Your three questions for Bob Iger and Josh D'Amaro

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Many good questions, but they mostly get at the symptoms instead of the true 'problem'. Remember, you're talking to an executive. They are paid to keep an eye on the bottom line. The Fox acquisition has hamstrung Disney in many ways and the quality of the parks is a result of that. So, my questions would be how and when will Disney recover from that?
This ignores all of the problems that pre-date the acquisition.
 

SplashLanta

Well-Known Member
How can you justify taking away something that was free and ask guests to pay for it - on top of ever increasing prices - and still claim guest satisfaction is your number one priority?
2) scrap all line jumping systems. Standby only. Ensure every attraction can run at full capacity as designed. The revisits alone to ensure guests ride everything they want to will add to the bottom line. Radical I know. And IMHO.
This misconstrues what Genie+ is. It's not Fastpass+. It's better than Fastpass+ for those who purchase it.

The issue is, those who don't get Genie+ are worse off than when they had Fastpass+.

Before I delve deeper, I agree that Standby is the ideal, real-world system. That being said, Fastpass+ was onto something, it just failed through poor execution.

Not everyone wants to ride every ride, and not everyone values every ride the same. In a Standby only system, everyone is on an even playing field, so, in theory, the most desirable rides (ignoring variances in capacity for simplicity's sake), will have the highest lines. The main benefit of this system is rides like Pooh or Haunted Mansion don't have unnecessarily inflated wait times, but the high-end attractions are where the difference is felt the most; not because the standby lines will be as high as with a skip-the-line, but because the only way to ride them is by waiting the standby time (say it's 1 hour instead of two).

Someone who isn't willing to wait in such a long waits may stick to the non-headling attractions (not attempting to slight HM) which may worsen their perception of the brand and overall experience. A high stand-by wait discourages re-riding, which increases exposure to more riders. A skip-the-line system can, in theory, ensure more equal access to all categories of rides.

I say this, not to discourage a standby system, but to outline that no system is perfect, they all have individual flaws.

Personally, I think there are really only three valid systems, in no particular order:
1) Standby Only
2) Paid skip-the-line (EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE)
3) Limited skip-the-line/VQ

For paid skip-the-line, there is no reason Genie is $15, $25, or $35. Charge $250 per person per day. Or $150. Whatever works. Whatever number ensures only a very small percentage (3-5%) of daily guests purchase it. Undoubtedly, they make more money at $25 per person per day, but a reasonable, but annoying and anti-experience price hurts basically everyone. 5% at $150 is equivalent to 50% of people buying $15 Genie+, without having the same effect as 50% purchase rate. I have no issue with huge upcharges. Little upcharges just leave a sour taste, whether or not value exists. That being said, $150 would really infuriate people, probably more than $15.

Limited skip-the-line/VQ. Make nearly every ride Standby but a couple, basically the current lightning-lane system, but have it be free Give each guest the opportunity to choose one or two rides. Keep stand-by open at those attractions. Alternatively, give 3 points to each guest per day, a brand new ride, like Guardians, would be worth 3 points, rides like Test Track 2 points, and FEA like 1 point.

Give annual pass holders a certain amount of points per month, with a max of 3 points per day. 10 points per month, play around with it for different pass holder tiers and make certain rides be more points based on demand.

The system would undoubtedly have its own flaws, but the main issue for Disney would be a lack of revenue generation. If someone has one goal, and it is to ride a certain ride within a reasonable amount of time, there's value in having an outlet for that.

Skip-the-line systems are inherently bogged down by pass holders. They are generally the ones who need it the least, but because they are most savvy, they will get the most use out of it. Even with standby, pass holders understand posted wait-times are generally inflated, but many one-timers would be thrown off. Equality is not equity, and while this may have largely been turned largely into a ramble, in terms of the guest experience, while Bob hijacked "that family from Ohio," he does have a point. You need your loyal fans, but if you don't give first-timers a quality experience, they won't become loyal fans. This thought process villainizes pass-holders, which is not the desired effect, but there's not really a perfect mechanism for improving that guest experience.

Capacity can obviously be increased, but there will always be top rides with high waits. Rides need to be engineered as people-eaters, no excuse not to. But we need to ask ourselves why we need Fastpass in the first place. Originally, it was reserved for the top rides, then it expanded to more, and so on and so forth. Leading back to there will always be a top ride. In parks with a dreadful capacity for Hollywood Studios, there's no excuse not to expand, but in a park-like Tokyo DisneySea (which has had historically brutal waits) after Fantasy Springs debuts, what system should we use to combat overcrowding and improve guest experience? Obviously, the effect of FS has yet to be seen, and each WDW park could use a similar expansion of its own (barring EPCOT which could better use the investment in other ways), but anything Disney does will be villainized. Disney is such a large company that anything they do will hurt someone in one way or another.

I'm not really sure how TWDC should be optimally run. There are plenty of things I would personally change, but I don't believe the situation is as black and white as it is made out to be on here and elsewhere. This a disagreement manifesto, I agree with most of the popular points on this forum, but outside of increasing capacity (through expansions, new attractions, etc). to boost guest experience and fiscal return, the nitty-gritty and everything between flashy expansions is substantially less definitive.
 

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
Many good questions, but they mostly get at the symptoms instead of the true 'problem'. Remember, you're talking to an executive. They are paid to keep an eye on the bottom line. The Fox acquisition has hamstrung Disney in many ways and the quality of the parks is a result of that. So, my questions would be how and when will Disney recover from that?
Those are the questions you ask at the shareholders meeting…meeting him in Orlando, I think it should be park oriented…
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
If supporting creatives and creativity is so important, why is Walt Disney Imagineering not allowed to just be creative and come up with the best ideas?
A division that creates just ideas is a cost center or simply R&D. In today's corporate environment, simple R&D, for sake of creating ideas, is not desirable as pure R&D is a negative on the quarterly P&L statement. WDI needs to offset cost with some tangible revenue.
 

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
I dont have a question per se, but more of a request. Give me one of your most trusted colleagues who is not recognizable. I will walk him/her through a normal resort stay from planning, to getting there, hotel room and grounds, parks, dining, all of it. There is no better way to see all of the shortcomings than to plan and execute a trip like a regular guest. The problems that an average guest will have will be very apparent very shortly!!! Marie
 

Sonconato

Well-Known Member
Mistake number one.

If you’re asking me directly? 1) Build quality people eaters (not necessarily Es) without ridiculous budgets. Like Disney used to do. 2) scrap all line jumping systems. Standby only. Ensure every attraction can run at full capacity as designed. The revisits alone to ensure guests ride everything they want to will add to the bottom line. Radical I know. And IMHO.
I agree with what you said about increasing capacity. The, “Adding more attractions is out of the question. They aren't doing that”, statement made by @Jrb1979 is what puzzles me a bit and here’s why. Let’s compare Universe of Energy (Old) vs Guardians of the Galaxy (New and Improved).

  • Square Footage:
  • Universe of Energy: 105,000 s.f.
  • Guardians of the Galaxy: More than 200,000 s.f.
  • Capacity:
  • Universe of Energy: 2,432 people per hour
  • Guardians of the Galaxy: 2,000 people per hour
  • Ride Time:
  • Universe of Energy: 45 minutes
  • Guardians of the Galaxy: 3 minutes 20 seconds
Based on these facts, the size (square footage) of GotG was doubled which is like “Adding another Attraction”. Rather than one ride at 200,000 s.f., there could have been two rides at 100,000 s.f. each. And GotG ride which is double in size handles 80% the capacity of the UofE which is a substantial reduction in capacity and lastly, the duration of the experience of the UofE ride lasted over 14 times longer than the new GotG ride.

So, if this is an improvement, what am I missing?
 

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
I agree with what you said about increasing capacity. The, “Adding more attractions is out of the question. They aren't doing that”, statement made by @Jrb1979 is what puzzles me a bit and here’s why. Let’s compare Universe of Energy (Old) vs Guardians of the Galaxy (New and Improved).

  • Square Footage:
  • Universe of Energy: 105,000 s.f.
  • Guardians of the Galaxy: More than 200,000 s.f.
  • Capacity:
  • Universe of Energy: 2,432 people per hour
  • Guardians of the Galaxy: 2,000 people per hour
  • Ride Time:
  • Universe of Energy: 45 minutes
  • Guardians of the Galaxy: 3 minutes 20 seconds
Based on these facts, the size (square footage) of GotG was doubled which is like “Adding another Attraction”. Rather than one ride at 200,000 s.f., there could have been two rides at 100,000 s.f. each. And GotG ride which is double in size handles 80% the capacity of the UofE which is a substantial reduction in capacity and lastly, the duration of the experience of the UofE ride lasted over 14 times longer than the new GotG ride.

So, if this is an improvement, what am I missing?
It's an improvement over the previous one but they need more attractions to fill out the parks. Replacing one attraction with another really isn't adding much capacity
 

Sonconato

Well-Known Member
It's an improvement over the previous one but they need more attractions to fill out the parks. Replacing one attraction with another really isn't adding much capacity
That is where your statement about "ADDING a new attraction is out of the question" is confusing. What you're saying in this response is basically what I'm saying. This "replacement" attraction reduced capacity, substantially reduced the experience duration and doubled in size which isn't an improvement from the original ride in regards to size, capacity and duration. Some might think the new ride is superior over the old but that isn't really the discussion here, it's about adding capacity. You're correct, replacement isn't addressing capacity but spending money to double the size of an existing ride is the same as spending money to ADD an entire new attraction and at the same time, the old ride could have also been replaced within that same footprint. Does that make sense?

Anyway, I don't want to derail from the original question so I guess one of my questions would be, "Why are many attractions being replaced with attractions that are sometimes bigger but capacity and duration of experience is reduced when the goal should be the opposite since the Parks are so crowded?"
 
Last edited:

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
That is where your statement about "ADDING a new attraction is out of the question" is confusing. What you're saying in this response is basically what I'm saying. This "replacement" attraction reduced capacity, substantially reduced the experience duration and doubled in size which isn't an improvement from the original ride in regards to size, capacity and duration. Some might think the new ride is superior over the old but that isn't really the discussion here, it's about adding capacity. You're correct, replacement isn't addressing capacity but spending money to double the size of an existing ride is the same as spending money to ADD an entire new attraction and at the same time, the old ride could have also been replaced within that same footprint. Does that make sense?

Anyway, I don't want to derail from the original question so I guess one of my questions would be, "Why are many attractions being replaced with attractions that are sometimes bigger but capacity and duration of experience is reduced when the goal should be the opposite since the Parks are so crowded?"
I personally think they do need to add more attractions and not replace. My comment was more from Disney's side of things cause lately they haven't been adding new capacity but replacing capacity.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Had three questions, but they kind of overlap.

It's also hard to separate the questions about Iger, the individual and CEO, and specific questions about aspects of the company.

Most of the park stuff people are asking about are better directed at Josh.
 
Last edited:

FettFan

Well-Known Member
Just one.

How can you justify taking away something that was free and ask guests to pay for it - on top of ever increasing prices - and still claim guest satisfaction is your number one priority?

Great start.

My other two to go with it would be:

- Why do you keep insisting in morphing Epcot into Magic Kingdom 2.0?
- Why is cohesive theming no longer a necessity for Parks & Resorts? (ie. shoving Tiana into Frontierland, Star Wars Launch Bay polluting the Animation Courtyard, and GotG in Epcot, while the resort hotels are made to look as bland as a holiday inn express)
 

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
Will we get the one thing removed?
Is that thing removed?
No, really is that thing we don't want removed?

And for you all who think it's this thing..your wrong..It 's the thing we have despised since it's creation during the past few years..
monsters-inc-put-that-thing-back-where-it-came-from.gif
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
Great start.

My other two to go with it would be:

- Why do you keep insisting in morphing Epcot into Magic Kingdom 2.0?
- Why is cohesive theming no longer a necessity for Parks & Resorts? (ie. shoving Tiana into Frontierland, Star Wars Launch Bay polluting the Animation Courtyard, and GotG in Epcot, while the resort hotels are made to look as bland as a holiday inn express)
On the first question, *Fantasyland 2.0. to be exact. Remember, Magic Kingdom was more than just movie & tv stories & character themed rides.. it used to be a tribute to all of classic Americana.
 
Last edited:

John park hopper

Well-Known Member
I'd ask Bob
1. Who do you value more guests or stockholders?
2. If guests how do you justify the never ending price increases and charging for what was once a WDW benefit
3. The parks used to be spotless, the parks are filthy -why have you cut cleaning staff well all staff in general?
Have many more questions than just 3
I'd like Bob hooked up to a lie detector when answering everyones questions. Can't say I trust him to give an honest answer
 

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
I'd ask Bob
1. Who do you value more guests or stockholders?
2. If guests how do you justify the never ending price increases and charging for what was once a WDW benefit
3. The parks used to be spotless, the parks are filthy -why have you cut cleaning staff well all staff in general?
Have many more questions than just 3
I'd like Bob hooked up to a lie detector when answering everyones questions. Can't say I trust him to give an honest answer
Your first 2 points were spot on, the last one, I have a problem with. My wife and I have been there 4 times in the past 3 years…three times in December (including this past December) and in May 2021.
I don’t know if we’re going in the “clean” time of the year or what you’re finding filthy, but the parks and Boardwalk/Beach Club were clean and orderly. The ONLY restroom that was messy was the one across from Dinosaur in AK and there was a cleaning CM inside sweeping up and wiping down the sinks. As a matter of fact, there were CM’s near or in a majority of the restrooms (especially the busier ones). I’d really like someone who’s there to provide date stamped photos, not stock pix from Google. I’m NOT a pixie duster by a long shot, but the parks were clean the times we were there. I live 20 minutes from Six Flags in NJ…trust me, there’s NO comparison.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom