Attendance drop in the parks... I wonder why

[Ralphlaw]

[

Of course they are concerned about it. It's been the biggest complaint about the parks since making the evening news back in the mid-2000's. But addressing it by raising prices to throttle crowds after spending billions to "enhance" the experience without adding any substantial capacity is simply a mistake to correct a mistake.

I don't think that raising prices is considered a mistake. It's basic business to charge as much as the market will bear. Any business has to balance the number of customers that can be handled while pricing an appropriate amount to make a profit, taking into account a bunch of factors, including generational nostalgia and everything else.. Unless capacity can somehow be increased, you have to charge more if too many guests would otherwise be coming. Put another way, if you have too many customers, raise prices to get that number down. In the meantime, add capacity (which is usually a slow process). Also, shift those crowds to times that are currently less popular, if you can. Disney is doing all of that. FP+ evens out the crowds by letting guests choose the time of day when they want to be there (sort of).

MK now has a hub that can handle more guests for fireworks and projection shows, and they have new exit paths other than Main Street, and Fantasyland increased overall capacity as well. Epcot opens side paths on New Year's Eve, and just opened a 3rd screen for Soarin'. Capacity seems to be increasing in these and certain other ways, including big time with the impending Star Wars and Pixar at Studios and Avatar at AK. This will probably help relieve the overcrowded feeling in certain ways, and if they end up not being as popular, they'll lower prices and/or slap together some package deals to bring people in. In the meantime, the current price hikes may lower numbers a bit, but I assume that overall profitability is up, and is almost assuredly up on a per guest basis.

So, no, lowering attendance is not a mistake. It's basically an inevitable response to the too good job that WDW has done in attracting customers.

 

[LAKid53]

A lot of people say to me that once you have been WDW, it is hard to holiday anywhere else (putting value to one side). I would be interested to know where else you have been and had just as good a time?

Thanks

San Francisco. Visiting WDW would never convince me to not visit San Fran.....

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Yes, the one scheduled to come out around the same time its park opens. As you say, WDW and Cirque are both very popular, so I don't think they'll have any trouble with Pandora. Looking forward to it -- everything I've seen so far looks terrific.

What I am saying is the fact that Cirque is selling tix to their Avatar show doesn't really show the viability of Avatar as an IP as much as proves Cirque du Soleil is popular. Their touring shows have over an 80% sell out rate. So I would expect the same from their Avatar show because it's Cirque. Not because it is Avatar.

 

[Laketravis]

I don't think that raising prices is considered a mistake. It's basic business to charge as much as the market will bear. Any business has to balance the number of customers that can be handled while pricing an appropriate amount to make a profit, taking into account a bunch of factors, including generational nostalgia and everything else.. Unless capacity can somehow be increased, you have to charge more if too many guests would otherwise be coming. Put another way, if you have too many customers, raise prices to get that number down. In the meantime, add capacity (which is usually a slow process). Also, shift those crowds to times that are currently less popular, if you can. Disney is doing all of that. FP+ evens out the crowds by letting guests choose the time of day when they want to be there (sort of).

MK now has a hub that can handle more guests for fireworks and projection shows, and they have new exit paths other than Main Street, and Fantasyland increased overall capacity as well. Epcot opens side paths on New Year's Eve, and just opened a 3rd screen for Soarin'. Capacity seems to be increasing in these and certain other ways, including big time with the impending Star Wars and Pixar at Studios and Avatar at AK. This will probably help relieve the overcrowded feeling in certain ways, and if they end up not being as popular, they'll lower prices and/or slap together some package deals to bring people in. In the meantime, the current price hikes may lower numbers a bit, but I assume that overall profitability is up, and is almost assuredly up on a per guest basis.

So, no, lowering attendance is not a mistake. It's basically an inevitable response to the too good job that WDW has done in attracting customers.

Yet in this case prices are being purposely raised beyond what a portion of the market will bear. Whether it's a mistake or not can be judged based on the number of complaints that it's crowded, which was partially the reason for the decision to raise prices in the first place. I'm not seeing a wealth of reports proclaiming the park experience to be a joy because of less crowds - yet. Time will tell.....

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I don't think that raising prices is considered a mistake. It's basic business to charge as much as the market will bear. Any business has to balance the number of customers that can be handled while pricing an appropriate amount to make a profit, taking into account a bunch of factors, including generational nostalgia and everything else.. Unless capacity can somehow be increased, you have to charge more if too many guests would otherwise be coming. Put another way, if you have too many customers, raise prices to get that number down. In the meantime, add capacity (which is usually a slow process). Also, shift those crowds to times that are currently less popular, if you can. Disney is doing all of that. FP+ evens out the crowds by letting guests choose the time of day when they want to be there (sort of).

MK now has a hub that can handle more guests for fireworks and projection shows, and they have new exit paths other than Main Street, and Fantasyland increased overall capacity as well. Epcot opens side paths on New Year's Eve, and just opened a 3rd screen for Soarin'. Capacity seems to be increasing in these and certain other ways, including big time with the impending Star Wars and Pixar at Studios and Avatar at AK. This will probably help relieve the overcrowded feeling in certain ways, and if they end up not being as popular, they'll lower prices and/or slap together some package deals to bring people in. In the meantime, the current price hikes may lower numbers a bit, but I assume that overall profitability is up, and is almost assuredly up on a per guest basis.

So, no, lowering attendance is not a mistake. It's basically an inevitable response to the too good job that WDW has done in attracting customers.

The problem is WDW didn't add capacity for close to 15 years. So now, because of TDO's flaming incompetence, we all get to pay more for less.

And you seem Okey Dokie with that. Cheering them on, even.

Oh, and widening walkways does not increase the parks carrying capacity.

 

[Laketravis]

Are there seriously 4 sequels with release dates?

Cameron has announced plans for four sequels. Whether they will be "soon" or not is a matter of opinion.

 

[21stamps]

San Francisco. Visiting WDW would never convince me to not visit San Fran.....

I don't know why it has to be an "either/or" here. (Not by you, but by a few proclamations in this thread). Going to Disney World, loving Disney World, doesn't mean you should not go anywhere else. I didn't plan at trip to Alaska this summer bc I'm unhappy with WDW, or because I'm not a fan. I didn't even compare the 2. I chose Alaska because kiddo wants to go there, nothing to do with Disney at all.

 

[Otterhead]

What I am saying is the fact that Cirque is selling tix to their Avatar show doesn't really show the viability of Avatar as an IP as much as proves Cirque du Soleil is popular.

Sure, I get that, and it's quite true. But I don't think Cirque would choose to mount a new touring production based on a "dead IP". While you aren't a fan, it's clear there must be lots of fans out there who'd want to see a stage production based on it. I certainly heard a lot of people talking about Pandora when I was last at AK, asking when it'd be open, taking pictures of the floating rocks, etc. But this is a topic for a different thread

 

[LAKid53]

Most of the European River cruises market toward the non-children crowd. The new Disney river cruises are the one exception. I think it's still somewhat in the experimental stage, but it's offered I believe through Adventures By Disney, and is indeed geared a bit more toward families.

Viking and the rest actively dissuade people with children from signing up. There are probably many reasons for this, but tops among them would likely be the fact that it's hard to escape the kids on a long, low, thin boat. On big cruise ships, adult only areas are easy to find, and easy to maintain as kid-free. Plus, it's hard to find things for kids to do on a long, low, thin boat. No big splash areas, or Oceaneer Clubs unless the boat is specifically designed accordingly.

We've done three ADB's and they're great. But definitely not cheap. To be honest, I think they are a miniscule part of the company. Assume 30 guests per Adventure. Then assume that adventure goes for 25 weeks/trips out of the year. Then assume that there are 20 adventures offered. That's only 15,000 guests per year, which is a really mediocre day at Magic Kingdom. Even if Disney "profits" $1,000 per ABD guest, that's only $15,000,000 of yearly profit. Sounds okay, but imagine one inattentive guest stepping off a curb in London and getting run over by a double-decker bus. Even with insurance, your profits just dropped dramatically. And even with great safety precautions, one guest out of 15,000 getting seriously hurt is a very real possibility. Believe me, there's serious stress in guiding 30 or so people around world venues, especially in busy foreign countries. Even trying to cross a street with that many people can be a nerve-wracking task. Our guides in St. Petersburg Russia did this on a busy street with questionable traffic laws, and it was not relaxing.

Anyhow, ABD is fun, but it barely warrants a mention in the Annual Report once movies, ESPN, ABC, the parks, the Cruise Line, ILM, Pixar, DVC and all the other divisions are included. It's a great supplement to the idea of vacationing, but it impacts so few people that it's a very minor part of the company. By the way, the adventure guides are usually not even full-time with ABD. Instead, they're often park employees on a break from their normal job, or even private contractors who are not "employed" through Disney during the rest of the year.

VRC discourages children because children wouldn't enjoy the type of excursions they offer...

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Sure, I get that, and it's quite true. But I don't think Cirque would choose to mount a new touring production based on a "dead IP". While you aren't a fan, it's clear there must be lots of fans out there who'd want to see a stage production based on it. I certainly heard a lot of people talking about Pandora when I was last at AK, asking when it'd be open, taking pictures of the floating rocks, etc. But this is a topic for a different thread

I actually enjoyed Avatar and I think this land is going to be jaw dropping. But that doesn't mean I'm going to blow smoke up my own heiney pretending that the IP has one ounce of cultural zeitgeist.

 

[Bandini]

Except for its four sequels coming out, its massive billion-dollar expansion in the world's most popular park, its very popular currently-touring Cirque du Soleil show... I think they'll be OK

Provided the next Avatar movie is popular with audiences, it will be a draw.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Provided the next Avatar movie is popular with audiences, it will be a draw.

It's only 5 years late as of right now. At this point it's almost a reboot.

 

[Laketravis]

I actually enjoyed Avatar and I think this land is going to be jaw dropping. But that doesn't mean I'm going to blow smoke up my own heiney pretending that the IP has one ounce of cultural zeitgeist.

It will be interesting to see if WDW reaps the same level of increase in attendance due to Avatar that USO saw with Harry Potter, where attendance jumped 30% the first year Island of Adventure opened.

 

[Bandini]

DS loves Harry Potter. He's read them all and still re-reads them. People compliment him all the time because he's reading a book while standing in queue and when they find out it's HP a conversation always starts. He even reads them while at WDW.
View attachment 186093

Isn't that fabulous? I am thrilled that JK Rowling managed to create a series that has ignited so many children's and adult's imaginations. It's so hard to convince kids that reading can be fun, but with Harry Potter it's easy peasy.

 

[21stamps]

I actually enjoyed Avatar and I think this land is going to be jaw dropping. But that doesn't mean I'm going to blow smoke up my own heiney pretending that the IP has one ounce of cultural zeitgeist.

Like I said, I've never seen it. It's not the type of movie that would be a "must see" for me. Either was Harry Potter. Including the books.
I think Pandora looks neat, and I'm looking forward to it. But no, there's no emotional attachment at this point.

That being said, my son wasn't born yet in 2009. Now he's old enough to see the movie. Will he become a fan? TBD. We watched the first HP movie a few months ago and he loved it. (So did I lol) Now we're reading the first book. I had never seen any of the SW prequels before a month or so before our 2015 trip, because I didn't care about those either. Now we're full blown SW fans in this house.

I think there's a lot of parents in the same situation as me, maybe you don't really care about a particular movie, but then your kids fall in love, forcing you to get involved. A new Avatar movie could do that for all of the children who either weren't old enough or not born when it was released. A child's obsession is a major influence on what/where a parent chooses to go and spend their money.

 

[contrariwise]

I actually enjoyed Avatar and I think this land is going to be jaw dropping.

Yeah I liked Avatar too, as a movie you see and go, that was good, and then go back to your life and not think much more of it. It was a decent use of a couple of hours, not anything particularly compelling. There's no chance that Avatar will be a draw to Animal Kingdom in the way that HP is a draw to Universal, or even in the way that Star Wars will likely be a draw to DHS, when and if the plans come to fruition. If anything, the Avatar presence in AK may increase awareness and interest in Avatar, not the other way around. And I think if the land is jaw dropping, then it will be notable because it's jaw dropping, not because it has anything to do with Avatar. And I think people think the floating rocks are cool because they're floating rocks. Not because they're floating rocks from Avatar

 

[LAKid53]

I don't know why it has to be an "either/or" here. (Not by you, but by a few proclamations in this thread). Going to Disney World, loving Disney World, doesn't mean you should not go anywhere else. I didn't plan at trip to Alaska this summer bc I'm unhappy with WDW, or because I'm not a fan. I didn't even compare the 2. I chose Alaska because kiddo wants to go there, nothing to do with Disney at all.

If someone said to me, "San Francisco or WDW?", there'd be no thinking about which I would choose....

I enjoy WDW, but after a few days I start to get a tad bored...could be because I've visited close to 40 times in the past few years. Which is why my visits now coincide with other events. Speaking of....are you running?

Was supposed to be there last week. Had to cancel at the last minute due to illness, so I lost those DVC points I was trying to use up and couldn't bank. But did that bother me? No. What bothered me about not being able to go was forgoing my planned visit to Fit2Run. I have found with recent trips I look forward to spending time at Disney Springs more than parks. That's a long - and not inexpensive - trip just to shop. Especially when there's a fantastic outlet mall just a two hour drive away.

And the shopping in SF surpasses anything Disney could offer. Plus the food, my god, the food!

 

[Laketravis]

Isn't that fabulous? I am thrilled that JK Rowling managed to create a series that has ignited so many children's and adult's imaginations. It's so hard to convince kids that reading can be fun, but with Harry Potter it's easy peasy.

Exactly. Avatar the movie doesn't seem to have the same support that print can provide. In fact, I wonder how many kids might be disappointed with Avatar Land because they were expecting The Last Airbender?

 

[Andrew C]

Exactly. Avatar the movie doesn't seem to have the same support that print can provide. In fact, I wonder how many kids might be disappointed with Avatar Land because they were expecting The Last Airbender?

The success of Pandora at AK doesn't necessarily depend on the success of the Avatar franchise. Just sayin...

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I honestly think that Avatar 2 has to potential to be the biggest flop in cinematic history.