Greg Maletic: Disney's Biggest Theme Park Mistakes - The Follow Up
Page 1 of 2
Greg responds to some of the comments and clarifies some of his positions from his last controversial column - Disney's Biggest Theme Park Mistakes.
Lots of people made great comments in response to my "Disney's Biggest
Theme Park Mistakes" column (click here to
read the article and
here to see
the responses)
a few weeks ago. This time, I'll address some of the best counter-arguments, as
well as clarify some of the points that I tried to make. I'll take the arguments
"mistake" by "mistake"...
Sprinkling Disney Characters on Something Makes It Better
At least one commenter took issue with my opinion that Disney characters
and marketing tie-ins were less important in 1955 than they are today. There is
reason to doubt my assertion: wasn't that Davy Crockett hanging out in
Frontierland at the Disneyland opening? And wasn't the 20,000 Leagues
walkthrough situated in Tomorrowland from 1955 until 1966?
Both are true, and though I think those particular instances of movie
tie-ins are by nature different than what we see today, let's assume for
the sake of argument that they're every bit as geared towards marketing as is,
say, the Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor. I assembled a list of attractions (click
here to view list) that were created for Disneyland in the five years after it opened, and compared
it to the list of attractions opened in the past ten years at Disneyland and the
Magic Kingdom. (I left out all Fantasyland attractions, because that was in fact
my contention: that Walt Disney devoted only 20% of his park to the characters;
I've never contested that they weren't, or shouldn't, be present in
Fantasyland.)
You can quibble with the contents of my list (is the "Bathroom of the
Future" really an attraction?), but if you look at the numbers, I think the
conclusion is hard to dispute: 7% of the non-Fantasyland attractions had movie
tie-ins at the beginning; today the numbers are 53% for Disneyland, and an
amazing 83% for the Magic Kingdom.
The parks are now part of a marketing synergy strategy, rather than
entities in their own right. And that, I think, is a mistake, not only in regard
to the quality of the park experience (see "brand fatigue," as mentioned later
in this article), as well as a business mistake: there's no reason that
Imagineering can't be trusted to create their own experiences that exist
independently from the rest of the Disney empire. It was a strategy that worked
spectacularly well at the beginning of the park's history; why not now?
Disney's Name on Absolutely Everything
In my original column, I took issue with Disney's apparent passion for
labeling and trademarking everything at the resorts with their name, from
"FastPass" to the Polynesian Resort. A couple of people pointed out that this
use of the "Disney's" moniker is evidence of a well-understood marketing
principle: branding. Unquestionably, this is true.
If I see "Disney's The Little Mermaid" on a set of bed sheets when I'm at
Target, I understand: in a warehouse full of merchandise from thousands of
manufacturers, it makes sense to call out the Disney stuff. But when I see
"Disney's FastPass" on signs that blanket the parks, I wonder: who else's
"FastPass" would it be? It's almost as if Mickey Mouse were continually
referred to as "Disney's Mickey Mouse," even within the confines of the park, a
place where everyone already knows precisely who Mickey Mouse is.
Now, maybe there -is- some sort of technical or legal rationale for why
FastPass needs to be branded Disney. Whatever the reason, it's not good enough:
Disney too lightly discounts brand fatigue. If you overuse your name, it ceases
to mean something. Disney, of course, has a long way to go before it ruins its
name with meaningless uses like the ones I've outlined. But when the Disney name
becomes a joke, as it does with ToonKirby's great example (comment #6 of the
responses) of
"Disney's Handwich," then you're not helping the brand, you're hurting it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people feel
over-marketed-to during their Disney vacation. Why contribute to that problem in
silly, meaningless ways?
The Disney Vacation Club
I expected the most passionate response to my mention of the Disney
Vacation Club as one of Disney's bigger mistakes. People have invested plenty of
money into this system; why shouldn't they feel passionate about it?
I'm not saying they shouldn't. I believe that Disney Vacation Club can
indeed be a good deal for families if 1) they want to come to the Disney parks
-a lot-, and 2) if a family is on the larger side, the suites and condos the
club offers are a more economical way to go than multiple hotel rooms (though
I'd argue that there's no reason why a vacation club would be a prerequisite to
providing suites and condos at Disneyland.) My concern is what a system like
this will do--and, in fact, has done--to the relationship between Disney and its
customers, and how it will impact the quality of the resorts.
I have had personal experience with the DVC: I married into a family that
is a member. I've stayed in two DVC properties at Disney World, my first being a
week-long stay in a DVC suite at the Boardwalk. I was mildly shocked by the
condition of the room itself: banged-up corners, chipped paint...though not a
disaster by any means, it wasn't of the quality of Disney hotel rooms I'd seen
before. I was more shocked when my wife called on the second day to find out why
our linens hadn't been changed and have her be told that, unlike hotel guests,
linens for DVC members only get changed every fourth day. I don't personally
care how often the linens are changed--within reason--but I'm an owner (at
least, that's what the DVC marketing materials keep telling me.) Yet I'm staying
in a room that's not as nice as what a guest receives, and getting service
that's inferior to what a guest receives.
My experience at the Boardwalk is anecdotal (which is why I didn't mention
it in my original column), and it's worth noting that my second experience, at
Old Key West, was better: not only was the room in better shape, but because our
party consisted of seven people, the size of the condo worked out very well. (Of
course, they still only changed the sheets once every four days.) But there are
plenty of other reasons to be concerned.
That the DVC kiosks have had a small but negative influence on the parks
is, I think, hard to dispute. In parks that work so hard to create seamless
theming, a DVC office is an intrusion that breaks any fiction they might be
trying to sell. Beyond that, with the DVC, you have a stable of owners who
essentially have to come back and visit every year because their annual fees
make it burdensome not to do so. How can that -not- weaken the incentive of
Disney management to make the resorts better and better? How about getting
people to come solely because they want to, rather than because it's financially
advantageous for them to do so? (I realize that DVC members can avoid any sort
of "Disney trap" by traveling to approved non-Disney locations, but can there be
any doubt that people are more inclined to make Disney their annual family trip
after becoming DVC members?)
None of this means that Disney will always treat DVC owners as second-class
citizens. But the behaviors this system incents all point in the wrong
direction: away from Disney having to work its hardest to earn your vacation
dollar.