A lower attendance future for WDW?

[CastAStone]

I'd put the chances of Disney ever opening another park in the US at just slightly above 0%.

I'm very certain they don't want to build a park somewhere that's below freezing for a significant part of the year.

Why not? They’ve done it in several other countries.

 

[UNCgolf]

Who said anything about half?

I’m thinking more like they would be perfectly happy with 160,000 instead of 165,000, if it was at a higher level of spending.

I don't think they'd just be happy with that; I think they'd prefer it. Less guests with a higher level of spending has cascading benefits with regards to staffing levels and other such things. Obviously a 5k difference isn't enough to make a big dent, but I'm sure they'd love to have 1990s crowd levels at much higher prices. That would also mean they wouldn't need to invest in new attractions because the current capacity would be enough.

 

[UNCgolf]

Why not? They’ve done it in several other countries.

They actually haven't. None of the Disney theme parks are in locations that regularly have temperatures below freezing in the winter, including Paris. Paris winters are certainly much colder than Orlando ones and there are definitely occasional times where it drops below freezing, but it's not comparable to somewhere like Niagara Falls where the temperature may not rise above freezing for weeks at a time.

I think long-term exposure to below freezing temperatures would create many additional maintenance issues for any outdoor rides, although I'm just speculating there. I also suppose they could avoid that issue by only building indoor rides in such a location.

Regardless, opening another park in the US would cannibalize business from the current parks. A huge number of WDW visitors come from the northeast; why give them a separate, closer park they could go to instead that lets them skip a WDW trip?

 

[havoc315]

They actually haven't. None of the Disney theme parks are in locations that regularly have temperatures below freezing in the winter, including Paris. Paris winters are certainly much colder than Orlando ones and there are definitely occasional times where it drops below freezing, but it's not comparable to somewhere like Niagara Falls where the temperature may not rise above freezing for weeks at a time.

I would guess long-term freezing temperatures would create many additional maintenance issues for any outdoor rides, although I'm just speculating there.

Regardless, opening another park in the US would cannibalize business from the current parks. A huge number of WDW visitors come from the northeast; why give them a separate, closer park they could go to instead that lets them skip a WDW trip?

Its dead now. But they came very close to building a theme park in Virginia. Had the land purchased, park designed. It was announced, supposed to open in 1998.

Disney's America - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So never say never.

 

[UNCgolf]

Its dead now. But they came very close to building a theme park in Virginia. Had the land purchased, park designed. It was announced, supposed to open in 1998.

Disney's America - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So never say never.

Yeah, I know. But the fact that it didn't happen is telling (even though there were a ton of factors at play beyond Disney's corporate wishes) and they were only going to operate seasonally. I really don't see Disney being willing to operate a seasonal park these days. I imagine they'd consider that a dilution of the brand.

IIRC, it was also supposed to be a one day experience rather than a vacation destination. I'm not sure Disney would want to build something like that these days either. My guess is that if they want to add any regional Disney experiences, they'll be something smaller than a full theme park.

This is all just base speculation on my part though. While I do have a decent amount of experience with what goes on at the highest levels of several gigantic corporations, I don't have any with Disney specifically.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Who said anything about half?

I’m thinking more like they would be perfectly happy with 160,000 instead of 165,000, if it was at a higher level of spending.

You think they’ll get that many to pay double?

Ok...that’s a drink on me any time, any place.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The answer to both of these problems is to build another US vacation destination somewhere that global warming will make nicer, not worse. Everyone will still take their WDW trips but they’ll also have to see Disney’s Frozen Kingdom in Niagara Falls. Make the snow a feature not a bug, and give people somewhere to go in the summer.

Disney at some point is going to realize that Summers in Orlando are a lost cause and they are foolish to continue to invest billions there when people would rather have their kids miss school than take the time they actually get off and go to the worlds most picturesque hellscape. There’s no fixing that. They need to diversify the division to ameliorate risk.

If Florida is a waste land...I’ll venture relocating their park won’t be high on Disney’s priority list...

I’m guessing they’ll be trying to erect cell towers to stream Disney+ on mars instead.

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

But remember -- that was reduced attendance. That was under 35% of total park capacity.

Parks are at pre-COVID levels...whether you call it 35%, 60%, or whether it’s fire marshall capacity levels or made up Mickey Mouse levels, the parks are packed...it’s not reduced attendance...they’ve figured out a way with fuzzy math to admit as many guests as needed.

not saying Disney planned for something like this prior to COVID but it seems smart on their part to not ever release official park attendance numbers. They can mess with capacity.

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

I don’t necessarily buy into this argument, but less guests would mean less wear and tear on rides, and therefore rides would require less maintenance. And we know Disney currently hates spending money on ride maintenance.

Would also mean less cast members to pay and Disney hates doing that too.

but honestly Disney doesn’t want to give up increased meals profits and merchandise purchases, so I doubt they’re trying to reduce attendance

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Parks are at pre-COVID levels...whether you call it 35%, 60%, or whether it’s fire marshall capacity levels or made up Mickey Mouse levels, the parks are packed...it’s not reduced attendance...they’ve figured out a way with fuzzy math to admit as many guests as needed.

not saying Disney planned for something like this prior to COVID but it seems smart on their part to not ever release official park attendance numbers. They can mess with capacity.

Parks are not packed.

They didn’t build to keep up ride capacity for normal growth after 1999.

There’s a difference

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Why not? They’ve done it in several other countries.

Maybe to enter the high spending, non-American markets at the time??

I don't think they'd just be happy with that; I think they'd prefer it. Less guests with a higher level of spending has cascading benefits with regards to staffing levels and other such things. Obviously a 5k difference isn't enough to make a big dent, but I'm sure they'd love to have 1990s crowd levels at much higher prices. That would also mean they wouldn't need to invest in new attractions because the current capacity would be enough.

90 attendance would be approximately a 40% reduction.

The system would collapse. Trying to cut that much is the financial equivalent of putting water back into the damn. That’s not how they ever made profit...and it never will be. They’re “stuck” with the masses.

Its dead now. But they came very close to building a theme park in Virginia. Had the land purchased, park designed. It was announced, supposed to open in 1998.

Disney's America - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So never say never.

That story is well known...and was a completely different economic era and management philosophy.

Bob Iger opened 1 park...and that was part of a deal with the sweatshop devils.

Eisner? 8

Disney owned/operated hotels built under Iger? New sites? 1...in Hawaii

Eisner?
13 that I could count...in Orlando.


Somebody needs to write the definitive history on Disney management and construction...and everyone needs to read it. Past is prologue.

 

[Lilofan]

The four seasons was built to serve a clientele that the Grand Floridian would not.

...no one has to believe me. Carry on.

I think also the Four Seasons resort right next to exclusive Golden Oak has their own home ownership custom built homes nearby with prices up to $20M.

 

[WDWTrojan]

The four seasons was built to serve a clientele that the Grand Floridian would not.

...no one has to believe me. Carry on.

I would argue they diluted the brand so much with years and years of a stale product that they lost market share to other high end hotels (Waldorf, JW, Ritz, etc). The Grand was built as a way to cater to a clientele they eventually lost.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

And that goes back to my original post. Are they using the Covid period to make that shift happen.
I see Early Theme Park Entry as part of that shift — a major detriment to offsite guests, basically taking rope drop away from offsite guests.

By “sizable chunk”... we are talking subtle ongoing shifts, not a massive overnight change. If Early Theme Park Entry pushes up demand for on-site bookings by 2%... that’s less empty rooms, that’s higher nightly rates.
If they monetize fastpasses, if they monetize nightly entertainment — that’s all about increasing the average guest spending, even if it drives away some other guests.

This comes to the crux of the issue for me: what they are offering to attract bigger spending guests seems so paltry. Get up earlier and have half an hour in the parks at the crack of dawn to do an attraction before non-resort guests enter? Doesn't sound a compelling case to drop big bucks on a WDW vacation to me.

As other posters have said, as long as they don't adjust what they're offering to cater to a higher earning clientele used to getting more for their money, they're just going to squeeze their existing customer base (middle and upper middle class) until something gives. It's those people to whom the idea of an extra magic half hour might sound like a perk, or the pitch of spending yet more to avoid the hell of ever-longer queues also might also appeal as a splurge.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Disney wants guests to spend more, it's just that they don't seem willing to offer anything more for the increased cost but rather just taking existing things away from those who don't pay more by staying on site, paying uncharges, etc. That seems like a strategy for squeezing the current customer base more than expanding it. The risk of that strategy is that, rather than attracting people who think nothing of splashing their cash around, they end up having ever-larger numbers of people who come home feeling WDW was kind of fun but a massive rip-off and don't return.

I don't think they'd just be happy with that; I think they'd prefer it. Less guests with a higher level of spending has cascading benefits with regards to staffing levels and other such things. Obviously a 5k difference isn't enough to make a big dent, but I'm sure they'd love to have 1990s crowd levels at much higher prices. That would also mean they wouldn't need to invest in new attractions because the current capacity would be enough.

Completely agree. It strikes me they likely find the pre-Covid level of crowds something of a problem because they don't have the capacity to deal with them without spending more money, and I don't think they want a substantially bigger WDW leaving them increasingly exposed to future fl.

 

[havoc315]

This comes to the crux of the issue for me: what they are offering to attract bigger spending guests seems so paltry. Get up earlier and have half an hour in the parks at the crack of dawn to do an attraction before non-resort guests enter? Doesn't sound a compelling case to drop big bucks on a WDW vacation to me.

I think you’re missing the strategy of the Early Entry. No, it’s not a perk designed to bring in new customers.
It’s a perk designed to penalize the cheap customers and turn some of them into higher paying customers.

If you were an off-site rope dropper, you now have to completely re-think your strategy or you’re going to have to move to on-site.

So let’s imagine the group of regular visitors who are off-site rope droppers. Some will simply re-think their strategy. Some, will stop coming to WDW or come less often. Imagine a local AP owner who rope drops on weekend mornings multiple times per year — they may now be discouraged from coming at all. (Thus, the lower attendance part of the equation).
Meanwhile, some of those guests will be compelled to switch to on-site (thus, increased spending per guest).

So early entry isn’t about bringing in new guests — it’s about eliminating some if your cheaper guests while converting some of them into bigger spenders.

Disney doesn’t have to necessarily have to offer bigger spenders any new big perks, all they have to do is penalize the cheaper spenders. Thus, things like paid fastpass, monetized night entertainment, etc

As other posters have said, as long as they don't adjust what they're offering to cater to a higher earning clientele used to getting more for their money, they're just going to squeeze their existing customer base (middle and upper middle class) until something gives. It's those people to whom the idea of an extra magic half hour might sound like a perk, or the pitch of spending yet more to avoid the hell of ever-longer queues also might also appeal as a splurge.


I don't think anyone disagrees that Disney wants guests to spend more, it's just that they don't seem willing to offer anything more for the increased cost but rather just taking existing things away from those who don't pay more by staying on site, paying uncharges, etc. That seems like a strategy for squeezing the current customer base more than expanding it. The risk of that strategy is that, rather than attracting people who think nothing of splashing their cash around, they end up having ever-larger numbers of people who come home feeling WDW was kind of fun but a massive rip-off and don't return.


Completely agree. It strikes me they likely find the pre-Covid level of crowds something of a problem because they don't have the capacity to deal with them without spending more money, and I don't think they want a substantially bigger WDW leaving them increasingly exposed to future fl.

Yes. It strikes me they are stepping back. Maybe saying, “we can come back a bit leaner, lower costs, higher per capita profit, even if it means lower attendance.”

 

[ohioguy]

A trend in retail is to dispense with merchandise for the masses and focus on luxury goods. You'll see this in clothing, lifestyle and technology. Anchoring your business on expensive items for the more affluent and less on the middle class consumer has proven successful. It wouldn't surprise me to see Disney go down this path, as their travel "product" increases in cost and they can get more value per dollar spent out of a wealthier guest.

