Universal Epic Universe (South Expansion Complex) - Now Open!

[Agent H]

Social media and influencer culture changed how people engaged with Disney content.

Young people were monetizing and advertising the idea of Disney as a lifestyle/fashion trend. People were clamoring to have their own online business or identity to sell Disney directly or indirectly. As Disney became prominent on socials, other influencers and online personalities were looking to engage and benefit from the prominence of the brand and conversations.

It wasn't just wannabe travel agents and trip hacks, it became fashionable and desirable all over the internet to get that spirit jersey selfie in front of the castle. Video essays and nostalgia bait became a thing on YouTube. Non Disney brands wanted to license products to cash in on this trend.

All of this was largely independent of Disney's direct involvement or intentions. This wasn't Eisner reshaping the company, it was the company being reshaped by the culture.

Disney didn't coin the phrase "Disney adult", but they sure have benefitted from it.

I don’t understand why some people on this board have such a problem with this trend. Many of them are “Disney adults “ yet They seem to scoff at it as if it’s a problem.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I don’t understand why some people on this board have such a problem with this trend. Many of them are “Disney adults “ yet They seem to scoff at it as if it’s a problem.

Ooh, I'll answer this one because this is something I'm actually really adamant about: there is a big difference between a "Disney Adult" and fans of theme parks that just happen to love/have loved Disney Parks.

A lot of us on here went to WDW as a kid in the 80's or 90's and fell in love with that version of WDW. When we became adults we continued to love that version and registered here to discuss it, the version that catered to everyone, the version that didn't seem like it was shoving the Disney brand down your throat every moment it could. That version did cool and amazing things just because it could, not just to satisfy marketing and synergy requirements. You could very much be a big fan of the Disney Parks without being someone who lives and breathes the Disney brand.

Then, about 15 years ago (give or take), the tides began to change. What started as slowly dropping IP here and there where it sort of didn't fit has snowballed into the parks now being largely devoid of their intended identity in favor of IP marketing and brand synergy.

In this same timeframe we have seen a rise in social media and, consequently, a rise in Disney lifestylers and Disney social media influencers/wannabe influencers. Disney didn't create this movement, but they certainly leaned hard into it once it gained traction, which was only propped up even further by their snowballing changes to the parks toward more and more brand synergy.

The end result is that the demographics of Disney park guests have changed. Today. the parks seem to be full of Disney Adults, as in, people who are there for the Disney brand itself. I actually find it a little off-putting - today, you walk around every Disney park except MK and it feels like the average guest is now a trendy 20-something that is absolutely there for the brand, not for being someone that loves theme parks.

And I mean, it's fine, whatever, I'm not going to gatekeep enjoyment of the parks or how people enjoy them, but, to me this demographic of Disney park guests does come off as feeling forced and not genuine in a way that us theme park nerds never have (we're of course obnoxious in our own ways!)

Side note, I've seen a similar trend with HHN going from a somewhat niche event for horror fans to literally singlehandedly the trendiest event in Central Florida.

 

[Agent H]

Ooh, I'll answer this one because this is something I'm actually really adamant about: there is a big difference between a "Disney Adult" and fans of theme parks that just happen to love/have loved Disney Parks.

A lot of us on here went to WDW as a kid in the 80's or 90's and fell in love with that version of WDW. When we became adults we continued to love that version and registered here to discuss it, the version that catered to everyone, the version that didn't seem like it was shoving the Disney brand down your throat every moment it could. That version did cool and amazing things just because it could, not just to satisfy marketing and synergy requirements. You could very much be a big fan of the Disney Parks without being someone who lives and breathes the Disney brand.

Then, about 15 years ago (give or take), the tides began to change. What started as slowly dropping IP here and there where it sort of didn't fit has snowballed into the parks now being largely devoid of their identity in favor of IP marketing and brand synergy.

