DinoRama

[JeffJewell]

"And it's an extremely dangerous argument to justify today's shortcomings by claiming they are no worse than yesterday's shorcomings." Why?

...for a couple main reasons; first, that it takes the worst of Disney's history and uses it as a benchmark of current performance. It's a dangerous business move to ask no more than the worst anyone's ever done at the job, whatever that job might be. Also, in another sense, it's dangerous to compare specific business decisions from two different periods of time because there are too many external factors operating to make a legitimate comparison possible.

When the reason the shortcomings of the past are generally brought up is in direct response to those who criticize Eisner/current management by comparing them to the past.

Speaking for myself anyway, I've always compared business philosophies rather than specific decisions; again, different times make the specific decisions too dissimilar to meaningfully compare.

He admittedly cut corners when he had to.

To me, the key difference is in that "had to." True, Walt opened Disneyland, and WDW, for that matter, in a state less complete than he envisioned, because he was still a relatively small businessman blazing some new trails. This is one of those cases where no meaningful comparison can be drawn to the decision to cut corners while you're dropping $5 billion on a cable network. Hell, the _refund_ Eisner got off of that deal would have made an impressive addition to Animal Kingdom.

Trying to compare Eisner's corner-cutting decisions to Walt's completely falls apart when looked at in context. Walt gave us Dumbo because he "had to;" in the sense that he needed more capacity and simply couldn't afford to buy anything more. Eisner gave us DinoRama because he "had to;" in the sense that everyone was complaining that there was nothing to do in his park and the place was a ghost town after lunchtime. Two entirely different business philosphies.

DinoRama helps AK further fit that bill.

While I'm certainly glad you enjoy what's open so far, I think it's a little early to declare categorically what effect DinoRama as a whole has had on Animal Kingdom (I know it's equally anecdotal evidence as yours, but my sister, her husband, and their two-year-old daughter were flying point for our carvan coming out of Tarzan Rocks, came to the point where a superflous rope in the exit path turned all Tarzan escapees directly toward DinoRama, saw TS, and decided it was time to go to Magic Kingdom for Dumbo again).

AK is a great Park and while attendance is down and customer disatisfaction seems high, does that really seem strange to you? After all America is full of lemmings and the current trend is coasters, coasters, coasters

Well, I can agree that AK has some great _parts_, but it's clearly a flawed and incomplete "theme park," by any business standard (and apparently, most vacationers' standards), so the trends don't seem strange, at all. And besides, Eisner is still treating people like lemmings, just lemmings who must want spinners, spinners, spinners.

AK is a high quality Park full of the type of things Walt would be proud of, DR included.

Actually, Walt was against a live animal park. Well, perhaps "against" is the wrong word, he did orignally want live animals on the Jungle Cruise, but the business reality of the expense of keeping live animals made Jungle Cruise an AA showplace. Live animals made it difficult to turn a profit, and Disney ended up not doing it, back then.

And although I do agree that Walt might have been proud of DinoRama, that would have been in the late sixties... an appropriate time to be excited about managing to "plus" some carnival rides enough to have something vaguely worthy of being put in your fledgling park. Three decades later, with (I find myself compelled to point out again) $5 billion worth of jack lying around, I believe Walt would have been made ill by such a suggestion.

How many people prefer IOA/USF over WDW - compare total package to total package.

We were talking about DinoRama and got to this? Are you saying DinoRama is clearly of Disney quality because it fails to make WDW, as a whole, a less preferred destination than IOA/USF?

You appear to set your sights eye-poppingly low, my Captain.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

“Walt wanted what he wanted and he gave us what he wanted to give us.”

“AK is a great Park and while attendance is down and customer dissatisfaction seems high, does that really seem strange to you?”

Interesting quotes, since it seems that Walt knew what the general public would respond to. And the fact that the current management was compelled to force the public into visiting Animal Kingdom using the four-day ticket scheme (a “good move”). Interesting how the public aren’t following that particular plan…

There is one catch in being in the mass entertainment industry – you have to provide entertainment for the masses. Whining that the public is stupid, or they don’t get it, or they’re not worthy of it, or that they don’t know quality, all of that frankly doesn’t sell any tickets. The better part of my day is listening to people boast about how talented they are and how dumb the American public is for not recognizing that “fact”. I’ve heard just about every conceivable rationalization to avoid admitting the truth – no one likes the movie.

The public isn’t stupid, the public isn’t a pack of lemmings willing only to accept the lowest common denominator, the public isn’t incapable from separating hype from substance. And while I have more than a few issues with the public’s taste from time to time, they do have some level of expectations that have to be met. There is a level of expectation about something labeled “Disney’s”, and The Company has to meet it or face the kind of response they receive daily about Animal Kingdom.

Whether you or I think the park is a full-day experience really is irrelevant. The public seems to have that expectation, and it’s not being met. Calling them names or trying to knock them down a few rungs on the evolutionary ladder won’t increase attendance. Walt succeeded by exceeding the public’s expectations. The current management seems determined to browbeat the public into accepting what little The Company is willing to deliver.

And the public is voting with their dollars which management style they prefer.

 

[JeffJewell]

Whether you think AK is a full day Park is irrelevent although the fact that you now must by a four day hoper is relevent. That said, you don't have to visit AK.

...there's only one way this all makes sense. Captain Crook has basically pointed out that the important thing about opening Animal Kingdom was to give an excuse to drop the three day hoppers and force the purchase of the extra day for the alledged fourth park; beyond that, who care's if it's enough of a park to make people want to go see it? I can't imagine any fan, even a rose-goggled one, celebrating that kind of reasoning behind park design.

Those lines would only really make sense coming from an insider; someone whose fortunes were tied to hopper sales in some way.

I've also been wondering about the whole Peter Pirate/Captain Crook thing, the way they appear to be two people, but but are sometimes similar enough that we regard them as the same person on the boards... and I remember the speculation about Disney insiders being on the boards... and I thought of a couple particular insiders with a two person/one mind relationship... then the Pirate's initials conked me on the head and I realized what should have been so obvious so long ago; that Peter Pirate is Paul Pressler and Captain Crook is none other than Michael Eisner himself.

I do hope they all continue to post despite being outed...

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

then the Pirate's initials conked me on the head and I realized what should have been so obvious so long ago; that Peter Pirate is Paul Pressler and Captain Crook is none other than Michael Eisner himself.

GOOD GOD MAN!!! You're right!! It's soooo obvious!!! I don't know why we didn't see it before!!!

Give it up, Peter, Paul, Pirate or Mike Crook or whatever your name is!! You secret identity is no longer secret!!

 

[Captain Crook]

Landbaron, then who was that guy you met at the Dolphin?

Jeff, I wasn't celebrating anything (the switch from 3 to 4 day hoppers), just pointing out what transpired and why it was a good decision. What I'm trying to say is that with advent of hoppers and their wide use, I don't believe being a "full day Park" pers se, is relevent anymore. In fact how can AK ever be what you guys would consider full day when they obviously have no plans to ever stay open past dark? No late nigt eateries, no fireworks, etc. The nature of the Park makes it another choice for the guest Disney covets, the multi day guest.

I do see a glitch in that a good number of peope are using a day of their Disney time & scooting over to IOA. This reflects badly on AK number wise (perhaps), but in reaity the only thing that would stop the bulk of this "defection" would be a coaster Park, so AK is really unto itself & I truly believe (unlike DCA apparently) that AK has no big worries. Heck, the recently released attendance fgures don't show a huge drop in numbers from Epcot to AK. From these 2001 numbers it appears to me that WDW's biggest attendance concern has to be Epcot.

 

[JeffJewell]

just pointing out what transpired and why it was a good decision

...I know; I was just jerking your chain a bit for how mercenary it sounded... to me, anyway.

In fact how can AK ever be what you guys would consider full day when they obviously have no plans to ever stay open past dark? No late nigt eateries, no fireworks, etc. The nature of the Park makes it another choice for the guest Disney covets, the multi day guest.

Ah, but what you are describing as almost a commandment, I consider to be a big(albeit correctable, should the inclination be there to correct it) mistake about the way they built and run Animal Kingdom.

Why _can't_ the place stay open later?

There need be no fireworks display (nor even afternoon parade, but that's another issue) to keep people around AK, but there does need to be _some_ reason. I think they missed the boat on two fronts: first, they failed to take the opportunities of the varied cultures already represented in AK (not to mention the lush surroundings already being built for Safaris and Trails and Jungle Treks) by opening a couple excellent restaurants. Put me on the PS list now to eat in the ruins as tigers walk by the Coral Reef-esque wall-sized windows into the habitats. Tigers are nocturnal, you know, actually quite likely to provide evening meal entertainment as their daytime naps subside. Which leads to missed boat number two, the opportunity to take advantage of the different daily cycles of different species to create evening displays that highlight some of the wildlife that isn't typically featured in a close-at-sundown zoo. Be NAHTAZU in a clearly superior way.

From these 2001 numbers it appears to me that WDW's biggest attendance concern has to be Epcot.

I'd agree with you there. It's likely that the rumored next celebration (100 years of flight, right?) will have the pin trading centered back at Epcot, which might be enough. Disney Studios was the one park that was packed every single time we went in, earlier this month... I figured the pin trading must have had something to do with it... although come to think of it, Regis and Kelly were there some of those days, too...

Jeff

 

[HBK]

Jeff, I wasn't celebrating anything (the switch from 3 to 4 day hoppers), just pointing out what transpired and why it was a good decision

Good decision for whom? I hope you don't mean the guest.

In fact how can AK ever be what you guys would consider full day when they obviously have no plans to ever stay open past dark? No late nigt eateries, no fireworks, etc. The nature of the Park makes it another choice for the guest Disney covets, the multi day guest.

Uhm, how about something with enough to do that I can spend the park's operating hours at the park I paid for.

I do see a glitch in that a good number of peope are using a day of their Disney time & scooting over to IOA. This reflects badly on AK number wise (perhaps), but in reaity the only thing that would stop the bulk of this "defection" would be a coaster Park, so AK is really unto itself & I truly believe (unlike DCA apparently) that AK has no big worries.

OK this quote has many turns and addressable points.

My first question is this....have you been to IOA? There are only 3 Coasters in the whole park (4 if you count Dueling Dragons as two, which I don't agree with). Spiderman, Jurassic Park, Popeye & Bluto, are all different style rides. So why do you feel WDW would have to open a park of coasters to compete? The fact is IOA is a well built, well imagined, well funded theme park. Take a look. Curling did and enjoyed it. Give it a shot and then try to compare it to WDW and DAK.

The fact you don't feel that Animal Kingdom has serious problems shows a bit of your arguement is based on personal opinion. Whether you enjoy the park, think it's a full day experince, etc doesn't address the fact that attendance has been dwindling at Animal Kingdom. Nothing of any great value has been added to the park to drive attendance upwards. I know you think Dino Rama is nice, but is it a special enough addition to turn attendance around? Or is it another in the long line of addittions which relies on your acceptance of the Disney brand?

I believe AV when he says the company is worried about DAK.

 

[Another Voice]

“I don't believe being a "full day Park" per se, is relevant anymore”

It is when all your spreadsheets are built around all those happy quests spending hour after hour in your shops and restaurants (Animal Kingdom). It is when you build a park that doesn’t benefit from park hopping (California Adventure).

And it certainly matters to your guests when you charge the same price for a pleasant morning as you do for the two-day parks just up the road. I keep reading all of these rationalizations that keep excluding one important point – giving the people what they expect. What’s truly isn’t relevant anymore is whatever business model the place was designed to – the public has rejected it and wants the old “there’s so much to see here” model they’ve grown accustomed to.

And, by the way, Animal Kingdom was designed for extended operations. The park has stayed open late on numerous occasions for private parties and special events (and in the very first a few late “test” closing). They’ve even run the safari tour at night from what I’m told. There were never plans to for fireworks due to the animals, but there were plans for a night parade. And while the deal to get Rainforest Café to pay for their restaurant nixed an internal sit-down restaurant, most of the place inside have served dinner in the past.

The early closing are a completely home-grown problem. After the park opened (without Asia), Disney noticed that the place was empty by 2:00pm. It didn’t help that word quickly spread you had to see the safari first thing in the morning, before all the animals went into hiding from the blazing Florida sun. So the guests started to so up early and leave sooner too. The stores were even emptier than they were before.

So, what does a company do? Do you spend lots of money to make the place a true full-day experience? Do you spend some money to build a nighttime “weenie” to keep the guests in the park (like ‘Fantasminc!’). Or you close up shop early and save money.

Disney chose to act like a shopping mall.