Spirited News and Observations and Opinions ...

[Disneyhead'71]

If that is your true question - the money spent on it is immaterial. The references to Iger and 2 billion are distractions to your question. Whether or not you are conscious of it, your way of presenting the question is to bias the response.

If you truly want to ask the question above.. ask it as you just posed it. Exclude all other factors beyond does this actually improve your park experience?

Do you worry about how much each firework shell costs when you decide if you like a show or not?
Do you care who the show designer was when you decide if you liked an attraction or not?

You don't clutter the question with biases if you truely want a clean answer.

We've seen lots of examples where MyMagic+ will improve the offerings - I doubt many people question that. The problem for people is not seeing the positives, but rather the weighing of the negatives against the positives.

OK, how about straight up. "Which do you think would enhance your theme park going vacation more, the $1.5 Billion NextGen project, or $1.5 Billion worth of new attractions and general park maintenance?" Clear and concise enough for you there flynn? Lets see you twist that one up to point of ridiculousness.

 

[tomman710]

If that is your true question - the money spent on it is immaterial. The references to Iger and 2 billion are distractions to your question. Whether or not you are conscious of it, your way of presenting the question is to bias the response.

If you truly want to ask the question above.. ask it as you just posed it. Exclude all other factors beyond does this actually improve your park experience?

Do you worry about how much each firework shell costs when you decide if you like a show or not?
Do you care who the show designer was when you decide if you liked an attraction or not?

You don't clutter the question with biases if you truely want a clean answer.

We've seen lots of examples where MyMagic+ will improve the offerings - I doubt many people question that. The problem for people is not seeing the positives, but rather the weighing of the negatives against the positives.

I do agree with you marginally ... however in this instance the money is a factor, especially when we know the cost of attractions, etc ... If they wanted to install NextGen and it cost $400 million ... I don't think it'd be as big a deal but the problem is it cost $2 billion! And like it or not we know that $2 billion could have fixed alot of problems at alot of parks.

But to be fair and support your point ... I'll rephrase ... Does NextGen enhance your experience OVER new attractions?

I will take the money and editorializing out of it but I do think, considering the conditions of the parks (DHS/EPCOT specifically) I think it is relevant to pose an either or scenario based solely on their business model. While I don't think they specifically said "either/or" in their decision making process I think it is an informed assumption to make that the cost of NextGen has hindered them from at the very least some minor additions to the parks, or honestly, would you not agree with that?

 

[tomman710]

Large additions like those, will certainly have a ROI over time (3 years?), but, the cost of such additions (at least the way Disney does them), is becoming more and more difficult to sell to the executives and investors who don't have the long term patience and want to see immediate returns on their money or at the least, within a year.

I'd also agree with you when you say "the way Disney does them" ... because obviously they aren't getting the ROI they want ... however, Uni has shown us that done right attractions can create a HUGE ROI, attendance boost, merch boost etc ... so Disney can't sell us wholesale on "attractions don't make money."

 

[flynnibus]

OK, how about straight up. Which do you think would enhance your theme park going vacation more, the $1.5 Billion NextGen project, or $1.5 Billion worth of new attractions and general park maintenance? Clear and concise enough for you there flynn? Lets see you twist that one up to point of ridiculousness.

I know what NextGen is offering in new services...
I don't know what 1.5 billion worth of new attractions and general park maintenance would bring...

Would it bring me new virtual princesses? new sorcerer games? New biddie boutiques? New highways? A new kennel? A new barnstormer? Dueling Peter Pans?

Such comparisons are stupid - give me something to actually compare if you want to actually compare 'experiences'

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I know what NextGen is offering in new services...
I don't know what 1.5 billion worth of new attractions and general park maintenance would bring...

Would it bring me new virtual princesses? new sorcerer games? New biddie boutiques? New highways? A new kennel? A new barnstormer? Dueling Peter Pans?

