Early Entry

[DisneyKidds]

Ding, Ding. Round 2 (or is it 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.....) on the AK half day park thing .

People call the park a half a day park because that's how long they stay (I'm talking about the majority of guests...).

.....because they personally don't like everything the AK has to offer. And I don't know that that applies to the majority, too hard to make that statement with certainty. I, personally, like what the AK has to offer. But putting that aside, if you go to the AK and experience all of the good entertainment (not that everyone thinks the same things are good) the AK is a full day park. If you do, see, and appreciate everything it would take more than a day. If you skip the things you personally don't like (and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good) that may make it a half day park FOR YOU, but you can't unequivically call it a half day park for everyone. Even if it is 'incomplete', you still can't experience all that it has to offer in a half day. No way, no how.

My point on #2 (I think I had one ) is this. If you define failure as people viewing a park as a half day park because they personally don't like it (which is the case with AK), then by Baron's statement he is saying that Walt may have been just as likely to create a 'failure'. BTW, I don't agree with this definition of failure. Yes, Walt knew his customers better and delivered better than current management. However, my wants are satisfied. I'm not greedy and can appreciate what has been offered up (hence, my Car #1 status). That does not mean that I am content with second class and that I am compromising my expectation for a wonderful, Magical experience. Current management delivers that.

Or are you saying we're making Animal into a failure because we don't like it for what it was intended to be (which what the heck is that??? I thought Disney was attempting to build a theme park with an Animal theme.)

You are close. However, people are making it into a failure because they don't like it because it isn't what they thought it was intended to be. They aren't even looking at what it was really intended to be. OK, I know that is confusing you more, but I'll try and clarify.

If people looked at AK for what it was intended to be they might be happy. As you state, it was intended to be a theme park with an animal theme. Nothing more, nothing less. It was intended to be something unique in that regard, and they hit the mark. It was intended to show you animals in a different way from any other park, and they hit the mark with that (KS). It was intended to have incredible animal themed shows, and they hit the mark with that. It was intended to have rides that fit into the overall theme and provided the guests with fun and excitement, and they hit the mark on that (although not as well as the other targets). How can anyone possibly call this a failure? Here's how. They say that AK is not the best zoo in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to be that (remember, the intent was to merge zoo and theme park in a unique way, not be a zoo). They say AK does not have the best rides of any theme park in the world. Well, guess what, it was never intended to do that (remember, the intent was to provide unique animal themes attractions, not just be another garden variety theme park). If people stopped running around saying 'hey, as a zoo this place stinks', or 'hey, the rides are better in (insert park of choice)' and actually enjoyed AK for what it has to offer they might actually enjoy it, and maybe even love it. Am I getting anywhere here (not to get you to agree that AK is not a failure, but to understand what I am trying to say)?

Hope that is of some help .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Is there no possibility that management since the man is doing this, sans the personal finances of course, and maybe the 'not at all' bit?

Hmmm. I consider the two parts you so cavalierly threw out as being fundamental to the Walt philosophy. Especially the ‘not at all’ bit! You don’t?

Maybe some things ended up being wrong, but could they have thought they were doing something right?

Interesting. Do you mean that they thought they were creating something special for the guests and that their prime-motivating factor was not the spreadsheet placed before them that promised higher profit? Hmmm. Let me think about that for a minute… … ….

… …. …. …. NO!

Again, I know your answer, but I pose the question anyway. Furthermore (me writing your response again ) even if the motivations were good, it is the outcomes that concern the 2's and 3's.

Well! Once again you have it exactly backwards!! It is the motivation that concerns us. NOT the outcome!! They may accidentally back into something wonderful. But if their ‘motivation’ was to sell more plush, then I am still very, very concerned about the Magic!

(how am I doing writing as the Baron?)

Not so good. So far you’re batting zero!!

See, I do understand how you guys think and where you are coming from.

No you don’t! Otherwise you’d know it was motivation (philosophy) that is our primary concern and not the out come. And you’d know that half of the Disney philosophy is ‘doing it right’ or ‘NOT DOING IT AT ALL’!!

Ahhh, but the ONLY reason people call today’s AK a half day park is because they don't like it personally.

Absolutely not! It’s a half-day park because there isn’t enough to do!! Plain and simple. Even the Imagineers knew it. That’s why an entire section was designed and integrated into the original concept. However, the ‘sharp pencil guys’ (Walt’s term) cut it thereby severely limiting the “things to do’ bit. Can’t you see that?

I wonder how he would have handled the way things developed, because not every hotel on property could be a deluxe, even with Walt pulling the strings.

OH BROTHER!!! Are you yanking on my chain again!! Surely you’ve been around the boards enough to get a dose of my caste system theory of Disney Resorts, haven’t you? In case you haven’t, just suffice to say that I totally disagree with your statement, start a new thread on the ‘class of resorts’ and you and I can be busy for the next couple of weeks discussing the philosophy of Disney resorts!!! I guarantee a 10 pager at least. But be warned, even the Car #3 people may hate you for starting it!!!

yes, I have resorted to sticking my tongue out at you

I have to admit this is a first!! It had me laughing out loud! And strangely, I have nothing to add!!

After all, do any of us really want to make anyone change cars anyway?

Oh don’t kid yourself, pal. I do!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Hmmm. I consider the two parts you so cavalierly threw out as being fundamental to the Walt philosophy. Especially the ‘not at all’ bit! You don’t?

While I will never admit you are right (actually, a result of the fact that I can never be wrong ) I did open the door for you to beat me into submission on this one.

Interesting. Do you mean that they thought they were creating something special for the guests and that their prime-motivating factor was not the spreadsheet placed before them that promised higher profit?

Back to that 'considering all the relevant factors' in 'todays business environment' concept I have made you so fond of. I still don't buy into the evil Eisner conspiracy theories and the bottom line is the only line view on Disney management. Walts only motivation was the customer experience, and the customer experience is not a factor at all for current management. Still not buying, not even taking my wallet out of my pocket. (here is where you insert comment about how that is all current regime wants me to do)

Well! Once again you have it exactly backwards!!

No I don't!! I realize the motivation is the key for you guys. What I was unsuccessfully attempting to do was to see if I couldn't get you to see a glimmer of good motivation (although not the only motivation) in what is being done. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that you'd still see failure in a bad outcome, even if you accepted that there was a good motivation.

Absolutely not! It’s a half-day park because there isn’t enough to do!!

Don't make me stick my tongue out again........ you are wrong!!!! Are you telling me that if you saw everything the AK had to offer you could do it in a half day? Don't discredit yourself by agreeing to an absurd statement like this.

Not yanking your chain here, and I am unaware of your caste view on Disney resorts. When I said I wondered how Walt would have handled the development I wasn't implying he would have done what post Walt regimes have. No point, no agenda. I was really wondering. Remember, I am trying to continue an education of sorts. I know there are things that you guys can teach me (despite the fact that you are WRONG about the Magic ). Remember, a student can never ask a bad question - so don't be so quick to take out that REALLY sharp pencil. Ouch!Could Walt have produced a WDW without moderate or value resorts? Don't jump on me - I don't know . I don't see how, but I don't know. Daggars or not - perhaps this thread needs another turn on its ear.

You have to appreciate the moderators on this board for not closing a thread when it goes off topic . Thanks .

 

[HB2K]

If people looked at AK for what it was intended to be they might be happy. As you state, it was intended to be a theme park with an animal theme. Nothing more, nothing less.

In my opinion, DAK fails as a theme park with an Animal theme. There are only 4 rides (counting Bugs)....that's absurd. But that's not why I say DAK is a failure....it is a failure because the Disney company built the park to increase people's vacations, and to steal attendance away from Bush Gardens & Seaworld.

The numbers show people aren't stretching their vacations and the only attendance being stolen by DAK is from the other Disney parks!

And the main, factual reason DAK is a partial day park is this....it hasn't been completed to spec. A whole land was omitted and an attraction (Discovery river boats) was removed due to this.

If you define failure as people viewing a park as a half day park because they personally don't like it (which is the case with AK), then by Baron's statement he is saying that Walt may have been just as likely to create a 'failure'. BTW, I don't agree with this definition of failure. Yes, Walt knew his customers better and delivered better than current management. However, my wants are satisfied. I'm not greedy and can appreciate what has been offered up (hence, my Car #1 status). That does not mean that I am content with second class and that I am compromising my expectation for a wonderful, Magical experience. Current management delivers that.

I define DAK's failure as this....it's attendance is so bad upper management is apparently forgoing any plans on massive upgrades since they feel the park has hit it's ceiling. Isn't that sad? Isn't that indicitive of failure? Do you think if they knew how poorly recieved this park has been, would they build it again? Probably not.

Don't think with your personal feelings. We all love WDW. Think of the business. DAK may be a experinced success for you and your family. It's a business failure since it's not living up to it's purpose of existance.

And I don't feel I'm greedy by deciding to spend my vacation dollars elsewhere...the park in my opinion isn't worth the money. I'm not the only one with that opinion....

It was intended to show you animals in a different way from any other park, and they hit the mark with that (KS).

OK I'll give you that one...

It was intended to have incredible animal themed shows, and they hit the mark with that.

Watch out, the ice is cracking beneath you....what show are you referring to?

It was intended to have rides that fit into the overall theme and provided the guests with fun and excitement, and they hit the mark on that (although not as well as the other targets).

The ice just broke.
DAK FAILS at this target. Period. There are 4 rides in the whole park. Roadside carnival be darned, even the carnival behind my local mall has more to do than this park does.

How can anyone possibly call this a failure?

Because noone is going to the park? It isn't making any money?

They say that AK is not the best zoo in the world.

Of Course not....it's nahtazu after all....which begs the question of what is it?

If people stopped running around saying 'hey, as a zoo this place stinks', or 'hey, the rides are better in (insert park of choice)' and actually enjoyed AK for what it has to offer they might actually enjoy it, and maybe even love it.

Maybe if you didn't blame people for not liking what was given to them and instead blame the company for not giving people what they want we wouldn't be having this discussion

Am I getting anywhere here (not to get you to agree that AK is not a failure, but to understand what I am trying to say)?

Sorry, but no
I'm glad you like the park. But I think you're letting your personal experinces guide your opinion on the financial success of the park...or lack there of.

Oh don’t kid yourself, pal. I do!!

LOL!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Ok! Let’s take this one step at a time. I’m getting a little confused. I said:

quote: Interesting. Do you mean that they thought they were creating something special for the guests and that their prime-motivating factor was not the spreadsheet placed before them that promised higher profit?

To which you replied:

Back to that 'considering all the relevant factors' in 'todays business environment' concept I have made you so fond of.

Please explain. I don’t get what one has to do with the other.

I still don't buy into the evil Eisner conspiracy theories

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I just think he’s inept. And far from magical.

and the bottom line is the only line view on Disney management.

If you see any evidence that this is not the current thinking, please let me know. I’ve been studying this for about two years now, and to tell you the truth I can’t see any other motivating force behind the decisions they make. Please tell me where I’m wrong,

Walts only motivation was the customer experience, and the customer experience is not a factor at all for current management.

That is a perfect sentence!!! Are you sure you’re not a car #3er?!?!?!

What I was unsuccessfully attempting to do was to see if I couldn't get you to see a glimmer of good motivation (although not the only motivation) in what is being done.

Again I ask you to name a few. Heck name only one and I’d be happy!!!!

You have to appreciate the moderators on this board for not closing a thread when it goes off topic

We happen to have the best moderators that there are. But in all fairness, if they didn’t tolerate off-topic threads, they’d have to close down nearly every one of ours!!!!


ps: check your PMs!!!

 

[Bob O]

I cant disagree with anything DVC said!!
As for closing off this topic, once a thread it started their is no telling where it may lead too and even though we may disagree i havent seen anything here that could close the thread!! People on this board have a great ability to disagree while being agreeable.

 

[DisneyKidds]

HB2K....

I guess the focus of the discussion turned to

the financial success of the park...or lack there of.

without my really realizing it. I have been mostly talking about the view of AK as half day park and trying to explain why people are disappointed in it and feel it is a half day park. My reference to success is in regard to what Disney produced and delivered. As for attendance figures, meeting profit targets, etc. - I can't comment on that other than to say that I don't believe it is the utter failure some see it as.

Baron.....

Please explain. I don’t get what one has to do with the other.

Only that, yes, perhaps they thought they were creating something special for the guest but they considered a wide variety of factors in putting it together, only one being the spreadsheet and profits. I'll read up on Walt, but I'm sure he considered profits as well. Notwithstanding the fact that he used his own money, he didn't create WDW as a not-for-profit or a charity.

If you see any evidence that this is not the current thinking, please let me know.

I see it every time I go to WDW. I'm sure there are lots more things they could do to cut costs and increase the bottom line. It is still a Magical place, and not just Magic fumes leftover from the last refill.

That is a perfect sentence!!! Are you sure you’re not a car #3er?!?!?!

Nope - just another unsuccessful attempt at sarcasm.

Again I ask you to name a few. Heck name only one and I’d be happy!!!!

You mean there has been nothing that has been done or added that didn't have to be? That could have been lesser done or done for less? Disney gets all the criticism for things they didn't do, or did cheaply, but do they get adequate recognition for the things they do right, or even better? It is late and the US is up 1 - 0 over Mexico so I won't put forth examples now - but I bet I can come up with a few, and you could too if you tried.

p.s. - Thanks for the message.

 

[DisDuck]

Baron..Baron.. writing novels again I see. Disneykidds is somewhat new to the group so please don't put him/her to sleep on the resort system

At least you and I (Baron) have come to an arrangement of sorts concerning subjective versus objective evaluation of WDW. Unless that has now fallen apart. I know you wouldn't be going this summer if there wasn't something (MAGIC) drawing you back.

Sorry, HBK2 we will have to agree to disagree just like before. What else but personal experience draws us repeaters back year after year. Unless you are a stockholder, who cares whether AK is a failed business plan or not. It succeeds because 7-8 million people go there; otherwise, it would be like DCA with bottom of the barrel attendence figures. Even my 17 yo daughter 'gets' want AK is all about. It is not an MK, etc. It was never designed to be an MK, etc. Unfortunately, marketing has yet to figure it out also. But lately marketing has been a failure on several levels (see Pearl Harbor, etc.). Maybe the answer is to keep WDI people and clear out Marketing.

BobO.. I was using another posters definition of what constituted a 1/2 day park and base on that definition (not my own) Epcot can be considered a 1/2 day park. All the rides and shows can be done by 1-2pm. TIME TO LEAVE THE PARK NOTHING ELSE LEFT TO DO. I consider Epcot a full day but consider IOA a 1/2 day because its attractions can only keep me there a 1/2 day.

So everyone.. full day - 1/2 day is purely subjective. If you don't like shopping and browsing the countries Epcot finishes in 1/2 day. If you don't ride coaster, IOA finishes in 1/2 a day. If you are not into exploring trails and watching shows then AK is 1/2 a day. Otherwise if you like to do all these things then Epcot, IOA and AK are full day parks.

Regardless, if the business plan was successful or not.

 

[airlarry!]

Baron,

I thought people were kidding about the length of hours (hope this is the right topic)

I'm helping a friend plan a last minute trip to WDW this Wed. We checked the official Disney hours on www.disneyworld.com and they have the MK closing at 10 pm EVERY NIGHT. Is this for real? In June? Not opening until 9:00 a.m.?

Ridiculous. Either this is outdated....and I hope for my friend's sake it is....or a rip-off.

 

[SnackyStacky]

I haven't finished reading this entire post (I probably should), but felt like throwing in my $.02 on the AK debate.

I would have to concur with everyone that says that AK is a 1/2 day park, but I don't think that everyone would agree. It's all a matter of your own personal views on the subject.

I live about 2 hours away from African Lion Safari in Canada. It was around LONG before AK ever came to be, but it's like Animal Kingdom lite. They have something along the lines of KS, but it's just not the same. At African Lion Safari, the animals are half dead, and because they allow people through in their own vehicles, they feed the animals and the animals then block the roads and cause MUCH congestion. And themeing? FORGET it!!! The landscaping is atrocious. Outside of the actual ride through, there's a train, a few kiddie water slides, some food shops, and not much else. Having seen this, Animal Kingdom was AMAZING. Absolutely breathtaking! And I loved it, but still feel that it's something I can do in half the time as Magic Kingdom.

I personally prefer the rides, and the rides at AK in comparsion to some others are just incredible. It's Tough to Be A Bug is one of my FAVORITE shows!!!! I can't see anything like that outside of Disney World.

However, I have many friends who don't really care for rides at all. Animal Kingdom is their kind of park. They love it, because there's so much to do outside of the rides!!

In the end, it's not my preference or your preference that counts. What counts is the money they've made, and in the end those who came at opening and leave at 3pm paid the EXACT same price as those who came at opening, and left at closing. And at $50/adult, they're more than making up for any revenues lost on people who don't stay in the parks to purchase food and merchandise.

Once again, I'm not saying I'm right, just contributing my $.02!

 

[DisneyKidds]

SnackyStacky....sure would like to know the origins of that name .....

My fave line from your post is that you can do AK in half the time you can do MK. I agree with that. However, if someone needed 2 to 3 days to 'do' MK, they would need 1 to 1.5 to 'do' AK. AK (personal preferences aside) - a 1 to 1.5 day park - just what I've been saying all along . There is a big difference between picking and choosing and doing MK in a day (would anyone call the MK a 1 day park, even if some people only spend one day there?) and experiencing all the MK has to offer. Ditto with AK.

Good thoughts, especially about the fact that AK still brought home the bacon - whether a person left at 3:00 or 6:00. Be careful though, someone is bound to jump in and say AK brought home nothing because those 8+ million people who visited the AK only 'hopped' over on an existing ticket . I think not, but someone in Car #3 will chime in I'm sure .

 

[DisDuck]

airlarry.. If rip-off in June then a rip-off year-round as ticket prices, individual or hopper do not change from season to season.

Something else to think about while everyone bashes Eisner for cutting back hours.

June 22-30 Universal Hours = 9am to 8pm (Sat 6/22) then
9am to 9pm until end of month

June 22-30 IOA Hours = Same as Universal

June 22-30 SeaWorld Hours = 9am to 10pm

How come now is bashing them? MK, MGM open longer; Epcot (total park) open same; only AK open less and that is because it is not a night park with the animals to consider.

 

[airlarry!]

Sir Duck, I can agree that it would be great to have 8-1am hours year round, but it would seem to be a big change from years past.

I'm just looking for traditional hours...busy times of the year? Same price, longer hours, much more entertainment.

Slow times of the year, same price, shorter hours and less entertainment, but no crowds to get in your way.

And as for the other places, are they theme parks in Florida? I have never been to the competition, never been to any park in Florida except Sea World 25 years ago...I'm a Car 3 Disney nut, you see.

 

[SnackyStacky]

I usually tend to go during slow seasons. (Our shuttle driver on our last trip told us it was the deadest week of the year) So Magic Kingdom literally took a day. I walked onto every ride.

So here is ANOTHER problem with 1/2 day argument. In concurring with it, I speak under the assumption that there are few to no crowds.

The origin of the name is a long and sordid one. PM me if you're desperately interested to know. hehe

 

[DisneyKidds]

Even if I was the only person in either park I still couldn't get to MK being a 1 day and AK being a 1/2 day. If you did EVERYTHING, no way. But I do like to take my time, smell the roses, appreciate the detail. Yeah, some say that isn't what people spend the $50 for. However, if that isn't what Walt wanted them to spend the $50 for why did he insist on it?