AP - Comcast challenging Disney's hold on tourism trade

[Canoe86]

I will say, Universal is in our vacation discussions. We've never been there, but are considering it as the lone ticket purchase. If you'd have told me 8 years ago that would be the case, I'd have thought you were crazy.

 

[StageFrenzy]

Just to add some perspective to this Comcast love in. I have no desire to ever set foot in a Universal park. Most people I know will never visit them. Disney World? I try to go every year. Nothing in the Universal parks appeals to me.

And on top of it all, my age bracket is the ones Universal should be trying to seduce, the "older" guest with the better than average resources to spend.

I don't want this to come off preachy or condescending,* but here we go. There is the old adage of try it you might like it. I know it may look gross at first hand and it's very different from what you are used to. Maybe like a banana and mayonnaise sandwich.** I guess you feel pretty frisky still since you want to be seduced, what is it that you get from your current sugar daddy that can't be had at universal? Is your current sugar daddy meeting all your crafty needs? Or is WDW courting some new people and giving everyone fancy bracelets? Where does that leave you and your old tricks to maximizing the bang for the buck at WDW? I just want you to be happy get the most out of your vacation and perhaps play the field a bit.



*whenever someone starts a post that way, it is going to.
** mmm so tasty, example of not tasty is Brussels sprouts

 

[note2001]

Just to add some perspective to this Comcast love in. I have no desire to ever set foot in a Universal park. Most people I know will never visit them. Disney World? I try to go every year. Nothing in the Universal parks appeals to me.

And on top of it all, my age bracket is the ones Universal should be trying to seduce, the "older" guest with the better than average resources to spend.

My parents thought much as you do. They were 100% Disney, until they year they decided to add some life to their senior years and worked part time for a theme park. Both Disney and Universal actively recruit help from the local senior communities, but Universal allowed more flexibility so they signed up for working with them 2 weeks per year. Now, 5 years later my parents no longer work at all, but they both agree that Universal is the better park experience for their age and interests (they prefer shows and walking these days)

 

[marni1971]

Just to add some perspective to this Comcast love in. I have no desire to ever set foot in a Universal park. Most people I know will never visit them. Disney World? I try to go every year. Nothing in the Universal parks appeals to me.

And on top of it all, my age bracket is the ones Universal should be trying to seduce, the "older" guest with the better than average resources to spend.

With their ever increasing attendance, profits and expansion you could be in a minority.

Since you based your statement on personal opinion, I know quite a few Brits who plan on 3-4 days at WDW and 2-3 days at the place up I-4. Some veterans, some first timers. All stay off property.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I don't want this to come off preachy or condescending,* but here we go. There is the old adage of try it you might like it. I know it may look gross at first hand and it's very different from what you are used to. Maybe like a banana and mayonnaise sandwich.** I guess you feel pretty frisky still since you want to be seduced, what is it that you get from your current sugar daddy that can't be had at universal? Is your current sugar daddy meeting all your crafty needs? Or is WDW courting some new people and giving everyone fancy bracelets? Where does that leave you and your old tricks to maximizing the bang for the buck at WDW? I just want you to be happy get the most out of your vacation and perhaps play the field a bit.

@The Crafty Veteran lists his age as 76 in his profile. Now I enjoy Uni but recognize some of its best attractions are bone-jarring. For my older brothers and sisters who are in their 60s, Epcot's World Showcase is more their speed.

Could someone of retirement age cherry-pick a few attractions at Universal and have fun? Sure. My oldest sister and her husband recently visited Uni. Their favorite Uni attractions were Twister, Disaster, and the Lucy Tribute. Hopefully, their example provides an indication of what some mature adults are looking for.

Me? I think Rip Ride Rockit and Revenge of the Mummy are awesome. In 10 years, my body might no longer think so.

 

[lebeau]

I have always said that they need to go back to having TV shows and events at Walt Disney World. They are both media companies. But Disney has forgotten how to host anything there that reminds you of it. (Walt was king of that with his "Disneyland" show and later "Wonderful World of Color" show with segments hosted from Disneyland.) Right now Universal has "Family Feud" produced at Universal Orlando, and has unteen reasons for "on the street" things there (and from Universal Hollywood). But Disney has forgotten how to do that.

I would love to see some cable shows on culture or science eminating from EPCOT, with a live audience. And I mean Disney-produced shows, not just Travel Channel specials. Such a live show, done right, would remind people of thinking of EPCOT as an exciting place showcasing exciting things. Same would be true of Animal KIngdom. Hollywood Studios should clearly being doing something like the MMC again, with a built-in live studio audience, and new talented kids. And, of course, more guest shots of prime-time shows "on vacation" is always fun.

So far, though, Universal is kicking up television more often for now.

Disney still does this stuff. On the Disney Channel. They have segments called Disney 365 which is basically Disney Lifestyling 101. They target the kids who then beg the parents.

Disney has no interest in appealing to adults any more. If they did, they would do exactly what you're talking about.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

My parents thought much as you do. They were 100% Disney, until they year they decided to add some life to their senior years and worked part time for a theme park. Both Disney and Universal actively recruit help from the local senior communities, but Universal allowed more flexibility so they signed up for working with them 2 weeks per year. Now, 5 years later my parents no longer work at all, but they both agree that Universal is the better park experience for their age and interests (they prefer shows and walking these days)

I have no intention to ever work again.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

With their ever increasing attendance, profits and expansion you could be in a minority.

Since you based your statement on personal opinion, I know quite a few Brits who plan on 3-4 days at WDW and 2-3 days at the place up I-4. Some veterans, some first timers. All stay off property.

Universal parks have no appeal to people my age. I looked at the web pages and nothing makes me want to pluck down money to go. Friends ask me about Disney World and I can give them a myriad of reasons to go. Best of all, they pick me up from the airport and take me back. I'm going to need a lot more snake oil to buy into going someplace else.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

@The Crafty Veteran lists his age as 76 in his profile. Now I enjoy Uni but recognize some of its best attractions are bone-jarring. For my older brothers and sisters who are in their 60s, Epcot's World Showcase is more their speed.

Could someone of retirement age cherry-pick a few attractions at Universal and have fun? Sure. My oldest sister and her husband recently visited Uni. Their favorite Uni attractions were Twister, Disaster, and the Lucy Tribute. Hopefully, their example provides an indication of what some mature adults are looking for.

Me? I think Rip Ride Rockit and Revenge of the Mummy are awesome. In 10 years, my body might no longer think so.

I'm old, I'm not dead. The day I settle for a Lucile Ball tribute instead of riding Splash Mountain you may as well start digging my grave.

 

[marni1971]

Universal parks have no appeal to people my age. I looked at the web pages and nothing makes me want to pluck down money to go. Friends ask me about Disney World and I can give them a myriad of reasons to go. Best of all, they pick me up from the airport and take me back. I'm going to need a lot more snake oil to buy into going someplace else.

If I may ask, what's your age band?

 

[pheneix]

With their ever increasing attendance, profits and expansion you could be in a minority.

Since you based your statement on personal opinion, I know quite a few Brits who plan on 3-4 days at WDW and 2-3 days at the place up I-4. Some veterans, some first timers. All stay off property.

I don't know too many British people who visit Orlando that do the "on-property Disney only" gig. Seems like they always want to find a more economical place off property so they can spend more time in Central Florida. Like intelligent people should....

 

[note2001]

I have no intention to ever work again.

Never say never.
My parents thought so too, until boredom hit home and they needed something to talk and think about other than what they owned and how much they had in the bank.

 

[danlb_2000]

Universal parks have no appeal to people my age. I looked at the web pages and nothing makes me want to pluck down money to go. Friends ask me about Disney World and I can give them a myriad of reasons to go. Best of all, they pick me up from the airport and take me back. I'm going to need a lot more snake oil to buy into going someplace else.

What is it that doesn't appeal to you, the intensity of the rides, or the material they are based on?

 

[flyerjab]

I don't typically post in this type of thread but what the heck, it always pops up from time to time or threads de-evolve into this popular discussion. I think that a lot of this has to do with the source material. There are tons of people all over the world that love the Disney brand. I think many posters on here get frustrated about that because they feel that "lifestylers" (as they are loving referred to) are either brainwashed by the ever-present pixie dust, or they simply refuse to expand their horizons and try something different.

For me (and this is truly my point of view only), I prefer the Disney source material. And it is not because I am a "pixie duster" or a lifestyler or whatever…I simply like the source material. I know that there are some people that feel that Disney does not develop their parks for adults but I disagree with that. I am now 44 and my wife is, well…some kind of age that is young…and we really love the Disney parks. Also, they continue to have hits with their type of source material. Frozen is a juggernaut, so that will get integrated more into the parks. They will invariably have more movie hits and keep on adding to what eventually becomes the Disney mystique. That vein is obviously something Disney will continue to mine, as evidenced by the people that are willing to stand in line for 5 hours for a meet-and-greet (I will never understand that). I am also a fan of some of the IP that Disney has purchased and am looking forward to when they get added to the parks in some fashion.

Universal, on the other hand, has a lot of IPs that I just don't care to experience as a ride. I liked the movies, but I have been to the parks and the subject matter on numerous rides doesn't interest me enough to want to pay to ride them. In fact, if Universal did not purchase Harry Potter (best move that company will have ever made for their parks), I don't know if we would have even visited. That being said, the Harry Potter part of the parks is good, but not great - I was not blown away like I had hoped, only because it felt like it was really shoe-horned into the park. I am betting though that the London/Diagon Alley addition is going to be awesome, as we will be visiting it this year. Throw in Jurassic Park and the Simpsons, and now at least Universal has given me reason to go for repeat visits.

Disney will probably always be my preferred choice though. And I know that it is more expensive, but I have no defense to those on here that indicate that people willing to pay Disney prices are idiots - and I have seen this posted. We just like what we like as a family and Disney really does it for us. My feeling is that Universal would kill to have people willing to spend the type of money an idiot like myself does on Disney. Universal vacations are less expensive for a reason. And not because those that run Universal Parks are philanthropists that aren't in this business for the money, but instead are looking out for the best interests of their guests. Give it time. If Universal continues to become more popular as it has been lately, those prices will climb, just like Disney's has. And then @ParentsOf4 will have even more work to do!

 

[Captain Neo]

Universal parks have no appeal to people my age. I looked at the web pages and nothing makes me want to pluck down money to go. Friends ask me about Disney World and I can give them a myriad of reasons to go. Best of all, they pick me up from the airport and take me back. I'm going to need a lot more snake oil to buy into going someplace else.

What age bracket are you in exactly? Senior Citizen?

 

[cheezbat]

I'm old, I'm not dead. The day I settle for a Lucile Ball tribute instead of riding Splash Mountain you may as well start digging my grave.

I think just about everyone would choose Splash over the Lucy tribute.

But wait a minute...you can ride Splash with drops but can't(or won't) ride most rides at Universal? I get not riding the spinning simulator type rides if you get nauseous easily.

 

[prberk]

Disney still does this stuff. On the Disney Channel. They have segments called Disney 365 which is basically Disney Lifestyling 101. They target the kids who then beg the parents.

Disney has no interest in appealing to adults any more. If they did, they would do exactly what you're talking about.

This is why I believe that their marketing department has run amok, probably with MBAs who know "branding" but do not have many who grew up loving Disney, or really caring about it enough to understand its broader appeal beyond children (much less understand the super cleanliness or other more adult factors that really stood out at the Disney operations -- especially in the 1950-60's and then again in the eithies and early '90s when the food was exceptional and theming so well done even on new things).

There was a time in the '70s when I felt that the films particularly (not maybe so much the parks) became aimed squarely at children (which Walt himself had said was deadly) rather than at the whole family. There is a difference between true family entertainment and so-called "family" entertainment, as the marketers like to call things that are cheap and aimed solely at children. Compare the classic "Old Yeller" or "Spin and Marty" or "Pollyanna" or even the original "Parent Trap" (all from the '50s and '60s) to the campy "Hot Lead and Cold Feet" or "The Apple Dumpling Gang" or "Herbie Goes Bananas" from '70s. Compare early-nineties Disney Channel (a good variety of traditional Disney and new, well-written shows) to today's Disney Channel (only shows with tired one-liners, where the adults are treated as jokes).

I believe that the '70s problems largely came from people trying to run on tradition and "children's entertainment" and being afraid of new ideas even from people who understood Disney. Some of the mistakes of the '70s are back, and probably this time stemming from the marketing department or "strategic management" department running the show, once again focusing too much on the part of the Disney "brand" associated with children's programming. So once again they make the mistake of focusing squarely on children and what they THINK is marketing to children. They need to remember that Disney built his empire on FAMILY-friendly entertainment that respected childen but did not cater only to them.

 

[jensenrick]

Wow, I hope I never get so old that I stop wanting to have fun and try new things.

 

[lebeau]

This is why I believe that their marketing department has run amok, probably with MBAs who know "branding" but do not have many who grew up loving Disney, or really caring about it enough to understand its broader appeal beyond children (much less understand the super cleanliness or other more adult factors that really stood out at the Disney operations -- especially in the 1950-60's and then again in the eithies and early '90s when the food was exceptional and theming so well done even on new things).

There was a time in the '70s when I felt that the films particularly (not maybe so much the parks) became aimed squarely at children (which Walt himself had said was deadly) rather than at the whole family. There is a difference between true family entertainment and so-called "family" entertainment, as the marketers like to call things that are cheap and aimed solely at children. Compare the classic "Old Yeller" or "Spin and Marty" or "Pollyanna" or even the original "Parent Trap" (all from the '50s and '60s) to the campy "Hot Lead and Cold Feet" or "The Apple Dumpling Gang" or "Herbie Goes Bananas" from '70s. Compare early-nineties Disney Channel (a good variety of traditional Disney and new, well-written shows) to today's Disney Channel (only shows with tired one-liners, where the adults are treated as jokes).

I believe that the '70s problems largely came from people trying to run on tradition and "children's entertainment" and being afraid of new ideas even from people who understood Disney. Some of the mistakes of the '70s are back, and probably this time stemming from the marketing department or "strategic management" department running the show, once again focusing too much on the part of the Disney "brand" associated with children's programming. So once again they make the mistake of focusing squarely on children and what they THINK is marketing to children. They need to remember that Disney built his empire on FAMILY-friendly entertainment that respected childen but did not cater only to them.

I forget the quote. So I'm paraphrasing. Who was it in the 70s who said of Disney, "We may be boring, but we're never offensive" or something to that effect. Yes, I agree that Disney at the time was aiming its movies solely at children. And the end result was that children would rather see movies like Star Wars that were made for everyone.

Disney World of today is making the same lethal mistake.

 

[prberk]

I forget the quote. So I'm paraphrasing. Who was it in the 70s who said of Disney, "We may be boring, but we're never offensive" or something to that effect. Yes, I agree that Disney at the time was aiming its movies solely at children. And the end result was that children would rather see movies like Star Wars that were made for everyone.

Disney World of today is making the same lethal mistake.

I cannot agree more. Those who don't learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

(Remember that at the time, the original Herbie movie, 1969's The Love Bug -- not really a childish film like its sequels -- was a huge success that, along with re-releases of the classics and good park numbers, may have helped good profit margins -- just like today -- to mask the real longer-term problem they were creating.)