NYT: "Universal....Takes Aim at Disney"

[WDW1974]

RSR is what we all know WDI can do given the resources. And it will be proof positive that doing so is EXTREMELY profitable. Success has a way a creating more success. And I think that is what you will see including at WDW.

And it is never to late to fix something. FL was cursed for nearly half a century when 20K was green-lighted. They had to get that investment back. Now the remedy is here and judging by the buzz many are delighted.

I'm guessing we have only seen the first chapter of the "book" Lasseter is writing.

So that's the latest pablum you are spinning? 20K 'cursed' WDW? How by being a beautiful and unique E-Ticket that management was too cheap to maintain so they closed it and left it to rot in the FLA sun in 1994?

How does any of what has happened in Anaheim mean anything at WDW ... and why am I responding to someone I am convinced has never set foot in WDW!??!??!

 

[WDW1974]

Can anyone explain what this means?

I don't speak that language, sorry.

 

[WDW1974]

I agree, no one knows anything about the trust. However, we do know a little bit about it. Laurene Jobs, Steve's Wife, worked on wall st. in the 80's as an asset manager and strategist. I would imagine the shares of Disney probably won't do more than collect dividends. I would imagine that if TWDC were going to h-e-l-l a la 1984 or 2004, those shares could be used to mobilize a save disney like campaign. So that could really help in making an effective campaign to change management if needed. Roy only held one percent of TWDC and was the nephew of Walt Disney, Imagine what 7.7 percent and John Lasseter & company could do. As 74 stated back on the James Cameron thread, John has all the power here.

Yes, he does ... remember that when you see Iger 'decide' to leave before the dates he has 'chosen' to ... also remember it when Tom Staggs or Jay Rasulo aren't put in his position and likely follow him right on out of Burbank.

 

[orky8]

Yes, he does ... remember that when you see Iger 'decide' to leave before the dates he has 'chosen' to ... also remember it when Tom Staggs or Jay Rasulo aren't put in his position and likely follow him right on out of Burbank.

So, you think (or know) that Lassetter has some power over those shares? I would hope Jobs would have left him with that power, or perhaps Laurene simple gives him that power.

 

[marni1971]

Ah, a single subject finally. We had a long debate and insiders were involved etc. Went on and on and nobody would or could answer how 20 K was decided on when the theming was so wrong for the location.

One poster promised to get an answer at D23 but then silence.

All we have is the fact that Eisner shut down what was probably most people's favorite attraction or at least in the top 3 at the MK for no apparent reason.

No mystery. 20K was planned for Fanland since 1968. It closed because ops hated it, it was a traffic nightmare, and was a pain to maintain. They hoodwinked Eisner into it closing.

 

[marni1971]

Walt had no say in the MKs design. Aside from where it should be built it was after his time. 20K was always going where to was built, even when park plans were changing radically upto early 1970. And why not? It was a fantasy ride in a fantasyland.

 

[jt04]

So that's the latest pablum you are spinning? 20K 'cursed' WDW? How by being a beautiful and unique E-Ticket that management was too cheap to maintain so they closed it and left it to rot in the FLA sun in 1994?

Let me guess, you blame Iger for this. Right?

20K was a theming nightmare similar to the Splash inconsistancy. For a person who peddles themself as a Disney purist you sure do give them a pass on a lot. I know, I know, as long as the shopping is nice you are happy.

 

[jt04]

Walt had no say in the MKs design. Aside from where it should be built it was after his time. 20K was always going where to was built, even when park plans were changing radically upto early 1970. And why not? It was a fantasy ride in a fantasyland.

It is this type thinking in the halls of management that gave us Splash in Frontierland, Monsters and Stitch in Tomorrowland and flying carpets smack in the middle of Adventureland. But I guess for some a spinner could be called an "adventure".

 

[jt04]

No mystery. 20K was planned for Fanland since 1968. It closed because ops hated it, it was a traffic nightmare, and was a pain to maintain. They hoodwinked Eisner into it closing.

If true I want the autograph of those responsible. If Eisner purposely turned a blind eye to closing 20K then that was one of his better decisions. I doubt he was hoodwinked.

