Skip
Well-Known Member
This, this, this. You took the words right out of my mouth.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Not everyone is hurting ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
This, this, this. You took the words right out of my mouth.
I would suggest reading one of the countless books on the power of branding if you don't know what we're talking about.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Not everyone is hurting
thanks to new industrial strength Anusol. Skelp some on your Chalfonts today!
thanks to new industrial strength Anusol. Skelp some on your Chalfonts today!
Montyboy
New Member
Then Universal should work on their branding - shake off some of that Disney step-child they have all over them.
On this point, I agree with you... to a small degree. Universal's branding could be more prominent, but they are up against a super-brand. I've read that Disney is the number three most recognized brand in the world (behind only Coca-Cola and McDonalds). It's unlikely Universal will ever catch up to that, but you never know. And that's just the thing... Disney is such a powerful brand that, as someone else in this thread stated, they could continue to decline and will still be successful for many years to come.
Establishing a brand typically takes time. And while USF has been around for nearly 20 years (more than enough time for most companies to identify and establish their brand), I'm sure that living in Disney's shadow all this time has not made it as easy to do so.
Skip
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind though that Universal has been around for decades upon decades... just in the movie business rather than theme parks, even before Disney. I think a lot of people recognize the Universal brand as a movie studio... just not so much with theme parks. And with a parent company that doesn't seem to care about the parks all that much, that isn't likely to change in the near future... but one day the parks'll get a decent parent company that'll treat em right.
Yeah Universal has had an interesting history as a movie studio. Unlike most movie studios other than Disney, though, Universal did have somewhat of a brand during the heyday of monster movies, which Universal was truly known for. Aside from that, they are, in terms of the movie studio anyway, more like other movie studios. More often than not, most people couldn't tell you which studio produced a particular movie. Disney is an exception to that rule. I remember seeing an interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg that he did when he was still head of the studio at Disney, and he said something to the effect of "no one goes to see a movie because it was made by Paramount or Warner Bros or Universal...but they will go to see a 'Disney' movie".
Monty
Brilliant...and Canadian
- In the Parks
- No
You read that? Close, Disney is number 20 in 2009.
http://www.millwardbrown.com/Sites/Optimor/Media/Pdfs/en/BrandZ/BrandZ-2009-Report.pdf
This is a list of the most "valuable" brands based on ONE study. What I referred to were the most "recognized" brands. Re-read my post and you'll see. There is a difference between the two terms, which is why I was very careful to say "recognized". There are countless ways to rank brands. Brand Recognizability (which, again, is what I was referring to) is but one. Brand Value is another, as are Brand Loyalty, Brand Performance, and so on. Branding is one of my favorite topics, in case you haven't figured that out.
Nice try attempting to make me appear uninformed about the topic though (I know that's something you and your buddy, Monty Boy live for). How long did it take you to dig up that irrelevant information? :hammer:
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
You got me. I have not been to USF so I should not say what style of park it is. But the bottom line holds true, my family (and people I know who have been to USF) will not book a vacation to Florida with the sole intent on going to USF but we will and do for WDW.
As for comparing King's Island / Cedar Point, and USF - Just curious how the attendance numbers shake out for dates the parks are open. Keep in mind, the Ohio parks are closed from basically Labor Day until after Easter. They do have weekends in September and October for Halloween activities. My guess is the Ohio parks come close to if not surpass USF in attendance and that is without feeding off of the WDW teet.
Skip
Well-Known Member
Do us all a favor and don't judge a resort you haven't visited. In my opinion Universal is perfect for a 2 to 4 day trip - and yes, that means not stepping foot in the confines of the much beloved Disney World.
I will also point this out - AGAIN - Attendance numbers do not reflect the quality of the product. Just because a park has a greater attendance does not mean it is the superior product, so don't cite that as evidence. Furthermore, your claims are false, as if you take a look at the 2008 theme park attendance report:
http://www.teaconnect.org/etea/TEAERA2008.pdf
You'll see that Universal does about double the attendance that Kings Island and Cedar Point receive. And yes, I'm aware that they are seasonal parks, but it's also worth noting that they are largely AMUSEMENT PARKS that aim at a totally different demographic than Universal or Disney - they aren't trying to be immersive, themed entertainment resorts. That is all.
Exactly! Attendance is really more a reflection of marketing (which includes advertising, discounts, etc) and, once again....BRANDING.
It's rougly akin to a movie's opening weekend numbers. Those numbers have little, if anything, to do with the quality of the movie. The people seeing a movie during it's first day or two of release aren't going because they heard how great the movie is (from people who have actually seen it). They're going because of their expectations that the movie will be worth seeing. Those expectations are created from one of two things generally (or a combination of both of these):
1. It looked to them like it would be a good movie from watching the trailers, seeing the movie poster, or some other form of advertising for the movie, and/or
2. The movie is either a sequel of another movie they really enjoyed, or the people involved in making it (actors, director, the studio, etc) have also made other movies the viewer has enjoyed in the past (this would be an example of brand loyalty).
It's no different when we're talking about booking a trip to WDW. People who do so are generally responding to the effective ad campaign (something Disney still excels at) or they identify with the Disney brand as having been reliable quality entertainment in the past. Those same people may come away from the trip though feeling completely jipped.
I'm on several, since you asked. And since this is the Universal section of the forum, I'm technically on one right now.
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
Wow. Some one has a burr in her panties.
Okay. so attendance does not matter. Your opinion. Popularity is not equal to quality, I get it. But someone pointed out that USF does thrill rides better than Disney. I am pointing out that Cedar Fair does thrill rides better than USF. Oh, and for the popular vote - Daily attendance at USF = 17,071 and IOA = 14,512. Daily attendance at Cedar Point = 23,688 and King's Island = 22,817. For Cedar Point and King's Island these include days they are only open in the evening's for the Halloween activities.
Skip
Well-Known Member
Not trying to start any arguments or anything...
Attendance not affecting the quality of the product is not my opinion, that's a fact. Transformers 2 was the highest grossing movie this summer, meaning it was well attended, but it was also universally panned by critics. So in other words, just because the product was well-attended or used does not mean it it's superior to the other product. I'm not saying that Disney is automatically better than Universal because it has better attendance, but I'm trying to emphasize that while Cedar Point may have a higher DAILY attendance that Universal does, it does not make it the better park when considering it for theming standards.
Universal has better thrill rides in a THEME PARK.
Cedar Point has better thrill rides in an AMUSEMENT PARK.
Simple as that.
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
I think that just about sums it up. Well put.
And since, as you say, attendance does not prove how good a product is, It looks like King's Islands attendace is going to be up again this year. So, for the thread title, "Not everyone is hurting. . ." I suppose you could say that they are doing well.
And since, as you say, attendance does not prove how good a product is, It looks like King's Islands attendace is going to be up again this year. So, for the thread title, "Not everyone is hurting. . ." I suppose you could say that they are doing well.
Skip
Well-Known Member
No one ever said that. I even said that I do not believe Universal is not superior to Disney because it has lower attendance... the point I was trying to make that attendance cannot be directly associated with quality. That's it.
Monty
Brilliant...and Canadian
- In the Parks
- No
You don't "get" humour, do you?
