In park surveys a sham?

[raidermatt]

1- Mad enough to cancel. Well, this means too much has been cut and you don't plan to come back.

2- Mad but undecided. Means you are definitely upset by the cuts, but haven't decided if you will continue to visit. Contrary to your definition, this does not mean more cuts can be made, it means that the current cuts are enough to leave you undecided. (note that many of the cuts have been recently restored)

3- Mad but still going. Yes, you are mad, but not enough to cancel or stop going.

4- Not mad at all. The cuts don't really impact you.


You are interjecting WE, meaning Disney, into these definitions. These options were NOT written by Disney, but by a poster who is upset about the cuts. Disney or anyone else could use the info however they wanted, but this is not part of Disney's official surveys, and the cuts had already been made before this was ever posted.

 

[EUROPA]

Yes I know that the survey was not written by Disney. Seems that your having trouble understnading that even this survey does not get at the heart of the matter. When I get home tonight I will post what an accurate and well worded survey looks like....Geesh..."sometimes I feel like I'm palying cards with my brothers kids " Tunnel vision is a great thing !

 

[Galahad]

The survey results are being loaded into computer databases and being parsed over by computer programs of one sort or another. These kinds of systems don't lend themselves to open ended questions. That's why there are always specific, if imperfect answers from which to choose. They are going to measure the results over time and against a "baseline" that is developed over time For example, I expect a lot from Disney, so they almost NEVER exceed my expectations but merely meet them. This answer given by a frequent visitor has a different weight that this answer given by a first time visitor. Decisions are not likely being made primarily based upon surveys. They more likely have recommendations based upon other things (stats on attendance, ride usage, what people do during EE's) and use the survey to verifiy their conclusions. (As well as using the survey to let CMs in different areas know how they are doing). Disney makes a lot of mistakes but I don't think they are being nefarious about how they use surveys. Their decision making process is too laborious to be that simple.

 

[raidermatt]

Insults aside...

I never said it was a well-worded survey that would accurately capture the wants and needs of Disney guests, and be an effective tool for making strategic planning decisions.

I merely said it is an effective indicator for determining how many people on these boards, or more specifically the parks board,were truly upset about the elimination of EE. It was a counter to the frequent reasoning that "Disney is full of it when they say they are responding to guest desires, because all they'd have to do is read these boards...".

That line of reasoning is baed on faulty logic, and therefore it proves nothing. To further that point, I referred to the poll that shows that even if that was good logic, it wouldn't even be true. But if that was too much, forget the poll and focus on the main point: Just because there are x number of complaints on this board, it does not mean eliminating EE is going to hurt Disney in any way.

Of course an effective marketing survey would be worded differently, but that was not the point. My apologies if this was not clear.

 

[Safari Steve]

Both of those questions are frequently included in WDW surveys.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Oh the shame...

raidermatt, your explanation was excellent...Can I come over and play this weekend?

Thanks Galahad for the real explanation & I agree wholeheartedly. Of course Disney is "using" the surveys, but to consider them to be manipulated...Well, that kind of defeats the purpose. Certainly they are trying to find a particular point, fact, area or outcome but it would be just plain silly for them to "rig" that outcome for the management response to that survey would be doomed to failure and again, what would the point then be?

If I've misconstrued this argument forgive me for I am nothing if not a foolish man...

 

[Lesley]

raidermatt, this was not at all what i was suggesting...

But really, Disney couldn't have just asked people if they wanted EE or not. I mean, I've never used it and probably never will, but if you ask me would I like Disney to offer EE, of course I'd say yes. Who knows, one day, I might actually use it.

My point was that it is possible for surveys to be worded in a way that could give false impressions or be used to draw incorrect conclusions...for example, if I were asked "did you use ee today?" and "did you have breakfast in the park today?" and "where" would that lead the computers to conclude that I only used ee for a character meal? Or to get away from that example....would my answers to an AK survey that showed that I was very pleased with the park but felt it needed more to do give them the idea that I'd love some carnival games, a spinner and a wild mouse parked in Dinoland? Not really sure where I was going to begin with here...

As for the rest of this arguement...I'm pretty much lost as to what you're all talking about and why you're arguing so I'll step away from this thread now.

 

[Peter Pirate]

It's your thread Lesley...you can't step away! You could concievable be arrested and taken to cyber jail where you'd be tried & judged by a jury of cyber jurors (who won't be your peers, as we all know here in cyber space, none of us have peers) and lastly sentenced to cyber prison...Oh...We're already there??? In the words of the late, great Emily Latella "Nevermind"...

 

[EUROPA]

Sorry if you felt insulted by my comments. Was it the tunnel vision or the fact that you were clearly being childish as to the number of choices in the poll? Clear there are 4 but "most" adults should see that three of the choices were very similiar and really should have been reworded. Anybody that says they canlced thier vacation becuase they could not get in the park an hour early is either not telling the truth or needs to get a grip in life. Now it may keep people from staying on-site vs Off-site. Or at the least rethink it. Yes, I'm mad they cancled EE, but its not going to keep me from going to Disney. That is eactly what Disney hoped for.

If you don't thnk that surveys are slanted to make the company giving them look better...than you really have alot of growing up to do in life. Servey are a powerfull PR tool. Rarley are they used to inflict change.

Besides the fact that Disney does not even need a survey to determine how many people use EE. Why would you need to ask someone when you count them every morning when they come through the gate? Disney Knows eactly how many people are staying on properity and how many used EE that morning. They also have the abiltiy to determine how many people were there to see the attractions and how many were there for a Character Breakfest

Plus I would think that the people that really do go for the early breakfest do so inorder to get it out of the way and still have a full day at the park. I hate to think that I'm sitting down eating breakfest when Splash MT does not have a line . So in those cases they guest are using EE as well.

Cutting EE was simply a money decesion. Which I don't really have a problem with. Just don't lie to me and tell me that I wanted a Character Caravan insted. Indeed!


I'd like to See Disney come out with a survey with these and a few other questions next time I'm there....

1. Did you stay onsite here a Disney last night ?

If yes

2. Why did you stay onsite- ( A Rate, B Location C Hotel Theming D Perks for staying onsite E Great Hotel F. other) Chose as many as you like

3. Recently We(Disney) did away with the perk for early entry for onsite guest and in its place now have a Charater Caravan that comes to each hotel on certain days of the week. Would you as an onsite guest rather have EE or the Character Caravan as a Perk for staying onsite?

 

[raidermatt]

Europa said:

Besides the fact that Disney does not even need a survey to determine how many people use EE. Why would you need to ask someone when you count them every morning when they come through the gate?

Here's a quote from one of my earlier posts in this thread:

To find out how many people used EE, couldn't they just check their turnstile counts before letting the general public in? Would they really need to do a survey?

Maybe the survey was to find out how people who used EE felt about certain things vs. those who didn't. As opposed to just finding out how many people used EE.

Thanks for restating my comments.

Europa said:

They also have the abiltiy to determine how many people were there to see the attractions and how many were there for a Character Breakfest

Agreed, and never said or hinted otherwise.

Cutting EE was simply a money decesion. Which I don't really have a problem with.

Again, agreed, and never said or hinted otherwise. What I have said many times in various threads is that they obviously believe there won't be enough people upset about this decision to make it a bad money decision. Meaning there maybe a relatively small number of people who are very upset about EE and will now stay off-site. Clearly Disney knew this would happen. But they believe the $$$ loss will be less than the savings gained by not opening the parks for EE. You may think they are wrong, but if they are, EE will come back, or they will add other benefits to bring back the guests.

Just don't lie to me and tell me that I wanted a Character Caravan insted. Indeed!

Nobody told you this. Disney used guest surveys and feedback to guage the impact of the CC for EE decision. The fact that you disagree with their conclusions does not mean their conclusions are wrong or based on faulty data. I can tell you that EE had zero benefit for my family, while CC is a small benefit. But because you feel otherwise, you assume the conclusions must have been gathered from slanted surveys. You want to talk about that tunnel vision again?

2. Why did you stay onsite- ( A Rate, B Location C Hotel Theming D Perks for staying onsite E Great Hotel F. other) Chose as many as you like

Pretty standard, and I actually answered a similar question on a survey card at one of the Disney properties, though I don't remember if it was CBR or the GC (DL).

3. Recently We(Disney) did away with the perk for early entry for onsite guest and in its place now have a Charater Caravan that comes to each hotel on certain days of the week. Would you as an onsite guest rather have EE or the Character Caravan as a Perk for staying onsite?

This question does not even come close to getting to the people who really care about one or the other. Disney wants to find out if you are staying because of one or both of these. There are going to be a large number of on-site guests (well over 50%), that really don't care about EE or CC. Asking them which they prefer is irrelevant.

You could add a third choice that says "I don't care", but even that won't solve the problem, because you still won't have any clue how much those who chose EE or CC really do care. Customer A says EE is preferable, while Customer B says CC is preferable. But will customer A stay off-site next time if there is no EE? Is Customer B staying on-site becasue of CC? Will their spending habits change if EE is brought back or CC goes away? Is there another way to make the CC person happy? To answer these questions, you need to ask about what the guests did that day, and build your data from those patterns. THAT'S why Disney asks all the questions they do and not just what you like. They are not slanting the survey. As Peter Pirate pointed out, there is no benefit to trying to justify a bad decision before it is made.

Besides, if you take a step back and look at the big picture, you'll realize that CC and EE are not mutually exclusive. Disney packaged the announcements so they could temper the effects of the minus for at least some guests. If it didn't work for you, fine, but it didn't hurt you, because what you are really upset about is that EE is gone. If CC were never instituted, would you really feel better? But for those guests who do see a benefit to CC (apparently they exist, unless the characters are just sitting in the lobby twittleing their thumbs), the package announcement definitely "eased their pain".

 

[raidermatt]

Sorry if you felt insulted by my comments. Was it the tunnel vision orthe fact that you were clearly being childish as to the number of choices in the poll? Clear there are 4 but "most" adults should see that three of the choices were very similiar and really should have been reworded.

Why should they have been reworded? The poll was to determine how many respondents were mad about EE and other cuts, and if/how it would affect their plans. It was a limited scope and it accomplishes the goal within that scope. I never claimed it was good for anything else. The only reason to re-word would be if one wanted the survey to accomplish some other goal, which I have acknowledged.

Anybody that says they canlced thier vacation becuase they could not get in the park an hour early is either not telling the truth or needs to get a grip in life.

(And you say "I" have tunnel vision?) From a personal perspective, I agree with your quote. However, the poll referenced not just EE, but all cuts. At the time that included E-nights, park hours, resort closures, CM layoffs, performance cuts, etc.

Regardless, there are those who are saying that the elimination of EE alone has made them do 1 of three things:

1- Stop going to WDW
2- Go to WDW less frequently
3- Stay off-site

You only want to acknowledge #3, but that is truly tunnel vision. You are only willing to acknowlege as legitimate those who feel the same, or close to the same as you. A broader view would admit that there were going to be people in all three categories, as well as a 4th, which is "upset, but won't effect plans, and a 5th "not upset at all". All are legitimate positions, but my main point all along has been that NONE of us really know how large each of these groups are, and counting the negative comments on these boards will not prove a thing. Why is it so hard to admit that maybe, just maybe, there really weren't that many people who cared that much about EE? Surely, someone with such broad view of the world as you must accept that this is a possibility?

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by raidermatt

Again, agreed, and never said or hinted otherwise. What I have said many times in various threads is that they obviously believe there won't be enough people upset about this decision to make it a bad money decision. Meaning there maybe a relatively small number of people who are very upset about EE and will now stay off-site. Clearly Disney knew this would happen. But they believe the $$$ loss will be less than the savings gained by not opening the parks for EE. You may think they are wrong, but if they are, EE will come back, or they will add other benefits to bring back the guests.

I don't remember saying that a huge number of people were upset enough to stay offsite becasue of this. In fact I said you were nuts if you did.

Nobody told you this. Disney used guest surveys and feedback to guage the impact of the CC for EE decision.

Your wrong Disney is telling this to everyone. They've said to nuromous people that EE was cancled in favor of the Charater Caravan becuase it was what guest wanted. Or at least that is what people have been posting here. Now granted I've never been told that myself, but I have to take these posters at face value and assume they are telling the truth.

This question does not even come close to getting to the people who really care about one or the other. Disney wants to find out if you are staying because of one or both of these. There are going to be a large number of on-site guests (well over 50%), that really don't care about EE or CC. Asking them which they prefer is irrelevant.

Your right one question can not answer every possible effect or affect that cancling EE could or will have.

They are not slanting the survey. As Peter Pirate pointed out, there is no benefit to trying to justify a bad decision before it is made.

Ah but there is a benfit...if you have the chance to prevent a bad decesion would you not ??

Besides, if you take a step back and look at the big picture, you'll realize that CC and EE are not mutually exclusive. Disney packaged the announcements so they could temper the effects of the minus for at least some guests. If it didn't work for you, fine, but it didn't hurt you, because what you are really upset about is that EE is gone. If CC were never instituted, would you really feel better? But for those guests who do see a benefit to CC (apparently they exist, unless the characters are just sitting in the lobby twittleing their thumbs), the package announcement definitely "eased their pain".

Agreed that in somepeoples "world" it was a good thing. It certainly wasn't a help when we tried to talk to a CM in the Lobby of Riverside . Wall to wall kids screaming for Characters.

I would bet you though if you gave a two question poll of people that stayed on site asking which they would prefere EE or CC....then the Character Caravan would be out the door.

For some reason I keep coming back to the idea that DisneyWorld is really about the rides and the attractions and not so much the Characters that may be walking around in the parks. Sure they help round out the whole experience but still what would you rather have Characters or the Attractions? Right now Disney is saying that you the people wanted more time with the Characters insted of more time in the Parks. I just don't think that it is even close to true.

 

[barreloflaughs]

Your wrong Disney is telling this to everyone. They've said to nuromous people that EE was cancled in favor of the Charater Caravan becuase it was what guest wanted. Or at least that is what people have been posting here. Now granted I've never been told that myself, but I have to take these posters at face value and assume they are telling the truth.

For what is worth, this is how Disney presented the switch from EE to CC in a document distributed to travel agents (the language is very similar to the info distributed to resort guests at the time of the switch);

"Many of our Guess chose not to take advantage of our Surprise Mornings (early Disney Theme Park entrance) program. They told us they wanted more of the Disney Characters. We took that as a wake-up call. So we've replaced Surprise Mornings with a new kind of magic - now the friends your clients have come to love are coming to them!"

Now, who knows if there was a survey that specifcally asked which of these options on-site guests preferred. It may very well be that Disney used data from one survey, many surveys or no surveys when making this decision.

carl
barrel of laughs

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by raidermatt


1- Stop going to WDW
2- Go to WDW less frequently
3- Stay off-site

You only want to acknowledge #3, but that is truly tunnel vision. You are only willing to acknowlege as legitimate those who feel the same, or close to the same as you. A broader view would admit that there were going to be people in all three categories, as well as a 4th, which is "upset, but won't effect plans, and a 5th "not upset at all". All are legitimate positions, but my main point all along has been that NONE of us really know how large each of these groups are, and counting the negative comments on these boards will not prove a thing. Why is it so hard to admit that maybe, just maybe, there really weren't that many people who cared that much about EE? Surely, someone with such broad view of the world as you must accept that this is a possibility?

The reason that I only acknowlede Number 3 is becuase I belive that its the only real reaction that people will/might take. Like I've said I don't think that anyone (read sane)cancled thier trip beucase of EE. I also don't think that any family would set down and say....ok we are going to Disney twice this year insted of four times because they cancled EE.

 

[raidermatt]

Your wrong Disney is telling this to everyone. They've said to nuromous people that EE was cancled in favor of the Charater Caravan becuase it was what guest wanted.

"Many of our Guess chose not to take advantage of our Surprise Mornings (early Disney Theme Park entrance) program. They told us they wanted more of the Disney Characters..."

Just don't lie to me and tell me that I wanted a Character Caravan insted. Indeed!

Again, Disney did not lie. They said many guests did not take advantage of EE, and they wanted more character interaction. They did not tell YOU that YOU wanted CC instead of EE. In fact, they did not even say that many guests wasnted CC instead of EE. They phrased it as two separate pieces of information, both of which are probably correct (they certainly apply to my family, though I realize that's hardly a representative sample).

1- Many guests did not take advantage of EE
2- Many guests wanted more character interaction.

So we've replaced Surprise Mornings with a new kind of magic - now the friends your clients have come to love are coming to them!"

Now, this is faulty logic, based on points one and two, but its not a lie. But again, they are presenting this as a package to soften the blow. There is no logical reason why they could not do both CC and EE, if they thought that was the right thing to do. Its just that they don't think its the right thing to do. Yes, the parks are the main attraction at WDW, but at some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and most guests won't show up no matter how early you open the parks. So its not automatic that earlier park openings are the best use of capital.

 

[raidermatt]

Europa said:

Now granted I've never been told that myself, but I have to take these posters at face value and assume they are telling the truth.

Europa then said:

Like I've said I don't think that anyone (read sane)cancled thier trip beucase of EE. I also don't think that any family would set down and say....ok we are going to Disney twice this year insted of four times because they cancled EE.

Generally, I'm following your philosophy in your first post, not your second. If somebody posts they are cancelling, who am I to say they are a liar? One or two of these could be completely ignored, but over 50 people responded to the poll that they were cancelling. Maybe they only meant changing on-site to off, but I have seen posters who have stated they cancelled completely. Also, I've read quite a few that said they would be spending at least a few days more at Universal, and a few days less at WDW. Many site FOTL at Universal and no EE at WDW the major reasons.

I know that's not what I am doing, but again, who am I to say they are lieing.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by raidermatt


Now, this is faulty logic, based on points one and two, but its not a lie. But again, they are presenting this as a package to soften the blow. There is no logical reason why they could not do both CC and EE, if they thought that was the right thing to do. Its just that they don't think its the right thing to do. Yes, the parks are the main attraction at WDW, but at some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and most guests won't show up no matter how early you open the parks. So its not automatic that earlier park openings are the best use of capital.

Your auguring semantics here . and it’s getting pretty boring. Its pretty clear to anyone with two eyes what they are inferring here. They are trying to infer that this is what the guest wanted. Even you can admit that right...if not then there may be no hope for you. When I say "me" or "You" that needs to be taking in a general sense here. I know they did not call me personally and say that we replaced EE with CC because you "Chris" wanted it. I do think they have taking two completely differenet guest coments and combined them into a lie, canard, ****-and-bull story, inveracity, misrepresentation, or a misstatement of what really happened.

So yes when you take the whole statment in context it is a lie.

 

[raidermatt]

Your auguring semantics here...

Lieing is quite different than using faulty logic. The fact that you see this as semantics maybe the key to this whole discussion. And really, its only debateable if we assume that the two groups of many guests are not the same guests. If they are, then its not even faulty logic. Disney did not say one way or the other, so any assumptions made are the fault of the assumer.

...and it’s getting pretty boring.

I believe you are still free to discuss or not discuss whatever subjects you want, and with whomever you want. If you are bored, its by your own choice.

ts pretty clear to anyone with two eyes what they are inferring here. They are trying to infer that this is what the guest wanted.

Noooo, even if you make that inference, its still stated that its what MANY guests want. And unless you have something other than complaints on this board, you have nothing to back-up your belief that it is a lie.

I do think they have taking two completely differenet guest coments and combined them into a lie, canard, ****-and-bull story, inveracity, misrepresentation, or a misstatement of what really happened.

Believe what you want. Certainly there is some marketing spin in the message, but if its based on accurate data, its not much of a spin. If the data is bad, and the negative response is going to be greater than Disney antcipated, they will react to it.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by raidermatt


Generally, I'm following your philosophy in your first post, not your second. If somebody posts they are cancelling, who am I to say they are a liar? One or two of these could be completely ignored, but over 50 people responded to the poll that they were cancelling. Maybe they only meant changing on-site to off, but I have seen posters who have stated they cancelled completely. Also, I've read quite a few that said they would be spending at least a few days more at Universal, and a few days less at WDW. Many site FOTL at Universal and no EE at WDW the major reasons.

" Heat of the moment " I'd be intrested to see how many really did cancle their trips becuase of the EE thing soley? Just a knee jerk response. Run the poll agagin to find out how many really cancled thier trips competley just becasue of EE.

It was pretty clear that Disney was saying that about EE and CC because of repeted first hand accounts what were pretty much word for word repeats of other post, and then travel agent accouts of it.


I like Universal too In fact if they add a couple of parks as rummored then watch out Mouse. Now FOTL is going to be complete differnct after their new Pacific hotel opens up. It will nolonger be all day. From what some of the employees that post on the Universal board say its going to a few times a day max for FOTL.

Still Universal did or still does sometimes have EE for muliti-day ticket holders as well as a Fast pass system and Vip tours.

Disney woiuld do well to see what is being offered at Universal. As it just might surpass them in the upcoming future.

 

[PKS44]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Stop, take a deep breath....let us try ot get back to reality and the thread and out of this endless babbling...

The whole reliance on surveys, the trying to figure out if a decision was for the bottom line or the benefit of the public, and how can you do one without the other misses the key point. DISNEY is not some organism that acts like any other LIVING thing in that it is only seeking to do what will be best for it's own preservation and well being...it is made up of all sorts of parts and the overiding management of course should seek to improve the company but they like every human part of the machine may also only be seeking to make themselves look good or come out better or whatever...SO even if a decision is ultimately BAD for the company bottom line and it was knowable that it was a BAD decision IF an appropriately worded survey had been conducted BEFOREHAND, some middle manager might still skew the survey in such a a way to cover his A--. To show that he made a good decision based on the data he had...and upper managers and stockholders may not have enough information to see how the knowledge was bad to begin with....There are multiple examples of businesses doing things that a good (ACCURATE) survey should have told them was a mistake, and yet they make these blunders. Buick is discontinuing its new luxury truck line now because no one actually wants a nice looking truck that can't do much work. You mean they did not have any survey that showed that? Coke/New Coke was either an incredible blunder or brilliant in the way it faked everyone into coming back to Old Coke (The latter group is too paranoid and has too much belief in businesspeople's cleverness for me) DISNEY makes mistakes too. They had to close DisneyQuest in Chicago- where was the survey data that made them think they could make it there and they were going to try it in Philly and other cities too? Based on what? Internal wars within companies, finger-pointing, document shredding..the economy is blamed, middle managers are blamed, new guys are hired, new things are tried...none of it is scientific or validated---This is not one guy Eisner running everything- it is thousands of people each supposedly working for the bottom line for Disney but actually working to make themselves look good. Usually the two work out together, but there is absolutely no guarantee that they will. I suggest you read the chapter in Atlas Shrugged where a decision to let a steam engine enter a train tunnel must be made. The slow unfolding of how the little pieces of the decision are broken down so that no one feels responsible brilliantly captures the way that an intentionally bad decision can be made despite everyone knowing it could only lead to disaster. You don't have to believe in Ayn Rand's stark philosophy to see that in this case she has captured the truth about human/corporate behavior.