mercredi 5 novembre 2014

A Niche Product for Mass Audiences: The Evolution of Epcot

By Dan Heaton: There has been a great deal of discussion recently about where Epcot is heading in its fourth decade. The announcement of a Frozen attraction replacing Maelstrom drew plenty of criticism from devoted fans for changing the spirit of the Disney park. Beyond this particular move, the prevailing anger is really about an ongoing shift away from the original formula. It’s caused fans to build movements like #BelieveinEpcot and similar trends. How did something so promising evolve into what Epcot is today? It’s a complicated question and springs from a push to please as many people as possible.
Epcot

Looking back at Epcot’s origins, it began in the mind of Walt Disney as a prototype community that would involve forward-thinking corporations and new technologies. Following Walt’s passing, Disney management developed something truly remarkable. Epcot Center was original despite what it owed to past World’s Fairs. Its combination of warm nostalgia for the past and real optimism about our future was inspiring. There was coherence to the pavilions that you could sense while strolling through the park. Idealistic visitors loved the park, but it was more of a passing fancy to others. Disney had created a product that appealed to a passionate niche but needed to attract mass audiences. This contradiction eventually restricted the thematic consistency when one side gained a foothold.


There are similar examples where products that appealed to niche groups were sold to mainstream consumers. The iPod was a dream to music fans who wanted to put their entire catalogs onto a single portable device. It was a financial success, but a company like Apple was looking constantly to grow. They realized that most people weren’t using the iPod like the power users. This led them to shift attention towards devices like the iPhone that served nearly everyone. Despite its great success, the iPod has become a relic that isn’t even part of Apple’s product line anymore. While diehard music fans bemoan the loss of this brilliant device, the rest have moved forward to the next big thing.


Another success story is Netflix, which gave movie fans the ability to rent any DVD by mail without the frustrations of a video store. Cinephiles signed up in droves and became prophets for the rapidly expanding company, which realized the limits of this market. Netflix dove into the streaming world instead while rolling back the availability of physical titles. This move alienated the niche audience, but the forward-thinking approach has made Netflix a very successful company. They recognized that most viewers weren’t looking for a hard-to-find title and would be good with watching popular TV shows. The movie selection is limited, but the convenience of the technology for the average consumer is the key.


Epcot Center was brilliant and successful, but the leaders at Disney lost faith in it. Like Apple and Netflix, they tried to deliver a product that appealed to everyone. Unfortunately, they haven’t had the same creative success as those companies. The reason is a lack of commitment to any single approach. Future World now includes thrill rides like Test Track and Mission: SPACE, but they sit alongside an outdated ‘90s show like Ellen’s Energy Adventure. Spaceship Earth was modified to include newer animatronics and a simpler script, but the descent is little more than a trivial gimmick. Journey to Imagination removed the most universally acceptable ride in the park and replaced it with a shorter, less coherent attraction that’s a shell of its former self. Characters were brought in for overlays to The Living Seas and El Rio Del Tiempo, but there was little commitment to really deliver something outstanding.


The question facing Disney leadership about Epcot is simple: what do they want the park to be? If it’s truly just another “Disney Park,” then the Frozen attraction should be the tip of the, uh, iceberg. (Sorry!) Instead of taking half measures that jumble the theme, Disney should show a commitment to attracting mass audiences to Epcot. This isn’t my preferred approach, but it would show there are clear plans behind the choices. Replacing a popular act like Off Kilter with a lumberjack show does not seem to match any particular theme. Since the decisions appear random, it just lends support to the idea that these choices are purely financial. This is an area where Disney should learn from Apple and recognize that framing the message is essential with any change. If they stepped up and revealed a master plan and how the updates fit within that strategy, it would help convince the doubters these aren’t short-sighted decisions.


The financial prospects for Epcot remain strong because of the draw of World Showcase. The chance to eat, drink, and shop at the international pavilions will always bring solid crowds to the park. The real question is where Future World is heading. Will Disney employ a niche approach to re-design Epcot or go full tilt in the other direction? A hybrid strategy could work and still please both fans and casual visitors. A prime example is Soarin’, which maintains the optimistic feeling through a rousing score and effective technology. It’s popular with the average consumer yet doesn’t contradict the park’s theming. It’s much different than the humorless Mission: SPACE, which is all about the thrill of the launch. Even in that case, the foundation is there for something much greater than the current incarnation.


The original Epcot Center seems miles away from what exists today, and the lack of a consistent theme will probably remain for a long time. While I’d love to see a return of Horizons or the original Journey to Imagination, those plans wouldn’t solve the conundrum for management. Epcot would not fill Disney’s need to attract mass audiences with these updates. My hope is that future upgrades can draw from the optimistic spirit of the original while connecting with modern sensibilities. Could a successful Frozen attraction free up Imagineering to use more creativity in the rest of the park? That scenario is possible, but the change probably won’t happen in the near future. If we can dream it, will they actually do it?


Previously:



This article originally appeared at http://ift.tt/1z0o2Lo. All rights reserved. If you are not reading this on a personal RSS reader (such as Feedburner) or on http://ift.tt/N0yOgi, you are reading a scraper website that has illegally copied and stolen http://ift.tt/N0yOgi's content. Please visit http://ift.tt/1z0o2Lo for the original version, along with all its comments.







from Theme Park Insider http://ift.tt/1z0o461

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire