Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[MarkTwain]

I have been told that manning the stroller parking section (i.e. moving illegally parked strollers to the official areas) is about the worst job you can get. Parents go berserk.

Can confirm. Even though stroller parking was only one of the dozen or so roles I carried out daily at my previous WDW job, it was enough to make me seek a position elsewhere.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Now you're just trying to defend people as victims themselves... What's next... people are fat because Disney has so many quick service locations?

Disney didn't force any of people to take a rental stroller. I know, asking people to take responsibility for their choices might be considered 'mean' these days... but so what.

How did you get that out of what I said. All I was saying is that if Disney didn't supply them so readily or at least limited it to a certain number then you wouldn't see that much of a mess would you. I never once said that the parents weren't the problem, what I said was that Disney was an enabler. They obviously don't care how much space it takes up, and frankly I cannot think of one time when I was ever wanting to be standing in a spot where strollers were parked. Beyond what I said earlier, it is just another example of how controlling society is. If my life were so uncomplicated that someone(s) stroller was to cause me anymore then a fraction of a second thought, wouldn't that be wonderful. Yes, like everyone else I have an opinion about topics and one of my opinions is that I hate anyone attempting to manipulate my judgment by presenting a photo, even not intentionally, with a perspective that is supposed to make me think that all of WDW is totally clogged up with them. They are a minor annoyance at worst.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Back when I was growing up which was not that long ago, Sugar was used as a sweetener I'm sure we all remember no Coke before dinner it will spoil your appetite - Guess what Mom was RIGHT because the glucose receptor in the brain says enough glucose - stop eating, With HFCS no such response occurs and you consume much more sugar that you would normally,

Then I would think that mom was wrong. If she would have let us have that Coke before dinner we wouldn't have eaten as much and therefore these ridiculous obesity problems discussion wouldn't exist. I still don't see why it is anyone else's business if someone is obese or not. Would we be having a discussion on why and how disgraceful it is that people have crooked teeth? How about because their ears stick out? (sorry Mickey) How about if they have a speech impediment? It is a personal issue, it really shouldn't be up for public debate. Everyone should just MYOB! It isn't your issue, no one needs to be saved, it is a personal issue with personal decisions being made that again are no ones business, no ones!

 

[ParentsOf4]

Concerning strollers, I believe a large part of the problem is that Disney has changed its target market. It's gotten appreciably younger.

There once was a time when a Disney movie was fine for a 10 or 12 year old. Not anymore. Just imagine most 12 years olds watching Finding Nemo or Monsters U. Compare that to earlier decades when Disney brand movies included 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Escape To Witch Mountain, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Love Bug, or even Mary Poppins. Disney aimed for an older crowd at a time when children were allowed to remain children longer.

I recall reading (not sure if it's true) that WDW originally was targeted more towards families with junior high children. Certainly, there was nothing childlike about EPCOT when it first opened in 1982. My recollection of WDW during the 1970s and 1980s is of a fairly small toddler crowd. It was mostly older children and their families. WDW then started targeting "adults only" in the late 1980s and 1990s. (DW and I spent our 1st Anniversary at WDW. ) It's only within the last 15 years or so that WDW started targeting a much younger crowd.

There are so many more strollers at WDW today in large part because WDW's visitors have gotten younger.

 

[Beholder]

Concerning strollers, I believe a large part of the problem is that Disney has changed its target market. It's gotten appreciably younger.

There once was a time when a Disney movie was fine for a 10 or 12 year old. Not anymore. Just imagine most 12 years olds watching Finding Nemo or Monsters U. Compare that to earlier decades when Disney brand movies included 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Escape From Witch Mountain, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Love Bug, or even Mary Poppins. Disney aimed for an older crowd at a time when children were allowed to remain children longer.

I recall reading (not sure if it's true) that WDW originally was targeted more towards families with junior high children. Certainly, there was nothing childlike about EPCOT when it first opened in 1982. My recollection of WDW during the 1970s and 1980s is of a fairly small toddler crowd. It was mostly older children and their families. WDW then started targeting "adults only" in the late 1980s and 1990s. (DW and I spent our 1st Anniversary at WDW. ) It's only within the last 15 years or so that WDW started targeting a much younger crowd.

There are so many more strollers at WDW today in large part because WDW's visitors have gotten younger.

I think this is a really good observation. EPCOT was NOT aimed at a child demographic and I too seem to recall less of the stroller/toddler crowds at Disney. Now, that being said, I was taken from a very early age (near infancy) so perhaps I'm disproving the point, but it does SEEM as if the Disney is pandering to an entirely different age group. Looking back, the original Tomorrow Land didn't have much at all for the very young. FL was the one place that catered to that group.

I think the biggest difference (for me, anyway) is the attractions/rides didn't talk down or didn't seem as "dumbed down" or sanitary to fit some universal idea of generic appeal. The attractions/rides were, I don't know, more intelligent and at the very least, much more witty. They aimed for a more sophisticated mind set maybe?

Just my opinion, but I thought you made a really good point.

 

[flynnibus]

How did you get that out of what I said. All I was saying is that if Disney didn't supply them so readily or at least limited it to a certain number then you wouldn't see that much of a mess would you. I never once said that the parents weren't the problem, what I said was that Disney was an enabler

Definition:
": one that enables another to achieve an end; especially: one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior"

'one who enables another ot persist in self-destructive behavior..' - The notion that by making the strollers so readily available encourages the behavior by 'making it possible to avoid the consequences'.

Enabler... 100% But the parents are still the ones who are participating in the analogous 'self-destructive behavior'. When you say 'Who is it that is making selfish decisions really. Those that use what is available to them or those that enable?"' The same people are making the decision regardless.

 

[rodmansju]

Concerning strollers, I believe a large part of the problem is that Disney has changed its target market. It's gotten appreciably younger.

There once was a time when a Disney movie was fine for a 10 or 12 year old. Not anymore. Just imagine most 12 years olds watching Finding Nemo or Monsters U. Compare that to earlier decades when Disney brand movies included 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Escape From Witch Mountain, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Love Bug, or even Mary Poppins. Disney aimed for an older crowd at a time when children were allowed to remain children longer.

I recall reading (not sure if it's true) that WDW originally was targeted more towards families with junior high children. Certainly, there was nothing childlike about EPCOT when it first opened in 1982. My recollection of WDW during the 1970s and 1980s is of a fairly small toddler crowd. It was mostly older children and their families. WDW then started targeting "adults only" in the late 1980s and 1990s. (DW and I spent our 1st Anniversary at WDW. ) It's only within the last 15 years or so that WDW started targeting a much younger crowd.

There are so many more strollers at WDW today in large part because WDW's visitors have gotten younger.

the audience has gotten younger, more likely than not because Disney wants to hook them younger and keep them customers longer.
its not just disney doing it, of course

 

[Kuhio]

I think the biggest difference (for me, anyway) is the attractions/rides didn't talk down or didn't seem as "dumbed down" or sanitary to fit some universal idea of generic appeal. The attractions/rides were, I don't know, more intelligent and at the very least, much more witty. They aimed for a more sophisticated mind set maybe?

In my view, the increasing focus on very young children is directly tethered to the relative stagnation of the parks in terms of the lack of substantive, innovative, and large-scale attractions over the last six or seven years.

That Disney's overarching perception of WDW's target audience has fundamentally changed is evident in something I noted in another thread: an Imagineer, in leading off a Disney Parks Blog chat on additions to New Fantasyland, repeatedly emphasized terms like "really pretty" and "fun" to characterize the park's new offering.

Toddlers can't enjoy attractions with even modest height restrictions, nor are family attractions like Pirates and Haunted Mansion likely to appeal to the very young -- they're better appreciated by slightly older children who don't mind the dark or more adventuresome elements. (This is to say nothing of attractions like Forbidden Journey or Transformers, which are primarily marketed to teens and adults.)

In contrast, things like princess meet-and-greets -- which also happen to be relatively cheap and easy to put together -- are suitable for just about any child, however young. In other words -- when you design your parks and attractions to target the toddler set, "really pretty" and "fun" are more than sufficient benchmarks. There's diminishing incentive to create sophisticated (and more expensive) attractions that appeal to a wide age range when designing for the "youngest common denominator" is more likely to hit the sweet spot of the guests you seek to attract.

As an aside, the aforementioned blog chat occurred in the middle of a weekday, and was ostensibly meant for adult participation. The fact that an Imagineer opted to set the tone by offering an infantalized characterization of a new attraction was very telling. Not only has WDW's target shifted to very young children, but the bulk of its adult audience has also changed -- from discerning guests who appreciated theme-appropriate merchandise in Liberty Square and unique offerings in the Lake Buena Vista Shopping Village, for example, to a clientele that doesn't care if the same pins and T-shirts, featuring the same half-dozen characters, can be found in every store throughout WDW.

Not only is this an audience that is less likely to question whether FastPass+ and MagicBands really make one's vacation easier or more relaxing, but it's also one that's more inclined to bring toddlers to WDW because they perceive the parks largely as an indulgence for very young children -- not something you want to do because the attractions, service, and attention to detail are of exceptional quality, but something you have to do because everyone else with a toddler is doing it.

 

[njDizFan]

I think you misunderstand. I have a high opinion of the American public. And a very low one of your food industry and its Washington lobby.

Personal anecdote does not negate the statistic about an US obesity epidemic. This epidemic is not the result of personal choice as the Washington lobby would have you believe, but of a lack of personal choice. When presented with the choice to be overweight, or not, people choose the first. They are simply withheld the easonable means and options. If you buy normal food for a normal family at a normal supermarket that you prepare in a normal way, you get overweight in America. But not in Germany, Korea, Italy. Or America until recently. It nowadays takes superhuman effort to stay slim in America.

In America I gain a kilo a week. In France I lose a kilo a week. I am the same person eating the same amount.

[Thus ends today's course of 'how to lose friends and alienate people' 101 - talk endlessly about Big Food, the Washington lobby, and obesity rates!]

I have like all your posts regarding this subject and I am complete agreement. HFCS, is a factor but it is also the tip of the iceberg. The extent of how much America has changed in the last 30 or so years is huge. Socio-economically and demographically we have shifted drastically. With a larger percentage of 2 family incomes and the need for a quick dinner. Or conversely the poorer who need to shop for that bargain food and/or fast food. I mean seriously the dollar to calorie ratio is absurd. I can go to Mcdonald's and get 1000 calories for a dollar.

I work in afairly urban area in a large bank. I look through people's transactions. You will be hard pressed to find one without a debit card purchase from a fast food place within the past week. It is the go to food for the young, poor, and fast paced family.

I try to shop exclusively for organic and non-GMO foods. I don't want to start a debate over the whole organic thing but clearly if you know what you are eating and have to prepare your own food(incorporating vegetables and grains in each meal) you are going to be healthier. It is much much more expensive, and time consuming but I think it is worth it. Over 80% of our American food is genetically modified. You know making crops resistent to round-up type weed killer. The whole pink slime meat processing, ground up parts, unrecognizable variations on produce...and of course HFCS.

I also think it's a post 9/11 thing to be honest. As a parent we live in a society of fear. Afraid to let our children go out and be kids. It's forcing parents to either arrange prescheduled time and dates for their kids to play with each other or just do the easy thing and sit them in from of their Playstation. You could go the other route and try and get your kids in sports. Again with some many 2 income families, it is difficult finding the time to get them into an organized club.

Strollers, well...its a convenience based on the money you will have to spend. $5000 to spend a week with the mouse... well damn I am going to get every last cent worth. so kids be prepared to spend 16 hours in the park and see everything and get every autograph because we can only afford(or only get) that 1 week per year to have fun.

