Spirited News and Observations and Opinions ...

[GoofGoof]

Now that I have had a chance to digest all of this here are some thoughts:

1) first and most important, this was an awful lot of money to spend for what we are getting. I would have much rather seen them spend $1.5B on fixing up the parks, transportation, or something new. I don't think this is a highly debated point. I haven't really heard anyone say they thought this was money well spent.

2) on the issue of tracking my location in the parks using the wristband, I could care less. I doubt anyone will be actively tracking individuals anyway unless maybe a kid goes missing or a crime is committed. They don't have enough CMs for crowd control and maintenance at the parks (with potential layoffs comimg) are they suddenly going to go on a hiring spree to hire people to watch which line I am in or where I am eating. Doubtful. If they do, again I say who cares. Anyone with 2 eyes and 2 legs is free to follow me around the parks (just not into the new tangled restrooms - even I have my limits)

3) on the issue of selling personal data, I am on the fence now. I admit that you guys made some compelling arguments that it will be too tempting not to sell at least some of the data to 3rd parties. Still not guaranteed to happen, but I concede that it seems likely. For me the real question is what data will be sold? Will it be generalized market data? For example if someone wants to know how many males ages 18 to 34 drink coffee in the morning vs orange juice then NextGen could provide it. That I am good with, no issue at all. Will the data sold be more personalized? For instance will they sell my name, e-mail address and/or physical address to third party vendors? How will that work within the privacy policy? Will using the wristband be equal to consent or will I have to uncheck some boxes when signing up to make sure I don't get targeted? For me I am OK with getting some targeted direct advertising as long as its not Disney selling my info to some sketchy marketing firm that collects mailing lists. If I get ads from respectable partner companies for legit products I am good with that. For example if I get a cafe mocha every morning at the Starbucks in the MK and then I get home and Starbucks sends me coupons in the mail or via e-mail that's fine with me. I guess I am just so conditioned to accept this with all of the online sites today that it doesn't bother me anymore. I know I'm walking a slippery slope with the sketchy vs respectible partners thing and once the cat is out of the bag it's hard to put it back (plus once the money starts to flow it will be hard to stop) and that's why I'm still on the fence. I need some more info to decide.

4) FP+ doesn't seem great to me. I don't mind the planning ahead part as much as some but I am definitely not going to like it if the lines get longer. I like some of the additions like reserved parade and fireworks spots in theory. I have to see it in action to be sure.

Overall, I have to say if you consider the money spent a sunk cost then I'm luke warm at best which seems to be a whole lot more positive than most people around these parts. I see a few positives. I like the idea of having the scanners replace the old gates, room keys and FP machines and having all of it linked on one card/wristband. I like some of the interactive elements too. I think WDW might be able to use some of the data collected to better understand its guests likes and dislikes which could be a positive.

 

[spacemt354]

Now that I have had a chance to digest all of this here are some thoughts:

1) first and most important, this was an awful lot of money to spend for what we are getting. I would have much rather seen them spend $1.5B on fixing up the parks, transportation, or something new. I don't think this is a highly debated point. I haven't really heard anyone say they thought this was money well spent.

2) on the issue of tracking my location in the parks using the wristband, I could care less. I doubt anyone will be actively tracking individuals anyway unless maybe a kid goes missing or a crime is committed. They don't have enough CMs for crowd control and maintenance at the parks (with potential layoffs comimg) are they suddenly going to go on a hiring spree to hire people to watch which line I am in or where I am eating. Doubtful. If they do, again I say who cares. Anyone with 2 eyes and 2 legs is free to follow me around the parks (just not into the new tangled restrooms - even I have my limits)

