ChrisFL
Premium Member
They're all the same prices, not sure what you're trying to say :shrug:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Do the parks seem to be competing?
- Thread starter mharrington
- Start date
They're all the same prices, not sure what you're trying to say :shrug:
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
What would be the alternative? Forcing you to buy a multi-day Park Hopper before you could get into any one park?
The parks all have individual admission prices for the simple reason that are all physically distinct locations with individual gates. While I assume it's a dwindling proportion of guests who come to town for a day and decide to visit one park, that market still has to be accounted for. Otherwise, you're just turning away money. ("Sorry, all our parks function as a whole, so an individual admission price for Animal Kingdom is impossible to give. Go spend your money at Sea World.")
The one-day, one-park admission price is going to be irrelevant to the vast majority of visitors, but I think it's safe to assume there will always BE a one-day, one-park admission price because, again...what is the alternative?
mp2bill
Well-Known Member
Don't you have to do something like that anyway?
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
No. You can pay the individual admission price which has drawn so much of your focus in this discussion.
hrcollectibles
Active Member
Because the tickets are valid for admission for an one of the four parks. They are priced the same because guests have a choice as to which park they can visit with their tickets.
My original question was, do the parks seem to compete with or compliment each other?
flavious27
Well-Known Member
the parks compliment each other, which is achieved by not copying too many themes. As what others have said, the parks will compete against each other for r&d funds.
Well, isn't that kind of what the parks are doing, colluding to keep the price (at least for admission) all one?
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
:brick:
What are you talking about? I'm just trying to sort things out here.
You've started two different threads on essentially the same topic now. Both threads were responded to, but apparently with answers you didn't like.
Constantly bumping them isn't going to get you different answers.....
Well, actually, I have this book called "Four Decades of Magic". One of the sections in the book is on why Beastly Kingdom never came to be. And it does mention that the parks do compete with each other in the sense that they take away from each other. This is mostly the case whenever a new park opens. This is talking about when Animal Kingdom opened in 1998. Here's what the book says on the matter:
Every time a new Disney park opened at Walt Disney World, Epcot in 1982 and [Disney's Hollywood Studios] in 1989, the attendance slumped at the old parks as people went to the new park. As time went on, the attendance levels would slowly rise at the existing parks as the guests returned to experience their favorites once again. But no one in Burbank [in 1998] was prepared for the other parks to average a nine percent decrease in attendance, as opposed to the expected five percent decline.
So this section does seem to explain that the parks do compete with each other in the sense of cannibalization, but usually when new parks open.
Every time a new Disney park opened at Walt Disney World, Epcot in 1982 and [Disney's Hollywood Studios] in 1989, the attendance slumped at the old parks as people went to the new park. As time went on, the attendance levels would slowly rise at the existing parks as the guests returned to experience their favorites once again. But no one in Burbank [in 1998] was prepared for the other parks to average a nine percent decrease in attendance, as opposed to the expected five percent decline.
So this section does seem to explain that the parks do compete with each other in the sense of cannibalization, but usually when new parks open.
Which has nothing to do with your original question, save for that people are more interested in a new park when it opens. Which is not exactly a revelation. ...
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
It would be "collusion" if each of the 4 parks was owned by a different person or company. They're not. They're owned by the same company. If Universal & Busch Gardens started charging identical prices for their services, you could start to make an argument for collusion. For now, the question is stupid.
Each park has its own 1-day admission price for three reasons.
1: Some people might only be in town for 1 day, and may only need one admission (with the option of a park hopper, which they can pay for if they choose)
2: Disney wants to give the impression to casual visitors that each park provides an experience equal to the other three, and therefore is worth the same amount of money. Whether or not that opinion is accurate is a discussion for another thread (which I'm sure you'll start)
3: Disney wants to give the impression of a "Value," so they have a price for a one-day admission, but the price of a multi-day ticket seems comparatively to be a better value than that one-day ticket. And by purchasing more days' worth of admissions, they hope to keep tourists on-site as opposed to seeing what else Orlando has to offer.
And as has been written, time and time again, each of the parks tries to have unique offerings and unique themes with little overlap. If the parks were truly "competing" with each other, they'd each offer similar attractions and competitive prices...which they don't...because all four parks are owned by the same company...that designed the entire resort complex to be one you won't want to leave once you're there for the duration of your vacation...so there's no real need for competition...which is why there isn't any...
Is your curiosity sated now? Or can you think of another way to ask the same silly question?
Thrill
Well-Known Member
It's unintentional. So in terms of a new park hurting the attendance of the others, that happens. Under most circumstances, Disney tries to alleviate that with expansions at old parks opening alongside new ones (see Wonders of Life and Norway with MGM Studios). Delays and budget cuts stopped that with Animal Kingdom.
Basically, if I drop down park #5, people are going to say, "There isn't much I haven't seen enough of at Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom, so instead of spending a day at each, I'll combine them into one day and visit the new park. I'm still going to WDW for the same 7 days I always go." Expansions would change that line of thinking, pushing guests to add the 8th day, or perhaps drop a day at Universal or SeaWorld or whatever else people do in Florida.
Fantasyland's expansion is not designed to attack another park, nor is Pandora. They are designed to increase merch sales or extend trips (either by robbing days from other attractions or by people extending their stays in Florida).
I guess the curiosity has been sated, but my reason for bringing this up in the first place came from both my bias toward the Magic Kingdom and Epcot (probably just the nostalgia talking) and the thought that the parks seem to be treated as one big place, rather than several smaller places conveniently placed on a large piece of property.