Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[lazyboy97o]

As if this wasn't discussed enough, I am starting to worry how stand-by lines will be impacted. I got into line for Pooh and the queue clock said "20 minutes". Okay, I'm thinking that 20 minutes is not bad at all. Due to fast-pass incursions, my wait was closer to 50 minutes. I can only imagine that it will deteriorate further with Next Gen.

Granted, this is without having experienced NextGen in motion but I just don't see how MM+ is going to be of any real benefit.

As somebody who dislikes FastPass, the system is not the only cause for the clock to be wrong. Many people probably acted like yourself and got in line, increasing the wait before the signage could changed.

 

[flynnibus]

As if this wasn't discussed enough, I am starting to worry how stand-by lines will be impacted. I got into line for Pooh and the queue clock said "20 minutes". Okay, I'm thinking that 20 minutes is not bad at all. Due to fast-pass incursions, my wait was closer to 50 minutes. I can only imagine that it will deteriorate further with Next Gen.

That should only happen when the 'fast-pass incursions' were more than the system was expecting. IE you get a glut of people returning all at once instead of their normal distributed rate. Enforcing return times, (for both FP and FP+) minimizes that scenario because there is no 'unexpected rush of FP users'.

Your complaint in this situation really is not related to FP+ or not - just more to the idea that FP access when unregulated can lead to unreliable wait time estimates. That's why enforcing return times is important.

Reality is, the wait time could be inaccurate for a lot of reasons a) breakdowns or b) GAC or similar line bypass users c) a huge rush of people to standby. (this is unless your situation you were discussing was before return times were enforced..).

 

[stlphil]

Where is the logic in launching a product with a lackluster use case? Especially one that you've spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing. And especially when your biggest competitor is beating you at the game that you created and owned for 40+ years but you no longer think is worth pursuing.

Answer this question. Why do you think this launched at WDW and not DL...I'd be interested in your answer on that.



Congrats on invalidating your own argument. How the hell is NGEMM+ going to revolutionize the theme park experience by making amazing new interactive attractions when TWDC has no interest in spending money on maintaining, building and upgrading attractions at WDW? Or are you saying that the only way that attractions will get any love is by slapping on the NGEMM+ magic sauce? Sorry that half the animatronics on Splash Mountain are staring at you in a catatonic state but at least the 3D projected Brer Rabbit knew your name when he said goodbye at the end....Hooray!

It's not just NGEMM+ versus attractions. It's the entire company less P&R versus P&R. You think a media guy like Iger cares about the Parks? To him they are nothing more than an enormous drain on resources and capital, especially when compared to blockbuster Marvel movies where the money pays off 4 or 5 to one in as little as two years. Or how about the giant truckloads of money that they make off of ESPN. Those rumors as while back about TWDC looking for someone to buy WDW and license the IP are probably WAY closer to reality than any one of us wants to admit. NGEMM+ is the rational way for the current management to derive what they perceive as value out of the captive audience the parks provide and find ways to drive down costs through streamlining operations. Maybe that's the abused by MBAs cynic in me talking but that is what I think NGE is all about.

One more thing that I'm not sure has been mentioned when it comes to TWDC and their technical triumphs through the years. Wasn't DisneyQuest going to be the next great frontier for the company? Dozens of small "virtual" theme parks delivering the authentic and amazing Disney Experience just a few miles away from your home. How exactly did that work out?

Yes, the top executives like Iger are media types and don't seem to really "get" the Parks. They are much more likely to "get" NextGen, and it was probably a relatively easy sell to them when they were discussing future strategy. It's just human nature to go with what you understand internally.

I don't know how close the parks were to being sold and licensing the IP, but one other consequence of NextGen will be to make this much less likely, as Disney won't be willing to part with their datamining and marketing gold mine. Given the current direction of the company, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is the topic for another debate (Comcast, OLC anyone ?).

Edited to add: By the way, despite everything my opinion is still that selling the parks would be a bad thing.

