Do WDW Parks Need to Change Based on Competition?

[spacemt354]

Might sound like a frivolous question, with the obvious answer being "of course they do!"

But over the last week on vacation with my family, I have been thinking about this question, and whether or not it has an obvious answer.

This trip we visited both Universal Orlando and WDW. We are all huge Harry Potter fans and designated the first two days of our trip so that we could see Universal, and then afterwards, we spent the rest of our vacation for a week at WDW.

This was my first visit to Universal in a long time, and first time visiting since joining the site. At least to me, I went in with high expectations for not only the Harry Potter lands, but for the rest of the resort. I wanted to be amazed, and I wanted to see what ingredients Disney was "lacking" and how much the competition had pulled closer and closer to what Disney has been doing over the last few decades.

All in all, I saw two different resorts going after two different demographics.

On the Universal side, I saw them going after thrill junkies, teenagers, and young adults.
On the Disney side, I saw them going after families, children, and any-age attractions.

The one thing that they both had in common was they both went for your wallet (but that was expected)

Anyway, it got me thinking, does Disney need a Rip Ride Rocket coaster traveling through DHS in order to be "cool"? Or does it need 3-D attractions galore in order to bring more people into their parks? I have to say, I have been on intense rides at Six Flags such as Kingda Ka and El Toro and Hershey Park such as Fahrenheit. I thought, if I could ride those, I could ride the coasters at Universal...I was wrong. Dragon Challenge was a challenge. I've never felt dizzy or nauseous on a coaster before, but I did after that. And I did after Rocket as well. I wasn't going to even touch Hulk after those 2 experiences.

From my perspective, the 2 lands that came close to what I would expect from a Disney park were the Wizarding World of Harry Potter-Hogsmeade (minus Dragon Challenge for me) and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter-Diagon Alley. The lands were up there with some of the best work Disney has ever done. The rest of the lands felt like a demographic shift from things that Disney does.

This thread isn't meant to be a Universal bashing thread. It's asking that with the recent additions and expansions to Universal, does Disney need to alter its course in order to appeal to the demographic that Uni is targeting? Or does Disney need to do something else? Clearly they need to do something though.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Weird Al has the answer to how corporations are run, enjoy...

 

[morningstar]

Disney should stick to its core demographic while adding a few extreme thrills to satisfy the older siblings. They should not try to outdo the maximum-thrill parks.

I also hope that competition will force them to do a better job of maintaining their effects and detailed immersive theming. It seems like quality has slipped in the past decades and I think it's to blame on resting on their laurels as the king of theme parks. Why try harder when you can scrimp and still be number one? I don't know why it was different in the past, maybe because the company was headed by passionate people instead of professional businessmen who only care about the stock price going up a penny. If those kind of people are in charge (and given the way corporations work, it's likely they will continue to be) then competition is the only way to make them put in extra effort.

 

[spacemt354]

Disney should stick to its core demographic while adding a few extreme thrills to satisfy the older siblings. They should not try to outdo the maximum-thrill parks.

I also hope that competition will force them to do a better job of maintaining their effects and detailed immersive theming. It seems like quality has slipped in the past decades and I think it's to blame on resting on their laurels as the king of theme parks. Why try harder when you can scrimp and still be number one? I don't know why it was different in the past, maybe because the company was headed by passionate people instead of professional businessmen who only care about the stock price going up a penny. If those kind of people are in charge (and given the way corporations work, it's likely they will continue to be) then competition is the only way to make them put in extra effort.

I completely agree.

The only areas that I would want Disney to change would be in maintenance and upkeep of the attractions. I will say they do keep landscaping of the parks and resorts very prim and proper, which makes for a better aesthetic view. But inside the buildings and attractions is where the upkeep has been lacking. The show element. I would hope some extra competition, albeit gearing towards a different demographic, will help facilitate that change.

But it will only change if management sees their bottom line diminish.

 

[powlessfamily4]

I feel Disney does a good job playing to all demographics and offering new attractions. I am a thrill junkie and so is my son. However my daughter and husband are not. Also, we are not Potter fans. We have been to Uni mutiple times but in the last 5 years we have stopped going. Our kids are now in their 20's and married/engaged. We took our 9 month old granddaugter to WDW last October for her first Disney trip. We thought about UNI and opted out. I am not going to knock the park because everyone likes something different. I just feel Disney does a great job at keeping not only up, but ahead of the competition.