Such comparisons are stupid - give me something to actually compare if you want to actually compare 'experiences'

OK, good job at twisting that one up to the point of ridiculousness. I see your point. But I think I would prefer ALL of those over NextGen. I would take 3.5 New Fantasylands over NextGen and I loathe the New Fantasyland.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Maybe they should fix their process not abandon building attractions. I mean it is a theme park after all. Eventually they are gonna have to build rides....eventually....maybe.

And you think that this $1.5 Billion Boondoggle they have on their hands was LESS risky than maintaining the current parks and building new and exciting attractions?

Agreed, but like I said, I think it's gotten too big for them to manage effectively. Adding more attractions/lands only makes it more difficult.
Of course NextGen is a BIG risk, but somebody sold it to the higher ups as the wave of the future that they needed for continued growth and profits, and they bought it! But, like any of their other Billion dollar investments, only time will tell. Like you and many others though, I'm skeptical. I can't help but feel like it's the fabled tale of The Emperor's new (invisible) clothes all over. Not that it's a total waste, but that the long of it might take longer and be more difficult to recognize a benefit than predicted or hoped.

 

[tomman710]

I know what NextGen is offering in new services...
I don't know what 1.5 billion worth of new attractions and general park maintenance would bring...

Would it bring me new virtual princesses? new sorcerer games? New biddie boutiques? New highways? A new kennel? A new barnstormer? Dueling Peter Pans?

Such comparisons are stupid - give me something to actually compare if you want to actually compare 'experiences'

OK let's deal in things we actually know are on the table let's say a year ago they started on construction on Avatarland (500 mil), DHS Redo (Radiator Springs, Monsters Inc, Rat, new shows, no hat, and Jedi moving indoors) (700 mil), the Frontierland Attraction (400 mil), and an EPCOT attraction (300 mil) .. and then another 100 million in maintenance etc ...

Does that enhance your experience over NextGen?

Now granted, this is hypothetical so no need repeating that but this is based (SOMEWHAT) in reality considering these are things on the table that we kinda sorta know budget numbers for ...

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Agreed, but like I said, I think it's gotten too big for them to manage effectively. Adding more attractions/lands only makes it more difficult.
Of course NextGen is a BIG risk, but somebody sold it to the higher ups as the wave of the future that they needed for continued growth and profits, and they bought it! But, like any of their other Billion dollar investments, only time will tell. Like you and many others though, I'm skeptical. I can't help but feel like it's the fabled tale of The Emperor's new (invisible) clothes all over. Not that it's a total waste, but that the long of it might take longer and be more difficult to recognize a benefit than predicted or hoped.

Then Do what Universal has done, take their most problematic and expensive attractions to maintain at the acceptable show standards and operational ability and kill them. Universal got rid of 2 of their most popular attractions (Kongfrontation and Jaws) because of operating expenses. They don't necessarily have to expand, but continually providing new and exciting experiences.

 

[dhall]

I don't think it has anything to do with improving the guest experience. Just getting people to spend more money. Whether through being easier (wave of the wrist) or coercion (more FastPass+s based on how much you spend on merchandise or type of resorts).

It's a set of tools with a multitude of uses. If the people that sincerely want to improve guest experience get access to the tools (and I expect some will), then guest experience will improve. If the people that want to pry more money out of your wallet get access to the tools (and I expect some will), then they'll be bringing the e-crowbars. There'll be managers whose concern is cost-cutting, managers whose concern is increased traffic, managers whose concern is price optimization, etc. etc.

 

[OFTeric]

Still going in the wrong direction from what people actually go to theme parks for.

And sure they just spent $425 million on the New Fantasyland, I can almost guarantee they will NOT see a positive ROI from it. And they will use that to say, "See! Building new rides doesn't produce a positive ROI." Well maybe if they didn't build it 1.) Aimed at such an incredibly narrow demographic. AND 2.) have the merchandising department control theme park development. Yeah, they sell a lot of Princess crap. That doesn't mean we want an E-Ticketless Princessland.

I honestly think that Disney needs to pull their head out of the bank vault long enough to actually figure out what a theme park even is.

As far as I still understand it, the Fantasyland expansion was never intended to drive business (in the sense that they planned a 10% bump in YOY revenue), but simply add capacity to the park.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Then Do what Universal has done, take their most problematic and expensive attractions to maintain at the acceptable show standards and operational ability and kill them. Universal got rid of 2 of their most popular attractions (Kongfrontation and Jaws) because of operating expenses. They don't necessarily have to expand, but continually providing new and exciting experiences.

I agree, they should, but they can't and won't do it. That would mean CoP at MK, which would provoke a huge fan outcry!

 

[lobelia]

OK, how about straight up. "Which do you think would enhance your theme park going vacation more, the $1.5 Billion NextGen project, or $1.5 Billion worth of new attractions and general park maintenance?" Clear and concise enough for you there flynn? Lets see you twist that one up to point of ridiculousness.

I don't think we have the data to make an informed decision about this. Personally, I would like to see a few new attractions to each park and better park maitenance. I would answer your question this way. I don't want to be tracked. I don't want my credit card connected to a device I have to wear which may ruin my tan. I don't want to reserve times for attractions. I hate that I may have to stay at a deluxe to have more Fp+ reservation opportunities.

However, if through data mining and analysis they find a way to thin crowds, move people though lines, make sure my ice cream cart is in the right spot at the right time, let me get through congested crowds without being bumped by stinky people, my experience is better.

The immense expense in setting up infrastructure for this project to happen may have been spent on additional attractions or it may have gone to develop more DVC, where they may actually regain the profit more efficiently. The data gained from this may actually provide data for informed decision making that supports the guest experience. We just don't know the impact it could have if used for good decision making. Imagine, what if the data showed exactly what we believe to be true. They need more attractions to make more money. How many of us have had to provide data and rationale for a proposal to be considered? Everyday for me. Sometimes, it is the only way to get something done.

 

[rioriz]

I respectfully disagree and in actuality think this is an immaterial response to an honest question that is entirely grounded in reality considering that the mantra of NextGen is "ENHANCE THE GUEST EXPERIENCE" ... so my question was, specifically to those supporting it ... WOULD THIS ENHANCE YOUR EXPERIENCE?

It seems to me we are all arguing about the merits/ethics/morals of one aspect or another when in reality the one fundamental question (the answer I feel would unite us all) is ... would this enhance our experience?

WDW is a theme park, so to ask does this enhance your experience over investing in to the parks (which is WDW's fundamental business, correct me if I am wrong about that, are they a theme park business?) is a relevant question and to call it "completely unrealistic" is asinine. Now do I think this was an either or scenario, of course not. I don't think Iger said, "OK let's spend 2 billion, what should we spend it on this or that." But considering their business is theme parks and their "goal" is to make guests happy ... it's entirely relevant and crucial to ask, does this enhance our experience over investing in what they are known for?

Its misleading to dismiss my question with the "why don't they give you money" ... that's obviously not grounded in reality. I didn't say, "What if Disney could spend $2 billion dollars on Next Gen or make you the King of the Universe with super powers including flight and x-ray vision." Come on ...

So we can argue about this or that, my point was the great majority of us would answer, NO, to the question, does this enhance our experience.

So to my question ... does this enhance your experience?

I will take a jab at your question fine sir

Yes it would enhance my experience. I hate those paper tickets with a passion, I hate carrying around my wallet in a crowded park, and I hate getting up early to get an afternoon FP for TSMM. I know it is an unpopular opinion on theses boards, but with FP+ I can be sure i will get to ride my fav ride at least once without having to run with the bulls at 8:30 in the morn. Or the day of I can wake up in my hotel room at 8:30 log into mymagic+ and instantly retrieve a FP for that attraction later in the day.

So that is how it will ease my experience and enhance it ; )

 

[flynnibus]

I do agree with you marginally ... however in this instance the money is a factor, especially when we know the cost of attractions, etc ... If they wanted to install NextGen and it cost $400 million ... I don't think it'd be as big a deal but the problem is it cost $2 billion! And like it or not we know that $2 billion could have fixed alot of problems at alot of parks.

But to be fair and support your point ... I'll rephrase ... Does NextGen enhance your experience OVER new attractions?

I'm not trying to be argumentative.. but you're still comparing a known to an unknown. So how does one realistically answer that with credence? If I say 'no, I prefer attractions' does that mean I support Disney spending $50 million to just build another dumbo?

It's a loaded question.. because people will answer 'new attractions' to mean 'what I want Disney to build...'. So in effect you are asking 'Do you think NextGen enhances your experience over what you want Disney World to be?'. See how flawed that question really is? Of course people will prefer what they want the world to be.

A legit question would compare literals to literals.. like 'Do you think FP+ will enhance your vacation more than improved bus service?'

if you want to compare concepts or philosophies.. you must compare likes to likes. Like 'Do you think it is sound practice to spend on new things, while Disney won't maintain what they already have' - there you are talking about a mindset of business, rather than saying 'Do you want the mine coaster or better maintenance' the second question biases the response to if the individual actually likes the mine coaster themselves.. vs asking about a business philosophy.

It's really just a poorly posed question initially because of the comparison made. It seems you are asking more about liking NextGen more than anything. Or you could pose your question another way, in 'Is nextgen worth the cost?' - there you free the question up from a biased alternative.

 

[rael ramone]

Then Do what Universal has done, take their most problematic and expensive attractions to maintain at the acceptable show standards and operational ability and kill them. Universal got rid of 2 of their most popular attractions (Kongfrontation and Jaws) because of operating expenses. They don't necessarily have to expand, but continually providing new and exciting experiences.

Actually WDW did that first. (Though with the WDW model, once the expensive ride is closed, you have to wait 10 years to break ground on it's replacement).

 

[dhall]

To anyone defending MyMagic or at least greeting it with an apathetic hug, I have this legit question(s):

Is this something you really wanted in the parks, if Iger came to you and said, hey we can spend close to $2 billion on NextGen or we could spend the same amount on plussing existing attractions and adding new ones ... what would you have chosen?

Yes I know we can't undo what is done but my point is I just don't see how this is a debate still. We spend alot of time and posts trying to convince each other of one thing or another but in the end I would bet 99% of us would agree this would not enhance our visit over the same money invested elsewhere. (I am allowing 1% for the paid advocates that will say, "Yes I would have picked this over attractions! This is better than an old steak at Le Cellier and two fastpasses to Little Mermaid!")

Even if you aren't concerned about the privacy issues, the micromanaging issues, the differentiated class system issues, the issues of elongated lines, the issues about the increased economics of visiting a park, etc etc ... even if none of those things about NextGen bother you ... at the very least I can't imagine anyone thinking this is a huge plus to their visit over the money spent on virtually anything else for the parks specifically ... am I wrong?

I view the municpal wi-fi system as a necessary investment and something that I'd want in the park. If Disney had simply announced one day "Wi-Fi access is now free in the Magic Kingdom, and we're rolling it out in the other parks as well" without disclosing the financials or tying it to some larger initiative, I believe the reaction would've been overwhelmingly positive generally (although there still would've been the (not misplaced) criticism of "where are the new rides/why is [Ride] falling apart")

I view the software integration that is also a key component of any data mining effort as necessary investment, in the "why wasn't it that way all along" sense. Why was it ever necessary to fill out a paper form to get a purchase shipped to my hotel?? They value-engineered their POS/Hotel systems, leaving out features that would've improved my experience. Now, they're going back and maybe tying up loose ends (although they still may not integrate that particular instance). It still shouldn't be a big public deal, except perhaps in the "We've eliminated that requirement and now things just work" after the fact sense.

The biggest problem isn't that they're doing this, it's that it became the 'big thing' on the east coast and it built up a lot of questions & anticipation about how it would benefit the guests. It is perceived (probably somewhat correctly) that this is what TDO thinks will make guests happy, where the direct and contrasting experience in Anaheim show that something else actually works.

 

[rioriz]

It seems like the big disagreement everyone has is the "what is" vs. "the what could've been", which are two different things. I think everyone here agrees on the "what could've been" (what the money spent on DL and WDW Next Gen projects could have gone towards). Where the split comes is some move on to looking at the "What is" and how it could be beneficial or not and others can't get past the "what could of been".

Maybe the question could be posed that if WDW had all the attraction upgrades we wanted then came out with the Next Gen also, what would one's opinion be of Next Gen with the "what could of been" taken out of the equation?

 

[flynnibus]

OK, good job at twisting that one up to the point of ridiculousness. I see your point. But I think I would prefer ALL of those over NextGen. I would take 3.5 New Fantasylands over NextGen and I loathe the New Fantasyland.

It's not twisting - its actually REMOVING spin. Don't hate me because I'm right

From someone in media - I thought you'd be better at understanding how to identify and scrub bias... even the unintended bias.

If you want to compare to NFE and that list. Your free to your conclusion.

 

[tomman710]

I'm not trying to be argumentative.. but you're still comparing a known to an unknown. So how does one realistically answer that with credence? If I say 'no, I prefer attractions' does that mean I support Disney spending $50 million to just build another dumbo?

It's a loaded question.. because people will answer 'new attractions' to mean 'what I want Disney to build...'. So in effect you are asking 'Do you think NextGen enhances your experience over what you want Disney World to be?'. See how flawed that question really is? Of course people will prefer what they want the world to be.

A legit question would compare literals to literals.. like 'Do you think FP+ will enhance your vacation more than improved bus service?'

if you want to compare concepts or philosophies.. you must compare likes to likes. Like 'Do you think it is sound practice to spend on new things, while Disney won't maintain what they already have' - there you are talking about a mindset of business, rather than saying 'Do you want the mine coaster or better maintenance' the second question biases the response to if the individual actually likes the mine coaster themselves.. vs asking about a business philosophy.

It's really just a poorly posed question initially because of the comparison made. It seems you are asking more about liking NextGen more than anything. Or you could pose your question another way, in 'Is nextgen worth the cost?' - there you free the question up from a biased alternative.

Look I agree with your points philosophically and I knew the limitations I presented would garner this response but you said give me a scenario so I did.

So let's dispense with the is this question posed correctly or not ... simple question for you ... do you feel NextGen will enhance your experience (or perhaps better phrased excite you to visit WDW) over new attractions/experiences?

In reality my goal when I started this was to say we all don't need to argue about this facet or another because really in the end the majority of us agree on the fundamental answer to the question does this make us happier? I was trying to unite us but I think we got off course with my editorializing and your nit picking of the question. I think at least in the grand scheme you and I agree, it's the details we are quibbling over. Which I think is pointless.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I will take a jab at your question fine sir

Yes it would enhance my experience. I hate those paper tickets with a passion, I hate carrying around my wallet in a crowded park, and I hate getting up early to get an afternoon FP for TSMM. I know it is an unpopular opinion on theses boards, but with FP+ I can be sure i will get to ride my fav ride at least once without having to run with the bulls at 8:30 in the morn. Or the day of I can wake up in my hotel room at 8:30 log into mymagic+ and instantly retrieve a FP for that attraction later in the day.

So that is how it will ease my experience and enhance it ; )

But how about local AP holders. You know, the ones who decide which park they are going to Sat. Morning when they wake up. TSMM and Soarin' FP+ will be the attraction equivalent to Cindy's Royal Table and Le Cellier ADRs.