Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>Firstly you fail to grasp what their "goals" are then - product needs to be international now - when they opt to make a movie or TV show it needs to be portable - either directly or via local remakes. I don't see anything in their "goals" to say you need to reinvent the wheel. Secondly the hyperbole is entirely unnecessary. "Over and over again" - seriously we are taking about 5 Magic Kingdoms in the world. That is one per 1.3 billion people. That is hardly repetition. EE I thought you were smarter than this. No idea what kind of lawyer you want to be but if it is in the commercial arena then I suggest you start brushing up on your Business 101 as you are failing right now. No company allows their creative ideals to run the place - it would be a recipe for disaster. Just look at Pixar - they are happy to make substantial changes to their movies mid-production to make them more commercial (Ratatouille and Brave).<<<< When I say goals, I'm referring to the fact that that they are storytellers, brands and synergistic franchises aside. I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel (Really, where did I say that? I don't like the taste of these words being shoved in my mouth....) I'm discussing how they should strive to be different in the manner in which they build theme parks. HKDL has it's cloned castle and cloned MSUSA... And now needs a expansion. I'm not saying that's related in any way, but hey, it shows what kind of thought process went into the park. Hyperbole, or not, it's still repetition. No companies should repeat themselves. And jabs at my career choice and intelligence aside, once again, never suggested that the creativity of a company should drive it. But it certainly should be a deciding factor when telling a story in a theme park. Doing the same thing over and over again dumbs down your product. Even the ones that were cloned in the first place.
Originally Posted By leemac The original cloned 101 Dalmatians (you don't think they were all bred, right?)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Or our Pirates ---\ \ that was over 30 years ago dude- so when you say they USED to do this or that- this example shows that is not entirely true is it ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Now, I'm not saying that I'm out here in "pixie dust land" thinking that the company should overspend on EVERYTHING just to be different, and new, and creative, but I do think that the same funds can be applied to a similar structure or attraction. See DL's and MK's HM. Or our Pirates. Same goes for details and effects in the park. Not OVERLY needed, but there needs to be a return to intricacy. We have not seen that in a while. ----------------------- quality yes, individuality from their OWN product place to place- is not and should not be a top goal.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 WDP&R should be focusing on the average guest - it is those folks that make up the bulk of visitors. WDP&R shouldn't be focusing their attentions on guests like you - unless it is a by-product of reaching regular Joes. ------------------- companies that cater to the fringes and not their core group of customers fail miserably.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>There is a difference between catering to the average and catering to the average guest. WDP&R should be focusing on the average guest - it is those folks that make up the bulk of visitors. WDP&R shouldn't be focusing their attentions on guests like you - ********unless it is a by-product of reaching regular Joes*******.<<<< And it very much is, I think. How else did Disney acquire a fan base in the first place? By shelling out more of the same in their parks? No, it was done through unique, detailed, and NEW attractions. How are they doing it now? They are coasting on that old legacy, and trying to bring brands and franchises to the forefront. I honestly don't think that works, because that's what every other company does now. Disney's becoming part of the pack in that respect. Disney isn't flourishing their new experiences and destinations any more. It's all about the "brand", all about the characters and the "idea" of Disney. The idea of Disney is great. That should be marketed. But the idea of Disney isn't going to go far when they have nothing to back it up with. You need BOTH to really have a dynamic company.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>The original cloned 101 Dalmatians (you don't think they were all bred, right?)<<< OK, now that made me laugh. ;-)
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>that was over 30 years ago dude- so when you say they USED to do this or that- this example shows that is not entirely true is it ? <<< What are you saying here? Over 30 years ago, and, USED to do, kind of go together, right, dude?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>quality yes, individuality from their OWN product place to place- is not and should not be a top goal.<<< When it comes to build a a theme park that tells a story, It's not at the forefront, I agree, that should be profit, but it should be taken into consideration if you want to market your parks as unique, as different entities. It's that whole Disney Parks deal...again.. Why on EARTH would you want people to think that Disneyland is the same thing as the Magic Kingdom?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>companies that cater to the fringes and not their core group of customers fail miserably.<<< It's not catering to the fringes if it's in line with a older Modus Operandi for the company... ...making the new one look cheap and lazy.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Firstly you fail to grasp what their "goals" are then - product needs to be international now - when they opt to make a movie or TV show it needs to be portable - either directly or via local remakes. I don't see anything in their "goals" to say you need to reinvent the wheel. -------- business models for ALL international corporations have changed to meet the needs of the customers,,, the one I work for is not different. I am part of many projects to harmonize deliverables across GEO's so that there is consistency in what we delver- both as service delverables as well as commodities. We do not create entirely different products for every country unless there is a legal need, or something like double byte character sets that force differences. The customers want the same product- and first and foremost quality deliverables at a fair cost. I agree- some business 101, accounting, econ, finance courses are needed to understand how businesses operate. And to continually say Disney is somehow different that everyone else is really incorrect. They deliver a different product than most - but their reputation came from innovation in technologies and quality focus on customer deliverables. The equipment and manner in which they delvered their product created unqiue experiences..and that needs to continue- but a different shingle on a building does not create this.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'm discussing how they should strive to be different in the manner in which they build theme parks. HKDL has it's cloned castle and cloned MSUSA... And now needs a expansion. I'm not saying that's related in any way, but hey, it shows what kind of thought process went into the park. >> Obviously the first point should be that although HKDL's MSUSA is "cloned" it is a clone that is now unique. There are a number of elements that have been removed from DL over the years that are present at HKDL. That does make it a little fun for even a hardcore Disney enthusiast. The point is that there is no commercial rationale for striving to be different. DLP is a different beast - the creative team felt they could improve on the classic E-Tickets - personally I think they achieved mixed results. The point is that a huge percentage of the budget was sunk on those unique features that have probably never truly translated into results at the turnstile. No disrespect to Ed Sotto but he spent tens of millions of dollars on his version of MSUSA - it wasn't just an enlarged version like MK - it was an entirely different period. Reinventing the concept from scratch was folly - but Ed was just spending what he was given. There should have been challenge to the creative team when it came to those decisions - just because you have a budget doesn't mean it is right to spend it all (although you can't blame any creative for doing so). Some get irate at the fact that Pooh at HKDL is a step-by-step replica of MK's version even down to the in-house jokes. Granted it seems a little odd to even through those into the mix but it costs money to redo schematics so why not just lift it if you can't really improve on it? MK's Pooh right is a fun and popular dark ride - the only real improvement can be if it is upscaled to TDL's version. My rambling point is that in your working life you will always have to pick and choose your battles. You will be given a brief, a budget and told to make it work. Spending your limited budget on trying to improve on a successful formula makes no sense. HKDL's failure to attract guests had nothing to do with MSUSA or the Castle - and to be frank without Tom Morris deciding to life directly from DL we would have had even less attractions in the park. I don't mean to be unkind about your career choice (don't forget I'm a lawyer by training too) but you need to learn to curb your inner fanboi and think about what is best for the company and guests in general. If you still feel that replicating even facades is bad then so be it. We will have to agree to disagree.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Why on EARTH would you want people to think that Disneyland is the same thing as the Magic Kingdom?>> Why not? We know that very few guests will cross the Mighty Miss to visit the other coast so what difference does it truly make? I'm not overly fond of Disney Parks as a slogan but it does work - it is emphasizing the key brand. The brand isn't Magic Kingdom - it is Disney.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Hyperbole, or not, it's still repetition. No companies should repeat themselves ---------- show me this in ANY business model for any successful company. How many Marriotts and Hiltons are 'cloned' architectural plans - does Boeing build 10000 types or airlines ? Again tweaking is one thing, complete rebuilds are not a part of any successful business model. Adding unique elements to additional parks- especially entertainment - absolutely to fit the audience. we are never going to agree but I can tell you the model you are building as somehow being history does not exist anywhere, including in Disney, and never will.
Originally Posted By leemac EE - to summarize your point - are you saying that by building everything to the standards demanded by the fanbase you will also satisfy regular guests to the same level? If so then I'd have to disagree with you. The problem is that details cost - and they cost a lot in this day and age. I've long ago resigned myself to the fact that WDP&R isn't going to go all out on E-Ticket experiences on regular basis any more. I can entirely see why - huge risk, limited upside and most of it will just fly by regular guests. I can't blame WDP&R management for doing "just enough" any more - there just isn't evidence that dumping huge sums of money on attractions is an appropriate course of action any more. My understanding is that Potter's attendance has fallen substantially over the past few months - that spike that occurred at opening hasn't continued. I can only go by anecdotal evidence that is given to me (that is until the next earnings call) about the ride having short lines on a regular basis. If that is the case then WDW Co. can happily sit back and say I told you so. As I said in another thread - I want Potter to prove me wrong - that it is going to have a massive long term impact on IoA - as I think it will force WDW to raise its game.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>business models for ALL international corporations have changed to meet the needs of the customers,,, the one I work for is not different. I am part of many projects to harmonize deliverables across GEO's so that there is consistency in what we delver- both as service delverables as well as commodities. We do not create entirely different products for every country unless there is a legal need, or something like double byte character sets that force differences. The customers want the same product- and first and foremost quality deliverables at a fair cost.<<< But when dealing with entertainment...? Do we really want the same exact thing? In this case, Harmonization is the fact that the parks are unique, are different, and compliment each other.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Obviously the first point should be that although HKDL's MSUSA is "cloned" it is a clone that is now unique. There are a number of elements that have been removed from DL over the years that are present at HKDL. That does make it a little fun for even a hardcore Disney enthusiast. <<<< Which is a great credit to the park. >>>>The point is that there is no commercial rationale for striving to be different. DLP is a different beast - the creative team felt they could improve on the classic E-Tickets - personally I think they achieved mixed results. The point is that a huge percentage of the budget was sunk on those unique features that have probably never truly translated into results at the turnstile. No disrespect to Ed Sotto but he spent tens of millions of dollars on his version of MSUSA - it wasn't just an enlarged version like MK - it was an entirely different period. Reinventing the concept from scratch was folly - but Ed was just spending what he was given. There should have been challenge to the creative team when it came to those decisions - just because you have a budget doesn't mean it is right to spend it all (although you can't blame any creative for doing so).<<<< So... Are you blaming DLP's initial stumbling on the fact that they were over creative and spent too much? I think that it would have happened EITHER way. DLP needed to be established, cloned or not, before it could make profit. It's done that now, and would have done the same if it had the 1920's MSUSA. I don't think that's what you meant, though... >>>Some get irate at the fact that Pooh at HKDL is a step-by-step replica of MK's version even down to the in-house jokes. Granted it seems a little odd to even through those into the mix but it costs money to redo schematics so why not just lift it if you can't really improve on it? MK's Pooh right is a fun and popular dark ride - the only real improvement can be if it is upscaled to TDL's version.<<< Funnily enough...I don't. The exterior looks different, and that's what mostly matters here. Sure, it is a little bothering that the jokes don't mesh with the rest of the park, but in the long run it's not the hinge point of being the same exact thing, the world over. >>>My rambling point is that in your working life you will always have to pick and choose your battles. You will be given a brief, a budget and told to make it work. Spending your limited budget on trying to improve on a successful formula makes no sense. HKDL's failure to attract guests had nothing to do with MSUSA or the Castle - and to be frank without Tom Morris deciding to life directly from DL we would have had even less attractions in the park.<<< This I agree on. And in the fact that we will have to agree to disagree. I just think for something as major as aesthetics, and facades, that's a battle to choose. And with the same budget...I do think that there could have been some alterations. I don't know the numbers, so I can't say that for sure. >>I don't mean to be unkind about your career choice (don't forget I'm a lawyer by training too) but you need to learn to curb your inner fanboi and think about what is best for the company and guests in general. If you still feel that replicating even facades is bad then so be it. We will have to agree to disagree.<< Didn't know that! What kind of Law?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>EE - to summarize your point - are you saying that by building everything to the standards demanded by the fanbase you will also satisfy regular guests to the same level? If so then I'd have to disagree with you. The problem is that details cost - and they cost a lot in this day and age. I've long ago resigned myself to the fact that WDP&R isn't going to go all out on E-Ticket experiences on regular basis any more. I can entirely see why - huge risk, limited upside and most of it will just fly by regular guests. I can't blame WDP&R management for doing "just enough" any more - there just isn't evidence that dumping huge sums of money on attractions is an appropriate course of action any more. My understanding is that Potter's attendance has fallen substantially over the past few months - that spike that occurred at opening hasn't continued. I can only go by anecdotal evidence that is given to me (that is until the next earnings call) about the ride having short lines on a regular basis. If that is the case then WDW Co. can happily sit back and say I told you so. As I said in another thread - I want Potter to prove me wrong - that it is going to have a massive long term impact on IoA - as I think it will force WDW to raise its game<<< Re: Potter.... That's not what you were saying before the WWoHP opened, Lee!!!!! ;-) LOL. But my point, which you've cogently summarized... (Wanna do this for one of my papers due in a month?! ;-) ) ...Yes and no. I know that these details are risky, and I know the E Tickets are, too. However, I do think that doing something new would placate all guests. (Doesn't have to be something HUGE...) I mean, how else did Disney create a fan base in the first place? If Disney starts doing unique things, I would think that all parties would be interested, and they can build from there. And yeah, WWoHP attendance has fallen...as has WDW's. It's fall. I would think we would wait until the Holidays to see if HP spikes again... I think it will...
Originally Posted By leemac <<So... Are you blaming DLP's initial stumbling on the fact that they were over creative and spent too much?>> Not entirely - the resort had 6,000 hotel rooms to fill which was a very difficult proposition in the off-season and mid-week. That said they dumped a lot of cash into the park itself - don't get me wrong it is a beautiful park but some of the plussing got out of hand. It was all about trying to improve on everything. Again I can't blame Tony for spending what he was given but ultimately creative needs to understand the business model and vice versa - sadly that just doesn't happen. WDI gets a budget and they go and play with it.