 

[flynnibus]

Where is the logic in launching a product with a lackluster use case? Especially one that you've spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing

They will never 'launch NextGen' - it's not the product. What they have launched... the Mobile App.. wifi.. integrated payment.. all have compelling use cases. Do you deny those?

And they will continue to roll things out like FP+ and other future products. People here are overhyping this and then being upset the hype doesn't match up. Disney isn't hyping anything yet.

Answer this question. Why do you think this launched at WDW and not DL...I'd be interested in your answer on that.

My guess?
1) DLR vacations do not include planning like WDW. They barely have dining reservations and there is little planning on which park you will goto. So a system aimed at touring packages and schedules as a benefit really doesn't match up well
2) DLR's onsite hotel capacity is a tiny fraction of the attendance.. so systems like integrated payment have much less benefit
3) Maybe the infrastructure was planned to be based in Florida so it makes sense to do a shakedown locally rather than cross country
4) Maybe TDA wasn't willing to be the guinea pig

I don't know specifically - what's your guess at the conspiracy?

Congrats on invalidating your own argument. How the hell is NGEMM+ going to revolutionize the theme park experience by making amazing new interactive attractions when TWDC has no interest in spending money on maintaining, building and upgrading attractions at WDW?

That's a claim I didn't make.. so tearing it down does you no good. The rest of the ramblings I have no idea how you connect that to anything.. so unless you want to get back to my discussion about people wishing the money was spent on attractions instead of NextGen.. not going to jump into that pile.

Wasn't DisneyQuest going to be the next great frontier for the company? Dozens of small "virtual" theme parks delivering the authentic and amazing Disney Experience just a few miles away from your home. How exactly did that work out?

That's an interesting discussion in itself for when it comes to trying to break into new markets... but I think has limited value here. Disney isn't trying to establish new beachheads here, nor are they diving into a crowded space. They are enhancing the offerings at a proven, self-sustaining site.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm going to start sounding like that poster ... what'shisname ... oh yeah, @flynnibus.

You do NOT know that. I don't even know that. It is indeed possible that some of the major projects that were created for WDW and not built were on the table when Disney decided on Rasulo and Franklin's new business model instead by selling tech-geek Bob on the whole shebang. It is possible.

Possible - but requires assumptions that
1) the board was willing to spend on that kind of investment
2) the company was looking to change from it's existing pattern when it comes to approaching OpEx and expansion

My assertion relies only on the company acting like it had done previously.. and behold.. has done since as well. My scenario is much more likely than the dream scenario (which no one has rumored at all either..) that Disney was looking to do a DCA style reboot of WDW backed by spending in the billions... and instead shelved it for NextGen.

It boils down to 'could vs did'. People here are acting like the decision was made to pick NextGen over some dream investment. The latter doesn't fit with the company's M.O. - not in the 5+ years before.. nor in the 5+ years since.

So to answer your challenge... Possible? Anything is possible.. Does it fit Disney's pattern of performance before and since? No. Does it fit the information leaked around then or since then? No. So I find it extremely unlikely based on Disney's own performance and projection of itself.

We don't know that. Not at all. Yet you state it as fact. It well may be. But I wouldn't go out on that limb. I know of too many projects that were all in various states of becoming when they were killed or postponed and suddenly a billion went off to NGE.

Correlation does not infer causation. Can't we say the same of so many projects all the time? Just because projects were tabled - we can't assume that is because of NGE spending directly. Given the independence of NGE within the organization.. it also seems unlikely that localized spending patterns would be directly steered by the project. I highly doubt the local project supervisor had to put off painting the lightpost due to lack of funds because a far off division spent money redoing the turnstiles.

That's what I keep saying. Only $1.2 billion was allocated, yet they've already spent more. The project is full of glitches and not close to done. How much will this have to cost before you say it wasn't worth it? Is there even any number at all or would you have to see the modeling of what Disney hopes to gain via increased prices and a la carte products and binge spending?