 

[northmusic]

One interesting thing for me at least, is how difficult it is to find a theme park/resort that the entire family can enjoy together. Disney has always met this expectation for the most part, mainly because all family members (no matter the age), can enjoy most of their attractions. If I recall, that was the reason Walt wanted to build his theme parks to begin with, and believe they should probably continue in that tradition.

As was already mentioned though, quality is a different story. While the Disney company clearly led the charge on this back in the day, competition has really made it difficult to stand out. On the other hand, Walt also had competition in the animated world back then as well, but a great vision, and a willingness to take risks, combined with talented, passionate people usually made all the difference. I truly believe Disney could do this again with the right direction.

 

[DManRightHere]

Might sound like a frivolous question, with the obvious answer being "of course they do!"

But over the last week on vacation with my family, I have been thinking about this question, and whether or not it has an obvious answer.

This trip we visited both Universal Orlando and WDW. We are all huge Harry Potter fans and designated the first two days of our trip so that we could see Universal, and then afterwards, we spent the rest of our vacation for a week at WDW.

This was my first visit to Universal in a long time, and first time visiting since joining the site. At least to me, I went in with high expectations for not only the Harry Potter lands, but for the rest of the resort. I wanted to be amazed, and I wanted to see what ingredients Disney was "lacking" and how much the competition had pulled closer and closer to what Disney has been doing over the last few decades.

All in all, I saw two different resorts going after two different demographics.

On the Universal side, I saw them going after thrill junkies, teenagers, and young adults.
On the Disney side, I saw them going after families, children, and any-age attractions.

The one thing that they both had in common was they both went for your wallet (but that was expected)

Anyway, it got me thinking, does Disney need a Rip Ride Rocket coaster traveling through DHS in order to be "cool"? Or does it need 3-D attractions galore in order to bring more people into their parks? I have to say, I have been on intense rides at Six Flags such as Kingda Ka and El Toro and Hershey Park such as Fahrenheit. I thought, if I could ride those, I could ride the coasters at Universal...I was wrong. Dragon Challenge was a challenge. I've never felt dizzy or nauseous on a coaster before, but I did after that. And I did after Rocket as well. I wasn't going to even touch Hulk after those 2 experiences.

From my perspective, the 2 lands that came close to what I would expect from a Disney park were the Wizarding World of Harry Potter-Hogsmeade (minus Dragon Challenge for me) and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter-Diagon Alley. The lands were up there with some of the best work Disney has ever done. The rest of the lands felt like a demographic shift from things that Disney does.

This thread isn't meant to be a Universal bashing thread. It's asking that with the recent additions and expansions to Universal, does Disney need to alter its course in order to appeal to the demographic that Uni is targeting? Or does Disney need to do something else? Clearly they need to do something though.[/QUOTE

Clearly they (Disney) need to do something though.

I disagree. Disney is definitely the leader and I do not think their are close to losing it.

I do agree that Universal had the billion dollar idea for Harry Potter. Universal could do the same with another franchise, but I still do not believe that could put Universal at outperforming Disney (guest attendance wise).

Universal could potentially outperform Disney, but it will take at least another theme park or acquiring Sea World or something.

Now speaking of quality of themed lands, Universal has come a long long way from what i can see (pre diagon alley, I have not seen it yet), I still see Disney as much more detailed.

Universal just doesn't feel like as much of an experience to me as Disney does. Additionally, I can spend 2 days at universal and I've done everything. At Disney, we stay for a week and we still do not get everything we want done.


As an overall experience, universal is nowhere near Disney standards, but i could possible see it changine, but it would take BIG changes on Universal's side.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Heck no. The world needs more near coma inducing attractions specifically designed to not whip ADHD little Billy into a frothing frenzy.

Let Universal continue to build rides that will literally fling Grammy's pacemaker right out of her chest.

Win-Win.

 

[Mouse Trap]

I think it has always been very evident Disney and Uni have two different target audiences. Disney is doing exceptionally well with their audience and Uni is doing well with theirs as well.

