Is Disney complacent , and back on its heels

[CaptainAmerica]

So Uni is not competition for WDW and more of complimentary good/service? I think true for foreign visitors, but for short local visits it is harder for me to decide. If you live an hour away, you don't have any motivation to patronize both destinations. ...you pick one.

I don't have the data to back it up, but my gut tells me it's been a wash. Any substitution effect of WDW days for Universal days looks to be offset by new entrants into the Orlando tourism market overall.

Also worth noting is that Disney's primary concern is with on-property, non-car-renting guests. The "captive guest" represents exponentially greater value from Disney in terms of room nights, merchandise, and food and beverage. They honestly don't care very much if a guest staying on 192 decides to split his Disney vacation 60/40 with Universal or if an on-property guest who was going to rent a car anyways decides to visit WWoHP for a day or two. They only care if 1) a guest decides to rent a car instead of using DME, or 2) if an on-property guest becomes an off-property guest.

 

[Master Yoda]

So Uni is not competition for WDW and more of complimentary good/service? I think true for foreign visitors, but for short local visits it is harder for me to decide. If you live an hour away, you don't have any motivation to patronize both destinations. ...you pick one.

Many of the locals I know choose both and have AP's to both parks along with SeaWolrd, Busch Gardens, etc. They might only go to one per trip, but hit many of the central Florida parks throughout the year. In our heyday, we had as many as 4 different APs

Foreign visitors often have one shot to do it all every few years, but I have seen quite a few that make WDW their home base to do so which would technically make the other parks complementary in nature. Not everyone does that of course, but it seemed to happen more often than the other way around or guest resort hopping over the span of a 2-3 week vacation.

 

[rob0519]

Disney's attendance domination is even more impressive when one considers fact Disney has literally allowed 3/4 parks to nearly die and still grew attendance and guest spend at all 4 parks.

Nearly die indeed. It's my opinion that the only reason attendance is up at those three nearly dead parks is:

1). First time visitors either domestic or foreign who have never been to the world before and want to see each park at least once.
2). Guests who want to be at the MK, but just got tired of dealing with the insane crowds and long lines for almost anything as EVERYONE who goes to the world goes mainly for MK.
3). The return visitors like us who still have a few favorites at each park and keep going back for specific attractions or shows because we like them or before they are dismantled.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Nearly die indeed. It's my opinion that the only reason attendance is up at those three nearly dead parks is:

1). First time visitors either domestic or foreign who have never been to the world before and want to see each park at least once.
2). Guests who want to be at the MK, but just got tired of dealing with the insane crowds and long lines for almost anything as EVERYONE who goes to the world goes mainly for MK.
3). The return visitors like us who still have a few favorites at each park and keep going back for specific attractions or shows because we like them or before they are dismantled.

Are you kidding me? "Nearly die"? Give me a break. If you want to argue that DHS and Epcot need a refresh, I won't argue. But "nearly die" is ridiculous, and absolutely does not apply to DAK. DAK is creative brilliance with the exception of the land-that-shall-not-be-named, and stands alone among domestic parks for its quality.

 

[POLY LOVER]

the fact that people are still coming is out of love for Disney BUT when the tide turns it turns fast I have seen many successful businesses that had loyal customer base lose it quick and its very hard to get it back, NOW the question is why do you want to wait for that to happen then react hence my thread title," are they reactionary and back on their heels". Your answers tell me yes, when you begin believing your own BS you are doomed. Remember every outsource gives a piece of the companys image away. Eventually the customer will say its just not the same.
I hope that day never comes but I see things that I don't like.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

the fact that people are still coming is out of love for Disney BUT when the tide turns it turns fast I have seen many successful businesses that had loyal customer base lose it quick and its very hard to get it back, NOW the question is why do you want to wait for that to happen then react hence my thread title," are they reactionary and back on their heels". Your answers tell me yes, when you begin believing your own BS you are doomed. Remember every outsource gives a piece of the companys image away. Eventually the customer will say its just not the same.
I hope that day never comes but I see things that I don't like.

 

[DVCOwner]

Your answers tell me yes, when you begin believing your own BS you are doomed. Remember every outsource gives a piece of the companys image away. Eventually the customer will say its just not the same.