3) on the issue of selling personal data, I am on the fence now. I admit that you guys made some compelling arguments that it will be too tempting not to sell at least some of the data to 3rd parties. Still not guaranteed to happen, but I concede that it seems likely. For me the real question is what data will be sold? Will it be generalized market data? For example if someone wants to know how many males ages 18 to 34 drink coffee in the morning vs orange juice then NextGen could provide it. That I am good with, no issue at all. Will the data sold be more personalized? For instance will they sell my name, e-mail address and/or physical address to third party vendors? How will that work within the privacy policy? Will using the wristband be equal to consent or will I have to uncheck some boxes when signing up to make sure I don't get targeted? For me I am OK with getting some targeted direct advertising as long as its not Disney selling my info to some sketchy marketing firm that collects mailing lists. If I get ads from respectable partner companies for legit products I am good with that. For example if I get a cafe mocha every morning at the Starbucks in the MK and then I get home and Starbucks sends me coupons in the mail or via e-mail that's fine with me. I guess I am just so conditioned to accept this with all of the online sites today that it doesn't bother me anymore. I know I'm walking a slippery slope with the sketchy vs respectible partners thing and once the cat is out of the bag it's hard to put it back (plus once the money starts to flow it will be hard to stop) and that's why I'm still on the fence. I need some more info to decide.

4) FP+ doesn't seem great to me. I don't mind the planning ahead part as much as some but I am definitely not going to like it if the lines get longer. I like some of the additions like reserved parade and fireworks spots in theory. I have to see it in action to be sure.

Overall, I have to say if you consider the money spent a sunk cost then I'm luke warm at best which seems to be a whole lot more positive than most people around these parts. I see a few positives. I like the idea of having the scanners replace the old gates, room keys and FP machines and having all of it linked on one card/wristband. I like some of the interactive elements too. I think WDW might be able to use some of the data collected to better understand its guests likes and dislikes which could be a positive.

Completely agree with this post. I think this is the most concise and well-thought out response to this whole situation. Well-done.

 

[tomman710]

I have a close friend who is related to an executive at Universal Orlando, I got a chance to speak with him and asked him about all this ... the Uni Exec basically said NextGen is a laughing stock in their offices. Are you worried at all about it? "Worried? I wouldn't say that ... once people get what it is all about, I don't see how it doesn't benefit us." I pressed further and he said, "Do you see us investing in something similar to compete? No, exactly ... we'll just build attractions. Good luck with that ..."

So ... yeah ... that was depressing.

 

[Kuhio]

So this is basically what Walt Disney World vacations will be like from now on...

Gotta give props to this post. I hadn't seen it when I made my earlier post referring to this scene from Minority Report (I've missed out on 10+ pages of this thread in the last day or so, and am only now catching back up), but clearly we think alike!

Based on the mundane and generic clothing we see in a Gap store in 2054, apparently the movie's Gap -- much like our real-life TWDC -- had decided to concentrate all of its future expenditures on data-mining and marketing, rather than on improving its actual product line.

 

[WDW1974]

I agree very strongly that "personalization" is fundamental to a fulfilling, even (dare I say it?) magical Disney vacation -- but I disagree that having an animatronic bird directly address each guest (Vaughn's example) is the way to do it. In a way, Disney has been a pioneer in guest personalization all along, simply by creating deeply immersive theme park experiences.

When the theming, set pieces, effects, and soundtrack of an attraction are so engrossing that the guest easily suspends disbelief and feels, for just a few minutes, that he or she is an integral part of the fantastic narrative that the attraction tells -- that's personalization. You don't need an animatronic pirate or ghost to call out your name, because emotionally and mentally you're already fully immersed in their story -- it's become your story purely by virtue of the storyteller's skill and your own imagination.

Now that is true personalization... and that is what Disney needs to do -- by going back to its own strengths -- to provide its guests with deeply felt experiences that will make them want to come back again and again.

Can I say I love this post (in a totally non-sexual kind of way)?

I can't say much more. Well, actually I can ... and I did, but I also learned there are reasons why you don't post at 3:20 a.m. and one of them is because Windows may decide that after you spent 10 minutes typing up an amazing reply that it will automatically shut your system down and start installing updates whether you damn well like it or not.

When you think about it, it's not much different than MyMagic+ now is it?

But all I can say (that I recall from my original post, I'll leave my plush and George K out of it for now) is the above three paragraphs could not better articulate the difference between real Disney storytelling MAGIC and the crap they want us all to buy into now. I REALLY had more to say, but frankly I am only about two hours past my choice bedtime. And I have to see an ex-MAGICal member tomorrow, so that should be fun (nope, not Tom 'Amity/I should never be hired by Disney after what I pulled' Corless or even loveable Merf, who apparently has become a top source of Jason 'Yes, I am a weak reporter and I know it' Garcia.

Let's all reconvene later on ... when we can discuss this further. I am expecting 23 posts by @flynnibus in the meantime. Anyone want to do a over/under pool?

 

[SirLink]

Let's all reconvene later on ... when we can discuss this further. I am expecting 23 posts by @flynnibus in the meantime. Anyone want to do a over/under pool?

Under - just under though...

 

[articos]

Short opinion on NextGen: Disney has lost sight of the forest for the trees.

 

[SirLink]

Short opinion on NextGen: Disney has lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Having been watching "Once upon a time ..." One could say its accurate representation of how Disney thinks its going to create more pixie addicts... but hey ho it would be nice for George K to recognise these problems and tell the BoD this ...

 

[articos]

Having been watching "Once upon a time ..." One could say its accurate representation of how Disney thinks its going to create more pixie addicts... but hey ho it would be nice for George K to recognise these problems and tell the BoD this ...

Hehe, considering it's a Disney show... My opinion: I think George's presence back in FL will result in some incremental improvements at minimum, and hopefully better, depending, as someone else here says, on the resources allowed him. I'm also hopeful he will not be blinded/sidetracked by NG like Meg and others, and will actually see the (physical) state of things on the property. Let Jim and his team deal with NG, and stop forgetting there's a whole lot of property to take care of.

 

[SirLink]

Hehe, considering it's a Disney show... My opinion: I think George's presence back in FL will result in some incremental improvements at minimum, and hopefully better, depending, as someone else here says, on the resources allowed him. I'm also hopeful he will not be blinded/sidetracked by NG like Meg and others, and will actually see the (physical) state of things on the property. Let Jim and his team deal with NG, and stop forgetting there's a whole lot of property to take care of.

I agree ... although there still are four people that have to go from TDO pronto-ish...e.g. drawing out any kind of resolution on DHS project for one...

 

[articos]

I agree ... although there still are four people that have to go from TDO pronto-ish...e.g. drawing out any kind of resolution on DHS project for one...

As I seem to be known for saying lately, all in good time. Some will likely stay, but others have appts with a door. I'm thinking that resolution will be heard in these parts sooner than later now.

 

[SirLink]

As I seem to be known for saying lately, all in good time. Some will likely stay, but others have appts with a door. I'm thinking that resolution will be heard in these parts sooner than later now.

Well that is good, I, personally feel that WDW is on a knife's edge and unless action is taken ... well...

 

[evilzorac]

Going back to the Brooks Barnes article: one of Bruce Vaughn's points of pride is the fact that MyMagic+ ostensibly personalizes the WDW experience by allowing attractions and characters to directly interact with guests using information gleaned from the data on his or her MagicBand.

But, other than very young children, how many guests affirmatively value or desire this type of personalization? (I'm not discounting young children; obviously, they are an important demographic to Disney parks. But, especially where there clearly are legal and ethical issues concerned, a functionality that appeals primarily to the very young simply can't be a substantial justification for a multi-billion dollar program.)

When a rudimentary form of personalization was introduced on the E.T. Adventure over two decades ago, it attracted attention because it was a novelty... but it never became more than that, nor was it ever viewed as any sort of cutting-edge enhancement to the traditional theme park experience. Although what Disney is doing certainly has the potential to go far beyond a wrinkly grey animatronic mispronouncing your child's name, it's not substantively different in that this type of personalization has never been warmly received by the public.

In the science-fiction movie Minority Report, Tom Cruise's character enters a Gap store, where a cheerful virtual employee greets him by name and asks him how he's enjoying a previous clothing purchase. The scene does not come across as a flattering or optimistic portrayal of future technology -- rather, it was generally taken by audiences as a negative commentary on and satire of how targeted advertising was progressing in 2002. As such, it was both creepy and amusing in its exaggerated depiction of intrusive marketing. Audiences did not view such consumer personalization as something to aspire to, but rather something to avoid.

When "personalization" is -- as the word itself suggests -- premised on personal interaction, it can be incredibly meaningful. But that entails the existence of, at the very least, an actual familiarity. When someone with whom you have a genuine relationship -- such as a trusted, longtime family doctor -- addresses you by name, it is gratifying and appreciated, but largely because that person has earned the right to interact with you with that degree of familiarity.

In contrast, when companies and organizations with whom you have never had any kind of personal relationship send you junk mail letters addressing you by name, the personalization immediately rings false because it is a function not of familiarity but purely of marketing. It is insincere, because it seeks to invoke a degree of familiarity that is unearned.

I agree very strongly that "personalization" is fundamental to a fulfilling, even (dare I say it?) magical Disney vacation -- but I disagree that having an animatronic bird directly address each guest (Vaughn's example) is the way to do it. In a way, Disney has been a pioneer in guest personalization all along, simply by creating deeply immersive theme park experiences.

When the theming, set pieces, effects, and soundtrack of an attraction are so engrossing that the guest easily suspends disbelief and feels, for just a few minutes, that he or she is an integral part of the fantastic narrative that the attraction tells -- that's personalization. You don't need an animatronic pirate or ghost to call out your name, because emotionally and mentally you're already fully immersed in their story -- it's become your story purely by virtue of the storyteller's skill and your own imagination.

Now that is true personalization... and that is what Disney needs to do -- by going back to its own strengths -- to provide its guests with deeply felt experiences that will make them want to come back again and again.

Bravo! What a great post. We seem to get bogged down in the technology but you have really hit on the issue. How do we react to this? I for one agree with you and find it creepy and way to intrusive. Bad show Disney.

 

[fosse76]

It is presumed that the parent has approved it. A safe bet since kids cannot work for wages.

Ummm, yes, children can work for wages. In fact, it is required by law. And that is a Labor law issue, so contract law doesn't apply. And while basic transactions are technically a contract, they aren't necessarily voidable because one of the parties is a minor. It's difficult to speak in absolutes since each state is different, but to say a child isn't legally able to purchase a candy bar or video game, or be paid for any work done that would be considered employment, is a ridiculous claim.

 

[Lee]

Going back to the Brooks Barnes article: one of Bruce Vaughn's points of pride is the fact that MyMagic+ ostensibly personalizes the WDW experience by allowing attractions and characters to directly interact with guests using information gleaned from the data on his or her MagicBand.

But, other than very young children, how many guests affirmatively value or desire this type of personalization? (I'm not discounting young children; obviously, they are an important demographic to Disney parks. But, especially where there clearly are legal and ethical issues concerned, a functionality that appeals primarily to the very young simply can't be a substantial justification for a multi-billion dollar program.)

When a rudimentary form of personalization was introduced on the E.T. Adventure over two decades ago, it attracted attention because it was a novelty... but it never became more than that, nor was it ever viewed as any sort of cutting-edge enhancement to the traditional theme park experience. Although what Disney is doing certainly has the potential to go far beyond a wrinkly grey animatronic mispronouncing your child's name, it's not substantively different in that this type of personalization has never been warmly received by the public.

In the science-fiction movie Minority Report, Tom Cruise's character enters a Gap store, where a cheerful virtual employee greets him by name and asks him how he's enjoying a previous clothing purchase. The scene does not come across as a flattering or optimistic portrayal of future technology -- rather, it was generally taken by audiences as a negative commentary on and satire of how targeted advertising was progressing in 2002. As such, it was both creepy and amusing in its exaggerated depiction of intrusive marketing. Audiences did not view such consumer personalization as something to aspire to, but rather something to avoid.

When "personalization" is -- as the word itself suggests -- premised on personal interaction, it can be incredibly meaningful. But that entails the existence of, at the very least, an actual familiarity. When someone with whom you have a genuine relationship -- such as a trusted, longtime family doctor -- addresses you by name, it is gratifying and appreciated, but largely because that person has earned the right to interact with you with that degree of familiarity.

In contrast, when companies and organizations with whom you have never had any kind of personal relationship send you junk mail letters addressing you by name, the personalization immediately rings false because it is a function not of familiarity but purely of marketing. It is insincere, because it seeks to invoke a degree of familiarity that is unearned.

I agree very strongly that "personalization" is fundamental to a fulfilling, even (dare I say it?) magical Disney vacation -- but I disagree that having an animatronic bird directly address each guest (Vaughn's example) is the way to do it. In a way, Disney has been a pioneer in guest personalization all along, simply by creating deeply immersive theme park experiences.

When the theming, set pieces, effects, and soundtrack of an attraction are so engrossing that the guest easily suspends disbelief and feels, for just a few minutes, that he or she is an integral part of the fantastic narrative that the attraction tells -- that's personalization. You don't need an animatronic pirate or ghost to call out your name, because emotionally and mentally you're already fully immersed in their story -- it's become your story purely by virtue of the storyteller's skill and your own imagination.

Now that is true personalization... and that is what Disney needs to do -- by going back to its own strengths -- to provide its guests with deeply felt experiences that will make them want to come back again and again.

Dude...you're nailing it. Well done, sir. Well done.

 

[dhall]

In the science-fiction movie Minority Report, Tom Cruise's character enters a Gap store, where a cheerful virtual employee greets him by name and asks him how he's enjoying a previous clothing purchase. The scene does not come across as a flattering or optimistic portrayal of future technology -- rather, it was generally taken by audiences as a negative commentary on and satire of how targeted advertising was progressing in 2002. As such, it was both creepy and amusing in its exaggerated depiction of intrusive marketing. Audiences did not view such consumer personalization as something to aspire to, but rather something to avoid.

Great post, but something I want to emphasize. I've posted links to a story about Target's experience with data mining in a couple of places now, so I'm sure their in this thread somewhere. There's a story in there about how Target figured out (through statistical modelling of correlations between products bought) how to predict when one of their customers was pregnant and what the due date was. One of the mistakes they made was to get too specific: they'd start sending congratulatory messages through direct mail to women who freaked out that Target (of all companies) knew.

What they learned was how to react with subtlety: they arranged that the advertising that they send to women who they believe are pregnant includes more items that pregnant women & new mothers buy than the advertising sent to other identifiable groups. They didn't call any attention to this fact, and they didn't overdo it -- there's still a number of 'deliberate misses' in the product list to obscure the emphasis, but the impact on their response rate was still significant.

I'd expect that Disney will have a number of smart people working with this information and overseeing how it gets used. They'll also have a number of slower learners that'll make quite a few mistakes that might end up being stories we'll read about. I don't have a lot of confidence (given evidence provided by TDO's past managerial performance) that the ratio between the two groups will be in our favor.

 

[Skibum1970]

This may not be the same thing but I despise when a person at the counter looks at my credit card and then addresses me by name. Mainly because I don't like the idea of someone checking out my credit card. It doesn't personalize it for me. Magic happens when everything runs smoothly. I'll take fast loads/unloads and working rides every day over someone calling me by my name.

 

[raymusiccity]

Dude...you're nailing it. Well done, sir. Well done.

I'm not as eloquent, but, I disagree that the 'personalization' is an intrusion or won't be well received. I think everyone is transferring an adult approach to this, rather than seeing this through the eyes of a child visiting the Magic Kingdom. My grandson was amazed and very cheerful whenever a cast member called him by name. He was mystified that they knew who he was. (Of course it's no challenge to the CM when his Mouseketeer Hat had his name clearly embroidered on the front!). I'm sure if a 4 yr old's name was called out by a pirate as he was waiting in line for PoC, he'd remember that as one of the highlights of the ride. I think we should take all of these announcements with a grain of salt and some patience until the 'experience' is more fully rolled out.

