Interesting Rumor Straight From MiceAge

[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.

As I said above Speck, you and I just disagree. I was wondering when you were going to drag out your "I know better because I'm an expert" crown. Sorry, doesn't impress me terribly that you can spout a bunch of figures anyone could go find on google. Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses, but I don't find your statistical arguments terribly relevant.

I think you are too close to the situation. You are blinded by statistics and preconcieved notions. Perhaps you "live and breathe" it too much to understand the world that exists outside of the current Orlando paradigm "bubble".

I'm just offering a different perspective.

/shurg

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.

That's the point that we disagree on. I believe that the "average" guest would change if more options were available at WDW that appeal past the "toddler and elderly" crowd. And again, it's not just about physical thrills, but a darker tone in general - not everything having to be appropriate for toddler consumption.

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.

EXACTLY MY POINT! The message right now out there is that Disney is for kiddies. People looking for more thrilling rides may love RnR, ToT, M:S - but they don't come to Orlando to try because of the "message" they recieve about everything being appropriate for toddlers.

A new park, if and when one is constructed, is a HUGE message to those people. Those people you don't believe exist - that I just disagree with.

I know many families who's older children stay home when they go to WDW. Teenagers and such who don't feel like there is anything specificly for them. And, the audience for darker fare is definately out there not just among the youngsters. Again, we disagree on this.

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?

LOL it's famous? Wow, thanks. I just thought you ignored it.

You again are making assumptions that go around the concept I'm trying to convey. The point I was making is that IF WDW wishes to increase attendance by building a fifth gate (something we all agree isn't terribly likely any time soon) I believe they will be better served by going after a different audience than they do now.

It's really that simple, Speck. You believe that tourism in Orlando is stagnant and that there isn't a market out there of people who would visit WDW if only they were offered the "message" that their needs would be met there.

If you offer more variety, chances are you will increase your sales as your product appeals to a wider range of people. The people that want "toddler and elderly friendly" already have four parks aimed at them (well, as long as Disney doesn't start taking down MORE family rides to put up "thrill" rides). Adding a fifth park when the time is right with a different audience in mind is much smarter than putting back...more of the same which will just cannibalize the attendance of other parks just as DAK did.

BTW, congratulations - you made it through a whole post without talking about IOA.

AEfx

 

[speck76]

Ok....do people even want chicken?

What if 6 types of steak is not enough?

Any, I also differ on your shortsighted opinion that DAK did not offer anything new to WDW/Orlando....

When did any park in Orlando have an animal safari prior to DAK? (you already stated that BGT does not count, as it is too far away). Could it be that some people are animal lovers, and DAK became their reason to visit Orlando?

You could say that "every major city has a zoo, so these people could just go to AnyZoo USA and get the same experience", but of course, that is my argument of a thrill park, that you have shot down.

Same with MGM.....there were no movie studios in Orlando prior to MGM....how is that the "same experience" as the previous parks?

Any even bigger question......Why would WDW alienate their current target market for a new park?

Since you do not feel that the parks should be diverse....no "thrill" rides in the current parks (I guess that means no rides for kids/seniors in the new park)...what WDW would be doing is telling their current market "Thanks for supporting us, but screw you, this park is not for you"

If a family come to Orlando, they have a 13 and 7 year old......do they go to the new park? Sure, the adults and teen can ride everything, but the 7 year old....nothing for them.

The point of a diverse selection of attractions in a park is that everyone can enjoy something.......if you build a park that does not have this formula, you have narrowed your market too far.

Something for everyone....not everything for everyone, and certainly not everything for a "select few"

 

[AEfx]

Any, I also differ on your shortsighted opinion that DAK did not offer anything new to WDW/Orlando....

When did any park in Orlando have an animal safari prior to DAK? (you already stated that BGT does not count, as it is too far away). Could it be that some people are animal lovers, and DAK became their reason to visit Orlando?

You could say that "every major city has a zoo, so these people could just go to AnyZoo USA and get the same experience", but of course, that is my argument of a thrill park, that you have shot down.

Same with MGM.....there were no movie studios in Orlando prior to MGM....how is that the "same experience" as the previous parks?

Any even bigger question......Why would WDW alienate their current target market for a new park?

See, this is the point.

You totally miss this.

They appeal to the SAME TYPE of people, but the THEME is different.

BTW, are you saying that DAK increased attendance signifigantly at WDW? If so, that's the first time I've heard anyone say that...

And I also don't agree with that tired argument that it would "alienate" anyone. If that park isn't your thing - DON'T GO. It's not going to alienate anyone but Disney-fans who get their panties in a bunch over such things. Just as I said above, I don't drink or go clubbing - but it doesn't hurt my experience at other areas of WDW because Pleasure Island exists.

To anyone that is "alienated" by a new addition appealing to a broader range of people than is currently served, well...I guess they just will have to get over it.

I highly doubt some family is going to say, "OH NO! We can't go to Disney World and enjoy the four parks we always have - they have a NEW park I don't like!"

Again, I just disagree with you, Speck.

AEfx

 

[speck76]

As I said above Speck, you and I just disagree. I was wondering when you were going to drag out your "I know better because I'm an expert" crown. Sorry, doesn't impress me terribly that you can spout a bunch of figures anyone could go find on google. Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone elses, but I don't find your statistical arguments terribly relevant.

I think you are too close to the situation. You are blinded by statistics and preconcieved notions. Perhaps you "live and breathe" it too much to understand the world that exists outside of the current Orlando paradigm "bubble".

Perhaps you are not close enough to it, and what your perceived notions are, are WAY out of line, and far from reality.

Don't you think that if a park like this was actually a good idea, someone would have tried it already?

So...Disney builds a darker park....what is the theme?

 

[speck76]

See, this is the point.

You totally miss this.

They appeal to the SAME TYPE of people, but the THEME is different.

Wrong....they allow the same general audiance to experiance the attractions, but the theme itself it what draws many people to the park. I know a ton of people that wont go to DAK....not because they do not like the attraction (dinosaur) but because they dont care to see animals (the rest of the park)

There have been many arguments on these boards about DAK...1/2 day vs full day......an animal lover can spend a whole day there....watching the animals, rerides on the Safari.....others, theyspend 4 hours there and are done...they dont walk the treks, or go to conservation station...they dont like the animals. 2 very different markets of people.

How can you even say that the safari is the "same" as SSE, or Space Mt, or GMR......how can you say it appeals to the same people?

BTW, are you saying that DAK increased attendance signifigantly at WDW? If so, that's the first time I've heard anyone say that...

No, I said that it could appeal to animal lovers, as MGM could appeal to movie buffs....that is all I said.

And I also don't agree with that tired argument that it would "alienate" anyone. If that park isn't your thing - DON'T GO. It's not going to alienate anyone but Disney-fans who get their panties in a bunch over such things. Just as I said above, I don't drink or go clubbing - but it doesn't hurt my experience at other areas of WDW because Pleasure Island exists.

To anyone that is "alienated" by a new addition appealing to a broader range of people than is currently served, well...I guess they just will have to get over it.

I highly doubt some family is going to say, "OH NO! We can't go to Disney World and enjoy the four parks we always have - they have a NEW park I don't like!"

AEfx

So what you are saying is that the 19million unique visitors to the current WDW, they need not go to the new park....so you are commenting against your earlier statement when I stated the new park would need to draw in 8million (at least) new visitors to the market, and you stated that existing guests would go to the park too.

 

[AEfx]

Perhaps you are not close enough to it, and what your perceived notions are, are WAY out of line, and far from reality.

Don't you think that if a park like this was actually a good idea, someone would have tried it already?

So...Disney builds a darker park....what is the theme?

Well, I happen to like the idea of a villians park.

I know, many people think it's too focused, but I totally disagree.

Have you ever read "Wicked"? The story of the Wizard of Oz from the wicked witch's point of view? It's amazing how a different perspective on a story can change it.

The "it hasn't been done before" excuse really dosen't wash with me.

We have different perspectives. That's clear. As I said before, we simply disagree. You believe yourself to be an "expert" so automatically your opinion counts more than be - I don't buy that either.

/shrug

AEfx

 

[AEfx]

So what you are saying is that the 19million unique visitors to the current WDW, they need not go to the new park....so you are commenting against your earlier statement when I stated the new park would need to draw in 8million (at least) new visitors to the market, and you stated that existing guests would go to the park too.

Your aribtrary 8 million figure is again, questionable.

I did not say EVERYONE would not visit the park.

Simply that not EVERYONE would need to in order for it to be successful.

Lots of current guests would go to the park. I believe it would also attract new guests.

Many more people would enjoy a darker tone/more thrilling rides if they were given the chance. Is it a wonder that the "thrill" rides have the biggest lines in any existing park?

Again, I simply think you are looking at this hypothetical issue too narrowly.

AEfx

 

[speck76]

Yeah.....focusing on Orlando tourism is only what I am paid ot do....I guess that means nothing.

Anyway, the problem with your view is deeper than WDW.

Orlando itself is marketed at a famility destination.....everything here is for the family.

Las Vegas is the opposite.....Las Vegas is marketed towards the adult. Las Vegas tried to capture failies inthe mid-90's, but that market did not want to visit, no matter how many attractions were built.

Anyway...

A villains park.

I assume it would be Disney Villains, as getting the rights to use other characters were require licensing and most likely royalties, further raising the cost of the park.

Do Disney Villains "do it" for this "darker" guest....they are, afterall, still Disney characters....and Disney is for the kiddies.

 

[AEfx]

Wrong....they allow the same general audiance to experiance the attractions, but the theme itself it what draws many people to the park. I know a ton of people that wont go to DAK....not because they do not like the attraction (dinosaur) but because they dont care to see animals (the rest of the park)

There have been many arguments on these boards about DAK...1/2 day vs full day......an animal lover can spend a whole day there....watching the animals, rerides on the Safari.....others, theyspend 4 hours there and are done...they dont walk the treks, or go to conservation station...they dont like the animals. 2 very different markets of people.

How can you even say that the safari is the "same" as SSE, or Space Mt, or GMR......how can you say it appeals to the same people?

Okay Speck. If this holds out, then DAK increased the visitors to WDW substantially? Because Animal Lovers who would never have visited WDW before are going?

They go after the same, general audience.

Again, we can argue theme and taste, but target audience is much the same.

AEfx

 

[AEfx]

Yeah.....focusing on Orlando tourism is only what I am paid ot do....I guess that means nothing.

I didn't say it means nothing.

I just don't think it automatically makes you correct, like you seem to when you like to lord it over other people.

Anyway, the problem with your view is deeper than WDW.

Orlando itself is marketed at a famility destination.....everything here is for the family.

"The family" that includes small toddlers and elderly.

I think that definition could be much broader if WDW were able to get in those visitors that want more, PLUS the Disney magic already there.

Anyway...

A villains park.

I assume it would be Disney Villains, as getting the rights to use other characters were require licensing and most likely royalties, further raising the cost of the park.

Disney needs to get permission to use it's own characters? That's a new one.

Do Disney Villains "do it" for this "darker" guest....they are, afterall, still Disney characters....and Disney is for the kiddies.

But again...I simply disagree.

I'm not saying a "darker" tone in terms of ______ and violence, simply that more intense (senic, or movement-wise) could easily fit into the framwork.

Many people like myself enjoy Disney, but would love to see a TRULY scary dark ride, or a neat roller coaster with Disney theme.

AEfx

 

[speck76]

Disney needs to get permission to use it's own characters? That's a new one.

AEfx

try reading the line again

I assume it would be Disney Villains, as getting the rights to use other characters were require licensing and most likely royalties, further raising the cost of the park.

 

[AEfx]

try reading the line again

I assume it would be Disney Villains, as getting the rights to use other characters were require licensing and most likely royalties, further raising the cost of the park.

Pardon me, speck.

I'm not perfect, like you are.



AEfx

 

[speck76]

I'm not saying a "darker" tone in terms of ______ and violence, simply that more intense (senic, or movement-wise) could easily fit into the framwork.

Many people like myself enjoy Disney, but would love to see a TRULY scary dark ride, or a neat roller coaster with Disney theme.

AEfx

How is something more scenic or movement-wise so different than what is there now? As is it a significant enough difference to draw another market?

I think what the problem is, is that YOU really really want this park, so you feel there is a market out there for it. Just because YOU really want it, does not make it a good idea.

As for lording over others with my knowledge....yeah, I do, and I will.....I don't see anyone else in my position, the with market data and research, around this board...and yeah, I will take my professional data and research over the opinion of an amateur anytime.

 

[AEfx]

How is something more scenic or movement-wise so different than what is there now? As is it a significant enough difference to draw another market?

Um, because it could offer theming/scenery that would be more intense than what the Disney parks currently try to offer?

Because by "movement wise" I mean more intense physical thrills than WDW currently offers.

Pretty self-explanitory. And yes, if done and marketed properly, I certainly do think it would draw in another market. That's what I've been saying since my first post.

I think what the problem is, is that YOU really really want this park, so you feel there is a market out there for it. Just because YOU really want it, does not make it a good idea.

Conversely, just because I would enjoy the park doesn't make it a bad idea, either.

As for lording over others with my knowledge....yeah, I do, and I will.....I don't see anyone else in my position, the with market data and research, around this board...and yeah, I will take my professional data and research over the opinion of an amateur anytime.

If you are attempting to bother me with your calling me an "amateur" I'm proud to say you aren't. Fresh perspectives are valuable as well, and if you were a true expert you would understand that. You tend to post in such absolutes - and that is the downfall of any self-proclaimed "expert".

Your "professional data and research" is on CURRENT trends. You cannot predict the future any more than I can. And the fact that now you are trying to convince us of your "expertise" is really showing what a weak place you stand on when it comes to this discussion.

We know you think you know it all, Speck. It's nice for you to openly admit it. That's the first step to recovery.

AEfx

 

[speck76]

another thing to note:

To attract a new audiance....WDW should not build a park at all.....

Is one park, no matter the offerings, so different from another to the average guest?

ADTs (another dumb tourist) flock to Orlando more than any place else in the country.......most can't tell one park from another.

If Disney wants to attract a new market, a park is not the way to go.

I do not know what the way to go is....but it is not a park.

Disney already offers:
Theme parks
Water parks
outdoor recreation (horseback riding, boating, watersports....)
Sports activities
Golf
Convention facilities
shopping
resorts/spa
Cruising

What markets are they missing that would really make an impact?

Gambling
skiing (that wont happen in FL, unless it is indoor)

 

[AEfx]

another thing to note:

If Disney wants to attract a new market, a park is not the way to go.

Another thing to note, sure.

But again, this thread is discussing the rumor of a fifth park and it's creation impact.

IF it was done.

That's all I've been discussing here - if a new park was created what would be the benefits going after a different audience.

That's all.

AEfx

 

[speck76]

If you are attempting to bother me with your calling me an "amateur" I'm proud to say you aren't. Fresh perspectives are valuable as well, and if you were a true expert you would understand that. You tend to post in such absolutes - and that is the downfall of any self-proclaimed "expert".

Your "professional data and research" is on CURRENT trends. You cannot predict the future any more than I can. And the fact that now you are trying to convince us of your "expertise" is really showing what a weak place you stand on when it comes to this discussion.

Fresh perspectives can be valuable, if they are realistic.

I cant forecast future trends.....well, I guess that is one thing I don't have to work on anymore. It is funny that I already know 2009 and 2011 are going to be bad tourism years in Orlando....but I bet you knew that too.

Of course, a major event (like 9/11) in 2006 could save 2009 and 2011, but of course, unforeseen events will always hurt certain years, while helping others.

We know you think you know it all, Speck. It's nice for you to openly admit it. That's the first step to recovery.

AEfx

I do not know it all, but, as I work and live this every day, I am sure that I am more knowledgable than you are, unless of course, you do so too. (and if you do, let's compare notes)

 

[AEfx]

Fresh perspectives can be valuable, if they are realistic.

I cant forecast future trends.....well, I guess that is one thing I don't have to work on anymore. It is funny that I already know 2009 and 2011 are going to be bad tourism years in Orlando....but I bet you knew that too.

Of course, a major event (like 9/11) in 2006 could save 2009 and 2011, but of course, unforeseen events will always hurt certain years, while helping others.

No one can tell the future, Speck.

You don't "already know" about those years - you PREDICT it.

Big difference. HUGE. One you'd realize if you weren't so full of yourself.

I do not know it all, but, as I work and live this every day, I am sure that I am more knowledgable than you are, unless of course, you do so too. (and if you do, let's compare notes)

/sigh

Sorry Speck, but I just don't buy it.

No, I am not an "expert". I have never represented myself as such.

However, I am educated enough about business to know that statistics (which seem to be your main area of "expertise") are but one way to look at the world.

So, is this where the discussion degrades to? "I know better so THERE!". Again, people that have to lord themselves, or their opinions, over others tend to have weakly formed opinons. It's one of those "last resort" arguments.

I simply posted in this thread an opinion, which was not in reply to you, and you have attacked it for three pages. Our opinions differ - the problem is, you see things in such absolutes you don't believe there is room for other people to have their own interpretation and feel the need to go out of your way to belittle and attack other people who feel differently than you do.

/shrug

I'm sorry, but as Shania says, "You don't impress me much".

If I'm such an idiot when it comes to this topic, why bother with me, except to work out your little...issues you seem to come here to work out? If I have no point why have you spent three pages arguing it with me?

AEfx

 

[speck76]

Unfortunately, you seem to be able to point the finger at others without looking at yourself.

You have this opinion, one that you wont change no matter the facts that are there.

My opinion....your opinion is bad....and the basis of your opinion (the untapped market) is unrealistic. The market does not exist. I have the knowledge to bakc my opinion, which I guess means that I am some know-it-all member here that lords over others and deals in absolutes.

One absolute....the untapped market that would visit such a place does not exist in the numbers that would make such an investment feasible.

As for predicting.....you are underestimating how much business is done now for future years, and how lack of demand "today" for business in years far in the future can effect those years.....

Would you not think that WDW is looking at the same market data and research that I am looking at....both myself and their team in my role have access to similar data.

WDW (or any major tourism related business in Orlando) is not planning for now.....new parks just don't happen over night, nor do new ticket options, attractions, or marketing plans, or strategic plans)

You can continue to belittle my facts, data, numbers, and me.....I don't really care........your opinion is just that, I am just not sure you realize that.

 

[AEfx]

Unfortunately, you seem to be able to point the finger at others without looking at yourself.

You have this opinion, one that you wont change no matter the facts that are there.

Why does my opinion need to change? Because you disagree with it?

Your "facts" are just some numbers you spout and assumptions you are making.

I was perfectly fine with you having your opinion and me having mine, unfortunately you began attacking mine and I replied.

My opinion....your opinion is bad....and the basis of your opinion (the untapped market) is unrealistic. The market does not exist. I have the knowledge to bakc my opinion, which I guess means that I am some know-it-all member here that lords over others and deals in absolutes.

The market does not exist in Orlando now because nothing is there to fill it.

Again, your "knowledge" is wrapped up in statistics. There are other ways to look at the world.

One absolute....the untapped market that would visit such a place does not exist in the numbers that would make such an investment feasible.

The untapped market you just said didn't exist?

Again, since you keep missing this, I am talking about *IF* they choose you build a fifth park. *IF* they do, I simply think more of the same is a mistake.

As for predicting.....you are underestimating how much business is done now for future years, and how lack of demand "today" for business in years far in the future can effect those years.....

I don't know many people booking vacations for 2011, which you say you already know positively is going to be a down year.

You keep telling me how I know nothing, but I do know that people who hide behind statistics and insist they are right often are not.

Would you not think that WDW is looking at the same market data and research that I am looking at....both myself and their team in my role have access to similar data.

What would make me believe that? Since you have brought it up so many times, Speck, exactly what are your qualifications?

It seems that you work for some non-Disney outfit. I would expect their gathered data to be different since I believe they know a heck of a lot more about what goes on at Disney property than any non-Disney entity.

WDW (or any major tourism related business in Orlando) is not planning for now.....new parks just don't happen over night, nor do new ticket options, attractions, or marketing plans, or strategic plans)

Of course not. That is why statistics about CURRENT situations is but ONE indicator of the future. I haven't argued anything in the above statement - nor even that a new park is coming. I have simply discussed what I believe the possibilities are.

You can continue to belittle my facts, data, numbers, and me.....I don't really care........your opinion is just that, I am just not sure you realize that.

No, I said that way back on page 2. I have an opinon. You have an opinon. I would have let it go at that. You seem hell bent on telling me mine was wrong, so yes, I'm going to defend myself, especially when you come out and lord yourself over people. You tend to do that around here quite a bit. Some people tolerate that, many ignore it, but hey - I've got some time to kill while burning DVDs tonight so I thought I'd call you on it.

I'm not "belittling" anything, simply reflecting back on you how your attitude comes across to me when you keep changing arguments, settling on "I know better because I'm me". When you whip out an argument like that, you should expect to be taken to task for it, especially when you present it as "evidence" that you are right.

It seems you DO care, Speck. Or you wouldn't be here posting.

At least progress has been made tonight - you have admitted that you think you know better about things then us "amateurs" who make up the bulk of the people who visit this board. Just because you work for...whatever non-Disney place you work for. You are the one who brought up your self-proclaimed "expert" status - you opened that can of worms, not I.

I have enough business experience to know that, if done properly, increasing you product line can change the results from when your product line was smaller. You disagree. That's the bottom line.

AEfx