EXCEPT...for this little blip at Disney known as Hollywood Studios. HS is obviously direct competition to Universal, but for now it really has no weapons to compete with Uni in terms of thrill factor. Toy Story, ToT. Rock'n Rollercoaster are all really cool rides, but Disney needs their big landmark attraction at HS to compete with Uni.

Star Wars will bring this factor, and the real battle between HS and Uni will begin. Don't look at it as an overall Uni vs Disney battle. Look at the DHS vs Uni/IOA battle, parks which are truly direct competition to each other. Disney is by far the leader in the theme park industry, so it needs to be looked at in this sort of scale.

 

[morningstar]

Don't look at it as an overall Uni vs Disney battle. Look at the DHS vs Uni/IOA battle, parks which are truly direct competition to each other. Disney is by far the leader in the theme park industry, so it needs to be looked at in this sort of scale.

Good point - just as Disney-MGM Studios was originally built to battle Universal. Lots of people visit WDW and take a day or two side trip to Universal. If Disney could just keep those people on their property instead, I think they would count that as a big success.

 

[JIMINYCR]

There is no real competition. Disney will continue to be the biggest player in town and continue to rack up the majority of guest numbers despite HP or anything else Uni brings. They have the upper hand with recognition and attracting vacationers. But they still need to be innovative and challenge themselves to bring the next new and exciting attraction/land/park. Walt set the pattern in the beginning, he could have been satisfied with what he had but he knew staying put wasnt challenging creativity or the way to discover hidden talents. Only moving forward will one stay #1 and keep from being stagnant and old, attracting future paying guests.

 

[Chef Mickey]

I think it has always been very evident Disney and Uni have two different target audiences. Disney is doing exceptionally well with their audience and Uni is doing well with theirs as well.

EXCEPT...for this little blip at Disney known as Hollywood Studios. HS is obviously direct competition to Universal, but for now it really has no weapons to compete with Uni in terms of thrill factor. Toy Story, ToT. Rock'n Rollercoaster are all really cool rides, but Disney needs their big landmark attraction at HS to compete with Uni.

Star Wars will bring this factor, and the real battle between HS and Uni will begin. Don't look at it as an overall Uni vs Disney battle. Look at the DHS vs Uni/IOA battle, parks which are truly direct competition to each other. Disney is by far the leader in the theme park industry, so it needs to be looked at in this sort of scale.

Disney has proven it doesnt need anything to compete with Universal as Disney is still the undisputed leader as you stated. Not tryng to be argumentative at all. Ive said before I think this fact has made Disney slow to change and hindered growth. Current management is milking the cash cow. I do think Disney will need to move quickly and decisively at some point in the future. As of now however, there really is no immediate threat and it shows.

Sucks for us because while Disney is the best park with the best conent, they are not investing for the future aggressively enough. The facts may change, but right now, Disney feels no need to expand at the rate Universa has expanded.

 

[Beholder]

Personally, the issues I most get aggravated at Disney with is the pace in which they build new attractions, the watered down budgets (and results), and far to often, the upkeep.

I don't think Disney can wage a war against UNI on UNI's terms, but must do it on Disney's terms. They have to stay with the formula that has made them what they are. Let UNI do what they do, but Disney can NOT stop doing what they (used to?) do. They need to loosen up the purse strings, let WDI do what they love, and get it done.

IF Disney returned to their core way of doing things, creating the impossible, with an eye towards story, quality, and a world class theme, then there really won't be any competition.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

There is no need for Disney to do a thing. Maleficent has already put a spell on all the Disney fans. You can tell because they spend 4 hours in line to meet a college girl in an Elsa costume in a barely themed room and declare Disney AMAZE-BALLS!!!! Then spend 90 mins in line for Gringott's and declare Universal sucks because the AAs don't have compliance (although they don't know what that is).

 

[WondersOfLife]

No. Disney has enough material to work with that can drive in park guests. I've said it once and I'll say it again. It doesn't matter how popular the movie is... If the attraction is done so well that it attracts guests into the parks, then Disney doesn't need to copy UNI. Heck, they don't even need movie-based rides.

Examples...

-Expedition Everest
-Space Mountain
-Thunder Mountain
-Splash Mountain
-Dinosaur
-Tower of Terror
-Test Track
-Soarin


These are among Disney's highest ranked rides. These are the rides that are still attracting park guests.. Or.. that "older sibling" contentment. Half of which aren't even based off of a movie/series. The other half not being a currently-popular movie.



Not saying the rides based off of actual movies aren't done quite as well but..... A majority haven't been. Despite the movie's popularity...

I'm not saying the attractions based on movies aren't good. There are some GREAT attractions (bugs life, toy story, star wars, ect.) But you don't hear the every-day person who's never say "I REALLYYYY want to go to Disney so I can go ride Peter Pan's Flight!" because really, that's not what will grab somebody's thrill-seeking attention (thread is about copying universal, right? right. thrills. not dark rides.)


Not saying Disney HASN'T screwed up with original ideas..

But.. What I'm saying is... Disney does NOT have to copy Universal. Disney has plenty of source material to work with on big thrills. They shouldn't have to reach out to other companies. They don't even have to make attractions based on a movie.

It just has to be done very well, to the point where it looks good enough to be on those billboards beside the highway to grab people's attention. It needs to be a good. ride. No. It doesn't need to be Avatar. It doesn't even have to be Star Wars.

It could be a mother flipping Black Cauldron coaster!!! It just has to be done AWESOMELY to the point where it would be thrilling to ride!

 

[DisneyDaver]

WDW is clearly the theme park leader in Orlando and will be for at least the short and medium term (and likely the long term too).

But, it is telling when people like me (who used to spend a week at WDW with an occasional day at Universal every few years) are now spending more and more time at Universal. I spent 2 days at Universal in 2012 and this November will be spending 3 days there. I'm sure I'm not the only one. That is not a good thing for WDW.

The Magic Kingdom is a timeless, amazing theme park for all ages. The other parks, however, need some work.

Epcot's needs updating and more attractions, DHS needs to double to number of attractions and AK needs a few more attractions.

The result is that Epcot feels dated and DHS and AK each feel like parks that were never finished. If those changes were made (even gradually like 1 big attraction and smaller attraction per year), I would likely go back to spending the majority of my Orlando vacation time at WDW.

 

[spacemt354]

There is no need for Disney to do a thing. Maleficent has already put a spell on all the Disney fans. You can tell because they spend 4 hours in line to meet a college girl in an Elsa costume in a barely themed room and declare Disney AMAZE-BALLS!!!! Then spend 90 mins in line for Gringott's and declare Universal sucks because the AAs don't have compliance (although they don't know what that is).

I think that analogy completely misses the point of the discussion.

What you're trying to convey is that Disney fans lack a sense of "reality" for how "great" Uni is. But just because a fan prefers Disney over Uni doesn't make them ignorant. and vice versa.

For example, our recent trip to Universal was particularly underwhelming for a lot of us. There were positives. But there were also negatives.

Positives:
Harry Potter - I can't say enough about it. The themes, details, it really felt straight out of the book
HPFJ - By far the best attraction in Uni and probably my top 3 in Orlando.
Diagon Alley Shops - All were unique and immersed in detail

Then there were other things we noticed:

Parking - what a pain in the neck. We paid for preferred parking but it seemed as if it didn't matter. It was still a hike just to get to the parks and you also had to go through CityWalk to get to them. Perhaps it's just being new to Uni, but we asked several CMs and they said that was the easiest route.

American Express Lounge - With grandparents we can't walk around 90 degree heat all day, so we purchased tickets with AE to have access to the lounge. Little did we know it was filthy, hidden in a dingy corner, and just a mess inside. Disgrace to even advertise it.

The Parks themselves were just dirty and felt too tight. In IOA it just felt very forced going from land to land, there was no cohesiveness to it. And in UOS, it was just ride next to ride. If I went on Transformers 3D, I took a stroll to Shrek 4D, then made a left to Despicable Me 3D.

And it's not really a negative but while waiting to board Flight of the Hippogriff we overhead two CMs talking from opposite sides of the ride station: One said "I can't wait till my shift ends so I can go to Disney tonight" the other replied "Can I come with you?"