I think that you must have had your head in the sand when visiting Walt Disney World over the years. When the park first opened, there where more private hotels (call it outsource) than there were Disney Hotels. There was a McDonalds in Animal Kingdom for years (now closed) and there still is one on Walt Disney World. Many of the best places to eat at Epcot are run by other companies. Outsourcing has always been a way of live at Disneyland and Walt Disney World.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Are you kidding me? "Nearly die"? Give me a break. If you want to argue that DHS and Epcot need a refresh, I won't argue. But "nearly die" is ridiculous, and absolutely does not apply to DAK. DAK is creative brilliance with the exception of the land-that-shall-not-be-named, and stands alone among domestic parks for its quality.

I've been agreeing with you a lot lately and perhaps "nearly die" was too strong.

AK is the best of the 3 parks I said have been neglected. I still argue that by Disney's standards, DHS and EPCOT are simply not good enough. It's a shame they've been allowed to tread water. DHS and EPCOT have a ton of unused/closed areas and have enjoyed very little life in the last 20 years. AK is a beautiful park, perhaps the most beautiful. I gave it a pass in the beginning, but it's been too long without any updates/additions. It should expand and I'm glad it's doing just that. Yeti is another sore subject.

As I stated before, all 3 parks I criticized still have enough to draw me there multiple times per year. ToT is probably the best ride on property and I love so many of the shows at DHS. I absolutely adore EPCOT, even though it's more EPCOT Lite now. It's just not as good as it should be or what it was frankly. To me, that is almost like death.

Still, it's difficult to argue in favor of Disney's lack of ambition, particularly at DHS and EPCOT in the last 20 years. The parks are still great, but they are treading water and lacking ambition.

Indeed, "nearly die" is probably too strong and even I don't think that.

 

[Chef Mickey]

I think that you must have had your head in the sand when visiting Walt Disney World over the years. When the park first opened, there where more private hotels (call it outsource) than there were Disney Hotels. There was a McDonalds in Animal Kingdom for years (now closed) and there still is one on Walt Disney World. Many of the best places to eat at Epcot are run by other companies. Outsourcing has always been a way of live at Disneyland and Walt Disney World.

Absolutely agree. Mitsukoshi runs Teppan Edo and I find it to be one of the best, most consistent restaurants at Disney. Sometimes, outsourcing allows Disney to focus on what it's good at and allow smarter people, better at running restaurants to focus on what they are good at.

Disney can't do everything, but their job is to find the people that can do it the best.

 

[rob0519]

Are you kidding me? "Nearly die"? Give me a break. If you want to argue that DHS and Epcot need a refresh, I won't argue. But "nearly die" is ridiculous, and absolutely does not apply to DAK. DAK is creative brilliance with the exception of the land-that-shall-not-be-named, and stands alone among domestic parks for its quality.

I never said AK wasn't creative brilliance. It's a tremendous feat of both design and construction. Ok, nearly die was an over statement. What I said was, in my opinion, it is someplace to go to get away from the crowds at MK unless you've never been there before. I don't think too many people, especially those with small children would pick AK if they could only go to one park.

We've been to AK well over a dozen times and for us, after the first two or three visits, it's become a half day park at best. We go at least once each visit. Disney has not done much for the park since the opening of Everest, including fix the Yeti. Oh, wait. They did close the River Boat ride. Not too many people wanted to stand in an hour long line in the Florida heat for a ten minute ride to nowhere with not much too look at.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I don't think too many people, especially those with small children would pick AK if they could only go to one park.

That's just a function of the subject matter. Even if every park were rendered flawlessly, little girls drive families' touring habits and little girls like princesses. That's all there is to it. Princesses > animals = movies > science > world culture. I'm not saying that's how it ought to be, but that's how it is (and it's why Frozestrom is a brilliant operating decision no matter what the purists say).

We've been to AK well over a dozen times and for us, after the first two or three visits, it's become a half day park at best. We go at least once each visit. Disney has not done much for the park since the opening of Everest, including fix the Yeti. Oh, wait. They did close the River Boat ride. Not too many people wanted to stand in an hour long line in the Florida heat for a ten minute ride to nowhere with not much too look at.

That's just a matter of personal preference. DAK is a day and a half park to me and I don't really repeat anything besides the safari.

 

[DVCOwner]

Are you kidding me? "Nearly die"? Give me a break. If you want to argue that DHS and Epcot need a refresh, I won't argue. But "nearly die" is ridiculous, and absolutely does not apply to DAK. DAK is creative brilliance with the exception of the land-that-shall-not-be-named, and stands alone among domestic parks for its quality.

I also love Animal Kingdom and like them or not, the new stuff coming to Animal Kingdom may make it not just a full day park for most people, but also the second most attended park in Orlando.

 

[POLY LOVER]

I also love Animal Kingdom and like them or not, the new stuff coming to Animal Kingdom may make it not just a full day park for most people, but also the second most attended park in Orlando.

I expect Avatar Land to knock my shocks off.

 

[WondersOfLife]

You're still playing the loser's game of percentages and you just glossed over my very simple, but factual post. I just proved to you Disney in Orlando added more overall guests, but you're still quoting percentages.

I'd argue Disney can't even accommodate more guests. The parks are already over capacity. Disney is NOT concerned with these percentages.

Think about the numbers. 70% versus like 20%!! LOL!! I could argue these percentages are more damning for Universal because the total guest denominator is growing so much and Disney's capacity isn't. Studies such as these always have a margin of error too.

Alright alright. Take it easy bro. You're going a little psycho..

 

[WondersOfLife]

That's misleading and is just a function of how percentages work.

Example: Assume Disney has 3,000 guests and Universal has 1,000 guests. Disney has 75% of the market (3,000 of a total 4,000).

Now, assume Disney adds 400 guests and Universal adds 300 guests. Disney grew by 13% and Universal grew by 30%. Disney's market share falls to 72% (3,400 of a total 4,700). You think Disney cares about that? Universal grew by a larger percentage and appears to have "taken" market share from Disney, but it's all an illusion created by the fact that Universal's growth is off a much smaller base. Disney still added more people (i.e. more dollars). Universal didn't "take" anything.

Universal indeed "took" a percentage of people's decisions on where they are spending their time while in Orlando.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Universal indeed "took" a percentage of people's decisions on where they are spending their time while in Orlando.

No. They didn't. They convinced non-theme-park-visitors to visit Universal. They did not (in aggregate) "flip" Disney visitors into Universal visitors.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Universal indeed "took" a percentage of people's decisions on where they are spending their time while in Orlando.

I like how despite all the facts, you continue to just say the exact same thing. You're reading into and interpreting the numbers to suit your argument. All I've said is that Disney has added more total guests in Orlando than Universal, fact. Your claim can be disputed and it has been by multiple posters.

 

[Matt_Black]

Pfft! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

 

[rkleinlein]

That has nothing to do with it. Walmart and McDonald's compete on price. Disney is a premium product that charges a premium price and they still kick the pants off of everyone. Your argument would be valid if they were domination in volume on the backs of $20 tickets and $79 hotel rooms, but they're doing it with $100 tickets and $279 hotel rooms.

My point in bringing up Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and Microsoft was not that these are unsuccessful companies. My point is that they are successful even though they are not, in my opinion, the best companies that offer the premium products. Yes Disney is a premium product and charges premium prices, as they should, but quality is slipping despite record attendance and profits.

Yes, Disney World is still the most successful theme park in the world, still more successful than Universal, but so what? Wal-Mart is much more successful than Whole Foods. The problem is that Disney World used to be like Whole Foods, and now it's feeling, to many of us, a little bit more like Wal-Mart. But they are still getting away with Whole Food prices because people are still lining up. Perhaps quality is slipping BECAUSE of record attendance and profits.

What people like me are arguing here is that quality and experience is slipping at Disney World while at Disneyland and Universal it is not slipping--it's getting better.

 

[eddy21]

Exactly my point go back to what works and has worked in the past, leading edge tech and animatronics.
Move like turning the main street bakery into a coffe shop and calling it a bakery will not keep the real fans of Disney coming back they will lose the feeling they created years ago trying to outsource the parks assets for a quick buck. It works temporarily but then it fades in the end. What will be the game changer for Disney?

Non real fan money spends just the same.