el_super
Well-Known Member
So all this really says is that Disney parks are priced appropriately.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO
- Thread starter Chef Mickey
- Start date
So all this really says is that Disney parks are priced appropriately.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
If they maintain or grow the product while handling capacity…you would be correct
el_super
Well-Known Member
It's not even a matter of adding more attendance through addition. People want to go to WDW to see Magic Kingdom and get a "classic" Disney experience. Unless they were willing to build an exact copy of the Magic Kingdom and assign people to visit either MK A or MK B, all the additional attractions and space in Magic Kingdom still wouldn't get you additional capacity on the classic experiences there.
They've now spent billions updating the other three parks, but MK is still the top destination at the resort. New Fantasyland wasn't that good.
And now they apparently come from Genie+.
So you think they're justified in keeping prices low and capital expenses even lower?
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Aligns pretty much with my thoughts, completely.
I think Bob 1.0 was damaging to certain parts of the company behind the scenes but he sold the "magic".
Bob 2.0 belongs as the head of a box making company.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Is that the un-debatable truth?
They have spent billions but where did that money go? What has that gotten them?
Epcot has been a dumpster fire for how long? The center of the park is still a construction site after how many years? That Play pavilion's opening any day now, right?
How much has Hollywood Studios added in capacity after you factor what they removed?
When was the last attraction added to Animal Kingdom?
Look at the number of attractions in each park, then look at the price and tell me where it appears to make more sense for a first time visitor to go.
How distant does #2 look to #1?
But there is a limit to the earning potential of Genie+. They have to price it so it's still within the grasp of millions of people going while not having it completely and totally ruin the experience for people without it so much that the longest line in the parks ends up being guest relations.
They can't just price it high because there is already a product there - the VIP tours.
I'm about 95% sure that Genie+ was intended more as a silent $15 a day price increase for tickets than anything else since it doesn't offer anything more (actually less) than the free FP and FP+ that it replaces and due to their lack of keeping pace with attendance, feels like a requirement to many long time guests as echoed in these forums from people who buy it and seem to still strongly resent it.
I'm saying if they were willing to drop money on the parks like they are Disney+ with mounds of near-term loss in the process, there might be a chance they could do it but that'll never happen because they need to keep sucking cash off the parks to pay for their adventures in other parts of the company (like Disney+).
Remember, Bob 1.0 referred to the parks as a "mature" business suggesting the time for major investment in the existing stateside properties had passed and they just needed to do a better job of monetizing what they had.
Bluntly put, he was wrong.
The problem Disney has requires money to fix in whatever direction they decide to turn. They don't want to spend the money required.
What they want to do is try selling a premium beer as Louis Roederer Cristal. The problem is, no matter how much they package what they currently have, it's still something that belongs in a six pack and they've shown absolutely no appetite to make it anything worthy of a price point that makes it a more aspirational brand.
Whatever they do, they still need millions of people to show up every year to keep it viable even if it's a couple million less.
Is there a price point that will do that and maintain profit or do they risk cratering their business because people don't want to spend $300 on a ticket to ride a 50 year old ride that's had questionable upkeep?
Last edited:
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
el_super
Well-Known Member
Which part... that they spent billions or that New Fantasyland wasn't that good?
How the capacity is used is more important than the straight number. Something like Rise of the Resistance, which might have less guest through-put, might be convincing more people to divert from MK to DHS for a day than the old motor stunt show.
The point still remains: they're trying to lure people away from Magic Kingdom to make it less busy and still failing. Maybe they're failing because their creatives are not up to the challenges, but it's definitely not from lack of spending.
I think you're pretty much saying what I was saying here. They priced Genie+ low, because they wanted to make it attainable to the majority of guests to soften the blow of losing Fastpass+. That decision is still being driven moreso by brand perception than any economic theory. They are settling on a compromise where they think they will get the most guest satisfaction as opposed to revenue.
There's still a lot of room to move up between $15 and $400/hr.
They won't do it because those other parts of the company make more money than the parks. Park money may be consistent, but it has always played a second fiddle to Media Networks, where ESPN alone was raking in more cash than the parks.
I do think there is potential to get more revenue from the parks in general, but it's going to require raising prices which we're pretty much establishing here, no one really wants.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
The admission is probably priced appropriately -- I'm not sure the hotel rooms are. Especially since they've apparently had some trouble filling the deluxe resorts.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
If they’re trying to “lure” people from magic kingdom…they got ALOT of catch-up to do.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Except that EPCOT Center and Tokyo DisneySEA both did a lot better than half of their respective Disneyland’s attendance. Despite billions being spent the other parks at Walt Disney World still remain a far worse value proposition for a variety of customers. If you want the most attractions, Magic Kingdom is the best choice. If you have very little kids, Magic Kingdom is your best choice. If you want to stay late, Magic Kingdom is your best choice. If you want to ride a couple of roller coasters, Magic Kingdom is your best choice. If you want to see a parade, Magic Kingdom is your only choice. If you want to ride dark rides, Magic Kingdom is your best choice. If you want to see a good fireworks show, Magic Kingdom is your best choice. The other parks are nowhere near parity with the quantity and variety of offerings.
el_super
Well-Known Member
And they probably never will be and never catch up. Even DisneySea still trails Tokyo Disneyland, and TDL is a dinosaur in comparison.
People want that classic Disney experience, and the rest is just a diversion.
So now what? Build another castle park in Florida? In Texas? Add a second Teacups or a third Dumbo?
If globalization continues (which is a big if), building more international parks might help alleviate the demand a bit, but probably not enough to offset population and wealth growth in the US.
The demand is just too high.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
What do you mean by “globalization”?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
80% > 65%
el_super
Well-Known Member
In this case I was referring to the ease and a availability of cheap air travel and international tourism. Building parks in asian makes for a cheaper option than having Asian tourists flood the US parks. That might not be much of an issue for awhile so building more international parks doesn't make sense.
So all of Tokyo's capacity problems were solved?
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
The point is, the Florida parks have a lot more disparity.
The only one of the three in their current state that I believe could stand a chance of surviving on its own without the Magic Kingdom in the Orlando competetive landscape is probably Animal Kingdom and people would still say it's not a full day park.
WDW, across four parks, has roughly the same number of attractions that Disneyland does between two. (one of which opened well after the last one in WDW) and DL has never had "the blessing of size" and sees nowhere near the number of annual guests.
Why is that?
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Neither - I was talking about the notion that the only reason MK is so popular is because it's "classic". I addressed that in my next breath which you didn't include in the quote you responded to but someone else did a far better job in replying to you about why MK looks like a far better value than the other three even if you care nothing about it being"classic".
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Weird - the only part I specifically mentioned was Disney+. It's cost them many billions and isn't expected to turn a profit for years, assuming the digital streaming market doesn't have a reckoning.
Disney+ brings in a lot of money but it's nowhere near as much as it costs and the costs are always going to go up because they will need to keep churning out content to keep people subscribed.
They're betting they'll eventually make enough money with it to get ahead of those costs.
Their competitors are starting to deal with shareholders who fear that may not happen for them.
Revenue and profit are very different things and the parks and resorts are one of the only consistently stable profit centers Disney has.
Making it as you suggest would require seriously jeopardizing that and where are they going to take profits from to make up for the losses during that transition? What will make up the difference if the transition doesn't work out?
Even you talk about the mighty ESPN in the past-tense. Was that an accident?
Last edited:
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
We aren't.
I'm saying they did it rather than raise ticket prices by another $10 across the board because it would be a lot easier to see the rate they are trying to raise prices if they did that.
Did they need to raise prices or separate the FP system from the base ticket at all?
Their record breaking profits would suggest strongly they didn't.
It's like the start of charging for parking at resorts. You can say that only impacts people who drive and then represents a savings* to people without vehicles but it's a way to raise prices higher without that being reflected in the room rate.
Also, it's interesting they made that change while eliminating Magic Express which naturally would lead to more people feeling they need to rent a vehicle for their stay while also reducing their costs.
They're finding great ways to monetize the negatives in Florida, these days.
Disney is not trying to preserve access for the middle class. They're not looking to improve customer satisfaction at the cost of profits - they realize that if they everyone off, they'll make no profit at all because if they alienate too much of their customer base, they'll be screwed.
These tricks are designed to make things look cheaper than they actually are. It's similar to making cereal boxes thinner but just as tall and to make the divot in the bottom of a jar of peanut butter higher, taking an ounce off what's inside while making the jar look the same - if you want to get what you've had, you're paying more even if the sticker price doesn't reflect that.
*and no, it's not a savings. Not increasing the price (more than you already are) for something doesn't save anybody anything but as a marketing tactic, trying to hide the increase in attached fees is a good way to try creating that perception.
Last edited:
Well, don't forget: you're only counting *rides* when you say 'attractions.'
It's true both resorts have the same number of rides, but WDW has a lot more attractions. It has a zoo, a world showcase evoking a World's Fair, and DHS is supposed to have a lot of shows. WDW also has a lot more Disney hotels, golf courses, spas, fireworks. And at one time a lot more parades and nighttime extravaganzas (hopefully, it will again).
And WDW has more third-party off-site attractions for people doing long vacations.