speck76 said:
I doubt it....
It did not work for IOA, they have never met attendance forecasts, and until last year, never made money.
Yes, you mentioned that earlier. I just disagree as it's signifigance.
IOA is not as successful because it really only has two "thrill" rides - two roller coasters. It's other attractions are no more intense than their Disney counterparts. The problem with IOA is that it doesn't inspire repeat visits as it has been stagnant as far as development since it opened, and it does not offer enough pure "thrills" for that to be enough.
People offer up IOA as definitive proof each time this topic comes up; I think it's an example that is valid but not an absolute indicator of anything.
speck76 said:
Right now the Orlando parks do not compete with regional parks...Six Flags, Cedar Point, Paramount, as they offer a different genre of attractions.
If a "more thrilling" park was built in Orlando, it would compete with these parks. Why would a guest visit this park (with all of the costs of going to Orlando, airfare, hotel....) when they could visit a regional park for much cheaper.
Because, if done properly by Disney, it could blow those other parks away.
That's one reason I don't like to use the term "thrill", because people just picture generic steel coasters. Quite the contrary, I imagine what could happen if Disney designed more "thrilling" rides with their special brand of magic - and think a whole new audience would appear that would enjoy ALL the Disney parks, if only they gave it a chance. Many people don't come to WDW now because they view it as "kiddie" place - if a park that offered more to them appeared they would have reason to visit.
speck76 said:
Also, currently there are 7 parks in Orlando, 8 if you include BGT (9 if you include KSC)
The average guest is only staying about 4 nights, so, they are not staying long enough to visit EVERY park. So they have a decision to make......cut a few parks from their plan. Which park are they going to cut, the park that is available in Orlando, but nowhere else (or at least not close to home), or the park that is similar to the one that they can visit near their home?
Again, done by Disney you couldn't visit it near your home. No one thinks Disney should make a SF clone. Your average is just that - a statistical number that is not a constant. It is not evidence of anything but the current market. The whole point I am making is that there is an untapped market out there - I am not debating the current state of Orlando tourism. I am looking at changes that would be made to that state if the proper criteria were put in place.
speck76 said:
If their was a strong market for thrill attractions in Orlando, I would at least expect IOA's attendance to be higher than USF, but it is not....
Which still is proof of...nothing. You keep telling us about the
current market of people who vacation in Orlando. IOA's attendance is due to lack of repeat visits, and the fact that it only truly has two "thrill" rides. There are inherent problems with the park itself - and I just don't see it as evidence of anything but Universal made a bunch of mistakes.
When you add a new figure into an equation, the sum changes. It's like saying 3*3=9 so 3*3+5 must =9 as well.
Disney is clearly going after that market - look at some of the recent additions in the past few years : Test Track. RnR. M:S. Everest. The problem is, they are coming at the expense of the existing parks and aren't enough to convince those people who want real bang in their attractions.
You give a lot of figures, but I simply think your analysis is overlooking how things could be versus how things work now. There are tons of people out there that don't have toddlers or elderly people traveling with them; many people are having children later in life and therefore have a larger disposable income for vacations. Many people in this market don't consider Orlando because of the impression it's for kids.
Many people who make the argument that they need to design for "everyone" but don't take into account that by designing for "everyone" they inherently limit the audience. "Everyone" usually means appropriate for the elderly and small toddlers, which excludes many of the features that appeal to other groups.
It's funny, because I don't think people who argue against a fifth park with more intense rides think through their arguments. We've watched Epcot get eaten away by thrill rides, and it's going to continue. It's clear Disney wants that market, but I would think people would want Disney to do it and do it seperately and not turn our existing parks into the mismash they are becoming (namely Epcot and MGM).
So yes Speck, I am sure your figures are accurate. But they are just statistics. To me, when you quote them it is like someone in 1965 telling Disney that they shouldn't build a park in Orlando because tourism is dead there. Why is that not valid? Because Disney was opening something new - and while this may not be of the same scope, it would bring in a whole new type of guest.
It's just like when people say, "a fifth park wouldn't work because DAK didn't increase attendance". To me, that's like saying you run a restaurant that has six types of steak and you wonder why if you add a seventh type of steak to the menu more people don't come - and in fact it just cannibalized the sales of the other six types of steak. It's pretty obvious - the restaurant is offering something new, but not different. Therefore, it didn't attract a new clinetele, like adding more variety like chicken or fish to the menu would. DAK offered smiliar entertainment to the existing parks, just with a different theme.
If Disney offered a new type of experience, I believe new types of people would come. It's that simple. Do I wish that Disney would build more rides like PotC, Splash, GMR, or the fantasyland dark rides? You bet - but they seem hell bent on putting "thrills" into the parks and competing on that level.
I'd just like to see them seperate that effort, and do it right. It could change the perception of the whole resort, preserve the "toddler and elderly" appropriateness of the existing parks, and give the rest of the families - the majority in the world - who don't have tiny children or 70 year old grandparents on vacation with them a whole new perspective on Disney magic. Disney has limited it's audience and seemd to be trying to correct it - I just wish they'd go all out and do it right. I can't imagine what some really intense rides done by Disney could be like - it would be unbelivable.
AEfx