 

[njDizFan]

Then I would think that mom was wrong. If she would have let us have that Coke before dinner we wouldn't have eaten as much and therefore these ridiculous obesity problems discussion wouldn't exist. I still don't see why it is anyone else's business if someone is obese or not. Would we be having a discussion on why and how disgraceful it is that people have crooked teeth? How about because their ears stick out? (sorry Mickey) How about if they have a speech impediment? It is a personal issue, it really shouldn't be up for public debate. Everyone should just MYOB! It isn't your issue, no one needs to be saved, it is a personal issue with personal decisions being made that again are no ones business, no ones!

The reason why your obesity(maybe not your personally of course) is other people's concern is simply we are paying for it. How much of my health insurance costs are being used towards obesity related illnesses. Depending on which studyies you listed to, anywhere from 40-150% higher costs in lifetime insurance billing based on obesity. That can be as much as $2800 a year average per person. That percentage is as much if not more than a smoker. In 2006 the dollar amount was an estimated 190 billion dollars a year. For someone like me, I would aprreciate my health care insurance was lower and given a pay raise instead since my companys costs would be lower.

 

[ford91exploder]

I have like all your posts regarding this subject and I am complete agreement. HFCS, is a factor but it is also the tip of the iceberg. The extent of how much America has changed in the last 30 or so years is huge. Socio-economically and demographically we have shifted drastically. With a larger percentage of 2 family incomes and the need for a quick dinner. Or conversely the poorer who need to shop for that bargain food and/or fast food. I mean seriously the dollar to calorie ratio is absurd. I can go to Mcdonald's and get 1000 calories for a dollar.

I work in afairly urban area in a large bank. I look through people's transactions. You will be hard pressed to find one without a debit card purchase from a fast food place within the past week. It is the go to food for the young, poor, and fast paced family.

I try to shop exclusively for organic and non-GMO foods. I don't want to start a debate over the whole organic thing but clearly if you know what you are eating and have to prepare your own food(incorporating vegetables and grains in each meal) you are going to be healthier. It is much much more expensive, and time consuming but I think it is worth it. Over 80% of our American food is genetically modified. You know making crops resistent to round-up type weed killer. The whole pink slime meat processing, ground up parts, unrecognizable variations on produce...and of course HFCS.

I also think it's a post 9/11 thing to be honest. As a parent we live in a society of fear. Afraid to let our children go out and be kids. It's forcing parents to either arrange prescheduled time and dates for their kids to play with each other or just do the easy thing and sit them in from of their Playstation. You could go the other route and try and get your kids in sports. Again with some many 2 income families, it is difficult finding the time to get them into an organized club.

Strollers, well...its a convenience based on the money you will have to spend. $5000 to spend a week with the mouse... well damn I am going to get every last cent worth. so kids be prepared to spend 16 hours in the park and see everything and get every autograph because we can only afford(or only get) that 1 week per year to have fun.

We allow the culture of fear to be created by the media and the man bites dog story which runs 24x7 is perceived to be happening every day. FDR was right when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

The great boogieman terrorism which gives rise to the NSA snooping through all of our communications and TSA at airports. You are 3 times more likely to win Powerball than be a victim of terrorism think about that next time you find yourself saying 'anything as long as it makes us safe'

From the Dune novels we have the litany against fear - I use this many times myself

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

 

[flynnibus]

Consider this...

In the 50s-70s.. American's largely ate at home, and went out for entertainment

Now..

We largely eat out, and stay home for entertainment

Look around... the idea of 'meal time' and sitting down for dinner has been shattered by the pace of most suburban lifestyles. Everything from how competitive children's activities have become (and hence, how much more travel and time people put into them), the working mothers, to the range of fast-food/carry out that is available... all of this puts extreme pressure on a family's hourly calendar. That contributes to people looking for 'easy outs'.

These shifts are huge contributors to how the economies have shifted in what businesses offer and who can survive. The idea of endless entertainment at home is what has killed the 'hang out' like arcades, pool halls, etc.

 

[GoofGoof]

Concerning strollers, I believe a large part of the problem is that Disney has changed its target market. It's gotten appreciably younger.

There once was a time when a Disney movie was fine for a 10 or 12 year old. Not anymore. Just imagine most 12 years olds watching Finding Nemo or Monsters U. Compare that to earlier decades when Disney brand movies included 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Escape From Witch Mountain, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Love Bug, or even Mary Poppins. Disney aimed for an older crowd at a time when children were allowed to remain children longer.

I recall reading (not sure if it's true) that WDW originally was targeted more towards families with junior high children. Certainly, there was nothing childlike about EPCOT when it first opened in 1982. My recollection of WDW during the 1970s and 1980s is of a fairly small toddler crowd. It was mostly older children and their families. WDW then started targeting "adults only" in the late 1980s and 1990s. (DW and I spent our 1st Anniversary at WDW. ) It's only within the last 15 years or so that WDW started targeting a much younger crowd.

There are so many more strollers at WDW today in large part because WDW's visitors have gotten younger.

You hit the nail on the head. As I stated earlier there are also economic reasons more families with young children visit. More 2 income families than the 70s or 80s as well as people having kids later in life means more disposable income. People work more hours so are looking for a place to spend "quality time" with the kiddos when they do have time off.

 

[truecoat]

The reason why your obesity(maybe not your personally of course) is other people's concern is simply we are paying for it. How much of my health insurance costs are being used towards obesity related illnesses. Depending on which studyies you listed to, anywhere from 40-150% higher costs in lifetime insurance billing based on obesity. That can be as much as $2800 a year average per person. That percentage is as much if not more than a smoker. In 2006 the dollar amount was an estimated 190 billion dollars a year. For someone like me, I would aprreciate my health care insurance was lower and given a pay raise instead since my companys costs would be lower.

A study in 2008 reported the exact opposite. Because healthy people live longer, they are the ones who add to the insurance costs. Smokers and the obese may have problems but don't live as long.

 

[ford91exploder]

I can tell kids between two to three often have lots of fun at Disney Parks (c). But do they have more fun than they would at a local amusement fair, or a sandbox, or a visit to 'mad uncle' William?

There is fun, but there is also a lot at WDW that isn't fun for the youngest: a punishing climate (being north European, I need to dress kids in Florida as if it were winter, lest they die of suncancer), being dragged around all day long, no escape from the busy atmosphere and people, stressed parents, sometimes unpleasant experiences that are too scary or too loud. Etc. Pre-school at Disney is fun, but not as much fun as it is made out to be, and for many kids barely worth it, or worse.

In my family I'm the mad scientist uncle!

 

[ford91exploder]

A study in 2008 reported the exact opposite. Because healthy people live longer, they are the ones who add to the insurance costs. Smokers and the obese may have problems but don't live as long.

Both are true - the obese have expensive care but they die sooner, the healthy live longer and may encounter expensive end of life care

 

[GoofGoof]

Yeah but there's one thing to criticize what people eat/drink.... Its another to comment/question/openly mock someone bringing supplies for an army platoon or more inside a stroller/lorrey/small truck into a theme park.

Its a damn theme park. You dont need to nest while youre there and you certainly dont need that much food....

I don't disagree some people bring more stuff than I would into the parks, but its still a sweeping generalization to say that the strollers in that picture are the result of selfish patents or lazy kids.

I get that people without little kids would prefer if there were no strollers in the parks at all. It would mean less people so less lines. We all would prefer things to be tailored to our exact needs. At the end of the day I just don't see how the strollers have such a negative impact on people's vacations. Could they replace stroller parking with some benches or just open space? Sure, but would that really improve the experience to a large degree? Maybe if the answer is yes people should try DLP which according to the picture posted has very few strollers. Vegas is nice too.

 

[GoofGoof]

Why do they allow this?

How exactly would Disney stop this? Ban strollers? Set an age limit or size limit for kids to use strollers?

 

[GoofGoof]

A study in 2008 reported the exact opposite. Because healthy people live longer, they are the ones who add to the insurance costs. Smokers and the obese may have problems but don't live as long.

Less mental problems too. Fat and happy.

That wasn't part of the study just an observation.

 

[muteki]

How exactly would Disney stop this? Ban strollers? Set an age limit or size limit for kids to use strollers?