Disney considering a new World Showcase pavilion BY REMOVING AN EXISTING COUNTRY?!?!

EthanK

EthanK

New Member
Disney does hundreds of guest surveys a year, finding out which country is the least popular is just something they need to do on a regular basis. It doesn't mean the country will be killed (I think only lack of sponsorship from that country would do that) it just means they need to gauge the popularity. They can do that by adding up dollars spent at each country, or the foot traffic, or simply by doing this and asking.

I'm not worried about unpopular countries getting the axe, since they have space for more without resorting to that, and every country is its own money-making opportunity. Each shop and restaurant brings revenue, so adding to that revenue with another country and not substituting that revenue by demolishing it makes business sense. The same reason that new shops open up in WDW that sell the same stuff - it's all going into the same pot through different channels.

That being said, Outpost is dull.
 
jakeman

jakeman

Well-Known Member
WDWFigment said:
Let me preface this by saying I don't think this rumor is true (for the reasons following the next quote). I think it could make financial sense, though. I think your conclusions rest upon the premise that Disney wants to expand capacity in EPCOT. Does Disney? (I don't know the answer to this, just posing the question). It seems most, if not all, of the major recent EPCOT additions replaced existing attractions. If Disney truly cared about expanding capacity, why not add at those times?
Click to expand...
Interesting point. I believe you are correct in that Disney may not need the extra capacity at Epcot.

WDWFigment said:
The benefits (as I see them, at least), in razing an attraction and building a new one are: 1) you don't incur the substantial cost of hiring additional Cast Members to staff and maintain the added attractions, and 2) you bring in new/repeat guests to visit the new experience. Now point 2 obviously would result regardless of whether they expanded capacity or replaced an attraction, so it's not unique to replacement, but if the only concern is attracting new/repeat guests with a new offering, it seems replacement would be the better route.
Click to expand...
As to your first point, my counter would be that your increase cost would be offset by an increase in attendance. This is of course going under the assumption that attendance to a new pavilion would not canibalize the attendance to another pavilion.

My personal experience with dining in Epcot would lead me to believe that another restaurant (QS or TS) would not significantly hamper the other restaurants in the pavilion.

WDWFigment said:
Put another way, I don't think any actions taken by Disney suggest any desire to expand the capacity of EPCOT (when is the last time EPCOT had its capacity increased...probably sometime in the 1980s, right?). Although I can't provide exact numbers, I would think the long term expense of replacing an attraction is much cheaper than adding an attraction on an unused plot.

Maybe there's something I'm missing that totally defeats my argument...
Click to expand...
I believe that mainly supports the premise that this is either an early April Fool's or accidental misinformation. Just to be clear, that does strongly seem to be the case here.

What I would be interested to know is what the data financially for each pavilion is? I'm sure they keep track of the cost/income of each pavilion. It would be interesting to see if any of them were in the red.

For me, it would make more sense if you had a pavilion making a profit of $5/yr and an empty plot to add another pavilion to the empty plot and potentially double your profit. However, if you have a pavilion losing $5/yr, a replacement would be in order.

WDWFigment said:
This is why I think the Screamscape piece misses the point, misunderstands the survey, or something of that sort. Like jakeman said, the phrasing of the question makes a difference, and it wouldn't surprise me if the person taking the survey read one thing and remembered another.
Click to expand...
Data is always useful, even old data. It could very well be a legitimate collection of opinions. I would guess, based on no real fact, that the removal question was a red herring, if indeed true.

That turned into a mish mash of thoughts, sorry about that.
 
Avenger117

Avenger117

Well-Known Member
I think Brazil or Russia would be pretty cool. I have nothing against Mexico, but they could get rid of that. The only reason I say that is because I feel like its the least unique experience. I have lived in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina and my dad lives in Texas. We have tons of Mexican restaurants and exposure to the culture. I think adding a more distant nation to World Showcase would provide an experience that we might not have at home.
 
aladdin2007

aladdin2007

Well-Known Member
Avenger117 said:
I think Brazil or Russia would be pretty cool. I have nothing against Mexico, but they could get rid of that. The only reason I say that is because I feel like its the least unique experience. I have lived in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina and my dad lives in Texas. We have tons of Mexican restaurants and exposure to the culture. I think adding a more distant nation to World Showcase would provide an experience that we might not have at home.
Click to expand...

True that would be exciting and more special actually. Hey Estonia anyone? :lol:
 
WDWFigment

WDWFigment

Well-Known Member
jakeman said:
Interesting point. I believe you are correct in that Disney may not need the extra capacity at Epcot.

As to your first point, my counter would be that your increase cost would be offset by an increase in attendance. This is of course going under the assumption that attendance to a new pavilion would not canibalize the attendance to another pavilion.

My personal experience with dining in Epcot would lead me to believe that another restaurant (QS or TS) would not significantly hamper the other restaurants in the pavilion.

I believe that mainly supports the premise that this is either an early April Fool's or accidental misinformation. Just to be clear, that does strongly seem to be the case here.

What I would be interested to know is what the data financially for each pavilion is? I'm sure they keep track of the cost/income of each pavilion. It would be interesting to see if any of them were in the red.

For me, it would make more sense if you had a pavilion making a profit of $5/yr and an empty plot to add another pavilion to the empty plot and potentially double your profit. However, if you have a pavilion losing $5/yr, a replacement would be in order.

Data is always useful, even old data. It could very well be a legitimate collection of opinions. I would guess, based on no real fact, that the removal question was a red herring, if indeed true.

That turned into a mish mash of thoughts, sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Cannibalization was going to be my exact response to EthanK's above point, but then I refreshed and saw this, so I will just respond to you both. Just personal opinion, but I don't think there would be a different increase in attendance if Disney added on versus replacing an attraction except during the times of year (what, 2-4 days per year for a few hours...and 75% of those people likely end up at another park, anyway) when EPCOT currently hits capacity, as it wouldn't as easily hit capacity as it does now. I think a new country is going to increase attendance the same way whether it replaces a current country or is in a new location. Just my two cents.

Where I think you're right is in regard to dining. Even after the Italian pizzeria opens, I think there will still be plenty of demand for additional eateries without over-saturation. However, if we're going from a business perspective, wouldn't it just be cheaper to go the Italy route and add dining options to existing countries?

I think the gift shops are already near the brink of over-saturation (again, just my opinion), so I don't think anything is to be gained from adding an additional country from a shopping perspective. I think that would definitely cause cannibalization.

Like I think we both realize, we're each just speculating here. Neither of us has any data (unless you're holding out on me!), so at best we are making slightly informed guesses. Still fun to hypothesize!
 
jakeman

jakeman

Well-Known Member
WDWFigment said:
Cannibalization was going to be my exact response to EthanK's above point, but then I refreshed and saw this, so I will just respond to you both. Just personal opinion, but I don't think there would be a different increase in attendance if Disney added on versus replacing an attraction except during the times of year (what, 2-4 days per year for a few hours...and 75% of those people likely end up at another park, anyway) when EPCOT currently hits capacity, as it wouldn't as easily hit capacity as it does now. I think a new country is going to increase attendance the same way whether it replaces a current country or is in a new location. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
I think this would depend on their target audience. If it is the standard 7 day every 2-3 year guest then you would see a definite cannibalization. However, if they are targeting a pavilion that would cater to dining and shopping (more about that below) then you are looking at an increase among local visitors. I don't know if investing in the local subset would be lucrative enought to justify a whole new pavilion though.

WDWFigment said:
Where I think you're right is in regard to dining. Even after the Italian pizzeria opens, I think there will still be plenty of demand for additional eateries without over-saturation. However, if we're going from a business perspective, wouldn't it just be cheaper to go the Italy route and add dining options to existing countries?
Click to expand...
I agree, but there may be logistics in the remaining countries that prevent it. Of course, now that I think about it, if you count the various bakeries and themed carts, almost every country has some version of QS now.

I wonder if the dining profit margin is so large, they could justify a whole other pavilion on this alone? If so (putting on my tinfoil hat for a second), I wonder if they would correlate the Food and Wine booth sales with other data to make the determination?

WDWFigment said:
I think the gift shops are already near the brink of over-saturation (again, just my opinion), so I don't think anything is to be gained from adding an additional country from a shopping perspective. I think that would definitely cause cannibalization.
Click to expand...
I agree.

The dining is no where near the saturation point at Epcot, especially for QS.

It would have to be both an accessible and unique shopping experience to justify it though. While items are still diverse and good quality in the WS (as it is debatable in other areas of WDW), I can't say that much of the merchandise has ever appealed to me.

WDWFigment said:
Like I think we both realize, we're each just speculating here. Neither of us has any data (unless you're holding out on me!), so at best we are making slightly informed guesses. Still fun to hypothesize!
Click to expand...
It sure is!

I wish I had access to this data. It would keep me busy for quite sometime.
 
WDWFigment

WDWFigment

Well-Known Member
jakeman said:
I think this would depend on their target audience. If it is the standard 7 day every 2-3 year guest then you would see a definite cannibalization. However, if they are targeting a pavilion that would cater to dining and shopping (more about that below) then you are looking at an increase among local visitors. I don't know if investing in the local subset would be lucrative enought to justify a whole new pavilion though.

I agree, but there may be logistics in the remaining countries that prevent it. Of course, now that I think about it, if you count the various bakeries and themed carts, almost every country has some version of QS now.

I wonder if the dining profit margin is so large, they could justify a whole other pavilion on this alone? If so (putting on my tinfoil hat for a second), I wonder if they would correlate the Food and Wine booth sales with other data to make the determination?

I agree.

The dining is no where near the saturation point at Epcot, especially for QS.

It would have to be both an accessible and unique shopping experience to justify it though. While items are still diverse and good quality in the WS (as it is debatable in other areas of WDW), I can't say that much of the merchandise has ever appealed to me.

It sure is!

I wish I had access to this data. It would keep me busy for quite sometime.
Click to expand...

With regard to your first point (sorry, I'm too lazy to break up the quotes like you did!) I have to say that the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. Not just locals, either, but DVC members and AP holders. I mean, look at how busy WS is during the F&WF weekends. Here's some more data we don't have access to, but wouldn't you bet a far higher percentage than "normal" (non-F&WF weekends) of those individuals are locals, AP holders, or DVC-members? Although an additional country isn't the same as F&WF, it has some of the same characteristics. It adds to the "cultural value" of EPCOT that presumably has that demographic coming in the first place and might increase attendance over simply replacing an existing pavilion. I think at the very least, adding a new pavilion gives you more real estate for F&WF, and that is desperately needed (I'm sure having some more "breathing room" alone during the F&WF weekends would cause an increase in attendance as some people likely avoid WS on those weekends because of the crowds).

I would bet that the margins on dining are huge. Enough to justify a new country? I don't know. In any case, if you can add the same dining to an existing country rather than adding the country (like you said, that is an "if"), it seems it would be more cost effective to do that. I would also bet that F&WF receipts combined with current dining data for the same periods would be a fair proxy for demand (albeit with some modification).

Like you say, I think EPCOT (and the Magic Kingdom, for that matter) both are lacking in the QS department (I would argue the TS department, too). The Pizzeria is a step in the right direction, but with the presumed profitability of dining, it would seem that TDO would dedicate resources to opening other new restaurants.

That data sure would be interesting. Think if we email Guest Services and ask nicely they will let us have it? :lol:
 
S

spear

New Member
Gomer said:
Why would they do that when there are expansion plots that could be used?

I fear guest opinion would be against my personal favorite pavillion, Morocco. It seems crowds have been smaller there for the last ten years or so...for reasons I won't attempt to speculate on.
Click to expand...

Would agree Morocco is a great pavillion.
 
RoRo

RoRo

New Member
This is nuts, its good and bad. I think Germany might be on the chomping block if they really want to make a huge country with both Outpost and Germany land plots.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom