Why is there this misconception that Disney is for young children?

[TheMagicMouse]

If anybody's seen the new commercial for Universal Orlando, it shows young children (around 8 or 9 years old) talking about how they liked fairy tales, etc when they were younger (obviously targeting Disney) . Now, I can obviously tell that this commercial was only trying to compete (even though there is no question who the winner will obviously and always be) , but I have noticed that many people who haven't been to disney or haven't gone in a long while, have the misconception that WDW is targeted only at very young chidren. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bring a 5 year old to a lot of rides at WDW, such as Mission Space, Rock'n'Roller Coaster, Tower of Terror, etc., even though I'm sure some could handle it, they aren't geared towards them. Has anybody else noticed this odd misconception??

 

[Merlin]

If anybody's seen the new commercial for Universal Orlando, it shows young children (around 8 or 9 years old) talking about how they liked fairy tales, etc when they were younger (obviously targeting Disney) . Now, I can obviously tell that this commercial was only trying to compete (even though there is no question who the winner will obviously and always be) , but I have noticed that many people who haven't been to disney or haven't gone in a long while, have the misconception that WDW is targeted only at very young chidren. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bring a 5 year old to a lot of rides at WDW, such as Mission Space, Rock'n'Roller Coaster, Tower of Terror, etc., even though I'm sure some could handle it, they aren't geared towards them. Has anybody else noticed this odd misconception??

Disney created that problem themselves through their marketing. It may not necessarily be accurate, but it's certainly not an "odd misconception".

 

[SoFlaDisneyFan]

It's the only pathetic retaliation Universal can come up with. Disney is a "family park" aimed at whole family entertainment, thus presenting a "kid safe" environment. Some of the classic dark rides may be considered the "baby rides" by some, but I know plenty of adults, including myself, who enjoy them just as much, if not more than the more "adult" rides. Universal also targets the younger guests with their Nickelodeon Studio and Dr. Suess village (whatever they call it...), but they rarely promote these aspects in their advertising, Instead, they try and make preteen kids believe that strapping themselves into a small padded chair and having their bodies thrust 60 miles per hour across a twisted metal track is the only "grown up" way to have a good time. I think they fail to realize that kids are much smarter than that. I work with kids and I can truly attest that they can understand the difference in quality, even if they are too young to understand the concept or voice it in words.

Overall, Universal has only the psychological card to play. If they can get parents and kids alike to believe that they have outgrown Disney and that the only feasible vacation solution would be to visit a poorly themed thrill park, then perhaps they will bring in some business. The tactic must have worked before since this is not the first time they have tried this insulting, yet extremely immature stunt. To me, the advertising campaign simply says "Disney is better, but we are way cooler, see, we have big green roller coasters." I think it is generally known that Universal always has been, and always will be the second contender to the one and only Disney theme parks, a fact that even the most casual guest knows as fact.

 

[Merlin]

It's the only pathetic retaliation Universal can come up with. Disney is a "family park" aimed at whole family entertainment, thus presenting a "kid safe" environment. Some of the classic dark rides may be considered the "baby rides" by some, but I know plenty of adults, including myself, who enjoy them just as much, if not more than the more "adult" rides. Universal also targets the younger guests with their Nickelodeon Studio and Dr. Suess village (whatever they call it...), but they rarely promote these aspects in their advertising, Instead, they try and make preteen kids believe that strapping themselves into a small padded chair and having their bodies thrust 60 miles per hour across a twisted metal track is the only "grown up" way to have a good time. I think they fail to realize that kids are much smarter than that. I work with kids and I can truly attest that they can understand the difference in quality, even if they are too young to understand the concept or voice it in words.

Overall, Universal has only the psychological card to play. If they can get parents and kids alike to believe that they have outgrown Disney and that the only feasible vacation solution would be to visit a poorly themed thrill park, then perhaps they will bring in some business. The tactic must have worked before since this is not the first time they have tried this insulting, yet extremely immature stunt. To me, the advertising campaign simply says "Disney is better, but we are way cooler, see, we have big green roller coasters." I think it is generally known that Universal always has been, and always will be the second contender to the one and only Disney theme parks, a fact that even the most casual guest knows as fact.

Universal didn't create this perception. Disney did (either on purpose or unintentionally). Universal is just capitalizing on it. You can't blame them for that. I think the commercials are pretty funny!

 

[SoFlaDisneyFan]

True, but it's a very cheap capitalization. If I were Universal, I would act as though there was no Disney, and promote the heck out of what my parks had to offer. In fairness, I remember their earlier advertising campaigns that had a heavy featuring of JAWS, Earthquake, and Back to the Future, a tactic that in my opinion was far more exciting and effective at luring in guests. I know when I was a kid and they advertised this way, I was MORE than excited to visit their park and ride their rides. I was a kid of the 80s/90s, so the current forcing they have with Islands of Adventure would have been lost to me, I never have been, and never will be a coaster fan, though I do enjoy them if they are properly done, meaning excitement, not just plain thrill. Again, they should be proud of who they are and promote themselves as such. Taking cheap shots at Disney only makes them look weak.

This is my opinion, I am not trying to change your mind.

 

[TheMagicMouse]

True, but it's a very cheap capitalization. If I were Universal, I would act as though there was no Disney, and promote the heck out of what my parks had to offer. In fairness, I remember their earlier advertising campaigns that had a heavy featuring of JAWS, Earthquake, and Back to the Future, a tactic that in my opinion was far more exciting and effective at luring in guests. I know when I was a kid and they advertised this way, I was MORE than excited to visit their park and ride their rides. I was a kid of the 80s/90s, so the current forcing they have with Islands of Adventure would have been lost to me, I never have been, and never will be a coaster fan, though I do enjoy them if they are properly done, meaning excitement, not just plain thrill. Again, they should be proud of who they are and promote themselves as such. Taking cheap shots at Disney only makes them look weak.

This is my opinion, I am not trying to change your mind.

I agree, especially about the part with rides being more than just thrill, I don't think Expedition Everest, Space Mountian, Thunder Mountian, Rock'n'Roller Coaster or almost any other roller coaster would be half as exciting if they didn't have the cool backdrops, such as the mountians, etc.

 

[Merlin]

True, but it's a very cheap capitalization. If I were Universal, I would act as though there was no Disney, and promote the heck out of what my parks had to offer. In fairness, I remember their earlier advertising campaigns that had a heavy featuring of JAWS, Earthquake, and Back to the Future, a tactic that in my opinion was far more exciting and effective at luring in guests. I know when I was a kid and they advertised this way, I was MORE than excited to visit their park and ride their rides. I was a kid of the 80s/90s, so the current forcing they have with Islands of Adventure would have been lost to me, I never have been, and never will be a coaster fan, though I do enjoy them if they are properly done, meaning excitement, not just plain thrill. Again, they should be proud of who they are and promote themselves as such. Taking cheap shots at Disney only makes them look weak.

This is my opinion, I am not trying to change your mind.

I've always taken those commercials to essentially be saying, "We're here too, and we're an alternative to Disney". I think they're basically acknowledging that Disney has the market cornered when it comes to kids' entertainment. So they're saying, "If you want something different, come to our parks." It's just business. If you think about it, Disney is basically doing the same thing. By emphasizing the themeing of their attractions, they're saying, "We're different than those other guys who just have big roller coasters and are just about thrills." They've just been doing it longer so we don't notice it as much. Plus, they aren't targeting one individual park with that type of campaign.

 

[Merlin]

I agree, especially about the part with rides being more than just thrill, I don't think Expedition Everest, Space Mountian, Thunder Mountian, Rock'n'Roller Coaster or almost any other roller coaster would be half as exciting if they didn't have the cool backdrops, such as the mountians, etc.

Expedition Everest, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain and Rock'n'Roller Coaster would all be booooooorrrring without the themeing. :snore:

 

[TheMagicMouse]

Expedition Everest, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain and Rock'n'Roller Coaster would all be booooooorrrring without the themeing. :snore:

exactly

 

[Merlin]

Expedition Everest, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain and Rock'n'Roller Coaster would all be booooooorrrring without the themeing. :snore:

By contrast, rides like the Hulk and Dueling Dragons don't need any themeing to be exciting. They stand on their own. So it just depends on how you look at it.

 

[Nicole]

The trouble is that a park that relies only on thrill rides automatically excludes a large portion of the population. Lots of families with young kids, pregnant women, grandparents, and fraidy-cats (like me) can still have a fantastic time at WDW. I don't plan to ride Everest (it has a drop!) but can't wait to see it and "feel" it.

If Universal is going to market itself with the thrill ride factor then it isn't competing with Disney anymore. It's competing with dozens of other parks around the country. People don't plan a week's vacation around Six Flags.

