Interesting Rumor Straight From MiceAge

[speck76]

/sigh

Can't you see past IOA, Speck? I never said it did. However, people are satisified with one visit to IOA and don't feel the need to come back year after year. Not all of those people pounced on the park when it opened. Regardless, you are making arguments against things I did not say. IOA is not the be all, end all park. And, as I and others have pointed out, IOA is not a "thrill" park. Two moderately exciting roller coasters don't qualify it as a "thrill" park.

AEfx

Ok, so 2 rollercoasters (and let's throw in Spiderman, people seem to like Spiderman) don't qualify as a thrill park....so what does?

Again, it brings me back to the cost.....how much would a park like this cost.

Disney could just build some great coasters, costing 12-30million each, but will this do it? You said (or someone did) that the park and rides would need to be highly themed.....which adds a ton of costs onto the attraction...probably triples it, if not more.

IOA does not draw people back for repeat visits? Why not? Is it too small, not enough to do? Thrill rides have a great reride factor, so why do people not go back? Why do they not go back to BGT, which has many more thrill rides?

Does Disney want a park, or better yet, can they finance a park, that does not draw great repeat visitation?

 

[speck76]

If people don't want to go to this fifth gate they still have four parks to keep them happy. Right now, there is a large market that WDW simply doesn't have enough concntrated attractions for. You seem to disagree as to the value of this market, but I think offering more variety can be nothing but good for WDW. I don't drink, but I don't begrudge Pleasure Island being there. I don't understand why people who don't enjoy more intense rides are so dead set against other people getting something at WDW geared toward them as well.

AEfx

The problem is not a thrill park as the fifth park.....the problem is that there is not a need for a fifth park in the first place.

I love thrill rides, and I would love nothing more to have more thrill rides in Orlando.....but unfortunately, there is not this large market that you claim is out there.....not enough to make a park like that work here. 1 new park is not going to bring the 8million (at least) additional guests to Orlando that would be needed, nor will it make 8million people add an extra day toi their stay.

MGM did not do it.
USF did not do it.
DAK did not do it.
IOA did not do it.

The average LOS for guests visiting Orlando in 1979 was only 1.4 days less than it is today. 4 parks have been built, and guests are not staying any longer.

I would love it if would work, as it would certainly make my job easier, and my bonus much, much bigger.....but it is a very unrealistic expectation.

Side notes:

Dave and Busters....you have probably heard of it.....There is not one in Orlando.....why? too much competition.

Gaylord Palms....nice new hotel on Osceola Parkway....opened a few years back. It was going to bring the "Mega Conventions" to the area that took too much convention space to stay at existing convention hotels, but not enough to use the large Orange County Convention Center.....basically, it was going to bring a new customer to Orlando....did it work? NO! All they have done is steal business from other Orlando convention hotels, and drive rates downward.

 

[AEfx]

I think you just proved one of my points......

Does Disney want a park that will not help DAK, MGM, Epcot, and MK? They certainly do not want one that will hurt those parks....which could happen. Guests that currently visit the 4 parks could bypass the current "minor" thrills and skip the existing parks altogether, and only visit the new park.

First, no one is "proving" anything. Again, this is a discussion to which neither of us have the "answer".

Second, I doubt that someone would travel all the way to WDW and bypass all the other parks. It would get them in the door - the WDW resort - which is the hardest part.

AEfx

 

[pilka214]

ok and now i am going to throw in a little tid bit of info, about disney construction.

According to my 9th grade biology teacher (a high member in the nature conservancy):
Every time disney delvelops of some of the swamp land to expand a park, or in this case build another, they must purchase an equal amount of swamp land and turn it into a preserve for wildlife. Hence " the disney wildlife preserve" located just outside kissimee.

also this is why disney has purchased land in other nearby countrys such as polk (where i live)

so if disney were to build another park they would have to buy another large amount of land to be turned into a preserve. to save florida's swamps and marshes....... and that's all i kno

 

[AEfx]

Ok, so 2 rollercoasters (and let's throw in Spiderman, people seem to like Spiderman) don't qualify as a thrill park....so what does?

Again, it brings me back to the cost.....how much would a park like this cost.

Disney could just build some great coasters, costing 12-30million each, but will this do it? You said (or someone did) that the park and rides would need to be highly themed.....which adds a ton of costs onto the attraction...probably triples it, if not more.

IOA does not draw people back for repeat visits? Why not? Is it too small, not enough to do? Thrill rides have a great reride factor, so why do people not go back? Why do they not go back to BGT, which has many more thrill rides?

Does Disney want a park, or better yet, can they finance a park, that does not draw great repeat visitation?

IOA does not attract repeat visitors for many reasons. One of which is that most people center their vacation around Disney, even more the case with MYW now. Going to IOA is a big expense when you factor in transportation, etc., and the re-ridability of the rides when the park is becoming stagnant just isn't worth it for many people.

You keep talking about BGT, KSC - these are irrelevant. BGT is so far away most people don't even consider it, and things like KSC aren't theme parks. Just like you mentioned Splendid China or whatever that park was called above - that's evidence of nothing. It was a minor attraction not done by Disney.

It's really this simple, Speck. A more intense, darker park would attract a new audience to the WDW, and would likely increase overall attendance more than yet another park in the same mold as the four we already have.

That's just common sense.

AEfx

 

[speck76]

It's really this simple, Speck. A more intense, darker park would attract a new audience to the WDW, and would likely increase overall attendance more than yet another park in the same mold as the four we already have.

That's just common sense.

AEfx

Probably not, and no it isn't.

 

[AEfx]

The problem is not a thrill park as the fifth park.....the problem is that there is not a need for a fifth park in the first place.

Which is not something that I have even brought up in this thread.

This thread is about a rumor that some writer believes MAY force Disney to open a fifth gate.

I'm just discussing the content of that park - that any new park, IF BUILT, is going to have to try for a broader audience (more than just people who want "toddler and elderly-friendly") of people who DO spend weekends at those reigonal parks because they offer something WDW doesn't.

I agree that I'd rather see great new attractions added to the existing parks, but the problem is in some cases they come at the expense of an older one (sometimes good - dreamflight, sometimes bad - Horizons/WoM). They built AK without MGM being "finished", in OUR perception. It wouldn't surprise me if they do it again once EE is done.

My point is simple, and you are breathing way more into what I am saying than what is there.

IF WDW builds a new park, IF they build that new park with the intent to bring MORE people to WDW, then I believe they need to appeal to a group that is lacking for things to do at WDW, and that is people who want more intense/darker rides. They just don't have to offer physical thrills, but just darker in tone - not automaticall appropriate for toddlers. A truly scary dark ride that doesn't go fast but offers more thrilling sites, shows that aren't aimed at entertaining small children. A park where "Alien Encounter" would be right at home.

When you limit yourself to thinking about it as "thrill" rides, too many people see that as a loaded term and put the idea in a neat little box. There are tons of possibilities, but more of the same is simply not going to increase attendance at WDW, if that is what they desire.

AEfx

 

[AEfx]

Probably not, and no it isn't.

LOL, and I guess that's where we disagree, Speck.

I believe it is common sense that if you offer a broader range of product than you are now, then you have the ability to attract more people.

If that's not common sense, I do not know what is.

AEfx

 

[1disneydood]

Which is not something that I have even brought up in this thread.

This thread is about a rumor that some writer believes MAY force Disney to open a fifth gate.

I'm just discussing the content of that park - that any new park, IF BUILT, is going to have to try for a broader audience (more than just people who want "toddler and elderly-friendly") of people who DO spend weekends at those reigonal parks because they offer something WDW doesn't.

I agree that I'd rather see great new attractions added to the existing parks, but the problem is in some cases they come at the expense of an older one (sometimes good - dreamflight, sometimes bad - Horizons/WoM). They built AK without MGM being "finished", in OUR perception. It wouldn't surprise me if they do it again once EE is done.

My point is simple, and you are breathing way more into what I am saying than what is there.

IF WDW builds a new park, IF they build that new park with the intent to bring MORE people to WDW, then I believe they need to appeal to a group that is lacking for things to do at WDW, and that is people who want more intense/darker rides. They just don't have to offer physical thrills, but just darker in tone - not automaticall appropriate for toddlers. A truly scary dark ride that doesn't go fast but offers more thrilling sites, shows that aren't aimed at entertaining small children. A park where "Alien Encounter" would be right at home.

When you limit yourself to thinking about it as "thrill" rides, too many people see that as a loaded term and put the idea in a neat little box. There are tons of possibilities, but more of the same is simply not going to increase attendance at WDW, if that is what they desire.

AEfx

Best argument in this thread. A DARK park would be awesomee

 

[PeeplMoovr]

You guys are missing the Boat entirely........Yee said they will be FORCED

STARWARS THEME PARK..........YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

Lands of ENDOR, Courascant (Indoor), Tatooine, Cloud City, and the DEATH STAR

Bill? Is that you?

 

[Lynx04]

Two things:

1) Disney stated that they have no plans to build another park in Florida in the future. While this does not mean they will never build another park, it does indicate that another park will not be built any time in the foreseeable future.

2) If another park is built in Orlando other than Disney, it will only dilute the market even further. Because of this, the attendence needed for another Disney park will have to be higher than what is needed now.