 

[xdan0920]

Going back to the Brooks Barnes article: one of Bruce Vaughn's points of pride is the fact that MyMagic+ ostensibly personalizes the WDW experience by allowing attractions and characters to directly interact with guests using information gleaned from the data on his or her MagicBand.

But, other than very young children, how many guests affirmatively value or desire this type of personalization? (I'm not discounting young children; obviously, they are an important demographic to Disney parks. But, especially where there clearly are legal and ethical issues concerned, a functionality that appeals primarily to the very young simply can't be a substantial justification for a multi-billion dollar program.)

When a rudimentary form of personalization was introduced on the E.T. Adventure over two decades ago, it attracted attention because it was a novelty... but it never became more than that, nor was it ever viewed as any sort of cutting-edge enhancement to the traditional theme park experience. Although what Disney is doing certainly has the potential to go far beyond a wrinkly grey animatronic mispronouncing your child's name, it's not substantively different in that this type of personalization has never been warmly received by the public.

In the science-fiction movie Minority Report, Tom Cruise's character enters a Gap store, where a cheerful virtual employee greets him by name and asks him how he's enjoying a previous clothing purchase. The scene does not come across as a flattering or optimistic portrayal of future technology -- rather, it was generally taken by audiences as a negative commentary on and satire of how targeted advertising was progressing in 2002. As such, it was both creepy and amusing in its exaggerated depiction of intrusive marketing. Audiences did not view such consumer personalization as something to aspire to, but rather something to avoid.

When "personalization" is -- as the word itself suggests -- premised on personal interaction, it can be incredibly meaningful. But that entails the existence of, at the very least, an actual familiarity. When someone with whom you have a genuine relationship -- such as a trusted, longtime family doctor -- addresses you by name, it is gratifying and appreciated, but largely because that person has earned the right to interact with you with that degree of familiarity.

In contrast, when companies and organizations with whom you have never had any kind of personal relationship send you junk mail letters addressing you by name, the personalization immediately rings false because it is a function not of familiarity but purely of marketing. It is insincere, because it seeks to invoke a degree of familiarity that is unearned.

I agree very strongly that "personalization" is fundamental to a fulfilling, even (dare I say it?) magical Disney vacation -- but I disagree that having an animatronic bird directly address each guest (Vaughn's example) is the way to do it. In a way, Disney has been a pioneer in guest personalization all along, simply by creating deeply immersive theme park experiences.

When the theming, set pieces, effects, and soundtrack of an attraction are so engrossing that the guest easily suspends disbelief and feels, for just a few minutes, that he or she is an integral part of the fantastic narrative that the attraction tells -- that's personalization. You don't need an animatronic pirate or ghost to call out your name, because emotionally and mentally you're already fully immersed in their story -- it's become your story purely by virtue of the storyteller's skill and your own imagination.

Now that is true personalization... and that is what Disney needs to do -- by going back to its own strengths -- to provide its guests with deeply felt experiences that will make them want to come back again and again.

Outstanding post. Thanks for this.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm not as eloquent, but, I disagree that the 'personalization' is an intrusion or won't be well received. I think everyone is transferring an adult approach to this, rather than seeing this through the eyes of a child visiting the Magic Kingdom. My grandson was amazed and very cheerful whenever a cast member called him by name. He was mystified that they knew who he was. (Of course it's no challenge to the CM when his Mouseketeer Hat had his name clearly embroidered on the front!). I'm sure if a 4 yr old's name was called out by a pirate as he was waiting in line for PoC, he'd remember that as one of the highlights of the ride. I think we should take all of these announcements with a grain of salt and some patience until the 'experience' is more fully rolled out.

I agree with this. If snow white addresses me by name my wife is probably not going to be happy. My kids will love it. We throw magic around here as a buzz word but kids really believe in it.

Now we are going to get a "Walt wanted the parks to be for everyone, not just kids" reply. I think it's OK for certain things to be mostly just for kids or adults who still think they are kids.