Only a "Fool" Would Believe the 5th Park is Near...

[danlb_2000]

Keep hyping a screen based ride, with one AA. If Disney was pumping out all screen rides like universal they would be getting killed. Just like if Hulk was a Disney ride it would be slammed because its an exposed coaster. People have different expectations for Disney then then do with anyone else. If Disney and Universal were to built the exact same attraction Universal's on this board would be panned as the great new ride well Disney's would be getting slammed. Universal set their bar so low everything has been an improvement over what they had.

The ride will have more then one AA.

 

[GoofGoof]

The 5th park has some obvious appeal for Disney because it would allow them to charge substantially more for multi-day passes. Then again they keep raising prices without adding a whole lot of new stuff so why spend $3-$4B on a new park.

I think the least likely scenario (and what I think really needs to be done) is for Dianey to spend the $3-$4B on the existing parks instead of adding a new one. Imagine if after Avatar and SW Land open each park received an additional $1B for refurbs and expansion. The place would be looking great. Unfortunately there is less of a clear economic benefit than there would be for adding that 5th gate. I agree with the article that within a decade we will likely hear about Disney breaking ground on a 5th gate.

 

[danlb_2000]

Lets wait for them to build the park, which will probably at the very least be 5 years away, before we start handing them the crown. Universal will never top Disney, they aren't in the same league.

A lot of the reason Disney has stayed on top is because it has a very long history in the theme park business and has become an American (and beyond) institution, but if they attempt to rest on their laurels for too long, Universal will start taking away more and more of their market share.

 

[danlb_2000]

The 5th park has some obvious appeal for Disney because it would allow them to charge substantially more for multi-day passes. Then again they keep raising prices without adding a whole lot of new stuff so why spend $3-$4B on a new park.

I think the least likely scenario (and what I think really needs to be done) is for Dianey to spend the $3-$4B on the existing parks instead of adding a new one. Imagine if after Avatar and SW Land open each park received an additional $1B for refurbs and expansion. The place would be looking great. Unfortunately there is less of a clear economic benefit than there would be for adding that 5th gate. I agree with the article that within a decade we will likely hear about Disney breaking ground on a 5th gate.

It really comes down to a question of what can they achieve with a 5th gate, that they can't achieve with the other 4? With the four current parks, they have theme pretty well covered, and attraction you could think of could thematically fit in at least one of the 4 existing parks. If you just need more for people to do, you could take all the attractions from a 5th park, divide them amongs the other 4 parks, and get the capacity gain at a much lower cost then putting them into a new park.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I bet the 2016 numbers are going to tell a real ugly story of 15 years of arrogance topped off with nothing new, closed attractions, and skyrocketing costs in the face of aggressive competition.

WDW may be bulletproof, but Comcast is bringing the kryptonite.

 

[Mike S]

I bet the 2016 numbers are going to tell a real ugly story of 15 years of arrogance topped off with nothing new, closed attractions, and skyrocketing costs in the face of aggressive competition.

WDW may be bulletproof, but Comcast is bringing the kryptonite.

I wonder how the lifting of blackout dates this summer will work for Disney.

 

[Progress.City]

It's just one quarter. While Universal's attendance was going up each of the past few years Disney's was going up as well not down until this quarter.

All one has to do is look at the numbers, provided by TEA (http://www.teaconnect.org). It shows the numbers actually going up from year to year, but this growth has been decreasing each year, while USO's growth has been increasing each year. Also, overall Orlando theme park attendence has been growing in stronger numbers each year. If you look at WDW's growth numbers in terms of percentage of overall Orlando-area theme park market share growth, those numbers come out to actually a net loss in terms of industry market share and getting worse every year.

 

[GoofGoof]

It really comes down to a question of what can they achieve with a 5th gate, that they can't achieve with the other 4? With the four current parks, they have theme pretty well covered, and attraction you could think of could thematically fit in at least one of the 4 existing parks. If you just need more for people to do, you could take all the attractions from a 5th park, divide them amongs the other 4 parks, and get the capacity gain at a much lower cost then putting them into a new park.

The only real benefit is they can sell a 5 day ticket for substantially more because there would be 5 unique parks to visit. You also have a better shot of keeping more people on property and away from the boy wizard and other distractions in town. If you just add capacity to existing parks it doesn't equate to as much additional revenue. Of course there will be a lot of additional costs to operate and maintain a 5th gate so the revenues would have to be pretty large to make it highly profitable vs holding the course with 4.

 

[Progress.City]

The point is a fifth park will keep guests from spending any time at USO when they open their third park, especially if the theme is competitive.

 

[danlb_2000]

The point is a fifth park will keep guests from spending any time at USO when they open their third park, especially if the theme is competitive.

Yes, but you could potentially achieve the same thing by giving people more to do in the current parks. Yes, I will admit it's a little easier to sell people on staying longer because there are more parks, but is the cost of an new park worth it?

 

[GoofGoof]

All one has to do is look at the numbers, provided by TEA (http://www.teaconnect.org). It shows the numbers actually going up from year to year, but this growth has been decreasing each year, while USO's growth has been increasing each year. Also, overall Orlando theme park attendence has been growing in stronger numbers each year. If you look at WDW's growth numbers in terms of percentage of overall Orlando-area theme park market share growth, those numbers come out to actually a net loss in terms of industry market share and getting worse every year.

Market share, yes. That's a different figure. You said Univiversal's attendance goes up each year while WDWs is going down. That was not a true statement until Q2 this year. Disney is definitely losing market share but they had a huge lead to start out with.

 

[GoofGoof]

Yes, but you could potentially achieve the same thing by giving people more to do in the current parks. Yes, I will admit it's a little easier to sell people on staying longer because there are more parks, but is the cost of an new park worth it?

That's a valid point. I think maybe they look at WDW as a week long destination. With 4 parks people could choose to spend 4 or 5 days at WDW and the rest off property assuming 1 day at each park plus either a waterpark Disney Springs or hotel day mixed in. With a 5th gate they figure people will plan at least 5 park days and maybe skip going off property. If they add new stuff to the existing parks people could just do the new stuff, skip the older less popular rides and still finish in 4 days. Of course with park hopping it would be feasible to do 5 parks in 4 days too.

 

[Progress.City]

Don't forget that Comcast originally wanted Disney, not Universal. Eisner turned them down. Now, it's payback.

@GoofGoof - Yeah, I should have made that clear, but that's what I meant.

Yes, but you could potentially achieve the same thing by giving people more to do in the current parks. Yes, I will admit it's a little easier to sell people on staying longer because there are more parks, but is the cost of an new park worth it?

My premise was that the reason why Universal will succeed is because they are investing in both their current parks and also in future ones, while Disney is only investing in two of their current parks and no future ones.

It is also rumored that they are looking into transit (possibly a monorail or people mover) to connect their properties. This will make guests not want to drive and want to stay on-site.

 

[danlb_2000]

Don't forget that Comcast originally wanted Disney, not Universal. Eisner turned them down. Now, it's payback.

@GoofGoof - Yeah, I should have made that clear, but that's what I meant.



My premise was that the reason why Universal will succeed is because they are investing in both their current parks and also in future ones, while Disney is only investing in two of their current parks and no future ones.

It is also rumored that they are looking into transit (possibly a monorail or people mover) to connect their properties. This will make guests not want to drive and want to stay on-site.

My premise is that adding parks eventually becomes a case of diminishing returns. Disney is much closer to that point then Universal is.

 

[Nickels5]

Screen based Pirates ride in Shanghai getting rave reviews (including from me) with only 4 AAs just based on video. There's also more than just Kong in the ride according to someone who has riden it and photographic evidence of another in the queue.

Spoiler

I'll end it here. I've made my point.

Yes the point that Universal can do know wrong, we all know that's how you feel. The ride opens soon we will judge it then.

 

[GoofGoof]

Don't forget that Comcast originally wanted Disney, not Universal. Eisner turned them down. Now, it's payback.

@GoofGoof - Yeah, I should have made that clear, but that's what I meant.



My premise was that the reason why Universal will succeed is because they are investing in both their current parks and also in future ones, while Disney is only investing in two of their current parks and no future ones.

It is also rumored that they are looking into transit (possibly a monorail or people mover) to connect their properties. This will make guests not want to drive and want to stay on-site.

If Universal in the future has 3 or possibly 4 gates plus a waterpark plus a substantial number of hotel rooms with transportation it would truly be on par with WDW in terms of being a full week destination. That's what Disney fears the most. They don't appear too concerned that Universal is picking off a day or 2 from people who are still staying at WDW hotels and buying multi-day passes. A big part of the market share that Universal has gained has come from Sea World and other off Disney property destinations. WDW is more of a hotel and restaurant based business today. The parks are almost secondary. If Disney perceives that Universal is threatening that part of the business I think we will see a lot more action to fight back.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Park Wars is definitely going to heat up over the next few years.

I predict UOR will take 2016. With Kong and Sapphire Falls over "The Year Of A Million Cuts and Price Increases". Oh, and Frozenstrom.

2017 will be interesting with Avatar and Volcano Bay being the big moves for each resort. UOR will also have Fallon and maybe F&F.

If USF can get Nintendo done for 2018, it will trump TSL.

2019 TBD

2020 SWL

2021 WDW 50th and possible UOR 3rd Gate/CW2.0

Interesting times ahead.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

If Universal in the future has 3 or possibly 4 gates plus a waterpark plus a substantial number of hotel rooms with transportation it would truly be on par with WDW in terms of being a full week destination. That's what Disney fears the most. They don't appear too concerned that Universal is picking off a day or 2 from people who are still staying at WDW hotels and buying multi-day passes. A big part of the market share that Universal has gained has come from Sea World and other off Disney property destinations. WDW is more of a hotel and restaurant based business today. The parks are almost secondary. If Disney perceives that Universal is threatening that part of the business I think we will see a lot more action to fight back.

I think your comment is extremely accurate, but how much longer is Disney going to wait to fight back? With the glacial rate of Disney's construction, they'd need to start taking action now to get anything done so it opens near Universals newer offerings.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I think your comment is extremely accurate, but how much longer is Disney going to wait to fight back? With the glacial rate of Disney's construction, they'd need to start taking action now to get anything done so it opens near Universals newer offerings.

I'm also adding before someone makes a comment, yes I get that DHS is getting TSL and SWL, but that still won't really bring DHS up to what it needs. Future World needs a massive overhaul, and even with MK having so much to do, it still needs more. Something I always bring up is that DLR as a whole has more "attractions" as a whole then in WDWs 4 parks.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think your comment is extremely accurate, but how much longer is Disney going to wait to fight back? With the glacial rate of Disney's construction, they'd need to start taking action now to get anything done so it opens near Universals newer offerings.

Yep. They may actually be about 2 years behind already the way they build. Iger has been so focused on China he's missing what's going on at the flagship resort. They are already missing out on hotel revenue with occupancy rates close to 90%.