attempt to steer your energy into something completely unrelated and lacking methodical approach.
 

LuvtheGoof

DVC Guru
Premium Member
Because there's absolutely nothing groundbreaking or earthshaking in Disney's NextGen Solution. MBs? GreatWolf has been using them for years - including for charging. MDE? every Service-based company has one, has for years. Ones a lot more efficient and stable. Reservation and POS Systems? Ditto. RFID short and long range scanners? Ditto. Across industries.
So staying civil, can you answer a few questions, please.

1. Please name a few service-based companies with an app similar to MDE, and that have had it for years, that does what it does. What about any other theme type parks?
2. Who else is using the same system for resort reservations, park passes, POS systems, door locks, and something similar to FP+?
3. RFID Short and Long range scanners - who is using them built into one piece of gear that also does everything else as well?

Thanks!
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I think there is a third option as well. Those of us that think that Disney is doing lots of positives at WDW, but not everything is positive. I would be in this third camp. I like a lot of what they are doing, but dislike other areas. I don't like buildings being used as a Festival Center only, or temporary happenings. I don't like the pace of construction, even if I understand why they are doing it. I like the new hub, NFL, and Storybrook Circus area in MK. I like that they have refurbished pretty much all of Main Street, and it is looking great. I am really liking what they are doing with Disney Springs. We stay at SSR a lot, so visit there quite a bit during our trips. I could go on and on about likes and dislikes, and I would resent anyone calling me a "pixie duster" just because I think that quite a lot of what they are doing lately is actually pretty awesome.

I am right there with you. I can point out things that Disney is doing that I both really like and really dislike. I think it is too easy to broadly paint everyone into either positive or negative camps.

As far As DL, well, I was just there a few short years ago and saw every single problem that y'all complain about with WDW, because I was looking for them.

Yeah, I'm always mystified about why DLR gets such praise in these pages. It seems to me that it's run in a pretty similar way to WDW.
 

Travel Junkie

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm always mystified about why DLR gets such praise in these pages. It seems to me that it's run in a pretty similar way to WDW.


WDW and DLR are run very differently. They should be as they are different types of resorts and cater to a different audience. That’s not to say both resorts don’t have some similarities and have some of the same problems.

Look at how DLR is handling their 60th anniversary compared to how WDW recently handled Epcot’s 30th and DHS’s 25th. I could go on and on but this isn't the thread for it.

Bringing it back somewhat to the topic at hand, the article said Anaheim would not be getting MB and only certain aspects of NGE will come to DLR. Again, that points to the differences in the resorts.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom