Al Lutz column

Originally Posted By GreenMother

"Nobody is telling these girls they are not beautiful without it."

What? Maybe I read this wrong, but I have NEVER told my daughter that she needs makeup to make herself more beautiful than she already is. Never. I have always told her that her natural beauty is perfect. Granted, she (at 14) has experimented and tried different looks (that girl had dyed her hair more in 2 years than I have in my entire life). Maybe it's just me, but I and my dh have never told her she looks better with makeup than with out. But to say that this whole "Princess make over" is justified in any way is rediculus (sp???). This thing is just being done to either A) force certain parents to kowtow to their daughters demands and B) gouge parents. Luckily, the way I was raised and have carried on to my kids is that those kind of viscreal and temporary moments don't last - what do you want from life.

If any "extra-curricular" activity is gonna be the end-all and be-all of their exisitance, than we have some work to do.

Just my opinion. Hope I didn't/don't offend anyone, as that is not my point.

 

Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror

No reasonable comparison can be made between the Coonskin/Davy Crockett thing - which was a sensation that demanded response, and the Princess Spec-Tacky-ular, which is an event orchestrated solely to CREATE merchandising opportunities.

>>>"And I do agree that the makeovers are tacky. But apparently Disney execs believe that there are enough people who feel otherwise."<<<

I think Disney execs responsible for this are more of the P.T. Barnum ilk... They're seeing suckers, and they're treating paying customers LIKE suckers.

 

Originally Posted By ChiMike

Yes, I agree, it's one thing to respond to demand based off an unsuspected craze. It is another thing to attempt to kick-start another avenue of crass commercialism.

Disney was rewarded for creating good, popular one-of-a-kind entertainment like with Crockett. They created a great TV show that was something fresh for the 1954-55 audience, and through Disney's quality hard work they were able to profit in a different line of business that was in demand by the Crockett audience.

In the princess example, Disney is trying to start a fad off of old characters and old stories. Girls aren't seeing a princess movie for the first time and immediately trying to find every costume they can get their hands on. Disney is attempting to find new ways of making money off of the same old characters and creations. These consumer products are on their own, without a brand new creative tv show or movie hit encouraging their existence.

I don't doubt there are guests willing to pay for it. But there are guests who would be willing to gamble on the Mark Twain.

 

Originally Posted By fkurucz

>>But there are guests who would be willing to gamble on the Mark Twain.<<

Don't give them any more ideas.

 

Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt

"I think Disney execs responsible for this are more of the P.T. Barnum ilk... They're seeing suckers, and they're treating paying customers LIKE suckers."

I get what you are saying, but the only suckers are the customers who buy into it. Which, of course, is no different than those donning idiotic coon skin caps, mouse ears, etc. I don't like the princess thing, and yes, it's a waste of valuable real estate, but I'm having a hard time understanding why some people are so put out by this development in regard to commercialism.

 

Originally Posted By fkurucz

When Disney was alive he defintely considered DL to be "his place". He had an apartment there. Which is why he was more interested in "class" than the current execs. This is why we will never ever see something like Louie Armstrong singing and playing his trumpet on the Mark Twain. This was no doubt a very classy move by Walt, and it added a great deal of prestige to his park. He probably also lost money doing it. But it was one of those things that made DL a class act, and people were very aware of it.

Today, we get manufactured stars for those special events at DLR. Its still better than what you'll get at SF or even Universal, but it ain't Louie Armstrong.

 

Originally Posted By fkurucz

^^I wonder how they picked the audiences for those events on the Mark Twain? By invitation? Or was it first come first served?

 

Originally Posted By ChiMike

>>Today, we get manufactured stars for those special events at DLR. Its still better than what you'll get at SF or even Universal, but it ain't Louie Armstrong. <<

I really think it is because Disney has no problem being so common-place in today's wider market. To compete among their peers and focus on volume. The parks used to stand out more because Disney took what the public thought was an amusement park or was a Disneyland and took it to the next level.

Within a few years of Epcot opening it hosted Regan's Presidential Inauguration. Disneyland opens a second park after 50 years and the handful of premiere events garner the likes of Sabrina the teenage witch and Jim Belushi. What is that the Q-list?

I like DCA, this isn't a bash, but there is certainly a difference in what Disney attempted to do in '55 & in later years w/ Louie on the Mark Twain (or with Epcot's scale) and the multi-gate business strategy that Disney went for in the late 90s. And now we will see how their McKingdom strategy works in the 21st strategy.

 

Originally Posted By ChiMike

Ouch. I should flunk U.S. History.

Reagan.

 

Originally Posted By GoofBall

Greenmom -

<<<What? Maybe I read this wrong, but I have NEVER told my daughter that she needs makeup to make herself more beautiful than she already is. Never >>>

I read Drawbridges post to say that NOBODY is saying to these girls: you must wear make-up in order to be beautiful. Seriously...no one is going to say a thing like that. LOL.

Like it or not it sounds like the Princess Faire at WDW is successful. Of course Disney is going to expand on the cash cow that is the princess frenzy. They can get their make-overs and then go have lunch with all of them at DCA. Families with young girls are going to eat this up, and the parents will pay it too. Look at how many girls show up and already have those dresses and they wear them around the park. Look at the success of Libby Lu in DTD. As for those parents you mentioned getting unwilling gouged - if John Q Visitor cant say NO to Suzy Princess then they have bigger issues which aren't Disneys problem. They better discuss spending before their vacation, and then they can practice saying no while they go by all the shops, arcades, Build-A-Bear, Lego, Libby Lu etc

As for taking over the FL Theater, I know there are alot of people that dont like the policy that 'anything is better than nothing' but I think the Snow White show was not successful and needed to end. So now what? Atleast they are not letting it go unused until they find a better venue for this theater. If its popular it may get moved, if it doesnt bring in the money they want it will get cancelled.

 

Originally Posted By GreenMother

Thanks Goofball. It's been a looong day/week (and it's only Wednesday!). Sorry about that.

 

Originally Posted By idleBrain

<<As for taking over the FL Theater, I know there are alot of people that dont like the policy that 'anything is better than nothing' but I think the Snow White show was not successful and needed to end. So now what? Atleast they are not letting it go unused until they find a better venue for this theater.>>

Oh yeah... Entertainment is so inept, they couldn't possibly plan a NEW show while the EXISTING show is still performing.

So how wonderful and marvelous that this theatre space -- which offered FREE entertainment several times each day -- can now be utilized to sell makeover experiences -- you know, stuff that is NOT FREE -- several times throughout the day.

Gee... no new show from Entertainment to replace a show that was somehow "not successful"? Yeah, right.


I'm thinking that someone high up the food chain with basic arithmetic skills compared FREE shows to NOT FREE makeovers and decided in favor of the NOT FREE activity.

"At least they are not letting it go unused"? Get real. They deliberately gave the FREE events an eviction in favor of increasing the bottom line once more.

 

Originally Posted By berol

The place went unused last Fall to the enjoyment of no-one. It will be used this Fall to the enjoyment of a few.

 

Originally Posted By pleddy36

When I first starting going to Disneyland on a regular basis, back in 1996 (the year of my first AP) I noticed all the little girls wearing the princess costumes walking around the park. Back then I thought it was odd, and I still do.

However, I think everyone is jumping the gun just a tad. If this "Make-over" thing happens, then the only people to blame are the parents that feed into it. I don't blame Disney for trying to make more money; that's what they are in business for. But this is all a big "if". So far there's been no official announcement about it. It may not happen, we dont know. All we have to go on right now is Al's column.

 

Originally Posted By Nobody

"I read Drawbridges post to say that NOBODY is saying to these girls: you must wear make-up in order to be beautiful."


Look, just leave me out of this, okay?





;-)

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

^^^I don't know how you do that.

 

Originally Posted By fkurucz

>>However, I think everyone is jumping the gun just a tad. If this "Make-over" thing happens, then the only people to blame are the parents that feed into it.<<

And it could very well flop, as people get sticker shock. Remember Alladin's Oasis dinner show?

 

Originally Posted By GoofBall

<Get real.> Oh, I am . Its called realistic.

Its warm and fuzzy to think of Walt's days back when the park had "class" but wasn't he drowning in debt? Disney has to peddle its merch to keep the gates open and fund future attractons. Should they raise ticket prices instead? It'd be nice to have a happy medium between a profitable corporation and an exceptional theme park that offers economy vacations for all. In todays economy is that possible? I hope so, but with ever changing management it'll be a big feat. Look at your own utility bills and notice the increases this past year or so? Imagine theirs. Have you seen the inflation on everything else. Prices of everything are going up, Disney has to keep up with it too. It is a BUSINESS. Let them make some money - it doesn't have to be yours.

In the meantime, I agree Pleddy, we dont know much yet. Maybe the long term goal here is to turn this theater into something more like the Hyperion. But for now, we get the Princess Faire as part of the new campaign. If you are offended by it just walk right by like the place was empty - the way it would be otherwise!

 

Originally Posted By idleBrain

<<But for now, we get the Princess Faire as part of the new campaign. If you are offended by it just walk right by like the place was empty - the way it would be otherwise!>>

You're missing my point entirely.

If Disney has the development and operational dollars to put on this Boutique, then it has the development and operational dollars to put on another show.

Disney chose to not let the theatre sit empty. Disney chose to use the theatre for a new PAY-TO-PLAY venue instead of offering another FREE show. And that's the source of my complaint.

Letting the theatre sit empty doesn't cost Disney development and operational dollars. There's no show to create, no performers to hire, train, and compensate for each performance. Revenue isn't being generated, but resources aren't being spent, either.

Disney deliberately chose to transform the theatre into a FOR PROFIT center, instead of continuing with its traditional use as a FREE entertainment offering.

And while some may argue that Disney is being SMART by using the theatre as a FOR PROFIT center, instead of letting it sit empty, chew on this thought: what FREE offering in the park will be next on the hit list by TDA?

I see this makeover boutique as part of an overall trend to reduce the number of FREE offerings inside the berm, such as the NOS entertainment that's now disappearing, in favor of little or no FREE entertainment, or worse, FOR PROFIT entertainment which will only be available at an additional price.

Admission into the park will probably follow WDW's recent price hike soon, while food/merch prices continue to increase. Nickel-and-diming the Disney guest continues to worsen, and I'm sick of it.

 

Originally Posted By fkurucz

>>If Disney has the development and operational dollars to put on this Boutique, then it has the development and operational dollars to put on another show.<<

Ah, but what's teh incremental ROI on the show. Don't get me wrong, I'ld prefer a show any day, but how do you justify a show that does not directly generate any revenue to the sharp pencil types in the TDA building? You would have to convince them that a new show would generate increased attendance, and you might hard pressed to convince them of that.