I already think the price is too high. But I also don't have a view of what everything it bought.. so I find it hard to be critical on the exact spend. I find your rumors of cost overruns to be far more disturbing than the raw number itself. The scale at which this company spends money dwarves anything I can put honest critique into.. so I don't. I find little value in ranting over Disney's lack of thrift.. it's like complaining about the rain.. what are you going to do? Just because I don't post about it doesn't mean I like it or support it.. just some things just aren't interesting to me.

What do you think has changed the most since that first visit (I had countless before, albeit as a wee little Spirit!)

The idea of a vacation resort vs a collection of theme parks. I still have found memories of canoeing.. learning to water ski for the first time.. camp fires.. Disney being so far out ahead it was like its own world. Water faucets that were automatic.. etc.. dining experiences that were unlike any other. Now, the competition has caught up and Disney doesn't feel like it stands out on its own away from everyone else. They've been copied so much, the gap has been closed by others getting better, and Disney simply hasn't innovated as fast as the competition has caught up IMO. When I went back after about a 10 year hiatus.. I was totally let down by the parks. Only once I got to the water parks did I feel like Disney stood head and shoulders above the norm. DCL offers that kind of lofty separation too.. but most of WDW and DLR just feel like 'your favorite theme park' instead of being a world apart from everyone else.

 

[flynnibus]

YES, that is godawful ... BUT just because that is bad, doesn't mean that NGE isn't bad too.

Yes.. but funny how differently people react based on the players in the game. To me that is far more interesting than the data in question. It's about the brand and the perceptions that people hold. Switch over to your PR mode and think about how people pick imagery and colors...

Disney has a 'blind trust' and 'soft, friendly' association. A utility company carries a connotation of abuse, incompetence, pain, distrust.

The risk of Disney harming that decades old image and the associated trust that comes along with it is far more compelling and legitimate to me than if someone thinks a targeted ad is now creepy.

 

[dupac]

Want annoying? Sign up for a land line and watch everyone and their uncle call it within a month because the Telephone company whores their listings out like a corner pimp. My land line gets about 15+ solictiation calls a day - I've never given the number to anyone. It's the phone company whoring me out.

Or how about credit agencies? Get an inquiry.. and you'll be buried in loan offers for a year or more.

Or public universities selling their students' information. That one irritates me to no end.

I think it may have been mentioned elsewhere, but although Disney won't share your information with third parties, what about within the company?

 

[flynnibus]

Or public universities selling their students' information. That one irritates me to no end.

I think it may have been mentioned elsewhere, but although Disney won't share your information with third parties, what about within the company?

That is answered a bit in Iger's response to Markey..

 

[Skibum1970]

That should only happen when the 'fast-pass incursions' were more than the system was expecting. IE you get a glut of people returning all at once instead of their normal distributed rate. Enforcing return times, (for both FP and FP+) minimizes that scenario because there is no 'unexpected rush of FP users'.

Your complaint in this situation really is not related to FP+ or not - just more to the idea that FP access when unregulated can lead to unreliable wait time estimates. That's why enforcing return times is important.

Reality is, the wait time could be inaccurate for a lot of reasons a) breakdowns or b) GAC or similar line bypass users c) a huge rush of people to standby. (this is unless your situation you were discussing was before return times were enforced..).

I think that it was after the enforcement began but am not 100% sure. You bring some good points to the forefront but, to add some clarity, I walked into the queue and was in front of the little garden play area before I ran into the actual beginning of the wait point. I merely had to go about 20 feet before the queue curved back on itself to start up the ramp which leads to the interactive honey signs. Without the fast pass groups, my wait time should have only been about 10-15 minutes, if I estimated it correctly. I stayed in a five foot section for easily 10-15 minutes before moving and then stopping again.

One sidenote complaint which made things worse: My goodness, that play area is NOISY!!! Some kid was beating the bongos for the entire time that I stood there. I was nearly ready to use his head as a means to beat the bongos.

 

[flynnibus]

I think that it was after the enforcement began but am not 100% sure. You bring some good points to the forefront but, to add some clarity, I walked into the queue and was in front of the little garden play area before I ran into the actual beginning of the wait point. I merely had to go about 20 feet before the queue curved back on itself to start up the ramp which leads to the interactive honey signs. Without the fast pass groups, my wait time should have only been about 10-15 minutes, if I estimated it correctly. I stayed in a five foot section for easily 10-15 minutes before moving and then stopping again.

Yeah, no one likes having a wait bloom beyond what you expect. Posted wait times include the impact of FP.. so its only when the FP line surges unexpectedly that FP should alter that posted wait. But I had a similar experience twice in one stay with Space Mountain at DLR last month. Both times the ride effectively shutdown after we had already invested 20-30mins in the line.. and of course you get no feedback on WHY the line hasn't moved in the last 25mins. Pretty frustrating..

 

[Lee]

My guess?
1) DLR vacations do not include planning like WDW. They barely have dining reservations and there is little planning on which park you will goto. So a system aimed at touring packages and schedules as a benefit really doesn't match up well
2) DLR's onsite hotel capacity is a tiny fraction of the attendance.. so systems like integrated payment have much less benefit
3) Maybe the infrastructure was planned to be based in Florida so it makes sense to do a shakedown locally rather than cross country
4) Maybe TDA wasn't willing to be the guinea pig.

I think this is an interesting topic. How will it manifest in DL.

As flynnibus said, the visitors to DLR are completely different than those at WDW. More day trips, more spur of the moment trips, more APs, etc.

I don't see how they can kill regular FP out there, since such a small fraction of guests will be using something like the Experience site. The standby numbers would be far greater than FP+ that was pre-booked. The legions of fans and APers out there would revolt.

What about the bands? Would they be any good to a day guest? Would an AP holder be able to put ticket and payment info on the band or ticket card for use whenever they visit? If not, why bother? You could just forget about NGE for a huge number of DL's guests.

I really don't see how NGE will ever be worth the hassle it would take to implement it at DLR.

As for the either NGE or attraction debate...
We'll never know for sure.
We do know that there were several large projects and refurbs that were killed in the last five years or so.
Was it because the money was going to NGE?
That would be disappointing and rather disturbing.

Or was it just because they were getting out of the attractions race in favor of new things, like "enhancing" the guest experience with NGE-related things?

Money decision or a business strategy shift?
Either way NGE happens at the "expense" of the traditional Disney way of attracting, wowing, and keeping guests.

Hence...I don't like it. Nothing about it is worth not getting the additions/refurbs that it cost us, whether it was a purely money thing or a strategy thing.

 

[Pentacat]

My guess?
1) DLR vacations do not include planning like WDW. They barely have dining reservations and there is little planning on which park you will goto. So a system aimed at touring packages and schedules as a benefit really doesn't match up well
2) DLR's onsite hotel capacity is a tiny fraction of the attendance.. so systems like integrated payment have much less benefit
3) Maybe the infrastructure was planned to be based in Florida so it makes sense to do a shakedown locally rather than cross country
4) Maybe TDA wasn't willing to be the guinea pig

I don't know specifically - what's your guess at the conspiracy?

Just curious, since you'll obviously paint me as some kind of loon for my thoughts I'll just choose not to answer that.

Although from a non conspiratorial technical exercise point of view it would have been far easier to launch this initiative at a less complex resort like DLR. Would have certainly led to a reduction of the initial implementation costs and potential negative impact on guests (by sheer volume of guests, not to say that this would have been a net gain at DLR versus WDW).

That's a claim I didn't make.. so tearing it down does you no good. The rest of the ramblings I have no idea how you connect that to anything.. so unless you want to get back to my discussion about people wishing the money was spent on attractions instead of NextGen.. not going to jump into that pile.

I'm fairly certain that in an earlier post, maybe even in another thread, you've painted NGE as the infrastructure that future park experiences will be based upon. If that's not your assertion then I apologize. But that stills begs the question, beyond scheduling and reservations what do you see this bringing benefit to? I think my "ramblings" painted a fairly accurate portrayal of how adding interactive elements ala NGE to a already damaged/broken attraction is a farce at best. And even if NGE brings new experiences how are those not offset by the bad show elements that ten plus years of TDO's apathy have produced? And given that how does it not call into question the decision to spend hard earned capital on NGE versus existing or future attractions.

That's an interesting discussion in itself for when it comes to trying to break into new markets... but I think has limited value here. Disney isn't trying to establish new beachheads here, nor are they diving into a crowded space.

It's an interesting discussion and relevant here because it draws attention to TWDC's past failings when it tried to rely on technology instead of it's core competency of building REAL experiences that no one else could build. Even if you look at what is left of DisneyQuest (which is hardly a new beachhead given its location) the experience is still a failure because it lacks any kind of magic or feeling of wonder. It's a glorified arcade with out of date technology because they were never able to innovate fast enough to stay in front of everyone else's "arcade" experiences. Did they give up because it was a bad idea? Or because it was too expensive? I think that's very relevant to the discussion of NGE.

The idea of a vacation resort vs a collection of theme parks. I still have found memories of canoeing.. learning to water ski for the first time.. camp fires.. Disney being so far out ahead it was like its own world. Water faucets that were automatic.. etc.. dining experiences that were unlike any other. Now, the competition has caught up and Disney doesn't feel like it stands out on its own away from everyone else.

How much of this is really the competition "catching up" versus Disney cannibalizing their own offerings? They certainly decided long ago to scrap dining "experiences" in favor of filling table service restaurants with as many people as possible for example.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't see how they can kill regular FP out there, since such a small fraction of guests will be using something like the Experience site. The standby numbers would be far greater than FP+ that was pre-booked. The legions of fans and APers out there would revolt.

They've already started the hardest part - enforcing return times. Transitioning to FP+ vs FP is not a big deal depending on how you allocate capacity. If there is ample inventory available day of (like FP) the visiting pattern doesn't make as much an impact. The bigger hit is to those fans who rely on gaming the system to maximize their # of FPs.. and any notion of 'one park, one day' will never fly there. So I think it's more of a question of 'limiting FP' that will be the sour pill to swallow out there. They will be those that hate FP+ as a 'crippled FP' instead of liking the benefits of online access, no park runners, early access, etc.

What about the bands? Would they be any good to a day guest? Would an AP holder be able to put ticket and payment info on the band or ticket card for use whenever they visit? If not, why bother? You could just forget about NGE for a huge number of DL's guests.

Well.. there are other services to be integrated too. Like Photopass.. which finally seems to be getting well established in DLR after a slow start. Also, there is lots of room for future improvements like.. automatic AP discount.. keeping a credit card on file for charging access for APs... attractions..

The first features and limits being rolled out at WDW do not match up well to DLR.. but I think that speaks to the idea of aiming the product at your target. The limits at WDW do not necessarily have to be the same at DLR. I think another area that would probably be strained at DLR vs WDW is how they allow people to associate with each other (friends/manage/etc).

As for the either NGE or attraction debate...
We'll never know for sure.
We do know that there were several large projects and refurbs that were killed in the last five years or so.
Was it because the money was going to NGE?
That would be disappointing and rather disturbing.

Or was it just because they were getting out of the attractions race in favor of new things, like "enhancing" the guest experience with NGE-related things?

Money decision or a business strategy shift?
Either way NGE happens at the "expense" of the traditional Disney way of attracting, wowing, and keeping guests.

Hence...I don't like it. Nothing about it is worth not getting the additions/refurbs that it cost us, whether it was a purely money thing or a strategy thing.

Your conclusion isn't supported by the postulations before it. You ask are they linked.. and answer 'dunno' and then say one happens at the 'expense' of the other. That ignores the possibility of they just weren't going to do it anyways.. which is what they have been doing in actual practice for 10+ years regardless of NextGen and fails to link the outcome as caused by the first. Your statement should read 'Either way NGE happens while the traditional Disney way [...] is ignored'.

 

[flynnibus]

Just curious, since you'll obviously paint me as some kind of loon for my thoughts I'll just choose not to answer that.

I took your posture in the message to mean it should be some obvious answer that you wanted to quiz me to see if I knew...

Although from a non conspiratorial technical exercise point of view it would have been far easier to launch this initiative at a less complex resort like DLR. Would have certainly led to a reduction of the initial implementation costs and potential negative impact on guests (by sheer volume of guests, not to say that this would have been a net gain at DLR versus WDW).

Didn't you just criticize them for launching without some meaningful benefit? Why would you then prefer launching at the site that offers less benefits from the system.. and offers the higher resistance to it. Sure you may be more successful with less at stake.. but you also gain less.. and you still have to do all the kind of testing and shakedown at WDW because it's bigger and more diverse. It would work for the 'baby steps' type of development.. but would return far less value. And not knowing the internal workings.. we may find things like where the expertise or resources are located could be part of it as well.

I'm fairly certain that in an earlier post, maybe even in another thread, you've painted NGE as the infrastructure that future park experiences will be based upon. If that's not your assertion then I apologize. But that stills begs the question, beyond scheduling and reservations what do you see this bringing benefit to? I think my "ramblings" painted a fairly accurate portrayal of how adding interactive elements ala NGE to a already damaged/broken attraction is a farce at best.

I did make observations like the one you described about being a platform for future things.. but that still is not tied to the conversation thread as it was.. nor are comments about trying to doll up broken attractions with NGE. Those are all flamboyat distractions derailing the point of contention rather than addressing it. Was it a 'either or' situation as people have come to postulate now. How NextGen plays out in terms of elements used in the future does not address the 'either or' argument at all and is just a distraction.

And even if NGE brings new experiences how are those not offset by the bad show elements that ten plus years of TDO's apathy have produced? And given that how does it not call into question the decision to spend hard earned capital on NGE versus existing or future attractions.

Good questions that really have no linked dependency on NextGen at all. We could ask the same questions and exchange NGE with DVC and change nothing. Or with 'Meet & Greets' or other things Disney has been focusing on for over a decade now vs building the attractions fans here are clamoring for.

It's an interesting discussion and relevant here because it draws attention to TWDC's past failings when it tried to rely on technology instead of it's core competency of building REAL experiences that no one else could build

I think that's a stretch. Did DisneyQuest fail because it's technology was bad? Or did it fail for other reasons and has been left to rot since?

When DisneyQuest was new - it was very very popular with lots of highly innovative things. But the business didn't work.. which is dependent on a lot more things than the product itself.

Even if you look at what is left of DisneyQuest (which is hardly a new beachhead given its location) the experience is still a failure because it lacks any kind of magic or feeling of wonder. It's a glorified arcade with out of date technology because they were never able to innovate fast enough to stay in front of everyone else's "arcade" experiences. Did they give up because it was a bad idea? Or because it was too expensive? I think that's very relevant to the discussion of NGE.

It's a shell of itself now because its a concept abandoned for well over 10 years. And the Disney strategy of 'run it into the ground and don't invest'. A concept shared in more than just it's new technology experiments. I think your point speaks more towards Disney's apathy and lack of conviction for show standards than it does about any parallels in technology innovation.

How much of this is really the competition "catching up" versus Disney cannibalizing their own offerings? They certainly decided long ago to scrap dining "experiences" in favor of filling table service restaurants with as many people as possible for example.

I think it's catching up. The Disney experiences haven't advanced, while everyone else cloned what Disney was doing. Net result.. diluted experience.

 

[Lee]

Let me try this..
Disney appears to be shifting away from their traditional method of attracting, wowing, and keeping guests. They are no longer building the biggest and best attractions, and seem unwilling to properly refurbish and maintain their existing attractions.

While this seems to predate the implementation of NextGen, one has to wonder if there is not a connection.

