Lots of people like to speculate how big businesses run their companies. A lot of the hullabaloo is ignorant and in most cases, simply just made up. On these forums, you read in lots of threads, by the same people no less, how Universal is kicking Disney's rear when it comes to quality.
I of course, don't believe that one second, in fact, my general thought on the subject of Universal is, nice parks, but not Disney and definitely not any real competition.
Responses to that usually amusingly retorts to me being a troll or whatnot, but the thing is, by looking at how Disney has responded to all the drastic changes Universal has done, pretty much nothing, I don't think my realm of thought is as far off as some would love to believe.
Lets pursue this shall we?
First and foremost, we have to wonder just why Disney has not gone after Universal the minute Universal took Potter and created a very little successful area of their IOA amusement park. Disney, if you look at their responses, just shrugged their shoulders, yawned and went back to business. People think Disney dropped the ball, others suggest Disney would not give Rawlings what she wanted because they were being cheap/ And some say Disney couldn't do it right anyway so its best.
All those answers are folly.
Potter, for what it did for Universal in the short term, a fantastic job, long term, no matter how many "phases" they open, is in my opinion a fad. Its a fad, there I said. If Rawlings fails to produce another novel, people will forget about Potter soon enough, but before we get into that, lets kind of clarify just what a fad audience is.
Anyone watch pro wrestling?
Pro wrestling from the mid 80's to be exact, the rise of the orange goblin Hulk Hogan? See back in the day a young Vince McMahon did revolutionary stuff in the world of pro wrestling, he created WrestleMania, got the public aware of his product by marrying it with MTV and featured the great Hulk Hogan, before he got off steroids, as his orange, his wasn't really tan, more of a light shade of orange, as his orange champion who would fight off the big bad guy who hurt him and move on to the next culminating with a historic battle with Andre the Giant at WrestleMania 3 that was the apex for the sport for a very long time.
Now Vince, the genius that he is, was still a little green, and he thought, at the time, the audience he held, which went from nothing to millions almost overnight, was his true core audience. It wasn't, it was a fad audience. Vince kept supplying the Hulkster the same formula that worked, and the public stayed, got sick of it, and eventually left it behind.
See where this is going?
Vince, went through a rough time for years, with lots of legal battles due to his enormous success, some of it painting him as a rather shady person, but he continued his empire, even while it got so bad all his proven talent, his name wrestlers, left him to die. Ah, but Vince is a genius, that word again, and he recouped when pushed into a corner. By the 90's he was so far down a hole he got his spark and created new stars, most notably Steve Austin and The Rock, at the WWE became bigger than it ever has been, even with Hulk Hogan, and Vince once again built a huge fad audience.
So what did Vince do?
Built a WWE restaurant chain, XFL-with NBC/Universal wink wink, make movies, all of which failed miserably. Vince thought his fad audience would follow him, but that's the bad thing about a fad audience, you only can do so much before they lose interest...A better gauge is the TV ratings for the time. The core audience, the ones who were fans before after and during the worst of times was around 2.0-3.0. During the fad years, jumped to around 7.0-8.0.
Since the WWE is rather stale right now where are their ratings? 2.0-3.0.
But Jimmy, you're trolling, that's all you got?
Of course not, I have the power of analytics.
From the years 2008 to 2012 for which we have data, MK averages 17 million people, like clockwork. Epcot, around 11 million. Again like clockwork. AK and DHS both over 9.5 million, again like clockwork.
That is a core audience, those numbers don't lie.
Lets look at Universal Studios Florida, during the same span, about 6 million every year. Clockwork.
But IOA, ah now that's the fun part.
IOA during that time, 5.2 mil, 4.6 mil, 5.9 mil, 7.6 mil, 7.9 mil.
Now everyone wants to profess how IOA is the type of stuff Disney should be doing, how its raising the bar, I have to say, without hesitation, nope, its a fad audience.
Oh Jimmy...
Oh yes, here is why.
If Potter was a secure long term property, Rawlings never would have left Disney without her giving it to them. Disney buys IP right? They don't create their own and the ones they do manage to squeeze out get turned into themed bathrooms? Nope, Rawlings, in her what I have to call questionable business sense probably told Disney she is done making novels after a certain time frame, once Disney heard that, and lets face reality, Disney will squeeze everything out of an IP to make money more than local orange farmers, Disney said, ok then, don't call us, we'll call you...Genius move.
But IOA is rocking attendance figures?
Its a short term gain unless Rawlings makes more novels featuring Potter. 10 years from now they will have to rebuild because the public will not have anything new with Potter.
But the area is themed so great?
And if there is no new Potter material, Potter will drop out of the public's eye, as it is already doing. Mention Harry Potter now and people think of Emma Watson.
Now you're trolling again...
Am I? Why did Disney pass on the Potter property? I don't think money would be an issue, not with the acquisition of Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm's purchases totaling in the BILLIONS. Disney knew something, Disney passed. Universal took a chance, I give them credit for the guts, and ran with it, but they also took a fad audience. I also think, in the long run, the billions they will spend on Potter in their parks will get torn down sooner rather than later because of it. Remember folks, this was a park that averaged in the 5 million range before Potter, and now all of a sudden its supposed to be world class? Unlikely.
But Universal has gotten a much needed shot in the arm and what do they do?
They start building. More attractions= good.
A value hotel=bad. Why? Ask Vince McMahon how that XFL worked out for him...
Once the fad audience leaves, who's gonna fill those rooms? Potter has, as long as there is no new material, a short shelf life, its fine and dandy now, but its clock is ticking and they can have 8 phases of Potter goodness but by phase 3, people will be searching for a better alternative, or just go back full time to Disney. Potter will have its diehards, no doubt about it, but the diehards are not a core, they are just there to be there.
Disney, on the other hand, continues to roll along, maintenance, customer service, burnt out light bulbs, broken animatronics be damned, Disney keeps building their core audience. Disney keeps their numbers growing year after year. With the same, and as some desperately want you to believe stale product.
So in conclusion, while I love reading all the Universal is so great and Disney is terrible arguments, people seem to forget Disney is the company that invented the theme park industry, and no matter who comes along and does what, I doubt in each and every person's lifetime who is reading this, they will not be usurped or challenged.
Competition? Universal?
Nah.
Jimmy Thick- A person listening to Bruce Springsteen's Jungleland 100 times in a row does not become the Magic Rat...
I of course, don't believe that one second, in fact, my general thought on the subject of Universal is, nice parks, but not Disney and definitely not any real competition.
Responses to that usually amusingly retorts to me being a troll or whatnot, but the thing is, by looking at how Disney has responded to all the drastic changes Universal has done, pretty much nothing, I don't think my realm of thought is as far off as some would love to believe.
Lets pursue this shall we?
First and foremost, we have to wonder just why Disney has not gone after Universal the minute Universal took Potter and created a very little successful area of their IOA amusement park. Disney, if you look at their responses, just shrugged their shoulders, yawned and went back to business. People think Disney dropped the ball, others suggest Disney would not give Rawlings what she wanted because they were being cheap/ And some say Disney couldn't do it right anyway so its best.
All those answers are folly.
Potter, for what it did for Universal in the short term, a fantastic job, long term, no matter how many "phases" they open, is in my opinion a fad. Its a fad, there I said. If Rawlings fails to produce another novel, people will forget about Potter soon enough, but before we get into that, lets kind of clarify just what a fad audience is.
Anyone watch pro wrestling?
Pro wrestling from the mid 80's to be exact, the rise of the orange goblin Hulk Hogan? See back in the day a young Vince McMahon did revolutionary stuff in the world of pro wrestling, he created WrestleMania, got the public aware of his product by marrying it with MTV and featured the great Hulk Hogan, before he got off steroids, as his orange, his wasn't really tan, more of a light shade of orange, as his orange champion who would fight off the big bad guy who hurt him and move on to the next culminating with a historic battle with Andre the Giant at WrestleMania 3 that was the apex for the sport for a very long time.
Now Vince, the genius that he is, was still a little green, and he thought, at the time, the audience he held, which went from nothing to millions almost overnight, was his true core audience. It wasn't, it was a fad audience. Vince kept supplying the Hulkster the same formula that worked, and the public stayed, got sick of it, and eventually left it behind.
See where this is going?
Vince, went through a rough time for years, with lots of legal battles due to his enormous success, some of it painting him as a rather shady person, but he continued his empire, even while it got so bad all his proven talent, his name wrestlers, left him to die. Ah, but Vince is a genius, that word again, and he recouped when pushed into a corner. By the 90's he was so far down a hole he got his spark and created new stars, most notably Steve Austin and The Rock, at the WWE became bigger than it ever has been, even with Hulk Hogan, and Vince once again built a huge fad audience.
So what did Vince do?
Built a WWE restaurant chain, XFL-with NBC/Universal wink wink, make movies, all of which failed miserably. Vince thought his fad audience would follow him, but that's the bad thing about a fad audience, you only can do so much before they lose interest...A better gauge is the TV ratings for the time. The core audience, the ones who were fans before after and during the worst of times was around 2.0-3.0. During the fad years, jumped to around 7.0-8.0.
Since the WWE is rather stale right now where are their ratings? 2.0-3.0.
But Jimmy, you're trolling, that's all you got?
Of course not, I have the power of analytics.
From the years 2008 to 2012 for which we have data, MK averages 17 million people, like clockwork. Epcot, around 11 million. Again like clockwork. AK and DHS both over 9.5 million, again like clockwork.
That is a core audience, those numbers don't lie.
Lets look at Universal Studios Florida, during the same span, about 6 million every year. Clockwork.
But IOA, ah now that's the fun part.
IOA during that time, 5.2 mil, 4.6 mil, 5.9 mil, 7.6 mil, 7.9 mil.
Now everyone wants to profess how IOA is the type of stuff Disney should be doing, how its raising the bar, I have to say, without hesitation, nope, its a fad audience.
Oh Jimmy...
Oh yes, here is why.
If Potter was a secure long term property, Rawlings never would have left Disney without her giving it to them. Disney buys IP right? They don't create their own and the ones they do manage to squeeze out get turned into themed bathrooms? Nope, Rawlings, in her what I have to call questionable business sense probably told Disney she is done making novels after a certain time frame, once Disney heard that, and lets face reality, Disney will squeeze everything out of an IP to make money more than local orange farmers, Disney said, ok then, don't call us, we'll call you...Genius move.
But IOA is rocking attendance figures?
Its a short term gain unless Rawlings makes more novels featuring Potter. 10 years from now they will have to rebuild because the public will not have anything new with Potter.
But the area is themed so great?
And if there is no new Potter material, Potter will drop out of the public's eye, as it is already doing. Mention Harry Potter now and people think of Emma Watson.
Now you're trolling again...
Am I? Why did Disney pass on the Potter property? I don't think money would be an issue, not with the acquisition of Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm's purchases totaling in the BILLIONS. Disney knew something, Disney passed. Universal took a chance, I give them credit for the guts, and ran with it, but they also took a fad audience. I also think, in the long run, the billions they will spend on Potter in their parks will get torn down sooner rather than later because of it. Remember folks, this was a park that averaged in the 5 million range before Potter, and now all of a sudden its supposed to be world class? Unlikely.
But Universal has gotten a much needed shot in the arm and what do they do?
They start building. More attractions= good.
A value hotel=bad. Why? Ask Vince McMahon how that XFL worked out for him...
Once the fad audience leaves, who's gonna fill those rooms? Potter has, as long as there is no new material, a short shelf life, its fine and dandy now, but its clock is ticking and they can have 8 phases of Potter goodness but by phase 3, people will be searching for a better alternative, or just go back full time to Disney. Potter will have its diehards, no doubt about it, but the diehards are not a core, they are just there to be there.
Disney, on the other hand, continues to roll along, maintenance, customer service, burnt out light bulbs, broken animatronics be damned, Disney keeps building their core audience. Disney keeps their numbers growing year after year. With the same, and as some desperately want you to believe stale product.
So in conclusion, while I love reading all the Universal is so great and Disney is terrible arguments, people seem to forget Disney is the company that invented the theme park industry, and no matter who comes along and does what, I doubt in each and every person's lifetime who is reading this, they will not be usurped or challenged.
Competition? Universal?
Nah.
Jimmy Thick- A person listening to Bruce Springsteen's Jungleland 100 times in a row does not become the Magic Rat...