 

[PhoenixSpirit]

I'll take reading half a conversation (the half that MAKES SENSE) than reading his nonsense...

true that.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

There is a ton of mystery surrounding every aspect of 20K

Aw. That's very kind of you. But I'm a regular guy, just like anybody else.

I can see where you'd feel that way, though.

 

[Tom Morrow]

20K was a theming nightmare similar to the Splash inconsistancy. For a person who peddles themself as a Disney purist you sure do give them a pass on a lot. I know, I know, as long as the shopping is nice you are happy.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about Splash Mountain being in Frontierland. Maybe its a slight stretch, but it makes more sense than Stitch and Monsters in Tomorrowland.

Though I don't know why I'm replying as its obvious you're just trolling at this point.

 

[flavious27]

No, but before potter they had about 5500 less guests per day than they do now.

Popularity and capacity are two different things. You are a red sox fan so you should know this. The 2000 season had an average of 30k sox fans per game at fenway, last year it was 37k; they didn't add 7k seats to the capacity of fenway, the team got more popular. wwhp did not add that much more to the capacity of the park because most of the land that was used was already used by LC.

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

WDW1974 quote: I stand by my statement. Young children grow. And families come in many shapes, sizes and ages. Catering to simply young children and their parents is a recipe for long term disaster.

As to the grandeur of WDW ... well, maybe 25 years ago you could argue that ... but today?!?


I wouldn't suggest this strategy to be a long-term "disaster". IMHO, this strategy of targeting the families with 8 (or 10) yrs and under crowd (catch them at a young age, capture them for a lifetime) alone is a good one (also see McDonalds (seriously, they must put something "special" on the burgers in Happy Meals)). All other factors aside, with this strategy I would dare believe that WDW can maintain their current numbers.
Now, if other factors such as declining quality in shows & attractions, lack of new additions, etc. continue, then it'll be an uphill battle to build that brand loyalty. That would be the disaster. as would if humans stopped reproducing, which eventually would effect, like - everything.
Everything is cyclical so here's to hoping WDW, mainly Epcot, AK, and DHS, can get the real attention they deserve in all areas/categories if they want to maintain the Vacation Destination of the World title. (It is still considered the "flagship", correct?)
I believe they do need to focus on DHS, with another family ride or two plus more thrills for the teen/thrill-seeker crowds, for growth if that is or ever becomes their intention.

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[flynnibus]

Popularity and capacity are two different things. You are a red sox fan so you should know this. The 2000 season had an average of 30k sox fans per game at fenway, last year it was 37k; they didn't add 7k seats to the capacity of fenway, the team got more popular. wwhp did not add that much more to the capacity of the park because most of the land that was used was already used by LC.

But unlike a stadium of seats... a theme park's capacity is byproduct of it's attractions and their capacities to hold people.

You add attractions to a park.. you add overall potential capacity. It's 'somewhere to put people..'

 

[flavious27]

But unlike a stadium of seats... a theme park's capacity is byproduct of it's attractions and their capacities to hold people.

You add attractions to a park.. you add overall potential capacity. It's 'somewhere to put people..'

True, when you put a completely new ride in on land that was not used, it will add capacity. FJ added a couple thousand to the overall capacity to the park, like those seats that were added above the green monster. But the increase was not that much, which is my point. Uni used land that was already part of park capacity, they can only add to the capacity by using more land.

 

[flynnibus]

True, when you put a completely new ride in on land that was not used, it will add capacity. FJ added a couple thousand to the overall capacity to the park, like those seats that were added above the green monster. But the increase was not that much, which is my point. Uni used land that was already part of park capacity, they can only add to the capacity by using more land.

People in attractions are a far more efficient use of space than 'add to the capacity by using more land'. Don't get hung up on the footprint of the park. It's about people DENSITY and places to put people.. and attractions add capacity far more effectively than simple open space.

 

[RSoxNo1]

WDW doesn't need a fifth theme park, either now or ever. It has four already that can grow and change and should be timeless. I don't get the whole idea of bigger being better. WDW's quality has gone down in direct correlation with its growth. Major expansions can be done in the existing parks for the next 50 years.

On the whole, I agree with you but I would argue that a park like the Animal Kingdom is visually appealing. It's certainly underbuilt and that speaks to quality, but the layers that are at that park are far superior to say the original DCA.

UNI has damaged WDW by simply taking more guests' money. The reality is people have a finite amount of time and money to spend on vacations (unless they are from the UK!) ... and every dollar spent at UNI is one that can't be spent at WDW. I don't need to point out how UNI's attendance has skyrocketed and their guest spend as well.

More importantly, they've done it the old fashioned way. Quality product to get people in the door, and then quality merchandise to keep them spending money after they bought their ticket.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about Splash Mountain being in Frontierland. Maybe its a slight stretch, but it makes more sense than Stitch and Monsters in Tomorrowland.

Though I don't know why I'm replying as its obvious you're just trolling at this point.

The reason you don't hear the complaints about Splash Mountain in Frontierland or Soarin' in the Land, or Rock 'n' Roller Coaster on Sunset Boulevard is because people like the attractions. When the attraction is well regarded, people can be a lot more forgiving on thematic ties.

Popularity and capacity are two different things. You are a red sox fan so you should know this. The 2000 season had an average of 30k sox fans per game at fenway, last year it was 37k; they didn't add 7k seats to the capacity of fenway, the team got more popular. wwhp did not add that much more to the capacity of the park because most of the land that was used was already used by LC.

They actually added a little over 3500 seats to Fenway park since 2000, and they've actually been screwing around with the attendance numbers at Fenway to maintain the facade of a sell out streak. Having said that, Harry Potter increased the number of guests going to IOA by a substantial amount. This is undeniable, and the capacity of Forbidden Journey and the land as a whole does function as a way to represent how much can be added to the park's attendance. Now, Little Mermaid will have a comparable capacity as Forbidden Journey, but it's safe to assume that it won't have the same popularity.

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

You bring up an interesting parallel, McDonald's. Our children are teenagers now and still consider McDonald's to be the "default" fast food joint. (It does make you wonder what they put in those burgers!) Similarly, they and their friends consider WDW to be the "default" vacation destination. They like UO but, to them, "Orlando vacation" means WDW, just like "fast food" mean McDonald's. Basically, they've been "trained" by marketing at an early age to think that way and it has carried forward into their teenage years. We purchased UO annual passes earlier this year and I have to practically beg them to go to UO. Again, for them, "Orlando vacation" means WDW. IMHO, UO has to break kids of that habit in order to seriously impact WDW revenue.

And I enjoy WDW1974's posts too!

By the way, I'm not a bad parent. We rarely go out for fast food and our chidlren are all competative swimmers who burn thousands of extra calories a day. So please, don't flame me on that one!

I totally agree with you on the marketing, "training" people (children). Perception is reality and they perceive the campaign's message to be true so they believe it.

No flames from me. 1) Our family, we eat waaaaay too much fast food ourselves (kids 3 and 6 love McD's). Speaking of flames and burgers, I find other fast food burgers to be better such as BK and Hardee's Thickburgers so I kind of regret bringing up McDonalds, if that makes sense. My kids want McD's even though I "know" (believe) there is better out there**. 2) Also, I haven't been to UO since '97 so again, no flames from me!
**I love WDW as does my family so I'm not suggesting that UO is better or not in this example. I can't compare UO '97 to WDW '11. I'm sure that UO is super "kewl" and one day, we'll visit (again for me, first time for wife and kids). As for now, I am sure that we're a Disney focused family so yes, Orlando equals WDW to us.

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

They actually added a little over 3500 seats to Fenway park since 2000, and they've actually been screwing around with the attendance numbers at Fenway to maintain the facade of a sell out streak. Having said that, Harry Potter increased the number of guests going to IOA by a substantial amount. This is undeniable, and the capacity of Forbidden Journey and the land as a whole does function as a way to represent how much can be added to the park's attendance. Now, Little Mermaid will have a comparable capacity as Forbidden Journey, but it's safe to assume that it won't have the same popularity.

Fenway Park? Isn't that like the new home for the Orioles?

and now that I've said that, the Birds will sink to last in the AL East with another losing record for the 14th (or is it the 15th?) year in a row...