We are seeing a shift in business strategy, away from the traditional Disney model (now embraced by their competition) to a model that relies heavily on leveraging their existing properties while implementing new methods of "enhancing" the guest experience through things such as NGE.

Is NGE to blame for the lack of new attractions or refurbs? Not directly.
The blame lies with the shift in business model which has in turn spawned NGE.

Hence...I dislike NGE because I greatly dislike and disagree with the change in business strategy which has given birth to it.

That better? Find fault with that one?

 

[flynnibus]

Let me try this..
Disney appears to be shifting away from their traditional method of attracting, wowing, and keeping guests. They are no longer building the biggest and best attractions, and seem unwilling to properly refurbish and maintain their existing attractions.

Yup.. a practice Disney has flirted with many times.. even at different parks at different times.

While this seems to predate the implementation of NextGen, one has to wonder if there is not a connection.

Connection is different from causation tho. As you get to next.. who lead who?

We are seeing a shift in business strategy, away from the traditional Disney model (now embraced by their competition) to a model that relies heavily on leveraging their existing properties while implementing new methods of "enhancing" the guest experience through things such as NGE.

Is NGE to blame for the lack of new attractions or refurbs? Not directly.
The blame lies with the shift in business model which has in turn spawned NGE.

This I can agree with. Your statement could also explain the focus on DVC.. and value-added experiences and upsells vs focusing on the core product.

Hence...I dislike NGE because I greatly dislike and disagree with the change in business strategy which has given birth to it.

That better? Find fault with that one?

Yes - that is a VERY different claim. As you say.. who came first? And I agree the strategy of leveraging and milking came first. I'm not as certain that NextGen is about further milking.. but more a lateral shift in philosophy like I mentioned before when it comes to theme parks. But the net result of that different thinking is lack of traditional show quality and expansion.

Very different paths... with similar outcomes. But similar outcomes do not mean same path to get there.

 

[Pentacat]

I took your posture in the message to mean it should be some obvious answer that you wanted to quiz me to see if I knew...

I simply wanted to see if you had the capacity to question whether or not this investment is really worthwhile to anyone other than TWDC. All your comments continue to line up in the way that points to trust in Disney, they know best and would never risk decades of goodwill that they have accumulated within their fan base. I no longer share this same faith. The current management strikes me as empty and completely uninterested in the legacy of not just WDW but the company as a whole. Nothing displays this more than the cost cutting and lack of upkeep of WDW, all the while chasing after shiny new toys that offer only the vague promise of guest benefit.

I'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Is this the same Tony Baxter project? http://www.insightsandsounds.blogspot.com/2013/02/tony-baxters-jolly-holiday-in-epcot.html

 

[Yensid1974]

Ultimately in this discussion, no matter how you think we got here or what the actual precursor was, we are coming to a point I don't think anyone can refute with the evidence we have at hand. While they can enhance, upsell, and whatever else all they want... if they do not start to deal with the impending major infrastructure and attraction maintenance issues that are coming (this is not conjecture, it is fact) there will be nothing left to enhance or upsell except some overpriced restaurants and shops. Period.

That doesn't even cover whether or not they should re-enter the attractions race (and yes, I think they should) either. So many issues...

Oh, and I saw George at MK today

 

[DCLcruiser]

1974,

Correct me if I am totally misunderstanding BOS, but to me Disney has been doing it all along.

Walt didn't like going to amusement parks where it was all kid rids. He wanted to be able to participate in the fun with his family in every way. Walt took the Red Ocean idea of a amusement park with kiddie rides and created DL, a theme park with attractions that every member of the family could enjoy, together. DL was the Blue Ocean. No one else had a large amusement park that had rides for children AND adults. (Plus animatronics). Walt took advantage of finding a new market which no one else was in and the company has flourished. Today, all theme parks model themselves against Disney Parks and it has become a Red Ocean.

I'm not saying don't continue to improve the parks, but you can't be upset with the company looking for opportunities to transform the theme park experience.