In this same timeframe we have seen a rise in social media and, consequently, a rise in Disney lifestylers and Disney social media influencers. Disney didn't create this movement, but they certainly leaned hard into it once it gained traction, which was only propped up even further by their snowballing changes to the parks toward more and more brand synergy.

The end result is that the demographics of Disney park guests have changed. Today. the parks seem to be full of Disney Adults, as in, people who are there for the Disney brand itself. I actually find it a little off-putting - today, you walk around every Disney park except MK and it feels like the average guest is now a trendy 20-something that is absolutely there for the brand, not for being someone that loves theme parks.

And I mean, it's fine, whatever, I'm not going to gatekeep enjoyment of the parks or how people enjoy them, but, to me this demographic of Disney park guests does come off as feeling forced in a way that us theme park nerds never have (we're of course obnoxious in our own ways!)

I suppose that’s fair. It’s really the difference between the people who like the parks because they’re good storytelling experiences and the people who go to see their favorite characters. Me I’ve been going constantly since 2013 when I was 4 so I’ve been raised on the parks and the movies and shows at the same time so I’m probably the most in the middle of the people on this board. Which explains why my opinions on things are often ridiculously specific and varied. The thing that bothers me is when some people (not you) act unnecessary condescending as if their smarter then the people who go mostly for the IP.

Side note, I've seen a similar trend with HHN going from a somewhat niche event for horror fans to literally singlehandedly the trendiest event in Central Florida.

Oh I’m definitely a newbie to that. I’ve only been the last 2 years and both times it was for an Ip I’m a fan of. I like the idea of original stories at horror nights but I don’t think a scare maze is a good place for it. The whole thing is just too loud and crazy for it IMO.

 

[freediverdude]

Plus I think Disney has masked the attendance numbers by having increased revenue through all the nickel and diming, essentially milking the customers that remain loyal as some kind of lifestyle brand. It's kind of twisted and probably unsustainable in the long run, and opens Disney up to large swings in attendance/revenue, if that demographic decides to move on.

 

[jrhwdw]

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I don't want to derail this thread any further, but I still get the impression a lot of the very bold pronouncements about Disney losing their customer base or, in this case, entire generations are backed more by general impressions or opinions than anything else.

Your second post specifically is opposite of true. Demand in travel has ebb and flow but not that much to where it guarantees less of relative earnings for Universal. In business, if a product loses many customers of value proposition, a present competitor in the market gains them.
We are currently seeing this.

The point I was making related to the idea that Orlando was a mature market, ie. that it had low growth potential. So, what I was saying was exactly what you are suggesting here is happening between Disney and Universal, that is that Universal's growth is largely coming at Disney's expense. I don't, by the way, think this is necessarily true.

The broader point, though, was whether we are indeed seeing what you assert we are currently seeing, ie. a drift of customers from Disney to Universal. I'm sure in individual cases that is true and may be so for some demographics, but I keep hearing this and then see quarterly reports from both companies that don't tell the same story. I would certainly be happy for Universal to be putting pressure on Disney in terms of price and experience. However, I do wonder whether this is largely wishful thinking from fans.

If, alternatively, Universal is mostly growing the market by either attracting people who otherwise wouldn't have gone to Orlando, including families that have tired or been priced out of WDW, that is likely a net positive for both companies. From Disney's perspective, they may at least get a day or two of vacations from visitors from which they previously would have received zero.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Plus I think Disney has masked the attendance numbers by having increased revenue through all the nickel and diming, essentially milking the customers that remain loyal as some kind of lifestyle brand. It's kind of twisted and probably unsustainable in the long run, and opens Disney up to large swings in attendance/revenue, if that demographic decides to move on.

You "think"?

Disney's SEC filings says that attendance is up *and* spending per guest is up.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. They both can be true.

There's no "masking" going on. Disney's report to the Security Exchange Commission is public, and lying in it is criminal. Most companies try to avoid criminal indictments.

And claiming something you *think* is true, without really knowing, and then getting all mad about it... well, I worry about your health. There are plenty of real things we're sure exists to rage over than things we *think* is true. Increased prices is real and angering. Conspiracy theories of hiding a drop off in attendance isn't true.

 

[mkt]

Side note, I've seen a similar trend with HHN going from a somewhat niche event for horror fans to literally singlehandedly the trendiest event in Central Florida.

To be fair though, HHN basically represents half of UOR’s revenue each year

 

[michmousefan]

Thinking about it, kind of surprised that Universal hasn't announced their answer to DVC as yet. As their goal is to have people on property for a week — certainly seems that way, at least — I won't be surprised at all if they talk about a timeshare-heavy resort in the next year or two. Or has DVC saturated the Orlando Theme Park timeshare market to such a degree that it doesn't make business sense?

 

[celluloid]

I don't want to derail this thread any further, but I still get the impression a lot of the very bold pronouncements about Disney losing their customer base or, in this case, entire generations are backed more by general impressions or opinions than anything else.


The point I was making related to the idea that Orlando was a mature market, ie. that it had low growth potential. So, what I was saying was exactly what you are suggesting here is happening between Disney and Universal, that is that Universal's growth is largely coming at Disney's expense. I don't, by the way, think this is necessarily true.

The broader point, though, was whether we are indeed seeing what you assert we are currently seeing, ie. a drift of customers from Disney to Universal. I'm sure in individual cases that is true and may be so for some demographics, but I keep hearing this and then see quarterly reports from both companies that don't tell the same story. I would certainly be happy for Universal to be putting pressure on Disney in terms of price and experience. However, I do wonder whether this is largely wishful thinking from fans.

If, alternatively, Universal is mostly growing the market by either attracting people who otherwise wouldn't have gone to Orlando, including families that have tired or been priced out of WDW, that is likely a net positive for both companies. From Disney's perspective, they may at least get a day or two of vacations from visitors from which they previously would have received zero.

This is just contradicting though.

On one hand, you are saying that Disney is an unchanging anchor as strong as ever for people to come to FL and none of the available evidence provided has you thinking that.

Then you are saying Disney is counting on getting a day for people going to FL FOR Universal that would have otherwise given Disney zero.
Your final line answered your own question.
There does not have to be some attendance click shift of turnstile to say that there is a business shift.

If there are people visiting Central FL FOR Uni and may give a day to a Disney Park while there, then that Makes Universal the priority for many more and Disney has become second banana than they ever have.

That shift is undeniably more common than it ever has.

Five years ago the other way around would have been more common, and ten years ago, it would have been even more common than that.

Universal did not push to build as many hotels as they did because their market share of visitors was shrinking.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The point I was making related to the idea that Orlando was a mature market, ie. that it had low growth potential. So, what I was saying was exactly what you are suggesting here is happening between Disney and Universal, that is that Universal's growth is largely coming at Disney's expense. I don't, by the way, think this is necessarily true.

It betrays the tribal nature of the arguments because it makes it a dichotomy of Universal vs Disney. What’s missed is that it ignores Universal’s big achievement and aligns with Disney’s incorrect view that they have since somewhat realized was incorrect. Universal has increased their market share by growing the market! Universal Orlando Resort hasn’t been growing as an alternative to Disney but as an alternative everywhere! Thats the big success and has been the bigger goal, but it doesn’t play well with Universal v Disney so what you get is Universal-stans not realizing that they are arguing “Iger was right”.

 

[Gusey]

Thinking about it, kind of surprised that Universal hasn't announced their answer to DVC as yet. As their goal is to have people on property for a week — certainly seems that way, at least — I won't be surprised at all if they talk about a timeshare-heavy resort in the next year or two. Or has DVC saturated the Orlando Theme Park timeshare market to such a degree that it doesn't make business sense?

Instead, Universal have way more affordable hotel rooms on sale compared to Disney. No point diving into the time share business when they have multiple hotels without issues of filling them

 

[DarkMetroid567]

Instead, Universal have way more affordable hotel rooms on sale compared to Disney. No point diving into the time share business when they have multiple hotels without issues of filling them

Disney didn’t start DVC because they had issues filling rooms

 

[freediverdude]

Some of these other posters are correct, in that some of us are basing our opinions on general impressions, because just saying attendance is up can also be misleading. We would have to have access to the kinds of data that these companies only keep internally, like who exactly is attending, are they trending more towards local lifestylers or once in a lifetime guests, how many times are they attending each park, etc.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out over the next decade or so. I think we're just pointing out that we think "times they are a changin'."

 

[lazyboy97o]

Some of these other posters are correct, in that some of us are basing our opinions on general impressions, because just saying attendance is up can also be misleading. We would have to have access to the kinds of data that these companies only keep internally, like who exactly is attending, are they trending more towards local lifestylers or once in a lifetime guests, how many times are they attending each park, etc.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out over the next decade or so. I think we're just pointing out that we think "times they are a changin'."

The times have been changing for 15 years, and in a way that is bigger and better than too many Universal fans want to acknowledge because it doesn’t involve Disney getting hurt.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

On one hand, you are saying that Disney is an unchanging anchor as strong as ever for people to come to FL and none of the available evidence provided has you thinking that.

Then you are saying Disney is counting on getting a day for people going to FL FOR Universal that would have otherwise given Disney zero.
Your final line answered your own question.
There does not have to be some attendance click shift of turnstile to say that there is a business shift.

I'm really not saying any of those things. I was just asking whether comments earlier in this thread are based on any data or just personal impressions, because the information I see coming from the companies themselves doesn't seem to back them up. I understand why people think those things would logically be true or may want them to be true, but I have yet to see anything that suggests that either this zero-sum competition exists between the Disney and Universal in Orlando or the specifics that people were giving and how and when in their lifetime Disney was losing guests that they did not lose in the past.

It betrays the tribal nature of the arguments because it makes it a dichotomy of Universal vs Disney. What’s missed is that it ignores Universal’s big achievement and aligns with Disney’s incorrect view that they have since somewhat realized was incorrect. Universal has increased their market share by growing the market! Universal Orlando Resort hasn’t been growing as an alternative to Disney but as an alternative everywhere! Thats the big success and has been the bigger goal, but it doesn’t play well with Universal v Disney so what you get is Universal-stans not realizing that they are arguing “Iger was right”.

Indeed, I really don't understand why anyone is insisting on this. What Universal proved while Disney was sleeping was that there was room for growth in the Orlando market. That's a far more positive development about which everyone who enjoys theme parks should be happy than the alternative of the two resorts just fighting over the same pool of guests. Similarly, the more attendance clicks Epic Universe adds to the existing parks over those at the existing Universal and Disney parks instead of just redistributing the existing guests the better for everyone involved.

 

[flynnibus]

Is it true that we see a steady downward trend for the theme parks and box office? It seems that right up until the pandemic they were going up and up, and since then it is harder to tell if there is a consistent trend. In recent quarters, for example, Disney theme parks seem to have been performing a lot better than Comcast's. I know the response is often that people are waiting for Epic Universe which may turn out to be true, but, either way, those numbers are so far not showing big shift away from Disney as far as I can tell.

Analysis needs to be more than just some top line numbers.

Disney was struggling to generate actual growth, and were getting growth through aggressive price increases and new monetizations. Weaknesses in some segments were being offset by hot tears in others (like Cruises).

Films it was well covered how Disney was going through a rut where their success ratio was poor, and

Disney's Box office also seems to drop off around the pandemic and in its immediate aftermath and then begin to climb again. At the same time, Disney has also become one of the main players in streaming and is apparently still seeing growth in subscribers.


Surely, though, if WDW is a mature product this would also be an issue for Universal in Orlando. If the market for WDW is mature with little room for growth, where are all the extra people who want to visit theme parks in Orlando going to come from to support Universal's expansion? That would suggest Universal's only real play with these expansions is attracting a greater share of the visitors who would have previously gone to WDW.

Again, this is not to suggest everything's great at Disney. I would just want more evidence that there is a great shift happening, particularly a generational shift away from Disney. Personally, I don't find WDW a great value proposition right now and am not really interested in visiting. I see numbers like those that came out last quarter, though, and I find it hard to argue that Disney is suffering because more and more people think like me.

I don't want to derail this thread any further, but I still get the impression a lot of the very bold pronouncements about Disney losing their customer base or, in this case, entire generations are backed more by general impressions or opinions than anything else.

Do you go outside and interact with families? You've not seen any change?
Do you see the Sunday night Disney TV segment being a recognizable social norm anymore?
Do you see Disney selling out DVC at the rates they used to? Do you see people getting out of their DVC voluntarily?

Literally, unsolicited last night a friend in conversation said "All I know is, I paid $18,000 to just ride rise of the resistance..." -- because they did a 6 day poly stay with his family of four. He has no interest in going back, even tho Disney is very much a brand they are all familiar with and consume in other ways. Another guy in the room said "I only spend $6,000 but we were only there for two days".

I'm not saying this is the norm - I'm just highlighting what is take-aways, top of mind for random customers. They often do Disney because it's a bucket list or expectation.. but are they joining the cult? Doesn't seem to be as common anymore.. Disney is more and more a product and less a lifestyle for many.

You see it here even... the faithful that still go... but they go less often. Disney was incredibly unique in what they built to create that kind of customer loyalty over a broad population.. Several times it has faltered in its significance due to shifts in society.. but often found a way to rebound and grab the new generations. The product shift in the last 15yrs or so is alienating more and more..

The point I was making related to the idea that Orlando was a mature market, ie. that it had low growth potential. So, what I was saying was exactly what you are suggesting here is happening between Disney and Universal, that is that Universal's growth is largely coming at Disney's expense. I don't, by the way, think this is necessarily true.

I don't think we've seen that here at all... what you see is people saying Disney will hurt... not that uni will grow ONLY from those that leave Disney. Uni isn't courting Disney fans.. they are blazing their own path and if some Disney come along.. even better.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Thinking about it, kind of surprised that Universal hasn't announced their answer to DVC as yet. As their goal is to have people on property for a week — certainly seems that way, at least — I won't be surprised at all if they talk about a timeshare-heavy resort in the next year or two. Or has DVC saturated the Orlando Theme Park timeshare market to such a degree that it doesn't make business sense?

I don't think Universal is that interested in being a hotel company given their agreement with Loews. I guess if Loews was interested in the timeshare business and bringing it to Universal that could be an option.

I don't really know much about the timeshare model, but people have suggested DVC keeps growing in part because they need a continuous availability of new rooms for the business model to work. Again, that might be fine if Loews ran timeshares in different locations including Universal, but I doubt they have the room at Universal Orlando for it to make much sense as a specifically Universal thing.

 

[mkt]

Epic's EV Charger pricing has been posted on the chargeup app.

$3.00/kwh. I hope this is a placeholder or a mistake, but as of now that's what it's showing.

I understand captive audience and theme park markups, but this is 20x more expensive than at home - and 5-10x more expensive than most public chargers with captive audiences. All while still having to pay for parking.

I will not be using these, and at these prices, I don't think anyone will. And within a year or two they'll be removed as a "failure".

 

[DarkMetroid567]

Epic's EV Charger pricing has been posted on the chargeup app.

$3.00/kwh. I hope this is a placeholder or a mistake, but as of now that's what it's showing.

I understand captive audience and theme park markups, but this is 20x more expensive than at home - and 5-10x more expensive than most public chargers with captive audiences. All while still having to pay for parking.

I will not be using these, and at these prices, I don't think anyone will. And within a year or two they'll be removed as a "failure".

View attachment 859031

As someone who doesn’t own an EV, how bad of a price is that for a full charge?