Comments on: The 12 Milestones in Disney World History part 9; Disney-MGM Studios debuts http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/12/31/the-12-milestones-in-disney-world-history-part-9-disney-mgm-studios-debuts/ Feeding the Disney fixation daily Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:06:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Raidermatt http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/12/31/the-12-milestones-in-disney-world-history-part-9-disney-mgm-studios-debuts/#comment-2239 Raidermatt Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:57:00 +0000 http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/12/31/the-12-milestones-in-disney-world-history-part-9-disney-mgm-studios-debuts/#comment-2239 Good points. MGM's significance as the first park built under the new Disney philsophy cannot be overstated. Disney is always touting its "brand value", and I think this is an example where they shot themselves in the foot, and continue to do so today. After Epcot, people had a pretty good idea of what to expect in terms of value from a Disney park. Lots of things to do and see, and if it was a non-MK park, something new and different. MGM was the first park to damage that value. After the philosophy continued with every park Disney has built since, the public no longer even thinks about flocking to a new Disney park. Key exceptions are Tokyo DisneySea and Disneyland Paris, both of which were not built as "shell" parks and both of which performed well (the problems in Paris were related to the overbuilding of hotels and the location in general, not the park itself). But instead of changing its park-building philosophy to go with what has proven to be successful, their answer is to say there is no need for new domestic parks, and to mitigate risk (and therefore potential profit as well) by giving majority ownership in foreign parks to other companies and governments. Yes, Disney parks are still fun places to visit, but the opportunities Disney has missed to truly capitalize on its reputation and resources are too large to fathom. Good points. MGM’s significance as the first park built under the new Disney philsophy cannot be overstated. Disney is always touting its “brand value”, and I think this is an example where they shot themselves in the foot, and continue to do so today.

After Epcot, people had a pretty good idea of what to expect in terms of value from a Disney park. Lots of things to do and see, and if it was a non-MK park, something new and different.

MGM was the first park to damage that value. After the philosophy continued with every park Disney has built since, the public no longer even thinks about flocking to a new Disney park. Key exceptions are Tokyo DisneySea and Disneyland Paris, both of which were not built as “shell” parks and both of which performed well (the problems in Paris were related to the overbuilding of hotels and the location in general, not the park itself).

But instead of changing its park-building philosophy to go with what has proven to be successful, their answer is to say there is no need for new domestic parks, and to mitigate risk (and therefore potential profit as well) by giving majority ownership in foreign parks to other companies and governments.

Yes, Disney parks are still fun places to visit, but the opportunities Disney has missed to truly capitalize on its reputation and resources are too large to fathom.

]]>