I agree that Universal should just focus their marketing towards their strenghts, and leave the snarky anti-Disney jibes out of it. I haven't ever had much of a desire to go to US and their current ad campaign just strengthens that. Just my opinion.

 

[mdisney]

also look at the maturity factor with Disney and Universal. Disney does not go ripping on Universal, because most of the full time workers at Universal got fired from Disney.

 

[disneylands]

Disney created that problem themselves through their marketing. It may not necessarily be accurate, but it's certainly not an "odd misconception".

Very true, however it doesnt help the matter that Universal is preying on this saying things like "fairytales and pixie dust not quite your thing..." or "Sure I liked fairytales, when I was FIVE!"

 

[Epcot82Guy]

The interesting thing about it is that Universal has a HUGE identity crisis. On one hand, it made an attempt at creating more thrilling dark rides and other attractions like Disney has. USF is a more Disney-like park with its attractions. IOA, on the other hand, is a thrill park. While it has significantly more themeing than several other major park chains, it is not heads and tails above IMHO. IOA did not become the major threat to Disney as it was supposed to. Instead, it is much more a competitor to Six Flags, Paramount, and Busch parks. However, due to height restrictions, the rides at IOA cannot stand on their own in the overall industry. BGT has better coastes IMHO, and even Kraken is better than either of the two major ones at IOA (in my opinion). The themeing isn't done fully to be a thrill-based Disney; the rides aren't major enough to be a Cedar Point competitor. It's in limbo. The other problem: while it is better than these chains, few people will travel across the country to go to these types of parks. Therefore, USO has to bill itself as the anti-Disney to get attention because it simply is not doing so on its own. It has a strong following, but it is not on the same level as Disney in pretty much every aspect of attention.

The problem I have is that if they are going to pull negative advertising, albeit based on some truth that Disney has created a children's park, they set the bar for themselves higher. While Disney may have a kid aspect, they are actually capitalizing on that because so many adults love it too. I personally enjoy Disney because I can go back and be a kid. I have to play adult every day, and it's nice to not have to do that. The attractions are at least equivalent, so Disney has an X factor and Universal has basically nothing. I have actually spoken to quite a few people that are not Disneyphiles that were put off by the commercials, merely because they feel Universal is trying to be Disney and then saying it is directly not Disney.

Attacking marketing is a dangerous game to play, and you have to have a very solid product for it to work. I personally just don't think Universal is in a position to do so, and I will be interested to see how it works. **end rant.

 

[Timmay]

The trouble is that a park that relies only on thrill rides automatically excludes a large portion of the population. Lots of families with young kids, pregnant women, grandparents, and fraidy-cats (like me) can still have a fantastic time at WDW. I don't plan to ride Everest (it has a drop!) but can't wait to see it and "feel" it.

They can also have a fantastic time at US and IOA...take my 60+ year old mother this past week. A great time at both parks...and she wasn't excluded at all.

If Universal is going to market itself with the thrill ride factor then it isn't competing with Disney anymore. It's competing with dozens of other parks around the country. People don't plan a week's vacation around Six Flags.

Of course they are competing with Disney...

I agree that Universal should just focus their marketing towards their strenghts, and leave the snarky anti-Disney jibes out of it. I haven't ever had much of a desire to go to US and their current ad campaign just strengthens that. Just my opinion.

He is a shocker...most people who come to Orlando do not eat, sleep and drink Disney 24/7...they like to include other things in their trip. Sorry, but you folks are in the minority...every other year we hit WDW and always include other parks and attractions, becuase man can not live on bread alone.

I am confused as to why some take the ads so personal...see, they aren't meant for you at all. Maybe you feel insulted that the ads are right on the money...many people do get tired of princesses and pixie dust all the time..and guess what, there is nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[disneylands]

True, but it's a very cheap capitalization. If I were Universal, I would act as though there was no Disney, and promote the heck out of what my parks had to offer. In fairness, I remember their earlier advertising campaigns that had a heavy featuring of JAWS, Earthquake, and Back to the Future, a tactic that in my opinion was far more exciting and effective at luring in guests. I know when I was a kid and they advertised this way, I was MORE than excited to visit their park and ride their rides. I was a kid of the 80s/90s, so the current forcing they have with Islands of Adventure would have been lost to me, I never have been, and never will be a coaster fan, though I do enjoy them if they are properly done, meaning excitement, not just plain thrill. Again, they should be proud of who they are and promote themselves as such. Taking cheap shots at Disney only makes them look weak.

This is my opinion, I am not trying to change your mind.

I am a Buisness/Marketing major and I would agree with you on this point. However look at other companies like the Windex commercials or Charmin saying that "Our product is way better then theirs!" and comparing them to their competitors.

The thing that makes Universal look even more weak is the fact that they no longer SHOW what they have to offer, they dont show their rides, or attractions. If they are indeed better than Disney then show us in the commercials. Their target market is people who have never been to Disney before and was "on the fence" about going in the first place. Naive people who had always thought that Disney was for children. For the majority, most people arent like that. (in my opinion anyway.)

 

[Merlin]

The interesting thing about it is that Universal has a HUGE identity crisis. On one hand, it made an attempt at creating more thrilling dark rides and other attractions like Disney has. USF is a more Disney-like park with its attractions. IOA, on the other hand, is a thrill park. While it has significantly more themeing than several other major park chains, it is not heads and tails above IMHO. IOA did not become the major threat to Disney as it was supposed to. Instead, it is much more a competitor to Six Flags, Paramount, and Busch parks. However, due to height restrictions, the rides at IOA cannot stand on their own in the overall industry. BGT has better coastes IMHO, and even Kraken is better than either of the two major ones at IOA (in my opinion). The themeing isn't done fully to be a thrill-based Disney; the rides aren't major enough to be a Cedar Point competitor. It's in limbo. The other problem: while it is better than these chains, few people will travel across the country to go to these types of parks. Therefore, USO has to bill itself as the anti-Disney to get attention because it simply is not doing so on its own. It has a strong following, but it is not on the same level as Disney in pretty much every aspect of attention.

The problem I have is that if they are going to pull negative advertising, albeit based on some truth that Disney has created a children's park, they set the bar for themselves higher. While Disney may have a kid aspect, they are actually capitalizing on that because so many adults love it too. I personally enjoy Disney because I can go back and be a kid. I have to play adult every day, and it's nice to not have to do that. The attractions are at least equivalent, so Disney has an X factor and Universal has basically nothing. I have actually spoken to quite a few people that are not Disneyphiles that were put off by the commercials, merely because they feel Universal is trying to be Disney and then saying it is directly not Disney.

Attacking marketing is a dangerous game to play, and you have to have a very solid product for it to work. I personally just don't think Universal is in a position to do so, and I will be interested to see how it works. **end rant.

Disney's reputation as a "kids" park is a turn off for a lot of people. Clearly Universal is just trying to capture the attention of the people who would probably be going to Orlando anyway (perhaps for the kids) and lure them over to their park for a couple of days.

As far as having an "identity crisis", I can think of no theme park better deserving of that description than Disney's California Adventure. But that discussion is worthy of it's own separate thread.

 

[jmicro59]

Disney created that problem themselves through their marketing. It may not necessarily be accurate, but it's certainly not an "odd misconception".

A nice problem to have, to the tune of some 40+ million visitors combined at the 4 parks. :brick:

 

[disneylands]

They can also have a fantastic time at US and IOA...take my 60+ year old mother this past week. A great time at both parks...and she wasn't excluded at all.



Of course they are competing with Disney...



He is a shocker...most people who come to Orlando do not eat, sleep and drink Disney 24/7...they like to include other things in their trip. Sorry, but you folks are in the minority...every other year we hit WDW and always include other parks and attractions, becuase man can not live on bread alone.

I am confused as to why some take the ads so personal...see, they aren't meant for you at all. Maybe you feel insulted that the ads are right on the money...many people do get tired of princesses and pixie dust all the time..and guess what, there is nothing wrong with that at all.

acctually you're wrong, most people who come to orlando DO, do everything Disney, You know as well as I do that Disney is the reason most of the people continue to come; (and thats obvious through attendance), although they do like to include other things as well, that doesnt mean that they have to eliminate parts of their disney trip to do so. I dont think that anyone here is taking the ads personaly either. And just because YOUR family doesnt HIT disney ever year that doesnt automatically make YOU the majority, so in reality YOU are the minority in this case, because its obvious that people continue to come back year after year, just because you dont doesnt mean that nobody does.

 

[jmicro59]

Universal didn't create this perception. Disney did (either on purpose or unintentionally). Universal is just capitalizing on it. You can't blame them for that. I think the commercials are pretty funny!

Capitalizing on it?!?!? :hammer:
With lower attendance figures, parks that look un-maintained and nothing really special about any of the rides! That’s a great business plan. Let me know how that works our for them. :lol: