MyMagic+ article from Fast Company magazine

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
The amount of WDW mantras I heard during my time reporting was seemingly endless -- IBFW was just the tip of the iceberg.

You really should have added more on the difficulties front line CM's have with this system, Unfortunately it reads like a puff piece for MM+. It works really well for the MAJORITY of guests, but when it breaks it's down hard, The MM+ system was down hard over the presidents day holiday as it's most recent extended outage.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
I didn't read it that way at all. It was more of a story about the childish infighting that seems to be pervasive in the Dis organization.

Saw that too but that's standard corporate politics on any large system implementation. There is nothing unique to DIS in that type of infighting I've been involved in corporate infighting for a while both as a participant and a mediator-clean up guy.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
Saw that too but that's standard corporate politics on any large system implementation. There is nothing unique to DIS in that type of infighting I've been involved in corporate infighting for a while both as a participant and a mediator-clean up guy.
I'm sure thats true. But it doesn't have a place in a puff piece.

Further, if you work your way to the end of the article, there are quotes from CMs and imagineers that are quite negative. Again, no place for that in puff pieces.
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
This is a good read and well written.

A criticism that you will get here is, like so many in the media, your story doesn't seem to press as hard on some of the details. Reading through your article it looks like Disney spent (by most accounts) well over $1 billion for 5,000 more guests and what the company reports is a 20% increase in per guest spending. The ROI on that investment seems lacking. Would like to see that follow-up.

It is interesting to see the blame for lack of integration fall at the feet of the imagineers. We all know much more could have been done with MM+ but I, for one, thought it was for lack of a willings at the top to integrate into the parks. Surprised to see that it was because of an unwillingness to cooperate from the people tasked with creative design.

In the end, as a consumer and user of MM+, I would say that I find the experience exciting in its use. It is another layer for the planning stage of my vacations (the pre-pre-show if you will). I look forward to receiving my 'gift box' and it makes my vacation much more tangible prior to leaving for the airport. I certainly would like to see MM+ put to use for something outside of transactional interaction though.

This is a great question -- thanks so much for asking it. I totally agree, the ROI of MM+ is usually a top reason for skepticism of the nearly $1 billion program. There's a couple things to keep in mind about this:

- First, people often point to the features of the program -- unlocking hotel room doors, FP+, accessing attractions, etc. -- and wonder, How can something as intangible as added convenience create an ROI? My personal feeling is that these small conveniences add up, and if that culminates in improved "intent to return" metrics, that will be a huge help to Disney's bottom line going forward.

- Second, a lot of its features are in fact not intangible, but very tangible. Photo Pass/Memory Maker costs somewhere btwn $169 to $199; the MagicBand has become one of the top 5 best-selling SKUs across all of WDW; seamless payments have ramped up guest spend; and the 30% cut in transaction time is also significant. Re: the 5,000 additional folks into Magic Kingdom, that's a big deal, if you consider how much more revenue they can simultaneously generate for the same experience. And that doesn't include the #s at each of the other parks -- Tom Staggs told me not to multiply 5,000 by the # of parks, because the figures vary, but the point is, more guests will almost always equate to more revenue.

- Third, it's important to put that $1 billion figure into perspective. What moves the needle these days? Will spending another $100 million on another Expedition Everest set up Disney for the long term? Perhaps. But Disney is a company that plays for the long game -- that's what makes it so innovative -- and it's willing to invest big where it counts, even if it's risk, as was the case with MM+. The company simply could not go on forever, as Steve Jobs said, using paper tickets, having scant data on its consumers, and offering little by way of personalization, technology, and mobility.

Plus, as one top source told me, "Over the same period that MM+ incurred a $900M investment [in MM+], the base organization...spent $2B+ in traditional marketing m, $2B in traditional IT and $8B in labor expenses." I'd take these figures with a grain of salt, because I haven't confirmed them, but the point is, billion-dollar investments are almost table stakes for the scale at which Disney operates.

But most importantly, as multiple sources told me of MM+, it won't take much to prove the program to give a return. "You really only need a 1% or 2% change in your 'intent to return' to take care of it, because this project was about changing how everyone experienced [the park], so thus it impacted everyone's price value -- not just the people who experience a single new hotel or a single new ride," one of these sources says.

- Lastly, as I said before, Disney is a company that plays for the long game. MM+ had a ton of up-front costs, and faced a ton of criticism like any bold new experiment. But you'll start to see the fruits of this labor, hopefully, in the years ahead. And many of the upfront costs -- like tripling guest relations, a burden on its P&L -- will wind down as the system becomes more polished and consumers are more educated about its purpose.

Hope that helps!
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
The amount of WDW mantras I heard during my time reporting was seemingly endless -- IBFW was just the tip of the iceberg.
Unfortunately that tells me that you may have gotten quite a bit of spin. So many of the people you spoke with have intense PR training. You certainly got quite a bit of info here, but it sounds like the true ugly underbelly was never going to be revealed.

I will ask the question that I didn't really see asked/answered in the article. What, if any positive or negative feedback did you see internally or externally regarding the change in the Fastpass program? That is one of the largest components of My Magic+ and around these parts is often why the program is met with significant criticism.
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
@AustinC Thanks! Great read! I'm curious though, there have been a lot of recent articles about the My Magic and Magic bands (Wired had one last month, along with another publication I can't remember). Has Disney been contacting you guys to increase publicity for it? It seems with the introduction of the Apple Watch, interest in wearables is higher than it has ever been. Thanks!

I would guess there have been some more articles recently about MyMagic+ simply because wearables are becoming an increasingly important topic, with the Apple Watch, etc. It's pretty remarkable to think that Disney started its experiment as early as 2007, back when the iPhone was just getting launched, the app market didn't exist, and even the FuelBands/Fitbits/Jawbones of the world weren't in market like they are today. Disney essentially operated a multiyear experiment in experience design and wearable computing, in an enclosed environment -- which is unprecedented in the UX world. I think that's partially why there's interest in this story now.

I can't speak for Disney PR, but I do know Fast Company and Wired were working on a MM+ story simultaneously. Once they heard we were working on ours, they decided to publish theirs, but as you can see, they are different stories.

Disney chose to make certain executives like Staggs accessible to us, after hearing from sources what we were up to. But IMO, I don't think there has been some push to increase publicity for it.
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
it's important to put that $1 billion figure into perspective. What moves the needle these days? Will spending another $100 million on another Expedition Everest set up Disney for the long term? Perhaps. But Disney is a company that plays for the long game -- that's what makes it so innovative -- and it's willing to invest big where it counts, even if it's risk, as was the case with MM+. The company simply could not go on forever, as Steve Jobs said, using paper tickets, having scant data on its consumers, and offering little by way of personalization, technology, and mobility.
This. 100% Your Steve Jobs quote explained exactly why they had to do this. I remember thinking that earlier too. They had to do something. Sitting around idle is not the answer. It's not perfect, but it's better then standing still.
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
I can't speak for Disney PR, but I do know Fast Company and Wired were working on a MM+ story simultaneously. Once they heard we were working on ours, they decided to publish theirs, but as you can see, they are different stories.
Wired jumped the gun. Yours is so much better.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
This is a great question -- thanks so much for asking it. I totally agree, the ROI of MM+ is usually a top reason for skepticism of the nearly $1 billion program. There's a couple things to keep in mind about this:

- First, people often point to the features of the program -- unlocking hotel room doors, FP+, accessing attractions, etc. -- and wonder, How can something as intangible as added convenience create an ROI? My personal feeling is that these small conveniences add up, and if that culminates in improved "intent to return" metrics, that will be a huge help to Disney's bottom line going forward.

- Second, a lot of its features are in fact not intangible, but very tangible. Photo Pass/Memory Maker costs somewhere btwn $169 to $199; the MagicBand has become one of the top 5 best-selling SKUs across all of WDW; seamless payments have ramped up guest spend; and the 30% cut in transaction time is also significant. Re: the 5,000 additional folks into Magic Kingdom, that's a big deal, if you consider how much more revenue they can simultaneously generate for the same experience. And that doesn't include the #s at each of the other parks -- Tom Staggs told me not to multiply 5,000 by the # of parks, because the figures vary, but the point is, more guests will almost always equate to more revenue.

- Third, it's important to put that $1 billion figure into perspective. What moves the needle these days? Will spending another $100 million on another Expedition Everest set up Disney for the long term? Perhaps. But Disney is a company that plays for the long game -- that's what makes it so innovative -- and it's willing to invest big where it counts, even if it's risk, as was the case with MM+. The company simply could not go on forever, as Steve Jobs said, using paper tickets, having scant data on its consumers, and offering little by way of personalization, technology, and mobility.

Plus, as one top source told me, "Over the same period that MM+ incurred a $900M investment [in MM+], the base organization...spent $2B+ in traditional marketing m, $2B in traditional IT and $8B in labor expenses." I'd take these figures with a grain of salt, because I haven't confirmed them, but the point is, billion-dollar investments are almost table stakes for the scale at which Disney operates.

But most importantly, as multiple sources told me of MM+, it won't take much to prove the program to give a return. "You really only need a 1% or 2% change in your 'intent to return' to take care of it, because this project was about changing how everyone experienced [the park], so thus it impacted everyone's price value -- not just the people who experience a single new hotel or a single new ride," one of these sources says.

- Lastly, as I said before, Disney is a company that plays for the long game. MM+ had a ton of up-front costs, and faced a ton of criticism like any bold new experiment. But you'll start to see the fruits of this labor, hopefully, in the years ahead. And many of the upfront costs -- like tripling guest relations, a burden on its P&L -- will wind down as the system becomes more polished and consumers are more educated about its purpose.

Hope that helps!
  • Photo Pass existed previously, although I certainly agree the advancements there have been among the best things with My Magic+.
  • As for the 5000 additional guests, was the question asked, "How much of that can be attributed to New Fantasyland which has an added capacity in excess of 5000 guests per hour?"
  • Spending $100 million on Expedition Everest resulted in an additional million guests in the Animal Kingdom. 2739 per day of additional guests. Disney only added capacity to the Magic Kingdom, but haven't seen the same results as that of a single E-ticket attraction despite a $400 million investment in New Fantasyland and Next Gen. MK has seen an attendance boost, but not to the tune of 5000 guests per day, and I would definitely argue that the boost has more to do with the new rides that were added than anything Next Gen related.
  • Was the question asked about maintenance and upgrade costs as well? Rasulo has stated publicly that they are depreciating many of the Next Gen assets quicker than most because it is fueled by every changing technology. Were questions asked and answered about that?
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
@AustinC
Best article I have read on MyMagic+.

In the article you mention that you sat down with Joe Rohde over the model for Avatarland. Would you care to share any details of the model that you saw?

Again, great work!


Hey there! Yes, I got to spend time with Joe over the Avatar models. I would say what struck me most are not just the new-age animatronics -- which are pretty mind blowing -- but more so the level of thought Joe and his team are putting into EVERY detail of Avatar Land. I mean, when we were looking at the model, he wasn't just referring to specific attractions, but audio cues, how certain parts of Avatar Land respond to other parts, etc. The whole thing is seemingly designed to be a living, breathing organism, and I'm sure Joe barely scratched the surface on what he has planned. Very fascinating dude.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom