Originally Posted By DisneyLogic I was drawn to this article because of my curiousity about Mission:Space and because Epcot, too, is my favorite theme park. I have been there many times (1980s), but most recently in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001 (twice), and 2002. We joined the Disney Vacation Club in 2001. I have seen these changes, too, and they are heartbreaking. I do fault Eisner, and his focus upon stock performance. And I don't care what his employment contract reads. It's partly his doing, as he's fudged the Disney board of directors to be in his liking. I also find heartbreaking the plight of CMs, not only at Epcot, but at Boardwalk and other places, including Magic Kingdom. That said, part of the change is not Disney at all, but it is the United States and U.S. culture. I have, in another place on LP, commented on how time for vacation in the United States has shrunk since the 1980s. This does not consider the fraction of U.S. workers formerly employed by corporations who are now contractors and typically do not get paid vacation at all, as well as suffering additional pressures like no longer having medical insurance through a corporation. Other important changes include the demise of the "greed economy" between 1985 and 1995 where we took on some modern Japanese characteristics, where the amount spent on things was part of our image, and the pullback of corporations from "World's Fair"-like corporation promotions. As I have written before the formula at Epcot always was getting nations or companies to put up the capital to devise and build pavilions and attractions. Disney earned by their doing so, and didn't need to invest their own capital. In some sense at Epcot Disney was exploiting what have since been dubbed "network effects" in economy in that they could tout Epcot as a good place to promote because there were so many other major institutions promoting there as well. But, because companies never understood what they were getting out of their Epcot investment -- and they should have, and it was positive -- when times got tough they looked at it as a liability. GE did that. MetLife has done that. AT&T has recently done that. You can't blame some of them, particularly AT&T. Now, in contrast GE has tons of bucks and teases for the "most profitable company in the world" slot year after year. The trouble is, GE's main focus is no longer consumers but corporate real estate and something which in all but name is banking and lending. The remarkable company at Epcot, in my opinion, is Kodak. They really suffered for many years, first being clobbered by cheaper and better cameras and film processing businesses and, finally, by the advent of the digital camera. While they may have delayed improvements to "Imagination", they did not bolt and are back, possibly because Kodak has always understood that if they don't have the consumer and don't have them using film while traveling, on vacation, and during happy times, they can no longer sell. That took conviction and confidence. So, I don't think it's simply the economy or Eisney. I think it's Disney trying to make sense of a different world using a culture which as in many large companies and for many good reasons is risk adverse. But they cannot win, in my opinion, unless, like Kodak, they believe in what they can do and position and spend so that Disney is back on the power curve when they figure it out. Part of that, as I have said, some others have said, and will eventually happen, is all entertainment companies will eventually become technology companies. We this this in the Pixar-Disney relationship. We see this in Steve Jobs brashly and correctly observing why shouldn't *all* popular music be delivered by Internet. We see this in LORD OF THE RINGS which, although it was not finally a Miramax or Disney movie, pioneered entertainment technology in the animation of Gollum -- which is way, way beyond audioanimatronics and is, by the way, per scripted movement, a lot cheaper -- and the MASSIVE animation engine, something which sits at the basis for how movies will be developed in the future. And Disney could turn Epcot once again into the technology showcase it was supposed to be, well beyond the feeble Innoventions attempt. Acre by acre Epcot could be the world's most advanced technological environment, with robots and linked networks and 3D visualizations everywhere, all aesthetically done. Why limit "aliens" to pavilions when they can appear right in front of you, especially at night? There should be no barrier between actors and guests, they should be the ultimate street performers, and they needn't be human or even concrete in the conventional sense. I can understand how old fashioned ideas about organization and accounting for expenditures and pay might have a hard time adjusting to this new way. Companies providing time-sharing services made the same arguments just when their market was taken away from them. Wasn't it Disney that, a few years back, offerred course to companies on how to run their businesses because Disney was clearly and unambiguously such a huge success and Knew How To Do Everything. They put their name on an anthology of business success stories which they used to demonstrate how Their Principles were working world wide. It was called BE OUR GUEST. Was that make-believe, too? Maybe they should have stuck with WORK IN PROGRESS.
Originally Posted By SJHYM I think your comments are correct on alot of points. But I also think the economy has hit many companies hard and they feel their marketing dollar is best spent somewhere else. Also, I dont think companies see Disney as much as a good corporate partner as they once did. I think other companies see Disney as greedy and looking out for itself and not being a good partner. Disney expects companies to pay for attractions and there are yearly fees also. But Disney doesnt give much back to these sponsors. Thats the reason I think many sponsors do not re-up their sponsorships. I have had several participating company reps tell me that they felt the Disney experience was not a good one. The reason I think Kodak has stuck so long is because they have a monopoly on film sales on property so they are making money as part of their agreement.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I have seen these changes, too, and they are heartbreaking. I do fault Eisner, and his focus upon stock performance. And I don't care what his employment contract reads. It's partly his doing, as he's fudged the Disney board of directors to be in his liking.>> Hi DisneyLogic Interesting perspective. The problem is that Michael is an easy target, as he is such a visible CEO for the Company. Totally different approach to that of Card Walker. Ultimately though, he does not make attraction approvals. That does rest firmly with the local head, in this case Al Weiss and Parks & Resorts. If the attraction can be developed out of their resort budget without extra cash, there is no need for final approval from Jay Rasulo. However, they would usually consult P&R on major developments. On the sponsors note, it is the general trend these days. Companies do not feel they are getting value for money with this type of advertising. Many do get extra benefits, such as ticket media discounts and special offers on vacations, which are passed on to their staff. It is all a question of how companies perceive the association. More photos are taken at WDW than at any other location in the world and Kodak want you to use their film and process it at WDW on Kodak paper. Coke have the monopoly on soft drinks (and even water now with their water ) which is a profitable association. hp chose to continue Compaq's association as it shows them backing the latest technology (much like the fact that DreamWorks use their machines with all those Shrek ads). Most Wall Street entertainment analysts still believe that the Disney formula is the best in the business. A $1bn plus year at the box office already, creating countless new synergy opportunities will ensure that they continue to be the leader. People still attend Disney-run corporate seminars.
Originally Posted By SJHYM leemac, are you sure about your info? I know Al Weiss has some leeway in park planning but as far as my experience went at Disney Eisner had final approval on all new attractions.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic leemac, Eisner has put his finger in the pudding of attractions repeatedly, according to his own book, so it's difficult to believe he hasn't some say in them. He claims to have been the first to ride WDW's Splash Mountain with his son, took a personal interest in the development and exhibits at Disney-MGM by riding a tall crane, and traded comments with guests after he saw Hall of the Presidents at WDW. And there is no more telling evidence of the interventionist nature of upper Disney management than there completely idiotic refusal to permit Harvey Weinstein to go beyond his budget limit on LORD OF THE RINGS. It was idiotic because Eisner himself held Weinstein out as a poster child for efficient movie production in one of Disney's annual reports. If he couldn't trust Weinstein's judgment, who can he trust? But, in particular, your comment: Most Wall Street entertainment analysts still believe that the Disney formula is the best in the business. A $1bn plus year at the box office already, creating countless new synergy opportunities will ensure that they continue to be the leader. People still attend Disney-run corporate seminars. indicates EXACTLY the malaise that affects Disney management. Are they running the entertainment and the parks and the attractions and producing the movies for Wall Street analysts? It seems they are. And THAT, precisely, is the problem. As for Eisner being an "easy target", he is after all the one keeping himself there, knowing the shortcomings of the position. Also, strategic decisions like embracing technology in all quarters are only the kind of decision a CEO can make. As for the companies and their exhibits, remember it goes both ways. Yes, companies have decided they aren't getting an appropriate return on their dollar. But Disney failed to communicate how they were getting such a return. And if companies still attend Disney seminars in this context, well, then who is really being the fool?
Originally Posted By SJHYM I also think that companies cannot get the same recognition as they once did. If I say G.E. most people here will know Horizons or Carousel of Progress. If I say RCA then you think Space Mountain. That was the beauty of EPCOT. Kraft, Kodak, Exxon, AT&T, AMEX and Coke. Great name recognition. Today I dont think it works as well. Does anyone really remember that McDonalds sponsors CTX? And quite honestly cant remember any connections made at Space. So why spend tens of millions of dollars for zero brand tying?
Originally Posted By Memory The other thing one has to take into account when comparing TT and M:S to WoM and Horizons is ride time. Both WOM and Horizons took their time and were leisurely paced. Now with Mission Space and Test Track, it doesn't take as long to ride them. Universe of Energy, the land and Spaceship Earth are all basically the same, but when you realize that they've completely dumped the ride portion of the living seas and nearly completely dumped it in imagination, Future World becomes a completely different animal. Throw fast pass into the mix and its like taking Gone With the Wind and cutting it down to 80 minutes. Sure it's faster, all the "boring" parts are now gone, but is it as satisfying?
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Somebody go to EPCOT tonight and take a picture of Mission: Space with Mars in the background. By the way, speaking of WOM, they should take the old "Fun to be Free" soundtrack and play it along the Tomorrowland Transit sound system.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic So, I wonder, given all these comments, is it possible guests has "outgrown" the former Epcot, in the sense that either they consider it boring or are just too cynical to believe company presentations without interpreting them as propaganda?
Originally Posted By Orvillefan I never did see it as any more than corporate propaganda. Exxon was the most "in your face" about it and therefore made the Universe of Energy more of a nap time event then entertainment/educational. Now that it is de-propagandized and more entertaining, it is actually fun to see. Good grief Exxon would have had you beleive that they were solely responsible for the sun coming up every morning. And this was during the time of the Valdez. They were loudly shouting what a friend to the environment they were. Amasing! I do so lament the loss of the wonderful Omni-movers and hope that they keep a few, SSE in particular but the new stuff is also great fun and very up to date technology. Time moves on!
Originally Posted By 86Cadet I was on Mission Space last week. great ride. I must say that all the parks were very crowded. The most crowded i have seen in several years.
Originally Posted By SJHYM I am not sure that the question can be answered. I think what you see at EPCOT today is Disney's attempt to answer that question. I think of all the parks EPCOT is the hardest beast to work with. We all long for the old EPCOT Center. But in reality the old EPCOT was losing guests and money. Disney had to do something. They figure thrill rides will attract the avg guest. My guess is that info came to them from alot of Guest survey's. Lets be honest here, they just updated the movie at China (A great update btw - go see it) but my guess is there is no one sitting at home saying...Now that the China movie has been updated its time to go back to EPCOT. Thats not happening. I am not even sure that there are many people outside our core little group of Disney nuts that knows Mission:Space is there. Do I think people have outgrown EPCOT? I think that society has changed. The people that were first attracted to EPCOT were those of us who remember when World's Fair's were common. The idea of Audio Animatronics were still fairly new. Imagine that the Ben Franklin figure was actually gonna walk! And the competition for guest attention was rather slow. Today Universal, Sea World, Busch Gardens all do a good job of entertaining guest. Universal in my opinion has several shows that equal or pass Disney in quality. That means that it is getting harder to impress guests. In the 80's movie theaters were going smaller (the beginning of multiplexes) and the sound often was terrible. Today our local theaters are building bigger theaters with state of the art sound and thats not even talking about the increase in quality of home systems. So I think the problem Disney has is a large one to keep wowing the guests at all their parks but especially EPCOT which because of its design will always have the problem of looking dated
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic SJHYM, I know I'm beating a dead horse again, but this is why Disney must put safe, high showmanship technology at the forefront of its goals, in my opinion, *especially* for Epcot but surely for other parks. Because if they use microminiature technology, especially the emerging nanotech capabilities, and they insert computing and wireless net links everywhere, they can put on amazing shows at relatively little cost. Remember the joke from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" about borrowing Dumbo because he "works for peanuts"? Disney's still wedded to the idea that "high tech" must mean "big bucks". That surely has been the pattern with Test Track and Mission:Space. Part of the problem is that these are essentially subcontracted builds, with Imagineers designing and holding the reins. As much as management might not want to hear it, they need to develop this kind of talent in-house (again!) and keep it there. They need to learn how to insert attractive and clever robotic animation in all kinds of things. I really do think the answer for Epcot has to be making it an animated *environment*, not just another setting for fixed base shows and E-ticket rides. Where the heck is Disney's imagination? How could you even conceive of a place like Epcot or Disneyland by doing guest surveys and focus groups? Noone would think of it. They'd think of the local carnival and ferris wheels.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Where the heck is Disney's imagination? How could you even conceive of a place like Epcot or Disneyland by doing guest surveys and focus groups? Noone would think of it. They'd think of the local carnival and ferris wheels.>> Most of the guest surveys relate to existing experiences, rather than asking what is needed. They can highlight weaknesses, but can't be used effectively for forward planning. For me, I still believe that the management style of WDI is to blame for this malaise. It has a culture of exec-VPs who can sit around and do very little for long periods of time, and be rewarded substantially for it. Most other WDP&R execs have targets and accountability that can easily be measured. A Merch VP can be judged on sales, a Food & Beverage VP on guest satisfaction and how quickly guests are served. How do you measure the worth of an imagineer? People often pine for the senior imagineers and ask "what are they doing?", and the answer is usually very little. Someone of Tony Baxter's seniority can sit around and have little involvement in anything new. He has not been substantially involved in anything since TL'98 and just seems to openly criticise his colleagues. The problem is that there are plenty of others out there with similar issues. They are a huge cash burden on any WDP&R project. Jay Rasulo needs to rein them back in and keep a closer eye on them. It seems that this clique has become virtually untouchable and unaccountable. Of course, they still need WDI, but their manpower could be better used. They should be involved more in overall show quality and work closely with all aspects of the park and the resorts. DisneyLogic, you mention about E-tickets and big bucks and I'm not sure you can split the two anymore. People are demanding more and more complex ride technologies and these cost. Even Mickey's PhilhaMagic is meant to be in the $80m ballpark (for everything that is). Still a huge project. Even Pooh at Disneyland was over $30m and people have ridiculed it since opening. What is the answer?
Originally Posted By leemac <<Part of the problem is that these are essentially subcontracted builds, with Imagineers designing and holding the reins. As much as management might not want to hear it, they need to develop this kind of talent in-house (again!) and keep it there.>> The R&D department is still there, but just not as busy as it used to be! The problem is that the costs are huge. Every new ride technology in the past decade has been way over budget, from the EMVs at Indy to the Test Track vehicles. MIssion:Space utilised existing technology, that was tweaked to WDI spec, and voila, we have a ride that has opened on time and UNDER budget! They still can do some amazing things in-house, and some of it is actually kinda simple. Take Soarin', pretty awesome experience that just takes the IMAX simulator one step further. Cheap technology that works and is reliable. Not something that WDI seem to be able to do every day! Let's hope that Expedition:Everest will prove that WDI can take an existing technology to another level.
Originally Posted By SJHYM My friends in Imagineering tell a different story. A bunch of people working on a bunch of projects that never get greenlighted. And since that happens Disney puts them to work on other things to keep them busy. One of Imagineerings top guys in Florida just finished designing warehouses. This is a guy who built some of the best stuff at EPCOT, Studios and AK and Disneyland Paris. He says...they have me designing warehouses because they wont greenlight any project until it goes through eighteen layers of beaurocracy and even then it takes Eisner to say yes. What a waste of talent I agree with leemac. Give the Imagineers goals and deadlines. But for gosh sakes, give them the funds then to do some of what they are designing.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic Well, I know some MIT grads who went to work for WDI but then either got furloughed or so frustrated with the place, they went on to places where their talents could be better used. They wanted hands-on engineering work, not only managing vendors. Those aren't incompatible chores but engineers -- particularly good engineers -- want to experiment with stuff. As far as the costs go, it seems to me like with most organizations and projects, you can try to do things by throwing money and people at them, or you can have the Skunkworks: Smart, small, lean, fast, and--per body--expensive.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic There's a great example of this kind of malaise on LP today. The Headlines just broadcast talk about "Lucky the Dinosaur" at Disneyland. Well, "Lucky" is a stripped down version of a much more ambitious project described at <a href="http://www.discover.com/mar_01/featrobots.html" target="_blank">http://www.discover.com/mar_01 /featrobots.html</a> thought up by Danny Hillis, former VP of R&D. Hillis' vitae are summarized at: <a href="http://www.jimpyfer.com/dh.php" target="_blank">http://www.jimpyfer.com/dh.php</a> Disney didn't take him seriously. He left. There's more about this kind of thing in a WIRED article at <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/rebuilding_pr.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/wired/arc hive/10.12/rebuilding_pr.html</a>
