CTXRover said:
We don't need a fifth park. Orlando has already reached a point of oversaturation with parks at Disney, Universal and Seaworld. This can be seen from the fact that since AK and IOA opened, the crowds have more or less spread out rather than leading to more people coming to Orlando as a whole (there are other tourism factors at play, but we need not go there).
As I said in another thread, I don't think the fact that DAK didn't bring more people to WDW is evidence of anything but the fact that DAK failed to broaden the WDW audience - by design. From the outside world AK appears no more than a Disneified Zoo. Is this accurate? Maybe not - but that doesn't stop the perception from taking hold.
DAK didn't bring anything "new" to WDW to appeal to people that WDW didn't already appeal to. People who weren't going to WDW before weren't going to come down for more of the same (even if it did have animals, most people live closer to zoo's that have more in that department anyway).
IOA is another beast entirely, and it suffers from three problems : 1) lack of brand name recognition (at least compared to Disney), 2) scope of resort, and 3) inertia of construction. Although themepark fans are aware of Universal, they will never be anywhere near as recognizable as Disney in any way, shape, or form. No matter how many nifty little new TV commercials they come up with they can't change the fact that most of us grew up watching specials about Disney/Disneyland/WDW and it's part of the fabric of our culture.
1) Say "Universal" to people and nothing overwhelmingly comes to mind for the average person who hasn't visited the parks - maybe images of the Hollywood tram tour. You say Disney, and people think of their favorite characters - Mickey, Donald, or Pooh, or one of dozens of others, they think magic, they think history, etc. Universal has nothing on this scale - they DO have recognizable characters within the parks, but it's a mish-mash with little common theme and they aren't indentified with "Universal" in common public perception (from Sponge Bob to the Terminator).
2) UO is pretty tiny. It's not a "vacation destination", again, no matter what those commercials tell you. On a good day you could visit all the major attractions in both parks before closing. IOA can be done in a morning if you get there early enough and really haul behind. (Hulk, Spiderman, Bluto, Ripshaw, Dueling Dragons, Jurrasic Park and you're just about finished.) The slate of E-tickets at IOA is impressive, but there is not an entire resort to absorb the rest of the time. UO is a weekend destination, not a week-long vacation.
3) Inertia. Construction at UO has been stagnant since IOA opened, with only one major attraction constructed since them (not counting "Sponge Bob", as it's a refit). AFAIK, IOA hasn't really added anything at all. This means that the people who come to UO have little reason to return regularly. For those who venture all that way just for UO, it doesn't live up to being a full resort and those that venture from WDW generally only do so occasionally for a change of pace. It doesn't have that feel of constant evolution as WDW does. USF is a great park - but it's identity is muddled and doesn't have the power of a ubiquitous brand name ingrained since childhood; it doesn't bring people back again and again.
That said, it's an interesting article. It actually leads me to believe that we will see some VERY interesting announcements on May 5. To think the timing of this article wasn't carfully planned would be folly. It's either going to be underwhelming (announcing Pooh's meet and greet) or overwhelming (finally us getting Indy). The tone of the article is a bit disjointed - I think I'm going to need to read it a few more times before I can say more about that.
To be honest, MGM needs some help to reduce the Sunset congestion, MK still has a hole left in it that 20K once filled (and I'm not talking land, I'm talking balance), AK has a whole slew of issues that EE will at the same time solve and create, and Epcot could really use some help in WS. As much as I'd love a villians park, and do think WDW has a huge untapped market of visitors who just can't get past the "kiddie" image many hold (justified or not), I'd be just as happy with the development of the parks as is. However, I'm not convinced how long it's going to last - and it still wouldn't surprise me if by the end of the decade Disney begins to understand that designing for the prototypical "family" (i.e. parents, toddlers, and elderly) audience inherently limits the scope of appeal of WDW.
I'm not getting my hopes up about May 5 - that too would be folly. And I certainly don't think (nor have I ever held) that a Villians park or some other darker theme would happen in the immediate future, but I do think eventually WDW will be forced to address the fact that while WDW has the absolute corner and patent on the "magical" market, that "magical" has a much broader definition than "appealing to preschoolers" as a goal and everyone else a secondary market to hit if possible but not a priority. So much disposable income out there - especially with people who don't have children - that Disney could tap into if only they could get them on property with something whiz-bang and more mature than the current image of WDW projects.
DAK simply wasn't designed to appeal to a wider audience than WDW already had covered, and IOA wasn't enough to bring people across the country who weren't going to WDW too. The fact that neither of them increased the overall visitors to the area is pretty obvious in retrospect - but that doesn't mean another gate wouldn't work to achieve this goal if done with the proper criteria in mind.
AEfx