 

[seascape]

I would be willing to pay more for an annual pass if the crowds were limited and I were guaranteed admittance without going through the reservation process. We already buy Platinum Plus passes even though we only needed that level one day since we purchased them. It is alwsys better to have something that eliminates all worry and planning. So please raise the price and limit access. Also limit access to those who stay onsite or at a good neighborhood resort that pays something to Disney.

 

[Disstevefan1]

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 will put aside COVID for this discussion. You speak of attendance. Attendance will depend on all costs; tickets, food, rooms, transportation etc. Attendance will also depend on the economy; how much extra money we have after paying the bills to blow on WDW. Attendance at WDW will also depend on the exchange rate of the US dollar.

Even things like Fuel costs going forward can influence attendance.

Switching over to DLR, in my opinion, attendance there will depend on what their new annual pass program turns out to be.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think you’re missing the strategy of the Early Entry. No, it’s not a perk designed to bring in new customers.
It’s a perk designed to penalize the cheap customers and turn some of them into higher paying customers.

If you were an off-site rope dropper, you now have to completely re-think your strategy or you’re going to have to move to on-site.

So let’s imagine the group of regular visitors who are off-site rope droppers. Some will simply re-think their strategy. Some, will stop coming to WDW or come less often. Imagine a local AP owner who rope drops on weekend mornings multiple times per year — they may now be discouraged from coming at all. (Thus, the lower attendance part of the equation).
Meanwhile, some of those guests will be compelled to switch to on-site (thus, increased spending per guest).

So early entry isn’t about bringing in new guests — it’s about eliminating some if your cheaper guests while converting some of them into bigger spenders.

Disney doesn’t have to necessarily have to offer bigger spenders any new big perks, all they have to do is penalize the cheaper spenders. Thus, things like paid fastpass, monetized night entertainment, etc

I don't disagree with this, but that was the main point I was trying to make in the quoted post: they don't seem to be trying to attract a new, more affluent crowd but to squeeze their existing one. The way they do that is by making it harder and harder to have an enjoyable Disney vacation without paying Disney increasing amounts of money by taking things away that used to be included and making them upcharges.

The only disagreement I thought we had (but maybe not) was that they were trying to attract a more affluent crowd. If they wanted to bring higher-spenders in, they'd have to increase the quality of their offerings not just charge more for them. As it is, they seem to want those who are already coming to spend more and eliminate those at the bottom who can't or won't.

 

[havoc315]

I don't disagree with this, but that was the main point I was trying to make in the quoted post: they don't seem to be trying to attract a new, more affluent crowd but to squeeze their existing one. The way they do that is by making it harder and harder to have an enjoyable Disney vacation without paying Disney increasing amounts of money by taking things away that used to be included and making them upcharges.

The only disagreement I thought we had (but maybe not) was that they were trying to attract a more affluent crowd. If they wanted to bring higher-spenders in, they'd have to increase the quality of their offerings not just charge more for them. As it is, they seem to want those who are already coming to spend more and eliminate those at the bottom who can't or won't.

I don't think I said "more affluent" crowd, I said "bigger spending." Never suggested they are re-positioning to become an elite destination for billionaires. But they want to eke out more money from those who are willing to spend more, even if it means sacrificing some of the attendance for those that spend less.
They already have plenty of higher spenders -- the people who book deluxe resorts. --> the ones who book concierge level at the deluxe resort --> those that buy park hoppers AND tickets to after hour events for the same trip --> those who pay for a dessert party for a better view of the fireworks.
They want to get those willing to spend money, even more chances to spend more money. "You're already willing to pay for a dessert party to get a better view of fireworks.. how about paying for fastpasses now!" "want to try out our boutique hotels, the Galaxy Cruiser, the Epcot boutique?"
And they don't care if they lose some of the "cheapsters" in the process, "Disney is now charging for Fastpasses!! That's so unfair! I'm done with Disney and never going back!"