News D23 Expo 2022

[CaptainAmerica]

Apple and Samsung care about market share, because every person who buys a Galaxy phone is someone who didn't buy an iPhone. Universal's growth will not be at the expense of Disney, it will be organic, i.e. people who wouldn't have otherwise taken a theme park vacation in Central Florida will decide to.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not that they don't care. The reason that they have height requirements on the majority of their rides is due to who manufactures the rides at Universal. Universal uses a lot of major amusement park manufacturers for their attractions. The manufacturers are the ones who set the height requirements not the parks.

The reason why Disney is able to get around that is a lot of the rides are done in house.

Both Disney and Universal use custom, in-house designed ride systems and ride systems already available. Neither [currently] manufacturers their own ride systems in house.

Manufacturers make a variety of systems. They offer systems with different height requirements and there are systems available where the height requirement is dependent on the ride experience, not the ride hardware. That can also be true of custom ride systems, as Fast and Furious: Supercharged and Skull Island: Reign of Kong use the same ride system but have different height requirements. Cat in the Hat (another Universal custom system) previously had a lower height requirement.

 

[Lil Copter Cap]

The idea that people are going to leave Disney in droves for Universal is delusional. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this mentality.

Harry Potter single handedly saved the parks sector of Universal. They've been able to strike deals for other IPs since, which is great for their portfolio.

Further, I have to ask: why are people so invested in what Disney does to combat Epic Universe? It surely isn't because these individuals care about Disney "losing its hold on the industry?"

Steering back to D23 Expo: Disney made announcements that they are committed to implementing. And now that time has passed since the presentation, I think I prefer this parks panel approach over a breadth of announcements being cancelled and never being mentioned again.

Personally, I think sharing news at this Expo is important (if you're going to hold it and charge admission, make it worth it)—but it's also become clear that they want year-round buzz for the parks. They consistently publish on the Parks Blog about food, merchandise, and events throughout the year. But what if, and I know it's a what if, Josh is shifting the mentality that year-round announcements of large Parks information is the way to go? Why NOT announce a new land, attraction, or experience on a pre-determined date mid-year and keep the Parks buzz going instead of during one big event?

 

[doctornick]

Further, I have to ask: why are people so invested in what Disney does to combat Epic Universe? It surely isn't because these individuals care about Disney "losing its hold on the industry?"

Just to answer this, I don't think people here really care about Disney's market share - if anything, I think most would be happy to see Disney lose customers and have the parks with lighter attendance.

But the reason people care about this issue is that they want to see Disney investing in the parks and building new and interesting stuff and there seems to be a trend under Chapek to... not do that. So, there is some hope that Disney with invest money in the parks not because they care about customers (they don't) but perhaps because they want to reinforce their dominant position in the industry. Basically, the development of Epic Universe seems like one of the only things that would actually cause Disney to say "hey, maybe we should actually build something new at WDW".

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But the reason people care about this issue is that they want to see Disney investing in the parks and building new and interesting stuff and there seems to be a trend under Chapek to... not do that.

And I think "trend under Chapek" is just a nonsensical concept right now. The entirety of the "under Chapek" timeline has been pandemic and pandemic-recovery. There hasn't been any time to establish a trend because he's only been a wartime boss.

And not for nothing, but Toy Story, Galaxy's Edge (x2), Avenger's Campus, and the Wish all came from his relatively short tenure as Parks chairman.

 

[Jrb1979]

And I think "trend under Chapek" is just a nonsensical concept right now. The entirety of the "under Chapek" timeline has been pandemic and pandemic-recovery. There hasn't been any time to establish a trend because he's only been a wartime boss.

And not for nothing, but Toy Story, Galaxy's Edge (x2), Avenger's Campus, and the Wish all came from his relatively short tenure as Parks chairman.

I would agree with you but we are now past Covid. This D23 should have been about continuing what was going on prior to Covid. Instead we got a bunch of things that most likely won't happen, 2 night time shows and a new AA for Haunted Mansion. Where were the new attractions?

 

[Horizons '83]

I work for a Fortune 100 company in their FP&A group.


Hospitality and tourism is a $4 trillion industry and has literally millions of competitors. It's not an industry that cares about market share.

"Central Florida Theme Park operators" is not a market, except maybe as it applies to annual pass sales.

So then you understand what I am saying then?
I won't argue facts, but to say Disney isn't worried about losing market share is a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?

 

[LSLS]

It's an expanding market and Disney doesn't give a crap about share. "Expanding market share" does not mean "taking away from Disney."

Pretend Disney has 100 guests (77% share) and Universal has 30 guests (23% share).

Then Disney goes to 110 (74% share) guests and Universal goes to 38 guests (26% share).

In that example, Disney gained more guests than Universal did, but Universal still gained market share. A smaller competitor "gaining market share" from a larger competitor is expected because the same raw increases count more for them in percentage terms.

This is absolutely what Disney believes will happen (hence why they don't seem to care about it). I will say I have NO knowledge or experience in tourism or travel patterns, so I'd assume they know what they are seeing and why there is good reason to believe your scenario is correct. I'd also assume the idea there is NO worry is probably incorrect (not that you said that here) just because they are making some assumptions, and there is a bit of an inherent risk in that.

So, my question would be, is there a point where Disney would care, and if so, what is it. If in your scenario, Disney only went to 102 guests, while every other year they were increasing by 10%, would that set off alarm bells? Would that one year matter, or did they build into their planning the idea that they would see a single year drop, but it would stabilize? Like I said, no real knowledge, but I do find this really interesting.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This is absolutely what Disney believes will happen (hence why they don't seem to care about it). I will say I have NO knowledge or experience in tourism or travel patterns, so I'd assume they know what they are seeing and why there is good reason to believe your scenario is correct. I'd also assume the idea there is NO worry is probably incorrect (not that you said that here) just because they are making some assumptions, and there is a bit of an inherent risk in that.

So, my question would be, is there a point where Disney would care, and if so, what is it. If in your scenario, Disney only went to 102 guests, while every other year they were increasing by 10%, would that set off alarm bells? Would that one year matter, or did they build into their planning the idea that they would see a single year drop, but it would stabilize? Like I said, no real knowledge, but I do find this really interesting.

I think two unrelated things happened at the same time, and it's really hard to strip apart the effects of each. Thing #1 is the opening of Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and Thing #2 is the rise and mainstream-ification of Uber and Lyft. WWoHP was Universal saying "we can leverage the most popular IP in the world (arguably) and execute it at a Disney caliber (and beyond)." Uber and Lyft ensured that Disney could no longer protect the bubble, meaning erstwhile captive guests could now leave property relatively easily and inexpensively to see what was going on up the street. This culminated in the elimination of Magical Express, which I saw as the final laying-down of arms in Disney's efforts to protect their turf.

 

[erasure fan1]

The idea that people are going to leave Disney in droves for Universal is delusional. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this mentality.

Again, I don't think too many people think there will be some mass Exodus from WDW. Are people saying that Disney could lose a day with some people? Yes. And does Disney care? Who knows. I think they do, considering they spent money on microchips in cups to save literally a penny or two. So if they care that much about soda, I'm sure they care about losing a possible day from customers.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Again, I don't think too many people think there will be some mass Exodus from WDW. Are people saying that Disney could lose a day with some people? Yes. And does Disney care? Who knows. I think they do, considering they spent money on microchips in cups to save literally a penny or two. So if they care that much about soda, I'm sure they care about losing a possible day from customers.

Losing a day from Joe doesn't matter if Kathy has been waiting to book and everything is sold out.

 

[erasure fan1]

Losing a day from Joe doesn't matter if Kathy has been waiting to book and everything is sold out.

Maybe, maybe not. You don't think they want both? They spent a lot of extra money on soda cups to stop Joe from drinking 4 cents extra of soda. I'm inclined to think losing $1500 from him might be something they wouldn't like.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

It's an expanding market and Disney doesn't give a crap about share. "Expanding market share" does not mean "taking away from Disney."

Pretend Disney has 100 guests (77% share) and Universal has 30 guests (23% share).

Then Disney goes to 110 (74% share) guests and Universal goes to 38 guests (26% share).

In that example, Disney gained more guests than Universal did, but Universal still gained market share. A smaller competitor "gaining market share" from a larger competitor is expected because the same raw increases count more for them in percentage terms.

It absolutely does mean they are taking from Disney because of opportunity cost. Those guests could have gone to Disney. Disney is missing out!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It absolutely does mean they are taking from Disney because of opportunity cost. Those guests could have gone to Disney. Disney is missing out!

A Harry Potter fan who goes to Universal because they have Harry Potter was never going to go to Disney.

People do NOT say "I'm going to go to Central Florida for a theme park vacation, but I need to decide whether to go to Walt Disney World or Universal Orlando Resort." That's not how the decision making flows.

 

[bhg469]

Simply not true. My friend from NY just left town with the decision made to only go to one park. They chose universal this time and only went to Disney springs.

 

[mysto]

Where were the new attractions?

The rethemed Dino area in AK and "beyond big thunder" in MK will need attractions. You are right they didn't announce them, but if the new areas are greenlit then several attractions will eventually be announced.

So the new attractions are implied? A glint in the eye?

I also agree it's a bit disappointing, I'm just saying that there was news, they are looking ahead.

 

[erasure fan1]

The rethemed Dino area in AK and "beyond big thunder" in MK will need attractions. You are right they didn't announce them, but if the new areas are greenlit then several attractions will eventually be announced.

So the new attractions are implied? A glint in the eye?

I also agree it's a bit disappointing, I'm just saying that there was news, they are looking ahead.

I don't think you can really count the blue sky stuff as implied. I have a hard time giving them any credit for looking ahead. Not with how absolutely horrible this D23 showing was. Covid can't be an excuse. These useless people in charge had 2 years to figure out how to improve the parks with new attractions. But all they were concerned about was what can we get rid of, and what things that were included can we upcharge for.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

A Harry Potter fan who goes to Universal because they have Harry Potter was never going to go to Disney.

People do NOT say "I'm going to go to Central Florida for a theme park vacation, but I need to decide whether to go to Walt Disney World or Universal Orlando Resort." That's not how the decision making flows.

Do you have any data to back this up?

 

[HauntedPirate]

And I think "trend under Chapek" is just a nonsensical concept right now. The entirety of the "under Chapek" timeline has been pandemic and pandemic-recovery. There hasn't been any time to establish a trend because he's only been a wartime boss.

And not for nothing, but Toy Story, Galaxy's Edge (x2), Avenger's Campus, and the Wish all came from his relatively short tenure as Parks chairman.

Not exactly shining examples of Disney’s finest, outside of Rise and the visual depth in GE. Don’t forget he also greenlit DE, KiteTails, and allegedly came up with the base idea for HARModious.

 

[HauntedPirate]

The idea that people are going to leave Disney in droves for Universal is delusional. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this mentality.

Harry Potter single handedly saved the parks sector of Universal. They've been able to strike deals for other IPs since, which is great for their portfolio.

Further, I have to ask: why are people so invested in what Disney does to combat Epic Universe? It surely isn't because these individuals care about Disney "losing its hold on the industry?"

Steering back to D23 Expo: Disney made announcements that they are committed to implementing. And now that time has passed since the presentation, I think I prefer this parks panel approach over a breadth of announcements being cancelled and never being mentioned again.

Personally, I think sharing news at this Expo is important (if you're going to hold it and charge admission, make it worth it)—but it's also become clear that they want year-round buzz for the parks. They consistently publish on the Parks Blog about food, merchandise, and events throughout the year. But what if, and I know it's a what if, Josh is shifting the mentality that year-round announcements of large Parks information is the way to go? Why NOT announce a new land, attraction, or experience on a pre-determined date mid-year and keep the Parks buzz going instead of during one big event?

What are they committed to implementing?