Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID512520.asp" target="_blank"><b>LP Feature: 12/5/08 Disney's Animal Kingdom at Ten</b></a> In an excerpt from Tales from the Laughing Place Magazine Issue #12 Lee MacDonald looks at the history of Disney's most unusual park, Animal Kingdom.
Originally Posted By MPierce Excellent article leemac. You could have turned it into a book, and you never would have lost my interest.
Originally Posted By danyoung A very enjoyable article. I have one quibble, a pet peeve of mine. You mention that Joe was coming off of his work on the "Adventurer's Club". Isn't it Adventurers Club? It's a small thing, but I see it written incorrectly more often than not. Thanks.
Originally Posted By leemac Glad you enjoyed the article, MPierce. It was a cutdown - about 50% of the piece that was actually published in Tales - but I think it is a great insight into the development of DAK. I've known Joe for a long time and he is a truly inspirational leader and designer. I'm delighted we were able to highlight his success with DAK in the previous issue. Danyoung - you are completely right. The funny thing is that the actual attraction was Adventurer's Club but they failed to put in the apostrophe when the show was being installed so it stuck. Most of the artwork that I've got for AC has the correct name.
Originally Posted By MPierce I often wonder how Joe Rohde felt about Dino-Rama. Since I doubt I will ever get a chance to talk to him, this article definetly gave me some insight into his thoughts. Now if only I could find out how he really feels about the Adventures Club being closed. On a much more personel note, do you have to get approval from Disney on the articles you write leemac?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 It would truly be very sad if Joe were to leave WDI ... and the rumor mill is churning heavily that he may indeed may be exiting soon. I truly hope that it's just 'talk' but in this economy and with the way Disney is being run (not to mention the apparently dead boutique animal park) I wonder if one of the true creative geniuses will be there a year from now.
Originally Posted By leemac <<On a much more personel note, do you have to get approval from Disney on the articles you write leemac?>> No - I have free reign for the pieces I write for Tales. Thankfully we have the full cooperation of WDP&R who have always been very supportive over the past 4 years.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< the actual attraction was Adventurer's Club >>> Shouldn't it really have been Adventurers' Club, unless it was meant that there really was only one Adventurer? Although the correct King's English, that "plural possessive" apostrophe does look strange at times, so I can see why it's not always used. It kind of reminds me of Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. It very deliberately is not Caesar's Palace, as they wanted to convey that every guest was a Caesar, and not just that you were visiting some other dude's palace.
Originally Posted By danyoung I've always thought that Adventurer's Club would be the club for an adventurer, while the Adventurers Club was the club for adventurers (plural). I don't think the possevive apostrophe is needed, as it's not the club that the adventurers own - it's the clof for adventurers. Picky, but important (don't get me started on "Lightyear's Above the Rest"!!!).
Originally Posted By MPierce >> It would truly be very sad if Joe were to leave WDI ... and the rumor mill is churning heavily that he may indeed may be exiting soon. I truly hope that it's just 'talk' but in this economy and with the way Disney is being run (not to mention the apparently dead boutique animal park) I wonder if one of the true creative geniuses will be there a year from now << I certainly hope the rumors are wrong about that. Imagineers the quality of Mr. Rohde don't come around very often. I'm sure there are many corporations that would be interested in his creative abilities. He's been with Disney a very long time. Does anybody know how long off the top of your head?
Originally Posted By MPierce >> No - I have free reign for the pieces I write for Tales. Thankfully we have the full cooperation of WDP&R who have always been very supportive over the past 4 years. << Thanks Lee I was just curious. I know how protective Disney can be when it comes to anything to do with them. I guess there's no definitive answer for this, but I'm still curious. On a project the scale of Disney's Animal Kingdom, how many other Imagineers would Joe Rohde have working on his team with him? Also how do they get a clear projection of cost when they are venturing into an unknown with a Park that really has no equal or anything to really compare it to? I realize there is a limit to the information you would post on the internet.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I know how protective Disney can be when it comes to anything to do with them.>> That is true - when you have a brand that is one of the ten most valuable in the world (according to Interbrand) you need to be careful what third parties do with your brand. I'm grateful that Disney as an organization have a lot of faith and trust in what we do. They are happy to have us as media partners. <<On a project the scale of Disney's Animal Kingdom, how many other Imagineers would Joe Rohde have working on his team with him? >> I'd have to check my stats but I suspect you would be talking north of 400 imagineers at its height. You have to remember that the term imagineer is relatively loose - it is everything from creative development to environmental (ie. signage and graphic design) to TPP (movies and safety spiels) to engineering to execution. Plus a truckload of third parties. I think it was around 1000 imagineers that were shed after DCA and TDS opened. <<Also how do they get a clear projection of cost when they are venturing into an unknown with a Park that really has no equal or anything to really compare it to?>> With fiscal models it is fairly easy to accurately cost any given project. DAK was on-time and on-budget. WDI use SAP these days to ensure accurate time-recording - which is both a benefit and a curse. Everyone has to allocate their time to a cost center which ensures accurate cost capturing but also means that even the simplest of projects have massive costs - it is with the smaller projects that outsourcing becomes a cost benefit as your initial costs are so high. The biggest issue is when your cost base starts shifting - not only the hourly labor costs internally but also your materials cost. The Grand Hawaiian project is a perfect example - the cost of importing the construction material has been rapidly heading north at a rate that WDI could never have estimated accurately (mainly driven by the increased oil costs of shipping material). Many of those costs are now leveling out but they are still impacting a project that is already over $1bn.
Originally Posted By MPierce All of that is so very interesting to me. I would never have imagined that, so many Imagineers would be involved. I knew the Hawaiian project was going to be a doozey. I assume they could only long term lease the land rather than purchase. Will you be involved in anyway?
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ One of the issues that WDI has to grapple with is that the division has historically favored specialist in every field. There just isn't such a thing as a generalist. That increases the headcount - and the cost as specialists typically earn more. That is just one reason why outsourcing is so cost-effective. You don't have the expensive full-time overhead and can dip in and out to use them as and when needed. When the Company is investing in its WDP&R assets (or third parties are doing so) then headcount isn't an issue but once projects start to dry up (as happened in early '01) you end up with a lot of staffers that aren't being fully utilized. So you cull staff and then re-hire them as consultants - or don't. <<Will you be involved in anyway?>> You could have an educated guess. The future is beyond the berm. It is all about how to get the magic to new destinations in a cost-effective way. Theme parks are expensive toys and the risk doesn't necessarily outweigh the reward. Small regional entertainment projects - and outside-the-berm resorts are more likely to be justified in the usual ROI calculations. The Company typically likes to keep annual capital expenditure below $1bn annually - which effectively discounts any theme park development. $1bn buys 4 tentpole movies a la Pirates. Typically those movies will generate more profit than the equivalent spend inside the parks. When WDP&R needs to compete with other business units for capex/capin (as is the case in the current model) it is going to struggle to compete with the other units.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> <<Will you be involved in anyway?>> You could have an educated guess. << I guess that was a pretty dumb question! I can see where well done movies like the Pirates franchise could make a considerable amount of money for the initial investment. That would especially hold true for the lucrative overseas market as well as DVD sales. Don't you think long term however the Parks provide a never ending source of publicity for the rest of Disney's enterprises, and by lending the name of Disney to the movies it also generates interest in the Parks? I know the Disney name is big around the World, but I'm really concerned with a mass branching out to other vacation venues. I'm worried that some of the best folks will be working on these projects rather than the Parks. While I would like to see Disney sucessful in everything they attempt, my heart especially remains with Walt Disney World. I hope you will keep us informed about the Hawaiian project as much as possible. By the way, a link was posted to your article over on WDWmagic. I'm sure the folks over there will enjoy it also.
