Gahhhh, I honestly don't know. I don't make the big bucks to make those kind of decisions. Heck, all the things I've ever said Disney "should" do in my past posts are super easy to say from the comfort of my own chair with my imaginary billions of dollars that I made from my imaginary business degree. (You should see the imaginary house I live in - it's fabulous!) I'm sure it'd be much different sitting in the boardroom, answering to shareholders, dealing with actual dollars that can affect the livelihoods of tens of thousands of employees.
Having said that, I'll go ahead and give my Average Joe guess (so please don't any of you pick this apart too much!) as to why they went the MDE route. I think the main reason is that the company is currently run by people who are totally motivated by the almighty dollar. Attractions on their own don't generate revenue - they might boost attendance during grand openings, but long term, they don't sustain record-breaking numbers. (Well, mostly. You could kind of argue against that with what Everest did for DAK. And now look at Harry Potter at Uni. Grand openings for parts 1 and 2 saw BEYOND ridiculous crowds, and while that level of attendance has since died down, HP has no doubt brought in a noticeable increase in attendance that has remained steady over the last 4 years. However, very few projects ever have that insane response. I think the only thing that could match - and possibly surpass - it would be if Disney built a Star Wars land to that same caliber. Although isn't it sad that I'm asking DISNEY to match UNIVERSAL'S level? I feel like I should go wash my mouth out with soap. Anyway...sorry for that long aside.) Magic bands themselves don't generate revenue, but it's one of those long-term projects that raises revenue in subtle, sly ways that your average guest wouldn't even notice. I think these ways have been discussed ad nauseam in MDE related threads, so I won't get into it beyond saying it's largely due to data mining, the psychology behind not having to pull out your wallet to pay for anything, streamlining the whole vacation experience, etc. The data mining, I think, is the big one here. Never before has Disney has such accurate, detailed info about every single guest's day to day movements while on property. Future projects will be far less guess work as they have a more accurate idea of what works and what doesn't and for whom.
But then I think of what's going to get me to a park - If I were a local who could only afford one annual pass for a Resort (big R) for the 2014 year, which one would I choose? The one with a new kiddie coaster and a piece of wearable plastic that doubles as my credit card (but makes my wrist sweat unbearably in this FL heat!) or the one with an entire new and fully immersive land with a state of the art attraction, unique food and beverage offerings, unique merchandise, etc. etc. For me, for this year, I would choose the latter. Now, I know that all of this is in the eye of the beholder, and not everyone would compare the two Resorts as I just did. A non-local might not have to choose between parks if they've budgeted for both; a family with a toddler might prefer that kiddie coaster over the state of the art attraction; some might not have any interest in the theme of the new immersive land, etc. But in the theme parks wars, I think Universal
overall has won by leaps and bounds this year. Hands down. And I think they've been winning the past couple of years, honestly.
Disney needs to go back to their model of MIXING new state of the art attractions in with their revenue-generating ideas. Not picking just one or the other. But again, it's all easy for me to say "this is what works" with my layman perspective and ideas.
