Do WDW Parks Need to Change Based on Competition?

[lazyboy97o]

The execution of the hub and spoke model of the Magic Kingdom pales in comparison though. The magic kingdom creates a synergy within the lands, where you feel encompassed in the land you're in while not feeling a thematic threat of another. The harsh contrast between Suess landing to the lost continent to WWoHP creates a less than effective hub and spoke model due to the lack of buffer zones between the lands. More often than not in the magic kingdom you'll cross under a bridge, or over a river, or walk through a thematic limbo in order to go from one land to the other. The was a difference I had noticed.

And in regards to the parking lot. If they were trying to replicate how in the the magic kingdom you park far away, then moving walkways to your destination doesn't come close to the effectiveness and luxury of riding a monorail or taking a ferry boat across the seven seas lagoon in order to reach your singular destination.

I do agree that in some areas, the parks have become old and worn, and not in a timeless way. Major overhauls in regards to thematic reconditioning should take place over the next few years to restore what once was great to it former self. But of course nothing will be done unless management wants it to be

The only part of the Magic Kingdom with any sense of gradual transition is Frontierland to Caribbean Plaza. Liberty Square to Frontierland could also be included, but were designed more as a singular land than two distinct experiences. Islands of Adventure features bridges and the waterways, and the only place where there is not a bridge it is instead denoted by a gate. At Universal Studios Florida the harsh transitions are the reality of a facility that was designed to strongly function as a working production facility.

Those ferries and monorails are focused around only one true option, getting to the Magic Kingdom. Yes, there are other activities that can be accessed via the monorail, but they are significantly played down. Providing singular accesses to a variety of activities and experiences originates at Disneyland Paris, and it seems Disney was on to something since the pattern has been repeated at Universal Studios Hollywood, Disneyland Resort, partially at Tokyo Disney Resort, and has long been anticipated at Hong Kong Disneyland.

I made no comment about things being worn out or in need of overhaul.

 

[spacemt354]

The only part of the Magic Kingdom with any sense of gradual transition is Frontierland to Caribbean Plaza. Liberty Square to Frontierland could also be included, but were designed more as a singular land than two distinct experiences. Islands of Adventure features bridges and the waterways, and the only place where there is not a bridge it is instead denoted by a gate. At Universal Studios Florida the harsh transitions are the reality of a facility that was designed to strongly function as a working production facility.

Those ferries and monorails are focused around only one true option, getting to the Magic Kingdom. Yes, there are other activities that can be accessed via the monorail, but they are significantly played down. Providing singular accesses to a variety of activities and experiences originates at Disneyland Paris, and it seems Disney was on to something since the pattern has been repeated at Universal Studios Hollywood, Disneyland Resort, partially at Tokyo Disney Resort, and has long been anticipated at Hong Kong Disneyland.

I made no comment about things being worn out or in need of overhaul.

From suess landing to the lost continent to WWoHP as I used as an example there were no such bridges or waterways.

I must disagree with your assessment of the magic kingdom as well. I feel the transitions are much more effective than you convey.

The pattern isn't repeated in the same style. We recently just visited Disneyland and universal studios hollywood this past year. In Disneyland, busses drop you off at the front gate. And at universal studios hollywood you could park at the nearby hotels and get shuttled in.

Complimentary transportation is an effective way of moving people into the parks. I specifically attest to this not because I wouldn't prefer to walk, but because it's simply an extra burden on our elderly family members. It's enough for them to walk around the parks. Now they have to walk to the parks as well. It's more courteous, especially for the park prices, to provide on site transportation to the parks for people coming in from the outside.

And I was assessing your comments on suburban drudgery. And how the parks are being filled with the familiar. Going back to my first point, Disney needs to become fresh. I don't think that requires them building thrill rides galore, but I would suggest an overhaul to their currently philosophy. Innovation and novel concepts are what got Disney to the top. In order to stay there, innovation has to be a top priority.

 

[lazyboy97o]

From suess landing to the lost continent to WWoHP as I used as an example there were no such bridges or waterways.

Then you were not paying attention. There is a bridge and monuments denoting the transition between Suess Landing and Lost Continent. There move boundary of Lost Continent and Hogsmeade is also marked.

The pattern isn't repeated in the same style. We recently just visited Disneyland and universal studios hollywood this past year. In Disneyland, busses drop you off at the front gate. And at universal studios hollywood you could park at the nearby hotels and get shuttled in.

Complimentary transportation is an effective way of moving people into the parks. I specifically attest to this not because I wouldn't prefer to walk, but because it's simply an extra burden on our elderly family members. It's enough for them to walk around the parks. Now they have to walk to the parks as well. It's more courteous, especially for the park prices, to provide on site transportation to the parks for people coming in from the outside.

And I was assessing your comments on suburban drudgery. And how people wanted the familiar

It is all variations on the same pattern, a central parking area and then access to the core amenities of the retail area and the theme parks. The buses at the Disneyland Resort are limited to those who utilize the Toy Story Lot, not the primary Mickey and Friends Parking Structure, which offers trams service to the edge of Downtown Disney. Even then, the Harbor Blvd bus depot still provides that pedestrian access to the Esplanade and from their the nearby Downtown Disney. The primary parking arrangement at Universal Studios Hollywood also sends most people through CityWalk. You similarly could have instead parked at one of the Universal Orlando hotels and taken the water taxis.

The parking complex at Universal Orlando Resort is filled with moving walkways. Transportation around CityWalk would require more space being dedicated to transportation and queuing instead of other activities. Suburban drudgery has to do with the poor organization of Walt Disney World and this is exactly what transportation around CityWalk would require. Such an organization rarely actually saves a person any appreciable amount of walking, instead just shifting it around and consuming more time that creates an illusion of ease through one mechanized sprint.

 

[TubaGeek]

I won't touch on Disney vs Uni (this time). Instead, I'll just say this: I wish that Disney World would constantly compete with itself. Unfortunately, they're making more than ever while producing less than ever, so I anticipate the stagnation and complacency will continue for awhile. They don't build enough. What they do build is slashed and underwhelming and takes longer to construct than it should.

 

[spacemt354]

Then you were not paying attention. There is a bridge and monuments denoting the transition between Suess Landing and Lost Continent. There move boundary of Lost Continent and Hogsmeade is also marked.

Apologies. What I meant was no such "effective" bridges and waterways. "No such" meaning they don't compare to the transitions in the Magic Kingdom. The only transition at the Magic Kingdom that I dislike is the Tomorrowland to Fantasyland transition due to the inclusion of the speedway in view.

It was the first time in a while and first time traveling in this direction around the park. Last time out of the entrance we went left to Marvel Superhero Island. For my first time walking through that area of IOA, I was thrown off by the stark contrast in thematic areas that it just felt cramped and suffocating.

The transition from Lost Continent to Hogsmeade is simply ineffective.

It is all variations on the same pattern, a central parking area and then access to the core amenities of the retail area and the theme parks. The buses at the Disneyland Resort are limited to those who utilize the Toy Story Lot, not the primary Mickey and Friends Parking Structure, which offers trams service to the edge of Downtown Disney. Even then, the Harbor Blvd bus depot still provides that pedestrian access to the Esplanade and from their the nearby Downtown Disney. The primary parking arrangement at Universal Studios Hollywood also sends most people through CityWalk. You similarly could have instead parked at one of the Universal Orlando hotels and taken the water taxis.

The parking complex at Universal Orlando Resort is filled with moving walkways. Transportation around CityWalk would require more space being dedicated to transportation and queuing instead of other activities. Suburban drudgery has to do with the poor organization of Walt Disney World and this is exactly what transportation around CityWalk would require. Such an organization rarely actually saves a person any appreciable amount of walking, instead just shifting it around and consuming more time that creates an illusion of ease through one mechanized sprint.

Disneyland gives you multiple options however. And in Universal Studios Hollywood, we were already staying at the nearby Hilton, so we had a parking pass to the hotel. Several Universal Orlando Cast Members specifically told us that parking in the garage was the most effective way of visiting the parks.

If we had been authorized to park at one of the Universal owned resorts, we would have done so.

And let's be clear once more for everyone. This is not a Universal bashing thread. Criticism or dislike of a certain feature(s)does not insinuate a disdain for an entire resort. It's about whether or not Disney should change with a changing market.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Apologies. What I meant was no such "effective" bridges and waterways. "No such" meaning they don't compare to the transitions in the Magic Kingdom. The only transition at the Magic Kingdom that I dislike is the Tomorrowland to Fantasyland transition due to the inclusion of the speedway in view.

Excepting the transitions through the Central Plaza, most land-to-land transitions at the Magic Kingdom are through an open air hallway.

Disneyland gives you multiple options however. And in Universal Studios Hollywood, we were already staying at the nearby Hilton, so we had a parking pass to the hotel. Several Universal Orlando Cast Members specifically told us that parking in the garage was the most effective way of visiting the parks.

If we had been authorized to park at one of the Universal owned resorts, we would have done so.

The Disneyland Resort only has options if you know how to get around their traffic management systems and they're not sending all traffic to a certain area. Even then, you only get options if you end up at the Mickey and Friends Parking Structure or the Toy Story Lot. If you end up at the Pumbaa Parking Lot you are walking. If you are staying at a Disney hotel, you are most likely walking and even the monorail is only arrived at after a nice walk.

The reason no Universal Orlando Resort Team Members told you to go pay for parking at one of the hotels is because they are not more effective or efficient. They just would have given you your desired transportation option.

And let's be clear once more for everyone. This is not a Universal bashing thread. Criticism or dislike of a certain feature(s)does not insinuate a disdain for an entire resort. It's about whether or not Disney should change with a changing market.

Walt Disney World needs to change because the market has not changed. Almost everything Universal Orlando Resort excels at is something pioneered by Disney, just not undertaken at Walt Disney World. Most of your complaints about Universal Orlando Resort are things that Disney did first and continue to do outside of Walt Disney World.

 

[spacemt354]

Walt Disney World needs to change because the market has not changed. Almost everything Universal Orlando Resort excels at is something pioneered by Disney, just not undertaken at Walt Disney World. Most of your complaints about Universal Orlando Resort are things that Disney did first and continue to do outside of Walt Disney World.

Okay. I don't really have time to continue this banter. I don't think you read my initial comments then. You just picked one thing out that you wanted to discuss, and that one thing really didn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Okay. I don't think you read my initial comments then. You just picked one thing out that you wanted to discuss, and that one thing really didn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

No, I read it. Even your comments about different demographics and thrill rides does not hold when expanded beyond central Florida.

 

[spacemt354]

No, I read it. Even your comments about different demographics and thrill rides does not hold when expanded beyond central Florida.

Sounds good. I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[cheezbat]

Honestly, WDW is a mess. While the MK is a very worthwhile park, the other three are becoming a joke. Regardless of how you feel about Universal and 'thrill rides', they are giving the guests what they want, with MUCH more planned in the coming years, both for families and thrill seekers.

Disney as a company is indeed the best in the business, but WDW is far from their best product. It needs to change. Seeing Mystic Manor, Tokyo Disneysea, Carsland...you can clearly see they still have the magic. They just don't bring it to WDW because the resort is looked at as nothing more than a cash cow for the company.

Give me more original attractions WDW! Give me a fully immersive Potter level Star Wars land! Give me a new E ticket in the MK!

 

[Beholder]

Honestly, WDW is a mess. While the MK is a very worthwhile park, the other three are becoming a joke. Regardless of how you feel about Universal and 'thrill rides', they are giving the guests what they want, with MUCH more planned in the coming years, both for families and thrill seekers.

Disney as a company is indeed the best in the business, but WDW is far from their best product. It needs to change. Seeing Mystic Manor, Tokyo Disneysea, Carsland...you can clearly see they still have the magic. They just don't bring it to WDW because the resort is looked at as nothing more than a cash cow for the company.

Give me more original attractions WDW! Give me a fully immersive Potter level Star Wars land! Give me a new E ticket in the MK!

I think you're right, Disney as a whole doesn't "need" to compete with UNI, but WDW needs to acknowledge the threat and respond accordingly. Not for the shareholders, not for ticket sales, but for the legacy they have been trusted with. Not by doing what UNI does, but by being original, and I think this is important, creating the future and setting the standard in theme park entertainment. Walt pretty much created this genre as we know it today, so I think it's important that they establish once again their supremacy.

I understand the hesitancy to invest in something that doesn't have instant recognition, and maybe that's part of the changing landscape. People aren't as willing to invest themselves into an unknown maybe, but I think a well designed experience like Horizons or Haunted Mansion will be a hit no matter what. They just can't go cheap.

 

[spacemt354]

I think you're right, Disney as a whole doesn't "need" to compete with UNI, but WDW needs to acknowledge the threat and respond accordingly. Not for the shareholders, not for ticket sales, but for the legacy they have been trusted with. Not by doing what UNI does, but by being original, and I think this is important, creating the future and setting the standard in theme park entertainment. Walt pretty much created this genre as we know it today, so I think it's important that they establish once again their supremacy.

I understand the hesitancy to invest in something that doesn't have instant recognition, and maybe that's part of the changing landscape. People aren't as willing to invest themselves into an unknown maybe, but I think a well designed experience like Horizons or Haunted Mansion will be a hit no matter what. They just can't go cheap.

Nowadays, if you build a Horizons over a Frozen attraction, there will be a group of people that complain there's not enough Frozen in the parks. But if you build a Frozen over Horizons, there will be a group of people who will complain that Disney doesn't do anything unique like they used to.

You're never going to please everyone. but if you build something that is immersed in detail and everyone can enjoy, those naysayers of that attraction or land will become more and more secular.

The problem is for Disney, they aren't pleasing either group, because when compared to competition, their rate of growth and quality of growth is diminished in regards to their theme parks.

7DMT was nice, and so was NFL, but for the same cost you could have had 3 or more Harry Potter worlds. Nice is trumped by novel and innovative. And I doubt NFL (or basically anything Disney does nowadays) would have been so heavily criticized if the rate at which these things are built would escalate. NFL took 3 years, Avatar was announced in 2011 and won't open till 2017, and so on. The only thing that seems to move in terms of construction are new DVC resorts, because they make money.

Management feels people will continue to come to the parks regardless of what's new. But that philosophy will have to change at some point. Hopefully in the near future.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Your initial post is somewhat cliché ridden or does a family no longer constitute such when the youngest hits puberty?

Im sure its all due to the magic though

 

[spacemt354]

Your initial post is somewhat cliché ridden or does a family no longer constitute such when the youngest hits puberty?

Im sure its all due to the magic though

Family is all inclusive. Young or old. There is no age restriction.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The problem is for Disney, they aren't pleasing either group, because when compared to competition, their rate of growth and quality of growth is diminished in regards to their theme parks.

Management feels people will continue to come to the parks regardless of what's new. But that philosophy will have to change at some point. Hopefully in the near future.

What everyone forgets is that WDW expanded for years before Uni even tried. Yes, Uni has come up with some new and well done attractions, but, we all need to understand that Uni is reacting to Disney not the other way around. They have a long way to go and a lot of money to spend before they are even on a par with what Disney already has. There will be a point in time when Uni takes a breather and tries to recoup some of what they spent.

Yes, Disney hasn't built a lot more recently, although Fantasyland is a pretty big project, just unfortunately not what all the "grown ups'' want to see, but, the time will come when Uni stops as well and their attractions will not be changed out every couple of years, just because they want to stay fresh. Like Disney, whenever the take out something, there is a group of people that get all angry because their favorite one is now gone.

For those that just have to have "thrill rides", you are asking Disney to completely vary from the vision that Walt Disney had for a family theme park. Why is that one OK, but, everything else that seems to conflict with his philosophy is taken like a death in the family. Disney needs to have it's own Mission Objective, (Statement, if you will) just as Uni has their own. They cannot be all alike. We all know that Disney (especially MK) is geared to the young and the young at heart. One thing they can bank on is the the human race will continue to produce, on a regular basis, those little ankle bitters that Disney gears too. Tell me why that isn't a better target then attractions that will eventually need to adjust to the demands of the older set. They are a never ending audience, produced new every 9 months. Kids are easy to please and on top of that the youngun's cannot go there by themselves they need adults with them. Can't drop a 6 year old at the gate and go to Palates.

I agree that WDW, in particular does need more new stuff, and it looks like that is the way they are trending at the moment, but, it is far from dead.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What everyone forgets is that WDW expanded for years before Uni even tried. Yes, Uni has come up with some new and well done attractions, but, we all need to understand that Uni is reacting to Disney not the other way around. They have a long way to go and a lot of money to spend before they are even on a par with what Disney already has. There will be a point in time when Uni takes a breather and tries to recoup some of what they spent.

Universal is seeing aggressive investment because Comcast saw how quickly investments could be recouped. Universal Orlando Resort was already trying Walt Disney World's present strategy and it was clear that no good could come from continuing down such a path.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Universal is seeing aggressive investment because Comcast saw how quickly investments could be recouped. Universal Orlando Resort was already trying Walt Disney World's present strategy and it was clear that no good could come from continuing down such a path.

Yes, and they had room for that growth and needed to kick start that growth. Does WDW still have the potential to increase ticket sales to the degree that Uni can do and show significant growth? I still am a believer in the good old "law of diminishing returns" philosophy. There is a ceiling and it can be hit. That's the business side of me, the theme park guest side of me wants more and more regardless of what bottom line affect it has.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, and they had room for that growth and needed to kick start that growth. Does WDW still have the potential to increase ticket sales to the degree that Uni can do and show significant growth? I still am a believer in the good old "law of diminishing returns" philosophy. There is a ceiling and it can be hit. That's the business side of me, the theme park guest side of me wants more and more regardless of what bottom line affect it has.

It's not just ticket sales and attendance. Disney has been able to squeeze a lot from price increases and cuts. Most of their thinking had to do with assumptions about the entire central Florida market. Disney has also been chasing an increasingly affluent clientele, meaning they are going after people with money to spend, they've just failed to [re]ignite the needed excitement.

 

[Duckberg]

For me Potter is at WDW level, the rest of Uni not yet. The not yet, is what worries me about Uni vs. WDW. Disney needs to fix what they have, BUT offer new fresh things for paying ($$$) visitors in their parks. Disney just sitting on their hands year after year is going to reach a turning point for them down the road.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Good point - just as Disney-MGM Studios was originally built to battle Universal. Lots of people visit WDW and take a day or two side trip to Universal. If Disney could just keep those people on their property instead, I think they would count that as a big success.

And like magic... the magical express appears and we are all told the we have no need to leave the property. Everything we could possible need is right there and they will take care of us and wrap us all up in a warm Disney cocoon. It has worked on many, but, just because I like Disney doesn't mean that I am willing to give them every single cent I have. I like to share the wealth a little.