ABQ
Well-Known Member
Oh if only Discovery Networks and TWDC were better partners, so much cooler than Scripps and all their garbage.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bad news from our friends at MiceAge...
- Thread starter DisneyGentleman
- Start date
71jason
Well-Known Member
OK, in hindsight, see what you were saying...
danlb_2000
Premium Member
danlb_2000
Premium Member
This is what some people seem to miss in the WDW vs Uni debate. They just bring up the huge attendance gap between WDW and Uni and conclude that WDW is so far ahead that they have nothing to worry about. Uni doesn't need to come anywhere near WDW's number to have a serious impact.
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Who has? I mean, with Disney, even the things that they say publicly they are building or planning to, are always subject to change or be cancelled. Those of us who have been around and watched them long enough know this. There is a long list of attractions/lands that were shown to the public, given opening dates and then never even broke ground. Until an attraction officially opens in a Disney park, it should always be considered a rumor.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Universal not causing serious damage in the short term also does not discount the possibility of long term damage. The family that adds a few days at Universal this year may realize there are benefits to leaving the Disney bubble. In two years when they come back they may opt to stay off site or use days to see other attractions they have skipped before in favor of Disney. That is where the real danger is and, as history has shown with other giants of their field, can only really be stopped by never heading down that path. Once that sort of pattern takes shape and the evidence is clear reversing such a shift will only be exponentially more difficult to counter.
sshindel
The Epcot Manifesto
I agree with this, and Disney is right to worry. And by the way, anything I'm typing here are things that I am still thinking through, and have not arrived at any personal conclusions about in the least. So pardon some thinking "out loud" and as always, feel free to refer to my disclaimer in my signature if you disagree
.Though I do not even begin to pretend to know what the people inside the company think (and I also believe that you have a WHOLE lot more insight into that than most), I agree that taking "days away" from Disney is where this discussion is most valid. While I feel that there are some out there that believe that Universal is setting out to win the #1 share, it's just not realistic, so they want to maximize the time they "take" from Disney. I think once Universal added Potter, there was enough over there to lure people from Disney and those initial few days were probably lost, never to return to Disney. Heck, I even gave Uni a day this year (though for my family they're not getting that one again for quite a few more years). Still, those days now are probably lost to Disney forever. No matter what Disney does, Universal has improved themselves enough where on average 1-2 days are likely "lost" to Universal. There is likely a large segment of the population that are always going to make sure that they visit Universal. Aside from opening a 5th gate, even an entire new "land" in one of Disney's parks is not going to convince the average customer to give up a day at Universal to add it back to Disney. As you said, a person on a trip might have 10 days and a big portion of those are going to go to Disney, so a new land will be experienced once or twice in the standard days, Uni is still getting their days because there are enough rides and experiences at those parks to justify the time.
So, the battle is over people adding days beyond day 2 at Universal. Disney likely (and again speculation on my part) believes that on average, the general population are not quite ready to give up more than that to Universal. Sure, there will be folks that do, just as there are folks that go to Orlando and spend the entire trip at Universal (and just like there are people that go and spend their entire trip at Disney). But on average, Disney probably knows that they've lost 2 days to Universal, and they are not getting those back. So, one of the things they decided to do was to try and maximize the profit received for the rest of those days. Make sure that for the time that folks spend on Disney property, their trip is as easy as possible, they are relaxed, having fun, and spending money. Now while quite a few disagree that this has happened with MM+, it is the intent. To get people to spend more money when they are on property and tangentially improve their experience while they are there. Maximize the profit while guests are at the resort. I know people don't believe this, but based on a positive experience, I had an improved guest experience with my one test of MM+ that impacted my entire trip in a positive fashion. And looking at my credit card bills, something sure got me all loose with the spending while I was there. I don't imply that was strictly MM+, but I also can't deny that the ease of use didn't have any impact.
So, what will it take to get the average guest to start giving more than 2 days to Universal? That's the multi-billion dollar question. Will adding HP2.0? How many more additions are required before the average person decides they need more than one day at each Universal park? That's the game that Disney is playing here. While they have this time, can they maximize their profit from each guest while they have them, and when will they truly need to step in to try and block that extra time loss?
Personally, I still think they have time. Maybe I'm foolish to think this, and likely I am, but I feel that they've lost those first few days to Uni, but Uni has a LOT more to do in order to get the average guest to invest more time. You've got to give it to them though, they sure are trying.
It is a dangerous game though that they are playing, and one that will likely continue to play itself out in the next 5, 10, 15, 25... years. Still, time, and market share, IMO is still on Disney's side.
PhilharMagician
Well-Known Member
Didn't they just widen BVD last year and add a lane to relieve the traffic problems caused by DHS secondary entrance? Guess it didn't help much.
SJN1279
Well-Known Member
I'm actually very sorry to hear that.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I'm no al fan.. But you are full of it. 1) they have had plenty of breaks including attraction and entertainment changes. Your claim is so ludicrous it's not even worth the effort to cite the examples 2) Al had been doing this since the 90s... George wasn't his only contact
3) he doesn't write the columns anymore because the guy is critically ill with Parkinson's disease.Oh the irony of you trying to call them out over accuracy with total bs like this....
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
I respect your posts but just totally off on this one. You don't pull in $3-5k a night selling Cokes. And it had a $25 cover charge for all intents and purposes. Also, as popular as it was, 8-Traxx and Mannequins were far more popular in real world numbers--they just lack the dedicated online fanbase.
But really, the whole handling of PI in its last 5 years was one bad decision after another.
Alright, back to agreeing with you.
Fair enough, This came from a few CM's I talked to just about the time AC was closing, They stated that attraction was closing because they were not selling enough alcohol vs softdrinks of course they had only a operators view
asianway
Well-Known Member
You may want to research the definition of market shareI agree with this, and Disney is right to worry. And by the way, anything I'm typing here are things that I am still thinking through, and have not arrived at any personal conclusions about in the least. So pardon some thinking "out loud" and as always, feel free to refer to my disclaimer in my signature if you disagree
Though I do not even begin to pretend to know what the people inside the company think (and I also believe that you have a WHOLE lot more insight into that than most), I agree that taking "days away" from Disney is where this discussion is most valid. While I feel that there are some out there that believe that Universal is setting out to win the #1 share, it's just not realistic, so they want to maximize the time they "take" from Disney. I think once Universal added Potter, there was enough over there to lure people from Disney and those initial few days were probably lost, never to return to Disney. Heck, I even gave Uni a day this year (though for my family they're not getting that one again for quite a few more years). Still, those days now are probably lost to Disney forever. No matter what Disney does, Universal has improved themselves enough where on average 1-2 days are likely "lost" to Universal. There is likely a large segment of the population that are always going to make sure that they visit Universal. Aside from opening a 5th gate, even an entire new "land" in one of Disney's parks is not going to convince the average customer to give up a day at Universal to add it back to Disney. As you said, a person on a trip might have 10 days and a big portion of those are going to go to Disney, so a new land will be experienced once or twice in the standard days, Uni is still getting their days because there are enough rides and experiences at those parks to justify the time.
So, the battle is over people adding days beyond day 2 at Universal. Disney likely (and again speculation on my part) believes that on average, the general population are not quite ready to give up more than that to Universal. Sure, there will be folks that do, just as there are folks that go to Orlando and spend the entire trip at Universal (and just like there are people that go and spend their entire trip at Disney). But on average, Disney probably knows that they've lost 2 days to Universal, and they are not getting those back. So, one of the things they decided to do was to try and maximize the profit received for the rest of those days. Make sure that for the time that folks spend on Disney property, their trip is as easy as possible, they are relaxed, having fun, and spending money. Now while quite a few disagree that this has happened with MM+, it is the intent. To get people to spend more money when they are on property and tangentially improve their experience while they are there. Maximize the profit while guests are at the resort. I know people don't believe this, but based on a positive experience, I had an improved guest experience with my one test of MM+ that impacted my entire trip in a positive fashion. And looking at my credit card bills, something sure got me all loose with the spending while I was there. I don't imply that was strictly MM+, but I also can't deny that the ease of use didn't have any impact.
So, what will it take to get the average guest to start giving more than 2 days to Universal? That's the multi-billion dollar question. Will adding HP2.0? How many more additions are required before the average person decides they need more than one day at each Universal park? That's the game that Disney is playing here. While they have this time, can they maximize their profit from each guest while they have them, and when will they truly need to step in to try and block that extra time loss?
Personally, I still think they have time. Maybe I'm foolish to think this, and likely I am, but I feel that they've lost those first few days to Uni, but Uni has a LOT more to do in order to get the average guest to invest more time. You've got to give it to them though, they sure are trying.
It is a dangerous game though that they are playing, and one that will likely continue to play itself out in the next 5, 10, 15, 25... years. Still, time, and market share, IMO is still on Disney's side.
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
I don't get why some in the Disney community are so quick to call a rumor and the source false so quickly. While it's true there aren't too many credible sources for Disney rumors, there are a few that every now and then get wind of something that's credible. But, just because it does or doesn't come to fruition isn't necessary indicative of their legitimacy. I think there is a lot of information that is leaked from Disney that is based on ideas that were probably thrown out, but they're strategically leaked by those who want the work to be seen. Regardless, like I said before, any rumor and for that matter, any legitimate news item based on anything Disney supposedly has in the works should be treated as just that (read the definition of the word if you're uncertain).
For me, I like reading rumors. However, I treat them as entertainment, much like I might a sitcom. They're fun for what they are, nothing more and I don't put a lot of stock in them.
For me, I like reading rumors. However, I treat them as entertainment, much like I might a sitcom. They're fun for what they are, nothing more and I don't put a lot of stock in them.
crispy
Well-Known Member
OOOHHH, I have something to add to the discussion! (Sorry to be so excited because it's rare I have anything of substance to add!)
I received a survey this morning from Disney. It was asking about our vacation habits with some specific questions about our knowledge of WDW, Adventures by Disney, Disney Cruise Line, Disneyland, and Aulani. There was also section that asked if we had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the following: Pixar, Harry Potter, Transformers, Star Wars, Universal Orlando, Disney World, etc. Avatar was not mentioned at all. I thought it was interesting. I have done a lot of surveys, and this is the first time that I have ever seen any questions about Universal. Maybe, just maybe, somebody is starting to wake-up. Or maybe not.
One interesting question was whether or not we would choose Disney above all other vacation destinations. Five years ago that would have been a yes without question, but not so much today.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
I received a survey this morning from Disney. It was asking about our vacation habits with some specific questions about our knowledge of WDW, Adventures by Disney, Disney Cruise Line, Disneyland, and Aulani. There was also section that asked if we had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the following: Pixar, Harry Potter, Transformers, Star Wars, Universal Orlando, Disney World, etc. Avatar was not mentioned at all. I thought it was interesting. I have done a lot of surveys, and this is the first time that I have ever seen any questions about Universal. Maybe, just maybe, somebody is starting to wake-up. Or maybe not.
One interesting question was whether or not we would choose Disney above all other vacation destinations. Five years ago that would have been a yes without question, but not so much today.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
orky8
Well-Known Member
This is WDW's achille's heal -- and I think they know it. WDW's strategy has been to keep people on property so as to capture 100% of their vacation spend - park, hotel, food, and merch. If a guest leaves property, even if only for a day or two, everything changes as to where that guest may spend its money. As @ParentsOf4 has aptly pointed out many times, WDW is a hotel and timeshare businesses. An incredibly profitable one with exorbitant rates. To fill those rooms WDW operates theme parks and gives guests free transportation on property and to/from the airport. If a guest stays on property, Disney makes their lives easy (ok, well, not really but we'll debate the horrid state of the bus system later)
BUT, leaving property adds a new level of complication to the vacation plans. If a guest goes to Universal for a day or two, now they need a car (easiest way). Once a guest has a car, WDW's walled garden begins to fall apart. I completely agree that maybe in the short term the guest will continue to stay on property, but as more and more spend time off property, the perceived benefit of staying on property begins to quickly diminish, especially considering it is markedly more expensive, and maybe next trip the guest will go off property.
Furthermore, the profitability of that guest begins to drop rapidly too. Disney doesn't care about losing the park days -- afterall a 5 day ticket only costs a few dollars more than a 4 day ticket -- but is very concerned about losing nights spent at its hotels, as each night costs the same. As far as Disney is concerned, the fewer days a guest spends at the parks, the better, as the parks cost money to operate. I don't think Disney is concerned that Uni is building amazing theme parks that will draw guests for a day or two -- it welcomes that. But, I think Disney should be very concerned that Uni plans to significantly increase its hotel offerings as well. And, Uni is also building compelling reasons to consider its hotels, which are considerably less expensive that Disney's.
John
Well-Known Member
What it does is that it publically admits that they have taken notice. That there are concerns. BTW have all of you seen the construction pics of HP 2.0? Just WOW! the shear size is amazing.
Gabe1
Ivory Tower Squabble EST 2011. WINDMILL SURVIVOR
Giggle. You missed the sarcastic eye roll in the post. Yep I know when I'm being played by Disney.
sshindel
The Epcot Manifesto
Curious, how does Disney not have the market share in the theme park industry, and in Orlando? I'll admit I've not parsed through the numbers aside from the standard stuff like in the Orlando Sential article from yesterday about Universal "doubling down" in Orlando and those site the TEA numbers.
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Interesting. I'm curious about the wording and how the choices were laid out? Particularly for the section regarding Pixar, Harry Potter, Transformers, Star Wars, Universal and Disney World. Were these like a matrix list where you had to choose on a scale (1-5) how familiar/favorable they were to you or was it more of a ranking type of most to least favorable or some other way?
jlsHouston
Well-Known Member
It really is an eyesore....I hate entering Epcot from the front because of these blockades..