In all, Disney just works better for us. Since 5/9 of our family members couldn't ride a majority of Uni rides, Disney helps facilitate our whole family riding together. That doesn't mean Uni is bad in any way, nor does that mean Uni doesn't have family rides. It just means that we enjoy the family rides at Disney more, and there's more selection.

If I was a teenager going down with friends, and I had a choice between Disney or Uni, i would think there would be more for us to do at Uni. We just jump from ride to ride and don't care if there's no elaborate story or cohesiveness within the parks, and have a great time.

But see that's the point of why I started this thread. The discussion is not a declaration for Disney to sit back and do nothing. The discussion is whether or not Disney should alter its family trajectory and provide more for the teenagers and thrill seekers.

And to respond to your point, to a 7 year old girl, meeting Elsa might just be the most AMAZE-BALLS thing in the world to them. So painting a broad brush that every Disney fan prefers a M&G to a state of the art attraction, just think about what target audiences your discussing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Parking - what a pain in the neck. We paid for preferred parking but it seemed as if it didn't matter. It was still a hike just to get to the parks and you also had to go through CityWalk to get to them. Perhaps it's just being new to Uni, but we asked several CMs and they said that was the easiest route.

[...]

The Parks themselves were just dirty and felt too tight. In IOA it just felt very forced going from land to land, there was no cohesiveness to it. And in UOS, it was just ride next to ride. If I went on Transformers 3D, I took a stroll to Shrek 4D, then made a left to Despicable Me 3D.

This was all done on purpose just like with the may the Magic Kingdom area is laid out. The purpose is to create a singular place, not a sprawling mess where far too much of the experience time is wasted in nothingness and transportation. Walt Disney World needs to change because it has stopped offering anything unique and instead caved to those who want only the familiar. It's environments have become more like the suburban drudgery people once escaped, and EPCOT was to be a model against, and it is increasingly filled with only references to Disney's own prior work that can be experienced elsewhere through different mediums at far less cost.

 

[erasure fan1]

does Disney need to alter its course in order to appeal to the demographic that Uni is targeting? Or does Disney need to do something else? Clearly they need to do something though.

I believe they do need to do something. I think what Disney needs to chase is, not the big thrill demographic. It needs to chase to get back to the world leader in ride/attraction innovation. Uni has taken this buzz away from them as of late and Disney really doesn't seem to care. They can still do it, I have no doubt. It's just a question of want. That's why all Disney World fans should hope that Uni continues to do fantastic. The better they do the more Disney will take notice and maybe get a move on. The sad part is that Disney really doesn't have to anything. Unfortunately the damage you do by doing nothing may not show up for 20yrs. But if you lose a generation of kids because the parents lose interest and don't take the kids or the kids just don't think it's cool anymore, that can be hard to recover from.

 

[spacemt354]

This was all done on purpose just like with the may the Magic Kingdom area is laid out. The purpose is to create a singular place, not a sprawling mess where far too much of the experience time is wasted in nothingness and transportation. Walt Disney World needs to change because it has stopped offering anything unique and instead caved to those who want only the familiar. It's environments have become more like the suburban drudgery people once escaped, and EPCOT was to be a model against, and it is increasingly filled with only references to Disney's own prior work that can be experienced elsewhere through different mediums at far less cost.

The execution of the hub and spoke model of the Magic Kingdom pales in comparison though. The magic kingdom creates a synergy within the lands, where you feel encompassed in the land you're in while not feeling a thematic threat of another. The harsh contrast between Suess landing to the lost continent to WWoHP creates a less than effective hub and spoke model due to the lack of buffer zones between the lands. More often than not in the magic kingdom you'll cross under a bridge, or over a river, or walk through a thematic limbo in order to go from one land to the other. The was a difference I had noticed.

And in regards to the parking lot. If they were trying to replicate how in the the magic kingdom you park far away, then moving walkways to your destination doesn't come close to the effectiveness and luxury of riding a monorail or taking a ferry boat across the seven seas lagoon in order to reach your singular destination.

I do agree that in some areas, the parks have become old and worn, and not in a timeless way. Major overhauls in regards to thematic reconditioning should take place over the next few years to restore what once was great to it former self. But of course nothing will be done unless management wants it to be