Peter Pan Queue

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Exactly. My hunch is the parks will see a lot in the next few years. 5th gate would never happen until after the 50th celebrations are long over. And then I suspect it will be a small boutique park. IMO.
If all four parks get major treatment before Iger retires (or even if construction begins before he retires), I will take back every critical thing I have said about him. He's half-way there to completing this goal. He has two years to get the rest going... Will he make it?

Concerning the fifth park, Eisner said some time before he left that he had a concept for it that he had yet discuss with Imagineering. I wonder if this was just talk in an effort to stay captain, or if this was something serious enough for WDI to shelf for a later CEO to look at...
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
If all four parks get major treatment before Iger retires (or even if construction begins before he retires), I will take back every critical thing I have said about him. He's half-way there to completing this goal. He has two years to get the rest going... Will he make it?

Concerning the fifth park, Eisner said some time before he left that he had a concept for it that he had yet discuss with Imagineering. I wonder if this was just talk in an effort to stay captain, or if this was something serious enough for WDI to shelf for a later CEO to look at...

I would bet he had a good idea. He also talked of an automated personal transportation system at WDW so he saw way out into the future.

Personally I think Iger will leave WDW well positioned for the 50th. He has certainly built a solid foundation without getting any credit from some. But that is part of being a CEO I guess.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
I would bet he had a good idea. He also talked of an automated personal transportation system at WDW so he saw way out into the future.

Personally I think Iger will leave WDW well positioned for the 50th. He has certainly built a solid foundation without getting any credit from some. But that is part of being a CEO I guess.
I certainly hope so! Right now, I'm actually pessimistic despite my efforts to be optimistic. If DLR is the precursor to the quality WDW will become, then there is much to be optimistic about.

I often think that Eisner was the driving force for everything that was built and expanded at WDW up to the mid 2000's, including new E-tickets every five years, the continuous build out of new hotels, the pattern of new parks every 10 years, new mini parks being built, etc. All patterns stopped after Eisner left - even the handprints outside of the Great Movie Ride. It's as if, without Eisner there keeping these patterns going, there's nobody there with a personal interest to perpetuate them. Eisner should have made these things automatic so that they didn't require an initiative by the CEO to get each project started all the time...
 
Last edited:

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
I know what you are saying but if they have a compelling idea for a boutique park I think they might do that. If Sea World can afford a Discovery Cove type experience so can WDW. Just a thought.
@Tom You have to understand the business model argument for a fifth park. First of all, new rides at existing parks do not bring in new revenue dollars. They do, however, keep attendance numbers up and keeps the numbers from, otherwise, going down. New parks increase revenue by offering an incentive for families to stay longer, thus increasing not only ticket sales, but hotel stays, food sales, etc. It also gets people to cancel any plans they might have had to go to USO or SW. Also, understand Las Vegas as a business model. Any where else in the nation, two, three, or four huge themed gambling resorts would be in excess. But Vegas has many more than that. It's because people think of Vegas when they consider going somewhere for themed gambling resorts. WDW, or Orlando in general, is becoming the Vegas of themed resorts and theme parks. As of now, people consider many cities for theme park vacations, including Anaheim and even Dubia. If Orlando had one of each and then some, they would consider Orlando first and rarely anywhere else. This means Orlando would need the capacity to hold all these people who would have gone elsewhere, which means they need more theme parks to handle it all. It's a sustainable cycle. More variety equals more tourists, more tourists equals a greater need for more capacity, more capacity equals more variety.
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
@Tom You have to understand the business model argument for a fifth park. First of all, new rides at existing parks do not bring in new revenue dollars. They do, however, keep attendance numbers up and keeps the numbers from, otherwise, going down. New parks increase revenue by offering an incentive for families to stay longer, thus increasing not only ticket sales, but hotel stays, food sales, etc. It also gets people to cancel any plans they might have had to go to USO or SW. Also, understand Las Vegas as a business model. Any where else in the nation, two, three, or four huge themed gambling resorts would be in excess. But Vegas has many more than that. It's because people think of Vegas when they consider going somewhere for themed gambling resorts. WDW, or Orlando in general, is becoming the Vegas of themed resorts and theme parks. As of now, people consider many cities for theme park vacations, including Anaheim and even Dubia. If Orlando had one of each and then some, they would consider Orlando first and rarely anywhere else. This means Orlando would need the capacity to hold all these people who would have gone elsewhere, which means they need more theme parks to handle it all. It's a sustainable cycle. More variety equals more tourists, more tourists equals a greater need for more capacity, more capacity equals more variety.
Explain this then.
image.jpg

Brought in tons of new people and revenue to Universal.
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
And Carsland....

It's more like this--lack of investment makes people not want to return. Investment makes people come back, and sooner. So invest and make more money.
Cars Land is another great example. Guess that's what first came to mind since I live in Florida. I think attendence also increased at Animal Kingdom when Everest opened. Just helps prove the point that Disney should add to its existing parks before even thinking about a fifth.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Explain this then.
View attachment 67171
Brought in tons of new people and revenue to Universal.
Good point! Now, let me explain. I touched on this immediately after that sentence, but I will now elaborate. I said that new attractions at existing parks, keep attendance number up and prevent the numbers from, otherwise, going down. In other words, without the new additions, attendance numbers would slowly trickle down. You need new attraction in order to prevent this from happening. The short spike of additional attendance seen immediately after these openings makes up for the downfall leading up to it and slowly after it.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Cars Land is another great example. Guess that's what first came to mind since I live in Florida. I think attendence also increased at Animal Kingdom when Everest opened. Just helps prove the point that Disney should add to its existing parks before even thinking about a fifth.
Yes. EE made AK a stronger park and gave people another reason to include AK and make time for it in their vacation plans. They should not have waited until now to follow up with EE with another E ticket. These additions were necessary because AK was still a new park and didn't have enough to convince enough families to stay longer.

EDIT - Think of it as a war on two fronts. Existing parks have to be constantly renovated and refreshed with new attractions to keep those business strong and growing. New parks need to be added every decade or so in order to create new business growth areas.
 

Tom

Beta Return
@Tom You have to understand the business model argument for a fifth park. First of all, new rides at existing parks do not bring in new revenue dollars. They do, however, keep attendance numbers up and keeps the numbers from, otherwise, going down. New parks increase revenue by offering an incentive for families to stay longer, thus increasing not only ticket sales, but hotel stays, food sales, etc. It also gets people to cancel any plans they might have had to go to USO or SW. Also, understand Las Vegas as a business model. Any where else in the nation, two, three, or four huge themed gambling resorts would be in excess. But Vegas has many more than that. It's because people think of Vegas when they consider going somewhere for themed gambling resorts. WDW, or Orlando in general, is becoming the Vegas of themed resorts and theme parks. As of now, people consider many cities for theme park vacations, including Anaheim and even Dubia. If Orlando had one of each and then some, they would consider Orlando first and rarely anywhere else. This means Orlando would need the capacity to hold all these people who would have gone elsewhere, which means they need more theme parks to handle it all. It's a sustainable cycle. More variety equals more tourists, more tourists equals a greater need for more capacity, more capacity equals more variety.

So, what you're saying is, if Disney adds a fifth park, while leaving the three suffering parks alone, it will increase attendance and overall trip length?

Why don't they add a 6th boutique park while they're at it. That would mean a guest has to spend 6 days on property, according to your math, right?

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You have to understand that as guests realize there are parks on Disney property that aren't even worth going to (DHS is quickly approaching that status, and Epcot is hot on its trail), they will spend more and more time up the street.

The way to keep guests on property is to overwhelm them with things to do in the 4 existing parks. If each park is so full of attractions that it physically requires more than one day to see them all (or attractions and entertainment that are so fantastic, guests want to repeat things on another day), 4 parks turns into 5-6 days of required visits. And with most guests taking a 1-week vacation, with a travel day on each end, their 5 days of park time is quickly filled up with Disney, leaving no time to venture off property.

Additional partial-day or low-interest parks are not going to add days to a guest's on-property needs. With park hopping abilities, and the easy decision to just plain skip a park, many guests can see all the WDW they care to see in 3 or 4 days. That leaves 1-2 days for UO or another Orlando destination.

You have to understand that this is really how it works.
 

Voxel

President of Progress City
So, what you're saying is, if Disney adds a fifth park, while leaving the three suffering parks alone, it will increase attendance and overall trip length?

Why don't they add a 6th boutique park while they're at it. That would mean a guest has to spend 6 days on property, according to your math, right?

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You have to understand that as guests realize there are parks on Disney property that aren't even worth going to (DHS is quickly approaching that status, and Epcot is hot on its trail), they will spend more and more time up the street.

The way to keep guests on property is to overwhelm them with things to do in the 4 existing parks. If each park is so full of attractions that it physically requires more than one day to see them all (or attractions and entertainment that are so fantastic, guests want to repeat things on another day), 4 parks turns into 5-6 days of required visits. And with most guests taking a 1-week vacation, with a travel day on each end, their 5 days of park time is quickly filled up with Disney, leaving no time to venture off property.

Additional partial-day or low-interest parks are not going to add days to a guest's on-property needs. With park hopping abilities, and the easy decision to just plain skip a park, many guests can see all the WDW they care to see in 3 or 4 days. That leaves 1-2 days for UO or another Orlando destination.

You have to understand that this is really how it works.
Agreed with this. I currently have 2 days booked for epcot but that might change two a second day at UNI.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Agreed with this. I currently have 2 days booked for epcot but that might change two a second day at UNI.
@Tom You can't add a fifth park while the other four have problems. A fifth park will only attract people to stay longer if the other four overwhelm them in the quality (notice I didn't say quantity) of its offerings.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Another factor in this is that there has to be a rail connection between all the parks so that each park can feed and spill their attendence numbers off each other.
 

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
Another factor in this is that there has to be a rail connection between all the parks so that each park can feed and spill their attendence numbers off each other.
So, additional gates every decade, overwhelming existing parks, and all parks connected by transit. That's the key?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom