A lower attendance future for WDW?

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I was struck by the recent article about the possibility of an Epcot hotel:

"an in-park EPCOT boutique hotel may well fit in with Disney's post-COVID plans for lower attendance, offset with higher spending guests."

And it made me consider whether this is part of the soft-reset we are seeing during this Covid re-opening transition. It would seem counter-intuitive at first -- Why would you ever intentionally work towards lower attendance?
Sure, higher spending per guest makes sense -- but wouldn't you want ever increasing attendance AND ever increasing guest spending?

But then I thought about trends over the last 30 years. From the 1960's-1980's, sports stadiums kept getting bigger and bigger, the goal of sustaining bigger and bigger crowds. But then something happened with the newer generation of stadiums: Starting with Camden Yards in 1992, they starting going retro with the stadiums. Smaller more intimate stadiums started replacing the mega stadiums. Charge more per ticket, offer more luxury boxes, more premium seating, but cut back on the "cheap seats." Here in New York, 42,000 seat Citi Field replaced 45,000 seat Shea Stadium. Old Yankee Stadium could set 57,000, the newer stadium only 54,000.
Movie theaters have seen this trend on an even greater degree -- I grew up in the 80's, the era of the mega plex... bigger and bigger screens, with as many seats crammed in as possible.
But now, movie theaters have moved towards more luxurious seating - wide reclining seats, far lower capacity per theater.

In the end, WDW theme park guest capacity hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. In fact, many of the best and newest attractions have lower capacity than the attractions they replaced.

Some of Disney's actions suggest they may be perfectly happy accepting lower attendance, to the extent it allows them to increase guest spending. For example, the announced Early Theme Park Entry: In the old days of EMH, off-site guests could still get equal footing with onsite guests for rope drop, except at that morning's EMH park. Now, off-site guests will have a major rope drop disadvantage at all parks. Might that reduce off-site guests?
Off-site guests are FAR less profitable to Disney than on-site guests, not even close.

Similarly, lower attendance --> reduced lines --> greater guest satisfaction --> can charge more.

But like in the 80's, movie theaters were getting bigger and adding more seats, Disney in the 90's was building up "value" hotel capacity. Now, they are building an ultra expensive Starcruiser hotel. And according to this rumor, what would be an expensive boutique Epcot hotel.

With the slow return of entertainment, some of which appears gone forever. Slow return of APs. etc. Is Disney transitioning to a lower attendance future?
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
What a bunch of crap...

They want higher attendance, higher prices, and lower employees/overhead

They float this “luxury, lower crowd” nonsense to run interference for jacking prices.

Disney parks are mass destinations...not luxury. It’s not a country club.

Not suggesting they would go towards such an extreme, but movie theaters and sports stadiums are also mass destinations yet we have seen them move towards smaller crowds.

In the end, of course they want to maximize their profits. That's capitalism, and that's how I expect them to behave. But if they can INCREASE profits by cutting attendance, then that's the path I would expect them to take.
Purely as demonstration... I'm sure that 100,000 on-site guests are more profitable to Disney over 60,000 on-site combined with 50,000 off-site. So under this demonstration -- if a change in policy pushed 40,000 people on-site, but eliminated 50,000 off-site -- The net attendance would fall by 10,000, but profitability would increase.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I was struck by the recent article about the possibility of an Epcot hotel:

"an in-park EPCOT boutique hotel may well fit in with Disney's post-COVID plans for lower attendance, offset with higher spending guests."

And it made me consider whether this is part of the soft-reset we are seeing during this Covid re-opening transition. It would seem counter-intuitive at first -- Why would you ever intentionally work towards lower attendance?
Sure, higher spending per guest makes sense -- but wouldn't you want ever increasing attendance AND ever increasing guest spending?

But then I thought about trends over the last 30 years. From the 1960's-1980's, sports stadiums kept getting bigger and bigger, the goal of sustaining bigger and bigger crowds. But then something happened with the newer generation of stadiums: Starting with Camden Yards in 1992, they starting going retro with the stadiums. Smaller more intimate stadiums started replacing the mega stadiums. Charge more per ticket, offer more luxury boxes, more premium seating, but cut back on the "cheap seats." Here in New York, 42,000 seat Citi Field replaced 45,000 seat Shea Stadium. Old Yankee Stadium could set 57,000, the newer stadium only 54,000.
Movie theaters have seen this trend on an even greater degree -- I grew up in the 80's, the era of the mega plex... bigger and bigger screens, with as many seats crammed in as possible.
But now, movie theaters have moved towards more luxurious seating - wide reclining seats, far lower capacity per theater.

In the end, WDW theme park guest capacity hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. In fact, many of the best and newest attractions have lower capacity than the attractions they replaced.

Some of Disney's actions suggest they may be perfectly happy accepting lower attendance, to the extent it allows them to increase guest spending. For example, the announced Early Theme Park Entry: In the old days of EMH, off-site guests could still get equal footing with onsite guests for rope drop, except at that morning's EMH park. Now, off-site guests will have a major rope drop disadvantage at all parks. Might that reduce off-site guests?
Off-site guests are FAR less profitable to Disney than on-site guests, not even close.

Similarly, lower attendance --> reduced lines --> greater guest satisfaction --> can charge more.

But like in the 80's, movie theaters were getting bigger and adding more seats, Disney in the 90's was building up "value" hotel capacity. Now, they are building an ultra expensive Starcruiser hotel. And according to this rumor, what would be an expensive boutique Epcot hotel.

With the slow return of entertainment, some of which appears gone forever. Slow return of APs. etc. Is Disney transitioning to a lower attendance future?

I don't think Disney will intentionally reduce capacity like some movie theaters have done, but I don't think they will do much to increase it either. I definitely think there is going to be a continued focus on how to get more money out of each guest. I think we are much more likely to see more things like the Galactic Starcruiser then we are a fifth gate.
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
I was there a few weeks ago...Right before Spring Break. The parks were mobbed. I don't know what they call "Lower Attendance" but EPCOT lines were huge, the plazas and walkways were full, Restaurant reservations were sold out...So "Preparing for lower attendance" is ridiculous...and as soon as the rest of the people are vaccinated I see the parks being more crowded than they ever were... Especially with everyone staying home for the past year...
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I don't think Disney will intentionally reduce capacity like some movie theaters have done, but I don't think they will do much to increase it either. I definitely think there is going to be a continued focus on how to get more money out of each guest. I think we are much more likely to see more things like the Galactic Starcruiser then we are a fifth gate.

Agreed... I don't think they are going to suddenly permanently cap attendance at MK at 60,000...

But I do think they may steer policies and spending in ways that increase per capita guest spending, even at the cost of reduced attendance. As cited -- anything that hurts off-site guests could have the impact of decreasing total attendance, while increasing per capital spending.
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I think the more immediate trend will and expansion of variable pricing. They want to be able to balance crowd sizes across all four parks and all 12 months.

Agreed, that's likely. But the secondary question is, are they willing to trade away some low-spending day guests in favor of fewer higher priced guests, at the same time.
Pre-Covid, the parks were operating on an average of 60% capacity or so. Would they rather having 63% capacity average with guest spending of $120 per guest per day, or 57% capacity average with $220 guest spending per day...
Much of their recent behavior suggests a move towards the latter. For example, when AP returns, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bit more of a re-design with greater variable pricing and more blackout dates. (WDW doesn't need the minimal spending of an off-site AP holder during Spring break.. but even their minimal spending could be a plus in the quiet days of September and October).
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Not suggesting they would go towards such an extreme, but movie theaters and sports stadiums are also mass destinations yet we have seen them move towards smaller crowds.

In the end, of course they want to maximize their profits. That's capitalism, and that's how I expect them to behave. But if they can INCREASE profits by cutting attendance, then that's the path I would expect them to take.
Purely as demonstration... I'm sure that 100,000 on-site guests are more profitable to Disney over 60,000 on-site combined with 50,000 off-site. So under this demonstration -- if a change in policy pushed 40,000 people on-site, but eliminated 50,000 off-site -- The net attendance would fall by 10,000, but profitability would increase.

Jacking the prices won’t “lure” more people onsite.

There are very few people making $250,000+ a year who haven’t/don’t go to Walt Disney world because “they haven’t heard of it yet”

This is the standard weather balloon/misdirection aimed at gauging how to spin it as their longterm
Decisions have reduced their customer base.

Not condoning or condemning it...just calling it as it is. Time will tell.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I don't think Disney will intentionally reduce capacity like some movie theaters have done, but I don't think they will do much to increase it either. I definitely think there is going to be a continued focus on how to get more money out of each guest. I think we are much more likely to see more things like the Galactic Starcruiser then we are a fifth gate.

Agree.
There is no fifth gate. There’s nobody to staff it and people don’t take enough vacation to fill it. This was learned on data in 1998-99

I think the more immediate trend will and expansion of variable pricing. They want to be able to balance crowd sizes across all four parks and all 12 months.
I think perhaps the biggest falsehood of the Iger era is that there was ever a desire to “balance” crowds. They’re maximizing revenue at every location on every day. Crowds at one spot actually create opportunities to charge more with minimal investment. We have real time examples.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
The bobs have been very clear over the last few years that they’re trying to find the sweet spot where they can maintain somewhat lower crowds and less APs with higher guest satisfaction and spending

And if the crowds swelled...they’d build overflow concrete to stand on it a minute.

They want to maximize every cent of overhead...that’s why service has fallen steadily.

But their prices have wrecked what’s left of a middle “middle” class travel market...so they have to do the “luxury” routine to tell to the street.

“Less is more”...that old gag.

It’s a machine designed to run at high volume. $300 a day or $50 an hour for small world isn’t gonna hold...longterm. Especially if there’s no one to fix the hula girls.

...this is old stuff. Same argument about trends.

But an Epcot Hotel makes sense “only attached wdw hotel”...from a semantics perspective.
 

EPCOT-O.G.

Well-Known Member
Clearly the suits and number crunchers have determined that a more streamlined, luxury experience is more desirable on a profit-per-person basis than maintaining a low barrier of entry for middle to lower middle class. Further, by limiting supply, they’re increasing demand, and figuring those who are wealthy enough to pay $417/night at Art of Animation (current price for a stay in mid-May) are also going to buy trinkets and such.
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Jacking the prices won’t “lure” more people onsite.

Depends where you jack the prices and make the cuts. If you give on-site guests a better experience than off-site guests, you lure more people on-site. If you give deluxe guests a better experience than value guests, you lure more people to deluxe. All potentially as you jack the prices.
 

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Summer is becoming dead at WDW. They need to think of a way to pull people back. October shouldn’t be busier than July but it is now.
Step 1: Fix the DVC points charts.

They need to break up the seasons by resort. Boardwalk and Beach Club should be considered peak season during Food and Wine. It makes no sense that those resorts have the same seasonal pricing as the rest of them.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Step 1: Fix the DVC points charts.

They need to break up the seasons by resort. Boardwalk and Beach Club should be considered peak season during Food and Wine. It makes no sense that those resorts have the same seasonal pricing as the rest of them.

I agree

I think they always assumed people at some point would get the hell over food and wine festival and reset?

But that’s a logical assumption
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
Step 1: Fix the DVC points charts.

They need to break up the seasons by resort. Boardwalk and Beach Club should be considered peak season during Food and Wine. It makes no sense that those resorts have the same seasonal pricing as the rest of them.
Absolutely. Then introduce Mickey’s Very Patriotic Independence Day Party from Memorial Day through July 31. Bam. Crowds return.

They can shelf plans for Mickey’s Hippity-Hoppity Easter Party since spring crowds are already crazy.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Clearly the suits and number crunchers have determined that a more streamlined, luxury experience is more desirable on a profit-per-person basis than maintaining a low barrier of entry for middle to lower middle class. Further, by limiting supply, they’re increasing demand, and figuring those who are wealthy enough to pay $417/night at Art of Animation (current price for a stay in mid-May) are also going to buy trinkets and such.

True...but the last part is a paradox

High earners don’t buy more trinkets. Nor do they find it cute to start collections of mouse ears or purses with cartoon characters on them
 
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom