Rumors. Musings. Casual.

[Animaniac93-98]

The Disney Company has been cross promoting stuff in the parks with media for a half century.

That is not the same thing as deciding to build only IP rides, or thinking sales in another division mean that is what the theme park customers want to see in the parks. Or that IP will always elevate the experience, no matter what is actually built.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What's giving you the impression that this is happening?

They may not ALL ask this, but don't you think someone is asking this? Like all the time? And hasn't Disney's recent box office slump shown that Disney fans won't necessarily "show up no matter what?"

Do you follow Disney's social media accounts?

The way I see it, there's no need to be frustration over things that aren't true.

Well they’re not doing Jack….so that leaves “source material” a somewhat moot point

Indeed…they got a problem don’t they?

What good is following the direct orders of bad management?

Pretty sure the frustration is real. You can even tell on fan boards…which is basically the last line of defense

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I'll give Yacht and Beach Club as an example to illustrate my concern.

It's a popular hotel in a prime location, that's beautifully executed and has a number of highly regarded amenities, of which the pool complex immediately comes to mind. People choose to stay there and pay a premium for all those things. The hotel sells itself and can stand on its own because of the quality of the experience it provides, that is recognized and valued by the customers who chose to stay there.

But the Disney of today would never build Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort for all the reasons I've outlined. It's not IP, does not promote another division of the company, is not obviously "Disney" in its imagery and the theme that gives its whole appeal would be seen as dated for not tying in with a current, trendy concept. They might build another deluxe hotel with a fancy pool, but it wouldn't be as timeless or tasteful in a way that appeals to a broad audience.

I think that's a problem that's limiting the parks and resorts and shows a misunderstanding of what gives them their appeal.

 

[Lilofan]

Well they’re not doing Jack….so that leaves “source material” a somewhat moot point

Indeed…they got a problem don’t they?

What good is following the direct orders of bad management?

Pretty sure the frustration is real. You can even tell on fan boards…which is basically the last line of defense

The only good thing is following orders to keep being employed. My way or the highway as the boss would describe it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Happy to hear that. Sincerely hope it is true.

The guest experience at Disney has truly gone to crap and I don't see going back again until they are able (if they even can) to go back to the great vacation experience that it once was. I was once somewhat of a "big spender" at Disney in that we loved the deluxe resorts and stayed club level several times. We always tied to reserve tours and special experiences and I know that we were exactly the type of guest that made Disney parks profitable. But...alas...that is no more. No way I am worrying about buying Genie minus every morning and hope (hope that is) I can get a good lightning lane. And that is only to start.

If they ever want us back, then they need to focus more on the guest experience instead of just working their best to increase their never-ending price list and making sure you keep your face in a phone all day long.

I am fascinated by opinions like this

It should be “red alert…Klingons decloaking off the starboard bow!” To the management…

But what have we got?

“Please vote for us in our meeting. And pay more for our stream full of stale stuff and box office flops”

 

[JD80]

That is not the same thing as deciding to build only IP rides, or thinking sales in another division mean that is what the theme park customers want to see in the parks. Or that IP will always elevate the experience, no matter what is actually built.

No idea what you're talking about honestly.

Are you saying that sales/ratings/viewer metrics offer zero insight in what customers want to see in a theme park?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The only good thing is following orders to keep being employed. My way or the highway as the boss would describe it.

Not the point…but you’re the king!

 

[TalkingHead]

I think that's a problem that's limiting the parks and resorts and shows a misunderstanding of what gives them their appeal.

But that’s not new. It’s been an issue for nearly 20 years at this point. Eisner enjoyed getting name architects to work on projects for the company. There was some cultural depth to his interests and the way he viewed the company’s output. I’ve never once gotten the impression that Iger understands anything more than dollars and cents. What you have is a massive legacy machine for culture production being headed by an empty cardigan.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But that’s not new. It’s been an issue for nearly 20 years at this point. Eisner enjoyed getting name architects to work on projects for the company. There was some cultural depth to his interests and the way he viewed the company’s output. I’ve never once gotten the impression that Iger understands anything more than dollars and cents. What you have is a massive legacy machine for culture production being headed by an empty cardigan.

You describing the difference in 2 CEOs

One had experience in animation and was tasked with resurrecting a film studio prior to ever working for Disney…

One listened to pitches for sitcoms and talked to agents 90% of the time.

Both valuable…one clearly moreso to an outfit that peddles product aimed at emotion and imagination

 

[_caleb]

Well they’re not doing Jack….so that leaves “source material” a somewhat moot point

Indeed…they got a problem don’t they?

What good is following the direct orders of bad management?

Pretty sure the frustration is real. You can even tell on fan boards…which is basically the last line of defense

I have no doubt the frustration is real. But if it’s based on the most negative interpretation of everyone involved and all they do, maybe some of it is unfounded (or at least blown out of proportion)?

 

[Virtual Toad]

No idea what you're talking about honestly.

Are you saying that sales/ratings/viewer metrics offer zero insight in what customers want to see in a theme park?

I think the issue is they try to rely solely on data and metrics, which (as in the case of an IP such as the Simpsons) can lead them down a path that further dilutes the brand.

Data and metrics can be a useful tool, but intuition, common sense and a clear vision for brand consistency should also be a vital part of the equation.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I have no doubt the frustration is real. But if it’s based on the most negative interpretation of everyone involved and all they do, maybe some of it is unfounded (or at least blown out of proportion)?

You are missing what I’m getting at…

Don’t worry about what I say…I’m already on the Burbank watch list…

It’s those that were typically happy go lucky park goers who gave Disney benefit of the doubt…carte Blanche…who have become somewhat vocal critics. And it’s not easing.

They have a near crisis level revolt starting to boil to the surface…the movie problems are the first wave…not the last

 

[JD80]

I think the issue is they try to rely solely on data and metrics, which (as in the case of an IP such as the Simpsons) can lead them down a path that further dilutes the brand.

Data and metrics can be a useful tool, but intuition, common sense and a clear vision for brand consistency should also be a vital part of the equation.

How do you know they solely rely on data and metrics? Seems like you're reading to many online opinions and not basing it in reality.

 

[Virtual Toad]

How do you know they solely rely on data and metrics? Seems like you're reading to many online opinions and not basing it in reality.

Fair enough. Let's change "solely" to "possibly relying too heavily." Basing park decisions on Disney+ numbers, if true, is a dangerous game. Audiences can be fickle, and by the time Disney finally gets around to building something, the audience may have moved on to something else. Build too quickly and the results can be underwhelming (DCA's Spiderman which still probably took them too long to build). A decision to put The Simpsons in WDW might look good in terms of metrics but it defies any measure of common sense. It's an old and tired IP that Universal is looking to ditch. And it is completely inconsistent with the Disney brand.

 

[JD80]

Fair enough. Let's change "solely" to "possibly relying too heavily." Basing park decisions on Disney+ numbers, if true, is a dangerous game. Audiences can be fickle, and by the time Disney finally gets around to building something, the audience may have moved on to something else. Build too quickly and the results can be underwhelming (DCA's Spiderman which still probably took them too long to build). A decision to put The Simpsons in WDW might look good in terms of metrics but it defies any measure of common sense. It's an old and tired IP that Universal is looking to ditch. And it is completely inconsistent with the Disney brand.

Again, where do you actually see this occurring that creates a worry for you?

Using Metrics, they would probably use some IP on this list to build something in the parks.

 

[Prince-1]

How do you know they solely rely on data and metrics? Seems like you're reading to many online opinions and not basing it in reality.

Don’t you know everyone is an expert on everything.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Happy to hear that. Sincerely hope it is true.

Whether it would be better if it were true or not, I will believe it when I see some evidence of it.

I feel like in my decades of being in these forums that people pop up at fairly regular intervals to declare Disney is fast running out of money and in danger of not being able to pay the electricity bills to keep the lights on at the parks.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I think the issue is they try to rely solely on data and metrics, which (as in the case of an IP such as the Simpsons) can lead them down a path that further dilutes the brand.

It's also often unrelated to why people go to theme parks and hotels in the first place.

Choosing to put on the TV to distract the kids, or as background noise while you do chores, is not the same thing as spending thousands of dollars to spend a week on a vacation where all sorts of human needs and desires are to be met. Someone who enjoys listening to a particular podcast doesn't necessarily mean they want to spend $150 and go on PODCAST: The Ride 3D.

Theme parks and hotels are their own medium. They are not TV shows, or sporting events, or plush toys. They have their own production, operation and creative hurdles and have an entirely different set of expectations by the customer who choses to participate. They also have their own unique potential to deliver experiences unlike anything else, which is why people travel great lengths and spend so much money to experience them in person.

Recognizable iconography can be a useful marketing tool, or create a sense of familiarity to the audience, but they are not the only reasons people go to theme parks, and they are not a substitute for quality, capacity and service. If a ride fails to deliver on its potential, the popularity of the IP won't matter (as we've seen in the past).

Using streaming data as the sole or primary factor to decide what to build in a theme park demonstrates a misunderstanding of what a theme park or resort even is, or what has specifically given Disney's theme parks their enduring appeal beyond a vague connection between the brand and its assets.

 

[JD80]

Seems like you guys made up a problem somewhere and have decided to have a conversation with no one about the solution.

 

[_caleb]

Fair enough. Let's change "solely" to "possibly relying too heavily." Basing park decisions on Disney+ numbers, if true, is a dangerous game.

Using streaming data as the sole or primary factor to decide what to build in a theme park demonstrates a misunderstanding of what a theme park or resort even is, or what has specifically given Disney's theme parks their enduring appeal beyond a vague connection between the brand and its assets.

Guys, I’ve got some great news for you!!