 

[Woody13]

Two things:

1) Disney stated that they have no plans to build another park in Florida in the future. While this does not mean they will never build another park, it does indicate that another park will not be built any time in the foreseeable future.

2) If another park is built in Orlando other than Disney, it will only dilute the market even further. Because of this, the attendence needed for another Disney park will have to be higher than what is needed now.

This is what I call common sense. Very good Lynx04!

 

[Mightymoc]

LOL, and I guess that's where we disagree, Speck.

I believe it is common sense that if you offer a broader range of product than you are now, then you have the ability to attract more people.

If that's not common sense, I do not know what is.

AEfx

It sounds like it should be common sense until you look at the money aspect. Certainly a broader range of product will attract more people. No problem here. The issue is whether or not the additional people (aka incremental revenue) would be enough to justify the expense of opening a new park. The parks that have taken aim at a more thrill-loving customer base (e.g. IOA) have not seen the necessary business level to justify such an expense on Disney's part. Those parks have attendance levels that languish significantly below those of the 4 existing Disney parks in FL. The people who seek such forms of entertainment obviously do not spend enough time and money for a proper return on investment. If people are staying on Disney property and visiting IOA or BGT for a day, their major cash is spent at Disney. Not much incremental benefit for the House of Mouse. If people are staying off property and visiting both Disney and IOA or BGT, a new Disney park is not likely to keep those people from visiting the non-Disney parks, as the type of rides involved in such a park can easily be "trumped" in terms of thrill or excitement potential. Disney could not count on simply taking market share away from other parks. In the business world, that almost never happens. The concept of such a park requires a continued investment in new technology at a much quicker pace than is currently necessary at WDW. The required "new" business to support such a concept would almost certainly exceed its realistic potential.

 

[AEfx]

It sounds like it should be common sense until you look at the money aspect. Certainly a broader range of product will attract more people. No problem here. The issue is whether or not the additional people (aka incremental revenue) would be enough to justify the expense of opening a new park. The parks that have taken aim at a more thrill-loving customer base (e.g. IOA) have not seen the necessary business level to justify such an expense on Disney's part. Those parks have attendance levels that languish significantly below those of the 4 existing Disney parks in FL. The people who seek such forms of entertainment obviously do not spend enough time and money for a proper return on investment. If people are staying on Disney property and visiting IOA or BGT for a day, their major cash is spent at Disney. Not much incremental benefit for the House of Mouse. If people are staying off property and visiting both Disney and IOA or BGT, a new Disney park is not likely to keep those people from visiting the non-Disney parks, as the type of rides involved in such a park can easily be "trumped" in terms of thrill or excitement potential. Disney could not count on simply taking market share away from other parks. In the business world, that almost never happens. The concept of such a park requires a continued investment in new technology at a much quicker pace than is currently necessary at WDW. The required "new" business to support such a concept would almost certainly exceed its realistic potential.

That uber-paragraph has a lot of conclusions that I just don't feel follow.

Of course keeping people on property the entire time increases the bottom line - but neither of us is qualified to say by how much.

I totally agree that Disney cannot count on taking away share from other parks, and I have been making that point throughout this thread. They need to BROADEN their horizons.

Again, IOA is but an example not the model. I simply think you are incorrect about people and money - both you and speck made comments about "obviously 'thrill' seekers don't have money to spend", which is just BS. They spend it - JUST NOT IN ORLANDO.

You are also focusing too much on the term "thrill". It's also about a park not just physically pushing more limits, but thematically as well. There IS an audience out there for more sophisticated fare - and many people who crave that have much higher disposable incomes than Mommy and Daddy Smith with their 2.5 kids - they are upwardly mobile people who don't have the expense of children.

In the end, I think Lynx post above was 1/2 right. Yes, Disney has said in the past they have no immediate plans to build a new park. The chances of this happening anytime very soon are slim.

However, I simply disagree with this idea some people would have you believe that the number of visitors to Orlando is some fixed statistic. That's what people just don't get - that was the reason DAK didn't work to increase attendance, NOT what a new type of offering would.

Again, I'll use the analogy of a restaurant : if a restaurant menu has six types of steak, and they just keep adding more types of steak, it's not going to increase how many people come there for...steak. You start to add other items to the menu - chicken, fish, maybe a veggie dish, and you start to open it up to a whole new clinetele.

I guess I just don't think inside this "Orlando is stuck in a fixed state" box. If they gave a broader range of a people a reason to go, I believe they would. Using IOA as an example is just that, an example and not proof of anything.

AEfx

 

[Lynx04]

This is what I call common sense. Very good Lynx04!

Thanks woody.....

I was only trying to point out the obvious. I just hope others don't think that a 5th gate is comin in the near future.

Because it aint happenin

 

[CaptainMichael]

I was only trying to point out the obvious. I just hope others don't think that a 5th gate is comin in the near future.

Because it aint happenin

Well, you'd think that after all of the threads that we have had on this subject it would be common knowledge. If I were given a test on Indiana Jones Adventure and a Fifth Park, I'd get an A+++++++.

Is there nothing else to talk about anymore??????

 

[speck76]

It sounds like it should be common sense until you look at the money aspect. Certainly a broader range of product will attract more people. No problem here. The issue is whether or not the additional people (aka incremental revenue) would be enough to justify the expense of opening a new park. The parks that have taken aim at a more thrill-loving customer base (e.g. IOA) have not seen the necessary business level to justify such an expense on Disney's part. Those parks have attendance levels that languish significantly below those of the 4 existing Disney parks in FL. The people who seek such forms of entertainment obviously do not spend enough time and money for a proper return on investment. If people are staying on Disney property and visiting IOA or BGT for a day, their major cash is spent at Disney. Not much incremental benefit for the House of Mouse. If people are staying off property and visiting both Disney and IOA or BGT, a new Disney park is not likely to keep those people from visiting the non-Disney parks, as the type of rides involved in such a park can easily be "trumped" in terms of thrill or excitement potential. Disney could not count on simply taking market share away from other parks. In the business world, that almost never happens. The concept of such a park requires a continued investment in new technology at a much quicker pace than is currently necessary at WDW. The required "new" business to support such a concept would almost certainly exceed its realistic potential.

Wow...someone gets it!

 

[Woody13]

Wow...someone gets it!

Like you Speck, he has a keen sense of the obvious!:wave:

 

[speck76]

That uber-paragraph has a lot of conclusions that I just don't feel follow.

Of course keeping people on property the entire time increases the bottom line - but neither of us is qualified to say by how much.

I totally agree that Disney cannot count on taking away share from other parks, and I have been making that point throughout this thread. They need to BROADEN their horizons.

Again, IOA is but an example not the model. I simply think you are incorrect about people and money - both you and speck made comments about "obviously 'thrill' seekers don't have money to spend", which is just BS. They spend it - JUST NOT IN ORLANDO.

You are also focusing too much on the term "thrill". It's also about a park not just physically pushing more limits, but thematically as well. There IS an audience out there for more sophisticated fare - and many people who crave that have much higher disposable incomes than Mommy and Daddy Smith with their 2.5 kids - they are upwardly mobile people who don't have the expense of children.

In the end, I think Lynx post above was 1/2 right. Yes, Disney has said in the past they have no immediate plans to build a new park. The chances of this happening anytime very soon are slim.

However, I simply disagree with this idea some people would have you believe that the number of visitors to Orlando is some fixed statistic. That's what people just don't get - that was the reason DAK didn't work to increase attendance, NOT what a new type of offering would.

Again, I'll use the analogy of a restaurant : if a restaurant menu has six types of steak, and they just keep adding more types of steak, it's not going to increase how many people come there for...steak. You start to add other items to the menu - chicken, fish, maybe a veggie dish, and you start to open it up to a whole new clinetele.

I guess I just don't think inside this "Orlando is stuck in a fixed state" box. If they gave a broader range of a people a reason to go, I believe they would. Using IOA as an example is just that, an example and not proof of anything.

AEfx

Unfortunately, it is you that just does not get it.

I live and breath Orlando tourism, market data, and market trends on a daily basis. This audiance just does not exist to the point you think it does.

Yes, Disney should always try to broaded their horizons.....but what does that mean?

Will are darker, more intense theme mean anything to the average guest...probably not.

Will more "thrilling" attractions mean anything to the average guest....only in the terms that they can ride it, or they cant due to physical conditions.

Disney needs to continue to create new attractions to market, but it is the message itself, not the product behind the message, that brings people to Orlando.

As for your famous restaurant example.....yeah, they can offer chicken, or fish, or a veggie dish, but will one offering of chicken bring in enough people to make chicken a profitable entree, or will half of the chicken be tossed each night because not enough people want it? Also, Chicken is always cheaper than steak, so, does the restaurant even want chicken-eaters in the first place? If steak eaters bring along two kiddie menu eaters with them, but chicken eaters only bring along a single veggie eater, which is the more valuable guest?

 

[lamarvenoy]

The idea of Vedaland is weird and funny to me. I've studied the vedas and the bhagavad-gita and the beliefs of equal vision. I can say first hand when you are told something is not a religion...it usually is by most definitions. Basically the whole thing seems to be tied to "Hare Krishna" devotees either directly or indirectly I'll bet one way or another that company is tied to the KRSNA farms in Pennsylvania. I can't believe I never heard of any of that. As for the rumor of the new park/timeshare project, SPECK is right and the whole project seems destined for failure. West Irlo is not as poplular as it once was period.