Is attendance really down at WDW this or…

[TheMaxRebo]

Wouldnt you have to now factor in the money no longer lost from the daily downtime? Im assuming they would be able to sell more ILL’s? Also i know Disney no longer cares about this as much but guest satisfaction is something you cant directly tie into $ but indirectly may create more spending as well

Not sure how much fewer ILLs they spell due to the downtime - it think they sell the same just that after it comes back up they run it with taking 90% from ILL side instead of 75% or whatever


I think more it would be if they aren't selling out of ILLs and think part of it is the less than full experience provides

So if they are selling 4,000 ILLs at $20 now but after could sell 6,000 at $30, that could be an argument to do the refurb

 

[Dranth]

Not sure how much fewer ILLs they spell due to the downtime - it think they sell the same just that after it comes back up they run it with taking 90% from ILL side instead of 75% or whatever


I think more it would be if they aren't selling out of ILLs and think part of it is the less than full experience provides

So if they are selling 4,000 ILLs at $20 now but after could sell 6,000 at $30, that could be an argument to do the refurb

However, that requires sacrificing now for later which is problematic when you are chasing quarterlies.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

However, that requires sacrificing now for later which is problematic when you are chasing quarterlies.

Of course - just proposing a financial angle to do it

Plus, really can't afford that take a major ride down for that the park for 6 months just for capacity ... Something more likely to be done after the add other attractions/add capacity (redo animation courtyard, etc) ... So like 2035

 

[Nubs70]

Oh boy, I never thought of that! Now that ILL exists, shutting down a ILL attraction means loss of revenue, means, going forward, the only time a ILL attraction will be shutdown would be a MAJOR MALFUNCTION or, looking on the bright side A SPONSOR with MONEY

An ILL attraction will only shutdown for maintenance if it cannot support the ILL demand.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Of course - just proposing a financial angle to do it

Plus, really can't afford that take a major ride down for that the park for 6 months just for capacity ... Something more likely to be done after the add other attractions/add capacity (redo animation courtyard, etc) ... So like 2035

Is it better to take a ride offline for 6 months for overdue maintenance or just let it go until it fails and then the problems turn into a 12-18 month outage?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A back-of-the-envelope estimate is that a 1-month refurb of ROTR would cost this much in ILL sales (assuming 11 hour days at $20 per ILL at 30.5 days per month at 1,550 riders/hour capacity):

• $2.6MM per month if 25% of capacity was bought as ILL
• $3.4MM per month at 33% of capacity
• $5.15MM per month at 50% of capacity

Now imagine how many months it'll take to resolve the issue.

For reference, RnRC's refurb earlier this year lasted 3 months and didn't make the ride more reliable.

At 3 months of downtime, you're looking at $7.8MM to $15.5MM in lost ILL.

For a 6-month refurb, which is what I think it'd take, that's $15MM to $30MM in ILL for just one ride.

My guess is that neither the DHS park VP nor Josh D'Amaro is going to take that kind of revenue hit unless there was absolutely no other option.

And that’s EXACTLY how you don’t run your “world class park”

Which is why you don’t open the lid to “the box”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Is it better to take a ride offline for 6 months for overdue maintenance or just let it go until it fails and then the problems turn into a 12-18 month outage?

Yes…when you have a desperate regime trying not to be ousted?

 

[PREMiERdrum]

Be wary, those who depend on the taste of the forbidden fruit.

 

[lentesta]

Is it better to take a ride offline for 6 months for overdue maintenance or just let it go until it fails and then the problems turn into a 12-18 month outage?

Have I been promoted before it turns into a 12-18 month problem?

 

[MrPromey]

Genie+ and ILL have so many built-in perverse incentives that they should be a textbook chapter in long-term decision making.

It's really depressing to consider.

On the surface, the whole G+ amd ILL seemed bad because it incentivized them to make waits as long as possible rather than reduce them.

I'd never in my most darkest imagination, thought it would disincentivize them from doing proper maintenance as a result of the unheard of amounts of money they'd pull in by selling scarcity but here we are - at a point where almost anything good for guests is no-longer in the company's short-terms interests.

 

[MrPromey]

But if ILL and G+ factor into people's decisions NOT to go to WDW, aren't they cutting their nose off to spite their face by having made it less appealing to go to WDW? Disney has seemingly excelled at ticking off potential guests by...well...you pick your reason.

Labor Day weekend, if I wanted to get an ILL for any of the big attractions, there was no shortage of ILL availability, it was pretty much instant availability. I can't imagine that this is a desired outcome.

I think for a sizable chunk of those one-time/first-time visitors (that family from Denver), the reality of all of this still doesn't fully set in until they get there.

That's probably why we're seeing more and more of those "I took my family to Disney World and it wasn't worth it" articles starting to pop up in mainstream places.

The question is, how long will it take for them to burn through those or for Disney to get enough of a reputation that it reaches these casual/first-timers and turns them off before they look into booking?

Another year?

Another decade?

Either way, I'd say they are smack dab in the middle of generational brand damage.

Good thing for current management, that'll probably be someone else's problem to fix.

 

[Jrb1979]

It's really depressing to consider.

On the surface, the whole G+ amd ILL seemed bad because it incentivized them to make waits as long as possible rather than reduce them.

I'd never in my most darkest imagination, imagined that it would disincentivize them from doing proper maintenance as a result of the unheard of amounts of money they'd pull in by selling scarcity but here we are - at a point where almost anything good for guests is no-longer in the company's short-terms interests.

I'm not surprised this is happening. I remember it being brought up before how Genie+ works at it's best when it's limited to 10% of guests. Disney knew that but the money they get from letting everyone have it was too much.

 

[Jrb1979]

I think for a sizable chunk of those one-time/first-time visitors (that family from Denver), the reality of all of this still doesn't fully set in until they get there.

That's probably why we're seeing more and more of those "I took my family to Disney World and it wasn't worth it" articles starting to pop up more and more in more mainstream places.

The worst part is this is only the beginning. I have a feeling it's going to much worse before it gets better.

 

[MrPromey]

I'm not surprised this is happening. I remember it being brought up before how Genie+ works at it's best when it's limited to 10% of guests. Disney knew that but the money they get from letting everyone have it was too much.

Oh, that part I fully expected but them basically wanting to run things in broken states simply because of the revenue they'd miss needing to close, due to the profit center individual attractions had become was something that had never even crossed my mind.

Foolishly, I’d thought them now being profit centers would encourage the company to ensure things ran in top shape. (a possible silver lining)

Like, I get Disney running stuff broken because they're too cheap to keep all effects working, as has been the case for a while now but this is at a whole other level.

This is like the epitome of the "pay-more-get-less" argument and the really sad part is, the more people end up willing to pay, the more incentive they have to run it all into the ground.

The parks are basically being run by private equity firm executives.

 

[Splash4eva]

An ILL attraction will only shutdown for maintenance if it cannot support the ILL demand.

In fairness tho. Im pretty sure if they did shut one down. They would replace it. Granted it may not generate as much but will still generate so altho Len’s numbers are staggering imo it would not be nearly that much…

 

[Jrb1979]

It really does feel like they are trying to squeeze every last penny out of those who go to the parks before too many stop going.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Have I been promoted before it turns into a 12-18 month problem?

Well played. And also painfully true.

 

[BuddyThomas]

It really does feel like they are trying to squeeze every last penny out of those who go to the parks before too many stop going.

It has always been expensive. This is not a new phenomenon.

 

[Jrb1979]

It has always been expensive. This is not a new phenomenon.

I know it's always been expensive. It's the way they are doing things lately that makes it more expensive than it ever has been.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I know it's always been expensive. It's the way they are doing things lately that makes it more expensive than it ever has been.

I joined this board more than 10 years ago. In that time, I was dumbfounded multiple times when members on here advocated for the parks to get more expensive so they would be less crowded. It appears that they finally got their wish. I hope they are happy now.